September 23, 2014

Open Thread – Tuesday, September 23, 2014

LittleBomb

No Shock! No Awe! Congress Gone!

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Old Hunter Says Action or No Action Has Consequences

Ironic, in a way and yet tragic. A guy sends a letter to a local Maine newspaper claiming, in part, that too many humans is what the problem is with bears.

All the while, I guess the letter writer should be somewhat relieved that one human, from his home state of New Jersey, is dead and not so much because the bear he wishes to protect was killed too.

As tragic as it was in the death of the individual, it is a sad commentary on the human condition that a human life is expendable to save that of an animal.

NewJerseyBear

General Mills Shareholders Urged to Reject GMO Food Proposal

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research:

National Center for Public Policy Research Warns Food-Giant Investors of Proposal’s High Costs, Scare Tactics and Pseudoscience

Food Companies Urged to Stand Up for the Promise of GMOs

Washington, DC/Minneapolis MN – The National Center for Public Policy Research is urging General Mills investors to vote down a shareholder proposal that would direct the company to remove completely safe and nutritious genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from its products

The proposal will be voted on at tomorrow’s annual meeting of General Mills shareholders in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“General Mills’ shareholders can send a strong message to self-appointed food police by rejecting this junk-science proposal. The scientific debate regarding GMOs is over and the radical activists have lost,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “The science is settled – GMOs are safe.”

If approved, the proposal would require the company to remove GM ingredients from all the products it manufactures or sells. The proponent deceivingly claims this removal is necessary because they “believe genetic engineering involves risk to the environment, food security, and public health.”

Harriett Crosby of Cabin John, Maryland, submitted the proposal. It appears on page 58 of the General Mills proxy statement.

“The body of scientific evidence that directly refutes this proposal is overwhelming and unanimous. Junk science and fear should not overrule facts and scientific consensus,” added Danhof.

Numerous independent and well-regarded scientific organizations and studies have categorically proven that GMOs are safe. These include:

• The National Academy of Sciences

• The American Association for the Advancement of Science – which has stated that the “science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

• The American Medical Association – which has unequivocally stated that “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for… 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

• The Royal Society of Medicine

• The World Health Organization

In fact, after the European Union spent ten years and hundreds of millions of Euros to exhaustively examine GMOs, EU researchers determined that: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

Furthermore, the Genetic Literacy Project recently reported on a new paper that catalogued over 1,700 GMO studies, and, combined with previous research, concluded that: “In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates.”

“Beyond spreading fear, bad science and bad business ideas, the anti-GMO crowd is also directly responsible for human suffering,” said Danhof. “Western activists, who have likely never had to miss a meal in their lives, perpetuate panic that reverberates through the developing world and conflagrates dire hunger situations worldwide.”

India is a prime example of the devastation wrought by anti-GMO crusaders. To combat malnutrition and Vitamin-A deficiencies prevalent in India, Syngenta created a product called Golden Rice that inserts genes from carrots into rice. The product was tested, found safe and ready to go in 2002 – but the protests of fear-mongering activists have prevented it from coming to market. Two agricultural economists published a study showing the effect of this unnecessary delay.

As noted in Scientific American, “the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002. That odd sounding metric – not just lives but ‘life years’ – accounts not only for those who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. The majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children.”

Tomorrow’s meeting marks the third occasion in 2014 that the National Center has urged corporate shareholders to reject an anti-GMO proposal. In both prior meetings, the respective shareholders sided with the National Center and against anti-GMO proponents.

“It is not a stretch to say that anti-GMO activists such as Harriett Crosby, Friends of the Earth, the Green Century Equity Fund, Vandana Shiva and others have blood on their hands. And its the blood of children no less,” noted Danhof. “General Mills shareholders should not join this anti-science morally bankrupt bunch.”

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many other important public policy issues. Tomorrow’s meeting will mark the 52nd shareholder meeting of 2014 for the National Center.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

A Hungry Moose

MooseVelvetShed

Photo by Al Remington

The Myth of Compromise

CompromiseHave you ever noticed that both sides of an issue make the claim that the other side refuses to compromise? While remaining uncompromising, one claims the other is at fault because they will not offer a compromise on some emotional issue, like hunting.

However, the bottom of the barrel is revealed in such cases when the one screaming for compromise, while refusing to compromise, finds the other at fault, calling them names or at times, a faux intellectual will attempt to cast aspersions on individuals or groups because of their uncompromising nature.

Here’s a classic example. In an opinion piece, ie. propaganda nonsense, in the Maine Portland Press Herald, a writer, posing as being in support of Question One in the upcoming referendum to ban bear baiting, hounding and trapping, casts his censure onto the hunting community because they refuse to compromise and give this guy at least some of what he wants.

Through it all, I have often said the Achilles heel of the hunting lobby in Maine was the intransigent, no-compromise position they maintained while dismissing any criticism as the work of animal rights extremists.

The thought processes of a person of this nature is quite amazing to someone not so afflicted. This person believes that because he sees something differently than someone else does, it is their duty to at least give in some and let them have their way.

Do we ever see totalitarians, such as this person, compromising his beliefs? Of course not. He doesn’t have to. In his mind, he’s more intelligent than some dumb bear hunter.

Let’s understand this myth of compromise. Don’t get me wrong. There’s a time and a place for compromise and compromising the rock foundations of one’s beliefs, morals and heritage is not a time to implement compromise.

Let’s take one example that some people can understand. Those that can’t are of the thought process of the letter writer in question. Let’s take the Second Amendment as an example.

The Second Amendment, when written, was simple and direct: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. From the very moment that Bill of Right was published, totalitarian socialists have demanded compromise in order to get rid of it. And guess what? They have gotten a lot through compromise because the people have been mind controlled to think that compromise is a good thing; it “gets something done.” Look at where the Second Amendment is today. It doesn’t even resemble “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And when is the last time you saw anti gun lobbyists compromising to give American citizens back their full right to keep and bear arms?

So, here we have a man who thinks, no, he believes, that the “hunting lobby” should cede to him what he wants because he is right and the hunters are wrong?

This is one of the problems with democracy and a progressive lifestyle. Democracy is when the majority forces the minority to do something they don’t want to do. Obviously this letter writer doesn’t like democracy when it isn’t working well for him and therefore he demands compromise. And when democracy fails him, he resorts to all other means in order to get his way.

Hunters should never compromise on such issues because it tears at the heart of hunting’s entire existence. Unfortunately we live in a democracy, which actually more closely resembles totalitarian socialism and no more than hunters should seek to change their “intransigent” ways, neither should the letter writer. And herein, lies the real difference. Where I respect the rights and beliefs of this person but think he is a moron to believe that way, I certainly have no right to attempt to force him to not be able to be an animal rights activist.

Obviously, he and way too many others just like him, don’t feel the same way as I do. Therefore, compromise should never happen.

Claim: Hound Hunters Abandon Dogs After Hunting Season

In a propaganda piece allowed in the Bangor Daily News, September 18, 2014, Patsy Murphy, speaking for the Animal Welfare League of Greater Portland, makes the claim that hound hunters abandon their dogs after hounding season.

The league has seen its fair share of “stray” and “owner surrendered” dogs during and after hounding season.

And, as is expected from propaganda pieces, Murphy offers no data to support that claim.

It was brought to my attention, as I am not a hound owner nor do I hound hunt, that it is very unlikely that a hound hunter would abandon their dogs during or after a hound hunting season. As an example one website offering hunting hounds reveals they aren’t cheap.

To be placed on the list to receive a young started dog, you must send a $500.00 deposit and when the pup is ready to be picked up the full balance is due. I sell my pick of the litter pups for $2,200.00 and the other pups for $1,500.00 each.

In much the same way as somebody made the claim that over 7 million pounds of junk food was dumped into Maine forests, with no facts to support the claim, now I suppose we can expect mindless people to claim as fact that hunters abandon their dogs when they are done using and abusing them.

Bear Tries to Eat Camera

It is my belief that somebody smeared some kind of attractant onto this camera. Perhaps it was some kind of camera promo, like the days of Ron Cameron Swasey and Timex watches. Yes, I’m aging myself.

We should find out what it was and go to Washington and smear it all over everyone there.

Yikes! I think a black car just pulled up out front of my house.

What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

FoodStamp

Colorado Bear Hairs Claim Much Larger Bear Population Than Once Thought

“Apker said a bear population much greater than expected, combined with an explosion in Colorado’s human population over the last decade, means people living even in cities have good chances of encountering bears.

That means people must learn to tolerate some human-bear conflicts and learn to minimize or reduce the things that cause them, he said. Wildlife managers will be talking with communities about how many bears they want and how to achieve those goals using methods like hunting.

“We do sometimes have to make a decision,” Apker said. “Is this the number of bears that we’re comfortable with?””<<<Read More>>>

Throughout U.S. History, Immigration Surges Have Harmed Black Workers

Washington, DC – Surges in immigration have harmed black workers throughout U.S. history.

Evidence shows that eras of high black employment and economic mobility directly correspond with periods of reduced immigration.

Should President Obama legalize many or all of the approximately 11.3 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the United States, black public policy experts with Project 21 warn, black Americans already experiencing a jobless rate far above the national average could be further harmed.

Outright discrimination in employment based on race, unfair regulations and ethnic networking also have harmed the ability of black Americans to find and retain good jobs.

Facts and Figures

• In the early 1800s, friction between free blacks and immigrants who were in competition for low-skilled labor opportunities led to the rise of union-based anti-black discrimination. Roy Beck, in The Case Against Immigration, wrote: “Rising immigration from the 1820s to the Civil War drove down wages for free black Americans and immigrants alike… As badly as new immigrants often were treated by established Americans, even worse treatment was meted out to black Americans by the immigrants. Organizing themselves into trade unions, immigrant laborers helped set the terms of hiring at many urban workplaces. Not only would they not allow black workers into their unions, but they usually would refuse to work alongside them if they were hired. Many firms decided not to hire black workers, or to fire the ones already on the site, because of that refusal on the part of the more numerous immigrant workers.”

• After the end of the Civil War, Beck writes, a high rate of European immigration kept many newly-freed blacks locked within the South’s agricultural economy (and helped widen the overall technological gap with the North). “High immigration solved an immense problem for the defeated southern landed aristocracy. The restoration of the plantation system depended on holding onto the ex-slaves. Eric Foner, the specialist on Reconstruction, says a major priority for both white southerners and northerners was to subdue former slaves into a sedentary agricultural work style in the South. During a brief window of opportunity after the war, many freed slaves made their way to the North and grabbed jobs that they held for years to come. But because of increasingly high immigration, most freed slaves did not get any of the new jobs up north or any of the new land out west. The unions were an essential force in keeping the ex-slaves out of the North. Nearly all of the unions — dominated by immigrants — barred blacks from membership, Foner says.”

• Blacks were pushed out of jobs at the start of the 20th Century by a wave of immigration of Italians and Eastern Europeans who settled in the North. Beck, who is CEO of the immigration policy organization Numbers USA, writes: “[Historian John E.] Bodnar found that the immigration had a ‘devastating impact upon [Steelton, Pennslyvania's] black working force.’ Black workers stopped progressing up the job ladder, they lost semi-skilled occupations to the Slavs and Italians and many were forced to leave town in search of work. The black population declined. Job displacement was occurring in all cities. In 1870, of all black men in Cleveland, 32 percent had skilled jobs; by 1910, only 11 percent were in skilled trades. ‘It did not take Jim Crow laws to drive blacks out of such jobs in the North, which could draw on a huge pool of immigrant labor flowing into the cities,’ says Lawrence Fuchs of Brandeis University.”

Beck adds: “Anybody concerned about fulfilling the spirit of the civil rights era would have been given pause by a look back a century ago at what happened in interior industrial centers such as Pittsburgh, McKeesport, Wilkes-Barre and Johnstown in Pennsylvania; Lorain in Ohio and Buffalo in New York. In tight-labor conditions immediately after the Civil War, those cities had needed the migration of black labor. They witnessed black growth that was modest in numbers but almost explosive in terms of percentages. With the biggest surge of immigration after 1899, however, black growth in those cities essentially stopped or populations actually declined. High immigration to the nation’s cities had assured that the black worker ‘would have to start his economic climb over again — from the bottom,’ Bodnar says.”

• Reduced immigration during World War I led to employment opportunities for black males. During the “Great Migration” that began in 1914, approximately half a million blacks moved from the South to urban areas in the North. “Wartime opportunities in the urban North gave hope to such individuals,” wrote Chad Williams, then an associate professor of history at Hamilton College and since 2012 the chairman of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies at Brandeis University. “The American industrial economy grew significantly during the war. However, the conflict also cut off European immigration and reduced the pool of available cheap labor. Unable to meet demand with existing European immigrants and white women alone, northern businesses increasingly looked to black southerners to fill the void. In turn, the prospect of higher wages and improved working conditions prompted thousands of black southerners to abandon their agricultural lives and start anew in major industrial centers. Black women remained by and large confined to domestic work, while men for the first time in significant numbers made entryways into the northern manufacturing, packinghouse and automobile industries.”

• Many of America’s labor laws, some of which are still in existence, are unfair to black workers. As Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper wrote in a 2014 monograph for the Capital Research Center: “Many federal labor laws in the United States originated in efforts to saddle black men with extra burdens and limitations, in order to (as racists often put it) ‘protect white jobs.’ Tragically, these laws, in one form or another, remain on the books today and continue to hamper the ability of blacks, especially men, to enjoy gainful employment.” In particular, “[t]he primary objective of [the] Davis-Bacon [Act] was to make it harder for black tradesmen to compete for work on federal projects.” And the National Labor Relations Act, “the quintessential labor law achievement of the Progressive movement… was a catch-22: When blacks chose to leave the farms and plantations for opportunities in the North, the NLRA empowered the racist trade unions to lock them out.”

• A joint paper by professors at the University of California, University of Chicago and Harvard University for the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that immigration has measurably lowered black wages. One of the authors, Dr. Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, said, “Our study suggests that a ten percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a skill group is associated with a reduction in the black wage of four percent, a reduction in the black employment rate of 3.5 percentage points and an increase in the black institutionalization [incarceration] rate of 0.8 percentage points.”

In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Dr. Hanson added: “The economic adjustments unleashed by the large 1980 – 2000 immigrant influx, a labor supply shock that increased the number of workers in the United States by nearly ten percent and the number of high school dropouts by over 20 percent, reduced the employment rate of low-skill black men by about eight percentage points. Immigration, therefore, accounts for about 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline in black employment rates. Similarly, the changes in economic opportunities caused by the 1980 – 2000 immigrant influx raised the incarceration rate of black high school dropouts by 1.7 percentage points, accounting for about ten percent of the 20 percentage point increase observed during that period.”

• Illegal immigrants and black Americans in the workforce today have a similar median age (approximately 36 and 39 years of age, respectively, with non-Hispanic whites six years older than the illegal immigrants, at 42 ), making illegal aliens more likely to compete head-to-head for age-sensitive employment opportunities.

• Analyzing evidence from two studies showing that employers may have a preference for hiring immigrants over black citizens, Dr. Harry J. Holzer of Georgetown University and the Urban Institute noted “that employers perceive stronger work ethic among the immigrants, and a greater willingness to tolerate low wages… Some of these perceptions and the hiring behavior they generate might well reflect discrimination, especially against black men whom employers generally fear…”

• “Ethnic networking” pits American blacks and Hispanic migrants against each other. As Beck writes in The Case Against Immigration: “Studies claiming to show insignificant changing in rates of African-American unemployment or labor force participation fail to take into account employment opportunities closed to black Americans who might otherwise migrate to metropolitan labor markets increasingly impacted by immigrants. The pervasive effects of ethnic-network recruiting and the spread of non-English languages in the workplace have, in effect, locked many blacks out of occupations where they once predominated.”

He adds: “Much of the power of immigration streams comes from ‘ethnic networking,’ in which immigrants after obtaining a job use word of mouth to bring relatives and other acquaintances from their country into the same workplace. Immigrants today act like the immigrants early this century, who took whole occupations and turned them into their own preserve, quickly shutting native-born Americans — especially blacks — out of a workplace … Within five years [in the 1990s], the workforce of seafood plants in North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland had changed from being predominantly African-American to mainly teenage girls and young women from Mexico … Businesses cease to advertise jobs. Natives don’t hear about openings as they are announced through word of mouth of the foreign workers in their local community and also across the country and even in other countries.”

• As in the Reconstruction era, when blacks competed with European immigrants in northern cities, Cornell University Professor Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. notes that both illegal immigrants and black workers tend to “cluster in metropolitan areas” and compete for the same jobs. Dr. Briggs says, “there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low-skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major loser in this competition are low-skilled black workers. This is not surprising, since if employers have an opportunity to hire illegal immigrant workers, they will always give them preference over legal workers of any race or ethnic background. This is because illegal immigrant workers view low-skilled jobs in the American economy as being highly preferable to the job opportunities in their homelands…”

Dr. Briggs further stated: “As for wage suppression, all studies show that the large infusion of immigrants has depressed the wages of low-skilled workers. It is the illegal immigrant component of the immigration flow that has most certainly caused the most damage… the unemployment rates in the low-skilled labor market are the highest in the entire national labor force. This means that the low-skilled labor market is in a surplus condition. Willing workers are available at existing wage rates. By definition, therefore, illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly present in that same labor market sector adversely affect the economic opportunities of legal citizen workers because the illegal workers are preferred workers. No group pays a higher penalty for this unfair competition than do low-skilled black Americans, given their inordinately high unemployment levels.”

• Using employment data compiled from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Center for Immigration Studies asserts that virtually all of the net jobs created in the United States since 2000 have gone to legal and illegal immigrants as opposed to native-born citizens. The report noted that “[t]hough there has been some recovery from the Great Recession, there were still fewer working-age [16 to 65] natives holding a job in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000 [127,000], while the number of immigrants with a job was 5.7 million above the 2000 level.” The report concluded there actually has been “no general labor shortage” in the United States thus far in the 21st century and “trends since 2000 challenge the argument that immigration on balance increases job opportunities for natives. Over 17 million immigrants arrived in the country in the last 14 years, yet native employment has deteriorated significantly.”

What Project 21 Members are Saying

“In the spirit of Booker T. Washington, President Obama should encourage the Chamber of Commerce, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates to cast down their buckets among the millions of black Americans who are here and in need of economic opportunity. Instead, it seems Obama wants to cast his political lot among those who smuggled themselves into our nation, and whose insertion into our still faltering economy would increase unemployment and misery among black Americans. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it, and it would behoove Obama to see how blacks have fared in past mass migrations before he throws his most loyal constituency over a cliff.” — Project 21 member Derryck Green writes for Project 21 on federal employment statistics and other economic indicators

“The immigration issue is complex. While it is clear the left wants to pass it off as a cut-and-dry case of humanitarianism and common sense, there are secondary effects at play. History shows that surges in immigrants, both legal and illegal, lead to employment crises in the black community because they create increased competition for the same jobs. If it is true that many low-wage workers could be granted amnesty or legalized working status, who is speaking on behalf of black American citizens who are struggling to find work and opportunities? In the past, we had Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington championing the cause of black job-seekers. Who among the self-appointed black leadership will stand up for us now on immigration and jobs since they have failed to lead blacks to true, sustained economic empowerment?” — Project 21 member and financial analyst Hughey Newsome

“Frederick Douglass… often spoke of America’s race-based labor policies. In the North, free blacks were denied employment because of a preference for the cheap labor of the Irish. Booker T. Washington implored employers to ‘cast down your bucket where you are’ to provide work for the black man. But Western European immigration increased, and the Davis-Bacon Act — which is still on the books — was passed to, in part, keep blacks and new immigrants from being hired for many jobs.” — Project 21 member and talk radio host Charles Butler

“While modern illegal immigration has had a devastating impact on the quality of education, health care and other services, black Americans in particular have had a long history of being impacted by immigrants. Our opportunities for gainful employment suffered exponentially under the weight of past waves of legal and illegal unskilled foreign workers, sometimes undermining the free market through unlawful employment. Now, we appear to be losing more opportunities than ever to illegal aliens. This is a civil rights problem that was recognized in the past but is largely overlooked today when we debate the issue of amnesty for those who smuggle themselves into our nation.” — Project 21 member and right-to-work activist Stacy Swimp

What Others are Saying About Mass Immigration and Its Effects on Black Employment

• In his book, The Case Against Immigration, Numbers USA CEO Roy Beck wrote of post-Civil War history and immigration: “The end of the Civil War opened a golden door of opportunity to black Americans, both those just freed from the chains of slavery and those who long had been free… By happy circumstances, both new land and good jobs became available soon after the Civil War… If more black Americans had gotten in on the ground floor of both of those developments, they and their descendents would have had remarkably different lives. And all Americans today likely would be living in a much more harmonious and healthy society. But it wasn’t to be. Mass immigration helped slam the golden door shut on equality of opportunity for black Americans after the Civil War.”

• In 1871, the famed black abolitionist Frederick Douglass wrote in The Washington New National Era: “The former slave owners of the South want cheap labor; they want it from Germany and from Ireland; they want it from China and Japan; they want it from anywhere in the world, but from Africa. They want to be independent of their former slaves, and bring their noses to the grindstone.”

• Booker T. Washington, the famous black educator, said in a impassioned plea on behalf of black American job-seekers at the Atlanta Cotton States and International Exposition in 1895: “To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted I would repeat what I say to my own race, ‘cast down your bucket where you are,’ Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides. Cast down your bucket among these people who have, without strikes and labour wars, tilled your fields, cleared your forests, built your railroads and cities and brought forth treasures from the bowels of the earth, and helped make possible this magnificent representation of the progress of the South.”

• Commenting on the improvement in job prospects for black Americans due to a curtailment of immigration, leftist black labor activist W.E.B. DuBois sourly wrote in The Crisis in 1929: “[T]he stopping of the importing of cheap white labor on any terms has been the economic salvation of American black labor. As usual, we gain only by the hurt of our fellow white serfs, but it is not our fault and whenever these same laborers get a chance they swat us worse than the capitalists.”

• In laying out the goals of the Clinton-era U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 1994, former U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (D-TX) said: “It will be impossible to reach answers to these questions [about economic stability and civic diversity] unless our policies and their implementation are more credible. As far as immigration policy is concerned, credibility can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, get in; people who should not enter are kept out; and people who are deportable should be required to leave. The Commission is convinced that immigration can be managed more effectively and in a manner that is consistent with our traditions, civil rights and civil liberties. As a nation of immigrants committed to the rule of law, this country must set limits on who can enter and back up these limits with effective enforcement of our immigration law.”

• In testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2012, Peter Kirsanow, a commissioner with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a member of Project 21, said: “Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will only further harm African-American workers. Not only will the low-skilled labor market continue to experience a surplus of workers, making it difficult for African-Americans to find job opportunities, but African-Americans will be deprived of one of their few advantages in this market… Furthermore, recent history shows that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will encourage more people to come to the United States illegally. The 1986 amnesty did not solve the illegal immigration problem. To the contrary, that amnesty established the precedent that if you come to America illegally, eventually you will obtain legal status. Thus, it is likely that if illegal immigrants are granted legal status, more people will come to America illegally and will further crowd African-American men (and other low-skilled men and women) out of the workforce.”

* * *

During 2014, Project 21 members have participated in over 150 interviews on immigration, including a commentary in the Orlando Sentinel written by Project 21 member Joe Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Over the past several weeks, the Project 21 black leadership network has issued a series of press releases highlighting how a unilateral move by the Obama Administration to protect illegal aliens could have a negative disparate impact on black Americans and African immigrants on issues such as jobs , education, health and legal immigration.

In 2014, Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media on current events over 1,300 times, including by the Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier, the O’Reilly Factor, Fox and Friends, CNN’s Situation Room, Salem Radio Network, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon, Conservative Commandos, Bill Martinez, Radio America, American Urban Radio Network, Bill Cunningham, Roger Hedgecock, Mike Siegal, Dana Loesch, Thomm Hartmann, Progressive Radio Network, The Blaze, EurWeb, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio, TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Orlando Sentinel and 50,000-watt talk radio stations including WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit, KDKA-Pittsburgh and WLW-Cincinnati. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.