Mexicans Are Inferior According to FAIR and CIS
by Linda Vega on January 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM
It is difficult to fathom why in 2013 some faux conservative researchers at the Center for Immigration studies (CIS) still make use of eugenic fallacies to paint Mexican immigrants as genetically inferior. Perhaps it is because in theory, we manage to work out complicated problems without much effort. Yet in practice, the solving of a problem (immigration in this case) is more complicated than what theory of eugenics dictates. In the case of population control, a concept that has been applied in horrific ways through history, the intentions always start with statistics that can be all too convincing at first, only to be misguided to a point that groups and human beings end up being the innocent prey. It is as though history has not taught this lesson enough.
The U.S. population is approximately 300 million of which 50 million are Latinos. Undoubtedly, Latinos are the fastest growing demographic in the U.S. and perhaps the reason why many insist on stifling the advancement of this population. In fact, many seek to control the migration of this group and its population growth in the U.S. But the demographics are set to grow, despite the resistance that it is encountering. Rather than work against it, conservatives should be adapting to the change and inviting them into the Republican world. In the words of Linda Chavez in her article, The Hispanic Panic:
“Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic group in the United States. Numbering more than 50 million, Hispanics constitute 16 percent of the overall population; and their proportion will continue to increase even if all immigration—legal and illegal—were to cease today. On average, Hispanics are younger than non-Hispanic whites (with a median age of 27 compared with 42), give birth to more children (2.4 to 1.8), and enjoy greater longevity (81 years to 78). These factors guarantee that the Hispanic share of the population—and the electorate—will continue to rise. What is more, 22 percent of all children in the United States today are Hispanic, and the majority of them are the offspring of at least one foreign-born parent. This fact alone guarantees immigration will remain a potent issue among Hispanic voters for a generation or more. In 2012, Hispanics represented 10 percent of the electorate, up from 9 percent in 2008 and 8 percent in 2004. In several battleground states, they represented a larger faction: 14 percent in Colorado, 17 percent in Florida, and 18 percent in Nevada, all of which Mitt Romney lost. Even in traditionally non-Hispanic areas of the country, including Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, Hispanic voters were a factor.”
The fear, fermenting among some Conservative groups, is based on this misconception that the Latino population is not conservative enough and certainly not educated enough. However, studies show otherwise. In fact, Latinos have managed to rise to complete high school at 41% and even boasts a high rate of University education at 18%.
“Hispanic immigrants do have lower levels of education than other groups, though the education levels of recent cohorts have risen significantly over the last several decades, with 41 percent having completed high school and 18 percent graduating college. More important, their children are rapidly catching up with non-Hispanic whites in education levels. A recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center shows that Hispanics overall are catching up with non-Hispanic whites in years of education completed, lagging behind by 10 percent in high school graduation and college attendance. And second-generation Hispanics are actually more likely to attend college and earn four-year degrees than those from the third generation or those with even deeper roots in American soil.”
The distress about the Mexican influx has been present in the U.S. since the early 19th Century. In his book, The Fatal Misconception, Prof. Matthew Connelly of Columbia University, states how groups in the 1920-1930s were in fear of the U.S. becoming too concentrated with the Mexican population. Connelly states:
“It is difficult to know who else among the leaders of the population control movement were making these kinds of calculations. But their attitudes toward immigration are revealing. Kingsley Davis wrote that the United States was helping Mexico deal with its overpopulation ‘by acquiring each year tens of thousands of impoverished, illiterate, superstitious, non-English-speaking, and in many cases diseased new citizens.’ He warned of a ‘gradual Mexicanization of the southwest border states.’”
These thoughts are not so remote even today. Organizations that champion themselves as being against immigration and over-population are the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, and the Center of Immigration Studies (CIS). These organizations are connected although they claim that they are two separate organizations. Except for the name, they hold the same philosophies and have the same thoughts as that revealed by Kingsley Davis, which were the same sentiments of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. The connection between these groups was written about in an article entitled, Hijacking Immigration, (Human Life Review, 2012) Mario H. Lopez. In it, Lopez describes the linking of population control groups dating back to 1900 and most recently 2012 with the groups such as FAIR and CIS.
In November of 2012, the spokesperson for the Center of Immigration Studies, (CIS) visited a Republican group in Texas, where he echoed these similar thoughts. Stephen Steinlight, a self-proclaimed Holocaust scholar, addressed an audience with his speech that did nothing more than attempt to dehumanize the Mexican population currently living in the U.S. Contrary to what data the Hispanic PEW has provided, Mr. Steinlight stated the following:
“Krauthammer also repeated the same (remark) and this was a favorite of George W. Bush – that Mexicans are a natural constituency of the Republican party because the supposedly have conservative values. First of all, if a person has a choice of choosing his or her punitive values and all the goodies that the federal government will give you by way of entitlement, I can promise you that the entitlements will prevail over the “values.” That’s why Mexicans register Democrat 4 to 1 or (correcting himself) 5 to 1. In addition the notion that this community is conservative is simply laughable. A recent survey showed in fact that Mexicans in this country support gay marriage, the once intact Hispanic family has collapsed in this country, nearly 60% of children are born out of wedlock, church attendance among Hispanics – I’m sorry Mexicans – is 100% female. Hispanic kids have the highest dropout rates in the United States. One third of our prison population is composed of illegal aliens, 40% of the federal prison system is composed of illegal aliens. These are conservatives? I’d like to know by what definition.”
In this speech and countless others across the U.S., Mr. Steinlight speaks about the inferiority of Mexicans who migrate to the U.S. because they have lower moral standards and lack intelligence. He interchangeably uses “Illegals” with “Mexicans” as though they are the same word, in effect to confuse the audience. What is interesting about this is that Mr. Steinlight, a Holocaust Scholar, uses the same techniques that Hitler used to use to convince Germans of how Jews were the inferior race in Germany during the 1930s. It is as though the Holocaust scholar has learned the art of persuasion from an evil orator, who not only managed to convince the world that the Jewish community was morally inferior, but its extinction was an actual benefit to mankind. Similarly, Steinlight uses his flamboyant knowledge and skills, even if flawed, to convince audiences across the U.S. of the inferiority of Mexicans. And who would question, such a “reputable” Jewish Scholar of the Holocaust.
The irony of this type of the message and how well he uses the art of persuasion is that he instills self-deprecating humor on his being Jewish, and at some point jokes about joining the KKK in the very same speech. It is as though he works to warm himself to the audience that has probably begun to align themselves with his point of view, but feel some relief that someone like him, a Jew, would openly say such offensive things about another race.
“I’ve been called a white supremacist. By the way, I’m a Jew, so I didn’t know I was white until about 30 years ago. A white supremacist – I don’t think the KKK would take me, well really, they’re short of members now so maybe.”
This arrogant control is astoundingly similar to what the UN, Planned Parenthood, and other eugenic groups sought to gain when attacking those whom they portrayed as a weak and a useless race. Much like Hitler did to the Jews in Germany.
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler details his disdain of the Jewish race and oftentimes, describes them as uneducated, without any religious affiliation, and immoral for wanting to seduce young women. Almost verbatim to what Steinlight accuses Mexicans of.
“Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him.”
In his speeches, Steinlight spends much of his time trying to convince the audience with studies that his organization has done but exaggerates the numbers and the data. For example, he says that the U.S. will dwindle if we allow low-skilled immigrants to continue to live in the U.S. While we know that any economy needs to sustain a high-skilled amount of workers while having a foundation of low-skilled workers who are the base to creating a robust economy. Further, Steinlight makes it a point to separate Mexicans from other Latinos groups, as though to encourage the targeting distaste for this particular segment of Spanish speaking individuals.
“But the Mexican demographic is so high it will be the dogma immigrant community for years and will be mired in poverty for years. Most people predict just to get to the same level as the American poor, it’s going to take Mexicans about 22 years. The most reliable place for information about the Hispanic community in America – I know I’m going back and forth, but I’m really focusing on Mexicans – and the premise – Hispanics don’t really think of themselves as Hispanic, it’s like European, you’re Cuban or Mexican, or Venezuelan or Argentinian. The issue in the United States is really Mexican and to a lesser degree Central American, that’s the real issue.”
Much like the eugenicists described in by Prof. Connelly and Hitler, Prof. Steinlight continues to uplift Americans while creating this illusion of the inferiority of the Mexican population. According to Steinlight and his cohorts, Mexicans will bring about the downfall of the U.S.
“Hispanic vote. . . .
“The poor . . the working. . and what do they want? They want a big, fat entitlement state. That's what they want. They don't want the vision of America that you want. It's different needs, different desires. They're not looking for this entrepreneurial system showing how the markets work, they want to be taken care of. And the Democrats will get them every time, selling them that poison medicine, addictive medicine of dependency on the State. That will beat you every time. And you think that be legalizing them they will thank you and come and vote Republican? You're crazy.”
He is by far the best weapon that the Liberals have conjured to work against Conservatives and their inclusion of Latinos into the Party. Steinlight, is best described as a modern poisoning orator. If one investigates the ties of these organizations to liberal agendas, we would be astonished at how they have flourished and managed to Americans about their pro-life work. In reality, they are working toward population control by using false date to depict an inferior race and work towards its demise. It is similar to an event that was allowed in Germany not too long ago, but from which we have yet to learn, much less recover, from its dark scar.
View some of Stephen Steinlight's comments below: