Grassfire Backgrounder:
Hope Fund Act of 2007 Gives Millions of Dollars To Pro-Amnesty Group

Bill Status
Name: H.R. 1999
This bill is in the first step of the legislative process. It has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

Summary Information

United States Representative Ruben Hinojosa from Texas has introduced a bill that will fund the pro-illegal immigration group: The National Council of La Raza (NCLR). This bill, the Hope Fund Act of 2007 (H.R. 1999) would appropriate $5 million to NCLR in 2008 and $10 million each year thereafter.

The Hope Fund Act is a grant to be used by NCLR for economic development projects and to “conduct such other activities as may be determined by the Secretary and the National Council of La Raza.” This final item is an open door for NCLR to utilize the funds beyond the specific outlines of the bill. This bill gives your hard-earned tax payer dollars to an activist group who promotes crimes such as illegal immigration and utterly disregards the rule of law.

Who is La Raza?

“La Raza” when translated to English means “the people” or “the race”. It is also interpreted by scholars as “The Hispanic people of the New World.” According to its website, NCLR is the largest national Hispanic civil rights advocacy organization in the United States. Its main goals include reducing poverty and discrimination and improving opportunities for Hispanics. In order to do this, NCLR performs research, disseminates information through press releases, reports, and its website. NCLR also provides testimony and lobbies for Hispanic causes.[1]

Founded in 1968, NCLR is a private, non-profit organization headquartered in Washington D.C. and retains eight regional offices throughout the United States. It has a network of approximately 300 affiliated community-based organizations which reach millions of Hispanics in America.

One controversial affiliate of the La Raza network and a recipient of NCLR funds is the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). This group actively advocates the amnesty of illegal aliens, denounces the assimilation of Hispanic immigrants into American culture, and they reject the tenets of American society because MEChA teaches that at the least, western America, belongs to the Hispanic people.[2] According to former U.S. Representative Charlie Norwood, “Members of these radical, anti-American, racist organizations are frequently smoothly polished into public respectability by the National Council of La Raza.[3]

Current Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, was a former member of MEChA and was officially endorsed by NCLR for mayor. Villaraigosa even received NCLR’s Graciela Olivarez Award. California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is also a former member of MEChA and he delivered NCLR’s keynote address at its 2002 annual convention.[4]

Through validating and contributing to members of such radical organizations as MEChA, NCLR is showing its true colors.

NCLR is an advocate for the elimination of the U.S.-Mexico border and aggressively supports legislation that would award amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants currently dwelling within the U.S. NCLR supports an immigration bill that would create new legal channels for future immigrant workers, create a path to citizenship for the current illegal alien population, and create paths to bring the families of illegal aliens to the United States.[5] Specifically, NCLR promotes the failed 2007 amnesty immigration reform bill, the DREAM Act, AgJobs, and driver’s licenses for immigrants.[6]

NCLR is an activist group that advocates amnesty for millions of illegal alien criminals. Congress should not finance any activist group, especially an anti-American and anti-law group such as NCLR. Please contact your Congressman and insist that they oppose the Hope Act of 2007.

Grassfire’s position is that this bill is inappropriate on several grounds. Our tax dollars should not be used to fund an organization that is working to undermine the current laws of the United States and/or support other organizations undermining our laws.

There is also a strong argument to be made that this bill is unconstitutional. First, while the Constitution does grant Congress the power to spend taxpayer money (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7), the appropriations power was designed to support specific legislative purposes, not to direct monies to specific individuals or oganizations.. Throughout a great extent of American history Congress, the president, and state legislatures constitutionally objected to such spending.

Federal Power has expanded exponentially during the twentieth century. Earmarking and appropriations grants such as this did not occur in any significant amount until the 1980s.

Second, the historical precedent for federal grant program is the open bids process. For example, Congress would fund general grant programs, and allow state and federal agencies select individual recipients through a highly competitive bidding process. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, “The House and Appropriations Committees named specific projects only when they had been vetted and approved by authorizing committees. Members of Congress with local concerns would lobby the president and federal agencies for consideration. The process was aimed at preventing abuse and allocating resources on the basis of merit and need.” [7]

Finally, an appropriations bill to an individual or specific organization certainly violates the long-forgotten principles of our founding era. The Constitution specifically prohibits “bills of attainder” -- statutes that specifically target an individual or citizen in a negative or punitive way. The constitutional principle behind the ban on the bill of attainder is that Congress should only write laws that apply to the people generally and not targeted to a specific individual (laws that are fixed, uniform and universal).

As can be seen with this bill, the Appropriations Committee members strategically give federal funds to specific recipients for political purposes. “Rank and file” Congressional members, backed by a throng of lobbyists, bypass authorizing committees and lobby appropriators directly for pet projects.[8]

In agreement with President Grover Cleveland, “I find no warrant for such appropriation in the Constitution.”[9]

La Raza
All About Pork- The Abuses of Earmarks (pdf.)