Anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney invited Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for increased restrictions on immigration, on to his “Secure Freedom Radio” program yesterday, where predictably the two got to talking about efforts to settle some refugees from Muslim countries such as Iraq and Syria, which have both experienced refugee crises, in the United States.
Gaffney told Krikorian that conservative writer James Simpson has written a new e-book for Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy about “what he calls the ‘red-green’ axis and the impact that it is having, sort of the hard-left and the Islamists, in erasing America.”
“Does this sound right to you that there is this kind of dynamic at work between the hard-left and the Islamists?” he asked.
Krikorian agreed, bringing up a column written by a speechwriter for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who said that Labour leaders hoped expanded immigration would “rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” (The writer, in response to right-wing glee, later clarified that this wasn’t a “plot” to impose multiculturalism on an unwilling Britain.)
“I think the dynamic here is the kind of thing we heard about in the Blair government in England,” Krikorian said, “when one of his people, one of his advisors, basically said, look, we pushed immigration as a way to unwillingly force diversity on the British people, to change the nation. And I think a lot of these refugee activists types and immigration activists see immigration in the same way and see Islamic immigration as the most different and non-American way of promoting immigration and therefore serving their purposes the most, even more than, say, the immigration of people from, say, Latin America or Christians from the Middle East, that sort of thing.”
In a column for the National Review on Tuesday, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies proposed requiring formerly incarcerated people to pass what is essentially a literacy test in order to regain their right to vote.
Krikorian praised Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s recent veto of a bill expanding voting rights for ex-felons but added that conservatives should give “more thought” to the issue of reenfranchising formerly incarcerated people, who because of disparities in the criminal justice system are disproportionately African American.
His idea: requiring ex-felons to pass the same citizenship test in order to regain their right to vote that immigrants pass in order to become citizens:
[G]iven that such a large share of, especially, our black fellow citizens is formally disenfranchised because of past criminality, it behooves conservatives for both policy and political reasons to give the issue of re-enfranchisement more thought. One approach that might work as a policy matter in politically reintegrating those released felons who are interested — and also send a message of openness to the penitent — would be to follow the example of naturalization of immigrants.
While the reasons differ, both felons and resident foreigners are excluded from participation in political life. The way foreigners overcome this exclusion is by ceasing to be foreigners through acquisition of U.S. citizenship. They do this by passing a basic test (probably a little too basic) on U.S. history and civics and by demonstrating (in most cases) a basic ability to read, write, and understand English. Once they swear the Oath of Allegiance, they are enfranchised as citizens of the United States.
This process, he writes, would allow ex-felons “moral readmission to the political community” and show potential employers that those who have passed “might be a cut above the average ex-con”:
Following this model for released felons would have a number of benefits. It would send the message that re-enfranchisement is not merely a matter of paperwork but of a moral readmission to the political community. It would teach some elementary civics and history that the ex-cons probably never learned in school. And if accompanied by a certificate of some kind, it could signal to potential employers that the bearer might be a cut above the average ex-con.
But liberals won’t like his idea of reinstating literacy tests, Krikorian says, because “they don’t particularly like America” so they don’t want anybody learning civics:
The lefty groups pushing to accelerate and simplify re-enfranchisement won’t like this for at least two reasons: Their goal is electing more Democrats, pure and simple, and anything that might stand in the way is unacceptable. And more fundamentally, they don’t particularly like America, and requiring a victim of The Man to pass a history test not written by Howard Zinn is repellent.
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 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 earlyas 2001.
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.
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.
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 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.”
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.
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.
While the vast majority of Americans, including Republicans, back a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes a pathway to citizenship, the Nativist movement is still trying to scare voters and elected officials into thinking that attempts to fix America’s broken system will actually destroy the country…and all of civilization.
Here’s a look at some of 2013’s worst xenophobic leaders, including our choice for “Nativist of the Year”:
8. William Gheen
Americans For Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) leader William Gheen hasn’t changed his tune about usingviolence to stop immigration reform, warning that his group may soon stop using “nonviolent political means.” According to Gheen, politicians are trying “to demonize whites, Christians, and males” and turn over power to immigrants who are “gang raping, molesting kids, drinking, driving, killing, and joining gangs that try to feed our children cocaine and methamphetamine at the earliest age they can.”
As the leader of the Texas chapter of Eagle Forum and a former chairman of the Texas GOP, Adams has been pleading with her fellow Republicans not to aid immigration reform efforts. Why? She believes that such reform measures are tools of Satan that will lead to the enactment of Sharia law and usher in the End Times.
6. Ann Coulter
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter is angry that America no longer has racist immigration quotas, worrying that America will soon “turn itself into Mexico” and undermine its delicate “ethnic composition.” “The country is over,” she said, if the immigration reform passes. Coulter also seems to be creating figures about the undocumented population out of thin air, suggesting that there are 30 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
5. Phyllis Schlafly
The immigration debate in Congress opened the door for some conservative activists to not only oppose reform efforts but also to fight any political outreach to non-white voters. Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly took the lead, urging the GOP to abandon any outreach to people of color and Latinos in particular. She claims Latinos don’t understand the Bill of Rights or American values... because if they did, they would be voting Republican like real Americans do. Instead, explained Schlafly, Republicans should simply try to increase white turnout.
4. Mark Krikorian
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies seems to think that Nativists are the real victims in the immigration debate and is attempting to use a “play the victim” mentality to attack supporters of immigrant rights. He says that Nativists are waging a heroic struggle against “ethnic chauvinist groups” and their allies in “Big Business…Big Labor, all the big donors, Big Government Big Education, Big Media, Big Philanthropy [and] Big Religion.” Krikorian hopes that the GOP stops trying to attract Latino voters, warning that “the future of the republic rests” on whether Speaker Boehner allows immigration reform to come to a vote in the House.
3. Michele Bachmann
Speaking of which, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) andherfriends in the Tea Party Caucus are desperately trying to defeat immigration reform by making sure that such legislation doesn’t even come up for a vote. Bachmann believes that immigration reform will literally destroy the future of the country and that Obama won re-election in part because he gave some undocumented immigrants the right to vote (he didn’t). She thinks that Republicans should give Obama a spanking until he hands over his magic wand that unilaterally gives the vote to all undocumented immigrants:
2. Jason Richwine
The Heritage Foundation’s study on the supposedly devastating impacts of immigration reform might have had more credibility if its principal author, Jason Richwine, weren’t a proponent of racist pseudo-science with links to white nationalists. His report was so erroneous and misleading that even many of Richwine’s fellowconservatives didn’t find it credible, but that hasn’tstopped GOP politicians from using the salacious report to justify their anti-immigrant rhetoric.
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.”
Mark Krikorian warns that if immigration reform succeeds, "there will be no public space, no opportunity as a national movement for traditionalist small-government conservatism. It's simply finished."
It looks like the Tea Party is giving up on repealing Obamacare.
Finally, FRC continues to pray against marriage equality: "May God help the pastors and churches in New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois and New Mexico, to stand and do what only they can to withstand and stop the evil of 'legalized' same-sex marriage. May God give them eyes to see that there can be no religious freedom in a society where homosexual license is honored above God and religious liberty. May they be given wisdom and strength to prevail over everything that God calls abomination, promising to destroy those who embrace it (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Eze 3:17-21; Mt 19:4-6; Gal 5:1; Eph 5:31-31)."
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
Last night the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 to advance immigration legislation that creates a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. It is expected to come to the Senate floor for debate in June.
As the bill moves forward, Republicans in Congress will have to make a choice between casting their lot with the majority of their party and country in supporting common-sense reform or with anti-immigrant extremists attempting to stand in the way of progress. As Right Wing Watch has documented, right-wing activists continue to push damaging, outrageous lies about immigrant communities. Maria Espinoza, director of a project linked to the nativist Numbers USA, proclaimed that “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.” Center for Immigration Studies director Mark Krikorian has called GOP immigration reform supporters “useful idiots” and claimed that “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.”
As the GOP works to change their party’s image for Latino voters, they face a choice between standing with those on the far-right fringe such as Krikorian and Espinoza or standing with the bipartisan majority pushing for much-needed change.
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.
“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”
“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
“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
“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 Kincaid, recommending that the Republican Party emulate the English Defense League, a violent, radical nativist group
“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
“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
"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
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.”
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.
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.