Kudos to the Terry family for maintaining its grace and dedication to preserving Brian’s memory in the face of  the unconscionable defiance and contempt shown by the Obama Justice Department.  To find out more about the Fast and Furious debacle-as well as how it led to Agent Brian Terry’s death-and how you can demand accountability, go to Honor Brian Terry, a website established for the Brian Terry Foundation that seeks to raise awareness of the circumstances leading to his death, as well as support those Border Patrol agents whose work has been made that much more difficult by this administration’s unconstitutional, open borders immigration policy.

Kudos to the Hon. Sandy Adams for holding Eric Holder’s feet to the fire, and reminding him that for some Americans the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was not merely a tragedy, but the result of premeditated actions taken by this administration in order to perpetuate its comprehensive attack upon our 2nd Amendment rights. Let’s hope that the boldness of Rep. Adams, and not the pusillanimity of Speaker Boehner, carries the day.

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.

Speaking of Michele Bachmann, she’s released a comprehensive immigration plan that would incrementally deport the estimated 11 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States. In addition to implementing a policy of enforcement through attrition, she would construct a border fence along the Mexican-American border, mandate that English be this nation’s official language, and do away with birthright citizenship. In a must-listen interview with Laura Ingraham, she also takes Newt Gingrich to task for his amnesty lite plan, which couldn’t differ more starkly from the Bachmann platform.

In disturbing news, the House of of Representatives has rubber stamped a bill that would exacerbate one of the most damaging aspects of our current immigration policy, i.e. chain migration. While the useful idiots in the mainstream media have attempted to portray this bill as benefitting high-skilled immigrants from China and India who want to remain in the United States, the true beneficiaries of this-should it be enacted into law-will be thousands of distant relatives from countries like Mexico sponsored by newly minted American citizens. Any time you hear the word “bipartisanship” your attenae as American citizens should go up, and this is no different. When the leader of the National Immigration Forum-one of the legal and political spearheads of the open borders movement-and Chuck Schumer support something, it’s usually a good idea to oppose it. Unfortunately, that’s not what the Republican-led Congress did, and we’re so much the worse for it.

In a shameful example of the depths to which the fifth estate will stoop in order to promote their open borders agenda, the tragic suicide of a young man named Joaquin Luna is being manipulated by the mainstream media in order to promote the DREAM Act, which has been repeatedly and emphatically rejected by Congress since it was first introduced over a decade ago. The good folks at Newsbusters have an astute analysis of the despicable manner in which just one media outlet-in this case, CNN-has attempted to politicize this personal tragedy.

One of the real tragedies of the immigration debate-such as it is-that we’re having in this country is the distortive effect the media has when it comes to prioritizing issues. Instead of focusing on the potential illegal alien recipients of taxpayer largesse, why aren’t we discussing the amount of carnage illegals are cumulatively inflicting upon our society? Jim Kouri has a must-read piece highlighting a buried government report that examines the damage they have caused by creating some of the most destrutive forest fires in our country’s southwest, particularly Arizona. It’s rare that I compliment John McCain, but I agree with The Blaze’s assessment that the GAO report vindicates previous public statements he’s made on this matter.

In news closer to home, a New Jersey judge has ordered the deportation of a woman who is allegedly being targeted by a Guatemalan gang called Valle del Sol while allowing her sister to remain the United States indefinitely. The extent of gang influence in Latin America is staggering, demonstrated once again by the open declaration of war on American and Mexican authorities recently issued by Los Zetas, perhaps the most feared narco-cartel in the country of Mexico.

In a case eerily similar to Operation Fast and Furious, the United States government is now facing calls for investigation into a money laundering operation undertaken by the Drug Enforcement Administration in an attempt to find patterns among Mexican drug trafficking criminal syndicates.

Staying in Mexico, we find a claim by Mexican authorities that they’ve foiled an international conspiracy by one of the late dictator Mouammar Kadhafi’s fugitive sons to escape Libya through illegal passage into Mexico. This story would be worthy of mockery if the impact of Mexican illegal immigration-facilitated by the Mexican government itself-weren’t such a grave matter.

In yet more news of immigration fraud that endangers our nation, a woman living in Rancho Cucamonga  has been arrested for bringing in unauthorized foreign students to train at her flight school under fraudulent visas. For those of you who are regular followers of American Rattlesnake, this story will sound very familiar. Apparently, our government has learned very little from September 11th.

In contrast, the government of Israel seems to be learning very rapidly how much damage an open door policy can inflict upon a nation’s sovereignty. That’s why Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai has come out publicly and stated that African economic migrants-from predominately Muslim nations like Eritrea and Sudan-will no longer be welcomed with open arms by the Jewish state. The national identity of Israel may very well be imperiled by overly generous asylum policies, a lesson that we in North America  have yet to absorb.

Last but not least, we’re pleased to bring you another incisive, amusing take on the skewed priorities of our federal government, courtesy of Anthony Bialy. Even as this administration waves the white flag on illegal alien border jumpers, it continues its war against hippie drug paraphernalia. Only in America, and only under the Obama administration.

Part I

Part II

and Part III

As most loyal followers of American Rattlesnake know, we are dedicated to covering any and all relevations of gross malfeasance emanating from Operation Fast and Furious and subsidiary gunwalking operations that have engulfed top officials at the BATF and Department of Justice. We have been addressing this subject since March of last year, when mainstream press organs began to tentatively acknowledge the stream of corruption and obfuscation emanating from the Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, among other criminal/investigative and intelligence agencies implicated in the Fast and Furious fallout.

We have also done our best to highlight the most notorious victim of President Obama’s and Eric Holder’s disastrous gunwalking campaign. That  person is, of course, Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, a man who lost his life at the hands of predatory coyotes attempting to rob a group of illegal immigrants in December of last year. Agent Terry was willing to sacrifice his life in order to defend the country which he loved, yet the notion that he might one day be killed by someone wielding a gun supplied by his own federal government was undoubtedly never entertained by either he or his family during the course of his work.

That’s why I’m pleased to report on a fundraiser that was held in Scottsdale, Arizona this weekend in Agent Terry’s honor, which will go towards defraying the expenses of the Terry family as they attend Capitol Hill hearings into Fast and Furious. The Terry family has been not only persistent but courageous in defense of their son’s memory, as well as their quest to obtain justice-and answers-from the DOJ. They even dared to call out Attorney General Eric Holder for his continued pattern of evasion, deception, and denial. The Blaze has all of the details, including a very moving interview with yet another ATF whistleblower who had the guts to expose the corruption and criminality at the heart of this idiotic gun-walking gambit. 

For those who would like to learn more about the amazing, all too short life of Brian Terry, I suggest visiting a website established in his honor, Remember Brian Terry. There you’ll learn not only why this man was such an exceptional individual, but why we must do everything in our capacity as Americans to continue Brian’s fight. Not only to secure this nation’s neglected border, but to hold to account those high officials in this administration who aided and abetted the criminals who took Agent Terry’s life. It’s definitely worth a look, and I trust that American Rattlesnake readers will share the link with other concerned citizens. 

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.

Today the great state of South Carolina joined a growing list of states that are on the receiving end of Justice Department lawsuits. Even as the Obama administration systematically dismantles whatever superficial immigration enforcement measures still exist, including the deportation of violent criminals, Barack Obama’s chief crony at the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, exacts revenge upon states that defy the Executive Branch’s de facto policy of wholesale amnesty. What began as a vendetta against Arizona has spread East. Governor Nikki Haley needs to be commended for standing up for the rights of South Carolinians instead of illegal alien criminals and their supporters. Regardless of whether South Carolina’s law withstands future legal appeals, the fact that individual states have not been cowed into submission by President Obama’s crusade against Americans, with Arizona the first target, is cause for hope. May the rest of this country’s governors emulate the example she and Jan Brewer have set.

Hat Tip: Katya Abram