The hysterical overreactions and petty obstructionism to the Trump administration from California Democratic politicians never ceases to amaze.
A Democratic state senator in California wants to punish companies and individuals that work on President Trump’s border wall with a lifetime ban on contracting with the state. This is effectively a form of discrimination, using the power of the state to punish private business for political reasons.
State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) introduced Senate Bill 30 to require voter approval for any wall along the California border. His amended bill drops the proposed vote and instead restricts any company or person who works on the wall from doing business with the state of California ever again.
In a statement Lara said, “It’s clear that President Trump intends to stick taxpayers with the cost of a border wall that will hurt California’s economy, environment and people.” His claim is that the wall will hurt business in California, but as the wall is going to have a door, how will it impact lawful commerce? What businesses could be hurt by a wall except drug trafficking and human smuggling?
“I introduced Senate Bill 30 to give our state a louder voice to say that building a wasteful and unnecessary wall would be a huge mistake,” he said. The federal government has few constitutionally appointed tasks. Defending the borders is one of them. Californians have a right to demand that border security not unjustly infringe on their interests, but they should not petulantly obstruct border security.
“Another wall will delay cargo delivery, slow down business and take away valuable jobs,” Lara claimed. Or, perhaps an orderly situation at the border will facilitate safe and efficient delivery of goods. In the long run gaining total control of the border could enhance trade. Right now, so much of the commerce at the border is illegal that it can hardly be considered a net benefit to society. If there are some economic losses because of the wall, they will be more than compensated for by the lives saved keeping out dangerous criminals and life-destroying drugs.
Lara also invoked environmentalism, saying the wall would damage endangered species and fragile ecosystems. This is sure to be a popular talking point in California. How much of an impact a giant slab of concrete will have is questionable, but even if there is some harm to the environment, the damage to society and to human life from dangerous uncontrolled immigration is more grave than the hypothetical damage to some endangered species. Nature will adapt.
One of the companies bidding on the wall job submitted a creative solution to the problem of environmental damage. Black Security Products of Austin, Texas, included a 4-inch opening at the bottom of its wall design for animals to go through, as well as a loose stone system for moving water.
Rod Hadrian, owner of Tridipanel in Carlsbad, submitted a bid for a zigzag wall design that uses several layers of wire mesh and polystyrene foam covered in cement. It’s just another creative wall design from an innovative American. Hadrian does not approve of Lara’s bill. “Somebody that close-minded shouldn’t be in office,” Hadrian said. “It’s insane.”
Senator Lara’s bill embodies what the left accuses the right of being. It’s divisive, discriminatory, unimaginative, backward looking, and narrow minded. It turns California citizens against contractors and discriminates against citizens. It seeks to go back to a time before Trump was President. It doesn’t consider the possibility that an American could be creative enough to design a wall that gets the job done while solving design problems.
Senator Lara is not the only legislator to introduce anti-wall legislation in the United States, but on the state level his is the most extreme. Cities within California have proposed or passed similar legislation.
Two legislators in San Francisco are working to propose a similar punishment for city residents who work on the wall, barring them from working for San Francisco.
“What we are saying is that we are not going to spend billions of dollars and line the pockets of businesses that engage in work that goes against the values that we hold most dear,” said city Supervisor Hillary Ronen.
The Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a similar resolution and Oakland is considering one as well.
John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, told the US Senate that the wall probably won’t cover every mile of the border, implying exceptions will be made for problematic areas or areas where no wall defense is necessary.
Homeland Security says that up to 20 companies will be selected to build prototypes in San Diego County before the final design is selected.
Lara says he is against the wall in part because of the cost to taxpayers, and yet he recently proposed a single payer healthcare system in California that would cost billions of dollars. His proposed healthcare would cover illegal immigrants, adding an incredible financial burden to the taxpayers.
A small San Francisco contractor, James Flanagan, spoke out against the measures in his city. “My first reaction is why are taxpayer dollars being spent to hold committee meetings to boycott local companies that employ local workers? That’s a little on the radical side and basically, our taxpayer dollars are being used against us,” he said.
It is certainly radical, but the coastal region of California is well known for its radical politics, and Trump’s election is only pushing the culture there farther to the left.
The question is, if it is illegal to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation, why not political orientation? If it were made illegal to discriminate based on political orientation, then this legislation would be stopped.
You may share this post on Facebook and Twitter.
Let us know what you think in the comments section below: