Sept. 19, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:17:22
3829 World War Amnesty | Styxhexenhammer666 and Stefan Molyneux
President Donald Trump's controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA] repeal has lead to significant fallout across the political spectrum. The decision to phase out the unconstitutional executive order came as U.S. States planned to challenge DACA in court if the Trump administration had not acted.Stefan Molyneux is joined by Styxhexenhammer666 to debate President Trump's decision, the push for Congress to pass The DREAM Act to replace DACA, the reality of demographic change in the United States and what this means for the Trump administration moving forward. Styxhexenhammer666 is an independent political commentator and YouTube content creator. YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/styxhexenhammer666Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/styx666officialPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/Styxhexenhammer666Your 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 Free Domain Radio back with a good friend, StyxHexandHammer666.
He is an independent political commentator and online content creator.
You can check him out at youtube.com slash StyxHexandHammer666 or twitter.com.
You can follow him on Styx666 official.
Congratulations on passing the 80s pop band in terms of YouTube searches.
And also, I didn't get your Patreon if you wanted to mention it.
Yeah, that's Sticks, Hex, and Hammer 666 as well, because I do not take ad revenue.
Anyone who wants to support me, that or buy books.
Right. Okay. So, thanks for taking the time today.
I have, of course, a book ad on The Art of the Argument, which people can get a hold of at theartoftheargument.com.
And we're going to have a conversation.
I think we are looking at the same thing.
You know, I don't know if we're in this sort of Scott Adams, two different movies situation, but we have different takes on it.
And some people have commented on...
Our different takes. And in particular, we're going to talk about DACA and amnesty and immigration.
So I wonder if you can give people a sense of where you're coming from, and then I'll talk about where the differences are, and we'll engage in a bloodthirsty cave match after that.
Yes, I think in the end, I don't think we disagree at all on what's important.
I think we just disagree on what Trump himself is doing because I believe you're more skeptical of his desire to actually get immigration reform accomplished.
I see this as just another stage of his deal-making.
When he rescinds DACA, and he fundamentally, from my perspective, he did fulfill his campaign promise.
He did end DACA, which was just an executive order.
But now he's optioning it back to the Democrats, and I think that the reason why is the wall is so much more important.
That if he can get it funded by giving them some degree of the content of DACA, They haven't gained anything, they're just getting most of what they had originally back, but he's getting his wall.
And that, I think, stops the problem of illegal immigration, to an extent.
It's not a silver bullet, but it's better than what we have now with massive gaps in the border, where people just wander through the desert or go under a tunnel or something.
I think it's preferable to not having a wall, kicking a bunch of people out, because I see it as he can get short-term gain if he just ends DACA says, no, we're deporting all these people.
Most of them will come back.
A future administration can just undo that, again, with the stroke of a pen, because Obama tried to do that using executive action because he didn't want to get anything less than what he wanted.
He wasn't willing to negotiate.
Trump is a little bit different.
I think he knows that he can get at least most of what he wants.
And right now he's exchanging it for something where the Democrats at most, they break even and get back what they had to begin with.
Right. So I guess a couple of points.
We'll get into sort of the finer points of the policy and what Trump's actually said in the next round.
So, I mean, I'm aware that the argument from, you know, hey, let's be reasonable and let's, you know, recognize that he has to work with Congress and that he has to make compromises and so on.
That certainly does agree.
I agree with that. Of course, he's not a dictator, despite however the left wants to portray him that way.
But here's a couple of points that I think are important.
I want to know what you think.
First of all, I have no idea why he needs Congress for the wall.
The wall is a matter of national security, it is a matter of borders, and it is fundamentally a military matter.
And as the head of the armed forces, Trump could deploy the military to build the wall with no congressional approval whatsoever.
So the idea that, well, I have to do a whole bunch of, you know, horse meat trading in order to get the wall, to me, doesn't Look at the actual facts.
Now, the wall, of course, is a little bit different than legislation.
Sure, legislation can be overturned by the next administration.
But I think if Trump builds the wall using his commander-in-chief authority, and then anybody tries to take it down, well, they're going to have about a million-plus Americans wherever they go trying to push back with whatever tractors are showing up.
Now, as far as DACA goes, the campaign promise was to end it on day one.
Now, to end it on day one, that does not mean that everyone gets deported immediately.
I mean, of course, you know, people have lives.
I understand they came to America as children, and there's a transition period that's necessary, but they're on these rotating work permits.
I think it's two years or so.
So all that happens is when you rescind DACA, when the work permits come up for renewal, you deny them.
And then people will slowly, and Mexico said that they're welcome to come back, so people will slowly return to Back to probably self-deportation and so on.
But it's not like there's this big giant net that scoops up 800,000 people or 700,000 people and dumps them across the border.
So as far as the relationship between DACA and the wall, well, Trump seems to me, and I think I'm going to give you a quote or two here about sort of where I think...
He's coming from.
Because as far as his texts go, and what he has actually said, it seems like he says, he 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.
Plus, big border security.
Well, of course, out of the 700,000 plus or so, 800,000 Only less than 900 are serving in the military.
And so there's that aspect.
He's also said, you know, I want Congress to do its job, which seems to be basically to pass DACA or pass some version of DACA. And once you get that number of people, I mean, the amount of fraud and abuse in the program is legendary.
I mean, you're going to have 1.5 million, 1.7 million, and then a whole bunch of chain migration.
And remember, two-thirds of immigrants come into America through family chain migration.
And when there was one study done, only 20% of those people were actually related.
So the amount of fraud that goes on is enormous.
Once you've basically legalized millions of illegal immigrants and given them the legal right to bring family members in over time, then I'm not sure what the point of the wall is after that.
The whole point is you don't lock the bond door after the horse has left.
And I think that's where, to me, some of the big pressure points are.
Yeah, I would generally agree with, You do have to have reform of the existing immigration system, but you can reform it all you want.
It's like on DACA. Here's something to consider.
Let's say that Trump were to go hardline and say, no, I'm not extending DACA. I'm not going to work with the legislature.
I just rescinded an executive order.
We're going back to enforcing the law.
What happens when those that are near enough to a city or state That is labeled a sanctuary city or state, simply take shelter there.
Trump would face constant judicial battles to try to get people out of the country.
What would end up happening is all the illegal immigrants, not just the dreamers, we're talking millions of others, would simply flock to places like San Francisco, or now California large, honestly, here to Vermont.
Where our government's made it clear, no, we don't want to really cooperate with all these aspects of immigration reform, which is what it is.
It's not draconian. It's not tyrannical.
And the left is totally wrong when they say that.
But there's nothing that he can do because these federal courts will block him from action.
So what he's trying to do, I think...
He's trying to get as many of the more centrist sane, if we can call them that, Democrats aboard, so that he can have legislation that will pass through.
He's not the one actually creating it.
He's just sort of trading one thing for another.
He gives them back parts of DACA. And as you said, there are less than a thousand people as part of that program that served in the military.
So why would it matter if he lets them stay in the country?
I think even people who are on the far right generally, they don't have a problem with that.
If he deports the other 790,000 people, so be it.
But it doesn't matter if you can't go after sanctuary cities, and the legislature won't work with him unless he negotiates on this.
That's problem number one.
Problem number two is while he could theoretically build his wall by using the military, He would still need the legislature to free up the funding to do so.
It runs into eminent domain.
You're talking about private entities as well as states and municipalities owning large chunks of that land.
Where there is currently little to no actual structure.
That would become a judicial battle.
The Democrats, I should say the left, will drag him through court for years.
He'll never get anything accomplished, and he knows this.
That's why he took DACA down, which wasn't an issue I think he even really cared about for the most part.
He takes it down, offers it back to them, but they have to work with him.
If he can get... I'll say this.
If Trump does fail, And there's no crackdown on sanctuary cities.
There's no significant progress on the wall.
Like he's just maintaining existing infrastructure.
He builds a glorified fence or some sandbags.
I won't support him in 2020 because it'll show that he lied in being willing.
He's got things set up so he can hammer this out.
But if he doesn't make those steps, if he doesn't reform the immigration process, chain migration is a problem.
People say like anchor babies or whatever.
If he doesn't tackle these things, then it would be impossible to support him.
Not because it's the biggest issue I care about.
I'm more of a taxes and North Korea is going to nuke Japan person at the moment.
But it is a major issue and it would show that he backtracked.
But as far as him building the wall unilaterally, I think Spencer, Richard Spencer, he replied to a tweet that I'd made on DACA a few days ago and said, well, he can just command the Department of Defense to build the wall.
He doesn't need anyone's permission.
Yes, but it would be such a bad idea because he'll get sued.
That slows him down.
The left might get the Never Trumpers involved and try to impeach him for such a thing.
Oh, well, he's usurping the legislature courts.
Come save our republic.
And the thing is, they've got the whole media apparatus to make that argument until he gets some things done that raises approval high enough.
He doesn't have a mandate to pull off such an act.
If he has to, I think he will.
But I guess time will tell.
Well, he certainly has a mandate in that immigration was the number one issue for the people who voted for him.
And Americans in general are more in favor of North Korea than they are in favor of increased immigration.
And of course, this is basically the effect of massive increased immigration.
So as far as, well, he's going to face obstacles, everybody knew that.
Everybody knew that he was going to face obstacles.
Of course, there's this horrible activist judicial court system that's left-leaning and needs to be I mean, you're going to have to take on the activist courts.
And, you know, whether sanctuary cities are dealt with by withholding federal funding or whether they go through some sort of court battle, at some point you're going to have to take on these activist courts.
And you want to do that before you have a couple of million more largely left-leaning voters.
So the idea that, well, you know, he can't do this and that.
Of course, the courts were going to deal with the DACA situation.
This is what's so frustrating, is that the states had sued for the end of DACA, and this was going to move forward, and the courts were going to decide.
And I think under Jeff Sessions, it talked about the unconstitutionality of DACA, of the executive order, and so on.
So DACA would have been repealed through the court system.
But Trump intervened and said, well, I'm going to cancel it, which he said he was going to do day one and didn't.
And he never said, I'm going to cancel it and then urge Congress to pass it with a six-month window of non-enforcement.
That had nothing to do with his campaign promises.
So this is actually an interference in the process that was already occurring where DACA was going to be overturned, almost certainly, I would argue, through the court system as a whole.
So yeah, he's got some activist judges.
He's going to get sued for everything he does.
And of course, the guy's had hundreds of lawsuits over his business career.
That's just, you know, you have this big legal target on you when you're rich and successful in America.
So yeah, he's going to get sued, but...
If it's that difficult and that dangerous to try and solve this problem, if the activist judges are that difficult, then legalizing a couple of million more leftists is only going to make it worse.
So I don't think that if you want to fight when you're the strongest and the enemy is the weakest, you don't want to give them a huge number of voting shock troops and then go into battle later.
Well, the first point I would make is, are we sure that he intends to actually grant him a legal status to most of those people?
He's mentioned two very small classes.
This is something that the right has taken up.
They've said, well, the groups that he's talking about and that the Democrats were talking about with him, you know, people who have been in the military and people who were very, very young when they came here, it's a tiny proportion of those covered under the DREAM Act.
True. So therefore, we're not talking about millions of people, we're talking about a few thousands of people with everyone else potentially getting deported.
I think that in order, if Trump did intend to go ahead with having DACA back mostly on the table, or even completely, so that people are basically getting amnesty, they would have to offer him the wall fully funded.
They'd have to offer him a crackdown on sanctuary cities.
They'd have to offer him continued immigration reform.
I mean, substantial immigration reform.
And probably a lot of other deportations of other classes of people that currently are protected under the system.
Not the Dreamers, but the much larger bulk of illegal immigrants that have nothing to do with the Dream Act.
They came when they were adults.
Some of these people have committed crimes.
If he gets all of that, He's actually managed not only to more or less permanently solve the issue, but he's actually deported far more people.
The idea early on when people are saying, oh, Trump's gonna get into office and he's gonna deport every illegal in the country.
I predicted that would not happen.
And I still predict that that won't happen.
But we may see mass deportations of groups of people that I don't think any reasonable argument exists for any non-Dreamer group, really.
To remain within the country.
And the left will call that xenophobic and bigoted, but they may have to give Trump that in time.
Otherwise, he rips apart DACA, makes a big issue of it, makes life miserable for them.
But if he attempts to go around I think the reason why he put DACA back on the table was as leverage within negotiations.
You're right. It would have been destroyed.
Then he couldn't use it to negotiate with.
But by putting it in this gray area, he can say, hey, we can resurrect this if you really, really want it.
But you're going to have to tango with me.
You're going to have to give me a lot of what I want because I want to fulfill campaign promise A, B and C. By the way, he gets a lot more than the Democrats ever would out of that.
We're talking about a slim number of people.
Who end up legalized with everyone else getting deported and not being physically able to come back.
There would be no sanctuary cities or states and there'd be a wall in their way.
I think that would be a better solution.
The only other option is, go total absolutist, really do deport everyone.
That brings up a whole nother set of constitutional issues and I think that it would probably cause a great deal of violence within the country if he tried it.
You can think it's noble.
You can think, well, we're saving the republic or demographics, whatever.
It might rip the Republic apart, unfortunately.
Well, okay, there's a lot to say.
I don't see why you would, like, if DACA is going to be eliminated through the court actions set forward by the states, Then why would you want to keep it alive in order to negotiate?
You just have something else to negotiate with.
I mean, it's not like DACA is the only issue that Trump has that the Democrats want.
Instead of sort of dangling something positive, there's a stick in the carrot.
You know, he can say, well, I'm going to deport X number of people, but maybe we can claw it back a little if you give me X, Y or Z.
Because right now, with the DACA thing, keeping it alive is giving a huge amount of leverage to the Democrats, which they wouldn't have if DACA had been repealed through the court system.
So I don't think that this, you know, master out of the deal plan to keep DACA alive for that purpose makes a huge amount of sense.
Now, regarding, you know, the idea that it's just going to be a few thousand people who get amnesty and then Trump's going to get all of these wonderful things, the Democrats will never go for that.
The Democrats, of course, as we know, they want the illegals in the country because the illegals 13 to 1 vote for Democrat or 80, 85 percent.
We can go through the stats later, but they want big government.
They want to vote for the left and so on.
And whether that's a culture issue, whether it's an IQ issue, it doesn't really matter, but we know what the clear statistics are.
So it does not serve what the Democrats want to just have a few thousand.
They'll fight that tooth and nail.
But let's say you do get that, you know, the camel's nose under the tent, the thin edge of the wedge, the tip of the spear.
If you allow some to stay, then, you know, La Raza and all the immigration lawyers and all of the activists and the judicial activists, they're all just going to get right in there and widen that like crazy and expand it like crazy.
Like if you start that ball rolling and you say, well, some can stay— Then you're going to have to include things like hardship clauses like there are in the DREAM Act.
You're going to... Emergency. Oh, I'm in a fear of persecution.
The drug ganks don't like my family and I have to stay.
And it's just going to widen and widen and widen.
And of course, once that process starts, you get this legal path towards staying or citizenship eventually or whatever.
Then that process is in motion and that process is going and all the other stuff never gets delivered.
You know, it's like what... I think it was under George Bush, the elder, who said, you know, well, we're going to have these...
We're going to increase taxes, but I want a whole bunch of savings.
Government reduction in spending.
And, you know, he increased taxes, breaking his foundational campaign promise, as the Democrats are trying to get Trump to do at the moment with immigration.
And they never got the tax cuts.
Or Reagan, right, with his big amnesty.
Millions of illegals were given amnesty in California.
Reagan's biggest regret, I think, is one as governor was no-fault divorce and is one as president or When he had authority over this, he gave this amnesty to people in California in return for all of this, you know, border security and e-verify type stuff.
And it never came about. So I think that it's not a reasonable thing to say, well, it's just going to be a few thousand, but it's going to get all of these other things.
It's going to be more. It's going to grow.
That's the history. Now, as farther as whether there is amnesty or what's being talked about, it's actually worse than amnesty.
This is how, you know, people say, well, he says he doesn't want amnesty.
It's actually, legally and technically, it's worse than amnesty.
So, and I'll just give you an analogy and then you can tell me if you think it makes sense.
So, if you don't pay your taxes and you then, there's an amnesty day.
The amnesty day is, okay, you come back and you, okay, you got to pay your taxes back, but maybe no penalties and no prosecution, right?
That's, you know, no interest, no whatever, right?
That's your amnesty. Which means that you're not going to be punished for breaking the law, but you're not going to be rewarded either.
Now, if there's an amnesty which says you didn't pay a quarter million dollars in taxes, the amnesty means no penalties, no prosecution, no interest, no penalties, and you get to keep the money.
Well, that's a lot worse than amnesty because amnesty means, okay, we're not going to prosecute you.
Maybe, you know, like the legal barriers to getting back into America after people get deported.
Like if you've been, I think, illegally in America for more than a year, you can't reapply to come back for 10 years.
So you'd sort of, people would leave the country or self-deport or whatever, and then they would not face any legal penalties for being in America illegally.
That would be sort of amnesty as far as that goes.
But what they're talking about Is amnesty where you get to keep the proceeds of the parents' criminality, which is the capacity to stay in the United States.
Now, Lindsay Walters, White House spokesperson, said just September 14th, 2017, she said, the president has been clear in the past that there will be no amnesty.
The Trump administration will not be discussing amnesty.
What the Trump administration will discuss is a responsible path forward in immigration reform.
That could include legal citizenship over a period of time.
That's what most people mean by amnesty.
And so the reporter asked and said, well, how do you define amnesty, right?
Because that's kind of an important question.
And she said, I'm not going to sit here and litigate what the definition of amnesty is.
What I will tell you is that the president has made it clear that he does not support amnesty.
Very clearly, the president does not support this word that they will not define in any clear way.
So, you know, saying it's only going to be a few thousand, I don't think there's much empirical support for that.
Yeah, that's to leave wiggle room open.
He does this over and over.
He's given five or six different ideas for different issues when he was campaigning because he's a negotiator.
He doesn't even, I think, know the final form of what he's hoping to accomplish.
The only thing he said unequivocally is there will be a wall that will be built.
And most people, I don't think at this point, even care how he does it, but he's having to work with people, not just the Democrats.
If it was just the Democrats, it wouldn't be a problem.
They don't have the House, they don't have the Senate.
They can't really do anything to stand in his way.
But enter John McCain and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and a few of these other largely individuals within the Senate.
They're all pro-amnesty.
This was an issue during the campaign too, and he still has to work with them.
He can't secure their votes on such an issue.
That's why I think he's going after the Democrats.
Oddly enough, it might be easier to work with a handful of the neoliberals who live in Areas where, you know, they voted for Trump.
Immigration's a big issue in some of these places.
I think he wants to get them aboard to save their own careers, in which case he gains the votes.
He can fund his wall.
He can deport people.
He'll probably end up deporting millions of people, which is sort of what the Democrats are worried about.
But we don't even know what final form any of this is going to take, other than we know that he's counting on building a wall.
To read into it too much and assume that he is going to legalize a bunch of people, he could be discussing, well, they're going to have to go back and apply the legal way.
He alluded to this during the campaign.
Who cares? They'd be applying the legal way if there were some other random individual as well.
I would assume that would include, hey, you're going to pay back taxes, no welfare for you.
He's bandied that around, the idea that people who immigrate for some number of years would not be privy at any social spending.
If it is a limited number of people, as I imagine that it would be, I don't see that as a grave problem for our country.
What I would see as a problem is Trump attempts to go hardline.
Think of it this way. What if he does attempt to force the wall to be built?
No legislative action on it.
He just says, oh, the military's gonna build it.
I'm using eminent domain over this whole area.
Screw yourself. And then he says, well, sanctuary cities, I'm gonna ignore the court system.
I'm gonna crack down myself.
Federal agents are gonna go and arrest all these city and state governments.
It would cause uproar and he ultimately wouldn't get anything accomplished.
It should be like what Obama did.
Obama couldn't get DACA through the legislature, so he wrote an executive order.
Trump could do that, but I don't think he wants to because then he knows, hey, I'll become more unpopular.
I'll be a one-termer.
The next president will rip it apart.
So what you're saying, what you're saying, though, is that why would Trump want to do something that worked for the Democrats?
Well, it worked for the Democrats.
You know, if... I mean, this unconstitutional DACA Caligula-style mandate from on top, it worked, right?
Because they said, oh, don't worry, it's deferred.
And if it's deferred to the point where Congress passes some DACA legalization, then it worked.
Why... Why would Donald Trump want to do something that regularly works?
You know, this game of inches, this game of incrementalism, or this game of fear?
Well, it worked for the Democrats, and it has worked for them repeatedly, so I think learning from your enemies is not the worst strategy in the world.
It helped to lose them the election, though, because it became such a sore issue.
It held them back, especially in the...
In the sort of blue dog districts of the upper Midwest, so the Rust Belt, that never would have gone for Trump if that hadn't been an issue though.
He would have lost the election and then Clinton could have come along and done whatever she wanted.
Obama didn't want to work with the legislature.
He's just like, well, I'm going to pass an executive order because I'm holier than thou.
Trump comes along. He does rip it apart.
Now he's using it as a bargaining chip.
It didn't benefit the Democrats anything.
It lost them an election that they considered ironclad.
They considered that there was never a possibility that they would lose.
And then immigration looms.
And Trump says, yeah, we're going to build a wall.
Yay, says the crowd, including a lot of people who would have voted Democrat if it hadn't been an issue.
It didn't help them at all. Right.
So my point is, people didn't care about the executive action.
They cared about the content of the executive actions.
I mean, executive actions are passed quite a lot by presidents.
They cared about the fact that this executive action opened up America to more immigration.
I mean, you know the numbers as well as I do.
The numbers have been sitting at 11 million illegal immigrants in America from Mexico, for the most part, of course, for like the last 10 or 15 years.
And there are some pretty good estimates.
Adios America has a fairly decent and reasonable estimate saying it's 30 million, it's 40 million.
It's massive.
And this is a huge change.
You know, prior to 1980, there wasn't even a question on the American census.
What is your second language?
What second language do you speak at home?
This is back when there were 1 million mostly legal immigrants in America from Mexico.
Now, 30, 40 million, it's a huge issue, and people have been desperate for the war, they've been desperate for pushbacks, and they recognize that the Democrats have gained, they're gaming the whole system, right?
They're importing people who are going to vote for Democrat policies because they can't make a decent and reasonable case for To the American people.
So they got the finger on the scale.
They're cheating the entire democracy by importing ready-made voters rather than making the case to the American people.
And this is when they have academia and Hollywood and they have the mainstream media and they have schools for the most part from kindergarten up and they still can't make a decent case.
So they're gaming the system.
So the fact that Trump would reverse DACA, say, well, you know, they wouldn't like that abuse of executive power or, you know, Well, DACA wasn't abuse of executive power.
It was unconstitutional. And what people want is some control over the border.
And most people want in America some reduction in immigration.
And DACA is quite the opposite if it goes and gets legalized.
And this will be, as a result...
Of Trump doing what he did, because again, the courts were going to nullify it anyway, almost for certain, at some point.
So, the fact is that the American people desperately want the war, they desperately want less immigration, for the obvious, I mean, basic obvious reasons that it's very expensive, it's destabilizing, there's a lot of criminality.
You've got a bunch of people who have already admitted their massive desire to break American laws simply by coming across the border.
And people are sick and tired of it.
They want a country back. They want some control over the borders back.
However Trump goes about getting that, I don't think people are going to be all too fastidious about the methods.
What they care about is having some control over the borders.
And if he kicks it back to Congress and if they end up legalizing it in some manner, well, sure, they can punish The people who vote for that may be in the 2018 elections or maybe even down in 2020.
But as we've seen with Obamacare, you know, once you put the food coloring, so to speak, into the water, well, it's a lot easier to put it in than it is to take it out.
I mean, the tentacles of legislation go everywhere and the groups get invested in them and people get their benefits.
Like Obamacare, it becomes very difficult to repeal.
So people don't even want it, I think, going down that direction.
Yeah, I don't want it to go down that direction either.
But if Trump takes the slow, I mean, the quick, easy route, it won't be a lasting solution.
People must understand the very idea of building a wall is to have a lasting solution, a physical barrier in place that's complete, properly maintained and staffed.
And can help hold off this problem in the future.
And this is like the one thing that Reagan lacked.
He's like, oh, yeah, I got everything else.
Let's just ignore the border wall, because who cares, essentially?
We're not going to build it. We'll put up some fences.
W did the same thing.
Obama was basically neglecting it all with catch and release.
It didn't even force the law.
And I realized that DACA was unconstitutional.
As passed by Obama, it clearly was.
That's why Trump could strike it down just by saying, oh, I'm countermanning this, it's gone.
We're gonna go back to enforcing the law.
But he's got never Trumpers and Democrats that he has to work with one of the two to have the votes to pass something that's permanent, to pass something that's stable.
It would be better if he gets 75% of that reform that he wants and has to give a few concessions to the left or to the never Trumpers Then to attempt to get 100% of what he wants, which Obama tried, and he failed.
And he had to resort to an executive order that was immediately reversed.
You know, Trump is not even a year into his first term.
He's already gotten rid of that.
He's backtracked on the Cuba deal, which is a different issue.
I think people have different feelings on it.
Going hard against North Korea, Obama tried to appease the North Koreans constantly.
Now you see that Obama didn't really leave anything lasting because he never went through the legislature.
I think it would be better to have something that more or less solves the problem.
It takes longer to get it.
It's harder to get it, but you finally do, than to say, okay, well, I'm going to put a Band-Aid on the gaping wound.
Again, as every other administration ever has, it gets ripped apart by the next person that comes along, probably destroys his 2020 chances.
And then we have to deal with Mark Cuban as president or Elizabeth Warren or maybe even the corpse of Bernie Sanders.
We can't keep doing that.
That would end up destroying the United States because then everyone does get amnesty.
Nobody gets forced out.
There will never be a wall.
There won't be any reform. Sanctuary cities, there won't be any such thing because the whole country will be a sanctuary country.
That's the problem. Well, okay.
So, I mean, the wall obviously has value.
And what was it? The Eastern European country.
Was it Hungary? They just put up a wall and cut their illegal immigration by 99%.
China, thousands of years ago, built a wall, still standing, still doing its job.
You've got Israel with a wall that works.
So it does work. But, of course, there is that big giant door in the wall called legal immigration.
And my concern is something like this.
And I'm going to run through a couple of numbers.
I'm sure you're aware of them, but other people may not be.
So, total births to unmarried women by ethnicity.
Asians, 16.4.
Whites, 29.2.
Hispanic, 52.9.
Blacks, 70.9.
Among immigrants who first arrived in the U.S. more than 15 years ago, 43% are functionally illiterate, as are 67% of Hispanic immigrants who arrived more than 15 years ago.
Election 2016, Hillary Clinton supporters and voters by race.
Whites, 37%.
Blacks, 88%. Hispanic, 65%.
And Asians, 65%.
Immigration was by far the biggest issue for Trump voters.
They want control over the borders.
They want less immigration.
In politics, are you Democrat or lean Democrat?
The general public, 49%.
All Hispanics, 66%.
Now, first-generation Hispanics are only 63%, but second-generation Hispanics are 71%.
So this is what I mean when I say you're really tipping the scales.
Do you have a positive view of socialism?
I'm guessing that this...
This poll did not include people from Venezuela who are currently eyeing their rabbits and cooking pots at the moment.
A positive view of socialism.
The general public, 31%.
Democrats, 59%.
Republicans, 6%.
I don't really understand the statistic at all.
A positive view of socialism.
Whites, 24%. Blacks, 55%.
Hispanics, 44%.
Do you want a larger versus a smaller government?
Whites want a smaller government and...
Sorry, 52% of whites want a smaller government, 37% want a larger government.
Among foreign-born Hispanics, only 12% want a smaller government, 81% of foreign-born Hispanics.
Want a larger government. We're almost done here.
Libertarian orientation scale.
I know that you're on the libertarian side of things.
All Americans, 22%.
29% of whites are libertarians.
Hispanics, 12%. Blacks, 6%.
Do you support government health insurance?
Average American, 45%.
Hispanic immigrant, 67%.
Do you favor the financial bailout?
Average American, 30%.
Hispanic immigrants, 37%.
Do you support affirmative action?
Average American, 35%.
Hispanic immigrants, 63%.
Do you trust the federal government all or most of the time?
Average American, 15%.
Ooh. I mean, that's like Jennifer Lawrence' Metacritic review status for her new movie.
Hispanic immigrants trust the federal government all or most of the time, 28%.
So here's the question.
You want smaller government, and you want significantly smaller government, if I've understood your broadcasts correctly.
If you get a couple million new people who are, you know, until they're citizens, they can't vote at the federal level, but we know that millions vote anyway.
Millions of illegal immigrants vote anyway.
You're not going to get your small government if you start legalizing, and it's going to be millions.
It's good because, you know, you can't just with a stroke of pen limit it.
I mean, as you say, activist courts, judges, and so on.
So if you're going to get this, that's enough to swing the election from here to eternity.
Like, I mean, as you know, current demographics projected backwards in time.
Republicans win almost no elections.
This is a tribal issue based upon the values that most Hispanics have when they come into and stay within America.
For whatever reason, they want big government, and they want socialism, and they want socialized healthcare, and so on.
So, legalization plus Some retroactive wall?
Well, you know what'll happen.
Because you're going to have so many Democrats in power, they're just going to open up legal immigration.
And then the wall means nothing.
Because there's this big giant hole in it called, oh yeah, you know, scribble your name in crayon.
You know, you fly a paper airplane with that name on it.
Hey, over the wall, you've become a citizen.
So that is my particular concern.
The wall has little meaning if the Democrats gain power through this kind of vote rigging.
It would also have little meaning if you don't try to build a wall or solve the problem, which is what Trump's attempting to do.
That is an issue.
Why don't we just prioritize immigration based on ideology to make sure that people more or less coincide with the concept that here we have a limited government.
People have rights. We don't simply...
Well, unless you're Google, you don't simply...
I mean, they would just lie. Oh, this is what you need.
The immigration lawyer will say, okay, this is what you need to write down to get into America.
I mean, there's no ideological test that can't be faked.
I mean, look at the entire Republican establishment, right?
That gets into the problem of bureaucracy, yes.
That's a valid point, though.
But that has nothing to do with constructing the wall.
It doesn't even really have to do with DACA. We're talking about people who are here illegally and the federal government simply did not decide to enforce the law in their cases, though.
That's a semi-separate issue from legal immigration.
We could throttle that.
I think the risk is that if we were to try to reform that before, the wall is ultimate.
It's hegemonic in importance because until that's built, Doesn't matter what you do with legal immigration reform.
If you throttle one, the other simply grows.
It wouldn't make a difference, I think.
So the wall is what's needed because the incentives are all screwed up.
You know, why didn't America need a wall, so to speak, in the 19th century?
Well, because it had a pretty strict immigration policy that...
I've focused in many ways on Europeans, but also there was no welfare state, right?
So this to me is the big issue.
I mean, and Trump has talked about this, about the fact that you're going to block people who are immigrants from getting welfare for the first five years or whatever it is, the number has gone back and forth.
And to me, that's just like, well, of course.
Well, of course, of course.
If you've not paid into the welfare state, then getting stuff out of it is, you know, it's sort of like, well, it's the old applying for home insurance after your house is burnt down to the ground.
You know, it's just you've kind of got to pay into the system for a while first.
So if you can fix a bunch of these incentives, then that to me makes a huge amount of sense.
I just, I remember... Because, you know, I heard all the same kind of crap that, oh, they're living in the shadows.
They're living under bridges. They can't show their face.
They're living in the sewers. They're, you know, like eating rats for breakfast.
And it's like, nope, they're getting welfare.
They're putting their kids in school.
Apparently, you can join the military if you're in America illegally.
So this, you can change a lot of these incentives.
And now, of course, that's not all.
Up to Trump, there's a whole bunch of other stuff that can be done.
But yeah, you fix the welfare state incentives.
You fix whether or not kids can be legally put in school.
And this remittances stuff, too.
Like if you're in, you know, you don't have a job and you're sending remittances back to Mexico, well, where the hell are you getting the money from if you don't have a job?
Well, it's either coming from the welfare state or it's coming from crime.
And so, you know, maybe if you don't have a job, maybe not so much with the remittances.
And all of these kinds, because remittances, as you know, it's a big incentive for Mexico to send, quote, to send their people over because they go over to America.
They either get involved in crime or maybe they get a job where they get a lot of them on welfare.
Welfare consumption among immigrants vastly higher than the American indigenous population.
And so they send people over the border.
Those people get money, either legally or illegally or through the welfare state.
And then they send it back to...
Mexico, where Mexico gets a massive amount of money into the economy without having to provide any services to people because it's all been paid for by the American taxpayer.
So there's a lot of things that you could do regarding incentives that don't require a wall in particular.
The wall is a fine idea.
I'm not saying that the wall is a bad idea.
But giving away everything to get the wall is...
I think is a bad mistake.
Because the incentive structure will still be in place.
And you're going to have a voting base to put Democrats in to open up legal immigration.
Yeah, it's more complex than some people think.
That's the thing. When we're looking at DACA being taken down and then perhaps offered back to the Democrats or anything else that he happens to do on the issue, we can't jump to the assumption that he doesn't have that on the table.
He simply doesn't like to discuss every aspect of the plans that he has with people, I think, to keep his ideological opponents constantly confused.
When they're kept confused, it's much more difficult for them to tackle him.
I mean, he's got Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, about the last people anyone would have envisioned him shaking hands with, in a room discussing Doc and saying, oh yeah, maybe increase border security.
He's going to extract a lot more from them, or...
What I would predict would happen, especially with DACA, if he doesn't get additional concessions, he'll drop the issue and say, OK, well, I'm passing an executive order deporting all these people because you couldn't agree on something.
And it's your fault because, hey, I gave you six months.
You didn't pony up.
You knew you didn't have a mandate.
I said, hey, I'm going to work with you.
I'll give you some of what you want.
You give me some of what I want.
You didn't do that. Screw you.
I don't need your help. And then a lot of his core fans will be cheering.
The Democrats will be crying.
They'll probably come crawling back to him begging for another chance.
That might be something else it is.
He does this sort of thing.
He likes to negotiate and he likes to keep people confused.
Well, I don't think he needs to pass an executive order to deport people because the law simply just needs to allow the enforcement of existing law to go.
But he is, he is, frankly, I mean, unless you can just sort of say, well, it's n-dimensional chess, and I can't decide anything based upon what Trump says.
But he is saying, I want Congress to pass to legalize DACA. He is saying, well, I don't want to send these hardworking, wonderful people back to their country.
That's cruel. That's mean.
That So he is very clearly signaling that he wants DACA and amnesty for that to pass.
And that is precisely the opposite.
of what he was elected for.
And my concern here, Sticks, is something like this.
Let's say it was just some terrible idea, right?
I mean, it's difficult, and it is unpleasant, and there's a human cost involved, which is exactly why Obama should never have done it, and their parents shouldn't have come over to begin with.
It is difficult and unpleasant, and that's why, you know, but it's not the person who's trying to solve the mess who gets blamed for the mess.
It's the people who created the mess, which are the parents, and Obama, and the Democrats, and the So, if he's clearly signaling that he has massive sympathy for the DACA recipients, that he wants Congress to pass it, and if they don't do the job, he's going to revisit the issue, and he's talking about a path to citizenship and he's talking about amnesty and he's talking about legalization.
I don't think that's a very strong position to start negotiating from.
You want to say, oh, yeah, well, you know, I'm going to, you know, you've got two days to come up with something and here's my proposal.
Otherwise, I'm going to rescind and the enforcement is going to start right away.
That's how you get people to the table, not saying, well, I fundamentally agree with you.
And I'm going to pressure Congress to do exactly what you want.
And if Congress doesn't do it, then I'm going to pull an Obama and do it myself.
There's no conceivable way in which that could be considered a good or strong negotiating stance.
But then we have to ask ourselves something important.
Because people failed to ask this during the election, I think that decreased their accuracy.
Do we think that Donald Trump is a total friggin' lunatic?
Because if he were to actually allow DACA to be passed in its full form and not get the most considerable of concessions in return, Not only will he just be a one-termer, he probably would get impeached because so many of his own fans that are still clinging onto him would abandon him.
I would be one of them, by the way, because I'd be like, well, I guess the gig is up.
There's no more reason to support him.
No matter what he does with taxes, it's not going to matter.
It's not just him. Sorry to interrupt, Stixson.
I hate to be a douche and do that, but I just want to get this point out before I forget it.
It's not just this.
Let's say it's a terrible idea, but it's what he ran on and it's what he promised.
And it's a fundamental breaking of the social contract because there's so many people, as you know, who gave up on politics.
I would have been one of them.
Maybe you as well, right?
There were so many people who gave up on politics and said, okay, well, this is guy.
He's not bought for. He's independent.
He's, you know, he's financing his own campaign.
He's not holding the special interest groups.
He's saying things that are politically incorrect.
He's sticking by them. He's standing up in the face of endless media abuse.
He's really for it.
He's really.
Now, if this promise is broken, people are giving up on politics.
I mean, people are—they're not coming back to the table because who on earth is going to come along who's going to be more credible in terms of being an outsider and self-funding and self-financing with the history that Donald Trump has and the fame and the skill set that he had and so on?
He kind of needs to keep this promise because— People are just going to completely give up on politics.
And when people give up on politics, well, society goes through some challenges.
So sorry to interrupt your point.
And I apologize for that.
But I just wanted to get that out. It's bigger than just this particular issue.
I think if he manages to water down DACA and gets the wall and a crackdown on sanctuary cities for it, Very few people long-term would actually mind the fact that he had given them part of DACA back, especially since he already took it down in the first place.
So he can say, well, I did fulfill my campaign promise, but there was a caveat.
I was using it for leverage against the Democrats.
If he can get that, because what's the alternative?
The alternative is he can get rid of DACA. He can let that fall through and deport a bunch of people, but they're never going to negotiate with him for the wall.
They're never going to negotiate for him on sanctuary cities.
So all of these people, all 800 plus thousand dreamers, will end up in sanctuary cities and states.
He will no longer have any legislative support to do anything.
The courts will stand in his way.
Every single one of those people still alive in four years will still be in the country.
But if he can crack down on them and deny them the safe, trigger-free space that they can go to, I think?
It would be the only way to go about it in a negotiative sense.
But if you're saying, Styx, that the people aren't going to want to leave, that they're going to end up in sanctuary cities, let's say that he gets this magical DACA that somehow is limited to only a few thousand people and tries to deport the rest, won't they just end up in sanctuary cities anyway?
I mean, either he's not going to really deport anyone, in which case, what's the point?
Or he's going to deport a whole bunch of people, in which case they're going to end up in sanctuary cities.
But either way... It doesn't matter.
If he's going to deport a whole bunch of people, let's say he deports 90% or 95%, well, by your own logic, they're just going to end up going to Sanctuary City, so it's not going to advance the cause at all.
Not if he can get the Republicans easily on board with a new DACA and probably some of the centrist Democrats if all he's offering them is, hey, military veterans and people who were very young when they came in.
We're talking about less than 10,000 people, I believe, in that total.
But if he can extract from them no more sanctuary cities, we're actually going to bother doing something about that in another installation of wall funding, regardless of what it's limited to.
He will have won. But why would the Democrats agree to that?
That goes completely against their entire legislative agenda.
Why would they agree to that? They might be forced to in order because the alternative is Trump says, okay, well, if you're not going to agree to that, then I'll just get rid of DACA altogether.
I will deport all these people, make life miserable for you.
They know the sanctuary cities will still be there.
What about when he gets another Supreme Court justice?
That may be also, he might be waiting to solve every aspect of this problem until, what's it, Ginsburg dies off.
Does she really have three and a half more years to go?
I don't think so. Yeah, I know there's a lot of Democrats out there hoping that she's eating her kale and getting her exercise.
Now, the 10,000, again, say, oh, well, the people serving in the military, you can check that out.
But people who are, quote, very young when they get here, everyone's just going to lie.
I mean, we've seen this with the whole inaction of DACA that there was almost no vetting whatsoever.
You know, out of hundreds of thousands of people they interviewed, maybe 200, 250 and so on.
Massive amounts of lies.
People told to just, you know, rubber stamp.
Like whatever standard they put up, people will just bypass.
And again, even if they do get some massive number of people who are going to be slated for deportation, they're just going to vanish either into sanctuary cities or to other places.
And there's going to be a huge constituency then that the entire nanny state of the Democrats are going to fold around and try and protect from the mean old man in orange or whatever.
And this idea that you have to give them something that they want...
To me, I don't quite understand that.
I mean, the Republicans have the White House, they have the Senate, they have Congress, and they have, of course, the growing power.
I guess maybe the two could be considered the same.
But people like you and I and Mike Cernovich and other people who are fairly substantial and meaty and weighty in public discourse, they have the growing power of alternative media, otherwise known as Factual media, honest media, uncorrupted media, unbought media, data-driven media or whatever.
So they have a huge amount of leverage.
Now, to me, when I have a huge amount of leverage, I will try to set things up so that it's like, well, I could inflict pain 10 on you or I could inflict pain 5 on you.
Which do you want to choose?
Rather than, well, I can give you a plus 5 or I can give you a plus 3.
It's like you have all of the power.
Like, if you have all of the power when it comes to negotiating, then what you do is you drive the other person down.
You don't dangle a carrot in front of them.
You hold up a stick. Now, you could say, well, of course, there's a lot of people on the Republican side who've turned against him, and of course, that's naturally the case.
In which case, what you do is, you know, it's an election year next year for the Congress, so what you do is you try to get your point across, and then you use the power of your Twitter account and your social media and all that, and you say, okay, this guy and this guy and this guy and this guy All standing in my way, go to the ballot. And you do it that way.
But I don't know.
This compromise with the Democrats, this breaking of a campaign promise, because let's be clear about this.
He's breaking a foundational campaign promise.
Repeal DACA day one. He stood and looked at the angel moms in the eye, the people whose children have been murdered by illegal immigrants.
He looked them in the eye and he said, I got this for you.
Repeal DACA day one.
And if he can't do that, let's say he can't, Well, then the system can't be reformed, and it's just going to be spiraled down to, you know, a Weimar-style or pre-French Revolution-style economic collapse.
Or he can do it, but he's choosing not to, in which case, to me, sitting passively by and saying, well, let's see what happens.
No, go make a noise. Go rouse people.
Go give him the backbone.
Go give him the data, the statistics, and the outrage he needs to shake it in the face of Congress and say, no, the people don't want it.
Sorry. Yeah, but we haven't actually seen what he's going to even do on DACA. I operate from the presumption that he's using it to negotiate with Congress.
Because, as you said, there are Republicans that won't work with him.
McConnell doesn't even talk to him.
He needs a couple Democrats because he doesn't, I think he would need 60 votes actually in the Senate.
There's no nuclear option invoked yet.
So he doesn't actually have enough support in the Senate.
Without the Senate, he can't really get anything done.
But that's just an assumption that that's what he's doing.
He could also be just distracting them before he gets rid of the program entirely altogether.
It could be that I'm totally wrong.
He's not trying to negotiate.
He's just dicking around right now with Schumer and Pelosi having a good time and letting them have enough rope to hang themselves when he yanks it out from under them.
If that's the fact it plays well to his core fans, he'd probably get re-elected.
But at what cost?
Because he still hasn't solved the issue of just getting rid of DACA. He wouldn't get the wall.
He doesn't have the votes for the wall.
He's not going to mobilize the military and declare eminent domain on everything near the border.
It'd cause civil war in the country.
He's got to tread carefully, which is why I think he's simply trying to maneuver and negotiate, do whatever he can Cobble together a solution, but it's going to take a lot more time.
It's not like Trump magically gets in.
He says, okay, well, the wall's going up tomorrow.
Next week, we're kicking out all the dreamers.
And then the week after that, the Republicans, which will be totally united with me, will unilaterally pass comprehensive immigration reform.
So we're only taking two people a year into the country.
He just doesn't have the power to do that.
He's a president, not a dictator.
Therein lies the problem.
The road to hell also is paved with good intentions.
If he does decide to say, screw the legislature, I'll do whatever I can via executive action, well, then we've already lost because the next president will be a Democrat and they will tear it up.
And then they'll give amnesty to everyone.
Well, he, of course, does have the biggest unfiltered microphone in the world, for some people's tastes, a little too unfiltered.
So the fact is, of course, he can get this information.
The argument from Civil War is basically to say that the Republic is already lost, right?
So I can't get to the place.
Like, I've had thoughts, and these are completely unconfirmed.
I just put them out here as pure speculation.
I've had thoughts that he wants to rescind DACA. And he sits down with his advisors, or he sits down, you know, he has much more information than you and I will ever have.
So he sits down with people and he says, well, I want to rescind DACA. And they say, well, here's the challenge.
You know, we've got a lot of gangs.
Those gangs have a lot of weapons.
There's going to be, you know, like, remember what happened in 92 after Rodney...
King's cops were acquitted.
I mean, they set fire to Los Angeles for what days and hundred million dollars worth of property damage and over a thousand people injured and many killed and so on.
And he says, well, if you try to allow, like, if people don't self-deport and you end up having to deport people, you're going to have a civil war on your hands.
We have a very well-armed criminal population that is very loyal to And it may come through the court system, but it also may be joined with boots on the ground and fire in the streets.
Well, in which case, okay, well, then you're constrained.
You've lost control of your country fundamentally.
And that, of course, was probably one of the goals of the Democrats to begin with, was just to make it impossible by allowing so many...
Illegal immigrants into the country, as well as massive amounts of legal immigration to just make the country fundamentally ungovernable.
So I don't know whether that's happened or not.
It certainly would be one reason why he would have pivoted from what he was talking about before, which was unequivocal, extremely clear.
I mean, he was constantly tweeting of 2012, 2013, 2014.
was constantly tweeting that if you amnesty is going to give the political establishment to the democrats forever like the republicans are going to they're not going to be a viable party unless they're just some sort of useless pretend opponent appendage like an appendix or something like that you won't have a party you have no fundamental political authority anymore so he was doing all of that and then the fact that he changed after he got in power it's possible that he got access to information in which case well okay
then the government has fundamentally no control over any of this stuff and if he wants to talk about that then he could he can say well the information i have is that there's going to be a civil war if we attempt to enforce the law what do you think now some people uh may say ah they're calling your bluff you know let's let's find out uh there certainly wasn't a civil war when eisenhower deported uh hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in the 50s and 60s, although, of course, it is a big difference now.
You've got 60 million Americans who don't speak English at home, as opposed to very few as recently as 1980.
But my concern is this.
If that's the case, like if he can't do it because there's going to be civil war, okay, well then what that means is that there's no...
There's no option for a soft reset.
You know, we are north of $20 trillion in debt when you have $150, $180 trillion.
In unfunded liabilities, when Social Security needs a bailout dozens of times bigger even than the financial bailout of the big banks and lending institutions in 2007-2008, there's no way that the existing system can continue.
My goal, you know, in terms of immigration, is there's going to have to be a reset of some kind.
The government can't possibly pay its obligations.
There's not enough tax money in the universe to cover the...
The unfunded obligations the American government has entered into.
I mean, even some semi-private institutions like the pension, underfunded pensions and so on.
You know all of this stuff. You've talked about it.
And so there is either going to be a soft reset or there's going to be a hard reset.
Now, the soft reset is controlling illegal immigration.
It's finding a way to reduce the welfare state, get people off government Open up the economy, deregulate, more free market, more jobs being created, wages going up.
Because as you know, like these endless waves of illegal immigration, they're either driving down wages, particularly for vulnerable Americans, particularly in the black community, or they're going on welfare, in which case they're destroying the economy through tax and spend policies.
So there's going to be some kind of reset.
And sorry for the long speech.
I'll shut up and give you the floor in a sec.
But there's going to be some kind of reset.
Now, it's either going to be a political soft reset.
Like it's either the plane's coming down.
It's either going to come down wheels down or it's going to come down wheels up and at 90 degrees.
Now, if there's no possibility really of limiting immigration, if there's no possibility of enforcing immigration laws, and if there's no possibility of deporting people in America illegally because of civil war, well, there's going to be a hard reset.
And that hard reset is going to be brutal.
For everyone except a tiny elite in their gated communities.
If there's a soft reset, there's going to be some suffering, but it's a lot less suffering than there will be hard reset.
Hard reset is Weimar leading to, God, Nazism, or the French Revolution leading to the Reign of Terror, you know, when the currency goes nuts and there's hyperinflation.
I mean, that's just like the food supply gets interrupted.
I mean, that's a brutal, brutal scenario that almost always leads to significant extremism.
So my concern with the argument from Civil War is we're basically saying, okay, no political solution.
It's hard reset time, and that's actually crueler.
I mean, you want to be deported to Mexico rather than be in America during a hard reset.
I guarantee you that. Yeah.
I would say a soft reset is what I would predict is probably coming.
There are times when I'm more pessimistic.
When I look at some of the overlap between now and Weimar Germany especially, I'm like, oh, well, the far left and far right appear to be growing larger and larger.
Centrism is growing out of favor in the establishment's suffering.
They kind of deserve it, but among the domestic population, like civilians, like, oh, well, this could get pretty dicey.
My hope is that doesn't happen.
But no, what I'm saying is that there would be a civil war.
If Trump tried to unilaterally, without the legislature being involved, tried to do...
All of these things, deport a bunch of people, build a wall.
That might spark a civil war.
If he's got the consent of most of the legislature and enough of his fans, he can do that.
But he still is going to face some challenges.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
It will take him time. I think, though, he still does intend to do these things.
I haven't lost hope that he does.
He came out, I think it was just yesterday.
Make no mistake, in no uncertain terms, since I have to keep reminding people, yes, there will be a wall.
It will be built. It will not be the existing wall and fence, and it won't just be a fence.
He comes out and says that.
If he does break these promises, he's a lunatic, and he doesn't deserve to be re-elected if he does.
I would come out and I would say that to everyone that I know here on YouTube.
I'd say, don't bother voting for him because he doesn't know what he's doing.
Clearly we were wrong or the establishment is threatening to, I don't know, throw him out a window if he tries these things.
But there's no one to vote for then.
That's my particular concern, right?
I mean, and this is why, you know, whether we have to, in social media, build the animatronic spine that Trump seems to need at the moment, because it's one thing to say, well, this is all a negotiating strategy and whatever, but why is he spouting all these democratic talking points about the poor DACA children and their contributing to society and this and that and the other?
I mean, it's one thing to negotiate and say, okay, well, I'm going to make some concessions to my enemy's viewpoint, but you don't have to spout all of their sentimental and emotional I don't know if Ivanka's put a hold spell on his brain or something like that, but it just seems like this, from a very sort of firm Machiavellian geopolitical, you know, grand chess game that he was talking about before he got into office to now, well, you see, there's all of this compassion and big-hearted stuff and so on.
It's all crap. I mean, if the government cared that much about children, they'd make the school system a hell of a lot better.
They'd stop drugging intelligent boys, and they would not have any kind of national debt.
This idea that the government is now waking up to all the children of the children.
First of all, they're not kids anymore, most of them.
And the idea that the government cares about...
It's like poking the sentimental button in people's irrational hearts and just saying, well, but the children are going to be thrown in the ocean.
I mean, why do you need to repeat all of these, some of them are complete lies, and they're all these emotional triggers.
Why would you want to help reinforce the Democrats' sentimental falsified talking points unless there was a huge cave-in coming?
I would say one possibility is he's screwing with the centrists.
He's trying to cast himself off his left scary or mean, but then he swings all the way back.
He's done this too. Sometimes he'll put something out there that seems like he's selling out, and then he goes so far out there, it's like he warps the curve and just starts saying things that the centrists or center-left consider to be nuts.
What he may be doing is trying to confuse them or Here's another possibility.
I've thought of this. I'm not confident this is true, but we might consider it.
Imagine he just wants his own fans to be looking at what's happening with DACA because he's about to, in a few days or weeks, completely change course, say, oh, the legislature is just a bunch of failures.
I can't work with these people.
I'm just ending DACA, screw them, and then hoping that they crawl back to give him more concessions.
Because then, what good is the bully pulpit unless people are focused on it?
He's done that, too. It's like the Billy Bush tapes.
Everyone thought they were going to sink him.
It gave him more power.
Everyone was talking about him again.
And it was great. Okay, but...
If you had Bernie Sanders sit in on your show, do you think it would change a little bit?
Like, let's say he became the host of the Sixth Hexenhammer Show, whatever it's called.
Let's say that Bernie Sanders sat in and took over your show.
It would change, right? It would change from the stuff that you talk about now to something kind of the opposite.
It would change, right? Because you are the show, right?
So if somebody replaces you, the show is different.
There's no independent show that programs you, which would then just program someone else to say stuff like you.
With this incredible and uncanny ability to speak without notes.
This is amazing. It really is a force of nature.
It's great stuff. So, and it's the same thing.
If somebody came and did my show, the show would be different.
So my question is, you know that there's no independent policy that exists in the White House.
The policy is the people who are there.
Personnel is policy.
And all the MAGA people are gone.
All of the, you know, the most brilliantly run campaign in political history, at least arguably, those people are all gone.
Those people are gone.
Now, who's he surrounded by?
A bunch of globalists, a bunch of Goldman Sachs.
Man, if he's moving to the center, if he's moving to the coxervative side of things, man, he's really putting a lot of work into that camouflage because he really does look like he's surrounded himself with exactly the kind of people that people voted against when they voted in the last election.
That's pretty deep.
He's going deep undercover to the point where it looks pretty indistinguishable from a sellout.
And only Trump could pull something like that off, which is why if it was anybody else, I probably would have said, oh, yeah, typical politician.
But he's convincing enough, whether it's his charisma, and it's a total lie and an illusion, and you're right, and he is selling out, and we're basically fucked, or whether it's something else.
With Trump, you can almost believe it.
Look at what he's done throughout his life.
Look at what he did during the campaign.
Nobody, for the most part, expected him to win, including some of his fans.
I would say, though, there are a few holdovers that he's still got around him.
Carson is still there in HUD, I believe.
Kellyanne Conaway, if I'm correct, is still there as well.
Miller's still there. Yeah, so there are a few left.
And he made a big show firing Bannon and Gorka.
But Bannon, what did he do?
He didn't abandon Trump. He went back to go seize control of Breitbart and is now using it as a cudgel to give some less alt-media-ish style shine, I think, to the policy.
But that's an important thing, the Bannon thing, right?
Well, Carson was never particularly strong in immigration.
But if Bannon is saying, I'm better off at Breitbart than I am in the White House, that says something about the White House.
Because Bannon started at Breitbart.
So, you know, if being at Breitbart is such a powerful position, much more powerful than being in the White House, why on earth did he get involved with the campaign to begin with?
He got involved in the campaign and left Breitbart because he thought that being in the White House was going to give him more authority, more power to get the things done that a lot of people in America wanted.
63 million, at least, wanted to get done.
So this idea, well, you know, he can do more from outside the White House.
It's like that's not what he spent the last couple of years of his life doing.
So that is a concession.
That is a retreat from what was planned.
And I don't know nearly as much about what's going on in the White House as Steve Bannon does.
But if he thinks he's more effective not in the White House, that tells me a lot about what is going on in the White House, which I think is a soft coup that's going on from the deep state.
And what's going on with Trump?
I mean, I have no idea.
Of course, that's the point.
But the idea that, well, he's a magic comeback kid, I'm not sure that's much of an argument.
That's like a fingers crossed thing.
Oh yeah, some of it is just a hope.
That's in full admission, but I base it on looking at the pattern of his behavior over time, what he's said and what he's done.
If during the campaign he's consistently saying things in order to confuse others, then rescinding them, doubling down, rescinding again, talking about his hand size and all of these off-the-wall things, as well as hammering out this platform, things that he says consistently, Over and over, he tends to stick to.
Everything else seems to be negotiable in his mind.
When he comes out there for yesterday and says, no, there's going to be a wall, and I don't mean a fence, yeah, I think he's serious about that.
The only way I can envision him actually getting that is to water down and give the Democrats DACA light, which might, by the way, you might not end up Finding that entirely unenjoyable, it may come with a lot more deportation than amnesty, so to speak. It might only contain residency, in which case, it doesn't even matter.
There's no voting going on.
Well, of course, back to the earlier point, if the deportations are going to work, then you can do them.
And if they're not going to work because of sanctuary cities, then you can't do them.
So the idea that it's going to be a small amount of deportations, I don't think.
And of course, with residency, you get the illegal voting.
There's lots of studies out there.
Millions of illegal immigrants voted.
I mean, this is one of the reasons why so many of the cities are resisting any kind of voter ID laws and why they're resisting any kind of investigation into illegal voting.
I mean, I think everybody knows this idea that there's this magic barrier.
It's a force field. You can't get through it unless, you know, I mean, it's all nonsense.
I mean, you get your... You get your driver's license, a lot of places you signed up, you just vote, right?
So this calculated number of illegally registered Hispanics could range from 800,000 to 2.2 million.
And this is based off the only 11.8 million estimate.
Of non-citizen Hispanic adults living in the United States.
There's an Old Dominion University found that in 2008, 2010, and 2012, between 14.5 and 15.6% of self-declared non-citizen adults were registered to vote.
And of course, Trump is deporting people every day.
Not Trump, obviously, but the law is being deported.
And Trump knows all of this because he made the claim that millions of illegals voted.
So if you can let them stay in the country, there is going to be at least 15% of illegal voting.
And if they then have some sort of past citizenship, that's only going to go up.
And of course, they're going to have massive influence on local elections.
So the question, and it's a funny kind of thing, it's like, is there a law in America?
This is, I think, the big question that's going on for a lot of people in the moment.
Is there a law in America?
DACA was unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional. That's the worst kind of illegal that there is.
That's like nuclear level Charles Manson is your babysitter levels of illegal.
And no negative consequences.
And you look at Lois Lerner getting away with basically helping to throw an election to the Democrats by disallowing political organization and activism among Republican organizations.
Yeah, nothing's happening.
We've got Comey seeming to commit perjury, a bunch of other people seeming to commit perjury.
It's that woman who, oh, I didn't unmask anyone!
Oh, well, maybe I did.
But it was for a good reason, right? I mean, you've got people perjuring themselves left, right, and center.
You've got Hillary, of course, skating.
There's no rule of law.
Susan Rice, yes, it was a...
No rule of law in America.
And if this unconstitutionality...
Which, you know, to me, it's like if you do something unconstitutional, you've not only broken the law, you've made a law that's unconstitutional.
How you end up not in jail?
Beyond me. But then what do I know?
I'm not a lawyer. So there is this big concern.
So if an unconstitutional usurpation of power, which is gravely, horrifyingly, terribly wrong for a president to do...
Especially with something as big a deal as this.
This isn't, you know, one of Clinton's, oh, I'm going to pardon everyone, you know, whoever gave me a foot rub.
That's bad enough. At least that's only an individual.
And that's a corruption at an individual level.
Allowing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people to stay and work.
Big effect on the demographics.
Big effect on the voting base.
Big twist and warping of the entire American political process.
One of the worst things, in my opinion, that's happened constitutionally in quite some time.
Outside, of course, all of the unconstitutional wars that never seem to go through Congress.
So, if somehow this anti-constitutional, illegal, immoral, wrong, criminal, in my mind, behavior can get transmuted into...
A law that benefits the Democrats, aren't you just basically rewarding them enormously for this kind of unconstitutional behavior?
Aren't you just saying, hey, do unconstitutional stuff, and we're going to rubber stamp it into legitimacy.
And there's no rule of law left in America.
It's just whatever you can get away with.
Or if you're afraid of deporting people for fears of violence, it's like, oh, so basically, whoever's the most violent, whoever's the most aggressive, whoever's the most brutal, whoever's going to throw the most resistance in the government's way, they just get their way.
What kind of message is this?
You're basically saying that the republic is done and was decades ago.
And as far as the conservatives, that's definitely true.
I would say, you've got to understand this.
If Trump is using this as negotiating leverage, he can let it go at any time.
He can wipe out the sanctuary cities, potentially.
The courts will stand in his way, and it'll take years.
He is capable of doing that.
But consider one thing here.
What if there is a significant shift in the cultural demographics of the US as people realize the authoritarian left and most of the Republicans really are just an establishment swamp?
The one thing that Trump will have accomplished If nothing else.
If he doesn't reform anything, then he becomes a one-term failure.
The one thing he has is planted the seed of anti-establishment, in many cases pro-libertarian and pro-populistic rhetoric in the American population.
If that has been planted, it will continue to grow if those problems are not addressed.
They're not going to go away. Immigration will become less popular if Trump ends up failing.
It doesn't help the left, I think, long term.
What you may see are people, they're actually like the sons and daughters of immigrants suddenly becoming anti-immigration hardliners or something.
You could see any of a number of demographics shift against that.
We've already seen it. It wasn't as big an issue, you know, in times past.
Trump forces the issue.
It does become big.
He gets his way. If he fails, the issue doesn't go away.
His fans still believe that immigration needs to be cracked down on.
It's just that now they're even more pissed off and they're even more hateful of the establishment.
Well, you know as well as I do that demographic projections are very clear.
Look, it's whites who want smaller government.
I wish it wasn't the case, but you have to follow the data where the data leads.
It's whites who want smaller government.
Now, whether that's because the average IQ in Mexico is in the 80s or what, I don't know.
Maybe it's a cultural history. I have no idea.
But it's the whites who want smaller government.
And whites have gone from a clear majority Down to, what, 65% or so just in a couple of decades and, you know, are going to go into the minority in a couple of decades more.
If you want smaller government, then fewer whites as a proportion of the voting base won't work.
So if you're going to legalize a bunch of people...
Then you're going to get a bunch of chain migration.
He's going to say, well, I don't want chain migration and so on.
Well, there's going to be emergencies.
There's going to be medical things.
There's going to be whatever. I mean, there's going to be tons of ways around it.
And then the courts are going to just open it up back up and all this kind of stuff.
Once you let that, you know, first couple of mil in with a path to citizenship, everything else just comes swarming in, right?
I mean, you've got, I mean, the average immigrant just brings in a couple of family members, but Hispanics bring in massive numbers.
Family members, and they're all going to vote for big government.
So if you want small government, the time is now.
Now, with regards to Trump, if you want to give him more weight, Then the wait-and-see attitude is not going to give him more weight.
He's going to have a lot of weight if he can point at his support base, if he's going to point at people and say, well, they're going completely nuts with any potential DACA thing.
It's politically untenable.
Therefore, I'm not going to do it.
You can give him that spine.
You can give him that writing on the wall where he says, hey, it's not up to me, man.
It's just policy. Sorry, I don't make the rules.
So I think this idea of, well, we're just going to We're just going to wait and see and so on.
I don't think that's giving him enough leverage.
You and I and everyone who can make a voice in this, American or not, I'm not American, but we're all part of his negotiating strategy.
You know, we're all part of his backup team, so to speak, or the people who are going to give his words weight.
And so my concern is that, without a doubt, if you want America to turn into, well, I guess, first Mexico— Then Venezuela.
And then something even worse than Venezuela, where Venezuela is heading, then this immigration thing is the reality.
People don't just say, well, you know, I just don't like Mexicans.
I mean, who cares? Life is short and I don't have time to have prejudice against people unless there's a massive clear discrepancy in their belief systems relative to what I want.
You and I both want smaller government.
I mean, I'm pretty much, there's no bottom as far as like how small it could go for me.
And the reality is that any kind of amnesty, it's going to spur more illegal immigration.
And the wall isn't going to be bulletproof.
And then, of course, you know, you're going to get people to vote in to open up more immigration.
If you want small government, the demographic battle needs to be won now.
Saying we can win it later or, you know, unfortunately, you can't spread libertarianism faster than statists can breed.
I mean, it just is a basic demographic reality.
It has to be now.
Saying, well, we'll fix it 10 years or 20 years down the road.
Is saying like, well, I'll quit smoking after I'm dead.
I mean, I guess you will, but it's not going to do you a lot of good.
And that's why people in the alt media, we do need to pressure Trump to make sure if he does begin to falter on this, if it becomes clear.
Right now, I'm not convinced that this is clear.
This is why I'm still holding out for him.
If it does become clear, hey, we're getting DACA back in full, no deportations.
He's gonna drop the issue.
The wall's not gonna be built. I won't have time to support him anymore, obviously.
I think most of the media that still supports him, I think, would feel the same way.
But until that time, I'm not going to jump down his throat and assume this isn't just negotiating.
And I think part of it is this, and this ties into Bannon leaving for Breitbart.
I think on this, I would disagree with you.
I don't think it's so much, well, I'm getting out, well, the getting's good because the ship is sinking.
I think it's he's running interference for Trump by getting Breitbart back on board because it looked there before he went back to Breitbart like it was going to become an anti- sort of like the blaze or something like Glenn Beck's rag.
I think we do need to I wouldn't say give him a backbone I think in the sense you're using so much as encourage him in what we feel to be the right direction to make it clear hey your fans are going to abandon you're probably going to end up impeached if you don't You know, do most of the things that you were saying you're going to do.
Okay, North Korea, all well and good, maybe fine.
Taxes, okay, you're talking to the Democrats, maybe we'll get tax reform.
But the wall's got to be built.
DACA can't be restored in its full state regardless.
Even the most half-assed Trump fan I don't think would agree with that.
I'm not saying DACA, by the way.
Some people think I support DACA. I don't support DACA. I don't care if a few thousand of those dreamers remain in the country.
My problem, though, is this.
DACA is not going to go anywhere and will just be restored if Trump doesn't go hard on this issue and do it the right way.
It'll end up like Obama with his executive order.
It just gets destroyed.
Day one. Well, I appreciate the conversation.
I think we've given people a lot to chew on.
I just wanted to remind people, youtube.com forward slash sticks hex and hammer 666.
And you know why? Because 665 was taken.
And also, you can follow him on twitter.com forward slash sticks 666 official.
And it was patreon.com slash sticks hex and hammer 666.
Is that right? Yes. I really, really appreciate the conversation.
Let us know what you think in the comments below.
It is the fight for the West.
It is the fight for the future.
It is the fight to preserve and hopefully expand all of the treasures of freedom that we were given.
And I guess we've given you two paths forward.
I hope that you will think wisely and give us your feedback on the conversation.
