00:02:18.000So, 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.
00:02:26.000The 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.
00:02:32.000You 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.
00:02:53.000You can tell me if this is fair or not or if you would amend it.
00:02:56.000The will of the American people was not represented when Congress voted on the 1965 Hartzeller Act.
00:03:01.000This immigration reform fundamentally changed the composition of America, and most people would have been opposed to that had that information been made public.
00:03:08.000One may go as far as to say that this move was actually subversive and that the will of the people was intentionally betrayed.
00:03:18.000So, I did a lot of digging around for this because I was just kind of curious if this was actually true or not.
00:03:23.000And I guess, not much to my surprise, I really couldn't find any evidence of this at all.
00:03:28.000I looked at some polling data at the time.
00:03:30.000I 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.
00:03:39.000And I think it just kind of happened accidentally.
00:03:41.000I don't think anybody actually knew how much the composition of America would change in regards to the Hart Seller Act passing.
00:03:46.000If I say anything you disagree with, feel free to stop me.
00:03:48.000So, 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.
00:04:03.000So, 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.
00:04:12.000As I mentioned before, when we talked about this last time, the bill actually had widespread bipartisan support.
00:04:16.00074% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans supported this bill.
00:04:21.000And 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.
00:04:38.000So 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?
00:04:57.000You know, nothing wrong with the data.
00:04:59.000The problem is, I don't think the data contradicts my claim, and I think your summary was a little bit off.
00:05:04.000You 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.
00:05:13.000I 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.
00:05:26.000So those two things I don't think are.
00:05:30.000To 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.
00:05:44.000You 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.
00:06:13.000And 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.
00:06:23.000So I said, purely speculatively, that it was a conspiracy.
00:06:26.000But 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.
00:06:34.000I mean, you yourself said in the first debate that you hadn't heard of the.
00:06:38.00065 Immigration Act or what it entailed.
00:06:40.000My 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.
00:06:50.000I 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.
00:06:57.000So 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.
00:07:09.000If you really are, and again, this is a major, important thing happening, it should have been a referendum in an election.
00:07:22.000Firstly, 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.
00:07:29.000I guess primarily, you keep going back to this.
00:07:31.000It 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.
00:07:37.000That's just your personal belief, right?
00:08:11.000Yeah, and of course, I concede the data.
00:08:14.000But again, you have these two polls, and.
00:08:18.000We have the mood of the time of the 1960s.
00:08:20.000I 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?
00:08:40.000Do 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?
00:08:49.000By politicians, you had people running on the platform of segregation now, segregation forever.
00:08:54.000Do you think that people would have been for that?
00:08:58.000Maybe, maybe not, but that's a fundamentally different question.
00:09:01.000Okay, but see, you say maybe, maybe not, but again, I think you're being a little bit intellectually dishonest.
00:09:05.000So 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.
00:09:14.000Do you think the will of the people was represented?
00:09:45.000But 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.
00:09:52.000As 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.
00:10:02.000So, 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.
00:10:09.000So, 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.
00:10:19.000I think that points pretty concretely that it was kind of an accident, that the congressman didn't actually know how it would turn out.
00:10:24.000Unless you have any evidence to the contrary that people did know and were being deliberately misrepresentative.
00:10:30.000I didn't say that there was, I knew of a conspiracy or there was evidence.
00:10:34.000I said there was evidence that there have been conspiracies in the past.
00:10:37.000There have been deliberate attempts in the past to mislead and deceive people into, excuse me, accepting massive amounts of immigrants for metapolitical ends.
00:10:46.000And I cited the Hooten Plan and the Kalergi Plan, and people can look those up.
00:10:49.000So, yeah, so actually, I actually, I did look those up.
00:10:52.000So the Hooten Plan wasn't done by a politician, it was just an anthropologist that, like, wrote an article, an editorial for a newspaper.
00:10:58.000The Houghton Plan was never anything that was done or advocated for by any politician whatsoever.
00:11:02.000This 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.
00:11:07.000It 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.
00:11:16.000And it basically had to do with helping to take Germany out of their crazy nationalistic Hitler era or whatever.
00:11:30.000I 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.
00:11:37.000But this guy wasn't an influential politician.
00:12:29.000So, the clergy and the Hooten plan, the point is, I'm not saying they were implemented.
00:12:32.000I'm not saying they were exercising levers of government.
00:12:34.000What 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.
00:12:47.000It'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.
00:12:57.000We can do baseless speculation all day.
00:12:58.000People speculated the moon landing was fake.
00:13:36.000I'm arguing that these intellectuals had this idea.
00:13:39.000They 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.
00:13:48.000And I'm saying, if we are to speculate that, People could have understood the ramifications of this policy.
00:13:54.000And it's quite clear if you read the actual text of the bill, what would result from it.
00:13:59.000I think it is fair to say there is a chance.
00:14:02.000And I'm not saying it's a non zero chance.
00:15:24.000You 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.
00:15:32.000But his idea was that he wanted to breed the extremism out of the German people.
00:16:16.000People 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.
00:16:30.000And I'm saying, again, I said there's a non zero chance that that happened.
00:16:34.000And 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.
00:16:44.000And so, and again, I'm being generous in saying, Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
00:16:49.000However, there is a non zero chance because you look at the provisions of the bill.
00:16:53.000They must have understood this was the consequence.
00:16:55.000And 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.
00:17:07.000And 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.
00:17:22.000And again, not to get into conspiracy theories, but that is one point of it.
00:17:26.000That was one point about it made in passing.
00:17:33.000But 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.
00:17:42.000My point is they transformed the country.
00:18:06.000So, your data, the poll, as I understand it, that you read to me, you quoted that people prefer certain peoples of certain nations.
00:18:11.000That doesn't mean that they don't want those other people at all.
00:18:14.000Actually, it says, which places would you least like to see?
00:18:18.000And it's Asia, Middle East, Mexico, Latin America.
00:18:22.000Why 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?
00:18:29.000Again, you are arguing that people should have done more.
00:18:33.000I'm arguing that our government's job is to represent us.
00:18:59.000You have two very ambiguous polls that say people don't care about national origin.
00:19:03.000And I have a poll that says actually that is completely incorrect.
00:19:06.000So 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.
00:19:30.000Your poll is not relevant to this question.
00:19:32.000The question is if you were to ask people, let me put it this way, okay?
00:19:36.000Let's say that I were to ask, what is your most preferred trait in a woman?
00:19:39.000And you list five things, and the fourth thing you list is, I wish that she had blonde hair.
00:19:43.000And then I were to do a separate poll of people, and I were to go, Look, 95% of people prefer brunettes over blonde people.
00:19:49.000You 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.
00:20:01.000The question we're asking right now isn't, The question isn't which countries did people prefer people to come from.
00:20:06.000The question is, Did we want to prevent people from coming from certain countries?
00:20:10.000And you cannot sufficiently demonstrate that we wanted to restrict immigration based on national origin, which is the exact question both of my folks address.
00:20:17.000It says those are the people that they don't want in the country.
00:20:21.000I 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.
00:20:41.000Well, in the 1965 Immigration Act, we were lied about that, what it.
00:20:46.000People said they supported it and they expected they'd be getting Canadians and Scandinavians and Germans and they got Mexicans and Asians.
00:23:02.000You'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.
00:23:19.000We can't move past the polling question.
00:23:21.000So your poll is presupposing the question that we mean to ask, right?
00:23:25.000The question we're asking is should nationality be an important determining factor on whether or not people move here?
00:23:31.000For that question, I have overwhelming support from Congress that voted on both halves, and I have polling data that shows that.
00:23:39.000You 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.
00:23:49.000How do you think that this polling data is supporting your argument?
00:23:52.000Because, again, you have one poll, which I don't even know, I doubt the veracity of that poll because, again, you're asking people.
00:24:05.000But again, you're asking people if they care about national origin.
00:24:10.000And again, you see this effect with polling in general.
00:24:14.000You have an effect of shyness in polling.
00:24:16.000And 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.
00:24:26.000I don't believe you're being intellectually honest there.
00:24:28.000I mean, and why did they vote the way they did?
00:24:32.000Oh, or did the Congress vote for that?
00:24:34.000I think the Congress voting for cheap labor to come in the country.
00:24:38.000Is 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.
00:24:50.000So, you know, you keep bringing up, I have a consensus from Congress.
00:24:53.000A consensus from Congress doesn't mean anything.
00:24:55.00099 senators votes for $3.8 billion a year in aid to Israel.
00:25:00.000Do you think there's a 99% consensus in America or do you think AIPAC controls the politicians in the same way?
00:25:33.000Wait, did you not just say that you're.
00:25:34.000Oh, you don't trust my poll from Gallup and Harris.
00:25:37.000Again, it's not the source, it's the question.
00:25:41.000Instead 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.
00:25:52.000I mean, you had people who cared if blacks and whites were in the same school.
00:25:55.000You think they didn't care about who was entering the country if they were from Africa or Mexico or Asia?
00:26:00.000And they say they obviously prefer some groups more than others?
00:26:16.000Why didn't you find polling data that shows that Americans really cared about origin of nationality or nationality of origin?
00:26:24.000If you can find that information, then we can talk about this.
00:26:26.000But right now, all you're giving me is a poll that presupposes the question.
00:26:29.000Again, 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?
00:26:37.000And then taking whatever answer that is and saying, well, this is the most important thing.
00:26:45.000If we could choose which nation people come from, who would you prefer?
00:26:48.000Of 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.
00:27:08.000I am going to explain to you exactly why you are wrong and why you are being intellectually dishonest.
00:27:12.000You look at the period of time, you look at the 1960s.
00:27:15.000We 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.
00:27:27.000You had opposition to ending segregation in schools, in buses, at lunch countertops, in voting, and on and on and on.
00:27:35.000And 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.
00:27:46.000Your 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?
00:28:13.000Before I read you that, you realize it.
00:28:16.000I mean, I may change my mind if you read me the exact wording of it.
00:28:20.000One 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.
00:28:28.000Would you be in favor of such a change in the immigration laws, or do you think a country quota system is right?
00:30:59.000You 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.
00:31:14.000Again, if you want, and let me ask you something.
00:31:17.000If 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%?
00:31:34.000Could 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?
00:31:43.000Would 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?
00:31:53.000I mean, that is just intellectually dishonest.
00:31:58.000Okay, 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.
00:32:09.000So, 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.
00:32:37.000If 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%.
00:33:19.000We can, there are the 36% that say that they want to change it from national origin to working qualifications or skills, right?
00:33:27.000Okay, 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.
00:35:18.000And you're trying to say that because the country believed something for a long time that couldn't change.
00:35:23.000So 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.
00:35:28.000People believed it for hundreds of years.
00:35:30.000That argument is another non sequitur.
00:35:36.000What 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?
00:35:45.000I'm saying you have a system in place, an institution in place.
00:35:50.000You 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.
00:38:05.000How 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?
00:38:53.000That 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.
00:39:04.000He said, number one, it wouldn't change us from being a white nation.
00:39:07.000And number two, you wouldn't see floods of immigrants.
00:39:34.000It 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.
00:39:54.000I have bipartisan support in Congress that supports the.
00:39:57.000Bill, 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.
00:40:07.000So, very clearly, the will of the American people was represented.
00:40:31.000About the actual change that's occurring.
00:40:33.000And here, let's see, and please allow me to finish here.
00:40:37.000Listen to me and respond honestly because I cannot see how anybody watching this can continue to believe you who is distorting my arguments.
00:40:47.000One 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.
00:40:55.000Would you be in favor of such a change in the immigration laws or do you think a country quota system is right?
00:41:02.000Provision, 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.
00:41:26.000The negotiated end to Japanese immigration in 1908, the 1917 law, which made all immigration from Asia illegal.
00:41:34.000And immigration limits in 1921 and 24 based on national origin.
00:41:37.000So 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.
00:41:46.000And the people that support that here, let me pull it up here 36% say they support that change.
00:41:53.00029% say they want to keep the old system.
00:42:06.000If 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.
00:42:32.000You can have a bipartisan support in the Congress that supports this, and that represents the will of the Congress.
00:42:38.000But 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?
00:42:52.000If 36% of people say, like, oh, I don't know, we want to invade China tomorrow, people would say that's ridiculous.
00:43:35.000I'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.
00:44:26.000You kept saying that it would put it up to a vote with the will of the people represented.
00:44:29.000If 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.
00:44:34.000I 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.
00:44:43.000I want to ask you a very specific question, okay?
00:44:45.000If we were to put this up to a popular vote, like you would have wanted, okay?
00:45:41.000Do you know what kind of process has to be undertaken to get a constitutional amendment?
00:45:47.000You have to have the will of the people.
00:45:48.000You 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.
00:45:54.000I mean, Depending on how you want to go about it.
00:45:56.000But 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.
00:46:04.000And 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.
00:48:43.000Because 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.
00:48:53.000The vast majority of people were descended from either slaves or settlers that were in this country in 1790.
00:48:59.000That is a little something called the social contract.
00:49:07.000They 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.
00:49:18.000So the people in 1965 had a choice of what they wanted to do with their civilization.
00:49:26.000In 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.
00:49:36.000And that's part of the problem with mass immigration.
00:49:38.000That gets to the heart of the argument.
00:49:40.000So you try and compare and contrast, but it's a fundamentally different situation.
00:50:19.000And 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.
00:50:28.000No politician that voted on this ever had big blowback.
00:50:31.000Nobody in Congress suffered big blowback.
00:50:40.000Absolutely, because we didn't see it actualized until 2017.
00:50:45.000We didn't see it manifested until 2017.
00:50:47.000But 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.
00:50:59.000So you had resistance to this throughout the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s.
00:51:11.000No, 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?
00:51:16.000Well, as this has manifested, the blowback has only increased in intensity.
00:51:21.000You went from, well, it wasn't even represented in the 70s.
00:51:24.000The 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.
00:51:32.000You started to see opposition to this, I think, in the greatest incidents with Pat Buchanan in the early 70s.
00:52:05.000Let's say we have divine polling data.
00:52:07.00095% of American citizens already, record numbers, sign up for the draft and we do it.
00:52:10.000Let'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.
00:52:17.000And 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.
00:52:23.000And let's say at this point, 85% of people, or like 99% of people, are like, wow, the war was a big mistake.
00:52:28.000Would you argue that the will of the people wasn't represented initially when we went to war with North Korea?
00:52:34.000If 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.
00:52:46.000I would say then that would be a comparable analogy.
00:52:50.000What if the politicians and all the war generals genuinely believe.
00:52:59.000So 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.
00:53:06.000You're creating an analogy when we have data for what happened.
00:53:15.000You'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.
00:54:27.00070% of Americans approve it at the time.
00:54:31.00070% based on what they've heard about the bill, which was not true about the bill.
00:54:36.000When people were asked about the information.
00:54:40.000Here's where the distinction came, which you kept trying to talk over me, but 70% approve of what they hear of the bill.
00:54:47.000When people were asked about the provisions inside the bill and not what they heard, which was misleading, only 36% say they supported the change.
00:54:57.000And everybody else was either unsure, didn't know, Or they supported the precedent.
00:55:03.000I 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.
00:55:08.000How 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.
00:55:22.000If 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?
00:56:03.000And 15% say, I don't think there's any difference.
00:56:06.00029% 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.
00:56:17.000Now, in what's, and this is a silly analogy, but we simplify it so we can get to the logic of it.
00:56:22.000In 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?
00:57:06.000Wait, 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.
00:57:13.000Are like, I really want to go to the other one.
00:57:15.000Then, yeah, then most people would end up siding with the five because that's what they feel.
00:57:17.000Like, that example literally supports my point.
00:57:20.000If you know what works, if you know that this works and you're not sure about the other thing, you go with what works.
00:57:26.000And that is an ideological difference.
00:57:28.000I think that's why you're not getting it.
00:58:36.000You know, you're going to give me this kind of passive aggressive sarcastic thing.
00:58:39.000Here's the honest difference between our two positions.
00:58:42.000I believe that in 1965, when you overturn precedent, and we keep saying the same words, but it's so important.
00:58:51.000You 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.
00:59:00.000And if that is to change, you need a strong majority in favor of it.
00:59:05.000And I don't think Congress was representative of a majority.
00:59:12.000Because 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.
00:59:20.000If 51% said they supported it, I would say you were right.
00:59:28.000So 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.
01:00:59.000I guess, like, my problem is just that, like.
01:01:01.000You'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.
01:01:09.000But 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.
01:01:14.000Future information they might have changed.
01:01:16.000It just seems like a really ridiculous argument to make.
01:01:18.000It's a moral argument of what you keep trying, and this is, I guess, your.
01:01:24.000If we could get Spenglerian for a second, I suppose this is your Kantian sensibility as opposed to my Faustian sensibility.
01:01:32.000You 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.
01:01:41.000I'm saying, morally speaking, it was a great injustice that the U.S. Congress.
01:01:47.000Which is duly obligated to represent the will of the people, represent what the people want for their country.
01:01:52.000There was a gap between what the people wanted and what the Congress passed in law.
01:01:56.000And 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.
01:02:08.000We maybe, you know, non zero chance we were deceived.
01:02:11.000I'll concede there's no evidence we were deceived, but we were most certainly misled about what the result would be.
01:02:19.000I'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.
01:02:31.000Some 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.
01:02:42.000So, 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.
01:02:51.000And 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.
01:02:57.000I'm coming at this from Reflections on the Revolution in France and Edmund Burke.
01:03:01.000I mean, this is political philosophy stuff that there is precedent.
01:03:40.000Your argument was that the Founding Fathers wrote to ourselves and our posterity in the preamble of the Constitution.
01:03:46.000We 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.
01:03:53.000The Federalist Papers, number two John Jay writes, a people descended from the same ancestors speaking the same language.
01:03:58.000Professing the same religion attached to the same principles of government.
01:04:01.000It is clear from these statements that the Constitution was clearly designed to protect the European Christian people.
01:04:07.000Do you agree that's a fair summary of your original intent argument?
01:04:15.000I 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.
01:04:26.000I have your quote, I guess, from John Jay that he wrote in the Federalist Papers, number two.
01:04:31.000I'm just kind of curious as a non sequitur, and I mentioned this in our big one on five debate that we had.
01:04:36.000Do 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?
01:04:45.000It's not about ignoring things, it's a matter of degrees.
01:04:48.000And here, as a good counterpoint, I also did a little research from one of my favorite books.
01:05:00.000Great book, Who Are We by Sam Huntington.
01:05:02.000I recommend everybody read that on the subject.
01:05:04.000But here's a little table that he brought up.
01:05:06.000And I think this will answer this because I knew you were going to bring this up, and I constructed this officially for you.
01:05:11.000My 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.
01:05:19.000So, 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.
01:05:42.000To 1775, you had an ethnic, a racial, and a cultural identity, but not a political.
01:05:47.000From 1775 to 1940, you had an ethnic, a racial, cultural, and a political identity.
01:05:53.000So you had all four categories that Americans were united on from 75 to 1940.
01:05:59.000From 1940 to 1965, the ethnic component went away.
01:06:02.000And 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.
01:06:14.000From 1965 until 1990, the racial component went away.
01:06:18.000So you were left from 65 to 90 with just the cultural and political identity.
01:06:22.000From 90 to 2017, you just have the political identity.
01:06:26.000So, 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.
01:06:38.000And I concede that he didn't want Catholics, John Jay in particular, but that's not even in reference to all the other.
01:06:45.000People who spoke on the subject, but John Jay didn't want to.
01:06:48.000Well, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, because you keep making little quotes like that.
01:06:50.000Like, 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.
01:07:01.000They must cast off their European skin, never to resume it.
01:07:05.000They must look forward to their posterity rather than backward to their ancestors.
01:07:10.000In 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.
01:08:25.000Because English are partly British, and most of the remaining 20% was European, 98% Protestant.
01:08:32.000What they were saying was out of this conglomeration of Northern and Western Europeans and Protestants would come a uniquely American identity.
01:08:40.000So that does not say let's have immigration from Mexico and Africa.
01:09:01.000Do you have a quote where he, instead of saying, I mean, it's remarkable to me how you completely ignore historical context.
01:09:09.000Like you are projecting and writing into these quotes like a 1970s multicultural definition of America.
01:09:16.000If 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.
01:09:25.000And he makes a quote that if we take my Interpretation of it means Americanization of Protestant Anglo Saxons.
01:10:23.000So 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?
01:10:36.000Yeah, so and you who are a quarter Hispanic, right?
01:10:38.000This, your idea of what white even means is something that was totally not understood at the time.
01:10:43.000And you're trying to say that people felt that way?
01:10:55.000So, 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.
01:11:08.000You're talking about a quote from John Q. Adams.
01:11:10.000Where he is saying they cast off their European skin and they become Americans.
01:11:15.000Now, again, we defer to what the founding father said.
01:11:34.000Again, you had a country that was 98% Protestant, 80% British, and ostensibly.
01:11:42.000Later on in the 19th century, it was more Irish, and that's still Northern Europeans.
01:11:47.000You know, arguable whether that was totally considered white.
01:11:49.000But 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.
01:12:06.000You're reading into it like he's saying, cast off your European character because this is not a country that takes after Europe.
01:12:28.000Dude, 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.
01:13:05.000There 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.
01:13:20.000The founding character of the country, which was English in character.
01:13:25.000And 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.
01:13:39.000And like you say, oh, that's totally irrelevant.
01:13:42.000That wasn't a commentary on who should be in the country.
01:13:45.000That was like propaganda to unite the already ethnically, racially, Religiously, linguistically homogenous people of the United States.
01:14:34.000But it's all the difference in the world between.
01:14:36.000Between 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.
01:14:52.000Again, the composition of the country at this time was completely homogeneous.
01:14:57.000You'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.
01:15:09.000Like this, close to each other, was an inch apart from each other.
01:15:12.000Do we want a confederation or do we want a federal system?
01:15:15.000That denotes as much heterogeneity as having a country of minorities and different ethnicities and races and religions.
01:15:26.000How can you sit here and peddle this nonsense?
01:15:28.000I 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.
01:15:44.000Like, that's the whole point of the Federalist Papers.
01:15:47.000The 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.
01:15:58.000The 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.
01:16:25.000This is Congress exercising their powers to choose who becomes naturalized as a citizen.
01:16:30.000Nowhere in the Constitution does it say this must be restricted to Europeans.
01:16:33.000We're not trying to make the argument that Congress.
01:16:36.000And 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.
01:16:44.000I 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.
01:17:07.000Actually, 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.
01:17:21.000Four times they affirmed that the people that come into this country were free white people of upstanding character.
01:17:27.000I mean, it's just, you are ignoring, you just flat out ignore my evidence.
01:17:31.000I 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?
01:17:47.000What evidence do you have that the founders wanted this country to have Africans and Hispanics and Asians?
01:17:53.000If four separate times within 15 years of the passage of the Constitution, they said it's only for white people to come here.
01:17:58.000Explain to me, where's your evidence to contradict that?
01:18:01.000My 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.
01:18:20.000Okay, no, but you challenged my claim of original intent.
01:18:24.000Yes, 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.
01:18:33.000Wanted it to be only European immigration.
01:18:37.000Here, 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.
01:18:50.000A foreign influence can be both domestic and in the international sphere.
01:18:54.000Foreign influence can be Western European as well.
01:19:02.000You don't think they exercise foreign influence?
01:19:05.000You don't think that they thought the exact same about Germans, about Swedes, about Finnish, like about everybody in the Scandinavian countries?
01:19:11.000You did not have mass immigration in 1788.
01:19:39.000He 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.
01:19:53.000John Jay, who, you know, we have the quote from Federalist No. 2, which you read.
01:19:57.000We have the Federalist Attorney General.
01:19:59.000Wait, Because you keep saying we only have one quote.
01:20:46.000Explain 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.
01:20:57.000I'm sorry, did Mexicans already immigrate to the United States in 1802?
01:22:23.000You keep immigration low so that the founding stock continues to be the majority.
01:22:29.000It hasn't been the majority since 1990, but.
01:22:31.000We would like to get it to a point where people that have been here constitute the majority.
01:22:35.000So that's why I'm against mass immigration of all forms.
01:22:38.000Additionally, an additional condition on immigration is it should be preferable.
01:22:44.000It should put precedent to Anglo Saxons, Northern Europeans, Western Europeans, then maybe Eastern Southern Europeans, and then non whites if they're very skilled.
01:22:56.000Okay, 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.
01:23:07.000Franklin 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?
01:23:15.000Why 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?
01:23:27.000That means, again, again, which leads me to add one remark that the number of purely white people in the world is proportionally very small.
01:23:37.000These are the people that you like, even though you're a quarter Hispanic.
01:23:47.000And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes are generally of what we would call a swarthy complexion.
01:23:55.000These are people that you are advocating to immigrate to our country today, that it sounds like an original founding father didn't consider white.
01:24:08.000Because, again, you are conflating my position on immigration with the argument, which is.
01:24:13.000The founder's position on immigration.
01:24:16.000And 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.
01:24:26.000It's about what do we want to do moving forward.
01:24:29.000We all know that's not what this argument is about.
01:24:31.000This was about the original intent of the Constitution.
01:24:34.000One moment, you never let me finish here.
01:24:36.000Sorry, you sound a little upsetty spaghetti right now, but I'll let you finish.
01:24:41.000So since 1776, we have eroded the ethnic.
01:24:47.000The racial and the cultural component of America.
01:24:49.000In order to rebuild that, we need the cultural, the racial.
01:24:52.000It's questionable to what extent the ethnic is possible.
01:24:55.000That 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.
01:25:08.000Now, 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.
01:25:17.000That is generally agreed upon that those people were assimilated.
01:25:20.000If we stop Bringing in people like that, I wouldn't be opposed to it.
01:25:23.000But 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.
01:25:41.000And 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.
01:25:51.000It's questionable if they'll be able to thrive in their own countries, let alone.
01:25:55.000So, the ethnic component is very particular to our times.
01:25:59.000But 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.
01:26:08.000So, you seem to be conceding that the founders' intent.
01:26:11.000Once 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.
01:26:22.000So, that was a beautiful soliloquy, most of it completely unrelated to what we were talking about.
01:26:26.000My essential thing is that we're discussing what the original intention of the Constitution is.
01:26:31.000So, 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.
01:26:40.000We've got a number of quotes here that you have your posterity quote, I guess.
01:27:10.000Because, guys, I know you've got a million quotes, and so I'm curious if it's actually relevant.
01:27:14.000You 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.
01:27:22.000You have a quote that says something like that?
01:28:15.000If 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?
01:28:24.000How could you say that then they would support mass immigration from non European countries?
01:28:28.000And especially if you have this Benjamin Franklin quote where he says these are swarthy people.
01:28:31.000I mean, he didn't want non Anglo people.
01:28:52.000You 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.
01:29:04.000Do 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?
01:29:15.000He signed those, which said the only people that can attain citizenship are free white people of upstanding color.
01:29:22.000Why would he sign that if he didn't believe that?
01:29:25.000Thomas Jefferson signed that, but they didn't believe in it in 1902.
01:29:28.000Or I'm sorry, John Adams, it would be, right?
01:29:37.000If 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.
01:29:45.000That the founding fathers wanted the country to be white at that time, that's an argument that I totally agree with.
01:29:49.000But 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.
01:29:58.000Here'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.
01:30:08.000As 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.
01:30:17.000We 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.
01:30:25.000So it sounded like if they, so he thought that the world could change, right?
01:30:31.000If 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.
01:30:41.000So again, you think that, well, here's why.
01:30:43.000Here's why they didn't write it in the Constitution because you look at 1776.
01:30:49.000Think of the state of the world in 1776.
01:30:52.000I 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.
01:31:02.000That, 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.
01:31:18.000You're citing Thomas Jefferson's quote as evidence.
01:31:21.000You'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.
01:31:38.000Can 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?
01:31:44.000I don't think you need evidence for that.
01:32:14.000Why do we need a Bill of Rights to reaffirm that right?
01:32:16.000It's a very dangerous precedent that the government will do everything except for what you tell it not to do.
01:32:20.000So, 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.
01:32:39.000They left it out because their intention was that eventually the country would be non white.
01:32:45.000That is the most sound argument I've ever heard in my life.
01:32:48.000That 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.
01:33:01.000Even 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.
01:33:58.000If 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.
01:35:53.000So, which would be white English, not Germans, not Italians, not Spaniards.
01:35:59.000So, 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?
01:36:09.000How is the Constitution and this government for them?
01:36:12.000I mean, that's not the posterity of the founders.
01:36:14.000Because 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.
01:36:30.000What he said was cast off for European skin for the people that were there before you had mass immigration.
01:36:35.000And to look forward to your posterity, not backwards to your ancestors.
01:36:39.000So the whole point of America, yes, but the whole point of America wasn't to look back.
01:36:44.000I'm going by exactly John Q. Adams' words.
01:36:47.000And John Jay did not specify anywhere in the Constitution.
01:36:49.000I 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.
01:36:55.000He didn't write it anywhere in the Constitution.
01:37:31.000But 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?
01:39:27.000You're conflating what's written in the Constitution with the intent of the founders.
01:39:31.000The intent of the founders was that this nation would be Anglo Saxon.
01:39:35.000The Constitution doesn't specifically codify that that would be the case.
01:39:38.000But that doesn't detract from the fact that every one of the founders wanted it to be a white country.
01:39:42.000You 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.
01:39:51.000The 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.
01:41:00.000I'm not saying that's what you're saying.
01:41:02.000You're saying because they didn't explicitly say it in the Constitution, their intent was otherwise, correct?
01:41:09.000I do think it's really interesting right here that this is like.
01:41:11.000Well, that's the answer to the question.
01:41:13.000This is the epitome of feels versus reals.
01:41:15.000That 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.
01:42:53.000I think the founding fathers were very intelligent.
01:42:55.000I 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.
01:43:05.000Yeah, it's called Ourselves and Our Posterity.
01:44:51.000People immigrating from countries with severe problems are likely to bring those problems to the United States.
01:44:55.000If 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.
01:45:02.000One cannot divorce a country's people from its problems.
01:45:07.000Do you think that's an okay statement?
01:45:09.000So, 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.
01:45:16.000A 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.
01:45:28.000I guess the most cited data I can go by is just crime stats.
01:45:33.000And this is just something that is so extensively researched.
01:45:36.000There is just no data that shows that people commit more crime when they're an immigrant.
01:45:44.000Even when you look at Central American groups, like even when you look at young, less educated Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalan men.
01:45:50.000People 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.
01:46:01.000I've got, I mean, I can just throw you a million links at this.
01:46:03.000Do you disagree with this that immigrants commit less crime than the native people?
01:46:07.000Yeah, I think you're arguing against the wrong part of it.
01:46:09.000You're saying immigrants commit less crime.
01:46:13.000I think the statistics are played around a lot, but I'm not even going to try to dispute them.
01:46:19.000Okay, so then don't even bring that up.
01:46:23.000The 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.
01:46:34.000For 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.
01:47:32.000So, 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?
01:48:33.000The black murder rate in the United States is 19.4.
01:48:37.000That is more comparable to West African and Sub Saharan African countries than it is to any Western country.
01:48:43.000And 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.
01:48:53.000So, you know, you have Chinatowns, which are the only reason it spreads.
01:48:57.000You have so many immigrants here that don't commit crime.
01:49:00.000And then you have immigrants from Mexico, where they bring over their drug cartels, MS-13, they bring over.
01:49:12.000Again, maybe it's borne at a proportionally lesser rate, but you see that when they come over here, they have these tiny enclaves.
01:49:19.000They 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.
01:49:26.000I 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.
01:49:37.000I mean, there are many elements to this why you're taking national statistics, you know.
01:49:42.000On average, for immigrants, are you talking about like first generation immigrants where there's less crime?
01:49:46.000Because I'm talking about like foreign born populations altogether in the past few years.
01:49:50.000Oh, no, second generation immigrants commit more crime.
01:50:18.000And then if third generation didn't reach you, then you'd ask for fourth generation and then fifth generation.
01:50:21.000And then pretty soon we're talking about Benjamin Franklin's descendants himself.
01:50:25.000Well, 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.
01:50:36.000Well, proportionally, that's just not true.
01:51:03.000According 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.
01:51:16.000Even for illegal immigrants, crime seems to have always been correlated with geography and income across all races.
01:51:22.000This is according to a U.S. Department of Justice report household poverty and non fatal violent victimization.
01:51:26.000Crime 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.
01:52:11.000I 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.
01:52:18.000Blacks do, but we're not talking about blacks.
01:52:20.000We're talking about immigration, Nick.
01:52:21.000I know that you like to lump all the darkies together, but we're just talking about immigration from something I already.
01:52:25.000Explained, which is can you divorce people from the problems of their homeland?
01:52:28.000Yeah, but this is not their homeland, Nick.
01:52:30.000If somebody's ancestors come back to the 1800s here, you can't call them immigrants anymore, Nick.
01:52:35.000They're almost just as much here as Americans as people from the 1700s or 1800s.
01:52:42.000So 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.
01:52:50.000I'm not seeing any of the data I requested.
01:52:53.000I'm talking about do you have homicide rates?
01:52:56.000Do you have homicide rates for the different races?
01:53:00.000You said you have all the data, so do you have the data on homicides?
01:53:03.000I think that would be an important thing, don't you think?
01:53:05.000Okay, so I mean, I'll have to find you that data on that in one specific crime.
01:53:09.000If 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.
01:53:17.000So I have given you data on rates of crime and imprisonment.
01:53:20.000You have provided me nothing, and now you're asking me for data on a very specific crime and pretending that that proves your point.
01:53:57.000I'm sorry, the cities is what I'm going to say.
01:53:58.000Studies 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?
01:54:50.000Steven, 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.
01:54:58.000The data seems to be tailored to a very specific agenda because, again, you have not produced overall crime by minority populations.
01:57:02.000Because 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.
01:57:15.000So maybe homeland is the bad word because they were born here.
01:57:18.000But 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.
01:59:11.000Are under siege by crime, by inner city violence.
01:59:16.000And 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.
01:59:29.000You said it was just one negative, it's many negatives.
02:00:30.000I told you, yeah, because the upside outweighs, and also the difference is a moral difference.
02:00:35.000Having car crashes, having like chaos, is something that you will always have.
02:00:40.000But 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.
02:00:50.000You can't use that as an argument, Nick.
02:00:51.000I think I found the date I was looking for.
02:01:39.000That'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.
02:01:46.000But 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.
02:01:52.000Why would we be weighting it by age, though?
02:01:53.000I mean, why would we be weighting it by age?
02:01:55.000If they're committing more crime, you conceded just now that they committed more crime.
02:01:59.000So if they commit more crime, why would we be weighting it by age?
02:04:23.000No, 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.
02:04:30.000But until that happens, what will they be, Stephen?
02:04:32.000Will they be younger or older or the same age?
02:04:37.000So tell me when they start committing the same amount of crime as us.
02:04:40.000You know, and then maybe I'll say, okay, you have a point.
02:04:43.000Well, I mean, in your world where you want white people to have more children, they would be committing less crime than us.
02:04:48.000So, 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.
02:04:55.000But they don't because white people don't make kids, Nick.
02:05:31.000I'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.
02:05:38.000And you don't have the figures, obviously, on the actual crime.
02:06:44.000If you had numbers for me, I would say different.
02:06:46.000But you gave me an abstract that says, according to, and we don't know what the numbers are.
02:06:49.000We don't know what the methodology was.
02:06:51.000Okay, so Nick, I gave you the algebra to the PDF.
02:06:53.000What 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?
02:08:22.000It could be any, depending on who you ask.
02:08:24.000It could be anywhere between 11 and 30 million, depending on who you ask.
02:08:27.000So, 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.
02:08:35.000So, you give me a study saying incarcerated people, and this is a rate of them.
02:08:39.000You don't know how many were arrested.
02:09:54.000Because 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.
02:10:01.000You 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.
02:10:52.000You have an IQ difference, too, there.
02:10:54.000But 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.
02:11:05.000When 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.
02:11:14.000I would love to reestablish the nature of the country.
02:11:17.000That's not to say Italians aren't great people.
02:11:26.000Because 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.
02:11:33.000It seems like they have some problems, too.
02:11:34.000It seems like everybody has their problems.
02:11:35.000They're killing people in prison, are you saying?
02:16:02.000You're not talking about immigration right now.
02:16:04.000You're talking about resettling refugees.
02:16:06.000And where do you think the immigration is?
02:16:08.000We have immigration from Africa as well.
02:16:10.000Steven, it's not as much as it is for Mexico.
02:16:12.000This has to do with, but your study that you're citing here has to do with refugees, Nick.
02:16:16.000Why aren't you talking to me about like data?
02:16:18.000Why aren't you talking to me about immigrants, Nick?
02:16:20.000The 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.
02:16:56.000Okay, Nick, I need you to answer this question.
02:16:58.000Do you think that refugees and immigrants that come to this country are the same types of people?
02:17:03.000What do you mean, the same types of people?
02:17:05.000As 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.
02:17:15.000You think that these groups of people are very similar to one another?
02:18:46.000In 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.
02:18:55.000And total cross border traffic is expanding as well.
02:18:58.000Over 485,000 people were apprehended in 2014.
02:19:03.000And let's see, what do we know about the diseases carried?
02:19:07.000A 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.
02:19:18.000Why are you talking about illegal immigration?
02:19:24.000Steven, 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.
02:19:34.000People bring with them their practices from their countries.
02:19:38.000And 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.
02:19:55.000Nick, those are really great statements, but you haven't failed on every point to demonstrate that data.
02:20:21.000You 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.
02:20:33.000I provided the exact data that breakdowns on age show that Hispanics commit less crime than their white counterparts.
02:20:50.000Do 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?
02:21:13.000Nick, if you were to ask me the question of.
02:21:15.000It's looking like this one's going to be.
02:21:17.000If you can't even acknowledge the fact that your own statistics are incorrect, that you keep using this.
02:21:25.000I 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.
02:22:03.000If you were to say, is country A wealthier than country B, would you look at just GDP?
02:22:07.000Or do you think, and this isn't the best for you, but would you look at something like GDP per capita?
02:22:10.000Do you think that would be a better analogy?
02:22:12.000How 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?
02:22:28.000Say, well, if we killed all the people over 40, then it would be the case.
02:22:31.000Okay, well, until that happens, the people that are coming into the country commit more crime.
02:22:36.000And 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.
02:23:24.000Let'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.
02:23:30.000Which group of people would commit more crime?
02:23:48.000But 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.
02:27:41.000Well, 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.
02:29:08.000Maybe 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.
02:29:22.000The scale of immigration is unprecedented more Mexicans than any other group.
02:29:27.000The illegality of it, a lot of them live in the shadows, and whether you like it or not, that's a part of it.
02:29:31.000Regional concentration, they tend to stay in the.
02:29:35.000Cities like Los Angeles in the Southwest, persistence, you have had waves and waves for so long, whereas other immigration has come in different times.
02:29:45.000This immigration has been continuous from 65 onward and the historical presence of Hispanics in the Southwest.
02:29:51.000So these six reasons all demonstrate why these enclaves are much worse than European enclaves.
02:29:59.000I'm curious if you believe this, okay?
02:30:01.000Once in America, I'm curious if you agree with this, Aaron.
02:30:03.000Once in America, Mexican immigrants face great challenges, often with no knowledge of the English language and with little formal education.
02:30:10.000Many 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.
02:30:18.000Many 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.
02:30:28.000Do you think this is an okay summary of Mexicans in the United States today?
02:30:50.000For people that were watching what was just said, I literally just outlined why Mexican immigration is different.
02:30:57.000So you pull this like, I just trapped you, Italians, I replaced the words.
02:31:00.000But 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.
02:31:08.000And I'll list them again because you weren't listening.
02:31:10.000Mexican immigration comes from a country that is contiguous with the United States.
02:32:42.000When 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.
02:32:51.000And so you tend to conglomerate together.
02:32:54.000If 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.
02:33:03.000You have the regional concentration of Mexican immigrants into the Southwest, into very specific cities.
02:33:10.000For 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.
02:33:17.000So they tend to conglomerate in concentrated areas, whereas most of these other ethnic groups spread out to different parts of the country.
02:33:24.000You 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.
02:33:35.000Please, you have different times of immigration with Europeans, different waves, so to speak, where it tends to rise and then it tends to fall.
02:33:43.000With Mexican immigration, please, Stephen, you cannot control yourself here.
02:33:48.000Because you keep naming a whole bunch of untruths and then you throw me a conclusion at the end.
02:33:52.000And it has been persistent for a long time.
02:33:55.000And the last point, finally, finally, the last point is the historical presence.
02:33:59.000Hispanics, Mexicans occupied the southwestern portion of the United States before us.
02:34:05.000And because of that, many of them believe they have some kind of a claim to it.
02:34:20.000So in the 1900s, our population was 76 million people, and 3 million Italians immigrated to the United States in that time.
02:34:30.000Your 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.
02:34:52.000What 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.
02:35:05.000Actually, more immigration from Mexico for more years.
02:36:48.000It 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.
02:38:30.000Do you not consider yourself a third or fourth generation immigrant?
02:38:32.000Yeah, 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.
02:39:11.000So 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.
02:39:20.000I'm afraid you're losing faith in your own argument, but let's see.
02:39:24.000I 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.
02:39:34.000I'm just curious if that was actually true.
02:39:35.000Because when Italians came over, that was a massive percentage change in population of immigrants, and Italians immigrated just fine.
02:41:03.000You say, ah, like that, like, do you not know how calculus works?
02:41:06.000Do 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?
02:41:32.000Through that 50 year period, it might be.
02:41:33.000I'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.
02:45:08.000Specific, 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.
02:45:31.000I just wanted to show you if you wanted to make this argument, what would be really convincing.
02:45:35.000So, 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.
02:46:39.000So, 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.
02:48:11.000If 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?
02:50:18.000Now, just as a warning, don't tell somebody this.
02:50:21.000If 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.
02:51:01.000Well, 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.
02:51:16.000And the reason why can't they integrate?
02:51:19.000Because 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.
02:51:43.000You 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.
02:51:56.000Well, 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.
02:52:07.000You don't think in New York City there aren't Italian communities, Nick?
02:52:11.000Not to the same extent that there are Mexican communities.
02:54:19.000If you look at where the U.S. population is.
02:54:22.000To settle in the West is a choice that they make and they settle.
02:54:25.000And you can look in Texas, you can look where they're settling.
02:54:28.000And 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.
02:54:36.000I mean, you're taking things that are true, that everybody acknowledges.
02:54:40.000The 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.
02:54:52.000Which states are going Hispanic, Steve?
02:54:57.000Is it California or is it New Hampshire?
02:54:59.000Is it California or is it North Carolina?
02:55:01.000You say, you know, Nick doesn't have the numbers.
02:55:04.000I 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.
02:55:16.000So that's why the doctor's question is.
02:55:18.000The problem, Nick, is you still haven't made your argument at all.
02:55:20.000You're doing really good with giving me all these numbers.
02:55:22.000I'm asking you, what I'm asking you is, can you provide me evidence that Hispanics.
02:55:26.000Are not integrating to American lifestyle.
02:55:29.000All you're doing is saying all the Hispanics are going there, they're all going there, they're all going there.
02:55:32.000But you haven't given me any evidence to say that they're not integrating.
02:55:38.000You go to where these Hispanic enclaves are, and the signs are in Spanish.
02:55:42.000You go to the schools, and the signs are in Spanish.
02:55:44.000That's all you've got for Hispanics, Nick.
02:55:45.000Even 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.
02:55:52.000It's definitely integrating when you have entire parts of.
02:56:33.000You 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?
02:56:52.000Well, it seems like Hispanics are adopting English in the United States as well.
02:56:57.000Real quick, your mic went to your laptop.
02:57:15.000So 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?
02:58:17.000Every 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.
02:59:32.000What 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?
03:00:27.000And so as a result, we had a culture, we had a country that was Anglo in characteristics from 1607 to 1965.
03:00:37.000And 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.
03:00:49.000This is what prevails, this is what predominates from 1607 to 1965.
03:00:55.000That 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.
03:03:08.000Do you think, for example, that China.
03:03:09.000Do 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?
03:04:04.000So, 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?
03:04:14.000Are you that obtuse or are you disingenuous?
03:04:17.000I mean, which is what I'm trying to figure out.
03:05:00.000Things 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.
03:05:12.000I like having a representative democracy.
03:05:13.000Those were British traditions of law, justice, and limits of government.
03:05:53.000Do you not understand that all culture is influenced by the culture that preceded it?
03:05:57.000What was the culture that preceded the Magna Carta?
03:05:59.000I 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.
03:06:05.000You'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.
03:06:13.000Yeah, they took from, ultimately, they took from the Romans, they took from the Greeks, and any of the.
03:06:34.000If you study, if you take a class at your community college, if you study any art.
03:06:38.000If you study music or painting or anything like that, you'll find that every single era of the Magna Carta is not British.
03:06:43.000I like that you have argued, you have been forced into a position where you have to argue that the Magna Carta is not British.
03:06:49.000You have to argue that the British settlements in North America were not.
03:06:56.000I 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?
03:08:41.000We want to preserve the Christian religion, we want to preserve Protestant values and moralism.
03:08:48.000I 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.
03:11:53.000Nick, you're making arguments of conspiracy that a constitution that doesn't specify any Christian God is supposed to mean that we're always.
03:12:27.000We had a productive conversation the first time.
03:12:29.000It 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.
03:12:40.000And it's clearly like this personal vendetta.
03:12:42.000It's become not about the truth anymore.
03:14:05.000I'm sure people learned a lot more about the immigration thing.
03:14:07.000I 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.
03:14:19.000They learned about data, they learned about the tradition and all these different things, these two different ideas.
03:15:14.000But that's going to do it for us tonight.
03:15:16.000Please 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.