June 5, 2013

The Evangelical Immigration Table Exposed As Another Soros Front

George Soros

(Photo credit: Lexpress.fr)

By Marjorie Jeffrey (@MarjorieJeffrey)

Politics makes for strange bedfellows goes the old saying. The marriage between a group of Evangelical Christian organizers and George Soros has birthed a new organization called the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT).

EIT reportedly does not legally exist and is an arm of the George Soros funded National Immigration Forum, which as a “neutral third-party institution” facilitated EIT’s $250,000 radio ad campaign urging Evangelicals to back mass legalization of illegal immigrants.

So if the EIT is just a front, then what exactly is the National Immigration Forum? NIF received over three million dollars from Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) in 2009-2010 alone, as well as one million dollars from the left-wing Ford Foundation. Furthermore, Sojourners is also a recipient of Soros’ money, and their President and CEO, Jim Wallis, is prominent within EIT.

All roads seem to lead to Soros, as a cursory glance into the funding of many religious organizations that have publicly advocated for the recent amnesty legislation find their way back to the Hungarian-American’s bountiful leftist check book. Take, for example, the so-called Nuns on the Bus.

This situation of course does not mean that a believer cannot personally advocate for legalizing illegal immigrants without having been bought by George Soros. But the facts point towards a concerted public relations campaign on the part of the progressive religious left funded heavily by one individual who is himself a leftist and an atheist.

The Evangelical Immigration Table is composed of a surprisingly large list of notables from evangelical organizations, presidents of universities, and officials of denominations, and including organizations such as World Relief, Bread for the World, and the National Association of Evangelicals. Very likely most of them were unaware how their endorsement would be exploited to back specific legislation, much less realize that the political venture was the fruit of Soros philanthropy.

Since their public launch in January of this year, timed to overlap with the launch of President Obama’s second term, EIT organized events on religious college campuses, primarily focusing on their “I Was A Stranger” campaign (which, if you haven’t seen it, is a truly masterful piece of emotional blackmail).

When EIT broke onto the public scene at the beginning of the year, they described themselves as a “grassroots organization.” American evangelicalism is a highly fractious movement, and it is highly suspect for any group to claim to represent it as a whole. Most polling suggests that Evangelicals still tend to be more supportive of stricter regulations on immigration than other religious groups. Jim Wallis has recently suggested there has been a “sea change” among the average Evangelical in favor of legalizing illegal immigrants. And yet Evangelicals poll significantly higher in favor of better border security over or at least before creating a “path to citizenship” than does the typical voter. Evangelical elites are defying members of their flock who generally oppose amnesty.

So what led these elites to break ranks with their congregations in favor of amnesty? Various reasons might be offered: some may truly believe that the Gospel calls for more open borders. Some are already part of the institutional Religious Left, such as Jim Wallis. Some may agree with Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, that Hispanics “have a more complete vision of the gospel.” The revelation of EIT’s funding source as George Soros ads another puzzle piece to the mix.

What are Soros, the open borders lobby, and the progressive left really trying to accomplish? The Left sees a prime opportunity to exploit Evangelical leaders by crafting a media campaign designed to convince the GOP leadership that one of their main constituencies, Bible Belt Christians, favors comprehensive reform.

Some may argue legitimately that some Evangelical elites genuinely see passing amnesty as their Christian duty. Mega funding by leftist philanthropies and high level, publicized political partnerships are added inducements.

But there remains the nauseating fact that some Evangelicals are peddling a new sort of liberation theology to American Christians, aided by a man who has actively supported and financed organizations that directly go against Evangelical beliefs about marriage, abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.

As Mark Tooley has previously pointed out, the average Evangelical is at a disadvantage when faced with such an overwhelming number of notables pushing a politically revised version of the Gospel: “Catholic teaching typically explains a hierarchy of public issues, prioritizing marriage and sanctity of life, for example, which are intrinsic to Christian faith, over important but less theologically binding issues of prudential judgment, such as federal entitlement programs or immigration. Evangelicals lack this clear tradition because, in part, they lack much of a tradition overall, being mostly a modern American movement that emerged out of several Protestant traditions.”

This lack of tradition and lack of accountability for some leaders sets up a situation where many Evangelicals might be prone to political manipulation. If that is the purpose of the Evangelical Immigration Table, then it is a sad betrayal of a flock by its shepherds.

  • Great article, and its great to see you writing, Marjorie. My question is: Where is the conservative George Soros?

  • Marjorie Jeffrey strikes again! Watch out liberals!!!

  • Ichabod. George Soros, the destroyer of nations, the avowed enemy of God, the champion of world government — GEORGE SOROS is the secret hand behind Evangelical political movements?!

  • Pingback: Quartz Daily Brief—Asia Edition—Chinese exams, Europe’s floods, government spying, candy crackdown – Quartz()

  • Pingback: “Bibles, Badges and Business” to Rally for Immigration Law Next week in DC | Juicy Ecumenism - The Institute on Religion & Democracy's Blog()

  • Wouldn’t it be interesting to see an article about whether the Immigration Table’s, or anyone else’s, Bible interpretations actually stand up to scrutiny, rather than have it be decided by who is promoting them? Rupert Murdoch owns the NIV Bible too. And Fox News. I don’t know why bad people do good things now and then, while good people do bad things.

    • That has to be one of the stupidest things I ever read on this webiste. Murdoch “owns the NIV Bible”? FYI, the NIV was published in 1978, a project of what was then called the International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishers, which at that time was an evangelical Christian publishing house. Murdoch had nothing – zip! – to do with the project. Millions of people have bought it because it’s an excellent and accurate translation, not because they are zombies controlled by Murdoch. Technically, Murdoch’s corporation now owns Zondervan, but so what? They haven’t altered the translation in any way.

      Get your facts straight before you go into a hissyfit and try to browbeat conservatives by using Murdoch’s name out, like it was some sort of magic charm that shuts down debate. If you think conservatives have some great love for Murdoch, you’re sadly mistaken, most conservative Christians don’t know or care if the NIV has any connection to him. I’m grateful for Fox News, but that doesn’t mean I’ve got Murdoch’s portrait hanging over the bed.

  • and what exactly is wrong with this? couldn’t he be like a broken clock and twice a day be right twice? is everything he does bad? so we build a great wall of china and deport 12 million people that is the right thing to do? does this mean that everything that the koch brothers do is wrong/right too? the bishops are for reform and wants legalization. are they wrong and evil?

  • Pingback: Quartz Daily Brief—Europe Edition—US snooping secrets, European floods, Chinese exam day, Putin is single – Quartz()

  • Pingback: Quartz Daily Brief—Americas Edition—US jobs day, Xi’s come-back line for Obama, Korean relations thaw anew – Quartz()

  • panskeptic

    The demonization of George Soros is absolutely nonsensical. This man has spent more of his own money promoting democracy at home and abroad than anyone in history.

    The only reason Soros is singled out for slanderous abuse is because most in his tax bracket are rightwingnuts. There are dozens of reactionary Midases who promote all sorts of toxic ideology, starting but not ending with the Koch Brothers.

    There is nothing conservative or Christian about keeping undocumented Hispanics and their children in a permanent underclass with no hope of betterment. Even in the Bible, slaves were freed after seven years. If they could have a Pathway to Citizenship then, why not today?

    • Let’s check in on reality, as a corrective to ranting:
      1. “Most in his tax bracket are rightwingnuts.” Totally wrong. That is a liberal cliche – or, rather, LIE. You think Steven Spielberg and his Hollywood crowd are on the left or right? Ted Turner? Run through the list of millionaires in the Congress, it doesn’t fit your misconception at all. As a conservative, how I wish we did fit the stereotype as a band of rich guys – but we don’t.
      2. Calling Soros “pro-democracy” is like calling Hitler “pro-Jew.” He gets demonized by the right for all the right reasons. He is blatantly anti-American and anti-Christian. No credit to the “Christian” left that they accept funding from someone who is so brazen about his hatred for religion.
      3. “Undocumented Hispanics” are, by definition, lawbreakers. There are legal paths to citizenship. Illegals don’t follow that paths. What obligation does anyone, Christian or not, have to accept (much less SUPPORT via the welfare system) people who aren’t supposed to be here? They certainly don’t compare to slaves, as slaves were held against their will. Do you liberals think gangs of federal thugs are going into Mexico and bringing them back here in cages? What the heck does the freeing of slaves in biblical times have to do with the present condition of illegal and unassimilated aliens being a burden on American taxpayers? Is that the only section of the Bible you are familiar with? Go read the part that says “Thou shalt not steal,” which pretty much negates the whole concept of people who work supporting people who won’t work. If you feel such compassion for the poor dears, then give them money from YOUR pockets, and kindly let the rest of us keep the money we earn.

      • panskeptic

        Your response is a mishmash of bad assumptions and faulty factoids. Yes, the majority of people in Soros’ tax bracket lean to the right out of sheer selfishness – the stock market may go up more under Democrats, but Romney voters’ taxes go down under Republicans. If you want to find out where these GOP’rs are, check out Karl Rove’s contact list. Sure wasn’t Spielberg giving $300 million to that bunch of Republican loonies.

        Reality has a strong liberal bias.

        Branding all undocumenteds as lawbreakers is a nice shortcut to the cessation of thought. That way your brain doesn’t get tired. What’s your big plan, tough guy? Try them all, jail them all, deport them all? What about their kids? Machine gun them all? Maybe it’s better for us and our economy to adjust the laws so they can surface, serve in the military and pay lots and lots of taxes.

        What’s that stuff in the Bible about tempering justice with mercy? Oops, Anglo’s only.

        Every wave of immigration has been damned by the previous one. Everything I’m reading here was said in turn about the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Slavs, the Jews and now the Hispanics. Come to America, make your pile, then pull up the ladder so nobody can follow you. Then congratulate yourselves on your godliness.

        Get in line to do stoop labor in the fields in hundred degree weather for fifty cents an hour. They’re stealing our jobs! Um, which jobs?

        America prospers through diversity. Angry, punitive old white people die off, and then their children make a better country. We’ll just have to sit here and wait.

      • Two thoughts.

        1. Jean Val Jean was a lawbreaker, as Inspector Javert kept pointing out

        2. You seem not to like Soros’ “anti-Christian” stand, implying that you are pro-Christian. But you seem to be anti-Christian yourself in rejecting scripture — no, not the application of the “freeing of slaves in biblical times” to our present situation, but Jesus’ word to “do unto others as you’d want them to do unto you” if you were in their shoes. That doesn’t mean doing away with all immigration laws. It does mean acknowledging that “illegals” are human beings as well and therefore being willing to wrestle with the complexities of the problem instead of being concerned first and foremost and finally with keeping all your bread — or at least not having to share any of it with “illegals” (see Note #1 above).

      • No one has suggested machine-gunning the children of illegal immigrants. If you want to engage in debate, then deal with actual statements, not what your wild imagination cooks up. Liberals never actually engage with real conservatives and their ideas, as you clearly derive such pleasure from that nasty old straw man, the Evil White Heterosexual Male. Machine-gunning kids – funny that something like that pops into a liberal’s mind, but not a conservative’s. I think the psychologists call that “projection.”

        The reason I refer to “undocumenteds” as lawbreakers is because they are. If you are not here legally, you are here illegally. What is there about this that liberals find hard to grasp? If you choose to regard conservatives as “angry, punitive old white people,” that’s your choice, but it has nothing to do with illegal immigration being a severe social problem. If you yourself feel guilty about being white, feel free to do so. I don’t – didn’t have much control over it, and I refuse to accept the guilt that liberals want whites to feel.

        Glad to see that you regard all people who differ from you as “loonies.” I guess that fits in with the liberals’ glowing description of themselves as “inclusive” and “tolerant” and “nonjudgmental.” FYI: that’s called “hypocrisy.”

        Have fun in your Politically Correct fantasy world. Sounds like you are the Great Hero fending off the Rich White Forces of Darkness.

      • Kierkegaard, two thoughts:

        1. It’s spelled Valjean. Read the book. Also, Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert were fictional characters. Illegal immigration is a nonfictional issue affecting real human beings.

        2. Using your slippery ethical standard, “do unto others” means that if I see a guy breaking into my neighbor’s house, I wouldn’t dream of calling the cops, because, if I were in his shoes, I would want to get away with the crime, wouldn’t I? So, applying “do unto others” as you apply it would mean Christians could never report any crime, and if they served on a jury, they would have to acquit the criminal, because we have to put ourselves in his shoes, right? Your pathetic excuse for ethical thought ignores something crucial: you’re applying “do unto others” only to illegal immigrants. The rest of us don’t count, do we? Go ahead and sympathize with the ones who cross the border illegally – but that means ignoring the citizens in Arizona and New Mexico who have their property stolen, vandalized, etc, also ignores the millions of law-abiding citizens who work hard and pay taxes to support people who break the law to get here and put a huge strain on schools and the welfare system. I happen to live in an area where a majority of the crimes reported on the evening news are committed by (brace yourself) illegal immigrants. If you want to sympathize with the criminals and put yourself in their shoes, fine, but it means ignoring what’s being done to people trying to abide by the law and avoid being robbed, raped, or murdered.

        In other words, like all liberals, you are very selective about applying “do unto others.” You can put yourselves in the shoes of lawbreakers but not in the shoes of white American taxpayers. When you favor one race or ethic group over another, isn’t that called “bigotry”?

        I never met a liberal who takes the Bible “as is.” For them the Bible is just a selection of quotes to be used to attack common sense, fairness, and Christian belief.

        You accused me of not even regarding illegals as human beings. That is a nasty smear and not justified by anything I said earlier. try to argue ideas instead of resorting to lies and smears.

    • Mike_76

      Mexican criminals, or, if you prefer, Illegal aliens, aren’t,”slaves” to begin with, therefore your entire point in nonsensical. One might even say it’s “slanderous abuse:” One might say that, if one is prone to hysteria.

    • Mark Brooks

      Looks like astroturfing. This is word-for-word virtually identical to the “Cynthia Curran” post.

      Soros has his internet lackeys, of course.

  • Pingback: Steynian 472nd | Free Canuckistan!()

  • How can anyone applaud Soros – or whoever – who supports rewarding lawbreakers? I sympathize with the poor of other countries, and I don’t know what other countries do as much as the U.S. to assist those poor countries – but violating our laws is not acceptable!
    Maybe we could exchange hard-working illegal immigrants for welfare-cheating, non-productive citizens.

  • The demonization of George Soros is absolutely nonsensical. This man has spent more of his own money promoting democracy at home and abroad than anyone in history.
    The only reason Soros is singled out for slanderous abuse is because most in his tax bracket are rightwingnuts. There are dozens of reactionary Midases who promote all sorts of toxic ideology, starting but not ending with the Koch Brothers.
    There is nothing conservative or Christian about keeping undocumented Hispanics and their children in a permanent underclass with no hope of betterment. Even in the Bible, slaves were freed after seven years. If they could have a Pathway to Citizenship then, why not today?
    Actually, at the millionaire and mult-millionaire level or Billionaire level, there is a split between left and right. Republicans have the advantage at incomes between 50,000 to 150,000 hardly the super rich but not doing bad in income.
    Usually the left paints the Republicans as lower middle hicks from West Virginia or Kentucky and the Dems are pride that Obama did well in the 10 wealthiest counties, most in the DC-Virginia level. It is true that Democratic also get people are lower levels of education and income mainly because they have minority votes and even Asians have a higher poverty rate than whites. Living once in Orange County Ca actually the last amnesty caused Orange County to become poorer, poverty at 8 percent in 1980 and today around 12 percent Hispanics didn’t advance that much but each decade they become in Orange or La poorer than whites. because a new poorer Hispanic group comes in to do day labor or maid work That are nuts on the left and you must be one of them that don’t want legal immigrants or native born to become employed but prefer illegal immigrants in their jobs.

  • Well, there are a lot of those on the right likek Murloch that support legalization like MCCain for cheap labor but those on the left here don’t think. Its the elites of the left and right that versus everyone else.

  • Soros is a piece of work, to put it mildly, but instead of directing our ire at this thoroughly vile character, I definitely think we need to begin taking a close look at any organization billing itself as “evangelical,” since there is simply no way a truly evangelical organization could accept money from this creep, knowing what his agenda is. Maybe they’ve forgotten Jesus words about not being able to serve to God and Mammon, and if anyone personifies Mammon, it’s Soros.

    My wife is a graduate of a well-known evangelical college, one which, like so many entities, is now “evangelical” in name only. Ten years ago we had included a bequest to that college in our wills, but that’s all changed now. I urge all true evangelicals: turn off the TV awhile, cut the texting, do a little research into any church, denomination, school, or ministry that you regard as Christian, find out just what they stand for these days, and don’t be fooled if the name includes “Christian” or “evangelical.” Anything that the likes of Soros touches is definitely beyond the pale of Christianity.

  • Pingback: Preventive dental care ‘not at the front’ of South LA patients’ minds | Gardening Motion()

  • I scanned the names on this EIT site and immediately spotted a “deal-breaker,” Shane Claiborne. Anything this guy touches is corrupted. I’m truly amazed (horrified, actually) that so many evangelicals would wish to be associated with either Soros or Claiborne, although it’s at least to Soros’s credit that he doesn’t pose as a Christian.

  • Pingback: Dear Christians: You Have No Choice On Immigration | Juicy Ecumenism - The Institute on Religion & Democracy's Blog()

  • This is probably one of the most disingenuous columns I’ve read. The evangelical commitment to immigration reform began well before George Soros gave some money for some ads. To taint the entire movement with Soros’ wacky views is both slanderous and nonsensical. That would be as terrible as slandering the entire anti-immigration movement by the heavy associations they have with the population control movement. I don’t think that’s fair either.

    Many bible-believing conservative Christians like myself see immigration reform as a priority. Because we care about the human dignity of those who are here, we can’t accept solutions such as “kick out the lawbreakers” without regard to the children here through no fault of their own or the deplorable conditions the immigrants came from.

    And furthermore, nobody is advocating no punishment for lawbreakers. The Evangelical Immigration Table and this current bill both advocate punishment that respects the law. Fines, waiting in line, etc. For opponents of this to continue to call this amnesty (which it isn’t) and to say that those who are in favor if are for “open borders” (we aren’t) is not true. But hey, it’s easier to slander than to offer substantive debate.

    • kathy


  • Pingback: Did George Soros Enlist Evangelical Leaders on the Gang of 8 Immigration Bill (S. 744)?()

  • cynthia curran

    Well, the Koch brothers on the right support open borders and recently invited La Raza and are creating an Hispanic outreach.

  • ljatlanta

    Since Ms. Jeffrey is a PhD. candidate in philosophy, I’ll standardize the core argument in her article:

    (1) George Soros is a Hungarian, leftist, atheist
    [2] Hungarian leftist atheists are a bad thing
    (3) George Soros wants immigration reform
    (4) The EIT wants immigration reform
    (5) The EIT is a bad thing

    It would take an afternoon to untangle this enough to fit it into one of the standard forms, but I’m pretty sure it’s invalid, and I know it falls into the ad hominem fallacy. And I’m just a lowly journalist.

    Ms. Jeffrey, rather than trying to paint the EIT participants as dupes of Soros, should actually ask those organizations why they support immigration reform, then incorporate their responses into her articles, whether or not she agrees with them.

    Calling them dupes of Soros without fully addressing their reasons for supporting reform creates neither a strong nor a cogent argument.

    • Avi Marranazo

      You forgot a key point: Mr. Soros is a member of the hostile elite trying to swamp the historic America nation with Third World detritus. This elite likes to paint itself as victims, where in fact they have historically earned the enmity of every nation in which they have lived for 2000 years.

    • Mike_76

      You left out the fact that she pointed out that George Soros is funding these churches in your little 5 point summary. It looks to me like that was her MAJOR point.

      So: you ignored what she said, created a false summary, and then attacked the false summary. Your post looks like you read a different article altogether.

      How very “ad hominem fallacy” of you.


    • Mark Brooks

      Straw man argument.

  • kathy


  • Pingback: The Evangelical Immigration Table Exposed As Another Soros Front | The Historyscoper's Soros/Koch Watch Blog()

  • jim jenkins

    Congratulations on your courageous, accurate and unnerving post about a crucial controversial topic. I have been tracking the fusion of progressive politics and progressive religion for decades and you are spot on.

    The connection of Soros and the increasing number of acquisitions of heretofore Christian media outlets by progressives who are sympathetic to the Obama fundamental changing of America is truly disturbing…for example Zondervan is now controlled by Rupert Murdock….that ought to send a few shockwaves to people who care.

    The present controversy surrounding the Clinton Family Foundation and the United Nations is worthy of much more scrutiny. I have been a pastor for 35 years…. for twenty of those years I was Navy Reserve Chaplain, and for over a decade A Bible College/Seminary professor

    In my book “Fatal Drift….Is The Church Losing its Anchor”, I chronicle what has happened in the last three decades to get us to this sad juncture. I applaud you for speaking up so boldly and will follow your site more closely now that I have found it.

    I remember vividly the remarks of President Obama at height of the so called “crisis at the border” with all the stories of the a children from Central America. He looked right into the camera and said
    “I don;t understand the problem here…law enforcement is on board with this (blanket amnesty and tax payer paid welfare) the military is on board with this” and then he said….and we’ve got the evangelicals…”

    Keep up the good work
    Jim Jenkins

  • Pingback: Russell Moore’s ERLC: Change Agents of the United Nations |()

  • Pingback: The Buffoonery of the SBC’s Open-Border Agenda | Pulpit & Pen()

  • Pingback: Michelle Malkin | » Open-borders money backs Marco Rubio()

  • Pingback: Beltway Crapweasel Rubio’s Ties to Open Borders Billionaires()

  • Pingback: “Beltway Crapweasel” Rubio’s Ties to Open Borders Billionaires()

  • Pingback: VIDEO Follow The Money: Rubio in 2010: An ‘Earned Path to Citizenship is Basically Code for Amnesty’, Before Gang Of 8 | Reclaim Our Republic()

  • Pingback: Multiculturalism:America’s Destruction III | Economic & Multicultural Terrorism()

  • Protect Christian Freedom~Vote for Trump
    God has sent leaders in the past to help His people who were not always what they expected.
    Sometimes it was the very ones they expected within their own ranks that turned the tables on them
    Read books of Kings 1 & 2 and see who did what was right and who did what was wrong in t he sight of God
    Trump is far from perfect and not the stereotype many expected but he has been the leader in bringing all the issues to the forefront and with sa good cabinet and honest help he should do better than any previous president we’ve had.

  • The Scofield indoctrinated Zionist christians being led to the slaughter by their enemies using Marxist crypto-Jew Jesuit liberation theology.

  • Eric

    This bastard needs to be executed.