There is a certain amount of leeway in most things, but not in everything. Pushing the limits isn’t necessarily a bad thing. So why is it that the left has such an innate ability to always push the wrong limits?
California has established itself as a hub for bad decisions. On the liberal scale, it continues to reach “out of your mind status” on a wide range of issues. What rational people have difficulty grasping is that the results of these decisions literally decimate the normalcy of people’s lives, so why do they allow it to continue? Why does the population continue to vote for politicians who sink them further and further into oblivion?
One city in California that is the poster child for bad decisions is San Francisco. What used to be one of America’s most beloved cities has fallen in many places into the depths of despair. Homelessness is out of hand, and the streets are littered with human excrement and drug paraphernalia. Lawlessness is rampant due to weak liberal judges who conduct a revolving door system of justice, and because of these problems, businesses are leaving the city at a high rate.
The citizens deserve better. They deserve to have people who uphold the law and maintain order. What they don’t deserve is more poor judgment that weakens the city further.
The San Francisco Elections Commission consists of a seven-member civilian board. The commission oversees elections and creates policies for the way they are conducted. In the tradition of bad decision-making, the board has appointed the first noncitizen, a Chinese immigrant rights advocate who isn’t even allowed to legally vote.
You have to ask yourself why anyone would do this. Basic logic dictates that the downside of this far outweighs any justification. There is no rationalization for appointing a non-citizen, from China no less, as an Election Commissioner.
Kelly Wong is the person in question. On her LinkedIn account, she identifies as the SF Elections Commissioner | Immigrant Rights Community Advocate at Chinese for Affirmative Action. She was sworn in last week by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin at San Francisco City Hall.
“I’ve seen how language and cultural barriers prevent immigrants with limited English proficiency from fully exercising their right to vote. There are always voices inside my head. Like, You can’t do it. You’re not competent. You’re an immigrant. This is not your country, That’s not true,” said Wong. “If I can do it, you can do it.”
Wong’s appointment came about due to a 2020 voter-approved measure that removed the citizenship requirement to serve on San Francisco boards, commissions, and advisory bodies. Each of the commission’s seven members is appointed by a different city official, such as the mayor, city attorney, or district attorney. In this case, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint Wong.
Peskin attempted to defend the action by saying:
I’m very impressed by her commitment to enfranchising people who rarely vote, to educating people about the voting process, and to bring in noncitizens and get them the tools they need as they become citizens.
Translation: With all of San Francisco’s problems, all these city officials care about is ingratiating themselves to another minority for votes. This is a well-orchestrated manipulation of voting rights. First, you create the loophole; then you drive through it. American citizens' rights be damned, this is another devious power play by liberal Democrats.
As usual, all parties involved will say the right things. Wong claims that she wants to increase engagement among the city’s immigrant and non-English-speaking communities. She contends that the ballot can be just as confusing for native English speakers to decipher the myriad of propositions, their arguments, and the city’s ranked-choice voting system.
In an interview with KQED before the swearing-in ceremony, Wong said, “Even though I’m fluent in English, I still encounter challenges in navigating a new system, let alone participating in political conversation and activities.”
Wong claims that one of her priorities is to ensure that voter materials are translated in a way that people can understand them. For instance, there isn’t an equivalent term for the word “reparations” in Cantonese or Mandarin.
I’ve seen how language and cultural barriers prevent immigrants with limited English proficiency from fully exercising their right to vote. Is there a way to do voter outreach that is not just about translation but can touch on political education while maintaining neutrality and impartiality in elections?
Wong immigrated to the U.S. in 2019 from Hong Kong to pursue graduate studies. Since 2022, Wong has done work of this kind as an immigrant rights advocate at Chinese for Affirmative Action, a civil rights group in San Francisco that focuses on the city’s Chinese community. Since commissioners are unpaid, Wong will continue her work as an advocate, helping people like Christina Ouyang, who immigrated here from China 13 years ago.
Speaking through an interpreter in an interview with KQED, Ouyang gave Wong kudos for her work. “Whenever I experience a language barrier or difficulties around access, I can come to Kelly for help,” Ouyang said in Cantonese.
My question is this. If she immigrated here 13 years ago, why is she still speaking in Cantonese? Is her level of commitment to learning this country’s values so low that she still hasn’t assimilated to the point of speaking or understanding the English language after 13 years?
Are these the people that we want voting for political officers of our country? Is it that much of a stretch to believe that the so-called “guidance” that someone like Wong could provide would include direction on who and what to vote for? I believe that these are legitimate concerns and that the idea of placing a non-citizen in this position is absurd.
Non-citizens aren’t totally barred from voting in San Francisco. In 2016, after multiple attempts to pass a similar measure, voters approved Proposition N, which allowed San Francisco noncitizens to vote in school board elections if they had a child who went to school in the district.
In 2022, a state Superior Court judge struck down the law in a case brought by the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative nonprofit. The California Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the ruling.
Vincent Pan is the co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action. His opinion on this issue is predictable.
I think that we have to go beyond, "Are we doing the bare minimum to how we can get everyone fully involved?”
I’m hoping there will be a day where it won’t be as newsworthy that you have someone who’s an immigrant and a noncitizen involved in helping make the city run better, especially in a city where such a large percentage of the community is immigrants.
Let’s consider the reverse of this situation. Would any city in China even remotely consider having a non-citizen in any type of influential position? The answer is of course a resounding NO.
This is not about our country being more accepting or more open-minded. This is about elected federal officials turning a deliberate blind eye to important matters and allowing a city and state to make dangerous mistakes in judgment. This is about the Democratic party’s endless pursuit of power that includes a woke agenda that is rotting the core of our nation.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member