hr4437: Page 1
The following letter was sent by Juan Salgado - president of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights - to Mexican president [[Vicente Fox]]. URL: www.ime.gob.mx/ccime/discursos/js7.htm
Darryl Fears of the Washington Post offers "Republicans Lost Ground With Latinos In Midterms". As might be expected, it's so full of misleading statements, superficial analysis, hidden agendas, and hidden assumptions that a full treatment would be novel-length:
...Latinos [gave] the GOP only 30 percent of their vote as strident House immigration legislation inspired by Republicans and tough-talking campaign ads by conservative candidates roiled the community. It was a 10-point drop from the lowest estimated Latino vote percentage two years ago, and a 14-point drop from the highest...
Of course, GOP votes from other groups were down as well. The percentage drop may be have been greater among Latinos, but that doesn't mean that it had anything to do with immigration or related ads. And, the idea that there could be a "community" is identity politics at its finest, but is untrue since, for instance, there are obvious differences between Cuban-Americans in Miami and Mexican-Americans in Texas colonias. And, not all of those "tough-talking" ads were from "conservatives"; perhaps that's why he used that word and not "Republicans". And, while a few of the ads may have gone overboard, if "the community" objects to enforcement of our laws, perhaps we have a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. And, needless to say, HR4437 wasn't "strident".
Then, he quotes "Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, formerly the New Democrat Network" as saying that the "Republican Party is hostile to Hispanics". Obviously, he's biased. And, just as obviously, that's false. Not even those GOP leaders that support our immigration laws are hostile to one ethnic group. They just oppose, for instance, those like Rosenberg who support massive illegal activity as an "ethnic thing".
Latinos by and large supported the millions of marchers who protested House immigration proposals in the spring, and there are recent signs that Republicans are working to bring them back to the party (via rightwing Cuban - and thus non-Chicano - Mel Martinez).
Those marches might have indeed had widespread support, and most Americans should consider that alarming. Those marching were doing so in support of illegal activity, and many were in fact foreign citizens making a show of force in our streets. Many of those marching seem to think that they have a right to move here at will, and some of those even called the U.S. their "homeland". And, some of the organizers of those marches have links to foreign governments and Mexico's PRD party.
[HR4437] would make it a felony to assist any illegal immigrant, frightening the Roman Catholic Church. It worried rights groups because it would step up enforcement that could cost illegal immigrants their jobs, homes and lives.
As far as I know, the Pope didn't weigh in on 4437. However, Cardinal Roger Mahony did pretend to be "frightened", but then later admitted he was full of it. As for those "rights" groups, perhaps they shouldn't be supporting illegal aliens working illegally. And, perhaps we shouldn't encourage banks to give loans to illegal aliens, since that ends up encouraging political corruption. As for the last, stepped-up enforcement would reduce such issues, since many fewer would try to come here. Those "rights" groups actually encourage people to try to cross, resulting in more tragedies than their would be if they discouraged them from trying to cross the desert in summer.
Don't expect Darryl Fears to do a deeper analysis of this issue, since he's simply an illegal immigration supporting hack.
Banks worried about being called felons just because they may have aided and abetted illegal aliens - 05/09/06
As discussed below , if a bank knows that someone is here illegally, and then gives them a home loan that allows them to stay here illegally, hasn't that bank committed a felony under current law?
1. There's a split among illegal immigration supporters. Some groups continue to support the "Great American Boycott of 2006", while others, including those in the "National Capital Immigration Coalition", oppose the boycott.
2. The illegal immigration-supporting groups plan to "transform the immigrant community into a powerful, organized political force" and plan to encourage voting by "immigrants".
Regarding the second, "immigrants" can't vote. Only native-born or naturalized citizens can vote. In fact, the whole report from Rachel Swarns is so full of the use of inaccurate or imprecise terms that it's little more than an attempt to mislead their readers.
Consider, for instance, this paragraph:
The debate over how to harness the emerging immigrant activism comes as politicians, church leaders and advocacy groups continue to marvel at the large numbers of immigrants, most of them Hispanic, who have turned out in recent weeks to demonstrate against a House bill, which was passed in December, that would criminalize illegal immigrants and those who help them.
Almost all - not "most" - of those marching were Hispanic, and most of those were Mexican citizens or Mexican-Americans. And, the assertion that HR4437 would "criminalize... those who help [illegal immigrants]" is not entirely accurate: that help would need to be provided knowingly or recklessly.
Those apparently in the National Capital Immigration Coalition include:
* Casa de Maryland, which was recently involved in a bit of a kerfluffle. According to Gustavo Torres: "We are going to target [the Minuteman Project members] in a specific way... [by taking their own pictures]... Then we are going to picket their houses, and the schools of their kids, and go to their work
* The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, which allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government.
* The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which was also apparently involved in a smear against Jim Oberweis.
Needless to say, neither the NYT nor the WaPo provide any background on the groups that they feature.
We're also informed that CHIRLA - alleged at the link above to have collaborated with the Mexican government - is going to try to get illegal aliens to perform community service as a way of softening you up:
"It is critical for us, that we really, as we move forward, take actions that are embraced by the American public, that touch the hearts and minds of the American public, that they get to know us, that they understand who we are," [Anjelica Salas, executive director of CHIRLA] said at a news conference here.
If the NYT or the WaPo ever decide to tell the truth about immigration matters, most Americans might indeed understand exactly who all those groups are.
2/15/11 UPDATE: An image from the NCIC is attached. See the National Capital Immigrant Coalition page for the backstory.
Thousands of pro-immigration advocates will protest next week at the U.S. Capitol against a bill that they fear would result in fines or jail time for operators of businesses, churches, day-laborer centers and other facilities that help illegal aliens.Obviously, it's trivially easy to discredit Casa and all those who associate with them. See "Casa of Maryland helps illegal aliens get driver's licenses" and "Casa de Maryland might soon get big surprise".
The National Capital Immigrant Coalition (NCIC), an umbrella for about 40 immigrant-advocacy groups, says the bill -- HR 4437 -- is "anti-immigrant."
The measure is expected to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month.
"HR 4437 permanently criminalizes undocumented immigrants and everyone who knows, cares about or assists undocumented immigrants," said Kim Propeack, a spokeswoman for CASA of Maryland, an NCIC group...
Would the reader please send more information on Casa to any news organization that mentions them or has a quote from one of their members? Let's rain on their parade.
Previously: Illegal aliens, supporters to march on Washington
Kim Propeack, spokeswoman for CASA of Maryland Inc., said her group's day-laborer centers "and other worker centers would in a large part be forced to shut down" if a bill offered by U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. becomes law...I guess that means some of their workers are not "documented", so I guess they do have something to fear. Too, too bad.
..."The majority of workers that use CASA centers are documented, but we will not become a pawn in the government's failed immigration laws," Miss Propeack said...
Cecilia Munoz, vice president of policy for the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest Hispanic advocacy group, called the bill "shortsighted and harmful."Oh, well. I guess other laws would then come into play. Alternatively, perhaps the illegal day laborers will head to more "liberal" cities or even decide that being an illegal alien here is not such a good thing.
"The whole point of day-labor centers is to organize and make orderly a process which people in communities have complained about," she said.
"So by banning it effectively, the Sensenbrenner bill would really foster disorder in communities that have day laborers."
Propeack was also mentioned in "Maryland to be sued over driver's licenses; AP not telling whole truth" and "Purging illegal aliens from voter rolls not easy".