Thread: Tucker Carlson Demolishes Immigration Protester

Tucker Carlson Demolishes Immigration Protester



November 17, 2016

On Wednesday's Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News, host Tucker Carlson spoke with Rutgers student protester and organizer, Alex Uematsu, about illegal immigrants and Donald Trump. Carlson went right for the throat, asking Uematsu: "Who do you think has a right to come to [this] country? You apparently assume these people have a right to be on your campus, taking a state-subsidized education. Who has a right to move to the United States?" Uematsu went right to leftist talking points:

I believe that everyone should be able to come to the United States. We are always, and have been, and are still, a nation of immigrants. And so, I believe that there is no line. We can let in as many people as we choose...there's artificial limits set on who can come in, who can't, from what countries, and from what countries can't, whether skilled or not. I feel like that is abandoning our heritage as a nation of immigrants.

Carlson then noted that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the economy, and asked Uematsu what he thought about that. Uematsu claimed the figures were wrong, but Carlson shut him down, saying: "You heard wrong. It's actually not even close. Between education, infrastructure, and healthcare, food subsidies, housing subsidies, it's literally not even close."

Carlson then challenged Uematsu on his belief that anyone should be allowed to come to the United States, asking if he believed in locking doors.

At every turn, Carlson hit Uematsu with challenges that the Rutgers student was unable to properly defend. Carlson's two main hits related to the cost of illegal immigrants, and the "locked door" analogy. Let's look at some data.

A comprehensive 2013 study conducted by The Heritage Foundation found that illegal immigrants, while helping to enlarge the national GDP, represent a net fiscal drain on the economy because they create "fiscal deficits," meaning they get more from the government than they pay into the system:

...in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113...

The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.

Currently, illegal immigrants act as a fiscal drain:

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes.

This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household...

According to the study, if illegal immigrants receive amnesty, they would create a massive fiscal deficit over the next several decades:

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars).

On to Carlson's "locked door" argument. When one leaves their home, they typically lock their door, so as to protect their valuables from thieves. An open border would essentially amount to an unlocked door. Uematsu argued that Carlson's analogy wasn't apt because...reasons, but failed to explain those reasons in a way that made any sense.

Here's how the "locked door" analogy works.

A man, let's call him Dave, approaches your home, knocks on the door, and asks if he can live with you. Furrowing your brow, you ask Dave why, and he says he wants a better life, and that he can contribute to your home. Going against your better judgment, you let Dave move in.

Much to your surprise, Dave does indeed contribute, washing the dishes, doing laundry, and paying you a monthly rent of $100. After several months of living in this situation, you calculate costs and benefits, and realize you've been screwed. The cost of caring for Dave exceeds his contributions. Food, water, electricity, WiFi, and everything else you provide that Dave uses, costs more than his monthly $100 check and household contributions can cover.

Dave is a net fiscal drain. He may be the nicest guy, and he may be trying his hardest, but if you continue to let him live with you, you'll soon be out on the streets. In business parlance, you're going under.

This is what Tucker Carlson was trying to teach the Rutgers protester: Basic economics and national sovereignty. In the end, Carlson's arguments didn't seem to faze Uematsu, as he continued to vomit talking points.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10906/...ter-frank-camp

Good post lorrie. 'vomiting talking points' is what many on the left have memorized well.