The ad in the leftist publication, The Nation, seems appropriate enough, a call to save our diminishing resources. The ad bemoans the destruction of “picturesque land into suburban sprawl.” A huge bulldozer is shown ready to tear down pristine-looking forest land. Authoritative sources are cited, the Pew Hispanic Research Center and the Census Bureau. It ends with a dire warning: “300 Million People Today, 600 Million Tomorrow. Think About It.”
Is it an ad for the Sierra Foundation, the Nature Conservancy or some other progressive environmental group? Wait, it’s from a group called, “America’s Leadership Team for LongRange Population-Immigration Resource Planning.” Hmmn. I’ve never heard of these guys. Wait, they’re part of a coalition. Let’s see who is part of this “progressive coalition?” According to the ad this nature conservancy group is made up of the following organizations:
- American Immigration Control Foundation
- Californians for Population Stabilization
- Federation for American Immigration Reform
- NumbersUSA
- Social Contract Press
Geez Louise, where was The Nation’s Editor when the advertising department took this ad? I know we are not going to censor speech, blah, blah blah… but would the Nation accept ads from The Aryan Nation, Holocaust deniers, Fox News etc…? Maybe, but they would take the opportunity to slap their sponsor around with a full disclosure of the nefarious characters masquerading as progressives. So why did the Nation fail to run a nice expose on The Social Contract Press and its white supremacist views, never mind its completely reactionary content? Shame on the Nation Magazine! We expect better of such a venerated progressive publication. Give ‘em a call and ask them when they started running ads by white supremacists?
As if we needed more evidence that John Tanton, founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA, is a racist extremist, Peter Brimelow has put together an anthology of his favorite racist writers for the latest issue of Tanton’s magazine The Social Contract. Eristic Ragemail has previously pointed out that the so-called grass-roots anti-immigrant organizations are in actuality a creature of a select cabal of extremist nutwings. If anybody had any doubt about Tanton’s racist proclivities, this should put them to rest. (Peter Brimelow makes no bones of his racism, defending it as a bulwark against “political correctness.”) John Tanton, founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform and a dozen other nativist organizations, still proclaims agnosticism on the inferiority of non-whites, despite statements clearly belying such racism. The whole of the latest issue of The Social Contract exclusively features writings from the extremist website VDare with the unbowed racist, Steve Sailer featured prominently. Take this gem from a recent Sailer article, (one of a racist multitude) “there’s a much simpler explanation for why white kids spend no more time on their homework than black and Hispanic kids, yet score vastly higher on achievement tests: because they are, … smarter.” Next time the media runs a quote from FAIR or NumbersUSA, invite them to peruse this issue of John Tanton’s publication: The The Social Contract loves VDare and its stable of racists.
P.S. All this racist crap is paid for by you, the taxpayer. VDare is a so-called “non-profit” corporation.
Contrary to Lou Dobbs, and other cable-TV hate-mongers, the current nativist wave is not an organic movement of Americans “fed up illegal immigration.” The better part of the current nativist movement was orchestrated by a retired Michigan opthamolagist by the name of John Tanton and a small group of wealthy donors. Starting in 1979, Tanton orchestrated a series of moves to establish a network of non-profit groups, advocacy organizations and media propaganda fronts. The foremost of these groups is the Federation for Immigration Control (“FAIR”) which continues to enjoy legitimacy amongst the mainstream media despite clear ties to racist and extremist organizations. The network that Tanton founded continues to function and the fronts that he established continue to be treated as indepenent entities, despite their shared kinship.
It was Tanton who founded the anti-immigration movement's most powerful institution, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”). Tanton’s interest in immigration was marked in the beginning by an explicitly racial argument. “To govern is to populate,” Tanton wrote in 1986. “Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile? … As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?”
Tanton founded FAIR in 1979. Between 1982 and 1994, it received more than $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund. A little-known foundation created in 1937, the Pioneer Fund likes to benignly describe its origins in “the Darwinian-Galtonian evolutionary tradition, and the eugenics movement.” In the late 1930s, though, it frankly admired Hitler. Today, it still bankrolls groups such as the racist American Renaissance and the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF) in Virginia.
[A] single -- but not seamless -- web connects ideological white supremacists, armed border vigilantes, nativist think tanks, political action committees, and Republican Party officeholders in an anti-immigrant movement of growing significance. Formal policy deliberations may include debates on the fiscal costs of providing social services to undocumented workers, the supposed downward pressure immigrant labor exerts on the marketplace, the net costs and benefits of immigration, and the national-security problems evinced by holes in our borders. But at gatherings like these, the raw issues are race and national identity.
Differences between legal and illegal immigrants fade into a generalized belief that a brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking tidal wave is about to swamp the white-skinned population of the United States. The attempt to stop undocumented workers at the borders morphs into a campaign to end immigration altogether, to save our supposedly white nation from demographic ruin. As Tancredo told interviewer John Hawkins, “[If] we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united; we will have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all … .
In addition, FAIR's political action committee, the U.S. Immigration Reform PAC, routinely receives significant contributions from Tanton and his wife. FAIR's PAC has contributed more than a quarter-million dollars for and against candidates since 1999. In 2000, it spent more than $30,000 against Republican Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, an Arab American, who lost that general election. Not surprisingly, it has also given the virulently anti-immigrant, Tom Tancredo $15,000 over the years, according to Federal Election Commission documents. The PAC had Peter Gemma on its payroll. Gemma is a denizen of Holocaust-denial meetings and other hardcore anti-Semitic venues, according to Devin Burghart, the author of numerous reports on anti-immigrant groups for the Center for New Community in Chicago.
"The New Nativists" In a notorious set of memos from 1986, Tanton set forth the vision and strategy of what was to become the anti-immigrant enterprise. In the most extensive memo, Tanton laid out a series of queries to guide the movement:
Is apartheid in Southern California’s future? The democraphic picture in South Africa now is startlingly similar to what we’ll see in California in 2030. In Southern Africa, a White minority owns the property, has the best jobs and education, has the political power, and speaks one language. A non-White majority has poor education, jobs and income, owns little property, is on its way to political power and speaks a different language. (The official language policy in South Africa is bilingualism -- the Blacks are taught in Zulu and related tongues.)
In California of 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and "other." The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly catholic.
Do ethnic enclaves (Bouvier, p. 18) constitute resegregation? As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? Why don’t non-Hispanic Whites have a group identity, as do Blacks, Jews, Hispanics?
[T]he Whites and Asiatics will own and manage, but will not be able to speak to the Hispanic field workers. They will need bilingual foremen. Does this sound like social peace? Or like South Africa?
Initially, Tanton’s organizations did not meet with much legislative success but the media treated them as if they were legitimate grass-roots organizations. FAIR was widely quoted on all questions bearing upon immigration and they often testified before Congress. Another element of Tanton’s plan was infiltration of Congress and the Judiciary. As set out in another 1986 strategy memo by Tanton:
Since launching FAIR [Federation for American Immigration Reform] in January of 1979, the board has adhered steadfastly to one of the possible models for changing U.S. immigration law and practice. Our plan emphasized the national (rather than the state and local) nature of the immigration question, and, therefore, concentrated on building a national office and staff rather than working at the grassroots.
In my judgment, grassroots work has not been a major emphasis. On the media side of this question, I believe we get high marks for good and consistent effort throughout our existence.
Financially, FAIR grew rapidly its early years. The table shows our total revenues since its founding:
Our financial growth was heavily based on a small number of major donors…
[We must] Secure appointments of our friends to positions on the Board of Immigration Appeals, to the Commissioner’s Post if Mr. Nelson leaves, as he will eventually, to other advisory boards in the INS and Justice Department.
FAIR and its sister organizations were heavily dependent on a small number of donors, most of whom had racist motivations for their contributions. The network of Tanton organization that this small group of wealthy individuals funded includes the front ograntizations.
American Immigration Control Foundation AICF, 1983, funded
American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together 1992, funded by Tanton
California Coalition for Immigration Reform CCIR, 1994, funded by Tanton
Californians for Population Stabilization 1996, funded (founded separately in 1986) by Tanton
Center for Immigration Studies CIS, 1985, founded and funded by Tanton
Federation for American Immigration Reform FAIR, 1979, founded and funded by Tanton
NumbersUSA 1996, founded and funded by Tanton
Population-Environment Balance 1973, joined board in 1980 by Tanton
Pro English 1994, founded and funded by Tanton
ProjectUSA 1999, funded by Tanton
The Social Contract Press 1990, founded and funded by Tanton
U.S. English 1983, founded and funded by Tanton
U.S. Inc. 1982, founded and funded by Tanton
Each of these organizations keeps up a front of nominal independence despite being part of Tanton’s web. And each in turn has mingled extremist politics with its anti-immigrant rhetoric. In subsequent posts we will explore further the dark elements that make up Tanton’s Nativist movement.
John Tanton is a retired opthamologist from Michigan and is founder of various advocacy groups, the most prominent being the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”). Founded in 1978, the Federation for American Immigration Reform blames immigrants for a host of social problems including crime, poverty, disease, urban sprawl, traffic jams, school overcrowding, racial tensions and potential terrorism. Between 1985 and 1994, FAIR accepted some $1.2 million from the racist Pioneer Fund, until bad publicity apparently convinced its leaders to desist.In 1986, a series of memos were leaked out which indicated how Tanton intended to infiltrate and influence the Federal government on immigration and just as urgently revealed the deep seated hatred that John Tanton has for Latinos, Catholics and other non-white “undesirables.”Here is one of the memos which is posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch website.
TO: WITAN IV Attendees
FROM: John Tanton
DATE: October 10, 1986
Here is a set of questions and statements that I hope will help guide our discussion of the non-economic consequences of immigration to California, and by extension, to the rest of the United States. These are not highly polished; I ask your indulgence.
These notes are based on reading Bouvier’s and related papers, on the WITAN III Meeting, and my own thinking over several years on the topic of assimilation and the character of American society. The assignment of subtopics to the main categories is a bit arbitrary; many of them could be moved around.
I. Political Consequences.
1. The political power between the states will change, owing to differential migration six immigrant-receiving states. The heartland will lose more political power (see appended Table I).
2. Will the newcomers vote democratic or republican, liberal or conservative, and what difference does it make? A lot, if you’re one or the other.
3. Gobernar es poplar translates "to govern is to populate," (Parsons’ [Thomas Malthus] paper, p. 10, packet sent May 8). In this society where the majority rules, does this hold? Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile?
4. Does the fact that there will be no ethnic majority, in California early in the next century mean that we will have minority coalition-type governments, with third parties? Is this good or bad, in view of the European and other experiences?
5. Shall illegal aliens be counted in the census and used to apportion congressional and state house seats, thereby granting them political power?
6. Is apartheid in Southern California’s future? The democraphic picture in South Africa now is startlingly similar to what we’ll see in California in 2030. In Southern Africa, a White minority owns the property, has the best jobs and education, has the political power, and speaks one language. A non-White majority has poor education, jobs and income, owns little property, is on its way to political power and speaks a different language. (The official language policy in South Africa is bilingualism -- the Blacks are taught in Zulu and related tongues.)
In California of 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and "other." The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly catholic. Will there be strength in this diversity? Or will this prove a social and political San Andreas Fault?
7. Illegal aliens will pay taxes to the Federal Government; their costs will mostly be local.
8. The politicians are way behind the people on these issues. This brings to mind the story told of Gandhi: he was sitting by the side of the road when a crowd went by. He said, "There go my people. I must get up and follow them, for I am their leader!"
9. Griffin Smith’s point from the Federalist Papers: It was argued that the colonies would make a good nation, as they shared a common culture and language. Nineteen eighty seven is the celebration of the adoption of the Constitution, 1988 its ratification, and 1989 the setting up of the first Federal Government. Can we tie into these discussions?
II. Cultural.
1. Will Latin American migrants bring with them thetradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, etc.? What in fact are the characteristics of Latin American culture, versus that of the United States? See Harrison’s Washington Post article in the September 3 packet.
2. When does diversity grade over into division?
3. Will Blacks be able to improve (or even maintain) their position in the face of the Latin onslaught? (See Graph 3)
4. How will we make the transition from a dominant non-Hispanic society with a Spanish influence to a dominant Spanish society with non-Hispanic influence?
5. Do ethnic enclaves (Bouvier, p. 18) constitute resegregation? As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? Why don’t non-Hispanic Whites have a group identity, as do Blacks, Jews, Hispanics?
6. Note that Graph 2 shows virtually all the population growth will come from immigrants and their descendants.
7. Is there a difference in the rates of assimilation between Asians and Latins?
8. Should something be said about the competing metaphors of the salad bowl and the melting pot?
9. What exactly is it that holds a diverse society together? Gerda’s paper said that in our case, it was a common language.
10. Is assimilation a function of the educational and economic level of immigrants? If so, what are the consequences of having so many ill-educated people coming in to low paying jobs?
11. We’re building in a deadly disunity. All great empires disintegrate, we want stability. (Lamm)
12. Enclaves lead to rigidity. (Hardin)
13. The theory of a moratorium: the pause in immigration between 1930-1950, combined with the assimilating experience of fighting side-by-side in the trenches in World War II, gave us a needed pause so that we could assimilate the mass of people who came in the early years of the century. Do we again need such a pause?
14. Concerning the moratorium, here are some phrases that could be used: "The pause that refreshes." "A seventh inning stretch." "Take a break, catch-up, eliminate a backlog, take a breather."
15. Perhaps mention should be made of Pacific Bell’s move to install completely separate Spanish and Chinese language phone systems in California (see May 27 packet).
16. Novak’s term "unmeltable ethnics" is probably better than some of the others that have been suggested. Similarly, ethnicity is a more acceptable term than race. It should also be noted that 50% of all Hispanic surname people on the census forms designate themselves as White. So perhaps we should speak of Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Whites, to further diffuse the issue. Is Anglo a better term that White? LANGUAGE IS VERY important here.
III. Conservation and Demography
1. What will be the effect on the conservation movement, which has drawn its support in the past from other than the minorities, and which has relied on the political power of the majority to pass legislative measures? As the people that groups like the Sierra Club represent go into opposition (minority political status), will many of the things they’ve worked for be lost because the new majority holds other values?
2. Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva if borders aren’t controlled? Or is advice to limit ones family simply advice to move over and let someone else with greater reproductive powers occupy the space?
3. What are the consequences to California of the raw population growth that is coming, the ethnic change aside (see Graph 1)?
4. What is the conservation ethnic [sic] of the Asian and Latin American newcomers? Will they adopt ours or keep theirs?
5. The Sierra Club may not want to touch the immigration issue, but the immigration issue is going to touch the Sierra Club! (To mention just one group.)
6. On the demographic point: perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!
7. Do you agree with Teitelbaum’s statement, "International migration has now become an important point of intersection between the different demographic profiles of developing and developed countries"? (Fear of Population Decline, p. 134--see also pp. 111-115.)
IV. Jurisprudence
1. What are the consequences for affirmative action of the ethnic change coming along? Will the non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) have a limited number of spots in professional schools, etc. proportionate to their numbers? Or will affirmative action go beyond this (as it does now in Malaysia) to cut spots to below their proportionate share, to enable other groups to "catch-up?"
2. Anything to be said about drugs and the border?
3. Will we get more of the Napoleonic Code influence, and does it make a difference?
4. What do we demand of immigrants--or more correctly, what should we demand of them:
a. Learn our language.
b. Adopt our political ideals.
c. Assimilate and add their flavoring to our stew.
V. Education
1. What are the differences in educability between Hispanics (with their 50% dropout rate) and Asiatics (with their excellent school records and long tradition of scholarship)?
2. Where does bussing fit into the picture? Keep in mind that by 1990, over 50% of all the people under 15 years of age will be of minority status. They will also be heavily concentrated in certain geographic areas.
3. The whole bilingual education question needs to be mentioned.
VI. Race/Class Relations.
1. What will be the fate of Blacks as their numbers decline in relationship to Hispanics? As they lose political power, will they get along with the Hispanics? Relations are already heavily strained in many places.
2. What happens when we develop a new underclass, or a two-tiered economic system? Especially if the two groups can’t speak the same language! (See Bouvier and Martin Chapter 5)
3. Is resegregation taking place, in the Southern part of the state in particular?
4. Phil Martin’s point: In agriculture, the Whites and Asiatics will own and manage, but will not be able to speak to the Hispanic field workers. They will need bilingual foremen. Does this sound like social peace? Or like South Africa? Keep in mind the poor educational level of the field hands.
VII. The Economy.
I don’t think we should dwell much on the economy: I think we should try to make our contribution by talking about the non-economic consequences of immigration. Nonetheless:
1. Do high levels of immigration cut back on innovation (Bouvier, p. 27)?
2. Does it reduce the tendency and need of employers to hire current minority teens (Bouvier, p. 27)?
3. Is there a downward pressure on labor standards in general (Bouvier, p. 28)?
4. Phil Martin’s point on the colonization of the labor market. (Chapter 5).
VIII. Retirement
1. Since the majority of the retirees will be NHW, but the workers will be minorities, will the latter be willing to pay for the care of the former? They will also have to provide the direct care: How will they get along, especially through a language barrier (Bouvier, p. 40)?
2. On the other hand, will the older and NHW groups be willing to pay the school taxes necessary to educate the burgeoning minorities?
3. The Federal Government may have to pay for the care of the elderly in schools--will it?
XI. Religious Consequences.
This is the most difficult of all to tackle, and perhaps should be left out. Nonetheless:
1. What are the implications of the changes shown on Graphs 2 and 3 for the separation of church and state? The Catholic Church has never been reticent on this point. If they get a majority of the voters, will they pitch out this concept?
2. Same question for parochial schools versus public schools.
3. Same question for the topic of abortion/choice, birth control, population control.
4. Same question for the role of women.
5. Will Catholicism bought in from Mexico be in the American or the European model? The latter is much more casual.
6. Keep in mind that many of the Vietnamese coming in are also Catholic.
7. Is there anything to be said about the Eastern religions that will come along with the Asiatics?
X. Mexico and Latin America(Chapter 7, Bouvier & Martin).
Perhaps the main thing to be addressed here is whether or not shutting off the escape valve will lead to revolution, or whether keeping it open can avert it.
XI. Additional Demographic Items.
Teitelbaum’s phrase, "A region of low-native fertility combined with high immigration of high-fertility people does not make for compatible trend lines!"
Finally, this is all obviously dangerous territory, but the problem is not going to go away. Who can open it up? The question is analogous to Nixon’s opening of China: he could do it, Hubert Humphrey could not have. Similarly, the issues we’re touching on here must be broached by liberals. The conservatives simply cannot do it without tainting the whole subject.
I think the answers to many of these questions depend on how well people assimilate. This, in turn, depends heavily on whether the parent society has made up its mind that assimilation is a good thing (we’re confused on this point now), whether it works at assimilating newcomers (as Canada and Australia do by following them longitudinally), whether the people coming want to assimilate (not all of them do), and, even if all the factors are favorable, whether the numbers are small enough so as not to overwhelm the assimilative process.
Good luck to us all!
Intelligence Report
Summer 2002
If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.
