……Reports in Review……
Other Reports in Review
Prejudice Against Muslims Runs High
The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2007: Presumption of Guilt
By Arsalan Iftikhar, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Washington, D.C., 2007. http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/2007-Civil-Rights-Report.pdf
The 2007 Civil Rights Report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reveals some troubling data. The War on Terror has unsurprisingly contributed to escalating levels of intolerance towards Muslims. An August 2006 USA Today poll showed that nearly two in five Americans admitted to holding prejudicial views, and at least 20% said they would not want American Muslims as neighbors.
In each of the past three years, Muslim civil rights complaints to CAIR have grown, with a 25 percent increase between 2005 and 2006 to a total of 2467 cases. While it is unclear whether this is due to an increase in violations or better outreach and awareness, the figures are still sobering. Hate crimes comprise less than 10% of the complaints. Fully one-third of the complaints related to an encounter with the government, primarily on legal and immigration issues.
CAIR recommends "prejudice reduction" techniques such as creating opportunities for interaction with ordinary American Muslims, but its most wide-ranging recommendation is to decrease Islamophobia, a by-product of international events, by enacting domestic and foreign policies that respect the human dignity of all people.
Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters
By Teresa James, Project Vote, Washington, D.C., September 2007
In the name of combating voter fraud, the Republican Party has successfully purged the voting rolls of minority voters it presumes will pull a lever for a Democrat. Some of its techniques date back to Reconstruction efforts to purge new black voters from the rolls, but the RNC first used "caging" during 1964 campaigns in key cities.
A "caging list" is created by sending mail that cannot be forwarded to registered voters; its return is a signal that the party can challenge the voter's eligibility. In 2004, the RNC used the technique with a vengeance after using it in a few states in the 1980s and early 1990s. The Republicans targeted more than half a million voters in 2004, challenging the eligibility of 77,000 voters from 2004 to 2006. Party workers stand at the polls and directly challenge the right of someone to vote, creating chaos.
Republicans prepared for this effort by lobbying key swing states to make it easier for private individuals to issue a challenge - in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Minnesota specifically outlawed the practice, and Washington and Minnesota made it harder for private individuals to challenge a voter's eligibility. Monica Goodling, the Justice Department White House liaison, told Congress that a former interim U.S. Attorney in Arkansas was involved in caging operations in that state.
Democrats vigorously fight caging in the courts as a form of voter intimidation, and the RNC - though not state parties - are banned from the practice under a consent decree in a New Jersey case. Voters in Ohio unsuccessfully tried to get the courts to enforce the decree in 2004 since the national party was involved in caging there. In the future, the author suggests, partisan challengers at polls should be banned, replaced by "observers" from each party. Any partisan challenges should include evidence, not just based on forwarded mail, and be made 30 days before the election.
Populism or Nativism?
Nativism in the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus
Building Democracy Initiative, Center for New Community, Washington, DC, September 2007
Despite its title, this report regrettably doesn't spend much time establishing the nativism of the members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus. It begins by quoting its founder, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, "…if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all." We learn generally that caucus members oppose amnesty, want to beef up border enforcement, reduce the number of legal immigrants, and supported HR 4437, promoted by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, which would have criminalized those helping an undocumented immigrant, and turned the undocumented into felons.
The report's value, instead, is in offering voting report cards on the caucuses 102 Republican and eight Democratic members, and tracking who is funding their campaigns. More than half of its members come from the south; most of their districts had small percentages of Latino residents, and were on average 30% rural and 25% blue collar. Despite their often populist arguments to cut immigration to save jobs, the researchers determined that caucus members have dismal voting records on labor rights. Most of their campaign funding comes from free trade supporters and other typical Republican donors, with small amounts coming from five political action committees linked to such groups as the Minuteman and Federation for American Immigration Reform.
PRA is an affiliate of:
Unless otherwise noted, all material on this website is copyright 1981-2013 by Political Research Associates
Political Research Associates • 1310 Broadway, Suite 201 • Somerville, MA 02144
Voice: 617.666.5300 • Fax: 617.666.6622 • firstname.lastname@example.org