This program will offer legal status, as temporary workers, to the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States…. — President George W. Bush, televised White House briefing, January 7, 2004
For simply reopening what has always been a torturous debate in this country, [President George W. Bush] deserves applause. He has recognized that the nation’s immigration system is, as he put it, “broken.” [Emphasis added.] — editorial, New York Times, January 8, 2004
We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. [Emphasis added.] — President Obama, January 2013 address
The ostensible national “debate” on immigration “reform” totally ignores why there is a problem. This “debate” not only ignores the subversive Establishment-sponsored agendas creating our immigration mess, but it also conceals the objective of this sponsorship.
The Wall Street Journal
The late Robert L. Bartley provides an excellent example of Establishment efforts to control “both sides” of the immigration “debate.” Bartley served as the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal for 30 years (from 1972 to 2002). He was invited to join the CFR in 1979.
Adopting the image of a conservative free-market Republican, Bartley used the Journal to promote internationalism (NAFTA, WTO, the IMF and World Bank) to its generally conservative readership.
To the Journal’s readers, Bartley would cleverly argue the wisdom of sacrificing national sovereignty. In a 2001 editorial, entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” Bartley wrote:
Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper….
Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: “There shall be open borders.” 1
Among the major recipients of Establishment “generosity” have been revolutionary groups seeking to undermine immigration enforcement and radicalize the immigrant Hispanic population.
By examining the flow of funds, one sees that the Ford Foundation virtually created the radical Chicano movement, which advocates open borders, uncontrolled immigration from Mexico, and the de facto reconquest by Mexico of the Southwest portion of the United States, termed Aztlán by the radicals.
Ford has funded the radical Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and Ford founded the Southwest Council of La Raza Unida with a $630,000 grant. A California Senate Subcommittee identified the Council’s one-time head, Maclovio Barraza, as a member of the Communist Party.2 The Southwest Council has since evolved into the National Council of La Raza, with continued Ford Foundation funding.
Ignorance no Excuse
No competent reporter today should allow these “advocacy groups” to posture as genuine defenders of Latino interests. By the mid-1990s, several studies had exposed the fraud. In 1995, for example, the American Immigration Control Foundation published Importing Revolution: Open Borders and the Radical Agenda, providing much of the background and history of MALDEF.
A year later, syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship. Her book included admissions against interest by someone with both radical liberal and Establishment credentials. Georgie Ann Geyer was (and is) a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Let’s see what Geyer had to say.
Geyer’s book described how radicals were following the strategy of infiltration advocated by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci to render impotent every tenet of our culture. Geyer claims that, in pursuit of this strategy, Marxists have infected “American universities, unions, churches, bureaucracies, and corporations…. Three whole generations, often its best students and thinkers and even labor leaders, were formed with a Marxist component to their thoughts and actions, often without even knowing it.” 3
Americans No More didn’t just focus on the visible activists. Geyer documented how Insider tax-exempt foundations had helped to create ethnic grievance groups. She even provided personal testimony. In the early 1980s, Geyer met with “two representatives of one of the major and supposedly representative ‘Hispanic’ groups, the National Council of La Raza.” When Geyer asked, “How many members to you have?” one of the representatives admitted, “Well, we don’t have members.” 4
An incredulous Geyer demanded to know how an organization without members could fund and support its activities. The representatives replied, almost in unison, “The Ford Foundation!” As Geyer tells the story: “The two smiled as though they did not have a care in the world, and, indeed, financially, they did not. To promote and push through their programs and policies, they needed no elections, no campaign strategies, and none of that bothersome business of fund-raising or member-seeking. At the same time, of course, they basically suffered accountability neither to disparate sources of funding nor to the fickle interests of individuals.” 5
With such support, La Raza could boast 150 organizations in 36 states!
Dirty Hands in Both Parties
Certainly, it was no surprise that the president who drove through NAFTA should have cultivated close ties with the radical immigration lobby. Indeed, while President of the United States, Bill Clinton addressed the August 1995 convention of the National Council of La Raza by satellite. His Education Secretary, Richard Riley, spoke to the convention in person.
But many may have forgotten the efforts of Republican President George W. Bush to open up our borders for hemispheric integration. Just prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, President Bush and Mexico’s President Vicente Fox launched their “Partnership for Prosperity.”
Newsweek political analyst Howard Fineman endorsed the Bush efforts to consolidate our nation with Mexico:
Whatever else George W. Bush does, or doesn’t do, he has earned a place in history as the first American president to place Hispanic voters at the center of politics, and the first to view the land between Canada and Guatemala as one. It makes sense, if you think about it: Texas, long ago and far away, was part of Mexico. Now a Texan is trying to reassemble the Old Country, and then some. 6
An editorial in the September 7, 2001 Atlanta Journal-Constitution was even more candid in endorsing what was afoot: “The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambition to the European Union….”
Continental Security Ruse
However, the 9/11 attacks quickly forced Presidents Fox and Bush to put their revolutionary plans on hold. Later, they would recast their plan as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” in an attempt to sell integration as part of the war against terrorism.
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, an obvious step should have been to tighten security at our southern border. But that didn’t fit the internationalist agenda.
Instead, the January/February 2004 issue of the CFR’s Foreign Affairs advocated “a redefinition of security that puts the United States, Mexico, and Canada inside a continental perimeter, working together as partners.”
Subsequently, the Council on Foreign Relations would sponsor a three-nation “Independent Task Force on the Future of North America.” In May 2005, the Task Force issued its report, “Building a North American Community,” which included a proposal for a North American Security Perimeter. Robert Pastor (CFR) appeared before a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9 to present the plan.
Following Pastor’s testimony, CNN anchorman Lou Dobbs and CNN correspondent Christine Romans informed their viewers of the incredible scope of the game plan underway:
Romans: “The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union….”
Dobbs: “Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don’t have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It’s astonishing.” 7
But this CFR proposal was merely another example of taking advantage of a crisis to drive forward a far different agenda, much like when President Obama used the recession as a pretext to advance government control of health care.
The Real Objective
The real objective of Establishment Insiders promoting revolution through crises is total power. They have the resources to attack American resistance from many different directions — all having the same objective. One campaign has been to undermine America’s middle class and the cultural traditions supporting our constitutional Republic by saddling the United States with a huge immigration problem.
As part of that campaign, these Insiders have helped to ensure that living conditions for many to the south are intolerable. Higher U.S. wage rates coupled with government-financed welfare (health, education, subsistence, etc.) prove to be an irresistible magnet.
In the process, the agenda has frustrated border enforcement, encouraged violations with massive amnesty programs, and greatly multiplied each amnesty’s impact by permitting follow-up family chain migration.
Most illegal immigrants are merely good people desperately seeking a better life. But the sheer numbers of immigrants, including illegals and those legalized thru previous amnesties, have overwhelmed America’s ability to assimilate them readily into our culture. Adding to the difficulty in assimilation, foundation-sponsored revolutionaries have sought to prevent traditional assimilation while promoting “multiculturalism and cultural diversity.”
In reality, these foundation-funded radicals cynically view massive immigration, legal or otherwise, not as a way to improve lives for Latinos, but as an opportunity to create the conditions for revolution through confrontation, division, and crisis.
Establishment Insiders, through their influence in the media and radical immigration groups, have been able to circumvent popular opinion. These forces succeed because most Americans have no idea why the leaders they trust cannot or will not solve the problem.
They are unaware of the subversive agenda in which many of their own political leaders are involved and so they have been satisfied to hear their complaints echoed by sympathetic talk show hosts and politicians.
The immigration mess will not be solved until a light goes on, and Americans begin to recognize how they are being taken for a ride. In the meantime, they will continue to misdirect their frustration and even anger at misguided liberal policies or at those who, in desperation, come here illegally seeking a better life. And they will accomplish little to stem the invasion from the south.
Chapter 7: Immigration Reform
- Robert L. Bartley, “Open Nafta Borders? Why Not?” Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2001.
- Fifteenth Report, California Senate Fact-finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities, 1970.
- Georgie Ann Geyer, Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship. (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1996), p. 123.
- Ibid., pp. 191, 192
- Ibid., p. 192.
- Howard Fineman, “Living Politics: Embracing Fox,” Newsweek.com, September 4, 2001.
- Lou Dobbs, CNN anchorman, on his evening broadcast, June 9, 2005.