Oct. 31, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:32
4236 The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship
“WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is making another hardline immigration play in the final days before the midterm elections, declaring that he wants to order an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to non-citizens. Most scholars think he can’t implement such a change unilaterally.“With seven days to go before high-stakes elections that he has sought to focus on fearmongering over immigration, Trump made the comments to ‘Axios on HBO.’ Trump, seeking to energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress, has stoked anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making its way to the U.S.-Mexico border.“Trump has long called for an end to birthright citizenship, as have many conservatives. An executive order would spark an uphill legal battle for Trump about whether the president has the unilateral ability to declare that children born in the U.S. to those living here illegally aren’t citizens. Most scholars think he can’t…“The Pew Research Center found in a survey published two years ago that births to ‘unauthorized immigrants’ were declining and accounted for about 1 in 3 births to foreign-born mothers in the U.S. in 2014. About 275,000 babies were born to such parents in 2014, or about 7 percent of the 4 million births in the U.S. that year, according to Pew estimates based on government data. That represented a decline from 330,000 in 2009, at the end of the recession.”▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour 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▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneuxSources: https://apnews.com/7bc17837af16492b81e1f3fff913e3e5https://www.cairco.org/issues/unconstitutionality-citizenship-birth-non-americans
Hope you're doing well. So, woke up this morning and in a quite exciting and, if not downright pulse-pounding fashion, read the following from the Associated Press.
Washington, President Donald Trump is making another hardline immigration play in the final days before the midterm elections, declaring that he wants to order an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to non-citizens.
Most scholars think he can't implement such a change unilaterally.
Okay, so we're going to get into the birthright citizenship issue, but let me just point out the rampant fake news embedded all over the place in just this particular paragraph.
So it's not a policy change.
It's not a political proposal.
It's a hardline immigration play.
In other words, it's a cynical ploy to appeal to its base, dark whistles, blah, blah, blah, right?
It's an immigration play.
It's not something that his voters desperately want and that in part he was elected to achieve.
Declaring that he wants to order an end to the constitutional right to citizenship.
There is no constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to illegal aliens.
Just want to point that out and we'll get into the details as to why.
Wants to order an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to non-citizens.
Now, see, non-citizens is not an accurate way of putting it because, you know, you can be an immigrant wending your way through the system without being a citizen.
So they're not talking about non-citizens.
They're talking about people in the country You know, it's like calling bank robbers non-depositors.
It's like, well, I guess that's kind of true, but it's not really.
Most scholars think he can't implement such a change unilaterally.
See, they say unilaterally and compare Trump's supposed hardline immigration play to scholars who know stuff and are right about things.
And the idea that he would impose this unilaterally when he has a massive and clear mandate to deal with these kinds of issues from a very vast and energetic voting population, well, it's not unilateral if he's reflecting the will of the people.
Isn't that kind of what democracy is supposed to do?
Well, only when the person in charge is on the left.
So the AP goes on to say,"...with seven days to go before high-stakes elections that he has sought to focus on fear-mongering over immigration," Trump made the comments to Axios on HBO. Trump seeking to energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress has stoked anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making its way to the US-Mexico border.
God, they're good.
It's such compressed foolishness and falsehood and manipulation.
So he's just fear-mongering over immigration.
Just fear-mongering. The fact that third world immigrants tend to be enormously unemployed, tend to be enormously on welfare, tend to have very little future and are overwhelming public services and overwhelmingly vote to the left.
It's just, you know, there's nothing to be scared of other than facts.
So he's just fear-mongering.
Seeking to energize his supporters.
So this is the idea that he's, you know, conducting this xenophobic, paranoid ban from hell, you know, from his podium and so on.
Stoked anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making his way to...
He's just stoked anxiety.
The fact that there are thousands and thousands of military-age men marching towards the border, a lot of whom seem to have confessed to fleeing places like Honduras because they're fleeing their own criminal activities or accusations thereof.
There's no reason to be alarmed, no reason to be afraid.
And this is from reporters whose heads explode if a conservative walks in front of their studio or shows up in the backdrop somehow.
There's no reason for anyone in America to be afraid of...
People coming, swarming in across their borders and getting immediate access to legal representation and public services and healthcare and you name it, right?
Dentistry. I mean, no reason.
Because, you know, it's just a caravan.
Caravans are fun, don't you know?
And the idea, of course, that this is just the tip of the spear, right?
I mean, if this group get through, I'm telling you, I guarantee you, hundreds of thousands.
If not millions, are going to come swarming north.
This is a trial balloon, right?
The tip of the spear, see if they can get through.
So, yeah, but he's just stoking anxiety.
There's no real anxiety. He's just making it up.
AP goes on to say, Trump has long called for an end-to-birthright citizenship, as have many conservatives.
An executive order would spark an uphill legal battle for Trump about whether the president has the unilateral ability to declare that children born in the U.S. to those living here illegally aren't citizens.
Most scholars think he can't.
Actually, well, the Democrats, in fact, used to call for an end to birthright citizenship, and lots of non-conservatives call for an end to birthright citizenship.
And as we'll talk about later, many countries in the West have also ended birthright citizenship.
Does that mean all their leaders are fascists as well?
Anyway. This is such an example of the bubble.
In the media, right?
So this is the Associated Press trying to calm people's fears.
The Pew Research Center found in a survey published two years ago that births to unauthorized immigrants were declining and accounted for about one in three births to foreign-born mothers in the U.S. in 2014, about 275,000 babies who were born to such parents in 2014, or about 7% of the 4 million births in the U.S. that year, according to Pew estimates based on government data.
That represented a decline from 330,000 in 2009 at the end of the recession.
See, now this is them saying, it's no biggie.
It's only about one in three births to foreign-born mothers in the U.S. Oh, I like the way they put unauthorized immigrants in quotes.
Like, if you're an immigrant...
You're doing it legally, right?
You've gone through the paperwork, you've had the health checks, you've had the mental checks, you've had the education checks, you've gone through the whole process, kind of an IQ test.
So, you know, if you rob from a bank, you're not an unauthorized withdrawer.
If you're withdrawing from a bank, it's, you know, you've got the money there, and if you're drilling through the wall and pulling out gold bullion, you know...
So people saying, oh, it's only 7% of the 4 million burst of the US that year.
Do they think people are going to say, well, that's really nothing then?
It's like, no, that's quite a lot.
You know, if 7% isn't a lot, maybe you guys in the newsrooms could hire 7% Trump supporters to be your reporters.
No, because 7% is just crazy and it's too much.
And the idea too, oh, it's coming down, you see, because the economy was...
You know, I mean...
Oh, it's declining.
It's declining. The recession didn't end in 2009.
It's just been propped up, in my view, by debt.
But... Crazy.
Crazy. So...
This is the issue, and I was like...
Okay, I think it's time to talk about this.
So let's take a step through.
So what's the history? 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part...
And I'm not going to do old-timey voice here, although I won't say I'm not tempted.
So... It says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.
Now, we'll get into this in more detail, but born or naturalized, born, of course, born in the United States to legal citizens or naturalized, you have become an American citizen through the legal process of immigration and the achievement or attainment of citizenship.
The key part is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
We'll get into that. Interestingly enough, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, right after the 13th Amendment, kind of after the Civil War.
The 13th Amendment, of course, made slavery illegal.
Why did you get Civil War, 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment right afterwards?
Well, the 14th Amendment was designed to protect the rights of native-born black Americans whose rights were being denied as recently freed slaves, of course, in the South.
So pretty much the entire purpose of the 14th Amendment was to stop Democrats in the South from completely nullifying the entire Civil War and the horrors of 800,000 men killed and all that.
Because the Democrats in the South were continuing to deny citizenship rights to all the slaves that had been newly freed.
So, as usual, Democrats, this one is on you.
So, it was not designed so that women could stagger across the border at eight and a half months, drop a baby in the U.S. dirt, and suddenly gain anchor babies by which they could Claw their entire village over the border in chain migration.
So no, it had nothing to do with immigration.
We'll talk about that. So the goal was to prevent state governments from denying citizenship to blacks who were born in the United States.
So it was there to combat Democrat racism.
Now, of course, why did it not have anything to do with immigration?
Because in 1868, the US didn't have any formal immigration policy.
So the authors of the 14th Amendment had no need to address immigration explicitly.
They didn't need to talk about it.
So it was an amendment to the Constitution.
A change in the Constitution is a very serious business.
And what was the actual intention behind it?
And what was the thinking behind it?
So we'll talk about Jacob Howard.
Senator Jacob Howard worked very closely with Abraham Lincoln to draft and then pass the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, of course.
Jacob Howard also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the 14th Amendment.
And so, you know, he had something to say about it.
In 1866, Jacob Howard clearly defined the intent of the 14th Amendment.
And I quote, every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
So, again, we'll get into this in more detail, but let's just talk about this for a second.
It's very, very important stuff.
Born within the limits of the United States.
So that's geography.
Limits means, right, think of city limits, right?
So limits just means the geography.
So if all he meant or all the 14th Amendment meant was you just dropped a baby somewhere in the continental United States or any of its states, then they would have just said born within the limits of the United States, but they add this thing and subject to their jurisdiction.
And subject to their jurisdiction.
So, for example, ambassadors can sometimes have diplomatic immunity, or they may be subject to certain laws in their home countries and so on.
And think of embassies, right?
The embassies are considered soil of the other country and so on, right?
So, he says very clearly, this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.
You're just there for a visit.
Aliens, right? People who've come in illegally and who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, blah, blah, blah, right?
So, include every other class.
So, subject to their jurisdiction means, well, actually, we'll get into it more, but it means subject to the United States laws and the jurisdiction of the United States and to no other country.
So, the phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, was designed to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship if their allegiance to the United States was not complete.
Since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child.
Thus the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic So this is all very clear from the framer of the...
And you can't just make stuff up later.
Well, we think he meant this.
Just listen to what the man said.
That was what was voted on.
That was what was passed. That's what has to be accepted.
So this idea that there's some constitutional right to birthright citizenship is completely false.
I mean, I don't know who these scholars are, but what do I know?
So the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
So, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the states wherein they reside.
So this is called, or could be called, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
As I mentioned, jurisdiction does not refer to mere physical boundaries.
If geographical boundaries were intended, the framers would have simply used that word, limits, instead of adding the word jurisdiction.
Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the 13th Amendment, was the one who inserted the phrase, and he said, and I quote,"...the provision is that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
That means," he says,"...subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof?
Not owing allegiance to anybody else.
That is what it means.
Can you sue, he said, a Navajo Indian in court?
Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States?
By no means. We make treaties with them and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.
If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them.
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, That we think of making citizens, and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
So an illegal alien can't be subject to US laws, fundamentally, because US laws demand that he not be there, because he did not enter the country legally, right?
Does you understand what I'm saying?
A person who enters Like, if you go into a restaurant, you know, you can, say, seat me and bring me food, and I'll, you know, this implicit contract you're going to pay at the end.
But if you go in and take a hostage, that kind of all...
Hey, where's my right to sit and have a nice meal?
And, well, it doesn't really exist anymore because you now have committed a crime.
So if the jurisdiction of America demands that you not be in the country illegally...
Then you're not subject to the jurisdiction of America.
You're not subject to the laws because the laws say you can't even be here to begin with.
Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull's definitions, and I quote, So,
because of this, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States, the people who were there illegally.
Senator Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the Constitution.
So this is back in the day, right? And I quote,"...now all this amendment citizenship clause provides is that all persons born in the United States are not subject to some foreign power, for that no doubt is the meaning of the committee, who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States." That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision.
If there are to be citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizens as between himself and the United States.
And the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of Of the United States.
Subject to the authority of the United States.
Senator W. Williams said, quote,"...in one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
but they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense.
Take the child of an ambassador.
In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because if that child commits the crime of murder or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect.
And so with these Indians, all persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district.
But they are not, in every sense, subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought by proper process within the reach of the power of the court.
I understand the words here, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Seems clear to me. Kind of unambiguous.
Now, we're talking 1866.
Representative John Bingham of Ohio affirmed the understanding and construction used by the framers in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866.
Quote, I find no fault with the introductory clause, S61 Bill, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.
Now, there's further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship, and that is found, of course, in the naturalization oath Of allegiance to the United States of America, this of course is required to become an American citizen of the United States, and it reads in part,
and I quote, I hereby declare on oath that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign, prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.
Now, There is the rather exciting issue of dual citizenship, and most importantly, of course, it seems to be politically dual citizenship with Israel, but that is a topic for another time.
So, the Constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to anyone who happens to be born within the geographical borders of America.
Let's say you're flying over America on your way to somewhere else, anyway.
The allegiance, complete jurisdiction of the child's birth parents at the time of birth determines the child's citizenship, not mere geographical location.
For example, if the United States does not have complete jurisdiction to compel the child's parents to perform jury duty, for instance, the U.S. does not have the complete jurisdiction demanded by the 14th Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth.
So if you're, let's say, a Canadian snowbird and you're down there for a couple of months in the winter, can you be compelled to perform jury duty?
Well, no, because you're not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.
You understand, right? Now, over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this.
Restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called slaughterhouse cases.
Boy, they really knew how to name their cases back then, didn't they?
Elk v. Wilkins.
The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction, excluded from its operation, quote, Children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.
Citizens of foreign states born within the United States.
Well, of course, if you're in America illegally, You are still a citizen of a foreign state, right?
So if you come from Mexico over the border and you're in America illegally, you are still a citizen of Mexico.
You are not a citizen of the United States.
You are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.
In the case, Elk v.
Wilkins, the indigenous American claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be, quote, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance, right? Because this is back in the day when the guy said earlier treaties were made and so on, which did represent a non-citizen situation.
Now, in 1924, Congress did pass a special act to grant...
Full citizenship to the indigenous population, what we call the American Indians at the time.
They weren't citizens even though, of course, they were born within the borders of the United States.
So the Indians were not citizens.
The indigenous population were not citizens, even though, of course, they were born.
The Citizens Act of 1924 provides that, and I quote, the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
A. A person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That A doesn't include that limit thing, within the limit of the United States.
No geograph in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
And B. A person born in the United States who a member of an Indian Eskimo, Aleutian, or other Aboriginal tribe.
How are other countries doing?
Now, there are the estimates that we talked about earlier that there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the United States.
Illegal alien mothers thus add more to the US population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
Say it again. Say it again.
Illegal alien mothers thus add more to the US population each year than immigration from all sources.
In an average year before 1965, the Immigration Act, of course, pivoted immigration from white European countries to third world countries.
The American population was never consulted, and the promise was made that this would never alter the demographics of the United States.
So, other countries. Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007.
New Zealand in 2006.
Ireland in 2005.
France in 1993.
And the United Kingdom in 1983.
Unless all those countries are pure fascist, this ain't fascism.
And this happened when the population was actually asked.
Why would the population want this in any way, shape, or form?
Why would you want to reward people who have committed criminal acts with one of the ultimate prizes in the known universe, which is American citizenship?
Why on earth would you want to do that?
You're not supposed to keep the profits of criminal actions.
You know, criminals in prison can't even keep the profits of books that they write.
If you steal a million dollars from the bank and then you give it to your adult kid, your adult kid doesn't get to keep it.
You don't get to hand down the proceeds of a crime and get to keep those.
And being an illegal alien is being a criminal.
And passing along citizenship to your child is allowing the child to keep the profits of the crime committed by the adult.
And I don't remember that happened at Bernie Madoff's kids.
So, the United States and Canada are the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status.
So, how did this come about?
You can get more of this around Ann Coulter's excellent book, Adios America, but what happened?
Well, 1982. See, that's how far back it goes.
Was there a constitutional amendment that went through the whole process?
Remember Phyllis Schlafly pushing back against the Equal Rights Amendment?
Do you remember this whole conversation about...
No! Just created out of nothing.
Automatic citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. was created by Justice William Brennan and inserted into a footnote in a 1982 Supreme Court case.
You know, a footnote in a court case.
Just like the founders didn't intend.
So Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into a 5-4 decision in Plyer v.
Doe saying that, quote, no plausible distinction, end quote, could be drawn, quote, between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.
I'm no lawyer. I must tell you that.
You know that. I find that a little implausible.
No plausible distinction can be drawn between people obeying the law and breaking the law.
You know you're a judge, right?
You know that's the entire point.
You have one job, which is to determine what is legal and what is illegal.
If you say that there's no plausible distinction between people who are obeying the law and people who are wantonly and knowingly violating the law, I guess we're going to see what's underneath those robes, because you need to take them off.
Madness. Now, do you remember how all conservatives, conservatives are the ones, right?
In 1993, Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill that would clearly end citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
And I quote... If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides?
And that's a lot of services.
Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in country-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?
In 2003, 70% of the 2,300 babies born in Stockton's San Joaquin.
I should know this.
I'm so sorry. I normally check the pronunciations before these shows.
Joaquin Phoenix. General Hospital's maternity ward were anchor babies.
And you know what happened to Stockton?
So, yeah, two-thirds of the babies.
This is back in 1993.
Two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers.
I mean, when I was younger, I had this belief, right?
I guess maybe you did too.
Oh, they live in the shadows.
They live in boxes under bridges.
No. They go wandering into hospitals and they get government-subsidized healthcare and send their kids to school.
Judge Richard Posner...
The most cited federal judge wrote a concurring opinion in 2003 with the sole goal of asking, if not downright, begging Congress to rethink, quote, awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States, end quote.
Justice Brennan's invented constitutional right, he's referring to this footnote from 1982, he said, was luring, quote, illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children.
And you have one of these anchor babies, man, you can just get...
Tens of thousands of dollars in benefits and free stuff.
It is jackpot, baby, it's also been called.
And this is terrible.
Terrible. It doesn't exist in the Constitution.
It's a footnote. But it's a footnote that's extraordinarily useful to the leftist.
So let's just talk about the big picture stuff.
Ah, from details of the big picture, the general arc and swing of the show.
So let's talk about this.
So, 1965 was the time that the leftists began to really want to jig with immigration into the West.
Now, was it because they were so anti-racist?
No. It was because third world immigrants are going to vote for the left.
Third world immigrants vote Democrat, they vote Labor, they vote for the left as a whole.
And you can see this all over the place.
I've done presentations on it.
It's very, very clear. So, They say, well, you know, you can't judge other groups as a whole, but the whole point is that they bring these groups into the West because the groups are going to vote for the left.
They know that they're different from the local population, but if the local population says they're different from me, you're a racist.
But the whole point of bringing them in is to...
Ginny up, put your thumb on the scale, and get votes for the left.
This is what the left does. They can't win the intellectual argument, so they do judicial activism, they do footnotes, they do demographic change, and they scream racist at anyone who complains because they can't win.
And this has been the case since the 1960s.
So they originally hoped to win because communism and socialism were going to be so productive, and when it proved that that was not the case, then they pivoted towards infiltration, and when that was to some degree blocked by Joseph McCarthy, then they moved to Demographic change to immigration as a way of imposing socialism on the West.
So they started losing the argument ideologically, in particular in the 1960s.
I mean, because Khrushchev had come forward and started revealing the cult of personality and the mass murdering crimes of Stalin, and they weren't able to hold back the dam of reality coming out of the collectivist, centrally planned hellscape of socialist economics.
So... The fact that communism had been discredited by reason, Mises, history, evidence, facts, data, you name it, well, they weren't about to give up their position.
They couldn't convince anyone anymore, so they just started doing long-term demographic research.
Change. And so, very, very sort of in a rapid-fire fast-forward here, diversity, mass third-world immigration drives up the costs of healthcare, renders significant sections of the lower IQ population unemployable because you've got massive waves of people crashing in, taking jobs, and it drives up the cost of healthcare and housing.
And this caused a problem because illegals were having trouble paying for any of their healthcare, and of course they can just wander into An emergency room and they have to be seen, no questions asked.
But what happened is the cost of housing went up and therefore fewer people from the third world ended up in houses.
So the government forced banks to start lending to unqualified people in order to bring the demographics up to what they perceived as There was never any inequality, but for reasons I've gone into in other shows.
So they forced the banks to lend to underqualified people.
The banks didn't like those loans, so they bundled them up in these mortgage-backed securities and sold them around the world in the same thing that they're doing with the...
Hellish crater and black hole of student debt at the moment.
They're just bundling it up and selling it overseas to people who don't know what's going on.
This, of course, caused a housing crash.
Illegals driving up the cost of healthcare and immigration, of course, from the Third World massively drives up the problem.
And cost of healthcare, because they often arrive with health problems, teeth problems, and so on.
And they don't generally put enough into the tax system to cover their system, their costs.
And so you had to push the banks to sell more houses to people who are unqualified, and then Obamacare had to give healthcare to third world immigrants, both legal and illegal.
And then what happened was, well, debts are going up, taxes are going up, social strife is going up, diversity is causing more and more problems, and the percentage of European background whites in America cratered, and whites kind of freaked out because blacks and third world immigrants and Hispanics and so on overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, although Candace Owens is leading a very noble charge against that.
And so as the percentage of whites dropped enormously, whites freaked out, not because of racism, but because other groups are going to vote for a bigger government that at least whites in general have to pay for.
So then you get votes for Trump.
You get a desperate desire to control immigration, which is the response of native-born populations in voting for populists all around the world, or at least the Western world.
So you get Trump, you try to get control over immigration, and now there's a real push to end this birthright citizenship for reasons that make entire sense once you understand the background and the desperate desire for people to retain the freedoms that their ancestors fought, bled, and died to hand to them with shaky bloody hands.
So I hope that this helps you get a real quick grip on this as a whole.
I put my sources to below. Thanks as always, everyone, so much for watching and for listening.
I look forward to your comments, even the ones from the last video.
And please, if you can, I really appreciate...
If you can help out this show at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
It's very, very necessary, very gratefully appreciated, and I think it do provide a lot of value.
