In the intricate web of political and religious discourse, the relationship between George Soros, the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) under Brent Leatherwood presents a compelling narrative—one that unveils the underlying agenda of subtly promoting amnesty, contradicting the core values of many Southern Baptists.

At the core of this complex saga lies the enigmatic tie between George Soros and the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT). Far from being an autonomous coalition, the EIT is a front for the National Immigration Forum (NIF), strategically positioned to disseminate Soros’s vision thanks to substantial backing from his Open Society Foundation. This relationship transcends mere philanthropy, representing a strategic maneuver to infuse evangelical circles with a specific political ethos.

The EIT, devoid of an independent legal status, functions under the NIF’s banner, allowing it to propagate ideas and policies aligned with Soros’s immigration agenda without the usual constraints of transparency and accountability. The financial trail is telling. Soros’s Open Society Foundation is a significant donor to the NIF, revealing the intent to use the NIF—and by extension, the EIT—as conduits for influencing evangelical views on immigration.

This dynamic is more than a funding equation, it’s a calculated infiltration into evangelical communities. By embedding Soros’s policy preferences under the guise of faith-based advocacy, the EIT resonates with and influences its target audience. Key figures like Ali Noorani, former head of the NIF, have acknowledged the receipt of funds from Soros’s foundation, confirming the depth of these ties. The EIT’s choice to have the NIF “facilitate its work” further cements this relationship, indicating a clear operational and ideological alignment.

In essence, the Soros-EIT nexus is a sophisticated alliance aiming to reshape evangelical perspectives on immigration. The strategy is to subtly recalibrate the evangelical stance towards more liberal immigration policies, using the EIT as a tool to advance a specific political ethos. This calculated move has significant implications for evangelical thought and public policy, representing a seismic shift in the narrative of immigration and faith-based advocacy.

Enter the ERLC, a significant player in the EIT, and its influence cannot be understated. Under the guise of religious advocacy, the ERLC, both under the former leadership of Russell Moore and now with Brent Leatherwood at the helm, is continuing to steer the evangelical community towards a more lenient stance on mass immigration.

On December 11, the EIT sent a letter to Congress which was signed by the ERLC, Bethany Christians Services, The National Association of Evangelicals, World Relief, and other moderate-leftist religious organizations. The letter is a cunning exercise in manipulative language, especially on immigration. Ostensibly, it endorses “increased” border security, but this is a deceptive facade.

The letter deceptively asserts the need to control unlawful entries, citing concerns about drug cartels and fentanyl, but these are mere smokescreens for a more subtle ambition, which is to ramp up immigration under the guises of “refugee” and “asylum seeker.” The letter claims, “Our federal government has a responsibility to know who is entering the United States, to do whatever is reasonably possible to prevent the entry of anyone seeking to do harm.” This lip service to security masks a deeper motive to loosen immigration controls.

Cloaked in the guise of Christian humanitarianism, the letter subtly advocates for a more lenient immigration policy than its superficial pro-border security stance suggests. It manipulates the noble concept of human dignity to push its agenda, stating, “This belief is at the foundation of our asylum laws, which offer protection to those who reach the United States and can demonstrate a real fear of persecution.” This language is a strategic ploy to distract from the real issues at hand – the socioeconomic impacts of uncontrolled immigration.

Admitting large numbers of immigrants, regardless of their criminal status, poses significant risks to a nation’s infrastructure and social stability. The influx of unskilled and uneducated immigrants, often under the pretense of seeking refuge, threatens to overwhelm welfare systems, healthcare, and educational institutions, not to mention the economic stability of the nation that has procured the path for worldwide evangelism from this nation. This push for mass immigration, far from being an act of charity, is a calculated move to destabilize and strain societal resources.

The letter, again, signed by the ERLC and others, endorses of the Dignity Act of 2023 which allows for amnesty. This Act, under the superficially noble guise of helping undocumented aliens illegally in the United States, is to incentivize further immigration, exacerbating the challenges of mass immigration. This act, which was introduced by Senator Cory A. Booker, “grants legal status to undocumented immigrants already living in the United States with the possibility of earning citizenship, establishes new pathways for asylum seekers, and creates new legal pathways for economic migrants and unaccompanied minors.”

One common justification for mass immigration is its potential as an evangelistic opportunity. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed. Scripture calls Christians to “go out” into the nations, not to invert this mandate by bringing the nations to our doorstep. More importantly, the destabilization caused by unchecked immigration risks creating a culture increasingly hostile to Christianity, thereby hindering evangelism.

The subtle shift towards amnesty, spearheaded by the ERLC under the influence of bad actors through the EIT, should be a matter of grave concern. It is imperative for Southern Baptists and the broader evangelical community to recognize these attempts to undermine the will of Southern Baptists for what they are—a concerted effort to reshape the evangelical stance on immigration.