Twelve years on, and this nation’s caretakers still have not absorbed the lessons of that day. Don’t let their sacrifices be in vain.

This film sounds so delightfully atrocious that we’re moderately interested in seeing just how bad the final product is, should it come to fruition. Much like La Misma Luna, the protagonist of this feature is a beleaguered yet ambitious DREAMer. Who better to tug on the heart strings of credulous cineastes as Congress attempts to bypass widespread public opposition to its latest attempt at unraveling immigration enforcement than the traditional stalking horse for amnesty? We’re still waiting for the day when Hollywood  will dramatize the biography of a bright young student-athlete murdered in cold blood right in its backyard by one of those poor, young “undocumented” migrants hiding in the shadows. 

Don’t hold your breath. 

Update: Footage of Ted Cruz’s fantastic speech added. 

The March for Jobs is unfolding as we speak!

-As we predicted, the Senate passed the Gang of Eight amnesty yesterday, setting the stage for the final battle in the House of Representatives, which is ostensibly controlled by Republicans. You can view the roll call vote, which will serve as a handy reminder of which cringing Republicans need to be removed from office the next time they come up for reelection.

-The Senate debate over disassembling our republic was a thoroughly unedifying spectacle, from the senescent tirades of the Republican Party’s chief open borders pom pom twirler to the irrefragable idiocy that we’ve come to expect from his mini-me, Lindsey Graham. The only consolation is that some of us will be able to elect a new Senate before Congress elects a new people.

-You would think the threat of a bitterly fought, expensive primary-endorsed by no less than a former GOP Vice-presidential nominee-would cause skittish representatives to think twice before enacting a politically and economically ruinous amnesty. The promise by Rep. Steve King to depose Speaker Boehner if he moves forward on S.744-a move supported by powerful members of the House Republican caucus-seems to have instilled a measure of fear into La Raza enthusiast Luis Gutierrez’s BFF.

-Then again, the Republican leadership has never been known for its sagacity or political intuition. A fact demonstrated by comments made by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus after Senate passage of the Gang of Eight monstrosity. The elites have an entirely different conception of the public interest than that of most Americans, who tend to prioritize things like job security, safety, and upward mobility over the concerns of large corporate donors such as Big Agra and Silicon Valley lobbyists pleading for the importation of more high tech serfs.

-I tend to agree with Mark Levin, who believes that if amnesty is stopped in this session of Congress it will be in spite of John Boehner, not because of him. This man wants amnesty to be the law of the land, and the only thing preventing his wish from being fulfilled is the unified opposition of conservative Republican voters. The leadership of the Republican Party in the House needs to be reminded that they do not work for either Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama, but for their constituents, i.e. patriotic  citizens who believe in American sovereignty and real border security. Even if the demise of the GOP as a national political entity is meaningless to them, these people should be reminded that they are placing their own political careers in jeopardy.

-With the abdication of leadership and abandonment of principle by so many Republicans, it’s reassuring to find a small glimmer of light in the struggle over amnesty in one of the least likely places. I refer to a fantastic piece published by The New Republic written by self-described liberal, opposing immigration reform. Much like Ted Rall, T.A. Frank sees the peril in naturalizing millions of workers-in addition to the hundreds of thousands who will imported over the same period-that will compete-at a decided advantage thanks to Obamacare regulations-with unemployed Americans who are already on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. The plight of American workers is something that the left cared about a scant two decades ago, but I suppose times have changed.

-We end today’s Rattle on a slightly humorous note. It appears that the Obama administration is not pleased with the way Hong Kong immigration officials  handled the departure of former NSA contractor turned leaker Edward Snowden, whose whereabouts have yet to be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Although this subject raises themes of constitutionality, privacy, foreign policy and other issues of grave import, what tickles the funny bone is the White House’s reaction to Mr. Snowden’s tour of the Eastern Hemisphere. In particular, the comments of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

The White House, which is typically much more restrained in its public remarks about the PRC, expressed a similar sentiment.

“We are just not buying that this was a technical decision by a Hong Kong immigration official,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said to reporters at a daily news briefing on June 24. “This was a deliberate choice by the government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant, and that decision unquestionably has a negative impact on the U.S.-China relationship.”

I completely agree, Mr. Carney. The notion that career bureaucrats would be responsible for momentous decisions that could have potentially grave consequences for national security is simply preposterous! I have no idea why someone would even consider deceiving the public with such an implausible scenario. People get the daftest notions sometimes.

We mark the official commemoration of the date, 236 years ago today, when the flag Americans-although not all who live in this country-currently salute was adopted by resolution of the Second Continental Congress. One of the ways of honoring our flag is by defending the values it represents, and we can think of no better way of doing so than by contacting your members of the United States Senate-which is currently in the process of rejecting all amendments which would enhance border security-and demanding that they protect the interests of their constituents, not those of foreign governments or Silicon Valley lobbyists looking for high tech braceros who will replace their American workforce. 

Here are the top 40 reasons to oppose amnesty, although I suggest using only a handful when you get in touch with one or both of your state’s senators. Here’s a directory you can use to find them. When it comes to pusillanimous Republicans in Congress in whose hands the fate of amnesty lies, the message should be short and simple. HELL NO!

 You can watch the entire broadcast at Numbers USA’s Stop Amnesty page. 

Senate debate on this bill will begin early next week! Call your senators!

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.

The purpose of  last Wednesday’s events, like the marches and rallies staged on Cinco de Mayo, was to pressure elected officials in Washington D.C. into repeating the same disastrous mistakes of the past. In this case, a wholesale amnesty which would cost upwards of six trillion dollars in the coming decades. While most of the people gathered in Union Square were open borders advocates of one sort or another, there was a spirited contingent of counter-protestors from New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement, a.k.a. NY ICE, whom I’ll get to in due time.

There were several journalists eager to cover the pro-legalization marchers, including a reporter-and I use that term advisedly-from the New York City affiliate of Noticias Mundo, a Spanish-language collaboration between Colombian channel RCN and cheap labor enthusiast Rupert Murdorch’s chief American asset, Newscorp.

And while there were many people agitated over the immigration-and the various proposals floating around Congress that purport to address the subject-as with any reasonably large demonstration spearheaded by the left, mission creep was evident from the beginning. The issue sprawl ranged all the way from global concerns, such as the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership…

…to more localized grievances, such as the cascading effects of the U.S. Postal Service’s insolvency, as well as the recently resolved school bus strike in the City.

The parlous state of our city’s public education system was also addressed-in both English and Spanish.

And of course, plenty of protesters blamed the dreaded process of sequestration-whose impact verges on the apocalyptic according to some analysts-for the plight of specific ethnic groups and economic classes.

The Sequester Game was an attempt to inject some levity into an otherwise earnest day of political sloganeering and ideological indoctrination.

One that drew upon traditional May Day tropes, such as this Maypole inscribed with exhortations to pursue various political projects of concern to the left. Although traditionally viewed as a festival heralding the arrival of spring, it is now an occasion which has been colonized by  those with a Marxist interpretation of history.

The top of the pole was graced by a papier-mâché babushka bearing a placard with a statement just as  ambiguous as her facial expression. 

I saw a few familiar faces in the crowd, including the attractive young rollerblader who played the part of  a money bunny at an Occupy Wall Street rally held in Bryant Park last year. Rather than targeting her ire at Herr Bloomberg-whose last term is mercifully drawing to a close-she took aim at some of the investment banks which have balanced their ledger sheet by feeding at the public trough. One of the most conspicuous offenders in this regard, CEO of JP Morgan Chase Jamie Dimon, is depicted in the effigy seen above. A man who not only benefits from outright wealth transfers from American taxpayers, but also regulatory structures that inhibit competition. Pretty much the antithesis of capitalism, as it’s correctly understand.

One group that continues to loosely align itself with OWS is Anonymous.

If nothing else, the market for Guy Fawkes masks remains robust.

Although I’m not sure wearing them while manning literature tables is their intended usage.

Speaking of literature booths, there were a lot of them in Union Square Park, including those run by Marx’s bête noire, i.e. anarchists.

They had a variety of pamphlets, including one exploring the concept of jury nullification.

Socialism today, socialism tomorrow, socialism…well, you get the picture.

The alternative to what? Prosperity and freedom, perhaps. Unfortunately, socialism and/or corporatism is the default economic setting for much of the world today, with a few notable exceptions.

The apex of socialism, of course, can be found in the proposition that the state exercises final authority over  its subjects’ bodies. Notwithstanding the fact that the lawmakers who crafted Obamacare are already fleeing from its consequences, there are still millions of people willing to go further down the rabbit hole of wholly socialized medicine.

I’m sure among those can be counted the Trotskyists who were gathered in Union Square.

As well as the small coterie of Bolsheviks I found as I made my way through the police barricades erected in anticipation of this event.

The woman wearing the strange, black and green biohazard cap was apparently in charge of this group, although to what purpose its members were being put is beyond my ken.

What I did glean from my encounter with the useful idiots-who weren’t so useful in this case-was that they had a problem being photographed.  I discovered this after having a conversation with the Don Pedro fan seen in the picture above. The idea that anyone would express a natural curiosity in people wandering around Manhattan wearing t-shirts extolling an ideology that has murdered between 50 and 100 million people, and deprived tens of millions more of their liberty, never seemed to cross their minds, such as they are.

Patiently explaining my purpose merely seemed to heighten his anxiety, especially after I gave him my business card and told him the name of this website. This is a brief recapitulation of our exchange:

Communist: American Rattlesnake? I don’t know if I like that name.

Me: Why are you disturbed by the name?

Communist: Because most of the time…that rattlesnake thing is for reactionaries and fascists who wave the American flag!

Me: Like the Latino family standing next to the George Washington statue? 

Communist: That’s different! 

Me: How so? 

Communist: Mmm…

(Followed by a minute of so of silence and a stupefyingly dull facial expression.)

I can’t say that I expected a more welcome reaction from the dozen or so emissaries of Bob Avakian, the founder and head of a bizarre personality cult called the Revolutionary Communist Party.

If the Shepard Fairey-like silkscreened t-shirts bearing Avakian’s youthful visage aren’t enough to set off alarm bells, a brief excursion to the RCP’s website-which gives North Korean propaganda a run for its money in the weirdness department-should be enough to persuade you that these people are certifiably insane.

One of the recurring mantras of the Avakian supplicants is that the “real revolution” is imminent, and that you should get with it immediately.

Or entrale a la verdadera revolucion, if you prefer. In either case, it’s redolent more of a Marshall Applewhite-led Heaven’s Gate initiation than scientific socialism.

Nevertheless, the declamation of  revolutionary Communism must go on, even if mesh, pop-up hampers must take the place of wooden rostra and bullhorns. Evolution, my friends!

In addition to cyberspace, the proteges of Avakian also broadcast their incredibly delusional message through the cutting edge technology of dead trees, which bolsters the thriving industry of print journalism.

Alas, my preliminary investigation of these pioneering revolutionaries was abruptly curtailed when several of them demanded that I cease and desist taking pictures.  I can’t imagine what possible objections Communists could have to some harmless photography, but I took thge dispute in stride and calmly described-once again-the purpose of this website. After one Avakianik insisted that I give him copies of American Rattlesnake’s “newspaper,” I proceeded to explain the concept of a news website and why mass-producing a newspaper on pulp, a la Screw or The Nation, is an unnecessary and costly investment. He was not persuaded.

Therefore, I decided to make better use of my time by studying some of The Master’s doctrine, including what seems to be the handbook for all aspiring Revolutionary Communists, Basics.

A compendium of Avakian’s lectures and writings, Basics can also be used-it turns out-as a handy visual aid. In this case, as a giant mercator projection that focused on the depredations which global capitalism has inflicted upon various parts of the globe. One of the worst seems to be the manifestation of widespread famine in developing nations that have embraced the free market. Apparently, collectivism is the way to go in agriculture. Yes, a proven success.

The fact that there was widespread famine and civil strife in India during post-independence, socialist rule, and that that devastating hunger could be attributed in large measure to misguided agricultural policies, is an historical anomaly, I’m sure.

It’s impossible to attend any protest organized by the left and not be greeted by several dozen-or hundred, depending upon the turnout-t-shirts bearing the image of Ernesto “Che” Guevara Lynch, one of Ireland’s most embarrassing exports this side of Bono. Just multiply the image you see above twenty or so times and you’ll have an idea of what walking around Manhattan on May Day is like.

Less recognizable than Argentina’s Che Guevara, but still admired by Marxists of a certain age and disposition, is Africa’s Che Guevara, i.e. Thomas Sankara, the president of Burkina Faso for much of the 1980s. Another friend of Fidel, Sankara even had his version of the Young Pioneers.

In contrast to much of today’s brain-dead, multi-culti, post-modern left, Sankara was a strident opponent of such quaint cultural-religious practices as forced polygamy and female genital mutilation. However, he was in favor of armed Marxist revolution-having come to power in a coup d’état himself-and collective ownership of the means of production. Hence, his enduring popularity among a small segment of western-educated Marxists. Unlike another African ally of Che, whose successful revolution was effaced by subsequent events.

As obscure as the  former Communist president of Burkina Faso might seem, the Cuban Five-now the Cuban Four-are probably even less well known to those who aren’t aware of the extensive and capable intelligence network run by the Cuban government within the United States.

Although most Americans are oblivious to their existence, these spies serve as a potent rallying cry for the Castro regime, as well as a cause célèbre for the anti-American left. Some of you will remember the same type of literature and agitprop at previous demonstrations documented by this website.

Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised by the dedicated group of enthusiastic members of NY ICE I spotted from across the street.

Despite the balmy weather, these people are no sunshine patriots, but stalwart defenders of the Constitutional values upon which this country has thrived. They are in the streets, online, and on the phones pleading the case of ordinary Americans, year after year, regardless of the adverse political climate,  antipathy of the news media, or gamed lobbying structure of Capitol Hill.

Because they are aware of how much our government’s indulgence of illegal immigration has cost us in the past, and how much it will cost future generations of Americans if we don’t address this issue.

With real, substantive solutions, not the regurgitation of false rhetoric and the promise of deterrent measures which will never be implemented if and when the ultimate goal of immigration reform advocates, i.e. amnesty, is achieved.

If we’re going to look at adjusting our nation’s immigration policies, a good place to start would be with the words of our nation’s founding fathers, who remain a much better guidepost to wise decision-making than their dismal successors. If we really want to honor the labor of working Americans, we should start by rejecting plans that

Update: The Silent Majority No More has some great coverage of the May Day absurdity, which I urge you all to check out for yourselves!

One of the perennial problems faced by the left is the inclination to either devolve into myopic, sectarian bands, or to remain so diffuse and broad in its appeal that it doesn’t accomplish much of anything. The latter tendency can be seen in the evolution of movements like Occupy Wall Street, which never quite formulated a cogent agenda, despite rendering aid  to distressed victims of Hurricane Sandy this past year. Although, even this operation didn’t proceed quite as smoothly or as transparently as one would expect from an organization that ostensibly has no defined hierarchical structure. 

The message emblazoned upon the placard seen above-whether  born out of sincerity or a mischievous desire to troll Marxists-was probably the most succinct, coherent statement I encountered in Union Square this week, however ironic it must seem juxtaposed against a public celebration of the international labor movement. 

Nevertheless, supporters of OWS were plentiful during Wednesday’s festivities, even as open borders activists attempted to use May Day  to mobilize their supporters on behalf of millions of illegal aliens seeking amnesty. 

Aside from some conspicuous flag-waving, and manning a much smaller version of The People’s Library, there didn’t seem to be much activity among the occupiers, especially in comparison to last year, when the movement occupied the preeminent place among the day’s citywide rallies.  

To its credit, the illegal alien lobby  recognized the fleeting nature of this particular historical moment. Alas, it might be another two years before their benefactors in Congress attempt to foist an equally unpalatable deal upon a skeptical American public. That’s why they came out in force, albeit much reduced in number-in order to demand-their words, not mine-perpetual immunity from legal and political repercussions related to the laws they’ve violated. 

The focus, as always, was on the reunification of families-ones marked by severe genetic deformities, if these portraits are any guide-separated by the purportedly arbitrary, cruel immigration policies pursued by the American government. 

Although more focused than the generic leftists in attendance, the open borders enthusiasts did try to link to their opposition to immigration enforcement of any kind to a variety of other topical issues, including critiques of the military industrial complex. While some would opine that militarizing the border would be a far better use of American resources than some of the Defense Department’s current priorities, especially considering the empirical evidence validating this assertion, those gathered in Union Square beg to differ. Interestingly enough, they seem to share the views of the Cato Institute in this regard. 

The May 1st Coalition-a group created in the wake of  a uniformly ineffective 2006 boycott of American businesses and public schools by illegal aliens-was the chief organizer of this event, and was responsible for much of the publicity advertising the rally. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this group opposes the Gang of Eight giveaway in its current form because they view it as far too punitive to the poor, beleaguered migrants who simply want legislative immunity conferred upon them for trespassing our laws-both civil and criminal. I suppose a tax amnesty is too heavy a burden to ask them to bear in return for funding their  health care, welfare and unlimited access to legal counsel. 

As expected, organized labor-including our good friends from the SEIU-constituted a significant presence. After all, who else is going to replenish the declining ranks of union membership in this country’s private and public sectors? 

Having a portion of your paycheck confiscated and subsequently earmarked for the political ambitions of  union executives, is apparently a life-time affair. 

In addition to the open borders brigade-and its union auxiliaries-there were a host of Marxists; this being May Day, after all. No one has ever accused the reds of being reluctant to attach themselves to a more popular cause or party. In that vein, the  hoary Trotskyites of the Socialist Workers Party trundled out their pristine reading material-including copies of their flagship publication, The Militant-to generally disinterested passersby. 

They did manage to incorporate anti-enforcement buzz phrases into their otherwise predictable signage. It’s often said that politics make strange bedfellows, and immigration politics is perhaps the prime example of this cliche being grounded in truth. Very strange, in this case. Or perhaps not, when you view the proposed immigration law through the prism of a policy that guarantees a steady supply of cheap labor and cheap votes. Ostensibly, socialists oppose the former, but I suppose not when it imperils the latter.  

Nelson Mandela was chummy with one of the 20th century’s most ruthless, prolific totalitarian despots? You don’t say!? This sort of accusation might lead people to think he was a Communist! Well, I suppose the Trotskyists are good for something after all. 

Not to be outdone, the SWP’s arch-nemesis-the (Maoist) Workers World Party-was also there.  So coercive statists with an affection for genocidal Communists had a plethora of choices that day. 

Some of them were more enthusiastic in their appreciation for the Great Helmsman than others. Thankfully, the two sides didn’t come to blows. We all know how ugly these type of situations can get. 

The Spartacist League was on message. 

For the most part. 

Much like Kim Jong-Un himself, admirers of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea couldn’t help but plead for public attention. 

Ah yes, those dastardly warmongers. The nerve of them! 

I wonder what this appreciator of Juche thinks of Kenneth Bae’s recent arrest and conviction. 

One of the more interesting aspects of these sort of events-whose hallmark is the repetition of cliched phrases-is learning more about some often overlooked groups in the world of political activism. The organization referenced above, the National Alliance For Filipino Concerns, is one such group. Founded in San Jose, California, it bills itself as an advocacy organization for the Filipino diaspora, a large segment of which can be found within the United States. 

Despite the fact that there are over three and half million people of Filipino descent in this country-and over one and a half million Filipino immigrants-they have figured less than prominently in our nation’s periodic debates over immigration. Several hundred thousand Filipinos are also here illegally, but they too haven’t become a significant debating point in our national discussion of various amnesty proposals such as the DREAM Act. Juan Antonio Vargas-media darling and illegal alien scofflaw-seems to be the exception to the rule.

The maltreatment of domestic workers from The Philippines, especially those living and working in the Arabian Peninsula-but even for those who work in households on this continent-is notorious. The Saudi Arabian diplomatic compound that doubled as a modern-day slave pen is just one of the most startling examples of an epidemic that the Philippine Forum is attempting to highlight with that banner. Notwithstanding my disagreement with the political philosophy espoused by most of the protesters in Union Square-and opposition to their proposed solutions to our broken immigration system-I have to commend some of them for exposing a global moral blight that too few Americans are aware of. 

In addition to the individuals concerned about the flagrant abuse and exploitation of Filipino domestic workers, there was a large contingent of avowedly Communist political parties and Marxist organizations which are based in the Philippines itself. 

There were young Filipino Marxists. 

Older Filipino Marxists-standing next to a representative of the International Migrants Alliance.

The political coalition with which most of these organizations are affiliated. I’ll let you infer it’s ideological proclivities. 

For the life of me I couldn’t tell you what political current this woman’s philosophy represents, but chances are she’s Filipino. 

And finally, female Filipino Marxists. 

As most of you know, the vast majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico-over sixty percent, according to the Department of Homeland Security. So it was not surprising that many of the participants in the May Day rally were Mexican nationals, including the woman seen above, who’s part of an international alliance of vendors. For those of you who aren’t fluent in Spanish, here’s a link to their English-language website.

There were also friends of Yo Soy 132, a Mexican political movement created in opposition to then PRI presidential candidate-now president-Enrique Pena Nieto and the perceived deficit in honest coverage of his presidential campaign, as well as its bitterly contested aftermath. Like its counterpart in the United States, the establishment press in Mexico is controlled by large media conglomerates, often indifferent to the concerns of ordinary citizens. As we’ve learned recently, what doesn’t get reported is often just as important as what is covered. 

There were also devout adherents to the philosophy of third-worldism-such as the International Women’s Alliance-at Union Square. Apparently, some people haven’t gotten the message. 

One curiosity was the apparent lack of any  Puerto Rican nationalists, which is a group that usually shows to events like these. I didn’t spot a single machetero or independista, and was despairing of finding any until I saw the man wearing the colorful t-shirt seen in the photo above. Bingo! 

In contrast to that lonely devotee of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, there were a multitude of Communists willing to trod across the Flatiron District and Gramercy Park  in order to broadcast their innovative, youthful message of perpetual global enslavement, mass starvation and genocide, and statist terror. 

Despite its promising name, most of the individuals I saw bearing these signs seemed to have some tread on the tires. 

A few were in the Fidel Castro ballpark. 

While one man seemed to be giving Lenin himself a run for his money in the youthful vigor department. 

Luckily,  a few non-geriatric Communists did show up, including our favorite ginger-headed Kim Jong-il fanboy. 

 Even a stopped clock is right once a day.

In the second part of my May Day coverage, expect more Communists-as well as a patriotic counterpoint!

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.