White House Picks Critic of Local Immigration Enforcement for Key Role at ICE" or,...

[markw]

..The fox has offically been put in charge of guarding the chickens.

"The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue."

I'm sure this will please the citizens in Arizona and other border states.

Here's a little background on Harold Hurtt. This is one heckuva fun read. Among other things, it seems he's not shy about trashing us to Al Jareeza either. Isn't that like what cost McChrystal his job?

 

[James NM]

This is typical of the hires of the Obama administration and the viewpoints of his posse.

It's kinda like hiring attorneys for the justice dept who "voluntarily flocked to Guantanamo to take up the cause of terrorists and are currently working on detainee issues in President Obama’s Justice Department". http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/03/03/doj-lawyers-who-represented-gitmo-detainees-identified/

 

[rotorooter]

Well, isn't this just like the Obama administration? If there is a common sense point of view, they'll take the opposite view and then tell the folks what they want to hear. You'll never get the truth out of these guys.

 

[markw]

Ouch! Apparantly someone didn't like this and had no response.

Earned me a reddie that says "Typical Fox News drivel". Of course, unsigned.

Can't argue with the facts or provide somthing to refute the article so they lash out anonymously. I guess the truth hurts.

Someone's probably proud of themselves.

 

[James NM]

Harold Hurtt is a joke for this position. He ran sanctuary cities and refused to enforce immigration laws when he was in local law enforcement. How does Obama reward him? Well, give him a federal immigration job of course.

Mark, when you said "The fox has offically been put in charge of guarding the chickens", you were exactly right.

The coward who gave you a red chicklet should come out from behind his mommy's skirt and debate the facts. Unless of course there is no refutation of the facts. In that case, go ahead and hide in your anonymity.