Nuff' said

Sometimes you've just got to step back and take look at the great-big picture.

It's been a year ... and I've got nothing to add ... the video says it all ...nuff' said.

Don't let this fade to a memory ... this shit does not happen in the American I want to live in … and it should never happen again ... but only WE can make it so.


hat-tip to Man Eegee for the video - he's also got a great list of Katrina related links

Katrina Blogswarm

tags: Katrina

-Read Full Story-

Honk for English: Fun with maps & hypocrisy

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

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

(There's more)


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



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

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

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

A little general information is needed first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link

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

-Read Full Story-

Minutemen not so vigilant when it comes to watching funds

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.


(There's more)


tags: immigration, Minutemen, Chris Simcox , Alan Keyes, Missing Money, Minuteman finances



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 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.

-Read Full Story-

Thoughts on W's recent birthday, and my own.

George Bush recently celebrated a milestone birthday, reaching his sixtieth year. Like him, I also passed a milestone about a month ago, reaching the half-century mark. This puts us both in good company with millions of fellow boomers, George at the front end of the generation, myself somewhat towards the back. Our parents were called the "greatest generation", we can only claim being the "largest," and as such, for better or worse have dominated much of American society and culture for the last forty years.

Passing this milestone got me thinking about how we got to our current political state. You see, being part of a not so exclusive club does give us boomers a unique perspective on just what's wrong the current ruling class in this country. Figuratively, we know these guys; we met them years ago hanging at parties, or at school. We know what they were into, how they fit it, where that stood in the cosmic order of things. I'll ask that you youngsters indulge me for a minute while I ramble on. To my fellow boomers... you'll know where I'm coming from as I ponder this topic.

Karl Rove 1969

Everyone else 1969

I rest my case.

"That's not fair," I can hear some youngsters saying, " not everyone was all "hippie-ish" with long hair, and freaky cloths, smoking pot and dancing around, no way ... they were a minority made famous by the media. Most young people back then probably looked more like young Karl, and besides ... you can't judge someone just by how they dress or how they look, that's wrong."

Sorry kids .... Wrong on both counts.

We ALL looked like freaks to a certain degree. We all wore hippie cloths and had long hair at one time or another. Your mom probably went to concerts, dressed in her peasant blouse and patched jeans and danced around barefoot like a whirling dervish. Dad had a big bushy mustache or muttonchops and smoked joints before, during and after the show. They most likely were not full-blown Hippies, riding on the bus with the Merry Pranksters, but they were part of what has now been termed; “the youth culture.”

As to judging a book by its cover, you have look at it with historical perspective. At that time we were in the mist of a REAL, full-blown culture war, not like the bizzaro-world one that goes on politically today, and like in any war, people wore uniforms to tell friend from foe. Our uniform was "freak." The opposition ... take a look at young Karl there.

But it goes some much deeper than that. At that time the music you listened to, your cloths, the books you read or movies you saw, all spoke volumes as to who you were, not only politically, but personally. Those so far removed from the mainstream youth culture were not individualists, or contrarians ...they were anti-social, misfits and miscreants.

The vast majority of us we had common social experiences that united us. We were the first TV generation and grew up watching the same shows from the big three networks. We were the rock n roll generation who grew up with our own rebellious musical art form that we all knew inside and out. It was our secret code. It not only spoke to us and about us, it gave us common ground and united us. We were a generation of tumultuous times. The civil rights movement, anti-war movement, womens rights, riots in the streets, the drug culture, these things effected our generational psyche. We were the first and last generation to be able to engage in sexual activity without the fear of pregnancy or life threatening diseases. These things gave our generation a sort of monolithic nature that to this day affects American culture. Our music still plays, our fashions once again find popularity with a younger generation; we're generally a cultural pain in the ass for those who have come after us.

This almost monolithic nature also allows us to do one other thing; spot those who were so out of the norm, so different from the rest of us that they remain to this day societal misfits. This is what we see in the current leadership of this nation; Just look at that picture of young Karl Rove.

Just think about this current crop of conservatives. What kind of 18 or 19 year old could have listened to Barry Goldwater in 1964 and said ... "Hell yeah.. That guy's got some good ideas there. In fact I'm going to idolize this guy and spend the rest of my life trying to bring HIS vision to reality."

Then there's Nixon in 68 or especially in 72?; How the hell at that time, could anyone under the age of thirty possibly support the most reviled man on earth?; Hell, he was burned in effigy on street corners daily just for fun, what kind of island of the misfit toys kind of person would have supported him. Yet these guys loved him.

And don't get me started on "A Hippie is someone who walks like Tarzan, looks like Jane and smells like Cheetah", cultural warrior, Governor Reagan. This guy was the anti-Christ long before sat in the oval office, yet these people worshipped the guy.

We boomers know who these guys are. They're the ones with the ironed, straight-legged jeans with cuffs when everyone else was wearing bells. They had a record collection that included "The Ray Conniff Singers sing Dylan", and "Up With People."

They'd never smoke pot because it would make them have "mutated children" and to them "Reefer Madness" really was a documentary.... And a damn accurate one too...thank you very much.

Yeah, we know these guys. They went to the movies and loved True Grit while everyone else was watching Easy Rider. We listened to Nashville Skyline until we could rattle off the lyrics in our sleep; they thought that "People" song by Barbara Streisand was kind of catchy. We watched Dick Cavett to see Janis, they liked Merv Griffin with Zsa Zsa.

I could go on infinitum ... the point is we boomers know these guys. We all met one or two of them. And you know what ... they always freaked us the fuck right out. You'd ask all your friends "Hey... you know that freakin guy?" and hope to God someone would say, "Oh yeah, don't mind him, he's OK ... he's my cousin, just visiting from Bumfuck".

Now, I know what you kids are going to say. "If you guys knew how fucked up these guys really were, why didn't you warn everyone". I don't know what to say... I guess maybe they were right about all that pot ruining your memory and all …sorry, just kidding

Perhaps it's just that at the time we thought so little of these outcasts and they were so weird that it never dawned on us that they would one day hold the reins of power.

One thing I do know ... when the right wing tries to paint themselves as mainstream representatives of their generation, and attempts to marginalize everyone else as some sort of out-there minority... I know better and the majority of my generation knows better also, if they cared to admit it. "Freak" was the norm then, and it's the repressed, social misfits that now run this country who always stood out from the crowd ... and not in a good way... more in a Norman Bates kind of way if you know what I mean.

-Read Full Story-

Who really stalled the Voting Rights Act renewal?

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

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

-snip-

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

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


-snip-

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

-snip-

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

-snip-

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

Complete story available at ePluribus Media

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

-Read Full Story-

Getting to the root of the problem

Today there is much discussion about what many are terming an "immigration crisis" in America. Undocumented immigrants flood over the borders daily risking their lives, and sometimes losing them, in order to find work and security in the United States. Perhaps upwards to a million undocumented people each year find a way, whether it be by overstaying a visa, or crossing hundreds of miles deadly desert, to enter this country in hopes of making a better life.

Americans of all political stripes are concerned about this situation and there is great division on exactly how to solve the problem. Some have advocated a tightening of security and closing of the porous border as a solution. Others have promoted a method to regulate and legitimize the flow of the undocumented. But there is one thing missing in both of these strategies. Neither contains any analysis of why this problem exists, and more importantly, why at this time in our history this influx of new immigrants is causing such great concern for the American people. Neither group seems concerned with root causes.

The number of immigrants has not really changed
Throughout our history we have encountered many waves of immigration. In fact all of us can trace our roots back to foreign shores. The number of new immigrants who come today, both entering through proper channels and the undocumented, is no greater as a percentage of population than at many other times during our history. From the mid-nineteenth century, through the first thirty years of the last, immigrants represented about13% of the total population; today that number is 11%. Certainly our earlier immigrants were not rich, and most had limited education, but they like our current crop of immigrants, had the drive and determination to seek out a better life. This influx of new vitality and ambition has been a cornerstone on which the nation was build. So why today do we find ourselves in the middle of what some would term a crisis?

What is different today then during past immigration waves?
Historically there have always been a small minorities of the closed minded who've oppose immigration for xenophobic or racists reason, but generally we as a people have accepted new immigrants with open arms and absorbed them into society. Yet, today we find this harder and harder to do. Many believe the new immigrants are putting undo pressures on our economy, creating stresses on a tight job market, and stretching already taxed social services and education systems. Why today do we find it so hard to absorb these new immigrants? Why at a time in our history, when we have never been richer as a nation and more educated as a population, do we find these new immigrants putting such great stresses on our society? Perhaps we need to look at some of the changes that have taken place over the last twenty-five or so years to find the answer.

(There's more)


tags: immigration, conservatives, attack on middle class , immigration plan, immigration reform, flawed government policies



The systematic assault on working and middle class Americans
Over the past twenty five years it appears that there's been a systematic assault upon the working and middle classes of this nation which now leaves many vulnerable and in a position where they must compete for an ever decreasing pool of resources. At one time, a family could live comfortably on the income of one earner, but today it takes two just to make ends meet. A guaranteed pension for retirement is no longer the norm. A union card no longer guarantees a lifetime of job security. Health insurance costs have become an overwhelming concern for both workers and employers and forty five million Americans in fact go without any. A job with one of the nation's largest companies no longer means yearly raises and increased benefits; in fact it doesn’t even guarantee job security. An advanced degree no longer means a career in your chosen field. Today working and middle class Americans can expect plant closings and layoffs, pay cuts and increased hours, loss of benefits and outsourcing. They can expect economists to talk about "jobless recoveries" and increased productivity. It is no wonder that many working class Americans are feeling the added stresses of our new modern global economy. It is also no wonder that they are ready to lash out against those they feel they must now compete against. Our nation is sick, and current "immigration crisis" is not the cause of this national illness, but just another symptom of it.

Who is responsible for this situation?
Who or what could have caused our national illness? The answer is simple … the economic and social policies of those who claim to be Conservatives. Of course, many working class Americans might scoff at this idea. Certainly a philosophy of smaller government, personal responsibility and free market economics sounds appealing to many, and on face value alone is quite in line with the principles on which our nation was founded. But in practice, what these so called Conservatives have done with this philosophy has been the antithesis of what the founders had in mind. These Conservatives have used this philosophy to consolidate economic and political power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. They have turned the ideals of fair play and Christian charity upside down and transformed them into grotesque parodies. They have taken two hundred years of struggle to raise the standard of living for the average American and thrown it to the winds in the name of "fiscal responsibility" and "smaller government." All along being neither fiscally responsible nor providing smaller government.

How did they do this?
How did these self-proclaimed Conservatives wage this war on the working and middle class? It started in the eighties with two policies; deregulation and union busting. Then continued with more failed and flawed policies right up until our present day.

Union Busting
Starting with the firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981, Conservatives have set forth an agenda through legislation and judicial decisions to slowly disassemble the American labor movement. At the time many Americans supported the idea, feeling that unions had become too powerful, corrupt and greedy, but the results of this policy have had devastating effects on American workers. Ever since then the number of union households has been steadily declining. At the beckoning of corporate interests, Conservatives have managed to take what was once the bulwark of working class America, the very entity that allowed millions of American workers to move themselves or their children into the middle class and render it powerless.

Deregulation
Under the guise of increased competition and lower prices through free market forces, Conservatives began a campaign of deregulation. They would no longer allow the government to regulate business, but rather leave it up to the free market. Again, on paper this practice looked reasonable, but under their control we have ended up with the reverse. Instead of government controlling business, we now have business controlling government. We have allowed business combinations that rival any of those of the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth century. We have seen regulated monopolies in the energy, telecom, airline and other industries destroyed, only to recombine into unregulated monsters like Enron. We have seen the merger of mega oil companies that are larger than those of Rockefeller's Standard Oil, who make profits that would make King Midis blush, while the average American can't afford to fill up his gas tank.

Globalization and outsourcing
The next logical step after deregulation for Conservatives was globalization and the taking of their idea of the free market economy, without any government regulation, to a global scale. Conservatives passed legislation and trade agreements that allowed their huge multinational masters to operate with impunity throughout the world. They have allowed companies like Halliburton to set up shadow entities on foreign soil to avoid paying taxes. They’ve allowed American businesses to sell American jobs to the lowest bidder on the global market all on the name of free market economics.

Rewriting the tax codes and starving the beast
Conservatives often say that the only thing wrong with government is government, and promise to lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and be fiscally responsible. Yet, after years of Conservative leadership we have the largest government in US history, a record federal deficit and a record national debt reaching 9 trillion dollars. The only part of their philosophy they seem to be able to stick too is tax cuts. They have systematically worked over the last twenty-five years to shift the tax burden from both big business and the top 1% of the nation's wealthiest people and place it on the middle and working class. They have consistently rewarded corporations and the rich with larger and larger tax breaks. Through cuts in funding to education, health and human services and many other state and local programs they have managed to shift the tax burden down to the local level so that the now average Americans pay more in real estate, state and local, use and sales taxes than ever before. They have not given the American people "back their money" as they claim, but rather forced them to just pay more to other government agencies.

The other aspect of the Conservative tax cutting agenda has been to use cuts as a means to, as they term it; "starve the beast". It's been conservative policy to try to assure that social programs for education, childcare, healthcare and the poor are "starved to death" due to the lack of available federal funds. Their philosophy has resulted in huge benefits for the rich while programs that working and middle class Americans rely on are cut. The best example of this is public education, where Conservatives have consistently cut funding while placing ever more increasing demands upon the system.

Healthcare
Another big concern for average Americans is healthcare and its skyrocketing costs. Conservative deregulation and free market philosophies have influenced this also. While fighting vehemently against any form of a national healthcare program, they have through legislation and governmental agencies, allowed large pharmaceutical manufactures and healthcare conglomerates to set the agenda. National health policy has been allowed to be written by insurance companies and other corporate interests rather than physicians and medical professionals.

But what does all this have to do with immigration?
These Conservative policies have had devastating effects on the working and middle classes, yet in order to remain in power Conservatives have tried to shift the blame. Every problem that is claimed to be a result of the "immigration crisis" can be seen to have its roots in Conservative economic and social policies. Conservatives have been trying to convince the American people that it is the immigrants who put all the stresses on education, social services and healthcare institutions and that they take jobs from American workers and drive down wages. But it must be understood that while immigrants do highlight the problems of working class Americans, they haven’t caused them. All these problems can be seen as direct results of twenty-five years of Conservative policy. This is obvious when you look at the ROOT CAUSES. The Republican controlled Congress for the last ten years has exacerbated the situation by rubber-stamping every Conservative policy that has come down the pike. With each passing year they have taken more and more from working Americans and given it to their corrupt corporate masters. Now there is nothing left, and the American working man and woman knows it. They just need to stop buying into the Conservatives "blame game" and look at the ROOT CAUSES of their problems.

What can we do?
We, as a nation need to stop letting those who don't have our best interests at heart to control the agenda. We must not allow them to divide us along lines of class, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender. We must not allow then to misdirect us or mislead us with appeals to our patriotism or national pride. We must not let them blame the symptoms rather than the disease. The "immigration crisis" is just another symptom of a far greater disease … the disease of a Conservative agenda that favors the rich and big business over average Americans. Immigrants certainly put added stresses on society and highlight the problems of the now decimated social programs, education and health care systems, but they did not cause the national illness.

How do we "fix" immigration?
Fixing our broken immigration system will not be easy, and it will be a long hard process. Again just as in the case of working Americans, one key must be to look for the ROOT CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM. We must look at the reasons why millions of people every year risk their lives to come here? What is it about their countries of origin that make them so desperate to leave? Particularly in the case of Mexico, it’s a nation that has the 13th largest economy in the world, ahead of 167 other nations. They also are the second largest recipients of direct investment by US companies in the hemisphere. On top of this Mexico has vast amounts of untapped natural resources and oil reserves that rival those of any Middle Eastern power. So why do their people live in poverty? Why must they come here simply to survive? Could it be precisely because they are the second largest recipients of direct investment by US big business? Could it be because Conservative trade and economic policies have been crafted to favor the business elite and the rich of Mexico, just as they favor them here? Could it be because Conservative policies help perpetuate a system that leaves 55% of the countries wealth in the hands of 20% of its people? These are all things that need to be addressed when looking at the “immigration crisis”.

A new plan
In order to fix our nations problems we need to stop treating symptoms and start treating the disease. No “immigration plan”, be it a wall, arrests or amnesty is going to ever solve the “immigration crisis”. Only when the American people begin to demand a change in the paradigm will solutions be found. Only when government is returned to its rightful role as protector of the rights and interests of ALL Americans, not just the privileged few, can we begin to fix the problems that face us. It is only then that we can do something about the root causes both here and abroad that have brought on this “immigration crisis

-Read Full Story-

Deconstructing a weapon of mass distraction: Immigration

Having spent some time reviewing the leaked conservative talking points on immigration reform put forward by Republican spinmeister Frank Luntz, one can only be awestruck by the right-wings’ ability to frame and manipulate an issue. “Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention” is a brilliant piece of political propaganda. In twenty-five pages Luntz manages to hit upon a multitude of tried and true conservative frames. He starts with some classic “mom and apple pie” themes, such as Security, Law and Order, Personal Accountability and Respect for the Rule of Law. He then adds in some of the conservatives favorite “hidden” themes like racism, the economic victimization of average Americans by liberal policies, minority abuse of social services, minorities receiving “special privileges” or treatment, fear, and of course the new favorite; terrorism. In the end he manages to draw a clear line from Reagans “welfare queen”, through George Sr.’s “Willie Horton” right to Tom Tancredo’s “invading hordes” all without once having to stoop to ever having to say the words, or true meanings behind the inferences.

Contained in Luntz’s blueprint is a virtual laundry list of societal and economic woes he directs his conservative brethren to blame squarely on the influx of “illegal aliens” coming over border.

It comes as no epiphany that the whole “immigration crisis” is for the most part a fabrication of the right intended to distract the American electorate from their growing disenchantment with Republican and conservative policy. Luntz’s polling shows that thus far the campaign has been quite effective in misdirecting the American people’s wrath. According to Luntz, "While a majority of Americans believe it is the economic consequences of illegal immigration that is doing the most damage, it’s the “principle of prevention” that the public sees as the most important solution." But if we look at exactly what the "economic consequences of illegal immigration" are, we see a series of failures of conservative policy.

(There's more)


tags: immigration, Immigration reform, Republican spin, Frank Luntz, immigration wedge



Herein, might lay the Achilles’ heel in the conservative armor. Almost without fail every problem they wish to put at the feet of “illegal aliens” is in fact a result of failed conservative policy for the past thirty years. Job loss, deficits, a failed healthcare system, failing schools, failed social safety net, inequitable tax system, the downward economic spiral of working and middle-class Americans, lack of regulation of business, lack of security, and the increased competition for ever decreasing economic resources by those at the lower end of the economic scale, can all be seen as the direct results of conservative policies.

Perhaps to counter Luntz’s strategy we need to reexamine how we have been dealing with this issue so far. Up to now we have done pretty much what we always do when the conservatives lie and misdirect the American people: we try to educate them. When Tancredo says “illegal aliens, don’t pay taxes and collect welfare”, we counter back with statistics, and studies to demonstrate the opposite. We explain that undocumented immigrants don’t qualify for most government assistance, and in fact there is no “welfare" anymore. We rely on facts … we remain card carrying members of the reality based world. We firmly believe that we will eventually break through and the American people will see the truth. But that strategy has failed us for thirty years.

Perhaps it’s time for a little Sun Tsu thinking.

When we try to argue the merits of comprehensive reform or the impracticality or inhumanity of the conservatives immigration plan, we are not attacking their weakness, but rather the shield they are using to deflect the discontent caused by their own failed policies. We need to stop attacking the shield and instead focus on their true weakness. The root causes of the peoples dissatisfaction. That is the weapon for which they have no defense.

When Lutnz says:

“I think it’s important when we discuss illegal immigration to do so not out of anger but out of compassion. Out of compassion for people who came here legally, out of compassion for American citizens who’ve been here for generations and watch as their kids have to suffer through overcrowded schools, as they have to deal with overcrowded hospitals, as they have to face overcrowded streets and highways.

I do have compassion for illegal immigrants, but if I have to choose, I’m going to choose American citizens first, and we need to hold the system and the government accountable if they cannot get control of the borders.”

or:

Economic revitalization starts with immigration reform.
“Our huge deficits are driven in part by the increased costs of social services for illegal immigrants who don’t pay their fair share. In fact, nearly 60% of those polled believe that illegal immigrants “use more in services than they pay in taxes so they are partially responsible for the deficit.” Fix the immigration problem and we begin to fix the economy. Fix the immigration problem and we reduce the cost of government. Fix the immigration problem and taxpayers get the break they deserve.”

We need to deconstruct Luntz’s assertions and attack their root causes.

For example when he blames undocumented children for overcrowded classrooms, we need to turn the argument around. We should be replying:

Every parent and educator in America knows our education system is failing. In some states and cities undocumented children do put some added stress on that failing system. Yet, they only represent slightly over three percent of the school-aged population in this nation, but overcrowding, and a lack of resources due to government under funding can be seen throughout the country. Conservatives have continually cut funds for education in the name of fiscal responsibility, while they run up record deficits. They have shifted the burden down to the municipalities increasing local taxes. They have mandated costly federal programs, yet fail to fund them. Our schools are indeed suffering, but not because 3 out of 100 little children are undocumented, but rather because conservatives have abandoned our education system

When Luntz speaks of overcrowded hospitals and emergency rooms, we should use the same model. We should be replying:

All Americans know our health system is in shambles. Skyrocketing costs, the price of prescription drugs, and a growing number of uninsured only demonstrate this fact. Undocumented immigrants do add to the problem but they are not the root of it. There are over 45 million Americans who lack any health insurance. These Americans are forced to rely on emergency rooms as their primary health care providers, often only going when easily treated conditions have become serious and expensively treated ones. Skyrocketing insurance costs have driven down real wages for American workers and have forced businesses small and large to lay off workers and in some cases close. Conservatives have ignored our healthcare system for years, instead choosing to work hand in hand with big drug companies and healthcare providers, giving them sweetheart deals and tax breaks at the expense of average working Americans. Our healthcare system is broken, but not because undocumented immigrants join millions of uninsured Americans in our overcrowded emergency rooms, but because conservatives have chosen to side with big business over average Americans.

As to Luntz's assertion that “Our huge deficits are driven in part by the increased costs of social services for illegal immigrants who don’t pay their fair share … Fix the immigration problem and we begin to fix the economy. Fix the immigration problem and we reduce the cost of government. Fix the immigration problem and taxpayers get the break they deserve.”

This one is almost laughable … in fact if confronted with it, any Democratic or progressive spokesperson should do just that….laugh. The reply is easy:

Conservatives over the past six years have taken a $230 billion dollar surplus and turned it into well over an 8 TRILLION dollar deficit, mostly underwritten by hostile foreign nations. To try to shift the blame for such gross mismanagement of our nation's economic future on undocumented immigrants who make up only 4% of our population is ridiculous. They would have had to EACH use BILLIONS of dollars of public services to even make the SLIGHTEST meaningful contribution to such a large debt. Conservatives have created the largest, costliest, and most inefficient government in all of history. This cannot be blamed on 12 million, hardworking, people looking to make a better life, but rather on the failed policies and mismanagement of our conservative leaders.

The rest of Luntz's talking points should be treated in the same manner:

On "Security" we should reply: The "border" extends well beyond the area between San Diego and El Paso, it stretches all along thousand of miles of coastline from Maine to Florida, from Washington state to Baja California, across the north with Canada and Great Lakes and includes our seaports and airports. None of these areas have been secured by conservative leaders. 2.5 billion tons of uncheck cargo enter our nation yearly both by sea and air. When given the opportunity they chose to turn over our port security to foreign companies. Our conservative leadership now chooses to concentrate all efforts and resources on preventing undocumented immigrants from crossing our southern border at the cost of true security. Security is important, but conservatives have not focused on it for the five years since 9-11, and now want to concentrate on migrants crossing a deadly desert looking for work rather than terrorists who fly here first class to attack our country.

On "Rule of Law" we should reply to quote Luntz: “Those who flaunt the rule of law should be held accountable." Accountability applies to all Americans not just immigrants who cross the border illegally. Our Conservative leadership has recently shown a flagrant disregard for the Rule of Law. From Corporate boardrooms where CEO's steal millions from hardworking Americans while working hand in hand with conservative politicians, to Washington where a culture of corruption prevails, we have seen in the last six years of conservative leadership complete lawlessness and a lack of accountability. The American people want everyone to have respect for the rule of law. This goes for the migrant worker who sneaks across the border to pick fruit all the way up to the highest leadership in the halls of power.

While I'm no evil political genius like Luntz or Rove, I do believe there is method to defeat their spin. I think the key to dealing with Republican talking points is:

• Continually use their own words against them.

• Always turn the issue into one about their failures

• Republican ALWAYS equals "conservative"

• Conservative ALWAYS equals failure

• Play by their rules, not ours. Don't try to educate

• Facts are good, emotion is better.

• Don't let them scapegoat, it's always about them … not their victim

I think if we followed these simple rules we might just be able to take some of the steam out of the great right wing noise machine.

-Read Full Story-

Today we march, tomorrow we vote: A suggestion for Democrats

Over the past few weeks over two million people have taken to the streets in cities large and small across this country. On Monday perhaps another two million will join that number. Yet, despite this obviously growing movement, the Democratic Party, both the mainstream component in Washington , and that more "progressive" segment represented in the liberal blogosphere, have been blind to the seismic shift taking place right before their very eyes. It's time to wake up and see the great opportunity that’s been presented to not only do the right thing morally and ethically – but also politically.

When millions of people take to the streets, organized only through a grassroots movement, to protest a Republican sponsored bill, passed by an overwhelming Republican majority in the House of Representatives, that was opposed by the majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate – and Democrats don't see that as an opportunity – either they are totally out of touch, or just plain stupid.

What are these protests really about? The answer is simple; H.R. 4437 and its draconian provisions to make all undocumented immigrants and those who would help them into criminals. That's it – nothing more, nothing less.

Over the past year or so I've had more than my fair share of debates about immigration reform, and quite frankly I'm done arguing. To those Democrats who support the enforcement only, wall building, "what part of illegal don't you understand?" school of thought – I say fine, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind, and I seriously doubt you could ever change mine, so we'll have to agree to disagree and call it a day.

But ... to all the rest who support some form of a comprehensive, humane and practical immigration policy I say … What the hell are you waiting for?

Why are you standing by idly while a potential political revolution is passing you by?

If 2 million people took to the streets tomorrow to protest against the war, the PATRIOT act, political corruption or any number of other Republican sponsored travesties, we as a party would be cheering. Yet when millions march through the streets with signs that say "Stop HR4436" we hem and haw.



Despite what Lou Dobbs might say, the marches are not about "illegal aliens" trying to demand "rights they're not entitled to." These marches are made up all kinds of people. Some are undocumented, some are the citizen children, wives, husbands and friends of the undocumented. Many others are second, third or forth generation Americans who feel the tone of this debate has turned nasty, and in many ways the attacks upon the undocumented immigrants reveals an underlying racism that has always laid just beneath the surface. Still others are humanitarians and people of faith who feel that the criminalization of the most vulnerable in society and those who serve them is morally wrong.

The one thing all these people have in common is their vehement opposition to a piece of REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION and their support for the comprehensive immigration reform that is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats in Washington. To me that sounds like democracy at work.



On Sunday 500,000 people marched in Dallas. That's 500,000 out of a population of approximately 1.3 million. That's more than 40%. Certainly even Mr. Dobbs can't believe that over 40% of the population of Dallas is made up entirely of "illegal aliens". Obviously this issue has touched a nerve with a large number of American voters…. Let's say that together now: V…O…T…E…R…S.

There's a reason why one of the slogans for this movement has been "today we march…tomorrow we vote" – because that's exactly what's going to happen.




Why are we as a party not embracing this movement? Why aren't we actively out there trying to register new voters? Why can't we see that these are the people who are fighting OUR battle ... and we should be fighting it with them?

In a day when national elections are fought in "key battleground states" where both parties vie for favor from smaller and smaller groups, why are we ignoring millions upon millions of people?

For arguments sake, lets say that only one in four of those who've already marched is an eligible voter who is unregistered or apathetic (I would believe it's much higher, but I'll lowball just to be safe), that's more than half a million potential new voters. What would 500,000 votes have meant in 2000 or 2004? What will half a million or more mean this November?

This to me is a no-brainer.

The demonstrators want comprehensive immigration reform – most of the Democratic legislators and all its leadership want comprehensive immigration reform. The demonstrators oppose HR 4437, Republicans support HR4437. What more do we need to know.

The Republicans set up the immigration issue as a distraction and wedge to try to divide the American people and provide them with an imaginary enemy to demonize and blame for failing Republican policies. I say it's jujitsu time, it's time to turn this issue back in on them.

-Read Full Story-

Anatomy of a wedge issue: immigration

In order to truly understand all the nuances and complexities of the current immigration debate it would seem that one would need to have a working knowledge of the current immigration laws, the economic ramifications of immigration both legal and illegal, and be familiar with the foreign policy and trade agreements that effect the countries of origin of the current crop of undocumented immigrants.

Or maybe you would just have to understand how Republicans play political hardball, how the Rovian reptilian mind works and to what extremes they are willing go to stay in power.

On November 3, 2004 , the day after eleven states had run referendums on their ballots to ban gay marriage, the right-wing powers that be must have felt pretty good about themselves. They had successfully taken what should have been a non-issue, and turned it into a referendum on "moral decay", "family values" and the "destruction of the family". They had fabricated an issue they could put before close to one fifth the electorate and be assured it would bring out an army of the faithful to pull the lever for a Republican candidate who would protect them from those pushing "the gay agenda" and ruining America with their "out of touch", liberal, Hollywood ideology.

The pundits analyzed the election ad nauseam and for weeks all we heard about were "values voters" and how liberals just didn't "get it". It was a diabolically brilliant plan. For many there was no need to debate about war, a failing economy, deficits, Presidential lies or overreach, no reason to talk about missing WMDs, or insurgencies; instead, it was an election about whether two people of the same sex should be afforded the right to marry.

The plan did what it was supposed to do… it brought out the "base." The Republicans had pulled off a cheap magician's parlor trick and misdirected many from the important issues and instead had them concentrate on something that for the most part had no effect on their daily lives.

Now though, the Republicans were faced with a problem. What could possibly be the follow-up to such a successful act, how could they craft a sequel to top it? They had already played the fear card with their "keeping you safe from terrorism" and "everything changed on 9-11" rhetoric, and now the "values" card had been played also. It looked like the Republican deck was getting slim. But, au contraire…when all else fails in the Republican playbook …the answer is to return to your roots and go back to the tried and true, the one thing that always works….Willie Horton….or in this case Juan Hortona.

The answer they came up with was the not so subtle mix of race, fear, xenophobic populism and the backlash to a bad economy and globalization that now constitutes "The immigration debate". They would put together a coalition of old school racists, economically marginalized middle and working-class Americans who have been left behind in the new "flat world" economy of outsourcing and globalization, those most effected by the destruction of the US manufacturing base and those who have suffered most from the conservatives conscious effort to shift wealth from the middle to upper classes and then present them with a new enemy on which to channel their discontent. In other words a classic wedge issue.

Who's behind the immigration issue

To understand the way this plan is now playing out one need only take a quick look at two recently released studies that show how this dynamic is playing out and just how those least effected by the "broken borders" and increased flow of undocumented immigrants are the very people leading the charge to close them.

A new analysis of Congressional voting patterns by The American Immigration Law Foundation shows that those representing districts least likely affected by the influx of undocumented immigrants are the first to champion restrictive immigration policies.

An analysis of the Congressional representatives who supported the draconian House enforcement only bill,HR 4437 reveals that those representing districts with the fewest number undocumented immigrants generally supported the restrictive immigration plan, while those with large numbers of undocumented immigrants in their districts were more apt to oppose 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 miniscule. 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

Overall 67% of all those who supported the bill from both parties came from districts with fewer than 15,000 undocumented immigrants while 62% of those opposed came from districts with more than 15,000.

Voters proximity to immigrants effects perceptions and attitudes

A new report released last week by the Pew Research Center entitled "America's Immigration Quandary" reveals what common sense would lead us to assume: Those with the least contact with immigrants have the most negative opinions about them and feel they are a threat to the American way of life. The survey was taken during the period February 8 – March 7, 2006, prior to the current heating up of the issue due to increased media attention.

The survey finds a complex relationship between exposure to immigrants and opinions about them and the immigration problem, more generally. People who live in areas that have high concentrations of immigrants are less likely to see them as a burden to society and a threat to traditional American customs and values. However, they are more apt than others to see immigration as an important problem for their local community.

In sharp contrast, native-born Americans who live in areas with few immigrants understandably are less inclined to see immigration as a local problem. However, many more of those in areas with relatively low concentrations of foreign-born people see immigrants as a burden to the nation and as a threat to American customs. People living in areas with few immigrants have a considerably more negative opinion of Hispanics and a slightly more negative view of Asians.

-snip-

Moreover, native-born Americans who live in areas with the highest concentration of immigrants hold more positive opinions of them. Analysis of the survey indicates that their more favorable views do not merely reflect their demographics or political composition, but suggests that exposure to and experience with immigrants results in a better impression of them. However, Americans living in areas with more immigrants rank immigration as a bigger community problem.

And while there is concern about the impact of immigration on the availability of jobs, nearly two-thirds (65%) say that immigrants coming to the country mostly take jobs that Americans do not want, rather than take jobs away from Americans. In this regard, the recent influx of immigrants into such metropolitan areas as Phoenix, Las Vegas and Raleigh-Durham has not undermined the generally positive perceptions residents have of the local job market.

The most telling statistic was how important most Americans viewed the issue. While 21% said immigration had an effect on their community only 4% viewed it as a major problem facing the country.

In general, however, the issue of immigration is not a top-tier problem for most Americans. Just 4% volunteer it as the most important problem facing the country, far fewer than the number mentioning the war in Iraq, dissatisfaction with the government, terrorism, and several other issues

What we appear to have with the "immigration debate" is an issue that most Americans don't find very important, being moved to the front of the political agenda by politicians from areas least effected by immigrants and representing a constituency that although they have little practical reason for concern feel that immigrants somehow threaten their way of life. Or as we like to say a classic Republican wedge issue of misdirection.


The BIG picture, we're all being played

There are many who will offer up anecdotal evidence about their cousin who lost his job hanging drywall at $20 an hour because immigrants work far cheaper, or their brother who can't find an IT job because the market is flooded with foreigners with H-1b visas. I would not argue that in some cases the failures of US immigration policy have had an adverse effect on some sectors of the native workforce, particularly those from the most vulnerable segments of the population, those with the lowest educational levels, from minority communities and from in areas of economic depression due to the loss of manufacturing jobs. Others will tell stories of how they waited in a hospital emergency room for hours when their child broke a finger at a softball game because the staff was overwhelmed with a mass of humanity looking for treatment of common illnesses. Again I won't argue.. the healthcare system in this nation is a mess and yes undocumented immigrants only add to the 45 mil uninsured Americans who are forced to use our nations emergency rooms as their primary source of medical care.

But … I would put forward this test for all those who the favor the "tough" approach to immigration reform favored by Tom Tancredo and Jim Sensenbrenner …. If all the undocumented immigrants in the nation were to leave tomorrow, all 12 million of them, would this solve ANY of this nations most basic economic and social problems.

• Would it bring back the millions of good paying jobs that have been outsourced overseas?


• Would it mean that quintessential US companies like GM would not be laying off thousands of workers and closing plants?


• Would it balance a federal budget that now is so far into the red that we can't even keep up with the interest payments on the debt?


• Would it reverse a trade deficit that sends billions of dollars every year into foreign coffers?


• Would it change a tax code that has systematically moved the wealth of this nation out of the hands of the middle class and into the hands of the top 1% of the population?


• Would it fix an education system that is being under funded and dismantled piece by piece in order to set up a two tier system with public education for the poor and middle class and private education for the wealthy?


• Would it end an aggressive foreign policy that costs trillions of dollars and countless lives each year?


• Would it fix a healthcare system that leaves millions uninsured, that is underwritten by lobbyists from the big pharmaceutical and the insurance companies?


• Would it end a political system whereby our representatives no longer care about the needs of their constituents but rather spend their careers as spokesmen for business interests?

WOULD IT FIX ALL THE DAMAGED REPUBLICAN CONTROL HAS WROUGHT ON MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS AMERICANS?.....of course not

That in essence is the whole point of the immigration issue… to keep the American people fighting against imaginary adversaries in order that they don't start to address the real problems that effect them …Literally the elephants in the room.

-Read Full Story-

Internment of undocumented immigrants to begin.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that DHS would be opening detention facilities in the next few weeks to house thousands of Chinese immigrants who have been denied immigration to the United States, yet were refused readmission by the Chinese government. Currently there are an estimated 39,000 undocumented immigrants caught in this diplomatic limbo, but if the more punitive immigration legislation passed in the House back in December, and now being debated in the Senate, was to become law perhaps millions more would join them.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Chertoff said that China last year readmitted 800 people. But that made only a small dent in what he described as a backlog of thousands illegally in the U.S.

"The math is pretty easy — at that rate, we wind up with increasing numbers of migrants who, if we're going to detain them, we're going to have to house at enormous expense," Chertoff said.

He added: "We can't be in the position any longer where we are paying the burden and bearing the burden for countries that won't cooperate with us and take their own citizens back."

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately return a call for comment.

Currently, 687 Chinese are being held in federal detention facilities, at a daily rate of $95 each, while some 38,000 have been released on bond or under a monitoring program, such as wearing an electronic surveillance bracelet, the Homeland Security Department said later Tuesday.

-snip-

Chertoff also said Homeland Security would open detention facilities in the next few weeks to house entire families of illegal immigrants who hope to bring their children along in order to avoid jail time. "It'll be humane, but we're not going to let people get away with this," he said.

Chertoff's remarks comes as the Homeland Security Department aims to end its "catch and release" immigration policy by Oct. 1. After that date, all illegal immigrants will be held in U.S. detention centers until they can be returned to their nation of citizenry.

AP

Japanese-American internment camp during WWII

The Department of Homeland Security's decision to end the "catch and release" immigration policy by Oct.1 comes on the heels of last month's announcement by the Army Corps of Engineers that a $385 million contract had been awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Root and Brown to build "temporary immigration detention facilities".

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers
New York Times

Feb. 3 - The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary…

KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space…

A spokesman for the corps, Clayton Church, said that the centers could be at unused military sites or temporary structures and that each one would hold up to 5,000 people.

"When there's a large influx of people into the United States, how are we going to feed, house and protect them?" Mr. Church asked. "That's why these kinds of contracts are there."

-snip-

In recent months, the Homeland Security Department has promised to increase bed space in its detention centers to hold thousands of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. In the first quarter of the 2006 fiscal year, nearly 60 percent of the illegal immigrants apprehended from countries other than Mexico were released on their own recognizance.

Domestic security officials have promised to end the releases by increasing the number of detention beds. Last week, domestic security officials announced that they would expand detaining and swiftly deporting illegal immigrants to include those seized near the Canadian border

As the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up immigration reform this week they will be debating provisions that may increase the number of incarcerated undocumented immigrants into the millions. Both the current Senate proposal, "The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006", sponsored by Sen. Arlen Spectrer, and it's House equivalent, the "Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005"(HR4437) would criminalize almost any immigration infraction and leave the entire undocumented population vulnerable to incarceration. Both bills, in theory, call for the arrest and possible detention of all undocumented immigrants.

Mandatory Detention
Under current law, individuals who arrive without documents, including asylum-seekers, are subject to mandatory detention. Again this applies mainy to those arriving at airports or by sea. 60% of detainees are held in local jails under contract to the federal government, where they are generally not segregated from the criminal population even if they are asylum-seekers and others with no criminal record.

Under this new bill, the mandatory detention policy would be extended to all non-citizens who are detained at any port of entry or anywhere “along” the border for any reason.

“Illegal Presence” and “Aggravated Felonies,”
Section 203 of HR 4437 calls for the creation of a new federal crime of “illegal presence”. As defined in the bill it includes any violation, even technical, of any immigration law or regulation. Even if the immigrant was to fall “out of status” unintentionally, or do to paperwork delays. In essence, the bill makes every immigration violation, however minor, into a federal crime. As drafted, the bill also makes the new crime of “illegal presence” an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes. This classification would have the further effect of restricting ordinary undocumented immigrants (including those with pending applications) from many forms of administrative or judicial review. Those convicted of an "aggravated felony" would be subject to indefinite detention and/or expedited removal.

Indefinite Detention
Indefinite detention currently applies to non-citizens ordered removed from the United States whose countries refuse to accept them or who have no country because they are stateless. Most often they come from countries without good relations with the United States.

Section 602 of HR 4437 would permit indefinite detention of an increased broad class of non-citizens, including:

• those with a contagious disease
  
• any non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony,” (see above)
  
• non-citizens whose release would pose foreign policy problems
  
• non-citizens charged even with very minor immigration violations who, based on secret evidence, are deemed a national security risk.

MORE

With the internment of undocumented Chinese immigrants and their families becoming a very real possibility, we need to start to look at the real ramifications of some of this proposed legislation. Homeland Security has already announced its intent to greatly increase the incarceration of undocumented immigrants and Halliburton is ready to supply the facilities to hold them. With HR 4437's provisions for indefinite detention and the reclassification of even minor offenses as aggravated felonies it is quite possible that all 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country could shortly end up in internment camps no different from the refugee camps we see throughout the rest of the world. We just never thought it could happen here.

Tag: immigration

-Read Full Story-

Lou Dobbs: Broken Record

On a nightly basis, CNN anchorman Lou Dobbs warns viewers of the ever increasing threat our "broken borders" present to the average working American. Relentlessly pursuing his cause, Dobbs parades a plethora of "experts", activists and scholars out to back up his assertions and claims that our nation is being invaded by hordes of illegal immigrants who are causing economic ruin for "average" Americans.

His message is compelling, so compelling in fact that even many progressives(see comments) seem to have fallen under his spell. But … Now from the Southern Poverty Law Center comes this look at CNN’s Lou Dobbs, the accuracy of his reporting ,and the nature of some of the guests he chooses to feature on his nightly show

Broken Record
Lou Dobbs' daily 'Broken Borders' CNN segment has focused on immigration for years. But there's one issue Dobbs just won't take on.
By Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok

Lou Dobbs is a genial sort, a pleasant-faced CNN anchorman who regularly presents himself as standing up for American working men and women against those who would injure them. Hosting "Lou Dobbs Tonight" for a prime-time hour every weekday, he is also well known and powerful. So when Dobbs focuses on an issue, millions of Americans learn just what it is that Dobbs thinks they should know.

For more than two years now, Dobbs has served up a populist approach to immigration on nightly segments of his newscast entitled "Broken Borders." He has relentlessly covered the issue, although hardly from a traditional news perspective -- Dobbs favors clamping down on illegal immigration, and his "reporting" never fails to make that clear. He has covered the same issues, and the same anti-immigration leaders, time after time after time. In recent months, Dobbs has run countless upbeat reports on the "citizen border patrols" that have sprung up around the country since last April's Minuteman Project, a paramilitary effort to seal the Arizona border.

But there's one thing Lou Dobbs won't do. No matter what others report about the movement, Dobbs has failed to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols.

Link

And now for a little dose of reality: Many of Lou's " American patriot " guests who represent organizations that help protect our "broken borders" have ties to various white supremacist groups, racist organizations and recognized hate groups. Lou often presents his "minutemen" guests as the bulwark against the rising tide of illegal immigration, when in fact these guests are in fact no more than racist vigilantes.

more below the fold

GLENN SPENCER, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the show, on Jan. 7 and June 4, 2004. Spencer's Web site is jammed with anti-Mexican vitriol and he pushes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest -- facts never mentioned on Dobbs' show.
-snip-
Spencer has spoken at least twice to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity," and once to American Renaissance, a group that contends that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Dobbs has never reported those ties…

Link

BARBARA COE, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, was quoted on a show last March bitterly attacking Home Depot for "betray[ing] Americans," apparently because Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work. Not mentioned were her group, listed by the SPLC as a hate group, or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as "savages." Coe recently described herself as a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "white pride" group formed from the remnants of the segregationist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s that were once described by Thurgood Marshal as "the uptown Klan." She also told The Denver Post in November that she had given a speech to the group.

A man named JOE MCCUTCHEN was quoted last April as part of a feature on the Minuteman Project, described by Dobbs as "a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans." No mention was made of the fact that McCutchen, who heads up an anti-immigration group called Protect Arkansas Now, had written a whole series of anti-Semitic letters to the editor and given a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- facts revealed the prior January by SPLC, causing Arkansas' Republican governor to denounce McCutchen's group.

In fact Dobbs regularly praises the excellent work done by the Minutemen and the other "border security" militias that patrol our southern borders. This, despite the fact that many of these groups are following in a long tradition of racist border vigilantism.

Although Chris Simcox and Jim Gilchrist are seen as the fathers of the Minuteman movement, citizen vigilante border patrols are not a new concept. Simcox and Gilchrist are following in the footsteps of other anti-immigrant activists before them, and it is well-trodden ground.

Klansmen were on the Mexican border 28 years before the Minutemen co-opted the concept. And they were talking about the Hispanic immigration threat more than five decades before that. Southern Poverty Law Center

The article goes on to profile many more of Dobbs’ guests along with analyzing some of Dobbs’ reporting, particularly his tendency to present misrepresentations, and sometimes downright lies as fact.

… according to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media monitor. In 2003, FAIR added, a reporter on Dobbs' show grossly mischaracterized a National Academy of Sciences report. The report found that immigrants provided a net gain of $1 billion to $10 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product, but the CNN reporter said the report had found the economic impact of immigrants worked out to a net loss of up to $10 billion.

Link

Your mother always warned you that you would be judged by the company you keep, This is perhaps some advice Mr Dobbs should take to heart.

-Read Full Story-

Why I oppose a temporary guest worker program.

I must start off by saying that my opposition to the proposed "guest worker" provisions in the current version of the Senate's compromise immigration bill; “The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006”, sponsored by Judiciary Chairmen Arlen Specter, are not based solely on the flaws in this particular bill, but on the whole concept of using "temporary" workers to fill our nations labor demands.

Before I begin my rant as to why the concept of guest workers is both morally wrong and economically ill- conceived, I would like to look at this particular piece of legislation.

At the present time we must keep in mind that this proposed bill is still in its embryonic stage and has only today moved to the full Judiciary Committee for debate. From this early mark-up though, we can see that many of the more draconian measures from the House bill (HR 4437) have been incorporated. The classification of any immigration related offense, no matter how small, as an "aggravated felony", the "indefinite detention" of those who violate immigration laws, and the limiting of judicial review for immigration claims, have all been integrated into Specter's version.

As a "compromise bill" it also contains aspects of the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005" sponsored by Senators Kennedy/McCain. One of these aspects is the inclusion of a guest worker provision, but it has been drastically modified from the original.

Let's take a look at both guest worker plans:
(more below the fold)

Title III: Essential Worker Visa Program: "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005" (Kennedy/'McCain)

• Creates a new temporary visa (H-5A) to allow foreign workers to enter and fill available jobs that require few or no skills


• Applicants must show that they have a job waiting in the U.S., pay a fee of $500 in addition to application fees, and clear all security, medical, and other checks


• Requires updating of America's Job Bank to make sure job opportunities are seen first by American workers


• Initial cap on H-5A visas is set at 400,000, but the annual limit will be gradually adjusted up or down based on demand in subsequent years


• Of the 400,000 annual visas, 50,000 must be allocated to "qualifying counties" that are outside a metropolitan area and that, during the last 20-year-period experienced a net out-migration of at least 10%


• Visa is valid for three years, and can be renewed one time for a total of 6 years; at the end of the visa period the worker either has to return home or be in the pipeline for a green card


• Visa is portable, but if the worker loses his job he has to find another one within 60 days or return home


• Ensures that employers hiring temporary workers abide by Federal, state and local labor, employment and tax laws


• Prohibits the hiring of temporary workers as independent contractors


• Protects temporary workers from abuse by foreign labor contractors or employers


• Gives temporary workers and U.S. workers remedies for violations of their rights


• An employer can sponsor the H-5A visa holder for a green card, or after accumulating four years of work in H-5A status, the worker can apply to adjust status on his/her own


• Sets up a task force to evaluate the H-5A program and recommend improvements

Kennedy/McCain Bill

Title IV: Nonimmigrant Temporary Worker “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006” (Specter)

• Creates a new temporary visa (H-2C) to allow foreign workers to enter and fill available jobs that require few or no skills


• Applicants must show that they have a job waiting, pays a $500 fee in addition to the cost of processing, undergoes a medical exam at his or her own expense and provides a criminal history, immigration history, and proves no involvement in gangs or terrorist groups to DHS.


• Spouses and children would be eligible to accompany or join the principal alien for an additional fee of $500


• Visa is valid for three years, with one three-year period extension. At the end of the six-year period, workers must return to their home country for at least one year before reentering the program.


• Visa is portable, but if the worker loses his job he has to find another one within 45 days or return home. If returned the immigrant could reenter if they meet all the original requirements.


• Individuals holding H-2C visas could travel outside of the United States and be readmitted on the same visa assuming the period of authorized admission had not expired


• Requires employers to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, including laws affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.


• Foreign labor contractors who recruit workers under this program would required to register with the Secretary of Labor


• The Secretary of Labor would establish an electronic job registry and a nationwide system of public labor exchange services to provide information on employment opportunities available to U.S. workers

Specter Bill

A careful reading of both bills reveals that the Specter bill has eliminated crucial aspects of Kennedy/McCain. One of the largest changes is the removal of any path to permanent residency for immigrant workers. Under Specters plan immigrants remain on a permanent cycle of temporary status, working for up to six years, only to return home for a year before they can start all over again. At least Kennedy/McCain offers a path to permanency for those who wish it.

Specter's plan also specifies no concrete number of visas to be issued under the plan, only a commission to study the issue. Without firm numbers, the Specter plan would be open to continual revision by business lobbying groups wishing to increase and decrease numbers to suit their needs. Kennedy/McCain provides firm numbers and a method to increase or decrease them by use of a specific formula.

While both bills tie immigrant eligibility to remain in the program to employment, the Specter bill places far more eligiblity restrictions on the employer, and sets up a "pool" of qualified employers:

To qualify the employer must attest that the employment of such worker will:

1. Not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the U.S.

2. Did not and will not cause displacement of a U.S. worker employed during a 180-day period beginning 90 days before the petition is filed.

3. The worker will be paid the greater of the prevailing wage or the actual wage paid by the employer to similarly situated workers

4. Such worker will be provided the working conditions and benefits normal to similarly situated workers in the area of intended employment

5. There is no strike, lockout or work stoppage in the course of a labor dispute in the occupation at the place of employment;

6. Provide benefits at least equal to those provided under to state worker compensation law for comparable employment;

7. There are not sufficient able, willing and qualified employees who are available at the time and place needed;

8. The employer has made good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers including, recruitment at least 14 days but no more than 90 days prior to filing

While some of these added restrictions are quite reasonable, taken in total, they will tend to limit the kind of employers who would qualify for the program, particularly amongst the small, independent business that now hire many undocumented workers. The bookkeeping, time restrictions and paperwork involved could prove prohibitive to small employers, leaving only larger operations, with the ability to hire extra personel to oversee processing, in the "pool". With a limited employer pool, immigrants who wish to change jobs may be reluctant to do so, no matter what the reason.

The Kennedy/McCain bill gives the temporary worker the same job mobility as a "green card" where the immigrant can make job decisions based on what job is best for them, not limited to a pre-approved "pool".

For these reasons I find the Temporary Guest Worker proposals in the Specter bill unacceptable.

My other problem is I find the whole concept of "temporary" workers impractical and discriminatory. I understand that in certain agricultural sectors the need for large amounts of seasonal labor is required, and for these kinds of jobs I see the logic in temporary workers. Outside of that circumstance, I see no need or reason to have such a program.

If an employer needs a worker today to fill a job, how can he, the government or anyone else, possibly know that the job will no longer exist in an arbitrary amount of time like three or six years. That is the premise this program has to work on in order make any logical sense. If not, and the job is in fact available after that time, why would there be any reason to send the worker home?

The only reason would be to keep the workers from putting in enough time to qualify for pay raises, benefits, the ability to unionize etc. It's purely discriminatory. It's a plan to perpetuate an "underclass" of revolving, cheap, immigrant labor.

If the labor market dictates that a given number of low-skilled workers are needed every year to fill jobs in this country, and these jobs can not in fact be filled with native workers, than the solution is to allow people from other nations to come and fill them. Not as temporary, disposable workers to be replaced as soon as they gain economic privileges, but as full fledged new members of society who can enjoy the fruits of their labor without fear of being uprooted every six years.

It seems very simple to me: Would American workers sign on to a plan by which no one could ever stay at one job any more that six years, no matter how much they wanted too? Would they accept a plan that assured they could never qualify for a pension, pay raises, extra weeks of vacation, medical benefits, a 401K, and all the other perks that go with long-term employment? Would American workers accept that they would have to uproot their families and move every six years?

Of course not …. We believe in free will and economic autonomy. Why should we expect immigrant workers to accept any less?

-Read Full Story-

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

It has long been speculated that much of the motivation that has fueled the increased anti-immigration rhetoric coming from certain political leaders, and their calls for more restrictive policies to protect our "broken borders", has had far more to do with political expediency than actual concern for national security, job loss, or economic stress put on society by increased immigration. Although the aforementioned rationales are commonly given by these "closed border" advocates, a new analysis of Congressional voting patterns by The American Immigration Law Foundation shows that those representing districts least likely affected by the influx of undocumented immigrants are the first to champion restrictive immigration policies.

An analysis of the Congressional representatives who supported HR4437 reveals that those representing districts with the fewest number undocumented immigrants generally supported the restrictive immigration plan, while those with large numbers of undocumented immigrants in their districts were more apt to oppose it.

More after the fold:

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 miniscule. 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

Overall 67% of all those who supported the bill from both parties came from districts with fewer than 15,000 undocumented immigrants while 62% of those opposed came from districts with more than 15,000.

As this pattern illustrates, the constituencies of most representatives who supported H.R. 4437 experience relatively little impact from undocumented immigration. As a result, these representatives are free to ignore the need for genuine immigration reform and focus instead on fostering a public image of being “tough” on undocumented immigrants.

Given these statistics, it becomes obvious that those who are most likely to take a hard line on immigration are doing so more out of a need to find a new "enemy" on which to scapegoat the failures of the present administration and its policies. Those from these generally rural and economically depressed areas find it much easier to blame the nonexistent undocumented immigrants in their districts for the economic woes of their constituents than to deal with the macro economic issues of globalization and loss of manufacturing jobs due to shifting economic realities.

Just as the right wing created a phantom boogieman out of the Gay community in the last election cycle to supply themselves with a wedge issue on "family values", they are once again setting up a divisive issue to distract and misdirect the American people away from the real issues that effect them.

-Read Full Story-

Your friendly neighborhood white supremacist

I saw the first of these ribbons on a car a few months ago, since then I’ve come across them a couple of other times. It’s a picture we’re all familiar with. You pull up to a light, and start to read the messages displayed on the back of the cars stopped in front of you, and you begin to get a mental picture of its occupants. You can tell a lot about a person by reading the messages proudly exhibited on their bumpers.

This particular sticker was accompanied by the usual cast of characters; the W sticker, a few for some local Republicans, the flag sticker, a support or troops ribbon,, maybe even one about killing the unborn or taking away our guns. Frankly I’ve grown immune to them. My outrage meter, now unable to take the constant barrage of inflammatory rhetoric. But this one stuck out in my mind, not because it was so blatantly racist, but because for a moment I had that sinking feeling that perhaps I was one of a small minority of people who would find it so. This kind of racism seems accepted by many in today’s post 9-11 world, where Lou Dobbbs can nightly lecture millions on the “broken borders” and invasion from the south.

But I wonder if those who display this little gem would do it so proudly if they knew who was behind this ribbon campaign?

The “Bring Them Home and Put Them On The Mexican Border!” ribbon campaign is coordinated by the 15,000 member National Alliance, a white supremacist group out of West Virginia.

( I must warn readers that what follows contains reproductions and links to hate speech and inflammatory racist rhetoric. I reproduce it not to provide any further platform for this kind of bile, but rather to demonstrate how effectively these kinds of groups and their platforms have been embedded into more mainstream ideology. I believe that if those who display the “Put Them on the Mexican Border” stickers were aware of just what kind of people they are actually supporting, they would be repulsed. )

From the National Alliance’s description of the campaign:(PDF)

Bring Them Home and Put Them On The Mexican Border!

The brave men and women who serve in our armed forces are the victims of a deadly conflict of interest. Millions of Third Worlders are invading the US through Mexico, while the blood of our sons and daughters is spent protecting the borders of a hostile country.
-Snip-

Why invade a sovereign country that never attacked us? The answer: The desire to secure Israel by powerful Jewish lobbyists and advisors who wormed their way into the Bush administration.
-Snip-


The Arabs wage war through desperate, primitive terrorism and the Jews wage war through high-tech terror and corruption of the US government. We want no part of their war. Millions of Third Worlders invade the US, through Mexico. But our government is being run by people who are more concerned about Israel’s borders than our own.

From the National Alliance’s Statement of Principles :

Our world is hierarchical. Each of us is a member of the Aryan (or European) race, which, like the other races, developed its special characteristics over many thousands of years during which natural selection not only adapted it to its environment but also advanced it along its evolutionary path. Those races which evolved in the more demanding environment of the North, where surviving a winter required planning and self-discipline, advanced more rapidly in the development of the higher mental faculties -- including the abilities to conceptualize, to solve problems, to plan for the future, and to postpone gratification -- than those which remained in the relatively unvarying climate of the tropics. Consequently, the races vary today in their capabilities to build and to sustain a civilized society and, more generally, in their abilities to lend a conscious hand to Nature in the task of evolution.

There’s no ambiguity in the message, no mention of usual rationale for closing up the borders. They don’t allude to terrorist or security threats, job loss by native workers or economic pressures put on the system by immigrants, they don’t even revert to the old standby about the illegality of entering the country with proper paperwork. They go right to the core of their beliefs: immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America are bad because they’re brown, plain and simple. Do you think the bumper-sticker guy knows that his funny little racist joke sticker actually comes from people who believe that Jews secretly control our foreign policy and Aryans are evolutionarily predisposed to run civilization? I would hope not.

The immigration issue is one that’s highly divisive. Many people of good conscience see the issue differently, but to have groups like National Alliance spearheading the issue only muddies the waters. They play upon the fears and concerns of the American people in order to move forward their warped agenda.

The movement to close the borders has long had roots in the racist underbelly of American culture. Long before the average American was concerned about “Broken Borders”, “Clash of Civilizations” or “Death of the West”, white supremacists were targeting Hispanics and using the failures of US immigration policy to whip up racial animosities. Many of the border vigilante groups that have gained notoriety post 9-11 actually spun off out of the white supremacist movement in the early 1990’s. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the preeminent watchdog organization for hate groups has profiled over twenty top anti-immigrant leaders and spokesmen with ties to racist and white supremacist groups. Many of these leaders, now sanitized for public consumption, show up on TV news and opinion shows as pundits and experts on immigration reform.

The American people must be very careful as we engage in this debate about immigration reform. We must not let those with hidden agendas and evil motivations set the tone of discourse. The next time you see that pundit or advocate on TV spouting out “statistics” and “facts” be very careful. Read the little scroll under his or her name, see what group they really represent. They might not be who you think they are. You might want to think twice before sticking that ribbon on your car. It might say far more than you think..

I want to thank XicanoPwr at ¡Para Justicia y Libertad! for uncovering this story

-Read Full Story-

Blackwater: Welcome to the machine

In a move right out of 1984, Blackwater USA, the security company that has been a major provider of “private contractor” troops and security experts for missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently New Orleans, announced a new phase in their operation.

Starting in December, they will be providing remote controlled drone airships (see blimps) that will be outfitted with state of the art surveillance and detection technology. The airship will be able to hover for days at a time and furnish command centers with real time information about all activities on the ground.

A second generation of airships will follow that will have the capacity to carry tons of payload.



So it appears that in addition to being one of the world’s premier providers of private armies, Blackwater will be moving into the role of becoming the eyes and ears for big brother. This new capacity will allow them to monitor ground activity, direct their mercenaries, and possibly deliver ordinance, all from a remote, secure station.

And who will be looking after those, who will be looking in on us.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 10, 2006

BLACKWATER USA UNVEILS NEW SUBSIDIARY

Blackwater Airships, LLC Is The Newest Addition To The Firm's Security Portfolio

Moyock, NC - The national security of the United States depends upon innovative and flexible solutions in the global war on terror. Blackwater USA, the world's premier security, peace and stability operations firm recently unveiled its plans to create a new subsidiary; Blackwater Airships.

Blackwater Airship's initial focus will be the development and deployment of small remotely piloted airship vehicles (RPAVs) that can operate from 5,000 - 15,000 feet, move and hover, and stay aloft for up to four days. The airships will be equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance and detection equipment that can detect, record, and communicate in real time to friendly forces the movement and activities of terrorists.

Gary Jackson, president of Blackwater USA said, "This project is in keeping with Blackwater's support of peace and security throughout the world."

Follow-on phases of the project will include larger airships that will carry tons of payload in support of remote humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. Blackwater, who is already involved in stability operations throughout the world, continues to innovate in support of peace and security, and freedom and democracy everywhere.

The first Blackwater Airship will be available in December 2006.

Blackwater is committed to supporting national and international security policies that protect those who are defenseless and provide a free voice for all. Other Blackwater subsidiaries include: Blackwater Training Center, Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater Security Consulting, Blackwater Canine, and Raven Development Group. For more information, please visit www.blackwaterusa.com.

link

more on Blackwater:

Blackwater: IraqFact Profile

Blackwater in New Orleans part I

Balckwater in New Orleans part II

Blackwater takes over Iraqi training

-Read Full Story-

There's no US monopoly on wingnuttery

I have spent a lot of time investigating the native wingnuts of the US, particularly in regards to their opinions regarding immigration and immigration reform. Up until now I have been laboring under the misconception that the phenomenon - although not limited to US - had reached a zenith of ignorance and bigotry in the likes of Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, JD Hayworth, Jim Sensenbrenner and Lou Dobbs that could not be matched in other civilized nations. Especially in Canada, that friendly place up north.

But now from our neighbors to the north comes an example of wingnuttery that comes close to surpassing anything our native variety have been able to come up with.

From the Coalition for a Humanistic Euro- British Canada

The coalition believes it is crucial that the founding cultures and peoples of Canada be given their rightful recognition in the affairs of the nation in all respects. We believe that British culture needs to be promoted and enhanced.

In view of this, we must ask that immigration cease to be discriminatory against those who originate from the continental European area as that is where we think the protections we are seeking for founding cultures of Canada can be best demonstrated. If we continue as we are to have more immigrants who are not from these areas we are in fact demonstrating that we are being unfair to those who have founded this country and given it what has made it a “paradise on earth” for all to see and desire for themselves as an example of how to live. We must be fair to all concerned. We ask no more! We’d like the Euro as our currency.

Many of the US variety of wingnuts call for "English only" legislation to try to ensure that English remains the "official language" of the country. Our friends from the Coalition for a Humanistic Euro- British Canada do them one better …they call of English to become the "official language" of ….THE ENTIRE WORLD.

We suggest that the English language has been universally adopted as the official language of the world because the culture from which it comes continues to exhibit a fairness and judiciousness, rationality and kindliness that all peoples all over the world think right to accept. We would like to have a kindly approach taken to teaching this culture completely to those who will be altogether accepting of such great ideals. To those whose capacities are maximized and done justice to universally if we only preach the kindly message of true generosity, true fairness and kindness so that it comes from the heart to begin with, and is improved and actualized by showing the beauty of Jane Austen and Upstairs Downstairs

While Tancredo and his ilk would be quite content to build a wall to keep out the kind of people they do not want in the US …. The Euro-Brit Coalition is willing to put their money where their mouths are and provide free housing and cash bonuses to the "right people" to come in.

To this end, we advocate a pro-active approach to immigration… We would like incentives such as a free home, furniture and cash rewards to those who we should therefore be much more completely welcoming of in this country and elsewhere.

And just who would get these cash bonuses… who are the "right people"…white Europeans and South Africans, of course.

A massive influx of (especially) European,Russian, Ukranian & Mediterrenean immigration with classes to ensure cultural assimilation….We would like to see recognition for the credentials of those professionals such as Doctors from Russia, Ukraine, Romania, etc.

NO discrimination against White South Africans wishing to flee to Canada. We'd accept very high quotas indeed to alleviate suffering under new circumstances.

Some people whom the Coalition finds highly desirable actually receive personal invitations to emigrate to Canada. Most of them are of course celebrities that the founder of the group finds very appealing :

We'd dearly love to see people of the calibre of Ms. Emma Thomspon, a sensitive intelligent beautiful soul with the greatest sense of Christianly goodness. She'd be a wonderful role model for the many people we hope to attract from the continent.

Likewise the great Mr. Anthony Hopkins for whom we have the greatest regard.

Senator Hillary Clinton. A beautiful soul.

(and some others in this eclectic mix;) Jane Fonda, Alan Alda, Diane Keaton, Ann Archer, Rep. Mary Bono (Sonny's wife)

The website also makes recommendations on cars, electronics, movies TV shows and even furniture that “right thinking “ Canadians should show interest in. ( mostly very British or European)

OK .. at this point your probably thinking… this has to be some sort of small, way-out, fringe group who managed to throw up a website… no big deal, wakos throw up websites all the time. Well you're partially right, it looks like the group does not have widespread support and seems to be mostly the pet project of it's founder, Michael E. Chessman, a South Asian gentleman born in Tanzania. (yes …that’s right … an immigrant of South Asian descent… this guy not only drinks the kool-aid, he musy oen an entire kool-aid factory)

But….

I found out about the “coalition” because it just ran a full page ad in the current issue of Newsweek. They've also taken out full-page ads in over fifty newspapers worldwide in the last five years, including the New York Times and the Daily News.

So they might be small, (like one guy probably) but they have a pretty large war chest.

The Coalition has some other "interesting" policies besides those about immigration:

Middle Eastern Policy: We have long advocated that Palestine might be settled entirely by Jewish peoples given the limited amount of available land to them. We think Israel should allow the Palestenians to continue their lives over in Jordan

Education: Boarding schools in the British style

Trade: Cultural imperatives make European (car) models a much better choice for Canadians. Perhaps Mr. Lee Iacocca could be drafted to help build Euro cars right here for us.

Child Poverty: An end to child poverty in Canada with direct supplements and school meals. Quality toys such as "Anne of Green Gables" dolls and quality metal train sets and the like.

Federalsim: An end to checkerboard style of Federalism in Canada. A strong central government as envisaged by the right honourable Mr. Pierre Elliot Trudeau during his time as Canadian Prime Minister

Code of Chivalry: A return to the recognition of the importance of the family unit. A recognition that feminism is unnatural and hurtful to children, as is the entire concept of disposables (from diapers to children). A return, basically, to the time when men were men and women knew their place in the order of things

Affirmative Action: An end to discriminatory practices which deny the best candidate for the position in favour a lesser qualified candidate… Private Clubs should feel free to be discriminating as to who they wish for their own members (freedom of association)… We would encourage, for example, men and women from universities forming their own private clubs where they may sip a brandy, attired in formal uniform and discuss the future of our nation.

In the end it appears as if the Canadian wingnut wingnuti canidus, although not as widespread or numerous as it's US cousins wingnuti americanus, is far more colorful and flamboyant than anything we have down here in the continuous forty eight.

Disclaimer: This diary is in no way intended to besmirch the people or nation of Canada. I hold the nation and it’s people in the highest regard … besides, we all might be moving up there soon and I would hate to wear out my welcome before I even arrive. So please take this dairy in the manner in which it was intended… with tongue firmly implanted in check .

Cross posted from:Migra Matters

-Read Full Story-

Ruminations on the imminent demise of the Republic

It’s been a recurring theme in the progressive Internet community, this notion that with each new defeat, setback or disappointment we are one step closer to an inevitable apocalypse. In moments of despair and disillusionment the conversation inevitably turns to predictions of the coming Orwellian nightmare, with jackbooted fascists and religious fanatics dragging the nation further down the road to self-destruction. The four horsemen of the progressive apocalypse; endless war, economic instability, loss of civil rights and corrupt government always loom on the horizon ready to destroy democracy as we know it. It’s become a familiar thread that runs through our discourse, a fatalistic, resignation of powerlessness that permeates our thoughts.

While much of this sentiment is heartfelt, expressed with eloquence and quite compelling, it contains a flaw in logic that makes it not only wrongheaded but in some ways dangerous.

As a nation and a people we have endured far more troubling times and managed to not only survive, but in fact thrive. There is nothing we are presented with today that we have not faced at one time or another in our history, and triumphed over. We simply need to look at the past to see that, although faced with great challenges, the Republic and our Democracy are far from dead and buried.


There are common themes that seem to run through this new progressive fatalism:

* A press controlled by business interests that manipulate and distort the truth
* An executive branch that has usurped power and is overreaching it’s Constitutional restraints
* A Congress controlled by special interests and the moneyed classes
* A lack of regulation and control over Corporations and big business
* Growing militarism
* An economy that seems on the brink of collapse due to debt, peak oil and a diminished manufacturing base

The question now raised is: Are these concerns any different from those expressed before in the past?

“You supply the pictures, and I’ll supply the war”. Certainly that famous quote from William Randolph Hearst could not more clearly demonstrate a case where the press distorted and manipulated the facts to drive a nation to war. In fact throughout most of our history our “free press” has been little more than mouthpieces for one or another political or corporate point of view. The concept of a truly “adversarial” press that questions government policies and leadership is a twentieth century phenomenon, born from the Muckrakers of the turn of the century (who appeared in direct response to the yellow journalism of both Hearst and Pulitzer). But the notion that Edward R Murrow would take on McCarthy, or Woodward and Bernstein- Nixon, is the exception rather than the rule as far as journalism goes. So while we rile against FOX or Tweetie, believing that we are the first to encounter a manipulated and owned press, it is not the case.

Of course to talk about Executive overreach one would only have to say one word – Nixon. But that would be too easy and could be dismissed as an exception based open his unprecedented mental flaws. Instead look to Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin, Roosevelt’s attempts to pack the court, Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus, or Jefferson’s acquisition of the Louisiana Territories. All of these can clearly be seen as a case where the executive usurped powers not given to him under the Constitution. So while the Unitary Executive is a frightening concept to deal with it is in essence just a new wrapping on an old package.

When we look at the Congress and it’s relationship to moneyed interests we can go back to the Founding Fathers to see that there has always been a direct connection. They fact that slavery was not addressed in our Constitution is a direct result of that relationship. From that time foreword “ Whats good of US Steel is good for America” has been the prevailing wisdom in Washington. A cursory look at the relationship between Congress and the labor movement confirms this. It was not until well into the twentieth century, when labor finally became a political force, that any shift in that paradigm began.

To look at the unrestricted power of big business and corporations and view that as new occurrence is of course impossible. Laissez-faire policies have dominated our history from the start. In fact the battle between unrestricted business and the interests of society on a whole have been at odds since our inception. In fact the very notion that business could and should be restricted in any way is again a rather modern concept, first appearing in the Trust-Busting period of the Gilded Age. So when we look at today’s giant multinationals and the enormous amount of power they wield, we must realize that they are no more powerful in our time than the Union Pacific Railroad, Standard Oil or US Steel where in theirs.

When it comes to our apparent growing militarism, again we should look to the past. From the time we began our genocide of the indigenous people of this nation, through our conquest of northern Mexico, to our entanglements in the Philippines around the turn of the century, through WWI and II, the Cold War, incursions into Central and South America and the Caribbean, and various hot wars like Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. We have almost always been in a constant state of war. The periods between wars have been few and of short duration. An argument could be made that some of these wars have been wars of necessity, and this would be true, but many others have been wars of convenience and conquest. Some like the “War of Westward Expansion” lasted over 200 years. Others such as our war in the Philippines have become nothing more than historical footnotes even though we lost more lives there then we have lost thus far in our current fiasco in the middle east. So when we decry our current involvement, and feel like we are the first to oppose and question our military posturing, we must remember that this has been going on since our nation’s inception. It says far more about our culture and national goals than about the current situation … we are a warlike nation and always have been … should we work to change that … of course… but it’s nothing new.

When it comes to economic concerns, we are far from the first to deal with economic uncertainty. Of course the Great Depression is an obvious example, but there are many more. The US treasury at one point was so depleted that J.P. Morgan had to underwrite the government. There have been numerous devastating recessions and depressions that have led to widespread turmoil and hardship. We have lost major cities, Chicago and San Francisco due to fire and earthquake. We have had our richest farmland dry up and blow away. We have seen great industries grow and fortunes made only to be rendered obsolete like the railroads or whaling. The transitions and turmoil we face today is not that far removed from those of our forebears.

If you’ve read thus far, I need to commend you first of all for putting up with the little history lesson … so I will proceed quickly to my point (there really is one, you see)


STOP WITH ALL THE FATALISM

`Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead,' said Scrooge. `But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me!'
Dickens

I realize that it’s disheartening to see our leadership galloping full fledged into the abyss. I know that it appears that we are powerless to stop them … but if history proves anything … we are not.

The astute reader has probably noted that many of the examples I have used in my little historical narrative come from the period between of the gilded age through the nineteen sixties, and this is no coincidence. I chose them because they are the periods of the first Progressives through the end of the New Dealers. When faced with many of the same problems we are faced with today, these early progressives, liberals, socialists, labor organizers muckrakers and new dealers changed the course of history. If not for them we to might have faced the same specter of fascism that overtook Europe in the same period, when faced with similar problems. Instead our progressive ancestors gave us child labor laws, unions, food and drug regulation, minimum wage and workplace safety regulations, anti-trust legislation, the 40-hour workweek, social security, civil right legislation, women’s suffrage and later women’s rights and a list to long to write of other accomplishments.

So my question to all is … do we allow ourselves to be beaten down and marginalized by our setbacks, or do we brush ourselves off and re-enter the fight. Have we really been so badly beaten down by our oppressors that there is nothing left to do but sit back and watch our Republic wallow in it’s death throes. I think not. Surely the black man who fought his entire life for the simple right to be treated as a human being didn’t give up. The labor organizer beaten down by Pinkertons and state militias didn’t waver. The starving Okie looking simply for survival didn’t crawl up in a ball and die. The poor immigrant living in a cold water flat and working in a sweatshop didn’t pack up and run home. These people endured … and so should we. We need to take up the fight of those who came before us. We have grown fat and complacent as a nation and are to willing to roll over rather than do the hard work of making a better world. Thank God those who came before us did not do the same.

-Read Full Story-

Happy Birthday ePluribus Media

Happy birthday/anniversary to a great group of citizen journalists. Kudos and congrtas.

Go sign their birthgday card HERE

-Read Full Story-

Immigration Wars: Open or Closed Borders for America?

A comprehensive discussion of US immigration and border policy hosted by The Independent Institute, a non-partisan public policy think tank, entitled:

Immigration Wars: Open or Closed Borders for America?

is a must read for anyone interested in progressive immigration reform. Featuring Peter Laufer former NBC News correspondent and author of "Wetback Nation: The Case for Opening the Mexican-American Border ", along with economist Benjamin Powell, Director of the Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation, The Independent Institute, the presentation covered numerous topics relating to border reform.

From Mr. Laufer:

Some (people) are proponents of open migration. Others want the border secured in various ways. But everybody agrees that the status quo is no good.
-snip-

The next step that I come up with is that pretty much any(one) who wants to come north, comes north. That’s the status of affairs currently. That’s one of the reasons why the border is out of control. …

Then the third part of this thing is we want them to come north. Whether we admit it or not, we want them to come north. That’s why they’re coming north. And this is (what) we’ll be (discussing) here in a minute.

… since everybody’s coming anyway that wants to come, since we want them to come, since we all agree the status quo doesn’t work, why don’t we try something radically different. And what could that be? Well, we just regularize what’s going on anyway.

Because we’ve got ancillary problems on the border.

There are people we don’t want to have come up here... Drug traffickers maybe, crazed terrorists, rapists, murderers, robbers. And we can’t stop these people, because it is so chaotic currently on the border that those that we would like to keep out just are in the shadows of those that we’re embracing…

-snip-

But the way I see it, people come through the border. The reason they’re not coming through the border now is because we’re not letting them in. So if they have some thing like national driver’s license …(some) kind of a card, a passport, whatever it is, and they come walking in and they wave it, and our guys say yeah, yeah, yeah at all these different checkpoints we have. We’ve got dozens of them along the southern border…

And so, they’re no longer running across the desert. They’re no longer dying in the desert. … They are coming through in some kind of an organized manner, and they’re having to show something. So the really bad guys are the ones that are still out in the desert, and they’re no longer in the shadow of this hoard of people that’s coming up.

Mr. Powell covers the topic from a more conventional perspective, arguing that an open border policy would eventually force the Mexican government to enact reforms that would cut down and eliminate the root causes of the mass migration of Mexican citizens to the United States:

Cross posted from:Migra Matters

… an open immigration policy where we allow all workers in who don’t have demonstrated criminal records or are a known terrorist threat would be beneficial compared to the status quo.

-snip-

Why do they come here? They obviously come here because the job opportunities and the wages they can get here are better than what they can get at Mexico--even though they currently face a Border Patrol that’s pushing them through the deserts, risking their lives with dangerous “coyotes,” the name of the people who are transporting them across the border, and having to stay for a long time in the U.S. because they can’t freely cross back to visit their family. With all these hardships factored in, and admittedly not getting so many benefits along with their job, they’re still willing to come for these wages because it’s better than their next best alternative: staying in Mexico.

-snip-

Well, that problem is not fundamentally one of American immigration policy. That’s one of bad policies in Mexico. Mexico taxes too much, spends too much, regulates too much, inflates too much, and is too corrupt. All of these things have to end to have better opportunities in Mexico.

So, why do I bring this up? In part, I think the open-border policy would contribute to making Mexico’s policies better in the long run, hopefully. There’s a well-known model of competition between governments, the Tiebout model in economics, where basically jurisdictions are concerned with their citizens leaving when they’re free to migrate to other areas because they lose their tax base, they lose workers, they lose potential defenders of their country. Well, look at what happened in eastern Europe: you had a whole bunch of bad policies there. They literally built walls to keep their people in. Mexico hasn’t built a wall, to keep people in, with bad policy; we built it for them. Let’s take it down so as they move there’s more pressure on the Mexican government to have to reform in order for it to keep its people there.

Then as they do reform … people tend to move back as they do better. Look at Ireland, a country that for years had net out-mitration. They had a fiscal crisis, they had to reform in the 1990s and 1980s. When they did, all of the sudden since the mid-1990s they’ve had net immigrant inflows into their country, something unheard of in Ireland. It could happen in Mexico, too.

Powell then goes on to dispel many of the common arguments and misconceptions about the economic effects of immigration:

…immigrants have no net social costs over the course of their lifetime. When they first come they might be a little more like that than later, or it might depend more on individual cases, but on net they find they don’t suck up the social services.

-snip-

—estimates that about $22 billion in net gain to current United States people, not to the immigrants themselves coming here—a $22 billion net gain from current levels of immigration. Now, that gain can be bigger if more people are coming in in the future

-snip-

“Despite the popular belief that immigrants have a large adverse impact on wages and employment opportunities on the native-born population, the literature on this question does not provide much support for this conclusion.”

-snip-

A report just came out for this fall’s crop estimated in the Central Valley that between 70,000 and 80,000 workers short of what we need to harvest the crop. That means about $1 billion in projected losses. This isn’t trivial and it isn’t crazy speculation, because something similar happened in Arizona last year. In Arizona last year the winter lettuce crop—they only enough labor to harvest 30 percent of it. They only harvested about 30 percent of it and they lost about $1 billion there too. Now of course, your response might be, sure there might be more American workers if the work was easy and the pay was better, but the fact of the matter is, the farming in parts of the United States often doesn’t justify paying the workers more and giving them more benefits to attract them there. It would mean the loss of farming if we don’t have the labor willing to work under those conditions, and that’s what was happening here when they lost the crops. It simply was even going to be less profitable to go ahead and hire people for higher wages to get the work done. So we need them here for the crops

The transcript contains far more information than can be covered here, including question and answer segments between the audience and both experts. This was an excellent lecture, and should be read by anyone interested in progressive immigration reform.

-Read Full Story-

"Secret" Air Base for Iraq War started prior 9-11

With a small ceremony on April 26, 2003, control of Prince Sultan Air Base was handed back to the government of Saudi Arabia. Since the mid-nineties it had been the premier US air base in the region and the nerve center for all air force operations in the Gulf. As the home of the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC), the base was the primary command and control facility responsible for orchestrating the air campaigns for both Operation Southern Watch in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
The timing of the closing of PSAB seemed odd, coming just weeks after the official start of military actions in Iraq. It should have, at the very least, caused unwanted logistical problems for the Pentagon and regional commanders, but it didn't. A contingency plan had long been in the works, not only for Prince Sultan Air Base, but also for the entire map of the Middle East, including Iraq.

Long before the US pullout, a new home for the operations had secretly been built in the deserts of Qatar. What had been in October 2001 "nothing more than a runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses", the Al Udeid Air Base was transformed in a few short months into one of the largest air bases in the world.

Published reports and official DOD statements claimed that the amazing transformation was the result of the heroic response of US servicemen to the tragedy of 9-11. A determined military had beaten indeterminate odds to transform a barren wasteland into a state of the art military base in order to "take the war to the terrorists".

The true story of the building of Al-Udeid is actually quite different. The planning for the mammoth base had in fact taken place long before Sept. 11, and actual work on the base began as early as the spring of 2001. The building of Al Udeid turns out not to be a "miracle in the desert" in response to a heinous attack, as touted by the military, but rather a required step on the path to regime change in Iraq.

It has long been accepted knowledge that the Bush Administration was working feverishly towards regime change in Iraq during the 18-month period between 9-11 and the official start of the war in March of 2003. The Downing St Minutes confirmed that the Administration was set on a path to war at least as early as mid-summer of 2002. The accounts of Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke verified that Iraq was a front burner issue for the Administration from the very first day, and only intensified after the attacks. Yet finding hard evidence to prove that planning for the war in Iraq was taking place prior to 9-11 has been hard to find. A look at the building of Al Udied can provide that evidence.


THE BUILDING OF AL-UDEID (THE OFFICIAL STORY)
According to published reports, the groundwork for what would become Al-Udeid Air Base was first laid at a cost of over one billion dollars in 1996 in an attempt by the Qatari government to lure the American military to set up shop in the small Gulf nation. At the time it was built, Qatar had not yet acquired as much as a single airplane to call the base home. Although they would later purchase an air force comprised of 12 French Mirage fighter jets, they would never actually station them at Al-Udeid. They were simply playing a waiting game, hoping that eventually the volatile nature of the region would bring the Americans knocking at their door. The Qatari's gamble paid off with the events of Sept. 11. In response to the attacks, the US presence in the region needed to increase exponentially. By Sept. 29, 2001, according to the official records, the first military teams arrived to begin looking the base over in preparation for Operation Enduring Freedom.

On October 2, 2001 a rapid-response team of civil engineers, the 823rd RED HORSE Squadron whose specialty is to repair and build structures such as runways and roads in remote areas, arrived. According to the accounts of the 823rd, the Qatar base "was nothing more than a runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses". Since there was no room in the warehouses for the RED HORSE airmen to sleep, they moved into an expandable shelter on the flightline and lived and worked out of there
They had come to begin the largest construction project ever undertaken by a RED HORSE team; a $9.1 million military construction project that consisted of building a 1,240- foot by 630-foot concrete ramp with taxiways, shoulders and lighting. While waiting for funding and approval for the ramp project, the RED HORSE troops spent two months doing other base projects, like building the operations center and helping set up the tent city.
Finally in January 2002 ramp construction began. The completed ramp, as big as 8 football fields, was finished in late March.

As March 2002 began, the airfield was still classified as "Secret".
Only a handwritten "Army Camp" sign marked its entrance. By the middle of the month, several thousand new American troops were now stationed at the base. Many of these troops were supporting the large complement of US aircraft, which included F-16 fighters, JSTARS reconnaissance aircraft, and KC-10, KC-130 and KC-135 aerial tankers. The rapid growth of the base made Qatar's Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani decide he had to let his people know about extent of the American presence in their country. It was agreed that the best way to announce the presence of the base was to have Vice President Cheney visit on March 17, 2002.

Within ten days of Cheney's visit, reports were coming out of Saudi Arabia that the US was moving communications and computer equipment from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al-Udeid in anticipation of a base closing. US military trucks had been seen leaving the base 50 miles south of Riyadh, and arriving at the border with Qatar in the second week of March. It was speculated that a move was being made in response to the Saudi government's refusal to allow air raids on Afghanistan to be launched from its soil. Additionally, in the event of a Saudi refusal to collaborate in a second phase of the US "war on terror" against Iraq, the move would be needed to allow the US to effectively conduct an air campaign.

At the time US central command spokesman, Major Ralph Mills confirmed the equipment movements but insisted they represented business as usual. Mills told reporters, "This is not uncommon. This is status quo. We are moving stuff from point A to point B, this is an ongoing process." Dick Cheney also denied there were any plans to close Prince Sultan AB, claiming no decision had made to change military positions with respect to Saudi Arabia.

By June of 2002 the work on the first phase Al Udeid was nearing completion.
The US military had quietly moved munitions, equipment and communications gear to the base from Saudi Arabia. The base was now home to 3,000 troops. A huge tent city had been erected with warehouses and miles of security barriers. Miles of freshly paved runways and acres of new aircraft parking ramps showed up on satellite imagery from the period. Newly built hangers, munitions supply areas and control facilities had been hardened with concrete to withstand aerial attack, and the base now boasted the longest runway in the region at over 15,000 feet. It had become as one military analyst said; "The most capable base in the Gulf region."

On August 7, 2002
the Saudis announced that the US would no longer be allowed to fly combat missions in Iraq out of Prince Sultan Air Base in support of Operation Southern Watch. The Saudi decision had no effect on US war plans by that time, as Al Udeid was more than prepared to pick up where the Saudis had left off. A year later, Prince Sultan was closed after all Command and Control was moved to Al Udeid.

A HIDDEN HISTORY OF AL-UDEID (PAVING THE ROAD TO WAR IN IRAQ)
As the Bush Administration came to power in January 2001, the sound of war drums began beating along the Potomac. Numerous accounts from the period tell of an increased emphasis on the need for regime change in Iraq. As the political wing of the administration worked on setting the stage for policy change, the military began to deal with the practicalities of waging war. With the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia in general, and the possible need replace Prince Sultan AB in particular; the DOD began to make moves to find a replacement.
Since the first Gulf War, the US had had limited military agreements with Qatar. In 1992, a Defense Cooperation Agreement was signed that permitted "access and prepositioning" of US assets in the country. In November, 1995 another agreement to host "several Air Expeditionary Force deployments" was reached. Yet as of 2000, Al Udeid had been mostly ignored, but that was about to change.

In 2000 the US planned to to use Al-Udeid as a munitions storage facility
according to The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) 2000 report released in the fall of that year.

ICBL Report 2000: Qatar
Additionally, based on U.S. Air Force plans for its war reserve ammunition stockpiles in the Persian Gulf region, U.S. Gator antipersonnel mines, as well as Claymore mines, may be introduced and stockpiled at the Al Udeid area in Qatar in the near future. U.S. Air Force documents indicate that the Al Udeid storage\facility will eventually contain 142 CBU-89 Gator mine systems, each with twenty-two antipersonnel mines, and 141 M18/M18A1 Claymore mines

The ICBL 2001 report, which was
completed just prior to 9-11 confirmed that the munitions storage plan had in
fact gone into effect. Located in the remote desert region of Qatar, Al-Udeid
was a perfect candidate for this kind of usage. But munitions storage facility
would not last long. As the Bush administration came to power they had new plans
for the air base, plans that would clear the path to war with Iraq.

By March 2001 the Air Force began investigating moving operations to the Al-Udeid.
According to a Congressional report given by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the airfield was now being looked at as potential US base. In his annual Allied Contributions to the Common Defense Report , Rumsfeld stated:

"Since November 1995, Bahrain and Qatar have both hosted several Air Expeditionary Force deployments in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH, and the United States Air Force recently established a limited prepositioning facility at Qatar's Al-Udeid Airbase and is investigating moving to the airfield. Qatar also hosts prepositioned U.S. Army assets at As-Saliyah."

This was the first time the use of Al-Udied as a potential base for US air operations was officially acknowledged. Back in April 2000, then Defense Secretary William Cohen had been asked about the use of Al-Udeid at a press conference in Kuwait. He acknowledge that he had "discussed ways in which Al-Udeid may be used in the future, in a crisis situation" with the Qataris, but no agreement could be reached. Obviously the new administration had more luck with the Qatari negotiations then its predecessors.

In June 2001 communications capabilities were completed at Al Udeid
According to his online biography archived at a website for those who had served at Prum Air Station in Germany, Bill Goodman (USAF Ret) states that communications work began at Al Udeid sometime before June 2001. Towards the end of his long and distinguished military career, Goodman says that while working for Air Force Central Command, he oversaw the installation of "communications capability" at Al Udeid in the spring.

"In June of 1996 ...I accepted a position on the United States Central Command Air Forces Staff. I was a Project Manager and Communications Systems Manager for Southwest Asia. I got to spend much time traveling throughout the Middle East. Most significant, and my last official duty in the Air Force was that I was project manager for an initial communications capability at Al Udeid Air Base in QATAR. I completed everything in June of 2001 and am pretty proud of what I helped accomplish there and feel like I made a difference."

Around the same period, Alaswar Technology Group Co (aka.Al-Aswar Electronic) of Hawally Kuwait supplied and installed two "60 foot guy masts, microwave dishes and allied works" in Qatar; one at the Saliyah Army Base, the other at Al-Udeid. Whether these communication dishes were part of the work Bill Goodman was doing cannot be known. What is known is that the US military had personnel working at Al-Udied long before the Sept 29, 2001 date always claimed to be the first time US servicemen set foot at the base.

In the Summer of 2001 construction contracts for the airbase began to go out for bids.
By the summer of 2001 plans to expand Al Udeid into a large-scale installation were well under way. The bidding process for contracts to do the work had all ready begun.

On August 9, 2001 bids went out for a "contractor owned-contractor operated" fueling station for both fighter and cargo planes as well as a diesel and automotive gasoline facility for ground vehicles. Also in the bid was a fueling station for mobile aircraft refueling vehicles and a commercial tank truck receiving facility.

COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ISSUE OF AUGUST 13, 2001 PSA #2913SOLICITATIONS
X -- COCO SITE AT AL UDEID
Notice Date August 9, 2001
Contracting Office Defense Logistics Agency,Logistics Operations, Defense Energy Support Center, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA, 22060-6222
Solicitation Number SP0600-01-R-0117
Response Due October 5, 2001
Description COCO Site at AL Udeid, Qatar 1. An aircraft hydrant fuel system capable of servicing both fighter and cargo aircrafts. 2. Approximately 72,000 barrels of JP8 storage capacity. 3. A ground products dispensing facility for Diesel Fuel and Automotive Gasoline. 4. A truck fill stand capable for mobile aircraft refueling vehicles. 5. A commercial tank truck receiving facility (i.e. tank truck off loading heads).
Record Loren Data Corp. 20010813/XSOL001.HTM (D-221 SN50U5O6)
(Contact info edited)

On Sept 7, 2001, according to company news releases, a contract was awarded GSCSGulf to build "administration facilities, a worker break room, ablution facilities, an outside storage area, a loading dock, FMSE facility, and a generator run up." Later in the month GSCSGulf was awarded two contracts farmed out from DynCorp. One was for a Fuel Receiving Point, the other for a Bulk Fuel Storage facility. "The projects (were) to be built under expedited construction schedules in order to ensure fuel systems (were) in-place for incoming USAF tanker squadrons deployed as part of Operation Enduring Freedom."Although the press release from the 30th of September mentions "Operation Enduring Freedom", bidding on the contract had to have been completed long before that date. As the release states GSCSGulf had won the contracts from DynCorp, one must assume they competed for them.

GSCS Chosen to Build WRM Support Facilities
(7 September 2001) GSCS has won a contract to simultaneously construct 10 minor construction projects in support of the US Air Force War Reserve Material (WRM) program at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar. Individual projects include: administration facilities, worker break room, ablution facilities, outside storage area, loading dock, FMSE facility, generator run up
DynCorp Selects GSCS to Construct USAF Fuel Systems
(30 September 2001) GSCS has won two contracts with DynCorp International for the construction of a Fuel Receiving Point and a Bulk Fuel Storage Point, both at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The projects are to be built under expedited construction schedules in order to ensure fuel systems are in-place for incoming USAF tanker squadrons deployed as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

GSCSGulf was awarded two more contracts during this period. Both had been won competitively, hence bids had been taken. Although it is impossible to know how the events of 9-11 affected the bid review and acceptance process, even under expedited conditions it seems highly unlikely that any but the last contract would have been initiated after 9-11 given the DOD's usual 60 to 120 day turn around time.

GSCS Wins Tent-City Site Preparation Contract
(3 October 2001)GSCS has been competitively awarded a contract for the emergency preparation of 61 acres of outside open area in support of a US Air Force tent city to be erected at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar. Work includes: excavation, backfilling, soil compaction, trenching for electrical cables, application of rock aggregate, construction of drainage ditches, access roads with culverts, parking areas, interior access corridors and perimeter earth berms.
GSCS Wins RMS Contract for USAF Aircraft Parking Apron Materials
(28 December 2001) Readiness Management Support L.C. has competitively awarded GSCS a contract for the rapid supply of base course aggregate (42,184 metric tons) and sub-base aggregate (73,482 metric tons) in support of construction of a new US Air Force concrete aircraft-parking apron at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar

October 2001 satellite images showed extensive work had already been completed at Al-Udeid The Oct 2001 images of runways, structures and roads show an air base far more advanced than the official story would have us believe, revealing that the base was certainly more than one month old. If this construction was part of the original Qatari project, or new US additions cannot be known. What is known is that the base was not "a simple runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses". Satellite images from Jan 2002, and the following June, show the rapidity with which base was completed. The clock on war with Iraq was running, and the military was in a race to beat that clock.

THE ROAD TO WAR WAS PAVED WITH PROPAGANDA
As any chess player can attest, the game is most often won or lost in the first few moves. The Bush Administrations plan for regime change in Iraq was much like a chess game, each piece needed to be in place before the gambit. Although the grand schemes were hatched in the plush offices of right wing think tanks and corporate boardrooms, the heavy lifting was done by simple pawns in the hot deserts of the Southwest Asia, long before the first rumbles of shock and awe were ever heard.

Able to use the smoldering embers of the World Trade Center as a canard to sell a "global" war on terror to not only the American people, but to those who would fight it, the Administration was able to cover their tracks with a web of misinformation. Al-Udeid was never intended as a frontline in a war against the terrorists of 9-11. It was planned as the frontline for something far different; the "War on Terror", which was nothing more then a clever repackaging of the plans for Iraqi regime change that began with the first Gulf War.
The level of misinformation can be illustrated with a simple story coming from the building of Al Udeid:

According to the official DOD history of Al Udeid, the first fatality of Operation Enduring Freedom was a civil engineer, Master Sgt. Evander Earl Andy"Andrews who died on Oct. 10, 2001 in a construction accident. To honor Andrews,the sprawling tent city at Al-Udeid was christened "Camp Andy". The story of "Camp Andy" is oft told in press accounts about the base and is a cornerstone in the façade of the official account.
Left out of the official story is the fact that since the existence of the base was classified at the time, the military initially announced only that the fatality occurred somewherein "Southwest Asia",and his parents waited months to find out what had really happened to their son

Just as Master Sgt. Andrews parents were not told the truth about their sons' death in Qatar, the American people were never told about the planning and execution of the war in Iraq. The history of the building of AL Udeid demonstrates that the Military planners were on a path to war long before the events of that fateful September morning "changed everything".

This was originally posted on June 21, 2005 as part of an IraqFact investigation series. In light of all the revelations of deceit and misinformation by the administration that come out since that time, I thought it would be relevant still

-Read Full Story-

Faith based immigration resource

The Catholic Campaign for Immigration Reform has an excellent website up with information and actions on the "Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005" (HR4437) and "The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" (S1033/ HR2330), introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA).

Their organization Justice for Immigrants is an umbrella group for numerous Catholic charities and faith based groups working for immigration reform and providing immigrant aid and services.

Along with information and actions, the site provides links to immigrant legal services, media links, and links to all member organizations.

For action on S1003 click HERE

-Read Full Story-

Redstate Racism and the King Funeral

While the Republican spin machine and right wing punditry feign outrage over the "politicizing" of the memorial service of Coretta Scott King, a quick look over at usually somewhat civil Republican blog, Redstate, reveals the seamier side of the true racism that permeates the Grand Old Party.

From the front page:

With Regard To Today's Funeral Political Rally
By: Blanton • Section: Culture

Why is it that we have to accept the Pantheon of the Left and see their funerals televised -- from Wellstone to Mrs. King?
Why is it that those who participate in these funerals feel compelled to turn a solemn, religious event into a Def Comedy Jam spectacle of anti-Republican, anti-conservative boilerplate "known facts" and demands for handouts?

This is just further indication that the left is out of touch.

To borrow another contributor's phrase -- the media and the left treat the Jesse Jacksons of this country and the Jesse Jacksons of the Middle East with respect, compassion, and understanding. Those of us who work hard for a living to provide for our families, humbly go to church, and try to do unto others as we would have them do unto us see our values, our lifestyles, our beliefs, and our Lord ridiculed and bashed on television, the cover of Rolling Stone, and in the mainstream media.

I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being. The prominent black spiritual leaders, like Joseph Lowery, are more interested in subsidization from The ManTM than salvation from the Lord.

Feb 7th, 2006: 20:38:23

Full discussion: http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/2/7/203823/5583

As if that was not quite inflammatory enough, the comments went on to further expound upon more racists themes:

Peace By: davidba

You evidently did (not) live during the civil right era.
There was nothing peaceful about it.

If the truth be told, it was an extortion scam to enrich themselves. Mrs. King carried on this tradition. Anytime you wanted to use anything that was MLK, Jr. you had to pay Mrs. King.

Don't forget who the pupils were of this scam; Jesse Jackson, Joesph Lowery, and Hosea Williams. They practiced this extortion of Corporations all of their lives and some are still doing it.

So lets be honest, praise Mrs. King for the loss of a husband and who had to raise her children by herself, but don't latch on to a myth and try to make it true.

Funeral exceeded my expections for other reasons By: capitano

… I don't know the makeup of the King funeral attendees but you can bet a large portion were high profile Dems with an even higher concentration of race hustling poverty pimps. It was their show and if they want to defile the King legacy with no-class antics, why shouldn't it be on TV?

Clips By: itrytobenice

I saw clips of Clinton and some brown preacher. Clinton made reference to his wife's impending presidency (which hurt my heart and brought rousing cheers from the audience) and the preacher criticized President Bush for spending money on defense and lying (though he didn't use that word - just implied it) about weapons of mass destruction when there are still poor people in America.

At this point the poster is called out on the statement:

Some brown preacher? By: eastlake

"some brown preacher"
How very.... 1950s.

Another poster rises to the defense:

No, that was Brown v. Brown By: blooch

This is Al Sharpton to Howard Dean in 2004:
"Do you have a senior member of your cabinet that was black or brown?"

Dean did not, but apparently, we can take Sharpton's cue and refer to all non-African dark-skinned people as "brown"...unless he meant Latinos only, in which case we must deploy "sienna" and "umber" in our earth-tone rainbow coalition.

It really is funny to watch you "progressives" jump all over itrytobenice for picking up the wrong crayon. Why don't you throw in a lecture on the difference between "colored people" and "people of color"?

totally without class!! so what's new? By: adamsmith

President Bush come's to Mrs. King's funeral to pay his respects. Is a gentleman, as is his father and family, throughout the ceremony. They act with courtesy, honor, and class.
Some guy I've never heard of talks about not finding weapons of mass destruction and other political comments, knowing, coward that he is, that no will can take his political comments on at this event--which btw is a funderal. and Jimmy Carter, who we've learned over the past several years not only was a horrible president, without common sense, showed he had no more class than the first guy.

That crowd looked to be heavily Afro-American, and with their response and their applause, they showed themselves to be the same--no class! …

Insulting the sitting President of the US, when he has the respect to come to a funeral to honor the deceased and the causes they/she fought for--this is going to stick with me, a long, long time.

This is a crowd that as Karl Rove said, is pre--9/11. Protect the country, forget it. Every chance they get they'll just want their political ox gored, and their handouts increased.

They are a disgrace to themselves--I won't say a disgrace to America, because frankly I'm not sure they're American.

Very Fitting, Well done...Bravo! By: Braveheart

… Actually, I can't wait for the unsealing of the secret FBI King files in 2027 to reveal the truth about MLK and his less than honorable life and legacy (thanks to a liberal judge and the King family they have bought time preventing their release under FOIA... hmm, you think they have something to hide?). In the mean time, the country remains held hostage to the unbalanced and intellectually dishonest legacy of this man and his family. Pardon me if I choose not to worship at their phony altar.

Also, I can see clearly why blacks just love the Democratic party for all its done for them in perpetuating their continued pride in their own sense of victimhood. Bravo!

That sorry display at the funeral By: Tbone

is a distillation into a single drop of the reasons why the Dims are becoming irrelevant and why the majority of black Americans are doomed to poverty,ignorance and disadvantage.

Republicans can try to spin this any way they want … but their words reveal their true feelings and intents.

-Read Full Story-

HR 4437: King promised changes, but none made

Back in late December, in reaction to an outpouring of concern from church groups and humanitarian aid organizations, co-sponsor of HR 4437, Rep. Peter King (NY) promised that the bill would be reworded to guarantee that aid workers would be free from prosecution.

It looks as if Mr. King might have changed his mind.

KING SAYS HE'LL REWORD BILL
Says he didn't mean to target humanitarian groups after outcry over measure aimed at illegal immigration

Newsday Dec 31, 2005
By Bart Jones and J Jioni Palmer
Staff writers

After an outpouring of criticism from churches and relief groups, Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) said Friday he is willing to reword the legislation he co-sponsored that would have made it illegal to assist undocumented immigrants.

The bill calls for building a 698-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, turning undocumented immigrants into felons and permitting "deputization" of local and state police officers as immigration agents.

But it also included a provision that makes it a crime for anyone to assist undocumented immigrants to "come or remain" in the United States.

Immigrant advocates and officials from churches and relief agencies said this could lead to the imprisonment of priests, nuns, social workers, doctors and Good Samaritans who may provide these immigrants with anything from counseling to a ride to the grocery store.

King said that was never the intention of the provision, which he said targets gangs that smuggle undocumented immigrants into the country.

The measure "is not aimed at humanitarian groups at all," said King, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "If there are any specific words they want changed, I can assure you that will be done."

King said the groups were misinterpreting the bill and that "the church is developing a persecution complex here ... If an alien smuggling ring gets a guy into the country and he stops at St. Brigid's at a soup kitchen, we're not going to lock up the pastor of St. Brigid's. They're not part of the smuggling ring."

Some church workers greeted King's words with relief Friday, although they said they were still outraged by the bill in general and do not believe they were misinterpreting its broad language.

"If we can discuss it, excellent," Yanira Chacon, a church outreach worker at St. Brigid's in Westbury, said in Spanish. "The ideal for me is that this bill doesn't pass at all."

Church and immigrant groups call the bill the harshest piece of anti-immigrant legislation in 70 years. Supporters say it would help bring under control a situation of anarchy at the border that has swelled the number of undocumented immigrants in the country to 11 million, including an estimated 100,000 on Long Island.

King said the bill is unlikely to be passed in its present form by the Senate, which he expected to add provisions for a guest-worker program granting temporary visas mainly to low-skilled workers.

However, he did say "a significant portion of it has to become law otherwise no immigration reform bill will pass the House

Newsday (pay link)
alternate link

An examination of the modified bill that was presented to the Senate on January 27, 2006 reveals that no changes have yet been made, and in fact it puts many humanitarian workers in great legal jeopardy.

SEC. 202. ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324) is amended to read as follows:

`ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES
`SEC. 274. (a) Criminal Offenses and Penalties-

`(1) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES- Whoever--

`(A) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to come to or enter the United States, or to attempt to come to or enter the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to come to or enter the United States;

`(B) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to come to or enter the United States at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, regardless of whether such person has official permission or lawful authority to be in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien;

`(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;

`(D) transports or moves a person in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the United States, where the transportation or movement will aid or further in any manner the person's illegal entry into or illegal presence in the United States;

`(E) harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to be in the United States;

`(F) transports, moves, harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person outside of the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien in unlawful transit from one country to another or on the high seas, under circumstances in which the person is in fact seeking to enter the United States without official permission or lawful authority; or

`(G) conspires or attempts to commit any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2), regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

`(2) CRIMINAL PENALTIES- A person who violates the provisions of paragraph (1) shall--

`(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (D) through (H), in the case where the offense was not committed for commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain, be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;

`(B) except as provided in subparagraphs (C) through (H), where the offense was committed for commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain--

`(i) in the case of a first violation of this subparagraph, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both; and

`(ii) for any subsequent violation, be imprisoned for not less than 3 years nor more than 20 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;

`(C) in the case where the offense was committed for commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain and involved 2 or more aliens other than the offender, be imprisoned for not less than 3 nor more than 20 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;

`(D) in the case where the offense furthers or aids the commission of any other offense against the United States or any State, which offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, be imprisoned for not less than 5 nor more than 20 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;

`(E) in the case where any participant in the offense created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person, including--

`(i) transporting a person in an engine compartment, storage compartment, or other confined space;

`(ii) transporting a person at an excessive speed or in excess of the rated capacity of the means of transportation; or

`(iii) transporting or harboring a person in a crowded, dangerous, or inhumane manner,

be imprisoned not less than 5 nor more than 20 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;

`(F) in the case where the offense caused serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18, United States Code, including any conduct that would violate sections 2241 or 2242 of title 18, United States Code, if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States) to any person, be imprisoned for not less than 7 nor more than 30 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;

`(G) in the case where the offense involved an alien who the offender knew or had reason to believe was an alien--

`(i) engaged in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)); or

`(ii) intending to engage in such terrorist activity,

be imprisoned for not less than 10 nor more than 30 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both; and

`(H) in the case where the offense caused or resulted in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for not less than 10 years, or any term of years, or for life, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.

`(3) EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION- There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over the offenses described in this subsection.

`(b) Employment of Unauthorized Aliens-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in paragraph (2), shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

`(2) ALIEN DESCRIBED- A alien described in this paragraph is an alien who--

`(A) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 274A(h)(3)); and

`(B) has been brought into the United States in violation of subsection (a).

Thomas/Library of Congress

As written, the bill would make activities such as providing undocumented immigrants with food, medical care, counseling, or even transportation to a doctor or grocery store a crime punishable with up to five years imprisonment.

We obviously should not accept Mr. King at his word. Hopefully church groups and humanitarian aid services will not be lulled into a false sense of security by Mr. Kings assertions



cross posted from Migra Matters

-Read Full Story-

One more piece in the "Immigration Reform" puzzle

One of the underlying problems with the recently passed "Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005" (H.R. 4437) has always been the shear impracticality of it. Let's set aside the questions of constitutionality, infringement on basic human rights, lack of judicial checks and balances and inherent racism of HR 4437, and simply examine it from a practical point of view. The bill, as written, would appear to be totally unenforceable.

But leave it to the Bush administration to turn to a familiar "friend" to remedy that situation: Halliburton

The bill, in theory, calls for the arrest and possible detention of millions of undocumented immigrants.

Mandatory Detention
Under current law, individuals who arrive without documents, including asylum-seekers, are subject to mandatory detention. Again this applies mainy to those arriving at airports or by sea. 60% of detainees are held in local jails under contract to the federal government, where they are generally not segregated from the criminal population even if they are asylum-seekers and others with no criminal record.

Under this new bill, the mandatory detention policy would be extended to all non-citizens who are detained at any port of entry or anywhere “along” the border for any reason.

“Illegal Presence” and “Aggravated Felonies,”
Section 203 of HR 4437 calls for the creation of a new federal crime of “illegal presence”. As defined in the bill it includes any violation, even technical, of any immigration law or regulation. Even if the immigrant was to fall “out of status” unintentionally, or do to paperwork delays. In essence, the bill makes every immigration violation, however minor, into a federal crime. As drafted, the bill also makes the new crime of “illegal presence” an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes. This classification would have the further effect of restricting ordinary undocumented immigrants (including those with pending applications) from many forms of administrative or judicial review. Those convicted of an "aggravated felony" would be subject to indefinite detention and/or expedited removal.

Indefinite Detention
Indefinite detention currently applies to non-citizens ordered removed from the United States whose countries refuse to accept them or who have no country because they are stateless. Most often they come from countries without good relations with the United States.

HR 4437 would permit indefinite detention of an increased broad class of non-citizens, including:

• those with a contagious disease
  
• any non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony,” (see above)
  
• non-citizens whose release would pose foreign policy problems
  
• non-citizens charged even with very minor immigration violations who, based on secret evidence, are deemed a national security risk.

MORE

So how does the DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement plan to hold the possible millions of undocumented immigrants that HR4437 would place into the detention system? At the present time ICE runs only fifteen detention facilities throughout the continental US. Certainly if HR4437 were to pass, this small number of facilities would be overwhelmed within the first months, if not weeks of enactment.

This has always been one of the great practical stumbling blocks in this ill-conceived bill. It would take a monumental shift in ICE's capabilities to incarcerate the immigrants charged with the various new crimes as outlined in HR4437.

Thanks to Halliburton, this capability is about to grow significantly.

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers
New York Times

A spokesman for the corps, Clayton Church, said that the centers could be at unused military sites or temporary structures and that each one would hold up to 5,000 people.

"When there's a large influx of people into the United States, how are we going to feed, house and protect them?" Mr. Church asked. "That's why these kinds of contracts are there."

-snip-

In recent months, the Homeland Security Department has promised to increase bed space in its detention centers to hold thousands of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. In the first quarter of the 2006 fiscal year, nearly 60 percent of the illegal immigrants apprehended from countries other than Mexico were released on their own recognizance.

Domestic security officials have promised to end the releases by increasing the number of detention beds. Last week, domestic security officials announced that they would expand detaining and swiftly deporting illegal immigrants to include those seized near the Canadian border

Advocates for immigrants said they feared that the new contract was another indication that the government planned to expand the detention of illegal immigrants, including those seeking asylum.

"It's pretty obvious that the intent of the government is to detain more and more people and to expedite their removal," said Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center in Miami. .

Once again Halliburton looks to become the direct beneficiary of Republican sponsored legislation and policy.

Halliburton's involvement in HR 4437 also raises numerous questions:

As we have already seen in Iraq, KRB has not only a terrible track record in regards to billing issues and its ability to actually accomplish its missions; many of its contracts appear to be nothing short of sweetheart deals made with the DOD. Was this another example of that?

Additionally, a serious examination of Halliburton's future effect on this legislation must be watched. As it moves through the Senate will KRB's involvement place undue pressure on legislators to prevent the more draconian measures in the bill from being thoroughly debated?

Once again it looks like we're about to see policy being formulated more for the benefit of the corporations with ties deep inside the Whitehouse, rather than for the benefit of the American people. Unfortunately it looks like millions of hard working immigrants, whose only wish is to make a better life for themselves and their families, will become the next pawns in the big money games being played in Washington.

Cross posted from: Migra Matters

-Read Full Story-

An Open Invitation to Progressive Candidates

Over the last week the Internet and traditional media have both been a buzz with stories and discussions about the future direction of Democratic Party and progressive politics. Although varying somewhat in content and context, one underlying theme is beginning to emerge. The American people as a whole, and Democrats in particular, are tired of politics as usual and are looking for candidates that exhibit some adherence to a core set of beliefs … that have an ideology.

Daniel Henninger in the WSJ expressed this sentiment when he said:

What interests the most motivated Democratic voters now is "progressive justice," "our values," "our rights," "public needs," Roe v. Wade. What interests their GOP opponents is "big government," "spending," patriotism, the "ethics" of cloning, "activist" judges, Roe v. Wade.

At a time when the Democratic elites no longer have a vibrant ideology and the Republicans in Washington are deserting theirs, the public across the spectrum seems to be screaming for recognizable signposts, shared political principles.

The fact that the WSJ, and Mr. Henninger are no friends of progressive ideals should not diminish the potency of his assertion.

The disgust on the part of both the right and the left for politicians whose core beliefs seem to drift with the political winds has been growing and is starting to become the barometer by which all future candidacies will be judged. In the coming election cycle ones ability to deliver a cohesive message based on a firm ideology will be the determining factor for success or failure.

Democrats in particular are reaching a point of desperation. We have seen time and time again, our elected leaders buckle and waiver under pressure to adhere to some imaginary “middle ground” that does not really exist. Afraid to take firm positions, based on principal and shared ideals, for fear of alienating some notion of an “average American” that has been conceived, not in reality but rather, in the boardrooms of advertising agencies and offices of political consultants. The “average American” is far more complex and freethinking than our current crop of political leaders give them credit for.

Most people favor those with a strong set of ideals and beliefs, (even if we don’t share them), to those who vacillate and capitulate. That fact can be borne out if we look at John McCain. Before his luster wore off and he became just another Republican lapdog, many Democrats were drawn to him, not because they shared many his beliefs, but because at least he appeared to have some.

So here is my message to you:

If you believe in progressive ideals and have the courage to stand up to the purveyors of the conventional wisdom who say that the only way to win is to play from the middle, come talk to us. The progressive Internet community is large and has many resources to offer you. All we ask in return is honesty and backbone.

In the last few days calls for aid to progressive candidates have been posted on various blogs and websites and they have been answered. Ciro Rodriguez (TX-28) asked for help and in two days received $50K form the community at dKos. Others have come also, Chris Owens (NY-11) and Ned Lamont in Conn. were brought to our attention as possible candidates who could use our help. Also, we can't forget the support we are giving to Paul Hackett in his run in Ohio.

We desperately want to change not only the face the Democratic Party but the course of this nation for the future. If you are running in a primary against a Democrat who has lost his way, or in the general election against a Republican, come and communicate with us. Let us hear your message. Tell us how you plan on effecting change and what is your vision for the future. Let us know where you stand on the great progressive issues of the day.

Our resources are great. We have the ability to make local races, national, with national support from all our members. We can be effective not only at raising money but also in delivering your message. We can reach out to those in your state or district and help them effect change. But, we can only do this if you make us aware. We have found many candidates on our own thus far, but no one can deliver your message better than you can.

If you have not yet finalized your decision to run, come talk to us anyway. Perhaps our words of encouragement might make your decision easier.

-Read Full Story-