Border enforcement from Obama is about is believable as David Axelrod's comb-over.
by the Left Coast Rebel
The Hill has this from Chicago-criminal David Axelrod (and Obama senior adviser). My analysis in bold:
White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod on Sunday defended the administration's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law, saying state laws such as the controversial one in the border state "dillute" federal efforts to secure the border.
The Federal government has refused to enforce Federal border laws on the books. The obvious here being massive voting blocs that illegals represent, cheap labor and a demographic conducive to the Leviathan.
"One of our concerns about this law is it will divert our effort to go after criminals," Axelrod said on "Fox News Sunday."
If the Feds were to 'go after' criminals, they would seal the border and deport criminal illegals that overcrowd our prison systems. Anyone that thinks that the Feds are seriously going after the criminal-border element is a lunatic.
"We can't have a patchwork of 50 states developing their own immigration policy," he added. Axelrod defended the federal government's efforts on illegal immigration. "No administration has been tougher on enforcement, no administration has gone after the employers the way we have," he said.
Ok, so then why are you and your cronies mum about 'sanctuary cities' such as San Francisco that are in direct violation of Federal immigration law? Did you know that there are dozens of sanctuary cities in California alone, all in direct violation of Federal law?
Exit question - Why haven't the Feds sued those cities? Why have they allowed the 'patchwork of cities' that are breaking the law? Why? Selective law application like this from the White House is what third world regimes are made of.
Remember in November and never forget. Via Memeorandum.
Posts
I heard that comment. I thought "dilute" was strange Orwellian speak for "add to" or "make stronger".
ReplyDeleteGood point proof. What do you think of my point on 'sanctuary cities' too?
ReplyDeleteIt's spot on. How can they, with a straight face complain about a "patchwork" of immigration laws and reject an ordinance (AZ) that mirrors the federal one while condoning the immigration anarchy that is "sanctuary cities"?
ReplyDeleteTotally, in fact the 'sanctuary' point is so correct that I wish Tea Party candidates would pounce on it and drive it home.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been easier to overlook their hypocrisy had they simply left Arizona alone!
ReplyDeleteThey themselves put the spotlight on it.