There has been, even on this blog, a lot of argument about illegal immigration with points raised about whether illegal immigration is good or bad for the economy; whether it is fair to stop people entering the country illegally; whether or not we should expel those here illegally, etc.

None of this matters. It is completely irrelevant.

There is only one valid point to this debate.  What is the law?

If you come across the border without the proper permission, is that against the law? If you take a job without the proper permission, is it against the law? If you drive without the proper permission, is it against the law? If you use someone else’s identity to establish tax records, bank accounts, rental agreements, is it against the law?

If the answer to any of the above questions is YES, there lies the only relevant point in the debate.

If you don’t like the law, work hard to get it changed. However, you cannot claim to embody justice and fairness while disregarding the very essence of justice and fairness - our laws.

I spoke yesterday that the “illegal” in illegal immigration doesn’t seem to mean anything to anyone on either side of the issue anymore. It never really had much meaning from the leftists, and has been diluted to a great extent now on the right.

Well, another phrase seems to have taken on this same semblance of androgyny on the issue of illegal immigration - “Zero Tolerance”. Now, I cast no dispersion whatsoever on the men and women protecting our borders day-to-day. They do a fine job with the resources and policies they are handed. This is a policy matter.

Roughly 1000 illegal immigrants are apprehended everyday in the Tucson sector. This is, by vast amounts, the most active area for illegal border crossers. Most of those apprehended are provided with the “catch-and-release” policy of “voluntary return to Mexico” - thus allowing them the opportunity to actually enter the country legally without repercussions. However, the Tucson sector bureaucrats will now be prosecuting 40 per day of these illegal entrants to show that they mean business, as a part of their “zero tolerance” program.

I understand the cost of prosecuting illegal entrants. I understand the burden this places on the court. However, there are two points I would like to make:

Every traffic court in the state handles dozens of cases everyday and no one blinks an eyelash about the burden on the court system. There are prosecuting attorneys there, but no defense attorneys appointed by the court for the benefit of citizens.

Forty indictments per day is not “zero tolerance” It is 960 tolerance.

Update: This is why the “catch-and-release” policies are a bad idea. Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Santana Batiz-Aceves, 39, a twice-deported illegal immigrant with a history of drug charges, was arrested about 11:49 a.m. Friday at his Chandler home near Arizona Avenue and Ray Road. He was booked into Maricopa County’s Fourth Avenue Jail on suspicion of 25 felonies, including kidnapping, child molestation, sexual abuse, sexual conduct with a minor, aggravated assault, burglary and trespassing.

It goes like this:

All of a sudden, Assistant HR Managers around the US are in jeopardy of being charged with crimes for hiring illegal immigrants.

Sometime soon, perhaps by the end of this month, Christopher Lamb may plead guilty to harboring an illegal alien. Lamb, 37, was a human resources assistant manager at Swift & Co., among the largest beef and pork processors in the U.S. As immigration emerges as one of the most contentious issues of this election season, his case is emblematic of newly aggressive tactics against management by the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency, or ICE.

To these people, the government is at fault for enforcing existing laws. The exploitative hiring practices designed to do nothing more than increase profits are not the problem. A culture of lawbreaking by these companies is not the problem.

For years there has been an implicit understanding among businesses that need workers, illegal immigrants willing to do those jobs, communities that benefit from such commerce, and a government that rarely intervened. Now that understanding has been torn apart.

The above statement is nothing more than a lie. The communities are made of the same people who are tired of the burden of illegal immigration. The government is made of people elected by those in the community. The implicit understanding is only between the illegal immigrants and the businesses that need workers well below the cost of a citizen.

If a business cannot compete with others in their industry without breaking the law, maybe they don’t belong in business.

Citing an inevitable “climate of fear” among illegal immigrants, Alex Navidad, an immigration lawyer and illegal immigration advocate, makes the following threat to the City of Phoenix:

Changing Phoenix police’s immigration-enforcement policies will create a climate of fear in Phoenix that could lead to multimillion-dollar lawsuits and even riots, speakers said Thursday at a raucous town hall.

And

Don’t let Phoenix become the next Watts, the next LA riots,” Alex Navidad, an immigration lawyer, said in an impassioned plea to the panel. “That’s what’s going to happen. A community that’s fearful, with loads of police, can only lead to tragedy.”

So, create a climate of fear through threats of lawsuits and riots simply because the city wants to institute a policy which allows them to ask a simple question during their interactions with people requiring police attention. The question is, “Are you a US citizen?”

Hillary is having a tough time with a policy decision regarding giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants. It seems, she is not quite sure what her policy should be:

First, Hillary is for the measure, if Governors are for it. Maybe.

October 16, Hillary supports Spitzer’s actions to spark action at the federal level to bring illegal immigrants out of the dark.

October 30, Hillary states Spitzer is proposing the illegal immigrant driver’s license because President Bush has not signed any bills into law bringing about immigration reform - omitting that her party, which controls both houses, has been unable to present such a bill to the president. Then she retracts her support of the measure in the same debate. then she supports it again.

October 31 - she Supports the measure

November 2 - she supports it generally, but doesn’t know all the details

November 4 - She’s not for or against it, but she supports Governor Spitzer’s efforts because it is President Bush’s fault.

November 13 - She supports it depending on what state it’s in.

November 14 - “As President, I will not support drivers’ licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.”

What is most interesting to me is she acknowledges in the November 13 interview that there are a great number of people in her home state who are not there legally. If she knows they are breaking the law, why does she not call for the law to be enforced? Isn’t one of the first rules of life in our society that if you don’t like a law, you change it - not break it? Is that not her first duty to the constituents of her state?

You remember the Westboro church that turns out with all of their finery and signs to protest Military funerals? You remember - I told you about this a couple of years ago.

Now, I do not know what legal basis was used to establish this ruling, but the “God Hates Fags” people are going to have to pay $10.9 millions after protesting the wrong funeral.

It’s nice to see people so motivated and animated about something they feel a conviction about. I just wish they spent their energy on something good, rather than spewing hate. At the risk of being presumptuos, these people are not Christians - more like the Pharisees.