Update: Footage of Ted Cruz’s fantastic speech added. 

The March for Jobs is unfolding as we speak!

One of the inerrant truths of our time is that if a bad idea exists, the New York Times is certain to endorse it without reservation. Conversely, if a good idea is percolating in the public consciousness, the editors at the Old Gray Lady will inveigh against it to their newspaper’s last barrel of ink. Nothing illustrates this newspaper’s consistently wrongheaded approach to almost everything more than its public position on immigration enforcement, mass immigration, and the multigenerational transformation of this country through legislative as well as extraconstitutional means. 

Whether it’s opposing statewide efforts to rectify a problem caused in large measure by the federal government, or supporting yet another sweeping amnesty that will allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to further burden American society-to say nothing of the millions of legal immigrants that would be naturalized in such a compromise-you can rest assured that the Times will stand behind any “solution” to the immigration crisis that adversely impacts Americans, rarely allowing a dissenting perspective to be broached within its op-ed pages. However, its stance on immigration-related matters has gotten progressively worse with each passing year, especially under the reign of Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, heir to a journalistic dynasty which he has assiduously driven into the ground.

That’s why the backgrounder written by Jerry Kammer, of the Center for Immigration Studies, is such a welcome relief. Sulzberger’s Voice explores the reasons, both psychological and political, behind the NYT’s hidebound opposition to reasonable immigration policy and intolerance of anyone who critiques their open borers dogmatism. It’s well worth reading for anyone who wants to understand why the “paper of record” continually stands behind ideas that the overwhelming majority of American citizens categorically reject. and what this philosophical chasm portends for the current immigration debate.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate over illegal immigration is the inescapable sense that we’re watching the performance of an ever-recurring, yet interminable and tedious, play. The proponents of amnesty regurgitate a series of formulaic talking points that we’ve become inured to, beginning with the specious assertion that “we’re not going to deport 11 people,” and usually concluding with the declaration that we need to grant all of these illegal aliens American citizenship. Opponents feel compelled to respond with well-reasoned, amply documented rebuttals that are blithely dismissed by open borders advocates, if they’re considered at all.

Mark Krikorian has noted the groundhog day-like quality to these discussions, and Mickey Kaus has explored on more than one occasion the intellectual incoherence-or insincerity-of amnesty advocates who purportedly believe that we should begin enforcing immigration laws after the latest batch of illegal aliens is legalized and enfranchised. It worked swimmingly the last time it was tried, if I’m not mistaken.

Our good friend Anthony Bialy has a fantastic piece which explains once again why an old, bad idea remains a bad idea, even repackaged. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety.

h/t Anthony Bialy.

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.

To live in New York is to be surrounded by people suffering from various pathologies, many of whom you encounter on a daily basis if-like most of us-you use public transportation. Living here also means being surrounded by Marxists of varying hues, including Maoists, Trotskyites, and-as the photograph above illustrates, supporters of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Most of the time, international supporters of the only communist hereditary dictatorship fly under the radar. Outside of the faltering consortium of ethnic Koreans living in Japan-whose own stability has been imperiled for obvious reasons-there are not many people willing to support a regime which has killed enough of its subjects to rank comfortably between Pol Pot and Mengistu Haile Mariam in the annals of historical, third world despotism.

The event which occasioned these paeans to The Great Leader was the opening night of Red Dawn, a 1984 action-adventure thriller involving a Soviet invasion of the mainland United States that-much to the chagrin of the director of the original film-is being remade into a would-be blockbuster where the main antagonists are North Korean shock troops. Being a state-barely-where an economy  doesn’t exist and ICBMs are too poorly designed to reach the shores of the United States appears to have its advantages, at least from the perspective of a Hollywood film producer.

However, those going out of their way to avoid controversy usually have it thrust upon them, whether it be in the form of racially insensitive tweets, or a counter-protest staged by a bedraggled band of true believers led by an SDS spokesman who resembles a more unkempt version of Eric Stoltz, ca. The Butterfly Effect.

You thought SDS had disappeared with the departure of the last Americans from the U.S. embassy in Saigon, South Vietnam? Alas, it’s still extant, as is the Workers World, which peddles old ideas from the new left slightly repackaged-emphasis on slightly-for the Internet Age. The bilingual edition of the latter no doubt aimed to appeal to emigres from that vast swathe of Latin America which is infatuated with socialism, notwithstanding its rather obvious shortcomings.

Whether the proclivity of newcomers to favor government management of the economy will translate into increased support for The Great, Dear, Omniscient Leader is a matter for future generations to decide, but the spirited crowd of approximately half a dozen devoted communists seemed to be solidly in the corner of Kim Jong-Un and opposed to the shameless political dwarfs behind the cinematic reincarnation of this motion picture.

One of the scheduled speakers was the man wearing the jaunty keffiyeh seen above, who hails from the workers’ paradise that is post-Batista Cuba. Apparently, Raul Castro’s tropical paradise is, like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, another victim of malicious, patently false Western propaganda. You might be asking yourself why, if that’s the case, he is in New York City right now instead of Havana. Oh, you vile, imperialist cur.

There was also an unofficial spokesperson from Occupy Wall Street whose purpose I wasn’t able to readily discern, although perhaps it was intended to add ballast to a movement that has seen better days. Most recently, when the Soviet Union existed as more than a whimsical advertising campaign from Hershey’s.

In fact, one of the points emphasized by our Alexi Lalas look-alike was that North Korea had a thriving economy during the untainted, benevolent reign of the Soviet Empire. Aside from the fact that this is wholly inaccurate, this assertion is 100 percent true. Still, you wonder why a regime that prides itself on its rigid autarky would rely upon its two largest neighbors in order to survive.

One of my hopes for the anti-Red Dawn/pro-deranged, overtly racist, vaguely Confucian Communist junta demonstration was that its small number of participants would be dwarfed by a slightly larger group of trolls, a la Communists for Kerry or Bureaucrash during its heyday.

Alas, no such hilarity ensued. I did get the chance to capture an amusing confrontation between comrade Maupin and a friend of mine who was also there to record this historic event. I don’t recall what was said verbatim, but I’m sure it involved a denunciation of capitalist lickspittles and/or running dogs of imperialism. For those of you who are interested in watching this tete-a-tete for yourselves, you can view it in its entirety on Youtube, which I’m certain would have been created by North Korean engineers if their nation hadn’t been bombarded by Western disinformation campaigns.

Sarcasm aside, one of the most disturbing aspects of this rally was a brief speech delivered by an envoy from the America-Democratic Republic of Korea Friendship Committee, who parroted the same lies you find published regularly by North Korea’s official news service.

Like the useful idiots who traveled back from Moscow with nothing but praise for Joseph Stalin-even as he was in the process of liquidating class enemies within the Soviet state-this loathsome creature returned from Pyongyang in order to stand upon a soapbox-quite literally-and laud the achievements of  a state which is synonymous with indifference to human life and the ruthless suppression of anyone who dares to exercise his natural rights.

It’s sickening to think that such a creature walks among us, but like ignorance, disease, and hatred, he is a pestilence which has yet to be eradicated in a world where knowledge is at the fingertips of most of humanity. A sad yet ineluctable truth that we’ll have confront as plunge ahead into an era just as turbulent as the one which occasioned a cinematic classic of the Cold War.

Update: Breitbart coverage here.  Also, a write-up from North Korea News. Watch Adrian Hong’s speech Escape from North Korea. A much longer speech by a survivor of a North Korean concentration camp can be viewed here. Hat Tip: Todd Seavey.

The potential upside and possible drawbacks of a Rick Santorum nomination-even as that scenario recedes further into the distance-have been explored on this website several times since the beginning of what already seems like an interminable primary season. Formerly thought of as a politician with a relatively weak record on immigration issues-who previously supported both bracero programs and an increase in H1-B visas-Santorum has retooled his message to appeal more to the widely dispersed but nevertheless potent reservoir of conservative primary voters searching for a viable anti-Romney. The prospect of supporting an anti-TARP candidate without the personal baggage of a Newt Gingrich or the political baggage of a Mitt Romney has led many well known conservatives to endorse the former senator’s candidacy this year. 

Coming on the cusp of the Nevada caucuses, the support of Sharron Angle might carry some sway with Tea Party members in the Silver State, although how much influence she wields after her failed run against Senator Harry Reid is open to debate. In news that might carry more import with followers of American Rattlesnake, former Colorado gubernatorial candidate and congressman Tom Tancredo has thrown his support behind Santorum’s bid for the White House. Michelle Malkin has also endorsed the former Pennsylvania senator, apparently convinced that his newfound hawkishness on immigration and border security issues is for real. Whether these statements of support will convince enough Republican primary voters to consider Rick Santorum-it should be noted that he is polling favorably in some upcoming states-remains to be seen. However, if the concerns over his big government conservatism are eventually assuaged, it should be noted that the candidate’s robustly pro-enforcement, anti-illegal immigration stance-singular among GOP candidates since the departure of Michele Bachmann-had much to do with Republican voters’ reassessment of Mr. Santorum’s candidacy.