Migra Matters: hypocrisy

Keith O exposes yet another example of Lou's colossal hypocrisy

Of course some in the blogosphere have known this for quite some time...go check em out and show a little comment love for once again doing the work the MSM (except Keith) refuse to do.

Bustard Blog

Capalearno

Last Sunday, Lou Dobbs appeared on 60 minutes for an in-depth interview with Leslie Stahl, were he finally admitted that he believes the government could track down and deport millions of undocumented immigrants if it only made the commitment to do so.

But more importantly, after years of playing extremely loose with facts and figures in order to make his case, Dobbs was finally caught in one of his big fat lies in front of a national audience.

Both Media Matters and Dave Neiwert at Ornicus have done excellent jobs of dissecting the story, so I'll just cover the basic facts here and refer readers to those two stories to get more in-depth information.

It all started with the following exchange:

Following a report on illegal immigrants carrying diseases into the U.S., one of the correspondents on his show, Christine Romans, told Dobbs that there have been 7,000 cases of leprosy in the U.S. in the past three years.

60 Minutes checked that and found a report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, saying that 7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three. The report also says that nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants.

"We went to try and check that number, 7,000. We can’t…," Stahl says.

"Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it’s a fact," Dobbs replies.

"You can’t tell me that. You did report it," Stahl says.

"I just did," Dobbs says.

"How can you guarantee that to me?" Stahl asks.

Says Dobbs, "Because I'm the managing editor. And that’s the way we do business. We don’t make up numbers, Lesley."

link

So it came as no surprise that the following day, Dobbs took time out of his nightly hate-fest to answer 60 minutes charges. He reiterated numerous times that despite the obvious discrepancy between his figures and those of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - he never "makes up numbers":

video lnk

So there it was for all his loyal viewers to see. According to Dobbs, a doctor writing in a medical journal had reported those statistics, so obviously 60 min (and the US Dept of Health and Human Services) were wrong….case closed …if he reports it, it's a fact.

But as Media Matters and Ornicus report, it's not quite so cut and dry.

Madeleine Cosman does in fact hold a doctorate degree… but it's in English and comparative literature. …Dobbs' minion, Christine Romans, neglected to mention that when she descibed Cosman as a " a respected medical lawyer and medical historian writing in the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons".

So exactly where did this doctor of English literature get her hard medical data?
From medical studies or research? … of course not. She got her figures from a story gleaned from the New York Times.

But there was just one problem with Cosman's excellent research work. Dobbs' expert academic source had managed to actually misquote the Times in her article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, skewing the numbers to make her case.

According to Cosman:

Leprosy, Hansen's disease, was so rare in America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy. Leprosy now is endemic to northeastern states because illegal aliens and other immigrants brought leprosy from India, Brazil, the Caribbean, and Mexico.

Illegal Aliens and American Medicine, Dr Madeline Cosman, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Spring 2005

A quick check of Dr. Cosman's footnotes reveals her source was a New York Times Article from February 2003 that actually said something quite different.

While there were some 900 recorded cases in the United States 40 years ago, today more than 7,000 people have leprosy, or Hansen's disease, as it is now called.
New York Times, Leprosy, a Synonym for a Stigma, Returns, Feb 18, 2003 ( alternate link to cited article)

There's no mention of "the last three years" in the original article. It says there were 900 cases 40 years ago not "900 cases in 40 years". It also said that in the following 40 years that number had increases to 7000 cases, not "more than 7000 in the last three years."

But then again if Dobbs reports it –it's a fact.

(To see the complete 60 minutes segment on leprosy and Dobb's reaction - see this great video from Media Matters)

The question now raised seems to be - beside the fact that she supplied numbers that he liked and that made his case - why would Dobbs ever want to stake his reputation on the faulty scholarship of Dr Cosman?

Because, like many of Dobbs' guest experts - she' s clearly a NUTJOB:

video link

video link

Oh Yeah, I remember why Dobbs would rely on Dr Cosman's research ….

Because once Dobbs reports it -it becomes fact

Related
Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs, New York Times, May 30,2007

Over the past few years possibly no public figure has been more closely linked with the issues of immigration, glaobalization and corporate malfeasance than CNN anchor Lou Dobbs. The once staid and reliable source of business related news has managed to reinvent his persona, becoming a self proclaimed populist messiah for the American middle and working-classes. With fiery rhetoric and self-righteous indignation that often borders on the megalomaniacal, Dobbs as Howard Beale, nightly exhorts his watchers to howl at the moon shouting "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

Whether it be "The War on the Middle Class", "Exporting America", or "Broken Borders", each Dobbs segment portrays a familiar cast of villains, working in concert to destroy the American dream for the average working man and women. Big corporate boogiemen, swarthy immigrant hordes, and corrupt or incompetent politicians populate Dobbs' narrative of the fall of modern American civilization.

These are not new villains; we've seen them before throughout American history in politics and popular culture. And this familiarity is part of the key to Dobb's success; he manages to distill complex and sometimes contradictory issues down to basic pulp fiction novellas filled with simplistic villains and easy solutions. One can almost see in their minds eye the cartoon caricatures of JD Rockefeller, or JP Morgan from a long forgotten eight-grade history book as he riles against the "business interests" orchestrating our national downfall.

Yet, one problem with Dobbs, as opposed to previous generations of muckrakers, is that when facts become too complicated or cumbersome for his narrative, they are either ignored or just plain fudged to make his story more compelling.

Another problem is he's simply an out and out charlatan. While publicly preaching his gospel of anti-globalization and opposition to free trade to a mesmerized audience of disenchanted, white, working and middle-class Americans, privately, his personal business profits greatly by catering to the wealthy investment classes, willing to pony up big big bucks for his "expert" investment advise, that often touts the merits of the very same corporate giants he skewers on a nightly basis.

Dobbs' problem with the truth: How many undocumented immigrants are there Lou?

In regards to Dobbs' on again, off again relationship with the truth, he seems to rely on two very familiar tactics used in propaganda dissemination. The first is the use of the "big lie," where one creates a falsehood so large no one would believe anyone would have the audacity to just make it up, and then repeat it until it's accepted as fact. The other is to cherry-pick facts from sources that run contrary to all other available information so long as they support your point of view. In some cases Dobbs does both, as in the case of his much touted 20 million "illegal aliens" living in the US.

While nearly all evidence from the government, academia, and public policy experts estimate the current undocumented population at between 11 and 12 million, Lou likes a 20 million number better …almost twice the accepted estimate…so that's the one he uses.

Tonight, lawmakers and their allies in corporate America have launched their latest attempt to force an amnesty bill for up to 20 million illegal aliens through Congress
Lou Dobbs Tonight, March 22, 2007

A year earlier he was qualifying that number somewhat by saying "By some estimates."

By some estimates as many as 20 million live in the United States right now. Those illegal aliens are, among other things, depressing wages for U.S. citizens and draining local and state and federal budgets of much-needed funds for the education and the healthcare and social services of and for Americans.
Lou Dobbs Tonight,Oct 26,2006

But we must go back another year to see what some estimates really means…it means ONE estimate.

After Dobbs' sidekick, Lisa Sylvester, completed a story on March 21, 2005 about a recently released Pew study showing once again that the undocumented population was somewhere between 11 and 12 million, Dobbs ended the segment by introducing the 20 million number, quoting from a study done by Bears Stearns in the spring of that year that estimated the undocumented population at 20 million.

And we should point out, as you suggest, Lisa, that other estimates range as high as 20 million, most recently a Bear Stearns study showing 20 million illegal aliens in this country
Lou Dobbs Tonight,March 21, 05

That one Bear Sterns study then became the basis for Dobbs' claim about "20 million illegal aliens" for the next two years. In one swoop, he nearly doubled the number of undocumented immigrants in the general debate for millions of his viewers. Over time, with constant repetition, his 20mil number has become an accepted fact and is often quoted as the definitive number by other sources. This, in spite of the fact that all the other evidence points in a different direction. So much is the power of Dobbs' propaganda machine to shape and frame the debate.

Dobbs' problem with the truth: Opposition to "Amnesty"

Another case of Lou's use of the repetitive lie will be quite familiar to any regular viewer…although they may not be aware of it.

Dobbs consistently refers to any plan to legalize the status of the 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants as "amnesty." And any regular viewer will know that "amnesty" goes directly against the wishes of the majority of the American people. ..Dobbs continually tells them so. Congress, according to Dobbs, continually entertains this "insane" idea despite the "wishes of the American people" who need to "send a message to those in Washington", in hopes that they "will finally listen" to the "majority of Americans" who oppose "this utterly preposterous idea."

The only problem …it's just not true. Poll after poll show that Americans favor some sort of plan to legalize those already here who are working and keeping their noses clean. The most recent poll comes from USA Today/ Gallup.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend found that 78% of respondents feel people now in the country illegally should be given a chance at citizenship
USA Today April 18, 2007

And that support has been relatively constant for the last few years. In March of 2006, following the massive immigration marches in many cities, Pew Research found 58% of people supported some path to legalization. In recent polls taken since the 2006 election most show the same general results.

Washington Post/ABC News (April 12 – 15, 2007)
A survey of 1,141 adults, including an oversample of African Americans (MoE ± 3%)
• 62% – Respondents in this poll were asked whether “illegal immigrants who are living and working in the United States now (should be offered a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status),” or should they “be deported back to their native country?” 62% said they should be offered a chance to stay, verses 35% who thought they should be deported.

CNN/Opinion Research (April 10 – 12, 2007)
A survey of 1,218 adults (MoE ± 3)
• 77% – 77% of respondents favored a program that would allow “illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes." 21% opposed such a program.

University of Iowa Poll (March 19 – 31, 2007)
A survey of 1,290 Iowa registered voters (MoE ± 3%)
• 57% – Given four options—1) deport all undocumented immigrants, 2) allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. to work for a limited amount of time (a guest worker program), 3) allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements like learning English and paying back taxes (earned citizenship), or 4) allow undocumented immigrants to become permanent residents with no requirements (amnesty)— 57.2% of Iowa voters state-wide favored earned citizenship. Less than one-quarter—
22.6%—thought that all undocumented immigrants should be deported.
.
The Field Poll (March 20-31, 2007)
A survey of 570 California registered voters (MoE ± 4.5%)
• 83% – A large majority of Californians (83%) favor the creation of a program that would allow undocumented immigrants “who have been living in the U.S. for a number of years an opportunity to stay in this country and apply for citizenship if they have a job, learned English and paid back taxes.”

New York Times/CBS News Poll (March 7-11, 2007)
A national survey of 1,362 voters (698 Republican voters)
• 59% – A majority of respondents (59%) believe that “illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years” should be “given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status.

Gallup/USA Today (March 2-4, 2007)
A national survey of 1,010 adults (MoE ± 3%)
• 59% – A majority of Americans (59%) believe that the government should “allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time.”
• Less than a quarter (24%) believe the government should “deport all illegal immigrants back
to their home country.”

Pew Research Center For People & The Press (December 16, 2006 – January 9, 2007)
A national survey of 2,007 adults (MoE ± 2.5%)
• 59% – A majority of Americans (59%) continues to favor a proposal to allow undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for several years to gain legal working status and the possibility of future citizenship.
• Opinion on providing a path to citizenship for long-term undocumented immigrants has not changed in the past year; in April 2006, 58% supported this idea.
•
Quinnipiac University Poll (Nov. 13-19, 2006)
A national survey of 1,623 registered voters (MoE ± 2.4%)
• 65% – A majority of voters (65%) said that they support “creation of a guest worker program that would allow illegal immigrants to register for temporary legal status and employment.”
There is even more support—69%—for offering undocumented immigrants “the ability to
work toward citizenship over a period of several years.”

Link

Are there some polls by other sources that show more support for Dobbs' position?…of course there are. Polling as anyone who follows politics, and particularly issues politics knows is all about framing questions.

The Republican spinmiester, Frank Luntz, recently proved this on a recent episode of Showtimes' "Penn & Teller." He asked the same man-on-the-street two questions. The first was something to the effect of "Should undocumented immigrants receive any free government or social services" …the man answered back vehemently "no". Luntz then asked the same question only this time highlighting specific programs like public education for undocumented children and emergency health care…the man again answered back just as vehemently …but this time just the opposite, saying they should of course receive those services….it's all about the framing.

Dobbs often cherry-picks poll numbers just as cherry-picked his 20mil "illegal alien" number, but in general, it's quite obvious from the majority of the polling that Dobbs' position is quite far from universally accepted by the majority of the American people as he continually claims.

Dobbs' problem with "Exporting America": He Loves the Companies he Hates

While Dobbs' anti-immigration, anti-Mexican rhetoric has garnered him a following with the minuteman and right-wing crowd, it's been his war on globalization, outsourcing, and attacks on those "Exporting America" that have made him a favorite with a new group of "Dobbs Democrats."

Many of these new converts see him giving voice to their concerns about globalization and opposition to free-trade agreements and look to Dobbs as a leader … like he'll be leading the charge at the next WTO demonstration.They also see Dobbs as champion of the working man, a populist standing up to the corporate giants. An O'Rielly for those with some IQ, and a spokesman for the downtrodden everyman.

But what Lou really is, is an Infotainer…one who has carefully crafted a public persona that has the greatest entertainment appeal.

But when he removes his stage make-up at the end of his nightly rant, he returns to the real-life Lou Dobbs, a man who made his name in the world of investments, finance and markets.

As a financial-advisor for hire Lou still retains long list of those willing to shell out nearly $400 to subscribe to his monthly newsletter containing investment recommendations. Each issue of "Lou Dobbs Money Letter" features one highlighted company that Lou encourages his subscribers to invest in.

The picks would be familiar to anyone who watches Lou's show with any regularity. Many are the very same companies he has chastised and listed on his website on the "Exporting America" list of the worst outsourcers of American jobs.

In the March 2004 issue Dobbs told subscribers that lawnmower and landscaping equipment giant Toro

was a "long-term wealth-builder," and praised Toro's "formal code of ethics, something I think is sorely needed at more of America's companies," and its "...exemplary corporate governance structure, which aligns the interests of shareholders, employees, and customers." He concluded his interview with Toro CEO Kendrick Melrose by frankly telling him, "I like the way you treat your shareholders, employees, and customers."

One wonders whether Dobbs' admiration extends to Toro's 2002 decision to move 15% of its workforce -- about 800 jobs -- to Juarez, Mexico. Indeed, CEO Kendrick Melrose might be interested to know that Toro appears on Dobbs' own list of companies that are "exporting America."
Columbia Journalism Review

After starting his private newsletter in 2003, of the first fourteen companies highlighted by Dobbs, eight were on his Exporting America list. Companies such as Boeing, ITT, Office Depot, Washington Mutual, Bank One, all highlighted in his newsletter as excellent investment opportunities…all outsourcing American jobs to various degrees.

When Dobbs features a company in his newsletter, he tends to stand by them, no matter what information subsequently comes to light. In December 2003, Boeing CEO Phil Condit was forced to resign amidst an ethics scandal. Dobbs had interviewed Condit for the newsletter back in June, and wrote at the time: "Boeing ranks Number 35 on Fortune's list of most admired companies. I think Phil has a lot to do with that."

After Condit's resignation, Dobbs ran a "Special Boeing Update" in the December edition of the newsletter, in which he told subscribers: "In the face of adversity, the company is being up-front and honest abut its problems...Boeing has just proven that its priorities are in the right place."

But according to the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Boeing has sent 5000 U.S. jobs overseas in recent years. And Dobbs' assurances that Boeing's priorities are in the right place don't seem to square with his inclusion of the company on the "exporting America" list.
Columbia Journalism Review

And the list goes on. Apparently what's good for Dobbs' well-heeled investors and what's good for the "struggling middle class" don't need to coincide when it comes to Lou's financial advice for hire.

(Dobbs) sees no contradiction in fingering outsourcers with one hand, while recommending the same companies as investment opportunities with the other: "[Y]ou seem to be suggesting that one cannot criticize corporate America without calling for its destruction," he told us. "Or because one believes a company to be well-managed that's its beyond criticism...Surely, you don't believe that your readers or my viewers are incapable of abhorring a business practice, and at the same time acknowledging the success of a corporation?" He makes a distinction, he said, between bad practices and those who practice them.

But Dobbs' newsletter doesn't just "acknowledge" successful corporation. He goes further, painting his featured companies as good corporate citizens -- and encourages readers to invest in them partly on that basis -- without mentioning that they conduct business practices that, by his own admission, he "detests."

Most of Dobbs's CNN viewers don't have access to the information in "Money Letter," his investment guide. So the larger public sees only one Lou Dobbs: the outspoken anti-outsourcing crusader. The other Lou Dobbs is available only for that $398 fee. And that's the Lou Dobbs who doesn't appear to be putting his money where his mouth is.

Columbia Journalism Review

Like a phony preacher selling healing miracles to a tent load of the faithful, or a snake oil salesman promising cures for all that ails you, Dobbs offers up a nightly tonic for the angry and disenfranchised. It matters not that his show is just that...a show, and he is no more than showman. He'll continue to stir the pot of discontent all the way to the bank as he winks and nods at his investor friends and says ...don't worry it's all just an act, don't you know.

After the original article in the CJR was published in July of 2004 it was later highlighted in the WSJ, Dobbs reacted to the WSJ article by saying he would change his newsletter to include mention of highlighted business's offshoring record …but he'd still recommend them

Related:
Lou Dobbs: Unfair and Unbalanced at CNN
The Secret Life of Lou Dobbs
Two Faces of Lou Dobbs

tags: immigration, Lou Dobbs , hypocrisy, Lou Dobbs Money Letter, outsourcing

There's a reason why Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, always makes sure to preface the word "terrorism" with "Islamic"

tags: immigration, Peter King , Terrorism , NY-03, IRA

In fact, during the 1980s and 90s, the NSA and CIA collected intelligence on financial transactions between the United States and Ireland and Northern Ireland involving Irish terrorist groups supported by Peter King. The group Irish Northern Aid (NORAID) funneled money to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) that was used to buy weapons used to blow up civilians and members of the British government, military, and police.

King was an active supporter of NORAID, a tax-exempt front for the IRA. Martin Galvin, King's friend and former NORAID chief, rejected the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement and supports the agenda of the terrorist "Real IRA."

During the 1980s, NSA's British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), intercepted a number of King's phone calls from the United States and from within Britain, in which his political and financial support for the IRA was discussed. GCHQ relied on Canada's Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to monitor King's domestic phone calls in New York and Long Island since U.S. law, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), prohibited the surveillance of King by NSA assets.

King's financial and political support for the IRA coincided with the terrorist group's alliances with Palestinian, Lebanese, Latin American, Basque, Corsican, German, and Breton terrorist groups and the Libyan government of Muammar el Qaddafi. NSA signals intelligence (SIGINT) intercepts demonstrate that Libya and Lebanese terrorist groups targeted Americans in terrorist attacks during the 1980s, while King supported their Irish compatriots with money and weapons.

link

Like many other Republican candidates from areas far from the border with relatively small populations of undocumented immigrants, Ralph Norman, running in S. Carolina's 5th district, has made "border security" a cornerstone of his campaign.

Accusing his opponent, Rep. John Spratt, of being soft on immigration, Norman has hammered away on the issue tenaciously. Stating that "only by sealing our borders first can we truly stop the unregulated flow of illegal immigrants into our country." Norman proposes that we need to "identify the illegal immigrants living inside our borders and remove the laundry list of incentives that encourage them to live here illegally…"

But the real estate developer turned candidate has one big problem. His development company employs numerous undocumented workers at various sites, making him one of the very people he would have us believe are providing an incentive for "illegal immigrants" to come here.

tags: immigration, Ralph Norman , John Spratt , SC-05

Despite the fact that S. Carolina's 5th District has one of the lowest levels of undocumented immigrants in the nation(1), putting it on par with places like N Dakota and Montana, Ralph Norman, like many other Republicans this election cycle, has chosen to use border security as the key issue in his campaign. Relying on the general hysteria whipped up by the House leadership over the issue of "illegal immigration," candidates like Norman have been focusing on the border as a means to insulate themselves from the electorates overall discontent with Republican performance and policies over the last few years.

Norman's TV spots have all featured some aspect of border security as their major theme. This despite the fact that his opponent has voted with the Republican majority on most border security issues.

Yet despite the obvious contradictions of running an anti-immigration campaign in an area with a very low concentration of foreign-born non-citizens, against a candidate who recently voted to double the size of the border patrol, build a security fence and bolster port security, Norman has continued to press the issue. But revelations about just how Norman runs his person business have raised serious questions about the level of hypocrisy the candidate is willing to stoop too.

Press accounts revealed that Norman, through his company, Warren Norman Co., has hired numerous undocumented workers at various sites.

The Observer identified and visited properties owned by Norman and several of his businesses and spoke with workers.

Two construction workers at Shiland Village, a Rock Hill office and retail project on Celanese Road, said they work for a contractor on the job and are illegal immigrants from Mexico. Norman and his brother David own the property. Across the road, another contract worker at Warrington Place, a townhouse development, said he came here illegally from Mexico.
Charolette Observer

When asked about the situation, Norman replied that "We do what the law requires."

NORMAN: “I don't know who the Mexicans work for. They probably work for Wachovia.”

Norman said the immigrants worked for a sub contractor, not his company.

NORMAN: “I do not check our subcontractors. People that have a company they hire their own people. I don't check it now and won't in the future. That's why we need an immigration policy.”
WCNC News

There are free, federal programs available to employers to verify Social Security numbers and immigration status. The programs are voluntary, but such worker verification has been part of immigration-reform bills in both the House and Senate….

Norman said Thursday that he didn't know about the existing verification programs. Initially, he said he would "absolutely not" require contractors on his projects to use the programs. Later in the day, he said he'd check into the programs and would consider requiring contractors to use them.

However, he said: "It's unfair to say business should take responsibility for the government….
Link

With, sinking poll numbers across the country for Republican polices, it's no small wonder that in races across the country Republican candidates have tried to find a new group do demonize in hopes of garnering support. But Norman has perhaps demonstrated just how shallow and callous this whole issue really is. He apparently sees no hypocrisy in demanding the harshest punishment possible for the undocumented who come here to find jobs and make a better life, while at the same time profiting off their labor. As an employer he was unaware of the very mechanisms available to ensure his workers were in fact legal, and when made aware of them after years of business experience, he stated at first he had no intention of adhering to the law and availing himself of the programs.

From the very start the "border security" and "illegal immigration" issues have been exercises in hypocrisy and misdirection.

Failure after failure by the federal government to really make our nation secure, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Korea, to securing our ports, mass transportation and vital infrastructure have been convoluted and transformed into a simplistic crusade for "border security" to close the southern border.

Domestically, every policy failure of the last 25 years has been laid at the feet of the demon "illegal immigrant," from the health care crisis, a failing education system, and job loss, to the undue tax burden placed on middle and working class Americans while the top 1% benefit. The Republican Party, through their House surrogates have relinquished all responsibility for their actions. Instead they have formulated a policy of misdirection to place the blame squarely on the 4% of the population that are in this country without documentation.

Ralph Norman has now demonstrated just how hollow the anti-immigrant rhetoric rings. It's all just the smoke and mirrors of a charlatans sideshow. A patent medicine for the American public made of one part fear and two parts ignorance…. and having swallowed down a whole bottle of Tancredo's Magical Elixir, the nation will only be sicker for the exercise.

(1) The SC-05 has a foreign born population of 18,115 (2.78% of population), putting it far bellow the 12.4% national average. Of those, 1.98% are non-citizens (13,680). Of the non-citizen residents 55% arrived prior to 2000, and 45% came between 2000- 2005. This is nowhere near Mr. Norman's claim of a 1000% increase in "illegal immigrants" in the last few years, in fact the number has not even doubled in the last five years.
US Census 2005 Community Survey, SC community profiles
US Census 2005 Community Survey, analysis by MPI

John McCain(R-AZ) has obviously begun his 2008 presidential bid in earnest with a dive into a slime pool, hoping to gain favor with the bottom feeders that make up the most extreme element of his party. In just another demonstration of just how little real integrity and backbone the maverick "straight talking" Senator from Arizona has left, he formally announced his endorsement of beleaguered Minuteman congressional candidate, Randy Graf, running in his states eight district. Graf who has been shunned by party regulars due to his extremist positions is viewed as having little hope of capturing the seat left vacant by the outgoing Republican, Jim Kolbe. But apparently McCain is once again willing to "forgive and forget" in the name of political expediency.

Just as McCain was willing to forgive team Bush for their vicious attacks upon him in 2000 when they ran a smear campaign accusing him of fathering an illegitimate black baby when pictures of his adopted daughter from Bangladesh appeared, he's now willing to court the Neanderthal vote in hopes of getting a new mailing address at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. All this despite the fact that the Graf and his Minuteman cohorts have not been shy in their distain for the Senator.

But perhaps he's just unaware of exactly how Randy Graf and his minutemen friends really feel about him:

tags: immigration, Randy Graf , Gabrielle Giffords , AZ-8, John McCain

From the Minuteman website:

"John McCain is dead in my eyes. And he is delusional if he thinks -- after his asinine pro-illegal-alien stand -- that he has ANY chance of winning the presidency.

Or, maybe I'M delusional to think so. Maybe there ARE enough John McCain junkies out there who would stupidly vote him into office. Heaven help us if that happens."

Link

"John McCain has surely been a traitor to the Republican Party, and seems to be a representative of the Illegal Immigrants more that his constituents. I have wondered and hope that I am wrong when I wonder if Saint John like so many other political hopefuls such as John Murtha, John Kerry et al, went to Nam to get their ticket punched so they could come back and run for political office.

McCain has definite proof of what happened to him in Nam but many of the other members of congress who readily wave their hands as veterans and are called war heroes by their admirers I believe could not stand a close scrutiny of their military records.

I don't wish anyone dead but I wouldn't be disappointed if he and George Bush took adjoining condos on some Mexican Beach permanently, and then they would have easy access to that cheap labor."

Link

"I realize that McRhoid’s proof of what happened to him in Vietnam makes him out to be a hero. But that is his proof and the speculation of his admiral daddy’s influence on that proof should not be discounted. If his NVA records ever become available for comparison, I would like to review them to see how well he served our nation and to see if there are any embers of a fire that resulted in the smoke over his time as a POW.

Remember that Benedict Arnold himself was considered to be a ‘war hero’ up until he showed his true colors. McRhoid has shown us his and they aren’t ours."

Link

"All one has to do is note Mr. McCain's voting record in regards to the Second Amendment to realize he was turned in Hanoi. He's a commie underneath the facade. When seen in this light, everything else he does makes sense."
Link

Or maybe McCain is unaware of just how much of a minuteman Randy Graf really is.

From the Graf webpage:

Randy Graf is a Minuteman. He enthusiastically answered the call when the Minuteman roject was formed in April 2005. He was there on the first day in Tombstone, Arizona where he lent a hand to the Project’s organizers in ensuring that registration and orientation went off successfully. He was a part of the month-long event on the border.
And he was there as a featured speaker at the celebratory closing event of the Project.

Now is the time to take the Minuteman Project to the next level and it is time to send a Minuteman to Congress to represent American citizens who want something more done about illegal immigration and the lack of border security. The Minuteman Project can’t go on forever. We need to have the federal government take over and do the job that they are obligated to do.Randy Graf is ready and able, the target has been identified, and the goal is achievable. To do it, this Minuteman needs YOUR help and continuing support.

Imagine that...sending a Minuteman to Congress. You can help strike a blow against the powerful groups in Washington that continue to condone the massive violation of our national borders. You can be a part of taking Minuteman Project to the next level by helping Randy Graf get elected to Congress where he will serve alongside Rep. Tom Tancredo and work for you to stop the border invasion. You can’t vote for Randy Graf, but Randy Graf will vote for you. He knows the issues. He knows what needs to be done. He needs your continuing support now so that when he gets to Congress you will get his support.
votegraf.com

From the Minuteman website:

The #1 issue for Republican Randy Graf is stopping illegal immigration, defending our borders and protecting US national sovereignty. Randy is also a rock solid conservative on both economic and social issues and he is pro gun rights. Randy Graf needs your help! Randy Graf is just like Tom Tancredo and we need a lot more Tom Tancredos in Congress.
The number one race for conservatives in the USA is the Randy Graf campaign for Congress in Arizona, district #8. Nationwide grassroots conservatives can help Randy win by 1) sending money and 2) making GOTV phone calls from YOUR HOME to key precincts in AZ # 08. Please call the Graf HQ at xxx-xxx-xxxx and offer to volunteer no matter where you live in the USA. They will email phone lists to call the last 3 days of the election.
MinutemaHQ.com

Or perhaps even as the minutemen themselves have figured out; "it shows McCain for what he really is...a panderer."

If it wasn't clear when he was kissing and hugging Bush, or when he had a little birthday bash with the President just days after Katrina while Bush was hiding with his head in the sand, it certainly is clear now… even to those whose knuckles might scrape the ground while walking…McCain is now a man devoid of all backbone, one that will do anything and say anything in his attempt to gain higher office. All the "straight talk" in the world cannot hide McCain's utter lack of principles.

In a quest to keep a tenuous grip on their ever decreasing hold on power in Washington, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and his new "enforcer," John Boehner have taken a page from a master of nefarious propaganda in hopes to further obfuscate the already confusing immigration debate.

Hoping to re-frame the debate more to their political liking, they have continued their effort to portray the bipartisan immigration reform bill that came out of the Senate as a Democratic effort despite the fact that the bill was sponsored by six Republicans and only one Democrat . With heads firmly planted in the sand, the House leadership, wishing to underplay the huge rift in their own party, upped the ante once again when announcing further hearings in their summer campaign to make immigration a key issue in the upcoming midterm elections.

The deception started only hours after the Senate passed its comprehensive plan back in May and has been stepped up in recent weeks. With the announcement by House Republicans of another round of hearings scheduled in August in their continuing immigration carnival road-show, they have apparently taken Joseph Goebbels advice that "“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" to heart.

The bipartisan Senate immigration bill authored by Republican John McCain [R-AZ] has become, according to House leadership, "the Democrat Reid-Kennedy immigration bill" and will be a major target in the next round of hearings

tags: immigration, Congress hearings, HR4437 , Reid-Kennedy, Hastert

The bill, which first began it's life as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act", introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on May 15, 2005, took over a year to pass through the Senate. During that time numerous changes and compromises were made, co-sponsors came and went, and its name was changed. On May 25, 2006 the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006" was passed in a bi-partisan vote of 62-36.

Up until that point the bill was commonly called the "McCain-Kennedy" bill, named after its two key authors.

Within days, House Republicans decided it needed a new name; the "Reid-Kennedy Immigration Bill," to make it sound like an effort of Senate Democrats despite the fact that Reid played no roll in authoring the bill and Kennedy was the only Democrat to co-sponsor its final version.

From House Majority Leader John Boehner comes this:

Unfortunately, the Democrat Reid-Kennedy immigration bill makes the problem even worse. Local law enforcement is currently able to assist the federal government in enforcing both civil and criminal violations of immigration laws. The Reid-Kennedy bill, however, would only allow local law enforcement to assist in enforcing criminal violations of immigration law -- not civil violations.

In other words, rather than empowering them to detain illegal aliens, the Reid-Kennedy bill would further restrict local law enforcement’s ability to act on immigration violations.

The September 11th hijackers had only committed civil immigration violations. Under the Democrat Reid-Kennedy bill, local police would have no power to arrest possible terrorists who commit similar offenses and hand them over to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In contrast, the House-passed bill includes provisions championed by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) aimed at empowering state and local law enforcement to investigate and apprehend illegal aliens on a voluntary basis.

Last week, Republicans announced a set of five principles that should be reflected in immigration reform legislation. Among them:

Republicans strongly support initiatives to secure our borders and provide additional resources to federal and state authorities to strengthen border patrol efforts.

Republicans want to enact a strong bill that secures our borders and puts a premium on strict enforcement of our immigration laws. The Reid-Kennedy immigration bill is the wrong direction for our country, and exemplifies the notorious weakness of Capitol Hill Democrats on defense and border security issues.
Link

Sponsored by Judiciary Chairmen Arlen Specter[R-PA], and co-sponsored by Sen Brownback, Sam [R-KS] , Sen Graham, Lindsey [R-SC], Sen Hagel, Chuck [R-NE], Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA], Sen Martinez, Mel [R-FL], and Sen McCain, John [R-AZ], the bill is clearly a Republican affair, but that doesn't make for good political theater.

The other factor in play is that as the House whips up their base with a mix of xenophobia, fear, and racism, they don't want to turn that rabid base against their own party. This is quite a precarious balancing act since the Senate bill mirrors the wishes President Bush and his allies on this issue. Additionally having the presumptive 2008 Presidential frontrunner John McCain's name attached to his own bill presents the House leaders with a problem.

Their solution – ignore the facts – create a false reality – and keep repeating the lie until it becomes the truth... or so they hope

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Josheph Goebbels

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.

On May 1st, millions of immigrants and their supporters took to the streets in cities all over the country to voice their opposition to the "enforcement only" House legislation that would criminalize 12 million and calls for increased militarization of the border and the building of a 700 mile long wall. As the multitudes assembled in their various staging areas dressed in white shirts and carrying banners and flags, in a conference room in Washington a different kind of immigration advocacy group was announcing its creation. This group was also made up predominately of Hispanics, only their agenda was in direct opposition to the activity taking place in the streets down below. The founders of You Don’t Speak For Me came to the National Press Club to announce that despite what might appear on the TV screens that day, not all Latinos supported the marchers.

But there was one thing Col. Al Rodriguez, the founder of the group, and the other members of the group forgot to mention that day as they made their rounds of media appearances including those on FOX and Lou Dobbs. This group of concerned citizens of Latino decent did not spring whole from minds of its participants, it was midwifed in its birth by the nations preeminent anti-immigration cabal; the Tanton organization.

tags: immigration, John Tanton, Voting Rights Act , You Don't Speak For Me, FAIR, Choose Black America

According to the You Don't Speak For Me website the group was the brainchild of Col. Al Roriguez, a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran:

You Don't Speak for Me formed when Col. Al Rodriguez became fed up watching media coverage of the mass protests of April. "Their leaders were saying it was a march for immigrant rights and a Latino/Hispanic movement," says Rodriguez. "I thought to myself, 'Hey, those are illegal aliens, not immigrants!'" Col. Rodriguez began speaking out to others saying, "I'm of Hispanic ancestry and those people are acting like they speak for me. Well, you don't speak for me!"

Col. Rodriguez began asking others to help him reach more people who felt the same way and You Don't Speak for Me formed from this loose coalition of individuals. It is a group of concerned Americans of Hispanic/Latino heritage, some first or second generation, others recent legal immigrants, who believe illegal immigration harms America and a guest worker amnesty will do the same.

YDSFM! Officers are:
Col. Al Rodriguez, Chairman
Mariann Davies, Vice Chair
Claudia Spencer, Vice Chair
Justin Rangel, Vice Chair
Maria Chojnowski, Vice Chair

You Don't Speak For Me

Nowhere on the website or in any of Col. Rodriguez's interviews was any mention made about the Tanton cabals association with You Don't Speak For Me, but the contact information given on the press page of the website lists Ira Mehlman and Susan Wysoki as the primary contacts for the group. Both of whom have e-mail addresses at fairus.org. The web address for Tanton's flagship organization, The Federation for American Immigration Reform.

You Don't Speak for Me is not alone in it dubious creation. FAIR has actively recruited amongst other minority groups as well, creating an organization of "concerned" Black citizens called Choose Black America to speak out against any easing of the immigration laws.

The Tanton web of anti-immigrant, English-only and Nativist groups has been in the making for years and today is the driving force behind the current immigration debate. It was recently revealed that his groups were the driving force behind the recent stalling of the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the House, when 79 Representatives refused to sign in opposition to the bilingual ballot provisions in the landmark civil rights legislation.

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."

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

link

A look at the founding principles of of You Don't Speak For Me reveals a striking similarity to those of many of Tanton's other anti-immigration groups such as FAIR, ProEnglish, NumbersUSA, and CIS.

Our Principles

We are Americans of Hispanic heritage who believe in America. We believe in the governmental institutions and laws that make this country the greatest in the world. It is because of this strong belief in the principles of freedom, individual liberties, the rule of law, and democracy that we formed You Don't Speak for Me!: American Hispanic Voices Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration.

American Hispanic voices are being shouted down by the hate and race-directed rhetoric of those who do not appreciate the laws of our country. We of You Don't Speak for Me! give voice to those without a voice and those whose opposition to illegal immigration is drowned out by illegal aliens and their supporters marching in the streets demanding undeserved "rights" of U.S. citizens.

We are standing together to say to the those who come here illegally and those who would give amnesty to those who have broken our laws, you are wrong and you should not be claiming to speak for all American Hispanics. You Don't Speak for Me!

Our principles are simple:

All immigration should be legal
Illegal immigration hurts everyone, while carefully planned legal immigration helps. We believe in stopping illegal immigration and securing the national and economic future of our nation.

Illegal aliens from any country should never be rewarded with benefits or privileges
Becoming an American citizen is a unique and wonderful privilege. The legal route to becoming a citizen is not easy and requires patience and hard work. Those who break the law and come illegally should not be granted any benefits or privileges. No driver's license, no welfare benefits, no free health care, no in-state tuition - simply put . . . no state or federal benefits!

No amnesty - no way!
Amnesty is rewarding people who break the law. From past experience we have learned that granting amnesty only leads to increased illegal immigration. Those here illegally are taking advantage of our compassion. We say No Amnesty-No Way!

Secure our borders now and fully enforce immigration laws
The best way to stop the flow of illegal immigration coming across our borders is to build a high security fence along the length of our southern border where the majority of illegal traffic takes place. We must also vigorously enforce our existing immigration laws. Local and state law enforcement should be free to enforce immigration laws. Employers who hire illegal workers should be heavily fined and if a pattern of practice is established their owners/corporate officers should be fined and jailed for the offenses and the corporate charter revoked. Identification documents must be limited and strong security measures like biometrics applied to documents of foreign workers. American citizens driver's licenses are now secured by the Real ID Act, non-citizens should be required to present documents not susceptible to fraud and counterfeit, and include biometric security measures - especially for work purposes.

Learn and speak English
Learning the language of this country is the very least an immigrant can do. Learn and speak English. Learn the history of this country. Learn the Constitution and civics. Learn and practice the principles that make America the greatest country in the world.

You Don't Speak For Me

FAIR and the Tanton cabal have not been satisfied with their effort to form a puppet organization within the Hispanic community. They have also reached out to the Black community to start Choose Black America a group that believes that, "Mass illegal immigration has been the single greatest impediment to black advancement in this country over the past 25 years. Blacks, in particular, have lost economic opportunities, seen their kids’ schools flooded with non-English speaking students, and felt the socio-economic damage of illegal immigration more acutely than any other group."

As in the case of You Don't Speak For Me, the contact information for the group lists Mr. Mehlman and Ms. Wysoki. Unlike it's Hispanic counterpart, FAIR is also listed as a contact. This is perhaps because the philosophy put forth by FAIR and the rest of the Tanton cabal might find a more receptive audience in the Black community than the Hispanic, where it would be universally reviled.

Choose Black America argues that black Americans have already been severely damaged by decades of uncontrolled illegal immigration and stand to lose even more if 12 million, or more, illegal aliens are granted amnesty. The coalition also formed in response to the failure of black elected officials to represent the interests of African Americans.

“Mass illegal immigration has been a major impediment to black advancement in this country over the past 25 years,” declared Dr. Frank Morris Sr., chairman of Choose Black America “All Americans are harmed by rampant illegal immigration, but it is blacks, in particular, who have lost economic opportunities, watched their kids’ schools flood with non-English speaking students, and felt the direct impact in countless ways. Our government has failed us, our elected officials have failed us, and now they are prepared to compound the damage with an amnesty and guest worker program that will set black Americans back a hundred years.”

Choose Black America

Tanton and his web of closeted xenophobes and racists, not satisfied with infiltrating much of the mainstream discourse about immigration and immigration reform, have now engaged in a campaign to foster division in the Hispanic community. But perhaps more importantly they are attempting to make sure that any hope at an alliance between the nation's two largest minority groups can be prevented. They are cleverly turning one group against the other, playing to some underlying concerns in the Black community, to make sure that the warped Tanton worldview will prevail. I wonder what the Black leaders, who have unwittingly joined their crusade, will think when they find out that the Tanton cabal has been willing to sacrifice the Voting Rights Act on the alter of their nativist cause. Hopefully they will see the hypocrisy that permeates Tanton and his followers worldview, and come to understand the true motives that lay just beneath the surface.

"You Don't Speak For Me" Spokesperson Claudia Spencer On FOX May 1, 2006 predicts violence will occur if immigrants continue with their "extremely disgusting" demands for rights.

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

Just in case there was even the slightest doubt in your mind that Bush’s upcoming announcement to put upwards of 10,000 National Guard troops on the southern border is anything other than a political sideshow to shore up his fading support from the right-wing of his party; this little blast from the past demonstrates just how committed to “border security” the boy-king really is:

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force

Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle
Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities."

The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department.

Link

tags: immigration, National Guard, Border patrol, Bush, troops

Having cut nearly 10,000 Border Patrol Agents from the budget last year, to now replace them with a like number of National Guardsmen this year can only be seen for what it is. An attempt to throw the right wing of the party a bone before the midterms, so they can return to their districts, heads held high, and claim some semblance of victory. At the same time Bush is hoping that by helping them, he can shore up his fading support among conservatives.

With the Senate poised to pass comprehensive reform, and the majority of the American people supporting it, Bush and the power-brokers on the Hill know that without some concessions, they face an outright rebellion from a right-wing that has gambled the entire pot on a “get tough” stance on immigration reform.

They are hoping against hope that this move will not only placate the Tancredo, Sensenbrenner, Hayworth wing of the party, but more importantly the constituency they have whipped into an anti-immigrant frenzy over the last year.

Whether the move works or not is to be seen, but what is known is that the plan to put the Guard on the border is not so much about “securing the border” as it is about a trying to secure re-election for scores of Republican Congressmen and Senators.

On Thursday the Center for Immigration Studies released a new poll that showed the majority of American people favored the Houses enforcement-only stance on immigration. The press immediately picked up the story and speculated that this “sudden shift” in sentiment was due to a backlash against the recent immigrants rights rallies.

With the recent increased public awareness of the immigration reform issue, polls taken over the past month have consistently shown a large majority of the American people, although favoring tighter control of the borders, prefer a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. One that provides a path towards eventual citizenship for the twelve million undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States.

tags: immigration, immigration polls, Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, immigration backlash

More than three-quarters of Americans favor allowing illegal immigrants who have spent many years in the United States to apply for citizenship, according to a poll conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corp.

In the poll, released Tuesday, 77 percent of those responding favored allowing illegal immigrants who have been in United States for more than five years to stay and apply for citizenship if they have a job, and pay a fine and back taxes. Twenty percent said they opposed such a measure.

A majority opposed a proposal to allow iIlegal immigrants who have been in the United States for two to five years to stay on a temporary basis, without a chance to apply for U.S. citizenship. Fifty-four percent opposed that measure, and 40 percent favored it.

A proposal to deport illegal immigrants in the United States for less than two years was favored by 64 percent and opposed by 31 percent.

CNN 3/27

Most Americans – 74% - think illegal immigrants in the U.S. should be able stay and work in this country if the following criteria are met: they pay a fine, they’ve been in the U.S. for at least five years, paid any back taxes owed, can speak English, and have no criminal record. Those criteria match those in the Senate compromise bill that was shelved last week.

CBS 3-10

More than one-half of those questioned are open to allowing undocumented workers to obtain some temporary legal status so they can stay in the United States.

At the same time, people doubt that erecting a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border could help to fix such a complex and enduring problem, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Two-thirds do not think it would work.

‘‘You can’t go and round up 11 million people and ship them out of the country,’’ said Robert Kelly. The Chicago lawyer is among the 56 percent of Americans who favor offering some kind of legal status. ‘‘It just isn’t practical,’’ he said.

Two-thirds of those surveyed think illegal immigrants fill jobs that most Americans do not want, the poll found.

AP/Ipsos 4-3

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted April 21-24, in which 61 percent favored letting illegal immigrants stay if they pass a security check, pay taxes and meet other conditions similar to those listed in the pending Senate bill.
NBC/Wall Street Journal 3-24

Yet despite what these polls and scores of other taken recently tell us, yesterday the Center for Immigration Studies released a poll that runs contrary to all the others. The Zogby poll, sponsored by CIS seems to paint a polar opposite picture of the American people’s views on the issue. The poll was has been quickly picked up by the press and presented as evidence that there has been a “backlash” to the recent rallies and the American people have had a change of heart. (this despite the fact that the poll was taken prior to May 1st rallies and at the same time as many of the same news agencies own contradictory polls)

Likely voters prefer enforcement, new poll says

Likely American voters, by a wide margin, prefer a plan to get tough on illegal immigrants over one that would put them on a path to citizenship, according to a new poll released Wednesday, which contradicts several other recent surveys.

The poll, taken in the second half of April by Zogby America for the Center for Immigration Studies, found that 69 percent of Americans favor a bill passed by the House of Representatives that would fortify the border, force businesses to verify that workers are legal and allow greater cooperation on immigration from local law enforcement.

By contrast, 43 percent favored a plan being debated in the Senate that would allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who are already here to apply for citizenship. It also would double the number of future green cards -- permits to live in the United States permanently and apply for citizenship -- and it would admit an additional 400,000 foreign workers each year.

San Francisco Chronicle

So how could this one poll, among scores of others, come to such a different conclusion?

Before looking at the wording and methodology used, a quick look at exactly who and what the Center for Immigration Reform is might shed some light on the picture:

CIS describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists. However, CIS has achieved credibility with the media and in think tank circles because of its lack of the kind of strident anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with many restrictionist groups, its willingness to invite pro-immigrant voices to its forums, and the scholarly format of its reports.

The Center for Immigration Studies was founded in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Another FAIR spin-off is the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which functions as the litigation arm of FAIR, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (1)

Early funding for CIS was channeled through U.S. Inc, a nonprofit established and still directed by John Tanton, who was one of the cofounders of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Among the right-wing foundations that fund CIS are Sarah Scaife Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Jaqueline Hume Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Scaife Family Foundation.

John Tanton is widely recognized as the leading figure in the anti-immigration and "official English" movements in the United States. Initially, Tanton's public policy advocacy work was driven by his commitment to zero population growth and environmental conservation. By the late 1970s, however, this concern about the environment and population growth evolved into a crusade against immigration flows into the United States, particularly from Latin American and Caribbean nations

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. The memo charged 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 Catholic." Furthermore, Tanton raised concerns about the "educability" of Hispanics. (2)

(1) RightWeb profile of CIS

(2) RightWeb profile of John Tanton

Raising a family and practicing medicine in Petoskey, Mich., Tanton started out as a passionate environmentalist. In the 1960s and early 1970s, he was a leader in the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and other mainstream environmental groups.

But Tanton soon became fixated on population control, seeing environmental degradation as the inevitable result of overpopulation.

When the indigenous birth rate fell below replacement level in the United States, his preoccupation turned to immigration. And this soon led him to race.

Tanton had something akin to a conversion when he came across The Camp of the Saints, a lurid, racist novel written by Frenchman Jean Raspail that depicts an invasion of the white, Western world by a fleet of starving, dark-skinned refugees.
Tanton helped get the novel published in English and soon was promoting what he considered the book's prophetic argument.

"Their [Third World] 'huddled masses' cast longing eyes on the apparent riches of the industrial west," Tanton wrote in 1975. "The developed countries lie directly in the path of a great storm."

And so he began to develop a counter-force. After 1979, when he co-founded FAIR, Tanton launched "a whole array of organizations that serve the overall ideological and political battle plan to halt immigration — even if those groups have somewhat differing politics," explained Rick Swartz, the pro-immigration activist who founded the National Immigration Forum in 1982.

Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Report; The Pupeteer

John Tanton's Network

The organized anti-immigration "movement" is almost entirely the handiwork of one man, Michigan activist John H. Tanton.

Here is a list of 13 groups in the loose-knit Tanton network, followed by acronyms if the groups use them, founding dates, and Tanton's role in the groups.

Those organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk (*).

In this list, "founded" means a group was founded or co-founded by John Tanton. "Funded" means that U.S. Inc., the funding conduit created and still headed by Tanton, has made grants to the group.

*American Immigration Control Foundation
AICF, 1983, funded

*American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together
1992, funded

California Coalition for Immigration Reform
CCIR, 1994, funded

Californians for Population Stabilization
1996, funded (founded separately in 1986)

Center for Immigration Studies
CIS, 1985, founded and funded

Federation for American Immigration Reform
FAIR, 1979, founded and funded

NumbersUSA
1996, founded and funded

Population-Environment Balance
1973, joined board in 1980

Pro English
1994, founded and funded

ProjectUSA
1999, funded

*The Social Contract Press
1990, founded and funded

U.S. English
1983, founded and funded

U.S. Inc.
1982, founded and funded

Southern Poverty Law Center

It’s quite evident given these facts the CIS is an agenda driven organization, but that doesn’t necessarily discredit this current poll. But a quick look at some of the wording of the polls questions and anomalies in its findings do bring doubt unto its validity.

“The House of Representatives has passed a bill that tries to make illegal immigrants go home and reduce future illegal immigration mainly by fortifying the border, forcing businesses to verify that workers are legally in the country and allowing greater cooperation from local law enforcement. It does not increase the number of people allowed into the country legally. Do you think this bill is:”
Good or very good idea 69%, bad or very bad 27%, not sure 4%.

“The Senate is considering a bill that would allow 12 million illegal immigrants here to apply for green cards, which allows permanent residence and citizenship, after background check and payment of back taxes. In addition, the bill would double the number of green cards in the future from 1 to 2 million a year. It would also allow an additional 400,000 foreign workers each year, who could also apply for green cards. The bill increases the enforcement of immigration laws. Do you think this bill is:
Good or very good 43%, bad or very bad 50%, not sure 7%.”

When deportation as added to the mix the breakdown went :
House Bill 56% , mass deportations and roundups 12%, Senate Bill 28%

CIS

The questions are masterfully crafted lies of omission. In the first question referring the House Bill there is no mention made of exactly how the bill suggests to "try to make illegal immigrants go home" which of course is to make them felons, arrest them and eventually deport them. But as we see, only twelve percent of the respondents favored deportation so that aspect is omitted in the question.

The rest of question one goes on to list a series of border tightening and employer verification measures, as if they are the hallmark of this bill only. Yet the second question referring to the Senate bill only in passing states "The bill increases the enforcement of immigration laws" when in fact it stipulates many of the the very same measures used to "sell" the House bill in the first question.

Lastly there is the stress in the second question put on the Senates plan to increased number of green cards to be issued as opposed to the Houses bill which "does not increase the number of people allowed into the country legally". But it is for good reason the House bill makes no mention of increased green cards, it's sole purpose was to "secure the border".

The House didn't address the issue of how immigration should be handled in the future. They addressed no real reform issues, no changes to the system, no provisions for future immigration, only stricter and more punitive enforcement to prevent illegal immigration. The whole issue of legal immigration was ignored.

The question does not present two alternatives plans for the future but rather one plan versus nothing. Additionally the Senate plan has no firm numbers for future immigration as the number would be determined by a sliding scale of the number of work visas and green cards issued each year measured as a percentage against the number issued the year before. For the poll to state that one million additional green cards would be issued is baseless.

As with all polling, the devil is always in the details. We've seen it a million times before, "likely voters" vs. "registered voters" etc., but in the case of this poll, given it's source, one must concluded that the crafting of the questions was intentional to receive the desired results.

The timing of it's release should not be lost on anyone either, coming just days after the May 1 rallies.

Polls done during the same period were all released prior to May 1, but this one comes just in time for CIS to claim there's a growing backlash against the immigrants rights movement, hoping all along that the American people will begin to change their thinking to more closely resemble that shown in their flawed poll.

It was only a matter of time before John Tanton's propaganda machine got into full swing with it's campaign of misinformation.

Menubar

Followers

URGENT ACTION

Pro-Migrant Blogroll

We Can Stop the Hate

Read The Plan

Learn the Facts

Take Action

Categories Main Menu

Translate

Categories Index

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Monday, October 9, 2006

Tuesday, August 8, 2006

Friday, August 4, 2006

Friday, June 30, 2006

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Friday, May 5, 2006

Search This Blog

Standing Firm

ImmigratiomProf Blog

Bender"s Immigration Bulletin

Latino Politico

¡Para Justica y Libertad!

Latina Lista

The Unapologetic Mexican

Citizen Orange

Culture Kitchen

Of América

The Mex Files

The State of Opportunity

DMI Blog

"Just News" Blog

workingimmigrants.com

LatinoPundit

Orcinus

Immigrants In USA Blog

Immigrants and Politics Blog

NIJC News Blog

U.S. Immigration Weblog

Google News - Immigration

Contact

Archives

Contributors

Migra Matters Via E-Mail

Syndication

Meta data

Progressive Blog Roll

Snap Shots