Illegal immigration: to do something...anything at all...why is that even a question?

Sometimes you have to wonder why we are engaging in debate regarding illegal immigration at all. Sure, people across the country think this is an issue that needs to be addressed, maybe not right at present since the presidential election campaigns are in full swing, smoke screening away anything that could look like an intelligible stance in favor of trying to win over swing state voters, the women's vote, the black vote, the Hispanic vote...remember when politicians just competed for voters?

At the same time efforts are being ramped up in parts of the southwest United States, other factions or government bodies are doing everything in their powers-that-be to hamstring or deliberately derail any kind of enforcement that makes sense. Guess building a multi-million dollar series of posts for people to simply walk sideways through is the kind of common sense approach being eyeballed by the pro-illegal immigration forces.

In California, for example, the state assembly recently proved without a shadow of a doubt why I have absolutely no use for the state of California. I mean, if they slide off the map following the 'big one," fear not...the porn industry will live on in Vegas and Arizona, and that's just for starters. The state assembly defeated a bill that would have removed automatic protection for illegal immigrants who commit DUI offenses. For all the negativity the GOP has been getting this election year, I find it interesting the only two (TWO?!?) who voted for the bill were Republicans. The remainder...all Democrats...decided that merely driving drunk, hitting and injuring, maiming, and killing people was not that big a deal for their friends, the illegal immigrants. Remember this the next time you hear something about the "do-nothing Democrats," because you can prove them wrong, or at least in California. They may not do much, but they are certainly willing to ignore the safety and well-being of lawful citizens and drivers in their state.

Meanwhile, according to U.S. News & World Report this week, law enforcement agencies are increasing not only the number of arrests, but the number of prosecutions. Critics are saying this is increasing the burden on an already overcrowded court system, despite statistics showing a drop as much as 72% in the number of apprehensions in some areas in the Southwest, as well as driving illegal immigrants to cross into the country at a different location.

Illegally crossing the border elsewhere may account for the drop in arrests, but then again, one could also surmise the drop is attributed to less illegal immigrants actually being arrested, due to the bang-up job already underway in securing our southwestern border. I say that is cause for optimism. After all, if they are moving further southeast to cross, then eventually, if this trend were to continue, they simply would not be entering illegally at all, then would they? They will have run out of places to sneak across, ergo problem solved.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. Good luck even trying to arrest illegal immigrants without creating a giant controversy. In Maricopa County, Arizona, the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio is at it again, and the sad statement of that is doing his job has become classified as "being at it again."

Despite acting well within not only his legal authority as Sheriff, but an agreement with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Arpaio conducted sweeps in late March and early April, in which the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department arrested 150 people, of whom 73 turned out to be illegal immigrants. Of course you know, this has proved to be a problem.

Officials in no less than three Arizona cities have called Arpaio to task for this brazen and completely uncalled for action. The chief of the Mesa Police Department wants two days' notice, so he can "prepare" the city's officers for any unrest. What? Seriously? This sounds more to me like "Sheriff's Department conducting sweeps...look busy guys, don't want to give them the impression we're slackers," which apparently they are, since they don't feel like arresting illegal immigrants. Under a task force Arpaio created in 2005, the MCSD has arrested 900 illegal immigrants under an Arizona human smuggling law. Guess Mesa PD's too busy writing traffic tickets or hassling skateboarders and kids in pot t-shirts to worry about things like that.

Not to outdone by the Mesa police chief, Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon called for the Feds to investigate civil rights' violations. Gordon thinks Arpaio should be busy arresting people on outstanding warrants, not because they are "driving with a broken taillight or have brown skin." What a remarkable senseless statement to make. I hope they have term limits in Phoenix, because too much sun and too much self-importance together seems to be a really bad thing. Makes you dense. Listen up, Mayor Gordon, and listen as hard as you possibly can...driving with a broken taillight is illegal-a cop WILL pull you over for it. Your "brown skin" remark was crass, inflammatory, and smacks more of the political "grandstanding" than you and colleagues have been accusing Joe Arpaio of. Take a deep breath and go get some shade, Phil, let the adults do the heavy lifting here.

The hands-down winner in the "unfamiliar with the concept" derby has to be Guadalupe, Arizona mayor Rebecca Jiminez, who went so far as to state that the efforts of the MCSD were unwelcome. "We did not request them here," was how her honor put it, neverminding the fact that the town of 6,000 people rely on the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department for their police protection. The town is looking for a new police department to patrol its streets. I wish them luck. In a fair and just world, when the fit did hit the shan, and the town called the county sheriff's office for help, they would be told, "sorry about that. We do not take requests."

When video gaming and government collide...

Could it be considered a chilling development that Stephen King has emerged as a voice of reason? Probably not. After all, he is a fairly level-headed guy from what I understand (unless of course, you run him over or something), so I guess it wouldn't be too far off the mark to assume he would take the sensible side of an issue, as with his recent remarks in Entertainment Weekly regarding legislation pending in the Massachusetts House.

The bill would make it illegal to "disseminate material to minors that is "patently offensive." Hmmm. Sounds like some pretty broad wording there. How long do you suppose it would be, under this bill, before other, non-video game-related entertainment options, such as comic books, graphic novels, or collectible card games would be conveniently lumped into the "patently offensive" category?

Government-as-usual was all over this, which was to be expected, as this is hardly an issue dire to most Americans, let alone the people of Massachusetts, at present. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino first advanced the proposal, which in my mind goes a long way to stating a solid case on moving to Boston (and I'm a Cubs fan). I mean, if violent video games are the biggest pressing situation on the mind of the mayor, how bad can the place really be? Of course, in retrospect, this also goes a ways in explaining the freakout the city had over characters from Adult Swim's Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

Menino's chief of human services, Larry Mayes, said that some parents, "despite their best efforts, have been overtaken by a culture of media saturation and outmaneuvered by very slick violent video game makers and their lobbyists who put a buck first rather than kids."

Alright, let's take a look at that. Media saturation is as media saturation does. That's why movies you wouldn't pay $1 in an impulse rack make $100 million+ at the box office. That's why Paris Hilton is never half a second away from anybody's field of vision or range or hearing. Most certainly, politics is no exception. To break it down for you, zen-style, there is no one raindrop to blame this flood on. Whether it's sex, drugs, violence, or any number of immoral or unethical things, you can get more than your fair share any way you can get your hands on it. TV, print, Internet, movies, music, advertising, campaigning...it's all the same, and Mayes should know as much.

As for being outmaneuvered by slicksters, that's a little pandering. Video games have ratings, just as television shows and movies, so I have little use for some parent's excuse of "we had no idea what they were playing." You wouldn't rent them a Jenna Jameson DVD, you wouldn't let them watch some Cinemax at two in the morning Saturday night, so why should the gaming industry take a hit just because you don't feel like reading the cover of a video game box! Slicker methods of getting over on people are used in Mayes' game as opposed to say, EA Sports or Neversoft. Lobbyists? He said that, lobbyists, and probably with a straight face, too.

Bill co-sponsor Rep. Christine Canavan (D-Brockton) feels when "someone with a developing mind and a developing sense of self is barraged with a particular thing, such as violence, that it would rub off the wrong way." Fair enough. I'm not attempting to state a case for too much of anything eventually being harmful, but ultimately, there needs to be some accountability on the customer half of the equation. That's where Stephen King came in, with his April 11th piece calling for parents to "have the guts to forbid material they find objectionable...and then explain why it's being forbidden," as well as "monitor their children's lives in the pop culture- which means a lot more than seeing what games they are renting down the street."

That's the chilling development, more or less...for all the hand-wringing by negligent parents and self-important politicians, apparently we just need more people thinking along the lines of Stephen King, even though common sense is the real horror story to some in the end.