"ILLEGAL ALIEN" NOT TO BE USED IN ANY ARIZONA COURTROOMS

According to an article on JUDICIAL WATCH, Arizona's Supreme Court Chief Justice, Ruth McGregor, has agreed to enforce the demand from the Hispanic Bar Association (LOS ABOGADOS) to ban the term "illegal" and "alien" in all of the state's courtrooms. Of course, the age-old reason is that it has a negative connotation, specifically creating a perception of "judicial bias."

According to a letter to Chief Justice McGregor, "attaching an illegal status to a person establishes a brand of contemptibility." The letter criticized the court's use of the term "illegal alien" in a couple of opinions. This is a case of extreme "political correctness." Can I still use that term? When someone breaks the law, it's called an "illegal act." Even something as simple as a traffic law violation such as ILLEGAL left turn or ILLEGAL parking are descriptions of actions that are against the law. Even the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that "In place of the cumbersome phrase 'aliens who are not lawfully present', we shall use the term 'illegal alien.' " The court considered the term "illegal alien" less ambiguous. I'll say. This is simple. Enter our country the right way, according to our laws, and you are an immigrant. Enter our country without going through the proper procedures as prescribed by law, and you are an ILLEGAL immigrant.

This gets better. Los Abogados concluded their letter with a list of "acceptable and unacceptable terms". Some of the unacceptable terms are: immigration crisis, immigration epidemic, and open borders advocates. Some of their acceptable terms are: foreign nationals, unauthorized workers, and human rights advocates. Click HERE for a complete list along with the copy of the letter from Los Abogados and Chief Justice McGregor's reply.

So, in keeping with the theme of placating special interest groups, I've developed my own list of "acceptable terms" in referring to those who break the law. A couple of these come from commenters to the article on Judicial Watch.

DRUG DEALERS = UNDOCUMENTED PHARMACISTS

BURGLARS = UNWELCOME HOUSE GUESTS

HOME INVASION = PHYSICAL PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT

BANK ROBBERY = REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

SHOPLIFTING = UNDOCUMENTED PROPERTY TRANSFER

AUTO THIEF = TRANSPORTATION SPECIALIST

VANDALISM = DEMOLITION PREPARATION

GRAFFITI = FREELANCE ARTISTRY

I guess that's enough of that. One last thing - the Arizona Supreme Court is angry that this news is out. The Court is threatening to sue Judicial Watch. According to the followup article, "In a threatening phone call to Judicial Watch today, a spokesperson for Arizona’s Supreme Court denied that Chief Justice McGregor had banned anything and accused Judicial Watch of 'slander.' Judicial Watch, however, stands by its story." The Court can sue away, because it's not slander when one sticks to the facts, and in this case, a copy of Chief Justice McGregor's reply along included as supporting documentation, it's not slander.

I think Chief Justice McGregor would fit right in as a member of Congress - no backbone. That's my opinion and I approved this message.