The Feds Targeted Charlotte. Now a Local Democrat Who Helped ICE Faces Voters.

[In It to Win It]

https://boltsmag.org/north-carolina-2026-primary-immigration-policy/

Last July, North Carolina state Representative Carla Cunningham, a seven-term Democratic lawmaker from Mecklenburg County, startled party members when she stood on the state House floor and said “all cultures are not equal” and suggested immigrants “must assimilate” and “adapt to the culture of the country they wish to live in.”

Cunningham’s floor speech came after she cast the lone Democratic vote to override North Carolina Governor Josh Stein’s veto of a Republican-backed bill forcing local law enforcement agencies to work more closely with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The override succeeded thanks to her crossover vote. Cunningham, whose safely Democratic district includes part of Charlotte, a city that has been singled-out by the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, had already voted in 2024 to override the veto of another bill requiring sheriffs to cooperate with ICE.

“At the end of the day, she didn’t sound any better than some of these ultra-conservative people who were demeaning Black and Brown folk on a regular basis,” said Rev. Rodney Sadler, a Bible scholar and longtime community activist in Charlotte. “It felt like a betrayal of the utmost.”

Cunningham’s comments proved so problematic for Sadler that he said he realized that she was “no longer worthy of being our representative” and he had to run against her. “It drove me to a point of saying, ‘She needs to go, and she needs to go now,’” the 58-year-old pastor, who works at Charlotte’s Union Presbyterian Seminary, told Bolts.

NEW: When North Carolina's GOP wanted to pass a bill last year to require that local governments comply with ICE, they were one vote down.

A Democratic lawmaker gave that decisive vote—as she has on other GOP bills.

Now, she faces a primary challenge from a progressive activist... in 14 days.

— Taniel (@taniel.bsky.social) 2026-02-17T14:54:16.316Z

This lawmaker, Cunningham, didn't just vote in favor of the pro-ICE bill. She also explained her vote on the floor of the House to say that "all cultures are not equal."

She now faces a pastor, Sadler, who has been active in the Moral Monday's movement in North Carolina.

— Taniel (@taniel.bsky.social) 2026-02-17T14:58:30.339Z

[UpInArms]

1. Am glad there is a strong democratic person

Who cares about what is real and important in Charlotte

[Traildogbob]

2. This cities Dem party is questionable

Remember the woman that ran as a Dem and switched to MAGA after elections, giving our legislature a super majority, There by making our Dem Gov unable to do anything?
We need to start making damn sure our candidates are not plants.
Never forget, the Russian ASSet Skunk stripped beeeeeatch, now head of our intelligence (and lacking any) ran as a democrat in Hawaii?
And funded well from DNC, now as MAGA as it gets. And a traitorous, treasonous Putin plant.
Vet intensely any candidate, because this switching after winning a seat is now a GQP scam.
And we spend for their campaign taking away cash from real representation.
Being on a razors edge of political Balance every damn candidate is critical.

[AZJonnie]

3. My stance comes down to what is meant by "equal" and "assimilation" in the context, though "must" is troubling

First, as a people, we need to recognize that it’s not just the numbers that matter, but also where the immigrants come from and the culture they bring with them to another country. As a social scientist report, all cultures are not equal. Some immigrants come and believe they can function in isolation, refusing to adapt. I suggest they must assimilate. Adapt to the culture they wish to live in

It is true that not all cultures are equal. If they were equal, the entire concept of culture would be nonsensical.

The philosophical question of whether the general sentiments she expresses are morally correct or morally incorrect is one which has vexed scholars, politicians, and the hoi polloi alike since humanity began systematically began farming, moving into settlement-style living arrangements, and creating systems of currency. Few questions are historically older ones than this.

These would be the implied questions: how much assimilation should be expected, to what degree should it be mandated by The State, and how much accommodation for other cultures are the "natives" rightfully obliged to provide? Acting as if these ancient questions have simple, cut-and-dry answers that everyone must subscribe to, else be branded as bad people, is unreasonable, IMHO.

I'd argue it's primarily when one approaches these grand questions with an attitude about the superiority of one's own culture (esp. if race-based) and/or introduces the concept of "state mandates" that they often cease to be interesting academic and philosophic questions, and become instead nefarious and morally questionable.

Still, I'd wager few of us would argue that, say, Afghanistan's current anti-democratic, hardcore patriarchal "culture" is not (in many if not most senses) inferior to the "culture" of, say, Finland. As such, we might well at least HOPE that persons arriving from such places will indeed assimilate, even if we'd also bristle at the idea of saying "they must, by State decree, else risk incarceration".