NY Times: Why Should California Have to Enforce Racist Immigration Laws?











As an interesting side effect of President Trump’s hardline approach to illegal immigration (and by “hardline,” we mean – enforcing the laws that Congress enacted to protect our borders), Democrats have been forced to embrace and reveal the extreme nature of their own illegal immigration policies. Those policies, not to put too fine a point on it, can basically be encapsulated by the phrase: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

The left has been gently shielding this belief from public view for years, but once Trump came on the scene and began promising deportations, better security, and a wall, they had no choice. To fight the president, they had to admit their true feelings: Illegal immigration is not a crime, we don’t believe in protecting the border, and any attempt to reinforce America’s boundaries is nothing more than white supremacy in action. Remarkably, there are still people willing to not only vote for this party but actually identify as Democrats in public.

Just take a gander at Monday’s article in the New York Times, where (in the guise of an actual news story), the paper sympathizes with the unfair state of affairs in California, where local Democrats are squirming and worming to avoid enforcing federal immigration laws. Suddenly, the left has discovered the blissful ideology of states’ rights.

From the Times:

The clash between California and Mr. Trump and his supporters — between one America and another — began the morning after he won the presidency, when Kevin de León, the State Senate leader, and his counterpart in the Assembly, Anthony Rendon, said they “woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land.”

Since then the fight has metastasized into what could be the greatest contest over values between a White House and a state since the 1950s and 1960s, when the federal government moved to end segregation and expand civil rights.

Back then, of course, the ideologies and values at issue were reversed, as conservative Southerners, under the banner of states’ rights, fought violently to uphold white supremacy. In these times it is liberal California making the case for states’ rights, traditionally a Republican position.

That last paragraph is a thing of beauty, isn’t it. “Back then, of course, the ideologies and values at issue were reversed.” By which the New York Times means: The first time we heard this business about states’ rights, the federal government were the good guys and the Southerners were the embodiment of pure, racist evil. Now the two sides have flipped.

Isn’t objective reporting just the best?

We have our reservations about Jeff Sessions reigniting the federal war on marijuana, but when it comes to illegal immigration, California is endangering the entire country with its lawless approach. A country that cannot exercise control over the influx of foreigners is doomed beyond repair, and you don’t have to look too deeply to find the evidence; a glance across the Pond will do. If exercising that control is deemed to be racist in and of itself, the United States is headed for a world of trouble. And California will be the canary in the coal mine.