Of all the issues across the American political spectrum, few make certain factions of the Inside-the-Beltway/K Street Establishment wet their panties more than does the immigration issue.  These armchair-quarterback Establishmentarians can freely opine from the relative tranquility of Greater Washington whilst our porous southern border and outmanned Border Patrol attempt to withstand hitherto unforeseen numbers of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs), illegals entering domestic soil from Ebola-stricken countries, and of course a possible similar border penetration from the Islamic State — which already has militants inside the country.  The border security issue is thus a particularly frustrating one for conservatives, since it is one where far too many elements of our own party’s entrenched elite rake money from corporatist open-borders donors and call for something closely resembling complete abdication.

As the president unconscionably responds to this summer’s disastrous mass border influx by all but assuring his party’s open-borders/anti-sovereignty base of a massive (and unconstitutional) unilateral amnesty after the November elections, however, there is no better issue right now for Republicans across the country to hammer home in the run-up to November 4th.  While polls sometimes show that a plurality or majority of the American citizenry supports the amorphous outcome of “comprehensive immigration reform,” we are fortunately not yet living in a sufficiently post-constitutional age such that the populace has adopted the president’s tyrannical conception of executive power.  Indeed, in a glimmer of hope for the future of law and order in our republic, even core Democratic Party constituencies remain firmly opposed to such an unvarnished assault on the Congress’s unequivocal legislative prerogative.  As Jonathan Tobin notes at Commentary’s online blog, the events of this past summer “changed the debate about the [border] issue in a way that places the president’s threats of unilateral action directly contrary to the will of the public and the Constitution.”  In the states where the fate of [mc_name name=’Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000146′ ]’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader will be determined this fall — Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire, among others — the polling is all but assuredly even more astoundingly on the side of pro-law and order conservatism.  Does anyone think that [mc_name name=’Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’H001049′ ] or [mc_name name=’Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’P000590′ ] or [mc_name name=’Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’U000038′ ] wants to answer in town hall meetings about whether he/she would rhetorically or substantively support a lame-duck Obama diktat to grant amnesty to millions of illegals by executive fiat?

Given this backdrop, the inability of the Republican Party to nationalize a pro-border security message is already inexcusable.  Yet, incredibly — as briefly intimated above — there is more.  Much more.  The Ebola virus has unfathomably entered domestic soil.  There is escalating radicalized Islam — errr…”workplace violence” — domestically and in ISIS the increasingly virile metastasis of the thus-far nonpareil fighting force in the history of the global jihad.  How in the world is the border security issue not something every single Republican candidate for Congress is passionately running on?  The events of this summer firmly shifted the national discussion away from a pro-amnesty and toward a pro-border security tilt, there is a shockingly lethal virus here on domestic soil, and there is the recent rise of the most radical and vicious jihadi group in human history.  What are Reince Priebus, the NRSC, and the NRCC doing with their lives?

If Republicans want to gain seats in the House and assure the demise of [mc_name name=’Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000146′ ]’s dictatorial reign as Senate head honcho, they should coalesce around a pro-border security message by effectively weaving together the national security threat posed by ISIS, the public health threat posed by Ebola, the sovereignty threat posed by this summer’s UAC crisis, and the rule of law crisis posed by the president’s promised post-election unilateral amnesty.  And they better get on it quickly.