With the United States Senate rushing headlong into its rendezvous with destiny, i.e. deconstructing what remains of this nation’s anemic and beleaguered economy, and the U.S. House following suit, it  seems appropriate to examine cui bono from these developments. Obviously not American citizens, beyond Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and the politicians who’ll be handsomely rewarded by his corporation as a result of  yet another mass amnesty. Undoubtedly the thousands of immigration attorneys who’ll be enriched through the passage of the Gang of Eight proposal-whose case was pleaded by Laura Lichter, the president of the AILA, in laughably skewed immigration hearings-will accrue some financial benefits after comprehensive immigration reform finally occurs.

Certainly, the individuals and institutions which have collectively spent over a billion dollars lobbying Congress over the past half-decade feel that they have a vested interest in altering this nation’s immigration laws. However, the more immediate beneficiaries will be the millions of illegal aliens who will have their status changed, with the resultant benefits, including those enjoyed by their immediate family members and relatives.

That part of this story is the ostensible focus of Two Americans, a documentary about Katherine Figueroa-whose beatific face you see juxtaposed against the snarling visage of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the print ad above-a nine year-old girl from Arizona whose Mexican parents were arrested and detained after an immigration sweep at their workplace.

I caught a screening of the film by directors Dan Devivo and Valeria Fernandez, which was sponsored by the Justice Action Center and Racial Justice Project of New York Law School, last week just as the debate-such as it is-about immigration reform was percolating within Congress. As you can tell by the names of these academic centers, the foremost concern among faculty members-and presumably, their students-is achieving a desired political outcome-in this case for preferred racial and ethnic groups-regardless of whether that result is consonant with basic Constitutional precepts, a broader conception of justice according to natural law, or a firm foundation in American history. One of the main problems I have with the legal  assault against immigration enforcement-and the left’s approach to the law in general-is that it relies upon this sort of results-based policy, which is predicated on achieving an outcome that is politically-not deontologically-correct.

In my estimation, this is the polar opposite of “justice,” whose definition has until recently-perhaps before the era when critical legal studies achieved a foothold in academe-meant the application of objective rules which applied equally to everyone, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Fortunately, the filmmakers behind Two Americans do grapple with the statutory and constitutional issues, such as habeas corpus, due process, and equal protection, that the enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona-specifically, the suppression sweeps launched by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County-raise. In fact, the film’s focus upon these enforcement actions-and the difficult questions of federalism and the criminal justice system-is arguably the most substantive aspect of this documentary. Personally, I wish the directors had chosen to focus exclusively on these issues, rather than attempt to create an ambitious, almost panoramic-yet not altogether successful-film that often feels like four or five separate documentaries stitched together.

While the film’s promotional materials bill it as an investigation of Joe Arpaio’s expenditure of state funds as head of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, as well as a portrayal of the struggles of young Katherine Figueroa, it actually touches upon at least half a dozen other subjects that could have constituted distinct cinematic projects. From the President’s implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an extension of his administration’s administrative amnesty, to the political struggle over Arizona’s landmark law SB 1070, to the issues of leadership raised by the activities of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, to the relationship between Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, to the relentless effort by his critics, such as Randy Parraz,  to dislodge him from office, to the battle between Sheriff Joe and the President himself, this documentary seemingly attempts to cover every angle of the immigration debate within Arizona in its hour and a half running time.

The relationship between the sheriff and Figueroa’s family is tenuous at best, as Dan Devivo readily conceded during a post-screening question and answer session, where he described how Joe Arpaio is merely a stand-in for all of the elected officials and law enforcement officers-however few in number-who are attempting to enforce immigration laws in a robust manner. I was genuinely surprised by the negligible amount of time devoted to Katherine’s dilemma-even the focus on the Figueroa family was divided between interviews of Katherine, her parents, and her custodial relatives. She is a very appealing personality for the anti-enforcement movement-lending credence to Mickey Kaus’s theory that the DREAM Act was merely a stalking horse for a much broader amnesty-and I had made the assumption going into the screening that she would be centerpiece of this film.

Admittedly, I wasn’t moved to tears-a reaction that Andrea Callan, the ACLU advocate who hosted this event, assured us would be forthcoming-at any point during Two Americans. Perhaps I’ve become inured to the barrage of sob stories and media puffery which deluge the American public on a daily basis regarding the plight of the undocumented. However, it’s hard to discount the notion that Katherine Figueroa’s story is tailor-made for a sympathetic human interest story which could have filled the plot of an anti-enforcement film in its own right. The directors chose to focus instead on the political nature of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s public persona, which is often overlooked in discussions about the utility, legality, and impact of his office’s enforcement campaigns.

In truth, Arpaio is, in addition to being the chief law enforcement officer in Maricopa County, a public official whose capacity as sheriff rests upon his popularity with Arizona voters. So it’s not surprising that his most hotly contested public stance generates scrutiny regarding his motives; the filmmakers asserted-both in the film and subsequent Q&A session-that his crusade against illegal immigration is driven solely by political opportunism. It’s a charge seemingly buttressed by the testimony of a former colleague-interviewed throughout this film-who claims that Joe Arpaio jumped on the anti-illegal alien bandwagon in order to prosper politically. However, I feel this critique wanting, not least because Dan Devivo, in response to an audience member’s (translated) question, averred that Arpaio’s support within Maricopa was dwindling with each subsequent election. One wonders why an extremely popular elected official would adopt a stance that would earn him scorn and political antagonism among open borders enthusiasts throughout the country-and certainly generate opposition within his home county-if it wasn’t based at least partially on personal conviction.

Furthermore, the same insinuation can be made of Arpaio’s political enemies, such as open borders socialist Raul Grijalva, whose political fortunes-and campaign bank account-haven’t suffered as a result of his dogged campaign against SB 1070 and the current sheriff of Maricopa County. And while  questions pertaining to Arpaio’s use of his investigatory authority-particularly with regard to his office’s MACE unit-are certainly valid, the misuse and exploitation of power by some of Arpaio’s most powerful opponents is a question never broached by Two Americans. Specifically, the highly politicized tenure of Thomas Perez-President Obama’s nominee to replace Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, but at the time of the administration’s lawsuit against Maricopa County the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights-is never raised, nor is his extensive history of open borders activism.

Given that this documentary is advocacy journalism, I don’t know how much balance on this subject the audience is entitled to expect. However, the narrative thread of this film continuously returned to the bad faith of people who support immigration enforcement, with the implicit accusation that their beliefs are responsible for the travails of Katherine Figuroa, rather than the actions of her two parents. I give the filmmakers credit for highlighting to a certain degree the fusillade of hatred open borders advocates have unleashed upon Arpaio-including the credible death threats he has received in office-yet the reasons why Arizona voters continue to support him are never seriously scrutinized, nor examined in anything but the most cursory manner.

The extensive and sustained public support for laws such as SB 1070 never arises at any point in this documentary, and the only footage of protestors who are critical of illegal immigration focuses, curiously enough, on members of the National Socialist Movement. The many peaceful, multi-ethnic, well-attended rallies supporting this law-which were covered by mainstream, liberal media outlets in Arizona at the time-completely escape the notice of the filmmakers, as do the public statements of  large, representative, reputable immigration reduction and anti-illegal immigration organizations and individuals in this country. In the end, I think that is the biggest shortcoming of Two Americans. Not the sprawling focus, but the refusal to honestly present the arguments made by the respective camps in the immigration debate. It’s a problem that will persist so long as one side refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of their opponents’ beliefs.

Update: Here’s a link to a story our good friend at The Silent Majority No More wrote describing a vigil NY ICE held on the first National Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Illegal Aliens. Scroll down for video footage of the event. 

Today is the second annual National Day of Remembrance for those who’ve been killed by illegal aliens living within the United States. As we were reminded recently by the death sentence given to Pedro Espinoza, the criminal alien who murdered Jamiel Shaw Jr., the victims of our government’s negligent immigration policies are numerous. From San Francisco to our very own city, the toll these perpetrators have taken is truly staggering. Illegal aliens continue to act with reckless indifference and little fear of detention, let alone punishment, justifiably so in most cases. We’ll just have to wait for the obituaries that will inevitably result from this callous disregard.

This commemoration of the forgotten victims of America’s open borders policies was   introduced by Congressmen Steve King, one of the few members of Congress willing to acknowledge the tremendous cost our government’s adamant refusal to address this problem exacts from the American people. The victims of illegal alien crime are many, but the public officials willing to stand up for their memory are few and far between, as this occasion reminds us.

Let your voice be heard for the voices that were silenced forever.

The divided-and misleadingly named-Arizona vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision, which upheld one key enforcement provision of SB 1070 while invalidating others, the unilateral administrative amnesty which the Obama administration has used to bypass Congress, and the systematic abandonment of federal immigration law by individual states-including New York-have all brought the battle over American sovereignty to a head in this volatile election year. 

That’s why I’m pleased to announce that our friend William Gheen, founder and president of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee, will be participating in a crucial gathering in his home state of North Carolina this weekend-beginning today-which is focused upon addressing one of the most important subjects not being discussed by the two major party nominees during this election year.

The iiiMPACT Conference is something that I urge all North Carolinians to attend-if possible-and those living outside of the state to watch via this link. The details are provided below.

A free, bipartisan educational event featuring leaders and experts on the state, local, and national levels who will share their expertise and knowledge to discuss the impact of illegal immigration in North Carolina check out iiiMPACT to register and for more information. 

We’ll dive into this educational event with a viewing of Dennis Michael Lynch’s ground-breaking documentary, They Come to America. A comprehensive and in-depth look at the reality and the costs of illegal immigration in America, this movie will help to educate the public on this issue on the national level. Step beyond the media pundits’ racially charged sound-bites into what’s really going on in our cities and along America’s border. 

One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.

However, underlying the debate over whether immigration and settlement is a natural right is the assumption that all libertarians/anarcho-capitalists agree on the immigration issue, which is not as much of  a given as it would seem on the surface of things. One of the things that I’ve attempted to do with American Rattlesnake is debunk commonly held assumptions about immigration issues, and the assumption that libertarians all subscribe to Gary Johnson’s point of view is one that needs to be reexamined. There are many libertarians and  anarcho-capitalists who recognize both the practical difficulties and existential problems inherent in society based upon unfettered immigration, especially one with the vast social welfare apparatus of the United States. One of the chief exponents of the view that welfare programs need to be curtailed in order to solve the immigration problem is Gary Johnson’s opponent in the Republican presidential race, Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has repeatedly emphasized the need to do away with the generous, taxpayer subsidized social welfare programs that-while not serving as the initial magnet-provide incentives for illegal aliens to extend their stay in this country indefinitely. The population density of legal immigrants is also heavily correlated with the availability of welfare benefits. Even acclaimed economist Milton Friedman, who held a rather benign view of immigration in general, emphasized the incompatibility of a welfare state with unfettered immigration.

The same opinion is held by many libertarians today, including self-professed constitutionalist Andrew Napolitano, who views Arizona’s landmark immigration law primarily through the prism of the Constitution’s supremacy clause and potential violations of the 4th Amendment via racial or ethnic profiling by law enforcement officers. I’m not sure that the Constitutional objection to statewide laws is dispositive, because-as Andrew McCarthy has pointed out repeatedly in National Review-there is no precedent for prohibiting states from enforcing laws that are consistent with federal statutes. Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny. This is a concept that is seldom grasped by arm-chair commentators on immigration these days, whose default option is to repeat the platitudinous-not to mention, factually incorrect-bromide that we are a “nation of immigrants.” What they neglect to mention is that most this nation’s founding fathers would have been implacably opposed to the present lassez-faire system of immigration, a fact that Thomas Woods-as anti-statist an individual as you’ll find among academics-expertly limns in this Human Events column published during the height of the amnesty debate in Washington D.C.

Yet, even if we were to concede that there’s no firm historical or Constitutional foundation for this nation’s current open borders policies, can it not be argued that there is a compelling moral case for the views espoused by those at the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Cato Institute, Reasonoids, and other trendy, beltway cosmotarians? You would definitely think so if you took their arguments at face value. The notion that we have no moral basis for barring certain immigrants from entry into the United States is certainly widespread in certain libertarian circles, but I don’t believe that makes the idea, ipso facto, libertarian. Julian Simon, in a 1998 essay published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, articulated the perspective felt by many that individual autonomy takes precedence over other “public” goods, including our national borders. In an anarcho-capitalist reality, nation-states would not exist, therefore deciding who should or should not be admitted to your nation would be a moot point.

But while it might seem logical that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract-and at its most essential level, the individual him or herself-are all prioritized over the wishes and feelings of citizens who have a vested interested in preserving the character of their nation, there are those that don’t think these competing values are necessarily mutually exclusive. In a persuasive essay written for Lew Rockwell several years ago, N. Stephan Kinsella made a very compelling argument that while the disposition of property in our society is unjust-insofar as the state has no right to expropriate land that rightfully belongs to individuals-so long as that property is entrusted to the state it has a responsibility to act as caretaker for the rightful owners. In this case, it has the responsibility to prevent the ingress of people that citizens do not want to welcome into their country. While those who are opposed to communitarianism in even its most minimal form might reject Kinsella’s public pool analogy, I think he makes a convincing case that some prophylactic measures need to be enforced to prevent the exploitation of your property-even if it’s already been subjected to theft by the state.

There are many cogent arguments against the current trendy libertarian support for open borders, several of them outlined by the first presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, John Hospers, in paper published by the Journal of Libertarian Studies over a decade ago entitled A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders. The concluding paragraph of the essay is especially perceptive in its analysis of the problem:

Occasionally, we hear the phrase “limousine liberals” used to describe the members of the liberal establishment who send their children to expensive private schools while consigning all the others to the public school system, which educates these children so little that by the time they finish the eighth grade they can barely read and write or do simple arithmetic, or make correct change in a drug store. It would be equally appropriate, however, to describe some other people as ”limousine libertarians” —those who pontificate about open borders while remaining detached from the scenes that their “idealism” generates. They would do well to reflect, in their ivory towers, on whether the freedom they profess for those who are immigrants, if it occurs at all, is to be brought about at the expense of the freedom of those who are not.

This passage describes, in a nut shell, the quintessence of cosmotarianism, and why most Americans-and even some in the libertarian movement-continue to reject it. I could post the most meticulously researched George Borjas journal article, the most statistically devastating backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, or the most irrefutable essay by Mahattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. And although all of these sources are invaluable in the fight to define the terms of this debate, they wouldn’t hold a candle to the self-evident fact that none of the greatest exponents and defenders of open borders, be it Tamar Jacoby, or Jason Riley, or Nick Gillespie, abide by their own exhortations. None of these individuals partake of the glorious mosaic which their unyielding ideology has done so much to create.

You won’t find many Reason Magazine editors or Cato Institute scholars living in Bergenfield, New Jersey, Maywood, California, or Eagle Pass, Texas. Why, you might ask? Because they would rather pass off the tremendous costs of their bankrupt philosophy onto ordinary Americans than to admit that they might just be wrong. These people are insulated from unfettered immigration’s worst effects, including chronic unemployment, violent crime, and environmentally devasting pollution from Arizona to California and throughout the country. They have the luxury of ignoring the impact of this country’s changing demographic profile while promoting the patently absurd notion that our open borders are a boon to all but the small percentage of high school dropouts.

What’s more, they make the equally ludicrous assertion-outlined in the Caplan speech above-that importing millions of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, who will be dependent upon costly government services, from quasi-socialist nations will expand this nation’s economic liberty. Forget the fact that we now enjoy less economic freedom than our northern neighbors, a development concurrent with the greatest expansion of immigration in this country’s history, the entire premise underlying this concept is flawed. You do not build a prosperous, 21st century, post-industrial society around foreigners from countries with low human capital. And the amount of time, energy and economic resources that need to be shifted in order to improve the educational prospects and earning potential of these immigrants, e.g. the billions funneled into ESL programs each year, is so cost prohibitive that it outweighs whatever benefits can be gleaned from such an arrangement.

Another seeming inconsistency in the archetypal libertarian solution to our immigration problem is the reluctance of most libertarians to support any sort of relief for American taxpayers who are tasked with paying for millions of illegal aliens and immigrants who are dependent upon costly social services. Particularly, public schooling and emergency health care. Invoking Friedman’s argument once again, we find that while many libertarians will concede that dependency upon welfare programs is a bad thing they will do nothing to limit access to these programs by illegal aliens or permanent residents. To the contrary, if any such bill-which is immigration neutral-is proffered, they will stalwartly oppose it. Just ask new Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who supports the DREAM Act, despite the fact that taxpayers would be subsidizing the in-state tuition discounts of its recipients. Paleolibertarian writer Ilana Mercer deftly skewers  purported libertarians who routinely call for the abolition of the welfare state while adding a proviso that excludes immigrants and illegal aliens from the fiscal demands of their libertopia.

True believers in liberty, like Mercer and the late Murray N. Rothbard, recognize the inherent contradiction in persuading your fellow Americans to reject the embrace of the state while simultaneously welcoming millions of non-Americans into the country who prefer a larger and more intrusive government in almost every respect into our society. They realize that the banal platitudes used to support unfettered immigration are grossly inaccurate, if not transparent lies. They also realize that the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the hospitality industry do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the free market, and that to a large extent our current immigration policy is another form of corporate welfare, which putative libertarians would be quick to denounce in any other context. The time-saving, productivity-increasing technological innovations that would normally be welcomed by these same individuals are rejected by those who apparently think pre-industrial stoop labor is the best method of improving  our agricultural production. Finally, they recognize that the  utopian, globalist conception of freedom-where people living in Gabon or the Hadhramaut have just as much say in how we are governed as American citizens living in New York-contravenes the distinctively American, Constitutional, federalist, representative republic designed by this nation’s founding fathers.

In short, the issue before the house is not whether it is an abandonment of principle for libertarians to embrace sensible immigration restrictions, it’s why institutional libertarians representing organizations like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation have stifled an honest, open intellectual debate about this subject. Even as the negative repercussions of our government’s devotion to open borders become harder to ignore for all but the most oblivious, the gatekeepers of respectable opinion on this subject continue to narrow the parameters of discussion to their own narrow, ahistorical perspective. I don’t expect that to change any time in the near future, but those of us who want an intellectually honest debate about the most important issue of our time can at least begin to clarify its terms, if for no other reason than to educate those novices interested in how mass immigration has impacted our society who are asking themselves how they should view these changes from a liberty-oriented perspective.

In a state like California, the causes of patriotic immigration enforcement and protecting taxpayer wealth need all the help they can get. That’s why I’m imploring any and all AR followers who live in Rancho Cucamonga to donate a bit of your day in order to help get the repeal of AB 131 on the ballot. Help out our good friends John and Ken and say no to the California Dream Act.

Here are the details:

John and Ken Petition Drive
DATE: Thursday, December 15
TIME: 3pm – 7pm
Location: Ozel Jewelers
11400 4th St, Ste 103, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Ozel Jewelers is located on the north side of 4th Street, one short block east of Milliken between Sonic Drive-Thru and Famous Dave’s Restaurant. Signing will be at the parking lot behind Ozel Jewelers.

And here is the Stop AB 131 Facebook page for those of you who can’t make it tomorrow afternoon but want to learn more about how you can help thwart the DREAMs of open border, hack politicians like Gil Cedillo and Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown.

STOP THE CA. DREAM ACT

Speaker John Perez has sent you a challenge! He said there is no possible way you are going to qualify this referendum. You and I both know that he has no idea who he is talking to, but it is time for us to show him!

On Wednesday from 3-7 p.m. we will be in San Diego and Thursday we will be in San Bernardino and Los Angeles doing just that! Scroll down to find out where you can come sign or return signed petitions.

With less than a month to go, we need to push this effort to the last day. Take petitions to your Christmas parties, New Years parties and make sure they are all back in our hands by January 5th!

Not only do we need your signature, but it is time politicians like Perez hear YOUR voice! Along the left sidebar you will find call-in numbers of some of the top radio stations in your area. Call in, tell them what you are doing and why you are in this fight! You can even use the AB 131 FAQs. You can find them HERE.

If you make it on air, we want to hear about it! Send an e-mail to Stopab131@gmail.com to let us know about it!

Godspeed,

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly

For more information about the measure, visit Stop AB 131.

Come drive-through, drop-off or sign petitions any of the locations below!

Here are the specs, courtesy of Assemblyman Tim Donnelly:

San Diego Petition Locations

Wednesday, December 14, 3 – 7 p.m.

with Rick Roberts + KUSI TV

Aero Drive WalMart
3382 Murphy Canyon Rd, San Diego, CA 92123
With Assemblyman Tim Donnelly

Santee Lowes
9416 Mission Gorge Road Santee, CA 92071
With Assemblyman Brian Jones

Carlsbad Mall
East parking lot, in front of the old Robinsons-May
2525 El Camino Real, Carlsbad.
With Assemblyman Martin Garrick

John And Ken Radio Show Petition Locations

Thursday, December 15, 3 – 7 p.m.

Locations will be announced on-air on KFI 640

Huntington Beach Post Office

6771 Warner Ave,

Huntington Beach CA 92647

Stevenson Ranch Walmart

25450 The Old Rd.,
Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381

Laguna Niguel Wal-Mart

27470 Alicia Pkwy

Laguna Niguel, CA

Wal-Mart in Murrieta

41200 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd

Murrieta, CA 92562

Ozels Jewelers

11400 4th St. #103,

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Wal-Mart in Glendora

1950 Auto Center Drive,

Glendora CA

Wal-Mart in Corona

1290 E Ontario Ave.,

Corona

Wal-Mart in Chino

3943 Grand Ave.,

Chino

Albertsons in Fountain Valley

16061 Brookhurst

Fountain Valley

Wal-Mart SuperCenter in Temecula

32225 Temecula Pkwy

Temecula, CA

Target in Menifee

30340 Haun Road

Menifee, Ca

Wal-Mart in Beaumont

1540 E 2nd St

Beaumont, CA 92223

Mountain Avenue Office Suites

222 N Mountain Ave

Upland, CA 91786

The Cedars Restaurant

3768 East Colorado Blvd.
Pasadena, CA

With 41st Assembly Candidate Donna Lowe

Albertson’s in Fullerton

1930 N. Placentia Ave.

Fullerton, CA

at Yorba Linda Blvd. just off the 57 freeway

(Mod Edit/ Personal info removed/ RB)

Stop the CA Dream Act | 43 E. Huntington Dr. #C | Arcadia | CA | 91006-3222

It’s rare for me to single out for praise the Columbia Journalism Review, a  liberal professional journal published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, but this week it ran an article that is an absolute must-read. Head over to their website and read this piece immediately, if you haven’t already done so. It demolishes the oft-repeated canard that there are jobs Americans won’t do while simultaneously taking a sledgehammer to the intellectually disingenuous, morally repugnant pose of anti-American, open borders dogmatists such as Bloomberg. Kudos to the CJR for having the intellectual integrity to publish this edifying piece, which simply reinforces facts that most of us  already knew.

Hat Tip: Ratbstard at ALIPAC.

I normally wouldn’t devote an entire post to mixed martial arts, especially when there are such vital issues to discuss-including the Obama administration’s continued war against the State of Arizona. The sport doesn’t particularly appeal to me as a spectator, and I’m of the opinion that if I wanted to watch men who didn’t know how to throw a punch properly do battle, I’d watch boxing. However, I believe that an exception must be made for the much-anticipated UFC fight that will be broadcast by Fox Sports shortly. The reason being that this fight involves a fighter, Cain Velasquez, of Mexican heritage who I think embodies some of the more problematic aspects of this country’s immigration and acculturation policies with respect to Latinos. 

Mr. Velasquez hails from Salinas, California, the birthplace of John Steinbeck, who immortalized his majestic, dry home in many of the 20th Century’s greatest novels. As this story points out, Velasquez takes great pride in his ethnic heritage, and exults in his ability to inspire other young boys who come from similar circumstances. Yet, I couldn’t help but note the discordance of someone who is a native Californian-a person from a state that’s been a part of the union for well over a century and a half-uttering these words:

“I’m proud to be Mexican, and if I can be a role model for some people, I’m happy to be that person. I’m glad I’m in this position.”

Now, I have no problem with someone displaying pride in his heritage. I certainly don’t take issue with Americans of Mexican descent or recently immigrated Mexicans expressing pride in an athlete whose family comes from Mexico. Just as Irish-Americans in the past rooted for Jack Dempsey, or those of Japanese extraction today cheer on MLB stars like Ichiro Suzuki, it’s to be expected that MMA fans whose parents or grandparents are Mexican would take an especial interest in the success of someone who looks and speaks like them. The fact that he serves as a source of inspiration for boys who might otherwise channel their aggression in unproductive, potentially illegal, avenues is something praiseworthy indeed. Yet the fact remains that Mr. Velasquez does not acknowledge-even in the form of a fleeting aside-the value of being raised in the United States, ostensibly his place of birth.

Perhaps this attitude of indifference is to be expected in a state where the distinction between illegal aliens and citizens has been blurred, if not erased altogether. Maybe it’s merely another sign that culturally we have recognized California as an extension of Mexico, effectively nullifying the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, just as some public schools seem to have acknowledged. As our past coverage of Mexican sporting events hosted in the Golden State makes clear, the United States can no longer play a friendly on home soil. But I can’t help but asking, just as Adam Carolla did in a subtly perspicacious scene in his film The Hammer, why Cain Velasquez is so proud of a country that his parents abandoned, yet so utterly dismissive of the country where he and his family have prospered beyond the wildest dreams of most Mexican nationals.

It’s a question that you might want to ask yourself as you watch him compete tonight against underdog Junior Dos Santos, who has no problem expressing pride in his country.