Conservative policymakers will throw around any number of excuses as to why they’re up in arms over fixing the broken immigration system in the U.S.

One day, the argument against immigration reform is homeland security; the next, our sagging economy and poor job market. Opponents complain that immigrants come to the U.S. to take advantage of our welfare system — hence the country cannot afford to take on more citizens, they insist.

Regardless of what they claim are the issues that influence the opposition to immigration reform, undocumented or otherwise, conservative Americans continue to dance around what underlies their true motive: race.

Bottom line, many Americans fear political marginalization due to the vast change in demographics over the last
few decades.

Conservative political establishments that influence debate on national issues, such as The Heritage Foundation, use the public’s xenophobia in order to implement the political strategy of divide and conquer.

Opinion leaders understand that if they can successfully create a divide between the middle class and the poor, liberal and conservative, the nation’s elite can continue to rob the public blind, collecting record profits while failing to create a proportionate number of jobs.

A recent study co-authored by Jason Richwine at The Heritage foundation criticized the Senate’s immigration proposal just as the bill was getting traction and bipartisan support.

According to The New York Times, Richwine also authored a 2009 dissertation for a public policy doctorate at Harvard University. Its subject: the supposed low IQ of Hispanic immigrants.

“The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than the native white population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations,” according to the dissertation’s thesis.

The content of the dissertation gives opponents to immigration reform yet another talking point — a departure from reality for critics who fear what will be lost as our country becomes increasingly diverse.

With the erosion of the hegemonic culture, many fear losing the social dominance that they feel entitled to.

Predictably, The Heritage Foundation distanced itself from the message of Richwine’s dissertation.

The dissertation “is not a work product of the Heritage Foundation,” said Mike Gonzalez, vice president of communications. “Its findings do not reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation.”

In disavowing the paper, the foundation is attempting to make it appear as if they are against the inferences of Richwine’s polemics, perhaps in the interest of self-preservation.

Richwine’s research was perhaps why The Heritage Foundation took interest and hired him as a quantitative analyst.

Furthermore, Richwine’s belief that intellectual inferiority is inherent to certain races “is something he’s been peddling around conservative institutions in Washington, D.C., for years,” according to The Atlantic, an American magazine.

If The Heritage Foundation truly disagrees with such views, it seems unreasonable that they would not only have Richwine work for them, but co-author a paper dealing with immigration policy.

The truth is right wing “think tanks” such as The Heritage Foundation exist for the purpose of advancing the interests of conservative politicians to shape public policy.

Opponents to immigration reform will do this by any means necessary, including pandering to the xenophobic and racial biases held by a large portion of the conservative voting base.