Anti-immigration fever causes many to abandon their purported principles

As the SB54 debate descends into madness, many people have opted to prioritize xenophobia over the “fiscal responsibility” and “states rights” mantras which they previously considered sacrosanct.

Many of the people who object to SB54 are the same folks who like to tout their adoration for financial restraint.  However, recent symbolic resolutions from county and city governments objecting to SB54 (California’s so-called “Sanctuary” law) are anything but financially responsible.  To the contrary, these overtures frivolously pay attorneys to redundantly do what a team of qualified federal attorneys is already doing.  In addition to the legal fees being paid to initiate useless action, legal fees will also be paid to defend against lawsuits like the one that the ACLU recently lodged against Los Alamitos.  There is simply no tangible reason to expend taxpayer dollars for those purposes.  Excellent Op-Ed here about the unnecessary spending of precious public resources in order to join pending litigation.

Many of the people who object to SB54 are also the same folks who are usually eager to applaud states for acting autonomously.  Under the guise of the 10th Amendment, many of these individuals purport to value a state’s right to function independently.  After the state of California decided to exercise its autonomy by enacting SB54, suddenly many of those states’ rights supporters find that independence objectionable.  Instead, they now prefer to follow orders from the Federal Government.

Given the seeming inconsistency of these irreconcilable positions, one can’t help but wonder:  is the outrage sincere, or merely a political stunt, designed to gin up enthusiasm amongst certain voters during a critical election year?