News Item: Wet Streets Cause Rain

The "debate" about illegal immigration just gets weirder and weirder. First Arizona gets condemned by the President and Attorney General, the State of California and even foriegn heads of state for having the audacity to treat federal immigration laws as, well, the law. It has been almost comical to hear the "arguments" that liberals have been offering up when they can stop sputtering long enough to get a sentence out. Outrage has been in abundance, but analysis has been in short supply. They are quick to tell you it's bad law, but their reasons are off point and lame. Their biggest problem is that they are convinced that it will be used by a police force of rednecks to randomly select dark skinned individuals off the street and demand their papers. AG Eric Holder announced he was looking to challenge the law on constitutional grounds. That, by the way is exactly the sort of thing that attorneys general are supposed to do. They are supposed to use their legal training and skills to make sure that state laws do not conflict or interfere with federal laws or their enforcement. However, I would like to assume that such an official would have actually read the law before deciding to challenge it. He didn't. It was after all 10 pages long. Home land security chief, Janet Napolitano, formerly the governor of Arizona also condemned the law. She then admitted that she also had not read it. Assistant Sec. of State PJ Crowley then attended a conference with China on human rights and apologized to them for the Arizona law, admitting that it was a violation of human rights. I'd ask you to guess what's next but that would just be rubbing it in. Of course, he hadn't read it. I promise you that if the three of them hadn't read it, neither had Obama. By the way, they all made these admissions about a week after after the condemnations and each of them seemed genuinely surprised that people were expecting them to have read it before taking a position. Their attitude was sort of "Why would I bother to read it?"

But on the other hand maybe that explains why their talking points are so disjointed and lame. The moonbat Madison city council voted a resolution asking our sherrif to stop turning illegal aliens who end up in his jail, over to ICE. Their convoluted reasoning is that if the illegal aliens are in fear of being deported by law enforcement, then they would be reluctant to help law enforcement solve crimes. So they want him to stop identifying illegal aliens so that the illegal alien community will be more willing to help solve the crimes that the illegal aliens are committing. Got that? Me neither.

The libs have great sympathy for the fact that illegal aliens have to "live in the shadows." Yes they do. They have to live in fear that their law breaking will be discovered and they will face consequences. But it's a situation of their own making. But if you really want to see them squirm, just ask them how we should deal with it. They will not offer any solution other than simply looking the other way. They refuse to say things like, "Let's increase legal immigration limits" or "Let's create a guest worker program." Certainly you will never hear them say, "Let's keep them out by securing the border." They want no part of enforcement.

Meanwhile, one of the emergency rooms in Arizona recently went bankrupt because of all the illegal aliens seeking primary treatment there.