Right Web

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

Immigration Reform Caucus

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

The House Immigration Reform Caucus—not to be confused with a similarly named pro-immigration group—was established in May 1999 by then-Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a former House member and presidential candidate who promoted a far-right agenda on both domestic and foreign policy while in office. At its peak, the mostly Republican caucus had over 100 members, or a quarter of all House members.[1] In 2012, the caucus claimed to have 93 members.[2]

According to an agenda posted on Tancredo’s congressional website, the caucus was founded “to review current immigration policy, to initiate new immigration policy, and to create a much-needed forum in Congress to address both the positive and negative consequences of immigration.” The agenda touted the caucus’ work in “addressing the explosive growth in illegal immigration, reversing the growth in legal immigration,” and opposing various provisions it said would provide “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants in the United States.[3]

The statement also promoted the idea, sharply disputed by migration scholars, that irregular migration represents a terrorist threat to the country. "With the events of September 11,” it read, “the caucus [has] continued to establish and emphasize the link between open borders, unregulated immigration, and the potential for terrorism."[4]

Tancredo repeated this connection on his 2008 presidential campaign website. In a statement proclaiming a “clash of civilizations” between the United States and its purported enemies, Tancredo claimed that “Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa—or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack.”[5]

When Tancredo left Congress to focus on his presidential bid, he designated Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) to lead the caucus. Under Bilbray, the caucus focused on the purported “relationship between border security, national security, illegal immigration, border violence, contraband and illegal drugs,” removing references to the 9/11 attacks and focusing more narrowly on promoting border control and opposing “amnesty” and other government provisions for undocumented immigrants.[6]

Some prominent members of the caucus have continued to link undocumented immigrants to terrorism, often invoking explicitly anti-Islamic rhetoric. A December 2012 blog post by the pro-immigration group Imagine 2050 accused the caucus of “providing representation for the organized Islamophobia movement.” It highlighted the role of two high-profile members in particular, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The two members were part of a group of five Republican House members to send a letter to U.S. government agencies demanding an investigation into alleged “Muslim Brotherhood infiltration” into the Obama administration. In the ensuing media coverage, Gohmert appeared on the radio show of the controversial neoconservative Frank Gaffney, where he claimed that “the only way you can explain the horrendous decisions that were so completely wrongheaded would be if this administration had a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood members giving them advice.” The post also recalled Gohmert’s widely ridiculed insistence that undocumented immigrants have “terror babies” in the United States in order to provide U.S. citizenship to their offspring, who can later use their status to wage attacks on the United States.[7]

Bilbray left Congress after losing his 2012 reelection race in a district redrawn to include more Hispanic voters.[8] Imagine 2050 called the result a “major setback” for the caucus, but warned that some caucus members, including incoming Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and others, would be well placed to thwart any potential moves to the center by House Republicans after a 2012 election in which the party was hamstrung by its “hemorrhaging” support among Latino voters.[9]

The Immigration Reform Caucus has been closely linked over the years with immigration restrictionist organizations like NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which Imagine 2050 has deemed a “white nationalist” organization that has “endeavored to eradicate immigration to the United States and to systematically limit civil liberties.”[10] Former caucus leader Brian Bilbray himself was previously a registered lobbyist for FAIR and served as a co-chair of the organization’s advisory board. Noting the caucus’ connections to groups like FAIR and others, a 2007 report by the Center for a New Community characterized the congressional organization as a “highly ideological caucus, with its nativism one piece of a larger far right and ultra-nationalist whole. While not every HIRC member fits this mold,” it warned, “enough evidence exists to conclude that more than just the number of H1-B visas is at stake here.”[11]

 

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Sources

[1] Center for a New Community, “Nativism in the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus,” September 2007, http://buildingdemocracy.org/reports/HIRC.pdf.

[2] Devin Burghart, “Nativist Bloc in Congress Mostly Intact After Election,” Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights blog, December 3, 2012, http://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/nation-state-and-citizenship/item/448-nativist-bloc-in-congress-mostly-intact-after-election.

[3] House Immigration Reform Caucus, “Our History,” Tom Tancredo congressional website, http://web.archive.org/web/20070110060850/http://tancredo.house.gov/irc/about.html.

[4] House Immigration Reform Caucus, “Our History,” Tom Tancredo congressional website, http://web.archive.org/web/20070110060850/http://tancredo.house.gov/irc/about.html.

[5] TeamTancredo.com, “Issues,” http://web.archive.org/web/20070210045343/http://teamtancredo.com/issues.php#marriage.

[6] House Immigration Reform Caucus, “IRC Principles,” http://web.archive.org/web/20121016230253/http://irc.bilbray.house.gov/about/purpose-mission-goals.shtml.

[7] Imagine 2050, “House Immigration Reform Caucus Providing Representation for the Organized Islamophobia Movement,” Imagine 2050 blog, December 13, 2012, http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2012/12/13/house-immigration-reform-caucus-providing-representation-for-the-organized-islamophobia-movement/.

[8] See Juan Williams, “California leading the way to a more functional Congress,” The Hill, November 12, 2012, http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/267227-opinion-california-leading-the-way-to-a-more-functional-congress#ixzz2J0fglxSZ.

[9] Domenic Powell, “Is the Immigration Reform Caucus still a threat to immigration reform?” Imagine 2050 blog, November 26, 2012, http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2012/11/26/is-the-immigration-reform-caucus-still-a-threat-to-immigration-reform/.

[10] Imagine 2050, Immigration Reform Caucus profile, http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HIRC_Profile_2012.pdf.

[11] Center for a New Community, “Nativism in the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus,” September 2007, http://buildingdemocracy.org/reports/HIRC.pdf

Share RightWeb

Immigration Reform Caucus Résumé

Contact Information

House Immigration Reform Caucus
2410 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0508
Fax: (202) 225-2558

Related:

Immigration Reform Caucus News Feed


Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The contradictions in Donald Trump’s foreign policy create opportunities for both rivals and long-standing (if irritated) US allies to challenge American influence. But Trump’s immediate priority is political survival, and his actions in the international arena are of little concern to his domestic supporters.


While the notion that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is decades old, it has been bolstered in recent years, by the campaign to add to the definition of anti-Semitism any criticism that singles Israel out and doesn’t apply the same standard to other countries. The bottom line is that this entire effort is designed not to combat anti-Semitism but to silence criticism. 


Short-term thinking, expedience, and a lack of strategic caution has led Washington to train, fund, and support group after group that have turned their guns on American soldiers and civilians.


Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


RightWeb
share