The Multiracial Activist - http://multiracial.com - Home

Writings

Advocacy Efforts

Advocacy and Letters

Online Market

Cafepress Store

Miscellaneous

Meetings and Conferences

Palm OS Downloads

TMA Forum and Chat

multiracial.com Webrings

Syndicate

ATOM 0.3

OPML

Who's Online

DS-Syndicate

Follow this blog

PositiveSingles.com - the best, most trusted and largest anonymous STD dating site!

PositiveSingles.com - the best, most trusted and largest anonymous STD dating site!

InterracialMatch.com - the best interracial dating site!

InterracialMatch.com - the best interracial dating site!

Coalition Letter to Congress Regarding E-Verify Reforms

Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition
Friday, 03 May 2013
May 3, 2013 Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, representing thousands of businesses and millions of Americans from all sides of the political spectrum, write to express our desire for greater accountability in the electronic employment verification (E-Verify) provisions of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (Title III of S. 744). We believe that a simple reform is needed to protect small businesses and their legal employees. Our concern is that the system could create unnecessary burdens on Americans by initially failing to confirm hundreds of thousands of authorized workers. If the present E-Verify error rate (0.26%) was applied nationally, it would fail to approve 156,000 authorized employees every year. As E-Verify’s rollout expands from just 7.5 percent of employers to 100 percent, it is vital to us that the error rate remains at least this low. Errors thrust employers into a state of regulatory uncertainty as to whether their new hire will be able to work or not. Many small employers lack the full time human resource staffs necessary to help workers correct these problems, and they will often incur significant costs attempting to do so. Errors also burden legal workers, forcing them to spend time and money sorting out the errors at federal offices. These errors will disproportionately impact authorized foreign-born workers and naturalized citizens, who are at least 20 times as likely to receive an error as a native born American, according to E-Verify’s most recent independent audit. Based on this number, one recent study found that foreign-born workers would receive 82 percent of all errors. This could create an incentive for discrimination against foreign-born workers. It also places an undue burden on the Social Security Administration, impacting seniors and those with disabilities who rely on a timely response from SSA. Basic accountability can protect both workers and employers. We propose that Congress require that E-Verify’s error rate remain at or below its current level before small businesses are forced to comply with the mandate. This gives the government over four years to work out any issues with the system, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano has already testified that she believes that the current rate can be maintained. Requiring the government to consider the impact on small businesses and foreign-born workers before E-Verify implementation is just simple accountability. It will protect businesses from the bureaucratic limbo that comes from not knowing if a new hire will be able to work, and it will give authorized employees the confidence that their transition to a new job will not be subject to costly and unnecessary delays. For these reasons, we urge you to support this commonsense reform. Sincerely, Advocacy for Principled Action in Government American Civil Liberties Union American Immigration Lawyers Association American Library Association American Policy Center Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform (AZEIR) Arizona Small Business Association Campaign for Community Change CALEGISLATION CAMBIO CASA In Action Center for Digital Democracy Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights Competitive Enterprise Institute Consumer Action Council of Smaller Enterprises Electronic Frontier Foundation Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Liberty Coalition The Multiracial Activist National Center for Transgender Equality National Council of La Raza (NCLR) National Consumers League National Immigrant Justice Center National Immigration Forum National Immigration Law Center National Small Business Association OneAmerica The Rutherford Institute Patient Privacy Rights Privacy Activism Privacy Journal Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Privacy Times Rights Working Group SEIU Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council Small Business Association of Michigan Small Business California Small Business Majority Taxpayers Protection Alliance UFCW International Union World Privacy Forum

Coalition Letter to Congress Regarding E-Verify Reforms

Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
February 20, 2013 Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, representing thousands of businesses and millions of Americans from all sides of the political spectrum, encourage you to vote against a mandatory national “E-Verify” electronic employment verification system established by S. 202 or in subsequent comprehensive immigration reform bills. Although we believe it is irredeemably flawed, we believe reasonable amendments can mitigate some of its negative effects. E-Verify imposes immigration enforcement costs on Americans. System errors will make hundreds of thousands of legal workers visit federal offices to exercise their right to work. Reform: Make E-Verify’s deployment contingent on due process for workers, a low error rate, and a strict limit on wait times for employers and employees to resolve database errors. E-Verify errors disproportionately impact minority groups: including young workers, married women, naturalized citizens, legal immigrants, and individuals with multiple surnames, including many Hispanics. Reform: Suspend E-Verify’s rollout if it has a discriminatory impact on these groups. E-Verify conscripts employers to act as immigration agents. According to Bloomberg Government, small businesses will spend $2.6 billion every year to implement the system. Reform: Avoid draconian penalties and allow businesses to correct paperwork errors. E-Verify will exacerbate identity theft. E-Verify will increase demand for stolen identities and enable thieves to use its database to determine the validity of a Social Security number. Reform: Send written notifications to any individual whose name is checked by E-Verify and prohibit E-Verify use without employees’ prior knowledge. E-Verify creates a de facto national ID system. Since the system permits identity verification, it can be used to monitor access to any public or private service based on immigration status or any other criteria. Reform: Prohibit the inclusion of biometrics and state motor vehicle records in the system and authorize E-Verify to be used only to determine work eligibility. The case for E-Verify presumes that Congress cannot create a system that prevents unauthorized entries at the border. This is wrong. Congress can and should address illegal immigration without sacrificing Americans’ privacy or imposing the costs of immigration enforcement on small businesses and workers. If an E-Verify mandate is enacted anyway, these reasonable reforms are essential. Sincerely, Advocacy for Principled Action in Government American Civil Liberties Union American Library Association Bill of Rights Defense Committee Blacks in Law Enforcement of America Center for Digital Democracy Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights Center for Media and Democracy Center for Media Justice Competitive Enterprise Institute Constitutional Alliance Consumer Action Consumer Federation of America Cyber Privacy Project Defending Dissent Foundation DRUM - Desis Rising Up & Moving Electronic Frontier Foundation Equal Justice Alliance The 5-11 Campaign Former Congressman Bob Barr The Greater Cleveland Immigrant Support Network Hispanic Leadership Fund Home School Legal Defense Association Insituto de Educación Popular del Sur de California (IDEPSCA) La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles de Minnesota The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Liberty Coalition Main Street Project Media Alliance Media Literacy Project The Multiracial Activist National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALACC) National Small Business Association National Workrights Institute New York Immigration Coalition Patient Privacy Rights Privacy Activism Privacy Journal Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Privacy Times Rights Working Group The Rutherford Institute South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) Taxpayers Protection Alliance World Privacy Forum
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 20 February 2013 )

Republican Reconsideration of Immigration

TMA Articles and Commentary - Political Commentaries by Sheldon Richman
Written by Sheldon Richman
Thursday, 15 November 2012
REPUBLICAN RECONSIDERATION OF IMMIGRATION by Sheldon Richman November 15, 2012 “Those are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others.” — Groucho Marx Apparently Groucho has been elected chairman of the Republican National Committee. Mitt Romney’s loss to Barack Obama has so shocked the Republican Party that it now is willing to question long-held positions. If defeat prompts Republicans to abandon anti-freedom convictions, that’s all to the good — even if the abandonment is cynically motivated. The first position open to change is immigration. Hispanics are a growing percentage of the population, and the Republican share of their vote was only 27 percent this year, down from 44 percent in 2004 and 31 percent four years ago. As the Wall Street Journal observes, “Polls regularly show that immigration is not a priority for Hispanic voters, but how border policy is discussed still matters as a threshold and symbolic issue.” The party has long insisted on border security, which means an electrified fence, militarization, and even surveillance by drones. Only after the border is secure, Republicans and conservatives have said, should any change in immigration policy be considered. The most staunchly conservative Republicans have opposed anything that smacks of amnesty for “illegal aliens,” that is, persons without government papers. Conservative activists and talk-show hosts have insisted that no one whose first act with respect to America was to break the law deserves to be here. Now Sean Hannity, a conservative pundit on Fox News, says he has “evolved.” People without papers who have no criminal records should be allowed a “pathway to citizenship.” The old Hannity would have said that they all have criminal records by virtue of being in the country without the government’s permission. Funny, isn’t it, that conservatives who say they want small government think it should be big enough to decree who can and cannot freely cross the border. Hannity’s motive is clear — and it isn’t the advancement of individual freedom. “We’ve got to get rid of the immigration issue altogether,” he said. Why did it take a devastating loss at the polls for Hannity to evolve? Because refusal to take a humane position toward people who exercise their natural right to move in search of a better life has become an albatross for the Republicans. Fellow conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer wants a similar shift. Krauthammer says a GOP turnaround requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe — full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement. Continuing, he writes, I’ve always been of the “enforcement first” school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it’s the better policy. But many Hispanics fear that there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle. Krauthammer leaves a big question unaddressed: If until now Hispanics haven’t believed there would be anything “beyond enforcement,” why should they believe an upfront promise of amnesty? Because the Republicans want their votes. The cynicism runs thick: “Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016,” Krauthammer writes. “It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable.” Right. Put a Hispanic face on the GOP, and all will be well. Is that the same Marco Rubio whomisled voters to believe his parents were exiles from Castro’s Cuba, when in fact they came to the United States more than two years before the communist revolution? Even if it’s for the wrong reasons, it’s good to see conservatives rethinking their position. But they have a long way to go. Forget about border-security. People have a right to move, and government should not be issuing — or withholding — permission slips. Being required to have papers should offend people who believe they are free. Next, forget about amnesty. Amnesty implies forgiveness for wrongdoing. But there is nothing wrong in breaking a decree that violates natural law and natural rights. No such product of a legislature even deserves to be called law. Sheldon Richman is vice president of The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of FFF's monthly journal, Future of Freedom. For 15 years he was editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York. He is the author of FFF's award-winning book Separating School & State: How to Liberate America's Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School & State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: "I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School & State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank... . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility..." Sheldon's articles on economic policy, education, civil liberties, American history, foreign policy, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar,Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, The American Conservative, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World & I, Reason,Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and senior editor at the Cato Institute and the Institute for Humane Studies, Sheldon is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia. He blogs at Free Association. Send him This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 05 February 2013 )

Coalition Letter to Congress Regarding Whistelblower Reforms

Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition
Friday, 17 August 2012
141 Diverse Groups Support Swift Action to Restore Strong, Comprehensive Whistleblower Rights An Open Letter to Members of Congress August 17, 2012 The undersigned organizations and businesses write to urge completion of the landmark, decades-long legislative effort to restore credible whistleblower rights for federal employees. We support legislation providing genuine protection for public employees who serve the American public by risking their careers to protect taxpayers. Whistleblower protection is a foundation for any change the public can trust, whether the issue relates to economic recovery, civil rights and civil liberties, prescription drug safety, environmental protection, infrastructure spending, national health insurance, or foreign policy. In May 2012, the Senate unanimously passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) for the fourth time since 2006. It is well past time to finish the job. Unfortunately, every month that passes means the public is deprived the benefit of disclosures from federal government whistleblowers about fraud, waste or abuses that could remain ongoing. On average, more than 15 whistleblowers a month lose initial decisions from administrative hearings at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and less than one prevails. The Whistleblower Protection Act was last restored in 1994, and has since fallen victim to judicial activism. The MSPB found that federal whistleblowers were nine times more likely to be fired in 2010 compared to 1992. This culture of vulnerability maximizes government secrecy, which in turn breeds corruption. Under current law, federal employees are not eligible for whistleblower protections if they: are not the first person who discloses given misconduct make a disclosure to a co-worker; make a disclosure to a supervisor; disclose the consequences of a policy decision; blow the whistle while carrying out job duties. The inadequate protections afforded by current law remains a would-be whistleblower’s best reason to turn a blind eye to government waste, fraud, abuse, as well as threats to public health and safety. We all want the same thing: that the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act become law this year. However, we urge you to send a final bill to the President’s desk that includes the best of both H.R. 3289 and S. 743—not a watered-down version. In the interest of serving that purpose, we write to clarify the most essential elements to any legislation that we can credibly support. These elements, listed below, are crucial to ensure that federal whistleblowers who protect taxpayer dollars and the public’s trust are given adequate access to court, and provide meaningful protections for employees with access to classified information and those working in the intelligence community. Those landmark reforms have been the subject of extremely thoughtful deliberation and consensus for many months. Absent any one of the elements listed below, we feel that we will be left with a bill that fails to adequately advance whistleblower and taxpayer protections. * Appellate review: The Federal Circuit cannot retain its monopoly on appellate review of the Whistleblower Protection Act. This court has a long history of frustrating the congressional mandate, evidenced by a consistent track record of ruling against whistleblowers for decisions on the merits. Since 1994, when Congress last reaffirmed and strengthened those rights, the court has rejected 226 claims and sustained only 3 (as of June 2012). * Access to district court: Government whistleblowers deserve a right to a jury trial, similar to what Congress has already granted to private-sector whistleblowers ten times since 2002. Further, whistleblowers should have the same burdens of proof afforded by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. Reducing agency employers’ burden of proof would be unprecedented and would roll back a cornerstone of the Act that Congress has reaffirmed in every whistleblower law for corporate employees since 1989. * Administrative due process: The summary judgment provision granting new powers for the MSPB to dismiss cases before a hearing is widely perceived as permission to deprive whistleblowers of the opportunity for any due process administrative day in court. At a minimum, summary judgment would force unemployed whistleblowers to spend thousands of dollars for depositions before they even know if a hearing will occur. That is too high a price for the legislation. This poison pill should be removed. * Security clearance due process reform: Revocation of security clearance is the harassment of choice against national security whistleblowers who challenge security breakdowns, fraud, waste, or abuse. Since losing security clearance can frequently lead to permanent blacklisting, the denial of due process has much further consequences than simply depriving whistleblowers of fair play. As a consequence, national security whistleblowers are unlikely to come forward unless they are willing to end their careers.This has deprived our country of the most effective source of information about national security breakdowns, as well as evidence of waste, fraud and abuse. We appreciate your bipartisan consensus support for significant reforms, including closure of judicially created loopholes; restoration of a functional, “reasonable belief” standard, codification of the anti-gag statute, extension of whistleblower rights to the intelligence community through administration regulations, establishment of due process standards to prevent retaliation through security clearances, and expansion of contractor whistleblower rights in HR 3289. It is essential that the law clarify that the WPEA provisions add to, rather than substitute for, current rights. A strong federal whistleblower statute is needed to close existing loopholes, and provide comparable rights and remedies to the dozen gold standard whistleblower rights that Congress has passed for private sector employees since 2000. We know you share our commitment to more transparency and accountability in government. Passing a strong, bipartisan whistleblower reform law would do much to restore the public’s faith in Congress, ensure efficient and accountable government, and save taxpayer dollars. Major studies confirm that whistleblowers have been and will continue to be our best defense against waste, fraud and abuse. Inexcusably, they have been waiting over 12 years for rights that give them a fair chance to defend themselves when they defend the public by exposing government misconduct. Enough is enough. Sincerely, Robert A. Cole Staff Attorney Advocates for Basis Legal Equality, Inc., Tiffiniy Cheng Campaign Coordinator A New Way Forward Ruth Caplan Campaign Co-Chair Alliance for Democracy Susan Gordon Director Alliance for Nuclear Accountability Linda Lipsen Chief Executive Officer American Association for Justice Emily Feltren Director of Government Relations American Association of Law Libraries Patricia Callahan President/Founder American Association of Small Property Owners Rudy Fichtenbaum President American Association of University Professors Christopher Finan President American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression John Gage National President American Federation of Government Employees Stephen A. Sanders Director Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, Inc. Prudence Adler Associate Executive Director Association of Research Libraries Heather Cantino Representative Athens County Fracking Action Network Samuel Sage President Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. Jay Feldman Executive Director Beyond Pesticides Shahid Buttar Executive Director Bill of Rights Defense Committee Linda Langess, Ph.D. Co-Chair Boundary County Concerned Citizens Jane Williams Executive Director California Communities Against Toxics Terry Francke General Counsel/Founder Californians Aware Nelson Carrasquillo General Coordinator CATA - El Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas/The Farmworkers Support Committee William Snape Senior Counsel Center for Biological Diversity Bradley Jansen Director Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights Colin O’Neil Regulatory Policy Analyst Center for Food Safety Lisa Graves Executive Director Center for Media and Democracy Michael Jacobson Executive Director Center for Science in the Public Interest Deb Katz Executive Director Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) Barbara Warren Executive Director Citizens Environmental Coalition James Turner Chairman of the Board Citizens for Health Anne Weismann Chief Counsel Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Laura Olah Executive Director Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger (CSWAB) Daniel E. Manville Director Civil Rights Clinic - Michigan State University Law College David Deal Chief Executive Officer Community IT Innovators Greg Smith Co-Founder Community Research Joni Arends Executive Director Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety Lokesh Vuyyuru, MD Founder Concerned Citizens of Petersburg Sofia Martinez President Concerned Citizens of Wagon Mound & Mora County Dave Werntz Science and Conservation Director Conservation Northwest Ruth Susswein Deputy Director, National Priorities Consumer Action Bob Shavelson Director Cook Inlet Keeper Pratap Chatterjee Executive Director CorpWatch Donald B. Clark Cumberland Countians for Peace and Justice Barbra Kavanaugh Executive Director DC Employment Justice Center Sue Udry Director Defending Dissent Foundation David Cohen Executive Director Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO Ben Smilowitz Director Disaster Accountability Project Stephen Brittle President Don’t Waste Arizona Zena Crenshaw Co-Administrator Drum Majors for Truth Mike Ewall Founder/Director Energy Justice Network Chuck Broscious President of the Board Environmental Defense Institute Antoinette Stein Deputy Director EPP-LCA.org Gabe Bruno Executive Director FAA Whistleblowers Alliance Janet Kopenhaver FEW Washington Representative Federally Employed Women (FEW) David B. Nolan Legal Director Federal Ethics Center Steve Aftergood Government Secrecy Expert Federation of American Scientists Marilyn Fitterman Vice President Feminists for Free Expression Joy Towles Ezell President Florida League of Conservation Voters Susie Caplowe Coordinator Florida League of Conservation Voters Education Fund Patricia T. Birnie Chair GE Stockholders’ Alliance Don Kraus Chief Executive Director GlobalSolutions.org Tom Devine Legal Director Government Accountability Project Alan Muller Executive Director Green Delaware Carl Romanelli Chair Green Party of Pennsylvania Kit Wood Owner/Founder Green Plate Catering Kirk Davies Research Director Greenpeace Larry Pratt Executive Director Gun Owners of America Angela Smith Coordinator HEAL-ONLINE.ORG Representative Gerry Pollet Executive Director Heart of America Northwest Scott Armstrong Executive Director Information Trust J.H. Snider. Ph.D. President iSolon.org John Metz Executive Director/Board Chairman JustHealth Tom FitzGerald Director Kentucky Resources Council, Inc Joseph B. Uehlein Board President, Founding President and Executive Director Labor Network for Sustainability Michael Ostrolenk Director Liberty Coalition Greg Mello Executive Director Los Alamos Study Group Richard Moore Coordinator Los Jardines Institute (The Gardens Institute) Mike Smith Founder Market Air Quality Campaign Janette Parker Director Medical Whistleblower Lewis Patrie Representative Move to Amend of Buncombe County Salem Al-Marayati Executive Director Muslim Public Affairs Council Nancy Hone, Director Jan Greenfield, Webmaster NAB (Neighbors Against the Burner) in Minnesota Larry Fisher Founder National Accountant Whistleblower Coalition Gail Dunham Executive Director National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation Joan E. Bertin, Esq. Executive Director National Coalition Against Censorship Eileen Dannemann Director National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) Russell Hemenway President National Committee for an Effective Congress Andrew Jackson National Forum on Judicial Accountability Kenneth F. Bunting Executive Director National Freedom of Information Coalition Rodney Logal Co-Founder/Executive Board Member National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. Terry O’Neill President National Organization for Women Peter Sepp Executive Vice President National Taxpayers Union Colleen Kelley National President National Treasury Employees Union Stephen M. Kohn Executive Director National Whistleblowers Center Amy Allina Program and Policy Director National Women’s Health Network Lewis Maltby President National Workrights Institute James E. Warren Executive Director NC WARN Donald B. Clark Network for Environmental and Economic Responsibility - United Church of Christ Douglas Meiklejohn Executive Director New Mexico Environmental Law Center Miriam German No Nukes Northwest David A. Kraft Director Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) Tim Wheeler Co-Administrator OAK (Organizations Associating for the Kind of Change America Really Needs) Patrice McDermott Director OpenTheGovernment.org Paul Loney President Oregon Wildlife Federation Yanna Lambrinidou, PhD President Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives Paul Martin Organizing, Political and PAC Director Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund Jenny Lisak Co-Director Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air Margaret Reeves Pesticide Action Network North America George Stokes, Jr. National Program Chairman POPULAR (Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored) Evan Hendricks Editor Privacy Times Matt Prindiville Associate Director Product Policy Institute Tim Carpenter National Director Progressive Democrats of America Angela Canterbury Director of Public Policy Project On Government Oversight Keith Wrightson Worker Safety and Health Advocate Public Citizen Jeff Ruch Executive Director Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Dr. Diana Post, Executive Director Munro Meyersburg, Secretary Rachel Carson Council, Inc. Molly Johnson Area Coordinator San Luis Obispo County Grandmothers for Peace Debbie Sease National Campaign Director Sierra Club Linda Petersen Freedom of Information Committee Chair Society of Professional Journalists Edward T. Hart President 2012-13 Southeastern Chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries Don Hancock Administrator Southwest Research and Information Center Deirdre Schlunegger Chief Executive Officer STOP Foodborne Illness Daphne Wysham Co-Director Sustainable Energy and Economy Project Thad Guyer Partner T.M. Guyer & Ayers & Friends Ken Paff National Organizer Teamsters for a Democratic Union Diane Wilson Board Member Texas Injured Workers Evelynn Brown, J.D., LL.M Chief Executive Officer The Brown Center for Public Policy aka Whistlewatch.org James Landrith Founder/Editor/Publisher The Multiracial Activist John Whitehead President The Rutherford Institute Mindy Spatt Communications Director The Utility Reform Network Susan Nevelow Mart Director The William A. Wise Law Library - University of Colorado at Boulder Roy Gutterman Director Tully Center for Free Speech - Syracuse University Celia Viggo Wexler Senior Washington Representative Union of Concerned Scientists Linda Petersen President Utah Foundation for Open Government John Blair President Valley Watch, Inc. Brad Friedman Co-Founder VelvetRevolution.us David Swanson Co-Founder Warisacrime.org Nada Khader Executive Director WESPAC Foundation Janine Blaeloch Director Western Lands Project Donald Soeken, Ph.D. President Whistleblower Support Center and Archive Tracy Davids Executive Director Wild South Kim Witczak Woody Matters Paula Brantner Executive Director Workplace Fairness
Last Updated ( Friday, 17 August 2012 )

What Part of "Illegal" Really Matters?

TMA Articles and Commentary - TMA Commentary and Essays
Written by Scott McPherson
Monday, 02 July 2012
WHAT PART OF “ILLEGAL” REALLY MATTERS? by Scott McPhersonJuly 2, 2012 The mantra of some in the anti-immigration movement in this country can be found in the following question: What part of “illegal” do you not understand? It is regularly featured on protest placards; it’s in their widely circulated emails. Most anti-immigration types will not say they are anti-immigration, of course — they’re just anti–illegal immigration, they say. “These people,” they rail, righteous with indignation, “are here in violation of our laws!” Quick question: If you’re really opposed only to illegal immigration, then surely you won’t object if Congress changes federal immigration law to make it easier for people to come to the United States, right? If we just — voila! — make all “illegal immigrants” “legal” by law, then where does that leave your argument? The truth is, some of these people just don’t like immigrants. They want as few as possible to come to the United States, but they don’t have the courage to say it, so they hide behind current immigration law to deny those who want a better lives for themselves and their families such an opportunity. Imagine if we applied their thinking consistently. It wouldn’t take long for many of those who claim they oppose only illegal immigration to be singing a different tune. Take the recent Heller decision, which overturned Washington, D.C.’s, draconian gun laws. How many “law and order” conservatives were on hand to chide those hoping the court would overturn D.C. law? (“Hey, Second Amendment Lover: What part of ‘illegal’ do you not understand?”) Some Americans express outrage when a municipal government harasses some young person for running a lemonade stand, citing health and safety laws, permit fees, and business-license requirements. But isn’t that an illegal business? (“Hey, Free-Enterprise Advocate: What part of ‘illegal’ do you not understand?”) Oh, that’s different, they’ll say. Owning a gun and operating a business — those are important constitutional rights. You mean, like freedom? In that vein, let’s ask another question: If you oppose only illegal immigration, then what are your feelings on escaped slaves in the antebellum South? After all, they were breaking the law when they ran away — when they immigrated — to a non–slave state! Many Americans at the time understood the right of people — all people — to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and helped runaway slaves. So much so that pro-slavery forces in Congress pushed through a federal law that threatened six months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine for anyone who helped a slave to escape. Freedom-loving Americans understood that in any conflict between law and right, right should prevail. The law be damned. They didn’t say, “Escaping from your master is illegal — what part of that do you not understand?” Instead they demanded that slavery be abolished. Law, in any republic, should be sacrosanct; it should be inviolable — but never as an end in itself. Law exists to serve the people, to protect their rights — to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are the rights of “all men” — each and every human being. The American colonists lived under a government that violated their rights, and in defiance of the law (“‘Hey, colonists,’ shouted the King, ‘what part of “illegal” do you not understand?’ And the colonists, sufficiently cowed, laid down their arms and went back to sipping tea” is not part of our national narrative!) they overthrew their government so that another could be established in its place — one where “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” might be enjoyed by everyone. Scott McPherson Scott McPherson is policy adviser at The Future of Freedom Foundation. An advocate of the Free State Project, he lives, reads, writes, plays music, and homeschools his kids in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 5 of 785

Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left

Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com

sisme manken porno