In today’s Rattle, we cover everything from the Obama administration’s continued dismantling of border security and immigration enforcement, to the trivialization of the Civil Rights Movement by the open borders left, to congressional oversight into Attorney General Eric Holder’s obstruction of justice in the Fast and Furious probe.

But first, we look at the increasingly misnamed Southern Poverty Law Center, which continues its progressive slide into buffoonery with a report into the national security threat posed by purportedly misogynistic weblogs. As Mark Krikorian explains in The Corner, the SPLC has adopted new hate objects now that its demonization of patriotic immigration reformers has run its course. Notwithstanding the dearth of civil rights violations by non-government entities or white-on-black crimes-the ostensible raison d’etre for the organization, the SPLC continues to rake in millions of dollars from credulous liberals. Even so, the fundamental illegitimacy of Morris Dees’ operation hasn’t escaped notice, and its laughable mission is now the source of mockery on countless blogs and websites.

On a much more distressing note, yet another vicious attack by an illegal alien has been recorded in Lexington, South Carolina. In a case of life imitating art, Jose Hernandez Mendez has been charged with a string of brutal machete attacks against innocent South Carolinians and is being held on an immigration detainer. As those of you who’ve been following American Rattlesnake probably know, the dramatic spike of machete attacks inside of the United States correlates with the increase in illegal and legal immigration from Central America and Mexico, hubs for brutal criminal gangs like MS-13  and Los Zetas. Look for more such arrests-and less preventive deportations-in the future as this administration removes even the faintest veneer of immigration enforcement. What’s more, the exodus of emigrants from Latin America will increase as these organized crime syndicates go global, as this piece from InSight demonstrates.

As for the lack of enforcement stateside, there are several new, disturbing developments to report. Even as John Morton moves to expedite the administrative amnesty implemented by this administration last year, the process of eviscerating this nation’s border security and internal immigration controls has been expanded to include the United States Border Patrol. Not content to merely persecute dedicated law enforcement officials like Agent Jesus Diaz, and heedless of the lack of interagency cooperation between Customs and Border Protection and ICE, this administration seems bent on doing away with whatever remaining obstacles impede or deter illegal aliens in any substantive way. But you need not fear, because Angelenos are being protected from counterfeit sex drugs peddled by septuagenerian Koreans! What tax dollars aren’t being funneled into fake Viagra suppression sweeps are being redirected to hormone therapy for transgendered illegal alien detainees.

There are a few-far too few, unfortunately-members of Congress objecting to cuts in border security appropriations, but the vast majority of congressmen seem to be mired in a state of torpor that would be risible if these individuals hadn’t been elected in order to represent our interests. This administration is in the process of eliminating even the vestiges of immigration enforcement-while simultaneously engaging in political charades intended to mask its true intentions-and the one possible check on its exercise of unconstitutional power shirks its oversight responsibility altogether. What’s more, the leaders of the Republican House majority are actively thwarting attempts by backbenchers in their own caucus to advance E-Verify, a state of affairs so blatant in nature that Numbers USA feels compelled to run television ads taking Speaker Boehner to task for his inaction.

Congress’s dereliction of duty has had a deleterious impact across a wide spectrum of issues. For example, a new audit from the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration found that illegal aliens and immigrants ineligible to work had pocketed over 4 billion dollars as beneficiaries of the Addition Child Tax Credit. As if the serial manipulation of our tax code for social engineering purposes and squandering of tax dollars for economic “stimulus” weren’t enough, our federal government is now subsidizing the creation of more anchor babies.

Perhaps one issue where Congress-or at least, its Republican membership-has continued to press this administration for accountability is its ongoing probe into the Fast and Furious fiasco. Breitbart.com’s Big Government reports on the growing chorus of Republican congressmen who have called upon Eric Holder to resign, a group which now includes former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann-who has pushed for a no-confidence vote on the Attorney General in the House of Representatives. To discover what the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee is doing to bring this administration to account, take a look at Representative Jason Chaffetz grilling Holder for his serial evasion and obstruction of justice.

While Congress vacillates between dithering and actively holding this administration to account for its skewed priorities, the impact of the greatest recession-and most stunted recovery-in decades continues to be felt by ordinary Americans. Unfortunately,  many of those Americans who are unemployed are not able to find work at home. As CNN reports, American manufacturers are scouring foreign shores to find qualified factory workers that allegedly do not exist in this country. However, much like the purported dearth of qualified American engineers, this media narrative is a complete and utter fabrication.

There are more than enough factory workers and engineers to occupy vacancies within their respective industries, but the problem is that “tech titans,” as the Wall Street Journal so lovingly describes them, would rather fill them with illegal aliens and imported workers using the H1-B visa program, which-as we’ve pointed out repeatedly in the past-is rife with fraud and corruption. The reason being that American workers expect to command a salary commensurate with their level of training and education, whereas foreigners can be locked into contracts that even supporters of lenient immigration laws compare to indentured servitude. These policies obviously have devastating consequences for Americans seeking employment, as this Edwin Rubenstein analysis of last month’s job data illustrates.

The quest to replace the American worker continues at nearly all levels, as does the attempt to stretch the increasingly elastic immigration laws that do exist. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, Senator Scott Brown is attempting to expand the E-3 Visa-currently available only to Australian workers-to include nearly 11,000 Irish nationals seeking admittance to the United States. In the proud tradition of ethnic pandering carried out by his predecessor, the late Ted Kennedy, Senator Brown is attempting to curry favor with a mainstay of Massachusetts’ politics, i.e. Irish-American voters, by contorting American immigration law. It should be noted, however, that drastic changes to immigration laws often have unintended consequences.

On a statewide level, the fight for immigration enforcement plods along, encountering the same impediments that Arizona did when Governor Jan Brewer decided to stand up to the Obama Justice Department nearly two years ago. Even so, activists like D.A. King-president of the Dustin Inman Society-have begun to wield the law to our advantage. The Montgomery Advertiser has a story exploring how he has lodged a complaint with the Immigration Enforcement Review Board-an entity charged with applying Georgia’s new immigration law-over Atlanta’s decision to accept illegitimate Matricula Consular  cards as valid identification for the purposes of dispensing public benefits.

Mexican-issued identification cards are prevalent in many American cities and states, especially in the South. In addition to the mockery they make of our election laws-a threat this administration does not seem to be cognizant of, based upon its attempts to nullify voter i.d. laws-these fraudulent i.d. cards, through their wide availability, also invite domestic terror attacks, as the House Judiciary Committee pointed out nearly nine years ago! To appreciate the true scope of the damage inflicted by American institutions which have chosen to accept these cards, check out this CIS backgrounder, which explains how and why the Matricula Consular has proliferated in the United States.

Moving on to Georgia’s neighboring state, Alabama, we find open borders hysterics beclowning themselves once again. This time, by analogizing Alabama’s landmark immigration enforcement law HB 56  to Jim Crow Era segregation. Dr. Frank L. Morris, punctures this insipid, desperate comparison brilliantly in his Daily Caller column, which I urge you all to read in its entirety.

Finally, our fight against the negation of American immigration law shouldn’t let us lose sight of the courage and compassion displayed by the front line warriors in this nation’s battle to protect its borders. Officer Ross Goodwin is just one member of the Border Patrol who deserves our gratitude for his selfless devotion to duty, which has been recognized by the New Mexico Sheriffs’ and Police Association, as KOB reports. Officer Goodwin was accorded the honor of being named Officer of the Year  for saving the life of an illegal immigrant while in the line of duty.

In spite of the racist crudities heaped upon them by embittered Mexican nationalists, and the unremitting hostility open borders dogmatists exhibit towards them, our nation’s Border Patrol agents continue to risk life and limb in order to protect Americans, as well as save the lives of Mexican and Central American border crossers who have been left to their fate by coyotes wholly indifferent to human suffering. While this administration continues its predecessors’ policy of political prosecutions of Border Patrol agents, these men and women are putting themselves at risk in order to help their fellow human beings, something we should all keep in mind the next time we see or hear a know-nothing assault against immigration enforcement.

 Hat Tip: bcsco and Nafbpo

Today’s Daily Rattle cuts a wide swath across the political landscape, including stories about the ongoing carnage of the Mexican war against the narco cartels, some high profile endorsements of Mitt Romney by immigration enforcement advocates, and a potential reentry into the political realm by our good friend Russell Pearce. But first, we examine the continued success of Alabama’s landmark HB 56, which has transformed the economic fortunes of many Alabamians for the better while causing its enemies-including the Obama administration-to redouble their efforts at thwarting the will of the people. It turns out that Alabama’s immigration enforcement law has cut statewide unemployment once again, an inescapable fact that FAIR has some fun with in its reportage of this underreported news. The Federation for American Immigration Reform report analyzing state unemployment statistics post-HB 56 is devastating to the proponents of the discredited “jobs Americans won’t do” theory, although it won’t stop this administration from waging war against Alabama, with willing partners inside of the state.

Moving north, we find a promising bill pending in New Hampshire that would deny college tuition discounts to illegal aliens residing in that state. Currently, the only requirement to pay in-state tuition is that you have lived in New Hampshire for a calendar year prior to registration. Although the struggle against statewide mini-DREAM Acts has been a tough slog, with some disappointing setbacks this year-including Californians failing to get a repeal of AB 131 onto November’s election ballot-there have been some notable successes. For example, the people of Maryland will be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to repeal their legislature’s Dream Act as they vote in the upcoming presidential election. Proving yet again that citizen activism in this arena yields results.

As we head over to the Windy City, we find a former “massage parlor” operator  convicted of human trafficking for impressing four foreign women into sexual slavery. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly by any stretch of the imagination, as this disturbing briefing by FAIR makes clear. Staying in the Mid-West, we find a surprisingly well-reasoned editorial by the stridently open borders Chicago Tribune which takes the Cook County Board to task for its sanctuary policies. Of course, the Obama administration has done its best to ignore Cook’s flagrant violation of the law and endangerment of American citizens, which shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been paying attention to this issue. On a much less exasperating note, Minnesota has decided to adopt Secure Communities, the 27th state in the nation to do so.  If only the leaders of this state were as sensible as those in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Over on the Great Plains, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is fighting hard against a cheap labor amnesty being pushed by the state’s agri-business interests and duplicitous politicians. Modeled on the dreadful Utah Solution, this plan is not only of dubious legality, but could have a potentially devastating impact upon those Kansans who remain mired in unemployment.

The individual statistics of crime, death, and perpetual unemployment are part of a vast fabric of human misery that our alleged gatekeepers in the mainstream media continue to ignore, with a few notable exceptions. This Miami Herald story describes the saga of Kesler Dufrene, an illegal alien who murdered three innocent Americans-including a 15 year-old girl-in a killing spree after a Florida judge had ordered him deported back to Haiti. The catch and release policies pursued by this administration will only lead to more tragedies of this sort as its wholesale administrative amnesty-including the de facto amnesty of Haitians granted Temporary Protected Status-allows hundreds of thousands of Haitians to remain in the United States in perpetuity. But don’t worry, John Morton and his bureaucrats at ICE have appointed a Public Advocate. For Americans besieged by criminal aliens? Of course not! For illegal aliens. Read the story for yourself. Perhaps in addition to advising illegals on how to evade justice, he can also suggest ways of exploiting our government’s generous food stamp programs, which inordinately benefit illegal alien households. Speaking of the Caribbean, the Washington Post reports on a tragic boat accident that has taken the lives of Dominicans seeking to enter the U.S. illegally through Puerto Rico, a problem that is nothing new, as this 1987 piece from Time makes abundantly clear.

The outrages emanating from this administration include, let us not forget, the continued obstruction of any and all congressional investigations into Operation Fast and Furious, which isn’t surprising when you consider the scope of its malfeasance and abuse of power. For a brief  overview of how extensive federal involvement in these gunwalking cases were, check out this article by the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, which gives you a taste of the alphabet soup of federal agencies involved in this harebrained scheme. The ostensible rationale for Fast and Furious was to apprehend high-level cartel leaders in Mexico, much like the man Mexican police recently arrested whose cartel received guns courtesy of this administration. The havoc wrought by administration officials comes into stark relief when you consider the insidious spread of Mexican and Central American drug cartels inside of the United States, a phenomenon illustrated vividly by the beheading of an Oklahoma teen by Mexican gangbangers. For a full run-down of the most prominent incidents of cartel driven violence, I suggest you check out the most recent issue of the M3 Report, an invaluable resource in this regard.

Fortunately, there are still public officials willing to stand up for the rights of American citizens. The most prominent among them being, of course, embattled Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Sheriff Joe has filed an appeal of the decision to limit his immigration authority, a move by the Obama Justice Department that was undertaken solely out of political spite, as attested to by numerous sources outside of Sheriff Arpaio’s office. This administration can brook no opposition in its policy of unfettered access to the United States by illegal aliens, and any public servant that opposes it should expect political and legal retribution from Obama’s cronies in the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Eric Holder. Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s refusal to quit, in spite of new challenges posed by open borders Democratic apparatchiks, is inspiring. It’s refreshing to see such sustained resistance in the Grand Canyon State, including by former Arizona Senate Majority Leader Russell Pearce, who has recently filed to run in the reconstituted Legislative District 25. Let’s hope that the voters of District 25 reward Senator Pearce for his years of dedicated public service on behalf of Arizonans and Americans. Let’s also hope the congressional seat being vacated by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is filled by a staunch constitutionalist who believes in upholding the integrity of our southern border. Although the race is still fluid, there are a lot of promising candidates looking to replace Gabby. As we remain in the southwest, we find that the battle over illegal alien driving privileges remains a contested issue in the state of New Mexico. Even as courageous Democratic Representative Andy Nunez pushes to repeal driver’s licenses for illegals, the treason lobby fights to maintain New Mexico as one of only two states that upholds this insane policy. A policy that opens up the United States to future 9/11s.

Moving to the west coast, we have an update on the case of an Oakland man living here illegally who is in need of a kidney transplant. As the San Jose Mercury News points out, there was a willing donor for Jesus Navarro-his wife-and a private funding stream, but no hospitals were willing to perform the operation because of the prohibitive expenses involved in post-transplant followup care. Now the University of California-San Francisco has agreed to perform the transplant after a lobbying campaign by Change.org. The costs entailed by caring for illegal aliens living in this country are extraordinary, as the case of the severely brain damaged Guatemalan patient Luis Alberto Jiménez illustrates.

Also costly, albeit in a more direct way, is the reversal of L.A.’s impound policy with respect to unlicensed drivers. Police Chief Charlie Beck and Antonio Villaraigosa have  succumbed to political pressure-not that the man not so affectionately known as Viva LaRaza needed much pressure-and increased the risks involved in driving through Los Angeles. Larry Elder delineates just why this policy change is so deranged in a fantastic column published in the L.A. Daily News. This is why so many Californians supported the political career of Pete Wilson, a staunch foe of the policies that have cratered the once-golden state. Interestingly enough, the former governor of California has joined immigration warrior Kris Kobach in endorsing Mitt Romney. Whether his support will boost Romney’s flagging presidential campaign, or help him to capture California’s 172 delegates to the Republican National Convention, is anyone’s guess.

One of the most recent instances of our misguided immigration policies compromising our national security involves the plot to destroy the U.S. Capitol-in a self-immolating bomb attack-by an Arab-Muslim illegal alien living in Virginia named Amine El Khalifi. Of course, you would learn none of these details if you were to rely upon the inveterately untrustworthy narrators in the mainstream media. In order to discover the true origins of this plot you must read this James Fulford entry on the foiled terror attack. Once again, the Internet steps in the for the paid shills of the MSM, especially on borders, language, and culture. Something else you won’t hear mentioned by anyone in the press corps is the devastating impact unfettered immigration has upon the American job market. For that, you have to go to the inestimable Ilana Mercer, who has an infuriating post on her blog exploring in detail how highly skilled American engineers are being systematically discriminated against in the search for a never-ending supply of cheap, imported labor.

The obliviousness of our nation’s media dinosaurs is illustrated vividly by the Rattle’s final story, which posits some unheralded heroes for 2011′s Person of the Year. Unlike the clueless editors at Time, Kathleen Millar has her priorities in order. Her Foreign Policy Association essay delineates very clearly what the difference is between a media-generated phenomenon and true bravery. Her conviction that political prisoner and dedicated Border Patrol agent Jesus Diaz, the late Brian Terry-victim of this administration’s asinine gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels-and Dakota Meyer-a Medal of Honor winner and courageous United States Marine-are the true People of the Year is worth repeating in this space, if only because it exposes the gulf between what the fifth estate idolizes and what ordinary Americans value. Although the continued plight of Agent Diaz, as well as the horrific policies that led to Agent Brian Terry’s death, have both been well documented by American Rattlesnake, the heroic actions of Corpsman Dakota Meyer are less well known. For an overview of how Meyer tried to defend his fellow citizens, in spite of the opposition of his own government, I suggest reading this informative Fox News story. As we put this month’s Rattle to rest, let’s remember that this country has may heroes, both in and out of uniform.

Later today I’ll be heading out to the Manhattan Libertarian Party Convention. Throughout the day I’ll be sharing my thoughts on Twitter and bringing you news about a political party that just might have  a decisive impact upon the coming election. Will former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson be able to unify libertarians, even those who view him with some measure of skepticism? Will RJ Harris say that someone not named Ron Paul is best qualified to be President of the United States? Will Danny Panzella and Ron Moore disagree on general election strategies for libertarian voters?  Will the subject of immigration come up? Chances are, since I’ll be in attendance, it will. However, if you want answers to the rest of those questions you’ll just have to tune in to my no doubt riveting reportage and analysis of today’s event. 

Months of strenuous campaigning, millions of dollars in political advertising, and countless days of retail politicking will culminate in just a few hours, when a select few will decide who will be awarded the first presidential delegates of the 2012 Republican race for President of the United States. Although not always an accurate gauge of who is ultimately nominated by the Republican Party-a fact pointed out rather inelegantly by Jon Huntsman-the Iowa caucuses do have a significant impact upon the results of future contests, particularly the New Hampshire primary.

That’s why it’s important that we scrutinize the words and deeds-and in some cases, rather extensive voting records-of those who seek the GOP nod to face President Obama this November. Specifically, from the perspective of the immigration enforcement and reform  movement. There are a number of recent polls, from Insider Advantage to Rasmussen Reports, which all show more or less the same dynamics at play. Namely, a battle for the top spot between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, a surging Rick Santorum, a rejuvenated Rick Perry campaign, and a large percentage of undecided voters who’ve yet to make up their minds. While Fox News has provided a helpful primer on the state of play in Iowa on the eve of the caucuses, it’s important that we take some time to ponder the implications of today’s vote, vis-a-vis sensible immigration policy. 

We start with a candidate  American Rattlesnake has neglected to cover this primary season, mostly because his support among Republican voters amounted to a rounding error, notwithstanding some noteworthy endorsements by conservative political organizations and evangelical Christian activists. However, times have changed for Rick Santorum, who now finds himself third among Republican presidential candidates in most Iowa polls. This rise allows us to examine Santorum’s record on immigration and border security issues, which is a mixed bag, at best. While his overall record is absolutely atrocious, if we’re going to judge him by his Numbers USA scorecard-which is as good a barometer of fitness as any in this regard-then the former senator from Pennsylvania is near the bottom of the pack in terms of potential GOP nominees. Roy Beck gives a harsh, but fair, analysis of Santorum in an overview for Numbers USA that I suggest you all read. 

His record in the U.S. Senate and Congress was respectable, as Beck readily acknowledges, and got significantly better the longer he served-he was a strong “no” vote against the DREAM Act during the lame duck session of Congress convened by Senator Harry Reid. What’s more, he has tried to woo us during this primary-going so far as to condemn the sanctimonious scroungers at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who have turned societal pardon of illegal aliens into an official sacrament. That said, his record on E-Verify, probably the most effective immigration enforcement tool we currently have at our disposal-and a perfect wedge issue, as Mickey Kaus points out-has been positively abysmal, with his past votes and statements regarding legal immigration being a greater disappointment, although not an anomaly in this field, regretfully. 

Santorum’s presidential candidacy reflects the essential dichotomy of the Republican field’s relationship to the subject of immigration. While almost every one of the candidates abjures the term “amnesty,” sometimes comically so, and is in a sense an improvement upon the the Republican Party’s previous presidential nominees, and certainly the previous occupant of the White House, almost all of them have serious limitations and flaws with respect to national identity, sovereignty, and the impediments to progress that our current policy of unfettered, mass immigration represents. The reflexive paeans both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney heap upon the disastrous H1-B visa program is but one example of the weakness of the top tier of Republican presidential candidates. Even Ron Paul, who has made admirable strides to highlight pivotal issues such as the insanity of extending birthright citizenship to the children of illegals and subsidizing those in this country who are trespassing, has regressed during this campaign. 

Ironically, the wholly antagonistic nature of the Obama administration, which has effectively declared war on large swathes of the American population, presumably comprising  a portion of the electorate he can safely discard, has actually served to enhance the profile of a crop of candidates that has a conspicuously dovish position on the subject of immigration. For even the disingenuousness of a Rick Perry or harebrained, semantic sophistry by a Newt Gingrich doesn’t approach the unremitting hostility this administration has displayed towards enforcing immigration law. From executive edicts that flagrantly defy the law, to implicit sanction given to localities that flout federal directives on immigration enforcement, to politically-driven witch hunts undertaken against those who have the temerity to enforce the law, President Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for  American citizens who don’t profit personally from the illegal alien industry. 

So in that sense, any Republican candidate-now that open borders libertarian Gary Johnson has officially abandoned the GOP-would be better than the current resident of the Oval Office. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that every Republican candidate would promote good immigration policy once elected to the presidency. Particularly disappointing has been the flagging campaign of Michele Bachmann, who at one point seemed poised not only to become a prime challenger to Mitt Romney, but also to put the issue of illegal immigration at the forefront of this presidential election. Unfortunately, like the presidential campaign of intrepid congressman Tom Tancredo, Bachmann’s candidacy does not look like it will garner much traction beyond the Iowa caucuses. The fact that Sarah Palin has consigned her to the realm of the Huntsmans of this race certainly does not bode well for her candidacy. 

However, that doesn’t mean that the attention she -and even the abortive campaign launched by Herman Cain-gave to the subject of our misguided immigration policy-and the intentional recklessness of this administration in disregarding its duty to protect and defend our borders-did not have an impact on the dimensions of the Republican race. Nor does it mean that this issue will be forgotten any time soon, as the Supreme Court hearing regarding the appeal of an injunction against SB 1070 during the height of the 2012 presidential race ensures. Our porous borders and the devastating consequences of illegal immigration during a prolonged recession will be election issues, regardless of the attractiveness of the eventual GOP nominee. It is our job, as citizens and activists, to push whoever that candidate is in the right direction, and to demand that he make the contrast with President Obama on these issues explicitly clear. Our country can’t afford a return to the days of Obama v. McCain, or Bush v. Kerry…and neither can we. 

One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.

However, underlying the debate over whether immigration and settlement is a natural right is the assumption that all libertarians/anarcho-capitalists agree on the immigration issue, which is not as much of  a given as it would seem on the surface of things. One of the things that I’ve attempted to do with American Rattlesnake is debunk commonly held assumptions about immigration issues, and the assumption that libertarians all subscribe to Gary Johnson’s point of view is one that needs to be reexamined. There are many libertarians and  anarcho-capitalists who recognize both the practical difficulties and existential problems inherent in society based upon unfettered immigration, especially one with the vast social welfare apparatus of the United States. One of the chief exponents of the view that welfare programs need to be curtailed in order to solve the immigration problem is Gary Johnson’s opponent in the Republican presidential race, Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has repeatedly emphasized the need to do away with the generous, taxpayer subsidized social welfare programs that-while not serving as the initial magnet-provide incentives for illegal aliens to extend their stay in this country indefinitely. The population density of legal immigrants is also heavily correlated with the availability of welfare benefits. Even acclaimed economist Milton Friedman, who held a rather benign view of immigration in general, emphasized the incompatibility of a welfare state with unfettered immigration.

The same opinion is held by many libertarians today, including self-professed constitutionalist Andrew Napolitano, who views Arizona’s landmark immigration law primarily through the prism of the Constitution’s supremacy clause and potential violations of the 4th Amendment via racial or ethnic profiling by law enforcement officers. I’m not sure that the Constitutional objection to statewide laws is dispositive, because-as Andrew McCarthy has pointed out repeatedly in National Review-there is no precedent for prohibiting states from enforcing laws that are consistent with federal statutes. Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny. This is a concept that is seldom grasped by arm-chair commentators on immigration these days, whose default option is to repeat the platitudinous-not to mention, factually incorrect-bromide that we are a “nation of immigrants.” What they neglect to mention is that most this nation’s founding fathers would have been implacably opposed to the present lassez-faire system of immigration, a fact that Thomas Woods-as anti-statist an individual as you’ll find among academics-expertly limns in this Human Events column published during the height of the amnesty debate in Washington D.C.

Yet, even if we were to concede that there’s no firm historical or Constitutional foundation for this nation’s current open borders policies, can it not be argued that there is a compelling moral case for the views espoused by those at the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Cato Institute, Reasonoids, and other trendy, beltway cosmotarians? You would definitely think so if you took their arguments at face value. The notion that we have no moral basis for barring certain immigrants from entry into the United States is certainly widespread in certain libertarian circles, but I don’t believe that makes the idea, ipso facto, libertarian. Julian Simon, in a 1998 essay published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, articulated the perspective felt by many that individual autonomy takes precedence over other “public” goods, including our national borders. In an anarcho-capitalist reality, nation-states would not exist, therefore deciding who should or should not be admitted to your nation would be a moot point.

But while it might seem logical that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract-and at its most essential level, the individual him or herself-are all prioritized over the wishes and feelings of citizens who have a vested interested in preserving the character of their nation, there are those that don’t think these competing values are necessarily mutually exclusive. In a persuasive essay written for Lew Rockwell several years ago, N. Stephan Kinsella made a very compelling argument that while the disposition of property in our society is unjust-insofar as the state has no right to expropriate land that rightfully belongs to individuals-so long as that property is entrusted to the state it has a responsibility to act as caretaker for the rightful owners. In this case, it has the responsibility to prevent the ingress of people that citizens do not want to welcome into their country. While those who are opposed to communitarianism in even its most minimal form might reject Kinsella’s public pool analogy, I think he makes a convincing case that some prophylactic measures need to be enforced to prevent the exploitation of your property-even if it’s already been subjected to theft by the state.

There are many cogent arguments against the current trendy libertarian support for open borders, several of them outlined by the first presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, John Hospers, in paper published by the Journal of Libertarian Studies over a decade ago entitled A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders. The concluding paragraph of the essay is especially perceptive in its analysis of the problem:

Occasionally, we hear the phrase “limousine liberals” used to describe the members of the liberal establishment who send their children to expensive private schools while consigning all the others to the public school system, which educates these children so little that by the time they finish the eighth grade they can barely read and write or do simple arithmetic, or make correct change in a drug store. It would be equally appropriate, however, to describe some other people as ”limousine libertarians” —those who pontificate about open borders while remaining detached from the scenes that their “idealism” generates. They would do well to reflect, in their ivory towers, on whether the freedom they profess for those who are immigrants, if it occurs at all, is to be brought about at the expense of the freedom of those who are not.

This passage describes, in a nut shell, the quintessence of cosmotarianism, and why most Americans-and even some in the libertarian movement-continue to reject it. I could post the most meticulously researched George Borjas journal article, the most statistically devastating backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, or the most irrefutable essay by Mahattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. And although all of these sources are invaluable in the fight to define the terms of this debate, they wouldn’t hold a candle to the self-evident fact that none of the greatest exponents and defenders of open borders, be it Tamar Jacoby, or Jason Riley, or Nick Gillespie, abide by their own exhortations. None of these individuals partake of the glorious mosaic which their unyielding ideology has done so much to create.

You won’t find many Reason Magazine editors or Cato Institute scholars living in Bergenfield, New Jersey, Maywood, California, or Eagle Pass, Texas. Why, you might ask? Because they would rather pass off the tremendous costs of their bankrupt philosophy onto ordinary Americans than to admit that they might just be wrong. These people are insulated from unfettered immigration’s worst effects, including chronic unemployment, violent crime, and environmentally devasting pollution from Arizona to California and throughout the country. They have the luxury of ignoring the impact of this country’s changing demographic profile while promoting the patently absurd notion that our open borders are a boon to all but the small percentage of high school dropouts.

What’s more, they make the equally ludicrous assertion-outlined in the Caplan speech above-that importing millions of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, who will be dependent upon costly government services, from quasi-socialist nations will expand this nation’s economic liberty. Forget the fact that we now enjoy less economic freedom than our northern neighbors, a development concurrent with the greatest expansion of immigration in this country’s history, the entire premise underlying this concept is flawed. You do not build a prosperous, 21st century, post-industrial society around foreigners from countries with low human capital. And the amount of time, energy and economic resources that need to be shifted in order to improve the educational prospects and earning potential of these immigrants, e.g. the billions funneled into ESL programs each year, is so cost prohibitive that it outweighs whatever benefits can be gleaned from such an arrangement.

Another seeming inconsistency in the archetypal libertarian solution to our immigration problem is the reluctance of most libertarians to support any sort of relief for American taxpayers who are tasked with paying for millions of illegal aliens and immigrants who are dependent upon costly social services. Particularly, public schooling and emergency health care. Invoking Friedman’s argument once again, we find that while many libertarians will concede that dependency upon welfare programs is a bad thing they will do nothing to limit access to these programs by illegal aliens or permanent residents. To the contrary, if any such bill-which is immigration neutral-is proffered, they will stalwartly oppose it. Just ask new Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who supports the DREAM Act, despite the fact that taxpayers would be subsidizing the in-state tuition discounts of its recipients. Paleolibertarian writer Ilana Mercer deftly skewers  purported libertarians who routinely call for the abolition of the welfare state while adding a proviso that excludes immigrants and illegal aliens from the fiscal demands of their libertopia.

True believers in liberty, like Mercer and the late Murray N. Rothbard, recognize the inherent contradiction in persuading your fellow Americans to reject the embrace of the state while simultaneously welcoming millions of non-Americans into the country who prefer a larger and more intrusive government in almost every respect into our society. They realize that the banal platitudes used to support unfettered immigration are grossly inaccurate, if not transparent lies. They also realize that the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the hospitality industry do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the free market, and that to a large extent our current immigration policy is another form of corporate welfare, which putative libertarians would be quick to denounce in any other context. The time-saving, productivity-increasing technological innovations that would normally be welcomed by these same individuals are rejected by those who apparently think pre-industrial stoop labor is the best method of improving  our agricultural production. Finally, they recognize that the  utopian, globalist conception of freedom-where people living in Gabon or the Hadhramaut have just as much say in how we are governed as American citizens living in New York-contravenes the distinctively American, Constitutional, federalist, representative republic designed by this nation’s founding fathers.

In short, the issue before the house is not whether it is an abandonment of principle for libertarians to embrace sensible immigration restrictions, it’s why institutional libertarians representing organizations like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation have stifled an honest, open intellectual debate about this subject. Even as the negative repercussions of our government’s devotion to open borders become harder to ignore for all but the most oblivious, the gatekeepers of respectable opinion on this subject continue to narrow the parameters of discussion to their own narrow, ahistorical perspective. I don’t expect that to change any time in the near future, but those of us who want an intellectually honest debate about the most important issue of our time can at least begin to clarify its terms, if for no other reason than to educate those novices interested in how mass immigration has impacted our society who are asking themselves how they should view these changes from a liberty-oriented perspective.

In defiance of a state law, Villaraigosa has ordered the Los Angeles Police Department to cease impounding the cars of unlicensed-read illegal-drivers for up to thirty days. According to Chief Charlie Beck, this imposes an “unfair burden” upon the city’s illegal, unlicensed community. It’s good to know that L.A.’s elected officials are so concerned over the welfare of criminals in this country illegally, although I wish they would be as sympathetic to the plight of those killed by their callousness and indifference to American lives.

In a story that’s been covered extensively on this website, the nexus between Mexican narco-cartels and Iranian-backed, Islamic terror networks is once again demonstrated, this time through a story published by Pro Publica, which examines the link between the Lebanese banking system, cocaine users in the United States, and a powerful Mexican drug cartel. The story is worth reading in full, if only because it illustrates the growing global interdependency of American criminals, Mexican narco traffickers and Middle Eastern terrorists.

In gunwalking news, there has been a raft of new information released recently that further implicates the Justice Department in deception, obstruction, and retribution. In adition to using their own twisted scheme-which has resulted in the death of agents Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata and hundreds of Mexicans-to press for more laws attacking the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, it’s now been revealed that the Department of Justice sought to audit the e-mails of one of the journalists who first broke the Gunwalker scandal earlier this year. This comes even as FBI Director Robert Mueller publicly denies the existence of an agency coverup related to the investigation into the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. However, administration denials are not satisfying everyone, illustrated by the call for Eric Holder’s resignation by Arizona congressman Paul Gosar. In order to tell your congressman to support Rep. Gosar’s no-confidence motion in Attorney General Holder, visit Stand with Arizona’s website. Coming on the heels of yet another gunwalking plot uncovered in Houston, it’s the only sensible thing to do.

Demonstrating that, contrary to popular belief, not everyone coming across our border is a hardworking Mexican seeking to do jobs that Americans won’t, police officers cracked a human smuggling ring in the Rio Grande Valley that was bringing Sri Lankans into this country in the trunks of cars. Remember, OTMs account for over nine percent of the apprehensions in this country, which means over 40,000 individuals, many of whom come from decidedly unfriendly locales.

In an update to a story that’s been covered extensively on this site, we’ve now learned-courtesy of Andy Ramirez and the Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council-that imprisoned border patrol agent Jesus E. ‘Chito’ Diaz  Jr.  will not be able to return home or associate with any law enforcement officials-including his wife-because they are armed. Read about the mind-boggling decision by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for yourself at WorldNetDaily. The outrageousness of this decision is compounded by newly disclosed information which demonstrates that the judge involved the prosecution of Agent Diaz forbade the release of exculpatory evidence by his defense attorneys. Like Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, it looks like the prosecution of Agent Diaz was indeed a politically inspired vendetta against the brave men and women who try valiantly to secure this nation’s borders.

On the subject of politically motivated legal attacks, Tom Tancredo Radio has a great story about Rep. Steve King standing up for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in defiance of a corrupt Justice Department that seeks to deprive him of his ability to enforce the law.

Speaking of law enforcement, Fausta’s Blog has an interesting take on the recent drop in arrests at the Mexican-American border, some of which can be traced to the militarization of the border imposed by ultra-violent drug cartels like the Zetas. However, the no apprehension policy instituted by the Obama administration has certainly helped to boost the misleading numbers. In either case, these statistics should not be used as an excuse to embrace amnesty, although this is probably a forlorn hope.

In political news, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano has broached the idea that illegal aliens-a core part of the mayor’s constituency-be allowed to vote. Followers of American Rattlesnake will remember Mayor DeStefano as the originator of the Elm City Resident Card, yet another means of embedding illegal aliens into the fabric of American society while erasing the distinction between American citizens and those lawbreakers who increasingly form the backbone of the national Democratic Party. By way of contrast, current presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has demonstrated his independence and courage by coming out in opposition to the American Catholic Church’s seditious stand on the issue of illegal immigration. Read the entire story on the Numbers USA blog.

Meanwhile the barbaric cultural and religious rites that are imported into our country daily-all the while going undocumented by our nation’s gatekeepers-is the subject of a great column by Ilana Mercer in WorldNetDaily. The owner of Barely a Blog debunks the misconception that East Indian H1-B visa-holders are merely industrious, high tech guest workers from the third world meant to improve the efficiency of data processing centers in the United States. Our nation’s lawmakers would do well to read the work of Ms. Mercer before passing bills that would expedite the aproval of green cards for these sorts of individuals.

In another sign of the times, the American Heritage Dictionary has knuckled under to the forces of political correctness  and decided to characterize the purely descriptive term “anchor baby” as a derogatory slur. If you want to tell these speech commissars what you think of the Orwellian Newspeak they’re trying to impose upon the American public, here’s your chance. Sound off to the people responsible for this campaign and tell them what you think of their manipulation of the English language.

On the lighter side of things, we’ll end today’s roundup by noting a campaign gaffe made by Mexico’s leading presidential candidate. Enrique Peña Nieto  isn’t the only politician to be caught flat-footed when asked which authors or books inspired him, even among current Mexican presidential contenders, but his faux pas has definitely been the most entertaining, as these entries on Tumblr and Twitter illustrate. Is Señor Nieto Mexico’s answer to Rick Perry? Only time will tell, but both will definitely keep us entertained for the foreseeable future.

John, a member of both NY ICE and the Republican Governors Association, went to the RGA’s annual meeting held in Orlando, Florida earlier this month. In addition to the recreational activities-which looked like a blast-he also had the chance to meet some of the nation’s governors, including two who are on the front lines of the battle to enforce the immigration laws our current administration has so woefully neglected.

Here he is with Governor Bob McDonnell, who has had a spotty record on immigration issues in the past.

Governor Martinez, who’s fought valiantly to reverse New Mexico’s reputation as a document mill for illegal aliens, was also in attendance.

As was Ohio governor John Kasich, who up to this point has been reluctant to embrace the cause of immigration enforcement.

Finally, one of the most exemplary state executives when it comes to these issues, Governor Mary Fallin. Not only has she wholeheartedly supported Jan Brewer and the people in Arizona in their fight against the Obama Justice Department, Mexico, and scads of well-paid lawyers, but she made immigration enforcement a central plank in her election platform.

Let’s hope that 2012 sees the election of many more politicians in the mold of Governor Fallin, and that their job will be made easier by a less obstructive White House which only seems interested in rewarding people who’ve broken the law.

The image you see above is a flow chart describing the process by which the bodies of illegal aliens, or in the parlance of the presenter, “undocumented border crossers,” found in the United States are identified and returned to their families. Or, in the case of those whose identities can not be verified, disposed of. It was part of a presentation by Luis Torrens, a student pursuing a Master’s in Public Health, who was invited to address a day-long seminar hosted by the CUNY Graduate Center and the Immigration Working Group which I attended yesterday. I attended the final session of the event, which was billed as a discussion of “immigration Policy and Undocumented Immigrants” and focused exclusively upon the lives of illegal aliens living-and dying-within the United States. 

Notwithstanding the ideologically blinkered nature of the discussion-of all the discussions, to be frank-I did glean some valuable insights from most of the presentations, which consisted of  original research by professors and graduate students seeking grants for further exploration of the subject of their studies. In the case of Mr. Torrens, that entailed devising a better method for the identification and recovery of the bodies of illegal border crossers from Mexico into the United States. He has pursued this goal by interviewing medical examiners and coroners from 44 border counties located in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. One of the most interesting findings from his study was the discovery that although the number of illegal border crossers apprehended has decreased in recent years, a 35 % decline from 2008-2009, the number of border crossers who have died has increased significantly, rising from 125 in the last decade of the 20th century to 802 in the years from 2000-2005. According to the General Accounting Office, most of these deaths are a result of the extreme heat and severe climatic conditions found in the desert along the Mexican-American border. 

Torrens suggested that this increase in heat-related deaths is a logical consequence of three border enforcement measures pursued during the Clinton administration, which he described as having a “funnel effect” intended to push illegal Mexican border crossers into the most inhospitable of environments. These three border enforcement tools were Operation Hold the Line, a 1994 initiative in El Paso involving the forward deployment of Border Patrol agents to remote stretches of the border, Operation Gatekeeper, which focused on preventing illegal entry from the San Diego-Tijuana portion of the border, and Operation Safeguard, an operation by the Border Patrol in Nogales, Arizona with similar aims. Unfortunately, the question of whether these measures were effective in deterring illegal entry in the first place-and therefore preventing unneeded deaths in the Southwest borderlands-was never broached by the speaker at any point during his presentation. 

Another interesting fact referred to by Torrens during his presentation is the sheer number of human bodies that are not able to be identified at a all, which comprise over 60 percent of the total found by American immigration officials and law enforcement officers. The bulk of his presentation focused on “best practices,” i.e. procedures that would allow American authorities to successfully identify and return the remains of border crossers whose bodies are found in the deserts of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. His suggestion was the implementation of a medical examiner program in border counties where these deaths frequently occur, and the replacement of coroners with medical examiners when possible. Torrens asserted that medical examiners are trained pathologists, unlike coroners, and that counties with MEs, such as Bernalillo County in New Mexico, Pinal County in Arizona, and San Diego County in California, all have a more successful rate of identification than counties that merely have coroners investigating human deaths, such as Bernalillo County in New Mexico. Although not often remarked upon when debating issues like border security, the varying skills of forensic examiners has been documented by some media, such as the award-winning PBS series Frontline. 

Overall, the presentation of Mr. Torrens contained some valuable insights and recommendations, although he oversimplified the attitude found among some Border Patrol officers and law enforcement officials who come into contact with border crossers who have died in the course of their illegal entry into the United States. He invoked the case of two men on patrol who allegedly encountered the skeletal remains of a Mexican border crosser in the desert, subsequent to which the remains were dumped into their patrol vehicle. Notwithstanding the seeming callousness of this incident, I don’t think it reflects an indifference on the part of the United States Border Patrol, which is often the first and only means of rescuing distressed illegal aliens who find their lives endangered by heartless, venal criminals known as coyotes. 

Leaving aside the reservations expressed above, I did find the talk to be informative, well-researched, and cogent, which is more than I can say for the presentation prepared by Kelly James, an M.A. candidate in Middle Eastern Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center. Her study ostensibly traced the trends in immigration to this country from the Middle East and North Africa since 2001, using the 9/11 massacres undertaken by 19 Arab-Muslim terrorists as a starting point for an examination of immigration to the United States from these two geopolitical regions. Her hypothesis was that increased scrutiny of Arab-Muslims in the wake of the 9/11 attacks would be reflected in the number of Arab-Muslims seeking to enter the United States. Her sample selection included the nations of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, and Yemen, and relied upon data derived from the Department of Homeland Security’s annual Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. 

She divided her study into two distinct categories: immigrants per year, which included new arrivals to this country with visas, as well as adjustments of status, i.e. legal residents, and Nonimmigrants, which included students, visitors, and others who did not intend to permanently reside in the United States. She then traced the number of individuals from both groups who came to America from the nations listed above, attempting to to determine if post-9/11 Homeland Security, diplomatic, and/or national security policies had a discernible impact on the inflow to this country of predominantly Muslim-Arab newcomers. She asserted that while there had been a sharp decline in Middle Eastern immigrants admitted in 2001, the number surged back to its pre-2001 levels in 2003. While the number of nonimmigrants admitted has fallen from 2001 and not recovered to the same degree, the number of nonimmigrants from the rest of the world has exceeded the pre-9/11 level. 

 Ms. James postulated that most of the temporary decline in admissions could be attributed what she views as overly zealous screening and security procedures implemented by the federal government in the wake of the September 11th atrocities committed by Al Qaeda, particularly with respect to the newly created Transportation and Security Administration, whose excesses have also drawn the criticism of many American citizens as well. While this theory might very well be a valid interpretation of the DHS figures, it does not explain why individuals from non-Arab and non-Muslim countries-and even Muslim countries located outside of the two studied regions-were not impacted similarly during 2001 and 2002. Furthermore, her assertion that security agents were trained to profile people entering this country based upon personal appearance and behavior is simply not accurate, and flatly contradicted by the outrageous, TSA-related incidents we’ve experienced time and time again.

Yet, this is not even the primary objection I have to the disturbingly shoddy presentation of Ms. James. My main complaint regarding her paper is the insistence-all facts to the contrary-that the now-defunct National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was both discriminatory and ineffective in achieving its ostensible objectives. This program was first implemented in September of 2002 by the Bush Administration in order to keep track of foreign nationals from 26 countries that have served as a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, among other global, Islamic terrorist organizations. Despite acknowledging that NSEERS replaced a notoriously anachronistic, inaccurate method of tracking the arrival and departure of foreign nationals, which involved the hand filing of paper I-94 forms, James refused to concede that it represented any sort of streamlining or improvement upon the normal, dilatory, incompetent process adhered to by the federal bureaucracy. She also did not even allude to the many defenders of NSEERs, including its chief architect in the Bush Department of Justice,  and the many valid, factual points they’ve made to demonstrate the program’s efficacy. Nor did she explain the rationale behind the Obama administration’s eventual termination of NSEERs, which occurred in May of this year. 

As weak as the presentation by Ms. James was, it wasn’t the only substandard research paper presented during Friday’s event. In my next post I’ll explore the flawed methodology and logic of two other speakers, as well as describe an impeccably researched, polished paper examining the approximate number of illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. 

Or, as our friends to the north call it, Thanksgiving. Since American Rattlesnake is a celebration of the values and individuals that make this country the great nation that it is, I felt it only fitting that we express our gratitude to one of the great European explorers who helped to map out the New World as we now inhabit it. To that end, I’d like to share with you an amazing essay by David Yeagley, noted conservative writer, courageous iconoclast and proud member of the Comanche Nation.

Enjoy.

Call and write New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez to thank and encourage her for standing up against licenses for illegal aliens.

CONTACT INFO
Gov. Martinez’s office
Phone: (505)476-2200
Fax: (505) 476-2226

Online Contact

The mailing address is:
Office of the Governor
490 Old Santa Fe Trail
Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Sample Message “I’m calling/writing to thank Governor Susana Martinez for standing up for Americans by opposing licenses for illegal aliens. New Mexico is one of the last states offering licenses to illegal aliens and 77% of Americans oppose licenses for illegals. It is good to see an elected official standing up for Americans of every race instead of for illegal immigrants. I plan to contact members of the New Mexico legislature to demand that they support Governor Martinez’s efforts to stop illegal aliens from receiving New Mexico licenses. Please keep up the good work.”

Step 2: Lobby New Mexico Legislature to Stop Licenses for Illegals

We need thousands of calls (the most effective lobbying action) with follow-ups in writing flooding into the New Mexico legislature this week. Please make an effort to call and write some each day as much as you can!

Remember to craft your own distinct message, and to personalize each call and e-mail to the legislator you are contacting by name for MAXIMUM impact.

Contact Info For New Mexico Legislators here.