|
We believe the greatest privilege any person can enjoy is citizenship in the United States of America. Second is holding a Green Card, the visa signifying legal permanent residency. No other nation enjoys the long lines of citizens of the world longing to emigrate here. This is a resource of unlimited potential value just as immigration has always been in our country.
The goal must be to add the value immigrants bring without sacrificing other great national values. That challenge has generally been met in the past, and we can meet it again.
|
|
| Center for Immigration and Citizenship |
BLOG
The Rocky Mountain Foundation maintains a blog at Townhall.com, "A Conversation on Immigration," which can be accessed by clicking here.
|
|
SELECTED TOPICS
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies explains the psychological need for open borders lobbyists to villify any public figure who becomes a champion for border security.
‘Hate Groups, Nativists, and Vigilantes’
Lou Dobbs and the pro-amnesty crowd’s campaign of vilification.
By Mark Krikorian
It’s not clear why Lou Dobbs resigned from CNN Wednesday. Fox said he’s not headed there, and from his comments it sounds to me like he’s going to run for office in New Jersey (though Bob Menendez’s seat, the next Senate opening, isn’t up until 2012).
Be that as it may, it’s likely that part of the reason was the vilification campaign against Dobbs by pro-amnesty groups, part of a broader jihad against any public expression of skepticism about amnesty and open borders.
After the June 2007 collapse of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty push in the Senate, a demoralized Frank Sharry, one of the top left-wing amnesty advocates, summed up the lesson he’d learned: “We thought we were in a policy debate . . . And in fact we were in a cultural war.”
Later that year, the open-borders crowd decided to change tactics based on this insight. The public, in their estimation, was open to legalizing the illegal population and further increasing immigration, in exchange for promises of future enforcement, but was being duped by evil-mongers stirring up atavistic fears. So, presaging Obama’s jihads against Limbaugh and Fox News, they shifted from arguing how wonderful amnesty would be to viciously attacking the malefactors who were publicly arguing for attrition of the illegal population through enforcement.
In December 2007, as part of that strategy, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was assigned to designate the oldest restrictionist organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a “hate group.” The National Council of La Raza’s contribution was to start a campaign entitled We Can Stop the Hate, decrying the mainstream opposition to amnesty as a “surge of hate and violence” caused by “code words of hate” peddled by “hate groups, nativists, and vigilantes.” And a new hard-left group, America’s Voice, was founded as a war room for the pro-amnesty faction; among other things, they hosted an online election for the “Top Anti-Immigrant Wolf” (and included me among the nominees, though I haven’t been informed if I’ve won).
But the Emmanuel Goldstein of this drive to demonize amnesty opponents is Lou Dobbs. The Drop Dobbs campaign is sponsored by La Raza, the SPLC, Media Matters, LULAC (the League of United Latin American Citizens), et al. In October they arranged a series of protests by open-borders groups in cities around the country demanding Dobbs’s head. At the New York protest, a pastor from Spanish Harlem told the left-wing New America Media, “Lou Dobbs is a terrorist. He is encouraging the American people to hate Latinos. It is not only a human-rights abuse, but it is a form of terrorism against us.”
The day after the protests, frequent Dobbs critic Geraldo Rivera (who, unlike Dobbs, is not married to a Hispanic woman) said in a speech that the opponents of amnesty have been “reckless beyond imagining” and that Dobbs in particular “is almost singlehandedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country.”
Along these same lines is Basta Dobbs, whose founder describes its target as “The Most Dangerous Man for Latinos in America.” So We Might See, a “national interfaith coalition for media justice,” joined with the National Hispanic Media Coalition to fight Dobbs’s “anti-immigrant hate speech,” not because it’s factually incorrect but because it’s a form of “media violence.” And the SPLC’s Mark Potok and others claim (here, for instance) that Dobbs is directly responsible for an increase in “hate crimes” against Hispanics (the rate of such crimes actually went down, as FAIR points out in its debunking of the SPLC’s smears — but facts aren’t the point here).
It’s important to note that this campaign goes beyond mere name-calling. This isn’t Obama as the Joker or Dick Cheney as the Prince of Darkness, Van Jones calling Republicans a**holes or Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” Those are all simply part of a boisterous, if indecorous, politics.
The pro-amnesty crowd’s demonization efforts, on the other hand, are clear incitements to violence. They can’t claim that Lou Dobbs is a “terrorist” and that FAIR is responsible for people being killed in “hate crimes” and then be surprised when one of their followers acts in perceived self-defense.
Lou Dobbs last month described a shooting at his home, which came after weeks of threatening phone calls. He prematurely suggested (and I prematurely echoed his suggestion) that this was a result of the hate campaign directed against him. That may well turn out to be the case, but police said it could have been a stray hunter’s bullet (though at the time it wasn’t rifle season for deer, only squirrels and other small game). Nonetheless, given what happened to Pim Fortuyn after a similar vilification campaign, Dobbs is wise to have a bodyguard.
Of course, there are voices inciting violence on the pro-enforcement side too. But they’re kooks on the fringe, and going after them is pointless precisely because they’re so irrelevant. The mainstream figures, the targets of the amnesty crowd’s vilification, have always gone out of their way to avoid this sort of thing. Dobbs’s wife is Mexican-American, and he’s not even a restrictionist, just an “illegal/bad, legal/good” kind of guy. For over a quarter-century FAIR has been leery of organizing local chapters because of the stray hater who might be attracted along with the normal concerned citizens. For more than a decade Numbers USA, a restrictionist group, has had a button on its home page titled “‘No’ to Immigrant Bashing.” And the whole thesis of my book is that the difference in immigration today is not that today’s immigrants are somehow inferior to those of a century ago, but that we have changed and outgrown immigration.
But if I might put myself in their heads for a moment, this kind of caution is irrelevant to the organizers of the hate campaign against amnesty opponents. And it’s not because La Raza and the rest are cynically trying to taint pro-enforcement voices. On the contrary, they sincerely believe that support for any kind of immigration enforcement or limit on immigration is, by definition, hateful and an incitement to violence. Despite occasional pious acknowledgments that a nation has a right to control its borders, open-borders groups (on both the left and right) oppose all existing immigration-control measures and any prospective ones. This is because they reject the moral legitimacy of immigration controls, borders, sovereignty, and nationhood itself. Thus, unyielding opposition to amnesty and illegal immigration — however measured the tone, however sober the argument — is necessarily the equivalent of an act of violence in their eyes. And so they perceive their vilification campaign simply as a matter of self-defense, a response to our provocation.
When, despite Dobbs’s departure from CNN, the push for amnesty fails next year, as it inevitably will, it will be interesting to see how they deal with yet another defeat. They can hardly escalate their rhetoric further.
— Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor. He is the author of The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal.
—
Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
|
|
The message below is excerpted from an address given by U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) in September 2006 at the Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC.
THE "IMMIGRATION DEBATE": A STORY OF FAILED LEADERSHIP
Not long ago in Denver, 600 people from 80 countries took the Oath of Allegiance in a Naturalization ceremony in front of City Hall. Those 600 people did it the right way, and until they took that oath of allegiance, their rights as Legal Permanent Residents (or "green card" holders) were on a par with citizens with the exception of the right to vote. The right of true immigrants are well protected in American law. Illegal aliens, by contrast, are in a totally different category of federal law. For this reason, it is both misleading and dishonet to discuss their condition and their futue under the umbrella of "immigrant rights."
We ought to be able to agree that the heart of the problem is the continued flow of illegal aliens into our country. This has nothing to do with "immigration."
We ought to be able to agree that whatever the immigration problems we face, they cannot be addressed until we have an answer to these questions:
This problem of unlawful entry into our country is intellectually, morally and politically separate from other issues related to immigration. I believe the attempt to solve these separate problems in one so-called "comprehensive plan" has caused much confusion and needless delay in fixing our broken borders. The interesting question is whether the intellectual confusion preceded the political confusion or is in fact a deliberate tactic to advance a political agenda.
The American people want clarity, not confusion, and wrapping a half dozen different immigration-related problems into one bundle of proposals is not the way to address any of them.
Rejecting a "comprehensive approach" until border security has first been achieved is not "anti-immigrant." Indeed, border security as such has nothing to do with "immigrants": it is about preventing unlawful entry into our country by people who are by law not immigrants.
There is an old American adage that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is – stop digging. Advocates for open borders tell us the hole is a tunnel to globalist prosperity but, in truth, it is just a hole and we need to stop digging.
- Whether or not we need new guest worker programs, we first need secure borders.
- Whether we have increased or decreased legal immigration, we first need secure borders.
- Whether we decide to allow some illegal aliens in the country to stay or not, we first need secure borders.
It is a mystery to some observers why so many smart people do not see our broken borders as a barrier to immigration reform. But, on closer examination, the reason for this confusion is not hard to see.
This confusion over the difference between secure borders and "immigration reform" is not accidental, it is deliberate. The proponents of open borders continue to hold border security hostage to plans for a general amnesty and expansion of guest workers programs. They try to tell the American people they cannot have border security without a guest worker program, without an increase in legal immigration, and without granting amnesty to the 15 to 20 million illegal aliens who have come across our borders without our permission.
The majority of American people feel insulted by that argument. The need to fix the borders first is so obvious that ordinary citizens suspect the motives of politicians who do not want to do that. And they are right to have such suspicions.
There can be no "comprehensive solution" to our broken immigration system until we demonstrate that we can control our own borders – both our land borders with Canada and Mexico and the international ports of entry at seaports and airports that admit over 200 million tourists and visitors each year.
Our nation’s political and media elites have shown an unwillingness to confront these issues with openness and candor. These elites continue to hide the facts about the costs and consequences of the illegal alien invasion, and continue to deny their responsibility for secure borders. Only an alert and informed public can bring about the changes we so desperately need.
|
|
