Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Anti-Immigrant Leader Questioned by A.G.

The leader of an anti-illegal immigration group said she was interviewed by investigators from the attorney general's office Wednesday about a letter sent to Hispanic families in Orange County warning some immigrants could be jailed or deported for voting next month.
Barbara Coe, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, said she told investigators her group had not authorized the letter and she didn't know who sent it.
The note's letterhead resembles that of the group's, and contains the signature Sergio Ramirez.
Coe said she has received a handful of death threats since last week, when the letter began arriving at an unknown number of Orange County homes. Her group was investigated by the FBI in the late 1990s because members held signs near polls stating only citizens can vote. Click here.
bh

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2006/10/antiimmigrant_l.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d83428f69e53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anti-Immigrant Leader Questioned by A.G.:

» 51954 Blog Verification from 51954 Blog Verification
51954 [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 18, 2006 8:32:27 PM

Comments

I hope that they have better evidence than that, because anyone with a scanner and a computer can copy a letterhead and logo with great fidelity. The letters could easily have been faked by malicious militant elements within the Hispanic advocacy group community. Also, both political parties have a history of attempting to discredit one another using dirty tricks, and the ethics of both parties haven't improved with age.

Posted by: George | Oct 19, 2006 5:26:38 AM

"Her group was investigated by the FBI in the late 1990s because members held signs near polls stating only citizens can vote."

Only citizens can vote? What a radical idea! The group should have been awarded a citizenship medal for having learned their civics lessons well. The ACLU should have defended the group for stating that truth and being harrassed for expressing their right of free speech.

Posted by: George | Oct 19, 2006 5:46:24 AM

Professor Hing, could you possibly concede that being anti-illegal immigrant and anti-immigrant aren't the same thing? You seem to have difficulties with this issue in that you use the terms interchangeably between the title of your blog and the text. I personally find your apparent effort to smear anti-illegal immigrant supporters inaccurate and offensive. You've done it so often that I've come to believe that it's concious and mean spirited. I for one am not ashamed to be called a strong supporter of legal immigration and an opponent of those who violate the law to come here and forge credentials to gain employment, otherwise known as illegal immigrants. Those aren't mutually exclusive positions. I strongly support my Korean-American wife's family's efforts to immigrate, as long as they follow the law, and will continue to support others who do the same.

Posted by: George | Oct 19, 2006 3:45:07 PM

George's comment is simply not supported by the facts. Everything I have seen of the anti-illegal immigration movement in this country shows me that it is motivated primarily by racism and xenophobia, rather than the more innocent "rule of law" motivation its proponents claim. If the rule of law were the only concern, we would see two things in the movement: (1) targeting by the movement of the millions of illegal immigrants we have from countries other than Mexico, and (2) support by the movement of the President's guest-worker program.

The truth is that these groups have done absolutely nothing to hunt down illegal immigrants from Canada, Europe and other countries with their Minuteman and other militia-type programs, even though a substantial percentage of illegals in the US are from those countries. And they bristle at the notion of a guest-worker program that would provide Mexican migrants with a legal means to enter this country, which would eliminate the "rule of law" concern they supposedly have.

Posted by: UCL | Oct 21, 2006 9:12:00 PM

Post a comment