-As we predicted, the Senate passed the Gang of Eight amnesty yesterday, setting the stage for the final battle in the House of Representatives, which is ostensibly controlled by Republicans. You can view the roll call vote, which will serve as a handy reminder of which cringing Republicans need to be removed from office the next time they come up for reelection.

-The Senate debate over disassembling our republic was a thoroughly unedifying spectacle, from the senescent tirades of the Republican Party’s chief open borders pom pom twirler to the irrefragable idiocy that we’ve come to expect from his mini-me, Lindsey Graham. The only consolation is that some of us will be able to elect a new Senate before Congress elects a new people.

-You would think the threat of a bitterly fought, expensive primary-endorsed by no less than a former GOP Vice-presidential nominee-would cause skittish representatives to think twice before enacting a politically and economically ruinous amnesty. The promise by Rep. Steve King to depose Speaker Boehner if he moves forward on S.744-a move supported by powerful members of the House Republican caucus-seems to have instilled a measure of fear into La Raza enthusiast Luis Gutierrez’s BFF.

-Then again, the Republican leadership has never been known for its sagacity or political intuition. A fact demonstrated by comments made by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus after Senate passage of the Gang of Eight monstrosity. The elites have an entirely different conception of the public interest than that of most Americans, who tend to prioritize things like job security, safety, and upward mobility over the concerns of large corporate donors such as Big Agra and Silicon Valley lobbyists pleading for the importation of more high tech serfs.

-I tend to agree with Mark Levin, who believes that if amnesty is stopped in this session of Congress it will be in spite of John Boehner, not because of him. This man wants amnesty to be the law of the land, and the only thing preventing his wish from being fulfilled is the unified opposition of conservative Republican voters. The leadership of the Republican Party in the House needs to be reminded that they do not work for either Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama, but for their constituents, i.e. patriotic  citizens who believe in American sovereignty and real border security. Even if the demise of the GOP as a national political entity is meaningless to them, these people should be reminded that they are placing their own political careers in jeopardy.

-With the abdication of leadership and abandonment of principle by so many Republicans, it’s reassuring to find a small glimmer of light in the struggle over amnesty in one of the least likely places. I refer to a fantastic piece published by The New Republic written by self-described liberal, opposing immigration reform. Much like Ted Rall, T.A. Frank sees the peril in naturalizing millions of workers-in addition to the hundreds of thousands who will imported over the same period-that will compete-at a decided advantage thanks to Obamacare regulations-with unemployed Americans who are already on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. The plight of American workers is something that the left cared about a scant two decades ago, but I suppose times have changed.

-We end today’s Rattle on a slightly humorous note. It appears that the Obama administration is not pleased with the way Hong Kong immigration officials  handled the departure of former NSA contractor turned leaker Edward Snowden, whose whereabouts have yet to be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Although this subject raises themes of constitutionality, privacy, foreign policy and other issues of grave import, what tickles the funny bone is the White House’s reaction to Mr. Snowden’s tour of the Eastern Hemisphere. In particular, the comments of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

The White House, which is typically much more restrained in its public remarks about the PRC, expressed a similar sentiment.

“We are just not buying that this was a technical decision by a Hong Kong immigration official,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said to reporters at a daily news briefing on June 24. “This was a deliberate choice by the government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant, and that decision unquestionably has a negative impact on the U.S.-China relationship.”

I completely agree, Mr. Carney. The notion that career bureaucrats would be responsible for momentous decisions that could have potentially grave consequences for national security is simply preposterous! I have no idea why someone would even consider deceiving the public with such an implausible scenario. People get the daftest notions sometimes.

Some readers might remember Marinka Peschmann, an investigative journalist and writer whose work we’ve cited in past discussions of the Obama administration’s unconstitutional administrative amnesty. Although far from her sole focus, she has done some phenomenal work regarding the subject of immigration, particularly the criminal malfeasance and bureaucratic dysfunction that has eroded the core of our nation’s system of immigration enforcement.

This year, she published a Guide to America’s Immigration Crisis, which demonstrates beyond dispute that our federal government has failed to fulfill one of its most important duties, i.e. protect the homeland. You can purchase a paperback copy of her book, or one for your preferred e-reader. Even if you decide not to buy the book, I recommend reading some of Marinka’s phenomenal coverage of his issue, which proves beyond conclusively that Chuck Schumer’s scheme is bad for America in every conceivable sense of the word.

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.

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.

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 mainstays of this administration’s immigration policy is non-enforcement, coupled with an overwhelming tendency to deceive the public about what it is doing. Of course, its lapdogs in the mainstream media have been more than willing to facilitate this deception, so long as it bolsters the President’s chances of enacting an even more sweeping wholesale amnesty. The notion that there might be Americans who hold a differing perspective is inconceivable within the media bubble.

Forget for a moment that a well-respected, private research university had already established that Obama and his cronies were lying about their dereliction of duty over a year ago. Or that the head of the House Judiciary Committee had repeatedly proven that this administration’s deportation statistics were complete fabrications. Let’s overlook that Mark Krikorian had written an extensively documented monograph which demonstrated how President Obama and his administration was thoroughly undermining immigration enforcement prior to the 2010 Republican landslide.

Unfortunately, nothing came of that historic election due to the slavish devotion of the new speaker to the Chamber of Commerce and its cheap labor at all costs benefactors. Something else that didn’t change was the White House’s commitment to eviscerating the remaining vestiges of immigration enforcement. So it comes as no surprise that a breakup of the most lucrative immigration fraud ring in recent memory was initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and not the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

After all, why should the training of ICE agents be put to waste enforcing immigration law when they can be used to protect the profits of multi-millionaire NFL commissioners, becoming, in effect, the Who Dat Police, or nab malefactors trying to dump malicious pots of Chinese honey upon American shores? It would be amusing, if it weren’t so tragic. The fraud-ridden nature of the immigrant investor visa is so transparent that even National Public Radio felt compelled to do a remarkably impartial story exploring its defects, which are evident to anyone who’s done even a cursory examination of the program.

This is the exception to the rule, however, as the mainstream media-from those blissfully immune from the devastating consequences of open borders at NPR to the demagogues at the New York Times-lay down the party line on mass immigration. Like those charged with overseeing immigration enforcement in this administration, the ostensible “gatekeepers” are not going to do anything in their power to address one of the most pressing issues of our time. That is our job as citizens, and one that is worthy of our efforts.

It’s remarkable to think that the person who ordered his subordinates to stop enforcing the law remains in charge of ICE, but when Eric Holder is still in charge of the Justice Department, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. Kudos to Senator Sessions for keeping sight of his duty, even as his colleagues plot new ways of hoodwinking the American public.

It’s nice to know that as our nation’s immigration enforcement mechanisms are being systematically dismantled, ICE has its priorities in order. Even as the latest iteration of an economically backbreaking, national security imperiling amnesty is cooked up by esteemed members of the United States Senate, John Morton is once again hard at work ordering his bureaucrats to act as Roger Goodell’s Pinkertons. It’s not as if  the nation’s immigration agents have any more pressing matters to address, right? Apparently not.

Read the official press release and weep. Then try to enjoy tonight’s match-up between the  San Francisco 49ers and the Baltimore Ravens. It will probably be less stressful than watching C-SPAN.

Last week’s election results undoubtedly left many readers deeply disappointed, if not disaffected, including those of you who couldn’t bring yourselves to cast your ballot for Mitt Romney for any number of well documented reasons. The prospect of a president unencumbered by electoral consequences, whose administration has already shown itself to be flagrantly indifferent to-if not contemptuous of-the rule of law and quaint Constitutional notions like the separation of powers, seems daunting to ordinary, patriotic citizens.

What’s more, the same malleable, anemic species of Republican which has represented GOP voters for the past two years, and whose leadership has led not only to political defeat but unprecedented encroachments upon personal autonomy, has been returned to Congress. Not to stand up for the principles of the men and women who elected them, but with the intent of compromising with the  President and cementing his agenda into law, including the completion through congressional action of the vast amnesty Barack Obama has begun to implement through executive action.

Make no mistake, President Obama will attempt to fulfill his promise to repay the support he received from Latino voters this election cycle. The implementation of DACA and promulgation of administrative amnesty over the past two years was merely the down payment of a much larger loan floated by the Democratic Party’s most prized constituency. Repaid, of course, with citizenship for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in this country.

I doubt that either Barack Obama or John Boehner will wait for the next session of Congress to begin; certainly it doesn’t appear that members of Congress are hesitant to begin strip-mining what remains of American citizenship. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s rumblings about neutering the filibuster-which was the only legislative tool that prevented the DREAM Act from being enacted in the last lame duck session of Congress-don’t augur well for those of us who want to prevent this from happening. This upcoming session will see a reprise of the last lame duck session, only with fewer opportunities to obstruct whatever stalking horse for  amnesty is presented before Congress.

The fact that every credible exit poll, like every other measurable barometer of public opinion, demonstrated overwhelming voter opposition to amnesty will mean nothing to the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, much less the man who owes his office to individuals, unions, and corporations who will be the chief beneficiaries of any future negations of federal immigration law. The American people serve as an impediment which needs to be removed in a nation where too many old, white men exist, according to the despicable Al Cardenas, the current head of the curiously named American Conservative Union.

This meta-narrative, fostered by the usual suspects in the mainstream media and elsewhere among open borders dogmatists, will be emphasized in the weeks and months ahead. And just as in previous years with equally catastrophic amnesty proposals, this theme will be regurgitated by cretinous political apparatchiks, putative conservatives-such as Charles Krauthammer-and Republican Party lackies like Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity.

What makes this upcoming battle even more difficult is the seeming justification open borders enthusiasts have in pursuing their agenda by virtue of the latest electoral outcome. Almost to a man, they are touting the defeat of Mitt “Green Card Stapler” Romney-a man who endorsed the codification of DACA into federal law-as vindication of their mantra that the Republican Party needs to abandon any pretense  of  respect for our national borders, our language or our unique heritage as Americans.

While it’s easy to grasp why Democrats would want to enact legislation ensuring a spigot of reliable, straight ticket voters in future elections, it’s more difficult to discern why the Republican Party would want to legalize-and ultimately, enfranchise-millions upon millions of voters who will ultimately deprive its officeholders and political candidates of any decision-making authority. As poorly as Mitt Romney fared in capturing the Hispanic vote in aggregate terms, he performed even worse with specific sub-demographics within the Latino electorate. As the Pew Hispanic Center points out, Romney’s share of Hispanic voters who identified themselves as non-college graduates was thirteen points less than that among those who had graduated from college.

What better solution to the Republican Party’s demographic bind than to naturalize and enfranchise millions of future voters who have not only failed to attend college, but have not even progressed beyond high school? Makes perfect sense to me. Why even bother compromising your principles if Texas is going to become a blue state in a mere four years, as Jeb Bush-a potential presidential nominee to some of our country’s more sun-addled inhabitants-believes?

Furthermore, the notion that Hispanic voters-particularly, first and second generation immigrants-support the Democrats because of their support for unfettered immigration, or conversely, oppose Republicans due to their perceived opposition to such a policy, is empirically false. As Heather Mac Donald has pointed out repeatedly-including in the immediate aftermath of Mitt Romney’s loss-what binds this community to the Democratic Party, like past waves of immigrants who aligned with that party’s standard bearers, is support for and dependency upon a vast network of welfare programs, as well as wealth transfers which take the form of  confiscatory taxes levied upon high income earners.

That is why the Democratic Party-including Barack Obama and Harry Reid, among others-is so eager to legalize millions of illegal aliens, over sixty percent of whom come from Mexico. It sees these individuals as part of its immutable political base and a gateway to power, just as leaders of public sector and service employees’ unions see them as potential dues-paying members, i.e. a gateway to the accumulation of wealth, most of it extracted at the expense of American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, unlike past waves of immigrants, there are very few incentives for these newcomers to assimilate our language, much less adopt the free market ethos that open borders fetishists at places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Cato Institute ostensibly venerate. Add to this the reality that there is no time for these newcomers to assimilate-even if they had the inclination to do so-as successive waves of immigration further dilute their attenuated connection to this country, and we are left stranded at the current impasse where our nation, along with much of Europe, is functionally bankrupt.

There is no sugarcoating the challenge we face in the days ahead, but face it we must. Amnesty is not the answer.

This past weekend saw a flurry of action in California, as Governor Jerry Brown took action on a raft of legislation that passed his desk after the end of the current legislative session, signing a bill that would effectively give driver’s licenses to those illegal aliens amnestied by the Obama administration while vetoing one which would have gutted immigration enforcement within the state. 

Unfortunately, it looks like governor Jerry Brown has decided to split the difference, as California continues to apply double standards to different classes of people, even as thousands of productive, tax-paying citizens flee the state. Don’t worry though, I’m sure their replacements will fill state coffers to the brim. If not, then there’s always Plan B, which enjoys the full-throated support of the people who’ve driven the state to this impasse. But as we all know, tax hikes always increase revenue.

My innate sarcasm aside, credit is due Jamiel Shaw Sr., Althea Rae Shaw, as well as the rest of the Shaw family, for  holding Governor Brown’s feet to the fire. Jamiel’s Law should be the law of the land, not only in Los Angeles, but throughout the nation. It will only become a reality when the rest of us put the same effort into standing up for American lives that the Shaw family has for these past four years.