Leadership Conference on Civil Rights supports illegal immigration, misleads about hate crimes (SPLC, MALDEF, ADL, NCLR, NHMC...)

COVID-19 Response

Like everyone else, we urge you to wash your hands and engage in social distancing.

Unlike everyone else, we urge you to also help with this smart plan to get more tests, ventilators, and PPE. Everyone can do that plan right now, at home, in just 15 minutes.

If enough people help with the plan we can save lives. Take time out now and help get more desperately-needed supplies.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has released a new report called "Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America 2009" [1]. It's the latest salvo in the attempt by several far-left groups to support massive illegal immigration and to silence their critics. They name-check several of those groups, but their exact involvement in the report isn't clear; the mentions might just be boilerplate.

For just one example of how the LCCR is attempting to mislead, see the attached picture. The ominous-looking graph on the top (from the LCCR) shows anti-Hispanic hate crimes from 2003 to 2007. The graph on the bottom (created by me) uses the same data set, but shows earlier years. Note that 2001 was higher than 2007. And, note also that neither chart are adjusted for population. If that were done, the bottom chart would show that such crimes have actually declined as a percentage of the Hispanic population from 1995. About their misleading chart, they say:

The increasing number of shrill anti-Immigration reform commentaries from high profile national media personalities, including CNN's Lou Dobbs and Talk Show Network's The Savage Nation host Michael Savage, correlates closely with the increase in hate crimes against Hispanics.

The LCCR isn't just confused about correlation not equaling causation, they also don't explain what was happening in 2001; Dobbs had just returned to CNN and was hosting Moneyline. He didn't start his anti-illegal immigration show until 2003.

Another of their targets is FAIR, and they trot out an SPLC report and the usual smears, prefacing their SPLC excerpt with:

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) have become increasingly concerned about the virulent anti-immigrant and anti-Latino rhetoric employed by a handful of groups and coalitions that have tried to position themselves as legitimate, mainstream advocates against illegal immigration in America.

Whether those groups were involved in this report or are just mentioned in a misbegotten attempt to give the report credibility isn't known. Later, they also quote Alex Nogales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

[1] civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/escalating-violence.html


Nogales said, "We are very respectful of the First Amendment and free speech, but..." Very respectful? I would hate to see what he considers DISrespectful! Reminds me of 'We must enforce our immigration laws, BUT...' "...but the hateful rhetoric, particularly against the immigrant minority communities, espoused by irresponsible TV and radio talk show hosts on American airwaves needs to be addressed." Addressed by whom? The government, of course. "...petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to open an inquiry into hate speech on the nation's airwaves" To what end? Hey Mr. Respecter of the First Amendment, did you know that content-based regulation is unconstitutional? Of course anti-freedom people do, but they also know by pushing anyway they can chill speech in opposition to their agenda.

Compare to: http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007439.html Does this remind anyone else of Janet Murguia? She has made repeated statements about 'drawing a line' when free speech 'becomes hate speech'. Incredibly, the people interviewing her never ask her to clarify whether she means the government should be drawing that line. There is a clever First Amendment end-run coined 'assaultive speech'/ 'words that wound' etc. that 'hate speech' is really an action and thus not protected. The 'hate crime' harms a 'community' not just a single victim as a justification for enhanced criminal sentences. In a 'fact check' about Lou Dobbs, MALDEF says: 'When a statement that creates a foreseeable risk of harm is broadcasted [sic], therefore, the First Amendment does not protect the speakers and broadcasters from the consequences of their speech. Speakers and broadcasters who incite violence against immigrants and/or Latinos, for example, may be legally required to make injured parties whole through financial or other means.' When a hate crime is reported, these reports are quick to blame Lou Dobbs, FAIR, etc. The statistics they cite are quickly followed with a mention of Dobbs' reporting. They let it slip why they are willing to go to any length to smear in this statement: 'Together, FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA form the core of the nativist lobby in America. In 2007, they were key players in derailing bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that had been expected by many observers to pass.'

Congratulations, 24Ahead.com: http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/21/hate-bill-problemwhite-men-can-count/

Please read the literature and think about the issues carefully. A few clarifications. 1. The statistics that LCCR cites about the rise in hate crimes against Latinos come straight from a FBI report. 2. Content-based regulations actually are constitutional in certain contexts (think: no swear words on broadcast between 6 am and 10pm). See Pacifica v. FCC. 3. In any event the National Hispanic Media Coalition is not requesting content-based regulations. Read the "petition for inquiry, which, notably, is not "petition for rulemaking."