Subscribe via RSS Feed

National News Reports On A3P Candidate Harry Bertram

News sources have reported on the confirmed independent candidates added to the West Virginia Gubernatorial special election, A3P Party candidate Harry Bertram and a second independent candidate.

If elected, Bertram said he would not seek to expel non-whites from state jobs or to revive such segregation-era laws as the one banning interracial marriage.

“It’s not that I’m trying to strip non-whites of power,” he said. “I’m trying to point out discrimination against white people.” –Lawrence Messina for Westport News

News Sources:

American Third Position Qualifies for 2011 Special Election for West Virginia Governor

Richard Wagner | June 18th, 2011

West Virginia will be holding a special gubernatorial election on October 4, 2011, to elect a Governor. Five candidates will appear. Besides the Democratic and Republican nominees, two minor party candidates, and one independent, qualified. The two minor party candidates are the Mountain Party’s Bob Henry Baber, and Harry Bertram, nominee of the American Third Position Party. The independent candidate is Marla Ingels.

Bertram and Ingels qualified by petition, but the Mountain Party (the West Virginia affiliate of the Green Party) did not need to petition, because it is has been a ballot-qualified party since 2000. The Mountain Party chose its gubernatorial nominee by convention.

The American Third Position Party believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against whites, and that whites need their own political party to fight this discrimination. Harry Bertram, in the past, has been a nominee for public office of parties that no longer exist, but which had a similar point of view. In 1984 he was a National States Rights Party nominee for a seat in the Ohio legislature (although he ran in a Republican primary because the NSRP wasn’t on the ballot). In 1989 he was a National States Rights Party nominee for a township office in Ohio. In 1994 he was a Populist Party nominee for the West Virginia legislature, but in 1994 he was not able to surmount the petition requirement.

“The American Third Position Party is based in North Dakota and says it represents the white American voter. It says it seeks to preserve and continue ethnic European communities within the U.S.

Bertram considers himself a white nationalist. The 51-year-old believes his support of lower taxes and fewer regulations will resonate with voters. Bertram of Morgantown has previously run as a Republican and is now reaching out to the state’s tea party movement.” West Virginia Public Broadcasting, June 21, 2011

“Bertram submitted 3,760 signatures on May 20, one day before the deadline for ballot access petitions, Deputy Secretary of State Sheryl Webb said Tuesday. Lawmakers put the threshold at 1,765 signatures of registered voters when they set up this year’s special election. Bertram attracted signatures in all 55 counties except Clay, Logan, Wayne and Wirt, Webb said.” Daily Journal, June 21, 2011

Let’s band together and send Harry Bertram the resources he’ll need to win the election. Together we can win.

Visit Harry Bertram’s web site !

Use the drop-down menu below.

*We will not divulge your personal information.

‘Europe is dying’ U.S. population expert tells Senate hearing, Pro-Natal Programs Needed.

WASHINGTON DC, June 21, 2011 ( – Given the precipitous decline in the birthrates of European countries, all anti-natal programs funded by the United States should immediately be replaced by pro-natal programs, one top population expert recently told the U.S. Senate.

“It doesn’t matter whether we call them reproductive health programs, family planning programs, or population control programs,” said Stephen Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI). “They all have the same effect: they force down the birth rate in countries that are already dying. Such programs are only making a bad problem worse.”

The hearing before the Senate Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe focused on the implications for the security, as well as the economic and social developments in Europe, due to demographic decline marked by diminishing and rapidly aging populations, in most of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) 56 participating states.


Steven Mosher, whose presentation to the Commission concluded that the downward spiral of fertility decline and resulting demographic collapse is almost beyond reversal, began his address with a quote from ancient Greece:

“One remarks nowadays all over Greece such a diminution in natality and in general manner such depopulation that the towns are deserted and the fields lie fallow. Although this country has not been ravaged by wars or epidemics, the cause of the harm is evident: by avarice or cowardice the people, if they marry, will not bring up the children they ought to have. At most they bring up one or two. It is in this way that the scourge before it is noticed is rapidly developed. The remedy is in ourselves; we have but to change our morals.” (Polybius, 204-122 B.C.)

A transcript of the Commission hearing titled, “2050: Implications of Demographic Trends in the OSCE Region” is available here.

News Source: Thaddeus Baklinski

Pennsylvania A3P Chairman Steve Smith Sees Race As Key To Gang Activity, Crime

From The Times Leader of Pennsylvania:

We will not be able to solve the gang problem in Northeastern Pennsylvania unless we are willing to speak the truth about race and crime. The facts are this: Most of the gangs are predominately made up of black or Hispanic members.

Violent crime is disproportionately committed by nonwhites. This region seemingly was a safer place to live until the racial demographic started to change. Does anyone, in his or her right mind, want Wilkes-Barre or Hazleton to turn into another Camden or Detroit?

A3P Pennsylvania Chairman Steve Smith

A3P Pennsylvania Steve Smith says what others won’t. Go Steve!

Lesbians, Gays, Mexico, and Thirteen Latin American Countries Ask Court To Strike Down Utah Immigration Enforcement Bill

Mexico and thirteen Latin American countries signed onto an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed June 2, 2011, asking a federal judge to strike down Utah’s new immigration enforcement law, HB 497. (Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 2011) The original plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and National Immigration Law Center (NILC), sued the State in May, claiming HB 497 is “preempted” by federal law. They argue: (1) HB 497 impermissibly regulates immigration, (2) parts of HB 497 are inconsistent with federal law, and (3) Mexico has made a “formal complaint” about HB 497. (Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed May 3, 2011; See FAIR Legislative Update, May 16, 2011) The plaintiffs also claim that HB 497 will lead to unlawful detentions and racial profiling by Utah officers, as well as violates the federally guaranteed “right to travel.” (Id.)

Invasion, USA

HB 497 contains enforcement provisions similar to Arizona’s SB 1070, which requires law enforcement officers to verify a person’s immigration status if that person has been lawfully stopped and that person is not carrying one of a handful of documents, including a valid state driver’s license from a state that does not give licenses to illegal aliens. (See FAIR Legislative Update, May 16, 2011)

In the 21-page brief, the foreign governments—which include Argentina, Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Honduras, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Brazil—argue HB 497 harms international relations with the United States and should be ruled unconstitutional. (Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 2011) The brief argues that the law “substantially and inappropriately burdens the consistent sovereign-to-sovereign relations between Mexico and the United States of America, interfering with the strategic diplomatic interests of the two countries and encouraging an imminent threat of state-sanctioned bias or discrimination.” (Id.) The brief continues, “Mexico has a right to protect the interests of its nationals within the limits of international law. Mexico seeks to ensure that its citizens present in the U.S. are accorded the human and civil rights granted under the U.S. Constitution and affirms that HB 497 threatens the human and civil rights of its nationals.” (Id.)

Utah Representative Chris Herrod, a co-sponsor of the bill, called the brief “ridiculous,” saying “I would like to ask the Mexican Government why they think their people are more important than other people trying to come here from other countries.” (Id.)

On May 10, 2011, the day the law was to go into effect, Federal District Judge Clark Waddoups issued a temporary restraining order of HB 497, preventing its implementation. (ABC News, May 11, 2011) The hearing for the case has been scheduled for July 14, 2011. (Id.)

A national group representing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive individuals has filed a court brief opposing Utah’s new illegal immigration enforcement law.

Immigration Equality contends HB497 could place binational LBGT families in legal jeopardy under a provision that makes it illegal to “harbor” and “shelter” undocumented people.

“Utah’s unconscionable new immigration law actually criminalizes sharing a home with an undocumented person, even if that person is a partner or spouse,” said Victoria Neilson, the group’s legal director. “No one should be arrested for sharing their home with the person they love, but that is the very real possibility presented by this law.” Deseret News, June 13, 2011

Reported by Federation For American Immigration Reform

Why It’s Important to Organize Politically

William D. Johnson, J.D.Change in a society is not measured in years but in scores of years. The 1960s constituted the last noteworthy change in our country. Today, we are on the cusp of change again, dramatic, epochal change—change that hopefully will reverse the downward slide we have faced of late. This pending change is born from the discontent of the dispossessed majority and from the erosion of prospects for the rising generation. Unease is felt all over America, among every group, in every geographical setting — in all walks of life. It is not slaked by establishment ideals: diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance, egalitarianism. Indeed, these ideals, and their misguided application by our leaders, fan the flames of our discontent and will drive the tumultuous change of the 2010s.

Those among us who decry our current state of affairs, who reject the status quo, and who pine for a change that will renew and revive our nation, must ban together to, at the very least, help shepherd this change, and, at the very most, cause it to happen in a manner and form that generations to come will marvel and praise.

We have formed the American Third Position so that all men of foresight and good will can join together to lead and direct our nation for the benefit of ourselves and our posterity. We embrace all that is good and moral—from whatever source. At the same time, in the ideologies that have gained currency today , we reject all that is improper and misguided. Accordingly, in large part we reject the policies of the left and of the right, the liberals and the conservatives, the Republican and the Democrats, the capitalist and the socialists. We are, indeed, the Third Position.

The best way to effect the change that our nation so dearly needs (and that so many of our people fervently hope for) is to organize politically. Never before in the history of mankind has technology been so available to facilitate the organization of people into effective political operatives. This electronic age, this information era, will be known as the age of renewal for America and her people. It will be our renaissance , but only if we join and lead the charge for change.

I welcome you into our party, and I encourage you get even further involved in the struggle to save our nation.

William D. Johnson, Chairman

[NOTE: William D. Johnson wrote this article in June, 2010. One year later it is still important to organize politically as a group and as an ethnopolitical majority. –Editor]

White Americans suffer from ethnomasochism – hatred of ones self, and xenophila – love of the foreign or strange.

Ethnomasochism is similar to shame of oneself and self-hatred. It is a collective psychopathology, triggered by a long propaganda effort to foster a presumed fundamental sense of guilt felt by Europeans vis-à-vis other peoples, of whom they are assumed to be the “oppressors”.

Xenophilia: an affection for unknown objects or human beings. It is the opposite of xenophobia or xenophoby. The word is a synthesis from the Greek “xenos” (?????) (stranger, unknown, foreign) and “philia” (?????) (love, attraction). In common usage it means an attraction to foreign peoples, cultures, or customs. For example, a person may date someone of another race not because they like them as people but specifically because they are different.

George Washington in his 1796 Farewell Address, described the influence of xenophilia in politics, which he saw as negative:

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico

By John Dillin | Fifty-eight years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Pardon me, but if I hear one more time that we can’t deport 12 million illegal aliens I’m headed for the backyard to howl at the moon. Is the American memory so short that we’ve already forgotten the 1950s? This writer is old enough to remember very clearly the mass deportation of illegal aliens that occurred in 1954 in what was officially termed “Operation Wetback” (prior to the age of political correctness) -Roger D. McGrath

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike’s official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said “Amen” to Senator Fulbright’s proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”

Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America “was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,” Mr. Brownell said. “When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint.”

Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were “approximately half” the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement “had friends among the ranchers,” and agents “did not dare” arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: “When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now.”

Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.

During the 1950s, however, this “Good Old Boy” system changed under Eisenhower – if only for about 10 years.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing’s close connections to the president shielded him – and the Border Patrol – from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

One of Swing’s first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was “a rough trip, and they did not like it,” says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

Mr. Coppock says he “cannot understand why [President] Bush [and President Obama] let [today’s] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican Presidents] Vincente Fox and Calderon.”

There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.

Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration

One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.

General Swing’s fast-moving campaign soon secured America’s borders – an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

“Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!” Edwards says.
Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, “they’d be on top of this in a minute.”

William Chambers, another ’50s veteran, agrees. “They could do a pretty good job” sealing the border.

Edwards says: “When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce.”

While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.

  • 1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.
  • 2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won’t come.
  • 3. End “catch and release” for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up
  • .

The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest-worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower’s team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.

[NOTE: The more things change, the more things stay the same.] [eshop_details]

Supreme Court’s ‘Legal Arizona Workers Act’ Ruling Gives Patriots A Memorial Day Present

Right to work
By Washington Watcher | George W Bush was one of the worst enemies of patriotic immigration reform, but we need to give him credit for the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Both men ruled in the majority to uphold the Legal Arizona Workers Act in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting. Roberts wrote the majority opinion—while Obama’s “Wise Latina” Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent.

After activist judges made disappointing and even outrageous decisions in lower courts in the last year against SB 1070 and Hazleton PA’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act, this is a huge victory and reason to celebrate.

Ironically enough, it was George Bush’s failure to enforce our laws that prompted Arizona to enact the LAWA in the first place.

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act [IRCA] was designed as a compromise—it was to give amnesty to a limited number of illegal immigrants, while at the same time outlawing the employment of illegal immigrants which would have presumably ended the problem of illegal immigration.

But under George W Bush’s first term, sanctions against employers of illegal aliens virtually disappeared. As’s Ed Rubenstein reported, from 1997 to 2004 the number of illegal aliens detained in workforce raids decreased from 17,554 to159 and the number of employers who were sanctioned plummeted from 865 to just three. (Then the government changed the basis of reporting, preventing further comparisons.)

Against this backdrop, then-State Rep. (now president of the Arizona State Senate) Russell Pearce pushed through the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007. LAWA required that all new hires in the state go through the E-Verify system to ensure that they are here legally, or else the hirer could lose its state business license. Knowing that an even tougher version would be made into a ballot initiative if she vetoed the measure, then-Arizona governor (now Obama Secretary of Homeland Security) Janet Napolitano reluctantly signed the bill.

While Arizona’s SB 1070 is seen as the seminal state level immigration law, prior to its passage LAWA was already the strongest state level bill in the country. It is arguably an even more effective deterrent to illegal immigration. As we are constantly reminded, most illegal immigrants are here to work—not commit other crimes and go on welfare. Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that they impose huge social and fiscal costs on American citizens. But it does mean that taking away the jobs magnet will tend to make illegal aliens self-deport.

And this worked in Arizona. Before the law was enacted, the media was filled with headlines like “Crackdown has illegal immigrants leaving Arizona.” The Arizona Republic, December 19, 2007]

As expected, the Open Borders lobby tried to sabotage the democratic process through a frivolous lawsuit, filed by Chamber of Commerce along with Chicanos por la Causa, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU, and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. They had the support of the Obama administration, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, The Hispanic Bar Association, the ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center, LatinoJusticePRLDF, LULAC, La Raza, and dozens of other business and ethnic groups. (It’s worth noting that Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent, was a member of La Raza and on the board of LatinoJusticePRLDF.)

Judicial Watch, Eagle Forum, Numbers USA, and FAIR’s Immigration Reform Law Institute all filed briefs in favor of Arizona.

At issue was IRCA’s provision that

“any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.”

This should have been an open and shut case, in that IRCA here explicitly allows state regulations of licensing laws. But, needless to say, with enough creative lawyers the Chamber of Commerce managed to argue that the law implicitly barred states from issuing sanctions dealing with licensing unless someone had also been sanctioned by federal immigration authorities (which of course, never happens.)

A panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal (different from the Justices who recently upheld an injunction against SB 1070) upheld LAWA. It went to the Supreme Court last December. Roberts’ decision held that “other than licensing” meant “other than licensing” but also reaffirms a great deal of state authority on immigration.

Despite the fact that the ACLU and company tried to make the argument that states have no authority to issue immigration authority, they are now arguing that this ruling is very narrow and won’t have any effect on the immigration debate as a whole. According to Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project:

“Today’s decision is a narrow one that only upholds Arizona’s specific law on employment verification. The decision has nothing to do with SB 1070 or any other state or local immigration laws. We are disappointed with today’s decision and believe it does not reflect what Congress intended.”

[Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Employment Law in Narrow Ruling, ACLU Press Release, May 26, 2011]

The ACLU is arguing that the decision was based almost solely on the belief (wrongly in its opinion) that Congress had explicitly granted states the authority to regulate business licenses. Therefore, anything that Congress does not explicitly grant states the right to do on immigration is not affected by this ruling.

Fortunately, this is wishful thinking on the ACLU’s part.

In some respects, LAWA is farther-reaching than SB 1070. LAWA actually adds a new regulation in Arizona—mandatory E-Verify—which is not required by the Feds, while SB 1070 merely mirrors federal law and applies it to state law enforcement.

Furthermore, Roberts’ decision resolutely reaffirms the 1976 case Decanas vs. Bica where the Supreme Court unanimously held that California had the authority to enact employer sanctions against the hiring of illegal immigrants long before the federal government made this law in IRCA. In other words, they recognize that the right for states to discourage immigration does not need to be explicitly granted by Congress.

Even if the ruling established no precedent beyond E-Verify, the effect still goes far beyond Arizona. Other states that have passed immigration enforcement bills include Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Indiana. In fact, the ACLU sued Indiana over its law just the day before the Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting decision. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in Hazleton, PA, is expected to now defer to the Supreme Court’s opinion early next week.

More importantly, the ruling in Whiting will provide support for a national E-Verify measure. In the wake of this decision, Cheap Labor lobbyist Tamar Jacoby, [Email her] now appears resigned to the fact that it will pass, noting

“Lamar Smith is expected to introduce a bill in coming weeks mandating that most or all employers across the country enroll in the E-Verify program. Just what today’s ruling will mean for that bill is unclear. But it only increases the already good odds that Smith’s bill will move easily through Congress.”

Jacoby says her new goal (and therefore immigration patriots’ top concern) is to make sure that “worksite enforcement must be accompanied by programs that allow the foreign workers we need to enter the U.S. legally” [Re: US Supreme Court ruling on Legal Arizona Workers Act, Immigration Works,, By Tamar Jacoby, May 26, 2011 (pdf)]

I will write more about the national E-Verify fight in a future column. But, as Jacoby shows, immigration patriots’ statewide measures are forcing the federal government finally to move forward to the point that we are on the verge of this even bigger victory.

As we celebrate our troops on Memorial Day, we should also give thanks to Russell Pearce, IRLI, and the other patriots who are making sure that there is still a country left to fight for.

News Source | VDARE Foundation

Sen. Tom McClintock’s Response to President Calderon

May 20, 2010 | Senator Tom McClintock delivered a blistering response to Mexico’s President Calderon’s address to Congress.

Mr. Speaker:

I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today.

The Mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt and President Calderon’s behavior as a guest of the Congress confirms and underscores this attitude.

It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration law, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its own laws.

It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law.

Unlike Mexico’s immigration law — which is brutally exclusionary — the purpose of America’s law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans.

Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces legal immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.

A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon this person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

That is how we created one great nation from the people of all the nations of the world.

The largest group of immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND study discovered that during most of the 20th Century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and made possible the swift attainment of the American dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape conditions of Mexico.

That is the broader meaning of our nation’s motto, E Pluribus Unum from many people, one people, the American people.

But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of E Pluribus Unum. It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values, and American founding principles.

In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they have to undermine our immigration laws.

It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so. And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and by many Democrats here in Congress.

Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that President Obama refuses to enforce. It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no driver’s license, no passport, and who doesn’t speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.

And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws I reply that we don’t need to reform them we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does.

Above all, this is a debate of, by and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 LEGAL immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American. And then he will have every right to participate in that debate.

Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each others domestic debates.

Maryland Illegal Aliens Get Affirmative Action

By Eric Ruark, FAIR Director of Research | Former Maryland basketball coach Lefty Driesell once said that his plan was to make the University of Maryland “the UCLA of the east.” It now seems that Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is trying to make Maryland the east coast equivalent of California when it comes to catastrophic sanctuary policies. The Maryland DREAM Act signed into law by O’Malley on May 10, 2011 grants in-state tuition to illegal aliens residing in the state. Just like the federal version, Maryland’s DREAM Act rewards and encourages illegal immigration and has a detrimental effect on legal residents of the state. With a structural deficit of $1.1 billion and the annual cost of illegal immigration to Maryland taxpayers at $1.7 billion, O’Malley and his political cronies somehow think that catering to illegal aliens makes perfect sense.

The practice of putting the interests of illegal aliens above legal residents is nothing new in the “Old Line” state. University of Maryland-College Park (UMCP) computer science professor James Purtilo, and a former associate dean, told that “he frequently saw admission officers favor students because of their ‘undocumented’ status.” According to Prof. Purtilo, admission officers “favor students with special circumstances. ‘Undocumented alien’ would be one of these special circumstances… They help fill out the diversity picture for the admissions office.”

Purtilo, who is critical of the DREAM Act because he thinks it is unfair to legal Maryland residents and taxpayers, said that the feeling among some university administrators is that “obviously we need more of these [illegal alien] students…’they’re enriching the College Park experience.'” These candid comments give a real window into the thinking of the politicians and bureaucrats who find nothing wrong with granting benefits to illegal aliens at great cost to Americans. Not only are Maryland’s taxpayers subsidizing the education of every DREAM Act beneficiary (to the tune of over $16,000 at UMCP), every seat at a Maryland university taken by an illegal alien is a spot denied to a legal Maryland resident.

The Maryland DREAM Act has outraged many Marylanders and sparked a petition drive to have the law put up for a referendum in 2012 that the bill’s opponents hope will lead to its repeal. The effort is well on its way to collecting enough signatures but still needs concerned Marylanders to take action to help overturn the bill and send a powerful message to the special interests firmly in control in Annapolis.

Also see: LA Times story about tuition policies.

President Obama Declares the Border is Secure

Federation For Immigration Reform | In a speech given in El Paso, Texas, President Obama told Americans the border is secure. The President quickly followed these remarks by declaring that it is now time for Congress to pass “comprehensive” immigration reform.

The President first made his case that the border is secure: “[I]n recent years, among one of the greatest impediments to reform were questions about border security…. And these concerns helped unravel a bipartisan coalition that we had forged back when I was in the United States Senate…. But over the last two years, thanks to the outstanding work of [Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano] and [Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin] and everybody who’s down here working at the border, we’ve answered those concerns…. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done.”

Having stated that the border is sufficiently secure, the President made the case that it was time for Congress to pass “comprehensive” immigration reform. He told his audience that granting amnesty to illegal aliens is a moral and economic imperative. America, he said, is defined as a “nation of immigrants – a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s ideals and America’s precepts.” Ignoring the long-established rule of law on which citizenship is gained, the President said that “in embracing America, you can become American.”

The President acknowledged that illegal aliens have broken the rules. “They’ve cut in front of the line,” he said. “And what is also true is that the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are trying to immigrate legally.” The President also acknowledged that the employment of illegal aliens also hurts American workers and upstanding employers: “[It] puts companies who follow the rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime or just a safe place to work—it puts those businesses at a disadvantage.”

Who Is Coming To America

Nevertheless, the President then outlined a four-step approach to tackling comprehensive immigration reform. First, he said, the government has to take responsibility for securing the borders. He reiterated that the Administration believes this first task has already been successfully accomplished. Second, the President said that businesses must be held accountable if they exploit undocumented workers. Third, the President said illegal aliens must “get right with the law,” meaning illegal aliens must pay their taxes, pay a fine and learn English. Finally, President Obama promoted expanding legal immigration so that it is “easier for the best and brightest to not only stay here, but also to start businesses and create jobs here.” Apparently forgetting the existence of the H-2A agricultural guest worker program and an item called the green card, the President said Congress must “provide our farms a legal way to hire workers that they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status. And our laws should respect families following the rules [by] reuniting them more quickly instead of splitting them apart.” President Obama concluded his speech by rallying the audience around a renewed fight for the DREAM Act, amnesty legislation which was unable to pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress last session.

The President then headed back to D.C. to speak before the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast on Wednesday, where he reiterated his El Paso speech. (See The New York Times, May 10, 2011; Real Clear Politics, May 12, 2011) At the breakfast, the President appealed to the emotional aspects of immigration reform. He once again described “comprehensive” immigration reform a “moral imperative when simply enforcing the law may mean inflicting pain on families who are just trying to do the right thing by their children.” Obama invoked the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy and cautioned listeners to “not have amnesia about how we populated this country.”

Although the Administration has touted the security of the border in recent engagements, most do not agree with the President’s renewed assertion that the border is secure. In a statement made after the President’s speech, Arizona Republican Senators John Kyl (R-AZ) and John McCain (R-AZ) remarked “we hear from our constituents on a daily basis, and, while some progress has been made in some areas, they do not believe the border is secure.” (Washington Post, May 13, 2011) A recent Rasmussen Report reveals that Americans living outside of Arizona agree, with 64 percent of U.S. Citizens polled saying the border is not secure. (Rasmussen Reports, May 13, 2011)

Undocumented Democrats

The Presidents’ speeches last week are an indication of how important immigration reform measures and the Latino vote will be in the 2012 election. As part of his campaign, the President will be attempting to cater to the Hispanic voters who overwhelmingly favored him in 2008, as well as political independents who want stronger border security. (Washington Post, May 13, 2011)

American Third Position’s view on mass immigration: We’ll effect an immediate moratorium on immigration, and we’ll make it impossible for illegals to remain in our land, by heavily penalizing those who hire or house them.