Lamar gets a reality check
Today we took a drive to Cookeville for the Lamar Alexander meet and greet. I think Lamar and his staff got more than they bargained for! In their eyes it was to be a simple little pre-campaign stop. You know, glad hand a bit and preview Lamar’s new self aggrandizing video.
My friends and I had intended to bring signs either into the event or stand outside with the signs. Our signs all referenced illegal aliens and the Senate “immigration reform” bill. We decided to join the group inside and leave our signs out in the car. Too bad, I almost wish we’d brought them in.
Once Lamar came in he glad handed with people and the crowd grew to fill the room. I don’t think they expected the large turnout they got. Once Lamar got up to talk the atmosphere in the room immediately changed. Just before Lamar was about to speak one of the men in the room positioned the sign you see in the background and that set the tone for the next 40 minutes.
I loved it but I’m sure Lamar and his staffers weren’t too thrilled.
I’m sitting there and my friends are expecting me to be confrontational but to our surprise it wasn’t me but our friend Sherry who interrupted Lamar while he was speaking. I almost cracked out laughing (if you knew Sherry then you would understand). Sherry told Lamar how people had no trust in the politicians since there had been 6 amnesties given since 1986 and nothing had been done to enforce our laws or secure our borders. She told him no one trusted those in Washington to secure our borders. We had lost confidence in them.
People clapped after Sherry’s statement. Lamar returned to his agenda of extolling his virtues and self promotion. He told us he’d talk for a few minutes, show his video and then would be there to take questions individually. At that point one of the men erupted talking about the immigration deal made behind closed doors with La Raza. Then things got a bit testy and Darrin from the Putnam County Republican Party also got combative. He basically told the guy this is our party and if you don’t like it leave. Darrin finally settled down a bit and told the audience this is how it’s going to be…..Lamar will speak for a few minutes, then show the video and then he will take individual questions from people. There wasn’t going to be any townhall type forum here. My guess? Lamar can’t take having to answer questions to a large group of people who weren’t of his “sort”! Lamar really doesn’t want to get his hands dirty with the little people, you know, the constituents.
So, Lamar finished his spiel and we saw the video and the vultures descended. I was close and was behind some media guy with a recorder. I waited until he was finished and then I got my shot to ask Lamar. First I told Lamar I knew he had voted to eliminate the Z Visa amendment and I thanked him for that. Then I asked him how he would vote if the Z Visa stayed in the bill which only allowed 24 hours for a background check, if the check was not done the illegal automatically got the visa which means felons and gangbangers became legal. And there was no surprise in Lamar’s answer since he didn’t give an answer. Everything with Lamar is well I’ll have to see…….
This was Lamar’s answer on all immigration issues.
Lamar kept saying that this bill included the triggers and “funding” to close the border unlike the bill he voted against last fall. Uhuh. Right.
I mostly heard people say they were looking for a conservative candidate to vote for in the next election. I would say most of the people there were not happy with Lamar and he would have a difficult time getting any support from that crew in the next election. We chatted with Jeremy - one of Lamar’s staffers. He got an earful from us and I don’t think this is the first time he’s heard any of it. I told him my “perception” of Lamar was that he was an elitist and he didn’t think my opinion or those like me mattered. I almost felt sorry for the guy except that he kept defending Lamar.
I forgot, when Lamar first came in, he stopped by to say hi and my friend Sherry (omg - she’s gonna get a reputation now) introduced herself telling him she was from Williamson County. Then she proceeded to tell him that she had to travel to Cookeville to talk to him since Lamar never showed his face in Williamson County where people can actually talk to him. He responded by saying he was in Franklin often. Sherry then said it must have been a secret cause if she’d known she would’ve been there. It was just funny cause Sherry didn’t let him off the hook and he was doing the usual politician pandering saying he’d be sure she was there the next time.
I know I’ve left out whole chunks of the event. It was fun to hear people calling into Steve Gill’s program on the way home. In fact, we got Sherry to call in and tell Steve her version of what she had said. Most people calling in came away with the same view of what happened as me and my friends. There was one caller who gave an entirely different version and I think he must have left about the time Lamar started his spiel.
I don’t know what planet Lamar has been living on but I do think he was taken completely by surprise by the depth of emotion around this issue. With all the phone calls and letters his office has been deluged with how he could be surprised is beyond me. It just tells me he is totally disconnected and his staff either isn’t telling him or he’s just not interested in finding out what his constituents think.
Update: Thanks for the link from Conservablogs’ Blue Collar Muse who got linked by Instapundit.
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.
Technorati Tags: Lamar Alexander, Cookville, Tn, Putnam County Republicans, S.1348, Illegal Immigration, Border Security, Amnesty, Z Visa
It’s actually Cookeville.
Great post! Nothing like seeing an elitist broadsided by the regular guy. Love it.
Comment by Rob — June 2, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Thanks Rob. It crossed my mind but I unfortunately ignored that thought. Corrected.
Comment by Toni — June 3, 2007 @ 6:44 am
Lamar Alexander is out of touch with his constituents.
I spoke to the parent of one of Senator Alexanders staffers. The parent of the staffer told me that Alexander does not listen to them often but is quick to tell them what to say and how to say what he wants his constiuents to hear.
The head of the Putnam County GOP, needs to be reprimended for his comment, “At that point one of the men erupted talking about the immigration deal made behind closed doors with La Raza. Then things got a bit testy and Darrin from the Putnam County Republican Party also got combative. He basically told the guy this is our party and if you don’t like it leave.”…..The GOP is not his party. Rather the poarty is the people. Darin sounds like an elitist and shows just how out of touch party leadership has become.
2008 may be another bad year for the GOP. I have never voted for a Democrat in my 27 years of voting. I now realize that the Republican Party is leaving this conservative and not me leaving the party.
Comment by Tennessee Tuxedo — June 3, 2007 @ 9:08 am
If Alexander votes for the Kennedy/LaRaza amnesty bill after all the letters, emails, FAXs, and phone calls that showed just how angry Tennesseens are about this horrible legislation he better move to mexico. I will no longer support nor defend anyone, in the senate or house, that sides with Bush, Kennedy, Graham, Kyl, McCain, Isakson, Cambliss, or Martinez ( only to name a few). These political elites have shown their true colors they are RED,WHITE, AND GREEN not red, white, blue. A sad day for all who really care for America
Comment by G.W. Ethridge — June 3, 2007 @ 11:43 am
[…] Lamar gets a reality check By Toni.View over at the Bear Creek Ledger (I’m sorry I missed this one would have loved to been there.) […]
Pingback by Time to Change the Nation » News from CAII 06/03/07 — June 3, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Lamar gets a reality check
Cross posted from Bear Creek Ledger
Today we took a drive to Cookeville for the Lamar Alexander meet and greet. I think Lamar and his staff got more than they bargained for! In their eyes it was to be a simple little pre-campaign stop. You know, gl…
Trackback by Coalition Against Illegal Immigration — June 3, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Great blog entry Toni.
Maybe Lamar got a message.
Comment by Tennessee Conservative — June 3, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
I agree with Rep. Tancredo that the Senate bill is an amnesty bill. He is going to vote against this bill if it makes it to the House. Sen. Alexander should have no hesistation about voting against such a terrible bill.
If one wants to learn more about Rep. Tancredo’s position on the Senate amnesty bill, please visit one or both of the following websites: 1) http://www.teamtancredo.com/ and 2)http://tancredo4prez.blogspot.com/ .
Comment by Tennessee Conservative — June 3, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
My last post did not link properly to an unofficial Tancredo for President website. A web address for that website is www.electtancredo.com .
Comment by Tennessee Conservative — June 3, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
I’m going to have to pay more attention to your blog which is linked from mine, lol. So many blogs so little time, however. I would so loved to have been there in Cookeville.
Comment by Steph — June 3, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
I’m hearing a lot of “staying home” talk about the ‘08 elections. I would advise against that. What you can do, however, is write in a different candidate. Heck, write yourselves in or me or somebody running against these jokers who has some common sense. If there can be a “Draft Fred” movement for the presidency, why not a Draft “fill in the blank” for Senators and Congressmen?
Tom Tancredo can’t win, folks. I like the man myself… donated to his campaign, even… but he simply can’t win. I would like to see Tancredo working in the government on this immigration issue even after the ‘08 elections so maybe we should put some pressure on those so-called frontrunners to use him for the better of the U.S. … not that I think they’ll listen anymore than the ones we have now will listen but if it’s a choice of one of them and one of the Dems(especially Clinton, Obama, or Edwards), well…
Honestly, I’m ready for a total revolt no matter what it entails… *dusts off the old history books; the ones written before everything was PC… to remind myself how the founders did it*
Comment by Steph — June 3, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
The sad part of this is that the pro-immigration crowd is trying to brand anyone who objects to this bill as racist and a right wing conspiracy. Where are the democratic Americans who feel the same way as the conservatives in standing up to this obvious sell-out of American values? It is all so simple. If the politicians would not secure the borders for the last quarter of a century, why should we believe them now? Answer that first and then we move on to the next question. The countries in Europe are fighting for their lives with the Muslim invasion and Bush is asleep at the wheel. Read the bill, W.
Comment by Taylor — June 3, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Well as a fellow Tennessean I see no way I can vote for Alexander no matter how he votes on this bill. It is obvious that he is just another career politician, has no intention on doing what is best for his state or the people that elected him. His agenda is to make as many political points he can which means in the future he will try and run for the White House. Hoping all awhile we the people forget what agenda he used to get to that point.
Umm “Steph for Congress” has a nice ring to it.
Comment by JamesC — June 3, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
[”Where are the democratic Americans who feel the same way as the conservatives in standing up to this obvious sell-out of American values?”]
They are being silenced or should I say “kept in the closet”? They are out there but aren’t allowed to be seen or heard as far as the public at large is concerned. They, too, have phoned, faxed, and emailed their Senators… to no avail, much like us. They are told the same things; that they are racist, yada-yada. One of them I know is changing her voter registration to Independent because of this.
Comment by Steph — June 3, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
[…] Lamar Alexander held a town hall forum for constituents in Cookeville and got more than he bargained for from the grassroots on the issue of immigration reform. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
Pingback by Volunteer Voters » Lamar Meets Restrictionists In Cookeville — June 4, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Were they wearing pointy hats? If not, they should look into such an addition to their wardrobe.
(tried to post this earlier but I guess it didn’t take. I know nobody would censor comments on a conservative blog, where freedom is the most important thing! Right?)
Comment by Sanjayrupta Pravati — June 4, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
SP - I rarely delete comments (unless there is bad language used) although if you’re a new commenter to my site I do have to approve the first comment. I thought you were a spammer based on your comment. Seemed nonsensical to me. Just like a spammers comment.
Comment by Toni — June 4, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Nah, Spammers would try to sell you something (”Mexi-Be-Gone! New Spray will eliminate 99% of all brown people within a five mile radius of your home! Does not work on Cuban refugees.”)
Unless you thought I was trying to sell you some pointy hats. Nah, I suspect you all have a few hidden away somewhere.
Comment by Sanjayrupta Pravati — June 4, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
[…] Sen. Alexander hears about immigration reform. […]
Pingback by Link List | Lynn Sebourn — June 4, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
[…] Toni, at the Bear Creek Ledger (who I’ve just added to my Tennesseans blogroll), was at a LAMAR! rally over the weekend in Cookeville, TN and reports that our weak-kneed Senator is ready to get on his knees and start gobbling whatever President Junior spills out in way of his Amnesty bill. Do we get chips and salsa with that betrayal, Junior? I’m sitting there and my friends are expecting me to be confrontational but to our surprise it wasn’t me but our friend Sherry who interrupted Lamar while he was speaking. I almost cracked out laughing (if you knew Sherry then you would understand). Sherry told Lamar how people had no trust in the politicians since there had been 6 amnesties given since 1986 and nothing had been done to enforce our laws or secure our borders. She told him no one trusted those in Washington to secure our borders. We had lost confidence in them. […]
Pingback by Six Meat Buffet » Lamar Goes Limp Yet Again — June 4, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Where were all you people when Ed Bryant needed you in 2002?
Comment by George Rand — June 4, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
George - I can tell you I was living in MN in 2002. But in 2006 I was pro Bryant and attended more than one function along with donating for his primary. I know my RWWC friends also helped out Bryant both in 2006 and 2002.
Comment by Toni — June 5, 2007 @ 7:57 am
[…] “Wow, that Cookeville thing was a disaster. Hey, do we know any influential right-wing bloggers who know the game enough not to outright sandbag us and help us get our message out? Ah yes, Hobbs! Call him up!” […]
Pingback by Volunteer Voters » Fitting Lamar In — June 5, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
what a great write up! Lamar (!) was at the statesman’s dinner, and did a good job introducing Gov. ROmney. However, he said something about wanting to adopt the Baker plan for getting out of the war, and my husband almost threw his roll at him.
LOL.
Comment by Nancy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
I was at the meeting as well. Everything was exactly as has been reported here. Darren Kirkus,the moderator, was just trying to keep the meeting orderly, and got a little carried away. Darren is a true Republican and has spent a lot of his time over several years promoting the party.
I truly got the impression that Lamar thought we were part of the lunatic fringe. I was with the group from White County and we all went away pretty disappointed! But I think the lesson we should take from this is to defeat Lamar in the PRIMARY! If Republicans stay home from elections, this country is gone! And we owe more than that to our nation. “Be not weary in welldoing - we will reap if we faint not!”
Comment by Donald Holman — June 6, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
“I truly got the impression that Lamar thought we were part of the lunatic fringe.”
Hmm, wonder why he might think that!
Comment by Sanjayrupta Pravati — June 7, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
[…] The result has been an intense outpouring of sentiment against the bill. Senators Chambliss and Graham were actually booed at their own state Republican conventions. Protesters gathered at the district offices of Senators Lott and Kyl . Sen. Alexander made the mistake of holding a town meeting — at which he got an earful about the bill. Republicans in Arizona were tearing up their registration cards and the Republican National Committee saw a 40 percent drop in small-donor contributions. […]
Pingback by One Old Vet - Amnesty, R.I.P. — June 8, 2007 @ 5:18 am
Mr. Pravati - the Saul Alinsky shctick [ridicule, name calling, demonizing,] is getting old and doesn’t work any more on Americans wanting to stop the “usurpation of power” by the elites. The elites of BOTH parties use immigration as a tool to deconstruct the nation-state using trade policies as well as immigration in order to unelect the citizenry– or rather to disenfranchise them in order to replace them with an easily manipulated helot class or ethnic groups who either come from a society that is based on “clientele” or some subset like highly stratified societies that maybe found in certain Far East countries. Replacing citizenry has been tried before in other nations until an uprising occurs and said elite gets their arse’s whupped or their plantations burned down or lose their money and power in some fashion. Americans are beginning to understand what is going on and they actually get help and warnings from those who have experienced the attempted coup d’etat first hand. As it is a very kindly, wise, highly educated former advisor to Vincente Fox gave a warning to Americans: be advised - this open borders mass migration not ONLY from MEXICO but much of the Third World — is not what most think it is - it isn’t just votes and cheap labor. IT amounts to usurpation of power by the elite to replace the native and legal [involved] citizenry to be replaced by a class of people who - to the elite - are part of a clientele identity group. In such a group, one’s status is based on one’s position in said identity group. This attitude has always been typical of the left but now it has also been SOP for the financial and commercial establishment elites around the world. France is wising up - Denmark as well - but it seems America has not suffered enough at the hands of the elite to throw off their feckless reps and the uber class. BUT when the tipping point comes it will make the Palmer Raids of 1920’s look mild in comparison. It might also throw the establishment out of the places they thought they had for life.
Fredo Arias King wrote in 2006:
A group of Argentine statesmen in the 19th century sought to populate their country with immigrants from certain parts of Europe, believing that they were more politically mature
and more propitious for a stable state than the criollo and mestizo populations in their country at the time. One of those statesmen, President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, had a
slogan: “To govern is to populate,” perhaps because Argentina traditionally has been both under-populated and ungovernable.
What could be motivating U.S. legislators to do the opposite, that is, to see their constituents—already politically mature and proven as responsible and civic-minded—as an obstacle needing replacement? In other words, why would they want to replace a nation that works remarkably well (that Sarmiento was hoping to emulate), with another that has trouble forming stable, normal countries?
[While] Mexicans are kind and hardworking, with a legendary hospitality, and unlike some European nations, harbor little popular ambitions to impose models or ideologies on others. However,Mexicans are seemingly unable to produce anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, oftentimes even accepting them as the norm, unaffected by allegations of graft or abuse.8 Mexico, and Latin American societies in general, seem to suffer from what an observer called “moral relativism,” accepting the “natural progress” of the political class rather than challenging it, and also appearing more susceptible to “miracle solutions” and demagogic political appeals. Mexican intellectuals speak of the corrosive effects of Mexican culture on the institutions needed to make democracy work, and surveys reveal that most of the population accepts and expects corruption from the political class.9 A sociological study conducted throughout the region found that Latin Americans are indeed highly susceptible to clientelismo, or partaking in patron-client relations, and that Mexico was high even by regional standards.10 ………..
When thinking of populating as a way of obtaining power, perhaps these U.S. legislators, rather than from the statesman Sarmiento, took an unconscious cue from another Latin American leader who used migration and ethnic policy for less laudable goals. Mexican President Luis Echeverría (1970-76), who began the cycle of political violence and economic crisis from which the country has yet to recover, pursued a policy of moving hundreds of thousands of mpoverished people from the country’s south to the more prosperous and dynamic northern states, where they remain to this day, mostly in shantytowns.
His goal was to neutralize those states’ more active civic culture that threatened his power—as these states were at the time the main source of opposition to his dictatorial ambitions. These pauperized and dependent migrants and their offspring would provide a ready source of votes for the ruling party along with a mobilizeable mass to counter (politically as well as physically) the more civic-oriented middle classes of those northern states and “crack” their will to challenge his corporatist regime.
Along with other extra-constitutional tools (he almost succeeded in canceling the constitution to remain indefinitely as president), migration from undeveloped areas was used by Echeverría as “politics by other means.” Echeverría, in other words, was the ultimate knave.
Do the U.S. legislators have an overt and well thought-out “plan,” as Echeverría did? That is unlikely.
Unlike Echeverría, these 45 U.S. legislators (especially the Republican ones) may simply be following a string of what can be called “rational short-termisms,” that seem beneficial now even though they may unwittingly lead to adverse outcomes for them in the end. Like a diet rich in fats and sugar brings a jolt of energy and pleasure in the short run but causes health problems in the longer term, these congressmen still have incentives to allow and encourage mass immigration because of its low political cost for them and the perceived short-term benefits it brings (for them and the special interests that fund them).
If these “rational short-termisms” exist within a given individual (where he assumes both the benefits and the costs, such as with an irresponsible diet), they are more prevalent in a country, as those accruing the benefits are not those who pay the costs, and have an incentive to organize themselves to pursue the behavior leading to those outcomes.
Because of collective-action problems, those benefiting from mass immigration are better
organized, even if they are in the minority and even if they are vaguely aware that
“someone else” pays for their largesse. These groups only see the assets, not the liabilities. By nature, legislators should prefer these short-termisms, since the payoffs are immediate and directly attributed to a political figure, whereas the costs can be pushed into the future.
The payoffs and benefits of more long-term policies are unlikely to be associated with a particular political figure and become, essentially, public goods. Just as there is a large body of literature on “economic failure,” we should begin to explore a related concept—”political failure,” which could be the Achilles heel of the American and other models of representative democracy. In the end, the result of mass Latin American immigration will not likely present the stark choice of democracy versus non-democracy for the United States, but the quality of democracy may indeed be affected.
Acción Directa as a Double-Edged Sword
What awaits the United States when a critical mass of the American people realizes the immigration issue is little different than what happened in Pennsylvania with the pay-raise issue? What if they decide to organize?
These legislators are probably correct that, by acquiescing to mass immigration, they will eventually “crack” the immigration-control advocates. They do not need to win or even engage in a debate if they can change the terms of the game so decisively. However, they have only taken into account the legal or civilized resistance—from those who write in the papers or volunteer peacefully at the border.
In Latin America, people engage in un-civil direct action because they have come to realize that attempting to convince their elites that their antisocial behavior has adverse consequences for the country—and expecting that this will dissuade them from engaging in it—is largely a futile exercise. But in the United States as well, once immigration-control advocates realize they cannot reach their goals through legal means, this could breed a form of resistance that has not occurred yet, but cannot be discounted offhand.
The degree of usurpation and neglect of their fiduciary duty by legislators could provoke immigration-reform advocates to engage increasingly in civil resistance, so that instead of influencing political institutions through civic engagement (as Americans traditionally
have), they may attempt to politicize individual institutions. Their direct actions are already being
reported: local officers taking it upon themselves to detain illegal migrants, sit-ins at immigration offices, vandalizing of Mexican restaurants, threatening calls to the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, etc. Once these types of mobilizations begin, they will be difficult to
stop……..
During the 18 months when I aided Fox’s foreign relations, in those meetings with what became the new Mexican elite I do not recall so many discussions about “what can we do to make tough decisions to reform Mexico,” but rather more “how can we get more concessions from the United States.” Indeed, Fox largely continued governing the country as his predecessors did, even appointing as head of the federal police agency an Echeverría loyalist who was allegedly involved in a deadly extortion attempt against a museum owner in 1972. According to several leading world rankings on corruption, quality of government, development, and competitiveness, Mexico actually worsened during Fox’s presidency.14 Lacking internal or external pressure, the Mexican elites have taken the path of least resistance, which is not the best outcome for the country.
Paradoxically, as happens in co-dependent relations, a firm but polite defense of American interests by Washington would force the Mexican elites to act and in the end (surely after a brief period of acrimonious recriminations) would be beneficial for Mexico, much as the European Union’s tough accession laws force elites in lesser-developed aspiring members (Spain in the 1980s and Central European countries in the 1990s) to adopt painful and otherwise politically unfeasible reforms that affect special interests but that benefit average citizens. After all,the gap between elite and popular aspirations in these countries is wider than in the United States, and on a broader range of issues.
This co-dependence is perhaps nowhere more evident than the personal relations of the political classes of Mexico and the United States. When speaking to these congressmen, we noticed an affinity toward the corrupt party we were attempting to overthrow in Mexico. Several had visited Mexico and apparently enjoyed lavish treatment from their hosts, even mentioning how some of the things they enjoyed in Mexico would not be possible at home.
Even though the Mexican political class is notoriously corrupt, they can often count on stronger support in Washington than can several more worthy world leaders who are genuinely attempting to reform and improve their countries. The history of the Bush family is symptomatic…..
Samuel Huntington speculated that the American “creed” (values and beliefs) cannot be used to openly oppose mass immigration.16 That may change. So far, the immigration debate has centered on the immigrants themselves—whether they are worthy or unworthy.
This debate is a red herring, since average Americans are unusually kind and restrained in the face of mass immigration, something that cannot be said about other nations (including Mexico).17
Recent poll findings from Zogby challenge the popular belief that the average American somehow has negative or overtly prejudicial feelings toward Mexicans in particular.18 However, Huntington did not take into account the possibility that the debate could yet be framed in terms of potential usurpation from the political class using immigration as a tool.
If an organizeable mass of Americans comes to suspect that mass immigration from Latin America is being used by the political class to undermine their democracy and as a tool to liberate the political elites from the Jeffersonian and Madisonian constraints, then indeed we may witness a reaction—but hopefully not against the immigrants themselves, as they are also objects of elite manipulations in more than one country.
The Founding Fathers also prescribed a cure for usurpation. Hopefully the American people will not apply it so lterally, for the sake of those legislators.
End Notes
1 “Politics by Other Means: The ‘Why’ of Immigration to the United States,” Center for
Immigration Studies Backgrounder, December 2003,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1703.html .
2 “See Elite vs. Public Opinion: An Examination of Divergent Views on Immigration,” by
Roy Beck and Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder,
December 2002, http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1402.html .
3 Maybe this is where immigration policy differs from trade policy. At least the elites that
promote free trade with other countries do genuinely believe it benefits the U.S. economy
and the average person, and the evidence proves them right.
4 The Federalist Papers, No. 57.
5 Jefferson wrote “I wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. … what will
then become of them? Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of
self-government. They will fall under military despotism …” Jefferson letter to Marquis
de
Lafayette, 4 May 1817, in http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl249.htm .
6 “Bill Richardson’s Story,” The Economist, 29 May 2004, p. 34.
7 S 1992 (vote No. 177, 97th Cong.).
8 An analyst actually argued that allegations of corruption and abuse have a positive
impact
on a politician’s career throughout Latin America. Andrés Oppenheimer, “Los más
denunciados, los más votados,” Reforma, 17 September 2002, p. 33A.
Comment by D' Arc — June 9, 2007 @ 12:43 am
The reception for Senator Alexander was intended to welcome him to Cookeville in conjunction with his address at Boys State. It was not intended to be a forum for extremists to further their cause. The attendees who repeatedly interrupted the Senator were intentionaly disruptive and rude. Now that I know they were transplanted yankees, I understand. They need to learn some manners.
Comment by Annie Franklin — October 17, 2007 @ 8:37 am