Good or Bad for America?
A debate featuring Prof. Jose Gutierrez
and Mr. Jared Taylor
Hosted by the College Republicans, University of Texas at Arlington
at the Rosebud Theater, UTA Campus, April 29, 2006
Transcription by Scott Wilson
[Moderator]: Welcome. Thanks for coming. My name's Darryl Holloway. I'm the College Republicans advisor … faculty staff advisor. I'll be moderating the debate. [muffled] As you know the debate will be the Hispanicization: Is it good or is it good or bad for America? That's the debate today. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna have a format … each person will get an opening statement of 10 minutes apiece and then there will be questions. Some of you may have postcards that you've been given to fill out to give us some questions. We will have some of the members of College Republicans picking those up; please have those at the end of each aisle of where you're sitting so we can get those. Those will come up after each opening statement. I will read those questions and each individual will get a chance to answer them and do a rebuttal. So without further ado we will start with Jared Taylor. He will be the first person to do the opening statement. Ten minutes, sir.
American Renaissance editor
[Jared Taylor]: Thank you. Hello. First of all, I would very much like to thank the University of Texas at Arlington and the Campus Republicans for putting on this debate which I believe considers some of the most important questions that our nation and the state of Texas faces today. The question before us, of course, is whether increased Hispanicization is good for the United States. My position is an unqualified no, that it is not good. And I'll approach this question in my 10 minute period from two directions. One is to paint you a kind of social-statistical picture of the Hispanic population — and I believe that the result will be that this is a population to which it is not beneficial to add. The other part of my approach will be to discuss things that are less easy to quantify; namely the question of loyalty. To what extent do Hispanics, Mexican-Americans in particular, genuinely feel American? This too is an entirely legitimate question.
As far as the statistics are concerned, I do not make this recitation with pleasure and I suspect that some of these statistics will cause pain to some of you in the audience, and I am sorry about that. But these are serious questions, these are serious times, and they deserve unflinching and serious consideration.
First of all, 23% of Hispanics in the United States are living in poverty. That's nearly a quarter. The per capita income of Hispanics is about half that of whites. The median net worth of Hispanics is about one-ninth. Now we're told over and over again that immigrants do jobs … they will take jobs that native Americans refuse to take. If that is the case, why is it that Hispanics are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed and 50% more likely to be on welfare? As far as crime is concerned, Hispanics are about three times more likely to commit violent crimes than white Americans and about three times more likely to be incarcerated. Now perhaps even more disturbing, compared to whites, Hispanics are no less than 19 times more likely to be members of youth gangs. Youth gangs are a serious and increasingly serious problem throughout the United States and its becoming overwhelmingly a Hispanic problem.
We're told frequently that Hispanics have excellent family values. On the other hand, no fewer than 46% of the births to Hispanic women in this country are illegitimate. That's nearly half of all Hispanic babies are born without two parents. Sociologists agree, practically unanimously, that single-parenthood is about the worst thing with which to start a baby off in life. It leads to all sorts of problems in the future. Perhaps that's why Hispanics are three times more likely than whites and twice as likely as blacks to drop out of high school. And in the United States of the 21st century, what hope do you have as a high school dropout?
Furthermore, illegal immigrants enter this country without any kind of health screening and as a consequence have brought to the United States exotic diseases we've never had in the past and other diseases that we thought we had eradicated. Some of the examples are tuberculosis, plague, leprosy, typhoid. Yes, today we have thousands of people who suffer from these diseases; practically every one of them arrived as an immigrant or caught the disease from an immigrant. Once again, Hispanics, compared to whites, are three times more likely to have syphilis or HIV AIDS. As a consequence, Hispanics are large consumers of medical services. And yet 35% of Hispanics do not have medical insurance. That is three times the white rate. Why do they not have medical insurance? It's because they know that they can go to an emergency room and get free medical care paid for by the rest of us. For some hospitals this is an absolutely crushing burden. In California, since 1993, dozens of hospitals have shut down … completely shut down because they could not stand the burden of paying the medical care for illegal aliens.
Now, at the same time, Mexican and Latin American immigrants to this country, they send home more than 30 billion dollars every year in remittances back to their home countries. The United States already has a serious balance of payments problem and here we have 30 billion dollars sucked out of our economy and scattered to the four winds in Mexico and Latin America. Now, people will often tell you the reason Hispanics do not have medical insurance: they can't afford it. Well, they can afford to send 30 billion dollars out of the country. Thirty billion dollars ladies and gentlemen buys a lot of medical insurance.
Now let me leave you on the statistical front here with one final statistic, and that is: the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank in Washington DC, has calculated that the average adult immigrant from Mexico will consume more than 55 thousand dollars in social and government services than he will pay in taxes over his lifetime. Fifty-five thousand dollars per person for millions of immigrants. Who pays that 55 thousand dollars? That's the rest of us; we pay that 55 thousand dollars.
So let me ask you … the United States is not a national charity; the United States is a nation that has to be concerned about its welfare. For years we have been fighting poverty, and yet we're importing poor people. We fight crime, or at least we claim to be fighting crime, and yet we import people who are likely to commit crime. We claim to be fighting school failure and yet we import people who are more than likely than any other ethnic group in the country to drop out of high school. We claim to be fighting disease, and yet we have all sorts of exotic diseases we've never had before. So the question is … should there be more Hispanics in the United States? I'm sorry, no. Why should we add to this population that is increasingly a burden upon the rest of us?
As to the question of loyalty to the United States, I would argue that, aside entirely from this dismal demographic picture that I've been obliged to paint for you, Mexicans, in particular are the worst candidates for US citizenship. Why is that? Mexico is the only country in the world that has an often expressed — passionately expressed — demand, a claim on American territory. The majority of Mexicans believe that the territory that changed hands after the Mexican-American War rightly belongs to them. That means they don't respect our sovereignty. Does it make sense to import millions of people from a neighboring country who did not respect your sovereignty? Whose loyalty lies across the border? Whose goal may be in fact to dismember the United States and detach part of it and add it to a different country or make it independent? This isn't just pure fantasy.
There's an organization that many of you may be familiar with called MEChA; that is a Spanish acronym that stands for the Mexican Student Movement for Aztlan. They're very clear about what their goals are. They wish to detach the southwestern part of the United States, expel all the non-Hispanics, and make it an independent country. They even have a name for it already; it's to be called Aztlan. MEChA is an organization that has chapters in virtually every university in Texas and California and throughout the West. It has chapters in many high schools. The motto of MEChA is: For the race everything, for those outside the race nothing. Their plan to expel all non-Hispanics means that those of you in this audience room who are not Hispanics are potentially targets for what we call 'ethnic cleansing.' Now, once again is it wise, is it wise to add to a population if even a minority of its members in the United States wish to ethnically cleanse those who are different from themselves?
Let me tell you about Charles Trujillo. He is a professor of Chicano Studies at the University of New Mexico. He foresees a sovereign Hispanic state in the southwestern part of the United States as 'an inevitability.' He tells us that it would include all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado.
[Moderator]: That's time, sir.
[Taylor]: Give me about twenty seconds. You were going to give me about one minute more.
[Moderator]: Okay, go ahead.
[Taylor]: He says that …
[Jose Angel Gutierrez]: I'll give him some of my time.
[Moderator]: [to Gutierrez] You'll give him twenty seconds?
[Gutierrez]: I'll give him a minute of my time.
[Taylor]: It should be a …
[Moderator]: Okay, one minute more.
[Taylor]: That it should be brought about by any means necessary. And that his job is to form a cadre of intellectuals to help bring this about. Thank you.
[Moderator]: Dr. Gutierrez?
University of Texas professor
Jose Angel Gutierrez.
[Gutierrez]: Thank you. I'm pleased that everyone is here on this muggy, kind of wintery afternoon. This is a low-risk environment. It's a campus university. Here is where professors profess; that's what we do. And students listen and learn and have to understand the things that we say. Understand, not accept. Understand. This is a stretching-of-the-minds place. So this afternoon I welcome you Mr. Taylor to our campus. We're gonna help stretch these minds. And you've done a brilliant job here of making a statistical argument, a severe indictment. I wish that you would have added some comparative statistics, wherever you got those. Show that how we stand with whites for example and sometime here in just a bit I hope you can tell us who the real white people are.
I think that the indictment that you gave us about the condition of Hispanics in the United States is your indictment Mr. Taylor. We have not been in charge, Mr. Taylor. We have been the victims. We have been segregated, oppressed, [unclear] in this country for centuries.
You get results from what you produce. Now the topic is a good topic — Hispanization of the United States: Good or Bad? Well, there's some underlying assumptions here. Whose United States is this? Whose planet is this? I would think that in this 21st century, we would have gotten away from the law of the jungle, where an 800 pound gorilla can sit wherever they want to. Or a two ton elephant can walk over everybody and anybody anytime they please. I would think that we would all pledge in this 21st century to leave this world a better place; that we would all get together and work together and live together in harmony. But I guess we still have to deal with the law of the jungle, the racist in the suit, like Mr. Taylor.
The Hispanization of the United States is a done deal, Mr. Taylor, but apparently those 16 years you spent in Japan atrophied you in terms of history lesson that you never had. You know, some 40,000 years ago our ancient grandmothers the Olmecas and the Mayas were here, with great civilizations. And Arnold Toynbee has pointed out to us several times that civilizations have decayed from within as opposed to from without. We also know that developed countries today appear to [muffled] on a pendulum and the spiral is this way. It's not linear and it's not unidirectional due to the supremacy of the white race.
The Spaniards came at a time when perhaps your ancestors where in caves eating raw meat. And the great civilizations, great civilizations. Sometime around 1492 the Europeans came to plunder and pillage and rape and destroy. And they did! Most of them were Spanish and Portuguese. And then other Europeans came. For the next century and a half, the map face of the United States bears a Spanish imprint. You go all the way up to Alaska … Valdez, the city [in] Alaska, is named for the marine minister that commissioned that exploration drive. It's not that tanker ship of that drunken pilot that spilled all that oil. All the way down California, Washington, Oregon — Alta California, cause there's a Baja California — we have been dismembered. All those places of San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, California, and we have a governor that speaks it properly, California. Alta California. On the Eastern side, your Jamestown, your Jamestown; 68 years prior to the founding of Jamestown was San Miguel de Guadalupe.
There are over 33,000 places in the United States that have a Spanish name. If we were to remove that Hispanicization that already occurred, one-third of your language would be gone, Mr. Taylor. The western movies would probably be silent movies.
And around 1803-05, when Napoleon III was emperor of Europe, he placed his brother on the throne in Spain, Joseph. And Joseph came to his brother Napoleon, like a good older brother should do for a younger brother who's the emperor. The Louisiana Territory, which in turn was then sold to President Jefferson at the time. So that brought these persons to the border of Tejas [unclear Spanish name, sounds like fah-wee-la] and Mexico. Mexico was born in 1810 and Mexico at that time said, to anyone who would come, lawful immigrants, that you're welcome to come provided you're Catholic, provided you're loyal to Mexico, and you bring no slaves. That's still in the Mexican constitution, Article 2. Mexico has prohibited slavery since that time. Well these legal immigrants came and got lots of land. But then the illegal aliens came from Kentucky, from Tennessee, from Georgia, perhaps from Virginia, perhaps your ancestors Mr. Taylor. These illegal aliens, like the Pilgrims were also illegal, came and like the Europeans, the Spanish and Portuguese predominantly then, to pillage and plunder and steal. We know how Thanksgiving was repaid to the Native Americans. We know who was brought here in slaves. We know of the wars against Mexico and Mexicans. It was very difficult and very painful for Mexicans to be Mexicans for the longest time and yes, this land was stolen in Texas. In 1846 the rest of the Southwest was stolen.
Sovereignty is where the flags fly. Everybody here knows about sovereignty here, Mr. Taylor. We have a theme park that tells us all the flags, all the sovereign flags that have flown over Texas. But that doesn't give you a right to steal my rancho or mi casa, or my culture or mi langua. Now Article 10 of that treaty that ended the hostility protected property rights and cultural rights and we don't have to get into all that big debate, but we just need to understand one thing. A cultural right, that human right is your right to be you. Your right to be you.
This man says that we're inferior. When he sees me and he sees others that are dark skinned, he says we're different and deficient. This is what I cannot stand back and not answer that is why I scheduled this debate and I welcomed you here. We are the future of the United States. This is not a white country. It is not going to be a white country. And we will paint this White House brown. Thank you.
[Applause and scattered booing]
[Moderator]: Let's calm down please. That's great. I'm glad you're excited. I gotta hold a debate here. We will do three minute rebuttals. Three minutes to Mr. Taylor.
[Taylor]: It seems to me that Mr. Gutierrez has some misconception as to what the title of this debate is: is Hispanicization Good for America? I was listening very carefully and I hope all of you were too. He didn't come up with a single reason. Not one reason as to why it's good for America. I hope you were paying attention. I think it's because not even he can think of one. All he is telling you —
[Moderator]: Please hold your applause.
[Taylor]: I think in a debate one holds one's applause until all the remarks have finished. That's one of those gringo rules that some people find difficult to understand. Please hold your applause.
[Moderator]: Seriously. That's an overreaction. Let both parties talk.
[Taylor]: No, not a single, not a single explanation or idea as to why it's good for the United States. He tells you that Mexicans have been segregated and oppressed. Well why is it that the most recent poll done in Mexico suggests that fully half of all Mexicans would come to the United States if they had the chance? Is that because they want to come and be segregated and oppressed? No, it's because they live in a nation that they have made a mess of and they wish to come to a country that works. Now, Mr. Gutierrez has also called me a racist. Well, Mr. Gutierrez, I hope he calls me more and worse names because when you're reduced to name-calling it means you don't have an argument. Calling people names is the most graceless way of admitting you've lost the argument. So I hope he calls me yet more, yet more colorful and wonderful names.
[Moderator]: One minute remaining.
[Taylor]: One minute remaining.
He has also suggested to you that somehow without the Spanish language or the Spanish people, one-third of English would disappear. Well that's news to me. I think that we have a marvelous language, and a marvelous literature, a marvelous heritage, and very little of it depends, ever so slightly, on Spanish. Now at some later point we can talk about this Mexican American War which Mr. Gutierrez has described as stolen territory. Well, I'll just give you a foretaste of what we might discuss by pointing out to you that Mexico was itching to fight that war. Mariano Paredes, who was the dictator at the time, he very much wanted to fight because he thought he was going to get Texas back; and not just Texas. He was going to occupy Louisiana, Mississippi. He was itching for a fight because thought he could —
[Moderator]: That's time.
[Taylor]: — expand his territory.
[Moderator]: That's time, sir. Dr. Gutierrez, you have three minutes.
[Gutierrez]: The second problem with Mr. Taylor's original opening statement had to do with loyalty. You know not a single person with a Spanish surname has ever been charged, indicted or convicted, much less, of treason in the United States. Do you know, Mr. Taylor, that the only terrorist named, at least associated with 9/11 came through Canada, not the southern border? Do you know Mr. Taylor that the greatest number of Congressional Medal of Honor winners, which is the highest award for military bravery beyond the call of duty in the hands of an ethnic group such as ourselves — in this case Latinos — is held by our community? We serve proudly, Mr. Taylor. You know, I was born in Crystal City, Texas and when it came my time I served in the United States Army. Did you draft the dodge? Were you ever in the military? I think I have a right to criticize my country, my society, because I have stood and defended it against worse than you and I will continue to do so. I also want to tell you, that in this particular situation where we are with demography; why don't you really tell us what the statistics mean? If we are such bad people and criminally bent and promiscuous, don't you think that it's in the gene pool? Why don't you tell these people what you really think? Thank you.
[Moderator]: Now we're going to take the opportunity to let the audience speak. We have your questions up here. Each individual will get two minutes to answer each question and then a two minute rebuttal from each. We will start with Dr. Gutierrez first. The first question is: 'With Mexicans seen as cheap labor do you feel that all Mexicans as a whole will be seen as a second class citizens in the near future?'
[Gutierrez]: That's always been, we don't have to wait for the near future. When you criminalize someone you make them totally vulnerable and exploit 'em. We don't have to look at Mexican immigration we can just simply look at the borderland, from San Diego, California to all over down to Brownsville, Texas. Those border counties which have been under the jurisdiction of the United States, and they have been in charge since 1848 have had chronic unemployment and it is the most undeveloped area there is in the United States, in cases worse than Appalachia. There is a theory that suggests that underdevelopment is development; that if I take from you either by hook or crook I will get richer and you will remain poor. Thank you.
[Taylor]: Once again, we find that Mr. Gutierrez has refrained from coming up with one single why it's good for the United States to become Hispanicized. I suspect we'll be waiting all afternoon for him to come up with a reason. We'll see. Now that he's been challenged twice he must be racking his brains for something, something that's good for America. Well, let's hear it, eventually. As far as the second class citizens are concerned, yes indeed there is a problem. There's a problem that due to the fact that other immigrants generally, after they've been in the United States for three generations, they achieve at the level of the majority. Asians for an example achieve at an even higher level than the majority. Mexicans do not, Hispanics do not. Even after they've been here several generations Hispanics are more likely to drop out of school, less likely to attend college, less likely to earn the median wage. So especially those who feel utterly alienated from American society, those who are loyal to Mexico, they will become a secondary underclass. And once again, is this good for America? No it's not good for America.
And if I have just a few seconds left I'd like to point out on the whole question of loyalty; just a few months after September 11, 2001 at a time when real Americans were feeling extremely patriotic, the Pew Hispanic Center asked Mexican-Americans what do they consider themselves first and foremost? Fifty-five percent said 'Mexican.' Twenty-five percent said 'Latino' or 'Hispanic.' Only eight percent said, first and foremost, American. Well good for that eight percent, but eight percent is not good enough. People who, American citizens mind you, not just resident aliens, not illegal aliens, people who are American citizens consider themselves first and foremost 'Mexican.'
[Moderator]: Time. Dr. Gutierrez you have a two minute rebuttal on that if you'd like.
[Gutierrez]: Yes, I sure would like. We have labels today that didn't exist fifteen, twenty years ago; Hispanic, Latino, and so on. And Mr. Taylor would like for us to be responsible for that. I already pointed out to the audience we have not been in charge. We're imposed these labels. Now if you have a problem with how we answer interviews or surveys or what we call ourselves, I suggest you pick it up with the Office of Management and Budget. They direct the United States Department of Commerce who runs the Census Bureau to create the Census form that gives us four options for race. We have to pick whether we're black or white or yellow or red and then we gotta pick another hundred and twenty-six nationalities, none of which is American, Mr. Taylor. We are excluded from within and from without. Your government.
[Taylor]: Can I reply?
[Moderator]: No, next question.
[Taylor]: Very good.
[Moderator]: Not a problem. Next question, 'If any other country proposed to build this wall, what would your feelings be? Mr. Taylor.
[Taylor]: If any other country?
[Moderator]: If any other country.
[Taylor]: I think every nation, every sovereign nation has absolute right to determine who comes into that country and who does not. That is an obvious expression of a nation's sovereignty. The idea that somehow, the United States, and only the United States, is supposed to give up that right; that's an astonishing double-standard. Look at Mexico. Mr. Gutierrez tells us, 'We've been here for 40,000 years from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.' Well, if you're a Guatemalan and you want to cross the border into Mexico, good luck. Good luck. They don't believe in this we-can-go-anywhere, we've-been-here-40,000-years stuff. All the borders in Latin America. Do you think that anybody can just traipse across whenever he feels like it? Absolutely not.
Now the proposal that came in the American House of Representatives to build a wall. Do you know how the Mexicans responded? The Foreign Minister of Mexico, Mr. Derbez, he said, 'We will not permit this.' Just imagine that. Imagine that you have a neighbor next door and you proposed, 'I think I'm gonna put a lock on my door' She says, 'No, no, no! I will not permit that you put a lock on your door.' Now would you call that nerve or would you not? The Mexicans are telling us, 'No.' They will not permit us to determine who comes into our country.
Comparisons with the Berlin Wall for example are absolutely nuts. Those are the people who don't understand the difference between the lock on your door and the lock on a jail cell. The Berlin Wall was to keep their own people in. A wall on the border is to protect our sovereignty. It's a completely different thing and any nation that sees fit to do that, by all means, God bless 'em and I hope it is built and I hope it's effective. And I have every reason to think that it will be.
[Moderator]: Sir, Dr. Gutierrez. Two minutes.
[Gutierrez]: Well I hope I don't see that wall but if it does come to pass I wouldn't be surprised that Cheney's [unclear] Haliburton gets the contract. Walls, as Robert Frost tells us you know fences make good neighbors, they keep people in and keep people out as you pointed out Mr. Taylor. And you've had since the Roman times, the wall of Hadrian, that didn't work. The china wall … the Great Wall of China, that didn't work. And the Berlin Wall as well, that didn't work. We've got blockades of Cuba, that doesn't work either. And we have NAFTA now, which is an economic wall. We allow under NAFTA and CAFTA and a few other trade agreements, we allow the free flow of capital and goods, but not labor. And labor is what drives this engine. The United States historically has needed labor all kinds of immigrants that's why that Statue of Liberty is there. That's why this nation is a nation of immigrants. The only thing that has changed since after the First World War is that they've run out of European immigrants and that's the resentment Mr. Taylor has. He ain't got no more. The volume now is coming from Africa and from Asia and from Latin America. And that's why we are the future of this country.
[Moderator]: Mr. Taylor?
[Taylor]: Yes. I'm still waiting for a reason of why Hispanicization is good for America. I guess I just don't see one coming. Now we've heard about the Statue of Liberty. Well, that's an old chestnut, isn't it? Do any one of you really know what the Statue of Liberty is all about? It was given by the nation of France to the American people at the centennial of the American independence. Its title is 'Liberty Enlightening the World.' In other words, it is to be a beacon to the outside. It was never set up as an idea somehow that it's supposed to welcome 'the huddled masses, the wretched refuse of their teeming shores.' That was tacked on years later. That is Liberty Enlightening the World. It's not welcoming the huddled masses and the wretched refuse. Now, Mr. Gutierrez tells you that he hasn't been in charge, Hispanics haven't been in charge and that's why they're poor, that's why they're illegitimate, because people like me have been in charge. Well he's wrong. Hispanics have been completely in charge, for hundreds of years south of the border. And look what they've done. He says they haven't been in charge. Where they are in charge, Mexicans are trying to get out as best they can to come to this country where they're not in charge. Now why would that possibly be? It's because they know they can live a better life here. Mr. Gutierrez tells me walls don't work. The current walls, only a few miles of them have been working brilliantly. More and more people have been having to go round and round far out into the desert to get across. It's much more difficult to cross. In fact, every year, the tragedy is that two or three hundred people die trying to make that passage. Do you think that if there were no walls, if there were never any deaths, if it were a piece of cake to walk across somehow more people wouldn't come? Of course walls are effective, that's why people build them.
[Moderator]: Time. Next question for Dr. Gutierrez. 'Considering one-third of the US born Hispanics are marrying whites, creating biracial children, is it a threat or a Hispanicization?'
[Gutierrez]: It's America. We, as persons of Mexican ancestry, are probably the most mixed people that there are, you know. Back in 711, Moors — which were Islamic, Mr. Taylor — they said [speaking in Spanish, sounds like: Alcalá, que Mohammed dos professa -which means something like 'the castle where Mohammad is taught']. And some of them stayed in Spain after that, occupied that Spain for 800 years. And then the Spaniards came here and met up with the [lists American Indian names that sound like 'the mah-shee-tas and the cah-dee-tas and the pie-nohs'] and forcibly or voluntarily, whether rape or romance, they made us. And I meet every other young student in my class especially people that are lighter skinned and they always tell me they got a Cherokee grandmother in their background. I suppose that this is real, real good. We are becoming American and that perhaps will be the answer in the 21st century that we're all so mixed together that we actually see each other as brothers and sisters.
[Taylor]: Well, brothers and sisters are we? Well that's not always the way that Mr. Gutierrez has spoken. In fact, I don't know how he feels about this today, but as I understand, not some time ago, not all that long ago, he was talking about the process of clearing the southwest United States of white people so that it might be an all-Hispanic nation. And these are his words, 'We've got to eliminate the gringo and what I mean by that is that if the worst comes to worst, we've got to kill him.' And that's pretty strong talk. Doesn't sound like much of any kind of brotherhood to me. As far as racial mixing is concerned, I think that every people should have the right if they wish to maintain their bloodlines; be they Hispanic, be they black, be they Asian, be they white. I don't look forward to the day when the entire world is some mishmash café au lait. I actually believe in diversity. I think that Japan for example — it's a wonderful country, I've spent many years there — the Japanese don't believe in diversity they have the quaint notion they'd rather stay Japanese than become half-Indonesian or Bangladeshi. They don't believe in this mestizaje or whatever it is, this mixing that goes on in Mexico. No they like being Japanese and I say, God bless 'em. The whole notion that diversity means some kind of mixing things together; no that destroys diversity. Diversity is distinctness, here and there. And no, I don't want the United States to become a mirror-image of any country, certainly not Mexico.
As far as the Mexicans are concerned, yet another survey tells us that 58% of Mexicans believe the southwestern part of the United States belongs to them and that fifty-seven percent think that they can cross in anytime without so much as an 'if you please' or a 'by your leave.' Is that a healthy state of mind? Do we want people like that coming into this country? Becoming citizens? Voting? Maintaining their loyalties to a country that is not the country in which they are citizens and vote? No.
[Moderator]: Time. Next question. Mr. Taylor. 'Do you feel that immigration reform is fueled by racism?'
[Taylor]: I think that immigration reform is fueled by an entirely healthy, natural, normal and moral desire to preserve the ways of one's ancestors. If there were people from all around the world pouring into Mexico, transforming it culturally, linguistically, demographically, do you think that the Mexicans wouldn't be interested in immigration reform? Of course they would. Mexicans have likewise this quaint notion they'd like Mexico to stay Mexican. Well God bless them. Why is it wrong for me to want America to stay American as it has been for decades and centuries? No, immigration reform is the idea that my children and grandchildren will walk in the ways of my ancestors, that they will sing the songs that they sang, that they will think the thoughts they did. That there will be continuity and respect for the past and hope for the future. No, I think immigration reform has to do with preserving what makes America a great thing, not diluting it. Not saying, 'Ahh, come one, come all, anybody, who cares?' No, immigration should be in the interests of the United States. We don't owe a free lunch to anyone outside our borders. Immigration should be, who is going to help our country and who will assimilate. And as I've said before, Mexicans, because of their historical grievances, because of the chip on the shoulder they have, they are least likely to integrate and for that reason I think they make the worst candidates for citizenship in the United States. Any free nation that takes its sovereignty seriously, controls its border, controls its population and does not let itself be completely diluted and distracted by whatever whimsy of migration brings whatever tribe from whatever failed country into that nation. No, immigration control is preservation of a nation's heritage, its history, its culture and its people. It's obviously a fundamental right of any nation. Think about any other nation … Nigeria —
[Moderator]: That's time, sir.
[Moderator]: Dr. Gutierrez, two minutes.
[Gutierrez]: Mr. Taylor heads up the New Century Foundation and receives money from the Pioneer Fund. Some of you people have gray hair like me, you know about that. That's the eugenics movement back in the Nazi era. That's where he gets money from. They publish, among other things, his journal, American Renaissance. Now he has no disclaimer as some books and some magazines tell you that these do not reflect the opinions … like they said here at the beginning of the speakers. It doesn't make any such disclaimer so every word passes through his eyes and is approved by his pen. Let me give you a little taste. You can go there yourself. Use your search engine and get to American Renaissance and read this pseudo-science.
American Renaissance, 1990: 'Nation is a uniform culture and racial heritage.'
AR '92, in his book in Paved with Good Intentions, another one of his books, he advocates for Puerto Ricans and others, the contraceptive Norplant, for ghetto neighborhoods and welfare mothers.
American Renaissance, 1994: 'Nations are biological entities, not geographic areas.' AR, 2001: Preach the gospel but do not let them marry your daughter or live beside you.'
Now more recently here, when he got really rolling against Hispanics he publishes, these are 28, 32 page treatises. 'The Myth of Hispanic Family Values.' If you had Easter you know how dead wrong he was. Man, we pray to that barbeque altar, the fajitas y cascarones. We go to church and wear the [unclear Spanish term]. Ash Wednesday and [more Spanish]. Forget it. He just needs to be Mexican for a little bit.
December 2005, American Renaissance: 'The Rosa Parks Madness.' Officer, 'The Rosa Parks Madness.' Officer, take care of this man.
[Moderator]: That's time. Mr. Taylor, your rebuttal.
[Taylor]: Well, American Renaissance has probably published millions of words in its time. It's quite amusing to me that these are the most provocative things that Mr. Gutierrez could possibly find. The notion of nation being a biological entity is all part of this word itself. The word nation comes from the word Latin nascere, to be born. A nation, to have any sense of real unity has to have a sense of family feeling, of being part of a big entity that's in it together. And that of course is why Mexicans who come to the United States still feel Mexican. They consider themselves a nation. The very thing that Mr. Gutierrez's friends are advocating is a nation based on bloodline. He should be the last person in the world to be wondering where that idea came from. Furthermore with this issue of Norplant. Yes I wrote about Norplant in 1992, not for Puerto Ricans in particular, not for blacks, not for anyone in particular but those on welfare, on the assumption that anyone who is feeding at the public trough, who depends on your tax money simply to stay alive, does not have the right to bring yet more children into the world for you to house, to feed, to clothe, to try to educate. No that should not be your duty. If you were dependent on society for your groceries, for the roof over your head … no, I'm sorry. For as long as you are dependent on society's handouts you should not have the right to have three or four more children. And in fact, the United States Congress agrees. In the welfare reform they decided no we're not going to increase welfare payments every time yet another illegitimate child is born. No, sir. So I'm hardly alone in that respect.
As for these wonderful family values that Mr. Gutierrez says that I should experience by becoming Mexican, why is it, why is it really that half of the Hispanics in the United States are illegitimate? Why is it that …
[Moderator]: Time, sir. 'Dr. Gutierrez, what do you think of illegal immigrants that are now attending college? Should they be allowed to pursue the American dream? Two minutes.
[Gutierrez]: A trustee of the Dallas County Community College [Muffled — Dr. Gutierrez says, in effect, that children cannot help where they are born or to whom they are born]
… introduce the idea at Dallas County Community College that we should allow these students to go to college at same tuition rates as regular in-resident students. Representative Noriega from Houston then picked that up and made that possible statewide. And now there is a national proposal called the DREAM Act to allow that to happen. That is the best investment we can make. These children are not going to go back. These children don't even know how to spell Tegucigalpa much less [unclear Spanish term]. They're raised here. They're as American as Mr. Taylor and I.
They're going to stay. The best thing we can do is educate them. We're benefiting from this brain drain that we're getting … these children that could be possibly Picassos and presidents and [unclear] running the streets of El Paso today. This is our future. Thank you.
[Moderator]: Mr. Taylor.
[Taylor]: The notion that people who are here illegally should benefit from taxpayer largesse is an absurd one and if you were to imagine it … if the shoe were on the other foot. If Americans were going to Mexico or any other Latin American country demanding — there illegally, mind you — and demanding the same kind of treatment would they sit still for it? Absolutely not. This is a repellent double-standard. The idea that you can be here illegally and yet have more favorable treatment compared to youth from out of state whose ancestors may have been here legally for hundreds of years; it's an absurdity. Once again, I ask you, imagine something equivalent in Mexico. Absolutely impossible. This is the standard refrain we hear over and over and over again. The application of double standards only to the United States. Only the United States has to make handouts to people who have crossed its border illegally. Only the United States has a border that need not be respected. Only the United States is supposed to kowtow to foreigners who come here and respect their cultures and bow down and worship them. Only the United States. Imagine going to Mexico and insisting on instruction in English rather than Spanish. You'd be laughed at, absolutely laughed at.
And then this brain drain, if in fact we're getting Picassos and presidents, wouldn't they be a wonderful addition to Mexico? Isn't that where they should be contributing? If their loyalties lie in Mexico, let these Picassos, let these presidents, let these inventors, let these robotics engineers and brain surgeons stay in Mexico and help their own country. If their loyalty is south of the border, then let them flower where they were planted.
No, the idea that somehow, someone who has broken our law to come here should benefit from our society; that is an abomination. And I believe, that if you think about it, in any kind of objective terms; if you apply that standard to any other country other than the sucker who we call Uncle Sam, you'll see just how absurd it is.
[Moderator]: That's time. Dr. Gutierrez, two minutes for rebuttal.
[Gutierrez]: Yes. You know, this country in 1957 went into a tizzy. I remember Eisenhower was president. He had just finished instituting a mass deportation of persons of Mexican ancestry. Abou- … about 26 to 27% were US born Mexicans. That was called Operation Wetback. That's Mr. Taylor now advocates what we should do. And some people, particularly of Homeland Security are planning for this summer. And Haliburton's subsidiary KBR already got a contract to build family detention centers already here in the United States. So we may get to see this again.
But in 1957 the Russians put Sputnik in the air. And what did we do? We dug up the old Nazis and brought them here 'cause we had no brain power here. We brought the Germans particularly headed by Werner von Braun to get us into the space program. And before that when we were at the Second World War and we were afraid of Japan, we brought the Jew Oppenheimer to help us with the atomic bomb. That is what immigrants can do. That's what immigrants have done. And that's what these immigrants today will do in the future. Thank you. Next question.
[Moderator]: Mr. Taylor, 'How does the present and future current populations, namely white and Hispanic, reflect upon the views that you are representing today?'
[Taylor]: How do they reflect upon the views that I am representing today?
[Taylor]: Well, I think that what is particularly interesting about the population of the United States is that when Americans are polled — and this is without regard to ethnicity — 60 to 80 percent of Americans will tell a pollster, 'We've had enough immigration. We want less of it. And we certainly are sick and tired of lawbreakers walking into our country without our permission.' And they're absolutely right to feel that way. As far as how Hispanics feel about that, I think we've seen an example of this. We've seen huge demonstrations in favor of illegal immigration. Fancy that. Once again can you imagine something similar in Mexico or any Latin American country? Hundreds of thousands of people on the street demonstrating in favor of lawbreakers, saying 'Yes, we belong here.' And despite the fact that over and over they were told, 'Keep your Mexican flags at home. Wave American flags. It doesn't look good if you've got all those Mexican flags waving;' an awful lot of people forgot. They came and waved those Mexican flags. So what country do they care about? What people do they care about? Do they care about the United States?
As a matter of fact, in Dallas, not long ago, the city council was considering dumping President's Day as a holiday and instituting instead Cesar Chavez Day. Well, and why shouldn't they? What do Mexicans care about George Washington? What do they care about Abraham Lincoln? For them, Cesar Chavez is more important than any American president, for heaven's sake.
I think what all this reflects is the notion of whether or not the United States even has a right to exist, not just as a sovereign nation, but as a distinct culture. Mexicans appear to believe that it has no such right at all; that immigration is up to them, up to whoever decides to come. Once again, this is an astonishing double-standard that they themselves would never permit. And yet, somehow, somehow, the United States has no rights to say, 'No, we like it this way. You stay home.' No we don't have that right.
[Moderator]: Time, sir. Dr. Gutierrez.
[Gutierrez]: I read a quote a minute ago from Mr. Taylor. 'Nations are biological entities, not geographic areas.' Now he's arguing sovereignty. And he's saying, why here anyway, is that we as Hispanics have a loyalty elsewhere. That we are somehow un-American. I don't understand, Mr. Taylor, how you can say you have a right to a culture and to a heritage and to this country but somehow I do not. The US government says, for example, that Hispanics, which is our current label, that we're racially white. Do you believe that, Mr. Taylor? Would you tell us who the real white people are? Thank you.
[Moderator]: Mr. Taylor? Two minutes.
[Taylor]: The question, he's telling me, that if I have a right to a heritage then he has a right to a heritage. He has a heritage. It's in Latin America. He wants to speak Spanish. He wants to … How many Spanish words? How many Spanish place names has he said to you during the course of this afternoon? I've lost count. That's his preferred language as far as I can tell. If that's the way he thinks, if that's the way he wishes to live, if that's the way he wants to celebrate his Easter, speaking Spanish, then he has a place where he can do that. It's not the United States.
All people deserve a place where they can be a majority, where they can let their heritage unfold. All of them do. Apparently, European-Americans are the ones who don't have that right. Why is that? Simply through sheer numbers, apparently. Simply because they are here. We don't have a right to say, 'Okay this is the way we define America.' No, we don't have that right.
Earlier on, he was telling you about how wonderful the Nazi rocketry people were in helping us to get into space. Well for some reason we didn't go looking for rocket scientists in Mexico did we? I think if we went looking there today we still wouldn't find any. I think you could look all through Latin America and not find a single rocket scientist, whereas in Germany you had rocket scientists sixty years ago.
I think that really the question of a right to a heritage is indeed a fundamental one. I don't deny anyone his heritage, I just don't want mine taken away from me. And that is precisely what increasing Hispanicization of the United States means. My heritage is taken away, my holidays are abolished, my ancestors are reviled. Should I sit still for that? Of course not. I never will. And those of you in the audience who are not Hispanic, you shouldn't sit still for it either.
[Moderator]: Time. Now this will be the final question of the debate. I would like to thank everyone [unclear] ask your questions. Sorry we couldn't get to everyone. Dr. Gutierrez, the final question. 'How do you expect Mexicans to feel loyal when we are made to feel so un-American?'
[Gutierrez]: Thank you. The same way that I have battled my own inner rage when I have been discriminated against and called names and accused of killing gringos and what not; you just persevere. You say, 'Forgive them, they don't know what they do.' They're paranoid but they're just sick people.
Now in his book — this is the last dig, I can't resist — The Color of Crime, that's the book where all the statistics that he started with come from. Basically, the Taylor theory, this is not [unclear Spanish name] or Karl Blumenthal or any other racial destructionist, this is Taylor. He says that white people like him got big brains. Big IQ. They're not promiscuous. And the people who have color, dark skin color, we got little IQs, little brains, and we're very promiscuous and we got big genitals. So Mr. Taylor would you explain your theorem to this audience?
[Moderator]: Mr. Taylor, go ahead three minutes.
[Taylor]: As I recall, the subject of the debate is Hispanicization of the United States. Now if —
[Gutierrez]: [unclear, something about 'big ones']
[Taylor]: — if we wish to hold a debate on the subject of racial differences, I would be delighted to come back and I would hope to face someone who is a little bit more knowledgeable on that subject than Mr. Gutierrez. However, the issue here is Hispanics and what they think, how they will affect the United States.
Let me just give you another example. In February 15th of 1998, the US soccer team and the Mexican soccer team met in Los Angeles. The US team was supposed to be the home team. Well guess what happened? Hispanics jammed the stands. They booed when the National Anthem was played. They pelted the players with garbage and beer. They beat up people who cheered for the American side. And when the American team left the stands, once again they heaped rubbish and beer and garbage from the stands. The coach of the US team called it 'the most painful experience I've ever had in this profession.' And in fact, some newspaperman called up the consulate of Mexico in Los Angeles and said, 'What do you think of the fact that all these Hispanics were booing the National Anthem?' You know what he said? 'You've just got to stop playing the National Anthem at athletic ceremonies.'
Likewise, February 5, 2004, the American Olympic soccer team was playing Canada in Zapopan, Mexico. Once again, the Mexicans booed the American National Anthem, they booed every time the United States scored a goal, and at the end of the game when the Americans walked off the field, guess what they chanted? 'Osama! Osama! Osama!' Now isn't that charming? They weren't even playing Mexico, they were playing Canada. But the United States … get the gringo. Is this a healthy sentiment for your neighbor? Is this the kind of thing Mr. Gutierrez is talking about, let's all get along?
[Moderator]: That's time, sir. Gutierrez?
[Gutierrez]: You reminded me often enough, Mr. Taylor, that we were discussing the Hispanicization of the United States yet you keep going off to Canada and to Mexico and all kinds of other countries. We discussed a topic today. I welcome you here. You've raised issues about statements I've made 39, 38 years ago. If any of you are interested in what was said, they're right here. You didn't come to debate that. And I'll debate you 'bout that one anytime you want anywhere you go, maybe in Virginia, in your hometown if you like. But you get to pay the expenses this time. Thank you for coming. Thank you, I hope you had a good day. Let's have more of these debates. Thank you.
[Moderator]: We do have one final thing. Four minutes of closing remarks from each person. The first person with the closing remarks will be Mr. Taylor. You get four minutes, sir.
[Taylor]: Four minutes, alright. The question really is, what kind of United States are we going to leave to our children and to our grandchildren? And likewise, in the background, is the question of, what is fair, what is proper, what is the kind of rule that we imply to all nations, not just the United States if we wish to make them a target for those who hate the United States for those who chant, 'Osama, Osama, Osama,' hate the United States?
Let me ask you to imagine something. What if hundreds of thousands of black and white Americans were pouring across the border into Mexico? What if they were committing crimes at a higher rate than Mexicans? Great illegitimacy rates, going on welfare; at the same time demanding that they be instructed in English in school rather than Spanish. Imagine that some of them were demanding ballot papers in English rather than Spanish; buying up radio and television stations, broadcasting in English. Imagine indeed, that many of them were muttering darkly about detaching a piece of northern Mexico, kicking out all the Mexicans and then establishing an all-white or all-black or an all-English-speaking, all-Anglo territory. Do you think that the Mexicans could be tricked into thinking that this is some sort of cultural enrichment? Of course not. They wouldn't stand still for it at all. They would recognize an invasion when they saw one. They would stop it immediately, because Mexico has a healthy sense of being Mexican. So healthy in fact that they want us to be Mexican too.
Well, we don't wish to be Mexican, we don't wish to be Haitian, we don't wish to be Guatemalan, we wish to be American, because if the United States ends up with a third world population it will become a third world country.
Just look south of the border, how often do we find the things that we take for granted here and in other European derived countries such as representative government, free speech, freedom of the press, rule of law. All of these things that we take for granted. You don't find much of it south of the border, no matter how hard you look.
Our nation is being transformed through immigration. It was something the American people were not asked to vote on. It's not something they were asked to approve. It is the pusillanimity, the spinelessness of our leaders that have permitted this to happen. The whole notion of this debate, the Hispanicization of America, is a travesty, an outrage and an insult. What if we were talking about turning America Haitian, Indonesian, Philippino? The very idea.
Once again, if you think about the United States think about other countries. How would Nigeria, Japan, how would they like to be Hispanicized? They wouldn't sit still for it for a moment. Nations have the right to preserve themselves. Nations have an existence that goes beyond just one generation. It goes beyond just getting votes for the next election. So all of you, think clearly in terms of what this nation should be. A nation is its people and if its people are divided, if its people have loyalties that go across the border, across the ocean, if they are not Americans it's not a nation. It has no unity.
At the present time in the United States, what if there was serious border conflict of some kind, any kind of exterior conflict with Mexico, on which side would the Mexicans side? Obviously with Mexico. People's deepest loyalties come out when there's an athletic contest. I ask you, Hispanics in this room, if the American team and the Mexican team meet in the Olympics, who do you root for? What does that say about your feelings?
Finally, in closing —
[Moderator]: That's time, sir.
[Taylor]: Well, let me —
[Moderator]: Final count, go ahead.
[Taylor]: — all I can say is that —
[Moderator]: I'll give you both more time.
[Gutierrez]: He can have my one million.
[Taylor]: — is that Americans, as Americans we have the right to be us and only we can be us. Thank you very much.
[Loud, lengthy applause]
[Moderator]: Dr. Gutierrez? Four minutes.
[Gutierrez]: Let's give 'em a Chicano clap. [Rhythmic clap increasing in pace] Mr. Taylor you came to profess and you have. I hope you've had a wonderful afternoon. I started asking earlier, whose US is this? Obviously you told us that you are the people, you're the knighted people, you're the blessed people and we are the other.
Just very quick; I got big ears and I've heard everything. I asked whose planet is this. Now we didn't get to that because he won't come clean he's still hiding in that racist suit. He won't tell you about his race theories. He won't tell you about the gene pool. He won't tell you about how superior white people are, his ancestors. You read American Renaissance and find out what we have. These are dangerous times in our society because this kind of talk and this kind of writing leads to extreme hatred.
Many of us who are standing up for our dignity and our cultural rights and our political speech and our First Amendment freedoms have been targeted here for threats, hate mail, assassination attempts, you name it. This is who's fueling it. Now you ask about that speech and you got that free pie, Mr. Taylor, but I'm telling you, you keep that up and I'm gonna find you in civil and criminal court and my estate is gonna be paid wealthy money from your family. You're gonna get to work for a Mexican, yet, if harm comes to my family.
[Audience member heckles]
[Moderator]: Please calm down. Thank you.
[Taylor]: Criminal court?
[Gutierrez]: And civil, and civil. Don't forget the other one. So I thank you all for coming. I hope you had a good afternoon and you learned something. Thank you.
[Moderator]: Thank you very much.