And now for some "positive" news.

House votes to make $1.6 billion down payment on border wall.

Whether this is actually positive or negative depends on your perspective.

Here is an idea - resign from the judiciary and run for elected office where your political opinions are relevant.

Just saying.

Judge complains about the injury to his dignity in being required to enforce immigration laws.

I might agree with Justice Reinhardt as a political and policy matter. If what he believes about Mr. Ortiz is true, then it seems that the laws need to be reformed.

However, Justice Reinhardt's his willingness to inject himself into political issues - to, in essence, give a stump speech in his role as a judicial officer - and to personalize his role as a judge by complaining about his own "loss of dignity and humanity", are not exactly encouraging for a country that is supposed to be a nation of laws, not men.

"President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the "bad hombres." The government's decision to remove Magana Ortiz shows that even the "good hombres" are not safe. Magana Ortiz is by all accounts a pillar of his community and a devoted father and husband. It is difficult to see how the government's decision to expel him is consistent with the President's promise of an immigration system with "a lot of heart." I find no such compassion in the government's choice to deport Magana Ortiz.

We are unable to prevent Magana Ortiz's removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system. Indeed, the government's decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. Magana Ortiz and his family are in truth not the only victims. Among the others are judges who, forced to participate in such inhumane acts, suffer a loss of dignity and humanity as well. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not."

(Magana Ortiz v. Sessions (9th Cir. May 30, 2017, No. 17-16014) 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9363, at *5-6.)

Of course, a person less moved by humanity might say that Magana Ortiz should not be permitted to use his original unlawful act to bootstrap himself into a protected status.  He knew when he came here that he was coming to American unlawfully and that this might happen.  Under those circumstances, with so much to lose, he might have thought that the risk of driving intoxicated was something he should avoid at all costs.

We don't normally permit exemptions from laws because someone is deemed to be a "good guy." There is, for example, no exemption from having to pay taxes or obtain building permits because someone is a good guy.  In fact, I would be concerned about such an exemption, if it existed, because invariably the "good guy" would mean "someone who supports us politically", and that would lead to a nation of men, not laws.

Has there ever been another time when the people who are lawfully complying with the law are treated like second-class citizens?

Seems like an Equal Protection violation.

//It almost pains me to bring this up on the same day that I finally found some good news out of Baltimore, but this has far more to do with the municipal management team than the cops on the beat. We’re once again veering back to the ongoing saga of so-called sanctuary cities figuring out ways to not cooperate with immigration officials in matters of law enforcement. One of the key sticking points for these liberal municipal leaders is that ICE is already deporting some illegals who are only guilty of “minor crimes.” Never ones to be short of outside the box thinking when tackling problems, the city’s State’s Attorney Office has come up with a real brainstorm. ICE won’t be able to pick them up if we don’t charge them with the crimes in the first place. Nope.. this isn’t even a joke. (Baltimore Sun)

The Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office has instructed prosecutors to think twice before charging illegal immigrants with minor, non-violent crimes in response to stepped up immigration enforcement by the Trump administration.

Deputy State’s Attorney Michael Schatzow, in a memo sent to all staff Thursday and obtained by The Sun, wrote that the Justice Department’s deportation efforts “have increased the potential collateral consequences to certain immigrants of minor, non-violent criminal conduct.”

“In considering the appropriate disposition of a minor, non-violent criminal case, please be certain to consider those potential consequences to the victim, witnesses, and the defendant,” Schatzow wrote.
There’s a fairly clear line between “defiant resistance to Trump” and going completely around the bend. Baltimore is boldly striking out into uncharted territory in the latter category. It’s one thing to refuse to cooperate with ICE in matters of detainers, sharing information and all the rest. It’s an entirely different ball game to decide that you can avoid attracting the attention of federal immigration officers by deciding not to prosecute criminals, no matter how “serious” the crimes may be. And who thought this up? The article cites the Deputy State’s Attorney as having written the memo but you know this didn’t happen without the seal of approval of Marilyn Mosby. (The actual State’s Prosecutor of Freddie Gray fame.)//

When America elected a dangerous radical on the issue of immigration...

...in 2008.

It's probably compassion-exhaustion.

Or compassion is only for groups that vote Democrat.

What's that?  Obama's change on Cuban refugee policy stranded Cuban refugees?

But where were the protests????