As is often the case with the Democratic Party, certain factions of the left find themselves at odds with the overall party position. This is the catch-22 often faced when you base your following on special interest groups. They often mix about as well as oil and water. Apparently, the left is facing such an issue when trying to meld immigration and women’s rights. I say apparently because the feminists groups are none to eager to answer my requests for information.

When researching for this article, I sent out requests to seven different feminist and women’s groups, asking for their official position on immigration. These requests included the National Organization of Women (NOW), National Women’s Political Caucus, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. Those information requests went out over two weeks ago and, as of yet, no replies.

Of course we all have a pretty good idea of the official position of the left, including the aforementioned women’s groups, on immigration, but I wanted to be able to show something specific just so I could say I did my homework. So, I ended up having to resort to plan B.

I went to Project Vote Smart, on the internet and just ran a quick search of California women’s rights advocate Representatives Pelosi, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters. While I was at it, I checked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). I was looking for anything that would indicate their stance on immigration.

A good research tool can be found in the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), which is sent to every politician in Washington by a non-partisan group, which lists a series of questions related to political issues. When I clicked on Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee and Clinton, I got the message "This candidate has refused to respond to the NPAT questionnaire." Hmmm, imagine my surprise.

Pelosi and Barbara Lee did fill out the questionnaire. Their answers were rather revealing, and were also identical, at least on immigration. Both voted no to decreasing the number of immigrant’s allowed into the U.S., no to disallowing automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the U.S., no to English only education. Both voted yes to increased social programs for immigrants and yes to prohibiting states from denying human services to illegal immigrants.

A little further investigation did reveal that in 1998, Maxine Waters (D-CA), did vote against HR1428, the Alien Voter Eligibility Verification Act. Understandable when you consider, the last thing the demoncrats want is to actually verify a voter’s eligibility. I believe this was enough information to make the case that all of these women’s rights advocates were strongly in favor of as much immigration as America can possibly stand. So what’s the problem? Well, as you will see, the problem is a conflict of interest. The problem is, the liberal immigration policies we have today will erode the advances made in recent decades for women’s rights.

Median census projections put the U.S. population at 400 million by 2050. This movement will inevitably transform America from a mainly European-descended country to a multicultural human landscape. Of course, the left applauds this multiculturalism as progress, but will it be progress for the women of America? What will these demographic changes mean for women and women’s rights? The majority of immigrants flooding our borders today are coming from countries where women’s rights are basically non-existent.

The Immigration Act of 1965 was supposed to remove outdated racial restrictions of earlier legislation. Instead, what it accomplished was to create an imbalance toward immigration from countries where such things as polygamy, slavery, genital mutilation and arranged marriages are practiced. In Saudi Arabia, women may neither drive nor vote. Will this not create, or cause to create an adverse effect on our daughters and granddaughters in years to come?

In an all too familiar story, the Los Angeles Times (12/10/98) described how an Iranian immigrant shot his wife in the head for leaving the house against his wishes. Normally, this would have resulted in a murder charge, but because the defense successfully argued that the man was from a culture where wives were expected to be obedient, the man ended up convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.

Many "immigrants rights" groups aim to create a body of legal precedent distinct from American jurisprudence. Separate and unequal, such a legal philosophy would continue male dominance over women and erase the advances made by the women’s movement by decades, if not by centuries. Every time the "cultural defense" is used in a case of violence against women will be a blow against women’s rights and safety in America.

Of course the vast majority of U.S. immigrants come from our southern neighbor, Mexico and it’s Latin counterparts, which are somewhere near 99.99% Catholic. I don’t want to debate the merits of Catholicism, but the feminists should consider, before supporting liberal immigration, the Catholic Church prohibits measures such as pregnancy-prevention drugs for rape victims.

I’m sure I wont sway any voters here, but it needs to be said. To all women, whether you are a feminist or not, before you step into the voting booth on November 5^th, think about losing that right to vote. Think about what it is like to have to wear a bhurka when you go out in public. Think about being physically abused by a man for disobedience and having no legal recourse. Think about your daughters and granddaughters and the kind of nation you want them to grow up in.