In an effort to confront the “immigration problem,” both parties have been walking a very thin rope, which could bring monumental, long-term damage to both Democratic and Republican Parties. These effects have already been felt. During last years, Congressional election, when Democrats swept control of Congress, it is widely believed that the current Republican tone toward immigrants widely cost the GOP the Latino vote. Things can get worse for the Republican Party during the 2008 elections. According to Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, 12 million new immigrant voters will now be able to participate in the 2008 elections.

In 2007, times seem to have gotten nastier. When the subject of immigrants and their children comes up, Republican Presidential candidates are more interested in building walls and deporting undocumented workers then creating a pathway to citizenship. It is safe to say the Republican candidates will be lukewarm this election cycle when it comes to courting Latinos. But where did this xenophobic rhetoric originate.

Some feel, like Roberto Lovato, this sentiment originally began with California’s Proposition 187, the 1994 ballot initiative that would deny social services, health care, and public education to undocumented children. True, most Republican candidates historically ignored the broad Latino voting community. Sadly, 1994 was a prime example where the Republican Party used Latino and immigration issues as wedge issues to gain support of white conservatives. It was a dark year for the state of California, because the electorate consciously decided that it would be the only state in the Union to roll back the welcome mat for the “tired,” the “poor,” and the “huddled masses.”

One would have assumed the Republican Party had learned its lesson after the Prop 187 debacle, since President George W. Bush was able to capture about 40% of the Latino vote in his presidential bin in 2000. In order for him to accomplish this task, Bush, while Governor of Texas, had to work hard to create a favorable Hispanic image prior to the 2000 election campaign.

In a strategic move, in 1994, Bush proclaimed that he was against CA’s Proposition 187. It would be this move; Hispanics began to see Bush in a different light. Throughout his governorship, Bush slowly gained more recognition and trust from the Latina/o community. Last year, the Los Angeles Times explained how Bush challenged Pat Buchanan in the 1996 Presidential race to avoid anti-immigration attacks. All this would later aid Bush in the 2000 presidential election.

During Bush’s presidential bid, Lionel Sosa, GOP political and advertising consultant, would create an image that emphasized Bush’s openness, respect and acceptance towards the Hispanic community. According to the LA Times, Sosa created several “emotion-laden” campaign videos to woo the Latino vote. One video included Bush waving a Mexican flag during a Mexican Independence Day parade in San Antonio in 1998, when was running for reelection as governor.

It would seem the Republican Party finally realized the importance of the Latino vote. They were able to tap into the emerging Latino voting community successfully then they stop using wedge issues that were perceived as hostile and antagonistic by most of the Latino community. So why aren’t they continue this formula? More importantly, where and how did this current xenophobic rhetoric arise within the Republican Party?

This xenophobic view has arisen with the belief that Latinos/as do not have the values that the Americans see as central to the entire political system such as Patriotism and economic self reliance. These sweeping generalizations were popularized by influential political scientist Samuel Huntington, where politicians such as Colorado’s Rep. Tom Tancredo are now expressing similar views. Huntington’s simplistic and politically-motivated conceptualization distorts the reality on the ground. Huntington wrote:

The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two people, two cultures, two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream US culture forming instead their own linguistic enclaves- from Los Angeles to Miami- and rejecting the Anglo protestant values that build the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its perils.

It is this statement captures the essence of the fear that exists in the US. Using an anti-immigration position in the past has been used by many Republican politicians, such as former Gov Pete Wilson, to gain votes from Anglo Conservatives.

For the most part, Democratic strategists have done little to challenge latest change in Latino voting behavior. Instead of countering it, the Democratic leadership would rather take advantage of the political fallout as a result of the actions of antagonistic Republicans that would push conservative and independent Hispanic voters back into the Democratic Party. Truthfully, this is what is occurring. In a recent poll, the Pew Hispanic Center found that “Hispanics returning to Democratic Party.”

Although, they may appear to be returning to the Democratic Party, in reality, they really nothing more but DINOS – Democrats in Name Only – whose only interest is in tugging the party to the right for cold cash and to punish the Republican Party for their betrayal. Once they have settled into their new home, it should be expected these newly converted Democrats to start whispering in the ears of prominent Democrats, advising them to contort themselves to fit a centrist view, so they will be better accepted by the US mainstream.

What if there are some Democrats who are getting advice from people who wish them no good, advising them to say whatever they believe will help them win political currency. For example, Lionel Sosa, after a lifetime serving as a Hispanic outreach consultant for the GOP, is now supporting Democratic candidate New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential bid. Sosa’s reason for supporting Bill Richardson is the same reason many latino civil rights organizations supported Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, but in this case, as Sosa put it, “Blood is thicker than party.” Although this may seem logical because this would help Democrats win back a major segment of conservative and independent Hispanic, one must, however, be aware that Sosa continues to be a “Bush backer and a Republican” according to Cox News Service.

Because of the current Latino backlash, other pro-Republican organization, such the Latino Coalition, are adamant at sending their Party a message by supporting Democrats in competitive races. The coalition is chaired by Hector Barreto, the former administrator of the Small Business Administration under Bush and former strategist for the Republican National Committee.

Another blow to the Republican Party is the recent defection of Rev. Luis Cortes, a Republican who founded the annual National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast that has featured Bush every year since. While close to Bush, Rev. Cortes latest move proves he is more than willing to prostitute himself out to the highest bidder. Recently, Cortes met with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to discuss how the Republican presidential candidates are using immigration as a wedge issue and scapegoating immigrants.

What is more troubling; the Democratic leadership is willing to overlook Rev. Luis Cortes close ties with the Bush Administration and other conservative Republicans. According to the National Council on Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), Cortes was awarded a $2.5 million grant in the first round of President Bush’s Compassion Capital Fund grants for faith-based organizations in 2002 ; and $2.76 million as the first installment of $11 million over three years from the Bush Administration’s Department of Labor in 2004. It was already found that these funds are spent with little or no oversight, and unfortunately, with the latest Supreme Court ruling, no possible avenue to challenge them.

In 2005, Associated Press revealed that former Senator Bill Frist’s AIDS charity, World of Hope Inc, paid nearly a half-million dollars in consulting fees to members of his political inner circle, which included Cortes.

World of Hope gave $3 million it raised to charitable AIDS causes, such as Africare and evangelical Christian groups with ties to Republicans — Franklin Graham’s Samaritan Purse and the Rev. Luis Cortes’ Esperanza USA, for example.

It is no surprise the Baptist minister has long sought to build a national network of Hispanic churches, one that would bring new power to an emerging minority. Operating in North Philadelphia, Cortes’ organization, Nueva Esperanza Inc, has one of the largest contracts of the 44 groups chosen to provide the training to smaller organizations and distribute the federal cash. Cortes is one of the most prominent Hispanic evangelicals in politics. One does have to wonder if Rev. Luis Cortes will say or do to insure his faith-based organization is not cut from future funding.

What makes a person like Rev Cortes, loyalty is thrown out the window at the drop of a dime. In 2005, Pensacola’s Independent News reveals Rev Cortes true colors when it comes to partisan loyalties.

“This is what I tell politicians,” he adds. “You want an endorsement? Give us a check, and you can take a picture of us accepting it. Because then you’ve done something for brown.”

Even as Mr. Dean criticizes Republicans, many Democrats in Congress have adopted the same enforcement-only approach Republicans advocate. The Democrats’ silence on the brutal raids on immigrant workers shows how much they intend to do about it.

Realizing they cannot win without a large Latino/a turn-out, Democrats tend fail to understand the impact DINOS like these have on the Latina/o community. Right now there is a large infusion of Republican Latinos/as into the Democratic Party, but be forewarned, they will change when the immigration debate dies down. And once immigration debate dies down, as history shows, it was the Democrats’ assumption of Latino support that provided the Republicans the opportunity to attract significant levels of Latino voters around the nation.

The sad news is that U.S. News reported he will be replaced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

The buzz among top Bushies is that beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales finally plans to depart and will be replaced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Why Chertoff? Officials say he’s got fans on Capitol Hill, is untouched by the Justice prosecutor scandal, and has more experience than Gonzales did, having served as a federal judge and assistant attorney general.

The news of his resignation is very surprising considering Gonzales rebuffed calls for his resignation and how Bush repeatedly stood by Gonzales.

As much as I dislike the guy, however, as I said before I will not take away his dues as being a son of a poor immigrant who beat the odds to become a successful and respected lawyer. His personal history of struggle and opportunity is embodiment of the American Dream. Gonzales’ rise to the top is evident of how far we have come and we how finally have reached a place at the “table.” Even though we should not take away the proverbial American “bootstrap” success story from him – the second of eight children, whose parents were children of Mexican immigrants, Gonzales was the only one in his family to complete college and rising to a prominent position in government – we simply cannot turn a blind eye to the glaring injustices he committed either. Gonzales proved his usefulness by playing the role that was assigned to him, Bush’s token Latino. It was nothing more but an illusion, a ploy to win the Latino vote and many advocacy group took the bait – hook, line and sinker.

It is important not to forget that Gonzales’ interest was confined solely to himself rather than to the larger Latino communities. Gonzales’ conservative Republican politics does not promote a closing-ranks mentality; instead, his claim to being Latino is for the purpose of self-promotion, to gain power and prestige. It was obvious Gonzales felt uncomfortable about how his white peers viewed his social mobility. Mobility by means of affirmative action breeds tenuous self respect and questionable peer acceptance for many middle-class Latinas/os. Conservative Latinos/as, such as Linda Chavez, have always voiced these feelings in their attacks against affirmative action programs, while ignoring the fact that they had achieved their positions through those programs.

Their quest for respectability based on merit rather than politics cannot be overestimated among Latina/o conservatives. The need to gain the respect of their white peers deeply shapes certain elements of their conservatism. In this regard, they simply want what most Americans want – to be judged by the quality of their skills, not the color of their skin. Yet, like their African-American counterparts, they simply overlook the fact that affirmative action policies were political responses to the pervasive refusal of most white Americans to judge people of color on that basis.

It is worth noting, Gonzales has often voiced that his professional life he was championed through individual achievement and race-free standards. However, when he saw his ship beginning to sink, he was quick to whip out the race card of Latino victimization and Latino solidarity. This type of behavior should not be excused or ignored because it is a deceptive and dangerous intellectual game being played with the lives and fortunes of disadvantaged people. By overlooking this, Latina/o conservatives fall into the trap of blaming poor Latinas/os for their predicament. That is why it is important that we continue criticizing and condemning any immoral acts committed by Gonzales, or that of any conservative Latino/a; and it is important we so cognizant of their personal background and circumstances. If not, it will take a long time to erase the stain he has made on the Latino/a community.

So far, none of the major Hispanic civil right groups have said anything about his resignation, but the day is still early. But for now, we can celebrate Alberto “Torture Guy” Gonzales resignation and as Ray Charles would say Hit the road Jack!

Click here to view the embedded video.

“If so, this represents a major victory for the conservative grass roots. There is no doubt that immigration needs Congressional attention, but it is far from clear that a grand, comprehensive compromise is the way to go. In practice, that approach is basically an excuse for slipping key provisions into the bill that the political class wants, but the American people do not.”

Then again, when you have faux progressives like Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller at MyDD who kept their mouth shut until now because “it’s not a priority,” for them, I can why conservatives are patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

The fact is both groups had one goal in mind, that was to defeat the bill other than that, the alliance ends. Let’s face it, there was nothing to see eye-to-eye about when it came to defeating this bill. Every bottom-tier Republican presidential candidate and racist xenophobic nativist were screaming “Amnesty!” just at the thought that one person of the 12 to 14 million undocumented workers in the US might actually become a citizen someday under a new immigration law.

The Republicans were playing their role as the party of big business while playing up to the hard right, which continues to cling to immigration as one issue that could avert a total electoral meltdown in 2008. That is why Sen. John McCain, a prominent backer of the pro-corporate, was “stung” and speechless after immigration bill hit a dead end. The Arizona Republic wrote Sen. McCain wouldn’t answer questions about the outcome. ” ‘I don’t have anything to say,’ he said five times before stepping into an elevator in the Capitol. ‘I apologize, I do not have anything to say.’ “

As for the Democrats. they don’t get a pass. They too were trying to work both sides of the street. They want to prove themselves worthy of the continued corporate donations that have surged to party candidates as CEOs seek an alternative to a Bush-lite White House.

It looks like there wasn’t enough arm twisting by big business to get the immigration bill through Congress. If it wasn’t for the immigrant rights movement and histrionic alarmism coming from the nativist, the bill would surely have passed. Never Underestimate the power of the people! SI SE PUEDE!

For now, let us enjoy the moment and celebrate this short victory. Viva la raza, cabrones!

Our enemies will take advantage of anything that advances developments in the direction of a publicly fascist state that targets and scapegoats the Other. One of the least discussed in the immigration debate is the link of anti-immigration groups to anti-life beliefs. Many of these “experts” on immigration reform have obtained funds or have other connections to organizations and people that advocate anti-life measures, such as population control, sterilization, abortion and euthanasia.

Not long ago I received an e-mail from [tag]John Seager[/tag], President of [tag]Population Connection[/tag] informing me that I was wrong assuming that his group has anything to do with eugenics in a recent post I did, Texas The Anti-Brown State, on Aztlan Electronic News. Poor Mr. Seager, I guess he didn’t get a chance to read Richard’s post, “Ya can parley with a Mescan, but ya’ can’t win” (John Wayne). In his e-mail, Mr. Seager wrote:

I hope you’ll take a closer look at Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth). We are not now, nor have we ever been, a eugenics group, by any stretch of the imagination. I’ve provided below the text of an op ed we distributed last year that should give you some sense of our perspective.

I’m sure you want to make sure, as we do, that the information you put forward is as accurate as possible.

I understand Seager’s concern about his organization being considered as a eugenics group. When one mentions “[tag]eugenics[/tag]” to many Americans, they associate it with [tag]racial purification[/tag] policies used by Hitler and Nazi Germany, which included implementing practices of racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups. Therefore, just mentioning “eugenics” such notions as racial purity, racial superiority, and the heritability of information, virtue, or vice comes to mind. But before we get on to politics, lets follow the theory of eugenics as it developed into the idea of population control, creating a frightening snowball effect throughout the world.

Although eugenics is associated with Hitler, but the truth is, eugenic thinking has been part of Western intellectual history since the 1860’s. [tag]Francis Galton[/tag], one of Darwin’s disciples and cousin, used his cousin’s work to create Eugenics, a term that he coined which means, “the cultivation of race.” Galton believed that the ruling classes ought to take it upon themselves to guide the development of the human genetic heritage by thinning out the weaknesses in a species, since nature couldn’t do it. Galton said:

I do not see why any insolence of caste should prevent the gifted class, when they had the power, from treating their compatriots with all kindness, so long as they maintained celibacy. But if these continued to procreate children inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities, it is easy to believe the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness.

Under the philosophies of Galton, Eugenists began building their cause. By the turn of the 20th century, such ideas were commonplace. In fact, in the US, the American Breeders Association (ABA) devoted itself to exploring issues that would have interested Sir Francis Galton. With a committee focusing on the presumed hereditary differences between human races, the ABA popularized the themes of selective breeding of superior stock, the biological menace of “inferior types,” and the need for recording and controlling human heredity. At one time, 33 states had a domestic policy of eugenics, sterilizing over 60,000 citizens who were considered unfit to reproduce. A bitter pill must be swallowed; despite all the admiration [tag]Margaret Sanger[/tag] has received for establishing the American birth control movement and being the founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became [tag]Planned Parenthood[/tag] Federation of America). The truth is, she was a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society and a proponent of eugenics, which she pushed the idea of “race hygiene” through “negative eugenics.” Even though the current Planned Parenthood Federation of America does recognize this view unacceptable and outmoded, it is hard to argue against historical fact. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger wrote:

There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants. Feeble-mindedness as investigations and statistics from every country indicate, is invariably associated with an abnormally high rate of fertility. Modern conditions of civilization, as we are continually being reminded, furnish the most favorable breeding-ground for the mental defective, the moron, the imbecile.
…
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

It is clear that Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the “insane” and “feeble-minded.” Ultimately, Sanger concluded that: “only 13,500,000 will ever show superior intelligence.” Thus, only 13.5% of the population would be allowed to reproduce. Meanwhile, the rest would be incarcerated for orderly disposal.

After the discoveries of the Nazi atrocities shortly after World War II, Planned Parenthood acted as a conduit for the entry of the eugenics movement into the post-war world. Sanger toned down her racist rhetoric from “race betterment” to “family planning” for the benefit of the poor and racial minorities, the organization’s prime goal of controlling population growth rate among “undesirables” never really changed.

Planned Parenthood would contend that this would be an effort to discredit the family planning movement because Sanger was not perfect mode. True, this should NOT diminish her legacy as the central force in the birth control movement; however, it does raise some questions. Given the facts of many American icons, how do we judge historical figures? And, how do we separate their personal views and action to their contributions to American society?

From Eugenics to Environmentalism
Population control has always been historically connected to the eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger’s eugenically tradition continued and maintained late into the twentieth century. Either John Seager is not aware of his organization’s history or he is trying to revise his organization’s own history. After the war, eugenicists instituted various strategies to cover up the continued joint development of the German, American, and English eugenic agendas. Therefore, the principal vehicle for Malthusian fears became, instead, the threat of environmental catastrophe. This new shift culminated in 1968.

In 1968, one of the most powerful ventures that marked this new line of outlook was [tag]Garrett Hardin[/tag]’s essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Hardin argued that if people are granted to right to reproduce freely, their children would all be given equal rights to a limited commons, the world would be locked “into a tragic course of action” leading to environmental destruction. Hardin believed that only private ownership of vital resources and an inegalitarian distribution of the right to reproduce could avoid the “tragedy” which he predicted was the inevitable result of a democratic and egalitarian society. Hardin also argued that projects as the welfare state and land reform in developing countries were pointless because the problem with what Hardin called “a commons in breeding” was that the impoverished had too many children and made excessive claims on public resources:

If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own ‘punishment’ to the germ line – then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families.

It is this article that embodies the way in which post-war environmentalism became a vehicle not only for the more ideological aspects of Malthusian thinking, but also for eugenic convictions. The central point in “The Tragedy of the Commons” was that only private property could protect the environment against over-population, a claim that has become a cardinal view of contemporary neo-liberal dogma. The passion with which this conviction has been accepted by conservative policy institutes and multinational corporations is evidence that this ideology is not the fundamental reason to conserve nature or control population growth, but their loophole to legitimize an unrelenting process of privatization and enclosure.

In the same year, Zero Population Growth was founded in 1968 by Stanford biologist [tag]Paul Ehrlich[/tag], author of The Population Bomb, which was commissioned and published by the Sierra Club. It was not until 2002 when ZPG changed their name to Population Connection. In 1968, in his book, Ehrlich predicted:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines–hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…

To counter this plague of global starvation, Ehrlich advises overtly authoritarian measures: “We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” By 1978, an eminent biologist was claiming that “ecology’s first social law should be written: ‘All poverty is caused by the continued growth of population.’” Whether or not Ehrlich actually believed the overpopulation fables that he peddled, they still provided the ruling class with an immediately exploitable threat.

Although Ehrlich’s inaccurate predictions should have qualified the man as a certifiable phony, his claims were still given credence by certain factions of the elite and government think tanks. In George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin noted that during George H. W. Bush’s congressional career, Bush founded and chaired the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population. Bush’s task force subscribed to a [tag]neo-Malthusian[/tag] view about population control and provided Ehrlich with an audience.

Comprised of over 20 Republican Congressman, Bush’s task force was a kind of Malthusian vanguard organization, which heard testimony from assorted “race scientists,” sponsored legislation, and otherwise propagandized the zero-growth outlook. In its 50-odd hearings during these years, the task force provided a public forum to nearly every well-known zero-growth fanatic, from Paul Ehrlich, founder of Zero Population Growth (ZPG), to race scientist William Shockley, to the key zero-growth advocates infesting the federal bureaucracy.

Thomas Robert Malthus is the 19th century cleric and professor of political economy who believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” Malthus believed that charity and other forms of benevolence only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy.

Ehrlich suggested a “tough foreign policy,” which comprised of terminating food aid to “starving nations” who declined to comply. Ehrlich further suggested that domestic population control include “the addition of … mass sterilization agents” to America’s water and food supplies. Such ideas were given serious credence, which is not surprising, considering the make-up of Bush’s committee.

One of Ehrlich’s fellow traveler is [tag]William Shockley[/tag], who already had created a substantial amount of controversy by endorsing his already refuted thesis that black people were mentally and cognitively inferior to white people. In the same year that the GOP task force provided him with a congressional platform, Shockley wrote:

“Our nobly intended welfare programs may be encouraging dysgenics – retrogressive evolution through disproportionate reproduction of the genetically disadvantaged… We fear that ‘fatuous beliefs’ in the power of welfare money, unaided by eugenic foresight, may contribute to a decline of human quality for all segments of society.”

Just because ZPG has changed its name, this does not allow John Seager to revise the organizations eugenic past. Mr. Seager, by just saying it doesn’t make it so.

It is in this environmental language that most Malthusian or dysgenic fears about immigration are now being expressed. Former member of ZPG and founder of the anti-immigration organization, Federation for American Immigration Reform ([tag]FAIR[/tag]), [tag]John Tanton[/tag], is claiming that the degradation of our environmental resources can be blamed either to the reproductive pressures in the Third World or to the reproductive tendencies of immigrants and their descendants. What makes Tanton dangerous, he is a “self-described progressive, ex-Sierra Club member, Planned Parenthood supporter and harsh critic of neoclassical economists.”

In Tanton’s view, society would have to reconstitute itself to promote conservation over growth.

As early as the ’50s, he avidly read reports from the Population Reference Bureau, and by the time Ehrlich’s book was published, he and Mary Lou had already started work on the first Northern Michigan chapter of Planned Parenthood. “I believed in the multiplication tables,” says Tanton. “Since I was a physician and could do something about birth control, it struck me that this was where I could make my contribution to the conservation movement.”

It seems Mr. Seager also has a memory lapse regarding his predecessors because Tanton was not just one of ZPG’s most active members, he also was the organization’s president in 1975.

Even though, John Seager talks about applying a “global approach” when it comes to immigration by supporting female literacy, access to birth control and family-planning services in the developing world, their Mission Statement on addressing the immigration issue is very reflective of a neo-Malthusian ideology with the new rhetoric of “sustainable development.”

We, therefore, call on the United States to focus its foreign aid on population, environmental, social, education, and sustainable development programs. Changing political conditions present opportunities to work cooperatively with other nations to address the root causes of international migration.

The “Sustainable Development” Facade
When the environmental wing of the anti-immigrant forces emerged from the zero-population movement of the 1960s and 1970s, sustainable development became a term that was designed to sound like something everyone wants. Sustainable development, as defined from the Our Common Future report (known as the Brundtland Report), is development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The promises was to defuse the longstanding tensions between environmental protection and economic growth; and during the ’90s, nearly everyone favors it, including individuals, firms, national and local governments, militaries, and the range of non-state actors. However, sustainable development has been stripped of its critical content and has been transformed and reconfigured for compatibility with the larger priorities of the post-Cold War era.

Sustainable development appeals to those preoccupied with the tendencies of capitalist development to lay waste to the world in its haste to convert anything and everything into commodities, which could be sold for a profit. Advocates of sustainable development seemed to reason within Western traditions that see humans as stewards of Nature, with responsibility for its protection. Competitive capitalism has long required explanations for why people are impoverished and expendable and through sustainable development. However, whenever a global environmental crisis emerges, Third World poverty or world hunger instantly becomes an issue to economists, demographers, planners, corporate financiers, and political pundits.

Today, population activists do realize the value of poverty reduction; however, their center is on the value of family planning. As population growth rates fall around the world, demography is focusing once again on ‘quality’ concerns such as the differential fertility of competing ethnic groups and the problems surrounding an aging population. While eugenic ideologies and practices have changed over time, they have hardly gone away.

Little has been done to challenge the problematic assumptions, language and perceptions that make American environmentalism particularly susceptible to eugenic influences. Notions of natural and cultural purity blended together reinforce make racism and ethnic prejudice more acceptable in the process and are leading to a resurgence of nativism.

Biological Determinism
Biological determinism is much in current these days as the media bombards us with ideas that we are, in the end, mainly a function of our genes or hormones. Gender and sexuality are being re-centered in the body rather than in social relations. The fact that we as a society are obsessed on our body’s aesthetics in hopes of achieving physical perfection is a manifestation of the idea of finding the ideal body type that took place in the heyday of eugenics in the 1930s.

According to Betsy Hartman, aesthetic is taking a variety of forms – from paying blond, blue-eyed Ivy League women to be egg donors to the pages of fashion magazines. One of the most forms is the growing prevalence of eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia among young women searching for an elusive physical perfection, sense of control and in some cases hyperathletic physical efficiency. Hartman writes:

Although eating disorders have complex causes, we should not underestimate the legacy of eugenics in breeding the psychological monster of perfectionism that terrorizes so many women. The current mass marketing of hormonal birth control pills like Seasonale that have the ‘liberating’ side effect of stopping your periods also plays on the eugenic aesthetic of a clean, efficient female body.

Through neoliberal ideologies and policies, complementary eugenics is closely tied to the shrinking of the welfare state that casts more and more people as drains on the economy and the state – not just the poor and people of color, but also elderly people and people with disabilities. Therefore, it is not surprising then that one can recognize signs of negative eugenics in population control measures and technologies aimed at impoverished women. Even though complementary eugenics can be found in neoliberal ideologies, conservative ideologues have manipulated the fears of scarcity in order to cast impoverished people as burdens and to foment racist assaults on immigrants and people of color.

This climate helps foster and legitimize eugenic thinking. According to conservative population growth lies at the heart of most environmental problems such as energy use, the depletion of natural resources, and deforestation. The prevailing notion of carrying capacity claims that population growth naturally entails increased resource consumption. This prepares the groundwork for blaming the poor for the destruction carried out by big landowners, transnational companies, and mega-projects financed by multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, whose purpose is to export natural resources to feed consumption and production in the US.

Organizations like Population Connection take out the political, economic and social dynamics of the equation, which govern the relationships between human beings and nature. Blaming powerless women from countries such as Mexico will not stop the negative impacts of unsustainable patterns of production and spending that feed the dominant economic development model. John Seager may not fit into the typical mold of an anti-immigrationist like Tanton, but the goal he is trying achieve is same just the message is reframed.

Stereotypes and labels prevent understanding of the intensifying immigration debate in the US. The debate is sharply divides into two sides. On one side, there are those who believe that immigration should be controlled but at levels that reflect the reality of both emigration pressures outside the country and labor needs within it. On the other side of the immigration debate, there are those who believe that immigration flows should be dramatically restricted. These groups are commonly described as being immigration restrictionists.

Although immigration restrictionists share a common agenda, they do not operate as a unified political bloc. Anti-immigration forces comprise of partisans both political parties as well as supporters of parties and movements on the political left and right that fall outside mainstream political thinking.

Contrary to popular belief, thanks to the media, many restrictionist groups are really not espousing the rhetoric that is often heard from citizen militias, white supremacists, and more nationalist institutes, which is explicitly dedicated to “preserving our common heritage as Americans.” Many of them are framing their views in the policy language of environmental protection, access to jobs, anti-corporate sentiment, and population control.

True most immigration restrictionists are found within the political right, but there are some who can be found within the political left. Because much of the argument is dominated by xenophobic rhetoric and calls for draconian border controls and legislation, there is a common belief that anything else should be viewed as liberal ideology, such as ideas about population control, environmentalism, and labor issues.

John Seager’s views are in line with a neoliberal ideology, so it is not surprising that Seager is taking great pains to refrain rhetoric that sound xenophobic and racist, which is being voiced by groups like FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). In Seager’s recent article, he has provided the both the religious- and pro-life right reactionaries with additional reasons for them to continue kicking up bogus hysteria that every liberal in the US are hysterical screeds that have little regard for the sanctity of life.

Globally, at least 350 million couples lack family planning services. Here in the United States, one-third of all births are unplanned. And the Bush administration’s family-planning failures, from its global gag rule against abortion to ideologically driven abstinence-only programs, contribute directly to millions of unwanted and unplanned births. If we could cut in half the number of unwanted births in the U.S. alone, we’d have about 5 million fewer births over 20 years.

It’s vital to focus on thorny technical issues such as tax credits, energy alternatives and emissions trading programs. These efforts are especially important here in the United States, where less than 5 percent of the world’s population produces about one-quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.

So it is not surprising hear strongest proponents within the anti-immigration camp – paleoconservatives, traditionalists and social conservatives – criticize Seager for espousing secular and liberal ideas. But if one were to look closely where he really stands, his views are not much different from the strongest proponents of immigration who are found within the ranks of the Republican Party.

John Seager is endorsing market-based corporatist approaches to environmental and social policy. [tag]Emissions trading[/tag] to reduce their production of heat-trapping [tag]greenhouse gas emissions[/tag] amounts to an elaborate shell game that threatens to undercut the goal of stemming global warming. Living here in Texas, I have witnessed the failure of this environmental policy that was put in place by then-Gov Bush. Emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems and only proves that buying and selling carbon dioxide credits will deliver only illusory emission reductions, invite fraud and result in disproportionate health and economic impacts on poor communities. The only thing being sustained are the profit margins for big landowners, transnational companies, and mega-projects financed by multilateral institutions.

The problem we are currently having is the perception of “neoliberalism” – a term that’s particularly confusing to people in the US who associate liberalism with socially progressive policies. The theory of neoliberalism:

…the view that individual liberty and freedom are the high point of civilization and then goes on to argue that individual liberty and freedom can best be protected and achieved by an institutional structure, made up of strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade: a world in which individual initiative can flourish. The implication of that is that the state should not be involved in the economy too much, but it should use its power to preserve private property rights and the institutions of the market and promote those on the global stage if necessary.

As policies of “free trade,” open capital markets, and unrestricted and unregulated investment are enforced, the inconsistencies of capitalist development become more intense. The recent rhetoric of “sustainable development” and “globalization” cannot entirely obscure how the new economic regime is exacerbating, rather than resolving, social and environmental problems in the Latin America, while accelerating economic and ideological polarization.

The reason families are on the migrating more now as never before is due to commercial agricultural development that continues to withhold and deprive people secure access to fundamental productive resources. These resources increasingly are being exploited by transnational corporations for the use and profit of developed nations. The Malthusian argument that migration must be curbed in the interest of maintaining the lifestyles of the affluent ignores the realism that both migration movement and the lifestyles share a single origin. The alternative is structural change. Only in a society in which resources are more equitably apportioned will we be able to go beyond Malthusian politics of “population control” to a true consideration of human reproductive rights and needs.

The rhetoric used by ICE intends to convince us that that the workers who were detained had used the stolen identities of US citizens and lawful residents to get their jobs. ICE chose their dark words wisely – “identity theft,” “stealing identities” “deportees” – and with the goal of terrorizing us all into believing that a million illegal bordercrosser are using stolen Social Security number to apply for credit cards and charge expensive stereos, trips, or a boat and a couple motorcycles. The timing of the raid is also no accident. By singling these immigrants out and persecuting them in the name of identity theft (an egregiously unusual tactic, as more than one site pointed out at the time), ICE is able to heighten the concerns of many tinsel-fringed gringos already maxing out their credit cards this holiday season.

Yet, of all of the 1,282 workers who were apprehended, only 65 of the undocumented workers have been “charged with criminal violations related to identity theft or other violations, such as re-entry after deportation,” according to an ICE press release. So, if only a small fraction were “charged” on [tag]ID theft[/tag] violations, then why were there so many arrested? This is obviously another failed operation bearing the trademark stamp of the much-vaunted Department of Homeland Security.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this wasteful and harmful operation is what reportedly transpired during and after the raids. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Latinos were subjected to racial profiling. ICE agents separated workers by their skin color – those who were considered gringo looking were considered civilians, while those who failed the darker-than-a-grocery bag test were the “illegals.” Latinos were subjected to racial profiling. ICE agents separated workers by their skin color – those who leaned toward a gringo-esque appearance were considered civilians, while those who failed the darker-than-a-grocery bag test were the “illegals.” What is the lesson to the larger community?

[Maria] thought she was going on break from her job at the Swift & Co. meat processing plant … but instead she and others were forced to stand in a line by U.S. immigration agents. Non-Latinos and people with lighter skin were plucked out of line and given blue bracelets.

The rest, mostly Latinos with brown skin, waited until they were “cleared” or arrested by “la migra,” the popular name in Spanish for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), employees said.

“She [the agent] told me, ‘Do you think it’s going to be cold in Mexico?’” Maria said, holding back tears. “I’ve never seen people get treated como animales.”

Once again, the “round them all up, ask questions later” policy swept up another US citizen. It is time we start asking, how many US-born [tag]Latinos[/tag] are being arrested by bigoted federal agents because they fit their xenophobic profile of an “illegal.”

There is no doubt that the argument behind the latest round immigration raids is questionable, but what is most disturbing is the fate of the detainees in the wake of it all. According to Narco News, many of the undocumented workers were loaded on buses like cattle and transferred to “undisclosed locations.” One such location was Camp Dodge. Why they were moved is anybody’s guess.

“I heard ICE is shipping them [the detained Swift workers] all over the country,” Joseph says. “Two bus loads [from Colorado] were sent to facilities in El Paso to hold people.”

There is also another danger; ICE could possibly trick these people into signing away their rights by agreeing to voluntarily deportation.

[Jeff Joseph, a Denver lawyer and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association] said the officials tell the detainees that they do not qualify for relief, and that they will spend the next few weeks in jail for weeks without seeing their families, so they might as well sign a stipulated order of removal.

“That’s just not true because many of them may be entitled to stay here,” he said.

If ICE could only muster up 65 people with ID theft (and if there really are any), with the fallout of splitting up and terrorizing thousands of workers and their families, then why did ICE have to raid the plants in such a way?

Some have already come up with possible reasons that led to these raids. Duke1676, at Migra Matters suspects that one of the main reasons for the raids had to do with [tag]union busting[/tag].

The Administration appears to be using these raids to send a powerful message to those unions that favor comprehensive reform but have not signed on to Bush’s guest worker program that they better get behind plan. For unions like the AFL-CIO, LIUNA (Laborers International Union), and particularly the United Food and Commercial Workers UFCW the message is clear.

In fact, there is a long history of immigrant workers facing heavy odds when it comes to union organizing. In case after case, organizing efforts among immigrant workers have consistently come up against the same problem – the use of immigration laws to purposely prevent them from organizing. And union-busting just happens to be a favorite weapon of conservatives, used to drive down wages.

During the 1980s, when President [tag]Ronald Reagan[/tag] reduced enforcement efforts of the Sherman Anti-Trust and similar acts, it resulted with the Labor Department becoming hostile to labor and producing an environment that made it easy for businesses to exploit undocumented immigrants. In fact, before Reagan came into office in 1981, there was no demand for a fence to keep out the brown horde, or a demand to enforce the laws against undocumented immigrants. During that time, more people were joining unions at a high rate, and this served as a barrier to such things. What [tag]Republicans[/tag] won’t acknowledge is that it was their corporate greed that opened a Pandora’s box. After all, where does all the money come from that “spills over” to the CEOs and stockholder dividends? This money does not exist until the cost of labor goes down.

Sure, they beat their chests and waxed grandly about building fences, but that was done just to exploit the fears many Americans have, all the while stabbing them in the back to maintain the status quo. This is why none of the bills introduced this year addressed the fundamental truth of the situation: Conservatives and the businesses they represent need to maintain a large, illegal or marginally legal workforce to keep down the price of labor and help them to destroy the union movement.

Still, why did ICE have to spin this as a crackdown on identity theft? One possible explanation is that it was done so ICE could divert nosy people from looking into their repeated failures when it comes to similar major work-site crackdowns. In 1999, ICE’s predecessor, the US Immigration and Naturalization Service ([tag]INS[/tag]) launched “Operation Vanguard,” a program aimed to root out undocumented workers by a comprehensive investigation of the employment eligibility records of all meatpacking employees in Nebraska. Vanguard smacked the state of Nebraska with a reality 2 x 4 when they realized the integral role that immigrants play in the economy. All it took was the INS raiding a Nebraskan meatpacking plant. The aftermath of a similar work-site crackdown in December of 2000 resulted with the deportation of more than 200 workers – who happened to be vital to the local pre-Christmas economy.

The economic impact of Operation Vanguard on the state was so profound that Gov. Mike Johanns appointed a task force to study its statewide effects. In October 2000 the task force recommended against a resumption of the program and for endorsing amendments easing restrictions on permanent residency and citizenship and considering an amnesty.

The Bush administration claims it is learning from past failures, yet it is obvious that they are not a quick study. The lessons of [tag]Operation Vanguard[/tag] have gone unlearned, and in fact seem to be completely disregarded in favor of aggressive escalation of the same faulty thinking that led to Vanguard. Note the comments made by ICE chief [tag]Julie Myers[/tag], trumpeting the raids as a victory in the “war against illegal immigration.”

“This investigation has uncovered a disturbing front in the war against illegal immigration. We believe that the genuine identities of possibly hundreds of U.S. citizens are being stolen or hijacked by criminal organizations and sold to illegal aliens in order to gain unlawful employment in this country. Combating this burgeoning problem is one of ICE’s highest priorities,” said Assistant Secretary Myers.

Was this a Freudian slip? When was there a call for a “war” on immigration?

Unrestrained behavior in the name of protecting security is not new in our nation’s history. During the 20th century, hundreds of American citizens were prosecuted for anti-war statements during World War I, and thousands of “radical” immigrants were seized for deportation during the 1920 Palmer Raids. During World War II, 120,000 Japanese-Americans were apprehended and imprisoned in detention camps, right here in the Land of the Free.

After 9/11, we have frequently seen our Government adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy and reminiscent of former President Reagan’s national security initiatives. With the unending “war on terror,” the current Administration has been consistent in allowing programs to vacuum up intelligence about lawful activities of American citizens. In 1940, Attorney General Robert Jackson recognized the inherent dangers of using broad labels like “national security” or “subversion” because there was “no definite standards to determine what constitutes a subversive activity, such as we have for murder or larceny.” Jackson added:

Activities which seem benevolent or helpful to wage earners, persons on relief, or those who are disadvantaged in the struggle for existence may be regarded as ’subversive’ by those whose property interests might be burdened thereby. Those who are in office are apt to regard as ’subversive’ the activities of any of those who would bring about a change of administration. Some of our soundest constitutional doctrines were once punished as subversive. We must not forget that it was not so long ago that both the term ‘Republican’ and the term ‘Democrat’ were epithets with sinister meaning to denote persons of radical tendencies that were ’subversive’ of the order of things then dominant.

It is clear Jackson’s warning was not heeded.

The sad reality is that there is no political consideration of historical analysis; of class analysis; of fascism itself, or even of real democracy – except to vilify the scapegoat du jour and calling for their removal as a means to restore this “security.” And in doing so, history repeats itself.

What is being avoided is a clear understanding of clandestine and [tag]covert acts[/tag] conducted by our government. The various techniques used to gain control of the population will never be publicly disclosed and if so, those who do expose the truth will be vilified or mysteriously found dead. Racism, prejudices and fears of changing the status quo are so deeply embedded into our ruling class that there is a silent and tacit agreement to protect it at all costs.

Although the recent raids may be regarded as a way to bust unions, the truth is that under the auspices of “[tag]National security[/tag],” we see now a continuance of the long-running open warfare against [tag]Chicanos[/tag], [tag]African-Americans[/tag] and [tag]Native Americans[/tag].

On Jan. 24, 2006, a [tag]Halliburton[/tag] subsidiary received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide “temporary detention and processing capabilities.” The contract, announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR, calls for preparing for “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies, such as “a natural disaster.” The release offered no details about where Halliburton will build these facilities, or when.

A [tag]Homeland Security[/tag] spokesperson has responded that this is a “contingency contract” and that conceivably no centers might be built. To this day, the American people still know little or nothing about covert acts that have been used against us�the American public�because there are successful attempts to keep unclassified data out of the hands of the that public. This could, perhaps, be explained by an article in OMNI Magazine article (May 1987), which reported that former Assistant Defense Secretary and NSA deputy chief [tag]Donald C. Latham[/tag], under Regan, was the architect of National Security Decision Directive 145 (NSDD 145) which controlled the type of material that is permitted to be published to the public.

Under the approving gaze of the Reagan administration, Department of Defense (DoD) officials have quietly implemented a number of policies, decisions, and orders that give the military unprecedented control over both the content and public use of data and communications.

**The Pentagon has created a new category of “sensitive” but unclassified information that allows it to keep from public access huge quantities of data that were once widely accessible.
**Defense Department officials have attempted to rewrite key laws that spell out when the president can and cannot appropriate private communications facilities.
**The Pentagon has installed a system that enables it to seize control of the nation’s entire communications network — the phone system, data transmissions, and satellite transmissions of all kinds — in the event of what it deems a “national emergency.” As yet there is no single, universally agreed-upon definition of what constitutes such a state. Usually such an emergency is restricted to times of natural disaster, war, or when national security is specifically threatened. Now the military has attempted to redefine emergency.

Now, under a plan called [tag]Endgame[/tag], jackbooted thugs of America�s ruthless new Special Forces Gestapo are aggressively hunting down and hauling off 400,000 Latinos “absconders” to detention camps.

… the National Council of La Raza and other civil and immigrant rights groups sued the Justice Department for adding the names of absconders to the National Crime Information Center database. Many police officers routinely access the database when running background checks on suspects and on people stopped for traffic violations.

The addition of absconders to the national criminal database was one of the first steps taken to toughen immigration laws after Sept. 11, 2001.

The plan is very reminiscent of [tag]Oliver North[/tag]�s controversial [tag]Rex-84[/tag] “readiness exercise” in 1984. The plan called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency ([tag]FEMA[/tag]) to round up and detains 400,000 imaginary “refugees,” in the context of “uncontrolled population movements” over the Mexican border into the United States.

Ordering martial law under the guise of National Emergency is no problem for the White House. On July 5, 1987, an article written by Alfonzo Chardy in the Miami Herald revealed that in 1982, former FEMA director [tag]Louis Guiffrida[/tag]’s deputy, John Brinkerhoff, and Oliver North had drafted an executive order for continuity of government (COG). The order called for “suspension of the Constitution” and “declaration of martial law.” The martial law portions of the plan were outlined in a memo by Mr. Giuffrida’s deputy, [tag]John Brinkerhoff[/tag].

The plan was said to be similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat “a national uprising by black militants”. It provided for the detention “of at least 21 million American Negroes” in “assembly centres or relocation camps”

Brinkerhoff is now with the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he provided Bush and the Pentagon talking points for the constitutionality of applying martial law and suspending the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.

In 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 188, one of a series of directives that authorized continued planning for COG by a private parallel government. There is only problem. It is unclear what Reagan’s exact plans are, because according to Congressman [tag]Jim McDermott[/tag] (WA), Bush took the “unusual step of sealing the Reagan Presidential papers.”

What is clear is there are over 600 prison camps in the US and that they are operational and presently ready to receive detainees. It has been said that the camps are to be operated by FEMA should Martial Law ever be implemented in the US, but will it be FEMA who runs these camps, or our Leader’s dear Homeland Security?

In September 2005, NORTHCOM conducted its highly classified Granite Shadow exercise in Washington. It was reported that “Granite Shadow” is a Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military’s extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations inside the United States without civilian supervision or control.

Hitler had his brownshirts, his Gestapo�that scoured the country, rubbing out dissenters. And now, we have ours, and all under the cover of a trumped-up “immigration emergency.”

It seems like many people were talking about the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s plan to introduce a bill to reinstate the draft last week. On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel had told Bob Schieffer, he is serious about calling for the draft.

“If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft,” Rangel said.

On the following Monday in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Rangel continued to make his case by saying that the U.S. is too strained in Iraq.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Rangel’s call for a reinstatement of the draft is based on the notion that congressional representatives would be less likely to back a war that might involve the lives of their own children.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

The fact is, the US is very unlikely to reinstate the draft because of the Vietnam experience, however, and the reality is, according to Gen. John Abizaid, the 4-star who runs Central Command, the US does not have the appropriate number of troops to maintain “stability” in the region.

In August, the Marine Corps resorted to involuntary call-ups, meaning the Marine called up as many as 2,500 Marine reservists who have already left active service for combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They would come from a pool of about 59,000 members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) — Marines with specific skills who left active duty and returned to civilian lives, but are obligated to serve if called. Marine Corps officials said yesterday that reservists in their first or last years of enrollment will not be subject to recall.

Rangel’s bill is tempting among progressives and liberals because the proposed bill would require all men and women – regardless of socio-economic background – between age 18 and 42 to serve in the military. Rangel has introduced a similar bill in the past that has failed. The proposed bill is a modified version of a bill he sponsored in 2003 which he proposed a draft for people between 18 and 26.

Soon after Rangel stated he was in favor of reinstating the draft, there was enough buzz in the progressive blogosphere to scare off top level Democrats to ensure that there’s no chance a draft will be instituted in a Democratic controlled Congress. Other political and military leaders suggest that there is no need to institute a draft but and the problems in Iraq can be solved by providing a several hundred thousand additional troops.

However, conscription does have some unlikely champions, including Noam Chomsky.

I might add, for what it’s worth, that although I was actively involved in organizing and supporting resistance (including support for draft resisters) in the 60s, and was saved from a likely prison sentence only by the Tet offensive, I was never opposed to the draft. If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen’s army. In part for the reasons that the top command oppose that option.

The proposed bill, would force every level of society to participate in military service, rather than placing a disproportionate burden on minorities and the working class. Those who are in favor of this idea are calling this type of draft the “equality draft” because Rangel clearly states, “everyone should share in the sacrifice.” In other words, everybody will have equal opportunity of living in misery.

The last time there was talk about the possibility of the draft being reinstated was after the 2004 Presidential election, several Internet sites and alternative media were advocating this view. In March 2005, Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote a decidedly pro-draft stance, “The Case for the Draft,” in the pro-centrist magazine, the Washington Monthly. Carter and Glastris argues that the US simply doesn’t have enough soldiers to occupy every country in Bush’s agenda since we already have hundreds of thousands of troops – of the 1.4 million men and women on active duty – stationed in hundreds of foreign nations. Therefore, a draft is needed to meet our shortcomings.

However, unlike last year, where most major media called it a “draft scare” created by Internet rumor mills and conspiracy theorist, this year, they have come out denouncing the idea. The US Selective Service System (SSS) website has been very quite this time around, during the “draft scare” officials from the Selective Service were quick to state that there were no “active plans” to revive a draft. Yet, US Selective Service System has said that they are ready to “pull the trigger” if Congress the president to authorize a draft system.

With the number of casualties nearing 3,000 since the invasion in Iraq and the dismissal of reinstating the draft, what are Americans to assume? One thing is for certain, most Americans are skeptical that a draft is likely. The general idea is that politicians of either party look at all costs to stay away raising the specter of a revived draft. And for most young Americans the draft seems far off. If only they knew.

Although Congress and the Department of Defense remains steadfastly opposed to a draft, their actions tell a different story. Even though the requirement for all men between 18 and 26 to register with the draft was suspended in 1975, in 1980, Congress reinstated draft registration for men 18 to 25 years old in “preparations for intervention” after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

Later, in 1987, Congress modified the Military Selective Service Act by enacting Public Law 100-180 which ordered the Selective Service System to put in place a structure capable of registering and classifying qualified health care personnel who are essential to the “maintenance of the Armed Forces.” Called the “Health Care Personnel Delivery System” (HCPDS), the system is able to specifically induct 73,000 civilian health care personnels from about 60 medical specialties if such a special-skills draft should be ordered by Congress.

The Selective Service system shall be maintained as an active standby organization, with (1) a complete registration and classification structure capable of immediate operation in the event of a national emergency (including a structure for registration and classification of persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care occupation essential to the maintenance of the Armed Forces), and (2) personnel adequate to reinstitute immediately the full operation of the System, including military reservists who are trained to operate such System and who can be ordered to active duty for such purpose in the event of a national emergency.

In 1989, Selective Service published its plans for the HCPDS for public comment on August 15, 1989 (54 Federal Register 33644-33654), and has had them ready ever since. According to one military doctor, in 2004, there was talk about that a physician draft is was most likely coming in the near future, however, nothing has been said if it will happen.

In 2003, a top-level meeting took place between the head of the SSS and Deputy Undersecretary in charge of Personnel and Readiness of the Department of Defense on reengineering a new type of draft, the Skills Draft. The unclassified memo proposes that the SSS be able to call up any number of several hundred skills the Pentagon and even the Dept. of Homeland Security might be lacking.

Washington Monthly piece by Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris, calls it the “21st century draft” and argues it would be more efficient than the conventional draft because it would be more universal (women as well as men) and more complex. In fact, it will not even be called a draft, it will wrapped up with an Orwellian label, sort like the “Clear Skies Initiative” or the “No Child Left Behind.” The draft will more likely be called “national service,” “homeland service,” or “universal service” and it draft for “homeland security” as well as duty overseas – duties would include being a border guard, immigration cop, IT specialists and medics.

If one were to look carefully to the wording used on “Face the Nation,” Rangel stated that the draft was not just for military services, but –

“young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it’s our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals,” with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

I have previously written other posts (The CO Candidate’s Community Service Draft for Boys and The Green Card Draft) about chatter of reinstating the draft for “national service.”

This type of draft being proposed by some liberals and conservatives closely resembles what Israel has today. The Israeli national service requires three years of service for all Jewish and Druze men, two for all women–between age 17 and 50. Israel divides the type of service in three parts: military (compulsory for men, except orthodox women and Jewish or Druze theology students or teachers), security (police, fire, border, anti- terror units), and community service.

It is hard not to agree with Rep. Rangel and the pro-draft people who argue that the war in Iraq cannot be sustained by the existing volunteer force that makes up the current so-called All-Volunteer Army. But the idea of forcing people to become cannon fodder is unconscionable. And the to literally believe that creating a draft would limit political options by creating a level playing field between classes, are only fooling themselves from reality.

Rangel has provided the elite and the well connected a way out from serving military combat. The proposed plan will allow an individual the choice of serving in the military or doing civilian work. And if given that choice, the children of the ruling class and those who are well connected will be found working in air conditioned offices, while the vast majority of minorities and the working class will still be found fulfilling their “national service” duties in the Armed Forces. Anyone with an option to stay away from the military would and those who couldn’t would be sent off to some other country for the American Empire.

A draft by any other name is still a draft and it will still and always be wrong!

With less than six month to go before the midterm elections, and Republicans fearing catastrophic losses, President Bush tonight took to the airwaves to try to throw some water on the rapidly growing brushfire of immigration reform that threatens to destroy his party. With poll numbers below 30%, a near mutiny brewing from House Republicans, and a loss of support amongst his conservative base, Bush attempted a political high wire act that would have tested even the most skilled political acrobat. For the feeble footed Boy King, it was nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Sad but true, the whole purpose of the Preznit’s address was in order to save his endangered species – the Republican voters. Catnip points out that Glenn Greenwald posted on his site about the rumblings of mutiny (impeachment) within right-wing blogosphere due to Dudya’s failure to protect the US/Mexico border.

Several prominent conservative bloggers argued vehemently in favor of Bush’s impeachment. Leading the charge was LaShawn Barber, who actually drafted articles of impeachment and supported them with this argument:

I believe George Bush’s failure to enforce immigration law and stop the foreign invasion, which he has the power and authority to do, warrants impeachment. Because of Bush, illegal invaders are emboldened, demanding that which they have no legal right to obtain.

While the invasion has caused incalculable physical and economic harm to legal citizens, the president proposes to offer amnesty and allow the harm to continue. To the detriment of those he swore to protect, Bush chooses instead to protect those he has no duty to protect. His actions are in violation of the Constitution.

The anger on the Right over Bush’s limp and fearful approach to the immigration problem is so severe that they are even comparing President Bush to Bill Clinton and referring to the Commander-in-Chief with a highly mocking tone…

With all the political scandals occurring in their party, this is the issue that broke the zombies back? Silly wingnuts.

Beside coming out in public to pay homage to the peoples like a wounded animal hunted down by vengeful hyenas, did Dudya say anything new? Nope, not a damn thing and continuing to hold true to form, fabricating facts.

(Complete transcript of Bush speech)

Lie number #1: Expanding the Border Patrol

Since I became president, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances, and over the past five years, we have apprehended and sent home about 6 million people entering America illegally.

Fact: The Arizona Daily Star ran a story about the accuracy of the 6 million that supposedly be apprehended and sent home. According to Princeton professor Douglas Massey, the numbers Dudya quoted are misleading because under the agency’s guidelines, a person can be counted as multiple apprehensions because the agency counts the event of each apprehension, not the number of people apprehended. Another problem about the accuracy of those numbers is when border-wide apprehension numbers bulge in one sector they usually drop in nearby sectors or vice versa, according to David Spener, a sociologist at Trinity University in San Antonio, TX.

As Tucson Sector apprehensions declined by 10 percent in fiscal year 2005, apprehensions increased by 41 percent in the Yuma Sector to the west and by 18 percent in the El Paso Sector to the East. That trend continues so far this year as well.

Border wide apprehensions for 2005 were only 5 percent higher than they were in 1984. In between, though, apprehensions peaked as high as 1.6 million in 1986 and in 2000 and below 1 million in 1988-1989 and again in 2002-2003.

Border Patrol officials recognize the funneling or bulging theory.

“If it makes it harder for them to cross, we are going to see a decrease because they are going to cross somewhere else,” said Stevens, about increased resources in the Tucson Sector.

Lie #2: Temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers

A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers and make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border.

Since the a temporary worker program does not go far enough to protect the temporary worker, therefore, it will not provide any incentives for the undocumented worker to come forward. Second, what immigrant would rather return home and face hunger, poverty, and unemployment. It is easier for them to continue to stay within the black market. And third, a temporary worker program had already been used here in the US, it was called the “Bracero program.” This temporary agricultural worker program that began during WWII and ended in 1964 was plagued with abuses and exploitation, and it did not provide full labor protections, labor mobility, the right to organize, and a path to permanent residence. So who is going to protect them, they will still be considered as non-citizens without any rights.

Lie #3: Undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes

It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments, by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.
…
I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years.

Fact: Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, in fact, they pay for Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes. Yet, nativists like Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), have popularized the notion that “illegal aliens” are a colossal drain on the nation’s hospitals, schools and welfare programs — consuming services that they don’t pay for. After the 1996 welfare reform bill passed, it disqualified Undocumented immigrants from being able to use all Federal government programs including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare-funded hospitalization.

The only services that undocumented are allowed to receive are emergency medical care and K-12 education. Another fact is that state revenues are collected directly by households and these include gross income tax, sales and use tax, motor vehicle fees, motor vehicle taxes, alcoholic beverage tax, cigarette tax, inheritance/estate transfer tax, business personal property tax, and the realty transfer tax and 25% come from the corporate sector. When ever an undocumented enters a store and purchase groceries, taxes have been paid.

In regards to education, state expenditures on public elementary and secondary education equal the sum of the state’s contribution to per pupil expenditures in a school district plus the average per pupil share of state costs on general education administration and support services. The state share to an area’s school district budget varies according to the resources available to the district. n general, the fraction of per pupil expenditure paid by the state varies inversely with the property tax collected by the school district. Average per pupil expenditure for each student is found by taking a weighted average of the per pupil expenditure of each school district by the average daily enrollment (ADE) figures reported by school districts to compute a district-wide average share of public schooling costs. The average per pupil expenditure and the average fraction for which the state is responsible yields a dollar figure for the state’s elementary and secondary costs per pupil. This dollar figure is then allocated to every child, between 6 to 17 years old, who lives in the district and those who are enrolled which indicates “in public school.” The state incurs additional costs for general education administration and management that are not part of a school district’s per pupil expenditures. Additional education costs are incurred by limited English proficient (LEP) students who are eligible for special education services such as remedial skills and bilingual education programs. There is no satisfactory way to break out bilingual education costs without making gross assumptions about relative school district participation in these state programs. Per pupil expenditures are higher in school districts located in urban areas than in the surrounding school districts, partly reflecting the higher cost of education for LEP pupils. And remember that includes every student. It is hard to tell how many Spanish speaking students a school will have before funds are allocated.

Lie #4: Electronic employer verification system will make it hard to find work

Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

Fact: The system would require verification from two federal agencies; the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) according to the three proposed bills – EEVS (Electronic Employer Verification System) in the Senate bill, the BEVP (Basic Employer Verification Program) House version, and NEECS (New Employment Eligibility Confirmation System) that was proposed in the failed McCain/Kennedy Bill. Considering Dudya asked for, one of those measures will be included in the final bill and it will affect everybody.

In August 2005, the Government Accountability Office reviewed that program and found:

Even with a strengthened employment verification process, a credible worksite enforcement program is needed because no verification process is foolproof and not all employers may want to comply with the law. … [E]mployers, particularly those not located at or near critical infrastructure sites, who attempt to circumvent IRCA face less of a likelihood that ICE will investigate them for failing to comply with the current employment verification process or knowingly hiring unauthorized
workers. … In addition, given ICE’s limited resources and competing priorities for those resources, additional output goals and measures are needed to help ICE track the progress of its worksite enforcement efforts, effectively determine the resources needed to meet worksite enforcement program goals, and ensure that program resources are used efficiently and effectively.

Kerry Howley for Reason wrote a great summary regarding the consequences this system will have throughout the country.

Lie #5 The whole English BS

Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America.

Here is the deal, the whole English only thing is bullshit and I will tell you why. While everybody is yappying people forget there are more than 50 states, we do have territories.

The list of the main insular areas:
Puerto Rico – The official languages of the island are Spanish and English. Spanish is the primary language in government; English is taught as a foreign language in schools. In 1991, Governor Rafael Hernández Colón signed a law declaring Spanish as the sole official language of the island’s government. Upon signing this law into effect, English had lost its status as an official second language. in 1993, Governor Pedro Rosselló (PNP AKA Rethug) overturned the law and re-established English as an official language. This was seen by many as a move by the pro-statehood governor to move the island closer to statehood, something that never came about under his two consecutive four-year terms.

Northern Mariana Islands – Languages: English, Chamorro, Carolinian, Chinese, Tagalog note: 86% of population speaks a language other than English at home

American Samoa – Samoan 90.6% (closely related to Hawaiian and other Polynesian languages), English 2.9%, Tongan 2.4%, other Pacific islander 2.1%, other 2% note: most people are bilingual (2000 census)

Guam – Languages: English 38.3%, Chamorro 22.2%, Philippine languages 22.2%, other Pacific island languages 6.8%, Asian languages 7%, other languages 3.5% (2000 census)

note: Although the English language and Japanese language are commonplace on both Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands, people still use the Chamorro language. Chamorro is also used in mainland United States by immigrants and some of their descendants.

Are we suppose to force these places to speak English also, they are as American as those who live here in the Main land. [Update: Click on comments for further discussion on the English only issue.]

Besides twisting his facts, Dudya also did a lot of Orwellian doublespeak. Dudya talks about sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the border, yet, he says “The United States is not going to militarize the southern border.” He goes on to say “Mexico is our neighbor and friend,” yet, “the border should … shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers and terrorists.” And best one of all, “There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation.”

If there is something that needs be decoded in his speech, it was at the end of his speech.

During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side.
…
We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they have always been people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom.

Bush was not talking about the risks this immigrants face as they cross the border. Yes, immigrants are willing to risk everything, even if it means being a solider in BushCo’s war to have an opportunity to be an American citizen. Ever since Dudya signed an Executive Order 13269, there really was no need for a military draft, the executive order has a provided a fast track for every non-citizen to become citizens for severing in BushCo’s war, without worry of deportation.

The War on Terrorism has led to changes in the immigration laws and regulations that greatly benefit soldiers and their spouses. First, active duty soldiers who are not U.S. citizens are now immediately eligible to apply for naturalization. Second, conditional lawful permanent resident alien spouses of soldiers who are deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom may request that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) extend their conditional status for one year, and in six-month increments thereafter, until their spouses return from abroad.

On 3 July 2002, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13,269, (1) expediting the naturalization of aliens (2) and noncitizen nationals (3) serving in an active duty status (4) during the War on Terrorism. This executive order made all aliens and noncitizen nationals serving honorably on active duty between 11 September 2001 and a future date, to be determined by executive order, eligible for immediate naturalization under section 329 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. (5) This authority does not require a period of residence or any specified period of physical presence in the United States before the soldier’s application for naturalization. (6) The soldier must show, however, that for at least one year before filing for naturalization, he or she has been, and continues to be: (1) of good moral character; (2) attached to the principles of the Constitution; and (3) favoring the good order and happiness of the United States.

Preferential access to citizenship for those who serve in the military is not unusual. However, it is how Dudya views the relationship between citizenship and military service that makes it more sinister. There is nothing wrong linking citizenship and responsibility for military service, but, Dudya’s idea that a civil-military relationship is defined by political partisanship, moral superiority, and constitutional resistance is what makes his rhetoric sinister. One cannot place degrees of citizenship (face deportation or serve in the military) on the basis of parameters that undermine the constitutional and professional ethic of the military’s political neutrality.

As of April 2003, there were 68,826 foreign-born, both naturalized citizens and non-citizens, individuals who are also risking everything to fight in BushCo’s war.

So once again, Dudya tries to pull a fast one, hoping his base is dumb enough to believe it until election day in November.