Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: Thank you to everyone for your patience.
We were just having some technical difficulties with Richard's sound.
Richard, can you hear me now?
[00:00:13] Speaker B: I now have it, Scott. I'm sorry it took so long.
[00:00:15] Speaker A: Oh, no, it's great. I'm glad it's working.
Thanks to everyone for joining us to Morals and Markets. Glad to see everyone. Just want to remind everyone to keep yourself muted while Dr. Salzman is giving his opening.
Know we'll take questions and comments. You can use the you know, I'll post some links, know some of the sources and supplementary readings as we get along. Thanks, everyone. Richard, I'm just going to throw it to you to go ahead and get started.
[00:00:49] Speaker B: All right? Thank you, Scott. Thank you all for joining. As I usually do, I'll spend about 25 minutes on an introduction and then open it up to questions, comments and criticisms. Some of you may know this. Part of this is for this opening. 30 minutes is for the Morals and Markets podcast. So Scott and the team at Tas have been very good about transforming this after we do it from a kind of visual to a purely audible audio, I should say, version of this, which goes out over all the various platforms, which is very nice. So that's why I tend to do this kind of intro. The other thing is, in the announcement, of course, I give an abstract, I give a summary of what I'm going to say. So I usually just read that into the record because I spent a lot of time on it and I concisely describe what I'm going to talk about. So I usually start with that. So I'm going to start with that. Then I'm going to quote various people over the years on immigration. That's the topic tonight, open versus closed borders, whether that's a false alternative or not, which I think it is. But we'll talk about the philosophy and the politics and the economics of this. This is a perfect topic if you understand the message and the meaning of morals and markets. Morals meaning ethics, markets meaning economics. The overlap of the two is very common and it's fun to talk about. And if you don't know the ethics, you can't really be informed about the economics of it and vice versa. And of course, politics comes in to the extent it institutionalizes morals. So here's how I describe tonight's topic, which is a capitalist approach. By that I mean a pro capitalist, pro individualist, pro liberty approach to immigration and borders. And by the way, I found this much more controversial within right wing and including subset of that objectivist circles than I expected. I did not know this until a more intensive investigation recently. Over the years, there's been more of a Democrat versus Republican view of this, but within the right, there's some interesting contrast. Anyway, here's how I describe tonight's topic. A free society welcomes manageable flows of goods, capital and people over its borders, whether incoming or outgoing. A state is defined as the institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of retaliatory force within a specific territory. That last part is very interesting. This last feature requires fixed and protected borders, I think. Now an indispensable job of government, legitimate government, includes managing the borders, setting liberal terms, processing the flows and interdicting dangers whether hostile actors or transmissible infectious diseases. America's most capitalist era, which I've defined as World War excuse me, Civil War to World War I, 1865 to 1915 coincided with what I call the Ellis Island model of immigration. And we need that model again. Instead of what I think of as the false choice today we have of open borders, which involves almost no processing whatever. And there are some objectivists who endorse that or closed borders with what I think is despotic type walls and just banishments of certain peoples so that's the descriptor.
This will sound like ancient history, but it isn't because the principles are the same. I want to start with a quote, a couple of quotes from an essay from TAS's founder, the Atlas Society founder, David Kelly, who in Barons in the mid 1980s when immigration was an issue as well. Now, this is during the Reagan administration and the question was whether the issue the deal struck on having border reform plus amnesty for existing illegals in the country. Now, David ghost that was called the Mazoli Simpson act. And I won't go through the details of that act because it's kind of dated. But I think the principles that David names in Barons and the essay is called Open Society, Open Borders is very interesting. Here's a couple of things David said. Again, David Kelly quote it takes an unusual degree of self confidence, ambition and independence to leave one's natural soil for a native soil for an uncertain future in a new land with different customs and language, unquote.
Later in the essay xenophobia fear of foreigners. Xenophobia has been the not always silent partner of economic hostility toward immigration, unquote.
Another quote the diverse customs and creeds and traditions that immigrants bring are great democratic strengths but custom does not make the man merely the manner. I love that. Then he says later quote the sole consensus required in a free society is a common desire for freedom itself the right to think, the right to vote, the right to work. And those are precisely the values that draw people here in the first place, unquote. And I'll finish with this last quote very precious, very profound. Our own commitment to political and economic freedom is enriched by the presence among us of those who could not take them for granted in their native state, unquote. Now, that's 1985. But I think the principles named by Professor Kelly, David Kelly, are relevant even today. But now let me fast forward. And these are taken from the readings I hope you saw. I linked two readings one of them was David's, and there are others in there. But one from Ed Powell is very interesting because Ed Powell is an objectivist. Now, this is more recent. This is 2016, and the title of the Powell piece very interestingly is Objectivism and an Immigration Policy of Self Interest for America Today.
Now, Powell is very this is a very interesting essay. I hope you got a chance to read it. He says, quite correctly, roman Empire is overrun by barbarians in four 6410 Ad.
And he says, the Western civilization was dark thereafter for 1000 years. True enough, true enough. But then he goes on to say, fast forward to December 2016. Now, if I may have my history right, that's about a month after Trump was elected. And he says history is repeating itself. I'm quoting now from Ed Powell bands of barbarian migrants have invaded Europe and ravaged its cities using terrorism and the doctrine of al haji civilization holy war by immigration in the US. Also, women are raped in public theaters and malls are being bombed. No go zones exist where migrants conduct warfare with impunity.
The lights of the west are going out again, says Powell, but no one seems to know what can be done. What is needed is a philosophy of reason, he says. And then he says, that philosophy is Ayn Rand's philosophy. Well, that's mine. Sure, that's Dr. Kelly's. So what is this conflict? What is this contrast between the Powell view and whatever view I'm going to extend tonight? But more from this. Now, listen. Quote its current leading advocates this is Powell. The current leading advocates of objectivism, he says, are almost universally on the side of the invading barbarians. Unquote. Now, I'm not quite sure who he's referring to, but there are citations later.
The most prominent advocates of Objectivism seem unable or unwilling, he says, to form a more principled defense of Western civilization based on Ein Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Quote, the only method of saving Western sieve from the savages invading it by restricting immigration to only the is by restricting immigration. Now, listen to this proposal only to those individuals likely to be compatible with the values that undergird it.
Notice this is an ideological litmus test. I'm not saying that negatively, I'm just describing it. And now this is interesting. And Powell says, to expel those immigrants who by their advocacy and actions seem only to undermine freedom in the US.
And Western civilization as a whole unquote. And then Powell summarizes, I'll be damned if I'll sit back and watch people who claim to be advocates of Ayn Rand's Objectivism who cheer for the barbarian invasion on principle without pointing out their rationalistic arguments and the suicidal effects of the west if their policies are adopted. Now, what he's referring to is the argument for complete, open, unrestricted immigration, which he I'll name in a moment, names that he names are advocating this. But then he also says, quote, the objective of community is as divided on this issue as on no other issue.
I'm not sure about that. We might include foreign policy in Ukraine and elsewhere. But anyway, with the most prominent and vocal proponents of open immigration accusing those of us, Powell on the other side, of every known moral fault, including calling us racists, unquote.
Scott, I'm not sure. Is that our objectivist calling each other racist over immigration? You would know better than I possibly that's happening. Then he okay, okay, thanks for the confirmation. Then he says, quote the number. I'm not by the way, I don't want to mean to be ridiculing Powell. One of the reasons I picked this essay is very well researched, actually, very well done. And the idea that he's looked into the objectivist community and this is really important stuff. Quote, the number of prominent open immigration objectivists is too large to survey, but Harry Binswanger is the most prominent Binswanger is the most prominent objectivist advocating completely open borders, unquote.
Now then he quotes Bin Swanger. So this is interesting because Harry Vinswanger objectivists know who he is quoting Ben Swanger directly. Quote, ideally, entry into the US should be unrestricted, unregulated and unscreened. Exactly. As entry is into Connecticut from New York.
There must be, quote, no detention at the borders, no demand to produce, quote, papers or passports because such procedures violate the right of the innocent, unquote. That's Binswanger.
I think I have the source to this later because there's links in the Powell essay. So Powell's not just making this stuff up, he gives you links, which is nice. But then he says not only Binswyer, Trzinski, Biddle, Bernstein, your own Brooke are he says, for unrestricted immigration.
I would note that I have seen in Brooke and he actually cites this three classes of people who should be excluded or at least vetted or checked. And this is my view as well. Quote one, terrorists.
Terrorists or those who threaten national security of America. Two, criminals. Now, how you document their criminal record abroad is maybe a practical problem, but okay. And those with infectious diseases. Okay. By the way, those three are part of the Ellis Island model. For all intents and purposes, that's pretty much what the Ellis Island model, which was, as I said, roughly 1870s to 1920 did.
And that was it. There was no litmus test as to ideology. Now, the litmus test as to ideology is a very interesting thing because that's become on the radar. It's long been on the radar, as you know, of conservatives, conservatives who will say immigration has to have another test. It isn't just criminals, terrorists, the diseased, but those who are going to wreck our culture, those who are going to contaminate or degrade the American culture, the American way of life, with their ideas, their voting patterns.
On this issue, it's very interesting because Powell points out a debate between your own Brooke and Leonard Peacock in 2013.
Now, listen to this from Peacock. Very interesting. Peacock, you know, is a prominent objectivist. The Philosophy of Iron Rand is book from 1991, but earlier, 1982, the ominous parallels where Peacock says, the danger is not that America is going socialist, but fascist, not the complete ownership of the means of production, but private ownership in principle, but then government, massive government controls of the Nazi type variety.
Okay, but in 2013, in this debate, this is what Peacock says. Now listen to this closely because this implies a litmus test ideologically, politically. Quote, we are teetering on the edge of dictatorship. This is Leonard Peacock. If the Democrats continue to have their political power or to grow their political power, we will be over that edge, whether you like it or not. It's also the case that 80% of Hispanics in the US, whether rich or poor, whether self made or not, are reliably and continually voting democratic.
Whatever legislation you're considering, whether it's considered fair or unfair in any other aspect, if you're talking about a bill that will infuse into America a massive amount of democrat supporters, you thereby guarantee the destruction of this country.
That is what immigration means today.
There's no use consulting theory about this.
We're near the end. Now is just a matter of buying time unquote.
Think on that for a moment. That can be part of our discussion. But, you know, really how I interpret this is whatever the arguments for and against immigration, if you believe in the kind of the self interest principle of just as an individual should pursue their rational self interest so sort of country. And if the country is America and if the essence of America is liberty and individual rights and constitutionally limited government, then the immigration policy actually, all policies, but including immigration policies, should adhere to that principle. In other words, protecting those things. Now, how you do that? This is a very detailed issue of political economy, the political economy of immigration, the political economy of border management, if you will. But I do think it's a legitimate government function. We're not an anarchist, after all. But now Powell says something also very interesting because those of you in the audience who read Ein Rand and study Ein Rand closely, how interesting biographically she is, I think other than Alexander Hamilton, I can't think of an immigrant more influential to America than Ayn Rand who immigrated here in 1926. Hamilton, of course, immigrated in, I don't know, 1770s or so and helped build the original country. But Ein Rand came here from Soviet Russia in 1926 at age 21. Interestingly, Powell says, quite correctly, he says, quote, unfortunately, Ein Rand never wrote anything about the philosophical or historical principles behind immigration or its restrictions. And that's unquote, and that's true and interesting, and I wish he had, because it's so interesting. It's so interesting as the issue of the state, the role of the state, individuals rights.
She endorsed this definition of the state as the legitimate use of force within boundaries, which came from Max Weber, actually, 1920s. So she endorsed that view, that standard view of the definition of the state. But not to have written much on this, especially when it was so personally relevant to her, is kind of interesting, but also highlights the point made by the Atlas Society, david Kelly, Stephen Hicks and others that much more must be done in objectivism. There's much more to be done in extending and applying objectivism. And here's an obvious case of it. You cannot go to Ayn Rand and get your marching orders on this issue. But she did say at the Ford Hall Forum, where she appeared annually almost for many years, 1973, she was asked specifically about this, and she said, quote, I oppose, quote, closing the border, or, quote, forbidding immigration, and then just added, quote, this is much more of a personal point, perfectly understandable. Quote, how could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted when I wouldn't be alive if it were restricted, unquote? I love that quote. I love that quote. She was basically saying, I'd never be here. I would never get out of Russia, I would never get to America.
However, notice that answer is very personal. I wouldn't say it's subjective, it's factual, it's true, but it shouldn't be right. Normally, you would not say the basis of my views on immigration are my personal history or my personal story, but it's not really a philosophic defense. It's more of a perfectly understandable, kind of lovely, wonderful emotional reflection by on immigration.
Now, just let me I have maybe five more minutes. So let me go back to a more radical one I actually disagree with because it was cited by Powell, but also it's an extreme view of it by Binswanger, and we can use that maybe to leverage so in Forbes in 2013. So this was a big issue around that time for Objectivist, vincewanger wrote, anti immigration rhetoric frightening reveals education's failure, unquote. So part of this was just blaming bad education on people's ignorance about immigration. But the point is that in this essay, we get, as Powell indicates, the Binswanger view of this, which is being resisted by many objectives. And I would resist this as well. Now, listen to this closely because it is based on a philosophic argument, so it's not implausible.
Quote this is from Binswanger the principle of individual rights demands open immigration.
Implementation means phasing out all limitations on immigration, unquote. Now, notice the word all.
So I'm immediately reading I'm reading this, and I'm immediately thinking, wait a minute. What about objectively? What about terrorists? What about criminals? What about the infectious diseased?
But in a line right after that, he says, quote, entry into the US. Should ultimately be free for any foreigner.
Okay, here's the qualifier absent objective evidence of criminal intent and infectious disease.
Okay, so it's not all.
It's all except but criminal intent and infectious disease.
If you put in criminal intent, if you include in there terrorism, I guess it's similar to my standard, but that is not really complete open immigration.
One of the things we might want to discuss when I open this up to the audience is what do we really mean by open versus closed?
And I'm arguing for managed. I almost hate to take the middle position because it just sounds like so cowardly. I'm not at this extreme, I'm not at the other extreme. I'm in the middle. But I really do think this is an issue. This is a perfectly legitimate government function. It should manage the borders. And the anarchic chaos and brutality and inhumanity of what we have today, which I would characterize as anarchy at the border, is so wrong. But the idea of and they leverage off of each other, don't they? The other side will say build a wall and stop every damn movement possible because the anarchists are so bad. Well, we're not for anarchy or totalitarianism, are we? We're not know Berlin type walls, nor are we for anarchy. So I think it's okay for the objective view to be we're for individual rights, but we're also for government performing its proper functions. And the US government really is not doing that. There is legal immigration, but if you look at the hurdles associated with getting in, it goes way beyond the people who get in legally, who go through the process, who go through the documentation and stuff. They tell a story of it takes years. It's really burdensome. Now, this is not an excuse for coming over the borders illegally. I don't like any future would be American to have their first act to be violating the laws of the country. It's a very bad way to start. It's not the Ellis Island model way to start, but I just want to mention that to open up debate. Now, lastly on Ben's Wanger, just to leave a little more philosophic stuff in here. Quote every individual, he says, has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that nation. That's interesting because we want to resist nationalism, right? We want to be for individualism.
And yet the nation state, as they call it, the modern form nation state has for the most part, I wouldn't say universally for the most part been a good thing for individual rights. The nation state, we can talk about that. But Benzweger goes on one has rights not by virtue of being an American, but by virtue of being a human. Unquote. I like that, actually. I like that. But is that an argument for saying fling open the borders?
More from Binswange quote a foreigner has rights just as much as an American does.
Seeking employment in America should not be a criminal act. Okay? Unquote. And then finally to forcibly exclude those seeking peacefully to trade value for value with us is a violation of the rights of both parties unquote. So that, I think, is an important thing to keep in mind, too. We always think of those coming over the border, whether they have rights or not, but those coming over the borders are also potential allies of us, potential employees of us, potential romantic partners of us. And it is true, you could argue, that the anti immigration approach violates the rights of domestics to have access to the rest of the world. And if we know that economically, if we know, hey, Trump with the trade wars, why are you forbidding us access to goods and services sent to us peacefully by others? We know that argument, right? We're very good at that argument. But why isn't that also true of individuals? Why isn't that also true of people trying to get into this country and then back to David Kelly? Those especially, and this is really David's argument is very influential to me. I've had this view a long time. Imagine the people who come here. I don't mean the terrorists, I don't mean the infected. I don't mean the criminals. The predominant number of people who come here are really remarkable. They have to be remarkable individuals whether they vote Democrat or not. I'm sympathetic with Leonard of like, man, I really have to bite my tongue and wonder. I really wish they wouldn't vote Democrat because I'm suspicious of Democrats voting for tyranny in this country. I believe with Leonard that that's their inclination. And so it's a real litmus test to say, oh, my God, okay, they're coming in. I want them to come in. They're not terrorists. They're not diseased, they're not criminals, but God damn it, they're probably Democrats. And then the next logical step of, oh, my God, and then they're voting for the party in this country, which I think, in my view, Scott and I have talked about this are more inclined to bring us in that direction. But I open it up to discussion. Is that a further litmus test that we should apply when we talk about immigration policy? So I'm past my time, Scott. I think I've gone 31 minutes, and so I promise to stop. So for the podcasters out there, I hope these ideas are interesting to you.
Subscribe, donate, join, if you can, the Atlas Society and all the great work it does if you can. And for now, I'll just sign off and turn it over to the group. Thank you, Scott.
[00:27:09] Speaker A: Great presentation. I've got questions. I see some hands going up. I do want to defer to David, since you mentioned him, maybe see where he is 40 years later.
Great on the piece.
[00:27:26] Speaker C: Well, thank you, Scott, and thanks, Richard, for a great presentation. I have a lot of questions.
I think this is a very difficult issue, but I agree that a country, a nation, and the nation state, as you described it, is the form of political organization that we have, and it's worked better than earlier tribal or empire type arrangements is good. And it entails that the borders have to be managed and they should be managed in a way to encourage immigration. I think along the lines you're talking about. One thing that I would suggest, and this is a talk I heard by I think it was Craig Biddle a couple of years ago, that the solution is to remove the country level and area level restraints that were imposed in the 1920s and afterwards. And you just got rid of those and the quotas that were imposed and are cooperative. Yeah, but also protect the borders, have points of entry with fewer requirements and no terrorists, no criminals, no infectious diseases. Sounds reasonable to me, but otherwise you're pretty calm. But you have to earn your come and work and live here peacefully.
There are a lot of questions surrounding that one.
Well, first of all, I invite you to comment on that idea that there should be points of entry. And that's where you have to go outside that, the borders between Mexico and Texas, they're closed. You cross them, you're illegal, and we catch you and send you back. But come to the points of entry and go through the minimal right then you're welcome.
[00:29:48] Speaker B: Yeah, I like the phrase, David, points of know, imagine people like Ellis Island processing centers.
Rational, orderly, clean, welcoming processing centers. I don't think I'm actually against some kind of walls between the processing centers to make sure people don't come over illegally. But maybe one of the reasons they want walls border to border, end to end. On the other side is they haven't developed a system of processing. And if there were a system of processing, there'd be less people coming over illegally and recklessly, if you will, and all the human abuse associated with that, including smuggling operations and human trafficking and stuff like that. David, the question I have for you is I agree with you on stop isolating countries or nations and putting up quotas. I remember in 18, I think it was like 1882 or so, that was done against the Chinese. I mean, just pure racist Chinese things. Even in that period of reasonable liberality, if you will, one of the first major restrictions on US. Immigration was against the Chinese.
So the Ellis Island model wasn't pure. But then 1924, a couple of years before I came here, the Immigration Restriction Act, that was also very restrictive. But the question I have for you, David, is and this kind of relates to foreign policy would you agree that the State Department, that one of its proper functions is to identify countries, not individuals, although they can also do individuals and groups and classify them as either enemies of the United States or not. Now, however that's defined, if it's objectively defined, say, as, I don't know, existential threats to the United States. So through history, we might have put the Soviet Union on that list. We might have put, I don't know, Cuba under Castro in the 60s on the list, whatever. But if that's true, is it okay there, David, to have a kind of blanket, which is what a quota is? No, Soviets come in, but only because we have pre designated that country as a threat. Is that something you'd oppose as well?
[00:32:15] Speaker C: That's an interesting question. I haven't thought much about it, but my top of my head, I'd say no because the people fleeing Soviet Russia or now Cuba or Venezuela are exactly some of the people most like to have.
[00:32:30] Speaker B: Right.
[00:32:30] Speaker C: We want to be a haven for them, a way to escape tyranny.
Those who want to escape tyranny tend, as you quoted, one of my earlier things about people who immigrate, it takes a lot of courage, independence, and to do that, someone maybe a little less fleeing attorney know the oppression is immediate.
[00:32:57] Speaker B: And in your so famous cases, David, like Werner von Braun, who leaves Nazi Germany and helps us build a rocket program. Right. Or Einstein or the guys who worked on the, you know, Nathan Sharansky or yes, yes, that's a good argument. The reason I brought it up is this comes up a lot whenever I'm asked on foreign trade, should we trade with China, should businessmen should be held accountable for trading with Iran or not? The issue of sanctions and I always revert, I think safely, but maybe not completely, justifiably to the idea of, well, it is a proper function of the government, specifically the State Department, to identify objectively as possible, not recklessly classify countries abroad as friends or enemies and everything in between, then that would guide policy. In other words, the government couldn't unilaterally say, don't trade with China. Because if the government, know, has China in the WTO and it has diplomatic relations with Know and all the things associated with diplomacy right. Do you recognize them as a legitimate regime or not? We know that FDR was the first one to recognize the Soviet Union as a legitimate regime, but that was 1933. So for 16 years, the US government did not officially recognize the Bolsheviks. Right. So, I mean, in those 16 years, could they legitimately say any businessman trading with the Bolsheviks was undermining? You could prosecute them, in other words, or prevent them. That's the only reason I brought it up, david, that's not quite the same. Your argument is, okay, you can designate the USSR that way, but why would you not take in people fleeing it? That's a good point. Yes. Yeah.
[00:34:58] Speaker C: I think that distinction is very important, Richard, in foreign policy issues. And you and I have disagreed on that on those issues. But I think your point on that is really good. I'm not sure it applies to immigration in quite the same way, because.
[00:35:17] Speaker B: In.
[00:35:17] Speaker C: Any to take up too much time, but let me. Ask you another question.
[00:35:22] Speaker B: Take all the time you need, David.
[00:35:23] Speaker C: It's something that I've often heard, and maybe not so much recently, but back in the day, people were against even a controlled but relative, more open objectivist immigration policy. Is that, well, what about the people who come we have a vast welfare state. What about the people who come and just want to get on the welfare wagon? When I wrote that article in Barron's in the did some research, and the information I had from economists like yourself was that actually they pay more immigrants pay more taxes than they take in social benefits. But that's a very temporal consideration. What about that issue?
Know, we don't have a free economy.
[00:36:16] Speaker B: Totally.
[00:36:17] Speaker C: We have a mixed economy welfare state. So what about immigrants coming to exploit that?
[00:36:25] Speaker B: Yeah, and Milton Friedman, the great free market economist who was mixed on many things, including money, but he famously said I would be for complete open immigration if we didn't have a welfare state.
But that's the Ellis Island model. How interesting. The Ellis Island model basically was open immigration except for those three exceptions because you knew there was no welfare magnet. You didn't come into New York City and run to the welfare office. You came into New York City and you usually ran to the language centers. And if you were Italian, the first thing you did was learn English. Why? Out of complete self interest so you could go get a know. And it is true that people did congregate into things like Little Italy and they had these little tribal parts of the city, but they were still there, right? And that's an issue, isn't it, David?
Someone said to me the other day when I gave them my list of filters terrorism, criminality, and if you can find a criminal record and then infectious diseases, the fourth thing they added was exactly this. They said, well, how about you cannot access the welfare roles?
Well, you see how difficult this is. And by the way, courts have been challenged on this. California had a proposition doing this thing in the 1990s. California had a proposition saying that. And the courts struck it down as once you're in America, the laws and the rules, including can't pick and choose as to what people get benefits or not if they're employed. Imagine you're employed and day one you start paying Social Security benefits. Social Security taxes, I should say the payroll tax, right? Yeah. Then the argument would be, but you can't collect benefits. Or it's true that one of the things they take out of your paycheck also is a premium for unemployment insurance in case you ever become unemployed. Well, what if a year into your immigration history, you become unemployed? You can't go to the unemployment office according to this standard, and yet the person has been paying in. I'm sympathetic to the idea, but it's been struck down as unequal treatment. And this is another issue here, of course, is residency versus citizenship. That's a whole different discussion just because you're here.
You might even be here legally. You're not yet a citizen. That's another level we can talk about. But David, would you put in restrictions on access to the welfare?
[00:39:04] Speaker C: No, I would not. And for the reason that you cited, at most, I would consider something about you have to be in this country for a certain amount of time, which is part of the citizenship requirements, or become a citizen, but you can't tax someone without allowing them to get the benefits that taxes are paying for. That seems so unjust to me that I don't see how to do that properly complicated.
[00:39:40] Speaker B: And one of the things I really liked about your 1985 essay, David, which I think is exactly relevant and just as relevant today, you pinpointed how part of that bill, and this is still true today, kind of puts the burden on the employers to document illegals or not, to not hire, illegals or not. And I think the way you put it is the government should be doing this job and it's forcing businesses to do it, and that's improper. Do you remember that argument? I assume you do.
[00:40:16] Speaker C: Yeah, that was one of the things that gave me my opening line, that it's an old wind that blows nobody.
[00:40:24] Speaker B: Yes. Yeah.
[00:40:25] Speaker C: But the Simpson Mazzoli bill is an example.
And the employer thing really got my.
[00:40:33] Speaker B: And for those of you who don't know the history, that bill in some form was eventually passed a year later in 86. I looked it up, and the argument today was Reagan was had reagan was rolled because Reagan basically said, I'm not really for amnesty for the reasons David Kelly mentioned in the essay. You're only incentivizing people it's like paying for hostages. You're only incentivizing people to get into the country if you're going know, drop the charges later. But Reagan struck the deal of saying, I will sign off on the amnesty if you actually restrict and put in border management.
Reagan was not a Trump guy who was against immigration. He wanted what David and I want, which is managed borders. And the Congress didn't do it.
Congress did the amnesty and then reneged on the border control. So Reagan felt like he was exploited, but that's ultimately what happened to that bill, David. You know that.
[00:41:33] Speaker C: David, surprise, surprise.
[00:41:36] Speaker B: To this day, you hear this debate. It hasn't changed a bit, right? To this day, you'll hear people say, we need comprehensive border immigration reform before we will do anything about the illegal immigrant rights. So those are the two sides staking out. And one group, Democrats, will not do border reform, and therefore they keep flooding in depending on who the president is. And you get Trump in and there's almost no border movement, and then you get Biden in, and there's massive over the top border movement. So that alone suggests that there's arbitrary government going on here that it really shouldn't be the case. Right. That border is that either totally constipated or totally porous, depending on who the president is.
That does sound arbitrary and not the rule of law. Right.
Okay, Scott. Go ahead.
[00:42:33] Speaker A: Yeah, I do want to open it up to people with their hands up. Clark was first. So Clark, thank you for your patience.
[00:42:43] Speaker D: Yes, thank you so much. Well, Scott and Richard and David.
Excellent topic, excellent conversation. There's so many questions I have, but let me limit it to one.
Richard, would you say how much of the crisis at the border that we have, it's been ongoing for many years. How much of it is actually, in some ways the result of the controls themselves? And by that I mean know if we just had a much higher level of legal immigration. And I'm thinking in particular here, Richard, about Hurricane Katrina.
This was late August 2005 when I think over a million people in Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, they had to leave immediately because their homes obviously were underwater. A lot of these folks that came from Louisiana, they came to my hometown of Houston in the hundreds of thousands. Now, they didn't need visas, obviously. They were citizens, so they could easily avail themselves of any kind of social welfare benefits. And yet, as I recall, in real time, since I do remember I guess it was 18 years ago, I don't remember any crisis at all. I mean, essentially there was an open border, quote unquote, between Louisiana and Texas.
I emphasize again, these were basically lower middle class minority folks. Obviously, they had to leave because their houses were underwater. And yet it just wasn't anything like you see, you turn on Fox News and it's know, you know, the coyotes, the cartels, the human of if we just had a know, if we just didn't have these artificially low immigration quotas, would it be more like what happened after Hurricane Katrina?
[00:44:45] Speaker B: I think you're right. I think when I research this, I find it's a very tragic, almost vicious cycle, or circle, however you want to put it, spiral downward. It is true that the actual hurdles for legal immigration have gotten higher and higher and more complex and bureaucratic. And it's similar to socialized medicine, where they begin with socialized medicine and people are standing in line because it's rations waiting for the kidney transplant. And what happens? Well, they don't actually allow a free market in organ sales and purchases. Right? So there's a black market and there's corruption and there's favoritism. And who's on the list for getting a kidney and all?
I mean, from Prohibition onward, there's a long history of corruption and bad things associated with government restricting. And I think, Clark, you're absolutely right. I think I have found that one of the tragedies here is it's become increasingly difficult just to get in here legally.
And I think that's improper. I mean, if we had our three part filter, how difficult it is that to figure out whether someone's a terrorist, a criminal or diseased. It shouldn't take that long. And I think part of it is based on quotas. And yes, that makes people more inclined to try to get over illegally all the time. I say to my liberty loving friends, and you and I were in Ecuador, you or I were in Nicaragua or Venezuela, would you do anything you could to get into the United States? I would. I would try anything possible to get into the United States. Not because I want to break the laws of the United States, but it would be because I love the United States. Which is actually back to David Kelly's point about can you imagine the people who would go through all that just to get here?
It's not a perfect litmus test, but it's not a bad one. It's not a bad filter alone. But I think it's totally tragic because, yes, then the more you see illegal people coming in, the more you feed the argument of close the borders. Because look at this chaos at the border. And it is totally you mentioned coyote, I mentioned human trafficking. The raping and the abuse of children is disgusting. I think we have an opportunity, actually to say this is an argument against anarchy. We have our libertarian friends who split themselves between constitutionally limited government of the kind objectivists would endorse and anarchy. But the anarchy at the border is disgusting. There is anarchy at the border. It's not a managed border. It's not a rationally managed Ellis Island border. And the result is despicable. The result is really, truly inhumane. And of course, there are libertarians, but apparently subsets of objectivists who say, who cares? Open the borders even if there's gruesome shit going on. Sorry to swear there, but I've seen the evidence. It is really disgusting and it's so unnecessary because this is a proper function of government and it's not doing it. So I don't know if that answered your question, Clark, but you're onto something. Definitely. It's not the case when someone says, just come in here legally.
What's wrong with you? Just go through the process. The process is as bureaucratic and as almost insurmountable as you can imagine.
And I'll leave you with one more thing, Clark, and others that you might want to discuss.
Is this a rights based issue, kind of the way Binswanger argued it, or is it a more social utility, a social value utilitarian argument? You know what the utilitarian argument would be? Let's decide who will most benefit America?
Is it people who vote a certain way? We're certainly kind of saying that by saying, well, we won't want terrorists, we don't want criminals, we don't want the diseased. And so in a way, we are applying standards. Right. Then the question is, are these objective standards or not. But you know, the whole issue of visas for, say, high tech immigrants who might work in silicon valley, there's a whole subsystem of quotas know, doctors and engineers coming from india. And it's so messed up because there's people in silicon valley, there are employers who will say, oh, my god, let those people in so we can hire them because they're smart and they're brainiacs. But then there's other groups who say we don't want them in because then they'll compete with us and they'll lower our so but notice how you could have like a social utility standard which objectivism pretty much objects to, right? We want to look at people individually. We'll look at rights and things like that. The social utility view is I'm the central planner from on high. I'm going to decide what the proper mix of our population and our labor force shall be and do we need this or that. You see how it's kind of unseemly and immoral, it seems and unprincipled to use that kind of social utility argument for who should come in or should not come in. So I'll open it up for discussion there versus the rights based approach would be we're not looking at the ultimate mix. We'll leave the mix to what it is. Just let people in as long as they're decent, free people and we're not going to ask how they vote. We're not going to ask about anything else and just let them what job they're going to take, whether they're going to be on the dole or not, just let them in. So that is a kind of divide in the debate.
Good.
[00:50:41] Speaker A: Jason.
[00:50:44] Speaker E: I mean, kind of already partially answered my question, Dr. Salzman. So I guess I wondered if we can go back to the I don't know if you know the story of Castle Garden. Is it feasible or even remotely feasible to go back to the model where the immigrant war is privatized, privately handled?
Castle Garden was when it was consolidated, of course, it was a big business back in the day in the 18 hundreds and all that, and a lot of them were like taken, and some of them were hijacked, so to speak, or taken captive and their stuff sold and stolen and so forth.
The castle garden depot was a consolidated point for that. But there was an actual placement, like a job placement agency that was there. And when people came in, they would then get placed and assigned to a location, and then they would get hired.
If that was done through, like, a brokerage of some kind or some kind of middleman. And then if you're taken from that, then of course if you were like a crappy broker who brought in really crappy people, then you had a bad reputation and they'd stopped hire or stopped getting workers through you. And then a person who did well with it or they had a good reputation. The opposite happened. They were routinely patronized.
[00:51:52] Speaker B: Well, I'm not familiar with that system, but it sounds intriguing.
I guess what you're saying, Jason, is they're kind of like private market or private oriented solutions. Are you saying, Jason, they were decent and not abusive, that they were rational and respectful of the individual, and they were just a brokering? Brokering in the sense of, you come to this country, you have no idea what you're doing. I'm going to help you assimilate, but you'll pay me a fee for this.
[00:52:21] Speaker E: I'm not exactly sure how that worked.
My family used to own it, and Castle Garden was actually leased to the city of New York in 1855, and then it became an immigrant depot then. That was before Ellis Island. But that was the person they centralized everything, if you know what I'm talking. It's in Battery Park. It's a little fort.
[00:52:37] Speaker B: Oh, wow. Okay. Wow, I love that. Okay, so for those of you who want to research it, I just wrote it down. I'm going to research it. Castle Garden, I like how you put it as an immigrant what'd you call it? An immigrant depot.
[00:52:48] Speaker E: That's what it was called.
It was called immigrant depot, and it was literally so you'd go there, and my understanding is you went there, and let's say you well, let's give my family story. There was a farm, conklin Farm out in Long Island. They arrived. My surname actually on that side was not Conklin. It was Kendera. But there's a long story behind that. But they arrived. Samuel Morse was there at the time. So did Henry conklin?
[00:53:11] Speaker B: He was there.
[00:53:12] Speaker E: And then they took them out to the Conklin farm out of were basically they were bohemian farmers from Czech Republic, bohemia. What is the and I love that because they came here with nothing to make something.
[00:53:25] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:53:26] Speaker E: Today, a lot of immigrants come here with nothing, and they take something back to wherever a location exits.
[00:53:31] Speaker B: So, Jason, let me ask you, hearing that you know this history so well, what do you say to the argument that I get if I bring up the Ellis Island model? They're going to give me the Friedman type argument. Milton Friedman. Argument. They'll say, all well and good, Richard, all very interesting, but irrelevant to the current context because Ellis Island meant pre welfare state for the most you're in other words, you know what I mean, Jason? Something like they'll say you're mixing category. You're mixing categories or epics. And it's literally the Milton Friedman argument, namely the Ellis Island model, works if we don't have a full fledged welfare state. Well, there's the puzzle. The puzzle today is we have a welfare state, and the other know will say, therefore restrict immigration, because these are welfare magnets. Not just that.
What do they call them? The Democrats go out of their way and call them sanctuary cities. Well, what is a sanctuary? The sanctuary is otherwise you'd be a criminal, an embassy city. Yeah, right. Because you just came into this country illegally, and so you come to san francisco, and you're a sanctuary. One, we won't put ice on you. We won't deport you. And two, we'll give you social services. So that side goes completely the other way, bends over backwards and feeds the animosity of the other side, saying, this is outrageous. This is disgusting. You're not just letting people in, you're coddling them, bringing them in, putting them on the voter know. So what do you think of that, Jason? What is the argument that we have a mixed system today, therefore we shouldn't be for open immigration?
[00:55:19] Speaker E: That whole scenario just turns my stomach.
Well, okay, it's a slap in the to kick in the groin and the people that did it the hard way. Now, granted, there's all these barriers to internet. There's all these different bureaucratic overlaid things. If I move to england, for example, the first thing they're going to ask, the very first thing they're going to say is, you may not take welfare here when you're an immigrant. You can come here, you can get a job, but it says it right on the paperwork. Now, I was on a student visa, so I didn't have to worry about that.
[00:55:43] Speaker B: And I was I didn't know that.
[00:55:46] Speaker E: That'S most countries, they wouldn't even entertain the thought of you even within the first and let's say you get residency, and then I have right to check citizenship through ancestry if I wanted to pursue that route and go back there if I wanted to. And it says right on there, within the first five years, I may not collect welfare.
[00:56:02] Speaker B: Wow.
They have a time frame. Of course. It's a safe time frame, because if you say not for five years, that means you're going to get a job, and five years later, you're not likely to be on the rolls. Interesting. Yeah.
[00:56:15] Speaker E: They make you substantial. You got to pay in first before you can collect on the benefits on the other end.
[00:56:18] Speaker B: Wow. For some reason well, I wouldn't say for some reason, for reasons we can imagine, that's been struck down in the US.
By the courts for unequal treatment, literally violating the 14th amendment. Now, some people would argue, wait a minute, the constitution should apply to citizens. But the problem here, the terminology, as I looked into this, actually, the problem is the US. Constitution does not actually refer to citizens.
It refers to persons. And that's a total loophole. Persons in the United States. Persons, if you look it up, related to voting, related to how many districts, related to how many congressmen you get. It's very weird. I mean, maybe a probable problem in the writing of the constitution, citizenship is different than just being here, and there's a certain path to it, obviously, but it makes it very murky, because the advocates of let them all in know full well that once you get in, that's it. You're a person, and the Constitution protects you anyway.
[00:57:29] Speaker E: Well, it's but the notion that you get caught, as you put it, that you're going to get all these benefits. So I see people that work here, that have been here for generations, they work hard, they struggle, they hit hard times or whatever, and the system is down, and it just pushes you. It really beats the crap out of you. But a person who has earned nothing gets handed a red carpet.
I know we probably hear the extreme exacerbated scenarios based on what the media says they were given. $450,000 was some crazy number, I heard, or something like that last year. I don't know how true that was, but the benefits were just a bit, to me, extensive for somebody who didn't earn any of it. And then the builders, the ones who, like I said, the ones who came here did things the hard way. You got to remember arriving in South Manhattan in 1857. It was a cesspool, I mean, disgusting. First thing you encounter with the smell, the next thing you're going to encounter is the fact no one had bathed and Lord knows how long those ships were not nice.
So I can't even begin to imagine the odiferous experience you're going to have at the border there, and then you're going to go work on a farm that's probably long island was country back then.
You use it the hard way. I mean, literally the hard way. They said, here's your plot of land. Go build your house over there, and here's some wood. Have at it. And that's probably what they handed to them. And they built a community. And then now somebody comes in and gets it. Not only they get the community for free, they get a house for free, they get paid for free, and they get food for free and food stamps and everything else on the back of the person who did it the hard way because that's the person who's pay tax all this time. It really is a very nauseating scenario.
And this entitlement as if it's as if we're somehow guilty of something for having it so good. I thought, no, that took hard work to get there. But disenfranchising people in that manner I find to be counter to nation building. That's naturally destructive.
The narrative. That nationalism, I don't think that applies when it comes to being nationalistic. Maybe not nationalism, but America. I posted earlier, the thing by Teddy Roosevelt being an American, that nationalism.
It's not a racially bigoted thing because America is not any one know in France, being everyone's French or everyone's German or everyone's Chinese. That would be kind of bigoted to be a nationalist in those regards. I still look down upon it because in China, that's rightfully so. You're in China. But I don't think it's not an apples to apples comparison. We talk about American nationalism because our nationalism doesn't discriminate along ethnic origin or shouldn't.
[00:59:52] Speaker B: David kelly david, one of the nice things I saw in your essay, not only this idea of my God, who would come here and what would their character be like? It's got to be something we want, something we welcome. But one of the other things you said in that essay, which I thought was very profound, is you said there's a myth. It's very common even today. You said David, do you remember this? You said there's a myth that the people who come are just consumers, they just gobble up things.
And the American spirit, of course, worries about that. Hey, are they these parasites? They're like locusts coming. And you said something like, wait a minute, they also come with hands and minds and productive attributes. And how interesting that the anti immigration people forget the culture, forget the xenophobia, the idea that they're just consumers and not adding value, just taking consumption in the sense of just eating up things instead of producing things. And your view is, wait a minute, what about the producers? Aren't they mostly producers? Why else are they coming here? They left a place that wouldn't let them produce or they left a place that they did produce and most of it was confiscated. Do you remember this, David? So you want to elaborate on that, that argument?
[01:01:08] Speaker C: Well, yeah, people do forget that. And I don't have a shorthand explanation for but and it doesn't apply across the board. There are people desperate for workers who are just looking for any live body who can do the job.
And that's where you get some of the advocacy for opening immigration, to some extent, at least for certain.
You mentioned Silicon Valley before. That's a prime example.
But I would just want to make one also point about the contrast between thinking in terms of individual rights and thinking in terms of social welfare or the argument.
Remember that an important aspect of objectivism objectivist ethics is that the moral is the practical right, so that the Indian brainiacs coming to Silicon Valley are not taking things away from any American who might have worked there.
If they are superior at what they do, and many of them are as look at the CEOs of high tech companies now.
What they do is create opportunities for other people and that's a win win situation all around. So I would also dismiss the economic resentment and more theoretical think. As far as I can see I'm not an economist, but as far as I can see, they don't really hold any water.
[01:03:00] Speaker B: The same argument David, comes up in you've probably seen this in environmentalism and worries about population. When people say, oh my God, there's 8 billion people.
What happens when there's 10 billion? They think of them as consumers eating up the planet, not creative minds finding resources. Julian Simon called it the ultimate resource. Is what the human mind reason, creativity. And it doesn't take everyone to be like that. We know the atlases of the world, the pyramid of ability, suggests it's a small fraction of the population that creates these things. Okay? So they need to be free. They need to be rewarded, they need to be selfish, but all else equal. Anyone who says, I really worry about more people on this planet, they often have that premise. David and it's the same in immigration, I think. They're just going to know Cookie Monster, they're just going to be consumers, and they're not going to add anything to Sesame Street, something like that. You know what I mean?
[01:04:13] Speaker C: No, that's know, it seems so obvious. Anyone with a mouth to consume has two hands to.
[01:04:26] Speaker B: Yeah, if they're free and motivated, there is a condition.
Isn't that the concern of Jason and others and Friedman of the welfare state?
If you have a big neon sign saying, Come and consume.
Come and live off of others. Come and be a parasite. That's the worry, isn't it? Of some? I don't know if it's totally genuine or Dr. Selzman.
[01:04:52] Speaker E: That's not a hard sell in a lot of the world, if you look at because a lot of them the resources were controlled. Ownership of the production, means of production were also controlled by the government or some hierarchy thing. So the idea that you can just create on your own is a very free market way of thinking that, I hate to say, very exclusive to the west. I mean, it's not something I come across traveling further east. I'm like, well, just start this.
What do you think of that? I'm like because it's how I think. I know what keyword, I think, but I'm allowed to where a lot of societies, they oppress this idea that you can just do that free enterprise way of thinking.
[01:05:31] Speaker B: I wonder if there are any I don't know if we have hands, let me know. Scott but just to throw out another idea, any thoughts on why other countries who were very anti immigrant get no criticism?
I mean, it's very well known in Asia and elsewhere, japan or look at the Nordic countries. There's some exceptions to this in emergency situations or know, fleeing Syria or something like that, but you find a uniquely critique of America, that Americans are somehow nativist xenophobes, anti, using guilt. But look at all the other countries of the world who allow no one in for whatever reason, they're undermining our wages or they don't look like us. America is even in today's context, which is very mixed and not the Ellis Island model. Even so, Americans are seemingly very tolerant and welcoming, it seems to me. Why do other countries not get this criticism as being racist? Xenophobes because.
[01:06:45] Speaker E: It'S former colonies. I notice, at least that's what I've seen it is former colonies are former colonies. So like the African countries, for example, that. Were once colonial possessions. They're, of course, closed off and not criticized because they view colonies, colonists, as invaders versus here we're a nation of colonists.
And at least I think that's kind of why you don't hear them getting the criticism as much, because who really wants to move to, I don't know.
[01:07:17] Speaker B: North Korea? Yeah. So North Korea does not have an immigration problem, and they're not going to be accused of being racist xenophobes. Okay, but it's because you suck.
[01:07:33] Speaker E: No one wants to go there. Yeah.
[01:07:36] Speaker B: It is bizarre in a certain way, though, isn't it?
However mixed we are today, the most tolerant, liberal, wonderful, humanitarian country gets smeared all the time as a racist, xenophobic, nativist country. And we're the most welcoming to the point of a massive anarchy on the southern border and actually kind of inhumane treatment of a bunch of people. And it's okay with Americans seems to be that's how tolerant we are. Anyway, I just throw that out there.
[01:08:06] Speaker E: Did you guys get the sorry. I'm sorry, Scott.
[01:08:09] Speaker A: Go ahead, Richard. I have one.
What about the idea that the Ellis Island model it's premised on the idea that there's a certain level of civilizational self confidence that maybe even still existed during Reagan when David was writing that arguably does not exist today. And we're holding fast to this principle, while to Peacock's point, they're using it as a bludgeon just to get votes, and using our own values and principles about the ideals of open immigration against.
[01:08:44] Speaker E: Oh, they love to use it against yeah.
[01:08:49] Speaker B: I'm not sure how to answer that question. That's a good point. You're saying once again, the category mix. It's nice to defend the Ellis Island model, Salzman, but one thing is we didn't have a welfare state. Second, we didn't have this love of civilization. Well, we had a love of civilization then, so we welcomed the more civilized fleeing barbaric tyranies, and we don't have that today. I don't know how to answer that, scott? I would put it this way. I have a hard time believing that the people streaming over the border on the south, mostly on the south, are anti Western civ.
Maybe they are. They're not going to be as pro Western civ, say, as a 1920 German immigrant, but I'm not as pessimistic as to say, oh, my God, the barbarians are at the gate. Because that's really the argument. Ed Powell and think about it. They think they're all barbarians.
[01:09:49] Speaker A: It's not even that. It's that our lack of cultural self confidence is what's encouraging the wrong kind these days.
[01:10:00] Speaker B: Okay, so America has lost its confidence in its ideals, right? Ye hey. Ho ho. Western civ has got to go.
Okay, I'm just following the logic, and therefore our immigration policy has degraded degenerated into let anyone in. But it still doesn't answer David Kelly's point that the ones coming are still they have to be largely decent people because it's an arduous ridiculous and crazy venture to leave your country and come here? I don't know. I'm not too sure that's a good argument, Scott, but it's almost like is that its own litmus test? Go ahead.
[01:10:48] Speaker A: Different people have different motives. You're right. There's a spectrum. And yes, I think that even to the extent that you could say it's a plot of the Democrats to take a monopoly on power like Peacock was alluding to some extent fails, you see Hispanic votes starting to go for Trump or the Cuban vote being solid Republican because of their own history with communism.
[01:11:13] Speaker B: Yeah, I have long said to Republicans who make this argument, we can't let them in because they'll vote Democrat. I say to them, what is wrong with your arguments? Why can't you convince them? Do you know how fast the Democrats would change their immigration policy if the poll showed up like you're suggesting? Scott oh, my God, these people are going to vote for Trump or these people are going to vote Republican or these people going to vote on the right. There are in the community, as you know, on all these immigration communities, people who will say in the Mexican legal immigrant community, they'll say, I hate illegal immigration. They'll say, I resent the fact that I worked here to get in legally. And now all these people are coming in illegally. Those are within the Hispanic and Latino community. So, yeah, you could argue that as in other areas, the Republicans lack confidence in their ability to convince people to vote for them. And why not? Look at the I don't like the hordes coming over the border with no processing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that. But I'm saying to Republicans, why can't you convince them to be Republicans?
Sure, but it's got to be a hard task, right? So they go right into the public schools. They go right into the ghettos and the barrios of Los Angeles and elsewhere. And where are they going to go other than into these Democratic precincts where they're converted into as Leonard said, they're converted into Democrats who vote for tyranny it's very.
[01:12:52] Speaker D: Well.
[01:12:53] Speaker A: Let's go to Clark. He's got his hand.
[01:12:57] Speaker D: I was on this particular point, I was just going to mention that I'm down here in Texas where it seems like we've just got lots of more people moving here. And the debate among a lot of Republicans I seem to know more Republicans now, they're not like us, but they're Republicans. And so there's this big debate. It's like Texas seems to be kind of slowly gravitating getting bluer and bluer, especially the cities. And so the debate among Republicans, well, is it the upper middle class Californians coming, the woke people coming because they're leaving California?
You mentioned obviously it's not Korea, but they're leaving California for greener pastures. Is that why Texas seems to be kind of slowly getting bluer? Or is it the immigrants from the northern Triangle countries down in Central America. Well, I mean, obviously, I don't think any of those folks coming from Central America or Mexico, they don't even know what woke is, so they're not on board with and actually, as someone who's actually I've actually substitute taught some of the schools. It's amazing how quickly the children, whose parents have only been from Central America, they've only been in the country they were born in Central America. They've only been in the US for maybe a couple of years. Believe me, they all know English fluently. They know. They know who Taylor Swift is and Selena Gomez. And in fact, they talk just like the I mean, so it doesn't take long at all today for these kids to become completely assimilated. It's not like when Came, he didn't have TikTok and Instagram, so I'm sure it would have taken a lot longer. But anyway, the point is I agree with you, Richard. I think the people who are coming from Central America, they want to work hard for $12 an hour, and that's not a problem, is it?
They just really want to work hard for $12 an hour. And actually, just to wrap up on this, since I'm getting long winded, the Californians I meet here, a lot of them, they left California because it was just too woke and the economy was too spletic.
Honestly, the truth is Texas is still red. It's red as hell. And obviously it's going to be fundamental ideas like we've all said before. Really, I would say Texas is maybe 25 years away from where behind the bad ideas that hit California and New York first.
We have the same bad ideas down here in Texas.
We have more time. So obviously we need these better ideas that the Atlas Society is promoting just to stop. The big thing, of course, in Texas is yeah, please don't. California, my Texas is what you see on the sign.
[01:16:06] Speaker B: I like those comments, Clark. I especially like your idea that, hey, listen, ideas matter more than bodies moving across borders. But it's also true. It's hard to believe if you tell Americans today, especially the young, that California was Reagan country. What the hell?
Reagan, who was despised today as a, quote, neoliberal who brought us closer to capitalism in the 80s along with Maggie Thatcher and others, he won the governorship twice in this, what, 66 fact that California was solidly Republican and delivered up Reagan and delivered up Reagan to the point where he could win two landslides nationally. It's not that way anymore. And the question is whether it's not that way anymore because of immigration. The Democrats certainly look at it that way. They look at it as like, oh, my God, I'm glad we let all these immigrants in to go in to flood into California and turn it Democrat. And what's the next step? Arizona. Arizona is what? Goldwater country? Barry Goldwater. My God. 1964. Barry Goldwater. Who gave rise to Reagan, right? Goldwater, who in many ways was more libertarian than Reagan, supported by Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand supported goldwater, not Reagan. And then so Arizona is moving closer and closer, closer from Republican to Democrat. And it's almost like if you look at the Democrats, they're like, we got California, then we got Arizona, now we're going to get Texas. Texas is next. If you get California, Arizona and Texas, to hell with New York, Florida and elsewhere, you would never lose another election. The number of people in California and Texas alone will deliver you the presidency every time. So it could be this is kind of a more pessimistic view of what's happening, but reflecting of what Leonard Peacock said, they want to turn Texas Democrat and that's where the border is. That's why they care more about the southern border being porous, say, than the Canadian border. They don't care about the Canadian border because whoever comes from know they're not necessarily Democrats. They're just usually entertainers like Celine Dion or David Letterman or whoever came from all these people who came from Canada, they don't turn the country left wing. But what do you think of that, Clark, that they're hoping that Texas becomes Democrat? The sheer electoral college votes are so huge from California and Texas that if you add that to the mix of Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, solidly Democrat, that the Democrats would never lose another election, at least at the federal level.
[01:19:05] Speaker D: Well, I think you're right, Richard, on that point. So I guess that means that the Atlas Society, those of us who are in the Atlas Society and those of us who supported, we've got our workout out of for us. Because the truth is, like I'd mentioned before, texas is just, I would say, 25 years behind california, New York, down here in the south, we've always been behind. Now, sometimes that's good, sometimes that's not so good. And in this case it's just all the bad ideas. I mean, honestly, a lot of woke ideas happen here, especially here in Austin where, you know, it's very blue.
[01:19:54] Speaker B: If you look at the history of the governors, it's almost like you're saying, well, what's the equivalent of Reagan in California? Bush. Rick Perry. Who's? The current guy. Abbot.
[01:20:05] Speaker D: Abbot.
[01:20:05] Speaker B: They're all republicans. But you're saying that's going to be the Reagan of the they're going to be gone in the next decade or so. You're not going to have Republican governors in Texas anymore. You're going to have Texas. Go, Democrat. That's kind of what you're predicting.
[01:20:23] Speaker D: Well, again, I think we have time.
Like I say, we're probably 25 years or so. And again, it really is ideas. And I would just finish up by saying someone like Greg Abbot I'm sorry, he's kind of a mean he's a politician first.
[01:20:51] Speaker B: He's. No. Reagan. I know.
[01:20:56] Speaker D: It's like they're just going a little bit slower towards in other words, he's not really standing a thwart history and.
[01:21:05] Speaker B: Yelling, oh, you're quoting Bill Buckley there. Wow. Okay. Now notice also after Reagan Duke Magin george Duke Magin and then Arnold Pete Wilson.
Yes, right. Oh, Pete Wilson. Right. And then arnold Schwarzenegger. But notice also the dilution, if you will, from Reagan to Arnold, they were Republicans, but a diluted form of it over time.
[01:21:37] Speaker D: Right.
[01:21:37] Speaker B: Notice right. And same thing with Texas.
I forget who was there before GW, but GW was no Reagan. But even so, from GW to Abbott, notice the same dilution. It's going downhill in terms of the quality of the Republican and how capitalist they are. But now it's also interesting that Abbott and others have this very pugnacious policy of transporting immigrants out of Texas up into sanctuary cities, up into Martha's Vineyard and up into Nancy Pelosi's neighborhood. That's very funny. It's cute and it's clever, but I'm not sure it's going to stem the tide. But it's almost as if they're saying, just because you come to Texas doesn't mean you stay in Texas. How about we ship you to other parts of the United States?
I'm not sure Abbot and others are doing this to make sure Texas doesn't go Democrat. They're doing it more from the standpoint of we can't afford breaking the social welfare system here. But any thoughts on whether that's a legitimate strategy or not, that there's one way to fight this is just redistribute them out of Texas?
[01:22:56] Speaker D: Again, to me, that's more a gimmick. And I'm not saying anything that anybody in this room doesn't agree with, but ideas. It's ideas. And unfortunately, like you mentioned how California has went from Reagan to Duke Major to Wilson to Arnold and Texas, it's kind of the, you know, really it's philosophy. It's major ideas and yeah. Abbot I mean, I guess Abbott's better than Warren or or some of the other or, you know, again, he's kind of know a like, you know, he accepts all the bad premises of all the statism. It's just he's going to take you there in a much slower time frame.
[01:23:47] Speaker A: Great. Well, this was a great topic. I want to thank everyone who joined us and who participated.
Wanted to tell you about upcoming events we have at the Atlas Society tomorrow at 04:00 p.m.. Eastern. The Atlas Society asks Akira the Don who just did some anthem and objectivist related videos, and then they're going to have the DeSantis Newsom debate tomorrow night. And then Friday at 07:00 p.m..
Richard is going to be back with our CEO Jag and Abby Behringer for an analysis of that bait. So really looking forward to that. But again, we want to thank everyone for joining us, and we hope to see you at our events in the future.
[01:24:44] Speaker B: Thank you, Scott. David joining. Great to see you again. David, thanks for joining.
