Mark Steyn on Mass Immigration

The poem on the Statue of Liberty is 3rd rate hackery and should never have been nailed to a monument to liberty.

BRAVO!!!!!

Must listen—>

https://youtu.be/WeGTeFT8AHY?t=1h19m8s

This debate was fascinating. Nigel Farage and Mark Steyn went into a hostile environment and TURNED THE AUDIENCE AROUND.

Predebate, 77% of the audience was against the view of limiting refugees into western states. Steyn and Farage’s arguments nearly turned the highly partisan audience into a 50/50 audience in a post-debate vote.

Screen Shot 2016-04-02 at 3.41.45 PM

7 Comments on Mark Steyn on Mass Immigration

  1. Steyn’s condemnation of immigration of those wanting to live in a free society is only valid if you accept an evil premise: the welfare state.

  2. Well, that is the unspoken heart of the immigration issue, isn’t it?
    Open borders + welfare state = Failure of state.

  3. 1) Refugees, my ass.
    Invaders more likely.
    2) There are already too many shitheads/square inch.
    Why import more?
    3) The woman who spoke last essentially said that since we have a good record of assimilating immigrants in the past, the current batch will be integrated as well.
    But the previous immigrants had not sworn to destroy their host country.
    4) See Theodore Roosevelt’s quote regarding immigrants.
    5) See Winston Churchill’s remarks regarding Islam.
    6) And while you’re at it, check out the story of the Trojan Horse.

  4. @ Al
    I’m pretty sure the immigrants in question are not interested in living in a free state. I predict they will attempt to turn the host countries into sharia-ridden 3rd world shitholes as soon as possible.

  5. Marvelous debate! Mark Steyn slapped Shama so damn hard he didn’t stand up again until the end.

  6. What continually amazes is the left-feminist’s denial of the status of women in N African and middle Eastern society. Christianity is the force that has made equality possible. Jesus appears as resurrected first to women, and not upper class women, either. Their first witness to the Apostles was not believed because the testimony of a woman was considered worthless. However, keep in mind that it’s not all due to Islam, the pre-600 AD regional, tribal culture was shit to begin with. Islam will never improve a culture. All Islam’s purported “great minds” were originally fostered in whatever society it overtook (like pre Islamic Persia). Every society conquered by Islam enters a period of stasis and slow or fast decline. The historian in this debate is an apologist for Islam. In one of his books regarding the conquest of Spain he lays out several anecdotes of Christians, some children, being brutally killed by muslim invaders because they did not renounce their faith. He then sums that up with “it’s basically their fault for being killed because the muslim made quite clear they would be beheaded if they didn’t convert.” It was a jaw dropping moment of historian bias. I couldn’t read any more of his work because how can you trust that rational assessment?

Comments are closed.