PUBLIC SECTOR THREATENS PREDOMINANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

By Diane M. Grassi

“The one absolute certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of it continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities. We have but one flag. We must also learn one language and that language is English.” – Theodore Roosevelt (1915)

In his final months in office, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13166 on August 11, 2000. Having wrangled with the United States Congress without success on the issue, E.O. 13166 directs all federal agencies to implement a system to improve access to federal programs and federally subsidized agencies by persons who are limited in their English proficiency (LEP). In conjunction with E.O. 13166, the Department of Justice issued a document titled, LEP Guidance, which set its compliance standards. Thus, agencies must follow that programs and activities they provide in English are also accessible to LEP persons and thus do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or language.

On April 24, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings of Sandoval v. Hagan brought in Federal court in June 1998. The plaintiff claimed that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act should also apply to persons not of ‘national origin’ on the basis of language. The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, eliminated any legal basis for E.O. 13166. In 2005 two bills, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate, would officially nullify E.O. 13166. The English Language Unity Act of 2005 or H.R. 997 is pending in the House and S.B. 557 is pending in the Senate.

The administration of President Bush attempts to downplay the Supreme Court's ruling in the Sandoval case and states, "It is the position of the Department of Justice that Executive Order 13166 remains in force.” Given the fact that the Sandoval decision threw out virtually the only judicial precedent that existed for issuing E.O. 13166, the administration established a “Mend It Don’t End It” mandate and urges all government agencies to balance common sense factors with availability of resources in complying with the order.

Years later the ramifications or implications of such policy has presented unending obstacles which range from issues of public safety to infringement upon the rights of Americans. To wit, Alabama continues to issue its driver’s license exams in 13 languages including Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Russian, Vietnamese, Thai and Spanish. However in 1990 the people of Alabama voted by a wide margin to amend their state constitution and make English the official language. In compliance with the law, Alabama stopped giving driver’s license exams in other languages. It was then challenged in federal court, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently ruled that Alabama was within its constitutional rights to have such a policy. However, Alabama still allows driver’s license applicants to take their exams in multiple languages.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation, a constitutional public interest law firm, filed suit in May 2005, asking the court to enforce Amendment 509 of the Alabama Constitution, which gives standing to its citizens to enforce its English language driver’s license requirement. Also of importance, is that providing driver’s license tests in multiple languages is a threat to the public safety of the community, with traffic signs posted in English in addition to the inability of said driver to communicate with law enforcement in the event of an accident or emergency.

In addition to the trials and tribulations in Alabama, a southern California tree nursery recently filed a lawsuit against the state of California, alleging that it discriminates against foreign-language speaking workers by not offering safety tests in their native languages. GroWest is claiming its only crane operator, who has been employed there for 24 years, failed the state mandated Certification for Crane Operators exam because it was in English. Graham Brent, executive director of the state commission representing the National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators that produces the test claims, “The issue doesn’t have anything to do with discriminating against people who do not speak English, but everything to do with safety.” Crane operators must be able to read the English language safety manuals, maintain required records and report unsafe conditions in English. California state attorney, David Pies, said, “Certain growers want to be able to continue to use workers who do not speak, read, or write English proficiently to operate cranes, regardless of the risk to them or their co-workers.”

The Denver Public Library system is actively promoting a plan that will make seven of its branches “Spanish focused.” This program banishes English language books to the storeroom. The program,” Languages and Learning,” plans to dramatically increase its Spanish language offerings as well as Spanish-speaking staff, and designates these locations as Spanish-dominant. But many residents as well as taxpayers in Denver have not taken this issue lightly. They rather view it as an act of favoritism, discriminating against other residents who combined, speak a total of 68 languages.

According to Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of U.S. English, Inc., a non-partisan citizens’ action group, says, “A major U.S. city is creating a public institution that intentionally excludes native-born Americans. This action goes against the model of assimilation that has successfully served the U.S. for centuries. An official Spanish library will further the notion that Spanish speaking immigrants can live in relative comfort without needing to learn our common language. We cannot send an English-optional message to any immigrant group.”

Had the Dallas County School Board listened to Mr. Mujica, perhaps it would not have pursued and finalized its plan and requirement to have over half of its schools’ principals learn Spanish where over 50% of its school population has LEP, which covers 42 of its 100 schools. It is the nation’s first school district which threatens principals with their jobs should they not learn Spanish within the prescribed period of three years.

Dallas School Board Trustee, Joe May, defended the new policy, approved August 25, 2005, and has said that not only over 50% of Dallas schools have students with LEP but the effort was made also for principals to be able to communicate with parents with LEP regarding their children’s performance. Dallas is also 9th in the nation with people who speak Vietnamese as a first language and 14th in the nation for Korean-speaking people. Six percent of the school districts’ population speaks a language other than English at home and the school’s policy has not allotted resources to promote English in those homes where Spanish is predominant.

If we go back to Theodore Roosevelt’s premise nearly 100 hundred years ago, we can either consider him a prophet of his time or perhaps we come to the realization that he had a great grasp of history as well as an eye on the future. In order for the United States to maintain its sovereignty and remain a nation undivided as well as prosperous, we must strive to be joined by a common thread, that being the English language. Without that common thread we are not a melting pot but rather a fractured society of various cultures with different sets of ideals. This can only lead to the undermining of America and we as Americans have the obligation to preserve it.

FUTURE OF AIRCRAFT SAFETY AT CORE OF NW MECHANICS STRIKE

By Diane M. Grassi

On August 20, 2005 at 12:01 AM, airline mechanics and maintenance workers of Northwest Airlines, based in Eagan, MN, went on strike. Northwest is the fourth largest airline in the United States as well as the number one carrier providing air travel to Asia. While negotiations had been ongoing for the past five months between Northwest Airlines management and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) in order to avoid an impasse and eventual strike, the concessions, according to AMFA were more than about pay cuts and reductions in benefits. At the heart of the demands by Northwest was job security for those even agreeing to take the proposed 25% cut in salary, as well as revisions to the pension plan.

Northwest has requested AMFA to accept a contract eliminating 53% of its jobs. Trimming its workforce of mechanics and other maintenance workers from 10,000 in 2001 to 4,400 today, Northwest looks to decrease its 3,600 mechanics to 2,350. AMFA was told that Northwest is looking to cut $176 million in annual costs. For those accepting the 25% salary reductions, there will be no guarantee of workers keeping their jobs as increases in outsourcing both in the U.S. and abroad are on the agenda for Northwest. Northwest CEO, Doug Steenland, said, “The lion’s share of aviation maintenance in the industry is done by third-party providers who can do the work cheaper and faster.”

But Northwest is not any different than every other major and low-cost airline in the U.S., with the exception of American Airlines, in outsourcing an average of at least 50% of maintenance work. American Airlines has revisited their outsourcing policy and now only depends on outsourcing for 20% of its maintenance jobs, while America West and Alaska Airlines outsource 79% and 77% of their maintenance, respectively. According to David Campbell, American Airline’s Vice President of Base Operations, on keeping 80% of its maintenance in-house says, “Having that control gives us greater ability to mitigate safety risks.”

Northwest, however, would rather discuss how it would be better for the AMFA workers to accept its terms rather than bankruptcy which Northwest may very well face, having lost $3 billion since 2001. In addition, the airline industry as a whole and primarily the big carriers, have used the 9/11 attacks, a recession, the SARS scare, low-cost carrier growth and surging fuel prices as justification for permanently eliminating U.S. maintenance jobs. But unlike other industries which are long gone to offshoring in China, Asia and third world countries, U.S. oversight of aircraft is far different than that of textile manufacturing, for example. Airlines have a far different obligation to the public.

In a 2005 report issued by the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General, there were key concerns regarding outsourcing of airplane maintenance, even though there has not been a fatal accident involving a U.S. aircraft since November 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 crashed into a Rockaway, NY neighborhood, killing 265 people. The DOT report stated, “The FAA must assure the public that industry changes, including financial distress and growth, do not compromise safety.” A major case in point is that Northwest has shifted maintenance to offshore sites such as Singapore (known to embody terrorist cells) as well as the People’s Republic of China. There, specialized work including periodic major overhauls, legally required for commercial aircraft, is performed. The airline industry necessitates greater oversight by the FAA as it is an issue of national security.

Since September 11, 2001, the FAA requires all airport-based airline employees in the U.S. to submit to a “Fingerprint-Based Criminal History Background Check,” which probes the past ten years of an employee’s past. No such checks are required of employees at off-site contractors located in the U.S. or from mechanics working on U.S. commercial aircraft in a foreign country. Northwest of course does not stand alone but is rather a participant in the globalization and fractured nature of the airline industry. Should the latest mechanics’ strike continue for any extended period of time without any serious accidents or fatalities, look for Northwest to seek redemption, rather than address the various dangers and issues on various levels, which are the direct result of outsourcing airplane maintenance.

According to the Office of Inspector General of the DOT, it has requested increased monitoring of outsourced maintenance by the FAA. And the DOT has found that safety inspections at low-cost carriers are not increasing proportionately to their rapid growth. In one instance an unnamed airline increased its fleet by 56% over three years while cutting its mechanics by 14%. But the FAA “did not identify the increase in flights and reduction in mechanics as risks or evaluate the impact. ..on the air carrier’s maintenance and operations.” Additionally, budget cuts within the FAA have meant the loss of 300 inspectors since 2004.

In 2003, FAA employees failed to complete 26% or 938 of the safety inspections planned at five of the big carriers, which included Northwest. The FAA did not increase its surveillance of three of them until they were in or near bankruptcy. The DOT’s Inspector General report of 2003 cited, “the outside shop left vulnerabilities in the quality of aircraft repairs.” FAA inspectors’ union vice president Linda Goodrich stated, “We are lucky to go to each of these facilities once a year with announced visits. It’s just not possible to do more,” due to budget cuts. According to Ted Ludwig, president of Local 33 of the AMFA, “We are headed for disaster if the FAA continues to be run like this, and the carriers are put in charge of monitoring outsourcing.” The FAA also does not keep track of exactly how much maintenance is being outsourced and offshored, although industry analysts expect it to grow to an average of 60% by 2008.

The Transportation Safety Administration, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, has addressed mandatory drug, alcohol and background checks of third-party contractors in the U.S. and abroad, but has not come up with any comprehensive plan or regulation as of yet. How realistic it would be to oversee work in countries from North America, Europe, South and Central America, Asia and the Far East remains a quagmire and would require a policy change, first and foremost. As laws and regulations overseas are far different than those in the U.S., especially concerning drug tests, it remains an unresolved issue.

In March of 2005, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency arrested 27 illegal aliens who were working at one of the largest aircraft maintenance contractor facilities in the U.S., located in Greensboro, N.C. The illegal employees were from Central and South America, the Sudan and the Philippines. These arrests were symbolic in the sense that they took place in the U.S. where the airlines and the FAA have the chance to oversee third-party contractors. But FAA inspectors continue to focus mainly on maintenance at airlines in hangars where in-house maintenance takes place rather than at third-party contractors in the U.S. or abroad. In addition, some foreign repair stations subcontract work out to other contractors, which are not licensed or cleared by the FAA.

Congressman James Oberstar (D-MN), a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, when referring to outsourcing and offshoring of aircraft maintenance says, “The current accident rate does not mean there is no risk. The next tragedy is just around the corner.” Let us hope that Congressman Oberstar is wrong and that the respective factions of government will take on yet another deliberate crack in U.S. national security policy, at a time when nothing of the kind should be tolerated.

Lawmakers Use Border Security as Political Ploy

By Diane M. Grassi


On August 12, 2005 Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico issued Executive Order 2005-040 declaring a ‘state of emergency’ in four New Mexico counties along its border with Mexico. It is intended to free up funds totalling $1.5 million for a variety of actions he felt necessary. Specifically, Hidalgo, Luna, Grant and Dona Ana counties are in “an extreme state of disrepair” according to the governor. The state of emergency stems from the governor’s conclusion of “violence encountered by law enforcement, damage to property and livestock, increased evidence of drug smuggling and human smuggling, with an increase in the number of undocumented immigrants.” New Mexico’s border with Mexico covers over 180 miles.

Funding will be utilized for state and local law enforcement and paying for overtime, creating and providing for a field office for the New Mexico Office of Homeland Security and building a fence to protect a livestock yard near Columbus, NM, which covers a 54-mile stretch, a popular entry point for illegal aliens. The new barbed wire fence will replace a shorter barbed wire fence in disrepair. The new fence is being built primarily to prevent cattle from Mexico straying across the border. “We don’t want contagious diseases to contaminate our food supply and disrupt our agricultural economy,” said Richardson.

Whether or not the $1.5 million can be stretched far enough for Gov. Richardson’s well-meaning initiatives remains to be seen. But skeptics, critics of Bill Richardson’s in particular, and citizens from both sides of the aisle do no trust this latest gesture of good will. After all, New Mexico residents, other border state residents and especially landowners directly on the border have been asking for additional Border Patrol agents and federal and state enforcement of immigration law for years. Governor Richardson’s recent actions combined with his ‘state of emergency’ tell more about his political leanings rather than being a man of law and order.

In April 2005 Governor Richardson vetoed a state bill known as “No Fear,” which would have prohibited state and local law enforcement from working in concert with federal law enforcement, such as the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), with the apprehension of those in the country illegally. In fact, it garnered national attention. What was not as openly disclosed, however, was that immediately thereafter on April 7, 2005 Governor Richardson issued Executive Order 2005-019 or ‘Clarifying Victim and Witness Protections in New Mexico’. As such, “State Law Enforcement officers shall not inquire about a person’s immigration status for the sole purpose of determining whether that person is present in the United States in violation of civil immigration law.”

With his well known dossier, having served in the administration of President Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson has made well-known his Democratic and liberal leanings. As a former U.S. Congressman (D-NM), U.N. Ambassador and later the Secretary of Energy in Bill Clinton’s second term, Richardson has also expressed interest in the past in running for the office of the president and as names are already appearing amongst pontificators for the 2008 campaign, many have looked at Richardson’s ‘bold’ move to protect the border of New Mexico as a way of seeking national office once again. Given the years of turmoil on the border and the seemingly small allocation of funds he said he will provide for four counties, one can only wonder if he is putting political expediency ahead of seriously addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

On the heels of Governor Richardson’s state of emergency declaration comes Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s Executive Order on August 15, 2005, declaring a ‘state of emergency’ for the four border counties in Arizona. The counties include Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz and Yuma, and is the most porous part of the U.S. southern border. Recently given national attention has been Napolitano’s veto of Proposition 200 which was passed by 56% of the voters of Arizona in November 2004. Proposition 200 represented an unprecedented move by Arizonans, which included 47% of the Latino voting public, to require proof of citizenship for first-time voters and proper identification on Election Day, as well as a requirement to present legal documentation in order to collect public state benefits that would otherwise not be available under federal law.

Napolitano has vetoed a whole host of passed state legislation this past year, aimed at reeling in abuses of the immigration laws statewide and federally. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did uphold portions of Proposition 200 on August 9, 2005, concerning voters’ rights. However, which of its provisions and how they will be enforced are still pending in Arizona state court. With her gubernatorial re-election in 2006 approaching, Governor Napolitano’s declared ‘state of emergency’ appears to be self-serving now and rings hollow among her constituents.

Richardson’s comments that “the federal government and Congress are not delivering what we need,” were not taken lightly by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) who serves on the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Domenici claims that “Congress has provided millions for border security, and set aside millions more for future projects. However, the important thing is to realize that money and fences alone are not going to solve the illegal immigration problems. Congress must undertake real, in-depth immigration reform that will find a long-term solution to this problem.” The people of New Mexico and the U.S. are still waiting.

And Senator John McCain (R-AZ) did what he could in his efforts to help defeat Proposition 200 prior to its ratification by his own constituents. He has aligned himself with Senator Kennedy (D-MA), arguably the liberal conscience of the Democratic Party. They are presently involved in a full-throttle campaign to gather support for their Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 (S.1033), one of three bill proposals circulating in the Senate. The McCain-Kennedy bill has been touted as nothing more than an amnesty bill and the most liberal of the three. It does however speak volumes about McCain’s wooing the Democratic left as he ramps up for an expected bid for president in 2008 with the Republican Party.

The American people, however, are not given enough credit by their elected officials, who believe that a little window dressing and double speak will satisfy the real and vital needs necessary to defend U.S. borders. And without their true recognition of the toll illegal immigration exacts on national security and the economic health and civil rights of Americans, will they ever truly regain their trust.

Future of U.S. Troops in Iraq Hangs in the Balance

By Diane M. Grassi

At the end of July 2005 the Pentagon announced, through General John Abizaid, head of the United States Central Command in Iraq, that “some fairly substantial reductions” in U.S. troops could be expected by the spring and summer of 2006. General Abizaid was basing his assessment upon the future political process in Iraq and the progress of Iraqi forces and their role in assuming more responsibility in the security of their own country. Initial estimates of troop reduction were between 20,000 and 30,000.

At present the U.S. military is supplying 138,000 troops in Iraq and reached a high of 160,000 in December 2004 just prior to and after the Iraq elections of December 30th. And just days since the announcement of reducing U.S. troops next year comes the Pentagon’s plan to increase U.S. troops once again this fall for Iraq’s constitutional referendum on October 15, 2005 and the December elections to follow for a new government, according to Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These dates hinge on the completion of the draft of Iraq’s constitution which was promised by August 15, 2005.

Adding troops would be accomplished by again prolonging tours of duty for those already serving in Iraq. The Defense Department expects to deploy new units such as the 101st Airborne Division as well as the 4th Infantry Division as planned in the next several months and has no plans as yet to prematurely send them. Secretary Rumsfeld on July 20, 2005 stated, “We can reasonably expect to see an increase in violence as they continue to move towards their political goals and the referendum on October 15th for the constitution.” But there also has been speculation over the timing of beefing up the ranks at this juncture.

On August 3, 2005 14 Marines from the Brook Park, Ohio-based 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, a Reserve unit attached to the Regimental Combat Team-2, were killed by a 500 pound artillery shell when traveling in their armored amphibious vehicle to reach insurgents infiltrating Iraq from Syria, around a village near the Haditha dam, along the Euphrates Valley in western Iraq. 15 Marines were on board the vehicle, in addition to a civilian translator. 14 Marines and the translator were killed and one Marine survived. It was described as the deadliest roadside bombing suffered by American forces since the onset of the War in Iraq in 2003. These fallen men followed the deaths of six sniper members of their unit on August 1, 2005 who were caught in an ambush. In all, 49 American service members have perished in Iraq since July 24, 2005 to date, all in combat, with the exception of two.

Brig. General Carter Ham, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained that the Marines were “trying to contain a very lethal and unfortunately adaptable enemy.” Dick Bridges, spokesman for the Pentagon’s task force said “Insurgents have begin using significantly larger explosives buried in the road, some as large as 500 to 600 pounds. These explosives are so large and powerful that no U.S. vehicle can withstand a direct hit. They’ve upped the ante by using ‘shaped charges’ which is an explosive that concentrates a blast so it can penetrate armored vehicles.”

Also brought into question, however, is the use of the amphibious assault vehicle or AAV, called an Amtrac, designed to mainly carry troops from ships to a short distance inland. Originally modeled after a 1937 rescue carrier for hurricanes in Clearwater, Florida, it was used in World War I, World War II, in Korea and Vietnam and the current AAV is based on the 1973 model. The AAV is made of aluminum and has limited armor in order for its ability to float in water. Much of the equipment utilized by the Marines in Iraq was purchased with the idea of a shore assault in mind, according to Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Washington, D.C. The AAV was not designed to stave off attacks from roadside bombs but rather 7.62mm rifle rounds or 155mm artillery fragments. It usually travels at an average speed of 30mph.

A more advanced AAV, called the Advanced Assault Amphibious Vehicle, is being developed, but will not be available for initial operating capability until at least 2006 with a full roll out in 2012. Although officials have acknowledged that the Marines are relying on a vehicle primarily designed for a different kind of warfare such as at Iwo Jima in the Pacific theater of World War II, they claim that they are used because there simply are not enough of the much heavier armored Adams tanks to go around. However, the original intent of the amphibious vehicles was to use them in ‘combined-arms’ assaults, with heavy amounts of air support. The present AAV according to Daniel Goure, also of the Lexington Institute said, “The vehicle wasn’t designed to engage in the kind of day-to-day patrolling of insurgent-controlled areas the Marines are doing in western Iraq. Lightly armored and underpowered, it is essentially a big boat on land.”

But while the armor kits and factory production of fully armored Humvees was delayed and under funded over the past several months, with additional funds presently held up by the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate until after the summer recess when Congress reconvenes in September, addressing alternative vehicles or weaponry for the armed forces is not yet a realistic possibility. The AAV much like the Humvee, many which went unarmored for the bulk of the war effort in Iraq, has come under criticism for the same reason. Neither was designed for guerilla-war duty for which they have been used.

And while the mixed messages mount regarding the appropriate size of our armed forces in Iraq and debates arise about the integrity of the equipment being utilized in the war effort, much overlooked other than by those directly involved, is the frequency of troops being sent back to combat. Since the all-volunteer U.S. military was created in 1973 after the mandatory draft ended, the number of required multiple tours of duty is unprecedented. Also unprecedented is the dependence on so many of U.S. service members from the Reserve, serving all branches of the armed forces in addition to the National Guard, which account for nearly 50% of all troops. In that sense, it appears bleak for those in the field, being asked to extend their tours when most have been gone from the states for over a year at a time, with the Marines deployed for seven months. Some have come to expect that they may be required to serve longer.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice looks at the War in Iraq from a different perspective, however, than those in the field. In the August 7th online edition of Time Magazine Rice stated, “If you think about how to defeat an insurgency, you defeat it not just militarily but politically,” adding that “the insurgents are losing steam politically.” And Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) said that while insurgents are “confounding U.S. forces and using tactics for which American commanders are not prepared, progress is being made. The fact is that we are proceeding with the reconstruction of the country, with the building of a constitution.” But whether members of the U.S. military signed up for that mission remains a big question in the eyes of the American people.

MORTGAGES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS ENCOURAGED BY FDIC

By Diane M. Grassi

The mainstream press has only recently begun to cover the failure of the federal government’s obligation to seriously address the security of the borders of the United States with respect to illegal immigration. Largely due to the launch of the Minute Man Project which took place in April 2005 in a southern border ‘neighborhood watch’ in Arizona, the media was forced to cover the event as it was a symbol of the majority of Americans who believe that the borders should be secured and that U.S. laws should be observed.

For those not fully immersed in the matter however, it is through the mainstream press and broadcast media that most Americans get their information, but they have not addressed many other issues which have evolved as a result of lax immigration policies. And the American people are not aware of how quickly things are changing. Other than the mention of homeland security issues concerning our borders, neither the press nor our lawmakers, in our politically correct climate, are willing to address the matter. So the constant drain on U.S. resources such as energy, roads and infrastructure including services such as medical care and school tuition, to name just a few, are not highlighted. All have added to the tax bill of Americans as well as steep hikes in medical and car insurance rates alone.

Openly adding to the growing list of illicit acts on behalf of illegal aliens are corporate entities and mid-sized businesses knowingly hiring illegal aliens without verification of proper documentation. Long gone are the days when we were told illegal workers were merely filling jobs as domestics in the home or doing the work of landscapers, as many decent blue collar jobs go directly to the illegal population now, bypassing hardworking Americans. And since no fines have ever been issued against any businesses hiring illegal aliens there is no impetus for any to stop, as they enjoy not having to pay benefits or guaranteeing work on a permanent basis.

But while most Americans are at least peripherally aware of these unaddressed problems, many would be surprised how financial institutions are now bending over backwards to woo illegal aliens to become home owners. Until recently it was an unexposed policy, but banks across the nation have now put out the welcome mats in full force, through marketing campaigns.

The FDIC was created by Congress in 1933 to reassure the public’s trust in the national banking system. Although it operates as an independent agency it helps insure account deposits at 8,930 banks in the U.S. Its goal is to “promote the safety and soundness of these institutions by identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to which they are exposed.”

However, the FDIC is now formally encouraging “U.S. banks to enter this largely untapped market,” referring to illegal aliens. National banks, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A. are leading the charge, granting mortgage loans for a potential home buyers’ market of 215,000 illegal aliens, with many in the local bank communities following suit, some with the help of state housing commissions.

And the FDIC along with the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. have given their endorsement for banks across the U.S. to offer home loans and other financial services such as car loans to illegal aliens regardless of their immigration status. In doing so, banks are accepting the Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) from the Internal Revenue Service in lieu of a Social Security card for which those illegally in the U.S. do not qualify. Wells Fargo and Bank of America have also been accepting the matricula consular card or consul registration number for nearly two years, which can be sought at the Mexican Consulate in the U.S. instead of an ITIN.

Since illegal aliens do not have a credit history, they need only supply the ITIN or a matricula consular card along with proof of income for a period of two years and taxes paid on those wages. Some banks also require history of rent and utility payments. After that however, illegals get the same terms with no penalties as any U.S. citizen or legal resident does. In addition they may later seek a home equity loan like anyone else.

According to Michael Frias, a spokesman for the FDIC, “Banks aren’t legally required to verify legal status. There is no federal law which requires banks to verify the immigration status of foreign account holders.”
The only problem with that statement is that illegal aliens are not merely “foreign account holders”, but are illegal inhabitants of the U.S., courtesy of our banking industry, which is inviolate of the laws of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Kevin Mukri of the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, which is the primary U.S. bank regulator, “Banks are not the arm of the immigration department. It would be discriminatory not to service them.” But under U.S. Criminal Code 274, “It is a crime punishable by 10 years in jail for aiding and abetting someone in this country illegally for commercial gain.” And the Bank Secrecy Act of 1972 provides that “Banks must know their customers and any illegal activity must be reported to the government.”

It is a blatant betrayal of the American people and a terrible precedent set as the U.S. government pretends to uphold the law while condoning the approval of mortgage lending to the illegal community, with a wink and a nod. This is no longer a matter of an employer avoiding the law or about helping those coming to the U.S. in search of a better life. Rather it is the acceptance of lawmakers and law enforcement to ignore the laws of the land, specifically for those who reside in the U.S. illegally. Moreover, it is a flagrant disregard and appreciation of law abiding Americans. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has now mortgaged away the future of America as we once knew it. Sadly, that is something now which we may never be able to reverse.
y Diane M. Grassi

STATES FIGHT CLOSING AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASES

By Diane M. Grassi


The United States Senate has been working towards finalizing a defense authorization bill before their August 1, 2005 recess. But the Senate voted to continue to debate on two controversial amendments attached to the $441.6 billion bill in September prolonging resolution. On July 26, 2005 the Senate vote of 50-48 fell short of ending debate on Senator John Thune’s (R-ND) bi-partisan supported measure, to delay any proposed U.S. military base closings until the Pentagon conducts several operational reviews as well as return a majority of troops from Iraq before the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) authorizes their final plan.

The other amendment, less crucial to American families with soldiers serving in Iraq or Afghanistan as well as communities throughout the country, is Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) bill which would standardize the interrogation techniques in the Army field manual for the treatment of all detainees in the custody of the Department of Defense. McCain also added language expressly prohibiting cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody regardless of where they are held. And now President George Bush has promised to veto the entire defense bill should either of these amendments be approved by the Senate.

On May 13, 2005 the Pentagon recommended military base closures and reductions of U.S. military installations throughout the country. Closures included 180 bases with 33 major bases and 29 major bases set for realignment. On July 19, 2005 the BRAC added more bases and military installations totalling almost a dozen, covering eight states. There has been no final decision yet on any of the bases or installations presently on the list. The final list must be provided to the president by September 8, 2005 and he has up until September 23, 2005 to either accept all recommendations or reject all of them. Thereafter the Congress will have an opportunity to either accept or reject the president’s decision. Prior to September 8th the Commission will hold various public hearings on the disposition of many of the bases.

However, causing a stir in the BRAC review is the Pentagon’s unilateral decision to propose the closing of 30 Air National Guard units and five major bases which house one third of all U.S. aircraft and missile defense technology. The dispute is between state governors’ claims that states’ rights and the unique federal-state role the Guard plays bars the Air Force from either closing or shifting Air National Guard units without the authorization from the governor of such state. Although the general counsel of the BRAC has advised the Commission of this conflict it has not been accepted or finalized by the BRAC.

Already officials on behalf of Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois have filed lawsuits in federal court against the Pentagon. Missouri and Michigan among several other states are waiting in the wings to do the same should the BRAC recommend closing the Guard units housing aircraft. The Pentagon’s initial retort is that since the federal government actually owns the aircraft their plans are justified. But the BRAC has left the door open to excluding Air National Guard units from closure if it means holding up all base closings.

At the heart of the issue is the bad timing of closing the Guard units according to Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm, who was praised by Congressman Joe Schwarz (R-MI). Granholm wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, citing that such a plan leaves many states with less military help during stateside emergency needs and especially at a time of war. In addition, Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has just announced he will be realigning the Department of Homeland Security which will involve more National Guard troops’ participation in combination with new technologies.

The Army Reserve and National Guard presently account for nearly 50% of the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. With recruitment levels at their lowest since the Vietnam War, many state and federal officials including BRAC Chairman, Anthony Principi, believe closing the Air National Guard bases and units will make it even more difficult to recruit Guard members, as many Guard recruits prefer to be in the Air Guard. Others in Washington believe that with so many hotspots globally, consolidation or elimination of defense weaponry and aircraft makes the homeland more vulnerable. And that the ever-present backdrop of 9/11 as well as the recent London bombings reminds us of the value of having a reserve of troops stateside.

Rather than ignoring, delaying or bypassing the matter as the Senate has, the BRAC have called upon the adjutant generals, the commanders of the National Guard in each of the states, for input in helping to resolve this thorny issue as an alternative to the Air Force’s recommendations. As such, Major General Roger Lempke, president of the Adjutants General Association of the U.S. and adjutant general of Nebraska has initially recommended leaving at least some aircraft within each state in question. After meeting on July 22, 2005 the state adjutants provided a memo to the BRAC with their recommendations, but have not yet revealed publicly their suggestions. Ultimately Lempke has stated he wishes to resolve the matter directly with the Air Force.

But still unsettling is the fact that the entirety of the Senate’s Defense Authorization bill has been derailed until September as Congress recesses for August which extends until after Labor Day when they resume on September 6, 2005. Yet to be finalized and ratified is funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs which still has a $1 billion shortfall for the remainder of 2005 and a $2.5 billion deficit for Fiscal Year 2006. In addition, the healthcare benefits and salaries of active duty Army Reserve and National Guard members serving in the Middle East needs to be settled and provided in order for them to receive similar pay and benefits as regular active duty soldiers. Many Reserve and Guard personnel are now serving up to three tours of duty having been sent to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And even more importantly the funding of necessary equipment and armor for our soldiers in battle in addition to properly armoring all Humvee vehicles, hangs in the balance. Occupying the Senate instead of the defense bill over the next several days will be a bill which protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits due the illegal use of firearms. And perhaps the Senate would like to explain to our soldiers, their loved ones and the American people as to why that bill as well as their vacations take precedence over the vital needs of our troops.
Diane M. Grassi