Right Web

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

Pushing the Anti-Immigration Agenda Further Right

Republicans, like most Democrats, would prefer to keep immigration issues out of presidential politics. But restrictionist Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)...

Republicans, like most Democrats, would prefer to keep immigration issues out of presidential politics. But restrictionist Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has other plans. Having announced in January the creation of a presidential campaign exploratory committee, Tancredo hopes to make immigration policy a major campaign issue of the presidential race.

Tancredo, who founded the House Immigration Reform Caucus, says that immigration "is the issue that propels me." It’s a multifaceted issue, he notes: "It touches our educational system, our medical system, our national security, our culture." As an example, Tancredo points to the healthcare crisis, which is "exacerbated by the fact that we are providing health care to millions of people who came here illegally and access our health care system for free. You pay. They get it" (Sioux City Journal, February 4, 2007).

Other candidates see little to gain from the immigration issue. No matter what their position on the contentious issue, the leading candidates fear that raising the topic will lose them votes. If they support legalization or guestworker programs, they risk the wrath of social conservatives and many populist Democrats who adamantly oppose amnesty for undocumented residents. And these candidates also know that they risk alienating many voters, particularly Latinos, if they are regarded as pandering to the immigration restrictionists who demand border walls and stricter immigration law enforcement.

In contrast, Tancredo has nothing to lose and everything to gain from a presidential bid. Although the firebrand politician from an affluent Denver suburb hasn’t managed to make restrictionism the core principle of U.S. immigration policy, he and other nativists in Congress have over the past several years shifted the immigration debate toward their terms—national security, cultural unity, and border control—at the national, state, and local levels. Last year Newsweek correctly noted that "Tom Tancredo is pulling the immigration debate to the right—and away from Bush." Border security and immigration law enforcement have moved from the margins to become mainstream political fare.

While immigration restrictionism is hardly a surefire way to win elections, anti-immigration has become one of the key issues, along with abortion, gay rights, and gun control, that forge new unity among social conservatives. Tancredo’s candidacy will force presidential hopefuls to spell out their positions on legalization, border security, and guestworkers.

Tancredo, who craves publicity, is likely to attract all the media he can handle—not only because of his outspoken position against immigration, but also because of his provocative views on other issues. Speaking two weeks ago at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Tancredo had the crowd roaring with approval of his red-meat attacks on liberals, moderates, and even other conservatives.

Although regarded as a one-trick pony with his rabid anti-immigrant views, Tancredo is positioning himself as the only true conservative in the current Republican field of candidates. Boasting a 98% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, Tancredo can rightfully claim his conservative credentials. Though immigration is his defining issue, Tancredo says that he doesn’t mind being described as a single-issue candidate if people understand that "my single issue is the survival and success of the conservative movement in America."

At CPAC, he railed against what he called "hyphenated conservatives" such as "commonsense conservatives" and "compassionate conservatives." Belief in limited government and traditional values are not to be apologized for, opined Tancredo. "Since when is conservatism itself not enough?" he asked the crowd.

Tancredo gained the favor of the conservative conference with his Ann Coulter-like attacks on liberalism. He warned that Miami is like a "Third World country" because of its immigrants and Spanish language usage and said that the United States needs a leader who supports a strong national defense "because our enemies are psychopaths and our allies are the French."

Tancredo regards immigration control in both military and cultural terms. "The only realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration," says Tancredo on his 2008 campaign website, "is a strategy of attrition, which seeks to reduce the flow of the illegal alien population over time by cutting off the incentives for coming and staying in America—most importantly by eliminating the jobs magnet."

With our current immigration policies, "We are risking the development of a bilingual nation and a multicultural nation, which is almost an oxymoron," Tancredo has said. "It is very difficult to maintain something like that, especially [under] the kind of threat situation we’re in today with fundamentalist Islam" (OneNewsNow.com,February 12, 2007).

The battle against immigration, says Tancredo, is part of the global war on terrorism. "The very survival of Western Civilization is at risk," Tancredo has warned; he believes "we are in a clash of civilizations" (cited on the teamtancredo.com website).

Formerly a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, Tancredo now calls for a troop deployment to Afghanistan and other locations where the U.S. global war on terrorism is being waged. He says that the civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites is a process of establishing equilibrium between the deep schisms in Islam and that there is no need for the U.S. military to referee this bloody process.

On his Team Tancredo 2008 website, Tancredo positions himself as an outsider who pledges to "battle the special interests which now control both parties." Righteousness exudes from Tancredo, a politician who has no qualms about associating with nativist and seemingly racist anti-immigrant groups, including border vigilantes. Tancredo is a consistent opponent of gun control, despite living less than a mile from Columbine High School, the scene of one of the country’s most horrific school shootings.

When Tancredo won his first term in Congress in 1998, he pledged to leave office after three terms, but in 2004 and again in 2006 he said he was forced to break his pledge because the immigration threat required his continued leadership in Congress. In the coming months, Tancredo plans to take his "war of attrition" on the national campaign trail.

Tom Barry is the Policy Director of the International Relations Center (www.irc-online.org) and a contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org).

 

 

Citations

Tom Barry, "Pushing the Anti-Immigration Agenda Further Right," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, March 13, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share