Fox News and National Review Online gave credence to claims about immigrant's use of social benefits by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) without noting that immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to rely on such programs.
In a Fox News segment about the cost of comprehensive immigration reform to taxpayers, host Neil Cavuto allowed CIS research director Steven Camarota to repeat the myth that immigrants use social benefits at higher rates than native-born Americans because they are less educated, and that, if given legal status, they would stay on welfare. Cavuto did not challenge any of Camarota's claims:
Camarota's CIS counterpart, executive director Mark Krikorian, penned a column for National Review Online to further establish the myth, saying that, if you control for income, immigrants' rate of use of social benefit programs is less than that of poor Americans. He added that this means that "immigration imports a better class of underclass."
Numerous studies have debunked the claim that immigrants use public benefits in greater numbers than Americans, which Krikorian admitted in his column, albeit with a clear caveat. Moreover, as the Cato Institute explained when it took issue with CIS' study on immigrants and their use of public benefits, CIS uses a flawed methodology that counts the American-born children of immigrants along with undocumented or legal immigrants to determine costs:
Our approach of counting immigrant welfare use individually is used by the conservative state of Texas to measure immigrant use of government education and other benefits. The Texas Comptroller's Office did not include the children of immigrants who were American citizens when calculating the cost to public services in Texas because, "the inclusion of these children dramatically increased the costs."
In other words, counting the cost of the children of immigrants who are born citizens is a bad approach. If we were to follow Camarota's methodology, why not count the welfare costs of the great-grandchildren of immigrants who use welfare or public schools today? Our study, on the other hand, measures the welfare cost of non-naturalized immigrants and, where possible, naturalized Americans.
Media figures are peddling claims by anti-immigrant advocates that immigration reform would hurt the economy and negatively impact American workers, even though economic evidence disproves this false narrative. A new poll showing that small business owners support immigration reform indicates that they also distrust these anti-immigrant arguments.
In a recent column praising the work of Mark Krikorian, executive director of the nativist organization Center for Immigration Studies, CNN contributor David Frum, also a Daily Beast contributing editor, wrote that "because the illegals are predominantly very low-income, their demand on such [social welfare] programs will be heavy -- and not only long-term, but likely multigenerational."
Krikorian also peddled this falsehood in a March 19 National Review Online column, writing that because immigrants are "so unskilled and thus earn so little money... they are inevitably net costs to taxpayers."
WND repeated similar claims in an exclusive interview with Roy Beck, executive director of nativist organization NumbersUSA who said that Republican Sen. Rand Paul's immigration reform plan -- which has many of the same pro-immigration stances as proposals being floated by President Obama and the bi-partisan group of senators known as the "Gang of 8" -- would have serious economic consequences and is "a keeping wages low plan."
However, a new poll gauging the immigration views of job creators' shows that they are not buying into these arguments. A poll released on March 27 by the Small Business Majority found that small business owners, many of whom identified as Republican and either are the child of, or are, an immigrant, overwhelmingly support a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes a path to citizenship. Included in the report:
ABC News published a story which quoted several members of the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) but failed to disclose the organization's ties to nativist John Tanton, who is affiliated with a designated hate group, and ignored the organization's well-established credibility problems.
On January 14, ABC News reported on a conference held by CIS, which attacked "legalization programs for undocumented immigrants":
Analysts from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a think tank that advocates reduced immigration levels and stricter enforcement of current immigration laws, said today that legalization programs for undocumented immigrants typically lead to fraud and increased illegal immigration.
ABC provided a platform for CIS representatives to voice their opposition to a variety of proposed immigration measures, but ABC failed to provide background on CIS, despite the group's long history of anti-immigrant rhetoric, ties to nativist organizations, and lack of credibility.
The Center for Immigration Studies was started in 1985 by John Tanton, an anti-immigrant nativist with ties to other anti-immigrant organizations such as NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Southern Poverty Law Center-labeled hate group. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Although you'd never know it to read its materials, CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton -- a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials. CIS' creation was part of a carefully thought-out strategy aimed at creating a set of complementary institutions to cultivate the nativist cause -- groups including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA. As is shown in Tanton's correspondence, lodged in the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Tanton came up with the idea in the early 1980s for "a small think tank" that would "wage the war of ideas."
And while Tanton never actually ran CIS, his correspondence shows that as late as 1994, nine years after it was started, Tanton, who remains on FAIR's board of directors today, saw himself as setting the "proper roles for FAIR and CIS." He raised millions of dollars for the think tank and published the writings of top CIS officials in his racist journal, The Social Contract. He maneuvered a friend on to the board of CIS -- a man who shared his interest in eugenics and who attended events with Tanton where white nationalists gave presentations. Through it all, CIS pumped out study after study aimed at highlighting immigration's negative effects.
ABC also failed to note that CIS studies have also been the subject of frequent criticism. The Southern Poverty Law Center has previously called into question the group's findings, stating that CIS often reaches baseless conclusions which are "either false or virtually without any supporting evidence." The Center for New Community has also scrutinized CIS and even warned professional journalists that CIS is not a "credible voice in the debate on immigration."
One of ABC's sources, CIS executive director Mark Krikorian, has a history of making insensitive remarks about other ethnic groups. He has previously claimed that "Haiti's so screwed up because it wasn't colonized long enough," that foreign-nationals who aren't raised in the United States could become terrorists, and that Muslims are a "vicious people." In addition, Krikorian has stated that the United States should deny pregnant women entry to the U.S. because someone "visiting Disneyland" could give their child American citizenship (while referring to said child using the derogatory phrase "anchor baby"). None of Krikorian's past rhetoric was documented by ABC.
Unfortunately, ABC isn't the only major news outlet to treat CIS as a reasonable voice in the immigration debate. The nation's top seven newspapers cited CIS and other anti-immigrant groups over 250 times from January 2010 through June 2012. The New York Times cited the group several times despite publishing an exposé on the organizations unsavory ties with Tanton. NPR has also featured Krikorian as an alternative voice to Jose Antonio Vargas during an immigration debate, despite his harsh views on immigration.
Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney debunked the theory that rounding up and deporting immigrants is a solution to economic problems -- a notion that is widespread throughout the conservative media.
During an appearance on Fox & Friends to discuss Greece's efforts to round up and deport undocumented immigrants, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked Varney if deporting immigrants would help Greece's economy and whether America should "follow suit."
Varney said that rounding up and deporting immigrants wouldn't help Greece with its economic problems and denied that they were taking jobs from Greek citizens. He also said that we shouldn't round up immigrants in the United States either:
VARNEY: Should America follow suit, a round up of illegals here? I would say absolutely not. We're not in financial crisis, and we're a very different country. We have a very strong tradition of acceptance of people from all over the world, legal or illegal, we don't round them up and throw them out. We don't do that, thank heavens.
Economists agree that immigration is beneficial to the American economy and that immigrants don't have a negative impact on the jobs of American-born workers. And studies have shown that comprehensive immigration reform could lead to a boost to the economy.
But the myth that undocumented immigrants harm the economy is very common in the right-wing media.
Mark Krikorian was surprised to learn on Thursday that labor unions are lobbying in support of marriage equality in Maryland. In his National Review Online post, he wrote that the reason it "seems improbable is that until recently, American organized labor, while misguided on many economic questions, was deeply traditionalist." He concluded that unions are now supporting marriage equality only because "the unions no longer represent many workers."
But what Krikorian has apparently failed to understand is that marriage equality has many economic benefits. The Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law argues that marriage equality creates jobs. It also estimated that in the first year same-sex marriage was legalized in six states, wedding spending from those marriages totaled at least $249 million:
Forbes estimated in 2004 that if laws were changed to legalize same-sex marriage in the entire United States, the wedding industry would see "a short-term gain of prodigious proportions" and eventually provide a nearly $17 billion boost to the economy over time. In another estimate, San Francisco's chief economist stated in 2010 that the "annual wedding-related spending would rise by $35 million in San Francisco, with an additional $2.7 million in hotel spending, if same-sex marriage were legal."
Business groups and leaders have also expressed support for marriage equality due to its economic benefits. The executive director of the Mount Washington Valley Chamber of Commerce in New Hampshire praised the economic potential of civil unions in December 2007. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce argued that marriage equality in California "would improve the business climate" and would enhance "the ability of California businesses to compete nationwide for top talent."
In April 2011, top New York business leaders urged the state to adopt marriage equality "to remain competitive" and "attract top talent." A few months later, more than 75 business leaders in North Carolina signed an open letter opposing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages "because of the significant harm it will cause our state's pro-business environment, its major employers, and efforts to spur job-creation in North Carolina."
The lack of same-sex marriage recognition has been shown to be costly to workers as well. As CNNMoney reported last week, same-sex couples "are paying as much as $6,000 a year in extra taxes because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage."
In a post Thursday on National Review Online, Mark Krikorian attempted to deflect criticism from Sen. Marco Rubio against so-called "Democratic" Hispanic critics, writing, "Apparently it's news that 'Rubio faces Hispanic Critics.' " According to the Politico article Krikorian was referencing, "the broader Hispanic electorate" is not enthused with Rubio because of "his hard-line stance on immigration," especially in light of recent revelations about his background. But Krikorian rationalized the criticism as "phony," claiming that it's "hilarious" to expect Rubio to appeal to a broader swath of Hispanics because of their shared ethnic history.
Here's a hint: his critics are -- drum roll -- Democrats! The controversy itself is obviously phony (the Post has his parents' 1956 immigration application but we can't see Obama's transcripts?), but what's really hilarious is the idea that a Cuban-American Republican is somehow naturally going to appeal to Mexican-American Democrats just because their ancestors came from countries that were once both part of Spain's long-defunct empire. News flash: Cubans aren't Mexicans. Puerto Ricans aren't New Mexico Hispanos. And Mayan-speaking Guatemalans certainly aren't Portuguese. The very idea of an "Hispanic" or "Latino" identity is an ahistorical fiction, but one we are doing everything in our power to create and reinforce.
Setting aside the fact that the Politico article also highlighted Republican critics of Rubio or that it was in no way making the point that Rubio's appeal, or non-appeal, is predicated on his ethnicity, what is Krikorian really saying here? Is he really pushing the idea that the only reason one Hispanic can disagree with another is because one is an American of Puerto Rican descent and the other is an American of Cuban descent? Is he in fact claiming Hispanics or Latinos don't have the intellectual capacity to take sides because, well, they can't really argue the merits of an issue since ethnic history trumps all?
This premise would be ridiculous in this day and age, but not for Krikorian. He has stated that Haiti is "so screwed up" because "it wasn't colonized long enough." He once blamed a bank's demise on its diversity policy -- specifically, its commitment to Hispanic diversity. He has repeatedly suggested that the U.S.-born children of foreign nationals, because they won't be raised in the United States, could one day grow up to become terrorists. (And there's more.) And let's not forget that Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which is part of an anti-immigrant network comprised of hate groups founded on nativist ideology.
On October 18, an ad by NumbersUSA, the anti-immigration group with white nationalist ties run by Roy Beck, aired during CNN's coverage of the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas. In the ad, NumbersUSA pitted immigrants against Americans, blaming legal immigrants for high unemployment among Americans, especially minorities. It featured a diverse group of people taking turns saying:
The immigration debate should not be about the color of people's skin, or their country of origin, or their religion, or where their grandparents were born. The debate should be about the numbers. Should Congress give work permits to 1 million new legal immigrants again this year when 20 million Americans of all colors, national origins, and religions are having trouble finding jobs? Immigration, it's about the numbers. The numbers. The numbers. Tell Congress at NumbersUSA.org.
In a post at National Review Online touting the ad, Mark Krikorian asked: "Is the issuance of green cards to more than 1 million legal immigrants per year (plus hundreds of thousands of 'temporary' workers) a good idea when we have 9 percent unemployment?"
A similar ad by anti-immigration group Californians for Population Stabilization aired during MSNBC's coverage of the September 7 Republican presidential debate. It also blamed immigrants for the fact that millions of Americans "are unable to find a job." This claim is still not true, as we noted at the time. Yet anti-immigrants persist in using it to stoke xenophobic sentiment.
And that's the message behind this ad campaign.
On October 18, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced that the agency had deported a record number of undocumented immigrants: 396,906 foreign nationals in Fiscal Year 2011. ICE stated that this included the largest number of criminal immigrants removed at nearly 55 percent, "an 89 percent increase in the removal of criminals from FY 2008, and the largest number of criminal aliens removed in agency history."
As The New York Times reported:
"We came into office focused on creating a smart enforcement system by setting a rational system of priorities, and we have done that," John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said on Tuesday. "We said criminal offenders would be our highest priority, and lo and behold, they are the highest priority."
The Times further reported that the deportation program has come under intense criticism by Latinos and pro-immigration activists. The article highlighted a study that found that the program "has led disproportionately to the removal of Latino immigrants and to arrests by immigration authorities of hundreds of United States citizens."
In a post today at National Review Online, Mark Krikorian brushed away ICE's numbers, calling the announcement a "hollow deportation boast." His contention? The "largest number in the agency's history" "is a lot" but it isn't big enough. "[W]hen you look at history," Krikorian argued, "the 'largest number' is only about 1,700 more than two years ago." He continued:
The Obama administration, as a matter of policy, refuses to even ask Congress for the resources needed to deport any more than 400,000 people. Now, 400,000 deportations (of illegal aliens, of course, but also of legal aliens who made themselves deportable because of crimes) is a lot, but it can easily be doubled; I remember one of the top people at INS in the Clinton years telling me that the 114,000 removed in 1997 was a really, really big number and sufficient proof of their seriousness about immigration enforcement.
Krikorian seemed to be echoing Rep. Lamar Smith, who reportedly stated on October 18: "The Obama administration continues to inflate its deportation numbers. ... [I]n reality they are enacting amnesty through inaction."
NPR recently published a laudatory (some would even say fawning) profile of the "one man" behind the controversial Alabama anti-immigration law, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. From it, we learn that Kobach "looked the part" of a "movie star," "handsome and loaded with charisma"; that he is "deified by his supporters" in part because of his Ivy League credentials (Harvard, Oxford, and Yale); and that the time spent on immigration issues has been very "lucrative." Gushed the reporter: "Official documents from Arizona indicate he made $300 an hour with a $1,500 monthly retainer, plus expenses."
Amid all the flattery, however, KCUR reporter Laura Ziegler dropped hints that Kobach isn't all Mr. Congeniality. But she failed to show how extreme a figure Kobach really is. The fact that he has a history of anti-immigrant action and rhetoric elicited barely a mention. Instead, here is what Ziegler reported:
ZIEGLER: At a campaign event before the 2010 elections, candidate Kobach brought in Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Arizona, who's enforcing the immigration law there. Rallies outside the event, in a Kansas City suburb, showed how both had become lightning rods because of it.
MYRNA OROSKO: My name is Myrna Orosko and I came to the United States when I was four years old. And I came legally with a visa. However, like for many immigrants, it expired. I have to, you know, refuse to let men like Kris Kobach and Arpaio continue to spread a message of hate and intolerance for our immigrants around the country.
Zeigler didn't explain what Orosko meant nor did she point to any "message of hate and intolerance." She later added:
ZIEGLER: [Southern Poverty Law Center director of research Heidi] Beirich says Kobach is leading a strategic anti-immigrant crusade, which she says has a racial element.
BEIRICH: His decision to first start at the local level with laws in towns that were going through some strife over growing immigrant populations and then to take that to the state level shifted the entire terms of the debate.
While exhorting a government to enforce its immigration laws may not be racist, that's not the reason critics have given for blasting Kobach for "spread[ing] a message of hate and intolerance." Kobach works on behalf of noted hate group FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. As a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, he assigned students a book with an anti-Latino immigrant message.
Mark Krikorian, who we last saw bashing naturalized Americans and the children of immigrants in order to argue that the United States should close its borders to immigrants, is at it again. On Monday, to make his case for reducing future immigration, he warned against Islam and Muslims living in the United States.
Writing on the website of National Review, Krikorian attacked Islam as "a unique danger to our Republic" and advocated for "the use of undercover agents to infiltrate" mosques and Muslim organizations "and track their activities." He concluded: "If a large and growing Muslim population represents a threat to liberty -- and I believe, with [Herman] Cain, that it does -- then that's yet another reason to reduce future immigration."
From his July 18 blog post on National Review Online's The Corner:
I'm the last person to defend Islam, and I'm not doing so now, but Cain is clearly wrong. Yes, of course, Islam is more than just a spiritual system -- it's also a political system, a system regulating economics, war, the subjugation of infidels, personal hygiene, and every other aspect of life. And of course radical elements -- i.e., orthodox Muslims -- are behind the construction of many, if not most mosques in the West. Both of these facts make Islam a unique danger to our Republic and are arguments for enhanced scrutiny of mosques and all Muslim organizations, the use of undercover agents to infiltrate them and track their activities, a resumption of the use of ideological exclusion in visa and immigration matters, and the categorical rejection of all special demands, whether wearing a hijab in a driver's license photo or giving legal authority to sharia courts in family-law matters.
But -- if Muslims want to build a gathering place, consistent with normal zoning and fire-safety laws and the like, where they just worship and break bread with their fellows, they have every right to do so; suggesting otherwise is dangerous folly, cutting down the law to get after the devil. If a large and growing Muslim population represents a threat to liberty -- and I believe, with Cain, that it does -- then that's yet another reason to reduce future immigration. But once you admit people, we're bound to judge them individually, by the same yardstick we use for everyone else.
Krikorian previously asserted that the only way to produce " 'moderate' Islam" in countries like Iran is to wholly separate Islamic societies from the West and allow a "tsunami of violence" to overtake the people living under "Islamic regime[s]." Indeed, while discussing the future of Islam in an NRO post, Krikorian wrote that Islam is "a failure as an ideology and way of life in the modern world," adding that "[o]ur long-term strategy, then, should be to create two, three, many Islamic republics, each one inevitably an example of Islam's bankruptcy."
Despite his extremist views about immigrants and his anti-immigration stance, numerous media outlets, including NPR, The New York Times, and ABC News, believe that Krikorian is a worthy voice in the immigration reform debate.
NPR has decided that anti-immigration activist Mark Krikorian's nativist dogma is worthy enough to be a featured "point of view" in the immigration debate. Never mind that the entirety of Krikorian's solution to the issue involves a scheme where all unauthorized immigrants and their children, American citizens or not, would be given "90 days or ... six months" to "pack up your things ... resolve your affairs" and "go home."
On its website on Thursday, NPR thought to contrast Krikorian's extremist views with those of journalist Jose Antonio Vargas, who recently admitted he is an undocumented immigrant who has been in the United States since he was 12 years old. Vargas' take on immigration reform was highlighted in an interview with the station's Fresh Air program.
Krikorian, the executive director of "low immigration" think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies, and a columnist for National Review Online, explained why Vargas should leave the United States and why the DREAM Act shouldn't apply to immigrants like Vargas. From NPR:
"It's not so much that he's undocumented. It's that he's an illegal immigrant -- he had illegal documents," says Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates a "low immigration, high enforcement" immigration policy. "He came here as a child [but] ... he came here with an identity formed as a Filipino. In other words, he came at 12."
Vargas says he was inspired to write his article after the Senate failed to pass the Dream Act, which would have granted amnesty to people younger than 36 who arrived in the United States as children, have lived here for five years or more and are currently attending college or serving in the military.
But Krikorian says legislation like the Dream Act shouldn't apply to people like Vargas -- because he arrived in the United States at the age of 12.
"The moral case that you can make for the Dream Act -- or something like the Dream Act ... really only applies, it seems to me, to people whose identities have been formed here, who have no memory of any other country, who really are -- as some of the advocates sometimes put it -- are Americans in all but paperwork," he says. "This doesn't really cover a lot of the people who would be covered under the current version of the Dream Act, including Mr. Vargas. The man has real abilities and real skills, and he should go home to his country of citizenship, the country he grew up in for most of his childhood."
Krikorian further stated: "The strongest case you can make for something like the Dream Act is for people who prudence suggests we should allow [to] stay because their identities have been formed here. They really are, psychologically speaking, Americans."
So, according to Krikorian's ridiculous logic, a child who moves here around age 12 will never be, "psychologically speaking," American? I'm sure Madeleine Albright, Patrick Ewing, and a host of others who immigrated here as pre-teens, like me, would have something to say about that. But putting aside the absurd notion that there is a cookie cutter formula to national identity, Krikorian has maintained that immigrants are considered truly American only if they embrace "Anglo-conformity."
Rush Limbaugh added to his long history of sexism yesterday with a particularly ugly attack directed at President Obama and his national security team. While discussing a CNN.com piece reporting that Obama heeded the counsel of three female advisors to intervene in Libya, Limbaugh dubbed the president and his male advisors "sissies" and "the new castrati":
LIMBAUGH: This is a piece by David Rodham Gergen. "After conversations with top players in Washington last week, mostly as I accompanied a group of Zuckerman Fellows" -- boy I wish I was part of that group, the Zuckerman Fellows -- "from Harvard on a field trip, here are some brief reflections on the mood there," at Harvard. We got a whole CNN piece on what they're thinking at Harvard. Remember, now, Harvard grooms people to do this, quote- unquote, "the right way." That's the purpose of Harvard, and the purpose of Yale, and Princeton and Brown, to train people to do this the right way, meaning the liberal right way.
"The head-snapping change in policy toward Libya has everybody guessing where the Mideast is heading, whether the U.S. has a good handle on it, and most of all, what Obama is trying to achieve." Get this next, see, get this next: "One irony, as a female friend put it, is that for many years many of us believed that if only more women could gain power, the world would surely become more peaceful. Yet, we now see that the three people who talked Obama into using force are women -- Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power. Leading male advisers were opposed. Perhaps we should be less" -- we're talking about male liberals. Of course they were opposed. It's the New Castrati. Of course the males were opposed. They're sissies. And here's the number one, well, the leader of the club. He happens to sit in the Oval Orifice [sic].
Fox News' website the Fox Nation amplified Limbaugh's sexism, linking to a post on Mediaite with the headline, "Limbaugh: 'Sissy' Obama Dragged Into Libya By Women." On a similar note, on National Review Online, Mark Krikorian is complaining that three women "nagged" Obama until he gave in on Libya.
The phrase "new castrati" is a favorite of Limbaugh's. He has repeatedly used it to attack those on the left.
Following the release of a dubious report on "birth tourism" by the Center For Immigration Studies, Andrew Breitbart's website Big Peace highlighted the study's conclusions that hundreds of thousands of women visiting the United States give birth to babies here each year and that some of them are likely "terror babies" who will eventually use their U.S. citizenship to attack the United States in 20 to 30 years.
National Review's Mark Krikorian thinks it's just awful that women might play a role in making public decisions:
Look, I'm a sensitive New Age guy — I cook, I do laundry, I choke up at movies (well, Gladiator, anyway). But does anyone think our enemies abroad are as enlightened as we are about feminism? Steyn is right that the specific lesson they're learning is that nukes are the best insurance against invasion — but a broader one is that our commander-in-chief is an effete vacillator who is pushed around by his female subordinates. Prof. Althouse notes, "A feminist milestone: Our male President has been pulled into war by 3 women," and Senator Graham scored points with "I Thank God for Strong Women in the Obama Administration," but we're going to pay for this.
I don't know how much influence Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power had over the Obama administration's Libya policy, and neither does Mark Krikorian. What is clear is that Mark Krikorian thinks it is terrible that they are perceived as having been influential, and that it is terrible precisely because they are women. And no, I'm not over-interpreting Krikorian's comments -- he explicitly says this:
Before you send me any burning bras, the problem is not with women leaders — the enemies of the Virgin Queen and the Iron Lady can attest to that. The problem is not even with the president having strong female subordinates. Rather, Obama's pusillanimity has been hugely magnified by the contrast with the women directing his foreign policy and the fact that they nagged him to attack Libya until he gave in. Maybe it's unfair and there shouldn't be any difference from having a male secretary of state do the same thing, but there is.
Krikorian pretends that he doesn't (necessarily) think the influence of a female secretary of state should be viewed differently from the influence of a male secretary of state -- he's just describing the world as it is. But Krikorian's word choice gives him away: The three women, Krikorian writes, "nagged" Obama until he gave in.
Let's be clear about this: Mark Krikorian isn't describing sexism, he's demonstrating it.
We've previously documented that National Review Online's Ed Whelan baselessly attacked Elena Kagan for a brief she filed asking the Supreme Court to overturn one aspect of a 2007 Arizona law dealing with illegal immigration (a different Arizona law from the recently-passed SB 1070 that has been so much in the news recently). Now another NRO blogger has joined in the baseless attack -- Mark Krikorian.
The attack is so ridiculous, we didn't think we'd have to revisit it, but here goes. First, the attackers -- try as they might to gloss over the fact -- have absolutely no evidence that the brief actually has Kagan's input. She didn't sign the brief, is not listed on the brief, and had recused herself from working on the matter by the time the brief was filed.
Second, without additional evidence -- which neither Krikorian nor Whelan has presented -- there's no reason to believe that any particular brief filed by the solicitor general's office represents the views of the lawyers who worked on the brief.
Third, Krikorian misrepresents the substance of the brief filed in the case.
And finally, according to Krikorian's fellow NRO blogger Jonathan Adler, the position taken in the brief is perfectly reasonable and probably correct.