Editor's Note: Right Web News depends solely on
individuals’ contributions and subscribers. For fear of
coming under administration scrutiny or attack by the powerful
right web itself, liberal and centrist foundations decline to fund
the IRC’s Right Web program, despite complaining that most
of the funding priorities—from arms control to sustainable
development—are being undermined by the right’s
phalanx of institutes, constituency groups, think tanks, and
government operatives. To produce an average profile costs about
$250 in research, writing, and production time. That’s ten
Right Web subscribers at $25 a year, or one donor who can afford
$250. Lately, we have been besieged with requests to have profiles
done on this or that right web figure or organization. We’d
like to oblige, but profiles don’t grow on trees. Thank
you.
This Week on the
Right
The Immigration Debate: Whose Side Are You
On?
By Tom Barry
(Excerpted from an essay published originally in the
May/June issue of NACLA, and available in its entirety at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2005/0506immig.php
)
Anti-immigrant activists have used the terrorist threat to stir
up popular xenophobia, racism, and fear of immigrants. Mark
Krikorian, for example, president of the Center for Immigration
Studies, quotes Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and other
high administration officials to bolster his case that the
“home front” must be our first defense against
terrorism. According to Wolfowitz, “Since last September,
the home front has become a battlefront every bit as real as any
we’ve known before.”
These activists argue that since we can’t defeat the
terrorists on the battlefield in conventional warfare, U.S.
citizens and their government must find new ways to respond to
this “asymmetric warfare.” Shutting down the borders
and shoving out the “illegals” is the most effective
and logical first step. “Immigration control is to
asymmetric warfare what missile defense is to strategic
warfare,” Krikorian asserts. Homeland defense must embrace
an immigration-control policy with “layers overseas, at the
borders, and inside the country.” The militarism of this new
immigration/anti-terrorism policy is also on display at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where DHS Under Secretary
Asa Hutchinson described the visa process in September 2003 as a
“forward-based defense” against terrorists and
criminals.
Republican Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, one of the
country’s leading hawks, gives the DHS credit for making
progress in “securing our borders.” Yet more needs to
be done, according to Brownback, and all citizens can enlist in
the War on Terror. “While the battle may be waged on several
fronts,” says the Senator, “for the man or woman on
the street, immigration is in many ways the front line of our
defense.”
Based on the immigration-terrorism connection, anti-immigrant
groups have made inroads within the traditionally pro-immigrant
neoconservative camp. Most of the leading neoconservatives,
especially Jews and Catholics, have a strong sense of their
immigrant origins. Moreover, the neoconservatives have regarded
immigration flows of both cheap and skilled workers as an
unmitigated benefit for U.S. corporations and hence the U.S.
economy. However, neoconservatives are fierce opponents of
affirmative action programs and government-sponsored bilingual
education and are also proponents of “Official
English” laws. The 9/11 attacks and the War on Terror have
caused many neocons to back away from their pro-immigrant posture.
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neocon
think tank that focuses almost exclusively on promoting an
Israeli-centered U.S. foreign policy, includes Richard Lamm on its
board of advisers. In an FDD policy paper, Lamm, the former
Colorado governor who is one of the country’s most prominent
cultural nationalists, reframed his restrictionist positions
within the new framework of counterterrorism. Asserting that the
9/11 attacks forever changed “the nature of warfare”
for the United States, Lamm, who also serves on the board of
advisers of FAIR, warned, “ America is now the battlefield
and every American is a potential target.” We ignore this
fact, he insists, at our peril. And “if we wish to respond
to this new type of warfare,” he says, “we must
confront the relationship between immigration and
terrorism.”
The alarmism over immigration has not only clouded the
political landscape but threatens to reorganize it. It had been
the conventional wisdom within the Democratic Party that by
supporting “liberal” immigration policies, such as
family reunification and legalization of the undocumented
population, they would expand their political base among Latinos.
Recognizing the political potential of the expanding Latino
population, President Bush initially broached a variation on this
theme during the early months of his first administration.
Although neither the Republican nor Democratic Party leadership
have yet discarded this political strategy, both parties have been
inching away from earlier policy commitments regarding the
regularization of the ten million illegal residents. Given the
tide of anti-immigrant backlash and Arizona Latinos’
surprising one-out-of-four support for the Protect Arizona Now
legislation, Democrats and Republicans alike are beginning to
weigh the political costs of supporting immigration policies that
are being described as anti-worker, pro-big business, and weak on
homeland security.
The National Review’s December 31 cover article,
“GOP Be Warned,” by neoconservative pundit and author
David Frum, makes the case that “no issue, not one,
threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than
immigration.” He and others have pointed out that prominent
Democrats, notably Hillary Clinton, are bucking Democratic Party
political correctness by expressing concern about immigrants
overrunning communities in rural New York. According to Frum,
“There’s no issue where the beliefs and interests of
the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs
and interests of the party’s leaders.”
Tom Barry is policy director of the International
Relations Center (online at http://www.irc-online.org)
and directs its Right Web program.
Featured
Profiles
∙ American Israeli Political Affairs
Committee
The FBI’s decision in early May to arrest Lawrence
Franklin, the Pentagon analyst accused of disclosing classified
information about U.S. forces in Iraq, has put in the spotlight
the work of an influential pro-Israel lobbying outfit, the American
Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as well as its many
supporters in and outside government, including Paul
Wolfowitz, Condoleezza
Rice, and Douglas
Feith.
Of all the U.S. lobbies, few wield more influence than the
pro-Israel interest groups. According to some estimates, there are
about 500 national and local organizations that collectively make up
the pro-Israel lobby. And of those, AIPAC arguably carries the most
weight—“the most effective general interest group over
the entire planet,” Newt
Gingrich once said of AIPAC.
Right Web Profile American
Israeli Political Affairs Committee
∙ Center for Immigration Studies
The Center for Immigration Studies was founded in 1985 as a
spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Another FAIR spin-off is the Immigration Reform Law Institute,
which functions as the litigation arm of FAIR, according to the
Southern Poverty Law Center. 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. CIS has also been
critiqued as being part of a network of anti-immigrant groups that
cater to a white supremacist constituency by right-wing economic
libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass and unfettered
immigration.
RightWebProfile
Center for
Immigration Studies
∙ House Immigration Reform
Caucus
The Immigration Reform Caucus was established in May 1999 to
initiate new immigration policies. The formation of the caucus,
largely by right-wing social conservatives, came at a time when
pro-immigrant sentiment that was widespread in the booming 1990s
was starting to wane as optimism about the U.S. economy and its
job-creating capacity began to fade.
Before 9-11 the caucus brandished the standard restrictionist
arguments and statistics to oppose amnesty and guest-worker
expansion proposals while at the same time supporting increased
border security and interior law enforcement to stem what it terms
"the explosive growth in illegal immigration." However,
after the administration launched its "war on global
terrorism," caucus members quickly integrated homeland
security arguments into their case for more restrictions on both
legal and illegal immigration, seeking in their words "to
establish and emphasize the link between open borders, unregulated
immigration and the potential for terrorism."
Right Web Profile House
Immigration Reform Caucus
∙ John Tanton
John Tanton is widely recognized as the leading figure in the
anti-immigration and "official English" movements in the
United States. As the founder and publisher of Social Contract
Press, Tanton has published books that have helped shaped a
nationalist ideology focused on the threat of immigrants to the
white, English-speaking population.
According to Tanton, "In California 2030, the non-Hispanic
Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and
education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and
'other.' The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will
lack education, own little property, speak another language and
will be mainly Catholic."
Right Web Profile John
Tanton
Letters From Our Readers
(Editor's 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: Where’s
the “American” in the American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee?
Michael Flynn's article has much useful & interesting
information about AIPAC's pernicious role in putting Israel's
interests before our executive & legislative branches. But as
a progressive Jew, I deeply depolore your headline, "Where's
the 'American'..."
What does the title have to do with the article? Here you've
taken a well-researched & informative article & attached
an explicit reference to the dual loyalty canard in the article's
title. Dual loyalty is thinly veiled anti-Semitism. There is no
issue of dual loyalty. It only exists in the minds of people who
mistrust Jews.
I detest AIPAC. I wish either it didn't exist or it behaved
entirely differently than it does. But AIPAC's volunteers &
staff are good Americans. Their loyalty should never be
questioned. Their organization, its agenda, its strategies...all
of this should be fought against. But not the issue of whether
AIPAC & its supporters are disloyal to America. Those people
believe (wrongly I contend) that by supporting Israel's interests
through AIPAC they are doing a good deed both for Israel & for
our country. Let's tell them how wrong they are. But let's not do
it the way your title does...
- Richard Silverstein
Re: John
Bolton Profile
I actually did not read the article. I have just been trying to
find an email address for John Bolton. Thank you for your website.
I am outraged at Congress for not taking a vote FOR John Bolton. I
believe the UN to be evil, and the U.S. needs someone like Bolton
who will kick butt! I would prefer the U.S. to be out of the UN
and the UN to be out of the U.S.--maybe Babylon-in Iraq. The UN
threatens our national security, loves rogue nations, and
threatens our sovereignty.
Did you know that Ecclesiastes 10:2 reads: "The heart of
the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the
left."
- Mary Jo Zimpfer
Re: Democratic
Leadership Council
The article was very informative. While I knew the DLC was
attempting to move the Democratic Party to the right of center,
your article clearly shows their agenda is much more destructive.
Their policies emulating the extremist right, along with the
Republicans’ skill at stealing elections and the DLC
candidates willingness to feebly protest and concede early, is
leaving the United States with a one party system. The feebleness
of Democratic opposition in the Congress is clearly related to the
individuals who claim membership in the DLC. More often than not,
these people cast their legislative votes along DLC
policies--which fall "right" into line. To those folks
who wonder "where are the Democrats," the reading of
your article is a must; it will answer all their questions.
I was delighted when Howard Dean became Chair of the DNC, but
until the past two weeks I believe he was bound and gagged in the
basement of the DLC. Unless the Democrats throw off the strangling
policies of the DLC we are finished. I have given my last penny
and walked my last mile for this party until I see some positive
change back to the issues which made us the party of the people.
Liberals must rid the party of the DLC or a new national political
party must be formed. Democrats are selling out the country and
destroying our democracy just as the Republicans are.
- Harriett Heisey
Re: Grover Norquist and Neocons
A few months ago I wrote you asking why Grover Norquist was not
on your right web list. Your answer that he was not a neocon sent
me on an investigation of just what a neocon is. After much
reading, I've come to a much better understand of not only what a
neocon is, but also of the unholy tripartate that call themselves
Republicans today. I've come to see that the three legs of
alliance each have their own objectives, but at least pay lip
service to the other two. We have the religious right wanting to
regulate personal behavior, the libertarians (such as my old
friend Grover) wanting to reduce and eventually strangle the
federal government, and the neocons want to extend American
hegemony around the world. This is an interesting coalition, one
that I feel will eventually fall victim to internal conflict.
Thank you for opening my mind. Prior to this, I grouped every
right wing-nut as a neocon.
- John Dadmun
(Editor's Note: While the IRC Right Web program focuses
primarily on the right-wing forces shaping foreign policy, and
thus its concentration on neoconservatives, we are expanding our
portfolio of dossiers to include other right-wing sectors. We are
working, for example, on profiles of Norquist and Americans for
Tax Reform.)
