All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:06
3958 Will President Donald Trump Grant DACA Amnesty?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, it didn't come as a surprise to some people, but it came as a little bit of a surprise to me how yesterday Trump was talking about doing the DACA deal, signing any immigration bill that came across his desk in direct contradiction to just about everything that he said while he was campaigning.
I remain cautiously optimistic.
One possibility is that Trump's negotiating strategy is to say, I really want to do a deal, and then have the Democrats not give him what he wants, and then do what he wants, saying, well, I did invite the other party to the table, but they were unreasonable, and so I have to move ahead along.
These are possibilities. I don't know about 9,000 dimensional chess, but This is a possibility.
But with regards to immigration, and this is true throughout the Western world, there is a fundamental imbalance in the movement of human beings and receptivity towards what is generally called diversity, but which ends up being self-segregation.
There aren't a lot of people in Western countries that are really, really keen to move to Somalia or to Saudi Arabia or wherever.
What this means is that this is not an even playing field.
This is not a back and forth.
There is a one direction The thirst to enter into Western countries, which historically have been white countries.
I mean, the exception of America, where blacks sold blacks to be used as slaves, who were then freed by the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of white lives.
In general, it is white countries in the West.
Everybody wants to get into white countries in the West, and there are not a lot of whites who want to get into other countries, so you have this constant pressure to get into white countries.
Now, if we cast aside Rampant egalitarian idealism.
And by that I mean if we look at not what we would like the world to be, but what the world actually empirically is, we come to some very serious and very significant conclusions.
The first is that as immigration goes up, white birth rates tend to go down.
Now, people will say, well, we need immigrants because white birth rate is going down.
This is false. This is false.
There is this argument that because the boomers didn't have enough children, or their second generation after the boomers didn't have enough children, there aren't enough workers to fund the old age pensions, and therefore workers need to be imported.
Well, this is a false argument.
First of all, if the boomers did not vote for enough taxation to cover their own pensions, I don't see why the demographics of the next generation should suffer.
That is not fair at all.
I mean, if you didn't vote for or maintain your finger on the pulse of electoral or political decisions over the course of your life, if you voted for or accepted that governments were going to take care of your pensions and then you did not follow up and harass governments enough to make sure that they were saving for your pensions, I don't see why the demographics of the next generation should be fundamentally altered.
Number one, even if it was work.
Number two, of course, immigrants from the third world, which is generally where they're coming from, immigrants from the third world.
They're not economic positives to countries as a whole.
They tend to vote enormously for a big government.
They tend to be leftists as a whole.
They're highly tribal, highly collectivist in their thinking.
They do not have a history of Western ideals, of equality before the law, of separation of church and state, of small government, free market economies.
They generally come in and consume welfare, in particular in America.
Just looking at the Hispanics from south of the border, they consume welfare at two to three times the rate of the domestic population.
So the idea that because there's been a low birth rate, there needs to be mass importation of third world cultures and individuals in order to produce the taxes.
And of course, The people who come into the country from the third world have generally a very higher, much higher birth rate than whites in the West.
And what this means, of course, is that even if they're working and paying taxes, those taxes are more than consumed by the public services that are required to be provided to the large numbers of children that they're having.
And, of course, you have language difficulties, you have cultural difficulties, and all of this results in reduced educational opportunities for the domestic population as a whole.
So these arguments are fundamentally false.
There is a lot of talk, of course, of compassion.
Of compassion for the DACA. They're always referred to as kids, although many of them are in their 30s and beyond and so on.
So there is, of course, a lot of talk of compassion.
I find that...
Difficult to follow, logically.
I'm a compassionate guy, I care about people, but I have found over the course of my half-century plus on the planet that if you have compassion and act to sacrifice your own interests in a one-way relationship, In other words, if you're engaged in a relationship with someone who demands that you make sacrifices while they then receive the products of all those sacrifices and make few, if any, sacrifices in return, that is not virtue.
That is cowardice, exploitation, and the handing over of your country to other cultures.
That is not compassion.
If we are supposed to have compassion for groups, then they should surely have compassion in return.
And groups that come to a country where they have not contributed one thin dime in taxes and sit on the welfare rolls and consume healthcare services and consume educational services and consume housing and clog up the streets and so on, where is the compassion of the incoming groups to the savings, the hard work, the ethics and the future of the domestic population?
There seems to be precious little.
If I and a million other white people moved to Japan and displaced the local population and raised their deficits and hung off their taxes and used up all their healthcare without providing any resources in the form of taxation, or with few of us doing so, that would be considered a horrible act of quasi-colonialism.
But colonialism, of course, moving to another country and extracting its resources through force, it's only bad, of course.
When white people do it, when everyone else does it, it's Vibrant diversity.
I think compassion is a value, but compassion, like all of our resources, requires reciprocity in order for it to be a virtue.
It is not a virtue to give up all of your self-interest and demand no equivalent sacrifice on the part of others.
That is Originally, or initially, self-sabotage, which leads, in fact, in the long run, to self-destruction.
And so, requiring that compassion be mirrored, sympathy be mirrored, that there be a productive exchange of values is necessary, and in the current immigration systems of most Western countries, there is, of course, no particular desire for or enactment of the values of reciprocal Altruism or reciprocal kindness.
It is very much a one-way street.
The domestic population must give up their values, must give up their interests, must give up their money, must give up their security in many ways, in order to what?
What is the benefit?
In order to what?
This is a very fundamental question.
What's in it for you?
What's in it for me? What's in it for the domestic populations of the West, for all of this endless migration, all of this endless importation?
What is in it? I mean, in Canada, there are a million people over the next couple of years coming in, mostly from the Third World.
The same thing is true in America, perhaps even to a greater degree.
And there's no discussion of it.
There's no conversation about it.
There's no, should we, let's weigh the costs and benefits, of course, because immigration has now been associated with race and not against the empiricism of who's coming in.
And once you tie immigration to race, then opposition to immigration, Then becomes racism and therefore anybody who wishes to control immigration into a host country, it must therefore be a racist.
And the fact of the matter is that to me it wouldn't matter what the races are.
If you have a group coming into a country that overwhelmingly supports bigger government, more debt, and is putting an undue burden on social resources that I have paid for, that other people who are native to the country have paid for, I don't care if they're redheaded or have one ear or are 19 feet tall or have blue skin avatar style.
It doesn't matter to me. Whatever group is coming in that is acting against the values that I hold of smaller government, of lower taxation, and of more free market interactions, well, that group is decidedly against the most fundamental values and interests that I hold.
And it really isn't a function of race.
It is a function of values.
And there is, of course, no particular transition point for These values, how are the classical liberal values that built the West to be maintained?
For thousands of years, people fought and bled and died in order to build small government, free markets, and separation of church and state.
How are those values to be maintained?
Of course, what happens is, since governments have taken over education, immigrants come into government educational schools where they are then taught all of the values of big government socialism and statism and so on, and then perhaps they traipse on down to the universities where cultural Marxism is used to cripple them and imprint them with a hatred of voluntary interactions, with a hatred of free trade, with a hatred of property rights, with a hatred of the free market.
And then, of course, what happens is because they have this hatred of the free market, They then can't function within the free market and then end up having to get jobs with the government or being unable to function in that kind of free market environment at all.
It is a form of intellectual crippling.
It is the hobnailing of the mind in order to create dependence on the state and to guarantee that people will continue to vote for bigger and bigger government.
It is not just a population replacement.
It is a values replacement as well.
The empirical data is very, very clear, and I urge you to look up Robert Putnam's studies, that's P-U-T-N-A-M, his studies on multiculturalism.
He was, I think, certainly not skeptical of it when he began his studies.
In fact, he sat on his findings for About half a decade or more because he was very concerned about the effect they might have if the information got out.
But the empirical data is very clear.
The question of cocooning or the death of the free-roaming neighborhoods, like the free-range neighborhoods that I grew up in, and if you're older, perhaps you grew up in, The cocooning, the keeping of children at home, lack of social cohesion, lack of social interactions, a lack of community, lack of a sense of belonging in your environment, this has all been crushed under the Marxist altar of rampant diversification and multiculturalism.
Cultures fragment, and you can see this too, because the idea of diversity is that it doesn't really matter who we are, we can all blend together and enjoy each other's culture.
But that's not in fact what happens when people come to countries.
And I'm an empiricist, which means that I look at the data more than I look at the theories.
I really don't care that much about theories.
I really only care about data.
And theories which adequately explain the accumulation of data have great value.
But theories alone, divorced from data, I view as highly toxic.
And usually they are an environmental brain biohazard for which the only hazmat suit is rational philosophy.
But the reality is that when groups, different ethnicities, different cultures sometimes, certainly different races, when they come into a particular environment, they self-segregate.
And what happens is, and we all know this, that's called gentrification.
When whites move into a black neighborhood, the blacks tend to move out.
When Mexicans move into a black neighborhood, the blacks tend to move out.
When Mexicans move into a white neighborhood, or Somalians, or people from India move into a white neighborhood, the whites tend to move out.
This is common to all human beings, and it fundamentally comes down to the fact that we are a tribal species.
This is a basic biological fact, and it's kind of funny to me, tragic but funny, that the left, which claims to be very pro-science and very against creationism, the idea that God created the species and so on, that they tend to focus on and accept fundamentally the premise of evolution.
And evolution is fundamentally tribal in nature.
You protect your tribe, you protect your genetic proximity, that's how evolution fundamentally functions.
It is fascinating and telling, I think, that people on the left deny the concept of God creating and guiding humanity and the other animals and plants and so on.
But at the same time, they fundamentally deny genetic and group preference and the tribalism.
That is natural to ethnicities and races.
And, you know, birds of a feather flock together.
This is something Muhammad Ali was talking about.
The red bird flies with the red bird.
The blue bird flies with the blue bird.
This is just people tend to self-segregate.
Now, you may say it would be great if that wasn't the case.
Sure. And if you were a communist, you would say it would be great if human beings weren't motivated by profit.
But profit, of course, also is fundamentally evolutionary in nature.
Profit, from a caloric standpoint, is simply you cannot survive as a hunter if you expend more calories in the hunt than you consume in the kill.
If you expend more calories sowing your crops and tending them than you receive from their growth, then you die.
Profit is simply using fewer calories to get your calories.
And without profit, we simply cannot achieve anything.
Profit is also, I guess, spending less on dating someone than developing a pair bond and becoming a parent and so on, right?
So profit is foundational to life, to evolution as a whole.
Any animal which regularly expends more calories in its pursuit of calories than it can gain in the result dies off.
And so profit is foundational Tribal ingroup preferences, genetic ingroup preferences are foundational.
And in general, throughout most of the revolution, tribes were very hostile towards each other.
And to be, you know, Game of Thrones, you're the hill people, it's not like, hey, let's have a hug, let's have a dance-off.
I mean, there was great caution, if not downright fear, in the presence of other tribes.
This is wired into us.
It's kind of hardwired deep into our brains.
And this is why it is very hard to find groups where there is commingling of ethnicities, find areas where there is commingling Of ethnicities and nothing but positivity.
And we all completely understand this.
I mean, there's no fundamental doubt about it.
Because, I mean, you just think, if you are, you know, a white person from England and you move to a country with other white people from an English background, you share language and values in common.
And if suddenly five of your neighbors are replaced by Somali families and you don't speak their language and you don't really understand their religion, your neighborhood cohesiveness is undermined, if not downright destroyed.
You can all watch each other's kids if you come from the same culture.
Do you know what's allowable in the Somali culture?
Do they know what's allowable in your culture?
Can you, quote, watch each other's kids?
Can you discipline each other's kids?
I mean, I remember being a kid.
And I broke a glass on a road.
And some woman in the neighborhood made me clean up the glass and get it off the road.
And you can do that in somewhat of a monoculture.
And the monoculture may not be racial.
It may be religious-based and so on.
This cohesiveness, this feeling of security does get undermined.
The left fully understands this, of course.
The left is no more interested in diversity than they are in any other thing that they claim to be, because the left does not promote diversity within their own environments.
Like, the left doesn't say, well, Half of the population are conservatives, give or take, but we don't have nearly enough conservatives in our gender studies department.
Therefore, we need to really focus on outreaching to conservatives, on bringing conservatives in.
Boy, you know, there are a fair number of objectivists around the world.
We don't have any objectivists in this anthropology department.
Let's go to some objectivist clubs.
Let's go hand out some pamphlets.
Let's go bring some of those people into our environment or in the media.
And the newspapers don't say, well, you know, gosh, a lot of people voted for Donald Trump.
We don't have their representatives in our newsroom.
None of our reporters or very few of our reporters even understand that kind of thinking, let alone openly support Donald Trump.
So, you know, let's go to some conservative groups.
Let's do some outreach.
Let's really, you know, let's put out ads in the newspaper that say, We want reporters, and we really encourage applications from conservatives.
We really encourage the majority of America is still Christian.
How many out-and-out Christians are there in most newsrooms?
I imagine very few, which is one of the reasons why they will go after the Catholic Church for its indiscretions, but not public school teachers.
And so, do they say, well, we need new reporters.
We strongly encourage people of a Christian faith to apply.
Because, well, they're underrepresented.
We don't have enough diversity. We're all kind of an echo chamber.
We're a mirror facing a mirror.
We have an infinity of self-reflection.
Actually, an absence of self-reflection.
An infinity of bias reflection.
That would be...
Because, you know, this is the argument of the left.
Well, you know, if there are 10% of blacks, then your workforce should be 10% black, without taking into account any of the IQ Belker stuff that I and many others have talked about for a long time.
But... They don't do that with regards to non-leftist belief systems.
And, you know, I hate to say it, I mean, because I am, I was just thinking about this this morning for quite a while.
I am in the business of trying to change people's minds.
I shouldn't say change people's minds.
I am in the business of bringing people the truth.
Rational arguments backed up by evidence.
And the tragic reality is that most of our beliefs, or significant portions of our beliefs, are significantly genetic in nature.
If you are on the left, if you are on the right, if you are conservative, if you're a liberal, if you're a leftist, if you're a Marxist, this has substantial, substantial roots in your genetics, in your biology.
So, if we understand that there's a category called political belief, or maybe it goes as deep as one's view of metaphysics or the nature of reality or epistemology, the nature of the acquisition of truth, of thought, but political beliefs, just to look at it at that level, that's been the most studied.
Political beliefs. are in many ways a similar category to race in that there are biological substrata that have particular genetic markers.
And so if you say, well, we want to have more women, of course, the difference between men and women to a large degree genetic, We want to have more women because we want more biodiversity.
We want more blacks.
We want more Hispanics because of biodiversity.
But if you then specifically reject focusing on conservatives, focusing on libertarians or objectivists and so on, then you are specifically excluding a genetic category of human beings.
And, of course, the left fully understands that non-whites tend to vote for the left, and therefore they want to bring those in and bring those perspectives and woo those people.
They are the customers for the big state, for the nanny state, and women in general.
I saw this ad on Twitter the other day, and it was like, so-and-so, this woman believes that financial independence means not being dependent on somebody else's income.
Somebody else's money. Well, feminists talk a lot about that, and the reason they do that is to keep women working, to delay their capacity to have children, and to sow the seeds of division between men and women, because if men and women are divided, women become more dependent on the state.
In particular, because women are going to have children, for the most part, and raise children, and therefore they're going to need resources from someone because, man, I mean, I'm a stay-at-home dad for nine years now.
It's an exhausting business.
Particularly, you know, as they say in the early years, the days are long, but the years are short.
It's kind of a blur back then because your kid's up three, four, five times a night sometimes, and then they get sick, and you just, I mean, it's a sleep deprivation tank of future fertility, or past fertility, I suppose.
And so this ad was, this woman doesn't like to be dependent on somebody else's money.
But you always hear that in terms of marriage.
You never hear this in terms of, therefore, she's going to reject the welfare state.
Therefore, she's not going to be dependent on taxpayers' money.
Therefore, she's not going to be dependent on the state.
It's always, don't be dependent on your husband.
Of course they say, don't be dependent on your husband.
Women who are dependent on their husband's income tend to vote for smaller government and lower taxes.
Women who are dependent on the state, who are hostile to or skeptical of or Have, I guess, cast the flowers of sexual restraint to the wind and have mounted so many penises that they've OD'd on, I guess, these days in absence of foreskins and have become, they've lost their capacity to bond with a man.
So then they end up maybe getting knocked up or whatever and They end up dependent on the state and therefore the state can sell them more and more stuff.
And of course, this herding of women into the workforce too.
A lot of women want to have kids, which means don't be in the workforce.
If you want to be a mom, then you need to breastfeed your kids for the recommended year and a half or so, which kind of means you can't be in the workforce.
But herding women into the workforce is tough because, well, this is why you need big giant HR departments, some place to put women Where if they leave, it's not that bad, as they often will to have kids.
But of course, the HR department, as we see recently in lawsuits, has become kind of a gatekeeper for the spread of neo-Marxist ideologies within an organization.
And boy, it's rough stuff as a whole.
So with regards to immigration as a whole, here is the challenge.
It is very hard to sell the positive benefits of third-world immigration to first-world countries.
Now, the benefits to the political ruling classes are very clear, for the most part.
Again, there's an exception to Trump, which sort of remains wavering or hanging in the wind at the moment.
It's very hard to sell that.
And the reason why it happens, though, is because it has become increasingly impossible to sell.
Leftist ideology to an audience that's been exposed to the internet, that's been exposed to better arguments, better ideas, and has been exposed to the basic facts of history, that leftism tends to be a murderous ideology.
It's caused the deaths of well north of 100 million people just in the 20th century alone.
That the state is a brutal and destructive entity for the most part in human history, that in the 20th century alone, outside of war, the state has slaughtered 250 million plus of their own citizens.
It's called democide, and you can look up the term.
It's a quarter of a billion people murdered by their own governments outside of wars.
The government is very dangerous, and it is very hard to sell big government with the historical reality.
So having given up wishing to argue based on reason and evidence, which they don't have, the left is simply now cheating, right?
They are stacking the deck.
They are stacking the electoral debt.
And this was what comes down to the question of DACA. The question of DACA is there are 800,000-odd Men and women in America who were brought over as children.
And Trump campaigned on the promise to send them back.
Now, the reason why that's important is it's the rule of law.
And people's faith in the rule of law is already shaky enough, seeing all that's happened with the Christopher Steele Russian dossier, with the Russia collusion witch hunt, with seeing the Clintons get away with everything.
People's faith in the rule of law is very low at the moment.
And when the faith in the rule of law gets destroyed, the government can no longer rule based upon the self-discipline of the rules, because they no longer view the government as legitimate, and therefore they will do whatever they can get away with.
And that means that the government doesn't have enough hammers to play whack-a-mole with everybody attempting to game the system.
And with regards to illegal immigration, these are people who have already confessed by the act of illegally crossing a border that they have no respect for the laws of the host country.
And this is why illegal immigration is so terrible.
It's kind of like a test.
Will you act in a self-restrained manner and obey the laws of the realm?
Now, this doesn't mean, of course, that all the laws of the realm are perfect.
Far from it, far from it.
There's countless laws that I do have massive opposition to, but If you come into a country legally, that means you have empathy for the existing population.
If you come into a country legally, it means that you are signaling your willingness to respect the laws of the host country.
And if you come into a country illegally, it means that you are already showing no respect to the laws that the people have voted on, and it means that you will not exercise self-restraint in order to obey those laws.
You will basically Try and get away with whatever you can in order to gain resources.
The resource being, of course, residency in a particular country.
So, with regards to DACA, of course, the democratic strategy is very clear that they wish to have a path to citizenship for DACA so that they can Gain votes.
So that they can turn the entire country into Democrat voters, or at least enough of it that the Republican Party will never ever again be able to win an election.
And just look at the growth of Hispanic population from like 4-5% less than 20 years ago to 15-16% now.
And again, this is because they vote overwhelmingly for the left.
And not just first generation. This continues on and on and on.
Vote overwhelmingly for the left.
There are almost no small government.
Groups or individuals within the Hispanic community, they're all big government, and I mean, you just look at Mexico, that's what's going to happen again.
The goal of the Democrats is very clear, which is pass the legalization for the DACA recipients.
What that means is that through chain migration, that 800,000 can be turned into about 5 million over time.
And 5 million voters, forget it.
I mean, 5 million extra voters on the left, it's done.
America is done.
Done and dusted.
No recovery, no possibility.
There could be civil war, there could be fragmentation into warring.
States but America as a republic is absolutely done because you've got again you you are importing millions of people who have signaled already that they have no respect for the law and and if the people Just think of the people coming into America.
If the people coming into America, just say from Mexico, if they are on average the same as everyone else in Mexico, then they're going to help America turn more and more into Mexico.
If they're worse than the average in Mexico, then you're importing massive amounts of criminality and predation and sexual abuse and pedophilia and the system can't sustain it.
A free system is only possible among a population that passes the marshmallow test.
The marshmallow test is something given to kids a couple of years of age, like four or five I think, and it's very simple.
The marshmallow test is you can have this marshmallow now or you can have two marshmallows in 15 minutes.
Now the kids who can defer gratification, the kids who will take the two marshmallows in 15 minutes, have been followed throughout the course of their lives and they do very well.
The kids who take The one Marshmallow now don't do as well in life because they don't have this capacity to defer gratification.
It's somewhat of a proxy for G or for an intelligence or perhaps an IQ test.
And so if people come in who are worse than the average in Mexico, then you are importing massive problems.
And this doesn't matter, Mexico could be any country.
If the people as a whole are better Than the people in Mexico, right?
So if they're the same, America becomes Mexico.
If they're worse, America gets more criminality and cannot rule its society anymore.
Criminals or the population as a whole outnumber the police vastly, enormously, massively, which means if the majority of people are not self-restrained in their behavior and have respect for the law, you hit the gas for increased tyranny.
Because a population that will not rule itself must be ruled by fear, must be ruled by brutality, and this is what we see.
I mean, the cartels understand this, right?
If the people coming in from the third world are better on average, if they're smarter and more moral, right?
Well, where's our compassion as human beings for those they have left behind?
So let's say you take the top 5% of smartest people out of Mexico and bring them to the United States.
What happens to Mexico?
What happens to their institutions?
What happens to their education? What happens to their culture?
Well, it begins to collapse.
And then the next wave of smartest people escape, which causes it to collapse faster.
So it's so weird that...
I mean, it's not weird. I guess it's the nature of politics and its hideous games.
But if you look at it on the one hand, the West is sending and has sent trillions of dollars to the third world.
And on the other hand, they have taken the smartest people out of the third world.
What a monstrosity is that?
What a hideousness is that?
What a lack of compassion?
What a bottomless depth of selfish and vicious cruelty that is to the people who remain in the third world.
It means that the third world gets worse, and the first world gets more fragmented.
So, the goal of the left, the goal of the Democrats with DACA and with immigration as a whole is clear, which is to gain enough of a momentum from third world leftist big government voters to forever squelch any thirst for the diminishment of government.
On the right, the government exists to protect your freedoms.
On the left, the government exists to buy your vote.
And on the right, people surrender a small amount of political freedom in order to gain a large amount of economic freedom.
Whereas on the left, people sacrifice a large amount of political freedom in order to get free stuff from the government at the expense of the productive.
I mean, it is a civil war that has been going on really since the foundation of the welfare state, even further back to FDR's institution of old age pensions and in Canada in the 1960s under Tommy Douglas, the institution of communist healthcare and so on.
I mean, it's hideous stuff.
And, you know, these debates, of course, should have happened back in 1965, when in America, immigration was switched to the Third World.
This was a year before I was born.
I'm a little late to the party, but working as hard as I can.
And so the goal is clear.
Just bring in more people, and then those can chain migration and bring in more people, and bring in more people, and then the right have to submit or fight desperately to the leftist overwhelming.
And it's very clear. So, they will fight tooth and nail for the wall, but even if the wall goes up, if the wall goes up, then all that happens is the left continues to vote down any restrictions to unlimited third world immigration, and people just fly over the wall.
They just drive legally through the wall.
The wall is a legal barrier, not fundamentally a physical barrier, and if the legal barriers are taken down, the wall is completely meaningless.
The wall is an ornament.
The wall serves as much function to protect America as the Great Wall of China does right now to protect China.
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.
And people say, well, if you build a wall, they'll just dig under it.
It's like, no, if you build a wall, then if you exchange Amnesty for a wall, then the left gains enough votes to make the wall ineffective through legal means.
Just open up the gates.
Yeah, you can come in, you can sponsor whoever you want.
It's all legal. There's massive numbers of hardship clauses.
Oh, I fear persecution, blah, blah, blah, right?
So then, and you know, that's what happens in Europe, right?
In Europe, the refugees are supposed to land in the first country and not move beyond it.
And they're supposed to be coming from a place currently in civil war, but they just read their documents, or they get fake documents, or they lie, and it doesn't matter.
The borders are borders of law, not anything physical.
I mean, England is an island, like Japan, should be easy to control immigration, but it's not.
It seems, post-Brexit, to be fundamentally impossible, which means population replacement in England, which means, well...
We've seen all that before.
So this is the problem.
If you trade citizenship, if you trade amnesty for the wall, the wall will become meaningless because they'll use the additional votes from amnesty to destroy any legal impediments to coming into America.
And therefore the war will become meaningless.
And the thing is too, if you give, like Trump said in his press conference, he said, Obama said at the time, I don't have the authority to do this, to do DACA, to extend this right to stay.
And The left pulled a move, right?
They pulled a big move. They pulled the move, and the move was, well, we're just going to extend and pretend, and that way we hope to get citizenship for these people.
If you reward the DACA recipients with citizenship, with a path to citizenship, with amnesty, then you are rewarding what the left has done, and therefore they're just going to do more and more of it.
I mean, it's a fundamental principle thing.
You don't reward anti-constitutional illegal Usurpation of authority.
I mean, you can't, because you just, if you give them what they want, it's like, it's the old thing, if your kid pulls a tantrum because they don't get a candy, and then you give them a candy, all you're doing is paying them to have a tantrum and ensuring that there'll be more of them.
It's not that complicated.
I don't know why. I guess people don't have principles.
Who knows? Who knows?
But that's the reality.
And the weird thing for me is, I was afraid of the optics and so on.
And I understand all of that, but it's going to be far less bad than you think it is.
I mean, all these things are. Oh, your worst nightmares.
They come by. Oh, that was my worst nightmare.
It turned out really wasn't that bad.
The reason I'm saying that is there are a bunch of El Salvadorians who have been in America since the early 2000s, ostensibly as a result of some natural disaster, although many of them came even before that.
And Trump has just ordered them to go.
200,000. Well, that's like a quarter of the darker people.
Nobody's going nuts.
Nobody's going crazy. Nobody's going mental.
There's no apocalypse. 200,000 people who are in America are being ordered to leave.
And it's fine. It's amazing.
You have reason, evidence, biology, facts, science, philosophy on your side.
But there's the word dreamers.
They're dreamers. The DACA kids.
I don't know. I mean, if the 5,000-year journey of Western civilization can be undone by two sentimental syllables, you can say maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, but nature won't care.
▲
Export Selection