MALDEF and the ACLU are but part of a larger network of radical groups that champion “open borders” in the current debate over immigration policy and the legitimacy of the nation-state. Others include:
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) is a politically‑oriented law group of some 8,000 members and 83 lawyers' chapters first established in 1937. As the major U.S. section of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) during the Cold War, the NLG was considered to be a Soviet front group. In 1950, the House Un‑American Activities Committee published a document called "Report on the National Lawyers Guild: Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party." And as late as the NLG’s 1987 convention, the group was still pushing Moscow’s line. According to a favorable article in the Marxist‑Leninist weekly Frontline, “a decade‑by‑decade assessment of the Guild's first 50 years was presented [at the convention]. Guild founder and current activist Marty Popper began...with an analysis that underscored the importance of the struggles against racism and anti-communism in creating the Guild....Popper also recalled the consistent internationalist role the Guild has played over the years....Although the particular role of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) in initiating the Guild and shaping its activities in the '30s was not highlighted in the presentation, Popper did salute the political diversity that is characteristic of the Guild ‑‑ from liberals to social democrats to Communists ‑‑ as one of its important strengths.”
The end of the Cold War did not change the NLG’s ideology. At its 2003 convention, it passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush on the grounds that he “led the United States into aggressive war against the nation of Afghanistan and against the nation of Iraq in violation of the United Nations Charter Art. 24, the Nuremberg Charter, and other international instruments and treaties, without a declaration of war as required by the Constitution of the United States.”
One of the NLG's top priorities is its National Immigration Project (NIP‑NLG). When the Immigration Project was initiated in 1972, it had two stated goals: prevent the deportation of foreign political activists (especially those opposed to U.S. foreign policy and allied governments) and exploit the U.S.‑Mexico border crisis. In support of this first objective, the NLG was heavily involved in the Sanctuary movement during the 1980s during the civil wars in Central America and also worked to lift visa restrictions on Third World radicals so they could freely travel to the United States.
This concern has been carried over in their objections to the tighter visa security measures and use of immigration laws against those deemed a terrorist threat in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The NLG 2003 convention was held in concert with a conference on “activism, organizing and civil liberties after 9/11.” It featured Guild member Lynne Stewart, indicted for aiding and abetting terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman, the leader of the terrorist group that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. In her keynote speech, Stewart toasted her “modern heroes…Lenin and Ho, and Mao.” The event attracted the participation of a bewildering collection of radical left groups which vividly demonstrated the interrelationship of causes and groups.
Alliance for Democracy-Minnesota
Code for Corporate Responsibility
Code Pink Minnesota
Communities United Against Police Brutality
Counter Propaganda Coalition
Fifth District Green Party
Friends for a Nonviolent World
Growing Communities for Peace
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Local 17 and Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride
Human Rights Center - University of Minnesota, Humanists of Minnesota
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Jewish Community Action
KFAI Radio (part of the Pacifica Radio network)
Lynnhurst Neighbors for Peace
Macalester Peace and Justice Committee
ME3 Just Energy Program
Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace
Middle East Peace Now of Minnesota
Minneapolis Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights
Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers (MAP)
Minnesota Anarchist Collective
Minnesota Civil Liberties Union
Minnesota Cuba Committee
Minnesota Film Arts/U Film Society
Minnesota School of Americas Watch
Minnesotans for a United Ireland
Nonviolent Peaceforce, USA
Pax Christi Twin Cities Area
Philip Berrigan Depleted Uranium Coalition
Professional Librarians Union of Minneapolis
Queers United for Radical Action (QURA)
Saint Paul Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Somali Justice Advocacy Center
Speak Out Sisters!
Students Against War
Twin Cities Palestine Solidarity Network
The Urban Coalition
Twin Cities Peace Campaign
Veterans for Peace, Minnesota Chapter 27
Women Against Military Madness (WAMM)
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's Prison Book Project
World Federalist Association
The NIP-NLG believes it was a violation of the fundamental rights for some 1,200 Arab and Muslims to be detained during the investigation of the September 11 attacks, and for most of these people to be deported for being in violation of the immigration laws. The NIP-NLG has also denounced the interviewing of several thousand other Arab and Muslims by Department of Justice agents as an example of profiling and targeting certain communities. There are, however, some 11 million Muslims in the United States, so the actions of Federal investigators can hardly be considered massive or indiscriminate, especially given the scale and nature of the crimes.
The NIP-NLG opposed the passage of the USA Patriot Act which expanded the ability of the Federal government to monitor, target and apprehend immigrants and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist activity. It is lobbying to have part of the act repealed and filing test cases in the courts to shield suspects and to have the act overturned. The NIP-NLG received a grant of $100,000 from the Ford Foundation as “core support for activities to ensure that the human rights of noncitizens detained in the United States in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001 are respected.
On a broader scale, the NIP-NLG strongly opposes H.R. 2671, the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal (CLEAR) Act, introduced by Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-GA, with 112 co-sponsors. The proposed bill would expand the ability of state and local police to enforce civil immigration laws in order to overcome the shortage of Border Patrol personnel and to enhance the ability to capture illegal aliens once they have moved inland from the border. Immigration violators would be listed in the National Crime Information Center Database. This legislation would also allow police officers to check the legal status of anyone they “suspect” might be an illegal alien.
The NIP-NLG provides legal advice, resource materials and training for attorneys involved in the defense of noncitizens either for violations of immigration laws or for criminal behavior that could lead to deportation. Because the law defines certain offenses as aggravated felonies for which an alien can be deported only if the defendant receives a sentence to imprisonment or confinement of a year or more, keeping an alien out of jail can also keep him in the country. It also lobbies for a grant of amnesty for illegal aliens so they can stay in the country. NIP-NLG Director Dan Kesselbrenner has argued that a legalization program “should be more than just a 'one shot deal', but should allow for flexible deadlines so that new arrivals can become eligible for legal status after a period of time.”
For the past eight years, the NIP-NLG has sent law students to South Florida or to the U.S.-Mexico border to volunteer in agencies that “are at the forefront in the fight for immigrants’ rights.” These students have worked during winter and spring breaks with asylum seekers, detainees, and other noncitizens seeking legal immigration status. The NIP-NLG also works with the American Bar Association’s Immigration Pro Bono Development, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service to create the Detention Watch Network which lists of over 25 organizations around the country where students can work directly with detained immigrants and refugees.
In late November, a federal grand jury handed up terrorism-related charges against NLG attorney Lynne Stewart and two others for their roles in an alleged conspiracy involving imprisoned Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel Rahman in a plot to kill and kidnap people overseas as a means of winning his release. The allegations are the result of the government's secret taping of Rahman's conversations in a Minnesota prison after his 1995 conviction on charges he conspired to blow up New York landmarks, including involvement in the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and later plots to destroy the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. Stewart and an Arabic translator are accused of helping Rahman communicate with his terrorist followers by smuggling messages out of prison and giving them to one of his agents, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, a Staten Island postal worker, for further circulation. Prosecutors claimed that during a May 2000 prison visit, translator Mohammed Yousry told Rahman and defense attorney Stewart about kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist organization in the Philippines that were intended to force Rahman's release. Stewart replied, “Good for them.”
In 2002, the NIP-NLG: had revenues of $486,614 and expenses of $457,456.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM
The Washington, D.C.-based National Immigration Forum (NIF) claims that its objective is “to embrace and uphold America's tradition as a nation of immigrants. The Forum advocates and builds public support for public policies that welcome immigrants and refugees and that are fair and supportive to newcomers in our country.” It claims to head a coalition of more than 250 national organizations and several thousand local groups. The NIF was founded in 1982 by Dale Frederick “Rick” Swartz, who had directed the immigrant rights project at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and who had worked closely with the National Lawyers’ Guild. Harriet Schaffer Rabb, Ford Foundation Trustee and Co-Director of the Immigration Law Clinic at Columbia School of Law, played a major role in helping Swartz found the new group. Swartz continued his work to secure asylum for Haitian and Central American refugees, to legalize the status of millions of other immigrants and to battle the English Only movement, which seeks to make English the official language of the United States.
The NIF website is festooned with American flags and the Statue of Liberty. However, its political agenda and funding run parallel to those left-wing “open borders” groups whose ideology is hostile to the flag and the nation for which it stands. Frank Sharry is the current Executive Director of the NIF. Prior to taking over this position from the retiring Swartz in 1990, Sharry had been executive director of Centro Presente, a local agency involved in the Central American sanctuary movement in the greater Boston area that was tied to opposition to the Reagan Administration policy of combating the spread of communism in the region. In 1994, Sharry took a leave of absence from the Forum to serve as Deputy Campaign Manager of Taxpayers Against Proposition 187.
The NIF view of the immigration problem runs as follows: “Updated, the number of immigrant visas available has remained static, while the number of would-be immigrants wanting to join family members here, or get a job here, has grown. There are now perhaps three million persons in a backlog for immigrant visas in the family preference system, and waits can be as long as 20 years for some categories. There are very few visas available for immigrants to come here and work, if they don’t have particular skills....legal immigration to this country is an extraordinarily difficult, time-consuming, and expensive process. Faced with years or decades of waiting to reunite with family members, too many immigrants attempt to enter the U.S. illegally, use temporary visas for permanent immigration, or turn to smugglers.” The United States already has the most liberal immigration policy of any major country in the world. Each year, the U. S. grants permanent resident status to between 700,000 and 900,000 legal immigrants each year. But this not enough for the NIF.
The NIF solution is to “legalize”—grant amnesty to -- all illegal aliens currently in the United States who have clean criminal records, and to substantially increase the number of visas available for those who want to come into America either to rejoin family members or to work. Essentially, the idea is to make legal immigration to America so easy that no one will have to resort to illegal means to enter the country. The NIF is particularly keen on opening the borders to unskilled, low-income workers and then making them eligible for welfare and social service programs. Under this scheme, the country would be importing a new underclass living in poverty. The NIF does not project the number of new immigrants this “comprehensive reform” would generate. The NIF believes there are eight million illegal immigrants in the country eligible for amnesty, and it would not be unreasonable to expect the annual number of “legal” immigrants to at least double under their relaxed process.
Once legalized, this expanded wave of immigrants are to be encouraged to vote. As the NIF’s study of the 2000 elections argues, “Their conclusion: as the political clout of immigrant voters rises, the harsh anti-immigrant climate of the recent past seems to be on the wane.”
While advancing its own plan of reform, the NIF is also working to undo the reforms enacted in1996. The NIF considers the 1996 reforms “the harshest crackdown on the rights and opportunities of immigrants in 70 years.” It particularly cites the attempt to expedite deportations of illegal aliens (who have no right to be in the country in the first place), the deportation of non-citizens who commit “minor” crimes, the denial of welfare and social service programs to illegal immigrants and attempts to track the arrival and departure of every person crossing our land borders and develop an identification system.
The NIF’s opposition to tracking those who enter the United States extends even to those arriving from countries with known terrorist links. The NIF strongly objected to the creation of a National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. The plan as proposed by Attorney General John Ashcroft would apply only to nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria who are here on non-immigrant visas; certain non-immigrant visa-holders from other countries that are determined to pose an "elevated national security risk" by the State Department and the INS; and certain foreign national non-immigrant visa-holders in whom the Justice Department has a special interest. Fingerprints and photos will be taken from these individuals, along with other personal data, when they present themselves for admission to the U.S. The fingerprints will be run through intelligence and criminal records databases to identify people who are wanted criminals or suspected terrorists and keep them from entering the country. After 30 days in the United States and then on an annual basis, certain non-immigrant aliens will be required to present themselves at an INS office. The INS will conduct a review of the alien to ensure that he is complying with the terms of his visa. To Frank Sharry, “these heavy-handed tactics seem more like the old Soviet Union and South Africa.”
This objection is interesting because one of the arguments the NIF uses in support of its plan to legalize the illegals and expand legal immigration is that “by providing more legal channels for persons who want to come in the future, so that immigrants who now come outside of legal channels can be properly identified and screened.” So which is their real concern? In the past, the NIF has objected to burdensome questioning of those seeking to become naturalized citizens, including requiring that applicants account for their residences in the U.S. and travel outside of the U.S. in the last five years, and what organizations the applicant was a member.
The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System registered a total of 83,519 people before it was ended on December 2, 2003. Some of those registered were deported, usually for overstaying visas.
NIF also opposed the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal (CLEAR) Act, H.R. 2671 which would empower state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws. And the NIF has voiced the same litany of complaints about tighter security and broader investigations pertaining to immigrants since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as other left-wing groups.
The NIF received $200,000 in 1999 and $175,000 in 2001 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, a funding source known for its left-wing leanings. The NIF was given $50,000 for “supporting on-going advocacy for the fair treatment of immigrants and refugees” in the aftermath of September 11 by the Open Society Institute. The Ford Foundation website lists three grants to the NIF totaling $1,889,000, mainly for general support, advocacy and alliance building.
In 2001, the National Immigration Forum reported revenues of $2,046,357, expenses of $1,726,885 and held assets worth: $1,826,047.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of over 8,000 attorneys and law professors that provides its members with continuing legal education, information, professional services, and expertise through its 35 chapters and over 75 national committees. It was founded in 1946 and is an “affiliated organization” of the American Bar Association and is represented in the ABA House of Delegates. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
AILA has joined with other left-wing groups to denounce in its entirety the security measures taken in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which killed some 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, claiming that the measures “have infringed on the civil liberties of immigrants and have created a climate of fear and distrust in immigrant communities around the country.” AILA likes to claim that the new security procedures “fail to enhance our security” but in the absence of any more terrorist attacks, it is impossible to substantiate such a claim.
AILA’s attitude towards anti-terrorist measures reflect the radical views of its Executive Director Jeanne Butterworth. Before she was elected to head AILA, she was executive director of the Palestine Solidarity Committee. The PSC had acted as the political arm of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist organization in much the same way that Sinn Fein acted as a representative of the Irish Republican Army. Besides excusing PFLP terrorist attacks and campaigning against U.S. aid to Israel, the PSC under Butterworth also supported Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and was active in the antiwar movement opposing American intervention to liberate Kuwait. The PSC and PFLP are avowedly Marxist in philosophy.
AILA claims its member attorneys represent tens of thousands of U.S. families who have applied for permanent residence for their spouses, children, and other close relatives to lawfully enter and reside in the United States. AILA Members also represent thousands of U.S. businesses and industries who sponsor highly skilled foreign workers seeking to enter the United States in a temporary or permanent basis. AILA members also represent foreign students, entertainers, athletes, and asylum seekers, often on a pro bono basis. It holds several major conferences each year to bring attorneys and activists in the field up to speed on new developments in immigration law and pending legislation. The group also engages in lobbying and offers expert testimony at Congressional hearings.
The public emphasis of the group is on its role in the process of legal immigration. However, when one looks at specific issues, AILA embraces illegal entry into the United States as well.
The AILA “solution” to the illegal immigrant problem is to legalize everyone. “People who work hard, pay taxes, and contribute to the U.S. should be allowed to obtain permanent residence. This reform would stabilize the workforce of U.S. employers, encourage people to come out of the shadows to be scrutinized by our government, and allow immigrants to work and travel legally and be treated equally.” says an AILA issue paper. The paper never uses the term “illegal” for those living in the “shadows” or even “undocumented.” The AILA term is “people in the U.S. without authorization.” The idea is to authorize anyone who wants to cross the border. Illegal aliens already in the United States would be given amnesty, and a “new temporary program would give workers the opportunity to work where they are needed and employers experiencing these shortages the workforce they need to remain competitive.
Such a program would provide legal visas, family unity, full labor rights, labor mobility and a path to permanent residence and citizenship over time. Such a program would diminish significantly future illegal immigration by providing people with a legal avenue to enter the U.S.” It is hard to take at face value AILA’s claim that such a program would only be “temporary.” And while there is lip-service paid to the notion that immigration limits should be set in accordance with the needs of the country, the sub-text is clearly about opening the borders to meet the desires of an unlimited number of immigrants, the vast bulk of whom would be poor and unskilled.
The AILA argument that legalizing current illegal aliens will allow them “to be scrutinized by our government” also rings false when one considers AILA’s attitude towards the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Under NSEERS, specified groups of foreigners have been required to be photographed, fingerprinted, and questioned upon their arrival at a U.S. port of entry and, for those already in this country, at a designated immigration office. Under this program, these individuals (most of them males from Middle Eastern countries) have been obligated to follow re-registration requirements after one year, or, in some cases, thirty days.
These requirements were relaxed on December 2. Under the new guidelines, the one year and thirty day re-registration requirements will be suspended. However, the guidelines maintain registration at the border, departure requirements and a “case-by-case” imposition of other registration requirements when the DHS has a particular security concern. AILA has opposed the entire NSEERS program and wants all aspects of it terminated. “What have they done? They have left immigrant communities feeling besieged, harmed our relations with foreign governments, and wasted precious resources.” said Judith Golub, AILA’s Senior Director of Advocacy and Public Affairs.
On October 2, 2003, under the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended, the U.S. Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, reconfirmed the designation of the PFLP as a foreign terrorist organization.
After the September 11 attacks, AILA started a new public relations campaign which includes a selection of shirts, mugs, stickers and tote bags with the message “Immigration Works. It’s Who We Are.” The items can be purchased from AILA, but at prices which are hardly bargains.
U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, who represents the border state of Arizona, has expressed concern about programs for disguised amnesty and increased visas. “I approach the notion of ‘guest worker’ legislation very cautiously. If we are not enforcing current immigration laws, the question naturally arises: Why would we be any more likely to enforce new laws? Without a clear, firm intent to enforce existing laws, what would discourage more illegal immigrants from entering the country in hopes of yet another ‘guest worker’ or amnesty bill in the future? Will we be sending the signal to others that, if they can get into the United States and lay low for a few years, they too could gain legal status (even citizenship) in the United States?
These are the sorts of questions and concerns policymakers must be prepared to address at the beginning of debate on new immigration proposals.” writes Sen. Kyl, who “understands many Americans' frustration, particularly those living right on the border, about our government's acquiescence in lawbreaking.” Given the amount of effort that the AILA spends on trying to subvert the enforcement of current immigration law, their credibility as a proponent of new laws must be suspect.
THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Center for Constitutional Rights was founded in 1966 by Arthur Kinoy and the late William Kunstler. In his student days at Harvard, Kinoy was on the executive committee of the Communist‑front American Student Union, went on to become a representative of the International Workers Order, and then became attorney for the United Electrical Workers, one of the few unions expelled from the CIO because of its Communist leadership.
The vain and histrionic William M. Kunstler was best known as the chief defendants' counsel at the trial of the “Chicago 8” who organized a riot at the 1968 Democratic Convention. He was cited for contempt of court for his disruptive tactics. Kunstler also defended the “Catonsville 9" a group of anti-war protesters led by the Berrigan brothers (Daniel and Philip, both Catholic priests) who pioneered the practice of breaking into government offices to destroy local draft records. Kunstler considered himself an activist lawyer and proclaimed his support for the radical agendas of his clients.
Both men were tireless organizers of radical groups and protests with a decided bent for making common cause with foreign enemies of the United States. As Kinoy put it, “the theory [that] shaped the strategy of as diverse movements as the Soviet, the Chinese, the Vietnamese and the Cuban struggles must remain central in the thinking of all who would attempt to chart out a strategy to take power in this last powerful stronghold of world capitalism.”
Today, the CCR claims it has “remained dedicated to defending and advancing the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” while “committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.” Among this creative use of the law is an attempt by the CCR, in league with Greenpeace International and other groups, to cite the United States, Great Britain and other allies for “war crimes against the Iraqi people.”
On May 27, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in North Jersey Media Group v. Creppy and Ashcroft, a case that CCR has been litigating with the ACLU on behalf of several newspapers. This move left intact the decision of the Third Circuit upholding the right of the Federal government to conduct secret immigration hearings. Issued by Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the “Creppy memo” requires immigration judges to close all immigration hearings at the request of the Justice Department where detainees are of “special interest” to its terrorism investigation. The CCR had better luck in the Sixth Circuit in another case Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, in which federal judge Nancy Edmunds decided that closing the hearings was a violation of the right to freedom of the press.
How far CCR activists are willing to take the supposed rights of foreigners was demonstrated in an article by David Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, a volunteer attorney with the CCR, and a legal affairs correspondent for the leftwing’s flagship publication, The Nation. Writing an essay in the Winter 2002 issue of Human Rights, a journal of the American Bar Association, Cole argued: “The Patriot Act also resurrects ideological exclusion, the practice of denying entry to aliens for pure speech. It excludes aliens who "endorse or espouse terrorist activity,” or who “persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization,” in ways that the secretary of state determines undermine U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. It also excludes aliens who are representatives of groups that “endorse acts of terrorist activity” in ways that similarly undermine U.S. efforts to combat terrorism.
Excluding people for their ideas is flatly contrary to the spirit of freedom for which the United States stands.”
Under Cole’s system of values, the “rights” of a known member of al-Qaeda to enter the United States is more important than the sovereign right of the United States to determine on the basis of its own needs and security, who can and cannot cross its borders. Cole’s research has received funding from the Ford Foundation.
In 2001, the CCR showed revenue of $2,846,099, expenses of $1,876,820 and assets of $2,603,827.
Part Two of The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11 will appear on FrontPage Magazine tomorrow.
Click Here to return the first part of this article.
William Hawkins, the author of Importing Revolution: Open Borders and the Radical Agenda, is Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the USBIC Education Foundation, where he specializes in international economics and national defense issues.
Erin Anderson is a consultant and senior analyst for national security issues. Her family owns land close to the Mexican border in Arizona, where she has witnessed personally the devastating effects of thousands of illegals coming across the borders every day.
 Alexander Jutkowitz, “What Latins Think: The Poder/Westhill Survey” Poder, January 2004, p. 16. Poder is a business magazine published by and for the Hispanic community, headquartered in Miami. The poll was conducted among Hispanics in seven major cities by Westhill Partners for the magazine between October 24 and Nov 16, 2003.
 Joel Mowbray, “Visas that Should Have Been Denied: A look at 9/11 terrorists’ visa applications” National Review Online, October 9, 2002.
 Steven A. Camarota, The Open Door: How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained in the United States, 1993-2001, (Center for Immigration Studies, Paper #21, May 2002). Available at www.cis.org/articles/2002/Paper21/terrorism.html
 The Border Patrol is specifically responsible for patrolling the 6,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international land borders and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding the Florida Peninsula and the island of Puerto Rico. The Border Patrol numbers only 9,500 personnel, including those in administration, training and support slots, with which to guard against smugglers as well as illegal aliens 24 hours a day, seven days a week. By way of comparison, there are nearly 6,000 personnel employed by the city police and county sheriff in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Texas metropolitan area.
 James D. Cockcroft, Outlaws in the Promised Land: Mexican Immigrant Workers and America's Future (New York: Grove Press, 1986), p. 11.
 Mario T. Garcia, Mexican Americans: Leadership, Ideology & Identity 1930-1960 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989) p. 30. Chapter 2 is a history of LULAC.
 Annette Oliveira, MALDEF: Diez Anos,(Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1979), p. 10. This is an "official" history of MALDEF.
 Karen O'Connor and Lee Epstein, "A Legal Voice for the Chicano Community: The Activities of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund", Social Science Quarterly June 1984, p. 249.
 Ford Foundation Annual Report:1984, p. 39.
 Steven R. Shapiro and Wade Henderson, “"Justice for Aliens" Our Endangered Rights: The ACLU Report on Civil Liberties Today, edited by Norman Dorsen (New York: Pantheon, 1984), pp. 160‑ 178.
 “ACLU of Rhode Island Calls New Driver's License Policy Shortsighted” ACLU press release, May 23, 2003.
 “ACLU of Florida Opposes Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws,” ACLU press release, May 9, 2002.
 “ACLU Calls Latest Immigrant Tracking Scheme Discriminatory and Ineffective,” ACLU press release, June 5, 2002.
 “Ford Foundation Gives $7 Million to ACLU Endowment Campaign” ACLU press release, June 28, 1999
 Rose Gutfeld , “Citizens and Persons” Ford Foundation Report, September, 2003.
 Andrew C. McCarthy, “Material Damage: The Ninth Circuit eviscerates a critical antiterror law” National Review Online, December 22, 2003, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mccarthy200312220001.asp.
 Toby Alice Volkman , “Crossing Borders: In an increasingly interconnected world, the discipline of area studies is at a turning point,” Ford Foundation Report, Winter 1998. Available at http://www.fordfound.org/publications/ff_report/view_ff_report_detail.cfm?report_index=103.
 “After 9/11, a Focus on Results” Remarks by Susan V. Berresford at the Federation for Community Planning’s Human Services Institute. Cleveland, Ohio, April 5, 2002. Available at http://www.fordfound.org/news/view_reflection_detail.cfm?reflection_index=17.
 Grant information, Ford Foundation website, http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?grant_id=142729.
 Grant Information, Ford Foundation website http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?grant_id=143968; www.nlg.org
 Neil F. Carlson, “September 11th in the Classroom” Ford Foundation Report, Fall, 2002.
 “Immigration and Citizenship” MALDEF website
 “Fighting for Georgia Driver’s License Rights” MALDEF Newsletter, Winter 2003, p. 5.
 “MALDEF Praises Gov. Davis For Signing Driver's License Bill,” MALDEF press release, September 5, 2003.
 “MALDEF Extremely Pleased That Treasury Department Will Not Change The Rules On Matrìculas” MALDEF Press release, September 29, 2003.
 Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven A. Camarota, and Amanda K. Baumle, “Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment” (Center for Immigration Studies, October 2003).
 Peter Ross Range , “Voting Rights: The Next Round” Ford Foundation Report, Fall 2001.
 Quoted in “Civil Rights Movement” Border Watch, October, 1992.
 “Noncitizens Should Get Vote, Too, Mayor Says: Latinos Fault Access To D.C. Services” The Washington Post, October 1, 2002; page B1.
 Ron Hayduk and Michele Wucker, “Let legal immigrants vote in city” New York Daily News, September 22, 2003.
 Joaquin Avila, “Political Apartheid in California: Consequences of Excluding a Growing Noncitizen Population,” Latino Policy and Issues Brief #9, UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, December 2003.
 “League of United Latin American Citizens” The Left Guide, edited by Derk Arend Wilcox (Economics America, 2001) p. 297.
 “LULAC Institute, Inc.” Philanthropic Research, Inc.
 “Ford Foundation Grantees Helped to Win Recent Supreme Court Decisions on Affirmative Action and Gay Rights and a New York School Funding Ruling” Ford Foundation press release, June 30, 2003.
 “Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund” The Left Guide, p. 315.
 Ann Fagan Ginger and Eugene M. Tobin, editors, The National Lawyers Guild: From Roosevelt through Reagan, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988), p. 81.
 "Lawyers Guild Marks 50 Years In the Fight for Justice," Frontline, June 8, 1987.
 Resolution Calling for Impeachment of George W. Bush, Holder of the Title of United States President, and Cabinet Officials Responsible for suppression of Constitutional Rights and Violation of International Law, Which is part of the Supreme Law of the Land, NLG Convention, Minneapolis, October 2003.
 National Lawyers Guild National Immigration Project Immigration Newsletter, November, 1972, p. 1.
 National Lawyers Guild National Immigration Project Immigration Newsletter, March‑April, 1987, p. 2.
 Grant information, Ford Foundation 2002 Annual Report, http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?grant_id=143968.
 “Immigrant Rights Groups Urge AFL-CIO to Address Immigration Policy Threat to Workers' Rights” News Release, April 1, 2000.
 Susan Schmidt, “Lawyer, 2 Others Face New Terror Charges,” The Washington Post, November 20, 2003; p. A03
 “National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.” Philanthropic Research, Inc.
 “Comprehensive Reform of Our Immigration Laws” NIF Backgrounder, October, 2003.
 “The 2000 Election: Immigrant Voters and the Future of the Immigration Debate” National Immigration Forum, 2002.
 “Fix ‘96," NIF website,
 “Comprehensive Reform of Our Immigration Laws”
 “Key Concerns with Smith Naturalization Bill (HR 3837)” NIF website.
 “Terrorism and the Government’s Response: Broad Initiatives Do Not Make Us Safer” NIF Background, November, 2003.
 Grant Recipients, Immigration, MacArthur Foundation website
 “OSI Announces Post 9/11 Grants: Focus on Civil Liberties, Immigrant Rights, Ant-profiling”
 “National Immigration Forum, Inc.” Philanthropic Research, Inc.
 ”Governments Crackdown on Immigrants Post 9/11 Creates Climate of Fear, Not Security” AILA press release, November 18, 2003.
 “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” AILA Issue Paper, August 16, 2003.
 “Special Registration: Changes Do Not Go Far Enough” AILA press release, December 1, 2003.
 Department of State, “Redesignation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations” Public Notice 4501, Federal Register, October 2, 2003, p. 56860.
 Congressional Record, May 13, 1975, p. 14159.
 “Take Action! Ensure that those who are responsible for war crimes are accountable,” CCR website,
 “Center for Constitutional Rights, Inc.” Philanthropic Research, Inc.