By David Codrea
If we claim we are for families, then we have to fix our immigration system,” Hillary Clinton “tweeted” to the 6 million-plus followers of her Twitter social media feed. “We can’t wait any longer for a path to full, equal citizenship.”
Why is that such an urgent priority? An analysis of the Obama administration’s immigration actions by a conservative government watchdog foundation explains.
“A year after President Obama launched his Task Force on New Americans the administration is injecting it with a $19 million infusion so it can achieve its key initiative of registering new voters that will likely support Democrats in the upcoming election,” Judicial Watch reported on its “Corruption Chronicles” blog. “[T]he obvious goal is to register more immigrant voters because they tend to be Democrat. Otherwise a Democrat commander-in-chief and his open-borders Domestic Policy Director wouldn’t be operating such a costly project.”
“Democratic candidates are competing to be the most generous toward illegal immigrants, with several of them vowing to go beyond Mr. Obama’s executive actions and grant a deportation amnesty to even more than the 5 million this current White House has tried to include in its policies,” The Washington Times added. That’s corroborated by Jeh Johnson, Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, who declared illegal aliens have “earned the right to be citizens.” Equally candid (because who’s going to stop them?) Oregon Democrat Rep. Kurt Schrader claimed immigration will decide “who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years.”
Such confident Democrat affinity for immigration, both legal and illegal, becomes obvious when you look at the numbers, as Pew research did in a 2012 “Political Party Affiliation among Hispanics” poll. Whether you look at all, at registered voters, at native born, foreign born, unauthorized, legal permanent residents or foreign-born US citizens, that affiliation is overwhelmingly Democrat. Refuting those who would have us believe eventual assimilation will create more political homogeneity, the lop-sidedness continues as time goes on. Only 10 percent identify as Republicans after “20 years or more.”
So what does that mean for gun owners? For starters, let’s look at the Democrat Party platform (from 2012, as the 2016 convention has not been held at this writing).
“We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation,” they state, not explaining how that fits with “shall not be infringed” and presuming to be the arbiters of what’s reasonable. “We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole…”
Basically they admit to wanting to end private sales and to deprive the people of militia-suitable firearms. What they don’t admit to, because the political feasibility isn’t there—yet—is observable in the gun laws of every jurisdiction where unchallengeable Democrat majority control exists, places like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California…
Significantly, back to the Pew polls, attitudes expressed by Hispanics show overwhelming rejection of pro-gun political sentiment. Only 25 percent favor laws protecting the right to own guns. 71 percent want government to “control ownership.”
Contrary to denial by some in “the gun lobby,” immigration has everything to do with the right to keep and bear arms. Adding untold millions of anti-gun Democrats to the voter rolls (and factoring in “birthright citizenship”) will result in a federal legislature where overwhelming majority Democrats can enact any “gun control” edicts they want. It will also result in a succession of presidents who can and will issue royal proclamation “executive actions” with impunity, and federal judges who will uphold whatever those who nominated and confirmed them desire. Noting Heller was only 5 to 4, that means literally every judicial gain enjoyed to date will be subject to reversal.
Then consider the effects of “legal” immigration, including “refugees” being distributed throughout the Republic with little or no local public input and seemingly less vetting. Sure, Homeland’s Johnson claims they undergo “rigorous security screening,” but what does that really mean, aside from being talking point buzzwords for supporters of that policy to parrot? It’s not like anyone actually has access to reliable records.
“Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70 percent) than the Republican Party (11 percent) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68 percent) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21 percent),” Pew Research again confirms. And per Slate, “Only a third of naturalized voters are Latino, another third is Asian, and the rest are non-Hispanic whites and blacks … Indeed, 73 percent of Asians voted for Obama in the 2012 elections…”
Next, factor in another “progressive” accusation, that showing government-issued ID in order to vote is discriminatory, supposedly disenfranchising minorities from their right to vote. Never mind that in order to win Obama’s Organizing for Action contest to attend a James Taylor concert, one had to prove they were citizens or legal residents, produce a photo ID, and submit to a background check. Hey, some things are more important than others. But you see what they’re doing there.
“Over the past year [conservative news website Breitbart.com] has undergone a noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right,” the Southern Poverty Law Center charged.” Racist ideas. Race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-Immigrant ideas—all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology…”
That’s SOP for SPLC, masters of Orwellian contradiction. They’re the ones who call Oath Keepers “anti-government,” because the group of current and retired military, law enforcement and first responders put their oath to the Constitution above all else.
So now, at least according to the political left that stands to gain unchallengeable power, the expectation that immigration and citizenship laws should serve the interests of a country’s citizens is “racist” and “extreme.” That’s intentionally chilling. After all, who wants to be labeled a hater and worse?
Curiously, the charge is never leveled at the government of Mexico, which employs strict border controls, deports more aliens than the US, considers being or abetting an illegal alien a felony, keeps records on foreign visitors, and bans them from interfering in their national politics. Which is as it should be.
Just as here, the reason we delegate powers to the federal government in the first place is defined in the preamble to the Constitution: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Any visitation or immigration policy that does not achieve those ends is a betrayal of the American people. It doesn’t matter if the motive is more votes for Democrats or more profits for cheap labor Republicans, who would sell their (and our) birthright for a mess of pottage. No politician of either party who allows the cultural terraforming to continue can be considered truly “pro-gun” if the advances he backs on the one hand will be undone by the subversion he promotes on the other. If we don’t stop it, and now, once the electorate has been sufficiently transformed to allow the gun-grabbers to enact and uphold whatever they wish, we’ll find out how serious we in the engineered minority really are about all our high-sounding Second Amendment talk.