Opposing Bigotry

Oregonians for Immigration Reform show their true colors

2009-05-22T14:12:00.000-07:00

Not in Our Town: Unity in Numbers, Oregon Community Counters a Neo-Nazi Threat

2009-05-21T17:52:00.000-07:00

Repost from Not in Our Town.

Unity in Numbers: Oregon Community Counters a Neo-Nazi Threat
by Jim Willeford

Once again, the face and symbols of intolerance, hatred and violence threaten to become part of the social skyline of Jackson County, Oregon.

On April 22, the Mail Tribune, Medford, OR’s daily newspaper, featured a front-page headline story that pulled the covers off a homegrown group of Nazi skinheads and their organized efforts to become established. The skinheads’ home base is in Phoenix, OR, between Medford and Ashland.

On April 24th, a courageous and dedicated Polish/Cherokee woman, Nicole Strykowski, not yet connected to the variety of progressive organizations in The Valley, took it upon herself to connect with Anita Burke, a reporter for the Mail Tribune. On the 25th, the Tribune did a front page story announcing a counter-demonstration, to be held in Phoenix that Sunday.

Over the duration of the demonstration, the progressive side maintained anywhere from 100-125 people. The Nazis, in full regalia, positioned themselves across the street, where uniformed policemen maintained a degree of separation of about 45 feet from the skinheads. Those who opposed the Nazi agenda sent a powerful message in contrast to the hateful images of just 5 neo-Nazis. The imagery of the diverse cross section of nonviolent protesters was inspiring, as you can see in the Mail Tribune video below:

There were no incidents of violence. The Wagnerian imagery, however, was chilling! The Nazis were dressed in SS uniforms and had expensive, dramatic flags all too reminiscent of the Third Reich. One of the flags was a traditional American flag, and the others all had swastikas or other Nazi imagery, large in size, and of unusually high-quality production.

I invited Ms. Strykowski to a meeting of the Community Response Team, which was very well attended. We will be meeting again to finalize plans for ongoing community action, and follow-up education.

The Tribune’s April 30 edition has a new story about the recent arrest of neo-Nazi leader Andrew Lee Patterson and one of his chief lieutenants. But that’s another whole story, worthy of a blog post all its own.

—Jim Willeford is a NIOT Network leader and activist in Medford, Oregon.

Guest Commentary: Tabatha on Rape, Racism, and Recent Protests

2009-05-17T22:47:00.000-07:00

On May 15th, a racist, anti-immigrant group going under the name Oregonian's For Immigration Reform (OFIR) hosted a demonstration outside a Wendy's restaurant in Milwaukee, Oregon. In response to media reports of the rape of one worker at the hands of another at the restaurant, OFIR seized on the immigration status of the accused rapist as the defining factor, protesting the alleged failure of the restaurant to investigate the immigration status of their employees. Do OFIR's calls actually have anything to do with an interest in women's rights, worker safety, or justice?

The woman's mother reported that she was previously abused by her attacker, but didn't report it.

This brings the spotlight to an often ignored issue (violence against women), framing it in well within a long history veiling racist attacks in the guise of defending white women. This is bad for women and immigrants, pulling focus off the real issues at hand, and pitting oppressed people against each other.

Why would a woman feel that she couldn't report her previous sexual assault, even to her mother? Our society is harsh towards rape survivors. After experiencing these terrible crimes, a woman's life becomes scrutinized under a magnifying glass. The "justice system" is very unresponsive to most rape and sexual assault, often only prosecuting cases on behalf of women who meet very strict standards of what it means to be a "good" woman (white, thin, virginal or married--mother, modestly dressed, and straight, and assaulted by a stranger). Any deviation and a woman is perceived to hold some blame. Rape survivors are shamed, often in the media, as people from right-wing pundits to self-proclaimed feminists question their accountability if they have been drinking, flirting, wearing a short-skirt, or any other "dangerous" activity. If the rapist is an acquaintance, every interaction is questioned. Did she lead him on?

In fact, women are more likely to be assaulted by someone we know (coworker, partner, friend, family member). By portraying rapists as unknown and undocumented menaces, OFIR is "othering" rapists. This allows us to be free from questioning the culture that supports rape, and our role in perpetuating this. We don't have to question consent, patriarchy, misogyny or sexism. "Othering" rapists supports these systems. Women need to be protected from these "Illegal Aliens"; we need to be protected by the state and by men. Women are framed weaker, which falls right into the hand of the patriarchy. Protecting women's "virtue" from other men then becomes vital to our society. Whipping up a media-fueled panic encourages us to concede rights for protection. In doing so, we lose autonomy.

Historically, rape (and the casting of people of color as "primal", '"animalistic" or "hypersexual") has actually perpetuated the culture and systems of violence either through lynch mob "justice" in the South or, more recently, at the hands of the judicial system. The recent media, state, and even progressive demonization of Lovell Mixon in Oakland is a useful metric of this. Further, men of color are less likely to receive fair treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system. They are jailed at higher rates and more likely to receive longer sentences than their white counterparts. Women of color sometimes find themselves unwilling to turn their abusers into a system that they know to be racist, as they don't want to cause more injustice from their experiences. Pitting men of color against white women in such a context invokes racist stereotypes from the early history of American racism, without acknowledging the realities of rape.

This obsession with rape and sexualized violence by white supremacists deserves investigation. Thomas Wenning, whose anti-immigrant protests at Portland's Day Labor Center, has been a speaker at OFIR meetings, and his protests have been supported and promoted via OFIR's mobilization infrastructure. By his own public admission, Wenning was convicted of rape in the early 70's. In December of 2007, another member of OFIR was arrested and charged on five counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, two counts of sex abuse and two counts of hindering prosecution for acts alleged to have occurred in his small town barbershop. There is obviously no fair argument that OFIR members (or white men for that matter), are more inclined to rape than any other demographic. It does, however, point to the hypocrisy of OFIR's stance on the Wendy's assault by reflecting the realities of rape. Rape is prevalent, it is common, it is under reported, and it is typically perpetuated between people who know each other and in relationships of relative social power.

Rape is always egregious. Our culture supports rape no matter the social strata, but poor women are more at risk. At their workplaces, they have less power and are more unlikely to risk their jobs relying on a justice system that doesn't support them. The most vulnerable are undocumented women workers. These women have more sexual harassment, assault, and rape at the hands of their coworkers and bosses than their documented counterparts, and they face fear of reporting and deportation in reporting to hospitals, police, and other authorities. This is a common story that the news doesn't report. If they did in accordance with its frequency, you'd see on every channel every day. It would be on the morning news programs, breaking news at noon, at five, again at six, and before the late shows. But it doesn't support our power structures, so you won't see it, unless you look for it.

Our class system is reliant on sexism and racism to divide us. By offering racism to white women and sexism to men, capitalists exploit us all while we are busy caught up fighting each other. The "other" noted above are the enemy, and whatever structures need to be put into place to protect us from them we will welcome. At our own peril, we hand sole power to arbitrate violence within our communities in the form of increased policing and increased incarceration in institutional systems entirely rooted in often sexualized violence (note popular conceptions of prison rape).

Not only does our fear control us, but we've failed to posit solutions outside of handing power and hope for justice to the same state responsible for mass violence, terror, and the enforcement of color and class lines in our communities. For rape survivors, justice is often at the expense of dignity, when seldom won.

The question worth asking, then, is what is OFIR's real goal? And what CAN we do, short of appeals to a flawed, racist, and violent criminal "justice" system, to create safety, justice, and accountability for all victims of sexual violence in our society?

Free Trade For Who?

2009-05-08T11:51:00.000-07:00

One of the primary catalysts for immigration from Mexico in the last decade has been the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA established a, "Preferential access for U.S. products." Meaning Mexico's local economy, especially small scale farmers, had to compete with U.S. imports from subsidized US producers. Despite the farmer's protests the Mexican government does nothing, since they do not want to upset the U.S. This influx of goods, largely corn, lead to two thirds of Mexican farmers reporting that their wages decreased. U.S. taxpayer subsidized agriculture flooded the market. Many Mexican farmers lost their land and found themselves out of work. NAFTA also took its toll on manufacturing jobs as companies streamlined their production in order to compete on the global market. In 1995, one year after NAFTA was implemented, one million Mexican workers lost their jobs. Therefore, is it any great mystery why immigration levels peaked in the mid 90s? In contrast to the perpetually rising rate of immigration some voices would have us believe the immigration rate rose, peaked, and declined. A drastic alteration of an economy will result in some equally noticeable ramifications. One of which was a lot of displaced workers trying to find a livelihood further North. In truth, the pattern of movement we see from Mexico into the U.S. in the 1990's and 2000's might be more accurately labeled 'forced migration'.

To complicate matters it was not just Mexican workers who were losing their jobs. NAFTA policies have also been detrimental to U.S. workers. Unfortunately, yet predictably, the finger was pointed at immigrants, and the claim was job theft. A functioning red herring was thus created to keep the working class from noticing that NAFTA only benefits the corporations, governments, and the wealthy. While the U.S. tries to maintain that NAFTA is benefiting Mexico it only looks that way on paper. Unemployment levels look lower than they are because statistics count someone as employed if they have worked at least one hour in the week prior to the survey. In addition, job quality has declined. People may be working but for lower wages. Workers everywhere are feeling the negative impact of NAFTA, whether they realize the source or not. However, many companies are benefiting from NAFTA. For example, in order to get around the tariffs in the past the Kellogg company would need production sites in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. Now that NAFTA eliminated the tariffs they were able to close the extra plants and export without added fees.

Free trade agreements put downward pressure on U.S. wages and allow for the constant threat of 'Outsourcing'. These agreements flood the primarily agrarian population of Mexico (and other nations) with U.S. subsidized crops, sweatshops, and disposable goods. There is a clash of displaced workers in subject nations and an enticing story of the land of plenty right across the border. Hunger, desperation and hope of a better life for their families moves people to cross deathly deserts to come to the U.S. This combination of American fear and Mexican poverty is played on by both corporations that profit from this relationship and nativists that use it to embolden racists movements. Working class white folks against working class immigrants always means that we lose -- we lose power, we lose resources and we certainly lose our dignity. As long as immigration is viewed as a matter of ethnicity, a clash of nations, or more drastic accusations we've all heard the root causes are ignored, and the upper class keeps all the profit. Once we ask ourselves who benefits when the workers vilify each other, instead of concentrating on the real crooks, we begin to see how xenophobia can be a valuable tool of the upper class.

Voter Fraud - The Art of Distraction

2009-04-29T20:42:00.000-07:00

Unfair barriers to voting -- that's what the Voting Rights Act was in opposition to, that's what the Freedom Summer was working against and that's what we threw out the door 93 years ago with the Grandfather Clause.

In the last year, there was much pointing and shouting about people without documents participating in our democracy unlawfully -- voting when they have no right. The Right would have us believe that we have an epidemic problem of illegal voting and that making it more difficult to vote will be a benefit to democracy. History shows that their true intention is not to create a safer process but to keep power in the hands of the white elite.

Cascade Policy Institute (CPI), a rightwing think tank based in Oregon, asserts that there is a severe problem of voter fraud in this state and that our rules need to be restricted so that it is more difficult to vote, and as a result more difficult to cheat the elections system. (CPI - Jeff Alan)

Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) and other anti-immigrant organizations have already begun to grab onto 'Voter Fraud' as a tactic. In 2008, OFIR was one of the primary advocates of a ballot measure that sought to implement stricter laws around registering because of the threat of undocumented immigrants voting.

However, both these organizations are simply wrong about voter fraud. Many studies conclude that incidents of voter fraud are shockingly low.

“Impersonation fraud is highly unlikely and exceedingly rare.” (The Truth about Voter Fraud) An average of 8 people per year are convicted or plead guilty to committing voter fraud in national election (the most participatory elections.) (Project Vote)

CPI reported that in Umatilla County, Oregon there are 6 voters (actually 5 as one was a numerical error -- which, by the way, is an 18% error rate) still on the roles but legally dead, according to the state. These 6 were mailed a ballot, none of those 5 ballots of the dead were returned. (Jeff Alan)

CPI's prescription for dealing with illegal voting is to fundamentally change the nature of our voter registration in Oregon to say that if you don't vote for two federal elections than your registration would be kicked out. (CPI)

This is a mistake not because it couldn't be logical but because that would be yet another barrier to participation. I can understand CPI's concern that we don't want any dead people voting; I don't either. But if we are to take their concern at face value compared with the facts; the argument is just silly.

What is not at all silly is having the most accessible democracy possible -- not to the point of naivety but to the point of accepting 5 dead folks who don't turn in ballots on the rolls if it means that we all get to stay registered to vote without contest. As a matter of principle, it shouldn’t (and currently doesn’t) matter if you are a terribly lazy voter, inactive or only care about school board elections that happen on mid-term years -- you should be allowed to stay on the rolls until you are ready to come off.

So, considering their weak arguments, what is it that OFIR and CPI really want? Because, however minor this might seem, what is at stake is fair and open elections in a country that has long been known to corrupt the system to maintain white power whenever possible. Exclusion is inevitable in narrowing the system, there are always going to be those left out -- that is, actually, the point. That exclusion is what permits white supremacy to reign and power to be kept in the hands of the few.

OFIR and CPI are part of a long history of nativists using allegations of voting fraud to maintain white power (if not primarily elite power) in the government. Each time there has been a notable expansion of the right to vote, such as the Voting Rights Act and it’s renewal in 2008, the threat from the Radical Right has been that it will increase fraud. When we see dramatic efforts to register people to vote in registration drives of people or color and the poor, the same claims surface. These allegations are based in keeping the voting system, the system that supposedly chooses leaders and enables policy, closed to those that are historically disenfranchised. (Politics of Voter Fraud)

It is not particularly a surprise that the newest targets are immigrants. OFIR’s primary public rationale during the 2008 ballot season for harsher voting restrictions was because “Illegal immigrants are taking advantage of a lax system." Their campaign was not about democracy or accessible government or fairness. Illegal voting was a red herring (although I’m sure OFIR believes that threat in their heart); this was about keeping electoral politics as closed as possible to keep the existing power structure in place. OFIR’s voter campaign was fear mongering amongst the white working-class community to continue their stoking of the anti-immigrant fires.

While these campaigns to restrict registration and voting rights might appear based in democratic principles of fairness to common eyes, they are insidious. These initiatives conveniently overlook the reality that poor, elderly, rural folks and people of color have many similar issues around valid identification as undocumented people.

“In some cases, people may have never been issued a birth certificate because they were born at home and their birth was not officially registered. A particular problem exists for a large number of elderly African Americans because they were born in a time when racial discrimination in hospital admissions, especially in the South, as well as poverty, kept their mothers from giving birth at a hospital. One study estimated that about one in five African Americans born in the 1939-40 period lack a birth certificate because of these problems.”(S. Shapiro) African Americans, senior citizens and those living in rural areas are more likely to lack birth certificates or passports and would be more strongly affected (than white, urban and young). (L. Ku)

Restricting their access via collateral damage with these initiatives does not appear to be a concern to OFIR. The fact that groups like OFIR are unconcerned about the true victims of restrictive voting – primarily rural and older black folks -- outs them as not even just anti-immigrant but as white supremacist.

While Cascade Policy Institute is not specifically addressing undocumented people voting, they have aligned themselves with OFIR. CPI regularly published opinion columns that intend to drive wedges between legal immigrants, the working poor, 'taxpayers' and undocumented folks. Even going so far as to profile an immigrant who got caught up in an awful loophole in the immigration system and using her story to make hyperbolic statements about "illegals" in general. "Jasmin is not one of the many illegal residents in the U.S. relying on government aid. She immigrated not for financial assistance, but to pursue her dreams." We see where CPI stands. What is telling though, are the comments attached to this column -- readers won't stand for this columnist rhetoric or logic. Of the 8 posted comments, most of them argue that this woman in an unfortunate situation caught in bureaucracy and deportation does not deserve our effort or sympathy either.

Voting as an act might well be a small gesture but it represents the idealism of our democracy and, in fact, is the foundation of the notion that we are all equal in choosing our leaders and decision makers. Keeping elections and voting as open, transparent and accessible as possible does not breed fraud but something more terrifying to nativists – it breeds power for the poor, working class, people of color and immigrants.

There are better systems available to us to develop the most participatory and active democracy possible -- even better than what we have. Stay tuned to the second segment of this two-part series: Residency Voting.

Some Literature Made Available by OFIR

2008-12-09T23:49:00.000-08:00

Part One of a Three-Part Series

The following is a sampling of materials made available at the Oregonians For Immigration Reform meeting of August 24, 2008. What does it say about any organization, that its most sophisticated theoretical material comes from racist and white supremacist authors? Predictably, OFIR vice-president Rick Hickey loudly proclaimed that his organization was “not racist” during the same meeting.

America Extinguished: Mass Immigration and the Disintegration of American Culture – Samuel T. Francis (2002, Americans for Immigration Control, Inc.)

Overview: This is a collection of newspaper columns by Samuel T. Francis dating from 1998 to 2001.

Sample quote: About California, “If European-Americans are no longer the majority in the state, they will no longer be able to define the civilizational framework of the state; and if they no longer define the civilizational framework of the state, other races and people will rush into the vacuum to define it themselves.” (p. 141)

About the author: Samuel T. Francis (1947 – 2005) was a paleoconservative writer and theorist who became deeply involved within the “racial creepiness” [1] of the white supremacist right during the last fifteen years of his life (the period of the writings within this collection). When Jared Taylor began his racist and pro-eugenics American Renaissance journal in 1990, Francis was an early supporter. [2] By 1993, Francis was writing for the Citizens Informer, the newsletter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). The CCC is a white nationalist group whose lineage traces back to the White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 60s, and whose self-proclaimed purpose is to “advocat[e] against minorities and racial integration.” [3]

In 1995, Francis received a pay cut from his employers at the right-wing Washington Times, after he wrote a tasteless article attacking the Southern Baptist convention, which had apologized for its past relationship to slavery. Francis was fired from the Times later the same year, after his racist statements to the 1994 American Renaissance conference were made public. [4]

As well as his involvement with the CCC’s Citizen’s Informer (which he edited from 1999 until his death) and American Renaissance, Francis was a frequent contributor to the nativist Middle American News and the VDARE website, as well as an associate editor at the racist and anti-Semitic journal The Occidental Quarterly. [5] By the time of his death, Francis was considered by some as the most important thinker on the radical right.

About the publisher: Americans for Immigration Control, Inc. portrays itself as “the nation's largest grassroots lobby for immigration reform.” Its president, Robert H. Goldsborough, is an anti-Semitic author who used to be aligned with the US Council for World Freedom, the American branch of the World Anti-Communist League (itself linked to Latin American death squads and former Nazis.)

Americans for Immigration Control, Inc. works closely with the American Immigration Control Foundation as well as Americans for Immigration Control, NC. I’ll provide more information on these organizations later during this series.

Immigration and the End of Self-Government – Louis T. March (1999, Representative Government Press)

Overview: In this short volume, the author argues that immigration is part of a “process of spiritual and cultural impoverishment that begets corrupt government” (p. v). March worries that the “constitutional republic” will become a “historical curiosity” (p. xi) unless the country swings towards the far-right on immigration matters.

Sample quote: “The most serious flaws of current immigration policy are its lax enforcement and anti-European bias, which have allowed a peaceful penetration of the U.S. from throughout the world. Most of the incoming peoples have little in common with the host population.” (ps. vii – viii)

About the author: Louis T. March sits on the National Board of Directors for the Carrying Capacity Network [6] alongside fellow racist Virginia Abernethy. Both he and Abernethy have been active within the Council of Conservative Citizens. [7] The author has also written another book, The Great Betrayal: The Elite's War on Middle America, in collaboration with Brent A. Nelson (more about Nelson in the next installment of this series).

About the publisher: Representative Government Press is the publishing wing of the Representative Government Education Foundation, of which March is the president. The press has published several other anti-immigrant titles, including Samuel Francis’ Ethnopolitics: Immigration, Race, and the American Political Future.

Stay tuned for more prejudiced print-matter next time!

NOTES:
[1] http://www. americasfuture. org/doublethink/2007/01/the-castaway/ Although Michael Brendan Dougherty’s article comes from a conservative perspective that is far too forgiving of Francis, this piece still provides a useful overview of Francis’ life and ideas.
[2] http://www. amren. com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/sam_francis.php
[3] See site information here.
[4] Ibid, note 1.
[5] http://www. vdare. com/taylor/080121_intro.htm
[6] http://www. carryingcapacity. org/whatis.html
[7] This connection is documented in Center for New Community, Hostile Takeover: Race, Immigration and the Sierra Club (Special Report, Summer 2004) ps. 4-5 (.pdf available online here.)

It is Up to Us

2008-12-02T18:34:00.000-08:00

In the post-election excitement I see overtaking a lot of people I am concerned that complacency, lethargy, and a general civic disengagement will only increase. The tendency is to think someone else has everything under control—some elected official. Let us not forget that no one is going to legislate strong community. It is up to its members to make of it what they will. Those with an anti-immigrant agenda are taking a very active role.

Before everyone gets too comfortable let us take the example of Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley to illustrate how little a Democratic majority really does for the issue of immigration. Merkley wants to continue the push to punish employers of undocumented workers. He also relies on the same haggard rhetoric that will not elevate the analysis of, and public discourse around, the issue of immigration. Furthermore, he has a history of siding with Oregonians For Immigration Reform.

All civil rights issues have been furthered by citizens, and now is no exception. Those who work towards anti-immigrant objectives are vocal, active, and taking matters into their own hands. It is up to us to protect our communities against their hate, and to cultivate our communities so they are able to become the safe, vital, and welcoming places that they are capable of becoming.

Voting pro-Obama & Anti-immigrant

2008-11-17T21:45:00.000-08:00

The New York Times declared on their Nov. 5 cover, “Racial Barrier Falls in Decisive Victory.” Yet, despite Obama’s victory, in Oregon's rural communities many people seemed to 'split the difference' and vote against immigrants, promoting racial barriers of another sort. How is this cognitive dissonance justified in the voters’ minds? A black man can be President but immigrants should not be allowed to work?

People voted for Obama, voted against huge Klan-style signs and voted in favor of financially strangling immigrants. In one breath the majority of voters in Columbia County tried to exonerate their racism and then, on inhalation, reinforce modern nativism.The successful measure, of course, fines employers $10,000 per undocumented worker, potentially shuts down their business during investigation and forces all new hires to be run through the Department of Homeland Security (5-190)

This is our post-modern era of smart racism – like a smart bomb, it is targeted, strategic and dressed up like a deceiving yellow ball. Voters undoubtedly asked themselves, “Well, how can it be racist to just enforce the law, stop exploitive workers from hiring illegals and keep illegal people out of our county?”

Economics have always been used as an excuse for institutional oppression – people who are too “risky” for loans, too “lazy” for good wages or too “gullible” to handle their own finances.

In the case of Columbia County, some voters were enabled to vote against flamboyantly ridiculous “LEGAL WORKERS ONLY” signs and therefore felt justified in passing a more realistically damning measure that sanctions employers for hiring undocumented workers. The passed measure, while less ferocious in approach, actually does more damage than a bunch of obnoxious signs. Preventing someone from working is the equivalent of a financial strangling. And, even though the signs didn’t pass, their message is still the primary language of this county. Maybe, in the interest of giving the benefit of the doubt, the voters didn’t know what to do with these two anti-immigrant measures; but it actually doesn’t matter because the majority ultimately decided that they don’t want undocumented people, or maybe immigrants at all, in their community.

Even before these voters canonized this perception of the community as anti-immigrant, the reality was already clear. The wave began in the week before the elections when employers began laying off Latino workers. Though the lay-offs have not been as bad as rumor has it, nevertheless, the workers fear for their jobs as employers react in anticipation. Workers get laid off and can’t get new jobs because there are not that many jobs and, even if they have papers, being Latino is enough to make you a suspicious employee.

Naturally, workers are broke and desperate. They work for lower pay, under the table or any other poor substitution for family wages. So, the cycle of cheap labor, fear and exploitive employers does the opposite of what the petitioner promised. In fact, the employer sanctions in Columbia County might affect Latinos most immediately but will create a 2nd class of worker that drives down wages for everyone. Moreover, as legitimate businesses come under investigation for who they hire and are not allowed to do business, the ripples will be felt deep into Latino, black, white and all communities. The man behind this measure, Wayne Mayo, not only enabled legislated racism but he also has created another situation where in targeting immigrant communities we have hurt all working people. And the county's Democratic identity and Obama-mania only makes this turn of events all the more disappointing.

Idiocracy: Too Many Syllables

2008-11-13T00:43:00.000-08:00

Oregon Minuteman displays his true colors at the Portland Day Laborer Hire Site

OFIR, Hickey and the “New Nation” Controversy

2008-11-13T00:13:00.000-08:00

Rick Hickey, OFIR’s Slippery Spokesman

Rick Hickey, Vice President of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, is known for being less than fully truthful. He throws out "facts" and figures that serve his purpose, whether or not they are accurate, correctly cited, or portrayed in their proper context. As a demagogue, Hickey’s rhetoric focuses on arousing emotion and prejudice; facts appear malleable to him. He is well suited for a group such as OFIR, which must hide its true identity if it is to have even modest influence within the political mainstream.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform have made frequent claims to be a non-racist organization. Their president, Jim Ludwick, describes allegations of racism within OFIR as being “just a tactic” of their opponents and states: “Individuals who do not want immigration to be discussed try to stiffle [sic] debate by calling anyone who believes in ending illegal immigration a racist.” Sometimes, OFIR’s sympathizers go even further than this, and insinuate that the group’s political opponents, such as the National Council of La Raza, are the true “racists,” [1] a claim which is easily refuted. When damning evidence of OFIR’s white nationalist agenda is revealed, Rick Hickey is the group’s “go-to” spokesperson: he is skilled at rhetorical contortions of reality and Big Lie tactics.

Take, for example, this response from Hickey in a discussion thread on the anti-immigrant “Daniel’s Political Musings” blog:
“FOR THE RECORD: OFIR was founded by Pres. Jim Ludwick in Jan. 2000. […] Mr. Ludwick has never been involved with the New Nation website/group nor have I.” [2]

In OFIR, we have an organization that is not even willing to be honest about its own history.

What’s the Big Deal?

New Nation News is an unashamed white supremacist “news” website. Recent headlines on the website featured terms such as “Mexiroach”, “illegal mud”, “vile jew”, “beaner”, “spi[***]r” plus of course “ni[***]r” and “n[*]gteen”. Those who wish to observe the site’s cheap racism may do so at www. newnation. org and www. nnnforum. org/forums/

Until the first half of 2000, New Nation News (NNN) was the host of the Oregonians for Immigration Reform website. The NNN website now simply contains a placeholder page [3] providing a web link to the current OFIR site. The NNN site’s sponsorship of Oregonians for Immigration Reform on the web has become embarrassing for the group, because it contradicts OFIR’s recent denials of racism. The main problem is, their denials don't add up at all.

Mr. Hickey claims OFIR was founded in the year 2000, and there is no continuity between them and the group represented on NNN. Some basic research shows Hickey’s story to be full of holes.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform: Some History

The name “Oregonians for Immigration Reform” first surfaced in 1995, as an organization founded by Sharon Shepperd of Independence, Oregon. [4] Shepperd’s organization petitioned to put anti-immigrant initiatives on the state ballot in both 1996 and 1998, failing to qualify for the ballot both years. Shepperd’s group also attracted support from the fanatically anti-gay and anti-abortion Oregon Citizens Alliance in 1996. [5] During these early years, the organization gave its acronym as “OIR” rather than “OFIR”. While running ballot initiative campaigns, the group flatly denied that it was racist. When it became apparent that the 1998 anti-immigrant ballot initiative petitions would fail, a disillusioned Shepperd stated that she and her co-petitioners would “probably stay loosely organized around the issue”, but that she had no further plans for state ballot campaigns.

New Nation News hosted an OIR web archive for the years 1997-1998, according to the placeholder page currently on its website. A search using the archive.org site shows that the OIR website on New Nation was also updated during 1999 and 2000. Here is a screenshot from December 2000 (click on the thumbnail to see a larger image):

The contact person for the OIR website during this period, Frank Brehm, gives his name and old email address in the screenshot above. Note that the OIR webpage states that it was "Established 1997". Brehm is listed on the current OFIR website as its webmaster [6] and has been listed as a “Registered Agent” for the organization since March 2000.

In January 2001, the racist Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) announced in its “Immigration Report”:

“FAIR is pleased to announce a new addition to our growing movement, Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR). OFIR’s leaders, Jim Ludwick and Frank Brehm, are capable, dedicated activists whose credentials include lobbying in Washington against the expansion of the H-1B program.” [7]

The “lobbying in Washington” credential goes to Brehm, who testified on May 25, 2000 before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. Note that Brehm—the webmaster for the OIR site hosted by the white supremacist NNN—was by then using his lobbying effort as a means of gaining respectability. Also note that Brehm appears side-by-side with OFIR president Jim Ludwick as a “leader” of the “new” organization.

What was “new” about OFIR as compared to OIR, beyond the addition of one letter to the organization’s acronym, and the mention of Ludwick as an additional figure? Not much beyond an improved public relations act (including a decision to drop the old website, it seems). OFIR leadership may have been groomed by FAIR representatives for a better image with the public. An annual report issued by the Federation in 2001 includes the following quote from Frank Brehm indicating his discussion with FAIR field staff:

“In speaking with a number of members over the past week, they, like me, felt re-energized in the cause of immigration reform by your presentation and use of dialogue to assist the group in formulating strategy.” [8]

Putting the Pieces Together

Rick Hickey’s statement that neither he nor President Ludwick had any involvement with New Nation News is, at best, a legalistic argument designed to obscure OFIR’s origins. By stating that Ludwick had no relationship with NNN, Hickey deliberately covers over the fact that Ludwick formed a revamped, different-by-one-letter organization alongside Brehm, who had enjoyed a relationship with the NNN white nationalists. The Federation for American Immigration Reform may have encouraged OIR/OFIR’s makeover.

Does OFIR have no obligation to respond to its history of palling around with those who speak of “n[****]rs” and “sp[**]s”? Indeed, anyone who requests an honest answer about this is, to Hickey’s mind, a “dummy”. [9] The people of Oregon and beyond deserve far better than such scorn. If Hickey cannot be forthcoming about his own group, then why should he be given any respect in the complex immigration debate? In both domains, his contempt for the truth is palpable.

NOTES:
[1] See the letter of David C. Hamilton at: http://www. oregonir.org /Letters.htm
[2] http://danielisright. blogspot. com/2008/07/easy-as-uno-dos-tres.html#3660577154493523039
[3] http://www. newnation. org/OIR/oir.html
[4] “Petitions Target Illegal Immigrants.” The Oregonian, 3/15/96, p.B-01
[5] See: John Gabriel, Whitewash: Racialized Politics and the Media, p.79. Online citation here.
[6] http://www. oregonir. org/feedback_form.htm
[7] http://www. fairus. org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research1c6f
[8] http://www. fairus. org/site/DocServer/fair_annual_report_2001.pdf?docID=482
[9] http://danielisright. blogspot. com/2008/05/i-didnt-vote-for-mccamnesty.html#1427509817645853653

It's Not Just "Illegals" Anymore

2008-11-12T20:00:00.000-08:00

As Barack Obama was winning—and won—the presidential election there was a flurry of activity on white supremacist websites. In spite of the rising number of hate groups nationally, the majority of the anti-immigrant movement continues to argue that they do not fall into that category. While the rhetoric of neo-nazi and anti-immigrant groups is different, their ideologies are frighteningly similar.

Oregon's local anti-immigrant group with white supremacists leanings, Oregonians for Immigration Reform has a prominent link on their website to an organization called VDARE. That site was founded by Peter Brimelow, its name is short for Veronica Dare, "the first English child to be born in the New World", and the entire website is full of prime Eurocentric content. The particular gem of a post-election essay I would like to draw your attention to is titled, "Diversity is Strength! It's Also Witchcraft Imported by Immigration. (And, Yes, From Obama's Kenya Too)". [1]

This piece is not concerned about distinctions between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants. Oh no, this author, Brenda Walker, states: “Readers know that immigrants don't leave primitive beliefs behind just because they are relocating to the First World. Foreign newcomers bring their whole cultural package—sometimes including the very worst that humanity has to offer.” This author is concerned with the dark and frightening other. In the passage that most profoundly reveals her fear, the author describes Albinos in Tanzania being killed by witches who sought their body parts. The rhetorical strategy deployed here should be obvious. It is an alleged threat to whiteness that lurks barely under the surface of nearly all modern anti-immigrant rhetoric. The author attempts to connect the president elect to an influx of immigration from Africa, and urges her audience to consider all the, “Superstitious behavior that we would find objectionable” which she claims comes with immigration. She concludes by declaring, “The social progress we have made in America is threatened by the deluge of immigrants whose customs are incompatible with our values.”

By way of conclusion, allow me to make three assertions that stem from Walker's essay. Firstly, the anti-immigrant movement is not an issue strictly for the Latino community. Clearly, they consider Africans a threat, and the author also mentions people from India. We have learned from this country's history that the scapegoat could easily be the Irish, the Chinese, the Japanese, and so on. We all need to be concerned about, and combat, the anti-immigrant movement. Secondly, I agree with the author that immigration is a threat to her values, which are in no way progressive or American. Immigration is a threat to xenophobic right-wing values, which is as good a reason as any to support immigrants. Lastly, let us remember that the anti-immigrant folks are not concerned strictly with immigrants, but with the cultural identity of the country. They are forced to resort to scare tactics about other people's cultures. When their bloated rhetoric has been distilled, the truth emerges about the goals of the anti-immigrant crowd. They are desperately trying to protect a make-believe, and therefore precarious, notion of whiteness. It's called racism.

NOTE:
[1] http://www. vdare. com/walker/081106_diversity.htm

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

2008-11-05T22:56:00.000-08:00

Oregon Minuteman wields blatantly racist sign at a protest of day laborers seeking work in Cornelius, OR on August 19, 2006

OFIR, The Constitution Party and the 14th Amendment: Some Brief Notes

2008-11-04T10:51:00.000-08:00

In my last entry, I wrote: “The links of organizations such as Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) to racists within the 'Patriot Movement' is a topic that requires further analysis.” While several other links exist, one obvious connection between OFIR and the militia movement is through the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party (formerly known as the US Taxpayers Party) is generally seen as militia-friendly. The party aims to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations [i.e. to institute Old Testament law] and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.” [1] The party’s national platform does not refer positively to any Constitutional Amendments beyond the first ten (The Bill of Rights) and explicitly calls for the repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. While the Constitution Party does not plainly demand repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment in its national platform, the party’s founder and three-time presidential candidate Howard Phillips has written that the Fourteenth Amendment “was not properly ratified, and […] has improperly been treated as part of the Constitution”. [2] Furthermore, the Party makes an implicit attack on this amendment in its national platform by rejecting “the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.” [3]

The Constitution Party’s 2008 presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin, [4] uses rhetoric of the racist militia style, attacking multiculturalism [5] and the “New World Order”. [6] Baldwin is OFIR’s candidate of choice for US president. [7]

OFIR's choice for President

Baldwin’s recent appearance at a Tigard, Oregon library to rally support for his presidential campaign was a scary experience. [8] In front of an audience of over 200 people, Baldwin proclaimed that “the most violent people you can imagine” were entering the United States through its “porous” borders, and vowed to place National Guard and even US Army troops along the southern border if necessary. OFIR and John Birch Society members, greatly buffered in numbers by the remnants of the Ron Paul campaign, applauded loudly to Baldwin’s denunciations of immigration, the United Nations, and the Federal Reserve. All of these, Baldwin insinuated, were elements of a nebulous conspiracy against God-fearing Americans. [9]

OFIR’s connection to the Constitution Party is long-running. OFIR’s president, Jim Ludwick, was a star speaker at the Constitution Party’s 2003 convention, where he delivered a speech promoting the “Reconquista” conspiracy theory that the Mexican government is invading America. Constitution Party of Oregon propaganda is made available at OFIR gatherings while the party’s candidate for Senate, Dave Brownlow, links to OFIR from his campaign site. [10] (Brownlow was amongst those who talked before Baldwin at the Tigard rally.) Brownlow, incidentally, is one of the founders of the hardline anti-choice group “Life Support” [11] alongside Lon Mabon, an ex-Constitution Party candidate in Oregon who is best known for activism against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals throughout the state. Other Constitution Party of Oregon members are likewise involved with “Life Support”.

NOTES:
[1] http://www. constitutionparty. com/party_platform.php
[2] http://www. constitutionparty. com/news.php?aid=543
[3] http://www. constitutionparty. com/party_platform.php#Immigration
[4] Baldwin has also been endorsed for President by Ron Paul of the Libertarian Party, see: http://www. campaignforliberty. com/blog.php?view=547#
[5] http://www. chuckbaldwinlive. com/c2006/cbarchive_20060413.html
[6] http://www. newswithviews. com/baldwin/baldwin457.htm
[7] http://www. oregonir. org/presidential_race.htm
[8] The Portland appearance took place on October 21st, and was part of a brief Oregon tour.
[9] For video footage of this speech, see: http://www. constitutionpartyoregon. net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=191&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
[10] http://www. davebrownlow. com/Links.html
[11] http://www. lifesupportoregon. org/

Columbia County Anti-Immigrant Ballot Measures ask us to report our undocumented neighbors.

2008-11-03T23:59:00.000-08:00

A Citizens’ Initiative on the ballot in Columbia County, Oregon would mandate that all construction sites post 4'x8' signs that say “LEGAL WORKERS ONLY,” provide the Homeland Security telephone number and ask us to report people we think might be undocumented. (5-190 & 5-191 )

The obvious premise behind reporting undocumented people is that you can spot them. How does one spot an undocumented person? Do they look a certain way, or sound a certain way? That is assuming criminality about someone based on their color or race.

Wayne Mayo, the man who put these measures on the ballot, insists that his motivations are raising wages and enforcing laws. But in reality, he is pedaling fear and discrimination as economic and worker justice.

Mayo is asking us to tattle to the government on people who we think might not have papers. Let’s remember that Homeland Security (DHS) is currently marching into peoples’ homes, arresting them in front of their families, breaking families apart and deporting hard working people. These measures would not only increase the ability of DHS to enter our lives based on what others think an immigrant looks like, they also encourage a culture of fear as we are put on high alert of the ‘others’ by screaming billboard-sized signs.

Using signage to ostracize immigrants or non-white communities as a long historical precedent. This plays on the same social distress as "Whites only," & "Irish need not apply;” classic immigrant bashing on a sign.

These measures are not about economic justice. They will drag down Columbia County’s already sputtering economy, but these measures will not bring it back to life. Mayo is implying that the burden of Columbia County’s failed economy lie on the backs of Latino immigrants, making these measures about race. These signs are intended to instill fear, drive out 'unwanted' people & reinforce a hierarchy based on race.

Working class people realize that shoving immigrants farther underground will only drive down wages and create a second-class of worker. We know that to build strong industries and family wage jobs all workers must have equal rights, be organized and empowered to stand together.

So if these measures are not about economic repair but instead drive a wedge into our community, then what leg does Mayo have to stand on to say that these are not race motivated measures? None. Mayo wants to make it clear that immigrants are not welcome, especially not those that we can identify with our eyes or ears.

The New KKK

2008-11-03T23:51:00.000-08:00

Oregon Minuteman gives thanks to Portland activist for "making his cause"

The 14th Amendment, “Anchor Babies” and the Mainstreaming of Far-Right Discourse

2008-11-03T21:49:00.000-08:00

The anti-immigrant movement frequently inveighs against so-called “anchor babies,” by which they mean the children of undocumented immigrants to the United States. [1] The term “anchor babies” is used to vilify and dehumanize, as if such children were mere objects—“anchors”—used by parents for their own advantage. In the frequently-racialized language of the anti-immigrant movement, discussion of babies and childbirth often takes an ugly tone. For example, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) founder John Tanton described shifting demographics in California thusly: “[P]erhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down.” The context of the comment makes it clear that Tanton was referring to people of Latin American descent as having “their pants down.” Such blatant prejudice is all too common within the anti-immigrant movement. However, when it comes to the “anchor baby” debate, the issue is not just one of hateful thoughts, but of a radical right-wing agenda. What is at stake is the very concept of how citizenship is defined in America.

The central debate is over whether so-called “anchor babies” should be allowed full citizenship. The law is currently clear on this matter—yes—which does not stop FAIR from trying to squirm around the issue. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868 during the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction, was intended to protect the rights of former slaves and their descendents (in conjunction with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments). The Fourteenth Amendment has since been a cornerstone of legal rulings concerning equal protection under the law, such as those of the Civil Rights Era. The Fourteenth Amendment’s first section states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In remedying the wrongs of slavery, the United States therefore granted citizenship to former slaves on the basis of jus soli (Latin: “right of the soil”) rather than jus sanguinis (“right of blood”). Now, in response to a perceived “anchor baby” “problem”, the anti-immigrant movement is attempting to rewrite or radically reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment. This would effectively turn back the clock on 140 years of legislation about what it means to be an American. What the anti-immigrant crowd advocate is to view certain citizens not as equals, but rather as burdens whose rights ought not to be respected. In vilifying a racial other—albeit one referenced through coded language—the anti-immigrant movement is pushing for extreme measures which thoroughly redefine citizenship. For Black citizens, the results of a change to the Fourteenth Amendment would be especially alarming, as this could wipe away the legal basis for almost every step they have made towards equality since the end of the Civil War.

If attacks on the Fourteenth Amendment bring to mind right-wing radicalism such as the 1990s militia movement, this is because the politics genuinely are similar. Hostility towards the Fourteenth Amendment has been a major feature of the “Patriot Movement”. Many sectors of this movement made a distinction between white male “state citizens” whose rights were apparently bestowed by God, and “Fourteenth Amendment citizens” (women and people of color) whose rights derived only from legislation and thus were revocable. [2]

The links of organizations such as Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) to racists within the “Patriot Movement” is a topic that requires further analysis. What is import to note at present is that such links do indeed exist—just as links exist to a variety of other white supremacist and right-radical tendencies. However, OFIR has retooled itself to appear as respectable within the media. By presenting itself as a group which merely aims towards “reform” within immigration debates, and by loudly (and disingenuously) proclaiming that it is not racist, the organization feels justified in pursuing a program which insults and attacks civil rights. OFIR’s policies therefore hurt Black, Latino and other minority citizens without directly mentioning them by name. Indeed, OFIR even crassly claim to speak in the interests of such populations. Their strategy has been borrowed from the national FAIR clearinghouse, which is in the habit of creating fake grassroots “front” organizations with spokespeople of color. [3] Such a strategy will meet with success until it is unmasked by careful reporting and greater civic awareness.

OFIR’s gains in recent years are well known, including their sometimes-influential courting of the mainstream media and politicians. This is a pattern that has been repeated throughout the nation by similar right-radical “immigration” groups. If we believe that it is not just important what an organization says in media campaigns (or who does the talking), but also what the group stands for and what it does, then OFIR is exposed. OFIR’s arguments against “anchor babies” are necessarily anti-14th Amendment. Their agenda is radically anti-egalitarian, and cannot do anything but further tear at our society’s wounds. Their radicalism has a name: white nationalism. We should be vigilant against the rhetorical Trojan horses of OFIR and their ilk. The alternative is to jeopardize our civil rights, and allow harm to our population's better values.

For further commentary on the “anchor baby” controversy and the 14th Amendment, see here and here.

NOTES:
[1] For the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s definition of this term, see: http://www. fairus. org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608
For use of this term by Oregonians for Immigration Reform president Jim Ludwick, see here.
[2] See: David A Neiwert, In God’s Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest ps. 11, 34, 82 and Robert Crawford, S.L. Gardner, Jonathan Mozzochi and R.L. Taylor, The Northwest Imperative: Documenting a Decade of Hate ps. 2.5, A-2. Not every element of the militia movement subscribed to this precise doctrine.
[3] For information on the FAIR front group of “Choose Black America”, see here. OFIR member Dee Sutton-Velez is also active in the “You Don't Speak for Me” organization, another part of the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s “rainbow coalition” of groups which they have either started or fund.

Measure 58 Debates

2008-10-30T22:39:00.001-07:00

Why are key players in Oregon´s anti-immigrant movement some of the only vocal supporters of Ballot Measure 58? I attended two Portland-area debates on the measure last week, and both featured Rick Hickey, vice president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform and Chair of the ¨English for the Children of Oregon¨ political action committee, as the only proponent of the measure. It is interesting that the Oregonian failed to mention his allegiances and instead portrayed him as ´a Salem parent´. After reading the text of the measure and hearing both sides of the argument, it is clear that the measure is primarily an effort to change educational policy.

If this is a question of education, and the education of English language learners, why would we trust the opinion of a leader of an overtly anti-immigrant group to know what is the best for immigrant children? What stake do OFIR and other anti-immigrant groups have in the number of years of first-language instruction available to English language learners?

The speaking of English in schools has long been a hot issue in conflicts surrounding ´national identity´ here in the United States, and it is certainly a key focus of the contemporary anti-immigrant and nativist movements. What does that tell us about OFIR's support for this Bill Sizemore ballot measure?

A note on the ´research´ supporting those who back Measure 58:

During both of the debates Hickey frequently cited the work of Dr. Rosalie Porter, who has been widely discredited as an academic. Specifically, he was referencing finding in one book she published in 1997 called Forked Tongue. In addition, many of his personal stories and anecdotes were said to come from former ESL teachers and state officials of school districts in California and Arizona where similar legislation has been passed. When asked for names and references to academic studies or official reports, he either refused or cited the experience of these individuals as something he would trust.

You can listen to last Friday´s City Club Debate here

Calling the Kettle Black

2008-10-30T22:18:00.000-07:00

In front of the Portland Day Laborer Hire Site, anti-immigrant activist Tom Wenning insinuates that a Latin American videographer is a rapist. Wenning himself has been convicted of rape.

OFIR, FAIR, and Family Values

2008-10-30T21:48:00.000-07:00

I am confident that we have all been cautioned to mind the company we keep, because we will be judged by association. This is good advice. It is illuminating to take a closer look at grassroots organizations that present themselves as local defenders of family and nation. Oregonians For Immigration Reform (OFIR) adamantly denies that they are racist. Instead they claim to be mere patriots concerned with the toll “illegal immigrants” are exacting from “legal citizens.” It takes no more effort than following some of the links on their website to see the claims of ethnic neutrality rapidly dissolve. OFIR is not only linked directly to hate groups but also to organizations that make no effort to hide their aggression toward all Latino immigrants.

The primary anti-immigrant organization in the country is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Not only does OFIR have a link to FAIR, but on the FAIR website OFIR shows up under the state by state list of like minded organizations to plug into in your area. FAIR has been, and continues to be, deeply involved in the growing anti-immigrant movement in the country. FAIR claims that it only opposes "illegal" immigration, but its website, allies, actions, and history demonstrate that it is truly focused on defining "legal" Americans as white. Taking a look at FAIR's family tree, their influence is evident. It details the deep ties that they have to the white supremacist movement, as well as the influence that they exert on groups like OFIR all around this country.

Furthermore, FAIR was founded by John Tanton who is an outspoken white nationalist organizer. Recently, Tanton's racism was the subject of an investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It detailed his decades of experience coordinating with other white supremacists, and his interest in eugenics--Tanton believes that cultures are successful or not based on biology and race. It is this perspective that leads him to express his hatred of the “Latino onslaught” and its supposed threat to European-America. FAIR's anti-immigrant propaganda has given ammunition to hate groups throughout the country. Those organizations that are a part of FAIR's family tree also share their family values. When I affirm that I am not a racist I back that claim by not only distancing myself from racists but actively opposing them. OFIR apparently thinks superficial lip service will suffice. Well, I see through their denial. Even if they distanced themselves from FAIR at this point, the relationship is clear, the link is active, and the influence of this racist group on OFIR is undeniable.