Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Should an LDS Bishop Be Using His Title to Endorse Amnesty?


Should an LDS bishop be using his title to endorse amnesty? The citations below are from a link posted by Mark Shurtleff (board member of the National Immigration Forum) on his facebook page to an article at ready4reform.org (the website of the operation, "Bibles, Badges and Business," of the National Immigration Forum). Notice his last sentence - how he wants Republicans in the House to push amnesty even though he knows it is not supported:

"Furthermore, I work as an immigration attorney. My professional and ecclesiastical work involves documented and undocumented individuals. All of these experiences have shaped my views on immigration laws and immigration reform."
__________

"As a bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I feel strongly the need for families to be together. "
__________

"I participated in the Americans for Reform Day of Action because, as a Republican voter, I wanted to encourage our Republican leadership to debate the issues surrounding immigration laws and their reform. I wanted to encourage them to get these issues on the floor of the House and not wait for the rank and file to feel at ease with the issue."

The article is available at:

http://ready4reform.org/post/66190049600/dallin-as-a-bishop-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Will Women "Buy" Amnesty? - Leftist Immigration Messaging


Key Points:

- Immigration messaging is a key feature in the battle to sell amnesty to America.


- A recent professional memo outlines examples of messaging directed at obtaining women's support for amnesty.  

- By primarily focusing on values, rather than on amnesty, the values become a substitute for amnesty in the sales pitch.

- The process is manipulative and deceptive.

- The two companies that wrote the messaging memo are linked strongly to the political left.

- The organization for which the research was done is also linked to the political left.  

- The leftist penchant for moving debate to a set of values, removed from the realities of illegal immigration and its consequences, makes good immigration policy unlikely. 


Image courtesy of imagerymajestic at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Immigration messaging is a key feature in the battle to sell amnesty to America.

Messaging includes seeking words, phrases, and statements that will influence the middle - those who are undecided about amnesty - to support amnesty and other immigration policies.  

At the same time, the idea of "messaging" itself is not talked about much.

I recently came across an example of a professional effort at messaging pushing for amnesty.

This example, a memo, is specifically oriented towards women and how to influence "persuadable women voters,"  The memo, prepared by Lake Research Partners and ASOCommunications, can be found at:

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1109104170502-14/LRP+New+Immigration+Messaging+Memo.pdf

It makes some fascinating reading.



The Lake/ASO memo outlines examples of messaging directed at obtaining women's support for amnesty.

The memo tells us, for instance:

"Our goal for this project has been to find language and frames that speak to women voters—that engage and persuade them on immigration..."

They believe they have found messaging elements that will influence women's perceptions of the amnesty issue.

One such element is to use a woman's voice:

"These messages were also delivered with a woman’s voice, which we found persuades women voters more than a male voice."

The approach includes appealing to the following ideals:

"Women have very positive responses to values of community, commitment, contribution to our culture, responsibility to others, and protecting families. Language about strengthening communities is powerful and shifts attitudes in a positive direction toward immigrants."

However, there is another side to this process of seeking widely supported values and then coding amnesty appeals in those terms.  



The messaging being used to sell amnesty to women is a careful evasion of anything that may not appeal to undecided women on this issue.

Amnesty is being sold at a step removed from debate about the facts of illegal immigration and the implications for our society of a large-scale amnesty.

What is being sold are the values themselves that appeal to undecided women.  

For example, as part of the memo's message #3 ("Equality and Opportunity"), the memo states:

"Americans are at our best when we help one another. Women especially know the importance of coming together and wouldn't be where we are today without the help and support of the women in our lives – [our mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends]. As Americans, we honor and celebrate our unique commitment to protecting families, and giving equal opportunities and respect to women and girls, and many immigrants come here to share in this commitment." [emphasis in original]

The message ends with this euphemistic appeal to amnesty:

"That’s why we need an immigration process that reflects this commitment and provides freedom and opportunity to everyone, especially mothers, daughters and families." [emphasis in original]

The message has subtly transformed "amnesty" into "an immigration process" that represents commitment to a set of values that appeals to "persuadable" women. 

What is now being sold are the values rather than amnesty itself.  



The messaging is manipulative and deceptive.

It is manipulative because the messages carefully lead people to avoid any type of debate about illegal immigration by reframing amnesty as an expression of positive values and pushing the focus of attention onto the values rather than the facts of amnesty. 

It is manipulative because it pushes amnesty advocates to use the same tactic in public debate - thus quashing debate that tries to discuss issues outside of the values.

It is deceptive because the memo seeks to influence the public by using evasive and misleading euphemisms to garner support for amnesty.

For example, on page four of the memo, the authors present a list of phrases commonly used in the amnesty debate.  They also present what many people think when hearing the phrases and suggest substitutions to use.

When the phrase "Immigrants do pay taxes" is used by an amnesty advocate, for instance, the memo claims that many will think:

"I should assess source of your facts; issue not about values but what immigrants can do for us."

Notice the memo specifically asks amnesty advocates to avoid language that pulls the debate away from the values being promoted by the messaging memo.

The phrase below is suggested in place of the claim that immigrants pay taxes:

"New Americans realize the value of participating in our communities"

The claim that "Immigrants pay taxes" has now been turned into the above fuzzy and vague statement.

Any debate over the taxes issue has been sidestepped and pushed away.

In this same hazy statement, illegal aliens have been also been framed as "New Americans."  

This euphemism, which avoids any discussion of legal status or how illegal aliens came to enter the United States, subtly calls on us to see our laws as the problem and not the behavior of the illegal aliens themselves.  



Both ASOCommunications and Lake Research Partners are linked strongly to the political left.

ASOCommunications, one of the organizations responsible for the memo, is run by Anat Shenker-Osorio.  Her short bio at asocommunications.com lists a variety of her clients:

"Anat’s current and previous consulting clients include the Ford Foundation, America’s Voice, Opportunity Agenda, Ms Foundation, We Belong Together, the Roosevelt Institute, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Caring Across Generations and CoreAlign, to name a few. Her writing and research has appeared in The Altantic, Salon, Huffington Post, Colorlines and the Christian Science Monitor."

The political left, as seen in this list of clients, forms a significant part of her clientele.

The same is true of Lake Research Partners.  

Their webpage includes an "Outstanding Clients" page which has links to several client lists.  The lists outline a very impressive collection of clients - a tremendous number on the left.  On the "Issue Advocacy Groups" page, for instance, the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Forum, America's Voice, and the National Immigration Law Center are listed.  These are leftist pro-amnesty groups.  



It should be no surprise, therefore, that this memo was created for an organization which also has strong ties to the political left.

That organization is the group called "We Belong Together."

Pramila Jayapal is a key figure in We Belong Together, serving as co-chair of the organization.  

She was also founder and executive director of the pro-amnesty leftist group OneAmerica until 2011.  

Some of her accomplishments at OneAmerica include:

"Under her leadership, OneAmerica has achieved significant policy change in Washington State, leading efforts to win numerous victories for immigrants including: a New Americans Executive Order signed by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire, a comprehensive plan to address the needs of immigrant communities in Seattle, an ordinance preventing City of Seattle employees from inquiring about immigration status, and numerous resolutions at the city and county level upholding the human rights and dignity of immigrants and affirming the need for comprehensive immigration reform."

In 2012, Representative Adam Smith (D-Washington) honored her accomplishments.  This was her focus and work just following 9/11:

"In the days immediately following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Pramila began the Hate Free Zone Campaign of Washington as an entirely volunteer-run organization to combat discrimination against immigrants, especially from communities of color--primarily Muslim, Arab American, East African and South Asian--and to work against stereotypes in a post 9/11 world. At first, the mission was to advocate for the rights of those who were likely to be victims of hate crimes."

In 2010, Ms. Jayapal and others were arrested for blocking a road in Seattle to promote amnesty.  See the links below for coverage of this incident.  The video is particularly interesting as it shows Ms. Jayapal being led away singing while oblivious to the chaos her group's actions created for those trapped in the traffic snarls resulting from their illegally blocking the intersection:

In a similar action just a few days ago, Ms. Jayapal was arrested again.

We Belong Together cites Ms. Jayapal in a press release about a protest for amnesty in Washington, D.C. on 9/12/13 in which 100 women, including Ms. Jayapal, were arrested:

“Each one of us here today understands what incredibly high stakes we are talking about—immigration reform is not just a piece of legislation but the ability for us to take care of our families,” said Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of We Belong Together: Women for Common-Sense Immigration Campaign. “Women contribute every day to our families, our economy and our country. Immigration reform is about being able to live, breathe free, and remember the values that brought us all here in the first place: democracy, freedom, and justice.”

Notice Ms. Jayapal's careful amnesty messaging.



The leftist penchant for moving public debate to a set of values removed from the realities of illegal immigration and its consequences makes good immigration policy unlikely.

Immigration is a very complex issue.  Illegal immigration forms part of this larger issue.  There are many angles to consider.

With all the left-wing think tanks, pro-amnesty organizations, and foundations pouring resources and money into the amnesty movement (along with the additional ones being heaped on the sizable resource pile by the cheap-labor business interests and groups pandering for political or other advantage), amnesty advocates can certainly engage the full range of immigration issues.  And they do - in certain contexts (although I would argue inadequately and in a wrong-headed fashion).

And yet we are confronted by a left-wing memo which suggests that the way to persuade undecided women is to sell a small set of values rather than amnesty itself.  

But, consequences of bad policy cannot be ignored.  Wishing them away will not make them go away and using euphemisms to push the real debate about real issues into the shadows only serves to fool the public, not enlighten it.

Policy built on a foundation of pro-amnesty wishful thinking will give us the pretense of having solved something now, but will lead to another situation down the road where we will be discussing how to legalize millions and millions more illegal aliens.  

Illegal immigration poses a considerable number of serious issues.  They need to be confronted openly and thoroughly.

The government must adequately enforce our reasonable immigration laws and demonstrate the political will to continue to do so before any talk of any exceptions.   

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Video: D.A. King Interviewed by Jorge Ramos of Univision


Below is a great video of D.A. King being interviewed by Jorge Ramos on Univision (August 2013).

Ramos tries everything he can think of to try and paint King into a corner. It doesn't work.

If Ramos, as he says many times, is seeking a solution to the 11 million illegal aliens, why does that solution always mean amnesty?

Ramos is not seeking a solution to 11 million illegal aliens, he is seeking to aid them in their demand for amnesty.

He is not a journalist, he is an advocate.



Friday, August 2, 2013

Mark Shurtleff's Fellow National Immigration Board Member Arrested

Mark Shurtleff's fellow National Immigration Forum board member, Angelica Salas, was arrested on Thursday in Washington during a mob action to push for amnesty. 

Along with Angelica Salas, Frank Sharry was also arrested. Mr. Sharry is the former Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum. From his bio at America's Voice:

"Up until recently Mr. Sharry served as the Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum. The Forum, based in Washington D.C., is one of the nation’s premier immigration policy organizations, and has been at the center of every major legislative and policy debate related to immigration over the past 25 years."

The left is finding it harder and harder to not act like a mob and try to force amnesty through street action. 

It would be interesting to hear Mark Shurtleff's thoughts about the radical amnesty thugs that seem to permeate the amnesty movement - including the board of the National Immigration Forum.

The arrested:

"Those arrested in the morning action include church leaders, advocates and union representatives, people such as Angelica Salas, the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, and Frank Sharry of America’s Voice. They were charged with blocking passage and held for several hours before being released in the afternoon."

The article about the arrest is available at:


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198350/dozens-arrested-in-pro-immigration.html#.UftFKdLOl2A

The National Immigration Forum's board:

http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/board

Frank Sharry's bio:

http://americasvoiceonline.org/experts/frank_sharry/

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Libertarian Guest Worker Mania


How fanatical are some libertarians on immigration issues?  This will give you some idea:

Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, made some curious comments in a recent Cato's Letter

The Cato Institute is, of course, the premier libertarian think tank in America.  Even so, it is hard to not argue with just about everything that Mr. Nowrasteh said in his interview.  For instance, Mr. Nowrasteh's comments on guest workers seem both fanatical and myopic: 

"A guest worker visa program must be large and cheap enough to channel the vast majority of would-be unauthorized immigrant workers into the legal market."

Large enough and cheap enough?  

It may not be fair to read too much into his brief comments, but Mr. Nowrasteh's view,  that the number of foreign "guest" workers ought to include the "vast majority" of "would-be unauthorized immigrant workers" (i.e., illegal aliens), seems boundless. 

Is there a limit to such channeling of foreign workers into the legal workforce? 

Would creating a greatly expanded legal "guest worker" labor force invite an ever increasing number of foreign workers to try for the same deal? 

What would the impact be on American workers and legal immigrants of such a system? 

It would be devastating.  On the other hand, however, it would be a dream come true for certain employers as Mr. Nowrasteh makes clear.  

He continues:

"Furthermore, the program must be dynamic and allow the widest possible variety of businesses from all sectors of the economy to hire guest workers in the numbers they deem fit."

In addition, Mr. Nowrasteh believes that guest workers should be free to change their employment in order to keep employers from abusing them.

One can admire his concern for the well-being of foreign workers, but why does he not express the same concern for American workers, who would surely be cast aside in such a scheme of unlimited "guest" workers?  

And, would they truly be "guest" workers? 

Mr. Nowrasteh also proposes that the system have "unlimited renewals of visas"  - in other words, permanent "guest worker" residency.  

Another idea in Mr. Nowrateh's interview is that immigrants are complementary to the American workforce - not competitors with Americans.  According to him, immigrants are "more likely to be higher skilled or lower skilled than most Americans."   We could spend a lot of time arguing strongly against this idea and the damaging impact such a view would have on America if not carefully examined and limited to a small number of very specific temporary situations.  

Briefly, however, let's consider what this idea of worker complementarity means if applied to Mr. Nowrasteh's views of guest workers.

When Mr. Nowrasteh says that "the widest possible variety of businesses" in "all sectors of the economy" must be allowed to "hire guest workers in the numbers they deem fit," we need to be concerned that the idea of complementarity of worker populations, even if accurate in some limited circumstances, will be quickly thrown out the window in favor of pushing Americans and legal immigrants out the door in favor of cheap labor "guest" workers.

Temporary foreign labor in America might make sense in certain very limited circumstances - such as some agricultural work.  But, opening the door to a never-ending flood of foreign labor would be ill-advised and counterproductive to the well-being of the nation on many levels.   

Friday, May 31, 2013

The Immigration View from a Globalist Perch


Big-Time Globalist Pushes Immigration

Peter Sutherland is a big-time globalist.  

He's also a big-time immigration pusher.  

In the current Gang of Eight Amnesty debate, it is important to consider the issue from the globalist perspective.  

Why?  

Because globalist influences on the debate are out of view, but may be a powerful force pushing for U.S. amnesty and other immigration changes.  


The Globalist View of Immigration

In a 2012 BBC article, "EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief," Mr Sutherland made some interesting comments.  Among them are his claim that individuals, not the receiving nations, should be the ones with the right to determine what country they live in.  Mr. Sutherland, for instance:  

"...called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country."

The European problem, according to Mr. Sutherland, seems to be that European countries don't see themselves as "migrant societies."  They need to give up this notion, embrace multiculturalism, and abandon the idea of population homogeneity:

"He told the committee: "The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others."

The article then adds this zinger from Mr. Sutherland:

"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."

Notice that he didn't say France should decide for itself if it wishes to flood its nation with immigrants.  Nor did he declare that Germany, Italy, Sweden, or any other European Union member, should decide what it wants to do regarding immigration.  He said the European Union, as a supranational entity and as a matter of policy, should be undermining the idea of homogeneity of its member nations in order to promote immigration.  


The Globalist Attack on National Sovereignty

It's not an easy thing to analyze globalist writings and statements - as they tend to be a mix of truth and propaganda.  Sifting through the information in order to get a sense of what the real goals are, i.e., the ones that are central to the globalist fixation with supranational governing structures, is a difficult process.  But, it seems clear that promoting mass immigration into certain nations is one such goal.  Couple this with the globalist view of national sovereignty as an impediment to their project and we can surmise that immigration is being used as one mechanism to attack national sovereignty. 

In fact, in a 2008 article of an interview with Mr. Sutherland, the author refers to Mr. Sutherland as "a champion of a border-lite world."  

How many immigrants does Mr. Sutherland have in mind?

In the same 2008 interview with Mr. Sutherland, he gives us a view of the masses he is talking about:

"There's an inevitable need for many hundreds of millions of people to move from one part of the world to another, sometimes incited not merely by poverty but by poverty which itself could be the result of climate change. It is also realistic to expect that there will be huge movements of people because of the differences in GDP per capita. While globalization has lifted some parts of the world, there are others where it has had little or no impact."

An inevitable need for many hundreds of millions of people to migrate around the globe?

Mr. Sutherland did not specify how many "hundreds of millions" he meant or where exactly they might be headed - but it seems reasonable to conclude that many of this large non-specific number will be heading to the U.S.

Mr. Sutherland doesn't see this as a problem, because he has "never seen immigration and the multiculturalism of a society as a threat to the identity or values of the host community."

On the contrary, globalist insiders must know that these levels of immigration will certainly impact the nations that undergo such levels of mass migration - that's the point in the globalist worldview.  Supranational power structures can't grow sufficiently in strength when people have a strong sense of attachment to their nations and resist internationalist encroachments on their sovereignty.  Changing the demographics of a nation is one way to change the political perspective of that nation and to suppress and diminish the political role of those who oppose the increasing stranglehold of supranational governance over their nation.  

Directly addressing problems around the world, which are put forth as reasons for migration, seems a more reasonable and effective avenue than having people moving all over the place in such large numbers.  An approach that seeks to aid nations in solving their problems, while preserving their sovereignty, is one that is oriented towards finding effective solutions.  However, when creating supranational governing structures is the goal, then actually finding solutions to problems becomes secondary to the power project.  Aggregating more and more power into a handful of international organizations leads to a place far from the political roots of our nation - the roots designed to discourage tyranny.  If one truly cares about people and their well-being, about cultures, about history, about nations, and about finding solutions to the world's problems, one must reject the globalist power drive.  

Each nation should be free to determine what immigration policies are congruent with its national goals and interests


Who is Peter Sutherland?

But who is Peter Sutherland and should we take him seriously?

According to the two articles already referenced, Mr. Sutherland is or has been:

- special representative on migration for the United Nations

- director-general of the World Trade Organization

- a European Union commissioner

- chairman of British Petroleum

- chairman of the London School of Economics

- non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International

- head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development

- attended meetings of the Bilderberg group

- former Attorney General of Ireland

To this impressive list, we should add that Mr. Sutherland is also a prestigious member of the Trilateral Commission - where he is also listed as having received 15 honorary degrees and an honorary knighthood in the United Kingdom.  The Trilateral Commission's short biography also tells us that Mr. Sutherland "was presented with the Robert Schuman Medal for his work on European integration."  That's an interesting award.  He has also been honored by the Trilateral Commission with its David Rockefeller Award.  Within the Trilateral organization, he is a former European Chairman and currently an Honorary European Chairman.  

I would say that we should take Mr. Sutherland very seriously.  

We should also take the globalist approach to the world and immigration seriously.  

Doing so will add a dimension not generally considered publicly in our immigration debates. 

Sunday, May 19, 2013

The Tribune's Empty Immigration Argument


The Salt Lake Tribune recently published an editorial promoting amnesty  ("Hatch leads the way").  If you are looking for reasons, backed up by evidence, for supporting amnesty, you are out of luck.  There aren't any.  It is an empty appeal.

We are told by the Tribune, for instance, that Senator Hatch knows how to read writing on walls, polls and letters from campaign contributors.  

These remarkable abilities, developed over 36 years, apparently make Hatch a "savvy" politician.  When this savvy is combined with his expertise on immigration, Hatch is also able to discern that now is the time for amnesty and we need to act before the current window of opportunity closes.

But this is not an argument for amnesty.  It merely assumes that amnesty is good policy.  

The key to Hatch's new realization:

"And now, Hatch says he sees what many others have seen. There are an estimated 11 million human beings who are living, working, going to school, buying things and paying taxes who continue to live lives completely or partially in the shadows. It would be neither humane nor practical to send them home, especially when a great many of them came here as children and truly have no home other than the U.S.A."

We are not told why it would not be humane to send them "home."  We are not told why it would be impractical.  Again, the editorial merely assumes the truth of these statements.  

Any debate about exceptions should follow adequate border and interior enforcement - not grant amnesty now with empty promises for future enforcement.  

Regarding the path to citizenship for illegal aliens and its proposed 13-year wait:  

"Hatch rightly notes that such a long wait hardly gives anyone an unfair advantage over those who have entered, or sought to enter, the United States legally."

This incredible statement wants us to believe an absurdity:  that someone who entered the nation illegally, not with the permission of the United States (but on his or her own whim) and has remained here for years, is the same situation as someone patiently waiting for years to enter the nation legally and is willing to abide by our laws even if it means they are never permitted to reside in the United States.  One is here, the other is not.  One is rewarded while one patiently waits.  Are these equivalent?  

Yes, Mr. Hatch, it does give illegal aliens an unfair advantage and invites others to do likewise.  

There are other problems with this editorial.  

The editorial ends by telling us that leading the way on immigration reform is right for Hatch.  Embedded in this idea is the interesting notion that Hatch is providing "political cover" for other senators:    

"Leading the way toward reform — and providing inspiration and political cover for other senators to follow — is something that is both the right thing for Hatch..."


Presumably, the earlier mentioned polls were telling Hatch that the public wants amnesty.  Why do senators need "political cover" if this is true?  

The actual situation is more in line with "writing on the walls" and letters from campaign contributors.  In other words, special interests are pushing this bill, not public opinion, and they know it - thereby creating the need for the mental gymnastics on the part of the Tribune in this editorial and by other other amnesty promoters (such as Senator Hatch).  

We should expect a lot of assumptions to be presented as established facts by the amnesty crowd and by their political spokesmen.  It is the only way they can create enough confusion in the public to pass the Gang of Eight amnesty.