Mayor Johnson (much touted, celebrated, and excused by the Due Dissidence guys) seems to be facing a growing rebellion among aldermen besieged by furious constituents.

And, uncomfortable as it may be for this city to admit, this plays right into the political instincts of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and others who figured “sanctuary cities” might be less than enthusiastic when forced to confront the kinds of numbers familiar to communities nearer the border. We dislike what Abbott chose to do with human beings in need, but he calculated what would happen and it is pretty much coming true.

Mayor Johnson... is going to have to abandon his typical platitudes about Chicago’s welcoming spirit and face up to the reality that migrant shelters do impact the quality of life of those around them.

...

Johnson still needs to use whatever influence he has to get the state, the feds and, yes, the county more involved. After all, temporary medical facilities were stood up fast in Chicago during the COVID crisis.

Arguing about the sanctuary city issue doesn’t change the short-term problem.

And solving the short-term problem (which won't happen) doesn't change the long-term problem: that liberals have no limiting principles. Billions of "human beings in need" exist all over the planet. How many should American taxpayers allow in, and treat, feed, clothe, educate, and house? For how long? What's the number?

In case the Chicago Tribune didn't notice, "the COVID crisis" did one hell of a number on actual Americans - you know, the people whose interests the government is supposed to be serving, as distinguished from "human beings" generally - and the key word in "temporary medical facilities" is temporary. "Human beings in need" will be in need longer than that. And since liberals will never countenance enforcing immigration laws, more "human beings in need" will arrive tomorrow. And more the day after that.

What's the number? 500 million? One billion? Two? More?