Require proof of citizenship to vote: New idea?

Measure 200, as it is known, would require proof of citizenship to vote or to receive public benefits.

The response from the do-nothing political establishment (of both major parties) is predictable: The measure will "cost too much" because it is "too vague." With that weak argument causing snickers, the open borders crowd resorts to calling the measure xenophobic or even racist.
What's so terribly wrong with requiring proper identification to vote? And why exactly should taxpayers in border states be forced to foot the bill for health care and welfare benefits, among other public costs, for people who have chosen to break the law by entering this country illegally?

Sadly, there seems to be a bipartisan consensus in Washington and in state capitals to not enforce the law. Undersecretary of Homeland Security Asa Hutchinson even said in a recent press interview that it is "probably accurate" to say that no one in immigration enforcement is out looking for illegal immigrants. In a world in which foreign terrorists delight in murdering Americans by the score, such a statement by the nation's top immigration official is downright insane.

We've said it many times before, but it always bears repeating in this context: We do not oppose immigration per se. Legal immigration, followed by assimilation into the American nation, has greatly enriched our country. But the current wave of uncontrolled illegal immigration, heavily weighted toward illegal immigration from a single country against the backdrop of an anti-assimilation bias in officialdom, is unprecedented in scope and poses a very real threat not only to immediate national security but also, in the longer term, to national unity.