Lack of cooperation among government entities in this monstrous debacle is the last thing that is needed. There might be some justification for protecting the identity a complaintant who had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. But here it appears the initial refusal was broad brush about any such allegation. The entities which do not have police powers would be well advised to trust those who do, and to rely on the discretion of the DA and others about reasonable protections. If this kind of cooperation does not occur, this mess is going to expand exponentially.

Wow. Coincidental corporate restructuring? Who believes that? They are responding to the slowdown just like everyone else.

It is ludicrous to argue that enforcement of laws in this area is limited to the Federal government. Increasingly, states and localities have enacted provisions to deal with areas where failure to deal with issues encompassed within the umbrella of "illegal immigration" for political reasons has left a void. It is not surprising that vested interests have launched a rainbow of legal objections to prevent enforcement of such provisions, once they are enacted by legitimate state and local entities. There are a huge number of peripheral issues involved that clearly involve violation of existing state and local laws, let alone new ones. Forgery, fradulent representation, perjury, just to name a few. Unfortunately it seems our AG has opted for the easy way out to avoid dealing with a burgeoning but controversial issue in our state.

One of the fallacies of the caucus system exists where one candidate can garner a majority of the popular vote and yet end up with fewer of the delegates to the party convention. In Texas, this is exacerbated by a weird system where people can vote traditionally earlier in the day and then go to a caucus and vote again. In the final analysis who won depends on how you view it. If Sen. Clinton got the majority of the traditional vote, then from the perspective of the Electoral College in November, she has won the primary because in November there is no proportionality in the College, it is winner take all. And a party needs candidates who can garner the majority of votes in November.

Deliberately or not, the writer slides within the article to talking about "immigration" when virtually the entire concern is "illegal" immigration. This has been a common tactic for those overtly or covertly supportive of illegals...suggesting that those opposed to illegal situations are opposed to immigration generally. The quotas for annual immigration may or may not need upward revision, but beyong that the proposals appear to be focused totally on dealing with people breaking the law. Apparently the proposals were spurred by reports the real or virtual fence along the borders are many, many years away. At least they are trying to do something now.