The Wonk Room

Joe Wilson And GOP Colleagues Lie About Immigrants And Health Care Reform

Today, Rep. Joe ‘You Lie’ Wilson (R-SC) staged a press conference with several other Republican congressmen during which Wilson and his colleagues repeatedly lied about taxpayers funding the health care coverage of 2.5 million additional undocumented immigrants under H.R. 3962.

WILSON: I am sorry to report that the Polosi take-over bill has loopholes in it which actually is even worse than H.R. 3200. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], the number of illegal aliens who would benefit from receiving health care benefits in this country would increase by 2.5 million. From 6 million to 8.5 million people [undocumented immigrants] would be able to receive health care benefits. It would cost the American taxpayer 30.5 billion dollars for people who have illegally come to this country.

Watch it:

The CBO estimate actually doesn’t say anything about 2.5 million additional undocumented immigrants receiving health care benefits. What it does say is that about half of the 17 million non-elderly residents who would remain uninsured if H.R. 3200 passed would be “unauthorized immigrants” (8.5 million) and approximately one third of the 18 million who would remain uninsured under H.R. 3962 would be unauthorized (6 million). The CBO’s analysis does not reference the undocumented population other than to point out that the percentage of the uninsured population increases if undocumented immigrants are included in its estimates. There is no reference as to how many undocumented immigrants would be covered by the proposed health care bill because both CBO analyses were essentially written under the assumption that undocumented immigrants will not be eligible.

When it comes down to it, it’s hard to say how many undocumented immigrants would remain uninsured because there is so little information on the population. In a recent blog post, the CBO explained:

The use of the terms “about one-third” and “nearly half” was meant to convey the uncertainty and imprecision surrounding our estimates of the characteristics of the remaining uninsured population. Because of that uncertainty and imprecision, we cannot provide a specific figure for coverage of unauthorized immigrants under any of the proposals. Despite the difference in wording, we would not expect any significant differences between the two bills in the number of uninsured who are unauthorized immigrants, because the relevant features of the two proposals are similar.

The CBO does not discuss how many undocumented immigrants will be insured if health care reform passes, but it’s unlikely that their insurance will be tax-payer funded. Under both House bills, undocumented immigrants are permitted to participate in the health exchange and purchase insurance at full cost with their own money. They do not qualify for subsidies. Ultimately, most undocumented immigrants avoid interacting with the US government and it’s improbable that any large number will risk getting deported just to pay lower premiums. Wilson’s claim that undocumented immigrants will cost taxpayers $30.5 billion is either misinformed or downright deceitful.

The merged House bill requires US citizens to be verified against Social Security Administration data and non-citizens to be verified using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program which was designed to help benefit-granting agencies ensure that only entitled applicants receive benefits.

Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) joined Wilson. FAIR has been listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2007.

Vitter Demands Apology From Reid Before Census Amendment Dies In Cloture Vote

Today, the Senate voted 60 to 39 in favor of cloture and effectively ended debate on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill without considering an amendment proposed by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) which sought to cut off financing for the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 survey unless it added a question about citizenship. Vitter, however, did not go down without a fight. In a final floor speech before the vote, Vitter denied criticism that his amendment was anti-immigrant and demanded an apology from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for promoting inaccurate accusations:

It’s absolutely mind-boggling to me — some of the statements that have been made about it…the Majority Leader called my amendment “anti-immigrant”…Senator Reid said my effort is akin to the activities in the 1950s and 1960s to intimidate Black citizens and try to get them to stay away from voting in the voting booth. I take personal offense to that. I think there’s no reasonable comparison and I ask Senator Reid to apologize to me for that outrageous statement on the Senate floor…

It’s interesting in this debate that the other side has been flailing around for an argument against my amendment. It’s interesting that nobody’s argued — that I’ve heard — that reapportionment should be done counting citizens and non-citizens. That that’s more consistent with the notion of Congress being the representative body of citizens of the United States.

Watch it:

If Vitter were asking for nothing more than a “simple citizenship question,” as he repeatedly claimed throughout his floor speech, Reid’s remarks may have been out of line. However, Vitter consistently justified his amendment by claiming that states with many immigrants would steal the representatives of states with few immigrants if non-citizens aren’t excluded from congressional apportionment decisions. Considering the fact that Vitter’s amendment didn’t contain any language stipulating a change in the way representatives are apportioned, it can only be assumed that he was hoping to limit the enumeration of non-citizens by discouraging them from participating.

Deliberately discouraging non-citizens from participating in the Census and deterring African Americans from voting have one major aspect in common: the violation of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment made African American slaves citizens with voting rights and also stipulated that representatives would be apportioned according to “the whole number of persons in each State.” Along those lines, Vitter’s critics actually have suggested that “reapportionment should be done counting citizens and non-citizens” because the Constitution says so.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) called Vitter’s amendment a “transparent political stunt” that would’ve cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Four Lessons That Should Stop Vulnerable Democrats From Cowering Away From Immigration Reform

The Hill reports that vulnerable House and Senate Democrats want to focus more on the economy and “skip the party’s controversial legislative agenda.” Rather than safeguarding their reelection bids, these Democrats are more likely shooting themselves in the foot by deliberately sidestepping issues like immigration reform and climate change which helped Obama win the White House and put many of them in office.

In a Huffington Post column posted today, political strategist Robert Creamer offered Democrats four pieces of invaluable advice in preparation for next year’s midterm elections. Yellow-bellied Democrats should apply some of Creamer’s “lessons learned” to the immigration debate before passing up a golden opportunity to craft and pass progressive immigration reform in a Democratic-controlled Congress:

1. “First and foremost, the results show that it is critical that the Democratic message be framed in populist terms.”

Creamer explains that yesterday’s election results represent a referendum on incumbents — or candidates from the incumbent party — who failed to present themselves as populist “agents of change who will return economic power to average Americans.”

Backing away from the immigration issue isn’t going to do anything but reinforce the status quo. Democrats can and should talk about immigration reform in economic terms. For example, they could mention that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 would have generated $66 billion in new revenue during 2007-2016 if right-wingers hadn’t blocked it. Legalizing undocumented immigrants wouldn’t just generate more tax revenue, it would also level the playing field for all workers and improve wages and working conditions in industries that currently exploit immigrant labor. Meanwhile, shutting the door on high-skilled immigrants could drive the world’s best and brightest away from contributing to and growing the US economy.

2. “Independent voters will demand that Democrats deliver on our promise of change.”

Creamer points out that independents are impatient and need to see “some serious evidence” of change. He specifically lists immigration reform as one of the battles Democrats are going to have to win in addition to passing legislation that stimulates the economy. The nation’s immigration system has been broken for a long time and Democrats could win a lot of points for being the Party that finally fixes it.

3). “Democrats must inspire the base.”

Latino and immigrant voters make up a growing and powerful voting bloc that in 2008 came out in droves to support Obama and helped flip red states blue. Latinos overwhelmingly favored Democrats in hopes of seeing major improvements in their communities. Much of the political success of the current Congress and administration hinges on its ability to deliver comprehensive immigration reform and in turn make life-long Democrats out of Latino and immigrant voters.

4. “Our not-so-secret weapon in 2010 is the Republican circular firing squad.”

The right-wing’s self-destructive tendency is especially evident in the immigration debate. Right-wing anti-immigrant demagoguery tarnished the Republican brand during the 2007 immigration debate. The GOP is now viewed amongst Latino and immigrant voters as having created a climate of undeterred public immigrant-bashing that brought nativism into the mainstream. Some Republicans are trying to clean up the Party’s image, but one doesn’t have to look very far to realize that it’s probably going to be a while before the GOP is able to purge itself of its nativist fringe. Old habits die hard, and right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric will probably lose hardline Republicans some votes without any Democratic interference.

But Creamer warns that Democrats can’t count on it. Actions speak louder than words and despite the fact that it’s progressives who created the “deep well of desire for real change in America,” their majority is by no means guaranteed if they don’t have the guts to go after it.

GOP Health Care Bill Excludes All Immigrants From ‘High Risk Pool’

Throughout the health care debate, Republicans have been harping on Democrats for not doing enough to block undocumented immigrants from receiving public benefits. However, it turns out Republicans aren’t just opposed to expanding access to health care for undocumented immigrants, they’re against providing any assistance to all “high risk” seriously ill immigrants, regardless of their immigration status.

The long-awaited health care bill that the Republican House leadership sent to the Congressional Budget Office explicitly states that only US citizens and nationals will be eligible to participate in a State’s “high risk pool.” High risk pools are problematic for a lot of other reasons, but they’re one of the few recourses the GOP is providing individuals who can’t obtain health insurance as a result of a serious illness. States are required to verify citizenship or nationality in a manner consistent with section 1903(x) of the Social Security Act:

Chances are most immigrants wouldn’t be able to afford to buy into pricey high risk pools even if they were eligible. Nonetheless, by explicitly excluding a population that includes legal residents who tend to be healthier than US citizens, use less medical care, and use less expensive care; the GOP is putting its nativist principles before practical common sense. A relatively small number of “high risk” immigrants probably wouldn’t bankrupt the hypothetical pool system, but their participation could upset the GOP’s right-wing base. Republicans already fought in previous years to make sure legal permanent residents don’t qualify for Medicaid until they’ve been in the country for five years and now they’re essentially suggesting that immigrants who get sick and can’t obtain Medicaid or private health insurance should either die broke in the US or go back to their home countries. Many have pointed out that the GOP’s plan is “designed for the healthy while they’re healthy” and for legal immigrants this concept is amplified and downright punitive.

The GOP proposal also prohibits States from including uninsured undocumented immigrants in their calculation of average premiums or number of uninsured.

Sec. 242 and 246 of the Democrats’ health care bill states that only individuals who are not lawfully present in US will be denied health care benefits.

FBI Investigating Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Use Of Power Against Critics

Phoenix’s local KPHO-Channel 5 reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into accusations that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is “using his position to settle political vendettas” against those who have been critical of his controversial tactics, primarily his aggressive pursuit of undocumented immigrants.

KPHO lists a series of well-known Arizona public figures who were paid “unwelcome visits” by Arpaio’s deputies shortly after speaking out against the Sheriff. Following previous criticisms made by former Mesa Police Chief George Gascon, the Maricopa County police inexplicably raided Mesa City Hall and the public library in search of undocumented janitors. Gascon was one of Arpaio’s harshest critics who, on his last day on the job, was still slamming the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s (MCSO) “incompetence” and stated that Arpaio’s immigration sweeps make “absolutely no sense” and are contrary to “good policing in general.” Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon asked the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate complaints of alleged racial profiling committed by Maricopa County cops. Just a few weeks later, Arpaio’s deputies demanded all of Gordan’s e-mail, phone logs and appointment calendars. “He knows he never has to prove anything,” Gordon told KPHO. “He just raises the issue, and then he hides behind the badge — and the damage is done.”

KPHO also lists Dan Saban, who ran against the sheriff in 2004 and 2008; Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who tepidly opposed the Sheriff’s immigration tactics; Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell, who challenged Arpaio’s handling of inmates; ACLU attorney Daniel Pochoda, who has sued the MCSO several times; and the entire Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. However, all of the sources declined to speak with Arizona Republic on the record because of the a “fear of reprisal from the Sheriff’s Office.” KPHO points out that none of Arpaio’s investigations involving the individuals mentioned have resulted in convictions. Nonetheless, Arpaio has cost them “hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and tarnished reputations.”

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was “fired by Karl Rove for failing to be political enough in his prosecutions,” told KPHO that he would seek an indictment if he were working on the case:

“I’ve been in and around law enforcement for about 20 years — state, local and federal level (and) even some military prosecution work. I’ve never seen anything like this…This is remarkable, I can’t believe this is happening in the United States. This is something that I have seen in South America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. Absolutely unacceptable. We don’t do this kind of thing in this country without some kind of consequence.“

The “normally talkative” Arpaio refused KPHO’s repeated requests for an on-camera interview, but did put out a release stating that KPHO “has an axe to grind against this Office” and slammed KPHO for citing “the same attorney [Iglesias] who was fired in 2006 by the US Attorney General.”

Watch the KPHO report:

Sessions Lies About Unemployment Benefits Going To ‘Illegals’

Yesterday, on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) proclaimed that Democrats are trying to prevent him from submitting an amendment that would prevent “illegals” from accessing jobless benefits. Sessions is upset that the Senate has denied his amendment to the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act requiring new unemployment benefit applicants to have their citizenship status checked using E-Verify — a controversial and error-ridden web-based employment verification system.

Sessions said, unequivocally, that undocumented immigrants are currently receiving unemployment benefits and are being “rewarded” for their “illegal behavior” by applying with their Social Security Numbers (SSN):

SESSIONS: What we want them to do is, like we’re asking businesses to do, is check with E-verify to see if the person who seeks unemployment insurance and compensation is actually lawfully in the country. That can be done, but they do not want to do that for reasons that baffle me and frankly have said that nothing is going to be voted on…

CAVUTO: So, are illegals presently getting jobless benefits, you can say that unequivocally?

SESSIONS: Yeah, uh, and they file using their Social Security Numbers and they get the benefits and if you check those numbers you would identify some of the people who shouldn’t be getting it. One of the more simple things you should do is simply not reward this illegal behavior.

Watch it:

To begin with, only US citizens individuals who are authorized to work are issued SSNs. Undocumented immigrants may possess stolen or fake SSNs, but if they try to apply for public benefits, the likelihood of them getting caught is very high. Phony SSNs immediately raise a red flag and stolen ones are easily identifiable in states that cross-match SSNs against the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) database and in all cases in which the theft has been reported.

Ultimately, most undocumented immigrants wouldn’t touch federal unemployment insurance with a ten foot pole. They’re in the US to work, not to collect public benefits. Chances are if they lose their job, they’ll just keep looking for another one before risking deportation and possible jail time. “It’s such a red herring — undocumented workers are too scared to apply for these kinds of benefits — they know the consequences of getting caught,” Jodi Conti of the National Employment Law Project tells Wonk Room.

Millions of US citizens are unemployed and they do qualify for and depend on unemployment benefits. However, if E-verify were instituted a 4% error rate could be devastating. In other words, for every million citizens that are unemployed, unemployment benefits for 40,000 American families could be denied or delayed due to errors in the SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. The current number of total unemployed persons is currently at 15.1 million.

Nativist Extremist’ Minuteman PAC Endorses Hoffman For Congress

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate for New York’s traditionally Republican 23rd District, has just won the right-wing support of the Minuteman Political Action Committee — the political action arm of a “nativist extremist” armed vigilante group. The Minuteman PAC is currently running Independent Expenditure radio spots and predicts that Hoffman is “positioned to win a landslide victory” over Republican Party nominee Dede Scozzafava.

The Minuteman PAC’s Hoffman ad claims Scozzafava and Democratic candidate Bill Owens are tied directly to “the left-wing social agenda”:

You already know about ACORN — the corrupt organization scamming your tax dollars to promote a radical left agenda. And you’ve seen videos where Acorn officials offer to help a teenage prostitution ring involving illegal aliens. Now blogger Michele Malkin exposes yet another Acorn scandal: subsidized mortgages for illegal aliens. Acorn must be stopped, but how?

Two candidates for Congress, Dede Scozzafava and Bill Owens, are tied directly to Acorn and their far left-wing socialist agenda. That’s why voters all over Central New York and the North country are backing Doug Hoffman for Congress. Doug Hoffman is a CPA — a solid conservative and the only candidate for Congress opposed to amnesty and government handouts for illegal aliens. And only Hoffman will stand up to Acorn and the liberals. The choice is clear: Doug Hoffman for Congress — the wake-up call politicians in both parties need now.

Listen here:

The Minuteman PAC proclaims that it’s “THE ONE Political Action Committee that the open-borders, pro-amnesty lobby fears most,” but has been widely criticized for hoarding money and spending only a small fraction of its funds on political candidates.

However, Hoffman’s website indicates that he’s actually opposed to putting up a wall to “stop all immigration.” “The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here,” says his immigration platform. Agriculture is one of central New York’s main industries and many farmers depend on migrant labor. The New York Farm Bureau has expressed “deep disappointment” in “the failure of Congress…to come up with an immigration reform measure that addresses the pressing labor needs of agriculture in New York and across the nation.”

Cross-posted at Think Progress.

Report Says Immigration Enforcement Creates ‘Perverse Economic Incentive’ To Hire Undocumented Immigrants

The AFL-CIO, American Rights at Work and the National Employment Law Project (NELP) released a joint paper today which shows that Bush-era immigration enforcement tactics created a “perverse economic incentive for employers to employ undocumented workers.” In other words, employers systematically deny undocumented workers “the most basic workplace protections” and escape responsibility “by simply calling for an immigration inspection.” While clueless anti-immigrant groups like the Center for Immigration Studies ignorantly claim that disruptive immigration raids actually help native-born workers, the report, “Iced Out: How Immigration Enforcement Has Interfered with Workers’ Rights,” affirms that “threats to call immigration authorities deprive workers in nearly every industry of their right to a voice at work.”

In 1998, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forged between the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, now ICE) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) sought to create a balance between immigration and labor law enforcement. The MOU established that the two agencies would work together to increase employers’ compliance with minimum labor standards and clearly stated that immigration enforcement would not trump labor law enforcement. Ten years later, ICE’s preoccupation with immigration enforcement was blatantly undermining the work of those trying to enforce labor laws. The report lists several examples of disruptive ICE actions, including massive immigration raids conducted in the middle of major labor disputes and organizing campaigns, stating:

“ICE actions have created incentives for shady employers to continue hiring and abusing undocumented workers, since the deportation of their employees may excuse those employers from complying with labor laws…ICE has been too quick to embrace workplace enforcement actions at the behest of employers and other individuals, including law enforcement, acting directly and transparently on behalf of employers, where a labor dispute was in progress or where some level of due diligence would have uncovered the pending dispute. When enforcement is focused on immigration status without regard to the implications for upholding workplace standards, our country’s workers — immigrant and non-immigrant alike — are trapped in abusive jobs at the mercy of abusive employers.“

Two GAO reports released over the past couple years found that the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division hasn’t been doing its job either. The most recent, released this past March, showed that five of ten labor complaints reported by undercover agents were neither recorded in its database or investigated. Meanwhile, immigration prosecutions have risen 110% since 2004.

Ana Avendaño, assistant to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, and a report co-author, points out that “the ultimate solution” is immigration reform which creates a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants and strips employers of their power to exploit and threaten workers who stand up for their rights. Earlier this year, the AFL-CIO, along with Change to Win, “agreed for the first time to join forces” and support comprehensive immigration reform based on a “joint framework.”

Wife Of Iraq Vet Suffering PTSD Fighting Deportation

U.S. Army Spc. Jack Barrios served bravely in Iraq only to come back to the US with a debilitating post-traumatic stress disorder and learn that his wife, who he refers to as his “everything,” might be deported back to Guatemala.

Frances Barrios was illegally brought to the US by her mother when she was only 6-years-old and wasn’t even aware of her immigration status until high school. Nonetheless, she would have to return to her home country and stay there for 10 years before being able to apply for a US green card to be with her husband and two children. The Los Angeles Times points out that Frances has no criminal record and speaks better English than Spanish.

Frances is not alone. Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who helped establish the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Military Assistance Program, claims she receives one call a day related to immigration problems. New America Media reports that one commander was almost deployed not knowing if her husband would still be there when she got back. The army ended up being more understanding than federal immigration agents and agreed to let her command her unit from a station in the US. If her husband is deported, she will have to quit the army and move with her family to either Mexico or El Salvador.

Last year, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced legislation — co-sponsored by two Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee — that would give servicemembers’ spouses a path to citizenship. Yet the legislation has its critics. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies, describes the bill as a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) also offers little sympathy, stating “Our soldiers fight and, in some cases, give their lives to preserve the rule of law. It seems ironic indeed that some would propose to disregard the rule of law just as another reward or inducement to serve our country.”

Several widows and widowers of deceased soldiers have also been affected by a draconian policy which allows immigration officials to annul spouses’ permanent residency applications when their US citizen husbands or wives die before the marriage is two years old. A bill that overturned what is often referred to as the “widow’s penalty” passed Congress this month and is awaiting President Obama’s signature.

Dallas Woman Ticketed For Not Speaking English

The Dallas Morning News reports that Ernestina Mondragon, a native Spanish-speaker who is still learning English, was wrongfully issued a ticket by an officer in training for not speaking English. Non-English speakers aren’t allowed to operate taxis or commercial vehicles in Texas, however Mondragon has every right to be on the road in her private car according to state and local law.

A local Dallas news station explains that the new police officer may have been confused. “Rookie” Officer Gary Bromley also issued Mondragon a citation for a wrongful U-turn and driving without a license. Mondragon was running late taking her 11-year-old daughter to school and had left her driver’s license at home. The error went inexplicably unnoticed by his supervising officer, who was with him the morning he issued Mondragon the ticket.

Throughout the years, English-only bills have been considered by the Texas state legislature — including one that sought to designate English as the official language of the State of Texas. Yet so far, non-English speakers in Texas are still allowed to drive.

Watch the local news report:

Arpaio’s Deputies Suspicious Of People ‘Who Look Like They Just Came From Mexico’

A local Phoenix news station reports that Sheriff Joe Arpaio admitted last Saturday that his deputies are suspicious of people “who look like they just came from Mexico.” Arpaio has adamantly denied racial profiling allegations, but at a press conference yesterday morning, Arpaio refused to provide a straight-forward comment on the remarks he made this past weekend. In fact, he became confrontational with the reporter who asked him what someone who “just came from Mexico” looks like:

REPORTER: What does someone who just came from Mexico look like? What are the characteristics? You said it over the weekend.

ARPAIO: I never said the characteristics. Don’t mislead me. Hold on — no — I said we are using the protocol and the indicators that ICE has taught my deputies.

REPORTER: What are the indicators?

ARPAIO: No, I’m not going to talk about this anymore. I said we’re doing this legally. Put that in your camera and just say I said we’re doing it legally.

Watch it:

Arpaio later sent the news station a list of “indicators” his deputies use to determine if someone is an undocumented immigrants. Those indicators include a “thick accent” and riding in an “overcrowded” automobile. On CNN a couple weeks ago, Arpaio cited a nonexistent law which he claimed allowed his deputies to determine if someone is “illegal” by looking at their “clothing, speech, and conduct.” The “law” was actually an anti-immigrant designated hate group’s “legal analysis” of a federal statute that says nothing of the such.

Immigration authorities recently took away Arpaio’s authority to enforce immigration laws on the streets of Maricopa County. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting an investigation into widespread allegations of racial profiling and civil rights abuses on behalf of Arpaio’s deputies. However, Arpaio has vowed to continue his immigration “crime sweeps” and is now calling on the county attorney, a “close political ally,” to give him an “official opinion” as to whether he can continue to enforce federal immigration laws. Arpaio’s other friend, Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce (R) has introduced local legislation to support the Sheriff’s activities. The “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” would allow Arpaio’s deputies to arrest undocumented immigrants under the state’s trespassing statute and bar cities from enacting policies that would prevent them from enforcing federal immigration laws.

NumbersUSA Director Says Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Anti-Hispanic

Roy Beck, director of NumbersUSA — a group described as being part of a network of “anti-immigration” organizations — has released a video in which he claims to “stand up for Hispanics” by blasting Latino groups for promoting comprehensive immigration reform and supporting a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants:

“The thing that I really want to focus on today though is our need to stand up for Hispanic Americans…Well, I want to tell you that nearly all Hispanic advocacy groups are working against the interests of Latino voters…

Since so much attention is placed on how we need to have comprehensive immigration reform for the sake of the Hispanics — no that would be the most anti-Hispanic thing to do. We must speak with confidence about the fact that what we advocate: lower immigration — in fact an immigration suspension and no amnesty — is probably the most pro-Hispanic thing that Congress could do.”

Watch it:

Considering the fact that 89% of Latino voters support comprehensive immigration reform which includes a pathway to legalization, Beck is essentially saying that Latinos don’t know what’s best for them. However, most research suggests they do. The Immigration Policy Center points out that “legalizing undocumented workers would improve wages and working conditions for all workers, and increase tax revenues for cash-strapped federal, state, and local governments.” In fact, had the comprehensive immigration reform bill of 2006 passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would’ve generated $66 billion in new revenue during 2007-2016. Beck also forgets that many “Hispanic Americans” have friends and family who are undocumented or who want to emigrate to the US to be with their loved ones, but can’t due to the government’s tight green card caps.

In fact, NumbersUSA attributes “America’s current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, [and] school overcrowding” to what they refer to as “family chain migration.” NumbersUSA also has no problem with separating mixed-status families. In fact, they support a policy of “attrition through enforcement,” which means deporting as many immigrants as possible and making life in the US unbearable for undocumented immigrants who stay. That’s despite the fact that a policy designed to deport the approximately 10 million undocumented immigrants living in the US would cost at least $206 billion over five years, or $41.2 billion annually.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) acknowledges that Beck “says he’s no racist,” but he certainly pals around with them an awful lot. According to SPLC, Beck worked under John Tanton for ten years as an editor of Tanton’s journal, The Social Contract, which frequently features the writings of white nationalists. Tanton is described as the wealthy “racist founder of many of the nation’s key nativist groups” who has also dabbled in eugenics and is known for his anti-Semitism and racist statements about Latinos. SPLC goes further to claim that the Beck and Tanton families vacationed together, despite the fact that Beck continues to “understate” his relationship with him. SPLC identifies NumbersUSA as part of the “Nativist Lobby,” a group of three Washington, D.C.-based immigration-restriction organizations conceived and created by Tanton himself.

Iowa Gubernatorial Candidate Christian Fong Courts Minuteman Vote

Iowa businessman and Republican gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong appeared before the Iowa Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) this past weekend, a self-proclaimed vigilante group. Fong, who describes himself as the son of a Chinese immigrant and Nebraska farm girl, urged Iowa minutemen to adopt a friendlier approach towards legal immigrants.

Fong agreed with the minutemen that immigration laws need to be enforced and public benefits to undocumented immigrants restricted, but reminded the crowd that “it’s important for the Republican Party to not sound so angry…otherwise, we lose that whole bunch [immigrant voters].” Fong is referring to the growing population of legal immigrants in Iowa who are becoming US citizens and exercising their right to vote. According to Fong, being inclusive and “sounding more welcoming” towards legal immigrants is simply “good politics.”

However, actions speaks louder than words. It’s doubtful that Fong somehow overlooked the fact that he was speaking to a group that has been repeatedly identified as a right-wing anti-immigrant militia. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes the Minutemen as a loose network of local chapters whose primary goal is to keep undocumented immigrants from Mexico out of the country. Nonetheless, they often target anyone who looks like they fit that category. Though it was originally started as a border vigilante group made up of armed volunteers, many chapters — like Iowa’s — aren’t anywhere near the border and instead employ tactics such as videotaping dark-skinned people at their workplace who they believe are undocumented. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists 11 local Iowa MCDC chapters on its “nativist extremist group” list and warns that the group is a magnet for violent extremists. Its founder, Chris Simcox denies such warnings, despite the fact that someone like Shawna Forde — a woman recently accused of murdering a 9-year-old Latina and her father — was formerly associated with his group.

It’s wise of Fong to suggest Republicans cool down their anti-immigrant rhetoric, but headlining a MCDC event probably lost him whatever points his moderate tone might have won him within the community of immigrants who “use[d] proper channels” to come to the US. Also, approaching legal immigrants with a more welcoming attitude while shutting the door in the face of many of their undocumented friends and family members will only get Fong so far. Ultimately, Republicans can’t just expect a change of tone without a corresponding adjustment in their immigration platform is going to win them the critical immigrant and Latino vote.

During his speech before the Minuteman, Fong also compared President Obama to mid-20th Century Chinese Communists that promised “hope and change.” Bleeding Heartland asks Fong to “make up his mind” on whether he’s going to be “the GOP’s hopeful, inclusive-talking guy” or not.

Anti-Immigrant Front Group Launches Ad Campaign Claiming Reduced Immigration Will ‘Save The Earth’

A group whose entire mission is built on the notion that immigrants are contributing to global climate change, Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), has released two new ads which claim that “saving the earth in California starts with reduced immigration.” According to CAPS’ logic, “immigration and births to immigrants” lead to unsustainable population growth which leads to global warming and is amplified by the fact that immigrants’ energy use quickly becomes “Americanized” when they move to the US.

The television ad informs Californians that they have some “tough decisions to make” about immigration and global warming:

“Concerned about Americans’ huge carbon foot print? Then you should be concerned about immigration… Reducing immigration won’t solve global warming, but it is part of the solution. We’ve got some tough choices to make.”

Watch it:

The corresponding radio ad tells Californians that they have to face an “inconvenient truth” about immigration and climate change:

“The inconvenient truth is that population growth and environmental degradation go hand in hand…by 2050 our population will reach 60 million — driven almost entirely by immigration and immigrant births. And when immigrants come to California, their carbon footprint quadruples what it was…So if we’re going to do our share to save the earth, our immigration levels must be reduced. That’s a tough pill for compassionate Californians to swallow, but swallow it we must.“

Listen:

A CAPS press release indicates that the ads are based on the shoddy research presented by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a group which has been described as having “never found any aspect of immigration it likes.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Center for New Community, both groups were founded and funded by John Tanton — a man with “troubling associations with racists, white supremacists, and political extremists.” Other “Tanton network” organizations have parroted similar claims, including NumbersUSA, Progressives for Immigration Reform, and the hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform which recently launched a new social networking website, fairdebate.org, aimed at “furthering the debate” on “US overpopulation and the role that immigration plays.”

All of Tanton’s organizations are fixated on scapegoating immigrants and sidestep the fact that the central problem has more to do with US consumption patterns. Rather than asking Americans to get rid of their gas guzzling automobiles, CAPS suggests getting rid of immigrants. However, energy consumption is driven by a host of factors totally unrelated to population size, such as societal dependence on polluting and non-renewable fossil fuels; utilization of energy-efficient technologies; and the development of mass transit systems that minimize individual automobile use. That explains why the World Resources Institute found that though the US is home to 23% fewer people than the European nations of the EU-15, it still produces 70% more greenhouse gases.

Ultimately, CAPS is essentially suggesting that the world would be better off if immigrants stayed poor in their less consuming, less industrialized countries. Based on this logic, illegal immigration isn’t the problem, increased wealth and international development are. However, quite the contrary, “immigrants, in essence, are doing precisely what planners want the rest of us to do,” says to UCLA professor Ali Modarres who recently found that, compared to Americans, more immigrants walk, bike, bus, or metro to work and fewer drive cars in the state of California. While CAPS and others blame immigrants for everything from traffic jams to depleting aquifers, Mordares suggests that, “immigrants are greening our cities, how about giving them a break?”

Anti-Immigrant PAC President William Gheen To Sport ‘Illegal Alien’ Halloween Costume

This past weekend, the retailer Target agreed to take its “illegal alien” costumes off the shelves after receiving several complaints from immigrant rights advocates. Americans for Legal Immigration PAC’s President William Gheen quickly jumped in and has offered to appear on television and conduct interviews while wearing the costume in protest. Gheen, whose self proclaimed rallying cry is “Illegals Go Home!,” perceives the controversy as an attack on free speech, and hopes the demand for the costumes will rise and quickly lead to sold out inventories.

Gheen is offensive enough when he appears in public dressed as himself. Gheen has gone out of his way to use hateful vitriol and fear-mongering rhetoric to impart meaning on a term that is deliberately used to degrade an entire population. The American Defamation League (ADL) criticizes Gheen for demonizing “immigrants as drunk drivers, gang members, invaders, murderers, and disease-carriers.” He’s also gone as far as to compare undocumented immigrants to Hitler, explaining “this time Americans are the Jews and the illegal aliens and their supporters are the Nazis.” At a rally in 2007, Gheen told a North Carolina crowd that “illegal aliens” have “set up ethnic cleansing zones where if you walk past the wrong sign post, the invisible line, you’re under the threat of death.” He also blamed the presence of bedbugs, tuberculosis, and Chagas disease on what he perceives as a lax immigration policy. In other words, it’s people like Gheen who make a costume consisting of an orange jump suit, space alien mask, and fake green card controversial, if not downright offensive.

The National Hispanic Journalists Association has been urging media outlets to stop using the term “illegal alien” because it doesn’t “give an accurate description of a person’s conditional U.S. status, but rather demeans an individual by describing them as an alien.” Angelica Salas, Executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, called the costume “distasteful, mean-spirited, and ignorant of social stigmas and current debate on immigration reform.”

Meanwhile, Think Progress reports that this morning, the hosts of Fox and Friends “couldn’t get enough of the costume.” Steve Doocy wondered where America’s sense of humor was and Brian Kilmeade called the costume “fantastic,” and urged undocumented immigrants who are offended by the costume to go to their local police station and tell them how outraged they are as “illegal aliens.” Michael Steele also appeared on Univision’s Al Punto this weekend defending his use of the term.

The Halloween costume was featured on the websites of Walgreens, Toys R Us, Target, Meijer, Amazon, and other retailers.

GOP Recruiter Disassociates From GOP To Register More Latinos As Republicans

GOP recruiter DeeDee Blase was having trouble wooing Arizona Latinos so she started her own group, “Somos Republicans,” which disassociates itself from the local and state Republican Party in an effort to register more Latinos under the Party’s national banner. Blase points out that Arizona Latinos have become dissatisfied with local GOP leaders like Sheriff Joe Arpaio — who’s regularly accused of racial profiling — and state Sen. Russell Pearce — who called for the revival of “Operation Wetback,” a pre-civil rights federal program aimed at the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. Somos Republicans leverages Latino anger against local anti-immigrant GOP leaders and exploits disappointment in President Obama, who has yet to deliver on his promise of comprehensive immigration reform.

Blase says she was motivated to start Somos Republicans because “Obama sold Latinos down the river” by not tackling comprehensive immigration reform during his first year as president. Its website cites “humane immigration reform focusing on legalizing labor” as a “Republican value.” However, Somos Republicans ignores the fact that Arizona GOP leaders aren’t the only Republican politicians touting hardline immigration policies. In fact, the Republican National Committee’s 2008 party platform offered nothing but enforcement-only solutions to the country’s broken immigration system and outright opposed “amnesty.” Meanwhile, right-wing Republicans did everything in their power to block comprehensive immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, and they’re likely to spend most of the upcoming immigration battle kicking and screaming. One could also say they’re also at least partly to blame for the overall delay of President Obama’s legislative agenda given all the stunts Republican right-wingers have pulled to intentionally stall health care reform.

From Rep. Joe “You Lie” Wilson (R-NC) to former anti-immigrant hate group lobbyist Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) , the Republican party has repeatedly legitimized — if not elevated — its anti-immigrant fringe. Many of the GOP’s immigrant-haters sit on the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC), a group of (mostly Republican) representatives founded by former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) with the mission of stopping “the explosive growth in illegal immigration,” “reversing the growth in legal immigration,” and halting “amnesties.” Other notoriously anti-immigrant members of HIRC include Steve King (R-IA), who described immigration as a “slow-motion Holocaust,” and Lamar Smith (R-TX), who equates undocumented immigrants with “terrorist weapons.” Several HIRC members have publicly supported Arapio and have held his immigration enforcement tactics up as a model for their own communities.

Meanwhile, the GOP is quickly losing the few Latino leaders it once had. Ex-chairman of the Rhode Island Republican Hispanic Assembly Ivan Marte quit the GOP after Joe Wilson’s anti-immigrant outburst and advised Republicans to “reevaluate their position” on reaching out to minority groups. Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), who recently resigned, expressed similar frustrations. Former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Jim Nicholson has urged Republicans to “review” their position on immigration and Colin Powell has pointed out that the “policies with which we greet them [immigrants] are, in important ways, self-fulfilling.”

Of course not all Republicans are racist, and not everyone who opposes immigration is a nativist. However, misrepresenting the Party’s platform and presenting the GOP as something it’s not is shamefully disingenuous. It also fails to fundamentally address the xenophobia which plagues and divides the GOP and may one day render the Republican Party obsolete if left undenounced and untethered.

Vitter Vs. The Constitution: Louisiana Senator Pushes Amendment To Prevent Census Count Of Non-Citizens

Over the past couple of weeks, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has been trying to sell his and Sen. Robert Bennett’s (R-UT) amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill which would require the US Census Bureau to add a question about citizenship to its 2010 survey. Today, Vitter continued claiming that states with many immigrants would steal the representatives of states with few immigrants if noncitizens are not excluded from congressional apportionment decisions. However, there isn’t any language in the amendment stipulating any change in the way representatives are apportioned. And if there was, Vitter would be directly challenging the US Constitution.

Vitter’s argument is based on the misguided premise that the founding fathers always intended that only citizens should be counted by Census officials for the purposes of congressional apportionment:

I believe that when we use the Census for Congressional re-districting for determining how many US House seats each state gets, we should count citizens, but we should not count in that context, non-citizens — including illegal aliens…I don’t think the founding fathers set up a democracy — and in many ways the most important Democratic institution in history, the US Congress — to represent noncitizens. Why aren’t we adding in the entire population of France, or Belgium, or Brazil? For obvious reasons, because this is a democracy to represent citizens of the United States.

Watch it:

However, as Gabriel Winant of Salon points out, “the 18th century has something to say to the 21st.” Winant explains that the issue of counting noncitizens came up in the Three-fifths Compromise which stipulated that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment granted former slaves citizenship and established that representatives would be apportioned according to “the whole number of persons in each State.” It’s unlikely that our founding fathers and their predecessors naively overlooked a loophole in the 14th Amendment’s broad language that would allow noncitizens to be counted, as Vitter would like to think. Surely they weren’t blind to the fact that millions of immigrants from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and various regions of what would become Germany were rapidly emigrating to the US during the nation’s first era of mass immigration. Children, ex-felons, legal residents, and several other nonvoters are also included in the census apportionment data. These non-voters aren’t counted due to a mistake or oversight. Their presence is acknowledged because it helps paint an accurate portrait of a state’s demographic makeup and population density that’s key to effective and adequate representation.

Vitter’s amendment only seeks to compel the US Census to include a question on citizenship because changing congressional apportionment would be unconstitutional. The truth is, Vitter is probably aware of the fact that the question in itself will dissuade noncitizens from participating. Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, explains, “Already the public fears that the Census is too intrusive.” Asking about a person’s citizenship “would raise more questions in the public mind about how confidential the Census is.”

Meanwhile, Vitter is supposedly arguing on behalf of many of the states that have benefited from a recent influx of undocumented immigrants in terms of population growth. Moreover, the non-participation of immigrants could lead to inaccurate demographic information and result in costly mistakes in infrastructure, education, and healthcare planning. Changing the census could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. For those reasons the Census Bureau, the Obama administration, and Senate leadership all adamantly oppose Vitter’s amendment. Last night, under pressure, Vitter at least dropped the language in his Amendment which would’ve required the US Census to ask participants about their immigration status.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Mistakes Hate Group’s Legal Analysis For Law When Defending Racial Profiling

Last week, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio cited a federal law which allows him to determine if someone is an “illegal” based on their clothing, speech, and conduct. However, Matt Bunk of the Arizona Capitol Times points out that no such language exists in any federal immigration law and that the document that Arpaio continuously referenced and passed out at a press conference is actually a legal analysis published by a designated hate group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting an investigation into allegations of racial profiling and civil rights abuses on behalf of Arpaio’s deputies who have been empowered to enforce immigration law on the streets of Maricopa County by virtue of the 287(g) agreement they have with federal immigration authorities. When the Department of Homeland Security handed Arpaio a new contract that will only allow his agency to check the immigration status of jail inmates, Arpaio defiantly pledged to continue going after immigrants just as he’s always done and cited a federal law which he claimed justified the controversial tactics his deputies employ.

But Bunk was puzzled when Arpaio passed out a copy of Section 8, USC 1324 which stated that “evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens” should help officers determine whether a person is in the country illegally. However, there isn’t any citation of that text in the actual US federal code. The language Arpaio cites is present in a document posted by a hate group which explicitly warns that it is only an analysis of federal law and should not be used as a substitute for legal advice.

Arpaio initially told Bunk that the document he disseminated was an actual copy of US code which the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency had confirmed as valid. When pressed, Arpaio admitted that the document might not be part of federal law. Nonetheless, he insisted that it doesn’t make a difference whether the text he cites is law or analysis:

“I thought it was a law. I don’t know what you call it. I still think there’s a federal law out there that gives me the authority to do this, I might not have the right one, but there is one out there. When they [ICE] won’t take them, I’ll take them to Border Patrol. So let’s see what happens now. How can you tell Border Patrol that you can’t take them? If mine are illegal and they don’t take them, are they going to take the other ones that they find?”

Arpaio still believes there’s a law somewhere out there that allows him to “detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation.” His next immigrant “crime sweep” is scheduled for later this week.

FBI Threatens Muslim Man With Deportation For Refusing To Become An Informant

After turning down an offer from the FBI to become a secret informant, a Muslim doctoral student at Florida International University, Imam Foad Farahi, has been allegedly dealt an ultimatum: leave the country voluntarily, or be charged as a terrorist. Farahi underwent a three-year training course to become a designated leader, or imam, at the Shamsuddin Islamic Center in North Miami Beach and is unwilling to spy on members of his mosque.

In 2002, Jose Padilla — one of two South Florida men linked to the Al-Qaeda network– was convicted on terrorist charges. The FBI could not track down the other alleged Al-Qaeda member, Adnan El Shukrijumah. Padilla happened to pray at Farahi’s mosque, but Farahi told FBI agents that he hadn’t had any contact with him since 1998. When federal authorities urged Farahi to start working with them as an informant, Farahi explained to them that he was more than willing to help, but that the relationship would have to be public. Shortly thereafter, immigration authorities informed him that he would be charged as a terrorist if he did not leave the country voluntarily. Farahi is convinced that the FBI is bluffing about the evidence it claims to have that he is a terrorist, and his lawyer has petitioned the US Court of Appeals in Atlanta to reopen his asylum case and let him stay in the US. Currently he’s a man without a country. The US wants to kick him out and, by applying for political asylum, he has rejected his Iranian citizenship.

The right-wing website Pipelinenews.org adamantly claims that Farahi is a “radical Muslim cleric” who has been designated as a Level 3 threat by DHS. But the FBI won’t comment on Farahi’s case and has provided no evidence that connects Farahi with terrorist activities. If anything, Farahi seems like the sort of Muslim leader that should be awarded praise, not deportation orders. Farahi attended a private Catholic college in Florida and participated in its interfaith committee. He was a teacher at the university’s peace forum and regularly put together interfaith dinners.

Leila Fadel of the McClatchy News Service writes that “the government’s search for the enemy within is threatening to divide and destroy America’s Muslim communities.” According to Fadel, most Muslims believe their mosques are full of FBI informants and that the government presumes all Muslims are guilty, rather than innocent. Meanwhile, when it comes to the FBI using deportation or criminal charges to coerce Muslims to spy on one another, the Miami New Times reports that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) suspects there are hundreds of cases similar to Farahi’s. The attorney of Tarek Mehanna, a 26-year-old US citizen who was charged by the government for giving a “false statement,” claims that the charges are a “form of revenge for Mehanna’s unwillingness to be an informant.” Ahmadullah Sais Niazi, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan, alleges that he was arrested and indicted of making a false statement to obtain citizenship because he also did not want to be an informant. Meanwhile, Yassine Ouassif, a 24-year-old Moroccan with a green card was given the same ultimatum as Farahi, but won his deportation case with the help of the National Legal Sanctuary for Community Advancement.

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that most Americans think Muslims face more discrimination than any other minority group in the US.

Hate Group Spokesperson Joins Bandwagon To Hinder Noncitizen Census Count

While Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) fight to include an amendment in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill that would require the US Census Bureau to add a question about immigration status to its 2010 survey, hate group spokesperson Phil Kent has added his voice to the mix. Kent, a spokesperson for Americans for Immigration Control (AIC) and board member of its 501(c)(4) arm, was featured in an op-ed debate on the census in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today.

Kent’s general argument echoes that of Vitter, Bennett, and others. In their view, counting undocumented immigrants in the US Census will hurt predominantly Republican states because blue states with large populations of “illegal aliens” will steal their states’ representatives:

That principle [Wesberry v. Sanders] is being shamelessly violated in next year’s census. The Democrat-controlled Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility by giving a wink and a nod to the influx of illegal immigrants “concentrating the power” of voters in California, Texas and a few other states where Democrats seek demographic political advantage over Republicans.

The Constitution requires that representation be determined by an indiscriminate population count. That means that those who suggest that we shouldn’t count undocumented immigrants are essentially saying that there’s something wrong with the Constitution and that it should be changed. In the case that Kent cites, Wesberry v. Sanders, the Supreme Court decided that congressional districts have to be approximately equal in population. The majority decision does not draw a distinction between citizens and noncitizens, rather it reemphasizes the Constitution’s original intent of determining the allocation of Congressmen “solely by the number of the State’s inhabitants [emphasis added].”

In her counter op-ed, Afton Branche of the Drum Major Institute (DMI) explains that accurate census data is necessary in order to efficiently distribute federal funding and Community Development Block Grants that benefit all residents. DMI warns that the non-participation of undocumented immigrants could lead to inaccurate demographic information and result in costly mistakes in infrastructure, education, and healthcare planning.

Not only is Kent misguided, he misleads. Kent argues that if “liberal Democrat-dominated California” includes its “6 million illegal aliens,” it will gain a “whopping 57 House members in a newly reapportioned Congress.” However, earlier this year, the Pew Hispanic Research Center pointed out that California is home to about 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, a 22% drop since 1990. The Public Policy Institute of California reports that many immigrants are leaving California, which could cost the state a House seat after the 2010 census is completed. Meanwhile, Kent’s homestate of Georgia has experienced an immigration influx and been identified as a “new immigrant destination.” According to some reports, Georgia is expected to gain a House seat.

Kent’s boss, AIC director John Vinson, claims that America is plagued by “europhobia” — racism that “targets Americans of European descent” and has called for the “secession of the former Confederate states in order to protect the racial purity and economic viability of the white middle class.” His organization cites safeguarding the “the racial and cultural composition of the United States” as one of its primary goals. Phil Kent served in as a press secretary and public affairs advisor to Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC).