Here is the third of my posts inspired by an editorial cartoon this week. Today’s was drawn by Michael Ramirez back in May, and it’s more applicable today.

Mexico's illegal alien hypocrisy

One of the complaints about the Arizona bill, as expressed by President Obama, was the terrifying scenario of some peace-loving Hispanic family going out to get some ice cream some evening and getting detained by the Arizona police for the crime of Driving While Hispanic.

Baloney.

The Arizona law specifically states that a person cannot be stopped merely because he looks like he’s not an American. That person must first be doing something that warrants police attention like shoplifting, speeding, violence, etc. And then only if the officer has a reason to suspect that the person in question was here illegally could he then ask about his citizenship. In Mexico, the police have the authority to detain and question anyone they like and ask about their citizenship, but I’ve already written about the problems with illegals crossing the southern border.

I said that this cartoon is more applicable today because U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton struck down parts of the Arizona law:

The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton included one requiring a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally.

Bolton also halted provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for people without proper documents to tout for work in public places.

Opponents of the Arizona law are applauding this ruling of Judge Bolton. One of their arguments against the law was based on it creating a patchwork of laws in the U.S. instead of one coherent law, but the Arizona law is merely enforcing the federal laws already on the books. How is that creating a patchwork of laws? On the other hand, there are plenty of sanctuary cities in the U.S., cities that have declared themselves friendly to illegal aliens and provide them sanctuary from federal laws. That is where the true patchwork of laws is in effect, but the federal government doesn’t say “boo” about them because the federal officials agree with them, regardless of what the law actually says.

Law professor William A. Jacobson wrote about this ruling today:

The Judge’s reasoning, particularly that the status check provision violated the 4th Amendment even as to persons already under arrest, applies just as easily to [outstanding warrants, child support orders, and non-immigration identity checks].

With a federal government which refuses to take action at the border until there is a deal on “comprehensive” immigration reform, meaning rewarding lawbreakers with a path to citizenship, this decision will insure a sense of anarchy. The law breakers have been emboldened today, for sure.

As it stands this afternoon, it is perfectly rational for someone faced with the choice of obeying the immigration laws or not, to choose not to do so. The choice of lawlessness makes a lot more sense than spending years winding through the byzantine legal immigration system, because the end result will be the same but lawlessness gets you here more quickly.

When the law and the federal government reward lawlessness, something is very wrong.

And finally, Rush Limbaugh put it pretty succinctly — “It is no longer illegal to be illegal, but it is illegal to ask someone about their immigration status.”

Since today is Cinco de Mayo, our attention turns to Mexico in about the same way as we think of Ireland on St. Patrick’s Day, i.e., not much. As I see it, both of these days are just excuses to party. But I am neither Irish nor Mexican.

Your papers, please

But since our attention has turned to Mexico today, the topic of Arizona’s recent law making being in the state illegally a state crime will surely come up. And one common refrain from the left is the shock and horror of some cop demanding, “Your papers, please.” How like Nazi Germany! A quick search for the phrase and Arizona brings up many thousands of hits across the web as people hyperventilate over Arizona’s new law.

Evil, nasty Nazis! The new Arizona law must be evil incarnate, right? How could the government of Arizona pass such a terrible law?!? Even President Obama is speaking out against the cruel and unfair nature of this new law:

Indeed, our failure to act responsibly, at the federal level, will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

In fact I’ve instructed members in my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country. As a nation, as a people, we can choose a different future. A future that keeps faith with our history, with our heritage, and with the hope that America has always inspired the hearts of people all over the world.

And here goes our President again, obsessed with fairness.

But here’s the kicker: the law Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed closely mirrors the existing laws against illegal aliens that we already have, but aren’t enforcing, at the federal level. If Arizona’s new law is irresponsible and unfair, then so are the federal laws. The dirty little secret is that the federal laws are both responsible and fair. But the federal government doesn’t want to enforce it, as President Obama admits, and so Arizona decided to act.

“But how dare Arizona law-makers force people to carry documentation that they are in the state legally! That’s Nazi fascism!” Well, no. It’s just common sense. When I was recently in London, I carried with me my passport to prove I was both an American citizen and legally in the country. Mark Steyn recently wrote about the need to have documentation here in the States:

As I write, I have my papers on me — and not just because I’m in Arizona. I’m an immigrant, and it is a condition of my admission to this great land that I carry documentary proof of my residency status with me at all times and be prepared to produce it to law-enforcement officials, whether on a business trip to Tucson or taking a 20-minute stroll in the woods back at my pad in New Hampshire.

Who would impose such an outrageous Nazi fascist discriminatory law?

Er, well, that would be Franklin Roosevelt.

The Arizona law merely enforces the 70-year-old federal requirement. And no, the police will not be stopping people who are “too brown” and asking for “Ihre Papiere, bitte” in their best German accents. Only those people who have already be stopped by police for some reason may be asked to produce residency documentation. I guess it’s similar to seat belt laws in many states. These laws say you must have seat belts on when you drive, but the cops can’t stop you just because you aren’t wearing them. They have to stop you for some other reason first.

So on this Cinco de Mayo, drink your Corona cerveza and enjoy yourself. If you are in this country legally, you are most welcome, but please have your documentation with you as the federal law has required for many decades, and as the new Arizona law will soon require.

And if you are here illegally, don’t protest, march, or complain about how unfair the laws of this nation are. Just return to your mother country and reenter the United States legally this time. It’s that simple.

The Drudge Report linked to a Reuters news report about the response to the recent Arizona law against illegal aliens.

Protest organizers said on Wednesday outrage over the Arizona law — which seeks to drive illegal immigrants out of the state bordering Mexico — has galvanized Latinos and would translate into a higher turnout for May Day rallies in more than 70 U.S. cities.

“The marches and demonstrations are going to be far more massive than they otherwise would have been,” said Juan Jose Gutierrez, a Los Angeles rally organizer who runs an immigration assistance company.

First, May Day, among other things, is a celebration of socialism. And socialism isn’t anything that makes this red-blooded American feel like celebrating. I’m old enough to remember the May Day demonstrations of Soviet military might parading through Red Square. And I’m certain I’ll see plenty of socialist / communist flags and demonstrators mixed in with the other demonstrators in favor of illegal aliens.

Confused Protestors

Yes, even illegal aliens have rights. They have the right to live in their own country. They have the right to legally visit and even work in the United States. But they do not have the right to illegally enter this nation, just like we don’t have the right to illegally enter another nation.

And as I have pointed out before, Mexico treats their illegal aliens harshly. In fact, an AP report shows that the Mexico law is far harsher today in Mexico than the new Arizona law even thinks of being:

Central American migrants are frequently pulled off trains, kidnapped en masse, held at gang hideouts and forced to call relatives in the U.S. to pay off the kidnappers. Such kidnappings affect thousands of migrants each year in Mexico, the report says.

Many are beaten, raped or killed in the process.

At present, Article 67 of Mexico’s Population Law says, “Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal … are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues.”

Here in the U.S., and even after the Arizona law goes into effect, people of any origin, legal or not, will still be able to attend school, go to the emergency room, and call the police. Under the new Arizona law a police officer may question the legal status of people if they suspect that they are here illegally. Under the current Mexican law, all authorities must ascertain the status of the person before doing anything else. I recall recently reading the parable of the mote and the beam that applies to the Mexican complaints of the new Arizona law.

Besides, what is it about illegal immigration that these demonstrators just don’t understand?

The Arizona legislature has passed a bill and sent it to the state governor for signing or veto. If this bill becomes law, it will be a crime in Arizona to enter the country illegally. It would also make the police question a person’s immigration status if they suspect he may be illegal. Of course, Mexican officials are in a tizzy over the bill.

The Mexican government criticized Wednesday a tough immigration law approved this week by Arizona legislators, saying it could result in rights violations and racial profiling and affect cross-border relations.

“Rights violations”? I didn’t realize that entering a country illegally is a right. And when the majority of illegals crossing into Arizona are Mexicans, focusing on Hispanics isn’t racial profiling as much as operating on a description of the perpetrator.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department said in a statement relayed through Mexico’s U.S. embassy that it viewed the measure with great concern and said it “could have potentially serious effects on the civil rights” of Mexican nationals.

Again, nobody has the civil right to invade another country illegally. I find Mexico’s attitude on illegally crossing their northern border into the U.S. isn’t the same way they feel about people illegally crossing their southern border into Mexico.

Holding others to a standard while exempting yourself is the very definition of hypocrisy.

UPDATE (4/23/2010 3:18:09 PM): Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law. It will take effect in 90 days.

Considering that last night he said we have seen scare tactics instead of honest debate, President Obama was quick to engage in scare tactics of his own. The current panic — the ranks of the uninsured rose close to 6 million these past 12 months. *gasp!* Quick, get the smelling salts! I’m about to faint.

Or not. But I do have to question his numbers. He mentioned 30 million uninsured in his speech last night before the joint session of Congress. But the Census Department puts the number of uninsured at 46.3 million. This discrepancy isn’t that hard to explain since there is a difference between the people in the two uninsured groups mentioned here. President Obama specifically refers to “30 million American citizens” while the census numbers are not limited just to Americans. This tells me that there are about 16 million illegals in the U.S. who are uninsured.

When Obama stated that illegals would not be covered under his health care plan, Republican Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted out “You lie!” If we do a little Clinton-era word parsing, then Obama is correct — his plan doesn’t cover illegals, or Americans for that matter, because he hasn’t actually released a plan. He’s been relying on Congress to do the work for him, but that’s where he runs into problems. A Senate HELP Committee version of the health care bill excludes illegals on page 111. But House Bill HR3200 doesn’t contain any similar language excluding illegals, as confirmed by the Congressional Research Service.

So who exactly are these uninsured people in America? Editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez breaks it down in this cartoon:

The 47 Million Uninsured

I can’t get all excited about insuring those people who certainly could afford it but choose not to spend their money that way. Likewise, I’m not concerned about those who could get government funding but haven’t signed up for it. And I am certainly not interested in insuring people who are here illegally. That leaves only those people who are in-between jobs and so are uninsured. The cure for them is less government involvement, not more. After all, health care insurance as a job benefit is the result of government meddling in the free market. The solution is to have less government meddling, not more. After all, if you find you are over your head in a hole, the solution is to stop digging, not investing in more shovels.

And finally I have to point to a great video by Stuart Browning about the uninsured in America. If you can watch Faye Chao at 3:10 – 3:30 in the video without wanting to slap her free-loading face, you’re a better person than I am.

ReviewJournal.com has an interesting quote from Sen. Hillary Clinton (Dingbat-NY) that just begs to be explained.

A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.

“No woman is illegal,” Clinton said, to cheers.

I have to believe that the man was saying that his wife was an illegal alien, so this then makes me ask if Hillary meant what it appears she meant. As I read it, she’s saying that by virtue of their sex, women cannot possibly be illegal aliens.

Huh?

How can this comment be interpreted in any way that doesn’t make Hillary sound like a idiot?

Apparently Elvira Arellano has kept busy after being deported for breaking U.S. laws multiple times. USA Today quotes Arellano:

“For me it is very important that our government take a strong stand to defend all of us who decide to migrate to another country,” she said.

I could agree with this statement 100% if it had one extra word: “who decide to legally migrate to another country.” Omitting that one word makes a critical difference, since a government is to protect the legitimate and legal actions of the people.

But omitting the fact that she broke the law multiple times, Arellano is now trying to excuse her actions by telling people that the United States broke the law first.

“The United States is the one who broke the law first. By letting people cross over without documents. By letting people pay taxes.”

Ah. Let’s examine this logic. So if there isn’t a guard stationed at the back door of a bank, then it’s the bank’s fault, not the robber’s, that he broke through the door and got into the vault. One word summarizes this logic: mierda. While I certainly agree that the U.S. should do much more to lock down our borders, an unguarded border does not grant permission to people to pass over unlawfully.

As for paying taxes, it can certainly feel like a crime at times, but Arellano has it exactly backwards. Not paying taxes is breaking the law. If you work in the U.S., legally or not, the government wants and demands its take from your wages. Paying your taxes does not grant you any legitimacy if you broke the law getting here. And don’t forget that Arellano was arrested for using a Social Security number that was not her own. So how can Arellano say that the U.S. broke the law first, when it was she who stole a Social Security number first?

Frankly, I don’t accept the “they did it first” argument when it comes to breaking the law. Someone else breaking the law doesn’t grant you permission to break the law yourself. In any case, I don’t accept Arellano’s premise that it is the U.S. who broke the law first. But I suspect Arellano will continue with this nonsense claim in her attempt to play the victim card. And yet I find it ironic that Arellano went to the Mexican Senate to plead her case when Mexico’s immigration laws are harsher than ours, and they have their own problems on their southern border.

There is big news in the arena of illegal immigrants. Elvira Arellano, an illegal alien and vocal advocate for illegal immigration, was arrested and deported from the U.S. The article I read bore the title, “Immigration activist deported to Mexico,” but it could have read “Law-breaking illegal alien deported to Mexico” and would have been just as correct and valid. Here is the first part of the article about Arellano:

An illegal immigrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid being separated from her U.S.-born son has been deported to Mexico, the church’s pastor said.

Elvira Arellano became an activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents as she defied her deportation order and spoke out from her religious sanctuary. She held a news conference last week to announce that she would finally leave the church to try to lobby U.S. lawmakers for change.

She had just spoken at a Los Angeles rally when she was arrested Sunday outside Our Lady Queen of Angels church and deported, said the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, where Arellano had been living.

“She has been deported. She is free and in Tijuana,” said Coleman, who said he spoke to her on the phone. “She is in good spirits. She is ready to continue the struggle against the separation of families from the other side of the border.”

Her 8-year-old son, Saul, is now living with Coleman’s family. During a news conference in Los Angeles after Arellano’s arrest, the boy hid behind the pastor’s wife and wiped away tears.

Arellano first entered the U.S. illegally in 1997, and was deported when caught. She returned shortly after that, again illegally. In 2002, she was arrested and convicted of working under a falsified Social Security number. Instead of being deported on the spot, she was part of the “catch and release” idiocy that our immigration officers work under. She was to surrender to the authorities in August 2006, but instead she fled to a church in Chicago and requested sanctuary. She then spent a year living in the church, but was arrested and deported when she left her sanctuary to attend a rally for illegal aliens in Los Angeles. This act has enraged the supporters of illegal aliens:

“We are sad, but at the same time we are angry,” said Javier Rodriguez, a Chicago immigration activist who worked with Arellano. “How dare they arrest this woman?”

How dare they? Well, how dare she break the law at least thrice — twice crossing the border into the U.S. illegally, and using a Social Security number that was not her own illegally? I have no idea how many other laws Arellano may have broken during her illegal stay here in the U.S.

“But Captain, how can you separate a child from his mother?” But I didn’t separate her from her son, Saul — she did. When people choose to commit crimes, they accept the consequences of their lawless actions. If Arellano didn’t want to be separated from her son, she shouldn’t have broken the law. The same separation occurs when people are imprisoned for breaking the law. It was their choice to break the law that separated them from their families. But Arellano doesn’t have to be separated from Saul — he can join her in Mexico whenever she wants.

“But her son was born here! He is a U.S. citizen!” Well, he will remain an American citizen even if he lives in Mexico with his mother. If he chooses to return to the U.S. as an adult, that is certainly his right.

Lest we forget, consider the well-publicized case of Elian Gonzalez, whose mother died trying to bring him to the United States, whose extended family were working to make him a legal resident, and who was forcibly deported to Cuba. Under then-President Clinton, the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government deemed it more important for Elian to live with his father in the hell-hole that is Castro’s Cuba than to stay with relatives in the U.S. In all fairness, Elian was not born in the U.S. and thus did not enjoy the same rights as a native-born American–but then again, Mexico isn’t half the hell-hole that Cuba is.

“Anchor babies” is the term used to describe children like Saul who are born in the U.S. to illegal alien parent(s). These anchor babies are used as an excuse to allow their illegal alien parent(s) to stay in the U.S. But are children of illegal aliens automatically U.S. citizens as soon as Mom gives birth a few feet over the border? What exactly is the law that makes any child born in the U.S. a de facto American?

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution explains what makes a citizen: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

There is a key part of that sentence, and it is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This means that the children born of people who legally enter the U.S. and are subject to the jurisdiction of these United States are citizens. As I read it, the children of illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (the whole sneaking in bit) and thus are not born U.S. citizens. Here is what Rep. John A. Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, said regarding the first sentence:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Illegal aliens who sneak across the U.S. border and have babies on U.S. soil still owe allegiance to their native land. (Indeed, if the evidence is to be believed, many illegal aliens consider themselves loyal citizens of the nations they left. This becomes painfully visible during illegal alien rallies, where one is far more likely to see flags of other nations on display than one is to see the American flag in evidence.) They have not petitioned the U.S. for entry, nor have they begun the process of becoming Americans by renouncing their former citizenship. They are therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., since they have flouted America’s laws upon entry.

It might be worthwhile for the U.S. immigration officials to give illegal alien parents a choice when they are deported: take your American-born children with you, or leave them in the care of a guardian who is a fully legal American citizen (born or naturalized). Let these parents decide where their true loyalties lie.

(One of the best analyses I’ve read of the 14th Amendment, as it relates to citizenship, can be found at The Federalist Blog. The article clocks in at over two thousand words, but it is well worth the time to read it.)

The immigration amnesty bill is dead, but like a zombie, its corpse is still twitching, and folks in Washington D.C. are still very interested in it. I wouldn’t mind if they wanted the zombie to be part of Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” dance team, or as a shuffle-on role in the next zombie flick, but the powers that be in Washington want to make this zombie immigration bill become law.

Somebody shoot this zombie in the head, please! Then drive a stake in its heart. Wait, that’s vampires. Oh, who cares? I don’t want this bill to be mostly dead, I want to see it become all dead.

Sadly, there are Republicans who like the zombie bill, and who are excited to make it happen. President Bush is in the forefront of those who favor the bill, and President Bush is wrong to do so. America doesn’t need illegal immigration reform; it needs border security. Border security is a gushing arterial wound, while immigration reform is but a splinter in the finger. Common sense says you treat the life-threatening wound before the splinter. But I’m afraid that there is something either in the water or the air of Washington D.C. that leeches the common sense right out of the people there. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a zombie leech that goes for the brains.

A zombie leech would explain some of the incredibly stupid things being said in Washington. Here is one burst of flatulence as reported in the New York Times:

The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the [immigration] bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

Problem? PROBLEM?!? What the hell are you talking about, Senator? It’s true talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative, so what is Senator Lott doing, saying stuff like that and angering his Republican base? Smooth move, Senator. But his statement is so wrong. If talk radio really ran America, the Democrats would never have taken over Congress. To bring his comment into the 21st century, Senator Lott might instead have said, “Blogs are running America. We have to deal with that problem.” That statement would be just as ripe a raspberry to his conservative base.

To put it simply, talk radio and blogs are forums for ideas, and it may very well be the revitalized marketplace of ideas that is Senator Lott’s problem. It’s so much easier for the governing elites when the huddled masses just shut up and let their betters go about their oh-so-important work. It’s pretty clear that the howls of outrage over the immigration bill from the huddled masses caught Washington D.C. by surprise, both Republican and Democrat. They wanted the bill to be a fait accompli, but talk radio hosts and listeners didn’t like this closed-door-crafted bill, so they — horror of horrors! — talked about it. And talk radio agreed: a loud fart crafted behind closed doors is just as stinky.

I have supported President Bush in many parts of his Presidency, but he is wrong about immigration. This is a strange blind spot for him to display, since he has otherwise had a remarkably clear grasp of America’s security needs. The New York Times quotes President Bush and shows his disconnect on this issue:

Mr. Bush said the $4.4 billion [for border security] would “come from the fines and penalties that we collect from those who have come to our country illegally” and apply for legal status.

Representative Duncan Hunter of California, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, scorned such linkage.

“The idea that we will have border security only if it’s paid for by illegal immigrants is unacceptable,” Mr. Hunter said.

Judging just from that exchange of ideas, it is clear that Rep. Hunter gets it, and President Bush doesn’t. If the Republican leadership continues to champion a badly-created bill, they will succeed in continuing to piss off their conservative base and losing more elections.

Or they could be successful in passing the bill. In which case, they will have successfully pissed off their base, and installed a rotten zombie of a bill as law. Zombies are notoriously bad border security guards or immigration officers. It’s hard to hunt down the bad guys when all you can muster is a lurch, or maybe a choreographed shuffle.

Today is May 1st, 2007, commonly called “May Day.” Socialists and Communists celebrate the day as “Labor Day” and mouth platitudes about the working class, but gone are the days of of Soviet soldiers and war machines parading through Red Square in Moscow, and good riddance. But neither May Day nor Labor Day are official American celebrations on this day. Here it is “Loyalty Day,” and it is an appropriate day for Americans to fly the flag as a show of loyalty to these United States.

And how are people showing their loyalty? Why, by marching for illegal aliens, of course!

Thomas Rodriguez, of Aurora, stood in Union Park wearing a shirt that said: “We are hard workers. We’re not criminals.”

The 38-year-old has had no legal status since he came to the United States from Mexico in 1989 and is an employee at a Japanese restaurant in Chicago.

“Recent raids have worried me,” he said. “We worry deportations are leaving too many young people without parents.”

Oh, where to begin? Well, first, if you come to the States illegally, then that–by definition–makes you a criminal. The phrase I’m looking for here is “Duh!” Rodriguez is worried about being deported, which is nice and all, but that’s a bit like a habitual speeder worrying about getting a speeding ticket. Every job where I’ve ever worked has required me to provide either proof of U.S. citizenship or a valid green card. Since Rodriguez came to the U.S. illegally, he does not and cannot have valid documentation to work here or to remain here. Either he has obtained fake documents–which is illegal–or he is being paid “under the table” in cash and not paying any taxes on his earnings–which is, all together now, illegal. But he’s no criminal! His T-shirt says so.

“Most of the undocumented people come here as a necessity of survival,” said Rosendo Delgado, of Latinos United, one of the groups organizing the march. “For them, it’s the only choice.”

It’s funny, but during the years I lived in Mexico, I don’t recall stepping over the bodies of people who just couldn’t survive there. There are many wonderful, hard-working people in Mexico who are surviving just fine, regardless of what Delgado says. As I see it, it’s not the promise of America that draws illegal aliens as much as it is the promise of American dollars. A minimum wage job in the U.S. offers about ten times the salary of a similar minimum wage job in Mexico. If an illegal alien obtains such a job and sends back to Mexico only half of his or her yearly earnings, that sum is the equivalent of five years’ worth of wages in Mexico. And they can send even more money home if they have better-paying jobs, such as construction or working in a Japanese restaurant in Chicago. The Mexican government has no impetus to stop its citizens from heading to the U.S. illegally, because so much money comes back to them. I remember hearing that money sent from the States has surpassed even oil revenues as the top source of income for Mexico, but whether it’s in first or second place, that’s a pile of money.

But Delgado is wrong in his assertion that heading for the States is a Mexican national’s only choice. As I see it, there are at least four choices, but people like Rodriguez and Delgado, and millions like them, want all the benefits of being legal residents without messing with that annoying requirement of actually obeying the law.

You’ll hear people talk about “May Day” today, but every time I hear that, I think of “mayday,” the call of distress, because our nation is being invaded by people who don’t bother to obey the law.