Steven Camarota

Right Wing Leftovers - 4/17/14

  • Gov. Bobby Jindal will be the commencement speaker at Liberty University next month.
  • Michael Farris is now bravely trying to distance himself from Doug Phillips.
  • NOM is organizing its second annual "March for Marriage" because "we must show that we will not be intimidated by the thought-police-bullies intent on silencing us so they can push their agenda down America's throat!" Good luck with that.
  • FRC prays against legalized pot: "May state policies which encourage marijuana use, which serve as a gateway to more harmful drugs and addiction, and that benefit only drug peddlers, be reversed! May those in authority, especially parents, set an example and train our youth to reject mind altering drugs that are dangerous to everyone (Lk 12:35-40; Rom 12:1; 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:18)."
  • Matt Barber is predictably upset by the release of a postage stamp honoring Harvey Milk.
  • Finally, Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies says it "would help the Republicans a lot" if the number of legal immigrants allowed into America was reduced by 70% or so.

Center For Immigration Studies: Democrats 'Party of Minorities'

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

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

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

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

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.

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.”

 

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.

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious