Folks on the right will find a lot to chew over and a lot to object to in this essay from George Packer in the Guardian (excerpted from his new book), but there’s probably a lot of truth to this section:

The rules and regulations of the Roosevelt Republic were aberrations brought on by accidents of history — depression, world war, the cold war — that induced Americans to surrender a degree of freedom in exchange for security. There would have been no Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial from investment banking, without the bank failures of 1933; no great middle-class boom if the US economy had not been the only one left standing after the second world war; no bargain between business, labour and government without a shared sense of national interest in the face of foreign enemies; no social solidarity without the door to immigrants remaining closed through the middle of the century.

One of the major driving attitudes on the right is a sense that the America we used to knew, the one we grew up in, is slipping away and being replaced with something more divided, nastier, more selfish, less trustworthy; a country whose populace has worse judgment, with far too many citizens incapable of taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. But whatever era you think of as “better days” — the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1980s or 1990s (anyone really want to argue the 1970s were the Golden era?), the trends we see around us make returning to that kind of society nearly impossible. Something better can replace the country we see outside our windows right now, but whatever that “better” will be, it will be different from our idea of the not-too-distant past.

Packer concludes his essay:

Much has been written about the effects of globalisation during the past generation. Much less has been said about the change in social norms that accompanied it. American elites took the vast transformation of the economy as a signal to rewrite the rules that used to govern their behaviour: a senator only resorting to the filibuster on rare occasions; a CEO limiting his salary to only 40 times what his average employees made instead of 800 times; a giant corporation paying its share of taxes instead of inventing creative ways to pay next to zero. There will always be isolated lawbreakers in high places; what destroys morale below is the systematic corner-cutting, the rule-bending, the self-dealing.

Earlier this year, Al Gore made $100m (£64m) in a single month by selling Current TV to al-Jazeera for $70m and cashing in his shares of Apple stock for $30m. Never mind that al-Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar, whose oil exports and views of women and minorities make a mockery of the ideas that Gore propounds in a book or film every other year. Never mind that his Apple stock came with his position on the company’s board, a gift to a former presidential contender. Gore used to be a patrician politician whose career seemed inspired by the ideal of public service. Today — not unlike Tony Blair — he has traded on a life in politics to join the rarefied class of the global super-rich.

It is no wonder that more and more Americans believe the game is rigged. It is no wonder that they buy houses they cannot afford and then walk away from the mortgage when they can no longer pay. Once the social contract is shredded, once the deal is off, only suckers still play by the rules.

Packer is very critical of Republicans, but I’ll bet a lot of grassroots Republicans agree with his closing assessment . . . 

Today’s Morning Jolt looks at Penny Pritzker — I remember when it was standard to just give ambassadorships to your top donors — some embarrassing stories about Terry McAuliffe, and then this ominous news in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing investigation:

What Was In the Water of That Dorm Room?

These Kazakh roommates aren’t quite as bad as the Boston bombers. But they’re bad:

Kadyrbayev, 19, texted Tsarnaev that evening around 8:40 to ask [why he resembled the bombers in the released FBI videos].

“Tsarnaev’s return texts contained ‘lol’ and other things KADYRBAYEV interpreted as jokes,” according to a federal criminal complaint released today, “such as ‘you better not text me’ and ‘come to my room and take whatever you want.’” That turned out to be a fateful series of texts.

According to the complaint, earlier that day, Kadyrbayev and their mutual friend Azamat Tazhayakov entered Tsarnaev’s dorm room at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth . . . between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. They watched an unspecified movie with Tsarnaev’s roommate while Tazhayakov noticed that Dzhokhar’s backpack contained “fireworks.” Allegedly, Kadyrbayev put two and two together when he saw the empty fireworks containers — it’s unclear if that happened before he texted Tsarnaev — and figured their friend was the bomber. News reports on the room TV showing the fateful footage of Tsarnaev, followed by his texts, confirmed it.

Then they decided to help their bro.

According to the complaint, Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov gathered up the backpack, [along with] Tsarnaev’s laptop — apparently to avoid making the roommate think they were stealing Tsarnaev’s stuff — and placed it into a trash bag. During that crucial evening, Tsarnaev allegedly texted his friends, “I’m about to leave if you need something in my room take it.” The next morning, Kadyrbayev allegedly placed the bag into a dumpster near Tsarnaev’s Carriage Place apartment.

I wouldn’t even keep my side of the room clean for my college roommate, but these guys were willing to dispose of evidence? How twisted do you have to be to suddenly realize that someone you know, a friend, is actually a terrorist who killed three people and injured and maimed hundreds more, and your first thought is how to help them get away with it?

What, does UMass-Dartmouth have some sort of special jihadist student exchange program? Do they cluster them together as roommates?

And yes, there is an immigration angle to this story:

A federal law enforcement official says one of the students from Kazakhstan arrested Wednesday in the Boston Marathon bombings was allowed to return to the United States this year despite not having a valid student visa. Authorities say that after the explosions he helped remove a laptop and backpack from the bombing suspect’s dormitory room before the FBI searched it.

Federal authorities on Wednesday arrested three college friends of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a bombing suspect, including Azamat Tazhayakov, a friend and classmate of Tsarnaev’s at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Tazhayakov left the U.S. in December and returned Jan. 20. But in early January, his student-visa status was terminated because he was academically dismissed from the university, the official told the AP.

Hey, if he’s academically dismissed, just what is he doing in this country, if he’s no longer going to school? How’s he paying his expenses?

Very few people believe the promises of the Gang of Eight, because the government does such a lousy job of enforcing the laws on the books already.

Today I’m off to Orlando, for the Future of Media Summit and Heritage Foundation’s Resource Bank. Campaign Spot posting will be light in the coming days.

The lead item in today’s Morning Jolt:

They Always Blame America First.

Jeanne Kirkpatrick had it right.

In Tuesday’s New York Times, Marcelo Suarez Orozco and Carola Suarez-Orozco, dean and a professor, respectively, at the U.C.L.A. Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, wrote an op-ed entitled, “Immigrant Kids, Adrift.” It began:

THE alleged involvement of two ethnic Chechen brothers in the deadly attack at the Boston Marathon last week should prompt Americans to reflect on whether we do an adequate job assimilating immigrants who arrive in the United States as children or teenagers.

Really? Really? These guys blow up a marathon and shoot a cop in the back of the head, and we have to look at ourselves to see where we failed? Where we’re not adequate?

(By the way, after this piece appeared, the Boston Globe is reporting Little Brother Bomber* confessed, so we can drop the “alleged.”)

You’ll be seeing this theme of the brothers as troubled immigrants, struggling to build a better life, and failing to find acceptance in a cold-hearted, xenophobic America society a lot in the coming days. As one of my Twitter followers said, this is what happens when you’re absolutely determined to avert your eyes from a politically or culturally inconvenient conclusion — i.e., young Muslim men can be easy pickings for a radical imam who offers them a vision of themselves as noble warriors, earning vast celestial harems in the afterlife for struggling to defeat the evil infidel oppressor, offering them a channel for their anger that he assures them is morally just. After a while, you begin speculating about the bombing being prompted by boxing-related concussions, which, of course, would help explain why so many retired NFL players go on to become members of al-Qaeda.

(Oh, look, Time’s doing it, too.)

The initial biographical sketch of the bomber in the New York Times featured the headline, “Far From War-Torn Homeland, Trying to Fit In.” The only thing these guys were trying to fit in that week was more nails inside the pressure cooker. (After considerable ridicule, the headline and top photo were changed.)

William Jacobson assembles more examples over at Legal Insurrection, including a Slate writer calling for “an emotionally fraught conversation, a careful reckoning of the particular variety of welcome we offer to children from abroad” and the usual suspects on MSNBC going on about “demonizing the other.”

Hey, doesn’t blowing up a marathon crowd count as demonizing the other? Could you spare some time to point out that the bombers’ refusal to grant us the right to walk the streets without being shredded to a pulp by incendiary-propelled shrapnel is pretty darn intolerant, too?

Now, let’s return to the argument put forth by the dean and the professor.

Do they realize that by drawing a connection between the Boston bombers and “immigrants who arrive in the United States as children and teenagers,” they’re suggesting that every one of those kids is a potential terrorist, if they have a life experience like the bomber brothers? Even the most vehement opponent of the DREAM Act wouldn’t make that claim.

The inanity of it all prompted me to throw a bit of a fit on Twitter Tuesday afternoon.

The quasi-sympathetic “bomber brothers struggled with new identities in America” feature pieces are doing no favors for immigration reform. The notion that these two are somehow representative of some universal immigrant struggle to adapt to American life is weapons-grade horse[puckey]. Millions upon millions of immigrants made new lives for themselves in this country without feeling the need to bomb the Boston Marathon. If you think adaptation to American culture might cause you sufficient stress to commit mass murder, please leave immediately.

By the way, this society was pretty damn kind to these two. The terror financing blog “MoneyJihad” assembles what we know of the brothers’ finances — and it includes a $2,500 scholarship from the city of Cambridge in 2011 and public assistance for the family.

Peggy Noonan points out that either they weren’t struggling . . . or somebody out there was sending them money:

The past few days I’ve looked through news reports searching in vain for one item: how did the brothers get their money? Did they ever have jobs? Who or what supported them? They had cellphones, computers, stylish clothes, sunglasses, gym equipment and gym membership, enough money to go out to dinner and have parties. They had an arsenal of guns and money to make bombs. The elder brother, Tamerlan, 26, had no discernible record of employment and yet was able to visit Russia for six months in 2012. The FBI investigated him. How did they think he was paying for it? The younger brother, Dzhokhar, was a college student, but no word on how he came up with spending money. The father doesn’t seem to have had anything — he is said to have sometimes fixed cars on the street when he lived in Cambridge, for $10 an hour cash. The mother gave facials at home. Anyway, the money lines. Where did it come from?

Acknowledging that young Muslim men could be particularly vulnerable to the demonic cajoling and propaganda of a radical imam would force too many people in too many high places to rethink their entire worldview. So we’ll be hearing a lot about concussions and the mean, nasty, xenophobic culture of . . . Cambridge, Massachusetts can turn an otherwise happy immigrant success story into a child murderer.

From the first Morning Jolt of the week:

How Well Is Our FBI Keeping an Eye on Self-Radicalizing Immigrants?

The bombers’ mother may be cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Probably is, in fact. But this . . .

One of the two ethnic Chechens suspected by U.S. officials of being behind the Boston Marathon bombings had been under FBI surveillance for at least three years, his mother said.

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva told the English-language Russia Today state television station in a phone interview, a recording of which was obtained by Reuters, that she believed her sons were innocent and had been framed.

“He (Tamerlan) was ‘controlled’ by the FBI, like, for three to five years,” she said, speaking in English and using the direct English translation of a word in Russian that means monitored.

“They knew what my son was doing, they knew what sites on the Internet he was going to,” she said in what Russia Today described as a call from Makhachkala, where she lives in Russia’s Dagestan region after returning from the United States.

. . . coupled with this . . .

Deceased Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was identified by a foreign government as a “follower of radical Islam and a strong believer” whose personality had changed drastically in just a year, according to the FBI.

As investigators considered possible motives for Monday’s fatal bombings, U.S. authorities acknowledged that an unnamed government had contacted the FBI to say the 26-year-old ethnic Chechen “had changed drastically” since 2010 and was preparing to leave the United States “to join unspecified underground groups,” according to an official statement from the FBI.

U.S. officials have not named the foreign nation, but it is presumed to be Russia. Tsarnaev traveled there in 2012 and stayed for six months.

. . . coupled with this . . .

Department of Homeland Security officials decided in recent months not to grant an application for American citizenship by Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, after a routine background check revealed that he had been interviewed in 2011 by the F.B.I., federal officials said on Saturday.

It had been previously reported that Mr. Tsarnaev’s application might have been held up because of a domestic abuse episode. But the officials said that it was the record of the F.B.I. interview that threw up red flags and halted, at least temporarily, Mr. Tsarnaev’s citizenship application.

Late last year, Homeland Security officials contacted the F.B.I. to learn more about its interview with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, federal law enforcement officials said. The F.B.I. reported its conclusion that he did not present a threat.

At that point, Homeland Security officials did not move to approve the application nor did they deny it, but they left it open for “additional review.”

. . . raises some disturbing questions.

Russia (confirmed) makes its inquiry in 2011; the FBI investigates. Apparently there’s not enough evidence for the FBI to take further action, but “late last year” DHS decides there’s enough suspicion around this guy to delay his citizenship — not enough to deny it — and he’s just left there. Meanwhile, sometime around this time (September 11, 2012) the younger brother gets his citizenship. Then they later decide that whatever they’ve found is sufficient to deny the citizenship . . . but not enough to get him out of the country. (Oh, and somewhere along the line, one or both illegally register to vote.)

For what it’s worth, an unidentified intelligence source tells Jake Tapper that it is “rare” for the “Russians to reach out like that, to ask FBI to look into someone as they did with Tamerlan Tsarnaev.” So obviously, Russia doesn’t ask the FBI to check out every Chechnyan immigrant just out of spite. Tapper also asks a big, big question: Why didn’t the FBI re-interview Tsarnaev after his six months in Russia and Chechnya?

Before we move on to a 844-page immigration-reform bill, whose primary purpose is to say to 11 million people currently in the country illegally, “you can stay and become citizens as long as you do X, Y, and Z,” we need to make sure that our current immigration-law-enforcement institutions are capable of meeting the minimal standard of keeping out those who are here to do us harm. Obviously, this applies to terrorism, but also to the less dramatic crimes that harm Americans — gang membership, drug smuggling and dealing, people smuggling, etc.

The first Morning Jolt of a busy week looks at President Obama’s hesitation about letting a hypothetical son play contact football, another awful tragedy on Vice President Biden’s Secret Service security detail, and this quick wrap-up of the National Review Institute Summit:

High Atop the NRI Summit

If you’re in the Washington D.C. area, I hope you had a chance to stop by the National Review Institute Summit; turnout was high. This one seemed bigger and busier, and I suspect you’ll see it on the same scale in years to come. I don’t think the aim is to displace the traditional January Washington-area gathering of righties, the Conservative Political Action Conference (moved to March this year) but to complement it. (I do think CPAC outgrew its venues in recent years, and I’m glad to see they’re moving to a new, hopefull -roomier venue, the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland.)

(Don’t let the suits know I told you this, but I’ll bet the summit is a good way to get an experience roughly akin to the sessions of a National Review cruise, without the cruise. They even had a Night-Owl session with Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, and Rob Long.)

Some of the highlights can be found over in the Corner, some of the audio for other sessions can be found at Ricochet, and most of the policymaker’s speeches can be found on C-SPAN.

My role was to moderate a debate between Hugh Hewitt and Mark Krikorian on the topic of immigration; it was a pretty ideal setup because A) it’s an issue most folks on the Right have an opinion about, oftentimes strong opinions and B) Mark and Hugh like and have great respect for each other, yet both think the other’s approach to the issue is spectacularly wrongheaded and disastrous for the causes they hold dear.

From my notes:

This afternoon we’ll be discussing the passion-stirring topic of immigration; while you are free to applaud, laugh, scoff and sneer as you wish, but please hold all screaming and hurling of produce until the end.

If you are with the organization Code Pink, and plan on interrupting today’s proceedings, please pause and quietly contemplate how your life has gone so wrong so quickly.

Joining us today is Mark Krikorian, a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues. He has served as Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) since 1995 and author of the books The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal and How Obama is Transforming America through Immigration.

And for those of you thinking, “Ah, an immigration-restriction advocate with the last name Krikorian, I guess your folks came over on the Mayflower,” I estimate he’s heard that joke roughly eighty million times.

It was here that proud Armenian-American Krikorian noted that some Armenian settlers actually came over with the Jamestown settlement in Virginia, so they actually beat the Mayflower!

Also joining us today is Hugh Hewitt. Hugh is former executive director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, a professor of constitutional law at Chapman University School of Law, and author of 10 books, including The Brief Against Obama.

But you know him best as nationally syndicated radio talk show host carried on about 75 stations as part of the Salem Radio Network, where he is immensely popular and influential. I would add he also used to have terrific taste in guest hosts.

I am proud to call Hugh a friend and I am immensely impressed with all he has accomplished in his life considering a rare and painful condition he has endured for most of his life; that condition is being a Cleveland Browns fan . . . and apparently it’s worst in the autumn and winter months.

I know, I know, a Jets fan shouldn’t throw stones.

The format for our discussion will be relatively informal, there will be no time limits or buzzers or dings and at no point will John King ask you whether you prefer “Dancing with the Stars” or “American Idol.”

I’m just going to throw out topics of the current immigration debate and let each of you chew them over. Please hold off throwing punches until 5 p.m.

First to Mark, and then to Hugh for response, how much of the GOP’s poor showing in 2012 is the result of the way they handled the immigration issue? I note that earlier today, Senator Ted Cruz said that the polling he saw indicated that only 5 percent saw immigration as a top issue, and that the “47 percent” comment was a much bigger deal…

I’m going to ask both of you what you think of the immigration reform proposals from Marco Rubio. The senator has discussed his plan but not yet introduced it, so a couple of parts we know:

•    Rubio said that any broad immigration legislation should create a nationwide exit system to check foreigners out of the country, to confirm that they left before their visas expired. He noted that at least 40 percent of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country came on legal visas but then overstayed.

•    A nationwide program for employers to verify the legal authorization of new workers, although he did not specify whether he would favor an expansion of an existing federal electronic worker-verification program or seek to create a new one.

•    A temporary “nonimmigrant visa” to illegal immigrants, which would allow them to remain and work in the United States. They would have to wait a “significant but reasonable” period of time before they could apply to become legal permanent residents, going to the back of the line in the existing system. Once they became residents, they could go on like other legal immigrants to naturalize as citizens.

•    According to current federal visa rosters, most Mexican-born immigrants applying to become permanent residents now face a wait of at least 17 years to receive their document — known as a green card — even if they followed the rules and were approved. Mr. Rubio’s proposal could add seven million more Mexican immigrants to those backlogs. The path to citizenship he proposes for illegal immigrants could be several decades long.

. . . Hugh, what does it mean that this issue has gotten so wrapped up in the rhetoric of caring vs. not caring, that Rick Perry — who had cultivated an image as one tough hombre, with no gooey soft sentiment in him — characterized those who don’t think children of illegal immigrants should pay in-state college tuition, as you’ll recall he said they “don’t have a heart.” I mean, if I want somebody to talk to me like that, I’ll tune in to MSNBC.

. . . I’m going to share one anecdote; some of you know I spent a few years living in Ankara, Turkey, and I had a friend who worked in the U.S. Embassy on the visa line. And he said that when he turned down Turks who wanted to come to the United States, they would sometimes cry and scream and get angry, and security would have to remove them. His previous post had been at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, and he said that when you turned down a Mexican visa applicant, they just shrugged and left, knowing they could just cross the border illegally.

Isn’t a big part of this equation the average Mexican in Mexico has no real economic opportunity, so that even the worst jobs in America look better? And do we have any ability to influence Mexico?

At this point we’ll take some questions, please show the staff your proof of citizenship before stepping up to the microphone…

. . . In the Wall Street Journal recently, Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick wrote, “The only tried-and-true method of reducing illegal immigration is a bad economy.” So maybe President Obama deserves a lot more credit than we’ve been giving him on reducing illegal immigration . . .

Out from Quinnipiac this morning:

Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, the Republican candidate for Governor, has a 44 – 37 percent lead over Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, the Democrat, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. 

This compares to a 43 – 37 percent Corbett lead in a May 13 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University. In this latest survey, independent voters back Corbett 44 – 29 percent, as do Republicans 86 – 4 percent.  Democrats back Onorato 69 – 13 percent.

Pennsylvania voters say 47 – 34 percent they want the state to adopt an immigration law similar to that of Arizona.  Voters approve 52 – 27 percent of the Arizona law and by 60 – 27 percent they think the Obama Administration’s lawsuit to block its implementation is a bad idea.

One of my poll-watching readers wrote in yesterday:

Did you check this headline out in the New York Times, “Governors Voice Grave Concerns on Immigration”? Or as Drudge teased it, “Obama Suit vs. AZ is ‘Toxic.’”’  As I stated before this, hubris will be Obama’s undoing, and as I have said before I am in the moderate camp on this subject.  Secure our border, verify security, then begin process of amnesty.  The GOP is playing all of this close to the vest now.  But when they actually play it out come election time the dam will break.  Frankly the dam should have broken already, but the media is doing everything possible to not allow any negatives be “confidently reported.”  However, when the campaign begins, that will all change as the media no longer controls the information wave; and you wonder why Obama was so angered by the Supreme Court’s decision on campaign finance reform.

From the Monday edition of the Morning Jolt:

This Anecdote From Kyl Won’t Make You Smile

The only source we have for this anecdote of the president and how he approaches key decisions is Senator Jon Kyl, a.k.a. the Arizona senator who doesn’t make you yell “What is he doing?” at least once every two months. Still, there’s not much reason for Kyl to lie about this, and I doubt anybody who hears it will jump up and exclaim, “Oh, that doesn’t sound like the Barack Obama we know!”

ColdWarrior tells the tale on RedState: “On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, ‘The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform.”’ [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, ‘In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with “comprehensive immigration reform.’”’ Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.”

Allahpundit, writing at Hot Air: “Does any term of art exist to describe a revelation that’s shocking in one sense and yet not at all surprising in another? (“Kinsleyan gaffe” is in the ballpark, but that’s not quite what this is.) Of course The One won’t do anything about the border until he gets some political cover from Congress on amnesty; his party wants to build a heavy Democratic majority among Latinos long-term and he’s not going to mess that up. What’s stunning is simply the fact that he’d be so candid, to a member of the opposition no less, in admitting his dereliction of duty. Sure, he could fulfill his constitutional responsibility and try to enforce federal law — but what good will that do him politically? If Congress wants to see some action at the border, they need to make it worth his while. And you thought the BP deal was a ‘shakedown.’”

Clifton B., writing at Another Black Conservative, “Obama actually is speaking the truth here. If the administration and Congress were simply to do their jobs by securing the border and enforcing existing immigration laws, there would be no need for comprehensive reform. Comprehensive Immigration Reform is basically a Rube Goldberg machine that allows both parties to get what they really want . . . amnesty. What truly is frightening is that this exchange is pretty much the Washington way. Our rights and wishes are traded away in backroom deals so that elected officials can secure their wants and needs. Given the shameful behavior Republicans displayed just days ago with the whole Joe Barton incident, I am not the least bit confident that a Republican controlled Congress will save us from amnesty.”

I actually think Obama has this completely wrong, in a way. Amnesty is almost impossible to sell to the general public for many good reasons; among them, any law that shrugs its shoulders at illegal aliens failing to pay any income taxes from their first day on the job in this country will trigger a taxpayer revolt. But if the electorate really felt reassured that the United States government controlled its borders and kept the bad folks out and let the legal applicants in, then the majority that currently supports Arizona’s law might shift a bit from the “track ‘em all down and ship ‘em all back” position. Once Americans feel that the law really is throwing back the drug dealers and gang members and cracking down on the human smugglers and those who exploit them, then they might feel a bit more sympathy for Manuel the busboy and be willing to work out some deal where he stays in the country, provided he pays sufficient penalty to for breaking existing laws. But that would require patience, a determination to demonstrate tangible results, and a commitment to tough-minded discipline, three qualities in short supply in this White House. Instead, our immigration policy seems to consist of, ‘how many Democratic voters can we import and how quickly?’

I guess we can expand the list of “jobs Americans won’t do” to include voting for Democrats, huh?