Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Ideologies of Anti-Immigration Forces

Print Friendly

Note from Editor: Thanks to the recipients of Right Web News that have become IRC members or have paid the $25 suggested subscription price for this service. Right Web depends exclusively on the support of subscribers, IRC members, and individual donors. For those who haven’t become IRC members or subscribers, please consider doing so today—by clicking http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php for secure donations, including Pay Pal.

This Week on the Right

Politics, Ideologies of Anti-Immigration Forces
By Tom Barry

(Excerpted from a new Americas Program Special Report, available in its entirety at: http://americas.irc-online.org/reports/2005/0506ideologies.html)

Most immigration restrictionists are found within the political right, but by no means do all members of the right believe that the government should actively restrict immigration. In fact, some of the strongest proponents of immigration are associated with the Republican Party, including the libertarians—who believe that the market, and not the government, should regulate labor supply—and big business, which likes having an easy flow of cheap immigrant labor.

Within the anti-immigration camp, there are major differences. The paleoconservatives, for example, together with associated traditionalists and social conservatives, criticize the leading restrictionist policy institutes such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). They believe that these groups espouse essentially secular and liberal ideas about population control, environmentalism, and labor issues, rather than standing firmly behind the country’s core Judeo-Christian culture and values.

A belief in the superiority of U.S. culture and values is a common thread uniting the many restrictionists, although major differences exist in how this perspective is expressed. The most militant anti-immigrant activists are often associated with white supremacist groups. Others take pains to avoid racist rhetoric, insisting the issue is one of “control of our borders.”

A strong populist streak also runs through the restrictionist movement. Its critique of the “open borders” agenda of Corporate America puts it at odds with the leadership of the Republican Party and the corporate sponsors of both political parties. The pro-worker, anti-big business arguments of the restrictionists resonate with many Americans who feel hard-pressed to pay their bills and who worry about their economic security.

The terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, sparked an increase in anti-immigration grassroots organizing, congressional bills, and media coverage, which substantially increased the constituency base of the restrictionists. Anti-immigrant forces quickly appropriated the administration’s language of the “war on terrorism,” couching restrictionist arguments in terms of the importance of gaining total control of U.S. borders, downsizing the resident immigrant population, and severely restricting new immigration.

The rising influence of these diverse forces rests in the widespread public conviction that U.S. immigration policy and U.S. borders are out of control. This concern with the cultural, economic, environmental, and security impact of the influx of immigrants does not necessarily arise from racist, xenophobic, or supremacist beliefs. It is often the result of people’s own experience with the effects of a large and expanding immigrant population in their communities, an experience that is often partly determined by the interpretative lenses used by governments and mass media to describe the phenomena.

Also see:

Immigration Debate: Whose Side Are You On?

Glossary of Right-Wing Forces in Foreign Policy

Featured Profiles

John Tanton
According to Tolerance.org, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, "The organized anti-immigration ‘movement’ is almost entirely the handiwork of one man – Michigan activist, John. H. Tanton.”

Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)
CEO believes that "with the United States admitting high numbers of immigrants, America’s ability to accept newcomers will increasingly depend upon finding a pro-assimilation middle-ground between nativists who say that today’s immigrants cannot assimilate and multiculturalists who say that they should not."

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)
CIS describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists.

Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC)
CCC describes itself as a nonprofit organization that works "for the rights and collective interests of true conservatives. Among its main concerns are affirmative action, non-white immigration, and official recognition of the Confederate flag.

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
FAIR has two major goals: (1) “to end illegal immigration,” and (2) “to set legal immigration at the lowest feasible levels consistent with the demographic, economic, social, and environmental realities.”

Immigration Reform Caucus
The Immigration Reform Caucus of the House of Representatives seeks to make restrictionism the core principle of any new immigration reform legislation. According to its own mission statement, “The caucus…exists as an outlet for members and staff to discuss how current laws and regulation pose a threat to the security of America.”

NumbersUSA shares offices with ProEnglish and Evangelicals for Immigration Reform, and is directed by Roy Beck, author of The Case Against Immigration. In promoting its agenda it blames immigration for lost jobs, urban sprawl, and environmental degradation while inflating fears of unchecked immigrant fertility.

ProEnglish says that it "is a member-supported, national, nonprofit organization working to educate the public about the need to protect English as our common language and to make it the official language of the United States." ProEnglish specializes "in providing pro-bono legal assistance to public and private agencies facing litigation or regulatory actions over language."

ProjectUSA advocates: "ending illegal immigration;" "reducing legal immigration to traditional, sustainable levels;" and "a ten-year time-out while the country reassesses immigration in terms of the long-term consequences of the present policy."

Social Contract Press
Social Contract Press, founded in 1990 by John Tanton, is "an educational and publishing organization advocating open discussion of such related issues as population size and rate of growth, protection of the environment and precious resources, limits on immigration, as well as preservation and promotion of a shared American language and culture."

U.S. English
Among the objectives of the foundation are: "to help improve the teaching of English to immigrants," "to study language policy around the world," and "to raise public awareness through the media about the importance of our common language."

Letters From Our Readers

(Editors Note: We encourage feedback and comments, which can be sent for publication through our feedback page, at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/form_feedback.html. Thank you.)

Re: The Immigration Debate: Whose Side Are You On?

Thank you for illuminating how the Right Wing/Nativist Movement has appropriated the rhetoric of the war on terrorism to advance its own narrow agenda: Restricting mainly Mexican immigration. – You help show how an attitudinal shift in the country has been made fostered by a general climate of fear and isolation in this country since 9/11.

I have also found valuable your effort to map and document the work of the right W wing to shape public opinion towards agreeing to a reversal of the New Deal social contract. This Architecture of Power, as you aptly describe it, is the foundation of the conservative ascendancy we are experiencing now. 9/11 and the muscular foreign policy implemented by the Bush administration have helped tilt the national debate rightward. When will liberals and liberal internationalists begin to fight back effectively?

– Joseph Rieras

Re: The Immigration Debate: Whose Side Are You On?

Why are you siding with Bush on the immigration issue?

This is an article I wrote before the election: www.vdare.com/misc/burns_jobs_crunch.htm

No, I really don’t think folks like Lamm have got it. Barbara Jordan was much closer to the mark. Gene McCarthy is at least showing some integrity.

No, I don’t hate immigrants. I believe that if/when the law is enforced, they deserve compensation from the folks that have brought them to the U.S.-even if it means complete liquidation of all assets of the wealthy. That doesn’t mean they deserve to stay in the U.S. illegally-pay them their money as they go home. Whatever deal is struck, shouldn’t be on the backs of poor people. However, I have nothing but contempt for the corporate interests that profit from open borders-and the fake leftists that defend them.

Folks like yourself and the Bush camp both have way too much of a voice in policy–and political elites, media elites and economic elites are all out of touch with most Americans on this issue. We need radical measures to decentralize political authority to contain this mess.


Re: John P. Walters

John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government’s ban on the use of medical marijuana. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.

For people who are chronically or terminally ill and use marijuana, I would guess that "safety" is not their biggest concern. Most are probably already close to death. If you’re close to dying and in chronic pain, do you want to be safe and miserable (and have the government enslave you to your misery), or do you want pain relief?

– J. R. Mathews

If you would like to see our variety of free ezines and listservs, please go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/.
To be removed from this list, please email rightweb@irc-online.org with “unsubscribe Right Web.”

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.