You can find out what they’re up to by clicking on the link below the fold:

We Are America Tour
The Black American Leadership Alliance announces, the “We Are America Tour” – a series of rallies held on September 7th, encouraging House members in their localities, to do their part in stopping the Senate’s massive push for amnesty. We support these Congressmen and urge them not to succumb to pressure from open-borders and amnesty advocates. Please help us draw attention to the important role these Congressmen can play in stopping this dangerous amnesty bill.

The House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security held hearings on the glaring failure of the Obama administration to secure this nation’s borders and the dysfunctional nature of the Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano’s leadership last month. You can hear Chairman Chaffetz’s opening remarks beginning at the 3:20 mark.  This is must-see viewing for anyone concerned about our country’s porous border, and this administration’s fundamental unwillingness to abide by its constitutional obligations.

Update: It (potentially) gets worse.

This should be interesting.

Watch it live.

Completion of the border fence? Not so much, it turns out.

And proudly declares that his job is to serve the political interests of this administration, and facilitate the legalization of millions of illegal aliens. You thought it was to enforce immigration law? Silly you! No wonder the people working beneath him have no confidence in their boss. The ostensible purpose behind the testimony of John Morton, as well as other muckety-mucks within ICE leadership, was a hearing by the House Committee on Appropriations. While he and his deputies-as well as most members of the committee, unsurprisingly-wanted to focus on the latest attempt by the federal government to greenlight the strip-mining of American citizenship, the pesky of issue of criminal aliens being released into the general population kept rearing its ugly head.

Whether it’s Cook County refusing to honor ICE detainers-and releasing violent, criminal aliens from prison-or this administration’s imposition of a domestic Mariel Boatlift on unsuspecting  citizens, the political class has made its contempt for the American public abundantly clear. The corresponding campaign by this administration and its apparatchiks-particularly John Morton and his deputies at ICE-to present Obama’s plans for amnesty as a fait accompli-in spite of the law-makes a mockery of this agency’s name.

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.

The President’s hour-long triumph was pretty much what we’ve come to expect from this annual, nationally-televised spectacle, including the requisite promises to create new federal programs that our perennially bankrupt government can’t finance without incurring even more debt-John Stossel has his version of what would be a more truthful State of the Union-and pledges to help, i.e. bribe, key constituencies within the President and Democratic party’s ruling coalition.

One of those groups consists of millions of individuals who, while unable to (legally) cast ballots for Democrats in federal elections, are being cultivated as a cornerstone of a future,  politically robust Democratic base. Although Barack Obama devoted a curiously small percentage of time to discussion of one of his party’s top priorities, what he did say about immigration policy was, as was to be expected, uniformly dreadful. For a bracingly honest dissection of President Obama’s speech, I recommend reading Derb’s latest column.

In addition to refuting some of the President’s more untenable falsehoods, he also tackles the response delivered by Senator Marco Rubio, who managed to evade the deep divisions which exist between the majority of lawmakers who represent special interests and the few who represent the views of actual voters. Finally, he also scrutinizes Senator Rand Paul’s embrace of  the repackaged amnesty proposal being floated on Capitol Hill, which is probably the most disappointing reaction, considering his principled stance on other issues of crucial import.

As usual, John Derbyshire has pointed out some rather uncomfortable truths about the ruling class and its ideologically blinkered mentality. On this subject, perhaps more than any other.

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.

A must-watch video of testimony that explains how the Obama administration is fudging the numbers in its quest to implement amnesty, and why it will cost Americans dearly.