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)

Restrictionist Take on Elections

NumbersUSA, founded in 1997, is one of a trinity of closely related policy organizations dedicated to restrict immigration flows. It describes itself as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy organization that favors an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.”

The other two major restrictionist organizations based in Washington, DC area are the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

NumbersUSA was the lead organization is mobilizing grassroots opposition to the proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill that the Senate was considering in June 2007. Its organizing efforts proved a tremendous boost to its membership base. It now boasts that it counts on 640,000 members with an average of 1,300 members in every congressional district.

Commenting on the Obama and McCain candidacies, Beck told the Los Angeles Times, "These two guys were pretty much at the bottom of all the candidates. They're the worst, the bottom of the barrel, that ended up winning."

“That's the reality we're dealing with: a choice we don't consider a choice," said Beck. "The chances of influencing one of these two guys to take a pro-worker, pro-environment position are very low.” However, he said that "bringing public pressure to bear to not dismantle enforcement and improve border security has some chance of success."

NumbersUSA tracks the immigration positions of congressional candidates and members, as well as presidential contenders. It sponsors the Americans for Better Immigration website (http://www.betterimmigration.com/) that grades candidates and notes the ones that are “True Immigration Reform Candidates.” While not endorsing candidates, NumbersUSA does promote the reelection of the members of the Immigration Reform Caucus.

Americans for Better Immigration “believes the problem with immigration today is not the individual immigrant but the numbers. ‘Better’ immigration is lower immigration.” While Beck, like other restrictionist leaders, is not pleased with either presidential candidate, he says NumbersUSA is focusing on building local opposition to liberal immigration reform and support for such restrictionist bills as the SAVE Act.

In Beck’s view, a Democratic Congress "doesn't necessarily mean bad things for us." He points out that some freshman Democrats who beat Republican incumbents in 2006 are tough on illegal immigration because "they need a way to show people that they're different from the party leadership." "We've spent the last seven years separating the Republican back bench from the party leadership with tremendous success," Beck told the Los Angeles Times, adding that his sights are now on the Democrats. "We'll continue to push that line hard."

Photo: Roy Beck, NumbersUSA

Republican Caucus Opposes Immigration

The U.S. House of Representatives has its restrictionist Immigration Reform Caucus. It recently created Senate counterpart is the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. Formed in March 2008, the new restrictionist caucus doesn’t include senators from states along the southwestern border with Mexico or other states with large immigrant populations. Instead, all but one of its members represent southern states with relatively small numbers of immigrants but with large anti-immigrant constituencies. The lone exception is Sen. Inofe, who represents Oklahoma. All members are Republicans. The Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus has adopted the "attrition through enforcement" strategy advocated by restrictionionist groups such as Numbers USA, Center for Immigration Studies, and Federation for American Immigration Reform. Copying the language found on NumbersUSA website, the caucus says: “The principal mission of the Caucus is to promote a true, achievable alternative: attrition through enforcement. Living illegally in the United States will become more difficult and less satisfying over time when the government – at ALL LEVELS – enforces all of the laws already on the books.” See TransBorder Profile: Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus

Looking to the Future, Halliburton On Call for Immigration Crackdown

Halliburton construction and engineering subsidiary KBR is also benefiting from the escalating crackdown on immigrants. ICE has awarded KBR an “indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity” contingency contract to support ICE in the event of an immigration emergency. Halliburton says that the $385-million contract provides for “establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the United States, or to support the rapid development of new programs.” The 2006 five-year contract represents the continuation of a 2000-2005 contract. According to Halliburton, under the terms of the contract the company, the company may also provide “migrant detention support” to other unnamed U.S.-government organizations “in the event of an immigration emergency.” In addition, Halliburton may be asked to develop a plan to react to a national emergency. “We are especially gratified to be awarded this contract because it builds on our extremely strong track record in the arena of emergency operations support,” said KBR vice president Bruce Stanski, “We look forward to continuing the good work we have been doing to support our customer whenever and wherever we are needed.” DHS awarded the contract to Halliburton despite the controversy of Halliburton’s unsubstantiated billing for its Iraq reconstruction contracts. The company also came under public and congressional scrutiny because of accusations that VP Dick Cheney helped Halliburton obtain the Iraq contracts. Cheney was Halliburton’s president before being elected vice president.

Business of Outsourcing Immigrants

Immigrants are good for business and economic growth say immigration advocates and immigrant rights activists. Immigrants take jobs away from citizens and keep wages low contend immigration restrictionists. Macroeconomic studies tend to support the claims of immigration proponents, although restrictionists rightly can point to certain economic sectors to support their arguments against immigration. But there’s one industrial sector that depends both on immigrants and tough immigration enforcement. That’s the private prison industry, which has been experiencing record profits for the last few years. The immigration crackdown is also considered an economic development opportunity for an increasing number of local governments that are building new jails or expanding old ones to make room for arrested immigrants. In many cases, private prison firms team up with county and state governments to attract business from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Immigrants are the fastest growing sector of the federal detainees and prisoners, and there’s hundreds of millions of dollars to be made by enterprising business and governments. The private prison industry is now well established and is spreading throughout the world. Immigrants were the industry’s first prisoners, and the upsurge in immigrant detention during the Bush administration has reversed a downturn in industry profits at the turn of the century. It all started in 1983 as a result of a policy environment created by the Reagan administration that favored all variants of free-market policies, including privatization of government services such as health care, foreign aid, and the penal system. Two prison corporations – Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group – dominate the immigration detention business. Other key private prison firms that are profiting from the surge in immigrant detention are Cornell Cos. and the Management and Training Corp. Rep. Tom Tancredo spoke earlier this year in favor of the expansion of the GEO Processing Center in in Aurora, Colorado. "Does anyone think we don't have 1,100 illegal aliens in the area?” he said, “I don't think that there's much to worry about. If there are 1,500 beds available I guarantee you they will be used." GEO was seeking the county government’s permission to expand its 400-bed ICE detention center in Aurora to make room for another 1,100 detainees. Immigrant-rights advocates and opponents of private prisons spoke out against the expansion, which the county eventually approved.