A Look Behind America’s
Immigration Nightmare

Commentary by Dr. Steven Yates

On April 7, the United States of America narrowly averted—or at least delayed—a disaster. Congress recessed without passing an immigration bill that would have provided a track to U.S. citizenship for well over 12 million illegal aliens. Whether Congress will cave in to the increasingly vocal illegal alien protest movement when they reconvene remains, as of this writing, to be seen. Among the factors holding back the Senate that day were hundreds of angry phone calls to Senators. For a change, middle America spoke loudly and clearly: “we do not want amnesty-for-lawbreakers!” Maybe our Senators are keeping that in mind since they have to face the voters this November. Because if they sell this country out further, the 2006 elections will be a bloodbath. We The People will send incumbents packing in record numbers. (Well, one can always hope!)

Unfortunately, stopping bad immigration bills is only part of the battle. Possibly not even the largest part. The real question is: “What, precisely, are we going to do with between 12 and 25 million illegal aliens?” What are we to do when they are being openly encouraged by their own government, via Mexican President Vicente Fox, and not exactly being discouraged by our political and corporate establishment?

Trying to round them up and send them back to Mexico would create more problems than it would solve. Given the marches by illegals we’ve seen so far, we ought not kid ourselves into thinking they would go quietly.

I have occasionally heard the argument, “Let’s penalize those who hire illegal aliens with stiff federal fines.” That won’t happen. Corporations have developed an addiction to cheap labor, after all, and so, indirectly (in the form of lower prices), so has the American public. Even if cheap-labor jobs for illegals were to dry up, for the same reasons as above we shouldn’t think the illegals would just pack up and go home. The entitlement mentality doesn’t work that way. Probably their ringleaders have been watching the disintegration of France. They would conclude they have nothing to lose by orchestrating the same thing here. My guess is, if a federal effort to prevent businesses from hiring illegals was mounted, the illegals would take to the streets. We’d see cars torched here—maybe worse.

There’s something else we’d better factor into the equation: given President Bush’s remarks calling for more federal powers to deal with emergencies (Katrina-style disasters or an alleged bird flu pandemic), this Administration seems to be looking for an excuse to declare martial law and be done with it. The days when the feds at least had to pay lip service to the Constitution would be over. I can’t think of anything more likely to bring martial law to America than riots by illegal aliens erupting in several cities at once.

The North American Union?

We need to realize that the illegals are not here simply ‘to do jobs Americans won’t do’ but because powerful people want them here, and planned the present crisis. The last weekend in March of this year, Bush met with Fox and new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancun to discuss the progress of the year-old ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America’ (SPP). The SPP is a set of initiatives involving the three national governments, numerous multinational corporations, and NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations). The long-term goal, never stated openly, is the erasure of the borders between the three nations and the establishing of a supranational entity along the lines of the European Union—a North American Union, if you will. The SPP—like its predecessors NAFTA and CAFTA—offers a direct long-term threat to the sovereignty of this nation. It should be looked at in conjunction with Building a North American Community, published also approximately a year ago by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Among the consequences of erasing the borders would be the diminishing of representative government and genuine free enterprise, as decisions would be made by bureaucrats in “trade authorities” (this is already happening). Big business would have the money (also known as the power of the purse); big government would have the political clout (also known as the power of the sword). Those small businesspersons not selected for “partnering” would lose out, and end up seeking work in the low-paying services sector or in government. A borderless North America would be perfect for sending what is left of America’s middle class to the poorhouse, especially once the CAFTA nations are added to the mix. This is the nasty truth about “free trade” (equals managed trade) and the free migration of peoples as envisioned by the globalist power elite.

Fox has articulated his vision of a borderless North America quite openly. He told a California audience following his election in 2000 that his government would “use all our persuasion and all our talent to bring together the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments so that in five or ten years, the border is totally open to the free movement of workers.” He told a Madrid audience two years later, “our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.” Small wonder he is encouraging illegal immigration!

That members of the power elite would use the European Union as a model is not surprising, given their aim, which for decades has been to bring this country down! The borders of formerly sovereign European nations are now almost as open as those between North and South Carolina, as is the EU’s border with the outside world. Individual European nations have thus filled up with unassimilated minorities (mostly Muslim). Europe as a whole, however, is disintegrating, with France’s problems only the most visible result. Euro-socialism has proven disastrous—unless again you’re part of the political-bureaucratic elite. The highly regulated economy is at a standstill. Birthrates among native populations are falling, while those of the unassimilated minorities are skyrocketing. It might be worth noting that the secular Enlightenment belief in the perfectibility of man took root there first, as did fractional reserve central banking/money lending, and socialism of every variety (Marxist, democratic, fascist/corporatist).

America, and its traditions of Christianity, free enterprise and Constitutionally limited government by consent of the governed, remains the single obstacle standing between the power elite and corporate-socialist global hegemony. The latter’s specifics: a fusion of Western big-corporation capitalism and big-government Euro-socialism (the power of the purse firmly wedded to the power of the sword). Here is the most likely description of what the power elite is planning for the world: (1) global economy managed by a political-corporate elite whose edicts will be administered by political-bureaucratic hierarchies operating through networks of public-private partnerships; (2) a permanently cash-strapped “global workforce”; no financially independent middle class; matters such as housing would be controlled by neighborhood associations and such; (3) a global ecumenical, pseudo-spirituality (everything except Christianity) incorporating sustainable development (Agenda 21) and the radical “deep-ecology” of the Earth Charter and similar documents; finally, (4) controlled, vocationally-oriented “lifelong learning” to produce “global citizens”: from mental-health tested children, trained via various forms of operant conditioning to become obedient worker-bee adults. [To find out exactly what Smart Growth and Sustainable Development are all about, obtain the DVD Liberty or Sustainable Development, which is a 6 hour presentation, from NewsWithViews.com by calling 1-541-955-0117 or 1-800-955-0116]

They Told Us This Was Coming

We should not be deluded by all the harping about “free trade,” or see it as the “triumph of capitalism over socialism.” It’s useful to remember that the EU was originally sold to the individual nations of Europe as a “free trade zone.” I keep coming back to Europe, because the Europeans have always been ahead of us on the curve. Talk of “economic integration” was in the air among Europe’s intellectual class as far back as the 1950s. But if you knew what to read, you could learn the truth. Consider the following:

“Political considerations are more important than economic ones. Since the existence of Europe is at stake, integration is more of a political than an economic desideratum. Political integration can be facilitated by economic cooperation, but mere economic union is unthinkable.” Economic Integration: Theoretical Assumptions and Consequences of European Integration, by R.F. Sannwald & J. Stohler (Princeton University Press, 1959), p. 42.

On our side of the Atlantic: “A global human conscience is for the first time beginning to manifest itself…. Today we are … witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national…. [I]t is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.” Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, (Viking, 1970), pp. 58-59.

“More directly linked to the impact of technology, [today’s liberal democracy] involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.” Ibid., pp. 252-53.

“The ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…. [A]n end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” Richard T. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order, Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations), April 1974.

And, from a recent installment in Dennis Cuddy’s series, this astounding observation merits repeating: “One must act in Europe as if nations were to remain sovereign, in order to convince them to surrender their sovereignty…. The sovereignty lost at the national level does not pass to any new subject. It is entrusted to a faceless entity,…. And those who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected…. That is the way Europe was made, too: by creating communitarian organisms without giving the organisms presided over by national governments the impression that they were being subjected to a higher power…. I don’t think it’s a good idea to replace this slow and effective method—which keeps national States free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power—with great institutional leaps. Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble pieces of sovereignty up little by little….” Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato (Vice President of the EU’s Constitutional Convention), to Barbara Spinelli in an interview for La Stampa (July 13, 2000).

Over a century ago, the socialist founders of the Fabian Society spoke quietly of “penetration and permeation.” They invented gradualism: “Make haste slowly.” And: “For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes, you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless.” Fabian Freeway, by Rose L. Martin (Fidelis Publishers, 1968), p. 14.

Brzezinski’s work became the bible of the Trilateral Commission, when he, David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger organized that group in the early 1970s with “economic integration” in mind. David Rockefeller, we ought to note here, studied for a time at the Fabian-created London School of Economics. He penned a masters thesis entitled “Destitution Through Fabian Eyes.”

Most recently, he wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” Memoirs (Random House, 2002), p. 405; emphasis mine.

The Solution?

All this might seem rather far afield. This is just to underscore the fact that our present immigration crisis is just part of a much larger process, long in the making. This process has specific goals, most of them probably unknown to the immigrants or their ringleaders. It is part of the campaign these authors describe openly, which aims at one world: the hegemony described above, directed by men (and a few women) motivated exclusively by economic gain and political power. A world with no meaningful national borders—and no exclusive rights for individuals, including private property rights. A world having abolished both free enterprise and government by consent of the governed. Illegal immigration thus can’t be battled singularly, independently of the larger effort to destroy this country and institute corporate-socialist global hegemony.

We The People will be helpless in responding effectively to the current crisis unless we make a concerted effort to identify who the enemies of America really are and understand how this crisis was brought about. Perhaps we can even enlist some of the Hispanics themselves if they can be made to realize they are being used as cattle, just as we are. They won’t get their Aztlan. They will get the same North American Union the rest of us get, having brought all their NAFTA-era poverty with them from Mexico.

This might be our best bet in figuring how to handle them: communicating with them, given that for the time being, at least, they are probably here to stay. We ‘gringos’ are certainly not their enemy. Nor are they necessarily our enemies. What we must be willing to do is expose the global-hegemonists—the one-worlders (Fabians, CFR / Trilateralists, Rockefellers, etc.)—as the enemy, and then start getting behind ideas, institutions, companies, and candidates for public office who are not bought and paid for by them.

Steven Yates, Ph.D., is the most published professional philosopher in South Carolina. He teaches as a lowly adjunct instructor of philosophy at University of South Carolina Upstate (occupational punishment for his utter lack of political correctness and for pursuing issues from the standpoint of adherence to Constitutionally limited government, personal moral responsibility guided by a Christian worldview, and the rule of law as opposed to arbitrary rule by politicians, judges, and unelected bureaucrats). Later this month he will be joining the faculty at Greenville Technical College in Greenville, S.C., also as an adjunct. The above commentary first appeared on NewsWithView.com on April 20, 2006. Steven’s blog can be found at http://itshappeninghere.blogspot.com and he can be reached by e-mail at freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com.