Speaker 1: The radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest, and
Speaker 1: individual rights. This is the Ran book show. Oh right, everybody,
Speaker 1: welcome to her one book show. And this almost the
Speaker 1: last day of the year, December thirty four, and today
Speaker 1: we're going to take out the not very contrary twelve
Speaker 1: the most controversial topic maybe in American politics today, maybe
Speaker 1: for the last eight to ten years, and that is immigration.
Speaker 1: And by the end of the show today we will
Speaker 1: have solved the problem. We will propose a policy that
Speaker 1: is just solves all the problems that immigration that the
Speaker 1: immigration debate is dealing with. At least that is the hope.
Speaker 1: I will be proposing my solutions, my policy, and we
Speaker 1: will go through the entire debate, the problem with today's policies,
Speaker 1: the reason why they exist in the way that they do,
Speaker 1: their consequences, and what the solution will be, and what
Speaker 1: the consequences of the solutions are. What the solution is,
Speaker 1: what the consequences are. So we'll go through all of that.
Speaker 1: This is a show sponsored by Alex Epstein in addition. Epstein,
Speaker 1: in addition to his sponsorship of the regular shows right
Speaker 1: this monthly sponsorship. This is a specific show that he
Speaker 1: has sponsored the second one. We did the China policy,
Speaker 1: fixing the China policy, getting China policy right. We did
Speaker 1: that a week ago, and now we're going to take
Speaker 1: up in migration. So yes, so feel free to ask questions.
Speaker 1: You can ask questions, of course about anything, but I
Speaker 1: will get priority for the immigration questions and start off
Speaker 1: with the immigration questions and we will cover those first
Speaker 1: and then we'll cover everything else. But you can't ask
Speaker 1: about anything you would like to ask. Also want to
Speaker 1: remind you before we get started about tomorrow's show, we
Speaker 1: will be doing our year and Year in Review fundraising
Speaker 1: show tomorrow. We have a big ask, a big goal
Speaker 1: to try to achieve, which is to raise at least
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand dollars tomorrow during the show, and that shal
Speaker 1: will start at one pm East Coast tin. It will
Speaker 1: go I don't know, three four five dollars as long
Speaker 1: as it takes right and hopefully you guys can join.
Speaker 1: You can come for the whole thing if you want.
Speaker 1: You can come just pop in and pop out, as
Speaker 1: long as you leave some dollars while you're here. You
Speaker 1: can you can go in and out, you can do
Speaker 1: what you want. We'll be here and we'll be raising
Speaker 1: their money. Fifteen thousand dollars requires thirty people to contribute
Speaker 1: five hundred dollars each. That's one way we can get there.
Speaker 1: Five hundred dollars, I think is the limit you can
Speaker 1: do in super Chat, so you can do it in
Speaker 1: one time. You can ask ten fifty dollars questions. Of course,
Speaker 1: you can also contribute two dollars and one dollar and
Speaker 1: five dollars anything. Everything is welcome, everything is appreciated. But
Speaker 1: I know, I know that among my listeners live and
Speaker 1: not live combined, there are many, many more than thirty
Speaker 1: people who can afford to do five hundred dollars. It
Speaker 1: works out to be about a buck twenty five a
Speaker 1: show if you look at all the shows I've done
Speaker 1: during the year. And so I'm hoping that we can
Speaker 1: find thirty people who do five hundred, and then everybody
Speaker 1: else just adds on to that and we raise a
Speaker 1: lot more than fifteen thousand, which would be truly fantastic. Okay, tomorrow,
Speaker 1: well let's talk about goals for next year. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about a summary of this year, how the show is done. Views,
Speaker 1: I was watched all of that data, how many how
Speaker 1: many shows I did live, how many videos are put up.
Speaker 1: All of that will cover tomorrow in addition to just
Speaker 1: doing a year in review show, which should be fun.
Speaker 1: All Right, today we're going to talk about immigration when
Speaker 1: I'm going to talk about the current obviously the current
Speaker 1: challenge with the current or let's say the current storm
Speaker 1: around regulation H one B. So we'll talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about that, but that's not going to be the focus.
Speaker 1: The focus is going to be the entire system. And look,
Speaker 1: if there's anything that everybody agrees about that everybody agrees
Speaker 1: about with regard to the immigration system, everybody agrees on
Speaker 1: is that it's completely broken. It's been broken for a
Speaker 1: long long time. It's been broken for probably since nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty four. It certainly has been broken over the last
Speaker 1: thirty years. There have been a few attempts that didn't
Speaker 1: last very long to fix it, but politics in Washington
Speaker 1: has not allowed any kind of comprehensive rethinking, comprehensive approach
Speaker 1: to tackling the entire issue of immigration. So I today
Speaker 1: I am going to give you a blueprint at least
Speaker 1: for tackling the entire thing. I want to simplify it all,
Speaker 1: I want to make it really simple and give a
Speaker 1: solution to what should be the immigration policy. How do
Speaker 1: we proceed, how do we make it easy, simple, straight forward,
Speaker 1: and in a way that well, I mean, some people
Speaker 1: will never be happy no matter what we do, but
Speaker 1: in a way that hopefully can address the concerns of
Speaker 1: all the different constituencies out there. Not the final policy,
Speaker 1: but my explanation and my justification for it. Hopefully we'll
Speaker 1: cover that. So the system is broken today. We know
Speaker 1: that it is insanity to watch video of hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of people and ultimately millions of people showing up
Speaker 1: on the Southern Board of the United States just walking across,
Speaker 1: some of them with the hope of not being caught,
Speaker 1: and somehow escaping into the United States and living here
Speaker 1: in the shadows, living here illegally, finding jobs employers who
Speaker 1: are willing to employ them illegally, with employers taking on
Speaker 1: a real risk and the employees taking huge risk. And
Speaker 1: of course Trump, now I was talking about deporting all
Speaker 1: these illegals, and there's somewhere between twelve and twenty illegal
Speaker 1: million illegal immigrants in the United States to day. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's crazy, that's crazy, and particularly considering the fact that
Speaker 1: these illegal immigrants are all working. They can't get welfare,
Speaker 1: so they're all working. So here are twelve million people.
Speaker 1: You know, some of them are kids on them espouses,
Speaker 1: but a significant number of them are working. And yet
Speaker 1: they have to be in the shadows. They have to hide,
Speaker 1: and the employers have to hide, and the employers have
Speaker 1: to be worried about being caught. And you've got this
Speaker 1: entire gray, black economy going on in the United States
Speaker 1: of America, the Land of the Free. That's just insane.
Speaker 1: And then, of course you've got all these people across
Speaker 1: the border and they immediately go up to the border
Speaker 1: police and say, I'm here first asylum. Why are they
Speaker 1: crossing the border in unmarked, random locations in order to
Speaker 1: seek asylum. Why isn't there a system by which they
Speaker 1: can seek asylum wherever they live or on some place
Speaker 1: outside the United States for the United States to decide?
Speaker 1: And why why is asylum so special? You know that
Speaker 1: we've got millions of people seeking asylum? What makes asylum special?
Speaker 1: Why is it worthy of you know, of entering the
Speaker 1: United States versus other things that are not is? And
Speaker 1: should it be a priority of the United States except
Speaker 1: people who are asylum seekers, What does the whole issue
Speaker 1: of asylum have to do with, let's say American self interest?
Speaker 1: And then uh, the the uh these asylum seekers they
Speaker 1: come into the United stas States, the court system that
Speaker 1: people who approve asylum cases can't cope with the shin
Speaker 1: number of people, so they are put up a taxpayer's
Speaker 1: expense in all kinds of places. Taxpayers are paying them
Speaker 1: not to work. They're not a lot of work, at
Speaker 1: least for months after they arrive, So they're on the
Speaker 1: dole of the government for months and months and months
Speaker 1: or some on them maybe forever, I don't know. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it makes complete sense that people would resent
Speaker 1: this and and find this inappropriate. Why these people coming here?
Speaker 1: What does asylum have to do with me? And why
Speaker 1: should I pay their way? Why should I pay for them?
Speaker 1: And then it turns out that some of these asylum
Speaker 1: seekers are left in the country even though they have
Speaker 1: criminal records or being accused of crimes or maybe are
Speaker 1: gang members. How's the system working? And it's very difficult
Speaker 1: to get, of course, objective news about this, because the
Speaker 1: left spins it one way and the right spins it
Speaker 1: another way, and it's very hard to actually figure out, okay,
Speaker 1: actually what's going on? And then if you actually look
Speaker 1: at legal immigration in the United States, a vast majority
Speaker 1: of legal status green cards are granted in the United
Speaker 1: States to family reunification, to family members of people who
Speaker 1: are already here on work visas and other things. Is
Speaker 1: that the right priority? Is that? Again, like asylum, is
Speaker 1: that the best we can do? You know, the parents,
Speaker 1: and I don't think you go to cousins and stuff,
Speaker 1: but at least even immediate family. Is this how we
Speaker 1: actually want to do it with the majority? Is that?
Speaker 1: And then if you want to come into the United
Speaker 1: States legally, legally, and you want to come here not
Speaker 1: for asylum and not through family, but you actually want
Speaker 1: to come here because you believe in America. You love America,
Speaker 1: you value the ideas of America. You want to live
Speaker 1: in America, and you want to work in America. You
Speaker 1: want to be productive in America. You want to actually
Speaker 1: get a job in America. Maybe you even have a
Speaker 1: job offer. Well, the system is unbelievably complicated, unbelievably convoluted.
Speaker 1: I mean, here's a graph. I think you've probably seen this.
Speaker 1: I know Augustina has shown this. Augustina works at the
Speaker 1: Institut Sony in the past. You've probably seen it. This
Speaker 1: is a graphrod uced by Cato of the different paths
Speaker 1: you would have to take and the different folks in
Speaker 1: the world you would have to take for any one
Speaker 1: of these for just baseline requirements. And then you've got
Speaker 1: a refugee. There's a silent program, and then diversity a lottery.
Speaker 1: There's a lottery for countries that don't typically get people
Speaker 1: into the United States. There is a lot of why
Speaker 1: why why. A lot of it is that the best
Speaker 1: we can do, and so is it letting people into
Speaker 1: the United States is by a lot of we by chance,
Speaker 1: by and and and uh. And then there's a ah,
Speaker 1: you know, family sponsorship, and then there's self sponsorship, and
Speaker 1: then there's employer sponsorship, uh, you know, and and uh,
Speaker 1: employee sponsorship with no pervading wage, and employee sponsorship with
Speaker 1: a prevailing wage. In each one of these. Look at
Speaker 1: the employee sponsorship ones in the in particular, unbelievably complex,
Speaker 1: unbelievably bureaucratic, unbelievable amounts of time and money. Money. That's
Speaker 1: one thing they don't talk about with the H one
Speaker 1: B program. It costs a lot of money for companies
Speaker 1: to hire people from each one into H one B programs.
Speaker 1: They have to be good otherwise why is the company
Speaker 1: spending so much money and going through all this convoluted process.
Speaker 1: And when you see graph like this, you know that
Speaker 1: the only real winners of anything like that are lawyers.
Speaker 1: Complexity is is the friend of lawyers. But you get
Speaker 1: an unbelievably be convoluted system, a system that actually penalizes
Speaker 1: people who are coming here to work and to pursue careers.
Speaker 1: If they get an H one B they're stuck with
Speaker 1: the same employer. They can't switch employers. So you know,
Speaker 1: the criticism of them being kind of indigo cerviture civiture
Speaker 1: in indigerous servitude is an exaggeration and false and wrong.
Speaker 1: But there's a sudden you know, there's a sudden aspect
Speaker 1: of that, that's right. You know, how can how can
Speaker 1: you not be allowed to switch jobs? And why should
Speaker 1: you not be allowed to switch jobs? Isn't the point
Speaker 1: having a job? No, because that's not the point, you know,
Speaker 1: as we'll see, it's it's it's not about the point.
Speaker 1: That's not the point at all. And of course, all
Speaker 1: this legal immigration system is handicapped by restrictions that supposedly
Speaker 1: amend to protect Americans' jobs and income, not to put
Speaker 1: any downward pressure on wages, not to reduce the number
Speaker 1: of jobs available to Americans. So that adds layers and
Speaker 1: layers of complexity to all this. If your job is
Speaker 1: to advertise to Americans, there are one hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: five I read this some way. I haven't verified this,
Speaker 1: but one hundred and eighty five different non immigrant and
Speaker 1: immigrant visa categories, different categories by which you can come
Speaker 1: into the United States. One hundred and eighty five. I'm
Speaker 1: going to suggest reducing that number to three, three categories
Speaker 1: of visas. That's it, nothing more. And maybe I'm missing
Speaker 1: some stuff, maybe it lands up to be ten, but
Speaker 1: three major categories, and then we can talk about maybe
Speaker 1: there's some things that I've missed. And of course, all
Speaker 1: of this creates for the immigrant and for the employers,
Speaker 1: you know, just mass of you know, massive unsuttainty, massive uncertainty.
Speaker 1: How am I going to get a visa? Will my
Speaker 1: visa get renewed? Can I switch jobs? What's the cost
Speaker 1: of that? How much money can I make in America?
Speaker 1: How long can I be there can I bring my
Speaker 1: family over endless, endless complexity, which leads to real angst
Speaker 1: and real uncertainty, and the consequence of that. Part of
Speaker 1: the consequence of that is, well, we get to the
Speaker 1: consequences in the wall. But suddenly think about other people
Speaker 1: who don't come to America would like to come to America.
Speaker 1: Say it's just too too complicated, too hard. Why would I?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is insane. And then you know, so
Speaker 1: the immigration policy we have today has no clear priorities.
Speaker 1: If you look at the numbers, it looks like the
Speaker 1: only priority we have is family reunification and maybe asylum refugee.
Speaker 1: But other than that nothing. And by the way, this
Speaker 1: cylmonar refuge stuff is all part of treaties that the
Speaker 1: United States is signal to the tool too and has
Speaker 1: to fulfill that supposedly. Right, So one thing is clear,
Speaker 1: and I think everybody can agree on. Current policy is insane.
Speaker 1: It's crazy, it's divisive, it's polarizing. It's and we'll talk
Speaker 1: about why it's polarizing in a minute. It feeds into
Speaker 1: special interest groups, pressure groups, it feeds lawyers, and it
Speaker 1: is not not good for Americans, and it's not good
Speaker 1: for immigrants. It's not good for either party both. Everybody
Speaker 1: is basically frustrated and upset by the system, and they
Speaker 1: should be. The system is insane, the system is nuts,
Speaker 1: and I would say fundamentally, the system is unjust. People
Speaker 1: who should be able to come to this country and
Speaker 1: cannot come to this country, and the standards by which
Speaker 1: we bring them in or people come in and are
Speaker 1: not coming in seem and are to leguns stand completely arbitrary.
Speaker 1: They're no priorities, there's no strategy, there's no thinking, there's
Speaker 1: no prioritization, there's no what is America? What does an
Speaker 1: American thing to do? What is the thing consistent with
Speaker 1: American ideals, with American interests? What is the policy that's
Speaker 1: consistent with American ideals and American interests look like? So
Speaker 1: that's what we want to do today. We want to
Speaker 1: look for an immigration policy that is consistent with the
Speaker 1: preservation of American ideals and what America is, in particular
Speaker 1: the ideal of individual rights. A policy it supports and
Speaker 1: improves the economy and culture of America and that does
Speaker 1: not create a just a political disaster, does not create
Speaker 1: a political disaster. So that is that is the kind
Speaker 1: of policy that I think we need. It's a kind
Speaker 1: of policy that you know, I don't know that most
Speaker 1: Americans or Americans will agree even with that formulation. Certainly
Speaker 1: nobody's trying to I'm not trying to please the haters
Speaker 1: of America, and I'm not trying to please you know,
Speaker 1: those are the let's say call them the radical left.
Speaker 1: And I'm not trying to please the racists who there's
Speaker 1: no pleasing and by definition they're already anti America, anti American.
Speaker 1: All right, So we have unbelieve irrational policy today. It's
Speaker 1: it's completely insane again. It's it prioritizes, no priority or
Speaker 1: poetis is what seemingly is the wrong thing. It's creating
Speaker 1: havoc and mayhem at the borda Uh. It's creating havoc
Speaker 1: and mayhem for immigrants who come here legally and don't
Speaker 1: know what their status really is, and uncertainty and and
Speaker 1: you know, and the story is unbelievable. I mean, the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy built around immigration is just unbelievable. I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: heard stories. I'll tell you one which I think is funny, sad,
Speaker 1: and and you know, probably not the worst. This is
Speaker 1: just an example. This is just an example of stupid
Speaker 1: bureaucracy at play. Right, this is this is an example,
Speaker 1: it's a personal example of stupid buocracy play, but it's
Speaker 1: it's typical of the system. So this is what happens
Speaker 1: on a trivial, small, insignificant issue. Then just imagine when
Speaker 1: what you're really dealing with is your future, your career,
Speaker 1: your life, in some cases, your life when you're running
Speaker 1: away from certain regimes. So here's the story. It's a
Speaker 1: short story, personal. It has to do with me and
Speaker 1: my wife. So years ago, this is a long long
Speaker 1: time ago. My kids were I think like two and
Speaker 1: four or two and five or three and six, something
Speaker 1: like that. They were little, and my wife went to
Speaker 1: do a sculpture a program in France for a few weeks,
Speaker 1: and she was it was she went and she did
Speaker 1: the program and she was heading back home, and it
Speaker 1: was during the time my visa had just been renewed,
Speaker 1: so I was on I can't remember an L one
Speaker 1: or an H one B or one of these visa programs.
Speaker 1: I can't remember which one, and my visa been renewed,
Speaker 1: but you can know, you know I hadn't I didn't
Speaker 1: have my passport stamped within you. I had all the paperwork,
Speaker 1: but I didn't have the stamp in the passport because
Speaker 1: you not to get the stamp in the passport. The
Speaker 1: idea was, I had to leave the United States and
Speaker 1: come back in, and when you know, when I left
Speaker 1: the United States, I had to go to consulate and
Speaker 1: get the stamp. Only then I could come in anyway.
Speaker 1: So I didn't have the visa renewed in my passport,
Speaker 1: but I had the visa all the paperwork officially. So
Speaker 1: she took all that paperwork and with her passport and
Speaker 1: she went to the American embassy in Paris and she said,
Speaker 1: here's all the paperwork, visa has been renewed, and I
Speaker 1: need to get back home. And the people there said,
Speaker 1: well you can't. You know why here's all the paperwork
Speaker 1: the visas being approved. Well, because you know you're not
Speaker 1: You're not the primary visa holder. Your husband's a primary
Speaker 1: visa holder. We can't approve your without approving his without
Speaker 1: we can't stamp your passport with the visa without stamping
Speaker 1: his passport with the visa. So he has to come
Speaker 1: to Paris to get his passport stamped, and then only
Speaker 1: then can we stamp your passport and you can go home.
Speaker 1: And she was like, really, he has to come to
Speaker 1: Paris to do that, and you know, and she's going
Speaker 1: back and forth and pretty upset, right, I mean, she's
Speaker 1: stuck in Paris now, got you know, I've got two
Speaker 1: small kids. She doesn't know when she's gonna be able
Speaker 1: to come back. How am I going to leave them
Speaker 1: and come to Paris? It's expensive to come to Paris
Speaker 1: those days, didn't have a lot of money. How do
Speaker 1: you do that? Right? So, so basically she finally gets
Speaker 1: them to say, no, well, what he really needs to
Speaker 1: do is he needs to leave the United States in
Speaker 1: order to get his passport stamped and then send us
Speaker 1: the passport, and then you bring his passport with you
Speaker 1: and we can we can get it all done, all right.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's some insane I call up. I literally
Speaker 1: called up the state departments, said, okay, I've been approved
Speaker 1: to the visa. Is there any state department office I
Speaker 1: can go to anywhere in the US where I can
Speaker 1: get this visa stamped in my passport And they were like, no,
Speaker 1: we don't stamp passports. The only way you can do
Speaker 1: this is you have to leave the United States, go
Speaker 1: to consulate and get the pastline. I said, look, I've
Speaker 1: got small kids. My wife's stuck in Paris, da da
Speaker 1: da not interested. They don't care. Go you have to
Speaker 1: leave the United States, come back in, take the kids,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, you know whatever, right, Okay. So I'm like, okay,
Speaker 1: So I guess I'll have to travel to Mexico and
Speaker 1: get go to consulate and get my passport stamps. I
Speaker 1: call up what's the the city across the border from
Speaker 1: San Diego, that's the closest Mexican place, closest consulate outside
Speaker 1: the United States. I call them up and they say, hey,
Speaker 1: I need to come and get my passport stamped. Can
Speaker 1: I make an appointment to come because I need to
Speaker 1: come do it and and leave and and everything. Tijuana,
Speaker 1: Thank you Tijuana. So so they say, oh, yeah, of
Speaker 1: course you can do that. We can make you an
Speaker 1: appointment and you can come. We'll stamp the thing, and
Speaker 1: then yeah, you can go back to the United States.
Speaker 1: And said, great, I want to come tomorrow. And so
Speaker 1: oh no, no, no, you know, we don't have any point,
Speaker 1: but tomorrow it's going to be three months. I said,
Speaker 1: what my wife's in Paris, my kids? What am I?
Speaker 1: You insane? I can't. I can't delay this with three months.
Speaker 1: That is crazy. That's the way it is. There's no
Speaker 1: no exceptions, there's nothing we can do, all right. So
Speaker 1: I call hua Is and and hua Is. They say, yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't make appointments. She can come. We might be
Speaker 1: able to see you, might not be able to see you.
Speaker 1: There's usually a long line starts early in the morning.
Speaker 1: Some people actually sleep over and and and you can
Speaker 1: and you can try this, but you can come over
Speaker 1: and uh yeah, yeah, stand in line. Hua Is jua
Speaker 1: Is opposite Alpaso, right, And I'm like, why is rough?
Speaker 1: Do I? And how long am I going to be
Speaker 1: stuck there? We don't know, we can't guarantee anything. We
Speaker 1: don't make appointments. It's not possible, all right. So Mexico
Speaker 1: seems out. So I called Vancouver. I mean, notice this,
Speaker 1: I'm like panicking here, like how am I going to
Speaker 1: make this happen? I call Vancouver. I can't remember what
Speaker 1: Vancouver said. I think you're said away three months or
Speaker 1: something for an appointment. Couldn't get Vancouver. Finally called Calgary. Calgary,
Speaker 1: the Consulate said, yeah, sure, well, we can make an
Speaker 1: appointment for tomorrow morning or the day after whatever, whatever
Speaker 1: the date was. You can come in and get this
Speaker 1: stuff done, and yep, you're good. You're good to go, say,
Speaker 1: got a babysitter, got on a plane, flew to Calgary.
Speaker 1: Luckily they let me in Canada. I'm not sure why
Speaker 1: they let me in Canada, can't remember what the reason was.
Speaker 1: Got into Canada, spent the night in Calgary. First thing
Speaker 1: in the morning, went to consulate, had a ointment. They
Speaker 1: stamped all my forms, buck everything was fine, went and
Speaker 1: I think I got my passport photocopied and all the
Speaker 1: films photocopied, put them in an envelope, FedEx them to
Speaker 1: Paris to my wife. Got on a plane, headed back
Speaker 1: to California, got my kids, and my wife then took
Speaker 1: all of that. I mean, this is and this is
Speaker 1: like okay, So it took a few days. It was.
Speaker 1: It was really stressful, bureaucratic, stupid, nutty, crazy stuff. But
Speaker 1: that's just for something simple way I did being approved
Speaker 1: and everything. There are real tragedies out there, a real stories,
Speaker 1: real disasters. So this system god the only beneficiaries. If
Speaker 1: you want to call them that are the bureaucrats of
Speaker 1: the people to thrive on making your life hell by
Speaker 1: jumping through all kinds of stupid, unnecessary hoops, like at
Speaker 1: the State Department where they won't stamp your passport in
Speaker 1: a State Department office in the United States. And that
Speaker 1: was thirty years ago. It's a lot worse today. Remember,
Speaker 1: I'm an immigrant. So when I graduated with PhD. So first,
Speaker 1: when I graduated in an NBA, nobody really wanted to
Speaker 1: hire me. I had good grade, good grades, good you know,
Speaker 1: undergrad good undergrad and engineering undergrad head an NBA. Everybody
Speaker 1: was like, yeah, we could hire you on if you're
Speaker 1: an American, we'd hire you like that. But it's expensive
Speaker 1: to get you authorized and get you a wook permit
Speaker 1: and all that, and we can hire all these Americans here,
Speaker 1: why would we go through that? So it was really
Speaker 1: I mean, I probably would have found a job ultimately,
Speaker 1: but it was really really tough and very depressing. I
Speaker 1: mean there were moments there where I thought, well, I
Speaker 1: have to go back to Israel. What's gonna happen here?
Speaker 1: And then I got my PhD and then I finally
Speaker 1: got a job offer after PhD by university and the
Speaker 1: universities have this routine. But so first I had to
Speaker 1: get a visa for practical training for a year, and
Speaker 1: then once the practical training was over, they applied for
Speaker 1: I think it was an either on each one be
Speaker 1: on l one l one like exceptional ability visa. I
Speaker 1: think that's what it was. And then I had reknew
Speaker 1: that once and then I got a green card, and
Speaker 1: then after five years with the green card, I got citizenship.
Speaker 1: So I arrived in the US in nineteen eighty seven.
Speaker 1: I got my saizenship in two thousand and three. It
Speaker 1: took me sixteen years, and it was relatively speaking, pretty smooth,
Speaker 1: but that's unusual and rare. I was lucky, and partially
Speaker 1: because I had a PhD made life Visia anyway. Rotten system.
Speaker 1: It's broken, it doesn't make any sense. And one other
Speaker 1: aspects of this, which I think is really really really
Speaker 1: important and really at the heart of it all, is
Speaker 1: that the system is a massive violation of rights. It
Speaker 1: is the government use of using its course of power
Speaker 1: to violate the rights of Americans and non Americans. Certainly,
Speaker 1: one human right is to move by what by what
Speaker 1: authority does anybody constrain my ability to live somewhere other
Speaker 1: than where I want to live? By what authority do
Speaker 1: I go somewhere else? Can I not travel just because
Speaker 1: there's an opportuary line. There's a line there that says
Speaker 1: there's a border. Why can't I cross it? Am I
Speaker 1: violating somebody's by crossing it? No? Then why does the
Speaker 1: government have any any right authority over me? And if
Speaker 1: you think about the rights of Americans, if I, as
Speaker 1: an American, want to invite a friend over to visit,
Speaker 1: he now has to go get a visa. I want
Speaker 1: to hire a brilliant scientist from Thailand. Why is that
Speaker 1: the government's job to tell me I can't? You know,
Speaker 1: I want to rent my hotel room to somebody who's
Speaker 1: visiting the United States or come here to work, or
Speaker 1: come here to find the job. Why is it the
Speaker 1: government's business to tell me I can't rent to that person.
Speaker 1: So we have here a system of coercion immigration law, which,
Speaker 1: at least since nineteen twenty four, really before that, starting
Speaker 1: with the Chinese Exclusion Act, has been engaged in violating
Speaker 1: individual rights, violating the rights of Americans to interact, to associate,
Speaker 1: to employ whomever they want, and that's at the core
Speaker 1: of it. That's why we have the disaster that we have.
Speaker 1: All right, So let's talk about why why do we
Speaker 1: have this system that we have today? What has caused it?
Speaker 1: And it didn't start today again, It's started in nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty four with under Coolidge. So this is why I
Speaker 1: don't think Coolidge was one of the great presidents. Certainly
Speaker 1: this law, you know, excludes him from the ranks of
Speaker 1: top presidents of all time. He did some other things
Speaker 1: that are good. This is really horrible. In nineteen twenty
Speaker 1: four dramatically restricted immigration to the United States. And you
Speaker 1: have to remember that before that, basically through the nineteenth
Speaker 1: century and into the early twentieth century again with a
Speaker 1: few exclusions like the Chinese Exclusion Act and a few others,
Speaker 1: there were very, very very few restrictions and immigration. Initially,
Speaker 1: anybody could come anytime, anywhere, no restrictions. Then there were
Speaker 1: certain restrictions based on infectious diseases and maybe suspicion of
Speaker 1: criminal activity, but other than that you could come in
Speaker 1: Ellis Island. Everybody was free to come in if they
Speaker 1: were not sick. And that all changed dramatically for the
Speaker 1: first time, dramatically in nineteen twenty four, again, although the
Speaker 1: seeds already been planted in previous in previous laws, and
Speaker 1: you can find Augustina has a really has a really
Speaker 1: good she was on the show we talked about this,
Speaker 1: but also she has some talks that she's given that
Speaker 1: excellent on the history of the immigration and how we
Speaker 1: got to where we are. So I want to talk
Speaker 1: about a little bit about the things that people say,
Speaker 1: the reasons why they both object to immigration or they
Speaker 1: want to restrict immigration in the way that we have
Speaker 1: restricted immigration. So let's let's talk about some of the
Speaker 1: opposition to immigration, some of the sources of opposition to immigration,
Speaker 1: legal immigration. We're talking about the objection to basically legalized immigration,
Speaker 1: to letting people come in as it was in the
Speaker 1: late nine early twentieth century, and of course it was
Speaker 1: restricted in nineteen twenty four. So so none of these are new.
Speaker 1: All of these go back then. All of these are
Speaker 1: common with you know what people help back then, It's
Speaker 1: not that different, and it's only gotten worse today in
Speaker 1: the sense that America is less connected to its funding
Speaker 1: principles and funding ideas, it's less connected to the idea
Speaker 1: of individual rights. That's less important to them. But also
Speaker 1: we know so much more today, and yet they still
Speaker 1: hold to some pretty false, easily provably false ideas that
Speaker 1: still shape their attitudes towards immigration. So what causes people's
Speaker 1: resentment towards immigration and wanting to restrict it and and
Speaker 1: ultimately cause this ult incredible complexity And we'll see, we'll
Speaker 1: talk about that first. I think a big part of
Speaker 1: it is fear. As we said, we said many times
Speaker 1: on the show, fear is an incredibly powerful emotion. And
Speaker 1: people afraid, the afraid of people who look different than themselves,
Speaker 1: who have different cultures than themselves, who behave in different
Speaker 1: ways than themselves. They're afraid of the difference. They're afraid
Speaker 1: of we'll do to their life. There is a certain
Speaker 1: there's a certain sense in which people today, you know,
Speaker 1: are comfortable in the you know, in the way things are,
Speaker 1: and they don't like change. Their Iron Land has a
Speaker 1: famous essay about the divine right of stagnation. They're comfortable,
Speaker 1: and change is upset. They're afraid because they believe, as
Speaker 1: we'll talk about, you know, they believe falsely, but they believe,
Speaker 1: and they be taught and intellectuals have supported the idea
Speaker 1: that the job market, for example, is the Zoo sum game,
Speaker 1: and any immigrants who comes in and takes a job,
Speaker 1: it's at your expense. An American will lose his job.
Speaker 1: They believe that wealth is a zero sum game, and
Speaker 1: an American who comes here and succeeds is succeeding at
Speaker 1: somebody else's expense. It means somebody else is poor, somebody
Speaker 1: else has lost. Americans, tragically, sadly, horrifically, have bought into
Speaker 1: kind of a European Marxist perspective. Even people on the right,
Speaker 1: even people who claim not to be Marxist or anti
Speaker 1: Marxist or anti woke, anti left, have bought into an
Speaker 1: idea of zero some economics, that everything, everybody, somebody else's
Speaker 1: success is also at your expense, and therefore jobs of
Speaker 1: finite and limited and constraint. Wealth is finite, limited and constraint. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll talk about even if that were true,
Speaker 1: whether that would justify this, But we'll talk about that
Speaker 1: in a minute. And then there is this view that
Speaker 1: even Milton Friedman argued that given that we have a
Speaker 1: welfare state, all these people are gonna come and they're
Speaker 1: just gonna they're just gonna leach off of the welfare state.
Speaker 1: This is gonna leach massively off of the welfare state,
Speaker 1: and as a consequence, they are going to, you know,
Speaker 1: basically bankrupt the country. They're gonna destroy this country because
Speaker 1: they're gonna be all on welfare and it's just gonna
Speaker 1: be horrific. And the people who come here are gonna
Speaker 1: come for welfare and you can't do that. You can't
Speaker 1: have a welfare state and open immigration or large numbers
Speaker 1: of immigrants. And then you know, this is true, I
Speaker 1: think in the nineteen twenties, and it's true again today
Speaker 1: they've been told and they feel yeah, and again I
Speaker 1: think these are all irrational fears that immigrants are criminals,
Speaker 1: the terrorists. They rape and plunder and kill and murder,
Speaker 1: and crime rates are going through the roof because of immigrants,
Speaker 1: and you know, you know it's irrational fear by the
Speaker 1: fact that you can show them the data and the
Speaker 1: statistics and you can show that that's not true, that
Speaker 1: none of that is happening, and it doesn't matter. That
Speaker 1: doesn't affect them, data doesn't affect them. One crime committed
Speaker 1: by an immigrant is enough to justify banning them, and
Speaker 1: the same with terrorism. Terrorists are going to come there's
Speaker 1: a security threat. Now you can imagine there's a real
Speaker 1: there's a real issue here. They could be criminals coming
Speaker 1: across the board. It could be gang members coming across
Speaker 1: the board, and there certainly could be terrorists coming in
Speaker 1: across the board. So they really is an issue of
Speaker 1: terrorism and so on. So fear, fear of irrational economics, fear,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe there's more rationality here of them just
Speaker 1: milking the welfare state and you're getting the kind of
Speaker 1: people that want the welfare state and also bankrupting the country.
Speaker 1: And fear of a crime and terrorism, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's some even though the data doesn't support an increase
Speaker 1: in crime because of immigration. Indeed, there's a decrease in
Speaker 1: crime on a capita basis due to immigration. Immigrants are
Speaker 1: generally significantly less criminal than Americans. But the fear is there,
Speaker 1: and and certainly all this needs to be addressed. But
Speaker 1: deeper than that, there is a there's been a change
Speaker 1: in the American culture. Even if it's true that an
Speaker 1: immigrant would take your job, even if it's true that
Speaker 1: immigrants lowered wages, and for some people they might some
Speaker 1: people might be competed out of jobs. Some people might
Speaker 1: see their wages declined. You do not have a right
Speaker 1: to a particular wage. You do not have a right
Speaker 1: to a particular job. You have a right to interview
Speaker 1: for a job and try to get it. You don't
Speaker 1: even even have a right to be interviewed.
Speaker 2: You have a right to pursue a job, you have
Speaker 2: a right to try to keep the job, but you
Speaker 2: don't have a right to the job.
Speaker 1: You don't have a right to be protected from competition.
Speaker 1: You don't have ver right to be a protective competition
Speaker 1: either by von goods on products from employees or by
Speaker 1: people coming here and competing with you. Next, though, what
Speaker 1: about people who just moved from you know, And this
Speaker 1: was a real issue in early twenty century America when
Speaker 1: black started moving from the South into the North and
Speaker 1: competing with whites for jobs in the North. That was
Speaker 1: people freaked out because there was competition for their jobs
Speaker 1: by Americans happened to be of different skin color, but
Speaker 1: by Americans, and people flipped out. So they think they
Speaker 1: have a right. This is the entitlement mentality that is
Speaker 1: so sadly dominant in America today. I'm entitled to my job.
Speaker 1: I'm entitled to a wage, I'm entitled to my stand
Speaker 1: of living, I'm entitled to live this life. This is
Speaker 1: so un American, so un American, and yet you know,
Speaker 1: this is this is what Americans hold today. Another fear
Speaker 1: is that immigrants will fundamentally change our culture. We're pretty
Speaker 1: good culture today, and immigrants will bring their culture here,
Speaker 1: an American culture will disappear. But again, is there real
Speaker 1: understanding of what makes American America? What makes American culture
Speaker 1: American culture, what the principles on which this country has founded,
Speaker 1: and therefore, what is American? I know, you know jd
Speaker 1: Vance has said that America is not an idea, It's
Speaker 1: a people. But America is an idea. What makes the
Speaker 1: people of America special? And I think they're special. And
Speaker 1: I think America is special. I think it's exceptional, not
Speaker 1: because of its geography, not because of its people, but
Speaker 1: because of the ideas that have animated this country, the
Speaker 1: people in this country, the ideas that have seeped into
Speaker 1: the sense of life of the people in this country,
Speaker 1: the ideas that make America America. And you know, so
Speaker 1: they worry that the culture will be destroyed. These ideas
Speaker 1: ultimately will be destroyed. But I would ask why why
Speaker 1: would you worry about that? If the ideas that America holds,
Speaker 1: if the culture of America is so good, why won't
Speaker 1: it dominate the immigrants. Didn't it do that for one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years the beginning of America before nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty four. Didn't immigrants assimilate? Did they become part of America?
Speaker 1: Didn't they adopt fundamentally the ideas of America, business of
Speaker 1: life of America. I mean, like it or not, This
Speaker 1: is a country of immigrants. What percentage of the population
Speaker 1: can trace its roots back to seventeenth century first immigrants
Speaker 1: to America, even they were immigrants, but first settlers in
Speaker 1: America very few. So the culture, the achievements, isn't much
Speaker 1: of American culture really established by immigrants. Think of the
Speaker 1: movies that we love. How many of those movies, particularly
Speaker 1: older movies, how many of those were made by immigrants
Speaker 1: post World War Two? Many of German and European directors,
Speaker 1: really pre World War Two came from America and made
Speaker 1: movies here and really made Hollywood what it is today,
Speaker 1: really made Hollywood into the powerhouse that it is. And
Speaker 1: you know, much of the musicians, the classical musicians certainly,
Speaker 1: who came to this country and created the great orchestra
Speaker 1: and the great symphonies, the great conductors, that's all culture.
Speaker 1: Those are all immigrants. So where is this American culture
Speaker 1: that is harmed by immigrants? Our food has only gotten
Speaker 1: better because of immigrants, because of the diversity of food
Speaker 1: that they brought in, the expertise, the flavors, the spices.
Speaker 1: And if anything, don't immigrants revitalize, revitalize kind of the
Speaker 1: American energy spirit of entrepreneurship, risk taking. I mean, it
Speaker 1: certainly looks like it. If you look at the number
Speaker 1: of entrepreneurs or immigrants, if you look at Silicon Valley,
Speaker 1: how many startup CEOs or startup founders were immigrants. It
Speaker 1: certainly seems like they're revitalizing that spirit. And if we
Speaker 1: want to convey the idea of the greatness of American
Speaker 1: ideas of what made America great, if those ideas are
Speaker 1: so powerful, then they would dominate any ideas the immigrants have.
Speaker 1: We would win the cultural challenge that the immigrants supposedly
Speaker 1: present to us. Immigrant groups over and over again throughout
Speaker 1: the last couple of cent assimilate very quickly by every
Speaker 1: measure of assimilation. Within a generation or two, they're completely American.
Speaker 1: Now we'll be told that they will sway politics, that
Speaker 1: they were bringing the politics of their home country to
Speaker 1: the United States. And there's a sense in which that
Speaker 1: is true. They bring the ideas sometimes of the home country,
Speaker 1: and we better have ideas that can challenge those. We
Speaker 1: better have ideas that are better. We better be able
Speaker 1: to articulate those ideas of what is American, what America represents,
Speaker 1: in order to assimilate them into us. They're probably the
Speaker 1: worst immigrants in all of American history. The most damaging
Speaker 1: immigrants of all in American history are not the illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants crossing over from Mexico. The worst immigrants in all
Speaker 1: of American history are German immigrants. The progressive movement was
Speaker 1: founded on German immigrants who brought German ideas, destructive German ideas,
Speaker 1: into America and weren't challenged by Americans, and they won
Speaker 1: the day, and the consequence of that was still feeling.
Speaker 1: But immigrants, mostly immigrants come today, don't come with much
Speaker 1: many ideas. Most of them are not very intellectual, and
Speaker 1: we will shape them by what ideas we as Americans.
Speaker 1: We hold and we'll talk about this, but you can't
Speaker 1: separate out the need for improved education from the whole
Speaker 1: immigration question. And then finally, well not finally, but one
Speaker 1: of the point is look, and we have to face this,
Speaker 1: particularly given the latest discussions in H one B Visas
Speaker 1: and El un Musque versus Mega. There is a lot
Speaker 1: of racism in America. It's worse, maybe than it has
Speaker 1: been in a very long time. It maybe is not
Speaker 1: focused anymore on blacks or other people of color within America.
Speaker 1: It's not focused on immigrants Indians in the case of
Speaker 1: the H one B debate. But what that debate showed
Speaker 1: is extent of xenophobia and racism, and that needs to
Speaker 1: be abandoned. That is a bad reason to restrict immigration
Speaker 1: because there are some people who happen to be racist.
Speaker 1: Now there's one other issue, one of the false rassial
Speaker 1: if you will, for the mess that we have in
Speaker 1: terms of immigration. But I think ultimately it is the
Speaker 1: reason why we have such a mess, why we cannot
Speaker 1: find resolution, and why our immigration system is so convoluted
Speaker 1: and complex and absurd, Why we have one hundred and
Speaker 1: what or would I say eighty one hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: five different types of visas. It's because immigration, because the
Speaker 1: government has stepped into the immigration field and tried to
Speaker 1: regulate it. It's become like almost any other area in
Speaker 1: which the government regulates. It's become a place where they
Speaker 1: are winners and losers. Become a place where all kinds
Speaker 1: of so called interest groups, pressure groups, political pressure groups
Speaker 1: are formed in order to grab a piece whenever causion
Speaker 1: comes into the equation, zero sum situations are created, and
Speaker 1: some people want to grab a piece before it's taken
Speaker 1: away from them. So you get ethnic groups, you know,
Speaker 1: lobbying for their particular ethnic groups. You get professions lobbying
Speaker 1: to restrict people from coming in from their profession if
Speaker 1: they want, you know, if they're afraid of the competition.
Speaker 1: You know, they don't want their wages to go down
Speaker 1: because of the competition. Right, So it's very difficult to
Speaker 1: bring in doctors to the United States because the American
Speaker 1: Medical Association doesn't want to compete with foreign doctors. They'll
Speaker 1: tell you that the reason is that foreign doctors are
Speaker 1: not as good as American doctors, but that's nonsense. The
Speaker 1: real reason is they don't want a flood of doctors
Speaker 1: coming in competing with them. We have a shortage of
Speaker 1: doctors in the United States. One of the reasons healthy
Speaker 1: it costs a high is because doctors can charge you
Speaker 1: a lot because they're a lot of them supplying demand.
Speaker 1: So there are professions and ethnic groups, and then there's
Speaker 1: a whole industry around asylum seekers and refugees, a whole
Speaker 1: altruistic movement to try to get people of this country
Speaker 1: on the basis of how oppressed they are. And then
Speaker 1: they're tech companies who want tech employees. And there's some
Speaker 1: tech companies who just want relatively simple, straightforward coders, and
Speaker 1: they're either not enough of Americans so they don't want
Speaker 1: to pay them as much. And then there are other
Speaker 1: tech companies that want superstars, that want the geniuses, that
Speaker 1: want the extraordinary, and those tech companies are fighting each
Speaker 1: other for peace of this pie. And then they're the nativists.
Speaker 1: They don't want anybody come in and they're fighting over this.
Speaker 1: And then they woke leftists who just want to flood
Speaker 1: the country because they believe that by flooding the country
Speaker 1: with immigrants, they'll destroy whatever's good about America, which they hate.
Speaker 1: And basically you've got all these pressure groups pulling and pushing,
Speaker 1: and what you get because of that is the mess,
Speaker 1: the disaster, the complexity, the just irrationality, the completely irrational
Speaker 1: immigration policy that we have today. So it's a complete disaster,
Speaker 1: it's very very you know, crazy, It's become a just
Speaker 1: a pressure group, pressure group, you know, mayhem. So that
Speaker 1: I think is why we have the policy that we have. Fear,
Speaker 1: ignorance of economics, ignorance of crime and terrorism, you know,
Speaker 1: not understanding culture and understanding foundations of culture, and if
Speaker 1: we're wanting to protect it somehow by keeping those people
Speaker 1: who are different, who act differently, behave differently, eat different
Speaker 1: food away from us, and a real sense of entitlement
Speaker 1: that unfortunately has crept into America, and then at the
Speaker 1: edge is suddenly elements of racism. Now, what are the
Speaker 1: consequences of this? What are the consequences of having an
Speaker 1: irrational immigration policy? Well, I think the first and big
Speaker 1: one is that we've abandoned a commitment to liberty, we
Speaker 1: have abandoned the commitment to individual rights. We've created a
Speaker 1: course of arbitrary system that violates rights left and right,
Speaker 1: that denies Americans opportunities to hire, sell, rent, interact with fauners,
Speaker 1: denies feign as the right to come here and work,
Speaker 1: and you know, reinvigorate America. We have thus weakened our culture,
Speaker 1: and we have created an attitude. Our immigration policy creates
Speaker 1: the attitude of entitlement, which is unbelievably destructive to American culture.
Speaker 1: We have a dramatically weaker, less dynamic, stagnant economy. It
Speaker 1: might be the best economy in the world, and by
Speaker 1: some issures it is. It's nohing near the potential that
Speaker 1: we have. We have a lot for few entrepreneurs than
Speaker 1: we could otherwise have. A productivity is a lot lower, innovation, ingenuity,
Speaker 1: progress a lot slower and weaker. More workers, more motivated employees,
Speaker 1: more motivated, smart, skilled, or unskilled. But entrepreneurial labor would
Speaker 1: enhance American life. I mean, every economic study shows that
Speaker 1: immigration raises productivity, raises wages. Now, in a particular sector,
Speaker 1: wages might go down, but if we're all in economy,
Speaker 1: wages go up. Every worker comes to America producers and
Speaker 1: then consumes the restrictions and immigration of restrictions in the
Speaker 1: division of labor, the restrictions and specialization they hamper. Therefore,
Speaker 1: our standard of living, more people to trade with at
Speaker 1: very low cost. The cheapest trading is done with people
Speaker 1: around you. The more further away you have to transport goods,
Speaker 1: the more expensive they become. One of the reasons why
Speaker 1: outsourcing as relatively expensive, and it's only done in extraordinary
Speaker 1: cases where the gap is huge. You know, we'll talk
Speaker 1: about trade another time. So you know, we're losing out
Speaker 1: in a high standard of living, and of course we're
Speaker 1: losing out on the geniuses, on the founders of you know,
Speaker 1: ready forty four percent of all our unicorn companies billion
Speaker 1: dollar valuation or more immigrants. Imagine if we had more immigration,
Speaker 1: Imagine how many more unicorns would have, how much more
Speaker 1: great technology we would have, how much more and so
Speaker 1: our economy would be a lot stronger. But think about
Speaker 1: also the national security implications of that. A strong economy
Speaker 1: with much more innovation was superior technology, you know, makes
Speaker 1: us far stronger militarily than China or Russia or any
Speaker 1: combination of the above. We would beat them all. Think
Speaker 1: also about what we don't get. We don't get a
Speaker 1: brain drain. Imagine if Chinese engineers, if Chinese scientists could
Speaker 1: just come to American get a job. There'd be a
Speaker 1: massive movement of the smartest people in the world to
Speaker 1: the United States. They'd love to live here. There are
Speaker 1: millions of them. They would love to live here, and
Speaker 1: typically they are the most competent, the most ambitious, and
Speaker 1: often the most entrepreneurial. So we're missing out on the
Speaker 1: best people, and a lot of them. I guess could
Speaker 1: apply for an H one B and then go into
Speaker 1: a lottery and they're not gonna hass They're not gonna
Speaker 1: you know, it's too much of a hassle. So we
Speaker 1: have a lot weaker economy. The economy benefits. The economic
Speaker 1: benefits of immigration are way understated, even by the most
Speaker 1: optimistic immigration supporters. Immigration is a huge, unequivocal boon to
Speaker 1: the economy. It's not this the economy. Immigrants revitalize our
Speaker 1: culture if we take seriously the idea of a melting
Speaker 1: pot that we have. The foundational values are American and we
Speaker 1: know what they are and we stand up for them. Individualism,
Speaker 1: don't tread on me. The government that protects our rights
Speaker 1: and leaves us alone. Then bring your values, bring your ideas,
Speaker 1: bring your culture to us, Bring your food and your
Speaker 1: music and whatever. Bring it to us. Why can't we
Speaker 1: integrate them into our culture? I mean, think about the
Speaker 1: geniuses of cultural product that we're missing out on that
Speaker 1: could be here. And it's not just genuses in science
Speaker 1: and technology. What about the geniuses of music, in film, directing,
Speaker 1: in literature and economics, in philosophy, in food, great chefs,
Speaker 1: in painting, sculpture, whatever. I mean. Think about the people
Speaker 1: who again in cinema changed the American cinema changed American
Speaker 1: Think about all the composers who wrote great film music
Speaker 1: who are immigrants. Think about great thinkers like Einrhand Ludig
Speaker 1: von Mises who are immigrants. Culturally, Have they made America better? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Does Ironrand made America better? Yes? Did Ludig von Mises
Speaker 1: make America better? Yes? Did Malena Dietrich, the German actress,
Speaker 1: make American better? Yes? Did Einstein make America better? Yes?
Speaker 1: Did they make American culture better? Yes? Why wouldn't the
Speaker 1: same kind of people today make American culture better again today?
Speaker 1: Why are we afraid of immigration rather than embracing immigration
Speaker 1: to make the culture better. So we're missing out on
Speaker 1: all of that. And then, you know, I'm not a
Speaker 1: huge fan of looking at demographics, but demographics matter over
Speaker 1: the very long run, and the reality is that without immigration,
Speaker 1: America is a shrinking country, an aging, shrinking country. One
Speaker 1: point seven, I think, is that whatever the number is replacedment,
Speaker 1: it's two point one, right, children per couple. We're at
Speaker 1: one point seven and going down. Even Japan, which has
Speaker 1: resisted immigration forever, is slowly opening up to immigration because
Speaker 1: demographically they're shrinking so fast, they're getting old so fast,
Speaker 1: they cannot survive as a culture unless they let people in.
Speaker 1: And then, of course the fact that immigration is what
Speaker 1: it is. The consequence of that is the pressure group politics,
Speaker 1: which leads to the polarization. But we have a constant
Speaker 1: war between pressure groups who wanting to admit or restrict
Speaker 1: people based on nationality, race, type of worker, student not student,
Speaker 1: extended family, asylum seeker not asylum seeking. It just goes
Speaker 1: on and on and on. There's no end to it. And all
Speaker 1: this leads to a massive polarization, I mean, and the elevation,
Speaker 1: the elevation, and you can see it on my chat,
Speaker 1: the elevation of racist, blatantly racist ideas into the debate,
Speaker 1: ideas that if not up for the disastrous immigration policies
Speaker 1: we had would not be tolerated, would not be accepted.
Speaker 1: And you can see by some of the super chat
Speaker 1: questions that I'm getting how ignorant and unthinking people are
Speaker 1: when it comes to this issue, really really narrow an
Speaker 1: emotional fear, as I said before, fear. And you know,
Speaker 1: America has lost its way. Even the defenders of immigration
Speaker 1: today like Musk and Vivic who tried to defend h
Speaker 1: one B's do so on utilitarian basis. On it, there's
Speaker 1: no nobody mentions rights, nobody mentions individual rights, nobody mentions individualism.
Speaker 1: There's no conception of rights when it comes to this issue.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a black hole, ideological black hole for
Speaker 1: these kind of concepts. And the consequence of that is
Speaker 1: again a deterioration and erosion in our culture, and erosion
Speaker 1: in what it means to be an American and erosion
Speaker 1: in Americanism. And I will plug the book that Jonathan
Speaker 1: Honing Edit did on Americanism with the lead essay by
Speaker 1: Einrand on the Nature of Americanism, which everybody should should read.
Speaker 1: Everybody should read, and ultimately the state of comment immigration
Speaker 1: leads to an ever increasing role for government bureaucrats and
Speaker 1: power and manipulation, and all of this leads to the
Speaker 1: craziness of what happens in our southern border, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, freaking people out. It's really crazy. Thousands of
Speaker 1: people leave their homes all over the world, tens of
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands, all over the world, from China to
Speaker 1: Pakistan to Arabia to all over South America. They leave
Speaker 1: their home, They trek for thousands of miles, much of
Speaker 1: it by foot, through jungles and deserts, to reach a border.
Speaker 1: They have no idea what's going to happen, and then
Speaker 1: they cross that border and create mayhem, and then the
Speaker 1: government subsidizes their housing and their food and it's just
Speaker 1: one big, massive disaster that makes no sense. And indeed,
Speaker 1: within this mayhem, there's no the issues of security and criminality.
Speaker 1: People legitimately lose track of those because they're not tracking
Speaker 1: who's coming in and who's coming out. They're no objective
Speaker 1: standard who to let in, who not to let in,
Speaker 1: and it's just one big shit you all right, So
Speaker 1: what do we do about this? What do we do
Speaker 1: about this? What do we do about this within the
Speaker 1: context of the current political system, within the context of
Speaker 1: America as it is today. This is not my ultimate
Speaker 1: solution for you know, las ife heaven one day. Also,
Speaker 1: I would add to whatever we do here, you know
Speaker 1: directly in immigration, which I'll talk about, it also has
Speaker 1: to be auxiliary things, or can be auxiliary things that
Speaker 1: we do. We'll talk about those as well, in both
Speaker 1: immigration and the economy more broadly. So what do we do?
Speaker 1: What's the solution when you have to stop by scrapping
Speaker 1: the entire immigration system today? And I would include here
Speaker 1: doing a word in the nineteen twenty four, nineteen ninety,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty, whatever, sixty four, nineteen eighties, all of the
Speaker 1: laws creation of H one b's H and B should
Speaker 1: be gone. There were travesty. You know people argue about
Speaker 1: H one bs. Well, one of the great distortions. H
Speaker 1: and B creates a great distortion that is people are
Speaker 1: stuck in these jobs. They can't change employees, just scrap
Speaker 1: the whole thing. Everything needs to go. You need to
Speaker 1: start completely fresh, completely with nothing of this legacy, disaster,
Speaker 1: this legacy that's been created by basically pressure group politics.
Speaker 1: And include here America needs to leave whatever treaties it
Speaker 1: has regarding asylum. Asylum is not a standard by which
Speaker 1: somebody should enter the country. It shouldn't be a standard.
Speaker 1: The standard should be whatever the standard is. It should
Speaker 1: be America's interest, not the suffering of somebody. Something of
Speaker 1: somebody should not be the qualification. Something politically is somefing
Speaker 1: economically is treated differently. Why why is that somefing is
Speaker 1: point important in that suffering? None of that is important.
Speaker 1: None of that should be accepted. So we should exit
Speaker 1: every treaty that requires us to accept people based on
Speaker 1: a side. We should scrap the entire emigration system. It's
Speaker 1: start over and basically have three categories for visas. The
Speaker 1: dominant category, which is a work visa, a tourist visa,
Speaker 1: which will be would be very limited. I'll talk about
Speaker 1: when it should be applied most countries even today this
Speaker 1: citizens enter the United States without a visa right there,
Speaker 1: if they're visiting, and and that would stay. And then
Speaker 1: you know student visa, a student visa. So let's think
Speaker 1: about how you would do this each type of visa. Basically,
Speaker 1: I would say that anyone who could show that they
Speaker 1: can take care of themselves financially through employment or through
Speaker 1: the wealth that they have, and who does not pose
Speaker 1: an identifiable criminal or national security threat should be welcome
Speaker 1: as an immigrant and let's say a five year visa
Speaker 1: renewable as long as they maintain the status that is
Speaker 1: of income or wealth. So I'll say this again, anyone,
Speaker 1: this is the principle. This is a solution. Anyone who
Speaker 1: can show that they can take care of self through
Speaker 1: employmental wealth, and who does not pose an identifiable criminal
Speaker 1: or national security threat should be welcome as an immigrant
Speaker 1: on a five year of visa renewable as long as
Speaker 1: they maintain that status of income or wealth. So first,
Speaker 1: that takes away the holy issue of welfare. They're making
Speaker 1: money or they have money. And by the way, just
Speaker 1: to make sure of this, we can attach to this
Speaker 1: bill a provision that says these people are not eligible
Speaker 1: for any form of welfare until they become citizens, which
Speaker 1: is kind of weird and bizarre, Like one of the
Speaker 1: privileges of citizenship is you get to go on the state.
Speaker 1: But okay, you know, I'd like to get rid of
Speaker 1: the welfare state first, but we got a welfare state.
Speaker 1: Let's just this is within the context of it. So
Speaker 1: they can have a five year visa renewable as long
Speaker 1: as they maintain status. And this means that anybody who
Speaker 1: has a certain level of wealth, and we can decide
Speaker 1: what that level of wealth is. I don't know, figure
Speaker 1: it out. Or who has a job offer, a legit
Speaker 1: job offer from a United States company that is that
Speaker 1: at a minimum is of a call it a living wage,
Speaker 1: whatever the hell that is some minimum amount doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be a lot, but one that would prevent them
Speaker 1: from going allow them to live reasonably well. Who passes
Speaker 1: a criminal and national security screen gets the visa. You
Speaker 1: could imagine employment agencies setting up shop all over the world,
Speaker 1: connecting American businesses with potential employees, getting them job offers,
Speaker 1: having a terminal that connects them to FBI, helping run
Speaker 1: the national security and criminal screen, and basically having the
Speaker 1: authority then either to issue a visa or to issue
Speaker 1: a paperwork that allows the person to get a visa
Speaker 1: and come into the United States. So that is step one. Now,
Speaker 1: these reasons would give a person a right to work,
Speaker 1: the ability to work. They would not be eligible for
Speaker 1: citizenship for at least twenty to twenty five years. So
Speaker 1: you don't have to worry about this flood of immigrants
Speaker 1: coming in tomorrow and before they have a time to
Speaker 1: assimilate or any opportunity to assimilate. They're already voting, so
Speaker 1: not eligibly for citizen for at least twenty twenty five years.
Speaker 1: And if you really worried about this, if you're really
Speaker 1: concerned about citizenship, then I have no real problem with
Speaker 1: saying they never become citizens. Their kids are citizens, the
Speaker 1: kids can become citizens, but they never become citizens. If
Speaker 1: you make it twenty twenty five years, you know they've
Speaker 1: spent a significant portion of their life in America. If
Speaker 1: our culture is strong, if we know what we're about,
Speaker 1: then they will have assimilated by then. And remember, they
Speaker 1: have to work. Their visa will not be renewed unless
Speaker 1: they're working, unless they're producing income or they've accumulated enough wealth.
Speaker 1: In either case, they've become productive members within American society.
Speaker 1: What better way to assimilate into America than to work
Speaker 1: in America than to be part of an economic enterprise
Speaker 1: in America. I would also have a meaningful citizenship test.
Speaker 1: The citizenship test today is stupid. It basically asks a
Speaker 1: series of multiple choice questions, all from a very delimited
Speaker 1: number of questions. You just have to pick up a
Speaker 1: little book memorize the content of the book and you're in.
Speaker 1: It needs to be a meaningful citizenship test, and not
Speaker 1: an ideological test. We'll get to ideology in a minute.
Speaker 1: Not an ideological test, but a test that basically figures
Speaker 1: out whether you understand the American system of government, you
Speaker 1: understand the principles on which America is based. Maybe Americans
Speaker 1: should take this citizenship test as well before they are
Speaker 1: allowed to vote. We'll leave that for another show. But
Speaker 1: they have to be able to articulately say something about
Speaker 1: the founding of America, something about the separation of powers
Speaker 1: and the checks and balances, something about individual rights and
Speaker 1: the meaning of the right to life, liberty in the
Speaker 1: pursuit of happiness, something about these things. So meaningful citizenship test.
Speaker 1: And then, as we said, no eligibility for any form
Speaker 1: of welfare, you know, at the federal level, at least,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you can constitutionally ban states and
Speaker 1: providing welfare to them. But again, they would will quite
Speaker 1: have a real job, or by the way, you know,
Speaker 1: income income could be when they renew the visa, could
Speaker 1: be from their own venture, from an entrepreneurial adventure. That is,
Speaker 1: this visa would not restrict them from staying with the
Speaker 1: particular employer. You don't care who the employer is. You
Speaker 1: don't care what the source of income is. That is,
Speaker 1: if they started their own business and now getting income,
Speaker 1: that's fine. If they've started a YouTube channel and they're
Speaker 1: getting income, that's fine. As long as they are producing
Speaker 1: income that they're living off of that income that are
Speaker 1: not living off of the state anyway, their visa should
Speaker 1: be renewed. So, for example, as standard could be, if
Speaker 1: you're getting welfare from the state, from local or state government,
Speaker 1: your visa will not be renewed. Sole stay in a
Speaker 1: local government might be allowed to give them welfare because
Speaker 1: the federal government can't control that. That would be a
Speaker 1: black mark on the renewability of their visa. Now let's
Speaker 1: talk about the screening. So be a number criteria for screening.
Speaker 1: One is criminality based on US law. Have you have
Speaker 1: you participated in a crime, for example, gang membership. You
Speaker 1: know it's true that you might have been prosecuted for
Speaker 1: crime and being in jail in another country. So in
Speaker 1: that sense, you've already you know, uh, you know, serve
Speaker 1: your time if you will. It doesn't matter for the
Speaker 1: purposes of this in order to again be very clear. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you would exclude people with criminal backgrounds, you would exclude
Speaker 1: gang membership. I mean, there'd be some gray areas where,
Speaker 1: particularly in oppressive regimes, where it's not clear if somebody
Speaker 1: what the reason he was prosecuted for what. But that's
Speaker 1: what a screening is for. You would screen for all
Speaker 1: these things, and in some cases, great cases, you would
Speaker 1: have to dig a little deeper. Right, Terrorism, Are you
Speaker 1: a member of a terrorist organization? Have you ever been
Speaker 1: a member of a terrorist organization? If you're no longer
Speaker 1: a member of a terrorist organization, how can you prove
Speaker 1: that you and have now repudiated that organization? So? Are
Speaker 1: you a physical threat? And the United States has pretty
Speaker 1: good databases? Are your friends terrorists? Are your neighbors terroists?
Speaker 1: Are you not neighbors? Maybe? Are your family members terrorists?
Speaker 1: And really dig particularly if you're coming let's say film
Speaker 1: was the country. Is there a real risk that you
Speaker 1: a spy? And again I don't know what the criteria
Speaker 1: would be here exactly, but are you a national security threat?
Speaker 1: If you being affiliated in one way another with the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party you or with Chinese securities? Have you
Speaker 1: been a member of a hacking group that tacked American computers.
Speaker 1: I mean all of those kind of things. And then
Speaker 1: I would add to that, do you advocate full Have
Speaker 1: you advocated full an ideology that is being identified as
Speaker 1: an explicit with an explicit enemy of the United States
Speaker 1: that as you can think of during World War Two?
Speaker 1: Have you advocated for Nazism or Japanese imperialism? And today
Speaker 1: are you an Islamist? Are you affiliated in any way
Speaker 1: with Islamism? Do you, you know, express outwardly then mefestations
Speaker 1: of Islamism? For example, do you acquire your wife to
Speaker 1: go completely covered? Given Islamism is the ideology of our
Speaker 1: enemy today, that would disqualify you from entering the United States.
Speaker 1: Now we'd have to define it as the enemy. That
Speaker 1: would require a certain fun policy changes, but not a
Speaker 1: band on Islam. But a band on Islam is them absolutely,
Speaker 1: And you know you would have to accept the the
Speaker 1: you know, as part of your suddenly as a citizen,
Speaker 1: but even as an immigrant, you would have to accept
Speaker 1: the rule of law in America, the Constitution and the
Speaker 1: rule of law of America. You have to swear to that,
Speaker 1: do some kind of legal statement that you accept that
Speaker 1: with everything that that implies. And if that means ten
Speaker 1: million people come in one million, five million, three hundred thousand,
Speaker 1: I don't know what the right number is. There's no
Speaker 1: right number. Whatever the number is, it is and it's
Speaker 1: based on.
Speaker 3: The fact that they have a job offer, they have
Speaker 3: a job waiting for them.
Speaker 1: And then beyond that, I'd say only direct family spouse,
Speaker 1: non adult children are automatically approved for a visa. Now,
Speaker 1: once you become a citizen, it's possible that you know,
Speaker 1: you allow citizenship to children, and maybe there's a path
Speaker 1: for the children and non adult children to become citizens
Speaker 1: independent of the parents. If they get a job, they
Speaker 1: now get their own visas. In a sense, they start
Speaker 1: to two twenty five year'clock. You have to work out
Speaker 1: all the details in terms of family, but family reunification
Speaker 1: bringing your relatives from all over the world here, particularly
Speaker 1: your elderly parents or whatever, cannot be a priority and
Speaker 1: should not be a priority for a system like this. Now,
Speaker 1: notice no, So okay, So that's the bulk of it.
Speaker 1: That's most of visas that are relevant for immigrants. Right,
Speaker 1: citizenship is something that's pushed into the future. It's something
Speaker 1: that's a little harder to get. It's something that you
Speaker 1: have to achieve. Now, what about tourists, Well, I would
Speaker 1: require only for citizens. Require tourists visa only from citizens
Speaker 1: of countries where they might be a national security threat,
Speaker 1: so that you can screen them. By the way, I
Speaker 1: didn't mention health checks. Yeah, I mean with the criminal
Speaker 1: and terrorist stuff, you can also do a health check,
Speaker 1: make sure they don't have tuberculosis, other kinds of infectious diseases.
Speaker 1: I think the United States today has a list of
Speaker 1: all the infectious diseases. You cannot enter the United States
Speaker 1: with ebola, I don't know whatever. So real infectious diseases
Speaker 1: that are deadly, or that are or they're easily transmittable
Speaker 1: and hard to cure should be excluded, right, You should
Speaker 1: be able to exclude people from that, and then if
Speaker 1: they have that, just like they did in the Ellis Island,
Speaker 1: a tour should be allowed in again unless there's some risk,
Speaker 1: either because there's an epidemic in a country, a pandemic overseas,
Speaker 1: and then you want to screen them for health issues,
Speaker 1: or they come from a country that might pose a
Speaker 1: potential national security risk, and then you want to be
Speaker 1: able to do work criminal or a national security screen
Speaker 1: on them. Better than that, tour should be allowed in
Speaker 1: pretty freely. And then finally, student visas. I mean, one
Speaker 1: of the great crimes in student visas today is that
Speaker 1: we give out student visas and then we don't allow
Speaker 1: them to work while they're students, and we don't allow
Speaker 1: the spouses to work. This is my case. When I
Speaker 1: came here on an F one visa, my wife had
Speaker 1: an F two visa. She was not allowed to work,
Speaker 1: so we both had to survive somehow. I wasn't allowed
Speaker 1: to work. I had to work on campus. So I
Speaker 1: worked on campus, and I worked illegally, right. And you know,
Speaker 1: let's say you get on consulting job here, consulting job there,
Speaker 1: you do what you can, right. So student visas should
Speaker 1: require screening the same as work visas. They should be
Speaker 1: an adjusted for income and wealth so that the student
Speaker 1: can support themselves well study. And they should be zero
Speaker 1: restrictions on work of students or spouses in the United States,
Speaker 1: well in the United States, and once a student finishes
Speaker 1: a study should be able to apply for a work
Speaker 1: visa and so on. Now, what does that mean for
Speaker 1: our border, particularly our southern border where we have all
Speaker 1: these problems. Well, there would be a few transit points
Speaker 1: where people can come in with their visas that they've
Speaker 1: received from the employment agency or from whatever mechanism we
Speaker 1: create to facilitate these visas, and where the checked are
Speaker 1: allowed in. Now, anyone who tries to enter in a
Speaker 1: different location can be therefore rationally assumed to be a
Speaker 1: criminal or terrorist, because otherwise why would you do it.
Speaker 1: Or somebody who wants to come in to benefit from welfare,
Speaker 1: though not clear how they would ever get it, And
Speaker 1: I think in those cases it would be legitimate to
Speaker 1: have instant deportation and exclusion from ever immigrating legally so
Speaker 1: you can ever come here again, and for ape defenders
Speaker 1: jail time. I mean, this would basically end the flow,
Speaker 1: massive flow of illegal immigration over the southern border. People
Speaker 1: would just come here legally, but it would be large numbers. Now,
Speaker 1: I just want to say a few words about some
Speaker 1: other things that I think need to be done in
Speaker 1: association with this. We need to, generally, pretty much for everything,
Speaker 1: liberate our economy as much as we can. We need
Speaker 1: to get rid of things like minimum wages and required benefits,
Speaker 1: and make it easy to employ people and make it
Speaker 1: easy to fire people and hire people, whether local Americans
Speaker 1: are foreigners. We need to make employment legal, hiding and
Speaker 1: firing easy. We need to make starting a business easy,
Speaker 1: super easy. So we need to make America's economy freer
Speaker 1: and ultimately over time, it would be great if we
Speaker 1: started reducing and actually eliminating the welfare state suddenly at
Speaker 1: the federal level. Ultimately love to see it at the
Speaker 1: state level as well, but at the federal level eliminating
Speaker 1: the welfare state. And then in addition to this, we
Speaker 1: have to solve the problem of education. And here I
Speaker 1: wanted one aspect of education that affects both primary you know,
Speaker 1: high school and college education, and also generally the public debate,
Speaker 1: an intellectual public debate. We need to stop endorsing multiculturalism.
Speaker 1: We need to reject the idea that our cultures are equal.
Speaker 1: We need to be very clear with people coming to
Speaker 1: America that they are coming here with expectation that they
Speaker 1: will adopt our culture, that our culture is better than theirs,
Speaker 1: that our culture the reason they want to come here
Speaker 1: is because it's good. The reason they're left theirs is
Speaker 1: because it's not good. We need to be very explicit
Speaker 1: about this. We cannot teach our children at whatever age
Speaker 1: they are, that we are colonizers and we are evil,
Speaker 1: and we are bad, and we are horbable, and we
Speaker 1: have an awful culture and the cultures of these all
Speaker 1: these other countries is just the same as ours and
Speaker 1: just as good as ours. That's just not true. And
Speaker 1: we need to understand why that is individual rights and
Speaker 1: promote it. And through doing that, by emphasizing our strengths,
Speaker 1: by emphasizing a virtues, the value that America represents, we
Speaker 1: will accelerate a similation. We will say to the immigrants,
Speaker 1: you've come here, we expect you to follow American law,
Speaker 1: We expect you to integrate into our culture. We expect you.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the whole idea of, you know,
Speaker 1: letting immigrants use their native language is absurd. We need
Speaker 1: to integrate them linguistically. They needs to be one official
Speaker 1: language in the United States, it's English. Big part of
Speaker 1: assimilation is language, and that needs to be a demand,
Speaker 1: an expectation. And by the way, if they come here
Speaker 1: to work, they will have to speak English. Now, what
Speaker 1: would be the outcome of this new immigration policy. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, we're talking about a lot of additional
Speaker 1: people coming into this country a new wave of immigration.
Speaker 1: Immigration today is relatively high, but as a percentage of
Speaker 1: the existing population, still pretty low as compared to what
Speaker 1: it was in the late nineteenth century. And think about
Speaker 1: the late nineteenth sentty. What a dynamic, invigorating American culture
Speaker 1: that was. So the solution will revitalize America. It will
Speaker 1: express America's confidence in itself and in its values, and
Speaker 1: we focus our energy on individualism, on individual rights, on
Speaker 1: the rate of individuals to pursue their happiness using their
Speaker 1: own mind, in pursuit of their own values, free from coersion,
Speaker 1: free from the pressure groups. It will clarify who is
Speaker 1: an American. Ultimately, America is an idea, and we expect
Speaker 1: these ideas to manifest in virtues, in a character of
Speaker 1: who Americans are. And Americans are born every day all
Speaker 1: over the world. People with the kind of character, with
Speaker 1: the kind of virtues, the kind of values that are
Speaker 1: cherished in America are born everywhere, and we should be
Speaker 1: inviting them to come here and re energize and populate America.
Speaker 1: Filler up. We've got lots of anty empty land. A
Speaker 1: culture will be revitalized. Great artists and thinkers and producers
Speaker 1: and creators and chefs and dancers and all kinds of
Speaker 1: people will come here who will re energize American culture.
Speaker 1: They won't come here to be funded by the States.
Speaker 1: They won't come here to get handouts. They won't come
Speaker 1: here because of their skin color, or because they're persecuted,
Speaker 1: or because they're poor miserable. They're coming here because they
Speaker 1: want to make something of themselves. They'll come here because
Speaker 1: they want to live free and because they want to
Speaker 1: make a living. Think of all the enormous benefits we
Speaker 1: would get from having more people like that. There are millions,
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions probably in the world of the eight
Speaker 1: billion people who qualify as spiritually American. And if they
Speaker 1: come here, it becomes a bigger, more vibrant, more dynamic,
Speaker 1: more exciting, more ambitious place. And that's exciting. I know
Speaker 1: for some people this is what causes them fear. But
Speaker 1: if you yourself are American in the sense of ambitious,
Speaker 1: individualistic thinker, then you relish such a culture. We drain
Speaker 1: the brains of our enemies, We bring the most productive
Speaker 1: people in the world here. We make the rest of
Speaker 1: the world from a perspective of military threat to the
Speaker 1: United States e relevant. We would be so far ahead
Speaker 1: of everybody else in terms of the geniuses here, in
Speaker 1: terms of innovation and technology and science, and in terms
Speaker 1: of our military that nobody would come close. Nobody would
Speaker 1: ever threaten the United States. Under those circum stances, we'd
Speaker 1: be overwhelmingly the most powerful state in the world. And
Speaker 1: that's because to large extent, opening up immigration, increasing immigration
Speaker 1: the way I've explained, would create a dynamic, entrepreneurial economy.
Speaker 1: We'd see massive economic growth, huge amounts of innovation and
Speaker 1: productivity increases, a more refined and better division of labor,
Speaker 1: which would translate into massively higher standard of living. Trade,
Speaker 1: more trade, raise the standard of living. The more we trade,
Speaker 1: the more people we have to trade with, the more
Speaker 1: people we have who can produce, the richer we are.
Speaker 1: And we'd have a lot more geniuses. We'd indeed become
Speaker 1: the magnet of geniuses to come to this country from
Speaker 1: all over the world. What an exciting place to be.
Speaker 1: And you know, the dull, stagnanty parts of America would
Speaker 1: either shape up, would either become ambitious, become dynamic, or
Speaker 1: they die. But that's the way it should be. You
Speaker 1: get what you deserve. You get what you pay for,
Speaker 1: you get what you work for. We indeed have a smaller,
Speaker 1: less powerful, less intrusive government. I mean, just think about
Speaker 1: the size today of you know, the border security and
Speaker 1: a ice and all the different agencies responsible for immigration
Speaker 1: and reviewing and bureaucrats, and all of that is gone.
Speaker 1: Much less less rights being violated, simple process. Everybody can
Speaker 1: understand it. Laws generally should be understandable. We would attract
Speaker 1: the best people in the world, no handouts, no giveaways,
Speaker 1: and we would take off the table the most contentious
Speaker 1: issue that we have today in our politics. Less polarization,
Speaker 1: less emotional craziness. I mean, the racist will still be racist,
Speaker 1: but they would be marginalized, and maybe some of them
Speaker 1: will change their minds once America becomes as dynamic as
Speaker 1: I know it will, and finally we will have a
Speaker 1: quieter about almost no illegal immigrants, just everything. The whole
Speaker 1: temperature of everything about immigration would come down. We get
Speaker 1: all the benefits of having all these amazing people come
Speaker 1: to this country, and this only upside. I don't see
Speaker 1: any downsides to it. None, zero nunda. If you understand,
Speaker 1: the economics is not a zero sum, it's additive. Every
Speaker 1: productive individual adds to my life, makes my life smidgeon better.
Speaker 1: Millions of productive individuals make my life a lot better.
Speaker 1: Billions make even more better. Not only can I benefit
Speaker 1: from free trade with gazillions of people in all countries
Speaker 1: all over the world because of free trade, this having
Speaker 1: them come here, not all of them, but many millions
Speaker 1: of them is a huge benefit to me because trade
Speaker 1: with people from far away is more expensive. Some of
Speaker 1: those regimes over there horrific and I don't want to
Speaker 1: support them. And people who come to America become more
Speaker 1: productive because of technology, because of capital, because of innovation.
Speaker 1: As soon as they cross the border, doing the same
Speaker 1: job they did in their own country, they are more
Speaker 1: productive in America than they were there. We're better organizations,
Speaker 1: better technology, better infrastructure, and more motivation. That's why they
Speaker 1: make more money here. So everybody becomes more productive, which
Speaker 1: makes me richer, makes me richer. So a lot of
Speaker 1: the problems in the United States has economic problems. So security,
Speaker 1: medicare a lot of these issues. If you can create
Speaker 1: the of economic growth that would be generated from a
Speaker 1: much more open immigration system, you would benefit in normously.
Speaker 1: Now let me be clear, one hundred percent rights respecting
Speaker 1: government does not issue visus one hundred percent rights respecting
Speaker 1: government maybe screens for infectious diseases, terrorism and criminality, and
Speaker 1: that's it doesn't require you to have a job, doesn't
Speaker 1: require you to to to do X y Z. It
Speaker 1: just has open voters. And that's the idea we strifle.
Speaker 1: But this is a big, big, big step in that direction,
Speaker 1: given where we are today. So it's a step in
Speaker 1: the direction of open voters, let them all in. But
Speaker 1: it's not an ideal because you know, nothing in government
Speaker 1: today or in our government in the next few decades
Speaker 1: is going to be ideal. If we can move elements
Speaker 1: parts of the government towards greater freedom, we'll benefit from it,
Speaker 1: all benefit from it, all right. So I'm sure you
Speaker 1: have a lot of questions. There are suddenly issues that
Speaker 1: I have not covered here. We can talk about them
Speaker 1: if you ask about them, if you if you come
Speaker 1: up with them, that's that sounds good. Feel for you
Speaker 1: to use the super Chat to ask those kind of questions.
Speaker 1: We are in the super Chat. Let's see we are.
Speaker 1: You know, we've covered the first hour. We did that
Speaker 1: pretty quickly, but we're short on the second hour and
Speaker 1: certainly short on the third hour, and it's likely we're
Speaker 1: going to go into the third hour given how many
Speaker 1: questions we have. We had quite a few questions, so
Speaker 1: please consider maybe doing a sticker if you don't have
Speaker 1: a question, or asking a question at the twenty or
Speaker 1: fifty dollars level to get us closer to the goal.
Speaker 1: But right now on one hundred and ten dollars short
Speaker 1: of the second hour goal, which hopefully we can at
Speaker 1: least achieve that in order to get to where we
Speaker 1: need to be and maybe maybe even exceed that. And please,
Speaker 1: if you like the show, if this was interesting, if
Speaker 1: this was a value, please press the like button. Let
Speaker 1: me remind you this was sponsored by alex Epstein and
Speaker 1: you can subscribe to Alex and alex Epstein dot substack
Speaker 1: dot com right now. With that subscription you will get
Speaker 1: access without an extra fee to alex AI, which is amazing.
Speaker 1: You'll have the ability to query an AI program about
Speaker 1: anything energy related, environmentalism related, fast ole fuel related, and
Speaker 1: climate change related and have Alex in a sense answer
Speaker 1: your question. So yeah, go to alex Epstein dot substick
Speaker 1: dot com and finally, reminder the Tomorrow, December thirty first,
Speaker 1: at one pm we will do our year end year
Speaker 1: end review show. It's also a fundraiser. We're going to
Speaker 1: try to raise fifteen thousand dollars. That's a lot of money,
Speaker 1: but I'm hopeful. I think we've made our targets in
Speaker 1: past years, so I'm hoping we'll make our target this year.
Speaker 1: So please join us for that, even if you drop
Speaker 1: in just for a little bit. We'll be gone for
Speaker 1: four hours probably to make to make the goal. Lots
Speaker 1: of questions usually in those lots of a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: It's it's an engaging show. It's a fun show, So
Speaker 1: please join us and do that. We've already raised towards
Speaker 1: that goal twenty one hundred dollars through PayPal. You can
Speaker 1: also make a contributions to PayPal, and so we're going
Speaker 1: to We're going to make that number. Michael Zoo just
Speaker 1: did a sticker for six dollars, but it's his first
Speaker 1: super Chat contribution ever. Thank you Michael, Michelle, thank you
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. Stinger Bell did a sticker. Thank you Stringer.
Speaker 1: Let's see who else do we have stickers? We got
Speaker 1: a bunch of stickers. Yes, Gail, there was a sticker
Speaker 1: from Gail and we got We've got a room. Thank
Speaker 1: your room, Stephen, Thank you, Steven thumb. We've got no
Speaker 1: those are questions, questions, questions, questions, questions. Okay, that's it,
Speaker 1: stickers wife. So we're still eighty three dollars short of
Speaker 1: of where we need to be for the second hour.
Speaker 1: Maybe less, we just got yeah, I'm not sure. Yeah,
Speaker 1: probably twenty dollars less. We just got another question. All right,
Speaker 1: let's see where we are. We'll start with a fifty
Speaker 1: dollars questions, but only if there were related to immigration. Yes,
Speaker 1: all right, but this is good. Let's let me move this. Yes,
Speaker 1: I can see the questions, but perfix and don't have
Speaker 1: to look away from the screen. Okay, Michael says, I
Speaker 1: don't see any significant movements for individualism, immigration, maybe a
Speaker 1: little deregulatory forces when it comes to energy corporations. For
Speaker 1: the most part, we're dealing with a low self esteem,
Speaker 1: angry and ignorant population. You know, I think that's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Notice that everything that I said basically assumes that you
Speaker 1: know the country is ready for this and is willing
Speaker 1: to embrace this. I don't believe the country is yet
Speaker 1: ready to embrace my solution for immigration. I wish it was.
Speaker 1: I certainly hope that by doing the show, we can
Speaker 1: bring these ideas to a greater number of people, maybe
Speaker 1: even get them in front of some of the people
Speaker 1: who generally don't like the comment immigration system, would like
Speaker 1: to see it improved, and don't don't know how to
Speaker 1: approach the issue, maybe some of them in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: So I'm hopeful that one of the things, one of
Speaker 1: the uses Alex will make of these shows is to
Speaker 1: try to take the content here and put it in
Speaker 1: front of influential people who might be able to stitch
Speaker 1: part of this, parts of this into a new policy
Speaker 1: and you and new rhetoric. I mean, we got to
Speaker 1: talk about this, We got to try We got to
Speaker 1: present alternatives that are practical, that are that are doable,
Speaker 1: and and and that's the goal of this series. And
Speaker 1: I'll do the same thing with healthcare on Saturday. Saturday
Speaker 1: will doing a similar show on how to fix the
Speaker 1: healthcare system. We'll do the same thing. We'll analyze the
Speaker 1: healthcare system in terms of how to fix it. And
Speaker 1: then I'll also do a show regarding healthcare, how do
Speaker 1: we get to the situation we're in today that won't
Speaker 1: be on Saturday and Saturday. It will just be the
Speaker 1: fixes some future show will do how we got here.
Speaker 1: So I agree with you, Michael, that it's still a
Speaker 1: long way off before America is ready for this. But
Speaker 1: that's why we need to talk, talk, talk about it.
Speaker 1: We need a frame, and in terms of individualism we
Speaker 1: need to frame, and in terms of rights, we need
Speaker 1: a frame. In terms of liberty, we need a frame,
Speaker 1: in terms of prosperity and success and dynamism and excitement
Speaker 1: and ambition and Americanism and the American sense of life
Speaker 1: and an American character. And it's the only way we
Speaker 1: can win is by taking these issues and framing them
Speaker 1: based on our values, but in a way that's understandable
Speaker 1: to people, whether they accept or not. Given this debate
Speaker 1: that we just saw between Elon and megab alone was
Speaker 1: good and then capitulated, and most of the issues to
Speaker 1: Mega and Mago was awful, and Mego is hollible driven
Speaker 1: by anger, ignorance and evil, anger, ignorance and racism. We've
Speaker 1: got to have a more benevolent alternative that we can
Speaker 1: present the world, James, not just with anti immigration hate,
Speaker 1: but everything is hate. You can watch a YouTube video
Speaker 1: of a guy falling off a ladder, and one hundred
Speaker 1: percent of the comments of people are making fun of
Speaker 1: the guy, wishing he died or was How can we
Speaker 1: live in such a world. Well, you know, I bet
Speaker 1: you that most people who saw that video didn't comment
Speaker 1: on it. They say, oh, shitty fell at the ladder,
Speaker 1: and they move on. They feel sorry for the guy,
Speaker 1: and they move on. So all media today, particularly social media,
Speaker 1: particularly things like YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and all
Speaker 1: these other geared towards geared towards the negative, the geared
Speaker 1: towards encouraging and baiting and reinforcing anger and stupidity and
Speaker 1: malevolence and envy. But you can't, you know, if I
Speaker 1: look at my comments under my videos, if I thought
Speaker 1: everybody held the views that expressed in those comments, I'd
Speaker 1: be super depressed and I'd never do another show. But
Speaker 1: they're not representative. They're the people who are trolling. Who
Speaker 1: are you know, the nasty comments at least you know,
Speaker 1: And the same thing with the guy falling off the latter,
Speaker 1: I mean, who's gonna say oh poor I mean the
Speaker 1: person who actually think poor guy that's really sad is
Speaker 1: not going to stick around and make a comment. This
Speaker 1: is going to move on. So beware of the algorithm,
Speaker 1: beware of the tricks of the medium to give you
Speaker 1: a sense. And all our medium is structured this way
Speaker 1: of how bad things are, how awful things are, to
Speaker 1: reinforce the negatives. And it's definitely we live in a
Speaker 1: world where everything is about reinforcing the negatives, and the news,
Speaker 1: to social media, to pretty much everything else. And most
Speaker 1: people in America, if a guy falls off the ladder,
Speaker 1: they rush over to try to help him out. But
Speaker 1: that's not what YouTube brings out of people, sadly. And
Speaker 1: of course people also hide behind anonymity and are jokes
Speaker 1: when they're anonymous. They might not be jokes in person,
Speaker 1: but they're anonymous, they are super jokes. Again, not the
Speaker 1: standard for life, not the way people actually behave in life,
Speaker 1: all right, Jeremy, another fifty dollars, thank you, guys. An
Speaker 1: issue of finding high tech workers, there has been an
Speaker 1: influx of woke employees and catering to them, as that
Speaker 1: is what comes out of colleges where nearly all of
Speaker 1: new engineers come from, leading to a pushing out of
Speaker 1: males and all those considered white. Yeah, I mean I
Speaker 1: think that's right, and that's definitely a problem, and that's
Speaker 1: hugely frustrating and wrong and evil and bad and so on.
Speaker 1: And there are solutions for that, and I think the
Speaker 1: solutions are coming into focus these days. Some of the
Speaker 1: solutions are starting companies for the rejects, starting companies that
Speaker 1: only employ based on skill, and those companies ultimately well
Speaker 1: compete the world companies. So I think a lot of
Speaker 1: the frustration with high tech engineers is the frustration of
Speaker 1: engineers is the fact that there are other things playing
Speaker 1: into this that have nothing to do with immigrants, that
Speaker 1: are distorting the you know, the employment scene. But one
Speaker 1: of the solutions that there will be competitors that abandon
Speaker 1: this woke stuff. Work. Employees are not going to be
Speaker 1: as good, so companies will suffer from employing them, competitors
Speaker 1: will'll compete with them, and then the better companies will
Speaker 1: start shifting. I mean, we saw that, we've seen that
Speaker 1: already with companies abanding THEI with companies abanding the idea
Speaker 1: politics at work, and I think slowly shifting away from
Speaker 1: woke and I think that is happening and I think
Speaker 1: will accelerate over the next few years. I think that,
Speaker 1: particularly in tech, there's going to be a dynamic move
Speaker 1: away from woke hiring. And yes, these engineers come in
Speaker 1: and they're not that qualified, but they're not going to
Speaker 1: be the ones dictating employment practices into the future. And
Speaker 1: you can see, you know, the rebellion against woke has
Speaker 1: been widespread. You could see that in the way young
Speaker 1: people voted, you know, a surprising number of them voting
Speaker 1: for Trump for no other reason than than not accepting
Speaker 1: of the Wok stuff. So I think over time, males
Speaker 1: and white males are going to find I hope, more
Speaker 1: job opportunities a in companies that reject well completely, any
Speaker 1: companies that used to embrace woke and are starting to
Speaker 1: reject it over time. It's just a competitive disadvantage. But unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I think it's being used as an excuse to lamb immigrants.
Speaker 1: Mary Lane says, I know many immigrants Viya toastmasters, especially
Speaker 1: Indians and Chinese Indians in particular, are eager to embrace
Speaker 1: US culture. This is anecdotal, but these are wonderful, talented,
Speaker 1: creative people who I'm fortunate to know. We need more
Speaker 1: of them. Yeah, I mean, Indians have a huge advantage
Speaker 1: the biggest advantage is they speak English. They spoke English
Speaker 1: in India, they speak English in school. Those are particularly
Speaker 1: of a particular cast up. Remember that really really poor
Speaker 1: Indians won't come to America. They can't afford the air
Speaker 1: fe and the jobs they get here will not pay
Speaker 1: them enough to justify coming to America. So most immigrants
Speaker 1: are going to be immigrants that come to America for
Speaker 1: better paying jobs. Some will be low skill because there
Speaker 1: opportunities among low skill, but they will be the one
Speaker 1: to travel the shortest distances the cheapest cost. But Indians
Speaker 1: have an in in a English based education system. They
Speaker 1: speak English. There are many engineering schools, many of them excellent.
Speaker 1: They come here and they're they're very ambitious. They're the
Speaker 1: most successful financially immigrant group of all the immigrant groups. Uh.
Speaker 1: The average Indian is well into the six figures. And
Speaker 1: they want to embrace US culture. I think it's because
Speaker 1: of their familiarity with English culture. Uh, it's less feign
Speaker 1: unless for the Chinese, where the language is a big
Speaker 1: deal and the culture is very very different and it
Speaker 1: takes them a lot longer to figure it out and assimily,
Speaker 1: but they do. They look at the Asians in California,
Speaker 1: and how well they have done, or Asians all over America,
Speaker 1: and how well they've done Eastern Asians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese phenomenal. Right,
Speaker 1: all right, let's look at other, you know, other questions related.
Speaker 1: James says, the level of consistent negativity, hate, and racism
Speaker 1: I'm seeing online has to be indicative of some type
Speaker 1: of pre Nazi formation. Millions of people must be living
Speaker 1: miserable lives to lash out like this. Millions of people
Speaker 1: are convinced they living miserable lives, and that makes them
Speaker 1: miserable because they convince their miserable lives. But their lives
Speaker 1: are pretty good actually, And it's hard to tell if
Speaker 1: it's millions of people. Again, social media is very distorting.
Speaker 1: I know there's on Twitter, I see all these posts,
Speaker 1: but how many people posted these posts that I read?
Speaker 1: Two hundred, five hundred one thousand some millions? Are they
Speaker 1: really representative? I mean, in poll after poll after poll,
Speaker 1: most Americans say they want more high skilled labor immigrants.
Speaker 1: Seventy plus percent of Americans left and right want more
Speaker 1: high skilled immigration. So the Steve Bannon and I forget
Speaker 1: her name, the crazy woman on the right are they
Speaker 1: representative of how many people, how many people actually constitute
Speaker 1: maga on this kind of maga, this completely xenophobic, racist maga.
Speaker 1: Now it's true that you a minority can take over
Speaker 1: a country, and MAGA could take a this country, and
Speaker 1: it's what I fear with somebody like JD. Van's And
Speaker 1: we'll see. But don't let social media distort your perspective
Speaker 1: on the country. And that is look at poles, look
Speaker 1: at look at what average Americans actually think. Luna. Luna
Speaker 1: is the crazy woman in the way that I'm thinking of.
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green, funnily enough, was on Elon Musk side.
Speaker 1: I guess as long as you exclude Jews with lasers,
Speaker 1: it's okay to have immigrants. You know, I don't know
Speaker 1: how Marjorie Taylor Green thinks is too big of a
Speaker 1: word for her. So I don't think it's thinks, it's
Speaker 1: something else. Yeah, yeah, don't God, don't be so negative.
Speaker 1: Let's see more. We'll get to that, all right. Mari Lean,
Speaker 1: My great grandfather arrived at the Ellis Island from Italy
Speaker 1: in nineteen oh five. They were checked to ensure that
Speaker 1: they were healthy. We have the documents, but that was it.
Speaker 1: Papa worked as a coal miner in the Pacific Northwest.
Speaker 1: It was pretty simple. Oh yeah, no, And that's that's
Speaker 1: what you want. Ultimately. Ultimately, that's the kind of immigration system,
Speaker 1: the open borders that I allowed people to come in.
Speaker 1: Once you check they're not criminals, they're not terrorists, and
Speaker 1: they have don't have infectious diseases, let them in. Let
Speaker 1: them in. Chasbat says, French consulate. Have you got a
Speaker 1: twenty seven B six? Is that from the movie Brazil?
Speaker 1: I can't remember what movie that is? The twenty seven
Speaker 1: B six? Thanks Shas Bud Jeff. This is a quote
Speaker 1: from a Queen Cordet poem. I guess so come, let's
Speaker 1: toast the freedom song. And may someday you pass along.
Speaker 1: It matters not which border crossed to nurse to nurse
Speaker 1: hands or shoreline lost. You're here, you'll hear at last. Yeah.
Speaker 1: We should, you know, God, we should be welcoming and
Speaker 1: embracing and celebrating immigrants, all right, Barbara. Ever since I
Speaker 1: started my first business, I have hired immigrants. I have
Speaker 1: a theory that the reason they are such great employees
Speaker 1: is that they were enterprising enough to go to the
Speaker 1: new country. I love seeing them grow. Absolutely. I should
Speaker 1: have mentioned that we get the best because they know
Speaker 1: what's demanded of them. They have to work and they
Speaker 1: have to make a huge effort. That is an expression
Speaker 1: of their ambition to come here, to come here, which
Speaker 1: is a huge achievement. So yes, I think that the
Speaker 1: ambition necessary to come to America represents their willingness to
Speaker 1: work hard, and they're more broad ambition regarding life and
Speaker 1: their careers. James, happy knew you on? Happy you knew
Speaker 1: you on? I know it's far off, but what would
Speaker 1: be the vision if the US became such a popular
Speaker 1: country that we truly utilized all the physical space and resources,
Speaker 1: something like US as vision of space travel.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: That is truly impossible. You could you could actually house
Speaker 1: eight billion people on the land master that is the
Speaker 1: United States. Not I think we would or should. But
Speaker 1: here's the things. Markets take care of that rights. As
Speaker 1: land becomes less available, prices go up, it becomes more
Speaker 1: difficult to be old, and fewer people come. And look,
Speaker 1: the reality is that most people, an overwhelming majority of
Speaker 1: people around the world, don't want to come to the
Speaker 1: United States. They want to live in their countries. They
Speaker 1: want to live where they grow up. They have a
Speaker 1: certain sense of place and they don't want to come
Speaker 1: to the US. And that's fine. I think in a
Speaker 1: in a survey, I saw a Pew Research survey. They
Speaker 1: ask people all over the world. They did and they
Speaker 1: estimate that one hundred and sixty million people in the
Speaker 1: world today would like to move to the United States.
Speaker 1: Of eight billion, that's not a lot. I would have
Speaker 1: thought the number would be bigger. One hundred and sixty million.
Speaker 1: It's not a big deal. Now, you know, you don't
Speaker 1: want one hundred and sixty million are showing up the
Speaker 1: same date. But you won't have that because one hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty million people couldn't find a job tomorrow. What
Speaker 1: would dictate the pace of movement to the United States
Speaker 1: is the pace at which jobs are created in the
Speaker 1: United States. The jobs can be offered in the United
Speaker 1: States to foreigners by employers who've never met the foreigner,
Speaker 1: maybe by zoom, to employers who would be taking a
Speaker 1: risk by hiring a foreigner, and there's some expense in
Speaker 1: being the foreigner in so the pace is going to
Speaker 1: be slow, which means millions a year, not hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions a year, So no, it's just not real. It
Speaker 1: wouldn't happen, and kind of market forces take care of it,
Speaker 1: and maybe all this pressure will pressure other countries to
Speaker 1: liberalize their economies and liberalize their countries so that they
Speaker 1: encourage people to stay. Wes, as I've been looking forward
Speaker 1: to this show. I owe a lot of my current
Speaker 1: career success to immigrants I worked for and worked with.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Wes. Appreciate the support and I'm glad that's
Speaker 1: the case, and thank you all right, Michael. How close
Speaker 1: is Alex Davivik and Trump? Will we have a lot?
Speaker 1: Will he have a lot of influence over the next
Speaker 1: four years. I don't think he's very close to Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's close to Vivic. I think
Speaker 1: he is. I think he's talk to Vivic and consulting.
Speaker 1: I think he's consult with Vivic on energy. I don't
Speaker 1: know how much influence he'll have over the next four years.
Speaker 1: He's he I think you'll have quite a bit of
Speaker 1: influence on energy policy. He might have influence beyond that.
Speaker 1: He knows a lot of people in a transition team,
Speaker 1: not Trump necessarily, but a lot of people around Trump
Speaker 1: who knows I just don't know, and I don't want
Speaker 1: to speculate, and I don't jinx anything for him. So again,
Speaker 1: he knows the people in energy, but he knows more
Speaker 1: than that. He knows a lot of the people involved.
Speaker 1: And hopefully some of the ideas that we're articulating here
Speaker 1: on the Ion Book Show will make it into the administration,
Speaker 1: partially through Alex. Maybe we'll see James, there are no optimistic,
Speaker 1: positive people to leave benevolent comments. No, that's just not true.
Speaker 1: That's just not true. James, James is so pessimistic, he's
Speaker 1: so down in the world right now. Gotta look at
Speaker 1: all the benevolence here, not all benevolence. There's some malevolent
Speaker 1: people here, but look at all I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: not true in terms of comments. Most benevolent people just
Speaker 1: don't leave comments. They just go on. They're living, they're engaged.
Speaker 1: It's some people who relish, these stupid people falling off
Speaker 1: of ladders who leave comments. Else just move on, all right,
Speaker 1: We're not going to do that. M Yeah, Henry, how
Speaker 1: you on hope all is well? Thoughts on UK immigration absent,
Speaker 1: eliminating all welfare? What is the rational policy?
Speaker 3: Then?
Speaker 1: Their value add from immigration in the UK appears less
Speaker 1: concrete judaile welfare system. I think you have a number
Speaker 1: of problems in the UK. One is the welfare system,
Speaker 1: which is much larger than it is in America, much
Speaker 1: more substantial, covers healthcare, for example, in a much more
Speaker 1: overwhelming way than American health cases the American mid welfare
Speaker 1: system does. So it's a problem. But also so multiculturalism.
Speaker 1: The lack of rule of law is so much more
Speaker 1: entrenched in the UK and that has to change. That
Speaker 1: is the idea that there are two sets of laws,
Speaker 1: one for the Brits and one for immigrants, that we're
Speaker 1: not going to prosecute immigrants because that's culturally insensitive. They
Speaker 1: We're not going to go after rape gangs because you
Speaker 1: know that's the culture. What can we do? We might
Speaker 1: we don't appear racists. That has to end, no matter,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, and nothing else matters. That is just
Speaker 1: sick and wrong and evil and destructive and offensive. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, so you cannot. It doesn't matter what I
Speaker 1: say about immigration. It doesn't matter what your immigration policy
Speaker 1: is if you don't have the rule of law. And
Speaker 1: this is true in Sweden, in Germany, and Europe. If
Speaker 1: if you'peing countries are not willing to enforce the law
Speaker 1: on immigrants, then the last and it's not that changing
Speaker 1: their wingrasion policy will change anything, because that attitude of
Speaker 1: not being willing to enforce the law is such an
Speaker 1: attitude that it is so destructive it will destroy the
Speaker 1: country in other aspects of it. So it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: that has the change that's in Sweden, in Germany, in
Speaker 1: you know, just enforce the law. If you rape somebody,
Speaker 1: full force of the law. If you have a gang rape,
Speaker 1: put them in jail and throw away the keys. If
Speaker 1: you beat up your wife, go to jail. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're involved in rights violating, if you're involved in violence,
Speaker 1: in particular violence, you have to have the laws enforced
Speaker 1: against you. Only then can we discuss immigration. So if
Speaker 1: you can change that then and you can change in
Speaker 1: the UK in particular the free speech issues. Again, without
Speaker 1: free speech, everything else is irrelevant. Who cares about immigration?
Speaker 1: Then you can have a very similar immigration policy than
Speaker 1: what articulated for the United States, a robust employment based
Speaker 1: immigration system that restricts their ability to get welfare. Now
Speaker 1: they're going to get healthcare stuff, but at least other
Speaker 1: welfare completely they get zero welfare and that requires them
Speaker 1: to bude by the law, does not give them citizenship
Speaker 1: for twenty to twenty five years, so restricts their political
Speaker 1: power significantly. And maybe in the case of the UK,
Speaker 1: they never gets citizenship because of kind of the tricky
Speaker 1: balance of politics in the UK. Only the children can vote,
Speaker 1: you know, so you know, you adapt basically the solution
Speaker 1: I just gave from America to the UK. But first
Speaker 1: the UK needs to get it to act together. It
Speaker 1: needs to understand who you are and enforce the laws.
Speaker 1: And God, the UK should be the best in a
Speaker 1: free speech and I would say that is true of
Speaker 1: the rest of Europe. And then what I said about
Speaker 1: Islamism is definitely the case with God to UK and
Speaker 1: Europe where there are millions now of Islamists. If you're
Speaker 1: an Islamist, you get kicked out. You're gone. The ideology
Speaker 1: of Islamism has no place in the civilized world. If
Speaker 1: you are an advocate for ideas that are anonymical, not anymical,
Speaker 1: that are at war literally at war with the West,
Speaker 1: right now, you're gone. You're not there. Put it on
Speaker 1: a plane and you're shipped to whatever country you came from,
Speaker 1: and you know, and that includes I think external manifestations
Speaker 1: of Sharia law, external manifications of Islamism, like the Booker right,
Speaker 1: Catholic nationalism is not at war with the West. It's
Speaker 1: not a war with the US fans UK. It's an
Speaker 1: ideology that's hostile to it. But that's within the scope
Speaker 1: of free speech. They're not using violence to try to
Speaker 1: attain their goal. Islamism is by being a supporter of Islamism,
Speaker 1: you're supporting the you're supporting the regimes that would take
Speaker 1: over the Western world and enslaved to Sharia. That cannot
Speaker 1: be accepted. But then again, the West has to identified
Speaker 1: the enemy, has to identified the enemy. So Islamists, not
Speaker 1: all Muslims, not all Muslims at all, not even all
Speaker 1: religious Muslims, but all Islamists, all those who adhere to that,
Speaker 1: and there are a lot of them. Let's be clear.
Speaker 1: I don't know what percentage of the immigrants of Islamists,
Speaker 1: but it's not any significant percent. Might not be, not
Speaker 1: be a majority, but it's not any significant percent. They
Speaker 1: gotta go. I mean, if you if you know, if
Speaker 1: you were an active communists, and we would war with
Speaker 1: communism active communists, participating communists, then yeah, you know there
Speaker 1: would be consequences. Now, we were never at war with
Speaker 1: Communism in the same way that we're war with Islamism
Speaker 1: right now. So certainly no immigration from the for Islamists.
Speaker 1: And you have to be very skeptical of immigration from
Speaker 1: Muslim countries because of that. So you have to be
Speaker 1: you have to be super super what do you call it,
Speaker 1: restrictive in terms of immigration Muslim countries. And that was
Speaker 1: the joke of Trump's restrictions and Muslim immigration, right, but
Speaker 1: it was okay to come from Saudi Arabia, no special
Speaker 1: screening for Saudis, even though fifteen of the terrorists and
Speaker 1: nine to eleven was Saudis. It was just inconsistent and
Speaker 1: stupid and into whoever lobbied the hardest. It had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with actual national security, James. There's no ability
Speaker 1: to claim try to improve government efficiency without being able
Speaker 1: to vet immigrants, prevent them from taking public benefits, or
Speaker 1: address whatever security concerns they claimed. Yeah, I mean they
Speaker 1: have no ability to claim to try. Yes, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean you should be able to do all that. It
Speaker 1: shouldn't be that hard. None of that is hard. None
Speaker 1: of that is hard, Jonathan says, is americanism. Ran mentioned
Speaker 1: there were no passports needed until World War One. Yes,
Speaker 1: bef World War One, there were no Nobody used the passport.
Speaker 1: People just went, They traveled from place to place. Sometimes
Speaker 1: they needed some kind of personal identification, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: if there was a state of war or some crisis
Speaker 1: or something. But most of the time they just traveled
Speaker 1: from place to place. Nobody was strict to them, just
Speaker 1: like you do in Europe today, within the European Union,
Speaker 1: within the shng GEN, you just drive. You cross borders
Speaker 1: all the time, and it's beautiful. It's a beautiful, beautiful thing.
Speaker 1: I love the shnghen in Europe, the idea that you
Speaker 1: can drive from France to Germany and to Austria, to
Speaker 1: Italy to Romania, to just drive. It's truly amazing. You
Speaker 1: fly into these countries, it's like domestic flights. That's in
Speaker 1: an ideal place. That would be that would be the world,
Speaker 1: that would be literally their world. There'd be no restrictions.
Speaker 1: We don't live in that world anymore. Sadly, Sadly, by
Speaker 1: the way, I mentioned, the American is a book, but
Speaker 1: this is an Americanism book really really crucial when you're
Speaker 1: talking about immigration and what is American, what American represents,
Speaker 1: what is America's American ideas America people? What is all that?
Speaker 1: You know? Read this book? Jonathan Honing edited it. Was
Speaker 1: there a section of immigration here? Yeah? I don't think
Speaker 1: there was, But I've got an essay here and I
Speaker 1: think I covered immigration there. I can't remember, but yeah,
Speaker 1: go to Amazon buy the book, read it. Read it
Speaker 1: more importantly. Okay, John, I live in Minneapolis and con
Speaker 1: doing leaving because it's becoming a shithole because of some Alis. Okay, leave?
Speaker 1: Why is that supposed to bother anybody? You know? When
Speaker 1: when Irish showed up in Boston, people were horrified, Many
Speaker 1: people wanted to leave. People wouldn't employ Irish people. A
Speaker 1: lot of places, you know, people immigrant people moved there
Speaker 1: and the locals didn't like them, and they left. So
Speaker 1: leave Minneapolis. You don't like it. Leave? Who's holding you
Speaker 1: back in Minneapolis? The fact that immigrants come and they
Speaker 1: change something, maybe for the worst in some cases. But
Speaker 1: remember too, some Alis came there, not on work visas,
Speaker 1: they came there because of again some kind of humanitarian efforts,
Speaker 1: some kind of some kind of asylum stuff, some kind
Speaker 1: of altruistic bs. Would the same Somalis be in Minneapolis
Speaker 1: if they had to show if they had to get
Speaker 1: a job before they showed up with the same Somalis
Speaker 1: be in Minneapolis if the system was the way I
Speaker 1: described it, Probably not. Probably not. So you know, the
Speaker 1: fact that you don't like Somalis and you don't like
Speaker 1: the ship hole, they've created a leave b that has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with what I'm proposing, nothing to do
Speaker 1: with what I'm proposing, Andrews says, preversing rand racism is
Speaker 1: a crude form of collectivism and individualist racist is a
Speaker 1: contradiction in terms yep. By the way, I've heard from
Speaker 1: other places in Minneapol, Minnesota where some Alis went to
Speaker 1: work and there's not a big Somali community, but they
Speaker 1: went to work in more Rule, Minnesota that they're great
Speaker 1: employees and they do great and they live in the
Speaker 1: community and they have no problems with them. So it's
Speaker 1: partially why these particular Somalis are in Minneapolis. And it
Speaker 1: has to do with family unification, and it has to
Speaker 1: do with asylum seekers, and it has to do with
Speaker 1: all these altruistic reasons. The all immigration. It doesn't have
Speaker 1: to do with the kind of requirements that I'm suggesting.
Speaker 1: And another hand, will there be no localized negative implications? Yeah,
Speaker 1: they will be. You don't have a right for your environment,
Speaker 1: not the au breathe of the water you drink, not
Speaker 1: to be turned into shithole by your neighbors. You don't
Speaker 1: have a right to a job. You don't have a
Speaker 1: right to a wage. It is what it is, and
Speaker 1: if you don't like it, do something about it. One
Speaker 1: of the things you can do about is move I
Speaker 1: you know, it's part of life. Uh No, I don't
Speaker 1: want to answer that. Wait, no, not that I want
Speaker 1: to answer it later. Okay, John again, Have Muslims in
Speaker 1: France may made the society better. Many Muslims in Fans
Speaker 1: have some of their best artists in fans, some of
Speaker 1: the best musicians in fans, some of the most you know,
Speaker 1: the best cultural people in the culture and in economy
Speaker 1: are Muslims. Many have not for the reasons I've already stated,
Speaker 1: because the laws and fans have not been enforced. Welfare
Speaker 1: has been generously provided, the whole neighborhoods are not policed,
Speaker 1: Islamists are not kept out. But are they Muslims in
Speaker 1: fans that have contributed immensely to French culture and the
Speaker 1: French economy. Absolutely, unequivocally. Why would they not? Is it
Speaker 1: impossible for Muslim to be an incredible employee? Is it
Speaker 1: impossible for Muslim to be a good novelist or no?
Speaker 1: It depends on what it means to say that a
Speaker 1: Muslim house seriously, they take their religion. It's pure collectivism.
Speaker 1: It's pure collectivism as fans screwed up its attitude towards
Speaker 1: immigrants and towards Muslims, Muslim immigrants in particular. Absolutely, but
Speaker 1: that's what my policy is trying to amend for. And again,
Speaker 1: Europe is somewhat different animal than the United States. Boba.
Speaker 1: I love these questions, not Boba's question, these other you know,
Speaker 1: John's questions. He always asks these questions. He doesn't really
Speaker 1: care about my answer. He doesn't care one. I mean,
Speaker 1: at least he puts money to it, so I appreciate
Speaker 1: that and I respect that, But he doesn't care about
Speaker 1: what my answer is. That got your questions, questions to
Speaker 1: get you the audience to think, oh, Jon doesn't know
Speaker 1: what he's talking about John just got him Muslims and fans.
Speaker 1: I got him. That's the only purpose. The purpose is
Speaker 1: not I'm curious what Jeron thinks about this. He knows
Speaker 1: exactly what I think about it. It's just, yeah, they
Speaker 1: have no productive purpose. But it's five bucks. I'll take it. Boba.
Speaker 1: Fabulous show tonight. The thought of what the US could
Speaker 1: be is exciting. Maybe some way, some day it will
Speaker 1: be maybe, maybe we walk towards that. All right, let's
Speaker 1: see Mary Eleen. Many people don't want to have to
Speaker 1: work harder, and above all, they don't think they should
Speaker 1: have to learn new skills. The divine writer is stagnation. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: it's a great esset by Iron Ran. It's absolutely true.
Speaker 1: And look, they don't have to work harder, but they
Speaker 1: need they need to accept the consequence of the decisions.
Speaker 1: They need to accept the consequence of the decisions. Don't
Speaker 1: work hard it but have low, low income, less wealth,
Speaker 1: you know, don't learn new skills. That means you'll you'll
Speaker 1: degrade in the economic status and the quality of your career. Fine,
Speaker 1: that is, people can do it. It's a it's a
Speaker 1: as i Ran described it, it's a slow, agonizing death.
Speaker 1: They can do it. America is the land of the free.
Speaker 1: You're free to die, you free to kill yourself, you
Speaker 1: free to com meet suicide. I said that too. I
Speaker 1: forget his name, Sullivan, Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Andrew Sullivan.
Speaker 1: He flipped out. I mean, he completely freaked out, you know,
Speaker 1: because he wanted what he called, uh, rocking chair conservatives,
Speaker 1: front porch conservatives, funch porch conservatives. You know, sit on
Speaker 1: the go to work, work eight hours, make enough of
Speaker 1: a living so you can relax on your funch porch,
Speaker 1: in your rocking chair and just just chill, just chill.
Speaker 1: That is his ideal. I mean, it's not how he lives,
Speaker 1: but he sees nothing wrong with people advocating for stagnation.
Speaker 1: It's sad, is what it is. It's just sad. No says,
Speaker 1: you don't have a racist bone in your body. I
Speaker 1: like that about you, Yon, Thank you. That's a real compliment.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. No, let's see ic Saracen. The Ottoman
Speaker 1: Empire hired Spanish Jews in their administration. Should the Taliban
Speaker 1: consider hiding Orthodox Jews to help govern Afghanistan? I think
Speaker 1: the Ottoman Empire was a lot more secular than the Taliban.
Speaker 1: I think pretty much anybody is more secular than the Taliban,
Speaker 1: And I don't I don't know what to do with
Speaker 1: that question. Should the Taliban obviously they won't. All right,
Speaker 1: unrelated questions, we have four of them. Oh wait, what
Speaker 1: are your favorite places to visit in New York City?
Speaker 1: I'm here for New Years. Wow. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: cold right now. So the first fifth Avenue in the
Speaker 1: whole Midtown area and and you know, uh, what do
Speaker 1: you call it? Central Park? The lights? Central Park is beautiful.
Speaker 1: I haven't been in the winter in a long time,
Speaker 1: but it's it's beautiful. And if it's snows, it's gorgeous,
Speaker 1: all white, it's all lit up. That whole area is
Speaker 1: lit up. The stores are lit up. That's amazing. So
Speaker 1: just walking around Manhattan is fun. I like, you know,
Speaker 1: when I'm there as a tourist, I like, I'd like
Speaker 1: to go down to the old where the Twin Towers were,
Speaker 1: and and and the monument there is is is very emotional.
Speaker 1: Going up to the top of the new tower, what's
Speaker 1: it called Liberty Tower something like that to see the
Speaker 1: view is amazing. There's another place that has a great
Speaker 1: view further uptown. Oh god, I forget the name of
Speaker 1: that district. Anyway, there are a lot of areas that
Speaker 1: are pretty to walk. Okay, so so downtown, you want
Speaker 1: to go see Wall Street. It's just cool to see
Speaker 1: Wall Street and to walk around that area to see
Speaker 1: the Twin Towers or where the Twin Towers were. Take
Speaker 1: up boat ride if the weather permits around Manhattan at night.
Speaker 1: It's beautiful to the go to the what do you
Speaker 1: call it, Statue of Liberty, go up to the Empire
Speaker 1: State Building. Yeah, Greenwich Village in Soho and nice, a
Speaker 1: lot of great restaurants. Yeah. I mean that's that's the start.
Speaker 1: Thanks se Bubas. I suggest that you that you get
Speaker 1: onto big venues like Stossel and Bill Maher, you will
Speaker 1: get one million subscribers. So I won't get one million subscribers.
Speaker 1: I can guarantee that I wish that would be nice,
Speaker 1: but I won't be And I'm not going to get
Speaker 1: on Bill Maher. I don't think Bill Maher has had
Speaker 1: lots of opportunities to have me on and he's turned
Speaker 1: him down. I've been on Stossel many many times. I
Speaker 1: mean Stosso uses me on his videos all the time.
Speaker 1: I mean, I encounter recuts of my interviews with Stosso
Speaker 1: and I used to be on a television show all
Speaker 1: the time, and so I've done a lot of Stosso.
Speaker 1: But I am doing his one on one interviews. So
Speaker 1: he's got a new series of one on one interviews
Speaker 1: that he launched, and I will be interviewed on January
Speaker 1: twenty second. I think I'm going to New York and
Speaker 1: he'll interview me. I think it's an hour long interview,
Speaker 1: so it's not like Lex Friedman three four hour interviews.
Speaker 1: It'll be an hour. But that should be good and
Speaker 1: that'll give me some subscribers. It won't give me a million,
Speaker 1: but it'll give me some subscribers, so that'll be good.
Speaker 1: But I will be I mean, I've I've had dinner
Speaker 1: in Stossel's apartment years ago, and yeah, and I think
Speaker 1: I think it would be it would be I think
Speaker 1: the interview will be good and I think it will
Speaker 1: definitely I'll see a jump up and subscriber's just not
Speaker 1: as large as Babis thinks. Unfortunately, I wish he was right,
Speaker 1: all right. Action Jackson says, if Israel we're able to
Speaker 1: I don't know what that says with beepers to kill
Speaker 1: Grisbela with beepers. Why should we not worry about China
Speaker 1: et cetera doing the same thing in people in the
Speaker 1: US iPhones or other tech well partially because something like
Speaker 1: the iPhone, Apple controls the supply chain from the beginning
Speaker 1: to end. It It isn't buying blindly from Chinese companies.
Speaker 1: Apple is at every stage of production, in every single
Speaker 1: stage it is, you know, controlling what goes into the iPhone.
Speaker 1: How it's built, quality control everything, as do most American companies,
Speaker 1: even when they produce stuff or buy stuff in China.
Speaker 1: There are all kinds of quality controls. Now when you
Speaker 1: buy a purely Chinese product, and a lot of the
Speaker 1: products we are purely Chinese, you should be worried. I mean,
Speaker 1: it could explode like the beepers. It probably won't because
Speaker 1: the Chinese, I don't think interested in going to war
Speaker 1: with America. But for example, a lot of you have
Speaker 1: Wi Fi routers that are made in China, one hundred
Speaker 1: percent made in China. Most of those probably have gate
Speaker 1: ways to Chinese intelligence if they wanted to access them
Speaker 1: and steal all your data. Just so you know, you
Speaker 1: might want to make sure it's encrypted on your hard
Speaker 1: drive so that you know whatever. I don't know, but yeah,
Speaker 1: you should be worried about stuff made in China. This
Speaker 1: is why, you know why way it was discovered that
Speaker 1: the telecommunication equipment was completely available to Chinese intelligence, completely
Speaker 1: open to them, and that's why they were banned from
Speaker 1: the United States basically during the Trump administration because it
Speaker 1: was clearly they were facilitating providing information in Chinese. So yeah,
Speaker 1: anybody could do it, but they have to have the incentive,
Speaker 1: the reason, and the capabilities. One reason to buy name
Speaker 1: brands like Samsung and Ife and Apple is that they
Speaker 1: have responsibility over the entire supply chain from beginning to end.
Speaker 1: Hop up. How does South Korea score on the Economic
Speaker 1: Freedom indecks? The only good TV shows seem to be
Speaker 1: coming from South Korea. Squid Games season two is actually
Speaker 1: pretty creative. I don't know. I mean season one was
Speaker 1: so bad I can't imagine season two being worth watching.
Speaker 1: Let's see, how do they score in economic freedom indecks?
Speaker 1: I don't actually know. I mean top thirty, top twenty maybe,
Speaker 1: but certainly top thirty. We can do this South Korea
Speaker 1: Economic Freedom Index. There are two different ones, two economic
Speaker 1: freedom indexes. South Korea's Economic freedom INEXES seventy three point one,
Speaker 1: making its economy the fourteenth so higher than I expected
Speaker 1: even fist economy in twenty fourteen based on the Heritage Index.
Speaker 1: Let's see if there's there's another index put out by CATO.
Speaker 1: Let's see if we can get that Economic Freedom Index
Speaker 1: of the world. Korea is thirty second based on that one.
Speaker 1: So according to Heritage fourteen, based on CATO thirty two.
Speaker 1: So my guess in the twenty to the thirties were
Speaker 1: pretty good, so twenties. So they're fear than France even
Speaker 1: according to CATO, fear in Italy, fear in Mexico. They're
Speaker 1: not as fi as Taiwan, not as fier as Japan
Speaker 1: or Germany according to CATO. But according to Heritage fourteen
Speaker 1: is way up there, would put them, you know, higher
Speaker 1: than a lot of countries. I'm not sure what the US.
Speaker 1: What's the US based on the Heritage one. Oops, it's Uruguay.
Speaker 1: We know Uruguay. United States use is twenty fifth, so
Speaker 1: freer than the US according to the Heritage So pretty
Speaker 1: free relatively speaking, not absolutely speaking. All right, everybody, thank you.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate all the super chatters, appreciate the support.
Speaker 1: Don't forget I expect all of you to be there tomorrow,
Speaker 1: at least for a little while. If you thought today's
Speaker 1: was a great show, then come show your appreciation tomorrow
Speaker 1: right with with a sticker or super chat. I expect
Speaker 1: a lot of super chats, and you know, hopefully we
Speaker 1: can blow through the fifteen thousand dollars number. The more
Speaker 1: I think about it, the more it should be twenty.
Speaker 1: But we'll take it one step at a time. We
Speaker 1: can always change the goal mid show. So see all
Speaker 1: tomorrow one pm East Coast time. It'll go on for
Speaker 1: about four hours. And what will the topics? What will
Speaker 1: be the topics? Earn fifteen thousand dollars. Fifteen thousand dollars
Speaker 1: is all the topics that we've covered during the year.
Speaker 1: So it's a show of appreciation for all the topics
Speaker 1: that I've covered. But the topic for the show tomorrow
Speaker 1: will be a as I always do at the end
Speaker 1: of the year, a look back at twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: summer way of the year. All right, okay, guys, I
Speaker 1: will see you tomorrow. Thank you really appreciate it. If
Speaker 1: you like the show, don't forget to share it. Like
Speaker 1: it on the way out and see tomorrow. Bye everybody.