Soros Backed Open Borders Dilute American Culture, Warns Wheeler

Liz Wheeler lays out a stark, Republican take on the forces she says are reshaping America: wealthy backers pushing open borders, cultural dilution, activist politicians, voter changes through indoctrination and immigration, and street violence used to normalize upheaval. Wheeler ties these moves together as intentional levers aimed at undermining institutions and national identity, and she points to specific examples and quotes to make her case forcefully. This piece follows her Hillsdale College remarks and keeps the original quoted lines intact, while expanding on the implications conservatives see at stake.

George Soros has been flagged by conservatives for years as a financier of open border policies, and Liz Wheeler says she finally saw a consistent thread when she watched older interviews where Soros admitted he did not believe in God. That revelation, she argues, reframes open borders as more than a policy choice — it becomes a tool in a broader cultural project. From a Republican perspective, that tool weakens the glue that holds a free society together.

“Open borders is just a tool. It’s the means,” Wheeler tells students while speaking at Hillsdale College, before asking, “But what is the end?” She frames that end not as accidental change but as deliberate transformation, designed to shift loyalties and norms away from the founding principles. Conservatives hear that as a warning: policies should be judged by whether they preserve national cohesion and the rule of law.

She goes on to describe a tangible consequence of cultural dilution, pointing to one city she says illustrates the point. “The Muslim mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, Abdullah Hammoud, he has mosques with loudspeakers attached to the top, and they play Muslim prayer hours publicly in the city, changing the culture of that area,” Wheeler says, noting that the reason he’s able to do this is because “our culture has been diluted.” For critics on the right, examples like Dearborn are used to argue that assimilation matters and that local customs should reflect common civic values.

“It’s been under assault. The underlying hatred of those on the left who claim to just hate capitalism, they claim to maybe hate our definition of liberty. That’s not the underlying cause of it. It’s the hatred of our creator, hatred of the true founder, or the founder of the truth on which our nation is based,” she continues.

Wheeler does not couch her language in euphemism. “And when you recognize that, the plot to overthrow America that is happening as I speak to you tonight becomes chillingly clear,” she adds. For many Republicans hearing that, the point is simple: the ideological war is explicit and urgent, and its backers are coordinated and intentional rather than isolated or accidental actors.

From that diagnosis she lays out what she calls four pillars of the plot. “The first pillar is diluting a culture through an attack on borders, through an attack on sovereignty. Opening the borders, letting hordes of people with no intention of assimilation coming into our country and changing the fabric, changing our norms and our traditions and our institutions,” she explains. That sentence is meant to connect immigration policy directly to changes in civic character and governance.

She continues by naming the second and third pillars with equal bluntness. “The second pillar is electing radical politicians who hate our nation and for what we stand. The third pillar is changing the voting electorate,” she continues, pointing out that the voting electorate is changed through indoctrination. The concern expressed is that political leadership and voter composition can both be shifted to produce long-term policy outcomes at odds with conservative principles.

Wheeler emphasizes how institutions serve as vectors for that change, particularly higher education. “If you walk through the doors of a traditional four-year university in this country, you are very likely, if you walked in politically apathetic, to walk out a hardened Marxist revolutionary because that is the purpose of most universities in this country,” she adds. That claim resonates for conservatives who argue that colleges are skewed toward leftist ideology and that the result is a generation trained to favor a different civic project.

The strategy to alter the electorate, she says, is not limited to campuses. Another method is straightforward demographic change. The other way to change the voting electorate is through importing voters who “do not love the country to which they have been allowed to live.” For Republicans who prioritize national loyalty and assimilation, this is a core complaint against current immigration approaches.

Wheeler completes the quartet of threats by naming what she sees as a deliberate push toward chaos. “And then the fourth pillar,” she says, “is fomenting violence in the streets of America in order to condition people for a violent revolution.” The point is meant to be stark: normalize unrest, and the public becomes susceptible to radical solutions rather than steady governance.

The tone throughout her remarks is urgent and unapologetic, aimed at mobilizing conservatives to defend institutions and borders. For readers who share a Republican outlook, the speech is a call to action: secure sovereignty, elect committed leaders, reform cultural gatekeepers, and reject the normalization of violence as a political tool. The stakes she describes are framed as existential for the republic conservatives want to protect.