Sunday, May 1, 2011

The NYT is still obsessing about an elderly and retired Greenie

Latest rant below, again from Jason DeParle. Most Greenies don't like anyone very much and that appears to have been true of Tanton. Most immigration critics are conservatives, however, so their thinking is from an entirely different perspective. The NYT attempt at "guilt by association" is thus both childish and very selective in its attention to the facts. I wonder when we are going to hear from the NYT about divisions in the Sierra club over immigration?

On this much, both sides agree: John Tanton, the provocative architect of a national movement to reduce immigration, has quietly left the board of the group he started and helped guide for 32 years. But when did it happen and what does it mean?

Dr. Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist, has been a magnet for criticism since the 1980s, for writings that appear to disparage minorities and for accepting money from a foundation that promoted theories of white superiority. Hoping to discredit his broader movement, immigrant groups intensified their attacks in recent years, in what Dr. Tanton’s friends call a campaign of vilification.

Yet the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, or FAIR, the influential group he started in 1979, kept him on the board of directors. Two years ago, Dan Stein, the group’s president, hailed him as a “renaissance man.”

On April 17, The New York Times published an article examining Dr. Tanton’s racial views. Soon after, his name disappeared from the list of board members on the FAIR Web site.

Critics crowed. “FAIR needed to finally distance itself from someone who had brought such a bad reputation to the organization,” said Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a long-time nemesis.

But the story may be more subtle — and revealing about immigration politics. Inside the movement, Dr. Tanton has been a giant, helping to start all three major national groups that seek to reduce immigration, legal and illegal. The others are the Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA.

An environmentalist and an advocate of population control, Dr. Tanton started with vows to build bridges with the left. But he attracted more support on the populist right, with warnings about the “Latin onslaught” and assertions that American society needs “a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”

Now 77 and with Parkinson’s disease, he has been withdrawing from public life.

In a brief telephone interview, Mr. Stein said Dr. Tanton left the board two months before the Times article. He forwarded an e-mail from Feb. 3, in which Dr. Tanton told the board that his term was expiring and he would not seek re-election.

Yet the FAIR Web site continued to list him on the board. In an interview on March 9, Mr. Stein simply described Dr. Tanton as “relatively inactive.” After the Times article appeared, FAIR issued a long statement, but did not say Dr. Tanton had severed his ties.

The next day, Julie Kirchner, FAIR’s director, canceled a scheduled talk to a class at Princeton, saying she did not want to discuss Dr. Tanton. But she, too, did not say he had left the board, nor did Dr. Tanton himself, in a letter to The Times. Then suddenly he vanished from the roster on the Web.

Why the delicate choreography? One theory is that neither FAIR nor Dr. Tanton wanted to appear that they were reacting to what they regard as unfair attacks by unscrupulous enemies.

“I had heard for months that John was leaving the board,” said one friend, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid entering the dispute over Dr. Tanton’s views. “I really think it’s purely his health. He’s been such a target forever, it wouldn’t be the attacks.”

Mr. Stein said he had not called attention to Dr. Tanton’s departure because he did not find it newsworthy. “I would certainly object strenuously if you characterized this somehow as a byproduct of external pressures,” he said.

Told that Dr. Tanton had resigned in February, Ms. Beirich said she found it “mystifying” that FAIR had not announced it. “Perhaps they didn’t want to draw any more attention to him and his views,” she said.


Unrest over excessive immigration in Singapore

Singapore's ruling People's Action Party started out on the far Left but is now one of the most pro-market parties in the world. It still retains the Leftist penchant for extensive meddling in people's lives however. So the SDP opposition is a bit of a hybrid too -- pro-market but "caring"

The PAP regime’s ultra-liberal and pro-foreigner immigration policies came under attack by SDP candidates during its rally at Woodlands stadium tonight:

Speaking to a packed crowd, SDP candidates questioned the way the PAP regime has handled the immigration issue and if Singaporeans will soon end up as second class citizens in their own country.

The first speaker Mr Alec Tok asked PAP Chairman Lim Boon Heng why the majority of jobs created by the two IRs goes to foreigners: “65,000 jobs were supposed to have been created by Mr Lim Boon Heng’s acquiescence to the casino. Jobs that were meant for us. If you go casino right now…. More than 60 per cent of the jobs have gone to foreigners. Why?” said Mr Tok.

35 year old Michelle Lee, who graduated from the prestigious London School of Economics asked: “We must ask why so many and why so quickly? Singapore is becoming a place where Singaporeans are strangers in our own land. In 1990, 20 years ago, foreigners made up 14 per cent of the people in Singapore. In just 20 years, according to the latest United Nations report, foreigners now make up 40.7 per cent of Singapore’s population, almost 41 per cent as of mid 2010. A UN report said this is far higher than any developed country in the world.”

SDP’s Assistant Secretary-General John Tan, who will be contesting in Sembawang GRC noted that the uncontrolled inflow of foreigners is one of the key issues on the minds of voters and asked Singaporeans to tell the PAP that ‘enough is enough’ at the polling booth on 7 May.

He added that it was Singaporeans who built the nation and not foreigners, blaming the PAP for opening the floodgates to immigrants. “There is only one thing you can do if you do not want to end up as second class citizens in your own country,” he roared to thunderous applause from the crowd.

Despite the widespread unhappiness among Singaporeans at the PAP’s immigration policies, PAP leaders continue to insist that they are ‘essential’ for Singapore’s economic growth and that more will be coming.

In a speech made at a community event last week, PAP de facto leader Lee Kuan Yew proclaimed: “Please remember: We still need 900,000 foreign workers on work permits.”

The figure does not include foreigners on S and E passes. Neither did Lee bother to explain how he arrive at the figure. He need not do so as the PAP has an absolute majority in parliament. He just need to open his mouth and ‘BOOMZ’, 900,000 foreigners will arrive and become your neighbors overnight.

The coming general election on 7 May is the last window of opportunity for native Singaporeans to reclaim ownership of their nation after which their voices and votes will surely be diluted by the immigrants the PAP is mass-importing to replace them.

With the two opposition MPs contesting in GRCs, there is a good chance that Singaporeans may end up having NO elected opposition MP in parliament to speak up for them.


No comments:

Post a Comment