The voters see mass immigration is a problem. They react against it and pass a law. Judges decide the law doesn't matter, because obviously the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to provide illegal immigrants with an unlimited amount of welfare payments stolen from Americans. Eventually, Americans are simply replaced by the new invading population, whereupon they are lectured they weren't generous enough in offering unlimited admission and benefits to begin with. And then in the final stage, ridiculous supposed "conservatives" and "libertarians" tell us this is actually how "limited government" functions.

It's the usual way democracy works in this wonderful American experiment in self-government.The drama is playing out again in Montana. One of the few bright spots in 2012 was LR-121, a law which restricted illegal immigrants from receiving welfare benefits and requiring illegals to be reported for possible deportation. Naturally, the Republican Party ran screaming from the bill and its Senate candidate duly lost. However, LR-121 passed with almost 80 percent of the vote

But the point of our government isn't to represent the people and serve our interests but to replace us an make our lives worse. Therefore, a court decided this law just couldn't be allowed.

In a unanimous decision, the court struck down the last piece of a voter-approved law meant to deter undocumented immigrants from living and working in the “Treasure State.” It upholds a 2014 ruling stating that the law denying unemployment benefits, university enrollment and other services to people who are in the country illegally was unconstitutional. The Montana Supreme went further, rejecting the one remaining position that required state workers to report to federal immigration officials the names of applicants who are in the U.S. undocumented. [Montana court strikes down anti-immigrant law, allows undocumented to get services, Fox News Latino, May 12, 2016]

The courts ruled the state was attempting to meddle in an area of federal jurisdiction using a term that is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the federal laws. The entire law is pre-empted by federal immigration laws, the Montana Supreme Court opinion said. Plaintiffs' attorney Shahid Haque-Hausrath said the decision sends a message that the state has no business creating its own immigrant enforcement schemes. "The law was a discriminatory attempt to drive immigrants out of the state, and would have unjustly targeted immigrants with valid federal immigration status," he said.

What's the rationale for such a decision?Of course, it's the same old argument. Only the federal government can enforce immigration law. However, it is the policy of the federal government to enable as much Third World immigration as possible. This allows more cheap labor for Republicans, more welfare dependents for Democrats, and more multicultural grievances to adjudicate and complain about for academics, reporters, and bureaucrats. Everyone wins, except for Americans who have to pay for it. But their votes don't matter anyway.

Hopefully this will be appealed. But it's these kinds of examples why I can't take anyone who babbles about "the Constitution," or "limited government," or "Founding principles" seriously. This is what all that rhetoric boils down to in practice, a criminal conspiracy by a government against its own people. And it's because of cases like this people are turning to someone like Donald Trump to save us from a regime far more unrepresentative, tyrannical and despicable than that of the relatively benign George III.