.

Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative News

Site
Down:  Site Index
Index

Should Immigration Reform be Race Blind?

Return
Return to Immigration Advertisement
to
Ad
Connerly and other opponents of racial preferences (quotas) have proposed the following "Fairness to Americans" amendment to any immigration reform bill: Read
Down: News Stories
News
Stories
"THEREFORE, for purposes of the operation of the civil rights laws of the United States, new immigrants to the United States subject to the Secure Border, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 shall not be considered to be "historically disadvantaged," "underrepresented," or to be in a "protected class" and shall not be entitled to any preferential or remedial employment goals, educational admissions goals or contracting goals by any entity subject to the civil rights laws of the United States."

News articles and commentary appear below.


The Preferences Are Coming -- 12 Million of Them! Excerpted from the Lloyd Billingsley article in FrontPageMagazine.Com
June 21, 2007

[FrontPageMag.Com June 21, 2007] -- The 12 million or more who entered the United States illegally, and would gain United States citizenship under the current immigration proposal, Senate Bill 1348, will qualify for race preferences and privileges for which the majority of Americans are not eligible. This is not fair.

          That is the view of Ward Connerly of the Sacramento-based American Civil Rights Institute, a veteran of battles against racial preferences in California, Washington and Michigan, and who believes that "race and ethnic preferences ought to be wrong under any circumstances." The current immigration measure, Connerly believes, would constitute a massive endowment of such preferences.

          "This is huge," Connerly told Frontpage. "All this talk of going to the back of the line is B.S.. They would go to the front of the line. The minute they are Americans, they move in front of  white males and in some cases white women." [Emphasis added.]   Legalized Hispanic immigrants, Connerly says, would also gain privileges over immigrants from nations such as Russia because they would be part of an officially sanctioned 'underrepresented minority."

          "We have to somehow make the American public aware of this. We are, right now, the Paul Revere on this. There is a problem here."

          The problem, according to Connerly, lies in "the nexus between illegal immigration and preferences." That issue had not been part of the immigration debate until last Friday, when Connerly published an open letter in the Washington Times, signed by various individuals, some of whom disagree with him on immigration policy per se. Signatories include Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, and civil-rights advocate Joe Hicks.

          "This is one of those things that people have not thought through." Connerly said. "A group that has never had the historic discrimination of blacks would be given the status of an underrepresented minority in this country."

          Connerly does not find much to like about the Secure Border, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which he considers amnesty, similar to the 1986 measure that granted amnesty to more than five million illegals. Many of them these prior beneficiaries of amnesty, Connerly says, have also become benficiaries of preferences and he sees the potential for repetition.   ... A root cause, in Connerly's view, is the definition of a minority.

          "It is not numerical," he said, "you are a minority if you are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged. We will have in California a circumstance that one group is a numerical majority [Hispanics] but still classified a minority. You would be hard pressed to say they are disadvantaged. The premise is that minorities are politically powerless."

          Connerly is himself as racially diverse as Tiger Woods and finds fault with a classification system that uses race for Blacks, Whites, Asians and Native Americans but makes Hispanic an ethnic designation. That poses problems, he says, for legalizing millions of Hispanics with the stroke of a pen. "The minute illegals become legalized they become part of preferences," he said.

          Connerly is pushing for a "Fairness to Americans Amendment" to the Senate Bill on Immigration which reads, in part:

          THEREFORE, for purposes of the operation of the civil rights laws of the United States, new immigrants to the United States subject to the Secure Border, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 shall not be considered to be "historically disadvantaged," "underrepresented," or to be in a "protected class" and shall not be entitled to any preferential or remedial employment goals, educational admissions goals or contracting goals by any entity subject to the civil rights laws of the United States. [Emphasis added.]

          Connerly's past campaigns for equal treatment have prevailed despite much opposition from professional ethnics and the political establishment. In 1996 he helped eliminate racial preferences in California through Proposition 209, which became the blueprint for similar victories in Washington state in 1998 and Michigan in 2006. Some may have thought that the preferences issue had died with the ambiguous Supreme Court decision on affirmative action of 2003.  But the Michigan campaign last year showed how explosive an issue this remains.  In a campaign where Bill Clinton and Colin Powell both campaigned against him and Barack Obama ran a radio ad against the measure, Connerly's anti-preference initiative still prevailed 58-42, a wider margin than Proposition 209—and this in the middle of a Democratic landslide nationally and in Michigan itself insofar as Gubernatorial and Senate candidates were concerned.

          With three major states solidly against preferences, Connerly wants more people to vote on this question. So he has planned a kind of Super Tuesday on preferences for November 4, 2008, attempting to qualify ballot measures in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma, states he says are already feeling the effects not only of 'affirmative action" but also of illegal immigration.

          "I think we win them all once we get on the ballot," Connerly said. "We need to bring about a critical mass of states. The majority of Americans do not support race preferences. The more we get that view in body politic, the more legislators will be emboldened."

Last known link to original FrontPageMag story


Affirmative Action's Foes Call for Ban on Preferences in Immigration Bill

Excerpted from the Peter Schmidt article in the Chronicle of Higher Education
June 7, 2007

[Chronicle of Higher Education 06-07-07] -- Critics of affirmative action plan to publish an open letter tomorrow calling for any immigration bill passed by Congress to contain language barring newly naturalized citizens from receiving preferences based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or color.

          The open letter, scheduled for publication in The Washington Times, argues that "immigration and race preferences cannot be considered in isolation," and that it is unfair that "the majority of immigrants coming to America will automatically be eligible for race preferences and privileges not provided to the great majority of Americans."

          The letter bears the signatures of 26 local and national leaders of the movement to bar the use of affirmative-action preferences in education, employment, and contracting. The effort to get it published was led by Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute and a leader of successful campaigns in California, Michigan, and Washington to ban affirmative-action preferences at public colleges and other state and local agencies. He has announced plans to get similar measures on the ballot in at least five other states.

          The immigration bill faces an uncertain future after failing to pick up sufficient support in a test vote this afternoon in the Senate, the Associated Press reported. The Senate is continuing to debate the legislation, however.

Last known link to original Chronicle story


Download the original full page ad as it appeared in the Washington Times
(Adobe Acrobat Reader required).


Footnote:  In August 2006 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report urging the feds NOT to count non-citizen Hispanics in determining over- or under- representation in the federal workforce.  Read this GAO Report!


Top
Top of Page

Links to news and contact info for each of the 2008 state initiatives:

Main
Super Tuesday Index
Arizona
Arizona Civil Rights Initiative
Colorado
Colorado Civil Rights Initiative
Missouri
Missouri Civil Rights Initiative
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative

BLOG about the Super Tuesday for Equality campaign at RaceBlind.Org

Main Site Index:

Top:
Go to Top of Page
MAIN NEWS
Index

by category
DONATE
Contributions are tax-deductible
HORROR
STORIES

and case studies
TERMS
and Definitions
SEARCH
Site
LEGAL HELP
Firms and Resources
LINKS MESSAGE
Board
GO:  Home Page
Home
Page Index
URL's and page names for site
Favorite
EDITORIALS

National opinion
DIRTY RACIAL
POLITICS

How Quotas are Enforced
EDITOR'S DESK
What's Hot!
RACIAL
PROFILING

D.O.J. Requires It!
EDUCATIONAL
TESTING

News Analysis
CENSUS 2000
Racism
ABOUT US

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: June 23, 2007.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.