From the January 19 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
Loading the player reg...
Economists from the University of California, Davis published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal debunking the popular right-wing media myth that an influx of low-skilled refugees would necessarily result in decreased wages and job opportunities for American workers.
On January 18, University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri and doctoral candidate Vasil Yasenov published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal discussing their recent study on the wage and employment disruption created when a large influx of Cuban refugees arrived in South Florida in 1980. Their work, published in December 2015 by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), updated prior research on the migration and confirmed that the sudden arrival of 125,000 Cuban refugees did not correlate with decreased wages or employment activity for American workers in the local community.
Right-wing media have created many myths about immigration, but perhaps the most pervasive is the misleading claim that new immigrants take jobs away from American workers. Economists have debunked the claim many times, but it remains a prevalent talking point in many conservative outlets.
Peri and Yasenov argued that an influx of new immigrants "stimulates productivity and growth in the economy" and pointed to the experience of Cuban refugees in the 1980s as a model for what to expect from Syrian refugee arrivals today. From The Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):
A well-known episode took place after April 20, 1980, when Fidel Castro opened the port of Mariel, enabling anyone to freely leave the island. More than 125,000 Cubans fled to the U.S. until the Mariel boatlift, as it was called, ended in September. More than half of these refugees settled in Miami. Most were low-skill--which meant that the supply of workers without a high-school diploma in the city increased between 12% and 15%.
Economist David Card analyzed how the wages and employment rate of native workers in Miami changed from 1979 (before the inflow) to 1981-82 (after the inflow). His influential study, published in 1990, compared Miami with Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles and Tampa-St. Petersburg, a control group of cities with similar demographic and labor-market characteristics during the 1970s.
The results were striking: The 1979-1981 wage and employment changes in Miami were not much different than in the other cities. The evidence, he concluded, was that a sudden increase in the supply of low-skill workers had no significant negative effect on native laborers with similar schooling levels.
Our results--released as National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 21801 on Dec. 15--confirm Mr. Card's original study. There is no evidence that Miami's low-skill workers experienced wage or employment decline relative to those in our control group of cities in 1980, 1981 or 1982. We also analyzed different subgroups--males, females, Hispanics and non-Hispanics--and did not find any significant wage effect in Miami after 1979.
This result suggests that the common belief that more immigrant workers depress native workers' wages or employment is not a good representation of what happens. Earlier research by one of us has shown that native workers do not suffer the negative impact of arriving immigrants because they take different jobs. Moreover, their arrival stimulates productivity and growth in the economy.
Miami's experience after the Mariel boatlift suggests that an influx of refugees from Syria to the U.S. would have no significant economic impact on American workers.
From the January 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
All of the major broadcast and cable networks in the U.S. suspended their programming on January 12 to air President Obama's last State of the Union address. All except Univisión and Telemundo, which instead aired their regularly scheduled telenovelas.
Univisión and Telemundo, respectively the largest and second largest Spanish-language networks in the United States, are among the most trusted sources of information for the growing Hispanic community.
Instead of giving the presidential address primetime coverage, Univisión aired the telenovela Pasión y poder, and Telemundo aired Bajo el mismo cielo, opting to live-stream the address online. NBC Universo -- an NBC Universal-owned Spanish-language Telemundo affiliate -- did broadcast the speech, but the channel is only accessible to cable-TV viewers.
According to recent census data, Hispanics are now the largest minority in the United States: Latinos constitute a little over 17 percent of the United States population. In 2016, over 26 million Latinos will be eligible to vote for the next president. Though the Latino voting bloc is becoming increasingly important, engaging them politically remains a challenge, as they repeatedly lag behind other demographics in voter turnout.
Univisión and Telemundo did a disservice to the community they serve by not broadcasting the president's State of the Union speech, which largely focused on issues that Latinos prioritize. Contrary to common media misconceptions, Latinos are not single-issue voters. In fact, evidence consistently shows that Latino voters are most concerned about jobs and the economy, healthcare, education and immigration, all of which received significant mentions during President Obama's address.
Telemundo and Univisión's lack of coverage did not go unnoticed. The Daily Show tweeted "If you're not into #SOTU, here are some other programming choices" with a graphic reading "Bored? Other things that are on TV right now." The graphic showed that, unlike ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News, Univisión wasn't broadcasting the State of the Union. Instead, Pasión y poder is listed.
California State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-33), who has championed immigrant rights in the California legislature, also criticized the lack of coverage in a statement to Media Matters:
It is very disappointing that neither Telemundo nor Univision aired the President's State of the Union address on live TV. Are Novelas, which perpetuate sexism, racism, homophobia and classism, more important than the civic engagement and education of our community? This is a blatant missed opportunity and disservice to Latinos during such a crucial presidential election year. This is simply unacceptable and I call on the executives at all major Spanish-language broadcast outlets to do the community a service and carry this important address in years to come!
Far-right radio host Michael Savage told Donald Trump that Hispanics will support his presidential campaign because "the Hispanic culture is a macho culture. Men don't like reporting to a woman." Trump did not refute Savage's characterization, and later told him "I appreciate your support, you've been so amazing."
During his January 11 program, Savage remarked to Trump that "the reason Hispanics are going to vote for you -- and I'll say it, I'm not going to ask you -- is because, to be honest, and it's very clear, the Hispanic culture is a macho culture. Men don't like reporting to a woman. It's just the way the culture is. And they'd rather have a man than a woman as president." Savage then asked Trump, who did not refute or respond to Savage's characterization of Hispanics, about his polling with Hispanics:
SAVAGE: I'm asking you the questions about the audiences that we normally don't think would vote for you. On this show, Donald, last week I said the reason Hispanics are going to vote for you -- and I'll say it, I'm not going to ask you -- is because, to be honest, and it's very clear, the Hispanic culture is a macho culture. Men don't like reporting to a woman. It's just the way the culture is. And they'd rather have a man than a woman as president. What are your poll numbers amongst Hispanics?
TRUMP: Well we're doing well. In Nevada we just came in and we were at 34 or something like that, number one, the state of Nevada, which is very heavily Hispanic. And you know I have thousands of people that work for me that are Hispanic. And tens of thousands over the years that have been Hispanic and from Mexico and different places and they're phenomenal people. And, you know, they frankly, you know they don't want people coming into the country illegally and taking their jobs.
Trump later added that he's the one who "came up with" getting rid of "anchor babies" from the country, claiming that "people come over, they have a baby, now we have to take care of the baby for the next 90 years. It's ridiculous." The Associated Press noted that it's "extraordinarily rare for immigrants to come to the U.S. just so they can have babies and get citizenship. In most cases, they come to the U.S. for economic reasons and better hospitals, and end up staying and raising families."
Numerous polls have shown that Trump is actually extremely unpopular with Hispanics. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found "Trump's favorability rating is just 18 percent among Hispanics and blacks alike, vs. 44 percent among whites."
Savage praised Trump for starting the debate on immigration and said "frankly, the entire Democrat machine lives off the illegal alien vote. Without the illegal alien vote, I don't think they'd be where they are today."
Trump heavily praised Savage during the interview, stating at the beginning that it was "always an honor" to be on his program and ending the interview by saying, "I appreciate your support, you've been so amazing and I really do, thank you very much for it."
Savage is one of the country's most extreme radio personalities. The Cumulus Media-syndicated talker has called autism "a fraud, a racket," said PTSD and depression sufferers are "losers," advised people not to get flu shots because you can't trust the government, theorized liberals have been driven insane because of seltzer bubbles, claimed President Obama was intentionally trying "to infect the nation with Ebola," and once told a caller he was a "sodomite" who should "get AIDS and die."
Trump has repeatedly appeared on The Savage Nation and said in a prior appearance there would be "common sense" if he appointed Savage to head the National Institutes of Health if he became president.
The Miami Herald's Patricia Mazzei pointed out that the Republican Party presented a "decidedly softer" immigration stance in its Spanish-language response to President Obama's January 12 State of the Union address than in its English-language reply.
Mazzei's January 12 post on the Herald's blog Naked Politics compared the responses, the first delivered in English by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and the second in Spanish delivered by Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-FL), which Mazzei called "decidedly softer." The responses offered "different messages" on immigration; while the English version emphasized the need to fix "our broken immigration system" by closing borders, the Spanish version focused on "a permanent and human solution" to immigration reform and for "those who live in the shadows." The contrasting responses reflect "the Republican Party's immigration split" and the ongoing attempts by the GOP to improve relations with Latino voters, which are often discouraged by conservative media and thwarted by the inflammatory rhetoric of some of their candidates.
According to Mazzei, while some discrepancies in the speeches reflected Haley's and Díaz-Balart's different backgrounds, "the Spanish version" of the response "was decidedly softer" on the topic of immigration. From Mazzei's post (emphasis added):
The Republican Party's immigration split was reflected Tuesdayin the two responses hand-picked party members gave -- one in English, one in Spanish -- to President Obama's final State of the Union address. The Spanish version, offered by a Cuban-American congressman from Miami, was decidedly softer.
Here's what South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said in English:
No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.
At the same time, that does not mean we just flat out open our borders. We can't do that. We cannot continue to allow immigrants to come here illegally. And in this age of terrorism, we must not let in refugees whose intentions cannot be determined.
We must fix our broken immigration system. That means stopping illegal immigration. And it means welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of their race or religion. Just like we have for centuries.
I have no doubt that if we act with proper focus, we can protect our borders, our sovereignty and our citizens, all while remaining true to America's noblest legacies.
Here's what Miami Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart said in Spanish (translation is ours):
No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love the United States should ever feel unwelcome in this country. It's not who we are.
At the same time, it's obvious that our immigration system needs to be reformed. The current system puts our national security at risk and is an obstacle for our economy.
It's essential that we find a legislative solution to protect our nation, defend our borders, offer a permanent and human solution to those who live in the shadows, respect the rule of law, modernize the visa system and push the economy forward.
I have no doubt that if we work together, we can achieve this and continue to be faithful to the noblest legacies of the United States.
As President Obama delivered his final address to Congress on the State Of The Union, conservative media personalities attacked him on Twitter, calling him "divisive," a liar, and mocking his policy proposals.
Two leading white nationalist media websites have used Donald Trump in their recent fundraising drives. The solicitations hail Trump for spurring "unprecedented interest in" white nationalism and putting their ideas "firmly in the mainstream."
White nationalists have been backing Trump's presidential campaign, especially his extreme positions on Hispanic and Muslim immigration. And the emergence of Trump has helped bolster white nationalist groups' finances and political organizing.
White nationalist William Daniel Johnson, who wants "a country made up of only white people," recently founded the American National Super PAC and is robocalling Republican primary voters in support of Trump. Politico wrote in December that "The Ku Klux Klan is using Donald Trump as a talking point in its outreach efforts. Stormfront, the most prominent American white supremacist website, is upgrading its servers in part to cope with a Trump traffic spike. And former Louisiana Rep. David Duke reports that the businessman has given more Americans cover to speak out loud about white nationalism than at any time since his own political campaigns in the 1990s."
Recent fundraising appeals for the white nationalist websites VDARE.com and American Renaissance illustrate how Trump has become part of the far-right's fundraising strategy.
The anti-immigrant website VDARE.com "regularly publishes works by white supremacists, anti-Semites, and others on the radical right," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
A December 8 post cited Trump's call for a ban on Muslim immigration and concluded "[b]ecause of the improbable rise of Donald Trump ... our ideas are now firmly in the mainstream." VDARE added that Americans are ready for a "rebellion against Open Borders and the tyranny of political correctness" but (emphasis in original) "THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN UNLESS YOU SUPPORT US. I hate to be blunt, but money talks. So many people ask what they can do. And the fact is, the most important thing you can do is put your money to a cause you believe in."
A December 14 appeal from founder Peter Brimelow contained a picture of his wife, Lydia, attending a Trump rally and hailed the Republican candidate for running "on the patriotic immigration reform issue." He wrote that VDARE has "defended Trump on Hispanic rapists (they are a problem), black-on-white crime (he's right), ending Muslim immigration (it's legal), ending birthright citizenship (it's legal too), etc. etc." The appeal added "we can only do this with your help" and solicited donations for the website.
On January 1, Lydia Brimelow wrote that VDARE's "goal was $100,000, more than twice what we've brought in during a single appeal in the past. Not only did we meet our goal-WE SURPASSED IT! As of this writing we have a total of $105,047, and I haven't picked up the mail since 12/30." She added that "as evidenced by this incredible response, VDARE.com, the voice of the historic American nation, is getting louder and louder!"
American Renaissance is a white nationalist publication that regularly features "proponents of eugenics and blatant anti-black racists," according to the SPLC. It is produced by the New Century Foundation, which "promotes pseudo-scientific studies and research that purport to show the inferiority of blacks to whites" and sponsors "conferences every other year where racist 'intellectuals' rub shoulders with Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists." White nationalist Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and president of New Century Foundation.
Taylor wrote a December 21 fundraising email stating that "Trump and the flood of migrants into Europe have resulted in unprecedented interest in American Renaissance" and "we need your help" with donations:
Something has changed.
The rise Donald Trump and the flood of migrants into Europe have resulted in unprecedented interest in American Renaissance.
Never before have our online videos been so popular, or shared so widely.
The last time I wrote to you, our videos had been viewed 342,000 times over the previous year. I thought that was promising, but in just the last six months, they've been watched another 640,000 times--nearly quadruple the previous rate!
One of our videos on Donald Trump has had over 87,000 views. Our video on the "refugee" invasion of Europe has had 230,000 views--and the numbers keep rising.
I used to be excited when a video got 25,000 views in a year.
Thanks to these videos, more and more white Americans--especially young people--are learning about American Renaissance and what we represent.
We must make the most of this sea-change. We must break the stranglehold of the liberal, anti-white media.
No matter what you can give--$25, $50, $100, $500, or even $1,000 or $5,000, please do so.
Taylor is part of the American National Super PAC's robocall. He states that Trump "is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America. We don't need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump."
From the January 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News devoted numerous segments to reports of mass sexual assaults committed in Cologne, Germany on New Year's Eve by men "having a 'North African or Arabic' appearance," using the story to fearmonger about the "direct threat" posed by "how fast you allow ... Syrian refugees into this country." This reporting stands in contrast to Fox's history of downplaying sexual assaults when it doesn't fit their anti-refugee agenda.
From the January 8 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
The Washington Post's David Weigel highlighted how Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz "actually benefits from Trump's full-spectrum dominance of the national media conversation," which "obscure[s]" Cruz's extreme positions.
Donald Trump has dominated media coverage since June 2015, when he announced his presidential bid. In 2015, Trump received over 22 hours of air time on Fox and was covered on ABC's evening news program for 81 minutes, compared to Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders' one minute. Much of the coverage has focused on Trump's controversial positions and inflammatory rhetoric. Other GOP presidential candidates have attempted to distance themselves from Trump -- even though their own extreme positions often don't differ dramatically from Trump's -- but they have not received the same media condemnation.
In a January 7 post for The Washington Post's blog Post Politics, Weigel explained how "obscured by the endless Trump news-cycles" is the fact that "Cruz is the most conservative candidate" and is "ready to indulge questions" that are usually dismissed for their extremism. Weigel noted that "[w]ithout Trump in the race, questions and issues such as these -- the sort of things that have stymied some tea party candidates for lower offices -- might be controversial," but are overlooked because of Trump's media dominance (emphasis added):
So far, given the lack of damage from the Canada story to his image among conservatives, Cruz actually benefits from Trump's full-spectrum dominance of the national media conversation.
Cruz does this by blaming every incoming attack on two factors. The first is his strength in the polls; Cruz will suggest that "three weeks ago, every Republican was talking about Donald Trump." Not so much now, in his view. The second is the mainstream media, one of the softest targets in Republican politics. (Cruz's stump speech, which changes subtly from stop to stop, always includes a joke about reporters "checking themselves into therapy" after his hypothetical presidency ends in 2025.)
In Webster City, Cruz used most of his news conference to gently chide the media, saying they are not asking about anything Iowans seemed to be interested in. When CNN's Dana Bash asked whether Cruz would take Trump's advice and embark on a legal route to prove his eligibility to be president, he took another chance to ask why no one was covering the proverbial Real Issues.
After one more question about whether establishment Republicans such as McCain were feeling more confident in attacking him, Cruz started his town hall. Something obscured by the endless Trump news cycles was suddenly much clearer: Cruz was the most conservative candidate in the race and ready to indulge questions that other Republicans dismissed.
One questioner asked about the alleged influence of the Trilateral Commission and David Rockefeller, two bugbears of conspiracy theorists. "It's a very good question," said Cruz, pivoting to discuss the Medellin national sovereignty case, which is featured in some of his TV ads here. Another questioner asked whether the Federal Reserve was constitutional, prompting a short monologue by Cruz about why America should return to the gold standard.
And another questioner asked about the potential threat of Muslim courts issuing their own sharia-based rulings within the United States.
Without Trump in the race, questions and issues such as these -- the sort of things that have stymied some tea party candidates for lower offices -- might be controversial. But Trump, who has courted controversy again and again in the past few months, is in the race.
From the January 7 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File:
Loading the player reg...
After years of pushing birther myths that President Obama may not have been eligible for the presidency, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh hypocritically dismissed Republican claims that GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz may face eligibility problems due to being born in Canada.
Fox News' three primetime shows wholly ignored GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX)'s announcement that he would not only deport all 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in the country, but would also halt legal immigration and "oppose" "allowing folks to come back in and become citizens."
At a campaign stop in Iowa on January 4, Cruz was asked to compare his immigration plan to that of GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, who advocates deporting all 11.3 million undocumented immigrants. Cruz responded that he would not only deport all 11.3 million immigrants, but would also not allow deported immigrants to re-enter the country or apply for citizenship:
QUESTIONER: Both you and Donald Trump are really strong on immigration, but he supports deporting all the illegal immigrants. Are you willing to say the same?
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Absolutely, yes. We should enforce the law.
CRUZ: We should enforce the law.
CRUZ: And in fact, look, there's a difference. He's advocated allowing folks to come back in and become citizens. I oppose that.
Fox's three primetime shows - The O'Reilly Factor, The Kelly File, and Hannity -- all ignored the remarks and failed to discuss Cruz's deportation plan on the January 4, 5, and 6 editions of their shows. While Cruz's comments were entirely disregarded on the January 4, 5, and 6 editions of The O'Reilly Factor and The Kelly File, Fox host Sean Hannity had an opportunity to bring up the issue directly with Cruz during an interview on his show.
On the January 4 edition of Hannity, Sean Hannity hosted Cruz, and despite discussing the topic of immigration, failed to ask Cruz directly about his plan to halt legal immigration. Hannity asked Cruz "what happens to the eleven million people that are here illegally?" When Cruz dodged the question, Hannity gave him a pass and moved on to a new topic:
SEAN HANNITY (HOST): The issue of immigration is so key this year, and both Marco Rubio and Donald Trump have gone after you. Trump said you copied his immigration plan. You had that battle in the last debate with Rubio. And your statement was "I oppose legalization today, tomorrow, and forever." Meaning what, that we build the fence, that we secure the border, what happens to the eleven million people that are here illegally?
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): We enforce the law. Existing law provides that if we apprehend someone here illegally, we deport them. That's what existing law is, and we have a president, Barack Obama, who refuses to follow the law. I've spent my whole life fighting to defend the rule of law, fighting to defend theConstitution. When it comes to immigration, 2013 was really, as Reagan would say, a time for choosing. It's when a line was drawn in the sand. On one side, you had Barack Obama and you had Chuck Schumer, and you had a whole lot of establishment Republicans in Washington lining up behind a massive amnesty plan. On the other side of the line were people like Steve Sessions, where people like Iowa's own Steve King, and I stood with Jeff Sessions and Steve King. And we led the fight to defeat theGang of Eight amnesty plan, to preserve the rule of law and to fight to secure our borders. And you know, it's interesting. A lot of presidential candidates suddenly have discovered illegal immigration is an issue. I'll point out, Sean, you remember that 2013 fight. You were standing there leading the fight, Mark Levin was leading the fight, Rush was leading the fight. You look at the men and women standing on that debate stage, in 2013 when Obama was on the verge of getting his amnesty win, most of the other men and women on that debate stage were nowhere to be found.