Tucker Carlson celebrated May Day by welcoming an open-borders California commie to his show to discuss the caravan invasion of moochers now perched on the border to claim legal asylum in the United States — although many have admitted to reporters that they are escaping gang crime or want a “better life” which are not categories for asylum.
Tucker started the interview with the basic question which is nevertheless often ignored — how many of the world’s unhappy billions should America accept?
World population projections show an additional one billion people on earth in the next 13 years or so.
They will add to the many millions of poor who desire entrance to the United States.
Tucker’s guest, Ethan Bearman of San Francisco’s KGO radio, answered that “We have great capacity to accept people into our country” which is an odd thing for a California resident to say after the searing five-year drought (the worst in 450 years) that ended only two years ago. A region with a history of century-long droughts within the last thousand years shouldn’t be packing in immigrants and illegals at the current rate, but liberals often forget their earlier support for the environment — which was only a convenient pose, really.
Below, the drought-stricken Lake Oroville (which is also a reservoir) was nearly empty in September 2014.
Of course, there are many reasons beyond environmental ones to slow immigration — such as maintaining our own culture, for one. To go further, the coming automated workplace makes the idea of ending immigration totally reasonable.
Carlson preceded his interview with illustrative clips of leftist insanity about how “borders are immoral” and “walls suck” — which is apparently what CNN and MSNBC show these days.
TUCKER CARLSON: Ethan Bearman is a California radio host and he joins us tonight. So Ethan, I assume like every good progressive, you’re for letting the members of the caravan, and I just want to be clear I’m not against the members: I would want to come here too if I lived in Honduras. I understand completely, but it raises the question, since there aren’t the only people who want to come here, where do you draw the line? What’s the limit for people seeking a better life coming to this country?
ETHAN BEARMAN: Well we have great capacity to accept people into our country and it follows the Judeo-Christian ethic and morals that we would help those who are less fortunate plus we also signed the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees which actually sets forth the three aspects of how we determine who to let in under asylum and refugee status, and that’s what these people are coming here for is they’re fleeing the violence, they’re fleeing governments that are not able to protect them from violent gangs and they’re coming here to get a better life. . .
CARLSON: And in some cases joining violent gangs that our government refuses to protect us from so it is kind of the circle of life in some ways, but let me just ask you more precisely about what the limit is. So there are 1.2 billion people in Africa, probably a billion fall into the categories you just described. How many have a right to come here? What is our capacity?
BEARMAN: Well up until now, I mean we’ve been able to absorb roughly a million people legally immigrating into the United States per year. We know that under President Obama was over a hundred thousand refugees every year that we were able to allow in as well so we can absorb I mean that by the way this caravan. . .
CARLSON: Before you make generalizations, I want to get specific. So you are right with those numbers those are basically the numbers, and then various people come in under other programs. There’s maybe one and a half million a year legally, we’ve done this for a long time, but the left is saying that’s way too restrictive. So what’s the number? I mean again let’s stipulate a billion people want to move here next week, probably all to San Diego. How many should we let in under the Judeo-Christian ethic that you’re citing?
BEARMAN: Well this is also part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, would be to help their governments become better functioning and this is where. . .
CARLSON: Let’s not dodge the question — there’s no evidence our foreign aid has ever made any government better — I wish it were true, but it’s not. Life expectancy in a lot of Africa is lower than it was in 1965 when the colonial powers left, so it doesn’t necessarily work that way as you know. but what’s the number, like how many? “Cuz this is gonna keep happening with every wave it incites more waves and when can we say enough? When are we allowed to say that’s too many?
BEARMAN: Well first things first, I mean I will answer your question as well which I think is that 1.5 million number. But at the same time the Trump administration has dramatically cut back on the number of legal immigration. Syrian refugees, we let 11 in so far this year, as opposed to 15,000.
CARLSON : These are on the margins. Again, is there a number, or does talking about it scare the crap out of the country and reveal your real agenda which is to totally overwhelm and change the country? because that really is what it’s about, as you know. I mean you don’t want to be honest about what the limit is. Is it just as long as our compassion lasts? It’s a sincere question.
BEARMAN: I actually just answered, I mean I think that 1.5 million number is fair.
CARLSON: So that’ll continue, that’ll make the country totally unrecognizable in 30 years but not in five years, so that’s enough, is 1.5 million. I mean I don’t think that’s what the left is arguing for because they’re saying we can’t turn anyone away.
Meanwhile, polls show Americans want substantially fewer immigrants. A Harvard poll from January found that 81 Percent of All Voters Support Reducing Immigration Levels. A Pulse Opinion Research survey from March showed that close to a majority of Christian voters chose a number that was a 75% reduction in the annual flow of the last two decades. A million and a half immigrants annually is not what Americans want shaping the nation’s future.