Is the Federal Govt morally or legally required to enforce the laws, or …?

Arizona is not just a bunch of land, IT’S PEOPLE.

The reason the Arizona legislature, elected by the people of Arizona, passed the law which SCOTUS just partially vetted and partially struck down is the SAFETY of the people with regard to violent crimes being committed by people who smuggled themselves into the USA.

Yesterday after hearing the ruling of SCOTUS, the federal executive (BIG SIS, the head of HOMELAND SECURITY) directly responsible for getting criminal information about those here illegally to local law enforcement, WHO CAN LEGALLY DETAIN THOSE STOPPED FOR OTHER REASONS FOR SUCH INFORMATION, announced publicly they would no longer share such information. 

Certainly this required the approval of the president. So I have a question. Maybe it’s a stupid one.

Did I just hear the president of the USA say he cares more about buying a few more latino votes (he’s got the majority anyway, already) by allowing MORE CRIMINALS INTO THE USA than the safety of the citizens of Arizona?

Really?

Really?

An awful lot of those citizens are latinos. But maybe they are as impossibly biased as the majority of my own tribe. 

Now, I have always believed in immigration as it was from the 1840’s-1924. So this is not an immigration issue.

IT’S A CRIMINAL ONE.

Is the Sheriff of Cochise County going to be making a phone call to DC asking if Imad Mugniyah’s brother who was just stopped double parked near City Hall in Tombstone with binoculars and a Canon digital cam, only to be told to go suck eggs?

What are those people doing in Washington? What is their conception of their jobs?