John Hinderaker had an article titled "THE TIMES GOES KNOW-NOTHING ON IMMIGRATION". In it, he criticizes the New York Times' for being too supportive of open immigration. He proceeds to point out what he believes to be serious negatives of immigration.
I won't go back to my defenses of immigration today. But I did find his article title ironic. Was it purposefully so? I can't imagine that it was. The word "Know-Nothing" is most associated in American History with the Know Nothing party, formerly the Native American party (meaning "native" white folks, not indigenous peoples). As you might guess from the name, their main rallying cry was to limit or stop immigration -- at the time their ire was mainly aimed at the Irish.
This is obviously ironic because from historical use, it is Hinderaker that is going know-nothing, not the Times. And further ironic because the Irish, whom the Know Nothings wanted to keep out, now are considered by most Conservatives to be part of the backbone of America that is being threatened by all these new immigrants. Most of the arguments he uses against immigrants are virtually identical to those used, and since proven incorrect, by the Know Nothings in the 19th century.
Postscript: The term Know-Nothing, if I remember right, came not because they were ignorant, but because they tended to be very secretive. When asked about their party, they would answer that they know nothing (this works best for those who watched Hogan's Heroes and can say this in a sergeant Schultz voice; if you are too young for Hogan's Heroes, then imitating Ygritte in GOT is acceptable).