Aug. 19, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:53:33
3052 Donald Trump’s Immigration Plan: An Honest Conversation
Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump recently released his official immigration plan - and both Republicans and Democrats alike have very strong opinions about the proposal. Based around three core ideas, Trumps plan says: 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. | Stefan Molyneux and the Freedomain Radio team discuss the origin of the immigration issue, what is really at stake for Republicans, number of illegal immigrants in the country, the big business opposition to immigration reform, the 1965 Hart-Celler Act sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, immigrant crime statistics, the mainstream media reaction, H-1B visas, birthright citizenship, cultural voting patterns and much much more!
Hi everybody, Stefan Mullaney from Free Domain Radio.
I'm here with Mike and Stoyan, two friends of mine.
We also happen to work together on this show, Free Domain Radio.
And Mike lives in America, so he'll get the bulk of input on this conversation.
This is about immigration, the proposed immigration reforms of one D.J. Trump.
You may have heard of him buried in page 19 of the New York Times.
And he just released, yesterday or the day before, his first platform.
You see, because originally people were complaining that Donald Trump didn't have a platform for his 2016 presidential bid.
Now they're complaining that he does.
You can't win.
It's nice to see him making progress.
That's a delightful thing, too.
You don't have any official policies, even though he's described some of his policies.
And he's written a book, Time to Get Tough, which has some of his loose ideas around policies that he's implemented if he did become president and things we should do in the United States.
But you don't have any policies.
And now that he has a policy, no one likes the fact he has a policy.
It's delightful.
Well, it's see if you're in the media, I mean, you're busy, you know.
I mean, you have to go to your Marxist indoctrination seminars, you have to go to your multicultural anti-Western seminars, and you don't really have time to actually read entire books.
What's much more fun is to get morally outraged and faint backwards clutching at your pearls from statements that are taken way out of context.
So moral outrage is a lot easier than reading books, some of which contain some fairly lengthy words and fairly challenging concepts.
People don't have time in the media to actually read books given that they have to do all those reports on rules for radicals, the old Saul Alinsky book, about how to throw poop at anyone who presents a rational argument.
I could learn critical thinking or there's a fun class on poo throwing.
And I could learn how to do out-of-context ad homonyms, making fun of people's skin color and their hairstyle and their reality TV history.
Boy, which one should I choose?
Has fun class on poop-throwing ever been said?
Have those words ever been uttered in that order?
I'm not sure, but I'm going to ponder that for a bit.
No, you have to look at the fine print when you become a reporter.
It's down there.
And I'm sure it's in the Apple's iTunes agreement as well.
One of the two.
Alright, so let's get to it.
Mike, you wanted to talk a little bit.
We've done some research and some presentations before on immigration.
It's not, you know, hands up, baby, embrace the world, let's bring everyone to our country or to America.
It's a little bit more sinister than that in its origins.
And we've got a video called The Truth About Immigration, which we'll put a link to below this.
But Mike, you wanted to talk a little bit about the backstory of how we got here.
Yeah, we go into this a lot more detail in The Truth About Immigration presentation, but I want to give people a bit of a run-through right now because why this is important and why there are such vociferous differences of opinion on this issue, it's really important for people to understand because if you don't understand that, you don't understand why people are so up in arms about immigration policy in the United States currently.
And prior to 1924, the U.S. had an open border, believe it or not, not that long ago.
So there was no idea.
Illegal immigrant didn't exist.
And people were only deported if they committed certain crimes.
Now that changed with the suffragette movement.
And the Prohibition era where consumption and production of alcohol was banned.
So the only reason the United States has defined national borders that are patrolled is because of Prohibition era.
So that's something you can...
Thank the suffragettes for.
And that's because during Prohibition, people would brew alcohol in Mexico and then smuggle them into the United States.
Is that right?
Yeah, exactly.
So they pretty much established a 1924 Immigration Act to create Border Patrol to stop Mexicans from smuggling alcohol into the U.S. So the origins of this problem start around there.
And the next big milestone was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Which President Lyndon Johnson declared it unlawful to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals' race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Now why are we talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when we're talking about immigration?
Because it played into affirmative action policies or positive discrimination, which has been used as a tool I know this sounds strange, everyone.
I get it.
It sounds really strange.
I had to check this stuff 20 times when I first read it, but it's true.
Look into the facts.
We'll put all the sources below, but this was used by the Communist Party USA, which started in 1919.
It was a part of the Communist International, the Comter Network, and was a subsidiary of the Communist Party in Russia.
And this 1964 act preceded the 1965 Hartzeller Act, sponsored by everyone's friend, the lion of the Senate, Senator Edward Kennedy, which fundamentally completely changed Senator Edward Kennedy, which fundamentally completely changed U.S. immigration patterns.
Quotas based on nationality were abolished and replaced by a preference system that focused on skills and family relations.
Immigrants were allowed to invite families and relatives to the country.
This pretty much has changed the demographic makeup of the United States long term and.
And during debates in Congress, supporters of the bill predicted that it would not change the ethnic makeup of the country.
Shocking.
Senator Kennedy proclaimed, I think every one of those things happened, so thank you, Ted Kennedy.
Well, I also wanted to mention that, of course, right around this time, Lyndon Johnson put out The Great Society, The War on Poverty.
So at the same time as the government was committing hundreds of billions of dollars to end poverty, it thought it would be a fantastic idea to bring in enormous numbers of extremely poor people.
Those two things don't really seem to be...
I want to end cancer.
Now, here, have some cigarettes.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, in the beginning of the 20th century, 86% of immigrants came from Europe.
But by its end, 82% came from Asia and Latin America.
So overall, the 1965 act resulted in a 300% increase in immigration.
And again, most of those people came from Asia and Latin America.
So it completely changed who was coming to the country.
And that long term has had an impact.
And why is this important?
Why is this important?
Well, ultimately, back to what we were talking about with the Communist Party USA stuff, the voting patterns for the people coming from Latin America are significantly different than the voting patterns from the people that were coming from Europe.
And normally it's more government, more socialism, in this case Democrats more often than not, getting voted in as opposed to Republicans or anyone that's a conservative or small government proponent.
So this immigration policy, and this is why there's the huge divide between the Republicans who are screaming about this and the Democrats that are like, don't you want people to come in and have opportunity?
What you're essentially saying here...
We're going to import massive amounts of Democratic voters into the United States.
This has been happening for decades.
You're essentially rigging the democracy.
For all those that talk about a fair debate, a fair conversation, let's have it out, discuss these issues, discuss this.
This is the Democrats rigging the game because when you import and change the overall immigration pattern of the United States and just import people from Latin America and cultures that don't have, you've talked about it before, the Freedom Club type of background, what you do is you just tilt the wheel towards more government.
And that's what's occurring.
So I think it's 8 out of 10 immigrants are voting Democrat these days.
Yeah.
And I mean, you can see where that leads, folks.
You can see where that leads.
I mean, it's pretty difficult for a Republican to win a national election as it stands now, and you don't need to prove that you are a citizen of the United States to vote in national elections.
So you can see what happens, and you can now, knowing that, understand why people are so fervently opposed to the current immigration policy, amnesty as a whole, and why this has divided the left and right so vociferously.
And for a more specific example of this, of course, the Republicans don't like Obamacare for a variety of reasons.
We got another presentation called The Truth About Obamacare.
But the reason that there is Obamacare on the books, the reason it became a law or a series of laws in America is the result of immigration.
Because Al Franken from Minnesota, a Democrat, of course, Well, there's arguments that he cheated directly, but the reason that he got elected was there were 100,000 Somalis Not native to Minnesota, and they were told to vote Democrat by their imam, by their priest.
And they did, of course.
And that doesn't work in democracy.
One of the problems with...
I mean, democracy has a lot of problems, which we've talked about in the show many times before.
But when you bring in multi-ethnic, multi-racial groups, what happens is they tend to vote along cultural or ethnic lines.
Which is, you know, we can see 96% of blacks voted for Obama.
And democracy can only even vaguely work if people look at the policies and vote according to their conscience.
If they vote along cultural or ethnic lines, democracy can't work at all.
And so that's just an example of one piece of legislation that wouldn't have been passed if it wasn't for the importation of 100,000 or more Somalis into Minnesota.
Yeah, and to provide some more evidence to the fact about what's happening in the U.S., Senator Kennedy, the driving force behind the Hartzeller Act, has been closely monitored by the FBI since 1961 because he arranged to meet up with local communists while in Latin America.
According to declassified KGB documents, he would also seek Soviet help in undermining President Reagan's defense policies nearly two decades later.
So here you have Senator Ted Kennedy, the person behind the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, which fundamentally changed immigration patterns in the U.S. to import more people that wound up being Democratic voters.
I'm sure not by accident.
Undermining Reagan's defense policies in the height of the Cold War?
One could say that's not generally considered a good idea.
Treason.
So the general idea that the communists had, which is why people on the left are so pro-immigration and people who are into the free market are not so pro-immigration, is that, and this was very specific, they said, well, let's get the ethnic and cultural minorities in America to really hate the system that they're under, which is going to create a massive series of social problems and bring down The Western free market.
It's a long con.
It's definitely a long plan, but it's certainly bearing fruition, right?
So this was their basic idea.
I mean, they couldn't take on the West militarily.
As it's turned out, of course, communism can't take on the free market in terms of productivity or freedoms.
And so basically, they just wanted to destroy the backbone of Western self-confidence and say, all cultures are equal.
You've probably heard this, you know, no culture is better than any other.
Unless you're white.
Unless you're from Europe, in which case you're a horrible colonial oppressor who just loves to be racist and sexist and...
Okay, let's move on to your next point.
Alright, so before we get on to the Donald's immigration policy, I just want to say too, refugees and people seeking asylum.
This is also a factor and something that is within this debate.
So between 1946 and 2000, 4 million people were given U.S. citizenship due to their refugee or asylee status.
Most of them fled to the U.S. to escape communist takeovers in Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, and China.
An Independent Institute study found that welfare consumption amongst refugees and asylees was an extraordinary 33%.
Overall, people from the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Cuba represented 11% of permanent immigrants, yet accounted for 39% of foreign-born welfare costs.
So, again, this plays into what we're saying.
These people have fundamental different cultural backgrounds, which do tend towards more government for whatever reasons.
And you're importing people that believe in more government, more socialism, more welfare, and they're also greater welfare dependents.
So that's a bit of a problem.
Well, yeah.
I mean, this factor is really, really important to understand.
We'll get into it in more detail when we go into Trump's immigration policy.
I call it the Socrates test.
And what that is, is if you're importing people from a culture, you have to look back, do they have a Socrates?
In other words, do they have somebody who's promoted rational, critical thinking, who has really spread the ideas of the individual sovereignty of consciousness, Do they have a John Locke?
Do they have an Aristotle?
Do they even have a Plato, who is collectivist as hell, but certainly put a lot of challenging arguments into the sphere.
Now, it's taken the West about 2,500 years since they killed Socrates in Greece to get some semblance of equality.
It is a multi-thousand year battle to ned reason into the reactive dough of human consciousness.
And if you look at a particular culture, Whether it is a place like Russia, of course, or Cuba or Argentina or Mexico, if you can't look back and see a string of brave, courageous and often reviled philosophers You don't have a certain amount of compatibility.
The welfare state, the argument goes that the welfare state can work or at least can work a lot better in its practical terms if people are willing to criticize those who use it unjustly.
In other words, if you have a whole bunch of Europeans in a culture Then those Europeans who are misusing the welfare state are open to a significant ostracism and criticism from others.
In other words, social ostracism and negative judgments keep the cheats at bay.
But of course, in the West, criticizing third world cultures, criticizing primitive cultures, criticizing peasant cultures has just become, well, it's racist.
Like if you criticize Somalis on welfare, apparently you're just racist because numbers are racist.
And so if you break down the capacity for people to criticize each other, the welfare state immediately stops working.
It may take a while for the final collapse to occur, but it's like you stop changing the oil in your car, it immediately will start to stop working because you're never going to get it to work for too long.
So making sure that white people can't criticize anyone is another way of ensuring that the welfare state becomes a millstone around the neck of the West.
And there's another factor in there as well, which is that immigrants tend to live in their own communities.
In other words, they don't fear ostracism because there's no one to ostracize them.
The Chinese will live together, so ostracism from white people is not particularly dangerous to them because their own people are going to provide for them.
It goes back to the Al Franken example we were talking about.
Yeah, it's not like they're integrating into one huge blob of society.
They all have...
That's quite the melting pot that people talk about.
Yeah, yeah.
It doesn't seem to work that way.
Well, and there's a vivid example sort of from my own youth.
There was a friend of mine who became a campaign manager for a teacher of ours who was running for office.
And this teacher was a very well-read, slightly pompous writer.
A Western European English teacher and he ran for office and this was in the writing of course in Toronto where I lived and he had some pretty eloquent speeches about what he wanted to achieve and sort of Western values and so on and there was an Indian guy running against him and I was there for election day and this was a sort of scalding pot of boiling water in the face of my enthusiasm for democracy back when I was in my teens because The Indian guy,
basically, there were just busloads of Indian people coming out, a lot of elderly men and women tottering out, speaking to each other in, of course, a language I didn't understand.
I didn't hear some of them speak any English at all.
And there were guys saying, well, here's where you check your box, right?
Here's where you check your box.
And, I mean, this was, of course, complete cheating.
I mean, if people can't even speak English, if they don't have any background in the culture, but there are people saying, go check this box because this guy's Indian like us.
And he did.
He won.
And that is not even remotely how democracy can function.
And now, can you imagine that, of course, if there was a lot of non-white candidates and there was a white candidate?
And all of the elderly people were coming out and being told, vote for the white guy.
Vote for the white guy.
It doesn't matter what his policies are.
He's white.
He's like us, so vote for him.
People would go insane.
But that doesn't happen when...
And this is my first introduction to the idea that people really vote along tribal lines.
And it really can't work when you get this mix.
Now, it can work, of course, when people from other cultures come in slowly and then can acclimatize the dominant culture.
But when you get enough people coming, swamping over a border, the dominant culture no longer is the dominant culture.
People can create these cysts, these self-contained islands of cultural homogeneity where they don't really have to interact that much with the outside culture.
And then assimilation is no longer possible.
Creating the Chinatowns of society.
Yeah.
It's interesting, in the past, and you can look at the truth about George Washington for this, in the past, politicians would just get voters drunk and buy them mass quantities of alcohol to buy their votes, but now you just are importing voters that happen to agree with you by skewing your immigration policy.
It's delightful how this whole democracy thing seems to work.
And just before we continue, I want to just be really clear that this is not about race.
I mean, race obviously is a big issue for a lot of people in the world.
It's not about race.
The Freedom Club is not racial.
It happens to have evolved in Europe for a wide variety of reasons we've talked about before.
But it has nothing to do with race in any fundamental sense.
You know, like some Indian guy who's a free market enthusiast is like part of the Freedom Club.
And some, you know, white socialist is not.
And so it's not fundamentally about race.
There are some overlaps between culture and race, but they're not particularly relevant.
But culture is a very important factor in the success or failure of an economy.
And also, people statistically have been shown to generally trust people within their own culture and to mistrust people in another culture.
So when you get a whole bunch of cultures mixing together, it makes the economy hard to run because Trust is foundational to the success and growth of an economy because trust reduces the overhead of doing business with people.
You don't have to have an army of lawyers.
You don't get nearly as many legal issues and problems and challenges and lawsuits and torts and all that.
Until that problem is solved, until we all become philosophical, it remains a challenge for an economy to function when there are a lot of mistrustful cultures overlapping with each other.
There's quite a few studies that have been done on social trust and diversity within communities.
None of them seem to point out that multiculturalism and diversity being a strength, unfortunately.
No, they all point out it's a desperate weakness.
And these are people who are like, I'm going to go and set out to prove the value of multiculturalism.
And they go out, and outside of food and music, they find that the level of social trust goes down in a multicultural society, even among people of the same culture.
And social trust is just one of these intangible things.
It's a huge asset in a culture.
That completely tends to wither away with multiculturalism.
And the other thing I wanted to mention, too, is that people say, well, you know, America was a nation of immigrants.
Well, there's some truth to that.
Of course, after 1920, immigration was basically put on hold for about 40 years because people said, well, the immigrants need time to acclimatize and to integrate into the Western Freedom Club culture.
But America was a nation of immigrants when there was no welfare state.
And that is the big...
And it's not as if everyone was accepted during that time either to enter the United States.
It wasn't just a rubber stamp.
There were things you had to pass and go through to get into the U.S. even back then, as opposed to you just have a hope and a dream and can cross an imaginary line.
So...
Just another couple pieces of background before we get to the Donald's official policy.
A 2012 Pew Research Center survey of Latino immigrants found that amongst unauthorized immigrants, unauthorized immigrants, that's a wonderful way to put it, 31% identify as Democrats and only 4% as Republicans.
A Center for Immigration Studies paper examining voting patterns over nine elections in the 100 largest elections.
Counties revealed a 1% increase in immigrants resulted in an average of 0.59% drop in Republican votes.
During the 2012 election, out of the top 20 states with the largest percentage of immigrants, Obama won 17.
The only exceptions in this are Texas, Arizona, and Georgia, which are traditionally Republican states.
So again, this is importing voters that are going to vote for more government, more often than not.
Sorry to interrupt very briefly, Stoyan.
Sorry, but Republicans don't dislike brown people or anything like that.
They dislike cheating by Democrats in bringing voters in that don't have to be convinced by reason.
Sorry, Stoyan.
Go ahead.
I was just mentioning that it's not just Hispanics either, because that tends to be the general narrative.
It's the Hispanics that vote Democrat.
The Asians do that as well, and overwhelmingly so.
According to one particular study, Indians, for example, 72% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
Chinese, 62% of them.
70% of Japanese, 68% of Koreans.
Interestingly enough, the Vietnamese people seem to be the only outliers, and that may be because they know what the left brought to their country.
So they're the only ones, and it's only 54% of them that vote majority or identify as Republican.
Yeah, and this is stuff I don't think a lot of people are aware.
And I think there's a lot of Democrats and people that are for a lot of social programs and policies that if they were aware of this information, I mean, don't we want a fair democracy here?
As fair as you can get when people are pointing guns at each other, you know what I mean?
And I mean, don't you want debates, ideas discussed in the public square, let the best man win and that type of thing.
I mean, this really is rigging the game.
And anyone with any shred of principles that believes in the democracy, I mean, you have to look at this.
And if you go, well, my side's winning, that's OK.
You don't really care too much about this whole democracy thing, do you?
You really don't.
Yeah, it's about cheating, not debating.
Yeah.
So last point I want to get to before we get to the Donald's official policy.
Something from Joseph Stalin.
1913.
Joseph Stalin, who was then a member of the Bolshevik Party, defined a nation as a historically constituted stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture.
According to Stalin's definition, to overthrow capitalist America, you need to destroy the aspects which underlie people's sense of national unity.
Lenin also argued that the ruling classes should be passing through a governmental crisis which would draw even the most backwards masses into politics, a symptom of every real revolution as a rapid tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the number of representatives of the toiling and oppressed masses who have herethrough been apathetic, capable of waging the political struggle.
Weaken the government and make it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly.
So here you have some key figures of communist thought discussing this idea about how you take down a country.
And we're kind of watching that unfold.
It's when you throw in the stuff about Kennedy's association with various communist groups.
And the 1965 Act and how influential he was in its passing, it's got to make you wonder.
And the last thing I wanted to mention is that the people on the left claim to be about diversity and the value of diversity, but try being a right-wing Republican and applying for a job at a left-wing magazine or newspaper, which is to say mostly magazine or newspaper of any kind.
tried being a right-wing free marketer and applying for a job at a left-wing think tank or left-wing university, you won't get any jobs at all, which is why there's such crippling unanimity among the political opinions, like more than 90% of reporters in Washington are like more than 90% of reporters in Washington are Democrats.
And they are not, they don't value diversity at all.
It's just something they foist upon their enemies.
And that's just something really important.
Anybody who talks to you about diversity is probably somebody who surrounds himself with like-minded people and hates everyone else, right?
I mean, so like we just did this video on Bernie Sanders and people on the left value diversity and Bernie Sanders values diversity.
Yet if you try criticizing Bernie Sanders, all these people who value diversity of opinion just start screaming insults at you and get hysterical and vicious and violent and threaten you.
They don't value diversity at all.
They value diversity insofar as it weakens the will of the traditional freedom club of the West to resist that which is going to bring it down.
You're just not feeling the burn stuff.
That's very clear.
We need to.
I'm watching the crash and burn.
I'm just not feeling the burn.
I think they should just change their slogan to make it more accurate.
Diversity is your strength, not ours.
Diversity is your strength, yeah.
Well, and of course, the rich people who like lots of immigrants coming in, right, like the big plutocrats of the business world, they love the immigrants coming in because it keeps wages down, right?
So there's a big conflict which we'll get into between Zuckerberg and Trump because Zuckerberg likes having all these cheap programmers coming in To Facebook.
And of course, rich people don't have to live in, quote, diverse neighborhoods.
They tend to live in gated communities, right?
And they have big walls around their houses to keep people out.
But then they say, well, building a wall doesn't work.
It's like, oh, well, let's just tear yours down.
No!
Anyway, we'll get to that.
Well, and to speak, too, to your point about diversity in the media and, you know, the left not exactly.
Believing diversity with having right-leaning individuals amongst them is a positive.
I was just speaking to an academic who we were going to get on the show because he wrote something very interesting about socialism in a part of the world where it's not discussed much.
And he's kind of a mainstream.
He's not big in libertarian circles or conservative circles.
He's talking about free market policies and that type of thing.
And I'm like, hey, want to come on the show and talk about this great paper that you wrote?
And he's like, yeah, about that.
I kind of keep my head down because we're not welcomed so much within this social sphere.
And this is someone with tenure, too, so it's not like they're worried about their job, but the social pressure that's put on them for even talking about these types of ideas is pretty significant.
So it just woke me up again where it's like, oh yeah, you wrote this great paper.
I assume if you wrote this great paper that you put tons of work and effort and time into, you'd want people to read it, look into it.
It's important stuff.
You spent all this time on it, but you don't want to promote it at all because some people are going to say some negative things about you.
You might not get invited to the poker club afterwards.
I don't know.
No, it's a bit more than that.
Mike, I'm actually quite terrified that the left's commitment to diversity will get me fired and blacklisted.
So, no thanks.
I think I'll just...
What did he say?
He likes staying under the radar.
Yeah.
And the radar is what you use to usually ping enemies that you're going to shoot down.
So, yay, diversity from the left.
It's a very up phrase.
It's a very up phrase.
All right.
Should we get to the Donald's actual policy?
Yes, let's get to the Donald's policy.
All right.
Do we want to do...
Sorry, just before we do that, do we want...
No, listen.
I was going to say, do we want to do any libertarian caveats?
Oh, just we'll say right here that, folks, we've done a lot of shows on libertarianism.
And just so you know, just because we're reading a policy doesn't mean that we agree with the moral foundational principles behind everything that we're talking about.
So FYI, we'll insert that caveat, even though people won't listen to it.
We'll insert it.
There'll be one person who'll listen to it.
And then ignore it when they rebut it.
Alright, Steph, would you like to take a swing at going through the Donalds?
Alright.
So you can find this at Donald J. Trump slash positions.
And I thought this was going to be something to do with the Kama Sutra.
And we were going to see a well-oiled Donald bending himself like a pipe cleaner.
But this does not seem to be the case.
But I managed to.
So make America great again.
The three core principles of Donald J. Trump's immigration plan.
So he writes, when politicians talk about immigration reform, they mean amnesty, cheap labor, and open borders.
The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.
So this refers to that there's a two-part argument.
A two-category driver to keeping illegal immigrants pouring into the country.
Number one, of course, as we mentioned, the Democrat Party, because you're importing voters.
You've got your finger on the scale.
You're cheating.
You're making your pawns queens and then claiming that you're a great chess player.
And the second, which we mentioned briefly as well, big businesses like cheap labor pouring into the country because it keeps their costs low.
And this combination of the Democrats and their You know, vicious court jesters known as the mainstream media mean that anybody who questions the value of illegal immigration is a vicious racist and just screamed down and mischaracterized the usual post-reason lynch mob that occurs in modern society.
And the second, of course, is these big businesses that want the cheap labor continue to come in.
You know, my maid is cheaper.
If there's a lot of illegal immigrants, then it's a lot less expensive to get my topiaries trimmed.
And so this tripartite, this dual alliance of the left, the media and big business is what has squelched the American public's rabid desire for a real conversation about the value of immigration.
Polls go way back saying, you know, the number one issue, number one issue, biggest issue is illegal immigration, and yet the parties have refused to talk about it.
As Donald Trump said in his first debate, you wouldn't even be talking about illegal immigration if I hadn't brought it up.
And so the American public is desperate to have a rational conversation about it, but it's been kept out of the limelight of political debates because of, you know, the media, the left, and big business.
And this is why There's been such a visceral response to Donald Trump bringing this up, and this is why this is his first platform to come out.
Yeah, and some Republican politicians have given lip service to the idea of closing the border.
John McCain, for one, and then completely went against what they previously had promised when they were running for re-election or running for election.
So they give it lip service because it's a popular position, and then they proceed to do nothing about it.
And the Republicans are believed to be the party of big business, which there is some truth in that, I think that's something that
People that lean Democrat and people that look at the Republicans as the big business, big corporations, anti-people party aren't aware of or are ignoring because there's a lot of big business mingling with the Democrats.
For example, Obamacare.
Who's really benefited from Obamacare?
Insurance companies are doing very, very well.
See, if you legally mandate that everyone has to have insurance, otherwise they have to pay a fine, the insurance companies, they're going to be making quite a bit of money.
Well, also businesses as a whole like it when costs that they formerly had to pay get socialized, right?
So people talk a lot about the government's R&D. So yeah, businesses would rather have the government do R&D because then the businesses don't have to pay directly for all the R&D themselves.
Businesses like it when the governments build roads because then they don't have to pay for the building of those roads.
And businesses like it when socialized medicine comes along or mandated Obamacare medicine comes along because then people get a lot of subsidies for their health care, which means that they don't have to pay their employees as much in the long run.
So, yeah, businesses are big fans of socializing costs and privatizing profits in the fascist model.
Absolutely.
No, I'm sorry.
The last thing is, of course, when things get more complex, like when minimum wages get higher, when Obamacare comes in, when regulations get more complex, when tax codes get more complex.
Big businesses like it because they already have armies of lawyers and accountants to adapt to all of these things.
Smaller businesses don't.
And therefore, it disproportionately benefits the economic efficiency of large businesses and drives a lot of smaller businesses who are marginal producers into the red, taking them out of the equation for competition.
Not to mention that big businesses also are not tied to the well-being of the community.
In other words, if things go wrong, thanks to some policy in the United States, they can just go to Ireland or China.
It's not a problem for them.
But Joe's Bakery is not going to export its business to China.
No.
Especially if it's a particular bakery and there may be a gay person in China, which never happens.
So let's go to the second paragraph.
It's real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first, not wealthy, globe-trotting donors.
So what this means is that, for instance, for women, since 2008, all of the gains in employment have gone to foreign-born women.
And so what they're saying is that people who want to get jobs have a very tough time competing with people who've come in and are willing to work for peanuts, are willing to work for very little.
So that drives wages down.
And everybody understands this in terms of the free market, that if you have all other things being constant, if you have an increase in the supply of something, it tends to drive down wages.
The price.
And so when you get lots of people coming in, it drives down the wages, which makes welfare more attractive, right?
Because if your wages are being driven down, then welfare becomes proportionately more valuable.
And also it's particularly harsh, which we'll get to in a bit, but particularly harsh for the more underprivileged classes in America, particularly the blacks.
This is one of the reasons why the blacks are very pro, well, they're very anti-immigration.
No, Jesse Jackson used to be giving speeches on the border talking about how immigrants were taking jobs away from young black Americans.
Well, this is one of the reasons why teenagers in particular who have the lowest value, partly or because they have, partly despite or because of the fact that they've had 12 years of government education and emerged like squalling matrix-based newborns into the market system with no skills and values to bring in particular, not even perhaps the ability to read with any comprehension.
And so teenagers, in particular black teenagers, the unemployment rates are like 40 plus percent, And so the black community is very hostile.
I don't want to collectivize everything because there's lots of varieties of opinions in the black community.
But there's a strong economic incentive for the black community to be hostile towards illegal immigrants because they do tend to take away jobs from the blacks who tend to have the lowest income.
And so this is on the left, of course.
They don't...
Because they're basically only interested in destroying the remnants of the free market and Western democracies, they're willing to sacrifice the interests of the blacks in order to achieve electoral victories, which is why they don't talk much about this aspect of the harm that illegal immigration does to the black community.
So you import lots of people that are willing to work for less, then wages don't rise because there's a greater supply of cheap labor.
So then people talk about minimum wage policies.
which is not looking at the root cause of this issue.
So then if you try and pass minimum wage policies, which leads to people likely working less hours at this higher wage so they can keep some of their welfare benefits.
We talk about this in our recent Truth About Welfare presentation.
There's a bit of a welfare cliff where people stay on welfare.
Even if they are making more money, they just try to work less hours to stay in a certain range so they can gain the most reward from it.
It's a mess.
It's a complete and total mess.
So if you actually want wages to rise, you need to look at the root core of the issue and having cheap labor flow into the country with these visas where people are tied specifically to various companies.
So they're at the beck and call of mercy of these companies.
Do you have a lot of leverage and negotiating power when you're at the beck and call of this visa, which could be pulled by your company pretty easily?
Not really.
Not really.
You're not from a position of strength and you don't have the leverage, which DeDonald talks about.
pretty frequently.
Yeah.
So just so people understand that, if I hire someone through this visa program, they can't quit.
They can't be poached.
They can't go.
And so I can just keep their wages in the gutter and I can treat them like crap, basically, knowing that they can't leave.
they as Mike pointed out, they become indentured servants, which is brutal and horrible, and a complete rejection of the free market principles.
The best way for workers to be treated well is for there to be as much competition for worker services as possible so that people will offer the best working conditions possible.
And that doesn't happen with these visas.
So of course, business people like a lack of mobility in the labor force because it lowers the requirements to woo and keep workers. - Absolutely.
So then he says, we are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own.
That must change.
So here...
There's very, very few other countries in the world that, for instance, allow for anchor babies.
That you come into the country, you have a baby, and that baby is automatically a citizen.
And the arguments from other countries are multifaceted and complex, but basically it comes down to you don't get a benefit from a crime.
You can't keep a benefit from a crime.
And so if it's illegal for you to be in the country and you have a baby, your baby doesn't get the benefit of that.
It's not the baby's fault, but it's not everyone else's fault either.
And if you commit a crime, you can't get to keep the benefits of that crime, which is why Bernie Madoff was supposed to pay back a bunch of money because he committed a crime.
And so it's a huge exception in America that these anchor babies occur.
Now, of course, this was originally put in in the 19th century in order to make sure that slaves got to keep their citizenship.
There was some talk, of course, Abraham Lincoln was a big fan of deporting the blacks back to Africa.
And so they really wanted to make sure that the black kids were.
So this had nothing to do with the welfare state.
It had nothing to do like no conception of the welfare state or the porosity of borders.
Or any of the other issues that have occurred since, it was really to benefit the children of the blacks.
So let's go back to the three cores.
Mike, you want to take these?
Sorry, go ahead.
To put this in perspective, do you folks remember El Chapo, the drug dealer, the cartel leader, which just escaped from a Mexican prison?
His wife, girlfriend, concubine, I don't know what classification would fall under, person pregnant with his child, recently flew to the United States to give birth just so the child would have U.S. citizenship, and then they proceeded to fly back to Mexico.
And said birth is paid for by the taxpayer.
Yeah.
Right, so $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 for the child to be born in a hospital, that's paid for by the taxpayers because hospitals are not allowed to refuse services to illegal immigrants.
Or anybody.
Or anybody, yeah, for that matter.
Yeah, which you wonder why healthcare costs are through the roof.
Well, now you have an idea.
Yeah, so three core principles of real immigration reform.
One, a nation without borders is not a nation.
There must be a wall across the southern border.
Now, a quarter of Mexico's population has entered into America.
People claim that there are only 11 million illegal immigrants.
That number has not budged since 2005.
But if you extrapolate the growth in illegal immigration beforehand and factor into things like you can measure how many remittances are being sent back I mean, because in general, Mexico will get more money by taxing remittances being sent back than having workers in Mexico.
So it's a great deal for the Mexican government to send people north and have the resources flow back south.
But using a variety of calculations, some people have got to around 30 million illegal immigrants in the United States, which is, you know, close to 10% of the population.
Let's just pause on that one second, Steph.
A quarter of the population of Mexico has moved to the United States.
Let's pause on that for one second.
Oh my god.
It is one of these jaw-dropping statistics.
I thought maybe it would be 8 or 10%, but 23%.
Sorry, 25%.
25% of the entire population of Mexico has moved to the United States.
And, of course, we'll get into, you know, there's this myth that illegal immigrants can't get welfare and can't vote and so on.
This is not true.
These are just lies put out by the left and by a lot of libertarian outlets as well.
Because libertarians are like, well, you know, freedom of movement and so on.
Sure, in an ideal world, you know, where there's It's small to no government and none of this coercive welfare but private charities and so on.
It'd be wonderful to let everybody move wherever they wanted.
That was the case in the 19th century.
There was no such thing as a passport to the early part of the 20th century.
You just move and go wherever you wanted.
That's a wonderful thing, but that ain't the world we're living in right now.
Yeah, if you don't have a democracy and you don't have people voting, they can point guns at you to further take wealth from your pocket and institute a bunch of laws which you probably don't agree with.
I mean, if you have a bunch of socialists moving into a country, voting socialist, what do you think is going to happen to that country?
This is not brain surgery.
You know, I mean, it's like, if all the elephants on the ark go to the right-hand side of the ark, you ain't going to have a very—I guess this would be the left-hand side of the ark— You ain't going to have a very long voyage.
In fact, you're going to...
And that would be the end of that sentence.
Well, that's why people are talking about immigration as the central core issue.
Period.
End of story.
No questions asked currently.
Because if this isn't dealt with in the United States, you're never going to have someone on the right or a Republican getting elected.
It's just not going to happen because there's so many Democrat voting immigrants, legal or otherwise, currently in the country, and that's increasing.
Again, a quarter of the population of Mexico is here now, and they're not voting Republican, folks.
They're not voting for smaller government.
They're not voting for Ron Paul.
This is not happening.
So just be aware of that, libertarians, because it's a very important part that seems to be overlooked quite a bit.
Stoy, do you want to say?
No, I was going to say that it requires a significant chunk of the non-immigrant population in the United States to vote Republican, to elect a Republican in power, which doesn't tend to happen, particularly with partisan and racial tension amongst Americans, doesn't tend to happen very often.
Well, and the Hispanic, those who claim to speak for the Hispanic community, rightly or wrongly, Are making the case very clearly.
They say, you know, well, I can't remember what number it is, Mike, maybe you could just do a quick look up, but they say like huge numbers of Mexicans, I think it's a million a year, reach voting age.
And anybody who speaks out against illegal immigration is simply, and that would be on the Republican side, is driving the Mexicans en masse to vote Democrat.
Now, that is a very revealing statement because they're saying, well, we're not voting according to the interests of the host country.
We are voting according to the interests of our Hispanic community.
Now, I don't think that's true.
A lot of Hispanics are very anti-illegal immigration.
They didn't leave Mexico in order to have Mexico follow them, right?
I mean, that's not real.
It's like running away from a bear, making sure you're trailing honey behind you so it can find you.
But the general perception in politics is the Hispanics don't vote according to the interests of America as a whole, including the interests of non-Hispanic populations.
They're not voting to say, well, blacks have been hard done by throughout American history, so let's make sure we cut back on illegal Hispanic immigration to make sure that we help others.
Our friends the blacks, they don't do any of that, at least according to these spokespeople.
What they do is they say, we are going to vote according to we want more Hispanics in the country, not according to what is best for the country, which is exactly the point of those who are hostile to illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico.
Yeah, every month another 50,000 US-born Hispanics turn 18 and become eligible to vote.
That's from 2011.
So I assume those numbers are higher now considering there's a higher percentage population of Hispanics in the United States than there was in 2011.
And I don't know if that includes illegal immigrants.
Yeah, I imagine not, because this is from census information, so that's going to be kind of tough to parse out.
So, a nation without borders is not a nation.
There must be a wall across the southern border.
Now, this comes to a sort of complex question that we touched on earlier.
What is a nation?
A nation is a set of beliefs that have generally been very hard won by immense amounts of bloodshed throughout history.
And the important thing to remember is that the West Basically, you know, Europe and the associated colonies, or ex-colonies, of course, Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, a couple other places scattered around the world, they're very much the exception in human society.
The norm in human societies is like Darfur.
It's like Saudi Arabia.
It's like monstrous, brutal, horrifying autocracies and dictatorships where there's regular beheadings and cuttings off of people's limbs and circumcisions and clitorectomies and God knows horrible female genital mutilations.
That is the norm around the world.
There is a great exception.
And this is why America's referred to itself as sort of the shining city on the hill.
They're very much the exceptions in the world, very much the non-norm, so to speak.
And, of course, everybody wants to live in these freer countries, right?
I mean, everybody complains, oh, white countries are so racist, so we better get up close and see that racism right up its nostril hairs, because you can't appreciate that racism from over where we are.
Everybody loves it when white people are in charge.
Like, I hate to say it, it just is the statistical reality of the human movements around the world.
But when you bring, so culture, a nation is a set of beliefs that have been developed over thousands of years, usually incredibly hard-won beliefs, which buckets and oceans of blood have been spilled to develop and maintain.
You know, beliefs like equality before the law, beliefs like innocent until proven guilty, beliefs about a government of laws and not of men, beliefs like property rights, the sanctity of contract, a personal honor, Respect for women, not overly flooding the world as a whole.
Certainly in the West, women are treated better than in any other culture anywhere across the world and anywhere throughout history.
This takes a long, long time to develop.
We're still working on it after 2,500 years.
And so the beliefs are the nation.
And if you have a lot of people moving into that nation who don't share those beliefs, who don't share that language, who don't share that cultural history, the nation is no longer the nation.
I don't want to speak obviously for Donald Trump, but this is sort of my understanding of what he's saying.
What do you guys think?
Yeah, pretty much.
And it's kind of shocking to me that not so much the general populace because immigration reform is something that's actually a very popular opinion amongst the citizens.
But amongst the media saying this kind of stuff, like we're going to enforce the laws on the books, I wish the media would just give me a list of laws which we're allowed to break and it's okay.
Because this doesn't make any sense to me.
If one duck dies because of some environmental regulation which wasn't followed, it's a crisis that needs to be discussed ad nauseum until the end of time.
But if you have a quarter of the population of Mexico coming to the United States illegally potentially, you know, just look the other way.
How dare you want to enforce this?
You're a racist.
Just give me a list of laws that we can break so I know, and we'll go from there.
And there are, of course, in America, which I didn't even know about until the recent murder of the young woman out in California, there are sanctuary cities.
Which are basically sanctuary from U.S. law.
I mean, it'd be great if they had those for taxes.
Like, tax sanctuary cities would be absolutely fantastic.
Hey, move to these cities.
We're not going to do any laws.
They go to those tax havens and they're pretty much frowned upon by everyone.
Well, yeah, and they're usually overseas.
So I just like, wow, there's a place in America where illegal immigrants can go and the city governments have basically guaranteed non-prosecution for illegal offenses.
That is a radical, radical notion.
An unbelievably radical departure from the rule of law.
And now, again, this is not saying we agree with all of these laws, but the sort of next part here where he says a nation without laws is not a nation.
Laws passed in accordance with our constitutional system of government must be enforced.
That's the deal with laws.
You obey them or you repeal them.
But selective enforcement and all of this, that's not the Western way.
The Western way is you pass a law, you enforce the law, you dislike the law, you change the law, but you don't have a law on the books where people just say, well, here that law doesn't That is a third world concept of law that goes way back to this sort of positive versus natural law debates throughout the West that have been raging for centuries about whether a law must be moral or whether it merely must be enforced despite its morality.
The debate around laws goes all the way back to the Roman Empire, and the Roman laws were one of the great achievements of early statecraft and political science in Western history.
This debate has been going on for thousands of years in the West, but of course in other countries, laws are just there to benefit your friends and punish your enemies, enforced upon the whim of the ruling classes, and there aren't really laws, there are just punishments for people you dislike.
And so the idea of selective enforcement of laws Could never have occurred in a majority-dominant Western culture.
At least it may occur, but it would be expressly attacked.
Absolutely.
Number three, a nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.
Any immigration plan must improve jobs and wages and security for all Americans.
Basically, the idea is that the social contract is, okay, I'll give you a bunch of my freedoms.
I'll give up some of my property through taxation.
I'll give up some of my right to follow my own conscience.
In return, You must make society better for me.
I'm not saying again.
Whether we agree with it or not, that's the standard social contract.
In other words, if I give up, say, 30% of my income in taxation, I get to keep 70% of my income, but if there's no government and nobody protecting my property, I don't get to keep any of my income according to the standard narrative.
And so 70% is better than 0%, and so you give money to the government in return for a service that benefits you.
In the same way that you'll go and pay money for a gym membership so that you can go and exercise at the gym.
So you pay in order to receive a benefit.
And a nation that takes money from its citizens without providing them the benefits that they want is not a nation in the sense of what the West is, where there's a social contract.
It's just a dictatorship.
And that is not the Western tradition.
Does that sort of make sense?
Yeah, essentially put America first for Americans.
You know, put Americans are the ones that are the benefits.
Very good social idea.
Very.
As we know by the uprising which occurred when Trump released this plan right here.
Which people are generally lying about.
We just wanted to get to that.
Well, we'll get to that too.
Make Mexico pay for the wall.
You know, I don't have any particular opinions about how it's paid for.
And other than to say, it's wonderful.
It's like completely delicious and delightful in its irony and hypocrisy to watch people on the left launching massive criticisms of the feasibility of a government program.
That to me is like, oh, it's like my dopamine hit of watching extreme self-torture and self-mutilation, according to hypocrisy.
Because when you put forward Obamacare, the left wasn't like, well, you know, we do have these problems around its implementation.
There are constitutional issues.
The government is not authorized to pay.
The government is not authorized to force people to pay for a service and.
They weren't talking about the...
And when Obama said, oh, it's going to save you $3,500 a year, people weren't on the left immediately trying to bet those numbers.
And they were just like, yay, Obamacare.
But now that a government program is being proposed that may have a negative effect on the left, they're like, well, this is wildly...
Improbable!
And how can this be achieved?
And look, it's so expensive!
And it's like, oh my god, you unbelievable vermin.
Like, you unbelievable, squishy-headed vermin.
And he's been attacked pretty strongly for saying that he's going to make Mexico pay for building the wall.
People are like, how are you going to do that?
That's ridiculous.
That's insane.
And here's pretty much his plan where he outlines exactly how he's going to do that.
And looking at it, it makes sense.
It makes sense.
There's a whole lot of money flowing from the U.S. to Mexico in the form of remittances and other things.
And, you know, if you just stop that cold, you can put a lot of pressure on Mexico pretty strongly immediately.
So it's...
There's his plan for everyone saying that couldn't happen.
Well, he's got a plan to make it happen.
Whether you agree with it or not, that's a whole other thing, but it is certainly possible.
Yeah, when government unions demand wildly disproportionate and impossible to pay pensions, you don't see people on the left saying, well, that's impractical.
Mathematically, that doesn't work.
It's impossible.
It's like because unions give money to leftist parties, so they don't care about the impracticality of leftist programs.
But the moment a Republican comes up with a program, suddenly they get all pointy-headed and horn-rimmed glasses accountants and suddenly, like, the facts matter and the numbers matter and the practicality matters.
Oh, my God.
Oh, it's gross watching the planet sometimes.
It really is.
Alright.
Did you know?
I just want to say this.
We don't have to read this whole section, but he said, Indeed, the annual cost of free tax credits alone paid to illegal immigrants quadrupled to $4.2 billion in 2011.
The effects on job seekers have also been disastrous, and black Americans have been particularly harmed.
So, free tax credits to illegal immigrants, $4.2 billion alone in 2011.
Oh my god!
If you just stop that, if you stop giving tax credits to people that have broken the law to be in the United States, you can pay for any type of wall that you want, no problem, over the course of a couple years.
No question.
Because we talked about how legal immigrants who have low standards of living and low salary expectations, legal immigrants, come in and drive down the wages of native-born Americans.
But illegal immigrants are operating without having to pay a lot of taxes, without having to perform a lot of regulatory compliance, let's say.
And so if you have a landscaping business, and there's a bunch of illegal immigrants around who are Working under the table, that means there's a whole bunch of jobs you're not going to get.
There's not an infinity of jobs.
I guess lower prices and we'll drive.
But you can't compete because you have to register.
You have to pay your corporate taxes.
You have to apply with all of the health and safety regulations and the environmental regulations and all of that.
And you simply can't compete with guys who operate out of the back of their truck and take cash.
And this is another way in which wages are driven down and destroyed.
And you're punishing the people that actually came into the country following the laws.
Oh, you don't want to grow the cynicism towards law.
Cynicism towards law is something that completely destroys the fabric of a civilization.
When law is no longer something noble to be respected and obeyed, but really just something that harms you and is a political plaything, then the social contract is completely broken.
And out come the guns.
Out come the guns and...
And yeah, but the hostility, like you see the attacks on immigrants in Germany.
Germany, which has got a population the size of Montana, is currently accepting half a million asylum seekers from the Middle East.
Oh boy.
Like, holy crap.
I mean, what the hell did, why on earth did Western civilization build up these countries for thousands of years in order to turn it over to people from the Middle East?
That doesn't make any sense to me.
I mean, try going to Japan and say, we want to live here and elbow you aside.
Yeah.
Hello, kamikaze!
So, the crime aspect, I think we should talk a little bit about that.
But before we move on, though, I would like you to address one fantastic liberal argument against building a wall.
And that is, but if we build a wall, people are just going to use ladders to climb over it.
Right.
Show me a 15-foot wall, I'll show you a 16-foot ladder.
They'll just go under it.
What do you say to this fantastic argument?
Well, first of all, I don't know if these guys have ever watched Prison Break, but walls are actually pretty good at keeping people contained.
So, for instance, if you have, like, will it keep everyone out?
Of course not.
But so what?
I mean, that doesn't, you know, if people quit smoking, it doesn't mean there'll be no lung cancer, but still you should quit smoking.
And I wonder these guys who say that the wall won't work.
They have offices in cities.
I wonder if they lock those offices at nighttime or if they just leave all their computers running, all their lights on, and all their doors open.
And of course they don't, because if there's no barrier, then more people will come and If you close it and lock it and have an alarm system, does that mean you'll never get stolen from?
No.
But it means it's a lot harder to steal from you.
And I just wonder if these guys do lock their cars.
You know, well, what's the point of locking?
The door is just a, show me, I mean, show me a locked car door and I'll show you a guy with a coat hanger.
It's like, do you lock your car when you leave it in town?
Does your house have a fence?
Do you potentially live in a gated community?
Does your house have walls?
Show me a window and I will show you a brick.
You know, sometimes roofs break and water comes in anyway, so I'm not building a roof.
Cause I'm an idiot bobblehead of socialist indoctrination.
I mean, this argument essentially means that if there is any gold left in Fort Knox, we should just, you know, do away with all the costs of having Fort Knox in security and just drop it in the center of Central Park and it'll be equally as secure.
Sometimes I get a sliver, so you might as well remove all of my skin!
Oh my god.
Actually, let's put that forward as a blast.
No, and the other thing, too, is that they'll talk to Americans on the right about the inefficacy of having a wall.
And, you know, people will just go around it or under it or whatever.
Now, Israel has a giant wall around it for the most part.
And I don't see a lot of these guys lecturing the Israelis on how ridiculous and stupid that wall is and what a waste of resources it is and how the Palestinians are just going to get in anyway.
They don't do that.
Oh wait, could that be to do with Jewish influence in the media?
No!
Oh dear, you see, white Western people want to build a wall, and that's ridiculous.
Israeli Jews want to build a wall.
Well, that's just plain common sense.
I don't know.
Just so you know, since you said that statement, Seth, Mike Huckabee has come out in favor of the removing skin policy to prevent splinters that you just mentioned, so I thought that was important to note.
Now, I'm going to watch that debate.
Skinless Mike Huckabee takes the stage.
Wow.
You're kind of dissolving, man.
It's like the presidential debate has met the walking dead.
Let me just put my eyeballs back in.
He needs to talk to his pollsters to see how exactly we should remove the skin, but he's in favor of the removing skin policy.
We're just putting that down here right now.
Show me a guy with skin and I'll show you a sliver!
So the crime aspect is important.
First of all, of course, anybody who says they know anything definitive about illegal immigrant crime is lying.
Because the whole point is nobody knows.
I mean, we can't even trust the government for things they actually do measure, like GDP and stuff and unemployment.
The idea that anyone knows what 30 million hidden people are doing is lying.
But that doesn't mean that there's no indications.
It's just that when people say, well, illegal immigrants commit far less crime than domestic, they have no idea.
They have no idea.
Oh, let me just point out, because this is something that's, that study floats around quite a bit, and there's a few studies that kind of repeat this, that, you know, when immigrants come into a country or come into an area, the crime actually goes down.
There's always a lie in the data from what I've seen, and sometimes they're comparing the average population of illegal immigrants or immigrants to offenders and people within the criminal justice system.
So they're using a baseline within the area of people that are already committing crimes because they're within the justice system.
So that's not a fair baseline, everybody.
Wait, are you saying – hang on, Mike, if I can boil this down to something that I'm going to have to put my explodey helmet on.
Are you saying that the data shows that non-criminals commit less crime than criminals or a population that includes non-criminals commits less crime than a population that is almost exclusively composed of criminal justice?
I know this is shocking, but nonetheless.
In a related study, NBA players play more basketball than people who are in comas.
Yeah, and as usual, folks, if you see someone, especially a mainstream media news source, talking about a study and there's this big pronouncement, read the actual study.
There's been many situations where we look at a headline and then read the study, and what the study actually says completely contradicts the headline.
But at the same time, it gets reported everywhere because if a big outlet reports something, it just goes wide.
So, yeah, look, be skeptical about some of these studies and these news reports.
Look at where they're getting the data from.
One of the biggest things I've learned in working on this show is there's so many different ways to skew surveys and sample sets for research purposes.
You know, age of populations for different variables.
You know, if people of a higher age or lower age are more likely to fall into a certain category, you can completely skew the information by adjusting the sample set and age ratio.
There's lots of things you can do.
So be very skeptical about all this data.
Look at the sources.
Look at all our sources.
Please look at all our sources.
But be very skeptical of this stuff because there's a lot of nonsense that That's passing is science.
And that's what people, when they say, you can lie through statistics, this is what they're talking about, this kind of stuff.
Well, and there's also a volatile way of explaining some of this data as well, that when Hispanics or illegal immigrants move into a black community, there tends to be black flight.
The blacks tend to move out of that community.
And because for a variety of reasons we can't get into here, blacks commit, young black males in particular, of course, commit a shocking number of crimes when you get illegal immigrants pushing out a black The crime rate within that black community will go down, but that's not exactly what we're looking for in terms of immigration.
Yeah, I just wanted to mention and add to what Mike said that another common fallacy is talking about immigrants as a whole as opposed to illegal immigrants, which is what Donald Trump was referencing.
So all these people, they have these rebuttals showing, you see, immigrants actually have lower crime rates.
Of course they do because they want to stay under the radar.
They don't want to get deported.
Wait, sorry, you said immigrants have lower crime rates.
Immigrants as a whole.
Oh, so the immigrants who are here in the evaluation phase, right?
In other words, if you commit a crime while you're an immigrant before you become a citizen, you can get deported.
Yeah.
Okay, so they're more worried about criminal activity.
If you're in the country legally as an immigrant, you don't want to be deported, so you stay under the radar, you behave.
You also have to keep in mind that most criminals are male and within particular age ranges too.
That's true.
Yeah, that's true.
Oh, so if we take the subset of immigrants who aren't, you know, elderly Asian women, then we're going to have a slightly higher crime rate.
I'm pretty sure elderly Asian women from the Philippines do not commit a whole lot of crime.
Pretty certain about that.
I don't even have to look at that.
That's just racist.
I don't know how or why.
It just is.
And I just want to put you on notice.
I accept it.
I scream racism and I win because white guilt.
One thing, too, just about immigrants and crime, or illegal immigrants and crime, is why is it controversial to say that 100% of illegal immigrants have committed crimes?
Because they're in the country illegally.
Therefore, they've committed a crime.
It's like if you don't carry a copy of the Great Gatsby, that's just a document.
Does that make you a criminal?
Well, they are.
And not only are they criminals by definition according to the status laws, but also you have a whole bunch of people in your community who have no access to the legal system for resolving their disputes.
And they're going to have disputes, and how are they going to resolve them?
If they can't have access to the government legal system, how are they going to resolve their disputes, given the culture that they came from?
How are they going to resolve their disputes if they not only can't access the government dispute resolution system, but also can't set up any alternatives to themselves because they have to stay under the radar?
Well, they're going to resolve their disputes in the way that most criminal gangs will resolve their disputes, Which is through violence, which has a huge number of innocent casualties and innocent bystanders as well, including children.
And how do the Mexican cartels, which, again, from Mexico, since we're using this as an example, the Mexican cartels that are operating outside the sphere of legality, how do they resolve their disputes?
Oh, I know this one!
No, wait!
Machetes!
Karaoke competitions!
It involves hanging from highway underpasses.
Oh, no machetes?
No.
Machetes may or may not be involved.
I don't know the details, Toyin.
But lots of people beheaded, lots of people hanging from highway underpasses.
And not so much with the Alive going on right there.
So, yeah, this is not good.
Also...
Some wildly exotic tropical diseases that have not been seen in America ever, or at least for the past hundred years, also come, of course.
One of the ways that you used to limit immigration was if somebody was currently coughing up a lung in the 19th century when they landed in Ellis Island, they put it in quarantine or sent back.
And when you have illegal immigrants coming in, they often will bring with them diseases that are huge, huge problems, in particular because they can be spread to other people and also because the healthcare costs have to be absorbed by the taxpayer for dealing with those diseases.
And just to mention another thing that people should watch out for is another way in which they skew the statistics is they compare crimes committed by illegals to crimes committed in the whole of the United States.
And just to give you an example from the state agency that keeps track of illegal crime, 75% of criminal illegal aliens, in other words, illegal aliens who have committed crimes, were arrested in one of three states, 75% of them.
And that's California, 54%, Texas, 10%, and Arizona, 9%.
So if you compare this sample set to the entirety of the United States, of course you'll come up with a lower number.
Of course you will, because there aren't a whole lot of illegal immigrants in the rest of the United States.
They're concentrated in those states.
So you have to compare it to the local population, to the local criminal population.
And if people don't do that, they're really trying to scam you.
Right, yeah.
So if you're comparing illegal immigration in California and the crimes committed by illegal immigration in California, as opposed to, say, Massachusetts, that is – although I think one Danish guy did step off a boat once by mistake.
And also, of course, I mean, the statistics when you look at because we have to compare not just the immigrants that are coming in from these third world countries, but compare them to the immigrants that used to be coming in who came from Europe.
And you would look at the number of European immigrants who would have criminal activity in the past versus the number of illegal immigrants who have criminal activity.
And the divergences are so wide that you can't even graph them.
So that's another opportunity cost of having better immigrants come in who are more in the Freedom Club, part of the Western tradition and understand how a free society works.
That's the opportunity cost.
People who could not only not cost America, but could produce more economic benefit.
That's the opportunity cost, I think.
Language.
Language is an issue as well.
The expectation in the past for European immigrants was that they would end up learning English, or at least their kids would.
And that's certainly been my experience in talking to and knowing many immigrants throughout my life that Gene Simmons got into trouble for pointing out that it's quite a value to learn English.
Just look at government schools, right?
I mean, there are districts in California where there are literally dozens of different languages that the teachers have to try and educate the children in.
And for native-born English-speaking Americans, a lot of the money that they pay through their property taxes, which is supposed to add to the quality education of their children, is being burned up and lost through the need for this multicultural, multilinguistic, multilanguage education.
And, of course, children of illegal immigrants can go to government schools.
This idea that somehow this bubble...
That illegal immigrants live in, and they live under bridges, and they never interact.
I mean, in a lot of states, illegal immigrants can get welfare.
In a lot of states, they can send their kids to government schools to just name two things that are huge.
They can vote.
They can vote.
Yeah.
It's kind of important.
I mean, when I was up until the age of about 28, I had to be carded to buy a drink, but somehow...
Proving that you're a citizen when you're supposed to vote is unthinkable, of course, only to the left.
So he points out the Government Accountability Office found there a shocking 5 million arrests attached to the incarcerated alien population, tens of thousands of...
3 million arrests, Steph.
Oh, sorry, 3 million arrests, sorry.
Don't have my glasses.
Three million arrests, tens of thousands of violent beatings, rapes and murders.
One of the things that surprises me a little bit, although it shouldn't, because I just haven't quite completed my hardened shell of ultimate cynicism, but feminists, very, of course, very concerned with violence against women.
Well, a quarter of pregnant women in Mexico are beaten by their husbands.
Child rape is...
It's huge and catastrophically prevalent within Mexico.
The treatment of women in Mexico as a whole is very bad.
And so why aren't feminists complaining a lot about bad treatment of women in Mexico?
Well, because if feminists were to point out how badly women are treated in Mexico, we'd have sympathy, but we wouldn't necessarily want these trauma victims pouring across Mexico.
The American border, bringing the historical dysfunction and brutality of that rather primitive culture into America.
So the leftists, feminists and leftists are generally synonymous.
So they have to keep quiet about the violence against women in Mexico and in the Mexican population as a whole.
And that, again, is just another one of these hypocrisies.
I mean, leftism is just another way to advance socialism and socialism requires third world immigration and therefore It's very important.
Okay, so he wants Mexico to pay for the wall, and he wants to actually have the laws enforced.
And the idea that this is shocking is...
It just shows you how far this has become.
Now, let's talk how weird it's become to say enforce the laws or repeal them.
Nationwide e-verify.
And so the idea is that when you hire someone, you have to ping the government to find out if they're there legally, and that's a prerequisite for hiring them.
Now, that is the enforcement of a law.
And whether people like it or not, the laws are that you can't hire illegal immigrants.
Of course, right?
You can give them welfare in government schools and Medicare and healthcare and other things, but, you know, you can't hire them.
And so this is a way to verify citizenship.
Is it going to be a mess?
Of course it's going to be a mess.
It's a government program.
But...
That is the enforcement of the laws.
Now, it is something that would happen only when you're hired, so it's not like you've got to keep your papers on you forever, but that's one thing he's talking about, that everyone is saying, well, it's just completely impossible and it can't be done.
So then, of course, the people who say, well, government programs don't work, they're invasive, they're intrusive, they're impossible, and so on, it's like, okay, well, then let's start dismantling government programs that fit that definition, also known as government programs.
So, this idea is, well, nationwide e-verify won't work.
Okay, then we have to – because it's technologically too complex and it's intrusive and it's invasive and this and that and the other, it's like, okay, well, then we need to dismantle Obamacare because that's much more complicated from a technological standpoint.
We need to dismantle the IRS. That's much more complicated from a technical standpoint.
We need to dismantle the welfare state because that's much more complicated from a technological standpoint and much more invasive in terms of the questions that it asks people.
So again, this is just this selective outrage that is, you know, e-verify is one of the least intrusive things.
It only happens when you get hired.
One of the least intrusive government programs.
So, I don't know, just this idea that, well, let's keep all this other crap, but e-verify is a big problem.
That's just leftist junk.
Well, I can see the e-verify thing really upsetting libertarians in general, too, who generally are not happy with any type of national database.
Exactly.
That's the thing.
It's kind of hard to put the genie back in that bottle.
We're kind of there.
And one of the things that is completely ignored in this is that those e-verifies would actually benefit legal immigrants as well because illegal immigrants drive down their wages and employment opportunities as well.
It's not like they're not suffering the consequences of having a whole bunch of illegal immigrants in the country.
They suffer those too.
So it's one of the vaguely beneficial government programs, at least in the short run.
So naturally, of course, all the lefts are, my God, it's benefiting people who are domestic.
So this is where people go haywire with Trump.
Mandatory return of all criminal aliens.
Now, people remove the word criminal, which is kind of an important one, and then say he wants to deport.
And now suddenly their estimates change, right?
Because they say, well, there's only 11 million illegal immigrants.
And then when they think that he wants to deport all illegal immigrants, they say...
The 30 million people he wants to deport!
It's like, wait a minute.
I thought you just said there were 11 when counting these people.
Now he wants to deport them and their imaginary friends?
Them and their hand puppets?
I don't understand.
Them and the mirrors they look into?
I don't know.
So he just says, mandatory return of all criminal aliens.
That, again, is a mere enforcement of the law, and actually that's President Obama's opinion and perspective as well.
His official position, of course, is that if you're here illegally, you should be deported, no matter what, according to the laws, but in particular if you've committed a crime.
And we don't want to pay for you, is another aspect of that.
What it costs to house a criminal is No, they shouldn't.
He's saying they should be returned to their home countries.
And he mentions leverage that he would use to make this a reality.
A process which can be aided by canceling any visas to foreign countries which will not accept their own criminals and making it a separate and additional crime to commit an offense while here illegally.
So again, that's the leverage standpoint.
If you're not going to accept your criminal immigrants that came to this country, well then we're just going to cancel visas.
So you won't be able to have anyone come to the US legally.
They'll just completely close the door.
So that's quite a bit of leverage that you can put on countries to get them to take back They're criminals.
And people are trying to do a cost-benefit analysis of this, of course, by saying, well, that would cripple trade between these countries and that would be really bad for the economy and so on.
And it's like, you know, I mean, it's a principle.
I mean, it is a principle which says that it's better in a country if people obey the laws.
And in particular laws which help to strengthen the free market orientation of that country, that you bring in people who have a long tradition of respecting freedom and limited government and the rule of law and all that kind of stuff.
And so this idea that suddenly everything just becomes a cost-benefit analysis, will it interfere with some trade?
It will interfere with some trade.
But I don't think we make all of our decisions based upon mere dollars, you You know, my daughter is quite expensive, so I should really break her up and sell her for parts because then I'll make more money.
Here, Planned Parenthood.
So, I mean, just this idea that we do everything based on, well, cost-benefit analysis is just foolish.
And again, it's all the people on the left suddenly very interested in the cost-benefit analysis in a program that threatens their voter base, despite the fact that they never did a cost-benefit analysis on, say, the welfare state or immigration from third-world countries as a whole or Obamacare or any of that stuff.
It's just ridiculous.
Even if you look at cost-benefit, there's another side to it as well.
Let's imagine the following scenario of a community that refuses to trade with people who have committed crimes.
That is going to diminish trade in that community.
Yes, it will.
But is it going to improve the welfare of that community by refusing to trade with and ostracizing criminals?
It absolutely will as well.
So just looking at it from a trade perspective, you're not talking about welfare.
Yeah.
Yeah, and go to the New York Times and say, well, you know, it's really cutting down on your circulation, not having more right-wing writers on your staff, because you're really losing the whole base of the Republican readership of who like a lot of Republican media like Rush Limbaugh, so it's negative for your economics, right?
Well, it's funny.
You mentioned the New York Times, which is owned by Carlos Slim, who owns a lot of the major companies in Mexico, who benefits tremendously from the remittances that are sent back and are used to buy goods and services offered by his companies.
And then the New York Times was in financial peril, and he comes in and buys it.
Here's a Mexican buying the New York Times.
And all of a sudden, their reporting of amnesty and illegal immigration, it kind of changed.
It's kind of weird that that happened.
Not hugely.
I mean, so basically the New York Times, because it's a piece of shit newspaper that is kept alive by socialism.
Oh, no, the New York Times is just like this disgusting rag that in the future will be looked about as authentic as Pravda or the communist arm of the propagandizing the proletariat that occurred in Russia.
So New York Times is a piece of shit newspaper.
And they're $400 million in debt.
And they were basically about to declare bankruptcy.
And Carla Slim, who is a vile plutocrat of the capitalism known as Mexico, who gets a bunch of preferential contracts and monopoly to provide cell services and other electronic communication services throughout Mexico.
He buys the New York Times debt and he basically ends up owning the New York Times.
And as Mike says, you know, illegal immigrants and immigrants as a whole send a huge number of remittances back, which allows people to buy Carla Slim services, which he's given in a fraudulent and fascistic way by the Mexican government.
And so suddenly after Carla Slim buys the New York Times, well, they're really in favor of...
I don't know.
Hitler buys New York Times.
Anti-Semitic articles go up.
Well, I think people would want to know that, New York Times.
The reason it's a piece of shit newspaper is they don't put forward this conflict of interest front and page.
On their front and center, say, listen, the fact that we were saved by a guy who hugely benefits from illegal immigration and immigration from Mexico to America, this has a huge effect on our policy and a reporting of this.
Take it with a grain of salt.
That would be honest journalism, but they don't even mention it.
And this is a lot of money headed back to Mexico in the form of remittances.
Again, $22 billion in 2013 alone.
That's 2.2 Donald Trumps, everybody.
That's a lot.
So, mandatory return of all criminal aliens.
That is merely enforcing the law and exactly what President Obama.
Detention not catch and release.
Oh, yeah.
I just never understood this at all.
You're here illegally.
We've caught you.
So, come back later for your sentencing.
Bye-bye!
Oh my god, this literally is like, I've caught the biggest fish in the world.
I'm going to return it back into the ocean and ask it to meet me at the dock.
The woman that I incarcerated in my basement has clawed her way out through the wall.
I'm going to make dinner because I'm sure she'll be back.
God.
So yeah, he's just not catch and release.
So you detain them until you can send them home.
Defunct sanctuary cities.
Cut off federal grants to any city which refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement.
Yeah, it seems...
Again, either we have laws in this country or we don't.
Well, how about putting the leaders of those goddamn cities in jail for refusing to obey and enforce the laws?
I mean, it's illegal to not enforce the laws!
Well, a situation like what happened with Kate in California, I mean, these people have blood on their hands by letting these individuals back into the populace, you know?
Enhance penalties for overstaying a visa.
I mean, it's illegal, and clearly the laws are not working because lots of people overstayed the visas, including the people who did 9-11.
So, yes, the fact that, again, repeal the laws or enforce them, and the fact that he recognizes that they're not being enforced with huge amounts of social costs to Americans, of course, if something isn't working.
Where they're supposed to be forced to solve it, then you have to escalate the force, you know?
I mean, if a guy's charging at you with a machete and you shoot in the air and he doesn't stop, well, you shoot a little bit less in the air, don't you?
Because your initial show of force didn't work.
So end birthright citizenship.
So two to one, voters say that birthright citizenship is the wrong policy.
countries in the world that give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
So this is what the voters want.
This is what the voters want.
And the leaders are supposed to represent or reflect the will of the voters.
So two to one margin, voters don't like birthright citizenship.
And it is, of course, a terrible policy if you're going to have limits on immigration.
And just think about what it actually does.
You actually have pregnant women running through barren terrain trying to get to the US before they squat out a child just so the child can have US citizenship.
Instead of being in a hospital, instead of being in a place where they could be properly taken care of, they're running through terrain trying to enter the US. Just on the surface, that's wrong.
Well, you know, just picture this as Mexican woman straddling the border and everyone's screaming, lean north, lean north!
I'd say lean left, but that's sort of taken for granted.
But I mean, if that doesn't, you know, you got to drop the child on the majority magical soil of citizenship.
I mean, that's insane.
Because, you know, normal legal immigrants, they, I don't know, the estimated weight, and I'm not saying this is a good thing, but the reality is that the estimated weight for an Indian programmer to enter the United States is 35 years.
And this is, it is brutal, and it is ridiculous.
And of course, it is a way that they're called anchor babies for a reason, because criminal gangs like to get somebody in the family with citizenship so they can start getting everyone else across as well.
My jaw's on the floor with that number, 70%.
I didn't know that.
Oh, my God.
Wait, which number?
35 years waiting for a visa.
Oh, yeah.
And there's longer waits as well.
But yeah, if you're some Indian programmer, skilled, educated, intelligent, professional, average wait is about 35 years to get into America.
So if you start when you're 20, you get to hear right before retirement.
That is ridiculous.
Now, I also wanted to mention, in this context, an article that CBS ran back in 2008, and we're going to link it.
But according to them, it is estimated that 300,000 children of illegal immigrants are born in the United States every year.
300,000.
And that is because those children automatically become citizens and they can later sponsor.
Once they turn 21, they can sponsor their parents.
And they're going to be raised by people who've shown they have no respect for America's laws and sovereignty.
Culture passes through the parents.
Kids born to Muslim parents tend to become Muslims and Jews and so on.
And so culture passes from the parents to the children.
And by definition, the people who are having anchor babies are people who are going to raise children with no respect for America's laws and sovereignty and preferences.
In other words, the host country, they have no respect for the preferences of the host country.
How is that going to help the culture of America?
Not part of the Freedom Club.
My knowledge of science is a little shaky, but I think this is how it works.
As soon as you make one step into U.S. territory and you give birth to a child, that child automatically, it's a miracle.
It starts speaking English out of the womb.
And it knows the name of Socrates.
It starts quoting Thomas Jefferson.
It can recite the U.S. Constitution.
And all by memory.
It is amazing.
So there's a welfare abuse as well.
So he says that you hire American workers first and so on, like the H-1B visas.
That is, you know, 92 million Americans are not even in the workforce and preference is being given to foreign-born workers.
That doesn't just make sense.
Now, it'd be great if you could continue to lower the cost of hiring American workers.
I'm sure that would be some part of his plan as well.
But applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the US. Again, that's only the result of the welfare state and the government subsidization of healthcare and other things.
I remember when we moved to Canada when I was 11 from England, the amount of paperwork and the amount of proof that my mom had a job and all of that was huge.
But then Canada actually enforces its immigration laws, which is not to say that they're the best in the world, but that doesn't seem to be insane.
If you're going to have a welfare state, then of course you're going to want people who come in with money rather than with no money because they're going to be more likely to go on the welfare.
And I think the basic point is that a dominant culture is like a flimsy bridge, right?
A certain amount and speed of water can go underneath it, but when the volume of water goes up, it will simply collapse.
You need time for, multi-generational time for immigrants to adapt and adopt to the mainstream culture.
Otherwise, all that will happen is they will retain their original culture and attempt to use the political process to replicate their original culture in the new country.
And that is...
It's the way the world works.
And people who deny that simply do not understand tribalism.
They don't understand ethnic self-preferences.
They don't understand that people tend to vote along ethnic and religious lines.
And I don't even know what to say to people like that.
They're so mired in unreality that it's hard to even imagine that they can put one foot in front of the other when they want to go to the fridge for a beer.
So...
Culture is a precious thing.
Now, I've had my criticisms of culture, but the West has a culture of opposing culture.
And that's like some weird meta thing, but it is important for people to understand.
The West has a culture that is very skeptical of culture.
So, for instance, there are tribes in the world where the women remove their front teeth and put these big clay ornaments all over their faces.
And they keep doing that, even though nobody can remember why.
The original theory was to make perhaps perhaps it made the women less attractive to slave buyers.
Therefore, they wouldn't be taken as slaves.
I don't know.
But the sort of inverse Freddie Mercury teeth thing, nobody knows why they're doing it.
It's the same thing with foot binding in China, which went on for centuries and centuries and centuries.
Nobody knew why it was being done anymore, but it was just this brutal warping of women's feet.
And then it just stopped.
Now, in the West, we have this creative destruction of being skeptical.
That's why the West developed the most robust and widespread scientific method.
It's why the West developed free market capitalism.
It's why the West voted to limit laws specifically.
The West has a culture that criticizes culture.
All the way from Socrates and the pre-Socratics onwards, there is a great deal of respect given to people who criticize dominant narratives in the West.
That is not the case in other cultures.
I mean, you try criticizing Islam in Saudi Arabia, and you will quickly find yourself without a finger to pick your nose with.
And so the fact is that the West does have a culture very critical of cultural standards and willing to deploy reason, evidence, and philosophy to attack whatever sacred cows are currently wandering around the cultural landscape.
Other cultures have not developed that degree of self-criticism, which is why you end up with this empty patriotic nonsense and so on.
And it's so sad, the degree to which the West is self-critical, I think, has gone wrong.
Way too far in terms of now it's just you're bad for being white, you're bad for being Western, you're just an evil, patriarchal, sexist, colonist, racist, or whatever.
So the self-criticism has metastasized in the West, but it is very important to recognize the sacrifices that our ancestors made fighting irrational superstition, fighting state power, fighting sexism, fighting racism.
It is really important to recognize the value.
I mean, the West was the culture alone in the world that ended slavery.
And now, of course, the only culture that is criticized for race relations is the only culture that has worked the hardest to normalize and improve them.
That's sort of natural.
No good deed goes unpunished in the history of the world.
But I think it is important to recognize and respect that the West has a unique culture.
It is not founded upon race, but it is founded upon a methodology of thinking, of reason, of evidence, of philosophy, of self-criticism, and of the subjugation of opinion to facts.
That is decaying also in the West, that we're doing our best in this conversation to prop it up.
But you cannot replace a rational culture with a superstitious culture and retain your rational culture.
You simply can't.
You cannot retain an advanced culture.
You cannot replace an advanced culture with a primitive culture and retain the advancements.
Everybody wants to come to the West because the West is the best place to live.
Right.
As it was at Jim Morrison's.
The West is the best.
The West is the best place to live.
Everybody wants to come, but they don't recognize that in order for the West to remain the best way to live, they have to subjugate their prior superstitions and nationalisms and preferences to the rational empiricism of the West.
And that can only happen if not so many come in that the fragile bridge built on the bones and blood of so many is washed away on a tidal wave of superstition, irrationality, and base ethnic preferences.
That's greatly put.
Beautifully put, Steph, yeah.
I also wanted to add something to that, which is white people, they criticize themselves, but somehow other cultures, other communities are immune from criticism.
Where is that going to end up?
And the fact that they wish to be immune from criticism means that they're incompatible with the West.
Sorry, Mike, go ahead.
Well, that's the cruelest thing you can do to someone is strip them of personal responsibility for their actions and decisions.
I mean, no one hates someone more than someone who wants to do that and strip them of responsibility.
That's treating them like animals, essentially.
So that's all I had to add.
I think it's an interesting document.
I think it is something where we hope that the ethics, the facts, and the evidence take precedence.
Naturally, the left is going to just attack this in hysterical and distorted ways.
Oh, he wants to immediately round up and deport 40 million people or whatever they're saying.
And I hope that people stop listening to the shrieking banshees of unthinkingness that characterize sometimes both sides of the debate, but in particular the left.
And recognize that the left are simply protecting a political base and the Republicans are protecting the business class, which gives them money to keep wages low.
And actually listen to the American people, particularly to minorities and to women to some degree.
And, of course, the people who've come to America legally, they're the ones most suffering from illegal immigration.
And it is certainly my hope that their voice will prevail in their preferences.
And the fragile edifice of Western empiricism, self-criticism and voting above your own ethnic interest is going to prevail.
Without it, we are not going to turn Mexico into America.
We're going to turn America into Mexico, and a great and powerful light in the world will go out.
And one point to close on, Steph.
I just want to reiterate, I think everyone should go and read this in its original form.
We skimmed through some stuff.
Go and read it because it's going to be talked about for a long time.
Even if Trump drops out of the race or something happens, this policy and what he's discussed will shape the narrative of the conversation going forward to the general presidential election in 2016.
So it's important that you know it, and it's important that you pay attention for the mischaracterizations that people are going to put out.
They've already started, but they're going to put out about this policy that simply aren't in there.
And I just...
I want to talk about the popularity of this position a bit, because that's something that most people aren't aware of, and you're not going to get this from the mainstream media, so it's an important point.
I'll start with a quote from Lindsey Graham, who was polling at 1% in the Republican election.
And now I think he's negative five.
He's such a non-candidate at this point that it's kind of laughable.
He said, That of all the 11 million have to walk back where they came from and maybe we'll let some of them come back.
I just hope we don't go down that road as a party.
So our leading contender, Mr.
Trump, is going backward on immigration.
And I think he's going to take all of us with him if we don't watch it.
So enforcing laws, bad, okay?
Going backward?
What the hell does that, what kind of argument is that?
He's talking about his poll numbers.
He invokes the image of the exodus.
That's what he's doing.
Going backwards?
What kind of argument is that?
It's like, I put forward a rational argument based on reason and evidence and logical consistency, and his basic, his rebuttal is, beep, beep, beep, beep.
Because that's the sound a truck makes when it goes backwards.
It's like the roadrunner defense.
Meep, meep.
It's like, backwards.
That's bad.
Backwards is bad.
Oh, and the other thing is we're a nation of immigrants, of course.
You know, we're a nation of immigrants.
So you want to stop immigrants from coming in?
No, he's not saying that.
He's saying he wants to stop people coming in illegally, which, you know, the people that came in previously weren't coming in illegally.
So it doesn't exactly work.
And these are people coming from different places and different backgrounds.
We talked about the shift.
In immigration demographics, from a cultural standpoint, with the pass of the 1965 Act.
So, this is kind of a different situation, and he's just saying...
Sorry, just one more rant is in me, because this really bugs the shit out of me.
If I say I don't want a bunch of illegal immigrants to move into my...
Oh, sorry, I don't want a bunch of immigrants to move into my house, does that mean I'm against immigration?
No.
Move in somewhere else.
Just not into my house, eat my food, take my stuff, use my car and don't maintain it.
Because the reality is people who come in illegally and go on welfare and put their kids in public schools are not paying even remotely the amount of tax that it costs and have not historically paid the amount of tax that it costs to cover their consumption of public resources.
So they're kind of stealing from people.
And you can make a case as a whole that welfare is supposed to be for accidents and people pay into it like unemployment insurance or whatever.
So that's the general narrative.
But even if we accept that general narrative, not saying I'm due, but even if we accept that general narrative, people who come across the border consume huge amounts of medical resources to have an anchor baby, put that baby into government schools, thus degrading the quality of education for the native-born English speakers, and then go on welfare, which is huge numbers and proportions of illegal and then go on welfare, which is huge numbers and proportions They're stealing from the system.
They didn't contribute, and they're consuming huge amounts of resources they never paid into.
That is called stealing from the system.
So the idea that somehow you're against people moving into your neighborhood because you don't want your house broken into is insane, and it takes a huge amount of propaganda to not even see that basic fact.
Well, to prop up what you're saying about stealing, too, there's a lot of double-dipping going on, whereas we talk about people in the gray and black economy working off the books, working in cash.
If they are on the welfare rolls, they're getting lots of benefits.
If they're working under the table, they're making all that money on the side, and I think that type of arrangement is what has led to $22 billion in remittances heading back to Mexico in just a single year.
If you send all the money that you make under the table back to Mexico and you're surviving on federal benefits, it's essentially a massive subsidy to Mexico and the other foreign countries that are getting these mass amounts of remittances, and that's completely unsustainable long-term for the United States.
Yeah, you're supposed to have paid into the system.
One point I wanted to make as someone who's not from the United States and something that this thing still bugs me.
Whenever you say we are a nation of immigrants, please stop and consider the fact that all those immigrants came from generally the same part of the world.
And also if you look back far enough, everyone is an immigrant coming from Africa.
We're a world of immigrants.
I mean really, if you think that life may have started from bacteria that came in through meteors, we're actually interstellar immigrants.
That's important to remember as well.
Whoa.
Alright, so my study about the popularity of this position, because you'll be told otherwise.
This study is, does polarization imply poor representation, a new perspective on the disconnect between politicians and voters?
We'll put a link to it below.
But it has seven main positions on immigration, and it breaks down which percentage of the populace is most for that position.
Number one is the United States should have opened borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.
Only 4.7% believe that.
That's kind of what we have now, not in law, but in reality.
So only 4.7% actually want that.
Number two is legal immigration to the United States should be greatly increased amongst all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills.
Immigrants already in the United States should be put on a path to citizenship.
17.4% believe that.
Okay, so a bit more.
Three is immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase.
Immigration by those without skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.
Okay, so that's 10.8%.
Position four, immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration amongst those without such skills should be limited in time and or magnitude through a guest worker program.
That's 12%.
Position 5.
The United States should emit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.
17%.
6.
Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported.
13.8%.
And number 7.
A stronger position than even Donald Trump is suggesting.
Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported immediately.
That's 24.4%.
So the largest group, 24.4%, supports closed borders and mass deportation.
Thank you.
You would go to say to people from the European tradition of limited governments and secure borders, I wonder what that percentage would be.
But I'm sure that's just my privilege.
If you add in the next group, which will allow for only a small number of highly skilled immigrants and it also involves mass deportations, we're up to 38.2% of the total population.
If you add in option five, which only allows highly skilled immigrants while physically blocking the Maturity.
So the majority of the population in America is fully behind or exceeds what Donald Trump wants.
And so when people are insulting Donald Trump's position, they are insulting the American electorate in its majority, in the majority.
And, you know, take that personally, people.
It's okay to get upset if people just insult your perspective.
If they're calling Donald Trump a racist...
They're calling Americans a racist.
If they're calling Donald Trump xenophobic, they're calling Americans in the majority xenophobic.
It's okay to get offended by that and to kick back.
Well, if you're going to call Donald Trump a racist, part of what we didn't go over so much in this policy is there's a lot of things in here, these visas that benefit immigrants to the negative effect of black Americans and black youth.
And there's actually some things in here about jobs programs, and instead of focusing them on immigrants, focusing them on inner-city black youth in high-risk categories.
So, you know, if he's a racist, well, this is something that is going to benefit black people quite a bit.
This is something that's going to benefit women quite a bit in the job market, because as you said, Steph, what was the number?
100% of job gains for women since 2008 have gone to foreign-born women.
So this racist wants to help black people get jobs, he wants to help women get jobs, and he's a misogynist.
And existing legal immigrants, Hispanic or otherwise, get jobs, and get better jobs.
Exactly.
So, you know, be skeptical of this narrative, folks, because read the original policy, because it's pretty clear, and as far as political policies go, I mean, this is pretty spelled out.
You know, it's not 8,000 pages like Obamacare that you don't get to read until it's passed or something like that.
It's one page that you can read with outlines as to how he plans to pay for certain things, leverage that he's going to use to get certain things done.
It's probably the most defined political position paper I've seen in this election from any candidate.
And the reason that we're talking about immigration now fundamentally on a national stage is because of Donald Trump, even though it's a tremendously popular position closing the border amongst the citizens.
And the reason we haven't talked about it previous is because both the Republicans and the Democrats both are beholden to big business.
And they get – I mean, Jeb Bush raised $100-plus million for his campaign today.
He's getting that from people that really like these visa programs that allow them to bring in cheap labor.
You know, and it's the same thing.
On the Democrat side, these both parties are beholden to corporate interests that benefit disproportionately from these visa programs and these policies.
So this is why this conversation has not happened.
The reason why we're having this conversation now is solely because of Donald Trump and the fact that he has $10 billion, isn't accepting massive amounts of campaign donations from people in the corporate sphere that benefit from these positions and thus is speaking freely.
This is something that you don't see and likely won't see in politics of any kind for a very long time after this has happened.
Donald Trump is a giant aberration to the normal political climate and landscape.
You don't get many charismatic people with $10 billion in the bank that have 20 plus years of media exposure and celebrity that are overwhelmingly popular with his charisma and speaking skills, willing to put their ass on the line, be called a misogynist, be called a racist, willing to put their ass on the line, be called a misogynist, be called a racist, so they can bring important discussions and topics
Whether you like Donald Trump or not, I respect the fact that he has put himself on the line to bring up this issue, which if you believe in democracy, more than half of the American population is firmly in support of what he wants to do or more than what he wants to do.
So this is a popular opinion.
If you believe in democracy, what Donald Trump is doing is beneficial to the country as a whole.
Reflects the will of the people.
All right.
Well, we're going to stop there, but thanks, everyone, for listening to, obviously, a challenging conversation for some of our listeners.
We really appreciate your feedback, of course.
Let us know in the comments below what you think.
We'll put references to our prior relevant presentations below and sources to what we've talked about here below.
Like or just like.
Let us know why.
Share and subscribe.
We look forward to your support.
Of course, this is a listener-generated population.
All of our vittles, food and shelter are paid for by your kindness and support of what we're doing at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
You can just sign up for $5 a month or $10 a month or whatever you can afford if you can't afford, but you still like the show.
Fantastic.
We appreciate that.
Just, you know, share the videos around and help us get more viewers and listeners.
So we really appreciate your patience during this lengthy conversation.
We hope it's been helpful for you, and we look forward to your feedback.
Thank you, everybody, so much.
And final disclaimer, talking about a political candidate or political positions does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that you agree with the political positions or the political system as a whole.
FYI, so you know, so I don't get the emails.
Again, everybody, thank you very much for listening.
How many times in the videos have I said, the sauces are below, and how many people say, where are the sauces, man?
I don't want to find the local system.
All right.
Okay, well, thanks everyone so much.
We'll talk to you soon.
And let us know if you like this kind of format.
We did talk about politics before in this kind of format.
I like it a lot.
It's certainly a lot of fun to chat with these guys, and we do it anyway, so it must be recorded.
But let us know what you think of this format, because, of course, we aim to please you, the listener, and the viewer.
So this is Devan Molyneux with Mike and Soren from Freedom Aid Radio saying thanks so much for watching and listening.
