Update: CIS has published a backgrounder on this agreement. 

Whatever adjectives can be used to describe our new President, ‘diplomatic’ is not one which springs readily to mind. His phone conversation with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull merely serves to reinforce a reputation for bluntness that was already solidified within the public imagination. In this case, however, I think his impolitic speech is actually beneficial for American citizens. For the refugee resettlement swap cooked up by his predecessor, which involves the exchange of non-Muslim Central American refugees for Muslim boat people currently being detained at the behest of the Australian government, is another disastrous scheme to further erase our borders.

The ordinary refugee resettlement process is almost completely insulated from the democratic process. Seemingly benefiting everyone from United Nations functionaries, to bureaucrats in the federal government, but especially VOLAGs whose survival depends upon a constant stream of clients, refugee resettlement takes no account of the feelings of ordinary American citizens. The people whose lives could be ruined by the decisions made hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away by unelected officials.

The last-minute decision of President Obama to craft a backroom deal with his Australian counterpart, in large part as a means of papering over his own catastrophic failure to enforce this nation’s immigration laws, merely highlights the lack of accountability and fundamentally anti-democratic nature of this entire process. Naturally, open borders fanatics are using this incident to parade their virtue before the benighted American public, condemning the philistinism of the Australian and American governments, as well as the people who insist that their representatives protect the internal security of their nations.

Nevertheless, this is a reminder that who lives in our country is not a matter for international plebiscites or social justice campaigns. Thousands of Muslim foreigners being transferred to the heart of this country as part of a sleazy quid pro quo is not what what Americans voted for in November, and simply because it has the stamp of approval from our outgoing President and Australia’s current Prime Minister-the sixth in less than a decade-doesn’t mean the American public should sit back and accept it. It is the current year, and the powers that be should get used to it.

Why let another 9/11 or Boston Marathon bombing stand in the way of open borders dogmatism?

Once again, the words of Enoch Powell appear prescient, although perhaps in not quite the way the late British parliamentarian and classicist intended. In the same week that Swedes have been besieged by aggrieved jihadists imported by their own government, Londoners experienced yet another subsidiary benefit of multiculturalism. This time, in the form of a Nigerian convert to Islam ritualistically slaughtering a member of the British Army.

Drummer Lee Rigby, of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was methodically  dismembered by an adherent to the Religion of Peace as he walked to his barracks yesterday. The loving father, who had served in Afghanistan, was the latest victim of an alien ideology which has already killed or attempted to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of Britons on their own soil. The perpetrators of this particular atrocity-which echoed an earlier attempt to murder and behead a British soldier in the streets of London-were emulating their countrymen in Nigeria, where Boko Haram, which in Hausa translates to “Western education is a sin,”has turned the northern portion of the country into a charnel house, slaughtering Christians,  security forces, women, and anyone else who does not submit to the imperatives of sharia. The Nigerian government has responded ambiguously, besieging three northern states even as it releases detained members of the ultra-violent, Islamic terror network.

How the UK will respond to this atrocity remains to be seen, although the signals emanating from the ruling class-which is in large measure culpable for this sort of barbarity-are not encouraging. The widely ridiculed British security apparatus responded with undue alacrity. The ahistorical, insipid pabulum put forward by the current empty suit occupying 10 Downing Street was to be expected. Mr. Cameron was simply following the example of our President, who won’t let  the premeditated vivisection of a British citizen sully the good name of Islam. Better not to mention it at all. Of course, most of the large media organs-with a few notable exceptions-sedulously elided the unpleasant fact that these Muslim youths grounded their butchery in Koranic injunctions. The current mayor of London, who once distinguished himself from his Islamophile predecessor, “Red” Ken Livingstone, issued a similar appeal to his constituents not to form a hasty, negative opinion of the perpetrator’s religion simply because of the actions of a few misguided Muslim jihadists who had just assassinated an infidel in the name of Islam.

After all, this is just an isolated incident, most likely the work of a lone wolf-or wolves-which won’t be repeated in the future. It’s not like London is the European hub for pan-Islamic, jihadist terror,  to the point of earning its own delightful sobriquet reflecting the dramatically altered demographics of this international capital of commerce. Despite the feigned expressions of shock and disbelief by the usual suspects, the biography of the soldier of allah seen in video footage is anything but surprising. A follower of the protean jihadist movement known as Al-Muhajiroun, which serves as a finishing school of sorts for would-be Islamic terrorists, he spent recent months exhorting his fellow Muslims to join the Syrian jihad, which I’m sure would have met with the approval of Secretary of State Kerry and much of Congress.

Although we don’t know what precipitated his conversion to Islam, the opportunities presented to him in this new England are ubiquitous. In addition to numerous mosques-both of the mega and storefront variety-Islamic bookshops whose offerings range from Mein Kampf to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there is the Islamic community itself, where anti-Semitism and hatred of the West proliferates, at least according to British Muslims. There are even committed jihadists willing to instruct young pupils in the tenets of Islam. That is why the words of Cameron, Johnson, and the worse than useless talking heads in the media ring so hollow today.

The message sent by this jihadist’s ostensible mentor, Anjem Choudary, reveals more than any of the lies or willful delusions being promoted by the usual suspects. His testimony to the character of the bestial creature who disemboweled Lee Rigby is illuminating in its own warped way. Islam is a peaceful religion, and Muslims are without sin, because submission is peace and killing infidels is not sinful. According to this belief system, what took place yesterday is commendable and should be emulated, just as the deeds of Mohammed-the model for all proper conduct and behavior-should serve as a model for true Muslims.

In some respects, the philosophy of apocalyptic, jihadist Islam is in perfect harmony with that espoused by the unreconstructed, revolutionary left, which has aided its rise throughout the West. Both are governed by situational ethics, where the ends-if achieved-are justified by the means. Specific actions are judged to be right only insofar as they facilitate a certain outcome. The growth of Islam and sharia in the case of the former, the ideal collectivist state for the latter. Both buttress each other, but the foundation stone is the left, which has constructed the meta-narrative that there are no reasons to oppose mass immigration from the third world-or the customs and beliefs these newcomers hew to-which aren’t invidious and racist in origin, and that the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Europeans and Americans constitute a form of mass psychosis.

That is why western European cities are being sacked for the first time since the end of World War II, and why the president will not even utter the name of the religion which is responsible for the atrocity committed yesterday in Woolwich. If diversity is our strength, then any action-or even statement-which might diminish public support for this grand experiment of our political leadership is forbidden; or “haram,” if you will. The loving, caring family of Lee Rigby is experiencing a torment that defies description, yet the government of Great Britain refuses to look reality in the eye and identify the killer by its rightful name. In this respect, there is some truth to the words of the orc who murdered and desecrated the body of that courageous serviceman. David Cameron and Boris Johnson-Labour, the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats-do not care about English people.

That much is obvious.

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.