Thursday, September 30, 2004

Arizona’s illegals

Your editorial “… While Arizonans debate illegals” (Sunday) had a number of errors in it. I list the errors below, followed by corrections:

• “The Protect Arizona Now Initiative … would require applicants for voter registration and public benefits to show proof of Arizona citizenship,” you write. This is not true. What is “Arizona citizenship” anyway? Applicants for voter registration have to show proof of U.S. citizenship and legal residency in Arizona, but applicants for public benefits would have to show proof of eligibility, not citizenship. This is more important than you may think because requiring proof of citizenship, rather than eligibility, is one of the key points that sank Proposition 187.

• “The idea is to cut expenditures on the state’s burgeoning illegal alien population and end issuance of fraudulent drivers’ licenses,” you write. Everyone already has to prove legal residency in Arizona to obtain a driver’s license here. Our initiative will have zero effect on illegal aliens’ ability to obtain driver’s licenses.

• “[Illegal aliens] are known to register to vote in order to obtain fraudulent state IDs,” you write. No one out here thinks they “register to vote in order to obtain fraudulent state IDs.” Even if this were true, it’s backwards: They have to have fraudulent IDs to vote, but they vote because special interest groups sign them up to vote.

• “California and Colorado are prominent among states that have similar emerging initiatives.” California’s and Colorado’s initiatives didn’t come close to getting on the ballot this year, and neither state can have a similar initiative. If they’re successful the second time, they must wait until the 2006 election. Hardly emerging, are they? m “Its provisions would extend only to non-emergency services such as voter registration, obtaining driver’s licenses,” you write. Welfare benefits under Title 46 are the only programs our initiative covers, and driver’s licenses are not a welfare benefit or covered under Title 46. So, again, driver’s licenses are not remotely affected by our initiative.

• “If Proposition 200 fails this November, the onus will lie squarely with Protect Arizona Now’s chairman Kathy McKee,” you write. Do you mean the same Kathy McKee — me —who started Protect Arizona Now two years ago — 1½ years before the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) tried its unsuccessful hostile takeover? Do you mean the Kathy McKee who is its largest individual contributor by far, even after quitting her job to put 18 to 20 hours a day into Protect Arizona Now without a cent of compensation? I successfully fought off FAIR’s hostile takeover attempt, which has been ongoing for almost eight months and has been the subject of one lawsuit (I won). It is sure to be the subject of future litigation which I also will win?

• Finally, you refer to politicians’ and unions’ objections to “criminalizing fraud and abuse in the distribution of public services” as though that were something new. What a shame you didn’t call the real Protect Arizona Now; if you had, you would know that under ARS 46-140-C, it’s already a criminal misdemeanor for government workers to fail to file written reports on those committing (or even attempting to commit) welfare fraud.

We need government officials to enforce our current laws. This includes putting troops on the border, enforcing employer sanctions and deporting each and every illegal alien. We need government officials to honor their oath of office and to respect the people they are supposed to be representing.


Founder and chairman

Protect Arizona Now

Glendale, Ariz.

• • •

Your recent, generally complimentary, editorial on Protect Arizona Now’s Proposition 200 contained a flawed and insulting description of me. You write that “some of the proposition’s backers adhere to repulsively un-American ideologies. One, Dr. Virginia Abernethy, an emeritus professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and adviser to the principle group behind the effort, is a self-described ‘racial separationist.’ ”

First, I am not a “racial” anything. I am an ethnic separatist, European-American to be exact, responding to the current national obsession with multiculturalism. Separatism is merely going with the flow. Multiculturalism was originated, ironically, by the same people who advocate open borders and mass immigration. Both are harmful to America, and I am the first to admit it.

The sad fact is that America has abandoned its traditional motto of “e pluribus unum” — “out of many, one.” That was the concept under which I grew up; I believed deeply in it, and I wish it still were the dominant ethos. It isn’t.

The ethos for the past 30 years has become, increasingly, multiculturalism. That means each ethnic group identifies with its own and battles for privilege and power on the basis of ethnic identity.

I think this is sad for America, but I am a realist, and I recognize a new — and powerful — set of rules when I see them.

The goals of the multicultural game are ethnic separatism, ethnic privilege and ethnic power. I began to realize not too long ago that I have to play the multicultural game, at least defensively, or I and my family and kin will lose out. It is what every ethnic group except, in the main, European-Americans, does these days.

Many European-Americans are late on the playing field. The many instances in which European-Americans are discriminated against in education, the job market and the criminal justice system — including various lies spread about me and the organizations to which I belong — should be a wake-up call.


Nashville, Tenn.

Fuel economy restrictions a deadly proposition

In defending California’s new CO2 emission standard, Joan Claybrook claims that “size and design, not weight, are the critical factors” in auto safety (Letters, Sept. 29). This contradicts her own 1977 testimony before Congress as well the findings of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration both when she headed the agency and since then — namely, that the reduction of both car size and car weight to increase fuel economy would have deadly consequences. Because a CO2 standard essentially regulates fuel economy, it too will prove deadly.

Here’s what Ms. Claybrook said back in 1977. Asked at a Senate hearing whether there was a conflict between auto safety and fuel economy, she said, “There are going to be trade-offs.” Asked whether “a big gas-guzzling Cadillac is safer on the highway than a little Volkswagen,” she answered, “There is no question about that.”

In her letter, Ms. Claybrook dismisses the safety argument as “phony” despite the fact that the lethal downsizing and downweighting effects of fuel economy standards have been recognized by such organizations as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Academy of Sciences. Her view is inconsistent with her past testimony; in fact, my colleagues and I have assembled a collection of such contradictions in “Flip-Flopping on Small Car Safety,” which can be viewed on our Web site at Her approach, unfortunately, is consistent with that of other advocates of more stringent fuel economy standards. Such advocates simply refuse to admit that these standards have already killed thousands of people and that raising them would kill thousands more.

Ms. Claybrook, you will recall, also once informed us that air bags “work beautifully” for little children and are better than seat belts. In fact, air bags are worse than seat belts and have caused child deaths. We shouldn’t have listened to her then, and we shouldn’t listen to her now.


General counsel

Competitive Enterprise Institute


Baseball history for Mr. Angelos

When the St. Louis Browns shed their uniforms for the Orioles orange in 1954, there was another American League ball club just down the road, called the Senators (“D.C. gets Expos; 33-year wait over,” Page 1, yesterday). The Senators received no compensation and did not demand any. The idea was to let Baltimore have its own club. The Senators left in 1960. As the Twins, they won the American League pennant in 1965, fielding most of the same players who had worn the Senators’ “W.” Now Orioles owner Peter Angelos wants to be paid for the inconvenience of Washington’s gaining a team in the National League. How ironic.


Virginia Beach

Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide