Right Web

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

The Expanding Anti-Immigration Bandwagon

This summer, the immigration debate in the United States has heated up as conservatives of all tendencies-social conservatives, neoconservatives,...

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This summer, the immigration debate in the United States has heated up as conservatives of all tendencies-social conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, free-market conservatives, national security conservatives, and Republican Party stalwarts-seek to frame the debate in their own terms. In part, it’s a battle over competing right-wing ideologies. It’s also a high-stakes race to determine which approach to the immigration crisis will win the most votes for Republicans.

A group of leading conservatives recently sent an open letter to President George W. Bush stating that “enforcement first” measures should be central to any immigration policy reform. The signatories-including right-wing luminaries like William Buckley, Phyllis Schlafly, and William Bennett-called for the country’s political leaders to remember: “We are in the middle of a global war on terror.”

This conservative manifesto comes on the heels of another statement on immigration policy by pro-immigration conservatives published in the Wall Street Journal on July 10. “The Conservative Statement for Immigration Reform,” signed by 33 prominent conservatives, calls for the creation of new legal channels for immigrants “drawn to the jobs created by our economy.” That same day, a Journal editorial titled “Conservatives and Immigration” reiterated the paper’s “long-standing position favoring open immigration.”

Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, immigration restrictionists were marginalized in Congress and had little pull in the Republican Party. Immigration received little or no attention from the right’s battery of think tanks and policy institutes, except for single-issue institutes such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform. But the breakdown this spring of bipartisan attempts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill demonstrated the newfound political strength of immigration restrictionists.

Although a comprehensive bill that included legalization and guest-worker provisions passed in the Senate, it was blocked in the House, where restrictionists led by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) have gained control of the post-9/11 immigration agenda. Pro-immigration sentiment runs deep in the Senate, whose members have traditionally reflected the more favorable views of large corporations and party leadership when it comes to immigration. But recently, the increasing clout of the immigration restrictionists was quickly apparent; even the proponents of legalization dressed up their bills in the language of national security and law and order.

Perceiving that the anti-immigration stance is gaining popularity, Republican senators are beginning to adopt the “enforcement first” language of the anti-immigration lobby. Majority leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) describes immigration as a “dangerous national security threat,” observing that the “scariest part” of illegal immigration is that “we have absolutely no idea what they’ll do tomorrow on U.S. soil.” Seeking his party’s presidential nomination, Frist has founded his own organization, Secure America’s Borders, to tap the anti-immigrant surge.

A number of hardline think tanks and policy institutes have also jumped into the immigration fray, creating new ideological divides throughout the center-right. A number of influential conservative think tanks-including the Hudson Institute, Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute, and American Enterprise Institute-that rarely address immigration issues now have scholars articulating sharply different positions on immigration policy. On one side stand the likes of Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute, and Steve Forbes of Forbes Inc., all of whom advocate the traditional Republican position that immigration is good for the economy and that the government should open more legal channels for would-be immigrants. However, even these pro-immigration conservatives now lace their arguments with a strong dose of language about the need for border security and assimilation.

But it’s the anti-immigration camp that has seized control of the ideological and political debate. Out front in defining immigration as a national security threat is Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the neoconservative Center for Security Policy. After 9/11, immigration restrictionists quickly tweaked their anti-immigration message as a pro-security position. Going a step further, Gaffney, who signed the July 19 conservative statement backing an enforcement-first immigration policy, says stopping immigration flows and deporting unauthorized immigrants are among the “10 steps America must take to prevail in the war for the Free World.”

“Free World” bombast is nothing new, but its application to the immigration debate is a recent twist. In his new book War Footing, Gaffney and his coauthors tap predictable Cold War language about Washington’s role in saving the so-called free world from the so-called Islamofascists in order to bolster the case of the immigration restrictionists. Gaffney argues that immigration policy should be regarded as part of a world war to protect U.S. national security and freedoms. The southern border is a warfront threatened, according to Gaffney, by the rise of the center-left in Latin America. This conflict, he says, the United States is losing.

Reminiscent of the Cold Warriors’ warnings about the rising “red tide” in Latin America, Gaffney argues that the United States should be on guard against the left gaining ground there. Arguing for an immigration policy that is on a “war footing,” Gaffney warned in a Washington Times op-ed that the “implications of such an outcome could be far-reaching for the integrity of our southern frontier, illegal immigration, drug-trafficking, terrorism, trade, and the radical ‘reconquista’ movement (which is intent on ‘taking back’ at least parts of the United States for Mexico).”

Of pressing concern to Gaffney is the popularity of Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, who is contesting the recent presidential election in Mexico. “Like others of his persuasion, Lopez Obrador’s bid appears to have benefited from financing and help on the ground from his soulmates in Caracas and Havana, who clearly relish the prospect of extending their axis to the border of the United States,” writes Gaffney.

Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, along with 30 other organizations-including Roy Beck’s NumbersUSA, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, and Paul Weyrich’s Coalitions of America-is spearheading a “Secure America” campaign that asks politicians to sign a pledge against liberal immigration policies that supposedly “entail real national security, as well as socioeconomic, risks.” The pledge prescribes that “illegal aliens currently in the United States may be afforded a one-time opportunity to leave the United States without penalty and seek permission to reenter legally if they qualify under existing law. Those who do not take advantage of this opportunity will be removed and permanently barred from returning.”

The July 19 “enforcement-first” letter to Bush from prominent conservatives illustrates the increasingly broad reach of the anti-immigration movement and the large extent to which it integrates immigration policy with the “global war on terror.” It also highlights the degree to which neoconservatives, who have traditionally been solidly pro-immigration, are joining the restrictionist coalition. Neoconservatives signing the letter included William Bennett, Peter Collier, David Frum, David Horowitz, Michael Ledeen, and Daniel Pipes.

Concerns over national security after 9/11 have given restrictionists a new vehicle to move their cause to the center of the political debate. Now many conservative thinkers and leaders are jumping on the anti-immigration bandwagon in an attempt to forge a new right-wing coalition that will win political power by bringing together grassroots constituencies, military hardliners, neoconservatives, and social conservatives.

Tom Barry is policy director of the International Relations Center and a Right Web contributing writer. A version of this article was published by Inter Press Service.

 

 

 

Citations

Tom Barry, "The Expanding Anti-Immigration Bandwagon," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, August 12, 2006).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


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.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.


A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share