Don’t Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses

Intelligence Squared, May 3, 2011

Kris Kobach and Tom Tancredo debate Mayor Julian Castro and Tamar Jacoby on immigration.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Without the rule of law there is anarchy. How can an honest police officer enforce laws upon legal citizens and be held back from enforcing immigration laws. Hospitals are closing due to the flood of sick people with diseases that Amereicans thought was eradicated long ago coming into this country, prisons cannot be built fast enough to house the ones that commit violent crimes, schools are overrun with their children amd the only ones that are benefitting are the elites of this country.

    Eventually, it must end. We can no longer afford this level of immigration legal or illegal.

  • sbuffalonative

    The locale, NYC, certainly isn’t the heart of American conservatism but in the end, Tancrado and Koback changed the most minds in their favor.

    Many good points by Kris Koback. Hopefully he is seen as a rising star.

    I once saw Tamar Jacoby on c-span. She argued for high immigrant numbers even during this recession so that they’ll be here when the recession is over. She’s a shill for business interests which is obvious.

    Julian Castro relied on 1993 numbers for his argument and being Hispanic, he has a stake in creating a new Hispanic South-West.

    There are many good facts cited by Kobach and Tancrado. Jacoby and Castro present with us with points which need to be countered (with facts).

  • E Pluribus Pluribus

    An excellent debate of the proposition “Don’t give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.”

    The debate had first-class advocates on both sides. There was a skilled and fair moderator. Most interesting for me, though, was sponsoring organization’s method of determing the winner of the debate: Each member of the sizable audience is given an electronic device that lets them register a vote “For” the proposition, “Against” it or an “Undecided.” Audience members were asked to register one of these three choices BEFORE the debate begins and then AFTER the debate was over. The winning debate team is the team who shifted votes IN THEIR DIRECTION. Below are the actual results:

    Before-the-Debate After-the-debate

    For – 16% 35%

    Against – 54% 52%

    Undecided 30% 13%

    In other words, the Kobach-Tancredo team blew away the Jacoby-Castro team because Kobach-Tancredo more than doubled the percent “For” the proposition, mostly by shifting the “Undecided” in their direction. They were superb. Well worth watching.

  • Greg

    Kris Kobach and three hem and hawers. Tancredo really isn’t a debator. I like his politics, but he is trouble to follow some times.

    Kobach does best when he argues for the interests of American citizens; when he pits illegal alien interests against those of Americans. One can cite all the statistics they want, as Kobach did, but liberals reject facts and make inaccurate claims boldly–making them seem true. That short-haired lady rejected every statistic Kobach mentioned, yet provided few of her own. Facts won’t matter to many who think like her. Emotional appeals for poor Americans disproportionally hurt by illegal immigration need to be stressed.

    Race wasn’t mentioned, but language needs to be brought up. Strict immigration proponents need to incist a mastery of the English language is the large requirement for coming to this nation. Racial pride is tough to motivate many whites toward, but language-issues is not. Only taking immigrants from English-speaking countries (like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England) would certainly aid in the racial demographic problems as well.

  • Tim in Indiana

    I would like to have seen someone bring up the environment and, if we’re supposedly so concerned about it, why we think its a good idea to bring in millions more immigrants who will be adding to our overall pollution levels. Nothing like using one of the liberals’ favorite issues against them.

    Also, Tom Tancredo seemed awfully, awfully concerned about emphasizing towards the end that the immigration debate had “nothing to do with race.” There was a mention of the SPLC’s hateful charges earlier in the debate, so perhaps this was the reason Tancredo seemed so defensive about it.

    The fact is, the anti-immigration side was handcuffed since they couldn’t bring up race in our PC society, as many of the most powerful arguments against immigration do come down to race, and until we’re able to bring that up, we’re fighting a losing battle.

  • Anonymous

    It is interesting to watch and listen in this case the hispanics coming across as self-centered and non-law abiding. This explains why their countries of origin (where they are the majority) will NEVER rise above a perpetual state of corruption and crime. Now this country and the Western world will have to fight mightily to reverse the immigration path that has been set since the early 1900’s by a certain segment of people that were let in inadvertently and in too big of numbers. Thomas Jefferson had early on warned this country against that particular segment of people. This country/taxpayers have been too generous in who they have let in.

  • Zarathustra

    They get bogged down in financial numbers and miss the more important arguments. I wish they would deal with the real questions of maximum population of a land and what will occur when that is reached.

  • Vick

    Congratulations to Kris Kobach and Tom Tancredo for winning the debate.

    Mr. Kobach acquitted himself especially well and seems like an excellent spokesperson for those of us who want to stop illegal immigration. Too bad the mainstream media rarely allows in depth debates of immigration on tv and too bad Mr. Kobach rarely gets on there to debate it.

    I also want to add that I think the economic argument against illegal immigration seems to be the most persuasive when dealing with mainstream audiences. A lot of people who read AmRen are concerned about the demographic changes that immigration is bringing about, but I don’t think the majority of Americans are ready for those arguments. This debate proves that at the very least they’re open to economic arguments. This should be the place where we begin our discussions with family, friends, co-workers, etc.

  • Anonymous

    If you don’t have the guts to discuss the alternatives, it’s all ‘How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’ argument in a vacuum.

    This is the real danger of diversity indoctrination. It has become ‘immoral to the point of illegal’ to discuss what could be done _if people don’t want this at all because they want to remain a white culture_.

    And Americans are too busy struggling to live their ordinary lives to dance around the race issue for it’s own arbitrary risks sake.

    You want to talk about anti-invasion realities? Tell ‘for or against’ people that:

    “If you lived in a country which recognized your white nationality as a historical inheritance of advantagd speech and low criminality and cultural (work ethic and responsible K-breeding) benefit to us all, the 100 billion a year we now spend on transfer payments to foreign ethnies could instead be put towards an electric economy and _We Promise_ that, if not you, then certainly your children and grandchildren would never pay an electrical bill for their entire adult lives.”

    How important is that? 200 dollars a month in utilities X 12 months a year X 20 years = 48,000 dollars in lifetime savings from not having to pay that one bill alone.

    A good start on a college education for your kid. A retirement fund investment nestegg. Or 1/4 to 1/3 of your mortgage debt wiped clean.

    Of course, I personally doubt if the U.S. is going to persist long enough, as it now is, to make a straight dollars to dollars comparison valid vs. a new startup currency from a mid-west followon-for-whites country.

    But such an example could easily serve as a ‘bet on us, we think about the future!’ inducement to get the right kind of brave, industrious and skilled working classses (plumbers as much as computer programmers) into a separatist group that could actually stand up and sustain a White Redoubt between the corrupt masses of other races on each coast and in the South.

    Determining victory by percentile point spread is sophist and effeminate because it addresses opinions of an opinion, not real world benefits to the respondents. This is not fantasy football ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the future of our race here.

    Say something that has a real world point and you say something that will be listened to.

  • Anonymous

    5 — Tim in Indiana wrote at 12:55 AM on May 6

    Also, Tom Tancredo seemed awfully, awfully concerned about emphasizing towards the end that the immigration debate had “nothing to do with race.” There was a mention of the SPLC’s hateful charges earlier in the debate, so perhaps this was the reason Tancredo seemed so defensive about it.

    The fact is, the anti-immigration side was handcuffed since they couldn’t bring up race in our PC society, as many of the most powerful arguments against immigration do come down to race, and until we’re able to bring that up, we’re fighting a losing battle.

    —————————————————————-

    I felt the same way. EVERY talk show host ALWAYS has to say, it’s not about race!!! I HATE that. WE most certainly do know it HAS to be about RACE! OURS!

    If we are to survive as a race and a nation with a WHITE civilization, then we better do something and quick. We cannot afford even the ones already here since 1965 and to think our race and nation will survive with their numbers growing by leaps and bounds (currently) then there will never be any hope for us as a race. We will just die off. Or be killed off.

    If we have to keep all those nonwhites here that have come in the last 50 years then we are doomed. Just their numbers alone and their children will soon far outnumber us. We cannot allow it to happen.

    And please don’t say Whites need to have more babies because that will not help in the least when the nonwhites far outnumber us with their birth rates. Combine all the nonwhites and their birthrates against any White birth rate (even if Whites had 10 kids apiece) excluding the Whites who commit miscegenation, we would never catch up to the nonwhites in this country.

  • Anonymous

    10 — Anonymous at 7:30 PM on May 6:

    We have one ace in the hole, so to speak. The truth is when you subtract the illegal population and take into account that a lot of legal immigrants don’t have US citizenship, the White population that are American citizens is around 75 percent. This is why so many Whites still win public office in places like California and Texas. It has nothing to do with voter turnout and everything to do with the numbers of non-citizen nonwhites living in the country. We can restore our demographics to 1980s levels simply by enforcing immigration laws and cancelling green cards.

  • Anonymous

    “”Also, Tom Tancredo seemed awfully, awfully concerned about emphasizing towards the end that the immigration debate had “nothing to do with race.”

    There was a mention of the SPLC’s hateful charges earlier in the debate, so perhaps this was the reason Tancredo seemed so defensive about it. “”

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    As long as we can not and will not talk about race we will ultimately lose this debate and our nation. They use race as a battering ram and a negative against us all the while using it as a positive for themselves and to organize. (How does that even work?) We run around with our hands tied behind our back constantly disavowing it and claiming we aren’t racist even though La Raza et al and their support are clearly based on race. They have us in an untenable position

  • Anonymous

    Jerry Seinfield has a great monologue on that poem. He ends by saying something like “so, any deranged, destitute, defective disgusting useless piece of dreck can just hop on a boat and we welcome him?”