Today is the federal holiday marking the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., a man whose surviving relatives continue to debate his legacy. So it’s only natural that the public would be curious about what MLK Jr. would think about one of the defining issues of our time, i.e. immigration. Thankfully, there is a great essay written by an immigration reform activist who tries to flesh out what is admittedly a murky subject. It should be noted that the late Coretta Scott King also opposed the cheap labor, open borders policies advocated by today’s ‘civil rights’ leadership.

While it’s safe to assume that Martin Luther King Jr. would have remained a liberal Democrat, unlike the recently departed Roy Innis-who evolved into a conservative libertarian-the notion that he would have embraced the open borders dogma of today’s black activists and elected officials is speculative, at best. Like many of the deceptions perpetrated by the open borders lobby, relying upon the reputation of someone who can no longer speak for himself is an an easy out. Instead of having to persuade the public that unfettered immigration is an unqualified good, simply distort the legacy of a popular liberal icon.

Don’t fall for it.

One of the more galling aspects of an otherwise unremarkable speech delivered by the President commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was the attempt to link the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement during the 20th century with the attempts by open borders demagogues to further erode the value of American citizenship. Although to most reasonable Americans the linkage between these two social-political movements would seem puzzling-if not patently offensive-it is one repeatedly made by the treason lobby, perhaps most bizarrely by the permanently deranged Frank Sharry, who compared the current plight of illegal aliens to the suffering of antebellum slaves in the United States.

Oddly enough, it wasn’t too long ago that seemingly principled liberals opposed legislation which would retard the economic progress of the poorest Americans while at the same time reinforcing entrenched stratification. And while some still oppose a bill that would handicap the most disadvantaged American workers-in spite of overwhelming pressure to capitulate to the prevailing  kultursmog-most have succumbed to the open borders ideology which animates most elite institutions.

That’s why the letter penned by Coretta Scott King-the widow of the man whose name is synonymous with the march President Obama honored a few days ago-and issued by the Black Leadership Forum in opposition to a law that also expanded the opportunities for immigrants while introducing the dreadful Diversity Lottery at the expense of working class Americans, is required reading. The fact that there was a point in the not so distant past where liberal Democrats opposed the machinations of the cheap labor lobby-rather than bragged about their alliance with the Chamber of Commerce-is information that needs to be impressed upon those who have not been paying attention to this momentous debate, which-like the March on Washington before it-will have an inalterable impact upon the future of this nation.

Information explaining how you can participate can be found after the jump, courtesy of Joanna Marzullo.

Today marks the official commemoration of Martin Luther King’s birthday. Perhaps the most iconic figure in the modern Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. was also a tireless champion of the fight to eliminate inequality in the United States.  So it’s only fitting that we stop for a moment to scrutinize one of the factors that has deepened economic fissures within this country and enhanced pre-existing trends of wealth stratification. That ingredient, often overlooked by open borders apologists masquerading as liberals, is, of course, unfettered immigration. Coupled with the federal government’s persistent unwillingness to secure our borders-which has created a new breed of indentured servants-this has impacted African-Americans more greatly than any other demographic group in this country.

With black unemployment at its highest rate in nearly three decades, and youth unemployment in this category approaching fifty percent, the impact of this administration’s skewed priorities regarding immigration policy are drawn even more starkly into relief. That’s why I’m pleased to highlight a powerful essay first published in The Root, a Web zine focusing on issues of concern to African-Americans. Published by a division of the Washington Post and edited by Henry Louis Gates, that website would probably be the last place you would normally look for a sensible exposition of the issue of immigration enforcement. However, How Illegal Immigration Hurts Black America is a must-read for anyone who wants to read an intelligent, fair analysis of the devastating consequences that stem from our government’s lax attitude towards illegal immigration.

One of the best ways to honor Dr. King is to fight for the ideals of this country and ensure that America remains true to its ideals, not those of open borders fetishists who would like nothing better than to turn this country into Brazil writ large. Keep the dream alive! Study, learn, communicate, inform.

“Martyrs” — That was one of the many signs on display during an NAACP and SEIU-sponsored rally that took place this weekend  in opposition to David and Charles Koch, CEO and Executive Vice-President, respectively, of Koch Industries and universal left wing hobgoblins. The ostensible reason for the demonstration was the brothers’ contributions to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a coalition of conservative state legislators which has become an object of antipathy for liberal political activists at publications like The Nation and groups like Common Cause, People for the American Way, NAACP, and dozens of others-many of which were present at this anti-Koch rally on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

For full coverage and many more pictures, read more after the jump.

This press conference/march intended to draw an analogy between the explicitly discriminatory laws in place in the American South during the Jim Crow era and what the left views as “racist” laws intended to verify the eligibility of voters casting ballots in national and local elections. Hence, the employment of symbolism hoping to evoke thoughts of the worst civil rights abuses of this nation’s past, including the murders of Congress of Racial Equality workers Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney. One of the signs crafted with this purpose in mind used a photograph that came to symbolize the Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike.

One of the main themes the organizers of this demonstration emphasized was the alleged oppressiveness of voting ID requirements, which they repeatedly attempted to compare to discriminatory poll taxes levied against black citizens in large swathes of the American South prior to the enactment of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic nature of this campaign, it’s not an especially convincing argument, especially since none of the voter identification laws-either proposed or enacted-would require voters to pay anything in order to obtain a proper ID, should they not already have one. Jay Nordlinger dissected some of the more spurious arguments posited in opposition to these laws in a National Review article published several years ago. Honestly, the opinions of skeptics in this regard don’t seem to be especially important to the organizations behind the anti-voter ID crusade, because the aim is to energize Democratic, left wing voters who view any such laws with absolute derision. So it shouldn’t have surprised anyone that local Democratic officeholders, such as ethics paragons John Liu  and Charles Rangel, were in attendance.

Also present was the current president of the New York State NAACP, Hazel Dukes. An opponent of charter schools and friend of the United Federation of Teachers-another enthusiastic backer of this event-Dukes is probably best remembered for her troubled tenure at the head of New York City’s Off-Track Betting, which was marked by corruption, racism and incompetence.

Apparently, none of that was enough to dissuade John Liu from giving Ms. Dukes a hearty embrace. I’m not sure if she used her pet name for Comptroller Liu, although the two share a troubling laxity with regard to overseeing their employees and abiding by seemingly prosaic ethical standards so they doubtless found many ripe topics for conversation.

Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel was also there, completing the sound stewardship of public funds by NY Democrats trifecta.

One of the chief sponsors of this rally was Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, which sent one of its representatives to the rally. No one seemed to note the irony of a rally against “racist laws” being endorsed by an organization largely responsible for instigating the climate that led to the massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Apparently, the political power Sharpton wields within the Democratic Party today outweighs any concerns about his dubious past.

One of the fliers distributed at the press conference that preceded the march highlighted the states which had enacted some form of voter identification and verification. The speaker below tried to emphasize the purported threat to voting rights these laws presented to putatively disenfranchised minorities.

Anthony Romero, the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, tried to emphasize that this was not a “partisan” event, but in reality…

The impression of an Obama reelection pep rally was palpable.

Bob Edgar, the CEO of Common Cause-a left wing 501(c)3 which lobbies for unconstitutional things like McCain-Feingold-was another one of the featured speakers at Saturday’s press conference. The absurdity of an organization that opposes the First Amendment denouncing constitutionally protected things like lobbying for more rigorous voter ID laws was lost on most of the crowd.

Although there were very few Muslims that came to the anti-Koch rally, our old friend Talib Abdur-Rashid was given a prime speaking slot to denounce what perceives to be attacks on minority voting rights.

One of the largest contingents at the event-which attracted several hundred people-was formed by the United Federation of Teachers. The president of the UFT, Michael Mulgrew, gave a speech attempting to draw a parallel between the Occupy Wall Street Movement and events like this anti-Koch rally. Both share common goals-and until recently, lockers.

Although the signs are new:

The demonstration included an unwieldy grab bag of leftist special interest groups, including the National Organization of Woman. NOW president Terry O’Neill  attempted to link new voters laws to attempts by pro-life legislatures to restrict access to abortion.

There were also representatives of Hispanic advocacy groups, which shouldn’t be surprising considering the continued national discussion over how-or, if you’re the Obama administration, whether-to enforce immigration law.

The open borders lobby, although considerably smaller than the group of union activists and NAACP workers, was an eager participant in the subsequent march to the United Nations.

Our good friends from the Minkwon Center:

Something tells me that the sign below isn’t entirely accurate.

But perhaps the most ubiquitous presence at this rally was supporters of the NAACP. President and CEO Benjamin Jealous gave the standard speech, not markedly different from any of his colleagues.

For what it’s worth, the organization did do a competent job of organizing local affiliates of the national organization:

There was one seemingly valid argument to be found at this event, notwithstanding the reservations expressed above. The question of whether convicted felons should be stripped of the franchise in perpetuity-and what classes of felonies should be subject to this penalty-is a necessary debate, especially with the increasing growth of federal criminal penalties that attach themselves to crimes that were never before within the purview of the federal government. While most people would find the thought of Charles Manson or Mumia Abu-Jamal casting a ballot deeply troubling, to say the least, I doubt that there would be many objections to restoring the rights of individuals who have been rejoined society after committing a nonviolent offense many years before. However, that is a far cry from demanding that convicted criminals be reenfranchised en masse.

One of the main motifs of this march, and the movement in general, harkens back to the height of the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. Because there are very few actual victims of laws intended to thwart voting by illegal aliens and felons-and the cause of allowing people prohibited from voting back into the electoral process is not nationally popular-using vivid images of iconic victims of civil rights violations is necessary. And although well-designed, they’re probably not persuasive to the extent hoped for by their creators. Then again, these signs are not necessarily aimed at convincing undecided voters but rather energizing those who already subscribe to this very dubious analogy.

Several of the demonstrators did appear to be old enough to have participated in actual civil rights struggles…

Although those who were not at least had some knowledge of the aims of the civil rights movement and its leaders, such as Chief Counsel to the NAACP and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

However, there was still a sizable number of people there simply to voice their anger at the Koch brothers, attempting-with limited success-to tie this demonstration into the Occupy Wall Street movement.

As well as local struggles between organized labor and municipalities in other parts of the country:

Apparently this quip wasn’t self-evident. At least, to the person holding aloft a sign spelling out the Koch family name phonetically.

Tomorrow, more pictures from the Two Minutes Hate.

Update: Welcome to readers from Creeping Sharia. Thanks, once again, to Pamela for the link! We always love getting readers from Atlas Shrugs.

Earlier today I took it upon myself to journey to Foley Square in Manhattan, where an anti-NYPD, anti-intelligence agency gathering sponsored by CAIR, Al-Awda, and Desis Rising Up & Moving, among other Islamic activist organizations, was taking place. For a full recap of what occurred I suggest you check out my Twitter account, which I used to live-tweet the event as it was occurring. However, for now I’ll just lay out my impression of the gathering and thoughts about its message, then let the photographs speak for themselves. The question of whether American citizens should be surveilled, watched, and interrogated for potential terrorist conspiracies is always a touchy one. As Americans we have problems with the notion that domestic investigative and law enforcement agencies are monitoring our activities, regardless of the merits of the case they may be able to mount, and react viscerally to any perceived encroachment upon our privacy.

However, when you have organizations such as CAIR-which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in this nation’s history and whose antecedent organization, the Islamic Association of Palestine, was an offshoot of Hamas-operating inside of your country, to ask agencies charged with protecting us-such as the FBI-to lay off is a bit much. When a group such as the Muslim American Society-another co-sponsor of this rally-which all but admits that it’s a branch of the same tree as the Muslim Brotherhood, is allowed to operate on American soil the notion that Americans would not be interested in their activities is a bit preposterous.

That’s why I think the best solution to this unique dilemma of retaining our open society, yet preventing both terrorism and the loss of our freedoms, is to eliminate the chances of a fifth column developing on American soil. There’s no reason we should allow the mass migration of people who can or will not adapt to American cultural norms to our shores. However, that’s the solution today’s demonstrators rejected wholeheartedly. Now on to the photos.

There was a sparse crowd at the beginning of the rally:

But it began to fill up as the day progressed. I’d estimate that there were somewhere between 70 and 85 people at the height of the rally, including the ubiquitous, green-hatted members of the Marxist National Lawyers Guild.

As well as the self-consciously imposing Muslim “toughs” acting as security for the day’s speakers.

This is a banner from the Muslim Solidarity Committee, an organization founded in order to raise funds for the family members of Yassin Aref and others convicted of rendering support to the Pakistani terror organization Jaish-e-Mohammed.

There were scads of lawyers and law students present, including those from the City University of New York:

And lots of praying, including the adhan, which is not nearly as mellifluous as some people would have us believe.

I wasn’t keeping track, but I did count at least three separate prayers during the time I was there.

And where there’s Islam, there’s proselytization:

There was no love lost between those in attendance and the New York Police Department.

Not that the Central Intelligence Agency was a fan favorite either.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was a frequent target of enmity, with calls for his dismissal echoing from the speaker’s podium and the crowd.

There were a large number of East Indians in attendance:

Most speakers tried to draw a parallel between the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that had taken place only a few blocks away, at Zuccotti Park, and today’s festivities. To be fair to the Muslims, they at least had a semi-consistent message going for them.

Not that inveterate, elderly Marxists didn’t try to muddle things a bit.

Their incongruous ally:

Speaking of Marxists, I ran into this gentleman, who denounced “all religions” and talked over one of the many calls to prayer-for which he was chastised by a Muslim participant in the crowd. Perhaps the Red-Green alliance isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, as the Mujahadeen e-Khalq learned the hard way.

One of the more disconcerting images from the rally in Foley Square, aside from the representative of CAIR praising the Detroit imam who was shot by the FBI, was the presence of both the mother and father of three men who were part of the terror plot involving an attack upon Fort Dix. Even though they were not given prime speaking slots-as was the mother of one of the men convicted in the Herald Square bomb plot-the fact that their case was used as an illustration of law enforcement overreach led me to question the true motives of those behind this demonstration.

They knew who the real guilty ones were, i.e. the people assisting the prosecution of terrorist suspects:

Many of the speakers denounced the notion of government informants, evoking images of the more widespread stop snitchin’ campaign prevalent among many African-Americans living in urban communities. Overall, it was a slightly dispiriting experience, although it should be noted that there was at least one East Indian speaker who struck a distinctly conciliatory tone, and yet another speaker who went so far as to commemorate the massacres that occurred on September 11th, 2001, albeit only in the context of condemning other atrocities he saw as being of greater magnitude, e.g. the trans-Atlantic slave trade, expulsion of Native Americans from the interior of the country, and countless other sins we still haven’t atoned for as a nation, according to him.

I think that a lot of the issues raised would be resolved by a more sensible immigration policy, as opposed to the ad hoc, needlessly dangerous and stupid philosophy our government currently espouses, but that’s just my opinion. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

One of the methods the open borders lobby utilizes in its never-ending campaign to demonize any attempt at immigration enforcement by the United States is selective omission. A perfect illustration of this strategy is a story published by Global Post  several days ago.

The ostensible hook is the number of Americans allegedly living in Mexico without documentation-the type of man bites dog story that is always alluring to incredibly lazy journalists. But the real intent of this piece is demonstrating how humane and decent Mexican immigration authorities are, contrary to everything you’ve heard or read about through ill-informed American media outlets.

The only problem with this narrative is that it’s completely misleading, if not outright false. The only reason some Mexican immigration laws might appear lenient at all is because the international outcry over their draconian nature forced Mexico to alter its reprehensible and deeply hypocritical policies towards undocumented foreign nationals. As this fantastic article in USA Today points out, people living in Mexico illegally were eligible for a ten year prison sentence only two years ago! So yes, now these same individuals are only subjected to a fine, but that is a result of concerted international pressure exerted upon Mexico to change its inhumane policy.

As the same article details, Mexican authorities are still required to demand identification when approached by a foreigner, a provision much harsher than anything envisioned by the people who drafted Arizona’s much-maligned SB 1070. Mexican authorities still routinely harass and inflict harm upon migrants from countries in Central America, as well as legal visitors and residents-from any country-who have virtually none of the civil rights accorded to foreigners living in the United States, as a quick perusal of the Mexican constitution demonstrates.

In short, the myth that Mexico treats foreigners-whether in that country legally or without authorization-in anything approaching a fair and just manner is just that, a myth. One that the media in this country might like to project, but which ultimately bears no relation to the reality most immigrants/aliens living in Mexico experience on a daily basis.