All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:01:14
3827 The Ugly Truth About DACA
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux.
Hope you're doing well. DACA is back in the news.
We have political brinksmanship occurring between Trump, the uniparty deep state operatives, and a rather increasingly outraged cadre of his own supporters.
I'm going to help you navigate the maze of what's going on with DACA. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Let's dive straight in.
So this is the ugly truth about DACA. On May 11th, I just wanted to make a note.
Whenever you see a piece of legislation that is named in an emotionally evocative context, you know, the Patriot Act, the Dream Act, and so on, I'm telling you they're coming to pick your pockets and the future of your children and of your country and perhaps even of your civilization.
So just be aware If it's called the Cuddles and Kittens Act, well, it's going to end up perhaps with you hunting your own pet rabbits like in Venezuela these days.
So yeah, the name of the act is an attempt to bypass your reasoning capacities, Obamacare, because, you know, he just cares.
So I just want to point that out.
The DREAM Act would have given conditional residency and more to non-adult illegal immigrants, but it failed to pass.
On June 15, 2012, President Barack Obama announced Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, an executive order which bypassed lawmakers and offered similar legal status to an estimated 1.7 million illegal immigrants.
Now, if you're one of the relatively few Americans who...
know what the three branches of government are or who can name a single constitutional right or amendment and what it means, then you'll understand that if a law fails to pass in Congress, the Plan B breaking case of emergency in the Constitution is not Let the president just command it by fiat.
The president is not supposed to be a lawmaker.
So this, of course, has raised significant questions as to the entire constitutionality of saying, well, Congress failed, but with the swipe of my dictatorial pen, I can do what Congress has failed to do.
On August 15, 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, began accepting applications for the program, offering a renewable two-year work authorization and reprieve from deportation.
Now, of course, in the classic slippery slope domino escalation, Obama in November 2014 attempted to expand DACA and add a sister program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, via executive order once again.
Enough of that Congress-ed debate and potentially input from the American public.
Just flash it down from on high like a lightning bolt from the towering eye of Sauron himself.
Now, DAPA would have granted work authorization and immunity from deportation to an estimated 4 million illegal parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident.
Children. And, of course, the reality is it would have been far higher than the estimates.
Now, what is going on?
Why is he so obsessed with this?
Why is the left or the Democrats so obsessed with this?
Well, it's very simple. Very few Hispanics lean to or vote Republican.
They vote overwhelmingly for bigger government with more services, and they vote for the Democrats overwhelmingly.
So this has nothing to do with compassion.
It has nothing to do with care for anyone.
If the Democrats cared about the children, then they'd improve the government schools or perhaps stop loading them down with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and unfunded liabilities for the sake of buying votes in the here and out.
They don't care about the kids. They care about the votes.
And that, of course, is the entire reason behind it.
In December 2014, 26 U.S. states with Republican governors sued the federal government of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the expanded DACA and suggested DAPA programs.
In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hannan issued a preliminary injunction blocking the programs while the case, Texas v.
United States, proceeded. After progressing through the courts, an equally divided Supreme Court, 4-4, left the original injunction in place.
And this, of course, is why the 2016 election was so important.
If Hillary had gotten in and had, of course, would have appointed a left-leaning judge to the Supreme Court, and this would have all gotten through and basically wide open borders for the United States.
In June 2017, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and others announced plans to challenge DACA in court if the Trump administration has not agreed to phase out the program by September 5, 2017.
On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that DACA was being repealed and that implementation will be suspended.
For six months.
And this is the annoying thing about those who believed Donald Trump when he said he was going to end DACA on his first day of office.
That if Trump had not intervened and this lawsuit had gone forward, particularly with Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, it seems likely that it would have been overturned as unconstitutional.
It would have been out of the president's hands and he would not be able to do what he's doing.
He's kind of interfered with the repeal of DACA in many ways.
It can be seen in that way.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.
Unconstitutional. You break the law in America, well, assuming you're not a Clinton, you break the law in America, you generally tend to receive negative consequences.
However, you perform a massive feat of social engineering and Like DACA, which is unconstitutional according to Jeff Sessions.
And you're fine.
Just fine, you see. Break the law bad.
Make an unconstitutional law.
It's fine. Texas AG Ken Paxson subsequently announced that he would be withdrawing the proposed lawsuit.
Which I don't particularly agree with.
You keep the lawsuit floating and moving forward so you continue to have leverage on the negotiations.
I don't know why this is so complicated.
But apparently it is.
President Donald Trump on September 5th, 2017 said, and I quote, Congress get ready to do your job.
DACA, Congress now have six months to legalize DACA, something the Obama administration was unable to do.
If they can't, I will revisit this issue.
Of course, this is a massive, biblical-style betrayal of his base and of all the people who sacrificed personal relationships, professional relationships, family relationships in order to support Donald Trump.
And get him into power.
The whole point was immigration.
That's all that people cared about was control of immigration and DACA. Repeal of DACA was a core part of that.
This is a massive betrayal because he's basically given away all of his leverage.
He's saying to Congress it's your job to pass DACA, which then completely plays or reveals his hand that he's going to sign the legislation and pass it.
It gives the entire game away.
And don't give me this 4D chess crap.
It's just a giant mistake.
On September 11, 2017, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and multiple other states announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration for, and I quote, its unconstitutional and illegal termination, end quote, of the DACA executive order.
Just astonishing. President Donald Trump on September 14, 2017 said...
Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?
Really? They have been in our country for many years, through no fault of their own, brought in by parents at young age.
In fact, it is 0.11% of DACA recipients who are actually in military service.
By the way, in researching this, another interesting fact, there's actually quite a lot of illegal immigrants serving in the U.S. military.
I don't really understand the reasoning behind that.
Hey, you don't respect U.S. law?
Let's train you how to fight and give you access to massive amounts of weaponry.
What could go wrong? And this idea that children should somehow be immune from the illegal actions of their parents doesn't make any sense to me.
If somebody goes and steals a million dollars from a bank and gives it to their children, the bank gets to take the money back from the children.
You don't get to keep the fruits of a crime.
Well, it wasn't the children's fault.
They were just kids when they were given that money.
I don't understand what that matters.
And of course, if you care... About the sins of the elders being visited upon the children, then you should not want any kind of national deficit or debt, because that is the greed of the elders being visited upon, disastrously, the economic future of the children.
But apparently that doesn't fit the narrative, so that's discarded completely.
So, what are the guidelines for DACA? To be an applicant for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, you must, and I put this in quotes for reasons I'll get to in a few moments, you must meet the following criteria.
We're under the age of 31, as of June 15, 2012.
Now, I just want to kind of point out, if you're illegal, you may be going back and forth across the border without official paperwork, without going through a checkpoint.
It's just conceivably remotely possible, so I don't know how any of this is particularly verifiable.
And verifying documents from another country...
It's kind of a challenge. Do you not think that there's any kind of cottage industry creating fake documentation for dapper applicants?
Of course there is, because supply-demand, free market, and crony capitalism, it's a complete mess.
So, to continue the criteria.
We're physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012.
Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development GED certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States.
Again, not legal, but you've served in the Coast Guard or the Armed Forces of the United States.
I don't know what any of this legal or illegal stuff means anymore.
Last criterion.
So, here's what happens.
Because people aren't generally educated, or if they're educated, they're educated by the state, which is not going to teach you skepticism towards state power.
You make a list like this, and what happens?
People say, well, that seems reasonable, as if that's going to happen.
These are magic words, magic spells.
How much fraud might be going on?
How many of these rules are going to be actually followed and verified and all that?
Well, we'll get to that, but the answer is not an enormous amount.
And this idea, so you say, oh, you can't be a DACA and a criminal.
Well, of course you can. Petty crimes, fine.
Petty crimes. And again, America can choose anyone she wants from the world if she indeed wants to choose anyone.
Choosing people with a list of petty crimes could do better.
As of March 2017, 887,000 DACA requests have been submitted, 788,000 approved.
And 799,000 requests for two-year renewals has been granted.
Now, despite original assurances, and I guess you could say that, those three words encapsulate just about every government program you could conceive of.
Despite original assurances, pretty much the exact opposite is happening.
I mean, despite original assurances that he was going to end DACA's first day of office, Trump now seems hell-bent on making it law.
Oh, despite original assurances that the 1965 Immigration Act wasn't going to change American demographics, they have been massively altered.
So, despite original assurances that DACA would not impact legal or illegal immigration, immediately following the implementation of the program, a surge of illegal immigrant children created a crisis at the southern US border.
Now, this is why they don't teach you basics of economics in school, right?
All human desires are infinite, all resources are finite, supply and demand, and so on.
Because, of course, if you're going to dangle Work permits and immunity from deportation to people who are young.
Guess what? You're going to create a giant second sound as young people come across the southern border of the United States.
Not that particularly complicated.
Government can create laws, but it cannot repeal the law of supply and demand.
Pro-Amnesty Migration Policy Institute published the report, Dramatic Surge in the Arrival of Unaccompanied Children Has Deep Roots and No Simple Solutions, on June 13, 2014, and I quote, The phenomenon of unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, typically after an arduous and often dangerous journey through Central America and Mexico, has reached a crisis proportion, with a 90% spike in arrivals from last year, and predictions of future increases ahead.
While the immediate humanitarian situation has galvanized the attention of the Obama administration, policymakers, and the country at large, it is painfully clear that there are no simple solutions, whether in the short or medium term, to address the complex set of push-and-pull factors driving the rise in arrivals of unaccompanied alien children.
No, actually, I've got to tell you guys, it's really not that complicated at all.
You dangle a path to citizenship, potentially.
You dangle... Work permits and immunity from deportation, you're going to just attract a whole lot of people.
And there are people who've made the case that in Mexico, if you're pretty smart and entrepreneurial, you can make a fairly good go of it.
In Mexico, if you're not, well, the welfare state to the north looks pretty tasty.
By the end of 2014, more unaccompanied alien children were apprehended than in any of the previous six years, and almost four times as many as in 2011.
It's not complex. It's just DACA. And, of course, there was, of course, maybe there were back-channel communications.
Who knows? But there was indications, and then Obama tried to expand DACA and put in DAPA and so on.
So, yeah.
You go across. Of course, you have your...
Anchor baby, and you get your chain migration going, and I mean, it's natural and fairly horrifying.
And of course, we know that the rate of sexual assaults on border crossings is absolutely catastrophic.
80% odd of the women who cross the border get raped or assaulted.
Imagine how many godforsaken, nightmarish pedophiles are lining up along the border to prey upon these children.
And this is what they call So let's look at the numbers.
Unaccompanied alien children apprehensions.
Southwest border U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
So this is just the apprehension, of course, and nobody knows who gets through.
2011, 16,000 or so.
2012, 24,500.
2013, almost 39,000.
2014, 68,541.
Almost 40,000 in 2015, almost 60,000 in 2016, and 38,500 in 2017, of course, to date.
So why was there the spike again in 2016?
It's not that tough to figure out.
July 2016, the Obama administration announces it's expanding the existing program, the refugee program, and combined with this rush to approve DACA applicants in the final months of the administration most likely contributed to this new surge.
In 2017, The apprehensions are down 29% compared to the same time frame in 2016.
Yeah, so, you know, 2012, first year of DACA, peaks like crazy.
And in 2017, they're down by almost a third because, you see, there are two groups of people who thought that Trump would keep his word about repealing DACA. Number one, the people who voted for him, and number two, the people who otherwise might have come.
DACA impact pathway to citizenship?
Surely you say not, because President Obama claimed that DACA would not be a pathway to citizenship.
But an immigration law loophole has allowed it to be exactly that.
To obtain a green card, the prospective applicant needs to find an American to sponsor their application and typically must be outside the country to be processed.
So if an individual entered the United States illegally, there are also restrictions on green card applications.
Illegally living in the country for longer than six months bans application for three years.
And if the illegal stay was over a year, they're banned from application for 10 years.
Through applying for an emergency benefit called advance parole, which was reserved for existing green card applicants and or individuals whose entry to the country served the public interest, applicants could leave, return to the country, Without fear of prosecution and or denial of re-entry.
So DACA recipients used this emergency program to change their immigration status from illegal immigrants with deferred action to parolees, which exempts them from penalties for illegal entry, which would hinder them obtaining a green card.
Now, naturally, Obama and the Department of Justice worked feverishly to close this loophole.
Actually, they didn't do anything about it, of course, as you can imagine it, other than try and, I'm sure, influence the media to bury it.
And so, yeah, magic backdoor.
And don't worry though, the rules are written down so everything's fine.
Through inquiries made by the U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services provided data on the extent of DACA recipient usage of the loophole.
45,447 were approved for advance parole.
59,778 applied for green cards, lawful permanent resident status.
39,514 were approved for green cards.
Of those with green cards, 2,181 applied for U.S. citizenship.
Of those with green cards, 1,056 became U.S. citizens.
Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican, said the DACA program was never intended to provide a pathway to citizenship and the program's legal future is in jeopardy.
CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian said, this was bound to happen.
Our analysts warned about this as soon as President Obama announced DACA. We warned everyone this would happen.
The fact that there are people that now have citizenship, that means some people took advantage of this immediately.
They would have had to do this right away.
Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, media director, Ira Melman, said, An attorney and former investigative unit manager at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Matt O'Brien, Matt O'Brien says, based on what I have seen and what I discussed with my colleagues, the fraud rate is 40 to 50 percent.
It's possible that it was higher.
There's a huge rate of fraud in this program.
While an outside would expect a thorough review of DACA applications and a full background check, O'Brien reports that quick scans would usually be conducted, quote, in order to get the DACAs all racked and stacked quickly.
But you see, everyone, Russia may have unduly influenced the election.
Of course, we talk about extreme vetting.
Extreme vetting for people coming to the United States.
Ah, quick scan seems fine to me.
O'Brien reported instances of DACA applicants having several adult children, making it nearly impossible for the individual to be of the required age range.
Other clearly fraudulent applications featured non-existent schools, missing required documents, and even obviously forged paperwork.
Now, it's interesting because in one study, 93% of DACA beneficiaries received some kind of assistance from some group with DACA applications.
Which means either the groups don't know what's required, or they do, and they're willing to, well, let's just say, overlook things just a tiny little bit.
If officials found evidence of an applicant falsifying information, the U.S. CIS office typically dismissed recommendations to deny applications.
Quote, I would say 98% of the time they defaulted to approving them.
There was so much managerial pressure to get these things approved.
They told people in the field to not deny an application if an applicant didn't have an identity document.
See, this is what I mean when I say there's these magic words written down.
I have a sleep spell.
Like, you can write down anything you want.
How it's implemented is what really matters.
Or how it's not implemented matters even more, I suppose.
Judicial Watch, June 11, 2013, said, Documents obtained recently through a Freedom of Information request show that the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services abandoned required background checks late last year, adopting instead costly lean and light procedures in an effort to keep up with the flood of amnesty applications spurred by President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Directive.
In a series of agency memos beginning in September 14, 2012, field offices were told to expect the National Benefits Center, which collects all DACA applications, to conduct only lean and light background checks on illegal alien applicants, and that, henceforth, NBC will not perform full text checks or any evidence review on these cases before we ship to the field.
An email chain from September 5th and through November 14th indicates managerial pressure not to turn any illegal alien applicant away for lack of ID, including the explicit directive in an October 3rd memo, quote, Biometric.
Processing should not be refused solely because an applicant does not present an acceptable ID. Eh, whatever you want.
Someone can just...
I self-identify as a 12-year-old DACA recipient.
Sure. Again, what is promised, what actually happens, worlds apart.
In July 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services revealed to the Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans that 16 DACA applicants were flagged as, quote, possible national security concerns, end quote, but only seven had been denied access to the program, with six being approved and three remaining pending.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services July 2015 said USCIS recently conducted a unique batch tax query of all approved DACA requests in order to identify records that contained information indicating known or suspected gang association.
Based on the information obtained from the recent batch tax query, there were records pertaining to 49 DACA requesters whose requests had been granted.
Of these, 49, a total of 13 individuals had tax records entered after DACA review.
These cases are being reviewed for possible termination.
Matt O'Brien said, the whole way the program is set up, it just facilitated fraud, and I'm not entirely confident that it wasn't intentional.
I personally witnessed an alarming number of people who had gang affiliations applying for this program.
Since the start of DACA in 2012 through March 2015, USCIS reported that out of hundreds of thousands of applicants, they had only interviewed 283 in person, amounting to 0.03% overall.
Do you feel safe yet?
Opiate crisis.
During President Barack Obama's final three months in office, the Obama administration approved approximately 98% of DACA applications.
Hey, 98%! Isn't that the same proportion of Russians under the Soviet system who voted for dictator Stalin?
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
So this added 122,221 new recipients.
So for comparison purposes, 199,000 illegal immigrants were approved for protected status in the entirety of the fiscal year 2016.
So, massive push through to try and get as many done in the final three months in office.
You know, to set this kind of powder keg for Trump to inherit.
Natural. CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan said, the worrying thing is that the review process and screenings for DACA was quite lenient.
It was not sufficient to weed out people with criminal histories.
When you are trying to rush through and rubber stamp approval, on top of a program that is already concerning because of the history of leniency, that makes it even more likely that people who are going to be big problems have received this status, right?
Yeah, you jack up the number of people going through.
It's not like you've had much of a chance to train and vet and all the people who are going to be doing the rubber stamping and...
Margaret. Mengi from Lifeset said, regarding the case of Emmanuel Jesus Rangel Hernandez, an illegal immigrant with gang affiliations who was granted DACA status and went on to murder four people in Charlotte, North Carolina, USCIS admitted in this case that it hadn't done any checks on the information Rangel Hernandez had provided on his DACA application but simply accepted the information on its face.
I want you to understand that there are real people who are subject to these terrifying crimes.
There are real people who get murdered by this.
And these are people who otherwise would be alive.
So just know that if you're for all of this amnesty, if you're for all of this past citizenship or legalization or perpetuation of DACA or its expansion, the people who were killed, now that's blood on your hands.
Maybe you have a less tender conscience than I or other people, but That's on your hands.
It's on your head. While it is commonly repeated by the mainstream media that DACA recipients cannot have a criminal record, it's false.
How do you know it's false?
It's in the mainstream media!
Come on! You should know this by now.
It's only 10 weeks since that WWF gif.
Amazing. Applicants can have a criminal record but not one that includes a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors.
Those with a disqualifying criminal record may still qualify if they demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
Having a massive loophole or exception or magic backdoor to get around a particular regulation is bad enough.
Just the phrase exceptional circumstances.
It's like when politicians saying they're doing things for the public good.
It's like, well, it just means what the politician wants and what his friends who funded his campaign want.
So exceptional circumstances, even if you have a terrible criminal record.
What are exceptional circumstances?
No such thing is ever defined.
It is not defined or appears anywhere...
Because it is the subjective whim of the Department of Homeland Security.
And that's what we call the rule of law.
Oh, I guess exceptional circumstances means are you most likely to vote Democrat?
In you go, tattooed-faced guy!
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency has reported that 2,139 DACA recipients have had their protected status revoked due to criminality after having their applications approved.
Excellent vetting everyone!
Most DACA terminations were based on applicants committing the following infractions, and I quote, Again, these are real people, real victims.
If these DACA recipients had been deported...
Then fewer children would have been raped.
Sexual offences with minors.
And this is the price that you have to pay.
Children getting raped.
If you want this program.
Now maybe you're willing to accept that price.
Maybe you think that's fine. Maybe you think that's worth it.
I shudder to think what kind of person would feel that way, but maybe you do.
Now, what's going on as far as information, facts, accuracy and truth regarding this program from the somewhat left-leaning mainstream media?
Well, not so much as you can imagine.
Unsurprisingly, the media has propagated the leftist propaganda narrative that DACA recipients are children or kids, while in reality, most are adults.
Now, this is interesting. I mean, the left has in its more extreme manifestations...
The Alinsky Manuals and so on, Rules for Radicals, has basically said, well, we don't have any standards, but we know other people have standards, so let's use those standards against them.
Americans, of course, like a lot of Westerners, love their kids, sensitive to kids.
Oh, no, there's a kid in trouble.
Oh, let's help. Let's save the kids.
Now, of course, if the left really cared about kids, again, improve government schools, no national debts, and you name it, right?
And change things to discourage single motherhood, which is basically an environmental toxin for many children.
Or, you know, when the left tries to get people fired because they disagree with the left and then they try to destroy their families and destroy their lives.
Well, those kids, the kids of those people get harmed.
They don't care about that. Kids raped and murdered by illegal immigrants.
How about that? Ah, they don't care.
But they know that you care and they want to lever that sentimentality.
According to available applicant data, some have estimated that the average age of DACA recipients is currently 25 or 26 years old.
It's important to note that 36-year-old adults would be eligible to apply for the program in 2017.
Multiple biased propaganda polls portraying DACA recipients as sympathetic dreamers or helpless children have produced the expected results.
A majority of Americans oppose their deportation.
The Associated Press has even referred to DACA recipients as undocumented citizens.
Now that is a Kapka-esque piece of Orwellian doublethink, if ever I've seen one.
See, a citizen, by definition, is someone who's documented that.
Undocumented citizen.
Ah, maybe somebody who self-identifies as both undocumented and a citizen.
Ooh. Ah, thanks, Derrida.
This subjectivism is wonderful.
So when survey questions are framed as setting up rules to ensure that businesses give first preference for jobs to American workers and legal immigrants already in this country, people from broad backgrounds strongly support such initiatives.
Let me just a little rant on polls here.
They're all garbage.
They're all nonsense, right?
Remember the polls? Oh, Trump's going to lose for sure.
The polls is ridiculous. You just set up a series of questions designed to get...
I actually did... Poll-taking when I was a teenager.
One of the many jobs I had was a poll-taker.
And I remember calling people up and saying, you know, as regards to this zoning, should people rely on the uninformed opinion of local citizens or the professional advice of city planners?
I remember that question very clearly.
You can get people to say anything you want in a poll just based on how you phrase the questions and how you ask them.
And... That's just important to understand.
The whole point of the poll is to make you gravitate towards the majority opinion.
We're a tribal species. We gravitate towards the in-group, towards the majority opinion.
It's nothing to do with facts.
And, of course, when people are saying abstract things, You know, where there's no personal cost.
You know, the question is, okay, will you pay $500 more in taxes a year for DACA recipients?
Or will you, you know, will you take them into your house?
Well, these would be, those would be things that would, right?
There's this, I think it was in France, a bunch of people got asked by a reporter or somebody posing as a reporter, a bunch of people got asked, do you support more migrants into France?
And people were like, well, yes, yes, I do.
And then the guy would say, oh, good, because I've got You know, three here, can they come to your house today?
Well, no, I'm busy, I can't, I have no people staying.
If it's abstract, no cost, it's just virtue signaling.
Where there's no cost, I don't care what people say, and the polls are all garbage.
Because if you ask people if the United States should favor prospective immigrants or American citizens, how do you think people would answer?
So remember all of this whenever you see a poll used to justify DACA and the will of the American people.
You know, one thing you won't hear from the mainstream media very often, if at all, is according to Rasmus and Pauling, African Americans are the most likely racial group in the United States to oppose DACA for obvious reasons of a skill set matching and bidding down of labor.
Of course, the cheap labor. It's one of the big reasons why big businesses have united with the leftists to shaft American citizens, particularly minority American citizens, with this endless wave of wage-destroying immigration, legal and illegal.
So, what has the effect in this been?
The result of a DACA applicant survey entitled, DACA Recipients, Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow, by Tom K. Wong, missing an R, I think, has been featured in the media.
It makes six claims about how DACA has improved the lives of illegal immigrants.
Of course it's improved the lives of illegal immigrants!
Because they no longer fear deportation as if they're given work permits.
So, sure, you know, people who win the lottery...
They have more money, and they're generally happy, well, at least for a while, until they find out everyone loves them for their money and nobody loves them at all.
While reported as objective facts, there are significant problems with the methodology of this opt-in survey.
The opt-in is kind of important.
You're not surveying everyone, you're surveying people who want to respond to a survey.
Opt-in surveys are not random sampling, which is required for reliability.
So targeted Facebook ads were used to reach the Center for American Progress' own network of politically engaged potential respondents.
While submissions were limited to one per IP to avoid people stuffing the ballot, this would not prevent any minimally tech savvy person from submitting multiple entries.
It's really not impossible to spoof an IP or change it on the fly.
So it's not really very, very scientific.
So one claim from this survey, 69% moved to a job with better pay.
Which means what?
It's not causal.
Read The Art of the Argument at theartoftheargument.com.
Correlation is not causality.
So I would hope that if somebody moved from, say, 17 to 19 or 16 to 18 or 19 to 21 or whatever, it's a two-year time frame for some of these surveys, of course their pay is going to go up because they've gained more job experience and so on.
Is that necessarily a result of DACA? Well, I don't know that that's ever really detailed.
Since people get older and they gain additional experience, they move to jobs with higher pay.
You can't just say, well, for sure, 100% of that is due to DACA. These results are also contradicted by a peer-reviewed study published by Roberto G. Gonzalez featuring an actual random sample of DACA recipients, showing that only 45% experienced an increase in earnings after receiving DACA status.
Again, not necessarily because of, but after receiving DACA status.
Now, another way that you could look at that since...
The Gonzalez study was over a two-year time frame, give or take.
You could say, okay, so of the DACA recipients, 55% of them did not receive a single penny of pay increase over two years.
Does that indicate that they're operating at a very high and functional economic level?
You could theoretically question that.
So there's another claim from the original statement.
90% received their first driver's license or state ID. I should be curious about how many got insurance, but that's another matter.
The reality is that the peer-reviewed study by Roberto G. Gonzalez documents that only 57% of respondents received a license after receiving DACA status.
Many U.S. states turn a blind eye to legal status when it comes to procuring a driver's license.
And do they then register you to vote as well?
I wonder...
The claim, 65% purchased their first car.
In reality, this data point once again cannot be attributed to DACA and may simply be individuals reaching the age when they purchased their first vehicle.
Remember, they're going from childhood to adulthood, so as children perhaps they can't get a vehicle.
Anyway. Other studies show that 90% of American households own cars.
Now, people can say, well, no, that's great because a whole bunch of darker people bought cars.
And other people will say, oh, that's massive road congestion.
No wonder I can't get anywhere in Los Angeles.
See, more people. You ever been driving in Russia and said, man, we could use another million people on these roads.
Wouldn't that be fantastic? The claim was 5% started their own business.
Well, and again, these are presented as facts, as opposed to 5% of people who chose whether or not, like not a random sample, 5% of people who are motivated to complete this survey claim to have started some business without definition, right?
There's no specific definition of owning a business was provided.
And since it's a non-random self-reported survey, there's no way to verify such claims.
But even if we accept that 5% of the DACA recipients started their own business...
Really not that impressive.
10% of American workers own a business, including 7.5% of Latino workers and 5.1% of black workers.
So if you're half the national average, again, they're young, but it's got a lemonade stand.
I'm Bill Gates.
The claim recipients saw their average wage increase by 69%.
Reality. Correlation is not causation.
It's like... It's similar to the 69% move to a job with better pay claim and provides no information to suggest DACA is directly responsible for the wage increase.
The claim is 16% purchased their first home.
And I gotta tell you, if you're just on a two-year work permit...
I don't know.
I guess you purchased your home because if you lose your work permit, you can sell it and so on.
It just seems like a big...
Flag to plant in a very uncertain political environment.
But anyway, the reality is, so 16% purchased their first home post-DACA. Well, 33% of Americans under the age of 35 purchased their own home.
So depending on the age of DACA applicants, which is not provided, the metric is either in line with current trends or well below the average.
So in summary, the data produced in this widely circulated survey, not massively reliable, despite being featured prominently in the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Times, and many additional mainstream media outlets.
It's not... Journalism.
This is advocacy propaganda, in my humble opinion.
They're not interested in informing you.
They're interested in controlling you.
And if they can push a numerical narrative that helps get people who are going to vote for the left and keep them in the country and align their interests with the Democrat Party, well, then they're going to do that.
The vast majority of people in the media, particularly around Washington and so on, very much, well, not on the Republican side of things, let's say.
So it's natural. And it doesn't matter.
The results, the economic results of what happens after DACA, completely irrelevant.
Completely irrelevant. Why?
Because it's unconstitutional to begin with.
It doesn't matter. You can say, oh, well, you know, we can't free the slaves because slavery keeps the price of cotton low.
It's immoral. It's wrong.
So you've got to end it. I mean, the fact that some people may do better after DACA doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter at all. Some slaves who were free did worse than they did under slavery.
The question is, is it moral?
Is it right? Is it constitutional if there is to be a shred of respect left for the ancient paper?
Not these arguments from consequences.
If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care about the answers, as the saying goes.
And if they can get you to say, well, let's dive down deep into subjective and unverified reports of economic improvements after...
Unconstitutional!
Should that not matter a little?
Does that not matter anymore?
Employment. A study by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg pro-immigration group FWD.us reported that the repeal of DACA would mean that approximately 720,000 jobs could open up for American citizens.
This means that on average 30,000 job openings would be created each month as work permits expired.
See, you've got a bunch of people plowing out of the dismal hell of high school into the workforce every month.
Tens of thousands, right?
So you need jobs opening up.
And if you've got a bunch of people who are DACA recipients who have those jobs, that's going to drive down the wages, right?
And it's going to mean that there are fewer jobs available for other people in the short run.
See, here's the thing. There are 95 million Americans of working age who are not in the workforce.
Do you really need to import labor?
Do you really need to?
I mean, that's like some obsessive compulsive saying, well, see, I only have 120,000 crates of toilet paper in the basement.
I better get me to a superstore and get another 50.
I think you might be okay for now.
FWD.US President Todd Schultz said, quote, Hey Todd, not an argument.
You know, throwing bank robbers in jail will have hugely negative impacts for the people who were hoping to profit from the bank robbery and the children who might have gone to college.
Anyway, you understand.
The United States labor force participation rate, which is the percent of the civilian population 16 years and older who have a job or are looking for one, is currently only 62.9%, the lowest since 1978.
So... It's important to understand just what a massive shift has occurred.
This is demographics, immigration to the United States.
Oh, it's a nation of immigrants.
Well, sure, to some degree, but originally, of course, there was no welfare state.
So you had to come and be productive no matter what.
And a third of immigrants in the 19th century went back home.
They didn't like it. The welfare state's a sticky trap, right?
Now, you say, oh, well, illegals can't get welfare.
Well, of course they can't. Of course they can.
And there's massive numbers of income transfer programs from government schools to you've got a nosebleed, you walk into an emergency room, they have to treat you massive amounts of income transfers in all Western countries.
So let's look at this chart.
The orange is European immigration, right?
So America, 19th century, really up until the 1965 Immigration Act.
It was mostly a European immigrant country, and Europe has a long history of aiming at smaller government, at aiming at separation of church and state, and the average IQ in Europe is 100, which is not the case around the world.
Small amounts of Latin American immigration that occurred in 1920 and so on, and the war on drugs had some origins in concerns about Mexican marijuana.
Post-Second World War period, a little bit of immigration, and then in the 1965 Immigration Act.
Won't change the demographics of America!
Well, you get massive amounts of Latin American immigration and huge amounts of Asian immigration.
Now, Asia is this big blob.
East Asia, Chinese, Japanese, and so on, other groups as well.
So this is a huge change.
And this is the culture war right here.
It's the culture war that's going on right here.
Why? Because there are people in America who want smaller government.
And there are people in America who want bigger government.
And brace yourself for some facts.
Here we go. So in America, the general public as a measure, as a whole, 41% of the general public want a larger government.
48% of the general American public want a smaller government.
Now, here we break it down by ethnicity.
Whites in America, only 37% of them want a larger government.
52% of them want a smaller government.
So, if America was white, you'd get a smaller government and a smaller government and a smaller government.
Don't get mad at me. Just the facts.
Just the facts. Now, among Asians, 55% of them want a larger government.
And only 36% of them want a smaller government.
Now, native-born Hispanics, to American native-born Hispanics, 66% of them want larger government.
28% of them want smaller government.
Now, the alarming, if not downright existentially terrifying statistic, if you want a smaller government, is that among foreign-born Hispanics, 81% of them want a larger government, and only 12% of them want a smaller government.
Now data for the number of blacks that want a smaller government is unavailable, but 70% of African Americans report that they prefer bigger government and more services.
What that means is that foreign-born Hispanics want a larger government in higher rates even than blacks.
So this is why those who want to sell you bigger government want foreign-born Hispanics coming into the country.
Of course, of course they do.
I mean, businesses advertise to get your business.
This is why the left, which is selling a bigger government, wants the foreign-born Hispanics to come into the country.
It's nothing to do with, well, we don't want to tear families apart.
People out there saying you should divorce and disavow and separate yourself completely from Trump by regularly referring to Trump as Hitler and referring to the 63 million Americans who supported Trump as deplorables and racists and said they don't care about tearing families apart.
They want bigger government, more power.
And they know.
They can read these graphs probably better than most people.
This information is relentlessly kept separate.
So if you look at these numbers and you say, okay, well, if I want a smaller government, foreign-born Hispanics are at odds with my desire.
Racism! No! Numbers!
Numbers! I knew I shouldn't have done these numbers in white text.
So, how does it go over time?
Again, general public, 41% in America want larger government, 48% want smaller government.
Now, among all Hispanics, 75% want a larger government and 19% want a smaller government.
There are some who don't answer, don't know.
First-generation Hispanics, 81% want a larger government, and 12% want a smaller government, which is kind of weird in a way.
It just shows you the power of culture and tradition and trauma and IQ and so on, because they're fleeing a country with a big, powerful government.
So they come to a new country with a smaller government and say, hey, you know what would be great?
Bigger government, because that's going to turn America into Mexico.
There's no place to run from there.
Well, actually, well, Trudeau's in there, it probably is.
So, again, first-generation Hispanics, the immigrants, 81% want larger government, 12% want smaller government.
Among second-generation Hispanics, larger government, 72%, smaller government, 22%.
Among third-generation Hispanics, 58% want larger government, and 36% want smaller government.
So, the numbers diverge, but what are we talking?
We're talking 75 years, 80 years, 90 years, maybe a full century!
Even after the third-generation Hispanics, 41% of the general public, which includes this group of course, 41% of the general public want a larger government, but among third-generation Hispanics, it's 58%.
So you're importing people who want bigger government and are going to work very hard to get bigger government for 70, 80, 90, 100 years into the future.
If you want smaller government, you have to think about immigration.
You have to be obsessed with immigration.
It has to be the main, the central issue.
And it was for Trump.
Until maybe now, it ain't.
So here, my friends, we get down to the meat of the matter.
This is the fork in the road that drove Trump to power.
Is America going to stay true to the vision of the Founding Fathers, a constitutionally limited republic, not a mass Venezuela or Brazil-style rule of the mob democracy?
Is it going to be a relatively free country, or is it going to spiral into...
Banana Republic-style manipulation, dictatorship, vote-buying, corruption, you name it.
Is there going to be an elite of rich people who have maids and servants huddled behind their high walls and their barbed wire while the majority of the population breed like rabbits and hunt for rats in the sewers, or is it going to be a Western-style constitutionally limited republic?
The question comes down to bigger government, smaller government, and the Republicans versus the Democrats.
So, this is the data.
The general public in America, and that includes, of course, an increasing number of the Hispanics we'll talk about just to the right, the general public in America, 39% are Republican or lean Republican, 49% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
Among all Hispanics, 18% are Republican or lean Republican, 66% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
Among first-generation Hispanics, 16% are Republican or lean Republican.
63% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
Among second-generation Hispanics, 19% are Republican or lean Republican.
71% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
And this is the essence of what is being discussed, of what is being fought about At the moment in American politics, this is the essence of the question of DACA. This is why it matters.
If you don't know these numbers, and if you don't know the numbers for Mexican or Hispanic IQ, which we'll get to in a second, then of course it's going to look like mad prejudice.
What, you just don't like their music?
I mean, it makes no sense. If you want a smaller government, and there are a group of people who reliably vote for the left who generally want bigger government, well...
You're going to get bigger government.
If you want smaller government, then you have to be suspicious of increasing Hispanic immigration.
These are numbers. These are facts. This is not prejudice.
These are the facts. Like, it's not prejudice if, let's say, redheaded people steal a lot from stores and you run a store and a redheaded person comes in, you're going to be a little bit more suspicious, of course, because numbers.
If redheaded people don't steal more from stores than anyone else, then if you're shadowing or worrying about some redheaded person, that's prejudice.
But if the numbers are different, the judgment can be different with no evidence whatsoever of prejudice, but rather discernment or an intelligent evaluation of group differences.
Here's the kind of difference that I'm talking about.
So if the Hispanic population of the American electorate had not grown enormously since 1980, if it had stayed at the same level as 1980, Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 election, even if there wasn't a single non-white person who voted for him.
See, 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 that the white vote alone would have given Romney 50.15% of the vote.
If we add on Romney's share of the Hispanic and Black vote, that number rises to a little over 51% of the vote.
If we take current racial demographics in America and the associated voting differences, And we cast that like a deep shadow back into the past elections.
The Republicans would have only won one presidential election in the last 27 years.
So the racial demographics of the American electorate, just since 1980, have already been fundamentally altered enough to have profound and sometimes and often decisive effects on American elections.
This is the reality.
This is the numeric reality.
It's not prejudice. If you want a smaller government, immigration from third world countries is a huge issue.
You must understand this.
This is the real battle that's going on.
Now, this fact, these facts that Hispanics overwhelmingly vote for bigger government, for the Democrats, for the left, this basic fact has to be buried under this hyena cacophony of racist and xenophobe and, ah, right, just to avoid people looking at these basic numbers and understanding The reality of the future of America, which way it's going to go.
All right, let's get to our conclusion.
So first and foremost, most of what you've been told about DACA from the mainstream media, falsehoods, misrepresentations, sophistry as a whole.
Americans for decade after decade after decade have been begging for control over immigration and people have gotten into power by promising that.
We'll see. The jury is still out on whether Trump will end up betraying the American population who wants control over immigration.
In order to maintain the treasures of the Enlightenment and the sacrifices of the Founding Fathers and the people who died in the Civil War and the people who died in other ways to protect and defend the Republic who want small government, who want a free market, who want all of these things, they have concerns about immigration because immigration is a way of changing voting without convincing people.
If you just import people, Who like bigger government, that's not the same as winning the argument for bigger government.
That's bribing people, often with free stuff paid for by people who want smaller government, in return for votes for bigger government.
So this is the conflict that's going on.
This is the civil war.
Let's hope it stays civil. That is what's going on.
There's a huge number of people who are heavily invested in cheap labor coming in.
Cheap votes, well, expensive votes, but cheap for the politicians.
Cheap labor and left-leaning voters.
That is the unholy alliance from the Chamber of Commons all the way through to the Democrats that is driving this immigration process.
The fact that...
The left generally, or the Democrats generally say, well we've got the black vote sewn up so we don't really need to do anything to take care of the black vote.
That has been catastrophic because now what they're doing is they're bringing in people to expand their control over the voting population, to expand the number of votes they can get at the expense of the black people because they figure the black votes are sewn up anyway so...
If we bring in a whole bunch of legal and illegal low-rent immigrants to compete with the black community, thus destroying the black family, destroying black opportunities and so on, what does it matter if they're going to vote for us anyway?
It's one of the huge problems with the black community.
If you want to be listened to, my friends, you've got to stop giving your votes up to the Democrats automatically.
There is, of course, an argument, it happens in Europe, where there's this demographic winter in that the whites, the Europeans, and so on not having enough babies.
Oh, well, we've got low birth rates, so we need immigration.
It's all nonsense. It's all nonsense.
It is a fact of history from all the way back to the ancient world, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and so on, that if you have cheap labor...
All it does is delay automation.
So why? I mean, they knew all about the steam engine and other technologies in the ancient Roman and Greek world.
Why did they not have an industrial revolution?
Because they had slaves. Now, you still, of course, have to pay illegal immigrants and low-rent legal immigrants, but...
It is delaying automation.
You don't need as big a population when you have automation, so letting the population fall and replacing labor with machines is the natural way of things, but of course machines don't vote for the left.
That's how you know they're productive.
Now, another issue, of course, is IQ, which I've had Dr.
Jason Richwine on, and back in the day, he was a Ph.
candidate at Harvard University, and he argued that, and I quote, No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.
From the perspective of Americans alive today, the low average IQ of Hispanics is effectively permanent.
And these are just facts.
They're heartbreaking facts, difficult to accept, difficult to absorb, but we turn away from reality at our peril.
The average IQ in Mexico is in the 80s.
The average IQ of whites is 100.
And it is not possible, statistically, to sustain a democracy, to sustain political freedoms or any remnants of a free market when you have a population with an IQ below 90.
IQ is the great resource.
So these basic facts, these basic realities need to be understood, need to be accepted, and need to be discussed openly.
The IQ discrepancy is real, and nobody knows how to solve it.
Whether it's genetic, whether it's environmental, is less important right now than the reality that nobody knows how to change it.
So you can ignore science.
You can ignore reality.
There's a term for that.
For an entire group that ignores science and ignores reality, ignores reason, ignores evidence, ignores facts.
And the term for that group, it's not crazy, it's not delusional, it's not mad.
▲
Export Selection