National Press Day OPPOSING S.744

Contact: Call 347-277-6096 or e-mail lisaoneill92@yahoo.com to reach New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement (NY ICE) member, Lisa O’Neill.

Location: Steps of City Hall, Broadway entrance 

Date & Time: Tuesday May 21 2013, 12:00 Noon

CITIZENS OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY DENOUNCE COMPREHENSIVE AMNESTY BILL CALL ON CONGRESS TO REMEMBER THE LESSONS OF THE FAILED 1986 AMNESTY

NEW YORK, NY – The citizens of New York and New Jersey join in a coalition of citizen lobbyist and border control organizations on this day in calling on Congress to solve the illegal immigration crisis that has plagued the U.S. for decades. We were promised Americas borders would be secured in 1986 when 2.5 million illegal aliens were given amnesty. S.744 does not secure our borders, and if passed by Congress, S. 744 would have disastrous consequences for American workers and taxpayers. According to an April 2013 Pulse Opinion Research poll, only 26% of Americans agree with giving work permits before full border and workplace enforcement.

S.744 would add 33 million foreign job seekers in the next decade alone. That would be like re- creating ALL of the Top 20 cities in the United States, filling them entirely with foreign citizens and giving them lifetime work permits to compete with America’s struggling workers — and in just 10 years time. That is 33 million foreign job seekers granted legal status competing against 33 million unemployed American citizens for jobs and/or entitlements!

According to an April, 2013 Pulse Opinion Research poll, 70% of Americans disagree that America is faced with a labor shortage. There are no jobs Americans won’t do, just wages Americans won’t accept. The American wage is being decimated by the hiring of illegal aliens.

The Heritage Foundation released the results of its exhaustive study of the costs of giving amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens – $6.3 trillion net costs over the lifetimes of the amnesty recipients. Senators supporting S. 744 talk only about the costs in the first 10 years when the bill forbids use of most welfare and entitlements.

The coalition wants immigration CONTROL and ENFORCEMENT. We want:

AMERICAN BORDER SECURITY NOW! Enforcement of existing immigration laws.

Mandatory use of E-verify by employers, with heavy penalties for non-compliance.

Reasonable annual legal immigration levels.

 An end to birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are not citizens or Legal Permanent Residents

Deportation of illegal aliens NOW

The Coalition is working to educate members of Congress and the public about the adverse consequences of our ill-advised national immigration policies and to advocate real, common sense solutions that adjust our policies to the needs of the citizenry.

For more information, contact NY ICE (New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcment) member Lisa O’Neill at  347-277-6096 or lisaoneill92@yahoo.com. For more information on nationwide events on May 21st go to Remember 1986. 

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

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.

With a little under a month remaining until Election Day, the Obama campaign has transitioned into full-blown hispandering mode. This week’s symbolically potent, yet empty, exercise in  gestural politics entailed President Obama designating the home of former California labor leader Cesar Chavez a national monument. The ostensible purpose of this decision is to rally support among one of his party’s most reliable voting blocs, i.e. Hispanic Americans. Because even though they still decisively support the President’s reelection, that support does not always translate into votes, as other analysts have trenchantly observed.

What makes Obama’s trip to California so fascinating though is not the seemingly transparent play for votes among an ethno-linguistic group already inclined to vote for his reelection, but the figure he chooses to honor in pursuit of this goal. It should be remembered that as head of the United Farm Workers, Cesar Chavez was militant in his efforts to increase the wage scale of California’s poorly-paid and exploited agricultural workers. And despite the fact that his legacy has been appropriated by radical open borders socialist Dolores Huerta-a co-founder of the UFW-Chavez was most militant in his actions against illegal aliens and the guest-workers from Mexico large growers relied upon in order to depress wages.

While today he is looked upon simply as a totemic figure for the left, to be utilized for whatever cause du jour-including comprehensive immigration reform-requires his unique biography, Cesar-or, as our President prefers to call him, (SEE-ZER)-Chavez began his labor activism in response to the federal government’s bracero program. His opinion regarding mass immigration-at least with regard to the agricultural sector-was the polar opposite of the contemporary Democratic Party. His views on illegal immigration were identical to that of today’s Minutemen, and expressed in a much more militant manner, it should be noted.

One of the chief reasons that farmworkers in California achieved parity with skilled workers in the manufacturing sector was precisely because of Chavez’s political efforts at restricting the inflow of unskilled, foreign workers to the state. Unsurprisingly, the steep decline in wages for this same cohort of workers-and the one that’s followed-tracked with the opening of our borders, including successive amnesties and manipulation of existing work visa programs by large agri-businesses. Agricultural concerns which still don’t believe there are enough foreign-born farmworkers in this country, despite the evidence that mechanization and innovation has actually improved farming techniques in the state of California.

You would learn none of this, however, if you relied upon the dominant media narrative for information about Cesar Chavez’s career, or gathered a fragmentary picture of  his life from vacuous, politically expedient gestures like this new national monument, or the christening of a warship in his name. However, my point isn’t that the mainstream media selectively omits certain facts and/or opinions when it suits their political purposes-which is something most of you already know-or that leftist, open borders advocates are willing to hijack the legacy of an iconic figure in order to see their ideological beliefs into law.

I raise this issue because it speaks to a gaping hole in this nation’s historical memory. The fact that craven politicians-of every stripe-will lie with impunity in order to advance their agendas is nothing new. However, the notion that they can so easily manipulate the public in an age where access to information is quite literally at the fingertips of each and every American, should be profoundly disturbing to anyone who values our republican form of government.

If the philosophy of such an historic figure-who was alive less than two decades ago-can be willfully distorted-despite the abundance of evidence clearly establishing his views on this subject-in pursuit of a tendentious agenda, then what hope is there for engaging in an honest, open debate during this most contentious of presidential elections? If the American public is not able to differentiate fact from fiction, then what hope is there that it will make an informed decision as our country casts its ballots this November? As the great Spanish philosopher, poet, and novelist George Santayana once wrote, those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.

It’s difficult to gauge the ultimate impact of this past week’s Supreme Court decision invalidating much of Arizona’s landmark immigration enforcement law, with the exception of Section 2(b), i.e. the clause empowering local police to ascertain someone’s immigration status if  ”reasonable suspicion” exists when he or she is detained.  Even this seeming bright spot is obscured by Justice Kennedy’s muddled opinion, which seems to invite future litigation by the usual suspects, who will have their cases heard before the same judge who has thwarted the implementation of the bulk of SB 1070 for the past two years.

Heather Mac Donald, of the Manhattan Institute, wrote an incisive analysis of the decision for National Review Online, which merits reading by anyone who marveled at some of the flawed reasoning involved in overruling a state law that mirrors federal law in most regards. Her exploration of Justice Scalia’s bold dissent-which has earned universal scorn among the commentariat-is especially compelling. Because the current administration has invested its political capital in administrative amnesty and abandonment of immigration enforcement, it has fallen upon the states to do the work which the Supreme Court has deemed the exclusive province of the federal government. Since the current POTUS believes he must bribe Hispanic voters-who presumably favor amnesty-in order for he and his party to survive politically, he will use the perquisites of the  imperial presidency in order to thwart states-such as Arizona-which have the temerity to defend the territorial integrity of their borders.

That’s why the prospect of states reasserting their sovereignty-described so eloquently in Justice Scalia’s dissent-is so appealing. I disagree with the suggestion by some in the immigration reform movement that the Supreme Court’s refusal to preempt local and state enforcement constitutes a legal victory. Like Roy Beck, I believe that the most efficacious means of deterring illegal immigration-and of forcing illegal aliens currently living here to repatriate themselves-is cutting off access to jobs. Notwithstanding the majority’s decision to nix that portion of SB 1070 which criminalized illegal aliens seeking work, the fact that  during its last term the Supreme Court decided to uphold the Arizona Legal Workers’ Act indicates that there are tools available to counteract the damage done by the Obama administration’s quest for perpetual supplicants.

Even so, the courts’ decision to vitiate most of Arizona’s enforcement mechanisms leaves the ball in the court of the Obama administration, which has made its intentions with regard to this issue more than clear. Combined with its decision to wage class war against American citizens, the amount of leeway enjoyed by those who would enforce the laws American bureaucrats won’t has been reduced significantly. However, if individual states like Arizona begin to assert their rights under the Constitution-a path advocated by one of today’s most articulate advocates of liberty-then the power exercised by open borders proponents, and consequently, the damage inflicted upon Americans, can be mitigated. Although the prospect of nullification might appear dramatic in nature, it is a response less outrageous than the excesses of an unaccountable federal government with blood on its hands. Plus, the precedent has already been established.

We shouldn’t pin our hopes on an insipid standard-bearer for a national party that has equivocated and vacillated on one of the most important issues of our time. Nor should we  rely upon a federal government that has repeatedly betrayed a beleaguered American public. We need to trust ourselves enough to realize that the solution to this problem, like so many others, rests in our hands and in the wisdom of this country’s founders. A message particularly resonant on the 136th anniversary of the proclamation of the world’s most revolutionary charter of freedom.

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.

It’s rare for me to single out for praise the Columbia Journalism Review, a  liberal professional journal published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, but this week it ran an article that is an absolute must-read. Head over to their website and read this piece immediately, if you haven’t already done so. It demolishes the oft-repeated canard that there are jobs Americans won’t do while simultaneously taking a sledgehammer to the intellectually disingenuous, morally repugnant pose of anti-American, open borders dogmatists such as Bloomberg. Kudos to the CJR for having the intellectual integrity to publish this edifying piece, which simply reinforces facts that most of us  already knew.

Hat Tip: Ratbstard at ALIPAC.

Update: Welcome to readers from Creeping Sharia. Thanks, once again, to Pamela for the link! We always love getting readers from Atlas Shrugs.

Earlier today I took it upon myself to journey to Foley Square in Manhattan, where an anti-NYPD, anti-intelligence agency gathering sponsored by CAIR, Al-Awda, and Desis Rising Up & Moving, among other Islamic activist organizations, was taking place. For a full recap of what occurred I suggest you check out my Twitter account, which I used to live-tweet the event as it was occurring. However, for now I’ll just lay out my impression of the gathering and thoughts about its message, then let the photographs speak for themselves. The question of whether American citizens should be surveilled, watched, and interrogated for potential terrorist conspiracies is always a touchy one. As Americans we have problems with the notion that domestic investigative and law enforcement agencies are monitoring our activities, regardless of the merits of the case they may be able to mount, and react viscerally to any perceived encroachment upon our privacy.

However, when you have organizations such as CAIR-which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in this nation’s history and whose antecedent organization, the Islamic Association of Palestine, was an offshoot of Hamas-operating inside of your country, to ask agencies charged with protecting us-such as the FBI-to lay off is a bit much. When a group such as the Muslim American Society-another co-sponsor of this rally-which all but admits that it’s a branch of the same tree as the Muslim Brotherhood, is allowed to operate on American soil the notion that Americans would not be interested in their activities is a bit preposterous.

That’s why I think the best solution to this unique dilemma of retaining our open society, yet preventing both terrorism and the loss of our freedoms, is to eliminate the chances of a fifth column developing on American soil. There’s no reason we should allow the mass migration of people who can or will not adapt to American cultural norms to our shores. However, that’s the solution today’s demonstrators rejected wholeheartedly. Now on to the photos.

There was a sparse crowd at the beginning of the rally:

But it began to fill up as the day progressed. I’d estimate that there were somewhere between 70 and 85 people at the height of the rally, including the ubiquitous, green-hatted members of the Marxist National Lawyers Guild.

As well as the self-consciously imposing Muslim “toughs” acting as security for the day’s speakers.

This is a banner from the Muslim Solidarity Committee, an organization founded in order to raise funds for the family members of Yassin Aref and others convicted of rendering support to the Pakistani terror organization Jaish-e-Mohammed.

There were scads of lawyers and law students present, including those from the City University of New York:

And lots of praying, including the adhan, which is not nearly as mellifluous as some people would have us believe.

I wasn’t keeping track, but I did count at least three separate prayers during the time I was there.

And where there’s Islam, there’s proselytization:

There was no love lost between those in attendance and the New York Police Department.

Not that the Central Intelligence Agency was a fan favorite either.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was a frequent target of enmity, with calls for his dismissal echoing from the speaker’s podium and the crowd.

There were a large number of East Indians in attendance:

Most speakers tried to draw a parallel between the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that had taken place only a few blocks away, at Zuccotti Park, and today’s festivities. To be fair to the Muslims, they at least had a semi-consistent message going for them.

Not that inveterate, elderly Marxists didn’t try to muddle things a bit.

Their incongruous ally:

Speaking of Marxists, I ran into this gentleman, who denounced “all religions” and talked over one of the many calls to prayer-for which he was chastised by a Muslim participant in the crowd. Perhaps the Red-Green alliance isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, as the Mujahadeen e-Khalq learned the hard way.

One of the more disconcerting images from the rally in Foley Square, aside from the representative of CAIR praising the Detroit imam who was shot by the FBI, was the presence of both the mother and father of three men who were part of the terror plot involving an attack upon Fort Dix. Even though they were not given prime speaking slots-as was the mother of one of the men convicted in the Herald Square bomb plot-the fact that their case was used as an illustration of law enforcement overreach led me to question the true motives of those behind this demonstration.

They knew who the real guilty ones were, i.e. the people assisting the prosecution of terrorist suspects:

Many of the speakers denounced the notion of government informants, evoking images of the more widespread stop snitchin‘ campaign prevalent among many African-Americans living in urban communities. Overall, it was a slightly dispiriting experience, although it should be noted that there was at least one East Indian speaker who struck a distinctly conciliatory tone, and yet another speaker who went so far as to commemorate the massacres that occurred on September 11th, 2001, albeit only in the context of condemning other atrocities he saw as being of greater magnitude, e.g. the trans-Atlantic slave trade, expulsion of Native Americans from the interior of the country, and countless other sins we still haven’t atoned for as a nation, according to him.

I think that a lot of the issues raised would be resolved by a more sensible immigration policy, as opposed to the ad hoc, needlessly dangerous and stupid philosophy our government currently espouses, but that’s just my opinion. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

A few observations about last night’s Republican presidential debate, at least as it pertains to the subjects of immigration and border control:

-Newt Gingrich, despite his previous record of supporting amnesty, acquitted himself quite well. At least, rhetorically. His suggestion that American citizens be able to review prospective immigrants, although impractical in theory, does put the emphasis of immigration in the right place. Namely, in the hands of Americans who are seeking the best and the brightest, rather than simply empowering those who want to settle in this country. Millions, perhaps billions, of individuals would immigrate to the United States if afforded the opportunity, but I think it’s our responsibility to consider the opinions of all Americans, naturalized and native-born citizens alike, rather than simply assume that every single person seeking to come here is doing so in good faith. 

-Herman Cain nicely defused the accusation that he’s a xenophobic vigilante, vis-a-vis the issue of border control, by explaining that he favored the construction of fences as well as welcoming new, legal immigrants who sought to contribute to American society. He noted that you can be both generous and firm on this issue, and that the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I also thought he tackled the amnesty question with aplomb, noting that there does exist a “path to citizenship,” which entails immigrating to this country legally. It would have been nice if he had coupled this with pragmatic suggestions about how to eliminate much of the byzantine federal bureaucracy that currently impedes the process for highly talented, law-abiding foreign nationals.

-Ron Paul continued to attempt a precarious balancing act which entails pandering to the liberal, open borders faction among libertarians, while retaining some of the pro-enforcement, hawkish paleocons who have supported past campaigns. Personally, I don’t think he succeeded. Yes, the welfare state is an attractive nuisance to people from across the globe, and is a huge part of any discussion, but to merely focus on that aspect to the neglect of every other problem unfettered immigration poses-particularly the allocation of scarce resources-is misguided. And although I agree with Rep. Paul that employers are put in an unenviable position-punished for employing illegals yet also prohibited from inquiring into their legal status in many instances-I do believe that a sovereign government has a right to determine who is and is not admitted to its country. And as long as states can Constitutionally establish labor laws, I think it’s hard to proclaim that they don’t also have the ability to proscribe the employment of people who are living in this country illegally.

-Jon Huntsman attempted to run away from his uniformly dreadful record on immigration and immigration enforcement issues to no avail. I suppose he should be credited for at least rhetorically stepping away from the default Bush/McCain stance, although I doubt his sincerity.

Other than that, there’s not much to be said about last night’s Republican presidential primary debate as far as immigration is concerned. We didn’t hear many new proposals, and despite some good answers regarding illegal immigration, there was not enough focus on proactive approaches to reducing immigration levels to a sustainable level in the near future. For a brief recap on what was said at the debate, check out the Twitter stream of Numbers USA, the nation’s premiere, grassroots organization lobbying on behalf of immigration enforcement and reform.

One of the most exasperating aspects of the  current immigration debate is the persistent use of cliches, which have come to replace logical, factual arguments. Probably the worst purveyor of myths about immigration policy is the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, whose bishops and priests have repeatedly demonized Americans-including much of the Catholic faithful-who want to reassert control over their country’s porous borders. In addition to being one of the most outspoken proponents of amnesty, the Church has also resorted to the most baseless, vituperative smears in order to castigate those who support reasonable immigration policy; the exemplar being the recently retired Archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, who likened SB 1070 to something you would see in Nazi Germany.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a Roman Catholic priest in the Bronx would help foreign nationals fighting deportation orders. However, as my friend informed me when I was sent the link to a New York Times profile of Father Vitagliano, this priest is now being accused of ignoring his responsibilities to clients seeking to remain in the United States permanently. The chaotic situation described in the aforementioned article will only be made worse if the policies advocated by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as other churches advocating various forms of amnesty, are implemented, which is why the recent statements by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin are so disturbing. The concerted effort by churches throughout this country to foist amnesty upon the American public, in spite of their congregants’ strenuous opposition to this idea, raises the question of whether they are acting in a religious or political capacity. The tax-exempt status accorded to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other bodies of religious worship is premised upon the notion that they are not partisan political advocates, which Senator Durbin, as well as individuals like Father Vitigliano, seem to believe they should be. 

The disconnect between what these religious organizations market themselves as and what they are actually doing in many instances needs to be highlighted, especially to those churchgoers who are ignorant of what their leaders are doing in their name. Otherwise, the manipulation of our government to serve the purposes of those who seek to exploit it will only continue, to the detriment of Americans.