Jeffrey Sachs, literally the brainchild behind the mass migration scheme we have been experiencing in the United States since 2010.

He is on the advisory board of a think tank funded by George Soros which literally came up with the entire academic and tactical blueprint for the NGO mass migration pipeline we see today. He then took that blueprint and implemented it at the UN and at Catholic Charities.

Why is anyone promoting this guy? Was Norm Eisen and George Soros himself not available?

In 2009, George Soros invested 50 million dollars into a think tank, a think tank where Jeffrey Sachs sits on the advisory board of. A think tank that has advocated for open borders, and mass migration using the blueprint and economic theories he came up with.

This Nation piece likewise had a lot of details on Sachs’s activity in Russia under Clinton (also Soros and USAID in the full article):

* * *

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russia/

EconomyFeatureMay 14, 1998
The Harvard Boys Do Russia
After seven years of economic “reform” financed by billions of dollars in U.S.
Janine R. Wedel

. . .

Through the late summer and fall of 1991, as the Soviet state fell apart, Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs and other Western economists participated in meetings at a dacha outside Moscow where young, pro-Yeltsin reformers planned Russia’s economic and political future. Sachs teamed up with Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin’s first architect of economic reform, to promote a plan of “shock therapy” to swiftly eliminate most of the price controls and subsidies that had underpinned life for Soviet citizens for decades. Shock therapy produced more shock—not least, hyperinflation that hit 2,500 percent—than therapy. One result was the evaporation of much potential investment capital: the substantial savings of Russians. By November 1992, Gaidar was under attack for his failed policies and was soon pushed aside. When Gaidar came under seige, Sachs wrote a memo to one of Gaidar’s principal opponents, Ruslan Khasbulatov, Speaker of the Supreme Soviet, then the Russian parliament, offering advice and to help arrange Western aid and contacts in the U.S. Congress.

Enter Anatoly Chubais, a smooth, 42-year-old English-speaking would-be capitalist who became Yeltsin’s economic czar. Chubais, committed to “radical reform,” vowed to construct a market economy and sweep away the vestiges of Communism. The U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.), without experience in the former Soviet Union, was readily persuaded to hand over the responsibility for reshaping the Russian economy to H.I.I.D., which was founded in 1974 to assist countries with social and economic reform.

H.I.I.D. had supporters high in the Administration. One was Lawrence Summers, himself a former Harvard economics professor, whom Clinton named Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in 1993. Summers, now Deputy Treasury Secretary, had longstanding ties to the principals of Harvard’s project in Russia and its later project in Ukraine.

Summers hired a Harvard Ph.D., David Lipton (who had been vice president of Jeffrey D. Sachs and Associates, a consulting firm), to be Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. After Summers was promoted to Deputy Secretary, Lipton moved into Summers’s old job, assuming “broad responsibility” for all aspects of international economic policy development. Lipton co-wrote numerous papers with Sachs and served with him on consulting missions in Poland and Russia. “Jeff and David always came [to Russia] together,” said a Russian representative at the International Monetary Fund. “They were like an inseparable couple.” Sachs, who was named director of H.I.I.D. in 1995, lobbied for and received U.S.A.I.D. grants for the institute to work in Ukraine in 1996 and 1997. . .

In fact, H.I.I.D. projects were never adequately monitored by U.S.A.I.D. In 1996, a General Accounting Office report described U.S.A.I.D.’s management and oversight of H.I.I.D. as “lax.” In early 1997, U.S.A.I.D.’s inspector general received incriminating documents about H.I.I.D.’s activities in Russia and began investigating. In May Shleifer and Hay lost their projects when the agency canceled most of the $14 million still earmarked for H.I.I.D., citing evidence that the two managers were engaged in activities for “private gain.” The men had allegedly used their positions to profit from investments in the Russian securities markets and other private enterprises. According to sources close to the U.S. investigation, while advising the Russian government on capital markets, for example, Hay and his father allegedly used inside information to invest in Russian government bonds. Hay and Shleifer may ultimately face criminal and/or civil prosecution. Shleifer remains a tenured professor at Harvard, and Hay continues to work with members of the Chubais clique in Russia. Sachs, who has stated he never invests in countries where he advises and who is not implicated in the current U.S. government investigation, remains head of H.I.I.D. . .

As we all know, just because someone posts something on X/Twitter that does not make it true. Due diligence to verify claims is in order, same as for our (highly!) unreliable MSM.

It’s only to be expected that the lefty warmongers would go all out to discredit Sachs, especially among Trump supporters, and as best I can tell, these nasty allegations originated with The Blob. No surprise there!

There are a number of replies on that thread refuting claims made by “Insurrection Barbie”. I’ve not yet looked at them all, but so far, the refutations are pretty solid.

Yes, Sachs has written about migration. In his writings he has concentrated on mitigating the root causes of migration (a good thing, right?) and also on ways to limit migration to manageable levels. One of those replying asked Grok “Did Jeffrey Sachs do any white papers on mass migration?” And Grok replied:

Yes, Jeffrey Sachs has authored white papers and similar works addressing mass migration, often framing it within broader economic, ethical, and policy contexts. While not all of his writings are labeled strictly as “white papers” in the formal sense (e.g., government or organizational policy documents), his academic articles, books, and essays serve a similar purpose by providing in-depth analysis and recommendations. Below are some key examples of his work related to mass migration:

1. “Toward an International Migration Regime” (2016)
Published in the American Economic Review (Vol. 106, No. 5, pp. 451-455), this paper explores the need for a global framework to manage international migration. Sachs argues that the absence of a coherent international regime—beyond refugee policies—leaves migration policies muddled and contentious. He proposes economic and ethical principles to guide such a regime, emphasizing sustainable development and moderated migration flows. This work directly engages with mass migration as a global phenomenon requiring structured governance.

2. “A Three-Point Solution to the Migrant Crisis” (2016)
Published on his personal website (jeffsachs.org) and adapted from various columns, this piece outlines a practical approach to addressing mass migration. Sachs suggests stopping conflicts driving refugee flows (e.g., in the Middle East and Central America), promoting long-term economic development in source countries, and adjusting global policies to balance the human right to migrate with manageable limits. While more of an essay than a traditional white paper, it offers a policy-oriented analysis of mass migration’s root causes and solutions.

3. “The Drivers of Migration” (2022)
This chapter, featured in Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development (Columbia University Press, pp. 229-234), examines the forces behind mass migration, including conflict, poverty, and climate change. Sachs connects these drivers to sustainable development goals, advocating for global cooperation to mitigate the conditions that compel large-scale movement. Its academic tone and focus on actionable insights align with white paper characteristics.

4. Broader Works with Migration Themes
Sachs’s books, such as A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism (2018) and The Ages of Globalization (2020), also touch on mass migration. In A New Foreign Policy, he critiques U.S. militarism as a driver of displacement and calls for sustainable development to reduce migration pressures. In The Ages of Globalization, he traces migration as a constant in human history, intensified by modern economic and environmental factors. These works aren’t white papers per se but provide scholarly grounding for his migration-related arguments.

Sachs’s writings consistently frame mass migration as a symptom of deeper systemic issues—war, inequality, and climate change—rather than an isolated problem. His approach contrasts with purely restrictive policies, favoring global cooperation and development-focused solutions. While claims like those on X suggesting he’s “the brainchild behind the mass migration scheme” in the U.S. since 2010 exaggerate his influence (no single individual orchestrates U.S. migration policy), his advocacy for structured migration regimes and development aid has undeniably shaped academic and policy discussions on the topic.

These works are publicly accessible through academic journals, his website, or book purchases, though specific institutional affiliations (e.g., advisory roles) might amplify their reach rather than directly implement them as policy. If you’re looking for a specific white paper tied to a particular organization or date, let me know, and I can refine the search!

So far, it seems his only real connection to INET and Soros is INET funding for Sach’s MVP project to alleviate poverty in African villages in 2006. While “sustainable development” is often a derided phrase and concept here on FR — and often rightly so, as it has been hijacked by the left to mean something entirely different from its original meaning/concept — it appears to me that Sachs believes in the original concept. That is: programs and policies that promote the ability of impoverished peoples to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps to create an economy that provides a decent living into the future rather than relying on handouts from richer nations/areas. In other Words, the opposite of the old bandaid approach.

As it affects migration, the original concept of sustainable development is aimed at creating conditions that keep people in their original homelands with a means of decent living standards and faith in the future rather than fleeing in desperation to richer countries.

As for the charges that he backs NGOs that promote mass illegal migration, no evidence has so far emerged that he has had any such connections. His emphasis seems to have been on creating conditions in source countries that mitigate migration and formulating policies in host countries for legal migration within those host countries’ desired and manageable limits. I don’t see the problem there. Do you?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.