[YouTube] The Truth About Immigration and Welfare

[Freedomain]

 

MP3 Download: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3105/the-truth-about-immigration-and-welfare-
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/stefan-molyneux/fdr-3105-the-truth-about-immigration-and-welfare

One of the most controversial questions in the discussion of both legal and illegal immigrants has been around their consumption of welfare. A recent independently verified report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has answered that question -  and the results are incredibly shocking.

The report by Dr. Steven Camarota titled “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households” which analyzed welfare usage using the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data.

The major welfare programs covered in this report include Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Women Infants and Children food program (WIC), free or subsidized school lunch, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -  more commonly known as food stamps, and public housing or rent subsidies.

What is the truth about Immigrants and welfare usage? What does this mean for the future of the United States of America?

Sources
http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-final.pdf
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2000/Yearbook2000.pdf

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com

[dsayers]

Still watching, but I got angry 3 minutes in. The most recent data is 2012?! In a free market, how assistance is handled would surely be more rigorously monitored than "when we get around to it."

 

Also, I didn't know there was a program called Women Infants and Children. Must be that patriarchy I keep hearing about.

[dsayers]

My favorite part so far: https://youtu.be/4u1J6EEhkyM?t=23m33s

[Lars]

We must spread the disgruntle, lest more disgruntle... then death, all the death.

Seriously, excellent presentation.

[Alan C.]

I've lived in southern California for 40+ years. Those of us who have lived here for most of our lives are quite aware of the effects of Hispanics pouring across the border almost unabated. Abuse of hospital emergency rooms is among the most serious problems. The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act largely contributed to it. As a result, emergency rooms are filled with people who are there for routine and non- life-threatening issues. Because they're uninsured and can't afford to pay, taxpayers are forced to compensate hospitals. It's not uncommon to have to wait several hours to be screened by a triage nurse. Hospitals have gone bankrupt because of things like this. There are more animal hospitals than there are hospitals for people.

 

Years ago, I scanned a book about welfare abuse and made it available online: Welfare Wonderland by Belva Detlof (1968)

 

It should give you some idea about how long this sort of thing has been going on and that it's not a recent phenomenon.

[AccuTron]

...

Also, I didn't know there was a program called Women Infants and Children. Must be that patriarchy I keep hearing about.

I recall something about that program being a boon to fruit growers because it used fruit juice as something for kids, never mind the total caloric load or obesity.

[brucethecollie]

Not shocking to me but the information is a goldmine when trying to help others understand what I've been trying to say.  Thank you.  By the way, I shared this with people who came to the US illegally who I have been acquainted with in the past and someone wrote me saying that they didn't know people paying taxes was providing the resource money for welfare that they use.  We are talking about a staggering level of ignorance. And it is indeed, cultural.  I tried to tell this person it's not about a lack of compassion but a prioritized compassion. Ourselves, our kids, our communities, must come first or we will all be pulled down by people who are drowning.  

[Alan C.]

... they didn't know people paying taxes was providing the resource money for welfare that they use.

 

I'm amazed by the number of people I talk to who don't understand this, and actually think that government-provided services are "free."

 

Here we are, in 2015, in the age of computers, smart phones, digital entertainment, 3D printing, space exploration, medical marvels, etc. and still the vast bulk of the population is incapable of critical thought.

[dsayers]

I'm with Mr. Chapman. The concept that NOTHING is free seems so axiomatic, I literally have a hard time believing people don't actually realize this. I'm more inclined to believe that they feign ignorance in order to not face the guilt associated with being a voluntary parasite.

[brucethecollie]

I'm with Mr. Chapman. The concept that NOTHING is free seems so axiomatic, I literally have a hard time believing people don't actually realize this. I'm more inclined to believe that they feign ignorance in order to not face the guilt associated with being a voluntary parasite.

 

You are right that plenty are feigning ignorance but not all. Many of us in the US know that sugar consumption appears to be toxic and yet, many of us still eat too much of it.  This is a byproduct of our culture largely accepting it.  Many of these people don't know much of what you and I consider very basic information and their culture doesn't support them finding out or accepting the truth.  It's an extremely primitive culture I have tried to stay very far away from.  

[LancierDombre]

I'm with Mr. Chapman. The concept that NOTHING is free seems so axiomatic, I literally have a hard time believing people don't actually realize this. I'm more inclined to believe that they feign ignorance in order to not face the guilt associated with being a voluntary parasite.

 

I don't know.  I've pointed out that there is no such thing as a free lunch before, and just got the smug response, "but there is such a thing as a lunch you don't have to pay for".​​

[dsayers]

I don't know.  I've pointed out that there is no such thing as a free lunch before, and just got the smug response, "but there is such a thing as a lunch you don't have to pay for".​​

This actually lends credence to my suspicion. What they're saying to you is that they're okay with the initiation of the use of force as long they agree with how it's used. I hope such a person isn't somebody you'd call friend or is in your life at all. Because when people tell you something like that, they are dead serious. And part of the reason they're able to get away with it is because good people just assume that nobody could be so blatantly parasitic.

[Torero]

I liked the show, it was good, but the general message of portraying immigrants (or single moms, or anyone else 'feeding on the government fake tits') as the parasites, as the evil doers, as the people choosing to take state benefits (and thus initiating force on innocent families) is not right.

 

Mostly immigrants (see the small European part) come from countries where this huge state "support" system is not present.

That makes that it's not in the culture, habits, thinking of immigrants to start leeching on others by actively asking for a place in the hammock of Santa Claus Socialism.

 

That that is provided to them, and that they are held as bait for more state debt in the chains of poverty traps and housing benefits, is the problem.

 

Stefan has pointed to that in other videos, but the main problem behind any mass immigrant crisis is the state provider. Not the unwilling consumer.

 

The numbers (especially on Hispanics) show that once captured by the state system (with or without a job and many immigrants work as the numbers prove), they keep there and even growing with age.

 

That is not because they stay there, but because they are held there.

 

This is not an excuse or meant to take away everyone's individual responsibilities for their own (financial) status, but poverty traps and the chains of the state system especially on the low end of societies is very real and a huge enemy which needs to be fought. That enemy can be fought if we don't push away people who are now suffering from that "free money" and not asking questions.

 

The message of moral is universal enough to try to include and embrace the millions in this situation of which some are interested in the voice of reason, philosophy and especially evidence.

 

The evidence shows it and was well presented.

Stefans general moral message to not profit on state spendings is right.

But the main message that the state is the enemy and not the immigrants who got these food stamps involuntarily (while having to pay taxes involuntarily as well) I missed a bit.

[webdever]

What? of course they are getting food stamps voluntarily, nobody forced them to go the welfare office and apply for foodstamps and take the free snap cards. How can you possibly paint welfare recipients as 'unwilling consumers'.

[dsayers]

Stefan has pointed to that in other videos, but the main problem behind any mass immigrant crisis is the state provider. Not the unwilling consumer.

Stef knows this as does any rational thinker. Presentations like this one aren't meant for people who accept that State power is the problem.

 

Right now, we're living in a world experiencing a "migrant crisis." One which polarizes a lot of people, leading to people who object being demonized as racist, xenophobes, etc. This presentation shows how telling people they cannot come into your backyard is a valid position based on very real consequences. It reveals migrant choices to be based on incentives (which leads to people understanding that the incentives themselves are perverse).

 

Finally, we're also living in a world where you cannot talk about ethnicities without being called a racist. It's nice having data to show that there IS a difference between ethnicities. Probably the best quote in the entire presentation went something like "If people all act the same, then to treat them differently would be racist. If people act differently, then treating them as if they act differently is not racist." It's a good point! One you're not going to find anywhere else with this level of resolution and clarity.

[Guest Gee]

I liked the show, it was good, but the general message of portraying immigrants (or single moms, or anyone else 'feeding on the government fake tits') as the parasites, as the evil doers, as the people choosing to take state benefits (and thus initiating force on innocent families) is not right.

 

 

The guy consuming without contribution is arguing that it is ok to consume without contribution? I'm absolutely shocked.

[Alan C.]

Nobody forces Hispanics to have a bunch of kids which they're financially incapable of adequately feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating. Their standard of living would be orders of magnitude higher, and they wouldn't require government benefits, if they had fewer kids and waited longer to have them (instead of having 3 kids by the age of 24).

[Magenta]

I'm confused by this anti-immigration discussion. We all agree that the state is the problem and the nihilist welfare parasites are a symptom. They likely wouldn't steal on a personal level if welfare didn't exist, but since the welfare exists, they willingly leach the handouts. If this assumption is wrong, please correct me.

 

So what is the ideal outcome of this discussion? We severely limit immigration? OK, so there's a lot less parasitism now. Do I get any of my money back? Does the next generation get any less indebted? What gets better when welfare spending goes down but the state remains? Do natives just get more welfare? Does more money flow to the war machine?

[dsayers]

We severely limit immigration?

It's counter-narrative. It shows that people against immigration aren't necessarily xenophobic or racist. And by pointing out that the size of the meal is the incentive, maybe it will help some people get that the welfare system is a problem, not a solution. Which calls forced wealth and government intention and competence into question, etc.

[brucethecollie]

Nobody forces Hispanics to have a bunch of kids which they're financially incapable of adequately feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating. Their standard of living would be orders of magnitude higher, and they wouldn't require government benefits, if they had fewer kids and waited longer to have them (instead of having 3 kids by the age of 24).

You're right.  I've found that they have a really twisted interpretation of their Catholic upbringing and faith.  The Catholic church allows for family planning and recommends people not have kids if they can't support them, don't want anymore, or if health matters are involved.  It even states that people should respect the laws of a country.  All they seem to hear is "Don't use contraception and give glory to God."  And frankly, church leaders don't go around openly clarifying things.  So people have tons of kids like their parents did and their parents did...

 

And about some of the other comments made about the anti-immigrant sentiment.  I wonder... if I was completely ignorant, living in poverty and traumatized and brainwashed by a poor upbringing, that I probably would find it easy to come over to what others say is a much better place, hide in shame and fear (I've heard many immigrants say they are ashamed to be illegal), and take full advantage of anything around me to make a "better" life.  Staying ignorant probably works as a mechanism to stay sane once the drama of life sets in (being illegal from what I've witnessed causes a lot of stress and fried nerves and major feelings of inferiority and people often appear to literally immobilize from their way of life-they aren't happy from what I can tell). They think they are getting into a better situation, and some are, but many find they might as well had never left home.  Then they have kids who aren't even able to speak Spanish well, and families feel stuck in the situation they've got themselves in.  I have so much compassion for these people.  Doesn't mean I don't view what is happening as a HUGE issue for us to confront realistically.  The greater issue is statism, of course. This video is necessary because the media is pushing the idea that these facts are just myths and people need the truth before the country sinks even further.  Even illegal immigrants can benefit from seeing the facts.  

[MagnumPI]

F*ck the immigrants. We're broke. 2016 could be the year of #1's: USA, John Deere, Caterpillar, VW. Might lose them all
 

[Torero]

What? of course they are getting food stamps voluntarily, nobody forced them to go the welfare office and apply for foodstamps and take the free snap cards. How can you possibly paint welfare recipients as 'unwilling consumers'.

 

Now you are redefining "welfare" to a reduced part of it only; foodstamps.

 

Just like paying taxes is involuntary, receiving benefits from the same corrupt system is that. There's a difference between the two in the sense that tax evasion is harder to accomplish than returning all your state benefits because you are a moral citizen not wanting to live off a system that forces others to pay.

 

Then the effect:

 

So if a moral citizen (migrant or not) says "I do not accept these benefits, I return them to the state that paid me first" then that person at the same time should have the right to not pay taxes (or less), right?

 

Or is it: "don't take benefits but pay your taxes"? Then I fear I've come to the wrong place; this would support the statist system even more.

 

And the effect is not "less state power" if let's say 50% of all people would return their state-paid "benefits". It's not that the statist system will shrink then. So the only outcome would be that the state has even more money and spends less on their for many countries biggest part; welfare. So more money for other hobbies...

 

Stef knows this as does any rational thinker. Presentations like this one aren't meant for people who accept that State power is the problem.

 

Right now, we're living in a world experiencing a "migrant crisis." One which polarizes a lot of people, leading to people who object being demonized as racist, xenophobes, etc. This presentation shows how telling people they cannot come into your backyard is a valid position based on very real consequences. It reveals migrant choices to be based on incentives (which leads to people understanding that the incentives themselves are perverse).

 

Finally, we're also living in a world where you cannot talk about ethnicities without being called a racist. It's nice having data to show that there IS a difference between ethnicities. Probably the best quote in the entire presentation went something like "If people all act the same, then to treat them differently would be racist. If people act differently, then treating them as if they act differently is not racist." It's a good point! One you're not going to find anywhere else with this level of resolution and clarity.

 

I agree on your final paragraph, that's not the point.

 

Migrant choices based on incentive? The only incentive we can conclude from migrants is that their life would improve in their new country (where they immigrate into) compared to their old country (where they emigrated from).

 

And you exactly point to the problem I have with these generalisations and grouping of these diverse individuals:

 

Now Carlos the crooky Costa Rican coming as a creeping cockroach to Colorado is put in the same category as Manolo the motivated Mexican metallurgist who may have even migrated to take care of his family in Montana so to reduce the state influence on his family life.

 

Immigrants are too different to just generalise them all (just like single mothers are not all terrible).

 

Nobody forces Hispanics to have a bunch of kids which they're financially incapable of adequately feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating. Their standard of living would be orders of magnitude higher, and they wouldn't require government benefits, if they had fewer kids and waited longer to have them (instead of having 3 kids by the age of 24).

 

That's the stereotype. But there are so many other different immigrants, anywhere in the world.

 

On the migrant crisis in Europe:

 

In the Netherlands (and I assume in many other European countries) immigrants who seek asylum are:

- not allowed to work

- not allowed to attend education

- provided with a house (in overpopulated Holland that means many others have to wait much longer for housing)

- provided with benefits

 

Things that other citizens do not have, so creating a disparity between people. The enforcer of these disparities is the state, not the immigrants themselves. Like I said; in most countries the socialist system is much smaller than in the US but even more than in Europe.

 

People in general are used to work, to keep themselves and their families alive. They are not used to the Santa Claus socialism of the West.

 

Of course part of the immigrants are coming for the benefits only and will lay in the hammock of state socialist "support" comfortably.

 

But:

1 - that is not all immigration; there are many more types of immigrants

2 - that is initiated by the state system that provides these things

3 - that system is rigged, corrupt and filthy, I think we all agree on this.

But why then say "migrants are taking away your child's future/pension"?

It's the state that takes that away (by force) and dumps it somewhere else (migrants and original population) without those people asking for it.

[Alan C.]

That's the stereotype.

 

. . .

 

Of course part of the immigrants are coming for the benefits only and will lay in the hammock of state socialist "support" comfortably.

 

It's a stereotype because it happens so often. It's like the stereotype about Hispanics taking shopping carts from grocery stores. They've actually passed laws because the problem was so bad.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less about who comes here, so long as the welfare-state ends.

[dsayers]

Migrant choices based on incentive? The only incentive we can conclude from migrants is that their life would improve in their new country (where they immigrate into) compared to their old country (where they emigrated from).

Right and when you look at the middle-eastern migrant crisis, you see people traveling through nations with no/little welfare to arrive at ones with lots of welfare. This casts doubt that escape is the primary/only motivation.

 

And you exactly point to the problem I have with these generalisations and grouping of these diverse individuals:

 

Now Carlos the crooky Costa Rican coming as a creeping cockroach to Colorado is put in the same category as Manolo the motivated Mexican metallurgist who may have even migrated to take care of his family in Montana so to reduce the state influence on his family life.

 

Immigrants are too different to just generalise them all (just like single mothers are not all terrible).

I cannot speak for Stef, but I think this is the mindset it's trying to combat. Saying X number of group Y receive Z is not a generalization, but a statement of fact. If your purpose is to combat accusations of racism and xenophobia, showing that illegal immigration has real consequences accomplishes this.

[Magenta]

It's counter-narrative. It shows that people against immigration aren't necessarily xenophobic or racist. And by pointing out that the size of the meal is the incentive, maybe it will help some people get that the welfare system is a problem, not a solution. Which calls forced wealth and government intention and competence into question, etc.

Thank you. I understand better now. The message that the state is violence is like "clipping the signal", too much for many to absorb, so this is a piecemeal approach.

[Torero]

Right and when you look at the middle-eastern migrant crisis, you see people traveling through nations with no/little welfare to arrive at ones with lots of welfare. This casts doubt that escape is the primary/only motivation.

 

This is what the media portray, yes. The question is how representative are the types broadcast by the media shown in the faces of Europeans for all immigrants?

 

You're of course right; if purely fleeing from war zones is the incentive, it makes no sense that you wouldn't stay in a safe haven before entering the seas far away in NW Europe.

 

But the problem is: we don't know. We haven't spoken to those immigrants, asked for their motives and will to work.

 

Using only propagandised media stories is too tricky. The media lie too much and this topic is too sensitive to extract a reasonable truthful message from it.

 

Also in Europe the dictating commission is the "European" one; the group of psychopaths who move between Brussels and Strasbourg.

 

They place far more refugees/immigrants in the NW European countries than in the closer, safe and perfect for a new start Eastern European Countries:

 

http://static0.persgroep.net/volkskrant/image/589c2d2e-afef-4bfc-a306-657c5631663b?width=300

 

Translations:

New distribution chart for extra immigrants from Italy, Greece and Hungary.

For the UK, Ireland and Denmark have an exception, as stated in the European Treaty

 

Names of countries are in Dutch but pretty clear I guess. If you do not understand or want more translation, let me know.

 

So the question arises: how much of that migration is indeed chosen by the immigrants "who want to nest in the hammocks of state socialism" and how much is divided by the powers themselves?

 

To me those powers are the problem, not the immigrants. See also the earlier comments on having a fair, equal play field and not pampering immigrants while at the same time hindering your own population.

 

I cannot speak for Stef, but I think this is the mindset it's trying to combat. Saying X number of group Y receive Z is not a generalization, but a statement of fact. If your purpose is to combat accusations of racism and xenophobia, showing that illegal immigration has real consequences accomplishes this.

 

It can be both fact and generalisation.

 

The problem is that if the group one is observing is too diverse, too broad and too difficult to assess without having to rely on media networks, the statements about the whole group miss their effect. It's far beyond the Chinese basketball player metaphor...

 

The left is propagandising that only skilled brain surgeons are entering Europe.

The right is propagandising that all immigrants are only coming to live off welfare or stealing or terrorising.

 

The truth would be somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards the right (the percentage of highly skilled workers among immigrants wouldn't be higher than that of the original population in well-educated countries like Germany, Holland, etc.).

 

And again agreed; it makes no sense to call someone opposing mass migration into your country a priori a racist, xenophobic or other insult, only to hide that you don't want to talk about the root problem of this. So that message of Stefan is great.

 

The arrows should however be pointed at the powers, not at the immigrants.

 

Illegal immigration (that you talk about) is another topic. Illegals wouldn't get welfare from the start on. Only when they are legalised that would happen. But again here the pain inflicted on society is caused by the powers.

[Mister Mister]

@Torero being dependent on the government, or on anyone, for that matter, unless you are a child, is incredibly corrupting to one's character.  I've never been dependent on the government, but have on my parents, which is similar in many ways.  As soon as I made the commitment not to be, I became independent in short time, and have benefitted greatly from it personally. also, I think people can tell your lack of integrity to the values you argue, whether by explicitly knowing your story and history, or through non-verbal cues demonstrating lack of confidence.  so I can't accept that you are taking government money as some sort of statement, but rather I think that you are accepting a poisoned apple out of convenience, at the expense of corruption.  I would strongly urge you to detox yourself of this poison before the corruption becomes permanent.

[Torero]

@Torero being dependent on the government, or on anyone, for that matter, unless you are a child, is incredibly corrupting to one's character.

 

Oh, I agree.

 

 

 

I've never been dependent on the government, but have on my parents, which is similar in many ways.  As soon as I made the commitment not to be, I became independent in short time, and have benefitted greatly from it personally. also, I think people can tell your lack of integrity to the values you argue, whether by explicitly knowing your story and history, or through non-verbal cues demonstrating lack of confidence.  so I can't accept that you are taking government money as some sort of statement, but rather I think that you are accepting a poisoned apple out of convenience, at the expense of corruption.  I would strongly urge you to detox yourself of this poison before the corruption becomes permanent.

 

This "you" is directed at me or just like "one" in general?

 

I don't eat poisoned apples; I am not depending on any government for my financial situation.

[dsayers]

But the problem is: we don't know. We haven't spoken to those immigrants, asked for their motives and will to work.

 

Using only propagandised media stories is too tricky.

First and foremost, are the people lobbing accusations of racist and xenophobe asking everybody WHY they oppose people coming into their country illegally? Or are they generalizing by saying ANYBODY (I'm familiar with and appreciate your test for this claim ) that opposes immigration MUST be racist or a xenophobe? If this is the standard THEY are putting forth, and your claim here was accurate, then it would just be holding the naysayers to the standard THEY put forth. If you had issue with this methodology, the rational course of action would be to present your criticisms to those who put forth the standard, not those who demonstrate that even within the construct of that standard, their position is flawed.

 

Secondly, you don't have to ask every teenage girl whether they like the Twilight series in order to put forth that X% of Twilight ticket sales were to Y demographic. If you are presented with that data and YOU draw a generalization from it, this doesn't accrue to the person presenting the data.

 

Finally, I think the media makes for a fantastic barometer. When a black guy shoots a white news woman, the media talks about how he was a victim of racism. When a white guy shoots up a black church, it's because he was a racist. Sort of a double standard there! This same media is quick to claim that multi-culturalism is great and not welcoming it makes you a racist or a xenophobe. But you cannot present the data by ethnicity for rationally excluding people coming into your country because that would be racist. In other words, by telling you that this data cannot be discussed, they're telling you that this data is vital to having an understanding of the situation that doesn't require them.

 

The arrows should however be pointed at the powers, not at the immigrants.

If somebody says to you that anybody who opposes immigration is a racist, saying "government is the initiation of the use of force" doesn't even sound like it's part of the same conversation. I've already covered that Stef accepts and has made the case for years. It's been helpful, but some people don't get it because there's so many people screaming in their ear that opposing immigration is racist. So for that people who would otherwise reject that State power is immoral, he simply contradicts what's being screamed at them. Which can precipitate questioning why they were lied to, how perverse coercive incentives are, and eventually that people do not exist is separate moral categories.

 

It's like trying to explain the Pythagorean theorem to kindergartners. They have to understand what numbers are and how they work together before you can present them with ideas such as variables. "You don't need to know numbers because the Pythagorean theorem deals with variables" wouldn't be a useful objection.

[Mister Mister]

Oh, I agree.

 

This "you" is directed at me or just like "one" in general?

 

I don't eat poisoned apples; I am not depending on any government for my financial situation.

 

oh I'm sorry, I misunderstood, because of Ano's comment "The guy consuming without contribution is arguing that it is ok to consume without contribution? I'm absolutely shocked." I assumed that he had read in an earlier post that you were taking state benefits.

 

As for your initial question, I think dsayers explained it the best.  The point is to explain the reasoning behind many peoples' hostility towards immigration, beyond racism and xenophobia.  In the same way that fear of young black men in America is partly due to their statistically rate of violent crime, and isn't necessarily racist.  In fact, I think if we can't talk about this stuff openly, it will lead to more hatred and violent conflict between native and immigrant populations.  If you suppress legitimate anger, you only prolong and escalate violence.

[Torero]

Completely agreed.

In Holland that "discussion" already happened some 14 years ago with the upcoming Pim Fortuyn* (closest ever to a reasonable person for the job) who was about to become prime minister but got murdered 9 days before the elections... Apart from the yearly Sinterklaas cry babies, the culture is open for these things. The red racist-xenophobe card has been played too much to make an impact anymore...

I understand in the US and Canada this race/xenophobe framing is much more relevant and active.

But in general I think the US, Canada and especially example Australia have much better and more sane immigration laws (gaining points and only when fit enough one may enter) than self-destructive "we should pick the refugees from Alanya beach" ** Europe...

 

 

* Watch this interview. It's already from 1997 (!!), still actual and on screen the two most important opinion makers and the only murdered famous Ducth people of the last 15 years. Theo van Gogh (yes, related) is one of my all time heroes. The way he spoke and wrote would be very welcome now...
 

** Crazy plans to pick up the refugees and just haul them in

Ms. Merkel is calling on the European Union (EU) to adopt “compulsory and permanent quotas for sharing the distribution” of asylum-seekers. Over half of EU countries are opposed to the plan. One of the proposals coming out of Berlin and Brussels involves an arrangement between the EU and host countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt – currently hosting over 4 million refugees among them – which would be expected to humanely provide asylum for remaining refuges after sending “large but unspecified” numbers to Europe. Refugees who stay behind or get sent back would be accommodated in EU-funded camps.

 

Don't start laughing... but this is the idiocracy our fellow European freedom lovers and unfortunate tax payers are confronted with...

 

That is, if this is not a media hoax (you never know), but knowing the EU a bit it's dead serious.

 

PS: Ano is fellow forum member Graham, he changed his name and avatar but I saw the post under his name.

[Torero]

First and foremost, are the people lobbing accusations of racist and xenophobe asking everybody WHY they oppose people coming into their country illegally? Or are they generalizing by saying ANYBODY (I'm familiar with and appreciate your test for this claim ) that opposes immigration MUST be racist or a xenophobe? If this is the standard THEY are putting forth, and your claim here was accurate, then it would just be holding the naysayers to the standard THEY put forth. If you had issue with this methodology, the rational course of action would be to present your criticisms to those who put forth the standard, not those who demonstrate that even within the construct of that standard, their position is flawed.

 

Dear dsayers, wouldn't you agree that here, in this free niche of the so-called free internet we are far beyond this propaganda-name-calling child-bullying nonsense?

 

Your taste for reasoning and philosophy is inspiring, I aspire to play in the same field, please.

 

Anyone who doesn't address Stefans questions and objections and those of anyone else formulating those (Nigel Farage is a politician, but still an amazing guy doing a great job, how in vain it may be) before, and starting name-calling has lost a discussion based on facts, evidence, experience, reason and strength, right?

 

 

 

Secondly, you don't have to ask every teenage girl whether they like the Twilight series in order to put forth that X% of Twilight ticket sales were to Y demographic. If you are presented with that data and YOU draw a generalization from it, this doesn't accrue to the person presenting the data.

 

Statistics are like magic. You can do what you want with them. And you can draw any conclusion you want. Most of what Stefan talks about (like 95+ %) is sound, reasonable and a good way of using statistics.

 

It's like a beautiful painting with some minor funny parts. High quality tends to attract high attention for the lesser points. I am not afraid to speak my mind when I see space. And here I think it deserves that and Stefans enthusiasm and inspiring presentations do deserve that even more.

 

The problem arises when statistics are used as a kind of bat to play individuals. Individual people are made members of a group they do not choose to be in. To me that is thus anti-libertarian. We all are individuals and we vary enormously on many things and share important things. The latter is quite well covered by UPB, but Stefans own comment in one of his recent videos shocked me. "I do not care about individuals, I am a philosopher".

 

To me individualism (hence my kudos for your tattoo post) is central in libertarianism/anarchism/whatever kind of free-thinking-ishyism you want to call it.

 

Once that gets lost, and that happened three times (single moms, immigrants and "I don't care about individuals [when I talk statistics, yes I know you do Stefan!]") I see room for improvement and assistance.

 

Grouping "immigrants" when you talk about abusing welfare is just as silly as grouping "food" when you talk about rotting fruit.

 

The point about the welfare state is true enough to not be pointed at the ones trapped in that deliberately set (poverty traps) system, yet at the constructors of it. The people who are building and extending this huge statist monster web where everyday more people are caught by....!

 

Do you want to fight the bug that entered the web and doesn't succeed to exit from this hell hole of superficial statist "social" sociopathic inhumanism? Or rather fight the spider who built it and get the trapped bugs to fight that spider too?

 

 

Finally, I think the media makes for a fantastic barometer. When a black guy shoots a white news woman, the media talks about how he was a victim of racism. When a white guy shoots up a black church, it's because he was a racist. Sort of a double standard there! This same media is quick to claim that multi-culturalism is great and not welcoming it makes you a racist or a xenophobe. But you cannot present the data by ethnicity for rationally excluding people coming into your country because that would be racist. In other words, by telling you that this data cannot be discussed, they're telling you that this data is vital to having an understanding of the situation that doesn't require them

 

I heard nobody saying that this data cannot be discussed?? Certainly in my posts you couldn't have found it...?

 

 

 

If somebody says to you that anybody who opposes immigration is a racist, saying "government is the initiation of the use of force" doesn't even sound like it's part of the same conversation. I've already covered that Stef accepts and has made the case for years. It's been helpful, but some people don't get it because there's so many people screaming in their ear that opposing immigration is racist. So for that people who would otherwise reject that State power is immoral, he simply contradicts what's being screamed at them. Which can precipitate questioning why they were lied to, how perverse coercive incentives are, and eventually that people do not exist is separate moral categories.

 

I agree, nobody gets it. But that means that you have to include as many people as possible.

 

"The story of Your Enslavement" is a milestone in internet history. And beyond. That message is so strong. That needs to be the backbone of also the immigrant talk. It's the deliberate enslavement by filthy powers over innocent people, taxing the shit out of them, sending their boys to war and arranging the f*cking size of f*cking condoms (EU example) for everyone, and that includes the importation (Merkel was clear) of more and more and more people into already overpopulated and in some parts culturally tensed countries.

 

But is that the immigrants' fault? Is it Abdul from Addis Abeba or Mehmet from Mosul?

 

Come on, the enemies are up there. And Stefans message in another podcast that anybody who supports them is accomplice is very true too. Convinced statists. The pawns of power play. They are the enemies, not "immigrants", "the immigrants" or any stupid leftist brainless brawler who plays the silly racist/xenophobic/trolling card...

 

It's like trying to explain the Pythagorean theorem to kindergartners. They have to understand what numbers are and how they work together before you can present them with ideas such as variables. "You don't need to know numbers because the Pythagorean theorem deals with variables" wouldn't be a useful objection.

 

Apart from being an inspiring philosopher, Stefan is great in showing numbers, otherwise I wouldn't be here, trust me.

 

But I agree, there needs to be a more entry level talk to the kids out there who still fail to see the message of morality based on eternal ethics.

[Guest Gee]

PS: Ano is fellow forum member Graham, he changed his name and avatar but I saw the post under his name.

 

Specifically my old profile, just whipped up a new one to sync up with my subscription.

oh I'm sorry, I misunderstood, because of Ano's comment "The guy consuming without contribution is arguing that it is ok to consume without contribution? I'm absolutely shocked." I assumed that he had read in an earlier post that you were taking state benefits.

 

The fault is mine.

 

Torero has consumed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of podcasts but hasn't contributed a single red cent and whats more he actually has to audacity post that concern troll tripe.

[Guest Gee]

 

 

Great presentation! I was wondering though, did the authors offer any insight into the reason as to why black native welfare use was higher than black immigrant welfare use? If not did you draw any conclusions yourself?

[dsayers]

Statistics are like magic. You can do what you want with them. And you can draw any conclusion you want. Most of what Stefan talks about (like 95+ %) is sound, reasonable and a good way of using statistics.

I'm not sure I see your point. The implication is that stats are useless, but then you use a stat! Fire can destroy, yet we are also able to harness it for energy, cooking life-sustaining nourishment, etc. Understanding that numbers tend to bypass some of our natural scrutinies doesn't mean they're inherently deceptive or useless.

 

I heard nobody saying that this data cannot be discussed??

If the media calls anybody who mentions ethnic disparities a racist or xenophobe, they are clearly communicating that you cannot talk about such things. In fact, most of your post was just repeating yourself as if I had made no effort to challenge/qualify. So I don't see how saying "yes, the violence is the problem, but pointing out how those seeking to benefit from this makes not wanting them to come over NOT a racist/xenophobic motivation" a third or fourth time will be of any use.