October 14, 2024 • 31 mins
In this episode of "The Fourscore Project," Roger Clark continues his in-depth discussion with Jeremy Carl, a fellow at the Claremont Institute, on the ongoing immigration crisis in the United States. Building on their previous conversation, Carl delves into the societal and institutional risks posed by uncontrolled immigration, comparing the current situation in the U.S. to historical precedents. The discussion explores how rapid demographic changes, fueled by immigration, could erode social trust and alter the fabric of American society. Carl also addresses the political motivations behind the push for increased immigration, including the desire to shift the political landscape and provide businesses with cheap labor. The episode concludes with a reflection on the broader implications of these trends for the future of America.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:21):
Welcome to this episode of the Four Score
and seven Project, a productionof the New Majority Foundation.
My name is Roger Clark. Your host.
Today, once again, we return to a subject
that is possibly the most contentiousand controversial topic in America.
This is parttwo of the immigration crisis,
and we will continue with our effortsto peel back the bewildering onion layers
(00:42):
of this complex
and politicized issue to better understandthe causes and implications
of just why it might be the most profoundtransition of a single civilization
because of uncontrolled immigrationin thousands of years.
Once again, we are pleased to have,
as our guest today,the eminent scholar Jeremy Carl.
You may remember from last timethat he's currently
a fellow at the Claremont Institutein Southern California,
(01:05):
a past research fellow at StanfordUniversity's Hoover Institution
and a former deputy assistant secretarywith the Department of the Interior.
Jeremy is a graduate of Yale Universityand the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University,and he is the best selling author,
author of the book The Unprotected Classthat's now available in bookstores.
(01:26):
And online.
Welcome once again, Jeremy.
Thanks so much for having me on. It'spleasure to be with you.
Well, we started last timeand I suppose will remember this.
We were comparing the fall of the ancientRoman Empire, Western Roman Empire
to uncontrolled immigrationwith the uncontrolled immigration
that's going onin the United States today.
And the implication that it has,whether rightly or wrongly, whether
(01:49):
the United Statesmay fall from the same fate
that the Roman Empire,once upon a time suffered
because of the creationof a new civilization and the collapse
of the governmentand the culture of that civilization.
We finish.
We finish with the questionwith rapid transition in American society
today, can American as we know itand its institutions survive?
(02:12):
And I want to come back in part two ofthis episode and begin with that question.
What what risk are our institutions
exposed to at the present timebecause of the uncontrolled immigration
that we're experiencing?
Yeah, I mean,
I think the risks are hugeand existential,
which is whyI kind of posed that question.
I mean, a you kind of have a certaincultural memory and an institutional
(02:33):
memory that with uncontrolledimmigration is at risk of being lost.
There's sort of a way of doing things.
There's what we would calla kind of high trust society again.
And you have a rapid changein the composition of a population,
whether it's by illegal or illegal means.
You have a reduction in that trust.
(02:54):
And there's in fact a very well-knownsociologist named Robert Putnam at Harvard
who wrote a book called Bowling Alonethat maybe some of your your viewers will
have heard of.
But one of the things that he found inhis research
is that as a societybecomes more and more diverse,
particularly over a rapid period of time,social trust really collapses.
(03:15):
And interestingly,the not just kind of social trust
in between groups, and you might be ableto kind of understand
why that might be the case.
But even within groups,social trust tends to collapse.
So Asian-Americans
will trust other Asian-Americansless in a highly diverse society.
That's not an intuitive finding,but that is a finding, at least to me.
But it is a finding thatthat Putnam has in his work.
(03:36):
But even more so, we lack a sort of senseof a common history,
a common tradition that we appeal to,a sort of
common goal in being Americans.
And we have people coming inwith radically different
kind of ideas of the good culturaltraditions, traditions of government.
And so invariably, that is going to have
(03:57):
a tendency to kind of weakenour existing institutions.
And again, that's irrespective of whetherthe individual immigrant themself is
or him or herself is a, you know, asensational person who wants to contribute
by just a certain number, you're goingto attenuate your existing traditions.
It's just a math problem, basically.
Referring to the math problem.
(04:19):
Do social scientists give us any idea
of what is the maximumamount of annual immigration
that any nation can sustain
without being at risk of losing its longstanding institutions and traditions?
You know, I'm not aware of it.
And if I were, I would be very particularabout
causing the problem in that strict a way.
(04:41):
I would say that we are already,you know, just
without kind of kind of trying to come upwith an overarching theory.
When I look at our society,when I look in particular at California,
we're past that point.
And I
saw back when I lived in the PaloAlto area amongst a very, very high
functioning pro-social group of neighbors,but neighbors from all around the world,
(05:05):
most really not neighbors with one kindof family traditions in the U.S.
that eventually these traditionskind of attenuate and
even social cooperation between groups
attenuates and just the
the kind of general community doesn't havethe same cohesiveness that it used to.
(05:25):
So I don't know
that there is any kind of one pointestimate number that I'd point to.
But it's I'd say that unfortunately,California is is blowing well past that,
which doesn't mean that you shouldjust throw up your hands and do nothing.
But it does really pointto the importance of
getting control of our immigration system,
(05:46):
slowing the pace of immigrationquite a bit so that we can as best
we can, assimilate the immigrationimmigrants who we already have here.
You had a fascinatingcomment and observation
and you said that in the
last six decades, America's government
has created a new American people.
(06:06):
What does that mean?
Yeah, well, yeah,it can mean a lot of things.
But one of the things that it means
is that you've just addeda bunch of people from
well outside of America's historictraditions again, if you were to go back.
So modern immigration policy in Americato slightly but not meaningfully
oversimplify, is kind of governed by a lawcalled the Hartzler
(06:31):
Immigration Act of 1965.
That was what replaced the 1925Johnson Reed Immigration Act
or sorry, the 1924Johnson Reed Immigration Act and Hartzler.
When it was passed, we were promised,it's not going to be literally
I mean, promised in the debates.
This isn't going to changethe demographics of the U.S.
in big ways, blah, blah, blah.
(06:52):
It's just kind of fixing things.
And in fact,
it kind of created a radically new countrywith prospective demographics.
So what do I mean by that?
If you were to go backand look at the 1960 census,
which was the last one done beforeart seller, you would find a country
that it was about 85% non-Hispanic white,
ten or 11% African-American.
(07:13):
And, you know, 4% everything else.
And that's Asian-Americans,Hispanics, Native Americans.
Interestingly,also the Hispanic population,
we had a number of these in Californiaat the time, 80%
native born at this pointas opposed to less than 60% today.
So in many cases,the Hispanic population of the U.S.
at that time is very well
(07:34):
integrated into the sort of broader Anglo,if you will, majority.
And many of them in the casesof, say, parts of California and Texas,
are actually peoplewho had been in the United States
since before those states were evenpart of the United States.
So they have very long, deep rootsin the culture and tradition.
Fast forward to 2020 after Heart Cellarand 60 years of that.
(07:58):
And we were at about, I think, 57 or 58%
white non-Hispanic country at this point.
Among the youth in the country.
It is now a white minority.
And you've had a total inversion,
a kind of demographic revolutionthat's taken place.
And every passing day we have moreand more that kind of happening
(08:19):
because disproportionately immigrants to
the United States are not comingfrom the traditional sources in Europe,
which provided all of our substantiallyall of our immigrants up through the hard
sell our law,but from all around the world.
So it's really been a dramatic,dramatic change.
So the hard sell law,I believe, is the law that made it.
I think
(08:39):
family, immigration,you can bring in your family members,
which leads to chain migrationand greatly liberal rise.
The number of peoplecoming into this country, if I remember
my statistics correctly, by 1850, 10% ofthe country was foreign born.
I think 1900.
The percentage in this countrythat was foreign
(09:00):
born is about what it is now,if not slightly more.
But because of the 1924 law,immigration was restricted and by 1970
it was a very low percentage of peoplethat were foreign born in this country.
In that year, maybe about 5%.
So, no, it's gone back up since.
But this is my question becauseas you were talking, I was listening
and everyone who's y who'sbeen listening to the show is aware
(09:23):
of how hardened society has become inthe past few years.
People are intolerant of one another.
There's so much anger
that seems to be everywhere from airplanesto the things that's happening on
the street that the point of getting thatis this uncontrolled immigration.
People, people different mores,different values, different cultures.
Is that contributing to that sense ofanger and divisiveness that we have now?
(09:48):
Well, I think absolutely,because people are looking
and they're angryabout the level of immigration
and they are looking in their communitiesand they see a community that they don't
even recognize in terms of itsits cultural, its values, its history.
So I think that's been part of it.
And then also just the part of, again,no matter how great immigrants are,
(10:10):
you just have a more diversified societyand a more diverse society.
I argueagain, is one with a lot more challenges
to kind of creatingthe sort of unified policy
that I think is is sort of the most strongboth at home and abroad.
And I think you touched on these numbersvery meaningfully.
I mean, in the late 19th century,we got up to about 14.3% or something
(10:33):
immigrant, which was the highest it hadbeen, and was one of the things that led
to ushaving these immigration restriction laws.
But by 1970, that had gone down to 4.7%.
And these were very disproportionately oldat that point.
So it was athat was the world I was born into.
And it's a radically,radically different world than the world
that we're experiencing today.
(10:54):
How long does it take to fully assimilatea new group?
Are we talking aboutone generation, several generations?
I think it depends.
I think it depends on the willingnessof the group to assimilate.
It depends to a degree on physicallyobservable difference.
I mean, I think this is this is
there is no way to kind of whitewashthis and make it easier than it is.
Right.
But like, if I'm a Polish American
(11:17):
or even moremaybe an Irish-American or whatever,
and I show up in Americain the late 19th century
and I marry somebody of eventually
of pilgrims and ancestry,and we have kids not only whatever mores
and everything elsethat those kids will inherit, but
physically you probably couldn'ttell you know, unless you're
(11:39):
some sort of racial expertin some weird way.
You couldn't tell the differencebetween that person's kids
and the kids of somebody who'd been therefor generations and generations.
When you add the kind of multiracialor multiethnic
kind of dimension of this,that becomes harder.
Now, again,
maybe among some groups of Hispanicsthat also have a lot of European ancestry,
(12:03):
if they're intermarryingwith white non-Hispanics, there are kids
not just in terms of culture,but in terms of their ethnic background.
They may kind of resemblea lot more America's historical majority.
But for other groups,it's not always going to be that easy.
And then again, it it depends onhow much does the group want to assimilate
and how much does the societywant that group to assimilate.
(12:24):
So I think unless you really messed it
up, it's not going to be likea five generation process.
I think in,
you know, two or three generations,people will tend to be pretty assimilated.
I know that they've done, for example,work on third generation
Hispanics in the United States,and I think pretty overwhelmingly
they speak Englishas their first language, for example.
(12:44):
Right.
So you can point to certain signslike that where assimilation does happen.
But again, assimilation is never just aone way street.
So the problem is,if the groups are big enough,
the receiving culture changesin some pretty fundamental ways.
And if you're like meand maybe you're not always fine,
not that it's ever goingto be completely static,
(13:05):
but you're not fond of totallytransforming the existing culture,
then that's, that's its own problemthat needs to be dealt with.
I think the Chinese culture is mostfamously effective at assimilation.
The Mongols who came in becameactually the leaders of China, became
more Chinese, and the Chinese themselvesafter a generation or two.
Yeah, absolutely.
And China, I kind of dida lot of Chinese history as an undergrad.
(13:27):
China was notoriously great for this.
You had the Manchus, you had the Mongols,and all of them became heavily
synthesized over time and that that can goin interesting reverse ways.
If, for example,I used I lived in India as a newlywed.
My wife and I are both Americans,but we we moved out there.
I was doing work out there.
The most British people I ever met inmy life were upper class Indians,
(13:51):
much more so than any upper class peopleI met in Britain.
They really had kind of assimilatedcertain sorts
of British cultural Moorish from the Rajera that even a couple of generations
down, we're still very durable
in terms of how they presented themselvesand how they thought about themselves.
And of course, I'm not suggesting that
within that they didn'tstill obviously have a a large degree
(14:15):
of inherent in kindness and respectand pride in their own culture.
But it is to say that that receiving
and giving cultures can unsurprisingly,have really big effects on each other.
Well, you know, culture and race oftenget identified as being synonymous,
but in my point of view,they're really not.
We talk about the white culture,but it could just as easily have been,
(14:35):
in theory, a black cultureor a brown culture or whatever.
But we're really talking about a culture
that originated in Western Europeand that was transplanted and then built
and developed upon in this country,beginning in the Enlightenment period.
Absolutely.
And I do not make the mistake in my book
of conflating race and culture,even ethnicity and culture.
(14:56):
I mean, I think I've touchedon the Hungarian example
in the previous episodeas a kind of extreme example of how
you can have those two thingsbe very disjoint, but at the same time,
it tends to not be totally irrelevant overtime, ethnicity with respect to culture.
And so you need to respect that,that reality.
(15:17):
But yeah, I mean, I ultimately thinkthat it's a good thing that,
that ultimately somebodyfrom whatever background
can eventually become an Americanor certainly their children
will can become fully American.
And by kind of embracingwhat I would consider the traditional
American principles and goals.
But but the problem is, of course,now that's just my perspective.
(15:40):
We don't necessarilyhave a view on what those goals are.
And again,at the level of immigration that we have,
it becomes very difficultto sustain the existing culture
without it really being disruptedand changed
in some pretty fundamental waysthat are we speaking personally?
You know, I'm not necessarily
fond of saying I kind of liked the countrythat I grew up in, and I'm not
(16:02):
I don't want to fundamentallytransform it.
Well,you have a couple of interesting quotes
in your book, and it's just fascinatingto me to see the arc
and that that's happened in the past120, 25 years or so.
What you bring to light in your writingsand I want to talk about that
for just a moment, but it also implicatesthe current culture wars, what's right
(16:22):
and what's good, what is entitledto be transmitted to the next generation.
What do you all thatdoesn't want to be can
and should be canceledfor whatever reason.
And I think in the late 18,
maybe around 1900, Rudyard Kiplingwrote his poem White Man's Burden,
and it was unapologetic.
It was something that he was proud of.
(16:44):
I think it was written to encouragethe United States to join the Europe
and the other countries treaty would helpto, quote, civilize other countries.
I think in that particular instance,
it was a reference to,you know, to the Philippines.
Well, of course, by today's standards,that's racist race.
Understand that.
But then by the 1966 and Sontagand you quote this in your book wrote
(17:05):
that the white raceis the cancer surface of human society.
And it seems as if hishis writings in 1960
have really had a profound impact,along with a lot of other people as well
in terms of a lot of thought processes
in this country today is what are yourwhat are your thoughts on that?
Yeah, absolutely right.
(17:25):
And you kind of went from sortof what sort of. Freeman And
Rudyard Kipling is kind of the avatar
of a certain colonial mindsetand I use that.
I mean, the colonial and colonial pasthas just become so abused
in recent decadesthat there's sort of some
automatic assumption that when I saythat I'm being really critical.
(17:46):
No, I mean, I think colonialism had
certain things that it didthat were very beneficial and it did,
you know, certain things about itthat were not beneficial for
the countries that were being colonized.
But Kipling representedwith his kind of idea
of this white man's burden, the extremeend of that civilizational confidence.
And I say extreme.
We would look at it now as extreme.
(18:07):
At the time it was very mainstream,which is why he had such a following
as he did.
And he was also,of course, a very astute observer of the
and a fond observer of the country,India, that he lived in,
you know, a very, very differentsort of mentality
than the Susan Sontag mentality, whichI think you correctly note has sort of
(18:27):
taken over things where the White manis the cancer of human history.
And, you know, I think that
that trade is maybe not necessarilythen such a good one.
And it certainly has crept
into the political debate,I think, over immigration,
what how immigration lawshould be structured
in this country and enforced, which whichwhich kind of brings me to the point,
(18:48):
like, did we've been talking aboutlegal immigration and illegal immigration.
Let's talk a little bit about the laws
on immigration.
And, you know, this is very confusing on
media and television cable channels.
Everybody throws a lot of terms
without really ever defining themor giving them any kind of structure.
And it's not really clear
(19:08):
to a lot of people, including myself,what exactly is legal and illegal.
And now getting ready for this interview,I did a little work.
My understandingis that under current law,
there's about 675,000 visasauthorized annually.
There's supposed to bean application process
from someonewanting to come to this country,
a process, the application
(19:29):
that's supposed to be made
outside the country and the visa is givento someone that that comes here.
Those would be,I assume, legal immigrants.
And then and then on top of that,you have people
who legitimately are seekingrefugee status for one reason or another.
We can think of, you know, in Vietnam,
with the collapse of the South Vietnam,a lot of Vietnamese came to this country
(19:50):
as refugees, Cubans in the early 1990,you know, the same thing.
And there's been other examples of that,that what is the basis of everyone else
coming to this country, the bunch of floodof people coming to Mexico,
coming across the border, border, callthose illegals.
Are these peopleofficially seeking refugee status
but not doing it according towhat is required legally?
(20:12):
So it's a mix.
And I'm glad you brought this upbecause it's an important concept.
So some do seek refugee status.
And here I think you'reI think, an important thing to note.
So basically, almost none of these peoplethis is a dirty little secret
you don't get from the kind of so-calledmainstream media.
Almost none of these peoplehave legitimate asylum claims.
(20:33):
There's a variety of it which doesn't meanthat I mean, first of all,
most of them are just economic migrantsno matter what they're claiming.
Okay.
So let's dispense with that.
And Jeremy. On that point, then, asylum.
So what we're talking about,people who are legitimate
asylum seekers are thosewho are being politically persecuted
as opposed to coming from a countrythat doesn't have the same
(20:53):
economic opportunities as they might findin this country, correct?
Correct.
So that's you know, the vast majorityof these people are not actually fleeing
even either kind of own terms,any sort of political persecution.
They're just looking for bettereconomic opportunities.
By the way,
I want to stress again, because I'm reallyI don't try to bash the immigrants.
I bash the leaders of our countrythat have allowed this to happen.
(21:16):
I mean, I spent yearsin the developing world.
I have full appreciation for whya lot of those folks want to come here.
I'd probably be making
a lot of the same decisionsthey made if I were in their shoes.
But that's differentthan what America should be doing.
So first of all, you have to understand
the vast majority of these people,whether or not
they're even making an asylumclaim, are just economic migrants.
(21:37):
Then even beyond that, if you lookat those who are making asylum claims,
there are various rules of politicalasylum that basically say
like the first place you get tothat is kind of
not your country in which you'renot going to be actively super persecuted.
That's where you have to make your asylumapplication.
So that is almost never the United Statesfor any of these people.
(21:59):
So that's why I say that virtually all ofthese asylum claims are not legitimate.
So you know,if you're going through Mexico
and you're a Salvadoran, a personnow, Salvador, it's kind of El Salvador,
it's kind of turned around.
But if you're a Honduran or a Venezuelanor whatever, you can't just go through
12 other countries and show up at Americaand claim asylum at our borders.
(22:20):
It doesn't work like that.
I mean, functionally,unfortunately it does.
But the law says that it doesn't.
And the media, because they love ingeneral illegal immigration.
And I'm you know, that sounds harsh.
It's just the reality.
I mean, that's revealedby the way they cover it.
They tend to avoidjust kind of this basic demonstrated fact.
(22:40):
So almost none of the group of peoplewho are arriving here
as sort of unauthorized immigrants haveany legal claim to be here whatsoever.
They're either economic migrants, inwhich case they have no claim to be here,
or they are people with legitimate asylumclaims, perhaps somewhere,
but they would have had to make itin another country.
And then the Trump administration,there was an effort to, in fact,
(23:03):
make those folksthrough the Remain in Mexico policy,
at least have to make their asylumclaims at the border.
And they were still lying all the time.
And again, I'm not trying to be harsh.I understand why they're lying.
They want to get in America,
but at least they had to gothrough an authorized process
and they weren't in Americawhen they did it.
When Joe Biden took office.
That was one of the first benefitsthat I think even first day they did.
(23:24):
So, you know, that that encourageda lot more illegal immigration.
My understanding of the numbersis that during the Trump administration,
the number of illegals,not including the guy two ways,
was probably down to about 1800
to maybe 1500 average,maybe a thousand per day.
And asyou pointed out, once Biden took office
(23:46):
and and he became president,the policy changed
to the point where almost immediatelythe number of illegals crossing,
not including the guard, alwayswent up to four or five 6000 per day.
And todayit may be as high as 14 or 15,000 per day,
not including the got awaysor those numbers anyway, on point.
Yeah, I mean, I have to kind ofdo the math in my head,
(24:08):
but it sounds plausible.I mean, it's important.
I have in some of the workI've done kind of graph graph
of the numbers of illegal immigrantsthat we've had over a periods of time.
And you see them certainly being much,much higher in the early in recent
Democratic administrations is much higherthan they've ever been historically.
(24:28):
But Biden, if you were to show it,it's just off the charts.
I mean, it's it's not quite an order ofmagnitude, but it's several times greater
than really any other illegal immigrationtime that we've had in the United States.
And that's because illegal
immigrants have gotten newsthat Biden's just going to let them in.
The US no interest in enforcing the law.
So people will comein, they make their fake asylum claim.
(24:51):
They are transported at taxpayer expense
to the interior of the countrywhere they're then fed and clothed
and done all sorts of other thingsat taxpayer expense.
And in many cases,if not most, they have to wait years
for their hearing, which is not reallyan inconvenience to them,
because they can still sort ofthey're authorized to be in the U.S.
(25:11):
at the time that that's going on.
You can't really do anything about that.
And that's one of the reasonswhy I've seen hearings
scheduled for as long as sevenor eight years from the date.
So it's just absurd.
I mean, it's it's a it's a flagrantdereliction of duty by the president.
You know, I'm not going to say anythingmore about it than that, but it's just
(25:33):
it's really hard to square with any sortof respect for America and its laws.
With those who are met at the border.
Is there any assessmentabout those individuals
where they come fromor whether they have any criminal history,
any issues associated with a threatthat they may pose
in terms of the health and well-being
(25:54):
of other people in this countrywhen they arrive?
In theory, there should be.
But again, you can imagine governmentrecord keeping and everything else
we saw in the there were red flagsabout the 911 terrorists.
Right. Not all of them, but some of them.
And they got lost in various partsof the bureaucracy.
Right.
So I'm not going to saythat we never catch anybody through that
or that we don't ever identifyany people of concern.
(26:16):
But between the gateways and the people,that we're not catching through, that
you're letting a lot of very dangerous,
potentially dangerouscriminal aliens into the country.
So that's another real part of it.
I sometimes don't even talk aboutthat as much because I feel like it
can be a diversion from talking aboutthe very question of immigration itself,
(26:38):
which to me is separate from likewhether these immigrants are criminals
or whether they're really smartand lovely people.
But I think it's a fair thingto talk about.
I mean,
and if anything, maybe I've gone too muchthe other way where I'm sort of ignoring
the actual threats to national securityand crime that are real.
And we've seen a lot of this.
If you if you're on the right on Twitter,you'll see, unfortunately, a lot of cases
(27:02):
where people who are not herelegally have committed horrific crimes.
And with very little consequence.
Well, let's let's just change the focusjust slightly from the perspective
of the politics of it.
And it's not very clearwhat all the politics are at play
behind this.
And in terms of the decisionto open up the border,
(27:24):
whether the real reasonsare being given for that
or whether they've ever beenreally articulate that other than the fact
it's an anti-Trump reactionto what Trump did.
But what are the real reasons?
You know,if you're a history of American football,
you go back to the 1920s,one of the great open field
runners was Red Grange, you know,the so-called Galloping Ghost Girl.
And I think when it comes to politicians,they're all experts at being a
(27:46):
a good galloping ghost.
They may say waiting, but the realor the reason why they want to accomplish
a certain policy is not disclosedwhen it comes to opening up the borders.
You know, they're not
you know, the most common reason you hear,at least from commentators on the right,
is because the left wants to,
you know, increasethe power of the Democratic base.
(28:07):
I think you even make the point inyour book that with increased immigration,
the politics of the country generallydrift to the left as opposed to the right
and another possibility may be that we areare not even replacing our selves.
Well, I think our birthrate is about 1.6where I think the have at least 2.1
(28:28):
per births per woman of childbearing yearsto replace our population.
So you can you get an argumentthat maybe we want the immigration or
the immigration to, to increase
to maintain a growing population,having a healthy large
workforce age population disproportionateto senior citizens and all of that.
And the third reason that occurs to mewhat might be by
(28:51):
Venus is because, again, if people areimplementing the Susan Sontag,
you know, interpretation of history,that, you know, the white race is
is the cancer of all society,we need to replace the white race,
which gets into replacement theory,
which is that some people claimthat as being racist.
And that's a whole nother debate itself.
But what what do you thinkare the real reasons why
(29:13):
the Democrat administration wantsto open up the borders the way it has?
Well,I think all along or or back to that,
I think probably the biggestis the first one that you identified,
which is the Democrats see this, rightly
or wrongly,as a way to expand their power base
because they know that they've wonprecisely
(29:33):
one election, I think, since WorldWar Two among white voters.
So anything they can do to expanda nonwhite voting base,
they're going to do that.
I think we're seeingthere are some limits to.
That's true, that if you begin to see thisin 2020, when
Trump won some counties in South Texasthat had not gone Republican
for a generation, and these are like 99%
(29:55):
Latino counties or 98% Hispanic counties.
And I think we're going to see even moreof that in the upcoming election.
I think Trump is going to do very,very strongly,
at least on a relative basis,with Hispanics, and maybe that'll change
the immigration policya little bit, ironically, because of that.
But I think that political thing,I think the need to provide
I don't say needthey should strike that word.
(30:17):
But the desire of U.S.
businesses to have cheap labor,which is of course not really cheap
because they end up just foisting the costfor the health care and housing
and everything else and social serviceson the American taxpayer.
But a lot of American businesseswant cheap labor,
so they're going towelcome illegal immigration for this
(30:38):
reason as well.
Finally, as you kind of point out,I think there's some people
within the bureaucracy who are kind ofconstitutionally anti-white
and they want to replace the existingmajority white population
with other populations for their perceivedpolitical benefit and social benefit.
And because they just don'tlike white people in general.
(30:58):
And I think for that's notprobably decisive at this point.
But but I think it'sjust one of the many things
that contributes to the situationthat we're in.
It's been a fascinating conversationfor me.
When we return for partthree of the interview being,
we're going to talk aboutanother fascinating intercept
you raised in your book,what you call the cell suspicion parallax.
I'm looking forward to that conversation.
(31:20):
Thanks for being with us.
On this episode of the Fourscoreand Seven Project,
a productionof the New Majority Foundation.
My name is Roger Clark, your host.
Be sure to like and share
with your friends and be sure to join usfor part three of our program with Jeremy
when we will continue to explorethe immigration crisis in America.
Welcome to this episode of the Four Score
and seven Project, a productionof the New Majority Foundation.
My name is Roger Clark. Your host.
Today, once again, we return to a subject
that is possibly the most contentiousand controversial topic in America.
This is parttwo of the immigration crisis,
and we will continue with our effortsto peel back the bewildering onion layers
(00:42):
of this complex
and politicized issue to better understandthe causes and implications
of just why it might be the most profoundtransition of a single civilization
because of uncontrolled immigrationin thousands of years.
Once again, we are pleased to have,
as our guest today,the eminent scholar Jeremy Carl.
You may remember from last timethat he's currently
a fellow at the Claremont Institutein Southern California,
(01:05):
a past research fellow at StanfordUniversity's Hoover Institution
and a former deputy assistant secretarywith the Department of the Interior.
Jeremy is a graduate of Yale Universityand the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University,and he is the best selling author,
author of the book The Unprotected Classthat's now available in bookstores.
(01:26):
And online.
Welcome once again, Jeremy.
Thanks so much for having me on. It'spleasure to be with you.
Well, we started last timeand I suppose will remember this.
We were comparing the fall of the ancientRoman Empire, Western Roman Empire
to uncontrolled immigrationwith the uncontrolled immigration
that's going onin the United States today.
And the implication that it has,whether rightly or wrongly, whether
(01:49):
the United Statesmay fall from the same fate
that the Roman Empire,once upon a time suffered
because of the creationof a new civilization and the collapse
of the governmentand the culture of that civilization.
We finish.
We finish with the questionwith rapid transition in American society
today, can American as we know itand its institutions survive?
(02:12):
And I want to come back in part two ofthis episode and begin with that question.
What what risk are our institutions
exposed to at the present timebecause of the uncontrolled immigration
that we're experiencing?
Yeah, I mean,
I think the risks are hugeand existential,
which is whyI kind of posed that question.
I mean, a you kind of have a certaincultural memory and an institutional
(02:33):
memory that with uncontrolledimmigration is at risk of being lost.
There's sort of a way of doing things.
There's what we would calla kind of high trust society again.
And you have a rapid changein the composition of a population,
whether it's by illegal or illegal means.
You have a reduction in that trust.
(02:54):
And there's in fact a very well-knownsociologist named Robert Putnam at Harvard
who wrote a book called Bowling Alonethat maybe some of your your viewers will
have heard of.
But one of the things that he found inhis research
is that as a societybecomes more and more diverse,
particularly over a rapid period of time,social trust really collapses.
(03:15):
And interestingly,the not just kind of social trust
in between groups, and you might be ableto kind of understand
why that might be the case.
But even within groups,social trust tends to collapse.
So Asian-Americans
will trust other Asian-Americansless in a highly diverse society.
That's not an intuitive finding,but that is a finding, at least to me.
But it is a finding thatthat Putnam has in his work.
(03:36):
But even more so, we lack a sort of senseof a common history,
a common tradition that we appeal to,a sort of
common goal in being Americans.
And we have people coming inwith radically different
kind of ideas of the good culturaltraditions, traditions of government.
And so invariably, that is going to have
(03:57):
a tendency to kind of weakenour existing institutions.
And again, that's irrespective of whetherthe individual immigrant themself is
or him or herself is a, you know, asensational person who wants to contribute
by just a certain number, you're goingto attenuate your existing traditions.
It's just a math problem, basically.
Referring to the math problem.
(04:19):
Do social scientists give us any idea
of what is the maximumamount of annual immigration
that any nation can sustain
without being at risk of losing its longstanding institutions and traditions?
You know, I'm not aware of it.
And if I were, I would be very particularabout
causing the problem in that strict a way.
(04:41):
I would say that we are already,you know, just
without kind of kind of trying to come upwith an overarching theory.
When I look at our society,when I look in particular at California,
we're past that point.
And I
saw back when I lived in the PaloAlto area amongst a very, very high
functioning pro-social group of neighbors,but neighbors from all around the world,
(05:05):
most really not neighbors with one kindof family traditions in the U.S.
that eventually these traditionskind of attenuate and
even social cooperation between groups
attenuates and just the
the kind of general community doesn't havethe same cohesiveness that it used to.
(05:25):
So I don't know
that there is any kind of one pointestimate number that I'd point to.
But it's I'd say that unfortunately,California is is blowing well past that,
which doesn't mean that you shouldjust throw up your hands and do nothing.
But it does really pointto the importance of
getting control of our immigration system,
(05:46):
slowing the pace of immigrationquite a bit so that we can as best
we can, assimilate the immigrationimmigrants who we already have here.
You had a fascinatingcomment and observation
and you said that in the
last six decades, America's government
has created a new American people.
(06:06):
What does that mean?
Yeah, well, yeah,it can mean a lot of things.
But one of the things that it means
is that you've just addeda bunch of people from
well outside of America's historictraditions again, if you were to go back.
So modern immigration policy in Americato slightly but not meaningfully
oversimplify, is kind of governed by a lawcalled the Hartzler
(06:31):
Immigration Act of 1965.
That was what replaced the 1925Johnson Reed Immigration Act
or sorry, the 1924Johnson Reed Immigration Act and Hartzler.
When it was passed, we were promised,it's not going to be literally
I mean, promised in the debates.
This isn't going to changethe demographics of the U.S.
in big ways, blah, blah, blah.
(06:52):
It's just kind of fixing things.
And in fact,
it kind of created a radically new countrywith prospective demographics.
So what do I mean by that?
If you were to go backand look at the 1960 census,
which was the last one done beforeart seller, you would find a country
that it was about 85% non-Hispanic white,
ten or 11% African-American.
(07:13):
And, you know, 4% everything else.
And that's Asian-Americans,Hispanics, Native Americans.
Interestingly,also the Hispanic population,
we had a number of these in Californiaat the time, 80%
native born at this pointas opposed to less than 60% today.
So in many cases,the Hispanic population of the U.S.
at that time is very well
(07:34):
integrated into the sort of broader Anglo,if you will, majority.
And many of them in the casesof, say, parts of California and Texas,
are actually peoplewho had been in the United States
since before those states were evenpart of the United States.
So they have very long, deep rootsin the culture and tradition.
Fast forward to 2020 after Heart Cellarand 60 years of that.
(07:58):
And we were at about, I think, 57 or 58%
white non-Hispanic country at this point.
Among the youth in the country.
It is now a white minority.
And you've had a total inversion,
a kind of demographic revolutionthat's taken place.
And every passing day we have moreand more that kind of happening
(08:19):
because disproportionately immigrants to
the United States are not comingfrom the traditional sources in Europe,
which provided all of our substantiallyall of our immigrants up through the hard
sell our law,but from all around the world.
So it's really been a dramatic,dramatic change.
So the hard sell law,I believe, is the law that made it.
I think
(08:39):
family, immigration,you can bring in your family members,
which leads to chain migrationand greatly liberal rise.
The number of peoplecoming into this country, if I remember
my statistics correctly, by 1850, 10% ofthe country was foreign born.
I think 1900.
The percentage in this countrythat was foreign
(09:00):
born is about what it is now,if not slightly more.
But because of the 1924 law,immigration was restricted and by 1970
it was a very low percentage of peoplethat were foreign born in this country.
In that year, maybe about 5%.
So, no, it's gone back up since.
But this is my question becauseas you were talking, I was listening
and everyone who's y who'sbeen listening to the show is aware
(09:23):
of how hardened society has become inthe past few years.
People are intolerant of one another.
There's so much anger
that seems to be everywhere from airplanesto the things that's happening on
the street that the point of getting thatis this uncontrolled immigration.
People, people different mores,different values, different cultures.
Is that contributing to that sense ofanger and divisiveness that we have now?
(09:48):
Well, I think absolutely,because people are looking
and they're angryabout the level of immigration
and they are looking in their communitiesand they see a community that they don't
even recognize in terms of itsits cultural, its values, its history.
So I think that's been part of it.
And then also just the part of, again,no matter how great immigrants are,
(10:10):
you just have a more diversified societyand a more diverse society.
I argueagain, is one with a lot more challenges
to kind of creatingthe sort of unified policy
that I think is is sort of the most strongboth at home and abroad.
And I think you touched on these numbersvery meaningfully.
I mean, in the late 19th century,we got up to about 14.3% or something
(10:33):
immigrant, which was the highest it hadbeen, and was one of the things that led
to ushaving these immigration restriction laws.
But by 1970, that had gone down to 4.7%.
And these were very disproportionately oldat that point.
So it was athat was the world I was born into.
And it's a radically,radically different world than the world
that we're experiencing today.
(10:54):
How long does it take to fully assimilatea new group?
Are we talking aboutone generation, several generations?
I think it depends.
I think it depends on the willingnessof the group to assimilate.
It depends to a degree on physicallyobservable difference.
I mean, I think this is this is
there is no way to kind of whitewashthis and make it easier than it is.
Right.
But like, if I'm a Polish American
(11:17):
or even moremaybe an Irish-American or whatever,
and I show up in Americain the late 19th century
and I marry somebody of eventually
of pilgrims and ancestry,and we have kids not only whatever mores
and everything elsethat those kids will inherit, but
physically you probably couldn'ttell you know, unless you're
(11:39):
some sort of racial expertin some weird way.
You couldn't tell the differencebetween that person's kids
and the kids of somebody who'd been therefor generations and generations.
When you add the kind of multiracialor multiethnic
kind of dimension of this,that becomes harder.
Now, again,
maybe among some groups of Hispanicsthat also have a lot of European ancestry,
(12:03):
if they're intermarryingwith white non-Hispanics, there are kids
not just in terms of culture,but in terms of their ethnic background.
They may kind of resemblea lot more America's historical majority.
But for other groups,it's not always going to be that easy.
And then again, it it depends onhow much does the group want to assimilate
and how much does the societywant that group to assimilate.
(12:24):
So I think unless you really messed it
up, it's not going to be likea five generation process.
I think in,
you know, two or three generations,people will tend to be pretty assimilated.
I know that they've done, for example,work on third generation
Hispanics in the United States,and I think pretty overwhelmingly
they speak Englishas their first language, for example.
(12:44):
Right.
So you can point to certain signslike that where assimilation does happen.
But again, assimilation is never just aone way street.
So the problem is,if the groups are big enough,
the receiving culture changesin some pretty fundamental ways.
And if you're like meand maybe you're not always fine,
not that it's ever goingto be completely static,
(13:05):
but you're not fond of totallytransforming the existing culture,
then that's, that's its own problemthat needs to be dealt with.
I think the Chinese culture is mostfamously effective at assimilation.
The Mongols who came in becameactually the leaders of China, became
more Chinese, and the Chinese themselvesafter a generation or two.
Yeah, absolutely.
And China, I kind of dida lot of Chinese history as an undergrad.
(13:27):
China was notoriously great for this.
You had the Manchus, you had the Mongols,and all of them became heavily
synthesized over time and that that can goin interesting reverse ways.
If, for example,I used I lived in India as a newlywed.
My wife and I are both Americans,but we we moved out there.
I was doing work out there.
The most British people I ever met inmy life were upper class Indians,
(13:51):
much more so than any upper class peopleI met in Britain.
They really had kind of assimilatedcertain sorts
of British cultural Moorish from the Rajera that even a couple of generations
down, we're still very durable
in terms of how they presented themselvesand how they thought about themselves.
And of course, I'm not suggesting that
within that they didn'tstill obviously have a a large degree
(14:15):
of inherent in kindness and respectand pride in their own culture.
But it is to say that that receiving
and giving cultures can unsurprisingly,have really big effects on each other.
Well, you know, culture and race oftenget identified as being synonymous,
but in my point of view,they're really not.
We talk about the white culture,but it could just as easily have been,
(14:35):
in theory, a black cultureor a brown culture or whatever.
But we're really talking about a culture
that originated in Western Europeand that was transplanted and then built
and developed upon in this country,beginning in the Enlightenment period.
Absolutely.
And I do not make the mistake in my book
of conflating race and culture,even ethnicity and culture.
(14:56):
I mean, I think I've touchedon the Hungarian example
in the previous episodeas a kind of extreme example of how
you can have those two thingsbe very disjoint, but at the same time,
it tends to not be totally irrelevant overtime, ethnicity with respect to culture.
And so you need to respect that,that reality.
(15:17):
But yeah, I mean, I ultimately thinkthat it's a good thing that,
that ultimately somebodyfrom whatever background
can eventually become an Americanor certainly their children
will can become fully American.
And by kind of embracingwhat I would consider the traditional
American principles and goals.
But but the problem is, of course,now that's just my perspective.
(15:40):
We don't necessarilyhave a view on what those goals are.
And again,at the level of immigration that we have,
it becomes very difficultto sustain the existing culture
without it really being disruptedand changed
in some pretty fundamental waysthat are we speaking personally?
You know, I'm not necessarily
fond of saying I kind of liked the countrythat I grew up in, and I'm not
(16:02):
I don't want to fundamentallytransform it.
Well,you have a couple of interesting quotes
in your book, and it's just fascinatingto me to see the arc
and that that's happened in the past120, 25 years or so.
What you bring to light in your writingsand I want to talk about that
for just a moment, but it also implicatesthe current culture wars, what's right
(16:22):
and what's good, what is entitledto be transmitted to the next generation.
What do you all thatdoesn't want to be can
and should be canceledfor whatever reason.
And I think in the late 18,
maybe around 1900, Rudyard Kiplingwrote his poem White Man's Burden,
and it was unapologetic.
It was something that he was proud of.
(16:44):
I think it was written to encouragethe United States to join the Europe
and the other countries treaty would helpto, quote, civilize other countries.
I think in that particular instance,
it was a reference to,you know, to the Philippines.
Well, of course, by today's standards,that's racist race.
Understand that.
But then by the 1966 and Sontagand you quote this in your book wrote
(17:05):
that the white raceis the cancer surface of human society.
And it seems as if hishis writings in 1960
have really had a profound impact,along with a lot of other people as well
in terms of a lot of thought processes
in this country today is what are yourwhat are your thoughts on that?
Yeah, absolutely right.
(17:25):
And you kind of went from sortof what sort of. Freeman And
Rudyard Kipling is kind of the avatar
of a certain colonial mindsetand I use that.
I mean, the colonial and colonial pasthas just become so abused
in recent decadesthat there's sort of some
automatic assumption that when I saythat I'm being really critical.
(17:46):
No, I mean, I think colonialism had
certain things that it didthat were very beneficial and it did,
you know, certain things about itthat were not beneficial for
the countries that were being colonized.
But Kipling representedwith his kind of idea
of this white man's burden, the extremeend of that civilizational confidence.
And I say extreme.
We would look at it now as extreme.
(18:07):
At the time it was very mainstream,which is why he had such a following
as he did.
And he was also,of course, a very astute observer of the
and a fond observer of the country,India, that he lived in,
you know, a very, very differentsort of mentality
than the Susan Sontag mentality, whichI think you correctly note has sort of
(18:27):
taken over things where the White manis the cancer of human history.
And, you know, I think that
that trade is maybe not necessarilythen such a good one.
And it certainly has crept
into the political debate,I think, over immigration,
what how immigration lawshould be structured
in this country and enforced, which whichwhich kind of brings me to the point,
(18:48):
like, did we've been talking aboutlegal immigration and illegal immigration.
Let's talk a little bit about the laws
on immigration.
And, you know, this is very confusing on
media and television cable channels.
Everybody throws a lot of terms
without really ever defining themor giving them any kind of structure.
And it's not really clear
(19:08):
to a lot of people, including myself,what exactly is legal and illegal.
And now getting ready for this interview,I did a little work.
My understandingis that under current law,
there's about 675,000 visasauthorized annually.
There's supposed to bean application process
from someonewanting to come to this country,
a process, the application
(19:29):
that's supposed to be made
outside the country and the visa is givento someone that that comes here.
Those would be,I assume, legal immigrants.
And then and then on top of that,you have people
who legitimately are seekingrefugee status for one reason or another.
We can think of, you know, in Vietnam,
with the collapse of the South Vietnam,a lot of Vietnamese came to this country
(19:50):
as refugees, Cubans in the early 1990,you know, the same thing.
And there's been other examples of that,that what is the basis of everyone else
coming to this country, the bunch of floodof people coming to Mexico,
coming across the border, border, callthose illegals.
Are these peopleofficially seeking refugee status
but not doing it according towhat is required legally?
(20:12):
So it's a mix.
And I'm glad you brought this upbecause it's an important concept.
So some do seek refugee status.
And here I think you'reI think, an important thing to note.
So basically, almost none of these peoplethis is a dirty little secret
you don't get from the kind of so-calledmainstream media.
Almost none of these peoplehave legitimate asylum claims.
(20:33):
There's a variety of it which doesn't meanthat I mean, first of all,
most of them are just economic migrantsno matter what they're claiming.
Okay.
So let's dispense with that.
And Jeremy. On that point, then, asylum.
So what we're talking about,people who are legitimate
asylum seekers are thosewho are being politically persecuted
as opposed to coming from a countrythat doesn't have the same
(20:53):
economic opportunities as they might findin this country, correct?
Correct.
So that's you know, the vast majorityof these people are not actually fleeing
even either kind of own terms,any sort of political persecution.
They're just looking for bettereconomic opportunities.
By the way,
I want to stress again, because I'm reallyI don't try to bash the immigrants.
I bash the leaders of our countrythat have allowed this to happen.
(21:16):
I mean, I spent yearsin the developing world.
I have full appreciation for whya lot of those folks want to come here.
I'd probably be making
a lot of the same decisionsthey made if I were in their shoes.
But that's differentthan what America should be doing.
So first of all, you have to understand
the vast majority of these people,whether or not
they're even making an asylumclaim, are just economic migrants.
(21:37):
Then even beyond that, if you lookat those who are making asylum claims,
there are various rules of politicalasylum that basically say
like the first place you get tothat is kind of
not your country in which you'renot going to be actively super persecuted.
That's where you have to make your asylumapplication.
So that is almost never the United Statesfor any of these people.
(21:59):
So that's why I say that virtually all ofthese asylum claims are not legitimate.
So you know,if you're going through Mexico
and you're a Salvadoran, a personnow, Salvador, it's kind of El Salvador,
it's kind of turned around.
But if you're a Honduran or a Venezuelanor whatever, you can't just go through
12 other countries and show up at Americaand claim asylum at our borders.
(22:20):
It doesn't work like that.
I mean, functionally,unfortunately it does.
But the law says that it doesn't.
And the media, because they love ingeneral illegal immigration.
And I'm you know, that sounds harsh.
It's just the reality.
I mean, that's revealedby the way they cover it.
They tend to avoidjust kind of this basic demonstrated fact.
(22:40):
So almost none of the group of peoplewho are arriving here
as sort of unauthorized immigrants haveany legal claim to be here whatsoever.
They're either economic migrants, inwhich case they have no claim to be here,
or they are people with legitimate asylumclaims, perhaps somewhere,
but they would have had to make itin another country.
And then the Trump administration,there was an effort to, in fact,
(23:03):
make those folksthrough the Remain in Mexico policy,
at least have to make their asylumclaims at the border.
And they were still lying all the time.
And again, I'm not trying to be harsh.I understand why they're lying.
They want to get in America,
but at least they had to gothrough an authorized process
and they weren't in Americawhen they did it.
When Joe Biden took office.
That was one of the first benefitsthat I think even first day they did.
(23:24):
So, you know, that that encourageda lot more illegal immigration.
My understanding of the numbersis that during the Trump administration,
the number of illegals,not including the guy two ways,
was probably down to about 1800
to maybe 1500 average,maybe a thousand per day.
And asyou pointed out, once Biden took office
(23:46):
and and he became president,the policy changed
to the point where almost immediatelythe number of illegals crossing,
not including the guard, alwayswent up to four or five 6000 per day.
And todayit may be as high as 14 or 15,000 per day,
not including the got awaysor those numbers anyway, on point.
Yeah, I mean, I have to kind ofdo the math in my head,
(24:08):
but it sounds plausible.I mean, it's important.
I have in some of the workI've done kind of graph graph
of the numbers of illegal immigrantsthat we've had over a periods of time.
And you see them certainly being much,much higher in the early in recent
Democratic administrations is much higherthan they've ever been historically.
(24:28):
But Biden, if you were to show it,it's just off the charts.
I mean, it's it's not quite an order ofmagnitude, but it's several times greater
than really any other illegal immigrationtime that we've had in the United States.
And that's because illegal
immigrants have gotten newsthat Biden's just going to let them in.
The US no interest in enforcing the law.
So people will comein, they make their fake asylum claim.
(24:51):
They are transported at taxpayer expense
to the interior of the countrywhere they're then fed and clothed
and done all sorts of other thingsat taxpayer expense.
And in many cases,if not most, they have to wait years
for their hearing, which is not reallyan inconvenience to them,
because they can still sort ofthey're authorized to be in the U.S.
(25:11):
at the time that that's going on.
You can't really do anything about that.
And that's one of the reasonswhy I've seen hearings
scheduled for as long as sevenor eight years from the date.
So it's just absurd.
I mean, it's it's a it's a flagrantdereliction of duty by the president.
You know, I'm not going to say anythingmore about it than that, but it's just
(25:33):
it's really hard to square with any sortof respect for America and its laws.
With those who are met at the border.
Is there any assessmentabout those individuals
where they come fromor whether they have any criminal history,
any issues associated with a threatthat they may pose
in terms of the health and well-being
(25:54):
of other people in this countrywhen they arrive?
In theory, there should be.
But again, you can imagine governmentrecord keeping and everything else
we saw in the there were red flagsabout the 911 terrorists.
Right. Not all of them, but some of them.
And they got lost in various partsof the bureaucracy.
Right.
So I'm not going to saythat we never catch anybody through that
or that we don't ever identifyany people of concern.
(26:16):
But between the gateways and the people,that we're not catching through, that
you're letting a lot of very dangerous,
potentially dangerouscriminal aliens into the country.
So that's another real part of it.
I sometimes don't even talk aboutthat as much because I feel like it
can be a diversion from talking aboutthe very question of immigration itself,
(26:38):
which to me is separate from likewhether these immigrants are criminals
or whether they're really smartand lovely people.
But I think it's a fair thingto talk about.
I mean,
and if anything, maybe I've gone too muchthe other way where I'm sort of ignoring
the actual threats to national securityand crime that are real.
And we've seen a lot of this.
If you if you're on the right on Twitter,you'll see, unfortunately, a lot of cases
(27:02):
where people who are not herelegally have committed horrific crimes.
And with very little consequence.
Well, let's let's just change the focusjust slightly from the perspective
of the politics of it.
And it's not very clearwhat all the politics are at play
behind this.
And in terms of the decisionto open up the border,
(27:24):
whether the real reasonsare being given for that
or whether they've ever beenreally articulate that other than the fact
it's an anti-Trump reactionto what Trump did.
But what are the real reasons?
You know,if you're a history of American football,
you go back to the 1920s,one of the great open field
runners was Red Grange, you know,the so-called Galloping Ghost Girl.
And I think when it comes to politicians,they're all experts at being a
(27:46):
a good galloping ghost.
They may say waiting, but the realor the reason why they want to accomplish
a certain policy is not disclosedwhen it comes to opening up the borders.
You know, they're not
you know, the most common reason you hear,at least from commentators on the right,
is because the left wants to,
you know, increasethe power of the Democratic base.
(28:07):
I think you even make the point inyour book that with increased immigration,
the politics of the country generallydrift to the left as opposed to the right
and another possibility may be that we areare not even replacing our selves.
Well, I think our birthrate is about 1.6where I think the have at least 2.1
(28:28):
per births per woman of childbearing yearsto replace our population.
So you can you get an argumentthat maybe we want the immigration or
the immigration to, to increase
to maintain a growing population,having a healthy large
workforce age population disproportionateto senior citizens and all of that.
And the third reason that occurs to mewhat might be by
(28:51):
Venus is because, again, if people areimplementing the Susan Sontag,
you know, interpretation of history,that, you know, the white race is
is the cancer of all society,we need to replace the white race,
which gets into replacement theory,
which is that some people claimthat as being racist.
And that's a whole nother debate itself.
But what what do you thinkare the real reasons why
(29:13):
the Democrat administration wantsto open up the borders the way it has?
Well,I think all along or or back to that,
I think probably the biggestis the first one that you identified,
which is the Democrats see this, rightly
or wrongly,as a way to expand their power base
because they know that they've wonprecisely
(29:33):
one election, I think, since WorldWar Two among white voters.
So anything they can do to expanda nonwhite voting base,
they're going to do that.
I think we're seeingthere are some limits to.
That's true, that if you begin to see thisin 2020, when
Trump won some counties in South Texasthat had not gone Republican
for a generation, and these are like 99%
(29:55):
Latino counties or 98% Hispanic counties.
And I think we're going to see even moreof that in the upcoming election.
I think Trump is going to do very,very strongly,
at least on a relative basis,with Hispanics, and maybe that'll change
the immigration policya little bit, ironically, because of that.
But I think that political thing,I think the need to provide
I don't say needthey should strike that word.
(30:17):
But the desire of U.S.
businesses to have cheap labor,which is of course not really cheap
because they end up just foisting the costfor the health care and housing
and everything else and social serviceson the American taxpayer.
But a lot of American businesseswant cheap labor,
so they're going towelcome illegal immigration for this
(30:38):
reason as well.
Finally, as you kind of point out,I think there's some people
within the bureaucracy who are kind ofconstitutionally anti-white
and they want to replace the existingmajority white population
with other populations for their perceivedpolitical benefit and social benefit.
And because they just don'tlike white people in general.
(30:58):
And I think for that's notprobably decisive at this point.
But but I think it'sjust one of the many things
that contributes to the situationthat we're in.
It's been a fascinating conversationfor me.
When we return for partthree of the interview being,
we're going to talk aboutanother fascinating intercept
you raised in your book,what you call the cell suspicion parallax.
I'm looking forward to that conversation.
(31:20):
Thanks for being with us.
On this episode of the Fourscoreand Seven Project,
a productionof the New Majority Foundation.
My name is Roger Clark, your host.
Be sure to like and share
with your friends and be sure to join usfor part three of our program with Jeremy
when we will continue to explorethe immigration crisis in America.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.