OPINION:
Last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed state legislation allowing illegal immigrants to obtain state-issued identification.
The bill met with severe resistance from the state’s few Republican state Assembly members and senators, but their votes weren’t enough to stop the bill from passing. reach Mr. Newsom’s office. The Democratic governor, who has repeatedly tried to thrust himself into the national spotlight this year in competition with GOP governors. Greg Abbott of Texas and John DeSantis of Florida enthusiastically justified the passage of the law.
“We are a safe haven state, a majority minority state, where 27% of us are immigrants,” Newsom said after signing the bill. “That’s why I’m proud to announce the signing of today’s bills to further support our immigrant community, making our state stronger every day.”
The new law, AB 1766, known as “California IDs for All,” is a step up from the Golden State’s previous landmark legislation of 2013, which allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Since then, several other states have followed suit.
The new identity bill was introduced in February by four Democratic assemblymen who touted California ID cards as “passports to economic and societal participation,” making it easier for illegal immigrants to work , use of banks and demand for government benefits.
“Lack of identification is one of the biggest barriers to success in the community because ID is essential to securing employment, housing and social services,” said one of the project sponsors. of law, Mark Stone. “AB 1766 is an essential gateway to social inclusion and should be a basic necessity that every resident has access to.”
“This bill brings fairness to those who have been denied access to the essentials of life because they lack legally recognized identification,” said MP Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer. “What many of us take for granted – having ID – will have life-changing ramifications for many in the immigrant and disability communities.”
We do not disagree with the observations of MM. Stone or Jones-Sawyer in that the lack of state or federal identification creates barriers to obtaining employment, housing, and social services. But that is precisely why issuing such ID cards to illegal immigrants sets a dangerous precedent and encourages more migrants to cross the border illegally.
Issuance of state ID cards is a form of acknowledgment of one’s legitimacy, which means that the state of California effectively disregards or may even anticipate the federal naturalization system. It also sends the wrong message south of the border. If foreign citizens think they can come to California and find jobs, find housing, and apply for social services, they have more incentive to risk their lives trying to reach and cross the border illegally.
But California is not the only lower jurisdiction in the country to effectively reject the federal naturalization system. In December, the New York City Council passed legislation that would have granted 800,000 legal permanent residents and people authorized to work in the United States the right to vote in municipal elections.
Among the many dangers of enacting such a law would be to arm non-citizens with the power to elect their fellow citizens as city council members and mayor, giving the city’s new candidates a starting point. credible to run in future federal and state elections. If the New York City law had been passed, there was no limit to what a city politician could go in the state or congressional system, despite building his career on the non-citizen votes.
A lawsuit by the Republican National Committee has also raised concerns about whether implementing the law would also result in non-citizens being registered to vote for state and local elections. As a result, the New York Supreme Court struck down the city’s law, saying it violated the state constitution.
“New York City cannot ‘work around’ the restrictions imposed by the Constitution,” the court wrote. Simply put, the city couldn’t ignore state law — just as the state of California shouldn’t ignore or try to outrun the federal naturalization system.
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution makes it clear that only Congress has the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization…throughout the United States”.
Our position is that such power is plenary, and that there is only one naturalization system, and that is the federal system. It must not be ignored, manipulated, pre-empted or altered by local municipal or state governments in any capacity.
