Arguing that all of Latin America (or any other region of the globe) should be permitted to migrate illegally to the United States is a foolish, progressive-liberal version of “noblesse oblige”; a kind of reverse colonialism that does nothing to solve the problems looming large in the lives of the populations of the region — festering inequality, disastrous economic policies, rampant crime, and rule by insulated kleptocracies.

Oh, that stings.

Hat Tip: Stand with Arizona (And Against Illegal Immigration)

Rep. Steve King, once again, puts things into perspective.

With the resignation of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, it’s instructive to take a brief look over the Obama administration’s  labor policy priorities these past four years. Although the prime objectives of organized labor, such as the enactment of card check legislation, never saw the light of day during President Obama’s first term, labor unions did achieve some significant administrative victories. What’s more, the battle over labor regulations and law-both executive and legislative-was a focal point of national political discussion leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

What did not attract as much notice, unfortunately, was the systemic dismantling of immigration enforcement, especially during the last two years of Barack Obama’s first term, which arguably will have a significant impact upon the American economy in the years ahead. Even though I continue to believe that the negative consequences of mass immigration-especially of the largely unskilled sort we’ve seen since the 1965 Immigration Act-can’t be reduced to mere economic concerns, the cumulative cost of this wave includes a significant economic impact.

In addition to taxing already overburdened social welfare programs-to say nothing of the public education, criminal justice and health care distribution systems-the hundreds of thousands of low skilled immigrants we accept every year often displace the most economically insecure Americans, including some of the President’s most reliable political supporters.

Barack Obama’s immigration and labor policies seem designed to exacerbate the latter problem, a view confirmed by looking at recent job gains, which seem to have accrued solely to the benefit of immigrant workers. The tenure of Secretary Solis dovetailed nicely with this agenda, which included international agreements protecting the labor rights of illegal aliens from Latin American nations. While ensuring that workers are paid a wage rate consonant with the laws of the land is an admirable stance, one wonders why this administration did not deem it worthy of its ambition to deport these  workers, who-like their employers-are breaking the law.

It’s not as if these individuals are unknown to federal immigration officials. After all, Solis visited illegal day laborers in this very borough in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. However, holding illegal aliens accountable for their actions seems to be inimical to the political needs of the President and his political machine, which has expanded the vast administrative amnesty that has existed for the past two years to encompass everyone he or Janet Napolitano deems to be non-threatening, including virtually everyone who can feign interest in being a student and those who’ve committed multiple misdemeanors, i.e. criminals.

Like the highly politicized distribution of economic stimulus funds, this administration’s labor and immigration policies are not designed with the interests of Americans in mind so much as the best results for itself and its political and financial benefactors. Although Hilda Solis set a pretty low bar to clear, if past is prologue don’t expect her successor to be much of an improvement.

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.

It turns out that Arizonans aren’t the only ones concerned about the avalanche of illegal aliens and low-wage, unskilled immigration to the United States. In fact, residents of East Hampton have gradually but inexorably begun to resist the tide of day laborers and foreign workers living in their midst. As I’ve spotlighted recently on this site, there is a very talented documentary film-maker who has chronicled the growing tensions between Long Island communities and the “undocumented” who live within them.

The New York Times alludes to this director, Dennis Michael Lynch, in an article exploring the political dynamics that have led to a socio-economic and ideological battle between those that want to keep a permanent underclass and those who prefer to preserve the stability and prosperity of an established Long Island hamlet. Of course, the default position of the former is that politically engaged New Yorkers who wish to maintain their town’s civic identity and shore up its rapidly dwindling property values are this generation’s answer to the NSDAP. From the New York Times article,

Ms Quigley added that it may be easy to blame minority groups like Latinos for the problems in Springs and East Hampton. ‘Doesn’t that sound a little familiar?’ she asked,’ Like blaming the Jews for troubles in Germany.’

Ms. Quigley’s demogogic, hysterical ad hominem shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s followed the debate-if it can even be described as such-surrounding the implementation of SB 1070 over the past two years. Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, the instinctive emotional spasm of vitriol with which open borders fetishists greet any opposition to unfettered immigration is well documented. It serves both as an illustration of how intellectually bankrupt the opponents of immigration enforcement and sensible restrictions remain, as well as a revelation of how crucial the perpetuation of the failed status quo is to their political identity.

Fortunately, the followers of American Rattlesnake know better. Which is why I urge you all, once again, to watch They Come To America, a groundbreaking documentary which poses the pointed questions that have been consistently ignored by mainstream propaganda organs such as the New York Times. It’s a film that exposes the long-lasting impact of a defective immigration policy which prioritizes the “rights” of illegal aliens over the lives, safety, and economic well being of American citizens.

One of the more obnoxious political phenomena this election cycle is the continued fixation of the media upon placing voters into specific taxonomic, ethnic boxes. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the press corps insist upon classifying all potential voters who hail from Spanish-speaking countries into the same amorphous, unitary bloc, regardless of the variant cultures and/or beliefs present within this “group.” A good antidote to this blinkered perspective is provided by Fausta Wertz, a respected blogger and writer who focuses primarily upon Latin American politics. She’s gone to the trouble of republishing her 2006 essay which illuminates the misconceptions that have gone into creating what she describes as the Hispanic mirage.

The only way to get past an illusion is to dispel it, and the best way to do so is by discovering the truth.

One of those most inexplicable aspects of immigration policy in developed, Western nations is the tendency to give refuge to people who want to eradicate-or utterly transform-our way of life. While the media in this country often highlight the unresolved issues that stem from our shared border with Mexico, it rarely if ever discloses the fact that many migrants entering the country illegally are not Latin Americans, let alone Mexicans. The number of  aliens from state sponsors of terror-or merely Arab-Muslim nations where anti-Americanism and Islamic extremism are rife-crossing our border is increasing. What’s more, even the immigrants who come to this country legally pose grave risks to Americans, especially when they retain the same deep-rooted values that made their countries of origin so hellish they were forced to flee to the United States.

Unfortunately, the September 11th massacres, the July 7th bombings launched by British Muslims against London, and every subsequent attempt-successful or failed-at obliterating markers of Western culture or annihilating non-Muslims inside of the West has been met with a collective shrug by those ensconced in power, who continue to extol the virtues of open borders and espouse multiculturalist dogma. And while the efficacy and constitutionality of Anwar al-Awlaki’s assassination is debated throughout the blogsophere, no one asks why his parents-born in a country where antipathy towards Americans and Western norms is nearly universal-were allowed to immigrate to the United States in the first place. Only in certain quarters, which up to this point have not influenced immigration policymaking, is the notion that some immigrants might not be potential Americans even suggested.

To find concrete examples illustrating the insanity following this policy to its logical conclusion produces, you need not look very far. In Australia, an Algerian-born illegal alien was recently spared trial for conspiring to murder scores of Australian civilians. In the United Kingdom, yet another Islamic terrorist has been granted virtual immunity for his crimes by the British legal system. The generous freedoms afforded to defendents in our culture’s criminal justice systems, in concert with the decadent multiculturalism that has prevented the assimilation of foreigners, combines to undermine the fundamental structure of our society. The solution, of course, is to prevent this conflict from occurring in the first place, i.e. imposing rational, sensible immigration reforms. However, that is unlikely to occur so long as the ruling class in the United States, Europe and elsewhere are possessed by mania that prizes diversity and multiculturalism over the lives and values of their ostensible countrymen.

I thought I’d use today’s post, written hours before the Senate opens up for business and possibly reanimates the corpse of the DREAM Act, to engage in some speculation about citizen activism, and its impact upon the ruling political class.

A few days ago I was Skype-chatting with a group of like-minded individuals I know from a mutually shared Web forum that no longer exists. Some are libertarians, some are conservatives, some anarchists, some liberals, but the common denominator is that most have a fairly dim view of the current American political process. When I importuned some of them to get involved in defeating amnesty-or at the very least, ask some of their more politically active friends to do so-I was greeted with the virtual equivalent of a shrug.

One of the more anti-government members of this group suggested that the whole process of lobbying Congress in order to achieve a specific political goal, or to see your political philosophy enacted into law, was a futile endeavor. I was told that this whole exercise was useless because the people who control Capitol Hill and the federal bureaucracy are not going to respond to the concerns of a mere constituent. And as a somewhat cynical observer of the political process for most of my adult life, I have to say that this perspective is not without its merits.

Our congressmen and congresswomen are increasingly drawn from a shallow professional pool that reflects their shallow interests, i.e. lobbying and lawyering. They often enact legislation in defiance of the public will, but which benefits them politically, as well as conferring advantages upon small, politically connected, extremely wealthy special interests-in this case, the open borders lobby. It’s entirely possible that the esteemed members of the “greatest deliberative body” in the world, including those who have been ousted from office specifically due to their open borders philosophy, will use this last week of official business to ram through a bill bestowing upon illegal aliens many of the privileges denied to ordinary American citizens. 

However, if the past few years have taught us anything, it is the influence that a concentrated, committed group of citizen-activists can exert over the political process in Washington D.C. After all, who was it that thwarted “comprehensive immigration reform?” First in the Bush administration, then stopped it dead in its tracks during the initial months of the Obama administration? The forces arrayed against us included the executive and legislative branches of government, almost the entirety of the mainstream media-including national newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post. We were opposed by enormously wealthy foundations and non-profits bankrolled by wealthy men like George Soros, and powerful oligarchs like Peter Burkle, Rupert Murdoch,  and Mort Zuckerman, as well as foreign governments-most notably those of Mexico and Latin American nations, but also Ireland and other EU member states. 

Almost every  venue for the political, economic and artistic elite, whether it be academe, the motion picture industry, the arts & humanities, trans-national corporations, large agri-businesses, the hospitality industry, the mayors and city councils of large metropolises such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, etc., etc., ad nauseam, expended both figurative and literal capital to advance their agenda of unfettered, mass immigration. And yet it is we who emerged from those debates victorious.

Why? 

The answer is simple. Because we fought back! We used our minds and our bodies to grind the gears of open borders advocacy to a halt. A nation of Davids slew the Goliath of amnesty, and here we face it yet again, albeit in a different form. Now, I don’t want to give you any illusions as to the certainty of success in this latest battle. It’s entirely possible-perhaps even plausible-that the duplicitous, relentless forces that are trying to enact this latest amnesty will eventually succeed. But if the past provides us with any lesson, it’s that that scenario is by no means a foregone conclusion. Use today and tomorrow to prove to the cynical doubters that what happened once can happen again.