Oct. 17, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
54:25
3103 The Truth About Illegal Immigrants: Was Donald Trump Right?
The topic of Immigration - including Illegal Immigrants, Refugees or Migrants – provokes an incredibly strong reaction from many different people. With Donald Trumps’ rapid rise in American politics and his controversial statements about Illegal Immigrants - many people are letting their ideology trump facts, reason and evidence. This presentation is the first in a series which looks to dispel the myths about Immigrants – and aims to separate the facts from the fiction with strict data analysis. Why are people so concerned about Immigration in the United States of America? Who is coming into the United States both legally and illegally - and how has it changed over time? Are Illegal Immigrants able to vote? How do Immigrants impact electoral politics? Do Immigrants favor big government or smaller government? How do their political positions change over time - are Immigrants friends of freedom?Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/illegal-immigrants-part-1
As you've probably heard, there is one Caesar-like colossus striding his way across the American political landscape, going by the moniker 1D Trump.
Now, Donald, of course, exploded into the national consciousness with his remarks on immigration, particularly illegal immigration, and his vow to build a wall and keep illegal immigration out.
This has resonated enormously with a wide variety of Americans.
Of course, he has vaulted to the forefront Why?
Why?
Why?
Why is immigration being so long ignored?
And why is it proving to be such a hot button issue for Republicans at the moment?
Well, of course, the typical strategy of a lot of people is to plug their ears to the facts and scream racist at the top of their lungs until bad, scary people go away.
I think we should take a little bit more of a matured and considered opinion and perspective on this.
Let's look at some of the data and try and figure out why so many people in America have significant concerns and feel that their country might be slipping away, never to return.
Is it xenophobia?
Is it racism?
Well, I'm sure there's some aspects of that in there, but there's also some facts that are important to understand.
of that in there.
But there's also some facts that are important to understand.
I remain agnostic or neutral in American politics, but again, I do like to try and figure out what is bothering people and whether there's any legitimacy behind their concerns.
I remain agnostic or neutral in American politics.
But again, I do like to try and figure out what is bothering people and whether there's any legitimacy behind their concerns.
So let's dive in.
So let's dive in.
Thank you for your patience.
Thank you for your patience.
Let's have a look at the electoral college system in the United States.
Because the US has an electoral college system.
538 electoral votes are distributed among the states to ultimately determine the winner of each presidential election.
The original mudslinging cage match, unfortunately, was not approved.
The electoral college awards won count and one elector for each US senator for a total of 100.
While DC gets three, Electors are stipulated by the 23rd Amendment.
These numbers are unaffected by population.
Ah, but here's where we begin to see the challenge.
The remaining 435 Electoral College votes represent the members elected to the House.
This accounts for 80% of the total vote.
Now, these votes are readjusted every 10 years to reflect the population changes found in the U.S. Census, which counts people in the country illegally.
This is important, because people in the country illegally end up skewing the votes in the Electoral College.
Now, of course, you may say, okay, that's kind of behind the scenes, but illegal immigrants can't legally cast a ballot.
They do have a major and possibly decisive say on who is elected president of the United States, partly through the Census Bureau.
But let's talk about illegal immigrant voting.
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court effectively upheld a lower court's ruling that potential voters do not have to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote with federal forms.
On Saturday, October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1461, the new Motor Voter Act, which will automatically register people to vote through the DMV. It's the Department of Motor Vehicles for our European and other worldly friends.
And will most assuredly result in increased voting by illegal immigrants.
Any person who renewed or secured a driver's license through the DMV is now automatically registered to vote, unless they specifically opt out of doing so.
Ah, you may say, but you can't be an illegal immigrant and get a driver's license.
Well, yes, you can.
I have to remind people whose countries still vaguely enforce laws that we're talking about America and immigration.
It's a Kafkaeus Mobius strip.
Of complete nonsensical kaleidoscopic nonsense.
So, here we go.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, as well as Washington, D.C. They will issue a driver's license to illegal immigrants.
Now, nearly 37% of illegal immigrants live in an area where they can legally obtain a license.
In California, nearly half a million immigrants who are illegal have applied for a driver's license since the state started issuing them, really twice as many as were expected.
You're an illegal immigrant, you can get a driver's license, and in various places, of course, that's perfectly legal, and then in California, you're automatically registered to vote because of that driver's license, so not really that hard.
In 2013, a sample survey of 800 Hispanics found that of foreign-born respondents who were registered voters, 13% admitted that they were not United States citizens, which is a violation of state and federal law.
Strange.
Strange that people who have broken the law by being in America are also not complying with American laws.
Let's mull that over.
An Old Dominion George Mason study found that almost 15% of non-citizens admitted they were registered to vote in 2008, and 15.6% of non-citizens admitted they were registered in 2010.
That's a lot.
I'm pretty sure Old Dominion is not a Hispanic university.
When numbers were adjusted to take into account additional factors, such as non-citizens who said they were not registered, but actually were registered, the Old Dominion George Mason studies authors concluded that the true percentage was probably closer to 25%.
2014, another study using survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study estimated that 6.4% of non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election and 2.2% voted in the 2010 midterm congressional elections.
And does it really matter what the exact number is?
I would say not so much.
Through direct votes and non-citizen population skewing the electoral college voting system, illegal immigrants are having a major impact on U.S. elections.
Are they going to vote for law and order?
It's hard to imagine.
All right.
Here is yet another one of these.
I feel like we're eternally presenting these rollercoaster graphs.
This is the United States foreign-born population in millions from 1850 projected boop.
To 2065, when I will be 99 years old.
So, as you can see, it's kind of low, kind of low, kind of low.
In the 1920s, restrictions were put in out of a concern from Southern European immigration.
Restrictions were put in basically saying, let's go with, you know, England and Germany and a couple of other places, which were kind of the original base of American settlers.
And you can see it declined throughout the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s.
1965, we'll talk about this more in a moment, Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 Immigration Act, which took off the restrictions on Europeans, number one.
And number two, what it did was it allowed for families, for people to sponsor their family members to come in to America.
Well, that was quite a challenge because, of course, back in the day in the 1960s, The average family in Mexico had over seven children.
So one person comes in, they sponsor their kids, their kids can sponsor their cousins, their cousins, and then you end up in the situation relatively quickly, as has happened, where roughly a quarter of Mexico has moved to the United States.
Not entirely legally.
So here we can see this is a foreign-born population population.
In millions, non-Hispanic whites are projected to become less than half of the US population by 2055 and 46% by 2065.
At that time, no racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the US population.
So, Hispanics will see their population share rise to 24% by 2065 from 18% today.
And Asians, we'll see their share rise to 14% by 2065 from 6% today.
Now, Asians, we're going to talk about this in a few minutes.
The category Asians, you would think, of course, would include Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and so on.
But the category, unfortunately, for reasons we'll get into in a few minutes, also includes Bangladeshis and Indians and so on.
And we'll get into that in a few minutes.
Now...
I've made the case before that freedom, the idea of economic freedom, the idea of free trade, the idea of diversity itself, of live and let live, of I disagree with what you say but would defend to the death your right to say it and so on.
All of these developed over 2,500 years plus in the European world.
Socratic, Magna Carta, Industrial Revolution, Enlightenment, Renaissance, classical liberalism, and so on, that this took a huge amount of time and millions and millions of bodies littering the landscape to achieve in Europe.
And it still remains And the Freedom Club is generally the Judeo-Christian, European, Socratic, and Greek philosophy onwards approach to life.
And other cultures don't have that history.
They may have other wonderful things in their history.
They don't have that.
And that is a lot of the concerns that people have in America that we'll talk about in a few minutes.
This changed immigration into the United States, and let's have a look at how that happened.
So here we have Europe is in the orange color, Latin America of course green, Asia which includes India in the red, Africa in the pink, and other in the black.
And as you can see here, from sort of 1830 onwards up until 2000, yeah, A lot of European immigration and the Europeans assimilated generally within a generation or two.
One of the things that is a challenge to the concept of diversity is that People from the same ethnicity but different countries or cultures tend to integrate a lot faster than people who have different ethnicities or different races, for the obvious reason that you can blend.
If you're a German or a Swede and you come to America within a generation or two, everyone's indistinguishable, but that's not the case with more visible ethnicities.
So, as you can see here, European immigration has vastly declined, and this, of course, this right-hand side of the chart was something that was promised would never happen, that Latin American and Asian immigration has exploded, and European immigration has declined.
Let's look at refugees and asylum seekers to the United States.
Europe, of course, many more.
And as you can see here, under Asia, in particular in the 80s, it kind of went through the roof.
1971 to 2002, Bangladesh sent 93,000 plus.
Cambodia, 150,000.
China, 1.2 million.
Almost India, just over a million.
Japan, 177,000.
Laos, 215,000.
Philippines, 1.5 million.
South Korea, 839,000.
Vietnam a little over a million.
And of course, that is a pretty significant group of immigrants.
So, where are these people coming from and what are their traditions?
Well, North America, which includes Mexico, of course, has an economic freedom index of 74.
Still 26, lower than I'd like to see, but 24.
Europe has 67, Middle East and North Africa 62, South and Central America 60, Asia and Pacific 59, and Sub-Saharan Africa 55.
Now, if you break out Canada and the United States from this...
The United States has a freedom index of 76.2.
Canada, oh yeah baby, 79.1.
So suck it all of you people who say that I'm trapped up here in socialist Canada while you're enjoying the free market wild-dressed riot of America.
Not so.
We beat you by almost three points.
Mexico has a freedom index of 66.4.
So Mexico is almost 12 points lower and that is very, very significant.
And if you look at Germany, Europe, it's a mess for a variety of reasons, but if you look at Germany, it has a freedom index of 73.8, Sweden 72.7.
So, the economic freedom index comes from a wide variety of cultural influences.
How much are you willing to accept free trade?
How much are you willing to accept The deferral of gratification that comes from not using state power to eliminate competition, not using state power to ensure that you get the beneficial licenses, the beneficial taxes, and so on.
Economic growth is all about the seen and the unseen.
If you see visible benefits, everyone thinks that's great.
Oh look, the government created 5,000 jobs by spending, I don't know, a couple of hundred million dollars.
And so everyone says, oh look, 5,000 new jobs.
And what you don't see is the 10,000 or 15,000 jobs that weren't created because the government took all that money out of the economy.
And so I'll make a case in a few minutes as to why that's so important.
Favor government health insurance.
This is from the National Annenberg Election Survey.
Native-born Americans favor government health insurance 45%.
Now, again, native-born Americans doesn't mean all sort of wasps and Catholics from Europe, part of the Freedom Club, developed over 2,500 years and so on.
Native-born Americans can also include anchor babies and so on, right?
45%.
All immigrants, 62% favor, right?
That's quite a lot higher.
Hispanic immigrants, 67%.
Asian immigrants, 59%.
Other immigrants, 58%.
So, as you can see, native-born Americans, if there was a vote, they will not take government health insurance.
But when you factor in immigrants, the vote changes.
That's a tipping point.
This is why people are upset now, as opposed to in the past.
So, and we'll put some notes in about some of the challenges of the data.
All of the sources, of course, will be below.
So, this is a challenge.
If you don't want government health insurance, then you are going to be hostile towards immigration, at least as it's currently constituted.
Now, of course, to be fair, the majority of Western white Europeans would probably also be in favor of government health insurance for a variety of reasons.
And people say, of course, well, America was a nation of immigrants or has been a nation of immigrants.
That's true.
But for the vast majority of its history, there was no welfare state, right?
No totally free government schools.
Well, for some of its history, at least.
And no old age pensions paid for by the taxpayers and so on.
So, If immigration was fine in 1920, well, okay, then you have to recognize all the things that weren't there in 1920 that are now that affect immigration.
Who favored the financial bailout?
The financial bailout of the banks that occurred in 2008 to 2010 and so on.
Okay, 30% of native-born Americans say, yay, those banksters.
I mean, gosh, wouldn't it be terrible if they couldn't heat their swimming pool to quite as comfortable a degree?
Good heavens.
Well, all immigrants, 10% higher.
Hispanic immigrants, 37% favorite.
Asian immigrants, 41% and other immigrants, 43%.
Well, why?
Why?
Until we have good answers to these questions, it's going to have an effect.
How many?
Trust the federal government all or most of the time.
Native-born Americans, actually there's a column here that's not here at all.
Native Americans, I'm going to guess about zero.
Native-born Americans trust federal government all or most of the time.
Only 15% of you people believe that.
All immigrants is 23%.
Hispanic immigrants, hey, 28%.
A trusting bunch of souls.
26% for Asians and my immigrants, 19%.
So, Hispanic immigrants are about twice as likely to be led around the paddock by the nose by the federal government than native-born Americans.
Does the government like more compliant people who think they're always in the right?
I'm pretty much sure that they do.
So, that's Trust Federal Government.
Support affirmative action.
Of course, affirmative action is a program designed to give preference to racial minorities in employment and college admissions in order to correct for past discriminations, originally aimed, of course, at blacks for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
And here, 35% of native-born Americans support affirmative action.
Hispanic immigrants, 63%.
Asian immigrants, 64%.
Other immigrants, 52%.
So here, the immigrants are almost twice as likely to support affirmative action as opposed to native-born Americans.
Now, affirmative action is a collectivist concept.
It is a group concept.
It's saying, well, all whites or all non-blacks must pay for the collective sins of white people 150 years ago.
And, of course, only four or five or six percent of whites owned slave in the South during the height of slavery.
And only about six percent of the world's trade in blacks ended up going to America.
And the slave trade in Brazil was much higher than that in America.
And the people who were poor in America didn't like slavery because it drove down their wages.
Plus, they were forced to go on slave hunting trips against their will.
They were impressed into that or they were conscripted into that.
But anyway, it's this giant collectivist concept.
Now, the Western tradition is focused on individuality, with the exception of socialism and communism, which don't really come out of the Western tradition as much as they come out of the Jewish tradition.
So there is a focus on individualism, individuality.
The individual is the key component in society, and therefore collectivist concepts like group and race and collective guilt and restitution for wrongs done by other people who may or may not be related to you in some tangential manner.
Doesn't fly!
Which is why fewer Native-born Americans, compared to these other cultures that have very collectivist concepts, are much more in favor of it.
Now, earlier I said, well, here we got, you see, Asian immigrants who say, wow, quite a high number.
Well...
Economics requires intelligence, and nature has so constituted the planet that you can look at various ethnicities and groups and countries and look at the average IQ or intelligence of these countries.
And no, these tests are not culturally biased.
A lot of them are very just symbol logic and so on.
And so when we're looking at, say, Japanese, Chinese, and Taiwanese, and Koreans, Well, we're looking at a different kettle of fish than we are when we look at, say, Pakistan or India and so on.
So let's look at the top seven countries for raw intelligence in the brain.
Hong Kong, average IQ of 109.
Yay, Hong Kong!
Singapore, 109.
North Korea, South Korea, 106.
Japan, 106.
People's Republic of China, 106.
Taiwan, 106.
Those are some very smart people.
Europe, of course, clocks in our averages in general, at least in the West, at about 100.
In Pakistan, the average IQ... I'm sorry to say, is 84.
That is very low, and that is more than a standard deviation below the European average and, well, quite a bit below the Hong Kong or Singaporean average.
So, India, various estimates, it's a big country, various estimates of the Indian average IQ range from 80 to 85.
Again, not rapidly high.
And Mexico clocks in at the not very exciting 87 for the average IQ. And so affirmative action, of course, there are some people who are going to benefit from it, but get into college admissions and get hired and so on.
And so they'll benefit, but the whole point is that higher intelligence is all about the deferral of gratification.
Yes, I might win right now, but what about down the road?
What about what happens in the future?
I mean, maybe I'll get a better job now, but maybe some guy who's going to operate on my kids got there through affirmative action and isn't as competent and might do something wrong, might do something bad.
And this deferral of gratification is associated with IQ, is associated with economic literacy.
And that's why it's not particularly great for a relatively high IQ country like America, like Canada, like Europe, and so on, to have a lot of people come in who don't exactly match the IQ historically.
Whether it's genetic or cultural, it doesn't seem to matter that much because it seems to be pretty intransigent.
It seems to not be budgeable.
By very much over the generations.
And we've had Jason Richwine on to talk about Hispanics in this area.
We'll link to that below.
But the data is very clear that IQ doesn't generally tend to budge over the generations for various ethnic groups, whether it's reasons of genetic or culture, aren't particularly important to the analysis.
But that's why when we're talking about Asian immigrants, we want to differentiate between people who come from what I would generally consider Oriental or Asian cultures and those who come from, say, Bangladesh or...
India, because they're not the same groups, which is why you see in free countries, or relatively free countries, the Oriental or Asian population has the highest income, followed by whites, and then Hispanics, and then blacks.
So, that is kind of an important consideration, and this is another reason why people...
They may not know this consciously, but I think a lot of people get this kind of intuitively.
It's just that the numbers do support these kinds of...
Problems or skepticism towards the value of unbridled peasant culture immigration.
Obamacare, not a primary Republican goal, let's say.
Native-born Americans, which again is not whites, not Republicans, supported Obamacare at 52%.
All immigrants, 69%.
Hispanic immigrants, 64%.
Asian immigrants, 76%.
And other immigrants, 69%.
That's a lot.
I mean, 52% to 69%, that in politics is a lot of numbers.
And why does America even have Obamacare?
Well, the deciding vote for Obamacare was put in by Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota.
Now, he won.
I'm trying to think of how many quotes I should put around that word won.
He, quote, won the election in 2008 with 312 votes.
And 400 felons voted for him, and they should have been disqualified, but anyway.
So votes cast by.65% of Minnesota non-citizens could have accounted for this margin.
There were 95,000 illegal immigrants in Minnesota at that point.
Non-citizen votes were almost certain to have given Senator Al Franken his position, and that's what was needed to overcome the filibuster's two-path health care reform.
In the 11th Congress.
So when people say, well, I'm a little skeptical of illegal immigration, it's not just because they have a hatred and fear of people who have slightly different cooking smells coming from their kitchens.
It's because their health care costs have gone through the roof and their provider has gone bankrupt and they can't get the doctor that they've had for 20 years anymore.
That's kind of visceral and that Almost certainly came about as a result of the number of illegal immigrants, aliens in Minnesota.
Let's look at support for President Obama's unbelievably failed stimulus package.
Well, native-born Americans favored it 57%, all immigrants 66%, Hispanics 63%, Asians 69%, other immigrants 67%, so almost 10 percentage points.
That is a considerable increase.
See, if all of these columns were the same, nobody would care about diversity, and nobody would have any particular views of other ethnicities or other groups that were either positive or negative, other than, you know, purely aesthetic preferences or perhaps some racism or xenophobia.
But these columns are not the same.
And that's why people have concerns.
You can't wish away these disparities.
You can pretend that they're not there, but that's just being an idiot, right?
So these are disparities.
And these disparities, generally, as we talk about further along in this presentation, point to bigger government.
Do you have a positive view of capitalism?
Whites, 55%.
Blacks, 41%.
Hispanics, oh dear, 32%.
General public, 50%.
Liberal Democrats, 46%.
Conservative Republicans have a 66% positive view of capitalism.
Ideally, of course, free trade and so on.
People confuse it with the mercantilist capitalism or crony capitalism or casino capitalism that goes on now.
Do you have a negative view of capitalism?
Whites, 35%.
Blacks, 51%.
Hispanics, 55%.
20% more than whites.
So if you want a free market and you're white, an influx of Hispanics, I don't know how to put this as nicely as possible, it's not going to help you achieve your goal.
Sorry.
It's just not going to help you.
It doesn't mean there aren't wonderful free market Hispanics out there.
Of course there are.
Wonderful free market blacks out there.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
So what?
They're a very tall Chinese people.
It doesn't mean that you want a basketball team composed of Chinese people on average, right?
So yes, if you want a free market, if you want more free trade, if you want smaller government, a lot of Hispanics coming into your environment and voting, legally or not, is going to push you in the wrong direction.
That's the concern that people have.
Liberal Democrats have a negative view of capitalism.
47% conservative Republicans who don't seem to understand what conservative republicanism means have a 29% negative view of capitalism.
Do you have a positive view of socialism?
Whites, 24%.
Blacks, 55%.
Hispanics, 44%.
General public, 31%.
Liberal Democrats, 59%.
Conservative Republicans, 6%.
So again...
If you don't want socialism, if you want to keep the money that you earned, if you want economic opportunities, if you don't want massive licensing, if you don't want government control of the means of production, if you want a relatively free life economically, well, okay, for whites looking at Hispanics coming in or even looking at the black community, they're not going to help you in the achievement of a free market system.
So again, that's where people are coming from.
Like it or not, these are the facts.
Do you have a negative view of socialism?
No.
Whites, 68% don't like socialism.
It doesn't come out of the European classical liberal tradition.
It's very much in opposition to it.
Blacks, 36%.
Hispanics, 49%.
General Republic, 60%.
Liberal Democrats, 33%.
Conservative Republicans have a 90% negative view of socialism.
Do you want a larger government or do you want a smaller government?
Well...
Data for, just before we get into this, data for the number of blacks who want a smaller government is unavailable.
70% of blacks in America say that they want bigger government and more services because, you know, blacks have been so well treated by the government throughout U.S. history, I could see why they'd want more.
So foreign-born Hispanics want a larger government in higher rates even than blacks.
So the general public, do you want a larger government?
41% say they want it larger, 48% say smaller.
Among whites, only 37% of single mothers, sorry, I mean white people as a whole, want larger government.
52% want a smaller government because they're married.
55% of Asians want a larger government.
36% want a smaller government.
Native-born Hispanics, 66% want a larger government.
Only 28% want a smaller government.
Foreign-born Hispanics, are you ready?
Hold on to your sombrero.
81% of foreign-born Hispanics want a larger government.
And 12% of them want a smaller government.
So...
If you feel that the giant welfare, warfare, military, industrial, prison, industrial nightmare complex of U.S. hegemony is a little bit too big, if you look at the American flag and see a slowly flapping death star, well, having a lot of immigrants coming in, particularly from Mexico, is not going to help you shrink the size and power of the state.
And that is the concern.
A lot of people feel that the republic lost its way, particularly in the 1960s and the introduction of the welfare state and all these other kinds of things.
That America's kind of lost its way, it's lost its roots, needs to get back to a smaller government, but between these patriots and a smaller government is a massive series of lines of people who don't look exactly like them and want the exact opposite thing.
So, that's where some of these concerns are coming from.
Only 49% of Americans identify as Democrat, or say they lean Democrat.
For Hispanics, 66% identify or lean Democrat.
And let's look at this.
So, 41%, as we said, general public wants larger government, 48% wants smaller government.
Among all Hispanics, 75% want larger government.
19% want smaller government.
First generation Hispanics 81 to 12.
Second generation Hispanics 72 want a larger government.
22% want a smaller government.
Third generation Hispanics 58% want a larger government.
36% want a smaller government.
So you can see there's a little bit of divergence.
But if we put these generations, I don't know, conservatively, they're Catholics a lot.
So let's put it at 25 years for a generation.
So the very best case scenario is that after 100 years, the Hispanic beliefs will approximate the native-born population belief about the size and role of government.
But how much damage is going to be done over that time to the freedoms that a lot of the white Americans hold dear, that their ancestors fought to secure from the British crown and so on?
Voters who want big governments can do a lot of damage to small government advocates over 100 years if this even closes off.
Now, what's interesting is that for Hispanics, 66% identify or lean Democrat.
But the Democratic Party affiliation is actually stronger with second-generation immigrants than with first-generation immigrants, perhaps because they get better organized or they can more participate because maybe they learn English or something.
So that's not...
Republicans shouldn't be holding out for the second generation to swing their way.
All right.
Political Party Preferences.
Among the general public, 39% are Republican or lean Republican.
49% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
How does this work for Hispanics?
Well, among all Hispanics, 18% lean Republican.
66% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
Among first-generation Hispanics, it's 16% Republican and 63% Democrat.
Second-generation Hispanics, 19% Republican and 71% Democrat.
So what does this mean in practical terms?
Well, if the Hispanic proportion of the electorate had not grown since 1980, Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 election, even if there wasn't a single non-white person who had voted for him.
Romney won 59% of the white vote, and if Hispanics were still 2% of the electorate, as they were in 1980, whites would be 85% of the electorate, which means the white vote alone would have given Romney 50.15% of the vote as a whole.
If we add on Romney's share of the Hispanic and black vote, that number rises to a little over 51% of the vote.
Now, if we take America's current demographic makeup and send it backwards through time in a DeLorean, if we take the current racial demographics or ethnic demographics within the United States, we put it back in time, the Republicans would only have won one presidential election over the past 27 years.
Thus, the racial demographics of the American population have been so radically altered that it is having profound effects upon American elections.
And this is why the Republicans have some concerns about immigration.
And this is why the Democrats want immigration.
It is kind of like cheating.
The way that you should win in a political race is you should put forward the best arguments and you should have the best data and you should have the best speakers and the best hair and the whitest teeth and the tallest person and whatever.
But you shouldn't just be importing people who vote for you because they don't really know much about the history of the country.
That's cheating.
That's stacking the deck.
Let's look at Hispanic voting patterns.
Exit poll data going all the way back to 1972 when I was a wee bern of six years old shows that Hispanics have voted for Democrats in every single presidential election of the last 43 years.
So...
So, yeah, Democrats are going to open their arms to Hispanics in the same way that farmers like to open their arms to free livestock.
Not because they care particularly about Hispanics, they just like power and Hispanics tend to vote for them.
A study done by the Center for Immigration Studies, which combined data on the U.S.'s 100 largest counties from nine elections, found that even after controlling for median income in the percent of the country that was black, a one-point increase in the proportion of found that even after controlling for median income in the percent of the country that was black, a one-point increase in the proportion of a county that was immigrant was associated with an average of 0.59 Immigrants go up, Republican support goes down.
So the Republican Party, like it or not, agree with them or not, the Republican Party, in opposing...
Third world immigration, Hispanic immigration in particular, the Republican Party is fighting for its very existence.
Now, you may want them to go away, but they don't want themselves to go away.
And so by putting Trump front and center, and it's ridiculous that it has taken this long.
I guess this is how much the fear of being called a racist has conditioned American politics and the slow, multi-decade seppuku of the Republican Party.
But the Republicans are opposing it because...
This wave of immigration will destroy the Republican Party completely.
It will render it obsolete in politics.
And the fact that it took an outsider is pretty wretched.
All right.
Moving on.
So who self-identifies as libertarian?
Now, for those who don't know, libertarian is very small government, the kind of government you can drown in a bathtub.
And that is sometimes called the night watchman state.
It's a government that deals with the police, the military, the law courts, maybe the prisons.
And it's just there to adjudicate disputes.
It's a free market protection government that enforces contracts and property rights.
But it's an umpire that doesn't play.
So it doesn't pick winners.
It doesn't impose tariffs to benefit certain corporations.
It can't give massive contracts to corporations.
And it's a really, really tiny government.
And that really was the original idea behind the American Republic.
So that's what libertarian means just for those who are outside the knowledge field.
So, some libertarians have been out there saying, well, you know, Hispanics are super libertarian.
And so, if we're importing Hispanics, we're importing a whole bunch of libertarians.
And that's a lot easier than talking to my neighbor and having him spit his government union coffee in my face.
Well, what's their data?
Okay, well, they say, well, white people self-identify as libertarians, 12%.
Blacks, 3%.
2% if you take out Tom Sowell.
And Hispanics...
Self-identify as libertarians at 11%.
So, of course, they're saying, well, we're bringing in a whole bunch of libertarians.
Of course, if you can't expand libertarianism within white people, I don't know how you'll be able to do it within Hispanic people when there are cultural and language barriers, but that's a topic for another time.
So libertarians are saying, oh, lots of Hispanics means more libertarians.
However, on the self-description question, 14% of Americans said they were libertarian, but only 11% said that they were libertarian and knew the correct definition of the term.
I'll give you a hint.
It doesn't involve the idea that libraries should be free.
So, to those who are celebrating the massive libertarian bent within the Hispanic population, you're only fooling yourselves.
And going against the entire history of the Hispanic culture, which has not been rife with small free market libertarian intellectuals.
Although they're there, I gave a wonderful speech in Sao Paulo, Brazil, sponsored by libertarians, which you can check out as well.
So, instead of saying to people, do you count yourself as a libertarian, they actually asked a bunch of questions designed to tease out what your actual values and perspectives were.
You can see here that among all Americans, 7% were libertarian, 15% lean towards libertarianism, 54% are mixed, 17% lean communalist or generally collectivist, and 7% are communalist.
Among whites, 10% libertarian, 19% leaning libertarian, so almost a third of whites are really into smaller government, 54% mixed, 14% lean communalist, and 4% are communalist.
If you want to know all of the breakdowns, we'll of course link the...
Study below.
Among Hispanics, we couldn't wedge the number in there.
It's not a big number.
No E plus signs.
Among Hispanics, 1% are libertarian.
Not when they're asked if they are libertarian, when they're actually asked about policies and libertarianism is sussed out from that.
11% lean libertarian.
So whites, 29%.
Hispanics, 12%.
So, you know, a little more than a third.
That is not importing a whole bunch of libertarians.
If you look at lean communalist or are communalist, right?
37% for Hispanics and 18% for whites.
So, that's not great either.
And you can see blacks at the bottom.
So, yeah, only 1% of those Hispanics surveyed were libertarian according to the scale.
And that's great.
The report states, quote, nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites.
94% and more than 8 in 10 libertarian leaners are also non-Hispanic whites.
Now, this shouldn't be that complicated for libertarians.
Listen, I have gone to many, many libertarian conferences to give speeches and so on.
You can rely on one taken out of context survey, or you can go to a libertarian conference and do this.
Do this.
You can do this 360.
You see?
You can just look around the room.
Do you see a lot of Hispanics or Blacks at libertarian conferences?
No.
Not really.
Estimates range from pasty white basement dwellers to relatively well-tanned hippies, but it's all fairly non-dance enabled.
So, the idea that you can import a bunch of libertarian Hispanics, I don't think so.
It's like saying, I don't think I'm going to go to the pet store to buy a tarantula, I'm just going to go import a bunch of bananas.
In a recent America value survey, whites were far more likely than either blacks or Hispanics to have libertarian or libertarian-leaning beliefs.
So 29% for whites, 6% for blacks, 12% for Hispanics, 22% for all Americans.
So again, if you want smaller government, if you want more personal responsibility, localized decision-making, if you want an end to American imperialism, if you want an end to the war on drugs, if you want to give parents more choice about how their children get educated, if you want a smaller government, if you want the original America, hey, now with no slavery!
Well, then you are not going to be big fans of these people coming into the country, whether you like it or not.
The voting patterns are unmistakable.
And again, don't have to agree.
Don't have to disagree.
You might want a government the size of Kim Kardashian's ass when she's pregnant.
But the reality is, if you don't want these things, that's where some of the reservations, so to speak, are coming from.
That's the Freedom Club.
Libertarian voters.
Man, it takes a lot for libertarians to ignore these basic facts.
Proportion of all voters, 75%.
Proportion of libertarian voters, 85%.
These are the tighty-whities, right?
White people are 85% of libertarian voters.
Blacks are 3%.
Hispanics are 3%.
5%.
And so, more whites tend towards libertarianism than all voters, far fewer blacks and fewer Hispanics.
So, if you feel that the American government is a giant Leviathan behemoth that is currently crushing the life out of the krill-like remaining freedoms at the bottom of the seabed of liberty, then you can at least understand why people have reservations about all of this.
So, Thank you for your patience.
Let's sum up.
I don't mean to shock you.
I'm trying not to shock you, but if you love freedom, you're going to like people who also love freedom, political freedom, economic freedom.
You know, if you're only into classical music, peace and quiet, and let's say vaguely breathable air, you're probably not going to invite the entire Wu-Tang Clan in to be your roommates because you're not going to get those things.
Look, even if we take the most wildly optimistic estimates, it takes about a hundred years, a full century, to integrate different ethnicities into a mainstream culture.
And there's actually very good evidence that they're never going to assimilate, that they don't assimilate at all.
A quarter of Mexico now lives in America.
And that's a lot.
Look...
I'll give you a thought experiment.
One Mexican person moves to Japan.
Is it still kind of Japanese?
Why, yes, it is.
Now, if all of Mexico moves to Japan, and all of Japan moves to Mexico, not only would you end up with some really weird sushi, but...
Japan would not be Japanese anymore.
It would be all Mexican.
It would be Mexico on an island.
We all understand that, right?
If you replace the entire population, you get the culture that replaces it.
Now, you can, of course, integrate, but it takes time.
And when you've had a wave of immigration, you need a break in immigration so that people can adjust to the dominant culture.
Otherwise, what happens is you create these kind of like cysts.
Which is communities that are inward-facing, that all deal with themselves, and deal amongst themselves, and don't integrate into the mainstream culture.
In Russia, during the 18th, 19th, 30th, 20th century, a bunch of Germans came over.
And they were traders, and some of them are bureaucrats, and so on.
But for the vast majority of them, they never even bothered to learn Russia.
They were there for over 100 years, and then when the revolution happened in the early part of the 20th century, they all went back.
To Germany.
And large influxes, particularly of disparate ethnicities and races, don't tend to assimilate.
Now, here's the challenge.
Everyone's complaining about growing wealth disparity in the United States.
But at the same time, they want more immigration from relatively low IQ third world peasant cultures.
You can't have both.
At a time when intelligence is being more richly rewarded in the world economy, at a time when more intelligence means more wealth, and the world is getting more complex, and business is getting more complex, and the nuance of language is becoming more complex, it really doesn't make any sense to import these...
Low IQ, illiterate to English, third world peasant culture people.
It is brutal for the domestic population.
They do compete for low income jobs.
This does harm disadvantaged groups in the United States, notably blacks.
Education becomes hugely complex.
What benefit is it to the native population who speaks English when a bunch of people come in who don't speak English, who then have to be integrated into the school system, drawing resources away from their own children, Which means that their own children get an inferior education.
And if you see the amount of immigration that's occurring into the United States, it goes fairly lockstep with a decline in the quality of education in the United States to the point where the United States is finding it impossible to compete on a world stage.
It's not just bad policies that are driving jobs overseas.
It's lack of quality education that is happening because you need 6 million interpreters for 4,000 different tribes all coming into your environment.
Or you have to hire a whole bunch of new teachers who don't have the experience to teach well and effectively.
And you have kids trying to mix in different cultures where there's a lot of friction and hostility.
But good Lord, the Protestants and Catholics have been centuries trying to live with each other in Northern Ireland, and they're as alike as one rock in another.
It's not brown versus white.
It's not black versus white.
It's not white versus anything.
It's freedom versus collectivism.
It's individualism versus statism.
It's small government versus big government.
It's not the fault of white people or anyone that ethnicities tend to act and believe and do things in a collective way.
It's not my fault.
It's not your fault.
These are just the facts.
Once all these charts are the same, once ethnicities act the same, then the only thing that would be left over if somebody has a negative or hostile view towards an ethnicity would be racism and xenophobia.
I completely agree with that.
But that's not the way it is at the moment.
And it's not the way it's going to stay for the foreseeable future.
Certainly in your or my lifetime, these graphs are still going to be different.
So if you're into small government, if you feel that America has lost its way and stumbled into a semi-fascistic nightmare of pseudo-world domination, destruction at home, if you're concerned about the fact that the American tax code is ridiculously complex, that people commit on average three felonies a day and don't even know it, if you're concerned that the police corruption and police powers are way out of hand, if you're concerned that the NSA is looking up your ass every time you fart, if you're concerned about the wild expansion...
of government powers that have occurred over the last 50 or so years, and if you want to push that tide back, you're gonna need a lot of people on your side who also agree that government is way too big, needs to be reined in, needs to be pushed back, needs to be put back down into a tinier box.
And to push back the tsunami of expanding state power, you need a lot of linked arms.
You need a lot of teamwork, you need a lot of voting power, and you need consistency in a commitment to the Freedom Club and a recognition that the government is way too big, is way too powerful, and a government that has more per capita population in prisons than China does, which is kind of a communist totalitarian dictatorship-ish kind of place.
If you feel the government is way too big, you've got to link arms with people, you've got to push back, reduce the size and power of the state, which is a brutal battle.
Reducing the size and power of the state without an outright civil war or foreign invasion, Or interstellar invasion from people who want to eat the brains of liberals but will still leave hungry.
You need to link arms with like-minded people and commit to really pushing back the size and power of the state in a peaceful, democratic, electoral fashion.
That's the reality.
And that's what people who want small government are facing.
Libertarians and Republicans.
And even, to be fair, those on the left, those Democrats who wish for more social freedoms, even though they're not so keen on economic freedoms.
And so...
When you look around, if you are a white person and you look around at the people who are gung-ho for small government, well, it's mostly white people.
And if you look at the people who are gung-ho for bigger government, who are part of the tsunami that's coming to wash away your freedoms, well, it's mostly non-white people.
Now, you may call that racism, you may call that xenophobia, but you're wrong.
You're wrong.
Does that mean there's none of that in there?
I don't care, because the facts say that they're not wrong.
The people who want smaller government are not statistically wrong to be skeptical of third world immigration, because third world immigration straps a jetpack to the ascending power of the state.
The people who are coming in from foreign cultures, who aren't part of the Freedom Club, who don't have the 2,500 years of developing freedom, individualism, reason, all the stuff that goes into making a free society, Those people are part of the giant wave that is selling off the futures of the country.
And people look and say, look, if you have kids and you're white, I know there's not many of us, but if you have kids and you're white, then what's going to happen is this.
You are going to look at a whole bunch of people coming across the border and you're going to look at your kids.
And you're going to say, if those people come in, your future is screwed.
If those people come in, You are going to end up being sold off for body parts to Chinese banksters and you will never see the light of day.
You will be chained in an underground economic dungeon of perpetual debt enslavement from now until the end of time.
And that's the choice.
Statistically and in reality, that is the choice.
A whole bunch of people can come in at the expense of your children's future.
Or you can say...
Slow down, everybody.
Let's think this through.
Let's have a debate.
Let's have a conversation.
Let's have facts.
And let's rise above this stupid, idiotic screaming of racism at everyone that's just insane and it's stupid.
I mean, whoever screams racism is the racist.
I mean, unless you're directly talking to Adolf Hitler or somebody with a giant, pointy, Casper-style hat on their heads, you are the racist.
If you scream racism at people without directing, What kind of country do Americans want to live in?
Do they want to live in a country that's relatively economically free, that has some adherence to the principles of its founding?
Or do they want to live in a third world peasant culture with massive corruption, huge government spending, and never-ending decay of social and political services?
That is the choice.
Statistically, that's what people are facing.
And if you've had instincts about this, I hope we've provided data for you.
If you have hostility towards this, please tell us where our data is incorrect or go away.
Because don't argue with me.
You're going to deal with the data.
If the data is wrong, hey, we'll fix the presentation and apologize profusely.
But it's not wrong.
Let's have a discussion about this.
Let it not just happen to people.
The 1965 Act that changed the fundamental demographics of the United States and is one of the great things that fuels income disparities and blights in neighborhoods and huge ethnic and social problems and declining standards in education.
All of this came about without anyone having any kind of real discussion about it.
But now it's time to have a discussion.
And yes, I'm talking to you too, Europe.
Because this applies to you as well.
More so, and in more fundamental ways, even than it happens in America at the moment.
Because you've got a tide coming in too.
Kind of from the South.
So, we need to have a discussion based on facts.
We need to stay away from polemic.
We need to stay away from screams of Hitler-Nazi xenophobic racism.
Ha ha ha.
Facts, data, consideration, reason, evidence, and a decision about what kind of world we want our children to grow up in.
I appreciate you watching so much.
I look forward to your feedback below.
Please like, subscribe, share this presentation.
This is designed to help cool the rhetoric and bring the facts to bear on the situation.
And by the way, this is a show supported by you.
As you've noticed, no ads on the YouTube channel because we really want to be focused on you.
Please, please, please, if you enjoyed this presentation, if you find this information valuable, help a brother out, I dare say, please.
Please go to freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
