Friday, January 17, 2020
Jerry Kammer, senior research fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, has an op/ed in the New York Times today entitled "I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted." Judge the immigration views of Mr. Kammer for what they are. But also be aware that the Center for Immigration Studies has been characterized as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center;
"While [Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)] . . . has been on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) radar for years, what precipitated listing CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group for 2016 was its repeated circulation of white nationalist and antisemitic writers in its weekly newsletter and the commissioning of a policy analyst who had previously been pushed out of the conservative Heritage Foundation for his embrace of racist pseudoscience. These developments, its historical associations, and its record of publishing reports that hype the criminality of immigrants, are why CIS is labeled an anti-immigrant hate group."
Kammer has claimed that the labeling of the Center for Immigration Studies was a "smear" (see the video above) and that the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a "propaganda arm" of the National Council for La Raza.
I understand that the New York Times wants to present a diversity of views on immigration. But a national platform for the Center for Immigration Studies, a strident advocacy group that presses racial theme to the extent that it has been classified as a "hate group"?
UPDATE (Jan. 18, 6 a.m. PST): Ben Mathis-Lilley on Slate ("Times Taps White Nationalist Organization for Thought-Provoking Perspective on Immigration") analyzes Jerry Kammer's well-worn arguments for restricting immigration. His conclusion:
"The New York Times opinion section under editor James Bennet ostensibly aims to challenge the paper’s predominately liberal readers by presenting them with thoughtful critiques of their worldview. . . . The essay `I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted,' published in the Times Thursday, may represent the nadir of this approach. . . . The familiarity of the article's arguments is matched by the familiarity with its flaws."