When is a sanctuary city not a sanctuary?  When it's declared by a poser more interested in appearing charitable than actually being charitable.

The Democrat party is infested with such shameless actors.  They sanctimoniously claim moral superiority over the MAGA masses, while they go about destroying all that is good about America — using illegal immigration as a tool.

It turns out that Lori Lightfoot, the Chicago mayor, is one such poser — just like the "humanitarians" on Martha's Vineyard.  Her city of Chicago is officially designated as a sanctuary city — prohibiting local law enforcement from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to deport illegal aliens.  But it turns out that Chicago isn't as welcoming as the "sanctuary" declaration would imply.

Mayor Lightfoot has exposed her insincerity through a running verbal battle with Texas governor Greg Abbott.  It seems Governor Abbott has been offering illegal aliens in Texas free bus tickets to sanctuary cities.  Why wouldn't people in a place where they aren't appreciated want a ticket to a place where they would be welcomed?  Thousands have accepted the offer.  It's reported that Abbott has bussed over 12,000 illegal aliens to Chicago in the past year.

Lightfoot is begging him to stop the practice — claiming that what he's doing is inhumane.  She hasn't explained how transporting people from a place where they could be arrested to a place where they will be safe (from ICE, anyway) is inhumane.  She insists that Chicago doesn't have the resources to deal with an influx of migrants equivalent to what El Paso must absorb every 12 days.  It's all very entertaining — and revealing.

I've never understood the whole "sanctuary city" thing. If they can't handle the influx of aliens, why are they inviting them in?  The definition of a sanctuary is a place of refuge and protection.  It's not much of a protective offer when those seeking the protection are told to stay out.

But Lori and her fellow radicals keep telling us that unlimited immigration is a good thing.

Open borders are supposed to be good for the economy by providing cheap labor to perform the jobs that Americans will not do.  That argument should insult both immigrants and Americans — but the Dems think it makes sense.

Accepting the "immigrants" into our communities is also supposed to be good for our humanity.  By showing sympathy to the world's downtrodden, we can achieve salvations through charitable deeds and caring for the less fortunate.

But now Lightfoot is pleading for Governor Abbott to stop sending them.  Has she had too much of a good thing?  Is there a limit to the prosperity and salvation that Chicagoans can tolerate?  Or was that narrative always a lie — which Abbott has exposed for the cost of a few bus tickets?

Have Mayor Lightfoot's complaints accidently exposed the Democrat party scam — that it was never about prosperity or charity?  Has she revealed that the open borders argument is actually something much less noble?  Has the "no human being is illegal" rallying cry really been about the importation of voters and chaos, rather than charity?

If Hispanics are reliable Democrat voters, then the Dems just need to import a bunch of Hispanics and relax the rules so they can vote.  There's no need to sell a radical agenda.  Just welcome them in, give them a bunch of free stuff, and tell them how to vote.  It's an easy path to electoral dominance — just like Ruy Teixeira promised — though the Dems haven't been paying attention to Ruy recently.  Now he's telling them that they could have had electoral dominance if they hadn't gone bat-guano crazy.  The Dems are selectively ignoring that last part of his advice.

Unlimited immigration could also be about the chaos.  If the radicals want to replace our constitutional republic with something a bit less personal freedom–oriented, a little chaos works for them.  Is it possible that the people who wish to gift us a socialist paradise see some value in social conflict?  Is there some amount of chaos that would convince Americans that our founding principles don't work?  That it's time for a change — that the radicals will gladly help us figure out?  In their minds, are the crime, drug abuse, and social burden from open borders not a tragedy at all — but rather simply a transition cost?

Was their plan all along to

• declare sanctuaries — inviting in crime and dependents,
• overburden social safety nets — to the point of failure, and
• promote diversity and hyphenated citizenship — until our national identity is destroyed?

Once we're ashamed to be Americans, our cities become unlivable, and our country is in financial ruin, will the people who broke everything offer a ready-made plan to fix it?

Occam's Razor would suggest that people like Lori Lightfoot are just fools — the simplest explanation for something usually being the correct explanation.  But if the actions of the left were just idiocy, there would be more randomness to our collapse.  However, their actions have resulted in an unrelenting march toward tyranny and have been coordinated at a national level.  What we are experiencing seems less like stupidity and more like a well orchestrated evil plan — with emphasis on the "evil."

Americans are facing an approaching crisis. Has the "sanctuary city" movement actually been part of a bigger overarching plan — to facilitate social collapse?  Could they be that evil?

Does Occam's Razor apply to us?  Are we approaching crisis not because we agree with the radicals, but because we were blind to the advance of tyranny, and too lazy to stop it once we saw it?

John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho.  He has written for American Thinker and American Free News Network.  He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

Image: Lori Lightfoot.  Credit: MacLean Center via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0 (cropped).