Center for Immigration Studies

CIS Writer Doubts Latino Families 'Trolling' Capitol Are 'The Ethnic Version of Ozzie and Harriet'

Center for Immigration Studies fellow James R. Edwards Jr. has nothing but scorn for Jim Wallis’ op-ed last week making an evangelical Christian case for immigration reform.

In a CIS blog post yesterday, Edwards mocks Wallis for touting an evangelical pro-immigration lobby day in Washington. Edwards claims that all the evangelical Christians he saw “trolling congressional offices” on the lobby day were Latino, so they may or may not have been “wholesome Christian families” and “the ethnic version of Ozzie and Harriet”:

Jim Wallis, the head of the politically leftist "evangelical" organization Sojourners, has penned an op-ed that the L.A. Times ran. Wallis's op-ed claims biblical "compassion" requires Christian lawmakers to enact amnesty. He liberally employs the term, playing on emotions and sob stories from illegal aliens. He cites a recent Washington fly-in of 300 "evangelical Christians" who met with 110 legislative offices, mostly Republicans.

I happened to spot some of the participants trolling congressional offices that day. All that I saw were Latino, some dragging the elderly and kids along, trying to give the impression of being wholesome Christian families. I have no way to know if they are or are not truly followers of Christ or if they are actually the ethnic version of Ozzie and Harriet. What I do know is that they were part of a larger lobbying campaign that atheist George Soros has helped underwrite. In that regard, they are merely willing political props and favor-seekers, just like every other special interest in Gucci Gulch.

Edwards then puts a Phyllis Schlafly-like spin on the Bible’s message on immigration, suggesting that those who are tempted to extend compassion on undocumented immigrants replace the term in their mind with “robber” or “burglar.”

“Only those who lack a biblical understanding of the boundaries of true compassion that Christ set forth would fall for such an emotion-laden political stunt,” he concludes.

In his op-ed, Wallis quotes Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):

I think the biggest change hasn't been in the pulpit; it's been in the pews. ... It's one thing when 11 million is a statistic. The other thing is when one of those 11 million is your friend, a human being who you now know ... as a father, as a husband, as a mother, as a worker, as a worshiper. ... Our faith has always been about compassion and it compels you to do something. If you took compassion or the principle of compassion out of the Bible, it would be in tatters because it's all over the place.

Of course, an accurate reading of Scripture is that it puts forth compassion as an individual moral precept, not one incumbent on civil government. Want to prove this? Then substitute "robber" or "burglar" for "11 million" in Rubio's paragraph. The state wields the sword of justice, entrusted to it by God to protect innocent members of its society. In the context of the amnesty question, the innocents the state is charged with protecting are U.S. citizens. The state's trying to operate on the basis of "compassion" as Wallis and his ilk use it results in perverse outcomes, where the innocent are punished.

Sojourners' political propagandists promptly disseminated the opinion piece on Capitol Hill, aiming to convince evangelicals in Congress to buy into the amnesty argument. Only those who lack a biblical understanding of the boundaries of true compassion that Christ set forth would fall for such an emotion-laden political stunt.
 

Kirkorian Warns of Third Party if GOP Doesn’t Block Immigration Reform

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies is warning House Republicans that a third party may emerge if they don’t block immigration reform. While speaking to Sandy Rios of the American Family Association yesterday, Krikorian maintained that while it is right for Republicans to “fear” that “amnesty and increased immigration will import lots of Democratic voters,” the more immediate problem for the GOP is a third party.

“It will be a disaster for Republicans,” Krikorian said. “It is a danger that if they pass something terrible a lot more

Republican voters are just going to stay home and you can even see third parties coming up in different elections. Heck even Sarah Palin has toyed with the idea of a third party if they pass this immigration bill so I don’t think they realize how dangerous this is politically from their perspective.”

Krikorian and Rios agreed that apathy among conservative voters was to blame for Mitt Romney’s defeat last year. In fact, the turnout among self-identified conservatives in 2012 was around the same level as in the 2008 and 2004 elections, and Romney won 82% of such voters.

Krikorian accused “political elites and the political consultant class” of attacking the GOP’s position on immigration in order to hide the party’s problems on “economic policies or foreign policies or their candidate that all have very strong constituencies defending them and so they find something that they can attack without any donors being upset because it’s being attacked.”

Krikorian Warns DOMA Decision Will Lead to Legalized Polygamy, 'Spousal Immigration from Muslim World Will Balloon'

It’s not just anti-gay activists who are slamming the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the core part of the Defense of Marriage Act…now at least one leader in the anti-immigrant movement is getting involved too. Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian took to Twitter today to react to the decision. While Krikorian would not go as far as to say that marriage equality would lead to legalized bestiality, he did say that it would pave the way for legalizing polygamy and incest…and that this, in turn, would cause “spousal immigration from the Muslim world” to “balloon.”

Meet the Black American Leadership Alliance, the Anti-Immigrant Movement's Newest Front Group

Earlier this week, a group calling itself the Black American Leadership Alliance (BALA) sent a letter to members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight and to members of the Congressional Black Caucus urging them to abandon immigration reform, claiming that reform would lead to “higher unemployment, more poverty, and a lower standard of living for many in the black community.”

BALA didn’t provide much information about itself in its press release…in fact, the group doesn’t seem to have existed until very recently (one indication is that it joined Facebook on May 13). The Anti-Defamation League reports that this is because BALA is just the latest incarnation of a shifting series of front groups for the anti-immigrant nativist group FAIR, which has been trying for years to drive a wedge between African Americans and Latinos. Until its recent name change, BALA was known as the African American Leadership Council (AALC), which itself, according to our friends at the Center for a New Community, was “simply a redressing of FAIR’s old front group, Choose Black America.”

In fact, the Center for a New Community notes, BALA seems to be running entirely through another FAIR front group, one of many stemming from white nationalist John Tanton, misleadingly called “Progressives for Immigration Reform” (PFIR). In a fact sheet on PFIR [pdf], the Center notes, “PFIR emblazons its public image with symbols and rhetoric that profess support for environmental causes. But under this veneer, PFIR faults the ills of American society on ‘mass migration,’ and in fact, immigrants in general—sharing more with the bigotry of the far-right than any ‘progressive’ cause.”

A look at the twelve signers of BALA’s letter gives a clear picture of the  new group. Of the twelve signers, two are longtime anti-immigrant activists entrenched in the Tanton network – including groups like PFIR, FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies– and four are vocal conservative extremists who have appeared on these pages before:

Frank Morris, who identifies himself as a former director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. But these days, Morris is tied up in a number of Tanton-connected anti-immigrant groups, including sitting on the boards of FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies and serving as the vice president of PFIR.

Leah V. Durant, who left her position as a staff attorney at FAIR’s Immigration Reform Law Institute [pdf], which writes anti-immigrant laws, to become the executive director of PFIR when it launched in 2008 [pdf].

Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, a columnist and talk show host who:

Charles Butler, a Chicago-area talk show host who:

Kevin Jackson, a radio host who:

  • Complains society is being run by “women who look like men, act worse than men, and who have essentially sacrificed their womanhood at the alter [sic] of ‘achievement.’”
  • In case it’s not clear, he’s really not a fan of the women’s movement: “There is a war against beautiful women, and it’s being waged by the Women’s Movement, ironically….Let’s face it, the women who rise through the ranks in Leftist politics look like dudes. In fact, if you put high-ranking female political Plutopians against their “male” counterparts, it would be the CHICKS WITH…well…CUPS, and I’m not talking bras. ….Women on the Left secretly wish to build a society of powerful ugly women…to match how they feel (and are) inside. A beautiful Liberal woman (not that I’ve ever seen one) might as well be fitted for knee pads and given Bill Clinton’s ‘How to Pleasure a President While On Your Knees Under a Desk” manual and a box of Cuban cigars.’
  • Claims that President Obama has "failed to unite blacks and whites at all, and in fact has taken America back into the 1860′s except now whites are enslaved to blacks."

Vernon Robinson, who ran for congress in North Carolina last year, giving us this ad:

The members of BALA are entitled to voice their opinions, but they should be mistaken neither for a mainstream group nor for a fresh voice in the immigration reform debate.

With research by Tory Roberts

Krikorian: 'The Future of the Republic Rests' on Defeating Immigration Reform

Center for Immigration Studies director Mark Krikorian, like Phyllis Schlafly, is trying to sell Republicans on the idea that if they support comprehensive immigration reform they will face electoral doom for years to come. In an interview with Right Wing News published today, Krikorian insists that comprehensive reform would not only “destroy the Republican Party,” it would imperil “the future of the republic.”

Krikorian’s reasoning for this doomsday rhetoric is something we hear frequently from immigration opponents:  that “Hispanic voters and immigrant voters generally are predisposed to be Democrats” because “a party that’s promoting tax cuts is of no interest to them.” CIS, like Schlafly, has been urging the GOP to abandon its Latino outreach efforts and instead focus only on turning out white voters opposed to immigration reform.

Elsewhere in the interview, Krikorian mocked policies that would let legal immigrants stay in the U.S. with their U.S.-born children because “look, they’re so cute.”

How do you think we’re looking on this bill? What are you hearing? Are we on track to beat this thing or not?

There’s still an outside chance to beat it in the Senate, which would be kind of remarkable if that happened. The likelihood of it actually getting through the House is obviously dramatically less. I’m less worried about that part, although what I fear is that the House may pass something small and narrow, but as long as it has the word immigration in it, then Boehner can just get together with Reid and re-write immigration law between the two of them and then send it back saying, “Look, Conference Committee did this. This is what we came up with; vote for it or else.” Most Republicans won’t vote for it, but if Boehner is willing to bring it to the Floor for the Democrats to vote for, with 15 Republicans passing it, then we’re screwed. But it seems to me that’s the thing. In a sense, the whole thing comes down to whether Boehner is willing to destroy the Republican Party or not. It’s kind of melodramatic, but the future of the republic rests on him.

The flip side is that they have taken one part of the family immigration program which is limited and made it unlimited — and that is the spouses and minor children of Green Card holders. So, if you’re married when you get your Green Card, then your spouse gets a Green Card, too. …Also, I put air quotes around this “temporary” employment program; this legislation exempts all family members from the numerical caps on those programs. So those numbers increase dramatically under the bill and they all get to work, too. Of course, there’s no change in the citizenship laws. So all the kids that these “temporary” workers have while they’re in the United States are U.S. citizens and then, these very same people who are pushing this bill are going to say, “Well, we can’t make them leave now just because their Visa expired. They have U.S. born kids and look, they’re so cute. Look, they all have to stay; come on.” It’s just ridiculous.

Final question: One of the ways this is being sold is that it’s a way that’s going to fix everything with the Republican Party with Hispanics — that suddenly, all Hispanics are going to vote Republican after this. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense if you – I mean, after Reagan’s amnesty, the GOP’s numbers with Hispanics dropped. So, what’s going to happen? Is this going to be a big boom for the GOP with Hispanics if we pass this bill?

No, it’s going to be a disaster for the Republican Party for several reasons. One is Hispanic voters and immigrant voters generally are predisposed to be Democrats. They make much heavier use of public services. So, a party that’s interested in tightening up on welfare and government spending is not going to be appealing. They pay much less in taxes. Current illegal immigrants, if you look at their wages — a large majority of them have no income tax liability and that’s not going to change significantly if they’re legalized. So, a party that’s promoting tax cuts is of no interest to them. If anything, it’s quite the opposite.
 

Eagle Forum Rallies Anti-Immigrant Activists; Caller Suggests Shooting Senator

With immigration reform moving toward a vote in the Senate, anti-immigrant forces are ratcheting up their rhetoric.  On Wednesday night, Eagle Forum hosted an “emergency” phone briefing intended to spur grassroots lobbying by their activists.  It featured dire warnings about the Senate bill spelling doom for America, attacks on pro-reform Sen. Marco Rubio, and a joking suggestion that activists planning a visit to Sen. Susan Collins’ office “shoot her.”

Joining Eagle Forum’s Colleen Holcomb were Stephen Miller (standing in for his boss Sen. Jeff Sessions), Rosemary Jenks from anti-immigration Numbers USA, right-wing pundit Betsy McCaughey, and activist leaders from around the country. Also joining the call was the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector, whose much-maligned “study” of the costs of immigration reform has gained attention mostly for the views of its co-author, since forced to leave Heritage, that immigration policy should reflect his belief that Hispanics have lower IQs than the “white native” population of the U.S.

One notable feature of the call was anger at Sen. Marco Rubio, who not long ago was the darling of the Tea Party movement, but who is now vilified for his support of immigration reform.  Speakers on the Eagle Forum call expressed contempt for Rubio, saying he has been lying about the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” bill. 

Rosemary Jenks from Numbers USA called the current Senate bill “devastating for America” and worse than the immigration bill that was defeated in 2007.  “If this amnesty passes,” she warned, “that’s it for America.”  Jenks insisted there is no way to fix the bill. “There is no series of amendments that can make this bill palatable to the American people,” she said. “Kill it dead, now, because it is not savable.”  Jenks said it is important to keep the bill from passing in the Senate, because if it passes, and the House passes any kind of immigration legislation, the bills would go to conference where she said it would leave our future in the hands of President Obama, Harry Reid, and John Boehner.

Betsy McCaughey, a right-wing think-tanker and former Lt. Governor of New York, urged activists to point out sections of the bill that she said people will find “repulsive,” including provisions that she said would put “left-wing community organizations” in charge of assisting people applying for legal status. She said Rubio has not read the bill he is promoting.

Rector echoed that charge, saying Rubio “has no knowledge whatsoever” of what is in the bill.  Rector defended his calculation that the immigration reform bill would cost America $6 trillion over the next 50 years and accused the bill’s supporters of deceiving the American public about its costs.

Callers were urged to rely on resources from Numbers USA, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and the Center for Immigration Studies, a trio of organizations that are, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, “fruits of the same poisonous tree.”  According to the SPLC,  

“Together, FAIR, CIS, and Numbers USA form the core of the nativist lobby in America. In 2007, they were key players in derailing bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that had been expected by many observers to pass. Today, these organizations are frequently treated as if they were legitimate, mainstream commentators on immigration. But the truth is that they were all conceived and birthed by a man who sees America under threat by non-white immigrants. And they have never strayed from their roots.”

The remarks about Sen. Collins came in response to a question from an activist looking for suggestions for an upcoming meeting with her district office.  “Yeah, shoot her,” came the response from a participant on the call.  Awkward laughter followed, along with a speaker’s suggestion that they “shoot her with data.”

Center for Immigration Studies Echoes Schlafly, Urges GOP to Focus on Turning Out White Voters

Phyllis Schlafly has been getting some strong pushback – including from the conservative Commentary Magazine –  for remarks she made this week urging the Republican Party to abandon attempts to win back Latino voters and instead focus exclusively on turning out “the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election.”

But Schlafly’s far from alone. In a press release today, the prominent anti-immigration reform group Center for Immigration Studies echoes Schlafly’s advice, urging the GOP to abandon comprehensive immigration reform and instead pour its resources into  increasing white turnout.

Citing new census data, CIS warns Republicans that “one of their biggest problems in the last presidential election was that so many less-educated whites sat home.”

“It seems likely that by supporting the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, GOP legislators would further alienate these voters,” CIS Research Director Steven Camarota adds.

Camarota’s warning, like Schlafly’s, is not far removed from Pat Buchanan’s call for the GOP to create a new Southern Strategy, pitting white voters against Latino immigrants rather than trying to expand the party’s base.

"As Republicans think about how they can expand their voter base, the new data suggest that one of their biggest problems in the last presidential election was that so many less-educated whites sat home," said Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research and author of the report. "These voters, who have been hard hit by the recession, have traditionally supported Republicans. It seems likely that by supporting the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, GOP legislators would further alienate these voters."

The president received five million more votes than Governor Romney. What would have it taken for Romney to have won at least a plurality of the popular vote?

   -- If Romney had increased his share of the women's vote by four percentage points, from the 44 percent he actually received to 48 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the female vote equaled 714,000 votes.

   -- If Romney had increased his share of the black vote by 15 percentage points, from the 6 percent he actually received to 21 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the black vote equaled 172,000 votes.

   -- If Romney had increased his share of the Hispanic vote by 23 percentage points, from the 27 percent he actually received to 50 percent, then he have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the Hispanic vote equaled 112,000 votes.

   -- If Romney had increased his share of the white vote by three percentage points, from the 59 percent he actually received to 62 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the white vote equaled 980,000 votes.

The Tea Party Letter Signers' Other Advice on Immigration Reform

A coalition of Tea Party and other right-wing activists sent a letter to the Senate yesterday calling the Gang of Eight’s bipartisan immigration reform plan “unsalvageable” and urging senators to scrap it altogether. While the media has focused on better-known signers of the letter – including right-wing talkers Erick Erickson, Michele Malkin and Laura Ingraham – many of the letter’s signers were all too familiar to us here at RWW.

Here are eight other pieces of advice on immigration reform from signers of the Tea Party letter.

  1. No one is immune to the illegal who drives wildly drunk, or the wanna-be gang-banger who needs to machete innocent citizens to gain entry and respect into the Latino or other gangs. We have uncovered the fact that Americans are under assault, a fact under-reported by the press, and unconnected by our elected leaders at all levels of government…. Insist that our elected officials remember that ‘We, the People,’ not the illegal aliens, are their constituents. And that the racism perpetrated by illegal invaders upon Americans of all ethnic backgrounds is real.”  
    -- Maria Espinoza, director of a project linked to the nativist Numbers USA intended “to honor and remember Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens”

  2.  “Native-born Hispanic Americans, who make up most Hispanic voters, have a majority of the children that are born to them are illegitimate, very high rates of welfare use. So this is a description of an overwhelmingly Democratic voter group. Not all of them, obviously, because there’s a big group and there’s a lot of differences among them. But generally speaking, Hispanic voters are Democrats, and so the idea of importing more of them as a solution to the Republican Party’s problems is kind of silly.”
    -- Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian on why Republicans shouldn’t bother appealing to Latino voters

  3. “Having this amnesty is suicide for the Republican Party because they’re going to vote Democratic, and that’s why the Democrats are pushing it. And the reason is because they come from a country where there’s no tradition or expectation of limited government…. They think government should be there to give orders and solve their problems and give them a handout when they need it.
    -- Phyllis Schlafly, who has also expressed nostalgia for the days of “Irish, Italian, Jewish” immigration

  4. If this country becomes 30 per cent Hispanic we will no longer be America."
    -- Vision America's Rick Scarborough, who also contends that AIDS is divine punishment for homosexuality

  5. “This British Conservative Party has watered down traditional conservatism to such an extent that some conservatives have formed an alternative, the English Defense League (EDL), which has spawned the British Freedom Party. This group has been strongly attacked in the media, here and abroad, as “far-right” or worse. But I had the opportunity to meet their leaders, Kevin Carroll and Tommy Robinson, at the 9/11 conference in New York City sponsored by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer which was designed in part to organize resistance to global Islam and safeguard our right of free speech against the advance of Sharia, or Islamic law. … Carroll and Robinson want a patriotic alternative to the British Conservative Party that will promote traditional values.
    -- Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaidrecommending that the Republican Party emulate the English Defense League, a violent, radical nativist group

  6. “And sadly, what we’re seeing in many of these populations – and I don’t mean to pick on the Somalis, they just happen to be worth picking on – is that they are in fact sort of ghettos in places like Minnesota, where they contributed substantially to the election of the first Muslim Brother – oh, excuse me, first Muslim – to the United States Congress. Keith Ellison from Minnesota. But the concern that I have is that this group is not simply establishing itself and over time becoming a force to reckon with politically in this country. It’s also incubating two things: jihadists…and the other thing is they’re incubating Sharia.
    -- Anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney, birther and the originator of Michele Bachmann’s smears against Muslim civil servants

  7. “Is this one of those backdoor opportunities to allow people in the next five months to get the opportunity to vote? Will we see Janet Napolitano and the president come out with a new edict that says since we allow these people to be here legally, we’re now going to allow them to vote? How far down the rabbit whole will it go?”
    -- Former congressman Allen West

  8. "I know the solution. Take a plane load of them and dump them in Somalia. Make no secret of it and tell the illegals, every time we catch them, that is where they are going. 99% of them will head back to the border on their own."
    -- Judson Phillips, prominent birther and head of Tea Party Nation

Other signers of the letter include Gary Bauer, who has warned that gay rights and pro-choice policies will lead to “God taking his hand of protection off of our country”; Elaine Donnelly, one of most hyperbolic opponents of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; Ken Eldred, a top financier of the Seven Mountains Dominionism movement; Brigette Gabriel, who warns that elementary school classrooms are becoming “recruiting ground[s] for Islam”; David Horowitz, who thinks that conservative activist Grover Norquist is a secret Muslim who has “infiltrated” the Republican Party; and the American Family Association's Sandy Rios who said last month of President Obama, “I don’t think he loves the country like people who were born and did grow up here.”

Krikorian Blames 'Ethnic Chauvinist Groups' for Immigration Woes

Appearing on “The Final Say” radio program earlier this month, Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian lamented that “left-wing groups, ethnic chauvinist groups and big business all work together to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws.”

If “ethnic chauvinist” sounds familiar, it’s because that’s what Arizona’s superintendent of schools called the Chicano studies classes that he and his fellow Republicans managed to ban from public schools.

Krikorian: Quite honestly, Mexico has a tighter immigration system, at least on paper, than we do. In fact, Mexico’s immigration system is much more punitive than ours and much more restrictive, more like Japan’s in the sense of who’s allowed in and what rights they have. It’s very primitive, I would say, backwards in the sense of what the rules are, but they actually enforce their rules. That’s the problem for us, is that we… the political incentive to actually enforce the rules is very weak here because left-wing groups, ethnic chauvinist groups and big business all work together to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws.

Host: Which, by its very nature, should make us all run in fear.

Krikorian: Sure, yeah, absolutely. I mean, it’s all big institutions. Big Government, Big Business, Big Media, Big Philanthropy, they’re all on the same side.

Heritage Foundation VP Blamed Boston Bombings on 'Multiculturalism and Diversity' in Schools

Mike Gonzalez, the Heritage Foundation’s vice president of communications, has had a rough week. He was tasked with defending a Heritage report about the economic impact of immigration reform that was statistically faulty, co-authored by a white supremacist and bashed by other conservatives.

The controversy over the report, however, has overshadowed an op-ed that Gonzalez wrote for the Denver Post last week that pins at least some of the blame for the Boston Marathon bombings on what he sees as a new trend in American schools of teaching “multiculturalism and diversity” rather than “love of country.”

But we know one thing for sure: He wasn't taught that assimilation into American society was desirable. As I'm finding while researching a book on Hispanics — indeed, what I experienced as a young Cuban coming to this country in the early 1970s — we no longer teach patriotic assimilation. By that I mean love of country, not just its creature comforts.

We teach the opposite, in fact — that we're all groups living cheek by jowl with one another, all with different advantages and legal class protection statuses, but not really all part of the same national fabric. In other words, we teach multiculturalism and diversity, and are officially making assimilation very hard to achieve.

If Dzhokhar and his brother Tamarlan are guilty of the acts of terrorism they are accused of because they succumbed to Islamist radicalism, then they are monsters who are personally responsible for turning against the land that welcomed them. Tamarlan has paid with his life, and Dzhokhar will be dealt judgment.

But as we grapple now with the thorny question of immigration, how to handle the millions of people who started to arrive at mid-century in a massive immigration wave, we could do worse than look at the affairs in Boston for a clue on whether our current approach works.

Over the past few days, many people pondering the question of how the Tsarnaevs could have acted the way they did have discounted that lack of assimilation could be the case, emphasizing that the brothers Tsarnaev lived in Cambridge, "one of the most diverse and inclusive places in America."

The problem is indeed with an "inclusive" approach that considers it wrong to teach love of a country so generous that it takes in two foreigners from a far-away land, gives them refuge, welcomes them in and gives them a free education. To have done so might have precluded the radical brain washing that led to the bombing.

This absurd argument is basically the one put forward last week by Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian.

###

Camarota: Legal Immigration 'Dooms' Conservatives 'If It's Allowed to Continue'

Center for Immigration Studies research director Steven Camarota paid a visit to the raving conspiracy theorists at the Talk to Solomon Show late last month to discuss the Gang of Eight’s bipartisan immigration reform proposal.

Host Stan Solomon started off the discussion with a rant about immigration reform amounting to “total surrender” for conservatives because undocumented immigrants will somehow start  committing large-scale voter fraud in favor of Democratic candidates. Camarota replied that while allowing a path to citizenship would be “boon for the Democratic Party in general,” it is in fact legal immigration that “dooms” conservatives. “Legal immigration means conservatives are going to have a tough time in the coming decades, if it’s allowed to continue,” he said. “Obviously we could change it.”

Later in the discussion, Camarota called the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that grants birthright citizenship to children born in the United States “unwise,” saying that it amounts to “squatter’s rights” for undocumented immigrants.

Camarota then presented his novel twist on the concept of “self-deportion,” the extreme strategy developed by Camarota’s boss Mark Krikorian and disastrously embraced by Mitt Romney. After several years of making life so miserable for undocumented immigrants that they leave the country, Camarota suggests, “then we can come back and decide if there’s some share of the population that are left that we might want to amnesty.”

Solomon: Anyone that believes that this is anything less than total surrender, total amnesty and a total victory for liberalism and the Democrat Party, because all these people will become Democrats before they become citizens, and by the way they’ll vote too because we won’t allow them, anyone, to be identified because it would be somehow wrong to ask them if they’re legal or citizens yet before they vote. So, everyone knows this is a game-changer for America. Am I right or wrong?

Camarota: Right, I mean, it’s a long-term boon for the Democratic Party in general. The amnesty is…there’s something else, I mean, you know, I guess people may not realize, it’s legal immigration that mainly kind of dooms…Well, I don’t know that it doom’s Republicans, that’s just simply not fair. It dooms, sort of, conservatives. Because all of the survey research on the new immigrants, well, at least the ones we can do on Hispanics and Asians, are overwhelmingly in favor of government regulation, more spending, that sort of thing. And we have anecdotal evidence that the small number of European immigrants who come in now also are quite liberal in their political orientation, so the political system will respond to that. I mean, sure, it would be wrong to say it’s just simply a voter registration drive. But legal immigration means conservatives are going to have a tough time in the coming decades, if it’s allowed to continue. Obviously we could change it.

The bottom line, though, is when you haven’t enforced the law very much for twenty years, it’s like, maybe the analogy is squatter’s rights. Or at least this is Marco Rubio and his analysis is that they have a kind of squatter’s rights. And there are perhaps four to five million U.S.-born children now of illegal immigrants. Now, whether we should have given citizenship to people’s children, to a child born in the United States to an illegal parent – virtually no other country in the world would do that, but we do – you know, it’s a fair question to say that was unwise, but we did it. So now, we’re in a very tough situation.

But I do think that we don’t have to deport everyone. The best research indicates that about 200,000 illegal immigrants go home on their own each year. So, it’s just that more than that come and that’s what caused the population to grow. But we think the number coming is down and the number going home is up. So if we enforce our laws, illegals couldn’t jobs or access public benefits, if they couldn’t get drivers’ licenses or access in-state college tuition and all the other things we do, I think we could dramatically increase the number of people going home.

And then, after we show for a number of years that we were serious about enforcing laws, then we can come back and decide if there’s some share of the population that are left that we might want to amnesty.

 

Krikorian Links Public Schools, Multiculturalism, to Boston Bombings

On a Tea Party Unity conference call last week in which he laid out his no-compromise strategy to “kill” immigration reform, Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian also delved into what he sees as a connection between multiculturalism, public schools and terrorism.

Noting that accused Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attended Massachusetts public schools, Krikorian said, “The fact is, our system for patriotic assimilation, both of foreigners and American kids, has broken down.”

He blames this on things like a provision in the Gang of Eight immigration bill that would provide grants to help immigrants learn English and integrate into American life. This, Krikorian charges, will simply funnel money to “Alinskyite community organizing groups,” creating a “multiculturalism, anti-assimilation slush fund.”

“So the connection between this terrorism incident and the terrible aspects of this bill is very close and very specific,” he says.

The last point is assimilation. You know, how does a kid, the younger one who’s still alive of these terrorists, he went through most of his education in American public schools. Now, it’s Cambridge, Massachusetts, so that’s saying something right there. But the fact is, our system for patriotic assimilation, both of foreigners and American kids, has broken down. Foreigners need it more because they don’t get anything from their parents either. Because their parents don’t know, they just got here.

And what does this Schumer-Rubio bill do? We just published something on it yesterday, and then today John Fonte at the Corner, National Review Online, the Corner, has a piece as well. This bill would give millions, scores of millions of dollars, made available for the Homeland Security, for Janet Napolitano to give out to Alinskyite community organizing groups, supposedly to integrate immigrants. In fact, it’s a sort of multiculturalism, anti-assimilation slush fund that this bill, that Rubio’s bill, would set up and give something like $150 million to fund groups like La Raza and CASA de Maryland and other basically anti-assimilation groups like that. So the connection between this terrorism incident and the terrible aspects of this bill is very close and very specific.

This, by the way, is similar to an argument recently made by Heritage Foundation vice president Mike Gonzalez.

Krikorian’s colleague Steven Camarota recently attacked “professional ethnics” who “remind people of their backgrounds and ethnicity and their race.”

 

Krikorian Lays Out Strategy to 'Kill' Immigration Bill, Attacks 'Big Religion' SBC, 'Jerk' Graham, 'Water Boy' Rubio

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and a GOP witness at last month’s Senate hearings on immigration reform, laid out his strategy for stopping the reform bill on a Tea Party Unity conference call Thursday.

Krikorian told the Tea Party activists on the call that they were lined up against “all the big institutions in the country” including “Big Business…Big Labor, all the big donors, Big Government Big Education, Big Media, Big Philanthropy, Big Religion -- the Southern Baptist Convention has been roped into this as well.”

Opponents of immigration reform shouldn’t be “distracted by particular pieces of the bill” they might support, he said. Instead, “This needs to be a kind of kill-and-replace, like the fight on Obamacare response.”

“There may be parts of it that some people like, increasing some skilled immigration or guest worker programs, what have you,” he said. “I’m not a big fan of either of those things, but if they’re included in this bill it doesn’t matter because there’s so much in this bill that shouldn’t be there that’s so bad that the whole thing needs to be killed.”

All the big institutions in the country are behind this. Big Business is for this, Big Labor, all the big donors, Big Government, Big Education, Big Media, Big Philanthropy, Big Religion -- the Southern Baptist Convention has been roped into this as well. And once the bill came out, though, it became pretty clear that there’s plenty there to attack. The inevitability is not real. This in fact can be stopped, and in fact I think the approach needs to be not to sort of be distracted by particular pieces of the bill, but the whole thing needs to be killed. This needs to be a kind of kill-and-replace, like the fight on Obamacare response. Because this really is an equivalent to Obamacare and frankly probably much more consequential in the long term, much more damaging to the health of the country.

There may be parts of it that some people like, increasing some skilled immigration or guest worker programs, what have you. I’m not a big fan of either of those things, but if they’re included in this bill it doesn’t matter because there’s so much in this bill that shouldn’t be there that’s so bad that the whole thing needs to be killed.

Krikorian went out of his way to attack two of the four Republicans on the bipartisan Gang of Eight that devised the immigration reform proposal. Sen. Lindsey Graham, he said, is facing attack ads in South Carolina “both because he’s on the Gang of Eight and because he’s frankly kind of a jerk.”

He then accused Sen. Marco Rubio, the main Republican spokesperson for the Gang of Eight’s bipartisan proposal, of having “totally drunk the Kool-Aid” and acting as “Chuck Schumer’s water boy.” The best home immigration opponents have to stop the bill, he added, is to “scare [Rubio] enough to give him some kind of excuse to walk away.”

Rubio needs to be the focus, not so much of attack, although he does kind of need to be attacked. Rubio needs to be, it needs to be made clear to him he’s got to back off this bill. I’m not sure that’s possible. He’s completely, totally latched himself to Chuck Schumer at this point. But, you know, it seems to me it’s at least possible, offering him and a lot of other Republicans an opportunity, a way of backing out of this thing. Because especially if Rubio backs out, if he somehow, and it’s going to be hard at this point, but if he were to walk away from this and say, ‘Look, I tried, it just didn’t work,’ the whole thing is over, it’s collapsed and there’s just no chance the Democrats have of getting this through.

So, in a sense, Rubio really is the key guy. And your  question is, the question, the way it would have to be presented to Rubio, is, ‘Are you the conservative ambassador to this Gang of Eight writing this bill, or are you Chuck Schumer’s ambassador to conservatives?” And I’m afraid he’s the latter. He’s now Chuck Schumer’s water boy, making the case for the bill that the Democratic staff, Schumer’s staff, wrote, and making the case for it to conservatives to try to get enough people basically, you know, silenced enough that this thing can get through the Senate. That’s the real danger and that’s where it seems to me the pressure has to be applied.

There are some people running ads in South Carolina, for instance, against Lindsey Graham, both because he’s on the Gang of Eight and because he’s frankly kind of a jerk and because he’s up in 2014 and there are people talking about primarying him. My point is that making Rubio feel the heat isn’t going to get him to change his mind. He’s totally drunk the Kool-Aid.  I mean, I can’t put it too strongly: he is Chuck Schumer’s water boy. He is Chuck Schumer’s assistant in tearing out this amnesty. And he just thinks that all the rest of it doesn’t matter as long as he can get everybody amnesty. And remember, everybody’s amnesty first, within a few months of this bill passing. Everything else is just promises. ‘If, you know, we get everyone amnesty then we can get our message to Hispanic voters,’ or something. It’s a complete fantasy. He’s totally bought into it. The point is to scare him enough to give him some kind of excuse to walk away, that’s what my point is.
 

 

CIS Spokesman Lashes Out at 'Professional Ethnics,' Calls GOP Immigration Reform Supporters 'Useful Idiots'

The Center for Immigration Studies, a leading anti-immigrant group that was invited to testify at last month’s Senate immigration reform hearings, has been making it very clear why it opposes comprehensive reform. In an interview last week, CIS director Mark Krikorian said that Republicans shouldn’t bother courting Latino voters or “importing more of them” through immigration reform because “generally speaking, Hispanic voters are Democrats.”

In an interview yesterday with VCY America’s Jim Schneider, the group’s research director Steven Camarota, piled on, calling GOP supporters of immigration reform “useful idiots” who “have no idea of the political preferences of the people who they’re trying to turn into voters.” 

Schneider: I think it’s Politico, this week Monday, talked about this mega GOP donor, Paul Singer, making a six-figure donation to a group that’s involved with marshaling conservatives to support an overhaul of our federal laws on this issue. I mean, is there, it sounds like there’s tons of pressure that’s going on legislators at this time.

Camarota: Yeah, well, you know, what did Lenin, the leader of the Soviet revolution say, ‘There’s a lot of…the capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him.’ Well, you know, there’s just a…and he also talked about the concept of ‘useful idiots.’ These are people who help you inadvertently with your revolution. Well, that’s kind of a harsh statement but the reality is there are lots of conservatives who never actually looked at the voting data, who have no idea of the political preferences of the people who they’re trying to turn into voters.

And so, when you press them on this, a lot of times they’ll say, well, ‘I didn’t know,’ or, ‘We’ll fix that, somehow we’ll change their minds,’ as if they were malleable piece of clay and not human beings entitled to their own opinions. The fact is that if immigration continues, the United States will continue to move in a more left or progressive direction. That’s not necessarily bad or good, but it is a fact, because the new immigrants and their children, based on all the polling that we have, tend to favor expansive government. Again, in a democracy, you change the voters, the political system has to respond. That’s just the reality of the situation.

Elsewhere in the interview, Camarota went all out on the racial dog whistles, taking on Attorney General Eric Holder’s defense of the civil rights of immigrants and non-English speakers. “Unfortunately, there’s a whole industry designed to balkanize the country and remind people of their backgrounds and ethnicity and their race,” Camarota said. “And there’s a lot of what you might call ‘professional ethnics’ out there whose job it is to keep the country divided.” This "identity and grievance politics," he adds, is “one of the downsides of immigration in modern America.”

Schneider: He also used this term, ‘language minorities,’ and that sounded rather peculiar to me. Can you define, what is he meaning by ‘language minorities?’

Camarota: Well, this is something that’s evolved since the 1960s, not surprisingly, that if you don’t speak English you’re entitled to certain protections, including things like have voting ballots printed up in your language. Now, of course, a moment’s reflection reveals that basically that makes no sense. Because when you naturalize, when a legal immigrant becomes a full citizen of the United States, they have to display a knowledge of English, so they should be able to read English. And people born in the United States should also be able to have learned English. They lived here, they grew up here.

So who exactly are these foreign language battles for? Well, what it’s for is to preserve ethnic identity. And unfortunately, there’s a whole industry designed to balkanize the country and remind people of their backgrounds and ethnicity and their race. And there’s a lot of what you might call ‘professional ethnics’ out there whose job it is to keep the country divided, because if people assimilate, well, they have no one they can claim to represent. And that’s one of the downsides of immigration in modern America, identity and grievance politics.

 

Krikorian Says GOP Shouldn't Bother Courting Hispanic Voters or 'Importing More of Them'

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and a prominent voice on the anti-immigrant Right, argued yesterday that the Republican Party shouldn’t bother courting Hispanic voters because their “illegitimate” children, “high rates of welfare use,” and opposition to “reducing the size of government” make them an “an overwhelmingly Democratic voter group.”

Krikorian is one of the most prominent figures in the effort to stop comprehensive immigration reform. He was invited to be a GOP witness at a Senate hearing on immigration reform earlier this month, where he said the bill in question could be called “No Illegal Alien Left Behind.”

Speaking with New Orleans radio talk show host Garland Robinette yesterday, Krikorian dismissed the idea that the Republican Party needs to work to attract Latino voters, including through efforts at immigration reform. The Republican share of Latino voters “is never going to be very big,” he said. “Generally speaking, Hispanic voters are Democrats, and so the idea of importing more of them as a solution to the Republican Party’s problems is kind of silly.”

Robinette: I’ve been told by pretty conservative friends that, well, you don’t have to worry about the president changing it or Congress changing it because the Republicans are going to need this Hispanic vote even more than the Democrats do. Is that a valid argument, that if passed, it will survive the ten years?

Krikorian: No, I mean, well, in a sense, if, for those people who think that chasing after the Hispanic vote is an important goal for the Republicans, that’s actually an argument for saying that various requirements in the bill will not survive ten years, that they’ll start watering them down as soon as the ink is dry.

But I would even challenge the premise. I mean, Republicans obviously need to go after any voter group, and there’s a significant minority of Hispanic Americans who will vote Republican, and that number can be increased and Republicans should work on increasing it. But it’s never going to be very big. Hispanics as a whole are the biggest supporters of Obamacare, are big supporters of gun control, are opposed to reducing the size of government. Native-born Hispanic Americans, who make up most Hispanic voters, have a majority of the children that are born to them are illegitimate, very high rates of welfare use. So this is a description of an overwhelmingly Democratic voter group. Not all of them, obviously, because there’s a big group and there’s a lot of differences among them. But generally speaking, Hispanic voters are Democrats, and so the idea of importing more of them as a solution to the Republican Party’s problems is kind of silly.
 

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious