![]() |
||
|
|
by
Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:03:58 PM EST
Using the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act as a proxy for the current immigration debate, 79 Representatives last week prevented the House from reauthorizing the bill. But they were not working alone. They had powerful allies in the anti-immigration lobby, allies with some rather disturbing skeletons in the closet.
The Voting Rights Act was never intended to have anything to do with immigration. Passed in 1965, after years of struggle, the bill was intended to make sure that African-Americans in the South could register and vote without fear of intimidation. Like many pieces of legislation, the VRA is a living document, and has been modified over the years to reflect societal change. By 1975, with the increasing numbers of new minorities entering the US from Asia and Latin America who were disenfranchised from voting because of their inability to understand English language ballots, the bill was modified to provide bilingual voting materials. Periodically, portions of the bill have come up renewal. In what is perhaps a sign of the times, partisan interests managed used this opportunity to stall that process. commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!
It should have been just another procedural vote allowing for one of those rare bipartisan moments when legislators gather on the Capitol steps to celebrate a piece of historic legislation. To the humiliation of party leaders, this time around it didn't quite turn out that way. On Wednesday morning, June 21st, in an increasing common display of Republican disunity, 79 Representatives presented Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) with a letter stating that they would not support the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Voicing opposition to the provisions for bilingual ballots contained in the forty-one year old landmark civil rights legislation, the rebellious Republican Representatives refused to lend their votes until the requirements were removed. In spite of the fact that the House Judiciary Committee approved the measure last month by a 33-1 vote, Representatives from nine mostly southern states joined them on the grounds that they believed many of the other protections afforded in the bill were no longer called for. Only hours before floor debate was scheduled to begin, Sensenbrenner wishing not to end up in a protracted and embarrassing floor fight, removed the bill from consideration.
Certainly this action raises many questions, not the least of which being: Why in an election year would anyone in their right mind want to block something named the "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 2006"? What gain could be had threatening a piece of landmark civil rights legislation that was the culmination of years of struggle? Obviously these Republican renegades weighed their options and figured they could make more political hay in their home districts touting a tough anti-immigrant/English-only line than they could with a photo on page 25 of the local paper shaking hands with civil rights leaders. Facing waning public approval for many of the majority party's policies, particularly in Iraq, House Republicans have been increasingly worried about their prospects in November. In response, many have latched on to the "get tough" approach towards immigration reform put forth by Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus hoping to parlay the issue into this years divisive cultural cause, a replacement for 2004 elections "gay marriage" debate. At the very least, they probably figured they could always claim that the bill is not in "real" jeopardy since the current provisions won't expire until 2007. Authored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and sponsored with Peter King (R-NY), the letter first appeared on February 3, 2006 and was signed by 56 members of Congress (55 R, 1 D). Stating that, "...we believe these ballot provisions encourage the linguistic division of our nation and contradict the 'Melting Pot' ideal that has made us the most successful multi-ethnic nation on earth," the letter basically lays out five major points of contention with Sec. 203 & 4(f)(4) of the VRA: Major Points of the King Letter
The letter floated around Congress for the next few months and picked up an additional 23 signatures before it was presented to Chairman Sensenbrenner on June 21st. Who's Really Behind the King Letter It now appears some questions have come to light about exactly who is behind both the King letter and the effort to shelve the renewal of the VRA. The official copy of the letter that appears on the web site of the US Congress (www. house.gov) apparently was not generated by a house member or their staff, but rather by one of the leading anti-immigration/English only advocacy groups. The copy of the letter (now available only in HTML cache ) that originally appeared on the House of Representatives web site; http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/121205_King_Bilingual_Ballot.doc, appears to have been authored by someone named KC McAlpin using a computer registered to the anti-immigration advocacy group NumbersUSA.(1) This fact raises questions as to the identity of KC McAlpin, his affiliation with NumbersUSA, how this particular file ended up on the web site of the House of Representatives, and who is behind the letter?" Certainly, only the most naïve would be shocked to find out that special interests and lobbying groups play a role in formulating legislation and policy. The current administration has been particularly guilty of this practice. But this case appears that it might be slightly different. In this case it is quite possible that the actual letter that 79 Representatives put their names on was not in fact authored by one of their own, but rather by outside interests, interests with some rather disturbing skeletons in the closet. Who is KC McAlpin and did he write the letter? KC McAlpin is the Executive Director of an organization called ProEnglish. According to their website, they are "the nation's leading advocate(s) of official English. (They) work through the courts and in the court of public opinion to defend English's historic role as the common, unifying language of the United States of America, and to persuade lawmakers to adopt English as the official language at all levels of government." The group is one of thirteen like-minded organizations founded by anti-immigrant advocate John Tanton. Tanton's multi-million dollar web of groups includes not only ProEnglish and NumbersUSA, but also the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR). Obviously, as Executive Director of ProEnglish, McAlpin is part of Tanton's organization, but the question remains as to whether he is the author of King's letter. A look at the similarities between the language used in the letter and that of McAlpin's written testimony before Congress in November of 2005 sheds some light on the question. At a hearing of the Constitutional Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday November 10, 2005, McAlpin testified on behalf of ProEnglish in opposition to renewal of Sec. 203 & 4(f)(4) of the VRA. From his written statement it's obvious that the King letter has striking similarities to McAlpin's talking points. Major Points of McAlpin's Congressional Testimony
Given that the King letter posted at House.gov was authored by McAlpin on a computer registered to NumbersUSA, coupled with its striking similarities to McAlpins testimony, only one of two possible causes seem plausible. Either King copied his letter from ProEnglish literature almost word for word, and then asked McAlpin, or someone using his computer, to type up a copy to post at the House of Representatives website, or McAlpin authored the letter himself. Either way the letter that 79 Representatives signed to force the cancellation of the renewal of the VRA came from ProEnglish. In fact, in the weeks and months leading up to the vote on the VRA, ProEnglish had been advocating the defeat of the bill . This leaves us with one question unanswered. Who is John Tanton, the man behind this organization? John Tanton has been credited for single-handedly creating the modern anti-immigration, English-only and Nativist political movements in the United States. Over thirty years he has managed to create a network of think tanks, advocacy groups and fund raising organizations that not only shape public opinion, but public policy. His experts testify before Congress and reports and studies by his various groups are used to formulate legislation. His pundits appear in all forms of media to pontificate and propagandize. By his own admission he says, "I would certainly have no reservations about claiming credit for being the guy secretly manipulating U.S. immigration policy."
Although he claims to do so only because he believes that "the overwhelming majority of Americans ... want to see immigration levels reduced," his motivations seem to stem from a firm belief that America is in peril due to a worldwide trend of third-world populations taking over the wealthy first-world nations. His philosophy contains a strange mix of environmentalism, protectionism, xenophobia, eugenics, and racism. A philosophy he has been able turn into a political movement though his network of organizations. This network includes both organizations founded by Tanton himself and those started by others that he takes under his wing and then integrates into his network and funds
Starting his career in the sixties as an ardent environmentalist, Tanton was a leading member in groups like the National Audubon Society and Sierra Club. Through his environmentalist activities he became interested in the relationship between population growth and environmental degradation and by the early seventies his focus shifted to zero population growth. By the late seventies, Tanton's concern for population growth evolved into a preoccupation with increased immigration into the U.S., particularly by those coming from the Caribbean and Latin America. In 1979, unable to find support for his anti-immigration ideas in the environmentalist movement, Tanton formed the first and most influential of his advocacy groups the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Tanton wrote on the formation of FAIR: "Having observed what I believe to be a problem, I acted. Having failed to convince some of the people in the environmental movement that immigration was an issue that ought to feature prominently on their agendas, I did exactly what everyone else who is involved in issue advocacy has done I formed an organization of like-minded people." Tanton went on to build his network, finding more "like-minded people" along the way to join his one-man crusade. Today his multi-million dollar empire of advocacy groups helps to insure that he and his allies not only have their opinions heard, but manage to shape the opinions of others. While some of his groups, such as CIS have presented themselves as purveyors of mainstream thinking, the roots of Tanton's philosophy never lay far from the surface. Tanton's philosophical roots On numerous occasions throughout his advocacy career Tanton has managed to tip his hand, revealing his belief in the inferiority of certain races and ethnic groups and his fear that they will destroy what he sees as America's European-based, superior society. The first instance to gain national attention occurred when, in 1988, the media uncovered what was termed the "WITAN Memo."
The resulting fallout from the release of the WITAN memo caused many of Tanton's more mainstream allies to leave his organizations. That same year an even more damaging revelation about some of FAIR's funding came to light. FAIR had been accepting grants from a group called the Pioneer Fund.
In 1988 when the story first came out, Tanton, the President of FAIR's board, denied any knowledge of the connections to Pioneer fund. FAIR continued to accept the funds for nine more years. Between 1985 and 1994, FAIR accepted $1.2 million from Pioneer. It is perhaps the work done by Tanton's publishing organization, The Social Contract Press that has had drawn the most attention, due to its ties to extremist movements and organizations. The most popular book in the SCP catalog, and a personal favorite of Tanton's, is Jean Raspail's The Camp of the Saints, a French fantasy novel about an invasion of the Western world by hordes of starving, dark-skinned refugees from India. It depicts non-whites as "uncivilized "monsters" whose goal is to violently seize the riches of the white man. The depiction of the ensuing race war has been compared to that in the The Turner Diaries, a perennial favorite of American white supremacists like Timothy McVeigh. In the Winter 1994 Issue of The Social Contract, Tanton wrote; "We are indebted to Jean Raspail for his insights into the human condition, and for being 20 years ahead of his time. History will judge him more kindly than have some of his contemporaries." SCP has gone on to feature the writings of some of the anti-immigration movement's most extreme elements, garnering the dubious distinction of being listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of recognized "Hate Groups." Typical of the type of opinions found in Social Contract journal was an essay written in 1998 by John Vinson, who directed Americans for Immigration Control, another organization in the Tanton network of restrictionist groups. In an essay titled "Europhobia: The Racism of Anti-racists" Vinson wrote: "In a climate of Euro-phobia, we have every legitimate reason to fear and resist a substantial racial/ethnic shift. Assimilating non-European immigrants into America's traditional Euro-culture is difficult. Europhobia makes it nearly impossible. As many of the newcomers absorb this hostility, European-Americans will face increasing tension, discrimination, and perhaps physical danger. We are under no moral obligation to accept these risks either for ourselves or our children." Over the years Tanton's network has been increasingly intertwined with ever more extreme elements of the Nativist/white supremacist movement, and has in fact acted as a liaison between them and both the media and Washington. They have helped groups like Barbara Coe's , CCIR and Glen Spencer's American Patrol to work with like minded groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) and American Renaissance allowing them to reach out to anti-immigration legislators and the media.
The Nexus of the Tanton's two worlds:
Ironically, it may end up that their attempts to dismantle a cornerstone of the civil rights movement, and its culminating achievement, that might be the one thing that brings America to its senses. Even with all the sophisticated spin and media manipulation available to them, it will be hard for this group to hide the stench of their actions. Sometimes, even with all the lipstick you can apply, a pig still stinks like a pig.
additional research provided by ePluribus Media team member intranets
(1) to view the meta data on this file, open the .doc link, save the file to your hard drive, open it in Msword, than go to your file menu and click properties/summary
Who really stalled the Voting Rights Act renewal? | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
Who really stalled the Voting Rights Act renewal? | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
|
Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism! recent commentaries
front page
Tuesday November 27th
Monday November 26th
|