Photo Credit: Tony Craddock / Shutterstock
President Trump’s far-right immigration policies have US corporate media reaching to the white jingoist fringes of the faux-think tank universe to yield “both sides” coverage on the topic.
The Center for Immigration Studies has, given Jan 2017, taken an outsized role in American media as Trump’s go-to defender for his sincerely white jingoist immigration policies. There’s one problem with this: The Center for Immigration Studies is, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a hate group with a long, documented story of nativist and white jingoist leanings. Over the past month alone, heading papers like the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal have increased and normalized CIS, using them to “balance” out their stories on Trump’s anti-immigrant initiatives:
- “‘There were no safeguards [in the wedding program] to make certain they weren’t displacing or undercutting US workers,’ pronounced Jessica Vaughan, an immigration consultant at the Center for Immigration Studies, which backs boundary on authorised as good as illegal immigration.” (Wall Street Journal, 12/14/17)
- “‘The relatives that would commence this hazardous tour to the United States would be reduction likely to do it if they knew they would be distant from their kids,’ pronounced Andrew R. Arthur, a proprietor associate at the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks to revoke immigration.’” (Washington Post, 12/21/17)
- “Mr. Trump ‘has taken the shackles off,’ pronounced Steven A. Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, an advocacy organisation that favors some-more boundary on immigration.” (New York Times, 12/23/17)
- “‘As a unsentimental matter, it just kind of swept those cases under the rug,’ pronounced [Andrew] Arthur, now a associate at Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions.” (Washington Post, 1/5/18)
- “‘We can help people closer to where their homes are,’ pronounced Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports restrictions on authorised and illegal immigration. ‘That creates it much easier for them to go home if conditions permit.’” (Wall Street Journal, 1/7/18)
- “But Mark Krikorian, executive executive of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors restrictions on immigration, pronounced the Trump administration was rightly abiding by the strange vigilant of the program.” (New York Times, 1/8/18)
CIS’s Jason Richwine (Mother Jones, 5/8/13): “You have Jews with the top normal IQ, customarily followed by East Asians, then you have non-Jewish whites, Hispanics, and then blacks. These are genuine differences, and they’re not going to go divided tomorrow, and for that reason we have to residence them in the immigration discussions.”
“Favoring restrictions on immigration” and “seeks to revoke immigration,” of course, would be impossibly insincere ways to report a hatred group. SPLC isn’t the final word on either a organisation ought be seen as distant outward the mainstream, but its logic on CIS is compelling. Heidi Beirich, executive of SPLC’s Intelligence Project, laid it out last year (America’s Voice, 2/15/17):
CIS has a prolonged story of bigotry, starting with its founder, white nationalist John Tanton, but in 2016, the organisation hit a new low. CIS consecrated Jason Richwine, a man whose PhD thesis endorses the thought of IQ differences between the races, to write mixed reports and blog pieces for the organization. The organisation also continued to disseminate nonconformist and antisemitic authors to its supporters and, finally, staffer John Miano attended the white jingoist organisation VDARE’s Christmas party in December.
As PolitiFact (3/22/17), a factchecking organization, remarkable when it examined the issue of CIS “hate group” status:
CIS circulates a weekly email listserv with dozens of links to articles about immigration. The SPLC pronounced that these emails have highlighted articles by “white nationalists” such as Paul Weston, a Holocaust denier, and articles by American Renaissance, run by Jared Taylor, who has done nonconformist statements about blacks. One article, entitled “Voting for Hillary Equals More Muslim Killings of Americans,” claimed that Clinton’s partner “works fervently for Sharia law in America,” and that Trump would give the United States a possibility to “survive this immigration invasion.”
Just as with NPR’s faith on an SPLC-labeled “extremist” group, the deeply Islamophobic Center for Security Policy, to yield “balance” on the issue of Iran as it pertains to Trump’s extremism (FAIR.org, 2/7/17), the tactic of racist, xenophobic and undisguised white jingoist elements flitting as mainstream by simply rebranding themselves as a generic-sounding consider tank with “institute” or “center” in its name is a attribution one. This has always been a selling ploy of far-right groups, but the arise of Trump—whose candidacy and presidency are tangible by white jingoist dog whistles and pandering—makes the use that much some-more dangerous.
Major outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are branch to nonconformist groups to yield the disguise of change as the supervision moves serve to the distant right on immigration. This desire speaks to the pitfalls of “balance” as an overarching principle. One of the some-more pointed ways the media normalize Trump is by normalizing formerly border groups that have grown some-more absolute in his orbit. Not giving these hatred groups a height would be ideal; disclosing their white jingoist ties when quoting them should be the unclothed minimum.
Adam Johnson is a contributing researcher at FAIR and contributing author for AlterNet. Follow him on Twitter @AdamJohnsonNYC.