Two strikingly similar crimes in Iowa – the murders of two young women – also are striking in the huge difference in politicians’ reactions to the tragedies.
Mollie Tibbetts was out for a run on a summer day in July when she was attacked. The 20-year-old University of Iowa student was abducted, killed and her body left in a cornfield, where it was found more than a month later.
A 24-year-old farm worker living in the United States illegally was arrested for her murder.
The crime became national news, prompting tough commentary from the country’s highest officials. President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Kansas gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach, Donald Trump Jr., White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and countless others seeking political advantage used the death of Tibbetts to promote anti-immigration views.
The exploitation festered to the point that Tibbetts father felt the need, despite his grief, to comment publicly. In a piece for the Des Moines Register, Rob Tibbetts wrote in part:
“They have … chosen to callously distort and corrupt Mollie’s tragic death to advance a cause she vehemently opposed. I encourage the debate on immigration; there is great merit in its reasonable outcome. But do not appropriate Mollie’s soul in advancing views she believed were profoundly racist.”
Two months after Tibbetts was killed, Celia Barquin Arozamena, a student at Iowa State University, was attacked as she was playing golf. She was killed and her body left in a nearby pond.
A 22-year-old homeless man was arrested for her murder.
Barquin Arozamena was an immigrant from Spain, working on her college degree and her dream of joining the pro tour. Her alleged killer, born and raised in the United States, has a long criminal record.
There was no political outcry about Barquin’s death. No outraged commentary from the White House. No tweets from the campaign trail.
The contrast in the reactions to the deaths of Tibbetts and Barquin highlights hard truths about today’s political landscape.
First, too many of us measure the worth of a life by whether the victim was “one of us.”
To a point, such feelings are understandable. We feel more connected to people we know, or who live in our community or state.
But when those feelings become rationale for demonizing people who are not “one of us,” we buy into a dangerous brand of bigotry.
To argue that a particular murder is evidence that an entire group of people are evil undermines fundamental principles of our nation.
To use a crime committed by one illegal immigrant to paint all illegal immigrants as unworthy and subhuman is like condemning the entire Border Patrol because one Border Patrol supervisor in Texas is a suspected serial killer.
Actually, according to the Texas Observer, the arrest of Juan David Ortiz, a supervisor in the Laredo region, was at least the fourth arrest of a Border Patrol officer from that sector this year.
Ortiz is the suspect in the murders of at least four women. A fifth escaped and reported Ortiz to state authorities.
Following Ortiz’s arrest, Border Patrol chief Carla Provost traveled to Texas for damage control.
According to the Observer, she told a press conference audience that the agency shouldn’t be judged by the misconduct of one person.
“This was one rogue individual,” she said. “I would hate for this to tarnish the great work that our men and women do.”
While some liberals called for the elimination of the Border Patrol even before the Ortiz case, most Americans agree that much of the work done by the agency is necessary. They agree with Provost that not everyone in the group should be judged by the actions of one man – or maybe even four men.
As with immigration laws, there is reason to think reforms are needed. There is cause to worry that in the current hiring binge at the Border Patrol, vetting of personnel is insufficient.
But as with immigration law, Americans would be wise to distinguish between what would be principled and productive, and what would be political, punitive and prejudiced.
A Plains View 