Today, as the federal government commemorates the legacy of  one of the  transformative figures in 20th century public  life, it should not be forgotten that Martin Luther King struggled not only to achieve racial equality but also economic opportunity for disenfranchised citizens. One of the most dispiriting developments in the over four decades since Dr. King’s assassination has been the regression in labor force participation within this nation.  Although the unemployment rate among Black workers might seem particularly distressing, the truth is that there are large swathes of what should constitute the American workforce, encompassing every ethnicity and race, which are facing chronic, unrelenting joblessness. 

Although not the source of this nation’s lackluster economy, one of the contributing factors to prolonged unemployment among large numbers of Americans-particularly those who already face extreme hardships in finding gainful employment-is our government’s policy of sustained mass immigration, as well its tacit endorsement of employers who disregard federal and state immigration laws. While it would be presumptuous of me to claim insight into how Martin Luther King Jr. would view the current immigration debate-such as it is-it’s worth noting that as recently as 1991 his widow lobbied against congressional legislation that would have further hobbled American laborers.

So the notion that he would at least have expressed ambivalence over the political class’s exclusive catering to the interests of the Chamber of Commerce and Mark Zuckerberg, while ignoring the suffering of millions of economically and emotionally struggling Americans, is not that far-fetched. Neither is the condemnation of a President who has abandoned the community which made his election possible in favor of more promising constituencies. Is it too much to ask of a president who repeatedly and capriciously invokes the legacy of Martin Luther King to give some consideration to the misery his administration’s immigration policies have imposed upon the men and women whose futures King fought so valiantly for?

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.

-As we predicted, the Senate passed the Gang of Eight amnesty yesterday, setting the stage for the final battle in the House of Representatives, which is ostensibly controlled by Republicans. You can view the roll call vote, which will serve as a handy reminder of which cringing Republicans need to be removed from office the next time they come up for reelection.

-The Senate debate over disassembling our republic was a thoroughly unedifying spectacle, from the senescent tirades of the Republican Party’s chief open borders pom pom twirler to the irrefragable idiocy that we’ve come to expect from his mini-me, Lindsey Graham. The only consolation is that some of us will be able to elect a new Senate before Congress elects a new people.

-You would think the threat of a bitterly fought, expensive primary-endorsed by no less than a former GOP Vice-presidential nominee-would cause skittish representatives to think twice before enacting a politically and economically ruinous amnesty. The promise by Rep. Steve King to depose Speaker Boehner if he moves forward on S.744-a move supported by powerful members of the House Republican caucus-seems to have instilled a measure of fear into La Raza enthusiast Luis Gutierrez’s BFF.

-Then again, the Republican leadership has never been known for its sagacity or political intuition. A fact demonstrated by comments made by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus after Senate passage of the Gang of Eight monstrosity. The elites have an entirely different conception of the public interest than that of most Americans, who tend to prioritize things like job security, safety, and upward mobility over the concerns of large corporate donors such as Big Agra and Silicon Valley lobbyists pleading for the importation of more high tech serfs.

-I tend to agree with Mark Levin, who believes that if amnesty is stopped in this session of Congress it will be in spite of John Boehner, not because of him. This man wants amnesty to be the law of the land, and the only thing preventing his wish from being fulfilled is the unified opposition of conservative Republican voters. The leadership of the Republican Party in the House needs to be reminded that they do not work for either Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama, but for their constituents, i.e. patriotic  citizens who believe in American sovereignty and real border security. Even if the demise of the GOP as a national political entity is meaningless to them, these people should be reminded that they are placing their own political careers in jeopardy.

-With the abdication of leadership and abandonment of principle by so many Republicans, it’s reassuring to find a small glimmer of light in the struggle over amnesty in one of the least likely places. I refer to a fantastic piece published by The New Republic written by self-described liberal, opposing immigration reform. Much like Ted Rall, T.A. Frank sees the peril in naturalizing millions of workers-in addition to the hundreds of thousands who will imported over the same period-that will compete-at a decided advantage thanks to Obamacare regulations-with unemployed Americans who are already on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. The plight of American workers is something that the left cared about a scant two decades ago, but I suppose times have changed.

-We end today’s Rattle on a slightly humorous note. It appears that the Obama administration is not pleased with the way Hong Kong immigration officials  handled the departure of former NSA contractor turned leaker Edward Snowden, whose whereabouts have yet to be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Although this subject raises themes of constitutionality, privacy, foreign policy and other issues of grave import, what tickles the funny bone is the White House’s reaction to Mr. Snowden’s tour of the Eastern Hemisphere. In particular, the comments of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

The White House, which is typically much more restrained in its public remarks about the PRC, expressed a similar sentiment.

“We are just not buying that this was a technical decision by a Hong Kong immigration official,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said to reporters at a daily news briefing on June 24. “This was a deliberate choice by the government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant, and that decision unquestionably has a negative impact on the U.S.-China relationship.”

I completely agree, Mr. Carney. The notion that career bureaucrats would be responsible for momentous decisions that could have potentially grave consequences for national security is simply preposterous! I have no idea why someone would even consider deceiving the public with such an implausible scenario. People get the daftest notions sometimes.