The big news to come out of the President’s first weeks in office is a federal judge enjoining his executive order blocking immigration from 7 nations of concern. The motion by the Trump administration for an emergency stay has been denied by the 9th Circuit, a decision which bodes ill for its ultimate fate, as Andrew McCarthy points out, although the court will hear the challenge later today. There are a number of troubling aspects to this ruling, foremost among them being the idea that a single judge can influence American foreign policy and national security based upon specious legal reasoning. This is a distressingly familiar sight for the patriotic immigration reform movement, which has seen a single judge thwart Proposition 187-consigning California to its current dismal fate-and another obstruct the implementation of SB 1070-the law which inspired this very website.

The biggest threat to President Trump’s immigration agenda, beyond the attempt by the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP to undermine it within Congress, is judicial obstruction. Immigration law is just one of many domains usurped by the federal judiciary over the past century, however it is one of the most vital to the survival of our republic. Notwithstanding the media-generated fog, this executive order is critically important, not least because it drastically reduces the number of refugees being resettled in the United States and, to the horror of the ACLU, targets criminal aliens.

The lack of reasoning that went into this decision is transparent. As Byron York points out, this injunction-relying upon a litany of unexamined open borders cliches-has been rebutted by the Justice Department, which described in painstaking detail the plenary power exercised by the Executive Branch with regard to the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. Contrary to the Obama administration, which attempted to confer a panoply of benefits upon illegal aliens without the consent of Congress, this is a measured attempt at maintaining the security of American citizens at minimal cost/inconvenience to foreigners. Even so, the same bureaucratic forces which enabled President Obama to flout the Constitution are intent upon thwarting that very reasonable aim of the current administration.

Josh Blackman has a thorough 2 part exploration of the injunction from a statutory perspective, which I highly recommend reading. These cases will set the precedent for how immigration is dealt with going forward. Therefore, we need to address and refute the myths and exaggerations which have already taken hold in large swathes of the media landscape. We cannot allow lies to dominate the narrative, because immigration is the defining issue of our era.

You are reading the 1,500th (extended) post to American Rattlesnake, a project which began in the febrile imagination of my friend and colleague, Michel Evanchik. If you had told me in 2010 that over half a decade later this website would exist, let alone be flourishing, I would have scoffed. Those of you who are regulars know how fond I am of hyperlinking  useful information that illustrates a relevant point. One of the discoveries you make while curating these old posts is how ephemeral this medium is, as many of the sites linked to have long since disappeared into the Internet ether. The fact that we continue to make our voices heard in one of the most important election cycles in living memory is an achievement in itself.

This project began in the wake of SB 1070, a controversial Arizona law designed to punish, rather than reward, illegal aliens living in that state. Although the intent of this law was supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, the political backlash it engendered among the ethnic grievance industry and the hispandering political class-as well as their stenographers in the news media-made it clear to us that we needed a venue to amplify the beliefs and concerns of ordinary American citizens. The idea of actually upholding and enforcing our nation’s immigration laws was untenable to the corporate-collectivist axis which has governed American immigration policy for the past half-century, which is why they directed their concentrated fury upon the one woman courageous enough to defy them.

Whatever you may have thought of Jan Brewer before 2010, her singular courage in resisting the forces that have bought and paid for the entire political class of this nation forced immigration patriots across the country to stand with her, and to stand with Arizona. The modest contribution made by my webmaster and myself took the form of a Web portal called American Rattlesnake. A wholly unique tool which harnessed news, analysis, and activism on behalf of patriotic immigration reform and the traditional values of indigenous Americans that have been under assault since the latter half of the 20th century. Located in the heart of this country’s half-century experiment with multiculturalism and unfettered, mass immigration from the third world, we have a very distinctive perspective on the cultural, political, social, and economic problems posed by the Californianization of the United States.

And while we’ve brought you firsthand accounts by those besieged by the invasion of our southern border, we’ve tried to explore how virtually every state in this new America has been transformed into a border state. Whether through the resettlement of unassimilable refugees in the mid-west and the deep South, the importation of thousands of Central American families, or simply the abandonment of any pretense to enforce federal immigration law by the current administration, we must recognize that our rulers have and continue to irreparably alter the nation once known as the United States of America. We have also tried to explain the refugee crisis in Europe, many years before Angela Merkel decided to turn her country into a hostel for Muslim rapists from the developing world. The fact that those in power both in Europe and the United States have chosen to level the full force of the state against critics of this insane policy, which amounts to cultural suicide, rather than confront the virus overwhelming Western civilization, speaks volumes about their priorities.

Even as countries which gave us the Enlightenment are besieged by those dedicated to its eradication, and purportedly free people become hostages within their own countries because of their leaders’ malfeasance and hatred of their people, those individuals brave enough to tell the truth becomes targets, both literally and figuratively. The ruling class and its rabid pets are seeking to silence truth-tellers, which makes sites like American Rattlesnake all the more necessary. As the marriage between online media monopolies and the leviathan state solidifies, and the denial of reality proceeds apace, the importance of independent, honest voices will only increase.

There are so few people willing to risk the consequences attendant upon telling the truth in a world where political discourse is shaped by lies. That’s why this website, however small its impact on the wider world, needs to be. It’s why me and Mr. Evanchik are extraordinarily grateful to our audience, which has been with us and grown over these past 6 years. I hope you’ll stick around for the battles ahead.

One of the inerrant truths of our time is that if a bad idea exists, the New York Times is certain to endorse it without reservation. Conversely, if a good idea is percolating in the public consciousness, the editors at the Old Gray Lady will inveigh against it to their newspaper’s last barrel of ink. Nothing illustrates this newspaper’s consistently wrongheaded approach to almost everything more than its public position on immigration enforcement, mass immigration, and the multigenerational transformation of this country through legislative as well as extraconstitutional means. 

Whether it’s opposing statewide efforts to rectify a problem caused in large measure by the federal government, or supporting yet another sweeping amnesty that will allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to further burden American society-to say nothing of the millions of legal immigrants that would be naturalized in such a compromise-you can rest assured that the Times will stand behind any “solution” to the immigration crisis that adversely impacts Americans, rarely allowing a dissenting perspective to be broached within its op-ed pages. However, its stance on immigration-related matters has gotten progressively worse with each passing year, especially under the reign of Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, heir to a journalistic dynasty which he has assiduously driven into the ground.

That’s why the backgrounder written by Jerry Kammer, of the Center for Immigration Studies, is such a welcome relief. Sulzberger’s Voice explores the reasons, both psychological and political, behind the NYT’s hidebound opposition to reasonable immigration policy and intolerance of anyone who critiques their open borers dogmatism. It’s well worth reading for anyone who wants to understand why the “paper of record” continually stands behind ideas that the overwhelming majority of American citizens categorically reject. and what this philosophical chasm portends for the current immigration debate.

As most you probably know, Edward I. Koch is no longer with us. After a protracted battle with pneumonia, among other ailments, the three term mayor of this city finally succumbed to the limitations of age. As well as being a career politician and often contrarian Democrat, Ed Koch was-as the photo above indicates-a decorated veteran of the Second World War.

One of the unfortunate legacies bequeathed by Mayor Koch was an executive order that gave de facto immunity to illegal aliens under the auspices of public safety, one which has been reaffirmed repeatedly by his successors in spite of its conflict with federal law. Although he was not the only New York politician to support inarguably harmful, counterproductive-and often lethal-policies, this part of his mayoralty did establish the precedent for city agencies flouting federal immigration law. A precedent that will inevitably be expanded upon if the current Democratic front-runner occupies Gracie Mansion this time next year.

That said, Edward Koch was a rational man-unlike so much of the governing class-and when confronted with inexorable facts he accepted them, which is why he vehemently opposed the Democratic Party’s wholesale amnesty push, and as late as this past November condemned the cretinous half-wits at the editorial page of the New York Times for  their craven attacks against those who support American sovereignty and law. Even though he couldn’t close Pandora’s box, his words and actions after leaving office demonstrate the depth of his humanity, something all but invisible to the current collection of vultures which populate Albany, Manhattan, and the nation’s capital.

As someone who cared about his country-and countrymen-Edward Koch is worth remembering.

Martin Luther King Jr. is perhaps the most iconic symbol of this country’s struggle for civil rights during the latter half of the 20th century. He also symbolized the aspirations-social, economic, and spiritual-of black Americans. That’s why the official commemoration of his birth-marked by a federal holiday yesterday-is the perfect occasion to examine the parlous condition of Martin Luther King’s heirs.

The latest edition of  Jamiel’s Law examines the problems they currently face, including the concerted effort to ethnically cleanse them from the city of Los Angeles, a town which once served as a springboard to middle class prosperity for scores during the Great Migration. It also takes to task the shameful record of most-if not all-black elected officials in this country, who continue to pander to the Democratic Party’s most cosseted constituency, even if it means they wind up on the short end of the stick.

How MLK Jr. would view today’s current crop of black politicians is unknowable, but the impact they’ve had upon their constituents has been inarguably malign, as their lockstep  resistance to SB 1070-style bills and deteriorating economic prospects demonstrate. If only the politicians we elected represented our interests as Americans. Alas, they do not, something the late Terry Anderson knew well. Black or white, the men and women who are sent to Albany and Washington D.C. only care about those who are bankrolling their campaigns and bolstering their efforts to retain power, which is increasingly built upon the maintenance of ethnic lobbying blocs.

As we head into the second term of the Obama administration, it’s important to remember that our current political dynamics rely upon balkanization, not unity of purpose, and the distribution of spoils, rather than the reductions of impediments to our pursuit of freedom. Notwithstanding the President’s vainglorious opinion of his administration’s achievements, some people know what’s really happening. Kudos to Jamiel Shaw Sr. and the Shaw family-among others-for daring to point out that the emperor-as well as his many servitors-have no clothes.

One of the themes we’ve tried to impress upon our audience over the past three years is the multidimensional nature of immigration. It’s not simply a single issue among a panoply of issues that animate the cut and thrust of politics. It encompasses everything from economics to culture, including crime, education, health care, terrorism, and the budget-as the states which are buckling under the costs of caring for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and immigrants can attest to-as well as first principles.

Who are we as a country? For what purpose(s) does our government exist? Who decides what immigrants become Americans? Should we discard or modify our principles in order to adapt to the mores and culture of newcomers, or should they adapt to American values as a precondition of settlement? These are some of the questions addressed by our friend Michael Cutler in a fantastic speech to the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition earlier this month. I urge you to listen to it in its entirety.

Last week’s election results undoubtedly left many readers deeply disappointed, if not disaffected, including those of you who couldn’t bring yourselves to cast your ballot for Mitt Romney for any number of well documented reasons. The prospect of a president unencumbered by electoral consequences, whose administration has already shown itself to be flagrantly indifferent to-if not contemptuous of-the rule of law and quaint Constitutional notions like the separation of powers, seems daunting to ordinary, patriotic citizens.

What’s more, the same malleable, anemic species of Republican which has represented GOP voters for the past two years, and whose leadership has led not only to political defeat but unprecedented encroachments upon personal autonomy, has been returned to Congress. Not to stand up for the principles of the men and women who elected them, but with the intent of compromising with the  President and cementing his agenda into law, including the completion through congressional action of the vast amnesty Barack Obama has begun to implement through executive action.

Make no mistake, President Obama will attempt to fulfill his promise to repay the support he received from Latino voters this election cycle. The implementation of DACA and promulgation of administrative amnesty over the past two years was merely the down payment of a much larger loan floated by the Democratic Party’s most prized constituency. Repaid, of course, with citizenship for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in this country.

I doubt that either Barack Obama or John Boehner will wait for the next session of Congress to begin; certainly it doesn’t appear that members of Congress are hesitant to begin strip-mining what remains of American citizenship. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s rumblings about neutering the filibuster-which was the only legislative tool that prevented the DREAM Act from being enacted in the last lame duck session of Congress-don’t augur well for those of us who want to prevent this from happening. This upcoming session will see a reprise of the last lame duck session, only with fewer opportunities to obstruct whatever stalking horse for  amnesty is presented before Congress.

The fact that every credible exit poll, like every other measurable barometer of public opinion, demonstrated overwhelming voter opposition to amnesty will mean nothing to the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, much less the man who owes his office to individuals, unions, and corporations who will be the chief beneficiaries of any future negations of federal immigration law. The American people serve as an impediment which needs to be removed in a nation where too many old, white men exist, according to the despicable Al Cardenas, the current head of the curiously named American Conservative Union.

This meta-narrative, fostered by the usual suspects in the mainstream media and elsewhere among open borders dogmatists, will be emphasized in the weeks and months ahead. And just as in previous years with equally catastrophic amnesty proposals, this theme will be regurgitated by cretinous political apparatchiks, putative conservatives-such as Charles Krauthammer-and Republican Party lackies like Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity.

What makes this upcoming battle even more difficult is the seeming justification open borders enthusiasts have in pursuing their agenda by virtue of the latest electoral outcome. Almost to a man, they are touting the defeat of Mitt “Green Card Stapler” Romney-a man who endorsed the codification of DACA into federal law-as vindication of their mantra that the Republican Party needs to abandon any pretense  of  respect for our national borders, our language or our unique heritage as Americans.

While it’s easy to grasp why Democrats would want to enact legislation ensuring a spigot of reliable, straight ticket voters in future elections, it’s more difficult to discern why the Republican Party would want to legalize-and ultimately, enfranchise-millions upon millions of voters who will ultimately deprive its officeholders and political candidates of any decision-making authority. As poorly as Mitt Romney fared in capturing the Hispanic vote in aggregate terms, he performed even worse with specific sub-demographics within the Latino electorate. As the Pew Hispanic Center points out, Romney’s share of Hispanic voters who identified themselves as non-college graduates was thirteen points less than that among those who had graduated from college.

What better solution to the Republican Party’s demographic bind than to naturalize and enfranchise millions of future voters who have not only failed to attend college, but have not even progressed beyond high school? Makes perfect sense to me. Why even bother compromising your principles if Texas is going to become a blue state in a mere four years, as Jeb Bush-a potential presidential nominee to some of our country’s more sun-addled inhabitants-believes?

Furthermore, the notion that Hispanic voters-particularly, first and second generation immigrants-support the Democrats because of their support for unfettered immigration, or conversely, oppose Republicans due to their perceived opposition to such a policy, is empirically false. As Heather Mac Donald has pointed out repeatedly-including in the immediate aftermath of Mitt Romney’s loss-what binds this community to the Democratic Party, like past waves of immigrants who aligned with that party’s standard bearers, is support for and dependency upon a vast network of welfare programs, as well as wealth transfers which take the form of  confiscatory taxes levied upon high income earners.

That is why the Democratic Party-including Barack Obama and Harry Reid, among others-is so eager to legalize millions of illegal aliens, over sixty percent of whom come from Mexico. It sees these individuals as part of its immutable political base and a gateway to power, just as leaders of public sector and service employees’ unions see them as potential dues-paying members, i.e. a gateway to the accumulation of wealth, most of it extracted at the expense of American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, unlike past waves of immigrants, there are very few incentives for these newcomers to assimilate our language, much less adopt the free market ethos that open borders fetishists at places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Cato Institute ostensibly venerate. Add to this the reality that there is no time for these newcomers to assimilate-even if they had the inclination to do so-as successive waves of immigration further dilute their attenuated connection to this country, and we are left stranded at the current impasse where our nation, along with much of Europe, is functionally bankrupt.

There is no sugarcoating the challenge we face in the days ahead, but face it we must. Amnesty is not the answer.

The divided-and misleadingly named-Arizona vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision, which upheld one key enforcement provision of SB 1070 while invalidating others, the unilateral administrative amnesty which the Obama administration has used to bypass Congress, and the systematic abandonment of federal immigration law by individual states-including New York-have all brought the battle over American sovereignty to a head in this volatile election year. 

That’s why I’m pleased to announce that our friend William Gheen, founder and president of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee, will be participating in a crucial gathering in his home state of North Carolina this weekend-beginning today-which is focused upon addressing one of the most important subjects not being discussed by the two major party nominees during this election year.

The iiiMPACT Conference is something that I urge all North Carolinians to attend-if possible-and those living outside of the state to watch via this link. The details are provided below.

A free, bipartisan educational event featuring leaders and experts on the state, local, and national levels who will share their expertise and knowledge to discuss the impact of illegal immigration in North Carolina check out iiiMPACT to register and for more information. 

We’ll dive into this educational event with a viewing of Dennis Michael Lynch’s ground-breaking documentary, They Come to America. A comprehensive and in-depth look at the reality and the costs of illegal immigration in America, this movie will help to educate the public on this issue on the national level. Step beyond the media pundits’ racially charged sound-bites into what’s really going on in our cities and along America’s border. 

It turns out that Arizonans aren’t the only ones concerned about the avalanche of illegal aliens and low-wage, unskilled immigration to the United States. In fact, residents of East Hampton have gradually but inexorably begun to resist the tide of day laborers and foreign workers living in their midst. As I’ve spotlighted recently on this site, there is a very talented documentary film-maker who has chronicled the growing tensions between Long Island communities and the “undocumented” who live within them.

The New York Times alludes to this director, Dennis Michael Lynch, in an article exploring the political dynamics that have led to a socio-economic and ideological battle between those that want to keep a permanent underclass and those who prefer to preserve the stability and prosperity of an established Long Island hamlet. Of course, the default position of the former is that politically engaged New Yorkers who wish to maintain their town’s civic identity and shore up its rapidly dwindling property values are this generation’s answer to the NSDAP. From the New York Times article,

Ms Quigley added that it may be easy to blame minority groups like Latinos for the problems in Springs and East Hampton. ‘Doesn’t that sound a little familiar?’ she asked,’ Like blaming the Jews for troubles in Germany.’

Ms. Quigley’s demogogic, hysterical ad hominem shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s followed the debate-if it can even be described as such-surrounding the implementation of SB 1070 over the past two years. Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, the instinctive emotional spasm of vitriol with which open borders fetishists greet any opposition to unfettered immigration is well documented. It serves both as an illustration of how intellectually bankrupt the opponents of immigration enforcement and sensible restrictions remain, as well as a revelation of how crucial the perpetuation of the failed status quo is to their political identity.

Fortunately, the followers of American Rattlesnake know better. Which is why I urge you all, once again, to watch They Come To America, a groundbreaking documentary which poses the pointed questions that have been consistently ignored by mainstream propaganda organs such as the New York Times. It’s a film that exposes the long-lasting impact of a defective immigration policy which prioritizes the “rights” of illegal aliens over the lives, safety, and economic well being of American citizens.