America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - The Debate with Destiny feat. Steven Bonnell | America First Ep. 17

00:00:01.000 Good evening, everybody.

00:00:02.000 You are watching America First.

00:00:04.000 My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes, and we have an exciting episode for you tonight.

00:00:08.000 As advertised, we have a debate with Destiny.

00:00:12.000 Destiny, better known as Stephen Bonnell II, or at least that's his person name.

00:00:18.000 He's a professional video game player.

00:00:21.000 A little bit of a bug man thing, but you know what?

00:00:23.000 We'll let it slide.

00:00:24.000 He's here with us tonight.

00:00:25.000 He's going to be a good sport.

00:00:26.000 Stephen, are you there?

00:00:28.000 I'm here.

00:00:29.000 Can you hear me?

00:00:30.000 Yeah, and I think the people can hear you.

00:00:32.000 I'm going to check in the live chat just real quick to make sure.

00:00:35.000 They can hear you.

00:00:36.000 If you guys could tell us real quick in the live chat if you can hear Destiny, we'll get started right away.

00:00:44.000 And so there's a little bit of a delay, so we'll see.

00:00:47.000 They're saying you're a little bit quiet, so I'm going to turn down my mic and then I'll turn up the sound.

00:00:54.000 And then we should be in good shape, okay?

00:00:56.000 Let me just boost that and then.

00:01:00.000 Okay, why don't you say something else, Destiny?

00:01:02.000 Testing one, two, one, two.

00:01:04.000 Okay, looks like that.

00:01:06.000 That should do it.

00:01:08.000 All right.

00:01:09.000 So, the first thing I want to get started on is I watched a few of your debates before.

00:01:14.000 I'm going to be honest, I wasn't too sure who you were, and that makes sense.

00:01:17.000 I'm not into the video game, the Twitch thing.

00:01:20.000 But somebody recommended, I think somebody CC'd us in a tweet and said we should do a debate.

00:01:24.000 And I understand after I've watched some of your episodes with Sargon, with some other video game players, Jontron, I remember that was a big one.

00:01:34.000 I understand that you are opposed to me on the issue of immigration.

00:01:37.000 And so.

00:01:39.000 I wanted to start in pretty, I think, a pretty good middle ground to begin with, which is, and I'll ask you something.

00:01:46.000 You'll have to just indulge me for a moment.

00:01:48.000 You'll have to trust I'm going somewhere with this.

00:01:50.000 But what is your opinion of democracy? 0.85

00:01:52.000 And I promise we'll get to the immigration issue through this.

00:01:56.000 But what do you believe about democracy?

00:01:59.000 That's a pretty loaded question.

00:02:04.000 Yes.

00:02:05.000 I'd probably take the quote Democracy is, I think it's like democracy is the worst form of government except for everything else.

00:02:13.000 So, like, it's like, I guess it works.

00:02:15.000 There are a lot of problems inherent with democracy, especially in the way we have it set up in America with our current voting system.

00:02:22.000 But as many problems as I have with it, it's probably better than anything else that I can think of.

00:02:29.000 People point to a lot of different types of governments, but everything has a lot of inherent flaws to it.

00:02:33.000 I don't know if there can ever be a perfect form of government.

00:02:35.000 So, is that an okay enough answer?

00:02:39.000 Yeah.

00:02:39.000 Yeah, that's good.

00:02:40.000 No, that's good.

00:02:41.000 And I apologize if I caught you off guard with that a little bit, but I always start with this because.

00:02:45.000 The immigration issue, it can be contentious when it gets to race and culture.

00:02:49.000 That's really, I think, the central question of immigration and what demographics fundamentally comes down to is that question.

00:02:57.000 And that can be like a third rail thing.

00:02:59.000 I remember you said often on Sargon of Akkad that neither side would change the other side's mind.

00:03:04.000 But this topic, I think coming at it from this perspective, I think both sides can kind of come together.

00:03:10.000 And I apologize if people are expecting fire.

00:03:12.000 We'll get there.

00:03:13.000 But to start off, I thought I would extend the olive branch and I would bring up this, and I want your thoughts on this.

00:03:19.000 So, in 1965, as many immigration hawks understand, the Hart Cellar Act was passed through the Congress.

00:03:27.000 And the most important provision of the Hart Cellar Act, well, two of the most important provisions were number one, it eliminated the national origins quota.

00:03:35.000 So, whereas before, it was largely constrained how much immigration came into the United States from Asia, from Latin America, from Africa.

00:03:42.000 It was mostly European. 0.70

00:03:43.000 So, that was number one.

00:03:45.000 And number two, there were no numerical restrictions on immediate relatives of immigrants after this act passed.

00:03:51.000 And so the people that sold this immigration bill, the Hart Seller Act in 65, Ted Kennedy said, and he was one of the main proponents of it in the Senate, he said, quote, Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.

00:04:06.000 Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.

00:04:09.000 President Johnson said, This is not a revolutionary bill.

00:04:12.000 It does not affect the lives of millions.

00:04:14.000 Now, both of those statements turned out to be lies because since the 65 Immigration Act, we saw that the composition of immigration fundamentally changed.

00:04:23.000 It went from 68%.

00:04:25.000 European and Canadian in 1950, or yeah, Canadian, to 48% from Latin America, 35% from Asia in the period from 1971 to 1991.

00:04:35.000 And then in addition to that, the number of immigrants increased as well, whereas in the 60s, 11% of population growth was immigrants.

00:04:42.000 In the 1970s, it was 33% immigrants, and in the 1980s, 39%.

00:04:47.000 And so, having said all of that, this is something that a lot of anti or rather pro immigration people aren't familiar with. 1.00

00:04:54.000 Do you think that it was right?

00:04:55.000 Do you think it was just?

00:04:57.000 That the composition of this country and the composition of immigration was changed fundamentally without a vote, without the will of the electorate being expressed.

00:05:06.000 And I'll let you, you can take a little time on this.

00:05:10.000 So I'm not familiar with the specific act.

00:05:13.000 This was something that was passed through Congress, right?

00:05:15.000 Yes.

00:05:16.000 It wasn't just a presidential.

00:05:17.000 Okay.

00:05:18.000 I mean, if Congress voted on it, I mean, those are the elected, that's how our government is set up, right?

00:05:22.000 It is a Democratic republic.

00:05:23.000 We elect elected officials that represent us and vote for bills in Congress.

00:05:26.000 So I don't know if I necessarily buy the electorate's views weren't.

00:05:30.000 Represented if it was voted on via Congress.

00:05:32.000 If this was by executive act, I would agree.

00:05:34.000 But I mean, for me personally, I really don't care much about like ethnic background or country of origin.

00:05:40.000 Like, these aren't really questions that I like wrestle with.

00:05:43.000 It doesn't bother me if certain people from certain areas come here, I guess.

00:05:46.000 It's not something that I'm majorly concerned with.

00:05:49.000 Also, like another random thing in 1965, when this was when they initially like presented this and said that the demographic like composition of the country wouldn't change much, I don't, they might have been lying at the time.

00:06:01.000 It might have been that the birth rates were a lot higher back then, too.

00:06:04.000 I think when you're at the 50s, 60s, I think the birth rate was like three or more.

00:06:09.000 And now we've fallen to like, what, like 1.6, 1.7?

00:06:11.000 So that might have been maybe some factor in that as well, right?

00:06:16.000 They didn't assume that people would stop having so many children in the United States.

00:06:19.000 Well, but consider it was also not only that the makeup of immigration shifted, but the percentage of population growth that was accounted for by immigration also tripled.

00:06:30.000 And in the span of 10 years.

00:06:32.000 So it wasn't like this was.

00:06:33.000 Over the course of 50 years, in a matter of five years, the composition and the number of immigrants increased.

00:06:39.000 And that's, of course, proportional to population growth as a whole.

00:06:42.000 And so it's interesting because I only ask that because for so many leftists, for so many Democrats, for so many, and I don't know if you describe yourself as that, but generally left leaning people, they hold up democracy as very sacred.

00:06:56.000 And it's interesting to me that because it was passed by Congress, and we know that Congress really isn't necessarily representative or totally.

00:07:04.000 Accountable to the people that you would sort of give them a pass, even though they lied about the effects of it directly, both the president and the main proponents of it.

00:07:13.000 And you don't seem to be bothered by this, or you think that it's sufficient that they were representatives?

00:07:19.000 So we're trying to assign whether or not we're trying to assign like a morality to them passing the act for whether or not they lied or told the truth.

00:07:26.000 I don't know at the time what data they had available to them.

00:07:29.000 I don't know if they sincerely believed what they were saying or if they actually had like this subversive attitude where they knew that it was going to lead to what it led to.

00:07:37.000 I don't know that I can't make that.

00:07:39.000 I don't, if there were like leaked papers or something that showed that, like, oh, well, actually, we know that, you know, this is all bullshit and the demographic composition of the country is going to change so much and we're going to pass this act and we're going to tell everybody a lie about it.

00:07:49.000 Like, I don't know if that's true or not.

00:07:51.000 I can't, I can't, I mean, if they did actually lie about it, then yeah, sure, that's pretty bad.

00:07:55.000 Your elected officials should never be lying to you.

00:07:57.000 I think that's always an abhorrent thing.

00:07:58.000 But I don't know.

00:07:59.000 I mean, if they did, then sure, but I don't know if they actually did or not.

00:08:02.000 Sure, and that's fair.

00:08:03.000 And that's a fair contingency to bring up that, you know, we don't really know if they lied.

00:08:07.000 But I think what I'm really asking is not so much whether they had, and forgive me for not phrasing it originally this way, but.

00:08:13.000 Maybe not so much that they lied, maybe not so much that it was intentional.

00:08:17.000 I certainly have speculated that they have just because of the incentives that are available.

00:08:21.000 For example, Hispanics and Asians tend to vote for the party of bigger government, which is the Democrats.

00:08:26.000 And so certainly there is a motive.

00:08:28.000 But putting aside all speculation, because it could go both ways whether they were lying or whether they had good intentions, but given that the public unknowingly voted for a reform that would unnaturally, unorganically change the composition of immigration.

00:08:44.000 Do you, I guess the fundamental question is, do you think that even though this act was against the public will?

00:08:50.000 Because in 1965, I mean, you consider what white America was like in 1965, given the civil rights issues and everything else.

00:08:58.000 White America in 1965 was not open to ethnically transforming the country into a majority minority country. 0.54

00:09:05.000 So I guess what I'm asking is, even though you think it's perhaps a positive good that people are coming over here, do you think that it was just? 0.69

00:09:13.000 Do you think that it was moral?

00:09:15.000 For this legislation to go through, for this reform to go through, whether intentional or not, to fundamentally alter the demographics of the country, even though it was diametrically against the will of the people?

00:09:28.000 I mean, I would always answer no to that because in a Democratic republic, your senators and their congressmen in the House should be voting in favor of their constituents.

00:09:38.000 If this was such a big deal, then why weren't all these people voted out in the next election cycle, the bill overturned?

00:09:43.000 Well, of course, because it was a slow process, the demographic transformation has happened.

00:09:49.000 Relatively quickly, I think, relative to the lifespan of a nation, but relative to the lifespan of a person.

00:09:56.000 And you look at other things that were going on as well, whether that was the Cold War, the stagflation of the 1970s.

00:10:02.000 Not only was it slow going if you were watching it day by day, and we sort of woke up in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and realized what had transformed, but additionally, you had other things going on.

00:10:14.000 And so I would say that I think that's a good place to start that you acknowledge that it was wrong for this legislation to go through because it was against.

00:10:23.000 The will of the people.

00:10:25.000 So, like, on that real quick, like, I guess when you say, like, the transformation was slow, like, I have a very low opinion of most people in government.

00:10:30.000 I have a really hard time believing that people in the 60s foresaw that, like, if they enacted this legislation now, like, in 30 and 40 years, the demographics would massively change.

00:10:40.000 Like, I don't know if they actually all believed that at the time, that it would change as radically as it has.

00:10:46.000 That seems like a pretty big jump, like, pretty big leap of faith to believe that.

00:10:50.000 Like, people in government seem like they barely understand what they're doing right now.

00:10:53.000 The idea that they were all, like, these, you know, political masterminds that could see 30, 40 years into the future.

00:10:58.000 Seems a little unlikely to me.

00:11:00.000 Well, that is a bit of a dodge because certainly there have been politicians who have proposed things like this before.

00:11:06.000 As you know, the Kalerke plan was a plan that was formulated by a Jewish person who was instrumental in the United Nations.

00:11:14.000 And he postulated, I think it was immediately before or during World War II, that the grand scheme, that what he wanted to see was massive immigration into Germany from North Africa to, in his own words, breed out the war strains of the German people. 0.79

00:11:29.000 So certainly. 0.51

00:11:31.000 Certainly, I don't think it's beyond a politician's or people that control politicians' ambitions to do this sort of long-scale thing or long-term thing.

00:11:40.000 But again, I want to get away from this assigning intent, assigning malicious intent, and say.

00:11:45.000 When you ask me if something was evil or not, we're talking intent, right?

00:11:50.000 Because if a whole bunch of people passed the act and they didn't foresee that those were going to be the long-term ramifications, then I can't really say that they acted in an evil or malicious way by intentionally not representing the will of their people, right?

00:12:02.000 So it's kind of a question of intent.

00:12:04.000 Not necessarily.

00:12:05.000 I don't believe that intent is crucial in determining whether something is moral or immoral.

00:12:11.000 As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

00:12:14.000 And I would say, additionally, with politicians, they saw people that work in government offices, people that take the U.S. Census, for example, people that are charged with overseeing these sort of affairs, they understood very quickly what was happening.

00:12:28.000 As we saw in the 1970s, these trends became very apparent.

00:12:32.000 And it was not a slow process that European Americans became displaced.

00:12:37.000 Or rather, it was a slow process that the displacement happened, but it was actually a very rapid process that the composition of immigration changed.

00:12:44.000 So by 1970, five years after the act, we saw throughout the 1970s that the composition changed very rapidly and the amount of immigrants changed very rapidly.

00:12:54.000 The displacement didn't, but the composition did.

00:12:57.000 So whether or not they knew in 1965, they knew by 1970.

00:13:00.000 And so I would say that do you think that fundamentally it was wrong?

00:13:04.000 It was a bad thing that, you know, whether or not you're for immigration, whether or not politicians understood the implications, that this drastic Reform happened against the will of the people.

00:13:18.000 So, this is kind of like a.

00:13:21.000 I have to take this in chunks.

00:13:22.000 So, we have a slight philosophical disagreement in here.

00:13:26.000 For me, I think that intention is really important.

00:13:29.000 Let's say that a congressman passes a $5 billion reform to redo the pipes in some city, and they do it, and it turns out that by redoing it, they end up poisoning the townspeople.

00:13:38.000 I wouldn't assign an evil intent to that person or say that he acted wrongly or evilly if he was working with the best information available at the time.

00:13:46.000 But I would say that the effect could be bad.

00:13:49.000 So I think there's like two different questions here on whether the initial passing of the legislation was an immoral thing versus whether the effects themselves were immoral or bad.

00:13:59.000 So, in so far as the initial passing of the legislation, I can't speak to that because I don't know the intentions of the people at the time or if there was some massive subversive movement or something.

00:14:08.000 I have to assume that they voted what they believed would happen.

00:14:11.000 But I do concede it's possible that a lot of senators and congressmen got together to do something very subversive, maybe.

00:14:18.000 But in terms of whether or not the effect itself was bad, Well, this comes to current day how we feel, I guess, the country should operate. 0.51

00:14:25.000 And for me personally, immigration is not people coming from different countries or ethnic origin or whatever is not something that I care about. 0.83

00:14:32.000 So, from my point of view, I wouldn't say that it's a bad thing.

00:14:35.000 Okay, but I think there's a flaw in your analogy.

00:14:38.000 If we could stick with that for a moment, you said this is comparable to a local politician who replaces a pipe and it turns out that there's poison then in the water supply.

00:14:47.000 I think in this particular example, you're referring to more specifically a maintenance issue, but above all else, you're referring to something.

00:14:54.000 That is routine, something that is not really a reform.

00:14:58.000 The Immigration Act was a reform that is arguable whether it was good or bad.

00:15:03.000 Poisoning water is a failure of government, but a reform is taking government and the society in a different direction.

00:15:08.000 So I don't think that necessarily holds.

00:15:10.000 I think, and I think I really want to hold you to this because I think it's very instrumental to this issue, not only the reform itself, but how the reform has been gone about.

00:15:20.000 I think that's very important.

00:15:22.000 Okay, so then if I say anything that you disagree with, you can stop me immediately.

00:15:27.000 Sure, okay.

00:15:27.000 I'm just interrupting so that we can.

00:15:28.000 So let me construct then.

00:15:30.000 I'll try to construct a more accurate analogy so that it holds up to your scrutiny.

00:15:33.000 Okay.

00:15:34.000 Let's say that you have a city and you have a guy that sees there's another city that lives right next to you.

00:15:40.000 Let's say that the guy says, we need more workers in our city.

00:15:40.000 Okay.

00:15:43.000 So what I'm going to do is I'm going to pass legislation, an overhaul in how we bring in workers so that a bunch of workers from that other city can come over here.

00:15:51.000 So let's say that he does it.

00:15:53.000 And let's say that there is bipartisan support in their state legislature to do it.

00:15:57.000 Everybody's happy with it.

00:15:57.000 Everybody votes for it.

00:15:59.000 And then over the next 10 to 20 years, Tons of workers come over from there, and let's say that it drives down the price of wages so much that all the natives go out of work, a lot of them leave the city, and the city ends up destroyed not physically destroyed, but like the quality of living and by every measurable metric, real wages, everything has fallen.

00:16:17.000 I'm going to stop you for a moment.

00:16:19.000 My problem with this analogy is that this is an unintended consequence in terms of like people, even the people, the electorate, might not understand the downward pressure on wages.

00:16:31.000 But I think with the immigration.

00:16:34.000 It is a reform that happened, it took place immediately, and it's something that the people would have not wanted, understanding exactly what it would have entailed.

00:16:42.000 What you're talking about is an unintended consequence of workers coming here.

00:16:46.000 But what I'm talking about is people that would be rejected coming here in the first place.

00:16:52.000 But I mean, the act that you're talking about had bipartisan support in Congress.

00:16:56.000 You're saying that every single congressman knew what was really going on, Democrat and Republican, but they were trying to hide it from everybody in their votes?

00:17:03.000 No, well, but by 1970, they did understand.

00:17:06.000 And by 19.

00:17:07.000 Then why didn't we vote in people to get rid of the act or whatever?

00:17:10.000 Because.

00:17:10.000 Why didn't we make that a big.

00:17:12.000 The people did not know what was happening, but the people that were taking the statistics did.

00:17:12.000 I don't.

00:17:16.000 And so, you know, it looks like we're.

00:17:18.000 I don't understand that.

00:17:20.000 The statistics are publicly available.

00:17:21.000 You keep going back to representing the will of the electorate.

00:17:25.000 Yes.

00:17:25.000 If their will was so strong and they hated this and these stats are being taken and they're publicly available, why wouldn't this have been like an election issue?

00:17:32.000 Well, this is not.

00:17:33.000 Yes.

00:17:34.000 Well, this is not an issue, as you know, that was brought up in media.

00:17:34.000 Sure.

00:17:37.000 This is an issue which has actually been.

00:17:39.000 That was actually kept pretty quiet until the end of the Cold War, obviously, because you had during the 1970s.

00:17:44.000 I don't think it's cop out to say that during the 1970s, you had more pressing concerns.

00:17:50.000 And this, I think, again, relates to the special nature of the displacement that it was slow going relative to the lifespan of a person.

00:17:56.000 That either you have a change in composition of immigration, or you have the fact that you have an Iranian hostage crisis, or you have the fact that inflation is upwards of 10%, unemployment is upwards of 10%.

00:18:09.000 So I think that it's fair to say that the people were kept quiet.

00:18:12.000 In the dark on this issue, even though the government basically understood what was going on.

00:18:17.000 And again, I want to get away from intent.

00:18:19.000 I really just want to get your take on something that's pretty abstract, which is is it wrong that a reform happened that was against the will of the people?

00:18:28.000 And I want to condense out all of the.

00:18:32.000 When you say against the will of the people, I'm talking intent here.

00:18:36.000 I don't see how I can address this without looking at the intent.

00:18:38.000 Because if all the legislatures didn't foresee this happening, which it sounds like they didn't, because even by your admission, it wasn't until the 70s that they got the stats in and saw how things were rolling out.

00:18:47.000 Then I can't really say that it was immoral that they did it against the will of the people if the will of the people seems to be represented in Congress.

00:18:55.000 Again, it had bipartisan support.

00:18:56.000 I don't think they foresaw it turning out the way that it did.

00:19:00.000 I don't know how I can answer the question without addressing the intent part of it.

00:19:02.000 Yeah, well, I think here's how I think we could get away from the intent.

00:19:05.000 I think perhaps immorality was the wrong way to go about it.

00:19:09.000 I think perhaps justice is a better way to go about it because I believe morality.

00:19:13.000 There's no justice without morality.

00:19:15.000 Well, here's why.

00:19:16.000 Because morality, I think, is something that's more particular to choice, individual choice, you know.

00:19:22.000 Hayek said that the particulars of a spontaneous order can be neither just or unjust or immoral or moral, I think it would be more accurate, which is to say that an institution, I don't think, can have moral responsibility.

00:19:34.000 But if you're looking at it more plainly, I think from an independent perspective of a society, do you think it is a just thing that people living under a government are subject to reforms that they would not be for, that is against their will?

00:19:50.000 And so we can take out moral responsibility of legislators and just say, Broadly, without assigning blame or responsibility to government actors, is it an injustice when something, when a government makes a reform that is against the will of the people?

00:20:06.000 Whether or not it's intended, whether or not it's moral or not, is it just for that to happen?

00:20:15.000 So I'm sorry to get really hung up on this, but so this question would go to the specific form of government that you live under.

00:20:21.000 So, for instance, if you were to ask me, is it okay for under a dictatorship, For the dictator to do something that doesn't represent the will of the people.

00:20:29.000 Well, that particular form of government would almost necessitate those types of things happening.

00:20:33.000 If you would ask me in a direct democracy where every single person votes on every single measure, if it was okay for government to do something that doesn't represent the will of the people, then I would say, well, no, of course not.

00:20:46.000 Of course that is immoral.

00:20:47.000 I'm sorry.

00:20:47.000 That would be unjust because a direct democracy, everybody votes on every single thing.

00:20:51.000 We live in a democratic republic, which means that we don't do a direct vote on every single thing.

00:20:59.000 I guess I don't under if you ask me, like, is it just that a bill might pass that people don't wouldn't themselves vote for?

00:21:07.000 I mean, in the Democratic Republic, we elect people that we believe will vote in our interests.

00:21:12.000 I don't know if I would say that it's unjust or immoral if they vote a different way because in our system, you can vote them out in two or four or six years or whatever, anyway.

00:21:22.000 So I guess I'm having a hard time seeing like the unjust part.

00:21:24.000 Like, we live in a Democratic Republic, we vote for people that we trust to vote in favor of us.

00:21:28.000 Sometimes they don't always vote exactly as you'd want them to, but that's part of our.

00:21:31.000 Process.

00:21:32.000 I don't think I would call it unjust when it doesn't, when every single senator or congressman doesn't vote exactly as you want them to.

00:21:37.000 I have a hard time calling it unjust.

00:21:39.000 Okay.

00:21:39.000 Well, I have a couple of things to, excuse me, a little burp there, to address there.

00:21:45.000 Number one, I think it's very important.

00:21:47.000 And this is something that many people get wrong, by the way, or maybe not wrong, but don't understand so well, which is to say that our system of government, our system of government, the instrument of our government is representative democracy, which is to say, and you are correct.

00:22:03.000 Do we elect representatives?

00:22:04.000 And formerly, the state legislators chose senators.

00:22:07.000 That's not the case anymore, but that's how the government was set up.

00:22:10.000 That was the instrument of our government, it was a democratic process, and that's how we made decisions.

00:22:15.000 However, I think it's more important to note the definition of sovereignty in the United States of America as it was intended at the founding, and I think we can all agree until the present day, which is to say that in a democracy, the sovereign of a nation, which is the person that makes choices, that has jurisdiction, that has the moral jurisdiction over the nation, In a democracy, the moral jurisdiction is a majority.

00:22:41.000 If you have 50% plus one, you are free to act.

00:22:44.000 It is righteous for you to act.

00:22:46.000 That is the expression of the will of the people.

00:22:49.000 In our country, it's different, wait.

00:22:51.000 In our country, yeah, because I'm using it to contrast.

00:22:54.000 Maybe that's not perfect, but I do know about our system.

00:22:57.000 We're in a republic.

00:22:58.000 In a republic, what that means is that the people are sovereign.

00:23:01.000 And this is really important stuff that when the founders set up our government and when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, They set it up understanding that our rights come from God.

00:23:14.000 And whether or not you believe in God, that is the founding mandate for the government, was that our rights come from God.

00:23:19.000 People create a constitution, and the constitution creates a government.

00:23:23.000 But fundamentally, the sovereign of the nation is every individual person.

00:23:27.000 So, if the acts of government go against the sovereign will of the people, which were the majority at the time, and probably the vast majority who had opposed a demographic shift like this, and our representatives passed legislation, whether intentionally or not, that is a failure of government.

00:23:46.000 That is an injustice by government.

00:23:48.000 And again, I'm not.

00:23:49.000 I'm not impugning individual senators or congressmen who passed that because it did pass by a majority and with votes from both parties, but it is a failure of government.

00:23:58.000 It is an injustice by government, impersonally, that this happened.

00:24:01.000 Can you agree with this?

00:24:04.000 I feel like we're.

00:24:06.000 This is like a really weird, like, consequentialist question.

00:24:08.000 I don't think we're at an impasse here.

00:24:10.000 Okay, we can move on from this in a moment.

00:24:12.000 So, like, no, no, I can't do a perfect analogy, I guess, but, like, if government passes something and they believe that it will function a certain way and it ends up functioning a different way, I don't know if I could call the initial passing of that legislation unjust.

00:24:26.000 Do you at least understand my point?

00:24:27.000 Yeah.

00:24:28.000 How about the war in Iraq?

00:24:29.000 Do you think the war in Iraq was just? 0.80

00:24:34.000 I would argue no.

00:24:35.000 The war in Iraq wasn't just, but I don't think the people that were voting for war were trying to subvert the will of the people or do something.

00:24:43.000 And it seemed like most of the United States was on board to do it at the time, so we probably should have as a country, I think.

00:24:50.000 Although that gets a little weird because you can get into how.

00:24:53.000 Bush and Cheney kind of misled people with the intel and the WMD and whatnot.

00:24:57.000 So that gets a little bit more.

00:24:59.000 Well, but you see then where the contradiction lies because the War in Iraq. 0.79

00:24:59.000 Ah, okay. 0.79

00:25:05.000 Before we do this, the difference is that I can point to evidence where I know that the Bush administration created another organization with the intention of misleading the American public on WDs.

00:25:14.000 I don't know if this happened in the specific act that you were talking about.

00:25:17.000 If it did, then I agree.

00:25:19.000 If it did, then at that point, I can easily say it's an injustice. 0.84

00:25:21.000 If they knew all the stats on what immigration was going to be and they lied about it, or if they Created a separate organization to create fake stats to convince the American public, then I would 100% agree that that would be an injustice and it would be a horrible thing, similar to the Iraq war.

00:25:34.000 But I don't think there's any evidence of that happening, so I can't really say that it was an injustice at the time.

00:25:39.000 It seems like the will of the people was represented in a bipartisan way, but it seems like the act just turned out in a way that we didn't want it to, so I have a hard time calling that an injustice at that particular point in time.

00:25:49.000 Maybe it's an injustice the government didn't address it later, or maybe the legislation could have been written with caps in place or something.

00:25:56.000 If something did happen, I guess, but I mean, it had bipartisan support.

00:25:59.000 The elected people voted on it.

00:26:00.000 It wasn't a big election issue after that, so it seems like the will of the people in terms of how our government functions was represented.

00:26:06.000 So it's, well, okay, but so really your only difference there is that you believe that the Bush Cheney government intentionally misled and the people who wrote Hartzeller did not intentionally mislead.

00:26:20.000 That's the difference.

00:26:21.000 Okay.

00:26:21.000 All right, and people can look into this.

00:26:21.000 Correct.

00:26:23.000 People can look into this.

00:26:24.000 I encourage them to.

00:26:26.000 I think a case can be made that there was intent on the part of.

00:26:30.000 The co signers of the Hart Seller Act.

00:26:32.000 But we'll move on from that.

00:26:33.000 I know that's.

00:26:34.000 Well, wait, I'm curious.

00:26:35.000 Just because you said that.

00:26:36.000 What is your evidence for the intent there?

00:26:36.000 Yeah.

00:26:38.000 Well, I mean, you can.

00:26:40.000 Sure.

00:26:40.000 I mean, you can look at the actual provisions of the act, which was to eliminate quotas for national origin.

00:26:47.000 So it would almost be impossible for them not to know.

00:26:51.000 Do you understand?

00:26:52.000 Because, you know, that would function in no other way.

00:26:56.000 Why didn't the 70 to 80% of Democrats and Republicans that voted on it and saw the provisions, why couldn't they?

00:27:02.000 Deduce that from the listed provisions?

00:27:03.000 Did nobody read the legislation?

00:27:05.000 I'm sure they did.

00:27:06.000 And that's sort of the point, though, is because if you were to eliminate the quota for national origins, it would necessarily have to change the composition of immigration.

00:27:16.000 And if you eliminate the numerical quota for immediate relatives of immigrants, it would necessarily increase the amount of immigration.

00:27:24.000 So I think that it's almost impossible.

00:27:27.000 Yeah, go ahead.

00:27:28.000 I don't understand why nobody that voted on it then, because this seems like a big hindsight, like we're playing a hindsight bias right now.

00:27:34.000 Well, obviously, this is how it would turn out.

00:27:35.000 It doesn't seem like it was that obvious at the time if nobody made a deal about it, though.

00:27:39.000 Well, I think that kind of speaks to the fact that they did know.

00:27:42.000 But, you know, that's a disagreement of opinion, which neither of us have.

00:27:46.000 Yeah.

00:27:46.000 Sure.

00:27:47.000 And then, real fast, I don't like to draw an equivalency between that and the war in Iraq.

00:27:51.000 The war in Iraq was very blatantly missold to the American public.

00:27:51.000 Why is that?

00:27:54.000 The CIA was very confident that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

00:28:00.000 Where's your evidence for that?

00:28:01.000 Well, the Bush administration made their own separate organization to take direct, unvetted intel from CIA sources that were given to them.

00:28:12.000 I have to go and look up the exact department that they made.

00:28:15.000 Well, because, and the only reason why I ask is because MI6 intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and KGB intelligence that were offered to the United States all confidently asserted that there were WMDs.

00:28:27.000 Elements in Saddam Hussein's own government asserted the same thing.

00:28:29.000 He lied to his own people.

00:28:30.000 I can't speak for MI6, but I know that the CIA at the time was pretty clear that they did not believe that there were WMDs in Iraq.

00:28:38.000 But it was when Bush and Cheney set up a separate branch to take unvetted intel.

00:28:43.000 And then funnel that directly into the White House that they were able to get what they wanted and then sell that to the American public.

00:28:48.000 The idea that Iraq contained WMDs was not information that came from the CIA, that came from Bush and Cheney's own specially created little side thing.

00:28:56.000 I'll find the exact name if you give me like two seconds.

00:28:59.000 Sure, yeah.

00:29:00.000 The only reason I ask is.

00:29:01.000 It was called the Office of Special Plans.

00:29:03.000 Okay.

00:29:04.000 So they took.

00:29:04.000 You can read this here.

00:29:05.000 So the way that the chain usually works is people who are very high up making administrative decisions or decisions related to war are usually briefed by people in the IC, in the intelligence community.

00:29:15.000 They will take.

00:29:15.000 A plethora of information using their abilities as intelligence officers.

00:29:19.000 They'll combine it into ways that they think make sense.

00:29:22.000 They know what's probably true, what's probably not true, and then they give presentations to people in higher offices about what they would recommend or what they think is true or not true. 0.64

00:29:29.000 Since the CIA wasn't giving Bush the answer that he wanted in regards to WMDs in Iraq, they created a separate office of special plans that drafted raw intelligence into their office so that they could take whatever pieces they wanted and then sell to the American public the idea of WMDs.

00:29:44.000 I'm not really concerned whether or not you, because I know this is a lot to just dump on you.

00:29:47.000 Right, right, right.

00:29:48.000 I got you.

00:29:48.000 Yeah, no.

00:29:49.000 I don't like to point to this and say that the Iraq war was the same as the Hart Seller thing.

00:29:53.000 Right, right. 0.90

00:29:54.000 I think that's a fair comparison.

00:29:55.000 This was much more subversive, in my opinion.

00:29:58.000 Yeah, no, I tend to agree with you that it was subversive.

00:30:01.000 I think the war in Afghanistan was the same thing. 0.93

00:30:03.000 So, by the way, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm trying to justify the Iraq war, but simply to say that I think that there is, you know, maybe it's not a perfect analogy.

00:30:13.000 And I think you would agree that there are things that make it totally insufficient altogether to compare, but.

00:30:19.000 I think, you know, we've stated our case.

00:30:21.000 I think it comes down to the question of intent, and we can leave it to the audience to figure out if similar intent or evidence exists for intent on the side of 65.

00:30:29.000 So I just want to go over that because people so rarely talk about that part of the argument, which is to say that people talk about the consequences, but not so much the genesis of them.

00:30:39.000 So I'm glad we covered that.

00:30:40.000 I think that was interesting. 0.67

00:30:41.000 But so then we have to get to the consequences, which is immigration from the third world, i.e., non white immigration, not from Europe. 0.85

00:30:51.000 Has it been good or bad for the country?

00:30:53.000 Now, I'm curious about your position because I'm not totally sure.

00:30:57.000 Are you saying that it is a positive good that non white immigrants are coming to the country, or are you saying that it doesn't matter the composition of the immigrants?

00:31:07.000 Yeah, so I'm neutral to the composition of people coming into the country in terms of how they look and what their cultural background is or whatever. 1.00

00:31:16.000 Specific metrics like value to the economy would be things that I'm very concerned about. 1.00

00:31:21.000 And I guess things like crime rates and whatnot would be things that I'd be concerned about as well.

00:31:24.000 If they're overrepresented in those demographics, then these would be things that I would be concerned about, sure. 0.80

00:31:30.000 Because, you know, I look at one of the biggest things I go by is not so much economics. 0.99

00:31:30.000 Okay, sure. 0.99

00:31:35.000 I'm not really, people are very tempted to make the economic argument.

00:31:38.000 And I had Will Nardi on, and he was very quick and keen to make it about economics.

00:31:42.000 But that's never the case for me. 0.98

00:31:44.000 Even if immigrants were a net benefit to the economy, I would still be against non European immigration. 0.95

00:31:49.000 And I would say that there is really a much more important case to be made here against non white immigration that I think is not stated so much because it's called politically incorrect or whatever. 0.97

00:32:00.000 But I would say that, you know, and you've said, That if there was something quantifiable or something for why we should exclude certain immigrants and not others, you would be okay with excluding them. 0.87

00:32:11.000 Well, I would say probably one of the bigger arguments for me is the historical precedent, which is to say that the people that founded the country were explicitly against non white immigration, the people that founded the government, that gave the government its mandate. 0.93

00:32:25.000 And I can read you, I mean, people that you'd be surprised by. 0.86

00:32:27.000 I mean, in the Constitution, it says, and this is the preamble, we, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.

00:32:35.000 Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

00:32:46.000 That's the crucial operative there.

00:32:47.000 Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

00:32:51.000 So, our founding document from which our government derives the mandate to act, it says that this government acts in the service of the posterity of the founding fathers and the people who founded the country in the 13 colonies.

00:33:04.000 So, how in good conscience can you say that?

00:33:07.000 It doesn't matter who comes into the country when the founding document that gives our government a mandate to act says explicitly that it's the posterity of the nation, European in character, that this government was created for.

00:33:22.000 Because I think when our government was created, we were given the ability to amend our constitution via the amendment process.

00:33:28.000 And it seems like through the process of amending our constitution, those values have slightly changed over time.

00:33:34.000 The original document of our constitution was never meant to be an unchanging, unyielding force.

00:33:40.000 It seemed like we were given right off the bat before it was even ratified.

00:33:44.000 We were given the first 10 amendments to make changes to the Constitution or to add things as we see fit. 0.75

00:33:49.000 And it seems like at this point in time, we don't agree that America should only be a white Eurocentric place. 0.87

00:33:54.000 And I mean, that's where our Constitution is at now. 0.85

00:33:56.000 If we dramatically disagree, I guess we could try to revoke some amendments or add more amendments in the future.

00:34:01.000 But.

00:34:03.000 Well, I mean, that's good.

00:34:05.000 You know, the Constitution was supposed to be amended.

00:34:08.000 That was part of the process.

00:34:10.000 But then.

00:34:11.000 I think you're conflating two things, which is popular opinion moving past the founding mandate of the government, but you sort of combined it with the constitutional process.

00:34:20.000 Can you point to me in the constitutional amendments, of which there are 27, where it says that the original mandate, constitutional mandate for the government is not to serve the posterity of the founders?

00:34:32.000 I know you can point to the 14th Amendment, which says that you can't discriminate based on color within the country.

00:34:39.000 But where in the constitutional amendments does it say that we should bring in more people? 0.92

00:34:45.000 That are not of European origin. 0.93

00:34:47.000 I don't think that's in any of the amendments, is it?

00:34:50.000 Well, the Constitution is a limit on what the government can do.

00:34:54.000 It tells specifically the government what it can do.

00:34:54.000 Right.

00:34:56.000 So I wouldn't have to find an amendment that would say you can't, or you would have to show me something of the Constitution that says we're not allowed to bring in immigrants.

00:35:05.000 Without that, then you would assume that it's delegated to the states, correct?

00:35:09.000 That's how our Constitution is set up?

00:35:11.000 No, no, because in Article 2 of the Constitution, it gives the power of foreign affairs, of which the founders considered immigration, over to the president.

00:35:22.000 And that's why the president has such broad powers to act on immigration.

00:35:26.000 It's not a federal issue for the states to determine.

00:35:29.000 That's something explicitly in the control of the federal government.

00:35:32.000 And it doesn't explicitly say in the preamble that we can't let in any other people, but implicitly, the spirit of the founding mandate of the Constitution is the posterity.

00:35:43.000 And if you don't believe me, that sounds like an extrapolation, correct?

00:35:48.000 Well, if you don't believe me, and this is so important, John Jay wrote, John Jay was the first chief Supreme Court justice in the United States.

00:35:55.000 And the first Federalist paper, which is, you know, if you're familiar with the Federalist papers, was John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.

00:36:03.000 They wrote a series of essays to justify the new Constitution of the United States, which was up for ratification in 1787, got ratified in 1788.

00:36:13.000 And John Jay wrote in the first Federalist paper this, and it's a pretty long quote, but I think it's important to establish.

00:36:18.000 He said Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.

00:36:35.000 This country and this people seem to have been made for each other.

00:36:38.000 So now I can understand why you would think it'd be shaky logic to say that the preamble, because it says we give this government to ourselves and our posterity, why that might exclude immigration.

00:36:49.000 But in the first Federalist paper to justify the Constitution, John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice, explicitly lays out what posterity means, which is a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, the same religion, same principles of government, similar in manners and customs.

00:37:06.000 So would you say that?

00:37:08.000 Excluding an amendment to the Constitution, excluding a constitutional amendment, which is a pretty long process, and it was to get this Constitution passed. 0.95

00:37:17.000 Don't you think that it goes against the founding mandate of the country to fundamentally alter our immigration process to include the third world and make it all from the third world? 0.99

00:37:26.000 I guess that might be a possibility. 1.00

00:37:28.000 I don't know enough constitutional history to say it.

00:37:30.000 I guess I don't really consider the original intention to some of the earliest founding preambles or Federalist papers in terms of how we should conduct policy today.

00:37:40.000 I mean, I can't really argue with you here.

00:37:42.000 No, like, I haven't read the Federalist Papers, and I don't know the intention behind every writer there, so it's possible that, I mean, and not even possible.

00:37:42.000 I don't.

00:37:49.000 It's probably probable that they would be, like, for, like, Eurocentric white America, whatever, you know, descendants, language, religion, and all of that. 0.91

00:37:56.000 It's entirely possible, sure. 0.73

00:37:57.000 But I guess it's not where we're at right now today with our government.

00:38:00.000 It doesn't seem to be how any of the government functions today, so I guess I just don't see the relevance in bringing up those original intentions.

00:38:06.000 Sure.

00:38:06.000 Well, you know, I think it is an important thing to address the gravity of the original intent of the Constitution, because that is something that is up for debate, even by constitutional scholars.

00:38:15.000 There is a Significant wing in the Supreme Court, even who would hold the same opinion that you do, that it is a living document, so to speak.

00:38:23.000 And to make a case for, to make albeit a brief case for the original intent for the Constitution with regards to immigration, I would say that without a constitutional mandate for widespread social legal reform, I would say that anything is permitted.

00:38:41.000 And in 100 years, for example, this is not something I predict.

00:38:45.000 This is not something that I think would even happen.

00:38:48.000 But hypothetically, in 100 years, if there's a radical social change, the Congress, if you take the living document at face value, the Congress could reinstitute slavery.

00:39:00.000 Because even though it's against the Constitution, in 100 years, and who knows what could be possible in 100 years, the Congress in itself, and we know the transient nature of Congress, could pass something that you might find.

00:39:12.000 Morally reprehensible, whether that be slavery, whether that be a Nazi state, whether that be something completely horrible, heinous.

00:39:22.000 And the constitutional process was set up and put in place so that the amendment process would be deliberately slow and difficult.

00:39:29.000 You need a convention.

00:39:30.000 You need it to be ratified by two thirds of the state or two thirds of the Senate.

00:39:34.000 I mean, it's a long process, it's difficult.

00:39:37.000 You really need the will of the people behind you. 0.98

00:39:39.000 And so I would challenge you and say if the Congress can fundamentally change the demographics of the country, which is an important thing, And say that this is now a majority minority country.

00:39:49.000 This country now speaks half English and half Spanish.

00:39:52.000 It's 14% Asian.

00:39:54.000 It's 33% Hispanic.

00:39:55.000 It's 14% black and 40% white.

00:39:59.000 What then is the limit to the power of a transient Congress, which lasts only two years and is subject to the passions of the majority?

00:40:09.000 So, what exactly are you asking in terms of.

00:40:12.000 Well, I'm asking, like, yeah, sure.

00:40:14.000 So, if Destiny's system is that.

00:40:17.000 If we have, quote unquote, evolved beyond something that's in the Constitution, do you see no problem with things being drastic reform taking place with just a congressional bill, just with a 50% majority in the Congress?

00:40:34.000 I mean, if that's how bills are passed, I mean, you all, by living in a democracy, you accept that there are things that could be passed that you disagree with.

00:40:40.000 I mean, no democracy can run where the will of every single individual person is represented.

00:40:44.000 Well, no, but we're not talking about the will.

00:40:46.000 We're talking about the Constitution, which is.

00:40:49.000 What are the limits of what a.

00:40:52.000 And you yourself have said how the Congress is corrupt and they do bad things, like they fight wars in Iraq, which was unconstitutional.

00:40:58.000 But, I mean, you've acknowledged that the government is corrupt.

00:41:01.000 It's pretty shady.

00:41:02.000 And when they're subject to the passions of a transient majority, they can do things that aren't necessarily what the people would want.

00:41:10.000 And you're right.

00:41:11.000 You know, you say, well, that's the democratic process, and that happens sometimes.

00:41:15.000 But the founders of the country set up the Constitution, and the government derives its powers from the Constitution, said that.

00:41:22.000 To prevent that from happening, legislation has to fit into the constraints of the Constitution. 0.77

00:41:28.000 And they made it a very difficult process to change the Constitution so that those limits would, to some extent, be pretty concrete, so that you couldn't have Nazi America because you would have to step outside the bounds of the Constitution.

00:41:41.000 Either the passions of the majority would not last long enough to get an amendment through, or it'd be unconstitutional and could be shut down by the Supreme Court. 0.76

00:41:49.000 So I guess I'm asking do you not see a problem with the fact that?

00:41:53.000 We completely went against the Constitution with regards to immigration, and this is a bad precedent.

00:42:00.000 The problem is that, like, this is kind of the problem that I'm having right now the Constitution is a pretty decent document.

00:42:04.000 There's a lot of language in there for a lot of different things, and you're basing this whole thing on immigration on one word, on the posterity word.

00:42:12.000 Like, other than that, I don't think the Constitution explicitly mentions immigration anywhere, but like, because they said posterity in that one word, and then the Federalist Papers that exist that aren't part of government or the Constitution at all, you seem to think that from like that one thing you can derive that. 1.00

00:42:26.000 No immigration from other countries should ever be here. 0.84

00:42:29.000 I'm having a really hard time following that. 1.00

00:42:30.000 It seems like a huge extrapolation of a single thing.

00:42:34.000 No, and it is.

00:42:35.000 And allow me to justify it further.

00:42:38.000 These are the first words of the Constitution where it says that the purpose of the government, why we established, because they just broke off from King George, they just broke off from the British government, and the Articles of Confederation failed.

00:42:51.000 And so the people that signed the Constitution, it was ratified by two thirds of the state, very difficult process.

00:42:58.000 The preamble says why we have it is in order to form a more perfect union, we want to establish justice, ensure tranquility, provide the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

00:43:10.000 So, And I will justify it with more evidence.

00:43:13.000 It says that we're establishing the whole reason that henceforth all this good language that comes forth from this Constitution for this government is for the purpose of securing everything for ourselves and for our posterity.

00:43:27.000 And the first Supreme Court Justice, who, I mean, that's their charge with writing or interpreting, rather, the intent of the Constitution, he wrote in the first Federalist paper to justify the Constitution exactly what posterity means. 0.63

00:43:41.000 Christians.

00:43:42.000 And so, further, Thomas Jefferson, he wrote in a letter to George Washington in 1786, he wrote, Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people, African slaves, are to be free.

00:43:56.000 Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.

00:44:01.000 And you saw in the Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, and 1798 that immigration was restricted to free white persons of good character. 0.94

00:44:12.000 So you have three legislative acts in the first. 0.61

00:44:15.000 30 years of the government. 0.94

00:44:16.000 You have the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the first Supreme Court justice in the first Federalist paper, and the preamble of the Constitution all basically setting forth this precedent that this country is not for anyone else other than European Christians. 0.59

00:44:29.000 And, you know, you may disagree with that, but then why should you not have to go through the constitutional process to change that?

00:44:36.000 I guess I don't necessarily disagree with that.

00:44:38.000 I mean, it sounds like you know a fair bit about this.

00:44:40.000 So that was their intentions back then.

00:44:42.000 That's, that's, then that can be their intentions back then.

00:44:44.000 I guess I'm just not usually too concerned with like, What were the exact intentions behind some of the people 200 plus years ago?

00:44:50.000 I'm more concerned with policy that's affected today and what's going on today with where we stand at government.

00:44:54.000 And it seems like nobody else in government holds these specific views anymore.

00:44:58.000 So I just don't see the relevance, I guess, unless you want to argue at it from straight. 0.58

00:45:02.000 If we were having strictly a constitutional debate on what the Constitution allows the federal government to do insofar as immigration, then of course I would admit you're right, I guess, based on this.

00:45:12.000 But I guess I'm just not seeing the relevance to what we're talking about in terms of today's issues in the United States.

00:45:17.000 Well, I mean, the relevance is that if the Congress tomorrow, you know, if this Trump hysteria was real, and I imagine you were against Trump, correct?

00:45:29.000 Yeah, pretty heavily, yeah.

00:45:31.000 Okay, so you're heavily against Trump.

00:45:33.000 Okay, so let's.

00:45:34.000 I dislike hypotheticals, but I think it's especially important for the Constitution because so much of what the founders put in place, whether you think they were like old racists and crusty people or not, they made a pretty, I think, sober judgment about how a government should act.

00:45:49.000 And so that's why hypotheticals are important.

00:45:52.000 If President Trump gets elected and it's 2016, he has his Republican House, his Republican Senate, he stuffed the Supreme Court with conservative justices, and he says tomorrow that Muslims in the country have to wear a special badge.

00:46:08.000 And there was a lot of hysteria during the election that he said that.

00:46:11.000 He never said that.

00:46:13.000 And this is an example I think you can understand.

00:46:17.000 If President Trump tomorrow passed sweeping legislation, he had the mandate from the people.

00:46:22.000 And Paul Ryan's on the same page.

00:46:24.000 He's not, but hypothetically, he is. 0.82

00:46:26.000 And they passed legislation that Muslims have to wear badges. 1.00

00:46:28.000 They're second class citizens. 1.00

00:46:30.000 The Constitution would protect against that. 0.99

00:46:33.000 But if, according to your standard, and standards are very important, I'm not getting into the consequentialist, so to speak.

00:46:40.000 I'm getting into more the systemic, the precedent that it sets.

00:46:45.000 This would be completely acceptable under your system, which is that, well, whatever, you know, because it's an imperfect representative democracy, well, whatever the Congress does, because it's a sign of the times and the Constitution is old, well, that can happen.

00:46:58.000 I mean, do you not see a problem with that?

00:47:01.000 Do you not see a middle ground anywhere between every single letter of the Constitution must be followed as it was originally written?

00:47:07.000 Versus anything can go.

00:47:08.000 I think there are middle grounds that we exist in today.

00:47:11.000 We have our interpretation of the Constitution and a lot of constitutional law given to us by the Supreme Court, by legislatures of our current understanding of law.

00:47:18.000 I think there's a middle ground here.

00:47:21.000 Well, what is the middle?

00:47:21.000 Okay.

00:47:22.000 I mean, like, and I think.

00:47:23.000 For them to do that, it sounds like they would have to roll back things like protected classes.

00:47:27.000 They would have to go through a lot of work.

00:47:30.000 To give special badges to people would probably take an amendment.

00:47:34.000 I mean, if they had a majority everywhere, maybe they could rule and get it.

00:47:37.000 It's possible they could get it.

00:47:38.000 But.

00:47:39.000 I don't agree that the only two positions can be absolute strict letter of the law, view of everything, versus absolutely nothing matters and Congress can do whatever they want.

00:47:47.000 I think there's a middle ground here.

00:47:49.000 Yeah, and I understand it's a heavy handed thing to say.

00:47:51.000 I believe it.

00:47:52.000 I understand it might be heavy handed, but then you understand that your reasoning is a little bit shaky here.

00:47:57.000 This sort of like, well, you know, maybe this is okay.

00:47:59.000 Maybe they need majorities.

00:48:01.000 And this is all very pretty shaky.

00:48:02.000 I'm asking you because if there is a middle ground, I want to hear it.

00:48:06.000 I mean, what would be the standard that would differentiate transforming the demographics of the country and the badges?

00:48:12.000 So let me use a.

00:48:13.000 Leave us a real example, okay?

00:48:14.000 And then I'll speak to immigration things.

00:48:14.000 Okay.

00:48:16.000 Sure.

00:48:16.000 So, or we'll do the immigration, but I'll do the real example first, okay?

00:48:20.000 So, I think that, in my opinion, and it sounds like you know more about constitutional law than I do, in my opinion, I think that the ACA, as much as I'm for it insofar as its pragmatic implementation, was probably something that should have required some sort of amendment to pass.

00:48:34.000 I don't understand how the government can mandate me to purchase something and then fine it and call it a tax. 0.97

00:48:39.000 That seems like bullshit to me. 0.91

00:48:41.000 I feel like that needed some sort of amendment to pass. 0.99

00:48:42.000 I don't agree that that was able to slide by.

00:48:44.000 Right.

00:48:45.000 When we talk about immigration, We have hundreds of years of law that seems to disagree with this very original single word that you're pointing to.

00:48:55.000 So, I mean, legal precedent is very important insofar as how our law functions.

00:49:00.000 So, when you have all this law that goes into making something a certain way, I'm more likely to believe the current day interpretation than to say, well, let's look back 250 years ago, what they said when they first wrote the document, because it seems like that's not very relevant anymore.

00:49:13.000 Well, okay.

00:49:14.000 Yeah.

00:49:14.000 And yeah, is that, are you going to make another analogy, or was that just for the immigration?

00:49:19.000 So, for something like.

00:49:21.000 Let's say that for the healthcare thing, right?

00:49:23.000 Let's say that we had had for hundreds of years, or maybe even hundreds of years in the future, we will, where the government starts mandating you to purchase private things, right?

00:49:32.000 Well, because I think the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was okay.

00:49:35.000 If we continue to get rulings like that, you know, 100 years from now, that's just kind of an accepted part of government then.

00:49:41.000 The legal precedent is so strong that you can't just go back to, you know, 1999 and go, well, look, the government didn't do this then.

00:49:47.000 Well, at that point, it's a little bit irrelevant, right?

00:49:49.000 You kind of have to go by the legal precedent that's been established up to that point.

00:49:53.000 So.

00:49:54.000 Yes, so the ACA as it stands now would be something that I would be opposed to on a constitutional basis, and insofar as what the government has the power to do.

00:50:01.000 But when you're talking about something like immigration that's got hundreds of years of legal precedent backing up where we are now, I have a much harder time saying, well, let's go back, let's roll the clock back, if that makes sense.

00:50:11.000 Yeah, no, I get what you're saying.

00:50:12.000 And, you know, the Obamacare example is interesting.

00:50:15.000 The Obamacare example, the constitutional disagreement is a private property thing, and it's an amendment number 10 thing. 0.83

00:50:25.000 That is to say, that the Constitution, it's arguable whether the Constitution lays out specifically, enumerates specifically the right to force someone to buy insurance, like you said, which is bullshit, you know, obviously.

00:50:37.000 And number two, that the government can provide spending for health care.

00:50:40.000 And this is welfare in general, that in Article I, Section 8, it says what provisions the government can spend money on constitutionally.

00:50:49.000 And the difference is that in the language of Article I, Section 8, it says the general welfare.

00:50:55.000 It says you can spend money on X, Y, and Z.

00:50:57.000 It says very specifically.

00:50:58.000 And then it says.

00:51:00.000 And anything to ensure the general welfare.

00:51:02.000 Now, many people have said that the general welfare, and this was the original intent, was that general welfare would be an affirmation of the previous item, saying X, Y, and Z, and anything else to assist X, Y, and Z.

00:51:13.000 But there is, I think, a reasonable way that you can interpret general welfare to say social safety net, to say that is in addition to the previous measures.

00:51:21.000 With immigration, there doesn't exist the wiggle room.

00:51:24.000 And so I think that's where we can find a middle ground in terms of you can interpret the language to a pretty reasonable extent with fiscal matters, with certain other matters.

00:51:33.000 But with immigration, it says very specifically in the law ourselves and our posterity.

00:51:38.000 And, you know, the Federalist Papers are not law.

00:51:41.000 But if we're looking at the intent of the law, you don't have the same precedent that you do with Article I, Section 8.

00:51:47.000 It doesn't really exist where they say you can never have a social safety net because that didn't exist in 1788.

00:51:53.000 But there was a very clear intent for the preamble, which said what posterity means.

00:52:01.000 And there's really no wiggle room on this one.

00:52:03.000 So I agree, you know, there is middle ground.

00:52:05.000 We have that, but not with this issue.

00:52:08.000 It's so it's kind of sounds to me like it's almost like a discussion on communism, where somebody will give me all of these reasons why communism could be great or it could be awesome or it could be cool.

00:52:18.000 And these are, like, at least insofar as my channel, I'm not usually interested in arguing with people about the tenets of communism because it seems like such an incredibly unlikely, unrealistic thing that I'm just not usually concerned with having those arguments.

00:52:29.000 We were having an argument on the original interpretation, constitutional view of these issues.

00:52:29.000 Okay.

00:52:38.000 Then that would be a discussion, but this is a discussion that I've never had before.

00:52:42.000 Okay, really interested in it because, and I think we both agree on this point you don't, this is never going to happen, right?

00:52:48.000 Nobody is ever going to get up in Congress and go, Well, look at the word posterity here, and here are the Federalist Papers, and everything we've ever thought about immigration.

00:52:56.000 This is never going to happen, right?

00:52:57.000 You understand that, right?

00:52:59.000 Uh, no, I wouldn't say that, I wouldn't say that exactly.

00:53:01.000 And certainly, Donald Trump ran on a platform that was explicitly pro white, explicitly anti immigration.

00:53:08.000 Now, he might have the constitutional gravitas or Or education to phrase it this way, but I think you're seeing a growing electorate in America and certainly in Europe, which is saying that these governments, whether you're for immigration or not, do not have the mandate to change countries, whether it's good, whether it's bad, whether there's a vote or not, that these countries remain as they were unless you really have a popular mandate. 0.61

00:53:32.000 So I don't agree with that premise that this is not an impractical thing.

00:53:37.000 I think that's exactly what the question is. 0.96

00:53:39.000 I mean, the poor people in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, that are being displaced by illegal immigrants. 0.95

00:53:46.000 Maybe it's economic for them, but certainly for someone like me, when I drive 15 minutes east down Ogden Avenue in Chicago and I end up in Little Village and everywhere all the signs are in Spanish, all the restaurants are Mexican, everyone speaks Spanish, it's all Mexicans. 0.95

00:54:03.000 I don't care so much about the economics. 0.99

00:54:05.000 I think for a lot of people, it's more about who is this country for?

00:54:09.000 Who is this country built for?

00:54:10.000 What's the mandate?

00:54:11.000 And if you're going to change it, you need that precedent.

00:54:14.000 You need to fundamentally alter.

00:54:17.000 The laws with the will of the people and not just like legislative fiat.

00:54:21.000 So, I mean, that's where I hope you understand the significance of that.

00:54:24.000 This is not like I hope I'm not going with semantic stuff.

00:54:28.000 I'm just saying that as of today, I haven't heard of a single federal congressman or federal senator or anybody involved with government suggest that the United States needs to roll back its immigration policy 200 years.

00:54:28.000 No, I understand.

00:54:40.000 I haven't heard this as a suggestion.

00:54:42.000 If it started to be a hotly contested thing, then I would probably be more interested in diving into the topic.

00:54:48.000 But it just seems like this is so I've never heard anybody, any elected official, bring this up before.

00:54:54.000 It just doesn't seem very realistic.

00:54:55.000 Like this is an issue that we're going to be talking about in the next.

00:54:57.000 You know, six years or seven years of how would that Trump's presidency, the next president, whatever's going on?

00:55:04.000 Well, I mean, started to be brought up, like, then I would be, I would dig into it more, but I don't know, like I said, I've just, I've never heard anybody bring up, you know, these kinds of arguments before insofar as why immigration shouldn't exist in the way that it does today, or at least no elected official has.

00:55:16.000 Sure.

00:55:16.000 Well, well, then I guess, you know, if we can move along from this, because, and in fairness, you didn't prepare for a constitutional debate, so I won't beat you over the head.

00:55:25.000 I hate when people do that, when they come at you with a subject that they know about, and you, you know, didn't even get the memo that that was going to be there.

00:55:32.000 So, You know, sure, we could pass over that for now.

00:55:35.000 And we could just talk strictly about immigration and the racial component there.

00:55:40.000 But I would just ask you you look around the world today, and I've studied African politics.

00:55:46.000 I don't want you to think I'm some kind of bigot or racist or like I just look at Africa and I go, it sucks, like, you know, just from an uneducated perspective. 0.99

00:55:53.000 But you look at Africa and it's uniquely like the worst place in the world to live. 0.97

00:55:58.000 And it has been for 3,000 years. 0.98

00:56:01.000 And you look at Latin America, very corrupt, very poor, lots of violence.

00:56:05.000 You look at Asia, and certainly there's corruption, there's drug trafficking.

00:56:08.000 They have their problems, not to the same extent as Africa and Latin America, but they have them.

00:56:13.000 And I'm wondering do you see all these people from all these different worlds?

00:56:19.000 And this is sort of like a can you honestly believe this?

00:56:21.000 Which I don't like those questions, but I mean, tell me why it doesn't matter from where our immigrants come from.

00:56:28.000 Tell me why it doesn't matter whether we get them from the Congo or from France.

00:56:32.000 I mean, is there no difference in your mind between those people?

00:56:36.000 How often are people immigrating from the Congo to the United States that aren't in the upper echelons of society?

00:56:42.000 How often is a criminal from the Congo finding his way into the United States?

00:56:46.000 Well, I mean, you could take the Sudanese immigrant, Emmanuel Sampson, who just shot up a church in Tennessee.

00:56:54.000 He was from Africa.

00:56:56.000 And now one person is dead and six are wounded.

00:56:59.000 Well, I mean, you don't even have to look at Africa, but you can even look at Asian and Latin American immigration.

00:57:04.000 I mean, if we could take a better example, because you're right, the majority of immigration now comes from Latin America.

00:57:04.000 Sure.

00:57:11.000 But do you see no difference then in quality between an immigrant from Nicaragua and El Salvador and an immigrant from Paris, France, or from London, England?

00:57:22.000 So I guess this is difficult because I usually talk about this in an economic lens because it's usually what I'm most concerned with.

00:57:31.000 But you don't want to talk about the economic issue. 0.59

00:57:33.000 So I guess the way that I would look at a particular immigrant is I would hope that the country has some measure in place.

00:57:41.000 Like if somebody is coming from a country and they have a record of like. 15 convicted rapes or something, right? 0.52

00:57:47.000 This is not somebody that we would let into the country.

00:57:49.000 But the letting people in or not would be based on their background, not necessarily their ethnicity or cultural origin or their religion or anything like that.

00:57:59.000 Okay.

00:58:00.000 Yeah, that's fair.

00:58:01.000 That's fair.

00:58:02.000 More of like a background check thing as opposed to a national origin.

00:58:07.000 And then I would ask you as a follow up I mean, this is really sort of the question of racial determinism.

00:58:12.000 And I know you were pretty offended.

00:58:16.000 On Jon Tron's statement that he was fixated on race and he talked about an ethnostate and all of that.

00:58:21.000 Now, I'm not for an ethno state. 0.75

00:58:23.000 I think simply that America should retain a racial majority that is European.

00:58:28.000 That's not an ethnic, that's a racial component, and it should be a majority. 0.60

00:58:32.000 Not that there should be no blacks, not that there should be no Hispanics.

00:58:35.000 I'm Hispanic myself, but that there should be a racial majority.

00:58:39.000 And I guess what I'm asking is do you believe that if you have a nation that is majority minority or majority Hispanic or majority Asian, and certainly the demographics can change in the next 200 years?

00:58:53.000 Do you think it will remain the same country that it was when it was European?

00:58:57.000 Probably not, but I don't think any country is the same country that it was 50 years ago.

00:59:01.000 There's no, I don't know, maybe Russia, China.

00:59:04.000 Maybe some.

00:59:05.000 Definitely not China. 0.98

00:59:07.000 Not insofar as the way they function.

00:59:09.000 The people there live much differently than they did 50 years ago.

00:59:12.000 Oh, maybe superficially, but I mean, do they still have significant influences from Confucian culture?

00:59:18.000 Do they still have a single steady bloodline back to their ancestors?

00:59:22.000 Does the Great Wall still stand?

00:59:24.000 Do they still respect their elders?

00:59:25.000 I mean, Is there still a collective mentality?

00:59:27.000 Certainly the trappings have changed, but has the country remained the same?

00:59:31.000 I mean, you maintain similarities, but I think every country has changed quite a bit over the past 50 years as we've entered the 20th century.

00:59:38.000 Technology and the internet has changed everything insofar as you can step into any country now and find English speaking people everywhere.

00:59:46.000 Cultures have molded together a lot because of the distribution of entertainment from Hollywood to all over the world.

00:59:53.000 We share a lot of the same music now.

00:59:55.000 I think every country has changed.

00:59:56.000 This idea that some countries don't change or can hold on to something and not change.

01:00:00.000 Like, I don't think culture works like that ever.

01:00:01.000 Throughout all of human history, culture has always been changing and evolving.

01:00:05.000 I see, I disagree with that proposition.

01:00:07.000 I think that's the key difference is that you're saying that, well, all countries change.

01:00:12.000 Everything changes all the time.

01:00:14.000 And, you know, if that were the case, I think I might be more sympathetic.

01:00:17.000 But what we're seeing in the world right now with this 21st century thing, which I agree is a rapid transformation.

01:00:24.000 We've never seen anything like it in the history of the world, where you have, True globalism in communication and trade, commerce, migration.

01:00:31.000 But, you know, what I often say on my show is that the demographic change, which is different than a cultural change, is something like in Persia, where they adopt Islam instead of Zoroastrianism, but it's still Persian.

01:00:43.000 Or a country like Egypt adopts Islam. 1.00

01:00:47.000 That's actually a bad example, as they also brought in a fair amount of Arabs. 0.97

01:00:49.000 But, you know, a country like China can remain characteristically Chinese and the trappings change, but underlying it stays the same. 0.89

01:00:56.000 And certainly that is racial, ethnic, And something that is cultural within a biological component.

01:01:01.000 But I would say that when you say that, well, everything's changing, it's really not the case.

01:01:08.000 Only white countries, only European descended countries are undergoing this rapid demographic transformation and expected to do so. 0.62

01:01:17.000 I mean, you look at the movement of peoples, and do you see many Europeans transforming the demographics of Mexico or of Northern Africa or of China or even Japan?

01:01:29.000 And so I would say that our beef, It's not a racist thing.

01:01:29.000 I don't think so.

01:01:33.000 It's not like, well, you know, we don't want people because they look different from us, but we have a culture.

01:01:38.000 We have bloodlines.

01:01:39.000 We have people that were here before us that built the country, and seemingly we're the only ones that are expected to undergo this multicultural transformation.

01:01:47.000 I mean, why are you not holding every other country in the world to the standard? 0.94

01:01:52.000 So this kind of sounds like the why aren't more women dying on the job if we want true equality argument? 0.98

01:01:57.000 No, not necessarily. 0.98

01:01:59.000 So when people make that argument, people say we want more even representation of women and men in fields, and then somebody will inevitably go, Well, what about women don't go to coal sites and die all the time?

01:02:09.000 Like, that's not fair.

01:02:10.000 Well, okay, we don't want anybody to go to coal sites and die.

01:02:13.000 We're not trying to make those, we're not trying to increase the amount of people that are having to work jobs that, you know, wind up with you getting killed. 0.79

01:02:20.000 So when we talk about countries and you talk about how we don't expect other countries to undergo these demographic shifts, I mean, typically today it seems like whether it's from imperialism or whatever you want to accredit it to, white countries are usually the ones that are doing the best all around the world. 0.65

01:02:35.000 So we don't, I mean, if there were a ton of white people trying to immigrate to like Sudan or Chad or Kenya or someplace like this, then I guess.

01:02:43.000 Maybe there would be these issues, but we don't really see this happening.

01:02:46.000 People tend to not want to immigrate into these countries.

01:02:48.000 So when you say, like, we don't expect these countries to have demographic shifts, well, that's because nobody's trying to go to those countries.

01:02:53.000 Well, why aren't they?

01:02:54.000 Why aren't they going to those countries? 1.00

01:02:56.000 Usually because those countries suck. 1.00

01:02:58.000 Why do they suck? 1.00

01:03:00.000 It could be a combination of a very corrupt government, depending on what part of the world you're talking about. 0.99

01:03:05.000 It could be a lack of economic opportunity.

01:03:07.000 The economic opportunity available in a lot of Western world countries is usually far greater than in a lot of these other countries.

01:03:07.000 Okay.

01:03:13.000 I don't know.

01:03:14.000 It could be because of, if you're talking about Mexico, maybe things like crime, maybe things like. 0.93

01:03:17.000 Right.

01:03:18.000 Depending on what kind of organizations exist there.

01:03:20.000 I mean, I don't know.

01:03:21.000 There's a plethora of reasons.

01:03:22.000 Sure. 0.97

01:03:22.000 Well, the reason I ask is because we look around the world at countries, like you said, that suck, and we're not going there. 0.97

01:03:29.000 And the reason that we're not going there is because those countries don't work. 0.99

01:03:33.000 And I don't understand how you can divorce the people coming from those countries from the countries they came from. 0.88

01:03:39.000 I mean, Mexico, this is according to Transparency International, is the 93rd most corrupt country. 0.98

01:03:44.000 Excuse me, 93rd most corrupt country in the world, twice as corrupt as the United States.

01:03:49.000 Now, you look at Africa, 3,000 years of failure, not one successful city.

01:03:55.000 We arrived there in 1880, not one two story building, not one written language except for Ethiopia.

01:04:01.000 They didn't even have impersonal government.

01:04:03.000 Some places hadn't even invented the wheel.

01:04:05.000 And you say that that uniformity of failure, of civilizational failure, is in no way, shape, or form the responsibility of the people in those countries?

01:04:16.000 I guess when we talk about things like responsibility of the people, these aren't usually questions that I'm usually concerned about.

01:04:23.000 Like this idea of forcing somebody to say something, because it doesn't really get us anywhere.

01:04:27.000 It doesn't really get us towards any.

01:04:29.000 Has it in the past 3,000 years?

01:04:31.000 It has.

01:04:31.000 It has, and I'll tell you why.

01:04:33.000 It's still a shithole, apparently. 0.59

01:04:40.000 So it seemingly hasn't worked so far, no? 0.97

01:04:42.000 Well, I'll tell you why. 0.97

01:04:43.000 Here's why it's because it's a shithole for a reason. 1.00

01:04:48.000 And if we want to prevent our countries from looking like Africa or our countries from looking like Mexico or our countries from looking like Indonesia, maybe we should stop taking in Africans and Mexicans and Indonesians, correct? 1.00

01:05:03.000 I mean, that's what I'm fundamentally getting at here is that we seem to always start in the middle of the equation where there's some countries that are poor and some countries that are rich, and everyone should go to the rich ones. 0.92

01:05:14.000 Well, you know, we didn't get there out of it, it wasn't like luck that we became the richest.

01:05:19.000 Most successful, least corrupt countries in the world that had something to do with the people that were here.

01:05:23.000 I mean, there's no coincidence why. 1.00

01:05:25.000 Oh, the people that immigrated here.

01:05:27.000 Well, yeah.

01:05:28.000 The people that immigrated here from the other richest countries in the world, right?

01:05:32.000 I mean, Germany, Britain, Spain, France.

01:05:36.000 I mean, these were the wealthiest, most advanced countries in the world.

01:05:39.000 And they came here and they colonized and they set up a prosperous, successful country.

01:05:44.000 And now, here's the question you believe in this egalitarianism where you just have this sort of very easy indifference to who's coming in. 0.75

01:05:52.000 Maybe that's easy for you, but for people that want to see our country thrive, how can you say that it'll have no effect whether we bring in millions of Mexicans who have had a failure of a country for thousands of years and millions of Frenchmen or Englishmen or Germans who for a thousand years have had remarkably successful countries and in the past 500 years, the most, uniquely the most and by far the best countries? 0.94

01:06:18.000 So when you talk about a destroyed country, you talk about a country that has a lot of problems. 0.89

01:06:22.000 First of all, we've already moved past the fact that. 1.00

01:06:25.000 African countries are joining the first world at like record rates. 0.99

01:06:28.000 Are they?

01:06:29.000 Yeah, birth rates have fallen dramatically in a lot of these countries.

01:06:32.000 Well, then why aren't people moving to them if they're like these emerging countries? 1.00

01:06:34.000 Because they're still growing, because the Western world is still better. 1.00

01:06:37.000 You know this.

01:06:38.000 Okay.

01:06:39.000 So the African countries have largely been improving and joining us in regards to birth rates, in regards to medicine, in regards to access to education, and other sort of job opportunities.

01:06:48.000 So it's not like they're in the same place they were hundreds of years ago.

01:06:51.000 A lot of this has been a combination of us not abusing the countries as much and also helping the countries.

01:06:56.000 For aid and other types of joint, I don't know, whatever we do in terms of working with other countries, it seems to be working.

01:07:01.000 They seem to be joining the first world at pretty, pretty record basis.

01:07:04.000 You can look up like the birth rates of any of these countries and see that they've sloped off pretty dramatically and they're approaching Western birth rates.

01:07:11.000 Firstly, secondly, when you talk about countries that have a lot of problems, right, usually these problems are the result of a very, very, very difficult to change structure.

01:07:19.000 So if we look at something like Mexico, right, you might look at the structure of the cartels, you might look at the structure of their economy, you might look at the job opportunities available, you might look at the The government's inability to control certain things.

01:07:29.000 Just because people come to another country doesn't necessarily mean they're going to bring their broken structures with them.

01:07:35.000 I don't think that a thousand Mexicans coming over to the United States looking for work to escape the cartels are going to build a cartel in the United States.

01:07:43.000 I think that that's a pretty one dimensional view of why people would immigrate away from a country or immigrate to the United States in the first place.

01:07:51.000 Sure.

01:07:51.000 Well, so to answer your first point, you say that Africa's rapidly, they're so close to a breakthrough.

01:07:59.000 You know, in five years, it's going to be Britain, it's going to be Hong Kong.

01:08:03.000 I didn't say in five years.

01:08:04.000 No, I know.

01:08:05.000 Because they don't have third world.

01:08:05.000 I'm.

01:08:07.000 You understand?

01:08:07.000 It's a hyperbole.

01:08:08.000 You understand?

01:08:09.000 I'm doing a little bit of satire there.

01:08:11.000 But, you know, it sort of is a contradiction and a non sequitur because the very problem we're talking about is why they're fleeing these countries.

01:08:21.000 I mean, certainly, I think you would imagine that if these countries were accelerating at the rate you're talking about to first world status and the medicine, fertility rates are getting better.

01:08:31.000 I don't think people would be making a harrowing journey across the Sahara Desert and jumping into a raft on the Libyan coast and try to swim across the Mediterranean Ocean.

01:08:41.000 It wouldn't be this dramatic, impossible escape if they were on the cusp.

01:08:46.000 There is a long gulf there that I don't think is inevitable.

01:08:49.000 You seemingly made the supposition that because they have this trajectory, because they've gone from very, very terrible to just very terrible, that they're on this uninterrupted trajectory towards maybe you didn't say that, but it certainly seems like it, where.

01:09:05.000 And additionally, you say that they're on the cusp because we helped them, which is kind of key.

01:09:10.000 And so that's the first point it's sort of a non sequitur that people are making these impossible escapes from countries that are head and shoulders worse than Western countries.

01:09:21.000 And then, secondly, I don't think Mexicans are coming here to start drug cartels.

01:09:25.000 I think Mexicans come here and they start drug cartels.

01:09:28.000 It's a difference between, as we were talking earlier, between the intention and the result, which is to say that you have this idea of Mexicans and then they're hardworking, they come here for opportunities, and okay, sure. 1.00

01:09:39.000 But if I go down to Cicero or I go down to Tinley Park, where these are neighborhoods in Chicago, I'll get killed by a drunk Mexican if I'm driving like any time between 8 o'clock and like 2 in the afternoon. 0.98

01:09:51.000 I mean, realistically, where there's drug cartel violence in Pilsen and Little Village, where 50 years ago there was no kind of thing like that. 1.00

01:09:59.000 So I would say that, you know, number one, you wouldn't have immigration problems if they were advancing.

01:10:05.000 And number two, looking at, just very specifically, looking at that, like, I'm not saying that no Mexican that comes to the United States will never commit crime. 0.76

01:10:13.000 I think that's an unreasonable standard to place on any group of people. 0.99

01:10:16.000 I'm not saying that they're the only ones and they solely commit crimes, but certainly it is specifically a problem with Hispanic immigrants. 0.97

01:10:24.000 I mean, watch the show Narcos. 1.00

01:10:26.000 I've never seen those numbers before in my entire life.

01:10:29.000 Every number that I've ever seen that speaks of crime that separates Hispanics from whites always shows that Hispanics are underrepresented in terms of crime committed in the United States.

01:10:37.000 I've never seen any stats that contradict that.

01:10:39.000 There might be specific areas of Mexican crime, I guess, but. 0.60

01:10:43.000 There are specific areas of probably German, Russian, any white people crime, and black crime, of course.

01:10:48.000 That doesn't exist.

01:10:50.000 And here's kind of the difference.

01:10:52.000 That doesn't exist.

01:10:53.000 The sort of white crime you're talking about.

01:10:55.000 Jontron brought it up on your show, in fact, where he said that the poorest white communities have less crime than the richest black community. 0.70

01:11:04.000 So this sort of, well, I'm sure there's white crime.

01:11:07.000 I'm not interested in this type of data. 0.96

01:11:12.000 Well, show me where there's. 0.96

01:11:14.000 Show me where there's white crime. 0.84

01:11:15.000 I mean, where is there a hotbed of white crime that is like infamous? 0.98

01:11:18.000 Because I could think of many Hispanic and black hotbeds of crime. 0.99

01:11:21.000 Where's the white hotbed of crime? 1.00

01:11:23.000 We can talk about like the methamphetamine shit that destroys like the entire Midwest. 1.00

01:11:26.000 Like there's a ton of drug related shit that goes on in my neck of the woods in the United States. 1.00

01:11:30.000 Are you saying that white people don't commit crime in the United States? 1.00

01:11:33.000 And I think that's actually a straw man. 0.99

01:11:33.000 No, no. 0.99

01:11:35.000 What I'm saying is the immigrants that we're bringing in, it seems to be specifically a problem with them. 1.00

01:11:40.000 I mean, I don't think you would argue that, well, number one, most of the drugs come from. 1.00

01:11:45.000 From Mexico, with the exception of the designer drugs, those come from Asia and Canada, the Asian drug gangs in Canada.

01:11:51.000 But certainly, I don't think you would disagree with the fact that most of the cocaine and heroin and marijuana comes from the southern border.

01:11:57.000 You wouldn't argue against that, would you?

01:12:00.000 Probably not, but I mean, it's consumed by people in the United States.

01:12:03.000 Naturally, naturally, but the people that are bringing it here are coming from south of the border. 1.00

01:12:08.000 And the people that are bringing it are Mexican. 1.00

01:12:11.000 And like Tijuana is one example that comes to mind, Los Angeles is. 1.00

01:12:16.000 Violent, violent cities in Chicago as well. 1.00

01:12:19.000 I mean, there's bringing them to white people to consume. 1.00

01:12:22.000 Yeah, and I understand that. 0.96

01:12:23.000 Brainwash the white people with the drugs? 0.90

01:12:26.000 No. 0.98

01:12:27.000 But here's the difference.

01:12:28.000 As you look at, like, I have the same problem in my neck of the woods heroin overdoses.

01:12:34.000 You have a massive marijuana.

01:12:35.000 It's easily available, illegal and illicit substances.

01:12:40.000 But you don't see the violence.

01:12:42.000 You don't see the violence that is associated with that that you see.

01:12:45.000 Because when I talk about the drug gangs, It's the gangs and the violence.

01:12:49.000 Certainly, illicit substances have always been a problem. 1.00

01:12:52.000 But in particular, it's the gangs and the violence, which you see almost exclusively from Hispanics. 1.00

01:12:57.000 And certainly there is white crime, drug crime as well. 0.96

01:13:01.000 But this seems to be, even though we're the outsized, by a far majority, higher percentage of the population, we see a disproportionate amount of violent crime from Hispanics. 0.96

01:13:11.000 And I don't have to pull up a study for you to understand that if you go into the Mexican part of Chicago, you'll get shot easily than you would be in the white part of Chicago, right? 0.99

01:13:22.000 In that one hyper specific city. 0.75

01:13:24.000 Okay, and in Los Angeles, and in New York City, and in the big cities in Texas, and in New Mexico, and in Arizona.

01:13:30.000 I mean, point to me where this is not the case.

01:13:32.000 Bismarck, North Dakota?

01:13:34.000 I mean, where is this happening? 0.96

01:13:36.000 I mean, in the majority of Hispanics that come to the United States and don't go and live in some of the worst ghettos in the United States, it seems like this isn't much of a problem. 1.00

01:13:43.000 Doesn't this point to a geographic problem more so than a look at these Hispanics? 0.99

01:13:46.000 No. 1.00

01:13:47.000 No, I don't see how that would have anything to do with that.

01:13:49.000 Even though you just had to name these specific cities that have the toughest cities and the worst ghettos, you had to name six specific cities. 0.98

01:13:55.000 Which also, by the way, have the highest percentage of Mexican immigrants. 1.00

01:14:01.000 I didn't pull this out of my butt. 0.98

01:14:02.000 I mean, if you look at DACA, if you look at the legal immigration numbers, the vast majority of Hispanics go to New York and they go to California and they go to the The big cities. 0.99

01:14:10.000 That's where immigrants go to.

01:14:11.000 That's where the jobs are. 1.00

01:14:13.000 So, and again, I'm not saying it's all Mexicans or even it's most Mexicans that are participating in crime, but most of the violent crime is Mexicans, is people from. 1.00

01:14:24.000 And again, I mean, this is one slice of the problem, but I'm speaking more broadly to say that problems that are systemic in third world countries show up in first world countries, which is to say that, you know, this horrible, horrible drug sort of thing that has existed in the Hispanic world for a long, long time. 1.00

01:14:43.000 Has just now shown up because of the Mexicans in this country. 0.98

01:14:46.000 And certainly the Muslim African rape gangs in Europe have just started to appear when the Muslim Africans showed up. 0.98

01:14:53.000 And so I'm saying that there are these differences between immigrant groups that we cannot afford to be indifferent as to who's coming in. 0.99

01:15:00.000 That's what I'm saying.

01:15:01.000 Sure. 1.00

01:15:01.000 So even the Muslim rape gangs in Europe weren't Muslim rape gangs. 1.00

01:15:05.000 Usually these people were coming from like North African Muslim countries. 0.95

01:15:09.000 There was a very specific area that they were immigrating from.

01:15:09.000 Sure.

01:15:12.000 It wasn't just all Muslims that came and started these rape gangs. 0.99

01:15:15.000 Okay, but I mean, were there European rape gangs? 0.99

01:15:19.000 Or are they North African? 0.88

01:15:21.000 Sure, maybe North African.

01:15:22.000 And I don't know what the vetting process is like for every European country.

01:15:25.000 It seemed like there was a problem with people that came from Northern African countries based on the data that I read.

01:15:30.000 But I guess when we have these conversations, it seems like a baby in the bathwater thing.

01:15:34.000 Are there some problems in the United States with crime?

01:15:37.000 Yeah, for sure.

01:15:37.000 Are there some people that immigrate here and maybe move to these areas where they commit crime?

01:15:41.000 Yeah, sure. 1.00

01:15:41.000 But this idea that because there are these problems, we need to get rid of all of immigration. 1.00

01:15:46.000 It just seems like such an extreme reaction.

01:15:49.000 You get rid of all the positives in order to take care of some problems that you have in the United States.

01:15:55.000 It seems like a really ill conceived idea.

01:15:57.000 Sure.

01:15:57.000 Well, two things to address that.

01:15:59.000 Number one, you're right.

01:16:01.000 Sounds extreme.

01:16:04.000 Relatively minor crime problem relative to the gross domestic product that increases.

01:16:09.000 I would contend that if you were an American citizen, say you're a father, and I hope this is not an anecdotal emotional appeal, but it speaks to the principle of the matter.

01:16:19.000 That if you have ancestry going way back into the country and your ancestors have built the railroads and they built the buildings and they worked in the factory lines and they fought and died in the wars, they were conscripted into World War II.

01:16:30.000 And so you feel like you've made a really big investment and your lineage has in this country. 0.62

01:16:35.000 And you're a father and you've paid Social Security all your life, you've contributed, and your child is raped or killed. 0.85

01:16:42.000 And this is not an emotional appeal, it is to say that it sounds extreme, but when one American life is sacrificed, Because we want foreign people to be materially more wealthy, it's fundamentally a bad principle to go off of. 0.80

01:16:56.000 And I'll let you respond to that, but that's number one. 0.69

01:16:58.000 Well, I mean, my kid goes to school.

01:17:00.000 Yeah. 0.99

01:17:01.000 So the highest chance he's got of getting killed is by another white kid showing up at school and shooting the place up. 0.99

01:17:05.000 Well, that's in 2017. 0.97

01:17:07.000 But by 2065, and again, you know. 1.00

01:17:10.000 Hispanics are going to go to schools and shoot them up like white kids do. 1.00

01:17:13.000 Yes. 1.00

01:17:14.000 Well, that's beside the point.

01:17:15.000 But, I mean, to the point, I mean, a white person that shoots up a school is someone else that's been here.

01:17:21.000 You're never going to avoid all crime. 1.00

01:17:23.000 But if you're bringing in immigrants. 1.00

01:17:24.000 The argument that you're making that if a single American life is killed, and then you might point out that white people should have schools, now you're saying you can't avoid all crime? 0.62

01:17:31.000 Killed by another American. 0.50

01:17:32.000 You can never erase crime domestically. 0.98

01:17:35.000 Here's why it makes it different because bringing in people from a foreign country, if we can stop all foreign people coming from all foreign countries, you eliminate all casualties from foreign crime. 1.00

01:17:47.000 There's no way that you can ever get a grip. 0.99

01:17:50.000 I mean, you can have better or worse policies domestically in a country, but you'll always have crime from your own people, short of being a totalitarian country.

01:17:57.000 And even then, you'll have externalities for that. 1.00

01:18:00.000 But all crime is preventable from foreign people. 1.00

01:18:03.000 If your kid got killed by an illegal immigrant, you would feel especially gypped because. 1.00

01:18:08.000 That was supposed to be prevented. 0.99

01:18:10.000 But if your kid got killed by a legal immigrant in a drunk driving accident or a drug gang killing, you might not be as pissed off, but you could say at least that we could better control who's coming in or better yet make it so that that could never happen. 0.98

01:18:23.000 But I mean, I'll let you respond to that in detail. 0.95

01:18:26.000 And then number two, this is related.

01:18:26.000 But that's number one.

01:18:29.000 This is related.

01:18:30.000 Number two, as you said, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

01:18:34.000 And I hear this a lot.

01:18:36.000 I would ask, who is the baby?

01:18:38.000 What is the baby?

01:18:39.000 You act like.

01:18:40.000 We're throwing out all this rich, good material.

01:18:43.000 We're throwing out all this great stuff with all the bad stuff.

01:18:46.000 But outside of maybe the economy grows, maybe you have cheaper consumer goods. 0.99

01:18:54.000 What is the benefit that justifies even one American life that you have people coming here to this country? 1.00

01:19:00.000 I recognize immigrants will benefit from coming here, but what do the people in this country benefit that excluding them because of their crime would be so costly? 1.00

01:19:08.000 Opportunity cost, I suppose. 1.00

01:19:09.000 And you can answer those two points.

01:19:11.000 Sure. 0.78

01:19:12.000 So for the first one, in terms of like, what if your kid was killed by an immigrant? 1.00

01:19:15.000 Like, this just seems like such a bizarrely. 1.00

01:19:18.000 I can't even like fathom.

01:19:20.000 I mean, like, what if your kid was killed by like the descendant of an Irishman or Italian? 0.99

01:19:25.000 Like, would you say that like they should have never been allowed to stay in the United States, that we should have kept the policy that keeps them out? 0.99

01:19:30.000 Or what if people or people that legally immigrated here in the like the 30s or 40s and then had kids, should I feel bad if my kid gets killed by one of them? 0.99

01:19:38.000 Like, that's I can't even like fathom, like, man, if only we kept. 1.00

01:19:42.000 All the immigrants out forever, like that would have been a way to keep my kid from getting murdered. 1.00

01:19:46.000 What if my kid gets killed by somebody that goes to jail for marijuana use and then he gets out of jail and then later on he kills my kid? 0.89

01:19:51.000 Like, should I be thinking, like, man, if only we kept every single person that used marijuana locked up for life, this would have never happened? 0.90

01:19:57.000 Like, this just seems like such an extreme argument that would never hold up if you applied it to any other thing than immigrants. 0.82

01:20:05.000 And then also, we completely ignore the flip side of that. 0.87

01:20:08.000 What if my kid comes out of school with a business degree and he wants to start a business?

01:20:13.000 But he can't because there's no labor pool around, because he can't hire people because the cost of labor is so high because there's nobody here to work.

01:20:19.000 Or what if you have a city and you've got people that are going out of business because nobody's moving there because the population is shrinking, whatever?

01:20:25.000 Maybe some of these people get depressed and either end up killing themselves or they go back and they move in with their parents.

01:20:30.000 Do they then blame the government for not letting enough immigrants in?

01:20:32.000 Do they get angry at white people in general for not letting.

01:20:35.000 This just seems like such a weird kind of argument.

01:20:37.000 Do you understand?

01:20:38.000 Yeah.

01:20:38.000 No, I get where you're coming from.

01:20:40.000 And yeah, so to answer, if we'll take it point by point, to answer your first point, And that's a good point.

01:20:47.000 Citizens that immigrated here before and citizens from Italy or Ireland, it goes back to the mandate of the country.

01:20:54.000 It also goes back to risk. 0.84

01:20:56.000 If we're to avoid the constitutional thing for a moment, which is pretty important, but if we can avoid it, there are other ways around that. 0.62

01:21:03.000 It has to do with risk factor, which is to say that, and I don't think anyone would argue against me on this, that we are making less of a risk by bringing in 68% European immigrants than bringing in 70% Hispanic, African, and Latin American immigrants. 0.59

01:21:17.000 I don't think anyone would contend. 0.77

01:21:19.000 That African and Latin American countries are more safe or less violent than European countries. 1.00

01:21:24.000 So, number one is. 1.00

01:21:26.000 You spoke about opportunity costs, right?

01:21:27.000 By not bringing in low skilled labor, there are parts of American businesses that lose out on access to that as well.

01:21:32.000 That is a loss.

01:21:34.000 It's not like high skill labor is the only thing that can come in and benefit a country.

01:21:37.000 Low skill labor is an important part of the American country as well as of every Western country. 0.90

01:21:41.000 Well, yeah, and then you get over to if you don't bring in that immigration, well, then, you know, boo hoo, my American kid's not going to be able to start a business. 1.00

01:21:48.000 But I think you would agree that someone being murdered is different than someone not being able to start a business. 0.94

01:21:55.000 This has to do with negative and positive.

01:21:57.000 No, I don't agree.

01:21:58.000 I don't agree with that at all.

01:21:59.000 We accept risks, even of death, a lot of the time for economic reasons.

01:22:03.000 Look at automobiles.

01:22:04.000 What, 60, or it's like 30 or 60,000 people a year die in automobiles just to travel from point A to point B quicker?

01:22:10.000 Like, I could rephrase that same question to you.

01:22:11.000 Like, do you think it's okay that people travel quicker and it ends up killing almost 100,000 people a year in the United States, including women and children?

01:22:18.000 This is horrible.

01:22:19.000 Like, well, no, we accept these trade offs all the time.

01:22:21.000 Well, what's grossly.

01:22:22.000 Sure.

01:22:22.000 Well, what's the trade off?

01:22:23.000 What's the trade off?

01:22:24.000 What do we get in return for accepting this risk?

01:22:27.000 You get the resource of labor coming to your country. 0.68

01:22:30.000 Okay.

01:22:31.000 Well, I mean, and then I guess that's the value judgment that people have to make, which is to say, are we okay with. 0.99

01:22:37.000 With many Americans dying at the hands of high risk immigrants from high risk countries, so that we could have cheaper consumer goods. 1.00

01:22:45.000 Sure, it's high risk. 1.00

01:22:46.000 Crimes like 10 times higher than native white people.

01:22:49.000 That doesn't happen. 0.99

01:22:50.000 The crime stats between whites and Hispanics are pretty close.

01:22:53.000 I think Hispanics may be a little bit higher, but it's pretty close in terms of how many people commit crimes. 0.93

01:22:57.000 Are you talking about proportions or are you talking about net?

01:23:00.000 Proportions.

01:23:01.000 Okay, I don't think that's true with proportions.

01:23:03.000 But I mean, you could look at the statistics on prisons, and largely, many of the statistics have stopped being published, but I don't think that's the case.

01:23:10.000 I mean, especially.

01:23:12.000 You look at, you know, Africans in Europe, this is not the case.

01:23:16.000 I know we're not talking about Europe, but I mean, certainly immigration, generally speaking, you can see that some countries are higher risk than other countries.

01:23:23.000 I mean, you understand this, right?

01:23:26.000 I mean, you wouldn't, I don't think you would say that if we were to take 10 Mexican immigrants and 10 German immigrants, that the 10 Germans would be as likely as the Mexicans to be committing crimes.

01:23:26.000 Sure.

01:23:37.000 I mean, if you're scooping the 10.

01:23:38.000 Of course not, but you also have like a huge selection bias here as well, right?

01:23:41.000 Like, If you're getting immigrants from coming across the Pacific or the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, right?

01:23:46.000 If you're getting people from China, you're getting people from Europe, like these are people that are already in the upper echelons of society versus the people that are immigrating from Mexico.

01:23:52.000 It takes a lot to get over here from one of those countries.

01:23:55.000 So when you say, like, take 10 German citizens, these aren't people that can just run across the border.

01:23:59.000 These are people that have to come from an educated family or a well off family such that they can afford flights to send their children to go to the United States.

01:24:06.000 Like, you're a selection by, you're already picking, like, the top 10% of the society, right?

01:24:10.000 Not necessarily, because even you see.

01:24:12.000 You know, like I said with that, that Sudanese person that shot up Tennessee, I mean, certainly he wasn't excluded from coming here.

01:24:20.000 Like, we don't get a lot of suit.

01:24:21.000 Like, if you see, if you're in the United States and you see, like, somebody from, like, Nigeria or somebody from, like, Kenya or something, like, this is probably a very educated person from a very well-off family, chances are, right? 0.98

01:24:33.000 This is why Asians do so well, like, in all of our universities, right? 0.95

01:24:36.000 I don't know if that's why.

01:24:38.000 Okay, well, ignoring maybe you believe there's a genetic component, but, like, even if there is a genetic component, right?

01:24:43.000 Asians, if they're in the United States to study, You're not getting the poor Asian dude from his village that, you know, really wants to go to America to study.

01:24:49.000 You're getting the richest, wealthiest, most educated people in China who have the money to send their child overseas to one of our universities, right? 1.00

01:24:57.000 So the chances of you getting shot by a Chinese person on the street is very, very, very low because Chinese people like that aren't coming to the United States, you know? 1.00

01:25:04.000 Okay. 1.00

01:25:04.000 Well, and, you know, we could disagree about the crime statistics. 1.00

01:25:08.000 Certainly, I think that if you come from an Hispanic country, you're more predisposed to violence, but we can disagree about that. 0.94

01:25:14.000 I would say, though, that we talk about opportunity cost, and you say that. 1.00

01:25:19.000 The benefit that they bring is cheap labor, right?

01:25:21.000 I mean, is that like your main reason?

01:25:24.000 Is that your only reason?

01:25:25.000 I don't really personally care about things like when you talk about culture or ancestry.

01:25:30.000 So, when you were talking earlier about if your parents built the railroad or whatever, these aren't usually things that I care about.

01:25:35.000 I just don't like identifying like this.

01:25:37.000 So, the economic argument is generally my go to argument.

01:25:41.000 Economic and well being around the world is usually my go tos for things like immigration.

01:25:45.000 Okay.

01:25:46.000 Well, that's interesting you say that because I was looking at statistics from the survey of income program participation and it said that, you know, because if we're going to say that.

01:25:56.000 That cheap labor is an economic benefit.

01:25:58.000 Well, I think we should also look at not only the net positive to our economy, but also the net negative, because we know that in a society you contribute, but you could also take.

01:26:07.000 And this is an equation, it's not just one variable.

01:26:10.000 If we look at these numbers from the Survey of Income Program Participation, where they survey welfare users in the country, if you look at welfare overall, welfare usage overall, 30% of native households consume welfare or are dependent on some form of welfare.

01:26:28.000 51% of immigrant households.

01:26:30.000 For Medicaid, it's 23% natives, 42% immigrants.

01:26:34.000 For food subsidies, 22% natives, 40% immigrants. 0.93

01:26:38.000 Cash welfare, it's 10% native, 12% immigrant. 0.98

01:26:41.000 Housing, it's 6% native, 6% immigrant. 0.88

01:26:43.000 So overall, overall, they're about two thirds. 1.00

01:26:48.000 They consume two thirds more welfare overall.

01:26:52.000 For Medicaid, it's double.

01:26:53.000 For food, it's double.

01:26:54.000 And if you look at FAIR, if you look at there's this immigration institution called FAIR, they calculated that in every state of the union, all 50 states, Immigrants, illegal immigrants in particular, and that's the cheapest labor that there is, consume more in public services than they produce in gross domestic product. 0.60

01:27:10.000 So if they're consuming more in welfare, both legal and illegal, how can you say that it's a net benefit to the economy if there's cheap labor?

01:27:19.000 Sure. 0.98

01:27:19.000 So as it stands right now, based on what I've seen, like Borja State, right now it probably comes out at a wash insofar that we pay a ton of benefits out in terms of welfare to people immigrating in versus the value that they bring to the economy. 0.98

01:27:34.000 I think that that is a problem. 0.93

01:27:35.000 I think it's a bigger problem even in Europe or Germany than it is in the United States.

01:27:38.000 But the difference is what I would want to do is I would want to model an economic policy that makes it so that people are selecting the U.S. because of labor opportunities, not because of welfare opportunities. 0.82

01:27:47.000 So if you tell me that Hispanics or people that immigrate are overrepresented in welfare, I wouldn't disagree with that. 1.00

01:27:54.000 From every number I've seen, that's definitely true. 1.00

01:27:56.000 But what I would want to do is I would say that we should restrict the types of welfare available for these people because if people are selecting your country as an immigration spot, you want them to select it because of labor opportunity, not because of government. 0.98

01:28:07.000 Government welfare opportunity. 0.92

01:28:08.000 Okay.

01:28:09.000 And I would agree with that.

01:28:10.000 I would agree with that completely, actually, which is why I tend to stray away from the immigration or rather the economic arguments because someone like you who is intellectually honest and has integrity, which I give you credit for, I argued with Will Nardi and he would just not accept that it's either a wash or it's in that negative. 0.56

01:28:29.000 So I appreciate that you would say that reform is necessary.

01:28:32.000 I would agree with that.

01:28:33.000 And why I stray away from the economic typically is because.

01:28:36.000 You know, even if it was a net positive, I would still be against it.

01:28:40.000 So I think we can find some middle ground and actually agree on that one that our immigration policy should be at least to serve the economic interests or whatever else, that it shouldn't be for people to go on welfare.

01:28:52.000 So that we agree on.

01:28:53.000 And then if we can move. 0.76

01:28:54.000 I think, and I would go further, and I would say that European countries probably have a much more significant problem with this than we do, that immigrants going to Germany or Sweden are going to be a bigger drain on those states because the welfare benefits that they offer are substantially greater than what's in the United States. 0.82

01:29:09.000 When you want an immigrant selecting your country, As a spot to immigrate to. 0.83

01:29:11.000 You want them to select it for economic reasons that aren't based on welfare from the government.

01:29:16.000 Definitely.

01:29:16.000 Okay, well, good, good.

01:29:17.000 I'm glad you're a reasonable person in that sense.

01:29:21.000 So, I think we can move into the last two things I wanted to discuss, the last two places to come at you, because we're at about an hour and a half, maybe we go another half hour on these last two.

01:29:34.000 Is this?

01:29:34.000 So, we talk about cost benefit, and I always say it's not the economic, it's constitutional, it's the historical precedent, and then it's also about social trust.

01:29:43.000 It's about social capital for me, which is a big thing.

01:29:45.000 And you may have heard of Robert Putnam before, you may not have.

01:29:48.000 He's pretty esoteric for the mainstream.

01:29:51.000 But there was a Harvard study done by this, the premier sociologist, I think, of the past 50 years, Robert Putnam.

01:29:58.000 And so he was a professor, and he found that ethnic diversity is directly correlated with low social trust.

01:30:04.000 And these are his own words.

01:30:05.000 He said that the most diverse human habitation in the world, Los Angeles, he found to have the lowest social trust in the United States.

01:30:14.000 He also found, and people think this is like a race thing or whatever, but he also found that even in rural South Dakota, you would have lower social trust between Swedes and Norwegians.

01:30:25.000 Who are our neighbors, obviously, who share a common history, culture, and everything else.

01:30:29.000 But social trust is even degraded there because of these differences.

01:30:33.000 So I would say that is it, and this is what me and James also talk a lot about on our program is it worth it?

01:30:41.000 In your vision, is the value judgment correct that we are sacrificing social trust, homogeneity, less violence, people being able to trust each other, have community in pursuit of cheap labor, which amounts to cheaper consumer goods, higher GDP?

01:30:57.000 Is that.

01:30:58.000 The value judgment that you would make for society.

01:31:02.000 So, the way that I see the economic argument is I feel like the economic argument bleeds over into a lot of other sectors of society.

01:31:10.000 So, when a country starts to do well economically, I think that the infrastructure for their health improves.

01:31:15.000 I think that necessarily the government has to change at some point.

01:31:20.000 I think that you start to see benefits in education because as your people become more wealthy, they demand higher access to things like better schools, better hospitals, and all of these things.

01:31:28.000 I think that economically, I think that you can empower.

01:31:31.000 A lot of people to do better things or to live better lives.

01:31:35.000 And when I say better, I mean it even in the sense that crime will drop, people will become more educated, like that.

01:31:40.000 So when you ask me, there is a current social thing that exists in humans where, and this is something that even without citing a study, I would believe because I think that people in general are somewhat tribalistic.

01:31:53.000 We usually get along with people that look like us, that are more similar to us.

01:31:56.000 So that's something that I can inherently believe.

01:32:00.000 I would argue that the idea of changing these values socially is worth it.

01:32:06.000 For all of the other economic gains that you can make by intermingling economies around the world and letting every country kind of build up and join the first world rather than like building walls and keeping people kind of in their own fucked world in order to keep your own country homogenous.

01:32:19.000 Yeah, I would make the argument that that trade off is necessary or at least worthwhile.

01:32:24.000 I'm sorry, maybe I should say instead of necessary.

01:32:25.000 Okay, yeah, sure.

01:32:26.000 And I would sort of differentiate the two, which is number one, the cheap labor, because I think this is important.

01:32:32.000 Cheap labor is good for us because it boosts health, it makes the government better, makes people happier, and education is better.

01:32:39.000 And that was sort of the first part. 0.88

01:32:41.000 And then the second part was also, it's, and this wasn't the primary thing, but additionally has the effect that it lifts third world countries into the first world, and we could all sort of enjoy with trade and with immigration. 0.70

01:32:52.000 So I would contend with the first one.

01:32:54.000 I don't know if this is something that, you know, this may be sort of an impasse, but, and this is pretty existential.

01:33:01.000 I think this has a lot to do with where we derive meaning for our lives and where we assign value as a society.

01:33:09.000 And this is where I think you're a bit of a neoliberal.

01:33:12.000 And I don't like labels, but I would say that that is more of a neoliberal thought that material wealth, democratization, liberalization economically.

01:33:21.000 I've heard you say before you're a big believer in capitalism is the key to a successful society.

01:33:27.000 Now, me and.

01:33:28.000 Can I just clarify that real quick?

01:33:30.000 When you say material wealth, what I like is I like the ability, I like to empower people to make.

01:33:30.000 Sure.

01:33:35.000 What they consider to be optimal choices.

01:33:37.000 So, like a comment quote that was taken out of my Sargon debate was like, Destiny thinks every poor person should have an iPhone.

01:33:37.000 Okay.

01:33:42.000 I like the idea that even people in the lower classes of society can make choices to purchase luxury goods, can get access to things like when you say material wealth and you talk about a cell phone, like a cell phone empowers you to do a lot of things.

01:33:54.000 It's access to the internet, it's access to social media, to culture, to communicate with work, to communicate with friends.

01:33:59.000 Like, empowering people to make these economic decisions that really do enrich their lives in more than just a shallow material sense.

01:34:06.000 I only said that because I didn't know.

01:34:07.000 When you said material sense, I don't mean like having the best shoes and the coolest clothes, but having a phone, having a car, having a decent house with a heater and air, like stuff like that.

01:34:18.000 Well, and I think the reason why you begin to quibble with the material wealth, because what you described is material wealth.

01:34:18.000 Sure.

01:34:25.000 I mean, obviously, we can differentiate between conspicuous consumption and necessities, but I think it's because the material wealth has a pretty negative connotation, which is it's sort of empty, it's sort of consumeristic, and that's why you clarified.

01:34:37.000 But that is, I think, the key distinction, which is.

01:34:41.000 People in my generation, Generation Z, people in rural America, even the alt right, people that are like neo Nazis.

01:34:49.000 I think what we've come to see is that even if you have the nice car or a car or even if you have a cell phone or healthcare, everything else, you could still be pretty miserable.

01:34:59.000 And it tends to be pretty miserable without the social trust because social trust is not just like.

01:35:05.000 To go one further on what you just said, right?

01:35:07.000 People that consume social media tend to report more like anxiety and depression than other people.

01:35:11.000 I don't disagree with that at all.

01:35:12.000 Yeah, yeah.

01:35:12.000 Sure.

01:35:13.000 And even beyond social media, but even people that have a lot of wealth, more wealth than they know what to do with.

01:35:18.000 And I think, you know, defining the social trust as things like community, things like having close friends, having, you know, going to the grocery store and seeing people you know, going to a restaurant and they know your name, that sort of thing.

01:35:31.000 And I think that is the choice that society is at at this point, where the West is at, where you have these like neoliberal technocrats like Macron and Merkel and even Theresa May to an extent, Barack Obama, I'd classify as this, where they want to lift the country up.

01:35:47.000 Materially, to better material standards of wealth.

01:35:50.000 And the conservative, or rather the paleo conservative, cultural conservatives, don't really care so much about the GDP if it conflicts with this social trust.

01:35:59.000 And so that was my big contention with the first part, which is, of course, I think that cheap labor would benefit the gross domestic product, would benefit the stock market, the economy at large, I think would be better.

01:36:15.000 Can we talk on that first point?

01:36:16.000 Sure.

01:36:17.000 Yeah.

01:36:17.000 We could stop there.

01:36:18.000 So, I understand.

01:36:19.000 I think I understand the disclaimer.

01:36:20.000 So, I'm going to try to verbalize both of our positions.

01:36:22.000 Sure.

01:36:22.000 If this is a fair summary.

01:36:23.000 Yeah.

01:36:24.000 So, or your position, rather.

01:36:26.000 You're arguing that on one hand, we can increase the size of the economy, we can provide more goods to poor people and give them access to phones and cars and whatnot.

01:36:35.000 But the trade off on that is this kind of social trust that holds us together and enriches our lives in ways that material possessions might not be able to do, or actually, further than that, have been demonstrated not to be able to do.

01:36:48.000 So, you would argue that.

01:36:48.000 Yes.

01:36:49.000 Increasing immigration to grow the economy when we don't see a measurable gain in personal happiness doesn't seem to be the way to go.

01:36:56.000 Right?

01:36:57.000 Was that a fair summary of your.

01:36:59.000 Yeah, I would just amend the last point, which is that the gain in happiness is marginally less valuable from material goods than from social trust.

01:37:07.000 But, I mean, yeah, that's basically accurate.

01:37:10.000 Okay, so I want to use an analogy that I had to deal with growing up, and then I'll extrapolate to this.

01:37:16.000 So I went to private school growing up, and we had a uniform.

01:37:22.000 And basically, everybody had to wear navy blue pants and a white shirt, I think, every day to school.

01:37:28.000 And the argument was always that if we do this, Everybody looks the same.

01:37:32.000 You don't judge anybody for wearing not the coolest clothes or not the coolest shoes or whatever.

01:37:36.000 Nobody looks poor.

01:37:37.000 Nobody looks rich.

01:37:38.000 It puts everybody kind of on the same playing field.

01:37:40.000 And growing up, I always kind of wondered like, it seemed like there was always this false dichotomy presented where you're either all in school looking exactly the same, where nobody can bully anybody else, or you all have your own possessions and everything, but now people are shitting on each other for, you know, differences that they have.

01:37:57.000 Why couldn't there be a third option where people show up and look different, but you teach the kids, or kids grow up, or society is structured in such a way that we don't have these?

01:38:05.000 Horrible judgments about people that look different than us or people that have different shoes or clothes, right?

01:38:11.000 And then you can see where I'm going when you extrapolate to the larger population. 1.00

01:38:14.000 Why can't we pay enough attention to mental health such that we have people that have phones and have access to social media, but are also cognizant of how these things might not necessarily make you happy and be aware of how you can find fulfillment in your life without having to say, get rid of all the immigration? 1.00

01:38:28.000 We can only go back to living where everybody looks the same. 1.00

01:38:31.000 Why can't that third option ever be a possibility? 0.99

01:38:34.000 Sure.

01:38:34.000 Well, I think it's, and certainly that's why I was alt light sort of.

01:38:39.000 You know, a civic nationalist for a long time because I thought basically the same thing.

01:38:43.000 If you come here, you speak the language and everything else, you should be able to just jump in.

01:38:47.000 But I would say there's a little bit of a fallacy of composition there that the people that are coming here are different.

01:38:53.000 And it's sort of a mystical element.

01:38:56.000 Are you an atheist?

01:38:57.000 I know it's a personal question, but I mean, are you?

01:39:00.000 Yeah, very much so.

01:39:01.000 Sure.

01:39:02.000 Well, I'm a little bit Catholic, but I'm also pretty mystical.

01:39:07.000 I do believe in sort of this supernatural mystical thing where.

01:39:11.000 Not only are people racially different, but I think the different peoples of the world are spiritually different.

01:39:17.000 There's a totally different spirit that animates them.

01:39:21.000 And for many left leaning people, for many capitalist, materialist, philosophically materialist type people, this might come across as corny or superstitious or silly.

01:39:31.000 But I really believe that there is something more that is lost when you degrade the nation or the tribe or the country as a unit.

01:39:41.000 And so I would say that I don't really agree with this analogy that it's inimical to.

01:39:45.000 To changing your clothes, as it is to changing your blood lineage to a particular place, to particular people, having particular rituals and customs and gods and everything else.

01:39:57.000 I don't think that's quite it.

01:39:59.000 Aren't most Mexicans Catholic, though?

01:40:01.000 So, wouldn't they be similar?

01:40:02.000 I didn't remember what specific denomination you said you were in. 0.92

01:40:05.000 Yeah, I'm Catholic, and Mexicans certainly are Catholic, but even their adaptation. 1.00

01:40:11.000 No, I think it is more similar than Africans. 1.00

01:40:14.000 I think it's more similar than Asians because you have had this 500 year. 0.81

01:40:19.000 Mixing, basically, you know, the Colombian exchange where they have had intermixing with Europeans and they do have Catholic doctrine and they have had that for a pretty long period of time. 0.79

01:40:29.000 Not relative to human history, but relative to this country.

01:40:33.000 So I would say they're closer than others.

01:40:34.000 But even with Amerindians, which is like the people in the mountains, which is Peruvians, there's a different application of Catholicism that is characteristically, spiritually Amerindian, which is to say that they have still, in certain sects, Human sacrifices. 0.60

01:40:53.000 They still have these superstitious, very, very primitive beliefs. 0.98

01:40:58.000 And certainly in Africa, the same is true. 0.98

01:41:00.000 It's even a shorter time to, quote unquote, assimilate into Christianity where they still believe in voodoo. 0.96

01:41:06.000 They still believe in black magic.

01:41:07.000 They believe in this you believe in God and, like, good things happen to you.

01:41:11.000 It's not Thomas Aquinas.

01:41:12.000 It's not Augustine and things like that.

01:41:15.000 So, I mean, that's.

01:41:17.000 So, just kind of talking on this, what about the immigrants that come here and are, like, super integrated?

01:41:17.000 Yeah.

01:41:22.000 Like, are you familiar with the immigrant stereotype where the immigrant that comes over and actually does very well?

01:41:27.000 Is actually super anti immigration. 0.83

01:41:29.000 Have we ever heard of that stereotype before?

01:41:30.000 Yeah, and I'm Mexican.

01:41:32.000 I'm 25% Mexican.

01:41:34.000 Okay, cool. 0.99

01:41:35.000 So I'm 50% Cuban, and my mom is exactly like that, where she would agree with every single thing you've said and loves Trump to death and would give her life to go back to the Air Force and die for fucking Trump because that's what my kind of person is, right? 0.97

01:41:46.000 But these are people that are Cuban, or you said you're of Mexican descent. 0.94

01:41:50.000 So do you think that like a quarter of your soul is tainted, or how does that work?

01:41:54.000 Well, no, because, and this is to get technical, Hispanics on average are actually have 67% European.

01:42:01.000 So, if you do the math, that would be like 91% European and 9% Amerindian.

01:42:08.000 So, you know, I don't know if we would break it down to the numbers, but I think when you're talking about bringing in people that are not European, people that are not spiritually from Europe, and that is 91% of me, I just think it's different.

01:42:23.000 And maybe, you know, the trappings are the same.

01:42:25.000 Maybe individually they can change, but we're not talking about individuals here.

01:42:29.000 We're talking about, we're not talking about like the wealthy ones, because certainly, you know, I don't believe in no assimilation or no integration.

01:42:35.000 It's happened before.

01:42:36.000 You look at Thomas Sowell, and the guy is, you know, he's on par with everyone else.

01:42:41.000 Maybe his soul is different.

01:42:42.000 I couldn't speak to that, but certainly by all appearances, he's integrated.

01:42:47.000 But we're talking about the fundamental transformation where by 2065, we're not talking about one individual Hispanic who's anti immigration.

01:42:55.000 We're talking about 30% of the country being Hispanic, 14% Asian, and 14% black.

01:43:00.000 I think it's a fundamentally different proposition between, you know, one individual who might be integrated and if it's even possible for there to be integration when you have.

01:43:09.000 No ethnic, racial, linguistic, or religious majority in the country.

01:43:14.000 I guess I would hope that we can kind of assimilate on shared, I guess, on just being Americans.

01:43:20.000 I mean, even when you talk about assimilation, there are dramatically different values between rural people and city people, right?

01:43:26.000 There are some rural people that would probably have more in common with people in African countries than they would with city Democrats, city liberals, or whatever, right?

01:43:34.000 Depending on what cities and what specific towns you're taking.

01:43:37.000 So I guess this idea of this cohesive overall American identity.

01:43:42.000 I don't know if it's even ever existed that some immigrant could come here and somehow simultaneously mesh with every part of it.

01:43:48.000 That just seems really confusing to me.

01:43:49.000 I think for a long time, I mean, there's always the urban rural divide.

01:43:53.000 That's existed since the beginning of time.

01:43:56.000 But certainly you saw that the, number one, the urbanization has been relatively a recent trend.

01:44:01.000 And number two, the cosmopolitan nature of the city has also been a recent trend.

01:44:05.000 Whereas before, New York, Texas, California, Illinois, these could go red or blue.

01:44:12.000 But since you've seen cities become dominated by a very particular class of.

01:44:16.000 Of wealthy white cosmopolitan elites, of Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities, it has sort of changed the dynamic.

01:44:25.000 Whereas before, you've always had urban and rural, but I think it's gotten extremely more polarized before 65.

01:44:32.000 And I don't have numbers on that, but certainly you can look at the electoral history where they could go Republican or Democrat based on constitutional arguments, based on a pretty American consensus.

01:44:43.000 So I would say I would disagree that it's always been that way.

01:44:49.000 And so that's for our country.

01:44:52.000 Your secondary argument, which is that it would benefit other people in other countries, and we can close with this because I think this is something that you would find interesting, which is that me and Will Nardi talked about this.

01:45:03.000 If you want to make other countries ascend into the first world, which I do, I think the best way to do it is to have them living side by side separately in their own nations because you look at what effect immigration has, and you talked about this yourself, how when they're coming from Africa or they're coming from Asia, We're talking about the upper echelon, the top 10%, with the ambition, the innovation, the potential, and everything else.

01:45:27.000 I mean, it really has an effect on those countries when every year you're taking the top, you're taking the cream of the crop right off. 0.56

01:45:34.000 You're taking the top 10%.

01:45:35.000 Yeah, so this concept is called brain drain.

01:45:37.000 Yes, exactly.

01:45:38.000 But I don't think there's ever been any evidence of it having a negative impact on a country.

01:45:43.000 I'm familiar with the concept because that was one of the things that I looked for for high school labor if it had a detrimental impact on any of the native countries.

01:45:49.000 And it didn't seem like that impact had ever been shown.

01:45:52.000 Like it's been people can talk about it, but that's never been shown to negatively impact any country.

01:45:56.000 Sure.

01:45:57.000 I think it would be very difficult to demonstrate.

01:45:59.000 I think it would be very difficult to empirically prove that the people that came here would have benefited their countries because, of course, there are innumerable variables.

01:46:09.000 But I would say that almost using a priori reasoning, I mean, we can basically assume that it would be true.

01:46:17.000 And I'm against that sort of thing.

01:46:18.000 But if you imagine, as you said, that immigration is a tough process and it requires ambition, and we want people that want to come here to work.

01:46:26.000 You know, regardless of whether they would have been Mark Zuckerberg of India or the Congo, you are taking a pretty sizable proportion of ambitious, talented people from native countries when they could have made their own countries great.

01:46:39.000 I mean, wouldn't you say that that does happen, that there is some element of that?

01:46:44.000 Well, if we're speaking in completely disprovable hypotheticals, I mean, I could counter and say something like because I'm a big free market guy, I could argue that maybe that ambition wouldn't exist because they would know they wouldn't have a place to go to.

01:46:55.000 Maybe you've got a kid that grows up in, um, Well, Arnold Schwarzenegger, where did he grow up at?

01:46:59.000 Like some in Austria? 0.75

01:47:00.000 Yeah.

01:47:00.000 Like some farm town?

01:47:01.000 That's right.

01:47:02.000 He always dreamed of becoming a huge power lifter or whatever. 0.51

01:47:05.000 Maybe if he hadn't been exposed to Western media and seen that people, you know, celebrated that type of thing, maybe he just goes on to be a sheep herder for the rest of his life.

01:47:12.000 Or maybe you can make that same argument for any other person.

01:47:15.000 Like they see that if we do well, we can send our kids to America to study and it'll be awesome and they'll have an amazing life.

01:47:20.000 Maybe all they do is subsistence farming and they don't see that they can send people to America, so they don't really care and they don't really try that hard.

01:47:26.000 You could make any hypothetical.

01:47:26.000 Sure, well.

01:47:27.000 Yeah, well, I think if you used a comparative analysis, I think it would be more beneficial to say that, you know, if you look at our policy where people come over here for, and the people that are legal and we assume the upper echelon, they're coming here and they're working and they have opportunities.

01:47:44.000 They get technical training or they get some kind of education that wouldn't be available in their country.

01:47:48.000 And they can use capital that isn't available in their country, both, you know, in terms of machinery, in terms of businesses, in terms of financial capital and everything else.

01:47:57.000 But I think it would be helpful if we compared that to China's policy where China.

01:48:01.000 For I think it's been the past decade, has been taking in African, not immigrants, but they've been taking in a pretty sizable amount of Africans from East Africa in particular, and they bring them in and they put them in schools and they give them vocational training.

01:48:16.000 They give them world class education, and then the Africans go back and they use those skills in their countries to make them better.

01:48:23.000 I think when you look at those two systems, it sort of demonstrates which one would be better served to help people in the third world. 0.87

01:48:30.000 Would it be the one where Yeah, go ahead.

01:48:33.000 My philosophy is based off of kind of a self interested point of view.

01:48:37.000 I don't disagree that that would be like the optimal thing to do for the other country, but one, I don't think that policy would ever be sold to the average person.

01:48:44.000 That would be almost impossible to do.

01:48:46.000 Well, why not?

01:48:47.000 To sell the idea that we need to contribute a ton of money because you've got people in your own country that are going to be deprived of that experience when you're paying for other countries.

01:48:56.000 I think that that would probably be a negative.

01:48:58.000 Well, they would pay their way.

01:48:59.000 I mean, they would pay their way either through, you know, they would work or they would pay taxes or, you know, something.

01:49:04.000 When you said that they took in people for vocational training, I was under the impression you made it sound like, or it sounded to me like China was subsidizing this education somehow.

01:49:12.000 I don't believe so.

01:49:12.000 Oh, yeah.

01:49:13.000 No, I believe the Africans did contribute. 1.00

01:49:15.000 Yeah.

01:49:16.000 Well, I mean, I'm sure that to some extent, I'm sure that happens to some extent anyway, right?

01:49:16.000 Oh, sure.

01:49:20.000 That people that come over here and become.

01:49:22.000 Very successful over here, either go back to their country to either give speeches or inspire people in those countries to do things.

01:49:29.000 Like I said, I would have to go and I can't find anything.

01:49:31.000 I tried to look at this before because this is one of the big things in researching the economic argument for immigration.

01:49:36.000 Brain drain is one of those hypotheticals that's brought up, but again, it hasn't been demonstrated at all that there are countries that have a bunch of high talent people that moved away. 0.91

01:49:44.000 Or if you look at India, since we have the H 1B system, there are no good computer scientists in India, no programmers in India because they all come to the United States.

01:49:52.000 It's a brain drain, right? 1.00

01:49:53.000 Yeah, that doesn't seem like it happens. 0.98

01:49:56.000 Well, I would say that I think that would be, and you say that it's the self centered argument that we want them to come here, but then I think that kind of completely abrogates your argument that we're doing this for the benefit of other countries, right?

01:50:11.000 Because if you say that, well, we don't want them to go back and maybe they make speeches or maybe they invest in DEM programs, there's an NGO or whatever, but systemically they're contributing to our economy.

01:50:22.000 They're creating jobs for our country, they're inspiring our people.

01:50:27.000 Paying taxes for our government instead of sending them back so they could make their own countries great.

01:50:31.000 I don't think you can then turn it around and say, like, we're trying to bring people into the 21st century if you're saying it's actually self centered, right?

01:50:38.000 So the way that I view it is a better world for everybody is the best, is the most optimal self centered position.

01:50:38.000 Yeah.

01:50:46.000 That if we took, so let's say that we take two separate worlds, okay?

01:50:49.000 We diverge heavily at this point, okay? 0.99

01:50:51.000 In one world, let's say Trump builds the 100 foot tall cement wall and everybody's on board and we kick all Mexicans out and we'll say that Mexico remains kind of fucked and nothing really happens, blah, That 50 years from now, you've got an America that's probably still doing decently, I would imagine, and then you've got a Mexico that's just kind of fucked, it's kind of shitty, it's whatever. 0.93

01:51:10.000 If we take an alternative route where we work as much as we can with Mexico to help them build their country or do whatever we need to do, whether it's via NAFTA, whether it's via whatever other type of aid or help that we can do with the country, if we go 50 years in that direction, let's say that Mexico becomes a strong, self sufficient, cartel free, no drug trade country, right? 0.97

01:51:29.000 Well, now this is something that you could rationalize from a totally self interested position.

01:51:35.000 A lot of our car manufacturing, I think 20% of the cost of like vehicles can be attributed to manufacturing in Mexico.

01:51:41.000 Like we get a ton of imports from there for any car manufacturing, for a lot of different agricultural stuff, we get a lot of imports, right?

01:51:46.000 And we export to that country a lot as well.

01:51:48.000 That if Mexico is stronger and healthier, one, it solves our immigration problem.

01:51:51.000 Two, it gives us an awesome trade partner. 0.53

01:51:53.000 Three, it gives us a barrier against other types of not just illegal immigrants like Mexicans, but maybe other more nefarious types or drug trade people, right?

01:52:01.000 That having in that future, having a Mexico that is a strong, independent country, it's nice for Mexico.

01:52:05.000 But it's also really nice for America, right? 0.56

01:52:08.000 If we could copy paste Canada to our southern border, ignoring the racial things that I know you like, that I don't care about, right? 0.76

01:52:13.000 If they were Hispanic Canadians, that would be awesome for America. 0.96

01:52:16.000 That would be a really good thing, right?

01:52:18.000 So that's kind of how my argument is, even though I try to sell it to people as a, like, well, look, we're helping these people. 0.99

01:52:24.000 But my ultimate argument is always that at the very end, like, if we had a world where there were no Islamic extremists anywhere, that would be a better world, right? 0.96

01:52:32.000 If there were no fucked areas in the world where the birth rate was 7.0 or You know, none of that crazy economic bullshit or anything anywhere in the world that everybody in the world would be better off. 0.98

01:52:42.000 Not just those countries, but everybody would be. 0.99

01:52:44.000 Imagine if I could stream or you could stream and you had a million fans in fucking Africa, right?

01:52:48.000 Or if you had two million people in China that could consume your content, right?

01:52:51.000 That this kind of stuff benefits everybody.

01:52:53.000 Yeah, no, I don't disagree with the premise that making the other countries wealthier would be beneficial. 0.51

01:53:01.000 I just disagree with how you do it, which is that you say that somehow they come here and they become, you know, they somehow spur job creation in Mexico and maybe, you know, they start a car company and they export the cheap labor to Mexico and Mexicans make the cars and.

01:53:18.000 Somehow they go from manufacturing cars to like first world country. 0.73

01:53:22.000 I don't see how that transition happens just by way of them coming here.

01:53:26.000 But I would just believe that more broadly, if you have a program where they're getting trained here and they take those skills and they go back to their country and create jobs in their country, wouldn't that be the easiest road, the path of least resistance to have a systemic class of people in their country making it better than like there's more just American entrepreneurs?

01:53:48.000 Because I mean, that's really what you're saying more American entrepreneurs, but From other countries.

01:53:53.000 I don't see how that benefits those countries.

01:53:55.000 Well, I'm sure that to some extent, I'm sure that happens.

01:53:58.000 I'm sure there are people that come here and get educated and go there.

01:54:00.000 But no, I want everybody that gets educated, I don't want any of that leaving the United States.

01:54:04.000 I want us to be the pool for the best talent, for the brightest minds, for the best engineers and scientists, especially as our economy continues to shift more and more into a service economy.

01:54:12.000 I think we need to hold on to those highly educated people as much as possible.

01:54:15.000 So I wouldn't want to see them all shipped off.

01:54:17.000 I mean, I'm sure it will happen by simple numbers that if a million people come here and get educated, some percentage of them will leave.

01:54:23.000 But I would hope that through economic activity, We've incentivized those people to stay here as much as possible.

01:54:29.000 I don't know what city you live in, or you don't have to say I live in Chicago.

01:54:32.000 I live in Chicago, so you don't have to deal with this.

01:54:34.000 But I live in a city called Omaha, Nebraska, right?

01:54:36.000 It's very small.

01:54:37.000 We deal with this where we have people that this is kind of a microcosm of this particular problem where we educate people, and it sure happens in Kansas City, St. Louis, and all these other like comparable cities too, where you educate these people and then they go and they leave and they go somewhere else, right?

01:54:51.000 You haven't given them any incentives to stay here, and we do this all the time.

01:54:53.000 I'm like, we need to incentivize certain businesses to move in here so that we can keep our talent from going other places, right?

01:54:59.000 So, yeah, I mean, I wouldn't want to bring in a bunch of people, educate them, and then ship them off.

01:55:02.000 I would hope that they would want to stay here, right?

01:55:04.000 Because growing that resource of labor is one of the fundamental ways to grow an economy.

01:55:08.000 Well, but I mean, using your analogy, if you said that it's like really good if Mexico is rich, but you just said that, well, they're leaving Omaha and they're not enriching Omaha, well, then aren't you admitting then that they leave Omaha after they've received their education and their skills to go enrich and raise the standard of living of other places, maybe that don't need it, but have it?

01:55:27.000 I mean, that kind of bolsters my argument that if.

01:55:30.000 They come to America, they get educational training, maybe they contribute for the short time that they're here, but then they go back. 0.66

01:55:35.000 Maybe they don't benefit us directly, but they certainly benefit us indirectly by going back to their countries and creating more wealth.

01:55:42.000 Because I think you're sort of assuming, and this is something if you've ever read Ian Fletcher, he's very much against free trade.

01:55:51.000 He says that globalism, like this global economy, doesn't really exist.

01:55:55.000 The costs for shipping your goods, the costs for having a truly multinational business are so high.

01:56:02.000 That most businesses make the majority of their money, do the majority of their business in the country that they're in. 0.99

01:56:08.000 And so you're talking about bringing in Mexicans so they could become American entrepreneurs. 0.70

01:56:12.000 That doesn't, just because they came from Mexico, that doesn't benefit Mexico.

01:56:15.000 It benefits Mexico if they go to America, receive education, and then come back.

01:56:20.000 And so I agree with you.

01:56:21.000 I'm not necessarily saying that immigration is the only way to benefit another country.

01:56:25.000 Well, but you said it is one way. 0.62

01:56:27.000 And how does it, if that's the case?

01:56:33.000 By so, if there are so many workers that can't find work in that country that they're immigrating to the United States, ignoring the fact that some percentage of them will probably go back, I would imagine. 0.59

01:56:42.000 You're also decreasing the labor pool over there, which could increase wages for some of the natives over there.

01:56:46.000 Maybe it helps them find better work, or maybe it spurs on the government to change something if too much of their labor pool is leaving.

01:56:53.000 Maybe it causes them to revise their incentive structure or something.

01:56:56.000 Has that happened in Mexico, though?

01:56:57.000 I mean, Mexico has seen upwards of 15 million people come over our borders in the past 20 years, and they have flat out refused.

01:57:07.000 I mean, they still hand out leaflets in low income communities to tell them about how great America is.

01:57:13.000 I mean, they're literally sending them over here still.

01:57:15.000 I don't think.

01:57:16.000 I'm not sure if that happens or if there are leaflets that tell you how to not get killed.

01:57:21.000 But yeah, I mean, something has obviously happened. 1.00

01:57:23.000 If you've watched the immigrant numbers from Mexico, I think for the first time in like maybe, I don't know in how many years, like the number of Mexicans that are in the country has actually started to reach net negative.

01:57:33.000 There's net negatives in terms of immigration that we're seeing less and less and less people come over.

01:57:38.000 I think that started, I want to say that first time that happens in 2014, maybe 2015, that we've seen less and less Mexicans come over to the United States.

01:57:45.000 So something is obviously changing.

01:57:47.000 Well, yeah, but that wasn't the result of government policy.

01:57:50.000 I mean, what was the government policy where Mexico wanted to keep their low income people?

01:57:55.000 I mean, you said that, like, maybe something.

01:57:57.000 I mean, this is all, you understand that your arguments for this are all pretty loose.

01:58:01.000 It's all pretty, like, well, maybe sometimes something like this, something like that. 0.74

01:58:04.000 I mean, all these low income people have been pouring across our borders, millions of them. 0.98

01:58:09.000 And it's, if they were so valuable, if they were such, like, winners, if they were benefiting their countries, wouldn't they want them back? 1.00

01:58:16.000 I mean, wouldn't they want to keep these people, the cheap labor?

01:58:20.000 I mean, you said, like, you know, they'd incentivize them.

01:58:21.000 It hasn't happened.

01:58:22.000 Clearly, they can't.

01:58:23.000 I mean, if we just go by basic incentive structure, they can't find that type of work over in Mexico. 0.97

01:58:23.000 Find. 0.97

01:58:27.000 If you've got somebody that's capable of building a house or putting on a roof, if there's no roofs to be roofed in Mexico, then they would come to the United States to do it or something like that, right? 0.97

01:58:35.000 That just because you have a pool of people that could maybe work, if you don't have economic opportunity available for them to work, they can't like invent that, right? 0.74

01:58:43.000 If the demand doesn't exist for it.

01:58:45.000 Yeah, I just, generally speaking, I just find this economic argument pretty problematic because it once you seem to acknowledge that, like you said with your Omaha example, that That people come there, they get their education, and then they don't enrich Omaha because they leave.

01:59:00.000 They then enrich the places that they go to.

01:59:02.000 And you also say that.

01:59:04.000 The key difference there, I was only using that as an example for keeping talent in place.

01:59:08.000 The difference there is that people are born in Omaha, stay in Omaha, and then leave.

01:59:12.000 That's different than people immigrating to Omaha getting it.

01:59:14.000 It's kind of an important distinction.

01:59:16.000 Well, why would we not want talent to stay in America? 0.97

01:59:19.000 Wouldn't we want to have Mexican talent go back to Mexico so they can enrich Mexico? 0.99

01:59:24.000 I mean, you yourself said that'd be really good for us if Mexico. 0.99

01:59:28.000 We're rich in first world and we want to bring these people up. 0.91

01:59:30.000 Isn't that the way to do it?

01:59:31.000 Is to send them human capital?

01:59:33.000 I mean, they send us their cheap labor and maybe we take some, but then also we send back high skilled people and they make Mexico good.

01:59:40.000 I mean, isn't that.

01:59:42.000 Or is that.

01:59:43.000 It's a question of philosophy.

01:59:45.000 I don't believe that a government should be able to direct a person to go to a particular place.

01:59:49.000 If the incentive structure was in place, that would be really cool.

01:59:53.000 If maybe Mexico finds a way to incentivize engineers or something that they can't educate or something, in that case, then sure. 0.51

01:59:59.000 If the people that come over here and get educated find a better incentive for them, Over in Mexico, then I guess they go back to Mexico.

02:00:04.000 Like, sure.

02:00:05.000 Well, I mean, but.

02:00:06.000 I'm not in favor of the government directing, like, well, you came here, got educated, now you must return to your country to make it a better place.

02:00:11.000 I don't think anybody is under that obligation.

02:00:13.000 I just think it would be a different program.

02:00:15.000 Instead of immigration, you would call it. 0.99

02:00:17.000 I mean, because it's.

02:00:18.000 People sort of do this, where they say, like, we want immigration because it'll help foreign countries, but then it's like, well, you know, actually, we can't control where people go.

02:00:27.000 I mean, it would just.

02:00:28.000 If we want to help foreign countries, don't take all their best people, train their best people at a cost, and then they can go back. 0.97

02:00:35.000 It's not like you got your education out now, get the hell out. 0.94

02:00:35.000 And it's not like. 0.94

02:00:38.000 But, like, here, we can take you in our schools and you can work here for cheap labor while you're in school and you can pay taxes and you can, I don't know, maybe there's some other way you can contribute.

02:00:47.000 You can pay for this program and then you can go back. 0.58

02:00:50.000 But it's not like you come here and you stay here and we pretend that's a net benefit for their country they came from.

02:00:55.000 I just, I always have a problem with people who pretend like this is fundamentally good for these other countries.

02:01:01.000 Yeah, I agree with that.

02:01:02.000 And I look at this from a much more economic point of view.

02:01:04.000 You'll never find me tweeting like diversity is our greatest strength or any of these types of arguments. 0.94

02:01:09.000 I think that these are ridiculous propositions.

02:01:12.000 Insofar as building other countries, when you talk about people that benefit from immigration, just because Mexicans benefit doesn't necessarily mean Mexico can benefit. 0.78

02:01:22.000 I'm sure there are better ways to benefit Mexico than via some immigration policy.

02:01:27.000 I'm pretty sure that Mexico is the next highest place that Americans live outside America.

02:01:32.000 So people obviously go over there for something business opportunity, education, probably not education, but probably for business or economic reasons.

02:01:40.000 I mean, When immigrants make the decision to come to the United States to get educated, that's something that benefits the immigrant.

02:01:47.000 It should, if they're making that economic decision to do so.

02:01:50.000 And hopefully, if we have the correct incentives in place, which we might not exactly have right now in the United States, it's also something that benefits the United States.

02:01:56.000 So, this is why I advocate for things like immigration, because it can benefit.

02:02:00.000 There are three parties that benefit there, right?

02:02:02.000 The Mexican immigrant benefits, maybe not necessarily the country of Mexico.

02:02:05.000 There are other ways to do that, but maybe so if they go back eventually. 0.94

02:02:09.000 The country benefits because of the increased access to labor.

02:02:12.000 Or, I was going to say businesses, but that counts as the country, I guess.

02:02:14.000 So, yeah.

02:02:15.000 Well, I just, yeah, I get what you're saying.

02:02:18.000 I get what you're saying, and it fundamentally comes down to this economic proposition.

02:02:23.000 And then I really think from there, yeah.

02:02:25.000 Real quick, just to go back to what you said before, that was very strange to me.

02:02:27.000 I hadn't heard this.

02:02:28.000 That multinational businesses are actually more expensive and that they don't do that seems very strange to me.

02:02:34.000 Why is so much manufacturing and everything done in countries like China if it's so disadvantageous?

02:02:38.000 Yeah, no, I didn't say that manufacturing in other countries is disadvantageous, but I was talking about in the sense that a nation is operational truly in multiple nations, not in the sense that.

02:02:49.000 They do business in other nations, but they're buying and selling in multiple nations, where you can really call, for example, Walmart a multinational.

02:02:59.000 I mean, certainly there are some.

02:03:00.000 I think actually Walmart's probably a poor example, but where you have businesses that they do the majority of their business in the United States, even though they might have components of their business that are done elsewhere.

02:03:10.000 And you can look at Ian Fletcher.

02:03:13.000 I forget the numbers off the top of my head because it was a book I read a pretty long time ago, but it's an interesting question where he talks about this globalization, how in a lot of ways it's basically a myth where.

02:03:24.000 The majority of the businesses that operate in America serve America and vice versa for other countries, but just because of logistical costs and labor costs and everything else.

02:03:35.000 I guess that just sounds kind of like a weird way of talking about globalization.

02:03:39.000 So, would you say that a company like Ford that has vehicles that are manufactured in Germany doesn't count as a globalized company because it mainly operates in America?

02:03:48.000 No, I think it was just more speaking to, I guess, what's the word?

02:03:54.000 Elasticity, I think is what he was referring to in the sense that.

02:03:58.000 Like transportation costs, all these costs associated with doing business in a country that isn't your own aren't like completely mitigated like people make it out to be.

02:04:08.000 Like in 2017, you can truly have like a global business in many countries and do, I remember some number, something like 60% of business, I forget what the sector was, but these businesses did 67% of their business and revenue in the country that they were from.

02:04:26.000 Again, I forget the specifics.

02:04:29.000 It's just something like, you know, the Iraq war thing you brought up.

02:04:32.000 It's sort of a separate issue trade, but it's just something that Ian Fletcher had written down that it's sort of a common misconception.

02:04:39.000 But I think.

02:04:41.000 I mean, I would imagine that you probably have to reach a certain economy of scale to fully take advantage of multinational things.

02:04:47.000 Exactly.

02:04:48.000 If I were to try to start my own streaming service, I probably don't have the fan base to make that a profitable venture.

02:04:55.000 So I wouldn't blame that on globalism.

02:04:57.000 It would be because I'm not a large enough company.

02:04:59.000 And I imagine most companies aren't of the size where they could take advantage of kind of like.

02:05:03.000 Globalized ideas.

02:05:05.000 Right.

02:05:05.000 Like just like exporting your value chain and all this type of trade and whatnot.

02:05:09.000 Well, yeah, and that's the thing is scale.

02:05:11.000 And that's what he was saying.

02:05:12.000 Is there a very few companies in the world that are, like you said, it is a matter of scale where they're able to truly compete on a global level.

02:05:20.000 Sure.

02:05:21.000 But those few companies can be very important, right?

02:05:23.000 Yeah, sure.

02:05:25.000 Like the manufacturing of a lot of different components and the final assembly and whatnot of value chain related stuff in China has made a lot of products a lot more affordable.

02:05:33.000 The exporting of our value chains in Mexico has made automobiles much more affordable.

02:05:37.000 I mean, there are a lot of things that, even if not every company is massively multinational and globalized, the ones that are, we seem to all know who they are, right?

02:05:44.000 You're probably looking at an Asus or something monitor that was probably made in Taiwan or something, you know?

02:05:49.000 Well, yeah, absolutely.

02:05:50.000 But I mean, the multinational corporations, I think what we were referring to was does it value third world or rather the origin countries of immigrants to have them become entrepreneurs here or to become high skilled laborers over there?

02:06:03.000 I think, you know, if we're talking about these enormous corporations that are few and far between, maybe you get.

02:06:09.000 One that was founded by an immigrant in America, or you get a handful.

02:06:13.000 I mean, if we're being generous, but the vast majority, I think if we're talking about a general policy, it would benefit Mexico more to have maybe 500,000 high skilled laborers trained in America and sent back to Mexico than two mega corporations that maybe they get some manufacturing.

02:06:31.000 And of course, they have to compete with Indochina and Africa and other countries, or they will in the coming years.

02:06:37.000 You know, maybe they might get some jobs. 0.88

02:06:39.000 They don't have that contribution.

02:06:40.000 But Again, that gets into really complicated things, right?

02:06:44.000 Because the structures have to be in place to capitalize off of certain types of labor.

02:06:48.000 If I were to just drop 20,000 high skilled engineers into San Francisco, these guys could all find work.

02:06:55.000 San Francisco would be doing better.

02:06:57.000 Everybody would be doing better as a result if I could just magically do that.

02:06:59.000 Well, except the existing engineers might see a slight pay decrease depending on what they are. 0.54

02:07:04.000 But if I drop 20,000 high level theoretical computer scientist engineers into Sudan, that's probably not going to help Sudan much. 0.76

02:07:11.000 They're not going to be able to create the structures necessary.

02:07:14.000 Or create the capital necessary to take advantage of their talents to use them in ways that would benefit the country.

02:07:19.000 You don't think they have a need for people with skills?

02:07:23.000 I mean, that's sort of like why they're coming here, right?

02:07:26.000 Is for skills, for jobs.

02:07:27.000 You don't think they could create opportunities if they had a college degree from a Western university?

02:07:31.000 I mean, why would anyone come to Western universities if that wasn't the case?

02:07:36.000 Well, because a lot of the opportunity exists here as well.

02:07:39.000 I've never heard somebody say, I want to be a computer scientist because I heard that Nigeria, or like Nigeria, Or Sudan or Chad really needs computer scientists because the pay over there sucks.

02:07:49.000 They don't have the structures in place to capitalize off of that type of labor.

02:07:53.000 You come to the United States and then you're probably going to another country that has an establishment that has a structure in place to take advantage of the capital necessary to exploit your labor in exchange for a wage.

02:08:04.000 Well, I mean, I think then that gets to the fundamental point, though, is if you never have them build up their own capital, if they are basically dependent on American capital, financial, industrial, et cetera.

02:08:16.000 To take advantage of human capital, I mean, they're never going to get anywhere because they're rich in the factors of production, which are their natural resources and their labor.

02:08:25.000 The missing component is capital.

02:08:26.000 And you create capital, it's very difficult, it's very hard, it's not rewarding.

02:08:31.000 I mean, you could say that, oh, well, this sort of ethereal opportunity doesn't exist.

02:08:35.000 But I mean, there's that Nigerian, I think he's a steel magnate.

02:08:40.000 I forget the name of him, but he's the first African billionaire, and he's making his own capital.

02:08:45.000 And people certainly in Africa have made their own capital.

02:08:49.000 And if you send them back with high skills, I don't think you would contend that people of low skills are going to be the ones to create this capital.

02:08:55.000 It'd be ones that have experience, that have networks in European countries that they would get with.

02:09:01.000 An internship or some form of training from a Western country, but they would have to go back and create the capital.

02:09:07.000 Otherwise, they're never going to get out of that poverty trap.

02:09:10.000 But I don't know if people would ever make those economic decisions.

02:09:12.000 The decision to go to the United States to get educated so that they can send you back to your country.

02:09:12.000 Why not?

02:09:16.000 What if they had to?

02:09:17.000 What if they had to, though?

02:09:18.000 What if immigration wasn't an option?

02:09:21.000 Well, like if Romania forcibly exported people to get educated and come back and work for the country? 0.60

02:09:25.000 Yeah. 0.98

02:09:27.000 I mean, I guess that could.

02:09:29.000 I mean, you could do it.

02:09:30.000 It's something that I'm philosophically opposed to, though.

02:09:32.000 I don't.

02:09:32.000 Usually, like governments ordering people to do things, but I mean, yeah, I guess you could argue.

02:09:36.000 Well, it could be an incentive, it could be like you know, the Romanian government.

02:09:39.000 Incentive, I agree with.

02:09:40.000 Okay, yeah, let's say that the Romanian government made a program where they said that we want to support these types of computer businesses, right?

02:09:49.000 So, we're going to provide some sort of incentive structure so that if you're an engineer and you're native born, you're going to go that high, I guess, so they're trying to keep talent from leaving.

02:09:57.000 Schools do this, right, by charging higher out of state tuition, right, or charging less in state tuition, right?

02:10:01.000 That if you want to create an incentive structure like that, then the country is free to do so.

02:10:04.000 I would, I would.

02:10:05.000 I think I would support something like that.

02:10:07.000 It gets really complicated because of trade.

02:10:09.000 Like, a lot of people don't like to deal with countries that have certain incentive structures in place.

02:10:12.000 But I'm sure that depending on your particular country, maybe you could make it go.

02:10:16.000 Right?

02:10:16.000 Like, some people might say, well, I don't want to do business with Romania because they subsidize their industry and it's unfair.

02:10:21.000 So I would tariff those products or something.

02:10:22.000 But I'm sure that you could figure out some sort of way to incentivize that talent to stay in your country, whether it's by getting rid of corruption in the government, alleviating certain tax rates, or giving some types of tax incentives to certain things.

02:10:33.000 Yeah, I would be 100% in favor of that.

02:10:35.000 And anything that makes the economic decision something that people would choose on their own.

02:10:39.000 Sure.

02:10:40.000 Well, and I think that's a good note to close on.

02:10:42.000 It's getting a little late.

02:10:43.000 We're two hours, ten minutes in, and I'm pretty satisfied.

02:10:46.000 I think we covered all the bases.

02:10:48.000 We talked about the legal, we talked about the economic, the cultural, the social, the mystic, you know, the spiritual.

02:10:53.000 So I think we've covered all the bases.

02:10:55.000 I'm satisfied with leaving it there with the trade thing because I think you've made a fair point.

02:11:00.000 I think I've made a fair point, and we came to a middle ground on that.

02:11:03.000 So I think we could call it a night.

02:11:05.000 Do you have anything else more to add?

02:11:08.000 No, I mean, I appreciate the conversation.

02:11:09.000 Thanks for not screaming or shouting or anything.

02:11:11.000 Oh, yeah, me too.

02:11:13.000 Yeah, definitely.

02:11:13.000 Thanks.

02:11:14.000 And I appreciate you coming on.

02:11:16.000 I always try and be a good sport towards the end because you were a great sport coming on.

02:11:19.000 And a lot of people warned me.

02:11:21.000 They were like, you know, this Destiny, he likes to motormouth over you and he gets really hung up on the details.

02:11:26.000 And, you know, you got to be careful.

02:11:28.000 But I thought you were pretty fair.

02:11:29.000 I thought, you know, and there's rhetorical things that happen in a debate that we're all guilty of that.

02:11:35.000 So I thought you were a fair, honest conversationalist.

02:11:41.000 So I appreciate you coming on.

02:11:42.000 Thanks for coming.

02:11:43.000 Yeah, thanks a lot.

02:11:44.000 I appreciate the conversation.

02:11:45.000 All right, man.

02:11:45.000 Have a good one.

02:11:46.000 We'll talk later, I guess.

02:11:47.000 All right.

02:11:47.000 Later.

02:11:47.000 Bye bye.

02:11:50.000 All right.

02:11:50.000 So that was Destiny.

02:11:52.000 That was our debate with Destiny.

02:11:54.000 And you can decide.

02:11:55.000 You can decide who is the victor, who won.

02:11:57.000 Was it Destiny?

02:11:58.000 Was it the inevitability of multiculturalism, multiracialism, multiethnic, cosmopolitan, rootless international countries?

02:12:07.000 Or is it Nick J. Fuentes and his advocacy for nationalism, mystic, spiritual, pre modern nationalism?

02:12:15.000 It's up to the audience as always.

02:12:17.000 I'll be posting a poll.

02:12:19.000 And we'll see what happens.

02:12:20.000 But, you know, like I said, I really appreciated Destiny coming on.

02:12:23.000 He was good.

02:12:25.000 He was surprisingly polite.

02:12:26.000 I watched his other debates and it got a little contentious, but he was very polite.

02:12:31.000 He was very honest.

02:12:33.000 And even when he didn't really know everything, he didn't try and pretend like he did.

02:12:36.000 So I really appreciated that.

02:12:37.000 So, fun night, a fun night had by all.

02:12:40.000 And of course, we do it for you.

02:12:41.000 We do it for the fans.

02:12:42.000 So, if you like what you see, if you like the debate, remember at Nick J. Fuentes on Twitter, Facebook.com slash Nick J. Fuentes on Facebook.

02:12:51.000 Periscope is at Nick J. Fuentes.

02:12:53.000 You can find all the content on NicholasJ. Fuentes.com.

02:12:56.000 It's that simple, folks.

02:12:57.000 And of course, if you appreciate it, if you like what you see, We are coming out with an enterprise.

02:13:03.000 Me and James Alsup, we're starting a business.

02:13:05.000 So if you want to support us, you can donate in the Super Chat live while we're here.

02:13:10.000 So if you click the dollar sign, it's right below the live chat.

02:13:13.000 If you click that, you can drop some shekels.

02:13:15.000 You can throw some shekels our way, and we can upgrade our production and everything else.

02:13:21.000 And there is a college tour in the works, so we'll go towards that.

02:13:24.000 And on that subject, we have events that are scheduled and planned at Northeastern University, at North Carolina University.

02:13:32.000 We're in talks with Boston University.

02:13:35.000 And also with Northern Michigan and Colorado Boulder University.

02:13:38.000 So, we're in talks with some.

02:13:40.000 We have confirmed dates for a few already.

02:13:42.000 And so, if you're interested in having me on your campus, you know, you can send a direct message to me on Twitter.

02:13:48.000 You can find my email on my website or anything like that.

02:13:51.000 And we're just looking to fill in the spaces from dates that we don't have.

02:13:54.000 We want to do like a week of events.

02:13:56.000 We've already got enough, but we'd like to see some more.

02:13:59.000 So, if you're interested in that, reach out.

02:14:02.000 But that's the show.

02:14:03.000 That's the show.

02:14:04.000 We came back on Monday.

02:14:05.000 And it looks like the next debate that we're going to do is North Korea. 0.95

02:14:09.000 And I promise we'll do that.

02:14:10.000 We'll probably do that sometime this week, maybe next week. 0.97

02:14:13.000 They're busting my balls because I keep pushing it off. 0.89

02:14:16.000 So we'll probably have to do it maybe this Friday. 0.98

02:14:17.000 But that's our show.

02:14:19.000 We're on the air every Monday through Friday, 8 p.m. Eastern Time, 7 p.m. Central Standard Time.

02:14:25.000 I'm your host, Nicholas J. Fuentes, and we will see you tomorrow.

02:14:29.000 Have a great rest of the night.

02:14:30.000 Thanks to all the donors.

02:14:31.000 I saw we had some really awesome donors in there.

02:14:35.000 Shlomo Charlesburg was one of them.

02:14:37.000 So big shout out to everybody that wanted to throw in.

02:14:40.000 Some coins, some shekels, some dollars our way.

02:14:42.000 And thanks to everyone else for watching.

02:14:44.000 We'll catch you tomorrow.

02:14:45.000 Have a great rest of your evening.

02:14:52.000 Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

02:15:01.000 It's going to be only America first.

02:15:03.000 America first. 0.99

02:15:06.000 The American people will come first once again.

02:15:18.000 With respect, the respect America.

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - September 25, 2017

The Debate with Destiny feat. Steven Bonnell | America First Ep. 17

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript