Axelrod: 'Patchwork' of state laws would 'dillute' [sic] federal border efforts

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" [sic] federal efforts to secure the border.

I'm not sure where the misspelling of dilute came from unless it's from a typed press release, but the substance of his statement just calls attention to why the federal government is given this responsibility to protect the borders: it's failure to do so would create a patchwork of state and local laws. The problem is that the "federal efforts to secure the border" are pretty much non-existent. Nor would Arizona's law really dilute anything, since it only applies to situations where a person is required to furnish ID and it becomes clear that the subject is here illegally. I suppose one could argue that turning such persons over to ICE for further proceedings would overload that agency, but that is really a question of inadequate funding for a fundamental federal responsibility.

The real reason Democrats are unwilling to enforce the law is that they hope to curry favor with Latinos, including many who will vote fraudulently. There can't really be any other explanation. Nothing will really work until there's a reliable ID system that police and employers can depend on. Those who aren't here legally will have to leave and return according to the rules, but then the allotment of immigrants from Latin America needs to be expanded, including seasonal work permits. We claim to be a system of laws and not of men, but this administration is picking favorites to exempt from the law, including illegal immigrants and the New Black Panthers it has allowed to intimidate voters in a national election. It was wrong when segregationists placed barriers to blacks voting prior to civil rights laws, and it's just as wrong when it happens the other way around.