News (Noticias) Tagged ‘Federation for American Immigration Reform’

In September of 2008 FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) along with 42 Talk Radio Hosts went to Washington with Message for Congress and the Next Administration: Reform Immigration Policy Without Amnesty this included Lou Dobbs. Various groups fought back with attack ads in DC papers. FAIR tried to take the upper-hand by claiming they were above such hateful rhetoric and launched their own ads touting their “30 years of developing fair, practical and effective solutions.” Yet regardless of the words used the fact is that:

FAIR — The Federation for American Immigration Reform — has been designated as a HATE GROUP by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

If you want to whine about attack language then your leaders shoudn’t have been quoted saying:

Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible?” —Dan Stein, Current FAIR President

As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?” — John Tanton, FAIR Founder and Board Director

New cultures… [in the U.S. are] diluting what we are and who we are.” — Richard Lamm, Former FAIR Advisory Board Chair

Additionally,

• FAIR was founded by a supporter of eugenics, John Tanton, with funds from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation committed to the belief that some races of people are genetically and intellectually superior to other races. Tanton continues as a leader of FAIR and sits on its board of directors.
• FAIR employed and continues to employ known anti-Catholic bigots, including Rosanna Pulido, who said of the Catholic Church in the United States:
  What better way to fill your pews and fill your offering coffers than with inviting in and giving sanctuary to illegal aliens? . . . What is being passed off right now by the Catholic Church is not Catholicism. It has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible. (Link)

  And FAIR Executive Director Dan Stein went further, targeting Latino Catholics:
  Certainly we would encourage people in other countries to have small families. Otherwise they’ll all be coming here, because there’s no room at the Vatican. . . . Many immigrants hate America, hate everything the United States stands for. Talk to some of these Central Americans. (Link)

• FAIR’s Executive Director Dan Stein has been an author and editorial board member for the Social Contract Press. FAIR Board member Sharon Barnes has also been on the editorial advisory board. Social Contract publishes the work of numerous white nationalists such as John Vinson, who wrote that God prefers racial separation and that the South should secede from the United States to protect white people. (Link)

Much more info at:

Read More in English: americasvoiceonline.org
Traducido: usando Google o Altavista/Babel Fish

Today the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), America’s Voice, Center for New Community, and the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) launched a print ad denouncing known hate group, FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform), for poisoning the immigration debate with bigoted, xenophobic hate speech.  In support of the ad, SEIU Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina issued the following statement:

“It’s time that everyone learns who FAIR’s founders, leaders and followers truly are. They are not reformers, but a group of extremists whose leaders are fostering a bigoted, anti-immigrant, anti-American agenda that we must stop.”

“We will not allow such a raging extremist group to hide behind this false veil of reform. By continuing to fan the flames of hate and fear, FAIR has contributed to rising levels of hate crimes and discrimination that we are seeing in immigrant communities across the country.  There is no place for such fanatical hate speech anywhere in America today—especially not in the halls of Congress.”

“It’s time to stop the hate. Americans know that hate speech can’t raise wages and living standards for workers, decrease gas prices, provide affordable healthcare, end the mortgage crisis, or solve immigration. America doesn’t need zealots; we need smart, pragmatic immigration reform.

“Crude attempts to shut down our border and round up anyone who looks a certain way do not begin to solve our broken immigration system. Instead, we need to go after the bad-acting employers who exploit workers, and find a fair, practical way to get undocumented immigrants out of the underground economy, into the system and under the rule of law.”

Click here to see a copy of the print ad that rain in Politico and Roll Call today.

“

The country’s largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization today challenged presumptive presidential nominees Senators Barack Obama and John McCain to rein in offensive and charged rhetoric on immigration in their respective parties’ congressional campaigns this fall. The challenge comes just days before they are both scheduled to address the National Council of La Raza’s (NCLR) Annual Conference in San Diego.

“Senators McCain and Obama have both been leaders in the immigration reform effort and have urged a thoughtful and well-informed debate on this difficult issue,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “But others in their respective political parties are using inaccurate and inflammatory language to inspire fear and resentment against immigrants for the sake of advancing their political campaigns.”

Murguía pointed to campaign brochures and television advertisements by both parties, including a Democratic Campaign Committee leaflet and a blog posting on the website of North Carolina Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole. The materials that Murguía found offensive include:

* A charged leaflet by the Missouri State Democratic Committee, which shows a yellow traffic sign depicting a running family; the leaflet attacks Representative Sam Graves (R-MO), charging him with allowing five million “illegal immigrants” into the country.
* A Republican television commercial by Senator Harri Anne Smith from Alabama’s Second Congressional District, which condemns languages other than English and shows brown hands in handcuffs and shadowy images crossing into the United States
* A personal blog from the website of Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), which cites the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) as a source of information on the impact of immigration in North Carolina; FAIR has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group with ties to eugenics and white supremacy.

“Hate has hijacked the immigration debate,” said Murguía whose organization—through its website, www.WeCanStopTheHate.org—has been decrying the growing influence of hate groups and hate speech on television and radio and in political campaigns. “What passes for debate on this issue is often little more than a demagogic attack designed to inflame Americans rather than enlighten them. Our political leaders can stop it,” she said. “They should stop it.”

“As the leaders of their respective parties, I challenge Senators Obama and McCain not to look the other way while others stoop to demagoguery. I urge them in the strongest possible terms to confront inflammatory anti-immigrant language and images when members of their party seek to use them as campaign tactics. I ask them to lead the country in elevating the tone in this badly needed policy debate.”

Murguía said that NCLR welcomes a thoughtful debate on immigration. “It is a complex problem,” she said, “and one we can solve. But we can’t have a civil debate as long as hate has the microphone.” Murguía said that she has contacted each of the campaigns in writing and plans to address the topic more fully in her own address at the NCLR Annual Conference Tuesday Luncheon, after the two nominees have spoken.”*

In early 2006, the national Federation for American Immigration Reform sent an emissary to Rhode Island as part of a national grassroots organizing effort against illegal and mass immigration.

“Region by region, FAIR is helping to build a network of grassroots groups dedicated to fighting for immigration reform in their part of the country,” the organization stated on its Web site ( www.fairus.org). New England is emerging as a highly successful battleground, with a growing network of reformers and legislative successes under their belts.””*

“What if all the leading anti-immigration groups were founded by the same man, funded by the same organization, and [had] ties to White supremacy?” So begins Heidi Beirich’s narrative in “Behind the Veil”—a new video being released today that details the common origins of many of the country’s leading anti-immigration groups and their ties to White supremacists. In the video, Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)—the nation’s premier monitor of hate groups—discusses SPLC’s research on organizations such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, and the Social Contract Press.

Beirich’s narrative, in particular, draws connections between anti-immigrant forces and one of their founders/funders, retired ophthalmologist John Tanton. Beirich shows how the more extreme groups are designed to coexist with those that appear to the public and media as more moderate.

“There is a debate to be had over immigration,” says the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) President and CEO Janet Murguía, “and we’re anxious to have it. But, so far, the rhetoric has not been about policy, it has been about hate. No good policy has ever come from the demonization of one group by another. The hate has got to stop.”

Produced by NCLR, “Behind the Veil” is the last of three videos that are part of a campaign to divorce hate groups and hate speech from the immigration debate. As with the organizations featured in the other two videos, the Anti-Defamation League (“Code Words of Hate”) and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (“America’s Immigration Legacy”), the SPLC has no public policy stake in the immigration debate. All three videos can be found on NCLR’s website: www.WeCanStopTheHate.org.

“On the one hand,” says Beirich, “the anti-immigrant system is based on pandering to the extremists that you know will join your ranks, back you, fund you, and attend your events. On the other hand, it tries to use groups like FAIR to present a more moderate face that seems disconnected from these folks, but really at the end of the day, isn’t.” “Most people,” says Murguía, “don’t realize that these groups have common origins and agendas that are suspect.”

Beirich also draws the connection between the dramatic rise in hate groups over the past eight years to their refocus on anti-immigrant rhetoric. According to the SPLC, the number of hate groups targeting Latinos is up 48% since the year 2000.

“The driving factor that we found behind this,” says Beirich, “is the shift to pounding the anti-immigrant drum. Every one of them recruits now on immigration. That’s what is driving the rise of hate groups—that, and almost that alone.””*

In the study “Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration Is Sending Schools Into the Red,” the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national anti-immigration group, estimated based on 2004 data that educational expenditures for illegal immigration were costing S.C. taxpayers $143.5 million dollars annually.

This cost was partially for educating students who were themselves illegally in the country ($59.8 million) and in part for the education those born in the United States to illegal residents ($83.7 million).

A University of South Carolina study, “The Economic and Social Implications of the Growing Latino Population in South Carolina,” acknowledges that some people fear Hispanic students increase education costs because they lack English skills, but English language learners represent only 2 percent of the total school population.”*

*From: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com
Traducido: usando Google o Altavista/Babel Fish

Anti-immigrant sentiment is fueling nationwide increases in the number of hate groups and the number of hate crimes targeting Latinos, a watchdog group said Monday.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, in a report titled “The Year in Hate,” said it counted 888 hate groups in its latest tally, up from 844 in 2006 and 602 in 2000.

The most prominent of the organizations newly added to the list, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, vehemently rejected the “hate group” label, and questioned the law center’s motives. FAIR said the center was using smear tactics to boost donations and stifle legitimate debate on immigration.”*

*From: http://ap.google.com
Traducido: usando Google o Altavista/Babel Fish

Decrying the surge in hate speech and violence that has surrounded the immigration debate, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., launched a campaign today to end hate speech in the immigration debate and called on presidential candidates and news media networks to divorce themselves from known hate and vigilante groups and to end rhetoric that demonizes immigrants and Hispanic Americans.

“The immigration issue deserves serious debate and serious solutions,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “We cannot have that debate as long as hate has the floor.”

Murguía chastised cable news television for “handing hate a microphone” over the past three years by hosting spokespeople from hate and vigilante groups such as Dan Stein of Federation for American Immigration Reform and Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox of the Minuteman Project more than 110 times, usually identifying them only as “anti-immigration advocates.” She singled out television pundits such as CNN’s Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck and MSNBC political commentator Pat Buchanan for parroting hate speech and driving the immigration debate in a manner that demonizes the Hispanic community.

Presidential candidates who seize on the immigration issue to avoid talking about other issues such as Iraq and the economy also came under fire from Murguía. She faulted them for “amigo shopping,” a derogatory term used by suburban youth who attack and rob day laborers knowing that their victims have little recourse. Murguía specifically called on Mike Huckabee, 2008 presidential candidate and former governor of Arkansas, to renounce the endorsement of, and sever all ties to, Jim Gilchrist, a cofounder of the Minuteman Project and a self-avowed “vigilante.”

“There’s a bully in the room,” said Murguía, “and each of these candidates has a choice. They can stand up to the bully or they can cater to him. It is a question of courage or cowardice. To date, we have seen far too little courage.”

Relying heavily on documentation provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, Murguía catalogued the rise in the use of code words that label immigrants and Latinos as a threat to the American way of life. She articulated four categories of code words, rhetoric that:

* Refers to immigrants as “an army of invaders” or an “invading force”
* Associates immigrants with animals and refers to them as “a massive horde” or “swarm”
* Accuses immigrants of “bringing crime and disease” to America, including “leprosy, tuberculosis, and malaria” and “gang warfare”
* Purveys the conspiracy theory of “reconquista” or “Atzlán” – the taking back of lands in the southwestern United States for Mexico

(Click here to view a short video reel illustrating some examples www.wecanstopthehate.org.)

NCLR is conducting a campaign to educate Americans about the use of hate speech and the growing rise in violence against Latinos. Called the “Wave of Hope Campaign,” it features:

* An anti-hate website entitled “We can stop the hate ”
* Engaging media networks and candidates to separate themselves from hate groups and hate speech
o This week, NCLR wrote to Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee asking him to renounce the support of, and sever all ties to, Jim Gilchrist.
o NCLR also wrote to three cable news networks – Fox, CNN, and MSNBC – asking to meet with top management about extremists appearing regularly on their programming and ending the hate speech parroted by network news commentators.
* Working with other minority groups to confront hate speech
* Asking candidates to elevate the debate and “pledge” to reject hate speech

Stating that “words have consequences,” Murguía pointed to an FBI report which shows a 23% rise in violence against Latinos. “To the Latino community,” said Murguía, “the surge in hate speech and violence is appalling. But, it should be appalling to everyone.”

Murguía said she recognized that ultimately the power to change the debate lies with the Hispanic community itself. “Latinos buy products from the advertisers supporting these programs,” she said. “Latinos vote in primaries and in the general election. We have a significant role to play picking winners and losers in both arenas. We need to make it clear to those who embrace hate that they do so at their own economic and political peril.””*

*From: http://www.nclr.org
Traducido: usando Google o Altavista/Babel Fish

At the center of the Tanton web is the nonprofit Federation for American Immigration Reform FAIR, the most important organization fueling the backlash against immigration. Founded by Tanton in 1979, FAIR has long been marked by anti-Latino and anti-Catholic attitudes. It has mixed this bigotry with a fondness for eugenics, the idea of breeding better humans discredited by its Nazi associations. It has accepted $1.2 million from an infamous, racist eugenics foundation. It has employed officials in key positions who are also members of white supremacist groups. Recently, it has promoted racist conspiracy theories about Mexicos secret designs on the American Southwest and an alternative theory alleging secret plans to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada. Just last February, a senior FAIR official sought “advice” from the leaders of a racist Belgian political party.

FAIR officials declined repeated requests for comment.

None of this — or any other material evidencing the bigotry and racism that courses through the group — seems to have affected FAIRs media standing. In just the first 10 months of 2007, the group was quoted in mainstream media outlets nearly 500 times with virtually no mention of its more unsavory aspects. FAIR President Dan Stein was featured on CNNs “Lou Dobbs Tonight” at least 12 times in the same period, along with countless appearances on other television news shows. And, perhaps most remarkably of all, FAIR has been taken seriously by Congress, which has called upon its officials to testify on immigration more than 30 times since 2000.”*

*From: http://www.ilw.com
Traducido: usando Google o Altavista/Babel Fish

A new study out by the conservative think tank Americas Majority Foundation (www.amermaj.com) suggests a possible explanation why more Arizonans aren’t rushing to run off illegal workers. It turns out Arizonans may be better off — not worse — because of the presence of so many immigrants in the population.

This sounds counterintuitive, at least if you believe current political rhetoric and tendentious research by anti-immigrant groups like the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform. But the Americas Majority Foundation data are pretty persuasive. States with the highest percentage of immigrants or the largest recent influx of immigrants –19 High Immigrant Jurisdictions (HIJs) in all — are wealthier, have better employment numbers and most have better crime figures than those with fewer immigrants.”*

*From: http://www.townhall.com
Traducido: usando Google o Altavista/Babel Fish

Washington, DC - In the elections this past Tuesday, immigration emerged as a prominent issue in the closely-watched Virginia state and local races. It also showed up late in the New York elections. Meanwhile, in the U.S. House of Representatives, freshman Congressman and former football player Heath Shuler (D-NC) introduced an enforcement-only bill (HR 4088) alongside such anti-immigrant stalwarts as Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Brian Bilbray (R-CA). The following is a statement by Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, a non-partisan pro-immigrant advocacy group in Washington, DC.

As the saying goes, the only polls that matter are on Election Day. Forgive us. We are biting our tongue. We want to scream “We told you so!!!” But we are above that. We will refrain from such childish triumphalism and seek to educate.

Let’s Review

Immigration is an issue that is relatively new to most in the political class, and as a result is often misunderstood as both a policy issue and a political issue. Just as in the lead up to the 2006 mid-terms, the pre-election conventional wisdom this year held that illegal immigration had arrived as a potent new Republican wedge issue. It goes something like this: “Watch out. This issue has legs and it will swing elections. The polls couldn’t be clearer. People are angry about this issue. Candidates, especially those who run on the issue, say illegal immigration is all they hear about on the campaign trail.”

But what about 2006 we ask? You told us it would work then and it didn’t. In fact, in the first election in which immigration became a major issue across the country, the results were indisputable: in race after race the centrist reformer beat the hard liner. (See the Forum’s analysis of the 2006 races, Nov. 8, 2006.)

Perhaps, but that was then and this is now comes the response. In 2006 the pop of this issue was overwhelmed by the prominence and power of other issues. Now that illegal immigration is front and center, from Virginia to New York, you guys are in for a rude awakening.

Thanks for sharing, we reply. But we stand by our prediction: voters want measured leadership, not gotcha politics; yes, the issue has legs, but the hard-liners don’t; voters are not so much anti-immigrant as they are anti-inaction.

The cognoscenti smile and dismiss our views as the wishful thinking of those with an axe to grind.

Results Don’t Lie

So, now that the results are in, perhaps we can shift from predictions to analysis.

In Virginia, the November 7th front page Washington Post headline said it all: “In the Ballot Booths, No Fixation on Immigration.” Democrats continued their winning streak in this once-red, now-purple state by taking the State Senate and gaining in the House of Delegates. Combined with the recent wins of Governor Tim Kaine, Senator James Webb, and the ascendancy of Senate candidate Mark Warner, Democrats are on a roll.

How did Democrats dodge the immigration bullet in Virginia? By emphasizing sensible leadership and practical solutions on the priorities of the voters, including illegal immigration, over the heated rhetoric and polarizing politics of many Republican candidates. Democratic candidates acknowledged the importance of illegal immigration and promised measured action. Perhaps the leading example is the Fairfax Country Board Chairman Gerry Connolly (who won re-election against immigration hawk John Blaise by a 2-1 margin). He promised to deal with problems associated with immigration based on behavior, not immigration status, and he denounced the demagoguery of Republicans, including his opponent.

According to the Post’s columnist Marc Fisher, who follows Virginia politics closely, many Republicans now get that they relied too heavily on immigration as an issue. On November 8th, he wrote:

The one point on which moderates and conservatives seem to agree is that their party overplayed the illegal immigration issue. “They went for a magic bullet with immigration, and it didn’t work,” says a conservative strategist who doesn’t want his name used because his clients don’t agree that immigration is a losing issue. Prince William County board Chairman Corey Stewart [the leading proponent of harsh policies aimed at making the country inhospitable to undocumented immigrants], the strategist says, “won last year as the anti-tax and anti-growth candidate, and he ended up in the same place this year. He pushed hard on immigration, but it didn’t move his numbers” in his reelection victory Tuesday. Moderates say harsh rhetoric on immigration repelled independent voters. Northern Virginians “know this crackdown on illegal immigration was posturing,” Potts says [Sen. Russ Potts is a moderate Republican from Winchester, VA]. “The only entity in the world that could solve that problem is the federal government.”

But what about New York? Didn’t the botched roll-out and public outcry over Governor Spitzer’s ill-timed drivers’ license proposal doom the Democrats up for election on Tuesday? Well, the November 7th New York Times headline read: “New York Democrats Say License Issue Had Little Effect.” According to someone who should know, June O’Neill, the chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, “it’s clear that all politics really are local and that the pundits really missed the mark on this one. For weeks, all we’ve heard was that driver’s licenses would be a key issue in these races. That just didn’t come to pass.”

As Mort Kondracke, a long-time observer of the immigration debate wrote in Wednesday’s Roll Call, “American voters this year have rejected a nativist approach to illegal immigration. It ought to be a warning to Republicans: Don’t make this your 2008 wedge issue. Election results on Tuesday, especially in Virginia and New York state, also should encourage nervous Democrats that they can support comprehensive immigration reform - stronger enforcement plus earned legalization - and prevail.” (”Despite Danger, GOP Tees Up Immigration as 2008 Wedge Issue,” Nov. 8, 2007.)

Will House Democrats Learn From Virginia Democrats, or Not?

So, let’s see if we can be heard now that illegal immigration issue was once again tried just about everywhere, and once again failed just about everywhere. Why do polls show voters angry and frustrated with this issue, but seem reluctant to give their votes to the hardliners with the toughest rhetoric, the meanest mailers, and the punchiest slogans? Because despite the visibility of a loud but not large cadre of mobilized extremists, most of those voters upset with the illegal immigration issue want leadership aimed at solving the problem, not political grandstanding aimed at inflaming tensions. And the partisan gap on what E.J. Dionne calls “solutionism” is getting bigger by the day. (”Democrats Hone The Brand,” Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2007.)

What can we learn from the way illegal immigration is playing in elections when it comes to the Democratic Party and in particular the House of Representatives as it heads into an important election year? This is the People’s House, and in 2006 the people fired the Republicans for playing games rather than solving problems. They hired the Democrats to give them a chance. How are they doing on the vexing challenge of illegal immigration?

Speaker Pelosi deserves very high marks. Earlier this year she rightly called on the Senate to move on comprehensive immigration reform first (the Senate had approved a version of comprehensive reform in 2006, and taking it up first would provide needed momentum to move it in the House). She regularly and loudly called for action on this pressing priority. She and those members who are immigration experts were clearly disappointed when in June of this year Republican opposition killed a Senate bill designed to win Republican support, thereby dooming comprehensive immigration reform as we have known it for this Congress.

But the voters want action, and the issue won’t go away. What now? The House Democratic leadership seems divided. Some want to move targeted measures, while some are interested in a reformulated broader approach. Still others seem tempted to move towards an enforcement-only approach favored by most Republicans.

Enter Heath Shuler, Freshman Democrat from the red state of North Carolina. Coming from a state that has experienced the largest percentage increase in illegal workers, one can understand that he wants to take on this issue and be seen as a leader. Introducing a bill and sending out a press release locally is standard fare for members in their first term. But he is not alone. He has been joined by more than 40 Democratic co-sponsors and a similar number of Republican co-sponsors

At first blush, and as policy, the Shuler proposal may sound reasonable to those relatively new to the immigration issue. His enforcement-only bill would get tougher on the border, facilitate the apprehension and deportation of those in the U.S. illegally, and institute a full-blown employer verification and sanctions regime aimed at preventing the hiring and employment of illegal workers. After all, don’t we need enhanced enforcement to get control of the borders and reduce illegal immigration? And what’s wrong with doing “enforcement first” so we gain the confidence of the American people who are skeptical about our resolve to curtail illegal immigration?

In reality, while the Shuler proposal may sound reasonable, if enacted as proposed, it would be anything but. Let’s recall that we have 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working in the U.S. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, most have lived in the U.S. for more than five years, most work in multiple jobs, and most live in family units comprised of citizens, permanent residents, and undocumented immigrants. The undocumented comprise 1 out of 20 workers in the U.S. and are overrepresented in agriculture, landscaping, construction, and hospitality. The effect of an enforcement-only bill along the lines of Shuler’s would be as follows: some undocumented immigrants would leave the country, but the vast majority would stay even as they are driven further into the shadows; unscrupulous employers and cutthroat sub-contractors would have a bigger pool of even easier-to-exploit workers; and decent employers intent on paying decent wages and growing their businesses would be further undermined by bottom-feeder employers. As a result, American low-wage workers would be worse off, law-abiding employers would be worse off, immigrant families would be worse off, and the currently dysfunctional immigration system would be worse off.

But what about the politics? If voters are upset about illegal immigration and want something done, shouldn’t Democrats take the lead and propose measured solutions? And isn’t enforcement a critical component of fixing the broken system? Yes, and yes!!! As part of a broader bill that reboots the system and legally registers the current undocumented through an earned legalization program, many of Shuler’s proposals could work. In fact, his bill seems to be based on legislation written by the likes of Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Gutierrez rightly sized up the Shuler bill when he said this: “It looked like he grabbed my STRIVE bill [the comprehensive immigration reform proposal introduced by Gutierrez and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) earlier this year], took all the enforcement parts of it and forgot to turn the page. It’s a book he didn’t finish reading.” (CQ Politics, “Divisive Border Bill Faces Tough Road,” Nov. 9, 2007.)

Without the legalization component, Shuler’s bill hops on one foot. Worse, it hops right over the political cliff. As Gutierrez himself said, “we might as well put the Republicans in charge.”

How so? The Shuler bill as proposed is closer to the punitive Sensenbrenner bill that passed the Republican-controlled House in December 2005 (HR 4437) than the comprehensive reform proposals favored by most Democrats. And the Sensenbrenner bill was the infamous measure that led Latino immigrants and their allies to take to the streets in the largest protests in recent American history. It is hard to imagine how the headline “Democrats for Sensenbrenner-lite” does anything but turn off Latino immigrants, the fastest growing group of new voters in the nation.

The fact that the bill is co-sponsored by the likes of Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Brian Bilbray (R-CA) only makes matters worse. Tancredo, and not Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) or President Bush, is now the face of the GOP when it comes to immigration, especially in the Latino community. As a Presidential candidate, he sure gets a lot of attention in the Spanish language press. He calls Miami a “third world country,” repeatedly demands the arrest and deportation of Latino kids without status who have won honors in high school and want to go to college, and rails against the “invasion” by those from south of the border. Bilbray has his own baggage. Before returning to Congress, Bilbray was a lobbyist for the militant anti-immigrant group FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and now chairs the equally controversial House Immigration Reform Caucus founded by Tancredo, a collection of mostly Republican Congressional Representatives who have been driving the nativist agenda in the House.

Shuler’s foray could turn out to be something of a political disaster for Democrats in 2008. It could enhance the chances of an enforcement-only bill actually being approved in the House in 2008, a move that would be very unpopular with the growing number of Latino voters in key swing states such as Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. Isn’t it supposed to be Republicans that are sweating bullets about the Latino vote and the potential for a historic realignment of the electoral map? This is what Michael Gerson, former speechwriter to George W. Bush, had to say in a recent Washington Post column:

I have never seen an issue [immigration] where the short-term interests of Republican presidential candidates in the primaries were more starkly at odds with the long-term interests of the party itself. At least five swing states that Bush carried in 2004 are rich in Hispanic voters — Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Bush won Nevada by just over 20,000 votes. A substantial shift of Hispanic voters toward the Democrats in these states could make the national political map unwinnable for Republicans … Some in the party seem pleased. They should be terrified.

No wonder Brian Bilbray rushed to join Heath Shuler in the press conference announcing the bill.

Hold Back, or Lean Forward?

So, what should the Democratic leadership do? Here’s our recommendation: Learn from recent elections. Go on offense, propose measured solutions, and unite behind policies that will actually have a chance of working. Be tough and smart. Be for carrots and sticks. Be for targeted enforcement at the border and in the workplace and for earned legalization. Be for ending illegal immigration as we know it. Recognize that the only way to make a system to prevent illegal hiring really work is to make verification and sanctions work and simultaneously provide a path to legal status for the current undocumented in the workforce. Don’t drive workers further underground, bring them out of the shadows so they are known to the government, in the U.S. legally, and able to stand up for their labor rights alongside American workers. Be for enforcement plus legalization, not enforcement-only.

This approach is good politics and good policy. It appeals to those voters who want a tough crackdown and voters who want a humane approach to those here illegally. Beyond the hotheads, most voters want a practical solution that will work. They want employers to be held to account, the border to be controlled, and the immigrants in the country to be legal. They want taxes paid, laws respected, and workers protected. If Democrats unite behind such a strategy, they can stand for what voters want and do so in a way that replicates the winning strategies of recent elections. If they don’t, they could end up being me-too Republicans in more ways than one.

“*

A report by an organization that supports tougher immigration enforcement and border security found that the nation’s illegal-immigrant population has increased 88 percent in the past seven years.

But the report by the Washington-based Federation for American Immigration Reform found that Virginia’s population of illegal immigrants is tens of thousands lower than estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center.

About 13 million illegal immigrants are in the country, according to the report. Widely used estimates have been 12 million.”*

“The xenophobia of anti-immigrant organizations takes on its scariest form with racist hate groups like the KKK and vigilantes like the Minuteman. But the ideological brewing in the halls of Congress is equally alarming. There, the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC) serves as a pulpit for divisive politicking.

In its “Nativism in the House” report, the Center for New Community outlines the ties between elected officials, political action committees and individual donors that propel an anti-immigrant agenda. The HIRC is connected to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)—known for its rightwing lobbying and enforcement-only approach. Donors to FAIR’s political action committee include the head of the Pioneer Fund, which espouses the racist pseudo science of eugenics.”*

“Snooker Glen, the groundbreaking novel by D. F. Whipple, explores the problems a rural Kentucky community faces during a mine strike and argues for immigration reform. Rich in character, the novel is as entertaining as it is eye-opening and educational.

Immigration reform is arguably the hottest issue in the United States today, with a groundswell of interest at the populist level. Like Upton Sinclair’s famous novel The Jungle, Snooker Glen pries open the tinderbox of a social problem in need of reform. The book also touches on the importance of mine safety, a topic with which all mine workers are familiar.

Whipple’s book presents the story of Esther Owens, a Kentucky widow with three children who is torn between her need for security and her desire to do what’s right for her community. But when a mine strike occurs, and immigrants from Eastern Europe are brought in, the community is soon torn apart with fear and anger.

At turns humorous and humane, Snooker Glen suggests that social justice is far more complex that anyone could ever imagine. Whipple’s characters, from the passionate Esther Owens to the sum of the immigrants, bristle with life. Gorgeously written, this is a story torn from today’s headlines — one that explores immigration, bias and the rocky terrain of the human heart with equal aplomb.

“Besides being a good read and a treat for immigration reformers, this book has the potential to provoke introspection by readers who have never thought much about immigration.”

FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform)

For more information or to request a free review copy, members of the press can contact the author at dfwhipple@yahoo.com. Snooker Glen is available for sale online at Amazon.com, BookSurge.com, and through additional wholesale and retail channels worldwide.

About the Author
D. F. Whipple received his B.A. from Washington and Lee University and an MBA from the University of Pennsylvania. He began his career on Wall Street but left to establish a consulting practice and to take acting classes at The School for Film and Television in New York. While his work and studies have taken him to London and Hong Kong, he resides in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. This is his second novel.

About BookSurge
BookSurge Publishing is a DBA of On-Demand Publishing LLC, a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc., (NASDAQ AMZN). BookSurge is a pioneer in self-publishing and print-on-demand services. Offering unique publishing opportunities and access for authors, BookSurge boasts an unprecedented number of authors whose work has resulted in book deals with traditional publishers as well as successful authorpreneurs who enhance or build a business from their professional expertise.”

“As early voting begins today on an ordinance aimed at illegal immigrants, organizers on both sides of the measure are getting some influential last-minute support.

The Washington-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors a crackdown on uncontrolled immigration, has joined supporters of a measure in this Dallas suburb to bar landlords from renting apartments to undocumented immigrants.”

“Although most immigrants ”” legal and illegal ”” arent eligible for government services such as Medicaid, welfare and Social Security, many of their children are.

Thats because the estimated 900,000 illegal immigrants in Florida have about 122,000 children who are U.S. citizens, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

As U.S. citizens, these children are eligible to apply for any government-funded program.”

“DAN STEIN, the premier American nativist and president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, is shocked, shocked. Hes mad at Bank of America for issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants. He says that to BofA “and other large corporations, illegal immigrants are a source of low-wage labor and an untapped customer market.” You bet they are, and thats the American way.

Sure, I’m proud to be a citizen of a nation that portrays itself as a refuge for the “tired,” “the poor” and the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But lets face it, Emma Lazarus, the poet who wrote those words, may have laid it on a bit thick. The truth, no less beautiful in its way, is a little more crass and self-serving. But it wouldn’t have sounded nearly as poetic to say, “bring us your able-bodied, poor, hardworking masses yearning for a chance to climb out of poverty, establish a credit history and”¦. ” We all love to rhapsodize about immigrants embrace of the American dream, but its more like a hard-nosed American deal ”” you come here, you work your tail off under grueling conditions, and you can try your damnedest to better your lot over time. “

“Frustrated by what they perceive as the federal government’s failure to secure U.S. borders against undocumented immigrants, localities are taking matters into their hands: Twenty-seven states have passed laws declaring English to be their official language, four others are considering them, and more than a dozen towns and cities this year have either approved or are debating similar measures that seek to curtail bilingualism in official government documents and programs.

Even more are coupling the English-only proposals with measures to block illegal immigrants from access to housing, jobs and education. More than 30 municipalities like Farmers Branch have passed or are considering such laws, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors curbs on immigration. Carpentersville in suburban Chicago is one of them.”

“Immigration law expert Kris Kobach and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) attorney Michael Hethmon drafted Hazleton’s new ordinance. The differences between the new ordinance and those versions previously presented to city council are significant.

The language in the seven-page ordinance is more detailed and the definitions are now more precise, according to Hazleton City Solicitor Christopher Slusser.”

“The group’s name is You Don’t Speak for Me, and the fledgling organization is against illegal immigration.

But this coalition of Hispanics is already drawing fire from a growing chorus of immigration advocates questioning who really speaks for You Don’t Speak for Me.

The group was created by the nation’s most powerful lobbying organization for strict immigration policies - the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR, which is based in Washington, D.C., also sends out the group’s e-mails and lists its own officers as the group’s spokesmen. “

“The solution to fixing America’s broken immigration policies is now before the U.S. Congress with the formal introduction of H.R. 4313, the True Enforcement and Border Security Act of 2005. The new legislation, introduced by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) will separate those in Congress who pay lip service to controlling our borders and protecting homeland security, and those who are prepared to address this national crisis in a meaningful way.

H.R. 4313 is the most comprehensive immigration law enforcement bill ever introduced. It addresses border control, interior enforcement and eliminates the incentives and loopholes that have allowed an estimated 11 million people to settle illegally in the U.S. “Mass illegal immigration is a very solvable problem. What has been lacking until now is the political will to set and enforce policies that prevent businesses from profiting from illegal aliens and convince the aliens that the United States no longer will put up with their illegal presence,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).”

Please note some (many) sites require registration. Many times it is free.

Washington, DC-Findings from a new report estimating a recent “so-called’ decline in immigration by the Pew Hispanic Center are inconclusive and misleading, cautions the Federation for American Immigration Reform. While the report indicates overall immigration is lower than it was in the late 1990’s, the nation’s legal and illegal immigration are once again on the rise, observes FAIR.

The decline in legal immigration to the United States in recent years is not an indication that fewer people are arriving in this country. A more accurate estimate should include the millions of additional foreign-born nationals who are waiting for green cards or other legal status, not included in the report’s findings.

article in English / artí­culo en Ingles o en Español usando Google o Altavista/Babel Fish

from hispanictips.com :: hispanic news & commentary
a Creative Inteligencia website