Sue Their Pants Off

I am not one to normally advocate suing someone or something. I know that in certain circumstances, it is necessary, but people like John Edwards, I think, have perverted this part of our justice system. However, in light of the recent events in Newark, with the execution of 3 college students and critical injuring of a 4th allegedly by at least 2 illegal immigrants, one of which had been arrested multiple times, once on charges of sexually assaulting a child, I think it calls for new action.
Newark, along with other cities, including, I'm sad to say, my own Columbus, Ohio, is a sanctuary city. This means that, either officially or unofficially, city officials, including law enforcement officials, are instructed to not inform ICE of the status of illegals. Even if an illegal immigrant is arrested, they are not to inform ICE that they have an illegal alien in custody. This is in violation of federal immigration laws. In the case of the situation of Newark, the ringleader in these executions had been arrested many times, and it was known that he was in the country illegally. Not only that, but he was also linked to gang activities. Rather than reporting him to ICE so that, following serving any sentences he might incur for illegal activities in this country, he could be deported, he was released on bail each time. As a result, a man that should have never been released from custody, and should have been deported a long time ago, orchestrated the shooting of 4 college students, leaving 3 of them dead. Congressman Tom Tancredo believes that the city of Newark shares culpability in this crime. I tend to agree. If we can sue gun companies for gun related violence, why can't the city of Newark be sued for releasing a repeat offender illegal alien back onto the streets in violation of federal law? If they had abided by federal law, this man would not have been able to commit this crime. I think that this threat should hang over the heads of all such sanctuary cities. Certainly we can't hold them responsible for any and all criminal acts committed by illegals, but in instances such as this one, where they had ample opportunity to remove this person from the public in accordance with federal law, and they chose not to, then they should definitely have to bear responsibility for their inaction.
In a rarely seen bright spot in the area of immigration enforcement, Elvira Arellano has been deported back to Mexico. You will remember her as the illegal who entered the country not once, but twice. First in 1997, when she was apprehended and deported. Then in 1999, when she gave birth to a son. She was picked up in a post-9/11 security sweep and found to have a fake Social Security number. Rather than report for an immigration hearing, she sought sanctuary in a Methodist church in Chicago for the last year. This week she decided to leave the confines of the church to head to LA for a rally, and immigration officials carried out their legally mandated job by arresting her and promptly escorting her to the border. Liberals will tell you this is heartless, and she should be allowed to stay here to raise her son, a U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. She is perfectly able to take her son back to Mexico with her. She can then begin the process of trying to enter the country legally. I am still unclear why it is that liberals and pro-illegal immigration hacks feel that the U.S. needs to be the accommodating one, when she is the one who broke the law.
Finally, approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled Congress are now tied for the lowest ever since such ratings have been tracked beginning back in the early '70s. They are now at 18%. Interestingly, the other time in history that approval ratings were this low was the last time Democrats were in control of Congress back in 1992, with a series of scandals rocking their party that would result in sweeping Republicans into power 2 years later. The next lowest approval rating occurred in 1979 with approval at 19%. I'll let you guess who was in power then, as well. And these low numbers are not simply being weighed down by a lot of Republicans giving Democrats a thumbs down. When you break the numbers down by party affiliation, you find that Republicans give Congress a 17% approval, while Democrats give Congress only a 21% approval. Not much of a difference there. Incidentally, I'll let you guess when the highest approval ratings for Congress were (excluding the huge spike that occurred in September 2001). The approval ratings began a steady climb beginning around 1994 (wasn't there a significant mid-term election that year?) and climbed to around 50%, staying level there until about 2003. Just some food for thought.