America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - A Rematch with Destiny | America First Ep. 49

00:00:04.000 Good evening, everybody.

00:00:05.000 You are watching America First.

00:00:06.000 My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes, and we have a great show for you tonight.

00:00:10.000 A very exciting debate between myself and Stephen Bonnell, better known as Destiny.

00:00:16.000 And hang on, let me check.

00:00:17.000 My volume's a little bit high here.

00:00:19.000 So, Destiny, welcome to the show.

00:00:21.000 How are you doing?

00:00:24.000 Oh, wait, one second.

00:00:25.000 You're not coming through on.

00:00:28.000 Why are you not coming through on the audio here?

00:00:31.000 It's always something, isn't it?

00:00:33.000 Here we go.

00:00:34.000 Just give me a hot sec.

00:00:35.000 Oh boy.

00:00:40.000 I was working just fine a moment ago, and now suddenly, suddenly we have issues here.

00:00:46.000 So let's try this.

00:00:47.000 Can you say something again? 1.00

00:00:50.000 Okay, son of a bitch. 1.00

00:00:53.000 Let me check this real quick. 1.00

00:00:59.000 I tested this five minutes ago, and it's not working all of a sudden.

00:01:04.000 So let's see what's going on here.

00:01:06.000 Well, you're on the audio here.

00:01:09.000 Let me check my audio settings for Skype here.

00:01:14.000 Aha, there it is.

00:01:15.000 Okay.

00:01:17.000 Okay.

00:01:17.000 Perfect.

00:01:18.000 Now, testing one, two, one, two.

00:01:19.000 Now I got to do this.

00:01:21.000 Okay.

00:01:22.000 Now, say something real quick.

00:01:24.000 Testing one, two, one, two.

00:01:25.000 Perfect.

00:01:25.000 Okay.

00:01:26.000 Perfect.

00:01:26.000 We have it.

00:01:27.000 All right.

00:01:28.000 Boomer Tech.

00:01:29.000 Boomer Tech.

00:01:30.000 You know, we're always working on the Boomer Tech here.

00:01:33.000 So, there it is.

00:01:34.000 So, now that we have the sound figured out, Destiny, how are you doing?

00:01:37.000 Sorry about that.

00:01:38.000 Doing great.

00:01:39.000 How are you doing, buddy?

00:01:41.000 I'm doing well.

00:01:42.000 So, for the audience that is not aware, we had a debate, I think it was two or three weeks ago, on the subject of immigration.

00:01:42.000 I'm excited.

00:01:50.000 It was a long one, it was a two hour debate.

00:01:53.000 I thought it was relatively civil, I thought it was relatively reasonable.

00:01:56.000 Got a little bit ugly online, as it tends to do a little bit later, but you requested to come back on the show and discuss it.

00:02:04.000 Obviously, you believe there is some unfinished business here, so I'll give you the floor right out of the gate.

00:02:10.000 Let's hear it.

00:02:11.000 Let's hear your case.

00:02:12.000 Let's hear the rematch, the redress of the first debate.

00:02:18.000 Sure.

00:02:18.000 So, basically, I kind of wanted to just go over more or less what we talked about last time, except a little bit more in depth in each of your arguments.

00:02:26.000 The way that I kind of envision this happening is I'm going to try to restate what I believe your argument is as fairly as possible.

00:02:32.000 You tell me if you agree with it, and then I'll bring up a challenge to it, and then you can kind of tell me if you think it's legitimate or not.

00:02:37.000 It's pretty much all I wanted to do.

00:02:38.000 Sounds good.

00:02:41.000 All right.

00:02:41.000 You want to dive right into it then?

00:02:42.000 Yeah, let's do it.

00:02:44.000 All right, so I think I had like eight or nine different points that I kind of broke your argument up into.

00:02:47.000 So the first one that we started off with last time, I believe it was the will of the people argument.

00:02:51.000 Yes.

00:02:52.000 This is my summary of your argument.

00:02:53.000 You can tell me if this is fair or not or if you would amend it.

00:02:56.000 The will of the American people was not represented when Congress voted on the 1965 Hartzeller Act.

00:03:01.000 This immigration reform fundamentally changed the composition of America, and most people would have been opposed to that had that information been made public.

00:03:08.000 One may go as far as to say that this move was actually subversive and that the will of the people was intentionally betrayed. 0.99

00:03:14.000 Yes, agreed. 0.81

00:03:16.000 100%.

00:03:17.000 Gotcha.

00:03:18.000 So, I did a lot of digging around for this because I was just kind of curious if this was actually true or not.

00:03:23.000 And I guess, not much to my surprise, I really couldn't find any evidence of this at all.

00:03:28.000 I looked at some polling data at the time.

00:03:30.000 I guess, so basically, my counter argument was that the composition of America changed, but I don't think there was any sort of subversive way to do it.

00:03:39.000 And I think it just kind of happened accidentally.

00:03:41.000 I don't think anybody actually knew how much the composition of America would change in regards to the Hart Seller Act passing.

00:03:46.000 If I say anything you disagree with, feel free to stop me.

00:03:48.000 So, I have a couple of polls, one done by Harris and one done by Gallup, and both of them show pretty much the same thing that about 70% of Americans at the time the Hartzeller Act was passed were actually in favor of judging an immigrant on some characteristic that wasn't related to their national origin.

00:04:03.000 So, only 3 out of 10 Americans, or 30% of Americans, were in favor of maintaining that very strict, where does the immigrant come from, quota as part of the immigration thing.

00:04:12.000 As I mentioned before, when we talked about this last time, the bill actually had widespread bipartisan support.

00:04:16.000 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans supported this bill.

00:04:21.000 And even when efforts were made to appease, I will use a loaded word, to appease some of the more racist lawmakers, such as the Dixiecrats, even when efforts were made to appease these guys, these guys eventually hopped on and voted for it, and they didn't see any backlash from any of their constituents later on in any of their political lives.

00:04:38.000 So I guess my question when I kind of look at this is how can you honestly say that you believe that the will of the American people wasn't represented when both halves of Congress, the Republican and the Democrat half, and all of the people at the time in the country seemed to be in favor of the passage of this act?

00:04:54.000 Sure.

00:04:54.000 Well, I think I agreed with the data.

00:04:57.000 You know, nothing wrong with the data.

00:04:59.000 The problem is, I don't think the data contradicts my claim, and I think your summary was a little bit off.

00:05:04.000 You say that 70% from that Gallup poll, or a little bit more than 70%, said that they wanted to judge immigrants on something other than national origin.

00:05:13.000 I don't think that's quite the same as the particular provisions in the Hart Cellar Act, which were to completely eliminate the national origins quota and additionally to eliminate any kind of restrictions on the amount of immigration.

00:05:26.000 So those two things I don't think are.

00:05:29.000 I don't think they are the same.

00:05:30.000 To compare those two provisions, which is to not limit people by national origin and to not limit the number of people, is not quite the same as saying we should judge people based on something other than national origin, and 73% say that.

00:05:44.000 You know, we know a lot of people pay lip service to this idea of all men are created equal and so on, but in practice, rarely, I think, do people agree with that in pragmatism in their daily life.

00:05:58.000 So that's on the first hand.

00:05:59.000 On the second hand, I agree with you, there is no evidence that this was a conspiracy.

00:06:04.000 And I said, we can speculate that congressmen might have had a better idea of the transformative effect than the regular person.

00:06:12.000 That's what I said.

00:06:13.000 And I said, maybe there is a conspiracy because we've seen certain other conspiracies like the Hooten Plan and the Kalergi Plan in Europe, which wanted to transform that continent in a similar fashion.

00:06:23.000 So I said, purely speculatively, that it was a conspiracy.

00:06:26.000 But regardless, I said, the problem was that you had a transformative act like this that nobody really knew about or people don't know about now.

00:06:34.000 I mean, you yourself said in the first debate that you hadn't heard of the.

00:06:38.000 65 Immigration Act or what it entailed.

00:06:40.000 My problem was at no point in a major election, at no point in a major presidential debate, in a major midterm election, was mass immigration voted on.

00:06:50.000 I don't feel like there was an election where mass immigration was a referendum on mass immigration, and there should have been something like that.

00:06:57.000 So I concede to you, yes, you're right, that it had widespread bipartisan support in the Congress, but rarely do I think the representatives in Congress are totally representative of the will of the people.

00:07:09.000 If you really are, and again, this is a major, important thing happening, it should have been a referendum in an election.

00:07:09.000 And I think.

00:07:15.000 It should have been a major issue, not an act of Congress.

00:07:18.000 So, I mean, does that make sense?

00:07:21.000 Yeah, but I totally disagree.

00:07:22.000 Firstly, because we usually don't vote by these kinds of issues by referendum in the United States, just not the kind of government we run.

00:07:29.000 I guess primarily, you keep going back to this.

00:07:31.000 It seems like you're kind of trying to weasel in that, like, well, people didn't really think this thing, but you don't really have any polling data or anything whatsoever to support that view.

00:07:37.000 That's just your personal belief, right?

00:07:39.000 Do you admit that?

00:07:41.000 No, I think it's a personal belief that's based on a pretty sound understanding of the time.

00:07:41.000 Yeah, yeah.

00:07:46.000 Well, here, I mean, you have one poll to suggest that the people.

00:07:51.000 Okay, you have two polls to suggest.

00:07:52.000 Well, what's the second poll?

00:07:53.000 I only heard the first poll.

00:07:54.000 It's a Harris poll.

00:07:55.000 It was done in 1965 and then a 1965 Gallup poll as well.

00:07:58.000 So both of them were done at the time.

00:08:00.000 Very relevant.

00:08:00.000 Very highly appreciated.

00:08:02.000 But the same data, essentially.

00:08:03.000 I mean, different polls, but the same result, correct?

00:08:06.000 That people said we should have.

00:08:08.000 Which goes to show that the results are probably accurate.

00:08:10.000 Yeah, right.

00:08:11.000 Yeah, and of course, I concede the data.

00:08:14.000 But again, you have these two polls, and.

00:08:18.000 We have the mood of the time of the 1960s.

00:08:20.000 I mean, do you think, and I'm asking you this in an honest way, and please be intellectually honest do you think that if people could look at this policy and were told the actual results of it, if they were given like a projection of what would happen in the 80s and the 90s of immigration, that you would have massive influxes of immigration from Mexico and Asia?

00:08:40.000 Do you think that the people of 1965, when you had the KKK marching through Skokie, Illinois, when you had the Civil Rights Act that was opposed?

00:08:49.000 By politicians, you had people running on the platform of segregation now, segregation forever.

00:08:54.000 Do you think that people would have been for that?

00:08:58.000 Maybe, maybe not, but that's a fundamentally different question.

00:09:01.000 Okay, but see, you say maybe, maybe not, but again, I think you're being a little bit intellectually dishonest.

00:09:05.000 So if we look at something like a war, if somebody would have voted in favor of the Iraq war or not against the Iraq war or whatever, you can't really ask after you see how the Iraq war turned out.

00:09:14.000 Do you think the will of the people was represented?

00:09:16.000 It's just a non sequitur.

00:09:17.000 Well, but that's different.

00:09:18.000 But don't you think that's different?

00:09:18.000 No, it's absolutely the same.

00:09:19.000 No, of course it's not.

00:09:21.000 You cannot predict, I mean, war intrinsically is a chaotic event.

00:09:25.000 I mean, that's Bismarck.

00:09:26.000 You roll the iron dice. 0.76

00:09:27.000 With immigration, when you put in place certain policies, they have projections based on how these things turn out.

00:09:32.000 It's not like you're going to have a lot of work.

00:09:33.000 Yeah, and actually, so we can talk specifically about one of these projections.

00:09:36.000 So, in an effort to appease conservative lawmakers, like the Dixiecrats, there was a guy called Michael Feigen.

00:09:42.000 I don't know how to pronounce this guy's name.

00:09:44.000 I'm sorry.

00:09:45.000 But this was like an example of a politician that was very much against this bill because he thought that it was going to transform the demographics of America, much like you.

00:09:52.000 As a result of people like that, of the more racist, anti civil rights people, they actually made that family member provision one of the most important parts of the bill itself.

00:10:02.000 So, that idea that you can bring over family members, that actually became the highest ranking part of that bill in an effort to appease those people.

00:10:09.000 So, the people that were most ideologically aligned to you ended up advocating for the number one part of the bill that caused so much of this immigration to happen that people like you would be opposed to.

00:10:19.000 I think that points pretty concretely that it was kind of an accident, that the congressman didn't actually know how it would turn out.

00:10:24.000 Unless you have any evidence to the contrary that people did know and were being deliberately misrepresentative.

00:10:28.000 Again, it's purely speculative.

00:10:30.000 I didn't say that there was, I knew of a conspiracy or there was evidence.

00:10:34.000 I said there was evidence that there have been conspiracies in the past. 0.87

00:10:37.000 There have been deliberate attempts in the past to mislead and deceive people into, excuse me, accepting massive amounts of immigrants for metapolitical ends. 0.78

00:10:46.000 And I cited the Hooten Plan and the Kalergi Plan, and people can look those up. 0.73

00:10:49.000 So, yeah, so actually, I actually, I did look those up.

00:10:49.000 Sure.

00:10:52.000 So the Hooten Plan wasn't done by a politician, it was just an anthropologist that, like, wrote an article, an editorial for a newspaper.

00:10:58.000 The Houghton Plan was never anything that was done or advocated for by any politician whatsoever.

00:11:02.000 This would be the equivalent of me finding an editorial on the New York Times and saying, well, look at what this plan was in the past.

00:11:07.000 It was literally just some anthropologist guy who I think was Jewish, so maybe, I don't know if you don't like him because of that, but he just basically wrote an op ed and he was like, oh, this is what should happen for.

00:11:16.000 And it basically had to do with helping to take Germany out of their crazy nationalistic Hitler era or whatever.

00:11:22.000 It was more or less related to that.

00:11:23.000 There was no grand Houghton conspiracy plan.

00:11:26.000 And for the Kalergi Plan, I tried to find information on that too.

00:11:28.000 I really couldn't find anything.

00:11:30.000 I say that this Kalergi guy was somebody that was instrumental in founding, I think it was called the Pan European Union, which was like one of the precursors to the United Nations.

00:11:37.000 But this guy wasn't an influential politician.

00:11:39.000 I think he was like a count.

00:11:40.000 I think he talked to a couple people, like he was friends with a few politicians.

00:11:44.000 I want to say, like a Polish ambassador or somebody, but these guys weren't massive political figures.

00:11:48.000 Neither of these plans were some crazy subversive plan implemented by any politician anywhere.

00:11:52.000 There's no evidence that any of these plans were ever exercised in any kind of capacity.

00:11:55.000 Oh, really?

00:11:55.000 There's no evidence of that.

00:11:56.000 There's no evidence of the fact that Europe has been transformed demographically using the political and European Union.

00:12:02.000 Not by the Houghton Plan or Kalergi plan.

00:12:04.000 But of course, we have very limited evidence of conspiracies that happen.

00:12:08.000 But look, I mean, this is fundamentally getting away from the point.

00:12:10.000 I think, and it's a.

00:12:11.000 Well, I only bring it up because you brought this up to defend your point, and I'm showing you that neither of these.

00:12:14.000 Plans are even real.

00:12:15.000 The clergy plan isn't even real, and the Hooten plan wasn't by a politician.

00:12:18.000 The point is that this has been thought of before.

00:12:21.000 The point is that I speculate about this.

00:12:24.000 Wait, wait, can I finish my point?

00:12:26.000 Can I finish my point?

00:12:27.000 Because you're talking over me.

00:12:29.000 So, the clergy and the Hooten plan, the point is, I'm not saying they were implemented.

00:12:32.000 I'm not saying they were exercising levers of government.

00:12:34.000 What I am saying is that to speculate that people might have a vested interest in transforming the composition of the country and might deceive people has an intellectual antecedent in these ideas.

00:12:46.000 I'm saying it's not.

00:12:47.000 It's not like some fiction of my imagination that people have thought of these political ends before and written about them and promulgated them in various institutions.

00:12:57.000 We can do baseless speculation all day.

00:12:58.000 People speculated the moon landing was fake.

00:13:00.000 That doesn't make it.

00:13:01.000 That's the very point, though, it's not baseless.

00:13:03.000 It's based on intellectual antecedents in Europe.

00:13:06.000 I mean, that was the point.

00:13:07.000 That have nothing to do with any politicians or any political plans.

00:13:10.000 Would you take moon landing conspiracy hoax seriously because some people theorize that the moon landing could be fake?

00:13:15.000 It just doesn't make any sense.

00:13:16.000 The point was to say if we were to speculate.

00:13:16.000 You're missing the point.

00:13:20.000 That somebody wanted to deceive the American public to transform it demographically.

00:13:24.000 There have been intellectuals in the past who have thought the same thing.

00:13:27.000 So it's not, you know, again, I'm saying it has nothing to do with politicians.

00:13:32.000 I never claim that.

00:13:32.000 So you keep saying it has nothing to do with politicians.

00:13:35.000 I'm not arguing that.

00:13:36.000 I'm arguing that these intellectuals had this idea.

00:13:39.000 They said, in order to achieve these political ends, to hurt Europe, to hurt the West, and in a strange, vindictive fashion, we want to inflict demographic transformation on them.

00:13:48.000 And I'm saying, if we are to speculate that, People could have understood the ramifications of this policy.

00:13:54.000 And it's quite clear if you read the actual text of the bill, what would result from it.

00:13:59.000 I think it is fair to say there is a chance.

00:14:02.000 And I'm not saying it's a non zero chance.

00:14:04.000 I'm not saying it's a good chance.

00:14:06.000 I'm saying there's a non zero chance that this was deceptively forced on the public.

00:14:09.000 And you know what?

00:14:10.000 You bring up your poll?

00:14:11.000 I will read you one of my polls.

00:14:13.000 So you talk about 60 or 70 some percent say that they don't think people should be chosen based on their national identity.

00:14:21.000 Here is a poll from Cornell, and this is from.

00:14:24.000 The Roper Center from 1965.

00:14:27.000 And people were asked, which countries or places would you least like to see immigrants into the United States come from?

00:14:34.000 Asia, 15%.

00:14:36.000 15% of respondents said they would least like to see people from that country.

00:14:41.000 Mexico is 11%.

00:14:43.000 People were polled and asked, what countries would they most like to see people come from?

00:14:48.000 28% said Canada, 28% said England or Scotland, 20% said Scandinavia.

00:14:52.000 I mean, all the top countries for most wanted.

00:14:56.000 were Northern European.

00:14:57.000 All the top countries for least wanted were Third World, Latin American, and Asian.

00:15:03.000 And we could look at other data here if you want to.

00:15:07.000 I mean, do you want to address that first before I get into these other numbers?

00:15:12.000 Yeah, but so first, because I don't want to just leave these points.

00:15:15.000 So the Houghton Plan was not a plan to destroy Western Europe.

00:15:19.000 I'm just not sure what you think it was.

00:15:21.000 So the Houghton Plan was an article.

00:15:23.000 I read it, actually.

00:15:24.000 You can take it out of old newspapers by an anthropologist And basically, he was kind of theorizing ideas based on kind of oldie, wacky, pseudo-e-sciencey things.

00:15:32.000 But his idea was that he wanted to breed the extremism out of the German people.

00:15:36.000 No, the war strains.

00:15:38.000 The war strains in particular.

00:15:40.000 The war strains out of the German people.

00:15:42.000 Ironically enough, Africa is not even mentioned.

00:15:44.000 I think he was mentioning bringing in like British people and whatnot or other European nationals.

00:15:48.000 This had nothing to do with bringing black people into Europe to take over the entire continent. 0.70

00:15:52.000 It literally was very specifically targeted towards Germans and breeding out the war strains or whatever.

00:15:59.000 And again, this wasn't supposed to be done secretly.

00:16:01.000 He wrote this as like an op ed in like a newspaper.

00:16:04.000 It wasn't a secret subversive plan.

00:16:06.000 It's no evidence that anybody tried to implement anything he said.

00:16:09.000 It's just not what you're presenting it as.

00:16:11.000 You're fixating on a small detail.

00:16:12.000 I'm not presenting it as anything other than I am.

00:16:15.000 What I'm saying is.

00:16:16.000 People have theorized in the past that you can use immigration, whether it be from Britain or Africa or anywhere else, people have theorized that you can use race, you can use the transformation of the demographic composition of a country to inflict harm on it.

00:16:30.000 And I'm saying, again, I said there's a non zero chance that that happened. 0.95

00:16:34.000 And given, again, the result of the immigration, and if you read the text of the bill, there is no way that you could not predict that you would have massive third world immigration. 0.99

00:16:43.000 There's no way. 0.98

00:16:44.000 And so, and again, I'm being generous in saying, Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

00:16:49.000 However, there is a non zero chance because you look at the provisions of the bill.

00:16:53.000 They must have understood this was the consequence. 0.99

00:16:55.000 And you have these intellectual antecedents in the Kalergi plan, which you didn't mention, which the Kalergi plan was to create this global race of Asiatic Afro Europeans that are stupid and can be lorded over. 0.97

00:17:07.000 And I'm saying that if those intellectual antecedents exist, if certain elements are controlling the U.S. government, if we concede that we don't have a totally representative government, if we listen to some of the things Jack Kennedy was saying about the CIA. 0.95

00:17:22.000 And again, not to get into conspiracy theories, but that is one point of it.

00:17:26.000 That was one point about it made in passing.

00:17:28.000 Let's agree to disagree on this.

00:17:30.000 But the.

00:17:31.000 Well, we can't.

00:17:32.000 No, no, no.

00:17:33.000 But by far and away, that is not the central point of my claim about the will of the people, it's not the possibility that there is a non zero chance it was conspiratorial.

00:17:42.000 My point is they transformed the country.

00:17:45.000 The people didn't want it.

00:17:47.000 And here you have data.

00:17:48.000 Here you have data that says that the people did not want immigrants from Mexico.

00:17:52.000 And Asia, they wanted immigrants from North America.

00:17:54.000 So, why did our government.

00:17:56.000 But that's not true.

00:17:56.000 You're misquoting your own data.

00:17:58.000 You're misquoting your own data, though.

00:18:00.000 That's wrong.

00:18:01.000 I'm quoting the data.

00:18:02.000 I have it right in front of me.

00:18:03.000 No, you're not, unfortunately.

00:18:06.000 So, your data, the poll, as I understand it, that you read to me, you quoted that people prefer certain peoples of certain nations.

00:18:11.000 That doesn't mean that they don't want those other people at all.

00:18:14.000 Actually, it says, which places would you least like to see?

00:18:18.000 And it's Asia, Middle East, Mexico, Latin America.

00:18:22.000 Why didn't these people, if they felt so strongly about not wanting to see these types of people, why didn't they prevent this plan from passing?

00:18:29.000 Again, you are arguing that people should have done more.

00:18:33.000 I'm arguing that our government's job is to represent us.

00:18:36.000 So that's a good question.

00:18:36.000 Okay?

00:18:37.000 And the problem is that I have like a very clear.

00:18:39.000 The problem is that on my end, I can point to concrete polling data.

00:18:42.000 I can point to bipartisan support.

00:18:43.000 I can point to polling data as well, Corey.

00:18:45.000 You're pointing to a poll that says that some people prefer people from some countries over other countries.

00:18:48.000 No, no, no.

00:18:49.000 I'm saying people did not prefer the people that were allowed in as a result of the This person.

00:18:52.000 And I can even concede that.

00:18:54.000 That's fine, that they didn't prefer those people.

00:18:55.000 But I have all of this evidence on my end that says that there were.

00:18:59.000 No, no, no.

00:18:59.000 You have two very ambiguous polls that say people don't care about national origin.

00:19:03.000 And I have a poll that says actually that is completely incorrect.

00:19:06.000 So this poll actually contradicts both of your ambiguous polls and gets to the heart of the matter, which is these certain people we do not want.

00:19:13.000 Your poll says we don't care.

00:19:15.000 This poll says we very much care. 0.60

00:19:17.000 My poll says what should be most important in determining whether or not a person comes to the United States.

00:19:22.000 Your poll says that if we consider national origin, Who do you want?

00:19:25.000 These are two fundamentally different questions.

00:19:27.000 Do you understand this or no?

00:19:29.000 Yeah, sure.

00:19:29.000 Okay.

00:19:30.000 Your poll is not relevant to this question.

00:19:32.000 The question is if you were to ask people, let me put it this way, okay?

00:19:36.000 Let's say that I were to ask, what is your most preferred trait in a woman? 0.97

00:19:39.000 And you list five things, and the fourth thing you list is, I wish that she had blonde hair.

00:19:43.000 And then I were to do a separate poll of people, and I were to go, Look, 95% of people prefer brunettes over blonde people.

00:19:49.000 You couldn't come back and say, Well, having a brunette is the most important thing if in the initial list, hair color was fourth on the list.

00:19:56.000 Does that make sense?

00:19:57.000 You're obfuscating it.

00:19:58.000 You're obfuscating it.

00:19:59.000 My polls are very clear.

00:19:59.000 I'm not.

00:20:01.000 The question we're asking right now isn't, The question isn't which countries did people prefer people to come from.

00:20:06.000 The question is, Did we want to prevent people from coming from certain countries?

00:20:10.000 And you cannot sufficiently demonstrate that we wanted to restrict immigration based on national origin, which is the exact question both of my folks address. 0.98

00:20:17.000 It's right. 1.00

00:20:17.000 It says those are the people that they don't want in the country. 1.00

00:20:21.000 I don't understand how you can justify the fact that we bring in millions of people from countries that Americans said they don't want people from those countries here, and how a representative government, you claim to be like this progressive, you claim to be this person, you know, you're against the Iraq war because we were lied into it, we were lied about what that would be like, and that was wrong.

00:20:41.000 Well, in the 1965 Immigration Act, we were lied about that, what it.

00:20:45.000 About what that would entail.

00:20:46.000 People said they supported it and they expected they'd be getting Canadians and Scandinavians and Germans and they got Mexicans and Asians. 0.99

00:20:52.000 They didn't want those people. 0.97

00:20:54.000 And it doesn't, I mean, again, you have this effect in polls where people might ask you, you know, does national origin matter?

00:21:01.000 And maybe it's a nice thing you can say, oh, I don't care so much. 0.78

00:21:06.000 But then you see very clearly that people do care about these things when they say they don't want these groups of people.

00:21:14.000 I guess I just don't know how to address this.

00:21:16.000 Your poll just doesn't talk about what you want it to talk about.

00:21:20.000 Did you understand my analogy with the girl with the preference thing?

00:21:23.000 Did that make sense?

00:21:24.000 Here's here.

00:21:25.000 Maybe this will clear things up.

00:21:26.000 Here's another element from my poll.

00:21:28.000 I think this will maybe this will seal the deal here.

00:21:31.000 So, this is another one from Roper from Cornell.

00:21:33.000 It says, Here is a list of different groups of people.

00:21:35.000 This is what the people that were polled were asked.

00:21:38.000 Do you think we should let a certain number of each of these groups come to the United States to live after the war?

00:21:43.000 And this was in 1944. 0.63

00:21:45.000 Or do you think we should stop some of the groups from coming at all?

00:21:48.000 Wait, why do we care about a poll in 1944? 0.62

00:21:51.000 41% 41% of people said stop Mexicans.

00:21:54.000 Wait, why do we care about a poll in 1944?

00:21:56.000 This isn't relevant to anything we're talking about right now.

00:21:58.000 You don't think the polls.

00:21:58.000 Sure, it is.

00:21:59.000 No, it's absolutely not.

00:22:00.000 Of course it is.

00:22:01.000 Of course it is.

00:22:03.000 No, it's not.

00:22:04.000 Okay.

00:22:05.000 The country in 1944.

00:22:06.000 You have your two polls.

00:22:08.000 I have all this data.

00:22:09.000 And now you're saying, you know, polling doesn't matter because it was before the Immigration Act?

00:22:15.000 Because we were in a totally different era.

00:22:17.000 You don't think the 60s were different than the 40s?

00:22:19.000 I didn't say they were not different.

00:22:20.000 I said it's the same. 0.82

00:22:21.000 Then why do you think the American.

00:22:23.000 And we see the same opinions, by the way.

00:22:23.000 It's the same.

00:22:25.000 We see the same opinions.

00:22:26.000 It was in 1944 they said.

00:22:28.000 Stop Mexicans from coming in. 0.90

00:22:30.000 In 1965, they said, We don't want Mexicans coming in.

00:22:33.000 I don't understand why, because you have this, you have one poll that was repeated another time.

00:22:39.000 So you have one poll that says one thing. 1.00

00:22:42.000 I have data from 1944 that says, We want to stop Mexicans from coming in the country. 0.99

00:22:47.000 I have a poll from 1965 saying, We don't want Mexicans. 0.99

00:22:51.000 We want Northern Europeans coming into the country.

00:22:54.000 Our representative Congress voted against those interests that had endured for 20 years. 0.87

00:23:00.000 So, I mean, that.

00:23:01.000 Of course, that's relevant.

00:23:02.000 You'd like to say, you know, oh, well, it's not directly related to this sliver of it, and therefore it's irrelevant, but we have to paint a picture of what the consensus looks like a consensus that existed from 1944 to 1965.

00:23:16.000 We don't want these people here.

00:23:17.000 So we have to talk.

00:23:19.000 We can't move past the polling question.

00:23:21.000 So your poll is presupposing the question that we mean to ask, right?

00:23:25.000 The question we're asking is should nationality be an important determining factor on whether or not people move here?

00:23:31.000 For that question, I have overwhelming support from Congress that voted on both halves, and I have polling data that shows that.

00:23:39.000 You have a poll that is presupposing the question that we're basing our immigration policy on nationality and then asking people to pick groups from that point.

00:23:49.000 How do you think that this polling data is supporting your argument?

00:23:52.000 Because, again, you have one poll, which I don't even know, I doubt the veracity of that poll because, again, you're asking people.

00:24:00.000 It was done by Harris and Gallup.

00:24:02.000 Do you trust these guys as.

00:24:04.000 Actually, I don't.

00:24:05.000 But again, you're asking people if they care about national origin.

00:24:10.000 And again, you see this effect with polling in general.

00:24:14.000 You have an effect of shyness in polling.

00:24:16.000 And I don't think a single person would honestly say, and I think you're being intellectually dishonest here, that people in 1965 didn't care about who was coming into their country.

00:24:26.000 I don't believe you're being intellectually honest there.

00:24:28.000 I mean, and why did they vote the way they did?

00:24:30.000 Why was the Immigration Act passed?

00:24:32.000 Oh, or did the Congress vote for that? 0.80

00:24:34.000 I think the Congress voting for cheap labor to come in the country.

00:24:38.000 Is a lot different than people voting for a politician running on a platform of letting cheap labor into the country because the Congress is beholden to interests that want cheap labor in the country, both the Republicans and the Democrats.

00:24:50.000 So, you know, you keep bringing up, I have a consensus from Congress.

00:24:53.000 A consensus from Congress doesn't mean anything.

00:24:55.000 99 senators votes for $3.8 billion a year in aid to Israel.

00:25:00.000 Do you think there's a 99% consensus in America or do you think AIPAC controls the politicians in the same way?

00:25:07.000 We're way, way, way, way off.

00:25:09.000 But it's an analogy to demonstrate the fact that.

00:25:12.000 Politicians are not a gauge of the national consensus.

00:25:15.000 Politicians demonstrate where the lobbying is, demonstrate where the money is.

00:25:21.000 If you want to admit right now that you don't trust any hard polling data, then we can move on from this.

00:25:25.000 And then you have to agree that everything that you're speaking is conspiracy.

00:25:28.000 Well, you just said you don't trust the polls.

00:25:30.000 No, no, I'm citing polls.

00:25:32.000 I say I don't trust your polls.

00:25:33.000 Wait, did you not just say that you're.

00:25:34.000 Oh, you don't trust my poll from Gallup and Harris.

00:25:37.000 Again, it's not the source, it's the question.

00:25:41.000 Instead of pulling up polls, it's intellectually dishonest to say that you trust the result of that poll when it so clearly is against the historical record.

00:25:52.000 I mean, you had people who cared if blacks and whites were in the same school.

00:25:55.000 You think they didn't care about who was entering the country if they were from Africa or Mexico or Asia?

00:26:00.000 And they say they obviously prefer some groups more than others?

00:26:05.000 You believe this.

00:26:06.000 Why is it that you didn't look up a poll that would actually support your question?

00:26:10.000 Why did you have to find a poll?

00:26:11.000 You didn't.

00:26:11.000 You found a poll that presupposed the answer.

00:26:14.000 I have to.

00:26:16.000 Why didn't you find polling data that shows that Americans really cared about origin of nationality or nationality of origin?

00:26:24.000 If you can find that information, then we can talk about this.

00:26:26.000 But right now, all you're giving me is a poll that presupposes the question.

00:26:29.000 Again, this would be like me asking a group of 100 people if you had to choose a woman with a type of hair, would you choose blonde or brunette?

00:26:37.000 And then taking whatever answer that is and saying, well, this is the most important thing.

00:26:41.000 It's totally non sequitur.

00:26:42.000 It's totally bogus data usage.

00:26:44.000 You're asking a poll.

00:26:45.000 If we could choose which nation people come from, who would you prefer?

00:26:48.000 Of course, people are going to have preferences from which countries people come from, but that absolutely does not imply that that should be the most important determining fact of who comes into the country.

00:26:57.000 That logic is totally disconnected.

00:27:00.000 Again, you are using technicalities to.

00:27:03.000 Can we talk specifically about this?

00:27:03.000 No, no, no.

00:27:05.000 Because you don't understand why you're making a non sequitur.

00:27:07.000 Yeah, sure.

00:27:08.000 I am going to explain to you exactly why you are wrong and why you are being intellectually dishonest.

00:27:12.000 You look at the period of time, you look at the 1960s.

00:27:15.000 We have an entire decade to analyze here of sociological behavior, where we have, again, and I cited the record of the 1960s where you had opposition to ending segregation.

00:27:27.000 You had opposition to ending segregation in schools, in buses, at lunch countertops, in voting, and on and on and on.

00:27:35.000 And again, you're trying to tell me this is the big difference between the quality of information or a quantitative versus a qualitative type of information.

00:27:45.000 You're telling me that you're.

00:27:46.000 Your one poll from Gallup and Harris, which, again, great sources, but you're telling me that this poll is telling us that white people in America didn't care about who was coming into the country?

00:27:57.000 I'm sorry.

00:27:58.000 We have to say some polls are betrayed by the historical record.

00:28:03.000 And read me, if you will.

00:28:05.000 Maybe this will change my mind.

00:28:06.000 Read me the exact wording of the question they were asked and the exact response.

00:28:10.000 Do you have that?

00:28:12.000 Sure.

00:28:13.000 Before I read you that, you realize it.

00:28:16.000 I mean, I may change my mind if you read me the exact wording of it.

00:28:20.000 One of the proposed changes in the immigration laws is to base quotas on the skills of people to be admitted to the United States rather than on the basis of their country of origin.

00:28:28.000 Would you be in favor of such a change in the immigration laws, or do you think a country quota system is right?

00:28:34.000 This was from the Harris poll.

00:28:36.000 29% of the people there answered country.

00:28:39.000 And what were the other respondents?

00:28:42.000 20% were not sure.

00:28:44.000 Oh, okay.

00:28:46.000 So you're misleading us the whole time.

00:28:48.000 You're telling us it's more than 70%, and you have 29% that are against.

00:28:53.000 And 20% that are unsure.

00:28:55.000 So you have 50%?

00:28:57.000 I mean, what are the other responses? 0.77

00:28:59.000 Why do you think that counts as country? 0.93

00:29:01.000 Why do you think the 20% are not sure? 0.99

00:29:02.000 Wait, wait, wait.

00:29:03.000 36% say skills, 15% say no difference, 20% are undecided, and 29% say country.

00:29:09.000 Wow.

00:29:10.000 So you got 29% that say country, 20% that say no difference, 15% that say no difference.

00:29:18.000 So you have a grand total.

00:29:20.000 What is that?

00:29:21.000 64% of people that are saying, Do not that are saying, and again, if you're changing the status quo, you need a positive.

00:29:28.000 You need, yes, change this.

00:29:30.000 A majority wants to change it from this to this.

00:29:34.000 And you deceptively, the entire time, played it off like 70% said, we want to change it from this to this.

00:29:41.000 But in actuality, 65% said, either we're not sure, there's no difference, or keep it the way it is.

00:29:48.000 Okay, so I again, I don't think you put the numbers right.

00:29:52.000 So 36%.

00:29:54.000 Said that they would base us on skills and 15% said no difference.

00:29:57.000 So that's 51% of people that clearly don't care.

00:30:00.000 You don't get to include the 15% who say there's no difference to saying they want positive change in a different direction.

00:30:06.000 Why would you include it in yours?

00:30:08.000 Do you understand what the.

00:30:08.000 Wow.

00:30:09.000 You realize that the entire argument you made earlier about the time period of the 60s completely supports my argument.

00:30:14.000 The 60s was a whole time of moving forward in a progressive America.

00:30:17.000 This was everything that Lyndon B. Johnson's.

00:30:20.000 His whole presidency was about this.

00:30:22.000 Have you heard of the Great Society?

00:30:23.000 We had a ton of civil rights things.

00:30:25.000 We had the.

00:30:26.000 I think it was the advent of like public broadcasting expansions to Medicare, Medicaid.

00:30:29.000 We had things going on with education, the arts, we had tons of urban and rural development.

00:30:32.000 The whole war on poverty started then.

00:30:34.000 How can you possibly say they're like, well, look at the 60s?

00:30:36.000 Everybody was so racist.

00:30:38.000 Even the Republican lawmakers of the day admitted that they couldn't be blatantly racist anymore.

00:30:42.000 This is where the Southern strategy came from.

00:30:44.000 Why are you trying to cite a poll from the 40s and then say, oh, look at this.

00:30:47.000 You got caught.

00:30:50.000 And now you are trying to bury me in fast talking words.

00:30:55.000 I talk time and time again on my show how that doesn't work.

00:30:58.000 You misled.

00:30:59.000 You allowed, you told us that 29% were for keeping national origins, and you made it seem like, and we can replay the tape for anybody that's curious, for anybody that's been watching, you made it seem like 70% supported change.

00:31:14.000 Again, if you want, and let me ask you something.

00:31:17.000 If a politician is putting a bill to the floor that will dramatically, irreversibly transform a fundamental component of the nation like demographics, do you think it is acceptable that they do so on the basis of 36%?

00:31:33.000 Saying yes, we want that change? 1.00

00:31:34.000 Could you imagine if our politicians said, we are going to, starting tomorrow, we're going to reverse immigration and we're going to kick all the non whites out? 1.00

00:31:43.000 Would you say that it was a national consensus of 36% said yes, let's do it, and everybody else was either unsure, maybe not, or against? 0.99

00:31:53.000 I mean, that is just intellectually dishonest.

00:31:55.000 Stop, like, just be honest.

00:31:56.000 Be honest.

00:31:57.000 You were being deceptive about that.

00:31:58.000 Okay, so first of all, on the polling data that you cited, the plurality in both of those polls didn't care about where the immigrants came from.

00:32:05.000 You didn't mention that. 0.91

00:32:06.000 If you want to talk about dishonesty. 0.99

00:32:09.000 So, in the poll that you mentioned on where you would like to see most immigrants come from, 34% of people in there said no difference and 13% said not sure. 0.99

00:32:17.000 I read the numbers.

00:32:18.000 That's 47% of people that said they didn't really care where the immigrants came from.

00:32:22.000 No, no, no.

00:32:22.000 And for the.

00:32:23.000 What do you mean no?

00:32:23.000 Yes.

00:32:24.000 No, but see, that's different again because.

00:32:27.000 Wait, it's different when you're talking about immigrants.

00:32:27.000 What?

00:32:29.000 I will explain to you very clearly.

00:32:31.000 You're laughing about it.

00:32:32.000 I'm prepared to explain to you why that's different because.

00:32:34.000 Yeah, I get it.

00:32:35.000 I want to hear it.

00:32:35.000 I want to hear the explanation.

00:32:36.000 There are. 0.56

00:32:37.000 If there are 11% of the country that says we don't want these people, if you have 26% of the people saying we don't want Russians, and you have a third of the country saying actually we want these people, that is all the difference in the world than saying 70%. 0.68

00:32:51.000 I didn't create, I said the numbers. 0.74

00:32:53.000 I said this percentage said they don't want these people.

00:32:57.000 You said a super majority wanted this positive change.

00:33:02.000 I never said that, actually.

00:33:03.000 You can go back to the VOD.

00:33:04.000 If somebody wants to post that on the VOD, you can have an interview with me.

00:33:06.000 I'm sorry.

00:33:06.000 I said that very few people cared about country of origin.

00:33:09.000 I said that 29% explicitly opposed it. 1.00

00:33:12.000 I said 29%, which is true.

00:33:14.000 29% explicitly endorsed it.

00:33:16.000 But you, okay, look.

00:33:17.000 Wait, there was no 36%.

00:33:19.000 We can, there are the 36% that say that they want to change it from national origin to working qualifications or skills, right?

00:33:27.000 Okay, so talking about this specifically, if you have a room full of people and you go, hey, we want to change the immigration law so that it's based on skills rather than on country of origin, and 36% go, yes, for sure, for skills, and 15% are like, oh, I don't care.

00:33:40.000 You can do it either way.

00:33:41.000 You consider the either way people to be part of the don't change anything crowd?

00:33:45.000 Again, here's why.

00:33:47.000 Because when you're transforming the nation, when you're dramatically, it's the nature of it.

00:33:52.000 If it was about.

00:33:52.000 This is the thing.

00:33:53.000 Nobody was transforming.

00:33:55.000 No, no, no, no.

00:33:56.000 But it's not about whether people knew or not.

00:33:58.000 It's about whether it did or not.

00:33:59.000 I mean, that's the question.

00:34:01.000 Is people.

00:34:01.000 Yeah, but then we have to talk about the effect later.

00:34:04.000 People never got a vote in this.

00:34:05.000 If you were talking about zoning laws, I would say maybe.

00:34:09.000 But you're talking about only 36% of people said yes.

00:34:14.000 Let's completely change our immigration policy that was in place since the founding of the country.

00:34:20.000 This immigration policy of national origins was in place since 1790.

00:34:25.000 Was it reiterated in 1795, 1798, 1802, 1882, 1908, 1917, 1924?

00:34:33.000 I mean, this was reaffirmed dozens of times over the course of nearly 200 years. 0.65

00:34:39.000 And you're telling me that we overturn that and we change who is coming in the country and who is the country? 0.67

00:34:46.000 And where they come from and their blood.

00:34:48.000 I mean, we changed what the founders thought the country should look like based on what 36% of people say.

00:34:54.000 So you're telling me that it doesn't take.

00:34:57.000 I'm not saying I get to claim the 15%.

00:34:59.000 I'm not saying I get to claim the people that don't care or say would make no difference, but I'm saying you can't claim them.

00:35:04.000 And if you want positive change, you need more than a majority to change the status quo.

00:35:08.000 I'm not trying to claim them.

00:35:10.000 The burden is on you.

00:35:11.000 You're making the argument that the will of the people wasn't represented.

00:35:14.000 So I'm asking you to show me a will in the other direction.

00:35:16.000 And that doesn't exist.

00:35:18.000 And you're trying to say that because the country believed something for a long time that couldn't change.

00:35:23.000 So you're telling me that women's suffrage wasn't real, that the Civil Rights Act shouldn't have passed, that we should still have slaves because.

00:35:28.000 People believed it for hundreds of years.

00:35:30.000 That argument is another non sequitur.

00:35:31.000 It's totally fallacious, totally bogus.

00:35:34.000 That is a good analogy, definitely parallel.

00:35:36.000 No, no, no.

00:35:36.000 What I'm saying is you're saying that because people believe something for hundreds of years, it's impossible that their ideas could have changed on it?

00:35:43.000 That doesn't make any sense.

00:35:44.000 That's incorrect.

00:35:44.000 That's not the logic.

00:35:45.000 I'm saying you have a system in place, an institution in place.

00:35:50.000 You have precedent in place for 200 years in order to overturn precedent in a democratic society or in a republic where you have people who are sovereign.

00:36:00.000 You are required.

00:36:01.000 And this, you could go back to Jean Jacques Rousseau, who defines what the will of the people means.

00:36:05.000 You need at least a majority to say we are going to overturn precedent.

00:36:10.000 I'm not saying people can't change their minds.

00:36:12.000 People change their minds all the time.

00:36:13.000 People change course all the time.

00:36:15.000 I think that's part of the problem that in the wake of that act, as a result of that act, we have changed course.

00:36:20.000 And I can see that in the past 10 years, we have changed our minds and changed course in the public consciousness.

00:36:26.000 But what precipitated that was a congressional fiat that was not supported by.

00:36:33.000 By a supermajority, not by a majority, by 36% in the positive direction.

00:36:38.000 If you want change, if you want to overturn law, and if that is representative of the people, you need 50% to say they're on board. 0.93

00:36:47.000 Like gay marriage. 0.97

00:36:48.000 Wait, need 50% with what? 0.73

00:36:49.000 In what government?

00:36:50.000 What government do you think we live under?

00:36:52.000 Okay, you're again.

00:36:53.000 You're being into the same thing.

00:36:54.000 Well, you're making baseless claims.

00:36:55.000 You're saying that you need 50%.

00:36:56.000 We don't vote by referendum in the United States.

00:36:59.000 Are you pretending like I haven't been talking about the will of the people?

00:37:01.000 Are you seriously pretending like I haven't been talking about the will of the people?

00:37:04.000 Like I didn't talk about what Jean Jacques Rousseau said?

00:37:07.000 About what the will of the people is.

00:37:09.000 I don't care about what's representative of the people.

00:37:10.000 I care about the government.

00:37:12.000 So you're not trying to understand my argument.

00:37:14.000 No, I understand your argument, but the rest of this data, it all supports me.

00:37:14.000 That's good to know.

00:37:18.000 Now I want to hand you a list of bills.

00:37:20.000 These were by the same people, or by a similar group that was polled.

00:37:24.000 Now I want to hand you a list of bills passed by this Congress.

00:37:27.000 For each, tell me if you approve or disapprove of that bill from what you know or have heard of it.

00:37:31.000 Dot, dot, dot.

00:37:32.000 So this is one of the questions asked.

00:37:34.000 Immigration based on individual skill rather than country quota.

00:37:38.000 70% of people approved.

00:37:40.000 Do I get to claim those people, or do you have a way to weasel those out of my approval rating as well?

00:37:44.000 Wait, wait, is this part of the same poll?

00:37:45.000 Send me this poll.

00:37:46.000 Let me see it.

00:37:47.000 I sent it to you on Skype.

00:37:48.000 This was asked several months later in December of 1965 by Harris.

00:37:51.000 Interesting.

00:37:52.000 Interesting how this comes up after it comes out that you've been completely intellectually dishonest, misrepresenting your organization.

00:37:58.000 I sent all of you this like five minutes ago on Skype, dude.

00:38:01.000 7:30?

00:38:01.000 I sent this to you 10 minutes ago.

00:38:03.000 But let's see.

00:38:05.000 How important do you think each of the following factors should be in determining whether or not a person from another country should be admitted to live in the United States?

00:38:13.000 Occupational skills.

00:38:14.000 Oh, wait a second.

00:38:16.000 It says 32% for the country in which a person was born.

00:38:20.000 Occupational skills, 71%.

00:38:22.000 21% say it's not important.

00:38:24.000 Again, though, again, we're talking about overturning 200 years of precedent.

00:38:31.000 This is not society.

00:38:32.000 Who cares? 1.00

00:38:32.000 We did it with women's suffrage. 1.00

00:38:33.000 We did it with the Civil Rights Act.

00:38:35.000 Why does the precedent matter to you?

00:38:36.000 The country changes.

00:38:37.000 It's how we've moved as a country.

00:38:40.000 And again, here it says, oh, and here's, oh, this is a beauty.

00:38:43.000 Again, with the dishonesty.

00:38:45.000 For each, tell me if you approve or disprove based on what you know or have heard of it.

00:38:51.000 What you have heard of it.

00:38:53.000 That sets off some alarm bells because the people that sponsored the bill and Ted Kennedy who pushed the bill said explicitly and in all kinds of media coverage that it would not change the demographic composition.

00:39:04.000 He said, number one, it wouldn't change us from being a white nation.

00:39:07.000 And number two, you wouldn't see floods of immigrants.

00:39:09.000 Both of those things were incorrect.

00:39:11.000 So, so when people are asked based on what you've heard, would you support this legislation?

00:39:15.000 And 70% say they approve.

00:39:17.000 Well, that just gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?

00:39:19.000 That they will.

00:39:20.000 It gets to the will of the people.

00:39:20.000 It does.

00:39:22.000 Maybe they were misinformed, but it was the will of the people, my dude.

00:39:25.000 70% approved of it.

00:39:26.000 That's the will of the people.

00:39:28.000 I'm sorry.

00:39:28.000 Now you're going a little loopy here because.

00:39:30.000 You can make, if you want, the argument that the people were uninformed.

00:39:30.000 I'm not.

00:39:34.000 It would be easier to defend than the conspiracy theory you're trying to defend now, but you can't tell me with a straight face that there was a conspiracy in Congress that only some politicians knew about, where they intentionally misled other politicians and the entire American public because I read a crazy article by an anthropologist 10 years earlier.

00:39:50.000 Like, your argument is conspiracy.

00:39:52.000 I have very solid data that supports.

00:39:54.000 I have bipartisan support in Congress that supports the.

00:39:57.000 Bill, and I even had racist senators like Dixiecrats who not only supported the bill but enjoyed following electoral wins in their districts for the following two or three electoral seasons.

00:40:07.000 So, very clearly, the will of the American people was represented.

00:40:09.000 I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that.

00:40:11.000 All you have to counter that is, well, this is what I feel like at the time.

00:40:15.000 And I have a data that shows that some people like some immigrants more than others.

00:40:19.000 Are you ready?

00:40:20.000 Yeah, go ahead.

00:40:21.000 Are you ready?

00:40:22.000 Let's take the data piece by piece because we have two numbers here, okay?

00:40:26.000 So, it says one of the proposed changes in the immigration law.

00:40:29.000 So, this is when they ask.

00:40:31.000 About the actual change that's occurring.

00:40:33.000 And here, let's see, and please allow me to finish here.

00:40:37.000 Listen to me and respond honestly because I cannot see how anybody watching this can continue to believe you who is distorting my arguments.

00:40:45.000 I'm going to lay it out right here.

00:40:47.000 One of the proposed changes in the immigration laws is to base quotas on the skills of people to be admitted to the United States rather than on the basis of their country of origin.

00:40:55.000 Would you be in favor of such a change in the immigration laws or do you think a country quota system is right?

00:41:01.000 Now, this. 0.52

00:41:02.000 Provision, if enacted, would overturn the precedent set by the Immigration Act of 1790, 1795, 1798, the Immigration Law of 1802, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the negotiated end to Japanese immigration.

00:41:23.000 Can we skip to the end?

00:41:24.000 There's only three.

00:41:25.000 Hey, I'll let you finish.

00:41:26.000 The negotiated end to Japanese immigration in 1908, the 1917 law, which made all immigration from Asia illegal.

00:41:34.000 And immigration limits in 1921 and 24 based on national origin.

00:41:37.000 So you're overturning that provision, which would overturn that precedent, which is 200 years long and affirmed on 25 years interval for that 200 years.

00:41:46.000 And the people that support that here, let me pull it up here 36% say they support that change.

00:41:53.000 29% say they want to keep the old system.

00:41:55.000 50% say no difference.

00:41:57.000 20% say not sure.

00:41:59.000 Now, if you are going to overturn 200 years of precedent, and this is the first number.

00:42:04.000 And I will get to the second number.

00:42:06.000 If you are going to overturn 200 years of precedent that has been reaffirmed by Congresses from 1790 to 1924, and you only have 36% saying they support that, again, I'm not saying that the no difference and not sure people are in my camp, but I'm saying if these people support that change, if we're going to make that change, you need a majority to support that change for it to be representative of the will of the people.

00:42:32.000 You can have a bipartisan support in the Congress that supports this, and that represents the will of the Congress.

00:42:38.000 But if you're polling people and only 36% of people say they want to change this, in what country and in what universe do we make drastic changes to policy based on what 36% of people believe?

00:42:52.000 If 36% of people say, like, oh, I don't know, we want to invade China tomorrow, people would say that's ridiculous.

00:42:59.000 You need 51%.

00:43:00.000 I understand it's a poll, but we're talking about does it represent the will of the people?

00:43:04.000 Was it just?

00:43:05.000 That was the question in the first debate.

00:43:07.000 Was it a just policy?

00:43:09.000 You know, it passed by a majority in Congress.

00:43:11.000 So, can we talk about that first point before we go into 50 million other data sets for the second one?

00:43:14.000 I'm not finished with the first point.

00:43:16.000 I'll be finished in a moment.

00:43:17.000 But was it just?

00:43:18.000 It did not represent the will of the people that 36% were in support of it.

00:43:22.000 This differs from the second number in that it tells the people.

00:43:26.000 No, no, I want to talk about the first number.

00:43:27.000 Can we talk about the first number before we go?

00:43:28.000 But I'm using it in comparison to the second number.

00:43:30.000 We'll get to the second number.

00:43:32.000 You're very eager.

00:43:33.000 We have time here.

00:43:34.000 We have time.

00:43:35.000 I'm eager because you talk past the points, and then what happens is I have to address the last thing you said, and then the 50 other things you said that were totally wrong I don't have a chance to address because then we get.

00:43:35.000 I know.

00:43:43.000 Super hung up on the one thing.

00:43:44.000 So, in comparison to the second, I still never finished.

00:43:47.000 In comparison to the second, the last point, in comparison to the second number, this number specifically talks about the provisions.

00:43:54.000 Do you support the provisions in the bill?

00:43:56.000 And only 36% say they support changing the precedent.

00:44:00.000 That's not representative of the will of the people.

00:44:02.000 That is unjust.

00:44:04.000 That is not Democratic.

00:44:05.000 That is not Republican.

00:44:06.000 It is Democratic, dude.

00:44:08.000 If we would have put this up to a vote, 36% felt strongly yes.

00:44:12.000 29% felt strongly no.

00:44:14.000 If it would have been on a referendum, like you keep saying, They would have won.

00:44:17.000 Would you be arguing against it then?

00:44:19.000 Again, again, it's not about it wasn't put to a referendum.

00:44:24.000 We don't know what voting is.

00:44:25.000 No, no, no, stop.

00:44:26.000 You kept saying that it would put it up to a vote with the will of the people represented.

00:44:29.000 If we were to put this up to a vote, people that don't think there's a difference or they're not sure, they probably wouldn't vote anyway.

00:44:34.000 I said if we had an election that was a referendum on it, I said if a major candidate ran on a platform of this, that would have served as a referendum.

00:44:43.000 I want to ask you a very specific question, okay?

00:44:45.000 If we were to put this up to a popular vote, like you would have wanted, okay?

00:44:49.000 What do you think would have passed?

00:44:51.000 Have we put the 65th Immigration Act up to a vote?

00:44:55.000 Yeah, based on the numbers that you see here.

00:44:57.000 Based on the numbers that I see here, I would say that people would vote against it.

00:45:00.000 I would say that they would say no.

00:45:02.000 So you're claiming the people that have no strong preference, one way or another, and the people that aren't sure.

00:45:06.000 Somehow you claim those.

00:45:07.000 Are you in favor of precedent?

00:45:07.000 Even though I have.

00:45:09.000 Yes.

00:45:09.000 People that are not sure, people that have no strong preference.

00:45:12.000 You have no data, no basis to support that whatsoever.

00:45:14.000 That's just a.

00:45:14.000 That's an a priori truth about humans that we see, and institutions, additionally, that precedent.

00:45:21.000 Prevails unless you get a majority that wants change.

00:45:24.000 I mean, this is just basic stuff.

00:45:26.000 And again, people.

00:45:27.000 You keep saying that, but then you cite, like, well, look at all these.

00:45:29.000 We're changing precedent.

00:45:30.000 We did it with woman suffrage. 0.97

00:45:32.000 We did it with the Civil Rights Act. 0.65

00:45:33.000 The precedent has changed in the United States. 1.00

00:45:34.000 That's a good example.

00:45:35.000 That's a good example. 1.00

00:45:36.000 Women's suffrage was a change of precedent. 1.00

00:45:39.000 That was a constitutional amendment. 0.97

00:45:41.000 Do you know what kind of process has to be undertaken to get a constitutional amendment?

00:45:47.000 You have to have the will of the people.

00:45:48.000 You have to either get two thirds of the state, you have to get two thirds of the state to ratify, you need two thirds of the Senate to vote for it.

00:45:54.000 I mean, Depending on how you want to go about it.

00:45:56.000 But you need massive majorities to get that passed, and at the state level and at the federal level, which would be impossible if the people didn't want it. 0.58

00:46:04.000 And that's why I say that women's suffrage was not an injustice, whether I agree with it or not, or any other provision, whether it's the 17th or 16th Amendment, because the will of the people is executed. 0.63

00:46:14.000 That's the constitutional system.

00:46:16.000 That is the spirit of our system of government.

00:46:20.000 It's not how our government works.

00:46:21.000 We don't vote by referendum.

00:46:23.000 I don't know why you keep saying this.

00:46:24.000 Again, you keep distorting.

00:46:25.000 I'm saying.

00:46:26.000 The system of government is based on the sovereignty of the people.

00:46:29.000 The people change things.

00:46:32.000 The people change things, and it is based on majorities.

00:46:35.000 It is based on people choosing what is best for their country.

00:46:40.000 And when you have people that misled these people who voted for you, you have no proof of that.

00:46:44.000 Wait, wait, wait, because you just said it again.

00:46:46.000 Sure, they did mislead them.

00:46:47.000 They did mislead them, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

00:46:51.000 Oh, okay.

00:46:51.000 Misleading does not assume intentionality.

00:46:54.000 It usually, misleading somebody implies intent.

00:46:57.000 You're being dishonest right now, but can we carry on?

00:46:57.000 You know that.

00:46:59.000 No, no, no.

00:47:00.000 Lying.

00:47:00.000 Well, yes, because that's the reason why you cited misleading is not intent.

00:47:04.000 No, no.

00:47:04.000 That's why you cited the Kalergi plan and the Hooten plan, both things that I completely debunked.

00:47:08.000 I said there's no evidence that it was deceitful, but was it misleading?

00:47:13.000 Regardless of intentionality, it was.

00:47:15.000 And you're trying to tell me that because the people were lied to and they voted for it because.

00:47:19.000 I can't prove that they were lied to.

00:47:21.000 I can't prove that they were lied to.

00:47:22.000 You can't prove it again.

00:47:23.000 Again, okay.

00:47:24.000 I misspoke.

00:47:25.000 Because the people were misled on the information and 70% of people said based on faulty information that they heard, they supported it.

00:47:34.000 You're saying, like, oh, that means they supported it?

00:47:37.000 No.

00:47:38.000 Because if you look at the actual numbers, when they.

00:47:40.000 When they made their voices heard on the provisions of the bill, only 36% of people said they supported it.

00:47:45.000 So, and look, that was.

00:47:47.000 And only 29% wanted to maintain the status quo.

00:47:50.000 No, no, no.

00:47:51.000 But you, again, you can't say, well, there's no majority, therefore plurality wins.

00:47:57.000 Plurality is not representative of the will of the people, Mr. President.

00:47:59.000 Well, no, representative of the will of the people is the represented politicians that we elect into vote for us.

00:48:04.000 That's how representative actually works.

00:48:06.000 I don't know what system you're referring to, but.

00:48:08.000 I think it was.

00:48:08.000 Disagree.

00:48:09.000 I think that's.

00:48:09.000 Well, you can disagree, but then you have a fundamental disagreement with the government of the United States.

00:48:13.000 I think it was.

00:48:13.000 No, no.

00:48:15.000 You have incidental cases with our system of government where the will of the people is not represented, is misrepresented.

00:48:23.000 That is not systemic.

00:48:24.000 It's becoming systemic.

00:48:25.000 But in this case, it was incidental.

00:48:27.000 So I'm actually curious.

00:48:29.000 Do you agree then that every single thing, pretty much, that Trump has done is against the will of the people?

00:48:34.000 Do you agree with that or disagree with that?

00:48:36.000 This is a different situation.

00:48:37.000 Because pretty much everything is different.

00:48:40.000 Do you want to know why it's different?

00:48:40.000 No, it is.

00:48:42.000 Why is it different now?

00:48:42.000 Sure.

00:48:43.000 Because in 1965, The vast majority of people in the country, the vast majority of people in the country originated from the founding stock of the country in 1790.

00:48:53.000 The vast majority of people were descended from either slaves or settlers that were in this country in 1790.

00:48:59.000 That is a little something called the social contract. 0.95

00:49:02.000 Those people have.

00:49:03.000 The social contract has nothing to do with being racist.

00:49:06.000 I don't know why.

00:49:07.000 They were a charter society, and when they formed what our government was and they laid out what the Constitution and what this government would look like, they had a social contract.

00:49:16.000 With their ancestors, with posterity.

00:49:18.000 So the people in 1965 had a choice of what they wanted to do with their civilization.

00:49:26.000 In 2017, I don't think when you have people that washed up on the shore 20 years ago have a same claim to the destiny of the country as people 50 years ago. 0.96

00:49:36.000 And that's part of the problem with mass immigration. 0.93

00:49:38.000 That gets to the heart of the argument.

00:49:40.000 So you try and compare and contrast, but it's a fundamentally different situation.

00:49:43.000 That's the heart of the argument.

00:49:46.000 For the will of the people argument, all of the polling data will always be warped to support your view.

00:49:50.000 You'll bring up polls from 1944. 0.54

00:49:52.000 Yes, if it's true.

00:49:53.000 And then the will of the people only matters in regards to this one specific provision.

00:49:57.000 It doesn't matter today.

00:49:58.000 So I guess we move on from this point.

00:49:59.000 I think you're being very dishonest here with your representation of most of this.

00:50:01.000 I think you're being very dishonest.

00:50:02.000 But, you know, we'll let the people judge.

00:50:04.000 Well, the people already did.

00:50:04.000 We'll see.

00:50:06.000 Congress voted for it, and nobody had any repercussions for it.

00:50:09.000 I'm sorry, dude.

00:50:10.000 The people already decided.

00:50:11.000 People who are watching this can determine whether or not this polling data supports a 1965 immigration.

00:50:17.000 Oh, sure.

00:50:18.000 Again, you know.

00:50:18.000 And you can think that.

00:50:19.000 And I guess, like, if you have that thought in your head right now, if you're watching, like, oh, yeah, they definitely all hated it, ask yourself why there were no political repercussions to any of this at the time.

00:50:28.000 No politician that voted on this ever had big blowback.

00:50:31.000 Nobody in Congress suffered big blowback.

00:50:34.000 There was no blow.

00:50:34.000 I think the 2016 election was the blowback.

00:50:37.000 It was 50 years late.

00:50:39.000 It was 50 years late blowback.

00:50:40.000 Absolutely, because we didn't see it actualized until 2017.

00:50:45.000 We didn't see it manifested until 2017.

00:50:47.000 But you saw referendums throughout the 1980s of people who rejected bilingual schools, who put up laws to make English the official language of the state.

00:50:59.000 So you had resistance to this throughout the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s.

00:51:04.000 So you're saying there's no blowback.

00:51:06.000 But this is a separate argument.

00:51:07.000 Why are you talking about the 70s, 80s, 90s?

00:51:08.000 We were talking about if the will of the people is represented in the 60s.

00:51:10.000 You keep trying to pivot to the 60s.

00:51:11.000 No, no, but you said, no, no, but you said, why was there no blowback from something that didn't represent the will of the people?

00:51:16.000 Well, as this has manifested, the blowback has only increased in intensity.

00:51:21.000 You went from, well, it wasn't even represented in the 70s.

00:51:24.000 The demographic transformation in terms of the rate at which people were coming here was not even as high as it would become in the 80s and 90s.

00:51:32.000 You started to see opposition to this, I think, in the greatest incidents with Pat Buchanan in the early 70s.

00:51:38.000 1990s.

00:51:38.000 You see it culminate with Donald Trump in 2016.

00:51:41.000 So you say there's no blowback.

00:51:43.000 That's not true.

00:51:45.000 We see blowback.

00:51:45.000 Well, it happened 30 years later.

00:51:47.000 So the will of the people at the time was represented.

00:51:49.000 And now when you see results of it until 30 years later.

00:51:52.000 Okay, so I'm curious.

00:51:53.000 Let's say that I just want to ask a hypothetical.

00:51:55.000 I'm curious what your answer will be. 0.65

00:51:56.000 Let's say that we vote to go to war with, let's say, North Korea. 0.93

00:51:59.000 Let's say that we vote right now to go to war with North Korea. 0.96

00:51:59.000 Okay. 0.96

00:52:01.000 95% of people say, yes, let's do it.

00:52:04.000 And that is the will.

00:52:05.000 Let's say we have divine polling data.

00:52:07.000 95% of American citizens already, record numbers, sign up for the draft and we do it. 0.81

00:52:10.000 Let's say that we send our boats, we send our planes, we send everybody to North Korea, we bomb them, we blow them up, and then North Korea nukes the country. 0.99

00:52:17.000 And let's say that, you know, New York City, LA, Chicago, all of our whatever big cities, San Francisco, everything gets hit, everything is fucked. 0.98

00:52:23.000 And let's say at this point, 85% of people, or like 99% of people, are like, wow, the war was a big mistake. 0.88

00:52:28.000 Would you argue that the will of the people wasn't represented initially when we went to war with North Korea?

00:52:34.000 If people were explicit, and war is different, but if people were explicitly told that it would not happen that we would get nuked, if people were told there was no chance that we would get nuked, There was no chance that there would be a threat to people on the mainland.

00:52:46.000 I would say then that would be a comparable analogy.

00:52:50.000 What if the politicians and all the war generals genuinely believe.

00:52:50.000 But you're saying.

00:52:53.000 Let's say we didn't know that North Korea actually had nuclear weapons. 0.67

00:52:55.000 They shouldn't have told them.

00:52:56.000 They shouldn't have told them.

00:52:57.000 I mean, that's kind of the point.

00:52:58.000 They shouldn't have told them.

00:52:59.000 So you would argue then that even if all the best data said that we know that North Korea has no weapons, we're going to go there, we're going to pull them up and everything.

00:53:06.000 You're creating an analogy when we have data for what happened.

00:53:10.000 And I'm using your data.

00:53:11.000 No, no, no, we don't have any data, dude.

00:53:11.000 But we don't.

00:53:13.000 Yeah, we do.

00:53:13.000 That's correct.

00:53:14.000 We have the.

00:53:14.000 You're trying.

00:53:15.000 You're trying to say that it makes it sound like that people were intentionally misled, or I guess now you're dropping the intentional part, even though you cited.

00:53:15.000 No, no.

00:53:21.000 I'm not dropping that.

00:53:23.000 I said.

00:53:23.000 Oh, so now you do believe they were intentionally misled.

00:53:25.000 Because earlier you said you dropped it.

00:53:27.000 You're being such a sophist.

00:53:28.000 I brought you on because I thought you might be intellectually honest.

00:53:32.000 It's not happening.

00:53:33.000 I said, and I've repeated this throughout, and this has been consistent throughout.

00:53:36.000 I said, I speculate that there is a non zero chance that people were deceived.

00:53:42.000 There is a 100% there is way, because this is, I mean, that is true.

00:53:46.000 Why do we.

00:53:47.000 Okay, I speculate a non zero chance that aliens control the government.

00:53:50.000 Reality that people were misled.

00:53:53.000 Deceived, non zero chance could have happened.

00:53:55.000 And again, you're fixating on that because it's the smallest percentage here.

00:54:00.000 But there is a 100% reality that people were misled, intentionally or not.

00:54:05.000 They were told they would not transform, it would not increase the volume of immigration to an alarming extent that it did.

00:54:14.000 And you look at your own polling data, it says that when.

00:54:18.000 Supports that if we put it up to a vote, I would probably win.

00:54:21.000 Yeah, sure.

00:54:21.000 No, no, no.

00:54:22.000 No, no, no.

00:54:22.000 It says if.

00:54:23.000 Again, read what your own poll says.

00:54:26.000 Yeah, I read it.

00:54:26.000 I see it right here.

00:54:27.000 70% of Americans approve it at the time.

00:54:31.000 70% based on what they've heard about the bill, which was not true about the bill.

00:54:36.000 When people were asked about the information.

00:54:40.000 Here's where the distinction came, which you kept trying to talk over me, but 70% approve of what they hear of the bill.

00:54:47.000 When people were asked about the provisions inside the bill and not what they heard, which was misleading, only 36% say they supported the change.

00:54:57.000 And everybody else was either unsure, didn't know, Or they supported the precedent.

00:55:03.000 I just think it's really interesting that you group all these other people into your camp when I could just as easily group them in mine.

00:55:08.000 How many times do I have to say, I'm not putting them in my camp, but if you want change, you need a majority in your camp.

00:55:12.000 I'm not putting them in my camp.

00:55:13.000 Well, but you don't need, you keep saying that you need a majority.

00:55:15.000 You don't need a majority.

00:55:16.000 You just need Congress to vote on it, which we had a majority on the Republican and Democrat side.

00:55:20.000 Here's a good example.

00:55:22.000 If you're at a pizza party, okay, and you have 10 friends over, and let's say we're deciding, well, do we want to order pizza or do we want to order wings?

00:55:34.000 And 30% say, you know, I want pizza.

00:55:39.000 But we always get wings.

00:55:40.000 We get wings every week.

00:55:42.000 Every week we get wings.

00:55:43.000 Every week we talk about how much we love wings.

00:55:46.000 It's the tradition.

00:55:47.000 Wings, we know we like.

00:55:49.000 We know we like.

00:55:50.000 We know it works for us. 0.97

00:55:51.000 We fucking love our wings, okay? 0.98

00:55:53.000 We get them. 0.99

00:55:54.000 We've done it for 200 weeks.

00:55:55.000 We've had wings.

00:55:57.000 And today, we say, you know what?

00:55:59.000 Let's put it up to a vote wings or pizza?

00:56:01.000 And 20% say wings.

00:56:03.000 And 15% say, I don't think there's any difference.

00:56:06.000 29% say, Say, or no, I'm sorry, 29% say we want wings, 15% say there's no difference one way or the other, and 20% say we're not sure, and 36% say we want pizza.

00:56:17.000 Now, in what's, and this is a silly analogy, but we simplify it so we can get to the logic of it.

00:56:22.000 In what universe does that 36% plurality able to overturn 200 weeks of tradition, overturn things that we know work, things that we know, and this is, I mean, the difference between capitalism and capitalism?

00:56:36.000 Because this analogy, like, I would.

00:56:39.000 We keep things that work.

00:56:41.000 And if we want change, people need to agree on it.

00:56:43.000 There needs to be a majority or a consensus.

00:56:47.000 And you have politicians in Congress.

00:56:49.000 In this example, I would win.

00:56:51.000 I don't know if you realize that.

00:56:53.000 If you have four friends and they want pizza and three friends want wings and everyone else is undecided, then you go with the four.

00:56:59.000 This is how it works in literally every single social situation.

00:57:02.000 Do you not realize that?

00:57:03.000 Of course it is.

00:57:04.000 It absolutely is.

00:57:05.000 And especially not.

00:57:06.000 Wait, if you had 20 friends that were trying to decide what restaurant to go to, five of them very strongly want to go to some restaurant and three.

00:57:13.000 Are like, I really want to go to the other one.

00:57:15.000 Then, yeah, then most people would end up siding with the five because that's what they feel.

00:57:17.000 Like, that example literally supports my point.

00:57:20.000 If you know what works, if you know that this works and you're not sure about the other thing, you go with what works.

00:57:26.000 And that is an ideological difference.

00:57:28.000 I think that's why you're not getting it.

00:57:29.000 I think that's why.

00:57:30.000 Yeah, maybe.

00:57:32.000 I mean, the entire political climate of Johnson's administration was being more progressive and changing things.

00:57:38.000 That's where the whole war on poverty started.

00:57:40.000 That's where the whole Great Society came.

00:57:41.000 That whole political climate was about moving forward.

00:57:43.000 So then.

00:57:45.000 So then 36% becomes a majority.

00:57:48.000 I mean, that Johnson's a magic man.

00:57:48.000 Wow.

00:57:50.000 I mean, he's magic Johnson, truly.

00:57:52.000 But again, it's about that's where we differ.

00:57:55.000 I say, and I think any reasonable, wise person would say, if something is working, if it's not broke, don't fix it.

00:58:02.000 And if people want to fix it, they should at least have a majority.

00:58:05.000 They should have a majority to.

00:58:07.000 And again, we keep going around and around in circles.

00:58:10.000 So maybe you want to move on to another point.

00:58:11.000 Yeah, we can move on to the next point.

00:58:12.000 I mean, I think the government functioned as it is supposed to.

00:58:12.000 That's fine.

00:58:15.000 I'm somewhat of a constitutionalist.

00:58:16.000 I mean, the Constitution.

00:58:17.000 Delegates this to Congress.

00:58:19.000 Congress voted the way they wanted to.

00:58:20.000 There was bipartisan support for it.

00:58:21.000 There was no political backlash, at least until even you admit 30 or 40 or 50 years later.

00:58:26.000 So, yeah, I think the will of the people was sufficiently.

00:58:28.000 That's a nice little.

00:58:29.000 I love that, like, sarcastic little, you know, because.

00:58:33.000 Yeah, you can give your final words on it as well if you want.

00:58:35.000 Here's the honest difference.

00:58:36.000 You know, you're going to give me this kind of passive aggressive sarcastic thing.

00:58:39.000 Here's the honest difference between our two positions.

00:58:42.000 I believe that in 1965, when you overturn precedent, and we keep saying the same words, but it's so important.

00:58:51.000 You have precedent, you have things that work, you have institutions that work and that matter to people and that people fought for and that have been reaffirmed a million times over by your ancestors.

00:59:00.000 And if that is to change, you need a strong majority in favor of it.

00:59:05.000 And I don't think Congress was representative of a majority.

00:59:08.000 I don't think that majority existed.

00:59:10.000 This data shows that it did not.

00:59:12.000 Because the people that were asked about the provisions in the bill, the people that were asked about the change to the precedent, only 36% say they supported it.

00:59:20.000 If 51% said they supported it, I would say you were right.

00:59:24.000 I would say destiny was right.

00:59:27.000 Sure.

00:59:28.000 So do you think, I'm just curious, for big stuff like this, and you think that we should ignore the entire principle of our government and leave it up.

00:59:33.000 To referendum?

00:59:34.000 Do you agree with that or disagree with that?

00:59:35.000 Yeah, that's a logical extrapolation.

00:59:37.000 Well, because you're saying, well, I'm curious.

00:59:39.000 I'm actually legitimately curious.

00:59:40.000 Do you think that that should have been left up to a referendum, a majority vote of the United States?

00:59:43.000 Again, I didn't say a referendum vote.

00:59:46.000 I said in a referendum election.

00:59:48.000 I think if you're going to do something like that, if it's something that significant, it should be a major piece of a party's platform.

00:59:56.000 It should be like, do you want to go down this road or do you want to go down that road?

01:00:00.000 I mean, that was at the heart of the issue.

01:00:02.000 I mean, in this argument, this isolated piece of it, I would be ambivalent as to what way the country goes.

01:00:10.000 If you're looking at the other parts of it, of course, I feel very strongly against that act.

01:00:14.000 But if we're talking strictly in the sense of the will of the people, you know, are people represented?

01:00:20.000 Did they get what they want?

01:00:21.000 Did they choose the fate of their nation?

01:00:23.000 I say this was a great injustice because people did not support this change and it changed their lives.

01:00:30.000 It changed their schools.

01:00:32.000 It changed their destiny.

01:00:33.000 It changed the life of their nation.

01:00:34.000 Why did he win reelection then?

01:00:36.000 Because, again, the whole point of this is that it's a long term change.

01:00:40.000 You didn't see.

01:00:42.000 If you look at immigration, it didn't start to comprise mostly Hispanics and Asians until well into the 80s and 90s.

01:00:48.000 It didn't increase in size and scope until well into the 80s and 90s.

01:00:52.000 So you're asking, like, this should have been reflected in the.

01:00:54.000 I mean, do you understand that we're talking about a gradual process that's happened over 50 years?

01:00:59.000 That's why.

01:00:59.000 I guess, like, my problem is just that, like.

01:01:01.000 You're trying to make this claim that Americans at the time didn't believe a thing, but every single thing possible points to the contrary.

01:01:09.000 But now, because of how some things have turned out, you're saying that if we could go back in time and give them, I guess, like.

01:01:14.000 Future information they might have changed. 0.82

01:01:16.000 It just seems like a really ridiculous argument to make.

01:01:17.000 It's a moral argument. 0.86

01:01:18.000 It's a moral argument of what you keep trying, and this is, I guess, your.

01:01:24.000 If we could get Spenglerian for a second, I suppose this is your Kantian sensibility as opposed to my Faustian sensibility.

01:01:32.000 You are saying that this should have had direct and government and elections, and you're trying to bring it down to this practical place where it never was.

01:01:41.000 I'm saying, morally speaking, it was a great injustice that the U.S. Congress.

01:01:47.000 Which is duly obligated to represent the will of the people, represent what the people want for their country.

01:01:52.000 There was a gap between what the people wanted and what the Congress passed in law.

01:01:56.000 And it's a tragedy that we have been, that consequences, serious consequences, have been inflicted on us as a result of something our representatives passed that we were in the dark about, that we were misled about.

01:02:08.000 We maybe, you know, non zero chance we were deceived.

01:02:11.000 I'll concede there's no evidence we were deceived, but we were most certainly misled about what the result would be.

01:02:15.000 And I think that's a great failing.

01:02:17.000 And I think.

01:02:18.000 You know, maybe not.

01:02:19.000 I'm not even going to say that because you would contest that, but it is a great failing of our republic and our democracy that the course of our nation took a dramatic left turn and people did not choose that.

01:02:31.000 Some people wanted that, but the vast majority either said, stay the course or, you know, we're not sure or I don't know if there would be a change.

01:02:39.000 We don't care or do what you.

01:02:42.000 So, and you keep trying to say, like, again, I think people can, if they're trying to understand my argument, I think if you were being intellectually honest, if you've read.

01:02:51.000 And this is not to be big brain nibba, but if you've read, I'm coming at this from the sense of Jean Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract.

01:02:57.000 I'm coming at this from Reflections on the Revolution in France and Edmund Burke.

01:03:01.000 I mean, this is political philosophy stuff that there is precedent.

01:03:07.000 Okay, sure.

01:03:08.000 You just have, I mean, yeah, okay, we can move on to the next point.

01:03:10.000 You really have no data to support your point.

01:03:13.000 You just kind of have your roundabout.

01:03:14.000 Okay, congrats.

01:03:15.000 I mean, I guess I just don't really know what to say.

01:03:16.000 Or the data that I present, some polls you don't trust, but if you can twist it around, you kind of trust it.

01:03:20.000 And then there was no political backlash, everybody supported it in terms of power.

01:03:24.000 I'll let you get the last word.

01:03:25.000 We've beaten that horse.

01:03:26.000 We can move on.

01:03:27.000 Okay.

01:03:27.000 Gotcha.

01:03:28.000 The second thing we brought up was the original intent argument from the Constitution.

01:03:33.000 In this argument, tell me if you feel like this is a fair phrasing.

01:03:35.000 If you feel like anything is unfair, feel free to pull it back.

01:03:39.000 And I will rephrase it.

01:03:40.000 Your argument was that the Founding Fathers wrote to ourselves and our posterity in the preamble of the Constitution.

01:03:46.000 We can use context clues from other writings of the Founding Fathers, such as the Federalist Papers, to figure out what they meant by posterity, that one word that you love so much.

01:03:53.000 The Federalist Papers, number two John Jay writes, a people descended from the same ancestors speaking the same language.

01:03:58.000 Professing the same religion attached to the same principles of government.

01:04:01.000 It is clear from these statements that the Constitution was clearly designed to protect the European Christian people.

01:04:07.000 Do you agree that's a fair summary of your original intent argument?

01:04:10.000 Yeah, yeah.

01:04:13.000 That is a fair summary.

01:04:15.000 I did some, I guess, digging around of writing that the original founding fathers did, and I guess not as surprisingly, I just couldn't find anything that ever supported any of this at all.

01:04:26.000 I have your quote, I guess, from John Jay that he wrote in the Federalist Papers, number two.

01:04:31.000 I'm just kind of curious as a non sequitur, and I mentioned this in our big one on five debate that we had.

01:04:36.000 Do you feel like John Jay, who also said that he wanted to keep Catholics out of New York, do you feel like that should be respected as well, or do you ignore that part of his original intention?

01:04:45.000 It's not about ignoring things, it's a matter of degrees.

01:04:48.000 And here, as a good counterpoint, I also did a little research from one of my favorite books.

01:04:54.000 Who are we?

01:04:54.000 Oh, wait, can you answer this real quick before we move on to 50 Million of them?

01:04:57.000 Okay, thank you.

01:04:58.000 I love the sass here.

01:05:00.000 Great book, Who Are We by Sam Huntington.

01:05:02.000 I recommend everybody read that on the subject.

01:05:04.000 But here's a little table that he brought up.

01:05:06.000 And I think this will answer this because I knew you were going to bring this up, and I constructed this officially for you.

01:05:11.000 My infamous whiteboard here, and you're not on camera on Skype, so you're not going to be able to see this, but I'll do my best to explain it.

01:05:19.000 So, this is from Who Are We by Sam Huntington, and he made a little chart, and he said that American identity over the course of America's existence was comprised of four separate categories you have an ethnic American identity, a racial American identity, a cultural, and a political identity.

01:05:37.000 From 16.

01:05:39.000 It says 1620 here.

01:05:40.000 It should read 1607.

01:05:42.000 To 1775, you had an ethnic, a racial, and a cultural identity, but not a political.

01:05:47.000 From 1775 to 1940, you had an ethnic, a racial, cultural, and a political identity.

01:05:53.000 So you had all four categories that Americans were united on from 75 to 1940.

01:05:59.000 From 1940 to 1965, the ethnic component went away.

01:06:02.000 And we know this because you had mass immigration in the 20th century from South and Eastern Europe, Catholics, like you said, Jews, You had Asians, I mean, all kinds of people, and that's where ethnicity went away.

01:06:14.000 From 1965 until 1990, the racial component went away.

01:06:18.000 So you were left from 65 to 90 with just the cultural and political identity.

01:06:22.000 From 90 to 2017, you just have the political identity.

01:06:26.000 So, what I mean to say with John Jay's quote there is we need to preserve as much as we can those four components of identity. 0.75

01:06:36.000 Ethnic is gone. 0.54

01:06:38.000 And I concede that he didn't want Catholics, John Jay in particular, but that's not even in reference to all the other.

01:06:45.000 People who spoke on the subject, but John Jay didn't want to.

01:06:48.000 Well, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, because you keep making little quotes like that.

01:06:50.000 Like, in an 1819 letter, John Q. Adams, okay, John Quincy Adams wrote, as Secretary of State, the government of the United States has never adopted any measure to encourage or invite emigrants from any part of Europe. 0.92

01:07:01.000 They must cast off their European skin, never to resume it. 0.84

01:07:05.000 They must look forward to their posterity rather than backward to their ancestors. 0.90

01:07:10.000 In 1788, George Washington wrote to a Dutch politician, Francis van der Kamp, I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind.

01:07:20.000 To whatever nation they might belong.

01:07:22.000 I mean, there are tons of quotes of people that were instrumental in drafting the original Constitution.

01:07:27.000 Okay, can I answer all this?

01:07:28.000 Yeah, you're going to bring all this up, and that's why I mean, I have everything I need.

01:07:32.000 So, in regards to the John Q. Adams quote, when he says that, refresh my memory, was it John Q. Adams?

01:07:40.000 He says that, what is it again?

01:07:44.000 The government of the United States has never adopted any measure to encourage or invite immigrants to any part of Europe. 0.99

01:07:49.000 They must cast off the European skin ever to resume it. 0.99

01:07:50.000 They must look forward to their posterity rather than backwards to their ancestors. 0.99

01:07:53.000 Yes, that does not.

01:07:55.000 Quote does not negate the fact that it should have been a European stock.

01:07:59.000 What he's saying is they should craft an American identity.

01:08:02.000 And that's the Latin expression that's on our coins.

01:08:04.000 That's the Latin expression that was a part of our government from the beginning, which was e pluribus unum, out of many, one.

01:08:11.000 And the point of that was out of many European identities, which at the time of the first census in 1790, the country was 80% British.

01:08:22.000 It was 60% English, 80% British.

01:08:25.000 Because English are partly British, and most of the remaining 20% was European, 98% Protestant.

01:08:32.000 What they were saying was out of this conglomeration of Northern and Western Europeans and Protestants would come a uniquely American identity.

01:08:40.000 So that does not say let's have immigration from Mexico and Africa.

01:08:43.000 That's John Q. Adams.

01:08:45.000 George Washington.

01:08:46.000 Hold on, hold on. 1.00

01:08:46.000 For what you just said, nothing there points to we should only have immigrants from the same place over and over again. 1.00

01:08:53.000 You're just describing the composition of America in the 17.

01:08:56.000 Which doesn't even agree with your definition of only white Europeans. 0.89

01:09:00.000 That was a bitterly cold.

01:09:01.000 Do you have a quote where he, instead of saying, I mean, it's remarkable to me how you completely ignore historical context.

01:09:09.000 Like you are projecting and writing into these quotes like a 1970s multicultural definition of America.

01:09:16.000 If we're talking about John Q. Adams, who was president in the 19th century, we're talking about a president who was alive and president when slavery was an actuality.

01:09:25.000 And he makes a quote that if we take my Interpretation of it means Americanization of Protestant Anglo Saxons.

01:09:36.000 That makes sense during the time.

01:09:38.000 You are reading into it an interpretation that he, what he actually meant was that Europeans are, it's not just a European country.

01:09:46.000 When he says cast off your European skin and become an American, he doesn't mean e pluribus unum.

01:09:51.000 He doesn't mean what his father said.

01:09:53.000 He doesn't mean what any of the founders said.

01:09:55.000 No, no, no. 0.91

01:09:56.000 He means import millions of people from Mexico and Africa and change the ethnic and cultural. 1.00

01:10:01.000 He means destroy. 0.99

01:10:02.000 The American identity that prevailed for the last 100 years.

01:10:05.000 You're loading this a lot.

01:10:07.000 And again, because it's a ridiculous presupposition that this supports your mass immigration policy.

01:10:14.000 The burden is on you.

01:10:16.000 Sure.

01:10:16.000 Okay?

01:10:17.000 I already have the law on my side because nowhere in the Constitution does it favor European immigrants.

01:10:22.000 Anywhere.

01:10:23.000 So the burden is on you to prove to me that your current concept of white, which, by the way, coincidentally now includes people like me who are half Cuban and people like you who are a quarter Mexican, right?

01:10:36.000 Yeah, so and you who are a quarter Hispanic, right?

01:10:38.000 This, your idea of what white even means is something that was totally not understood at the time.

01:10:43.000 And you're trying to say that people felt that way?

01:10:45.000 Here's a quote by Benjamin Franklin.

01:10:46.000 Who was there.

01:10:47.000 Whoa, Again, yeah, sure.

01:10:49.000 I love that.

01:10:50.000 I have to keep my talking down to 30 seconds so you can do your five minute spiel.

01:10:50.000 I'm sorry.

01:10:53.000 Go ahead.

01:10:53.000 Wow.

01:10:54.000 I love the sass here.

01:10:54.000 I love that.

01:10:55.000 So, again, because you do these little drive bys and pot shots, and then I actually explain them in nuance and detail, and you get offended because it's like, you know, it doesn't stand once people actually dissect it.

01:11:08.000 You're talking about a quote from John Q. Adams.

01:11:10.000 Where he is saying they cast off their European skin and they become Americans.

01:11:15.000 Now, again, we defer to what the founding father said.

01:11:19.000 We defer to his times.

01:11:21.000 What does this mean in the context of the times he was living?

01:11:24.000 Does it mean your interpretation?

01:11:26.000 And you're saying burden of proof is on me.

01:11:28.000 Okay, fine.

01:11:29.000 Look at the context of his era.

01:11:31.000 Again, you had a country.

01:11:32.000 Look at the Constitution.

01:11:34.000 Again, you had a country that was 98% Protestant, 80% British, and ostensibly.

01:11:42.000 Later on in the 19th century, it was more Irish, and that's still Northern Europeans.

01:11:47.000 You know, arguable whether that was totally considered white.

01:11:49.000 But regardless, you look at the context of the era, and he was saying I mean, that's an obvious referral to e pluribus unum, creating a unique identity, a uniquely American identity, a settler's identity out of the former European nations and all the strife that went on over there.

01:12:06.000 You're reading into it like he's saying, cast off your European character because this is not a country that takes after Europe.

01:12:14.000 This is not a European country. 0.91

01:12:15.000 This is not for white people.

01:12:18.000 This is for everybody in the whole world.

01:12:20.000 It's just a matter of what interpretation.

01:12:23.000 You're really like having this.

01:12:25.000 But you don't have.

01:12:26.000 It's an extrapolation.

01:12:27.000 No, I'm not.

01:12:28.000 Dude, you extrapolated your entire argument from John Jay using the word posterity, which was written in the Federalist Papers, which was literally used to unify the people of the United States.

01:12:39.000 This wasn't even a document.

01:12:40.000 To unify all the prospects.

01:12:42.000 Well, the document.

01:12:43.000 The document that you're referring to.

01:12:45.000 Referring to wasn't even a commentary on immigration.

01:12:48.000 It was literally just an attempt to unite the American peoples.

01:12:52.000 That's all it was.

01:12:53.000 And you're trying to extrapolate that one word, posterity.

01:12:56.000 No, it's about because look, you have a nation which has a crisis of identity.

01:13:02.000 This is a unique time in history.

01:13:04.000 This is a unique country.

01:13:05.000 There is this idea, and it persists today, that American identity is only about the creed, the creed of work ethic, of constitutional individual liberty, of Republican government, of etc., etc.

01:13:20.000 The founding character of the country, which was English in character.

01:13:25.000 And you are trying to sell us that John Jay, when he said that this nation was given to one united people of the same religion, of the same language, of the same ancestors.

01:13:39.000 And like you say, oh, that's totally irrelevant.

01:13:42.000 That wasn't a commentary on who should be in the country.

01:13:45.000 That was like propaganda to unite the already ethnically, racially, Religiously, linguistically homogenous people of the United States. 0.70

01:13:53.000 I mean, just stop.

01:13:54.000 Stop.

01:13:54.000 You're an extrapolation of stuff.

01:13:56.000 We were not homogenous.

01:13:57.000 Dude, we were not homogenous.

01:13:59.000 No, we weren't.

01:13:59.000 That's why the Federalist Papers were written.

01:14:01.000 The whole reason.

01:14:03.000 The whole, and culturally, the whole reason why the.

01:14:06.000 Tell me about this on the graph.

01:14:07.000 Just give me a percentage.

01:14:09.000 Why were the Federalist Papers written if we were already all homogenous and ready to be Americans?

01:14:12.000 Why would we need to gain support for the Constitution?

01:14:14.000 Why would we need to gain support for unifying all of the colonies into one federal government?

01:14:18.000 Because you had, again, I will refer you to the chart from 1620 to 1626.

01:14:22.000 No, no, no, no.

01:14:22.000 I don't want to go to the Antichrist Papers.

01:14:24.000 We were not unified politically. 0.59

01:14:26.000 That was not part of the American idea.

01:14:29.000 So you think that a homogenous people weren't unified politically?

01:14:32.000 Why were the Federalist Papers?

01:14:33.000 No, no, no.

01:14:34.000 But it's all the difference in the world between. 0.51

01:14:36.000 Between having an Anglo Saxon tradition that derives from the Magna Carta, that derives from the Glorious Revolution, and deciding what kind of government they wanted to, what extent it would be a liberal government, then saying Africans are equally American.

01:14:52.000 Again, the composition of the country at this time was completely homogeneous.

01:14:57.000 You're trying to say that because they disagreed about what size the central government would be, which relative to all governments in the history of mankind and all governments in the world was basically.

01:15:09.000 Like this, close to each other, was an inch apart from each other.

01:15:12.000 Do we want a confederation or do we want a federal system?

01:15:15.000 That denotes as much heterogeneity as having a country of minorities and different ethnicities and races and religions. 0.98

01:15:23.000 It's just so deceitful.

01:15:24.000 You're so disingenuous. 0.99

01:15:26.000 How can you sit here and peddle this nonsense?

01:15:28.000 I mean, like, well, it's funny because to you in the 2000s, which is actually evidence that multiculturalism has worked to some extent because you're a quarter Hispanic, are pretending that just because everybody looked white and had the same religion, that there were no differences between the people.

01:15:28.000 It's a joke.

01:15:43.000 They were white. 0.99

01:15:44.000 Like, that's the whole point of the Federalist Papers. 0.91

01:15:47.000 The entire point of the Federalist Papers was to unite the peoples so that they would all come together and form a federal government so that they wouldn't remain separate states because they didn't think they would be able to survive in that manner going forward.

01:15:58.000 The Federalist Papers were not a commentary on immigration, and nothing, not a single word of what you say is anywhere in any parts of the Constitution.

01:16:08.000 Nothing that you say is there.

01:16:09.000 The only thing that you have is 200 years of precedent.

01:16:13.000 Oh, no, no, I'm sorry.

01:16:14.000 The 1790 Act, the 1795 Act, the 1798 Act, the 1802 Law, the 1882 Law.

01:16:14.000 I only have.

01:16:20.000 Let me know when you're done reading all of this.

01:16:22.000 Again, because you just lie.

01:16:25.000 This is Congress exercising their powers to choose who becomes naturalized as a citizen.

01:16:30.000 Nowhere in the Constitution does it say this must be restricted to Europeans.

01:16:33.000 We're not trying to make the argument that Congress.

01:16:36.000 And again, when you say that the Congress decides we would like to naturalize certain people, I'm not arguing that they didn't do that in the 20th century.

01:16:44.000 I am arguing that the original intent of the founders, again, They didn't write it into the Constitution because, I mean, again, if you consider that the country was 90%, was 80% a one ethnicity and 20% different ethnicities of the same race and 98% were the same religion, they didn't need to write it into the letter of the law. 0.86

01:17:06.000 This is a white country. 0.73

01:17:07.000 Actually, they did write it into the letter of the law, not the natural law, but the congressional law, three, no, four times, four times within, what would that be, 15 years of the Constitution passing. 0.91

01:17:21.000 Four times they affirmed that the people that come into this country were free white people of upstanding character.

01:17:27.000 I mean, it's just, you are ignoring, you just flat out ignore my evidence.

01:17:31.000 I just flat out say, well, that evidence, explain to me then, if the founders didn't want it to be a country that was British and European in character, that was as I say it was, I mean, what evidence do you have besides a quote by John Q. Adams that is really just e pluribus unum restated?

01:17:47.000 What evidence do you have that the founders wanted this country to have Africans and Hispanics and Asians?

01:17:53.000 If four separate times within 15 years of the passage of the Constitution, they said it's only for white people to come here.

01:17:58.000 Explain to me, where's your evidence to contradict that?

01:18:01.000 My evidence is that whoever we want to immigrate to the country can do so based on what Congress says because that is what the Constitution explicitly states.

01:18:10.000 Based on what Congress said.

01:18:11.000 Well, Congress said.

01:18:12.000 It is what Congress says.

01:18:13.000 Congress said in 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1895.

01:18:17.000 And in 1965, they changed their mind.

01:18:20.000 Okay, no, but you challenged my claim of original intent.

01:18:24.000 Yes, because your original intent is not written anywhere in the Constitution and you have not sufficiently demonstrated that the majority of people that drafted the Constitution.

01:18:33.000 Wanted it to be only European immigration. 0.95

01:18:35.000 Oh, I can. 1.00

01:18:36.000 Oh, but I can.

01:18:37.000 Here, we have George Washington who says, Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, the jealousy of free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican government.

01:18:50.000 A foreign influence can be both domestic and in the international sphere.

01:18:54.000 Foreign influence can be Western European as well.

01:18:56.000 This doesn't support your point.

01:18:58.000 8 million Hispanics coming into the country in five years as in foreign influence.

01:18:58.000 What is your next quote?

01:19:02.000 You don't think they exercise foreign influence?

01:19:05.000 You don't think that they thought the exact same about Germans, about Swedes, about Finnish, like about everybody in the Scandinavian countries?

01:19:11.000 You did not have mass immigration in 1788.

01:19:14.000 Okay, let me ask one more time.

01:19:17.000 Do you have a quote that actually supports your point, or are you just going to have more ambiguous quotes?

01:19:20.000 Okay, so you don't like that one.

01:19:21.000 Here's an example.

01:19:22.000 George Washington said foreign invalidism and I'm trying to denote specific meaning.

01:19:22.000 Well, no, no.

01:19:26.000 When I have a very specific quote from Washington that disagrees with that.

01:19:29.000 Hey, I have more quotes here.

01:19:31.000 If you disagree with that interpretation, Alexander Hamilton.

01:19:35.000 Do you agree that he is a founding father, a good spokesperson for the founding intent?

01:19:38.000 Okay. 1.00

01:19:39.000 He says the influx of foreigners must therefore tend to produce a heterogeneous compound to change and corrupt the national spirit, to complicate and confound public opinion, to induce foreign propensities. 0.74

01:19:53.000 John Jay, who, you know, we have the quote from Federalist No. 2, which you read. 0.98

01:19:57.000 We have the Federalist Attorney General.

01:19:59.000 Wait, Because you keep saying we only have one quote.

01:20:02.000 I have many quotes.

01:20:03.000 Wait, why can't we go through the Federalist Attorney General? 0.87

01:20:06.000 Wait, Thomas Jefferson, whites and blacks equally free cannot live in the same government. 0.77

01:20:13.000 Jefferson, Madison, Henry Clay, John Randolph, and Abraham Lincoln. 0.76

01:20:16.000 But let me go back to your one first.

01:20:18.000 Also, part of the efforts to push Africans back into Africa once slavery was ended. 0.53

01:20:24.000 Wait, No, no, no.

01:20:26.000 Wait, listen to this evidence.

01:20:27.000 Do you not listen to any of it?

01:20:30.000 There were 50 million, or were there five?

01:20:31.000 Does this sound like a founding intent to have a heterogeneous racially and ethnically country?

01:20:37.000 People that wanted to send slaves back to Africa?

01:20:39.000 People that said we'd have a heterogeneous compound?

01:20:42.000 Is corrupt and toxifies the national character.

01:20:45.000 I mean, go ahead.

01:20:46.000 Go ahead. 1.00

01:20:46.000 Explain that initial Hamilton quote was from 1802, and the very next sentence was, The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass. 1.00

01:20:57.000 I'm sorry, did Mexicans already immigrate to the United States in 1802? 1.00

01:21:01.000 No, no.

01:21:01.000 So he is against mass immigration.

01:21:04.000 He was against the mass immigration. 0.68

01:21:06.000 But it has nothing to do with Mexicans or Africans. 1.00

01:21:09.000 This is against all immigration. 1.00

01:21:10.000 Yes, yes. 1.00

01:21:11.000 Which I am.

01:21:12.000 This quote doesn't further your point.

01:21:12.000 Which I am.

01:21:13.000 What was your next quote?

01:21:14.000 Sure it does.

01:21:15.000 Sure, so.

01:21:15.000 No, it's an affluent.

01:21:17.000 You were arguing in favor of a what?

01:21:19.000 You're sounding a little unhinged here.

01:21:20.000 Alexander Hamilton saying he's against mass immigration, okay?

01:21:24.000 I'm against mass immigration. 0.92

01:21:26.000 I am against immigration that is not of European character. 1.00

01:21:29.000 If 100 million Russians came to this country, I wouldn't say that's okay. 1.00

01:21:33.000 The founding intent was against both mass immigration and against immigration from non European countries. 0.99

01:21:39.000 Alexander Hamilton.

01:21:40.000 Okay, so your quote from Hamilton has nothing to do with immigration from non European countries.

01:21:44.000 What was your next quote?

01:21:45.000 It supports mass immigration.

01:21:46.000 Which is also a crucial part of it.

01:21:48.000 Which also wasn't written into any part of the Constitution.

01:21:50.000 I would be fine with a small amount of immigration of any character if it were small.

01:21:55.000 But Alexander Hamilton says he's against mass immigration. 0.99

01:21:58.000 We can find common ground there. 0.63

01:21:59.000 So, you're saying that you would be opposed then?

01:22:01.000 You're not saying that you would prefer immigration from Western Europe.

01:22:04.000 You're saying that you're actually opposed to almost all immigration? 1.00

01:22:06.000 I'm saying both. 0.96

01:22:07.000 I'm saying immigration is.

01:22:09.000 I want to hear you say that.

01:22:11.000 Can you give me that platform then? 0.53

01:22:12.000 Can you say I'm actually opposing immigration?

01:22:15.000 You're attempting to put words in my mouth.

01:22:16.000 It's not working so well.

01:22:18.000 What I'm saying is we want to keep America the way it used to be.

01:22:21.000 You do this in two ways. 1.00

01:22:23.000 You keep immigration low so that the founding stock continues to be the majority. 0.72

01:22:29.000 It hasn't been the majority since 1990, but. 0.99

01:22:31.000 We would like to get it to a point where people that have been here constitute the majority. 1.00

01:22:35.000 So that's why I'm against mass immigration of all forms. 1.00

01:22:38.000 Additionally, an additional condition on immigration is it should be preferable. 0.99

01:22:44.000 It should put precedent to Anglo Saxons, Northern Europeans, Western Europeans, then maybe Eastern Southern Europeans, and then non whites if they're very skilled. 0.93

01:22:54.000 So it's two qualifiers there. 0.78

01:22:56.000 Okay, so in your characterizing of immigrants that you would prefer, here's a quote by Benjamin Franklin, okay, in a 1751 essay titled Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, the Peopling of Countries. 0.72

01:23:07.000 Franklin said, Why should the Palatine Boers be suffered to swarm into our settlements and by herding together establish their language and manners to the exclusion of ours?

01:23:15.000 Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of us anglifying them and will never adopt our language or customs any more than they can acquire our complexion?

01:23:27.000 That means, again, again, which leads me to add one remark that the number of purely white people in the world is proportionally very small. 0.86

01:23:37.000 These are the people that you like, even though you're a quarter Hispanic. 0.95

01:23:40.000 All Africa is black or tawny. 1.00

01:23:42.000 Castizo, not a Cuban like you. 1.00

01:23:44.000 Asia is chiefly tawny. 1.00

01:23:45.000 America, wholly so. 0.74

01:23:47.000 And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes are generally of what we would call a swarthy complexion. 0.85

01:23:55.000 These are people that you are advocating to immigrate to our country today, that it sounds like an original founding father didn't consider white. 0.94

01:24:02.000 Yes, yes, correct. 0.98

01:24:04.000 Correct.

01:24:04.000 So then why are you arguing original intent?

01:24:06.000 Let's go on the original intent.

01:24:08.000 Because, again, you are conflating my position on immigration with the argument, which is.

01:24:13.000 The founder's position on immigration.

01:24:16.000 And again, if you had allowed me to explain from the get go, if you had allowed me to explain my entire point, which is why all of this is nonsense, you keep saying, you know, the chart, the chart, but the chart is very important.

01:24:26.000 It's about what do we want to do moving forward.

01:24:29.000 We all know that's not what this argument is about.

01:24:31.000 This was about the original intent of the Constitution.

01:24:34.000 One moment, you never let me finish here.

01:24:36.000 Sorry, you sound a little upsetty spaghetti right now, but I'll let you finish.

01:24:38.000 I'm not upset.

01:24:39.000 I'm doing great.

01:24:40.000 I'm doing just fine. 1.00

01:24:41.000 So since 1776, we have eroded the ethnic. 0.89

01:24:47.000 The racial and the cultural component of America. 0.70

01:24:49.000 In order to rebuild that, we need the cultural, the racial. 0.85

01:24:52.000 It's questionable to what extent the ethnic is possible. 0.57

01:24:55.000 That said, the original intent of the founders, if we're going to talk about the 1965 Immigration Act, if we're going to talk about mass immigration today, it is worth noting that the people that founded this country intended that we have all four.

01:25:08.000 Now, there was a dramatic influx of these swarthy type people in the 20th century, and that is generally agreed upon that those people were assimilated. 0.71

01:25:17.000 That is generally agreed upon that those people were assimilated. 1.00

01:25:20.000 If we stop Bringing in people like that, I wouldn't be opposed to it. 1.00

01:25:23.000 But I'm saying that if you're talking about how offensive or rather how derivative something is from the founder's intent for what the country was supposed to look like, Italians and Russians are just on a totally different level, they're not even playing the same sport as Africans, as Asians. 0.99

01:25:39.000 These features of American identity. 0.96

01:25:41.000 And like I said, it's questionable if we could ever bring back the ethnic because of the fact that whites are now a global minority, because whites, I mean, they're being destroyed in their homelands. 0.90

01:25:51.000 It's questionable if they'll be able to thrive in their own countries, let alone. 1.00

01:25:54.000 Be able to come to ours. 1.00

01:25:55.000 So, the ethnic component is very particular to our times.

01:25:59.000 But racially, culturally, politically, that is where the founders' intent bears weight because these are the things that can be saved, that can be salvaged of American identity from the founders.

01:26:08.000 So, you seem to be conceding that the founders' intent.

01:26:11.000 Once you're arguing, the founders intended something far more extreme than you're saying, but at the same time, the founders were arguing in favor of mass.

01:26:18.000 So, I mean, which is it, Stephen?

01:26:19.000 Which is it?

01:26:22.000 So, that was a beautiful soliloquy, most of it completely unrelated to what we were talking about.

01:26:26.000 My essential thing is that we're discussing what the original intention of the Constitution is.

01:26:31.000 So, what I am saying is that your idea of some white European people didn't really exist insofar as what would be preferred for immigration at the time.

01:26:40.000 We've got a number of quotes here that you have your posterity quote, I guess. 0.66

01:26:45.000 This idea that they saw all. 0.77

01:26:47.000 Now, you're trying to say, well, there's a big difference between Germans and blah, blah. 0.99

01:26:49.000 That's great, but you don't really have anything to support that. 0.94

01:26:52.000 Wait, wait, wait, wait, whoa. 0.63

01:26:53.000 I don't have any evidence to support the fact that Germans are different from sub Saharan Africans. 1.00

01:26:58.000 I don't have evidence that they would be preferred to them? 0.96

01:27:01.000 Sure, because in 1790.

01:27:02.000 Oh, I do have evidence for that.

01:27:04.000 I do have evidence for that.

01:27:05.000 So, I mean, you.

01:27:07.000 So, you have evidence that I can actually spot.

01:27:09.000 Wait, wait, wait, wait.

01:27:10.000 Because, guys, I know you've got a million quotes, and so I'm curious if it's actually relevant.

01:27:14.000 You have a quote from one of the people that drafted the Constitution that says, I wish for the United States to be a country where only people from Europe can immigrate and not Africans and not Asians.

01:27:22.000 You have a quote that says something like that?

01:27:23.000 Yeah, I have four of those quotes.

01:27:25.000 It's called the Immigration Acts and the Immigration Law.

01:27:27.000 And it's also called, and I'll look at the other one.

01:27:29.000 Okay, so these aren't quotes.

01:27:30.000 For original intent for the Constitution, might be.

01:27:32.000 But it is.

01:27:33.000 If it's the founding Congress.

01:27:34.000 And I also do have quotes as well.

01:27:36.000 Thomas Jefferson, who said, whites and blacks, equally free, cannot live in the same government.

01:27:42.000 Is that an endorsement of African immigration?

01:27:45.000 Is that an endorsement?

01:27:47.000 I mean, I'm the first Attorney General.

01:27:50.000 I mean, this has nothing to do with immigration.

01:27:52.000 Sure, it does.

01:27:53.000 Sure, it does. 0.97

01:27:54.000 If they're saying that we don't want, that blacks, you know, Randolph says blacks are not a constituent member of our society. 0.92

01:28:01.000 Jefferson says they can't live together. 0.83

01:28:04.000 Jefferson, Madison, Henry Clay, Lincoln, and John Randolph all wanted to force the Africans to Africa.

01:28:11.000 I mean, do you like?

01:28:12.000 I don't understand.

01:28:14.000 If there's evidence, wait, wait, wait, wait. 0.90

01:28:15.000 If there's evidence that they don't want these people in their country, if they don't want these people on the same legal status as whites, and if they are, then they want them out, why? 0.81

01:28:24.000 How could you say that then they would support mass immigration from non European countries? 0.82

01:28:28.000 And especially if you have this Benjamin Franklin quote where he says these are swarthy people. 0.96

01:28:31.000 I mean, he didn't want non Anglo people.

01:28:34.000 I mean, that's what you've pivoted.

01:28:36.000 You've pivoted again.

01:28:37.000 You have no evidence that white Europeans were preferred.

01:28:40.000 You don't have any evidence of that.

01:28:41.000 Okay, again, you're talking about not liking black people, not liking slaves.

01:28:45.000 I have no evidence that white Europeans are preferred. 0.65

01:28:48.000 Okay, cool. 0.73

01:28:49.000 If you can admit that your current definition.

01:28:49.000 I'm okay with that.

01:28:50.000 You're saying this.

01:28:51.000 You're saying this.

01:28:52.000 You are saying I have no evidence that the founding fathers wanted this country to prefer white people in immigration and in the state of the country. 0.60

01:29:02.000 Okay. 1.00

01:29:02.000 Correct. 1.00

01:29:03.000 So do you think.

01:29:04.000 Do you think that the government that was presided over by George Washington, you know, George Washington signed both the 1790 Immigration Act and the 1795 Immigration Act? 0.59

01:29:15.000 He signed those, which said the only people that can attain citizenship are free white people of upstanding color. 0.52

01:29:22.000 Why would he sign that if he didn't believe that? 0.77

01:29:25.000 Thomas Jefferson signed that, but they didn't believe in it in 1902.

01:29:28.000 Or I'm sorry, John Adams, it would be, right?

01:29:31.000 No, it wasn't Thomas Jefferson.

01:29:32.000 Okay, so I don't know what argument you're trying to.

01:29:35.000 To make right now. 0.95

01:29:37.000 If you want to make the argument that people in the late 1700s, early 1800s wanted the country to be majority white at the time, then those were the ones. 1.00

01:29:45.000 That the founding fathers wanted the country to be white at that time, that's an argument that I totally agree with. 0.98

01:29:49.000 But if you want to make the argument that the founding fathers always wanted the country to remain in that way and never change, that was the argument that you made with the original intent of the Constitution. 1.00

01:29:58.000 Here's another quote by Thomas Jefferson, somebody that you quoted earlier I'm not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.

01:30:08.000 As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered, and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the Times.

01:30:17.000 We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, when he was a boy, a civilized society to remain ever under the regime of their barbarous ancestors.

01:30:25.000 So it sounded like if they, so he thought that the world could change, right? 0.99

01:30:29.000 I'm sure they weren't stupid. 0.95

01:30:30.000 They knew that times could change. 0.99

01:30:31.000 If they really felt strongly about this white thing, damn, I really wish they would have written it anywhere in the Constitution, even just one line, just a single line. 0.97

01:30:39.000 But they couldn't write it anywhere. 0.97

01:30:41.000 Why, Nick?

01:30:41.000 So again, you think that, well, here's why.

01:30:43.000 Here's why they didn't write it in the Constitution because you look at 1776.

01:30:49.000 Think of the state of the world in 1776. 0.95

01:30:52.000 I don't think it's ridiculous to say that they didn't need to codify it into law when, up until 1965, non white countries did not have sovereign governments. 0.81

01:31:02.000 That, up until 1965, every third world country, with the exception of Japan, with the exception of China to an extent, was under colonial control by a Western European government.

01:31:12.000 So, I don't get this.

01:31:14.000 You know, how much evidence do you need here?

01:31:16.000 I mean, you're citing evidence.

01:31:18.000 You're citing Thomas Jefferson's quote as evidence.

01:31:21.000 You're citing Thomas Jefferson's quote that reform should happen, that the founders didn't intend for the country to be white, when all of them expressed the sentiment that they did not want this to be a non white country. 0.76

01:31:21.000 Wait, wait. 0.76

01:31:32.000 They passed it into law. 1.00

01:31:34.000 They did not want non whites in the country. 1.00

01:31:37.000 I mean, it's just. 1.00

01:31:38.000 Can you give me any evidence whatsoever that the original drafters of the Constitution thought that it was self evident that the country would always remain white?

01:31:44.000 I don't think you need evidence for that. 0.69

01:31:46.000 I don't think you need evidence.

01:31:48.000 Okay, well, that's very strange because technically, a lot of constitutionalists argue that things like the Bill of Rights.

01:31:53.000 Shouldn't even exist, right?

01:31:55.000 That whole document is a massive concession made to government.

01:31:58.000 And one of the arguments made was that the Bill of Rights doesn't need to exist because these things are self evident.

01:32:02.000 So, for instance, the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, right?

01:32:06.000 The right to have guns.

01:32:07.000 The idea was that the government shouldn't be able to do anything.

01:32:10.000 There was nothing in the original Constitution that said the government can't take your guns.

01:32:10.000 It's not allowed to do.

01:32:14.000 Why do we need a Bill of Rights to reaffirm that right?

01:32:16.000 It's a very dangerous precedent that the government will do everything except for what you tell it not to do. 0.98

01:32:20.000 So, there's already evidence at the very beginning of the life of the Constitution of people making concessions to people that want very specific demands in there, yet Throughout all of the first 10 amendments, throughout all of the text of the Constitution, you can't find a single quote that backs up the idea of keeping the country from being non white. 0.98

01:32:35.000 You're right, Stephen. 0.98

01:32:36.000 You're right, Stephen.

01:32:37.000 They were so progressive. 0.97

01:32:39.000 They left it out because their intention was that eventually the country would be non white. 1.00

01:32:45.000 That is the most sound argument I've ever heard in my life. 1.00

01:32:48.000 That Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, George, I mean, all these people who many of them owned slaves, who they all affirmed in some capacity that they don't want blacks living in the United States, their intention, you're telling me. 0.94

01:33:01.000 Even though they passed multiple laws saying only whites can be in the country, and this was the precedent for 200 years before people questioned it, their intention was that 200 years from when they signed four separate laws into four separate bills into law affirming that only white people could be citizens, they intended that 200 years later that would change. 0.74

01:33:21.000 Is that your argument?

01:33:22.000 Because they didn't say otherwise in the Constitution?

01:33:24.000 No, I never said that.

01:33:25.000 No, what I said was that the original founding fathers did not see America as being made of a particular demographic of people.

01:33:31.000 You said to Benjamin Franklin that he did.

01:33:33.000 Did you not?

01:33:35.000 You just said with Benjamin Franklin about the swarthy German.

01:33:35.000 Wait, what?

01:33:39.000 Oh, I said you can find personal ideas that they had about.

01:33:42.000 That was more to show that your idea of a certain white people didn't exist.

01:33:45.000 But even Benjamin Franklin himself didn't write that into law.

01:33:50.000 My argument is that, regardless of the person, no, because I made this distinction before.

01:33:53.000 I'll make it again for you.

01:33:54.000 Okay?

01:33:55.000 I'll make it again for you.

01:33:56.000 Okay?

01:33:57.000 I'll make it again for you, okay? 0.99

01:33:58.000 If you want to argue to me that people at the time might have been racist, might have preferred white people over other people or whatever, that's an argument that I totally agree with. 0.71

01:34:04.000 Obviously, they were still slavery. 0.89

01:34:06.000 No, no, no.

01:34:06.000 It's not that they might have.

01:34:07.000 It's that they did.

01:34:08.000 Oh, yeah.

01:34:08.000 But go on.

01:34:09.000 Well, I mean, you could probably find like one or two that weren't whatever.

01:34:11.000 But for the most part, yeah, I agree.

01:34:12.000 I agree that they did have certain views on race and slavery and all of that.

01:34:16.000 But that's not the argument you're trying to make.

01:34:18.000 What's the argument you're trying to make?

01:34:20.000 You're trying to make that the original intent.

01:34:23.000 Well, I read it to you in the beginning and you didn't disagree.

01:34:25.000 I can reread it to you again, but I'll start.

01:34:26.000 Go for it.

01:34:27.000 Okay.

01:34:27.000 You said that the original constitutional intent was to never have mass immigration from non European countries.

01:34:34.000 That is something that you have failed to demonstrate over and over again.

01:34:38.000 You're giving me random quotes.

01:34:39.000 It is.

01:34:39.000 You're giving me random quotes about.

01:34:41.000 We could go back to the preamble of the Constitution, which says that the Constitution is dedicated for ourselves and our posterity.

01:34:50.000 And you can't tell me another time of John Jay referencing posterity.

01:34:53.000 The only other founding father that I can get who references posterity in official writings is John Quincy Adams. 0.75

01:35:01.000 And when he talks about posterity, he says they must cast off their European skin, never to resume it.

01:35:06.000 That they must look forward to their posterity rather than backward to their ancestors.

01:35:10.000 That the government of the United States has never adopted any measure to encourage or invite immigrants from any part of Europe.

01:35:16.000 So this sounds to me like it has nothing to do with American immigration.

01:35:16.000 Stephen.

01:35:19.000 It sounds like we're in agreement here because in 1990.

01:35:22.000 50% of the country was of the original founding stock from 1790.

01:35:26.000 Wait, wait, wait, Stephen.

01:35:28.000 I let me.

01:35:28.000 You just talked about this.

01:35:30.000 Whoa, hey, I just let you talk for a moment here.

01:35:30.000 Wait, wait, wait.

01:35:33.000 In 1990, we had 50% of the population that was from the founding stock from 1790.

01:35:40.000 In the preamble of the Constitution, it says we dedicate this Constitution for ourselves and our posterity.

01:35:45.000 And it's just weird to me because that says it all right there.

01:35:50.000 The definition of posterity is.

01:35:52.000 Your offspring. 0.92

01:35:53.000 So, which would be white English, not Germans, not Italians, not Spaniards.

01:35:59.000 So, then why would they dedicate the Constitution to their, I mean, how do you conceive that Indians and Mexicans are the posterity of the founders?

01:35:59.000 Exactly.

01:36:09.000 How is the Constitution and this government for them?

01:36:12.000 I mean, that's not the posterity of the founders.

01:36:14.000 Because the people that come to America and assume our American values and participate in our American democracy become American offspring, they become descendants of Americans. 0.61

01:36:23.000 This is why you cast off your skin. 0.86

01:36:24.000 This is why you look. 0.90

01:36:25.000 Forward to your posterity, not backwards to your ancestors.

01:36:28.000 I'm totally settled there.

01:36:29.000 It's about, no, no.

01:36:30.000 What he said was cast off for European skin for the people that were there before you had mass immigration.

01:36:35.000 And to look forward to your posterity, not backwards to your ancestors.

01:36:39.000 So the whole point of America, yes, but the whole point of America wasn't to look back.

01:36:44.000 I'm going by exactly John Q. Adams' words.

01:36:47.000 And John Jay did not specify anywhere in the Constitution.

01:36:49.000 I really wish he would have, because according to you, because of this one word that he wrote in the Federalist Papers, he felt really strongly about this.

01:36:55.000 He didn't write it anywhere in the Constitution.

01:36:56.000 Let's look it up.

01:36:57.000 Let's look up what posterity means because I want to help you out here.

01:37:00.000 I want to help you understand.

01:37:01.000 I'm a good guy, I'm a benevolent guy.

01:37:04.000 So, posterity means the descendant of a person.

01:37:07.000 Okay, so the descendants of the founding stock of the country, I'm just not finding all the Mexican founding stock.

01:37:15.000 The descendants of a person.

01:37:17.000 You come to the United States, the Congress is delegated by the Constitution.

01:37:21.000 Of the people that were here in 1790.

01:37:24.000 Well, you become a biological descendant of the.

01:37:28.000 If you don't like it, I understand if you don't like it, that's. 0.98

01:37:30.000 Totally fine.

01:37:31.000 But you have to understand that to your audience, you misrepresent yourself as a constitutionalist because the Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize a citizen and then their descendants, that is the posterity of America, correct?

01:37:42.000 Because they are Americans. 0.64

01:37:44.000 And then the people that were naturalized by the Congress that were signed by the founders as free white persons of upstanding character.

01:37:44.000 Yes.

01:37:52.000 So you can't have it always where it's like, I'm bound to have it always.

01:37:56.000 I'm going by the letter of the law here.

01:37:57.000 No, you're flip flopping.

01:37:59.000 On the one hand, you're saying, They intended other people, but on the other hand, you're saying actually it contradicts your.

01:37:59.000 You're flip flopping.

01:38:06.000 It seems to be your fixation.

01:38:08.000 Wait, pause.

01:38:08.000 It seems to be your fixation on nowhere in the Constitution does it say only white people can immigrate here.

01:38:16.000 The posterity argument is weak, granted, but it is true. 1.00

01:38:21.000 I mean, you're saying, oh, it's one word. 0.97

01:38:23.000 It's one word.

01:38:24.000 It's one word in the preamble.

01:38:26.000 Yes, that sets out what the purpose of the document is.

01:38:29.000 And then it says it determines what the Congress can determine who is naturalized.

01:38:34.000 Okay.

01:38:36.000 Congresses then, the intent of future Congresses can determine who is American.

01:38:42.000 But the founders, the intention of the founders for their time, for their country, for 200 years was white people.

01:38:50.000 And if you want to say that the founders' intention was that that would evolve, I mean, maybe in an abstract way. 0.52

01:38:57.000 I mean, they wanted the country to reform.

01:39:00.000 Thomas Jefferson did.

01:39:01.000 You know, he wanted constitutions to be written every 10 years.

01:39:04.000 But I don't think you can specifically say that the founders.

01:39:07.000 That there was any intent for it to be anything but what they signed into law.

01:39:12.000 And yeah, I mean, sure, there's nothing in the Constitution that says explicitly only white people in this country. 0.61

01:39:18.000 You keep conflating laws passed by Congress with the Constitution.

01:39:20.000 Why are you doing this?

01:39:21.000 I'm saying.

01:39:21.000 I'm not doing that.

01:39:22.000 No, no, no.

01:39:22.000 You are.

01:39:22.000 You keep saying that this is what they believe for the Constitution.

01:39:26.000 No, no, no.

01:39:27.000 You're conflating what's written in the Constitution with the intent of the founders.

01:39:31.000 The intent of the founders was that this nation would be Anglo Saxon.

01:39:35.000 The Constitution doesn't specifically codify that that would be the case. 0.79

01:39:38.000 But that doesn't detract from the fact that every one of the founders wanted it to be a white country.

01:39:42.000 You are trying to obfuscate and conflate the two by saying that the founders' intent was only what is delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, which is wrong.

01:39:51.000 The founders, for what they wanted for demographics, what they signed into law in Congress, what they wanted for their country in their day, and then what presidents wanted for 200 years was for it to be white.

01:40:03.000 The Constitution allows for changes. 0.90

01:40:05.000 But I don't think that's a good idea.

01:40:06.000 No, wait, wait.

01:40:07.000 I have to stop you right there.

01:40:08.000 The argument is just a lie.

01:40:09.000 You just told a lie.

01:40:10.000 Tell me the lie.

01:40:11.000 You said what they wanted for their country then and for the next 200 years.

01:40:15.000 Yes.

01:40:16.000 I agree with half of that.

01:40:17.000 What they wanted for their country then was what they signed into law in Congress.

01:40:21.000 But if they wanted it in law for the next 200 years.

01:40:24.000 No, if they wanted it for the next 200 years, if they wanted it for the next 200 years, why didn't they put it in the Constitution, Meg?

01:40:30.000 I don't know.

01:40:30.000 You'd have to ask them, Steve.

01:40:31.000 I don't know.

01:40:32.000 But I think we could read from all of their quotes that they didn't want that.

01:40:37.000 But you know what?

01:40:38.000 Maybe you're right.

01:40:39.000 Maybe the founders were really progressive.

01:40:40.000 Maybe they were.

01:40:42.000 You're right.

01:40:43.000 You're right, Stephen.

01:40:43.000 I'm not saying they wanted mass immigration.

01:40:45.000 I'm saying that the original intent that you claimed doesn't exist.

01:40:48.000 It's not spelled out anywhere.

01:40:50.000 You're right.

01:40:51.000 They left it out because they intended for the Congress to naturalize millions of Hispanics. 0.94

01:40:58.000 You're right. 0.88

01:40:58.000 That was their intent. 0.88

01:40:59.000 Are you straw manning me now, Nick?

01:41:00.000 I'm not saying that's what you're saying.

01:41:02.000 You're saying because they didn't explicitly say it in the Constitution, their intent was otherwise, correct?

01:41:09.000 I do think it's really interesting right here that this is like.

01:41:11.000 Well, that's the answer to the question.

01:41:13.000 This is the epitome of feels versus reals. 0.99

01:41:15.000 That I can point to you, the letter of the law in the Constitution, and you're telling me, well, I feel like they wanted something different. 0.99

01:41:20.000 They were just too dumb to put it. 0.97

01:41:21.000 No, I'm not saying they said it. 1.00

01:41:22.000 That's what you're saying.

01:41:23.000 I'm saying they said it.

01:41:23.000 But they didn't say it.

01:41:24.000 Why isn't it in the Constitution then?

01:41:26.000 Because, again, because there's a difference between what you're putting into government and what government is a mechanism.

01:41:32.000 What you want for your country is what you do in practice.

01:41:37.000 So they didn't want the right to bear arms.

01:41:39.000 They didn't want freedom of the press.

01:41:40.000 They didn't want any of these things delegated to them by the Constitution.

01:41:44.000 They didn't put, for example, they didn't put that they wanted churches in the country in the Constitution.

01:41:49.000 Do you think they didn't want churches in the country?

01:41:51.000 Did you think they thought Christianity was a mechanism?

01:41:52.000 No, but they didn't put that they didn't want churches in the country.

01:41:54.000 And they didn't put it anywhere in the Constitution that they wanted mass immigration.

01:42:00.000 Okay. 0.62

01:42:01.000 Your argument just proved my point.

01:42:03.000 They didn't put in the Constitution that they didn't want churches.

01:42:06.000 We have them.

01:42:07.000 They didn't put in the Constitution that they didn't want mass immigration. 0.69

01:42:11.000 We have that.

01:42:12.000 Were you trying to make a different point then?

01:42:13.000 No, no, no.

01:42:14.000 They didn't put it in the Constitution, but they valued this.

01:42:17.000 They didn't put the restriction on immigration, and they also valued that.

01:42:22.000 You're misrepresenting the.

01:42:24.000 Stop, stop.

01:42:25.000 Wow, wacky little laugh there.

01:42:28.000 The intention of the Constitution.

01:42:30.000 Slimy Nick.

01:42:31.000 The language of the Constitution is different than the intent of the founders.

01:42:36.000 Do you not believe that?

01:42:38.000 Do you think that most founders wanted for their country?

01:42:42.000 I think the founders were very intelligent.

01:42:43.000 I think that I actually, we have the oldest surviving constitution used by any country on the planet.

01:42:48.000 We have a constitution that was written in the 1700s that governs space travel.

01:42:52.000 Really, really cool.

01:42:53.000 I think the founding fathers were very intelligent.

01:42:55.000 I think that if they thought that they wanted to characterize America in a specific way by talking about only a specific type of immigrant coming here, I think that they would have been smart enough to write that into the constitution. 0.92

01:43:05.000 Yeah, it's called Ourselves and Our Posterity. 0.97

01:43:08.000 Wow.

01:43:08.000 All you have is that one undefined word.

01:43:11.000 Well, it's defined.

01:43:11.000 It's in Federalist Number Two by John Jay.

01:43:14.000 But it's not because we can have an argument over what it means to be an American.

01:43:17.000 It's defined.

01:43:17.000 Oh, but the Federalist Papers argued for the language of the Constitution.

01:43:22.000 You just said there's nowhere else can you find the word posterity used until 30 years later.

01:43:28.000 So I think that's the definitive source on that.

01:43:30.000 The definitive is the one word and then the absence of any mention of immigration.

01:43:35.000 Yes, that tends to be the case.

01:43:37.000 Well, can you say that for me?

01:43:38.000 I'm just curious.

01:43:39.000 So you believe that your entire.

01:43:40.000 I'm not going to say anything for you, but. 0.88

01:43:42.000 Well, so you think your entire argument on keeping America some version of white people, these people dominated? 0.89

01:43:48.000 No, no, no, my entire argument. 0.99

01:43:49.000 Wow, way to straw man me, Slimy Steve.

01:43:52.000 Yeah, I already used Slimy Nick.

01:43:54.000 You can't take my adjective.

01:43:55.000 I can't because there's consonants there, so it's even better, Slimy Steve.

01:43:58.000 But go ahead.

01:43:59.000 All right, Nefarious Nick.

01:44:00.000 I like that.

01:44:02.000 So I guess your entire thing just rests on this posterity. 0.99

01:44:06.000 So you believe that the founding fathers were too stupid to write this into law, that they couldn't do this in a way? 1.00

01:44:11.000 No, no, Steven. 1.00

01:44:13.000 Again, we could go round and round on this.

01:44:15.000 I think we disagree.

01:44:16.000 The difference between the founder's intent and the constitutional letter of the law.

01:44:21.000 You have other, you know, again, we keep going around and around on these things.

01:44:24.000 We've already been at this for an hour and 45.

01:44:27.000 How many other parts of the argument do you have?

01:44:30.000 Oh, I got another three or four parts if you want to go through them.

01:44:32.000 Let's move on to the next.

01:44:32.000 Excellent.

01:44:34.000 Sure thing. 0.99

01:44:36.000 Another point we have is you spoke about immigrants importing their problems.

01:44:39.000 So it was one of the reasons why you were chiefly against immigration.

01:44:43.000 So your argument, tell me if I state this unfairly.

01:44:46.000 Listen very, very carefully here, Nick.

01:44:48.000 I don't want to misstate anything you believe, okay?

01:44:49.000 Please don't. 1.00

01:44:51.000 People immigrating from countries with severe problems are likely to bring those problems to the United States. 1.00

01:44:55.000 If we bring in too many immigrants from any country with severe problems, a sufficient number of those immigrants could cause the United States to resemble the countries that they came from. 1.00

01:45:02.000 One cannot divorce a country's people from its problems. 1.00

01:45:07.000 Do you think that's an okay statement?

01:45:08.000 Okay.

01:45:09.000 So, my counter argument to this is much the same as last time, except this time with more data, is that there's just not any evidence to support that.

01:45:16.000 A lot of the problems that exist in other countries are structural or related to actual geography, and that immigrants themselves do not really have the power to bring this here, to bring those kinds of structural problems here.

01:45:28.000 I guess the most cited data I can go by is just crime stats.

01:45:33.000 And this is just something that is so extensively researched.

01:45:36.000 There is just no data that shows that people commit more crime when they're an immigrant.

01:45:41.000 It just doesn't exist.

01:45:44.000 Even when you look at Central American groups, like even when you look at young, less educated Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalan men.

01:45:50.000 People that make up the bulk of even the unauthorized population, they have significantly lower incarceration rates than comparable groups of white people that are born in the United States that are native born.

01:46:01.000 I've got, I mean, I can just throw you a million links at this. 0.78

01:46:03.000 Do you disagree with this that immigrants commit less crime than the native people?

01:46:07.000 Yeah, I think you're arguing against the wrong part of it.

01:46:09.000 You're saying immigrants commit less crime.

01:46:13.000 I think the statistics are played around a lot, but I'm not even going to try to dispute them.

01:46:19.000 Okay, so then don't even bring that up.

01:46:20.000 Go on to the next one.

01:46:21.000 Okay, what is the next thing?

01:46:22.000 I think it's irrelevant because. 0.88

01:46:23.000 The point is that if immigrants bring any crime, if immigrants bring any disease, if immigrants bring any social ills, that is more than would have existed before. 0.96

01:46:34.000 For example, if we bring in a Russian guy, or let's say we bring in 100 Russians, and these 100 Russians commit less crime than the native population, even though they commit less crime, either proportionally or in gross terms, they're still committing crime, crime that wouldn't have been here had they not been in the country. 0.98

01:46:51.000 I mean, that's the problem. 0.98

01:46:53.000 And also, it's problems of a different character.

01:46:55.000 I mean, you bring up.

01:46:56.000 Okay, can I speak to that specific thing before we go?

01:46:58.000 So, your philosophical argument is that if something brings a negative, no matter how big the positives are, that's the trade off.

01:47:05.000 I mean, what's the trade off?

01:47:07.000 Well, I mean, you can argue for, I guess, for people like me, you've got greater.

01:47:10.000 Well, actually, let's just go to the formal argument.

01:47:12.000 The economic argument is the big one that's typically made.

01:47:14.000 What's economically beneficial about immigrants?

01:47:17.000 Oh, that's listed on a different part of my argument. 0.92

01:47:21.000 Do we want to move over to that one?

01:47:22.000 I mean, that's another thing with just so much research behind it.

01:47:25.000 I just can't possibly fathom a different conclusion.

01:47:27.000 Well, I can show you a pretty good conclusion, but that'll be for the economic portion.

01:47:32.000 Okay, sure.

01:47:32.000 So, do you concede if immigrants do bring positives over that it would be okay to accept some negatives, or do you philosophically disagree with that?

01:47:39.000 I disagree with that. 0.98

01:47:40.000 I am against, and again, the types of problems are different.

01:47:44.000 And the types of, you say they're systemic, you say they're structural.

01:47:48.000 Well, you see structures being put in place in this country that resemble the countries where they left. 0.74

01:47:53.000 I mean, you look at Chinatown, for example, and Chinatown looks like China.

01:47:58.000 You look at the black community in America. 0.95

01:48:01.000 The black murder rate is 19. 0.96

01:48:03.000 Wait, what does the black community have to do with immigration? 1.00

01:48:05.000 Because blacks immigrated here from Africa. 0.99

01:48:08.000 Well, they were brought here from Africa, but they are. 1.00

01:48:10.000 Yeah, no, you can't. 1.00

01:48:11.000 Black is not immigration. 0.99

01:48:12.000 That's a totally different topic.

01:48:13.000 Sorry.

01:48:13.000 Disagree.

01:48:14.000 Disagree.

01:48:15.000 Well, but you're just wrong.

01:48:16.000 I mean, like, people freely immigrating here is way different than enslaving people and bringing them over to Africa.

01:48:20.000 No, no, no, no.

01:48:20.000 But the question is can people's problems be divorced from the places where they left?

01:48:26.000 And I'm telling you that the people that left Africa are still having problems that are in Africa. 0.98

01:48:32.000 And I will continue. 0.99

01:48:33.000 The black murder rate in the United States is 19.4.

01:48:37.000 That is more comparable to West African and Sub Saharan African countries than it is to any Western country. 0.57

01:48:43.000 And then you subtract the black murder rate from everybody else, and then the United States murder rate, if you subtract the black murder rate, is on par with other Western European countries. 0.99

01:48:53.000 So, you know, you have Chinatowns, which are the only reason it spreads. 0.99

01:48:57.000 You have so many immigrants here that don't commit crime. 0.97

01:49:00.000 And then you have immigrants from Mexico, where they bring over their drug cartels, MS-13, they bring over. 0.98

01:49:07.000 I mean, all kinds of crime. 0.99

01:49:09.000 And maybe it's at a proportionally lesser rate.

01:49:11.000 None of this is borne out in this.

01:49:12.000 Again, maybe it's borne at a proportionally lesser rate, but you see that when they come over here, they have these tiny enclaves.

01:49:19.000 They have these tiny enclaves where they don't learn English, they don't speak the language, and it tends to resemble the country that they fled.

01:49:26.000 I mean, this is just, and that is the result of the scale of immigration and the persistence of Mexican immigration, and also for Asian immigration to some extent, and then the concentration of it.

01:49:37.000 I mean, there are many elements to this why you're taking national statistics, you know.

01:49:42.000 On average, for immigrants, are you talking about like first generation immigrants where there's less crime? 0.93

01:49:46.000 Because I'm talking about like foreign born populations altogether in the past few years. 1.00

01:49:50.000 Oh, no, second generation immigrants commit more crime. 1.00

01:49:53.000 Oh, okay. 1.00

01:49:54.000 Well, do you not see that issue?

01:49:57.000 That's because they're integrating. 0.96

01:49:59.000 They're committing crime at numbers that are starting to resemble the native population. 0.96

01:50:02.000 Wait, they commit more crime than the native population, or they commit more crime? 0.98

01:50:05.000 No, no, no, no. 1.00

01:50:06.000 They're not quite caught up. 1.00

01:50:07.000 But second generation immigrants commit more crime typically than first generation. 1.00

01:50:10.000 That's just because they're moving to the norm. 1.00

01:50:12.000 I don't have the stats for third generation immigrants. 1.00

01:50:15.000 I'm sorry. 1.00

01:50:15.000 You've got to have third generation. 1.00

01:50:16.000 The problem is.

01:50:18.000 And then if third generation didn't reach you, then you'd ask for fourth generation and then fifth generation.

01:50:21.000 And then pretty soon we're talking about Benjamin Franklin's descendants himself. 0.91

01:50:25.000 Well, here's why I raised that point because if you look at the crime statistics from 2016, Hispanics commit much higher, much more crime than white people proportionally, and blacks commit more crime than white people.

01:50:36.000 Well, proportionally, that's just not true.

01:50:38.000 What's your data on that?

01:50:38.000 It is not true.

01:50:39.000 Yeah, sure.

01:50:39.000 Here, I'll bring it up.

01:50:41.000 The.

01:50:44.000 Does anybody have these in the live chat?

01:50:48.000 Because, I mean, this was pretty popular.

01:50:50.000 There's a pretty good figure out there.

01:50:53.000 It's got about six people know the one I'm talking about.

01:50:57.000 It circulated on Twitter when it was published, and I didn't bring it here because I didn't think we were going to get it to the court.

01:51:02.000 Well, here's a stat.

01:51:03.000 According to a report from the Police Foundation, undocumented immigration and rates of crime and imprisonment, popular myths and empirical realities, foreign born Latin Americans have a.99% chance to be incarcerated compared to 1.71% of native born white people.

01:51:16.000 Even for illegal immigrants, crime seems to have always been correlated with geography and income across all races.

01:51:22.000 This is according to a U.S. Department of Justice report household poverty and non fatal violent victimization.

01:51:26.000 Crime has always been highly correlated with geography and income across all races and all income levels, with the exception of Hispanics, who always seem to be fairly underrepresented.

01:51:35.000 I mean, identifying.

01:51:36.000 But do you have the statistics on overall the crime rates for the different races?

01:51:36.000 Yeah, sure.

01:51:41.000 Do you have the overall numbers, like proportionately?

01:51:45.000 Yeah. 0.88

01:51:46.000 Do you have the rate at which whites and Hispanics and blacks commit homicides, for example? 0.85

01:51:50.000 Do you have that number? 1.00

01:51:53.000 Yeah, here you go.

01:51:54.000 I threw you a thing.

01:51:56.000 Okay, let's see.

01:51:57.000 Let's see what we got here.

01:51:59.000 I'm sorry.

01:51:59.000 Oh, wait, hold on.

01:52:00.000 It's not copy pasting.

01:52:01.000 One second.

01:52:05.000 Let's see.

01:52:07.000 That's not it.

01:52:08.000 No, no, this is your thing from earlier.

01:52:09.000 Hold on one second.

01:52:10.000 Let's see. 1.00

01:52:11.000 I just want to see because all the numbers I've looked at say blacks and Hispanics commit much more crime than whites, and whites commit more crime than Asians. 0.99

01:52:18.000 Blacks do, but we're not talking about blacks. 0.99

01:52:20.000 We're talking about immigration, Nick. 0.98

01:52:21.000 I know that you like to lump all the darkies together, but we're just talking about immigration from something I already. 1.00

01:52:25.000 Explained, which is can you divorce people from the problems of their homeland? 1.00

01:52:28.000 Yeah, but this is not their homeland, Nick. 0.63

01:52:30.000 If somebody's ancestors come back to the 1800s here, you can't call them immigrants anymore, Nick.

01:52:35.000 They're almost just as much here as Americans as people from the 1700s or 1800s.

01:52:38.000 Where's the numbers here?

01:52:40.000 You've given me a 40 page document.

01:52:41.000 Yeah, I'm sorry.

01:52:42.000 So scroll down to page 127, and you can start to see the comparisons of the ages, the percentage of people incarcerated, the native versus the foreign born rate.

01:52:50.000 I'm not seeing any of the data I requested.

01:52:53.000 I'm talking about do you have homicide rates?

01:52:55.000 You have incarceration rates.

01:52:56.000 Do you have homicide rates for the different races?

01:53:00.000 You said you have all the data, so do you have the data on homicides?

01:53:03.000 I think that would be an important thing, don't you think?

01:53:05.000 Okay, so I mean, I'll have to find you that data on that in one specific crime.

01:53:09.000 If that's true, no, because you're bringing me these statistics about like incarceration rates, but you're not, you haven't given me any data on like crimes.

01:53:17.000 So I have given you data on rates of crime and imprisonment.

01:53:20.000 You have provided me nothing, and now you're asking me for data on a very specific crime and pretending that that proves your point.

01:53:25.000 I mean, come on, dude.

01:53:28.000 It sounds like you're getting a little defensive because you don't have the data to represent your point.

01:53:32.000 Because I think if you look at any data, and again, this is just a hunch, this is a hunch, but tell me if you could prove me wrong.

01:53:39.000 If you look at homicide rates, If you look at rape rates, if you look at blacks and blacks in the States.

01:53:45.000 Here you go. 0.75

01:53:46.000 This isn't necessarily an overall look, but this focuses on your favorite things, the suburbs, okay?

01:53:51.000 I'm really interested in why would I care about the suburbs? 1.00

01:53:54.000 I mean, most of the immigrants move to the cities. 1.00

01:53:56.000 Most of them move to the cities. 1.00

01:53:57.000 I'm sorry, the cities is what I'm going to say. 0.98

01:53:58.000 Studies of the effect, the title of this study is Identifying the Effect of Immigration on Homicide Rates in U.S. Cities, those scary Mexican towns that you said you drive into and could get shot at, okay? 0.88

01:53:58.000 I'm sorry. 0.88

01:54:08.000 So the abstract studies of the effect of immigration on homicide in U.S. cities have reported mostly null or negative results.

01:54:14.000 These studies suffer from a failure to weight by population size and the lack of a credible identification strategy.

01:54:19.000 Using data from the census.

01:54:22.000 Did you look at the actual.

01:54:22.000 You're not.

01:54:23.000 Did you pay for the data?

01:54:24.000 If you have the data, could you please send that to me?

01:54:26.000 Because you're reading the abstract.

01:54:27.000 Do you have an academic background in interpreting this data?

01:54:31.000 I'm sorry.

01:54:31.000 Wait, hold on.

01:54:32.000 Why did you.

01:54:33.000 Look, Stephen, if you come in, hold on.

01:54:35.000 Hold on, hold on, hold on.

01:54:36.000 Because I need to understand this point right here.

01:54:37.000 Do you think that you're more qualified than the researchers themselves to interpret the data?

01:54:41.000 No, I think if we are going to make an informed decision, we have to look at the data.

01:54:44.000 Data, not someone else's information.

01:54:46.000 You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how data is used, then.

01:54:49.000 I can't overcome this.

01:54:50.000 Steven, you come on my show, you try and tell me that immigration will not have an effect on crime, and you give me things that seem to be tailored. 0.79

01:54:58.000 The data seems to be tailored to a very specific agenda because, again, you have not produced overall crime by minority populations.

01:55:07.000 No, I did produce overall crime.

01:55:09.000 Now I'm giving you a statistic on overnight rates, and now you don't like it.

01:55:09.000 You didn't like that.

01:55:15.000 You sounded wacky here.

01:55:15.000 Wow, this is.

01:55:16.000 What stats do you want, Nick?

01:55:17.000 Tell me what you want, and I'll see if I can find it.

01:55:19.000 I told you what I want.

01:55:20.000 I want homicide rates. 0.96

01:55:22.000 I want homicide rates by race.

01:55:22.000 Okay, well, this is a study on homicide rates in U.S. cities.

01:55:25.000 No, no, no, no.

01:55:26.000 I don't want that.

01:55:27.000 I want homicide rates by race.

01:55:29.000 Do you have that? 1.00

01:55:31.000 That seems like an important thing to have.

01:55:33.000 I'll try to find it for you.

01:55:35.000 I mean, I'll find it.

01:55:36.000 I'm sorry.

01:55:36.000 I have like 15 different numbers here, but I don't have the very precise number that you have.

01:55:40.000 However, you have no data, and you're trying to place this burden on me when this is like one of the most. 0.70

01:55:45.000 Well accepted parts of immigration that crime typically doesn't rise with immigrants coming in. 0.64

01:55:49.000 Wait a second. 1.00

01:55:50.000 Uh oh, Stephen, I think you're in trouble here.

01:55:53.000 Stephen, you're about to be in big trouble here, I believe.

01:55:56.000 Your argument is in peril.

01:55:58.000 Let's see.

01:56:00.000 Let's see.

01:56:01.000 Okay, so we've got our FBI chart here.

01:56:04.000 And let's see.

01:56:05.000 Total arrests.

01:56:06.000 Total arrests.

01:56:08.000 And let's see what we have for.

01:56:11.000 Let's see.

01:56:11.000 Do we have rates here?

01:56:15.000 Percentage distribution.

01:56:16.000 Okay.

01:56:20.000 I'm not seeing a percentage distribution.

01:56:25.000 Total arrests, total percent distribution.

01:56:29.000 It's looking like we have.

01:56:33.000 Wow, well, that can't be right.

01:56:36.000 That could not possibly be right. 1.00

01:56:41.000 How could we have blacks committing so much more crime if they're. 1.00

01:56:44.000 Why are we talking about blacks again, Nick? 1.00

01:56:46.000 Well, I mean, again, the question, which it's your words, Stephen.

01:56:50.000 You said. 0.98

01:56:51.000 Can we divorce people from the problems of their homeland? 1.00

01:56:54.000 And I see blacks. 1.00

01:56:55.000 You wouldn't say somebody that's here, that's been in this country for 200 years, is having a different homeland.

01:57:01.000 Why do you keep saying this?

01:57:02.000 Here's why. 1.00

01:57:02.000 Because when blacks have countries in Africa and we see the systems that blacks create, that is demonstrative of what kind of effect blacks will have in our society. 1.00

01:57:15.000 So maybe homeland is the bad word because they were born here. 1.00

01:57:18.000 But ancestrally, I mean, this is the comparable situation here when we have these rates that resemble other places, when we have people that are here that after generations and their systematic problems still resemble the countries that they came from many generations ago.

01:57:34.000 Do you have evidence? 0.93

01:57:34.000 Do you have evidence that there's some black genetic predisposition towards creating? 0.93

01:57:38.000 Because without that, this is. 0.99

01:57:39.000 Well, I mean, look, I couldn't speculate on that.

01:57:43.000 You could Google something called the warrior gene.

01:57:46.000 I'm not a doctor, so I don't know.

01:57:47.000 All right, I'm sorry.

01:57:48.000 I'm going to stick with my data here.

01:57:49.000 I'm sorry.

01:57:50.000 Did you have an argument rooted in data that you wanted to make?

01:57:52.000 Don't look at the warrior gene.

01:57:54.000 This doesn't look like what I'm looking for.

01:57:55.000 Somebody needs to give me a link.

01:58:00.000 That is not.

01:58:01.000 Oh, I miscopied the first part of that there.

01:58:04.000 Nervous Nick.

01:58:05.000 Sounds like he came prepared for the crime argument.

01:58:07.000 No, no, no, no.

01:58:08.000 I'm not.

01:58:09.000 Look.

01:58:10.000 I didn't come with the crime argument because my position is anybody who comes here and commits crime, it's too much.

01:58:16.000 Because for our citizens to be murdered because we want cheaper consumer goods, I don't think is good.

01:58:22.000 But since you want to wage it, I'm just saying, I think you're wrong.

01:58:25.000 You make the positive argument that different people come here and they don't produce the societies they came from.

01:58:32.000 You don't believe that.

01:58:34.000 Can we talk about that philosophical argument?

01:58:35.000 Because that's not something you believe.

01:58:37.000 You're saying that if something presents a negative, That it is always unacceptable regardless of the upside.

01:58:42.000 No, no, no.

01:58:43.000 That is, you are being a bit reductive there.

01:58:46.000 That is not exactly what I'm trying to understand.

01:58:48.000 I'm trying to understand the merit of your argument.

01:58:48.000 Yeah, of course.

01:58:49.000 You're saying that if immigrants bring problems, it doesn't matter if there are benefits, if there are bad things that come with them. 0.97

01:58:54.000 What I'm saying is, if our people are under siege, and under siege in particular by.

01:59:00.000 Can you please not load your language?

01:59:02.000 Can you just speak normally, like you're making your argument?

01:59:04.000 Oh, you're being a little bit defensive on this one.

01:59:06.000 No, I'm not.

01:59:07.000 I just want you to speak plainly.

01:59:08.000 Don't say, our people are under siege.

01:59:10.000 No, they're under siege.

01:59:11.000 Are under siege by crime, by inner city violence.

01:59:16.000 And if you're having people that are getting killed or getting raped or things getting stolen, I don't think crime, I don't think what they bring in the form of cultural disruption and crime and all the negatives that they bring, not just the crime.

01:59:29.000 You said it was just one negative, it's many negatives.

01:59:32.000 Crime is one of them.

01:59:33.000 And many positives that outweigh the negatives.

01:59:34.000 And it's an expense to the.

01:59:36.000 Wrong.

01:59:36.000 I don't think that expense to the country is worth bringing.

01:59:39.000 And morally, I don't think you can justify it.

01:59:43.000 So, how do you justify the existence of cars that cause people to literally die?

01:59:47.000 30,000 some people a year plus die, not to mention how many are injured because of the existence of cars.

01:59:52.000 Cars are murdering.

01:59:53.000 We are under siege by automobiles, Nick.

01:59:55.000 Our children, Nick, are being killed by automobiles.

01:59:58.000 How can you justify their existence in this country? 1.00

02:00:00.000 Do you believe that immigrants are as necessary as straw men? 1.00

02:00:04.000 I mean, I'm sorry. 0.95

02:00:05.000 Do you believe that immigrants are as necessary as cars? 1.00

02:00:08.000 We could probably live without cars. 0.95

02:00:09.000 We would have to build closer together.

02:00:11.000 We would have to have bikes.

02:00:12.000 Yeah, we could do public transportation.

02:00:14.000 Plenty of places in Europe do it.

02:00:15.000 Our investment in public transportation is abysmal in the United States.

02:00:17.000 If you go to New York City, you can make it by New York City without a car shirt.

02:00:20.000 I can't wait for you to find the data on the color of crime.

02:00:24.000 Wait, wait, wait.

02:00:25.000 Why couldn't you answer my question?

02:00:26.000 Why do you think cars are acceptable when they cause so much harm?

02:00:29.000 Is it because of their upside?

02:00:30.000 I told you, yeah, because the upside outweighs, and also the difference is a moral difference.

02:00:35.000 Having car crashes, having like chaos, is something that you will always have.

02:00:40.000 But having people who have a predisposition to certain systems or certain crimes, et cetera, et cetera, That is that predisposition that you haven't borne out in any stats at all, Nick.

02:00:50.000 You can't use that as an argument, Nick.

02:00:51.000 I think I found the date I was looking for.

02:00:53.000 I think I finally found it.

02:00:55.000 Here we go.

02:00:56.000 So now, why is all this heavy sign? 0.95

02:00:58.000 So we have 44% of murder and non negligent manslaughter is whites. 0.98

02:01:05.000 That's weird because they're at 67% of the population. 1.00

02:01:08.000 Can you throw me this link, please, so I can look at it?

02:01:10.000 I'll send it to you.

02:01:10.000 Yeah, sure.

02:01:12.000 It's just weird that the whites are not committing a proportional amount of crime. 0.98

02:01:16.000 It's almost like there's like. 1.00

02:01:17.000 Oh, but there's a really good reason for that, Nick.

02:01:20.000 Do you want to know a really good reason for that, Nick?

02:01:22.000 What's the reason for it?

02:01:24.000 Okay.

02:01:25.000 Open up two Google tabs right now, okay?

02:01:27.000 Are you ready?

02:01:28.000 Mm hmm.

02:01:29.000 Look up median age of a white person and then look up median age of a Hispanic person.

02:01:34.000 And then here's a little chart right here. 0.66

02:01:35.000 No, it's because they're younger.

02:01:37.000 That's interesting.

02:01:38.000 Younger people tend to commit. 0.72

02:01:38.000 Yes. 0.72

02:01:39.000 That's why maybe you can find some stats from the Daily Caller that show that a greater percentage of Hispanics commit crime than white people.

02:01:46.000 But the problem is that when you weight these things by age, as they should be, you find that the numbers of Hispanics committing crime are generally lower than white people.

02:01:52.000 Why would we be weighting it by age, though? 0.67

02:01:53.000 I mean, why would we be weighting it by age?

02:01:55.000 If they're committing more crime, you conceded just now that they committed more crime.

02:01:59.000 So if they commit more crime, why would we be weighting it by age?

02:02:02.000 What difference does it make if it's.

02:02:04.000 Proportionally.

02:02:05.000 Because that difference is permanent.

02:02:06.000 Because if you were to.

02:02:07.000 Because they're going to be younger.

02:02:08.000 They're going to be younger than us.

02:02:09.000 Not for much longer, Nick, because they're not.

02:02:11.000 They're going to be older.

02:02:11.000 That's true.

02:02:13.000 Because they're in our country and they're getting older. 0.70

02:02:13.000 Nope. 0.70

02:02:15.000 In Mexico, the birth rate is 2.7.

02:02:17.000 So when they come over here, they're going to have more children, children that will be.

02:02:21.000 The number of Mexicans in the United States has been dropping off, Nick. 1.00

02:02:24.000 The birth rate in Mexico, Nick.

02:02:26.000 Nick, is it the birth rate in Mexico?

02:02:28.000 Nick, is it supposed to curtail immigration? 0.98

02:02:30.000 If it is, then we have no disagreement. 1.00

02:02:31.000 No, but I'm saying it's happening naturally.

02:02:33.000 It started under Obama a decade ago, Nick.

02:02:35.000 In 19.

02:02:36.000 70 people in here.

02:02:37.000 And you're saying they're young and they commit more crime.

02:02:40.000 They're going to be young and therefore they will commit more crime.

02:02:43.000 So I don't know.

02:02:44.000 Again, I don't understand where you're going to be. 0.95

02:02:45.000 Not more crime than young white people, Nick. 0.99

02:02:47.000 In 1970, the birth rate in Mexico was almost seven births per woman. 0.96

02:02:51.000 That number is down to almost two now, Nick. 1.00

02:02:53.000 I don't think that Mexicans are going to be birthing so many people and sending them over here. 1.00

02:02:57.000 In fact, the number of Mexicans in the country has decreased over the past 10 years, Nick. 1.00

02:03:01.000 Even without the wall up, Nick, there's less and less of them coming here.

02:03:03.000 I don't think you've got to worry about it.

02:03:04.000 Don't worry about it.

02:03:05.000 We're the only ones that are.

02:03:07.000 That are keeping our fertility rate afloat. 0.74

02:03:10.000 If you look at it, the white fertility rate is much lower than the Hispanic fertility rate.

02:03:14.000 I mean, to argue that Hispanics are not going to be young for a long time is just misleading. 0.82

02:03:20.000 And if you're conceding that they commit more crime, again, I don't even know what we're still doing here. 0.99

02:03:24.000 If you're saying they commit more crime, oh, but they commit more crime because they're young, they're going to commit more crime.

02:03:28.000 I never said they're going to commit more crime.

02:03:30.000 You said, well, even if they do, well, it's because they're young.

02:03:30.000 No.

02:03:30.000 I never made that statement.

02:03:33.000 How can you concede that they commit more crime because they're younger, but then say, They don't commit crime.

02:03:41.000 You have to adjust these stats for age.

02:03:43.000 It's an important part of understanding where the crime is coming from, Nick.

02:03:45.000 No, they're going to be young.

02:03:48.000 But that's not true, Nick.

02:03:50.000 Look at the median age of the Hispanic population in the United States.

02:03:53.000 It's growing and growing and growing as more Hispanics are aging here.

02:03:57.000 The amount of people coming in from other places, Hispanic people, are leveling off. 0.72

02:04:00.000 So, no, Nick, that's not true that they're going to continue to remain young. 0.94

02:04:03.000 Tell me this yes or no? 0.84

02:04:05.000 Are Hispanics going to be younger than whites in the next 25 years? 0.79

02:04:10.000 I really don't know the answer to that. 1.00

02:04:11.000 The answer is yes.

02:04:12.000 Mathematically, you don't know that.

02:04:14.000 No, you don't.

02:04:14.000 Asymptotically, it might approach.

02:04:16.000 Because the birth rate is higher.

02:04:19.000 But the birth rate has been falling, Nick.

02:04:21.000 Okay, but it's higher.

02:04:23.000 Right now it is. 0.77

02:04:23.000 No, no, no, but if it falls, if it asymptotically approaches the white birth rate, then they'll probably level out eventually as the median rate. 0.77

02:04:30.000 But until that happens, what will they be, Stephen? 0.75

02:04:32.000 Will they be younger or older or the same age?

02:04:35.000 They will be younger.

02:04:37.000 So tell me when they start committing the same amount of crime as us.

02:04:40.000 You know, and then maybe I'll say, okay, you have a point. 0.87

02:04:43.000 Well, I mean, in your world where you want white people to have more children, they would be committing less crime than us. 0.86

02:04:48.000 So, I mean, if white people kept having 2.5 or 3.0, whatever births per woman, then Hispanics would be underrepresented in the crime again. 0.97

02:04:55.000 But they don't because white people don't make kids, Nick. 0.86

02:04:58.000 Adjusting for age is very important. 0.89

02:04:59.000 If you want to honestly look at these stats and have a good idea of what's going on.

02:05:02.000 Again, you're saying proportionally they commit less crime.

02:05:06.000 Or rather, proportionally, when you adjust for age, it's irrelevant or something. 0.78

02:05:10.000 Why do you want more white people making kids if they're going to commit more crime? 0.85

02:05:13.000 You admitted earlier that the Asian people. 0.95

02:05:15.000 Because it's our country.

02:05:16.000 It is a country that we want to be culturally the same.

02:05:19.000 The problem with crime is that it's from somewhere else, it is controllable.

02:05:23.000 You will always have crime in a society.

02:05:25.000 If I wanted a society that just had less crime, I would say we should become an Asian country. 0.86

02:05:29.000 But I'm not saying that. 1.00

02:05:31.000 I'm saying the problem is when we bring people in and they commit crime, and it's debatable at what rate they commit the crime, depending on how you index it.

02:05:38.000 And you don't have the figures, obviously, on the actual crime.

02:05:41.000 I've given you plenty of figures.

02:05:42.000 I mean, I can throw you more.

02:05:44.000 You've given me figures on incarcerations.

02:05:45.000 You haven't given me the figures on arrests.

02:05:48.000 You haven't given me the rest of the data that I've requested to.

02:05:51.000 What is the rest?

02:05:52.000 Do you want, like, some psychic omniscient being?

02:05:54.000 Oh, well, you believe in that.

02:05:55.000 That can determine, like, how many crimes are committed.

02:05:55.000 So maybe you do.

02:05:57.000 Psychic omniscient being?

02:05:58.000 Psychic omniscient being?

02:05:59.000 Or can I get. 1.00

02:06:01.000 The rate at which Hispanics commit murders compared to whites. 1.00

02:06:03.000 I don't think those two are the same. 1.00

02:06:05.000 So, again, it's.

02:06:06.000 Well, I mean, this lady very specifically talks about the effects of immigration on homicide rates in the United States.

02:06:11.000 Obviously, it only goes two generations. 0.95

02:06:13.000 Hispanic immigration will continue for much longer than two generations. 0.95

02:06:17.000 It has continued for much longer than two generations. 0.98

02:06:20.000 Okay, that's cool.

02:06:20.000 So you admit then that this is just all baseless conjecture on your part.

02:06:23.000 So when you say, no, no, no, wrong.

02:06:25.000 So when you say then, again, when you're making the claim, if you can't support your claim, I'm not.

02:06:30.000 I'm not.

02:06:31.000 I said that my data doesn't count, so where is your proof?

02:06:34.000 I'm not. 0.75

02:06:35.000 I already gave you data that says that immigrants do not contribute to more violence, more homicide, more ethnicity. 0.55

02:06:42.000 That is an abstract.

02:06:43.000 That is not data.

02:06:44.000 If you had numbers for me, I would say different.

02:06:46.000 But you gave me an abstract that says, according to, and we don't know what the numbers are.

02:06:49.000 We don't know what the methodology was.

02:06:51.000 Okay, so Nick, I gave you the algebra to the PDF.

02:06:53.000 What would you want me to go to the ground and talk to the researchers themselves to talk to every single individual person that they interviewed, Nick?

02:07:00.000 Your data is flawed.

02:07:01.000 Every piece of data you give me is either misleading or you're not actually giving me the data.

02:07:06.000 You've given me an abstract of data.

02:07:08.000 I could give you an abstract of data from.

02:07:10.000 Sure.

02:07:11.000 I could give you an abstract on data from America or US Inc.

02:07:14.000 I could give you.

02:07:15.000 Are those peer reviewed journals?

02:07:18.000 I don't know.

02:07:19.000 Well, go ahead and give me an abstract.

02:07:21.000 Right now, you give me an abstract.

02:07:21.000 Oh, wait.

02:07:23.000 You are not going to give me an abstract.

02:07:25.000 If you give me the numbers I'm asking for, I'm ready.

02:07:28.000 Stephen, I'm standing here waiting to concede your argument.

02:07:32.000 If you give me the numbers, if you give me the numbers, it was in this PDF, Nick.

02:07:36.000 It's all listed right here.

02:07:37.000 Oh, which PDF?

02:07:38.000 The one that you sent me, just the abstract?

02:07:41.000 No, the one that has the incarceration rates in the United States.

02:07:43.000 Oh, but see, incarceration rates is a lot different than arrests, isn't it?

02:07:48.000 Why would the incarceration rate be different than arrests?

02:07:51.000 Because you understand that people get arrested and not all of them get incarcerated.

02:07:55.000 Surely you understand this, don't you, Steve? 0.99

02:07:56.000 So do you think that Mexicans all have high profile lawyers and they're able to get it? 0.99

02:08:00.000 If anything, this would be fine. 1.00

02:08:01.000 Yeah, that's what I think.

02:08:02.000 Wrong.

02:08:02.000 No, no, no.

02:08:03.000 You have not given me the information on arrests.

02:08:05.000 You have not given me the information on how often these people commit crimes.

02:08:08.000 You've given me information on how often they're incarcerated for crimes.

02:08:12.000 And you're saying.

02:08:13.000 That is representative of the rate for illegal aliens.

02:08:15.000 We don't even know how many illegal aliens there are in the country.

02:08:18.000 So, how many? 0.93

02:08:18.000 We have a decent guess. 0.93

02:08:19.000 It's about 13 million.

02:08:20.000 No, we don't.

02:08:20.000 It could be anywhere.

02:08:21.000 It's about 13 million.

02:08:22.000 It could be any, depending on who you ask.

02:08:24.000 It could be anywhere between 11 and 30 million, depending on who you ask.

02:08:27.000 So, the fact, the whole point of illegal immigration, of undocumented immigration, is we have no idea who these people are, how many of them there are.

02:08:35.000 So, you give me a study saying incarcerated people, and this is a rate of them.

02:08:39.000 You don't know how many were arrested.

02:08:41.000 You don't know how many there are.

02:08:42.000 These numbers are bogus.

02:08:44.000 I need you to give me some numbers, dude.

02:08:45.000 If you're going to nitpick this, I'm like, this is just a Incarceration, like, or this is just an abstract of a peer reviewed article.

02:08:50.000 I'm gonna need to see the actual data, slick Steve.

02:08:53.000 I'm going to need you to give me some data, Nick.

02:08:55.000 If you don't have the data, if you don't have the data.

02:08:57.000 I've already given you data, Nick.

02:08:58.000 You don't like my data.

02:09:00.000 I mean, like, this is one of the least debated things right now in American.

02:09:03.000 You gave me the rate at which they are incarcerated.

02:09:06.000 That's not arrests.

02:09:07.000 That's not what I asked for.

02:09:08.000 That's not representative of crime.

02:09:10.000 And then you gave me an abstract, which we didn't see the data for.

02:09:13.000 And then you gave me a rate at which illegals commit crime or a rate at which.

02:09:18.000 Yeah, you gave me the rate at which illegals commit crime.

02:09:20.000 And illegals, there's no way to determine a rate because to determine a rate, you have to know how many of the people there are, how much.

02:09:26.000 Of the population that you're talking about.

02:09:27.000 Well, this is mainly on immigration, not on illegal immigration.

02:09:30.000 And we know those numbers.

02:09:31.000 This is all about immigration, not illegal immigration.

02:09:33.000 Is it on first generation?

02:09:35.000 Again, then you give me information where you don't have third and fourth generation.

02:09:38.000 But again, the problem is not.

02:09:40.000 Nick, come on.

02:09:41.000 Are you saying.

02:09:42.000 If I give you third and fourth, you're going to tell me.

02:09:42.000 Nick, come on.

02:09:44.000 You want to argue about fourth immigration immigrant crime? 0.97

02:09:48.000 So somebody that came here in 1920, you would consider them to be a fourth immigration immigrant? 0.95

02:09:53.000 That's ridiculous. 0.97

02:09:54.000 Because if we're talking about how we're going to reorder our society and change the demographic composition of it, you need to have good stock. 0.69

02:10:01.000 You can't have people that are going to be on their best behavior because they don't want to be deported in the first generation, and then in two or three generations, it doesn't work out so well.

02:10:10.000 So let's find some numbers.

02:10:12.000 I will, because you will not produce for me the numbers, I will find the numbers for you. 0.99

02:10:18.000 Do you consider Italians to be good stock? 0.99

02:10:23.000 It depends.

02:10:24.000 It depends on, I mean, that's kind of a loaded question.

02:10:26.000 It's all relative, of course.

02:10:28.000 Would you want Italian immigrants in the United States to be good enough for you?

02:10:31.000 Are Italians good stock relative to what?

02:10:34.000 Relative to what time, relative to who else is coming in the country. 1.00

02:10:39.000 If you're talking about the 19th century, I would say no, because you have Anglos. 1.00

02:10:43.000 The Mafia, right? 1.00

02:10:45.000 What?

02:10:46.000 Things like the Mafia and whatnot, right?

02:10:47.000 Are really big in Italian communities.

02:10:49.000 That's Southern Italy.

02:10:50.000 That's different.

02:10:52.000 You have an IQ difference, too, there.

02:10:54.000 But if you're talking about the 19th century, people that are coming here, and you have countries where people can come here from Northern Europe, fine, fine and well. 0.98

02:11:02.000 But when they're coming here. 0.71

02:11:03.000 What about.

02:11:04.000 Oh, sorry, God. 1.00

02:11:05.000 When they're coming here from Africa or Asia or Mexico, and you have whites as a global population shrinking, we can't afford to be choosy about who we bring in the country. 1.00

02:11:14.000 I would love to reestablish the nature of the country. 0.91

02:11:17.000 That's not to say Italians aren't great people.

02:11:19.000 I'm Italian.

02:11:19.000 I love Italians.

02:11:20.000 What about Aryans? 1.00

02:11:21.000 Do you consider these people to be good stuff?

02:11:24.000 Why do you ask that question? 1.00

02:11:24.000 Aryans. 1.00

02:11:26.000 Because the Aryan Brotherhood is a gang that makes up less than a tenth of a percent of the prison population, but they're responsible for a quarter of the murders that occur in there.

02:11:33.000 It seems like they have some problems, too.

02:11:34.000 It seems like everybody has their problems.

02:11:35.000 They're killing people in prison, are you saying?

02:11:38.000 Wait, what was the statistic again?

02:11:38.000 What?

02:11:40.000 The Aryan Brotherhood.

02:11:41.000 Very, very small percentage of the prison population. 1.00

02:11:43.000 They kill almost a quarter of the people.

02:11:46.000 So you think that gangs in prison are representative of races committing crime?

02:11:52.000 I mean, this is just do you honestly believe this stuff?

02:11:55.000 Give me the numbers I'm asking for.

02:11:57.000 Give me the numbers.

02:11:58.000 No, I'm not.

02:11:59.000 I'm asking for actually very general information that you have not.

02:12:01.000 I've given you the very general information.

02:12:03.000 You ask for more specific.

02:12:04.000 My overall crime stats aren't good enough for you.

02:12:06.000 You want arrest stats, or the arrest stats aren't good enough for you.

02:12:08.000 You want the homicide stats, or the homicide stats aren't good enough for you.

02:12:10.000 You want the third and fourth generation homicide stats.

02:12:12.000 You want whatever narrative will fit.

02:12:14.000 Actually, here's the PDF of that study for the cities.

02:12:17.000 Pour over the data yourself.

02:12:17.000 There you go, Nick.

02:12:19.000 Don't worry.

02:12:20.000 Here we go.

02:12:20.000 I got it.

02:12:21.000 Okay.

02:12:21.000 There it is.

02:12:22.000 Don't worry.

02:12:24.000 I want to hear your academic interpretation of this study, Nick.

02:12:26.000 I don't even need it.

02:12:28.000 I don't even need it because I will find, you know, let's see.

02:12:28.000 What?

02:12:32.000 Does the information contain what I want?

02:12:34.000 I don't need a 100 plus page study, Nick.

02:12:36.000 Read it and tell me if what's in here is what you want.

02:12:39.000 Let's see what we have here.

02:12:39.000 Let's see.

02:12:41.000 I didn't know we were going to be here for six hours tonight.

02:12:41.000 All right.

02:12:45.000 Well, you wanted to focus on crime.

02:12:48.000 Well, typically, when people are.

02:12:49.000 Crime is not.

02:12:49.000 Again, this is.

02:12:51.000 Ultimately, it's irrelevant to me.

02:12:52.000 You're asking it.

02:12:53.000 Cut me off in the middle of my sentence.

02:12:54.000 Ultimately, it's irrelevant to me this question. 0.99

02:12:58.000 The data shows that Hispanics do commit more crime than whites. 1.00

02:13:01.000 That is true. 1.00

02:13:02.000 But you have to adjust by age.

02:13:04.000 Funky Fuentes, plain with the numbers.

02:13:06.000 But they commit more crime.

02:13:07.000 But they commit more crime, whether you index by age or not. 0.99

02:13:10.000 Only because white people don't have as many children as Hispanic people. 0.95

02:13:12.000 And that number has only been decreasing. 0.83

02:13:14.000 So in the future, as Hispanics catch up to white people in median age, they'll be committing less crime than white people.

02:13:19.000 Again, this is irrelevant to my argument. 1.00

02:13:23.000 Like I said before, if they come over here. 1.00

02:13:27.000 The crime, it's also diseases, it's also cultural diseases. 1.00

02:13:31.000 What diseases?

02:13:32.000 The black plague, which is spreading like wildfire in southeastern Africa.

02:13:36.000 Have you heard about that?

02:13:38.000 Oh, I'm sorry, hold on.

02:13:39.000 I thought we were talking about the United States. 0.98

02:13:41.000 No, but if we're bringing people from there, you understand that's a problem.

02:13:44.000 Or tuberculosis, which has been on the rise. 1.00

02:13:46.000 How about this tuberculosis, which has been on the rise because of immigrants that come here? 1.00

02:13:50.000 Or polio, that's been on the rise? 1.00

02:13:51.000 Tuberculosis?

02:13:52.000 I'm sorry, I got to get a source on that, Nick. 0.67

02:13:54.000 Tuberculosis is on the rise because of immigration to the United States? 0.91

02:13:58.000 Again, yeah, it is actually. 1.00

02:14:00.000 Here, I'll find this for you.

02:14:01.000 I was just about to sift through this 100 page study on crime, but I guess I'll find this for you.

02:14:06.000 Okay. 0.71

02:14:10.000 Polio is on the rise in the United States because of immigration?

02:14:13.000 I mean, if you're ignorant of the crime statistics, that's not.

02:14:13.000 Check it out, man.

02:14:16.000 Well, no, this is one of the most difficult points to argue because I legitimately tried to find points that backed you up.

02:14:22.000 This is like the immigration argument or the economic argument.

02:14:22.000 There we go.

02:14:26.000 It's just not really true. 0.97

02:14:27.000 Here's the problem you've conceded that Hispanics commit more crime. 1.00

02:14:30.000 And yet, you want more of them. 1.00

02:14:31.000 So, I mean, I've already won on that point.

02:14:33.000 At this point, we're just kind of spinning our way around.

02:14:35.000 But you haven't, because young Hispanics, the age groups that are relevant, commit less crime than young white people. 0.67

02:14:39.000 You've admitted Hispanics commit more crime than white people. 0.97

02:14:43.000 And if we kill every white person over the age of 40, Hispanics would commit far less crime. 1.00

02:14:48.000 Okay, but that's. 0.99

02:14:50.000 You're saying, oh, but, and if we qualify it this way, they commit more crime.

02:14:54.000 You were the king of qualifiers when we were arguing any other point.

02:14:58.000 You're the king of qualifiers.

02:15:00.000 Here's the tuberculosis.

02:15:01.000 Minnesota had 100 cases.

02:15:03.000 Can you link me?

02:15:04.000 Yeah, sure.

02:15:05.000 Can you please link me this?

02:15:06.000 I will give this to you gladly.

02:15:08.000 I will give it to you right here.

02:15:12.000 Let's see.

02:15:13.000 There you go.

02:15:14.000 And you can read it right there.

02:15:16.000 So you got 150 cases of TB in 2015, 147 cases in 2014.

02:15:22.000 And it says, and whoops, my window just closed there.

02:15:26.000 It says the most common risk factor for TB cases in Minnesota is being from a country where TB is common.

02:15:33.000 TB screening is offered to all refugees during the domestic refugee health exam.

02:15:37.000 In 2014, 22% of refugees screened positive or screen tested positive for latent tuberculosis infection.

02:15:45.000 26% of all foreign born cases of tuberculosis in Minnesota were from people born in Somalia. 1.00

02:15:50.000 So, yeah, when you have immigration from these countries, you have more crime. 1.00

02:15:54.000 And that's, you've conceded this Hispanics and blacks commit more crime. 1.00

02:15:57.000 You have more disease, which the data is right there. 1.00

02:16:00.000 Culturally, it's a problem.

02:16:01.000 They don't learn the language. 1.00

02:16:02.000 You're not talking about immigration right now. 0.99

02:16:04.000 You're talking about resettling refugees.

02:16:06.000 And where do you think the immigration is?

02:16:08.000 We have immigration from Africa as well.

02:16:10.000 Steven, it's not as much as it is for Mexico.

02:16:12.000 This has to do with, but your study that you're citing here has to do with refugees, Nick.

02:16:16.000 Why aren't you talking to me about like data?

02:16:18.000 Why aren't you talking to me about immigrants, Nick?

02:16:20.000 The point is, you bring, you stated at the beginning of this argument, you said people come here and they don't bring the problems from their country.

02:16:29.000 That is what you said.

02:16:29.000 Correct?

02:16:30.000 No, I said immigrants tend to not to. 1.00

02:16:33.000 Now, refugees are all, that's a whole other basket. 1.00

02:16:36.000 Do you think that refugees and immigrants are the same types of people? 1.00

02:16:40.000 Do you think that somebody fleeing. 1.00

02:16:41.000 I'm opposed to both. 1.00

02:16:42.000 Resettling a refugee, I mean, they're immigrants. 1.00

02:16:44.000 I don't care if you're opposed to both.

02:16:46.000 Hold on, this is a very specific question.

02:16:48.000 Don't be dishonest, Nick.

02:16:49.000 Now, do you think that refugees and immigrants are the same type of people coming to this country?

02:16:53.000 The same to me. 1.00

02:16:54.000 The same to me.

02:16:55.000 We need to keep both of them.

02:16:56.000 Okay, Nick, I need you to answer this question. 1.00

02:16:58.000 Do you think that refugees and immigrants that come to this country are the same types of people?

02:17:03.000 What do you mean, the same types of people?

02:17:05.000 As in, they have the same proclivities towards work, that they are coming from the same type of stable platform, that they are at the same risks for different types of ailments, whether it's cultural, social, or actually diseases.

02:17:15.000 You think that these groups of people are very similar to one another?

02:17:18.000 Yeah, I do, actually.

02:17:20.000 Do you have any data to back that up?

02:17:21.000 How about you give me tuberculosis?

02:17:22.000 They're in the same places.

02:17:24.000 But you think that people being resettled from Somalia are similar to people immigrating from Mexico, Nick?

02:17:29.000 Do you believe that?

02:17:30.000 100%.

02:17:31.000 Here, here's a few years and a half.

02:17:33.000 No, no, no.

02:17:33.000 I do.

02:17:34.000 I do.

02:17:34.000 You want to see my data?

02:17:35.000 No, I don't want you to.

02:17:36.000 Because you're about to give me another unrelated stat.

02:17:38.000 Can you show me the tuberculosis rates of Mexicans coming in and show how that's comparable to refugees?

02:17:43.000 I could Google that if you'd like. 1.00

02:17:45.000 Yeah, I would like that.

02:17:46.000 I'd be very interested to see that.

02:17:47.000 Sure.

02:17:58.000 Here's an interesting stat.

02:17:59.000 In 2016, a total of 9,287 new tuberculosis cases were reported in the United States.

02:18:05.000 This provisional count represents the lowest number of U.S. tuberculosis cases on record and a 2.7% decrease from 2015.

02:18:13.000 Oof.

02:18:15.000 Finicky Fuentes playing with those numbers.

02:18:17.000 Here we go.

02:18:18.000 An E. coli epidemic in Seattle and Kansas City.

02:18:21.000 Wait, why are we talking about E. coli?

02:18:22.000 What happened to tuberculosis?

02:18:22.000 Wait, wait, wait.

02:18:24.000 Nick, we're moving topics again.

02:18:26.000 Why are we on E. coli now?

02:18:27.000 Quiet.

02:18:28.000 E. coli in Seattle and Kansas City.

02:18:30.000 Tuberculosis in New York and Virginia, leprosy in New Hampshire, dung fever in Laredo.

02:18:35.000 What's going on?

02:18:37.000 Can you throw me your links to these articles, Nick?

02:18:39.000 Just a moment.

02:18:40.000 Here we go.

02:18:40.000 Okay.

02:18:41.000 Don't get scalloped me.

02:18:42.000 I want to go over them one at a time so we're on the same page.

02:18:45.000 Quiet time.

02:18:46.000 In 2014, for the first time in more than 20 years, over 50% of the illegal aliens crossing our border came from countries other than Mexico.

02:18:55.000 And total cross border traffic is expanding as well.

02:18:58.000 Over 485,000 people were apprehended in 2014.

02:19:03.000 And let's see, what do we know about the diseases carried?

02:19:07.000 A February 2015 report of the Southern Medical Association cautioned that since none of the 700,000 illegal entries were screened for diseases, illegal immigration may expose Americans to diseases that have been virtually contagious.

02:19:18.000 Why are you talking about illegal immigration?

02:19:21.000 Because the point is. 1.00

02:19:21.000 Nervous Nick, I'm not talking about illegal immigrants. 1.00

02:19:24.000 I'm talking about.

02:19:24.000 Steven, Steven, the point is, again, the statement that you said from the beginning, and you qualify this by saying, no, no, I'm talking about immigrants.

02:19:34.000 People bring with them their practices from their countries.

02:19:34.000 The point is.

02:19:38.000 And if you have them, whether they're illegal immigrants or whether they're legal immigrants or whether they're refugees, you see that the people that are coming here have more problems, depending, regardless of the status of how they got here, have more problems than the people in here and the people from European countries.

02:19:55.000 Nick, those are really great statements, but you haven't failed on every point to demonstrate that data.

02:20:00.000 It's right here.

02:20:01.000 Illegal immigration may expose Americans to the situation.

02:20:03.000 I'm not defending illegal immigration, dog.

02:20:05.000 I've never made that argument.

02:20:06.000 Why are we talking about illegal immigration?

02:20:08.000 No, no, no.

02:20:09.000 But the point is do people bring over across the border the problems from other countries?

02:20:15.000 They are illegal. 0.85

02:20:16.000 Can you tell me, do you believe that illegal immigrants. 1.00

02:20:18.000 I'm not nervous here. 0.97

02:20:20.000 Do you believe that.?

02:20:21.000 You have yet to defend in the sense that you say that Hispanics commit less crime in the United States, and you actually demonstrated by way of concession and your failure to provide the data that they do commit more crime.

02:20:33.000 I provided the exact data that breakdowns on age show that Hispanics commit less crime than their white counterparts.

02:20:39.000 I've never seen. 0.91

02:20:40.000 You keep slipping out of my hands here.

02:20:42.000 Nick, I'm trying to hold you to these points as hard as possible, okay? 1.00

02:20:46.000 Do Hispanics commit more crime? 1.00

02:20:47.000 Wait, do Hispanics, Stephen, please. 1.00

02:20:50.000 Do Hispanics commit more murders on average than Americans, or rather than Native Americans, or not Native Americans, but do they commit more crimes than whites in America? 0.98

02:20:59.000 No, I would say no. 0.97

02:21:01.000 No, the data is against you.

02:21:03.000 Well, no, because it showed that they commit a proportionally higher rate of murder, of rape, Of aggravated assault? 0.87

02:21:11.000 You're gish galloping me here, Nick. 0.98

02:21:13.000 Nick, if you were to ask me the question of. 1.00

02:21:15.000 It's looking like this one's going to be.

02:21:17.000 If you can't even acknowledge the fact that your own statistics are incorrect, that you keep using this. 0.94

02:21:25.000 I don't know what this goopy, gish gallopy talk is here, but you tried to make the statement that the immigrants that come here, and Hispanics are immigrants from 1965, this is the source of the Mexicans and the Hispanics in the country, and you've conceded. 0.99

02:21:40.000 That they commit more crime. 0.99

02:21:42.000 This is what the statistics I sent you.

02:21:43.000 You sent me statistics on incarceration.

02:21:46.000 You sent me statistics on illegal immigration.

02:21:49.000 And you sigh in everything.

02:21:51.000 But the data is against you.

02:21:54.000 If you were to ask if one country was wealthier than another, would you just look at GDP, Nick?

02:21:58.000 Wow, so now it's about wealth, isn't it?

02:22:01.000 No, I'm not saying it's about wealth.

02:22:02.000 I'm just asking you a question.

02:22:03.000 If you were to say, is country A wealthier than country B, would you look at just GDP?

02:22:07.000 Or do you think, and this isn't the best for you, but would you look at something like GDP per capita?

02:22:10.000 Do you think that would be a better analogy?

02:22:12.000 How does this have anything to do with the fact that the people you want to bring in the country are committing more crime than the people that were here before?

02:22:19.000 But they don't.

02:22:20.000 Compared to their counterparts, they don't.

02:22:22.000 No, no, but when you fix for age, but that's just it.

02:22:25.000 That's not how government works.

02:22:27.000 We're not fixing for you. 1.00

02:22:28.000 Say, well, if we killed all the people over 40, then it would be the case. 1.00

02:22:31.000 Okay, well, until that happens, the people that are coming into the country commit more crime. 0.98

02:22:36.000 And you tried to pretend using incarceration stats, and you keep saying it's not about illegal immigration, but you sent me statistics about illegal immigrants. 0.98

02:22:45.000 I mean, that you sent me.

02:22:46.000 Whoa, whoa, where?

02:22:48.000 What? 1.00

02:22:48.000 You told me that even illegal immigrants commit less crime. 1.00

02:22:51.000 You said proportionally they commit less crime. 0.98

02:22:53.000 You said that.

02:22:54.000 Oh, I recognize it.

02:22:56.000 And then you said, wait a minute.

02:22:58.000 No, I wasn't even talking about illegal immigration. 0.98

02:23:01.000 You have conceded, and it is true that Hispanics commit more crime on every count than white people proportionally. 0.98

02:23:07.000 But you're saying, okay, but that's just it. 0.97

02:23:11.000 You don't adjust the number. 0.64

02:23:12.000 So if we had to choose between having 200 white people in the country, here's how about this? 0.65

02:23:16.000 Answer me this. 0.90

02:23:16.000 Okay, dishonest, Nick. 0.90

02:23:17.000 Another hypothetical to try to say that we could spawn.

02:23:19.000 You're lying, that you lied for your initial points.

02:23:23.000 Go ahead, Nick.

02:23:23.000 I'm not lying.

02:23:24.000 Let's say that we could spawn 1,000 white people who are 20 years old in the country or 1,000 Hispanic people who are 20 years old in the country. 0.98

02:23:30.000 Which group of people would commit more crime? 0.90

02:23:32.000 Or who would commit more crime?

02:23:32.000 I would want.

02:23:33.000 The whites would commit. 1.00

02:23:34.000 I agree. 1.00

02:23:34.000 You said it. 1.00

02:23:35.000 I agree with you.

02:23:35.000 I don't know.

02:23:36.000 Honest, Nick.

02:23:37.000 Take it the right side, though.

02:23:38.000 That is nice.

02:23:38.000 That's a slippery sleeve.

02:23:40.000 White people would definitely commit more crime. 1.00

02:23:42.000 I agree, Nick. 1.00

02:23:43.000 I would choose to have more white people, and here's why. 0.93

02:23:46.000 Here's why. 0.97

02:23:47.000 And I don't even believe that.

02:23:48.000 But even if they did commit more crime, it's different because when you have people that are in the country committing crime versus people that come from out of the country and they commit more crime, and you're, again, you are assuming, you create this hypothetical, this vacuum where we're spawning from the real world.

02:24:04.000 There's no vacuum, Nick.

02:24:05.000 And they, No, no, no.

02:24:07.000 You are using an example.

02:24:08.000 You're using an abstraction that has no practical reality in the real world. 0.99

02:24:14.000 So, Nick, your argument is literally I don't care if white people kill people because white crime is better than Hispanic crime. 0.99

02:24:21.000 No, no. 0.99

02:24:21.000 That's what you're saying. 0.99

02:24:22.000 You're saying it's better if white people kill people than if Hispanic people kill people. 1.00

02:24:25.000 Have you even been listening? 1.00

02:24:26.000 My argument has been Hispanics commit more crime in this country. 1.00

02:24:30.000 Let's not bring in more Hispanics. 1.00

02:24:31.000 And you're saying, no, no, no, no. 1.00

02:24:34.000 It doesn't matter if they commit more crime than whites, it doesn't matter if we bring in. 0.98

02:24:38.000 More young people who commit more crime than whites. 0.98

02:24:41.000 If we fix for age, it goes away. 1.00

02:24:43.000 We're not. 0.98

02:24:44.000 So, you don't want any more white people to have children then? 0.94

02:24:46.000 Do you want the birth rates to continue to fall too? 0.92

02:24:49.000 I love that deflection.

02:24:49.000 Oh, slippery.

02:24:52.000 I'm just testing you for consistency, Nick. 1.00

02:24:53.000 You're telling me that you don't want Hispanics to come in. 0.99

02:24:55.000 If you're going to be disingenuous about this point, maybe we should move on to the next one because you're struggling here.

02:25:01.000 You're struggling here to be honest. 0.93

02:25:02.000 You're turning into nasty, Nick, here.

02:25:04.000 Be careful, okay? 0.77

02:25:05.000 You're struggling to.

02:25:06.000 No, because you refuse to acknowledge.

02:25:08.000 Stop.

02:25:08.000 You refuse to acknowledge the fact.

02:25:08.000 Stop.

02:25:10.000 That these people commit more crime.

02:25:11.000 And you're saying, well, if we fix for age, but we don't fix for age.

02:25:16.000 That mechanism doesn't exist for the people here.

02:25:18.000 But it's relevant.

02:25:21.000 Because they're indicative of future crime stats. 1.00

02:25:23.000 If we look at the crime stats 50 years from now, Hispanics will probably be in the last two years. 1.00

02:25:28.000 You have the data on third and fourth generation? 0.65

02:25:31.000 You just said that was ridiculous about the long term.

02:25:34.000 You keep. 0.94

02:25:35.000 And here's the problem.

02:25:36.000 Because you fundamentally.

02:25:37.000 I'm sorry. 1.00

02:25:37.000 No, I have the data that older people. 1.00

02:25:40.000 You don't care. 0.86

02:25:41.000 Nick, older people commit less crime than younger people.

02:25:44.000 That's all the data I need.

02:25:45.000 My argument has already been proven, Nick.

02:25:47.000 You started out by saying these structural problems that exist in these countries are not coming here.

02:25:53.000 They will not be transported here.

02:25:54.000 And then you, oh, well, no, I was actually talking about legal immigration. 1.00

02:25:57.000 When they come here, regardless of whether they're legal, illegal, or they're refugees, they tend to create enclaves. 1.00

02:26:04.000 The legal immigrants do this, the illegal. 1.00

02:26:06.000 And you say, oh, you don't have any data on this. 1.00

02:26:09.000 No, well, well, even they don't have their own enclaves.

02:26:09.000 Look around.

02:26:11.000 Look at Los Angeles enclaves.

02:26:13.000 Look at people in rural communities.

02:26:15.000 Oh, so you're. 1.00

02:26:15.000 You're palliating. 1.00

02:26:16.000 Oh, I didn't even know.

02:26:18.000 I didn't even know you conceded to this.

02:26:20.000 I didn't even know you could say that.

02:26:21.000 Yeah, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a community of like minded people.

02:26:23.000 It happens all over the place.

02:26:24.000 Sure.

02:26:25.000 How could you have a unified country if you have people that have a language barrier, a cultural barrier?

02:26:29.000 You have all the.

02:26:31.000 You just said.

02:26:31.000 Cultural barrier, Nick?

02:26:32.000 So you're telling me that people in Alabama have the same culture as people in New York City if you remove all the immigrants, Nick? 1.00

02:26:32.000 Yes. 1.00

02:26:37.000 Meta culture.

02:26:38.000 Meta culture, absolutely. 0.55

02:26:40.000 Yeah. 0.94

02:26:40.000 Meta culture? 0.94

02:26:40.000 Absolutely. 0.94

02:26:41.000 What meta culture is shared between somebody in rural Tennessee versus somebody in the city of New York City?

02:26:46.000 We just talked about white people.

02:26:47.000 How about, for starters, they speak English?

02:26:49.000 I like a national language, sure.

02:26:50.000 What else? 1.00

02:26:51.000 Meta culture, Christian.

02:26:52.000 They believe in the Constitution. 1.00

02:26:54.000 No. 1.00

02:26:55.000 More and more people are becoming immigrants.

02:26:56.000 They believe in the whole Constitution.

02:26:57.000 Whoa, you're just galloping me, Nick.

02:26:59.000 I love these goofy Steve with these words.

02:27:01.000 I love it.

02:27:02.000 No, but go ahead.

02:27:02.000 I love it, Nick.

02:27:03.000 You're knocking off into the sunset.

02:27:04.000 So I see you were wrong about immigration.

02:27:08.000 So now you've, it's been a nice pivot.

02:27:10.000 You're taking off a pivot from crime to enclaves.

02:27:13.000 But go ahead.

02:27:14.000 Tell me how, wait, wait.

02:27:14.000 Go ahead.

02:27:16.000 Tell me how the enclaves in Alabama, wait, no, no. 0.59

02:27:19.000 Tell me how the white people in Alabama are more different from the people in New York. 0.57

02:27:23.000 Than both of them are from people in China or from people in Mexico. 0.80

02:27:27.000 Explain that one to me, genius.

02:27:28.000 I mean, there could be just as different.

02:27:30.000 If you compare somebody in New York City.

02:27:32.000 There's the infamous Gishgau. 1.00

02:27:34.000 I have a feeling. 0.99

02:27:35.000 That's not a Gishgau. 0.99

02:27:36.000 I have a feeling you've never met people from these places, Nick.

02:27:38.000 What are we doing here?

02:27:39.000 What are we doing here, Goofy? 0.92

02:27:41.000 Well, like, because you're unironically suggesting to me that people in rural Midwestern cities have similarities with people in New York City or LA or Seattle. 0.91

02:27:50.000 Do you really?

02:27:51.000 So let's see what you've conceded so far. 1.00

02:27:53.000 You've conceded Hispanics commit more crime.

02:27:56.000 Nope, I haven't. 1.00

02:27:57.000 You have. 0.99

02:27:58.000 You've conceded that there are cultural enclaves from immigrants.

02:28:01.000 You've conceded that those cultural enclaves are more heterogeneous than the white people. 0.73

02:28:07.000 I mean, so you've conceded my entire. 0.77

02:28:09.000 Thank you so much for your program.

02:28:10.000 I haven't conceded anything, Rick.

02:28:11.000 And you tried to wiggle out of it with this.

02:28:11.000 You have.

02:28:14.000 Is there a third person in this call, Mick?

02:28:15.000 Well, maybe it's this way.

02:28:17.000 Maybe it could be.

02:28:18.000 I don't know.

02:28:19.000 Tell me, Stephen.

02:28:20.000 When I gave you the stats, you're like, well, do you have the third and fourth generation stats?

02:28:24.000 Well, do you have this kind of crime stats?

02:28:26.000 I mean, I don't really like these numbers.

02:28:28.000 Do you have the actual PDF?

02:28:28.000 I don't know.

02:28:30.000 I don't like the abstract.

02:28:31.000 I think I can interpret the data better than a professional.

02:28:34.000 Dishonest, Nick.

02:28:35.000 I think you should calm down here if we can handle this logically here. 0.77

02:28:38.000 So, again, you've conceded, you did concede this. 0.70

02:28:41.000 You said Hispanics commit more crime, but if you control for age, then they don't. 1.00

02:28:45.000 But you've conceded that they can, I mean, that's true. 1.00

02:28:47.000 And you say that there are enclaves, but everybody has enclaves.

02:28:51.000 Okay, but here's the difference.

02:28:52.000 All the other European enclaves assimilated.

02:28:55.000 And you want to know why? 0.70

02:28:56.000 Because Mexican immigration, wait, wait, because Mexican immigration is different.

02:28:59.000 This strain of it, this type of it, because Mexican immigration.

02:29:02.000 Nope. 0.63

02:29:03.000 Absolutely not.

02:29:04.000 And I'll tell you why.

02:29:04.000 You have six reasons why it's different.

02:29:06.000 This is from Sam Huntington.

02:29:08.000 Maybe you're smarter than Sam Huntington, but he said that the difference with Mexican immigration is they're contiguous with the United States, so they have a much closer bond to their families in Mexico, much easier to bring their families from Mexico, much easier to stay in contact with people in Mexico.

02:29:22.000 The scale of immigration is unprecedented more Mexicans than any other group. 0.93

02:29:27.000 The illegality of it, a lot of them live in the shadows, and whether you like it or not, that's a part of it. 1.00

02:29:31.000 Regional concentration, they tend to stay in the. 0.84

02:29:35.000 Cities like Los Angeles in the Southwest, persistence, you have had waves and waves for so long, whereas other immigration has come in different times.

02:29:45.000 This immigration has been continuous from 65 onward and the historical presence of Hispanics in the Southwest. 0.97

02:29:51.000 So these six reasons all demonstrate why these enclaves are much worse than European enclaves. 1.00

02:29:57.000 Galloping, can I read you this? 0.74

02:29:59.000 I'm curious if you believe this, okay?

02:30:01.000 Once in America, I'm curious if you agree with this, Aaron.

02:30:03.000 Once in America, Mexican immigrants face great challenges, often with no knowledge of the English language and with little formal education.

02:30:10.000 Many Mexican immigrants are compelled to accept low wage manual labor jobs and are frequently exploited by middlemen who act as intermediaries between them and the prospective employers.

02:30:18.000 Many sought housing in the older sections of the large cities where they settled, and they became known as Little Mexicos, frequently in overcrowded, substandard tenements, which were often dimly lit with poor heating and ventilation.

02:30:28.000 Do you think this is an okay summary of Mexicans in the United States today? 1.00

02:30:33.000 Yes.

02:30:35.000 Well, I just replaced the word Mexico.

02:30:35.000 Okay.

02:30:37.000 I replaced the word Italian with Mexican. 0.79

02:30:38.000 These were Italians in the 19th century. 0.96

02:30:40.000 Oh, yeah. 1.00

02:30:41.000 And again, if you want to say something, okay, I'll tell you here, slippery Nick.

02:30:44.000 No, no, go ahead, slippery Nick.

02:30:48.000 Wow.

02:30:48.000 I'm ready for it.

02:30:50.000 Go ahead.

02:30:50.000 Yeah.

02:30:50.000 For people that were watching what was just said, I literally just outlined why Mexican immigration is different.

02:30:57.000 So you pull this like, I just trapped you, Italians, I replaced the words. 0.73

02:31:00.000 But I just said, and you weren't listening because you're slippery, but I just laid out the six reasons why Mexican immigration was different from European immigration. 0.98

02:31:08.000 And I'll list them again because you weren't listening.

02:31:10.000 Mexican immigration comes from a country that is contiguous with the United States.

02:31:14.000 That allows for more chain migration.

02:31:16.000 That allows for people to stay closer to their families in Mexico, to have stronger cultural ties.

02:31:22.000 Do you have any numbers to prove any of this?

02:31:23.000 Just curious.

02:31:24.000 Do Italians or Irishmen come here?

02:31:26.000 Do they not bring family members over as part of the 1965 Immigration Act that allowed family members to come over?

02:31:31.000 Hey, hey, I let you read your little definition, and you didn't listen to my points, and now you're all reading your definition.

02:31:36.000 I'm just curious if you have any data to back and even up, Nick.

02:31:40.000 Quiet.

02:31:40.000 So that was contiguousness.

02:31:42.000 So that's number one.

02:31:43.000 We share a border. 0.91

02:31:44.000 I agree with that.

02:31:45.000 And here we go.

02:31:45.000 Wow.

02:31:46.000 You just can't contain yourself.

02:31:47.000 I'm just asking for the data before you gallop off with your million points, Nick.

02:31:51.000 So we have contiguity.

02:31:51.000 Sneaky.

02:31:53.000 Numberless, Nick.

02:31:54.000 Okay.

02:31:55.000 Stephen, if you're going to interrupt me.

02:31:56.000 This isn't going to work.

02:31:57.000 All right.

02:31:57.000 I'll let you speak.

02:31:58.000 I'm sorry.

02:31:59.000 It seems like you're out of control here.

02:31:59.000 I'm sorry.

02:32:00.000 So you have contiguity.

02:32:02.000 And what that means is, again, this is a priori true that Mexico is contiguous to the United States and Italy is not.

02:32:11.000 I mean, maybe you need data for that.

02:32:12.000 That's number one.

02:32:13.000 No, I believe we share border with Mexico.

02:32:14.000 Number two, the scale of Mexican immigration is much greater than any of the individual ethnic groups that came here from Europe.

02:32:21.000 You're talking about millions of people, 8 million people in the first five years of the Bush presidency.

02:32:27.000 That came over the border from Mexico.

02:32:29.000 So the scale of it is much greater than it was South Pacific.

02:32:32.000 Do you know that as a percentage of total U.S. population?

02:32:35.000 Yeah, I could send you the link, but I will send you the link after I finish the points, which you need to respect.

02:32:41.000 C is the illegality of it. 0.92

02:32:42.000 When you have people that are illegals, it creates this high trust kind of, well, not high trust, but you have to rely on people from Mexico that are in the country. 0.58

02:32:51.000 And so you tend to conglomerate together. 0.88

02:32:53.000 I mean, this is just natural.

02:32:54.000 If you're an illegal immigrant, you're going to go live with other illegals, you're going to go live in friendly territory, not in some place where people are not going to help you out. 0.88

02:33:01.000 You have the regional concentration.

02:33:03.000 You have the regional concentration of Mexican immigrants into the Southwest, into very specific cities.

02:33:10.000 For example, and these are the numbers from the article, but in 2000, two thirds of Mexicans lived in the West, nearly half of them in California.

02:33:17.000 So they tend to conglomerate in concentrated areas, whereas most of these other ethnic groups spread out to different parts of the country.

02:33:24.000 You have the persistence of it, which means that Mexican immigration has been of a greater scale, has been of this nature at a greater volume and for longer.

02:33:33.000 Whereas European immigration.

02:33:35.000 Please, you have different times of immigration with Europeans, different waves, so to speak, where it tends to rise and then it tends to fall. 1.00

02:33:43.000 With Mexican immigration, please, Stephen, you cannot control yourself here. 1.00

02:33:48.000 Because you keep naming a whole bunch of untruths and then you throw me a conclusion at the end. 1.00

02:33:52.000 And it has been persistent for a long time.

02:33:55.000 And the last point, finally, finally, the last point is the historical presence.

02:33:59.000 Hispanics, Mexicans occupied the southwestern portion of the United States before us.

02:34:05.000 And because of that, many of them believe they have some kind of a claim to it.

02:34:08.000 So that inspires.

02:34:09.000 Regionalism, nationalism. 0.76

02:34:11.000 That is why the Mexican invasion of the country is much different than the European immigration.

02:34:16.000 But go ahead.

02:34:17.000 I'll send you the article.

02:34:18.000 I'll send you the article.

02:34:18.000 All right?

02:34:19.000 Yeah, I'm curious.

02:34:20.000 So in the 1900s, our population was 76 million people, and 3 million Italians immigrated to the United States in that time.

02:34:30.000 Your numbers don't match up that there are more Mexicans as a percentage of the population coming now than there were Italians back in the 1900s.

02:34:37.000 Stephen.

02:34:38.000 Yeah?

02:34:39.000 Again, it's six points.

02:34:41.000 They are all reciprocal.

02:34:42.000 They are all a part of each other.

02:34:44.000 It is the scale.

02:34:45.000 It is the precision.

02:34:46.000 So I can't attack your individual points and prove them to be untrue and then damage your conclusion?

02:34:50.000 That's not how you do an argument?

02:34:51.000 No, Stephen.

02:34:52.000 What I'm saying is that if you have, for example, mass immigration of Europeans in a given set of a few years, that is different than the same amount of immigration, actually more.

02:35:05.000 Actually, more immigration from Mexico for more years.

02:35:07.000 How is it more?

02:35:08.000 As a percentage of population?

02:35:09.000 Is it more now?

02:35:10.000 Again, tell me.

02:35:11.000 What was the number you just quoted?

02:35:12.000 How many?

02:35:13.000 Three million, and in what time?

02:35:14.000 Three million in the 1900s.

02:35:16.000 At 1900, our population was 76 million.

02:35:18.000 In the 1900s?

02:35:19.000 What year?

02:35:19.000 What do you mean?

02:35:20.000 It was, I think, 1900 to 1915.

02:35:23.000 So in 15 years, there were three million of one ethnic group.

02:35:27.000 In five years, there were eight million of one ethnic group.

02:35:30.000 In 2000 with Mexicans.

02:35:31.000 It's like you just quoted the numbers. 0.94

02:35:33.000 When the population was five times higher, Nick.

02:35:35.000 Can you get me the per capita numbers, buddy?

02:35:38.000 And not only that, not only do you get the per capita numbers.

02:35:40.000 Wait, can you get me the per capita numbers?

02:35:41.000 Yeah, I'm sending you the article.

02:35:41.000 Wrong, wrong.

02:35:43.000 You keep.

02:35:43.000 You keep coming up to me with this.

02:35:45.000 Oh, I don't. 0.99

02:35:46.000 And send me what your number is on the Italians.

02:35:48.000 It's very curious how you say, oh, it's 1900 to 1915.

02:35:52.000 Send me your numbers.

02:35:53.000 I'll send you mine right now.

02:35:55.000 There you go.

02:35:55.000 There's both of them right there.

02:35:56.000 Maybe you're smarter than Sam Huntington.

02:35:58.000 I would bet probably not.

02:36:00.000 I don't know who Sam Huntington is. 0.99

02:36:02.000 Another betrayal of your ignorance. 0.95

02:36:02.000 I'm sorry, Nick. 0.95

02:36:04.000 First, we don't know the 65th Immigration Act.

02:36:06.000 We don't know Sam.

02:36:07.000 It's just like maybe you're smarter than Sam Huntington.

02:36:09.000 There's all sorts of wacky stuff I had to look up for conspiracy.

02:36:11.000 Hey, you said it.

02:36:12.000 What is this website?

02:36:14.000 This is interesting.

02:36:15.000 I was just looking up history of Italian immigrants.

02:36:18.000 Maybe the numbers are wrong.

02:36:19.000 Mount Holyoke.edu.

02:36:21.000 Oh, this seems legitimate.

02:36:23.000 Yeah, I'm sure if people are looking at it.

02:36:26.000 I mean, you were linking me a Breitbart.com article earlier.

02:36:29.000 This is Friday.

02:36:29.000 I linked you to Foreign Policy Magazine, and you linked me to this.

02:36:33.000 Looks like it came out of here.

02:36:35.000 You linked me a Breitbart article earlier.

02:36:36.000 Nick, we didn't even finish that point because you're galloping, Nick, galloping so fast. 1.00

02:36:41.000 You couldn't show me anything about tuberculosis from normal immigrants. 1.00

02:36:44.000 Hold up. 1.00

02:36:45.000 Whatever happened to that?

02:36:46.000 Here we go.

02:36:48.000 It says between 1876 and 1930, out of 5 million immigrants who came to the United States, four fifths were from the South, representing such regions as Calabria, Campania.

02:36:57.000 I mean, all these Italian names here.

02:36:59.000 But so you're talking about between 1876 and 1930, 5 million immigrants came here.

02:37:06.000 Okay?

02:37:07.000 You have between 1965 and 2017, or let's do a comparable amount of time.

02:37:12.000 If that's, no, that would actually, excuse me, that's actually a shorter amount of time, and you've had more people.

02:37:18.000 So it just doesn't even stand.

02:37:19.000 Let's look at.

02:37:20.000 Let's look at this.

02:37:21.000 Nick, do you have the per capita numbers?

02:37:23.000 If you don't, we can move on.

02:37:24.000 That's okay.

02:37:24.000 I don't know what we're talking about right now.

02:37:26.000 I'm looking up the numbers here.

02:37:28.000 I'm doing a little super sleuthing.

02:37:29.000 You'll figure it out in a moment.

02:37:30.000 Oh, here we go.

02:37:31.000 Modern immigration wave brings 59 million people to the United States.

02:37:37.000 So let's do some math here.

02:37:38.000 Whoa, whoa, whoa.

02:37:39.000 59 million Mexicans?

02:37:41.000 59 million. 0.87

02:37:42.000 Okay, sure.

02:37:42.000 You're right.

02:37:43.000 Let's go to Pew Hispanic. 0.85

02:37:43.000 Let's see. 0.85

02:37:47.000 So we've got 59 million.

02:37:51.000 And let's find how many of these are Hispanic. 0.54

02:37:56.000 So we've got post 65 immigration wave reshapes America's racial and ethnic makeup. 0.93

02:38:04.000 So. 0.93

02:38:06.000 2015 without the immigration. 0.93

02:38:08.000 Wow, it would be 75% white. 1.00

02:38:11.000 Interesting. 0.91

02:38:12.000 Let's see.

02:38:13.000 You might not even be here, though, right?

02:38:14.000 Don't you have Hispanic grandparents?

02:38:16.000 Yeah, they're from the 1900s.

02:38:20.000 Does that make you a third or fourth generation immigrant?

02:38:22.000 How does that work? 1.00

02:38:23.000 You're hilarious, Slippery.

02:38:24.000 Well, you are, aren't you? 1.00

02:38:25.000 Wouldn't that make you a third or fourth immigration? 0.99

02:38:27.000 We've got. 0.68

02:38:29.000 Wait, could you answer that question?

02:38:30.000 Do you not consider yourself a third or fourth generation immigrant?

02:38:32.000 Yeah, but again, we reiterate the point that when my Mexican ancestors came here, it was a time when the majority of Immigration was European, and the majority of the country was European, and there was a national origins quota.

02:38:43.000 So, you're right, Slippery Steve. 0.55

02:38:44.000 We should return to the immigration policy that my ancestors came here under. 1.00

02:38:49.000 I agree with you. 0.98

02:38:49.000 I agree. 0.98

02:38:50.000 I was just curious.

02:38:50.000 So, we got.

02:38:51.000 So, it's 16.2 million Mexicans.

02:38:57.000 But, you know, I think Hispanics more broadly, because if you have Italians, there are many different ethnic groups within Italian.

02:39:03.000 Italians and nationality.

02:39:04.000 So, I think we have to include all Hispanics if we're going to be fair here. 1.00

02:39:10.000 Oh, slippery Nick. 1.00

02:39:11.000 So you're telling me that all the Central American Spanish countries, because they're all Hispanic, are going to be of similar culture, like well enough that they all come to the United States and somebody from.

02:39:20.000 I'm afraid you're losing faith in your own argument, but let's see.

02:39:22.000 I'm just.

02:39:22.000 Oh, I'm not.

02:39:23.000 This isn't even a big argument.

02:39:24.000 I was just curious because one of your 15 galloping points was that we experienced the biggest change in immigrants coming to the United States at one point in time.

02:39:34.000 I'm just curious if that was actually true.

02:39:35.000 Because when Italians came over, that was a massive percentage change in population of immigrants, and Italians immigrated just fine. 0.72

02:39:41.000 They immigrated just fine. 1.00

02:39:42.000 That was surprisingly slippery. 1.00

02:39:43.000 Steve, it looks like 10%, or no, I'm sorry, 9.4% was the proportion of Hispanic immigrants from the period of 65 to 2017. 0.87

02:39:55.000 9.4% of the U.S. population came here from the Latin world.

02:40:01.000 2.4% for Italians in the most comparable period.

02:40:06.000 And hey, let's say, let's do even Hispanics. 0.91

02:40:08.000 Then it would be. 0.91

02:40:09.000 Wait, can you send me this data, Nick?

02:40:10.000 I'm just curious.

02:40:11.000 I just want to see it.

02:40:12.000 Sure, I'll send it to you right now.

02:40:14.000 And then, even it would still be double, even if we're using your numbers there.

02:40:16.000 So, let's see.

02:40:23.000 I'm curious why you're using a 50 year time window now.

02:40:26.000 What's that?

02:40:28.000 I'm curious why you're using a 50 year window now, too, instead of like the.

02:40:31.000 Wasn't it like a 10 or 15 year window?

02:40:33.000 We have to use a comparable scale, don't we?

02:40:35.000 If you're talking about the Italian diaspora.

02:40:38.000 Because in what you sent me was 1876 to 1930, it was 3 million Italian immigrants.

02:40:42.000 That was the largest ethnic group that it's.

02:40:44.000 Whoa, I'm sorry.

02:40:45.000 What I'm reading is between 1900 and 1915, 3 million Italians immigrated to America.

02:40:52.000 Yeah, and you had, again, though, but that was one wave.

02:40:56.000 From 18, the whole point of my argument is that it's been persistent.

02:41:01.000 You've had waves in the past.

02:41:03.000 Oh, okay.

02:41:03.000 You say, ah, like that, like, do you not know how calculus works?

02:41:06.000 Do you not know how that works, that when you have a higher rate over a longer period of time, like, do you know how to do that math there?

02:41:14.000 So either it's a higher rate.

02:41:15.000 Yeah, I did.

02:41:15.000 I took integration in high school.

02:41:16.000 Thanks, numberless, Nick. 0.93

02:41:17.000 You have 5% of the population. 0.99

02:41:20.000 5% of the total population comes in, and that's Mexicans from this period since 1965.

02:41:26.000 9% if it's just Hispanics.

02:41:28.000 Italians is only 2.5% when you use your numbers.

02:41:31.000 So, you know, what are the.

02:41:32.000 Through that 50 year period, it might be.

02:41:33.000 I'm just curious because all I'm saying is that it seems like there's a lot of Italians and a lot of Irishmen that came over in conditions that you admitted were very similar to Mexicans.

02:41:42.000 They faced poor labor conditions.

02:41:44.000 I love the gush galloping.

02:41:46.000 No, but the difference is those people can assimilate.

02:41:50.000 They can assimilate for two reasons.

02:41:52.000 Number one.

02:41:53.000 You're Hispanic and you've assimilated, my dude. 1.00

02:41:55.000 Well, actually, I'm Castizo, so that's not entirely right. 0.97

02:41:58.000 You're 25% Hispanic, my dude. 0.99

02:42:01.000 You're assimilated.

02:42:02.000 You're a beautiful American.

02:42:04.000 Stephen, do you know what Castizo means?

02:42:05.000 I have a feeling you don't.

02:42:06.000 I have no idea.

02:42:07.000 I'm not going to lie.

02:42:08.000 I don't obsess over my racial background.

02:42:10.000 The 85 Immigration Act, Sam Huntington.

02:42:13.000 Buddy, you are not equipped for this conversation. 1.00

02:42:15.000 A Castizo is somebody from the Latin world who is descended from the Spanish. 0.98

02:42:19.000 Because as you know, Mexican is not a race.

02:42:21.000 Mexican is a nationality, right?

02:42:24.000 And so actually, the ethnic makeup of, or rather, the racial makeup of most Hispanics is.

02:42:24.000 Yes.

02:42:30.000 Some combination of Spanish.

02:42:31.000 So, you're telling me that Hispanic is not a descendant of the Spanish?

02:42:35.000 I'm saying Castizos are descended from the Spaniards.

02:42:35.000 No, no, no.

02:42:35.000 I'm saying there.

02:42:40.000 And there are Mestizos?

02:42:42.000 Oh, but Stephen, but there are Mestizos and there are Castizos.

02:42:45.000 If you knew what these words mean, I'm not going to bother explaining to you the. 0.98

02:42:50.000 You're laughing at your own ignorance. 0.85

02:42:52.000 Well, because it's like you're trying so hard to maintain your racial purity, which is beautiful. 0.54

02:42:56.000 This is the beauty of multiculturalism. 0.54

02:42:58.000 You have your whole argument to try to back up why you're white. 0.99

02:43:01.000 You would have been killed the same as any Jewish dude back in Hitler's day. 0.99

02:43:08.000 You're not up here fighting, dude. 0.99

02:43:17.000 You're not up here fighting.

02:43:23.000 You're making me laugh. 0.90

02:43:33.000 What we consider to be white, what we consider to be American, can grow and grow and grow and grow.

02:43:37.000 I'm going to call you inclusive, Nick, from now on.

02:43:39.000 I love that about you.

02:43:41.000 Well, that was a nice little deflection there, but I think we got away from the issue, which was the claim.

02:43:47.000 Again, I feel bad for the audience.

02:43:50.000 You're inflicting punishment on my audience in the sense that I lay out my argument, and then it's like I just never said anything at all. 0.84

02:43:57.000 I told you six reasons why Mexican immigration was different. 0.77

02:44:00.000 I did the math for you, and then you go on about, like, Hitler and racial. 0.84

02:44:05.000 I mean, it's just like.

02:44:05.000 Dude, you're not giving me anything, though, Nick.

02:44:07.000 All you're doing, Nick, all you're doing is.

02:44:09.000 I sent you two. 0.75

02:44:10.000 I sent you pure research on the way to racial.

02:44:12.000 You sent me two pictures, Nick.

02:44:13.000 What am I supposed to do with this?

02:44:15.000 Click on them.

02:44:16.000 They're links.

02:44:17.000 I can't believe that you're supposed to be a computer guy.

02:44:17.000 Click on them.

02:44:20.000 You're supposed to be like, and I don't know.

02:44:22.000 I mean, that's kind of your thing, right?

02:44:24.000 Is the computer.

02:44:25.000 And you're telling me it's pictures.

02:44:27.000 They're links, Steve.

02:44:28.000 And you've got to click on the links.

02:44:30.000 Okay, so numberless, Nick.

02:44:31.000 This is how your argument would go.

02:44:33.000 This is how you.

02:44:34.000 Nick, notice how I'm not shipping off links to you and asking.

02:44:38.000 Cast these, though.

02:44:39.000 I mean, like.

02:44:40.000 Notice how I'm not shipping you off 100 page documents and asking you to read them, right?

02:44:44.000 If you had this.

02:44:46.000 No, except for when you did earlier, right?

02:44:47.000 These are not 100 pages.

02:44:48.000 No, I never asked you to earlier.

02:44:49.000 You're the one that wanted to see the numbers because you didn't trust the data.

02:44:51.000 I asked you for one data point.

02:44:52.000 You couldn't give it to me.

02:44:54.000 Well, I kind of did, but you didn't like that particular one.

02:44:56.000 You wanted a different one. 0.83

02:44:57.000 I asked for something specific, and you gave me the Aryan. 1.00

02:44:57.000 No, no, no, no. 1.00

02:45:00.000 You asked me for a hyper specific singular crime analysis of a national stack. 1.00

02:45:05.000 I asked for the Hispanic rate of murder.

02:45:07.000 Is that hyper specific?

02:45:08.000 Specific, if that is, you know, maybe you, but only you wanted the national average Hispanic murder rate compared to the national average white homicide rate. 0.98

02:45:16.000 Let's try and rein it in here, okay? 0.91

02:45:18.000 Yeah, I'm totally reined in, Nick.

02:45:19.000 I just want to make sure that you're not misrepresenting what you're requesting to your audience.

02:45:22.000 I don't think you are.

02:45:23.000 We've been going at this for three hours.

02:45:26.000 Let's try and find a final maybe topic here.

02:45:29.000 Let's try and get to that.

02:45:29.000 Hold on.

02:45:30.000 I just wanted to talk real quick.

02:45:30.000 No, no.

02:45:31.000 I just wanted to show you if you wanted to make this argument, what would be really convincing. 0.81

02:45:35.000 So, your argument is Hispanics have a massively difficult time integrating into U.S. culture, that somehow they face some unique problem that wasn't faced by Italians, wasn't faced by Irishmen, or faced by any other type of European person that came over to this country to integrate.

02:45:51.000 And you failed to demonstrate that.

02:45:52.000 You've given me a little bit of conjecture from the samurai.

02:45:54.000 No, no, no, no.

02:45:55.000 Wait, wait.

02:45:55.000 Do you want me to give me a second?

02:45:56.000 I have that, though.

02:45:56.000 I have that.

02:45:57.000 You haven't given me any data showing you increased percentages of Hispanics failing to integrate because they're not what? 1.00

02:46:04.000 I have it right here.

02:46:06.000 Telling me I don't have something.

02:46:06.000 What is it?

02:46:07.000 Well, I just sent it to you.

02:46:09.000 The pictures got a click on it.

02:46:11.000 So I have to read these 300 words.

02:46:13.000 No, no, no.

02:46:14.000 I'll summarize it for you.

02:46:15.000 I summarized it once, and then you did the little Italian trap thing, and then I summarized it a second time. 0.94

02:46:22.000 But here we go. 0.98

02:46:23.000 Here we go.

02:46:25.000 And here, I'll even use your numbers, okay?

02:46:27.000 Let's do the numbers.

02:46:28.000 So, I told you the scale was greater and the persistence of it was greater.

02:46:33.000 And you said, oh, I don't deny that.

02:46:34.000 No, I don't deny that.

02:46:35.000 Sure.

02:46:36.000 Okay.

02:46:36.000 So, you said.

02:46:37.000 I was never arguing about that, but go ahead.

02:46:38.000 Thank you.

02:46:39.000 So, between 1876 and 1930, out of the 5 million immigrants that came to the United States, four fifths were from the South, and you have the 3 million that were from Italy.

02:46:49.000 Okay.

02:46:50.000 So, let's do a little math.

02:46:53.000 So, in that period of time, you had.

02:46:55.000 Wait, what are you answering right now?

02:46:56.000 What question are you answering?

02:46:58.000 Why Italian immigration is different than Mexican immigration? 0.95

02:47:00.000 Okay, so you're going to demonstrate to me why Hispanics won't be able to integrate. 1.00

02:47:04.000 Okay, correct. 1.00

02:47:05.000 Correct.

02:47:07.000 You have short term memory loss.

02:47:08.000 We just went over this.

02:47:09.000 Well, you talk for like 20 points every time you answer a question.

02:47:12.000 Just making sure we're on the same page.

02:47:12.000 Why?

02:47:14.000 We have 3 million Italian immigrants over the course of this time.

02:47:16.000 You divide that by 123 million people in 1930 in America.

02:47:21.000 That is 2.4% of the population that came over here.

02:47:24.000 Wait, they came from 1900 to 1915.

02:47:26.000 Why are we using 1930 now?

02:47:27.000 No, no, no.

02:47:28.000 If you actually read your own data, it says it right here.

02:47:32.000 Or, no, you're right, actually, between 1900 and 1950.

02:47:34.000 You're right.

02:47:35.000 So let's use the numbers from.

02:47:36.000 You're right.

02:47:37.000 No, good.

02:47:38.000 So let's look at 1915 total population.

02:47:38.000 You're right.

02:47:44.000 Okay, let's see.

02:47:47.000 Oh, whoops, I did total world population.

02:47:51.000 Total U.S. population, we have 106.

02:47:55.000 So we have 3 million divided by 106 million.

02:47:59.000 So we get a percentage of 2.8%.

02:48:03.000 So, 2.8% came in in that 15 year period.

02:48:10.000 So, would you agree with this?

02:48:11.000 If we take the 3 million and divide it by 15 so that we can get how many are coming in per year, would that be so that then we could use the same figure to compare to Mexican immigration?

02:48:21.000 Would that be useful? 0.80

02:48:23.000 I don't know what the point of all this is, Nick.

02:48:25.000 I'm not sure.

02:48:26.000 I'll show you.

02:48:26.000 I'm not sure.

02:48:27.000 I'm asking you to prove to me why Mexicans will have a more difficult time integrating. 0.99

02:48:30.000 You're just giving me numbers.

02:48:31.000 I don't know what this is.

02:48:32.000 We will do this.

02:48:32.000 I'll show you what I mean in a moment.

02:48:34.000 Okay.

02:48:35.000 So, yeah.

02:48:35.000 Okay.

02:48:36.000 200,000 Italians coming in a year on average between 1900 and 1950.

02:48:41.000 So you have 200,000, and the population was 106.

02:48:44.000 So that means that on average, every year between 1900 and 1915, 0.2% of the population is Italian immigrants entering.

02:48:53.000 Okay, so from 1965 to 2017, from 1965 to 2017, you have, let's see, from Mexico, you have 16.2 million.

02:49:06.000 Coming in.

02:49:07.000 So you have 16.2 divided by, what would that be, 252?

02:49:12.000 So you have 300,000 coming in every year.

02:49:17.000 So you have 300,000, 311,000 divided by, what's the population now?

02:49:24.000 300 and some, 310.

02:49:29.000 So then you get, let's see, you get the same number, actually.

02:49:33.000 You get the 1%.

02:49:35.000 So you have.

02:49:36.000 No, no, but here's, whoa, but wait for the best part, Stephen.

02:49:39.000 Wait for the best part.

02:49:40.000 All right.

02:49:40.000 Fumbling Fuentes, what do we got?

02:49:42.000 Fumbling.

02:49:43.000 I doubt it. 0.53

02:49:44.000 But the real number that we look at, because again, Mexican is one nationality in the same way that Italian is.

02:49:50.000 Because if you look and you're going to say Are you a basketball player?

02:49:53.000 Because you pivot very well.

02:49:54.000 What's the real number we're looking at?

02:49:55.000 Well, but let's look at your article so I can explain this.

02:49:58.000 It says who came to the United States and they represented regions such as Calabria, Campania, Abruzzi, Melis, Sicily.

02:50:06.000 These are all different regions.

02:50:08.000 Wait, hold on.

02:50:09.000 You're claiming that different regions of Italy are not homogenous, but different countries are homogenous?

02:50:14.000 Because Italy was unified in the 1860s.

02:50:17.000 So that was not.

02:50:17.000 Okay.

02:50:18.000 Now, just as a warning, don't tell somebody this. 1.00

02:50:21.000 If you find somebody from Puerto Rico and tell them they're the same as somebody from Mexico, you'll probably get the shit kicked out of you. 0.99

02:50:26.000 So be careful on that. 1.00

02:50:27.000 You're actually right about that.

02:50:29.000 Well, here, let's do.

02:50:30.000 You're right.

02:50:31.000 Fair enough.

02:50:32.000 So let's look at then the numbers for a comparable period.

02:50:35.000 Because I think you had 1965 to 1980.

02:50:40.000 It was just building up, the Mexican immigration. 0.96

02:50:42.000 So let's do the past 15 years in the United States. 0.98

02:50:48.000 Is that fair?

02:50:49.000 Because we did 1900 to 90.

02:50:50.000 You wouldn't let me do.

02:50:52.000 1870 to 1950 or 1930, because that didn't work for you.

02:50:56.000 Well, you can do it if you want.

02:50:58.000 I'm just curious why you think they can't integrate.

02:50:59.000 You can use whatever numbers you want.

02:51:01.000 Okay.

02:51:01.000 Yeah, sure.

02:51:01.000 Well, if I use that original example, which was from a comparable time period, from a comparable type of immigration, it's either double or quadruple, depending on which numbers you use, the amount of Mexicans or Hispanics entering the country in the same period, actually in a shorter period of time.

02:51:16.000 And the reason why can't they integrate? 0.88

02:51:18.000 And I'm telling you why.

02:51:19.000 Because when you have more of them, when you have more of them for a longer period of time, And when they concentrate in the same places and they concentrate in the same places and they have the same connection to their country or they have a greater connection to their country, which is contiguous to the United States, all of these factors produce a situation where people can't integrate. 0.56

02:51:40.000 And you say that's ridiculous.

02:51:41.000 Wait, wait, wait. 0.99

02:51:42.000 And you say that's ridiculous.

02:51:43.000 You say they can't, you know, these a priori factors of contiguity, of the scale, of the persistence, et cetera, et cetera, that Sam Huntington gives, you say that's not good enough.

02:51:55.000 Okay.

02:51:55.000 You need data.

02:51:56.000 Well, if you look at Italians, you look at the Italians that came over here, and although there were Italian neighborhoods in the 1960s, there aren't any Italian neighborhoods anymore, not in Chicago.

02:52:07.000 You don't think in New York City there aren't Italian communities, Nick?

02:52:11.000 Not to the same extent that there are Mexican communities.

02:52:14.000 Are you sure about that, Nick? 1.00

02:52:15.000 I'm 100% positive of that.

02:52:17.000 Okay.

02:52:17.000 Because I'm pretty sure the Italian mob was like the mafia was literally relevant not even 15 years ago.

02:52:23.000 They might even still be, I'm not sure of it.

02:52:24.000 And actually, the Chicago enclaves of Polish, of Italian, of et cetera, et cetera. 0.52

02:52:31.000 Have all been displaced by enclaves of Mexicans and they are not integrating. 0.90

02:52:34.000 They're actually, and here's another. 0.99

02:52:36.000 I need your evidence of integrating.

02:52:37.000 Here's a link right here.

02:52:38.000 Notice how speaking English proficiently is on the rise and speaking Spanish at home is decreasing.

02:52:43.000 English was the main.

02:52:44.000 It's on the rise. 1.00

02:52:45.000 Oh, well, I should have thought that.

02:52:46.000 That points to integration, Nick.

02:52:47.000 That points to increased integration.

02:52:49.000 No, wrong.

02:52:50.000 Again, not when you have the concentration, not when you have them in the same regions.

02:52:53.000 What are your numbers to back this up, Nick?

02:52:55.000 Sure.

02:52:56.000 Like I just gave you the number.

02:52:58.000 You're giving me numbers of immigrants. 0.97

02:52:59.000 These aren't speaking to the integration. 1.00

02:53:01.000 If you listen to the numbers I'm giving you, you'll hear the answers you want.

02:53:04.000 In 2000.

02:53:05.000 Two thirds of all Mexicans in the country were in the West.

02:53:09.000 50% of them are in Los Angeles.

02:53:11.000 That is not the case with any of the European groups that didn't assimilate.

02:53:15.000 There was not that kind of regional concentration like you see with Hispanics in the Southwest.

02:53:19.000 And a lot of that has to do with illegal immigration and also to some extent with legal immigration.

02:53:24.000 So you have that concentration.

02:53:27.000 You have more of them.

02:53:28.000 You have more of them for longer.

02:53:30.000 And in addition to that, you have this culture of immigration.

02:53:32.000 What about Ellis Island?

02:53:33.000 There were absolutely massive concentrations of immigrants. 0.84

02:53:36.000 But then they settled in the West. 0.98

02:53:36.000 Ellis Island, yeah. 0.98

02:53:38.000 And then they settled.

02:53:39.000 After a long period of time, do you think most of them had money to travel out West immediately? 0.96

02:53:44.000 Most of them congregated in the cities and made their ghettos there. 0.78

02:53:47.000 And they also weren't bordering their home country. 0.51

02:53:49.000 And they also were next to their home country.

02:53:50.000 But you haven't given me any reason why that happened.

02:53:52.000 Because they're bordering their home country.

02:53:54.000 Here's why. 0.82

02:53:54.000 Because they see themselves as an extension of Mexico. 0.82

02:53:58.000 Do you have any evidence of that, Nick?

02:54:00.000 Numberless, Nick.

02:54:00.000 You haven't given me any numbers to back your point up.

02:54:02.000 I don't have it.

02:54:03.000 Well, except for the fact that the West is being colonized.

02:54:03.000 You're right.

02:54:07.000 Except for the fact that two thirds of them.

02:54:08.000 Colonized how, Nick?

02:54:10.000 I just told you.

02:54:11.000 Two thirds of them choose to settle in the West, which is where they're not settling in the Northeast.

02:54:17.000 They're not settling in the Midwest.

02:54:19.000 If you look at where the U.S. population is.

02:54:22.000 To settle in the West is a choice that they make and they settle.

02:54:25.000 And you can look in Texas, you can look where they're settling. 0.90

02:54:28.000 And I can show you electoral maps from 2016 where the Hispanic vote was concentrated and there were a lot of Hispanics in Arizona, New Mexico. 0.93

02:54:28.000 They're settling. 0.93

02:54:36.000 I mean, you're taking things that are true, that everybody acknowledges. 0.99

02:54:40.000 The fact that LA is more than 50% Hispanic, the fact that New Mexico, Arizona, Texas is rapidly becoming Hispanic, and you say, I have to see the numbers in front of my face.

02:54:52.000 Which states are going Hispanic, Steve?

02:54:54.000 Is it California or is it Montana? 0.78

02:54:57.000 Is it California or is it New Hampshire?

02:54:59.000 Is it California or is it North Carolina?

02:55:01.000 You say, you know, Nick doesn't have the numbers.

02:55:04.000 I didn't think I needed to produce numbers to show you that Los Angeles and Texas and New Mexico are turning Hispanic, and that tends to be a problem because we took that land from them in the 1840s. 0.79

02:55:16.000 So that's why the doctor's question is. 0.65

02:55:18.000 The problem, Nick, is you still haven't made your argument at all.

02:55:20.000 You're doing really good with giving me all these numbers.

02:55:22.000 I'm asking you, what I'm asking you is, can you provide me evidence that Hispanics. 1.00

02:55:26.000 Are not integrating to American lifestyle. 1.00

02:55:29.000 All you're doing is saying all the Hispanics are going there, they're all going there, they're all going there.

02:55:32.000 But you haven't given me any evidence to say that they're not integrating.

02:55:36.000 Sure, there's evidence.

02:55:38.000 You go to where these Hispanic enclaves are, and the signs are in Spanish.

02:55:42.000 You go to the schools, and the signs are in Spanish. 0.97

02:55:44.000 That's all you've got for Hispanics, Nick.

02:55:45.000 Even though I can show you that the percentage of English speaking people in the Hispanic community is increasing, Nick, since we've got more and more of them.

02:55:52.000 It's definitely integrating when you have entire parts of.

02:56:00.000 You have bilingual schools.

02:56:02.000 You're giving me anecdotes.

02:56:03.000 Numberless Nick with the anecdotes.

02:56:04.000 No, it's not even anecdotes.

02:56:16.000 Yeah, I'm sure they did.

02:56:17.000 Italians and Irishmen, sure.

02:56:19.000 A lot of them didn't speak English.

02:56:21.000 What?

02:56:22.000 No, of course not. 1.00

02:56:23.000 Plenty of the Italians that came over didn't speak English, Nick. 0.99

02:56:32.000 Really, Nick?

02:56:33.000 You don't think there were any Italian communities where the people spoke Italian at the home, where they spoke Italian between all the kids in the school?

02:56:52.000 Well, it seems like Hispanics are adopting English in the United States as well.

02:56:57.000 Real quick, your mic went to your laptop.

02:56:59.000 Your mic went to your laptop.

02:57:00.000 You want to switch it back to your.

02:57:08.000 Are we back?

02:57:09.000 Okay, looks like we're back.

02:57:12.000 What was I just going to say?

02:57:15.000 So I just don't understand this case that you're making that we're bringing over these millions of people and they're going to start, like, they're going to assimilate, Steve?

02:57:15.000 Oh, yeah.

02:57:24.000 Do you think that's going to happen? 0.97

02:57:27.000 You think they're going to assimilate?

02:57:29.000 What capacity is.

02:57:32.000 So you see Los Angeles, and you see Los Angeles looking like.

02:57:36.000 You see Los Angeles transforming into a more like.

02:57:39.000 American type country, like a more European, like characteristically European type country in 50 years.

02:57:45.000 I don't want to be a European type anything.

02:57:47.000 I don't know what you mean by that. 1.00

02:57:48.000 But, like, see, that's what we want.

02:57:49.000 I mean, that's kind of the thing.

02:57:51.000 Then why not go move to Europe?

02:57:52.000 When you talk about assimilation, well, because I live in America, we want to preserve the America that we had that was.

02:57:57.000 America has never been about preservation.

02:57:59.000 Our culture has always been about forward movement.

02:58:02.000 That's how culture works.

02:58:02.000 That's incorrect.

02:58:04.000 What?

02:58:05.000 Culture is about forward.

02:58:06.000 No, no, no.

02:58:07.000 Yeah, of course.

02:58:08.000 No, wrong.

02:58:09.000 The culture of the country, and maybe it's been directed in that direction, but it's It's done so at the expense of things that we like.

02:58:15.000 The culture of this country.

02:58:16.000 The culture of this country.

02:58:17.000 Every single art form, if you look at painting, if you look at music, if you look at food, everything has been about adapting other people's ideas, improving on them, and then moving on.

02:58:26.000 That's how culture works.

02:58:27.000 You think these people coming here and bringing their culture is an improvement upon when they replace it?

02:58:32.000 Do you think it's an improvement upon when they replace it?

02:58:34.000 Have you ever been to a Taco Bell before, Nick?

02:58:37.000 Wow.

02:58:37.000 Yeah, sure.

02:58:38.000 They bring over food, they bring over art, they bring over music.

02:58:40.000 Yeah, sure.

02:58:41.000 You can.

02:58:42.000 That they bring over. 1.00

02:58:43.000 It's totally better than European stuff. 0.99

02:58:45.000 Did you approve of people like Marco Rubio or Rafael Cruz during the nomination process in the Republican primaries? 0.96

02:58:51.000 Those were brought over?

02:58:52.000 Yeah, they were brought over.

02:58:53.000 That was before I understood what was going on demographically.

02:58:56.000 Listen, Stephen, tell me, what do you think is the American culture?

02:59:02.000 Do you believe there is an American culture?

02:59:04.000 No, it's very, very different.

02:59:04.000 Definitely not.

02:59:05.000 You don't believe there's an American culture.

02:59:07.000 Oh, no, I mean, there it is.

02:59:08.000 If you don't believe in American culture.

02:59:09.000 Really?

02:59:10.000 Can you tell me what some of those common American values are?

02:59:12.000 I'm curious.

02:59:13.000 I will gladly share them with you.

02:59:16.000 Wait, can we hold on real quick?

02:59:17.000 I'm going to make a request.

02:59:18.000 Can we just do this one value at a time?

02:59:19.000 I know you've got like a 35 point dissertation on the values.

02:59:22.000 I just want to hear one.

02:59:23.000 Give me some American values.

02:59:24.000 There's one that you'll name that I'll probably agree with you on.

02:59:26.000 We can get that out of the way right now.

02:59:28.000 I honestly think a national language is good.

02:59:30.000 I wouldn't mind moving in that direction.

02:59:31.000 I think language is pretty good.

02:59:32.000 What do you think out of everything that existed from 1776 to 1965 without being changed by non European immigration, you think the one thing that is worth preserving is the national language?

02:59:44.000 English.

02:59:45.000 From what year to what year?

02:59:45.000 That's it.

02:59:47.000 From, okay.

02:59:48.000 The culture, well, you could go back even further.

02:59:50.000 The culture that prevailed from the time that we had our initial English settlements in 1607 until 1965, and it changed from 1900 to 65.

03:00:00.000 You realize that in the 1860s, we had an American Civil War.

03:00:03.000 You did? 1.00

03:00:04.000 Stephen, can I just ask you the question and then you can respond like an asshole? 1.00

03:00:08.000 Yeah, okay. 1.00

03:00:08.000 You want me to drop and then answer? 1.00

03:00:10.000 My bad.

03:00:11.000 Gallop and Nick, go ahead.

03:00:13.000 Great one.

03:00:14.000 So, 1607 to 1965, there is a consensus that we have an English inspired culture.

03:00:21.000 We are.

03:00:21.000 We are a settlement.

03:00:23.000 We were settlers from the UK.

03:00:26.000 We were settlers from Britain.

03:00:27.000 And so as a result, we had a culture, we had a country that was Anglo in characteristics from 1607 to 1965.

03:00:37.000 And some of these are you have the Christian religion, you have Protestant values and moralism, you have the Protestant work ethic, the English language, British traditions of law, justice, and limits of government, and the legacy of European art, literature, philosophy, and music.

03:00:49.000 This is what prevails, this is what predominates from 1607 to 1965.

03:00:54.000 You think.

03:00:55.000 That since we changed immigration laws and we're going to take away that core, that foundation of it, the only thing worth preserving out of all the things I just listed was the English language.

03:01:07.000 Is that what you believe?

03:01:08.000 I don't know.

03:01:09.000 I'm waiting for an answer to my question.

03:01:10.000 What do you consider as core American values?

03:01:12.000 I don't know what else.

03:01:14.000 Can you name one thing you just listened to?

03:01:16.000 The Protestant values.

03:01:17.000 Okay, so Christian religion? 0.99

03:01:19.000 Well, stop. 0.99

03:01:20.000 Christian religion?

03:01:21.000 You say you still ask a question.

03:01:22.000 I answered your question.

03:01:23.000 No, because I asked your question for what are some American values, and we can go through them.

03:01:27.000 You think that you have to be Christian to be American, that that's a core American value? 0.84

03:01:31.000 Yes, absolutely.

03:01:35.000 That was the consensus from 1607. 0.98

03:01:38.000 Look, maybe you're not a Christian now. 0.88

03:01:40.000 I'm saying it changed since then.

03:01:42.000 In 1965, the vast majority of people, like 95% of people in the country, were Christian.

03:01:48.000 Being Christian was the American character from 1776, or rather from 1607 to 1965. 0.91

03:01:54.000 You could be not Christian in the country, but you would be in the exception. 0.96

03:01:57.000 You would be the exception. 0.99

03:01:58.000 I'm not arguing with you about if the country was Christian or not. 0.93

03:02:01.000 I'm arguing with you about what you think should be core American values. 0.77

03:02:04.000 No, no, it's not what should be, it's what was and what should be preserved.

03:02:09.000 Okay, but those weren't even the core American values that should have been preserved.

03:02:13.000 Again, if we go back to the Constitution, exception.

03:02:15.000 Explicitly, no preference is given to any sort of state religion ever.

03:02:18.000 In fact, it's explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that Congress cannot recognize any religion.

03:02:23.000 Wrong.

03:02:24.000 You again.

03:02:24.000 Wrong.

03:02:25.000 Wrong how?

03:02:26.000 Because tell me where.

03:02:26.000 Here's why.

03:02:29.000 Well, you talk about religion.

03:02:31.000 Tell me in the Constitution where it says the words separation of church and state.

03:02:36.000 Produce that for me.

03:02:40.000 What's the point of this?

03:02:41.000 Produce for me in the Constitution where it says the words separation of church and state.

03:02:46.000 I'll wait for you.

03:02:47.000 I'll wait and I'm not going to hold my breath.

03:02:51.000 Okay.

03:02:52.000 Are you telling me that somewhere in the Constitution there is the recognition that Christianity is supposed to be the state religion or.

03:03:00.000 It's not about state religion.

03:03:02.000 That's the point.

03:03:03.000 Do you think culture is mandated by the state?

03:03:06.000 Is that what you believe?

03:03:08.000 Do you think, for example, that China.

03:03:09.000 Do you think that unless China had their Chinese characters in the Constitution of China that said these Chinese characters are Chinese, do you think otherwise they would not be Chinese characters?

03:03:21.000 I'm not Chinese.

03:03:22.000 I don't care about Chinese values.

03:03:24.000 And I never said anything about separation of church.

03:03:27.000 What I'm asking you is.

03:03:28.000 My friend, from 1607 to 1965, the country is between 95 and 98% Christian.

03:03:36.000 For a long time, that was Protestant.

03:03:38.000 That is the American character.

03:03:41.000 What percentage of people in the 1700s owned a firearm?

03:03:47.000 It was probably pretty high, right?

03:03:48.000 Why did they write that into the Second Amendment if so many people owned a firearm, Nick?

03:03:53.000 This is a Fallacious argument.

03:03:55.000 Are you saying that?

03:03:56.000 Are you saying that?

03:03:56.000 Why it?

03:03:57.000 No, no, no, wrong.

03:03:58.000 You are saying that the only things that define a nation's culture are the things in the laws?

03:04:03.000 Do you believe that?

03:04:04.000 So, so wait, if if I were to tell you that like rock and roll music is American culture, would you say, uh, no, rock and roll isn't in the Constitution?

03:04:14.000 Are you that obtuse or are you disingenuous?

03:04:17.000 I mean, which is what I'm trying to figure out.

03:04:19.000 No, no, no, answer the question.

03:04:21.000 Rock and roll music, it's not in the Constitution.

03:04:23.000 How could it be American?

03:04:24.000 How could it be the American culture?

03:04:26.000 Protestantism, that's not American.

03:04:28.000 It's not in the Constitution.

03:04:29.000 Tell me, dopey, how you reconcile these two things, please.

03:04:32.000 And don't try and slip out of it. 0.54

03:04:34.000 I don't know.

03:04:35.000 What the real question is, you obfuscator, you disingenuous.

03:04:40.000 What is your end goal here?

03:04:40.000 What is your game?

03:04:42.000 You materialist.

03:04:43.000 What do you hope to achieve for this country?

03:04:45.000 You don't care about its culture.

03:04:47.000 You don't care about its traditions.

03:04:48.000 You don't care.

03:04:49.000 It seems like the only thing you care about is economic goods.

03:04:53.000 And I don't know.

03:04:53.000 I don't, maybe video.

03:04:54.000 I care very much about the core values that were set forth in our Constitution.

03:04:58.000 That's what I care about.

03:05:00.000 Things like what you'd find in the Bill of Rights, things like the separation of church and state, or I'm sorry, Congress not respecting the establishment of a religion or whatever, or things like freedom of the press, or things like the right to own a farm, or the way that our government is split up.

03:05:12.000 I like having a representative democracy.

03:05:13.000 Those were British traditions of law, justice, and limits of government.

03:05:16.000 Those were British in character.

03:05:18.000 Where do you think those came from?

03:05:19.000 Do you think those came from out of the sky?

03:05:21.000 Do you think those came from Africa or Russia or Turkey?

03:05:24.000 They came from Britain.

03:05:25.000 It was characteristic of the British.

03:05:26.000 They didn't come from Britain, Nick.

03:05:28.000 They came from the cultures that preceded Britain, Nick.

03:05:28.000 Of course.

03:05:30.000 All culture is derivative.

03:05:32.000 I'm sorry to break this for you, buddy. 0.94

03:05:35.000 Wait, so where did they get the Magna Carta?

03:05:37.000 Are you trying to tell me that, like, the.

03:05:40.000 Where did it come from them, if not from the British?

03:05:42.000 Tell me which people the British got the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution from.

03:05:47.000 Who inspired that, if not for the British?

03:05:49.000 Do you just not believe in people?

03:05:51.000 Do you not believe in nation?

03:05:53.000 Do you not understand that all culture is influenced by the culture that preceded it?

03:05:57.000 What was the culture that preceded the Magna Carta?

03:05:59.000 I can't name it specifically, but I'm willing to bet that if I were to go and research it, that it was probably inspired by prior government.

03:06:05.000 You're telling me that these people, completely of their own fucking mind, were like, we're going to make something up that's never been done before with no influences, no anything else. 0.61

03:06:13.000 Yeah, they took from, ultimately, they took from the Romans, they took from the Greeks, and any of the. 0.98

03:06:17.000 Oh, the Romans and Greeks. 0.87

03:06:18.000 Those sound earlier.

03:06:19.000 And where did the Romans and Greeks get their ideas from?

03:06:22.000 But then the British created their own culture from it.

03:06:25.000 You know, you see that all culture.

03:06:26.000 From it.

03:06:27.000 So it is derivative, Nick.

03:06:29.000 We agree.

03:06:30.000 Okay.

03:06:31.000 Your culture comes from other people, Nick.

03:06:33.000 This is how all of.

03:06:34.000 If you study, if you take a class at your community college, if you study any art. 0.95

03:06:38.000 If you study music or painting or anything like that, you'll find that every single era of the Magna Carta is not British.

03:06:43.000 I like that you have argued, you have been forced into a position where you have to argue that the Magna Carta is not British.

03:06:49.000 You have to argue that the British settlements in North America were not.

03:06:56.000 I mean, like, what level of denial of clown world are you on that you're sitting here and telling me actually the settlers were inspired by the primitive tribes that roamed the plains of London before?

03:07:09.000 I mean, just like. 0.81

03:07:10.000 That's how it works.

03:07:11.000 That's just the beauty of civilization.

03:07:13.000 Now it builds off other people's minds.

03:07:14.000 Admittedly, you're full of it.

03:07:17.000 You say, like, you're this type of guy where you're the.

03:07:20.000 The Magna Carta isn't even an English word, Nick.

03:07:23.000 I mean, come on.

03:07:25.000 No, you're right.

03:07:26.000 The Magna, yeah.

03:07:26.000 You're right.

03:07:27.000 Magna Carta is in Latin, right?

03:07:30.000 So, therefore, it was not British.

03:07:32.000 And you saw a lot of Magna Carta's.

03:07:33.000 I didn't say it wasn't British, Nick.

03:07:35.000 I didn't say it wasn't British.

03:07:36.000 Why are you saying it didn't?

03:07:38.000 Draw man and fuentus.

03:07:39.000 Okay, so, Steven.

03:07:40.000 I didn't. 0.96

03:07:41.000 Tell me how our government was not British in its tradition of law.

03:07:45.000 I'm not saying that the government wasn't British.

03:07:47.000 I'm saying that culture changes over time, that we expand upon it.

03:07:51.000 Our government includes within it a process to change the government, knowing that it would change as time went on.

03:07:56.000 You're moving the goalposts.

03:07:58.000 Let me restate my very original position.

03:07:58.000 I'm sorry.

03:08:01.000 I wasn't moving any goalposts.

03:08:02.000 All I asked you is what are some core American values?

03:08:06.000 You've named values from the 1700s that have changed.

03:08:09.000 So clearly, those weren't core American values.

03:08:11.000 Wrong.

03:08:12.000 If you had two years, you know, it's so funny to me.

03:08:14.000 God gave you two years.

03:08:15.000 And one mouth, but I guess you're.

03:08:18.000 I think I've been listening twice as long as I've spoken during this conversation.

03:08:22.000 That big old mouth there.

03:08:23.000 So, as I said before, the core American values from 1776 to 1776.

03:08:29.000 I want to know the core American values now that you want to preserve, Nick.

03:08:31.000 Oh, I don't think they were in the 1700s.

03:08:33.000 Yeah, what are they now?

03:08:34.000 No, but Stephen, the problem is they're going away, and we need to preserve them.

03:08:39.000 Tell me some that you would like to preserve. 0.94

03:08:40.000 I don't care about the atheist.

03:08:41.000 We want to preserve the Christian religion, we want to preserve Protestant values and moralism.

03:08:48.000 I mean, a number of Americans, I mean, that's not anywhere in the intrinsic idea of what it is to be an American, that you have to be Christian.

03:08:48.000 Go ahead.

03:08:55.000 Of course.

03:08:56.000 That this is some part that's inseparable.

03:08:57.000 You can respect every part of the Constitution and every part of what it means to be an American without believing in a God.

03:09:03.000 You're a legalist, is fundamental.

03:09:05.000 Your proposition is that all that it means to be an American is what's in the Constitution.

03:09:12.000 It's not our ancestors.

03:09:13.000 It's not what our ancestors practiced.

03:09:15.000 It's not what our ancestors wrote.

03:09:17.000 It's not what our ancestors created.

03:09:19.000 It's this law.

03:09:20.000 It's the law.

03:09:21.000 It's the natural law that came out of nowhere.

03:09:25.000 The natural law that we got that has nothing to do with religion, the very concept of a Constitution.

03:09:30.000 The natural law is not anything that we're Talking about right now.

03:09:33.000 Of course it is.

03:09:33.000 That's what the Constitution is.

03:09:37.000 No.

03:09:37.000 Don't be.

03:09:38.000 Yeah.

03:09:39.000 Do you know what the Constitution is?

03:09:42.000 Why have they taught you this?

03:09:43.000 The document of the United States?

03:09:45.000 Tell me, Nick.

03:09:45.000 I don't know, Nick.

03:09:46.000 Do you think it's a simple charter or do you not understand the significance of it?

03:09:50.000 The significance of which part, Nick?

03:09:52.000 The point that the Constitution is supposed to be God given rights enshrined by law.

03:09:58.000 This is in the Declaration of Independence.

03:09:59.000 You're wrong, Nick.

03:10:00.000 It is in the Declaration of Independence.

03:10:02.000 Very specifically in the Declaration of Independence, they denote. 0.84

03:10:05.000 That everybody is endowed by their creator, not our creator, not the creator, not Yahweh, not the Christian God.

03:10:13.000 They very specifically, Nick, oh, you probably don't want to cite this document.

03:10:17.000 They very specifically said endowed by their creator.

03:10:20.000 Yes.

03:10:20.000 The idea was that your rights came from something greater than government.

03:10:24.000 Yes, that's the point.

03:10:25.000 If you're an atheist, where does it come from?

03:10:28.000 It can come from something greater than government, it can come from the intrinsic property.

03:10:31.000 I'm sorry.

03:10:32.000 How could you, for being a foe, your name called Nick, you better watch out there?

03:10:36.000 Because you say that the Constitution is not natural law.

03:10:40.000 But then you say, actually, it is.

03:10:42.000 But then you say, actually, it's got nothing to do with God.

03:10:44.000 But then you say, it's something other than government.

03:10:46.000 Tell me, what is it?

03:10:48.000 Where do our rights come from, Stephen, if not from man?

03:10:50.000 Where else could they come from?

03:10:51.000 Where did the Jesus come from?

03:10:52.000 The idea is that your rights come from something greater than government.

03:10:55.000 Now, what does it come from?

03:10:58.000 That's up to their creator, up to every individual person, Nick.

03:11:01.000 Wrong answer.

03:11:02.000 Really?

03:11:03.000 Then why didn't they specify Yahweh?

03:11:05.000 Why didn't they specify Christian God, Nick? 0.61

03:11:08.000 The whole point is about, well, because they were all Protestants.

03:11:11.000 They were 98% Protestants.

03:11:12.000 Oh, a lot of the founding fathers were deists, Nick.

03:11:15.000 That's why Jefferson wrote a whole version of the Bible that stripped all of the mysticism out of it.

03:11:20.000 Don't try to reframe history, Nick.

03:11:22.000 You can read the book of Dishonest by Joshua Charles.

03:11:25.000 You gotta read it, Nick.

03:11:27.000 They very specifically in the Declaration of Independence say their creator, endowed by their creator, Nick.

03:11:32.000 If you're not going to be honest, I think we've been at this for the last 15 minutes.

03:11:36.000 You're lying about what America was founded as.

03:11:38.000 Thank you.

03:11:39.000 This hurts, Nick.

03:11:40.000 Thank you so much for coming on, Steve.

03:11:41.000 Thank you so much.

03:11:44.000 You know, it's just gone to the point where you are not trying to hear my arguments.

03:11:49.000 You're not trying, and I don't think you're being honest about them.

03:11:51.000 You're not trying to be honest.

03:11:53.000 Nick, you're making arguments of conspiracy that a constitution that doesn't specify any Christian God is supposed to mean that we're always.

03:12:00.000 You're trying to.

03:12:02.000 Here's what you're doing.

03:12:03.000 You're not taking what I'm saying and interpreting it in the way that you know I mean it.

03:12:09.000 You're being dishonest.

03:12:10.000 You're straw manning me. 0.85

03:12:12.000 You're talking over me.

03:12:13.000 It's become very contentious.

03:12:14.000 It's come to the point where it's just not productive.

03:12:15.000 I mean, we started out.

03:12:17.000 Pretty nicely going from topic to topic.

03:12:19.000 And then we ended up at a point where, I don't know, it's become some kind of a pissing contest.

03:12:24.000 I'm not interested in that.

03:12:26.000 So it's unfortunate.

03:12:27.000 We had a productive conversation the first time.

03:12:29.000 It looks like, you know, and I've been hearing from people that you've been on Twitch, like obsessing over this and pouring over the debate and finding like sources to try and prove me wrong.

03:12:40.000 And it's clearly like this personal vendetta.

03:12:42.000 It's become not about the truth anymore.

03:12:44.000 It's become not about what's right.

03:12:46.000 It's become not what's about what's best for the country.

03:12:50.000 And so we're going to have to call the quits here.

03:12:54.000 I tried.

03:12:54.000 I tried to hear you out.

03:12:56.000 I tried to analyze your data, and then you got mad at me.

03:12:59.000 And then you said, Oh, so sources don't mean anything to you?

03:13:03.000 I said, Look at the nuances of your data.

03:13:06.000 I said, Look at the nuances of the poll that you offered from the beginning.

03:13:10.000 And you said, Actually, you don't believe in sources at all if you find trouble with my statistics.

03:13:17.000 So I think we're going to have to call it a night.

03:13:20.000 Sorry it had to turn out this way, but thanks for coming on, I suppose.

03:13:23.000 Thanks for being a not so good sport.

03:13:28.000 That's the end of Stephen Bonnell.

03:13:28.000 All right, bye bye.

03:13:31.000 I don't know. 0.99

03:13:32.000 It was a shitshow, to be honest. 0.94

03:13:34.000 And I'm not going to lie, I muted him towards the end there. 0.94

03:13:39.000 What can you say?

03:13:40.000 What can you say?

03:13:41.000 You try and have on a person to have a conversation.

03:13:44.000 I came prepared with my sources.

03:13:46.000 I came prepared with Sam Huntington, with Edmund Burke, with Jacques Rousseau.

03:13:49.000 I mean, that just wasn't good enough.

03:13:52.000 He wanted that I concede his numbers and the way he interpreted them and everything else.

03:13:58.000 So that's unfortunate.

03:13:59.000 It's some kind of little man syndrome going on there.

03:14:03.000 But there it is.

03:14:03.000 It was fun.

03:14:04.000 Hopefully, it was educational.

03:14:05.000 I'm sure people learned a lot more about the immigration thing.

03:14:07.000 I will say that beyond the fact that maybe we couldn't come to a common ground, maybe it wasn't so constructive, and that we changed each other's minds, I think people that were listening to this, for better or for worse, I think they learned the data.

03:14:19.000 They learned about data, they learned about the tradition and all these different things, these two different ideas.

03:14:25.000 So that was a good thing.

03:14:25.000 And you know what?

03:14:26.000 People are going to think what they're going to think, people are going to take from it what they think is right.

03:14:32.000 But there it is.

03:14:33.000 Fun time.

03:14:33.000 Fun time had by all.

03:14:35.000 Thank you to everybody that joined us.

03:14:37.000 About 1,000 people tuning in at any given time.

03:14:40.000 And I guess thanks to Steven for coming on.

03:14:42.000 I mean, he challenged me to the rematch.

03:14:44.000 So, you know, I've never heard a winner challenge someone to rematch, but it looks like it didn't go so hot.

03:14:48.000 It didn't go his way.

03:14:49.000 Started to hear his statistics getting shot down, and he didn't want to hear that.

03:14:52.000 But that's going to be it for us tonight.

03:14:56.000 And wow, what an episode.

03:14:57.000 What an episode.

03:14:58.000 I'm tired.

03:14:58.000 It's 10 o'clock.

03:14:59.000 I'm tired.

03:15:00.000 I'm a little sweaty.

03:15:01.000 Not so sweaty, but just a little bit warm here because I'm getting a little heated.

03:15:04.000 About my American tradition, but that's going to do it for us tonight.

03:15:04.000 About.

03:15:07.000 I'm exhausted.

03:15:08.000 I got to go upstairs, drink a little water, maybe order the Nick from Domino's.

03:15:12.000 Remember that?

03:15:14.000 But that's going to do it for us tonight.

03:15:16.000 Please subscribe, click the like, click the notification button so you can get the latest for when we're going live, when we're doing the show.

03:15:24.000 Follow me down below.

03:15:25.000 We're on Twitter at Nick J. Fuentes, Facebook.comslash Nick J. Fuentes.

03:15:28.000 All my PayPal, et cetera, is down there.

03:15:31.000 If you want to help me out for having to go through all that, for being a crusader, Against these people.

03:15:37.000 It didn't go as well as I planned, but that was an endurance contest.

03:15:40.000 I'm not going to say that was a flawless victory like the last one.

03:15:43.000 I think in the beginning, I mean, it was going very well, but once it fell off, it was off.

03:15:47.000 And I'm not going to pretend like that was a wonderful performance, but difficult.

03:15:52.000 Difficult stuff when you're arguing with someone who's not arguing in good faith.

03:15:55.000 But hopefully you enjoyed.

03:15:56.000 Hopefully you enjoyed.

03:15:57.000 Please subscribe to us, it helps us out.

03:15:59.000 And we're on the air Monday through Friday, 7 p.m. Central, 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

03:16:03.000 I'm Nicholas J. Fuentes.

03:16:04.000 This was America First.

03:16:06.000 The rematch with destiny immigration debate.

03:16:09.000 Hope you had fun.

03:16:09.000 If you didn't, you know, maybe you learned something.

03:16:13.000 But we'll catch you tomorrow.

03:16:14.000 Have a great rest of your evening.

03:16:16.000 And thanks for the super chats.

03:16:17.000 Thanks for all that.

03:16:19.000 We will catch you tomorrow.

03:16:19.000 In the meantime, have a great evening.

03:16:25.000 Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

03:16:31.000 It's going to be only America first.

03:16:36.000 America first. 0.99

03:16:41.000 The American people will come first once again. 1.00

03:17:05.000 It's going to be only America first. 0.99

03:17:08.000 America first. 0.98

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - November 08, 2017

A Rematch with Destiny | America First Ep. 49

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript