One vote on an amendment and one quote by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was all it took to rip the facade away from the so-called comprehensive immigration reform package.

The vote? A 57-43 defeat of a proposal by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that would have prohibited illegal aliens from getting any kind of legal status, until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could demonstrate it had “effective control” of the border for six months. The quote? “This clearly would undo the entire theme and structure of the immigration bill,” said Schumer. “It will take years and years until the border is secure.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that, America.

Further note that Grassley’s amendment contained the bureaucratic weasel words “effective control,” and it still got hammered, despite the reality that these bipartisan hacks know for certain the Janet Napolitano-run DHS wouldn’t dream of doing anything that remotely resembled even that pathetically flexible standard.

Yet it gets worse. Polls taken of the American public say they overwhelmingly support a “comprehensive” package of reforms. But the fix is in. Just like the ads that ostensibly conservative groups run in my home state, all of those polls focus on the idea that what people support are secure borders, blocking employers from hiring illegal aliens, and requiring that those who came here illegally but who do not have a criminal record be allowed to pursue a path to citizenship.

If the first two sound familiar, it’s because they were an integral part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act – of 1986. And yet here we are, 27 years later, being fed the exact same load of bull, knowing full well border security and cracking down on employers who hire illegals never happened. Yet we’re expected to believe that this time it will be different.

As for the idea that criminals would automatically be excluded from consideration for citizenship, here’s a paragraph from a USA Today article that gives you an inking of just how disingenuous this bill’s supporters are:

“(Illegal aliens) may have lived in the United States since childhood and have strong family ties to U.S. citizens. They may have been lawful permanent residents, and the crime may have been relatively minor. No matter. Even people who have served out their punishment and been law-abiding ever since would have no hope of getting right with the law – only the prospect of detention and deportation.”

In other words, even before a bill has even passed, the open borders crowd has already manned the ramparts, suggesting that “relatively minor” criminals be allowed to purse a path to citizenship as well. What constitutes “relatively minor?” Whatever the weasel-word incrementalists decide is “appropriate.” Those would be the same weasel-word incrementalists who will also bemoan – and then challenge – the 13-year waiting period to become a citizen, before the ink is dry on the president’s signature on the bill.

Are you getting the idea yet?

Just like the healthcare bill, this package is also nothing more than “camel’s nose under the tent” legislation. It is not an ultimate destination, but a jumping-off point. Just as soon as it passes, virtually every provision in it will be challenged as being unduly harsh or heartless. The same pre-planned chaos that attends the healthcare bill, which itself is nothing more than a jumping-off point for the real endgame of government-run healthcare, is built into this legislation as well.

Consider just one aspect of it, namely family reunification. Does anyone seriously believe that once this bill passes, whatever the current definition of “family” is won’t be vastly expanded? Furthermore, an integral part of that reunification is based on the so-called conventional wisdom that America is home to “11 million” illegal aliens. What if it’s 25 million? Or 30 million? How can we be certain it’s not? Yet far more importantly, how is it that not a single attempt has been made to determine exactly how many illegals are in the country before any legislation is passed?

The answer is simple. If the 11 million number is a sham, then the family reunification totals that could reach double that number or more, are equally fraudulent, which brings us to another unpleasant reality for the American public:

Are you ready to see a level of legalization that would fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of the nation? The American left certainly is, and the president himself said so back in 2008, when he promised his followers that they were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Try asking Americans if they’re in favor of that as part of a poll on comprehensive immigration reform, and then let’s see where the country really comes down on the issue. I’ll tell you where I am with regard to the issue: if Republicans support this bill, Americans should form a third political party.

That is not something I say out of anger. I say it because I firmly believe that neither party represents a vast swath of Americans utterly disgusted with the idea that wholesale law-breaking should not only be countenanced, but rewarded. Democrats, the so-called party of the “little people,” couldn’t care less if those little people get swamped with competition for jobs and government resources, as long as they get a cadre of reliable voters. Note I included government resources. That’s because entitlements will also be incrementalized to include illegals, just as that same incrementalist bitching and moaning will be employed to shorten the time from legalization to citizenship, granting illegals the right to vote.

As for Republicans, who needs a party that would literally sell its ideological soul for those same votes, or for turning on the cheap labor spigot for their crony capitalist pals? Republicans are supposed to be a bulwark against fundamentally transforming the nation, not accomplices to the crime.

And make no mistake: it is a crime. It is a monstrous assault on the one thing that ostensibly separated us from the rest of the world and ironically, provided the primary impetus for the influx of immigrants who have historically come here. It is the reality that, up until now, we have been a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Now we are becoming nation of expediency, a conglomeration of weak thinkers who subscribe to the most destructive philosophy imaginable: if it feels good, do it.

Furthermore, this bill sets traditional set of requirements for the privilege of living in our country on its head. The vast majority of people who would be legalized under this bill are under-educated, and low-skill, in stark contrast to those who used to be admitted entry into the country. Imagine the level of cynicism and political self-interest required to convince Americans that the gargantuan expansion of our underclass – one with little allegiance to our culture, customs, traditions, history and language is a good thing.

For years, many conservative Americans have struggled to support a Republican party that, during the Bush years when they had complete control of the federal government, made it clear they were every bit as spendthrift and unprincipled as Democrats. The same party that, to this day, treats genuine conservatives as pariahs. The same party that walks around in mortal fear of defying Democrats and their media lapdogs, even as they let both entities set the agenda for the nation.

I can’t speak for other Americans, but for me, the immigration bill is the red line that cannot be crossed. If Republicans jump on board, I’m done with them. Ironically, it may not matter. If Republicans are so bereft of common sense that they can’t see their own extinction being formulated right under their noses, they’ll get exactly what they oh-so-richly deserve, be it in the form of mass rejection by Americans like me, or the self-inflicted irrelevancy of legalizing millions of new Democrat voters.

And let’s be clear here. This rejection not only applies to the squishes, the RINOs and the other go-along-to-get-along Republicans. The so-called young guns like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, who currently support this bill, get kicked to the curb as well. Spare me the notion of compromise. As I’ve said before, there’s no “split the difference” position between fiscal solvency and national bankruptcy, freedom and oppression or, in this case, the maintenance of our status as a First World nation, or our descent into Third World chaos. Those are the stakes.

Make no mistake about it.