“Immigration” and the Global Elite
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Part1: The UN Plan for Global Migration
by Berit Kjos – June 4, 2006
“The implications for state sovereignty are also complex…. All states should establish coherent national migration policies that are … consistent with international treaty law.“ UN’s Global Commission on International Migration
“Why, oh why, is Bush so stubbornly rejecting the advice of his supporters even though that advice is consistent with the thunderous message from public opinion surveys?” Phyllis Schlafly
A borderless world! Social solidarity! Economic equality! Housing and health for all! The feel-good togetherness of serving the greater whole…. The list of utopian promises stretches the imagination. How can this dream be fulfilled? What will it cost? Why is migration vital to this process? How free is our president to block this transformational plan?
This dream of a New World Order was born long before socialist visionaries (including Franklin Roosevelt and the leaders of the Federal Council of Churches) enthroned Communist Alger Hiss as the first head of the United Nations. [See The Revolutionary Roots of the UN] Hiss was the primary author of The UN Charter, which summarized its vision in noble terms that few could criticize. “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS,” it began,
“DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained… and for these ends to practice tolerance and… to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all…. Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco… do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.”
It took the Second World War to make the new system acceptable to the people. In the wake of that useful crisis, the masses willingly embraced the UN promise of “economic and social advancement of all” under the guiding hand of the new “international machinery.”
In the decades that followed, most people seemed to dismiss UN treaties and declarations as “soft laws” and policies with little effect on national sovereignty. They didn’t know the many ways UN declarations would permeate national laws and policies. [See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules] The mainstream media didn’t tell us. So when the The Global Commission on International Migration was launched by the United Nations Secretary-General and a number of governments on December 9, 2003, few saw the red lights.
But America is awakening. An immigrant-friendly nation, it has welcomed grateful immigrants from around the world into its system. Now, it faces something something new. The word immigration implies people moving across a national border into another country. In contrast, migration simply means people moving. No border! It supports the vision of a borderless global society, and it intentionally clashes with national sovereignty, laws and independence. Thomas Sowell summarizes some of its current problems:
“Under affirmative action, combined with amnesty, [illegals] would have preferences in jobs and other benefits. Those who set up their own businesses would be entitled to preferences in getting government contracts. Their children would be able to get into college ahead of the children of American citizens with better academic qualifications. … [I]f an illegal alien gets stopped for going through a red light… in many communities the cop is forbidden to arrest him…. Under a provision recently passed by the Senate, illegal aliens who forged Social Security cards not only get a pass, they get to collect Social Security benefits. … We have seen what havoc such notions and practices have created after mass immigration under ‘guest worker’ programs in Europe….”
This legalized lawlessness fuels the “crisis” needed to persuade the masses to accept mass surveillance, universal data collection, and other intrusive strategies for worldwide control. And it gets worse:
“Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each.”
“The immigration reform bill now under congressional consideration would grant amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants…. CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.”
“When Sept. 11 hijackers Hani Hanjour and Khalid Almihdhar needed help getting fraudulent government-issued photo IDs before embarking on their suicide mission, they hopped into a van and headed to the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store in Falls Church, Va. That’s where scores of illegal alien day laborers ply bogus identity documents to other illegal aliens from around the world…. Nearly five years later, illegal alien day laborers like the ones who unwittingly assisted the 9/11 hijackers have virtually no fear of being arrested.”
A web of secrecy and a flood of misleading propaganda hides the truth from taxpayers who cover the costs. For example, the title of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America“ may sound good, but it actually undermines both security and prosperity for ordinary citizens. Wondering why their elected leaders ignore their pleas, many face rising lawlessness, unthinkable litter, lost jobs, and continual fear of violence.
The reasons are simple. International regulations have already bound nations around the world to regional as well as global laws and policies. To understand their aims, let’s look at the United Nation’s Report of the Global Commission on International Migration [GCIM]. Chapter 6 warns us that “international migration is a complex phenomenon,” and most states (nations) “recognize the importance of international migration and seek to address it in a way that enables them to respect their international obligations.“ What does that mean? Might the word “respect” actually imply “obedience” to international guidelines?
An illusion of national sovereignty
The subtle language in many UN documents hides the assault on national sovereignty. While sounding affirmative, it undermines any “sovereign” action that might oppose UN policies. The UN Declaration on Human Rights illustrates this manipulative language well. Its Article 18 upholds “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…” Article 19 affirms “the right to freedom of opinion and expression….”
But Article 29 states that “these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” In other words, its promise of “human rights” does not apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Nor does it apply to Christians who cling to God’s “offensive” truths — or refuse to follow UNESCO’s Declaration on the Role of Religion.
The migration issue shifts national sovereignty onto the same slippery ground. In the numbered items below, notice the GCIM‘s promising assurance — followed by a clear denial of traditional sovereignty:
“8. First, state sovereignty is the very basis for international cooperation….
“9. Second, with sovereignty comes responsibility. As the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) has observed, recent years have witnessed a reorientation ‘from sovereignty as control to sovereignty as responsibility in both internal functions and external duties.’ Sovereignty as responsibility has become the minimum content of good international citizenship. Just as individuals have rights and responsibilities as citizens of states, so states have rights and responsibilities as members of the international community. [Note: That responsibility falls primarily on the “rich” developed nations considered capable of hosting, funding and managing the world’s migrating human resources.]
“10. …The European Union (EU) can be viewed as an example of a group of states that have retained their sovereignty [Have they?]…
“11. …States establish international bodies when certain issues – or ‘common goods’ – warrant a more formal and collective form of governance.”
The following points show some of the ways nations must cooperate with regional and global policies:
“15. If states are to address the issue of international migration in a coherent manner, they must have… criteria for the entry and residents of non-citizens that are consistent with international law. … [T]hey should at minimum address the following issues:
• family reunion, asylum, refugee protection and resettlement;
• the prevention of irregular migration and the promotion of regular migration [The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population];
• integration, including the rights and obligations of migrants, citizens and the state…
“17. All states should adopt a coherent approach to international migration that is consistent with international law and other relevant norms….
“21. …This in turn requires effective data collection, policy analysis, research, monitoring and evaluation….
“23. … develop an infrastructure that provides social, educational and legal assistance to migrants, and that helps the host society adapt to the presence of migrants;
• ensure that resident foreign nationals are effectively represented by migrant associations… [A partnership between U.S. and Mexico provides such legal protection of “human rights” for illegal immigrants in the U.S. Small wonder it’s hard for U.S. courts to deal with foreign criminals] 
• build up a capacity for data collection and analysis, research, monitoring and evaluation.”
Regional integration, such as the European Union (EU), was planned long ago as a stepping stone toward global governance. Since the regulations for regionalism are established at the UN level, this initial merger of nations — such as Canada, United States and Mexico — redefines sovereignty and submits everyone to international controls. Ashley Mote, an independent member of the European Parliament, explains how this revolutionary system would swallow up any representative form of government:
“Even the EU’s public face – the unelected commission – is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments, entrenched by some 3000 working groups and committees on which no elected MEP sits…. We do not know what their budgets are, how they are financed, or who approves their costs. Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them….
“The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master. Every previous treaty was a small step along that road…. The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states… are figure-heads. They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.
“…officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers…. But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion of accountable government. … The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure… designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.
“…the EU’s parliament… is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. … In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide.”
Today’s euphemistic propaganda for regional governance continues to mislead the public. These statements by GCIM show only the positive side of the issue:
34. In the EU, for example, citizens of member states can move with relative ease from one country to another, enjoying the benefits of a common labour market….
35. Efforts have also been made to establish various types of economic integration and related freedom of movement agreements in other regions of the world, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)….
In Parts 2 and 3, we will look more closely at how the beliefs, cultural values, poverty and lawlessness inherent to the migration crisis create a public mindset that welcomes other UN goals: universal surveillance, universal data tracking, a new kind of “human settlement,” and collective participation in the dialectic process. With the Canadian, anti-Christian UN leader, Maurice Strong, as one of the guiding lights behind this revolution, my biggest concern might be the UN “laws” that ban Biblical outreach to this new “mission field” in our midst.
“…in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:37-39
2. Phyllis Schlafly President defies most Republicans on immigration, 5-29-06, www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/phyllisschlafly/2006/05/29/199084.html
5. “Migration in an interconnected world: New directions for action, The Global Commission on International Migration at www.gcim.org/en/
6. Thomas Sowell, 5-25-06, Bordering on fraud, part III, http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/05/25/198692.html
12. MALDEF at www.maldef.org/legal/index.htm and “Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) at www.discoverthenetwork.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6156. The latter describes it as: “The most influential Hispanic advocacy group in the United States.
A creation of the Ford Foundation…. Advocates open borders, free college tuition for illegal immigrants, lowered educational standards to accommodate Hispanics, and voting rights for criminals. ‘California is going to be a Hispanic state, and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. They should go back to Europe’ — Co-founder Mario Obledo…. Just between 1996 and 1998, MALDEF received more than $9 million in combined grants from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation.”
Part 2: The emerging New World Order
by Berit Kjos – June 25, 2006
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…” David Rockefeller
“I see a world of open borders, open trade and, most importantly, open minds; a world that celebrates the common heritage that belongs to all the world’s people…. I see a world building on the emerging new model of European unity. … [T]he United Nations is the place to build international support and consensus for meeting the other challenges we face…. the threats to the environment, terrorism… international drug trafficking… refugees…. [W]e must join together in a new compact — all of us — to bring the United Nations into the 21st century.” Former President George H. W. Bush
“Globalization is not a random-walk process. It moves forward according to a tangible, coherent and well-planned strategy.” Patrick Wood, The Globalization Strategy
Why won’t our leaders enforce a simple, straight-forward immigration policy? Why doesn’t our government pull out of the United Nations? Why not abandon the planned US merger with Mexico and Canada? Why not…? In light of our American heritage, the questions all make sense!
But logical answers often ignore the grandiose dreams of the elite revolutionaries who drive the UN agenda. To them, it makes more sense to open our borders, invite illegal immigration, and risk rising lawlessness and terrorism. In fact, each such crisis becomes a potential instrument for change — a stepping stone toward Lord Tennyson’s envisioned “Federation of the world.”
Former President George H. W. Bush echoed that assurance. “Out of these troubled times… a new world order can emerge,” he told Congress in a 1990 message aptly titled “Toward a New World Order.” Back then, the opportune crisis was the Gulf War. It helped build public acceptance for the global management system, which had already begun to replace American “rights” with global rules.
The pace of change has quickened since then. As you saw in Part 1, our current president (like his two predecessors) has willingly surrendered Americans to a spreading web of UN declarations, treaties and policies that undermine our constitution. And America’s “human resources” are now molded, measured and monitored according to global standards for educational outcomes, “mental health,” “service learning,” and training for a global workforce.
Legal or not, migration is vital to this transformational process! Let’s look at some of its goals:
1. Replace national boundaries with open borders in a unified world.
Ancient monarchs understood the transformational power of mass migration. When the mighty Assyrians conquered Israel back in 722 BC, they resettled the land with people who had never heard the truths of God. Soon the blend of new settlers and local residents shifted the people’s collective loyalties to new gods and rulers.
This strategy still works! It helps explain why globalist politician John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State in the Eisenhower administration) called for freedom to migrate anywhere in the world. As chairman of a national conference held by the liberal Federal Council of Churches (precursor to the World Council of Churches) in 1942, he introduced these goals:
a world government of delegated powers
immediate limitations on national sovereignty
international control of all armies and navies
a universal system of money [Revelation 13:17]
worldwide freedom of immigration
even distribution of the world’s natural wealth.”
Even Time magazine seemed shocked by this blatant one-world socialism: “Some of the conference’s economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that a ‘new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative…. [T]he church must demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare.’”
Alger Hiss, the most infamous leader within the Federal Council of Churches, was an active Communist and the publisher of the socialist magazine International Conciliation. That didn’t keep him from serving President Roosevelt in the State Department. Nor did it hinder his assignments as the first Secretary General of the United Nations (1945) — or as president of the multimillion dollar Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
2. Replace individual thinking with collective thinking
Western individualism has been thoroughly mocked and maligned by today’s leading change agents. No wonder, since free, factual thinking would slow their revolution. They can’t win their war unless they modify our minds. John Dewey, father of progressive education in America, described this psycho-social battle in his book, Democracy and Education.
“There is always a danger that increased personal independence will decrease the social capacity of an individual…. It often makes an individual so insensitive in his relations to others as to develop an illusion of being really able to stand and act alone — an unnamed form of insanity which is responsible for a large part of the remedial suffering of the world.”
Equating independent thinking with insanity, Dewey’s fighting words illustrate the heartless tactics of his totalitarian contemporaries. Stalin, Hitler and Mao didn’t hesitate to remediate or incarcerate resisters as mentally ill. And with the rise of the UN, these views were legitimized among the ruling elite. For example, Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm became the first head of the World Health Organization (WHO). Notice how he presented “mental health” as a useful crisis in the following message, which would later be published by Alger Hiss:
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”
“For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents….
“There is something to be said… for gently putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently.”
Half a century later, the same ideology was cloaked in less threatening language. In 1995, UNESCO issued a report titled, Our Creative Diversity. I read this book on my flight back from the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul. It stated:
“The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living.”
This message is staggering. Everything must be changed! Students must learn to embrace the “systems” view of reality. The entire human race must be considered our family! And the key to success would be countless small groups around the world — all following occultist Georg Hegel‘s dialectic process.
Migration — especially from non-Western nations would be encouraged, for the dialectic process required social and spiritual diversity. Led by trained facilitators toward a pre-planned consensus, the group members must agree to seek “common ground” — an evolving “unity in diversity”. They must share their feelings, listen respectfully, respect all contrary views, and bend their own views to group opinion. Offensive facts and the Bible’s “poisonous certainties” would be banned, for these hinder group manipulation. [See Three kinds of group relationships]
Notice that diversity itself is not the problem. Andy and I tramped around the world in our younger days — paddling up the Nile on the mail boat, trucking through parts of Africa, sleeping on 4th class trains rumbling through India at night. Sometimes we were invited into homes — Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. We shared our beliefs, and they shared theirs, but no one tried to merge the two.
That’s not UNESCO’s style. Its ways are best described by Peter Senge, an MIT guru to corporate managers and church leaders around the world. In his celebrated book, The Fifth Discipline, Dr. Senge writes, “…it should come as no surprise that the unhealthiness of our world today is in direct proportion to our inability to see it as a whole.” With that revealing introduction, he goes on to define “systems thinking.” Notice the reference to the psycho-social strategies needed for change:
“Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationship rather than things.’… It is also a set of specific tools and techniques…. [T]hese tools have been applied to understand a wide range of corporate, urban, regional, economic, political, ecological and even psychological systems. 
Dr. Senge also co-authored the report, “Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations.“ It highlights the crisis of “fragmentation” that keeps people from trading “divisive” Biblical views for a more systemic or holistic perspective.:
“Fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness are not problems to be solved — they are frozen patterns of thought to be dissolved. The solvent we propose is a new way of thinking, feeling, and being…. In the new systems worldview, we move from the primacy of pieces to the primacy of the whole, from absolute truths to coherent interpretations, from self to community.”
From absolute truth” to what? A global community that bans God’s Word?
When applied to religion, the “new ways of thinking” means setting aside our old “narrow” beliefs for the sake of unity. For this to happen, Christianity must either bend or break, yet even church leaders are imposing these psycho-social strategies on their unsuspecting followers. In fact, many Christians now believe this new “systems thinking” fits God’s purpose for humanity. Echoing the message of UNESCO and Dr. Senge, “America’s pastor” Pastor Rick Warren tells us,
“It’s all about the global glory of God! We intend to leverage the attention that the Purpose Driven Life has garnered to bring about a whole new way of thinking and acting in the church about our responsibility in the world.”
This “responsibility in the world” must focus on humanitarian service, which we will discuss in Part 3. But first, ponder Rick Warren’s tone and suggestion in the recent article, “What to do when your church hits a plateau?” Apparently, he was asked how to handle obstacles to change. In his answer, he points to the new way of thinking and acting:
“…some people are going to have to die or leave. Moses had to wander around the desert for 40 years while God killed off a million people before he let them go into the Promised Land. That may be brutally blunt, but it’s true. There may be people in your church who love God sincerely, but who will never, ever change…. [Does Pastor Warren believe that he, as if like God, can simply dispose of people who question his clever marketing strategies?]
“People ask, ‘Is it easier to start new churches, or is it easier to take existing churches and turn them around?’ My answer is this: ‘It’s always easier to have babies than to raise the dead.’…
“…pray for an extra amount of patience. People change very slowly. They are resistant to change because they recognize that life as they’ve known it will cease to exist….
“…move with the movers…. Find out who the legitimizers are; the ones who are willing to go for change…. Build your vision in them.”
Did you notice that the purpose-driven change agents are on the “good” side? People like us who question the new marketing strategies are the ones who must “die or leave.” [See Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven: Dealing with Resisters]
Keep in mind, this mind-changing system has no tolerance for God’s divisive Truth. Unless Christianity blends with other religions through diversity, dialogue and deconstruction (compromising or tearing down old beliefs) our globalist leaders will continue to face resistance. That’s why Federico Mayor, former head of UNESCO used yet another crisis to fuel revolutionary fervor:
“The mission of UNESCO… is that of advancing… international peace and the common welfare…. We have witnessed… the resurgence of nationalism, the growth of fundamentalism and of religious and ethnic intolerance. The roots of exclusion and hatred have shown themselves even deeper and more tenacious than we had feared….“
As hostility toward Biblical Christianity grows in America, these words of Jesus are becoming increasingly relevant:
“If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you…. If they persecuted Me they will persecute you… for they do not know the One who sent Me.” John 15:19-21
“…the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me.” John 16:2-3
1.David Rockefeller speaking at the UN, Sept. 14, 1994. 109.
2. George Bush, Address Before the 45th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
October 1st, 1990, at www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=18883
3. Frosty Wooldridge, “A DEFINITIVE IMMIGRATION POLICY” at www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty163.htm
4. President H. W. Bush addressing Congress, September 11, 1990. A Critique and Chronology by Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
7. Time, March 16, 1942. See Conforming the Church to the New Millennium at www.crossroad.to/text/articles/ConformingChurch1-00.html
8. John Dewey, Democracy and Education (The Macmillan Company, 1916), chapter 4. Referenced by Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., in Chronology of Education With Quotable Quotes.
12. Kofman, Fred Senge, Peter M., “Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations” at http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/tqmbbs/prin-pract/comcom.txt
15. Federico Mayor, former Director-General of UNESCO, “Education and Human Development,” UNESCO, 1993. Quoting Edgar Faure, president, The International Commission on the Development of Education, in its 1972 report, “Learning to be.” This information was available at UNESCO’s Education and Human Development website seven years ago: www.unesco.org/education/educprog/brochure/002.html
100 Million More Immigrants in 20 Years?”
The immigration reform bill now under congressional consideration would grant amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants – but its real effects would be much more far-reaching, according to an eye-opening study by the Heritage Foundation.
The foundation found that the changes in immigration law would allow an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the United States over the next 20 years and “dramatically” change “the character of the nation.”
Current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, so the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA), based largely on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Mel Martinez, R-Fla., would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population.
“The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter,” the Heritage report by Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies, points out.
“The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over 20 years – over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.”
The massive increase in the number of legal immigrants would result from several changes contained in CIRA:
# The bill would grant amnesty to 85 percent of the current illegal immigrant population, or some 10 million individuals.
# Those receiving amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the United States as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. Heritage puts their number at 6 million.
# CIRA creates a new “temporary guest-worker” program that is, in fact, anything but temporary. These workers would be allowed to remain in the United States for six years, but in the fourth year they could apply for legal permanent residence status if they have learned English or are enrolled in an English class.
In the first year, CIRA would allow 325,000 people to enter the United States under the guest-worker program, but the number could rise each year after that. The Heritage report estimates the total inflow of workers under this program at 20 million over 20 years.
# Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the United States as permanent residents, adding another 24 million immigrants over 20 years.
# The bill would substantially increase the number of naturalized citizens, and they would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the United States with legal permanent resident status. Heritage puts their number at 5 million over 20 years.
# The number of secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, would rise sharply and add more than 5 million new immigrants over 20 years.
# The bill would greatly increase the number of employment-based green cards issued to 450,000 a year, and these immigrants could bring spouses and children with them, boosting immigration totals by another 13.5 million.
The Heritage Foundation concludes: “Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically …
“If CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next 20 years, foreign-born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population …
“CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.”
NewsMax.com Wires, May 16, 2006