The Immigration View from a Globalist Perch

Big-Time Globalist Pushes Immigration

Peter Sutherland is a big-time globalist.  

He's also a big-time immigration pusher.  

In the current Gang of Eight Amnesty debate, it is important to consider the issue from the globalist perspective.  

Why?  

Because globalist influences on the debate are out of view, but may be a powerful force pushing for U.S. amnesty and other immigration changes.  

The Globalist View of Immigration

In a 2012 BBC article, "EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief," Mr Sutherland made some interesting comments.  Among them are his claim that individuals, not the receiving nations, should be the ones with the right to determine what country they live in.  Mr. Sutherland, for instance:  

"...called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country."

The European problem, according to Mr. Sutherland, seems to be that European countries don't see themselves as "migrant societies."  They need to give up this notion, embrace multiculturalism, and abandon the idea of population homogeneity:

"He told the committee: "The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others."

The article then adds this zinger from Mr. Sutherland:

"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."

Notice that he didn't say France should decide for itself if it wishes to flood its nation with immigrants.  Nor did he declare that Germany, Italy, Sweden, or any other European Union member, should decide what it wants to do regarding immigration.  He said the European Union, as a supranational entity and as a matter of policy, should be undermining the idea of homogeneity of its member nations in order to promote immigration.  

The Globalist Attack on National Sovereignty

It's not an easy thing to analyze globalist writings and statements - as they tend to be a mix of truth and propaganda.  Sifting through the information in order to get a sense of what the real goals are, i.e., the ones that are central to the globalist fixation with supranational governing structures, is a difficult process.  But, it seems clear that promoting mass immigration into certain nations is one such goal.  Couple this with the globalist view of national sovereignty as an impediment to their project and we can surmise that immigration is being used as one mechanism to attack national sovereignty. 

In fact, in a 2008 article of an interview with Mr. Sutherland, the author refers to Mr. Sutherland as "a champion of a border-lite world."  

How many immigrants does Mr. Sutherland have in mind?

In the same 2008 interview with Mr. Sutherland, he gives us a view of the masses he is talking about:

"There's an inevitable need for many hundreds of millions of people to move from one part of the world to another, sometimes incited not merely by poverty but by poverty which itself could be the result of climate change. It is also realistic to expect that there will be huge movements of people because of the differences in GDP per capita. While globalization has lifted some parts of the world, there are others where it has had little or no impact."

An inevitable need for many hundreds of millions of people to migrate around the globe?

Mr. Sutherland did not specify how many "hundreds of millions" he meant or where exactly they might be headed - but it seems reasonable to conclude that many of this large non-specific number will be heading to the U.S.

Mr. Sutherland doesn't see this as a problem, because he has "never seen immigration and the multiculturalism of a society as a threat to the identity or values of the host community."

On the contrary, globalist insiders must know that these levels of immigration will certainly impact the nations that undergo such levels of mass migration - that's the point in the globalist worldview.  Supranational power structures can't grow sufficiently in strength when people have a strong sense of attachment to their nations and resist internationalist encroachments on their sovereignty.  Changing the demographics of a nation is one way to change the political perspective of that nation and to suppress and diminish the political role of those who oppose the increasing stranglehold of supranational governance over their nation.  

Directly addressing problems around the world, which are put forth as reasons for migration, seems a more reasonable and effective avenue than having people moving all over the place in such large numbers.  An approach that seeks to aid nations in solving their problems, while preserving their sovereignty, is one that is oriented towards finding effective solutions.  However, when creating supranational governing structures is the goal, then actually finding solutions to problems becomes secondary to the power project.  Aggregating more and more power into a handful of international organizations leads to a place far from the political roots of our nation - the roots designed to discourage tyranny.  If one truly cares about people and their well-being, about cultures, about history, about nations, and about finding solutions to the world's problems, one must reject the globalist power drive.  

Each nation should be free to determine what immigration policies are congruent with its national goals and interests. 

Who is Peter Sutherland?

But who is Peter Sutherland and should we take him seriously?

According to the two articles already referenced, Mr. Sutherland is or has been:

- special representative on migration for the United Nations

- director-general of the World Trade Organization

- a European Union commissioner

- chairman of British Petroleum

- chairman of the London School of Economics

- non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International

- head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development

- attended meetings of the Bilderberg group

- former Attorney General of Ireland

To this impressive list, we should add that Mr. Sutherland is also a prestigious member of the Trilateral Commission - where he is also listed as having received 15 honorary degrees and an honorary knighthood in the United Kingdom.  The Trilateral Commission's short biography also tells us that Mr. Sutherland "was presented with the Robert Schuman Medal for his work on European integration."  That's an interesting award.  He has also been honored by the Trilateral Commission with its David Rockefeller Award.  Within the Trilateral organization, he is a former European Chairman and currently an Honorary European Chairman.  

I would say that we should take Mr. Sutherland very seriously.  

We should also take the globalist approach to the world and immigration seriously.  

Doing so will add a dimension not generally considered publicly in our immigration debates. 

The Tribune's Empty Immigration Argument

The Salt Lake Tribune recently published an editorial promoting amnesty  ("Hatch leads the way").  If you are looking for reasons, backed up by evidence, for supporting amnesty, you are out of luck.  There aren't any.  It is an empty appeal.

We are told by the Tribune, for instance, that Senator Hatch knows how to read writing on walls, polls and letters from campaign contributors.  

These remarkable abilities, developed over 36 years, apparently make Hatch a "savvy" politician.  When this savvy is combined with his expertise on immigration, Hatch is also able to discern that now is the time for amnesty and we need to act before the current window of opportunity closes.

But this is not an argument for amnesty.  It merely assumes that amnesty is good policy.  

The key to Hatch's new realization:

"And now, Hatch says he sees what many others have seen. There are an estimated 11 million human beings who are living, working, going to school, buying things and paying taxes who continue to live lives completely or partially in the shadows. It would be neither humane nor practical to send them home, especially when a great many of them came here as children and truly have no home other than the U.S.A."

We are not told why it would not be humane to send them "home."  We are not told why it would be impractical.  Again, the editorial merely assumes the truth of these statements.  

Any debate about exceptions should follow adequate border and interior enforcement - not grant amnesty now with empty promises for future enforcement.  

Regarding the path to citizenship for illegal aliens and its proposed 13-year wait:  

"Hatch rightly notes that such a long wait hardly gives anyone an unfair advantage over those who have entered, or sought to enter, the United States legally."

This incredible statement wants us to believe an absurdity:  that someone who entered the nation illegally, not with the permission of the United States (but on his or her own whim) and has remained here for years, is the same situation as someone patiently waiting for years to enter the nation legally and is willing to abide by our laws even if it means they are never permitted to reside in the United States.  One is here, the other is not.  One is rewarded while one patiently waits.  Are these equivalent?  

Yes, Mr. Hatch, it does give illegal aliens an unfair advantage and invites others to do likewise.  

There are other problems with this editorial.  

The editorial ends by telling us that leading the way on immigration reform is right for Hatch.  Embedded in this idea is the interesting notion that Hatch is providing "political cover" for other senators:    

"Leading the way toward reform — and providing inspiration and political cover for other senators to follow — is something that is both the right thing for Hatch..."

Presumably, the earlier mentioned polls were telling Hatch that the public wants amnesty.  Why do senators need "political cover" if this is true?  

The actual situation is more in line with "writing on the walls" and letters from campaign contributors.  In other words, special interests are pushing this bill, not public opinion, and they know it - thereby creating the need for the mental gymnastics on the part of the Tribune in this editorial and by other other amnesty promoters (such as Senator Hatch).  

We should expect a lot of assumptions to be presented as established facts by the amnesty crowd and by their political spokesmen.  It is the only way they can create enough confusion in the public to pass the Gang of Eight amnesty. 

Is Amnesty a Conservative Position?

Politico recently ran an article about conservative groups pushing for amnesty.  This is how they put it: 

"High-profile conservative groups are taking on an unexpected cause: passing immigration reform."

The article continues:

"A diverse mix of the Washington consultant class is cutting TV ads, revving up the grassroots and advising lawmakers on messaging and strategy in hopes of getting a bill across the finish line this year."

Sounds like this "diverse mix" of the "consultant class" can really move amnesty along.  But, why should they have to work so hard if amnesty really is a conservative issue?  Wouldn't it be an easy sell if it is an obvious conservative position?

The answer is that it is not conservative.

Conservatives tend to oppose amnesty.  Conservative opposition creates the need for extraordinary measures to convince congressmen and senators that this opposition doesn't really exist.  Even so, opposing amnesty is a position that cuts across political lines.  Many from all political persuasions oppose amnesty.

Grover Norquist, a leader in the effort, adds this as his motive: 

“We’re doing it to make sure…that Republican congressman and senators feel comfortable,” said American for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist in an interview. “They look out and hear the guys on talk radio, and they go ‘Oh my goodness, everybody out there thinks this. That’s not necessarily where I was, but I guess if everybody thinks that way, I’ll either be quiet or go along, or I’ll listen to them so they can convince me.’ They’re now hearing the other side of the issue.”

Making congressmen and senators feel "comfortable" may be an admirable goal, but Norquist's comment betrays the true mood of much of the country - one doesn't have to make congressmen and senators "comfortable" if they are respecting the will of the citizens.  In this case, that means refusing to go along with amnesty.

Furthermore, those talk radio "guys" opposing amnesty are giving a public voice to millions of Americans - a voice that the mainstream media generally ignores in favor of the point of view being promoted by Mr. Norquist.  Our elected representatives are not hearing "the other side of the issue" from the "Washington consultant class."  They are hearing the other side from talk radio, their constituents, and those organizations that oppose amnesty.

Norquist is sticking to this theme of telling us that a "handful" of talk show hosts are the block to amnesty while working hard to push conservatives in Congress into the amnesty camp.  In another recent article we are told about Norquist's Friday meetings devoted solely to amnesty strategy and coordinating activities.

These meetings include powerful organizations devoted to amnesty along with "staffers from some of the offices of members of the Senate's Gang of Eight."  The group coordinates "strategy" and "messaging."

Sounds like a very cozy bunch.

But, who is Grover Norquist that we should listen to him? 

Mr. Norquist participated in a secret amnesty strategy session in 2009.  He has recently participated in left-wing National Immigration Forum conferences as a featured speaker in October 2012 and again in February of this year.

In addition, the Washington Post has mentioned Mr. Norquist in connection with a campaign against the three main anti-amnesty groups.  Frontpagemag.com labels the effort a "smear campaign."  Other responses to the smear can be found at the Center for Immigration Studies, National Review Online, Townhall.com, and Immigration Utah.

Even more troubling are Mr. Norquist's connections to and work on behalf of Islamic radicals in promoting their influence in conservative circles.  For more on this issue, see articles by Pamela Geller, Brian Fitzpatrick, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., discoverthenetworks.org, and Michelle Malkin.

If Grover Norquist and other Republican insider elites give Obama and the left an amnesty victory, what will be the ultimate outcome for conservatives? 

In stark political terms, amnesty would create a large pool of new Democratic voters and make it increasingly difficult for a Republican to ever be elected president in the future. 

The Democrats understand this and are anxious to get the GOP to go for amnesty - they know it will benefit them in increasing and maintaining liberal power in America. 

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter understands the stakes.  In a recent column titled, "Rubio's Amnesty: A Path to Oblivion for the GOP," she says:

"Strangely, some Republicans seem determined to create more Democratic voters, too. That will be the primary result of Sen. Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan."

Later in the essay, she lays out the political reality of amnesty:

"...With Hispanics on track to become the largest ethnic group in California this year, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is incapable of electing any Republican statewide anymore. Taxes keep going up, and there’s no one left to pay the bill.

That will be our entire country if Republicans fall for Rubio’s phony “Enforcement First!” plan. Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election."

Given this reality, it is hard to understand why many Republican insiders are pushing so hard for amnesty. 

Amnesty is not a conservative position and an amnesty would do serious damage to the conservative movement. 

Did Utah State Senator Luz Robles Receive Free Travel to and From Mexico?

Did Luz Robles receive free travel to and from Mexico while serving as the Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs?

The quote below is from a previous post on this issue:

"It appears, therefore, that Luz Robles was likely reimbursed for her travel to Mexico City to serve the Mexican government at a time in which she served as an appointed official of the Utah state government."

More information has been found that supports the above point.

From an article by Carlos Gonzales Gutierrez ("The Institute of Mexicans Abroad"), we are told:

"The IME Consultative Council is made up of 128 consejeros or council members.  The council members are independent community leaders who reside either in the United States or in Canada and are elected by the communities they represent.  The position of consejero is unsalaried; the government of Mexico covers only their travel expenses to two plenary sessions every year.  They serve for a term of three years; reelection is not permitted."

Recall that these are conferences where the President of Mexico is frequently present - as well as other high level Mexican officials.

The complete source for the above quote is:

Carlos Gonzales Gutierrez, 2009, “The Institute of Mexicans Abroad” in Dovelyn Rannveig Agunias, ed., Closing the Distance: How Governments Strengthen Ties with Their Diasporas, Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, pp. 87-98. (the citation above is on p.89)

Senator Hatch Preaches Amnesty!

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, according to a recent Salt Lake Tribune article,  holds the following position on the Gang of Eight amnesty bill:

"Sen. Orrin Hatch says now is the time to reform the immigration system for the economy, for his Mormon faith and for the people here illegally."

Hatch is not yet ready to endorse the Gang of Eight bill, but is planning to make some "tweaks" to it. 

While amnesty clearly would benefit illegal aliens, Hatch's support for immigration reform for the "economy" and for his "Mormon faith" are especially curious.

Since Hatch sees his Mormon faith as central, it would seem a foregone conclusion that he had discussed it with LDS leaders.  But, we have this astonishing admission:

 

"The senator said LDS officials haven’t talked to him about the proposal but "they know I know how they feel." 

Is Hatch saying that he should subordinate his position to whatever he thinks the LDS Church's view is? 

Most Utahns would find that problematic - especially non-LDS citizens.  The LDS position, as that of any large and important institution in the state, ought to be carefully considered as part of a larger social dialogue.

However, it is doubtful that Hatch is merely adopting what he claims is the LDS position.

Why then is Hatch bringing his "Mormon faith" into the discussion?

This brings us to the economy.  The Tribune article also cites Arturo Morales-Llan, a voice for immigration sanity:

"He [Morales-Llan] said in a rough economy Washington should be looking out for U.S. citizens, not illegal immigrants, and he said the nation should not take actions to legalize anyone until the border is locked down and employers are checking the immigration status of each worker." 

Is Hatch's appeal to his "Mormon faith" meant to divert attention and criticism away from what the Tribune calls Hatch's "work on business-friendly portions" of the Gang of Eight monstrosity?

Morales-Llan is right.  Washington should be "looking out for U.S. citizens, not illegal immigrants."

Amnesty and other components of this bill do not do this. 

Another odd issue presents itself in this article:

"He [Hatch] believes some of the opponents in his party and some of the supporters among Democrats are motivated by electoral politics. Obama received 71 percent of the Latino vote in 2012 and many expect newly minted citizens to follow a similar pattern."

What is Hatch's response to the fact that most amnestied Latinos will ultimately vote Democratic?  Hatch says: 

"There’s no doubt most of them will," Hatch said "Republicans have a job ahead of us to try to win them over, but I think we are up to the challenge."

Hatch and other Republicans seem to be following an electoral suicide pact to curry the favor of the cheap-labor interests influencing the Gang of Eight bill:  amnesty now - figure out how to make them Republicans later and hope the Republican Party is not destroyed in the process. 

If Hatch and others who support the Gang of Eight bill are  truly serving the national interest, and not the more narrow interests of the cheap-labor lobby and others, they would reject the bill.