top
POLL: Leaders (like Frist?) out of touch on immigration
Issue 137: Dec 31, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
In the question and answer period following a February 2000 testimony before Congress, Alan Greenspan made a remarkable statement. While endorsing mass immigration as a way to drive down wages for working Americans (or, as Greenspan puts it, "fight inflation"), the Fed Chairman observed that there are "cultural limits" to mass immigration. This was an unusual admission by a powerful member of the globalist financial elite that America is not merely a collection of consumers; America is a nation with its very own culture -- a culture threatened by mass immigration.
Of course, mass immigration really does threaten native culture -- just ask the Tibetans, or the Sioux -- but for decades now, it has been very gauche for any American to actually say so. For years, any American vulgar enough to say, "I believe mass immigration is threatening my culture," has been quickly dismissed as, at best, embarrassingly lowbrow; or, at worst, a racist.
American "elites" long ago placed expressing concern over immigration's impact on American culture off limits. And Greenspan's suggestion that mass immigration should be pushed to the very limits of what the culture will tolerate makes it clear that, for the financial elites, culture is merely an obstacle to profit making.
However, culture is not subordinate to economics, and, with their vision of the world as a vast, borderless labor camp full of consumers and strip malls, the globalist financial elites are doomed to failure. Ironically, these world-class capitalists will fail for the same reason Marx failed: humans are not mere labor units.
One can only hope that the demise of corporate globalism and anti-borders ideology will be accompanied by less bloodshed than attended the long slow death of Marxism.
Unfortunately, the signs are not good. An analysis of a recent major poll confirms what immigration moderates have long been saying: mass immigration, while it is certainly popular with an elite and powerful few, is fiercely unpopular with the general public.
The poll found that 60 percent of the public regards the present level of immigration to be a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States," compared to only 14 percent of the nation's elites -- an astonishing 46 percentage-point gap. (For the purpose of the poll, "elite" included: members of Congress, the administration, and leaders of church groups, business executives, union leaders, journalists, academics, and leaders of major interest groups.)
In an analysis of the poll, Roy Beck of NumbersUSA noted, "continued deep public dissatisfaction with current immigration policy indicates that this is an issue just waiting for a candidate to champion it and thereby reap a significant political benefit." This is especially true, he said, because, "it could be marketed as 'anti-elite' and more in sync with the American people, a message that has traditionally been well received by voters."
____________________________
POLL: Elite vs. Public Opinion: An Examination of Divergent Views on Immigration
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1402.html
Border militia targeted by Mexicans?
Groups south of boundary reportedly threatening to shoot activists
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30044
Frist weak on immigration, groups say
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30115
Frist is "manna from heaven" for the Indian wanting to go to the United States (India Times)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=32203061&sType=1
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
Unfortunately, Senator Bill Frist, the new majority leader in the Senate, will not likely be the champion of responsible immigration policy. According to Americans for Better Immigration, Frist is even worse on immigration than Trent Lott, the man he is replacing. Even more ominous, Frist is said to be close to the Bush Administration, an administration that has shown itself to be anti-borders, anti-conservation, and pro-corporate globalism.
Call or write Senator Frist and tell him, "We will be watching your immigration votes in the 108th Congress. Please do not be a lapdog for the reckless anti-borders extremists at the White House."
Email: http://frist.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Phone: 202-224-3344
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
The American oligarchy increasingly has less in common with the American people than it does with the equivalent oligarchies in Germany or Mexico or Japan.
-Lewis Lapham, editor of Harpers
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
A recent ezine raised the issue of how those who advocate for a more modern and moderate immigration policy should respond to a looming "guest worker" program in Congress. We received a slew of responses, a sample of which are linked below, with our comments:
http://projectusa.org/Ezine/ezine_links/gw.html
+== SPECIAL ==+
On this, the last day of 2002, please don't forget to support those who have made it a life's work to accomplish a more modern and moderate U.S. immigration policy.
ProjectUSA
PO Box 8122
Omaha, NE 68108-0122
top
ProjectUSA wins free speech settlement in NY lawsuit
Issue 136: Dec 23, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
Readers of this ezine will remember that in October 2000, ProjectUSA erected a billboard at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City reading, "Immigration is doubling US population in our lifetimes." It pictured two children and cited the Census Bureau as its source.
The board lasted just thirteen days. The owner of the property on which the billboard sat, the Port Authority of NY/NJ, ordered the board removed after, according to the New York Times, "an authority employee noticed it and told his superiors."
That the Port Authority would force down a simple Census Bureau statistic linking immigration and population growth is extraordinary, really -- a blatant abuse of government power to suppress free speech.
In response, ProjectUSA filed suit on First Amendment grounds in July 2001. Now, just in time for Christmas, a chastened Port Authority has paid an out-of-court settlement to ProjectUSA.
Immigration moderates should savor this victory as yet another example of the new and encouraging climate in the United States on immigration.
The Port Authority's removal of ProjectUSA's fact-based billboard about population growth (and the media's almost complete silence about this outrageous attack on the First Amendment) was motivated, of course, by the dictates of "political correctness" - a (thankfully dying) ideology that suffocates free and open democratic debate about over-immigration.
Since its launch in 1999, ProjectUSA has warned of the dire environmental and political consequences if Americans were not permitted to openly have their voices heard on immigration policy. And, even before 9/11, our warnings included the threat from foreign terrorists posed by our government's laissez-faire approach to national borders and immigration law enforcement.
Perhaps if we and others like us had been allowed to openly and reasonably talk about the perils of our nation's reckless immigration policy -- without being shouted down as racists, xenophobes, and haters of the Statue of Liberty -- the chaos and stupidity that led to the September attacks might have been avoided.
Before 9/11, through name-calling and threats, the establishment had all but completely shut down democratic debate on immigration, and by forcing down our innocuous billboard at the Brooklyn Bridge, the Port Authority of NY/NJ actively contributed to this climate of political oppression.
But here is the real irony to this story: the Port Authority was also the owner of the World Trade Center. In other words, the largest institutional victim of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 actively participated in the very oppression that helped enable those attacks in the first place.
____________________________
Billboard Foes Yearn to Breathe Free without Its Presence (New York Times)
(With picture of the billboard)
http://projectusa.org/press/oct00/nytimes-10-23-00.html
NYC slapped with free speech suit (July 22, 2001)
http://projectusa.org/Ezine/ezine-Jul-01-Sep-01.htm#072201
Attorney Andrew Moskowitz for ProjectUSA
http://www.ammlawoffice.com
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
The good news for immigration moderates is that with this win against the Port Authority of NY/NJ, the taboo against open and reasonable debate on immigration is further broken. Just think how far we've come.
ProjectUSA erected its first billboard back in 1999, and we were immediately subjected to the modern version of an auto-da-fe. Even though our billboards were factual, editorialists and journalists around the country denounced ProjectUSA in really harsh and unfair terms. Politicians in New York City, alluding darkly to the growing menace of Nazism (!), scrambled to hold demonstrations in front of our billboards. The New York City Council voted 43-2 to condemn ProjectUSA and, in the press conference after, Councilman Guillermo Lanares linked ProjectUSA with the shooting of Jewish children in Los Angeles. Politicians and government agencies threatened the billboard companies ProjectUSA hired with financial retaliation if they continued to do business with us, and the company that leased us the space at the Brooklyn Bridge location lost the lease there permanently. (Where IS the media, on this, by the way?)
Looking back, however, our attackers only seem foolish, and our win against the Port Authority symbolizes the progress the immigration reductionist movement has made.
But there is one more side to this story: Even though ProjectUSA asked it for support three times, the American Civil Liberties Union, the self-described "tireless defenders of the First Amendment," declined to help. ACLU spokespersons told reporters the reason was that ProjectUSA had "no case." Our settlement from the Port Authority shows that, on the contrary, we did have a case.
In our opinion, the real reason the ACLU would not help is that the agenda of the ACLU is not really "defending the First Amendment" at all. It is remaking America along the lines of some kind of universalist anti-cultural ideal. (One ACLU staff attorney, who was more honest than the ACLU spokespersons, told us privately that the ACLU would have a hard time taking our case because "there is a large and growing immigrants' rights faction within the organization.")
Please contact the office that rejected ProjectUSA's plea for help, and take some satisfaction that they have been exposed as the phony ideologues that they are.
NYCLU: 212 344 3005
http://www.aclu.org/feedback/feedback.cfm
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.
--Abraham Lincoln
+== SPECIAL ==+
Professor Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado at Boulder has updated the video of his fascinating talk, "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy." Anyone who has had the pleasure of watching Professor Bartlett give this clear, important, and entertaining presentation will want to get a copy. Also, it makes a great gift for your friends afflicted with innumeracy. $25.00
University of Colorado at Boulder
Information tech Services
Stadium 360, Gate 11, Campus Box 379
Boulder, CO 80309-0379
303 492 2670
top
Guest worker program looming
Issue 135, Dec 12, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
When Congress convenes in January it is almost certain that legislators will finally have to address America's fiercely criticized immigration policies.
Clearly, the status quo is untenable. More than 11 million foreign nationals now reside with impunity illegally in the United States. Hundreds of foreigners die on our southern border every year attempting an illegal crossing. Armed citizen militia movements are forming to enforce immigration law. And, waiting in the wings, the nearly 5 billion who live in countries poorer than Mexico present an enormous political and security challenge. Across the political spectrum, consensus demands something be done.
It is very likely that the Congressional response to the political demand will be a guest worker program. Many policy-makers (and opinion leaders) believe that a guest worker program is the best way to balance political realities with the economic interests of those who profit by cheap foreign labor.
Business leaders will oppose any aspect of a guest-worker program that might drive up labor costs, but will ultimately support the idea, taking comfort in the fact that once a market-driven immigration policy has been institutionalized, it will thereafter be relatively easy to increase periodically the size of the guest worker program in order to meet future business "needs."
However, ethnic-identity pressure groups see a guest worker program as a backdoor way to import more of "their people," and will push very hard to make sure any guest worker program includes eventual permanent residence for the workers.
Permanent status must be resisted at all costs. The U.S. population is already set to double within the lifetimes of today's children thanks to our profligate immigration policies. We certainly don't need to be importing permanent workers on top of the already staggering numbers. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration and many in Congress -- primarily Democrats -- will be tempted to back a permanent status component in a guest worker program for ethnically calculated political reasons.
It would be good, of course, if there were no guest worker program at all; in a perfect world, the United States would simply enforce existing immigration law, reduce legal immigration to sustainable levels, and reassess immigration policy in light of the long-term consequences for all, rather than the short-term economic benefits for a few.
However, these policies are still some way off, and immigration moderates should recognize that, unless there is another 9/11, a guest worker program is going to be introduced in the next Congress (at least 2 are already being written). Furthermore, some kind of program will very likely pass. So, the question for immigration realists is not whether to support guest worker programs, the question is how to ensure that the new program is an improvement over the status quo, rather than a deterioration of it.
In July 2001, ProjectUSA published a list of conditions that any guest worker plan must include if it is to be fair, humane, workable, politically feasible, and an improvement over the status quo. It included:
=> Management. A new tamper-proof identification card must be devised that includes a biometric identifier, and an easily accessible national databank must be created through which employers could check the legal status of potential employees.
=> Enforcement. To ensure the integrity of the program, local law enforcement must be given the training and resources necessary to assist an overwhelmed INS (or its successor).
=> Time limits. Temporary foreign workers must be limited to a six-month stint, and then they must return to their homes and families for a period of at least six months in order to give someone else a chance to use the program.
=> Required savings. Twenty percent of the workers' salaries while they work in the United States must be set aside in a special account collectible only upon return to their country of citizenship.
=> Health care. U.S. employers who use temporary foreign workers must provide them with health insurance.
=> Anchor babies. The misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to babies born in the United States to temporary workers, illegal aliens, and tourists, must not apply to guest workers (as it likewise does not apply to the children of foreign diplomats).
=> Proper sequence. In order to avoid encouraging and rewarding illegal immigration, the temporary foreign worker program must contain a start-up phase that would limit use of the program only to those illegal immigrants already in the country.
These reasonable conditions would enjoy widespread political support. Additional provisions could mandate that employers provide transportation to and from the home country, and that workers be unaccompanied by family members. Strict oversight could ensure workers were not being exploited or abused. And, in order to prevent the undercutting of American workers, wages could be tied to prevailing wages in other industries not using foreign labor.
As we wrote in the summer of 2001, "We can expect the ethnic identity and cheap labor special interest lobbies to fight this sensible, fair, and politically palatable solution. But if they do, they will only expose their motives as unrelated to humane solutions or the well-being of the American people."
____________________________
Guestworker Programs: A Threat to American Agriculture (Mark Krikorian)
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back801.html
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
Immigration moderates should be on guard against attempts to attach some kind of permanent status to the guest worker program. Any program that includes provisions for permanent status is, by definition, not a guest worker program. It would simply be an increase in already record-breaking mass immigration levels.
One program that is being crafted right now for introduction in the next Congress will be co-sponsored, with others, by Senator Jon Kyl and Representative Jeff Flake. Both, according to data from NumbersUSA, are more or less sensible on immigration policy; and both are from Arizona -- a state, according to some observers, that is a "tinderbox."
Kyl and Flake should be discouraged from allowing any permanent status feature to be included in their guest worker plan. They should be encouraged, rather, to consider the common sense provisions listed above. They should also be reminded, as Republicans, that in the last Congress, the immigration issue was the only major issue that deeply divided their party. (President Bush's amnesty plan in the last Congress actually lost the majority of support from Republicans).
Please take a minute to call or write their offices. Say, "I understand that the Senator/Representative is planning to cosponsor some sort of guest worker program in the next Congress. Please remind him that no guest worker program can include any kind of provision that allows temporary workers or illegal immigrants to remain permanently in the United States. If it does, it would really just be an increase in immigration levels, it would be counter to the will of the American people, and it would deeply divide Republicans."
Senator Jon Kyl
Email: http://kyl.senate.gov/con_form.htm
Phone: 202-224-4521
Representative Jeff Flake
Email: jeff.flake@mail.house.gov
Phone: 202-225-2635
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
The first day a man is a guest, the second a burden, the third a pest.
--Edouard Laboulaye (1811-1883)
[The country] has called for workers, and has been given human beings.
--Max Frisch
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
You all are stupid, who the f--k builds your damn roads and buildings? Us the "immigrants". I'm MEXICAN and proud of it. Pinche mamones with yall little gay shirts and bumper stickers. I got a bumpersticker for you, Chinga tu Madre.
IgnacSheetMetal@aol.com
top
Citizen militia on the border
Issue 134: December 2, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
Nearly one hundred years ago, the southern U.S. border with Mexico was a place of violence, chaos, and political intrigue. A bloody revolution was raging in Mexico, Mexican agitators and partisans were operating out of the United States, and massive illegal immigration from Mexico to Texas was underway. By 1915, a full-scale movement was afoot among Tejanos (Mexican-Americans and Mexican illegal aliens in Texas) to establish an ethnically separate state in the Southwest.
Tensions along the border were high, and racial violence was common.
Things boiled over in January 1916 when Pancho Villa, a brutal, undisciplined, semi-literate horse thief, and his "Villistas" pulled 16 American engineers off a train in Mexico and shot them each in the head. In return, outraged Americans formed citizen vigilante groups, and racial violence between Anglos and Latinos intensified.
Finally, two months after murdering the American engineers in Mexico, Villistas raided Columbus, New Mexico, massacred 18 Americans, then looted and burned most of the town. The Columbus massacre proved to be a turning point, and prompted an inattentive Washington finally to pay attention to the border. The Texas National Guard was federalized, and U.S. troops were sent after Villa into Mexico itself, where battles with Mexican troops nearly precipitated full-scale war.
Today, three generations later, the conditions on the U.S.-Mexico border are strikingly similar to what they were in the 1910s. There is again massive illegal immigration from Mexico, violence and chaos are the order of the day, political agitators in the United States conspire with factions in Mexico, and a militant Mexican separatist movement has taken root.
Can severe ethnic tensions be far behind?
Groups like ProjectUSA have long argued that our government's laissez-faire attitude toward immigration and immigration law enforcement is a recipe for disaster; that there is every reason to expect that the wholesale illegal invasion of America will result in violence and ethnic conflict.
Now a man named Chris Simcox, the owner of a newspaper in Tombstone, AZ, has called for the formation of a citizen militia to guard against illegal immigration. In our view, while such a call was utterly predictable, it is nevertheless significant, and continues the pattern of the 1910s.
Perhaps Mr. Simcox -- or someone like him -- will be the Rosa Parks of the immigration moderation movement.
If the history of the border is any guide, the potential really does exist for severe violence, injustice, and ethnic conflict. To avoid such a clear possibility, our government must immediately secure the border, enforce immigration law, and help illegal aliens return to their home countries.
Furthermore, politicians like George W. Bush and Dick Gephardt must end calls for amnesty of illegal aliens. Amnesties increase resentment among native-born Americans and legal immigrants, perpetuate the impression that immigration is lawless and out-of-control, and encourage even more illegal immigration.
Meanwhile, Mr. Simcox of Tombstone has been careful to advocate non-violence; he seems to focus strictly on law enforcement. In a recent television interview, he appeared to us to be a levelheaded, socially conscious American concerned chiefly with the well being of his country and the long-term consequences of our reckless immigration policy. However, we must not force private citizens to take immigration law enforcement into their own hands, because there is no guarantee that future citizen militia advocates will act as moderately as Mr. Simcox.
____________________________
Investigate vigilantes
http://www.azstarnet.com/border/21126editmilitiaprobe.html
Poll results
http://www.azstarnet.com/pub-cgi/presspoll.cgi?id=11202002militia
Letter from an American Border Patrol board member to the editor of the Arizona Daily Star
http://www.americanpatrol.com/ABP/LETTERS/KiserAZStarFromRH021130.html
American Border Patrol
http://www.americanborderpatrol.com/
"Nuestra Gente" And the National Question in Texas
http://www.vdare.com/awall/texas.htm
If the Gov't Won't Do It…
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens112502.asp
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
In forming a citizen militia, Chris Simcox is acting well within his legal rights as an American. Furthermore, he is acting in the tradition of American civil action (think Minutemen), and exhibiting more backbone, patriotism, public-spiritedness, and far-sightedness than the vast majority of the nation's elected leaders.
However, in spite of explicitly acknowledging it had no evidence to support such a designation, Tucson's Arizona Daily Star -- among others -- has applied the "hate" label to Mr. Simcox. In our view, the Arizona Daily Star's name-calling is craven, outdated, foolish, and reactionary.
Gratifyingly, the Daily Star's readers seem to agree with us and not the editorial board. An online poll on the newspaper's website asked: "A Tombstone weekly newspaper publisher recently called for the formation of a citizen militia to combat illegal immigration. What's your opinion?" As of December 2, with over 7500 persons voting, 93% had responded, "I'm in favor."
You can write to James Kiser of the Arizona Daily Star's editorial board and express your view that the Arizona Star needs to catch up with the times: the old naive open borders ideology is as dead as it is dangerous.
James Kiser, editorial board
jkiser@azstarnet.com
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
"This is a great new step. It's the first group for Mexicans that has a direct connection to the Mexican government to solve practical problems."
Maria Cedillo, a San Francisco resident and national president-elect of the Mexican American Political Association, an association working to increase the political power of Mexican nationals illegally in the United States.
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
As you know, things are so bad in our state the potential for violence increases every day, and our southern border -- entry into the U.S. for tons of illegal drugs and bazillions of illegals -- is fast turning into a lawless state with the only semblance of law and order coming from organizing militias.
Kathy McKee
Phoenix, AZ
top
Angry voters and immigration in Iowa senate race
Issue 133: October 27, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
According to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 54 percent of Americans are "angry about something." Frankly, we're surprised it's not 100 percent.
Every American should be furious with the revelation that Lee Malvo, one of the accused beltway snipers, is an illegal alien from Jamaica who was released earlier this year by the INS instead of being deported as the law demands. It is the latest in a long list of examples of the INS releasing illegal aliens into our midst with lethal results.
Understandably, the INS has become the target of widespread disapprobation, but the real object of public condemnation should be the Bush Administration, which is solely responsible for the performance of the INS. The Administration should be held accountable for the fact that, after numerous deadly blunders, the upper management of the INS remains largely in place. And the Administration is to blame for the shocking fact that, since September 11, 2001, the number of INS agents assigned to investigative roles in the U.S. interior has remained roughly the same.
The executive branch's slipshod and passive approach to immigration law enforcement can leave Americans with only one conclusion: the Bush Administration is prepared to watch innocent Americans continue to die rather than take the vigorous steps necessary to enforce existing immigration law.
A recent Worldviews 2002 survey shows that 70 percent of Americans believe that controlling and reducing illegal immigration should be a very important goal of U.S. foreign policy.
Yet, the Republican leadership, possibly afraid of upsetting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has done nothing to satisfy the public demand for a more modern and moderate immigration policy.
And, to be honest, Democrats are no better. The Democratic Party remains as deaf to the wishes of the American public as the Republicans are. Possibly, this is one of the reasons a majority of new voters now registers as Independent rather than as Republican or Democrat.
____________________________
The INS fails again (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/s_98946.html
Grading Congress: Immigration report cards for all House and Senate members
http://www.betterimmigration.com/reportcardintro.html
Immigration becoming an issue in Iowa Senate campaign
(By anti-borders columnist Rekha Basu)
http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c5917686/19554214.html
Senator Harkin voted for amnesty for illegal aliens four times
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=IA&VIPID=236
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
Not all politicians, however, are anti-democratic on the immigration issue. Some actually put the desires of the American electorate above the selfish interests of corporations or ethnic identity lobbies.
And sometimes there are political races that offer a clear choice. One such contest is the current Senate race in Iowa between Congressman Greg Ganske and Senator Tom Harkin. Americans for Better Immigration grades Ganske a B+ on his career immigration voting record, while Harkin gets a D- (see report cards linked above).
Encouragingly, the immigration issue has been successfully inserted into the Iowa Senate race (a current Harkin television ad actually denies that he ever voted for welfare benefits for illegal aliens). If immigration becomes the primary issue in the campaign, Rep. Ganske, currently way down in the polls, could pull out a victory, because most Iowans, like most Americans, agree strongly with him, and not his opponent, on immigration.
Tom Harkin has voted for amnesties for illegal aliens four times since 1997. And, while voting for amnesties allows politicians to score "compassion points," the practical consequences of amnesties in the real world are devastating -- sometimes even fatal. Amnesties send a clear message to billions of desperately poor people around the world that the United States is not serious about its immigration laws; that the risk of illegal immigration is worth the eventual reward.
If, between now and the election, Ganske were to blanket Iowa with TV ads stressing Harkin's irresponsible voting record on amnesties for illegal aliens, he might be able to overcome Harkin's current lead. Indeed, it may be Ganske's best hope, since 1) immigration is a major area in which there is a clear difference between the two candidates, 2) many voters feel passionately about the issue, and 3) a majority of voters opposes amnesties.
Even moderates oppose amneties by a margin of 59 to 32 percent, according to a Zogby poll released exactly one week BEFORE the attacks on the World Trade Center. Using neutral language, the same poll found that 55 percent of Democrats think amnesty is a bad idea (Harkin is a Democrat), as do 51 percent of Hispanics. Most troubling for Harkin, 33 percent of voters in union households said they would be less likely to vote for Democrats who supported an amnesty, compared to only 14 percent who said they would be more likely.
Polling data also show that elderly women -- a very important voting bloc -- are more concerned than any other group about immigration policy. Ganske could make huge inroads with this group (and many other groups -- especially young, new Independent voters) by stressing Harkin's outdated, extremist voting record on immigration and amnesties.
In other words, immigration is a winning issue for our side, and Ganske should exploit it immediately.
Naturally, globalist ideologues at the Des Moines Register would call Ganske "xenophobic," "mean-spirited," and "fear-mongering," but Ganske would benefit from this trash talk. Such attacks would only help inject immigration deeper into the contest.
Call the Ganske and Harkin campaigns and tell them that you are outraged by Senator Harkin's four votes for amnesties for illegal aliens since 1997. Tell the campaign staff that amnesties encourage illegal immigration, reward lawbreaking, are unfair to legal immigrants who play by the rules, and help lure some illegal immigrants to their deaths. Remind the campaigns that in a world in which nearly 5 billion people live in countries poorer than Mexico, it is irresponsible and reckless for politicians to vote for amnesties.
Ganske for Senate
877-442-6753
Harkin for Senate
515 277-9966
SPECIAL NOTE TO IOWANS: You can hear ProjectUSA director, Craig Nelsen, live at 9 a.m. Monday morning on the #1 radio program in Iowa, the Jan Mickelson Show. Jan Mickelson is heard in Des Moines on Newsradio 1040 WHO, and in Cedar Rapids on WMT-AM 600, every weekday morning from 9 to 11:30.
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
Abraham Lincoln
1809 - 1865
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
After engaging one of Tom Harkin's minions in one of my better pontifications [in response to ProjectUSA's last ezine], he blurted out in an admonishing tone that I should never forget, yea, you guessed it, we are a nation of immigrants. He then said just because these newcomers are not Anglo (notice he assumed I was targeting Mexicans) I shouldn't "ABUSE" them (?)! He then promptly hung up on me!
David M. Bell
Libertyville, IL
top
11 dead Mexicans found in locked grain car in Iowa
Issue 132: October 16, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
The badly decomposed bodies of eleven Mexican nationals were discovered Monday in a locked railcar west of Des Moines, Iowa. Authorities believe the victims entered the car in Matamoros, Mexico four months ago in a bid to enter the United States illegally, but died when they became trapped in the grain car.
Just two days before the gruesome discovery, ProjectUSA and some of our Iowa supporters were in Des Moines protesting the very policies that have contributed to these unfortunate deaths. At a televised gubernatorial debate on Saturday, ProjectUSA protesters carried signs criticizing Iowa governor Tom Vilsack's irresponsible positions on immigration and demanding a return to the rule of law.
A contingent of counter-protesters, in response to ProjectUSA , demanded a blanket amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States. We answered that amnesties only serve to encourage more foreigners to attempt dangerous illegal border-crossings.
We pointed out that members of Congress -- like U.S. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa -- who help pass amnesties for illegal aliens share some of the blame for the hundreds of deaths on our borders every year. And state officials -- like Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack -- who agitate for increased public services for illegal aliens are no less culpable.
Governor Vilsack, Senator Harkin, and others provide the "magnets" that lure so many desperate foreigners to their deaths. Their policy is the moral equivalent of leaving a wad of cash on the front seat of an unlocked car, and then booby-trapping the door handle.
The most humane U.S. immigration policy would be firm and vigorous enforcement of immigration law. Humane, but resolute, repatriation of illegal aliens would largely remove the magnets that entice foreigners to attempt to sneak into the country in the first place, and would thus drastically reduce the numbers of deaths on our borders every year.
____________________________
Railcar became a tomb (Omaha World Herald)
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=36&u_sid=534023
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
Please tell Governor Tom Harkin and his opponent Greg Ganske, that you would like to see an unequivocal statement on the tragic deaths in Denison. You want recognition that our nation's lack of immigration law enforcement and public benefits for illegal aliens have created magnets that entice foreign nationals to attempt to enter the country illegally. You believe lax enforcement and amnesties for illegal aliens are partly to blame for the horrific and exceedingly gruesome deaths of the eleven persons discovered Monday in Denison.
Ganske for Senate
1-877-4-GANSKE (442-6753)
Harkin for Senate
515 277-9966
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.
Hubert H. Humphrey
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
Being a legal immigrant for over 30 years, I have grown more and more disillusioned by U.S. policies and laws on immigration and the reckless way they are enforced.
Adam Alb
Martinsville, NJ
top
Feds paying Muslims to immigrate while 3 of 4 Americans want less Muslim immigration
Issue 131: October 7, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
A recent Worldviews 2002 survey has found that 76 percent of Americans say that "based on the events of September 11, 2001, U.S. immigration laws should be tightened to restrict the number of immigrants from Arab or Muslim countries into the United States." Yet, despite 3 out of 4 Americans desiring a reduction in Muslim immigration, the federal government is today actually paying Muslims to move to the United States.
Under the Refugee Act of 1980, which former senator Alan Simpson has called "embarrassing to all of us who truly know [its] mission," the federal government's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has set aside $159 million this fiscal year for social services for the resettlement of "refugees" in the United States. In addition, the ORR will give another $49 million to "advocacy" organizations with boards of directors consisting mostly of refugees.
Taking advantage of this U.S. taxpayer largesse are refugees from countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and Somalia.
Growing numbers of Americans are expressing concern over the seeming inability of some Muslims to assimilate to non-Islamic cultures -- an inability sometimes expressed in violence. It will likely be of little reassurance to these Americans to know that of the $208 million total dollars doled out to the resettlement industry and "refugee advocates" this year, $26 million is earmarked for "increased support to communities with large concentrations of refugees whose cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult."
Since October 2001, the United States has been spending over $17 million per month resettling on average 1,671 "refugees" from around the world. Part of the money is disbursed in the form of outright cash payments to individual refugees -- at least 20 percent of whom are Muslims.
In other words, even though an overwhelming percentage of Americans think that there should be less Muslim immigration to the United States, the federal government and the refugee resettlement industry are importing Islam at $10,000 per Muslim.
____________________________
Worldviews 2002 Survey of American and European Attitudes and Public Opinion on Foreign Policy: US Report
http://www.worldviews.org/detailreports/usreport/html/ch5s5.html
Office of Refugee Resettlement (data)
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/policy/sl02-28c.htm
Somali Muslims bewildered: Mayor's letter says no more immigrants
http://www.centralmaine.com/news/stories/021005somalis_.shtml
Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists Criminals & Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (Michelle Malkin's important new bestseller)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261464/projectusa-20/103-5962751-4832641
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
According to the Worldviews 2002 Survey cited above, "of special concern (to Americans) is controlling and reducing illegal immigration, which 70 percent say should be a very important goal of U.S. foreign policy." The finding means that there is significantly stronger public support for tighter immigration policies than there is for the Bush Administration's current foreign policy priority, a military attack on Iraq (56%, ABCNEWS Nightline poll, Aug 29).
Yet, the Bush Administration, even as it prepares to launch a war with Iraq, has done almost nothing to reduce illegal immigration and improve internal security for Americans. For example, the number of agents assigned to the northern border has grown by only 15 people since Sept. 11, 2001.
The lack of serious effort to secure U.S. borders and enforce immigration law undermines Administration claims that concern for the safety and security of the American people is driving the looming war with Iraq.
Please call the White House and tell George Bush that the very first step in the War on Terror is an end to illegal immigration. Tell him you strongly oppose the administration's lax immigration policies.
White House comment line
(202) 456-1111
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
Reproachful commons cast it in my teeth
"To honour strangers thou didst wreck thy land!"
King Pelasgus, The Suppliant Maidens
Aeschylus (c. 525-456 B.C.)
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
You guys are simply the best at speaking out for those of us who seem to be forgotten by our politicians in their rush to kiss the asses of these foreigners.
Ralph Buglione
Lakeland FL
top
Establishment politics and immigration in Iowa
Issue 129: September 22, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
Last Monday, Iowa's gubernatorial candidates held their first debate of this election season. (Or, rather, the Republican and Democratic candidates debated; the Green and Libertarian candidates were excluded.)
One of the debaters was Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, who made national news a few years back by advocating Iowa exempt itself from federal U.S. immigration limits and turn Iowa into an "Ellis Island in the cornfields." He even accepted an award for this absurd proposal from the extremist ethnic-identity pressure group, The National Council of La Raza (The Race).
However, in the summer of 2001, ProjectUSA brought its "Truthmobile" to Iowa and, working with local citizens, drew enough attention to the governor's scheme that popular resistance in Iowa was ignited. The backlash eventually made national headlines, the governor's popularity plummeted, and he quickly backpedaled, blaming the whole idea on someone else.
Now that it's election season, Governor Vilsack is hoping Iowans have forgotten about his reckless and unpopular proposal. Unfortunately for him, however, the ProjectUSA Truthmobile is back in Iowa. At Monday's debate, we set up the large red mobile billboard, with its Census Bureau statistic (Immigration is doubling U.S. population in your child's lifetime), right in the middle of a small crowd of Vilsack supporters.
There were some muttering and dark looks, and eventually a man in a suit who appeared to be in his mid-50s left a little group of Vilsack campaign people and walked over. "I know your group," he said, "and I hate you."
Surprised at the directness of the hostility, we asked him why. "Because you're racists," he said.
"What? Census Bureau statistics are racist?" we asked.
"No, but I know that your real motives are racist," he said.
We challenged him to point to anything ProjectUSA has ever said or written that could even remotely qualify as "racist." Of course, he could not, and he began to walk away. We called after him, asking whether he thought doubling our population through immigration is a good thing.
He turned and leaned forward aggressively. "I love diversity," he spat out, angrily asserting the non sequitur in the triumphant tone of a religious zealot declaring his salvation.
The proper next question to ask such a man is whether, then, he would oppose mass immigration if the immigrants were all coming from Europe. But the irony of his own racism would probably be lost on him.
Thankfully, his is a dying breed. We were encouraged by our conversations with the young college students who were there protesting the exclusion of the third party candidates. Unlike the older man from the Vilsack camp, they were thoughtful, and easily grasped the argument that the same entrenched and corrupt forces that excluded their candidates from the debate are also driving mass immigration.
The student protestors quickly saw the truth of the observation that corrupt Republicans support mass immigration to reward their corporate friends with cheap labor, and corrupt Democrats use mass immigration to import voters.
They understood that, on immigration policy, both parties jealously place their own power above the common good -- which is the very same reason they exclude third parties from the democratic process.
____________________________
Immigration Foes Find Platform in Iowa (Washington Post)
(Picture of the ProjectUSA Truthmobile)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28131-2001Aug18¬Found=true
What Vilsack said then isn't what Vilsack is saying now (Des Moines Register)
http://DesMoinesRegister.com/news/stories/c5917686/15477043.html
History of the immigration battle in Iowa
http://projectusa.org/States/IA/iowa-immigration.html
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
Governor Vilsack and his staff have publicly called ProjectUSA intolerant and bigoted.
Such accusations are low and unacceptable. It is no more "bigoted" to advocate a sensible policy of sustainable immigration levels than it is "intolerant" for a married couple to decide to have only two children.
You can call the Vilsack campaign and say,
"I think Tom Vilsack's support of mass immigration is reckless and shortsighted, and I am outraged that he accepted an award for his open borders position from the racist group, La Raza. I also think he was hypocritical when he tried to blame his "New Iowans" program on someone else. And I want to know whether he and his staff still think that those who question immigration policy are intolerant bigots. If not, will he publicly apologize to ProjectUSA"
Tom Vilsack campaign
877 227 8702
You can also call Vilsack's opponent's campaign and say,
"Tom Vilsack and his staff have called people who disagree with over-immigration intolerant and bigoted. Does Doug Gross agree with him? Does Doug Gross think we should be allowing corporations to import cheap foreign labor? Does he know that importing cheap labor drives down low-skill wages in Iowa and makes it harder for young Iowans to remain in the state?"
Doug Gross campaign
515 309 5555
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
The young break rules for fun. The old for profit.
Mason Cooley
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
It is great to see the younger generation speaking out against unlimited immigration. They will be impacted even more than we are now. Let this spread to all the high schools in the USA.
Margo Souza
Turlock, California
top
Immigration lawyers aiding smugglers
Issue 128: September 12, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
A common -- and perhaps reasonable -- belief in China is that Americans are generally overweight, overly sentimental, and gullible. Our reputation in China for gullibility, in fact, is used as part of the sales pitch by Chinese snakeheads (human smugglers) who recruit among the 800 million poverty-stricken peasants of China.
Brandishing pictures of smiling ethnic Chinese standing in front of American McMansions, snakeheads lure prospective illegal aliens by telling them not to worry if they are arrested illegally entering or living in the United States. "If you are arrested," the potential clients are told, "our lawyers will help you claim asylum. They'll tell the Americans you are a member of a persecuted religious group, or that your wife was forced to have an abortion. Since the Americans are very gullible, they will believe you and let you stay."
While the reality of asylum isn't always exactly like that, it is true that many immigration lawyers in the United States do indeed help illegal aliens avoid deportation by making bogus asylum claims (see The National Law Journal article linked below). Unfortunately, even though immigration watchdog groups have long warned that the asylum process is rife with fraud, responsible government agencies seldom prosecute, or even investigate, those attorneys who violate standards of ethics by preparing fraudulent asylum claims.
Bing Jia is a Chinese national and illegal alien under deportation proceedings in the United States. With the help of his lawyer, Shen Shin Lu, Jia is angling for asylum by claiming that his wife, who is still in China, was forced by the Chinese government to have an abortion.
But on August 1, even while under the deportation proceedings, Jia managed, with the help of relatives in Massachusetts, to arrange for his daughter Yunkun to unlawfully enter the United States. (The daughter snuck away from her tour group at San Francisco International Airport and was whisked away to Massachusetts by an uncle who was waiting for her at the airport.)
Jia and his relatives committed several felonies in order to bring off this illegal entry. Among the likely crimes committed were Fraud (18 USC 287) and False Statements (18 USC 1001) when Ms. Jia applied for the non-immigrant visa on which she entered. Additional likely crimes committed were Smuggling Aliens (8 USC 1324) and Conspiracy (18 USC 371).
It is unacceptable that persons like Jia's relatives, who accept the gift of immigration from the American people, should reward us with breaking our laws. The INS must prosecute Jia's relatives for their crimes.
More importantly, their immigration lawyer must be thoroughly investigated to see whether he had foreknowledge of the crime, or is culpable in any way. If so, he must be vigorously prosecuted as well.
It is particularly galling that our country hosts a phalanx of lawyers -- many of them foreign-born -- whose only function is to subvert our immigration laws (see article link below). Immigration lawyers who work in the bogus asylum racket are essentially snakeheads themselves, and they must be dealt with firmly -- even harshly -- if the scourge of human trafficking is ever to end.
____________________________
The Snakehead Lawyers -- Experts say some immigration lawyers are really defending the interests of the smugglers who pay their fees (The National Law Journal)
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078985479
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
On September 6, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE) called the INS to see whether it was prosecuting the Jia relatives or investigating their lawyer, Shen Shin Lu. Paula Grenier, a spokesperson for the INS office in Boston, said that official policy is not to comment on details of an investigation, and that she could not even affirm whether there is an investigation or not. A call later by a staffer of the Congressional subcommittee on immigration met with the same response.
We take this to be nearly an admission that it is possible the INS will not enforce the law in the Jia case.
Call the Boston District office for the INS, and say
"I have read about the case of Yunkun Jia (YOON KOON JYA). I believe her relatives have committed crimes, and I want them prosecuted. I especially want their lawyer, Shen Shin Lu, to be thoroughly investigated, and any wrongdoing vigorously prosecuted."
Call: (617) 565-3100 and ask for Director Riordan's office.
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
I'm so gullible. I'm so damn gullible. And I am so sick of me being gullible.
Lana Turner, actress, on her seven marriages
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
I am delighted about your efforts to change birthright citizenship. I have just finished a job teaching government- subsidized ESL/EFL classes to immigrants as well as to dependents of foreign military and work visa holders. During almost 5 years, I saw that almost all women of childbearing age were pregnant. They were open about having children here for citizenship reasons. These included Chinese wives of technical work visa holders and Saudi military wives, both of whom had general if mild contempt for our system. They were here temporarily, but the Chinese said they will do anything to stay.
Elena Moore
Pensacola, Florida
top
US workers can sue employers for hiring illegals
Issue 127: September 5, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
Americans and legal workers may sue their employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. In reversing a lower court's dismissal of the case, Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., the court held that Americans whose wages have been negatively impacted by illegal alien employment practices have legal standing to bring charges under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).
The plaintiffs in the case, Olivia Mendoza, Juana Mendiola, and a class of agricultural workers "legally authorized to be employed in the United States," sued two Washington fruit growers charging that they worked for the growers "at wages that are substantially depressed because of the Illegal Immigrant Hiring Scheme."
This is the first time workers have sought redress under RICO from employers who hire illegal immigrants. In its landmark ruling, the Ninth Circuit echoed a similar ruling in the Second Circuit last year, which allowed a janitorial company to bring a RICO suit against a competitor that used illegal alien labor.
In an especially noteworthy passage, the court wrote, "the fact that RICO specifically provides that illegal hiring is a predicate offense indicates that Congress contemplated the enforcement of the immigration laws through lawsuits like this one."
Attorney Howard Foster, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Mendoza case, and a member of the Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, said the ruling should give hope to Americans who have until now felt helpless. "Americans and legal immigrants who play by the rules are legally entitled to seek damages if their employers use illegal labor to undercut their wages," Mr. Foster said.
____________________________
MENDOZA V ZIRKLE FRUIT CO. (Opinion)
Ninth Circuit Court Hands Important Legal Victory to American Workers Under RICO Statute
http://www.fairus.org/html/07413209.htm
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
The implications of the Ninth Circuit's decision are enormous, of course. And precisely for the reason the court stated: Congress intended immigration law to be enforced through lawsuits like this one.
If the executive branch won't enforce immigration laws, an army of trial lawyers will.
Perhaps the drafters of the RICO law knew that the twin obstacles of ethnic identity politics and corporate bribes -- oops, campaign contributions -- would make it unlikely that the legislative or executive branches would ever enforce immigration law.
Washington's indifference, or outright opposition, to immigration enforcement is made very evident when one considers that, a year after the attack on the World Trade Center, there are still only about 2,000 INS agents to enforce immigration laws within the United States -- roughly the same as a year ago.
Clearly, neither the Congress nor the President is serious about immigration law enforcement. (Even now, George W. Bush is raising yet again the idea of a 245i amnesty for illegal aliens.)
Thanks to our Founders, however, frustrated citizens may find recourse in the third branch of government: the law. It might be up to us citizens, using our own laws, to accomplish what our elected leaders will not. Many of the victories of the Civil Rights movement were won in the courts; immigration justice for Americans might have to be gained that way, too.
The new non-profit group of concerned lawyers, law enforcement officers, and immigration experts, the Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, was formed precisely for this purpose and deserves your support. FILE stands ready to help individual Americans who have been personally injured by lack of immigration law enforcement.
Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE)
http://fileus.com/
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
The gulf between employers and the employed is constantly widening, and classes are rapidly forming, one comprising the very rich and powerful, while in another are found the toiling poor... Corporations, which should be the carefully-restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters.
President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
Remove me from your e-mail list. Your positions are asinine and nothing but knee jerk reactionary, garden-variety liberalism. Were we to use your logic, a pound of tomatoes would cost three dollars. No thank you.
Yolynmike@aol.com
top
Captive is no U.S. citizen, says group in court filing
Issue 126: August 26, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
In a court action with wide-ranging implications, a watchdog group has filed a motion in U.S. District Court asking to intervene in the case of a U.S.-born Saudi Arabian Taliban fighter. The non-profit group of attorneys and immigration experts, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE), argues that the captured fighter, Yaser Esam Hamdi, is not a U.S. citizen despite his Louisiana birth.
Judge Robert G. Doumar, who is presiding in the case, must now decide whether to allow FILE to make the argument in court that Hamdi's birth to Saudi nationals in the United States on temporary work visas does not grant Hamdi automatic U.S. citizenship.
According to the group, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate the current practice of granting "birthright citizenship" to children born on U.S. soil to temporary workers, illegal immigrants, and tourists. Nor does case law support the custom.
"The situation we have today is absurd," charges FILE's director, Craig Nelsen. "For example, there is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. Obviously, this was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."
In an August 16 letter to Solicitor General Ted Olson, whose office is handling the case, the group asked the Justice Department to declare Hamdi a Saudi national, asserting that he is "not an American in any real sense of the word." The letter argued that Hamdi's case -- already likely to end up in the Supreme Court -- provides a "historic and excellent opportunity...to address the true meaning and intent of the Citizenship Clause."
The August 21 motion, filed by the group under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asks the court to allow the group to intervene on the side of the defendant, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
"We have raised serious legal points in our complaint, and feel confident Judge Doumar will grant the motion," says the group.
But Frank W. Dunham Jr., Yaser Hamdi's federal public defender, disagrees, telling one reporter that FILE's motion has no chance because, "If the baby is born here, nobody in this day and age challenges that the person isn't a citizen.'' Dunham offered no legal argument, but did say, "This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.''
____________________________
Group argues U.S.-born detainee is not an American citizen (Associated Press)
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=906901&nav=23iiAqMU
Immigration group says captive is no U.S. citizen (Virginian-Pilot)
http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0823ham.html
FILE's motion and complaint
http://fileus.com/dept/citizenship/hamdi/index.html
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. It is not. It is only a bad habit that could be broken with a simple Executive Order.
According to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. In a world of frightening new demographic realities, it is vital that we end the foolish custom of granting birthright citizenship to any child that happens to be born here.
Please call the Attorney General's office and politely let it know that you are one of the many Americans concerned about the integrity of U.S. citizenship. Leave a message saying you are outraged that Yaser Hamdi is deemed a U.S. citizen. Mention it is time the United States end the absurd, needless, and dangerous practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists.
Office of the Attorney General public comment line
202-353-1555
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
Our citizenship in the United States is our national character.
Thomas Paine (1783)
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
As a NYC Police Officer, I can tell you this. The best way to guarantee total security on American soil is to stop immigration and institute a policy of massive deportation. Remember, if you are not an American citizen then you are not guaranteed any rights under our constitution.
Kevin Sinclair
New York, NY
top
Illegal immigration: now some banks want a piece of the action
Issue 125: August 15, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
Deaths continue to mount along the US/Mexico border. In this fiscal year alone, according to the Border Patrol, 189 illegal border crossers have died trying to sneak into the United States.
And Americans are dying, too. Last Friday, 28-year old park ranger Kris Eggle was shot to death by an illegal alien attempting to cross the border into Arizona.
Some of the blame for the violence, chaos, and death at the border must be placed on the "magnets" that encourage foreign nationals to attempt to sneak across the border in the first place. Foreigners around the world know that if they can just make it across the border they will be rewarded with free medical care, educations for their children, and jobs.
But now -- for Mexicans -- there is a new magnet: an increasing number of U.S. banks are opening accounts for Mexican citizens illegally residing in the United States. The banks, anxious to cash in on part of the roughly $10 billion dollars that Mexicans send to Mexico every year, have begun accepting an identification card -- the "matricula consular" -- issued by the Mexican government to Mexican illegal aliens.
In our view, not only is it morally objectionable for U.S. banks to profit from illegal immigration while providing yet another magnet encouraging desperately poor foreigners to attempt a dangerous illegal border crossing, but it is against the law as well. According to Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, anyone commits a crime who "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."
Banking corporations need to bring themselves into compliance with the law and stop putting profit above the general good.
____________________________
Moving first-person account of the death of Kris Eggle (3 pages)
http://projectusa.org/Ezine/ezine_links/shot-on-border.html
Omaha group tries to discredit Mexican ID cards (Omaha World Herald)
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=36&u_sid=474984
An Entry Card for Immigrants (Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2967-2002Jul25.html
Illegal Mexicans, Consular Offices, Multiplying (Joe Guzzardi in VDARE)
http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/multiplying.htm
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
The new immigration watchdog group Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement has launched an effort to convince U.S. banks to stop taking the Mexican ID card (see news story: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=36&u_sid=474984).
The group argues that it is unfair that some banks that accept the ID should profit off illegal immigrants, while those banks that play by the rules and only accept official U.S. identification to open an account should be at a competitive disadvantage.
A spokesperson for one bank that takes the ID, the First National Bank of Omaha, has said that the bank will continue to accept the card because "we are serving a segment of the market that is underserved."
Illegal aliens are "underserved" because they are residing in the United States illegally. You can call the First National Bank and let it know what you think about putting profit above the general good, and encouraging illegal immigration.
First National Bank of Omaha (402) 341 0500 x 3905
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
Corporation. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
Ambrose Bierce
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
Read in the Omaha World-Herald of your efforts here. Thank you!!!!!!!!
I fled the horrid social and economic woes of California, my home state, nine years ago. Sadly, the tidal wave of illegals has reached this once remote area.
Again, thank you VERY MUCH for your efforts here. You ARE appreciated!!!!
Scott Kelley
Omaha, NE
(Sent to: FILE http://fileus.com/)
top
Rescued miners doing jobs Americans won't do
Issue 123: July 28, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
The successful rescue this weekend of nine miners trapped for days 240 feet below the surface of Pennsylvania transfixed the nation. Scenes of freezing, filth-covered men emerging alive one by one from the narrow rescue shaft delighted us, and reporters on location spoke in almost reverent appreciation of these men and the risks they take in one of the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs in America.
After washing off and receiving medical attention, some of the miners began giving interviews. Judging by their accents, these miners are native-born Americans.
This must come as a great shock to Wall Street Journal readers, who are frequently told that extreme levels of legal and illegal immigration are necessary, since immigrants do the "dirtiest and most dangerous" jobs in America -- "jobs Americans won't do."
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fatality rate for coal miners is over seven times higher than for industry as a whole, making it the most dangerous job in America.
However, this dangerous and dirty work is still done by Americans, and wages for miners are high. In 2001, according to the BLS, the average hourly earnings for miners were $17.65 -- well above the average for all other industries. In other words, industry must often pay higher wages to those who do dirty and dangerous work than it must pay to those who do less dirty and less dangerous work.
Unless, of course, industry can hire illegal immigrants.
Meatpacking is another dirty and dangerous job that was once also high paying and sought after by Americans. Beginning in the 1970s, however, union-busting corporations began importing illegal immigrants to do meatpacking jobs -- even sending buses to the border to ferry illegal immigrants back to their packinghouses.
Now those once high paying jobs pay little more than minimum wage and the illegal immigrants who fill them dare not complain about working conditions or pay since there are always more recently arrived illegal aliens ready take their places.
The meatpacking industry was a major labor battleground, and importing easily oppressed foreigners was a key corporate weapon. The corporations won, and American workers were tossed out on the street. Adding insult to injury, they later had to pay higher taxes for more classrooms, healthcare and other services required by their new neighbors in radically changed communities.
We congratulate the Pennsylvania miners on their grit and survival, and hope they can continue to hang on to their jobs.
____________________________
A Nation of Immigrants (Wall Street Journal)
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-a_nation.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0062.pdf
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
It is no wonder the corporate class loves illegal immigration; it is no wonder the Wall Street Journal regularly repeats the false slogan: "Immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do."
But it is perplexing that so many reporters, editorialists, and columnists repeat the same corporate lie.
Please take the opportunity of this weekend's demonstration of Americans doing the dirtiest and most dangerous job in American to write a letter to the editor of your local paper and remind him or her that the corporate opinion, "Immigrants do jobs Americans won't do," is simply not true.
Your local paper's contact information can be obtained at:
http://www.newsdirectory.com/
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western World. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity -- much less dissent.
Gore Vidal (1991)
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
Most immigrants come to the US for the reason they have always come -- desperation and poverty. US policies regarding third world peoples are largely responsible for the exploitation of those countries' resources that forces people to come here. The only way for this to end is for us to insist that US corporations stop exploiting foreign labor and resources. We must also assist countries such as Mexico in their struggle to build an economy that will sustain our neighbors so that they will no longer see employment in the US as their only hope.
Norma C. Wilson
University of South Dakota
top
But who will pick the cotton?
Issue 123: July 21, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Tamar Jacoby of the corporate-funded Manhattan Institute advocates the continued use of illegal immigrants to do the "dirtiest and most dangerous" work in America. "These are jobs Americans won't do," she argues.
Ms. Jacoby is wrong. There is no such thing as "jobs Americans won't do." Between 1925 and 1965, when immigration levels were so low the number of immigrants in the country actually declined, all the dirty and dangerous jobs in America still managed to get done: they were done by Americans who were paid an American wage for doing them.
Now, many of these "jobs Americans won't do" -- such as meat-packing -- pay little more in (constant!) dollars than they did in 1965, and they are done by illegal immigrants working in conditions reminiscent of Upton Sinclair's 1906 novel, "The Jungle."
This is a lucrative state of affairs for some in the business community, so it is not surprising to see the Wall Street Journal, often called the "mouthpiece for corporate America," promoting the scheme. The Wall Street Journal makes no secret of its sanction of the profiteering by some American businesses from the cheap labor and increased consumption represented by mass immigration -- even going so far as to call (more than once) for a five-word constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders."
But it is surprising to see the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, from the famously progressive and socially conscious state of Minnesota, so frequently repeating the Morlockian Wall Street Journal line on the issue. On July 13, the Star-Tribune printed another of its frequent pieces arguing the economic benefits of illegal immigration.
In an article titled "Immigrant workers are a resource we need," Star-Tribune guest columnist Jennifer Blevins writes, "America depends on its immigrant workers. If you eat meat, fruit or vegetables, if you work in an office building or stay in a hotel, chances are that an immigrant was involved in providing some of the products and services that you used."
Claiming that deporting aliens would be a loss to Minnesota's economy, Ms Blevins notes with approval that INS Commissioner James Ziglar has said his agency will not enforce the law that requires illegal aliens to return to their home countries.
Breaking the law for financial gain is almost the definition of corruption, of course, but leaving that aside, illegal immigration is a huge transfer of wealth from taxpayers and the working poor to those businesses that profit by the cheap labor of illegal immigrants.
In a 1997 study, the National Academy of Sciences found that for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200.
In other words, taxpayers must pay for the health, education, and other costs of illegal immigration while some businesses and corporations reap the benefits of the subsidized cheap labor and increased consumption.
In a world with nearly five billion people who live in countries poorer than Mexico, it is essential that unprincipled businesspersons -- and their advocates -- be resisted in their efforts to subordinate national immigration policy to self-serving economic ends.
____________________________
Immigrant workers are a resource we need (Minneapolis Star-Tribune)
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3055938.html
A Nation of Immigrants (Wall Street Journal)
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-a_nation.htm
Immigration Day? (Brimelow on Wall Street Journal)
http://www.vdare.com/pb/the_forth_02.htm
Who Is Hurt? Mass immigration harms poor and black American workers
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/who-hurt.html
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
A September 2000 Gallup Poll found 75% of Americans believe immigrants mostly take the low-paying jobs Americans don't want. This widespread public misconception is a serious obstacle to a more modern, moderate, and humane immigration policy.
Many in positions of influence contribute to this mistaken belief by constantly repeating the untrue slogan -- Immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do -- as if it were fact.
You can write the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and urge them to adopt a more balanced coverage of the immigration issue. You might note that if it is going to run articles lauding the cheap labor benefits of mass immigration, the Star-Tribune should also run articles that point out the costs of mass immigration to the environment, to national security, to working Americans, to our health care and educational systems, and to our sense of community.
opinion@startribune.com
readerrep@gw.startribune.com
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
They imported slaves, although they did not call them slaves: Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Filipinos…
John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, 1939
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
I too am sick of this country being watered down as we try to please big business. I was recently unemployed as our software development was outsourced to India -- this was done on the advice of an Indian here on an H-1b (temporary work visa)!
Jonathan Smith
Nashville TN
top
Time to modernize "birthright citizenship" custom
Issue 121: July 4, 2002
+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+
Our last issue on "birthright citizenship" and the related phenomenon of "anchor babies" drew an unusually high number of responses.
Many respondents expressed shock that the United States gives automatic citizenship to babies born in the country to illegal aliens, tourists and temporary workers. They were incensed that these babies can eventually "anchor" their extended families in the United States, thus precipitating an unlimited number of "chain immigrants" with the "right" to immigrate.
Virtually everyone strongly supported our position that, as a way to modernize U.S. immigration policy, birthright citizenship should end. They agreed with our interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, on which the practice of birthright citizenship is wrongly based. (The salient part of the Amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.")
To us it seems obvious that a tourist or illegal alien and her newborn are not "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction. But about a half dozen writers took exception. One of these, University of Wisconsin-Madison history professor Thomas J. Archdeacon, writes, "If aliens in the US commit crimes or otherwise come into contact with the law, they may seek support from their home governments, but they are most definitely subject to U.S. jurisdiction…"
Since we received several notes along these lines, we put the question to former California Congressman Brian Bilbray, who introduced The Citizenship Reform Act of 1999 with eighty co-sponsors.
Mr. Bilbray points out that birthright citizenship is a concept rooted in English common law and goes back to a 1608 ruling called "Calvin's Case." Since then, being "subject to" has meant that a person could be tried for treason to the sovereign in question, or be drafted into the military.
Clearly, neither a Korean tourist, nor a Saudi national with a temporary work visa, nor a Mexican illegal alien, can be tried for treason to the United States or be drafted into the U.S. military.
And if these women are not "subject to" the jurisdiction of the United States, their babies -- at birth -- must be even less so.
____________________________
Complete text of note from Professor Archdeacon
http://projectusa.org/Ezine/ezine_links/prof_archdeacon.html
Enforce the Citizenship Clause (useful examination of the issue)
http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/weigh_anchor.htm
Anchor babies (U.S. citizen Allan Wall in FrontPage on the birth of his son in Mexico)
http://projectusa.org/Ezine/ezine_links/wall_anchor_babies.html
+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+
The U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia is prosecuting the case of Mr. Yasser Esam Hamdi, an Al Queda fighter who is an "American" because he was born in Louisiana to Saudi parents here on a work visa, but who lived all his life in Saudi Arabia until he went off to kill Americans in Afghanistan.
Mr. Hamdi is not an "American" in any real sense of the word.
On this, our nation's birthday, please take a minute and leave a message at the Justice Department. Politely ask the Department to revoke Mr. Hamdi's citizenship.
Office of the Attorney General public comment line
202-353-1555
+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+
For the nation's rise and fall every citizen has a responsibility.
Chinese proverb.
+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+
Re: "anchor babies" -- or, as the old expression goes: if a cat has her kittens in the oven, are they biscuits?
Sarah Foster
Sacremento, CA