Far be it from me to praise National Review-especially the feckless leadership of its current editor-in-chief-but when it’s right, it’s right.

And in this case, NR is absolutely correct. John Boehner-never a profile in courage-needs to be reminded why he is the Speaker of the House. Here’s a clue: it’s not to fulfill the wish list of La Raza and the Democratic Party. Tell him and his deputies to KILL THE BILL, because that’s the only way the Republican Party-and the nation-will be able to dig itself out of the hole we find ourselves in.

That is why you need to make your opposition to this process known. FAIR has given you all the tools necessary to do just that. I urge you all to take advantage of the opportunity and tell John Boehner and his lackluster deputies that their careers are contingent upon their actions in the next two months. Specifically, whether or not they allow this disaster to be enacted into law.  It is time to kill this bill!

The kabuki theater which constitutes the U.S. Senate’s “debate” over the Gang of Eight calamity begins in earnest this week. The latest Republican to abandon any pretense of defending the interests of her constituents is Kelly Ayotte. Bolstered by the seemingly inexhaustible funds of the open borders lobby, she’s now fully embraced the concept of rewarding people who have broken the law. So eager was she to put her stamp of approval on this veritable crap sandwich, that she didn’t even run her announcement by the Republican figurehead of the Gang of Eight, who has admitted what we all knew to be true all along. Namely, that this immigration “reform” is simply a means of minting new enrollees in the Democratic Party. Admittedly, he made this disclosure in a different language, but that seems oddly appropriate given how this bill-if it becomes law-will inexorably alter this country’s linguistic profile.

For a primer on how this monstrosity will be log-rolled through the U.S. Senate, I suggest reading Daniel Horowitz’s fantastic diary published on Red State yesterday. And after getting some rest, I urge you all to call your Senators! Something tells me that we’ll need the practice in the coming weeks.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the immigration monologue that’s unfolded over the past few years is the inability of one side-representing those who are committed to open borders and an uninterrupted stream of mass immigration-to acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns expressed by their opponents, despite the fact that they constitute a significant majority of the American public. Perhaps the lack of a powerful, eloquent advocate for American interests who is a minority-yet is also liberal and has access to influential media and political circles within Washington D.C.-is responsible for this disconnect between reality as experienced by most Americans and the straitjacket of elite consensus on this topic. 

However, I think there are larger forces at work which serve to prevent open borders enthusiasts and beneficiaries from accepting the concept that there is a very large segment of the population that fundamentally disagrees with their political philosophy-and who do so not out of any ignoble or reactionary impulse. The cleavage between how these forces view themselves and their ideology and how the rest of America views them was nowhere more evident than at the screening of Two Americans, an anti-enforcement documentary critical of Joe Arpaio which was screened at New York Law School last month.

While we focused extensively on the film itself in my last post on this subject, we didn’t sufficiently address the post-film question and answer session, which included a panel filled with ACLU and AILA spokesmen that spent most of the allotted time advocating some form of legislative amnesty along the lines of what the Gang of Eight proposes. While I don’t object to the imbalanced nature of the discussion-the event was hosted by the ACLU-I was disappointed by the disingenuous-and at times, inaccurate-way in which the issues under discussion were framed.

Notwithstanding the meandering statement/jeremiad by the Puerto Rican gentleman seen in the photo above, there were several very incisive questions asked by audience members which were not addressed, or answered in a circumlocutory-if not misleading-manner. The evasive and/or misleading responses ranged from the answer of a representative of Bronx  Defenders who implied that illegal aliens living outside of New York City limits were being routinely detained and/or deported-neglecting to mention Governor Cuomo’s vitiation of Secure Communities-to the accusation by the filmmakers that Joe Arpaio was some sort of crypto-white supremacist-a slander that comes with the territory, unfortunately-because of a chapter in his latest book. Perhaps even more alarming  was the implication that the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of the same year were calamitous laws, even though the former vested immigration enforcement powers in the same local and state authorities that open borders advocates claim are not legally allowed to execute enforcement and detention procedures. 

The most irritating part of the immigration panel though was the way the participants constructed a meta-narrative that studiously ignored any facts that might have weakened the argument for the elimination of immigration enforcement. The most prominent example of this tendency was the intense focus on how much money the private prison industry has spent lobbying Congress, a meme that has been given prominent play throughout the media since discussion of the latest amnesty plan began in earnest. The not so subtle implication being that avaricious contractors for the prison industrial complex are attempting to increase punitive sanctions against future, non-amnestied illegal aliens. The fact that over a billion dollars has been spent lobbying Congress on immigration reform-almost all of it by actors intent upon enacting amnesty or carving out large subsidies for their industry in the form of cheap, imported labor, was completely overlooked by all members of the panel.

What’s more, when confronted with a relatively simple question, i.e. “do you favor abolishing any restrictions upon immigration into the United States,” they were completely unable to formulate a definitive response. Andre Segura-an ACLU attorney charged with monitoring domestic immigration laws-spent nearly five minutes filibustering this seemingly binary question. Of course, we’re under no illusions as to what the answer to that question is. However, we also know that responding forthrightly would not be politically advantageous to the supporters of mass immigration and amnesty, which is why they feel compelled to engage in immigration kabuki. After all, arranging summits featuring Potemkin conservatives and sacrificial lambs, demonizing a heretofore obscure scholar, and bankrolling a multimillion dollar advertising campaign confusing private profits with public good is much easier than engaging in an honest, substantive debate over this nation’s immigration policies.

One of the more admirable qualities of open borders libertarians is honesty about their intentions and  beliefs. They come right out and enunciate the principles they adhere to, sometimes in editorials published in national newspapers which are read by scores of Americans. Occasionally, they’ll write entire books expostulating their theory of why abolishing immigration controls is a swell idea. Regardless of the medium they use to disseminate their views-and however incompatible their solutions are with certain libertarian principles-they do not contour their message in order to deceive a public that vehemently disagrees with their perspective. The same can’t be said for open borders leftists-and their allies in the corporatist blob-who refuse to be held accountable for their actual  beliefs, just as the architect of the bill that irreparably altered the United States of America refused to be held accountable for the deception he and his allies in the press corps employed in order to enact it into law.

In the end, that is the most bewildering aspect of this “debate.” Instead of actually engaging in an honest intellectual exercise involving what the United States wants and needs out of an immigration system-and allowing each side’s arguments to stand or fall on their relative merits-we are forced into Chinese finger traps of race which are not only based upon false premises-like most of the left’s racial narratives-but are wholly irrelevant to the subject under discussion. The issue isn’t that Americans who support political leaders like Russell Pearce and laws like SB 1070 are hard-hearted xenophobes or crass political opportunities-as films like Two Americans would lead you to believe-but that illegal aliens-such as the ones profiled in this film-present unique problems that open borders enthusiast do not wish to address.

It turns out that it’s much easier to create cinematic bogeymen and craft sympathetic human interest stories involving undocumented migrants than it is to tackle a complex area of public policy that has been left to fester for decades. There are two sides to every story, even if only one enjoys the favor of our social betters. That’s the true lesson to be gleaned from the tale of Two Americans.

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.

One of the unfortunate developments of 2012 was the continued usurpation of the legislative process by a president intent upon pursuing his personal political objectives, even if doing so meant evading the constitutional separation of powers. In addition to the broad administrative amnesty initiated by ICE in 2011, the last year of the Obama administration saw the implementation of a policy called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an end-run around Congress’s consistent rejection of the Dream Act that has already afforded hundreds of thousands of potential criminals the opportunity to exploit American taxpayers, i.e. suckers.

While the executive branch seeks to ratify this transparently extraconstitutional move in the next session of Congress, even as it is simultaneously expanding the number of  straight ticket Democratic Party voters,  the fate of these DREAMers remains a very important subject. That’s why I’m pleased to publish the raw footage of a new documentary which seeks to examine that issue from a multiplicity of perspectives. One of the voices of this film is the founder and president of New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement, Joanna Marzullo, who you can hear and see in the video above. She discusses her group’s position on the DREAM Act, the influences that shaped her views on the topic of illegal immigration, and what she believes the correct solution to this problem to be.

I urge you to watch the interview in its entirety.

Washington Watcher has a more detailed explanation of why Senator Marco Rubio would have been such an undesirable running-mate for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney-if the video of Mr. Rubio’s own words I posted several days ago is not sufficient. Undesirable, that is, from the perspective of those who favor patriotic immigration reform. If the Republican Party wanted to formulate a coherent, compelling argument regarding the issue of immigration-both legal and illegal-it could do worse than heeding the wisdom of former National Review Editor-in-Chief John O’Sullivan.

Unfortunately, this being the stupid party, it probably will.

The disembodied, suspended rock face you see above is probably the only redeeming feature of Work in Progress, the dreadful night club where  Libertyfest was held. Thankfully, the day overshadowed the venue. Mike Salvi, the Master of Ceremonies, did a capable job overseeing the proceedings, despite the unusual nature of the event and sporadic disruptions, gently admonishing the crowd with a gentle “shh” and “shut the fuck up” as the occasion dictated. Although not yet a household name outside of the liberty movement, Salvi has a Joe Roganesque sensibility which added some some structure and comedic pacing to the event, similar to his hosting job at Philly Phreedom earlier this year. 

A former radio host/lawyer, Lionel was one of the first speakers of the afternoon. Even though most people now know him from his somewhat glib-yet entertaining and occasionally edifying-comentaries on WPIX, I remember him from his days as a talk radio host on 77-WABC. He was one of the first speakers to describe his conversion to libertarianism, which began with the presidential campaigns of Harry Browne. Like Lionel, Browne’s bete noire is this country’s draconian drug control laws, which have inexorably lead to the decimation of the Constitution and government tyranny, a view which Mr. Browne has expressed repeatedly.

In addition to contradicting the core principles under which our government is supposed to operate, the prohibitionist policies the federal government and states have pursued regarding narcotics have demonstrably failed, whereas nations that have followed an opposite course have seen a decrease in drug consumption and abuse. Even so, their path hasn’t been a complete success, and the state is still inserting itself into personal decisions in the sense of subsidizing methadone clinics, which as a policy decision is just as idiotic and harmful as imprisoning people for ingesting an arbitrarily proscribed drug.

The folly of the drug war was also discussed at length by Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center, who framed the issue within the context of states asserting their right to nullify patently unconstitutional federal laws and edicts. Although some witless analysts view the concept of federalism as obsolescent, his speech made it clear that this philosophy was just as vital today as it was when Patrick Henry defended the rights of his fellow Virginians during the debates surrounding ratification of the  U.S. Constitution.

Boldin focused specifically upon the Raich decision, and how its affirmation of the Supremacy Clause did not deter other states from enacting medical marijuana legislation, some as quickly as the day following the Supreme Court ruling. The fact that other states have sought to assert their rights under the Constitution, most frequently with respect to Obamacare, demonstrates that this is an effective restraint upon federal subversion of inalienable rights. Much more so than other stands of the liberty movement, which-whatever their merits-have not come remotely close to mobilizing vast numbers of the population, let alone achieving their desired ends.

Even so, there are some libertarians who still see federal politics as a means of effecting positive change, including Michael McDermott, a Libertarian candidate in the 3rd Congressional District of New York who’s running against Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Peter King. One of the chief obstacles facing him  is the monopoly exercised by the two major parties over access to things like presidential debates, which are often the sole means third party challengers have of disseminating their message to a large swath of the electorate, an impediment that Green Party nominee Jill Stein and LP standard bearer Gary Johnson know firsthand. As Mr. McDermott astutely pointed out, the problem is not so much public support for measures like the NDAA and SOPA as public ignorance of these affronts to the Constitution. The media complicity in news management by the established duopoly doesn’t help matters.

One of the few libertarian politicians who’s been able to carve out a niche in the public consciousness by exploiting an indifferent or outright hostile news media is  Dan Halloran, the Republican nominee running for Congress in an open seat in Queens against  Aseemblywoman Grace Meng  who’s been endorsed by the current occupant of Gracie Mansion. One of the chief themes of his speech was the attempt to integrate different strands of the libertarian movement into a cohesive whole.

One of the unique things about Councilman Halloran is his political success in a city straitjacketed by leftist groupthink. From his opposition to New York’s Tammany-inspired gun prohibition laws, to his rejection of Ayatollah Bloomberg’s food diktats, his brief political career has been marked by a willingness to challenge political orthodoxy. While most of his speech focused on the necessity of fusionism and disavowal of “purism” within the libertarian movement, the speakers who followed him identified this tendency as precisely where the liberty movement was led astray. I’ll discuss these consistent, or “purist,” libertarians in Part III of my recap of LibertyFest.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Use_Castro_Image.JPG

Tonight marks the beginning of the 2012 Democratic National Convention. The nomination of Barack Obama for President by the Democratic Party is a forgone conclusion, and that this convocation is being chaired by epic failure Antonio Villagraigosa, a.k.a. Tony Villar, is a matter of public record. 

However, much less attention has been focused upon the keynote speaker during this first night of festivities, San Antonio mayor Julian Castro. Many of you will remember Castro as the more eloquent-although far from persuasive-member of the pro-mass immigration team during an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate which was chronicled on this website last year. Although others are not enamored of Mayor Castro, and his record in office wouldn’t strike most impartial observers as being of presidential timber, we should all remember who the current occupant of the White House is, and what his curriculum vitae consisted of before moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Regardless of your thoughts about the competency of Julian Castro, the fact remains that he is an impressive political candidate, at least if you are to gauge success based upon purely rhetorical qualities. Which, unfortunately, is increasingly the prism through which most major electoral decisions are arrived at these days.