Focus on the wrong things, and invent new categories of "terrorist"

Nick Gillespie finds things to critique in the performance of Janet Napolitano's DHS:

On the one hand, you've got the former governor of Arizona who manages to keep talking no matter how many of her own feet she's got stuck in her mouth. Janet Napolitano's agency released a report implying that if you think Ron Paul is onto something or that state governments should ever challenge federal ones, you're a terrorist [. . .] Even more recently, she fretted and then apologized for worrying that some of our boys coming home from Iraq might be anti-government. Imagine.

On the other hand, she's starting an Obama-sanctioned jihad against illegal immigrants who work in America and the "evil-doers" who hire undocumented workers to cut your grass and clean your sheets. From an appearance on State of Our Union:

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

In what alternate universe is the secretary living where it's evil (E-VIL!) to hire immigrants who are willing to work? Napolitano is also in favor of the idiotic border wall and "boots on the ground," meaning an unending harassment of all residents within Fortress America (after all, if you aggressively pursue illegals and their employers, it means you have to check everybody's papers and payrolls.)

The popularity of "getting tough on illegal immigrants" is bound to wane, as part of the "getting tough" will be much more vigorous enforcement of employment laws . . . which will require everyone at a targetted business to prove that they have the right to live and work in the country. It will literally mean having to show "your papers" to every jumped-up Jack-in-office who takes a notion that you might not be "legal".

As long as this sort of thing is conducted largely out of sight of most people, it's tolerated. They've already been moving to make this sort of enforcement effort much more visible.

Nobody (well, damned few people) argue that the border needs to be monitored, but the over-expansion of the definition of what constitutes the border is a very bad thing. 100 miles is an arbitrary number . . . who can object if the government decides it javascript:editPlacements()should be 200 or 300 miles? At what point can anyone say "this far, but no further"? If you've already conceded 100 miles, there's no logical stopping point, is there?