SPLC tries to stifle FAIR (Mexico links, CAP)

Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center offers "The Teflon Nativists/FAIR Marked by Ties to White Supremacy" (splcenter . org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846) with the news that it's "official": the SPLC has declared the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) to be a "hate group". They mention how much press coverage FAIR has received, and they include a quote from Henry Fernandez of the Center for American Progress which helps show that their goal is to stifle FAIR:

"The sad fact is that attempts to reform our immigration system are being sabotaged by organizations fueled by hate... Many anti-immigrant leaders have backgrounds that should disqualify them from even participating in mainstream debate, yet the American press quotes them without ever noting their bizarre and often racist beliefs."

I'd imagine that the MSM will just eat this up without even looking into it, resulting in fewer press mentions and a reduced voice for those of us who support our laws. I'll let FAIR speak for themselves (if they deign to do so), but I'll point out a few things:

1. The SPLC is indirectly linked to the Mexican government (see their name's link above); I've never seen that mentioned in any of the "news" reports that take them as a semi-official source. Fernandez is also indirectly linked to that government (see his name's link).

2. Part of their designation rests on the fact that FAIR has received funding from an "infamous, racist eugenics foundation." That's a reference to the Pioneer Fund; in the same decade as they gave money to FAIR they also gave money to Stanford, the Tel Aviv University, the Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of Greater New York, and others.

3. Another part is because FAIR has supposedly put forth "racist conspiracy theories about Mexico's secret designs on the American Southwest". I don't know what FAIR has said, but the Mexican government has explicitly stated that they want to meddle in our internal politics and will be using non-profit organizations to do so. That translate to obtaining political power inside the U.S. and, should that process not be stopped, some form of de jure or de facto condominium.

4. Yet another part is because FAIR supposedly has an "alternative theory alleging secret plans to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada". I guess the SPLC missed Congressional testimony from an elite group advocating for that scheme, and all the other flashing neon signs pointing in that direction: North American Union.

UPDATE: FAIR responds with just some of the things the SPLC got wrong here. Note especially this:

In light of the fact that FAIR has requested the SPLC to correct these errors on at least three different occasions dating back to 2001, the publication of this erroneous information appears to be willful and malicious.

UPDATE 2: On a sidenote, the SPLC's Intelligence Report has won the 2007 "In-Depth/Investigative Reporting" award from the Utne Reader (utne.com/print-article.aspx?id=13124).


Does the SPLC hate everybody? Is there any organization that has NOT made their list? Sorry, Henry. But just saying that our immigration system needs reform doesn't make it so. Our current laws are just fine, thank you. Most Americans already agree that there should be reasonable limits placed on immigration, and that illegal aliens should receive neither amnesty nor reward. Thats how our law has operated for over 200 years. Sort of proud of that tradition, and the reasons behind it. Moreover, if current laws were actually enforced, there would be no problem. THAT is closer to the mainstream view than yours ever will be. The view of the tiny minority who wish to be exempt from our laws, trying to spin issues out of thin air are the one that should be disqualified from the American dialog. The only thing worth debating is why we should tolerate an executive branch that refuses to perform their half of the job.


People who believe in enforcement have largely been removed from the mainstream newspaper debate. Being quoted by mainstream reporters is not the same as actually being a participant in the debate. How many newspapers have absolutely nobody who believes in enforcement writing for them and dozens who, if not rhetorically, then functionally oppose it? Given the size of the population that believes in enforcement, this ought to strike any decent American as nothing short of outrageous. How can democracy function without the ability of its citizens to hear ideas and arguments side by side? Why is lack of that tolerable? Having even one person per paper willing to challenge the usual immigration consensus within the organizations might change the politics of immigration in this country dramatically.

'disqualify them from even participating in mainstream debate' Good catch--that's what SPLC is all about. They have a 'Teaching Tolerance' curriculum they push but are about the most INtolerant bunch you'll ever encounter. Their strategy is pretty obvious: smear those whom they disagree with. Judging by this article, their favorite immigration strategy is calling people 'nativists'. Seriously, that one article must use the word abut 3 dozen times and in all different ways! If you use a word accusatorily that often and that indiscriminately, does it even have an effect? Notice they never give any, let alone precise, definition of the word or say why such a belief disqualifies you from 'participating in mainstream debate'. It's just like their 'hate group' label they constantly apply. They arrogantly act like their proclamation speaks for itself. That alone won't work on people who think for themselves. As for 'nativist, does the word pertain to Catholics, race, aliens, acculturation? It's just an all-purpose smear I guess. Of the uses possibly applicable to immigration, there is no clear definition of the word but it sounds bad so we see the charge repeated over and over. I think if you're going to use a word to smear people the onus is on you to explain what you mean and why it is so bad. That's just being fair but smearing is rarely fair. But if they want to throw around a word which has no precise meaning and no one really understands, how will that convince anyone? You're a NATIVIST! Uh, whatever, dudes.

I hate the SPLC. I hate anyone who respects them. I hate anyone who favors the immigration invasion - because it's obvious they hate me and my family.

The SPLC tries to push an agenda by conflating true hate organizations, which fortunately have minimal support or influence, with any organization that is it disagrees with. This is quite despicable. Even the liberal Harper's magazine took it to task with its article "The Church of Morris Dees," identifying it as a fund raising machine. Its ability to do that is understandable given that its supporters come from liberalism, which unfortunately has descended into such a state as to become synonymous with the suppression of opposing speech. Even if an organization has someone in their past that said or did things that people might not like, the pertinent question is what they are doing today. And the reverse is true with other organizations that might have originated by supporting issues that are generally supported now. That shouldn't entitle them to a pass where their current manifestations are above questioning.