Kerry Flub . . . Reminds Us Of Influence Exercised In Shadows

By DEXTER DUGGAN

PHOENIX — Secretary of State John Kerry suffered some unfavorable attention when it was reported that he told a powerful closed-door meeting in late April that Israel was in danger of becoming “an apartheid state” over the issue of failing to achieve peace with Palestinians.
It was a rankling historical comparison to the old regime of enforced racial separation in South Africa, hardly a comment that a U.S. secretary of state would want to be on the record for as a description of the Mideast Jewish democracy.
And Kerry didn’t expect to be on the record. He was speaking to a meeting of the shadowy Trilateral Commission in Washington, where the understanding is that comments aren’t released without permission.
The reporter who ferreted out and reported Kerry’s candor, Josh Rogin, aptly described the Trilateralists as “influential world leaders.”
Noting the fallout from Rogin’s revelation, an April 28 media piece posted at Politico.com described the Trilateral Commission as “an NGO [non-governmental organization] that was founded in 1973 to foster cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan.”
The dominant media seemed considerably more excited about Kerry’s leftist slap at Israel than that top world leaders routinely have secret meetings where they “foster cooperation” without intrusion from the public.
That’s just the defiant way the political world works against the voters. (But imagine the dominant media’s reaction if Kerry’s shadowy group had been, say, the Ku Klux Klan.)
Maybe the public, if they were able to examine the proceedings, would oppose what’s being “fostered” by self-admiring big-wigs who have a way of plunging entire nations into tragedies ranging from the Vietnam War to financial collapses to abortion to Obamacare.
Another such organization began in 2005. It was the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), later renamed the North American Leaders Summit. This little-reported organization busies itself merging the United States, Mexico, and Canada, bit by bit.
After the North American leaders’ 2014 annual meeting — this year in Toluca, Mexico — the White House said the three nations, among their various goals, “will engage stakeholders and academics to better assess and plan for the needs of North America’s future workforce.”
North America’s future workforce?
You thought each nation had its own workforce? Not so much so in these days of open borders and “labor mobility,” which the big-wigs already have decided must prevail, no matter how many obstacles along the way are raised by reluctant members of the public.
The grim, unrelenting push for “comprehensive immigration reform” in the U.S. is part of this strategy that has been agreed upon. To Washington, it’s an embarrassment and frustration that Americans keep pushing back against the elite.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) joins the elite in trying to smooth away the southern border. However, it should be plain that basic principles of justice and fairness are violated by trying to transform tens of millions of illegal aliens into voting U.S. citizens after they broke the law by their unapproved entry.
The violation isn’t only against U.S. law but also against the welfare of legal U.S. citizens and residents — as well as against non-U.S. Latinos who are told they have no right to expect improvement in their native lands, but only to pack their bags and go far away.
Mexico wouldn’t tolerate for a moment such lawbreaking in its own territory, but expects the U.S. to do so rather than have Washington tell Latino governments to assist their own citizens. The U.S. already has generous legal immigration, but it can’t be unlimited.
As the U.S. economy continues to stagger and wheeze under the pressure of Barack Obama’s far-left control, Americans are told to welcome tens of millions of new, line-jumping workers to undercut their wages and take their jobs.
And as legal green-card aspirants patiently comply with precise requirements, they see the elite saying that illegal immigrants should get a special pass to cut in line.
While the Democratic Party rubs its hands in glee at hoped-for millions of new voters, open-borders billionaires pound on Republican leaders’ desks and demand that they surrender their principles or else see substantial campaign contributions to the GOP vanish.
The Wanderer recently sat down at an Arizona Mexican restaurant and met with a woman who’s a non-citizen here attempting to obtain her green card. She subsequently agreed to do a Q-and-A interview giving her perspective, as long as she isn’t named.
She explained, “I would not want anything I say publicly to be used against me and jeopardize my approval” for the green card.
Q. If you could describe what you’re going through to do the right thing, including money spent and attorneys?
A. Since I moved to the U.S. in 2000, I have had to constantly prove myself as being an asset to the U.S. economy, and that my skills and talents are much needed. This is very hard to do with a liberal arts background, which is what I have. It is easier to make a case with an engineering, medical, or law degree, as these professions are in demand and provide tangible services.
Immigrants with these degrees have an easier time getting a green card, but still have to provide the necessary paperwork and pay the required fees. The amount of time to get the green card is usually significantly faster. My sister’s brother-in-law is a doctor and he got his in one year.
Throughout my 14 years in the U.S., I have had several H1-B visas. These are for skilled labor. These visas cost $3,000 and are good for three years. They can be renewed only once. If you begin the green card process as I have, they can be extended beyond the six-year maximum allotted.
I began my green card process in March 2009. My lawyer thinks it should be about another six months or so before everything is finalized. The total cost including filing fees and attorney fees has been about $10,000 — and that is apart from all the attorney fees and fees already spent on the H1-B visas previously obtained.
For the green card, I have had to file a number of forms, provide proof of my academic degrees (you need a graduate degree to apply for a green card), provide actual transcripts (as apparently you can forge the certificate of your degree), provide proof of previous employment in the U.S. by getting letters from past employers recommending me.
[Also] a biometrics test, which consists of fingerprinting, photo ID, and medical test to show that you are not bringing strange diseases into the country (although this is odd because most people have already been here a number of years before they do this test, so if they did have something, they would have already brought this into the country). The nurse who took the physical…told me that the majority of people who do this test are Canadians and Indians. Hispanics are not making these visits!
Q. What you think about “open borders” advocates like big business and the USCCB, who encourage and want to reward law-breaking immigrants?
A. I am completely opposed to open borders and such advocates because they are rewarding breaking the law. It is an honor and privilege to live in the United States. Living here is not a right for those not born here, regardless of their plight living in another part of the world.
It is because I love and respect the principles of justice and freedom on which America was founded that I have been willing to earn the privilege to be here. I am doing so by showing how my talents and skills contribute to society — how I can be an asset building up this great nation, not be a parasitical drain!
These advocates also end up discouraging skilled laborers from entering the country because illegal aliens are obtaining the perks of living in the U.S. without having to go through the numerous hoops or pay the heavy fees, like I have. Many of these illegal aliens are also not integrating into society and are overburdening the health-care system.
There is a feeling among those here legally that these illegal aliens are unjustly ahead of them in the “green card line.” Unfortunately, these advocates never talk about the struggles and burdens of legal aliens. This: a double standard that is being swept under the rug.
Q. What would you say about the proper action for illegal immigrants to take who say they want to improve their lives?
A. I believe the proper path for them is to return to their country and then begin the legal process to become a resident, as have all legal aliens before them. They should also learn to speak and write English fluently, and familiarize themselves with U.S. history and the U.S. Constitution.
Q. Finally, your reaction to some bishops’ remarks that people who oppose rewarding illegal immigration are racists, bigots, xenophobes, Know Nothings, Nativists, etc.?
A. As a practicing Catholic, it is very sad to hear bishops make such ignorant comments. Those who oppose illegal immigration are not racist or bigots. They empathize with the plight of these people but understand that rewarding breaking the law is not the answer.
Many legal aliens like myself would gladly embrace these immigrants if they pursued the legal path to citizenship. America is founded on principles and laws so that its legal citizens can pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
I am also very disheartened when I hear bishops make such comments, as this issue is not part of Catholic dogma. However, by commenting, these bishops imply that this erroneous way of thinking is the moral and right way to view this complex issue and those who oppose illegal immigrants.
I would like to add that employers who hire illegal aliens are also part of the problem. These employers should face sanctions and fines because they are encouraging and helping illegal immigrants to remain here, as well as emboldening more illegals to enter the country. They are also taking away jobs from law-abiding American citizens looking for honest wages.