The Editorial Board of the New York Times gave kudos to the Southern Poverty Law Center for their report “The Nativist Lobby,” which was released on Tues. S.P.C.L. examines the connects between three Washington-based organizations that have advocated for severe restrictions to immigration from Hispanic countries as well as restrictions for those who are here already.
The three groups examined are ones you will be very familiar with: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA— a lobbying group, think tank, and grassroots organizer, respectively. In fact, these organizations all had a hand in policy setting when the Immigration Resolution was ushered in. The criticism is strong.
It was a tough night for the anti-immigrant crowd. The Senate lost Elizabeth Dole. The Pennsylvania Mayor of Hazelton who gained national recognition for his ‘illegal-alien’ lunacy LOST his Congressional Race. And, Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode who has a propensity for calling US Citizens – ‘Anchor Babies’ at a mind boggling pace has lost his re-election bid.
Then when we look at the so called “Americans for Better Immigration” which is part of the NumbersUSA conglomerate, they were UNABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSE ANY of the 27 Congressional and Senate candidates that they identified as being “more opposed than supportive of overall immigration reductions”.
Congratulations to:
1. Sam Farr CALIFORNIA-(D) 17th District
2. Maxine Waters CALIFORNIA-(D) 35th District
3. Linda Sanchez CALIFORNIA – (D) 39th District
4. Loretta Sanchez CALIFORNIA-(D) 47th District
5. Bob Filner CALIFORNIA-(D) 51st District
6. Susan A. Davis CALIFORNIA-(D) 53rd District
7. Raul M. Grijalva ARIZONA-(D) 7th District
8. Gabrielle Giffords ARIZONA-(D) 8th District
9. Diana DeGette COLORADO-(D) 1st District
10. Joe Courtney CONNECTICUT-(D) 2nd District
11. Robert Wexler FLORIDA-(D) 19th District
12. Sanford D. Bishop Jr. GEORGIA-(D) 2nd District
13. Pete Visclosky INDIANA-(D) 1st District
14. Dick Durbin ILLINOIS-(D) US Senate
15. Chris Van Hollen MARYLAND-(D) 8th District
16. Bob Etheridge NORTH CAROLINA-(D) 2nd District
17. Brad Miller NORTH CAROLINA-(D) 13th District
18. Jim McDermott WASHINGTON-(D) 7th District
19. Brian Baird WASHINGTON-(D) 3rd District
20. Ron Kind WISCONSIN-(D) 3rd District,
21. David Obey WISCONSIN-(D) 7th District
22. Nick Rahall WEST VIRGINIA-(D) 3rd District
23. Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA-(R) US Senate
24. Ruben Hinojosa TEXAS-(D) 15th District
25. Sheila Jackson Lee TEXAS-(D) 18th District
26. Gene Green TEXAS-(D) 29th District
27. Earl Blumenauer OREGON-(D) 3rd District
It’s a little long folks but it’s worth the watch. Tell me someone, is this woman undergoing cancer treatment? Does she have alopecia? or is she just a skin head? I don’t know does anyone have any idea?
This video was distributed by Supervisor Stirrup’s office prior to the July 2007 resolution, presumably to garnish support for the ‘Immigration Resolution’. It appears to be a very popular piece of propoganda in the anti-immigrant debate but to use it for justifying in an ‘anti-illegal’ debate by individuals claiming to be ‘pro-immigrant’ is a concern.
It appears that the underlying factor motivating many people especially with respect to the Federation for American Immigration Reform(FAIR) is a concern about ‘population growth control’. This video never identifies the speaker or the organization of which he represents but his name is Roy Beck, Executive Director of NumbersUSA.
In terms of disputing the claims made in the video, the following was stated -
The gumball thing was cute but his charts are total b.s. His “red” dangerous population growth attributable to immigrants includes the descendents of immigrants who arrived post-1970. Descendents aren’t immigrants. By 2050, the great grandchildren of 1970s immigrants are included in the red portion. Are the great grandchildren of immigrants immigrants themselves? No. Are they part of the “immigration problem?” I myself am the great grandchild of an immigrant who came from Ireland 90 years ago. Am I part of the “immigration problem?” If he selected 1790 for his arbitrary start date rather than 1970, I’m sure about 98% of the American population would be in the red area.
Also, in the very beginning, he talks about how our infrastructure has had to double because immigration has doubled the population growth #. Immigration may have doubled our growth (maybe, i’m not sure), but it didn’t double the entire population (which = the demand for services). The demand for roads is growing astronomically not because there are tons of new immigrants on the roads, but all of us drive much more now and over greater distances now than we did 30 years ago.
Also, as he mentioned, about 200 million Americans are missing from his chart, in a green area you’ll have to imagine below where he cuts it off. It makes his eye-popping order of magnitude a bit exaggerated.
I’m not saying that the guy is entirely wrong in what his point is. But it’s not the most convincing argument, and if you aren’t distracted by the pretty colors and cute gumballs you’ll see that it’s not at all objective and presented in a manner of exaggeration to get a reaction.
Again, one of the problems w/the red line is that it includes people who are not ‘immigrants’. The people who are not ‘immigrants’ are descendants of immigrants. The red line represents future population increase in the U.S. attributable to current immigration presumably both legal & illegal. My question is why is it that he is not considered a descendant of an immigrant? For example, if we were to go back to 1700 and start the red line there, then just about everyone in the U.S. would be descendants of post-1700 immigrants.
In my opinion this video poses many difficulties and should not be taken at face value.
