Carter had first presented his racist immigration scheme to Congress fourteen months ago. He shelved it October 5 by quietly signing a bill establishing a commission to “study” the question.

The reactionary measure evoked such broad opposition from Chicanos and others that Carter was on the defensive from the outset. Finally he had to beat a retreat.

The most decisive display of opposition to the Carter plan was the Chicano/Latino conference held in San Antonio, Texas, one year ago.

That gathering of 1,500 represented the broadest array of Chicano and Latino forces united around a single issue since the Vietnam War. It included such forces as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), GI Forum, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), Socialist Workers Party, Raza Unida Party, and CASA.

Despite this diversity of political views, the gathering was unanimous in its opposition to the Carter plan.

A cover story on Chicanos in the September 11 issue of New West magazine commented: “Above all the Chicano leadership has united behind the issue of the undocumented Mexican immigrant.”

The article noted that even the appointment of a Chicano as head of INS had failed to insulate Carter “from the fury of Hispanics who condemn his immigration proposals.”  
 
November 2, 1953
Farrell Dobbs, National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party, today sent a letter to J. Edward Conway, President of the N.Y. State Civil Service Commission, protesting inclusion of the SWP on its “subversive” blacklist. The text of the letter is as follows:

The Socialist Workers Party, along with the other groups included, was placed upon that list without prior notification, specification of charges, or hearing. Our Party’s repeated requests since 1948 for such a hearing have all been turned down.

On April 30, 1951 the U.S. Supreme Court by a five to three vote ruled that the Attorney General flagrantly exceeded his authority in establishing his “subversive list.” According to the court, no organization should be so designated before it has been (1) informed of the charges on which the designation rests, (2) granted an administrative hearing, (3) allowed to present evidence in its own behalf. First the Department of Justice, and now your own Commission, have disregarded these procedures demanded by the Supreme Court.

No less alarming is the requirement in your Commission order that Civil Service applicants must state whether they have ever signed nominating petitions for candidates of any of the blacklisted organizations. This is an unprecedented “guilt by association.” Can there be a grosser abridgement of elementary democratic rights than to penalize people who seek to exercise them?  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home