Law and Order Begins With Government Holding Itself Accountable

This is not a normal political moment—and pretending otherwise is how democracies drift.

Across the country, Americans are watching institutions strain under pressure: courts, agencies, law enforcement, and immigration systems. Decisions with profound consequences are being made quickly, often without clear public explanation, transparent legal grounding, or meaningful oversight. When that happens, democratic legitimacy erodes—not all at once, but quietly.

Immigration enforcement sits squarely at the center of this strain.

The question facing the country is not whether the law should be enforced. It must be. The question is how power is exercised, by whom, and within what limits. Law and order does not begin with fear. It begins with government holding itself accountable.

Yet accountability is precisely what has been missing.

In Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District—where I am running for Congress—voters are represented by an incumbent who has held office since January 1993. More than twenty-five years after Elián González, the same questions remain unanswered.

Longevity in office is not the same as leadership. Experience without oversight becomes stagnation.

Too often, immigration enforcement today operates in a fog of ambiguity—unclear authority, inconsistent standards, and insufficient safeguards. Families are destabilized not only by the outcome of enforcement actions, but by the manner in which those actions are carried out: sudden encounters, limited notice, unclear explanations, and little recourse. That instability ripples outward—into workplaces, schools, churches, and entire communities. 

This is not about being “soft” or “hard” on immigration. It is about legitimacy.

In a constitutional system, enforcement without transparency is not strength; it is fragility. When people cannot understand who made a decision, under what authority, and with what constraints, trust collapses. And when trust collapses, compliance erodes, cooperation vanishes, and enforcement becomes harder—not easier 

Congress bears responsibility here, especially the House of Representatives. Oversight is not an attack. It is discipline. It asks basic questions that any functioning democracy must insist upon:

What happened? Who knew what, and when? What legal authority was relied upon? Where were the safeguards? And what must change so this doesn’t happen again?

These are not partisan questions. They are the foundation of democratic order.

Yet for too long, Congress—including my district’s long-serving incumbent—has retreated from that responsibility, allowing executive agencies to operate with minimal scrutiny and limited consequence. Oversight hearings are sporadic. Reporting requirements are weak. And when mistakes happen, accountability is diffuse.

That is not stability. That is drift.

I’m running for Congress because moments of institutional strain require leaders willing to slow things down, clarify authority, and restore trust before crisis becomes precedent. Immigration enforcement is one of the clearest places where that leadership is needed now—and where Congress has failed to act decisively. 

In my first 100 days, I will pursue a focused accountability agenda for immigration enforcement, rooted in law, dignity, and restraint: Clear limits on enforcement actions in sensitive locations such as hospitals, schools, and places of worship. Mandatory vulnerability/family dependency impact screening before detention decisions. Plain-language notice explaining enforcement actions and available rights. Independent oversight of large-scale operations, with reporting to Congress. Universal use and preservation of body-worn camera footage during public encounters.

These are not radical ideas. They are basic governance standards—standards we already expect in other areas of law enforcement and should expect here as well. 

A system that respects due process and human dignity is not weaker; it is more durable. It commands compliance because it is intelligible. It earns trust because it is constrained. And it enforces the law because it is legitimate.

Americans are exhausted—not only by political personalities, but by stagnation and poor governance across the board and across the aisle. They are tired of being told to choose between chaos and cruelty, between lawlessness and fear. That is a false choice.

We can enforce the law and uphold human dignity at the same time. But doing so requires Congress to reclaim its role—not as a megaphone for outrage, but as the institution where power is questioned in daylight.

After more than 30 years of the same representation in Virginia’s 3rd District, it is time for a different approach—one that treats accountability not as a slogan, but as a governing principle.

This moment requires accountability. Not noise. Not triumphalism. Accountability.

Because law and order, in the end, begins with government holding itself to account—and setting the example for the country it serves.

Justin Garvin Maffett is a candidate for Congress in Virginia’s 3rd District.