Stephen Steinlight

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.

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.

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.
 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious