Via Hoosierboy, we get this gem from the O regarding the new Arizona law regarding proof of citizenship when stopped by the cops:
“We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress,” the president said. “We can’t turn law-abiding American citizens, and law-abiding immigrants, into subjects of suspicion and abuse.”
Is there something that he and I see differently? Perhaps the water in the Whitehouse makes things look different to him that what I see here in the midwest. THESE FOLKS ARE ILLEGAL, and no amount of spin changes that. You can call them “undocumented workers” if you wish, but they are still illegal immigrants. They are lawbreakers, and more importantly, they are NOT good for the country. They have no ties to the country, do not assimilate, and take jobs and services from other, legal citizens of this country.
If I call my local corner crack dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist” does that make him any less of a drug dealing criminal? Is his product any less illegal or damaging to others if I call it “recreational unlicensed pharmaceuticals”? Will it kill or damage any fewer lives?
If I rob a bank, (which is illegal, because only the government should be able to steal, and they hate the competition), and instead you call me a wealth redistibutor, has a crime been committed?
I put forth to you, that no use of semantics changes the fact that these folks targeted by the Arizona law are illegal, have committed a crime by entering this country. Nothing changes that. They have invaded nearly every corner of the land.
Illegal is still illegal. Which laws are ok to break?