White Supremacists Pay A Visit

by Thomas MacMillan | March 11, 2009 11:18 AM | | Comments (70)

031009_011.jpgJust days after they spoke out against alleged racial profiling of Latinos in East Haven, Luis Rodriguez and city priest Father James Manship discovered frightening flyers at their doorsteps.

A white supremacist group hand-delivered flyers Saturday night to Latino businesses in East Haven and at St. Rose of Lima, Manship’s church in New Haven.

The flyers warn of an “invasion” of undocumented immigrants that will turn the United States into “a third-world slum.” Some of the flyers feature a picture of a soldier holding a rifle.

“This makes me very nervous,” said Rodriguez (pictured), an Ecuadorian immigrant who owns Los Amigos Grocery in East Haven. He and his wife now fear for their safety.

Rodriguez was one of four Ecuadorian business owners who spoke out last week against what they claim is long-standing police harassment against Latinos in East Haven. They went public with their complaints after their priest, Manship, was arrested while videotaping an instance of alleged police harassment inside one of the Ecuadorian stores. News of his Feb. 19 arrest broke last Tuesday this Independent story, sparking a heated race relations debate. After a press conference Wednesday following Manship’s arraignment in court, the conflict was widely publicized.

The news apparently attracted the attention of a Mass.-based hate group, whose messengers showed up on Saturday.

Rodriguez said that a large white van pulled up to his East Haven grocery store on Saturday night. Men in army fatigues got out and deposited an armload of individually wrapped flyers to his doorstep.

The organization behind the message, according to the flyers, is a group called North East White Pride (NEWP), based in Haverhill, Mass. The group couldn’t be reached for comment.

No such fliers have ever appeared at the businesses prior to last week, Rodriguez said. The delivery appears to be triggered by the news of Manship’s arrest and the allegations of racial profiling.

031009_004.jpgThe flyers were also deposited at St. Rose of Lima Church in Fair Haven, where Manship (pictured) serves as the priest. As the head of a parish with a growing population of newcomers from Latin America, Manship has been an outspoken advocate for Ecuadorians and other immigrants.

The fliers again put Manship’s parishioners in the crosshairs of anti-immigrant fervor. When they marched to City Hall to support the city’s immigrant-friendly municipal ID two years ago, parishioners and immigrant advocates were met by suburban hecklers with megaphones. Tensions heightened after a round of immigration raids shortly thereafter, and New Haven found itself in the spotlight of a national debate on immigration.

Anti-immigrant groups had been quiet in the area lately, until last week.

NEWP’s flyers state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, costing the government billions of dollars in social services, and carrying diseases like whooping cough, tuberculosis, polio, and hepatitis. “They send their children to school without immunization and expose your children to this. They work in restaurants and expose you as well,” says one flyer.

“Immigration or INVASION?” reads one flyer. “They come for welfare or to take our jobs and bring with them drugs, crime and disease.”

“Wake up America! We are being attacked!” warns another.

Illegal immigrants are causing a rise in crime, the flyers say, as gang members move into the U.S. from Latin America. “The shocking crimes committed by these illegal gangsters include organized crimes such as theft of prescription drugs from pharmacies, black market gun sales, assaults against police officers and witnesses, assassinations, and human trafficking.”

The flyers call for the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

A YouTube video promoting NEWP connects the organization to Stormfront, a white supremacist, neo-Nazi group. The video also quotes deceased white nationalist David Lane, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and head of a white supremacist group called The Order, which was accused of murder, racketeering, bomb-making, car hijacking, counterfeiting, and trying to overthrow the government.

“It’s quite obvious that this is a hate group, a white supremacist group in the classic sense of the term,” said Kenneth Brown, a New Haven-based activist and expert on hate groups. “[NEWP] wants to stir up hate not only against immigrant groups but against blacks as well.”

Their goals are fear and intimidation, Manship said. Between 60 and 100 NEWP flyers were deposited at St Rose and at the parish house next door on Saturday night, according to the priest. Manship said that a car with Connecticut plates pulled up around 7:30 p.m. and dropped off the flyers, wrapped in packets of three in orange bags, like newspapers being delivered.

“It makes folks get nervous and fearful,” Manship said.

Elizabeth Leon, working behind the counter at Los Amigos Grocery in East Haven Tuesday morning, said that she was in the store when the flyers were dropped off outside on Saturday night. The flyers were also delivered to houses in East Haven and to all the Latino-owned businesses, she said.

At 7:30 p.m., she saw a white van with tinted windows pull up across the street from the store. Men in army fatigues and hats got out and deposited the flyers — in orange bags — in front of the store. Later, Leon said, one of the men entered the store, walked around, and purchased two lemons, exchanging a few words in Spanish with Leon. His purchase was just an excuse, Leon said. The man just wanted to make sure that the flyers had been received.

“I was a little afraid,” Leon said, “Because he was a tall man, and very serious.” Leon’s husband, storeowner Luis Rodriguez, estimated that the man was in his 20s.

031009_009.jpg“This makes me very nervous,” Rodriguez said. He and his wife are worried that the men might try to set their business on fire. Given the harassment that Rodriguez feels he’s receiving from the East Haven police, he said that he wouldn’t want to contact the police even if he did have a problem.

“I want the Americans to know that of all the Latinos in East Haven, 90 percent of us are educated and hardworking,” Rodriguez said. “Don’t confuse us with bad people. Try visiting the stores and seeing the reality. There is nothing bad here.”

Rodriguez said that police harassment has increased since the news broke of Manship’s arrest. He said that he witnessed five cars pulled over by police in front of his store within two hours on Sunday night.

East Haven police have denied all allegations of police harassment.

Share this story

Share |


Posted by: anon | March 11, 2009 11:28 AM

If NEWP wants to seriously address immigration issues, they should lobby for higher taxes.

Posted by: Henry Fernandez | March 11, 2009 11:53 AM

North East White Pride is a neo-Nazi group with a wide range of hates. They hate African-Americans, Jews, Latinos, Muslims, Asians and non-white immigrants. Their basic function is to operate as an online clearinghouse and community for racists. There are some 900 active members of this "community."

They are unique in that historically Klan members and neo-Confederates often don't get along well with neo-Nazis. NEWP provides an online venue for all such people to communicate with each other, to plan events, discuss their hatred for people of color, Jews and Muslims, and generally reinforce their toxicity.

Recently, NEWP has sought to engage in activities beyond the online world using their online "community" to try to put together events. So this action would be completely in line with that.

No one should be confused, this is a real-life organized hate group which includes members who advocate for violence against people of color, Jews and Muslims. The militaristic garb is commensurate with this world-view.

The East Haven Police Department, the New Haven Police Department and the FBI should take seriously the threat to public safety inherent in the dropping of these materials in the front of a place of worship, at people's doorsteps and in front of the businesses of law-abiding community members.

The rest of us should speak loudly that these people are not welcome in our community. We should expect that elected officials and community leaders in East Haven get off the sidelines and move to quickly make sure that the people attacked by these flyers (namely the business owners) understand that they and their businesses are welcome in town.

It is sad that when real threats to people's lives and well-being are put forth, that they no longer feel comfortable calling on those whose salaries they pay via taxes. Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call.

You can learn more about NEWP from the Southern Poverty Law Center:


Posted by: Bill | March 11, 2009 12:16 PM

When the immigrants arrived here at the turn of the century aboard ships, they were counted, documented ,checked for diseases and given IQ tests. Anyone deemed unfit was deported. Since then the immigration laws have been tightened. Many immigrants come here following the correct procedures, waiting for a visa and applying for a green card.

There is no question that ILLEGALS should not be here. Stop complaining and go home.

Posted by: robn | March 11, 2009 12:57 PM

A growing community of smelly, leftist beret wearing revolutionaries....My God...is East Haven turning into Harvard University???!!!

Seriously...to the guys who put out these flyers...if your Italian or Irish great-grandfather (who humped his @$$ over the Atlantic so you could have a better life)...if he could see you now, he would most assuredly slap your fat face and tell you to get a life.

Posted by: robn | March 11, 2009 1:09 PM

Interesting and probably irrelevant factoid,...there is a Lake Saltonstall in both East Haven, CT and Haverhill, MA.

I, for one, would like to offer my sincere apologies to the city of Springfield, which I recently referred to as the armpit of New England...that title appears to have been seized by the residents of Haverhill.

Posted by: Hibernian | March 11, 2009 1:10 PM

This article is typical of the controlled main stream medias unwavering bias against White Americans. All the buzz words are there: "Hate" group, neo-Nazi, KKK, etc.

Wake up people!

EVERYONE should want to "seriously address immigration issues".

This country is in a major recession, fast heading for a depression. There ARE no more "jobs Americans are unwilling to do", which was never the case anyway.

Name ONE statement in the NEWP flyer that is not demonstratively true?

Posted by: robn | March 11, 2009 1:30 PM


Theres no more oppressed group in the world today than the 20-60 year old white american male.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | March 11, 2009 1:33 PM

Again, until the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice investigate this breeding ground of haters, people of color should stay out of East Haven.

That town's leaders, including mayor and police have no interest in protecting the human and civil rights of all. They just repeat whatever their lawyer tells them to say.

Posted by: nfjanette [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 11, 2009 1:35 PM

Now that all of the performers have arrived, the circus is complete.

In the left ring... the activist priest and the enabling left wing press that deliberately obfuscates the distinction between illegal and legal immigrants and tries to claim enforcement of laws is harassment.

In the right ring... seemingly incompetent police harassing a legal immigrant and business owner including possible attempts to confiscate evidence of those actions. To add to the show, now the militant white-power groups are jumping out of the clown car.

In the center ring... I'm shaking my head in disbelief at the dishonesty of almost everyone involved in the situation and at the absurdity of it all.

Posted by: NAtive American | March 11, 2009 2:07 PM

Undocumented immigrants paying more taxes than you think!!

Eight million Undocumented immigrants pay Social Security, Medicare and income taxes. Denying public services to people who pay their taxes is an affront to America's bedrock belief in fairness. But many "pull-up-the-drawbridge" politicians want to do just that when it comes to illegal immigrants.

The fact that Undocumented immigrants pay taxes at all will come as news to many Americans. A stunning two thirds of Undocumented immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes.

Yet, nativists like Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., have popularized the notion that illegal aliens are a colossal drain on the nation's hospitals, schools and welfare programs -- consuming services that they don't pay for.

In reality, the 1996 welfare reform bill disqualified Undocumented immigrants from nearly all means tested government programs including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare-funded hospitalization.

The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education. Nevertheless, Tancredo and his ilk pushed a bill through the House criminalizing all aid to illegal aliens -- even private acts of charity by priests, nurses and social workers.

Potentially, any soup kitchen that offers so much as a free lunch to an illegal could face up to five years in prison and seizure of assets. The Senate bill that recently collapsed would have tempered these draconian measures against private aid.

But no one -- Democrat or Republican -- seems to oppose the idea of withholding public services. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law that requires everyone who gets Medicaid -- the government-funded health care program for the poor -- to offer proof of U.S. citizenship so we can avoid "theft of these benefits by illegal aliens," as Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., puts it. But, immigrants aren't flocking to the United States to mooch off the government.

According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers.

No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status -- a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows. What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks.

Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers -- that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" -- added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus.

The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year. Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children.

The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families -- most of whom are illegal -- are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume. Yes, many illegal migrants impose a strain on border communities on whose doorstep they first arrive, broke and unemployed.

To solve this problem equitably, these communities ought to receive the surplus taxes that federal government collects from immigrants. But the real reason border communities are strained is the lack of a guest worker program.

Such a program would match willing workers with willing employers in advance so that they wouldn't be stuck for long periods where they disembark while searching for jobs. The cost of undocumented aliens is an issue that immigrant bashers have created to whip up indignation against people they don't want here in the first place.

With the Senate having just returned from yet another vacation and promising to revisit the stalled immigration bill, politicians ought to set the record straight: Illegals are not milking the government. If anything, it is the other way around.

Posted by: recentcloud | March 11, 2009 2:24 PM

you might keep in mind that jesus was the original 'activist priest'.

as for the left wing press bias stuff, you are most certainly entitled to your observation, although it seems a pointless observation: people on the left see media as right wing biased, people on the right see it as left wing biased, and most are so self-unaware as to see themselves as ideologically neutral and just dealing straight from the 'truth'.

none of us is ideologically neutral nor deals straight from the truth.

and there has never been a news article written that is ideologically neutral, nor will there ever be. try as most journalists might, we humans can't help but see the world through the lens of our experiences.

last, this story is not a story about illegal immigrants. it is a story about police harassing a group of people that don't look like the police.

a bedrock tenet of the conservative political movement is to literally act conservatively due to the rule of unintended consequences.

the arrival of the white supremacists was an unintended consequence of the police's actions.

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 11, 2009 3:06 PM

Hood Rebel
It is not just people of color. I too am not a welcomed person in East Haven. No are my children. Trust speak out loud about injustice you get on their list too!

Posted by: What! | March 11, 2009 3:56 PM

This is a very alarming story! Why hasn't it been more publicized? This is simply un-American and the East Haven Police should be investigating this crime of threatening innocent people. We hear about nooses and other horrible things ignorant individuals and hate groups do. These business owners are citizens, I don't understand all the talk about illegals. Why aren't they being treated like the "oppressed 20-60 year old white male"??? Give me break on that one. Last time I checked every president this country has had until now was an old white man. That's really the sign of an oppressed group, isn't it?

Posted by: Hibernian | March 11, 2009 4:46 PM

The sign of an "oppressed group" is a group that is forbidden to organize for their own best interest.

Sort of like White people, huh?

Posted by: robn | March 11, 2009 4:47 PM


Maybe I'm missing the upside of all this nativist, white supremecist stuff because it seems to have even permeated the rarified air of the fashion industry. Maybe it is cool? Read about it here!...

"He's hit a chord with American men simply because he is American. No more deciphering what designers in Italy, France, and Japan are urging men to wear. Thom Browne is American through and through. No translations necessary."


Posted by: nfjanette [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 11, 2009 4:58 PM

none of us is ideologically neutral nor deals straight from the truth.
Some of us come a closer than others. It's not hard to test: do the viewpoints expressed offer both positive and negative evaluations about the various issues? For example, when discussing the impact of illegal immigrants upon local, state, and federal economies/budgets: some (argued number) pay into fake SS numbers, and won't be able to claim against that money, yet the cost to the school systems and urgent medical care systems from such immigrants and their children is also enormous. A centrist is willing to look at conflicting information about an existing situation before forming an opinion about possible solutions.

Posted by: William Kurtz | March 11, 2009 5:24 PM

Hibernian, white people have been organizing for their own best interest throughout European history. And they have a group of their own; it's called the Republican party.

Okay, that was a cheap shot but still, I think everyone agrees that immigration issues should be seriously addressed; the problem is that groups like the NEWP aren't addressing them seriously; they're addressing them in an almost comical (it would be comical if it wasn't so obviously calculated to intimidate) fashion. You ask whether any of the statements in the flyer can be proven false. It's a basic tenet of rational thinking that the affirmative proposition needs to be proven (as in the criminal justice system--a defendant doesn't have to prove he didn't do it). What proof is there that any of them are demonstrably true? The claims about American school children catching polio and hepatitis from immigrants are particularly suspect.

You're right about another thing as well: I think there probably are no jobs that American's won't do, but there are plenty of jobs that American's don't want to do under the conditions set by the employers, which are in turn dictated by the perceived demands of the market. Take migrant farm work; the abysmally low wages paid are the result of the consumer's demand for the lowest possible prices. It's the same engine that drives Walmart's success. If farm work paid living wages, provided benefits, had decent hours, more people would want it--but your fruit would be more expensive.

Check out the essay "In The Strawberry Fields" in the book Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser (of Fast Food Nation fame) for very engaging discussion of the economics of undocumented immigrant labor.

Tired Oldman: I don't want to speak for Anon or anyone else who might offer a different definition, but for me, the difference between a hate group and an advocacy group is the direction their energy is moving in. Right or wrong, the NAACP wants to see people of color advance, while a group like NEWP seems more concerned with pushing another group down and is doing nothing to see the lot of white people actually improve in anyway. I would be more inclined to compare NEWP with a groups like the Nation of Islam.

And, Hibernian and I agree on one more thing, : the dire state of the economy is playing a role here. But the only way out of that is for fewer lines to be drawn between groups, not more. This is America and anyone is free to dislike anyone else for any reason they choose, silly or otherwise. But this continual emphasis on racial and ethnic divisions only serves the people who aren't going to feel the recession anyway. You've heard the phrase 'divide and conquer,' I imagine. Stop and think about whose interests are served by all of this perceived competition between races and ethnicities for jobs. It's not yours or mine, or the immigrants. It's those of the people who will be dangling those last few scraps in front of us. Do you really think that if all the non-white people are driven out of America all of those low-paying jobs will suddenly become great opportunities with high wages and good benefits?

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, an early immigrant and an upstanding white American: we better swim together, or we shall surely sink separately.

Posted by: Rob | March 11, 2009 5:24 PM

Illegal immigrants are breaking the law just being in this country. Anyone assisting illegal immigrants is likewise breaking the law. Criminals like this priest need to be apprehended and dealt with by the full force of the law. It's not "racist" to want American jobs and services going towards actual American citizens, it's patriotic! Aiding and abetting illegal aliens is treasonous.

North East White Pride supports anyone willing to stand up for the rights of Americans. We stand for White people, while other groups like the NAACP stand for blacks and LaRaza stand for Latinos. It's time that white people stop being afraid to criticize anyone of color for fear of being called names.

I just wanted to comment that the article states NEWP was not available for comment. We were not contacted by this reporter for a comment. We would have surely responded with our position.

Whoever left this literature did a good thing in that it's bringing more attention to the problems that illegal immigrants are bringing to this nation at a time when we, as Americans, can't handle any more problems. We should be spending our billions to deport the millions of illegals in this country instead of bailing out billionaires who ran their own companies into the ground.

Posted by: FairHavener | March 11, 2009 5:51 PM

All of us, regardless of our politics, ethnicity, or town, should be horrified at this example of hate and intimidation brought to our community by people who travel to spread hate and instill fear in people they don't even know. I urge people of good faith (and all backgrounds) to stand together and speak out against the hatred that has been directed at our friends and neighbors.

Posted by: jackie | March 11, 2009 6:25 PM

Get out of my country, Hibernian, you Papist Irishman:


Posted by: did anyone notice | March 11, 2009 6:40 PM

Did anyone notice that channel 8 is now doing a story on illegal plates in of all places Fair Haven but they aren't showing the people interviewed even though in the previews of the feature it was all hispanic or latino, or whatever you want to refer to them as, driving with PA plates, no license, no insurance. Maybe some of the people commenting here would like to speak to drivers that have been in accidents with such people

Posted by: lance | March 11, 2009 6:43 PM

Heck, you're outraged by this yet you people elected a PRESIDENT who is a member of a hate group (trinity united church). Or should I say "former member" (he "quit" a few months in the sole interest of winning the election). He even referred to his own grandmother as a "typical white person". So how does that differ from the audacity of this group?
If you ask me, it's equally unacceptable.

And as far as the fliers, I checked out the weblink to this group, and it appears that if you register for their forum, it gives you access to the forum as well as "fliers", which probably links to pdf files for these fliers at issue. So anybody could be behind this incident.

Posted by: Phil | March 11, 2009 6:52 PM

It's not hate. My understanding is that the flyer targeted illegals. It did not promote violence or rioting. Keep allowing illegals - and we might as well dissolve the country as we will have no laws.

Posted by: Common Sense | March 11, 2009 7:14 PM

Robn: Why do you continue to do this.."to the guys who put out these flyers...if your Italian or Irish great-grandfather (who humped his @$$ over the Atlantic so you could have a better life)...if he could see you now, he would most assuredly slap your fat face and tell you to get a life."

Why are you picking on the children and grandchildren of Italian and Irish immigrants? Where are you coming from in making the above statement. You are way off base. The North East White Pride group has nothing to do with the ancesters of Italians or Irish. Nor does it have anything to do with the ancesters of the Polish, Jewish, German, or any other group of immigrants. Why do you ramble on with nonsense statements?

Posted by: Hibernian | March 11, 2009 7:18 PM

Is pointing out that illegal immigrants are criminals the very moment they cross our borders undocumented "spreading hate"?

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | March 11, 2009 7:32 PM


"white people have been organizing for their own best interest throughout European history. And they have a group of their own; it's called the Republican party."

Funny, but I think some of them also formed the communist and socialist party as well, also known as Democrats.

And RECENTCLOUD, that original activist priest called Jesus said something to the extent of "render unto Caeser what is his". Does that sound like advocating lawlessness or anarchy?

Posted by: Hibernian | March 11, 2009 7:38 PM

The head of the RNC is black.

Stop pretending the Republican party is some sort of advocate for the white race. Name one Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Communist/ politician anywhere if they are an advocate for the white race.

The argument is laughable in 21rst century America.

The fact is, a white American can't oppose illegal immigration without being called a "racist", can they?

There is a recent documentary film by Craig Bodeker entitled "A Conversation About Race" that I think every American should see.

I'm sure a google search will bring up ways to view clips on YouTube or whatever.

Posted by: Rob | March 11, 2009 7:55 PM

Hey "FAIRHAVEN", what are you talking about? "Hate and intimidation", "instill fear" . . do you think before you type? Unless you're an ILLEGAL ALIEN then you have no reason to fear. The article didn't mention anything about any threats or anything directed towards anyone other than ILLEGAL ALIENS.

This priest was protecting businesses which are breaking the law. The so-called "racists" you claim are spreading "hate and intimidation" aren't breaking any laws. What kind of "good faith" preaches supporting criminal activities? People of all good faiths should call for deporting these criminals asap! Ever hear of the 8th commandment, "thou shalt not steal"? That includes stealing benefits meant for law-abiding, American citizens.

If your friends and neighbors are illegals then you should be calling ICE (1-866-DHS-2-ICE) instead of holding a candlelight vigil.

Posted by: Bill_Heinrichs | March 11, 2009 7:57 PM

The lesson should be clear to the community leaders: any municipality which condones, tolerates or fails to prevent the racial profiling or targeting of a vulnerable or protected group invites the unwanted attention of hate groups.

Posted by: Alex | March 11, 2009 8:07 PM

Something good comes out of everything bad. In this case it is great to see and expose the amount of racism and bigotry in this region so we can deal with it. It has been hidden far too long. Just to start with, it is amazing that everyone assumes the Latinos that the East Haven police target are all illegal. That is prejudice in the first degree! Be sure to read Native American's post above for the rest of the story.

It is time for the vast, overwhelming majority to get out and demonstrate against these racists and bigots. Stand up against their intimidation. Speak out and demonstrate as you are either part of the solution or part of the problem! Put them in the spotlight and don't let them get away with this!!!

Keep an eye on the East Haven police as well and take your video cameras.

Posted by: Ryan J. Murdough | March 11, 2009 8:38 PM

This has nothing to do with hate and has everything to do with preserving our heritage and culture. Why is it not ok for white people to stand up for their race and speak out on issues that they feel are important to white people? Having more non whites in an area increases the crime rate. That is not hate, it is a statistical fact. There are many white people out there who are tired of seeing their neighborhoods turning into cesspools of crime and filth because of immigration, legal and illegal. It is time that white people stand up for their own people for a change instead of cowering to the promoters of diversity.

Posted by: D_VM | March 11, 2009 8:45 PM

Can the Independent explain how much the Southern border counties spend for each illegal immigrant?
Well over three fourths of each of these counties spend a majority of their monies on illegal immigrants:


This are facts that the Independent, Father James Manship, Kenneth Brown and the City of Fair Haven can't refute.

Posted by: JZ | March 11, 2009 8:53 PM

I find it shocking that anyone would try to reason with white supremists. Engaging them in a reasoned debate only gives them some validity in a public forum.

As for the incident, I'm sad, but not shocked that East Haven officials seem to be sitting this one out. Why won't people who live in E.Haven demand public officials stand up for citizens? The business owners in question are tax paying citizens who deserve the same protection from the law as everyone else. The dicussion of illegals is a moot point and clouds the issue.

There are many negative sterotypes about Staven. It would be nice it the town wasn't so determined to embrace them.

Posted by: MacDonald | March 11, 2009 9:17 PM

I wonder what would happen to me if I snuck into these people's native country illegally and opened up a small store there...would everybody just accept it and the government not worry about it?

Posted by: norton street | March 11, 2009 9:30 PM

just to be clear. the recession is the fault of the suburbs, and in general america's thirst for growth and expansion. we waste so much money just shipping goods across the country. centralized cities would save us so much money and get us out of the recession. but of course youd have to give up your cars and move back into the city.
everybody, the world is overpopulated, time we weeded out all the weaklings (the suburbanites) and consolidated.

an illegal immigrant who doesnt pay taxes is to a city, is what a suburbanite is to a city. work where you live. if you dont pay new haven taxes, dont come here.

Posted by: norton street | March 11, 2009 9:48 PM

also, taking pride in something you didnt control is stupid, dangerous and pointless. it makes no sense to take pride in being white, or any other race. you didnt make yourself a race, so dont take pride in it. only take pride in the things you create or manipulate. it is dangerous to be so passionate about something no one controls.
like being "proud" of your block or neighborhood to point where youre killing people over 'turf'. this entire idea of taking pride in things you dont consciously do is so stupid i cant even begin to explain to you how much time you are wasting.
i am happy i was born in new haven, i dont take pride in being born here because i didnt control it. and if i DECIDE (conscious decision-making) to stay in new haven then i will be proud of it.

Posted by: robn | March 11, 2009 10:36 PM


You mean that the White Power groups aren't european and are actually native americans?? We'll... I'll have to reconsider all of my previous criticisms because I may be way off base here.

Posted by: che15 | March 11, 2009 10:57 PM

First off i have to stop reading these posts they only drive me batty. that said i think this will be the last time i post anything.

Extremists are bad for everyone. all of the groups mentioned are really just race hustlers who prey on the ignorant. the ignorant includes all races, ethnicities, religions, political parties, genders, and sexual orientations.

folks just seem to feed off all this negative energy. east haven police are racist, illegal immigrants are taking jobs, blacks are lazy, jews have all the money, asians cant drive, etc. just so father manship doesnt feel left out lets not forget the image catholic priests have right now. that said i know the thing i have mentioned above are stereotypes which extremists feed off.

i guess the problem is that we as a collective group of people no longer have leaders in this country. we look towards people who basically give us hush money. take a look at congress, state legislature, the executive branch, and city hall. do you really see someone that could convince you to risk it all to revolt against the egyptians, sail across the atlantic to an unknown land on the mayflower, fight british rule in india, overthrow the czars, fight the french or american revolution, lead the country in a civil war, or climb mt everest. i have to say i would not follow 90% of our so called leaders. that includes political civic and activists. it seems are best leaders are probably junior officers in the military, adventurers, and captains on fishing vessels (shout out to deadliest catch)

sorry to go off on a tangent.

one quick thing to norton street. the idea of people who do not live in the place where they work not being able to work there is idiotic. i mean if you had a job in milford but lived in new haven you cant work in milford. that is just plain stupid.

farewell all. this web paper is just too painful to read and respond to anymore.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | March 12, 2009 6:05 AM

CHE 15

My take on the problem, and the reason why the NHI seems popular to both sides, is that the main stream media outlets have taken up a political agenda which feeds a base and completely alienates the remaining population. Not that Paul is even handed in reporting, but we get instant feedback from readers with an alternate point of view for all to see. We have leaders out there, but they are either ignored or marginalized by the press. Instead of covering issues and calling people out on both sides, you insult the sensibilities of the majority and stoke extremism, as it is the only thing that is heard. That is the law of unintended consequences to PC thinking. And if history and trends prove right, the pendulum will swing to the other side even farther as it was in the previous cycle. Beware ANON and ROBN!

And btw, you'll be back.

Posted by: William Kurtz | March 12, 2009 8:21 AM

Yes, the Republican party line was a little bit of a joke. I thought you would be able to hear the rimshot even from your compound, Hibernian (see? That was another one!) But you're going to be hard-pressed to use Michael Steele as an example of racial inclusion in the GOP, after he got down on his knees before Rush Limbaugh for calling him an 'entertainer.' Embarrassing.

If you read carefully, you would see that I studiously avoided calling you, or anyone else, racist, because that's a simplification and a conversation-ender. Race, religion, ethnic origin, whatever--they're all means for the rich and powerful to keep economically disadvantaged people at odds with each other--the same way poor whites were among the strongest supporters of slavery in the pre-Civil War south, even though the cheap labor provided by slavery was explicitly at odds with their own self-interest.

JZ--you have a point, but I've decided to go down swinging for rational thought and reasoned discourse--even with people whose views I find unpleasant and distasteful. Who knows who else is listening? Why should they be the only ones heard?

Posted by: robn | March 12, 2009 9:02 AM


Theres no fuzzy gray zone here. These guys are Nazis who believe in the myth of racial purity. I don't welcome them or their conversation in New Haven. FYI Nappy, you've got 99.9% of the same gentic structure as everybody else so stop spouting about diluted bloodlines.

Posted by: Bruce | March 12, 2009 9:44 AM

"NEWP's flyers state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, "

Did anyone else find this funny? Well not really "ha ha" funny, but ironic. This family opened up a business and they are contributing materially to our economy, which can really use the help right now. We should be doing all we can to support them so they can expand and create jobs and more tax revenue. Instead, through intimidation and (now) racism their business is in jeopardy.

I agree that it is pointless to engage these people in debates as they are only interested in spreading their message of hate. I don't think they've really thought through these issues beyond the catch phrases and superhero costumes.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | March 12, 2009 10:38 AM


"This family opened up a business and they are contributing materially to our economy, which can really use the help right now."

Right. We should help a business which is selling invalid license plates to illegals who circumvent the laws, obtain no insurance, have nothing to lose and put you and your family in jeopardy with every mile they drive on the road. That's hate speech? Get real.

Posted by: Hibernian | March 12, 2009 12:15 PM


So you don't think Illegal aliens are taking ANY American jobs? You have obviously never worked in construction.

Or the restaurant industry.

Or the landscaping business.

Or dock work.

Or dozens of other blue-collar American jobs that everyone knows have been taken by illegal alien criminals. (remember, they are criminals the second they cross our borders illegally)

I actually think it's the Utopian "diversity"- mongers that don't think their positions through and rely on catchphrases spoon-fed to them from the controlled media like this hit piece on the NEWP.

Posted by: robn | March 12, 2009 12:28 PM

Has anyone else noticed on the NHI main page, just above this story is one titled "Neighbors Fight For Clinics"....pictured residents all appear to be doing the Nazi straight arm salute? My god...its chilling...fascism has returned.

Posted by: Bruce | March 12, 2009 4:18 PM

Again, the people who own this shop were never accused of coming here illegally, they were accused of having license plates in their shop. They haven't "taken" anything from anybody. They work, pay taxes and spend money in other local businesses. This expands our economy and keeps other businesses afloat. I would argue that this family is doing more to create and maintain jobs than remove them. Our country needs more productive, hard-working families like this and I would think that this white power group would be holding them up as a model of what good immigrants are supposed to do.

Yes, you can certainly oppose illegal immigration without being called a racist. Lots of people do. However, when you start assuming people are here illegally and harassing them simply because they are of Hispanic heritage, that is when you can be accused of racism. When you start lumping together all Hispanics and claiming that they are spreading drugs, crimes and disease, then you could be called a racist.

Posted by: Steve Ross, Unpure | March 12, 2009 4:28 PM


It's funny that you should relegate criticisms aimed against your position as "spoon-fed catchphrases" when many of us have been hearing the same 'patriotic' insipience as yours from racist skins at punk rock shows for the past two decades (when even at that point it had become hackneyed). To masquerade your beliefs as anything apart from hate or disgust is weak-kneed and patronizing. Grow a spine, use your name, and tell us exactly why 'racial purity' is more advantageous than 'mixing.' Tell us what white people should collectively be proud of or should promulgate in unity (other than unsubstantiated histrionics and militaristic clip art writ boldly across silly flyers). Tell us why your United States would be a better one than one I want to live in -- one in which human beings are recognized as human beings, with the successes and failures inherent to the species evaluated critically and dispassionately, where common ethics, not ideologies, are championed. Please. Tell me.

Or are these catchphrases too trite for you?

Posted by: Bruce | March 12, 2009 4:39 PM

FEDUP: Don't you think you're jumping the gun just with that accusation? Just a little? Lots of people and plenty of other businesses collect and display license plates. That has already been discussed so I won't beat a dead horse.

But let's talk about the droves of Americans who also drive without insurance or work without paying taxes. How many high school kids who wash dishes or mow lawns get paid under the table? How many families claim inappropriately high values on charitable donations? How many Americans let their insurance lapse because they can't afford it? I don't see organized groups claiming that they're ruining our country or "taking" our jobs.

Posted by: What! | March 12, 2009 4:51 PM

The "taking jobs of Americans" argument can be stopped by punishing those that hire them. If businesses start getting fined heavily for hiring non-citizens they will start hiring legals. You can't blame those that are taking the jobs blame those doing the hiring!

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | March 12, 2009 5:21 PM


Tell me if all those price tags were the same type if they came from different tag sales. I believe not.

As I mentioned in a previous entry on the subject, Hispanics are not a race, they are a group of people with a distinct country of origin, like Italians and Irish. It is not racism to demand proof of citizenship. If you can't agree on that clear fact, then we definately have nothing to talk about.

And all those examples of kids driving without insurance or working under the table without paying taxes, yeah, I'm not happy with that either. But in all those circumstances, people have something to lose if they get caught. A parent can get sued if their child hurts someone in an accident, or the feds can make your life miserable if you get caught. All these things happen when you are registered in the system and have a stake in the game. People with stolen identities just flee the scene and leave you with a mess on your hands when they fu@k up.

Won't be long before you become a victim of your version of compassion. Would like to hear from you then.

Posted by: ROBN | March 12, 2009 5:43 PM


These guys from Haverhill are just mad because there's a new sherrif in town and he happens to be brown.

Chill out guys...take adeep breath.

Posted by: Joseph V. Bednarsky Jr. | March 12, 2009 6:35 PM

I once ran the NEWP forum (from 2004-2005), and even left the Klan in March of 2007. I now speak out against hate groups like NEWP and the Klan. Feel free to check out my powerful testimony at www.joebednarsky.com

I also wastaking Rob the owner of NEWP to court, see here http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20464/joseph-bednarsky

Posted by: CB | March 12, 2009 6:57 PM

Every year, millions of people seek to immigrate to the United States, and with good reason: Opportunities to improve their lives abound here. Immigrants and would-be immigrants want to pursue the American dream. Whether or not they would put it in these terms, they want to be free to think and act on their best judgment; they want to produce wealth and keep and use it as they see fit; they want to make better lives for themselves and their families. In other words, foreigners want to come to America for the same reason the Founding Fathers established this republic: They want lives of liberty and happiness.

Immigration is the act of moving to a country with the intention of remaining there. Morally speaking, if a person rationally judges that immigrating to America would be good for his life, he should immigrate; a rational morality holds that one should always act on one's best judgment. But does a foreigner have a right to move to America? And should America welcome him? Yes, he does--and yes, she should. Recognition of these facts was part and parcel of this country's founding.

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

Unfortunately this pro-immigration attitude, expressed by George Washington in 1783, has all but vanished from American politics. Indeed, the policies of America--the republic built by and for immigrants--have become hostile to immigrants.

Although some foreigners today are fortunate enough to receive special permission to immigrate to the U.S.--via quotas (as if freedom were good only for a limited number of people) and lotteries (as if Liberty were a scratch-card game)--millions more aspiring immigrants are forbidden entry. Today, productive, life-loving immigrants such as Isaac Asimov, Irving Berlin, Andrew Carnegie, Enrico Fermi, Andrew Grove, Itzhak Perlman, Wolfgang Puck, David Sarnoff, Nikola Tesla, Arturo Toscanini, Eddie Van Halen, and Ayn Rand would likely be turned away from the land of the free. Today, the vast majority of would-be immigrants--including physicists from Israel, software engineers from India, restaurateurs from Mexico, musicians from Canada, architects from Brazil, biochemists from Japan, and countless other perfectly good people--are simply shut out of the melting pot. Immigration to the land of liberty is now largely prohibited by American law.

This prohibition, however, is un-American and immoral. The basic principle of America--the principle of individual rights--demands a policy of open immigration.

Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship--the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America--providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases. Such a policy is not only politically right; it is morally right.

Here is why:

Man lives by means of reason--that is, by acting on his rational judgment. To live, he must observe facts, identify causal relationships, use logic, form principles about what is good and bad for his life, and act on his best judgment. For instance, he must observe that food, shelter, medical care, and the like are necessary for his survival; he must acknowledge that such goods cannot be wished or prayed into existence but must be produced by means of rational thought and effort; he must conclude that producing values is good for his life and that failing to produce them is bad for his life; and he must act on that principle. A person who fails to recognize such facts and take such actions will either soon die or, as is more often the case, exist parasitically on those who do think and produce.

Because reason is man's basic means of living--and because reason is a faculty of the individual--a human life, a life proper to man, is a life lived by the judgment of one's own mind. The basic principle on which America was founded and on which slavery was abolished is an acknowledgment of this fact: Each individual has a moral right to act in accordance with his own judgment, so long as he does not violate the same right of others. This is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is the right to act as one's life requires--which means, on the judgment of one's mind. The right to liberty is the right to be free from coercive interference--so that one can act on the judgment of one's mind. The right to property is the right to keep, use, and dispose of the product of one's effort--which one does by acting on one's judgment. And the right to the pursuit of happiness is the right to seek the values of one's choice--which one does by acting on one's judgment.

Each of these rights--and every other legitimate right--is a species of the right to act on one's judgment; thus, if we want to protect our rights, we must recognize and reject the one thing that can stop us from acting on our judgment: physical force.

If someone puts a gun to your head and commands "Give me your wallet" or "Take off your clothes" or "Don't criticize the government" or "Don't cross that border," you cannot act on your judgment; you cannot keep your wallet or remain clothed or criticize the government or cross the border. The threat of death makes your judgment--your basic means of survival--irrelevant; you now have to act on the gunman's judgment. Absent such force, you can act as you see fit; you can keep your wallet, remain clothed, criticize the government, cross the border.

The principle here is: Physical force used against a person prevents him from acting on his judgment--and only physical force has this effect. In other words, individual rights can be violated only by means of physical force.

This fact gives rise to the basic principle of a civilized society: No one--including the government--may initiate the use of physical force against a human being. To the extent that this principle is recognized by a society's citizens and upheld by its government, that society is conducive to human life; to the extent that this principle is rejected or violated by a society, that society is inimical to human life.

In a civilized society, whether or not a person is legally free to take a particular action depends on whether he has a right to take the action. If the action will violate the rights of others, then he does not have a right to take it; if the action will not violate the rights of others, then he does have a right to take it. There is no middle ground here: Either a person has a right to take a given action, or he does not. And if he does, he morally must be left free to do so.

Suppose, for example, a man in Los Angeles wants to work at a local car wash, and suppose the owner of that car wash wants to hire him. Should the two men be free to do business? Yes. And the reason why they should be free to do business is that each man has a moral right to act on his own judgment, so long as he does not violate the same right of others. In other words, the reason is the principle of individual rights.

The right to act on one's judgment includes the right to contract with others by mutual consent to mutual advantage. No one's rights are violated by an employer hiring an employee. The employer might fire another employee to make room for the new, more-desirable employee--but (unless doing so breaches a contract) firing an employee does not violate his rights; it does not prevent him from acting on his judgment. The fired employee remains free to improve his skills or lower his rate or seek another job or start his own business.

There is no such thing as a right to a job--which is why no one ever has or ever will present the facts that give rise to such a "right." If a person had a "right" to a job, what would that imply? It would imply that someone must be forced to provide him with a job. A "right" that violates a right is a contradiction in terms.

Consider another example. Suppose a man in Virginia wants to move to North Carolina, and suppose a landlord in North Carolina wants to lease the man an apartment. Should the Virginian be free to move? Yes. Should the landlord be free to lease him the apartment? Yes. And why should they be free to take these actions? They should be free to move and to lease because, as human beings, they have the right to act on their own judgment and because neither of these actions violates anyone's rights. Again, the reason is the principle of individual rights.

Now, let us consider some slightly altered examples.

Suppose a man in Mexico wants to work at a car wash in LA, and suppose the owner of that car wash wants to hire him. Should these men be free to do business? The question here is not whether it is legal for them to do business, but whether it should be legal. What moral principle governs this situation? The principle of individual rights does. Each individual has the right to act on his own judgment, so long as he does not violate the same right of others. Accordingly, these men should be free to do business.

Similarly, suppose a man in India wants to move to North Carolina, and suppose a landlord in North Carolina wants to lease him an apartment. Should the Indian be free to move? Should the landlord be free to lease him an apartment? Again, the governing principle is that of individual rights.

We could multiply examples, but the point should be clear: Foreigners have a right to move to America, and Americans have a right to hire, contract, and associate with them by mutual consent. A government that prohibits or limits immigration thereby initiates force against would-be immigrants--and against those Americans who want to associate with them--and thus violates the rights of both parties. The principle of individual rights forbids this prohibition and mandates open immigration.

Individuals possess rights not by virtue of their geographic location or national origin or genetic lineage, but by nature of the fact that in order to live they must be free to act on their basic means of living: their judgment. This principle, in conjunction with the fact that rights can be violated only by means of physical force, gives rise to the need for a government--an institution with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographic area--the proper purpose of which is to protect individual rights. A government serves this function by banning the use of physical force from social relations--and by using retaliatory force as necessary against those who initiate (or threaten to initiate) force. But a government has a moral right to use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; it has no moral right to initiate force against anyone--citizen or non-citizen, within or without its border--for any reason.

America's border is not properly a barrier for the purpose of keeping foreigners out; it is properly a boundary designating the area in which the U.S. government must protect rights. Rights-respecting foreigners who want to cross that boundary in order to enjoy the relative freedom and abundant opportunity in America have a moral right to do so. Likewise, American citizens who want to associate with foreigners in rights-respecting ways--whether through friendship, romance, recreation, or commerce--have a moral right to do so. And Americans who do not want to associate with foreigners have a moral right not to associate with them. But no one--including the government--has a moral right to prevent anyone from acting on his judgment.

To prohibit a person from immigrating to the U.S. is to violate his right to act on his judgment; it is to retard his ability to live a life proper to man; it is to commit a moral crime.

Arguments against open immigration abound, but all of them are invalid. None of them names a principle (i.e., a general truth) by reference to which limiting immigration is a requirement of human life--and each of them calls for actions that violate individual rights. Let us consider several and see, in pattern, how they fail to make their case.

1. "This is our country, and we have a right to refuse entry to foreigners."

No one owns America. American individuals and corporations own specific tracts of land, homes, businesses, automobiles, and the like; and the owners of this property can rightfully prohibit others from entering or using it. But America as such--America the country--is not owned by anyone.

There are two kinds of property in America: private property and so-called "public" property. Whereas private property is owned by individuals and corporations, "public" property, which is allegedly "owned by everyone in general," is actually owned by no one in particular. This is why no one in particular can dictate how it will or will not be used. Consider that if citizen Jones insists on permitting immigrants to enter "his" portion of "public" property, but citizen Smith insists on prohibiting immigrants to enter "his" portion, the conflict cannot be justly resolved. Someone's "right" to "his" portion of the property "owned by everyone in general" is going to be violated. This and the countless similar conflicts arising from the notion of "public" property point to the invalidity of such property--property which, by its very nature, violates individual rights and generates an endless stream of irresolvable rights disputes.

There are no facts of reality that give rise to the need for "public" property, thus there is no principle governing the use of such property; there is only this person or group's desires against that person or group's desires--and, of course, the old saw that "might makes right." Since there is no principle governing the use of "public" property, there can be no principled argument for excluding immigrants from using such property. But there is a principle governing the actions that all individuals should be free to take by nature of the requirements of human life--namely, the principle of individual rights--and that principle implies that immigrants should be free to use "public" property.

Americans who wish to permit immigrants to visit or use or purchase their private property have a moral right to permit them. And Americans who want to prohibit immigrants from visiting, using, or purchasing their private property have a moral right to prohibit them. But no one has a moral right to stop others from acting on their judgment. So says the basic principle of civilized society--the fundamental principle of America--the principle of individual rights.

The "This is our country" argument for prohibiting or limiting immigration to America is invalid and un-American.

2. "We Americans have a right to our culture, which immigrants erode."

There are three possible interpretations of this claim: (a) "We have a right to preserve the racial makeup of our culture"; (b) "We have a right to preserve the language of our culture"; and (c) "We have a right to preserve our lifestyle choices." Let us consider them in that order.

If by "We have a right to our culture" opponents of immigration are speaking of a right to preserve the racial makeup of their culture, then what they seek is not to protect American culture but to "achieve" something on the order of Nazi culture. Nothing more need be said about that.

As to preserving the use of English in America: In one sense, Americans have both a moral right and a political need to do so; in another sense, however, they have no such right or need. An official national language is necessary for the purpose of clarity and consistency in government documents and legal proceedings. In America, that language obviously should be English, the language on which the country was built. But there is no such thing as a right to force someone to speak English, or to bar him from speaking Spanish or French or any other language. That said, just as American immigrants throughout history have learned to speak English out of practical necessity, so most American immigrants today eventually learn to speak English out of practical necessity: The ability to speak English makes one more competitive in the free market. The major shelters from this necessity are: (1) the welfare state, which substantially obviates the need for immigrants to compete, and (2) the status of "illegal alien," which gives rise to black markets in which English is unnecessary. Americans concerned about immigrants learning English should oppose welfare programs and advocate a policy of open immigration, under which the now thriving black markets would wither away.

Finally, if by "We have a right to our culture" opponents of immigration are speaking of a right to their lifestyle preferences--their music, their cuisine, their mode of dress, and so forth--then they should be arguing not against immigration but for open immigration: The right to one's lifestyle preferences means the right to one's pursuit of happiness (i.e., the right to seek the values of one's choice), which one exercises by acting on one's own judgment while respecting the right of others--including immigrants--to do the same.

The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for and protection of individual rights. Fortunately for those who love and want to preserve American culture, the principle of individual rights is the basic principle of that culture; respect for that principle is an essential characteristic of a true American; and foreigners who immigrate to America, for the most part, embody that characteristic.

The "We have a right to our culture" argument against immigration is at worst unspeakably evil and at best an argument for open immigration.
3. "We Americans have a right to our jobs, which immigrants take, and to our wage rates, which immigrants lower."

As mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as a right to a job; such a "right" on the part of one person would necessitate the use of force against others. Nor, for the same reason, is there any such thing as a "right" to a wage rate, which would violate the rights of employers and employees to set mutually beneficial terms of doing business with each other.

If a man is fired from a job--or if his wages are reduced--because a willing immigrant is able to do the job better or cheaper, no force has thereby been used against the fired man; he remains free to act on his own judgment. He can and should either improve his skills or offer his services for less or seek another job or start his own business or think of something better to do. But he has no right to have the government prevent the employer and the immigrant from doing business with each other.

The desire of certain U.S. workers and labor-union members for the government to grant them an entitlement to a job created by someone else--or to a wage paid by someone else--is not an argument against immigration, but a consequence of a false and grossly un-American premise: the notion that "might makes right." In reality, and in accordance with the basic principle of America, whether a person is best qualified for a given job is determined not by a gun but by the free market. No one, and no group, has a right to forcibly exclude from the marketplace those with whom he or they cannot compete--and no true American would claim such a right or advocate such force.

The "We Americans have a right to our jobs and wage rates" argument against immigration is invalid and un-American.

4. "Statistics show that immigrants commit a lot of crime. The more immigrants we allow into the country, the more crime we will suffer."

Yes, there are statistics showing that some immigrants commit crime. There are also statistics showing that some native-born Americans commit crime. Statistics showing that some people commit crime, however, say nothing about what any particular person will do; and group statistics as such are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether an individual should be free to act on his judgment.

People, including immigrants and would-be immigrants, have free will; they choose to think or not to think, to act on reason or to act on feelings, to respect individual rights or to violate them. A person's choice to respect or violate individual rights is not dictated by his national origin or his race or his language, but by his philosophy, which can be either rational or irrational, depending on whether or not he chooses to think.

If an immigrant chooses to be irrational and commits a crime, then, like anyone who commits a crime, he should suffer the consequences of his wrongdoing. But the presumption of innocence reigns here: An individual is logically and morally to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Individuals who leave socialist, communist, or theocratic hellholes to seek a better life in America are not criminals to be punished but heroes to be admired (would that more Americans were so inspiring). To arbitrarily judge them as corrupt or to condemn them to the third-world hell into which they were accidentally born on the "grounds" that some immigrants commit crime is logically absurd and morally obscene.

The "Statistics show that immigrants commit a lot of crime" argument is an evasion of the self-evident fact of free will, and it betrays a thoroughly collectivist mentality on the part of those who advance it.

5. "Open immigration makes it easy for terrorists to enter the U.S.; American security requires immigration restrictions."

What makes it easy for terrorists to enter America is (a) the 12,000-mile perimeter of the contiguous forty-eight states (not to mention Alaska and Hawaii) combined with (b) the fact that the U.S. government has not eliminated the states that sponsor terrorism.

The solution to the problem of terrorists harming or threatening Americans is not to violate the rights of would-be immigrants, but to annihilate the states that sponsor terrorism. Islamic terrorism against the "Great Satan" is not a lone-wolf activity; it is fueled and made possible by the material and spiritual support of Islamist regimes--regimes such as those in Iran and Saudi Arabia. To end terrorism against America, we must end such regimes.

Banning Mexicans, Canadians, Indians, and Sudanese from seeking the American dream has exactly nothing to do with ending terrorism or protecting America. Neither closed borders nor limits on immigration can stop terrorists from entering this country. All that is accomplished by banning or limiting immigration is the violation of individual rights.

Those concerned about terrorists harming Americans should advocate (a) the summary elimination of all regimes that have financed or called for or otherwise incited harm to Americans, and (b) a policy of open immigration to the "Great Satan." With the state sponsors of terrorism destroyed, and with an American policy of open immigration in place, anyone attempting to enter the U.S. at a non-designated location could legitimately be considered a threat to the rights of Americans and dealt with accordingly.

The "American security requires immigration restrictions" argument against open immigration is invalid and suicidal. To violate the rights of would-be immigrants while ignoring the wrongs of American-murdering regimes is unjust and insane.

The foregoing examples demonstrate that one cannot argue from a rights-respecting, American perspective against a policy of open immigration--because the basic principle of America, the principle of individual rights, mandates open immigration.

Bearing that in mind, what should we do about the estimated 12 million "illegal" immigrants currently residing in the U.S.?

In light of the immoral and illegitimate law they "broke" by moving to (or remaining in) America--and in light of the suffering they have endured by being labeled "illegal" (e.g., having to live in the shadows, not being able to market their goods or services openly, not being able to use banks or credit cards, etc.)--the solution to the problem of so-called "illegals" is to grant them unconditional amnesty and a presidential apology. Just as the principle of individual rights mandates open immigration, so too it mandates amnesty for those whose moral actions were made "criminal" by immoral laws. ("Amnesty" is really the wrong word, as one logically should not have to be "pardoned" for having acted morally, but there is no accurate word for what has been necessitated by our irrational immigration policy.)

Some argue that granting amnesty to "illegal" immigrants would make a mockery of the rule of law and that "illegals" broke our laws and should be held accountable for having done so. On the contrary, what mocks the rule of law is the existence and attempted enforcement of anti-immigration laws.

Upholding the rule of law does not mean upholding whatever laws happen to be on the books. Should the citizens of Nazi Germany have turned Jews over to the Gestapo? Nazi law dictated that they must. Would the refusal to obey that law have been a mockery of the rule of law? Should the citizens of theocratic Iran behead apostates? That is what Shariah law calls for. Would refusal to do so mock the rule of law? Should Americans living in the North in the 1850s have returned runaway slaves to their Southern "owners" in compliance with the Fugitive Slave Act? Did violators of this act mock the rule of law?

Upholding the rule of law does not mean enforcing illegitimate laws; it means establishing and maintaining a government and legal system based on the objective social requirements of human life--namely: the recognition and protection of individual rights. Laws that violate individual rights are illegitimate laws, and such laws morally must be repealed. Consciously "violating" such laws in order to sustain and further one's life (or the lives of others) is not a violation of the rule of law; it is a recognition of the fact that valid moral principles trump invalid political policies.

(This is not to say that it is proper to disobey any and every illegitimate law. There are contexts in which it is morally right to obey laws that are morally wrong--because violating them would harm one's life. For instance, it is morally right to pay one's taxes, because refusing to pay them will land one in jail. But such value judgments can be properly made only by reference to the principle that what is right depends on the requirements of one's life, all available and relevant facts considered.)

Although the political status of 12 million immigrants now residing in America is "illegal," the moral status of most of them is: American. They risked life and limb to get here; they do everything they can to stay here; and they endure all the trouble that comes with being labeled "illegal"--all in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families in the freest country on earth. What could be more American than that?

As to the specific steps required to achieve a rights-respecting and thus moral immigration policy for the U.S., here is a broad three-point plan, all aspects of which should be advocated simultaneously and by reference to the moral principle that mandates them: the principle of individual rights.

1. Repeal all laws restricting immigration; do away with all quotas, visas, green-cards, and the like; make open immigration the law of the land.
2. Establish an objective screening process at designated points of entry along the U.S. border; turn away (or detain) only criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases.
3. Grant unconditional amnesty to all so-called "illegal" immigrants, and apologize to them for the trouble our immoral laws have caused them.

Accomplishing these measures will require substantial time, effort, and intellectual activism, but there is no shortcut; these are the actions necessary to solve the misnamed "immigration problem," which is, in fact, a problem of too few Americans recognizing, embracing, and upholding the basic principle on which America was founded.

Those who argue that the "immigration problem" is too "pressing" and requires more "expedient" measures--or too "complex" and requires measures more "agreeable" to opponents of individual rights--either misunderstand the nature of the problem or choose to evade it. The problem, however, is what it is, and if Americans want to solve it, we must recognize its actual nature and proceed accordingly.

Help defend the rights of foreigners to immigrate to America and the rights of Americans to associate with them. Fight this battle by understanding and appealing to the principle of individual rights. It is the proper governing principle in politics, and it mandates open immigration.

Posted by: William Kurtz | March 12, 2009 8:04 PM


Can you tell us that those price tags were uniform? Were you there? I suspect not. I'm surprised you're naive enough to fall for the 'official' version of events; isn't it the conservatives who are supposed to distrust the government? The world has truly turned upside down when whatever the police say is good enough for you, but the word of an all-American small business owner is to be distrusted.

As I pointed out to you before, on the race question, if you treat people who don't look like you as a 'race' and harass them based on what they look like, then for all intents and purposes they constitute a race--the Federal government's inventory terms aside.

Demanding proof of citizenship during a traffic stop will stop being racism when it happens to you.

Posted by: Bruce | March 13, 2009 9:59 AM

FEDUP: Don't get hung up on the syntax. We'll just call it discrimination if you like.

Regarding being a victim of my own compassion, I think you may be confusing me with someone else -- it's easy to do when there are so many postings. I think anyone caught selling illegal license plates should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If the owners of this store were doing so, they should be sent up the river. My sister was hit and nearly killed by an uninsured/unregistered driver (US citizen, if it matters) and our family took on a significant financial burden as a result.

I think it's unlikely that these license plates were for sale. That doesn't mean I support selling illegal license plates.

Posted by: Me Myself | March 14, 2009 11:33 AM

Most people don't even really have a "race," so all they end up doing is somehow identifying with their skin color as a race, as if that says anything essential--and this goes for all. That we look different to each other is a part of being human, unlike a simple animal species where they basically look and act the same. Being HUMAN is a PRIVILEGE. Stop abusing it, and solve the problems of poverty and sickness, rather than being the cause of more evil. Then, you may be a real hero. Furthermore, all the priest was doing was filming. It's our little camera phones that will be our personal police in the future. That's a good thing. Let him be.

Posted by: Kat | March 14, 2009 1:10 PM

To William Kurtz - your statement is so narrow minded. You engage in the very stereotyping and intolerance that you pretend to oppose. Saying that whites have been "organizing" for hundreds of years and that their "organization" is the Republican party is utter nonsense. The head of the GOP is a black man, was led by a President (Lincoln) that freed the slaves; it has had among its leaders many blacks, the more famous of course being the likes of Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice. Are you going to smear them and any black intellectual that is a republican because there are many of them. You pretend to support blacks but the only ones you will support or even respect are liberals. I am white but my significant other is black - we are both republicans and both conservatives. And we resent the hell out of people like you.

Posted by: robn | March 14, 2009 7:55 PM


I'm sick and tired of so called conservative Republicans claiming Lincoln as thier own...the two parties switched philosophical allegiances in a period from the 1960's. Don't believe me though...believe your eyes.



Lincoln belongs to centrists and progressives, not right wingers.

Posted by: time to deport | March 16, 2009 11:53 AM

3 Presidents have done this great move. Hoover, Truman, Esinhower

Posted by: Ilovethiscountry | March 16, 2009 3:44 PM

It seem to me that we should not be fearful of who is taking these low paying back braking jobs.
We should be more worried about protecting our rights. like stopping the East Haven Police from braking the law. Stop Spreading HATE

Posted by: Ilovethiscountry | March 16, 2009 4:24 PM

If you don't love yourself you can love anyone else. Love is the ansewer.

Posted by: Ilovethiscountry | March 16, 2009 5:45 PM

"The first attack is aimed at the alien. During this period of unemployment the alien is an easy target. Unfortunately a great majority of the unemployed workers have become easy and ready victims of this silly propaganda. Therefore, the suppressionists find great support for their program of deporting aliens."

"It is the old, old story over again. Prior to 1920, when the industrialists were ever hungry for cheap labor, we find, for instance, the American Manufacturers Association severely opposed to restrictive immigration. This was only natural. They found alien labor cheap and submissive."

US Congressman Vito Marcantonio, June 18 ,1936.

hmm, I wonder what the secound and the third is?

Posted by: hawksquill | March 16, 2009 7:38 PM

Although it would rock if we could settle federal immigration policy here, maybe we could set our sites on achieving some realistic local goals:

Police officers should police positively. People should feel that they can go to their police for help and protection, and every officer should work to make them feel safe by doing their job fairly and without racial bias. Officers who practice intimidation tactics should be held accountable. (Can you believe that the people who complain of being harassed by the police never went to the police to file a complaint?! Of course that's where you go when you are afraid of the police. The police!)

Priests should be able to videotape public officials without being arrested.

There are probably some more sensible options for priests who are dealing with police harassment to explore before they start running around with video cameras. Just saying.

Police should know that it is legal for the public to videotape them while they are working. Attempts to escape accountability should not be couched in demonstrably false safety concerns.

Police should fill out their reports accurately.

Local officials should address the concerns of their constituents. We can't have our mayors constantly "lawyered up." I don't care what your lawyers tell you. Show some leadership and talk about what's going on in your town.

Groups that advocate hate and violence by passing out fliers with pictures of armed soldiers in city neighborhoods should be investigated and prosecuted by relevant federal agencies. (The only time it's ever okay to shut down a debate by equating your opponent with the nazis is when, well... THEY'RE FRAKKING NAZIS!)

Local shops should not sell license plates.

White people and black people and latino people should eat lunch together more.

Sound good?

Posted by: Ilovethiscountry | March 17, 2009 8:32 AM

hawksquill, sounds good to me When and where?

Posted by: Ryan J. Murdough | March 17, 2009 12:44 PM

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing
about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black
races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or
jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical
difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there
must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other
man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is
to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
Abraham Lincoln
Source: September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
at Charleston, Illinois

Posted by: Honestly Abe | March 17, 2009 2:50 PM

"I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man."
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois" (1858), p. 16.

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
-- August 24, 1855 - Letter to Joshua Speed

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858), p. 532.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

"You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you;"
Abraham Lincoln Source: August 26, 1863 - Letter to James Conkling

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

Posted by: john.brown | March 17, 2009 4:37 PM

After World War II ended, the Nuremberg trials tried Julius Streicher, never a member of the Nazi command, for exactly this sort of speech. They found that his editorial control over the primary propaganda organ of racism in Germany was such that he bore responsibility, along with Nazi commanders, for the genocide. He was hung by the neck until dead.

Free speech, free speech. Threats of murder and intimations of pogroms are not protected.

Posted by: robn | March 17, 2009 11:10 PM


Posted by: enforce the law | March 20, 2009 3:33 PM

objection I had been very intrigued by this issue this article does not mention the racistthat delivered the flyers and went in los amigos grocery and bought two lemons and exchange some spanish words with leon supposelly they problably had the video cameras for their own protection how come (la voz hispana wichis the panish newspaper mention that but not this article did anybody film anything????????????????????????????????

[Ed: Take another look. The part about the lemons is there. The La Voz article is simply a translation of this article.]

Posted by: Rob | March 23, 2009 4:48 PM

"I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office." (September 15, 1858, - campaign speech)

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." (March 4, 1861, - First Inaugural Address)

"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District of Columbia." (March 24, 1862, - letter to Horace Greeley)

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." (August 22, 1862, - letter to Horace Greeley, New York Tribune editor)

Quotes from Linclons Speech at Peoria, IL Oct. 16th, 1854.

"Thenceforward for sixty-one years, and until, in 1848, the last scrap of this Territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended - the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave among them."

"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new Territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to."

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links



N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35