LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDE Archives















By Topic:










By Author:











Proportional Font





PORTSIDE  September 2011, Week 3

PORTSIDE September 2011, Week 3


'Illegal': How a Racist Slur Became Part of Political Speech (long)


Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>


[log in to unmask]


Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:04:06 -0400





text/plain (638 lines)

'Illegal': How a Racist Slur Became Part of Political Speech (long)

How the Right Made Racism Sound Fair - and Changed
Immigration Politics

by Gabriel Thompson

September 13 2011

In June of 2009, Sen. Charles Schumer took the stage in
front of a capacity crowd at the Georgetown Law Center. The
event was billed as "Immigration: A New Era," and Schumer,
who chairs the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and
Border Security, was on campus to unveil his seven
principles for a reform bill.

The first principle set the tone for his speech. "Illegal
immigration is wrong, plain and simple," he said, before
moving on to a linguistic primer for attendees. "People who
enter the United States without our permission are illegal
aliens. When we use phrases like `undocumented workers,' we
convey a message to the American people that their
government is not serious about combating illegal

In total, Schumer used the term "illegal" 30 times and
"alien" 9 times. It was a far cry from just three years
earlier, when Schumer instead talked repeatedly about
"undocumented" immigrants when speaking to a group of Irish
Americans. But as the senator explained in 2009, he's
choosing his words more purposefully these days.

And he is not alone. In the decade since the September 11
attacks, there has been a steady increase in language that
frames unauthorized immigrants as a criminal problem.
References to "illegals," "illegal immigrants" and their
rhetorical variants now dominate the speech of both major
political parties, as well as news media coverage of

In fact, reviewed the archives of the
nation's largest-circulation newspapers to compare how often
their articles describe people as "illegal" or "alien"
versus describing them as "undocumented" or "unauthorized."
We found a striking and growing imbalance, particularly at
key moments in the immigration reform debate. In 2006 and
2007, for example, years in which Congress engaged a pitched
battle over immigration reform, the New York Times published
1,483 articles in which people were labeled as "illegal" or
"alien;" just 171 articles used the adjectives
"undocumented" or "unauthorized."

That imbalance isn't coincidental. In the wake of 9/11, as
immigration politics have grown more heated and media
organizations have worked to codify language they deem
neutral, pollsters in both parties have pushed their leaders
toward a punitive framework for discussing immigration.
Conservatives have done this unabashedly to rally their
base; Democrats have shifted rhetoric with the hopes that it
will make their reform proposals more palatable to
centrists. But to date, the result has only been to move the
political center ever rightward - and to turn the
conversation about immigrants violently ugly.

Calling someone "illegal" or an "alien" has a whole host of
negative connotations, framing that person as a criminal
outsider, even a potential enemy of the state. But it does
more, by also setting the parameters of an appropriate
response. To label unauthorized immigrants as criminals who
made an immoral choice suggests that they should be further
punished - that their lives be made harder, not easier. Not
surprisingly, then, as rhetoric has grown harsher on both
sides (or "tougher," in the words of pollsters), legislation
has followed suit. Border walls have been constructed,
unmanned drones dispatched. Deportation numbers have
continued a steady, record-breaking climb, while states pass
ever-harsher laws.

These policy developments reflect - and find reflection in -
a segment of the broader culture that is struggling with
uneasy feelings about race and the ongoing transformation of
the nation. When immigrants are targeted and murdered
because of their status, and politicians joke about shooting
them as livestock, weave moved to something beyond a simple
policy debate. And at its swirling center is "the illegal" -
a faceless and shadowy character who, it can be hard to
remember, is actually a person.

The Language of Lawmaking

The art of choosing words has become big business in
politics, for good reason. How a problem or solution is
framed can be key to its chances of success.

Take, for example, Bush's plan in 2005 to privatize Social
Security. Republicans trumpeted the idea, with Bush
repeatedly referring to the creation of private accounts for
individuals. Democrats campaigned vigorously to label the
proposal as too risky and support for the idea plummeted;
privatizing Social Security, it turned out, made Americans
uneasy. The Republicans then switched words. They talked
about personal rather than private accounts and called media
outlets to complain when they didn't adopt the new language.
But by then it was too late and the proposal died.

That a single word can reframe an entire debate points to
the power of language in evoking broad, often unexamined
feelings. A public library or park may sound like a
welcoming place to pass an afternoon; a government (or even
worse, government-run) library or park, on the other hand,
can bring to mind images of dull texts and rusty equipment.

"Words have entire narratives that go with them," says
Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at University of California,
Berkeley. "Government has acquired negative connotations, so
public is what we call government when we don't want to say
`government.' "

When President Obama unveiled his health care proposal, he
was careful to call the creation of a government-managed
plan the "public option." As Republican strategist and
pollster Frank Luntz told Fox News, "If you call it a
`public option,' the American people are split," but "if you
call it the `government option,' the public is
overwhelmingly against it."

While language is always important, it has a special
prominence when the discussion turns to immigration - and
race. As Nunberg noted about the charged vocabulary around
the topic: "The words refuse to be confined to their legal
and economic senses; they swell with emotional meanings that
reflect the fears and passions of the time."

Wetback. Alien. Illegal immigrant. These are powerful words,
each of which has, at different times in our recent history,
been the most popular term used to describe unauthorized
immigrants. And while some anti-immigrant activists claim
that words like "alien" or "illegal immigrant" are neutral,
each conjures up a whole host of associations. Nunberg noted
that in 1920 a group of college students was asked to define
the word alien, and what they came up with - "a person who
is hostile to this country," "an enemy from a foreign land"
- hardly qualified as meeting its legal definition.

The same dynamic occurs today with illegal, especially when
used to define a person rather than an action, such as
working in the U.S. without authorization. "When two things
bear the same name, there is a sense that they belong to the
same category," Nunberg told me. "So when you say `illegal,'
it makes you think of people that break into your garage and
steal your things."

"These are not small questions," agreed Frank Sharry, the
executive director of America's Voice, a prominent immigrant
advocacy group that has been a key player in Washington,
D.C.'s word games. "The language, and who wins the framing
of the language, likely will win the debate."

Prop 187: Before and After

The widespread belief that there is an "illegal immigrant"
problem is a relatively recent phenomenon, according to
Joseph Nevins, author of "Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of
the Illegal Alien and the Making of the US-Mexico Boundary."
As Nevins notes, the national platform of the Republican
Party didn't mention a concern over "illegal immigration"
until 1986. The Democrats - characteristically late and in a
reactive mode - followed suit in 1996, adopting a similar
stance as their counterparts.

That's one of the key patterns to understand in immigration
debates over the past 15 years: Republicans take a stand;
Democrats respond by agreeing with the critique but offering
a slightly less harsh solution; Republicans get most of what
they want.

It wasn't always that way. Back in the 1970s, the Carter
administration, under INS Commissioner Leonel Castillo, sent
out a directive forbidding the use of "illegal alien" and
replaced it with "undocumented workers" or "undocumented
alien." But as Nevins writes, "that linguistic sensitivity
quickly disappeared."

The most significant turning point came in 1994 with the
debate over California's Proposition 187, which barred
undocumented immigrants from public schools and non-
emergency health care. Today, Prop 187 is best remembered
for propelling Republican Gov. Pete Wilson into the national
spotlight, but what's often overlooked is the Democratic
response to the immigrant-bashing ballot measure - and the
party's striking departure from Carter's framing of the

First Democrats ignored Prop 187, then came out against it
without much conviction. "I simply do not believe it will
work," California's Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein
explained. President Bill Clinton, fearing that he could
lose the crucial state of California in 1996, responded to
Prop 187 by dramatically beefing up border security and
promising to crack down on "illegal aliens," while Feinstein
proposed a toll for legal crossers and made repeated visits
to the border to highlight her determination in sealing it.

A look at the Los Angeles Times' archives during the years
of this debate shows an eruption in the use of "illegal" and
"alien" to describe immigrants themselves. In 1994, the year
Californians voted on Prop 187,  the Times published 1,411
articles that labeled people "illegal" or "alien," either as
an adjective or, in some cases, as a noun - as in
"illegals." The same year, the Times published just 218
articles that used "undocumented" or "unauthorized" to
describe people living in the country without papers.

When the Prop 187 dust settled, the immigration reform
landscape had been dramatically altered. The law did not
stand up to court challenge and was ultimately thrown out
without being implemented. But the framework it ushered in
proved lasting.

"The fact is, they agreed on all of the fundamentals with
the Republicans," Nevins says of the Democratic response.
"If you accept the framing that your opponents put forth,
then you've lost the debate. And this helped lay the
groundwork for the situation in which we find ourselves

Within two years, Clinton had signed two sweeping bills into
law that would do "much of what Prop 187 called for,"
according to Andrew Wrote, author of "The Republican Party
and Immigration Politics: From Proposition 187 to George W.
Bush." The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act was enforcement-only legislation that,
among other things, vastly expanded the grounds for
deporting immigrants with legal status. The second bill, the
Welfare Reform Act, stripped all non-citizens of many
federal benefits. The pragmatist could argue that Clinton
got in front of the issue by adopting harsh language and
signing the bills; the pragmatist would also have to
acknowledge, however, that Clinton got in front of the issue
by signing strikingly anti-immigrant legislation.

Fifteen years later, President Obama, like Clinton, is still
trying to appeal to the center by proving that he is serious
about securing the border. In 2010, he sent 1,200 members of
the National Guard to the border and signed a bill
allocating $600 million to border enforcement, adding
another 1,500 agents along with additional surveillance
drones. At the same time, he has deported a record number of
immigrants - many of whom have either no criminal record of
low-level offenses, such as a traffic violation. And many of
the enforcement tools Obama is currently flexing - from
partnerships between ICE and local police to the flawed E-
Verify program - actually have their roots in Clinton's 1996

"Changes on enforcement is the medicine that folks on our
side have to accept," says Jeffrey Parcher, the
communications director for the Center for Community Change,
which helped coordinate an ultimately unsuccessful
grassroots reform campaign in 2010. "The current narrative
is that amnesty is some kind of gift, and in exchange for
the gift we have to have enforcement. That is not a frame
that we agree with, or that we endorse. But in the universe
in which enough legislators sit in that box to prevent
anything from passing, it's what we have to work with."

If true, it's a deliberately constructed universe. "Amnesty"
became a bad word and "illegal" a good one because
strategists on both sides of the partisan isle assigned them
those meanings.

`Words That Work'

For supporters of immigration reform, there was some reason
for optimism during President George W. Bush's second term.
Despite the House's passage of HR 4437 in 2005 - a harsh
bill introduced by Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner
that would have turned all unauthorized immigrants into
felons - there was momentum among key Republicans for a
comprehensive solution.

In 2006, the Senate passed a reform measure that offered a
path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants,
provided that they enrolled in English classes and paid
fines, as well as back taxes. The citizenship provisions,
which did not include unauthorized immigrants who had been
in the country for less than two years, were coupled with
significant enforcement measures, including the doubling of
border patrol agents within five years and more than 800
miles of border fencing and vehicle barriers. Among the
bill's supporters were 23 Republicans.

Vocal members in the House, though, were quick to criticize
the bill's citizenship provisions, limited as they were.
"Amnesty is wrong because it rewards someone for illegal
behavior," said Sensenbrenner. "And I reject the spin that
the senators have been putting on their proposal. It is
amnesty." The House stuck to its talking point, killing the
measure and seeing Bush sign instead a bill adding 700 miles
of border fencing.

"The right was defining the debate; the amnesty charge just
killed us," Sharry concludes. "Their top line beat our top
line. We said fix a broken immigration system and they said
amnesty rewards lawbreakers. They had a visceral argument
and we had something wonkish. We came to a gunfight with a

A 2005 memo by GOP strategist Luntz perfectly captures the
talking points relied upon by anti-reform Republicans to
kill any reform measures. Luntz is known as a word genius
for popularizing terms like "death tax" for estate tax and
turning oil drilling into the friendlier-sounding "energy
exploration." In his immigration memo, he instructed
Republicans to "always refer to people crossing the border
illegally as `illegal immigrants' - NOT as `illegals.' "

This was a nod to the long-term danger Republicans faced in
demonizing undocumented immigrants: losing the Latino vote.
As Luntz wrote, "Republicans have made significant inroads
into the Hispanic community over the past decade, and it
would be a shame if poorly chosen words and overheated
rhetoric were to undermine the credibility the party has
built within the community." (Remember, this was 2005 - pre-
Tea Party.)

Such niceties aside, Lunzt's memo was otherwise unrestrained
in its attack on undocumented immigrants. In segments he
labeled "Words that Work," he counseled Republicans to
emphasize the following points:

    Let's talk about the facts behind illegal immigrants.
    They do commit crimes. They are more likely to drive
    uninsured. More likely to clog up hospital waiting
    rooms. More likely to be involved in anti-social
    behavior because they have learned that breaking the law
    brings more benefit to them than abiding by it.

Here was the Prop 187 argument rehashed, with an added
pathology - that undocumented immigrants were prone to even
broader criminal behavior. And now, one could also throw in
the fear of terrorism. Another talking-point section advised
Republicans to use the following phrases: "Right now,
hundreds of illegal immigrants are crossing the border
almost every day. Some of them are part of drug cartels.
Some are career criminals. Some may even be terrorists."

The 25-page document is full of the same "overheated
rhetoric" Luntz cautioned against and, importantly, became a
playbook for Republicans' immigration politics moving
forward. "If it sounds like amnesty, it will fail," promised
Luntz - and he was right. He was also right to be concerned
about just how far his party would go with his vitriolic
ideas about brown-skinned immigrants.

But notably, Luntz's message is also the lesson many pro-
reform politicians and advocates took from the 2006-2007
debate. Sharry joined forces with John Podesta at the Center
for American Progress and enlisted a crew of top Democratic
pollsters to work on messaging. Their first report, "Winning
the Immigration Debate," was based on polling by Guy
Molyneux of Peter Hart Associates and shared with
politicians in 2008.

The report argued that Democrats should adopt a tougher tone
when discussing reform. Instead of "offering a path to
citizenship," which sounded to some like a giveaway,
Democrats should use more coercive terms: immigrants would
be required to pay taxes, learn English and pass criminal
background checks. As the report states: "This message
places the focus where voters want it, on what's best for
the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal

"Rather than educate [the public], you can convince them to
do the right thing if you call it a requirement," Cecilia
Munoz of the National Council of La Raza, told the
Huffington Post. Her statement amounted to a strategic
retreat: Democrats ought to focus less on challenging anti-
immigrant claims (educating) and instead use messages that
implicitly reinforce those claims (co-opting).

Sharry and Podesta also enlisted Stanley Greenberg to hone
the message. Greenberg, a former Clinton pollster and
influential Democratic strategist, was initially skeptical:
in 2006 and 2007, his polling had shown that when Democrats
discussed immigration reform they were vulnerable to attack.
But the new framework, when presented to center and center-
right voters, seemed to diffuse the amnesty charge.

Another person involved in the framing was Drew Westen, a
psychology professor at Emory University and director of
Westen Strategies, a messaging consulting firm, who was
brought in by Media Matters for America. One of his
conclusion's echoed Schumer: Democrats should drop the words
"undocumented worker" from their lexicon and instead use
"illegal immigrant." Westen, who didn't respond to requests
for an interview, told Politico that his advice to
progressives is, "If the language appears fine to you, it is
probably best not to use it. You are an activist, and by
definition, you are out of the mainstream."

After the polls and focus groups, the messaging was in
place. Democrats should lead with border security and
enforcement, frame the legalization process as a
requirement, and call people "illegal immigrants" instead of
"undocumented." It was to be tough but not "overly punitive"
- and it was notable in that it made no reference to any
positive attributes undocumented immigrants might bring to
the country.

Not everyone was pleased with the new framework. "This is
oppressive language - punitive and restrictive," says Oscar
Chacon, executive director of the National Alliance of Latin
American & Caribbean Communities. According to Chacon, the
2008 report was "nothing but an effort by D.C. groups to
justify their views with a public opinion survey" and it
highlighted the Democrats' tendency to "accept more and more
of the premises of the anti-immigrant lobby."

"We should be trying to change the way people think about
the situation," contends Chacon, "instead of finding a way
to make anti-immigrant sentiments tolerable."

Even among people involved in the Beltway Democrats' polling
project there was dissension. "It's one thing to say that
enforcement has to be a part of the solution, and another to
say we have to call people illegal," says David Mermin of
Lake Research Partners, who has been polling on immigration
for a decade and worked with Sharry on honing the message.
"We think there's a more nuanced way of saying it."

Journalism's Objective Bias

Whatever nuance is possible, it's increasingly missing from
the public conversation on immigration.

A major turning point in news media's own language came in
the wake of the September 11 attacks, as editors for the
first time looked closely at how their publications
described immigrants. Until then, the Associated Press
Stylebook - a language bible for newsrooms - didn't have any
entries related to unauthorized immigrants. But in 2003,
reflecting government concerns about border security
following 9/11, the AP determined it needed to come with up
a specific term. According to AP Deputy Standards Editor
David Minthorn, the organization underwent extensive
discussions, which included "reporters specializing in
immigration and ethnic issues who are versed in the
positions of all groups," as well as an overview of
government and legal terminology. The AP settled on "illegal
immigrant" as the "neutral" and preferred term, while noting
that "illegal alien" and the shortened term of "illegal"
should be avoided. Interestingly, that's precisely the
message Luntz suggested in 2005.

The AP's decision locked in an industry standard for so-
called neutral language on unauthorized immigration - and it
focused on the person, not just the act. The Los Angeles
Times' style book, for instance,  calls for "illegal
immigrant" as "the preferred, neutral, unbiased term that
will work in almost all uses," as assistant managing editor
Henry Furhmann recently explained to the paper's ombudsman.
As a consequence, that "unbiased" language dominates news
coverage of big immigration battles. In 2010, as Congress
debated the DREAM Act and immigration became a leading issue
in midterm elections, four of the five largest-circulation
newspapers published a combined 1,549 articles that referred
to people as "illegal" or "alien" in the headline or at
least once in the text of the story; they published just 363
articles that referred to "undocumented" or "unauthorized"
immigrants. (The four papers, in order of 2011 circulation
numbers, include USA Today, the New York Times, the Los
Angeles Times and the Washington Post; we did not search the
archives of the Wall Street Journal, which is the largest
paper, because it does not make the full text of its
archives available on the database we used.)

In recent years, there has been push back on the
criminalizing framework from journalists of color. In 2006
the National Association of Hispanic Journalists launched a
campaign pressuring media agencies to stop using the term
"illegal" to describe unauthorized immigrants. It was a time
of raucous protest, with millions of immigrants across the
country marching against Sensenbrenner's draconian House
bill. (Notably, the bill's title - the Border Protection,
Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act -
perfectly captured the conflation of undocumented immigrants
with terrorists that became common after 9/11.)

"Politicians and others were taking the rhetoric of the
anti-immigrant groups, and using `illegal' as a noun," says
Ivan Roman, NAHJ's executive director. "We don't like the
term illegal alien and we prefer not to use illegal
immigrant - we prefer undocumented immigrant. And we think
the news media needs to think critically about the
terminology they use."

A more recent campaign, Drop the I-word, is being
coordinated by's publisher, the Applied
Research Center. The campaign, which asks news organizations
to not use the term "illegal" when discussing unauthorized
migrants, finds inspiration from Holocaust survivor Ellie
Wiesel's phrase "no person is illegal," which he coined
during the 1980s Central American sanctuary movement. (The
British were the first to use "illegal" as a noun to refer
to people, when describing Jews in the 1930s who entered
Palestine without official permission).

"Getting rid of the i-word is about our society asserting
the idea that migrants are human beings deserving of respect
and basic human rights," says Mónica Novoa, coordinator of
the campaign. She says she has been disappointed with the
number of otherwise sensitive journalists who continue to
use the word, which she argues "points to how normalized the
language has become."

And as the language has normalized, the broader public
dialogue has grown increasingly harsh - and dangerous.

Part of the shift can be seen in the way formerly moderate
Republicans have begun navigating political waters using the
Tea Party as their compass.

In 2007, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham was adamant in his
support of reform, arguing that, "We're not going to
scapegoat people. We're going to tell the bigots to shut
up." By last year, however, he 'd moved to discussing an
overhaul of the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship
for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Sen. John
McCain has undergone a similar transformation: once a key
proponent of reform, earlier this year he blamed wildfires
in Arizona on undocumented immigrants, an absurd claim
quickly refuted by the U.S. Forrest Service. Longtime
hardliners like Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who has called
immigration a "slow moving Holocaust" and compared
immigrants to livestock, are now finding more friends in

The new batch of Tea Party members openly use threatening
images of brown-skinned immigrants to rally their base - in
just the way Luntz warned against as he crafted the language
politicians now hurl at immigrants. Sharon Angle, in an
infamous commercial from her 2010 campaign against Nevada
Sen. Harry Reid, featured Latinos ("illegals") sneaking
along a border fence "putting our safety at risk" and
labeled Reid as "the best friend an illegal alien ever had."

Angle lost, due in large measure to the Latino vote. But her
campaign waged an unexpectedly meaningful threat to the
long-term senator and Democratic leader. More and more
people seem to believe that, with "illegals putting our
safety at risk," drastic words (and actions) are needed.

In March, Kansas State Rep. Virgil Peck, during a debate
about the use of gunmen in helicopters to kill wild hogs,
suggested that such a tactic could also be a solution "to
our illegal immigration problem." His statement was followed
by Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, who made repeated calls for
doing "anything short of shooting" undocumented immigrants.

In November 2008, that's just what a group of Long Island,
N.Y., teenagers did when they stabbed Marcello Lucero to
death. Lucero, an undocumented immigrant from Ecuador, was
the target of what the teens called "beaner hopping" - in
which they roamed the streets searching for Latinos to
attack. In the wake of the murder it was discovered that
other immigrants had been beaten but not come forward due to
fears about their immigration status. Another streak of
violence targeting Latinos occurred in New York City's
Staten Island in 2010, which included 10 attacks within a
six-month period.

As the situation in Long Island attests, taking an accurate
stock of hate crimes is a difficult task, as many
undocumented immigrants are hesitant to report crimes to
authorities. Existing statistics do point to an increase in
attacks on Latinos during much of the last decade: from
2003-2007 the FBI reported hate crimes against Latinos
increased by 40 percent, and last month California released
data showing anti-Latino crimes jumped by nearly 50 percent
from the previous year.

For Novoa, these types of statistics highlight the urgency
behind the call to stop using "illegal" to describe
unauthorized immigrants. "We need to change the current
debate. It's hate-filled, racially charged, and inhumane -
and it's driving up violence."

And all of this points to perhaps the greatest weakness in
the Democratic response to Luntz's message. When one side is
framing immigrants as criminals and potential terrorists,
with some "joking" about slaughtering them like hogs, the
other side likely needs to do more than co-opt poll-tested
talking points. There's more at stake than votes. The
Democratic strategy also holds a contradiction at its core:
The more focus that is placed on the illegality of
immigrants and the problems they cause, the less it makes
sense to offer a path to legalization.

"All of that [polling] work is based on an assumption that
this is a policy argument," Sharry acknowledges. "This is
looking more like a front in a culture war, in which a
rabid, well organized part of the Republican Party wants to
expel millions of brown people from this country."

[Gabriel Thompson is currently working on a biography of
legendary community organizer Fred Ross. He is the author of
"Working in the Shadows: A Year of Doing the Jobs (Most)
Americans Won' Do," just released in paperback from Nation

Research for this article was provided's Drop
the I-Word campaign.



Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web:

Frequently asked questions:


Search Portside archives:

Contribute to Portside:

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Search Archives

Search Archives

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager