FAIR's true colors in their own words
No one dislikes negativism any more than I do, but for the sake of truth-seeking and keeping PAN supporters informed of same, I have attached a news release from FAIR, as well as a couple articles about the stated author and an obvious contributor to it. Friends, if this isn't proof- positive, stated in FAIR's own words, that they are neither on our side nor truthful, then I'm a goat. While some of this is not what PAN is about, the point is, is this what FAIR is about?
The sad thing about FAIR's issuing this libelous piece of trash against me is that PAN has been credited all over Arizona and America, even among our opponents, with elevating the discussion on illegal immigration to intellectual pursuit of the facts, rising above name-calling and smear campaigns. Then, here comes this big, outside, mercenary organization trying to drag things back into the gutter. Retractions and apologies have been requested, but since I don't look good in blue, I'm not holding my breath.
Here are responses from two supporters, including the one who alerted me to the fact that this venom had been posted on the web:
1. Obviously intent on adding to its string of losses, (including spending countless tens of thousands of dollars in a failed hostile takeover attempt of PAN) -- and just as most Arizonans rejoiced in their initiative's ballot status, FAIR again attacked Kathy McKee, founder and chairman of PAN. FAIR's screed against McKee and Dr. Virginia Abernethy was posted, then within two hours removed, from the American Patrol website but remained on the biz.yahoo.com site. Nevertheless, in the interest of truth-seeking, this episode makes us dust off some records that FAIR might rather forget.
- At a 1996 public meeting on immigration in Aspen, Colorado, FAIR employee Ira Mehlman [in a taped lecture], purported author of the vile news release (and who has never met or even spoken to Kathy) criticized Pat Buchanan, the only presidential candidate advocating a reduction in immigration numbers, and advised conference attendees to vote against Buchanan in the coming election. Why was Mehlman, as a representative of FAIR, whose proper mission is to focus on policy not candidates, campaigning against Buchanan? Why was FAIR, a 501-c(3) even telling people who to vote for or against?
- At the same meeting, Aspen City Councilmen undertook to urge their fellow Council members to pass a Resolution that called for an 80% reduction in legal immigration numbers, whereupon Mehlman spoke up to suggest modifying the Resolution so that it called for a reduction of 50% at most. Why did Mehlman advocate a more modest reduction than the number on the table?
- What are Ira Mehlman's motives? Should FAIR's failure to achieve any immigration reduction over 25 years, despite expenditures of tens of millions of dollars, give rise to doubts about Mehlman's and FAIR's sincerity, integrity, and competence?
Doubts are not dispelled by Mehlman's May 16, 2003, comment to Gary Rosenblatt, editor and publisher of Jewish Week: "American Jews need to look out for their own self-interest...." Does Mehlman's August 26, 2001, Commentary published in the Arizona Republic clarify that self-interest? He writes that one cannot move to "a fully integrated North American economic and labor market immediately. While that is a laudable long-term goal,...." GOAL??? Does Mehlman mean that a borderless United States and Mexico would be a good thing although it will take some time to get there? Does Mehlman, do FAIR and Mehlman, not care about the well-being of average Americans? Do FAIR supporters really want a fully integrated North American labor market? Is the mess America is in due to illegal immigration a self-serving religious issue for Mehlman?
- Further, in the same article, Mehlman states, ". . . freer access for Mexican workers to the U.S. labor market . . . . may seem, on the surface, to be a good idea . . . ." Do you or FAIR supporters think freer access for Mexican workers to the U.S. labor market sounds like a good idea, on the surface or anywhere else?
Our questions today are:
(1) Do Mehlman and FAIR want to resolve our border problem by reducing immigration to an acceptable number, or is their real aim to keep themselves perpetually in the lucrative business of opposing immigration? Equivocation, obfuscation, deflection, and undercutting promising avenues and trying to smear successful, selfless activists--all derail real action. (2)
(2) If FAIR has been around since 1979, sucking tens of millions of dollars out of the anti-illegal immigration movement, why has illegal immigration gotten so much worse that we're poised at the edge of a cliff ready to lose our country?
(3) If Mehlman has been with FAIR since 1986 and Rick Oltman since 1997, why haven't they while drawing big salaries/benefits/expense accounts accomplished a single thing in Arizona? Where have they been and what have they been doing all this time?
Why would anyone purportedly on our side engage in smear campaigns against two people who are unpaid, have no expense accounts, no million-dollar pensions, etc. namely, the leading authority on immigration in this country, Dr. Virginia Abernethy, and PAN's founder and chairman, Kathy McKee? Maybe FAIR considers the 100-hour weeks Kathy puts into PAN as a volunteer "doing little", but she accomplishes more in a week than FAIR's big-buck employees do in a year. I'm sure Mehlman has never even met Kathy, much less been to her house to see the hundreds of Emails and phone calls she gets every day, while being buried in a mountain of files and paperwork for PAN. What's fair about FAIR?
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:11 PM
Subject: FAIR/PAN/Kathy McKee, Director
I admit I was somewhat puzzled over the 'spat' between Kathy McKee and Russell Pearce,
Randy Graf, and Rusty Childress. I have the highest regard for them all, and was sad to
see these brave people on seemingly different sides. From my vantage point, I can't say
Prop 200 would have made the ballot without FAIR's help. I don't know anything about Virginia Abernethy that I made judge her as a plus or minus. None of the quotes in the AZ Republic article on Ms. Abernethy would lead me to a minus. REALITY CHECK: The AZ Republic is publishing every piece of crap they can find to derail PAN. But I do know:
1) FAIR came into the game in the 'fourth quarter', when historically signature numbers go up, regardless of the initiative.
2) No one will ever know if true PAN volunteers would have reached the goal, because FAIR bought their already-collected signatures.
3) FAIR grandstanded when they held the collected signatures for turnover-publicity, allowing no time for pre-verification. I believe this put the effort in unnecessary peril for the sake of a photo op.
4) Since Arizona is up to its ears in illegal aliens, it would certainly seem that Kathy McKee accomplished more in 12 months that FAIR has in 20 years.
I believe FAIR owes the volunteers of PAN an apology. In asking Kathy McKee to "step
aside", you have proven that all the negative rantings about FAIR were absolutely true. Doing it publicly was moronic, subjecting the effort to peril again.
Perhaps it is time for FAIR to "step aside". There are similar initiatives popping up in many states; or are you waiting for the 'fourth quarter'?
A Marshall Plan for Mexico: Reform Must Precede Aid
August 26, 2001
Commentary by Ira Mehlman
Federation for American Immigration Reform Spokesman
Published in Arizona Republic
Symbolism is important in politics, and the fact that President Bush has chosen Mexico as the destination for the first foreign visit of his presidency says a lot. Mexico holds the potential to be one of our most promising foreign relationships, or one of the United States biggest headaches. President Bush is wise to put Mexico at the top of his foreign policy agenda.
On the bright side, Mexico has freed itself of the yoke of 70 years of corrupt one party rule with the election of Vicente Fox as its new president. President Fox has his work cut out for him, and it would be unrealistic of us, or the Mexican people, to expect that he will turn the country around overnight. Mexico is also emerging from the severe economic crisis of the early 1990s, and under NAFTA has become an important U.S. trading partner.
The danger looms in the belief that there is a short cut to the type of reform that needs to occur in Mexico. Presidents Fox and Bush, as well as many leading congressional Republicans seem to believe that we can move from where we are now, to a fully integrated North American economic and labor market immediately. While that is a laudable long-term goal, rushing from point A to point Z could prove disastrous.
High on President Fox's agenda is freer access for Mexican workers to the U.S. labor market. While this may seem, on the surface, to be a good idea - given Mexicoâ€™s worker excess and our tight labor market - it a sure-fire prescription for getting us right back where we started. The idea of a U.S. â€œsafety valveâ€ for excess Mexican labor has not really benefited either country.
How Wide Should Our Open Doors Be?
Gary Rosenblatt - Editor and Publisher
Is it blasphemy, or simple logic and self-preservation, to suggest that U.S. immigration laws should be tightened? Even to mention the topic makes some Jewish leaders nervous.
America, of course, is a nation of immigrants, the land of second chances. As a result, its beckoning shores have long held a special place of gratitude for American Jews. Our bubbes and zaydes came here to escape persecution from Europe and Russia and other lands, and it was here that they prospered in the melting pot of ethnic diversity, tolerance and democratic values. More recently, hundreds of thousands of Jews from the former Soviet Union were able to settle here and begin new lives without fear of religious discrimination.
So it is only natural that the American Jewish community has been outspoken in its support of open immigration even as the numbers of Jews coming to this country has diminished.
Ira Mehlman, media director of FAIR (Federation for American Immigrant Reform), agrees that â€œAmerican Jews need to look out for their own self-interest.â€
The Coastal Post - June, 1996
Republican's Rick Oltman Is Disturbing News
BY KAREN NAKAMURA
The Marin Independent Journal's headlines screamed. Rick Oltman, chairperson of the Republican Central Committee of Marin was removed from his post for publicly agreeing with the beating of illegals in Southern California.
Then the headlines screamed he'd been reinstated and without showing any regret other than he shouldn't have spoken publicly.
(The CP tried numerous times to get a response from Mr. Oltman but was unable.)
May 31, 2004
Attempted Hostile Takeover of Protect Arizona NOW
Kathy McKee, founder and state chairman of Protect Arizona Now (PAN), is outraged that an outside immigration reform group is attempting to hijack an initiative movement intended to stop voting fraud and welfare fraud. PAN's Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act would enforce laws that confine voting to citizens and limit welfare to legal residents of Arizona.
This outside group is in possession of an unknown number of signatures needed to put the initiative on the November 2004 ballot -- signatures collected on behalf of PAN, with use of PAN's name, and with money largely donated on PAN's behalf. PAN has not received a single cent or a single signed petition from this outside group.
McKee declares PAN will continue its efforts to collect signatures as well as recover the hijacked signatures. "We're pursuing investigation of the activities of this outside group, as well as former PAN individuals' actions, including possible RICO violations," stated McKee.
This outside group has used PAN's name in the announcement of a rally scheduled for Thursday, June 3 -- a rally about which McKee was not advised, consulted, or knew anything about until it was announced to the public. She explains that it is not an official PAN event, and no outside group is authorized to call a meeting in PAN's name. "Actually, in PAN's organization, no one except the chairman (me) does have the authority to consent to such activities," she states, "and everyone in any kind of PAN leadership position knows that."
PAN was registered with the Arizona Secretary of State's office on July 7, 2003, and McKee immediately put in motion an organization and process for collecting the signatures needed to put the initiative on the November 2004 Arizona ballot. A total of 122,612 validated signatures must be collected before a July 1 deadline. "PAN is a grassroots, all-volunteer organization, including me," states McKee. "I can't tell you how sad it is to see well-intentioned people like some of our group leaders and volunteers get jerked off the high road by people who have lots to gain financially by trying to profit off our blood, sweat, and tears."
"While PAN greatly appreciates genuine help given from a good heart, I don't see any honor in cannibalism. Arizonans don't need an outside group coming here to try to run our politics. We want these self-serving political games to stop, and Arizonans want our signatures NOW."