Originally published by The Washington Post

As the crowd at President Trump’s Wednesday rally chanted Send her back! after his torrent of accusations against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), it was clear that Trump had unleashed something malignant and dangerous across America.

The ugly rhetoric and calls for violence against immigrants and people of color on display Wednesday aren’t new. Yet they have become particularly potent in recent years because the president has not just encouraged them but also worked to transform white nationalism into actual policy.

So, perhaps it is appropriate to note that on the day Trump’s rally erupted into disturbing anti-immigrant chants, it was reported that John Tanton, the guiding force of the contemporary anti-immigration movement, had died. His legacy was clearly on display at Trump’s most recent rally, but it didn’t start there. Tanton helped Americans embrace nativist policies over the past 40 years by framing immigration as a threat to white America.

As the crowd at President Trump’s Wednesday rally chanted Send her back! after his torrent of accusations against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), it was clear that Trump had unleashed something malignant and dangerous across America.

The ugly rhetoric and calls for violence against immigrants and people of color on display Wednesday aren’t new. Yet they have become particularly potent in recent years because the president has not just encouraged them but also worked to transform white nationalism into actual policy.

So, perhaps it is appropriate to note that on the day Trump’s rally erupted into disturbing anti-immigrant chants, it was reported that John Tanton, the guiding force of the contemporary anti-immigration movement, had died. His legacy was clearly on display at Trump’s most recent rally, but it didn’t start there. Tanton helped Americans embrace nativist policies over the past 40 years by framing immigration as a threat to white America.

But calling to restrict immigration was a sensitive subject. The public embraced the label nation of immigrants and, historically, immigration exclusion was shot through with racism and bigotry. Since the civil rights movement, excluding immigrants based on race or national origin was understood to be chauvinistic and backward. Tanton wanted to make sure FAIR was seen as middle of the road – not racist – and worked continuously to set it apart from the more emotional, hate-driven white nationalists who shared his goals.

FAIR – and a growing network of organizations founded or funded by Tanton, including the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) – avoided explicit discussions of race. For example, when anti-immigration supporters were angry about the growing presence of Spanish language translations in official documents, FAIR didn’t take on the issue of bilingualism. Rather, Tanton launched U.S. English, an organization that advocated for official English policies in states across the country. These initiatives sent a clear message to Spanish-speaking residents, immigrant and citizen alike, that they were unwelcome.

Although Tanton and his supporters wanted to dramatically curtail all immigration, particularly legal immigration, they tended to gain traction when they framed the issue around unauthorized immigration. It was easier for the public to understand – illegal vs. legal – but this framing overlooked the more complicated reality, notably the ways that U.S. policies encouraged immigration, while limiting legal paths.

But calling to restrict immigration was a sensitive subject. The public embraced the label nation of immigrants and, historically, immigration exclusion was shot through with racism and bigotry. Since the civil rights movement, excluding immigrants based on race or national origin was understood to be chauvinistic and backward. Tanton wanted to make sure FAIR was seen as middle of the road – not racist – and worked continuously to set it apart from the more emotional, hate-driven white nationalists who shared his goals.

FAIR – and a growing network of organizations founded or funded by Tanton, including the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) – avoided explicit discussions of race. For example, when anti-immigration supporters were angry about the growing presence of Spanish language translations in official documents, FAIR didn’t take on the issue of bilingualism. Rather, Tanton launched U.S. English, an organization that advocated for official English policies in states across the country. These initiatives sent a clear message to Spanish-speaking residents, immigrant and citizen alike, that they were unwelcome.

Although Tanton and his supporters wanted to dramatically curtail all immigration, particularly legal immigration, they tended to gain traction when they framed the issue around unauthorized immigration. It was easier for the public to understand – illegal vs. legal – but this framing overlooked the more complicated reality, notably the ways that U.S. policies encouraged immigration, while limiting legal paths.

But calling to restrict immigration was a sensitive subject. The public embraced the label nation of immigrants and, historically, immigration exclusion was shot through with racism and bigotry. Since the civil rights movement, excluding immigrants based on race or national origin was understood to be chauvinistic and backward. Tanton wanted to make sure FAIR was seen as middle of the road – not racist – and worked continuously to set it apart from the more emotional, hate-driven white nationalists who shared his goals.

FAIR – and a growing network of organizations founded or funded by Tanton, including the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) – avoided explicit discussions of race. For example, when anti-immigration supporters were angry about the growing presence of Spanish language translations in official documents, FAIR didn’t take on the issue of bilingualism. Rather, Tanton launched U.S. English, an organization that advocated for official English policies in states across the country. These initiatives sent a clear message to Spanish-speaking residents, immigrant and citizen alike, that they were unwelcome.

Although Tanton and his supporters wanted to dramatically curtail all immigration, particularly legal immigration, they tended to gain traction when they framed the issue around unauthorized immigration. It was easier for the public to understand – illegal vs. legal – but this framing overlooked the more complicated reality, notably the ways that U.S. policies encouraged immigration, while limiting legal paths.

But his greatest legacy was creating a way of debating immigration without using overtly racist language. As Tanton wrote in 1978, We plan to make the restriction of immigration a legitimate position for thinking people, and to have FAIR identified in the minds of leaders in the media, academia and government as speaking for a consensus of American thought and opinion. He did just that.

Tanton made restriction palatable – to the media that echoed his framing, to policymakers who put forth legislation and proposals, and to the part of the public that wanted to pin society’s problems on a vulnerable population of immigrants.

Today Tanton’s ideas operate through our immigration policy and in how much of the public thinks about the issue. The concept of immigrant removal sounds legal, official and far-removed from the violence and rabidity of Trump’s campaign rallies, with angry cries of send her back! aimed at a sitting congresswoman. But they share the belief that the United States is, at its core, a white country.

One person can make an enormous difference. Tanton’s life’s work made severe immigration restriction thinkable, then mainstream. His organizations persist, and alumni from Tanton’s groups now staff the Trump administration, advancing their radical vision in the halls of power. Tanton’s legacy will be with us for some time. But perhaps a new vision – one that recognizes the humanity of everyone and treats immigrants with dignity and respect – can displace it now that he is gone.

Read more:https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/18/john-tanton-has-died-how-he-made-america-less-open-immigrants-more-open-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2a1e3f641d84