Author: Duke1676

He was practically giddy as he started the lead-in to the news from Escondido California. Like a crazed Oberführer exhorting on his xenophobic minions in their quest for racial purity, Lou Dobbs gleefully announced that one more local community had taken up his crusade to rid the nation of those he deems unworthy of inclusion.

By a vote of 3-2 the city council of Escondido had voted to make it illegal for landlords to rent to undocumented immigrants.

Dobbs appeared so overjoyed, he looked as though he was about to break into a dance (a little jig at the Wolfsschanze perhaps). He smirked knowingly as the reporters discussed how the immigrants lived in such “overcrowded, (and) unsanitary conditions” the council had no choice but to  “penalize property owners who rent to illegal aliens” in hopes for removing the scourge from their city.

As has been the case in all of the other instances where local governments have decided to pass their own versions of “immigration legislation,” Escondido was painted as just “the latest American city to try to do the job the federal government will not do.”  

Yet, despite what Dobbs tells us, these local initiatives have little to do with immigration policy.

No right thinking person could possible believe that trying to drive undocumented immigrants from Escondido CA, or Herndon VA, Suffolk County NY, Hazelton PA,  Carpentersville IL, or  Mesa AZ will effect in the slightest way the flow of immigrants into the country or change the overall immigration situation any more than the President’s wall building project will.

Just as Bush’s twelve foot high wall will only spur the sales of 13 foot ladders, these “crackdowns” on “illegal aliens” will only force immigrant populations to relocate over time to more friendly areas or towns somewhere else in the country. And in essence, that is the whole purpose of this kind of legislation in the first place … it’s a form of localized ethnic cleansing.  In some cases it’s a way to return to time before diversity… in others, a way for newly arriving Anglo populations from other areas of the country to change the centuries old ethnic mix of a region. But in all cases it’s all about race and ethnicity.

No one, not even Lou Dobbs in all his maniacal bigotry, could possible believe that those who have risked life and limb to make a better life are going to simply turn around and return to lives of abject poverty, leaving behind family and friends,  simply because one town decides to target them.

But the residents of these towns already know that.  All they really want to accomplish with this kind of legislation is to make “these people” go somewhere else – to the next town over, the next county, the next state… anywhere by their little town.

To understand their motivations, one must only listen to propaganda minister, Lou Dobbs, snarl about “Mexicans,” or hear Pat Buchanan, talk about the death of the “White European Race.”  

Unlike an earlier incarnation of this kind of legislation in the form of the Jim Crow laws of the past, this current legislation is not intended to keep a people “in their place” but rather to force a people to find a new place… any place…as long as it’s not where they are.

Yet, like those insidious laws of the past, these new anti-immigrant laws rely on the same kind of intimidation and coercion.

How else can one explain proposals like that in Mesa AZ which would allow police to use laws against loitering to check immigration status and then use newly granted powers to deport the undocumented?  Or the proposition in Carpentersville IL to require schools to turn over records to see if “five children … (are living) at the same home address, and (if) that happens to be a one-bedroom apartment” in order to target “illegal aliens”?  

They are meant for one purpose alone; to intimidate … but not just the undocumented. They are intended to coerce anyone who might come in regular contact with the undocumented or look like the undocumented, lives in poverty like the undocumented or speaks a foreign language like the undocumented, works with the undocumented, hires the undocumented, or supplies services to the undocumented.  In essence these laws are intended to drive out all those who do not meet Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan’s idea of what “real Americans” should look or act like.

To hide behind a mask of righteousness, claiming that these laws are enacted to “protect” Americas border, or American jobs, or save tax dollars, or protect our schools or whatever else needs protecting, is simply a lie.

These new laws are no different then the laws passed in another country, by another regime concerned about racial purity, nearly seventy years ago. Those laws also denied work, shelter, and freedom of movement and association to a group of people based upon their ethnic background. Those laws too spoke of a peoples “illegality.”  And just as today, those who orchestrated those laws spoke of an “invasion of their culture” by those who could never be assimilated into society.

As any student of history knows, the horrors that followed did not spring full blown overnight, they were gradual. Rights and privileges were taken away slowly, first the right to own a business, then the right to work, then the right to shelter, then the right of free movement and finally the right to life itself.  

All one must do is listen to the vitriol spewed by those advancing the anti-immigration cause today to know that the line between those laws of the past and the current legislation is not so well defined that we can forget all the of the lessons learned from that terrible time.

From: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

For the third time in a little over a month George Allen must face questions stemming from remarks and actions that demonstrate what could be politely termed racial intolerance, but in fact reek of old fashioned racism. According to a recently released article in Salon, Allen’s former college teammates are now coming forward with tales of blatant racism that some, like Rush Limbaugh, will characterize as “college pranks,”  but clearly border on hate crimes. In one incident, Allen had his friends drive him to the local black neighborhood so he could take the severed head of a deer and stuff it into a mailbox.

While Allen’s case may be extreme, it says something about what has happened to Republican Party. For some it’s been a game of “catch me if you can” with racism for years. Late night comics tell jokes about “how few Blacks Republicans there are,” but the American people have known for years about the underlying truths behind those jokes. The Republican Party has increasingly become a home for racists of every stripe and the sooner that party starts to come to terms with that reality, the better.

Frequently, when cases like Allen’s come to light, the knee-jerk reaction of Republicans is to attack the messenger. The standard defense is to make an accusation of “playing a race car,” or claim oversensitivity or “political correctness” in the extreme. In cases where no possible other explanation can be found except racism, a quick act of contrition, followed by immediate forgiveness of “youthful indiscretions” or a “lack of sensitivity” has been the modus operandi.

But no longer can Allen be viewed as an aberration. Increasingly, Republicans are having to deny accusations of racism. From Tom Tancredo standing behind a Confederate flag singing “Dixie” with the members of the League of the South, to candidates supported by the Minuteman having to explain pictures of skinheads carrying Nazi flags as they patrol the border, or endorsements from the KKK , from Vernon Robinson’s racist campaign ads in North Carolina, or the RSNC ads run in the RI primary, racism is becoming a major topic of discussion.

But should this really surprise us.

In order to understand how an inordinate amount of racism can be concentrated in one political party, one must look back over the last half century or so and see how the modern Republican Party was born.

Throughout the New Deal years of Democratic dominance, racism was the national norm. Yet it’s most extreme proponents were evenly dispersed between the two major parties. The Democrats had the racists of the Old South, tied to the ideals of the Confederacy and segregation. The Republican Party contained the blueblood racism of country clubs and private estates, of those who divided their world by class, race and religion.

In the 1950’s this dynamic began to shift. A rift emerged in the Democratic Party over civil rights leading to Strom Thurman’s Dixiecrat breakaway. But perhaps a more subtle shift was going on within the Republican Party. A new thread of racism began running through the party as those whom Nixon would later call the “silent majority” of white suburban voters who had fled the nation’s urban centers to escape “urban decay” and quite frankly people of color, started joining the party. Yet the balance between the parties remained the same for the most part throughout the sixties.

In the late sixties and early seventies everything changed as the modern Republican majority was cobbled together through a coalition of diverse groups with differing agendas and goals. It began with Nixon’s Southern Strategy to woo disaffected Dixiecrats from the Democratic majority. After the late sixties and the final absorption of newly franchised minorities into the Democratic Party a major transition began.  Throughout the period, large blocks of lifelong Southern Democrats, opposing their party’s support of civil rights, switched parties and joined the Republican ranks. With them came the seeds of racism in today’s Republican Party.  

Later in the 80’s, Reagan went after another disaffected group, the “Reagan Democrats.” Made up of white working and middleclass Americans, and union workers, Reagan took advantage of a backlash against school bussing, desegregation, affirmative action and many of the other programs and policies that grew out of the civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights and youth movements to bring a new group into his party. But with this group also came some more seeds of racism.  

With the absorption of these two groups the face of the party was transformed. Reagan could now appeal to his new base with tales of “Welfare Queens” in order to gain support of longtime conservative goals like disassembling the social welfare system. GHW Bush could use Willie Horton to get elected.

This situation has existed for about the last twenty-five years. Social and fiscal conservative need only wrap their ideas in a thin veil of racism and then with a wink and a nod present them to their new found friends. We see it with affirmative action, school vouchers, immigration, welfare reform, and even foreign policy. If a racial component can be found and somehow exploited, the policy can be sold.

But this situation has always been a deal with the devil. No political party can use race so flagrantly and continue to garner support from a growingly diverse American people. Ergo the new push by some to close the borders and stop the “browning of America.”

Increasingly there is a Republican backlash against “multiculturalism” and an insistence on linguistic and cultural purity. That is because there is no more powerful weapon against racism than diversity. It is no wonder that some of the most racist elements of society now find themselves drawn to the anti-immigration movement.

The question now at hand in the light of the Allen revelations and everything else that’s been going on over the last few years is: How long can reasonable Republicans hold their noses and ignore what’s going on, and perhaps most importantly, keep their party viable without it going entirely off the deep end ?  

If those in the party who do not attest to Allen’s or Tancredo’s brand of racism do not do something soon their party will not survive, and if it does, it will certainly not be anything they would ever want to be a part of.

From: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

No longer content to patrol the borders from the comfort of their Winnebego’s, propped in lawn chairs with binoculars and two-way radios, the Minutemen Defense Corps, has decided to take their fight for closed borders directly to the American electorate through their political action committee Minutemen PAC.

According to its controversial leader, Chris Simcox, the PAC has already raised upwards of $350,000 to help anti-immigration candidates, and successfully influenced primary contests with Minutemen sponsored TV and radio advertising on behalf of their chosen candidates.

In Michigan’s 7th Congressional District the Minutemen spent nearly $50,000 on TV and radio ads for their candidate, Tim Walberg in his primary bid to unseat incumbent, Joe Schwarz. Walberg, a former pastor, won the Aug. 8th contest garnering a six-point lead over the first term Congressman.

Schwarz, who was targeted by numerous right-wing special interest groups including the anti-government Club for Growth PAC, which sent over $1 million  to the race, saw his defeat as  a probable “victory for right to life, anti-abortion, anti-embryonic stem cell groups but it’s a net loss for the Republican party because it just pushes the party farther to the right.”  

Simcox sees things a little differently, viewing Schwarz’s defeat as a clear endorsement of his anti-immigrant agenda.

“Michigan sent Washington D.C. a message tonight that voters are fed up with coddling illegal aliens with government benefits and amnesty,” Simcox said.  “Tim Walberg is a solid individual who will stand up for South Central Michigan voters concerned about the threat illegal immigration presents.”

“It’s clear that Joe Schwarz’s support for Spanish Language ballots, government benefits for illegal aliens, allowing towns to be sanctuaries for illegal aliens and worst, President Bush’s Amnesty proposal was a major factor in his overwhelming defeat tonight,” Simcox said.

Minuteman PAC spent nearly $50,000 on radio and cable TV ads throughout the district, including on expensive Detroit and Lansing stations, Simcox said.  “I am proud that we were able to play a role in this successful campaign,” Simcox added, noting that the Republican Primary winner is the overwhelming favorite going into the November election in the solidly GOP 7th District.
Link

After the Michigan win,  Simcox and his group focused on the Nevada primary for the 2nd  Congressional District. The Aug. 15th  race boiled down to essentially to a three-way contest between Nevada’s secretary of state, Dean Heller, state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, and former Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons.

Again joining forces with the Washington, D.C.-based Club for Growth, which accounted for more than 80 percent of Angle’s reported $720,202 in campaign contributions, the Minutemen PAC again paid for numerous TV and radio ads supporting Angle.

Despite their best efforts, Angle lost the election by 421 votes.  But according to her website she will be seeking a new election on the grounds that there are “errors that occurred in the primary vote in Congressional District 2 of Nevada, that disenfranchised voters leaving the results of the election in doubt.”  If her effort is successful it is yet to be seen if the minutemen will once again get behind her campaign.

There are other races that the Minutemen have taken a great interest in.

One of those is that of “Minuteman 2 Congress”, candidate Randy Graf in Arizona’s 8th district. The hand-picked Simcox candidate leads in the polls right now to run as the Republican candidate for the seat vacated by incumbent Jim Kolbe. Graf’s ties to the minutemen go back to the groups inception over a year ago, when he was one of its initial members. Minutemen PAC has strongly supported Graf throughout his candidacy.  From Graf’s website comes this:

Randy Graf is a Minuteman. He enthusiastically answered the call when the Minuteman project 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.
Link

Another candidate the Minutemen have contributed to is Colorado State Sen. Doug Lamborn who just tied up his parties nomination in the 5th district of that state after beating five other challengers to run against Democrat Jay Fawcett, for the seat vacated by incumbent Joel Hefley (R). Acccording to their website, “MMPAC infused key funds into the effort–the Federal Election Act limits of $5,000 for the primary and an additional $5,000 for the general election. We are delighted that Lamborn’s victory means his campaign will be putting Minuteman PAC’s general election donation to good use against his Democrat opponent!”

In addition to these challengers,, MMPAC has also donated to incumbents, Tom Tancredo (CO-6),  Steve King (IA-5) and John Hostettler (IN-8) according to recent FEC filings.

But the Minutemen have much grander ambitions. They plan on taking their campaign national, targeting twenty-five Senators and Representatives they have placed on their “list of shame” because of  “their votes and actions AGAINST border security and FOR amnesty.” in support of comprehensive immigration reform. Not surprisingly the list is entirely made up of Democrats except for Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffee.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE)
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Rep. John Barrow (D), GA-12
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D), NV 1
Rep. Marion Berry (D), AR 1
Rep. Lincoln Davis (D), TN 4
Rep. Bart Gordon (D), TN 6
Rep. Steve Israel (D), NY 2
Rep. John Murtha (D), PA 12
Rep. Jim McDermott (D), WA 7
Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D), MN 7
Rep. Steve Rothman (D), NJ 9
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D), CA 47
Rep. Joe Schwartz (R), MI 7
Rep. Ike Skelton (D), MO 4
Rep. Vic Snyder (D), AR 2
Link

In spite of the fact that the Senate Bill that the Minutemen so strongly oppose was sponsored by Judiciary Chairmen Arlen Specter[R-PA], and co-sponsored by Sen Sam Brownback,  [R-KS] , Sen Lindsey Graham, [R-SC], Sen Chuck Hagel, [R-NE], Sen Edward M Kennedy,. [D-MA], Sen Mel Martinez, [R-FL], and Sen , John McCain [R-AZ],  only Sen. Kennedy’s name appears on the “list of shame.”  The glaring omission of Republicans like Lugar, DeWine, and Snowe who supported the bill only raises questions as to the Minutemen’s true motivations.

Is their intent to change the balance of power in Washington in their favor, or is it to insure Republican control even if those Republicans oppose their anti-immigration vision?  It appears from the “list of shame” it is the later. Their political action would have little effect on changing the dynamic in Washington vis a vis immigration reform and the Senate Republicans who oppose them would still be in office.

Obviously Simcox’s minutemen have taken a large step forward in legitimizing their brand of xenophobic racism. They’ve come a long way from the rhetoric of the first patrols over a year ago:

The night of April 3, armed vigilantes camped along Border Road in a series of watch posts set-up for the Minuteman Project, a month-long action in which revolving casts of 150 to 200 anti-immigration militants wearing cheap plastic “Undocumented Border Patrol Agent” badges mobilized in southeastern Arizona. Their stated goal was to “do the job our government refuses to do” and “protect America” from the “tens of millions of invading illegal aliens who are devouring and plundering our nation.”

At Station Two, Minuteman volunteers grilled bratwursts and fantasized about murder.

“It should be legal to kill illegals,” said Carl, a 69-year old retired Special Forces veteran who fought in Vietnam and now lives out West. “Just shoot ’em on sight. That’s my immigration policy recommendation. You break into my country, you die.”

Carl was armed with a revolver chambered to fire shotgun shells. He wore this hand cannon in a holster below a shirt that howled “American bad asses” in red, white and blue. The other vigilantes assigned to Station Two included a pair of self-professed members of the National Alliance, a violent neo-Nazi organization. These men, who gave their names only as Johnny and Michael, were outfitted in full-body camouflage and strapped with semi-automatic pistols.

Earlier that day, Johnny and Michael had scouted sniper positions in the rolling, cactus-studded foothills north of Border Road, taking compass readings and drawing maps for future reference.

“I agree completely,” Michael said. “You get up there with a rifle and start shooting four or five of them a week, the other four or five thousand behind them are going to think twice about crossing that line.”

With a grilled sausage in one hand and a cheap night vision scope in the other, Johnny scanned the brush in Mexico, spitting distance away.

“The thing to do would be to drop the bodies just a few hundred feet into the U.S. and just leave them there, with lights on them at night,” he said. “That sends the message ‘No Trespassing,’ in any language.”
Link

But then again … maybe not: Minutemen tell Young Republicans we should shoot border crossers.

From: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

Republican Congressional candidate Vernon Robinson continued his campaign of hate and bigotry, releasing a new radio spot featuring his sick and twisted idea of humor. Like a drunken bore at a company picnic who insists on telling anyone within earshot the same racist, off-color joke over and over again, Robinson, who is running in North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District, continued his one-trick-pony campaign of hate mongering with a new radio ad titled “Beverly Hill-Miller ” that parodies the TV theme song with derogatory lyrics about gays and “illegals”

Like previous ads by Robinson, this one relies on the kind of misinformation, bigotry and ignorance, that would clearly qualify as “hate-speech” in less inflammatory times. It is only in the current political climate that someone of Robinson’s ilk could possibly be the candidate of a major political party. In more rational times, he would have long been relegated to the oblivion of the political fringes as an obscure third-party kook.
Robinson first gained national attention when he started running the now infamous TV spot called “Twilight Zone” that was so far out in left-field (or right-field if you prefer) that it could not have been run as a parody on a late night comedy show without causing scandal and outrage. Attacking gays, immigrants, and “liberal judges”, the ad contains almost every inflammatory and racist stereotype in the wing-nut pantheon.

Watch “The Twilight Zone”

But it is “illegal aliens” who appear to be the focus of most of Robinson’s wrath. According to his various radio ads, immigrants are criminals who rape nuns, all collect welfare, steal Americans tax money, receive free healthcare, and refuse to speak English. Using every lie and misconception available, Robinson’s radio commercials spew out a litany of racist and hate filled statements in rapid-fire succession.  

“Mariachi Party for Gays and Illegal Aliens.”

“Beverly Hill-Miller.”

“Illegal alien rapes nun & strangles her with Rosary .”

Why the Republicans are not ashamed to have a nutcase like Robison representing them is beyond comprehension. But it is their decision to make, and they will undoubtedly have to live with the consequences.

But as rational thinking Americans we can not allow this lunatic to lend his voice to an already extreme House Republican Majority. He must be stopped. He must be sent a message that this kind of bigotry will not be tolerated.

We can do that by making sure that Brad Miller is returned to Congress from the 13th district of North Carolina.

You can help:

Brad Miller for Congress

Brad Miller Act Blue Page

From: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

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  see what all the hubbub is really about.

The map allows you to breakout any of the 33 different 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.

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 and passed by 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.

From: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

One of the favorite mantras of the anti-immigrant right is that they have nothing against immigration when it’s done “the right way,” it’s only those who try to “cheat the system” and enter “illegally” that they oppose.  Their whole philosophy is based on the premise that there is path for those who meet the criteria, a path that will allow them to escape poverty or oppression.  Inherent in this philosophy is the belief that for the deserving, the system works. Without that belief, their rhetoric rings hollow.

Certainly no group embodies this ideal of “the deserving” more than those who seek asylum in the US. They come not for monetary gain, or to make a better life economically, they come not to send home remittances, or seek fortune; they come for one reason only – to survive. They come to escape genocide or war, natural disaster, famine or political oppression that leaves them no other choice. They come to save their lives. Yet a recently released study shows that it is not circumstance or merit that determines whether or not an asylum request is granted – it’s the luck of the draw – it comes down to which judge hears their case.

A report released by Transactional Records Clearinghouse, a research group associated with Syracuse University, looked at close to 300,000 requests for asylum in the United States over a ten year period, to see how they were handled.

Their analysis showed a shocking disparity in the rate at which individual immigration judges declined the applications. According to the data, those seeking asylum have better, or worse, chances depending on their geographic location.

One Judge in Miami had denied 96.7% of his 1,118 cases, while a Judge in New York had denied only 9.8% of her 1,638 asylum requests, raising serious questions about the quality of justice in US immigration courts.

The study also documented a disparity due to other factors as well. National origin played a role along with the asylum seekers ability to procure legal representation. While those with legal representation were denied asylum in 64% of the cases, those who did not have legal representation were denied in 93% of the cases.

Amongst those meeting the legal grounds to seek asylum, 80 percent of individuals from El Salvador, Mexico and Haiti, for example, had been denied asylum, while those from Afghanistan and Burma had a 70% success rate.

Above the main entrance to the Supreme Court are engraved the words, “Equal Justice Under the Law.” This phrase, an idealistic statement of one of the core values of the United States, has now been incorporated into the working philosophies and mission statements of many federal, state and local agencies. One such organization, for example, is the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the administrative body within the Justice Department responsible for operating a system of courts that specialize in immigration matters.

In its annual report and on its web site, the EOIR states that it “is committed to providing fair, expeditious, and uniform application of the nation’s immigration laws in all cases.”

But lawyers who have practiced in this special court, federal appeals court judges, organizations representing those who have been subject to its judgments and others have for many years complained about numerous occasions when the court has in various ways failed to achieve these goals.

-snip-

Under the authority of long-standing UN conventions and an extensive body of United States law, tens of thousands of individuals each year seek asylum in the United States. Many of these requests are processed by the 200-plus special judges of the immigration court, a wing of the Justice Department with an annual budget of about $200 million. In the last decade, these judges have disposed of “on their merits” somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 requests each year.

The immigration judges thus are critical decision makers in what is a complex mix of international treaties and U.S. law. In general, the key moment in each asylum hearing comes when the judge, after considering the evidence and listening to direct and cross examination, decides to (1) deny the asylum application (opening up the probability of deportation) or (2) grant it, on either an absolute or conditional basis.

-snip-

TRAC’s systematic examination of the nearly 300 thousand asylum decisions over more than a decade documents a significant judge-by-judge disparity in the proportion of asylum requests that are granted versus denied. These findings held even after restricting our comparisons to only those asylum seekers who were represented by an attorney, and only comparing judges who had made substantial numbers of decisions.

The extreme range in asylum denial rates among the 208 judges deciding 100 or more of these matters from FY 2000 through the first months of FY … shows there were eight judges who denied asylum to nine out of ten of their applicants and two who granted asylum to nine out of ten of theirs. Similar variability was found in the denial rate among the 193 judges who made 100 or more of these decisions in the FY 1994-1999 period.

-snip-

Given the broad constitutional hope that similarly situated individuals will be treated in similar ways and the EOIR’s stated goal of providing uniform application of the immigration laws, the disparities in this aspect of the court’s operations are surprising.

Link

Obviously, the “right path” towards immigration heralded by the right and their media minions is not quite as straight and narrow as they’d like us to believe. The study found enough discrepancies and disparity in the asylum seeking process to cast serious doubts on the system as a whole.  Few would disagree that at the least, asylum seekers deserve a fair and equitable hearing before an impartial justice system. To do otherwise, runs contrary to the very principles of equality under the law on which our nation was founded.

from: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

Contrary to popular opinion, and the propaganda coming from anti-immigration advocates in Washington, a new study released in health care policy journal Health Affairs found that undocumented immigrants are not the cause of a public health crisis defined by over-crowded emergency departments, higher health care costs, and lower-quality primary care.

The study of 46,600 people living in 60 different communities found that the communities with high levels of Hispanics and undocumented immigrants had far lesser rates of emergency department use than communities with low undocumented representation. By far the largest cause of emergency department overcrowding was found to be an increased use of them as primary care facilities by native born Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

The supposed stress put on our healthcare system by the undocumented has been a cornerstone in much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric coming out of Washington.

According to the official Republican talking points on immigration, Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention, Republican pollster Frank Luntz suggests that candidates should stress that “… as a matter of principle, we should not use our tax dollars to pay for services for illegal immigrants until we take care of the hard-working, tax-paying Americans. This shows voters that you have compassion but that you also understand where your priorities are – and should be.”

He suggest that a good way to express this point is to use the following language:

“If we stop people from successfully getting across the border, then our schools won’t be as overcrowded, the hospital waiting rooms and emergency rooms won’t be as overcrowded, our highways and our streets won’t be as overcrowded, our social services won’t be as abused, and taxpayers won’t be as punished.” …. Frank Luntz

This kind of rhetoric works because between 1993 and 2003 there’s been a 26 percent increase in the number of hospital emergency department (ED) visits, totaling about 114 million visits each year. Up to one third of these visits were classified as nonurgent or semi-urgent and could have been taken care of by regular primary care physicians.

It has long been assumed that these increases had been caused by the increasing population of undocumented immigrants and the growing number of uninsured Americans using emergency rooms as their sole source of medical treatment.

According to the study What Accounts For Differences In The Use Of Hospital Emergency Departments Across U.S. Communities? by Peter Cunningham, a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington, D.C., “communities with the lowest ED use tended to have a higher percentage of Hispanics and noncitizens than communities with high ED use.”  The blame for the increase in ED usage falls not at the feet of the undocumented or the uninsured but rather on those who are the recipients of various government healthcare programs.

This study examines the extent to which differences in populations and health system factors account for variations in ED use across U.S. communities. Contrary to popular perceptions, communities with high ED use have fewer numbers of uninsured, Hispanic, and noncitizen residents. Outpatient capacity constraints also contribute to high ED use. However, high ED use in some communities also likely reflects generic preferences for EDs as a source of care for nonurgent problems.

-snip-

There is much concern that some of the increase will be driven by illegal immigration, which is cited as straining ED capacity in some hospitals, especially along the U.S./Mexico border. However, given the very low levels of ED use among poor noncitizens in general (many of whom are likely to be undocumented immigrants), it is very unlikely that these highly localized problems with ED crowding will affect the nation more generally as the Latino population increases and migrates to other parts of the country. Low use of the ED among noncitizens reflects low use of health care services in general and perhaps fear among undocumented immigrants about being asked about their immigration status.

…as our findings indicate, communities have high rates of per person ED use in part because they have fewer, rather than greater, numbers of Hispanics and noncitizens

-snip-

Insurance, demographic, socioeconomic, and health factors are strongly related to individuals’ ED use, although some of these results run contrary to popular perceptions. For example, in 2003, the uninsured had about sixteen fewer visits on average (per 100 people) compared to Medicaid enrollees, about twenty fewer visits compared to Medicare enrollees, and roughly similar levels of use compared to privately insured people (Exhibit 3). Noncitizens had much lower levels of ED use than citizens did (about 17 fewer visits per 100 people, on average), and the difference between poor citizens and non-citizens was almost twice as large. In terms of racial/ethnic differences, blacks had higher ED use levels than whites and Hispanics did in 2003. More in line with expectations was the higher ED use by poor people (less than 100 percent of poverty) compared to other income groups, and higher ED use by people in fair/poor health and with chronic medical conditions.

-snip-

Although uninsured people rely on EDs to a greater extent than insured people do because of a lack of access to other outpatient care, their actual use of hospital EDs is no greater than that of the privately insured, probably because fear of incurring the entire cost of an ED visit acts as a constraint on how frequently they visit EDs. Although rising uninsurance rates might not raise ED visit rates among the population, higher levels of uncompensated ED visits in many hospitals are likely to result, especially in public hospitals and other safety-net hospitals that tend to serve a high proportion of uninsured people

The survey found that the one group that accounts for most of the increased usage of emergency departments are those on government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. This is in part due not only to the general health issues of the elderly and poor, but the lack of other services available to this segment of the population. Many physicians are unwilling to take on new low-income patients due to Medicare and Medicaid’s limited payment schedules. Ethnically, the study found that blacks were the most likely group to use emergency room services. This would be due to a combination of lack of services in low-income black neighborhoods and a resulting “generic preference for EDs as a source of care” amongst members of this under-serviced community.

High levels of ED use among Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid enrollees are a potential source of increases in ED visit rates in the future. The aging of the population and retirement of the baby-boom generation will greatly increase Medicare enrollment and the proportion of the population who are elderly, who tend to have higher levels of ED use compared to other age groups.

Also, continued increases in private insurance costs could result in increases in both Medicaid and other public coverage of nonelderly people, as well as increases in the number of uninsured people. High use of EDs in Medicaid likely reflects in part little or no cost sharing for health services use, and perhaps lack of access to office-based physicians (because of low physician reimbursement rates under Medicaid)

-snip-

This study also shows that longer waiting times for appointments with physicians and a higher number of physician office visits relative to the number of physicians in a community increased ED visit levels, and the effects were greatest for poor people (Exhibit 2). In part, this may reflect the fact that physicians with full practices and constrained reimbursement from Medicaid and other payers were less willing to see low-income patients in their offices and more likely to refer such patients to the ED.

link

As is the case with many of the “problems” attributed to the “immigration crisis”, the overcrowding of emergency rooms and the subsequent economic strains put on the healthcare system, can be attributed more to governmental failure to properly administer its public health programs to assure proper care for all Americans than on the influx of undocumented immigrants. It’s just another of the many false preconceptions perpetuated by the anti-immigration proponents to further their agenda of misdirection and blame shifting.

From: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

I had an opportunity to put a few questions via e-mail to Fighting Dem Carl Sheeler who’s running a grassroots campaign for the RI Senate seat that will hopefully be vacated by Lincoln Chaffe (R) this November.  As Chaffe faces a primary challenge from the right, his numbers have been steadily declining in this overwhelmingly Democratic state.  Its quite possible that the real election will be taking place not in November, but rather on September 12th  in the primary between Democratic front-runner and party favorite Sheldon Whitehouse and grassroots progressive Carl Sheeler.  

Dark horse Sheeler, a Gulf War vet, has run as an alternative to the more mainstream Whitehouse.  Sheeler has called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the impeachment of the President, repeal of the tax breaks to the rich along with a host of other progressive positions.  Sheeler has been steadily gaining support and could give Whitehouse a run for his money. It’s time progressives started to take a serious look at Sheeler.

ON IRAQ:

Q. You call for the immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq and their replacement with coalition troops. Many leading Democrats oppose that kind of plan and prefer a more gradual withdrawal plan, perhaps redeploying US forces into neighboring countries just in case things were to deteriorate any further in Iraq. What are you thoughts on those more conservative proposals?  Do you not think that our immediate withdrawal would lead to increased secular violence, possible civil war and increased destabilization in the region? How do you suggest going about replacing US troops with coalition ones?

A.  “The prosecution of Iraq without a clear exit strategy is like planning a crime without a get away. It was criminal to send our troops there to begin with and even more criminal to send them under-armored and undermanned. It was beyond stupid to have disbanded the Sunni militia who are now the primary local insurgents and would have had the military training to have brought stability under the watchful eye of American presence.

Their livelihood, dignity and power stripped and laid bare to the Shia’s and Kurds for the abuses they performed under Sadam almost assured the civil war violence and humanity buzz saw we’re witnessing today. Americans and innocent civilians are getting killed in the crossfire.

The mission was accomplished when Iraqi’s overwhelmingly voted on their constitution in December. Since that time the U.S. forces in Iraq have lost more than 1,000 more lives, and many, many thousands of more permanently physically injured and mentally scarred with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Every day… and I stress every day, we keep our troops in Iraq does nothing to bring stability there or to the Middle East region and nobody is authentically countering that argument.

The military was not designed to be a nation rebuilder and there’s plenty of recent history like the breakdown of the former Czechoslovakia into republics when self determination, ethnic, sectarian or theocracy are how a people defines itself.

Their infrastructure was destroyed after Desert Storm and when UN/US sanctions prohibited rebuilding, so the argument that the US, even after Sadam, is suddenly interested in these folks is hollow at best. Sure, provide them the fiscal and physical means to rebuild until they get their oil on line.

Physical protection from an invasion is an hour away from the Battle Carrier Group Enterprise in the Persian Group with dedicated missiles, jet fighters, AWACs, satellite and even nuclear capabilities plus 40,000 troops already in Kuwait and more in Turkey and Diego Garcia.

Those delaying withdrawal have blood on their political hands for not having the courage to anticipate the continued loss of life and worrying about personal political capital by simply unable to state “we are done here; our military performed honorably; our leadership made mistakes and correcting them includes transitioning into an Euro-Arab coalition.” Six days, six months or six years only means more unnecessary deaths and our nation’s healing begins when we return these troops to their families.

As a former Marine Combat and Staff Officer, the logistics of transition amounts to the simple order to make it so. There would be a significantly larger level of global support knowing the US was not planning to stay and expand its perceived empire.

The President and Congress have access to the minds and diplomacy to make the withdrawal happen. These are the folks who would handle the details.”

ON IMPEACHMENT:

Q.  You have also called for going forward with Presidential impeachment hearings. The leadership of the Democratic Party has made it clear that they do not support this position. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have vehemently denied that they have any plans to pursue that course of action if they were to regain control of Congress. In fact Leader Pelosi has gone so far as to say she would work to prevent Rep. Conyers from going forward with anything in that vein if he were to become Judiciary Chairman. How do you plan on pursuing your impeachment agenda when the leadership seems adamant to oppose it?

A.  It’s politics, pure and simple. Do you really believe that Democrats would not pursue investigation of crimes of profiteering, human rights violations and other counts if they controlled Congress? If they did not would this be a party you’d be proud to be associated with given our Constitution has been blatantly ignored by this President? The establishment Democrats are worried about it “galvanizing the GOP conservative base. That’s wimp talk. How about galvanizing the progressive base and go on the offensive to protect Our Constitution’s meaning the founders had anticipated if there is tyranny in our government for Christ sake?

Displaying the courage of conviction to this country is about accountability, leadership, justice and fairness. It means something you’re willing to defend and represent. No, impeachment is not a sure thing – but pursuing it is the right thing to do. Congressman John Conyers (D – MI) has 30 years under his belt and as the US House’s Judicial Committee minority leader is not about to throw it away on hollow partisan assertions and ramblings without substance.

Paul Wellstone would never had let this sit. Think of it… hearings before the elections would have made neocons within the GOP scramble like roaches under the brilliant glare of truth. They’d be getting as good as they gave and would preserve their own two-year and six-year term political interests. They’re human. They’re frail. Guilt is guilt.

ON IMMIGRATION:

Q.  You say on our website: “The only part of the existing Senate measure that makes sense is the up to $20,000 fine and three years in prison for employing an undocumented immigrant.  Call it liberal, but the provisions for citizenship are inconsistent with what America can and should be.”  Your opponents in the race both Mr. Whitehouse and Chaffe  have come out in support of the Senate immigration bill, in fact Sen. Chaffe is a co-sponsor. How do your views on this issue differ from theirs, and what provisions would you like to see added or subtracted from the bill?

A.  I guess they think support is brief sound bites. I did not see them at the planning sessions, marching or attending the May 1 rallies. I did not hear them speaking on behalf of progressive reform on the Spanish speaking stations. I know they don’t have two kids who are half Latino as I do. They’re politicians first and would shift their reply accordingly. I invite you to speak to their leaders like Juan Garcia and ask which candidate has spent time in their communities and put a campaign office in the middle of them?

You’ve read this watered down bill. What would the mechanics be to deport the undocumented who resided in the US for less than two years?

The costs associated with hiring the personnel, identifying, if you could, these folks and their kids, locating, if you could, pursuing, arresting, charging, processing, incarcerating and deporting several million people would be in the astronomical billions of tax dollars every year and certainly greater than the alleged net losses claimed our economy suffers from the disadvantaged that traditionally takes one generation to achieve a reasonable middle class status.

It’s bait and switch to discriminate against a predominantly Latino population and divide even Democrats. How often do we fall for this political hand grenade that has conveniently been tossed in an election year the way red, yellow terrorist warnings were in 2004? It’s a straw man when we ought to be examining stronger border security that the president and this Congress failed to achieve since it is documented that 60% of undocumented arrived from 2001 to present.

The problem is economic and if our trade policies weren’t solely geared around making US companies insanely richer, we could create a middle class in most of Latin America and the Caribbean the way China is doing and have these countries’ citizens stay in their home lands and buy American goods, but that takes time and shareholders and lobbyists want their profist now. Is democracy running this republic’s government or are our big corporations?

Chafee and Sheldon have not displayed the fortitude to publicly express their seeking a pathway to citizenship for those who already here, which does not mean front of the line privileges but does ensure dignity and accountability to anyone on our soil, no different than if the Cubans arrive here. That is the uniqueness to being proud to be called American. I won’t turn my back on our own or those disadvantaged. I seem to recall at the base of the Statue of Liberty saying something about this philosophy. We’re all immigrants.

Q.  You also speak about a building a  “Coalition of the Americas”  that would create more safety for us in our Western Hemisphere and help address the economic and humanitarian reasons why most undocumented immigrants come to the United States. Can you elaborate on the concept of this Coalition?

A.  It’s very much along the lines of the European Union. Let’s give our Latin American governments and their people the dignity they seek by participating in the means to promoting strong economies and human rights. Have you been to Argentina for example? I see more European goods there than American. Why? Is there something Germany, France, Japan and China know that we don’t? They’ve been there for decades.

Wouldn’t building bridges and alliances provide for more security than the cowboy bravado of “we took this country and we are the USA and our pride is from our power to crush you”. It shows a lack of maturity that Rome, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany, Japan and now the US will learn the hard way that power is not in control, it’s in influence.

The opposite maxim would be true as we see more Latin countries shifting far left, because their government’s perceive our citizens elected this right wing cowboy twice (whether we did or not is moot) and presume we support his saber rattling and might is right mentality that galvanizes oil rich countries like Venezuela to find and influence alliances against our interests with countries like China. We’re not the only game in town (on the globe) and I’d expect my president to think strategically and defensively, too.

For more information on Carl Sheeler’s candidacy  see: Carl Sheeler for US Senate

At the end of May when perennial electoral failure Alan Keyes went to Palominas, AZ to join Minuteman Civil Defense Corps founder Chris Simcox at the groundbreaking ceremony for Minutemen’s newest border fence project, everything looked promising in the world of border vigilantes. The immigrant marches and raging congressional debate only brought increased media coverage of the immigration issue that gave the Minutemen not only increased publicity, but a huge influx of cash from their base of disgruntled xenophobes. Now it appears that much of the money raised for fence building, binoculars, and beverages never reached the average minuteman on the street.

Apparently much of the $1.6 mil raised over the past fifteen months by Simcox is unaccounted for. Now leaders of the vigilante group want to know where the money is, and why it was funneled through Alan Keyes’ Virginia based charity organization, Declaration Alliance.

Over the Memorial Day weekend about three hundred border vigilantes gathered in the hot Arizona desert to listen to rousing speeches and begin their “work” securing the borders. Joining them was a who’s-who of the anti-immigration movement including Rep. Steve King of Iowa, sponsor of the effort to scrap the renewal of the Voting Rights Act due its bilingual provisions, and Arizona governor candidate Don Goldwater who recently called for using incarcerated immigrants as workers to build border walls. One address they heard was that of failed presidential candidate and conservative commentator, Alan Keyes. Keyes spoke before the cheering crowd and thanked them for doing Gods work in saving America.

“And right now as America faces what I think is the greatest crisis of our institution in its history … When a country loses the will to defend its borders, when a country loses the will to assert its identity, when a country loses the will to stand in defense of its way of life, that country is doomed….Now, I’m here to tell you right now that however we may sometimes feel discouraged, that however we may sometimes think that there is no hope, you need to remember that when we pray to God for a blessing, you have come forward to be the answer. You have come forward to be the defenders.”
Link

Now it appears that Keyes and Simcox may have had more on their minds than just defending America against the “invading horde” from south of the border as they riled the faithful that weekend. Members of the vigilante group have raised serious question about where all the money raised since the groups founding in April of 2005 has gone.

The members say money promised for supplies like food, fuel, radios, night-vision scopes and binoculars never reached volunteers staffing observation posts to spot and report illegal border crossers.

“This movement is much too important to be lost over a question of finances,” Gary Cole, the Minutemen’s former national director of operations, told The Washington Times. “We can’t demand that the government be held accountable for failing to control the border if we can’t hold ourselves accountable for the people’s money.”

The organization has not released any financial statements or fund-raising records since it was created. Several of the group’s top lieutenants have either quit or threatened to do so, saying requests to the group’s president, Chris Simcox, for financial accountability have been ignored, The Times reported.

Mr. Cole said he personally collected “tens of thousands of dollars” in donations during the Minutemen’s 30-day April 2005 border vigil in Arizona. But he said that despite numerous requests, he was never told where the money went.

Mr. Cole said Mr. Simcox removed him as a national director of the border campaign “for asking too many questions about the money.”
NYT

Mike Gaddy, a retired Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada and Beirut who helped organize the Minuteman’s April 2005 border watch as a field coordinator, said he and other volunteers challenged Mr. Simcox on numerous occasions to come up with a financial accounting and are suspicious of the need for hiring outside consultants.

“When we heard he was hooking up with outside consultants, I pleaded with Simcox that he had to keep this thing squeaky clean because the Minuteman movement was essential to this nation’s sovereignty,” Mr. Gaddy said.

He said Mr. Simcox rejected his offer last year to personally pay for an audit to answer growing concern among the ranks about the group’s finances. “He told me what he did was his business.”

“Something is seriously wrong,” he said. “I saw firsthand the dedication of the men and women who volunteered to stand these border watches, sometimes under very difficult circumstances, and proudly came to the conclusion that this is what America was all about. But a number of people I thought I could trust have since disappointed me.”

Mr. Gaddy said he did not know how much money the organization had collected, but said, “It would be a substantial sum.”
Washington Times

Both Keyes and Simcox deny any financial wrongdoing.

Keyes claims his organization handles the MCDC’s finances through his organization because he “wished to do all in (his) power to assist the Minutemen’s growth into a national civic movement as quickly as possible — as the public exposure of the lawless state of our southern border is a matter of utmost urgency,” he adding that his “organizational team has an established history of effective issues advocacy, grass-roots activism, political campaigning, financial accountability, regulatory compliance and fundraising.”  Additionally Keyes claims that the MCDC is still in the process of applying for IRS nonprofit status so it was advantageous to funnel the funds though his established organization.

As for his part, Simcox stated that he receives no salary from MCDC despite the fact that “hours of toil and sacrifice necessary to run this national organization” had taken a toll on his personal life and finances. Simcox claimed that he was forced to sell his newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed due to the financial pressure.

“My present source of income has been the honorariums and fees received from organizations who request me for speaking engagements,” Simcox said. “I have also received money from selling my life story for a movie that will soon go into production. Even with those combined sources of income, I have made just enough to keep my head above water.”  He added that any other information about his finances was no one’s business.

Despite their denials of any wrongdoing, many questions remain unanswered.

Earlier this year, Vern Kilburn resigned as director of operations for the Minuteman’s northern Texas sector because of what he called “professional differences with the management and business practices” of the MCDC national headquarters.

In a letter of resignation, he said Mr. Simcox and other Minuteman leaders offered “no acceptable answers” to concerns that he had about the management, accountability, ownership and the distribution of money for the Texas operation, adding that they were unable to verify Texas’ share of the Minuteman donations.

Mr. Kilburn said that only two checks for $1,000 came from MCDC headquarters in October for the Texas operation and that other Minuteman leaders across the country “are having similar problems concerning money or the lack of.”

Although he resigned as director of operations, he said he sought to remain with MCDC to continuing his work with “like-minded patriots” but was fired by Mr. Simcox. He declined to expand on his letter, saying only he “pretty much had my fill of the Minuteman as far as Chris Simcox goes.”

Mr. Gaddy, Mr. Cole and Mr. Kilburn are among only a few Minuteman leaders and volunteers who have come forward publicly over questions about accountability. The vast majority declined to be identified for fear of hurting the movement.

“I have no interest in going on the record in this matter,” said one top MCDC leader who heads one of the organization’s most active groups. “I have a lot of the same questions and have never received answers that are satisfactory. I have been contemplating resigning for a number of reasons, and lack of public accountability is one of those reasons.”
Washington Times

It appears that many leaders of the vigilante group have been asleep at the wheel while Simcox and Keyes have had free reign over the MCDC’s finances. It is yet to be seen how the financial problems of the fledgling group of border ruffians will effect their ability to further their agenda of intimidation and fear, but I’m sure those who care about true immigration reform will not be shedding any tears over the minutemen’s current dilemma.

from: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform

Last week the Republican immigration dog and pony show hit the road. Like any good circus midway, it contains a mix of freak shows, fixed games and snake-oil salesmen whose main purpose is to pick the pockets, or in this case steal the votes, of unsophisticated local rubes. Utilizing double talk to prey on the public’s naiveté, these political carnies offer up a midway where the prizes promised will never be worth the price of the game.  

Under the big top, it appears the acts in the three rings are at odds with each other, with clowns, elephants, and monkeys running amok. In one ring, House Republicans feature a xenophobic revival meeting with appeal to a rough trade mix of minutemen and border cowboys. In another, Bush juggles for his uptown clientele.  Yesterday, Ringmaster Karl took the center ring, and performed some slight-of-hand to rival any two-bit patent medicine purveyor as he attempted to convince the Latino activist group La Raza that Republicans had their best interests at heart.  

All this would be an interesting summer distraction if it were not so serious. Like a killer-clown horror movie where the harmless sideshow freaks turn on the unsuspecting townsfolk, it’s just a matter of time before the Republican immigration carnival performers unite to begin their real work. What seems like chaos at present may very well turn out to be nothing more than a warm up act for the main event. At some point the Republicans will reach a “compromise” that will contain all the worst aspects of their proposals. Having spent the summer priming the public with a staged wrestling match, the compromise can then be heralded as the most reasonable agreement between the warring factions. The American electorate will then be presented with this years major distractive wedge issue. There will be no talk of Iraq or Katrina or the myriad of other conservative policy failures … just immigration 24/7.

It seems impossible at the present time that any sort of compromise could ever be reached under the Republican big top, but if we listen carefully to what their saying, a common ground can be found… and it’s not pretty.

The House Republican sideshow began last week with photo-op hearings along the border in San Diego and Laredo.  Featuring hand-picked panels to rehash the merits of the seven month old Sensenbrenner bill, the hearing brought out the vocal right-wing fringe.

About 200 people, including scores of Minuteman Project border activists waving “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, attended the House hearing at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol station on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Some of their cars sported “Tancredo for President” bumper stickers, a reference to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican and an advocate for sharply restricting immigration — who, so far, isn’t running.
Link

Even the House spokesmen are not making too much of an effort to present their hearings as anything more than blatant political posturing. Usually Congress holds hearings prior to the passage of legislation to research an issue and look for solutions to a problem. In this case House Republicans have been frank in stating that the goal of the two month road show is to create a negotiating tool by rallying public support and discrediting the Senate bipartisan compromise plan.

The goal is to convince the Senate and the American public that a bill approved by the House of Representatives that emphasizes enforcement is better than a Senate bill, said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Fullerton (Orange County), chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, which sponsored the hearing.

“It’s an educational effort on our Senate colleagues and the American people, because as the public becomes more cognizant about the border, the pressure increases in our direction,” Royce said after the hearing.
Link

As the House members posed for photo-ops with border patrol agents and local sheriffs, George Bush went on his own immigration road trip. First appearing with Larry King then following up with a press conference in Chicago the next day. Bush’s comments, although familiar by now, opened a window of opportunity for Republican compromise.

From Larry King Live:

KING: We’re back in the Blue Room with President and Mrs. Bush. Immigration. This law. When is it going to be passed and did you hedge back a little. You now say the other day that you first want to see that the borders are safe before we work on legalizing the immigrants.

G. BUSH: I don’t think I said that. I have always said we need a comprehensive plan. First and foremost we’ve got to enforce the border and that means more border patrol agents, better technology, ending catch and release. Secondly that we’ve got to have interior enforcement. But I don’t see how you can enforce a border unless you have a rational way for people to come here and work temporarily.

–snip–

KING: Well, we had amnesty in other cases in the past.

G. BUSH: I know but it won’t work in this case. Just not the right thing to do. If you’re trying to solve the problem, bringing people automatic citizenship isn’t solving the problem. It’s creating another problem, which is another 8 million people or so will come and hope to get granted automatic citizenship.

Secondly, is you can’t reward people who broke the law because you’ve got people standing in line legally, because we’re a nation of laws, we’ve got to uphold the laws. But this is — we have a duty to enforce the border and I think everybody agrees with that and — and we are. We are expanding agents, and we’re expanding technologies, but I think it needs — there needs to be a plan that recognizes people coming here to do work Americans aren’t doing. And they ought to be allowed to do so on a temporary basis for a limited period of years provided they pass a criminal background check and then go home.
Link

What will it take “unite” these warring factions?  

Bush is already willing to give the House Republicans their “enforcement first.” He’s recently met with Mike Pence (R-IN) who has stumbled on the holly grail for Republican compromise on this issue; privatization of the immigration processes. You can almost hear the squeals of delight coming from Dick Cheney’s office at the thought of doling out no-bid contracts not only for border security and immigrant incarceration but also immigrant processing.

So it appears the only missing puzzle piece in a Republican compromise is: How do they assure a constant supply of low cost workers for businesses after they get rid of the 12 mil undocumented immigrants already here using Tancredo’s attrition plan?  

The answer is simple … Bush’s guest workers. Notice how on Larry King he stresses the need for these workers to be here “on a temporary basis for a limited period of years provided they pass a criminal background check and then go home” That’s the key.

Up until now the guest worker program has been tied to a plan to allow workers to legalize their status after a given amount of time and work towards citizenship. It was a key aspect of the compromise Senate bill that allowed some Unions and immigrant activists groups to get behind the bill. They figured that as long as the guest workers had some hope of naturalization they could overlook the exploitive nature of importing workers on a temporary basis.

If Bush was to eliminate that one provision, he could probably sell the plan to Sensenbrenner and the anti-immigration House Republicans. This kind of compromise would allow the House Republicans to close the border to maintain the racial balance that so concerns them. They could also criminalize the undocumented and go after the employers to drive out the 12 million already here. Then allow in a controlled flow of indentured servants to do the jobs that they all know Americans don’t really want.  

All Bush has to do is figure out a way to assure the House Republicans that the temporary workers will leave when their term of service is over.

At the moment that part of the plan has not been worked out or perhaps revealed, but I would bet it will have a “privatization” component. It could be data bases, biometrics, or microchip implants, but at the end of the day it will definitely involve huge government contracts handed out to big Republican donors.  

As the summer progresses we need to watch the movement of the Republicans on this issue. At some point Ringmaster Karl will blow his whistle and the chaos we see now under the big top will subside as all the circus players start to perform in unison. The jugglers, lion tamers, and acrobats will take the stage as the clowns and monkeys take their leave, and once again the Great Republican Election Show will begin.

From: Migra Matters – Progressive Immigration Reform