Media, Activists Hide Kamala Harris’s Radical Pro-Migration Goals

Pro-migration activists are pleased that establishment media outlets are pretending that Kamala Harris’s radical immigration agenda is actually moderate, according to reports.

“We recognize that until we take immigration off the table — off from being used as a political piñata by Republicans — we will not be able to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” Domingo Garcia, head of the League of United Latin American Citizens PAC, told Politico. Once the election is over, Garcia said, “They should pass an immigration reform bill [for amnesty and more migration] within the first 100 days, a voting rights act within the first 100 days and take those issues off the table for any future elections.”

There’s little need for public advocacy because “we know, based on where she’s been in the past, that her policies are probably going to be aligned with UnidosUS’ policies,” Carmen Feliciano, the advocacy chief for UnidosUS, a pro-migration group formerly named LaRaza.

“This is not something I have to explain to Kamala Harris,” said Angelica Salas, director of the California-based CHIRLA pro-migration group.

“We’re not in an advocacy moment now; we’re in a win-the-damn-election moment,” a progressive told NBC News on August 18. “We’ll shift into advocacy on Nov. 6.”

The Democrats’ portrayal of Harris as a moderate is being broadcast by the corporate media.

“Progressives focus on pragmatic goals for a Harris presidency,” NBC News reported on August 18.

“The overall message on immigration from the Democratic Party in the past week … has been decidedly more hard-line than it has been in decades,” said an August 25 report from the New York Times.

“Harris campaign starts to talk tough on border security,” said the headline on an August 14 report from Roll Call, which is owned by investor-funded international company Fiscal Note.

The PR shift is deceptive but rational, amid the public opposition — especially in swing states — to the federal government’s wealth-shifting migration policy.  For example, 83 percent of GOP voters and 45 percent of swing voters described migration as a “critical” threat, according to an August 2 report.

Harris’s support for more migration — and its huge pocketbook damage to ordinary voters — threatens her support among the critical block of swing voters. “With less than 80 days to go, Harris must … continue to raise the volume on populist economic policies that speak to lowering costs and fighting for the working class,” said an August 22 polling report by progressive firm Data for Progress.

The Politico article admitted that the Latino advocates’ pro-migration policy is unpopular:

“There’s tons of data saying Latinos aren’t where the Democratic advocates are on this,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime GOP consultant who specializes in the Latino vote. “They are where Joe Biden started to pivot and where Kamala Harris has doubled down. That’s where they’re at. That’s why [Democrats] made the shift.”

But the pro-migration groups are still pushing radical policies — even as they have adopted new euphemisms for amnesty and more mass migration.

For example, the old euphemism — “Nation of Immigrants” — has been supplemented by “earned pathway to citizenship” and “broken immigration system.” At the convention, speakers touted their newest euphemism for more migration: “The strongest border bill in decades.”

For example, Harris declared during her convention speech:

Here is my pledge to you as President: I will bring back the bipartisan [February] border security bill that he killed, and I will sign it into law. I know we can live up to our proud heritage as a nation of immigrants, and reform our broken immigration system. We can create an earned pathway to citizenship [amnesty] and secure our border.

In reality, that February bill was carefully written by Democrats to maximize new immigration via disguised loopholes in border law.

Similarly, former President Barack Obama cloaked his demand for more immigration under the vague goal of “diversity.”

“No nation, no society has ever tried to build a democracy as big and as diverse as ours before, one that includes people that, over decades, have come from every corner of the globe … The rest of the world is watching to see if we can actually pull this off,” Obama declared.

Other speakers at the convention elevated migrants’ priorities far above the concerns of ordinary Americans, and muffled business demands for more imported workers, consumers, and renters.

Harris’s campaign ads even featured the border wall that she vigorously opposed:

Extraction Migration

The use of migration as an economic strategy shifts vast wealth and political power from young Americans over to migrants and older investors.

Since at least 1990, the federal government has quietly adopted a policy of Extraction Migration to grow the consumer economy after it helped investors move the high-wage manufacturing sector to lower-wage countries.

The migration policy extracts vast amounts of human resources from needy countries. The additional workers, white-collar graduates, consumers, and renters push up stock values by shrinking Americans’ wages, subsidizing low-productivity companies, boosting rents, and spiking real estate prices.

The little-recognized economic policy has loosened the economic and civic feedback signals that animate a stable economy and democracy. It has pushed many native-born Americans out of careers in a wide variety of business sectors, reduced Americans’ productivity and political clout, slowed high-tech innovation, shrunk trade, crippled civic solidarity, and incentivized government officials and progressives to ignore the rising death rate of discarded, low-status Americans.

Donald Trump’s campaign team recognizes the economic impact of migration. Biden’s unpopular policy is “flooding America’s labor pool with millions of low-wage illegal migrants who are directly attacking the wages and opportunities of hard-working Americans,” said a statement from Trump’s campaign in May.

The secretive economic policy also sucks jobs and wealth from heartland states by subsidizing coastal investors and government agencies with a flood of low-wage workers, high-occupancy renters, and government-aided consumers. Similar policies have damaged citizens and economies in Canada and the United Kingdom. — CHINA

The colonialism-like policy has also damaged small nations and has killed hundreds of Americans and thousands of migrants, including many on the taxpayer-funded jungle trail through the Darien Gap in Panama.