Dividing our Home Against
Itself: Neo-Conservative Immigration Reform Lite Groups - -Mass
Immigration Management the Neo-Conservative way
Well, they have done it yet again -
Another session of Congress has closed without any reduction
in the legal immigration flow of over one million per year.
And those two Neo-Conservative Immigration Reform Lite Groups
we've been talking about for the last few months were again
instrumental in impeding any reductions.
So, it's time to name them as a first step toward a solution
to the mass immigration problem. But, first, it is important
to say why, so we need to go back a bit:
Harken back to the 1950s and
early 1960s, if you will, to those pre-mass immigration days.
Our Home then, our USA, was prosperous and relatively uncrowded
with only a bit more than half of the 296 million population
we have today. Then we were committed to being internally united
as one people - e pluribus unum. We had our problems
and challenges - Our Home USA then was not fully paradise. But
ours was still a country where, for most Americans, one working
parent could make a living wage for an entire family, and take
a two-week vacation in the family car.
The Great Flood
But beginning with the 1965 Immigration
Act, the doors of our home were opened to a flood of mass immigration.
Our Home had begun to be changed forever. It is not too much
of an oversimplification to say that those floodgates were opened
because some of the inhabitants of the Master Bedrooms (Washington,
D.C.) wanted to provide cheap labor and higher profits to please
the cheap-labor lobby. And other Master Bedroom inhabitants
- - certain professional ethnic group leaders - - got what they
wanted: more of their own kind in our home in order to build
their power base. Yet, still others had more sinister motives.
They didn't like the America of the 1950s and early 1960s: united,
prosperous, and free. They saw our Home as a mere house - -
a mere "proposition country" populated by two-dimensional
economic men and women, devoid of any traditions and institutions
worth saving - and they were out to wreck it through mass immigration
and multiculturalism. They wanted our United States to become borderless, and cut adrift from its cultural moorings.
So, throughout the 70s, 80s,
and 90s the legal immigration floodgates were opened ever wider,
and the flood of people from all over the world flowed through
the doors and windows of our national home. The "cheap-labor
lobby," and the "professional ethnic lobbies",
and the "subvert the USA lobbies" all got what they
Indeed, the gates were opened so wide to legal immigration that,
until recently, this flood of legal immigration - averaging
over 1.2 million a year -- was nearly two-thirds of the TOTAL
immigration flow. Counting legal and many more "intending-to-be-permanent"
illegal immigrants and their children, fully 90% of our home
country's population growth of 3.2 million a year now results
With a growth rate so high that the "doubling time"
is about 60 years, the United States population is growing at
a faster rate than that of any other industrialized country
in the world. Our population is headed for half a billion by
2050, and more than one billion in 2100, if current trends
By the 1970s within our increasingly overflowing home, well-intentioned
individuals realized that the great flood was overflowing our
home, and that we had to do something to stop it. Several organizations
with "immigration reform" as their goal sprang up.
But the flood was ever increasing. By the 1980s, the "open-house
open-borders" lobby pushed not just to open the floodgates
wider, but used various pretexts to funnel whole rivers of humanity
into our home. After all, the people who came wanted jobs and
a better way of life, and shouldn't we as (apparently) prosperous
people give it to them?
In 1986, the USA enacted the first amnesty of illegal aliens.
These first 3.6 million amnestied illegals then wanted to bring
their families - who then pressured, along with the cheap-labor
lobby and the rest of the open-border lobbies, for even more
amnesties and higher levels of admissions for their group. Clever
tactic that - - relentlessly pushing for successive big comprehensive
amnesty bills, and using the pressure that push generated
to get additional amnesties some lucky years, and to get other
bills they liked along the way.
Attempting to Shut the Floodgates With A Home Divided
In the mid-to-late 1980s, there
began to be a divergence among the immigration "reformers"
- - it was almost too subtle to notice at first, but it was
the first sign of a "house divided."
In one camp, one Washington, D.C. based, "inside-the-beltway"
ostensible "reform" organization started to emphasize
the approach of trying to channel and mop up the flood in each
one of the rooms of our gigantic national home. Immigration
management increasingly became their emphasis, and that
conveniently mirrored the emphasis of Congress and the Administration
which they indiscriminately cultivated.
Note that the switch from an immigration reduction
to an "immigration management" approach represents
an important change in both numbers and principle. Needless
to say, no great effort was made to put their members on notice
about this crucial shift.
While some activists were engaged primarily in mopping up the
floor, trying to manage the flow of mass immigration while not
actually stopping it, the others, genuine reduction advocates
at the grassroots level, emphasized the approach of trying to
shut the floodgates by advocating a moratorium. The real reformers
increasingly emphasized halting the flow - shutting the floodgates,
turning off the tap.
Many sincere U.S. population stabilization/immigration reduction
grassroots activists joined one or both groups of "reformers,"
not knowing the difference between the two.
By 1990, the open-borders lobby had become so powerful they
were able to increase legal immigration by 40%, to what has
subsequently averaged over one million new immigrants a year.
The rivers flowing into our national home were filled, by then,
with flotillas of people, literally boat-people coming in from
the Caribbean, across the Rio-Grande, and by other routes. Responding
to this flood, in the early 90s, the two Washington, D.C. based
"Reform Lite" groups for all practical purposes gave
up trying to stop or substantially lessen the flow, and instead
adopted the stance of mass-immigration-flow management.
This was the first clear signal that the "Reform Lite"
groups had adopted a Neo-Conservative approach to immigration:
Don't try to stop the flow - - just manage it. This approach
had many benefits for the Neo-Con Lite groups because their
strategies -- working hard on peripheral bills relating to the
immigration system, tightening visa restrictions, increasing
border patrol numbers -- did not seriously inconvenience powerful
Meanwhile, the moratorium or "shut the floodgates"
camp saw that the Neo-Cons "mass immigration management"
was not all bad. But it did not reduce the legal flow by
one single person! In fact, this legal immigration flow
problem could be solved by one act of Congress. But the Neo-Con
Lite organizations would not make stopping or even reducing
the flow a priority - they only gave lip service to reducing
the legal immigration flow.
In sharp contrast, Carrying Capacity Network [CCN] and what
was later to become its ASAP! Coalition (Alliance for Stabilizing
America's Population) allies worked very hard to shut the mass
immigration floodgates. They were able to encourage heroic Congressman
Bob Stump (R-Ariz) to actually push hard for his moratorium
bill which would have enacted a moratorium on all legal immigration
in excess of 300,000 per year. In 1996, over 75 members of the
House of Representatives signed on to that bill, mainly as a
result of CCN and its allies. Their lobbying plus the media
sensation created by CCN's Huddle Studies on the Costs
of Mass Immigration and CCN's Diversity Coalition for
an Immigration Moratorium were the primary causes in the early
1990s of creating the pressure on Congress and the Clinton Administration
to shut the floodgates and dam the flow. Even the Clinton Administration
was convinced to take a position that legal immigration should
be reduced from approximately a million a year down to about
The First Neo-Con Lite Group Betrayal
So, we genuine immigration reductionists (as opposed to the Neo-Con Lite "flow management reform"
groups) had the "Big Mo" in 1995 - 1996. We had momentum
but, in a great surprise to all of us, the primary Neo-Con Reform
Lite organization betrayed both Representative Bob Stump and
the 75 (seventy-five!) members of Congress who were co-sponsoring
his moratorium bill, as well as the Clinton Administration.
These Neo-Cons did an about-face (from their position of nominally
supporting a moratorium early in that Congressional session)
and, instead, supported a bill which would only have cut immigration
to about 780,000 annually.
This cut the legs out from under both the Stump bill (which
would have enacted a moratorium on all immigration in excess
of 300,000 per year) and the Clinton Administration's proposed
600,000 annually. And, of course in so doing, that Neo-Con Lite
group destroyed all the pressure (that had taken years to achieve)
for actual reduction in immigration numbers. [Indeed, one of
the benefits of pushing for a moratorium is that it creates
pressure to pass other reduction bills, even if the moratorium
itself does not pass.]
After this disaster, this Neo-Con Lite organization based in
Washington, D.C., could truly claim to be a "player"
on the Hill - - a position to which they had always aspired
- - but a position which, to the grassroots activists, seems
not quite honorable.
This first Neo-Con Lite group was joined in the mid-1990s by
another organization, which CCN referred to one year ago as
"Dim Lite." Dim Lite also encouraged the "mop
up the floor, but don't shut the flood gates" approach,
led by an Executive Director who described himself, more than
once (in public yet!), as an "extreme moderate" incrementalist.
More recently (on November 10, 2004), speaking on national TV, this Dim Lite group Executive Director stated that the 15
million illegal aliens now in our country should NOT be deported. His response was, predictably, a qualified NO, typical of the Neo-Conservative immigration management position.
Genuine reductionists, like CCN and its ASAP! Coalition allies,
were (and are) puzzled by the Neo-con Lite incremental approach
since it has never produced any reductions whatsoever. In any
event, after the 1996 battle resulted in no reduction of legal
immigration, and after Europe started to tighten its immigration
laws, some of the flotilla of prospective immigrants to Europe
migrated from their positions off the south coast of France,
and elsewhere, and descended upon the United States. But, Neo-Con
Lite and Dim Lite continued to push their incremental "mass
immigration management" approach, and the flood into all
the rooms of our homeland USA continued to increase.
Hallmarks of Neo-Conservatism
Just as traditional Conservatives'
commitment to Balanced Budgets, Limited Government, Non-Interventionism
abroad, and low levels of immigration at Home has succumbed
to the Neo-Conservative massive deficits, pre-emptive war, Big
Government, and mass immigration, so too have genuine immigration
reductionists been battered by the two well-heeled Neo-Con Lite
groups that refuse to focus on legal immigration reduction.
[Never mind that the Neo-Con Lite groups did not advertise
loudly and clearly (or at all, as far as we can tell) to their
supporters that immigration management had become their primary
goal. After all, giving only lip service to reducing legal
immigration is less controversial, makes raising funds from
publicity-conscious Foundations easier, and enhances one's "player"
status on the Hill, where Congressmen are pleased to be relieved
of being pressured to take hard positions.]
For further information on how neo-conservatives have captured
two of the largest organizations in the immigration "reform"
movement, as well as a more detailed account of the many ways
in which these two groups are pushing a Neo-Conservative Agenda,
be sure to read CCN's 2003 Alerts which are cited at the end
of this article.
In 1998, a courageous reductionist was elected to Congress who
recognized the necessity of pushing to shut the floodgates.
In 1999, Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado introduced the
first immigration moratorium bill since Congressman Stump had
done it. But, in the 1999-2000 session of Congress, neither
Neo-Con Lite nor Dim Lite made any significant effort to push
for that moratorium bill.
Instead, Neo-Con Lite and Dim Lite continued to work on the
periphery, pushing immigration management bills. Indeed, we
have no evidence that either Neo-Con Lite or Dim Lite ever seriously
pushed the moratorium bill in the 1999-2000 session of Congress.
By and by, these two "inside-the-beltway" Neo-Con
groups grew ever more comfortable schmoozing with politicians,
and even more comfortable with their Neo-Conservatism. Indeed,
the head of Dim Lite bragged that he had an extra office "right
on the Hill." And, as far as genuine immigration reduction
was concerned - - that issue was left to the poorly funded,
or un-funded, grassroots activist groups - - many of whom were
members of the ASAP! Coalition.
This deflection of attention from a goal of central importance,
immigration reduction, to a peripheral issue, immigration flow
management, is a prime characteristic of neo-conservatism.
Meanwhile, legal immigration into our home the USA increased,
year after year, and grassroots immigration reduction activists
across the country were getting overwhelmed and finding the
Neo-Con groups increasingly unresponsive to their grassroots
The Dim Lite Group's Colossal Betrayal
Worse yet, during the 2001-2002
session, the Executive Director of the Dim Lite group, the
self-proclaimed "extreme moderate," engineered a colossal
betrayal of the reductionist cause. He sent out an email
urging his supporters to not support the Tancredo moratorium
bill. Instead, he asked his members to support what he claimed
was a "better" bill, the Gekas bill, that was on its
way to Committee.
Had the Gekas bill moved through Congress without amendment, it would have achieved, at best, a 20% reduction in legal immigration.
Yet Dim Lite claimed this was better than the 75% reduction
the Tancredo bill would have achieved! What could better
demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of the immigration "incremental
flow management" approach? Only the leader of a truly Neo-Conservative
group would claim that a 20% reduction bill was better than
a 75% reduction bill.
Because the Gekas bill would not have done anything significant
about shutting the floodgates, it did not receive significant
support. And, perhaps because he gave his constituents no reason
to support his "milquetoast" position on immigration,
Representative Gekas failed to win re-election to Congress.
Once again, Neo-Con Lite and Dim Lite failed to put any significant
energy into pushing any bill which would have actually reduced
legal immigration. Instead they pushed hard at the peripheral
"immigration management" bills and bills relating
to illegal immigration - important, to be sure, but not as important
as reducing the legal flow.
Remember, the neo-conservative approach is to deflect
a program away from its original goal and over a cliff into
The Open Borders Lobby Loves these Neo-Con Lite Groups
So, of course, the Open Borders
lobbies love the Neo-Con Lite groups. Indeed, based on their
actions, one could reasonably conclude that the Open Borders
lobbies have infiltrated the Boards and senior staffs of both
these Neo-Con organizations. Is it an accident - or evidence
of a cozy relationship - that of the top ten immigration "reform"
groups nationally, ranked according to funding, these two are
at the very top?
Funny, isn't it, how if you go with the flow, helping manage
the mass immigration flow, that is, you are able to raise more
money? It must be said that some of the people at Neo-Con Lite
and Dim Lite, particularly the mid-level staff, are sincere
about U.S. population stabilization and immigration reduction.
Some of them haven't been around long enough to see the Big
Picture - - that, in spite of their well-intentioned efforts, they are pushing a futile and subversive deflection instead
of putting their energy, commitment, and idealism into reducing
Meanwhile, the flood continues and the resulting population
growth overshoots the carrying capacity of our National Home.
If one assumes that approximately half of illegal aliens [or
1.5 million] come planning to stay (and in fact are able to
do so), then legal immigration of 1.2 million annually accounts
for nearly half of all immigration - - and many more of the
'anchor' or seed immigrants. Illegal immigration thrives on,
and is facilitated by, the existence of large communities of
legal immigrants, which provide a foothold, safety, and information
about both jobs and pulling the ropes of the welfare system.
Bottom line: Neo-Con Lite groups are diverting energy and
attention away from the task of reducing mass legal immigration.
A Winning Strategy
CCN and its ASAP! Coalition allies
have a different approach which could work if Neo-Con Lite and
Dim Lite organizations did not, in effect, veto a moratorium
(and, therefore veto significant reduction bills) in every session
of Congress by pushing for the peripheral "management"
bills that accomplish little or nothing. How so?
Pushing for a moratorium on all immigration in excess of 100,000
a year, and giving the reason - - no higher number can ever
result in U.S. population stabilization - - is essential. Otherwise
you are just pushing for reductions of some other arbitrary
number. Not to mention undercutting those who are pushing for
a moratorium. Most important, pushing for a moratorium creates
pressure to pass other "good" bills, and to stop "bad"
ones, even if a moratorium bill itself does not pass, any time
So the key strategic point is that one must push for a moratorium regardless of the likelihood, at any particular time, of getting
And getting a moratorium enacted is not out of the question.
Should our National Home fall on seriously hard economic times
anytime soon, the pressures to close America's borders and save
American jobs would quickly increase enormously. Obtaining a
moratorium would then be possible. But we surely won't get one
unless we push for it now.
Neo-Cons Rebuff CCN's Rational Approach
Several years ago, we started
privately sharing these observations about their flawed strategy
with the leaders of these two "inside the beltway cocktail
party circuit" Neo-Con Lite and Dim Lite groups. They had
no counterargument to pushing for a moratorium then, nor do
they have any such argument today. Their only retort is that
pushing for a moratorium is unrealistic and that "you'll
never get one." That is a self-fulfilling prophecy so long
as they just keep raising more money from unknowing activists,
putting their energy into "immigration management"
bills, and very little energy, if any, into bills that would
reduce mass immigration.
Our attempts to reason with the leaders of these groups have
been to no avail. We've politely made the arguments, identified
the flaws in their approach - - we even did it systematically
last year (politely refusing to reveal their identities) after
their refusal to push the moratorium bills.
Wanting only to change their policies, we decided over a year
ago not to name them, but to critique their policies through
our widely applauded Neo-Con Lite and Dim Lite Alerts so the
focus would be on policy alone. Still, nothing changed, and
we have another year with no reductions, and no prospect of
reductions. All that money and support that comes from schmoozing
inside the beltway must be comforting, but these two Neo-Con
Lite groups have understandably infuriated grassroots activists,
and have undercut their efforts as well (see below).
After 35 years (combined) of Neo-Con Lite's and Dim Lite's reform
effort, resulting in no reductions, don't you think that a different
approach is essential? We do!
So, it's time to name these groups. If you are not part of the
solution, you are part of the problem.
We've got a flood going here - we need to shut the floodgates
- not merely manage the flow. Just one more thing (before naming
them) since genuine reductionists need to know what the problem
is. It is important to see how they fit into the overall
context of neo-conservative organizations - a part of the larger
neo-conservative movement, which has transformed the traditional
conservative movement (characterized decades ago by its
commitment to very low levels of immigration). So, consider
Compelling Evidence about Neo-Cons in Last Year's Alerts
The nature of Neo-conservatism
and the immigration reduction movement is described in detail
in the Neo-Con Lite and Dim Lite Alerts we sent out over a year
ago. We made the case very effectively last year. These organizations,
wittingly or not, are at the very least, not helpful, and, at
the very worst, impeding genuine immigration reduction efforts.
So, it is important to re-read these Alerts reprinted from a
year ago so that you will have the background information which
supports our position that they are obstacles to real reductions.
Perhaps now they will adopt a different approach. Surely, if
they do not adopt a different approach, getting mass immigration
reductions will be much harder. The flood will continue to over-flowing
- - our Home will have more than half-a-billion by 2050, and
a billion by 2100. The USA may then no longer be a country in
which any of us would want to live.
The "Defining Moments" of the Neo-Con Lite Groups
So, we proceed to name these
groups by recounting their "Defining Moments":
1) In 1996, FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform,
undercut Representative Bob Stump, seventy-five members of Congress,
and the Clinton Administration who, respectively, were pushing
a moratorium on immigration in excess of 300,000 and an immigration
level of 600,000. FAIR pushed, instead, a bill that would have
allowed about 780,000 into the United States annually. This
action fatally undercut both the conservative Representative
Stump and his supporters, and the "liberal" Clinton
2) In the 2001 - 2002 session, Congressman Tancredo introduced
his "Moratorium" bill. FAIR not only did not push it, but we can find no evidence that they even mentioned
it! Indeed, NONE of FAIR's listed goals for the
year 2003 (published in FAIR's Immigration Report, February,
2003, advocated any bill reducing legal immigration.
1) In the 2001-2002 session of Congress, NumbersUSA sent out
an Email encouraging its members not to support Congressman
Tancredo's moratorium bill, but, instead, to support what they
called, incredibly, a "better bill" - - the Gekas
bill which would at best have reduced immigration, rather arbitrarily,
by only about 20% a year. To add insult to injury, they sent
out this email at a time when CCN and its ASAP! Coalition allies
were successfully garnering increasing Congressional co-sponsorship
for Congressman Tancredo's moratorium bill. Their push for the
pathetic Gekas bill successfully undercut our efforts to gain
support for the moratorium bill - truly a "defining moment"
for the neo-conservative NumbersUSA. And,
2) On November 10, 2004, the NumbersUSA Executive Director stated
on national television he was NOT in favor of deporting the
millions of illegal aliens in the USA.
These were, indeed, the defining moments in the efforts
of FAIR and NumbersUSA ostensible effort to reduce mass immigration, but were by no means the only evidence of their Neo-Con mass
immigration management approach. The evidence (which bolsters
the case that these organizations are mass immigration management
organizations - managing the flood - rather than grassroots
organizations that are trying to shut the floodgates) is in
the CCN Alerts from Fall 2003. You can access the following
Carrying Capacity Network Alerts on our website at www.carryingcapacity.org,
or you may obtain them by emailing us at firstname.lastname@example.org:
Unique Opportunity For Immigration Reduction: If We Push
in the Right Direction"
"Reform Lite Sell-Out, "Dim Lite Group Undercuts
Immigration Reduction Effort, Again"
"Neo-Con Reform Lite Group Undermines Immigration
Reduction Efforts - Again!"
Addendum Regarding the 2003-2004
Session of Congress
FAIR and NumbersUSA Effort on HR10 and S-2845.
HR 10 and its Senate companion
bill S-2845 (which failed to pass before Congress adjourned
for Thanksgiving) were a mixed bag.
FAIR and NumbersUSA made a considerable effort to keep the immigration
management provisions - - e.g., tighter visa controls, and greater
ability to deport illegal aliens - - from being stripped from
the bill: worthwhile goals in themselves [Note: As we go to
press on this Alert, the ultimate outcome of these bills is
still uncertain. But however the issues are resolved in Congress,
the following observations are meritorious.]
But, we have to agree with Congressman Ron Paul's "The
Liberty Committee" that the harm which could be done by
the other provisions of the bill - - the enactment of a National
I.D. Card and a National Database (for U.S. Citizens, yet!)
far outweighed the "good" provisions of the bill.
In any event, Representative Paul's group is certainly correct
when it says "
we ALREADY HAVE all the laws on the
books necessary to close the borders, end illegal immigration,
and deport every illegal alien
And, yet, it is not happening
We note, of course, it is not happening because:
1) These two Neo-Con groups refuse to push a moratorium on legal
immigration which would generate pressure to enforce laws against
illegal immigration. Indeed "The Liberty Committee's"
essential point cannot be overemphasized: we already have all the laws on the books necessary to close the borders
Thus, FAIR and NumbersUSA's overwhelmingly primary focus of
tinkering with these laws is misplaced. What we really need
is an incentive for the Administration to enforce those
laws - that incentive would be a serious push to enact a moratorium
on legal immigration in excess of 100,000 per year. When faced
with a cut in their legal flow of "cheap labor," the
cheap labor lobby will again try to deflect attention onto the
need to reduce the illegal flow, and the Administration would
be encouraged to oblige.
2) Because FAIR and NumbersUSA focus on these and other immigration
management provisions, there is little incentive for grassroots
activists to get behind them since these provisions would not
do anything to lessen the flow, and
3) Organizations like FAIR have long favored a National I.D.
Card, a position which is a typical Neo-Conservative "Big
Intrusive Government" policy position. FAIR simply has
no problem with the Big Government, flow-management approach.
The hour is late. The mass immigration flotilla has received
increasing resistance in Europe, and has moved from the south
coast of France to off the coast and borders of the United States. The Neo-Con groups that we have named have most assuredly
facilitated this development. The boat people are arriving
in increasing numbers, and it is time to focus, almost exclusively,
on shutting the floodgates through a moratorium. In that way,
we might actually get a few reductions.
We encourage you to support CCN and its ASAP! Coalition allies
- all the organizations which have signed on to a 4-point platform
where the primary emphasis is on advocating a moratorium.
What Successful Grassroots Activist Leaders Have Said About
FAIR and NumbersUSA
Mr. Joe McCutchen is a
lifelong immigration reduction leader and activist. In 1999
he founded, and partially funded with his own money, Michimpac,
a Political Action Committee (PAC) designed to defeat pro open-borders
advocate, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. That PAC led
the successful fight to unseat Senator Abraham. Joe has spent
over 40 years actively involved in the immigration reduction