Jeff Sessions: Corporate Media Wants to Silence Talk of Immigration and Trade in GOP Primary

AP Photo/Bob Gathany,
AP Photo/Bob Gathany,

Sen. Jeff Sessions slammed the “internationalist,” “corporate gurus” who run much of the U.S. media, saying that they have largely banished meaningful discussion about issues critical to Republican voters.

Specifically, Sessions—the populist thought leader of Congressional conservatives—explained that the television networks were protecting their own globalist agenda at the expense of honest debate.

On Monday’s inaugural program of Breitbart News Daily, host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon observed that Marco Rubio has not been asked a single question about his involvement in the 2013 Obama-Rubio immigration bill. Bannon similarly noted that the moderators have not asked any GOP candidate about their position on Obamatrade.

While Donald Trump has declared war on Obamatrade, donor-class favorite Marco Rubio has described the globalist trade pact as the “second pillar” of his three-pillared foreign policy platform. Though unobserved by establishment media, Sessions pointed out that—according to Pew—by nearly a 5-to-1 margin, voters think such trade deals will lower wages not improve them.

When Bannon asked Sessions why the networks have avoided discussion on the issues of immigration and trade, Sessions declared: “I think their owners, their corporate gurus that dominate the network and stations are internationalists. They’re globalists and they’ve bought into this. They just have.”

Sessions extended his criticism of the networks’ corporatists to those funding many of the candidates’ campaigns. “There’s this cabal out there,” Sessions said:

The [Paul] Singers, George Soros, even the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and others that are deeply committed to a massive open borders philosophy, really. I’m not exaggerating when I say that. They fundamentally see that a worker in Bangladesh should be able to contract with a business in America and come here, and why should some government force say, “No.” I mean, that’s their fundamental thing. They don’t pay attention to the values and how it impacts the American people.

Marco Rubio recently earned the endorsement of Paul Singer, who was a top funder of the open borders lobbying group, the National Immigration Forum. Rush Limbaugh has warned that, with Marco Rubio as president and Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, in the “first 12-to-18 months, the donor-class agenda is implemented, including amnesty and whatever else they want.”

Open borders is one of those top goals. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, open borders does not mean illegal immigration, but the granting of unlimited immigration with legal permission. That is, open borders is a federal policy that would allow for the free and legal movement of foreign goods, labor, and people across international boundaries. In the European Union, for instance, members of one European country can travel to any other European country—but globalists in the United States would like America to make that same arrangement with all the foreign countries and continents of the world.

For instance, Paul Ryan who—along with Mick Mulvaney—tried to push Rubio’s immigration plan through the House—said, “America is more than just a country… it’s more than our borders.” Ryan called for “an open system… where the work that won’t be done by people who are already here can be filled by the people who want to come here and do those jobs… [where] labor and supply and demand can meet each other.”

Under this global, one-world theory, any willing employer should be able to hire any willing worker regardless of what country they live in. This view sees America’s borders as merely an obstacle to commerce.

Sessions rejected this vision and declared that the United States needs an immigration “system that serves the people’s interest and the working Americans interest and not just some corporate interest in some Wall Street canyons.”

Sessions noted that polls show that the American people are at odds with the corporate cabal. “By five to one margin, the American people believe these trade agreements reduce rather than increase their wages. And that’s true. The data shows that. So the American people get this, but we’re not having any discussion about it.”

Indeed, polls show that Republican voters are the group most skeptical of international trade deals. It is thus interesting that the debates designed to allow Republican voters to pick their Republican nominee have failed to address this crucial issue, which is of top concern for the Republican electorate.

Similarly, 9 in 10 GOP voters believe that future immigration rates should be reduced. As Bannon pointed out, Rubio has not been asked about his signature piece of legislation—the Obama-backed Schumer-Rubio immigration bill—which would have issued 33 million green cards in the elapse of a single decade.

After the Gang of Eight bill failed, Rubio introduced a new bill that would triple the issuances of wage-cutting H-1B visas—a controversial program that has been used to replace American white-collar tech workers with less-costly foreign replacements.

“Immigration and trade are issues that are critical to the average American working person,” Sessions said, “If we don’t get this right, they’re going to be hammered. And I believe we’re heading in that direction, and our candidates are going to have to be forced to talk about it, and the American people are going to have to know where they stand on trade and immigration before the election.”

Sessions remarks underscore the observations of Pat Buchanan who has noted that the nation is about to witness a “coming battle between nationalism and globalism.” Buchanan’s analysis suggests that the current schism in the Republican Party—and indeed, the nation at large—is not between the “Tea Party” grassroots wing and the “establishment” wing, but is rather a divide between the globalist wing and the nation-state wing.

As Buchanan has explained, the Republican Party “is in rebellion, in revolt.” And “those divisions,” he explains, “are about ideology, and about issues such as free-trade and amnesty for people here illegally.”

The spirit of revolt in the GOP, indeed, in both parties today, is not confined to the USA. It is roiling Europe. In Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Belgium, nationalism is tearing at the seams of nations. Secession from the EU appears to be an idea whose time is coming. Popular resistance to the dictates of Brussels and Angela Merkel’s Berlin, and to mass migration from the Middle East and Africa that threatens to swamp the smallest continent, are familiar to the Americans of 2015 as well.

Analysis from a recent FiveThirtyEight article confirms Buchanan and Sessions’s argument. Buried in a footnote at the bottom of the piece about how establishment primary rules will help Senator Rubio, the FiveThirtyEight writer acknowledges that Trump’s nation-state preservation plan has allowed him to make inroads with voters on both the right and left:

On many issues, such as immigration, Trump is clearly positioning himself to the more conservative side of candidates like Rubio and Bush. But at the moment, Trump’s support is relatively evenly distributed among moderate, somewhat conservative and very conservative Republicans. So it’s not clear Trump will necessarily do worse in blue states and districts than in more conservative ones.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.