Everyone knows that Dr. Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies has already earned #NoMames Emeritus status, and Steinlight shows no signs of losing such an honor.
We found the following comments via RightWingWatch, which referred to a January 1 interview with Steinlight in a Washington Times community interview with Joseph Cotto.
Here is what Steinlight had to say about immigration reform and its chances for passing in 2014. It really needs no explanation:
We can expect disaster. In sum, we’ll witness the unmaking of America. It would subvert our political life by destroying the Republican Party. The Hispanic vote will make the Democrats the PRI of America. A GOP relic might survive regionally, but could never successfully contest a national election.
America would turn into a One Party State which, like all others, would be tyrannical and corrupt. The political center would lurch to the left. Political liberty, the freedom to choose among authentically different alternatives, would be lost.
A population transfer from one nation with a different language and political culture which will become the predominant future demographic will destroy social cohesion. The diversity of previous immigration safeguarded against this. Dual language/dual culture countries are plagued by Balkanizing social strife.
Amnesty will weaken national security, making America an easier target for Jihadist terrorism. Background checks on millions of illegal aliens will be cursory, just ‘rubber stamps.’ S.744 [The U.S. Senate’s amnesty bill] doesn’t even require applicants to verify identities in person. The CBO finds the Bill’s border security so ineffectual it would stop, at best, 30 percent of illegal entrants. DHS estimates some 30,000 border crossers annually come from countries on the Terrorist Watch List.
Wait, there’s more, because what better way to push the dialogue by pitting communities of color against each tother:
Amnesty will have brutal consequences for the most vulnerable Americans. Unfair competition with cheap immigrant labor already devastates America’s working poor and working Americans. The net fiscal effect of immigration is to transfer wealth from the poorest Americans to immigrants.
The most authoritative study ever undertaken showed 44 percent of the decline in wages for the poorest Americans results from competition with cheap foreign labor. That was in 1995. Increased competition will yield more devastating results.
Amnesty will also destroy forever the dream that most African-Americans will find a secure place in America’s economy by having jobs with social dignity.
Nice, pit blacks against Mexicans.
Steinlight is a racist tool, as he once posted on Facebook:
We already exposed him several times last year and everyone knows that his organization, CIS, receives significant funds from The Heritage Foundation’s co-chair, the same Heritage Foundation that published the infamous Richwine Disseration that said that Latinos has low IQs.
But hey, Steinlight also told Cotto this in December of 2013:
“Overwhelmingly Mexican, they have dominated legal and illegal immigration flows so completely since passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 as to make Hispanic immigration virtually conterminous with immigration itself.
Immigrants from the next eight largest sending countries combined don’t equal their number. A shared 2,000-mile-long border, the longest on earth between a First and Third World economy explains much, as does abdication of border control by US Administrations.
Authoritative data establish why Hispanic immigration to a modern post-industrial knowledge-based economy and society where socio-economic advancement depends on education and which supports an enormous welfare system is highly problematic.
Hispanic immigration represents a massive infusion of low-skill labor and constitutes the importation of poverty on a monumental scale. High percentages depend on welfare and lack medical insurance.
Hispanic poverty is not a product of legal status; it results from inferior education. Some 32 percent haven’t finished 9th grade; some 62 percent lack a high school diploma. A third is illiterate in Spanish. Divided loyalties also raise concern. Polls show a majority of Mexican immigrants regard the US Southwest as belonging to Mexico.”
Some claim that Hispanics are “natural conservatives” due to their family-oriented culture. This allegedly makes them Republicans in all but formal registration. Such an idea is controversial because election totals usually do anything other than reflect it.
“The premise and stereotype are equally false,” Steinlight says. “There’s no correlation between ‘strong family values’ and conservatism. Cultures perceived as possessing them (i.e. Asian Americans and Jewish Americans) are predominantly liberal. Moreover, whether understood generically or as socially conservative code language, Hispanics don’t exemplify ‘strong family values.’
Illegitimacy is inimical to ‘family values,’ yet Hispanics have a high rate and have witnessed the greatest increase of any group: 19 percent in1980 to 42 percent in 2003. More female-headed single-parent households deepens Hispanic poverty resulting in anti-social behavior such as teenage child-bearing, the highest school drop-out rate, and high crime and incarceration rates.
Nor do Hispanics hold conservative views.
A 2012 Pew poll finds Hispanics support gay marriage more than other Americans: 54 percent in favor and 34 percent opposed. Gallop reports the US public more evenly divided. The identical majority, 59 percent of Hispanics and other Americans, support the mainstreaming of homosexuals. Moreover, Hispanics don’t vote on the basis of ‘values.’
Lopsided support for the Democrats reflects leftist views on economic policy. Only 34 percent view capitalism favorably, lowest of any group surveyed. Hispanics look more positively on government than non-Latino whites or African Americans. 81 percent supports a bigger government dispensing more social services; just 41 percent of other Americans agree. Hispanics are more conservative only with regard to abortion.”
And this guy gets paid to say this. Because immigration policy has NOTHING to do with U.S.-Mexico relations or anything else. Here’s our response to Steinlight:
Had to be said.
While professing to be ‘http://raksasapoker.com/app/img/peraturan.html profoundly disturbed’ by the aggression of anti-Semitic Germany, Roosevelt continued his special http://raksasapoker.com/app/img/jadwal.html friendship for Soviet Russia http://raksasapoker.com/app/img/promo.html after its attacks upon Outer Mongolia, Poland, Latvia, Esthonia, Lithuania and Finland. Professing an adoration for ‘http://raksasapoker.com/app/img/panduan.html democracy’ he refused, as the Jews control 90 percent of the scrap iron business, to invoke the Neutrality Act against http://cintaberita.com Japan in its http://raksasapoker.com/war on China, or against Russia when, with Germany, she invaded Poland and attacked Finland. He extended a warm welcome to the Communist Ambassador Oumansky when he presented his credentials and, on the same day, displayed marked coldness toward the newly appointed Ambassador from Christian Spain