New SPLC Report: Nation's Most Prominent Anti-Immigration Group has History of Hate, Extremism

Editor's Note: After issuing this report in December 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center added the Federation for American Immigration Reform to its list of hate groups.

The country's leading anti-immigration organization — whose leaders have testified repeatedly before Congress and are frequently quoted in the media — has ties to known racists and a long track record of bigotry, according to a new report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

* is the creation of a man who operates a racist publishing company and has compared immigrants to "bacteria;"
* has employed members of white supremacist groups in key positions;
* has promoted racist conspiracy theories; and
* has accepted more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation devoted to eugenics and to proving a connection between race and IQ.

FAIR and its ties to white supremacy are examined in the latest issue of the SPLC's quarterly Intelligence Report.

The SPLC today added FAIR to its list of hate groups operating in the United States.

"FAIR's position on immigration is rooted more in its anti-Latino and anti-Catholic beliefs than in policy concerns," said Mark Potok, the director of the SPLC's project that monitors hate group activity. "Remarkably, it has still managed to infiltrate the mainstream and shape the immigration debate in this country."

FAIR helped defeat federal immigration reform earlier this year and has played a key role in fueling the fierce, anti-immigrant backlash in the United States. It was founded in 1979 by John Tanton, a man who has compared immigrants to bacteria and warned that high birthrates will allow Latinos to take over America. Still a member of FAIR's board, Tanton also operates The Social Contract Press, listed as a hate group for many years by the SPLC because of its anti-Latino and white supremacist writings.

"The sad fact is that attempts to reform our immigration system are being sabotaged by organizations fueled by hate," Henry Fernandez, a senior fellow and expert on immigration at the Center for American Progress, told the Intelligence Report.

The SPLC has documented a 40 percent increase in the number of hate groups since 2000, an increase that SPLC analysts attribute to the anti-immigrant fervor that is sweeping the country. The FBI recently released statistics showing a 35 percent rise in hate crimes against Latinos since 2003. A sampling of some of the most egregious acts of violence against Latinos over the past three years is included in the new issue of the SPLC's Intelligence Report.

[b]RAND STUDY SHOWS RELATIVELY LITTLE PUBLIC MONEY SPENT
PROVIDING HEALTH CARE TO UNDOCUMENTED [/b]IMMIGRANTS

Just a small fraction of America's health care spending is used to provide publicly supported care to the nation's undocumented immigrants, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.

Overall, immigrants to the United States use relatively few health services, primarily because they are generally healthier than their American-born counterparts, according to the study by the nonprofit research organization.

The report – which appears in the November edition of the journal Health Affairs – estimates that in the United States about $1.1 billion in federal, state and local government funds are spent annually on health care for undocumented immigrants aged 18 to 64. That amounts to an average of $11 in taxes for each U.S. household.

In contrast, a total of $88 billion in government funds were spent on health care for all non-elderly adults in 2000.

“Our findings show a relatively small amount of tax money is spent on health services provided to undocumented immigrants,” said James P. Smith, the RAND chair in Labor Market and Demographic Studies and an author of the report. “Costs will be much higher for educating the children of undocumented immigrants, so that's where debate should center, not on these relatively small health care costs.”

The other authors of the new report are: Dana Goldman, chair and director of health economics at RAND; and Neeraj Sood, an associate economist at RAND.

Smith also was an author of the often-cited National Academy of Science publication on immigration titled “The New Americans.”

The estimates of public spending on medical care for undocumented immigrants are included in a RAND study that examined the patterns of health care use by the foreign-born and those born in the United States. The study provides the most detailed analysis to date of immigrants and their use of health services.

Researchers developed their estimates by analyzing information collected by the Los Angeles Family Neighborhood Study (LAFANS), which interviewed nearly 2,400 English- and Spanish-speaking adults throughout Los Angeles County during 2000 and 2001. Los Angeles has the largest immigrant community in the United States.

Participants in the LAFANS study were asked about their health status, whether they had health insurance, and the type and amount of health care used. The study is unique because it also asks participants about their immigration status – information not collected by other surveys.

Researchers found that non-elderly, adult immigrants – those who are legal and those who are undocumented – made fewer visits to doctors and hospitals than native-born non-elderly adults. Although the foreign-born make up 45 percent of the Los Angeles County's population, they accounted for just 33 percent of the region's health spending in 2000, according to the study.

A large number of foreign-born residents of Los Angeles County had almost no contact with the formal health care system, researchers found. One-quarter of the foreign-born had never had a medical check-up and one in nine had never visited a doctor – twice the rate seen among the native-born. Only 58 percent of undocumented immigrants had visited a doctor in the past year and only 11 percent had been hospitalized in the past two years.

Among undocumented men, just 2 percent had any hospitalizations in the prior year. Half had not seen a doctor in the prior year.

One of every five undocumented women had never received a checkup – four times the rate seen among native-born women – and 7 percent had never seen a physician, compared with 1 percent of native-born women.

“The lower use of medical services by immigrants is driven in part by their lower rates of insurance,” Goldman said. “But the largest factor appears to be due to their being generally healthier than the native-born population.”

Foreign-born people in the LAFANS survey reported fewer health problems, an advantage that was especially pronounced among the undocumented. For example, while 38 percent of the native-born reported having a chronic health condition, only 27 percent of the foreign-born and 19 percent of the undocumented did so.

Researchers say some of the differences may be explained by the younger age of immigrants and a lower rate of diagnosis caused by their limited access to doctors and other health services. But even when those factors are considered, immigrants appear healthier than the native born.

“This suggests that the act of immigrating to the United States favors those who are generally healthier and may discourage those who have chronic health problems,” said study co-author Sood.

Researchers computed estimates of health costs by immigration status by combining information about an individual's use of health services with studies that estimate the cost of individual health services.

The study found that per capita health care spending by foreign-born men in Los Angeles County in 2000 was $1,086 less than by native-born men ($1,540 compared with $2,626), with most of the difference due to lower spending by private and public insurers for the foreign-born. Similar trends were seen among women.

Among the foreign-born, per-person health costs were highest among immigrant citizens. Per- person medical spending for undocumented men and women was 39 percent and 54 percent of the spending of their native-born counterparts.

The authors estimate that total medical costs for all Los Angeles County residents ages 18 to 64 was $13.9 billion in 2000, with private insurers paying a bit more than half the costs and public insurers a little more than one-fourth the costs. The remainder was paid for out of pocket.

Researchers estimate that total medical spending on undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles County was $887 million in 2000 – 6 percent of total costs, although undocumented immigrants comprise 12 percent of the region's residents.

Most of the costs for undocumented immigrants' health care were covered by private insurance or out-of-pocket payments, but an estimate $204 million was for publicly supported services. The study found that native-born residents were more likely to use publicly funded services than foreign-born residents.

In the new RAND study, national estimates of health care costs for the foreign-born were obtained by applying the experiences from Los Angeles County across the nation, where the foreign-born are 13.1 percent of the population and undocumen...

Medicare’s 43rd Birthday is July 30th - Medicare is known as one of the most successful social programs in the United States. Its universal coverage for those 65 and older creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest, it pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick, and through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care without putting profit interests first. Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their coverage, and now it is time to give improve and expand this wonderful program to everyone in the country! Support HR 676, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All!
We need you to help us celebrate! Here is what you can do: