As IF Times

link Heroic Giffords Intern Could Be Asked For Papers Under Arizona Immigration Law.

Apologies in advance for referring to a Huffington Post article, but the inanity of this piece was just too glaring to ignore.  Yes, that Huffington Post, where the truth is merely an inconvenience.  Even before the smoke clears on the shooting rampage in Arizona, this writer of the linked article feels compelled to spin the story with a political angle. 

One of the heros in the aftermath of the shooting was congresswoman Giffords’  aide, Daniel Hernandez,  who heroically stemmed the bleeding from the congresswoman after she had been shot.  Now, the insightful writer muses that Mr. Hernandez may be required to prove he is not an illegal immigrant in accordance with a proposed Arizona law. 

So what? If you buy booze in a liquor store, you have to prove that you are of age. If you want to go to country club and have drinks there, you are expected to provide  proof of membership.  If you want to drive a car, you need a license. If you want to be a resident of the state of Arizona, you need to have proof of citizenship.  But in none of the above cases would exclusion from those groups prevent someone from acting as any humane person would in an emergency situation such as the one that transpired in Tuscon. 

That is a question of morality, not of legality.  Is the author implying that illegal immigrants would be less likely to save people from a burning building because their immigration status may be at stake?  While this is possible, I think this implies a cynicism on  the morality of the people who may find themselves in that predicament bordering on insulting. Only the rabid left would be thinking of political ramifications in a life and death circumstance.  Would someone like Hernandez be less inclined to help because he owed back taxes? Or was tardy in child support payments?  Most rational people are not concerned with left or right politics in making day to day life decisions.  That prism of life is left to the underemployed nutbars who pose as journalists and pundits. 

There’s an old joke in the financial business that goes; what’s the difference between a bond and a bond trader?  Answer, a bond matures.  I wouldn’t bet that on Huffington Post scribes.  Heaven help people like this writer if the world actually operated as cynicially as she depicts.  Imagine if she were ever to be wheeled into a “conservative” hospital during an emergency and the doctors asked, ” okay, who was the republican vice presidential candidate in 1963, we only need initials?”.   That’ll learn her.

link Pushy fliers may show up on TSA’s radar – USATODAY.com.

Much ink has been spilt on the “egregious” new law in Arizona attempting to suppress the chaos and violence associated with the out of control illegal immigration problem in that state.  Impassioned pleas from opponents of the new measure insist that the new law is draconian and and nothing less than a full assault on human rights and promotes racism.  Politicians at the highest level are denouncing the new law even though it essentially mirrors a federal law already on the books.  Even actors and comedians, known of course for their broad intellectual grasp of major issues, are weighing in with their opposition to the new law.  If an intellectual heavyweight such as George Lopez thinks the law is unjust, well maybe we’d better rethink the whole immigration policy.

What a waste of time.  There are far greater numbers of troublemakers attempting to get on planes than trying to sneak across borders.  Why waste time, effort, money and possibly life on enforcing such unpopular things such as immigration law.  The efforts are much better expended on airport harassment.  The cost benefit analysis skews the results considerably towards airport security as a means of spotting criminal behaviour.  Rather than having to pay trained police officers armed with deadly weapons, we need only pay for minimum wage workers to screen for troublemakers.  Instead of facing potentially armed drug criminals, the TSA people need only face the unarmed young and elderly.  Naturally, with all the vocal groups protesting human rights violations, they would have to exclude Muslims, Blacks and Hispanics from special screening.

If you are part of a constituency that has never had a history of causing grief to the nation, well you’re in for special scrutiny.  The elderly, the very young, Whites, Asians, business people, all will be easier targets of intimidation because there is no fear of these groups protesting their mistreatment.

As it stands now in the U.S., police officers feel reluctant to ask for legitimate identification for fear of stirring racism and profiling concerns.  At airport security, there is no such reluctance.  Heck, citizens can even be asked to strip to a certain degree and be felt up like a package of Charmin tissue.   Any protests will instantly plop their names onto an official troublemaker list and voila, a permanent criminal suspect is created.  As time goes on, this list can only grow as the definition of pushy travellers gets fuzzier and fuzzier.  Statistics will soar on the TSA troublemaker database and will be justification to demand more money into their coffers to combat the rising incidences of disturbing airport behaviour.  Which of course, will lead to even more invasive and surly TSA procedures. It will be entirely logical to transfer the weapons from Border agents to arm the TSA staff.

Illegal entry across U.S. borders will cease to be an enforceable pursuit and movement there will be free and easy.  Just as long as they don’t attempt to fly in.