Mark Krikorian on the open borders lobby
‘Hate Groups, Nativists, and Vigilantes’: Lou Dobbs and the pro-amnesty crowdâs campaign of vilificationBy Mark Krikorian
November 2009
Op-eds and Magazine Articles
National Review Online, November 13, 2009
Itâs not clear why Lou Dobbs resigned from CNN Wednesday. Fox said heâs not headed there, and from his comments it sounds to me like heâs going to run for office in New Jersey (though Bob Menendezâs seat, the next Senate opening, isnât up until 2012).
Be that as it may, itâs 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 heâd learned: âWe thought we were in a policy debate . . . And in fact we were in a cultural war.â
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 Obamaâs 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 âhate group.â The National Council of La Razaâs contribution was to start a campaign entitled We Can Stop the Hate, decrying the mainstream opposition to amnesty as a âsurge of hate and violenceâ caused by âcode words of hateâ peddled by âhate groups, nativists, and vigilantes.â And a new hard-left group, Americaâs Voice, was founded as a war room for the pro-amnesty faction; among other things, they hosted an online election for the âTop Anti-Immigrant Wolfâ (and included me among the nominees, though I havenât been informed if Iâve 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 Dobbsâs head. At the New York protest, a pastor from Spanish Harlem told the left-wing New America Media, âLou 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.â
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 âreckless beyond imaginingâ and that Dobbs in particular âis almost singlehandedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country.â
Along these same lines is Basta Dobbs, whose founder describes its target as âThe Most Dangerous Man for Latinos in America.â So We Might See, a ânational interfaith coalition for media justice,â joined with the National Hispanic Media Coalition to fight Dobbsâs âanti-immigrant hate speech,â not because itâs factually incorrect but because itâs a form of âmedia violence.â And the SPLCâs Mark Potok and others claim (here, for instance) that Dobbs is directly responsible for an increase in âhate crimesâ against Hispanics (the rate of such crimes actually went down, as FAIR points out in its debunking of the SPLCâs smears â but facts arenât the point here).
Itâs important to note that this campaign goes beyond mere name-calling. This isnât Obama as the Joker or Dick Cheney as the Prince of Darkness, Van Jones calling Republicans a**holes or Rep. Joe Wilsonâs âYou lie!â Those are all simply part of a boisterous, if indecorous, politics.
The pro-amnesty crowdâs demonization efforts, on the other hand, are clear incitements to violence. They canât claim that Lou Dobbs is a âterroristâ and that FAIR is responsible for people being killed in âhate crimesâ 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 hunterâs bullet (though at the time it wasnât 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 theyâre kooks on the fringe, and going after them is pointless precisely because theyâre so irrelevant. The mainstream figures, the targets of the amnesty crowdâs vilification, have always gone out of their way to avoid this sort of thing. Dobbsâs wife is Mexican-American, and heâs not even a restrictionist, just an âillegal/bad, legal/goodâ 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 ââNoâ to Immigrant Bashing.â And the whole thesis of my book is that the difference in immigration today is not that todayâs 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 itâs 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 â however measured the tone, however sober the argument â 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 Dobbsâs 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. HERE