Frank Sharry and America's Voice
Frank Sharry runs the pro-massive/illegal immigration group America's Voice and previously was the executive director of the National Immigration Forum.
Any posts involving America's Voice in general are on this page.
How the Senate amnesty bill's border commission will be bogus (path to citizenship, Americas Voice) - 01/28/13
The Gang of Eight Senate amnesty plan includes a "commission" that would decide when the border is secure. After they decide it's secure, the former illegal aliens covered by amnesty would be put on the path to citizenship.
And - showing how little trust you can put in any amnesty supporter - key players are working to undermine the commission and make it a rubberstamp.
Democrats, far-left praise Marco Rubio's immigration moves (NCLR; Sharry; IPC; Obama and Gutierrez spox) - 01/20/13
In a January 18, 2013 press release, Marco Rubio lists some of the supposed conservatives who support his immigration amnesty plan ( peekURL.com/zycdzeU ).
To be balanced, here are some positive mentions of his plan (or at least support for his actions on comprehensive immigration reform) from those Rubio should be opposing on immigration: the Democrats and the far-left.
Last month, Adam Serwer (now of Mother Jones) mightily spun Obama's mini-amnesty for up to 300,000 illegal aliens in a guest post on Greg Sargent's blog in the Washington Post
DHS makes Secure Communities nationwide, no opt-out (so far). Lofgren, ACLU, NAKASEC, FIRM, CHIRLA, ICIRR, MIRA, Frank Sharry, NIF outraged. - 08/08/11
From this comes some good news for a change:
The Department of Homeland Security notified 39 governors Friday that the fingerprint-sharing program did not need their approval to operate in their states, and said it had voided agreements they had signed to authorize their states' participation, according to a copy of the letter.
Carrie Budoff Brown of Politico offers "Lamar Smith avoids hard line on immigration" . Because we're dealing with definitions of those who aren't trustworthy (such as Brown), it's difficult to tell whether Smith will be weak on immigration matters or whether he just won't support nonsensical "boob bait for Bubba" policies.
Smith's first two hearings as head of the House Judiciary Committee will be about eVerify. However:
At the same time, he downplayed the key planks in the conservative immigration agenda... He won’t say when his committee plans to tackle birthright citizenship, the policy of granting citizenship to every child born in the country. He doesn’t want to talk about whether he will pursue reducing the level of legal immigration, family migration or work visas - all at the top of the wish list for anti-illegal-immigration advocates... “That is later on in this Congress; that is not our initial focus,” Smith said. “We don’t have any specific plans now in the early months to move on these issues. The focus is on creating jobs and protecting jobs.”
In the current environment, it isn't really possible to restrict birthright citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Much groundwork would need to be done, specifically involving discrediting those groups that would oppose such a move. Few people with megaphones have shown any ability at discrediting groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. Further, restricting birthright citizenship, at least when proposed by those like Lindsey Graham, is just a political ploy.
Legal immigration is a different matter and is less prone to being emotionalized because those involved aren't physically present in the U.S. There is, however, a lot of money from those like Microsoft involved. It wouldn't be good for Smith to be weak on that, especially since the rationale the GOP appears to be using is to help with unemployment.
“If he is not willing to do it - there is a lot of public support for reducing legal immigration - he is going to find he will be pressured on that issue"... Camarota said he believes Smith is enough of a dealmaker that he might even consider a modified DREAM Act legalizing young immigrants, if it was coupled with a cut in legal immigration and stronger enforcement — although pro-immigrant advocates would be all but certain to dismiss it as a bad deal.
"People like to really vilify Lamar Smith, but he is not Tom Tancredo... He is someone who will not push legislation if he thinks it doesn’t have the wide support of the American people."
* Frank Sharry:
“He is a very disciplined politician, but he is also very ideological. He is very smart at having lots of smallish-looking measures that add up to a whole lot of harsh enforcement."
* Rep. Steve King:
"I read the Pledge to America. It wasn’t particularly moving... So, OK, they decided not to write the treatise that I would have on immigration. It wouldn’t be the first time that I worked on an agenda that wasn’t laid out for me. I can deal with that."
* Roy Beck of Numbers USA:
"We think there are a lot of issues in the Internet world that people get really excited about, and in many ways, it is a side show,” Beck said, referring specifically to cutting off benefits for illegal immigrants. “It is not as important as one thing, which is taking away the jobs. So if Lamar Smith is going to focus on keeping illegal aliens out of the jobs, that is more important than all the illegal immigration stuff put together."
Luis Gutierrez: "I have only one loyalty, and that's to the immigrant community" (+the Hispanic MLK; Sharry; Munoz; Jacoby) - 11/30/10
Arian Campo Flores of Newsweek offers a puffball article about U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez called "Keeping Obama to His Word" . Rather than calling him on his clear ethnic nationalism or his many questionable statements and actions (see his name's link), Campo-Flores concentrates on whether Gutierrez' aggressive tactics are a liability or not for getting comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty) and the anti-American DREAM Act. Campos-Flores is such an amnesty-supporting hack that he uses the phrase "law-abiding illegal immigrants".
And, in the article Gutierrez says this:
I have only one loyalty, and that's to the immigrant community.
That's, of course, not accurate. In addition to his private loyalties, Gutierrez is loyal to Puerto Rico, his ethnicity, and maybe payday lenders too. However, whether he's loyal to veterans or to other Americans who aren't Hispanic isn't clear.
In addition to letting yet another questionable Gutierrez quote go unchallenged, Campo-Flores seems to have run through his amnesty-supporting Rolodex to get quotes about the supposed U.S. Representative.
"He's as close as the Latino community has to a Martin Luther King figure," says Frank Sharry, founder of the pro-immigrant group America’s Voice. ...Cecilia Munoz, a White House point person on immigration, calls Gutierrez “an important moral voice” and says that he and the president “are on the same side of the issue." ...He "transformed what had been a narrow policy issue into a litmus-test identity issue for Hispanics, and that made the debate a whole different ball game," says Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a coalition of business groups that rely on immigrant labor. Gutierrez is "incredibly effective at what he does … [But] there's part of me that always gets a little worried about identity politics."
Another day, another misleading immigration poll. This one is from Lake Research for Frank Sharry's America's Voice. It's promoted by Kos of DailyKos at . And, one wonders what the game is: why promote misleading polls when all they do is give a false sense that something's popular when it isn't? Since many of the consumers of the poll will be on Kos' side, why is he trying to mislead them? Or, is it just that he can't figure out how the poll is misleading?
The only question we need to look at is this, which got a whopping 78% of support:
Now I'd like to read you a description of comprehensive immigration reform: Under this proposal, the federal government would strengthen border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship. Do you support or oppose Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform?
1. That question doesn't clearly tell respondents that any illegal alien who passed their background check and the rest would be able to eventually get U.S. citizenship; it's ambiguous. If they'd said "Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government... and then would be able to go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship" it might be a bit clearer, but they're still front-loading the punitive steps and hiding the pay-off for corrupt politicians and businesses at the end. Would they have asked something like, "In order to get U.S. citizenship, illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line"? Maybe they should try an A/B test; most likely the second wouldn't fare as well since they would then be front-loading something most people probably don't want.
2. As with all the other immigration polls, they don't outline the downsides of comprehensive immigration reform, some of which are listed at that link. Can anyone imagine them asking whether someone would support "reform" despite the fact that - among many other negative consequences - it would give even more power inside the U.S. to the Mexican government? Or, consider this: "Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government... and then would be able to go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship. And, all of this would occur despite the fact that it would give a pass to decades of politicians supporting, enabling, or ignoring massive illegal immigration and decades of businesses knowingly profiting from illegal activity." What percentages would Kos get for that?
Far-left wants John Morton fired over immigration quotas memo (also want little or no enforcement) - 03/31/10
Yesterday, Frank Sharry of America's Voice offered "ICE Out of Control: Time to Rein in Rogue Agency and Pass Immigration Reform" , showing once again how little use those who support comprehensive immigration reform have for immigration enforcement. One of the selling features of "reform" is increased enforcement, yet "reform" would give even more power to those like Sharry who advocate against enforcement:
Today, a group of grassroots leaders are demanding that the Obama Administration fire John Morton, the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.
Deepak Bhargava of the (Center for Community Change), a lead organizer of the immigration rally in Washington, D.C. on March 21st and a leader of FIRM (Fair Immigration Reform Movement), had this to say at today’s press conference:
"This agency has gone rogue and is operating in clear opposition to the direction President Obama has set."
What gives? It seems the stated priorities of President Obama may not be in sync with the cowboy tactics of ICE agents in the field.
Bear in mind that he said that based on a memo that ICE frantically walked back.
Sharry also states, "Look, we’re not against enforcing immigration laws" when his record and that of other "reform" supporters say otherwise.
If "immigration equality" - the ability for same-sex (gay or lesbian) couples to have the same immigration privileges as straight couples - is important to you, then the article at this link about the Reform Immigration for America group not supporting "immigration equality" should be your first and last stop for the day. They aren't on your side.
On March 21, 2010, yet another pro-illegal immigration march will be held in Washington DC, this sponsored ultimately by the far-left National Council of Churches . The next day they'll apparently be conducting a lobbying effort, sending attendees to speak to their representatives (presumably illegal aliens will take a pass on that event).
The march is associated with Ecumenical Advocacy Days, a mini-convention focusing this year on the topic of "Migration". One of the speakers will be Frank Sharry. More on EAD at advocacydays.org/about, and more on the march as it develops.
Other groups involved include:
* the Mexican government-linked Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights 
* the Border Action Network (link)
* the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' "Justice for Immigrants" campaign (justiceforimmigrants.org/whats-new.html)
* breakingbreadwithfamilies.org / changetakesfaith.org
If anyone can find other questionable groups involved please leave a comment.
3/16/10 UPDATE: From this:
Organized by the Center for Community Change (CCC), the March 21 event will be the largest protest march since President Barack Obama took office. It will include activist groups from nearly every state, and revives the labor-religious-community coalition that built the mass marches of 2006.
According to lead CCC March organizer Gabe Gonzalez, SEIU, UNITE HERE, LIUNA and the UFCW have all committed to mobilize for the march. Gonzalez also told me "the churches are totally on board," with evangelical churches--- which have seen a steady rise in Latinos---playing a larger role than in 2006. Such faith-based activist networks as Gamaliel, PICO and the IAF are also involved, which means that a large cadre of very experienced organizers is involved in ensuring the event's success.
...Following the march, activists plan to turn out in large numbers to the Town Hall meetings that congress members will hold during the two week recess starting March 29. The traditional media gave massive coverage to Tea Party members attending town halls last August, and should be under pressure to provide something close to that coverage for the immigrant rights activism at these upcoming events.
On April 10, there will be an immigrant rights rally in Las Vegas with Senator Reid. Reid knows his re-election depends on massive Latino turnout in November, and immigrant rights advocates are sending a message that they will mobilize for him provided he provides leadership on legalization.
"Temporary" Protected Status for Haitian illegal aliens pushed by profiteers (Haiti earthquake) - 01/14/10
[TPS has been approved; see the update below]
Yesterday, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security suspended repatriations of illegal aliens from Haiti; that makes some sense as long as it's actually temporary. What doesn't make sense are the calls from some to give "Temporary Protected Status" in the U.S. to Haitian illegal aliens. The word "temporary" is generally a misnomer as that status is renewed over and over.
TPS would be an infected band-aid that wouldn't fix Haiti's structural problems and in some cases would result in importing Haiti's problems into the U.S. It would also result in brain-draining that country of its more energetic citizens, making things easier for corrupt Haitian leaders. These pushing TPS are at root simply self-serving: they're interested in little more than obtaining political power. They're thinking only of themselves instead of trying to solve problems; they're only making the long-term situation worse.
"Well, we have, as you know, many Haitian Americans. Most are here legally. Some are not documented. And the Obama administration is taking steps to make sure that people are given some temporary status so that we don’t compound the problem that we face in Haiti."
Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, both Democrats, and (Representatives Lincoln Diaz Balart and Mario Diaz Balart) of south Florida, both Republicans, as well as John C. Favalora, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Miami... "If this is not a slam-dunk case for temporary protected status, I don’t know what is," said Kevin Appleby, a spokesman for the bishops. He said the status would allow Haitian immigrants here to work here and send money back to relatives in Haiti trying to recover from the quake.
Appleby's proposal is at heart immoral: he would encourage Haiti to become even more dependent on the U.S. than they already are and he would embed that dependence in their society, instead of encouraging them to develop their own commerce.
The letter from Senators encouraging TPS is here; in addition to Gillibrand and Schumer, the signatories are: John Kerry, Paul Kirk, Jeff Bingaman, Bill Nelson, Dick Durbin, Frank Lautenberg, Chris Dodd, Bob Menendez, Pat Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Bob Casey, and Bernie Sanders.
(The Florida politicians including Ileana Ros Lehtinen) are among several leaders holding separate news conferences in Miami on Thursday to draw further attention to the issue. Others include the head of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, who will be accompanied by Edwidge Danticat, a celebrated Haitian author and winner of a MacArthur Fellow "genius" grant. Twenty-six refugee agencies also sent a joint letter Thursday urging Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to consider TPS for Haitians, and the National Council of La Raza released a statement to the same effect.
That also contains Mark Krikorian seeming to support TPS in this case, as well as this:
"When somebody works here they can support up to 10 times that number back in Haiti. So we're talking about supporting hundreds of thousands of people in Haiti at no cost to U.S. taxpayers," (Steve Forester, a Miami-based advocate with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti) said.
Obviously, he's either trying to mislead people or he can't think things through. Many or most of the jobs they'd be doing would be jobs that Americans who are drawing unemployment insurance could be doing, and much of the labor those Haitians would be doing in the U.S. would be heavily subsidized.
"We are considering all alternatives available to us in extending a helping hand to Haiti," (Alejandro Mayorkas of the USCIS) said. He confirmed those considerations include temporary protected status for Haitians.
And, Reform Immigration for America is also promoting TPS with a petition drive: reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/blog/
The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has joined with several other groups in calling for TPS:
Likewise with Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
"It is in the foreign policy interest of the United States and a humanitarian imperative of the highest order to have all people of Haitian descent in a position to contribute towards the recovery of this island nation."
See the comments above.
1/15/10 UPDATE: Janet Napolitano has now approved TPS, but only for those illegal aliens who were here on Tuesday. How they'll be able to tell isn't clear; some people will no doubt try to provide fake documentation showing they were here at that time.
Frank Sharry's America's Voice offers "The Anti-Worker Truth About the Anti-Immigrant Lobby" . From their summary:
In recent months, some of the most virulent anti-immigrant Members of Congress have been taking advantage of hard economic times to advance their same, old mass deportation agenda. They argue that blocking comprehensive immigration reform would somehow help the American worker and furthermore, that an unrealistic, multi-billion dollar mass deportation plan would provide instant relief to hardworking Americans in need of good jobs.
But a closer look at the voting records of these Members shows them to be some of the most consistent opponents of legislation to benefit American workers. And analysis of their immigration policy proposals reveals their main goal to be expelling millions of Latinos, Asians, Haitians, Africans, and other immigrants from the United States, not leveling the playing field for all workers and expanding the tax base. When it comes to protecting the American worker, the anti-immigrant lobby simply has no legs to stand on.
1. While they do pretend that comprehensive immigration reform would help Americans, they're also more or less implicitly ceding the point of those Members of Congress, that reducing the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. would help Americans. That's why they're using the deportations false choice: because they can't present an argument that a gradual reduction in the number of illegal aliens would somehow hurt American workers.
2. Few - and I would guess none among the referenced Members of Congress - are calling for mass deportations; more on that in #5.
3. No one with any power wants to expel "immigrants", i.e., those who came here legally; America's Voice is trying to mislead their readers.
4. Part of their report consists of the same old debunked smears of FAIR and related groups, such as by using the "hate group" designations of the Southern Poverty Law Center, not exactly a trustworthy source.
5. Their section on the costs of deportations references the Center for American Progress' "Deporting the Undocumented", a joke study that used a highly-flawed methodology. It also mentions the misleading, business-sponsored Perryman Group study that was briefly mentioned in the second footnote here and the misleading Cato Institute study discussed here. For both of the last, America's Voice tries to pretend they aren't on the same side as cheap labor employers, not revealing the business ties of the Perryman study and of the last saying: Even the conservative Cato Institute has said that "legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households."
6. Consider the following:
Sending an out-of-work auto worker and her family in Michigan to pick strawberries in California is not a credible answer to the many Americans desperately in need of good jobs at high wages with good benefits. Rather than promoting a race to the bottom, comprehensive immigration reform would expand labor rights and create a level playing field to ensure better jobs and working conditions for all.
That has an un-American and anti-Mexican subtext, as if only Mexicans and Central Americans are able to pick crops and as if Americans are too good to take bad jobs until the economy improves, even if it involves moving to a different state. The latter is a rather un-American idea.
And, in most cases, Americans wouldn't have to move far at all. Reducing the number of illegal aliens in Michigan would free up jobs for Americans, and likewise with California. And, regarding the fallacy of that "level playing field", see immigration wage floor.
Ohio, Illinois, NY, NJ, Penn to lose political power due to massive immigration (House seats; also: IA, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO) - 11/19/09
According to a new study (americasvoiceonline.org/pages/the_new_constituents), due to massive immigration particularly by Latinos, the results of the 2010 Census - used to apportion congressional districts - will result in the following changes (chart from the HuffPost article discussed here):
States losing House seats: Ohio (-2), Illinois (-1), Iowa (-1), Louisiana (-1), Massachusetts (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Missouri (-1), New Jersey (-1), New York (-1), and Pennsylvania (-1).
If you're located in one of the states in the latter group, that means you're going to lose power. In that case, organize a local effort to take smart action to reduce immigration.
Frank Sharry of America's Voice offers "Latinos Poised to Shake Up 2010 Census, Politicians Beware" at the Huffington Post  in which he discusses a study showing how massive immigration by Latinos will affect congressional apportionment; more on that here. The piece is basically just a celebration of race-based "raw political power", and later on he quotes from a Washington Post blog post written by Ed OKeefe in which Sharry - someone who's apparently Irish-Italian  - says the following:
"This is going to set up a very interesting dynamic, because right now, the kind of bleached districts where candidates can get away with demonizing Latino immigrants -- because they're more worried about a primary challenge than a general election loss -- may end in the next decade."
Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009... Fiscal 2008 ran from Oct. 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2008. Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008, and ran through Sept. 30 of this year.
The exact figures are:
* Criminal arrests: down 60%
* Criminal indictments: down 58%
* Convictions: down 63%
* Administrative arrests: down 68%
The DHS is a bit defensive:
Drop Dobbs: illegal activity-supporting racial power groups and far-left want Lou Dobbs off CNN - 09/17/09
A coalition of illegal immigration-supporting far-left and/or racial power groups has launched a campaign called "Drop Dobbs" to get advertisers to pull their ads from CNN's Lou Dobbs show (dropdobbs.com, mediamatters.org/blog/200909150031): "...The effort aims to let companies know that their continued financial support of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight makes them complicit in the hate speech and wild conspiracy theories that he promotes..."
Campaigns like this - following on the heels of the somewhat successful similar campaign against Glenn Beck - stand a greater chance of success given the fact that Dobbs' ratings aren't as high as they once were. What you can do about this is raise awareness about the groups involved and cut them off from support, both financial and ideological.
For instance, help organize a campaign against bills that would fund the NCLR. Or, do something as simple (but too difficult for some) as leaving comments at blog and news postings by or discussing the groups; those comments should have the goal of discrediting those groups or their supporters.
See the following links to the names of the groups involved for our coverage of each group:
* National Council of La Raza (funds extremists, gave award to someone who'd proposed genocide)
* League of United Latin American Citizens (CA chapter thinks U.S.-Mexico border might be invalid)
* Southern Poverty Law Center (misled about hate crime statistics)
* Media Matters for America
* Frank Sharry
* Reform Immigration for America
* Center for New Community
* Hispanic Institute (see below)
* Dolores Huerta Foundation (promoted demographic hegemony, hatred against Republicans)
* National Hispanic Media Coalition
* National Puerto Rican Coalition
* New Democratic Network
* Netroots Nation (from Dailykos and others)
* Voto Latino
UPDATE: Janet Murguia of the NCLR says, among other things (huffingtonpost.com/janet-murguia/join-nclr-and-the-drop-do_b_290584.html):
For two years, I have tried working behind the scenes with CNN to bring some fairness to the relentless bias of CNN programming due to Dobbs' show... The Drop Dobbs coalition is compiling a list of those advertisers supporting the Lou Dobbs show and will be reaching out to educate them about this issue. We recognize that many advertisers may be unaware that FAIR has been designated as a hate group, so we are contacting those companies before publicly releasing the list. However, unless and until Dobbs and CNN disassociate themselves from this hate group, we will be asking advertisers to withhold their support...
UPDATE 2: See also the similar group "Enough is Enough!". Communications for that are being handled by a DNC official; it would be interesting to know to what extent if any the Obama administration is involved in either group. Could someone (perhaps Judicial Watch) file some FOIA requests?
The Hispanic Institute's board is at thehispanicinstitute.net/about/boardofdirectors. In addition to one board member who was with the National Association of Realtors, another is quite interesting:
Napolitano immigration meeting: you weren't represented (vast # of loose borders groups, Obama/Janet anti-287g) - 08/20/09
Earlier today, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security held a closed-door meeting with a group of what she calls "stakeholders" (dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1250792978709.shtm) but was actually a vast pantheon (see below) of far-left, racial power, corrupt business, and in general loose borders groups all of which want some form of comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. There were at least 98 participants in the meeting, and none of them represent your interests or the interests of the great majority of American citizens. Why exactly they'd hold the meeting isn't clear; aside from guest workers and minor details they're all pretty much on the same page. Perhaps it was a strategy session to see how they could fool as many people as possible whenever they decide to push for amnesty.
The President said specifically that when it comes to the local police charged with enforcing federal immigration law under 287(g) agreements that he wants these local law enforcement agencies held accountable.
Noorani’s other question concerned the 287g program, which gives local law enforcement the authority to enforce immigration law. Noorani asked Napolitano to revoke the authority of agencies who have clearly violated the spirit of the agreement, and that the immigration reform community looked forward to seeing that happen. Napolitano responded, “Me, too.”
Other statements from those attending the meeting are here. Here's the intro to the DHS's press release:
"Today’s meeting on comprehensive immigration reform was an important opportunity to hear from stakeholders and build on the significant time I’ve spent on the Hill meeting with members of Congress on this critical subject. I look forward to working with President Obama, my colleagues in Congress and representatives from law enforcement, business, labor organizations, the interfaith community, advocacy groups and others as we work on this important issue.”
UPDATE: Griswold of CATO weighs in with a slab of Policy-As-Highschool (cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/21/the-president-drops-by-to-tout-immigration-reform). After Napolitano gave her "opening remarks we broke up into smaller roundtable discussions of about 15 people each moderated by DHS officials". They then reconvened and Napolitano discussed what they'd learned. Then, Obama entered the building and made his speech "about 20 feet from where I was sitting". Griswold also refers to himself as a "small fish"; he's much too modest since he was some kind of inspiration for Bush's 2004 anti- and un-American guest workers plan.
And, there are so many groups that I've split the list into two parts. The religious, union, city/police, and miscellaneous groups are here. The following has the major groups, the business groups, and the single libertarian:
Casey Sanchez/SPLC, Frank Sharry, Andrea Nill/CAP smear FAIR over non-existent connection (Dave Bennion) - 06/17/09
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has launched its most irresponsible attack to date against the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The SPLC claims that Shawna Forde, the alleged killer of a little girl and her father during an Arizona home invasion, had ties to FAIR. Although no association exists -- or ever has -- between Ms. Forde and FAIR, the SPLC and organizations advocating mass amnesty and open borders have used this tragedy to fuel their on-going smear campaign against FAIR and other immigration policy organizations in order to suppress free and open debate about immigration policy in the United States... FAIR has no association with Shawna Forde. "Ms. Forde is not and never was an employee, member, activist, or donor of FAIR and most certainly has never been authorized to speak on behalf of our organization," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Ms. Forde misrepresented herself as a spokesperson for FAIR in a 2006 appearance on KYVE-TV in Yakima, Washington, and the producers of the program were remiss in failing to authenticate her false claims."
The SPLC report from Casey Sanchez is at . It was updated after it was originally posted and they acknowledge the above press release; there may or may not have been other changes. In its current form, the SPLC post doesn't claim that she was a member, only that she represented herself as a member and so on. At the very least, the SPLC post is an example of incredibly bad journalism:
Contacted by Hatewatch, Enrique Cerna, the host of the show and an executive producer, said it’s difficult to remember all the production details of a segment produced three years ago. Still, he said his producers had contacted FAIR, asking for a representative to appear on the show. That representative cancelled at the last minute and was replaced by Forde, who identified herself as a FAIR official. “We wouldn’t have identified her with that organization if she hadn’t said she was speaking on their behalf,” said Cerna.
Obviously, Cerna should have verified with FAIR that she was able to speak on their behalf rather than simply taking her word for it.
Shawna Forde, arrested as a suspect in a deadly home invasion in Arizona, has ties to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant group classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Hat tip to http://TonyHerrera.com for finding this 2006 video.
She has no ties; Sharry is lying.
David Montgomery of the Washington Post offers a five-screen puff piece (link) on far-left amnesty supporter Rep. Luis Gutierrez and his recent "Family Unity Tour" that completely fails to call him on his many disreputable statements, such as the time he called ICE agents "Gestapo agents". The article fails to call Gutierrez on the many huge flaws in the comprehensive immigration reform that he supports. This is the only part of the article that discusses actual policy:
Gutierrez and his allies generally define immigration reform to include an end to workplace raids and deportations that break up families, and creation of a program for the 12 million illegal immigrants to get in line behind those who have already applied legally. There would also be enhanced border security and other steps.
A real reporter who's familiar with this topic would call Gutierrez on the fact that with little or no enforcement millions more people will come here and, after most of those have U.S. citizen children, the same cycle that Gutierrez is complaining about will start again. A real reporter would have pointed out that there's no way for illegal aliens to "get in line behind those who have already applied legally": the line has no end; it stretches back years and people are constantly joining it. Because of that fact, any illegal aliens that are processed will cause those already in line to have to wait. And, if slapdash background checks are performed, thousands (or tens of thousands) of criminals will be legalized, as will many potential terrorists. Those are hard questions that people like Gutierrez should be forced to answer. Montgomery is just a hack and has no ability to or interest in pushing anyone on those points.
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post directs  our attention to a new hit piece from Frank Sharry's America's Voice that claims that Sen. Jeff Sessions has "just one degree of separation from anti-immigrant hate groups, white nationalism" . As a hit piece, this is like a marshmallow wrapped in a Snuggie.
For instance, they accuse him of playing the "terrorist card" in regards to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, including quoting a floor speech he made. Yet, they don't provide any sort of counter-argument other than implying that Senators shouldn't point out that the CIR bill would enable terrorists. If America's Voice could show that Sessions was wrong about that, they might have a case. Yet, they don't. Apparently they don't want Senators to discuss how a bill would endanger the U.S. or something.
Likewise with Sessions' list of loopholes in the CIR bill, including one that would allow those convicted of aggravated felonies to be amnestied. They don't try to say that he was wrong, they just imply that he shouldn't have mentioned that. The rest of the "backgrounder" consists of the same old warmed-over smears about FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies, including this:
FAIR, which regularly praised Sessions, has been designated an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That might make some members of Congress think twice about developing a relationship with the group, but clearly not Jeff Sessions.
As detailed at the last link, the SPLC is not in any way a credible source. Some members of Congress are obviously dumb or far-left enough to put faith in what they say, but no one else should.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting screens pro-illegal immigration film on Capitol Hill ("Made in L.A.") - 04/24/09
Earlier today, the pro-illegal immigration movie "Made in L.A." was screened on Capitol Hill for various politicians and others; a list is at . Not only were those who are public servants wasting time watching movies on the U.S.'s dime, but the further involvement of PBS cranks it up a notch:
Senior Vice President of Television Content at the Corporation For Public Broadcasting Ted Garcia highlighted the story and mission of Made in L.A. and acknowledged the many partners that came together to make the film possible: "Made in L.A. highlights some of the reasons why public service media is so crucial... I'm so pleased that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through our support of ITVS, P.O.V. and Latino Public Broadcasting has played a role in ensuring that this story would be told."
Has the CPB ever spent money on a documentary made by those who support the enforcement of our laws or the screening at the Capitol of such a film? The filmmakers are engaged in a "May Day Community Screening Campaign" and this screening is clearly part of that campaign, putting PBS/CPB on the side of advocating against enforcement of our immigration laws.
America's Voice agrees with Pelosi "un-American" quote; starts letter campaign (Frank Sharry) - 03/20/09
America's Voice - run by Frank Sharry - has started a letter-writing campaign to "Thank Speaker Pelosi for Her Leadership". The "leadership" in question is her recent comments that family-separating immigration raids are "un-American", comments that she later reinforced by calling those raids "not the American way". Says they (americasvoiceonline.org/page/speakout/PelosiReforms):
She said that knocking down doors in the middle of the night to tear mothers and fathers from their children is un-American. We agree. Unsurprisingly, right-wing radio hosts and TV commentators have launched a full-scale attack on Speaker Pelosi, calling her un-American for demanding a reform to our laws and a halt on immigration raids.
"Full-scale"? I wish. A couple House members have denounced her remarks, and it's probably been featured on Fox News several times, but it's certainly far from entering the national consciousness. And, her latest remarks have caused barely a ripple.
* The drop in support among Latinos for Republicans between 2004 and 2008 was part of a broad-based electoral movement away from the GOP, and was hardly specific to that demographic group. McCain received only 57 percent of the white male vote, compared with 62 percent for Bush in 2004, and McCain’s 55 percent of regular churchgoers was significantly lower than Bush's 61 percent.
* Credible surveys indicate that the major policy concerns of Latinos were no different than the concerns of non-Latinos: The economy and jobs topped the list.
* There is little evidence that immigration policy was an influential factor in Latinos' choice between the two candidates once basic party predispositions are taken into account.
* McCain's consistent history of advocating a legalization program for illegal immigrants made no impression on Latino voters.
UPDATE: From the other side, the Immigration Policy Center has responded with some polling data linked from here:
The surveys they point to were performed by Frank Sharry's America's Voice, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, and others and may have been designed to show what those groups wanted them to show. The IPC fact sheet also doesn't address general election trends.
UPDATE 2: The CIS author responds to his critics here.
Cardinal Mahony, Janet Murguia, Unite Here, Frank Sharry, Ali Noorani pretend immigration "reform" would be good for the economy - 01/08/09
The preeminent moral voice supporting just and comprehensive immigration reform joins the President of one of America's leading pro-immigrant unions, the head of the largest Latino civil rights organization, and national pro-reform leaders to discuss the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform as the 44th President and 111th Congress take office.Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times listened in, and offers this:
"I don’t think it's possible to fix the American economy without comprehensive immigration reform," John Wilhelm, president of Unite Here, said during a media call.This is the second time I've noticed that line, and I'm calling it a trend. The previous comments apply in this case. Apparently whoever writes the lines for these people thought it up in response to complaints that "reform" wasn't possible during a recession, and it would be great to know who thought it up originally.
Wilhelm said legislation would improve the economy by placing workers and employers on an even playing field, eliminating exploitation and increasing wages and tax compliance.
Cardinal Mahoney opposed the sustenance of an underclass; he's partially responsible for that due to his support for illegal activity. If he really wanted to avoid that, he'd work to discourage illegal immigration and demand that Mexico fixes their own country rather than sending their people north.
It would be fairly easy to show just how corrupt and illogical the "preeminent moral voice" is if anyone would try to ask him tough questions about this issue. Discrediting Mahoney or others who use a religious justification to support illegal activity would take a great deal of wind out of the sails of the "reform" movement.
UPDATE: From this other recounting of the call:
[Sharry said:] "We are confident and very optimistic that there's likely to be a big window of opportunity between September 2009 and March 2010 [in order to pass 'reform']"...
[Mahony said:] "I think that would be a good time simply because there are no federal elections going on, and beyond that, it is really important for us to get this really done at a time when we do not have huge immigration rhetoric going on around the nation"...
While an economic crisis is not the best time to present a substantial immigration reform package, Sharry said, "legalizing workers will increase wages, increase the tax compliance of the workers and the employers who hire them and it would restore the rule of law."
Luis Gutierrez: Obama told me to tell you he supports immigration "reform"; amnesty supporters heartened - 12/19/08
Teresa Watanabe of the Los Angeles Times offers "Immigration-overhaul supporters hope their hour has come/With Obama in office, a sympathetic Cabinet and more Democrats in Congress, supporters hope to revive a reform package next year. But the economic downturn sparks worry about protecting U.S. workers" (link). She quotes various "immigrant advocates" who think that the Obama win will mean that comprehensive immigration reform is more likely. In fact:
In a national teleconference Thursday, Rep. (Luis Gutierrez) (D-Ill.), said Obama had asked him to relay that he remains committed to a comprehensive solution to repair the nation's immigration system (aka amnesty). Advocates said Obama's Cabinet appointments were a promising sign that he was assembling a strong team to deliver on reform promises, including New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as secretary of Commerce, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of Homeland Security and, announced Thursday, Rep. (Hilda Solis) (D-El Monte) as secretary of Labor... In the Chicago area, Gutierrez said, Roman Catholic and evangelical churches have begun mobilizing thousands of citizens to support immigration reform by publicizing the hardship they face waiting for loved ones to receive entry visas...
"Tour of the Faithful": Catholic Church, others try to change immigration laws (America's Voice) - 09/13/08
In September and October, the Catholic Church and others will be holding interfaith events  across the U.S. designed to support "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty. This "Tour of the Faithful" (catholicsinalliance.org/node/20123) was apparently organized with the help of Frank Sharry's America's Voice  and includes an appearance by former president Jimmy Carter and many others . On October 13 they'll be holding a forum featuring unnamed Illinois politicians; one of those will probably be Luis Gutierrez.
If you want to do something about this, go to one of their events and make points like these and get their responses on video. The only way these "leaders" are able to continue to support "reform" is by avoiding a real debate. Even a line of questioning that isn't "prosecutorial-style" would show the fallacy in their thinking. And, that would have a very great impact on this issue.
For instance, during the conference call announcing the tour, Rabbi David Saperstein said:
"In addition to our historic experience, our tradition also demands of us concern for the stranger in our midst. The Torah contains over 36 references to this principle, including Leviticus' command, 'When strangers sojourn with you in your land, you shall not do them wrong..."
Point out to him that the "reform" he supports would lead to more illegal immigration, and thus would lead to more people trying to cross the desert - with some dying along the way. If he responds that "reform" would include tougher border security, point out to him that those pushing reform have always fought attempts to secure our borders, and that they'd have even more power after reform from which to fight attempts to secure the borders.
 From catholicalliance.org: One of the events, "Voting American Catholic 2008: Platform for the Global Common Good," will be held Sept. 27 in Omaha, Neb., as part of the Archdiocese of Omaha Social Ministry Commission's 10th annual Faithful Citizenship Conference at the St. Cecilia Institute in Omaha, a conference co-sponsor... Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is scheduled to speak at an Oct. 9 Christian immigration forum in Lexington, Ky. The tour takes in cities like Boston, Washington, Denver, Los Angeles and Phoenix -- as well as smaller venues such as Lutz, Fla.; Conway, Ark.; and Kalamazoo, Mich. -- before winding up in Chicago Oct. 19 with two U.S. representatives and two Illinois state representatives speaking at a candidate forum on immigration.
 Those speaking on the conference call were, per :
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
Dr. Jim Ryan, Council Executive, Colorado Council of Churches
The Most Reverend Bishop John C. Wester, Archdiocese of Salt Lake City and Chair of Committee on Migration and Refugee Services for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Mexico linked groups complain about "hate group" FAIR (FIRM, SEIU, America's Voice, NCLR) - 09/11/08
Today the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), America's Voice, Center for New Community, and the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) launched a print ad denouncing known hate group, FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform), for poisoning the immigration debate with bigoted, xenophobic hate speech. In support of the ad, SEIU Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina issued the following statement:There is, of course, more ranting at the SEIU page. You can read FAIR's response here. The ad juxtaposes supposedly inflammatory comments from FAIR-related persons with pictures of Angry White Men, none of whom are presumably those being quoted. For instance, I don't believe that Dan Stein from FAIR is a skinhead. The comments also deserve a grown-up discussion, something that the SEIU and their friends don't want to have. In fact, as the quote above makes clear, they want to silence FAIR and others who oppose them by calling them names. The ad including a headline noting that the SPLC has designated FAIR as a "hate group". The ad also includes a link to the National Council of La Raza's WeCanStopTheHate.org.
"It's time that everyone learns who FAIR's founders, leaders and followers truly are. They are not reformers, but a group of extremists whose leaders are fostering a bigoted, anti-immigrant, anti-American agenda that we must stop... ...By continuing to fan the flames of hate and fear, FAIR has contributed to rising levels of hate crimes and discrimination... ...Crude attempts to shut down our border and round up anyone who looks a certain way do not begin to solve our broken immigration system..."
What the ad doesn't note is that FIRM includes one member group that's allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government and another group headed by someone who serves on an advisory council to that government. The SEIU paid someone to organize immigration marches, and that person serves on that same advisory council to the Mexican government. In addition to occasionally attempting to mislead and being the subject of at least two exposes, the Southern Poverty Law Center has an indirect link to that government. And, of course, the NCLR funds extremists and gave an award to a vile racist among many other things.
Freelance writer and Vanity Fair contributor Judy Bachrach offers a smear of Lou Dobbs in "Lou Doubts" (poder360.com/article_detail.php?id_article=549). It's yet another example of the illegal activity-supporting establishment trying to reduce his influence in order to profit from illegal activity in one way or another.