WHEN IN THE US OR BRITAIN, SPEAK ENGLISH. Donald Trump’s retort to Jeb Bush’s rattling off in Spanish on the campaign trail conjures an old joke told in Israel of my youth. It was aimed at the ultra-orthodox Jew who dresses weirdly and won’t speak Hebrew. Here goes:

The Israeli shouts back, “Speak Hebrew, goy!” Goy meaning non-Jew.

Walker has called building a wall along the border between the US and Canada a “legitimate issue.”
Illegal immigration and the security of the southern border with Mexico have been major issues in the Republican race for president, but the northern border has not been discussed.
Mr. Walker made the comments in response to a question from a NBC News reporter.”That is a legitimate issue for us to look at,” he said …

Like the official left, these self-styled “conservatives” are in revolt against nature and reality. Canadian or Mexican; to the Bush and Walker egalitarian, the potential of all people is the same. Therefore all borders must be similarly defended or undefended.

Does the U.S. have a problem with a deluge of illegal immigrants pouring over the Canadian border? No. Canada is a high-wage area. The U.S. is a high-wage area. Latin America is a low-wage area. Migratory pressure, Mr. Walker, flows from low-wage to high-wage regions; from the Third World to the First World (until migratory equilibrium is reached when First World becomes Third World).

Donald Trump’s tone is unhelpful, Jeb Bush keeps sniveling in that soporific singsong of his.

To the contrary. Not for nothing do our linguistic tormentors (like their communist-party mentors) seek to regulate language. For to be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth.

The closer the language we use approximates reality—and, by extension, the truth—the greater the likelihood that our actions will follow.

In this sense, Trump’s blunt, in-artful language is immensely helpful.

“Number 69, number 69,” called an officer of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Number 78, yours truly, was sitting in line at the ASC (the Application Support Center), in Washington State. I was there to renew my green card, the much-coveted US permanent residency permit.

The woman to my left was clutching note number 69. Despite having been summoned time and again, she stayed put. She did not understand English. Like her, the room was packed with applicants who were talking in tongues.

Although a longtime champion of American freedoms, I have decided, for now, against accepting US citizenship, for which a green-card holder is illegible after five years. Uncle Sam’s foot-soldiers assault me whenever I take to the unfriendly skies. And should I leave the US, after taking the Oath of Citizenship—IRS agents will fulfill their oath of office and hunt me down.

As the chorus lyrics to that haunting rock classic by the Eagles goes, “You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave!” In the evocative words to “Hotel California,” Americans who try “running for the door,” soon discover that they “are all just prisoners here …”

Prisoners of Uncle Sam’s device.

If he can tolerate TSA assaults as he departs the country, a US citizen who chooses to live and work overseas cannot escape the Internal Revenue Service. The United States is perhaps the only country “to tax its citizens on income earned while they’re living abroad.”

Although the government’s citizenship stamp of approval is meaningless, there are risks in rejecting it. While a US citizen cannot be denied entry whenever he leaves the country and returns home; a green-card holder is essentially asking for permission to re-enter. This, as millions of members in a favored outlaw fraternity stroll across the southern border, giving border patrol the finger (as the other finger dials the ACLU).

Besides, have you ever heard a member of America’s low-brow glitterati and literati advocate for immigrants who are not poor, not brown, and not uneducated? I have not—with the exception of Tucker Carlson, a libertarian-leaning rightist.

The scene: Bret Bair’s Special Report, in a Fox News New-York studio.

The participants: The regular “conservative” poseurs competing to craft the most “inspiring” (read schmaltzy) message with which to lure the only immigrants America seems eager to reel in.

Voted “most likely to use US means-tested benefit programs” in their primary school class—poor, unskilled Latinos—were being touted by the participants as the GOP’s natural-born constituents, when out of the blue, Tucker Carlson shattered GOP agitprop.

As neoconservative Charles Krauthammer and the banal Nina Easton of Fortune magazine noodled on about their Latino philosophical soul-mates—Tucker Carlson averred that screening immigrants must “begin with a conversation about outcomes.”

“Why is it that immigrants from certain countries have not thrived and immigrants from other countries have thrived?,” questioned Carlson. “No one wants to have that conversation because it’s considered mean, but when the future of the country is at stake, it’s worth taking a rational, non-passionate, and, by the way, nonpolitical look at outcomes, and asking real questions like, why is it? You’re not attacking anybody. But these are questions that we need to ask because the country is at stake.”

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57 percent of Mexican immigrants will go on to use means-tested benefit programs, against only six percent of Britons. My experience at the ASC microcosm ought to explain another of the CIS’s findings: Fully “one-fourth of public school students now speak languages other than English at home.”To flabbergasted glares from his co-panelists, Tucker pressed on:

“What is missing in this conversation is the fact that not all immigrants are the same. Immigrants from certain countries go on welfare overwhelmingly. Many Latin American countries send us immigrants who go on welfare. The question is, does the United States need massive new numbers of the low-skilled immigrants in a post-industrial economy? Is that good for the United States? It is not mindless to say all immigrants are good? They are not. Some are, some aren’t. … the Republican Party ought to be courageous enough to draw the distinction between people who add to the sum total of the American economy, who buy [into] the culture, who improve the country, and those who don’t. And there is a difference. Sorry.”

Thank you, Mr. Carlson, for doffing the proverbial hat to high-value immigrants; the kind who not only talk about the American creed, but live it; the kind who pay for the largess Republicans seem so eager to dispense.

Alas, from the fact that 23 percent of native-born Americans also use means-tested benefit programs, less-enlightened, open-border libertarians have concluded that it is economically and morally inconsequential to extend taxpayer-funded welfare to millions of unviable non-nationals.

How is this asinine argument different from positing that because a bank has been robbed by one set of bandits (welfare-dependent nationals), repelling or arresting the next gang (welfare-dependent non-nationals) is unnecessary, as the damage has already been done?

On the heels of Barack Obama’s Las Vegas run-on ramble on the necessity of immigration “reform,” this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced that he too had “evolved” overnight on the issue. “I’m … open-minded enough to say that it is an issue that we do need to evolve on,” the senator vaporized.

Paul is a Johnny-come-lately to his party’s devolution on immigration. The country was still surveying the debris left by the “D-Bomb” (where “D” stands for demographics), dropped on Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012—when, one-by-one, key Republicans began to defect, pledging their commitment to an “overhaul of the immigration system”; to “reform”; to “a comprehensive solution”; to “fixing a broken system,” all well-recognized euphemisms for amnesty.

A tipping point in the demographic shift in the US population had returned Barack Obama to power for a second term. A moratorium on mass immigration, buttressed by strong secessionist and states’ rights movements, might just help delay another such bomb from detonating. But the Republicans were having none of it.

House Speaker John Boehner was soon leading the party of turncoats to the promised (la-la) land, pledging that “a comprehensive approach” was “long overdue.” “I’m confident,” Boehner promised, “that the president, myself [and] others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

In short succession, our wily pitch men were joined by Republican media mouths who had also “evolved” overnight. Thus, in a career-clinching bid—presumably, to continue playing a part in national politics—Sean Hannity, an influential Fox-News personality, declared that he too had found religion on immigration and now supported a “pathway to citizenship.”

Another mantra mouthed by brother-believer Charles Krauthammer and echoed by Sen. Paul was that, “The GOP needs to do a better job of reaching out to Hispanic voters.” Yes, “Inside each Latin American immigrant there’s a Republican waiting to get out,” mocked Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Mockery for this pie-in-the-sky is warranted. However dispiriting, the reason 71 percent of Hispanic voters broke for Obama is not because Republicans are mean to them—John McCain and George Bush demonstrated that they would wrestle a crocodile for any Hispanic convert, legal, illegal and criminal. This identity group’s political preference is because 60 percent of them live in or near poverty and “fully 57 percent use at least one welfare program.”

In his irrational ramble, the president waxed about legalizing the “11 million undocumented immigrants [residing] in America,” while at the same time praising the contribution made by their kind to the founding of great “businesses like Google and Yahoo.”

Fantasies about the future founders of companies like Google and Yahoo, aside—their highly educated corporeal founders are from Russia (Sergey Brin) and Taiwan (Jerry Yang). The 11-million strong voting bloc currently being converged upon by the zombies aforementioned originates not in Russia or Taiwan, as Obama would have you believe, but, for the most, in Latin American.

By Wikipedia’s telling, “as a group,” they tend to be “less educated than other sections of the U.S. population: 49 percent haven’t completed high school, compared with 9 percent of native-born Americans and 25 percent of legal immigrants.”

No longer able to ignore the differing racial voting patterns that emerged in the 2012 election, USA Today diagnosed America as a “nation moving further apart.” Acknowledging that America was riven by race had compelled the newspaper to disgorge that their pet president had suffered some erosion in support—most significantly from “whites under 30.” “In 2008, they had backed Obama by 10 points. This time, they supported Romney by eight.”

Famous for its “Black, Brown and Plain Boring in America” programming, CNN broke down the November election results by age and race. As it turned out, white millennials were not complete morons. (Soledad O’Brien, the Agony Aunt who produced the racist propaganda series, would disagree with me.) Among whites aged 18-29 years, Mitt Romney led 51 percent to 44 percent, giving the Republican candidate an 11 percent edge.

“More white people voted for Mitt Romney this year than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Barack Obama lost white voters by 20 points—the widest margin since 1984,” seconded Ann Coulter.

The sauce that cooked the goose of America’s historic majority—sixty-two percent of which supported Romney—was that this majority was outnumbered as a voting bloc. Ann again: “[I]n 1980, whites were 88 percent of the electorate. In 2012, they were 72 percent of the electorate. Not only that, but the non-white electorate is far more Democratic than it was in 1980.”

Republicans have responded as the drag queens of politics that they are (no offense to drag queens). Depending which way the political winds are blowing, establishment Republicans will modify their game plan. A good gauge of Republican treachery is the manner in which they beat up on Mitt Romney whenever he uttered an impolitic truth.

“In explaining his overwhelming electoral college defeat,” reported the New York Times, Romney alluded to Obama having followed “the ‘old playbook’ of seeking votes from specific interest groups, ‘especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

No sooner had Romney so reasoned than Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Newt Gingrich, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (deemed another GOP rising star), MSNBC token conservative, and “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough rose to spit venom at the man.

Leading the pack was Obama’s New BFF (Best Friend Forever), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), whose very future as a member of the North East elite hinged on maligning Mitt Romney.

Why was Mitt Romney’s analysis of the role played by the give-me constituency in his electoral loss so factually wrong? This these reptilian brains (more apologies, this time to reptiles) could not quite explain. All the Republicans knew was that their cushy jobs depended on distancing themselves from truth and from any man who spoke it, however fleetingly.

The same Republican cobra-head that rose to spit at Romney whenever he broke from the pack is now leading the charge for amnesty and against America’s waning historical majority.