Immigrant-Bashing Is James Walsh's Business, And Business Is Good

The Newsmax columnist doesn't seem to like Hispanics, yet he claims to speak for them.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 1/9/2014

In 2009, ConWebWatch documented the anti-immigrant rantings of Newsmax columnist James H. Walsh, a former federal litigator. Walsh really hasn't let up since then, hurling borderline xenophobic attacks against immigrants and anything remotely resembling comprehensive immigration reform.

Failed predictions, failed solutions

James Walsh

Well, not so much. Despite Walsh's insistence that "the myth that the news media and politicians have created about a monolithic Hispanic voting bloc is just a myth" and that "about 57 percent of the Hispanic voters are favoring Obama, down from his 2008 number of 76 percent," Obama received 71 percent of the Hispanic vote and Mitt Romney only 27 percent, the lowest total for a Republican candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

Thus, Walsh's column two weeks later in which he acknowledged the pro-Obama Hispanic vote, though not his erroneous prediction. Instead, Walsh examined "Romney’s problem with Hispanic voters," which he immediately blames on the Obama campaign, which along with the media "described GOP failures in detail to the Hispanic community — descriptions that went unchallenged by Romney." Walsh continued:

Where do Republican leaders go from here? Realizing that, with a divided Congress, a comprehensive immigration reform package will not pass both House and Senate, House Republicans need to pass targeted pieces of immigration reform legislation.

They can start with an improved version of the Bracero program (1942-1964), a flawed guest-worker program terminated by President John Kennedy. An updated Bracero program could relieve the illegal-alien problem perplexing the president and Congress.

A 21st century Bracero program could provide guest workers with good housing, safe working conditions, income guarantees, and legal entry and exit papers. Such a program could protect national security concerns while providing the nation with a valued workforce, who would no longer need to pay “coyotes” (illegal alien smugglers) for high-risk entry to the United States.

Why would anyone want an "improved" version of a program even Walsh admits was flawed? Walsh doesn't explain that, nor does he explain why it was flawed in the first place.

The bracero program mostly covered migrant farm workers from Mexico, who tended to be exploited by farmers. One federal official called the program "legalized slavery."

Nevertheless, Walsh insists that "Immigration advocates, farm labor unions, and agricultural interests would welcome such legislation as a new beginning and a 21st Century legislative accomplishment." He doesn't explain how.

Unsurprisingly after expressing such views, Walsh continued to fail to understand why Hispanics don't support conservatives like himself, which he demonstrated again in his Nov. 21, 2012, column:

Hispanics voters, particularly the Mexican majority, proved to be a paradox in the 2012 election. The image of Hispanics as family and faith oriented, hard-working, entrepreneurial, conservative economically, supporters of education, and opponents of legalizing drugs was debunked at the polls.

Pre-election surveys showed Hispanic voters more concerned about jobs, the weak economy, education for their children, and healthcare than they were about immigration; yet they voted for four more years of President Barack Obama.

Republicans need principled politicians such as former Gov. Jeb Bush (left) and Sen. Marco Rubio to sell U.S. values to Hispanic voters.

By doing so, they found themselves supporting attacks on religion and promoting gay marriage, abortion, legalized marijuana, fiscal irresponsibility, and “revenge” voting.

"Hispanicazation' of America"

Walsh devoted a January 2012 column to ranting about "Obama's 'Hispanicazation' of America," peddling a slew of falsehoods in the process.

Walsh kicked things off by baselessly asserting that "many" of the "illegal aliens" in the United States arrived "as drug-smuggling 'mules.'" He then claimed there has been a "reduced number of apprehensions" as a result of "reassigning Border Patrol agents inland." In fact, deportations of illegal immigrants increased in fiscal year 2010 over the previous year, and a record percentage of those deported had criminal records.

Walsh also embraced right-wing myths, complaining about "the Obama administration’s $2 billion loan of U.S. taxpayer money in 2009 to Brazil’s Petrobras oil company for deep off-shore oil drilling. Obama confidant George Soros, through the Soros Fund Management LLC, until recently owned millions of dollars of Petrobras stock." In fact, the loan was approved by the Export-Import Bank, which does not rely on tax money and which at the time of the loan was controlled by Bush administration appointees. Further, Soros reduced his stake in Petrobras prior to the approval of the loan, so he didn't benefit from the loan as much as Walsh suggests.

Walsh asserted that "Former Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reportedly said to a gathering of illegal aliens in California in 2009 that U.S. immigration laws were 'un-American,' suggesting that they need not be obeyed." In fact, Pelosi criticized as "un-American" immigration raids that separate undocumented parents from their documented children, not all immigration laws.

Walsh even bizarrely claimed that Hillary Clinton's acknowledgment of the indisputable facts that drug cartel violence along the U.S. Mexico border is fueled by U.S. demand for illicit drugs and easy access to weapons meant that she was blaming everything on the U.S., adding, "'Blame America' has become the global agenda of the Democratic Party." Walsh is ignoring facts here too -- Clinton also said that the U.S. and Mexico "have a co-responsibility" to crack down on border crime and that the U.S. would encourage the Mexican government to increase its battle against rampant corruption by promoting police and judicial reform.

He tossed in yet another baseless sweeping generalization, insisting that "Many national forests, parks, monuments, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges -- once the pride of the nation -- are serving today as marijuana fields for illegal alien gangs." But the ultimate problem, in Walsh's eyes, is all those brown people:

When will President Obama recognize that illegal immigration is slowing economic recovery? Can he resolve the chaos while still appeasing his Hispanic base?

To maintain his populist aura, the president is in the habit of saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.

One Obama apologist explained, “Campaign rhetoric is one thing,” suggesting that governing is another. The deliberate Hispanicazation of the United States to secure a block of votes is quite another.

And shoddily researched, borderline-racist rants are something else entirely.

Walsh also sneered at "100 open-borders activists" who "gathered for a rally," claiming that the rally took place "during the mid-morning hours when most citizens and legal immigrants are at work."

Obama-bashing and name-calling

In his March 1 column, Walsh attacked Obama as "a true disciple of Saul Alinsky" and "is using Alinsky tactics in addressing the immigration issue." Walsh's ranting ramps up:

One possibility is that CIR is part of his grand strategy for social change, enlisting the help of the feminist social agenda, gullible Hispanics, and artless young people. Another possibility is that he does not really want CIR, and his minimal efforts are just enough to appease Hispanics and rupture the Republican Party. Either way, it is pure humbug.

Immigration reform has evolved into an effort to change America, thanks to Obama’s radical-left money people, among them George Soros. Thus far, Obama has been successful in bringing about “change” without accountability, thanks to an adoring press and an indifferent electorate.

The American people and Republican legislators who have offered no resistance are behaving like intellectual zombies. Republican/Conservative/Libertarian efforts to hold Obama and his minions in check have failed due to crafty stonewalling, obfuscation, and sleight-of-hand maneuvers by the president.

Walsh also claims that Obama's presidential campaign was designed to "appeal to fainéant entitlement “takers,” feminist nihilists, and naïve youths."

Walsh seems not to understand that name-calling is not the way to entice people to your side.

Nevertheless, Walsh insisted on clinging to the tactic. An April 26 column denounced a recent rally for immigration reform as "a well-orchestrated, well-financed, Alinsky-style community-organizer protest," and claimed the presence of children "reflected the labor-union tactic of using children to evoke sympathy and gain publicity."

Walsh went on to claim that "Some observers of the rally questioned the cost of transporting, feeding, and housing the demonstrators, many of whom couldn’t speak English." He provided no evidence of any lack of English-speaking skills among the attendees, and the quotes he attributes to these "observers" have no backup either; they sound like his usual tactic of quoting purportedly real people who all happen to agree with him.

Walsh's May 3 column was dedicated to declaring that President Obama's policies "have the potential to erode U.S. culture, heritage, identity, and financial solvency." He railed against immigration reform (of course), as well as health care reform and foreign policy.

Walsh wrote in his Aug. 16 column:

Back in July 2011, when Obama spoke to members of La Raza (a radical immigration advocacy group), he stated, “Now I know some people would want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own . . . the idea of doing on my own is very tempting. But that’s not how the system works. That’s not how democracy functions.”

La Raza is hardly a "radical" group, unless you consider civil rights for Hispanics "radical" (which, given his hostility toward immigrants, Walsh probably does). Further, its policy initiatives are much more diverse than immigration, covering civil rights, education, and health.

Walsh piled up even more hate and lies in his Oct. 7 column. He starts this way:

The White House is readying for an immigration blitz, according to a Politico item on September 28. A White House Hispanic adviser opined that October will see a “Day of Dignity and Respect” to reinforce the message that U.S. citizens owe those residing in the country illegally not only “subservience but abject penance.”

We found no evidence that any White House official said this -- it does not appear anywhere in the Politico story Walsh is citing. It appears that Walsh simply made up this quote.

Walsh then makes an odd racial attack on President Obama:

Barack Obama was re-elected president when a majority of liberal whites, blacks, Hispanics, entitlement recipients, and unionists voted for him — and when some 7 million to 9 million white voters failed to vote.

That seems to speak for itself. That's followed by:

Surveys reflect that 70 percent of Americans are against “easy” or “unearned” citizenship. The Obama administration, however, has no intention of allowing this silent majority to derail his immigration legislation, especially in the midst of an unpopular government shutdown.

Walsh offers no evidence that the "path to citizenship" envisioned under immigration reform is "easy" or "unearned." He then says:

With the Senate’s Democrat majority in his pocket, Obama is “El Supremo,” according to his Latino supporters. In line with his imperial stand on the federal budget’s fiscal crisis, the president may refuse to negotiate any portion of his forthcoming immigration “reform.”

Way to invoke Hispanic stereotypes there, Mr. Walsh. He concludes with a final flurry of unsubstantiated Obama-bashing and race-baiting:

For political reasons, law enforcement agencies give a pass to Mexican Drug Cartel (MDC) gangs running wild through U.S. cities. Chicago is the murder capital of the nation; Washington, D.C., is second; and gang members injured in shoot-outs receive free medical care.

The result is immigration chaos; yet Obama and many Democrats see unrestricted immigration as essential for global social justice. When was U.S. policy reshaped as “Come One, Come All”? When citizens didn’t make it to the polls.

Walsh needs to learn to give up his hatred of those who don't share his skin color, starting with the President of the United States.

Purporting to speak for Hispanics

Despite the fact that Walsh doesn't appear to actually like Hispanics, Walsh sure likes to speak for them. which which he did in a June 2012 column:

What does the Hispanic community think of deferred deportations? Many have their doubts about Obama and his repeated promises of comprehensive immigration reform — La Promesa de Obama — dating from 2007. During a February 2012 interview with the Hispanic television network, Univision, the president said, “I’ve got another five years coming up. We’re going to get this done,” suggesting comprehensive immigration reform.

Many Hispanics want to know why, in 2009 and 2010, when the Democrats controlled the White House as well as the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, was neither immigration reform nor the DREAM Act enacted? Obama never intended to actually seek the passage of comprehensive immigration reform, as it would defeat his idea of marginalizing America.

Recent surveys show that Hispanics are worried about jobs, the economy, education for their children, and fiscal solvency, with immigration coming in a poor fifth. The average U.S. citizen/taxpayer of Hispanic lineage also worries about the additional costs of adding an estimated 1.4 million illegal-alien youth up to 30 years old to the welfare rolls.

[...]

Hispanic voters realize that Obama is pandering to them by offering a campaign concession with limited shelf life. They know by now that long-term meaningful immigration reform is not part of Obama’s game plan.

How does Walsh know all this stuff about Hispanics? He doesn't say.

Walsh used a Nov. 21, 2012, column to offer this explanation of Hispanics in America, in which he notes that the majority of them are "the lower economic and uneducated class" from Mexico:

To understand the Mexican voter, Republicans need to look at Mexico’s history. Mexico was “discovered” by the Spaniards in 1519 and conquered by 1521. After three centuries of Spanish dominance, the Mexican people were led in an 1812-13 revolt by a Catholic priest who was later executed by the Spanish authorities.

For the next 120 years, Mexico suffered political revolutions, assassinations, internecine fighting, and turmoil. In 1857, a radical liberal Constitution was pushed through by President Benito Juarez, a Mestizo (of the uneducated class).

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, nihilistic leaders like Juarez, Villa, and Zapata led the Mestizos in attacks on business, military, and “rich” communities as part of class warfare that included attacks on religion, especially the Catholic Church.

Historically, Mexico has had three economic and social classes, Mestizos — Indians or indigenous people, and the lower economic and uneducated class; Criollos — those of mixed Indian and Spanish/European blood and the middle class; and Peninsulares — pure Spanish/ European blood (white) and the business and land-owning class. The majority of illegal aliens entering the United States are Mestizos.

As members of the lower economic class, they favor the Democrats who offer welfare programs, strong government intervention in economic affairs, and progressive taxation of the “rich.” These immigrants see Republicans as elitists (like the Peninsulares) who favor the “rich” over the “poor”— a viewpoint influenced by Mexican history.

In contrast, Mexican-Americans who have lived in the United States for decades and centuries favor the Republican political model.

Walsh goes on to write, "One Hispanic said, 'We vote with our hearts,' and another proclaimed, 'We own America. They owe us.'" Who is this "one Hispanic," where did Walsh find this purported quote, and how did Walsh decide that he speaks for all Hispanics in America? Walsh doesn't explain.