Another FAIR Takeover Attempt

Many folks may remember that FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform ) was one of the Richard Mellon Scaife-funded organizations that was involved in backing the SUSPS candidates in the Sierra Club BOD elections recently. Now they're taking over 'Protect Arizona Now (PAN),' a campaign to pass a 'Prop 187' style initiative in Arizona. FAIR brought in the big money and is pushing aside the local organizers. Typical.

The local volunteers had only raised $30,000, but FAIR wrote a check for at least $150,500 to pay for hired signature gatherers. Now they're saying that 'whoever pays the piper calls the tune,' and are pushing out the PAN Chairwoman, Kathy McKee, because she won't play along. Her treasurer is already opening new accounts without her name and FAIR is conducting big PAN events without even notifying or inviting her. Chances are we won't hear much from Ms McKee in the future.

FAIR has apparently decided to focus on PAN this year and to try win in Arizona. They've dropped support for a similar initiative in Colorado, perhaps not having enough money to finance two statewide campaigns at once. Despite the fact that 84% of their funding is coming from a single out-of-state source, PAN continues to claim that they have widespread support for their initiative among the voters of Arizona.

-Will McW.

***************************************

Infighting may kill migrant initiative's chance of appearing on ballot http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ 0602Protectfight02.html

By AMANDA LEE MYERS Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX - An initiative aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from receiving government services may not make it on the state's Nov. 2 ballot because of infighting within the group backing it.

Backers of Protect Arizona Now have split into two factions, both working separately to gather the required 122,600 signatures by a July 1 deadline. Volunteer signature collectors have gathered about 30,000 signatures while paid circulators for the Federation for American Immigration Reform have roughly 70,000, said Rick Oltman, regional director of FAIR.

If the two groups cannot overcome their differences, the initiative may never reach the general election ballot in Arizona, the busiest entry point along the U.S.-Mexico border for illegal immigrants.

The initiative would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, cast ballots at polling places and receive non-federally mandated social services such as welfare.

Currently, the federal government requires proof of U.S. citizenship for welfare only if state agencies suspect an applicant is an illegal immigrant.

The initiative has caused controversy since it was first proposed in July 2003. Backers say it would curb lawbreaking by illegal immigrants while opponents say it is rooted in racism.

Its proponents became divided when a national organization agreed to contribute $150,500 to gather signatures for the initiative.

Kathy McKee, Protect Arizona Now's director, said when FAIR brought their manpower and money to PAN, it was a 'hostile takeover' and that FAIR 'never gave us a cent.'

Rusty Childress, PAN's former treasurer, who now is working with FAIR, said when FAIR funds an initiative, it decides how to spend the money.

'FAIR gave it to paid petition-gathering companies,' Childress said. 'I'm sure Kathy would have preferred it be in our coffers but those who have the money make the rules.'

If PAN's and FAIR's signatures are not all turned into Secretary of State Jan Brewer by PAN at the same time, the initiative will not make the ballot.

'It all hinges on whether we can merge these petitions at some point,' Childress said. 'The PAN committee and the FAIR group have the same goals and ideals, and to accomplish those, there's going to be a need for cooperation.'

Childress said he has tried unsuccessfully to contact McKee to merge the petitions by the July 1 deadline.

McKee said she is waiting for legal counsel before she responds.

I guess you like Overpopulation!

Artificial grass is getting better and better, but there is still a difference between astroturf and grassroots.

Every organization has its own mission. The Sierra Club's is centered on preserving wild space and reducing pollution. FAIR's supposed mission is reducing immigration into the U.S. and I hope that they succeed. But it is best for the FAIR and the Tanton-Scaife network to pursue their mission separately from the Sierra Club. Hopefully we will all succeed in improving the world's environment, each in our own way.

The Sierra Club may be likened to a swiss-army knife because it serves so many functions locally, regionally, and nationally. But even a swiss-army knife has its limits. If you try to use one as a hammer then that pretty much ruins it for all other purposes.

Immigration and preserving wild space and reducing pollution oare strongly linked. For one example, in California 100% of urban sprawl is due to population increase, and 100% of population increase is due to immigration.

Snappy comeback I guess, but polls are polls, grassroots support by definition. And if I must miss a day's pay to collect signatures here in my smalltown, or pool money with others to hire an unemployed fellow to do it every day at a big mall in Sacramento, doing the latter is a no-brainer.

The Club didn't have to use the issue or clobber anyone with it. They've subordinated Conservation to a paritsan political catechism, shown that they are the very thing that they accused their challengers of being. Compromised.

In the case of PAN, apparently very few Arizonans even wanted to pool their money to support it. Only 16% of their money has come from in-state. The rest, more than $150,000, came from the mysterious funding sources of FAIR.

The Sierra Club is not compromised by keeping its distance from FAIR and the rest of the Tanton-Scaife network. On the contrary, it has maintained its integrity. Unlike little PAN, which just lost its independence.

I do appreciate what you're saying, so far as getting mixed up with peripheral people who drag the message to places you don't care to have it seen in. There is little you can do about that though, you don't change your agenda because they glom onto it. Morris Dees is a genuine hate-monger, seeking out 'haters' to hate. A bona fide sicko, and a multi-millionare thief of his contributor's money. All documented, those are not just digs. How many Club people thought it was just fine to have someone like that join for this election? I will only grant that many don't know what he is actually about now, and there is little you can do about someone who shows up of his own accord, especially with lots of resources. That same sort of thing can happen in Immigration Reform, has nothing to do with the urgent need for that reform.

My conservation concern is as real as my immigration concern, as I live in the Sierras not far from Tahoe. I love my vertical topography and trees and can't bear to live anywhere else for long. Just driving down into Sacramento is a little painful for me, not to mention my lungs. I am seeing this state and my mountains, not to mention our jobs and our town, RUINED before my eyes because of this thing; mass illegal immigration. I see a bunch of Sierra Club people who have put the sinecures of Acceptable Liberals ahead of actual environmental degradation, in my view, and that makes me angry. When important institutions like the Sierra Club sell out for something as paltry as avoiding specious charges of racism, the game is up.

So far as US immigration history goes, you are right on most of that, but not so about the role of Immigration Restricionists. Give the history some real study beyond the surface morality play, and you find the Immigration Restrictionists of the time pretty much saved the day, for the US as a society, and for those immigrant's children. Sometimes, good things come out of ugly episodes and hard-hearted people. Just as they often have from war. The situation and feelings of people was indeed much like that you see today. The very same things were said, by ethnic nationalist types, and by the nativists, as you hear in the worst corners of this debate we're having today. It was not getting better; it was getting steadily worse. When further immigration was finally halted, thanks to final legislative victory by the Restrictionists, everything changed for the better, as that brand of aggresive ethnic conflict with the existing anglo-american society here was no longer a viable option, without fresh countrymen pouring in from overseas, supplying the ethnic demogogues and cheap labor interests. In other words, the migrant cultural momentum swung from colonisation to assimulation. That played out over two generations, and look at the good thing we got in the end. All thanks to WASP restrictionists, half of whom were racist as hell.

The common error people make in glossing through that history is in the assumption that american-style assimulation happens automatically, and as such, the anti-immigration folk only served a negative role of inflaming racial/ethnic conflict. That is not quite correct. The conflict was a natural product of bringing those peoples together. It only ended when one side felt it could not prevail. That's the real history, the end of an ugly conflict that brought a bright future to the children of both sides. It was not accomplished by being nice and non-bigoted, that's the unfortunate truth of human nature in that realm. The politic necessary to bring a resolution was driven by emotion, not nicety. Don't want to drag this out further, but that is how the sociology of US immigration has played.

The answer to all this, the choice answer that brings the least conflict and best results, is strict enforcement of the law. When you say what you mean in the law, and mean exactly what you say, without exception made for anyone, there is no question of injustice, no further arguement, no expectation among wannabe illegal migrants that they might get what want by means unacceptable. It changes people's behavior in a remarkable way, in an ultimately good way. This is what Liberals used to mean, decades ago, when they marched for equality before the law. How it devolved into its Orwellian opposite, I'm not quite sure, though it has a great deal to do with this one-sided fixation on the purported racism of whites.

You don't need agree with all this, but you may at least get the picture as to why Immigration Reform people are not-at-all happy with politically-correct 'anti-racism' as regards immigration, on the part of Sierra Club people.

Thank you for revealing the true goal of the immigration reductionist network supported by Scaife and Tanton. This confirms what many of us feared when we found out that FAIR/NumbersUSA was supporting candidates for the Sierra Club's board. If you guys really care a damn about the environment you are more than welcome to start up your own organization. There's no need to tear down the Sierra Club - unless that is your real purpose after all.

An organization with the goals professed by the Sierra Club, by denying that immigration is an issue, either has no integrity or no common sense.

The Sierra Club has never denied that immigration is an issue. Its membership simply voted to support a policy of neutrality on immigration by the club. There are numerous other organizations which are quite competent to handle that issue. Rather than focusing on divisive issues, the membership of the club opted for neutrality which allows those with opposing viewpoints to work together on areas of common agreement.

FAIR would undoubtedly prefer that the Sierra Club waste its efforts endlessly debating immigration policy.

=v= Ooh, you said 'politically-correct,' a phrase that never adds anything of any value to any discourse whatsoever. In fact, introducing it into discourse loses you an IQ point. You may have some to spare (I'm being charitable here), but a mind is, after all, a terrible thing to waste. <_Jym_>