Wednesday, March 29, 2017
View Blog
Minimize
Apr 1

Written by: Diana West
Friday, April 01, 2016 1:58 PM 

 

Part 14 of The Post-Constitutional Election is here.

--

Charles C. Foster (above) is a pro-mass-immigration, pro-executive amnesty Houston superlawyer. 

He supports the import of Syrian refugees into the state of Texas, as he explained in this 2015 op-ed in the Houston Chronicle.

He supports Obama's executive amnesty, as he wrote in a 2014 op-ed in the Houston Chronicle.

He supports the HIB visa program, arguing in 2012 against Phyllis Schafly's critique, "H1B Visas Take American Jobs," characterizing Schlafly arguments as "misplaced," "wrong," and "ridiculous" at TexasGOPvote.com.  

He supports Ted Cruz.

Huh? Isn't Cruz that "outsider" rootin'-tootin' populistic immigration restrictionist we hear about, now even touting "fair trade," not "free" trade, in Wisconsin?

Hah.

(Get an earful on how outrageous Cruz's "fair trade" con is from Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller here.

Foster heads what is known as a "global immigration law firm," Foster LLP. The firm's motto is "Fostering Global Immigration Solutions." From the "attorney activities" posted at the firm's website, we can get an inkling about how the firm goes about it. 

Last month, for example, firm chairman Foster spoke at the 6th Invest in American Summit in Shanghai on "What Investors Need to Know About Permanent Residency."

In February, partner Delisa J.F. Bresller published an article called: "H-1B Filing Season -- What the CEO Should Know." Partner Helene Dang participated as a panelist as the FEM Global Mobility conference, discussing: "Overcoming Obstacles to Immigration in the US."

Another partner, Robert F. Loughran, headed for Cuidad Juarez, Mexico, to meet with American consular officers to discuss "the post's new E-2 Treaty Investor visa responsibilities. He also published an article in Mobility Magazine callled: "Refugees Are Not a Threat...They Are a Staffing Opportunity."

The article discussed "the potential benefits of employing  Syrian refugees."

In January, Foster attorney John Lasseigne gave a talk to the non-profit LUPE (La Union del Pueblo Entero) "about what persons can do if ICE comes knocking on their doors."

You get the idea.

There is also Foster's work on the executive committee of the Greater Houston Partnership, a chamber of commerce-like organization with, naturally, a global scope, which seems to be turning Houston in the United Nations General Assembly of business. Meanwhile, speaking last spring for Charles C. Foster at the request of the Immigration Task Force of the Greater Houston Partnership,firm partner Robert F. Loughran "provided expert testimony before the Texas Senateagainst potential anti-immigrant bills in the current legislative session."

And Charles C. Foster is the guy Cruz calls up for help with campaign finance.

Foster, a longtime Bush family loyalist, was on the Jeb Bush finance committee until Bush exited the race. Then Cruz called, inviting Foster aboard Team Cruz.

Except for all the Cruz campaign smoke and mirrors, this shouldn't be the least bit surprising. The two men go back a long way, back to 2000 and George W. Bush's first presidential campaign. Together, they put together W.'s immigration policy. 

As The Atlantic reported on May 23, 2013:

Cruz helped craft the [George W. Bush ] campaign's immigration policy, which called for speeding up the application process, increasing the number of work visas, and allowing the relatives of permanent residents to visit the U.S. while their applicants were pending. "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande," Bush used to say.

Foster is quoted in that same May 23, 2013 article:

"I'm disappointed in Ted [now] because he's a very bright, articulate lawyer with a substantial base of knowledge about immigration. But instead of using that knowledge, he's acting like a typical politician and just talking about the border being out of control."

Foster, I suspect, was not "disappointed in Ted" much longer. The following month, beginning on June 17, 2013, Ted Cruz introduced a series of amendments to the Gang of 8 immigration bill, which, had they been enacted, would have gone a long way to implement that same Cruz-Foster immigration policy of the 2000 Bush campaign: 1) speeding up the application process; 2) increasing the number of work visas (Cruz's amendments expanded both green cards and H1B visas far beyond Gang of 8 caps); and even, as the Cato Institute noted in its analysis of Cruz's Senate immigration record, "[allowing] the spouses of all H-1B visa holders to work legally – going beyond President Obama’s actions to increase work eligibly for those spouses."

Cato wrote: "Senator Cruz is normally viewed as an immigration restrictionist – an unfair characterization."

"Unfair"? I'd say the characterization is a sham, a feat of cynical branding and political deception. 

Far from being any kind of immigration restrictionist, Sen. Cruz has a record that shows he is a strong advocate of legal mass immigration, just as he is a strong advocate of global "free" trade (as is his wife Heidi, whose work on the Council of Foreign Relations Task Force helped produced a blueprint for dissolving the USA into a Canadian-US-Mexican entity, as explained here). Until the advent of Donald Trump, no Republican candidate was anything else. 

With the unprecedented success of Donald Trump in energizing the base with his "taboo" nationalist-populist positions on immigration and trade, Cruz, to salvage his "outsider" pose, simply tacked Trumpward as a presidential candidate to squat on Trump's nationalist real estate. 

It was never more than an expedient, temporary move. This is why Charles Foster, Neil and Jeb Bush, and the rest of GOPe would prefer Ted Cruz to Donald Trump any day of the week -- and precisely why I do not.

I can hear the two words forming: Poison Pills. Remember those Cruz amendments to the Gang of 8 bill that were really "poison pills" designed to sink it? That's what Ted Cruz tells us, anyway.

How stupid does he think we are? Pretty stupid, given the success of his ploy.

How can I be so sure it is a ploy?

To answer, let me me quote the GOP presidential candidate, himself: Sen. Ted Cruz, speaking on April 29, 2015 before the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He is answering a question on immigration -- specifically, How do you propose to harness the power of immigrants to help the economy?

Stating "there is no stronger advocate of legal immigration in the US Senate than I am," Cruz gets to those supposed "poison pill" amendments (starting at around minute 37:45):  

When it comes to economic growth and jobs, you know, it was quite interesting: In the Senate Judiciary committee, I introduced an amendment on H1B visas. Current cap was 65,000, the Gang of 8 bill, which I opposed because it made the problem worse, I believed.

But the Gang of 8 bill had some positive aspects when it came to H1B visas. It increased it from 65,000 to 110,000 visas. The problem is that's not nearly high enough. ... 

"Not nearly high enough"? Does this sound like someone explaining how, in reality, he was scuttling the Gang of 8 bill with a "poison pill"?

Cruz continues:

So I introduced an amendment in the Senate Juciary Committee to increase the H1B visa cap fivefold, from 65,000 all the way up to 325,000.

(Not "So I introduced a "poison pill" amendment to kill the bill.")

When that amendment came to a vote, every single Senate Democrat on the committe voted against it. And Senator Chuck Schumer, was quite candid, he explained: Look, we cut a deal with the union bosses. We can't adjust these numbers, and so they all voted against it.

I introduced another amendment to dramatically simplify and streamline legal immigration, to reduce the paperwork and burden, also to eliminate the per-country caps.

(Not "And then I introduced another `poison pill' to kill the bill.") 

He continued:

Right now the per-country caps discriminate against a number of countries, like Mexico, like China, like India. Every single Senate Democrat voted against that amendment, to improve and streamline legal immigration, and they said the same thing: This is the deal we cut with union bosses. ...

It worked like a charm. His USHCC moderator replies:

Well, I appreciate your position on visas, and I am happy to hear you are a proponent of immigration reform.

Really? That was April 29, 2015.

Enter Donald Trump on June 16, 2015, and Cruz markedly shifts his political positions on immigration and trade issues. 

Foster says that following Jeb Bush's exit from the race, he didn't plan on supporting another 2016 GOP candidate immediately -- in 2012, Foster was actually a generous supporter of the Obama Victory Fund 2012 (!), contributing $16,500 (and $500 to Mitt Romney). On reflection, though, Foster decided Cruz was the candidate to beat Trump.

Foster called in the Bush clans -- the core of the defunct Jeb Bush finance committee. This included corrupt-o-Bush-Neil and globalist C. Boyden Gray (whose Atlantic Council champions TPP), among others. Foster persuaded them to reconstitute their financial and fundraising muscle around Cruz. Soon, Jeb Bush endorsed Cruz, along with Lindsay Graham, Nikki Haley and other GOPe-ers, making the Bushite-GOPe-"Washington cartel" encirclement of the "outsider" near complete.

Would these establishment pols and power brokers saddle up again for someone as "bad" on these basic, all-important issues as Donald Trump? I think not. Their best hope may be to try to impede Trump's road to the nomination; but when it comes to immigration and trade, the Bush-Cruz merger is a meeting of political like-minds.

Another yuge reason to vote for Donald Trump. 

Tags:
Donate
Minimize
Print  
Links
Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West