Thousands of demonstrators tied up traffic on The Strip and other local streets Monday, drawing the attention of more than 200 Metro policemen who worked to divert vehicles, in large measure to keep the demonstrators safe.

That is indeed the main job of local peace officers. They did a good job.

Organizers of the marches characterized them as being staged by immigrants who favor "immigration reform." Those are politically correct euphemisms, at best. This was a demonstration in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. If many of the marchers have already willfully violated America's immigration laws, why should anyone believe they would docilely return to their home countries, file their applications and wait in line to obey some new set of U.S. immigration laws, once they were "reformed"?

Monday, the lawbreaking continued. Local ordinances require organizers of any event that will block a roadway to obtain a free permit, hire workers to barricade streets, and pay for police officers to route traffic. For an event like Monday morning's rally in a city park, the law requires organizers to apply for a permit and to purchase an insurance policy against park damage.

Monday's organizers neither applied for nor acquired any permits. So far as is known, they have made no attempt to pay police. Carlos Mejia, one of the organizers of the morning rally and march, said there was a "mix-up" about getting permits. Organizers thought they had "verbal" permission for the march, he said.

Eva Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the United Coalition for Immigrant Rights, contended organizers for the evening march down the Strip failed to seek or get a permit because they did not have enough time.

Sheriff Bill Young says police have no intention of citing anyone for these admitted violations of law. "Who would you have us cite?" the sheriff asks. "If we had tried to stop (the marchers), it would have led to a fight, arrests. Attempting to stop it would have been like spitting into the wind."

Now, a good case can be made that these permit requirements constitute an infringement on the rights to free speech and assembly. In the past, local officials have held that permits are merely intended to give police adequate notice of pending traffic disruptions, and to make sure taxpayers are compensated for real costs incurred.

If Sheriff Young would now join with those who make the argument that such permit laws are unconstitutional, he should promptly petition the Las Vegas City Council and Clark County Commission to repeal them.

Otherwise, will Metro, the county and city continue enforcing these laws in a discriminatory manner, with certain parties allowed to break the law with impunity based on the political acceptability of their message (or is it sheer numbers?) while other are plumb out of luck?

For instance, Chris Christoff, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, says he was turned down for a permit for a similar march, intended to honor veterans, a few years back. "The reason they (the county) gave was that they couldn't close the streets off because it was a safety hazard." Mr. Christoff says he was told he would also have to come up with $25,000 for an insurance policy, pay overtime for police officers to monitor the event, and pay workers to put up barricades.

County Senior Engineering Technician Ray Martin explains such permit applications are handled on a case-by-case basis. For the record, that's the opposite of saying, "The law is applied equally to everyone, no matter what your message."

So let us make sure we have this straight: If one wants to march down The Strip and tie up traffic, the best course of action is not to apply for permits in a timely and orderly manner -- you'll only get turned down -- but rather to ignore all such laws?

If local officials are only going to enforce the law against people like Marine Corps veteran Chris Christoff, and not against such "politically correct" outfits as the "United Coalition for Immigrant Rights," can't they at least post a written list of which groups are now required to obey the law, and which are not?

Or is there some other way we're supposed to tell?