Anti-Immigrant Hate Groups Place Ads in The New York Times
Next time you find yourself stuck in traffic miles from work鈥攐r school or home or daycare鈥攄on鈥檛 blame poor urban planning, low carpooling rates or inadequate public transportation.
Blame immigrants.
That鈥檚 right, according to high-profile ads placed this month in The New York Times and The Nation by a new front group for the and two other anti-immigrant hate groups. The ads, which are based on dubious statistical analysis, claim that an immigration-fueled population boom will dramatically worsen traffic congestion and destroy pristine lands.
The ads were placed by an organization calling itself America鈥檚 Leadership Team for Long Range Population-Immigration-Resource Planning. 鈥淲e鈥檙e the nation鈥檚 leading experts on population and immigration trends and growth,鈥� boasts one of the ads.
Actually, America鈥檚 Leadership Team is a public relations front group for a coalition of five anti-immigration organizations, three of which鈥擣AIR, American Immigration Control Foundation and the 鈥攁re listed as by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their links to white supremacists and publication of bigoted materials.
All five of the groups behind America鈥檚 Leadership Team鈥攖he other two are Californians for Population Stabilization and NumbersUSA鈥攁re financed by the puppet master of the modern anti-immigration movement.
Although it鈥檚 not clear how much the coalition paid for its half-page New York Times ad (a Times spokeswoman said there were too many variables to provide rate information), The Nation charges non-profit groups $4,412 for full-page color ads like the ones that the group placed in its magazine this month. Both ads ran at least once in separate issues. In a June 16 editorial note, the left-leaning Nation warned readers about the America鈥檚 Leadership Team advertising and stated that The Nation did not agree with its 鈥減remise and politics.鈥�
鈥淲e鈥檝e gotten a heated reaction, as our readers do when there鈥檚 an opinion out that doesn鈥檛 seem to mesh with our editorial viewpoint,鈥� Ellen Bollinger, the Nation鈥檚 vice president for advertising told the Intelligence Report. 鈥淏ut we have a liberal advertising policy, and we try to err on the side of giving light to divergent opinion.鈥�
It鈥檚 not the first time that Tanton and other anti-immigration activists have tried to woo environmentalists in an attempt to gain political support for their cause. In 1996, Tanton lobbied the Sierra Club, the nation鈥檚 largest environmental organization, to adopt a plank advocating sharp restrictions on immigration. In 2004, an anti-immigration faction tried to take over the Sierra Club by winning election to its board of directors. Both efforts .
The group鈥檚 latest campaign relies on outdated numbers, since the ads鈥� projection of 600 million Americans by 2100 is based on the 1990 Census. (The Census has published more up-to-date projections based on the 2000 Census, but they only go up to 2050.) The ads also cite statistics without fully explaining them: the Pew Hispanic Research Center does predict that 82% of the increase in U.S. population from 2005 to 2050 will result from immigration, but that figure includes the U.S.-born descendants of immigrants. And it doesn鈥檛 represent a departure from recent decades, during which immigrants have accounted for most of the country鈥檚 population growth.
Of course, the real message of the ads is that immigrants are bad for the environment, and therefore bad for America. According to the ad that appeared in Wednesday鈥檚 Times, 鈥淔or every four new U.S. residents whether from births or immigration, approximately three more cars are added to our roads, increasing gridlock, energy use and greenhouse emissions.鈥�
But this premise is flawed because the transportation habits of immigrants are different from those of native-born Americans, according to professors at the University of California, Los Angeles.
David Hayes-Bautista, a professor of medicine and health services, co-authored a 2005 study that found recent Latino immigrants in California鈥攁nd to a lesser extent long-term Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos鈥攁re much more likely to carpool or use public transportation than non-Hispanic whites. 鈥淚f everyone (in California) went to work the way recently arrived immigrants did鈥攂y carpooling or using public transportation鈥攖hat would reduce the number of cars on the road by nearly half,鈥� he told the Intelligence Report.
鈥淩ecent immigrants are in fact substantially less responsible for sprawl (they live in the highest density communities) and traffic (they disproportionately take transit and walk), as they are poor,鈥� UCLA urban planning professor Randall Crane E-mailed the Report. 鈥淓ventually, they better assimilate into the population and will be more like everyone else, which is to say they are no worse than anyone else.鈥�
