Okay, so I watched short version. Some questions I'd like answered before I delve into responding to you vis a vis the content of Stefan's video essay and this thread's topic (the impacts of expelling illegal immigrants from the U.S.): Did you present short version of video essay for its discussion on the role illegal immigration plays in the demise of rich nations/cultures? If "yes," are there, based on what you know about the differences in content between the short and long versions of the analogy Stefan developed, ideas in the long version that he did not summarize and mention in the short version? If "yes," please identify the minute markers whereat in the long version one'll find the ideas he didn't summarize in the short version and that pertain to illegal immigration or immigration in general. Actually they do. I can't say "they" teach it in all high school and college history classes. Indeed, the topic is out of scope for, say, an American history class, so, of course they don't teach it there. If, one takes what in my day was called EWC (European/Early and Western Civilization), one can be sure the rise and fall of Rome will be covered. I can't say whether all schools require a research paper on the topic -- Rome's rise and fall was the first long (25 pages) paper I recall having to write in high school -- but the topic is covered. Each of my four children had to write a paper of some sort on the same topic. (My second called me at home one night asking me to dig through her brother's stuff to see if his "Rome" paper was there and would I mail it to her.) Moreover, I cannot imagine the role migration played in The Fall of the Roman Empire is not taught to some degree in thousands of high schools. What I remember is this: Huns' rampage out of Asia (basically Russia) and into Europe by way of what we call the Baltic States-Belarus region. This pushes Goths (Visigoths), who knew the Huns were coming, south and eventually onto Rome's borders in about the area of present day Balkans, Hungary, Austria or there abouts. That creates large groups of scared-shitless Goths -- Visigoths; the Ostrogoths had by this time been killed or absorbed into the Hunnic empire; seeing that is basically why the Visigoths were scared -- trapped between the advancing Huns and Rome's frontier borders. Rome in response begrudgingly accepts the fleeing Goths into the safety of the Empire. Rome treated the Goths like sh*t -- conscripted them, made slaves (not exactly chattel slaves in the 19th century sense of the term, but bottom of the social ladder with little to no "climbing" opportunity, which is much more relevant than what kind of slaves they were) of others -- thus pissing off and creating an enemy within its borders. Back in school, I called these people "Gothromans" so I could remember who they were, but it's important to realize they were given only ally status and relatively safety of being allowed to live within Rome's borders, but they weren't citizens. There were roughly like a mix of H1B immigrant, migrant worker, resident alien, conscripts, low wage worker/slaves, and refugee, but still not Roman. The Gothromans eventually had enough and revolted. The revolt was settled by a treaty that gave the Gotheromans some land on the outer edge of the Eastern Empire in the area we call the Balkans. That essentially let Rome conserve its "native sons" and forced the Gothromans to fight the tribal invaders from the north like the Sarmatians. The Empire fell into civil war (in large part to defend Christianity's primacy over the remaining vestiges of Roman paganism) and Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor, didn't have enough Romans to fight its battles, so he hired Alaric and his Visigoths essentially as contract soldiers. The Gothromans, living in the region where the Eastern and Western Empires met, were used by Theodosius as "cannon fodder." Theodosius' side won, the Empire is once again united, and Christianity is thenceforth decidedly the Empire's religion, but the pagans in the West aren't at all happy, so deep animosity remains. Keep in mind that the ill will is between the people in power. "Everyday" people don't care. They just want to raise and screw their sheep, and occasionally a woman, have some kids, grow old and die. They only time they care is when they have to fulfill their duty and serve in the Legions, which was the one thing and time that was likely to get them killed. Theodosius dies. His boys inherit the Empire and end up as the emperors of the East and Western halves of the empire. They do what brothers and other relatives do and get into disagreements, but since they "own" whole empires and armies, they play out their contretemps on a different scale than might you and your sibling, or even the Hatfields and McCoys. The result is that there is obvious tension between them; thus between the two empires. (If you remember Dynasty with Alexis and Crystal battling all the time, well, it was something like that and everyone around them got caught up in the battle one way or another. Something more or less like that is the story of Western history from the Dark Ages to WWI. After WWI, the key players aren't all relatives.) The brother who got the Western Empire moves the capital from Rome to Ravenna. Alaric, who was the Gothromans' leader, figures out that there are deep divisions between the East and West, so he decides it's a good time for him to press for a renegotiation of the Gothroman peace treaty that settled the Gothic uprising some twenty years prior. He wants some land, grain, a pension of sorts, and citizenship for his people, and for himself, he wanted to be given the title/job of full Roman commander/general, equal to the commander with whom he'd shared the burden of winning the civil war for Theodosius. The Roman general, who by this time has married his daughter to the Western Emperor, had designs on the Eastern Roman throne, so knowing that, Alaric promised to side with the general and attack the Eastern Emperor. (Keep in mind that the Gothromans' are part of the Eastern Empire because their official place is that land in the Balkans.) The general with whom Alaric had fought for Theodosius is to whom Alaric appealed, and that general was down with it, and took the request to the Western Roman Senate with a recommendation to approve it. The Senators said "no," and a powerful Senator got his panties in a buch over the mere fact that Alaric had even asked for a better deal for his people. The Senator convinced the Western emperor that Alaric's "ask" was an act of war. The Senator got the Western Emperor to agree to attack his brother and Alaric's war-buddy general advised the Emperor to let him lead the charge, a request that was granted, and he off he went to attack the Eastern Emperor. The Senator unilaterally orders the genocide against Goth sympathizers in Northern Italy in an areas somewhere around what we call Milan. (The Emperor didn't condone this, but it happened all the same.) Alaric's general friend dies in a battle. Alaric finds out about the Senator's deceit and massacre of his friends/allies around Milan and is pissed. Other Goths find out too and ally with Alaric. Alaric and the Goths surround Rome and lay siege, starving the residents and denying them fresh water, no way to bury their dead or dispose of their waste. Alaric sacks Rome when it's sufficiently weakened by the siege and disease and succeeds. This happens around 400-410 or so. (It's important to remember that Ravenna, not Rome, is the capital of the Western Roman Empire when Alaric does this. ) Remember the pissed off "Gothromans" eventually had enough of being condescended to and treated like crap, so they allied themselves with Alaric and his band of Visigoths, who were essentially a mercenary force Rome hired because there weren't enough Romans to fight Rome's battles. That's the very simplified version of it -- massive texts, and lots of them, have been written about The Fall. Even so, I remember that much off the top of my head from friggin' high school. Now I know that Rome had Germanic (people who roughly occupied regions we'd call Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia) settler issues back in Marcus Aurelius' time too....that was the mess Now, do high school teachers stand at the front of the room and literally say, "The Romans took in Germanic settlers who came from the northern and Scandinavian regions of Europe. The Germanic people and the Goths were immigrants."? No. Why would they? "Immigrant" is a word and idea that high school students are reasonably expected to comprehend. Even were she to give just the short overview I wrote above as their lecture on Rome's Fall, a high school history teacher would expect his students to glean that the Germanic people and Goths who were fleeing the Huns were essentially refugees and that the ones whom Rome admitted were, wonder of wonders, immigrants. Making that connection -- history is, after all, about causes and effects -- is one small thing that a high school student would be expected to do on his own. A college student would be expected to make notably more insightful connections. C-Students: students who merely parrot the story as it was given to them by the text/teacher. B-Students: students who make small connections like realizing that the Goths were immigrants. A-Students: students who make the small connections and draw accurate inferences by integrating their awareness of the human condition with history's events and how various people responded to them and or how those events and responses made possible subsequent developments and events in humanity's story. So, while it's fair to say that teacher may not explicitly refer to the people entering the Empire as immigrants, it's not exactly fair to say the role of immigrants wasn't taught. It's more apropos to say that some students master the topic of the Roman Empire and its Fall (and scores of others; I realize the Roman Empire's fall is just an example) and others not so much.