Obama's national suicide via amnesty

In a speech on Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., President Obama announced plans to enroll 15 million new Democrat voters by the year 2016 by way of an amnesty for illegal aliens. Then he denounced Republicans for blocking a "bipartisan approach" to that legislation.

Didn't happen, you say? Yes, it did. The proposed transaction was given a code name and reported by the mainstream news media as "comprehensive immigration reform."

Obama's problem is that over 75 percent of Americans want to see genuine border security as a precondition for even discussing amnesty legislation. Yet Obama and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate are again trying the old bait-and-switch trick, which worked so well in 1986. They want Americans to accept a new amnesty as part of a "comprehensive plan" that includes a promise of border security somewhere down the road.

Americans are not buying it. Citizens want to see the border secured now, not as part of some dishonest deal for amnesty. And that, Mr. President, is a true bipartisan consensus.

Concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the United States? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security"

TRENDING: Athlete files lawsuit alleging she was forced off team for refusing to kneel

It is amazing how many otherwise intelligent people have adopted the lexicon of political correctness in which the "bipartisanship" label can only be attached to Democratic legislation, never to an idea that opposes an agenda item coming from the political left. In the amnesty debate in 2007, there were more Democratic senators opposing the amnesty bill than Republicans supporting it, but the news media would never talk about the bipartisan opposition to the amnesty bill.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi are stuck in the contradictions of their own rhetoric. A truly bipartisan approach to immigration reform would build on the existing consensus to achieve true border security and then come back later to debate the complex matter of immigration reform.

What Americans now understand that was not clear when the last general amnesty plan was passed in 1986 is that without border security, our immigration laws are unenforceable. By pushing amnesty in the absence of border security, Obama and the amnesty lobby have revealed their hidden agenda. They do not intend to deliver on either border security or interior enforcement after amnesty is enacted. Anyone who objects to that agenda will be labeled a "racist" and crushed by raw political power.

The hysterical reaction to Arizona's new law tore the mask off the open-borders lobby. The naked truth is that they oppose the Arizona law because they do not want federal immigration laws enforced – not by Arizona's law-enforcement officers, not in Oklahoma, not in Texas, not anywhere.

Is there a Republican response to this sabotage of our national sovereignty through nonenforcement of our immigration laws?

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says she is "disappointed" in Obama sending only 542 National Guard troops to the Arizona border, not the 3,000 she requested. She is disappointed? She ought to be outraged. If the federal government will not fulfill its obligation to enforce Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, the governor of Arizona ought to call the Arizona Legislature into special session to deal with the border crisis. Then she ought to keep them in session until they establish a new border-security force to help the Border Patrol do its job.

The larger question is what will the Republican leadership in Congress do to block Obama's plan for national suicide? If Obama goes ahead with the plan devised by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus – a plan to enact amnesty over the objections of the American people in a lame-duck session of Congress – what can be done to stop it?

There are two ways to defeat the enactment of amnesty in a lame-duck session of Congress. The best and surest way is to force the 40 to 50 so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" to disavow the plan and pledge to vote against it if they hope to be re-elected in November.

A second way is open for citizens who see a rogue government intent on destroying their constitutional liberties. We might see 1 million Americans descend on Washington, D.C., to physically obstruct the enactment of amnesty legislation by a lame-duck Congress.

It is often said that in a time of crisis, new leaders rise to the occasion. Now would be a good time for new leaders to arise from Republican ranks, because we are not seeing much leadership from the current gang.