Prisons are Safe Havens -- For Investors

For those of you who are concerned about the growth of the prison-industrial complex, a recent article in Forbes titled “Hiding Out in Prison Bonds” points to the private prison industry as a growth sector. One way to benefit is to invest in the stock of prison firms like Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group (Wackenhut). But another investment option is through public bonds. Since the early 1980s most of the new prisons in the United States have been designed, built, and operated by private firms. It’s a highly profitable business. But where do they get most of their money to build new prisons? Not from their own stockholders, but from bonds issued by states and counties. Not general obligation bonds that are approved by voters, but rather from revenue bonds that are issued often with little public notice or input. Prison bonds issued by states and counties return higher interest rates to investors than bonds approved by community and state taxpayers. That’s because the revenue to pay investors comes not from taxpayers but from the per diem payments provided by governments. Hence, the name “revenue bonds.” These bonds are not backed up by county or state general funds but rather count on the revenue stream of the bond-financed project – in this case, a private prison. But Forbes says that prison bonds are a good place for investors to find safe haven in troubled times. Its Oct. 10 article argues:

“Prison systems incarcerate offenders. Any state that would stop making lease payments on its correctional facility bonds and set incarcerated offenders out on the streets would have some explaining to do. The stakes are too high for society to permit such default. We think the risk is minimal for prison bonds.”

In some cases, states use revenue bonds to finance prisons that it builds and operates itself. California, for example, is funding a 55,000 bed expansion of its prison system through revenue bonds. Investors are attracted because the bonds earn interest at 1-2% higher than other public bonds, and they are also tax-free.

It works like this: the state issues bonds for which taxpayers are not liable that are bought by private investors attracted by high interest rates and tax exemptions derived from the public character of the financed project. State or county annual appropriations provide the revenue to pay investors, and private prison companies often run these “facilities.”

Since the mid-1990s the ever-mounting trend to criminalize immigrants has proved a boon to the prison bond business.

Throughout the country – but particularly in the South and Southwest – private prison firms have enticed county and state governments to build speculative prisons financed by revenue bonds.

The county – through a newly created trust or public facility corporation – issues prison bonds in collaboration with private prison firms that design, build, and operate the resulting prison for immigrants. Betting that the immigrant crackdown will continue for two decades (bonds of 15-22 years), investors scarf up high-interest, tax-free bonds.

The revenue to pay the bonds – and the private prison firm – comes from per-diem payments made for each immigrant detained or imprisoned.

At a time when immigration restrictionists like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) are stoking an anti-immigration backlash movement that charges that immigrants aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, bond investors and private prison firms are enjoying the tax-free benefits of imprisoning these immigrants for profit.

Real and Hidden Agendas of Restrictionists

Following the listing of FAIR as a “hate group” in December 2007 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, there emerged within the progressive community a closely coordinated campaign to discredit the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which is the nation's oldest and largest anti-immigration policy institute.

The defeat of a compromise comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), which most of the immigrant-rights and Latino organizations had supported, was a sharp blow to the pro-immigration community, and a major victory for restrictionist groups like FAIR.

Over the past couple of years, these groups had organized massive demonstrations throughout the United States in support of immigrant rights and legalization. They had worked hard to win bipartisan support for a CIR bill on Capitol Hill, and had won support from the most influential print media.

But the compromises included in the propose bill included onerous preconditions for legalization, thereby sapping much grassroots and institutional enthusiasm for the Senate bill. These compromises, which were included largely to win the support of senators under pressure from anti-immigration forces, did nothing to dampen the opposition of the restrictionist movement, which organized a massive call-in, write-in, and speak-out campaign against the bill, persuading many in Congress that there was little political will for CIR
.

Since 2005 the pro-immigration lobby had worked with Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. But each year, support for legalization diminished while anti-immigration congressional members -- working closely with the restrictionist policy institutes (mainly FAIR and NumbersUSA) -- succeeded in passing new bipartisan bills to increase border security and immigration law enforcement.

Beaten down over three years, the pro-immigration lobby in Washington and the main immigrant-rights activist groups have regrouped and organized new fight-back strategies. These strategies include increasing the Latino/immigrant voting bloc, creating a new communications infrastructure, and mounting an initiative to discredit the restrictionist institutes. Signs of this campaign were quickly evident.

After 28 years of working against liberal immigration policies, FAIR was in late 2007 designated a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The National Council of La Raza launched its “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign, which educates about hate crimes while at the same time identifying FAIR, NumbersUSA, and Center for Immigration Studies as “hate and extremist” groups.

On its site, NCLR identifies FAIR and NumbersUSA as the core “fanatical factions,” along with two vigilante organizations (Minuteman Project and American Border Patrol) and two virulently anti-immigrant groups (Save Our State and California Coalition for Immigration Reform).

In September 2008 a grouping of allied organizations published a full-page ad in Capitol Hill newspapers attacking FAIR as a “hate group” at the same time that FAIR was conducting its annual congressional outreach campaign. Referring to FAIR, the ad asked: “When Did Extreme Become Mainstream?” 


The organizations paying for the aid were: America’s Voice (a new post-CIR defeat creation), Center for New Community, Fair Immigration Reform Movement (creation of Center for Community Change), and the national union SEIU. NCLR’s “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign was a central feature of the aid.

Over the past year and a half, these and other groups have mounted an education and communications campaign in an attempt to discredit FAIR, NumbersUSA, and Center for Immigration Studies because of their purported extremist, nativist, fanatical, and hateful views.

But aside from a few snippets of provocative commentary by the principals of these groups and poorly substantiated charges that they are front groups for a white-supremacist conspiracy, there is little in their volumes of analysis, propaganda, and videos to peg them as being extremist – unless being against “mass immigration,” as they call it, is regarded as too extreme for U.S. polity.

There is also no public evidence that FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS stoke or support hate crimes, which is implied and sometimes stated by this grouping of immigrant-rights critics.

Assessed as a strategy, the campaign of character assassination presents risks for all those favoring liberal immigration policies. One is that it damages the credibility of the critics. Another is that blinds the opponents of restrictionism. They start believing themselves that these groups have no legitimacy and thereby don’t bother to respond to what they are saying.

This was quickly evident after SPLC made its “hate group” designation in December 2007 when there arose a chorus of progressives dismissing FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA as hate groups. Immediately after the SPLC designation, Cristina Lopez, deputy executive director of the Center for Community Change in Washington, DC, told a reporter: "[FAIR] is an organization that clearly has an agenda. There’s no difference between putting a member of FAIR on TV to talk about immigration and putting a member of the Ku Klux Klan to talk about race relations."

NCLR apparently feels the same way, having designated FAIR’s Dan Stein and NumberUSA’s Roy Beck as “suspect spokespeople” and lumping together the three institutes in the category of “extremist and hate” groups. One wonders just whom the media is supposed to talk to about the restrictionist cause if reporters are to reject these three influential institutes as illegitimate.

Within the wide-ranging restrictionist movement, these institutes are regarded as weak-kneed moderates and branches of the liberal elite by the truly extreme anti-immigration groups. But for a klatch of liberal critics, the institutes are commonly regarded as being extremist purveyors of hate.

Rather than considering and responding to the published anti-immigration agendas of FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS, they insist that the public, media, and policy community evaluate these groups by their alleged hidden agenda – an agenda that’s purportedly the same as the one that guides the KKK and other racist organizations.

The Center for the New Community has targeted FAIR as part of its “nativism watch” project, which was launched in 2006. Its research details the extent of FAIR’s reach through what the center calls “front groups” and its close connections with the controversial founder of FAIR and current board member, John Tanton.

Pointing to FAIR’s agenda for the 111th Congress, CNC notes that FAIR has been “named a hate organization alongside the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi skinheads by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” while noting that “while attempting to portray itself as a mainstream organization, FAIR maintains relationships with political extremists including white nationalists.”

While it is certainly true that FAIR in its near-three decades history has associated with organizations and individuals who have had vile views about race, does that mean that the organization itself is a nativist group or that it is part of “organized racism,” as CNC charges?

Nothing in its policy statements, including the latest congressional agenda, supports that. Wouldn’t it be more constructive to challenge FAIR over its policy agenda, or to formulate a pro-immigration policy agenda that is as detailed and comprehensive (and hopefully more persuasive) than to engage in a name-calling campaign over an alleged hidden agenda?

Photo: FAIR's Dan Stein

Attacking the Messengers, Not the Anti-Immigration Message

It didn’t work for John McCain and Sarah Palin. But the immigrant-rights groups apparently believe that a campaign of character assassination and misinformation about the leading anti-immigration groups is the best way to take on their opposition in Washington, DC. 


Are NumbersUSA, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the Center for Immigration Studies conservative organizations that scapegoat immigration for the many of the country’s crises (financial meltdown, urban sprawl, climate change, rising unemployment, social services shortfalls, etc.)? 


Do they oppose guest worker programs, legalization (or "amnesty") for illegal immigrants, and most family-reunification and refugee visas? Do they all have ties to John Tanton, a prominent zero-population-growth and environmental activist who in the 1970s turned his focus to “mass immigration” and founded numerous organizations that opposed “mass immigration” including FAIR and Social Contract Press and who is labeled as a white supremacist and nativist by immigrant-rights groups? 


Yes, to all of the above. But does that mean that these groups are “nativists,” “racists,” "hate groups," “extremists,” “immigrant bashing,” “white supremacist,” and “illegitimate.” Or that their executive directors – Roy Beck and Dan Stein – are “suspect spokespeople” – the label used by the National Council of La Raza (in collaboration with the Southern Poverty Law Center)? 


Yes, according to immigrant advocacy groups that seek to counter the growing influence of these restrictionist organization in the public and policy debate. But no, if you attempt to find hate talk, extremism, or immigrant bashing in their publications or on their websites. (In fact, they all explicitly declare that while advocating dramatically lower immigration levels they are not anti-immigrant. See for example, NumbersUSA.) 


No, if they are judged by what they write and what they do. Rather than challenging the restrictionist policy institutes and their leaders on the validity of their policy agendas, many immigrant-rights organizations seek to discredit them because of their purported motives, associations, or funding sources. 


There is no doubt that FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS believe that what they call "mass immigration" constitutes a threat to the United States and that they believe that the country’s large numbers of immigrants are a causal factor in many of the country’s social, cultural, and economic crises. 


It is certainly true that the policy measures they support adversely affect the welfare of millions of immigrant familes. But is seeking to undermine the influence of these groups in the media and on Capitol Hill by throwing in the same lot as the Ku Klux Klan and National Socialist Aryan Order really be considered an effective and principled political strategy? 


Will smearing the restrictionist policy institutes and their leaders in campaigns of character assassination bolster the possibilities of passing a liberal immigration reform bill? 


Alarmed by the growing backlash in U.S. against new immigrants and the increasing success of the Washington, DC restrictionist institutes to frame the immigration debate, a network of immigrant-rights groups inside and outside Washington, DC began a campaign to delegimitize the restrictionist institutes. 


This response to the DC institutes began in earnest in mid-2007 after the defeat of the comprehensive immigration reform bill in the U.S. Senate. Restrictionist forces, led by NumbersUSA and FAIR, had mobilized massive grassroots opposition to the proposed bill and were a major factor in its defeat. In the aftermath, immigrant-rights and other progressive groups -- funded in concert by the major liberal foundations -- mounted a strategy to replicate the communications infrastructure of the restrictionist institutes while at the same time they sought to delegitimize them. 


Nothing's wrong, of course, with modeling progressive communications and outreach campaigns after successful conservative ones. But to match the successes, the groups that support immigration and advocate for immigrants will need to fashion their own message about the benefits of immigration to the American people. 


Trying to stick a label of "extremism" on institutes that have massive memberships, good relations with the media, and good standing on the Hill is a measure of how desperate and isolated the pro-immigration forces that have embraced this strategy really are. 


 The designation of FAIR as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center in late 2007 provided highly explosive ammunition for the character assassination campaign. 


 Rather than counter the arguments and policy proposals of FAIR and the other institutes with convincing counterarguments and substantive counterproposals, the common response -- from such groups as America’s Voice, Center for New Community, National Council of La Raza, SEIU, and Center for Community Change (and its sponsored Fair Immigration Reform Movement) -- is to dismiss these restrictionist groups, asserting they are racist and illegitimate. 


At a time when FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS are increasingly framing their anti-immigration message within the context of the economic crisis and massive unemployment, the leading immigrant-rights groups focus almost exclusively on the character of the messengers rather than on the substance of their message. 

See related articles: 

“It’s Time to Fight FAIR”

http://americasvoiceonline.org/page/content/fightfair/

 “New Immigration Ads Stir the Melting Pot,” Washington Post http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/09/new_immigration_ads_stir_the_m.html

 “When Did Extreme Become Mainstream?” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/SEIU_ad.pdf

 FAIR, “Who’s Inciting Hate?” http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_release992008

 Southern Poverty Law Center, “Crossing the Rubicon of Hate” http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate/

 “FAIR Added to Hate Group List,” Scripps News Service http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/29303

Restrictionists Ready to Challenge Obama

While pro-immigration groups are hailing the Obama victory and the Latino turnout as a victory for liberal immigration reform, immigration restrictionists are reshaping their messaging for the Obama era. Although not thrilled with the prospect of an Obama presidency, the restrictionists don't necessarily fear it. Some, including NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), already are trying to leverage Obama's promises to protect workers and create jobs.

Given how successfully the restrictionist institutes in Washington have tweaked their anti-immigration message in the Bush era to reflect new citizen concerns about national security and the "rule of law," it would behoove immigrant advocates and other supporters of comprehensive immigration reform to pay more attention to what the leading restrictionists are now saying.

During the campaign the anti-immigration groups despaired over the prospect of either McCain or Obama. But now the two leading restrictionist policy institutes, NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, point encouragingly to Obama's strong positions in favor of employee verification and employer enforcement.

They have also been confident that the aggressive enforcement regime instituted by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will persist into the next administration, especially given the way that many Democratic congressional representatives have supported increases in the department's immigration-enforcement and border-control budget.

However, it's the country's economic downspin that gives the restrictionists the most confidence that liberal immigration reform is dead for the foreseeable future.

See Entire Report

Anti-Immigration Groups React to Obama Victory -- Part Three

Roy Beck, the executive director of NumbersUSA, is on a roll, and the Obama victory provides momentum for one of his central messages about immigration, namely that large number of legal and illegal immigrants undermine the welfare of U.S. workers.

Author of the 1996 book, Case Against Immigration, Beck has catapulted his argument that that high immigration flows negatively impact citizen workers and the environment into an increasingly high-profile stature for NumbersUSA, an anti-immigration institute organization he founded in 1997.

Beck’s case against immigration has also led him to become a leading adocate of the “Attrition Through Enforcement’ policy supported by the two overwhelmingly Republican congressional caucuses closely tied to NumbersUSA – Immigration Reform Caucus (House) and Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus (Senate) – and implemented by the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Michael Chertoff.

The day after the election of Barack Obama, Beck told NumbersUSA members and activists (800,000 claimed) that “I feel mildly optimistic at this moment about the next Presidency.” That’s because, said Beck, that Obama “must choose between two contradictory campaign promises.”

He calls for a “small army of committed citizens” to force the news media and politicians to look at the contradiction between 1) Obama’s “barely whispered perfunctory campaign pledges to offer U.S. citizenship to an estimated 7 million illegal foreign workers, plus their 5-13 million relatives”, and 2) his “loudest shouted priority to put Americans back to work.”

NumbersUSA isn’t waiting until January 20 to mobilize its army of anti-immigration activists to pressure Obama to stand down on his promise for liberal immigration reform and stand up to his promise to support workers. A petition to Obama organized by Beck asserts that a “legalization program would permanently remove 7 million jobs from being available for American workers.”

Economic downturns traditional ramp up anti-immigration sentiment, and NumbersUSA is already jumping on the purported immigrant-joblesses connection. According to Beck, "Every illegal foreign worker given amnesty permanently ties up a U.S. job that an unemployed U.S.-born worker or longtime legal immigrant is seeking in these hard times.”

Rather than pressuring Obama from the right on such issues as immigrant crime and the cost of social services for immigrants, NumbersUSA, along with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, has concluded that there is new opportunity in making the case for restrictionism from the political left by playing on the plight of U.S. workers.

In Beck’s view, “Whatever the Obama campaign may have said about immigration before the stock market crash, his priorities have clearly changed and immigration policy will have to serve his top priority of getting American workers back into jobs that offer decent wages and benefits, especially health insurance.”

But a left-centered argument against legalization is not the only tactic that NumbersUSA will wield in the coming debate. NumbersUSA and other restrictionists also intend to pressure the Obama administration and the new Congress to continue with an "enforcement-only" policy. And Beck believes that they are on firm ground since Obama and other Democrats have stressed their support for secure borders and employment verification.

During the electoral campaign, Beck said NumbersUSA regarded the positions of the two presidential candidates as being from “bad” to “abysmal.” Now, however, the restrictionists say in Obama's campaign promises there much to work with as they seek to advance the enforcement-only agenda of “Attrition Through Enforcement.”

Beck, for example, points to the immigration platform on Obama’s campaign website, which states: "To remove incentives to enter the country illegally, we need to crack down on employers that hire undocumented immigrants."

Moreover, Obama’s website also supports employee verification, which if effected, would force millions of undocument immigrants to leave their jobs. As the campaign website boasts, Obama cosponsored a bipartisan amendment to ensure that "employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S."

Obama signed a Dear Colleague letter to other senators that said he "strongly support[s] creating an effective, mandatory employment verification system for all employers to verify the legal status of their workers."

A one, two, three action restrictionist agenda, according to NumbersUSA, should be: 1) support the authorization of the E-Verify program, 2) support the SAVE Act which provides for a phased-in verification system, and 3) continue the Bush administration’s executive order that requires federal contractors to use the E-Verify system.

The choice, says Beck, is Obama’s:

"If Obama follows his own instincts and past words of support for turning off the jobs magnet for illegal immigration, he potentially will open up millions of jobs for millions of unemployed Americans.

“This would be the cheapest, fastest job-creation program he has any chance of achieving.

“Or he can choose to favor illegal foreign workers and turn his back on unemployed Americans.”

In contrast to the sharply focused jobs-and-economy argument that is being aggressively promoted by NumbersUSA and other restrictionist groups, the pro-immigration camp has yet to emerge from its pre-election focus on getting out the Latino and immigrant vote. All but ignoring the jobs issue, the pro-immigration groups, including National Immigration Forum, America’s Voice, and National Council of La Raza, are emphasizing the importance of Latino and immigrant votes to Obama’s success and to the future of the Democratic Party.

This highly partisan strategy did work as an electoral strategy to register new voters and to get out the vote of what they call the “New Americans.” It did increase the numbers for Democrats in the general election, but that aggregate number of Democratic voters – some 6.5 million – is only a small part of the larger electorate.

What’s missing is a post-election strategy that goes beyond ethnicity and immigration status to appeal not just to Latinos and immigrants but to all Americans, especially those concerned about the future of their jobs.

Anti-Immigration Groups React to Obama Victory -- Part Two

While not thrilled with the prospect of an Obama presidency, the restrictionists don’t necessarily fear it. Some, including NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, already are trying to leverage Obama’s promises to protect workers and create jobs During the campaign the anti-immigration groups despaired over the prospect of either McCain or Obama. But now the two leading restrictionist policy institutes, NumbersUSA and FAIR, point encouragingly to Obama’s strong positions in favor of employee verification and employer enforcement. They have also been confident that the aggressive enforcement regime instituted by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will persist into the next administration, especially given the way that many Democratic congressional representatives have supported increases in the department’s immigration-enforcement and border-control budget. However, it’s the country’s economic downspin that gives the restrictionists the most confidence that liberal immigration reform is dead for the foreseeable future. FAIR’s Post-Election Framing The Federation for American Immigration Reform immediately jumped into the post-election debate over immigration reform with media releases, polls, and new policy analysis about the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform. Rather than focusing on how pro-immigration and anti-immigration candidates did on Nov. 4, FAIR entered the post-election debate with a new framing for its anti-immigration message. According to FAIR, “The results of yesterday's elections are a clear rejection by the voters of government of, by, and for, special interests, and policies that have brought this nation to the brink of an economic crisis.” While pro-immigration groups like the National Immigration Forum and America’s Voice were citing the heavy Latino and immigrant turnout for the Democrats as evidence that the time has come for liberal immigration reform, FAIR posited that Americans were mostly concerned about their jobs and economic stability and, as such, would not support what “failed special interest-driven policies” like immigration. FAIR asserted that “Americans are fed-up with immigration policies that have placed the interests of immigration lawbreakers, cheap labor employers, and ethnic power brokers ahead of those of struggling workers and taxpayers.”

Casting aside Obama’s promise to enact comprehensive reform including legalization in his first term, FAIR’s president Dan Stein zeroed in on Obama’s commitments to create jobs and to back “change that voters can believe in.” Instead of focusing on the cultural, national security, environmental or “rule of law” arguments that FAIR has previously favored, Stein argued that FAIR’s position in favor of restricted immigration was an economic, worker-centered stance.

"To the extent that Senator Obama received a mandate,” said Stein, “it is to put government back on the side of working Americans. A critical component of an economic recovery plan for struggling workers must be to set rational limits on immigration, enforce laws against employing illegal aliens, and resist calls for more guest workers.”

Rather than situate FAIR as a negative force opposing comprehensive immigration reform, Stein called for Obama to “put forward a coherent immigration policy that recognizes that reforming immigration is critical to getting our economy back on track.” Typical of the restrictionists that see legal and illegal immigration as a causal factor for most any problem – from climate change to the subprime crisis -- FAIR now regards restrictionism as central to economic recovery.

"At a time when the economy is faltering, when nearly a million Americans have lost their jobs this year alone, when federal, state and local governments are facing unprecedented deficits, President Obama will need to institute and enforce immigration policies that do not add to these problems.”

Like the pro-immigration forces, the anti-immigration camp brandishes polls to back its statements. In making its new pitch for a conservative reform package that would restrict both legal and illegal immigration, FAIR points to exit polls and a post-election poll it commissioned to support its contention that liberal immigration reform can’t count on widespread public support. Exit polls commissioned by FAIR show that only a third (32%) of surveyed voters voting for Obama said they supported legalization of illegal immigrants, while six in ten of those who voted for McCain opposed “amnesty.”

FAIR contends that “by wide margins Americans believe that their interests would best be served by overall reductions in the flow of immigration, and enforcement of immigration laws in a way that sends a clear message to both illegal aliens and their employers that the interests of law-abiding, hard-working Americans is paramount.”

To support this assertion, FAIR points to a post-election poll (Nov.5-6) conducted by Zogby International of actual voters that found, according to FAIR, that “a decisive majority of voters believe that an illegal alien amnesty would "further harm the interests of struggling American workers.”

Obviously formulated to confirm FAIR’s own positions, some of the survey questions seemed to prompt restrictionist answers from respondents. Citing the survey results, FAIR reported that “57% of voters stated that amnesty would harm American workers and further strain public resources, while only 26% believe amnesty would aid economic recovery and ease public burdens.” While FAIR and other immigration institutes don’t dispute the widespread conclusion about Latino turnout for Democrats, they question the assessment that Latinos favor liberal immigration reform. As Stein noted in another post-election release, “Arizonans overwhelmingly rejected a deceptive ballot measure which would have made it easier for businesses to hire illegal aliens. Proposition 202 was rejected by 60% of Arizona voters, including 56% of Latino voters in the state.” Immigration proponents argue that the unprecedented turnout of Latino and immigrant voters – about 10 million – and their overwhelming support for Obama – 67% of Latinos – demonstrated the salience of the immigration issue for a large constituency angered by the immigration crackdown. What’s more, this expanding constituency proved key to moving four swing states – Nevada, Colorado, Florida, and New Mexico – into the Democratic column. But FAIR counters that exit polling, including an Univision/Zogby survey, showed that the economy was the number-one voting priority for the majority (54%) of Latino voters, while only 11 cited immigration reform as their top concern. "All voters, including Latinos, turned to the Democrats last Tuesday in the hope that they will get our economy back on track. Notwithstanding a massive spin effort on the part of the ethnic advocacy network, the electorate, including Latinos, did not vote for amnesty and more immigration. In fact, the polls show that voters believe amnesty would be an impediment to economic recovery and putting American back to work," Stein concluded.

Instead of bemoaning the victory of Democratic candidate committed to liberal immigration reform, FAIR’s Stein said they looked “forward to working with his new administration to bring long overdue changes to an immigration policy that, along with many other policies of the past eight years, were soundly rejected by voters across the country and across the political spectrum.”

Clearly, many voters went to the polls on Nov. 4 concerned mainly about the nose-diving economy, their jobs, and their savings. But immigration proponents are certainly well-founded in their conclusion that the widespread rejection of the Republican Party included, especially among Latinos and immigrant citizens, concerns about the anti-immigrant policies embraced by many in the party.

But as immigration advocates gear up for another round in the immigration debate, they would do well to follow the example of their restrictionist counterparts who are framing their message not in terms of political parties, ethnicities, or status as “New Americans” but in terms of what’s good for the economy and all workers, not just immigrants. And in their call for legalization of 11 million immigrants living and working illegally in the country, supporters of liberal reform shouldn’t shy away from injecting values into the debate.

The economic bottom line of immigration reform can’t be ignored, but reform advocates should also be talking about what’s fair and just. Values played a major role in the Obama victory, and they also belong in the immigration debate.

See TransBorder Profiles:

NumbersUSA

Center for Immigration Studies

Immigration Reform Caucus

Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus

Immigration Law Reform Institute

Anti-Immigration Groups React to Obama Victory - Part One

While pro-immigration groups are hailing the Obama victory and the Latino turnout as a victory for liberal immigration reform, immigration restrictionists are reshaping their messaging for the Obama era. Given how successfully the restrictionist institutes in Washington have tweaked their anti-immigration message in the Bush era to reflect new citizen concerns about national security and the "rule of law," it would behoove immigrant advocates and other supporters of liberal immigration policies to pay more attention to what the leading restrictionists are now saying.

Post-Election Reaction of the Center for Immigration Studies

Not as close to either grassroots restrictionism or Capitol Hill as his colleagues at FAIR and NumbersUSA, Mark Krikorian, director of the restrictionist think tank Center for Immigration Studies reacted bitterly to Obama’s election while pointing to the restrictionist victories in Arizona as cause for hope. “Even if The One's minions gut immigration enforcement, it's still alive at the state level,” wrote Krikorian in his blog, “Arizona voters rejected the mendacious attempt by the business community to gut the state's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law. But unlike his counterparts at the other DC restrictionist institutes, Krikorian acknowledged that the anti-immigration forces may have a messaging problem. Noting that there is too much “bile” in the restrictionist movement, CIS’s president, author of the The New Case Against Immigration Both Legal and Illegal, observed in a post-election analysis that “too much of even the legitimate, non-bilious concern of immigration is based on the idea that today’s immigrants are somehow inferior to your grandma from Sciliy or your grampa from Lithuania.” Moving forward toward legislation restricting immigration, Krikorian recommends that restrictionists adopt a new framing of the issue. Rather than demonizing immigrants, as many restrictionists do to build their movement, Krikorian advocates a more cerebral, conceptual approach to immigration policy reform: “This is why I think there's political utility (as well as substantive truth) to the central point of my book: Today's immigrants are very similar to those of the past, but we have changed, our society so profoundly different because of modernization that mass immigration of any kind is no longer appropriate. This removes the onus from the foreigners and also allows us to place illegal immigration into a larger context rather than just gripe about lawbreaking (as bad as that is).” “A pro-immigrant policy of low immigration” is what Krikorian recommends as the new framing for restrictionists. Recognizing that many Latinos support a liberal immigration policy that supports more immigration, the CIS president observes that his framing probably won’t “attract most immigrants, or most Hispanics, or most Hispanic immigrants, but it will attract some and cause others to be less intense in their support for the other side and, perhaps most importantly, reassure native-born voters that their concerns about immigration don’t make them bad people.”

See TransBorder Profiles:

NumbersUSA

Center for Immigration Studies

Immigration Reform Caucus

Immigration Reform Law Institute

Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus

FAIR's Many Faces

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has founded or has been a founding partner in an array of national coalitions, state or local restrictionist groups, or national groups that have achieved independent identities.

Critics like the Center for New Community calls many of these affiliated organizations “front groups” while FAIR terms them affiliates.

One recent example of a coalition in which FAIR played a leading role is the anti-immigration environmental coalition which calls itself America’s Leadership Team for Long Range population-Immigration-Resource Planning. Other members include NumbersUSA, Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), and Social Contract. This coalition placed ads in the New York Times and The Nation that purported to show the direct link between immigration and environmental destruction and urban sprawl.

Other similar coalitions include such groups as Coalition for a Secure Drivers License, 9-11 Families for a Secure America, United to Secure America Coalition, and Coalition for the Future American Worker. FAIR also played a role in sparking the creation of State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a Pennsylvania-based grouping of state legislators vehemently opposed to the “invasion” of illegal immigrants. This group promotes the anti-immigration legislative initiatives shaped by FAIR’s Immigration Reform Legal Institute.

While based in Washington, FAIR has a national reach. Whether it’s a campaign to introduce an anti-immigration law at the state level or a local effort to crack down on illegal immigrants, it’s likely that FAIR is involved at some level – ranging from providing financial and logistical support to assisting in the drafting of bills and in filing court cases. With funding and logistical support, FAIR has sparked the creation of numerous grassroots organizations. In its 2006 annual report, FAIR provides the example of MFIRE as a typical local effort supported by FAIR. MFIRE, says FAIR, is a “grassroots group FAIR helped launch in Mississippi collected thousands of signatures throughout the state on a petition which calls the Mississippi legislature to adopt state legislation that will stop benefits to illegal aliens.”

Similarly,”IFIRE, a grassroots immigration reform group FAIR helped launch in Indiana made provided several legislators in the state the model legislation produced by IRLI.” Other local groups launched with FAIR’s support include Protect Arizona Now, Texans for FAIR Immigration, Mayors and County Executives for Immigration Reform, and Citizens of Dade United. Through its paid and volunteer field staff, FAIR plays a key role in organizing local efforts to pass anti-immigration laws at the local and state levels. It sponsors anti-immigration conferences, such as the Impacts of Illegal Immigration on State and Local Governments conference in March 2006 in Kansas City, Missouri. The same year it sponsored the Southern Regional Immigration Reform Summit in Nashville, Tennessee. FAIR says it “maintains three full-time field coordinators who blanket the entire nation, supporting and educating with activists, incubating new local organizations and working with them to address issue as they arise in their communities and states.” The Georgia legislature approved a comprehensive set of state laws aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from settling and working in that state. During the effort to enact this law, FAIR field and legislative staff worked closely with key members of the legislature to craft effective policies, and with local immigration reform activist groups to generate public support and to blunt organized efforts by the pro-illegal alien lobby to derail the effort.” “By the end of 2006 FAIR had established volunteer state coordinators in nearly every state. These on-the-ground eyes and ears tracked local developments, helping FAIR’s field staff allocate their time and budgets as effectively as possible. The state coordinators have also afforded FAIR the ability to reach key activists in every corner of the country whenever local immigration issues arise,” boasts FAIR.

FAIR's Family Tree

The Federation for American Immigration Reform has its own family tree.

The country's oldest restrictionist institute has created two major spinoffs that pursue its restrictionist agenda on the legislative and legal fronts.

The FAIR Congressional Task Force is a 501(c)4 organization that desribes itself as a "non-profit, public interest organization whose purpose is to serve the public welfare by developing and promoting immigration policies which are consistent with the economic, social and demographic interest of the United States; to restrict illegal immigration to the United States; and to limit legal admissions to reasonable levels.” FAIR's Congressional Task Force is the annual sponsor of the "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" campaign to bring restrictionist pressure on congressional representatives and staff.

Another FAIR family member is the Immigration Reform Law Institute. IRLI says it is “America's only public interest law organization working exclusively to protect the legal rights, privileges, and property of U.S. citizens and their communities from injuries and damages caused by unlawful immigration.”

It describes itself as “a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to controlling illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration to levels consistent with the national interest of the United States.” In other words, FAIR’s ILRI works not just against illegal immigration but also against most instances of legal immigration.

Typical of well-funded, well-established right-wing policy institutes, IRLI benefits from clear messaging. Central to its anti-immigrant messaging is its focus on U.S. citizens and its claim to be defending the “rule of law.” The “rule of law” framework for its activities routinely appears in statements by its principals and is regularly echoed by the state and local governments that work with the institute to design anti-immigrant laws.

On its homepage, ILRI warns: “The injuries caused by illegal aliens in your community have become a growing crisis in communities nationwide.” Another FAIR offshoot is the Center for Immigration Studies, which was established in 1985 as an anti-immigration think tank to complement the grassroots and policy work of FAIR. CIS says it is dedicated “to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest.” Like FAIR and its affiliates, CIS has counted on funding from a funding umbrella, U.S. Inc, created by John Tanton for its financial support. Mark Krikorian, CIS executive director, formerly worked as a FAIR staff member.

FAIR Creates Dysfunctional "Choose Black America"

As part of its reaction to the mobilization of immigrants in the spring of 2006, the Federation for American Immigration Reform created a couple of new front groups aimed to divert media attention from the pro-immigration rallies. After a major spurt of publicity and organizing, the two groups – You Don’t Speak for Me and Choose Black America – have become inactive. Frank Morris, identified by FAIR spokesperson Bob Dane as the director of Choose Black America, says that the group is “not functional” and he is not the executive director. Morris is one of the eleven original members of Choose Black America, and he is a member of FAIR’s advisory board. At the kickoff press conference, Morris was identified as CBA’s chairperson. Morris is an educator and former deal of graduate studies at Morgan State University. In its 2006 annual report, FAIR, the nation’s most influential anti-immigration organization, described the origins of Choose Black America:

“While American Hispanics grew increasingly concerned about the widespread portrayal of amnesty for illegal aliens as a ‘Hispanic issue,’ American blacks were also growing alarmed at the impact that mass immigration and unchecked illegal immigration were having on their own communities and the failure of the recognized black leadership in American to advocate on behalf of their interests. Increasingly, black citizens were seeking representation in the national immigration debate and they, too, turned to FAIR for assistance."

Two weeks after it launched You Don’t Speak for Me, a self-described American Hispanic coalition, FAIR launched Choose Black America, which FAIR described as a “coalition of leading black academics, clerics, community activists and others, who came together to represent the unique concerns that their communities have in the immigration debate.” No African American organizations are represented in this “coalition.” According to FAIR, “CBA spokespeople quickly established themselves as a countervailing voice the black political leadership’s support for an illegal alien amnesty and increases in immigration.” Under FAIR’s guidance, Choose Black America did initially attract media attention, but it soon fell into disarray. FAIR organized a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington in mid-May 2006, paying for the travel and expenses of CBA’s members. But as it quickly became evident, CBA was not so much a coalition but a front-group assembled by FAIR from African Americans who had expressed concern about the impact of immigration on the black community. Although CBA’s and FAIR’s Morris said that CBA is not a project of FAIR and raises its own funds, the CBA website, when it was functioning, noted in small print that CBA was a “Project of FAIR.” What’s more, CBA lists Bob Dane as its media contact. Calling the number for Dane, you reach the offices of FAIR. FAIR spokesman Ira Mehlman told a reporter that FAIR helped organize Choose Black America after it got calls from African-Americans who were concerned about how illegal immigration was affecting them. "I don't think FAIR did it to gain legitimacy,” Mehlman said, responding to charges that FAIR was attempting to appear more racially diverse, “I think FAIR is a legitimate organization whose viewpoints represent the viewpoints of a substantial number of Americans. But several groups have a bigger stake in this issue." According to an investigative article by the Southern Poverty Law Center, several of the founding members of CBA said they didn’t know the other member of the coalition before they came to the DC press conference that launched the “coalition.” One of the founders, James Clingman, a Cincinnati columnist and businessman, told SPLC: "Choose Black America was just the banner under which we had a press conference…There are people involved [in CBA] who I am just diametrically opposed to, like [far-right Christian evangelical] Jesse Lee Peterson and those other neo-conservative, black so-called leaders." Noted African American writer Earl Ofari Hutchinson told SPLC: "The African Americans they brought there were just to put a black face on their position. These blacks had no other further use. [FAIR] got what they wanted, so why would they have meetings [of the CBA]? Why would they create an organization? These individuals are so loosely affiliated, what kind of organization are you going to form out of that?" Hutchinson declined an offer by FAIR to fly him to Washington to join the May 2006 press conference. Choose a Name CBA’s website says that "mass illegal immigration has been the single greatest impediment to black advancement in this country over the past 25 years." and their mission is simply "defending our country, our rights, our families, our jobs. Blacks, in particular, have lost economic opportunities, seen their kids schools flooded with non-English speaking students, and felt the socio-economic damage of illegal immigration more acutely than any other group."

According to founder and leading CBA spokesperson Ted Hayes, "We choose the title of ‘Choose Black America’ not as a Black racial-racist, separatist group, or even having a Black Nationalist agenda, but rather as a counter point to the racist strategies of the proponents of illegal immigration and amnesty, such as La Razs, Mecha, LULAC, MALDEF and the other so-called Latino, Hispanic, Chicano, Mechistas , et al. It is these groups that have labeled any American, especially Whites who resist their efforts of illegal invasion of our nation as racist pigs, nazis, fascist, hate mongering Europeans, et al.”

According to SourceWatch, Lou Dobbs featured Choose Black America on his Oct. 24, 2006 Broken Borders show on CNN. During the show, CNN showed film of a CBA protest in Chicago that targeted a Mexican women who sought refuge from immigration authorities for herself and her child in a neighborhood church.

After their launch in May 2006, both Choose Black America and You Don’t Speak for Me organized events that made the case the Latinos and African Americans were concerned about their civil rights. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the two groups sponsored a “Civil Rights March and Rally in Los Angeles, and a CBA subsidiary called Crispus Attucks Brigade distributed a flier demading “protection of Black US Citizens From Ethnic Cleansing By Latinos, Europeans, Asians, Africans, & Others Invading and Illegally Colonizing Our Country.” During the event, CBA leader Ted Hayes shared the stage with YDSFM leader Al Rodriguez. Such language is not found on FAIR’s website or in its own publications, but neither has it publicly distanced itself from such anti-immigrant organizing.

Many Faces of FAIR

The oldest and largest anti-immigration organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, formed in 1979 by John Tanton, has time and again formed affiliate groups to expand the anti-immigration constituency and attract new media attention to its cause.

These affiliates – criticized as “front groups” by such pro-immigration organizations as the Center for New Community – have included such groups as Coalition for a Secure Drivers License, 9-11 Families for a Secure America, United to Secure America Coalition, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, and Coalition for the Future American Worker.

Two of the more recent FAIR-sponsored groups are You Don’t Speak for Me and Choose Black America.

In its 2006 annual report, FAIR described the creation of these two ethnic/racial groups:

“These two affiliate groups that FAIR helped form in 2006 will provide important voices in the immigration debate as it continues in the years to come. These organizations also provide strong evidence to refute the racially and ethnically charged accusations made by the open immigration lobby and provide evidence that the fight for immigration reform is supported by a not only the vast majority of Americans, but also encompasses a broad and diverse cross-section of our population.”

The immigration debate continues as the immigration crackdown intensifies. But now that the issue is no longer prominent in the political debate or in Congress, the front groups established by FAIR in May 2006 have fallen silent. But it’s likely that as soon as the issue is raised by the new Congress and administration, these FAIR affiliates will once again start issuing media releases and organizing anti-immigration protests to attract media attention. You Don’t Speak for Me On May 1, 2006, the day millions of illegal immigrants and their supporters took to the streets to call for legalization, FAIR launched a new affiliate, You Don’t Speak for Me. As FAIR explained: “In the early months of 2006, as the illegal alien rights demonstrations spread across the nation, FAIR was increasingly approached by American Hispanics, who like most Americans were offended by what they saw in the streets, seeking some avenue to express their own opposition to the demands and tactics of the illegal alien rights lobby. Even more than other Americans, these Hispanic citizens felt the need to assert that the people in the streets did not speak for them.” YDSFM claims to be a “coalition of Americans of Hispanic descent who believe that this nation must enforce its immigration laws in order to protect the security and interest of all citizens.” It says it is “a group of concerned Americans of Hispanic/Latino heritage, some first or second generation, others recent legal immigrants, who believe illegal immigration harms America and a guest worker amnesty will do the same.” Although the organization does list a number of individuals who are members, including a few who are also associated with FAIR, it does not mention any other Hispanic organizations that are part of this “coalition.”

To establish the coalition, FAIR drew from its own associates. YDSFM’s chairman is Al Rodriquez, a retired army colonel is a member of FAIR’s advisory board. Another FAIR advisor Peter Nunez also identifies with YDSFM. According to the Anti-Defamation League, “In March 2008, FAIR blended the two organizations even more by announcing that Rosanna Pulido, Illinois YDSFM spokeswoman and former state director of the Illinois Minuteman Project, had become a Field Representative for FAIR.”

The last activity listed on its website was a rally in Newark, NJ featuring anti-immigration leader Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), founder of the Immigration Reform Caucus. "All across the country, local officials have adopted policies that bar police from inquiring or acting on information about immigration status and innocent people are paying for this sort of political pandering with their lives," charged Al Rodriguez at the rally protesting sanctuary policies and police practices that did not check the immigration status of criminals.

At an anti-immigrant rally in Pennsylvania, YDSFM’s Vice Chairman Carmen Morales, said that she “can’t believe we’re still fighting the invasion.” Speaking on behalf of YDSFM, Morales explained that “we, do not, in any way or form, agree with the Mexican invasion…We are facing a political invasion from the country of Mexico, who [sic] claims that the entire Southwestern US belongs to Mexico, and they want to take it back without firing a shot, but by simply getting political clout in Washington.” YDSFM echoes the fear-mongering rhetoric favored by other factions of the anti-immigrant movement. In an ad placed in Roll Call and paid for by FAIR, it encouraged other Latinos to fight back against the illegal “invasion”: “Don’t let illegal aliens be rewarded for breaking our laws. America is a great country and it deserves to be respected. Let’s fight this invasion together today. Tomorrow may be too late.” Two months after the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill was defeated, YDSFM’s website became inactive, as has the organization. On its website, YDSFME gives no information about funding or sponsorship. However, the group lists Ira Mehlman as its contact person. Mehlman is the press director of FAIR.

(Next post: Analysis about FAIR’s “Choose Black America” – whatever that means!) See the TransBorder Profiles: NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies, Immigration Reform Caucus, and others.

What Anti-Immigration Forces Want

Given the proven success of the Center for Immigration Studies and other restrictionist groups in advancing their policy goals over the past several years, it’s worth laying out CIS director Mark Krikorian’s recommendations to stem both illegal and legal immigration. As part of his self-identified “attrition through enforcement” strategy for unauthorized immigrations, Krikorian recommends seven policy initiatives: * End illegal aliens’ access to jobs. * Secure identification. * Ensure that the IRS cooperates with immigration enforcement. * Increase cooperation between federal immigration authorities and state and local authorities. * Reduce visa overstays. * Double deportation of ordinary, noncriminal aliens. * Pass state and local laws to discourage illegal settlement. With all of these recommendations being implemented to some degree, Krikorian argues that it is now time to tackle the legal side of “mass immigration.” The CIS executive director says that rather than shaving off the current annual immigration of nearly one million foreigners, the government should practice a type of “zero-based budgeting” whereby there is a defensible rationale for allowing entry to each new immigrant. As such, he calls for a major overhaul of family-based immigration, skills-based immigration, and humanitarian immigration.

Immigration Advocates on the Defense

After having suffered major setbacks at the hands of restrictionists, immigration advocates are attempting to regroup and plot new strategies to advance liberal immigration reform in the next administration. America’s Voice and National Council of La Raza, as well as some unions, are attempting to discredit the restrictionist institutes by citing their connections with nativist and white supremacist groups and individuals, including John Tanton, considered the godfather of restrictionism.

Many immigration advocates call FAIR a “hate group,” following the lead of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As part of its “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign, National Council of La Raza is calling the directors of FAIR and NumbersUSA – Dan Stein and Roy Beck – “suspect spokespeople,” grouping them with the leaders of the Minuteman movement. While Senator Obama and other Democratic Party leaders variously promise that they will push comprehensive immigration reform within the first year or first term of the new administration, the prospects for a liberal immigration reform that would include legalization are not auspicious. With an economy in a tailspin, restrictionist attempts to link an immigration crackdown with a populist economic message have more traction. And even those who reject the anti-immigrant campaign are less likely to stand behind a pro-immigration agenda or protest immigration raids when their own economic future is in jeopardy. Meanwhile, the divisions within the pro-immigrant camp over such issues as border security, temporary worker programs, and the enforcement campaign of the Department of Homeland Security are still present. While the anti-immigration forces are united around “attrition through enforcement” and the government’s ambitious “border security initiative,” immigration advocates are still split, dispirited, and worn down by the unrelenting crackdown.

Even the likely change of political parties in the White House will not likely substantially change the political equation, as more Democrats in Congress have adopted the “rule of law” and “border security” policy frameworks of the restrictionists.

Immigration Strategies

Immigration restrictionists left the mid-2007 immigration showdown in triumphant. But in the wake of their victory in blocking immigration reform, the leading restrictionist voices haven’t been triumphalist. Instead of sitting back, they have kept hammering. Strengthened by a large jump in memberships and new media attention, they kept pushing their anti-immigration agenda. When Democrats attempted to slip through a small immigration reform bill called the Dream Act, they again mobilized their legions of anti-immigration stalwarts around the country. And when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) attempted to respond to agribusiness pressure for an agricultural guestworker program in late 2007, the restrictiontist mobilized again, persuading the bill sponsors to drop the proposed Ag Jobs bill. Already the restrictionists are anticipating that some in Congress may lose its enthusiasm for “attrition through enforcement” as its emotional and financial toll adds up.

And they are set to oppose any new initiative by the new administration to legalize unauthorized immigrations. “The stepped-up enforcement of the past year may peel off some enforcement-first voters and congressmen who are willing to be persuaded that the enforcement is now happening, and is adequate, to move ahead with the amnesty,” observed Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which promotes enforcement-first policies. The Bush White House, he added, “sees this enforcement push as building credibility for the next administration to have an amnesty.” Restrictionists are determined to defend their gains against any attempt to reintroduce legalization legislation or to rein in the ongoing crackdown on immigrants. At the same time, the restrictionists are reaching out to new constituencies and expanding their policy agenda to include a new emphasis on slashing legal immigration. Krikoiran’s new book, The Case Against Immigration – Both Legal and Illegal, is a timely reminder that the restrictionists have a grand agenda that extends far beyond the immigrant crackdown. While the book proposes the same type of immigration reform supported by the three DC-based institutes, it does make a startling new case against immigrants. In a recent interview with National Review online, CIS’ Krikorian said, “It’s a mistake to think of legal and illegal immigration as distinct phenomena. They come from the same places through the same means, often in the same families and even the same people (shifting back and forth between being legal and illegal), and have the same impact on society.” Krikorian does, however, say the illegal immigrants, unlike legal immigrants, “remain morally culpable for their misdeeds.”

Republicans Echo Immigration Restrictionists

Tom Barry The draft Republican Party platform is a restictionist dream come true. Rather than following the less severe lead of its presidential nominee, the party platform committee took its ideological lead from the party’s social conservatives and nationalist right. Four years ago, immigration was one of the shortest sections of the platform. In a sign of the new-found strength of the restrictionists, the immigration section is one of the longest sections of the 2008 platform. The 2004 platform called for immigration reform to make immigration “legal, safe, orderly and humane.” Mirroring the Democrats, the party called for an expanded guestworker program and a path for illegal immigrants "to come out of the shadows'' and apply for citizenship. Reflecting the post-9/11 positioning of immigration enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security, the party platform situates immigration policy within the national security plank of its strident 2008 platform. Echoing the law-and-enforcement rhetoric of the immigration restrictionists, the platform also places the “rule-of-law” position against illegal immigrations front and center. “In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people,” states the platform. As it makes clear further on, the Republican Party is not only against having immigrants enter the country without authorization, it is against them “remain[ing]” here. Adopting the language of the restrictionists, the platform committee declared: “We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal immigration.”

In another nod to the restrictionists and to the current crackdown, the party states: “Experience shows that enforcement of existing laws is effective in reducing and reversing illegal immigration.” And the party wants all to join in: “It means requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens.” Among the policies of sanctuary cities condemned by the party are “in-state tuition for illegal immigrants” and “other public benefits.” It does not explain how these policies threaten the lives of U.S. citizens. The party (as do the Democrats) endorses the EVerify employee verification system, stating that “our commitment to the rule of law means smarter enforcement at the workplace, against illegal workers and lawbreaking employers alike, along with those who practice identity theft and traffic in fraudulent documents.” Multiethic is okay, but not multicultural. “In our multiethnic nation, everyone — immigrants and native-born alike — must embrace our core values of liberty, equality, meritocracy, and respect for human dignity and the rights of women,” declares the party. Embracing the “official English” position of language restrictionist groups linked to the immigration restrictionists, the party says that English should be “the official language in our nation.” It calls English “a unifying cultural force” and an “important part of cultural integration.”

Unlike the party’s 2000 and 2004 platforms, which made multiple mentions ( more than 250 times in 2004, and more than 40 times in 2000) of the party’s standard bearer George W. Bush, there is only one mention (in the preamble) of John McCain. The legislative advocacy arm of the Family Research Council praised the platform as the most "conservative, pro-life and pro-family platform in Republican party history." Donald Devine of the American Conservative Union said, "It's certainly a vast improvement over the 2004 document.'' Reflecting on the history of the party’s nominee accepting the party’s platform, Phyllis Schafly of the right-wing Eagle Forum, said, “When we didn't do what Bob Dole wanted he just went out and said he wasn't going to pay attention to it anyway. And we know what happened to Bob Dole.'' Tom Barry directs the TransBorder Project of the Americas Policy Program and the Center for International Policy.

Restricting Language and Immigration

Immigration restrictionism and English-only sentiments are closely related, both organizationally and ideologically. ProEnglish shares a suite of offices with NumbersUSA and is linked to the Federation for American Immigration Reform through common funding and its founder. ProEnglish explicitly links language restriction, immigration restriction, cultural supremacy, and national unity issues. See complete profile:http://sites.google.com/site/transborderproject/transborder-profiles-1/transborder-profile---proenglish Given how closely the policy agenda of the immigration restrictionists in Congress reflect the demands of restrictionist policy institutes in Washington, it's no surprise that the restrictionist caucuses in the House and the Senate have close relations with groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA. Cong. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), who took over the chairmanship of the House Immigration Reform Caucus from Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) in February 2007, is a good case in point. Bilbray serves as co-chair of FAIR's National Advisory Board. See complete profile:http://sites.google.com/site/transborderproject/transborder-profiles-1/transborder-profile---immigration-reform-caucus

Finding America's Voice

Tom Barry, August 25, 2008

At a time when immigration restrictionists have succeeded in reframing the immigration debate, immigration advocates can count on a new organization.

America’s Voice, headed by veteran immigration-policy advocate Frank Sharry, is the executive director of this new organization that aims to form a communications and media “war room” to reverse the direction of the immigration policy debate.

Sharry, who is perhaps the most respected voice (and certainly the most frequently quoted) from the nongovernmental community, resigned from the National Immigration Forum to lead America’s Voice. Its slogan is: “The Power to Win Common Sense Immigration Reform.”

America’s Voice aims to counter the grassroots and political success of the restrictionists with “an unprecedented voter mobilization campaign targeting immigrant voters” and “a campaign-style communications and rapid-response war room.”

If it is to resonate beyond the small immigrant-rights community, America’s Voice will need to craft a message that departs from the traditional language of the pro-immigration community, which its critics, with some justification, describe as an “open borders lobby.”

Thus far, it is attempting to bridge the messaging gap with ts call for “smart” and “tough” immigration reform, and with its assertion that “America can be both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws” – which is now candidate Obama’s message, too.

Formed in March 2008, Sharry has his work cut out for him. He promises to lead a campaign “dedicated to winning broad immigration reform in the first term of the next president” – something that Obama and the draft Democratic Platform also promise but which seems exceedingly optimistic.

Despite election promises, it is hard to imagine that either Republican or Democratic candidate will as president spend what little political capital he will have on this highly contentious issue. More likely, as Bush has done, there will be more rhetoric for comprehensive reform than any real action.

Sharry says that America’s Voice will be working closely with the We are America Alliance, another immigrant advocacy organization, "to mobilize a million new voters in 13 states running in the lead up to November 4th. We believe that the combination of an historic turnout of immigrant voters for whom immigration reform is a defining issue and the failure of illegal immigration as a wedge issue will help create more political space for reform.”

Back in March, Sharry predicted that “candidates will attempt to use illegal immigration as a wedge issue like never before.” However, as Democratic Party candidates increasingly adopt – or fail to oppose – the administration’s “enforcement only” campaign, there may not be much of a wedge to drive between candidates. What’s more, it’s unlikely that many voters would make a decision in the presidential campaign on immigration issues, given that McCain, for all of his tough talk lately, is known as McAmnesty among the restrictionists.

But Sharry is one of the most well-informed actors in the immigration debate, and it’s likely that he and America’s Online will continue to be opinion leaders on immigration. For more on Sharry and the likely approach of America’s Voice, see a fascinating interview with him posted on Immigration Daily.

Sharry said:

“So the Republicans are committing a mistake of historic proportions, and the Democrats are divided over whether to hide behind their desks or to play offense. And so the Democrats could blow this if they continue to spout a Republican Lite line. They actually are going to have to unite in favor of a solution, stick their chins out, stick their necks out, and win the argument. And if they don't, we won't have reform, and I suspect it will hurt Democrats not only with Latino immigrant voters but with swing voters as well.”

Let’s hope that Sharry and America’s Voice can really identify an authentic progressive voice of America on this divisive issue, and not just echo the now badly marginalized voice of liberal immigration advocates.

America's Voice

1050 17th Street, NW, Suite 490

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 463-8602

"Attrition Through Enforcement" Agenda

Anti-immigration groups like NumbersUSA are propagating "attrition through enforcement" as the sensible, practical "middle ground" or "third way" in immigration reform.

Rather than calling for a costly and morally repugnant mass deportation of millions of immigrants, the restrictionists have united behind a strategy aimed at wearing down the will of immigrants to live and work in the United States. illegal alien crisis – give illegal aliens amnesty or round them up and deport them.”

NumbersUSA calls Attrition Through Enforcement “the most effective and efficient solution.” It is not a quick final solution, but one that NumbersUSA believes will work over the medium term. “it took 20 years to create an illegal population of more than 12 million, and it may take at least ten years to substantially reduce that number,” says NumbersUSA.

According to NumbersUSA, the goal of the attrition through enforcement strategy “is to make it extremely difficult for unauthorized persons to live and work in the United States. There is no need for taxpayers to watch the government spend billions of their dollars to round up and deport illegal aliens; they will buy their own bus or plane tickets back home if they can no longer earn a living here.”

By increasing the pressure on immigrants through employer verification and immigration enforcement by all law enforcement agencies, local and national, the SAVE Act, according to Beck, is the “middle-ground solution.” It’s what “most Americans want” since the bill offers an option that involves neither “massive legalizations” nor “massive round-ups.” (See: Save Us from the SAVE Act)

“The goal is to make it extremely difficult for unauthorized persons to live and work in the United States,” explains NumbersUSA. “There is no need for taxpayers to watch the government spend billions of their dollars to round up and deport illegal aliens; they will buy their own bus or plane tickets back home if they can no longer earn a living here.”

For NumbersUSA, immigration policy is just an easy math problem. With lots of subtraction (“removals” by Homeland Security and self-deportions), no addition (neither legal nor illegal), and the inevitable division (parents taken away from children and spouses), the problem will be solved.

But it is a solution with an awfully large remainder: divided communities, broken families, multibillion dollar crackdown budgets, overflowing detention centers, and a modern America that has turned away from its own heritage and toward one shaped by the hate and resentment of immigrants.

(See TransBorder Profile of NumbersUSA)