Help In These Times raise $5,000 in two weeks! Donate now!
PrintDiscuss
Features » April 24, 2006

Keeping America Empty

How one small-town conservationist launched today’s anti-immigration movement

By Christopher Hayes

John Tanton

Tags   
Share   Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine   StumbleUpon Reddit Furl Propeller

At the northern tip of Michigan’s lower peninsula lies the quaint town of Petoskey, population 6,080. In late March, a thick white shelf of ice still covers Lake Michigan, and a few miles north, over the Mackinac Bridge, the Upper Peninsula appears as a grey tangle of virgin wilderness. This isn’t the end of the world, residents say, but you can see it from here.

The town seems to have escaped much of the last four decades. Mom-and-pop stores and unassuming churches line its downtown, and there’s hardly a chain restaurant in sight. People wear flag pins on their lapels, even when they’re not running for office.

On the day I drive to Petoskey, the radio is buzzing with voices from the Great Immigration Debate: ranting talk show hosts, sermonizing senators and the chanting protests of thousands in Grand Rapids, a few hours south of Petoskey. Like hundreds of thousands of others, they are marching against House-passed legislation that would turn approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants into felons.

All the cacophony lacks is a mention of the one man who set much of this in motion 25 years ago, the man I had come to see: 72-year-old retired opthamologist John Tanton.

Tanton may not make headlines, but even a casual dusting of today’s anti-immigration movement reveals his fingerprints everywhere. Turn on Lou Dobbs and you’ll see experts from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the nation’s oldest and most influential immigration restriction group, which Tanton founded in 1979. Scan the newspapers and you’ll find Republican lawmakers reporting a tidal wave of calls from members of NumbersUSA, which Tanton cofounded. Watch the committee hearings on C-SPAN and you’ll hear anti-immigration talking points lifted straight from the Center for Immigration Studies, another Tanton creation. And on and on.

Thirty years ago, “if you wanted to call some group and say, ‘Tell me about immigration,’ there was no phone number,” recalls founding FAIR board member Otis Graham. Devin Burghart, who monitors the anti-immigration movement for the progressive Center for New Community, says that Tanton has done for immigration politics “what Pat Robertson did for the Christian Right. As a tactician, he’s done a brilliant job.”

Given that the movement he helped create now finds its base among conservative Republicans, you might expect John Tanton to be an unapologetic reactionary. You’d be wrong. He’s a self-described progressive, ex-Sierra Club member, Planned Parenthood supporter and harsh critic of neoclassical economists. So I wanted to know: How did a whip-smart, mild-mannered farm boy committed to conserving the natural world end up seeding and nurturing a movement that now dispatches gun-toting vigilantes to patrol the border?

——————————————

In person, Tanton hardly seems like a firebrand. He speaks softly, and carries himself with the reserved politeness of the small town doctor he was for 35 years. When I get to Petoskey at noon on a Monday, I find him in a Presbyterian church, where for the last 20 years his Great Books club has convened. Tanton briefly interrupts the discussion of Joseph Conrad’s Under Western Eyes to introduce me, casually mentioning the magazine I write for, where I went to school and even what my major was. For a 72-year-old man, he sure knows his way around Google.

Tanton and his wife Mary Lou moved to Petoskey in 1964 after he finished medical school. The town’s small clinic had an opening, and, particularly important, some of the most pristine wilderness in America was just minutes away. The couple quickly threw themselves into a variety of conservation causes.

A fundamental problem the nascent environmental movement identified was, in Tanton’s words, that “the economic system is based on continual growth forever,” which “in a finite world” isn’t possible. The Tantons and others in the movement became convinced that something would have to give, and that it shouldn’t be the planet. To avoid catastrophe, society would have to reconstitute itself to favor conservation over growth. It is a small-c conservative philosophy: What the cheerleaders of modernity called “progress,” they called a plague.

In 1968, a Stanford biologist named Paul Ehrlich made these ideas mainstream with his book, The Population Bomb. With terrifying certainty, Ehrlich argued that the exponential growth in population and the incremental growth in food could only mean one thing: mass famine. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” the book begins. “In the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”

It was an instant sensation, turning “overpopulation” into a hot topic and landing Ehrlich repeatedly on “The Tonight Show.” Tanton had been ahead of the curve. As early as the ’50s, he avidly read reports from the Population Reference Bureau, and by the time Ehrlich’s book was published, he and Mary Lou had already started work on the first Northern Michigan chapter of Planned Parenthood. “I believed in the multiplication tables,” says Tanton. “Since I was a physician and could do something about birth control, it struck me that this was where I could make my contribution to the conservation movement.”

Time hasn’t been kind to Ehrlich’s predictions: Due to a technological revolution in agriculture, there was no mass famine. World population growth has slowed considerably; the United Nations now predicts it could plateau by 2050. Many, if not most, professional demographers today are more worried about depopulation in the developed world.

But in many quarters, this “fixed pie” view persists, and the logic isn’t necessarily flawed. Resources, particularly oil, are finite and the notion that technology will always be able to bail us out is dubious. Perhaps Ehrlich’s predictions weren’t wrong, just premature.

Tanton, whose worldview was forged in this intellectual milieu, is haunted by the spectre of an apocalypse just over the horizon, and the thought that he is one of a select few who see it coming. Sitting at his desk during one of our interviews, he reaches into a drawer, withdraws an electric metronome and flicks it on. As the device pulses at 135 beats per minute, he explains that each beat is a new birth (at the 1969 rate), and each new birth requires resources: food, clothing, education. It’s a trick he used when he gave talks on population in the ’70s, and it’s effective. His voice barely rises over the percussive onslaught, and after just 30 seconds you want to yell: “Make it stop!”

You get the sense that Tanton hears that beat inside his head all the time.

In 1969, Tanton started and chaired the population committee of his local Sierra Club chapter, and when Ehrlich and like-minded environmentalists founded the advocacy group Zero Population Growth (ZPG), he became one of its most active members, rising to its presidency in 1975. By then, the birthrate for Americans had declined below the replacement rate, but the American population was projected to keep growing. Tanton settled on the culprit: immigration.

The number of immigrants was still small by today’s standards but had started to creep upwards, thanks in part to a 1965 immigration bill that instituted family reunification policies and did away with 40 years of quotas that heavily favored northern Europeans. Since immigrants had higher birthrates, reducing their numbers would allow the United States to achieve the zero population growth that had seemed a pipe dream only a few years earlier.

Tanton pushed for the Sierra Club to take a strong stand to reduce immigration, but the organization balked. He didn’t have much more success with his fellow travelers at ZPG. Tanton chalks it up to fear of tackling a taboo subject, but it seems just as likely that they couldn’t see why it mattered on which side of the Rio Grande someone was born. Today, ZPG, since renamed Population Connection, takes what its current president, John Seager, calls a “global approach,” supporting female literacy, access to birth control and family-planning services in the developing world. If Tanton’s concern is the health of the planet, why doesn’t he subscribe to this view? He explains that reducing immigration will force countries like Mexico to confront their own population growth rates. “Each country,” he says, “ought to try to match its population to its resource base.”

Ultimately, Tanton realized it would be impossible to graft a new agenda onto an existing organization and resolved to found his own group. With Otis Graham and a couple of sympathetic board members poached from ZPG and several hundred thousand dollars in startup money from a wealthy Ehrlich devotee, Tanton founded FAIR on Jan. 2, 1979, with a mission to end illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration.

It was at this point that Tanton initiated the hyper-productive schedule he’d maintain for the next 29 years, spending Tuesday through Friday seeing patients at the clinic and working evenings, weekends and Mondays on immigration. While his physician’s life gave him the “ability to restore sight,” it was repetitive, he says. His activism was “abstract, focused on the long term and people called you bad names, but it was extremely stimulating.”

Tanton talks with such evident passion about the minutiae of organizing—the importance of correctly naming organizations, rules for recruiting effective board members—that it’s tempting to see his work on immigration as something like Oppenheimer’s work on the bomb, driven as much by the sheer intellectual challenge as by its ultimate goal. In an early memo to FAIR staffers, he explained his enjoyment of fundraising: “[I]t’s the ultimate chess game, in three dimensions, with the players all able to move themselves.”

The Tantons spent a year in D.C. working for FAIR between 1981 and 1982 (“crowded” is John’s assessment of the city) and their enthusiasm was contagious. One FAIR staffer wrote that the organization had “all the excitement and energy of a gold rush town.” When he returned to Petoskey, Tanton continued to grow the movement, helping to found the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, Immigration Reform Law Institute and a journal, the Social Contract Press, which he has published out of his office for 16 years. He had some successes: FAIR membership grew to 50,000 by 1990 (today it claims 198,000 “members and supporters”), and it successfully lobbied for increased border security and harsher penalties in the two rounds of immigration legislation passed in 1986 and 1996.

Next page »Page 1 of 2
  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Christopher Hayes is the Washington Editor of the Nation and a former senior editor of In These Times. Read more of his work at www.chrishayes.org.

More information about Christopher Hayes
Tags   
Share   StumbleUpon Facebook Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Propeller Furl
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Get Real!

    “The problem is that nowhere else in the world do two countries with such disparate relative wealth share such a massive border.”

    Not to worry. We are rapidly approaching a common denominator. Our job quality and pay is declining as theirs rises.
    ————————-

    Come on - the real issue for most of us is NOT immigration per se — it’s ILLEGAL immigration, amnesty by any name, slave labor wages and favoring the business community.

    The only arrests necessary are the employers.  No job — no reason to be here. (This goes for our kids contemplating college also.)

    Think about this…
    The argument that they do the jobs Americans won’t do.  They are being paid sub-minimum wages for now.  We’ve seen organized marches and our representatives catering to them. After they get legal status, how long before they “demand” better pay.

    If the pay were fair Americans would do the work, or invent a machine for it.

    This kind of slanted, yellow journalism is what this website accuses as coming from the administration. So I guess it is universal — the end justifies the means.

    Posted by whattheheck on Apr 25, 2006 at 2:42 PM

    Christopher Hayes — Read this… You should be getting one too.
    ———————————& ———————————

    Dobbs Blasts N.Y. Times’ Friedman

    Firing back at New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, an obviously angry CNN’s Lou Dobbs says the acclaimed foreign correspondent blatantly distorted his position on immigration.

    On his “Lou Dobbs Report” Monday night, Dobbs said that Friedman had charged that he is an ardent foe of immigration, saying that the Times columnist had “completely misconstructed, misconstrued everything I’ve said on this broadcast.”

    Quoting Friedman as saying that he has been broadcasting an “unmitigated rant against immigration” Dobbs countered that he had “never once ranted or criticized immigration ... that is simply a lie. I am strongly pro-immigration. In fact I would like to see more legal immigration in this country. I am adamantly and absolutely opposed to illegal immigration. As I have said more than once there can be no reform in our immigration laws without control of immigration and we can’t control immigration unless we can control out borders.”

    Dobbs asked Friedman that if he was listening he would choose to correct the record.

    Posted by whattheheck on Apr 25, 2006 at 5:24 PM

    Several sites show links between Tanton and his partners to white supremacists.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has a number of articles on John Tanton.  www.splcenter.org

    “In These Times” has moved from a left stand on issues to a right wing white supremacist stand.

    Posted by november on Apr 25, 2006 at 7:10 PM

    Lou Dobbs is a tool.  After all, he graduated from Harvard, with a degree in economics, no less, which proves the point.  What can you say about a guy who cites a study on immigration from the National Academy of Sciences to conclude that even though immigrant labor contributes ten billion dollars to the American economy, the costs of immigrant labor debit the economy by ten to twenty billion dollars, when in fact the study explicitly concludes that immigrant labor contributes ten billion dollars in net benefits to the economy.  Or when he states that one third of the American prison population are “illegal aliens” when in fact the accurate citation is that one third of the prison population are not citizens of the US.

    I don’t mean to imply that my absence of regard for Dobbs’ inability to produce a fair and balanced summary of the facts is an endorsement of Thomas “Flathead” Friedman, whose misrepresentations of the truth are equal to those of Dobbs.

    It’s hilarious to read to the racist rants of people whose great-great-grandparents emigrated from the eastern colonies to extirpate the natives in the western “territories”,  whose great-great-grandchildren presumably invade and occupy the cultural terrain of our patriotic homeland.

    Posted by Major Major on Apr 25, 2006 at 10:47 PM

    november - “In These Times” has moved from a left stand on issues to a right wing white supremacist stand.”

    Can one be against illegal immigration without being a “white supremacist”? In fact, is there any connection between the two?

    Why did you make the assertion above?

    Posted by wolf on Apr 26, 2006 at 3:27 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 22 posts.

Appeared in the May 2006 Issue
Also by Christopher Hayes
  • The New Road to Serfdom
    Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy"Posted on November 9, 2007
  • Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
    Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracyPosted on May 25, 2007
  • What We Learn When We Learn Economics
    Is a little economics a dangerous thing?Posted on November 27, 2006
  • The Abramoff Babies
    Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms.Posted on October 19, 2006
  • The Good War on Terror
    How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to BaghdadPosted on September 8, 2006
If you like what you're reading, why not help pay for it?
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
We all like free stuff, but the news can't pay for itself.