Migration Lobbies Slam WashPost’s Exposure of White House Splits

Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post reported the White House’s political team has quietly handcuffed President Joe Biden’s open-border radicals — and so Mark Zuckerberg’s pro-migration allies are complaining about the rare media exposure.

“The story is absurd & rife with bias, as has been @Nic[k]Miroff’s border reporting since the beginning of the years,” said a tweet by Alida Garcia, a pro-amnesty lobbyist for Zuckerberg’s FWD.us lobby group of investors.

“There was a lot to aggravate everyone in @NickMiroff’s latest [report].” complained Scott Shuchart, the legal director at a pro-migration legal group. The group was founded by Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, who also funded the FWD.us group.

“Maybe [the Post reporter] should just join [the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)] and get it over with,” tweeted Carol Ann Donohue, a pro-migration lawyer. She works for a FWD.us-supported advocacy group that provides free legal advice to economic migrants who are trying to sneak into the U.S. labor market.

“They want fangirl coverage,” replied Rob Law, the policy director of regulatory affairs at the CIS group which advocates for reduced migration. Law scoffed at the twitter critics:

When even the Washington Post is just exposing this behind-the-scenes apparatus that they are very much part of, they don’t like the public attention. They’re trying to snuff it out and silence it because they want to continue to work behind the scenes.

The November 8 article was written by two Washington Post reporters. But the criticism was aimed at one author — Nick Miroff — not at the second author, Sean Sullivan.

The two authors reported:

a group of Biden aides more attuned to national security and less sensitive to the activist community has begun asserting control over immigration, according to five current and former administration officials. They include Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser; Liz Sherwood-Randall, his homeland security adviser; Rice; and White House chief of staff Ron Klain, who has dialed back his involvement since late summer but still relies on these and other officials, according to one person familiar with the dynamic.

These advisers view the border “almost entirely from a political lens,” said one Biden appointee who is sour on the administration’s pro-enforcement shift.

The progressives’ pro-migration policies have poisoned Biden’s poll ratings so much that Vice President Kamala Harris is avoiding any entanglement, according to the Post‘s report:

One reflection of the White House’s struggles is the low profile of Vice President Harris, who has little role in the internal debates, the current and former officials said, including two who characterized her as “completely irrelevant.”

The Post notes that the internal conflict is driven by the public’s poll-tested opposition, not by officials’ recognition that mass migration cases much damage to ordinary Americans’ wages, jobs, and wealth:

“It’s a question of control, and whether they appear to be in control, especially coming hard on the heels of the Afghan evacuation, which looked like it was ragged and not under control,” said a Biden appointee, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

The Post’s insider report matches the tone of a November 2 report from CBS. The CBS article includes several useful admissions about the unpopularity of mass migration and the radical goals of the open-borders West Coast faction in Biden’s administration:

“The advocacy groups have not made things easy on the administration,” one person said. “The only policies they support are those in which every person who crosses the border is released into the country with cases that will take years to get to, if the government can get to them at all. That is not functional, or sustainable.”

The CBS article also quoted warnings from Cecilia Munoz, a pro-migration activist who worked with President Barack Obama to ease migration, saying,  “An open-borders position is anathema in the country … It’s like pushing the administration right off a cliff.”

But the Post‘s article downplays the ambitions of the pro-migration progressives, including homeland security chief Alejandro Mayorkas.

For example, the story only mentions at the very end that Mayorkas is pushing a new rule that would open an additional doorway for economic migrants to get fast-track asylum at the border. His new doorway will sharply increase the incentive for economic migrants to get to the U.S. border, likely increasing migration chaos and also spiking domestic competition for jobs amid rising inflation.

The Washington Post article also ignores the elephant in the room — the pending Build Back Better reconciliation spending bill that would remove annual caps on the inflow of white-collar workers and family migrants.

The unpopular removal of caps would damage American professionals and also drive up the cost of housing for many young families. It faces a vote in the House next week amid a media blackout.

The article mentioned Garcia but did not mention that the lobbying effort to remove the caps is being led by her employer — Zuckerberg’s FWD.us network of coastal investors.

The investors stand to gain if Congress extracts even more cheap labor, government-aided consumers, and urban renters from foreign countries.

The breadth of investors who founded and funded FWD.us was hidden from casual visitors to the group’s website in early 2021. But copies exist at the other sites.

Zuckerberg’s money has funded many pro-amnesty astroturf campaigns, urged Democrats to not talk about the economic impact of migration, and manipulated coverage by the TV networks and the print media.

Todd Schulte, Garcia’s boss at Zuckerberg’s FWD.us, has repeatedly used his Twitter account to jeer at even mild criticism of his easy-migration priorities:

The FWD.us network has gotten minimal coverage in Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and Fox News, Mike Bloomberg’s news service, the Associated Press, or the corporate-owned TV networks.

The media’s silence about FWD.us is important because the investors’ agenda would have a huge economic, civic and political impact on the United States. For example, it would transfer wages and wealth from blue-collar and white-collar employees to investors, and would shift investment, real estate wealth, government spending, and political power from GOP-led heartland states to the Democrat-dominated coastal states.

Amid the kid-glove coverage for the investors, said Law, “there’s still some level of appropriate news coverage [at the Washington Post] — reporting border numbers that [the border agency] is refusing to release in a timely fashion, and reporting on factions within the administration — instead of the propaganda apparatus which just says ‘Everybody’s all on board, we’re all we’re all in this together, and everybody agrees with it.”‘

“That’s why you’re seeing this pushback because those that are part of the propaganda machine … They don’t like any of the negativity being exposed,” Law added.