Illegal Immigration: It's About Power

Tucker Carlson
Oct 29, 2018

Historically, Democrats supported strong borders because they knew American workers could never compete with illegal immigrants. Now, they regularly support 'open borders.' So why the drastic change? Tucker Carlson, host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explains.

Illegal Immigration: It's About Power

Transcript of video:

I recently watched a group of protestors, most of them young, denouncing President Donald Trump's immigration policies. They were waving Mexican flags and shouting: '¡Si, se puede!'--"Yes, we can!'

This is now the rallying cry of the open-borders left, but it wasn't always. In fact, I wondered if a single person at the protest knew where it came from.

The slogan first became famous fifty years ago, thanks to Cesar Chavez. He was the founder of the United Farm Workers union. When Chavez said 'Si, se puede,' he meant something very different: 'Yes, we can... seal the borders.'

Cesar Chavez hated illegal immigration.

He was Hispanic, obviously, and definitely on the left, but he fought to keep illegal Mexican immigrants out of this country. He understood that peasants from Latin America will always work for less than Americans will. That's why employers prefer them. Chavez knew that. 'As long as we have a poor country bordering California,' he once explained, 'it's going to be very difficult to win strikes.'

In 1969, Chavez led a march down the center of California to protest the hiring of illegal immigrant produce pickers. Marching alongside him was Democratic Senator Walter Mondale, and the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, the longtime aide to Martin Luther King.

Ten years later, Chavez dispatched armed union members into the desert to assault Mexican nationals who were trying to sneak across the border. Chavez's men beat immigrants with chains and whips made of barbed wire. Illegal aliens who dared to work as scabs had their houses fire-bombed and their cars burned.

Chavez wasn't embarrassed about any of this. He bragged about it.

No matter. Chavez remains a progressive hero. President Obama declared his birthday a commemorative federal holiday. It's an official day off in half a dozen states. There's a college named after him, and dozens of public schools.

Cesar Chavez's life is a reminder of how much the left has changed--and how quickly.

Until recently, most Democrats agreed with Chavez. They opposed unchecked immigration because they knew it hurt American workers. And they were right.

One study by a Harvard economist examined the effects of the mass migration of Cuban refugees to this country in 1980--the so-called Mariel boatlift. He found that American workers in Miami with a high school education saw their wages fall by more than thirty percent after the refugees arrived. If you believe in supply and demand, this is not surprising.

After the fall of Saigon in 1975, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown opposed letting Vietnamese refugees into California on the grounds that the state already had enough poor people. As he put it at the time, "There is something a little strange about saying, 'Let's bring in 500,000 more people' when we can't take care of the one million Californians out of work.'

First term Senator Joe Biden of Delaware agreed; he introduced federal legislation to curb the arrival of the Vietnamese.

Two decades later, leading Democrats were still wary of mass immigration, especially illegal immigration. As Bill Clinton put it in the 1995 State of the Union address, '...Americans... are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.'

No prominent Democrat would say anything like that today without being denounced as a racist. Clinton got a standing ovation.

As late as 2006, there were still liberals who cared about the economic effects of immigration, legal or illegal. 'Immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants,' explained economist Paul Krugman in the New York Times. '...We'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skilled immigrants. Mainly, that means better controls on illegal immigration.'

That same year, Senator Hillary Clinton voted for a fence on the Mexican border. So did Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and 23 other Senate Democrats.

Not anymore.

Twenty years after Bill Clinton told Americans they had the right to be upset about illegal immigration, his wife scolded the country for enforcing border controls.

So, what changed?

Not the economics of it. The law of supply and demand remained in effect. It's not a coincidence that as illegal immigration surged, wages for American workers stagnated. What changed is that Democrats stopped caring about those workers. About the middle class, really.


Here's the answer, in four simple facts.

One: According to a recent study from Yale, there are at least 22 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Two: Democrats plan to give all of them citizenship. Read the Democrats' 2016 party platform.

Three: Studies show the overwhelming majority of first-time immigrant voters vote Democrat.

Four: The biggest landslide in American presidential history was only 17 million votes.

The payoff for Democrats: permanent electoral majority for the foreseeable future. In a word: power.

That's the point, no matter what they tell you; American workers be damned.

I'm Tucker Carlson.

PDF of transcript

Facts & Sources:

Why are Democrats committed to giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship? Studies show illegal immigrants strongly lean Democratic.

Democrats used to oppose mass immigration because it hurts American workers. Now, they embrace it because they think it helps their party.

In 2006, Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chuck Schumer voted for a fence on the southern border.

The Leftist hero Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration. 'Si, se puede!'-- 'Yes, we can!'--was about closing the border.

Despite the fact that he promoted violence to oppose illegal immigration, Cesar Chavez is still celebrated by progressives.

You've heard that the U.S. has some 11 million illegal immigrants--recent studies say the real number may be twice the amount.


Leftist Books For Brainwashing Kids

Nov 2, 2018

Will Witt reads a book that encourages children to be activists. Check it out!

CNN's Don Lemon doubles down on false claim that white men are "biggest terror threat in this country"
there are several problems with this study:
1. It only counts fatalities, not people injured or raped.
2. It doesn't take failed plots into account.
3. If you follow the Post's link to the Government Accountability Office, and go to page 6 of the report there, you'll see that the count of fatalities committed by "far right wing extremists" and "radical Islamist extremists" begins on September 12, 2001. Go back one more day, and the number of Americans killed by Islamic jihadists is far, far more than the number of Americans killed by any other type of "extremist."
4. The comparison doesn't take into account the fact that there is a global network of Islamic jihadis. They're found on every inhabited continent. Major jihad organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have repeatedly called upon Muslims to murder Americans. By contrast, there is no global network of "right-wing extremists" and they have not called for the indiscriminate murder of American civilians.

This propaganda is everywhere, but all the repetition of these lies doesn't make them true.

The "studies" are also misleading because they average fatalities over many years in order to reduce the impact that recent seeding of muslims has had in this country by the government and various religious groups, including Catholics, Jews, and others. You need only to look at Sweden (now the rape capital of Europe), France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, etc. to see the mass rapes and murders that correspond with recent muslim migration. Over 50% of the children in Germany now are descendants of migrants, and other countries' demographics (and crime rates) are likewise rapidly increasing with the migration. The cumulative effect of muslims who refuse to integrate and who are not vetted will continue to increase in all countries, including the US as the percentage of these migrants increases. (The US does not yet have the large percentage of muslims that these other countries have, due to the UN forcing them to take in very large numbers and put them on welfare.)

Don Lemon Is Lying... Again: Biggest Threat Isn't "White Men" - The FBI's Most Wanted Domestic Terrorists Are These People
Interestingly enough, it looks like the WOMEN in this country are currently responsible for more terrorism than WHITE MEN. Mr. Lemon, you are very wrong.
Dean Garrison -- November 1, 2018
"So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. And we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on -- they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban. So, what do we do about that?" --Don Lemon
Just to illustrate the absurdity of Don Lemon's comments, I thought it would be fun to go look at the current list of the FBI's most wanted terrorists. Below is the list of "domestic" terrorists and, regardless of the list/filter you choose, you won't find many "white men".
Interestingly enough, it looks like the WOMEN in this country are currently responsible for more terrorism than WHITE MEN. Mr. Lemon, you are very wrong...
(See pictures at above link)

I Spent 6 Hours Tweeting About 573 Instances Of Leftist Violence, Because CNN Says It Doesn't Exist

A Serial Killer Called "Socialism"
10/30/2018Rafael Acevedo
Socialism has killed more than 100 million people worldwide. Socialism came to Venezuela 60 years ago and has proven to be the worst form of government under which to improve the quality of life. Ludwig von Mises once said that every socialist is a potential dictator, and the history in Venezuela supports his statement. My country is now ruled by one of the most tyrannical, vicious, and corrupt regimes in the world and -- as a dedicated socialist regime -- it could not be anything else...

Proof The "Peaceful" Migrant Caravan Is Violent...And Armed

Migrants decline refugee status offer from Mexican authorities; they want to come here and live on welfare instead

Legal Immigrant Explains How To Enter America The Right Way And Says Illegals Are A "Threat To National Security"
A U.S. immigrant from Nicaragua explained how she legally came to the United States

Hondurans Paint Swastika On American Flag, Set It On Fire; Wave Honduran Flags, Give Us The Finger
Claimed to be migrant army throwing rocks at US helicopters

OAN: Judicial Watch Exposes Caravan Funding

Shocking video shows Beto campaign illegally funding Honduran migrants
Project Veritas Action Fund released a shocking video Thursday that allegedly shows staffers for Texas Democratic Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke's campaign discussing the illegal use of campaign funds to help Honduran migrants. Learn more and watch the video here.

Caught On Video: Mexican Police Stop Buses And Trucks -- Force Them To Take Caravan Immigrants North To US Border

The Migrant Caravan Crisis: Another Result of Government Central Planning

FOX News Reporter Reveals Organized Bus Operation Loading Illegal Immigrants for Rides in Mexico - YouTube

"Organized Busing Operation" Exposed, Moving Migrants Closer To US Border

All Hell Breaks Loose After Tucker Asks Jorge How Many Caravan Migrants He'll Will Take In(VIDEO)!!

A Spanish-Language Network Finds Out That Not All Hispanics Living In The US Are Welcoming The Honduran Migrants With Open Arms

Honduran Caravan: Another Tool Used By Socialist Left To Influence The Elections

Stunning: Photo Evidence Shows Caravan Migrants Carrying USAID Bags -- Paid For By US Taxpayers

Hondurans Burn The American Flag As 7,000 Migrants March To Assault The US Border, Women And Children Conspicuously Absent
As the migrant caravan gets closer to the US border, one thing becomes frightfully clear.

Pictures And Video Of The Massive Army Of Migrants Descending On The US Border Will Put Your Jaw On The Floor
"When I heard about the caravan, I knew it was my chance"


Where do they sh--?
The Hondurans in the caravan, the 7,000 people walking north to America, where do they go to the bathroom?
And eat and sleep and store their clothes?
And how is it that after a week on the road they are clean and their hair and clothes are well kept?
How is any of this possible?
And why do these people, supposedly fleeing intolerable conditions in their homeland, carry little flags from their homeland and break into its national anthem when the TV cameras show up?
And speaking of which, for oppressed people, they all seem to be pretty well fed, well groomed and well dressed. Their hair is neat and newly cut, their clothes are clean and in good repair, and they are built like people who have had ample nutrition all their lives, being well developed and, many of them, overweight.
And none of them look dirty or unkempt, like they had been sleeping on the ground for the last week.
There's just nothing in any of this that makes sense.
Supposedly, these several thousand people spontaneously decided to leave Honduras, walking north in a group, hoping to trek the length of gang-plagued Mexico and present themselves as refugees and prospective Democrats at the American border.
Which, again, makes no sense whatsoever.
And leaves a lot of big questions unanswered, and ignored by the press. Such as, who organized this? Who is paying for it? How have they covered 500 miles in a week?
Seriously. Any number of American "reporters" have walked beside a sympathetic walker and talked about how this particular woman and her children had trekked half a thousand miles over the last week or so.
That's 71 miles a day.
The best soldiers through history have been able to march 25 miles a day.
How have 7,000 people been fed and watered? And how have they gone to the bathroom? If the average person across the world produces about a pound of solid waste a day, that means that these folks are somehow disposing of more than three tons of feces each day.
That's a heck of a lot of crap, even for a Central American roadway.
Provisioning such an army of people -- the equivalent of 10 combat battalions in most of the world's militaries -- is a large task. Transporting and distributing the food and water necessary to keep those people moving is a massive chore which the press says nothing about.
The entire enterprise, as a spontaneous ad hoc event, is implausible.
As an orchestrated international attempt to influence an American election, it starts to make sense.
And ought to alarm us.
Unless it's only Russians we don't want screwing with our democracy.
Unfortunately, none of this has made the evening news. It's almost as if the press, in whatever scheme is afoot, gladly accepts its role as propagandists to the American people.
Every story is sympathetic, as if an attempt to enlist viewers and readers in this caravan and the politics it symbolizes.
And so the story is not about an orchestrated attempt to manipulate electoral opinion and violate the borders and laws of the United States, it is about compassion and Trump and xenophobia and racism. It is the October surprise, it is the Blue Wave.
And it is all nonsense.
Because all of these people, if legitimate, have the ability to apply for American asylum in their own country -- as do the residents of most nations of the world. We have consulates and embassies for a reason, and this is one of those reasons.
We also have laws and an oath of office for a reason.
Laws, so that "we the people" through our elected representatives clearly and systematically govern our society. Law is the means by which the people express and exercise their sovereignty. Disobedience to law is disobedience to the will of the people, it is the subverting of their sovereignty and franchise.
Breaking the law is denying you the vote. Your vote elects representatives -- lets you pick the country's direction -- and the representatives write the law. If that law is ignored, your representation becomes meaningless.
You get screwed.
And the oath of office?
Members of Congress -- even Democrats -- swear an oath to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, which establishes our system of laws and specifically charges the Congress with making the rules of naturalization and immigration.
Who comes across the border and under what conditions they can stay is a constitutional responsibility of the Congress. That is to be determined by a congressional vote, not by a Honduran mob.
Failure to insist on that -- even for Democrats -- is a violation of your congressman's oath of office.
So there is not a Democrat or Republican response to this travelling army of invaders -- there is only an American response.
And that is: Turn around and go home.
Because the law of the United States does not allow a mass entry like this. The law does not declare the borders open.
If Democrats and progressives don't like that, they can try to change the law. If America's progressives want open borders and believe all the world's people have a right to live in the United States -- as they say they do -- then they should adjust immigration law accordingly.
But until then, if they are to keep their oaths of office, they must stand for the law and the border.
And they must tell their surrogates to turn around and go home.
Because this caravan is nothing more than a bunch of political hogwash.

- by Bob Lonsberry © 2018

Mass Migration: Mortal Threat to Red State America
Thursday - November 1, 2018 at 10:16 pm
This post was viewed 89 times.
Votes: 5.00 Stars!
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Among the reasons Donald Trump is president is that his natural political instincts are superior to those of any other current figure.

As campaign 2018 entered its final week, Trump seized upon and elevated the single issue that most energizes his populist base and most convulses our media elite.

Warning of an "invasion," he pointed to the migrant caravan that had come out of Honduras and was wending its way through Mexico. He then threatened to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship.

As other caravans began to assemble in Central America, Trump said he would send, first 5,200 and then 15,000, troops to the border.
State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan
State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America

This ignited the predictable hysteria of the media elite who decried his "racism," his "lying" and his "attack on the 14th Amendment." Trump, they railed, is sending more troops to the Mexican border than we have in Syria or Iraq.

True. But to most Americans, the fate and future of the republic is more likely to be determined on the U.S.-Mexican border than on the border between Syria and Iraq.

Moreover, in challenging birthright citizenship, Trump has some constitutional history on his side.

The 14th Amendment, approved in 1868, was crafted to overturn the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and to guarantee citizenship and equal rights under law to freed slaves and their children.

Did it guarantee that everyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen?

No. In the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins decision, the Supreme Court ruled that John Elk, a Winnebago Indian born on a reservation, had not denied his constitutional right to vote, as he was not a U.S. citizen.

Not for 56 years, when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, did Native Americans become U.S. citizens.

Also, the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on those born in the U.S. and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Children of foreign diplomats, though born here, are not citizens.

Most legal scholars do not think Trump can, by executive order, determine who is or is not a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Yet should Trump issue an executive order and lose in the Supreme Court, the controversy could raise public consciousness and force Congress to enact legislation to clarify what the 14th Amendment precisely means.

Only Canada and the United States, among advanced nations, have birthright citizenship. No European country does. And the Conservative Party in Canada is moving to end it. Does it make sense to grant all the honor, privileges and rights of lifetime U.S. citizenship to anyone who can fly to the U.S. or evade the Border Patrol and have a baby?

Nor is this a small matter. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 6 percent of U.S. births (250,000 per year) are to undocumented immigrants.

Yet that 250,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of immigrants now coming. In 2016, President Obama's last full year, 1.75 million legal and illegal immigrants arrived, a record.

With two months to go in 2017, the estimated arrivals of legal and illegal immigrants is 1.61 million.

Thus, in two years, 2016 and 2017, the United States will have absorbed more migrants, legal and illegal, than all the people of the 13 states when we became a nation.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there are 44.5 million immigrants in the U.S. today, legal and illegal, a number that far exceeds the total U.S. population, North and South, at the time of the Civil War.

While almost all of our immigration before 1965 was from Europe, only 1 in 10 immigrants now comes from the Old Continent.

Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean provide a plurality of migrants, legal and illegal. They have displaced East Asia and South Asia -- China, Korea, the Philippines, India -- as the primary contributors to the burgeoning U.S. population.

We are assured that the greater the racial, ethnic, religious and cultural diversity we have, the stronger a nation we shall become. Whether true or not, we are going to find out.[This is not true if the immigrants do not assimilate.]

For the European population of America, 90 percent of the country in 1965, will have fallen to about 60 percent by 2020, and whites are headed for minority status about 20 years after that.

Of America's most populous states -- California, Texas, Florida and New York -- the first two are already minority-majority and the latter two are not far behind.

Yet the gaps between Asian and white Americans, and Hispanic and African-Americans -- in income and wealth, crime rates and incarceration rates, test scores and academic achievements -- are dramatic and are seemingly enduring.

To the frustration of egalitarians, the meritocracy of free and fair competition in this most diverse of great nations is producing an inequality of rewards and a visible hierarchy of achievement.

Politically, continued mass migration to the USA by peoples of color, who vote 70-90 percent Democratic, is going to change our country another way. Red state America will inevitably turn blue.

The Truth About the Honduran Caravan! | Stefan Molyneux
Published on Oct 24, 2018
A group of 7,000 migrants have joined a caravan aimed at the US border - right before the mid-terms! What does it mean, where did they come from, how are they funded - and what is their aim?

Oxford University researchers say "religious violence is pretty rare in our history," hunt for its causes
Nov 1, 2018 9:52 am By Robert Spencer
These Oxford University researchers, like most other academics today, dismiss out of hand the possibility that religious violence could stem from the actual teachings of a particular religion. Then, having rejected that idea, they cast about for another explanation for it. This study focused upon the Troubles in Northern Ireland, which was a political struggle expressed in terms of religious allegiance, and the 2002 Gujarat riots between Hindus and Muslims. They appear to have ignored the 33,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11.
And they make the preposterous claim that "religious violence is not our default behaviour -- in fact it is pretty rare in our history." In my book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, I document, largely from Islamic sources, the fact that everywhere Muslims have gone, all over the world, for fourteen centuries, there has followed violent attacks by some of those Muslims upon non-Muslims. Those violent Muslims were acting against the non-Muslims in order to try to impose Sharia upon them, institutionalizing their second-class status. In most cases, they succeeded. In the book I show that there was never a time of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims, except when the Muslims enjoyed unchallenged hegemony.
The Oxford researchers either do not know this history, or do not want you to know. Either way, their study is a travesty...