Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, who currently serves as Senate Majority Whip, took to the Senate floor this week and did something that apparently passes for controversial in Washington, he asked a very basic question.
Why on earth are Democrats demanding that polling places be designated as “sanctuary” or “sensitive” locations?
Barrasso laid it out plainly. As reported by Breitbart News, he described the Democrats’ current negotiation strategy as a “Christmas list of demands,” tailored not to public safety or common sense, but to appease their radical base. According to Barrasso, these demands make it harder to arrest and remove dangerous illegal immigrants from American communities. That is not exactly a fringe concern.
“The Democrats continually want to make it harder to arrest and remove illegal immigrant criminals,” Barrasso said. He went on to explain that Democrats are pushing to expand the definition of “sensitive locations.” Traditionally, those have included places like schools, hospitals, and houses of worship. Now, they want to add polling places to that list.
Let’s pause for a second.
It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Everyone agrees on that, at least publicly. So Barrasso asked the obvious question, if illegal aliens are not voting, why do polling places need to be shielded from immigration enforcement? Who exactly is being protected here?
“The so-called ‘sensitive location’ defined by the Democrats — in the past it included places of worship, hospitals, schools, now they want to include in that list — polling places,” Barrasso said. “Well, think about that. It’s an entirely new provision. Polling places have never been included on any list like this before.”
That is not a minor tweak. That is a significant policy shift. And it is being pushed at the same time Democrats are resisting stronger immigration enforcement and warning about partial government shutdowns.
Barrasso added, “The more we learn about the demands coming from the minority leader and that party, the less the normal American citizen likes them — and that’s especially if you are concerned about any safety or any security in the community in which you live.”
He is not wrong to point out the optics. When you fight to protect polling places from immigration enforcement, while simultaneously insisting that illegal immigrants are not voting, you create a contradiction that is hard to ignore. Democrats seem awfully eager to build layers of protection around something they insist is not happening.
Americans care about election integrity. They also care about secure borders and safe communities. Expanding “sanctuary” policies to include polling places sends a signal, whether intended or not, that enforcement of immigration law is a lower priority than shielding certain groups from scrutiny.
Republicans cannot afford to shrug this off. If the integrity of elections and the enforcement of immigration law are negotiable, then what exactly is non negotiable? Barrasso is right to raise the alarm. The stakes are not abstract. They are about the rule of law and public trust in the system.
Leave a Comment