The FBI are conducting a separate investigation into civil rights violations.

Because the grand jury is from Phoenix, it isn't a sure thing that he would be indicted even if he is guilty (which I believe he is). The FBI is a totally different thing, though.

The news was used to justify a crack down on dissidents where many were arrested, and a few were even murdered.
And for your information, the SCOTUS can only strike down the whole law or not at all. It cannot strike down parts of it while leaving other parts of it intact. The only way they can do that is if each part were passed and signed as separate laws.
And you're supposed to be a constitutionalist without knowing this?

I saw a “black bloc” member throw a can at a police line in Miami, and when the cops moved in he took a badge out of his shirt and switched sides.

If only half of what I have read is true – and I don't for a moment suppose I know all there is to know – they could have had him behind bars ages ago.

Assuming they had wanted to.

Political theater is directed more appropriately at the media and onlookers rather than at antagonizing police.

In more civilized communities police assigned to protest rallies are there to keep the peace and protect the safely of all participants.

Antagonizing police does not advance any social justice cause. Ever.

That said, the one group of anti Vietnam protesters who were more effective, in protest and theater, were the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. This was so because police and politicians, especially Nixon himself, had an extremely high level of respect for veterans who had put themselves on the line for America. The VVAW people usually did not use their Class-A dress uniforms for theater. Its a respect thing.

My point is that there is no such category as “illegal immigrant”; it
is a contradiction in terms. Those who are whining for amnesty for
the Mexican “invasion”, which is what it is, would prefer to use the
term “immigrant” for the obvious reason that it tends to lend some
respectability to what is essentially an illegal act , whether they
actually crashed the border or simply overstayed a visa. Now as to
the degree of the crime, that's another matter, but whether
misdemeanor or felony, it is criminal activity and it is not erased by
simply ignoring it and calling them immigrants, when that process is
exactly what they are willingly circumventing. Are we clear on my
point of view?

My point is also that there is no need for immigration reform and
certainly none for “comprehensive reform”. No one has ever offered a
reason for reform and certainly the system's inability to handle 12 to
20 million illegal aliens is no indication of the need for reform. As
I've indicated elsewhere, we have the most utilized immigration system
in the world, so it should be obvious to even the most dull-witted
that we have no need to reform the system.

The problem as everyone knows and which everyone ignores, like the
elephant in the room, is that the Federal government has elected to
sit idly by, not enforcing its borders, while the problem,
predictably, got ever larger to the point where they can now say,
well, its too big to handle so let's consider amnesty, thereby making
a mockery of our laws, our borders, and our very sovereignty and
guaranteeing in the process, that we will see yet another future
invasion as countless millions of the Southern Hemisphere's poor
correctly assess our lack of intention.

Mexico needs a revolution and shouldn't be allowed to foist its poor
and oppressed citizens onto the next handy nation and then send the
president no less, to arrogantly clamor for the “rights” of his
citizens, those same “rights” that he's unwilling or incapable of
providing them within his own nation. This arrogant SOB has the nerve
to demand “rights” for his citizens, while Mexico has been tagged by
no less than Amnesty International, as among the worst offenders of
immigrant's rights.

No Quannah, this whole issue doesn't warrant any “solutions” it does
scream for clarity, honest appraisal, and legal action ; devoid of
phony compassion and whatever other emotion is being injected for the
purpose of presenting the problem as anything but what it is, a mass
demonstration of illegal activity because it suits Mexico's purpose.

One, or a few illegal aliens, may be a task for the Border Patrol but
an onslaught of 12 to 20 millions is an invasion, whether they came
over in one fell swoop or incrementally in small numbers, doesn't
detract from the enormity of the action. Invasion is an act of war,
and if anything, our State Department should have issued Mexico a
“cease and desist” order a long time ago; that is if we had even one
of our Departments functioning as designed by their charters; the
order failing, an ultimatum should have ensued, and military action
should have enforced our order. That's the way nations are designed,
with borders and laws that must be observed if we're to have
sovereignty; the alternative is the chaos you're now witnessing, as
well-intentioned (for the most part) people attempt to put the
toothpaste back in the tube.

We need a return to legal observance, not solutions to a system that
has been purposely overburdened.

The words “migrant,” “immigrant” and “emigrant” have nothing to do with legality. They share the same root, and their variations describe direction. A “migrant” is someone who moves from one country to another (or one region to another, or, in the animal kingdom, one habitat to another). An “immigrant” is someone who moved from another country to this one (or an animal that moved from another habitat to this one). An “emigrant” is someone who moved from this country to another (or an animal that moved from this habitat to another one).

We're in the U.S., so in discussing migrants who came from another country to this one we use the word “immigrants.” Again, that has nothing to do with the law, which is why we often use an adjective like “legal,” “illegal,” “unauthorized,” “undocumented,” etc.

Clear now?