Congress continues its annual month-long hibernation, but that doesn’t mean you have to slumber. The drive by open borders lobbyists never ceases, which means that we’ll have to work even more furiously to thwart their plans. Tea Party Patriots has provided an invaluable guide delineating just how you can hold your congressmen accountable for his or her actions. The DREAMers have already claimed a scalp down in Florida; it’s time that we got to work asserting our rights as American citizens and demanding that our voices be heard. 

It’s time that the immigration debate ceased being a monologue.

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.

Today marks the 257th anniversary of the day when the Declaration of Independence was finalized and officially published. On a day when we celebrate the founding of a unique experiment in self-governance, it’s only appropriate that we examine how far we have strayed from the ideals that animated our unique republic’s founding. From the unconstitutional and arbitrary edicts issued by the White House, to the administrative state’s wanton endangerment of American lives, our government increasingly represents no interests other than those of a small, self-interested elite. 

Which is why I urge to participate in an experiment that has proven effective in previous campaigns to thwart amnesty. Bricks for the Border is a playful way of emphasizing a deadly serious issue. Namely, the irresponsibility of an administration that refuses to fund a virtual fence, let alone construct a real barrier along our southern border, and a Congress that prefers political window-dressing to border security. Contrary to popular open borders mythology, walls do work, which is why they are so popular in countries with extensive, porous borders. 

Let’s hold politicians accountable for the contempt they’ve displayed towards the American people, and let them know how we feel about their abdication of responsibility.

We’ve documented extensively on this site the dysfunctional nature of our nation’s immigration courts. They face endemic problems that are made much worse by this administration’s willful disregard of the law and penchant to rule by executive edict, making any appointments to the immigration bureaucracy-however competent-all but irrelevant. The latest amnesty bill only exacerbates a problem that is already debilitating to our system of immigration enforcement by investing unlimited discretionary power in the hands of Janet Napolitano, who will have the ability to effectively nullify any application of this law that she feels to be too punitive.

The potential consequences of this bill are catastrophic, and we have a dwindling amount of time to prevent it from being enacted into law. We hate to sound like a broken record, but we feel compelled to remind you to call your senators! This is the decisive week before Congress adjourns for its summer break, and it is imperative that you make your voice heard among the elected officials who continue to obstinately ignore the will of their constituents.

Some of you might remember this site mentioning a film project involving Joanna Marzullo-founder and president of New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement-some time ago. The film, directed by NYU student Caterina Andreano, focuses on the national debate surrounding the Dream Act, with a particular emphasis upon New York City.

While the legislative battle over the Dream Act, whose proponents have been attempting to enact it into law for well over a decade, might have been obviated by an administrative directive of dubious constitutionality, the question of who is entitled to United States citizenship remains as pertinent as it was when this issue was being debated as a stand-alone bill. In fact, if the Gang of Eight’s scheme is implemented, we will experience an enhanced, super-sized version of the Dream Act, eligible to “youths” who are well into middle age.

That’s why discussing this issue is so crucial, and works such Caterina’s documentary so important. You’ll find Joanna’s role-including an interview and footage of NY ICE’s street activism-starting at approximately nine minutes and forty seconds into the video. Feel free to discuss your feelings about the film-as well as the Dream Act itself-below. You can watch footage from other reports by Caterina by accessing her Youtube page.

Update: The Silent Majority No More has some great coverage of the May Day absurdity, which I urge you all to check out for yourselves!

One of the perennial problems faced by the left is the inclination to either devolve into myopic, sectarian bands, or to remain so diffuse and broad in its appeal that it doesn’t accomplish much of anything. The latter tendency can be seen in the evolution of movements like Occupy Wall Street, which never quite formulated a cogent agenda, despite rendering aid  to distressed victims of Hurricane Sandy this past year. Although, even this operation didn’t proceed quite as smoothly or as transparently as one would expect from an organization that ostensibly has no defined hierarchical structure. 

The message emblazoned upon the placard seen above-whether  born out of sincerity or a mischievous desire to troll Marxists-was probably the most succinct, coherent statement I encountered in Union Square this week, however ironic it must seem juxtaposed against a public celebration of the international labor movement. 

Nevertheless, supporters of OWS were plentiful during Wednesday’s festivities, even as open borders activists attempted to use May Day  to mobilize their supporters on behalf of millions of illegal aliens seeking amnesty. 

Aside from some conspicuous flag-waving, and manning a much smaller version of The People’s Library, there didn’t seem to be much activity among the occupiers, especially in comparison to last year, when the movement occupied the preeminent place among the day’s citywide rallies.  

To its credit, the illegal alien lobby  recognized the fleeting nature of this particular historical moment. Alas, it might be another two years before their benefactors in Congress attempt to foist an equally unpalatable deal upon a skeptical American public. That’s why they came out in force, albeit much reduced in number-in order to demand-their words, not mine-perpetual immunity from legal and political repercussions related to the laws they’ve violated. 

The focus, as always, was on the reunification of families-ones marked by severe genetic deformities, if these portraits are any guide-separated by the purportedly arbitrary, cruel immigration policies pursued by the American government. 

Although more focused than the generic leftists in attendance, the open borders enthusiasts did try to link to their opposition to immigration enforcement of any kind to a variety of other topical issues, including critiques of the military industrial complex. While some would opine that militarizing the border would be a far better use of American resources than some of the Defense Department’s current priorities, especially considering the empirical evidence validating this assertion, those gathered in Union Square beg to differ. Interestingly enough, they seem to share the views of the Cato Institute in this regard. 

The May 1st Coalition-a group created in the wake of  a uniformly ineffective 2006 boycott of American businesses and public schools by illegal aliens-was the chief organizer of this event, and was responsible for much of the publicity advertising the rally. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this group opposes the Gang of Eight giveaway in its current form because they view it as far too punitive to the poor, beleaguered migrants who simply want legislative immunity conferred upon them for trespassing our laws-both civil and criminal. I suppose a tax amnesty is too heavy a burden to ask them to bear in return for funding their  health care, welfare and unlimited access to legal counsel. 

As expected, organized labor-including our good friends from the SEIU-constituted a significant presence. After all, who else is going to replenish the declining ranks of union membership in this country’s private and public sectors? 

Having a portion of your paycheck confiscated and subsequently earmarked for the political ambitions of  union executives, is apparently a life-time affair. 

In addition to the open borders brigade-and its union auxiliaries-there were a host of Marxists; this being May Day, after all. No one has ever accused the reds of being reluctant to attach themselves to a more popular cause or party. In that vein, the  hoary Trotskyites of the Socialist Workers Party trundled out their pristine reading material-including copies of their flagship publication, The Militant-to generally disinterested passersby. 

They did manage to incorporate anti-enforcement buzz phrases into their otherwise predictable signage. It’s often said that politics make strange bedfellows, and immigration politics is perhaps the prime example of this cliche being grounded in truth. Very strange, in this case. Or perhaps not, when you view the proposed immigration law through the prism of a policy that guarantees a steady supply of cheap labor and cheap votes. Ostensibly, socialists oppose the former, but I suppose not when it imperils the latter.  

Nelson Mandela was chummy with one of the 20th century’s most ruthless, prolific totalitarian despots? You don’t say!? This sort of accusation might lead people to think he was a Communist! Well, I suppose the Trotskyists are good for something after all. 

Not to be outdone, the SWP’s arch-nemesis-the (Maoist) Workers World Party-was also there.  So coercive statists with an affection for genocidal Communists had a plethora of choices that day. 

Some of them were more enthusiastic in their appreciation for the Great Helmsman than others. Thankfully, the two sides didn’t come to blows. We all know how ugly these type of situations can get. 

The Spartacist League was on message. 

For the most part. 

Much like Kim Jong-Un himself, admirers of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea couldn’t help but plead for public attention. 

Ah yes, those dastardly warmongers. The nerve of them! 

I wonder what this appreciator of Juche thinks of Kenneth Bae’s recent arrest and conviction. 

One of the more interesting aspects of these sort of events-whose hallmark is the repetition of cliched phrases-is learning more about some often overlooked groups in the world of political activism. The organization referenced above, the National Alliance For Filipino Concerns, is one such group. Founded in San Jose, California, it bills itself as an advocacy organization for the Filipino diaspora, a large segment of which can be found within the United States. 

Despite the fact that there are over three and half million people of Filipino descent in this country-and over one and a half million Filipino immigrants-they have figured less than prominently in our nation’s periodic debates over immigration. Several hundred thousand Filipinos are also here illegally, but they too haven’t become a significant debating point in our national discussion of various amnesty proposals such as the DREAM Act. Juan Antonio Vargas-media darling and illegal alien scofflaw-seems to be the exception to the rule.

The maltreatment of domestic workers from The Philippines, especially those living and working in the Arabian Peninsula-but even for those who work in households on this continent-is notorious. The Saudi Arabian diplomatic compound that doubled as a modern-day slave pen is just one of the most startling examples of an epidemic that the Philippine Forum is attempting to highlight with that banner. Notwithstanding my disagreement with the political philosophy espoused by most of the protesters in Union Square-and opposition to their proposed solutions to our broken immigration system-I have to commend some of them for exposing a global moral blight that too few Americans are aware of. 

In addition to the individuals concerned about the flagrant abuse and exploitation of Filipino domestic workers, there was a large contingent of avowedly Communist political parties and Marxist organizations which are based in the Philippines itself. 

There were young Filipino Marxists. 

Older Filipino Marxists-standing next to a representative of the International Migrants Alliance.

The political coalition with which most of these organizations are affiliated. I’ll let you infer it’s ideological proclivities. 

For the life of me I couldn’t tell you what political current this woman’s philosophy represents, but chances are she’s Filipino. 

And finally, female Filipino Marxists. 

As most of you know, the vast majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico-over sixty percent, according to the Department of Homeland Security. So it was not surprising that many of the participants in the May Day rally were Mexican nationals, including the woman seen above, who’s part of an international alliance of vendors. For those of you who aren’t fluent in Spanish, here’s a link to their English-language website.

There were also friends of Yo Soy 132, a Mexican political movement created in opposition to then PRI presidential candidate-now president-Enrique Pena Nieto and the perceived deficit in honest coverage of his presidential campaign, as well as its bitterly contested aftermath. Like its counterpart in the United States, the establishment press in Mexico is controlled by large media conglomerates, often indifferent to the concerns of ordinary citizens. As we’ve learned recently, what doesn’t get reported is often just as important as what is covered. 

There were also devout adherents to the philosophy of third-worldism-such as the International Women’s Alliance-at Union Square. Apparently, some people haven’t gotten the message. 

One curiosity was the apparent lack of any  Puerto Rican nationalists, which is a group that usually shows to events like these. I didn’t spot a single machetero or independista, and was despairing of finding any until I saw the man wearing the colorful t-shirt seen in the photo above. Bingo! 

In contrast to that lonely devotee of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, there were a multitude of Communists willing to trod across the Flatiron District and Gramercy Park  in order to broadcast their innovative, youthful message of perpetual global enslavement, mass starvation and genocide, and statist terror. 

Despite its promising name, most of the individuals I saw bearing these signs seemed to have some tread on the tires. 

A few were in the Fidel Castro ballpark. 

While one man seemed to be giving Lenin himself a run for his money in the youthful vigor department. 

Luckily,  a few non-geriatric Communists did show up, including our favorite ginger-headed Kim Jong-il fanboy. 

 Even a stopped clock is right once a day.

In the second part of my May Day coverage, expect more Communists-as well as a patriotic counterpoint!

With the United States Senate rushing headlong into its rendezvous with destiny, i.e. deconstructing what remains of this nation’s anemic and beleaguered economy, and the U.S. House following suit, it  seems appropriate to examine cui bono from these developments. Obviously not American citizens, beyond Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and the politicians who’ll be handsomely rewarded by his corporation as a result of  yet another mass amnesty. Undoubtedly the thousands of immigration attorneys who’ll be enriched through the passage of the Gang of Eight proposal-whose case was pleaded by Laura Lichter, the president of the AILA, in laughably skewed immigration hearings-will accrue some financial benefits after comprehensive immigration reform finally occurs.

Certainly, the individuals and institutions which have collectively spent over a billion dollars lobbying Congress over the past half-decade feel that they have a vested interest in altering this nation’s immigration laws. However, the more immediate beneficiaries will be the millions of illegal aliens who will have their status changed, with the resultant benefits, including those enjoyed by their immediate family members and relatives.

That part of this story is the ostensible focus of Two Americans, a documentary about Katherine Figueroa-whose beatific face you see juxtaposed against the snarling visage of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the print ad above-a nine year-old girl from Arizona whose Mexican parents were arrested and detained after an immigration sweep at their workplace.

I caught a screening of the film by directors Dan Devivo and Valeria Fernandez, which was sponsored by the Justice Action Center and Racial Justice Project of New York Law School, last week just as the debate-such as it is-about immigration reform was percolating within Congress. As you can tell by the names of these academic centers, the foremost concern among faculty members-and presumably, their students-is achieving a desired political outcome-in this case for preferred racial and ethnic groups-regardless of whether that result is consonant with basic Constitutional precepts, a broader conception of justice according to natural law, or a firm foundation in American history. One of the main problems I have with the legal  assault against immigration enforcement-and the left’s approach to the law in general-is that it relies upon this sort of results-based policy, which is predicated on achieving an outcome that is politically-not deontologically-correct.

In my estimation, this is the polar opposite of “justice,” whose definition has until recently-perhaps before the era when critical legal studies achieved a foothold in academe-meant the application of objective rules which applied equally to everyone, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Fortunately, the filmmakers behind Two Americans do grapple with the statutory and constitutional issues, such as habeas corpus, due process, and equal protection, that the enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona-specifically, the suppression sweeps launched by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County-raise. In fact, the film’s focus upon these enforcement actions-and the difficult questions of federalism and the criminal justice system-is arguably the most substantive aspect of this documentary. Personally, I wish the directors had chosen to focus exclusively on these issues, rather than attempt to create an ambitious, almost panoramic-yet not altogether successful-film that often feels like four or five separate documentaries stitched together.

While the film’s promotional materials bill it as an investigation of Joe Arpaio’s expenditure of state funds as head of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, as well as a portrayal of the struggles of young Katherine Figueroa, it actually touches upon at least half a dozen other subjects that could have constituted distinct cinematic projects. From the President’s implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an extension of his administration’s administrative amnesty, to the political struggle over Arizona’s landmark law SB 1070, to the issues of leadership raised by the activities of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, to the relationship between Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, to the relentless effort by his critics, such as Randy Parraz,  to dislodge him from office, to the battle between Sheriff Joe and the President himself, this documentary seemingly attempts to cover every angle of the immigration debate within Arizona in its hour and a half running time.

The relationship between the sheriff and Figueroa’s family is tenuous at best, as Dan Devivo readily conceded during a post-screening question and answer session, where he described how Joe Arpaio is merely a stand-in for all of the elected officials and law enforcement officers-however few in number-who are attempting to enforce immigration laws in a robust manner. I was genuinely surprised by the negligible amount of time devoted to Katherine’s dilemma-even the focus on the Figueroa family was divided between interviews of Katherine, her parents, and her custodial relatives. She is a very appealing personality for the anti-enforcement movement-lending credence to Mickey Kaus’s theory that the DREAM Act was merely a stalking horse for a much broader amnesty-and I had made the assumption going into the screening that she would be centerpiece of this film.

Admittedly, I wasn’t moved to tears-a reaction that Andrea Callan, the ACLU advocate who hosted this event, assured us would be forthcoming-at any point during Two Americans. Perhaps I’ve become inured to the barrage of sob stories and media puffery which deluge the American public on a daily basis regarding the plight of the undocumented. However, it’s hard to discount the notion that Katherine Figueroa’s story is tailor-made for a sympathetic human interest story which could have filled the plot of an anti-enforcement film in its own right. The directors chose to focus instead on the political nature of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s public persona, which is often overlooked in discussions about the utility, legality, and impact of his office’s enforcement campaigns.

In truth, Arpaio is, in addition to being the chief law enforcement officer in Maricopa County, a public official whose capacity as sheriff rests upon his popularity with Arizona voters. So it’s not surprising that his most hotly contested public stance generates scrutiny regarding his motives; the filmmakers asserted-both in the film and subsequent Q&A session-that his crusade against illegal immigration is driven solely by political opportunism. It’s a charge seemingly buttressed by the testimony of a former colleague-interviewed throughout this film-who claims that Joe Arpaio jumped on the anti-illegal alien bandwagon in order to prosper politically. However, I feel this critique wanting, not least because Dan Devivo, in response to an audience member’s (translated) question, averred that Arpaio’s support within Maricopa was dwindling with each subsequent election. One wonders why an extremely popular elected official would adopt a stance that would earn him scorn and political antagonism among open borders enthusiasts throughout the country-and certainly generate opposition within his home county-if it wasn’t based at least partially on personal conviction.

Furthermore, the same insinuation can be made of Arpaio’s political enemies, such as open borders socialist Raul Grijalva, whose political fortunes-and campaign bank account-haven’t suffered as a result of his dogged campaign against SB 1070 and the current sheriff of Maricopa County. And while  questions pertaining to Arpaio’s use of his investigatory authority-particularly with regard to his office’s MACE unit-are certainly valid, the misuse and exploitation of power by some of Arpaio’s most powerful opponents is a question never broached by Two Americans. Specifically, the highly politicized tenure of Thomas Perez-President Obama’s nominee to replace Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, but at the time of the administration’s lawsuit against Maricopa County the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights-is never raised, nor is his extensive history of open borders activism.

Given that this documentary is advocacy journalism, I don’t know how much balance on this subject the audience is entitled to expect. However, the narrative thread of this film continuously returned to the bad faith of people who support immigration enforcement, with the implicit accusation that their beliefs are responsible for the travails of Katherine Figuroa, rather than the actions of her two parents. I give the filmmakers credit for highlighting to a certain degree the fusillade of hatred open borders advocates have unleashed upon Arpaio-including the credible death threats he has received in office-yet the reasons why Arizona voters continue to support him are never seriously scrutinized, nor examined in anything but the most cursory manner.

The extensive and sustained public support for laws such as SB 1070 never arises at any point in this documentary, and the only footage of protestors who are critical of illegal immigration focuses, curiously enough, on members of the National Socialist Movement. The many peaceful, multi-ethnic, well-attended rallies supporting this law-which were covered by mainstream, liberal media outlets in Arizona at the time-completely escape the notice of the filmmakers, as do the public statements of  large, representative, reputable immigration reduction and anti-illegal immigration organizations and individuals in this country. In the end, I think that is the biggest shortcoming of Two Americans. Not the sprawling focus, but the refusal to honestly present the arguments made by the respective camps in the immigration debate. It’s a problem that will persist so long as one side refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of their opponents’ beliefs.

Watch today’s testimony by Secretary Janet Napolitano. 

More than three months after Barack Obama abrogated the legislative powers granted to Congress by implementing an unconstitutional nationwide amnesty, the men and women who put themselves in the line of fire in order to protect this nation’s sovereignty have decided to challenge  this administration’s illegal usurpation of power in court. The lawsuit by filed by 10 ICE agents against Janet Napolitano and John Morton symbolizes the contempt the current occupant of the White House-and by extension, his chief deputies-have for the rule of law.

The fact that chief of staff for ICE Director John Morton has been sidelined in response to a lawsuit by male employees of the immigration agency who’ve experienced systemic discrimination shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s familiar with the way Obama & Co. operate. A good primer is Katie Pavlich’s book about Fast and Furious, which exposes how deceit, evasion, and obstruction of justice reach all the way from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, to the corridors of the Department of Justice.

Kudos to Chris Crane and the ICE agents who have taken a stand against the arbitrary tyranny of an unchecked executive branch, as well as the governors in states across the country, from Mississippi, to Nebraska, to the great state of Arizona, which have defended the interests of American citizens, a group that has become increasingly marginalized by this country’s two main political parties.