It now looks like protecting the U.S. border has become a victim of political correctness, regardless that it is one of the very few constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government.
Using the race card to justify not finishing the fence along the porous U.S.-Mexican border shouldn’t come as a big surprise. After all, the race card has infiltrated and politicized every other excuse for tyranny. This story, from the “You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up” file,
A Homeland Security initiative to put fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border could discriminate against minorities, according to an Obama-appointed federal judge who’s ruled that the congressionally-approved project may have a “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”[/I]
This of course means that protecting the porous—and increasingly violent—southern border is politically incorrect. At least that’s what the public college professor at the center of the case is working to prove and this month she got help from a sympathetic federal judge. Denise Gilman, a clinical professor at the taxpayer-funded University of Texas-Austin, is researching the “human rights impact” of erecting a barrier to protect the U.S. from terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and other serious threats.
Rate this article