Strange bedfellows joining opposition to the war on terror

0 Comments | Insight on the News, July 29, 2002 | by James R. Edwards, Jr.

In the war against terrorism, just whose side is big business on? Surprisingly, perhaps, big business' Washington mouthpieces--including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the National Restaurant Association--increasingly have become cozier with radical leftists.

This spring, the National Immigration Forum (NIF), ringleader of a nefarious open-borders coalition, raised the ire of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). The NIF's Immigration Policy Handbook 2002, an annual propaganda piece, criticized the Bush administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft for their handling of the war against terrorism at home.

Such criticism is significant because the U.S. Chamber, NAM and the restaurant association don't just belong to an ad hoc coalition. They each have staff members who sit on the NIF board of directors. Randy Johnson of the U.S. Chamber, Sandy Boyd of NAM and Lee Culpepper of the restaurant association work side-by-side with liberal extremists such as Jeanne Butterfield of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Lucas Guttentag of the American Civil Liberties Union, Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza and NIF Executive Director Frank Sharry.

A top-ranking counsel with the House Judiciary Committee noticed that the big-business lobbyists tacitly endorse the NIF handbook's contents. Their names appear on letterhead on an NIF cover letter.

The section of the handbook titled "Terrorism and the Government's Response" describes post-Sept. 11 efforts to safeguard the nation against further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. The only people to object to these actions have been radical groups tacking for Muslim extremists and far-out civil libertarians.

According to the NIF handbook's heading, the actions of the administration "begin to alarm many inside and outside of Congress." Public-opinion polls show this assertion to be false. The government has taken steps "automatically overturning a judge's order to release an alien," "monitoring attorney/client communications," conducting "law-enforcement interviews with Middle Eastern men" providing for military tribunals, offering "visas for information" and Middle Eastern immigrants being "detained and disappearing."

The NIF handbook warns, "The administration's actions listed above have been taken unilaterally without consulting Congress, while limiting the possibility for judicial review of its actions."

Further, NIF charges that these steps "have eroded the trust of the Arab-American community." There is no mention of the erosion of Americans' trust that Sept. 11 caused toward those this nation welcomed as newcomers, but whose members have remained disturbingly silent in condemning the terrorists' sneak attacks.

NIF's tone implies that the Department of Justice is doing something wrong in seeking to protect the citizens of this nation. Apparently, the U.S. Chamber and others agree with these gripes.

The business groups' apparent endorsement of the antiadministration statements got the attention of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee--and their consternation. A committee staffer was directed to contact the Chamber's and NAM's staffers on the NIF board. Johnson and Boyd were informed that the committee chairman was sorely disturbed by their criticism of the attorney general and the administration in the NIF propaganda.

To what extent is the NIF outside the mainstream? In March, after the Department of Justice proposed new rules to streamline the immigration appeals process and reduce the backlog of Board of Immigration Appeals cases, the NIF characterized the reforms as "the latest in a range of actions taken by Attorney General Ashcroft that amount to drive-by due process."

In April, after the Justice Department proposed getting state and local police officers more involved in enforcing immigration laws--an aspect of homeland security--the NIF's Sharry said, "We shouldn't be engaging in community profiling; we should be devoting scarce resources to effective community policing. From a law-enforcement point of view, it is a disaster."

The Forum regularly marches in lockstep with extremist groups like the ACLU, La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.

Coalition politics can go too far, as it may have done with the business groups' close association with the NIF. They give tacit approval of "cry-wolf" criticisms against commonsense, immigration-control efforts.

JAMES R. EDWARDS JR. IS COAUTHOR OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IS AN ADJUNCT FELLOW WITH THE HUDSON INSTITUTE.