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
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
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
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.
- RJB
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
