January 29, 2023

Only 40% of “Any-Deer Permits” Are Left For the Average Joe Hunter

V. Paul Reynolds reminds readers that it appears wildlife management has become a great tool for politicians to appease their special interest “constituency” to ensure more votes. They have successfully allotted about 60% of the total number of doe permits (Any-Deer Permits) to their special interest buddies leaving only 40% for the general “random” drawing.

Reynolds wants to know where these proposed bills to give more special interest groups even more permits will end. He gives an example of how, if one bill passes, there will be no permits left. “If, for example, you guarantee old codgers like me (older than 70) a doe permit automatically, you have just issued 36,000 new doe permits! Yes, believe it or not, there are 36,000 Maine hunters 70 years or older.”

As I understand it, the proposed allotment of doe permits for this coming deer hunting season is around 66,000. If Reynolds’ figures are accurate, then 60% of those permits, are handed out to special interest groups and individuals, that would leave about 26,000 permits to be drawn in a random drawing. If this latest bill proposal passes that would automatically give a doe permit to all licensed hunters 70 years of age or older, some of those 70 year old hunters will not be given a permit because there aren’t enough to go around.

A lot of thought went into that proposal.

Time to end all this friggin nonsense!


Maine Passes Bill That Unconstitutionally Targets Hunters and Fishermen

This is a tough one to address because I do not, in any way, shape or form, condone the destruction of anybody’s property, including “Posted” or “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557, with amendments, has passed the Maine Legislature that, in summary, states: “The hunting and fishing
licenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

There should be laws that protect a landowner from such destruction, and there probably are. Piling on to prove a point, while it might be a bit understandable, particularly to a frustrated land owner, cannot be justified by targeting a specific sector of the general public to punish that group for a law violation more than any other member of the public that is not part of the hunting and fishing community.

Even in testimony given in support of the law, a landowner states that he believes the majority of sign destruction comes from “hunters” shooting up his signs, but also admits destruction of his property, other than just signs, is being carried out by many different individuals and groups of individuals. Is it then constitutional to increase punishment on one group over others? I think not!

I’m not a lawyer but you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that this law is not right. I am surprised that the Maine Legislature, the Governor, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and others supported this law and could not see that it violates the constitutional rights of licensed hunters and licensed fishermen.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for a dismissal of lawful punishment for the willful act of property destruction, protected by Maine law. However, in order to be justified in taking away the licences of hunters and fishermen for one year, then one must ask what is the punishment for the same kind of destruction that might be carried out by a snowmobiler, an ATVer, a hiker, a berry picker, etc.?

I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case a hunter or fisherman, is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.

As a society we have been programmed to believe that the more draconian our laws are the more of a deterrent it is to prevent the crime in the first place. Whether that is true or not, I do not have the data to show one way or another. All drivers of automobiles that violate the law by speeding, are subject to the same set of laws and punishments. Would it be considered the right thing if hunters and fishermen were targeted for greater punishment because somebody believes them to speed more than other groups or individuals? This is what this new law allows.

This bill needs to be repealed and a different, constitutional approach taken in order to protect the rights of all people to ensure equal protection under the law, due process and to stop the obvious discrimination this law allows.



Coca-Cola’s Human Rights Hypocrisy

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Coca-Cola’s Human Rights Hypocrisy: Why Does Soda Leader Criticize American Religious Freedom Laws While Doing Business in Nations Lacking Basic Civil Liberties?

All Coca-Cola Investors Urged to Vote for Free Enterprise Project’s Shareholder Proposal That Calls out Coke’s Human Rights Duplicity

Soft Drink Leader’s Allegiance with Fringe Anti-Religious Group Called into Question

Atlanta, GA / Washington, DC –  The National Center for Public Policy Research, the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activis, is calling on all Coca-Cola investors to approve its shareholder resolution that exposes Coca-Cola’s hypocritical treatment of civil liberties.  The proposal, submitted by the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP), questions why the soft drink giant opposes religious liberty in the United States on alleged civil rights pretenses while simultaneously maintaining operations in numerous nations lacking those same rights.

Coca-Cola’s shareholder meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at the World of Coca-Cola in Atlanta, Georgia. This will be the sixth time a National Center representative has attended a Coca-Cola shareholder meeting, and the sixth corporate shareholder meeting that the FEP has participated in so far in 2017.

“Coca-Cola’s attacks on Americans of faith have gone under the radar for far too long,” said National Center Vice President David W. Almasi, who is set to represent the FEP at the meeting and has participated in past Coca-Cola shareholder meetings.  “Coca-Cola operates in countries where governments consider homosexuality a crime.  Yet they allied with a radical pressure group, Georgia Prospers, to stop the Peach State’s religious freedom bill they falsely claimed persecuted homosexuals.  It’s inconsistent, and their error in judgement here is compounded by apparent silence abroad. We are simply asking Coca-Cola to justify their actions.” 

The National Center’s proposal “requests the board of directors review the company’s guidelines for selecting countries/regions for its operations and issue a report. . .  [to] identify Coca-Cola’s criteria for investing in, operating in and withdrawing from high-risk regions.” It is the only proposal for consideration by shareholders not being offered by Coca-Cola itself.

The full text of the National Center’s proposal, and Coca-Cola’s response to it, are available on page 81 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for downloadhere.  The text of its prepared statement in favor of the proposal can be found here.  Comments from the FEP after the meeting will be also be available on the site herewithin hours of the conclusion of the meeting.

The National Center’s FEP brought similar shareholder proposals before shareholders atApple, Eli Lilly, General Electric and Wal-Mart in 2016.  It also raised religious freedom issues with executives of Home Depot, Nike, PepsiCo and Red Hat. This is also not the first time the FEP promoted a shareholder proposal at a Coca-Cola meeting.  In 2016, the FEP asked Coca-Cola shareholders to consider a proposal for the company to issue a congruency analysis to point out and justify potentially questionable affiliations and contributions on the part of the company.  The FEP has been attending Coca-Cola shareholder meetings since 2012.

“By opposing Georgia’s religious freedom legislation, Coca-Cola opposed the kind of protections inherent in our nation’s founding principles and later advocated by the likes of Ted Kennedy.  Yet the company does business in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and other places where homosexuality is discriminated against to the extent it is punishable by death,” added Almasi.  “This disconnect in policy cannot be overlooked.  The Free Enterprise Project, as an advocate for the company’s shareholders, is asking company executives to justify their decisions.”

 “If Coca-Cola wants to go after religious Americans, it’s no longer going to do so with impunity,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq.  “Either the company is opposed to religious freedom everywhere or it only opposes religious freedom here in the United States as a means to score political points with the anti-religious left. If the company were to honestly answer our proposal, all Coca-Cola investors would know if the company was truly anti-religious or simply hypocritical for political reasons.  Those are the only two potential explanations for the company’s actions.”

Launched in 2007, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group – focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in nearly 100 shareholder meetings to advance free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. The Coca-Cola meeting marks FEP’s sixth shareholder meeting attended so far in 2017.   On April 26, while Almasi is at the Coca-Cola meeting, Danhof will be participating in General Electric’s shareholder meeting.

The National Centers Free Enterprise Project activism has yielded a tremendous return on investment:
  • FEPs highly-publicized questioning of support for the Clinton Foundation by Boeing and General Electric helped trigger an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundations activities that dominated the 2016 presidential campaign.  
  • FEP inquiries prompted Facebook to address political bias against conservatives in social media.
  •  Company executives acknowledged media bias at ABC News (Disney), the Washington Post and CNN (Time Warner) in response to FEPs challenges, which helped to bring about more objective reporting and more balanced political representation.
  • FEPs Employee Conscience Protection Project strengthened protections for the political beliefs and activities of over five million workers at 13 major U.S. corporations.
So far in 2017, the FEP has been featured in media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, Drudge Report, Business Insider, CNET, National Public Radio, American Family Radio and SiriusXM. In 2016, the FEP was also featured in the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribuneamong many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassels 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

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.  Sign up for email updates here.  Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at@NCPPRMedia.


Eli Lilly Shareholders to Management: Religious Liberty Matters

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
Religious Liberty Matters

Shareholder Resolution Urges Pharmaceutical Giant to Be Respectful of ALL Groups, Including Religious Americans and Those Who Respect the First Amendment

Company Questioned at Shareholder Meeting for Doing Business Where Homosexuality is Illegal While Posing as An Ally with Gay, Lesbian and Gender Identity Activist Groups in the United States


Indianapolis, IN / Washington, D.C.  – At today’s annual meeting of Eli Lilly shareholders in Indianapolis, Indiana, the National Center for Public Policy Research presented a liberty-based shareholder resolution in response to the company’s activism against state-level religious freedom laws.

“Eli Lilly is acting with extreme duplicity. The pharmaceutical giant has joined with the leftist mob that falsely claims that religious freedom laws are avenues for discrimination of homosexuals. Yet, while it bemoans state religious freedom laws here in America, it has done business with nations that actively discriminate against homosexuals, women and just about every conceivable minority group,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Today, our shareholder proposal called out the company’s hypocrisy.”

Speaking on behalf of the National Center’s proposal, Danhof stated, in part:

Corporations and the mainstream media have expressed concern that religious freedom laws will lead to discrimination, in part, against homosexuals. There is zero evidence for this concern. These laws only require the government to avoid interfering with religious freedom if it can do so while still achieving important government goals – one of which, in every state of the union, is outlawing discrimination. The company’s spokesman stated: “One of our long-held values is respect for people, and that value factors strongly into our position. We want all our current and future employees to feel welcome where they live.”

Our proposal takes Lilly up on this. Eli Lilly has operated in many nations where homosexuality is outlawed. In some of those countries, homosexual acts are punishable by death. Women have almost no rights in some of these places. And try getting a fair trial in many of these nations.

The full text of Danhof’s remarks at the Eli Lilly meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

“As the national debate over religious freedom laws began last year in Indiana – and Lilly is one of the biggest companies in the Hoosier State – it deserves a fair share of the blame for the anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping the nation,” added Danhof. “When Georgia recently tried to pass a similar law, that state’s governor made the spineless decision to veto it after many corporations including Coca-Cola and the National Football League complained.”

“I find it very curious that many leftist politicians, organizations and commentators in the media have spent the better part of the past six years bemoaning corporate involvement in political activity. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC (which simply affirmed that corporations and unions have First Amendment free speech rights), to hear liberal talking heads tell it, the world would stop spinning due to corporate involvement in political activities. But when corporations such as Eli Lilly and Coca-Cola use their bully pulpits to spew invectives regarding religious freedom laws, the left cheers corporate involvement in the political process,” said Danhof. “This is the hallmark of a movement that lacks basic principles.”

“Liberal shareholder activists have filed hundreds of shareholder resolutions over the past few years and spent untold sums to denounce corporate involvement in any political or policy activity that might be considered conservative,” said Danhof. “But they have no problem with corporations using their power to advance far-left agendas.”

“Eli Lilly is violating a basic principle of business,” added Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Don’t disrespect your customers, lest they disrespect you in return. Eli Lilly might claim its activism on lesbian and gay rights and gender identity issues was done to be inclusive, but the path Eli Lilly chose unnecessarily excluded others. The religious protections Eli Lilly opposed have been around for years. Everyone’s rights and freedoms could have been respected.”

“Eli Lilly does business in places where people have no basic civil rights,” Ridenour continued, “including the right to practice the religion of their choice. In that light, I suppose it is not odd that the company is standing against the continuation of long-held religious protection laws here in America. It appears likely that religious freedom is not its thing. Standing up for it certainly isn’t.”

The National Center’s complete shareholder resolution, and Eli Lilly’s response to it, can be found on pages 56 and 57 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.

Eli Lilly petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking to block the National Center’s proposal. However, the National Center’s legal team, also led by Danhof, prevailed in convincing the SEC that its proposal was so significant that the company’s shareholders should have a say on the matter.

The entire legal exchange between Eli Lilly and the National Center, along with the SEC’s decision, can be downloaded here.

After Danhof presented a similar proposal ton General Electric’s investors last week, he also made these observations about the current state of the national debate over religious freedom laws:

“Religious freedom laws in the United States, whether federal or state, simply set a high bar for government action that might interfere with an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs. To pass such an infringing law, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and if the government can reach that compelling interest by other means, the courts will direct it to use those other means. That’s all these laws do. The public debate over these laws are often void of these very basic facts.”

“Furthermore, the left’s newest attack on religious liberty has all the trappings of a fundraising ploy. Many liberal organizations spent years raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the fight to legalize gay marriage. Perhaps winning that battle too quickly left a hole in the movement and the pockets of pro-gay marriage leaders. In that light, it is easy to understand why they concocted this fake outrage over basic religious freedom that has been a non-controversial issue in American jurisprudence for hundreds of years and a matter of state and federal law since the early 1990s.”

Earlier this year, Danhof presented a similar proposal to Apple. For more information about those meetings and shareholder resolutions, see here, here and here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Eli Lilly meeting marks its seventh shareholder meeting of 2016.

 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. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.


Right and Discrimination



It Does Matter Who is Doing The Hating





It Matters What You Look Like



Can’t Touch That


Black Activists Challenge Bias Against White Firemen in Court

“Racially Motivated” Hiring Hurting White Firemen Challenged by Black Activists in Court

Project 21 Black Leadership Network Joins Pacific Legal Foundation, Others in Charging the City of Buffalo, New York “Allowed the Fire Department’s Promotional Lists to Expire, Because the Next Applicants in Line for Promotion Were all Caucasian”

Washington, DC – Black activists and legal experts with the Project 21 leadership network are supporting white firefighters in court against a city’s “racially motivated” decision that deprived the white firefighters of promotions they earned.

“It is axiomatic that city government can’t cancel promotions because they don’t like the race of the applicants – black or white. In 2014, one would think people wouldn’t have to go to court over such a decision,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and a former leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the case of Margerum v. City of Buffalo, argued earlier this week before the Court of Appeals for the State of New York, Project 21 joined an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) legal brief filed with the court that was written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, Individual Rights Foundation, Reason Foundation and Cato Institute. The brief charged city officials in Buffalo, New York “allowed the fire department’s promotional lists to expire, because the next applicants in line for promotion were all Caucasian and the City sought to avoid disparate impact litigation.”

“Every applicant in Buffalo – and everywhere else, for that matter – should expect hiring or promotion decisions will be made on the merits and not be offered or withheld based on their skin color,” added Project 21’s Cooper. “Moreover, it should be plainly known that we don’t solve the problem of racial discrimination by discriminating on the basis of race.”

Project 21’s legal brief “examines the conflict between disparate impact theory and the Equal Protection Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] in cases such as this one, where government discriminates against people of one race, in order to avoid an adverse impact on people of another race.” In this case, in which white firefighters were deprived of career advancement, it is noted that “the City decided to allow the Fire Department’s promotional eligibility lists to expire. The City’s decision was racially motivated: the next applicants in line for promotions were Caucasians, and the City feared a disparate impact challenge from the black firefighters had the Caucasian firefighters been promoted.”

In 2002, action on civil service exam results was suspended because the 13 Buffalo firefighters listed as eligible for promotion were all white. After several years of intentional delay, the list was allowed to expire in 2005 and the promotions were not awarded because the city’s commissioner of human resources deemed the test results were “suspect.” A lawsuit was filed by the firefighters in 2007 against the city, the fire department and the commissioner.

The firefighters have won their case in the lower courts, but the city has repeatedly appealed the case. The Court of Appeals is New York’s highest court.

A similar case involving white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, Ricci v. DeStefano, was decided in favor of the plaintiffs in 2009. The Project 21 legal brief draws upon the lessons of that case, noting that it “demonstrates how the specter of disparate impact litigation leads government employers to engage in unconstitutional race-conscious decision making in an attempt to avoid liability for such claims.” The brief added:

The City would not have let the list expire had the next eligible candidates on the list been African-American firefighters. Thus, the City made the decision to treat candidates differently because of race and fear of disparate impact litigation. Neither reason justifies the resulting intentional discrimination against those firefighters who excelled on the promotional examination.

“In the Ricci case, the U.S. Supreme Court showed how when government tries to remedy a perceived racial disparity that it can actually violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon , a former senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “Two wrongs don’t make things right, and the Buffalo firemen in the Margerum case now have consistently proven in the lower courts that city officials denied them the promotions they deserved because they were all white. A merit-based promotion must not be sidelined because it is not a diverse promotion list, especially when it involves deserving first-responders like it does in this situation. These men put their lives on the line for us, and they should not find their careers or earning potential compromised by a bean-counting politician.”

A copy of the Pacific Legal Foundation-filed brief in the case of Margerum v. City of Buffalo on which Project 21 is a co-amici can be downloaded at http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/margerum-ny-ct-app.pdf

Project 21 involves itself in significant legal cases at the federal and state levels. It participated, for instance, in the cases of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and Shelby County v. Holder in particular over the past two terms of the U.S. Supreme Court as well as Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. during the Court’s current term. Over the years, Project 21 has been involved in over a dozen legal briefs. Project 21 legal experts and other members have discussed these cases in hundreds of media interviews and citations.

In 2014, Project 21 members were interviewed or cited by the media over 2,000 times, including on TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, the Orlando Sentinel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WHO-Des Moines, KOA-Denver, WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh, on topics including civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, voter ID, race preferences, education, illegal immigration and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 members also provided substantial commentary regarding the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner judicial proceedings. Project 21 has also 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 (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

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


Obama’s Immigration Policies are Biased Against Immigrants from Africa

A Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Obama’s Immigration Policies, if Adopted, Would Prejudice U.S. Immigration Policy Against Immigrants from Africa

Obama’s Threatened Executive Actions Would Legalize Millions from Central America and Mexico While His Legislative Agenda Would Cut African Immigration by a Quarter

Washington, DC – Expected executive action by President Barack Obama to block illegal aliens from deportation would create a de facto preference in immigration law favoring immigrants from the Americas and create a relative prejudice within U.S. immigration policy against would-be immigrants from elsewhere, including Africa, say members of the Project 21 black leadership network.

The tens of thousands of Africans who are granted legal immigration status in the U.S. every year are but a tiny percentage of the millions of Latin Americans who would be granted legal status by President Obama if his rumored executive amnesty takes place.

The disparity between permitted African and Hispanic immigrants threatens to grow even wider if S. 744, the Senate immigration bill President Obama vigorously supports, is enacted, as its passage could cut already-meager legal immigration from African nations by one-quarter even as millions of Hispanic illegal immigrants are legalized.

The Senate immigration bill eliminates the diversity visa program, which provides immigration opportunities for people from nations with low immigration rates. Enacted in 1990, it historically has benefited would-be immigrants from Africa. In 2012, 50 percent of the people offered visas through this program were from African nations compared to 2 percent from South and Central America and the Caribbean. In 2010, 24 percent of all immigrants from Africa granted permanent residence in the U.S. achieved that status through the diversity visa program the Obama-supported immigration bill would eradicate.

Legal immigration numbers vary among countries and continents and are regulated by the U.S. government. The rumored executive action by the President would dramatically alter the distribution to favor immigrants from the Americas and disadvantage people from Africa, Europe, Asia and Oceania, Project 21 members say.

Project 21 members also note that African immigrants have a record of seeking to become U.S. residents and/or citizens in a lawful manner and do not deserve to have their legal quotas sharply cut both in numerical and relative terms while Central American and Mexican illegal immigrants are rewarded.

Facts and Figures

• Approximately 41 million Americans are immigrants. Immigrants from Africa make up nearly 4 percent while about 36 percent are from Mexico and Central America (8 percent from Central America and 28 percent from Mexico). 15 percent of the world population lives in Africa while 3.6 percent lives in Mexico and Central America combined (2 percent in Central America and 1.6 percent in Mexico). So America has 9 times as many immigrants from Central America and Mexico compared to all of Africa, even though more than four times as many people live in Africa as in Central America and Mexico combined.

• Based on 2008 turnout data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic naturalized citizens turn out to vote at a higher rate than U.S.-born Hispanic citizens. In 2008, naturalized Hispanic citizens were more likely to vote than U.S.-born Hispanics by 6 percentage points (54 percent to 48 percent). This differs from the pattern seen among non-Hispanic naturalized citizens, who typically are less likely to turn out to vote than U.S.-born citizens. Hispanics generally have a low voting turnout rate (in 2012, it was 48 percent, compared to 66.2 percent for blacks and 64.1 percent for whites ), prompting candidates who expect to win the Hispanic vote to devote considerable resources to encouraging Hispanic turnout.

• The number of Hispanic voters has grown considerably in both numbers and influence, and Hispanic voters tend to favor Democrats. 1.4 million more Hispanics voted in the 2012 presidential election than in 2008, and 3 million more Hispanic voters voted in 2008 compared to 2004. In 2012, Hispanics voted 71 percent for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate and 27 percent for the Republican Party’s. In 2008, Democrats won this vote 67-31 percent. Should President Obama “legalize” millions of Hispanic illegal immigrants by executive action, the Democratic Party is expected to benefit considerably when many of these newly-legal residents inevitably become naturalized. Under current law, prospective citizens may qualify for naturalization if they are at least 18 years old and have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years (or 3 years if married to a U.S. citizen) and meet all other eligibility requirements.

• African immigrants tend to vote Democrat, but their vote as a group is less valuable to the Democratic Party than that of Latin American immigrants. This is a) because the number of African immigrants is dramatically smaller and b) because African immigrants have tended not to settle in swing states. The Washington Post reported in 2008 that about 40 percent live in the New York City area and 10 percent in the District of Columbia. About half of all the relatively few African immigrants in the United States live in California, New York, Texas, Maryland, DC or Virginia, of which only the last is presently regarded as a swing state.

• An annual global limit of 675,000 exists on the number of visas issued by the U.S. Department of State, with some exceptions allowed for immediate family members. Specifically, there are 480,000 visas available for family and 140,000 for employment. In keeping with the Immigration and Nationality Act, the State Department’s visa office manages visa allotments per-country on a monthly basis and has strict cut-offs, based on dates in which applications are filed, that determine who may be initially eligible to apply.

• In 2012, according to the U.S. Department of State, 42,167 immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa were granted immigration visas and, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 74,775 immigrants from all African countries became naturalized citizens. Throughout the Obama Administration, the number of visas granted to people from sub-Saharan African nations has ranged between 38,000 and just over 47,000 annually, while annual naturalizations ranged from around 64,000 to 75,000.

• According to the Migration Policy Institute, adult immigrants born in Africa were more likely than native-born Americans to have bachelor’s degrees or higher. The Immigration Policy Center reports that “two-fifths of African immigrants have at least a bachelor’s degree, and more than one-third work in professional jobs.”

• African immigrants are more likely to participate in the civilian labor force than other immigrants of the same gender and also are more likely to participate in the civilian labor force than are native-born Americans. Specifically, African-born immigrant males over 16 had an 83.7 percent labor force participation rate compared to 80.0 percent for all foreign-born men and 69.1 percent for native-born men. African-born women had a higher labor force participation rate, 67.2 percent, than all foreign-born women at 57.4 percent and native-born women at 60.2 percent.

• Only 29.1 percent of immigrants from Africa had limited English proficiency, compared to 52 percent of immigrants overall.

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics estimated there were 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the United States as of January 2012. Exact numbers of arriving illegal immigrants per year is impossible to determine, but 409,849 people were deported in fiscal year 2012 and 368,644 in fiscal year 2013.

• To obtain a legal visa for work or residency, an applicant must be sponsored by family, a lawful resident or employer and pay an application processing fee. They must also undergo a rigorous screening process that includes proving their financial stability, good health, good moral character and lack of a criminal record that would cause concern and submit to an interview with U.S. officials and a fingerprint scan. An attorney is not required, but some applicants do seek legal assistance and that practice is not discouraged by the State Department.

• There is a high demand for work visas. The H1-B visa program that allows for temporary work permits allowing businesses “to employ workers in occupations that require highly specialized knowledge in fields such as science, engineering and computer programming” reached its 85,000-applicant limit for fiscal year 2015 in April 2014.

• Some who obtained temporary visas later added to the illegal immigration problem. An estimated 40 percent of all illegal immigrants are people who illegally overstayed otherwise legal visas, according to Sara Murray of the Wall Street Journal, who also reported last year, “Of the people who gained legal status in 2003 and also spent time in the U.S. illegally, 13% overstayed tourist visas by more than six years.” Murray also reported, “…over the past decade the number of new arrivals overstaying their visas has fallen sharply, likely due in large part to stringent security measures put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

What Project 21 Members Say About Potential Amnesty and its Effect on Legal Immigration

“As a former staffer for a member of Congress who worked with constituents to resolve their immigration problems, I can say with first-hand experience that those following our immigration laws are experiencing longer wait times as a result of all the attention and resources devoted to helping those who purposely circumvented our laws. Legal immigrants are forced to wait while those entering illegally are, for instance, enrolling in our public schools. It appears our immigration policy now is ‘break the law and we will break our backs to help you. Do it the right way and we punish you for it.'” — Project 21 member Shelby Emmett, Esq., a former congressional staff member and radio talk show host

“If the Obama Administration grants any type of amnesty that allows the illegal immigrants invading our country to stay, the President will basically be spitting in the face of every foreign-born naturalized American citizen who went through the proper legal path to citizenship. One such foreign-born naturalized citizen is my wife, who came from Africa. Like millions of other law-abiding foreign nationals, she waited in line and played by the rules when applying for her green card and ultimately becoming naturalized. How utterly disrespectful it would be to her and others — especially those from far-away lands — if President Obama simply gives the millions of illegals currently in our country a pass because they were able to slip across our border.” — Project 21 member and social commentator Darryn “Dutch” Martin

“It’s a travesty that there are Africans, Asians and others who would like to come to our nation and are willing to follow the rules who may lose out on their dream because someone else did not play fair, yet is essentially being rewarded by Obama for breaking the law. What this president can do to help the black community, and Americans of all colors, is get out of the way and stop this executive amnesty talk. Stop the job-killing policies he has set up through the EPA and ObamaCare to destroy workers, the middle class, and small business. Cut the social engineering of allowing this influx of illegals to flood the country in order to force amnesty. These would be good first steps.” — Project 21 member Wayne Dupree, talk show host on WAAR and Internet radio pioneer

What Others are Saying About Illegal Immigration’s Impact on Legal Immigration

• In 2012, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service shifted attention from regular visa processing to deal with illegal immigrants due to President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) executive memorandum that halted deportation enforcement for certain young illegals. It reportedly delayed 500,000 legal applications in the process. Mark Kirkorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote: “That’s half a million husbands, wives, and children of U.S. citizens — people whose expeditious immigration even I support, wholeheartedly — [who] have seen their wait times triple because the administration dumped an illegal amnesty program in the lap of an overwhelmed bureaucracy at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, with no additional resources to handle the workload. That means USCIS had to pull people off the processing of legal immigration applications to handle the amnesty applications of illegal aliens, leading to the increased wait times… [H]alf a million illegal aliens have received amnesty, forcing half a million husbands, wives and minor children of American citizens to go to the back of the line.”

• In an analysis of “administrative amnesty,” such as Obama’s 2012 DACA memorandum, Heritage Foundation Vice President Derrick Morgan and Homeland Security Research Associate David Inserra wrote: “Such presidential nullification of established immigration law is unjust to those who decided not to come to the United States because they would be doing so without authorization. Millions of people would fit into this category in Mexico alone. Granting amnesty for another class of people who violated our laws treats those who respect our laws with contempt. It is also unjust to the millions of Americans and resident legal immigrants who followed the rules. Many had to follow our sometimes lengthy process as relatives or spouses of those here legally. Others simply wanted to come to study or work in the United States and followed the rules to do so legally. Granting blanket amnesty to those who neglected to follow our law is a slap in the face to those who are following the rules.”

• Criticizing pending legislation in 2012 that would grant amnesty to illegal aliens, U.S. Representative Lamar Smith said: “President Obama’s amnesty blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy and violates his oath to uphold the laws of the land. Congress has the constitutional authority to determine our nation’s immigration laws… Executive branch discretionary authority is meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis, not to entire categories of illegal immigrants.”

• “There is nothing ‘anti-Hispanic’ about wanting to treat fairly the millions of Hispanics and other foreigners who have immigrated to this great country legally or are waiting in line to come here legally. On the contrary, those who equate lawlessness with being somehow pro-Hispanic or those who would punish law-abiding Hispanics waiting in line for the American Dream are far closer to being the racists.” — Charles Hurt, Washington Times columnist

* * *

So far this year, members of the Project 21 black leadership network have been interviewed or cited over 100 times by the media on the issue of immigration. Project 21 members were also interviewed or cited by the media over 1,000 other times this year, including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit and KDKA-Pittsburgh, on issues including civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. 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.