FAIR Gets It Wrong Again

Written by on January 8, 2009 in Immigration 101 with 1 Comment

Video from America’s Voice.

This week FAIR-an anti-immigration hate group— issued another new report based on dubious facts and assertions.  “Immigration Lobbying: A Window Into the World of Special Interests” ultimately shows that the vast majority of groups lobbying on immigration legislation are not “pro-enforcement-only,” but rather support a comprehensive approach to immigration reform-including enforcement.  Of course, this was not FAIR’s intention – they wanted to show that these groups only support immigration reform because it is in their own self-interest and are not looking out for the majority of the “American people.”  Apparently the American people are only represented by FAIR and the rest of the 2.1% of lobbying groups that are “pro-enforcement-only.”

FAIR insists that polls show that the American people want greater enforcement of immigration laws.  However, the report fails to mention that poll after poll also demonstrates that the majority of Americans believe that a comprehensive solution that includes legalization in addition to enforcement is necessary.

Based on a dubious analysis of official lobbying reports, FAIR finds that only about 2% of the groups lobbying on immigration issues are “pro-enforcement” groups.  According to the report, the other 98% of groups working on immigration issues namely business, labor, and advocacy groups, support “amnesty” and oppose enforcement.  This assertion is baffling since all of the bills the report examines include major enforcement provisions, including a mandatory employment verification system.  Secondly, FAIR further insists that while these groups say that they are working for the betterment of all Americans, in reality “they are lobbying to influence legislation that benefits a particular ethnic minority and their agenda runs counter to the wishes of the majority of Americans.”  Why? Because FAIR says so.

Wait a minute.

Basically FAIR is saying that groups that represent Catholics, Jews, Latinos, union members, business owners, and school administrators don’t represent any Americans.  Apparently Catholics, Jews, Latinos, Asians, union members, business owners, and school administrators are not Americans, or at least not real Americans.  Either that, or all of these groups let organizations represent them, even though the organizations are wrong.  Only FAIR and its friends (TWO PERCENT) really represent what Americans want.

Perhaps the fact that only 2% of the lobbyists are “pro-enforcement-only” is evidence that they are not in touch with the American public. Doesn’t the fact that business, labor, faith groups, ethnic groups, and others have all come together to support comprehensive immigration reform tell FAIR something? Moreover, what has FAIR ever done to benefit “Americans” other than support immigration restrictions?

This is another attempt to get policymakers to believe that they should not support a comprehensive solution to our immigration problems.  Like all of their other arguments, this one falls flat.



If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed
  • John Crow

    FAIR is still at it and surely will be vocal if and when the relevant Congressional committees take up the complex challenge of immigration reform.

    One of the most incendiary issues is that of creating a path to legal residence for folks who have entered without inspection or folks who overstayed their visas and made permanent residence their goal. The making of Simpson-Mazzoli in the 1980s, IRCA, took a major chunk of two Congresses but eventually a satisfactory compromise emerged — at least 3 million out-of-status or never-in-status folks got thru the process, with lots of help from Catholic and Protestant churches.

    Now the number is estimated from 12 to 20 million but no one knows whether that is accurate. If everyone gets an opportunity to legalize — barring those with criminal records — the question will arise as to how to seal the process of entry “without papers” or without permission for a prolonged stay, so that the next day, after passage, the next queque begins to form.

    If the public dialogue can get to that subject we may be on the road of getting real reform. FAIR is constitutionally unable to join that conversation.

    John Crow