3773 President Trump’s Raise Act Immigration Reform | True News
President Donald Trump with U.S. Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue recently announced the “Reforming American Immigration for Strong Economy” (RAISE) Act - which seeks commonsense immigration reform which primarily benefits the American people over prospective immigrants.Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
Looks like the mother of all bombs has been dropped by the Trump administration on the immigration debate.
And the act is called the RAISE Act, Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act.
And it has some really astounding proposals given the sort of post-Immigration Act of 1965 immigration pattern of endless waves of low-skilled workers coming in from the Third World pouring into America and either ending up competing with low-skilled American workers for jobs or ending up on welfare and thus Destroying the economy of the country through massive amounts of stimulus spending.
Now, this is a battle between the workers and the capitalists, to use some familiar nomenclature.
And it used to be, so once upon a time, Way back in the day, my children, once upon a time.
The Democrats used to be left-leaning and therefore pro-workers against employers, pro-workers against capitalists.
Now, the captains of industry at the moment, this is not capitalism, but crapitalism, which is crony capitalism, which is where capitalists or those who own the means of production use the power of the state To keep competition at bay, to encourage licensing of everyone, like a third of American workers now need licenses from the government to ply their trade.
Ooh, but it's such a free market, everyone.
And they also use it to make sure, through the power of the state, that they're in the dominant position when it comes to bargaining.
So, what's been happening since 1965, for like 50 odd years, is that all of these low-rent, low-wage, low-skilled workers been pouring in from the Third World into America, thus harming the most economically vulnerable.
In other words, those who, because of crappy government education, have resulted, have grown up with very little to offer an employer.
I can barely read, can barely write, and very little discipline.
And maybe they've come from welfare families, like 20% of Americans, Families, not one person is working and it doesn't take long for those job skills to be lost intergenerationally.
So when you have low-skilled workers in America competing with low-skilled immigrants coming in from the third world, it drives down their wages, right?
Oversupply drives down wages.
Now the capitalists love this, the capitalists, because That way they're in a dominant position when it comes to negotiations, right?
It's like, oh, if I'm not going to hire you, I'm going to hire Abdullah from Somalia, and therefore you can't ask for much.
What this does is it harms the poorest.
In America, it harms in particular black communities and Hispanic communities and other communities that are struggling economically.
I'm not going to say minorities because that puts in, you know, East Asians, the Orientals, Ashkenazi Jews, they're all minorities.
But because they've got very high IQ, very good cultures for work ethics and so on, they end up doing economically better even than whites in, quote, white.
So, this is what the act means by saying I'm going to spur economic growth, help raise working Americans' wages, because it is really desperately terrible in those communities when you have this immigration pouring in.
And I think it's fascinating and really, really fascinating other things that are well worth unpacking here.
I'll try to go through this fairly rapidly, but it's really, really important stuff to have and to understand.
So, One of the things that the proposed Raised Act is going to do is establish a skills-based points system.
So right now in America, there's a permanent employment visa system and it's going to be replaced with a skills-based points system.
Now, one can almost hear the cry of the leftist who wishes to mate with the state.
It's going to be racist, racist, racist.
Well, let me tell you something, my friends.
If you have the impulse to cry racism when we're talking about a skills-based immigration system into America, I have one question for you.
Have you ever described Canada and Australia or Canadian and Australian immigration systems as racist?
Why not? This points-based system is exactly what has been in place in Canada and Australia for many, many years.
So you can't just suddenly scream racism if you've not been fighting hard against your supposed racist description of the Canadian and Australian immigration system.
Come on. Everybody knows.
Racism just means, well, we want to import people who are going to vote for the left.
I get it, right? A racist.
What's a racist? Who's a racist?
Anybody who's won an argument with the leftist is a racist.
We all know that, how that works.
And it's interesting too, because if you're going to say that requiring skilled and intelligent and educated immigrants is racist, are you saying that other races can't be skilled and educated and valuable to the economy?
That seems kind of racist to me, if that is your perspective.
Can other races or cultures or ethnicities not meet these criteria of being skilled?
Why not? Because it's funny, you know, when everybody screams racism at this stuff, here's the argument put forward.
We want smart people.
Now, if the leftists are really upset, why?
Why? We want smart people coming into America.
That's terrible! Because if you only want smart people, that's going to discriminate against supporters of Democrats.
Future supporters of Democrats can't be smart.
We have to bring in the less smart people so they'll vote Democrat.
I think that may be a little bit obvious even for the left.
So yeah, the system, this proposed system is going to prioritize immigrants who are the best position to succeed in the United States to help grow the economy such as it is at the moment.
So you're going to get points if you want to come to America based on things like your education.
Can you speak English?
Can you get a high paying job?
Do you have a high paying job offer?
Are you not 80?
80 and about to contribute massive amounts of money and value and talent and skill to the American economy.
Do you have a record of extraordinary achievement?
Have you been a capitalist in a modern academic setting?
Do you have a history of entrepreneurial initiative?
Basically, America is the hot woman, the selective hirer who can comb through resumes and pick and choose the best.
Now, the English language ability, of course, everyone's going to scream racism, despite the fact that, as Mark Stein has recently pointed out, there are 60 countries Which have English as their official language.
So the idea that it's just going to be sunlight-challenged pasties from England is not realistic, not factual.
But of course, why let facts get in the way of a good rescreen?
And the other thing too, prioritizing English makes it fair for people who are Americans, who are domestic Americans, To compete in the job market, like if you allow a bunch of people to come in and you end up with a Spanish-speaking enclave.
Let's just pretend that could happen.
You end up with a Spanish-speaking enclave in America, well then what happens is if you want to get a job at McDonald's and you don't speak Spanish, you're not going to get that job.
So if you allow lots of people pouring in who don't speak English, it puts the native population, the American population, at a huge disadvantage for getting work.
Which just stokes the fire of ethnic resentment and hostility and I mean it's just it's bad and why bother?
Because Like, freedom is written in English in general, for the most part, right?
I mean, there's some exceptions. There's some French and so on.
One book in German.
But for the most part, sort of separation of church and state, free market, free economy, all this kind of stuff, equal rights, that's all English in English.
And I'm sure, you know, you can translate it and so on.
But in general, that is the language of freedom.
So it's not ridiculous to ask.
And the other thing, too, when French became the second official language in Canada, what happened was you had to speak French to succeed in public life.
Particularly at the higher levels.
And so what it did was it just put a huge advantage in the laps of people who grew up in Quebec, the French-speaking province, which meant that people in Quebec dominated Canadian politics, which provoked a huge amount of resentment and caused massive amounts of problems from Pierre Elliott Trudeau onwards.
Maybe there might be another Trudeau in the mix.
I can't quite recall at the moment.
Now, the other thing that's important in the Rays Act is this chain migration, chain migration, chain migration.
You know, like if you meet a girl, she's a great girl, you want to marry her, and then she says, okay, you can marry me, but we're going to live in the house with 300 of my closest relatives.
You might be like, well, you know, I can choose you.
I'm not so sure that I particularly want to, you know, rub face to belly with creepy Uncle Charlie as well, right?
So this idea that America's going to choose...
Immigrants, but not everyone that their DNA has ever touched over the past 100,000 years, is important.
So it's going to retain immigration preferences for the spouses and minor children of US citizens, legal permanent residents, but not extended, extended, extended family members.
Because, I mean, this happens, right?
And the grandfather gets ill and, oh, well, let's bring him in and then let's put him on the semi-socialized or, in most countries, socialized healthcare system.
And I've got to tell you, you know, compassion and all being important, but, you know, if I'm at a hospital and I see, you know, a bunch of elderly foreigners who can't speak English lining up for expensive treatments, I do think that that's a little bit less money that I have for my child's education.
You know, just theoretically does not create a huge amount of warm and fuzzy, so...
Now, the diversity visa lottery, I mean, fraud, corruption, it doesn't really advance any economic or humanitarian goals or interests.
And it doesn't even, in fact, promote diversity for reasons that you can look into on your own.
So there are 50,000 visas that are kind of randomly allocated to this random lottery, and that's going to be eliminated.
I don't know, just randomness.
What are you just going to, you know, you put your Tinder on random spin and then just marry whoever it lands on.
Hey, guy with forehead tattoo, let's go make a family.
That's not the way that we, I think, that sensible people want to run any kind of immigration policy.
Now, refugees. Huge problem with refugees.
I mean, you name it, there are problems with refugees.
But there's going to be a limit on permanent residency for refugees.
So it's going to be capped at 50,000 a year.
Remember, this is all just proposed, right?
I mean, if you want this to go through, get out there and talk to people and make some waves.
So 50,000 a year, that's been about the 13-year average for the United States.
But here's the... I mean, first of all, who knows who is a refugee?
Who knows who... I mean, America, as most countries, have lost, I don't even know how many passports or other official documents that are easily forged and so on.
So who knows? Oh, I lost my paperwork, but I'm a refugee.
What are you supposed to do? I mean, 1%, sometimes even less, but hovering around 1% of the people pouring into Italy are actual refugees.
And it just creates this mess.
And this is immigration as a whole, right?
It's immigration. You need smart people to run a country, right?
If you look at some place like Venezuela, what happened in Venezuela?
Well, they fell prey to the, you know, Lucy with a football, fall on your back crap of socialism.
This time, it's going to be real socialism and it's going to work beautifully.
So they all voted for socialism.
And socialism is thinly disguised class hatred against the successful.
That's all. They don't love the poor.
Socialists don't love the poor. They just hate the rich.
They just hate the successful. They hate the independent.
They hate the competent. And so what happens is the promised benefits to the poor materialize very briefly, but what happens is you attempt to turn the rich, the successful, the wealthy into, you know, tie them to the train tracks of democratic popular resentment and sentiments and open up their jugulars to all of the vampire bats of the masses to land on them and bleed them out of all of their carotid arteries and jugular veins.
So, smart people with options and possibilities in education and mobility don't like being fenced in with the barbed wire of popular sentiments and turned into a form of taxed livestock to be fed upon in a decaying way by the body politics, so they flee.
And then the productive people flee, they go galt one way or another, and then all of the promised material benefits to the poor fail to materialize, and the poor realize what life is like without the Pareto Principle Operating in your economy.
Pareto principle, of course, is that the square root of the workers produces half the value.
You've got 10,000 people in a company, a hundred of them are producing half the value.
And that's why they get paid so much.
And if you eliminate that extension of pay, if you eliminate those incentives and those hundred people stop working or leave, half your productivity is gone.
Right? But almost all of your payroll remains, and this is the death spiral of countries.
So when you scoop up the smart people from another country, what that means is that you may get some benefit, although with regression to the mean, those intellectual benefits may not last by second or third generations, as we can see with Hispanics.
What happens is you may get some economic benefit, but the host country loses smart people.
Which means there are no smart people left to run their businesses, to run their governments, to promote good values and so on.
Smart people in general tend to be more moral.
Why? Because morality is all about the deferral of gratification.
And intelligence is developed as a byproduct, I believe, of the need to defer gratification, particularly in cold climates where you can't eat your seed crop no matter how hungry you get in February when it's frozen outside.
So you take the smart people and you condemn the host country, the country the smart people are coming from, to decay and problems.
And it's just horrendous.
It's wretched. Wretched.
So then what happens? You take the 5% of the smartest people out of the country, the country's productivity drops 25%, 40%, 50%.
So then the next 5% smartest people want to get out and want to get to your country and then you understand.
It's the kind of thing where you take some and the line gets longer.
You take some and the flood gets bigger.
You can't solve the problem of immigration.
If you choose smart people, then you're going to get more and more people who want to follow the smart people.
If you don't choose smart people, well, you just end up with deadweights and welfare and dependency and left voting in your economy.
If you want to understand how the world works, it's very, very simple.
You ever do this experiment when you're a kid?
You've got a piece of paper and you've got some iron filings on top and you've got a magnet on the bottom.
And you move the magnet around and you know what happens to the iron filings.
They trail after the magnet because that's where their nature is to go.
So, that's smart people, right?
Smart people are the magnets moving under the paper and the iron filings are the less smart people who follow them.
Where are the smart people at?
Where are the smart people?
I want to go to where the smart people are.
Of course, right? Because smart people create good, productive, functional, non-corrupt societies.
And so wherever the smart people go, the less smart people are going to follow.
So taking smart people for your economy, well, let's just say I have scooped up a little bit of the ocean and now I have a tsunami higher than the moon about to swamp me.
So that's just the way that works.
So, the idea that you're going to get skills-based visas with better educated, more skilled people who speak English and who have like their prime working age years ahead of them rather than deep in the cracking baby boomer rear view, entrepreneurial histories, good resumes, come on. That's how people succeed in a free market.
Free market is a giant IQ test.
It's a giant IQ sorter.
And the smarter people are, the more likely they're going to do better in a free market economy.
So, But most importantly, right, the left used to love, and at least in their language, they used to love and say, we're there for the poor, we want to help the poor, we want to help the working classes.
Well, right now, what they're doing is helping the capitalist classes, right?
They're helping the crony capitalists by promoting all of this immigration.
It destroys wages for blacks, for Hispanics, for other low-skilled populations.
It's just brutal and it's just terrible.
And so the idea that they care about the poor, they care about the working class is ridiculous.
So what's actually going to happen?
Well, of course, some people have been talking about a real moratorium on immigration.
And this has happened in the past in America.
It's a pendulum.
Big, large lumps of immigration happen in America.
And then there are pauses, right?
Just as you eat a big meal and then you stop eating for a while so you can digest, right?
Give immigrants a chance to assimilate.
You stop or put a pause in immigration.
It happened from the 1920s up until 1965.
It's happened before.
And that happened when it was almost exclusively European immigration, white immigration, This idea, well, multi-ethnic, multi-rational, multicultural, it's all just somehow going to work together.
Well, there's no example in history of it working together.
It was pretty common in the late Roman Empire.
So the idea of whether it's going to work or not.
So this is not a pause on immigration.
It's not even a massive lowering of immigration.
I mean, it's a massive lowering now, but only because immigration has swelled so much.
So what's going to happen is, according to the models by Princeton and Harvard professors, Immigration gets lowered to 637,960 in the first year.
Now that's a 41% drop, but that's still more than double the immigration that was happening in the 70s.
And by the 10th year, it's just under 540,000 a year.
It's a 50% reduction. It stems the flood of low-skilled immigrants into the U.S. Which means that low-skilled natives have a chance for their wages to go up.
And if their wages go up, welfare becomes less attractive.
If your wages are constantly being depressed by endless waves of low-skilled immigration from the third world, welfare becomes proportionately more attractive.
When welfare becomes more attractive, the family unit cracks and is destroyed, which is one reason why.
Massive amounts of immigration have coincided with the rise in the black community to 75% illegitimacy, 75% of kids being born outside of wedlock because you just make more money on welfare than you do because all of these immigrants are driving down potential wages.
So another thing that happens, and this is one of these things like I couldn't believe it was possible anyway, but it prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare.
Of course. Another reason why the capitalists love immigration is either it's going to drive down wages if the immigrants join the workforce, or if they don't join the workforce, it's going to stimulate demand because the government creates, borrows, or prints a whole bunch of money through the welfare state, pumps it into the hands of new immigrants who then go out and buy a whole lot of crap, a whole load of stuff.
Stimulates demand.
Now, I mean, from a purely pragmatic, numbers-based standpoint, I mean, I hate the ethics, the coercive nature of the welfare state.
Charity is to welfare as lovemaking is to rape.
It is just brutal, the system.
But at a pure sort of numbers game, I can understand the argument where people say, well, I've paid into the welfare state, I've paid into taxes my whole life, I've had some bad thing happen, something's happened, so now I need to dip into welfare while I get back on my feet.
Okay, morality, but at least, but if you've not even paid into the welfare state, you just wander in off the boat and you just start consuming tens and tens of thousands of dollars worth of benefits from hardworking taxpayers, come on.
That raises taxes for everyone, which means that again, you can pay your workers less because the taxes are paid by the productive one way or another.
And if taxes are raised, well, corporate taxes go up, which means there's less money available for wages.
Or if taxes go up, it means that the lower-skilled people get taxed as well through one way or another.
You say, oh, I'm going to tax the rich.
It all flows down to everyone sooner or later.
It's like saying, I'm just going to have a non-peeing side of the swimming pool.
It's like, well, it may contain it for a bit, but trust me, that...
That stuff's gonna get around, so to speak.
I'm gonna have a non-pooping section in the jacuzzi.
Only that corner! Can you have diarrhea in?
Anyway, I think we understand the metaphor and don't need to gross everyone out by continuing.
But it's okay to get that kind of visceral reaction to this kind of nonsense.
So, of course, immigrants come in and start collecting welfare.
It creates resentment, it creates problems, and it's not going to work.
So, the leftists are gonna start screaming bloody murder about this.
I mean, the leftists won't, like the Democrats?
They haven't been this angry since the Republicans took their slaves.
I mean, it's crazy. It is terrible.
Who votes for the left? Poor, Hispanics, blacks, and single moms.
Why? Well, because in general, they're on the receiving end of government welfare, right?
So, of course, Democrats say we're going to take from the rich and give to you.
Well, of course, that's buying votes.
That's corruption. That's bribery.
That's completely unethical. It's complete conflict of interest.
If $50,000 worth of benefits depend upon your vote, can you really vote objectively about taxes and benefits?
Of course not. I mean, it's ridiculous, right?
But here's the thing. You have to look at the Democrats as farmers and blacks, Hispanics, and single moms.
As their livestock. The farmer doesn't buy, you know, 500 head of cattle in order to turn them loose in the wilderness, right?
So the Democrats are not going to fundamentally work to raise opportunities for blacks, Hispanics, and they're certainly not going to do anything that's going to interfere with the production of single moms.
That's why there's a giant welfare state, why they love feminism, single moms, right?
Because if you're a married mom, especially if you have kids, your husband is out there working usually, and so you care about taxes going up because that reduces your husband's income and reduces the amount of money available for you to spend on your family.
But if you're a single mom, taxes go up and, well, benefits go up.
It's a net plus for you.
So the Democrats are not going to do anything to reduce the prevalence of single motherhood, and they're not going to do anything to get blacks and Hispanics out of poverty.
Because if blacks and Hispanics go from receiving government money to paying taxes as a group, they're going to start voting for smaller government and lower benefits, lower taxes, more free market.
You know, the stuff that the Republicans always said they were going to do until Donald Trump came along and said, okay, let's start putting signatures to these promises.
So the way to look at it, the way to sort of understand all of this, because it's going to be a big fight and I hope that you'll get involved on the right side.
Democrats are like drug addicts, and their drug is power, and their dealers are poor blacks, Hispanics, single moms, and so on.
Now, if you're a drug addict, it's two o'clock in the morning on a Sunday, you've got no drugs, and you go over to your dealer's house, you don't have any money, you're going to be really jovial, you're going to pretend to like him, your jokes are so funny, man, but all you want is the drug.
You're just pretending to like that person so you can get the drug.
And it's the same thing. And you don't want your dealer to quit what he's doing if he's your only supplier in a small town.
You desperately don't want your dealer to stop being a dealer in the same way that the left does not want the constituencies dependent on the state.
They don't want them to become free of the state.
Of course not, right? Because then they won't vote for the left.
So that's the important thing to understand.
And And the left has for 50 odd years, they've given up on having the intellectual debate after the mounting failures of socialism, both in terms of national socialism and the USSR and so on, and, you know, Cambodia and Cuba and North Korea and communist state.
As communism became completely discredited as a productive ideology, they just gave up.
They didn't want to give up the drug, they just gave up the methodology of achieving it, right?
So instead of having debates, they just started importing massive waves of people who were going to vote for the left.
Instead of having a debate in a democracy or a republic, they just started cheating.
And now, Donald Trump and his administration are threatening to interfere with the drugs that the Democrats desperately need, which is people who are going to vote for them Because, well, a variety of reasons I've talked about before.
Hispanics, right? 80 plus percent vote for the left.
I mean, if you were importing people who voted for Republicans, of course the left would be completely on the opposite side of the spectrum.
They're going to portray it as some moral thing and a racism thing is going to fly back and forth, but that word is completely losing its power.
It's like bringing up demonic possession at an atheist meeting, right?
So, The right is threatening to cut off the supply of drugs that the left has become dependent on, the drug of power, and so on.
And they're going to go scream bloody murder.
They're going to make horrible accusations.
They're going to slander, lie, manipulate, you know, all the things that addicts do when their supply is cut off.
But here's the important thing to remember.
You know, the blacks in America, they have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and so on.
And so they deserve a break.
And the break that they deserve is for their wages to be raised, for their communities to begin to reform around working and productive families rather than dysfunctional, single-mother, welfare-addicted families, pseudo-families in many ways.
The blacks in America had a rough and they deserve a break.
And the break they deserve is not more government money.
Slavery was a government program.
Another government program is not going to solve the problem.
They need help in the free market.
The problem is, of course, in a democracy is everything short-term thinking.
Now, if you import a bunch of adults, It boosts the economy right away.
If the domestic population has kids, you've got to pay a lot of money.
You know, schools and healthcare and all that.
You've got to pay a lot of money as a society and particularly as a government these days.
You have to pay a lot of money and then what happens is 20 to 25 years later, you get a bunch of taxpayers.
But people who are looking at being re-elected in two to four years, they're not thinking about, well, I'll take all these hits and cost all this money, but don't worry, in 20 to 25 years, some other politician's going to gain the benefit, which is why When you get a democracy where the government can move trillions of dollars around, you end up with immigration and not policies that encourage the local population to have children because immigration boosts the economy immediately, but the local population breeding does cost the economy in the short run while benefiting in the long run.
Again, it's all short-term time preferences in a late-stage decaying democracy.
But the blacks in America had it rough, and they need freedom, they need opportunity, they need their wages raised.
Blacks in Somalia are not directly enslaved in the government program called slavery in America.
Have some decency.
Help the poor. Have some loyalty to the people in your own country.
Do the right thing.
Encourage the right thing.
It's time. The pendulum is swinging.
It's time for that. Slow down in immigration to allow for assimilation and to allow for the most economically vulnerable In America to start getting those rungs out of poverty and into the middle class.
