‘The Nativist Lobby’

The Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday released “The Nativist Lobby,” a report examining the connections among the three Washington-based organizations that have led the charge for restricting immigration to the United States.

They are the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA — a lobbying group, think tank, and grassroots organizer, respectively.

All three groups are well known — you have probably come across their leaders denouncing immigration “amnesty” in news articles and on TV. The groups have the ear of conservative politicians all over the country, and their efforts have inspired many of the hard-line federal, state and local initiatives cracking down on immigrants and immigration. Numbers USA even took credit for a storm of blast faxes and phone calls to Congress that helped to kill a major immigration bill in 2007.

What is less well known, the report says, is what the groups have in common: histories connecting them to a retired Michigan eye doctor with a long-held interest in eugenics, racial quotas, and white nationalism.

The groups insist that they do not hold racist or extremist views. That’s good.

But the report argues that people should know about the groups’ history, something they and their allies don’t usually like to talk about. It calls them “fruit of the same poisonous tree.”

Many people who want stricter policies on immigration are not racist or extremist. Many care about seeing the law enforced, or are worried about overpopulation. But it’s also true that there are racist and extremist elements in the movement, and it is important to call them out.

Kudos to the S.P.L.C. for shining a light.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

While we are “calling out” lobbying groups, how about acknowledging that the S.P.L.C. is an ultra-liberal group akin to the A.C.L.U.? Any group that supports more conservative viewpoints is likely to be called a “hate” group by these two groups. Frankly, anything put out by either the S.P.L.C. or the A.C.L.U., I will immediately take with a heaping handful of salt: a pinch just wouldn’t be enough.

With so many American citizens being unemployed, and a half million losing their jobs in January 2009 alone, how can you folks continue to justify unchecked mass immigration?

“The poverty rate in the United States is saddening. According to Change.org, Since the 1960s, roughly 10 to 15% of Americans have lived in poverty each year – about 37 million people in 2008. These individuals are more likely to be foreign-born, non-white, elderly, physically and/or mentally disabled, children, single mothers, city dwellers, high school dropouts, ex-offenders, and living in the U.S. South. Growing up in poverty leads to worse employment, educational and health outcomes, and greater risk of run-ins with the criminal justice system. ”

How can we take in more people, when 37 million are in poverty? There is no justification, unless the people coming here are absolute refugees or they can provide WORK for Americans.

Shirley, that’s nonsense. Recall, for example, that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, a lot of the media were labeling militias as white supremacist ‘hate groups’ in the mold of McVeigh. The SPLC, which had far more knowledge of and experience with militias, said that a few of them had been infiltrated by supremacists, but on the whole they were not so.

Your baseless smears don’t belong in a civilized fact-based discussion. Perhaps you should call in to Rush Limbaugh instead.

Forget about it. Anti-immigration is a lost cause. We are just a few years away from the point where the immigrant vote will be powerful enough to write it’s own legislation. If we really understood the power of a large minority in a dozen states, we would be doing everything we could to write a comprehensive immigration bill now. In just a few years the new immigrant voters and their children will write it and you are all going to be very unhappy.

It is staggering to see that the New York Times editorial board would — regardless of its views on the immigration issues facing this nation — credit the controversial and fraudulent “Southern Poverty Law Center” for any factual information or anlaysis. The popularly-supported Federation for American Immigration Reform and allied organizations have sought to make their case on the need for less immigration and better controls on the basis of sound policy anlaysis and information. The wild and reworked accusations of the SPLC — a national disgrace of an organization — constitute nothing short of abusive schoolyard name-calling, and serve to merely polarize an already overheaded debate. Surely the Times editorial board must realize that slurs, epithets and slander are not going to enlighten this discussion one bit. Why reward it?

400 million by 2050, 800 million by 2100, Sometime in the early 22 century The United States will be the New China.
That is the future of unregulated immigration. Questioning our immigration policy is not racist, it is economic common sense. We spent the last 40 years trying to eliminate Poverty in the United Stated, Unregulated immigration is undoing all out efforts.

I find myself wondering if we’ll be seeing a rise of this anti-immigrant nonsense as the recession continues. The economic changes are going to put the pinch on all of us, and as it does, people are going to be looking for someone to blame. I think back to my history text books, to the chapter on 1930’s Germany, and I get very nervous.

Anyone paying attention knows that immigrants and children of immigrants have been some of the most important scientists, leaders, innovators, artists that our nation has had the benefit and pride to call “Americans.”

On the other hand, I have yet to read any current data that suggests immigration over the past 10 years, even illegal immigration, has had a negative impact on America.

Why is it that you take the Southern Poverty Law Center so seriously? Isn’t it flamingly obvious that they are a highly partisan political lobby with an agenda to advance? Or is that all OK because, when it comes to immigration, their agenda coincides with yours?

One does not have to be pro-immigration to be concerned about the policy stance of organizations trying to divert our attention to people rather than drugs. A common factor in the anti-immigrant campaign is the push to have border inspection concentrate on individuals, leaving thousands of trucks, containers, and other means of importing narcotics largely uninspected. Perhaps this reflects a policy bias, perhaps it represents a blind spot, perhaps it reflects a well-crafted campaign to make sure illegal substances face a minimum of obstacles on their way to American markets. And, of course, the same lack of inspection permitting large volumes of narcotics to enter the US also means materials intended for terrorists could be entering. But do not worry about nuclear material
or cocaine, everyone; right over there we can see a potential dishwasher slipping across the border.

And as for anyone eager to trash the American Civil Liberties Union, as was Bush 41, I would like the person to indicate which sections of the Bill of Rights provoke such ire. The Second Amendment, maybe? If you oppose the US Constitution just say so as the First Amendment gives you that right. Republicans like myself support the ACLU because we believe in the Constitution, even though doing so leaves anti-Americans free to rail against it.

Is this a great country or what?

So, now the NYT has become a simple mouthpiece for the SLPC? How about some real investigative journalism and exposure of the recent, chummy relationship of the SLPC with extremist/racist hispanic organizations linked to LaRaza?

If the nativists were truly opposed to undocumented workers, they’d push severe employer sanctions. Undocumented workers come here for one reason and one reason only, to get a job. No jobs, no undocumented workers.

Yet the nativist rants never push for real employer sanctions. Could it be that the employers are not foreigners, do not speak Spanish as their native tongue, and do not have brown skins?

As for taking what the ACLU and SPLC says with a grain of salt, why should any real American believe anything coming out of the same far-right noise machine that swore that Saddam Hussien had WMD, was in bed with Al Qaeda, and was behind 9/11? The far-right noise machine, whether FAIR, Numbers USA, or AEI, has a proven track record of fraud and deceit. The only way one can believe them would be to take some of that OxyContin that Rush Limbaugh uses. Does he hand out free samples to his listeners?

There is always an important word that is consistently
left out of your blogs and your editorials concerning immigrants entering this country.

ILLEGAL

Why not call out the racist student group Mecha? Why not ask the Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, about his refusal to disavow the groups stated purpose in the preamble to its constitution?
You can cite fringe groups and introduce conspiracy theories, but it does nothing for a reasonable dialogue about illegal immigration.
It is usually those with a weak case who look for straw men and take the hook on conspiracy theories.

Thank you for pointing out groups which support the limiting of immigration. I believe our sovreign nation has every right to set limits upon immigration. Additionally, we need to enforce our laws on *illegal immigration*.

David Heil
Cameron, WV

Note that this fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree argument can just as easily be applied to Planned Parenthood, since its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a big proponent of Eugenics.

In a more benevolent world, we could admit anyone who wished to come here. But this is simply not possible. In the world we have today, our primary obligation is to provide for our fellow citizens, and for those who have been legitimately admitted to our country.

It is an unfortunate fact that among those calling for reduced immigration some have a racist agenda. But this does not negate the necessity – the responsibility – to control our immigrant population.

Perhaps we could remove the racists’ fangs by conceding that only a very limited number of immigrants be admitted each year, but insisting that they be drawn in equal numbers from Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America – defined as the countries south of our Texas border – with some provision for Canada and Australia.

Immigration would be controlled, and we continue to benefit from a continued influx from the entire world, bringing the enthusiasm and stimulation new immigrants provide.

Borders should be completely opened, and environmental regulations enforced internationallly. What basis could possibly morally justify keeping the poorest of the poor from coming to our country to pick our fruit, or clean our dead food animals for 10 hour days. Open borders. It is the only answer. and the inevitable answer.

David Holzman, Lexington MA February 5, 2009 · 7:13 pm

Why is the NYT editorial board trying to tar those of us who would limit immigration with association to some racists, rather than addressing issues such as overpopulation and the increased difficulty American workers have finding jobs and living on the low pay when big companies outsource by importing the cheap immigrant labor? Could it be that their side is bankrupt for good ideas? Please address the issues, not the inevitable fact that some unsavory types may hold the same point of view. Otherwise, you might as well tar the Ford Motor Co. with Henry Ford’s antisemitism, or tar the entire United States because we have a substantial number of racists and greedy executives and other unsavory types among us. And, yes, what about La Raza and Mecha, racist organizations on the pro-open borders side?

David Holzman, Lexington MA February 5, 2009 · 7:20 pm

… and once again I urge you to read Nicholas Kristof’s column of April 9, 2006. My major disagreement with him is he favors amnesty for the current crop of illegal immigrants, probably because he doesn’t realize that various policies such as chain migration will multiply the 16 million illegal aliens by a factor of six or seven, resulting in our population skyrocketing by 140 million by 2050 (including 30 million born to native US citizens). With that kind of population growth, how are we going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

If we send back the Mexican and South American migrant workers, we will have truck-in apples, tomatoes, avacados and other fruits and vegetables from Mexico while our own agricultural products will rot in the field. Unlike the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies, now in most families both couple are working, and they desparately need support services. Recall how many US cabinet nominees were found to be using illegal immigrants but this is just a tip of the iceberg. A need for support services for our aging population cannot be met by cheap slogans of enforcement of illegal immigration. Besides, we should never leave the law enforcements to zealots

It is not benevolence for us to allow immigration to flourish. It is the immigrants who have the know-how, drive and fresh point of view that cause them to open small businesses where no one else will. They revive and enlighten our poorest areas and bring commerce deeper into our economy. We need the vitality of new ideas and methods that people bring when they seek a better life for themselves and their families.
Hasn’t the past eight years shown us how the politics and policies of meanness and fear just serve to erode our strength and our liberty? We should simply return to being the “land of opportunity” and abandon our close fisted, mean, insulated and, in the end, self defeating behaviors.

Please stop your ridiculous “racist anti-immigrant” nonsense.
You make your bias stupidly obvious and insult the intelligence of the readers.
The simple-minded conflation of anti-illegal immigrant spokespersons and anti-immigrant racists (a very small group) is tiresome.
Just man-up and say that you support unchecked immigration, no borders and the catastrophic economic impact it would have on our country.

Those who support “open borders”, as the Times seems to, would probably not like the results. Open our borders and half the population of Mexico has said that it would like to live here, and that’s just Mexico. There are plenty of people in Central and South America who would like to come. And then there are Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the list goes on. Allow these hordes of desperate people to pour across our borders and we can kiss the United States goodbye, as it sinks beneath the onslaught.

It is our responsibility to manage immigration for the benefit of our country, not that of foreign countries. No one should be permitted to be here illegally, and we should root out and deport illegals. No one has a “right” to come here, and we should base decisions on immigration, not on family ties, but on what an immigrant can bring to our society.

The welfare of Americans is our primary duty; other countries need to take care of their own people.

Randy L. AZ Resident February 6, 2009 · 2:20 pm

The stretch that people will go to to try and slur true Americans from those who support these criminal aliens is very disturbing.
These paople are not needed or wnated in this country and Arpaio is doing the right thing.

David Holzman, Lexington MA February 6, 2009 · 2:53 pm

In your latest editorial, the Arpaio Nation, you say: “a recent Migration Policy Institute study showed that a much-touted campaign of raids against criminal fugitives was a failure. It netted mostly the maids and laborers who are no reasonable person’s idea of a national threat.”

Of course individual laborers and maids are not a threat. To paraphrase President Clinton, It’s the numbers, stupid!

When we are adding to our population at the rate of 140 million over 40 years–82% of that growth due to mass immigration, according to the Pew Research Center–it’s obvious that mass immigration is out of control and unsustainable. And it is obvious to anyone who understands elementary economics that this outsourcing by importing the cheap labor is taking jobs away from American workers and depressing wages (National Academy of Sciences, 1997; George Borjas of Harvard, 2008). Cesar Chavez, the legendary head of the United Farm Workers denounced illegal immigrants to INS because he understood this. (Google it.)

It is too bad that the United States can’t save the world’s poor by allowing them to come here (besides the fact that people poorer than Mexicans number around 3,000,000,000, such an influx would turn the US into a third world country). But it is arrogant to think that we can save the world’s poor in this manner.

Instead of editorializing against restricting immigration, why don’t you editorialize in favor of microlending. Organizations such as Kiva.com can help poor people in other countries pull themselves up by their bootstraps, helping their fellows, instead of leaving them behind.