As to European American, yes, I am. And I join almost every other modern American in being a separatist (but not "supremacist," another error the Tucson Weekly made).
Here's why I am a separatist.
The sad fact is that America has abandoned its traditional motto of e pluribus unum--"out of many, one." That was the concept under which I grew up, and believed in deeply, and I wish it still were the dominant ethos. But it isn't. The ethos for the past 30 years has become, increasingly, multiculturalism. That means that each racial or ethnic group identifies with its own and battles for privilege and power on the basis of ethnic identity.
I think this is sad for America, but I am a realist and I recognize a new (and powerful) set of rules when I see them.
The goals of the multicultural game are ethnic separatism, ethnic privilege and ethnic power. I began to realize not too long ago that I have to play the multicultural game, at least defensively, or my family, kin and I will lose out. It is what every ethnic group except, in the main, European Americans, does these days.
Many European Americans are late on the playing field. The many instances in which European Americans are discriminated against in education, the job market and the criminal justice system--as well as the misinformation bruited about in Arizona, including various lies spread about me and the organizations to which I belong--should be a wake-up call.
For the historical record, Congressman Emmanuel Cellar (D-N.Y.) leveled the charge of "racism" against the U.S. Congress in 1924 in the midst of debate on immigration policy. Ever since, "racist" and similar epithets have been the best that pro-open-borders advocates could do to sway the argument their way, because all the evidence shows that most Americans, especially the poor and minorities, are seriously hurt by mass immigration.
Before you vote on Proposition 200, be sure that passage of 200 would accomplish what you want. The title sends the strong message that immigrants are a threat to our welfare. Emotions run high; facts get lost.
People are supporting 200 because they want to stop using our taxes to educate them, stop using our taxes to pay their rescue and medical costs, stop them from coming into our country, stop them from voting in our elections. Regardless of the merit of these arguments, 200 will not accomplish any of these goals.
Federal law requires Arizona to provide K-12 education and emergency medical costs. Denying kids free school meals and preventative health care could end up costing us more tax money for health care. The danger of death does not stop people from crossing illegally, and neither would 200.
Illegal immigrants are not voting now. They don't want to take the risk of being found here.
Mayor Bob Walkup recently pointed out that if 200 passes, it will force the city to use a lot of our scarce tax money. Tucson is short of money already. We need to use our tax money to provide us with essential services--not squander it on enforcing a law that would create more problems than we have already.
PAN presumes to solve a very complex problem. Note that both our senators and all of our congressmen oppose PAN. We voted all these people into office--so trust them.
As a newcomer to Arizona (1998), I was and continue to be shocked and dismayed by continuing events! Homeland Security, my foot! We have protected South Korea from North Korea for 50 years, and Europeans from Europeans for 60 years, and now the National Guards of the Southwestern states are overseas while the homeland is being constantly invaded. We need help!
If the national media had been doing their job, the whole country would know what is and has been going on for more than 50 years. Shame on those who hire the illegals. Shame on those who give them sanctuary; shame on those who have and want to give them amnesty--you have all contributed to the death and misery of thousands.
Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of these invading trespassers are basically decent people, but that does not change the negative effect on a nation that can't continue to be a doormat for Mexico.
Frank D. Wilcek
As for Franzi's claim that the section concerning the RICO suit filed against Bush is from "la-la land," the suit will probably go nowhere, but it is no more "out there" than the idea that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States and the United Kingdom and could launch an attack within 45 minutes. For some reason, though, that insane idea got quite a lot of play in the corporate media. Viewers of Fox "News" still think that WMD were found in Iraq, closely followed in the parade of the misinformed by viewers of CBS "News."
Franzi also rails against the media of other countries, attacking the Canadians and Britons, among others. What Franzi fails to recognize is that censorship doesn't have to come from the government to be damaging. In fact, it is far more dangerous when it comes from the corporate media which is owned, lock, stock and barrel by large conglomerates, some of whom have a direct interest in the military-industrial complex (e.g., CBS and NBC). The fact is, I find a far larger array of opinions in the international press than I do in the "free" press of the United States.
Franzi also dismisses the idea that there's any problem with "under-reporting." I beg to differ. You are taught in any journalism school in this country that the average reader only reads the first part of any article, so anything important should be put in the lead and the first few paragraphs. It is a common practice of the corporate press to allow "experts" and "officials" to go on and on, placing their claims at the top of a piece. If rebuttal is allowed, it is buried in precisely that part of the article that all journalism students are taught will go unread.
Kimberly A. Doss-Cortes