Ignore the Democrats’ Immigration Sanctimony: Follow the Votes and Money
Democrats’ sanctuary policies aren’t a bug—they’re a feature, aimed at padding power and funding by inflating population counts, not protecting the vulnerable.
t first glance, Democrat support for illegal immigration, which takes the form of policies like open borders and sanctuary states and cities, seems to defy political logic. As poll evidence shows strong public opposition to illegal immigration, one would expect the Democrats to moderate or jettison their position on the issue.
Instead, Democrats are doubling down on illegal immigration and are doing so not despite political logic, but because of it. That Democrats cloak their prioritization of party over country in sanctimonious hypocrisy only salts the wound of a public clamoring for sane and safe immigration policies.
What then drives the Democrats’ venal support of open borders and sanctuary states and cities? It is not principle but power: behind the vainglorious virtue-signaling are the sordid motives of votes and money, both of which are based on population figures found in the census.
The vote motive has been well discussed, if not resolved. The Supreme Court has ruled “one person, one vote” as the standard by which congressional seats must be redistricted; thus, each seat must be equal to every other (except in instances of states having only one U.S. Representative). As a result, the Democrats’ sanctuary states and cities are deliberately designed to serve as magnets for illegal immigrants.
As election results and studies repeatedly have shown, urban areas are Democrat strongholds. This is because Democrats live in more densely populated urban areas, many of them being minorities, who have long been a critical component of their coalition. Democrats believe this voter density is a detriment to winning more state and federal elections, and have focused on “one person” rather than “one vote” to expand majorities in both state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives. (After all, despite the wishes of many on the left, illegal immigrants and resident aliens cannot vote in federal or state elections, though it is allowed in some municipalities.)
The Democrats aim to reduce the number of eligible Democratic voters needed to capture inner-city congressional districts, then spread the remaining Democratic voters to the suburbs to make those seats more winnable. Ergo, the greater the number of “persons”—including illegal immigrants—the fewer the number of “votes” from citizens needed to win an urban district, and the greater the number of votes that can be funneled into more contestable suburban seats.
But funneling urban Democrat voters into the suburbs to win seats there comes at the cost of African-American political power: their votes will be diluted to the point of making them unable to win a primary against a white suburban candidate in seats they once held. The fact that this retrogression of minority seats would make even segregationists like Orville Faubus blush is not a concern for today’s progressives—though it remains a concern for the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.
Ironically, the other reason Democrats support open borders and sanctuary jurisdictions—money—is so obvious it is often overlooked or barely acknowledged. By tending to illegal immigrants, left-wing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) rake in government funds, which are often also used to further the cause of open borders and sanctuary states and cities, be it through elections and/or narrative promotion. The Trump administration has endeavored to close off this source of NGO federal funding.
Still, this is but a prospective minuscule pass-through when it comes to the boon of federal and state funds that proportionately increase in direct relation to the increase in illegal immigrants in a city, county, or state, regardless of whether it has been designated a “sanctuary.”
One does not have to take the Trump administration’s word for this. Consider this helpful explanation courtesy of a 2024 article in NPR:
“Census results guide how more than $2.8 trillion a year in federal money is distributed to states and local communities, and many census advocates are worried that officials raising the possibility of asking about people’s immigration and U.S. citizenship status, plus leaving noncitizens out of the congressional apportionment counts, could ultimately lead to communities not getting their fair share in funding for Medicare, Medicaid, schools, roads, and other public services in the coming decade.”
Importantly, as in the case of redistricting and votes, potential constitutional issues arise regarding redressing the Democrats’ monetary rationale for sanctuary states and cities. These, however, can be more readily rectified if advanced by prudent and steady legislative acts. For example, when federal appropriations are passed, they can be allotted based not upon a generalized “population,” but upon the specific number of citizens and lawfully residing aliens within the boundaries of a governmental unit.
Of course, the first law that must necessarily be enacted is one requiring the census to record this data. It is a position that the Trump administration has staunchly supported and Democrats have adamantly opposed. Evidently, it is asking too much of Democrats to put country ahead of party, set aside their short-sighted political logic, and support such a measure. No, Democrats remain hellbent upon paving the way to perdition by perpetuating their doom loop of open borders and sanctuary jurisdictions to subsidize their own selfish aims, no matter the patent harm it does to citizens, lawful immigrants, legal resident aliens—and, yes, illegal immigrants, too, who are lured here by open borders and sanctuary states and cities, only to fall victim to human trafficking or be otherwise exploited as cheap labor or even indentured servants.
Thus, in but one more bitter irony for the Left that delights in deriding and rewriting American history, the haunting echoes of John C. Calhoun’s nullification doctrine and insurrection continue to beguile and guide today’s Democrats further into the political abyss of anarchy and disorder. It remains the duty of the majority, then, to persevere despite the Democrats and implement sane and safe immigration policies that the citizens of our free Republic, and all who lawfully reside here, deserve. This is not only a sound long-term political strategy, but more importantly, a civic necessity.