Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS | More
It has been a busy few weeks, and there is no shortage of headlines demanding attention. From the Houston City Council’s controversial immigration ordinance to the Dignity Act making waves in Congress, birthright citizenship landing before the Supreme Court, and the situation with Iran — there is a lot to unpack. So let’s get into it.
Houston City Council Gets It Wrong on Immigration
This week, the Houston City Council voted to approve what they are calling Proposition A — an ordinance that essentially directs the Houston Police Department to limit its cooperation with ICE. Several of the more progressive members of the council pushed it through, and only five had the courage to vote against it.
I went down to City Hall to speak on this issue personally, and what I witnessed was telling. There was a long line of organized left-wing groups, each taking their turn at the microphone to explain why the ordinance was necessary. The common refrain was that the Hispanic community is afraid — afraid to call the police, afraid to go to the hospital, afraid to go to the gas station or the grocery store.
Here is where my perspective as a naturalized American citizen comes in. I have had to show my naturalization papers and my passport to do the most basic things for as long as I have lived in this country. I do not think twice about it, because that is the reality of being foreign-born and legal. I have never been afraid to go to the doctor, the gas station, or anywhere else — because I am here legally. The people experiencing fear are experiencing it because they are not.
The Houston City Council has no business making immigration policy. Immigration is a federal matter, full stop. Instead of creating local ordinances that encourage police to circumvent federal law, the council should be advocating for legislative solutions at the national level. You do not fix a bad law by passing another law that breaks the first one. You fix the law itself.
Hats off to the five council members who voted against this — Amy Peck, Fred Flickinger, Mary Nan Huffman, Twila Carter, and Willie Davis. They voted for the Constitution and for the safety of every Houstonian. Two of them represent Kingwood, where I live, and I am especially proud of that.
I also have to call out Julian Ramirez, who was elected on more conservative principles and still voted in favor of this ordinance. He allowed himself to be swayed by arguments rooted in emotion rather than law, and in doing so, he turned his back on the people who put him in office. I hope he is primaried, and I hope he never shows his face at a Republican luncheon again without being asked to explain himself.
And to Cindy Siegel’s credit — our Harris County party chair has filed a complaint with Attorney General Ken Paxton, because this ordinance likely violates state laws already on the books prohibiting exactly this kind of behavior.
The Dignity Act: A Common-Sense Solution Nobody Wants to Talk About
This brings me to the other side of the immigration problem — the side that the pundits on both the left and the right refuse to address honestly.
Under current law, there is no path to legal status for people who are already in the country illegally. None. Most Americans do not realize this. They assume that undocumented immigrants simply choose not to pursue citizenship, but the truth is that once you are here illegally, the system offers you no way forward. That is a problem that has to be dealt with.
Congresswoman Maria Salazar, a Republican from Florida, has introduced the Dignity Act. The right-wing commentators — Steve Bannon, Meghan Kelly, Laura Ingraham, even Charlie Kirk — have all come out against it. Meghan Kelly spent twenty minutes mocking the name and insisting we just deport everyone. That sounds great on television, but it is not a viable strategy for dealing with twenty to thirty million people.
Here is what the Dignity Act actually proposes: anyone who has been in the country since before 2021 and has not committed a crime would receive a seven-year legal status. No path to citizenship — just the ability to live and work without hiding. After seven years, there is a five-year renewal period. At the end of those twelve years, there is an option for permanent residency.
I support the framework of this act with one critical modification: permanent residency should be the ceiling. No citizenship. No voting rights. Ever.
My reasoning is simple. The Democrats allowed millions of people into this country because they wanted to import a voter base. Rewarding that strategy by eventually granting citizenship and voting rights is unacceptable. However, ignoring the reality that these people exist and are embedded in our communities — working jobs, paying taxes, raising families — is equally unacceptable.
Many of the DACA recipients are now in their forties. Some have been here since they were toddlers. They do not speak the language of their birth country. They do not know the culture. Sending a forty-year-old who has lived in America since age two back to Ecuador is not a serious policy proposal — it is a talking point.
If you want to solve the problem, you have to start somewhere. The Dignity Act is that starting point. If you would rather keep immigration as a wedge issue to rally your base, then just keep doing what you are doing. But do not pretend you care about solutions.
And to the people who are afraid to go to the grocery store because of their status — if that is truly intolerable to you, your options are to deal with the consequences of your circumstances or to go home. You cannot disrupt an entire country’s legal framework because your situation is uncomfortable. That is what happens when you operate outside the law.
Birthright Citizenship and the Long Game
The birthright citizenship case now before the Supreme Court deserves more attention than it is getting.
The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure citizenship for the children of freed slaves after the Civil War. The case law most often cited — involving a Chinese family in the 1800s — involved parents who were legal residents. That is a fundamentally different situation from what is happening today, where an entire tourism industry exists around flying to the United States, giving birth, and returning home with an American citizen.
The long-term implications are staggering. An American citizen born abroad to foreign parents can have children who are also American citizens. Those children can eventually vote. Over generations, this creates a mechanism by which a foreign power could cultivate enough citizens to influence American elections without a single person ever living on American soil long-term. It is a slow, methodical strategy, and dismissing it as far-fetched ignores how patient and strategic certain nations — particularly China — have proven to be.
Only about thirty countries in the world have birthright citizenship. There is a reason the rest of the world does not. We should be examining whether the Fourteenth Amendment, as currently interpreted, serves its original purpose or has become a vulnerability.
The Filibuster, the SAVE Act, and Voter ID
While we are on the subject of broken systems, the filibuster needs to be reformed. I am not necessarily in favor of eliminating it entirely, but the current version — where a senator can effectively block legislation without ever standing up and making a case — is a mockery of the process. If you want to filibuster, stand up and talk until you cannot stand anymore. That is how it was designed. The modified version where you can go home, eat a sandwich, take a nap, and come back the next day needs to end.
This matters because legislation like the SAVE Act — which would secure our election systems — cannot pass when eighty percent of the country wants it but a procedural loophole allows a minority to block it indefinitely.
On the topic of voter ID: the argument that requiring identification to vote is somehow discriminatory against women or minorities is insulting. You need an ID to open a bank account, to receive welfare benefits, to enroll your children in school, and to board an airplane. The suggestion that certain groups of Americans are incapable of obtaining identification is not compassion — it is condescension. If someone cannot figure out how to get an ID, they probably are not equipped to evaluate candidates and cast an informed vote. Every American should have a passport at this point. It effectively serves as a national ID, and it would settle the issue once and for all.
Iran: The Right Decision, Possibly the Wrong Execution
Shifting to foreign policy — I believe the world is a safer place without the Islamic Republic in charge of Iran. They have been the largest state sponsor of terrorism for forty-seven years, and the Iranian people themselves are out in the streets celebrating, not protesting.
That said, I am not entirely comfortable with how the execution has unfolded. I do not think the people who advised the president on this anticipated that it would extend beyond a few days, and now it is heading into months. The Strait of Hormuz situation sets a concerning precedent for international shipping, and there needs to be some form of international regulation to prevent any single nation from shutting down a critical waterway on a whim.
I also find it remarkable that the Democrats are now protesting a ceasefire. At some point, we need to figure out how to row in the same direction on issues of national security, because the level of divisiveness in this country is approaching a point of no return.
The Common Thread
Every one of these issues — Houston’s immigration ordinance, the Dignity Act, birthright citizenship, the filibuster, voter ID, Iran — shares a common thread: we have lost the ability to approach problems with common sense.
We live on the extreme fringes of every debate while the majority of Americans sit in the middle, wondering how we got here. Politicians posture for cameras instead of solving problems. Pundits chase ratings instead of telling the truth. And the rest of us are left sorting through propaganda to find facts.
I started Talking Purple because I believe that most political issues are not left or right — they are right or wrong. If you do not like a law, change it through the proper channels. If you want to solve a problem, start with the facts, not the rhetoric. And if eighty percent of us agree on something, we should be able to get it done.
That is not a radical position. It is common sense. And it is long past time we made it common again.
Beth Guide is a naturalized American citizen, political commentator, and the voice behind Talking Purple. She lives in Kingwood, Texas. Have thoughts? Reach out — even the hate mail is welcome.
