Hi, all
My letter to the Washington Times is second. Kathy McKee's letter is
first. Both published October 1, today. They omitted plenty that is
important -- but some rebuttal is better than none.
The author of the original piece is the head of their editorial
department, Brendan Conway, and he admitted that his principal source
was somebody at FAIR. He never asked Kathy or me to verify anything
although the story was about us, mainly her.
Kathy called the Times to ask if they were in the running for the Dan
Rather award. She says that Conway hung up on her when she asked one
question that he thought was one too many. ........The humorous side of
life...........
V.
-----------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arizona's illegals
Your editorial "... While Arizonans debate illegals" (Sunday) had a
number of errors in it. I list the errors below, followed by
corrections:
* "The Protect Arizona Now Initiative ... would require applicants
for voter registration and public benefits to show proof of Arizona
citizenship," you write. This is not true. What is "Arizona citizenship"
anyway? Applicants for voter registration have to show proof of U.S.
citizenship and legal residency in Arizona, but applicants for public
benefits would have to show proof of eligibility, not citizenship. This
is more important than you may think because requiring proof of
citizenship, rather than eligibility, is one of the key points that sank
Proposition 187.
* "The idea is to cut expenditures on the state's burgeoning illegal
alien population and end issuance of fraudulent drivers' licenses," you
write. Everyone already has to prove legal residency in Arizona to
obtain a driver's license here. Our initiative will have zero effect on
illegal aliens' ability to obtain driver's licenses.
* "[Illegal aliens] are known to register to vote in order to
obtain fraudulent state IDs," you write. No one out here thinks they
"register to vote in order to obtain fraudulent state IDs." Even if this
were true, it's backwards: They have to have fraudulent IDs to vote, but
they vote because special interest groups sign them up to vote.
* "California and Colorado are prominent among states that have
similar emerging initiatives." California's and Colorado's initiatives
didn't come close to getting on the ballot this year, and neither state
can have a similar initiative. If they're successful the second time,
they must wait until the 2006 election. Hardly emerging, are they? m
"Its provisions would extend only to non-emergency services such as
voter registration, obtaining driver's licenses," you write. Welfare
benefits under Title 46 are the only programs our initiative covers, and
driver's licenses are not a welfare benefit or covered under Title 46.
So, again, driver's licenses are not remotely affected by our
initiative.
* "If Proposition 200 fails this November, the onus will lie
squarely with Protect Arizona Now's chairman Kathy McKee," you write. Do
you mean the same Kathy McKee - me -who started Protect Arizona Now two
years ago - 1½ years before the Federation for American
Immigration Reform (FAIR) tried its unsuccessful hostile takeover? Do
you mean the Kathy McKee who is its largest individual contributor by
far, even after quitting her job to put 18 to 20 hours a day into
Protect Arizona Now without a cent of compensation? I successfully
fought off FAIR's hostile takeover attempt, which has been ongoing for
almost eight months and has been the subject of one lawsuit (I won). It
is sure to be the subject of future lit |
