One of the prerequisites for any immigration debate taking place in North America or Europe is that no advocate for reasonable immigration policies be given an equal opportunity to voice his or her views on the subject. The very notion that someone opposing unfettered third world immigration might be given the chance to articulate the views of most American citizens is anathema to our media gatekeepers. Thus, we have the spectacle of Mark Krikorian sharing a platform with two open borders dogmatists from ostensibly different parts of the ideological spectrum, despite there being very persuasive progressive and libertarian arguments against mass immigration to the West from the developing world.

Even so, this discussion of the 2016 presidential race-as well as the relative merits of the various candidates-is worth watching. There may come a time very soon when patriotic immigration voices are silenced altogether. Just ask our German friends about that.

It turns out that the Coulter-Kaus debate was broadcast on one of  C-SPAN’s many outlets yesterday, despite the unofficial CPAC ban on discussion of the most important domestic political issue. You can watch the full debate here. In addition to covering the political costs of amnesty and the legally and constitutionally dubious nature of the Obama administration’s administrative amnesty, they also explore the Democratic and Republican presidential fields and the political and economic consequences of Obamacare, as well as entitlement reform. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E_brownjr.jpg

While most of us would see intense wealth stratification, large pockets of third world poverty, and cratering academic achievement as poor indicators of future prosperity, the governor of the nation’s largest state begs to differ. 

Asked on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” about two negative indicators — the state’s nation-high poverty rate and the large number of Californians who are unemployed or marginally employed and looking for work — Brown said, “Well, that’s true, because California is a magnet. 

“People come here from all over in the world, close by from Mexico and Central America and farther out from Asia and the Middle East. So, California beckons, and people come. And then, of course, a lot of people who arrive are not that skilled, and they take lower paying jobs. And that reflects itself in the economic distribution.”

Ah, the philosophical sophistry that politicians will indulge in the name of political expediency. Yet another benefit of the beautiful mosaic.

One of the more galling aspects of an otherwise unremarkable speech delivered by the President commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was the attempt to link the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement during the 20th century with the attempts by open borders demagogues to further erode the value of American citizenship. Although to most reasonable Americans the linkage between these two social-political movements would seem puzzling-if not patently offensive-it is one repeatedly made by the treason lobby, perhaps most bizarrely by the permanently deranged Frank Sharry, who compared the current plight of illegal aliens to the suffering of antebellum slaves in the United States.

Oddly enough, it wasn’t too long ago that seemingly principled liberals opposed legislation which would retard the economic progress of the poorest Americans while at the same time reinforcing entrenched stratification. And while some still oppose a bill that would handicap the most disadvantaged American workers-in spite of overwhelming pressure to capitulate to the prevailing  kultursmog-most have succumbed to the open borders ideology which animates most elite institutions.

That’s why the letter penned by Coretta Scott King-the widow of the man whose name is synonymous with the march President Obama honored a few days ago-and issued by the Black Leadership Forum in opposition to a law that also expanded the opportunities for immigrants while introducing the dreadful Diversity Lottery at the expense of working class Americans, is required reading. The fact that there was a point in the not so distant past where liberal Democrats opposed the machinations of the cheap labor lobby-rather than bragged about their alliance with the Chamber of Commerce-is information that needs to be impressed upon those who have not been paying attention to this momentous debate, which-like the March on Washington before it-will have an inalterable impact upon the future of this nation.

One of the most incisive, astute observers of the growing income inequality and stratification that characterizes large portions of this nation’s economy is writer Mickey Kaus. Unique among his colleagues for being a prominent voice within the mainstream media and yellow dog Democrat who opposes the mass, unskilled immigration which the institutional left and its press organs glorify, he now writes a regular column for the conservative Washington D.C. online news magazine The Daily Caller.

Kaus’s voice is essential, because it represents the last concrete manifestation of New Deal liberalism untethered to the Democratic Party’s post-1965 infatuation with empowering “new” minorities, even at the expense of the working class Americans who were once the indelible anchor of that party’s base. The historical transformation of the Democratic Party from an ostensible ally-if not tribune-of blue collar and impoverished Americans into a political force comprised primarily of servitors to corporate interests and ethnic lobbyists is no more apparent than in the current “debate” over enacting yet another sweeping legislative amnesty.

An unintentionally hilarious illustration of this change can be found in a column written by New York Times Editor-in-Chief Bill Keller which attempts to persuade skeptical liberals that embracing the Gang of Eight scheme is in their best interests. You can pinpoint the exact moment when elite liberal opinion keelhauled its followers when he touts the benefits of this bill by approvingly citing the open borders libertarians at the Cato Institute.

This is why watching the interview of Mickey Kaus by the Center for Immigration Studies is absolutely necessary for those of us who want to know why and how the ostensible political successor to Jefferson and Jackson came to embody the most unpalatable values of aristocratic, east coast elitism while at the same time becoming the  implacable foe of ordinary, working class Americans-even those who are critical to its electoral success.

I urge you all to watch this conversation closely and use it to pose some tough questions that Democrats have been dodging about this momentous plan to fundamentally transform America. The open borders caucus-which includes virtually every single elected Democratic in the nation’s capital-needs to be held to account for its decision to abandon its constituents.

-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.