Who’s more out-of-touch?

It was earlier this week that we learned of a federal judge in Texas who issued an order that prevented a Texas state effort to prevent municipalities from declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities with regards to immigration policy.

Also earlier this week was the initiative signed into law by Gov. Bruce Rauner that declared all of Illinois to be something similar to a sanctuary place – one in which local police are prevented from harassing people because of suspicions about immigration law violations.

SO WHAT’S THE latest action? It seems we have six members of the Illinois General Assembly – all Republican and from communities of a less-urban composition – who are coming up with bills determined to repeal the Trust Act.

That was the measure that Rauner used to take his immigration-related action, and was one that received overwhelming support from the General Assembly.

So it may be very likely that these half-dozen legislators aren’t acting with serious hopes of actually getting anything undone. They just want to be sure they’re on the record as being on the side of the crackpots who want to view immigration law as an excuse to harass those who aren’t exactly like themselves.

Now for those who are saying to themselves, “That’s overly harsh!” or are thinking other obscene thoughts about me right now, I’m not apologetic.

“CRACKPOTS” IS ABOUT the nicest term I can use to describe these people, who clearly are putting themselves on the wrong side of the issue – just like all the people of a half-century or so ago who were determined to believe that the concept of segregation somehow had a place within our society.

Maybe some people just feel the need to create someone else to look down upon themselves, because otherwise they’d have to look at themselves and realize how little they contribute to our society?

My own viewpoint on the whole immigration issue and sanctuary cities, welcoming cities or whatever label you put on it is that it makes sense that local police enforce local law and federal immigration officials enforce the U.S. immigration policies.

GARCIA: Struck down Texas efforts

Seriously, I wouldn’t expect local cops to comprehend the nuances of immigration policy. I don’t think they should be expected to do something that is beyond their jurisdiction.

THE KIND OF people who would want local cops to get themselves involved in something that is beyond their scope are the kind who view police as the official thugs of municipal government – harassing those whom they object to.

Which most definitely is NOT what any responsible person should expect from their police. Or what any responsible law enforcement officer should have any desire to do.

Much of the cheap political rhetoric coming from the White House in this Age of Trump about sanctuary cities and wanting to revoke federal funding from those municipalities is truly pathetic. Only the most pathetic of pols are trying to side themselves up with it.

Because it’s pretty much a safe thing that those people some 50 years from now are going to come off looking absurd, if not downright ignorant.

WHICH IS WHY U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued the order on Wednesday that prevented Texas from enforcing its initiative to make sanctuary cities such as the now-completely-flooded-over Houston a prohibited concept.

CURIEL: Judge who infuriated Trump

I’m sure the crackpots are going to be spewing nonsense about Garcia similar to how Trump himself tried attacking federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel (an East Chicago, Ind., native) of California because of his rulings in that court case that ultimately found the concept of Trump University to be less-than-legitimate.

But that’s what too much of the immigration opposition rhetoric comes down to – trash talk that no one of intelligence can possibly take seriously.

And the day will come when state Reps. John Cabello of Rockford, David McSweeney of Barrington, C.J. Davidsmeyer of Jacksonville and David Reis of Olney, along with state Sens. Kyle McCarter of Lebanon and Tim Bivins of Dixon (as a former county sheriff, he in particular should know better) will regret how ridiculous they looked this week.

  -30-

Do we need a lieutenant gov?

It’s a perennial issue – as in someone always introduces it before the General Assembly, there’s a bit of debate, then it fades away from consideration until some future year.

The second-in-command at the Capitol Complex is one of the least-powerful people imaginable

Specifically, I’m referring to the continued effort to do away with the position of Illinois lieutenant governor. State Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, has introduced a measure that ultimately would create a voter referendum.

LET THE PUBLIC decide if we ought to have a specific individual designated as the governor-in-waiting, in the event that something happens to drive the current governor from office.

There are those people who argue that the lieutenant governor’s position is a waste of money. It has no assigned duties, other than whatever the governor is willing to let the person do.

Some lieutenant governors literally accomplish nothing on their own – remember the tales of how then-lieutenant governor Patrick Quinn went for more than a year without speaking to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, because the governor so thoroughly cut him out of the loop of what was taking place in government.

McSweeney argues that ultimately doing away with the position would save the $1.6 million that was included in the last state budget for the position – whose only real responsibility is to be alive and thriving in the event that something happens to the governor.

SUCH AS BACK in 2009 when Blagojevich was impeached, and much of  the certainty over removing the governor from office was because it was known who would take over.

There wouldn’t be any political power plays of people trying to undermine each other to become the governor. On the very day that Blagojevich was removed from office by the Illinois Senate, Quinn took the oath of office to finish that term, then win one of his own back in 2010.

Which is actually the reason I think it is misguided to erase the position. I realize the Illinois constitution provides a line of succession in the event of dramatic circumstances that force even a lieutenant governor out of office – which has never happened in Illinois.

It would be the state attorney general who gets to be first in line. But I can already hear the outrage in my mind that would be expressed if that were to happen now.

WOULD IT BE right for the current governor, Bruce Rauner, to be replaced by Lisa Madigan – not only an opposing Democrat but the daughter of Rauner’s main government opponent, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan?

I’m sure Michael Madigan wouldn’t mind that scenario – although I suspect if he really wanted his daughter to be the governor, he’d have run her for office in the 2014 election cycle.

Perhaps it makes sense that the governor have some say in picking who replaces him to finish out a term – if that becomes necessary. Although an argument can be made that he ought to nominate his running mate – similar to how presidential candidates pick their would-be vice presidents.

Because the current system of having lieutenant governor candidates run independently always creates the situation for hostile pairings. The classic case of that was when Republican Richard Ogilvie served as governor with Democrat Paul Simon as his running mate.

SOME MIGHT EVEN use the Blagojevich/Quinn pairing as an odd match – although what the current system usually creates is a case for weak candidates who can’t win any other position deciding they’ll slip in the back door of government by running for lieutenant governor!

Some might even say our current lieutenant governor, Evelyn Sanguinetti, is the classic example. She had never held electoral office outside of municipal government in Wheaton before she was tabbed by Rauner, who used his influence to get her the 2014 election victory.

All in all, changing the lieutenant governor set-up would be a sure-fire headache inducer. People would be bound to find fault to matter what is done.

Which might be the ultimate reason to leave well enough alone!

  -30-

Will Illinois Legislature have nerve to do away with red light cameras?

We have the chance to see a classic political battle this spring in the Illinois General Assembly; will the state Legislature have the nerve to irritate all those communities that are rushing to erect the cameras on their traffic signals to boost their enforcement efforts.

I’m talking about those cameras that can take pictures of offenses as they occur, with the pictures being used as evidence against the motorists who can receive a ticket in the mail shortly thereafter.

I SUPPOSE I should confess that I once received such a ticket – while driving through the suburb of Riverdale a few years ago, I supposedly stopped at a traffic sign and made a right turn without waiting for a long-enough time period before making the turn.

Because I was able to make the charge go away with an appearance in traffic safety school (a four-hour session to remind me of the Rules of the Road), I pleaded “guilty” even though I still think I came to enough of a “stop” before making the turn.

It was irritating, and I know I’m not alone. Way too many people scream out a stream of obscenities when they check their mail and find one of these tickets in their box.

It does come across as an attempt by the local government to extort another fee in the form of a fine to the municipality.

THAT IS WHAT inspired state Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, to sponsor a bill this spring session that would forbid any municipality from having such cameras installed in their community.

He cited a Chicago Tribune report about how such tickets were overbearingly issued within Chicago as evidence of how they shouldn’t be permitted anywhere in Illinois.

Yet I have heard way too many municipal officials across the state talk about these cameras as a financial savior not only because of the fines they attract, but also because they allow their local police departments to reduce the amount of officers on details for traffic enforcement.

I also know at least one former suburban police chief who thinks people have no right to complain about tickets that result from the cameras, on the grounds that signs are installed informing motorists exactly where the cameras are.

MEANING PEOPLE OUGHT to read those signs and use extra caution in the way they drive, unless they’re absolutely determined to get themselves a fine!

Still, I’m sure McSweeney will get himself his share of favorable press – the legislator who’s willing to do away with those cameras that they feel trap people into paying fines for questionable offenses.

Although will that press make up for the many municipal officials who will now deem him, and anyone else who publicly supports this measure, as the enemy who’s threatening their financial bottom lines?

Those fines, after all, do wind up totaling fairly significant sums. I know of some municipalities that really do rely on those fines in order to cover their essential government expenses.

THIS MEASURE COMES at a time when the City Council is considering restrictions on traffic enforcement camera use within Chicago. I’m sure there will be those who argue those restrictions are a sufficient change in public policy.

While others will argue this is one of those “local” issues that a higher form of government ought to “butt out” of – although it usually is state officials whining about the federal government who make that line of logic in their political arguments.

But if the public were to have its way, this probably would be a slam-dunk issue that would demand a 118-0 vote in the Illinois House and a 59-0 vote in the state Senate.

We’d wind up with the masses making a mad rush to their traffic signals to tear down those cameras with the same vehemence that Iraqis once used to rip down statues of Saddam Hussein following his downfall!

  -30-