The Sunday New York Times (4/17/11) ran a big front-page piece on John Tanton, founder of the anti-immigration organizations Federation for American Immigration Reform and Center for Immigration Studies. I guess it’s positive that someone in corporate media is finally paying attention to Tanton’s racism (long documented here at FAIR–1/1/93–and by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center–Winter/08), and reporter Jason DeParle does include a good deal of damning information about Tanton and some of his own racist words.
But he also manages to interview almost exclusively people currently or formerly affiliated with Tanton’s groups (six of these people in all) plus a few GOP officials–none of whom have anything bad to say about the Federation, CIS or Numbers USA (another Tanton-connected group), even if they’re mildly critical of Tanton himself. A single critic is quoted, Frank Sharry of the progressive immigration reform group America’s Voice. The result is that the piece essentially portrays Tanton as the only problem with these anti-immigrant groups, and though they won’t kick him off their boards, THEY’RE not actually racist themselves–they just roll their eyes at their racist founder and tolerate his eccentricities.
DeParle explained the trouble with critics of the groups:
Accusations of bigotry could alienate moderates the immigrant rights groups need. Allies of Dr. Tanton say their accusers are discrediting themselves with a guilt-by-association campaign that twists his ideas and projects them onto groups where, they say, his influence long ago waned.
The idea is attributed to allies of Tanton, but that’s the basic framing of the entire piece. If critics were given more space, they might have been able to point out that it’s not just a Tanton problem–although the fact that he remains on the board of the Federation ought to be plenty damning in itself. As the SPLC documents (3/16/10), the racism at the Federation and CIS extends far beyond Tanton, permeating the board, staff and programming. Mark Krikorian, executive director of CIS, wrote in the National Review Online (1/21/10) that
Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough…. Unlike Jamaicans and Bajans and Guadeloupeans, et al., after experiencing the worst of tropical colonial slavery, the Haitians didn’t stick around long enough to benefit from it. (Haiti became independent in 1804.). And by benefit I mean develop a local culture significantly shaped by the more-advanced civilization of the colonizers.
Dan Stein, president of the Federation, was asked by Tucker Carlson (Wall Street Journal, 10/2/97) to respond to a quote from another Federation board member, eugenicist Garrett Hardin, who had warned that “breeders” were reproducing uncontrollably “in Third World countries,” and that the “less intelligent” should be discouraged from “breeding.” Stein’s response: “Yeah, so what? What is your problem with that? Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible, and not subsidizing those with high ones?”
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC, 4/29/10) recently confronted Stein with this quote and other evidence of racism at the Federation compiled by the SPLC. Stein claimed that all of the SPLC’s factual allegations about his group were wrong. The next night (4/30/10), Maddow factchecked Stein’s claims, demonstrating that he, in Maddow’s words, “was flat-out, totally shamelessly uncomplicatedly lying.”
That’s the kind of reporting that needs to be done on Stein and his colleagues.



You don’t have to wear a white hood to have a black heart.
just trivia but i say a headline that read “NYT Article Gives Anti-Immigrant Group FAIR a Pass.”
Needless to say i did a double take….until i saw that fair stood for “federation for american immigration reform”
Kris Kobach is the lawyer for the Federation for American Immigration Reform and was elected Kansas Secretary of State in 2010. He has used that position to successfully lobby for a voter ID law that risks suppressing voter turnout. To see a complete debunking of his comical exaggerations on the extent of voter fraud in Kansas read my post at http://jasonbeets.blogspot.com/2011/04/voter-fraud-exaggerations-and.html
julie,
judging from all the pingbacks on this tread, you got the racists’ attention
Indeed. Mark Krikorian declares that DeParle’s piece “isn’t so bad.” NYT mission accomplished–write a story about the right’s racism without pissing off the right.
For a watchdog group that’s supposed to expose bias, the title to this entry reveals quite some bias. â┚¬Ã…“Anti-Immigrant Groupâ┚¬Ã‚Â? Why is it so many left-leaning sites use the label â┚¬Ã…“anti-immigrantâ┚¬Ã‚Â? The problem isn’t immigration. It’s illegal immigration.
True, there are those with true racist and xenophobic inclinations who are against any form of immigration. But save for that fringe minority, most are simply against illegal immigration. You cannot simply dismiss an entire side to an issue due to a few racists. Racism present or not, illegal immigration is still a problem, and labeling everyone who recognizes that problem as â┚¬Ã…“anti-immigrantâ┚¬Ã‚ does not help.
BlameThe1st wrote: Racism present or not, illegal immigration is still a problem,
___________________________________________________
A lot of people around here disagree with that statement. FAIR has pointed out in past pieces that there’s not a heckuva a lot of evidence to back up that assertion– at least in regards to what is traditionally thought-of as a “problem.” It’s illegal, all right; but that doesn’t give ya any insight about whether it’s a “problem” or not. There’s lots of things that are illegal that aren’t really a societal “problem” in any meanigful definition of the term.
Rather, a lot of people see the willingness to classify immigration as a problem as a manifestation of racism– “those immigrants don’t look like me, therefore immigration must be a problem.” If that’s the conscious or unconscious thinking behind the anti-immigration movement, then you’ll end up finding a problem where none, in fact, exists. Mind ya, I’m not entirely convinced that this theory is sound, but it’s how the counter-argument to your statement goes.
And if you think it’s just illegal immigration that draws fire, I’m not so sure that’s accurate, There’s an Army program that can get soldiers expedited citizenship. It receives a surprizing– at least to me– amount of criticism, if the blogoshpere is anything to go by. I don’t know that anybody studied it in-depth, though.