Cognitive dissonance is defined as such:

Anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.

Apparently we must wait for the anxiety to kick in.  For there appears to be no anxiousness, no realization, by the Democrats of the incompatibility of being for deportation of illegal aliens who are criminals and not also being for tight border security.

The Democrats who now are reacting to the murder in San Francisco by the multi-felon illegal alien are holding “contradictory and incompatible attitudes.”

When these Democrats declare they are for the deportation of certain types of illegals yet still are opposed to or mute on tightening border security, they are holding positions that are in conflict.  Any person who is deported as a punishment but is allowed to re-enter the country due to lax border security is penalized only by the discomfort of the round trip.

To make deportation have an effect, the desired effect, the border must be secure.

Deportation suggests permanent relocation from the United States.  But the ultra-liberals, specifically from California, who now are awakened by the outrage of the recent murder, those who suggest deportation and haven’t altered their position on strengthening the border, are in conflict with themselves.

Hillary, Boxer, Feinstein and all the others who have turned a blind eye to the border security question now suggest that placing a criminal on the other side of a border, a border whose security they do not promote, is a deterrent or penalty.  It apparently isn’t.

If you think deportation a penalty, you must also believe in prevention of returning.  This can be accomplished only by a secure border.  The dissonance is deafening.

Could a journalist point this out in the next softball interview?