Why is the Democratic Party, down to its base, going bonkers over the enforcement of federal immigration law, even to the point of taking up the 19th-century southerners’ cause of nullification? In this case, they are trying to “nullify” immigration law as much as possible in so-called state “sanctuaries” from federal immigration enforcement. More than that, Democrat bastions are scenes of rampaging mobs and flame-throwing officeholders like those in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Portland, and other blue-dots on the national map. Why the willingness to die on that hill?
It’s naked politics, pure and simple, contradicting the facetious and lofty rhetoric of the street barkers. The street urchins at the tip of spear may not understand it, but the party mandarins do. At its brass-knuckled core is congressional reapportionment. Blue states and localities are bleeding people because their blue governments are a detriment to personal prosperity. The flight shows in almost any measure from state finance department reports to moving company data. Don’t expect these states to change their spots. Heaven knows, in their blinkered minds, it can’t be their policies that have driven people away like the escapees jumping the Iron Curtain or Cambodians fleeing the Khmer Rouge.
So, import a population by any means, legal or illegal, to cover the losses. After all, according to the courts, it’s “persons” not “citizens” in the language of the Constitution in Article I, Section 2 regarding the census, and on to reapportionment. To facilitate the influx, they demand that Title 8 of the US code be treated as if it does not exist. So much for seeing that the laws be faithfully executed, while electing a president who refuses to fulfill his oath of office.
Nonetheless, we still have laws that stipulate the terms for legal presence on our country. These laws didn’t appear in our legal codes by imperial decree. Our elected representatives wrote and approved them over decades. Subsequent Congresses of our elected representatives have chosen not to change them. That makes them “our” laws – the very essence of popular sovereignty – and not the sole possession of tiny street cadres in blue bastions. These acts of criminal interference with the execution of our laws are challenges to a cornerstone of our constitutional republic, popular sovereignty.
Simply put, these street mobs of the self-anointed are demanding to overturn the national elections that produced these laws. What they can’t earn in elections, they demand from bullhorns and wanton acts of illegality.
Comparing this to the struggle against Jim Crow is pure nonsense. Jim Crow was plainly unconstitutional, as is a president who refuses to faithfully execute the laws. Where’s the unconstitutionality of the entirety of Title 8 of the US code? True, enforcement varied from closer legal adherence to an effective repeal through deliberate neglect, even going so far as to subsidize the illegality, under Biden. Did Americans ever want Title 8 stricken? No Congress has voted to remove it or alter it. No popular mandate in congressional elections has arisen to accomplish the feat, which is the only poll that counts.
The courts have not been of much help. They are incoherent in interpreting the constitutional provisions on reapportionment and the census upon which it is based. In 1962, the Supreme Court issued its famous decision in Baker v. Carr that established the “one man, one vote” standard for the exercise of reapportionment by a state. Legislative districts must be nearly equal in population for the purpose of adhering to “one man, one vote”. Notice, it refers to voting people, and noncitizens can’t vote in federal elections.
Then came Department of Commerce (Trump) v. New York in 2020 with the Court preventing the Trump administration from including a citizenship question on the census form, clearly to exclude noncitizens from the census numbers for purposes of reapportionment. Much of the argument centered on the Constitution’s use of “persons” to be counted, not “citizens”. Back to Baker v. Carr, how equal in “persons” are districts that are drawn with 40% noncitizens in some and 5% in others? If 500,000 total population per district, citizen and noncitizen, is our equality number, one district might have 100,000 voting-qualified adults while another might have 60,000. Where’s “one man, one vote”? 60,000 have same the congressional power as 100,000. Was “person” meant to mean “citizen”?
The conundrum will have to be addressed by the Court sooner or later. But as it sits right now, blue states have a vested interest in illegal immigration, any immigration, to fill the depressions in their population balance sheets caused by their unappealing policies. It’s either official, flamboyant, and bombastic rhetoric, calls for physical “resistance” to federal law enforcement by animated “ICE watch” activists rushing to threaten, dox, and disrupt our officers from enforcing our laws, or accept the slide to political irrelevance due to their own self-inflicted acts of ruination.
Never bet on voluntary humility. Circumstances, though, may dictate otherwise. An unavoidable acceptance of humble pie might require the admission that greenie utopias, tax systems as looting expeditions, equality of result supplanting equal opportunity, the public schools turned into struggle sessions, etc., is not attractive to the stable elements in any population. Though, don’t bet on it.
Barring such a “Come to Jesus” moment, it’s go bonkers and prepare to die on the hill of illegal immigration, for foreign nationals to break our laws. Illegal immigration is a matter of survival for Democrats who have been busy destroying their cities and states.
RogerG
