Andersen (2008) and de Graauw (2018) both discuss the impacts and influence of interest groups on the civic life of immigrants. In her six-city study, Andersen focuses on the ways in which local organizations help connect immigrant groups to local politics and mobilize their constituents to advance certain issues; furthermore, the voluntary sector often fills in the gaps that political parties no longer choose to do. Similarly, de Graauw analyzes how 501(c)(3) nonprofits are increasingly providing a multitude of social services to immigrants and the political representation and incorporation of immigrants into society. Both authors examine local groups working to advance a pro-immigrant agenda, but there lies an interesting point: who opposes them?
In this article from the Washington Post, Goodman tracks the move from the nativist organization Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) to overturn a sanctuary policy, and identifies the history of explicit anti-immigrant interest groups, which began through the work of John Tanton. Since the late 70s, Tanton has either created or helped create a number of nativist and extremist organizations who have ties to white-supremacy—including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), U.S. English, and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)—and has worked at the local and state level to push a racially-charged agenda that appeals to white resentment. Importantly, these groups have now affected efforts for bipartisan compromises on immigration repeatedly. Trump has taken former staffers into positions of power too.
Is it fair for anti-immigrant groups to act deceptively to push their agendas?
Link: www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/27/shadowy-network-shaping-trumps-anti-immigration-policies/?utm_term=.4b01ca5983ab
When anti-immigrant groups, such as Tanton’s vast network, act deceptively to push their agendas, they make it seem as if their policy preferences and ideas are widely shared by a number of people, when in reality it is just various organizations working in tandem to push the same messages. The article mentions Tanton’s groups often framing their “policy prescriptions as common sense,” when in actuality, they are connected to white nationalist and anti-immigration groups. These tactics unfairly paint a false sense of support and advocacy for these groups and their causes, allowing them to shift the debate to the far right and deceptively influencing the public’s views on immigration.