I can't do everything, and I've completely failed to try to tie in the firings of several U.S. Attorneys to immigration matters. For instance, here's Phyllis Schlafly tying the firings into the Ramos/Compean case, suggesting the Bush should fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton as well.

And, just today:

This article [link] from the LATimes today suggests that immigration — and unfunded policy mandates over it — may be a real undercurrent in AG Gonzales's testimony tomorrow. Essentially, it suggests that some of the fired U.S. attorneys fell out of favor due to failures to be aggressive enough on immigration enforcement, but that perhaps the administration has good reason not to want to press that point too far (i.e., as a "performance-based" reason for the firings) because, the U.S. attorneys countered, the Justice Department (and, derivatively, the administration) did not provide adequate resources to carry out an aggressive enforcement policy. That is, the U.S. attorneys flap may be careening into the immigration debate in a way that will not be useful to advocates of "comprehensive immigration reform" whose burden is to convince the public that the government is serious about border enforcement.

Needless to say, discussing immigration matters makes Democratic leaders a bit uncomfortable as well. I suggest trying to increase their discomfort level, forcing them to choose between continuing to promote what seems to be a scandal and facing up to the fact that we have borders.