Sept. 5, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
16:33
3814 The End of DACA - Or Is It?
United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced the phase out of former President Barack Obama's unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order - but what comes next? 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
This is the 2012 Obama Caligula-style decree, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which was an executive order that protected certain illegal aliens to the U.S. who entered the country as children from being deported.
It was a kind of soft amnesty and an attempt to pass some kind of amnesty for kids of illegal immigrants It failed.
And so Obama basically said, well, I want it.
There's a lot of lobbying for it.
So if Congress doesn't give me what I want, then I'm just going to write an executive order.
And so this has been in effect for five years.
and that means people have made decisions and embedded themselves in this executive order and I guess it is of course pretty banana republic style for El Presidente to just say well Congress didn't do what I wanted so I'm just going to do it for myself with edict.
As you know of course the president does not have the authority to pass laws.
So Jeff Sessions of course has announced that DACA is going to be rescinded States are suing the federal government about it, and it is unconstitutional.
There were rumors of a six-month delay in enforcement that hasn't emerged, at least from this speech.
There's some kind of ill-defined transition period, which is kind of weird to me, because if something is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional...
Isn't the delay also blatantly illegal and unconstitutional?
And Trump has said that Congress needs to do its job.
What that is, I don't know.
Does that mean that, well, we have to get rid of DACA because it's unconstitutional, but you need to do your job?
Meaning what? Pass another amnesty?
Pass something similar to DACA that extends things?
I don't know.
I mean, if they do that and the law ends up in his desk, will Trump sign it?
He does have a bit of a weakness of wanting to be perceived as the nice guy and wanting to be popular.
Not uncommon in somebody who's a public figure.
But if he signs it, well, that just means that another wave of illegal immigrants will receive a path to citizenship or some sort of deferral on deportation, which is going to fundamentally change the demographics of the United States.
As we all know, four out of five Hispanics vote for large government.
That means that no small, genuinely small government candidate will ever win the presidency again.
And so you're going to just have to have the wolves in sheep's clothing, the globalists who wallpaper themselves with the road to serfdom, only rhinos.
That is one big concern.
And people are surprised that it came to an end.
But, of course, DACA. It means deferred.
You know, if you defer a payment, it doesn't mean you never have to pay it.
And if you defer deportation, it doesn't mean it's never going to happen.
Now, Congress may attempt to do as they have done a number of times before until their switchboards lit up with angry voters, pass some form of path to citizenship, extension of DACA, some sort of amnesty.
I don't see how that's possible with the midterms coming up, but it would represent a significant betrayal by those in the Republican Party of their voters who have been desperate for control over the borders and a reduction in immigration for decades.
Now, it's weird too when you think about it.
So this terrible, unlawful, unconstitutional act and action was signed into effect by Obama.
Now, he can't claim ignorance of the law.
He was supposed to be some kind of constitutional expert.
What are the negative consequences?
You did something completely unconstitutional.
If I do something against the law, you do something against the law, aren't there consequences?
If a president does something against the law, well, I guess Richard Nixon was right.
It's not illegal if you are the president, at least if you're a president on the left.
Now the goal of course of DACA was to just stuff the ballot box and of course you know if you're illegal you're a child someone you can't vote but there may be extended family who's going to have interest in it if your parents are illegal then they can't vote according to theory I have actually little to no faith in the integrity of the electoral process in the U.S. there's evidence of millions of illegal voting and the pushback from the states Just for the basic idea of verification on the ground,
some sort of, you know, some sort of government issued idea in order to vote.
The pushback is insane from the states just to get some basic verification on the ground.
So that to me means that they are relying to a significant degree on the votes of illegals.
So yeah, there's no punishment for signing an edict that turned out to be illegal and unconstitutional, which is like the worst kind of illegal that there is.
There's no punishment. Keep your emails in your server by your toilet.
No punishment. Globalists don't care about law and order.
They care about power and control.
So, the 800,000 or so people who are covered under this DACA executive order just rescinded.
The argument is, of course, and it's very much a consequentialist argument, but they're really good for the economy, you see.
They're good for the economy. They stimulate demand.
They spend money and so on.
I've got to tell you, the Mexican government is as hungry for income as every other government.
government, if these people were so economically productive that they produced double or triple or five times in taxes than they consumed in services, there already would be a wall.
It would have been built by Mexico to keep such productive tax livestock within the country.
The fact that Mexico lets them cross, the fact that Mexico in the past has published pamphlets, And...
Giving people instructions on how to cross and what to do if they're caught means that I think the Mexican government is very keen to have these people, illegal immigrants as a whole, not in Mexico.
And, of course, we also know that if illegal immigrants voted for Republicans, the Democrats would already have built a wall visible from the moon, but they don't want to stop the flow of potential voters.
So if these people are the lottery ticket of massive economic productivity that some people claim, it seems hard to imagine that Mexico, as far as illegal immigrants as a whole and DREAMers as a subset, would be very keen to let them go.
You don't give away your winning lottery ticket.
You hold on to it. The way, of course, that they're considered to be good for the economy is this weird GDP measure, you know, where if money changes hands, that's a GDP measure, not whether it's actually productive, good for the economy, or good for the future of the country.
If a woman stays home raising her kids Well, that's bad for the economy, you see.
If she dumps her kids in daycare or hires someone to take care of them and goes out to work, well, that's really, really good for the economy.
Divorce is really, really good for the economy.
Bad for the environment, good for the economy, because now you need two houses and cars driving back and forth.
Lots of money gets spent.
If you get cancer, fantastic for the economy.
You spend a lot of money.
Jails, also good for the economy.
And, you know, if you have a serial killer in your town, good for the economy, you see, because lots of overtime for the cops who will then spend that money in the town.
So it's a terrible measure.
All of this illegal immigration, it's good for Democrat votes, it's good for lawyers and special interest groups.
You pay, of course, in general.
So these dreamers, of course, are now largely grown up, and significantly a lot of them have grown up.
So either they're on welfare, in which case that's bad for the economy, or they're taking jobs from Americans, driving down wages, thus making welfare more attractive or disability more attractive than working.
Now, I understand it's not like jobs are just this fixed pie and one person gets a piece and someone else doesn't, but job growth has been so strangled by the hyper-regulation.
of the modern state, and this really happened a lot under Obama.
It's entered into this French-style territory where it's really hard to create jobs, and so Trump is, of course, trying to jumpstart job growth through deregulation, but right now there is, unfortunately, because of government control of the economy, a limit on the number of jobs that can be created, and if other people are taking them, it's driving down wages and reducing the incentive to work for the most vulnerable of Americans.
And it's funny too, because Up until relatively recently, This sort of protection of the working class used to be a cornerstone of the Democratic Party.
Protect the U.S. worker.
They sometimes went too far in terms of protectionism and in terms of union protections, but protecting the U.S. worker was very key.
But now, of course, that third world immigration has swelled the ranks of the Democrat voting base, now they don't care that much about the workers and they're just pandering to immigrants, both legal and illegal, since the 1965 Act.
And so, this is a real mess.
And it's hard to know exactly what's going to happen.
We'll certainly keep on it.
But I will say this, that in general, there's a principle in law, in common law, the fruit of the poisonous tree.
It means if you steal a million dollars from the bank and you give that million dollars to your children, they don't get to keep it.
Right? That the fruits of a crime...
Are tainted by the crime and must be returned to their lawful owner, the fruit of the poisonous tree.
And citizenship, of course, is just another value.
And so the idea, this is true for birthright citizenship and the deferral, I know it's not citizenship, but the deferral under DACA, If stuff is obtained illegally, how can it be transferred and become legal?
That is, to me, a very strange concept.
It doesn't really show up anywhere else except in democratic talking points regarding immigration.
And this whole immigration thing, it's so incomprehensible as a whole.
Phone up embassies around the world and ask how you gain citizenship in other people's countries.
It is a huge lower intestine navigation of a Mobius strip.
It is just crazy.
Blizzards of, you know, Robert De Niro eating paperwork that is required to go get a citizenship in another country.
Except in the West.
Except you can just wander across borders and become, at least get a chance to stay and...
It's nowhere else. I mean, just imagine.
Imagine a bunch of whites. Go down to Mexico, demanding free healthcare, free education, welfare.
They wave their American flags in Mexico, sing the American national anthem all the time.
And if they don't get what they want, when they want it, from the Mexican government, they're going to attack cops, they're going to block traffic, they're going to riot and threaten, and then end up suing the Mexican government.
Can you imagine what the Mexican government would do to such people?
Now, of course, in...
Cuck Planet Fantastico, there is a GOP politician who's making the argument kids should not be guilty for the actions of their parents, they should not be morally responsible for the actions of their parents.
Well, okay, sure.
You don't, like, if you've got some guy who scams a bunch of investors.
The kids shouldn't go to jail, but that doesn't mean that the kids get to keep the proceeds of that crime, work permits or continuation of status in a country.
And the idea kids are not responsible for the moral choices of their parents, well, I guess he's never heard of the national debt or whites being blamed for slavery.
So I want to point out that this is a really heartbreaking and terrible and horrible situation.
It's an ugly mess, which is exactly why it should never have been an executive order in the first place.
So there are people who are going to face real challenges from this.
And I sympathize.
I think it's absolutely terrible.
And they should be angry.
They should be angry at their parents for bringing them to a country illegally, or at least at the time.
They should be mad at Obama for passing this legislation and allowing for a continuation of a fundamentally uncontinuable program.
But the idea you're going to get mad at people who are attempting to restore the rule of law after the late Roman Empire-style rules of Obama, well, if you don't have any rules, you don't have a country, you don't have a culture, you don't really have anything.
And basically the U.S. has no money.
I mean, the fact that Obama's going to say, sure, come on in, there'll be lots of welfare.
You know, 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate from high school every year in the United States.
You've got tons of this stuff.
There's no money. There's no money left in the West.
It's all borrowed and credit and printed and made up for your crap.
So when people say, well, you should come in, we've got all this money, we'll spend it on you and you'll do really well, it's inviting people into an utterly unsustainable situation, which is incredibly, incredibly dangerous.
Now, this idea that any sort of path to citizenship or any sort of continuation of DACA is going to do anything other than provoke more illegal immigration, I mean, it's ridiculous.
Right, 1986, there was an Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Ronald Reagan signed it in November of 86.
It granted an amnesty to about 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
And then the problem was solved forever.
Of course not. What did the Reagan amnesty do?
Well, it gave California to the Democrat Party forever.
Now, he, of course, offered this up to the Dems in return for border controls and some sort of primitive e-verifier employment verification program, which never came to pass, of course.
So here are the incentives and consequences you need to understand.
You have a rich country sitting on top of a poor country.
And... That's all feasible if you have no welfare state.
You can have open borders, or you can have a welfare state.
You can't have both. Like you can pile gold in your house, but then you need an alarm system, and you need a security guard, and you need to at least lock your doors.
Or if your house is worthless, like your outhouse, you don't need a lock on it at all.
But if you have a lot of money that's available for people who make it into your country through the welfare state, then you need borders and you need border enforcement.
This is an old argument. It's not mine.
It goes way back in free market circles.
And you don't have that situation at the moment.
At the moment, you have massive incentives for people to come in.
And what happens is Mexico, of course, has a massive incentive for these people to come to the U.S. Why?
Because they either get welfare or they make money or something like that.
And then what they do is they send billions and billions and billions of dollars into Mexico.
So the Mexican government has money cascading in, flowing in, tsunami-ing into the country, and they don't have to provide one dollar's worth of services because the people are all in America.
So it's income into the economy, income into Mexico without having to provide services.
So... They're just planting the crops of illegal immigration in America and they're reaping the rewards of often taxpayer-funded remittances back down to Mexico.
It's a mess. And what is all of this?
You know, the estimates of like 30 million illegal immigrants in America.
This is just the fault of both parties who failed to enforce immigration law for decades.
Just kicking the can down the road, deferring, not wanting to be called racist, not wanting to deal with the issue.
Like, that's not what they're paid for.
It's like the national debt.
It's like unfunded pension liabilities or the unfunded liabilities for social security or other things.
Just kicking the can down the road.
And it's horrible stuff.
This is what happens when you defer problems.
You know, you got a lump in your body and you don't go to the doctor for a year.
You're probably going to be worse off.
Deferring makes things worse.
Appeasement makes things worse.
That was one of the terrible lessons of the 20th century.
And of course it's going to be painful to see what's going to happen.
This is why this stuff shouldn't be done in the first place.
It's tough to quit heroin. That's why you shouldn't start heroin in the first place.
It's tough to quit smoking. That's why you shouldn't start smoking in the first place.
And it's tough to enforce the Constitution after five years of lawlessness in this area.
It's going to be very tough. It's going to be heartbreaking.
It's going to be difficult. And that should give people the resolution to not have this kind of stuff happen again in the future.
Because right now we're talking about adults for the most part.
And the question is, now that the law, sorry, now that the executive action has been proven, or at least has been strongly suggested as unconstitutional, what does it mean?
Is anyone going to respect the law?
Because this is what it comes down to.
The rules are where you live.
The rules are your culture. The rules are your values.
The rules are your ethics.
And appeasement undermines and destroys everything.