The mendacity of our current administration is at times stunning, even for those of us who should by now have become inured to the lies regurgitated by the Obama administration and its factotums for the better part of two terms. The disavowals by La Raza graduate Cecilia Munoz and village idiot Joe Biden notwithstanding, the systematic emigration of unaccompanied minors from their homelands to the southwestern United States is nothing if not a ploy designed by those in power to destroy whatever prophylactic measures the government currently takes to prevent the complete dissolution of our nation’s system of border controls. 

-You need look no further than ICE itself, whose bureaucrats acknowledge that a contract request to escort these youths was publicly advertised as early as the beginning of this year to realize how fatuous the current administration’s protestations of innocence are. The fact that this crisis is completely and utterly contrived seems not to have dissuaded the usual suspects in the mainstream  news media from putting the most appealing face on what has become an untrammeled invasion. Perhaps predictably, the fact that those tasked with protecting our nation’s security are now the functional equivalent of babysitters to carriers of lethal, communicable diseases has only exacerbated the existing tendency among press outlets to treat every breakdown of public order and security risk as a vessel for the classic illegal immigrant sob story.

-That the public is being largely denied pertinent information about the risks posed by these cherubic children-or a rational debate over whether surviving custodians/parents are practicing child abuse by forcing them to make a potentially lethal, 120+ mile trek through the Mexican desert-should come as no surprise. While concerned citizens might be surprised to learn that many of these “unaccompanied minors” are in fact vicious gang members, the fact that this tidbit is being overlooked by every single national broadcast network is nothing new when it comes to immigration coverage, unfortunately. Even the question of whether these individuals are being released into the care of human traffickers is probably not going to be raised by reporters invested in the wholesale erasure of American sovereignty.

-What galls, however, is the deafening silence by the fourth estate regarding the manipulation of access to the detainment cells and way stations, including military bases, housing these uninvited guests from Central America. Naturally, any critics of this administration’s  calculatedly disastrous immigration policy are being denied entry to the facilities housing the latest cohort of illegal aliens, as Arizona Speaker Andy Tobin learned recently. Likewise, any reporters seeking to engage in journalism-not merely act as stenographers for LULAC or the ACLU-are obstructed from practicing their craft, even as the Border Patrol officers who would seek to assist them are threatened with prosecution by their superiors, a la Fast and Furious. Thus, the freedom of information whose death the press routinely sheds crocodile tears for ends, not with a bang, and barely a whimper from the credentialed hypocrites.

-In contrast to the brick wall greeting those few genuinely patriotic lawmakers and intrepid journalists seeking the truth, the Spanish-speaking subjects of so many glowing personal interest stories over the past month are being provided with the best in legal representation that your tax dollars can buy. Someone should inform President Obama and his sidekick that these star-studded legal teams are promising their clients amnesty, which is open to them through a variety of means, including the notoriously porous refugee resettlement program.

-These unaccompanied aliens-and presumably, the adults who are assisting their perilous voyage north-are acting upon an entirely rational, understandable impulse. Namely, to leave behind a third world life of desperate poverty and lack of security in order to live in a, relatively speaking, prosperous and safe environment-one in which attempts to circumscribe their access to any welfare program will be met with howls of rage by indignant, open borders fanatics. They’re doing so because they have concluded that they will not be deported to their countries of origin, and despite the disingenuous protestations to the contrary by this administration and its apparatchiks, this is a largely accurate assessment of the situation, as columnist Ross Douthat has pointed out in the pages of the New York Times.

News & Notes

-Perhaps predictably, the political earthquake that vaporized Eric Cantor’s future career arc  doesn’t seem to have reached the denizens of Capitol Hill, K Street, or the White House. Valerie Jarrett’s recent comments about Rupert Murdoch and Dave Brat only serve to underscore the cosmic disconnect between those who make their living manipulating the political process in order to serve their financial and political interests and the people throughout the country laboring to sate their avarice. Unfortunately, just as we seem to be stuck with Murdoch, there is no prospect of Ms. Jarrett returning to Iran any time in the near future. GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, unlike his Australian counterpart, was actually born in the United States, therefore should presumably have a deeper attachment to American sovereignty and the quality of life of this nation’s citizens. Unfortunately, as Breitbart reports, that is simply not the case.

-One group that passionately detests the United States-at least, as it’s currently constituted-is the National Council of La Raza. Shockingly, they seem to have drawn all the wrong conclusions from Eric Cantor’s epic primary defeat, demonstrating yet again the utter futility of hispandering in  hopes of garnering that ever-elusive, much-heralded latino vote. One man who does not tailor his message in order to appeal to segmented ethnic groups is the gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo, a man whose praises we have sung repeatedly on this website. Of course, the open borders elites who control the GOP machinery despise Congressman Tancredo, which is all the more reason registered Republicans in the state of Colorado should go out and vote for him in today’s primary.

And with that important admonition, we conclude today’s Daily Rattle.

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.

Considering the rapidly diminishing prospects of American job applicants, events such as the Put America Back To Work job fair are desperately needed. It’s curious that such an event would be hosted by someone who wants  Americans to have fewer employment opportunities, and doesn’t believe the distinction between Americans and non-Americans should even exist.

That said, I urge all of you-even those of you who may be gainfully employed at present-to check it out if your schedule permits. If you want to (politely) inquire as to the apparent contradiction between Mr. Rivera’s views on immigration and his endorsement of a job fair intended specifically for the benefit of American citizens, so much the better.

Yesterday marked the 125th anniversary of the dedication of Lady Liberty, and befitting such an august occasion there were many tributes honoring one of this country’s most emblematic symbols. Unfortunately, most of them failed to accurately capture the underlying history of the statue created by French sculptor Frédéric Bartholdi which is currently anchored in New York Harbor. That’s why I have to give credit to Kean University professor, American historian, and writer Terry Golway for pointing out the significance of the Statue of Liberty in the op-ed pages of the New York Post. 

Like most other elaborately constructed myths erected by open borders apologists, the notion that the Statue of Liberty is a testament to America’s love of unfettered immigration is not grounded in any solid, factual evidence. To the contrary, the statue is actually a symbol of fraternity designed by French liberals during the 19th century with the goal of bonding our two nations together based upon shared values. Reading Terry Golway’s column is the first step in dispelling the mythology that anti-American forces like La Raza, LULAC, the ACLU and scads of mendacious politicians have created in order to perpetuate their deleterious policy prescriptions. Reflect upon this newly imparted knowledge the next time someone glibly repeats the usual open borders platitudes while citing Emma Lazarus’s invocation at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Update: My good friend was also at at the May Day events and has some fantastic video footage, which you can find at The Silent Majority No More. The rest of her coverage can be found at her website as well. More video from the day’s festivities can be found on Youtube.

As promised, today I will present the conclusion to American Rattlesnake’s May Day coverage, including the robust, sustained-and to our country’s enemies, deeply irritating-counter-protest staged by this website’s editor-in-chief in collaboration with New York Ice.

As you can see by the photo above, our critics-in this case, the feral, reflexively violent antifa thugs who met us at Foley Square-were not eager to be photographed. Whether that was out of concern for being identified by NYPD officers the next time they attempt to assault a peaceful assembly of dissident voices, or out of respect for the hundreds of visitors who would be forced to look at their faces in the following days is something I’ll  let you decide.

Fortunately, there were a few “anti-fascists” who I was able to detain for a brief snapshot. This young woman, for example, evokes memories of a young Faye Dunaway, perhaps after being hit with a tire iron. An arresting image, nonetheless.

This zaftig Mexican girl below was particularly aggrieved by my unobtrusive photography that day, although I can’t for the life of me discern why. After bombarding me with some choice expletives for several minutes, she was gently escorted beyond police barricades by some NYPD officers and asked to remove her  jaunty black bandana/face-mask.

At this point, the street theater they were attempting-by ripping signs from the hands of counter-protesters, showering us with abuse, and generally acting like ignoramuses-descended into farce, as the well-fed IA began to weep like a  young child whose favorite plaything has been ripped from her arms.

Even though these photos might lead you to  believe there was a sarin or mustard gas attack upon Foley Square, the truth is that the nose-holding and face-covering is merely part of the theatrical element antifa crybabies brought to the fore during their ridiculous posturing that day. I think you can judge its effectiveness by the look on the face of the Muslim man pictured below.

As entertaining as the black-clad anarchists were, there was also much amusement to be found throughout the rally, including on stage. The African-American gentleman in the background is, ironically enough, named Clarence Thomas. Leader of the radical International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Local 10, he was joined on stage by the afternoon’s emcee, who spent the better part of two hours explaining why her organization had decided to hold two separate rallies which were both ended prematurely.

I AM ASKED WHY WE DECIDED TO HOLD TWO RALLIES, AND MY ANSWER IS…BECAUSE…!

The last declamation was followed in short order by a tangent having absolutely no bearing on the ostensible reason for staging this rally. In other words, even the people who organized this event had absolutely no clue why they were there in the first place. I wish I could say I was surprised by this revelation.

There were also some festive people in Indian, or as the politically correct stewards of speech would say “indigenous,” dress doing a rain dress which was strangely ineffective.

And of course, what illegal alien friendly event would be complete without someone spouting completely inaccurate, misleading statistics that are easily debunked?

Thankfully, on this day the masses of pro-amnesty, anti-American, revanchist reds were confronted by a group of Americans, some of them immigrants themselves, who saw the need to assert their views amidst the cacophony of stridently anti-American voices. Although initially outnumbered, we stood our ground and endured to the end, even outlasting the loud, obnoxious, but morally bankrupt forces that had tried to colonize Foley Square that afternoon.

My favorite part of the day, bar none, was when a group of hostile illegal aliens and socialists attempted to heckle us into submission but were silenced once we withdrew our driver’s licenses and photo identification. When we asked them where their papers were, accompanied by the chorus to the great 1980s Genesis tune, Illegal Alien, we were greeted with shame-faced silence and dumb stares. A small victory, it was nevertheless an  extremely gratifying moment.

Joanna Marzullo, president of New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement, expresses her point of view. You can find video coverage of her part in the counter-demonstration on Youtube.

Even in the Big Apple, there are people who stand with Arizona, as this past May Day demonstrated.

The lesson to be drawn from this event, IMO, is that no matter how outnumbered you might feel when fighting the hordes of radical, open borders crusaders, there are always people willing to stand by your side when you defend basic American values.

As we mark the end of the old year and the beginning of something new, it’s wise to take a step back and assess the accomplishments and setbacks of our movement. 2010 was probably the most significant year in terms of advancing the debate over immigration enforcement within the body politic of this country in recent memory.

The most notable event, of course, was the decision by Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona to sign into law Senator Russell Pearce’s signature piece of legislation, SB 1070. As a quick reminder, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act makes it a misdemeanor to be an illegal alien, requires the enforcement of all relevant federal immigration laws by state and local law enforcement officials during their regular duties, and targets those who hire, shelter, or harbor people living in Arizona illegally.

Although large parts of the law have been enjoined by Judge Susan Bolton, Governor Brewer and the state of Arizona are appealing that injunction. In fact, the likelihood that this law will eventually reach the Supreme Court, as another Arizona law targeting employers of illegal aliens already has, is high. But even more importantly, the decision by President Obama’s Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, to sue the state of Arizona served as a litmus test moment in the broader immigration debate we’ve been engaged in since Californian’s approval of Proposition 187 in 1994.

Taking the side of special interest groups like the National Council of La Raza, LULAC and other opponents of immigration enforcement in the United States, such as the ACLU and the government of Mexico, against the state of Arizona, as well as the vast majority of the American public, told us all where the Obama administration stands on this issue. It also galvanized public support for the stance of Governor Brewer and spurred efforts to enact similar laws in other states, as this New Year’s article by UPI points out.

But SB 1070 wasn’t the only major national development in the world of immigration reform. 2010 also saw the attempt by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his deputy whip, Senator Dick Durbin, to foist the DREAM Act upon us after being rebuffed repeatedly by Congress in the decade since it was first conceived. Thankfully, opponents of DREAM, led by the indefatigable Senator Sessions and his allies at Numbers USA, were able to defeat their backdoor attempt at amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

As gratifying as this victory was, it was not the only success we had over the course of the past year. 2010 also saw the widespread adoption of Secure Communities, a program mandating local authorities share the fingerprints of arrestees with ICE, by  states and localities around the country, including ones run by governors with notoriously weak records on this issue, such as Massachusetts and our very own New York State. While perhaps a small step in the right direction, it is an indication that the Obama administration can be prodded into immigration enforcement when it is politically pressured to do so.

Perhaps the single greatest achievement of 2010, though, was the electoral victory of November 2nd, when the forces of immigration enforcement and reform defeated Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s deputies across the nation. And even though there were some blots on an otherwise great score card, the overall results represented a huge shift away from the House of Representatives that passed the DREAM Act in a lame duck session. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, whose comical efforts I’ve chronicled in the past, will be replaced in the new Congress with immigration hawk Steve King, while the former chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, anti-fence, anti-enforcement Rep. Bennie Thompson, will be replaced with a congressman familiar with that territory, Rep. Peter King.

And even though the campaign to unseat amnesty proponent and panderer Harry Reid fell short, we did see the replacement of several dreadful members of the U.S. Senate this year, including the defeat of DREAM Act supporter Bob Bennet, and the retirement of former co-sponsor Sam Brownback-who is now the governor of Kansas. Overall, the November elections marked a huge shift in favor of immigration enforcement and common sense tools like e-Verify, which is a priority of new House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith.

Overall, I think we can look back on the past year with a great degree of pride in our achievements and determination to correct those mistakes that were made in the course of this struggle. The focus of most of our energies over the past year has been in thwarting potentially disastrous legislation on the federal level, such as the DREAM Act and AgJobs, and helping states pick up the slack of the federal government, as was the case with SB 1070. I think 2011 will mark a transition to a focus on the federal government assuming its proper, but long-neglected, role in border security and immigration enforcement. The success of Secure Communities proves that state-federal cooperation can be an effective tool in stemming the flow of illegal immigration.

Rest assured, this website will continue to bring you news of any developments on that front as the year progresses.

More proof, as if more proof was needed, that The push for this latest installment in the amnesty layaway plan known as DREAM has been riddled with identity politics from the beginning. The only reason Harry Reid is demanding that the Senate pass this monstrosity in the first place is as a reward to Hispanic voters he views as having been instrumental to his latest re-election.

Read the entirety of Jerome Corsi’s column, it’s very clarifying. From Congressman Gutierrez’s threat to engage in civil disobedience and empty promise to split from the Democratic Party if it doesn’t railroad DREAM through Congress, to the explicit threats of political retaliation made by ethnic grievance groups such as LULAC and La Raza, this entire debate has been driven by people who put race and ethnicity above concern for country.

Whatever pro forma declarations of patriotism DREAM Act sponsors espouse are merely intended for public consumption. The claim that waves of illegal aliens will enlist in the United States Armed Forces once DREAM is enacted, an assertion that has been thoroughly demolished by Mark Krikorian in NRO, is simply a way of persuading the sensible middle portion of this country-which is rightly concerned about giving yet another amnesty to millions of illegals-that DREAM is as American as apple pie. Unfortunately, it isn’t. It’s race-based politics with a cute, cuddly, collegiate face.

The only way to unite our country is to reject this horrible bill, and to move beyond race-based politics. We’re better than that.

Noticeably absent from the current, contentious debate over preferential programs for illegal aliens, such as the DREAM Act, has been a countervailing voice to the official line of Hispanic and Mexican-American lobbying organizations. While The National Council of La Raza, LULAC, NALEO, among others, strenuously campaign for the enfranchisement of people who did not come here legally, or attempt to abide by the law when they arrived, there has been up to this point a disturbing absence of contrary opinions from those Hispanic voters who are American citizens and believe in the rule of law. Which is even more troubling when you consider the fact that many Hispanic Americans share the rest of this country’s apprehension over our de facto policy of open borders.

Fortunately, Israel Ortega, the Spanish-language spokesperson for the Heritage Foundation, has written a powerful condemnation of the cynical political manipulation practiced by the likes of Senator Harry Reid and President Barack Obama, who for the sake of political opportunism have re-opened a needless debate that will only further inflame pre-existing tensions, and harm the millions of Americans who are currently unemployed or unemployed.

For a refreshing change of pace from the anti-American posturing and pandering of media darlings like Luis Gutierrez, I suggest you read Mr. Ortega’s piece in its entirety. It will renew your faith in this country’s future.

As many of us have predicted, the shellacking Democrats experienced in the off-year elections this past week has done nothing to diminish the fervor of the open borders lobby for enacting wholesale amnesty. In spite of its repeated rejection by Congress, as well as the enduring hostility of the vast majority of the American public, supporters of “comprehensive immigration reform” have once again put this catastrophically bad idea back on the table.

In an op-ed written by Congressman Mike Honda and Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita-one Japanese by birth, the other by adoption-published in The San Francisco Chronicle, the supporters of amnesty once again call for the creation and/or expansion of family reunification programs that have already led to the type of disastrous chain migration illustrated by this spine-chilling chart created by Numbers USA.

Although this particular stab at amnesty includes provisions aimed at helping gay and lesbian partners of American citizens-who determines what constitutes a permanent partnership is something not explored too thoroughly by this nebulous bill’s sponsors-make no mistake, the parties supporting this are essentially the same ones lobbying for the enactment of amnesty. This is merely another attempt by groups like MALDEF, LULAC, the ACLU and La Raza to incrementally erase our nation’s borders, an ambition that can be discerned by looking closely at which groups Fujita and Honda claim will most greatly benefit from this legislation-hint, they’re not gay men and/or lesbians.

Amnesty for illegal aliens and unfettered immigration-regardless of one’s sexual orientation-is one idea that needs to be interred permanently.

We continue our election series today with a closer examination of yet another congressional race that might have escaped public notice-even among voters in the congressional district in which it’s taking place-were it not for the anti-incumbent wave currently surging over the country. The incumbent we’re focusing on in this post is the illustrious Sheila Jackson-Lee, who represents the 18th Congressional District in Texas and serves as both a senior whip in the House Democratic Caucus and the whip of the Congressional Black Caucus. Perhaps best known for her breathtakingly dense statements about matters large and small, managing to synthesize, to a rare degree, historical and scientific ignorance, what most commentators don’t dwell upon at any length are her shockingly radical stances on immigration policy.

Although almost every member of the CBC espouses the standard, NCLR and LULAC-approved open borders stance, Congresswoman Lee’s work on behalf of immigration attorneys, illegal aliens, the entrenched, ruling elite of Mexico, and those looking to exploit the opportunities that come with a United States visa and/or green card, is so extensive and relentless that even in that rather unimpressive legislative caucus she stands out.

You need look no further than her website’s page devoted to immigration in order to discern just how far she departs from the views of her African-American constituents. She wants to increase the number of beneficiaries of temporary protected status, an ill-conceived program that acts as a de facto amnesty for large groups of refugees that hail from a specific nation or region, as well as expand family reunification policies, the lynchpin of chain migration, by increasing the number of family-based visas allocated to a rate of nearly one million per year! Don’t take my word for it though,read it for yourself. And as if this almost unblemished record of bad ideas weren’t enough, Congresswoman Lee also believes that illegal aliens should be eligible for coverage under the recently-enacted health care law, a position she explains with perfect equanimity to a justifiably baffled Greta Van Susteren during her interview On The Record.

The good news is that you can help defeat this woman, who by any objective assessment is one of the most ill-equipped, unqualified individuals currently in the House of Representatives. And the first step to accomplishing the goal of unseating her is visiting the website of John Faulk, who is currently standing against Congresswoman Lee for the 18th District of Texas. Not only does Mr. Faulk oppose amnesty, a position that in itself would recommend his candidacy in this race, he also supports strong employer verification standards and sanctions against those employers who refuse to scrupulously adhere to the law, something that Jackson-Lee has steadfastly opposed during her long tenure in Congress.

The bottom line is that deciding who runs the show on Capitol Hill is ultimately in your hands. Do voters want to return Rep. Jackson-Lee to the halls of Congress, and continue to be insulted by someone who cares more about the citizens of foreign countries than her own constituents? Or do they want to institute real, progressive change that Americans are yearning for in this pivotal election season? We’ll find out soon enough.