But first, we tackle the burgeoning scandal known as Fast and Furious, which has already claimed an untold number of lives on both sides of the border and continues to unravel, despite the best efforts of the Obama administration to obstruct congressional investigations of rogue DOJ and BATF officials. The U.S. Senate has unanimously adopted an amendment authored by Senator John Cornyn that would prohibit Congress from funding future gunwalking operations. The chairman of the House Oversight Committee and the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary have written a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, asking him to account for the discrepancy between what DOJ “sources” told the press and what an official DOJ report revealed about Agent Brian Terry’s death. Based upon the history of obstruction of Congress relating to any investigation of Fast and Furious, I wouldn’t expect Senator Grassley or Congressman Issa to receive a definitive answer any time in the near future. Finally, documents obtained by CBS News-which has done an exceptional job covering Executive malfeasance that much of the mainstream media seems intent on ignoring-demonstrate once again how deeply entangled Attorney General Eric Holder is in the Obama administration’s multifaceted gunwalking debacle.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has begun to implement the vast adminstrative amnesty set in motion by the Morton Memos. In keeping with the administration’s strict policy of rewarding lawbreakers-but only if they came here from another country-the illegal aliens who have been amnestied will be able to work at jobs  that those 14 million Americans who are unemployed apparently won’t do. And what will these newly empowered non-legal residents need to do in order to cause the immigration bureaucracy to reconsider their statuses? Not much, according to Chris Crane, the president of the union representing ICE officers who has revealed the Obama adminstration’s policy of not apprehending felonious, criminal aliens. All self-serving press releases to the contrary, ICE leadership is systematically dismantling immigration enforcement in a brazen example of political expediency.

On the heels of news that the world’s most-wanted fugitive, and head of Mexico’s most powerful drug cartel, has an inamorata who’s birthed two children on American soil, Mexico’s current El Presidente has insinuated that “El Chapo” Guzman may in fact be living in the United States himself. Although I doubt that’s the case, considering the open borders policies of this administration, it doesn’t surprise me that some are making the allegation.

The most recent GOP presidential debate gave immigration analysts plenty to chew over, especially on the issue of border fencing. While Michele Bachmann-the best candidate on this issue who has thus far emerged-reiterated her promise to construct a double fence on the Mexican border, Mitt Romney emphasized the priority of interior enforcement, and cutting off the access illegal aliens currently have to jobs within the United States. Some of those jobs, of course, once involved landscaping Governor Romney’s estate, as was made clear once again by his inadvertent gaffe during the debate. Rick Perry, of course, opposes any sort of obstruction to illegal ingress for Mexican border crossers, but that stance was not what made headlines this week. No, the truly stunning revelation involved a plane chartered by the Perry campaign that had been used by Mexican drug smugglers in the past. Although it doesn’t appear that Rick Perry or his campaign was aware of the illicit use to which the plane had been put, it does certainly present bad optics for a presidential candidate whose lax stance on illegal immigration has already been rightfully skewered by his opponents.

Finally, our least-favorite incompetent New England governor/all-around nitwit is back in the news. Lincoln Chafee, proving once again that political nepotism is never a good thing, has given an interview to a local news station where he declares that his sanctuary state policies will not attract more illegal aliens to Rhode Island. As you can see by watching the exchange, his assertion is not very convincing. Perhaps Canada had the right idea after all.

Speaking in Tampa, Florida to the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, Mr. Romney spoke against open borders and amnesty.  He lauded legal immigration as a source of strength for the country.  The largely Cuban-American audience responded in kind with hearty applauds.

Romney held his stance on immigration against the failures of the Obama administration.  As governor of Massachusetts, Romney  strengthened state troopers’ authority to enforce immigration laws and vetoed granting in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants.  The Los Angeles Times elaborated that Romney would get tough on the employers of illegals by requiring the use of the highly effective E-Verify system.

The Miami Herald  noted that an unspoken target of  Mitt Romney’s speech on immigration was Governor Rick Perry.  Governor Perry is wrong on immigration, as previously exposed by American Rattlesnake.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer proved that a principled and effective stand against illegal immigration is a winner at the polls.  Time will tell if Mitt Romney can use the issue effectively, and if he will follow through on his promises.

One of the issues we’ve tried to highlight on this website over the past five months is the ongoing investigation into the reasons behind ICE agent Jaime Zapata’s murder by members of a notorious Mexican drug cartel. Now, via the Los Angeles Times, comes word that the Zapata family is demanding answers from the government regarding the connection between his death and Operation Fast and Furious. This flagrant abuse of power and example of governmental malfeasance has already been identified as the source of a gun that took the life of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, and the likelihood that it is also to blame for the death of Agent Zapata can’t be discounted. In fact, the continued refusal of administration officials to answer the legitimate demands of his bereaved relatives merely reinforces this impression of guilt. Until Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and their subordinates are brought to account for their actions we will never know the true extent of the gunwalking investigations, which have already cost the lives of some of our nation’s bravest law enforcement officers. 

The title of this post refers to a oft-repeated maxim that describes the political failures of the Nixon administration in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It’s a lesson that apparently hasn’t been absorbed by the current White House.

Conversely, you could say that the Chamber of Commerce and ACLU have lost, and lost big-time. Overall, it was a very good day for the Supreme Court of the United States, or as law nerds like to call it, SCOTUS. However, it was an even better day for Arizonans, and for those of us who sympathize with their struggle to combat illegal immigration almost single-handedly. Not only did the Supreme Court majority reject the specious arguments advanced by those who want to retain a class of indentured servants from foreign countries in perpetuity, it affirmed the right of state legislatures to employ one of the most effective immigration enforcement tools in their arsenal.

As Dan Stein of the Federation for Immigration Reform points out in his organization’s press release, this Supreme Court decision deals a decisive blow to the flimsy attempts by open borders lobbyists to knock down statewide immigration enforcement statutes based upon the preemption doctrine. In an illuminating post over at The Volokh Conspiracy, the rationale for rejection based upon implied preemption is fully explained with a carefully excerpted portion of Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion.

The opponents of this law made a variety of claims, echoed in the dissents by Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor, but the case was ultimately won on the argument that the 2007 bill enacted by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by then-governor Janet Napolitano was a licensing law, and that licensing laws fall under the purview of the states. The notion that the law mandating the use of E-Verify ran afoul of implied preemption is ridiculous on its face, as the majority opinion pointed out.

This law simply required Arizona businesses to implement a method of screening out illegal workers that the federal government has encouraged them to adopt for years, and which is clearly outlined on the Department of Homeland Security’s own website! The corollary argument that the federal government did not intend individual states to enforce the laws it enacted is even more devious when you stop to consider the consequences of this chain of reasoning. So the federal government passed immigration enforcement provisions that it clearly did not intend to see enforced, yet is compelled to punish those states that take Congress at its word? This is the sort of Catch-22 that has caused border states like California and Arizona to be overrun by illegal aliens and beset with the subsidiary problems caused by their presence, e.g. crime, fraud, overpopulation, depleted resources, etc…

The idea that  implementation of this law would have led to discrimination against Hispanic workers is even more ridiculous than the tissue paper thin constitutional arguments used by opponents of immigration enforcement. When did it become unreasonable to ask prospective employees to provide a legitimate, legal Social Security number to a potential employer? Of course, the reasonableness of this decision, as well as the Arizona law it affirms, hasn’t prevented the journalistic mouthpieces for America’s #1 sanctuary city from critiquing the alleged flaws in e-Verify while simultaneously calling once again for Congress to enact amnesty. This, despite the fact that E-Verify’s reliability has already been demonstrated, it is becoming a standard business practice, and is being improved month by month, and has never been substantively criticized by someone who does not have a vested interest in keeping the spigot open, e.g. the ACLU, open borders rags like the L.A. Times, pandering politicians, among other opponents of real immigration enforcement.

Whether or not this decision augers well for SB 1070-which is expected to head to the Supreme Court for review regardless of how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules-can’t be answered at this point. I tend to agree with the opinion of Marcia Coyle, a legal analyst for PBS News Hour, who believes that this decision will have little practical impact upon United States of America v. Arizona when it inevitably reaches the Supreme Court’s docket. That said, I think I speak for many when I state that had SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Chamber of Commerce and other open borders advocates in their decision, I would have been greatly discouraged.

This legal victory is a huge win for patriotic Americans everywhere. It is not only a gigantic setback for the Obama administration and its allies in the open borders lobby, it serves as a greenlight for other states-such as Colorado-that have been hesitant to implement E-Verify up to this point. Regardless of what this decision portends for SB 1070′s future, it should be celebrated by Americans today and serve as inspiration for the battles ahead.

One of the biggest misconceptions in the debate over our nation’s immigration policy is the notion that in order to be a good Christian or a decent Jew you need to support a policy of open borders in perpetuity. Although the link between a partisan political agenda and belief in the scriptural teachings of a given religion might be hard to discern for most neutral observers, the vast majority of the religious establishment in this country has nevertheless made this connection a focal point of their vocations.

Whether it’s a United Methodist Church in Chicago sheltering the noxious illegal alien Elvira Arellano,  the Roman Catholic Church’s seemingly implacable quest to foist amnesty upon a resistant American public, despite its utterly discredited leadership, or the Progress by Pesach campaign launched by liberal rabbinical leaders in this country, there would appear to be unanimity among America’s clerical and rabbinical hierarchy on the topic of immigration. 

I broach this subject now because of a fascinating discussion I recently had on Facebook with Professor Carol M. Swain, the brilliant conservative immigration enforcement activist and political science professor from Vanderbilt University. She obliquely alluded to some comments made by Richard D. Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission-whose logo is reproduced above-with which she vehemently disagreed. I could only assume that these comments were related to Mr. Land’s vocal support for amnesty legislation. 

Although the discrepancy between the views of religious leaders and their congregants, re: immigration, has been empirically demonstrated by respected pollsters, there is still a tendency among the public to defer to men and women of the cloth when they begin to expound upon our obligation to the “pilgrim” or “refugee.” This is an egregious error in judgment, in my opinion.

Despite the fact that the Lutheran Church is now often associated with liberal causes-such as the sanctuary movement revived by open borders advocates masquerading as pastors-this reverend makes one of the more compelling, persuasive Christian arguments in opposition to the movement aiding illegal aliens living in this country. And as hard as it may be to conceive of, there are other voices that dissent from the current orthodoxy, as this essay by Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, demonstrates.

The notion that Judaism or Christianity are synonymous with a specific immigration policy advocated by liberal political figures with religious facades is simply false. The more people expose the fallacies in this way of thinking the closer we’ll be to having a real examination of the problems that porous borders and weak interior immigration enforcement pose to our country. The leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are on the wrong track, and they need to be told so by their flock. Unfettered immigration and indifference to criminal behavior are not Christian values, and no one should be deceived into believing they are.

There’s not much news to report on the Colbert controversy since the Comedy Central host testified before the Immigration Subcommittee of the House of Representatives last week. However, there are two great analyses of the odd juxtaposition that deserve recognition. The first, written by a spokesperson for the organization Californians for Population Stabilization, is a trenchant critique of the greatly flawed guest worker programs whose expansion Mr. Colbert and his congressional sponsors endorse without reservation. The other op-ed is an incisive jab by Jonah Goldberg at the implications behind Colbert’s faux persona in the context of the immigration issue. Both are well worth reading.

•  Colorado State Representative Randy Baumgardner (R–Hot Sulphur Springs) is working on Arizona-style legislation to fight against illegal immigration in the Mile-High state. Mr. Baumgarden says that illegal immigration costs Colorado over $1 billion dollars a year in added costs for health care, education and other social services.

•  Rahm Emanuel, current White House Chief of Staff and future Chicago Mayoral candidate, has been a drag on the Obama administration’s prioritizing of amnesty and open-borders for illegal aliens, says Chicago Congressman Luis Gutierrez. Should Mr. Gutierrez decide to run for Mayor of Chicago against Mr. Emanuel, Congress could lose one of its strongest advocates for legitimizing illegal immigration.

•  The Christian Science Monitor reports that Arizona’s fund to defend SB 1070 has raised over $3.6 million from contributors throughout the country. While the legal costs so far have only been $440,000, experts estimate that the costs will eventually reach over $10 million.

•  Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Black blames anti-immigration sentiments for stirring up violent protests against the shooting of a day laborer by Los Angeles police officers. The day laborer had been threatening passers-by with a knife, refused police commands in Spanish and English, and was shot as he advanced towards the officers with his knife raised above his head.

•  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) is seeking public comment on proposed changes to their detention policies. Citing limited resources, ICE wants to severely cut back its detention policy, detaining only the most dangerous individuals and letting the rest free. ICE is seeking comments from the public by email at ICEDetainerComments@dhs.gov .

•  Fidel Castro called continued deportation of Gypsies as “another kind of racial holocaust“. The French were less than amused, calling the Cuban dictator’s words “unacceptable”. Scotland’s Herald newspaper reports that the Gypsies are retaliating against French leaders with a “blood curse“, apparently the most potent kind.

•  Dutch politician Geert Wilders was in New York City on Saturday to speak against the proposed Park51 Mosque. “…[W]e must draw the line,” said Mr. Wilder, “So that New York, rooted in Dutch tolerance, will never become New Mecca.” Mr. Wilder’s party, which is against the continued influx of non-assimilating Muslim immigrants into the Netherlands, is currently in talks to take part in a coalition government to lead the country after its most recent elections.

•  India, China, and the Philippines are Canada’s biggest sources of immigration.  Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is asking foreign governments to cooperate in stopping immigration fraud.   Thriving industries of document forgers and human traffickers in all three countries undermine the fair and efficient working of Canada’s immigration process.

•  In Wichita, Kansas, ICE agents are cooperating with local law enforcement to crack down on massage parlors acting as fronts for prostitution. Seven Chinese women, in the United States as refugees seeking asylum, were arrested for prostitution, but will not be deported since prostitution is only a misdemeanor.

•  In captivity, rattlesnake breeding pairs are often encouraged to successfully mate by the introduction of a second male into the mating habitat.

Courtesy of the Huntsville Times, we learn of yet another case where an illegal alien murdered two innocent Americans. Perhaps even more offensive than the relatively lenient sentence doled out to Felix Ortega-the killer in question-is the fact that this case is not exceptional in the least.

The number of people killed or murdered by illegal aliens is so numerous-and the occurrence of these unnecessary tragedies so ubiquitous-that entire websites are devoted to the subject. Lest you think that instances of illegal aliens driving automobiles are rare, you can do a quick Google search that yields over 200,000 results when the phrases “illegal aliens” and “driver’s license” are typed into the search engine. And not content to rely merely upon anecdotal information, we’ll provide you with a column written by an Hispanic reporter working for the open-borders rag the Los Angeles Times, which uses statistical evidence compiled from the Institute for Highway Safety to demonstrate that this is a grave problem indeed.

And yet we currently have a President of the United States who supports granting driver’s licenses to the very same people who pose this lethal risk to the rest of the country. Not to mention, scads of pandering congressmen, senators, and governors who support the relaxation of laws governing the operation of motor vehicles.

The only reason these politicians support such a transparently stupid, dangerous public policy is because they are political opportunists. They want to curry favor with the Mexican government, which is very interested in influencing our domestic policy, or they want to pander to a voting bloc that they inexplicably perceive as supporting lawlessness. What they refuse to do is answer the questions from the families of Felix Ortega’s victims, and for good reason. They would have to explain to those grief-stricken families why they support policies that makes the deaths of innocent American motorists and citzens more likely.

 Not surprisingly, most mass immigration advocates like to cloak their advocacy for the dissolution of this country’s borders in gradiloquent rhetoric and misleading euphemisms. One tactic they’ve taken to employing recently is demonizing opposition to their campaign by claiming that all attacks against Hispanic immigrants or illegal aliens living in this country are led by ignorant, xenophobic racists. But this couldn’t be further removed from reality. Almost all of the crime directed at illegal aliens-or those who are perceived to be in this country illegally by criminals-is undertaken by those with purely financial motives. They attack and rob these people because they realize they’ll be carrying around large amounts of cash. Amnesty advocates would like to use this as a justification for sanctuary city laws, when just the opposite should be the case.

The idea that you should grant immunity to someone who is a serial violator of the law, a view now being promulgated by the Obama administration  and enforced on many different levels, is not only flouting existing immigration law, it makes no inherent, logical sense. If the rationale behind sanctuary city laws is to get illegal aliens to cooperate with police, who they might otherwise fear, then what stops other illegal aliens-the “bad” kind-from also exploiting the law? In fact, the primary function of these sanctuary city laws seems to be to impose a blanket immunity for drug-runners, gangmembers and other criminals who use them to prey upon defenseless people, including other illegal aliens.

Perhaps no sanctuary city illustrates this fact more than San Francisco, where criminals-even murderers-seem to be given a free pass if they belong to this specially protected group. Yet we still have bureaucrats and political apparatchiks like the police commissioner quoted in Mr. Kane’s op-ed, who will defend these sorts of policies. Apparently, they have forgotten who pays their salaries.