Immigration

Issues ››› Immigration
  • The Daily Beast Highlights “The Shady Network” Of Nativist Organizations Trump Cited In His Speech

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The Daily Beast profiled “the shady network” of nativist groups whose work and data Donald Trump cited during the anti-immigration sections of his Republican National Convention acceptance speech, noting that the groups Trump cited are “omnipresent in efforts to demonize immigrants.”

    Trump’s acceptance speech -- which the campaign made available -- includes 282 footnotes containing the sources for the candidate’s claims, with the work of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) being cited multiple times. FAIR has been classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric as well as its “ties to white supremacist groups, and eugenicists.” CIS, which FAIR’s founder John Tanton also helped found, has been repeatedly criticized for its shoddy research work and is labeled an “anti-immigrant nativist” organization by SPLC.

    As The Daily Beast points out, “CIS and FAIR provide the intellectual and organizational firepower for the immigration restrictionist movement” and their work always appears in efforts to “demonize immigrants.” The article continued, explaining that at one point anti-immigrant groups like CIS and FAIR were “pushed to the margins of the conservative conversation on immigration” but were kept relevant “thanks in part to powerful devotees in the talk-radio world and immigration-restrictionist stalwarts like Reps. Steve King and Louie Gohmert.” From The Daily Beast’s July 22 report:

    Trump’s team blasted out links to Trump’s remarks, including detailed footnotes showing the sources for his factual claims. And, unsurprisingly, many of Trump’s arguments are based on data from organizations funded by radical population control environmentalist activists. For instance, he cited a report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) to undergird his argument that the federal government enables crime by not deporting more undocumented immigrants.

    FAIR was founded by John Tanton, a virulently anti-immigrant nativist who has associated with white supremacists and dabbled in eugenics. He and his allies also fear that human population growth—particularly in the First World—jeopardizes the environment. Thus, they also back pro-abortion groups. This fact has left many on the right deeply concerned about citing their research or affiliating with their leaders. But not Trump.

    Trump’s speech also cited the Center for Immigration Studies—another group Tanton founded and helps fund. His team cited three different reports from CIS to support his assertions that immigration hurts American workers and that the federal government isn’t deporting enough undocumented immigrants.

    Along with NumbersUSA, CIS and FAIR provide the intellectual and organizational firepower for the immigration restrictionist movement. Their data and scholars are omnipresent in efforts to demonize immigrants, and they were all major presences during the 2013 Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration reform debate. Tanton and his funding link the three together.

    [...]

    In the pre-Trump era, these groups found themselves pushed to the margins of the conservative conversation on immigration. They never fully lost traction—thanks in part to powerful devotees in the talk-radio world and immigration-restrictionist stalwarts like Reps. Steve King and Louie Gohmert—but they had trouble. For several years, CPAC declined to give them airtime.

    [...]

    In the meantime, the Republican National Committee made an explicit effort to change the party’s rhetoric on immigration.

    [...]

    That dream is dead. Instead, Trump characterized immigrants as murderous, dangerous, and barbaric.

    [...]

    In his America, migrants are would-be rapists and definite job-thieves.

    It is, in the literal sense, a story of xenophobia—a view of the world predicated on the notion that anyone from a foreign country should be feared.

  • To Latinos In Media, Trump’s Nomination Speech Sounded “Disgusting” And “Apocalyptic”

    ››› ››› CRISTINA LOPEZ

    Latinos in the media denounced the speech Donald Trump delivered when he officially accepted the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, condemning the candidate’s hateful and anti-immigrant rhetoric, referring to the speech as “disgusting,” noting it contained “fearmongering” and “divisiveness,” and criticizing him for linking immigration and terrorism.

  • Wash. Post: GOP's 2016 Platform Relinquishes Its 2013 Autopsy Report

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS

    A Washington Post article notes that the 2016 GOP platform -- which includes “language to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border” -- “is a far cry” from the 2013 autopsy that sought more inclusivity beyond “the GOP’s traditional base.”

    After its defeat in the 2012 presidential elections, the Republican Party laid out a pro-inclusivity strategy in what became known as the “autopsy” report --a strategy that ran counter to the anti-immigrant vitriol regularly spewed by right-wing media. The anti-immigrant tone and extremism of the 2016 Republican presidential campaign ultimately demonstrated that the GOP would rather side with right-wing media over the party’s own goals, even if by doing so they contradict the will of a majority of the electorate and most of the GOP itself.

    In a July 14 piece, the Post’s Dan Balz noted that by “including language to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border” the GOP is sending “a loud and clear message to the Hispanic community that is the opposite of what the 2013 RNC-sponsored autopsy report proposed,” and combined with Trump’s “harsh talk about Mexicans” has moved further from “meaningful outreach to Hispanics.” From the July 14 article:

    As they worked through the language of their 2016 platform, delegates to the Republican National Convention commented over and over that this was to be seen as a marketing document designed to sell their party. What they produced is a far cry from what the party establishment thought was needed only a few years ago.

    The platform that emerged over several days of deliberations here this week reinforced some of the party’s most conservative planks, rejected efforts to appeal forcefully beyond the GOP’s traditional base and, to the extent that it reflects the thinking of Donald Trump, is most noteworthy for including language to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    [...]

    The 2016 platform turns much of what was recommended in the autopsy document on its head. Rather than reaching out, it draws the party inward, particularly on immigration and social and cultural issues.

    Trump’s wall sends a loud and clear message to the Hispanic community that is the opposite of what the 2013 RNC-sponsored autopsy report proposed. That report called for enactment of comprehensive immigration reform.

    The possibility of enacting comprehensive reform, though still favored by some Republicans, died long before the 2016 campaign began. But in the presidential campaign, Trump, with his harsh talk about Mexicans and his determination to erect a border wall, moved the party ever farther from meaningful outreach to Hispanics.

    By inscribing Trump’s proposal in the party platform, the party has acknowledged the strength of his core appeal as a candidate. But it also has taken the risk of building a rhetorical and policy wall between the GOP and the Latino community that could last for years. A newly released Univision survey shows Trump with the support of just 19 percent of Hispanic voters, lower even than the 27 percent Romney won in 2012.

  • Hannity Uses Attack In France To Push Muslim “No-Go Zones” Myth That Fox Previously Apologized For

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Fox News host Sean Hannity, in the aftermath of an apparent terrorist attack that killed at least 77 in Nice, France, claimed that “no-go zones actually do exist in France,” where only Muslims are allowed and the government has no control.

    In January 2015, after Steve Emerson claimed on Fox News that there are parts of France and England “where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in,” two different Fox hosts apologized for letting the lie go unchallenged on their network, with Julie Banderas saying there is “no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.” British Prime Minister David Cameron called Emerson a “complete idiot” after he heard of the claim. From the July 14 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Many of the topics we've been discussing this presidential election season, immigration, Donald Trump talking about at least a temporary ban on people coming from countries that practice Sharia law. We have -- we watched the Islamization of Europe, and I've discussed it at length on this program and on my radio program. You know, for example, most people don't know that Great Britain has 88 Sharia courts or that no-go zones actually do exist in France. I know because I've covered it here on this program.