00:01:09.000So, the first thing I want to get started on is I watched a few of your debates before.
00:01:14.000I'm going to be honest, I wasn't too sure who you were, and that makes sense.
00:01:17.000I'm not into the video game, the Twitch thing.
00:01:20.000But somebody recommended, I think somebody CC'd us in a tweet and said we should do a debate.
00:01:24.000And 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.
00:01:34.000I understand that you are opposed to me on the issue of immigration.
00:03:13.000But to start off, I thought I would extend the olive branch and I would bring up this, and I want your thoughts on this.
00:03:19.000So, in 1965, as many immigration hawks understand, the Hart Cellar Act was passed through the Congress.
00:03:27.000And 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.
00:03:35.000So, whereas before, it was largely constrained how much immigration came into the United States from Asia, from Latin America, from Africa.
00:03:45.000And number two, there were no numerical restrictions on immediate relatives of immigrants after this act passed.
00:03:51.000And 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.
00:04:06.000Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.
00:04:09.000President Johnson said, This is not a revolutionary bill.
00:04:12.000It does not affect the lives of millions.
00:04:14.000Now, both of those statements turned out to be lies because since the 65 Immigration Act, we saw that the composition of immigration fundamentally changed.
00:04:57.000That the composition of this country and the composition of immigration was changed fundamentally without a vote, without the will of the electorate being expressed.
00:05:06.000And I'll let you, you can take a little time on this.
00:05:10.000So I'm not familiar with the specific act.
00:05:13.000This was something that was passed through Congress, right?
00:05:23.000We elect elected officials that represent us and vote for bills in Congress.
00:05:26.000So I don't know if I necessarily buy the electorate's views weren't.
00:05:30.000Represented if it was voted on via Congress.
00:05:32.000If this was by executive act, I would agree.
00:05:34.000But I mean, for me personally, I really don't care much about like ethnic background or country of origin.
00:05:40.000Like, these aren't really questions that I like wrestle with.
00:05:43.000It doesn't bother me if certain people from certain areas come here, I guess.
00:05:46.000It's not something that I'm majorly concerned with.
00:05:49.000Also, 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.
00:06:01.000It might have been that the birth rates were a lot higher back then, too.
00:06:04.000I think when you're at the 50s, 60s, I think the birth rate was like three or more.
00:06:09.000And now we've fallen to like, what, like 1.6, 1.7?
00:06:11.000So that might have been maybe some factor in that as well, right?
00:06:16.000They didn't assume that people would stop having so many children in the United States.
00:06:19.000Well, 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.
00:06:33.000Over the course of 50 years, in a matter of five years, the composition and the number of immigrants increased.
00:06:39.000And that's, of course, proportional to population growth as a whole.
00:06:42.000And 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.
00:06:56.000And it's interesting to me that because it was passed by Congress, and we know that Congress really isn't necessarily representative or totally.
00:07:04.000Accountable 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.
00:07:13.000And you don't seem to be bothered by this, or you think that it's sufficient that they were representatives?
00:07:19.000So 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.
00:07:26.000I don't know at the time what data they had available to them.
00:07:29.000I 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.
00:07:39.000I 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.
00:07:49.000Like, I don't know if that's true or not.
00:07:51.000I can't, I can't, I mean, if they did actually lie about it, then yeah, sure, that's pretty bad.
00:07:55.000Your elected officials should never be lying to you.
00:07:57.000I think that's always an abhorrent thing.
00:08:28.000But 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.
00:08:44.000Do you, I guess the fundamental question is, do you think that even though this act was against the public will?
00:08:50.000Because in 1965, I mean, you consider what white America was like in 1965, given the civil rights issues and everything else.
00:08:58.000White America in 1965 was not open to ethnically transforming the country into a majority minority country.
00:09:05.000So 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?
00:09:15.000For 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?
00:09:28.000I 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.
00:09:38.000If this was such a big deal, then why weren't all these people voted out in the next election cycle, the bill overturned?
00:09:43.000Well, of course, because it was a slow process, the demographic transformation has happened.
00:09:49.000Relatively quickly, I think, relative to the lifespan of a nation, but relative to the lifespan of a person.
00:09:56.000And you look at other things that were going on as well, whether that was the Cold War, the stagflation of the 1970s.
00:10:02.000Not 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.
00:10:14.000And 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.
00:10:25.000So, 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.
00:10:30.000I 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.
00:10:40.000Like, I don't know if they actually all believed that at the time, that it would change as radically as it has.
00:10:46.000That seems like a pretty big jump, like, pretty big leap of faith to believe that.
00:10:50.000Like, people in government seem like they barely understand what they're doing right now.
00:10:53.000The idea that they were all, like, these, you know, political masterminds that could see 30, 40 years into the future.
00:11:00.000Well, that is a bit of a dodge because certainly there have been politicians who have proposed things like this before.
00:11:06.000As you know, the Kalerke plan was a plan that was formulated by a Jewish person who was instrumental in the United Nations.
00:11:14.000And 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.
00:11:31.000Certainly, 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.
00:11:40.000But again, I want to get away from this assigning intent, assigning malicious intent, and say.
00:11:45.000When you ask me if something was evil or not, we're talking intent, right?
00:11:50.000Because 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?
00:12:05.000I don't believe that intent is crucial in determining whether something is moral or immoral.
00:12:11.000As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
00:12:14.000And 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.
00:12:28.000As we saw in the 1970s, these trends became very apparent.
00:12:32.000And it was not a slow process that European Americans became displaced.
00:12:37.000Or rather, it was a slow process that the displacement happened, but it was actually a very rapid process that the composition of immigration changed.
00:12:44.000So 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.
00:12:54.000The displacement didn't, but the composition did.
00:12:57.000So whether or not they knew in 1965, they knew by 1970.
00:13:00.000And so I would say that do you think that fundamentally it was wrong?
00:13:04.000It 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.
00:13:22.000So, we have a slight philosophical disagreement in here.
00:13:26.000For me, I think that intention is really important.
00:13:29.000Let'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.
00:13:38.000I 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.
00:13:46.000But I would say that the effect could be bad.
00:13:49.000So 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.
00:13:59.000So, 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.
00:14:08.000I have to assume that they voted what they believed would happen.
00:14:11.000But I do concede it's possible that a lot of senators and congressmen got together to do something very subversive, maybe.
00:14:18.000But 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.
00:14:25.000And for me personally, immigration is not people coming from different countries or ethnic origin or whatever is not something that I care about.
00:14:32.000So, from my point of view, I wouldn't say that it's a bad thing.
00:14:35.000Okay, but I think there's a flaw in your analogy.
00:14:38.000If 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.
00:14:47.000I think in this particular example, you're referring to more specifically a maintenance issue, but above all else, you're referring to something.
00:14:54.000That is routine, something that is not really a reform.
00:14:58.000The Immigration Act was a reform that is arguable whether it was good or bad.
00:15:03.000Poisoning water is a failure of government, but a reform is taking government and the society in a different direction.
00:15:08.000So I don't think that necessarily holds.
00:15:10.000I 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.
00:15:43.000So 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.
00:15:59.000And 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.
00:16:19.000My 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.
00:16:34.000It 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.
00:16:42.000What you're talking about is an unintended consequence of workers coming here.
00:16:46.000But what I'm talking about is people that would be rejected coming here in the first place.
00:16:52.000But I mean, the act that you're talking about had bipartisan support in Congress.
00:16:56.000You'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?
00:17:03.000No, well, but by 1970, they did understand.
00:17:25.000If 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?
00:17:37.000This is an issue which has actually been.
00:17:39.000That was actually kept pretty quiet until the end of the Cold War, obviously, because you had during the 1970s.
00:17:44.000I don't think it's cop out to say that during the 1970s, you had more pressing concerns.
00:17:50.000And this, I think, again, relates to the special nature of the displacement that it was slow going relative to the lifespan of a person.
00:17:56.000That 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%.
00:18:09.000So I think that it's fair to say that the people were kept quiet.
00:18:12.000In the dark on this issue, even though the government basically understood what was going on.
00:18:17.000And again, I want to get away from intent.
00:18:19.000I 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?
00:18:28.000And I want to condense out all of the.
00:18:32.000When you say against the will of the people, I'm talking intent here.
00:18:36.000I don't see how I can address this without looking at the intent.
00:18:38.000Because 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.
00:18:47.000Then 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.
00:19:16.000Because morality, I think, is something that's more particular to choice, individual choice, you know.
00:19:22.000Hayek 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.
00:19:34.000But 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?
00:19:50.000And 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?
00:20:06.000Whether or not it's intended, whether or not it's moral or not, is it just for that to happen?
00:20:15.000So 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.
00:20:21.000So, 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.
00:20:29.000Well, that particular form of government would almost necessitate those types of things happening.
00:20:33.000If 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.
00:20:47.000That would be unjust because a direct democracy, everybody votes on every single thing.
00:20:51.000We live in a democratic republic, which means that we don't do a direct vote on every single thing.
00:20:59.000I 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?
00:21:07.000I mean, in the Democratic Republic, we elect people that we believe will vote in our interests.
00:21:12.000I 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.
00:21:22.000So I guess I'm having a hard time seeing like the unjust part.
00:21:24.000Like, we live in a Democratic Republic, we vote for people that we trust to vote in favor of us.
00:21:28.000Sometimes they don't always vote exactly as you'd want them to, but that's part of our.
00:21:39.000Well, I have a couple of things to, excuse me, a little burp there, to address there.
00:21:45.000Number one, I think it's very important.
00:21:47.000And 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.
00:22:04.000And formerly, the state legislators chose senators.
00:22:07.000That's not the case anymore, but that's how the government was set up.
00:22:10.000That was the instrument of our government, it was a democratic process, and that's how we made decisions.
00:22:15.000However, 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.
00:22:41.000If you have 50% plus one, you are free to act.
00:22:58.000In a republic, what that means is that the people are sovereign.
00:23:01.000And 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.
00:23:14.000And whether or not you believe in God, that is the founding mandate for the government, was that our rights come from God.
00:23:19.000People create a constitution, and the constitution creates a government.
00:23:23.000But fundamentally, the sovereign of the nation is every individual person.
00:23:27.000So, 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.
00:23:49.000I'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.
00:23:58.000It is an injustice by government, impersonally, that this happened.
00:24:06.000This is like a really weird, like, consequentialist question.
00:24:08.000I don't think we're at an impasse here.
00:24:10.000Okay, we can move on from this in a moment.
00:24:12.000So, 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.
00:24:35.000The 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.
00:24:43.000And 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.
00:24:50.000Although that gets a little weird because you can get into how.
00:24:53.000Bush and Cheney kind of misled people with the intel and the WMD and whatnot.
00:25:05.000Before 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.
00:25:14.000I don't know if this happened in the specific act that you were talking about.
00:25:19.000If it did, then at that point, I can easily say it's an injustice.
00:25:21.000If 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.
00:25:34.000But 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.
00:25:39.000It 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.
00:25:49.000Maybe 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.
00:25:56.000If something did happen, I guess, but I mean, it had bipartisan support.
00:26:00.000It 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.
00:26:06.000So 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.
00:27:06.000And 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.
00:27:16.000And if you eliminate the numerical quota for immediate relatives of immigrants, it would necessarily increase the amount of immigration.
00:27:24.000So I think that it's almost impossible.
00:27:28.000I 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.
00:27:34.000Well, obviously, this is how it would turn out.
00:27:35.000It doesn't seem like it was that obvious at the time if nobody made a deal about it, though.
00:27:39.000Well, I think that kind of speaks to the fact that they did know.
00:27:42.000But, you know, that's a disagreement of opinion, which neither of us have.
00:28:01.000Well, the Bush administration made their own separate organization to take direct, unvetted intel from CIA sources that were given to them.
00:28:12.000I have to go and look up the exact department that they made.
00:28:15.000Well, 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.
00:28:27.000Elements in Saddam Hussein's own government asserted the same thing.
00:28:30.000I 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.
00:28:38.000But it was when Bush and Cheney set up a separate branch to take unvetted intel.
00:28:43.000And 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.
00:28:48.000The 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.
00:28:56.000I'll find the exact name if you give me like two seconds.
00:29:05.000So 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.
00:29:15.000A plethora of information using their abilities as intelligence officers.
00:29:19.000They'll combine it into ways that they think make sense.
00:29:22.000They 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.
00:29:29.000Since 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.
00:29:44.000I'm not really concerned whether or not you, because I know this is a lot to just dump on you.
00:29:55.000This was much more subversive, in my opinion.
00:29:58.000Yeah, no, I tend to agree with you that it was subversive.
00:30:01.000I think the war in Afghanistan was the same thing.
00:30:03.000So, 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.
00:30:13.000And I think you would agree that there are things that make it totally insufficient altogether to compare, but.
00:30:19.000I think, you know, we've stated our case.
00:30:21.000I 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.
00:30:29.000So 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.
00:30:41.000But so then we have to get to the consequences, which is immigration from the third world, i.e., non white immigration, not from Europe.
00:30:51.000Has it been good or bad for the country?
00:30:53.000Now, I'm curious about your position because I'm not totally sure.
00:30:57.000Are 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?
00:31:07.000Yeah, 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.
00:31:16.000Specific metrics like value to the economy would be things that I'm very concerned about.
00:31:21.000And I guess things like crime rates and whatnot would be things that I'd be concerned about as well.
00:31:24.000If they're overrepresented in those demographics, then these would be things that I would be concerned about, sure.
00:31:30.000Because, you know, I look at one of the biggest things I go by is not so much economics.
00:31:44.000Even if immigrants were a net benefit to the economy, I would still be against non European immigration.
00:31:49.000And 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.
00:32:00.000But 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.
00:32:11.000Well, 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.
00:32:25.000And I can read you, I mean, people that you'd be surprised by.
00:32:27.000I 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.
00:32:35.000Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
00:32:47.000Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
00:32:51.000So, 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.
00:33:04.000So, how in good conscience can you say that?
00:33:07.000It 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.
00:33:22.000Because I think when our government was created, we were given the ability to amend our constitution via the amendment process.
00:33:28.000And it seems like through the process of amending our constitution, those values have slightly changed over time.
00:33:34.000The original document of our constitution was never meant to be an unchanging, unyielding force.
00:33:40.000It seemed like we were given right off the bat before it was even ratified.
00:33:44.000We were given the first 10 amendments to make changes to the Constitution or to add things as we see fit.
00:33:49.000And it seems like at this point in time, we don't agree that America should only be a white Eurocentric place.
00:33:54.000And I mean, that's where our Constitution is at now.
00:33:56.000If we dramatically disagree, I guess we could try to revoke some amendments or add more amendments in the future.
00:34:11.000I 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.
00:34:20.000Can 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?
00:34:32.000I know you can point to the 14th Amendment, which says that you can't discriminate based on color within the country.
00:34:39.000But where in the constitutional amendments does it say that we should bring in more people?
00:34:56.000So 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.
00:35:05.000Without that, then you would assume that it's delegated to the states, correct?
00:35:09.000That's how our Constitution is set up?
00:35:11.000No, 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.
00:35:22.000And that's why the president has such broad powers to act on immigration.
00:35:26.000It's not a federal issue for the states to determine.
00:35:29.000That's something explicitly in the control of the federal government.
00:35:32.000And 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.
00:35:43.000And if you don't believe me, that sounds like an extrapolation, correct?
00:35:48.000Well, 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.
00:35:55.000And the first Federalist paper, which is, you know, if you're familiar with the Federalist papers, was John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.
00:36:03.000They 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.
00:36:13.000And John Jay wrote in the first Federalist paper this, and it's a pretty long quote, but I think it's important to establish.
00:36:18.000He 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.
00:36:35.000This country and this people seem to have been made for each other.
00:36:38.000So 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.
00:36:49.000But 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.
00:37:08.000Excluding an amendment to the Constitution, excluding a constitutional amendment, which is a pretty long process, and it was to get this Constitution passed.
00:37:17.000Don'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?
00:37:28.000I don't know enough constitutional history to say it.
00:37:30.000I 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.
00:37:40.000I mean, I can't really argue with you here.
00:37:42.000No, 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.
00:37:49.000It's probably probable that they would be, like, for, like, Eurocentric white America, whatever, you know, descendants, language, religion, and all of that.
00:37:57.000But I guess it's not where we're at right now today with our government.
00:38:00.000It 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.
00:38:06.000Well, 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.
00:38:15.000There 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.
00:38:23.000And 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.
00:38:41.000And in 100 years, for example, this is not something I predict.
00:38:45.000This is not something that I think would even happen.
00:38:48.000But 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.
00:39:00.000Because 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.
00:39:12.000Morally reprehensible, whether that be slavery, whether that be a Nazi state, whether that be something completely horrible, heinous.
00:39:22.000And the constitutional process was set up and put in place so that the amendment process would be deliberately slow and difficult.
00:39:30.000You need it to be ratified by two thirds of the state or two thirds of the Senate.
00:39:34.000I mean, it's a long process, it's difficult.
00:39:37.000You really need the will of the people behind you.
00:39:39.000And 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.
00:39:49.000This country now speaks half English and half Spanish.
00:40:17.000If 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?
00:40:34.000I 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.
00:40:40.000I mean, no democracy can run where the will of every single individual person is represented.
00:40:44.000Well, no, but we're not talking about the will.
00:40:46.000We're talking about the Constitution, which is.
00:41:11.000You know, you say, well, that's the democratic process, and that happens sometimes.
00:41:15.000But the founders of the country set up the Constitution, and the government derives its powers from the Constitution, said that.
00:41:22.000To prevent that from happening, legislation has to fit into the constraints of the Constitution.
00:41:28.000And 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.
00:41:41.000Either 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.
00:41:49.000So I guess I'm asking do you not see a problem with the fact that?
00:41:53.000We completely went against the Constitution with regards to immigration, and this is a bad precedent.
00:42:00.000The problem is that, like, this is kind of the problem that I'm having right now the Constitution is a pretty decent document.
00:42:04.000There'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.
00:42:12.000Like, 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.
00:42:26.000No immigration from other countries should ever be here.
00:42:29.000I'm having a really hard time following that.
00:42:30.000It seems like a huge extrapolation of a single thing.
00:42:38.000These 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.
00:42:51.000And so the people that signed the Constitution, it was ratified by two thirds of the state, very difficult process.
00:42:58.000The 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.
00:43:10.000So, And I will justify it with more evidence.
00:43:13.000It 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.
00:43:27.000And 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.
00:43:42.000And 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.
00:43:56.000Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.
00:44:01.000And you saw in the Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, and 1798 that immigration was restricted to free white persons of good character.
00:44:12.000So you have three legislative acts in the first.
00:44:16.000You 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.
00:44:29.000And, you know, you may disagree with that, but then why should you not have to go through the constitutional process to change that?
00:44:36.000I guess I don't necessarily disagree with that.
00:44:38.000I mean, it sounds like you know a fair bit about this.
00:44:40.000So that was their intentions back then.
00:44:42.000That's, that's, then that can be their intentions back then.
00:44:44.000I guess I'm just not usually too concerned with like, What were the exact intentions behind some of the people 200 plus years ago?
00:44:50.000I'm more concerned with policy that's affected today and what's going on today with where we stand at government.
00:44:54.000And it seems like nobody else in government holds these specific views anymore.
00:44:58.000So I just don't see the relevance, I guess, unless you want to argue at it from straight.
00:45:02.000If 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.
00:45:12.000But 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.
00:45:17.000Well, 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?
00:45:34.000I 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.
00:45:49.000And so that's why hypotheticals are important.
00:45:52.000If 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.
00:46:08.000And there was a lot of hysteria during the election that he said that.
00:46:30.000The Constitution would protect against that.
00:46:33.000But if, according to your standard, and standards are very important, I'm not getting into the consequentialist, so to speak.
00:46:40.000I'm getting into more the systemic, the precedent that it sets.
00:46:45.000This 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.
00:46:58.000I mean, do you not see a problem with that?
00:47:01.000Do you not see a middle ground anywhere between every single letter of the Constitution must be followed as it was originally written?
00:47:08.000I think there are middle grounds that we exist in today.
00:47:11.000We 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.
00:47:39.000I 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.
00:48:16.000So, or we'll do the immigration, but I'll do the real example first, okay?
00:48:20.000So, 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.
00:48:34.000I don't understand how the government can mandate me to purchase something and then fine it and call it a tax.
00:48:45.000When 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.
00:48:55.000So, I mean, legal precedent is very important insofar as how our law functions.
00:49:00.000So, 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.
00:49:21.000Let's say that for the healthcare thing, right?
00:49:23.000Let'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?
00:49:32.000Well, because I think the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was okay.
00:49:35.000If we continue to get rulings like that, you know, 100 years from now, that's just kind of an accepted part of government then.
00:49:41.000The 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.
00:49:47.000Well, at that point, it's a little bit irrelevant, right?
00:49:49.000You kind of have to go by the legal precedent that's been established up to that point.
00:49:54.000Yes, 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.
00:50:01.000But 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.
00:50:12.000And, you know, the Obamacare example is interesting.
00:50:15.000The Obamacare example, the constitutional disagreement is a private property thing, and it's an amendment number 10 thing.
00:50:25.000That 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.
00:50:37.000And number two, that the government can provide spending for health care.
00:50:40.000And this is welfare in general, that in Article I, Section 8, it says what provisions the government can spend money on constitutionally.
00:50:49.000And the difference is that in the language of Article I, Section 8, it says the general welfare.
00:50:55.000It says you can spend money on X, Y, and Z.
00:51:00.000And anything to ensure the general welfare.
00:51:02.000Now, 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.
00:51:13.000But 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.
00:51:21.000With immigration, there doesn't exist the wiggle room.
00:51:24.000And 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.
00:51:33.000But with immigration, it says very specifically in the law ourselves and our posterity.
00:51:38.000And, you know, the Federalist Papers are not law.
00:51:41.000But 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.
00:51:47.000It doesn't really exist where they say you can never have a social safety net because that didn't exist in 1788.
00:51:53.000But there was a very clear intent for the preamble, which said what posterity means.
00:52:01.000And there's really no wiggle room on this one.
00:52:03.000So I agree, you know, there is middle ground.
00:52:05.000We have that, but not with this issue.
00:52:08.000It'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.
00:52:18.000And 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.
00:52:29.000We were having an argument on the original interpretation, constitutional view of these issues.
00:52:38.000Then that would be a discussion, but this is a discussion that I've never had before.
00:52:42.000Okay, really interested in it because, and I think we both agree on this point you don't, this is never going to happen, right?
00:52:48.000Nobody 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.
00:52:59.000Uh, no, I wouldn't say that, I wouldn't say that exactly.
00:53:01.000And certainly, Donald Trump ran on a platform that was explicitly pro white, explicitly anti immigration.
00:53:08.000Now, 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.
00:53:32.000So I don't agree with that premise that this is not an impractical thing.
00:53:37.000I think that's exactly what the question is.
00:53:39.000I mean, the poor people in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, that are being displaced by illegal immigrants.
00:53:46.000Maybe 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.
00:54:03.000I don't care so much about the economics.
00:54:05.000I think for a lot of people, it's more about who is this country for?
00:54:17.000The laws with the will of the people and not just like legislative fiat.
00:54:21.000So, I mean, that's where I hope you understand the significance of that.
00:54:24.000This is not like I hope I'm not going with semantic stuff.
00:54:28.000I'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.
00:54:55.000Like this is an issue that we're going to be talking about in the next.
00:54:57.000You know, six years or seven years of how would that Trump's presidency, the next president, whatever's going on?
00:55:04.000Well, 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.
00:55:16.000Well, 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.
00:55:25.000I 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.
00:55:32.000So, You know, sure, we could pass over that for now.
00:55:35.000And we could just talk strictly about immigration and the racial component there.
00:55:40.000But I would just ask you you look around the world today, and I've studied African politics.
00:55:46.000I 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.
00:55:53.000But you look at Africa and it's uniquely like the worst place in the world to live.
00:57:11.000But 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?
00:57:22.000So 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.
00:57:31.000But you don't want to talk about the economic issue.
00:57:33.000So I guess the way that I would look at a particular immigrant is I would hope that the country has some measure in place.
00:57:41.000Like if somebody is coming from a country and they have a record of like. 15 convicted rapes or something, right?
00:57:47.000This is not somebody that we would let into the country.
00:57:49.000But 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.
00:58:23.000I think simply that America should retain a racial majority that is European.
00:58:28.000That's not an ethnic, that's a racial component, and it should be a majority.
00:58:32.000Not that there should be no blacks, not that there should be no Hispanics.
00:58:35.000I'm Hispanic myself, but that there should be a racial majority.
00:58:39.000And 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?
00:58:53.000Do you think it will remain the same country that it was when it was European?
00:58:57.000Probably not, but I don't think any country is the same country that it was 50 years ago.
00:59:01.000There's no, I don't know, maybe Russia, China.
00:59:25.000I mean, Is there still a collective mentality?
00:59:27.000Certainly the trappings have changed, but has the country remained the same?
00:59:31.000I 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.
00:59:38.000Technology and the internet has changed everything insofar as you can step into any country now and find English speaking people everywhere.
00:59:46.000Cultures have molded together a lot because of the distribution of entertainment from Hollywood to all over the world.
01:00:14.000And, you know, if that were the case, I think I might be more sympathetic.
01:00:17.000But what we're seeing in the world right now with this 21st century thing, which I agree is a rapid transformation.
01:00:24.000We've never seen anything like it in the history of the world, where you have, True globalism in communication and trade, commerce, migration.
01:00:31.000But, 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.
01:00:47.000That's actually a bad example, as they also brought in a fair amount of Arabs.
01:00:49.000But, you know, a country like China can remain characteristically Chinese and the trappings change, but underlying it stays the same.
01:00:56.000And certainly that is racial, ethnic, And something that is cultural within a biological component.
01:01:01.000But I would say that when you say that, well, everything's changing, it's really not the case.
01:01:08.000Only white countries, only European descended countries are undergoing this rapid demographic transformation and expected to do so.
01:01:17.000I 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?
01:01:29.000And so I would say that our beef, It's not a racist thing.
01:01:39.000We 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.
01:01:47.000I mean, why are you not holding every other country in the world to the standard?
01:01:52.000So this kind of sounds like the why aren't more women dying on the job if we want true equality argument?
01:01:59.000So 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?
01:02:10.000Well, okay, we don't want anybody to go to coal sites and die.
01:02:13.000We'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.
01:02:20.000So 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.
01:02:35.000So 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.
01:02:43.000Maybe there would be these issues, but we don't really see this happening.
01:02:46.000People tend to not want to immigrate into these countries.
01:02:48.000So 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.
01:03:22.000Well, the reason I ask is because we look around the world at countries, like you said, that suck, and we're not going there.
01:03:29.000And the reason that we're not going there is because those countries don't work.
01:03:33.000And I don't understand how you can divorce the people coming from those countries from the countries they came from.
01:03:39.000I mean, Mexico, this is according to Transparency International, is the 93rd most corrupt country.
01:03:44.000Excuse me, 93rd most corrupt country in the world, twice as corrupt as the United States.
01:03:49.000Now, you look at Africa, 3,000 years of failure, not one successful city.
01:03:55.000We arrived there in 1880, not one two story building, not one written language except for Ethiopia.
01:04:01.000They didn't even have impersonal government.
01:04:03.000Some places hadn't even invented the wheel.
01:04:05.000And 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?
01:04:16.000I guess when we talk about things like responsibility of the people, these aren't usually questions that I'm usually concerned about.
01:04:23.000Like this idea of forcing somebody to say something, because it doesn't really get us anywhere.
01:04:43.000Here's why it's because it's a shithole for a reason.
01:04:48.000And 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?
01:05:03.000I 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.
01:05:14.000Well, you know, we didn't get there out of it, it wasn't like luck that we became the richest.
01:05:19.000Most successful, least corrupt countries in the world that had something to do with the people that were here.
01:05:28.000The people that immigrated here from the other richest countries in the world, right?
01:05:32.000I mean, Germany, Britain, Spain, France.
01:05:36.000I mean, these were the wealthiest, most advanced countries in the world.
01:05:39.000And they came here and they colonized and they set up a prosperous, successful country.
01:05:44.000And 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.
01:05:52.000Maybe 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?
01:06:18.000So when you talk about a destroyed country, you talk about a country that has a lot of problems.
01:06:22.000First of all, we've already moved past the fact that.
01:06:25.000African countries are joining the first world at like record rates.
01:06:39.000So 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.
01:06:48.000So it's not like they're in the same place they were hundreds of years ago.
01:06:51.000A lot of this has been a combination of us not abusing the countries as much and also helping the countries.
01:06:56.000For 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.
01:07:01.000They seem to be joining the first world at pretty, pretty record basis.
01:07:04.000You 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.
01:07:11.000Firstly, 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.
01:07:19.000So 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.
01:07:29.000Just because people come to another country doesn't necessarily mean they're going to bring their broken structures with them.
01:07:35.000I 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.
01:07:43.000I 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.
01:08:09.000I'm doing a little bit of satire there.
01:08:11.000But, 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.
01:08:21.000I 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.
01:08:31.000I 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.
01:08:41.000It wouldn't be this dramatic, impossible escape if they were on the cusp.
01:08:46.000There is a long gulf there that I don't think is inevitable.
01:08:49.000You 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.
01:09:05.000And additionally, you say that they're on the cusp because we helped them, which is kind of key.
01:09:10.000And 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.
01:09:21.000And then, secondly, I don't think Mexicans are coming here to start drug cartels.
01:09:25.000I think Mexicans come here and they start drug cartels.
01:09:28.000It'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.
01:09:39.000But 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.
01:09:51.000I 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.
01:09:59.000So I would say that, you know, number one, you wouldn't have immigration problems if they were advancing.
01:10:05.000And 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.
01:10:13.000I think that's an unreasonable standard to place on any group of people.
01:10:16.000I'm not saying that they're the only ones and they solely commit crimes, but certainly it is specifically a problem with Hispanic immigrants.
01:10:26.000I've never seen those numbers before in my entire life.
01:10:29.000Every 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.
01:10:37.000I've never seen any stats that contradict that.
01:10:39.000There might be specific areas of Mexican crime, I guess, but.
01:10:43.000There are specific areas of probably German, Russian, any white people crime, and black crime, of course.
01:10:53.000The sort of white crime you're talking about.
01:10:55.000Jontron brought it up on your show, in fact, where he said that the poorest white communities have less crime than the richest black community.
01:11:04.000So this sort of, well, I'm sure there's white crime.
01:11:07.000I'm not interested in this type of data.
01:11:35.000What I'm saying is the immigrants that we're bringing in, it seems to be specifically a problem with them.
01:11:40.000I mean, I don't think you would argue that, well, number one, most of the drugs come from.
01:11:45.000From Mexico, with the exception of the designer drugs, those come from Asia and Canada, the Asian drug gangs in Canada.
01:11:51.000But 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.
01:11:57.000You wouldn't argue against that, would you?
01:12:00.000Probably not, but I mean, it's consumed by people in the United States.
01:12:03.000Naturally, naturally, but the people that are bringing it here are coming from south of the border.
01:12:08.000And the people that are bringing it are Mexican.
01:12:11.000And like Tijuana is one example that comes to mind, Los Angeles is.
01:12:16.000Violent, violent cities in Chicago as well.
01:12:19.000I mean, there's bringing them to white people to consume.
01:12:42.000You don't see the violence that is associated with that that you see.
01:12:45.000Because when I talk about the drug gangs, It's the gangs and the violence.
01:12:49.000Certainly, illicit substances have always been a problem.
01:12:52.000But in particular, it's the gangs and the violence, which you see almost exclusively from Hispanics.
01:12:57.000And certainly there is white crime, drug crime as well.
01:13:01.000But 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.
01:13:11.000And 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?
01:13:36.000I 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.
01:13:43.000Doesn't this point to a geographic problem more so than a look at these Hispanics?
01:13:47.000No, I don't see how that would have anything to do with that.
01:13:49.000Even 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.
01:13:55.000Which also, by the way, have the highest percentage of Mexican immigrants.
01:14:02.000I 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.
01:14:13.000So, 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.
01:14:24.000And 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.
01:14:43.000Has just now shown up because of the Mexicans in this country.
01:14:46.000And certainly the Muslim African rape gangs in Europe have just started to appear when the Muslim Africans showed up.
01:14:53.000And 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.
01:16:04.000Relatively minor crime problem relative to the gross domestic product that increases.
01:16:09.000I 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.
01:16:19.000That 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.
01:16:30.000And so you feel like you've made a really big investment and your lineage has in this country.
01:16:35.000And you're a father and you've paid Social Security all your life, you've contributed, and your child is raped or killed.
01:16:42.000And 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.
01:16:56.000And I'll let you respond to that, but that's number one.
01:17:24.000The 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?
01:17:32.000You can never erase crime domestically.
01:17:35.000Here'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.
01:17:47.000There's no way that you can ever get a grip.
01:17:50.000I 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.
01:17:57.000And even then, you'll have externalities for that.
01:18:00.000But all crime is preventable from foreign people.
01:18:03.000If your kid got killed by an illegal immigrant, you would feel especially gypped because.
01:18:10.000But 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.
01:18:23.000But I mean, I'll let you respond to that in detail.
01:18:40.000We're throwing out all this rich, good material.
01:18:43.000We're throwing out all this great stuff with all the bad stuff.
01:18:46.000But outside of maybe the economy grows, maybe you have cheaper consumer goods.
01:18:54.000What is the benefit that justifies even one American life that you have people coming here to this country?
01:19:00.000I 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?
01:19:20.000I mean, like, what if your kid was killed by like the descendant of an Irishman or Italian?
01:19:25.000Like, 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?
01:19:30.000Or 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?
01:19:38.000Like, that's I can't even like fathom, like, man, if only we kept.
01:19:42.000All the immigrants out forever, like that would have been a way to keep my kid from getting murdered.
01:19:46.000What 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?
01:19:51.000Like, 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?
01:19:57.000Like, this just seems like such an extreme argument that would never hold up if you applied it to any other thing than immigrants.
01:20:05.000And then also, we completely ignore the flip side of that.
01:20:08.000What if my kid comes out of school with a business degree and he wants to start a business?
01:20:13.000But 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.
01:20:19.000Or 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?
01:20:25.000Maybe some of these people get depressed and either end up killing themselves or they go back and they move in with their parents.
01:20:30.000Do they then blame the government for not letting enough immigrants in?
01:20:32.000Do they get angry at white people in general for not letting.
01:20:35.000This just seems like such a weird kind of argument.
01:20:56.000If 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.
01:21:03.000It 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.
01:21:34.000It's not like high skill labor is the only thing that can come in and benefit a country.
01:21:37.000Low skill labor is an important part of the American country as well as of every Western country.
01:21:41.000Well, 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.
01:21:48.000But I think you would agree that someone being murdered is different than someone not being able to start a business.
01:21:55.000This has to do with negative and positive.
01:22:04.000What, 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?
01:22:10.000Like, I could rephrase that same question to you.
01:22:11.000Like, 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?
01:23:01.000Okay, I don't think that's true with proportions.
01:23:03.000But 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.
01:23:12.000You look at, you know, Africans in Europe, this is not the case.
01:23:16.000I 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.
01:23:26.000I 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.
01:23:38.000Of course not, but you also have like a huge selection bias here as well, right?
01:23:41.000Like, If you're getting immigrants from coming across the Pacific or the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, right?
01:23:46.000If 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.
01:23:52.000It takes a lot to get over here from one of those countries.
01:23:55.000So when you say, like, take 10 German citizens, these aren't people that can just run across the border.
01:23:59.000These 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.
01:24:06.000Like, you're a selection by, you're already picking, like, the top 10% of the society, right?
01:24:10.000Not necessarily, because even you see.
01:24:12.000You know, like I said with that, that Sudanese person that shot up Tennessee, I mean, certainly he wasn't excluded from coming here.
01:24:21.000Like, 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?
01:24:33.000This is why Asians do so well, like, in all of our universities, right?
01:24:38.000Okay, well, ignoring maybe you believe there's a genetic component, but, like, even if there is a genetic component, right?
01:24:43.000Asians, 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.
01:24:49.000You'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?
01:24:57.000So 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?
01:25:46.000Well, 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.
01:25:56.000That cheap labor is an economic benefit.
01:25:58.000Well, 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.
01:26:07.000And this is an equation, it's not just one variable.
01:26:10.000If 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.
01:26:54.000And 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.
01:27:10.000So 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?
01:27:19.000So 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.
01:27:35.000I think it's a bigger problem even in Europe or Germany than it is in the United States.
01:27:38.000But 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.
01:27:47.000So if you tell me that Hispanics or people that immigrate are overrepresented in welfare, I wouldn't disagree with that.
01:27:54.000From every number I've seen, that's definitely true.
01:27:56.000But 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.
01:28:10.000I 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.
01:28:29.000So I appreciate that you would say that reform is necessary.
01:28:33.000And why I stray away from the economic typically is because.
01:28:36.000You know, even if it was a net positive, I would still be against it.
01:28:40.000So 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.
01:28:54.000I 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.
01:29:09.000When you want an immigrant selecting your country, As a spot to immigrate to.
01:29:11.000You want them to select it for economic reasons that aren't based on welfare from the government.
01:29:17.000I'm glad you're a reasonable person in that sense.
01:29:21.000So, 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.
01:29:34.000So, 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.
01:29:43.000It's about social capital for me, which is a big thing.
01:29:45.000And you may have heard of Robert Putnam before, you may not have.
01:29:48.000He's pretty esoteric for the mainstream.
01:29:51.000But there was a Harvard study done by this, the premier sociologist, I think, of the past 50 years, Robert Putnam.
01:29:58.000And so he was a professor, and he found that ethnic diversity is directly correlated with low social trust.
01:30:05.000He said that the most diverse human habitation in the world, Los Angeles, he found to have the lowest social trust in the United States.
01:30:14.000He 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.
01:30:25.000Who are our neighbors, obviously, who share a common history, culture, and everything else.
01:30:29.000But social trust is even degraded there because of these differences.
01:30:33.000So 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?
01:30:41.000In 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?
01:30:58.000The value judgment that you would make for society.
01:31:02.000So, 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.
01:31:10.000So, when a country starts to do well economically, I think that the infrastructure for their health improves.
01:31:15.000I think that necessarily the government has to change at some point.
01:31:20.000I 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.
01:31:28.000I think that economically, I think that you can empower.
01:31:31.000A lot of people to do better things or to live better lives.
01:31:35.000And when I say better, I mean it even in the sense that crime will drop, people will become more educated, like that.
01:31:40.000So 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.
01:31:53.000We usually get along with people that look like us, that are more similar to us.
01:31:56.000So that's something that I can inherently believe.
01:32:00.000I would argue that the idea of changing these values socially is worth it.
01:32:06.000For 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.
01:32:19.000Yeah, I would make the argument that that trade off is necessary or at least worthwhile.
01:32:24.000I'm sorry, maybe I should say instead of necessary.
01:32:41.000And 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.
01:32:52.000So I would contend with the first one.
01:32:54.000I don't know if this is something that, you know, this may be sort of an impasse, but, and this is pretty existential.
01:33:01.000I think this has a lot to do with where we derive meaning for our lives and where we assign value as a society.
01:33:09.000And this is where I think you're a bit of a neoliberal.
01:33:12.000And I don't like labels, but I would say that that is more of a neoliberal thought that material wealth, democratization, liberalization economically.
01:33:21.000I've heard you say before you're a big believer in capitalism is the key to a successful society.
01:33:42.000I 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.
01:33:54.000It's access to the internet, it's access to social media, to culture, to communicate with work, to communicate with friends.
01:33:59.000Like, empowering people to make these economic decisions that really do enrich their lives in more than just a shallow material sense.
01:34:06.000I only said that because I didn't know.
01:34:07.000When 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.
01:34:18.000Well, and I think the reason why you begin to quibble with the material wealth, because what you described is material wealth.
01:34:25.000I 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.
01:34:37.000But that is, I think, the key distinction, which is.
01:34:41.000People in my generation, Generation Z, people in rural America, even the alt right, people that are like neo Nazis.
01:34:49.000I 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.
01:34:59.000And it tends to be pretty miserable without the social trust because social trust is not just like.
01:35:05.000To go one further on what you just said, right?
01:35:07.000People that consume social media tend to report more like anxiety and depression than other people.
01:35:13.000And even beyond social media, but even people that have a lot of wealth, more wealth than they know what to do with.
01:35:18.000And 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.
01:35:31.000And 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.
01:35:47.000Materially, to better material standards of wealth.
01:35:50.000And 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.
01:35:59.000And 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.
01:36:26.000You'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.
01:36:35.000But 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.
01:36:59.000Yeah, 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.
01:37:07.000But, I mean, yeah, that's basically accurate.
01:37:10.000Okay, so I want to use an analogy that I had to deal with growing up, and then I'll extrapolate to this.
01:37:16.000So I went to private school growing up, and we had a uniform.
01:37:22.000And basically, everybody had to wear navy blue pants and a white shirt, I think, every day to school.
01:37:28.000And the argument was always that if we do this, Everybody looks the same.
01:37:32.000You don't judge anybody for wearing not the coolest clothes or not the coolest shoes or whatever.
01:37:38.000It puts everybody kind of on the same playing field.
01:37:40.000And 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.
01:37:57.000Why 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?
01:38:05.000Horrible judgments about people that look different than us or people that have different shoes or clothes, right?
01:38:11.000And then you can see where I'm going when you extrapolate to the larger population.
01:38:14.000Why 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?
01:38:28.000We can only go back to living where everybody looks the same.
01:38:31.000Why can't that third option ever be a possibility?
01:39:02.000Well, I'm a little bit Catholic, but I'm also pretty mystical.
01:39:07.000I do believe in sort of this supernatural mystical thing where.
01:39:11.000Not only are people racially different, but I think the different peoples of the world are spiritually different.
01:39:17.000There's a totally different spirit that animates them.
01:39:21.000And for many left leaning people, for many capitalist, materialist, philosophically materialist type people, this might come across as corny or superstitious or silly.
01:39:31.000But 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.
01:39:41.000And so I would say that I don't really agree with this analogy that it's inimical to.
01:39:45.000To 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.
01:40:02.000I didn't remember what specific denomination you said you were in.
01:40:05.000Yeah, I'm Catholic, and Mexicans certainly are Catholic, but even their adaptation.
01:40:11.000No, I think it is more similar than Africans.
01:40:14.000I think it's more similar than Asians because you have had this 500 year.
01:40:19.000Mixing, 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.
01:40:29.000Not relative to human history, but relative to this country.
01:40:33.000So I would say they're closer than others.
01:40:34.000But 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.
01:40:53.000They still have these superstitious, very, very primitive beliefs.
01:40:58.000And certainly in Africa, the same is true.
01:41:00.000It's even a shorter time to, quote unquote, assimilate into Christianity where they still believe in voodoo.
01:41:35.000So 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?
01:41:46.000But these are people that are Cuban, or you said you're of Mexican descent.
01:41:50.000So do you think that like a quarter of your soul is tainted, or how does that work?
01:41:54.000Well, no, because, and this is to get technical, Hispanics on average are actually have 67% European.
01:42:01.000So, if you do the math, that would be like 91% European and 9% Amerindian.
01:42:08.000So, 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.
01:42:23.000And maybe, you know, the trappings are the same.
01:42:25.000Maybe individually they can change, but we're not talking about individuals here.
01:42:29.000We'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.
01:42:42.000I couldn't speak to that, but certainly by all appearances, he's integrated.
01:42:47.000But we're talking about the fundamental transformation where by 2065, we're not talking about one individual Hispanic who's anti immigration.
01:42:55.000We're talking about 30% of the country being Hispanic, 14% Asian, and 14% black.
01:43:00.000I 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.
01:43:09.000No ethnic, racial, linguistic, or religious majority in the country.
01:43:14.000I guess I would hope that we can kind of assimilate on shared, I guess, on just being Americans.
01:43:20.000I mean, even when you talk about assimilation, there are dramatically different values between rural people and city people, right?
01:43:26.000There 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?
01:43:34.000Depending on what cities and what specific towns you're taking.
01:43:37.000So I guess this idea of this cohesive overall American identity.
01:43:42.000I don't know if it's even ever existed that some immigrant could come here and somehow simultaneously mesh with every part of it.
01:43:48.000That just seems really confusing to me.
01:43:49.000I think for a long time, I mean, there's always the urban rural divide.
01:43:53.000That's existed since the beginning of time.
01:43:56.000But certainly you saw that the, number one, the urbanization has been relatively a recent trend.
01:44:01.000And number two, the cosmopolitan nature of the city has also been a recent trend.
01:44:05.000Whereas before, New York, Texas, California, Illinois, these could go red or blue.
01:44:12.000But since you've seen cities become dominated by a very particular class of.
01:44:16.000Of wealthy white cosmopolitan elites, of Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities, it has sort of changed the dynamic.
01:44:25.000Whereas before, you've always had urban and rural, but I think it's gotten extremely more polarized before 65.
01:44:32.000And 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.
01:44:43.000So I would say I would disagree that it's always been that way.
01:44:52.000Your 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.
01:45:03.000If 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.
01:45:27.000I 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.
01:45:38.000But I don't think there's ever been any evidence of it having a negative impact on a country.
01:45:43.000I'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.
01:45:49.000And it didn't seem like that impact had ever been shown.
01:45:52.000Like it's been people can talk about it, but that's never been shown to negatively impact any country.
01:45:57.000I think it would be very difficult to demonstrate.
01:45:59.000I 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.
01:46:09.000But I would say that almost using a priori reasoning, I mean, we can basically assume that it would be true.
01:46:18.000But 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.
01:46:26.000You 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.
01:46:39.000I mean, wouldn't you say that that does happen, that there is some element of that?
01:46:44.000Well, 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.
01:46:55.000Maybe you've got a kid that grows up in, um, Well, Arnold Schwarzenegger, where did he grow up at?
01:47:02.000He always dreamed of becoming a huge power lifter or whatever.
01:47:05.000Maybe 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.
01:47:12.000Or maybe you can make that same argument for any other person.
01:47:15.000Like 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.
01:47:20.000Maybe 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.
01:47:27.000Yeah, 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.
01:47:44.000They get technical training or they get some kind of education that wouldn't be available in their country.
01:47:48.000And 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.
01:47:57.000But I think it would be helpful if we compared that to China's policy where China.
01:48:01.000For 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.
01:48:16.000They give them world class education, and then the Africans go back and they use those skills in their countries to make them better.
01:48:23.000I 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.
01:48:30.000Would it be the one where Yeah, go ahead.
01:48:33.000My philosophy is based off of kind of a self interested point of view.
01:48:37.000I 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.
01:48:44.000That would be almost impossible to do.
01:48:47.000To 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.
01:48:56.000I think that that would probably be a negative.
01:48:59.000I mean, they would pay their way either through, you know, they would work or they would pay taxes or, you know, something.
01:49:04.000When 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.
01:49:20.000That people that come over here and become.
01:49:22.000Very successful over here, either go back to their country to either give speeches or inspire people in those countries to do things.
01:49:29.000Like I said, I would have to go and I can't find anything.
01:49:31.000I tried to look at this before because this is one of the big things in researching the economic argument for immigration.
01:49:36.000Brain 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.
01:49:44.000Or 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.
01:49:53.000Yeah, that doesn't seem like it happens.
01:49:56.000Well, 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?
01:50:11.000Because 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.
01:50:22.000They're creating jobs for our country, they're inspiring our people.
01:50:27.000Paying taxes for our government instead of sending them back so they could make their own countries great.
01:50:31.000I 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?
01:50:38.000So the way that I view it is a better world for everybody is the best, is the most optimal self centered position.
01:50:46.000That if we took, so let's say that we take two separate worlds, okay?
01:50:49.000We diverge heavily at this point, okay?
01:50:51.000In 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.
01:51:10.000If 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?
01:51:29.000Well, now this is something that you could rationalize from a totally self interested position.
01:51:35.000A lot of our car manufacturing, I think 20% of the cost of like vehicles can be attributed to manufacturing in Mexico.
01:51:41.000Like 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?
01:51:46.000And we export to that country a lot as well.
01:51:48.000That if Mexico is stronger and healthier, one, it solves our immigration problem.
01:51:51.000Two, it gives us an awesome trade partner.
01:51:53.000Three, 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?
01:52:01.000That having in that future, having a Mexico that is a strong, independent country, it's nice for Mexico.
01:52:05.000But it's also really nice for America, right?
01:52:08.000If 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?
01:52:13.000If they were Hispanic Canadians, that would be awesome for America.
01:52:16.000That would be a really good thing, right?
01:52:18.000So 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.
01:52:24.000But 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?
01:52:32.000If 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.
01:52:42.000Not just those countries, but everybody would be.
01:52:44.000Imagine if I could stream or you could stream and you had a million fans in fucking Africa, right?
01:52:48.000Or if you had two million people in China that could consume your content, right?
01:52:51.000That this kind of stuff benefits everybody.
01:52:53.000Yeah, no, I don't disagree with the premise that making the other countries wealthier would be beneficial.
01:53:01.000I 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.
01:53:18.000Somehow they go from manufacturing cars to like first world country.
01:53:22.000I don't see how that transition happens just by way of them coming here.
01:53:26.000But 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?
01:53:48.000Because I mean, that's really what you're saying more American entrepreneurs, but From other countries.
01:53:53.000I don't see how that benefits those countries.
01:53:55.000Well, I'm sure that to some extent, I'm sure that happens.
01:53:58.000I'm sure there are people that come here and get educated and go there.
01:54:00.000But no, I want everybody that gets educated, I don't want any of that leaving the United States.
01:54:04.000I 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.
01:54:12.000I think we need to hold on to those highly educated people as much as possible.
01:54:15.000So I wouldn't want to see them all shipped off.
01:54:17.000I 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.
01:54:23.000But I would hope that through economic activity, We've incentivized those people to stay here as much as possible.
01:54:29.000I don't know what city you live in, or you don't have to say I live in Chicago.
01:54:32.000I live in Chicago, so you don't have to deal with this.
01:54:34.000But I live in a city called Omaha, Nebraska, right?
01:54:37.000We 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?
01:54:51.000You haven't given them any incentives to stay here, and we do this all the time.
01:54:53.000I'm like, we need to incentivize certain businesses to move in here so that we can keep our talent from going other places, right?
01:54:59.000So, yeah, I mean, I wouldn't want to bring in a bunch of people, educate them, and then ship them off.
01:55:02.000I would hope that they would want to stay here, right?
01:55:04.000Because growing that resource of labor is one of the fundamental ways to grow an economy.
01:55:08.000Well, 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?
01:55:27.000I mean, that kind of bolsters my argument that if.
01:55:30.000They come to America, they get educational training, maybe they contribute for the short time that they're here, but then they go back.
01:55:35.000Maybe they don't benefit us directly, but they certainly benefit us indirectly by going back to their countries and creating more wealth.
01:55:42.000Because 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.
01:55:51.000He says that globalism, like this global economy, doesn't really exist.
01:55:55.000The costs for shipping your goods, the costs for having a truly multinational business are so high.
01:56:02.000That most businesses make the majority of their money, do the majority of their business in the country that they're in.
01:56:08.000And so you're talking about bringing in Mexicans so they could become American entrepreneurs.
01:56:12.000That doesn't, just because they came from Mexico, that doesn't benefit Mexico.
01:56:15.000It benefits Mexico if they go to America, receive education, and then come back.
01:56:33.000By 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.
01:56:42.000You're also decreasing the labor pool over there, which could increase wages for some of the natives over there.
01:56:46.000Maybe 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.
01:56:53.000Maybe it causes them to revise their incentive structure or something.
01:57:16.000I'm not sure if that happens or if there are leaflets that tell you how to not get killed.
01:57:21.000But yeah, I mean, something has obviously happened.
01:57:23.000If 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.
01:57:33.000There's net negatives in terms of immigration that we're seeing less and less and less people come over.
01:57:38.000I 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.
01:57:47.000Well, yeah, but that wasn't the result of government policy.
01:57:50.000I mean, what was the government policy where Mexico wanted to keep their low income people?
01:57:55.000I mean, you said that, like, maybe something.
01:57:57.000I mean, this is all, you understand that your arguments for this are all pretty loose.
01:58:01.000It's all pretty, like, well, maybe sometimes something like this, something like that.
01:58:04.000I mean, all these low income people have been pouring across our borders, millions of them.
01:58:09.000And 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?
01:58:16.000I mean, wouldn't they want to keep these people, the cheap labor?
01:58:20.000I mean, you said, like, you know, they'd incentivize them.
01:58:27.000If 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?
01:58:35.000That 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?
01:58:45.000Yeah, 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.
01:59:00.000They then enrich the places that they go to.
02:00:06.000I'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.
02:00:11.000I don't think anybody is under that obligation.
02:00:13.000I just think it would be a different program.
02:00:15.000Instead of immigration, you would call it.
02:00:18.000People 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.
02:00:38.000But, 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.
02:00:47.000You can pay for this program and then you can go back.
02:00:50.000But 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.
02:00:55.000I just, I always have a problem with people who pretend like this is fundamentally good for these other countries.
02:01:02.000And I look at this from a much more economic point of view.
02:01:04.000You'll never find me tweeting like diversity is our greatest strength or any of these types of arguments.
02:01:09.000I think that these are ridiculous propositions.
02:01:12.000Insofar as building other countries, when you talk about people that benefit from immigration, just because Mexicans benefit doesn't necessarily mean Mexico can benefit.
02:01:22.000I'm sure there are better ways to benefit Mexico than via some immigration policy.
02:01:27.000I'm pretty sure that Mexico is the next highest place that Americans live outside America.
02:01:32.000So people obviously go over there for something business opportunity, education, probably not education, but probably for business or economic reasons.
02:01:40.000I mean, When immigrants make the decision to come to the United States to get educated, that's something that benefits the immigrant.
02:01:47.000It should, if they're making that economic decision to do so.
02:01:50.000And 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.
02:01:56.000So, this is why I advocate for things like immigration, because it can benefit.
02:02:00.000There are three parties that benefit there, right?
02:02:02.000The Mexican immigrant benefits, maybe not necessarily the country of Mexico.
02:02:05.000There are other ways to do that, but maybe so if they go back eventually.
02:02:09.000The country benefits because of the increased access to labor.
02:02:12.000Or, I was going to say businesses, but that counts as the country, I guess.
02:02:28.000That multinational businesses are actually more expensive and that they don't do that seems very strange to me.
02:02:34.000Why is so much manufacturing and everything done in countries like China if it's so disadvantageous?
02:02:38.000Yeah, 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.
02:02:49.000They do business in other nations, but they're buying and selling in multiple nations, where you can really call, for example, Walmart a multinational.
02:03:00.000I 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.
02:03:13.000I 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.
02:03:24.000The 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.
02:03:35.000I guess that just sounds kind of like a weird way of talking about globalization.
02:03:39.000So, 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?
02:03:48.000No, I think it was just more speaking to, I guess, what's the word?
02:03:54.000Elasticity, I think is what he was referring to in the sense that.
02:03:58.000Like 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.
02:04:08.000Like 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.
02:05:12.000Is 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.
02:05:25.000Like 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.
02:05:33.000The exporting of our value chains in Mexico has made automobiles much more affordable.
02:05:37.000I 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?
02:05:44.000You're probably looking at an Asus or something monitor that was probably made in Taiwan or something, you know?
02:05:50.000But 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?
02:06:03.000I think, you know, if we're talking about these enormous corporations that are few and far between, maybe you get.
02:06:09.000One that was founded by an immigrant in America, or you get a handful.
02:06:13.000I 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.
02:06:31.000And of course, they have to compete with Indochina and Africa and other countries, or they will in the coming years.
02:06:37.000You know, maybe they might get some jobs.
02:07:27.000You don't think they could create opportunities if they had a college degree from a Western university?
02:07:31.000I mean, why would anyone come to Western universities if that wasn't the case?
02:07:36.000Well, because a lot of the opportunity exists here as well.
02:07:39.000I'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.
02:07:49.000They don't have the structures in place to capitalize off of that type of labor.
02:07:53.000You 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.
02:08:04.000Well, 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.
02:08:16.000To 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.
02:08:26.000And you create capital, it's very difficult, it's very hard, it's not rewarding.
02:08:31.000I mean, you could say that, oh, well, this sort of ethereal opportunity doesn't exist.
02:08:35.000But I mean, there's that Nigerian, I think he's a steel magnate.
02:08:40.000I forget the name of him, but he's the first African billionaire, and he's making his own capital.
02:08:45.000And people certainly in Africa have made their own capital.
02:08:49.000And 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.
02:08:55.000It'd be ones that have experience, that have networks in European countries that they would get with.
02:09:01.000An internship or some form of training from a Western country, but they would have to go back and create the capital.
02:09:07.000Otherwise, they're never going to get out of that poverty trap.
02:09:10.000But I don't know if people would ever make those economic decisions.
02:09:12.000The decision to go to the United States to get educated so that they can send you back to your country.
02:09:40.000Okay, 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?
02:09:49.000So, 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.
02:09:57.000Schools do this, right, by charging higher out of state tuition, right, or charging less in state tuition, right?
02:10:01.000That if you want to create an incentive structure like that, then the country is free to do so.
02:10:16.000Like, some people might say, well, I don't want to do business with Romania because they subsidize their industry and it's unfair.
02:10:21.000So I would tariff those products or something.
02:10:22.000But 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.
02:10:33.000Yeah, I would be 100% in favor of that.
02:10:35.000And anything that makes the economic decision something that people would choose on their own.
02:12:42.000So, 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.