One of the great things about Libertyfest-regardless of its faults-is that it brings together people who are willing to disagree with each other over substantive issues of political philosophy. It’s not a stage-managed affair crafted by its participants with the intent of obscuring differences and evading questions such as whence do rights derive, and how do we secure those rights? In other words, it’s reality, not a simulacrum of reality.  

Perhaps the main cleavage within the liberty movement is the divide between those who feel that engagement with traditional politics, e.g. registration, voting, party-building, is worthwhile and those who believe that it is a diversion of time and energy that can be put towards more useful endeavors. This dichotomy was on display throughout Libertyfest, particularly with respect to the presidential campaign of  former New Mexico governor, and current Libertarian Party presidential nominee, Gary Johnson.

While his running-mate, Orange County Superior Court judge Jim Gray, attempted to make the case that Gary Johnson’s campaign was merely an extension of the Ron Paul Revolution-and therefore should be embraced by liberty activists-other speakers were just as vociferous in their disavowal of electoral politics as it is currently practiced.

John Bush, the current head of Texans for Accountable Government and co-host of Live Free Now Radio, rejected the premise that liberty activists should be beholden to any party, especially the Libertarian Party, which has been utterly useless in both practice and principle since its inception. He highlighted the most recent Libertarian Party presidential nominee-who would go on to endorse the candidacy of Newt Gingrich under the mystifying notion that his presidency would help advance libertarianism-as an example of what happens when libertarians compromise their principles in pursuit of electoral gains.

He cautioned the audience that the LP was heading in a similar direction this year, as it rallied behind Governor Gary Johnson-an ostensibly popular ex-governor whose bid for the Republican nomination failed-in the elusive hope that the party would finally cross the threshold of national credibility. The fact that Governor Johnson is not consistent in his espousal of libertarian principle, as critics of his foreign and national security policy views, as well as his views on monetary and fiscal policy, have pointed out,  plays into the worst assumptions that his nomination is a result of his celebritarian status. Bush advised charting a Rothbardian path, i.e. allying with political figures on specific issues where government encroachment can be rolled back, opposing those figures-and the parties they represent-when they attempt to enhance the state at the expense of  individual liberties, but always holding firm to fixed principles which have guided rational individuals since the Enlightenment.

By contrast,  Darcy Van Orden Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Utah and co-founder of the Austrian Economics Club in that state, advocated taking over the Republican Party from within. Much like Senator Rand Paul, who has criticized the Republican nominee and tried to change the dismal Republican establishment, even as he’s worked with institutional forces in the GOP, she has tried to alter the internal dynamics of the Republican Party and seize it from the Boehners, McConnells, and Huntsmans, emulating the example of Barry Goldwater and his followers.

In fairness to her, this approach has yielded some victories, such as a grassroots movement to nullify Obamacare, ousting Bob Bennett, as well as a nearly successful campaign to do the same to Senator Orrin Hatch. Political pressure does work, as illustrated by Hatch’s reversal on SOPA, one of the most comprehensive attempts on the part of the federal government to limit online speech, illustrates. It works not only here, but  in Europe, as well as in the Philippines. Although, as subsequent actions by Hatch demonstrate, it is no panacea.

Sheriff Mack also spoke, although not nearly as persuasively, judging by the reaction he elicited from the crowd. In addition to a lackluster speech, Richard Mack also has the baggage of an endorsement of Mitt Romney, which was not as persuasive as Rand Paul’s endorsement of the same candidate, or Murray Rothbard’s layered recommendation for libertarian voters during the 1992 presidential election. Even so, Mack must be commended for being largely responsible for the Supreme Court’s negation of a significant portion of the Brady Act, a decision which reaffirmed the concepts of dual sovereignty and federalism. Coming two years after United States v. Lopez, which represented the first significant limitation of the Interstate Commerce Clause since Wickard vs. Filburn, this decision should have represented a shift in how the federal government deals with the states and individuals.

We’ll examine why that wasn’t to be in our final post on LibertyFest.

As someone who had never attended Liberty Fest-this was its third iteration, as the banner onto which the shadow of radio and television personality Lionel is projected indicates-I didn’t come into the event with any preconceived ideas or expectations. Even though I had been to events organized around similar principles, an eight hour-long seminar/concert/bull session on where the liberty movement is headed is something that has to be experienced in real-time. While Porcfest is the Woodstock of an  unplanned, voluntaristic economy envisioned by libertarians, Libertyfest is a strange amalgam of a national political convention-only with speakers who have genuine philosophical disagreements and, for the most part, some degree of intellectual integrity-a bazaar run by individuals who value not only the outcomes  but also the ethics of capitalism, and a Lollapalooza sans headliners whose presence necessitates highly paid entourages and absurd backstage riders.

As with any convention, tables were set aside for organizations and individuals selling things. The most popular item being the message of freedom, as Jordan Page might sing. The Ron Paul-inspired Campaign for Liberty, a fixture on the liberty circuit, was pushing its message of political action.

As was the  Manhattan Libertarian Party, whose table was manned by borough chairman Ron Moore. Regardless of your feelings towards the LP as an effective change agent, Ron has to be commended for his unwavering dedication to libertarianism, a devotion attested to by his lengthy conversations with anarcho-capitalists-some of whom, it must be disclosed, are personal friends-throughout the day. Although this is purely speculative on my part, I liken it to the dialogue that must  have occurred between Christopher Columbus’s  Spaniards and the Arawaks about the nature of faith.

One of the fascinating byproducts of the Ron Paul campaign is the effort to monetize intangible concepts like self governance and anarchism. In addition to fashion accessories-including some cleverly designed buttons sold some by my friend Jacqueline-there were other artistic and musical creations by people whose beliefs don’t quite sync with the mindset of the creative class. One of the tables at Liberty Fest sold copies of the Silver Circle Movie, which is a film/comic dramatization whose plot revolves around a clash between central bankers and advocates of an alternative currency, a fictionalized critique of the Federal Reserve system denounced so consistently and eloquently by Ron Paul.

An important element of Liberty Fest was music, which bracketed the first two-thirds of the speaker’s roster. Tracy Diaz of Liberty Chat belted out an amazing rendition of a Jewel classic, which doubled as a barbed commentary on Ron Paul’s former campaign manager, who is considered by many to be a Benedict Arnold of sorts, stripped of the historic traitor’s military valor in defense of country. His strategy of having the candidate downplay his foreign policy views, as others have noted, did not meet with much electoral success. He did, however, benefit handsomely when cashing out of the campaign. That said, Tracy’s singing-her first public performance in over a decade and a half-proved that beauty can be excavated from even something as odious as Jesse Benton.

I was not as impressed with the hip hop portion of the evening. Perhaps I’m spoiled by growing up in an era when Video Music Box actually aired music-videos worth watching, but the appeal of contemporary rap artists has waned considerably, especially since there are still some old school rappers creating powerfully creative works. None of the “underground” hip hop artists left an especially resonant impression on the audience, including the duo who evoked images of  Insane Clown Posse every time they shouted the refrain WHAT ABOUT MARS into their microphones. Indeed. What about Mars?

That said, the headline musical performers were exceptional, including Tatiana Moroz, who did an amazing cover of a Bob Dylan classic, as well as original material, and Jordan Page, who added some rock star credibility to the cast of musicians with an eight minute-long guitar riff.

Gigi Bowman of Liberty Candidates needs to be credited with assembling a compelling slate of speakers-more about them in a future post-and musicians, as well as a space where-whatever its demerits-a bunch of libertarians could argue for eight consecutive hours. After all, it’s the idea of freedom that matters. That, and proving everyone else wrong.

National Public Radio is, almost without exception, a black hole when it comes to obtaining accurate, reliable information and analysis about immigration. Half of the on-air talent could be executed by members of MS-13, and the following day’s headline on NPR would probably be “Aggrieved Undocumented Migrants Exact Misdirected Revenge Against Jan Brewer.” That’s why I was pleasantly surprised by Brian Lehrer’s interview of Hipolito Acosta, a veteran of the INS who has written Shadow Catcher, a revelatory look into the audacious cross-border operations initiated  during his tenure to eliminate human smuggling into the United States.

I’d love to hear the impressions of anyone who has read the book, which-based upon everything I’ve heard-seems like an incredibly fascinating chronicle of the life of a career law enforcement officer intent upon ensuring our nation’s border security.

Tune in later today, at 3:30 PM sharp, to watch Numbers USA’s live webcast. It takes place every Thursday afternoon. Today Roy Beck & Co. will probably discuss his organization’s phenomenal TV ad campaign pressuring Congressman Dave Camp to free the E-Verify bill from his Ways & Means Committee. As I’ve pointed out in the past, this is the only significant immigration enforcement measure with a chance of passing during this session of Congress, which is why this debate is so pivotal. I urge you all to tune in later today to see what Roy has to say about it.

With the New Hampshire presidential primary fast approaching, it might be time to look at two of the Republican candidates who’ve often drawn comparisons in the mainstream media. Namely, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and 2008 GOP runner-up Mitt Romney. The rap on both men is very similar, i.e. both are technocratic, not very inspiring-yet seemingly competent-moderates who have extreme difficulties rallying the Republican faithful. And while Mr. Huntsman has increased the pace of his attacks on Governor Romney in recent days, you can’t help but notice the similarities between the two candidates.

While many conservative pundits have attempted-unsuccessfully in my view-to argue that Huntsman is an unabashed conservative, you can’t help but get the impression that supporters of past presidential campaigns by Pete McCloskey, John Anderson, Arlen Specter, and Lynn Martin, among many other liberal politicians who sought the GOP nod, said the very same thing about their preferred candidate. The fact remains that Huntsman-much like Mitt Romney, who garnered only one percent of  voters who labeled conservatism as their top priority in the Iowa caucuses-appeals predominately to those Republicans who are outliers within the party. They both garner plaudits from institutional left wing media organs and earn scorn from right wing opinion shapers, although Huntsman’s seemingly conscious effort to attack conservative sacred cows, and like defeated presidential candidate John McCain-one of Romney’s newest supporters-gratuitously insult conservatives, no doubt makes him a preferable opponent of President Obama to people like Stephen Colbert. 

Granted, there are some differences, both substantive and superficial, between the two men that require acknowledgement. While Mitt Romney’s rhetorical bellicosity towards China has been much remarked upon during this campaign, Huntsman-reflecting his history as a diplomat-has gone out of his way to allay concerns that a trade war between the PRC and the United States is imminent. Another distinction between the two is their approach with respect to national security and foreign policy issues. A perfect illustration of how they differ can be found in this exchange between the men over what should be done in the Afghanistan theater of war. But perhaps the greatest divide between the two candidates lies in an issue that has thus far escaped critical scrutiny, which is to say immigration.

While Huntsman has adopted the line of the open borders lobby-including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose leadership has slandered any patriotic American who embraces sensible immigration policies even as Mormons die as a result-Romney has thus far espoused one of the toughest stances against illegal immigration to be found among Republican challengers to Barack Obama. He has pledged to veto the DREAM Act, opposed sanctuary cities, supported E-Verify, and highlighted the importance of employer sanctions, which everyone recognizes as the keystone of any successful regime of immigration enforcement in this country. It was the relentless criticism of Romney-and to a lesser extent, Michele Bachmann-that torpedoed the presidential aspirations of Rick Perry, which we can all be grateful for. And perhaps most impressively of all, when pressed to explain how he would deal with illegal aliens who remain in this country despite stepped-up enforcement efforts, he gave the perfect answer.

Even so, there are good arguments to be made against Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy from a patriotic immigration reform perspective. Beyond the accusation that his tough stance against illegal immigration is merely a cynical political ploy-an accusation whose refutation is not helped by gaffes like these-there is Romney’s distressing support for H1-B visas and legal immigration mechanisms that are not only rife with fraud but existentially harmful to American citizens. However, even when you take into account these severe limitations, Mitt Romney still can be said to have a far superior record on issues of immigration and border security than his fellow Mormon ex-governor, Jon Huntsman. Whether good enough is good enough is a question that Republican voters will have to answer for themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although HB 56, Alabama’s powerful new tool for immigration enforcement, has been largely upheld by Judge Sharon Blackburn, the fight over this law will continue in the weeks and months ahead. As NPR reports, this is just the first step in what will likely be a protracted legal and political battle over key provisions contained within the law. Whether or not Alabama is ultimately successful in defending HB 56 will depend in large measure upon how appellate courts deal with the objections raised by the perennial opponents of immigration law-such as the ACLU-cited in this article.

One thing we can be certain of, however, is that the Obama administration will fight Alabama every step of the way. As this article in the Washington Post notes, the Department of Justice is busy filing lawsuits against nearly every state that has had the temerity to step into the gaping void left by President Obama’s conscious strategy of non-enforcement, which includes the broadest administrative amnesty in the nation’s history. The legal crusade against responsible governors and state legislatures has-as I’ve pointed out in the past-been aided by an active collusion between the main open borders advocates petitioning for injunctions-such as the ACLU-and the Justice Department.

There’s no telling where the decision by Judge Blackburn will lead us in the fight to defend our nation’s borders, but the fact that there is a long struggle ahead of us is indisputable. Hopefully, this will be just the first of many victories for the American people in the days ahead. Let vigilance be our watchword.

We were reminded by The Politico this weekend of why it is always a bad idea to elect an immigration attorney to Congress. Aside from the inherent conflict of interest present in electing an individual who will be able to craft laws that directly benefit his bottom line, there are broader issues at stake.

The Politico article sketches out Representative Labrador’s philosophy on immigration reform, which seems to be “a pox on both their houses.” He draws a false equivalence between those that want to see immigration laws already on the books enforced rigorously, and those who want to grant citizenship to nearly 20 million people living in this country illegally.

While the golden mean is a desirable objective in many cases, the idea that you should seek to  compromise the essential principles of this country is misguided in the extreme. Labrador’s support for a guest-worker program is simply another form of corporate welfare that will weaken American laborers and entrepreneurs who are trying to abide by the law and compete in what should be a free market. It establishes a permanent class of non-citizens who are perpetually behind their American peers in both salary and benefits, and who will act as a source of unfettered chain migration in the future. Professor Borjas has delineated all of the problems inherent in guest worker programs for many years, but an argument even more relevant to this discussion is the opposition this proposed program would generate among Republican lawmakers.

The entire premise of the Politico piece, i.e. that Rep. Labrador is in a perfect position to forge a consensus on immigration reform, is flawed because it doesn’t take into account growing Republican reservations over such a bill. Just a few days ago the Utah State Republican Convention supported a resolution that called on its state legislature to repeal HB 116, a law establishing a statewide guest worker program with the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon. The notion that this proposal will be adopted by Congress, or supported by Democrats once it’s decoupled from a broader amnesty plan-as Raul Labrador has promised-is absurd.

The only people interested in perpetuating this fiction are media outlets such as Politico, which refuse to accept the concept that Americans fundamentally disagree with their ideas about what constitutes a functional immigration system in this country. If Representative Labrador is attempting to win the media primary, he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. However, the notion that his “compromise” is a workable solution to the problem of illegal immigration is foolhardy, at best.

Update: My good friend was also at at the May Day events and has some fantastic video footage, which you can find at The Silent Majority No More. The rest of her coverage can be found at her website as well. More video from the day’s festivities can be found on Youtube.

As promised, today I will present the conclusion to American Rattlesnake’s May Day coverage, including the robust, sustained-and to our country’s enemies, deeply irritating-counter-protest staged by this website’s editor-in-chief in collaboration with New York Ice.

As you can see by the photo above, our critics-in this case, the feral, reflexively violent antifa thugs who met us at Foley Square-were not eager to be photographed. Whether that was out of concern for being identified by NYPD officers the next time they attempt to assault a peaceful assembly of dissident voices, or out of respect for the hundreds of visitors who would be forced to look at their faces in the following days is something I’ll  let you decide.

Fortunately, there were a few “anti-fascists” who I was able to detain for a brief snapshot. This young woman, for example, evokes memories of a young Faye Dunaway, perhaps after being hit with a tire iron. An arresting image, nonetheless.

This zaftig Mexican girl below was particularly aggrieved by my unobtrusive photography that day, although I can’t for the life of me discern why. After bombarding me with some choice expletives for several minutes, she was gently escorted beyond police barricades by some NYPD officers and asked to remove her  jaunty black bandana/face-mask.

At this point, the street theater they were attempting-by ripping signs from the hands of counter-protesters, showering us with abuse, and generally acting like ignoramuses-descended into farce, as the well-fed IA began to weep like a  young child whose favorite plaything has been ripped from her arms.

Even though these photos might lead you to  believe there was a sarin or mustard gas attack upon Foley Square, the truth is that the nose-holding and face-covering is merely part of the theatrical element antifa crybabies brought to the fore during their ridiculous posturing that day. I think you can judge its effectiveness by the look on the face of the Muslim man pictured below.

As entertaining as the black-clad anarchists were, there was also much amusement to be found throughout the rally, including on stage. The African-American gentleman in the background is, ironically enough, named Clarence Thomas. Leader of the radical International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Local 10, he was joined on stage by the afternoon’s emcee, who spent the better part of two hours explaining why her organization had decided to hold two separate rallies which were both ended prematurely.

I AM ASKED WHY WE DECIDED TO HOLD TWO RALLIES, AND MY ANSWER IS…BECAUSE…!

The last declamation was followed in short order by a tangent having absolutely no bearing on the ostensible reason for staging this rally. In other words, even the people who organized this event had absolutely no clue why they were there in the first place. I wish I could say I was surprised by this revelation.

There were also some festive people in Indian, or as the politically correct stewards of speech would say “indigenous,” dress doing a rain dress which was strangely ineffective.

And of course, what illegal alien friendly event would be complete without someone spouting completely inaccurate, misleading statistics that are easily debunked?

Thankfully, on this day the masses of pro-amnesty, anti-American, revanchist reds were confronted by a group of Americans, some of them immigrants themselves, who saw the need to assert their views amidst the cacophony of stridently anti-American voices. Although initially outnumbered, we stood our ground and endured to the end, even outlasting the loud, obnoxious, but morally bankrupt forces that had tried to colonize Foley Square that afternoon.

My favorite part of the day, bar none, was when a group of hostile illegal aliens and socialists attempted to heckle us into submission but were silenced once we withdrew our driver’s licenses and photo identification. When we asked them where their papers were, accompanied by the chorus to the great 1980s Genesis tune, Illegal Alien, we were greeted with shame-faced silence and dumb stares. A small victory, it was nevertheless an  extremely gratifying moment.

Joanna Marzullo, president of New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement, expresses her point of view. You can find video coverage of her part in the counter-demonstration on Youtube.

Even in the Big Apple, there are people who stand with Arizona, as this past May Day demonstrated.

The lesson to be drawn from this event, IMO, is that no matter how outnumbered you might feel when fighting the hordes of radical, open borders crusaders, there are always people willing to stand by your side when you defend basic American values.