Most Americans think of the Civil War as an unambiguous conflict between the North and the South over slavery, and that is generally accurate. It was an insurrection against the federal government committed by 11 states whose Democrat governors and legislators feared that the recently elected Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, would deprive them of their non-citizen labor force. These state officials vowed to resist any attempt by the federal government to put down their rebellion and routinely denounced the new president as an aspiring dictator. Why does this sound familiar?
Newsom, Hochul, Pritzker and Walz are all too typical of sanctuary state governors. They couldn’t care less about the will of their constituents.
Perhaps because 11 states have lately declared themselves “sanctuary jurisdictions” while openly defying federal law, ostensibly to “protect” their non-citizen labor force. Not coincidentally, the Democrat governors of these states routinely denounce our current GOP president, Donald Trump, as a dictator. Recently, for example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused him of “militarizing cities” and insisted: “These are the acts of a dictator, not a President.” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has also likened Trump to a dictator. Not to be outdone, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has called him a “wannabe dictator.” This nonsense has been parroted by nearly all sanctuary state governors.
If you are thinking that ridiculous claims that President Trump is a dictator don’t necessarily mean these people are part of some organized confederacy whose raison d’être combines resistance to Trump’s immigration policies and obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws, you’re right. But wait. To coin a phrase, there’s more: A document obtained by the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project reveals a pact among twenty-two blue states and two sanctuary cities, pledged to collectively prepare “potential litigation” challenging any effort to curtail birthright citizenship. It was composed, proofed and ready to sign by November 8, 2024.
This agreement, just 3 days after President Trump’s landslide election win, shows that these resistance actors began, as a matter of absolute urgent top priority, plotting their resistance to President Trump’s anticipated actions … Their top priority was not gas, groceries, public safety, or any other matter of concern of their constituents, but instead a raw political calculus to ensure that the future children of the illegal aliens that entered during the Biden Border Crisis could turn into voters.
Obviously, in the absence of so-called birthright citizenship, the incentives that drive illegal immigration would be dramatically reduced. Consequently, President Trump issued an executive order limiting birthright citizenship on Jan. 20, 2025. Before the end of January, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 was introduced by Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.) in the House of Representatives and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in the Senate. Trump’s executive order and the legislation would both limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and lawful immigrants performing active service in the Armed Forces.
An army of Democrat lawyers attacked the President’s executive order in court, which inevitably produced nationwide injunctions temporarily halting implementation. The Trump DOJ filed an emergency appeal with SCOTUS, where oral arguments were heard on May 15 concerning the abusive use of nationwide injunctions by district courts. The Trump administration is likely to win on that issue, which will deprive sanctuary states of an important weapon in their legal arsenal. Meanwhile, three sanctuary state governors were dragged before Congress to explain why they have brazenly violated federal immigration laws they each took oaths to uphold:
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a full committee hearing today titled, “A Hearing with Sanctuary State Governors.” At the hearing, Republican members publicly questioned and held accountable Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul for their sanctuary policies … the sanctuary governors refused to condemn their states’ reckless policies when confronted with the devastating costs.
In one particularly revealing exchange, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) peppered Gov. Hochul about the results of her state’s lethal “Green Light Law.” Rep. Stefanik asked the Empire State’s governor if she was familiar with the name, Sebastian Zapita Khalil and what crime he had committed. Hochul was typically clueless, so Stefanik enlightened her: “He found a sleeping woman on the subway, lit her on fire, and burned her alive … ICE had issued an order to detain this violent criminal, but that was rejected by New York officials, due to sanctuary state laws.” Hochul, like the proverbial deer in the headlights, obviously didn’t know whether to run or be rundown.
Govs. Pritzker and Walz weren’t quite as clueless as Hochul—who could be—but they ducked every question they were asked. Rep. Tom Emmer (R. Minn.) pointed out that Minnesota Gov. Walz signed bills providing free healthcare and college tuition to illegal aliens. Walz shrugged. Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) pointed out to Illinois Gov. Pritzker that his administration funded a local group called “Organized Communities Against Deportations.” Pritzker didn’t say anything, but his expression suggested that he was thinking, “So, what?” Both Walz and Pritzker are reported to have presidential aspirations—as does Gavin Newsom. Ponder that for a moment.
Newsom, Hochul, Pritzker and Walz are all too typical of sanctuary state governors. They couldn’t care less about the will of their constituents—the vast majority of whom favor Trump’s border policies and mass deportation of illegal immigrants. But the sanctuary state confederates insist on repeating the rhetoric and pursuing the policies that cost them the 2024 election. They shout, “Trump is a dictator,” believe that “non-citizen” is a synonym for “Democrat voter” and openly embrace political violence. They are no less dangerous than their Nineteenth Century forebears.
READ MORE from David Catron:
