From PJM, this message from Cathie Adams, chair of the Texas GOP:

In the wake of increased border violence, kidnappings, and incursions into its territory by drug gangs and human smuggling operators, the state of Arizona passed SB 1070 last month. That law is an attempt to bring some law and order to its chaotic border with Mexico. Since its passage, the controversial law has been the subject of a national discussion that has morphed into a heated argument on race, immigration law, and border security as a whole.

While the Republican Party of Texas believes that there is legitimate debate over SB 1070, and we look forward to working with our own legislature next year on border security and many other issues facing Texas, the fact is that the Arizona law has been grossly mischaracterized by many in the media and liberal activists and Democrats throughout the nation. For instance, the phrase “lawful contact,” which under SB 1070 governs when Arizona law enforcement officials may inquire about immigration status, has been adjudicated many times over many decades and is well understood as a legal concept by law enforcement officers. And the requirement on the part of legal immigrants to carry their documentation on their persons at all times is not new in the Arizona law, nor is it unique: That requirement is not directed toward any specific ethic group and has been federal law since 1940. It was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. SB 1070 also specifically forbids racial profiling.

IMO, a little too timid and tentative, but nonetheless well said.

Rather than react to Arizona’s law with any fairness or understanding of the very real violence that plagues Arizona and all border states thanks to the federal government’s failure to secure our borders, the left let fly with charges of “racism” and even more extreme insults, and President Obama called the law “misguided” and “irresponsible.” Whatever one thinks of Arizona’s new law, and there is much room for legitimate debate over it, for President Obama to call Arizona “irresponsible” for taking action to fix a federal failure is itself irresponsible. President Obama’s stance is the very height of irresponsibility, and ought not pass unchallenged.

But the role of President Obama and his party in the border failure is worse than mere rhetorical excess. In fact, in 2009 the Obama administration cut funding for needed technological upgrades to our border security infrastructure. And there were signs even before Arizona passed SB 1070 that the Democrats planned to create a divisive battle over immigration reform as a means of mitigating their losses in the upcoming November elections, and as a misguided attempt to woo Hispanic voters. They had no interest in doing anything or taking any action that would actually enhance border security. The Democrats wanted the battle to distract from their terrible record on the economy, federal spending, their partisan and misguided health care takeover, and other issues. Such a battle would not have represented the hope and change that President Obama promised when he campaigned for the presidency. It would have represented one of the most cynical and irresponsible political campaigns in recent memory. But that is the battle that President Obama and the Democrats relished for the summer of 2010. They read the polls, which show them losing the U.S. House and possibly the Senate, and they sought to divide America on an issue that ought to be beyond partisanship: national security. Given the fact that, a few years ago, the Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court “because he is Hispanic,” it is perhaps not altogether surprising that the Democrats as a party would craft such a devious and nakedly race-based strategy. But it is shocking to see the president of the United States cast aspersions on a state that is acting to correct one of his failures.

This is one of those read the whole thing things. The case if very clear: the federal government that shirks its constitutional responsibility has no room to criticize anything that any state does to correct their failure by choice. It was entirely within the power of the administration to prevent the Arizona bill, and it remains within their power to prevent Texas and other states from following suit. If these states do so, it’s only because this administration, as well as previous administrations going back decades, have abandoned their responsibility. The plain simple truth is that if this were a contractual matter, the federal government would be in default. They are not in a position to criticize.

Is it somewhat unfair that Bush never faced this criticism and action, even though his policy was pretty much the same? Yes and no. Yes, because Obama isn’t doing anything materially different from Bush, and no, because the reality on the border has deteriorated. There’s an all-out war going on, and ignoring the government’s responsibility now involves a heavier price. And I seriously doubt that Bush would have attacked a sovereign state this vociferously over their attempt, flawed or otherwise, to do what the federal government choses not to do.

But I could be wrong about that, too.