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).
