200704 American Renaissance

8/7/2019 200704 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/200704-american-renaissance 1/16American Renaissance - 1 - April 2007

Continued on page 3

There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.— Thomas Jefferson

Vol. 18 No. 4 April 2007

Hispanic Consciousness, Part I

American Renaissance

Hispanics are loyal to raceand homeland, not America.

by Jared Taylor

T raditionally, whenAmericans thoughtof race, they thought

of the often painful historyof relations between blacksand whites. This view is outof date; the United Statesnow has several racial faultlines rather than just one.The scarcely-noticed hand-ful of Hispanics present inthe 1950s has become thelargest racial minority in thecountry.

Like blacks, many His- panics have identities—ra-cial, ethnic, or national—

that prevent full or even pri-mary identification as Ame-ricans. Immigrants fromMexico, who account for two thirds of all Hispanics, are especiallyambivalent and often even hostile to-wards the United States. It is part of their national culture to see the United Statesas an imperialist power that humiliatedand dismembered Mexico after theMexican-American War of 1846 to1848. Many openly preach reconquistaor reconquest—at least culturally, and

perhaps even politically—of those re-

gions of the American Southwest thatwere once Mexican.There are already parts of the United

States in which people live in exclusivelySpanish-speaking environments, wherethey have no need to be part of the larger culture. If Hispanic immigration, bothlegal and illegal, continues at its current

pace, these areas will grow, and becomeincreasingly isolated and alien. At thesame time, through sheer force of num-

bers, Hispanics are imposing their lan-

guage, politics, and cultural preferenceson other Americans.

Blacks have been part of the UnitedStates for hundreds of years. Broughtinvoluntarily, they have a historic andmoral claim on America. Hispanics,

whose presence in large numbers is re-cent and unplanned, do not have thesame claims, but this has not preventedthem from making similar demands.They have been quick to assume themantle of victimhood, to attribute pov-

erty or social failure to racism, and totake advantage of preference programsoriginally established for descendants of slaves. Even Hispanics who have justarrived in this country do not hesitate toaccept advantages in the name of “di-versity” or “equal opportunity” that aredenied to whites.

Hispanics are therefore very muchlike blacks in their vivid sense of their own group interests, their tendency tosee the world in starkly racial/ethnicterms, and their reluctance to adopt the

broader American identity whites think necessary for integra-tion and assimilation.This racial/ethnic iden-tity is kept fresh by thecontinuous arrival of new immigrants. How-ever, even if immigra-tion were to stop tomor-row, there are nowenough Hispanics—es-

pecially Mexicans—tomaintain a particularist,

parochial identity in-definitely. In the spaceof just a few decadesour country has estab-lished a second group

of Americans withmany of the most dis-turbing characteristicsof blacks: racially dis-

tinct, with an inward-looking identity,suffering disproportionately from pov-erty, crime, illegitimacy and school fail-ure.

Who are the Hispanics?

In 2005, there were 42.7 million His- panics in the United States. They madeup 14.4 percent of a population that was

66.9 percent white, 12.3 percent black,4.2 percent Asian, 1.4 percent Pacific Is-lander, and 0.8 percent American Indian.

A large majority of Hispanics—66 percent—are of Mexican origin. No lessthan 20 percent of the population of Mexico now lives in the United States,and one out of every seven Mexicanworkers has migrated here. Many morewould like to come: According to a re-cent survey, almost half of all Mexicans

Hispanics are very muchlike blacks in their vivid

sense of their own groupinterests.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/200704-american-renaissance 2/16

American Renaissance - 2 - April 2007

Letters from ReadersSir — I was intrigued by Mr. Le-

grand’s article in the March issue aboutthe reaction to the inclusion of the mu-

latto girl in the National Front campaign posters. I think the “purists” are missingthe point. There is a deeper politicalstrategy involved in the poster, namely:

1. In politics, you have to campaignin the existing environment. You cannotcampaign in a make-believe world whereeveryone already shares your ideology.Thus, in an environment where being“racist” is a political disadvantage (andwhere the front has a reputation as a partyof grumpy old white guys) the NationalFront must find some way to blunt theopposition’s attack. If putting a mulattoin hip-huggers on a campaign poster helps achieve this objective—and, in the

process, helps the front win votes fromyounger voters who might not otherwisesupport a “racist” party—that is smart

politics.2. Nothing succeeds like success.

Politics is about power, and the viabil-ity of any candidate or party depends onwhether the public thinks the candidateor party has a realistic chance of win-ning. As things now stand in France, thefront cannot win power because its voteis limited by the “racist” label. Fighting

back against that label (as the mulatto poster girl seems intended to do) cancreate the impression that they are a se-rious threat. It’s “bandwagon” psychol-ogy, and will attract more voters.

Rodney, Blake, New Mexico

Sir — Thank you for Mr. Legrand’sanalysis of campaign policy within theFrench National Front. For those of uswho care about the survival of the West,

European politics are as vital to us asour own. It is extremely useful to knowwhat strategies our comrades are follow-ing, and AR is one of the few publica-tions that really cover that beat. Let’s

have more articles about Europe.Sarah Wentworth, Richmond, Va.

Sir — My name is Jackie Thornhill, Iam a 25-year-old woman from Halifax,

NS. As a supporter of racial diversity,and as someone who considers your views extremely disturbing, I am writ-ing to share my displeasure with your activities in Halifax. I support freespeach, and do not condone the protest-ors who prevented you from speaking,or threats to your personal safety. I alsodo not support the decision of DalhousieUniversity to cancel the debate.

What I can tell you, as someone whoattended Dr. Divine’s presentation, isthat it is grossly inaccurate and inappro-

priate to call Dr. Divine a coward as youdid. It is troubling that you would usesuch language to describe a man who hascommitted his entire career to helpingcommunities thrive, and to positioninghimself as an advocate for those who areless privileged than you. I questionwhether you have the capacity as a hu-man being to see beyond the white, privi-leged academic discourse that appearsto have little relevance in terms of how

people actually live their lives. Racialintegration does work in Halifax, and inCanada.

Are you saying that Canadian societywould be better off were we to resort tothe segregation of races? Does this meanthat you actually believe that persons of color ought to be treated as less valuedthan white folk? I think you need to re-examine your knowledge of Canadian

history and remember that Aboriginal persons were the first to inhabit this land,that white society has already evolvedfrom segregation because it is a primi-tive and extremely abhorrent way of life. I hope you remain in America, andstay out of Halifax. Our town does notneed your right-wing nonsense, and as

we embrace diversity, you can continueto spew hatred and misguided privilege.Mr. Taylor, you are a coward. You are

so afraid of your own white privilege youcan’t bring yourself to see that we areall human, whatever color we are, andthat the freedom of persons of color tohave the same rights as white people isthe foundation of Canadian society.

Jackie Thornhill, Halifax, Canada

Sir — What motivated the mob thatthrew Mr. Taylor out of the meeting

room? No doubt it was the militant ide-ology of diversity, so ruthlessly enforcedin Canada that no one dares dissent. Butalso, were the demonstrators not suffer-ing from the mental strain of believingsomething that is manifestly untrue?

In all the coverage of Mr. Taylor’svisit here, no one has ever listed thestrengths of diversity. Even the fanaticsmust have noticed this.

Name Withheld, Halifax, Canada

Sir — You are too kind in your March

review of the collection of Sam Francisessays published under the title, Shots

Fired . I was probably one of the first to buy a copy and was very disappointed by editor Peter Gemma’s choices. Heobviously went out of his way to avoidrace thus, in my view, betraying thememory of Sam Francis. There is noquestion that Dr. Francis was a brilliantman who wrote insightfully on manysubjects. However, there is also no ques-tion that the subject dearest to his heartwas white, Western civilization, and theagony of our dispossession.

At the same time, some of the essaysMr. Gemma included were relics fromthe archives that should have stayedthere. The longest chapter in the whole

book—42 pages—is a 20-year-old pam- phlet about churches giving “sanctuary”to illegal immigrants. We have wholecities now doing the same thing. Of thethousands of pages Dr. Francis wrote,there is better material than that—evenfor someone who wants to avoid race.

Alan Porter, Long Beach, Cal.




American Renaissance is published monthly by the

New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.

Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $28.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $40.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.

Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com

Continued from page 1

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor Ronald N. Neff, Web Site Editor

said that they would move to the UnitedStates if they had the chance.

The 33 percent of Hispanics who are

not from Mexico have mainly the fol-lowing origins: 17 percent Latin Ameri-can, nine percent Puerto Rican, and four

percent Cuban. The characteristics of these populations are often quite differ-ent, with Cuban immigrants generallymore economically successful than thosefrom Mexico, Central America, or Puerto Rico.

Between 2000 and 2005, the Hispanic population increased at an annual rateof 3.7 percent, no less than 14 times thegrowth rate for whites, and more thanthree times the black rate. This increase

was due both to high birthrates and toimmigration of about 800,000 Hispan-ics every year. Much of this immigra-tion was illegal. The best estimates arethat Hispanics account for 78 percent— and Mexicans for 56 percent—of theroughly 11 million illegal immigrants inthe United States.

When they become US citizens, His- panics remain emotionally attached totheir countries of origin. In a poll taken

by the Pew Hispanic Center only a fewmonths after the Sept. 11 attacks, at atime when most Americans were feel-ing deeply patriotic, only 33 percent of citizens of Hispanic origin consideredthemselves first or only American. Forty-four percent still described themselvesas their original, pre-immigration nation-ality (Mexican, Salvadoran, etc.), andanother 22 percent considered them-selves first or only “Latino or Hispanic.”It is likely that U.S. citizens of Mexicanorigin have an even weaker Americanidentity than other Hispanics becausethey are surrounded by compatriots and

their country of origin is so close. Whencitizens and non-citizens of Mexicanorigin are taken together, 55 percentconsider themselves Mexican, 25 per-

cent Latino or Hispanic, and only 18 percent American. For non-Hispanics, itis unsettling to learn that that so manyfellow Americans do not feel a primaryloyalty to the United States.

Most Americans believe that a will-ingness to learn English is a prerequi-site to assimilation and full participation

in American life, but this does not appear to be a high priority for many His- panics. According to a 2006 poll con-ducted by Investor’s Business Daily ,only 19 percent of Hispanics spokemostly or only English at home. Eighty-one percent spoke only or mostly Span-ish. Even Hispanics who are comfort-able in both languages maintain a strong

preference for Spanish; according to a poll by P.C. Koch, nearly 90 percent of bilingual Hispanics get their news ex-clusively from Spanish-languagesources.

A Yankelovich survey in 2000 foundthat 69 percent of Hispanics said Span-ish was more important to them than itwas five years ago. In 1997 that figure

was 63 percent. During the same periodthe percentage of Hispanics who ex-

pressed a desire to fit into American so-ciety dropped from 72 to 64 percent.

In 2003, 44 percent of Hispanics didnot speak and read English well enoughto perform routine tasks, up from 35

percent in 1992. English illiteracy there-

fore increased for Hispanics during thedecade, whereas it declined for everyother major population group. Fifty-three percent of working-age residentsin Los Angeles County have troublereading street signs or filling out job ap-

plications in English.Just how firmly rooted the Spanish

language has become in parts of Americawas clear when 200 students demon-strated in front of Miami Senior High inMiami, Florida. They were protesting theFlorida Comprehensive Assessment Test(FCAT), which is the official state test

students must pass to get a high schooldiploma. Their complaint? They had totake the test in English. “We are a His-

panic-based society,” explained Gerrter Martin, who had failed the test twice.“My dreams are over,” said JessicaDuran, who had also failed. State Rep.Ralph Arza promised to introduce leg-islation to offer the FCAT in Spanish.

Hispanic resentment should not besurprising. “In Miami there is no pres-sure to be American,” explained Cuban-

born Lisandra Perez, head of the CubanResearch Institute at Florida Interna-

tional University. “Our parents had tohassle with Anglo society, but we don’t;this is our city,” explained one US-bornCuban. In Miami, this attitude is com-mon. “They’re outsiders,” said one suc-cessful Hispanic of non-Hispanics.“Here we are members of the power structure,” boasted another. For peoplelike this, a requirement that high schoolgraduates be able to speak English is analien and incomprehensible imposition.

The sentiment that Hispanics need nolonger adjust to the United States—thatthe United States will adjust to them— is not limited to cities like Miami andLos Angeles where Hispanics have been

present for decades. Salt Lake City,Utah, is hardly a traditional Hispanicstronghold, but it saw its Hispanic popu-lation increase 138 percent during the1990s, from 84,597 to 201,559. Earlyimmigrants tried to learn English andAmerican ways but once there wereenough Hispanics to create a parallelsociety, many gave up the effort. AsArchie Archuleta, a city employee who

Hispanic radio host in Allentown, Pennsylva-nia, of all places. ‘You have the power. She is

your voice.’




works as an administrator for minorityaffairs explained, “Most of us don’t pushfor assimilation. We push for accommo-dation.”

Dan Pena, an American-born His- panic who is a chef at a restaurant inChaska, Minnesota, says it is silly toexpect Hispanics to assimilate. “When

Europeans came here, home was anocean apart. For Mexicans, it’s a river, just 60 feet wide.” Jose Salinas, another Mexican immigrant to Minnesotaagrees: “I maybe want to stay here. Buteven if I do, I can’t forget my country,my family, my traditions.”

Dominicans, one of the largest immi-grant groups in New York City, feelequally ambivalent about assimilation.As Nelson Diaz who was active in Do-minican politics in the city explained:“[W]e are always thinking about going

back. The first thing everybody does as

soon as they make some money here isto buy a house back home and then acar. Dominicans don’t buy houses here

because they don’t think they live here.”“Rich Latinos remain ambivalent to-

ward America just as much as poor ones,” explains Roberto Suro, formerlyof the Washington Post and now at thePew Hispanic Trust. “In fact, wealth maymake it even easier to avoid full engage-ment with the new land.” Mr. Suro ex-

plains the consequences of this sense of detachment. He notes that as many His-

panics as blacks rioted in Los Angeles

in 1992 after the verdict in the RodneyKing beating trial. Why? “To most [His-

panic] people here, this is still a foreign place that belongs to someone else.”

Some Hispanics insist there is reallynothing in America to which immigrantscould assimilate anyway. David E.Hayes-Bautista, a sociologist at UCLA,explains that the Hispanic experienceshows that “being American simplymans buying a house with a mortgageand getting ahead—there is no agree-ment anymore on culture, only on eco-nomics.” Jorge Ramos, anchorman for the Spanish-language television network Univision explains the absence of any-thing genuinely American in slightly dif-ferent terms: “I believe that this country’stwo main characteristics are its accep-tance of immigrants and its tolerance of diversity. . . . That’s what it means to beAmerican.” In other words, what Ameri-cans have in common is nothing morethan a willingness to have nothing elsein common.

This assertion that there is nothing to

assimilate to is disingenuous; Hispanicsscorn those among their people who as-similate too far. Just as blacks judge eachother according to whether they are“black enough,” some Hispanics keep aneye on who is “brown enough.” At one

time Linda Chavez was considered as a possible labor secretary in the GeorgeW. Bush administration, but came un-der sharp attack from Hispanics whomocked her as the “Hispanic whodoesn’t speak Spanish.”

Nor can a conservative be truly His- panic. “It’s kind of like if you are black and conservative, there is no way youare really black,” explained RosemarieAvila, a trustee on the Santa Ana, Cali-fornia, school board. “If you are goingto be Latina, you have to be a Demo-

crat. Otherwise you are not truly Latina.”She should know. Other members of theall-Hispanic school board say she is afake because of her conservative poli-tics.

Hispanics show typical patterns of ethnic nepotism—living among, votingfor, and hiring people like themselves.Three Arab employees successfully suedthe Azteca chain of Mexican restaurantsfound in Oregon and Washington state.“The managers at these Azteca establish-ments made it very clear, by their verbalabuse and physical actions, that they didnot want anyone other than those of His-

panic descent working in their restau-rants,” explained lawyer Tony Shapiroafter the chain settled for an undisclosedsum.

Likewise, the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission filed a federaldiscrimination suit against a Hispanicgrocer, Compare Foods, in Charlotte,

North Carolina. The store carried a widerange of Hispanic foods, flew Centraland South American flags, and greeted

shoppers with Hispanic music. TheEEOC accused the store of firing long-term workers simply because they werenot Hispanic.

Hispanic groups routinely monitor employers, demanding proportionatehiring of fellow Hispanics. Entirely typi-cal was a report by the National Hispanic

Leadership Association, an umbrellaorganization that represents 40 differentHispanic groups, blasting the federalOffice of Personnel Management for “failing to promote more governmenthiring and retention of Hispanic employ-ees.” The report gave the agency a fail-ing grade for its efforts.

As for racial solidarity in housing, a black woman named Aretha Jackson,who worked for the San Fernando Val-ley Fair Housing Council tracking racialdiscrimination in apartment rentals, quither job in disgust, convinced that His-

panic discrimination against blacks wasso widespread nothing could be doneabout it. Sharon Kinlaw, who is with thesame organization, pointed out that His-

panic landlords not only kept out non-Hispanics, they often rented only to

people from their own country. “Youhave the Guatemalans versus the Mexi-cans versus the Salvadorans,” she said.Chancela Al-Mansour, a lawyer with

Neighborhood Legal Services of LosAngeles County reported, “I’ve heard

people saying, ‘Well, he’s from another state [within] Mexico.’ And the apart-ment manager only rents to people fromthe same state in Mexico. Our fair hous-ing laws haven’t even anticipated that.”

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez of Orange County, California, quicklylearned the importance of Hispanic soli-darity. When she campaigned under her married name of Brixey, she lost a bidfor a seat on the Anaheim City Council.She found that her maiden name of

‘The Hispanic who doesn’t speak Spanish.’

Remember: it’s Sanchez, not Brixey.




Sanchez has a much better resonanceamong the voters she needs to reach.

Like blacks, Hispanics have set up anumber of organizations to advance spe-cifically Hispanic interests. The oldestis the League of United Latin AmericanCitizens (LULAC), founded in 1929 inCorpus Christi, Texas. As the word “citi-zen” in its name suggests, it was origi-nally open only to US citizens, and pro-moted assimilation and patriotism,stressing that Mexican-Americans wereAmerican, not Mexican. It supportedPresident Eisenhower’s “Operation Wet-

back,” which deported one million ille-gal aliens back to Mexico. LULAC hassince changed dramatically. Membershipis now open to illegal aliens. It wantsHispanics to speak Spanish, and fightsrecognition of the central role of English.It supports preferences for Hispanics inhiring, contracting, and college-admis-sions, and its attitude toward immigra-tion is summed up in the words of aformer director Jose Velez: the Border Patrol is “the enemy of my people and

always will be.” Needless to say, “his people,” are not the American people.

One of the reasons LULAC stopped pushing for assimilation is that it had tocompete with more radical Hispanic or-ganizations that were robbing it of sup-

port. The Mexican American Legal De-fense and Educational Fund (MAL

DEF), set up in 1968 by breakawayLULAC members, was modeled on the

NAACP-Legal Defense Fund. It has liti-gated in support of social benefits for illegal aliens, for affirmative action for Hispanics, and against border control,

but it appears to have larger aspirations.One of its first executives was MarioObledo, who has also served as Califor-nia secretary of health and welfare. Inan interview on radio station KIEV inLos Angeles on June 17, 1998, hewarned listeners: “We’re going to takeover all the political institutions of Cali-fornia. California is going to be a His-

panic state and anyone who doesn’t likeit should leave. If they [whites] don’t likeMexicans, they ought to go back to Eu-rope.” That same year, President BillClinton awarded Mr. Obledo the Medalof Freedom.

The third major national Hispanicorganization, also founded in 1968, hasthe most explicit name: National Coun-cil of La Raza (NCLA). La raza means“the race” in Spanish. Hispanic activistsoften use this term for Hispanics as agroup, just as blacks call other blacks“brothers.” Like the other groups, NCLA

promotes official recognition of Span-ish, increased immigration, preferencesfor Hispanics, and amnesty for illegal

‘California is going to bea Hispanic state and

anyone who doesn’t like

it should leave. If they[whites] don’t like Mexi-cans, they ought to go

back to Europe.’






ies have begun doing the same thing.Even Hispanics whom one would ex-

pect to respect the law take the same position. Congressman Luis Gutierrez(D- Ill.), for example, does not like theword “amnesty” to describe legalizationof illegal immigrants: “[T]here’s an im-

plication that somehow you did some-thing wrong and you need to be for-given.” His seems to think that it is the

border that is illegal, not crossing it with-out permission.

American cities with large Hispanic populations commonly refuse to coop-erate with federal immigration authori-ties. In 2006, for example, the predomi-nantly Hispanic Los Angeles suburb of

Maywood passed a unanimous resolu-tion to prohibit its police from workingwith immigration authorities, and reject-ing in advance any future federal law thatmight require such cooperation.

What perhaps best reveals the racialelement of Hispanic activism, however,is the reaction to grassroots efforts tostop illegal immigration. The Minute-

man Project was founded in 2004 byCalifornian Jim Gilchrist to help stopillegal border-crossing. In 2005, itgained national attention with “citizens’

border patrols,” which camped out at the border to report illegals. The Minute-men, as they called themselves, did not

oppose legal immigrants—who are over-whelmingly non-white—and denouncedracism. Their sole aim was to enforcecurrent immigration laws, but Hispanicopponents invariably called them “rac-ist.” The League of United Latin Ameri-can Citizens, for example, defined theMinutemen on their web site as “racists,

cowards, un-Americans (sic), vigilantes,domestic terrorists.”Juan Maldonado, the Democratic

Party Chairman of Hidalgo County,Texas, speaks in equally intemperateterms: “[T]he Minutemen are theepitome of hate, fear and ignorance. Weare unified to stop this racist movementfrom entering our region.”

In October 2006, demonstratorsrushed the stage and prevented founder Jim Gilchrist from speaking at Colum-

bia University. They shouted down a black spokesman for the movement,

Marvin Stewart, calling him a “black white supremacist.” As police began es-corting people out of the auditorium,indicating that the event had been can-celed, they began chanting “ Si, se pudo.Si, se pudo (Yes, we could) .”

Hispanics see their inter-ests in openly racial terms,and think of their growingnumbers and influence as atriumph for their race. Thisis why they call a raciallyneutral group like the Min-utemen “racists” and “white

supremacists.” This lan-guage reveals their own ra-cial/ethnic chauvinism, notthat of people who opposeillegal immigration.

The same reflexive ra-cialism was behind a 2006confrontation at WashingtonState University between John Streamas,a Hispanic assistant professor of com-

parative ethnic studies, and a white stu-dent named Dan Ryder. The two arguedabout illegal immigration, and Prof.Steamas called Mr. Ryder a “white shit-

bag.” Mr. Ryder complained that some-one who teaches in a department thatstresses tolerance and diversity shouldnot use such language. Prof. Streams wasunapologetic, saying “I don’t care aboutthe hurt feelings of one white person.The feelings of one little hurt white boywho’s got all his white-skinned privilegeare nothing . . . .” Prof. Steamas clearlysaw an argument about immigration inracial terms.

Some local authorities are desperate

to do something about the overcrowd-ing, loitering, and drain on social ser-vices often associated with an influx of illegal immigrants. Predictably, Hispan-ics attack such measures as “racism.”Hazleton, Pennsylvania, was among thefirst towns to pass an ordinance thatwould fine landlords or employers who

rent to or hire illegal immigrants. AnnaArias, a Hispanic who served from 2003to 2005 on the Pennsylvania Governor’sAdvisory Commission on Latino Affairs,warned that the ordinance would makeHazleton “the first Nazi city in the coun-try.” When other cities have debatedsimilar ordinances, council meetingshave been swamped with Hispanic ac-tivists making similar charges.

Many Hispanic voters, therefore, support candidates strictly on the basis of their position on Hispanic immigration.Many vote Democratic for other reasons

as well, but some who would ordinarilysupport Republicans have threatened toabandon the party if it takes a standagainst illegal immigration. Hispanic

pastors have traditionally supported theGOP because of its position on abortion

and same-sex marriage, but ethnic iden-tity comes first. Rev. Danny de Leon is

pastor of Templo Calvario in Santa Ana,considered the biggest bilingual His-

panic church in America. “A lot of people are saying, ‘Forget being a Re- publican. I want to go to the DemocraticParty,’ ” he explained. “It’s a shame thatone issue [immigration] has dividedmany of us that have been in the Repub-lican Party for a long time.”

Pastor Luciano Padilla, Jr. of the BayRidge Christian Center in Brooklyn usedto take the Republican position on so-cial issues, but turned against Republi-cans when they began to oppose illegalimmigration and amnesty. “We will haveto look at where we put our allegiance

Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen . . .

What perhaps best re-veals the racial element of

Hispanic activism is thereaction to grassrootsefforts to stop illegal

immigration.

. . . was shouted down at Columbia.






felt like a lost person. You lose part of your roots, part of your history.” She,too, was glad to become Mexican againin law as well as spirit.

By 2006 nearly 100,000 US citizenshad reclaimed Mexican nationality, in agesture many would think gives the lieto their oath of naturalization, in which

they swore “absolutely and entirely [to]renounce and abjure all allegiance andfidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,state or sovereignty.” Since 1998, the

vast majority of Mexicans who natural-ized also retained Mexican citizenship,which suggests that their first act as anAmerican citizen was perjury.

Spanish-language media encourageHispanics to become US citizens—but

not really become American. Early in2007, newspapers and television joinedchurch groups and Hispanic activists ina campaign called Ya Es Hora. ¡Ciuda-dania! (It’s time. Citizenship!). La Opin-ion, a Los Angeles newspaper, publishedfull-page advertisements explaining howto apply for citizenship, and the Span-ish-language network Univision’sKMEX television station in Los Ange-les promoted citizenship workshops ex-tensively on the air. A popular radio per-sonality named Eddie Sotelo ran a call-in contest called “Who Wants to be aCitizen?” in which listeners could win

prizes by answering questions from thecitizenship exam: What are the three

branches of the U.S. government? Whosigns bills into law? What is the Fourthof July? Legal resident William Ramirezexplained to a reporter why he wantedto become a citizen: “I can do better for my people. I can help with my vote.”

In January 2006, Mexican pop singer and actress Thalia (her real name isAriadna Thalía Sodi) became a natural-

ized American but reassured her Mexi-can fans that she didn’t really mean it.Speaking in Spanish, she explained:“This morning I acquired United Statescitizenship. Nevertheless, under the lawsof my country, Mexico, I can also haveMexican citizenship. . . . Just like someof my Latino friends such as Salma

Hayek, who is just as Mexican as I, andGloria and Emilio Estefan, among oth-ers, I feel that this step will give me theopportunity to contribute to and supporteven more the Latin community in theUnited States. I am of Mexican nation-ality, and I will always be a proud Mexi-can in heart and soul.”

There are many like her, who remainMexican in heart and soul, and somehave surprising last names. George P.Bush, nephew of President George W.Bush is only half Mexican—his father,Florida governor Jeb Bush, married a

Mexican-born woman—but when hecampaigned for his uncle in 2000 hesounded altogether Hispanic. He ap-

peared in a television ad in which he said,in fluent Spanish, “I’m a young Latinoin the United States and very proud of my bloodline. I have an uncle that is run-ning for president because he believesin the same thing: opportunity for ev-eryone, for every Latino.”

At a Republican rally he again explained in Spanish that his mother hadinstilled in him the values of Cesar Chavez, who organized Mexican farm

workers. “She told me we have to fightfor our race, we have to find the leaderswho represent us,” he said. About hisuncle the candidate, he said, “This is a

president who represents the diversity of our society, who we can count on tochange the Republican Party to repre-sent our views.” Needless to say, “our race” was la raza , and “our” views werethose of Hispanics.

George P. Bush does not have dualcitizenship—not yet, anyway—but someof those who do take what some mightconsider liberties. In 2003, four Ameri-cans living in the United States ran for at-large seats in the Mexican Congress.On July 6, Manuel de la Cruz of

Norwalk, California, became the firstAmerican citizen to win a seat in theCongreso de la Union . The next year,2004, he was elected to the legislatureof the Mexican state of Zacatecas. Whenhe was naturalized 33 years before that,the Los Angeles resident took the oathof allegiance. Each time he took his seatin a Mexican legislature, Mr. de la Cruz

swore an oath of allegiance to Mexico.In the 2003 elections Jose Jacques

Medina of Maywood, California, lost by just a few votes. Mr. Medina, who fledto the US in the 1970s because of al-leged “political crimes,” said that if hehad won a seat he would keep his homein Maywood. “I am Mexican,” he ex-

plained, “but I will always live in Cali-fornia, fighting for the emigrant Mexi-cans who live here.” Both he and Mr. dela Cruz favored giving Mexicans in theUnited States formal representation inthe Mexican congress. After all, theyargued, 20 percent of the country livesin el norte , and they need official repre-sentatives.

Because so many Mexicans living inthe United States can vote in Mexicanelections, politicians routinely cross the

border to campaign. There was consid-erable discussion about making the

United States a formal voting district for the presidential election in 2006, butMexican Foreign Relations SecretaryLuis Ernesto Derbez opposed the idea.

He was not worried that Americanswould be insulted if their country weretreated like a Mexican province. He wasafraid American authorities might useMexican election day to identify andcatch illegal immigrants who turned outto vote.

Other Mexicans show their loyaltiesin more visceral ways. On Feb. 15, 1998,the US and Mexican national soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum.

Thalia: your fellow American and ‘a proudMexican in heart and soul.’

The Hispanic Martin Luther King.




The largely Hispanic crowd wasoverwhelmingly pro-Mexican.There were boos and catcalls dur-ing the National Anthem, and His-

panics threw beer and trash at theAmerican players before and af-ter the match. Anyone in thestands who supported the Ameri-

can team was hooted at, and somewere punched or spat on. Hispan-ics sprayed beer and soda on aMexican-American man who helda small American flag. The gamecould have been played in anyAmerican city with a large His-

panic population; the Mexicanteam would have had the home-fieldadvantage.

In another demonstration of loyalty,Hispanic legislators pushed through a

bill in 2000 establishing Cesar ChavezDay as a state holiday in California. In

2001, the City Council of Dallas, Texas,nearly did away with Presidents Day tomake room for Cesar Chavez Day, butin the end added the farm labor organi-

zer’s name to Labor Day. Likewise in2001, Hispanic legislators introduced a

bill in the New Mexico legislature thatwould have officially changed the state’sname to Nuevo Mexico. When the bill

was defeated in committee, sponsor Miguel Garcia said “covert racism” mayexplain the defeat. Congressman JoeBaca of California and other Hispanic

congressmen have regularly intro-duced bills in the House thatwould make the Mexican holidayCinco de Mayo an American na-tional holiday. These bills havegone nowhere—so far.

Perhaps the quaintest sign of Mexican loyalty is the inextin-

guishable desire to go home someday, even if it’s in a box. When anillegal immigrant dies in theUnited States, their families nearlyalways manage to have the bodyshipped home, but even the ma-

jority of naturalized US citizensreport that they want their final

resting place to be Mexico. In 2002,more than 1,200 corpses left for Mexicofrom Los Angeles airport alone, despitethe $1,500 fee funeral homes charged for shipping a body. As one Mexican farmer explained, emigrants “don’t want to lose

their identity as a Mexican. What theywant is to find a way back to be here,even if they come back dead.”

Part II will appear in the next issue.

Finally going home.

Men of the West, Stand and Fight!Flemish nationalists in-spire American audience.

by Jared Taylor

O n February 23, the two top lead-ers of the Vlaams Belang party(VB) addressed a group of

nearly 100 Americans in Arlington, Vir-ginia. Now the largest party in Belgium,the VB is one of the most successfulEuropean political parties battling for immigration restriction and local au-tonomy. Party spokesman Philip De-winter and chairman Frank Vanheckestressed to an enthusiastic audience thattheir struggle is America’s struggle, thatthey are fighting for the preservation of Western Civilization everywhere. Themeeting was organized by the Robert A.Taft Club, a conservative group that

brings speakers to the northern Virginiaarea.

Mr. Dewinter, who spoke first, imme-diately revealed his Confederate sympa-thies by saying how pleased he was to

be speaking “on the good side of thePotomac River.” He opened with a sa-lute to the “visionary” Patrick Buchanan,noting that the book, Death of the West ,

was a warning to all Western people.Europe, he said, is where the conflictis sharpest because the continent “isabout to be taken over without afight by people who are hostile toWestern Civilization.” The new-comers are largely Muslim, withthe effect that “Europe is gradu-ally turning into Eurabia.”

Mr. Dewinter spoke of a se-rious demographic crisis, point-ing out that the average Europeanlifetime fertility of 1.2 to 1.4 is far

below the replacement rate of 2.2.Unless Europeans start having morechildren, the white population of thecontinent could drop from 738 mil-lion in 2005 to 606 million by 2050.Some countries will suffer more thanothers with Bulgaria, for example,likely to lose 40 percent of its popu-lation. “We are living on a dying con-tinent,” Mr. Dewinter warned, “butwe are not dead yet.”

Muslims living in Europe, he said,have a lifetime fertility of 3.5, andthis high birth rate combined with im-migration of as many as two millionnon-Westerners a year could spell theend of the West as we know it. Noone is sure exactly how many Mus-

lims live in Europe, but estimates runfrom 15 to 50 million, and since 2000,Mohammed has been the most com-mon boy’s name in Brussels, Am-sterdam, and Rotterdam. Mr. De-winter quoted Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi who, citing the high-est estimate, predicted that “the50 million Muslims in Europewill turn Europe Islamic in a

few decades.” This is, indeed,the fate the VB works to prevent.

“Islam is a primitive religion,” saidMr. Dewinter, that could “lead Eu-

rope back to the Dark Ages.”The party spokesman pointed out

that not one European country has been able to integrate its Muslim population, and said that this reflectsthe desire of Muslims to keep their own way of life rather than becomeEuropean. They come, he said, only because they are “attracted to our generous welfare system,” and their hatred for Europe was perhaps mostvividly on display at the end of 2005in France, during the riots that hecalled an “ethnic and civil war.”

“We oppose immigration by people who are alien and even hos-tile to our European and Western

Ω




values,” said Mr. Dewinter, heapingscorn on a Belgian government that stillencourages immigration. He remindedthe audience that the VB stands for theindependence of Flanders from Belgium,a country artificially created as a buffer zone between neighboring powers onlyin 1830. As for his homeland, he said,immigrants who come with no interestin the language and history of Flanders

should “love it or leave it.”In conclusion, he brought the audi-

ence to its feet by addressing Americansdirectly. “We share the same Westerncivilization,” he said. “Join us in our struggle for Western survival!”

Party chairman Frank Vanheckespoke next, noting that the evening’s pro-gram consisted of “two convicted and

proud political criminals.” (Both menhave been convicted under Belgium’ssuffocating anti-free speech laws.) Thiswas because although “Europe is at war with a growing number of religious fa-natics who want to destroy our way of life, the European establishment is at war with people like us!”

He reminded the audience that in2004, the Supreme Court of Belgiumdeclared the party “a criminal organiza-tion” on the basis of 16 quotations from

party-related literature. Most, he pointedout, were statistics on crime rates andwelfare payments, but the SupremeCourt concluded that the VB publishedthem with the intention of inciting hate.

“How can one know our intentions”he asked, “and how can one becomea criminal by telling the simpletruth?”

He explained that Belgium hasdiscovered a new crime: Islamo-

phobia. Its first alleged outbreak wasin December 2005, when Mr.

Dewinter gave an interview to The Jewish Week . Asked why “Jewsshould vote for a party that espousesxenophobia,” Mr. Dewinter replied:“Xenophobia is not the word I woulduse. If it absolutely must be a ‘pho-

bia,’ let it be ‘Islamophobia.’ ”The Belgian Socialist Party has

now joined an appeal to the BelgianCouncil of State (the supreme courtin cases of administrative law) thatis likely to result in “defunding” for the Vlaams Belang, or the withhold-ing for one year of the millions of

dollars the state turns over to the party annually on the basis of itselectoral record. Belgium bans pri-

vate campaign finance, so defundingwould be a very heavy blow, but the VBhas already set aside a substantial sumin the expectation of losing the case. AsMr. Vanhecke explained, Belgian elites

have decided that the VB is an enemy of the state, and since “it is illogical for thestate to fund its own enemies,” the gov-ernment will starve the party.

Mr. Vanhecke predicted his party willsuffer further attacks from opponentswho care nothing for democratic prin-ciples or the will of the people. “Free-

dom of speech is absolutely essential,”he said. “We ask US citizens to protestthis lack of free speech in Europe.” If Americans do nothing, he warned, theytoo will be strangled by European-styletotalitarianism. “We are fighting for theWest,” he explained; “we are fighting for you.” He, too, brought the audience to

its feet, with a ringing quotation fromThe Lord of the Rings : “Men of the West,stand and fight!”

The two leaders were together at the podium during the lively question andanswer session that followed. In answer to what the future would bring, Mr.Dewinter replied simply, “The next stepis to take power—it will happen.” As for raising the birth rate, “We defend tradi-tional values,” he explained, “and havealways opposed abortion and such ab-errations as gay marriage.” He said thatin this sense, European survival was ul-

timately a question of moral values “andthose values must return.”Mr. Dewinter explained that the left

supports Muslim immigration for tworeasons. First, “multiculturalism is a newreligion” that has replaced the horror thatwas known as Communism. Second,

because the VB has attracted so much

of the working class, the Socialists are“in search of new voters.” He pointedout that in neighboring Holland 80 per-cent of Muslims vote Socialist becausethey want more welfare and because theleft panders to them. In Belgium, some

public schools already serve Halal mealsin conformity with Muslim dietary laws.

Not enough of these.

Philip Dewinter (left) and Frank Vanhecke unfurl the Flemish flag. Marcus Epstein of theRobert A. Taft Club is behind the podium.






impossible to organize the debate. Prof.March could persuade no academic de-

partment at either Dalhousie or SaintMary’s to act as sponsor, and no hotelwas likely to host an event that might bedisrupted. With the help of the Canadiancollege professors union, Prof. Marchfinally got his own university at least tosupply a lecture hall, but Saint Mary’sset harsh conditions. Unlike ordinaryuniversity events, we were to pay for cleanup and security—no fewer than sixHalifax police officers—at a cost of $1,200. AR reluctantly agreed to pay.

Because my earlier visit to Halifaxmade such an impression—televisionreports and news stories went on for days—there was no problem with pub-licity. Prof. March was certain we couldfill the 250-seat hall he had secured, andthere was sure to be plenty of media.

I arrived in Halifax on Monday,March 5, the day before the debate, andwas besieged by reporters writing ar-ticles in anticipation. Professors at bothDalhousie and Saint Mary’s were shriek-ing because I might have a chance tospeak after all. Isaac Saney, an adjunct

professor of international developmentstudies (whatever they are) at Dalhousieissued a statement that began by callingon all right-thinking people to demon-

strate against “the proliferation of rac-ism at Saint Mary’s University.” Prof.

Saney then worked himself up into a fine,totalitarian lather:“This so-called ‘debate’ is a provo-

cation against the people of Canada and Nova Scotia. It is an attack on the rightsof all. The opposition against this false‘debate’ reflects the finest Canadiandemocratic tradition and declares thatHalifax will not be a harbour for racismand fascism. We must ask why the Ca-nadian state has allowed this ‘master racesupremacist’ from the United States tore-enter the country.”

Prof. Judy Haiven of Saint Mary’s

also thought she should decide who getsto speak and who doesn’t. “I think

people who preach hate shouldn’t begiven a platform,” she said. She thoughtit was so important to demonstrateagainst me that she was prepared to taketime off from her important research on“how cultural capital accrued throughtradition and maintained by perfor-mance, festival and exhibition, can

breathe new life into economically de- pressed communities.”

Hyperventilation impresses Canadianacademics—so much so that SaintMary’s decided it could not lend its nameto an event that might criticize racial di-versity. When I checked into my hotel, Ihad a message from Prof. March: SaintMary’s had pulled the plug. Its excuse?It had conducted a “review” of the secu-rity situation, and “new information” ledit to conclude that “there is a higher levelof personal risk and need for increasedsecurity than the university has the ca-

pacity to provide.”What new information? Aaron Don-

caster, one of the people who had bro-ken up my meeting in January, claimedon a lefty blog that he had received ane-mail message from someone sayingthat if Mr. Doncaster made a moveagainst me during the debate, he would

be cut open with a knife. Mr. Doncaster added that he would show this threat to

Saint Mary’s and get them to cancel thedebate. Prof. March called the threat ut-terly bogus, noting it was made on an“obscure blog, with an obscure com-

plaint by an unnamed person.”Others were just as spineless as Saint

Mary’s. Prof. March and I had agreed togo to the studio at Halifax’s CNJI radio,“News 95.7,” for some advance sparringthe morning of the debate. At news of the cancellation, any sensible radio sta-tion would have leapt at the chance to

be the one place an aroused public couldgo to hear what we had to say. Not

“News 95.7.” It told us to get lost. Bythis time, it began to look as though mytrip was a complete waste.

Fortunately, Halifax has more thanone radio station, and competitor CJCHset aside more than an hour for us onRick Howe’s Hotline program. The stu-dio was crammed with reporters and TVcrews, and Prof. March and I gave anabbreviated version of our debate. My

arguments are summarized in “Bannedin Halifax,” in the February 2007, issue.Prof. March was unable to cite a singlestrength that racial diversity gives acountry but insisted there is a “moral im-

perative” to make it work. Racial prob-lems in the United States, he argued, areexplained by centuries of mistreatmentof blacks by whites.

People have various ways of show-ing how confused they are. Before our

program began, host Rick Howe, whootherwise moderated skillfully, an-nounced sententiously that Canada haslaws against hate speech, and that if hethought a crime was about to be com-

In the studio with Prof. Peter March.

On Canadian TV that evening.

“We must ask why theCanadian state has al-lowed this ‘master racesupremacist’ from the

United States to re-enterthe country.”




mitted in his studio, he would halt thedebate. Station manager Scott Bord-narchuk also explained to reporters thatthe usual seven-second broadcast delaywould ensure that no “potentially hate-ful material” got on the air. Needless tosay, no laws were broken.

After the broadcast, Prof. March and

I were surrounded by as many reportersand cameras—perhaps a dozen—aswould have been present had the debategone forward that evening. One of thefirst questions to me was whether I hadever had sex with a black or other non-white woman. “What’s it to you?” I said.“Next question.”

The television reporting that eveningwas reasonably good, mentioning that Ihad come with so many facts and fig-ures that the debate was “lopsided.” The

newspapers in effect conceded that I wonthe debate by refraining from saying thatanyone had won.

As we left the radio studio, Prof.March told me that Saint Mary’s wasconsidering securing a venue and hiring

a professional crew to film a full-lengthdebate, with the rights to be turned over entirely to us. I was skeptical, but sureenough, he called a few hours later. Hewas in the middle of negotiations withthe university. It would arrange and payfor the filming, he said, but there wereconditions: There were to be no guests,

no media, and I was not even permittedto tell anyone that the filming was aboutto take place. Prof. March could get noexplanation from the university whymedia could not be present, but I thoughtthe Saint Mary’s proposal was better thannothing, so I agreed.

Later, I got a call from a reporter whohad got wind of something, and foundmyself in the ridiculous position of hav-ing to say I could tell him nothing. Welaughed about the absurdity of this hush-hush approach, and it was clear hethought the university people were be-having like fools.

Later that evening, Prof. March droveme to an apartment building on theHalifax waterfront, where we put on theentire debate before the camera. The disk is available for purchase on the AR website at amren.com/newstore/cart.php?

page=debate. The audience consisted of three people from St. Mary’s University,including Chuck Bridges, vice presidentfor public affairs. After the debate, I hadthe pleasure of telling him the univer-

sity’s behavior had been contemptible.Saint Mary’s has, in fact, taken a con-

siderable beating. No one was fooled byits claim that it canceled the debate for fear of violence. It canceled because itcould not face the simpleton leftists towhom it thinks it must answer. Clutch-ing at the merest pretext was better than

the disgrace of having let a “racist” speak on campus—and everyone in Halifaxknows this.

Why did Saint Mary’s offer to tape a private debate? Did it have qualms of conscience? Hardly. It had violated anagreement with Prof. March, who couldhaul the university before the professorsunion for suppressing his free speechrights. Prof. March is a man who de-mands his rights, and the universityknows it.

On balance, therefore, my secondventure into Canada was a success. AR

saved the $1,200 it would have spent on

police officers and cleanup. The radiodebate and the press coverage led to aradio appearance in Toronto and to in-terviews from several student newspa-

pers outside Halifax. There are now pos-sibilities for other debates elsewhere inCanada, and some American campusesmay be interested.

Halifax is typical of overwhelminglywhite areas, where people have littleexperience with minorities and thereforethink they know all about them. It is a

pleasant, trusting place, whose peoplehave no idea of the benefits they reapfrom cultural and racial homogeneity.Let us hope some become aware of whatis at stake before it is too late.

Taylor makes a point at the ‘secret debate.’

March prepares a rejoinder.

The RedoubtablePeter March

P eter March, the 62-year-old philosophy professor whodebated me is something of an

institution in Halifax. Never afraidto stick his neck out, he infuriatedMuslims and liberals last year whenhe posted on his office door the fa-mous series of Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. SaintMary’s, timid and conformist as ever,wailed about the hurt being done tothe feelings of Muslims, but Prof.March stood his ground, pointing outthat hurt feelings are the price to be

paid for freedom of speech.Prof. March has been criticized as

a publicity hound, but he is the onlyman in Halifax who made a real ef-fort to make sure my views wereheard—and it took an enormous ef-fort. In several private conversationshe proved himself keenly intelligentand happy to explore even the mostcontroversial questions. This is notto say that he departs from orthodoxy

on race—indeed, he defends it pas-sionately—but he can listen to anunfamiliar argument and formulatea stout rejoinder.

Prof. March won no friends byinviting me to Halifax. If I was themost reviled man in the city thatweek, he was surely the second mostreviled. But it is men like him, whounderstand and act on principle, whodefine our civilization and made itgreat. Ω

Ω





Are You Fighting MadAbout What is Happen-

ing to Your Country?

Then do something about it.Work for AR.

American Renaissance needs an edito-rial assistant to work in our Oakton,Virginia office. We want someone who

can write and do general office work, but wewill give you as much responsibility as youcan handle.

We want someone who is good with com- puters, and web publishing experience would be a plus, but brains and commitment are worthmore to us than experience. A recent collegegrad could be just the person we need.

This will be a great opportunity to learnabout writing and print/Internet publishing,while you make a real contribution to the racerealist movement.

Please send a cover letter, resume and writ-ing sample to AR, PO Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. No phone calls, please.

far above the flooded streets. Despite itall, voters reelected Mr. Nagin to another term, no doubt in part because of his

pledge to keep New Orleans a “choco-late city.”

Now Mayor Nagin is considering a$77 billion lawsuit against the US ArmyCorps of Engineers, claiming that the

levees broke because of the corps’sincompetence. He says it owes thecity not only for lost infrastructure,

but lost revenue from taxes, businessand tourism, and damage to the city’simage. The city picked the $77 bil-lion figure out of the air. “We lookedat everything and just kind of piled iton,” explains Mr. Nagin. “We gotsome advice from some attorneys to

be aggressive with the number, andwe’ll see what happens.” [Mayor

Nagin: We ‘Piled It On’ in SuitAgainst Army Corps of Engineers,

AP, March 3, 2007.]

NFL FumblesThe Border Patrol is advertising

for a few thousand men to reach itsauthorized strength of 18,000. It hasrun ads in the programs of sportingevents like the NBA’s all-star gameand the NCAA’s “Final Four” college

basketball game. This year the agencywanted to advertise in the NFL’s “Su-

per Bowl” program. This was toomuch for the NFL. According to

spokesman Greg Aiello, the leaguewants to avoid being seen as takingsides in the immigration debate, callingit “very controversial.”

The NFL may be ducking the immi-gration issue to preserve a possibleMexican market. The professional foot-

ball league wants to go global, andMexico City is a leading contender for the first international franchise. As Com-

missioner Roger Goodell puts it, “Welove Mexico. We have a great fan basethere. It’s growing every day.” [LizaPorteus, NFL Defends Decision Not toPrint Border Patrol Recruitment Ad inSuper Bowl, FoxNews.com, Feb. 15,2007.]

EmbarrassmentJonathan Saint Preux is a Haitian im-

migrant who works as an immigrationlawyer in New Jersey. In May 2005, hewas one of 139 Haitians who attended aWhite House event to celebrate “Hai-tian-American Heritage Month.” He’s

also probably a crook. In October 2006,federal prosecutors indicted Mr. SaintPreux and his wife for preparing hun-dreds of fraudulent immigration docu-ments for Haitian illegal immigrants.They claimed falsely that they were liv-ing in the US before 1982, and there-

fore qualified for a special Haitian

amnesty program. Mr. and Mrs. SaintPreux face up to ten years in prisonand a $250,000 fine.

A month after the indictment, Mr.Saint Preux went to Washington, DC,to attend yet another White Housefunction. When asked what he wasdoing there, a White House spokes-man said “thousands of guests” areinvited to White House parties. Shedeclined to say whether guests arescreened for federal indictments. [Jeff Whelan, Indicted Lawyer, WhiteHouse Guest, Star-Ledger (Newark),

Feb. 8, 2007.]

Fact vs. FantasyThe New York City Police Depart-

ment recently reported that the majority of people subjected to “stop-and-frisk” searches are black. Natu-rally, Al Sharpton threatened to sue.

Mr. Sharpton’s bluster drew astrong response from Heather Mac-Donald of the Manhattan Institute,author of the book Are Cops Racist?(see “Black and Blue,” AR, Feb.

2004). According to victims and wit-nesses, she notes, blacks “committed68.5 percent of all murders, rapes,robberies and assaults in New York last year” although they were just 24

percent of the city’s population.Whites, at 34.5 percent of the popu-lation, committed just 5.3 percent of those crimes. “In other words,” shecontinues, “violent crimes are nearly13 times more likely to be committed

by blacks then by whites.” Given thisdisparity, it is not only “reasonable butinevitable” that police would frisk more blacks than whites.

The figures released by the NYPDshow that not enough blacks are be-ing frisked—they were 55 percent of

all targets, well below their 68.5 percentshare of violent crime. Eleven percentof frisks were of whites—more thandouble their share of the city’s violentcrime. [Heather MacDonald, What’sBehind Stop & Frisks? High Black Crime, New York Daily News, Feb. 7,2007.] Ω

Documents

200704 American Renaissance