Oakland's Libby Schaaf Shows How Democrats Control Minorities

The Democratic Party of the U.S. has always had an attitude of using and exploiting minority rights.  Democrats feel that it is their party's right to control the minority populations of the U.S.  And Oakland's Mayor Libby Schaaf is following DNC marching orders by acting to defy federal law to achieve the same end: control of a growing minority of Americans whom the Democratic Party seeks to use to stay in political power.

Defiance of federal law is nothing new for the Democratic Party of the U.S.  Democrats have been practicing it for 200 years.  In the early 19th century, the Democrats were the party of slavery: their Southern states were the stronghold of the practice of slavery, and they did everything possible to hang onto their "right" to own other humans beings and exploit their labor.

When Western states began to say they were "free" states, and that a slave who traveled to their state was a free person, Democrats made comments similar to those of Mayor Schaaf and stated they had the "right" to own other human beings and they would fight the encroachment of federal and state laws to infringe on that right.  It's a shameful chapter in America's history, and the parallels between those official actions of Democrats in the South and their members of Congress are being copied and reflected in the actions of Mayor Schaaf, the governor of California, the California state Legislature, and the Democrat members of Congress.

This outburst of federal law defiance erupted in February 24, 2018, when Mayor Schaaf proudly proclaimed in an official mayoral office press release posted on Twitter: "I learned from multiple credible sources that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to an operation in the Bay Area[.]... I am sharing this information publicly not to panic our residents but to protect them."  Notice she didn't say to protect citizens.  She referenced a website that would provide residents information about their "legal rights" when they face detention.  She further noted that a California law, AB 450, signed by the California governor October 5, 2017, "prohibits business owners from assisting ICE agents in immigration enforcement and bars federal agents from accessing employee-only areas."  The bill prescribes penalties for infractions: failure to provide the immigration notice the business owner received to the state would be a $2,000 fine, and later instances could be fined up to $10,000. 

The California law does give the state an out: it states, "Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer from reverifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified federal law."  In other words, the CA bill is sneaky; it bans employers from cooperating with ICE unless such cooperation is required by federal law.  So in an important sense, while it is being advertised as a defense of illegal employment, it does not specifically state that California will fine business owners who comply with federal laws.  And if the federal law says the business owner must provide information, then the business owner must. 

So it's an exercise of double-talk.  It seeks to give the impression that California is protecting illegal alien workers while the language of the law does not clearly violate federal law.  So much for the California state law.  But Mayor Schaaf is not out of the woods: she cannot order citizens to disobey federal laws. 

The attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, has announced that he is suing the state of California for its self-proclaimed official sanctuary state status.  This is the first time the federal government has responded to any sanctuary state declarations, even though Chicago was the first city to declare itself a sanctuary in 1985 when its Mayor Harold Washington declared that the city will provide "all residents" the services and opportunities of the city of Chicago regardless of citizenship status. 

In reality most of this sanctuary grandstanding is of little more than public image value, but when illegal aliens are allowed to vote or given special legal status, or allowed to break federal and state laws that apply to everyone, it becomes a legal matter.  And A.G. Sessions has taken this action to demonstrate that the federal government has decided it is time to step in and clarify the obligations Mayor Schaaf and the state of California have to uphold federal law.

A few months ago, the city of Chicago sued Sessions when he stated that he would retaliate against the city for being a sanctuary.  He said then that the retaliation would take the form of withholding federal law enforcement funds. Chicago argues that it has a right to those funds and that it would hurt law enforcement in the city – although the city failed to clarify how its refusal to enforce immigration law doesn't hurt citizens of the city.

While the anti-free state movement of the 1820s and afterward was the first big event in Democratic Party defiance of federal authority, the second occurred in the 1950s, when Democrat governor of Arkansas  Orval Faubus sent members of the Arkansas National Guard to a Little Rock, Arkansas school to prevent black students from entering the school.  Once again, this was an example of how a Democratic Party official insisted on controlling a minority.  Governor Faubus insisted that he had the power to segregate black students and prevent them from attending schools that were then white. 

The showdown ended when President Eisenhower ordered troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce the right of the black students to enter the public school.  All of these actions, from 1820 to the Civil War to the desegregation battles in the 1950s and '60s to the uproar just a few weeks ago, have one thing in common: Democrats insist that they can defy federal laws to control members of minority groups. 

What is different is the strategy behind the actions.  While in the 19th century the actions of the Democratic Party were to deprive minorities of fundamental constitutional rights, today, the exact opposite is going on: Democrats insist that illegal aliens, the majority of whom are Hispanic, have constitutional rights and that the federal government cannot exercise its lawful authority to control immigration. 

These two practices seem to be completely different: after the Civil War, Democrats did not want blacks to vote, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act had to go to great lengths to prevent Southern states from having "tests and devices" such as memory tests, reading tests and other outrageous requirements for blacks, while usually letting whites off the hook from have to qualify to vote. 

Today, the new minority of interest to the DNC, Hispanics, are encouraged by Democrats to vote.  Many states allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses and other forms of identification to enable them to vote.  Chicago just established a controversial "CityKey" program that allows illegals to vote.  And so the literacy tests restricting the black vote have been replaced by leniency in illegal alien voter registration.   

Image via Jeremy Dalmas.