Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole (40 page)

Then they turn around and give the money to Carlos Slim. Seventy-three percent of legal Mexican immigrants send money back to their native land and 83 percent of
illegal
immigrants do.
³²
Only because $20 billion is being sent by immigrants out of the United States, back to Mexico, can Slim continue to gouge customers for his crappy products. The majority of the money sent by immigrants to Mexico is used for “consumption”—i.e., to buy Carlos Slim’s telephone service, shop at Carlos Slim’s department stores, and eat in Carlos Slim’s restaurants.
³³
Slim’s businesses account for 40 percent of all publicly traded companies on Mexico’s main stock market index. He owns more than two hundred businesses—banks, retail outlets, restaurant chains, hotels, an airline, a mining company, Sears Mexico, a bottling company, a cigarette manufacturer, and construction, insurance, and real estate companies.

What would all those businesses be worth in Burundi?

That’s why, in 2014, Slim was exhorting Mexican youth to cross illegally into the United States for jobs. The stated purpose of Obama’s open defiance of American immigration laws was to avoid punishing “children” who were brought to the United States by their parents. Slim didn’t care about that. (Then again, neither did Obama.) He just wanted more Mexicans working in America and sending dollars back to him. As the CEO of the “Carlos Slim Foundation” explained, “[O]ur goal is to reduce the access
barriers for them to reach this potential . . . to build not just them but their families, so they’re able to contribute to the economy”—i.e., the Mexican economy owned by Carlos Slim.
³⁴

Slim’s income stream takes a circuitous route, going from American taxpayers, to government assistance programs, to the immigrant, to his relatives in Mexico, to services, food, and clothes sold by . . . Carlos Slim! It would be simpler if Americans cut Slim a check for $20 billion every year, but taxpayers might object to being bilked to support a Mexican plutocrat.

THE
NYT
PROTECTS SLIM’S INCOME STREAM

So the media hide the truth about this massive theft from the taxpayers to fund a foreign racketeer. One begins to understand why Slim wanted control of the “Newspaper of Record.” Since Slim saved the paper in 2008, the
Times
has been fervent in support of illegal immigration. Oddly, for a newspaper based in America, the
Times
celebrates the vast amounts of money being sucked out of the U.S. economy. The
Times
thinks it’s great that “the poor themselves” decide how much money to transfer from our economy to their home countries’ economies.
³⁵
But that’s because such remittances are a crucial part of Slim’s business plan.

In 2014, when banks raised their fees for transfers of money out of the United States to avoid abetting money laundering, the
Times
rebuked the financial institutions, saying, “[I]t is not credible for banks to suggest that it’s too hard to tell suspicious transfers to, say, Sudan, from legitimate remittances to, say . . .” Guess which country? Guess! That’s right: “Mexico.” Rushing to protect Slim’s money stream, the
Times
editorial demanded that “other secure, low-cost options” be found, even suggesting that the World Bank get into the remittance business.
³⁶

The
Times
chose to publish this editorial on transfers of money to Mexico at a time when there was other news in the world—the U.S. primary elections, a Supreme Court decision on religious freedom and Obamacare, new Obamacare website “glitches,” illegal aliens pouring across the border,
more shootings in Chicago, an Ebola virus outbreak in Africa, Russia violating a missile treaty, Israeli airstrikes on Palestinians, new Snowden revelations about the CIA spying on Germany, global warming still incinerating the planet, and the Republicans’ infernal War on Women.

True, people have different ideas about what constitutes a major stop-the-presses story and what is D-Section stuff, but making it easier for foreigners to transfer money out of the U.S. economy was an odd choice for an editorial. Instead of another hard-hitting piece on “the glass ceiling,” the
Times
chose to devote valuable editorial space to fretting over a potential slowdown in Carlos Slim’s collection of $20 billion from Mexicans living in the United States. It would be as if the
Times
had been rescued by Google—and then began indignantly defending corporate tax havens.

The
New York Times
is far more compromised by having Carlos Slim as its sugar daddy than any conservative is by the Koch Brothers. The
Times
is not just beholden to Slim; he holds the very life of the paper in his pinky-ringed, perfumed, fat Mexican hand. Normally, it’s easy to predict the
New York Times
’ position on any issue, because: a) it never changes; and b) it is referenced on a weekly basis in the pages of the
Times
. But that’s not true of immigration. Since Slim waddled in, the
Times
has altered its stance from mild concern about illegal immigration to bubble-headed cheerleading for illegal immigration.

          
Cheerleaders:
OUR TEAM IS AWESOME.

          
But seriously, you have to admit that Duke has a better basketball team than Yeshiva.

          
Cheerleaders:
NO! YESHIVA ROCKS! WE RULE!

How else can one explain the
Times
responding to a surge of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country by calling for Congress to grant them amnesty? And with passion! According to the
Times
, Obama’s “most urgent priority” in response to an invasion along our southern border “should be giving these children lawyers and caregivers.”
³⁷
This wasn’t
run-of-the-mill liberal insanity. A few days earlier,
Washington Post
editor Charles Lane wrote: “Only by showing people there is nothing to be gained by paying traffickers for the traumatic voyage through Mexico will the chaos cease.”
³⁸
Of course, Lane hadn’t been bailed out of bankruptcy by Carlos Slim.

THE
TIMES
CHANGES ITS TUNE

If the lunacy of the
Times
’ editorials doesn’t grab you, how about the fact that the newspaper has become noticeably hysterical about illegal immigration since Carlos Slim came on board? In 1997—the pre-Slim days—the
Times
had editorialized: “Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter illegal entry at the border.”
³⁹
Another editorial that year complained that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had “done a poor job of keeping out illegal aliens, deporting criminals [and] processing requests for asylum.”
⁴⁰
This wasn’t even Bush-bashing—Clinton was president!

Post-Slim, the
Times
tends more toward deranged hectoring in favor of illegal immigration. In the
Times
’ 2014 “Go Big” editorial—the one insisting that Obama grant permanent residence to illegal immigrants streaming across the border—the
Times
sniped: “Republicans will howl over Mr. Obama’s solo actions. Let them.”

The
Times
should never stop hearing about Carlos Slim. By all the rules of the Left, you’re not supposed to trust someone beholden to a rich man, especially one with a specific interest in public policy. If Slim had saved any company in the world other than the
New York Times
, his sleazy insider deals and business model based on mass illegal immigration to the United States would absolutely be a problem.
But you forgot something—we’re the
New York Times
! We’re the good guys. You’re not factoring that in.

SOLVING “THE SERVANT PROBLEM”

From Carlos Slim to urban professionals, ethnic activists, greedy “churches,” and Republican lobbyists, no one who supports mass immigration does not benefit financially from it.
New York Times
sugar daddy Carlos Slim is just a particularly repellant example of the bald self-interest behind the demand for a never-ending tide of poor immigrants to the United States.
Don’t you understand? People on Wall Street are about to have to pay minimum wage for a nanny!
It’s not about loving Hispanics—it’s about cheap servants.

Republicans are terrified of saying anything about immigration for fear of being called “racist.” It’s kind of lucky for American billionaires—and one Mexican billionaire—that the vast majority of our immigrants are Latin America’s poor, not Poland’s poor. The fact that most immigrants are Hispanic provides excellent cover for the elite’s monumental self-interest.

Here’s a tip for the GOP: Don’t talk about the illegal aliens. Talk about Carlos Slim. Talk about rich Americans finding a solution to “the servant problem.” Talk about one-hit-wonder Mark Zuckerberg underpaying his computer programmers while 32 percent of American graduates in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math) can’t get jobs and the rest haven’t seen their salaries rise for more than a decade.
⁴¹

Talk about how Bill Clinton couldn’t find someone to be his attorney general because of the prevalence of illegal alien employees in households of the “1 percent.” Determined to appoint a woman attorney general, Clinton kept producing women with illegal alien nannies. In the end, he had to get around the rich’s dependence on cheap domestics by nominating Janet Reno to fill the spot.

Clinton first nominated Zoë Baird, an in-house lawyer for Aetna Life and Casualty. Then it turned out Baird had employed illegal aliens, Lillian and Victor Corderos, as her household’s nanny and chauffeur. The media ferociously defended Baird, explaining how “commonplace” illegal alien
workers were in professional households. “It’s just a reality of life,” one head of an employment agency told the
Times
, “that without the illegal girls, there wouldn’t be any nannies, and the mommies would have to stay home and mind their own kids.”
⁴²
Are you grasping the full horror of the situation?

Another employment agency admitted it was just about saving the rich money: “No matter how you slice it, the reason that people hire immigrants without papers is that they’re looking to save. If they want legal, they can get it, but it costs.”
⁴³
Baird, for example, who was making half a million dollars a year, got two illegal alien servants for forty-two dollars a day each, plus room and board.
⁴⁴
The
Times
cheerfully described illegal alien help for the rich as a “pragmatic” arrangement “linking illegal immigrants and middle-class homes.” The newspaper said that as “more American women with young children moved into the workplace, the demand for housekeepers increased exponentially.”
⁴⁵

Notwithstanding the
Times
’ heartfelt defense of the rich and their maids, Americans responded by deluging the Capitol switchboard with enraged calls assailing Baird’s employment of illegals. The phone calls were running 50–1 against her, according to Democratic Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio.
⁴⁶
It was left to Senator Joe Biden, Delaware Democrat, to explain to the Clinton White House that most Americans do not have a retinue of illegal alien servants.

Baird was forced to withdraw her name from consideration and returned to her half-a-million-dollar-a-year job. The Corderos were not so fortunate. Solely on account of the ruckus over Baird’s nomination, they were forced to return to Peru, under threat of deportation. And thus ended the humanitarian crisis in Peru as far as Zoë Baird was concerned.

Even after seeing what had happened with Baird, Clinton’s next nominee, Kimba Wood, also had an illegal alien nanny! In three interviews for the job—twice by White House counsel Bernie Nussbaum, and once by the president himself—Wood flatly denied that she had a “Zoë Baird problem,” apparently on the grounds that when she first hired her illegal alien
Trinidadian nanny it was not technically against the law. In her withdrawal letter, Wood kept obtusely insisting that she had not broken the letter of the law.
⁴⁷

The elites just can’t grasp that most Americans raise their own kids, make their own beds, cook their own food, and drive their own cars. A decade later, another pro–illegal immigration activist saw her nomination go up in flames over an illegal alien employee. President-Elect Bush chose Linda Chavez as his labor secretary, but she was forced to withdraw when it was revealed that she, too, had hired an illegal alien domestic. Defending the rich’s need for cheap labor, Chavez said, “I do believe that Zoë Baird was treated unfairly.”
⁴⁸

BUT IT’S GREAT FOR THE RICH!

The push for mass immigration from “developing” countries has nothing to do with solving world poverty. It would be an odd way to do it:
I know—let’s move all the poor people to American suburbs!
According to the World Bank, 2.4 billion people—about a third of the earth’s population—live on less than two dollars a day.
⁴⁹
Until the world economy reaches perfect equilibrium and there is no reason for anyone to move from one country to another, billions of desperate people will want to come to America. We can’t take them all, so which billion of the starving masses are liberals going to exclude? Will it involve death panels? Are liberals going to trample on the rights of Bangladeshis? They’re dying of cholera! Is it their brown skin liberals don’t like? Sorry, liberals, but your white picket fence sense of America and fear of “Furriners” can’t hold back the 2.4 billion in this worldwide humanitarian crisis.