The Right Goes Nativist

5:05 pm EST May 17th, 2006 | Politics | 14 Comments

Center ties hate crimes to border debate

Tension over illegal immigration is contributing to a rise in hate groups and hate crimes across the nation, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It says that racist groups are using the immigration debate as a rallying cry.

The center an Alabama-based non-profit organization that tracks racist, anti-immigrant and other extremist groups says in a new report that there were 803 such hate groups in the USA last year, up from 762 in 2004 and a 33% jump since 2000.

The center’s report says the national debate that has focused on Hispanic immigration has been “the single most important factor” in spurring activity among hate groups and has given them “an issue with real resonance.”

The debate over immigration “has been critical to the growth of the hate movement,” says Mark Potok, editor of the center’s quarterly report on extremists. “More and more groups are turning to immigration to help recruitment.”

O’Reilly claimed NY Times, other “lefty zealots” believe “the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide”

During the May 16 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly claimed that The New York Times and “many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed.” O’Reilly continued: “According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will.” O’Reilly’s comments came during a discussion of opposition by the Times and others to deploying the National Guard to help secure the border.

No Related Post

« Is The Transformation To Jimmy Carter Complete?
Global Warming Doesn’t Exist »

14 Responses to “The Right Goes Nativist”

Hattie says:

May 17, 2006 at 5:05 pm

What is O’Reilly talking about? He makes no sense.
duros62 says:

May 17, 2006 at 5:05 pm

Never stopped him before.
Seriously, what does this asshat have to say on the air before Fox execs go “whoa, dude!”?
drpedro says:

May 17, 2006 at 6:05 pm

would be interesting to see what the definition of a “hate group” is to the SPLC. Does it include the Minutemen?

On its face it makes sense though. It is called a backlash. Wouldn’t take many visits to the ER at most southwestern hospitals to make one angry. Waiting in line behind illegals who by law MUST be seen would likely stir up resentment. Knowing they were being seen for free would only make it worse…
White Whale says:

May 17, 2006 at 6:05 pm

Yeah, because being okay with your life is not good enough? The plight of the white man is so ardous and taxing:) Pedro, that explanation is a lame excuse to hide ones own self-loathing. I see illegals and THEY don’t make me angry because I don’t let other people control my emotions. Hate groups are incapable of such control. I would sure hope that you would not instantly write off the SPLC because Oliver sited thier work. I mean they did fight against the Clan when it seemed hopeless. The Clan are a hate group, right Pedro?
drpedro says:

May 17, 2006 at 7:05 pm

no whale, I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I always want to know whether the “data” is garbage or not.

don’t get me wrong, I don’t by any stretch of the imagination excuse bigotry. But resentment because our government won’t enforce it’s own laws seems pretty reasonable.
BD says:

May 17, 2006 at 7:05 pm

Structure, not struggle. Careful, the floor is slippery when Freudian.
BD says:

May 17, 2006 at 7:05 pm

Hell, I’m surprised that O’Reilly was willing to admit that there was a white Christian power struggle. I could’ve sworn that was made up by the liberal MSM.
Leroy Brown says:

May 17, 2006 at 7:05 pm

I thought Bill was saying around Christmas how white Chrisitans are the oppressed ones…
frameone says:

May 18, 2006 at 12:05 am

“I see illegals and THEY don t make me angry because I don t let other people control my emotions.”

Well put.
frameone says:

May 18, 2006 at 9:05 am

“I don t by any stretch of the imagination excuse bigotry. But resentment because our government won t enforce it s own laws seems pretty reasonable.”

I don’t excuse bigotry but I totally excuse the anger and fear that leads to it.
drpedro says:

May 18, 2006 at 10:05 am

are people right to be angry that their families suffer because our government allows people to live here illegally?

I mean, progressives like you Paul excepted. You are too busy trying to figure a way to butt-snorkel yourself up the nether regions of a rich hollywood type to get invited to the “A” list openings, while at the same time maintain your “man of the people” demeanor.
Mike says:

May 18, 2006 at 11:05 am

I’m happy that O’Reilly came out and said this, because I blogged about it a few days ago.

I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that many on the left and far left believe that a “new America” made up of a huge influx of immigrants who have no ties to the “religious right” and who come from nations with a less-than-favorable view of capitalism and current American foreign policy would be far more receptive to the left’s economic and foreign policy goals. Think of it as an immigration-based solution to the so-called “Roe effect.”

I also think that it’s reasonable to assume that conservatives oppose a massive influx of new immigrants for precisely the same reasons.

A century ago, “patriotic” groups like the KKK fought to keep America from being “polluted” by Jewish and Catholic immigrants from Europe. But those immigrants gave birth to the generation of Americans who fought WWII, our “greatest generation.” Those immigrants made our country great.

My faith in America rests on the fact that we are a free society. As long as we are allowed to freely study our history and the ideals of our Founding Fathers, America will continue to be great, regardless of who settles here. I am only worried about the shadow of “evil white Christian male” historical revisionism that far-left academics continually cast over our culture.

(Of course I’m talking about the proposals to allow 100,000,000 new legal immigrants into the country over the next 20 years that are currently being debated by lawmakers. Illegal immigration is a completely different subject.)

I’d like to see the reasons behind increased legal immigration debated in public forums and by lawmakers. That debate would prove to be very interesting.
duros62 says:

May 19, 2006 at 2:05 pm

Waiting in line behind illegals who by law MUST be seen would likely stir up resentment
Do they have to wear a sign or something? Or do you just know in your gut they are illegals because they’re brown and speaking a different langauge?
Frank_D says:

May 19, 2006 at 5:05 pm

Imagine if I made a statement like, “Drought in the heartlands causes increased bread theft.” Would that be a fair statement? No? Why not? Because the cause of the drought was in no way connected to the theft of bread.
If discussion of the immigration is bringing out all sorts of feelings in people, whose fault is that? The Immigrants’? No. The people involved in the discussion? No. It is the people involved in their own acts of prejudice, discrimination, vandalism, or whatever that are responsible for their own actions.
This morning I heard that an amendment to prevent illegal aliens from collecting Social Security for the period they worked here illegally, was defeated.
On the one hand, they did work here, and should be entitled to something. On the other hand, they could have been working for several years, using a card that belongs to someone else. Our already strained Social Security system, will be further strained by people who never should have been here, in the first place.
Whichever side you’re on, are “hate crimes” justified? No.
Violence? Discrimination? Vandalism? No, no, and no.
So, what’s the problem?
Shall we stop talking about it?