In my June 3 post, I compared the "No Amnesty" slogan which killed immigration reform in 2007 with the "Border Security" strategy which immigration opponents are now using as their main weapon to defeat CIR in 2013. Of the two, the "Border Security" scam (hereinafter "BS") is more dangerous to immigration reform precisely because, on the surface, it appears to be more legitimate.

"No Amnesty" is a cry of hate, pure and simple, No one in America can seriously believe that this phrase is anything more than racial buzzwords whose real meaning is "No Hispanics", in keeping with the spirit of their mid-19th century predecessor: "No Irish". 

In 2007, transparent hate against Latinos and all immigrants of color was not only acceptable politically, but was mainstream. In 2002, the late Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, who was widely considered an expert on the "Clash of Civilizations", published his book "Who Are We?".

This book was no less full of anti-Latino racial slurs than the work of another bigot associated with Harvard (but with a far shorter career which has already ended), Jason Richwine. Huntington asserted, for example, that Latinos were lazier than whites for "cultural" reasons.

This kind of transparent bigotry helped to defeat immigration reform in 2007. But then came the 2012 election. Open anti-Latino hate had clearly outlived its political usefulness. It was time to look around for another strategy to defeat immigration reform. The solution was "Border Security"

The Obama administration has, arguably, done more and spent more money than any other administration in memory to protect America's borders against those who present a genuine threat to our security. It has also deported people at a faster rate than ever before in our history. 

But reality has little to do with the anti-immigrant lobby's attempt to use BS a political tool in order to defeat CIR. 

For CIR opponnents, "Border Security" is not about protecting America against criminals and terrorists. It is about spreading the lie that the Obama administration is doing little or nothing to control the Mexican border. It is also about exploiting fears that immigration reform will lead to more "waves" of Latino and other minority immigrants coming to the US in the future, with or without legal permission.

Most of all, using BS as a political scam means making impossible to fulfill border control demands as the price for support of CIR, or a means to render CIR totally ineffective. The June 4 Politico gives an example of this in a proposal by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), no friend of immigration reform, in its article: John Cornyn's big ideas on immigration.

According to this article, Cornyn is asking for 100 per cent (!) operational control of the Mexican border, with a 100 per cent "border surveillance" rate and an 90 per cent illegal crossing apprehension rate before unauthorized immigrants in provisional status would be allowed to apply for green cards.

The waters of the Rio Grande are likely to turn into concrete before these goals are achieved.  It is an even more ominous sign for reform that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) of the Gang of Eight, who has become the very face of CIR, appears to be buying into BS as well.

According to Politico: Marco Rubio: Immigration bill short of 60 votes (June 4), Rubio is now also preparing to blame the possible failure of CIR on the red herring of allegedly lax border control by the Obama administration: Politico quotes Rubio as follows:

"We don't want to be back here in two years, in five years, 10 years, dealing with another 5 or 10 million illegal immigrants... And people don't trust the Department of Homeland Security to do this job or come up with a plan that will do the job."

Will "Border Security" be enough to defeat CIR? If even Marco Rubio is buying into BS, he could be right in predicting that CIR may fall short of 60 votes in the Senate, as it did six years ago.