What is the thinking of people like Massachusetts state rep Michelle DuBois, who authored the above Facebook post? Do they think? Can they think? Aiding an illegal immigrant in evading authorities is obstruction of justice. Do the Duboises of the world really and truly regard facilitating illegal immigration as the equivalent of participating in the Underground Railroad? How did they reach such a fdoolish, counter-factual and warped opinion? Yes, the ACLU comes very close to crossing the line with its published advice to illegals, but it doesn’t actively try to foil legal government action. Even sanctuary cities that pledge not to cooperate with ICE are not actively interfering with the agency, or so they can argue with varying persuasiveness. Not DuBois, though. As a an elected legislator, she can pass laws, but she can’t declare those she doesn’t like null and void, and defy the rule of law in so doing.
This is obstructing justice. DuBois’s argument to the contrary was beyond disingenuous:
“Passing information along that is already all over the community not only lets the people I represent know what is happening. It lets ICE know that everyone in Brockton is aware of their intended raid if there was one.”
Oh, I see. She made everyone in Brockton aware of the ICE raid so ICE would know that all of Brockton was aware of it!
Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson referred to DuBois while testifying before lawmakers on Capitol Hill, saying, “This is the most outrageous, outrageous example of what’s going on across the United States that’s undermining my job and every other law enforcement officer in the United States.”
Dubois belongs right along side Oregon judge Monica Herranz, who allegedly allowed an illegal immigrant to slip out a back door to avoid ICE officials waiting for him, in a jail, awaiting trial.
Arrest her. Prosecute her. If she’s keen on being a martyr for open borders, let her try it. Let her make a real argument why the United States shouldn’t enforce its immigration laws. Let’s hear a logical, unemotional, unsentimental, explanation why public figures should be allowed to facilitate law-breaking. Both concepts are indefensible.
I also want her to explain why she thinks a state rep advocating and engaging in active interference with a law won’t send the message to the youth in her district that it’s acceptable to thwart all law enforcement, as long as you don’t like the law involved, or do like like the law-breakers at risk of arrest. I can’t wait to hear that one.
Really: how did she get this way? How did so many Democrats get this way?