Since Arizona's just illegal immigrationlaw states in large part what federal law already states, why arepro-illegal groups and persons not protesting out in front of the WhiteHouse and threatening D.C. with silly boycotts?

Since 1986,federal law (Title 8 US Code, 1304 & 1324)has held that: it is acrime for aliens to refuse to register and be fingerprinted;

aliens 18 years and older must carry an alien registration card or proof of registration;

employers are prohibited from hiring illegal aliens;

employersmust verify identify and eligibility of all new hires through thepresentation of specified documents - if they do not have the correctdocuments that cannot be employed.

News reports on Arizona's newlaw love to mis-use the word "now" when telling listeners/readers thatimmigrants must "now" carry documents to prove their legal status inArizona.

This has been the case since 1986 throughout the wholecountry, thus the word "now" is used to inflame the controversy andoverstate the significance of the new law.

But that's expected,many reporting the news, like Katie Couric, have never really proventhemselves to be professional newspersons.

obama hasn'tinvalidated these laws so shouldn't he be included in the criticismfrom those who favor illegals making themselves at home?

Similarly,obama's Homeland Security chief, Janet Napolitano, as democrat governorof Arizona in 2007 signed the Legal Arizona Workers Act which gavecourts the right to revoke the business license of any business thatemploys illegals...why are they not protesting Janet?

Now thatshe is in obama's government however, Janet is questioning theconstitutionality of the current illegal immigration law signed by thecurrent republican governor.

That's being sort of Kerry-esque: "I was actually tough on immigration before I was weak on it."

In2007 there were at least 35 local ordinances passed along the samelines as the Arizona law, so Arizona's law is not nearly as historicaland earth shattering as CNN would leave you to believe, yet it isgetting played as such.

Some twit with a crayon included aneditorial cartoon in USA Today on Thursday which showed a sheriffconfronting a group of people holding the constitution and demanding tosee their "papers."

This has been ok under federal law since 1986, has he used this cartoon before? Probably not.

Federallaw illegal immigration law since 1986 has not been carried out -enforced, there in lies the source of today;s discontent.

Aphoto caption in April 28 edition of USA Today said that demonstratorsin Illinois were recently arrested as they attempted to interfere withthe scheduled transportation of immigrants ordered to be deported.

They are protesting the carrying out of the law...incredible.

These people ought to be put on hold when they next call 911.

Anotherphoto caption showed protesters of Arizona's law in NY City anddescribed these twits as "supporters of illegal immigrants..."

Supporting illegal activity?

What other laws would you like us to ignore?

Can I choose one?

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center