The Morally Bankrupt Sanctuary State Confederacy

They want you to believe this is a human rights issue - it's not, unless you consider the rights of American citizens to live in peace, prosperity and safety within their own borders.

Democrat rhetoric over federal officers enforcing US laws within so-called sanctuary states is now approaching pre-Civil War levels of hysteria. And we’re not talking about unknown or obscure internet crazies, but the sitting governor of California (who is now considered the leading candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2028). And Karen Bass, mayor of Los Angeles. And countless other die-on-this-hill Democrats throughout the country, including New York, Illinois and Massachusettes.

Let’s be abundantly clear: this is not a human rights issue. This is nullifying duly-enacted US law. Ignoring the law. Defying the law. Refusing to enforce the law. Intentional interference with enforcement of the law.

This is open rebellion.

America has the most generous legal immigration laws in the world. In 2023, we accepted over one million new naturalization applications and in 2024, naturalized nearly 900,000 new citizens. We additionally issue millions of visas for work, study and tourism annually. And yet even more for humanitarian purposes in the form of amnesty: people who claim they are fleeing political or religious oppression and violence. If one accepts that a modern, civilized nation should have a system of laws and administrative courts that govern immigration and naturalization, one can’t help but conclude that America’s is generous to a fault.

Democrats say this system is “broken”. When asked what they’d fix about it, Democrats don’t have specifics - their plan stops at naturalizing the 30+ million illegal persons already here. Universal amnesty. Anything other than that and they’re not interested.

If our immigration laws have been “broken” for - what, 25 years now? - why haven’t Democrats “fixed” the laws during the many times they’ve controlled the House, the Senate and the White House (and all three at the same time) over the years?

The truth is, the US Constitution gives “The People” the authority to determine the laws governing immigration - as expressed through their elected representatives in Congress. If “The People” wanted changes to our laws, they’d demand them - and yet, polls going back decades say our laws are, if anything, overly-generous.

The People - the citizens who elect our federal politicians - don’t want more immigration. And yet, the ironically-named Democrats don’t accept that. And despite decades of trying to persuade the American People, they haven’t moved the needle. So now Democrats turn to nullification - and violence.

I am old enough to remember a different law, one The People openly hated and despised and some states even (effectively) nullified. Do you remember this law?

What did the American People do when confronted by a loathsome, costly, burdensome law imposed by Washington, which we bristled under - every one of us - for two decades? Did we take to the streets and burn cop cars? Did we interfere with law enforcement as they simply did their duty?

No. We elected a Congress in 1994 who took office in 1995 and repealed the 55-mph national speed limit. And Bill Clinton - a Democrat (back when the name wasn’t ironic) - was wise enough to sign it.

Citizens aren’t on the Democrats’ side on immigration. They don’t want more immigration and Democrats have been unsuccessful in getting the American People on their side. So what’s this really about? Why don’t the Democrats just give up and accept the will of The People?

The truth is, this is really about the same things the Democrats stood for prior to the Civil War. It’s about power and economics and hanging onto the vestiges of a system that protected their power. Prior to the Civil War and the 13th Amendment, Democrats in the South would not accept the economic or political impact of emancipation and citizenship for slaves. Their states’ economies were built and dependent on slavery, and their political power would not survive in a multi-ethnic population.

Gavin “Jefferson Davis” Newsom presides over a Hellscape state that’s run out of Other People’s Money

Today, Democrats (and Democrat-controlled states) cannot survive without a robust underground economy of illegal labor. They said so. And their political fortunes are staked on a continuing supply of underclass minorities to bribe with our tax dollars. It wasn’t Republicans who coined the term “race replacement theory” - that was the Democrats, who see a need to replace America’s constantly-graduating underclass with waves of poor immigrants - who they assume will vote for Democrats.

This isn’t a human rights issue. It’s the Democrats confronting an existential crisis of their own doing. Building economies reliant on a constant import of unskilled, off-the-books labor and skewing census/congressional districts to keep their hold on certain districts is fraught with instability and uncertainty… especially if someone ever chose to enforce the law.

If Trump were to successfully deport the 12-20 million illegals who came in during the last administration, that equates to the equivalent of between 15 and 26 congressional districts. Even if these people cannot vote, they are counted for congressional districting - replacing the millions of Americans who’ve fled California, New York and Illinois, thus keeping those congressional districts in the blue column.

Democrats have an existential problem. The economies in their districts are collapsing because high-wage/high-tax jobs are fleeing while abortion claims over one million prospective workers annually - predominantly in Democrat congressional districts. They’re not replacing their citizenry (voters) naturally - so they’re importing them. They have to.

This is why all the secessionist rhetoric - illegal immigration is an existential issue for Democrats today, just as slavery was in the 1800s. They’re as morally bankrupt today as they were then.