Center for Immigration Studies

Top Anti-Immigrant 'Expert' Says 'Being Hung, Drawn And Quartered' Is 'Too Good' For Obama

A senior policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, which bills itself as the think tank of the anti-immigrant Right, told a Florida-based Tea Party group last week that President Obama not only deserves impeachment, but that “being hung, drawn and quartered is probably too good for him.”

The Center for New Community’s Imagine 2050 blog first reported on Stephen Steinlight’s remarks.

Steinlight also said that John Boehner’s lawsuit against the president is a “political loser” and claimed that while Obama deserves to be impeached, such an effort would backfire on Republicans.

CIS describes Steinlight as “one of the nation’s most insightful voices on immigration” who provides “expert testimony” for government panels.

A rash of opinion polls which have come out, not push polls, real polls, including one by Gallup that showed that 65 percent of the American people don’t want any part of an Obama-style immigration reform. But the idea of this [lawsuit] is vintage Boehner, it’s a political loser. There is no court that is going to stop Obama from doing anything. We all know, if there ever was a president that deserved to be impeached, it’s this guy. Alright? I mean, I wouldn’t stop. I would think being hung, drawn, and quartered is probably too good for him.

UPDATE (7/24): CIS now says that Steinlight has been "reprimanded" for his remarks:

When reached for comment, Steven Camarota, director of research at CIS, distanced the organization from Steinlight's remarks.

"Steve was speaking figuratively and hyperbolically, obviously, for effect. In that respect his intemperate comments were similar to those who are often critics of President Bush, and I would say like those comments, they are ill-advised," Camarota told The Huffington Post. "I would also say that the Center for Immigration Studies does not in fact support drawing and quartering the president."

CIS officials also said Steinlight had been disciplined and instructed to avoid similar rhetoric in the future.

"I reprimanded him and put a reprimand in his personnel file," said CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian.

CIS is an organization that advocates reducing immigration into the United States. Steinlight has said that Hispanic immigration would lead to the "unmaking of America," and that Muslims should be banned from immigrating to the United States because they "believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution."

"Steve sometimes has used impolitic language and I admonished him to choose his words more carefully in the future," Krikorian said.

More Fuzzy Math From the Center for Immigration Studies

This week, the Center for Immigration Studies — the “think tank” of the anti-immigrant movement — released yet another document meant to feed the opposition to immigration reform, this one alleging that “all employment growth since 2000 went to immigrants.”

CIS’s report has been promoted across conservative media and by fellow anti-immigrant activists like Phyllis Schlafly.

But, just like the group’s recent report alleging that the Obama administration had released tens of thousands of criminal undocumented immigrants, this one doesn’t hold up to the smallest amount of scrutiny.

Conservative Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby devoted his column yesterday to puncturing CIS’s “stolen job myth”:

To begin with, the number of native-born Americans working in 2014 has not declined since 2000. It has increased by 2.6 million. The authors of the report acknowledge as much in an endnote. It is only by excluding the record-high cohort of workers 65 and older, one of the fastest-growing age groups in the labor market, that Camarota and Ziegler can claim that immigrants are taking all the available new jobs. But it is just as plausible to blame the long-term stagnation in the employment of “working-age” American natives on older employees as on those born in other lands. Should senior citizens who wish to work be forced to retire at 65?

In the zero-sum world of the anti-immigrant advocates, foreign-born workers can only gain at the expense of the native-born. But in the real world, immigration generally enlarges the economy, boosts productivity, and adds jobs. Immigrants amount to less than 13 percent of the US population. Yet 28 percent of all new American companies launched in 2011, as Rupert Murdoch wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay last month, were founded by immigrants.

Broadly speaking, immigrant workers and US-born workers are not substitutes but complements; because they tend to have different skills, they generally don’t compete for the same jobs. Immigrants are more likely to be employed at the high or low ends of the labor market, explains Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, while most Americans have skills in the middle. Supplying the immigrant skills needed by the economy simultaneously enlarges demand for native skills.

Restrictionists hint at some kind of inverse correlation between gains in employment for US-born and foreign-born workers, but they can’t show what doesn’t exist. Look past their tendentious presentation of the data, as Nowrasteh wrote about an earlier Center for Immigration Studies report, and you notice that for the most part “net gains in employment for natives and immigrants move in the same direction.” When natives gain, immigrants gain, and vice versa. We all work in the same labor market.

The fundamental flaws in the CIS report are similar to those in the infamous and widely panned Heritage Foundation study that produced a wildly inflated figure for the “cost” of immigration reform based on the assumption that immigrants wouldn’t be productive or expand the economy. (An assumption that itself was likely linked to one of its author’s racist views on intelligence).

Judicial Watch: Obama 'Engineered' Border Crisis To Force Vote On Immigration Reform

Yet another anti-immigrant activist is claiming that President Obama orchestrated the crisis at the southern border in order to push a vote on immigration reform.

Sean Dunagan of Judicial Watch tells the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow today that Obama “engineered” the influx of families and unaccompanied children in order to “make current immigration law look as cruel and inhumane as they possibly can to possibly build political support for some additional amnesty program”:

Dunagan suggests Obama is opening the floodgates to these young illegal aliens for purely political reasons.

"It seems to be that the administration is trying to make current immigration law look as cruel and inhumane as they possibly can to possibly build political support for some additional amnesty program," he says. "I absolutely believe that it's being engineered and exploited to try force action into bad policy decisions and bad votes on the issue."

Last week, Republican congressmen Steve King and Steve Stockman claimed that the influx of immigrants was part of an Obama administration plot to increase the Democratic vote . Anti-immigrant activist William Gheen has also claimed that the crisis was “orchestrated” by President Obama and George Soros.

On his program last week, Glenn Beck also claimed that the border crisis is part of a plot to pass immigration reform and to ultimately return Arizona to Mexico:

To his credit, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, one of the anti-immigration reform movement’s most prominent spokespeople, has pushed back on the conspiracy theory.

Pat Buchanan: 'Third World Invasion' Causing West To 'Disappear Forever'

In his column today, Pat Buchanan responds to a flawed and misleading Center for Immigration Studies report by spouting off on “the Third World invasion of the United States.”

“[P]eoples from failed states of the Third World are steadily filling up our countries and reducing our native-born into slowly shrinking national majorities,” he laments. “If this continues over many more decades, Western nations as we knew them will disappear forever, and be remade in the image of those who have newly arrived, and the countries whence they came.”

How goes the Third World invasion of the United States?

America and the West must face up to what is happening to our countries and our civilization. Or we are going to lose them both forever.

Treating with contempt U.S. and European laws, peoples from failed states of the Third World are steadily filling up our countries and reducing our native-born into slowly shrinking national majorities.

If this continues over many more decades, Western nations as we knew them will disappear forever, and be remade in the image of those who have newly arrived, and the countries whence they came.

When, ever, did Americans vote for this?

What would constitute a pro-American immigration policy?

A moratorium on all immigration until unemployment among U.S. citizens falls below five percent. A 15-foot security fence from San Diego to the Gulf, with Border Patrol outposts every 10 miles. Fines and community service for businessmen who hire illegal aliens.

Rick Wiles Suggests Deporting Undocumented Immigrants By Pushing Them Out Of Cargo Planes With Parachutes

As Fox News commentator Todd Starnes learned back in March, appearing on the radio show of End Times pastor Rick Wiles can involve sitting through rants about how the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings were carried out by CIA mind-control assassins,” Miley Cyrus sold her soul to Satan and had sex with a demon, President Obama is a Jim-Jones-likeNazi antichrist working to bring about a civil war, and Adolf Hitler’s “race of super gay male soldiers” is currently taking over America.

Center for Immigration Studies policy director Jessica Vaughan learned a similar lesson when she appeared on Wiles’ show yesterday to promote her group’s flawed new report on the release of undocumented immigrants from detention. As Vaughan walked through various reasons why it can be difficult to deport some undocumented immigrants, Wiles cut in with his own suggestion:

“Hey, you put ‘em on a C-130 cargo plane and strap a parachute to ‘em and you push ‘em out the door. It’s solved.”

Vaughan laughed: “Well, people have suggested that.”

Vaughan might have gotten some idea of the kind of interview she was in for if she had listened to the beginning of the program, which Wiles devoted to repeating his claim that Obama’s reelection amounted to the “communist takeover of the United States of America.”

He warned that Obama and his “internal revolutionary party of communists” will “eradicate Christianity,” outlaw its practice and eventually “bulldoze Christian churches in Dallas, Texas.”

The communists want to eradicate all recognition of Christianity. That’s what’s happening right now in the United States of America under this communist Barack Obama. And I have been saying since 2007, when this man first started running for president, that he is a communist.

And it is clearly obvious now that this United States of America has been overthrown by an internal regime, an internal revolutionary party of communists. That is what’s happening in this country. And if they are not stopped, they will eradicate Christianity and there will come a day in America when the federal government will bulldoze Christian churches Dallas, Texas. I promise you this is where it’s going. This is an all-out communist takeover of the United States of America.

And most of the American people are sitting there like bumps on a log and they can’t comprehend what’s taking place. Obama is getting away with this communist takeover. And Christianity is being outlawed in this country just like they’re doing it in China.

White Nationalists Demand Credit For Another Idea That's Gone Mainstream In The GOP

The white nationalist website VDARE is once again demanding credit for an idea that it has been championing for years that has now gone mainstream in the GOP.

Last year, we reported that VDARE writer John Derbyshire (formerly of the National Review) was annoyed that prominent Republicans were failing to credit racist VDARE writer Steve Sailer when they advocated a plan nearly identical to the ‘Sailer Strategy’: that is, the idea that the GOP can only survive by solidifying and growing its white base while alienating people of color. Sailer had been persistently advocating this tactic for over a decade when it suddenly came into vogue among conservatives who opposed the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform plan.

Now, another VDARE writer is upset that more and more immigration reform opponents are pushing another VDARE argument without giving the white nationalists credit. This time, the argument is that steady or increased legal immigration – with or without a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrations – will ruin the Republican party because immigrants are inherently liberal.

In a post on Friday, VDARE writer James Fulford highlights a recent study from the Center for Immigration Studies which argues that Republicans shouldn’t bother with immigration reform because immigrants will inevitably vote for Democrats. Fulford complains that neither the CIS report nor the conservative outlets covering it “manages to credit Peter Brimelow or VDARE.com for saying all this early and often, possibly because it they're scared of Media Matters and the SPLC.” As he notes, VDARE has been pushing the argument since as early as 2001.

The CIS report solidifies what has become a common talking point among even relatively mainstream anti-immigrant groups. CIS spokespeople repeatedly argue that the country shouldn’t “ import more” immigrants because they’ll never vote Republican anyway. Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum has also been pushing this line of argument and released its own report on the subject. Schlafly probably put the argument the most succinctly when she said in February, “These immigrants, legal and illegal, coming in don’t really understand our country and will probably vote Democratic .” She also suggested that Latino immigrants “don’t understand” the Bill of Rights and reject American values.

It’s no surprise that this idea originated in the racist underworld of VDARE. After all, the subtext of the argument is that the GOP should rely on what Pat Buchanan called a new “Southern Strategy” and dump any plans to expand its appeal beyond its mostly white base. As the “Southern Strategy” comparison makes clear, that involves both scapegoating immigrants and ignoring their voices in government.

Mark Krikorian Claims 'No Family Is Ever Split By Immigration Law'

Center for Immigration studies executive director Mark Krikorian insisted in an interview on VCY America’s Crosstalk yesterday that “no family is ever split by immigration law.”

Addressing situations where the undocumented parent of an American citizen is deported, Krikorian said, “No child is ever taken away from a person who is deported, because children can always go with their parents, which is what they should do.”

“No family is ever split by immigration law,” he said. “It’s the decisions of the immigrants themselves either to come here and split their families.”

Between 2010 and 2012, the country conducted 200,000 deportations of parents of U.S. citizens. An Applied Research Center investigation in 2011 found that at least 5,100 children whose parents had been detained or deported were thrown into the U.S. foster care system. Last year, President Obama issued a directive aimed at curbing detentions of parents who are the primary caregivers of minor children.

No child is ever taken away from a person who is deported, because children can always go with their parents, which is what they should do, it’s the appropriate thing to do. Or if the kids are born here, they have the right to stay too, and the parents, if they can find an aunt or somebody else for the kids to stay with, they can do that, that’s their prerogative. No family is ever split by immigration law. It’s the decisions of the immigrants themselves either to come here and split their families, or to stay here illegally, they have American children then they’re caught up into it and decide not to take their families back with them. That’s where the decision comes from that ends up splitting families.

Arpaio Tells Anti-Semitic Paper Immigration Reform Meant 'To Pacify The Hispanic Community'

In an interview with an anti-Semitic and conspiracy-theory promoting newspaper last month, Sheriff Joe Arpaio claimed that President Obama’s support for immigration reform is an attempt “to pacify the Hispanic community.”

In contrast, Arpaio told American Free Press, “I have a gun and badge. I don’t talk. I take action,”

“I have a gun and badge. I don’t talk. I take action,” said the legendary lawman from Maricopa County, Arizona. “I’m against amnesty, and no one should receive a get-out-of-jail-free card. I believe in following the law.”

Arpaio recounted how his efforts to uphold the law have been undermined by the federal government. “The president is trying to circumvent our laws to pacify the Hispanic community,” he said. “I spent 27 years as a DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] regional director in Mexico City, Texas and Arizona, plus 21 years as a sheriff. With over 50 years of law enforcement experience, I’d say this gives me some credibility. Yet, not once has anyone from Obama’s Cabinet asked for my opinion or assistance. They don’t want local law enforcement helping them enforce the law. It’s very sad.”

American Free Press was founded by anti-Semitic activist Willis Carto, and regularly pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. It has recently pushed the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook shooting didn’t actually happen.

The Center for New Community notes that two activists from prominent anti-immigrant groups also gave interviews to American Free Press:

Thorn’s article also includes comments from NumbersUSA’s Director of Content and Activism Chris Chmielenski and Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Vaughan used the interview to discuss findings from a highly misleading report she authored last month on interior immigration enforcement.

CIS's Steinlight: Ban Muslim Immigration Because 'Muslims Believe In Things That Are Subversive To The Constitution'

In a speech to the Pearland, Texas, Tea Party last week, Center For Immigration Studies policy analyst Stephen Steinlight said that he would like to bring back the anti-communist McCarran Act in order to ban all Muslim immigration into the US.

Steinlight made his comments in response to audience member who asked, “Which is the quicker ticking time bomb: the illegal immigration through basically just amnesty, or the Muslim infiltration through radicals crossing the border?”

“I don’t know what on earth we can do about Muslim immigration, I really don’t,” he said. “I mean, if I had my druthers, we would bring back something like the McCarran act in the 50s, which barred communists and fascists on the grounds that they believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution. Well, Muslims believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution.”

“I think Islam is not so much a religion as a hideous totalitarian political creed looking for world supremacy,” he added.

He also criticized President Obama for associating with groups supposedly connected with the Holy Land Foundation trial (in 2010, a federal judge found that prosecutors had violated the Fifth Amendment rights of a number of American Islamic groups by naming them in connection with the trial). “I mean this is an administration that seems to despise our friends and love our enemies,” he said.

Questioner: Which is the quicker ticking time bomb: the illegal immigration through basically just amnesty, or the Muslim infiltration through radicals crossing the border? Which is the greater ticking time bomb for us?

Steinlight: Well, good question. I would say that they represent dangers, each in its own way, that are almost equal in their potential to be deeply harmful. I mean, Western Europe is going, if not gone. I don’t know what on earth we can do about Muslim immigration, I really don’t. I mean, if I had my druthers, we would bring back something like the McCarran act in the 50s, which barred communists and fascists on the grounds that they believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution. Well, Muslims believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution.

And we know that, we know that from their own writing and we know that from the Holy Land trial in 2008, all the organizations signing a document that said, we will destroy their evil house from inside. And, by the way, as you know, the people who are signatories have that document have been welcomed into the White House, have been honored. I mean this is an administration that seems to despise our friends and love our enemies.

It’s a great danger. I think Islam is not so much a religion as a hideous totalitarian political creed looking for world supremacy. And the only, the saving grace there is that the numbers, at least up to now, have been relatively know. But the capacity to do great damage is still there. I mean, it only took, what, 18 people, to destroy the World Trade Center.

CIS's Steinlight: Immigration Reform A 'Psychotic' 'Plot Against America' That Will Kill The Constitution

In a speech to a Texas Tea Party group last week, Center For Immigration Studies senior policy analyst Stephen Steinlight warned that comprehensive immigration reform “amounts to a plot against America” that will kill the Constitution and cause Americans to “lose our liberty.” He called GOP reform supporters “psychotic,” joked that he’d like to attack pro-immigration religious leaders with “a baseball bat,” and speculated about a potential war between Texas and the federal government over immigration enforcement.

In a speech to the Pearland Tea Party on March 18, Steinlight posited that the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal “amounts to a plot against America,” warning that it if it were to pass, “America will become California and the GOP will wither and die.” Republicans who support the bill, he said, “are psychotic, so greedy as to be politically blind, or just stupid.”

He went on to warn that if comprehensive immigration reform passes, “we will lose our liberty and become a one-party state" and the nation will “be balkanized along ethnic and cultural lines and lose its cohesion,” bringing about “the erosion of the middle class and the emergence of a vast, restive permanent underclass” (a theory straight of the Heritage Foundation’s infamously biased immigration study). He added that for good measure, “We will watch the Constitution become a dead letter, as the rule of law is overthrown.”

But Steinlight saved his greatest contempt for the many religious leaders who support immigration reform, saying, “God help me, find a baseball bat, there would be a whole lot fewer of them around.”

We’ll scrutinize the Gang of Eight’s draft bill, S744, because it’s the establishment’s policy template on both sides of the aisle, they’re all the same. Irredeemably flawed, it amounts to a plot against America

This [inaudible] guest worker program, what it means is an exponential increase in a constituency that will make the Democratic party the permanent ruling party in America. It will make the Democrats the PRI of the United States. All America will become California and the GOP will wither and die. The center of American politics will lurch far to the left. Republicans who support amnesty are psychotic, so greedy as to be politically blind, or just stupid.

If comprehensive immigration reform passes, we will lose our liberty and become a one-party state, we will watch our nation be balkanized along ethnic and cultural lines and lose its social cohesion, as we witness what is an essence a population transfer from another country with a different language, a different culture, which will become the dominant demographic in this country. We will witness the erosion of the middle class and the emergence of a vast, restive permanent underclass. We will watch the Constitution become a dead letter, as the rule of law is overthrown.

We did a study, a huge study, we got a lot of money from our main donor. And, by the way, we divided the study along religious lines, because we were interested in watching, because religious leaders – God help me, find a baseball bat, there would be a whole lot fewer of them around – but they are all of them, right across the spectrum, are the leaders of the amnesty. From the Conference of Catholic Bishops to every Jewish organization to the National Conference of Churches, all of them are all in the same league.

During the question-and-answer session of the presentation, an audience member asked Steinlight if the federal government would “go to war” with Texas if people in the state were to start “taking care of our own border.”

Steinlight replied that if that happens, “The federal government will send the United States Army into Texas and disarm you, violently or nonviolently.”

He compared such an event to the National Guard enforcing desegregation in the South, but told the audience member not to be offended by the comparison to segregationists.

Questioner: Now what would happen if the state of Texas, the Texas militia, just decided to heck with the federal government, put our militia on the border, started taking care of our own border? Would the federal government come after us?

Steinlight: Yeah.

Questioner: Would they actually bring in the military to do it?

Steinlight: I believe they would.

Questioner: So they would go to war with their own people to keep these people…

Steinlight: That’s correct. I mean, obviously, I’m not talking about the same context at all, so don’t be offended. If you think about what happened, say, in the South, during desegregation, when governors who wanted to defend integration used the National Guard – the federal government sent the 101st Airborne Division out. What I’m telling you right now is that if Texas militia, in Washington language, ‘takes the law into its own hands,’ that is to say tries to enforce the law that the federal government will not enforce, right? The federal government will send the United States Army into Texas and disarm you, violently or nonviolently. They will not permit it. They will regard it as an act of sedition. I’m not saying it in a supportive way, I’m saying there’s no other path they would take.

Krikorian Presents Democratic Immigration Reform-Health Insurance Conspiracy Theory

In a video address to the alternative CPAC conferenced hosted by Breitbart News today, Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian claimed that Democrats support higher levels of immigration so that they can “import voters” and “create the conditions, such as increased poverty, increased lack of health insurance, that lead even non-immigrant voters to be more receptive to big government solutions” and to vote Democratic.

Center For Immigration Studies: Democrats 'Party of Minorities'

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which tries to style itself as the moderate think tank of the anti-immigrant movement, has undermined this image by embracing the theory, first put forward by a white nationalist thinker , that the Republican Party shouldn’t bother trying to win back Latino voters and should instead focus exclusively on turning out white voters. Not only is this strategy doomed to failure, its implicit assumption is that Republicans should turn out white voters by stirring up racial resentment against Latinos.

This has emerged as a popular message among anti-immigrant activists and politicians. Phyllis Schlafly and Michele Bachmann have both argued that Republicans should drop Latino outreach efforts because, in their minds, Latino immigrants are inherently unable to understand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. CIS figures have likewise claimed that Latino immigrants have an inherent antipathy to the Republican Party because they lack “strong family values” and have large numbers of  “illegitimate” children .

CIS research director Steven Camarota repeated this theme in an interview yesterday on the Chuck Morse Speaks radio program, where he said that Democrats are “the party of minorities” and are backing immigration reform because they “would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens.”

On the Democratic side, it’s coalition politics. The Democratic Party is the party that tends to draw a lot of support from Hispanics and Asians now as well, so they’re the party of minorities. And so, since a very large fraction – you know, about 80 percent of illegal immigrants, in particular – would be Hispanic, based on government statistics, and probably another ten, 12 percent are Asian, so the party would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens. But just in the existing citizen population of people of recent immigrant origin, they’re hoping to draw a lot of support. So there’s a political reason there. So, if you had to sum it up in a bumper sticker, the Democrats are looking for votes and the Republicans are looking for cheap labor.

Krikorian Cites White Nationalist In Anti-Reform Pitch

Center for Immigration Studies director Mark Krikorian tries to come across as a more reasonable voice in the movement against immigration reform, but today Krikiorian undermined this well-crafted image when he cited the work of a prominent white nationalist.

In his latest column for the National Review Online, Krikorian responds to a New York Times report this weekend that President Obama’s DACA order has created a backlog of immediate family members of U.S. citizens who are now separated from their families as they wait an unconscionably long time for visas.

Krikorian, of course, sees this not as an administrative failure that might be fixed by White House attention or a comprehensive immigration reform package, but as an indictment of the very concept of immigration reform. To back up his case, he cites a term, “anarcho-tyranny,” coined by white nationalist Sam Francis in his fight against multiculturalism and “ the transformation of American society by millions of aliens .”

“I wasn’t a fan of Sam Francis,” Krikorian writes, “but his concept of ‘ anarcho-tyranny’ describes this perfectly.”

We’re glad to learn that Krikorian “wasn’t a fan” of Francis, who edited a white supremacist journal and wanted to seal the border and impose “fertility controls on nonwhites.”

But the fact that Krikorian even cites Francis’ work and applauds his phrase, “anarcho-tyranny” – which Francis defined as “we refuse to control real criminals (that's the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that's the tyranny)” – is disturbing. And it’s an important reminder that the intellectual foundation of today’s anti-immigrant movement was laid in large party by white nationalists.

h/t Center for New Community

You Don't Say: Republicans Admit Anti-Immigrant Movement Driven By Racism

Buzzfeed’s John Stanton today managed to get Republican lawmakers on record admitting that the movement to stop immigration report is at least party driven by racial animosity. One Southern Republican member of Congress, who requested anonymity, told Stanton outright that “part of it…it’s racial.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham put it a little more delicately, referring to “ugliness around the issue of immigration.”

While it’s unusual to have Republican members of Congress saying it aloud, it’s hardly a secret that today’s anti-immigrant movement was built by xenophobia and remains in a large part driven by it.

Overtly racist remarks by members of Congress like Steve King and Don Young or by fringe nativists like William Gheen or Judson Phillips could be written off as distractions if they were not part and parcel of this larger movement.

Just look at the three central advocacy groups working to stop immigration reform. The misleadingly named Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the movement “think tank” Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and Numbers USA were all founded by John Tanton, an activist who hardly hid his racist views, support for eugenics, and white nationalist ideology. (Sample Tanton argument: “I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.")

But it’s not just these groups’ history that’s problematic. While most have tried to distance themselves Tanton’s extreme nativist rhetoric, they have turned instead to racial code language to imply that immigration undermines American politics and culture.

Dan Stein, the president of FAIR, has warned that immigrants take part in “competitive breeding” to supplant native-born whites and that "[m]any of them hate America, hate everything the United States stands for. CIS president Mark Krikorian has pointed to “illegitimate” children and “high rates of welfare use” as reasons why Latino immigrants will never vote Republican and therefore shouldn’t be “imported” into the United States.

These arguments linked to two threads common in the anti-immigrant movement: that immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, will never be prosperous, productive members of society, and that they will never vote Republican, so Republicans shouldn’t bother to try to appeal to them.

The first of these arguments was famously illustrated by a Heritage Foundation study last year that purported to show that immigration reform would cost the country trillions of dollars, an inflated number based on the premise that future generations of immigrants would never help to grow the economy or give back financially to the country. The fact that the report was co-written by a researcher who believes that Latinos have intrinsically lower IQ only served to underline the point that the study was making.

The second line of argument was most clearly put by Eagle Forum founder and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, when she said that Republicans should drop their attempts at reaching Latino voters and focus instead on turning out white voters because “there’s not any evidence at all that these Hispanics coming in from Mexico will vote Republican.” The next week, CIS sent out a press release echoing Schlafly’s argument . Pat Buchanan made a similar plea to revive the “Southern Strategy” by ginning up animosity among white voters toward Latino immigrants. It’s no coincidence that this theory that Republicans can maintain a whites-only coalition in an increasingly diverse nation was first laid out by white nationalist writer Steve Sailer.

These two themes were what was behind a FAIR spokesman’s comment last week that allowing undocumented immigrants to work toward legal status would collapse the two-party system and lead to “tyranny.” Similarly, CIS analyst Steven Steinlight recently claimed that immigration reform would be the “unmaking of America” because it “would subvert our political life by destroying the Republican Party” and turn the United States into a one-party state. As evidence, he cited the fact that “Hispanics don’t exemplify ‘strong family values.’”

You don’t have to talk about “cantaloupe calves” to build a movement that relies on and exploits racial animosity. The anti-immigrant movement has mastered this art.

CIS Spokesman: Hispanics Lack 'Strong Family Values,' Immigration Reform Would Be 'The Unmaking of America'

Center for Immigration Studies senior policy analyst Stephen Steinlight reportedly told a Washington Times Communities blogger in a pair of recent interviews that immigration reform would cause “the unmaking of America” because it “would subvert our political life by destroying the Republican Party” and turn the United States into a one-party state similar to Mexico under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).

These sentiments are sadly not unusual coming from an anti-immigrant activist, but are notable coming from CIS, which generally portrays itself as the subdued, numbers-focused “think tank” of the movement.

Steinlight told blogger Joseph Cotto:

“We can expect disaster. In sum, we’ll witness the unmaking of America,” says Dr. Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies. “It would subvert our political life by destroying the Republican Party. The Hispanic vote will make the Democrats the PRI of America. A GOP relic might survive regionally, but could never successfully contest a national election.

“America would turn into a One Party State which, like all others, would be tyrannical and corrupt. The political center would lurch to the left. Political liberty, the freedom to choose among authentically different alternatives, would be lost.

“A population transfer from one nation with a different language and political culture which will become the predominant future demographic will destroy social cohesion. The diversity of previous immigration safeguarded against this. Dual language/dual culture countries are plagued by Balkanizing social strife.”

In a separate interview with Cotto, Steinlight reportedly claimed that Hispanic immigrants won’t be political conservatives because they “don’t exemplify ‘strong family values’” due to “illegitimacy” rates and “anti-social behavior such as teenage child-bearing, the highest school drop-out rate, and high crime and incarceration rates.”

Some claim that Hispanics are “natural conservatives” due to their family-oriented culture. This allegedly makes them Republicans in all but formal registration. Such an idea is controversial because election totals usually do anything other than reflect it.

“The premise and stereotype are equally false,” Steinlight says. “There’s no correlation between ‘strong family values’ and conservatism. Cultures perceived as possessing them (i.e. Asian Americans and Jewish Americans) are predominantly liberal.  Moreover, whether understood generically or as socially conservative code language, Hispanics don’t exemplify ‘strong family values.’

“Illegitimacy is inimical to ‘family values,’ yet Hispanics have a high rate and have witnessed the greatest increase of any group: 19 percent in1980 to 42 percent in 2003. More female-headed single-parent households deepens Hispanic poverty resulting in anti-social behavior such as teenage child-bearing, the highest school drop-out rate, and high crime and incarceration rates.  

Steinlight has made similar comments on Facebook and in a recent speech.

CIS executive director Mark Krikorian has also cited rates of “illegitimate” children to argue that it would be “kind of silly” for Republicans to court Latinos.
 

Krikorian: Pro-Immigration Republicans Should Vote Against Reform To Spite Obama

At least Mark Krikorian knows his audience. In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, the Center for Immigration Studies director urged House Republicans who support immigration reform to oppose the Senate’s bipartisan immigration plan simply in order to deny President Obama a “victory.”

“The only thing he has left now that would salvage the wreckage of his administration is an amnesty,” Krikorian told WND. “And why any Republican, even if they agreed with him, would save President Obama’s political fortunes is beyond me.”

Video: Meet The Nativists Trying to Stop Immigration Reform

Right Wing Watch reported this summer about the creation of the Black American Leadership Alliance (BALA), a new anti-immigrant group designed to appeal to African Americans, which is just the latest member of a closely knit circle of anti-immigrant groups tied to Nativist leader John Tanton.

Also part of that circle are the three most prominent groups working to stop immigration reform in Congress: The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and Numbers USA.

Our friends at the immigrants’ rights groups America’s Voice, Black Alliance For Just Immigration and Center for New Community have put together a great, short video illustrating the ties between these groups and how they’re working together to try to bring down the new immigration law.

PFAW

CIS To Republicans: Oppose Immigration Policy Because Obama Supports It!

The anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies apparently knows how to motivate Republicans in Congress these days. In a document released this weekend, the group urges Republican members of Congress to oppose bipartisan immigration reform…just because President Obama supports it.

In a document called “Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration,” CIS has a special section of “Questions for Republican Politicians,” which starts off with “Why are you so interested in helping Obama achieve his No. 1 agenda item?” The group goes on to recommend that Republicans focus on Benghazi instead of “trying to help” the president and to warn that “this amnesty would create more constituents for Obamacare and Big Government.”

Q: Why are you so interested in helping Obama achieve his No. 1 agenda item? Why aren't you spending time going after Obama on Benghazi, the NSA spying, and the IRS targeting conservatives? Instead you're trying to help him!

In order to distance himself from the various scandals, President Obama needs a political win and amnesty is his top priority. If the bill becomes law, the media will be happy to allow Obama to take all credit for the bill. There is no evidence to suggest that passage of an amnesty bill will help GOP politicians at the polls.

Q: Considering that a recent Pew Hispanic Center poll found that 81 percent of Hispanic immigrants say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services, don't you think that this amnesty would create more constituents for Obamacare and Big Government?

A recent Pew Hispanic Center poll found that Hispanic immigrants support bigger government at a much higher rate than the national average. The poll found that Hispanic support for big government goes down after a few generations, but that it still remains higher than the national average. The report found: "The share that wants a bigger government falls to 72 percent among second-generation Hispanics and 58 percent among third-generation Hispanics. By contrast, just only 41 percent of the general U.S. public say they want a bigger government, while nearly half (48 percent) say they want a smaller government." Looking at all Hispanics in the United States (immigrants and Americans), an average of 75 percent support larger government, compared to only 41 percent of Americans nationwide.

CIS Wonders Why 'Handsome Illegal' in Zuckerberg Ad Wants Path to Citizenship

The Center for Immigration Studies was not taken with the ad that Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us put together profiling Alejandro Morales, a DREAMer who wants to serve in the Marines:

CIS fellow David North wrote in a blog post yesterday entitled “That Handsome Illegal Wanting to be a Marine – Tell It to the President!” that Morales should just give up on a roadmap to citizenship. North grants that Morales is “handsome, and frankly admirable,” but argues that instead of fighting for citizenship, the DREAMer should push for the Pentagon take advantage of a loophole in federal code and allow him to serve in the military without granting him any sort of legal status.

“If the DREAMers really want to enlist, and feel thwarted, why aren't they demonstrating outside the Pentagon, or the White House?” he demands.

Remember that handsome, and frankly admirable, young illegal who wants to be a Marine? The one in the Mark Zuckerberg TV ad reported on by my colleague Jerry Kammer?

The impression from the ad is that the nation needs to pass the omnibus immigration "reform" bill so that he can enlist.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no need for a 1,200-page piece of legislation, involving the admissions of millions of people a year as immigrants and nonimmigrants, to bring the young man and the Marines together.

The Secretary of Defense currently has the power, under law, to deem that it is "in the national interest" to issue a ruling allowing an illegal, or a bunch of them, to enlist in the services. The legal citation is here. So, if the DREAMers really want to enlist, and feel thwarted, why aren't they demonstrating outside the Pentagon, or the White House?

Krikorian: Rubio 'Blackmailing' Conservatives on Immigration

Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian joined Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio on Friday to discuss the Senate’s bipartisan immigration bill. The discussion eventually drifted, as these discussions often do, to Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s work on behalf of the immigration bill.

Last week, Rubio warned that if Congress fails to pass immigration reform, President Obama might be “tempted” to issue an executive order creating a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the country, a notion that the White House disputed.

Krikorian told Gaffney that Rubio’s warning essentially amounts to “blackmail” of conservatives and is like giving “the bank robbers money so that they don’t rob the bank.”

“Its’ really just one more step in Senator Rubio’s kind of delegitimation in the eyes of conservatives,” he said.

Gaffney: Let me just ask you a question about Marco Rubio. He has played a very important role in crafting the Senate bill and helping to sell it. He’s been kind of all over the lot. Senator Rubio has come to office as a darling of conservatives and the Tea Party; this has been horrifying to many of them, I think. He most recently, as I understand it, has said that, well, we have to pass this legislation because President Obama will – as is now his wont, increasingly – just enact or adopt or execute, if you will, amnesty if we don’t. What’s your response to Marco Rubio?

Krikorian: Yeah, that’s definitely what Senator Rubio said. Senator Rubio is basically engaging in a kind of blackmail, saying that if we don’t pass the amnesty, President Obama will just do it on his own. And instead of saying that means we should, you know, oppose any efforts on his part to unconstitutionally usurp the power of Congress, Rubio is offering that as an argument for voting for his bill. It’s basically like, you know, let’s give the bank robbers money so that they don’t rob the bank. I mean it’s just, I just don’t, I can’t imagine anybody takes this seriously, and it’s really just one more step in Senator Rubio’s kind of delegitimation in the eyes of conservatives.

Gaffney: Indeed it is. And a shame, at that, because he seemed to have such promise.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious