Making sense of Bush's SOTU message: reading between the lines

Last night, faced with an increasing lack of support for his policies both here and abroad, President Bush once again retread familiar ground in an attempt to reach out to a new Democratic Congress and an electorate weary of war and inaction on domestic issues.

Unable to present any meaningful plan for a change, Bush resorted to much of the rhetoric we've been hearing for the last few years in regards to the major issues of the day. With the exception of a vague proposal to give tax credits for health insurance, the speech was generally boilerplate Bush….with some extra pleading to stay the course in Iraq thrown in for good measure.

As far as immigration reform is concerned, which was touted to be a cornerstone of the speech in the early reporting, he offered nothing new to the discussion … except perhaps for some carefully crafted back-peddling.


tags: immigration, guest worker , Bush, SOTU

At first glance he appears to have hit upon his usual themes when it comes to comprehensive reform: border security, guest workers, and a plan to legalize the 11.5 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the country. But when read between the lines, Bush may be starting to set the stage for a compromise that will allow him to get his coveted guest worker program while still allowing those who oppose comprehensive reform to get much of what they want.

"Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists. We'll enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law.

We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law."


link

Guest Workers

we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program

We've heard this many times before from Bush. He's been pushing for his guest worker plan since 2001.

Yet his assertion that the only way to "take pressure off the border" is through the funneling of immigrants through a temporary worker program is disingenuous at best, and at times borders on an outright falsehood.

There are numerous ways to control the flow of migrant laborers to alleviate the pressure on the border. The most obvious being to greatly increase the number of greencards issued to unskilled workers in any given year. At present, only 5000 are issued annually, obviously not nearly enough given the fact that over half a million unskilled workers enter the country illegally each year and find work. Simply adding the 200,000 workers who would receive H2c guest-worker visas under the Bush plan to the number of employment based greencards already issued each year would go a long way towards "taking pressure" off the border.

It would of course mean that these workers would have the option to stay in the country without fear that they could be returned to their countries of origin after three or six years, something business interests are not to keen on as it would eliminate the possibility for a rotating pool of new, cheap labor.

In reasserting his call for a temporary guest-worker program, the President is correct to insist that any such program must serve the U.S. economy as well as our law enforcement and national security objectives. He is also correct, and must insist, that any such program be truly temporary: Participation must be for a limited period of time; workers must return home after that period ends; and those that attempt to stay must be permanently ineligible for other visa programs, permanent residency, or citizenship.

The Heritage Foundation

Additionally, although ignored by those on both sides of the issue in Washington, the real key to "taking pressure off the border" is to reformulate our trade and foreign policies with sender nations to attempt eliminate the conditions that foster massive economic migration.

A trade policy that truly protected workers rights both here and abroad and worked to attain better economic and living conditions for the vast majority of citizens in sender nations who live in abject poverty would do more stem the flow of migrants than any guest worker program ever would. A foreign policy that didn't facilitate political corruption or perpetuate a system of rule by a small minority of the economically elite would also help to alleviate the conditions that produce massive migrations from sender nations. Our policies of "working with our neighbors" need to go beyond ensuring friendly governments to American business and geo-political interests. We need to work to make these nations become capable of truly caring for their own people.

Assimilation

We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals

Here Bush has tied immigration reform to assimilation.

While the term "assimilation" is commonly used to mean the absorption of foreigners into the greater society, it has come to represent vastly different things to different people. For many on the right, it is tied to policies such as "English only" laws which attempt to limit the rights of those who are not fluent in the language and marginalize them both politically and economically.

For others, it is more about the belief that immigration is a threat to America's "Western European Culture". They see diversity and multiculturalism putting their American way of life in jeopardy and fear increased immigration will dilute, and ultimately supplant what they see as "American Society." Assimilation for them is not so much a goal to be accomplished, but rather a yardstick by which to measure each different groups "desirability" to be included in the national mosaic.

This move by Bush could be construed as an opening gesture to both groups.

Certainly, the conservative Heritage Foundation believes Bush has now elevated assimilation to the forefront of the debate:

As in the past, patriotic assimilation is the key to the long-term success of any immigration policy. New citizens must be committed to America's civic principles, appreciate American history and culture, and share America's common language—and we should encourage immigrants to become citizens. The President is correct to elevate this element and must insist on its inclusion in any reform package.

Link

In the coming months it will be interesting to see just how much "assimilation" will be codified in any immigration reform legislation.

Amnesty

We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty

The meaning of this statement leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation.

Obviously, the safest bet is that Bush is just playing the same game of semantics that everyone has since the Republican House decided that anything short of loading nearly 12 million people on buses and dropping them off at the Mexican border was "amnesty." With the word no longer tied to any linguist reality, it is left to the user to determine what "amnesty" actually means. He could have been referring to his support for earned legalization and a path to citizenship ...or maybe not.

One must always remain cognizant of the fact that the plight of the 11.5 million has never been a top priority for those in certain business-friendly corners of the Republican Party. Their chief concern has always been guest workers. The Kyl -Cornyn bill with it's "ya'all just go home and we'll let some of ya come back in" was example of this philosophy. The three-tiered status classifications of the Hagel-Martinez compromise was another. The bottom line for many reformers in the big-business camp is that as long as new guest workers can be assured of entering the country, what happens to the twelve million is not really that important. They are replaceable.

This leads to the key question left after Bush's speech. What exactly does " without animosity and without amnesty" mean? The Republicans in the room certainly didn't know what to make of the statement, first silent, then applauding, then silent again. Is Bush simply playing a game of semantics or is he willing to forgo a truly humane and comprehensive plan for in order to achieve a political victory that assures a guest worker program.?

After supporting the other principles laid out in the President's speech, his friends at the Heritage Foundation certainly hope so:

The President is right to propose that the status of illegal immigrants currently in the United States should be resolved "without animosity and without amnesty." But any measure that would allow millions of illegal immigrants who have broken U.S. immigration laws to remain in the United States is, by definition, an amnesty.
…

Amnesty is troubling not only because it undercuts the rule of law and is unfair to those immigrants who respect our laws, but also because it would undermine efforts to control the nation's borders, decrease the illegal population, and discourage the employment of undocumented workers. As such, amnesty violates core principles of immigration policy.

As with all things Bush, one never knows what he really means. Between catch phrases, and framing points that often mean the polar opposite of what they appear to be saying, it's often hard to tell, but we will need to watch him and his Republican supporters carefully. What deals and compromises they will be willing to make to get what they truly want is yet unknown, but the best interests of workers, both native-born and immigrant, has never been one of their top priorities. This must always be kept in mind.

Read More...

Summary only...

Christian Right to join immigration fray

One key political force that has long been silent on the issue of immigration reform is about to jump into the debate in a major way. According to a report from Pat Robinson's, Christian Broadcasting Network, a group of leading evangelical "movers and shakers" will announce Monday the formation of a new coalition to deal with the immigration issue. Called "Families First in Immigration,” the group has sent letters to both President Bush and Speaker Pelosi offering their services in helping to draft a plan for immigration reform that would lead to a " families first approach" to a "coherent immigration achievement."

What exactly is meant by a "families first approach" or a "coherent immigration achievement" is yet to be seen, but looking at views on immigration of the founding members of this group, it's safe to assume that the "families" that they will be concerned with won't have too many foreign sounding surnames.

tags: immigration, Christian Right , evangelicals, Families First in Immigration

Evangelical Leaders Get Involved in Immigration Debate

A new immigration coalition is being formed that involves some prominent movers and shakers within the Evangelical community. It’s called "Families First in Immigration.”

For the most part, religious leaders have stayed away from this sensitive debate, but this new coalition will change that. It’s being put together by Manny Miranda who has been a grassroots leader in the area of judicial nominations. This new coalition will bring together people like Paul Weyrich, head of Coalitions for America, Dr. Donald Wildmon from American Family Association, Gary Bauer of American Values, David Keene with the American Conservative Union, and dozens of other big names.

The goal here is to somehow come up with a plan for immigration reform and to that end, recast the debate and start anew. The group has sent a letter to President Bush and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Here’s a portion:

“We believe that if we can leave the confines of this past year’s debate, we can help you formulate and win wide support for a coherent immigration achievement. We stand ready to work with you to find a new families first approach at the earliest convenience of your staff.”

Manny Miranda told CBN: “Until now, religious leaders have been criticized for staying uninvolved in the immigration debate…This coalition gets them involved, they offer to come to the table and offer ideas they can eventually support. Previously, the White House did not invite their participation, and they did not offer their help. With certain results, a wider participation may get the President wider support to allow Republicans and Democrats to obtain a coherent reform. This new coalition is bigger and broader than the Secure Border Coalition that dominated the debate on the right in the last go round.”

CBN

Up until this point, a wide spectrum of people from the religious community have been actively involved in the immigration issue. For the most part they have based their participation in the debate on the principals and moral tenants of their faiths that call for compassion, equality and charity. The clergy and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church have long taken a strong stand on immigrant's rights and the need for comprehensive, humane reform, as have the leaders of many mainstream Protestant faiths. Jewish and Muslim leaders have been quick to recognize and speak out against a certain level of racial intolerance that at times creeps into the debate.

Yet noticeably absent from the debate until now has been the voice of one of the most politically powerful religious groups in the nation, the Christian Right. Where the vast majority of Evangelicals stand on immigration has not been addressed, but there is no question as to where the leaders of "Families First in Immigration" stand on the issue.

"I count myself among those who believe that we must first secure our borders and that we should make it uncomfortable for those here illegally to work or take advantage of the perks that go with being a U.S. citizen. I oppose nonresident tuition for their children and would change the law so that those born of illegals on U.S. soil wouldn’t automatically become eligible for citizenship. I support strong employer sanctions, and I oppose the sort of amnesty proposed by Sen John McCain (R-Ariz.)."…. David Keene

"We have millions of people who are standing in line to get into the US. They’re playing by the rules, they’re abiding by the law, & we allow countless people to butt into the front of the line, to pour across our borders & have as their first act as entering our country the violation of our laws. We must secure our border. Then we can make a judgment as a people what the appropriate legal immigration levels ought to be." … Gary Bauer

" We do not have a government tough enough to deal with these people. How many times have I heard, "You can't send them all back." Even the Pence-Hutchison Immigration Bill envisions securing the border before anything else is done. Under the terms of that bill no one who openly is breaking the law could continue to remain here. I have had it with these people. They get more arrogant by the hour. They also are an insult to the thousands of Hispanics who are here legally and who are given a bad name because of what illegal aliens do" … Paul Weyrich

"Targeting border security and employment enforcement, however, is only a first step to calm the mounting concern that Americans have over immigration… Americans are more genuinely concerned over assimilation than with the number of immigrants. And that concern cannot be dismissed as either racist or nativist. Providence and history have forged Americans into a unique people…. A truly comprehensive immigration reform will end in neither border fences nor guest workers. It will include legislation that reinforces education and the primacy of the English language in the public square"… Manuel Miranda

It appears that "Families First in Immigration" will be offering nothing new to the debate that has not been heard from the "enforcement only" crowd already. Rather than bringing a new perspective, based upon scripture and Christian moral tenants, they will be using their power of the pulpit to bring the same kind of zealous fervor to the immigration debate they have brought to debates about other issues such as gay rights and stem cell research.

The fact that Don Wildmon or Gary Bauer will now officially be in the Tom Tancredo-Pat Buchanan camp is not surprising. What is surprising is how long it took for them to decide to join the fray. Perhaps with their usual slate of social issues loosing pull at the polls, they figure it was time to latch onto the newest national wedge issue.

UPDATE: 1/8/07 1:09AM EST
From: The Washington Times

In letters sent today and obtained by The Washington Times, Families First on Immigration urges President Bush and leaders of the new Democratic Congress to adopt a grand compromise on the divisive issue that includes strong border security, an amnesty for illegals already here who are relatives of citizens and an end to birthright citizenship
…

At the heart of their position is a compromise that could give both sides of the immigration debate their "holy grail," as Mr. Miranda puts it, while also making a major, one-time concession that would eliminate one of the biggest magnets for illegal immigration.

Out of concern for keeping families together, the religious leaders propose granting citizenship to any illegal aliens in the country who are related to U.S. citizens. This would include anyone who has had a child born here, often referred to as an "anchor baby."

In return, the federal government would end birthright citizenship, which automatically grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of his parents' legal status. The 14th Amendment says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States."

"This is a real compromise," Mr. Miranda said. "On the one hand, there is legalization of a large number of people, but conservatives get the settlement of the thorniest issue for them in the immigration debate."

In letters today, the coalition implores President Bush and Democrats on Capitol Hill to search in earnest for a solution as soon as possible that deals with the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegals now in the country and ends future illegal migration.

"Illegal immigration is a human tragedy that disrupts lives and separates families," the group wrote in the letter to Mr. Bush that also scolds officials in Mexico for their responsibility. "It is a failure of two governments: the one that fails its people and the one that invites their departure for cheap labor's sake."

Specifically, Families First tells Mr. Bush -- who was supported by most of the members of the new coalition -- to abandon his proposal for a guest-worker program until the rest of the issues such as birthright citizenship and border security are resolved.

Read More...

Summary only...

Buchanan in his own words

Back on September 28, Pat Buchanan appeared on KQED radio in San Francisco as part of his book tour to pitch his latest tome: "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America." Unlike many of the hit and run spots Buchanan did over the period on TV and radio to pitch his book, KQED devoted the entire hour to Pat. This long-form interview done by "Forum" host Dave Iverson, with additional caller questions, allowed Buchanan the time to fully explain his positions and expand on his thesis about the effects of immigration on American culture, and just what Pat thinks that American culture should look like.

The first ten or fifteen minutes were devoted to Mr. Buchanan's views on the Iraq war and the Bush administration. The remainder of the interview dealt with issues at the heart of Buchanan's philosophy and world view. He touches on immigration, race, ethnicity and his preference to keep the country White, European and Christian. Unbridled by the constraints of the 5 min book plug format, Buchanan allows us a unique opportunity to really see into the mind and more importantly, the soul of the man.


tags: immigration, Pat Buchanan , racism


rac.ism  [rey-siz-uhm]
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.


Once Mr. Buchanan gets into the swing of things, rarely a sentence passes that doesn't contain the word, "race" "culture" (preceded by "European", "Hispanic", "Christian" or "foreign")" or "ethnicity." His entire thought process is dominated by the notion of race. He sees certain races and cultures as far superior to others, and advocates that America should remain as racially pure as possible. He further states that all immigration should be based upon a "point system" of desirable and undesirable traits.

According to Buchanan:

A nation is united by blood and soil, history, heritage and most importantly language and culture

Bonds of American culture are exclusively western European…American began as an English nation and became a European nation in terms of our ancestry and culture…now we are inviting balkanization and the breakup of nation

Ethnic core of the country is European and Christian, if we become a conglomerate of all the religions and cultures of the world we will cease to exist.

We should set preferences with a point system for those we let in - they should be speak English, be educated, from a similar western culture and Christian.

We should favor those with PhD's or specialties like the German scientists we brought in after WWII

'Illegals' are bringing in diseases

Latin American children, even in the second and third generation, like blacks, don't do well in school. And will, later in life rely on welfare and social services Why bring in folks who contribute less to society, we have to pick and chose the 'best'

We are overloading the counties ability to adapt and recoup ...we need time out from all immigration.

Assimilation is not taking place; we will soon be a nation of two languages and cultures like Palestine, Cyprus, and Kosovo-Serbia

Extracted quotes can't really do this interview service. For all those interested in immigration and immigration reform, the hour long interview is well worth a listen. Without the constraints of time or a MSM moderator to keep him from going too far off the deep end, Buchanan is free to show his true colors. Iverson gives him plenty of rope and Pat does a fine job of hanging himself.


No MP3 is available for this interview due to the inclusion of copyright-protected material. You can hear the entire interview by going to the KQED website for "Immigration in Focus" and scrolling down to the Sept, 28, 2006 edition of "Forum"

Read More...

Summary only...

Tancredo opposes kindergarteners learning English (CO-06)

In April of 2005, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo introduced a Constitutional Amendment that would have declared English the official language of the United States. HJ Res. 43 stated that "As the official language, the English language shall be used for all public acts including every order, resolution, vote, and election, and for all records and judicial proceedings of the Government of the United States and the governments of the several States."

Perhaps it's schizophrenia or a mild form of dementia that has led Tancredo to now reverse his previous stand on bilingualism after spending years decrying what he called the "balkanizing and 'bilingualizing' America." Apparently Mad Tom now sees no need for Spanish speaking children to learn what he would make the official language of the nation.


tags: immigration, Tom Tancredo , English Only , CO-6, ESL

Colorado schools have long offered in-class and after-school programs for children with various special needs, one being English as a Second Language (ESL) classes for those unable to speak English.

Recently Tancredo put out a press release stating that he had sent a letter to Colorado State Board of Education Commissioner William J. Moloney "questioning the school districts choice to offer all day education to Elementary Spanish speaking students while offering only a half day to English speakers."

Using the kind of convoluted logic he has become famous for, Tancredo went on to say:

“Parents of English-speaking students have been told they are not eligible for all-day kindergarten because their children do not need the English-language instruction provided to Spanish-language students,” said Tancredo, Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. “I want to know if such programs are legal under federal and state non-discrimination laws. Can children be denied an equal education just because their native language is English?”
Tancredo.house.gov

It would probably be safe to assume that Mr. Tancredo has not actually set foot in a school in years given the nature of his statement. If he had, he would have seen numerous examples of the kind of "discrimination" he's complaining of. Students with all sorts of physical and learning disabilities are routinely given "special education" not afforded other students. These programs vary from personal tutors for the learning disabled to speech therapy for children with impediments. Likewise, those who are gifted take part in programs that provide extra challenges and opportunities not available to all students. All these programs are based upon the needs of the individual child and what best serves their educational development.

The Douglas County School District (DCSD) stated that, "We base our decisions as a district on the needs of our students." The DCSD statement continued, "This program is added on to the typical kindergarten school day," describing the program as "no different from other programs our district offers to provide early intervention to students with unique needs."…

According to the Board of Education, the English as a Second Language (ESL) and related programs exist for forty-five different languages as well as sign-language. In Douglas County alone, the programs serve the needs of over 1,000 students at more than fifty schools from kindergarten through high school.
link

Perhaps just to make things "fair" for Mr. Tancredo, the schools could offer after-school programs to teach Spanish to those students who are linguistically challenged and speak only English. But somehow I don't think that's what Tom had in mind.

Obviously Mr. Tancredo isn't fazed by the fact that many of the five year olds to whom he would deny ESL classes, are US citizens born in this country.

One can only wonder how the majority of Mr. Tancredo's followers feel about the idea of a new generation of children being left behind by the educational system, simply to appease his political ambition. Given the ignorance and stupidity we've seen from Tancredo, it's obvious he holds little value for education or learning, hopefully his small-mindedness is not indicative of the majority.

Read More...

Summary only...

Study proves Pat Buchanan full of crap: Immigrants do assimilate.

Maybe it was all those years he spent writing the lies that came out of Nixon's mouth, or perhaps he learned to vocalize out of an orifice other than his mouth while sugarcoating Reagan's policies for mass consumption, or maybe he just has a "genetic pre-disposition" to sling blarney. But no matter what the reason for his inability to tell the truth, a new study has unequivocally proven that Pat Buchanan is simply full of crap when it comes to the "death of the west … third world invasion" philosophy in his new book, State of Emergency.

Buchanan has made a career recently out of telling the American people that their "White-European" nation is under attack from an invading horde of "Hispanics and Asians … from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country," that these new immigrants "are not interested in linguistic or cultural assimilation" and many are here only to engage in the re-conquest the Southwest. But a newly released report proves Mr. Buchanan wrong; today's new immigrants assimilate at the same rate as previous generations.



tags: immigration, Pat Buchanan , Population and Developement Reveiw , assimilation, linguistic study, English language

A new report published by the non-profit Population Council found that, just like all previous immigrant groups, today's new immigrants lose their ability to speak their mother tongue over the course of a few generations and their children end up fully assimilate into American culture.

The report, "Linguistic Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language Retention in Southern California" by Frank D. Bean and Rubén G. Rumbaut of University of California, Irvine and Douglas S. Massey of Princeton, looks at data from two recent surveys—the Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles survey, and the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in San Diego, to determine the average number of generations an immigrants mother tongue can be expected to survive in the United States after arrival.

The report looked at not only Hispanic immigrants, but also those from Asia and those classified as "white European" using two different criteria; those who "speak a foreign language at home" and those "who speak it well" and found that for all immigrant groups studied, the ability to speak in the mother tongue generally disappears by the third generation (those with American-born parents, but with three or four foreign-born grandparents).

Although the life expectancy of Spanish is found to be greater among Mexicans in Southern California compared to other groups, its ultimate demise nonetheless seems assured by the third generation. English has never been seriously threatened as the dominant language of the United States, and it is not threatened today—not even in Southern California. What is endangered instead is the survivability of the non-English languages that immigrants bring with them to the United States.

PDR abstract

The report takes aim in particular at Buchanan's more erudite doppelganger, Samuel Huntington and his book, Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity. The researchers vehemently attack Huntington's thesis that "the arrival of Latin American Immigrants in large numbers during the last three decades of the twentieth century threatens the core of American identity and culture… (that) Latin American immigrants are much less likely to speak English than earlier generations of European immigrants because they speak a common language; they are regionally concentrated and residentially segregated within Spanish-speaking enclaves; they are less interested in linguistic and cultural assimilation; and they are encouraged in this lack of interest by activists who foment identity politics."

The authors argue back that their study proves that "Spanish in no way constitutes a threat to the continued predominance of English within the United States." and that "those who worry about linguistic balkanization because of heavy immigration from Spanish-speaking countries have nothing to fear."

They point out that using data from the Southern California surveys allows them to analyze the most extreme case scenario in the nation, noting that no other area has been as greatly effected by immigration.

The surveys used were conducted in Southern California, a region adjacent to the Mexican border that was not only the country's largest net receiver of immigrants during the period 1970-2005, but one that also contained more Spanish-speakers and persons of Mexican origin than any other megalopolitan area…one in every five immigrants in the United States reside in the regions six contiguous counties (San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino), including the largest communities of Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Koreans, Iranians, and Cambodians outside the countries of origin.
Linguistic Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language Retention in Southern California(PDF)

Even under these extreme circumstances, their findings directly contradict Huntington's assertions. As is the case with the economic studies on immigration done by those like David Card, the United States has an uncanny ability to absorb large numbers of new immigrants and not only incorporate them economically but also culturally.

The United States has aptly been described as a "graveyard" for languages because of its historical ability to absorb immigrants by the millions and extinguish their mother tongues within a few generations, and Spanish appears to offer no threat to this reputation …Like taxes and biological death, linguistic death seems to be a sure thing in the United States even for Mexicans living in Los Angeles, a city with one of the largest Spanish-speaking urban populations in the world"

Link (PDF)

Certainly these findings differ greatly from the rhetoric spewed out regularly by Buchanan and his cohorts.

All across the U.S., hordes of immigrants – legal and illegal – are chattering away in their native language and have no intention of learning English, the all-but-official language of the United States where they now live.

Can you blame them? They are being enabled by all those diversity fanatics to defy the age-old custom of immigrants to our shores who made it one of their first priorities to learn to speak English and to teach their offspring to do likewise. It was a case of sink or swim. If you couldn’t speak English you couldn’t get by, go to school, get a job, or become a citizen and vote. Nowadays we kowtow to demands that everything from ballots to official documents be presented in many native languages as well as in English.

-snip-
What holds the country together is the commonality of language. … are they learning our language, are they assimilating into our culture? … the answer is a resounding “NO.” Tragically, the answer to the question of English surviving the immigrant invasion is probably “no.” The English language is on its death bed, a victim of the enablers.

Michael Reagan writing on Buchanan.org

But what must always be kept in mind is that Buchanan has always had a problem with the truth. He had it when he worked for Nixon, he had it when he worked for Reagan, and he certainly has it now. He has always been a master manipulator of facts and opinion…. if the facts don't back up his opinion …he just manipulates them. He's been doing it since he first started working for Nixon in 1965 and he'll continue to do it as long as he has an audience ready and willing to listen to his racist drivel and buy his books.

Read More...

Summary only...

Honk for English: Fun with maps & hypocrisy

The Modern Language Association has posted a new version of their interactive US language map. Given the current interest in certain political circles about exactly what languages should be allowed to be spoken in the US and an obsession with those who might speak languages other than English, this excellent interactive tool presents an opportunity to really see what all the hubbub is all about.

The map allows you to breakout any of the 33 different major languages spoken in the US by region, state or even county. With a little extrapolation one is able to find hidden ethnic enclaves or patterns of mass migration. Most importantly for our purposes, it lets us see exactly where all these non-English speakers that are causing such concern are located … or more importantly where they're not.


tags: immigration, English only, HR4437 , Language laws, House Immigration Plan



Before we begin our little journey into the world of linguistics, a little background information might be in order. In May, during the height of the debate over immigration reform in the Senate two dueling amendments were added to the Senate legislation dealing with English as a national language. One amendment, sponsored by and passed the Republican majority, made English the "official language" of the United States and stated that " no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English." A second amendment was immediately added to supercede the first. Sponsored by Democrats and passing with bipartisan support, the second amendment made English the "common and unifying language of America" and made sure that "nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the law of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the government of the United States in any language other than English."

Not willing to lay down the torch of language purity quite so easily, a month later House Republicans took up the fight. This time it was in the form of a threat by 79 Republican Representatives to block the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if its requirements for bilingual voting materials were not removed from the landmark legislation. Eventually, realizing the impending public relations nightmare if the Act were to stall out, enough Republicans came on board and the Act was renewed. Yet, 33 House Republican still voted against the renewal.

What does this have to do with the linguistic map? …

A little general information is needed first.

Just under 47 million people speak a language other than English in the US according to the latest census figures. That comes out to 18% of the population.

28,101,052 10% Spanish or Spanish Creole
2,022,143 0.77% Chinese
1,643,838 0.63% French (incl. Patois, Cajun)
1,383,442 0.53% German
1,224,241 0.47% Tagalog
1,009,627 0.38% Vietnamese
1,008,370 0.38% Italian
894,063 0.34% Korean
706,242 0.27% Russian
667,414 0.25% Polish
614,582 0.23% Arabic
564,630 0.22% Portuguese or Portuguese Creole
477,997 0.18% Japanese
453,368 0.17% French Creole
418,505 0.16% African languages
365,436 0.14% Greek
317,057 0.12% Hindi
312,085 0.12% Persian
262,900 0.10% Urdu
235,988 0.09% Gujarathi
233,865 0.09% Serbo-Croatian
203,466 0.08% Other Native North American languages
202,708 0.08% Armenian
195,374 0.07% Hebrew
181,889 0.07% Mon-Khmer, Cambodian
178,945 0.07% Yiddish
178,014 0.07% Navajo
168,063 0.06% Miao, Hmong
162,252 0.06% Scandinavian languages
149,303 0.06% Laotian
120,464 0.05% Thai
117,973 0.04% Hungarian

As far as the distribution of these foreign language speakers goes, it doesn't take a demographer to figure out that different areas of the country have far different concentrations of non-English speakers. California for example has a 40% non-English speaking population, New York - 28%, New Jersey -26%, and Texas – 32%. On the other hand, West Virginia has only 3% of its population speaking a language other than English, Montana – 6%, Iowa -6%.

Lets take a look at how these percentages of non-English speakers corresponds with the states that have produced the most vocal proponents of English-only initiatives in Congress.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) – sponsor of the English as national language amendment in the Senate – 8% non-English speakers (7.4% if you discount Native American Language Speakers) - a full 10% lower than national average.

Rep Steve King (R-IA) – Sponsor of the effort to block the Voting Rights Act – 6% non-English speakers. In fact the majority of those House members supporting King's effort to remove the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act came from states with below average numbers of non-English speakers. Only 15 of the 55 original signatories of Kings letter to the Judiciary Chairmen about the VAR came from states with above average numbers of non-English speakers.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) – 28%
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) – 6%
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) – 6%
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) – 10%
Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.) - 6%
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) – 13%
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) – 32%
Rep. John Boozman (R-AR) – 5%
Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-NH) – 9%
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) -16%
Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) -6%
Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) -7%
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) – 7%
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) -40%
Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) -40%
Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) -9%
Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) -7%
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) -32%
Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) -12%
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) -10%
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) -40%
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) -5%
Rep. Scott Garrett (D-NJ) -26%
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) -12%
Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) -32%
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) -10%
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) -12%
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) -6%
Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-MN) -9%
Rep. J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ) -26%
Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) -7%
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) -6%
Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) -8%
Rep. William Jenkins (R-TN) -5%
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) -9%
Rep. John Kline (R-MN) -9%
Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) -20%
Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) -7%
Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL) -20%
Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) -40%
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) -16%
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) -9%
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) -32%
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) -9%
Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) -9%
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) -10%
Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN) -9%
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) -40%
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) -40%
Rep. Jim Ryun (R-KS) -9%
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) -32%
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) -9%
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) -16%
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) -9%
Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS) -4%

We have know for quite some time that many of those who voice the loudest opposition to immigrants rights and comprehensive reform come from areas least effected by growing immigrant populations. The American Immigration Law Foundation did an excellent study of the voting patterns of those House members who voted for HR4437 and found that Representatives from district with few undocumented immigrants supported the bill while those with large undocumented populations opposed it.

Representatives From Districts With Fewer Than 5,000 Undocumented Immigrants Were Most Likely To Support The Bill

There are 96 congressional districts that have fewer than 5,000 undocumented immigrants. Most of these districts are largely rural and located in sections of Appalachia, the Midwest, and the Mississippi Valley that are experiencing little economic growth and low levels of immigration in general. Constituents in many of these districts face tough economic times, but the cause is not immigration. Immigrants are attracted to regions of economic dynamism and job expansion. This is why greater numbers of undocumented immigrants are found in western states that have agricultural, livestock, fishing, and tourist economies that need the kinds of less-skilled labor that undocumented immigrants often provide.

Undocumented immigrants in the 96 lowest-immigration districts make up no more than 0.8 percent of the population (each of the 435 congressional districts has roughly the same total population: about 650,000 as of 20001). The votes on H.R. 4437 in these districts tell you something about immigration politics in the United States today. The supposed threat from undocumented immigration is enough to rally voters and move levers of power even in areas where the actual impact is minuscule. Among representatives from districts with the smallest populations of undocumented immigrants, 74 percent (71 out of 96) voted for the bill: 90 percent of Republicans (56 out of 62) and 44 percent of Democrats (15 out of 34)

Representatives From Districts With More Than 50,000 Undocumented Immigrants Were Most Likely To Oppose The Bill

The voting pattern of the representatives from the 61 congressional districts with 50,000 or more undocumented immigrants tells a different story. These districts for the most part are located in densely populated urban areas such as New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and are relatively small in geographic size compared to rural districts that include many counties. In these high-immigration districts, the undocumented alone can account for as much as one-fifth of the total population. As a result, representatives who hail from these areas are familiar with undocumented immigrants and their impact on local communities. Among representatives from districts with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants, a mere 5 percent (3 out of 61) supported the bill: none of the 53 Democrats and only 3 of the 8 Republicans.

The inverse relationship between support for H.R. 4437 and the actual presence of undocumented immigrants in a representative’s district represents a widespread voting pattern. Among all Democrats, those who voted in favor of the bill had roughly 10,000 undocumented immigrants in their districts. Democrats who opposed the bill, on the other hand, had about 37,400. Among all Republicans, the same pattern holds: those voting for H.R. 4437 had an average of 14,500 undocumented immigrants in their districts, while those who voted against the bill had an average of 30,800

Link

While playing around with the MLA linguistic map is neither as scientifically sound or comprehensive as the study done by AILF, it yields pretty much the same results and in fact is quite educational. I was not aware that there was an enclave of Yiddish speakers in central Washington State, or that there was a growing Filipino community in South Texas. For those with more ambition than I, it would be interesting to see the exact linguistic makeup of the various districts of House members who are most vocal about immigration. While I’m pretty sure we know the answer already it would make for an interesting study. Even in states that have high concentrations of non-English speakers, those concentrations don’t translate into across-the-boards numbers statewide. California for instance, while having a very large percent of non-English speakers still has many congressional districts that look no different than Arkansas or West Virginia. Additionally the map would be very useful in determining some the ethnic makeup of the Congressional districts in play to see exactly where immigrant voter registration drives might play an important role in upcoming elections. I’m sure I haven’t even touched the tip of iceberg as to the uses for this interactive tool, and recommend to anyone with a few extra moments to play around with it and see what you can find out … about your own area and others.

Read More...

Summary only...

Who really stalled the Voting Rights Act renewal?

Did an anti-immigrant site draft 'King letter?'
Letter signed by 79 GOP House members stalled Voting Rights Act renewal.

On Wednesday morning, June 21st, in an increasing common display of Republican disunity, 79 Representatives presented Judiciary Chairmen Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) with a letter stating that they would not support the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Voicing opposition to the provisions for bilingual ballots contained in the forty-one year old landmark civil rights legislation, the rebellious Republican Representatives refused to lend their votes until the requirements were removed.

-snip-

It now appears some questions have come to light about exactly who is behind both the King letter and the effort to shelve the renewal of the VRA. The official copy of the letter that appears on the web site of the US Congress (www. house.gov) apparently was not generated by a house member or their staff, but rather by one of the leading anti-immigration/English only advocacy groups.

The copy of the letter that originally appeared on the House of Representatives web site appears to have been authored by someone named KC McAlpin using a computer registered to the anti-immigration advocacy group NumbersUSA. KC McAlpin is the Executive Director of an organization called ProEnglish


-snip-

The group is one of thirteen like-minded organizations founded by anti-immigrant advocate John Tanton. Tanton’s multi-million dollar web of groups includes not only ProEnglish and NumbersUSA, but also the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR).

-snip-

John Tanton has been credited for single-handedly creating the modern anti-immigration, English-only and Nativist political movements in the United States. Over thirty years he has managed to create a network of think tanks, advocacy groups and fund raising organizations that not only shape public opinion, but public policy. His experts testify before Congress and reports and studies by his various groups are used to formulate legislation. His pundits appear in all forms of media to pontificate and propagandize. By his own admission he says, "I would certainly have no reservations about claiming credit for being the guy secretly manipulating U.S. immigration policy."

-snip-

Although he claims to do so only because he believes that "the overwhelming majority of Americans … want to see immigration levels reduced," his motivations seem to stem from a firm belief that America is in peril due to a worldwide trend of third-world populations taking over the wealthy first-world nations. His philosophy contains a strange mix of environmentalism, protectionism, xenophobia, eugenics, and racism. A philosophy he has been able turn into a political movement though his network of organizations. This network includes both organizations founded by Tanton himself and those started by others that he takes under his wing and then integrates into his network and funds

Complete story available at ePluribus Media

tags: immigration, John Tanton, Voting Rights Act , ProEnglish, McAlpin, NumbersUSA

Read More...

Summary only...

Who Really Stalled the Voting Rights Act Renewal

In June, using the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act as a proxy for the current immigration debate, 79 Representatives prevented the House from reauthorizing the bill. But they were not working alone. They had powerful allies in the anti-immigration lobby, allies with some rather disturbing skeletons in the closet.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) never was intended to have anything to do with immigration. Passed in 1965 after years of struggle, the bill was intended to make sure that African-Americans in the South could register and vote without fear of intimidation. Like many pieces of legislation, the VRA is a living document, and has been modified over the years to reflect societal change. By 1975, with the increasing numbers of new minorities entering the U.S. from Asia and Latin America who were disenfranchised from voting because of their inability to understand English language ballots, the bill was modified to provide bilingual voting materials. Periodically, portions of the bill have come up for renewal. In what perhaps is a sign of the times, partisan interests used this opportunity to stall that process.

It should have been just another procedural vote allowing for one of those rare bipartisan moments when legislators gather on the Capitol steps to celebrate a piece of historic legislation. To the humiliation of party leaders, this time around it didn’t quite turn out that way. On Wednesday morning, June 21st, in an increasingly common display of Republican disunity, 79 Representatives presented Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) with a letter stating that they would not support the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Voicing opposition to the provisions for bilingual ballots contained in the forty–one year old landmark civil rights legislation, the rebellious Republican Representatives refused to lend their votes until the requirements were removed. In spite of the fact that the House Judiciary Committee approved the measure last May by 33–1 vote, Representatives from nine mostly Southern states joined them on the grounds that they believed many of the other protections afforded in the bill no longer were called for. Only hours before floor debate was scheduled to begin, Sensenbrenner, wishing not to end up in a protracted and embarrassing floor fight, removed the bill from consideration.

Certainly this action raises many questions, not the least of which being: Why in an election year would anyone in their right mind want to block something named the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006? What gain could be had threatening a piece of landmark civil rights legislation that was the culmination of years of struggle?

Obviously these Republican renegades weighed their options and figured they could make more political hay in their home districts touting a tough anti-immigrant/English-only line than they could with a photo on page 25 of the local paper of them shaking hands with civil rights leaders. Facing waning public approval for many of the majority party’s policies, particularly in Iraq, House Republicans have been increasingly worried about their prospects in November. In response, many have latched on to the “get tough” approach toward immigration reform put forth by Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, hoping to parlay the issue into this year’s divisive cultural cause, a replacement for 2004 elections “gay marriage” debate. At the very least, they probably figured they always could claim that the bill is not in “real” jeopardy since the current provisions won’t expire until 2007.

Authored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and sponsored with Peter King (R-NY), the letter first appeared on February 3, 2006 and was signed by 56 members of Congress (55 R, 1 D). Stating that, “…we believe these ballot provisions encourage the linguistic division of our nation and contradict the ’Melting Pot‘ ideal that has made us the most successful multi-ethnic nation on earth,” the letter basically lays out some major points of contention with Sec. 203 & 4(f)(4) of the VRA:

Major Points of the King Letter

• Proficiency in English is a requirement for citizenship: "It contradicts the requirement that immigrants need to demonstrate the ability to read and understand English in order to become naturalized citizens."
• The existence of multilingual ballots also increases the risk of election errors and fraud: "To cite one example, in 2000 six voting sites in Flushing, New York printed ballots in Chinese with the names of the political parties reversed. Several thousand voters cast their votes using these erroneous ballots"
• The requirement for multilingual ballots is a costly unfunded mandate: "In the 2004 election, officials in Los Angeles County, California were required to provide more than 2,200 interpreters and spent more than $2.1 million to provide translations and ballots in seven different languages"
• They are a waste of taxpayer funds and are rarely used: "two GAO reports found evidence that in many cases these materials are hardly used. For example, in 1996 Yuba County, California was required to spend $30,000 for election materials in Spanish. But according to its registrar of voters there had only been one request for Spanish language materials there in 16 years"
• Federal law already protects the right of all citizens to bring an interpreter into the voting booth: "All citizens have the right to cast an informed ballot, and this is the right approach for dealing with the voters who have difficulty understanding election materials in English"

The letter floated around Congress for the next few months and picked up an additional 23 signatures before it was presented to Chairman Sensenbrenner on June 21st.

Who’s Really Behind the King Letter

It now appears some questions have come to light about exactly who is behind both the King letter and the effort to shelve the renewal of the VRA. The official copy of the letter that appears on the Web site of the U.S. House of Representatives (www.house.gov) apparently was not generated by a House member or their staff, but rather by one of the leading anti-immigration/English only advocacy groups.

The copy of the letter (now available only in HTML cache) that originally appeared on the House of Representatives web site; http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/121205_King_Bilingual_Ballot.doc appears to have been authored by someone named KC McAlpin using a computer registered to the anti-immigration advocacy group NumbersUSA.(1)

This fact raises questions as to the identity of KC McAlpin, this person’s affiliation with Numbers USA, how this particular file ended up on the Web site of the House of Representatives, and who is behind the letter?

Certainly, only the most naive would be shocked to find out that special interests and lobbying groups play a role in formulating legislation and policy. The current administration has been particularly guilty of this practice. But this case appears that it might be slightly different. It is quite possible that the actual letter that 79 Representatives put their names on was not, in fact, authored by one of their own, but rather by outside interests, interests with some rather disturbing skeletons in the closet.

Who is KC McAlpin and did he write the letter?

KC McAlpin is the Executive Director of an organization called ProEnglish. According to their Website, they are “the nation’s leading advocate(s) of official English. (They) work through the courts and in the court of public opinion to defend English’s historic role as the common, unifying language of the United States of America, and to persuade lawmakers to adopt English as the official language at all levels of government.”

The group is one of thirteen like-minded organizations founded by anti-immigrant advocate . Tanton’s multi-million dollar web of groups includes not only ProEnglish and NumbersUSA, but also the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Obviously, as Executive Director of ProEnglish, McAlpin is part of Tanton’s network, but the question remains as to whether he is the author of King’s letter. A look at the similarities between the language used in the letter and that of McAlpin’s written testimony before Congress in November of 2005 sheds some light on the question.

At a hearing of the Constitutional Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday November 10, 2005, McAlpin testified on behalf of ProEnglish in opposition to renewal of Sec. 203 & 4(f)(4) of the VRA. From his written statement, it’s obvious that the King letter has striking similarities to McAlpin’s talking points.

Major Points of McAlpin's Congressional Testimony

• On Proficiency in English is a requirement for citizenship: "the United States has required immigrants to learn English in order to naturalize and acquire the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections."
• On multilingual ballots increasing the risk of election errors and fraud: "Introducing multiple languages into the voting booth increases the likelihood of errors and election fraud....In the 2000 general election six polling places located in heavily Chinese populated areas of Queens, New York had "Democratic" translated in Chinese as "Republican" for party labels and vice versa on election day ballots."
• On why multilingual ballots is a costly unfunded mandate: "And the cost of providing bilingual voting materials continues to escalate. The same GAO report found that Los Angeles County taxpayers spent $1.1 million to provide election materials in five languages in 1996. (14) But by March 2002, the County was spending $3.3 million out of a total of $22.6 million to provide voting materials in seven languages."
• On why bilingual ballots are a waste of taxpayer funds and are rarely used: "Yuba County, California spent $17,411 for Spanish language ballot materials for a 1996 primary election despite the fact that the county's registrar of voters reported receiving only one request for voter information in Spanish during his 16 years on the job"
• On how Federal law already protects the right of all citizens to bring an interpreter into the voting booth: "They also have the right to bring an interpreter into the poll with them: "Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice."

Given that the King letter posted at House.gov was authored by McAlpin on software registered to NumbersUSA, coupled with its striking similarities to McAlpin’s testimony, only one of two possible causes seem plausible. Either King copied his letter from ProEnglish literature almost word for word, and then asked McAlpin, or someone using his computer, to type up a copy to post at the House of Representatives Web site, or McAlpin authored the letter himself. Either way, the letter that 79 Representatives signed to force the cancellation of the renewal of the VRA came from ProEnglish.

In fact, in the weeks and months leading up to the vote on the VRA, ProEnglish had been advocating the defeat of the bill.

This leaves us with one question unanswered.

Who is John Tanton, the man behind this organization?

John Tanton has been credited for single-handedly creating the modern anti-immigration, English-only and Nativist political movements in the United States. Over the course of thirty years he has managed to create a network of think tanks, advocacy groups and fund-raising organizations that not only shape public opinion, but public policy. His experts testify before Congress and reports and studies by his various groups are used to formulate legislation. His pundits appear in all forms of media to pontificate and propagandize. By his own admission he says, “I would certainly have no reservations about claiming credit for being the guy secretly manipulating U.S. immigration policy.”

Although he claims to do so only because he believes that “the overwhelming majority of Americans …want to see immigration levels reduced,” his motivations seem to stem from a firm belief that America is in peril due to a worldwide trend of third-world populations taking over the wealthy first-world nations. His philosophy contains a strange mix of environmentalism, protectionism, xenophobia, eugenics and racism; a philosophy he has been able turn into a political movement though his network of organizations. This network includes both organizations founded by Tanton himself and those started by others that he takes under his wing and then integrates into his network and funds.

Groups Founded by Tanton

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - which specializes in immigrations effects on diminishing resources and jobs. (founded 1979)

US Inc. - The fundraising wing for the Tanton empire. (founded 1982)

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) - which presents itself as an impartial think tank and supplies "experts" to various media outlets and government hearings (founded 1985)

NumbersUSA - Which does immigration statistical analysis (founded 1996)

U.S. English - Which promotes the idea that English will become a dead language in the US without intervention. (founded 1983)

ProEnglish - Which advocates an English Only agenda (founded 1994)

[+]The Social Contract Press - the publishing wing, putting out newsletters and publishing books touting anti-immigration philosophy (founded 1990)

Groups Funded by Tanton

ProjectUSA

Population-Environment Balance

[+] American Immigration Control Foundation

[+] American Patrol/ Voices of Citizens Together
California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR)

Californians for Population Stabilization

Immigration Reform Law Institute - Now used as the legal wing for FAIR to set up legal challenges to current anti-discrimination and pro immigration laws

Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with a [+]

(source: Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC)

Starting his career in the sixties as an ardent environmentalist, Tanton was a leading member in groups like the National Audubon Society and Sierra Club. Through his environmentalist activities, he became interested in the relationship between population growth and environmental degradation, and by the early 1970s, his focus shifted to zero population growth. By the late 70s, Tanton’s concern for population growth evolved into a preoccupation with increased immigration into the U.S., particularly by those coming from the Caribbean and Latin America. In 1979, unable to find support for his anti-immigration ideas in the environmentalist movement, Tanton formed the first and most influential of his advocacy groups the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Tanton wrote on the formation of FAIR:

Having observed what I believe to be a problem, I acted. Having failed to convince some of the people in the environmental movement that immigration was an issue that ought to feature prominently on their agendas, I did exactly what everyone else who is involved in issue advocacy has done: I formed an organization of like-minded people.

Tanton went on to build his network, finding more “like-minded people” along the way to join his one-man crusade. Today his multi-million dollar empire of advocacy groups helps to insure that he and his allies not only have their opinions heard, but manage to shape the opinions of others. While some of his groups, such as CIS, have presented themselves as purveyors of mainstream thinking, the roots of Tanton’s philosophy never lay far from the surface.

Tanton’s philosophical roots

On numerous occasions throughout his advocacy career, Tanton has managed to tip his hand, revealing his belief in the inferiority of certain races and ethnic groups and his fear that they will destroy what he sees as America’s European-based, superior society. The first instance to gain national attention occurred when, in 1988, the media uncovered what was termed the “WITAN Memo.”

Along with a few other FAIR board members, in the early 1980s Tanton founded a nationalist organization called WITAN — short for the Old English term ‘witenagemot,’ meaning ‘council of wise men.’. In 1986, Tanton signed a memo that went to WITAN members that highlighted the supremacist bent of Tanton and FAIR. (7)(8) The memo implied that Latin American immigrants brought a culture of political corruption with them to the United States and that they were unlikely to involve themselves in civil life. He raised the alarm that they could become the majority group in U.S. society. What’s more, he asked: ‘Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva?’ Answering his own rhetorical question, Tanton wrote that ‘perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!’ According to Tanton, ‘In California 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and ‘other.’ The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly [C]atholic.’ Furthermore, Tanton raised concerns about the ‘educability’ of Hispanics.(10)

International Relations Center/ Right Web: Profile of John Tanton

The resulting fallout from the release of the WITAN memo caused many of Tanton’s more mainstream allies to leave his organizations.

That same year an even more damaging revelation about some of FAIR’s funding came to light. FAIR had been accepting grants from a group called the Pioneer Fund.

"Pioneer is a nonprofit foundation that supports scientific studies in the areas of heredity, human differences, behavioral genetics, intelligence, social demography, and group differences by sex, social class, and race. (16) Some of the most controversial research funded by the Pioneer Fund has explored the IQ differences between the races. This research was published in the now widely discredited book The Bell Curve. In addition to its efforts to document the IQ gaps between races, the Pioneer Fund also has been deeply involved in funding eugenics research and in building political support for eugenics. Harry H. Laughlin, its first president, advocated the establishment of a uniform sterilization law that would allow the routine sterilization of ‘the feeble minded, insane, criminals (including the delinquent and wayward), the epileptic, the inebriate, the diseased, the blind, the deaf, the deformed, and the dependent (including orphans, ne’er-do-wells, the homeless, tramps and paupers).’ …Laughlin edited Eugenics News during the 1920s and 1930s, which featured a 1932 article ‘Hitler and Race Pride.’ Laughlin also was a supporter of limiting immigration to the United States

(16) About Us. Pioneer Fund

International Relations Center/ Right Web: Profile of FAIR

In 1988 when the story first came out, Tanton, the President of FAIR’s board, denied any knowledge of the connections to Pioneer Fund. FAIR continued to accept the funds for nine more years. Between 1985 and 1994, FAIR accepted $1.2 million from Pioneer.

It is perhaps the work done by Tanton’s publishing organization, The Social Contract Press (TSCP) that has had drawn the most attention, due to its ties to extremist movements and organizations. The most popular book in the SCP catalog, and a personal favorite of Tanton’s, is Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, a French fantasy novel about an invasion of the Western world by hordes of starving, dark-skinned refugees from India. It depicts non-whites as “uncivilized monsters” whose goal is to violently seize the riches of the white man. The depiction of the ensuing race war has been compared to that in The Turner Diaries, a perennial favorite of American white supremacists like Timothy McVeigh. In the Winter 1994 Issue of Social Contract, Tanton wrote; “We are indebted to Jean Raspail for his insights into the human condition, and for being 20 years ahead of his time. History will judge him more kindly than have some of his contemporaries.”

TSCP has gone on to feature the writings of some of the anti-immigration movement’s most extreme elements, garnering the dubious distinction of being listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of recognized “Hate Groups.”

Typical of the type of opinions found in Social Contract journal was an essay written in 1998 by John Vinson, who directed the American Immigration Control Foundation, another organization in the Tanton network of restrictionist groups. In an essay titled “Europhobia: The Racism of Anti-racists” Vinson wrote:

In a climate of Euro-phobia, we have every legitimate reason to fear and resist a substantial racial/ethnic shift. Assimilating non-European immigrants into America’s traditional Euro-culture is difficult. Europhobia makes it nearly impossible. As many of the newcomers absorb this hostility, European-Americans will face increasing tension, discrimination, and perhaps physical danger. We are under no moral obligation to accept these risks either for ourselves or our children.

Over the years, Tanton’s network increasingly has been intertwined with ever more extreme elements of the Nativist/White Supremacist movement, and has in fact acted as a liaison between them and both the media and Washington. They have helped groups like Barbara Coe’s, California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR) and Glenn Spencer⁏s American Patrol to work with like minded groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) and American Renaissance, allowing them to reach out to anti-immigration legislators and the media.

The Nexus of the Tanton’s two worlds:

In the conference room of the House Judiciary Committee on June 21st, the nexus of Tanton’s two worlds converged. The philosophies of Jean Raspail and John Vinson met with the political realities of Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Steve King (R-IA). In one fell swoop, more than 40 years of civil rights legislation was jeopardized in the name of protecting America from hordes of foreign-speaking invaders intent on destroying American culture. Although wrapped in the popular rhetoric of the Republican right, the letter presented to Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner had its roots in the philosophies of the WITAN letter and the Pioneer Fund. Reframed and sanitized by groups like FAIR and CIS, these philosophies have been pushed to the forefront of political discourse. The House Republicans, eager to shift the public’s focus away from war and deficits, have been more than willing to crawl in bed with the most extreme fringes of American society.

The 79 signatories of McAlpin’s letter, like many Americans, have come to embrace a form of covert racism and xenophobia that passes for patriotism these days. Using statistics gleaned from NumbersUSA and CIS, and talking points formulated by ProEnglish and FAIR, anti-immigration hardliners like Pete King, Tom Tancredo as well as other vocal anti-immigration spokesmen J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), and Dana Rohrabacher, have managed to move their party further to the extreme, and with it much of the nation. With each passing day, polls show they are slowly but surely gaining support from the American people. But this would come as no surprise to Tanton; he’s been working his entire life to assure an America where, as Max Blumenthal wrote in The Nation, “most of the ultra-right’s signature issues have been co-opted by pseudo-populist media personalities and Republican politicians.”

Ironically, it might end up that their attempts to dismantle a cornerstone of the civil rights movement, and its culminating achievement, might be the one thing that brings America to its senses. Even with all the sophisticated spin and media manipulation available to them, it will be hard for this group to hide the stench of their actions. Sometimes, even with all the lipstick you can apply, a pig still stinks like a pig.

(1) to view the meta data on this file, open the .doc link, save the file to your hard drive, open it in Msword, than go to your file menu and click properties/summary.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Republicans jumps the shark: Immigration reform is all about race.

For months the "enforcement only" House Republicans, their Senate allies and media mouthpieces have tried to convince the American people that their desire to shut the border, criminalize twelve million undocumented immigrants then force them to return home through what TomTancredo calls "attrition", has nothing whatsoever to do with racism or xenophobia. They've told us it's about "securing the border" in the wake of 9-11.or protecting native workers from unfair job competition. They've claimed that undocumented immigrants put undue stress on social services, don't pay their fair share of taxes and create problems with drugs and crime. But all along they've proclaimed loudly, "we have nothing against immigrants … we only want to stop illegal immigration".

Over and over we've heard how it's "only a matter of law", and that those who have enter the country "illegally" have broken the law and must be dealt with as such. From the House leadership on down, from Bill Frist, to John Cornyn, from Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity all we've heard is; "It's only about illegal immigrants, not immigration. We have nothing against those from other countries; in fact we welcome them with open arms if they come here legally"

Yesterday with a party-line vote of 63-39 the Senate Republicans finally jumped the shark and showed their true colors:

S.AMDT.4064
Amends: S.2611
Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (submitted 5/17/2006) (proposed 5/17/2006)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To amend title 4 United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the United States and to promote the patriotic integration of prospective US citizens.
…

``The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America. Unless specifically stated in applicable law, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. If exceptions are made, that does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language or any language other than English. If any forms are issued by the Federal Government in a language other than English (or such forms are completed in a language other than English), the English language version of the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes.''.

Link

tags: immigration, English Language only, Senate immigration legislation, S.2611, Racism



The Senate Republicans on Thursday did something the founding fathers intentionally avoided doing 230 years ago; they created a state sponsored "national language". Just as they intentionally formulated our system of government to preclude the establishment of a national religion, or a permanent ruling class, the founders chose not to establish a national language for good reason. Knowing that the growth and vitality of the nation would rely upon a constant flow of immigration, they realized that to alienate any group linguistically would amount to disenfranchisement. Having formed the nation as a direct result of their own disenfranchisement by the crown, they opposed anything that would prevent future citizens from exercising their inalienable right to representation. Our current day leadership obviously holds these rights in far less regard.

This decision by the Senate Republicans goes far beyond a lack of regard for the basic principles of the republic, but rather it says volumes about the true intentions and motivations for their campaign to "secure the border."

The establishment of a national language does nothing to secure the border and prevent terrorists from entering the country. It protects no US workers or jobs. But it does "protect" the Republicans and their followers for one thing … "others." It protects them from those who are different, who look different, eat different foods, listen to different music, have a different culture and speak a different language. It allows them to codify their fear. It allows them to once again appeal to the worst instincts in the American people, and hide behind coded language, patriotic slogans, and obfuscation.

The passage of this amendment proves what many have known all along. The immigration debate is not about security or "illegal" immigration. It's about immigrants, and for the most part "immigrants" means "Mexicans", and the language we must be protected from is Spanish. The people we must be protected from are Mexicans. Not just "illegal Mexicans", but all "Mexicans",(a group that conveniently seems to include all Latinos in the right wing mind.)

This amendment should be viewed as a wake up call to all involved in this debate. The Republicans briefly removed their masks, and revealed the true nature of their mission, a mission that has more to do with closed minds than closed borders.

-----------------------------------

For the record it must be noted that shortly after the passage of Mr. Inhofe's amendment an alternative was offered up by Democratic Senators Salazar, Durbin, Kennedy, Reid and Bingaman. Their amendment softened up of the language of the Republican passed one, and rendering it to a symbolic gesture rather than codified law.

S.AMDT.4073
Amends: S.2611
Sponsor: Sen Salazar, Ken [CO] (submitted 5/18/2006) (proposed 5/18/2006)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To declare that English is the common and unifying language of the United States, and to preserve and enhance the role of the English language

…

The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the common and unifying language of America. Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the law of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the government of the United States in any language other than English.

For the purposes of this section, law is defined as including provisions of the U.S. Code the U.S. Constitution, controlling judicial decisions, regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders

Link

This amendment also passed by a vote of 58-39, with all Democrats voting in the affirmative.

Although eleven moderate Republicans crossed the isle to support this version of the "English Language" amendment it must be remembered that the majority of their party failed to join them, and they were originally united in the support for the earlier proposal.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. State Department's National Anthem in Spanish

There is a lot of recent controversy over the Star Spangled Banner, the U.S. National Anthem, being sung in Spanish. The latest public figure to weigh in on it was none other than George W. Bush, as this BBC News article explains:

George Bush has entered a row about the US national anthem, criticising a Spanish version featuring Wyclef John and Gloria Trevi.

"I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English," he said when asked at a news conference.

However, the U.S. State Department gives the Spanish-speaking world help by translating the U.S. National Anthem into Spanish:

tags: immigration, anthem, Himno, star spangled banner, spanish

Himno nacional - La Bandera de Estrellas

Amanece: ¿no veis, a la luz de la aurora,
Lo que tanto aclamamos la noche al caer?
Sus estrellas, sus barras flotaban ayer
En el fiero combate en señal de victoria,
Fulgor de cohetes, de bombas estruendo,
Por la noche decían: "!Se va defendiendo!"

Coro:
!Oh, decid! ¿Despliega aún su hermosura estrellada,
Sobre tierra de libres, la bandera sagrada?

En la costa lejana que apenas blanquea,
Donde yace nublada la hueste feroz
Sobre aquel precipicio que elévase atroz
¡Oh, decidme! ¿Qué es eso que en la brisa ondea?
Se oculta y flamea, en el alba luciendo,
Reflejada en la mar, donde va resplandeciendo

Coro:
!Aún allí desplegó su hermosura estrellada,
Sobre tierra de libres, la bandera sagrada!

¡Oh así sea siempre, en lealtad defendamos
Nuestra tierra natal contra el torpe invasor!
A Dios quien nos dio paz, libertad y honor,
Nos mantuvo nación, con fervor bendigamos.
Nuestra causa es el bien, y por eso triunfamos.
Siempre fue nuestro lema "¡En Dios confiamos!"

Coro:
!Y desplegará su hermosura estrellada,
Sobre tierra de libres, la bandera sagrada!

(Versión en español de Francis Haffkine Snow. Copyright 1919)

You would think that if there is a problem with singing it in Spanish, the song wouldn't be translated multiple times and posted on a website run by the U.S. government. The truth is that it is indeed "Nuestra Himno", and that means all of us, no matter what langauge we speak or where we come from. It is a song for all Americans. Either that, The Star Spangled Banner is just a remake of a British drinking song named To Anacreon in Heaven.

Read More...

Summary only...