The ethics lawyers of two former U.S. presidents recently labeled President Donald Trump as America's most unethical president. President Trump's lawyers rebutted that no ethics laws have been violated. Meanwhile, immigration critics harp on the “illegal” status of immigrants as an original sin that cannot be overcome by years of paying taxes and otherwise contributing to American society. These claims imply that law-following confers absolution and law-violations a moral stain.

Yet, given that laws are made via political processes, why should we presume the law establishes what is and is not ethical? It is more probable that law is designed by and for those who have political power.

To be sure, the rule of law brings many good things. Law generates predictable and stable expectations, providing a prudent guide for decision-making. Moreover, countries with the rule of law tend to be more prosperous and free. The rule of law also brings the important public good of an independent judge, which we need because, as John Locke long ago explained, people are not reliable judges of themselves, their friends or their enemies. These many positive contributions do not mean, however, that following the law or legal absolution renders an action ethical.

The American discourse on ethics and law lacks an understanding of how law may be constructed to shield questionable behavior, paint puritanical scarlet letters and entrap honest people. Scholars distinguish between the democratic “rule of law” and its faux-twin, an authoritarian “rule by law.”

In rule of law systems, laws are facially neutral (e.g., not written to cater to any particular group), judges are truly independent, and political leaders are not above the law. Only a rule of law system delivers the goods of freedom and an independent judge.

In rule by law systems, by contrast, the making, interpretation and enforcement of the law becomes a tool to control and punish political opponents. Formally, the two systems look similar—legislatures make laws, and prosecutors and judges enforce the laws. But in its faux rule by law twin, group privileges are codified into law; laws may by design be difficult and even impossible to follow; the judiciary is stacked with loyalists; violations by friends are overlooked, while political outsiders are rendered lessor people, and even enemies, through law enforcement.

Rule by law tactics, while present in every country, are on the rise in the United States, as are their pseudo ethical justifications. Putting to the side the new tax code, three recent examples make the case.

A work requirement for Medicaid is not inherently unethical, but Kentucky is contemplating myriad procedural requirements that allow officials to punish transgressors by denying Medicaid coverage. Gov. Matt Bevin suggests that Medicaid reform will promote dignity and encourage people to live healthier lives, yet the burden of showing 80 hours of employment activities is put on recipients. Studies suggest that new administrative hurdles will lead eligible people to lose their coverage. This outcome is not incidental—decreasing the state's Medicaid rolls is the reason the new administrative hurdles are being enacted.

Officials in Ohio are defending the state's right to purge the voter registration of citizens as necessary to ensure efficient and fraud-free elections. This sounds neutral in that only people who fail to vote in a two-year period risk being disenfranchised. But who do you think will end up being purged? Trump voters will be OK; Ohio's never-Trump Republicans, independents and Democrats who did not turn out to vote for Hillary Clinton must vigilantly check their mailbox for the postcard that will ensure that they remain registered.

The already formidable challenge of being a legal immigrant is also now more difficult. A new visa questionnaire asks for social media, passport, travel and biographical information going back five to 15 years. Last year, the Trump administration argued that any inaccuracy in naturalization papers, including lying about your weight, could be a basis to revoke a person's citizenship 20 years after the fact. The Supreme Court rejected this extreme position, but it allowed mistaken lies that contribute to securing a legal immigration status to become a basis for reversing the decision at any time. In this context, extreme vetting requirements seem to be mostly about entrapment—increasing the chance that an inaccurate statement will incriminate an immigrant.

Just as we reject the idea that violations of political protest rules by “both sides” puts white supremacists and their protesting opponents on equal footing, we should also be suspicious of people whose best defense is that they “followed the law.” Moreover, when it comes to disparaging people who violated the law, all Americans should recognize that we live in glass houses. We could all be targets if officials so desired. After all, who among us has never made a mistake on official paperwork, engaged in an unauthorized home-improvement, jaywalked or driven with a broken headlight?

It is time to recognize that “ruling by law” is a lamentably common yet unethical part of American politics.

We also need to reinforce our understanding and commitment to ethics. Ideally our laws would be ethical by design and in practice. More ethical is better, but we cannot legislate ethics. We would not want the Golden Rule inscribed into law, since everyone has a different notion of how they should be treated. To reinforce the importance of ethics and so that the ethical difference is more recognizable, social groups—churches, clubs, schools and even households—should be debating and defining ethical norms. As individuals, we might also discuss more openly (but probably not on social media) our own mistakes and how we then worked to right the situation. After all, a truly ethical person has nothing to hide, including that accident and circumstance contributed to mistakes in our past.

Yes, I am advocating that we individually and within our communities actively swim against the dominant political tide. We must reject the false piety that law-followers are “good” and law violators are bad hombres that deserve of a punitive fate. If we don't, if we agree to elide ethics and the law, then we will be relinquishing a critical piece of humanity.

Karen J. Alter is a professor of political science and law and teaches and writes about the politics of international law and ethics in international affairs at Northwestern University. She is the author of “The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights.”