Update: As promised by Brit Hume, Fox News has republished the offending cartoons. If you’re waiting expectantly for other drive-by media to follow suit, don’t hold your breath. There’s only one religion in contemporary society whose mockery is verboten. 

Mark Steyn, as usual, cuts to the heart of the matter. The refusal by almost every North American media outlet of consequence-with one glaring exception-to republish the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo-like their choice to ban the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed caricatures, is an example of cowardice. This is a decision motivated by base, craven fear, masquerading as a sop to Muslim sensibilities. That said, the decision by most European newspapers to republish those same satirical cartoons shouldn’t be seen as an indication that the continental media have any firmer grasp of what’s at stake, as the  groupthink denunciation of grassroots anti-Islamization campaigns, as well as of those political figures who’ve criticized the multicultural ideology that contributed to Wednesday’s massacre, makes clear. The consistent obfuscation of who is responsible for the series of horrific anti-Semitic violence being but one example of how muddled the Fourth Estate’s evaluation of Islam’s relationship to the West is.

Unfortunately, I think that Steyn has hit upon a difficult truth to digest. The journalists who were assassinated by jihadists in Paris were not simply irreplaceable in terms of their unique talent for clarifying the relationship described above. They were irreplaceable in a much more immediate, practical sense. There are only so many people willing to place themselves in the crosshairs of the perpetually aggrieved religion before our reserve of martyrs is exhausted. And then, notwithstanding the faux solidarity of people who posture as journalists, the terrorists really will have won.
h/t Gates of Vienna.

Last week I had the pleasure of witnessing a panel discussion at the Rush Arts Gallery moderated by Julie Ashcraft, who is currently curating an exhibition entitled The Grand Cypher: Hip Hop, Iran & Syria. You can see the multi-media exhibit through May 24th, but I decided to take in the works of art and poetry last week in order to listen to a riveting conversation about the nature of hip hop within a global context, the opening of which you can view for yourself. In addition to acclaimed independent rapper Immortal Technique and New York attorney Jenny Poupa Marashi, who was born in Iran, there were two artists who participated in the panel via Livestream, Ehsan Ziya (Atour)-who hosted the first hip hop podcast in the nation of Iran-and Francis A. Willey, a composer and artist known not only for an iconic image appropriated by freedom activists in the Middle East but for an innovative, less toxic method of processing photographs. 

What struck me about this event was the way it embodied was the transcendent nature of art. Many of the artists whose works were displayed in this exhibition had experienced indescribable hardships-including war and imprisonment-in order to have their voices heard. The fact that they are able to recognize the importance of art-and how essential it is to life-in the face of threats to their own livelihood and security demonstrates its universality to the human condition. In a society where artists clamor for subsidies from unwilling taxpayers, it was refreshing to experience artwork which was created  at great personal sacrifice, often in defiance of government censorship.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the panel discussion was a debate over the role of the hip hop community in fostering public debate over critical domestic and foreign policy issues. Immortal Technique-the Peruvian-born, Harlem raised rap artist Felipe Andres Coronel-was arguably the ideal person to address this subject, being at the forefront of independent, conscious hip hop. Even though I was familiar with some of his views prior to this discussion, I was nonetheless wowed by the breadth of knowledge on display by Coronel, whose commentary ranged over the role the Sykes-Picot Agreement played in the current, sanguinary problems in the Levant, to the extent of white slavery within an empire of oppression dominated by Arab-Muslim armies of conquest in the past. Regardless of what you think of his personal political philosophy, it’s difficult to argue that Immortal Technique brings a sagacity and historical knowledge to his work that is sadly lacking  in the contemporary rap world.

Ehsan Ziya, his Iranian counterpart, contributed his own fascinating observations to this discussion, which also delved into the necessity of maintaining creative and financial control over the work you produce. As an artist in an Islamic theocracy which exercises complete control over what artistic expression and information is allowed to be consumed by the general public, he experiences life very differently than artists living in North America or Europe. The plight of  those seeking to create independent cinema, music and art within Iran is well known in the west, however very few people are aware of the struggles of the underground rap scene. One of the chief obstacles rappers like Ziya must overcome is the Catch-22 facing musicians who seek to turn their passion into a vocation. Namely, that in order to monetize their art these rap artists need to be widely known among the Iranian public, but once they become well known, the authorities rapidly crush them.

Even though he is not explicitly political, Ziya faces persecution because of the incipient threat that any large group of individuals-even those who merely share a common interest in a particular musical genre-pose in the wake of the Green Revolution. Unsurprisingly, artists who do not challenge the existing political status quo-even in an oblique manner-receive the full support of the regime-a point validated by the approval of a rap LP devoted to the devastating 2003 earthquake in Bam, which was produced by a group of musicians who had the full-throated endorsement of the IRI and its state institutions. The chasm that exists between those artists who are unencumbered by the desire to please authority-and as a result, are persecuted by the powers that be-and those who insist upon kowtowing to power, was thrown into stark relief by The Grand Cypher.

Therefore, I highly recommend visiting this exhibition, which will be on display through next week.

This is Election Day in New York City-among other localities-which means that we will be choosing a replacement for El Bloombito-who has other priorities-as well as numerous members of the City Council. For those readers living in Astoria, we recommend Daniel Peterson. Seeking the seat of outgoing councilman Peter Vallone Jr., Mr. Peterson has spent years trying to improve his community, most of it in the private sector-unlike most of those seeking to run our lives-and is, I readily concede, a good friend. Those seeking a capable representative, and a good steward of their tax dollars, could do much worse than electing him to represent their interests.

Another candidate from Queens who merits consideration is Craig Caruana, who has mounted a spirited challenge to the Crowley political machine, a wholly baleful influence upon the civic culture of that borough. If the  loathsome history of the Crowleys weren’t enough to persuade you to vote for Mr. Caruana, the crusade against his candidacy by militant open borders fetishists should put undecided, patriotic voters firmly in his camp. Which brings us, finally, to the potentially disastrous consequences of a Bill DeBlasio mayoralty. Although we make no endorsement in the mayor’s race, the ostensible allies of Mr. DeBlasio leave us queasy, to say the least.

We recommend visiting our good friends at The Silent Majority No More, who have some disturbing video of the amnesty crowd’s wish list for the presumptive incoming mayor of New York City. Regardless of how you vote later today, keep in mind the potential consequences of your decision. As we’ve learned repeatedly, election results matter.

Today is a huge day, with many important events occurring throughout the country. In addition to Tea Party-led protests against the recently uncovered pattern of maliciously partisan actions by the IRS, today is National Press Day. Sponsored by Remember 1986, an organization dedicated to stopping our government from repeating the mistakes of the past, the series of events occurring later today will hopefully serve as a guide to those who wish to harness the justifiable anger and contempt they feel towards Congress for a supremely productive purpose. Namely, preventing the Gang of Eight and their allies from gutting what remains of American immigration law.

As we’ve described in previous posts, there will be press conferences held by local immigration enforcement activists throughout the Tri-State Area. However, there will also be an event taking place in California-ground zero for the devastation wrought by an unchecked policy of open borders-in front of the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the chief political instruments of the gradual, yet seemingly inexorable, decline of the Golden State. A decline that will only be accelerated once this latest  amnesty is implemented.

Those patriotic Angelenos who still harbor some hope for their state can find information explaining how to attend this event below. Join the individuals who administer and enforce this nation’s immigration laws in opposing this potentially ruinous piece of legislation. If we don’t speak out, who will?

Los Angeles Media Event

DEFEAT the Senate amnesty bill S. 744!

In front of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Los Angeles Office

Bring American flags and signs opposing Senate Bill S. 744 – Signs will also be available.

Bring quarters for parking meters – limited free parking

SPEAKERS:

Jamiel Shaw
Talk Show Host – Father of high school football star Jamiel Shaw Jr., executed by an illegal alien gang member.

Lupe Moreno, President of LAIR

Raymond Herrera
President and founder We The People, California’s Crusader

DATE:  Tues, May 21, 2013

TIME: 11 am

LOCATION: In front of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office building

11111 Santa Monica Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90025

We’d like to wish our readers a blessed Easter, or a happy Passover-for those who are commemorating the Jews’ exodus from bondage in Egypt. Today also happens to be the birthday of Cesar Chavez, the founder of the United Fruit Workers and the force chiefly responsible for ending the notorious bracero program. It should come as no surprise that the open borders left, including Chavez’s former colleagues in the UFW, have exploited his legacy in order to pursue a policy of eradicating whatever meager immigration enforcement remains at the discretion of this administration. Even today, marches being held to demand millions of illegal aliens be given access to jobs, taxpayer-funded university education, and eventually, citizenship. 

Even as Big Labor and its corporate allies agree to sell American workers up the river in the latest round of Capitol Hill scheming, the history of this country is being distorted and manipulated in order to service the agenda of those who want to see their contributions erased from the new America. That is why it’s important to recount history accurately and forthrightly, and not use it as as a cudgel to beat your ideological enemies into submission. If you want to read what Cesar Chavez actually believed, I suggest you read an essay I wrote after the President had made yet another speech hijacking Chavez’s legacy in order to serve his party’s political agenda, which is predicated upon an endless supply of cheap votes. If we’re going to remember Cesar Chavez, the least we could do is acknowledge his struggle against corporate attempts to devalue American labor and government efforts at short-changing American workers and citizens.

Martin Luther King Jr. is perhaps the most iconic symbol of this country’s struggle for civil rights during the latter half of the 20th century. He also symbolized the aspirations-social, economic, and spiritual-of black Americans. That’s why the official commemoration of his birth-marked by a federal holiday yesterday-is the perfect occasion to examine the parlous condition of Martin Luther King’s heirs.

The latest edition of  Jamiel’s Law examines the problems they currently face, including the concerted effort to ethnically cleanse them from the city of Los Angeles, a town which once served as a springboard to middle class prosperity for scores during the Great Migration. It also takes to task the shameful record of most-if not all-black elected officials in this country, who continue to pander to the Democratic Party’s most cosseted constituency, even if it means they wind up on the short end of the stick.

How MLK Jr. would view today’s current crop of black politicians is unknowable, but the impact they’ve had upon their constituents has been inarguably malign, as their lockstep  resistance to SB 1070-style bills and deteriorating economic prospects demonstrate. If only the politicians we elected represented our interests as Americans. Alas, they do not, something the late Terry Anderson knew well. Black or white, the men and women who are sent to Albany and Washington D.C. only care about those who are bankrolling their campaigns and bolstering their efforts to retain power, which is increasingly built upon the maintenance of ethnic lobbying blocs.

As we head into the second term of the Obama administration, it’s important to remember that our current political dynamics rely upon balkanization, not unity of purpose, and the distribution of spoils, rather than the reductions of impediments to our pursuit of freedom. Notwithstanding the President’s vainglorious opinion of his administration’s achievements, some people know what’s really happening. Kudos to Jamiel Shaw Sr. and the Shaw family-among others-for daring to point out that the emperor-as well as his many servitors-have no clothes.

Video of Frank Gaffney’s speech can be found on Urban Infidel.

One of the unofficial mottos of the United States, this phrase-which is minted on this country’s coins and emblazoned upon our paper bills-embodies the common heritage of the American nation, which was created from the union of thirteen distinct, unique former British colonies. Over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it came to symbolize the melting pot forged from a collection of people who came to the United States from various European nations in order to reconstitute their lives.

It is a concept that, like many of its inhabitants, has become alien to contemporary America. We now live in a country comprised from a polyglot agglomeration of foreign tribes, individuals and extended families, many of whom would be unable to assimilate to American culture even if a coherent one still existed and they were encouraged to do so, both dubious propositions.

One of the most persistent questions raised by the September 11th attacks, and recurring periodically since, e.g. during the debate over the construction of Park 51, the debacle that the trial of Ft. Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan has occasioned, and other terrorist attacks conceived by native or naturalized American citizens, has  revolved around whether Islam as it’s practiced today can be reconciled with traditional American values embodied in documents like the United States Constitution.

This question is what brought Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, to the Women’s National Republican Club last week, where he addressed the “civilizational jihad” he asserts Islamists are waging against the United States, as well as the West more broadly conceived. While the sight of Mr. Gaffney delivering a policy address is far from unusual, the fact that the event was hosted by Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies reflects a growing recognition among some conservatives-albeit, not all-that our nation’s immigration policy has a deep and profound influence upon national security and foreign policy concerns.

While some believe that the growing diminution of the traditional demographic profile of America will lead to a more pacific, non-interventionist foreign policy-analogizing it to the anti-war sentiment which prevailed in this country before its entry into World War I-it can be argued that the government’s embrace of heretofore foreign ethnic and religious groups will foster an even more aggressive, and in many ways detrimental, foreign policy, which might well endanger American diplomats, servicemen and civilians in the future-as it has in the recent past. What’s more, the union of multinational jihadist platforms with digital technology has given an entire generation of Arab, Asian and African Muslim young men who are essentially unmoored-having been transplanted to a foreign land at a young age-a distinct cultural and political identity; one which involves the replacement of Western norms and mores with a muscular, revanchist interpretation of Islam. The fact that the dominant legal, cultural, and political class have spent the past five decades attempting to minimize or nullify these very same values speeds their mission.

A perfect illustration of this dilemma was discussed by Frank Gaffney in relation to the Somali community within Minnesota, which now numbers in the tens of thousands. Resettled in previously homogeneous, tranquil parts of the United States at the urging of a United Nations bureaucracy and with the assistance of the U.S. State Department, these refugees have children who are now returning to the homeland of their parents and enlisting in battle against the Transitional Federal Government which our government helped to establish and killing African Union peacekeepers whose mission it ostensibly supports. Beyond the validity of their refugee claims-many of which are wholly fraudulent-there is the inescapable conclusion one must draw that the wealth confiscated from American citizens in the form of taxes-and lavished upon social welfare programs necessitated by the Somalis inability to support themselves or their families legally-is being used in some small measure to defray the cost of living of those who intend on blowing other people up.

In addition to the expense-born in our pocketbooks and  in the gradual erosion of American community-of this experiment, there is the the genuine threat posed by a large segment of migrants who dislike this country both because of specific foreign policy decisions and concrete Koranic injunctions. It beggars belief that the federal government would seek to import scores of foreigners from third world nations whose populations harbor significant hostility towards America while at the same time another branch of the state engages in nation-building experiments and military operations in those very same lands. The fact that this process is facilitated by the United Nations, a world body whose values are diametrically opposed to those cherished by most Americans, strains credulity.

One of the points emphasized throughout Gaffney’s lecture was the global, multidimensional nature of the jihadist threat. He focused extensively on the case of a particular individual who was detained while he and his hijab-clad wife filmed the support structure of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, an incident which would ultimately lead to one of the most critical pieces of evidence introduced during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, at the time the largest Islamic charity in the United States. The HLF was eventually revealed to be not only a financial conduit for Hamas but also part of a network of institutions within the United States which were created under the auspices of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to achieve their ideological goals on American soil.

Although it might seem absurd to believe that bedrock American institutions can be undermined by a small coterie of Islamic ideologues, you have to consider the havoc the institutional left has already inflicted upon our society. An Iraqi refugee-with prior criminal offenses-has been charged with maliciously damaging federal property for attempting to destroy a Social Security Administration office with an improvised explosive device! The systematic execution of over a dozen soldiers by Nidal Malik Hasan is deemed a case of  ‘workplace violence’ by our federal government. A premeditated jihadist assault on LAX’s El Al terminal is not even considered a hate crime, and the head of the Justice Department cannot even utter the name of the religion whose doctrines inspired the man who attempted to obliterate Times Square with an explosive device which dwarfed that used in the Oklahoma City bombing.

In this context, it’s not difficult to see how a machiavellian political apparatchik with an outsized influence over the conservative movement, or an influential Democratic congressmen popular among both leftists and militant Muslims, or a presidential advisor with dubious ties to apologists for the Muslim Brotherhood can do permanent harm, especially when constitutional rights like freedom of speech are being used as bargaining chips in relations with the Muslim world.

The fact that a would-be facilitator of regicide and terrorist financier was able to enter the good graces of a sitting president and establish a program for Muslim chaplains, which still exists, because of the oleaginous influence of someone who purports to represent American Muslims illustrates the toxic combination of  identity politics and K street lobbying. And while some maintain that establishing a pro-Arab/Muslim political infrastructure in this country is necessary to balance the existing pro-Israel bias among American lawmakers, it’s hard to imagine Israelis-regardless of the wisdom of their specific policy views-enacting violent revenge upon Americans for their government’s policy regarding the West Bank or votes on the UN Security Council.

Glenn Greenwald raises the question of whether Nidal Malik was engaged in an act of terrorism, since-from his perspective, at least-he was fighting those who had enlisted in an army which had attacked his coreligionists in the nation of Yemen. But a more pertinent question is why someone who places allegiance to a foreign religion or a terrorist group in the Persian Gulf above his oath to the U.S. Army, or even his  obligation not to slaughter unarmed Americans, is in the United States to begin with. Why must the cult of diversity take precedence over the lives of ordinary American citizens?

And the answer is not comforting. It’s because our immigration policy is not designed with the interests of Americans in mind. Our laws are built to satisfy the demand of  colleges and universities that need the tuition paid by tens of thousands of Saudi students. Of private and public institutions that demand the addition of Muslim chaplains, regardless of ideology. Of parasitical federal contractors which make a killing by resettling scores of refugees who are a drain on state coffers in towns and cities throughout the country.

The customary response from advocates of changing the cultural landscape of America is that we need to do these things in order to change the hearts and minds of those living in the Islamic world. We need to project an image of openness in order to change the negative image of the United States overseas. The problem is that it has not worked, and in all likelihood, will never work. Globalization, insofar as it facilitates the exchange of goods and services according to the law of supply and demand, is a good thing. However, importing the maladies, cultural neuroses and obscurantist religious dogmas of foreign cultures for the sake of appeasing the gods of diversity and multiculturalism, even as we engage in questionable foreign interventions urged on by figures whose interests are inimical to those of the United States, is madness.

The rotten fruit of the Arab Spring, like that from the most recent war in Iraq, is being brought to our shores, so this is as good a time as any to begin having a conversation about what we want our country’s future to look like. Like Frank Gaffney, I believe it’s time to discontinue the diversity lottery, stop issuing visas to imams for whom there is no demand, and begin to look out for the interests of Americans, first and foremost.

As sundry pundits, political consultants, and elected officials search for answers in the wake of the GOP’s decisive election loss, it’s worth noting that while the Republican Party yielded ground in the Senate, House of Representatives, and various state legislatures-to say nothing of its presidential nominee’s defeat-there were several important races where immigration patriots won, or open borders shills were soundly beaten. Overall, it was a much better night for those believe in responsible immigration policies than the reelection of El Presidente might initially suggest.

Contrary to the self-serving narrative constructed by professional Hispanics and those eager for an endless supply of government-bankrolled cheap labor, the Republican Party’s losses this November did not stem from its allegedly rigid opposition to illegal immigration, as the resounding defeat of  an anti-SB 1070 exemplar in the state of Arizona demonstrates. This is not so startling when you consider that 62% still believe that stopping illegal immigration is extremely important, according to a post-election Gallup survey.

Although Hispanic voters overwhelmingly favored the reelection of President Barack Obama, and increased his margin of victory in several densely populated blue states,  they did not play a decisive role in any of the major swing states. Of course, as the rest of the country inexorably turns into California, that could very well change in future presidential elections. However, the one way to ensure that those races are not competitive is by enacting those schemes which so many in the Republican Party believe-or purport to believe- will ingratiate them to Hispanic voters.

In order to understand why this is a fatal delusion, I recommend you read a lengthy and data rich, but nonetheless illuminating, post by Tino Sanandaji on his Super-Economy blog which delineates in painstaking detail why Hispanics are natural Democrats. His analysis, unlike the siren song of open borders Republicans such as Linda Chavez and rootless, neoconservative ideologues like Jennifer Rubin is grounded in empirical evidence, not self-deluding fantasies.

We’ve trod this ground many times before at American Rattlesnake, but it’s worth revisiting because the same insipid arguments for embracing amnesty-which are as ethically obtuse as they are intellectually bankrupt-will be marshaled once Congress reconvenes in 2013, if not sooner. You need to be armed with factual, incontrovertible evidence that demonstrates why embracing the path of amnesty is a strategy of failure, for the nation, for future generations saddled with non-working age immigrants partaking of our vast welfare state, and for a party which seems intent upon legislating itself out of existence.

Last week’s election results undoubtedly left many readers deeply disappointed, if not disaffected, including those of you who couldn’t bring yourselves to cast your ballot for Mitt Romney for any number of well documented reasons. The prospect of a president unencumbered by electoral consequences, whose administration has already shown itself to be flagrantly indifferent to-if not contemptuous of-the rule of law and quaint Constitutional notions like the separation of powers, seems daunting to ordinary, patriotic citizens.

What’s more, the same malleable, anemic species of Republican which has represented GOP voters for the past two years, and whose leadership has led not only to political defeat but unprecedented encroachments upon personal autonomy, has been returned to Congress. Not to stand up for the principles of the men and women who elected them, but with the intent of compromising with the  President and cementing his agenda into law, including the completion through congressional action of the vast amnesty Barack Obama has begun to implement through executive action.

Make no mistake, President Obama will attempt to fulfill his promise to repay the support he received from Latino voters this election cycle. The implementation of DACA and promulgation of administrative amnesty over the past two years was merely the down payment of a much larger loan floated by the Democratic Party’s most prized constituency. Repaid, of course, with citizenship for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in this country.

I doubt that either Barack Obama or John Boehner will wait for the next session of Congress to begin; certainly it doesn’t appear that members of Congress are hesitant to begin strip-mining what remains of American citizenship. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s rumblings about neutering the filibuster-which was the only legislative tool that prevented the DREAM Act from being enacted in the last lame duck session of Congress-don’t augur well for those of us who want to prevent this from happening. This upcoming session will see a reprise of the last lame duck session, only with fewer opportunities to obstruct whatever stalking horse for  amnesty is presented before Congress.

The fact that every credible exit poll, like every other measurable barometer of public opinion, demonstrated overwhelming voter opposition to amnesty will mean nothing to the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, much less the man who owes his office to individuals, unions, and corporations who will be the chief beneficiaries of any future negations of federal immigration law. The American people serve as an impediment which needs to be removed in a nation where too many old, white men exist, according to the despicable Al Cardenas, the current head of the curiously named American Conservative Union.

This meta-narrative, fostered by the usual suspects in the mainstream media and elsewhere among open borders dogmatists, will be emphasized in the weeks and months ahead. And just as in previous years with equally catastrophic amnesty proposals, this theme will be regurgitated by cretinous political apparatchiks, putative conservatives-such as Charles Krauthammer-and Republican Party lackies like Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity.

What makes this upcoming battle even more difficult is the seeming justification open borders enthusiasts have in pursuing their agenda by virtue of the latest electoral outcome. Almost to a man, they are touting the defeat of Mitt “Green Card Stapler” Romney-a man who endorsed the codification of DACA into federal law-as vindication of their mantra that the Republican Party needs to abandon any pretense  of  respect for our national borders, our language or our unique heritage as Americans.

While it’s easy to grasp why Democrats would want to enact legislation ensuring a spigot of reliable, straight ticket voters in future elections, it’s more difficult to discern why the Republican Party would want to legalize-and ultimately, enfranchise-millions upon millions of voters who will ultimately deprive its officeholders and political candidates of any decision-making authority. As poorly as Mitt Romney fared in capturing the Hispanic vote in aggregate terms, he performed even worse with specific sub-demographics within the Latino electorate. As the Pew Hispanic Center points out, Romney’s share of Hispanic voters who identified themselves as non-college graduates was thirteen points less than that among those who had graduated from college.

What better solution to the Republican Party’s demographic bind than to naturalize and enfranchise millions of future voters who have not only failed to attend college, but have not even progressed beyond high school? Makes perfect sense to me. Why even bother compromising your principles if Texas is going to become a blue state in a mere four years, as Jeb Bush-a potential presidential nominee to some of our country’s more sun-addled inhabitants-believes?

Furthermore, the notion that Hispanic voters-particularly, first and second generation immigrants-support the Democrats because of their support for unfettered immigration, or conversely, oppose Republicans due to their perceived opposition to such a policy, is empirically false. As Heather Mac Donald has pointed out repeatedly-including in the immediate aftermath of Mitt Romney’s loss-what binds this community to the Democratic Party, like past waves of immigrants who aligned with that party’s standard bearers, is support for and dependency upon a vast network of welfare programs, as well as wealth transfers which take the form of  confiscatory taxes levied upon high income earners.

That is why the Democratic Party-including Barack Obama and Harry Reid, among others-is so eager to legalize millions of illegal aliens, over sixty percent of whom come from Mexico. It sees these individuals as part of its immutable political base and a gateway to power, just as leaders of public sector and service employees’ unions see them as potential dues-paying members, i.e. a gateway to the accumulation of wealth, most of it extracted at the expense of American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, unlike past waves of immigrants, there are very few incentives for these newcomers to assimilate our language, much less adopt the free market ethos that open borders fetishists at places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Cato Institute ostensibly venerate. Add to this the reality that there is no time for these newcomers to assimilate-even if they had the inclination to do so-as successive waves of immigration further dilute their attenuated connection to this country, and we are left stranded at the current impasse where our nation, along with much of Europe, is functionally bankrupt.

There is no sugarcoating the challenge we face in the days ahead, but face it we must. Amnesty is not the answer.