
Forgotten godfather of Trump's immigration campaign
Tribune News Service
He inveighs against illegal immigration in terms more appropriate for a vermin infestation. He wants all people without papers deported immediately, damn the cost. He thinks Los Angeles is a cesspool and that flying the Mexican flag in the United States is an act of insurrection. He uses the internet mostly to share crude videos and photos depicting Latinos as subhuman. Stephen Miller? Absolutely. But every time I hear the chief architect of President Donald Trump's scorched earth immigration policies rail in uglier and uglier terms, I recall another xenophobe I hadn't thought of in awhile. For nearly 30 years, Glenn Spencer fought illegal immigration in Los Angeles and beyond with a singular obsession. The former Sherman Oaks resident kicked off his campaign, he told The Times in a 2001 profile, after seeing Latinos looting during the 1992 LA riots and thinking, "Oh, my God, there are so many of them and they are so out of control."
Spencer was a key volunteer who pushed for the passage of Prop. 187, the 1994 California ballot initiative that sought to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants and was so punitive that a federal judge later ruled it unconstitutional. A multiplatform influencer before that became commonplace, Spencer hosted a local radio show, produced videos that he mailed to all members of Congress warning about an "invasion" and turned his vitriolic newsletter into a website, American Patrol, that helped connect nativist groups across the country. American Patrol's home page was a collection of links to newspaper articles about suspected undocumented immigrants alleged to have committed crimes. While Spencer regularly trashed Muslims and other immigrants, he directed most of his bile at Mexicans. A "Family Values" button on the website, in the colors of the Mexican flag, highlighted sex crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants. Editorial cartoons featured a Mexican flag piercing a hole in California with the caption "Sink-hole de Mayo."
Long before conservative activists recorded themselves infiltrating the conferences of political enemies, Spencer was doing it. He provoked physical fights at protests and published reams of digital nonsense against Latino politicians, once superimposing a giant sombrero on an image of Antonio Villaraigosa with the epithet, "Viva Mexico!" On the morning Villaraigosa, the future LA mayor, was to be sworn in as speaker of the assembly in 1998, every seat in the legislative chamber was topped by a flier labeling him a communist and leader of the supposed Mexican takeover of California. "I don't remember if his name was on it, but it was all his terminology," said Villaraigosa, who recalled how Spencer helped make his college membership in the Chicano student group MEChA an issue in his 2001 mayoral loss to Jim Hahn. "But he never had the balls to talk to me in person."
Spencer became the Johnny Appleseed of the modern-day Know Nothing movement, lecturing to groups of middle-aged gringos about his work — first across the San Fernando Valley, then in small towns where Latinos were migrating in large numbers for the first time. "California (it) has often been said is America's future. Let me tell you about your future," he told the Council of Conservative Citizens in Virginia in 1999. Spencer is the person most responsible for mainstreaming the lie of Reconquista, the wacko idea that Mexicans came to the U.S. not for economic reasons but because of a plot concocted by the Mexican government to take back the lands lost in the 1848 Mexican-American War. He wrote screeds like "Is Jew-Controlled Hollywood Brainwashing Americans?" and threatened libel lawsuits against anyone — myself included — who dared point out that he was a racist. He was a favorite punching bag of the mainstream media, a slovenly suburban Ahab doomed to fail. The Times wrote in 2001 that Spencer "foresaw millions of converts" to his anti-immigrant campaign, "only to see his temple founder."
Moving to southern Arizona in 2002, the better to monitor the US-Mexico border, Spencer spent the rest of his life trying to sell state and federal authorities on border-monitoring technology he developed that involved planes, drones and motion-detection sensors. His move inspired other conservatives to monitor the US-Mexico border on their own. By the Obama era, he was isolated even from other anti-immigrant activists for extremist views like banning foreign-language media and insisting that every person who came to this country illegally was a drug smuggler. Even the rise of Trump didn't bring Spencer and his work back into the limelight. He was so forgotten that I didn't even realise he was dead until Googling his name recently, after enduring another Miller rant. Spencer's hometown Sierra Vista's Herald Review was the only publication I found that made any note of his death from cancer in 2022 at age 85, describing his life's work as bringing "the crisis of illegal immigration to the forefront of the American public's consciousness."
That's a whitewash worthy of Tom Sawyer's picket fence. We live in Glenn Spencer's world, a place where the nastier the rhetoric against illegal immigration and the crueler the government's efforts against all migrants, the better. Every time a xenophobe makes Latinos out to be an invading force, every time someone posts a racist message on social media or Miller throws another tantrum on Fox News, Glenn Spencer gets his evil wings. Spencer "stood out among a vile swamp of racists and crackpots like a tornado supercell on radar," said Brian Levin, chair of the California Civil Rights Department's Commission on the State of Hate and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, who monitored American Patrol for years. "What's frightening now is that hate like his used to be well-segregated from the mainstream. Now, the guardrails are off, and what Spencer advocated for is federal policy." I first found out about Spencer in 1999 as a student activist at Chapman University. Spencer applauded the Anaheim Union High School District's decision to sue Mexico for the cost of educating undocumented immigrants' children, describing those of us who opposed it as communists — when he was being nice. His American Patrol described MEChA, which I, like Villaraigosa, belonged to, as a "scourge" and a "sickness."
His website was disgusting, but it became a must-read of mine. I knew even then that ignoring hate allows it to fester, and I wanted to figure out why people like Spencer despised people like me, my family and my friends. So I regularly covered him and his allies in my early years as a reporter with an obsession that was a reverse mirror of his. Colleagues and even activists said my work was a waste of time — that people like Spencer were wheezing artifacts who would eventually disappear as the U.S. embraced Latinos and immigrants.
And here we are. Spencer usually sent me legal threats whenever I wrote about his ugly ways — threats that went nowhere. That's why I was surprised at how relatively polite he was the last time we communicated, in 2019. I reached out via email asking for an interview for a Times podcast I hosted about the 25th anniversary of Prop. 187. By then, Spencer was openly criticizing Trump's planned border wall, which he found a waste of money and not nearly as efficient as his own system. Spencer initially said he would consider my request, while sending me an article he wrote that blamed Prop. 187's demise on then-California Gov. Gray Davis and Mexico's president at the time, Ernesto Zedillo.
When I followed up a few months later, Spencer bragged about the legacy of his website, which he hadn't regularly updated since 2013 due to declining health. The American Patrol archives "would convince the casual observer that The Times did what it could do (to) defeat my efforts and advance the cause of illegal immigration," Spencer wrote. "Do I think The Times has changed its spots? No. Will I agree to an interview? No." Levin hadn't heard about Spencer's death until we talked. "I thought he went into irrelevance," he admitted with a chuckle that he quickly cut off, realizing he had forgotten about Spencer's legacy in the era of Trump.
"We ignored that cough, that speck in the X-ray," Levin concluded, now somber. "And now, we have cancer."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Why MAGA wants to make Mexican Coke in the US
Matthew Yglesias, Tribune News Service Coca-Cola is launching a new product in the US this fall featuring cane sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup, and at least one restaurant chain is planning to offer sugar Coke as soon as next week. This news prompted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to post his reaction online: 'MAHA is winning.' This new Coke is highly unlikely to Make America Healthy Again. But it raises the question of how US soda manufacturers came to rely so heavily on the corn-based sweetener in the first place. The answer is protectionism, one of the main items on the Make America Great Again agenda. As it turns out, when you combine MAHA and MAGA, what you get is ... Mexican Coke. Because sugar-based Coca-Cola is already available in the US — it's just imported from Mexico and known colloquially as 'Mexican Coke.' The company does that because the US has extensive trade protections for American sugar growers, which pushes the domestic price of sugar in the US far above the world level. That means that it makes more economic sense to use corn-based sweeteners in US-based soda production while importing sugar soda from Mexico. Kennedy believes the ubiquity of high fructose corn syrup in the American diet has a significant deleterious impact on Americans' health. My more informed colleagues can adjudicate that claim, which I doubt. My concern is the distortionary impact of America's sugar policy on global trade flows and the allocation of natural resources. Turning corn into sugar is an inefficient process compared to turning sugar cane into sugar, so using HFCS is significantly more land-intensive than using regular sugar. Blocking sugar cane to promote HFCS therefore promotes global deforestation, on the margin, and raises the domestic price of food and land for Americans. In the grand scheme of things these are minor impacts — meat and especially cattle have by far the biggest land impacts of any economic sector — but they're something. The cornerstone of US. sugar policy is a system of tariff rate quotas. Under the so-called TRQ system a limited amount of sugar can be imported to the U.S. and lightly taxed. These quotas are set on both a national basis and for dozens of sugar-producing countries. Any sugar above the quota level is taxed at a rate of at least 15 cents per pound — and with the global price of sugar at only about 16 cents per pound, that's a huge tax. These TRQs, meanwhile, are only one part of a larger plan whose objective is to prevent domestic sugar prices from getting too low while providing guaranteed profits to domestic sugar farmers. Another aspect of it, for example, is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's practice of giving guaranteed discounted loans to sugar producers, with sugar itself offered up as collateral. The USDA is then instructed to manage an Overall Allotment Quantity (OAQ) — basically a national sugar production target — designed to ensure that the collateral is good for the loans and avoid credit losses. The upshot of all this is a windfall for a tiny number of American sugar farmers; a modest boost for America's corn farmers; higher prices for American consumers; and economic losses for America's trading partners in Latin America. This set of policies dates to the 1980s and has nothing in particular to do with President Donald Trump. But it amounts to a real-world road test of some MAGAnomics principles, and underscores how self-defeating protectionism can be. It's not just that American sugar policy raises costs and thus lowers living standards for the majority of people. It's that it undermines US manufacturing, because sugar is used as an input for other processes. Yes, in a naive sense, blocking sugar imports would seem to improve the US balance of trade. But the actual impact is unknowable. If tropical sugar-producing countries were allowed to export more sugar, they would have higher incomes. Those incomes would be spent on things, likely including the kinds of things that the US exports — airplanes, turbines, medical devices, beef, and whatever else. There would be real losses for some Americans, specifically the ones who own sugar plantations, but it's fundamentally a negative sum bargain that hurts most people on both sides of the trading relationship. Meanwhile, bad as all this sugar protectionism is as overall economic policy, the relationship to public health is borderline nonexistent. Coke simply manufacturing a cane sugar soda to give Trump a propaganda win, for starters, isn't going to change consumer behaviour. Sodas sweetened with cane sugar are already widely available in the US, not only from competing brands but from Coca-Cola itself. They are less popular because they are more expensive. Even if consumers did switch, there is no real evidence that cane sugar is healthier than HFCS. Mexico, for example, where non-HFCS sodas are mainstream, has recently surpassed the US in its obesity rate. The reason HFCS is bad for you is not that it's worse for you than cane sugar — it's that the development of HFCS technology has made it cheaper to add sweetener to all kinds of things. And while most people like the sweet stuff, all this sweetened hyper-palatable food and drink encourages overconsumption.


The National
a day ago
- The National
Report calls for tougher policing to tackle London's soaring knife crime
The surge in knife crime in London has been described as a part of an 'epidemic' by a former Metropolitan Police chief, who wants a return to strip and search methods and tougher sentencing from judges. Former detective chief inspector David Spencer said 'proactive policing' had collapsed, owing to a range of political decisions. In 2024, London recorded nearly 17,000 knife crime offences − an 86.6 per cent increase since 2014/2015. In the same year there were over 35,000 robberies an increase in only three years of 18.2 per cent. He called for a renewed use of the controversial stop and search method, and a bigger roll out of live facial recognition technology, in a report for the UK think tank Policy Exchange. 'London is in the grip of a knife crime, robbery and theft epidemic,' said Mr Spencer. 'A cosy consensus between police chiefs and political leaders has led to a collapse in proactive policing – in particular stop and search rates – allowing the streets to be surrendered to thugs, robbers and thieves.' Political backlash against stop and search over the past 15 years, was partly to blame for the surge the report said. Risks of getting caught and adequately punished are minimal Policy Exchange David Cameron's Conservative-led coalition government began to roll back on its use in 2010, and it was later criticised by former prime minister Theresa May and current Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Under the leadership of Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan the number of searches has fallen by 56.4% between 2021/22 and 2024/25 − from 311,352 searches to 135,739 searches annually. Though London had the highest rates of knife crime in the UK, this was not spread evenly across the city, but rather concentrated in a few pockets. The West End, particularly the areas near Oxford Circus, Regent Street and Piccadilly, had the highest rates of reported knife crime. Other parts of the UK such as Manchester and Yorkshire, had also seen high rates. Robbery was the predominant reason for knife crime in the UK, accounting for almost two thirds (61.62 per cent), followed by assault which accounts for a third (28.19 per cent). Yet police were increasingly unable to solve robberies and non-violent thefts. Only 5.1 per cent of robberies, or 1 in 20, and 0.6 per cent of thefts where no violence was used, or 1 in 170, were solved in 2024. Even when caught, robbers and violent criminals were less likely to be sent to prison than they were 10 years ago, owing to a 'dangerously lax' sentencing, said the report. In 2013, 66.1 per cent of robbers were sentenced to immediate imprisonment, falling to 55.4 per cent in 2024. 'The Metropolitan Police's apparent ability to solve street level crimes such as robbery and theft person has collapsed to almost negligent levels,' the report said. Repeat offenders were increasingly walking free from courts. Less than half of the most prolific criminals (44.5 per cent), who have more than 45 previous convictions, were sent to prison after sentencing in 2024, allowing 4,555 of them to walk free. This sent the message to criminals that the 'risks of getting caught and adequately punished are minimal.' The report also blamed the diversion of police officers to departments that could be managed by civilians, such as human resources and diversity and inclusion. The report calls for some of these departments to be cut entirely, without naming them. At least 850 police officers currently working desk jobs should be redeployed to tackle knife crime, robbery and theft in those areas, the report said. It called for high visibility police patrolling in 'hotspot' areas for knife crime, such as London's West End, and for a 'renewal' of stop and search by the police. Stop and search is widely viewed as unfairly targeting black people and creating distrust in the police among ethnic minorities. But the report rejects the suggestion that stop and search is being deployed in a 'racist' way – and said it was necessarily to promote a 'zero tolerance' policy towards knife crime. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp described the report as a 'call to action'. 'Implementation of a 'zero-tolerance' approach to crime requires a combination of clear policy, political will and savvy operational policing. It also requires policing and political leaders to put public safety ahead of ideological dogma on issues such as stop and search,' he said. Labour MP and former Metropolitan Police inspector Jonathan Hinder said the criminal justice system was 'utterly broken'. 'We urgently need to properly resource our courts and prisons if we are to restore public faith that justice is being done,' he said. 'In the meantime, the law-abiding public want a strong police force to have the confidence to take on criminals, and it's time for politicians of all colours to give the police their full backing to do just that.'


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Billions for arms, rather than troops, won't make us safer
William D. Hartung, Tribune News Service The Pentagon got a whopping $150 billion increase in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by the president July 4. That will push next year's proposed Pentagon budget to more than $1 trillion. Most of that enormous amount will go to weapons manufacturers. A new report by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University found that for the period from 2020 to 2024, more than half of the Pentagon budget — 54% — went to private companies. That figure has climbed considerably since the immediate post-Cold War period of the 1990s, when the contractor share was 41%. The surge of spending on the Pentagon and its primary weapons suppliers won't necessarily make us safer. It may just enrich military companies while subsidising overpriced, underperforming weapons systems, even as it promotes an accelerated arms race with China. While weapons firms will fare well if the new budget goes through as planned, military personnel and the veterans who have fought in America's wars in this century will not. The Donald Trump administration is seeking deep cuts in personnel, facilities and research at the Veterans Affairs, and tens of thousands of military families have to use food stamps, a program cut by 20% in the budget bill, to make ends meet. The $150 billion in add-ons for the Pentagon include tens of billions for the Trump administration's all-but-impossible dream of a leak-proof Golden Dome missile defense system, a goal that has been pursued for more than 40 years without success. Other big winners include the new F-47 combat aircraft, and the military shipbuilding industry, which is slated for a huge infusion of new funding. The question of how to allocate the Pentagon's orgy of weapons spending is complicated by the fact that there are now two powerful factions within the arms industry fighting over the department's budget, the traditional Big Five, composed of Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, and emerging military tech firms such as SpaceX, Palantir and Anduril. The Big Five currently get the bulk of Pentagon weapons spending, but the emerging tech firms are catching up, winning lucrative contracts for military-wide communications systems and antidrone technology. And there will be more such contracts. Even after the public falling out between Elon Musk and the president, the emerging tech firms have a decided advantage, with advocates such as Vice President JD Vance, who maintains close ties with his mentor and political supporter Peter Thiel of Palantir, and dozens of staff members from military tech firms who are now embedded in the national security and budget bureaucracies of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the tech sector's promises of a new, revolutionary era of defense made possible by artificial-intelligence-driven weapons and other technologies are almost certainly overstated. If past practice tells us anything, it is that new, complex high-tech weapons will not save us. The history of Pentagon procurement is littered with 'miracle weapons,' from the electronic battlefield in Vietnam to Ronald Reagan's 'impenetrable' Star Wars missile shield to networked warfare and precision-guided bombs used in the Iraq and Afghan wars. When push came to shove, these highly touted systems either failed to work as advertised, or were irrelevant to the kinds of wars they were being used in. Just one example: Despite the fact that the Pentagon spent well over $10 billion to find a system that could neutralise improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, only modest progress was made. Even after the new technology was deployed, 40% of could not be cleared. Technology is a tool, but it is not the decisive factor in winning wars or deterring adversaries. An effective military should be based on well-trained, well-compensated and highly motivated troops. That means taking some of that 54% of the Pentagon budget that goes to contractors and investing in supporting the people who are actually tasked with fighting America's wars.