LA Votes to Give Illegals the Vote

 

Los Angeles, the city that no longer loves itself, the city that is casting out the angels and replacing them with progressive demons and rabid communists, has unleashed another political inferno with their latest diabolical election scheme.

By a vote of 10 to 5, the Los Angeles City Council passed a charter amendment initiative which, if approved by the voters in November, would allow non-citizens to vote in Los Angeles’ local city and school board elections.

The Democratic Socialist of America-allied (DSA) leader of the LA City Council’s progressive phalanx, Hugo Soto-Martinez, rolled out the usual dodgy reasons proffered for this scandalous proposal.

The reasons are daunting and disturbing:

1.      “The immigrants live here, too. We can’t leave them out of the process.” Notice how the open-border advocates don’t differentiate between legal and illegal? I know many legal immigrants, and they are furious that they worked hard to get into this country, only to see lawbreakers get the same rights and privileges, including who gets elected to local office.

2.      “They pay taxes.” Do they? A friend of mine, a long-time tax preparer, often complained about the IRS credits which illegals took advantage of, as opposed to paying taxes. Sure, the illegals pay taxes on goods and services they purchase, but that doesn’t justify their lawless presence in the country.

3.      “They should have a say in how local government operates, since they are affected by the local government.” Criminals are affected by local government, too, but we don’t let them decide the punishment for their crimes. Do we allow bank robbers to have a say in how best to protect financial institutions? Do we allow someone who trespasses onto our property to dictate how to mow our lawns or landscape the property? This is madness. Instead of a vote, they deserve a veto for their presence in the country.

4.      It’s the humane thing to do.” A disregard for law and order is never humane. Such lawlessness has exacerbated human trafficking and other crimes against the innocent.

5.      “We need to stand up to President Trump’s ‘war on immigrants.’” The progressive left and their enabling politicians are waging war on immigrants, i.e., those in the country legally. They are also declaring war on the idea of citizenship, the rule of law, and national sovereignty. “No borders, no wall! Sanctuary for all!” leads to anarchy and mayhem for all. Remember Seattle’s CHAZ experiment, anyone? Come to think of it, that autonomous zone had stricter borders than the southern border under President Trump!

Of course, there’s no consideration for what the voter franchise actually means. Who are the stakeholders in a city? Should those who break the law by crossing the border without authorization stay wherever and vote?

Since when does anyone think it’s good to reward brazen lawlessness?

What is it with big cities, anyway? The politicos want the votes so bad, they will let illegals invade the country, then let them settle in their backyards to help call the shots, and the powers that be will happily push aside the law-abiding citizens who pay the bills, work the jobs, and make the cities run.

This bad idea has already been implemented in other California cities.

As far back as 2016, San Francisco allowed non-citizens to vote in school board elections. The law faced legal challenges, but the First Appellate Court of Appeals reversed lower-court injunctions against the law in 2023.

In 2022, Oakland, California, voters enacted a charter amendment to let non-citizens vote in the school board elections. Why not allow them to vote in city council elections, too, I wonder? If Oakland progressives are so determined to make everyone in the city the same, why not expand the (already bastardized) franchise to everyone else?

 In 2024, local reports indicated that the city still had not rolled out the process to allow the illegals to vote. As of 2026, nothing has changed to ensure they can exercise this new right. All virtue-signaling, perhaps?

The New York City Council tried this stunt in 2021. Thankfully, it got struck down five years later by the liberal—yes, seven Democrat appointees—State Supreme Court. They argued that the state constitution did not permit the city to expand the franchise.

Cities in Vermont and Maryland have joined the anti-citizen fun, but the majority of states require citizenship to vote in all elections, and five more plan on joining the ranks this year: Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

Now, let’s get back to Los Angeles, the latest major city to push through this vile stupidity.

Despite the majority's madness, some sanity prevailed on the city council. Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, one of the pragmatic Democratic members of the city council, voted against this proposal, fearing that it would make it easier for federal immigration law enforcement to arrest and deport illegals in the city: “Given the dynamics that we have right now, what we’re creating is a list of individuals that could then just be the target [of] another potential federal administration.”

 She concluded the right outcome, but gave the wrong reason. The illegals still need to leave, Monica! At least Rodriguez is raising hell about the waste and lack of accountability over the homeless spending.

Councilmembers McOsker, Bob Blumenfield, John Lee, and Adrin Nazarian rejected the charter amendment, as well. As of press time, none of the dissenters have responded to my media requests. Councilman John Lee, the only non-Democrat on the city council, gave the following reason for rejecting the proposal, as LAist reported:

Councilmember John Lee voted no, expressing concerns about the cost of having non-citizens vote and the logistics of determining who is eligible. For example, how long would someone have to have lived in L.A. to vote?

“Those decisions will inevitably be viewed by some as benefitting allies or harming opponents, even if that was not the actual intent,” Lee said. “The perception alone can undermine public confidence in our elections.”

Close enough, but still missing the larger point. Not just the cost to the budget, what about the cost to the city’s self-respect? What about the sovereignty of the country? Illegals shouldn’t be in the city to begin with!

Councilwoman Imelda Padilla gave a principled reason to oppose this amendment: “I am very nervous this could potentially create a disincentive to become a legal citizen.” Yet she voted for it anyway!

Clearing aside the arguments for and against, why the incessant drive to undermine citizenship altogether?

The politically cynical reason is obvious: Democrats want easy votes, and non-citizens will vote for the politicians who gave them the vote and promise them the freebies. More importantly, though, Martinez and his DSA radicals, aggressive activists as well as his colleagues on the council, are convinced that radical “fairness,” leveling to the extreme, is the only way to go. No differences among any group. There should be no boundaries.

This erosion of citizenship is a part of the LA-DSA’s communist vision. Radical equality cannot happen as long as ethnic differences, national identities, and legal distinctions of any kind remain. Everyone is equal, and no one is illegal. It’s also easy virtue-signaling for woke white liberals without cost (to them).