As California goes, so goes the country?
The Department of Justice has indicated that the current lawsuit filed against California is just the first of other suits that may be filed against states and cities that obstruct immigration enforcement. That could also involve sanctuary cities in New Mexico, including Santa Fe.
The suit has brought several interesting comments from progressive politicians in California. Among them is a comment from junior U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, who succeeded Barbara Boxer. In a recent MSNBC interview, she said, “California’s going to fight because the state represents the future.”
The nationwide RESIST movement is targeting U.S. immigration law, which is clearly defined in our Constitution as belonging to federal jurisdiction. The sanctuary declarations passed by cities and states are an attempt to supersede or nullify federal law and, I believe, are rightly seen as unconstitutional.
Santa Fe officials have adamantly reinforced a sanctuary city policy, which may cause the city leaders some heartburn, if not money. New Mexico is not a sanctuary state.
However, the progressive sanctuary agenda is not over human or immigrant rights. Instead, I believe it is an incremental attempt to eventually register noncitizens as voters. California is the darling state where globalists and progressives are attempting to nullify federal voting requirements by first claiming immigration law is a state’s rights issue. Sure to follow will be an effort to secure voting rights for non U.S. citizens by crying “discrimination” under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 and granting all state residents the right to vote in elections, without discrimination.
Progressives often advance the thought, “If you live here and pay taxes here, you should be able to vote here.”
While that may sound reasonable to some, it is not even close to the real-world standard. If you are a noncitizen of Mexico or Canada, just try voting there.
If California is allowed to set the precedent of essentially nullifying federal immigration law, it becomes a short hop to nullifying federal voting law. Should California’s progressives decide that residency, not citizenship, should be the qualifying test to being a registered voter, then a legitimate vote count of American citizens in federal elections would become impossible to tally. That could lead to other progressive states following suit, and noncitizens could decide national elections.
In 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law California’s “motor voter” act. It requires no federal documentation, such as Social Security numbers, for residents to obtain a driver’s license. Voters can register through the motor vehicle division, so it’s likely that noncitizens could register to vote. The organization True the Vote, which monitors possible voter fraud, said this law only worsens potential for voter fraud in California. It could give noncitizens an opportunity to vote fraudulently in federal elections.
It’s clear to me that these incremental moves by progressives in California are intended to make way for registering immigrant residents to vote in local elections, but it would be difficult to determine whether the citizenship requirement is met for federal elections.
Progressive values such as sanctuary cities might sound appealing. But before we ask what is fair to immigrants here illegally, we must ask what is fair to American families, students, taxpayers, job-seekers and yes, American voters.