June 30, 2025 • 46 mins
In this episode, RJ Hauman discusses the implications of counting illegal immigrants in the census and how it affects congressional representation. He highlights the legislative efforts to address this issue, including the Equal Representation Act, and critiques the current state of immigration enforcement under the Biden administration. The discussion also touches on the challenges faced by ICE in deportations and the need for adequate funding to support immigration enforcement efforts. It's a Numbers Game is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
Learn more about RJ's work here
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome back to a numbers game. Happy Monday, everybody. I
am glad for you to be here with me for
one more week. So much happened with the New York
City election. I didn't guys, I didn't get you get
like to give my listeners the update on the Kansas speech,
So I gave for those who missed the episode. I
gave the keynote address the Bob Dolden Or in Kansas,
which is a very nice thing, usually reserved for a congressman.
(00:24):
I wasn't really sure why I was invited, but I
was honored to be there. I flew into Kansas and
had some barbecue at Joe's Barbecue in Kansas City, Missouri. Delicious, amazing,
I highly recommend. And then go to the speech and
I'm very nervous. I really didn't know why I was invited.
And I meet with the organizers the night before and
I say, why did you have me over a senator
(00:44):
or congressman whatever, And they say, oh, because you're so
edgy and funny. Just be edgy and funny, which is
not good guidelines for someone like me, because it's like, hey,
push every boundary you possibly can, like I'm a child
like you need to give me parameters, Like I work
very well within the lines, but like if I don't
see the lines, I you know, it's striving. Like I
(01:06):
drive like someone like a woman from New Jersey. I'm
all over the place. So anyway, I I'm very nervous.
I write my speech and then it dawns on me
like that right before the speech, nobody is going to
know who I am, Like, I guess if you're like
listen to me in my podcast, but I mean that's
not the whole audience. It's all donors and established from
people and elected officials. They definitely have no they're not
(01:28):
listening to my podcasts or not watching me or I'm
rooting my sub stack. Those are like the people like
those are not like the electeds. So I walk into
like the room. First of all, the MIC's not working,
which is or it's like working like kind of like
very shoddy. I go into the room. This very well dressed,
very elegant Asian, older Asian woman walks up to me, goes,
(01:48):
can we get a picture? And I go, oh, my god,
you know who I am? And she goes, no, I
don't know, but I get pictures with everybody and I
was like, oh my god, this is going to be bad.
So I meet some of the elected officials, the Senate president,
people running for governor. It was really nice whatever, but
once again, no one knew who I am. I'm having
to be introduced everybody for the first time and then
make the small talk and then talk about my pack
(02:09):
and nonprop with education. And I text my one friend
from who's a political political consultant from Kansas, and I'm like,
this is going to go horrible. He goes, no, No, it's
a Kansas audience. They give standing ovations to everybody. It's
just how they operate. So the state treasurer gets up,
he gets a standing ovation. The first speaker gets up,
he gets a standing ovation. The German ambassador's assistant god
(02:31):
a standing ovation. I'm like, okay, I'm cool. I'm you know,
it's going to be fine. Everything is gonna work out
fine for me. I go give the speech, and once
again I'm looking at the audience. They have no idea
who I am. So I say I'm the guy who
made the beeper a joke on CNN, and you hear
this like collective oh yeah in the audience. I'm like, oh, Okay, well,
(02:52):
this is going great. So I give the speech, and
I go on about how Republicans support immigration reduction, and
it's time that all the Kansas legislators, congressmen, and senators,
including those who live in Florida, because one Kansas senator
may have a residence, may spend most of his time
in Florida instead of Kansas, but all the Kansas congressmen
(03:14):
and senators should back immigration reduction. We can't let farmers
have low skilled workers flood our country in the name
of like picking crops. I just go off and then
I talk about AI policy and how Kansas needs to
regulate AI because they're taking jobs. And I said, if
you want to make sure you turn Trump supporters into
(03:37):
AOC supporters, make sure that our unemployment numbers reach twenty
percent in the country, especially why collar workers. And then
I go into education, how Kansas ranks thirty third in
the country. I lay it off with like a nice
thing about Bob Dole and the legacy of Bob Dole.
I could not over emphasize how few people clapped at
(03:58):
the end of my speech was so tepid. They absolutely
did not care. Oh this was the best part. Wait
one last thing. The only other famous Republican from Kansas.
I looked at my notes, this came back to me.
(04:18):
Only other famous Republican from Kansas that I know of
is Dwight Eisenhower. And I said in my speech, Dwight
Eisenhower had a much easier legacy to wrap up than
Bob Doles. He one d Day, he built the highways,
and he deported the illegal immigrants with Operation Wetback, which
was a real thing. You can look it up. Operation Wetback,
I said, Trump Show named Tom Holman the czar of
(04:40):
Operation wet Back two point zero. They did not like that.
Apparently that was not cool with them, to which one
evangelical lady walked up and said, I can't believe you
said the word wet back. It's like saying retard. I said,
retard's back. Okay, you could say retard now, okay, it's
Trump's amarror. So they also did not think that was funny.
(05:00):
I was. This was not my audience. This was not
a New York audience. This is not people who deal
with politically incorrect conversations. I heard that the Speaker of
the House was biting the inside of his cheeks when
I was started immigration reduction and slamming farmers for bringing
in cheap labor taxpayer expenses. So that was that. That
was Kansas. One woman, and I'm going to apologize for
(05:23):
my swearing. One state legislator walked up to me at
the end of my speech and said, so, were you
born without fox to give or did that come recently?
And I was just like, nope, born this way, just
ready for a barn burner anyway. Okay, that was I
was going to tell you my way more about Kansas,
but it's not worth it. But that was. It was
very funny. It was very my life in a nutshell,
(05:45):
where you end up in a very cool setting but
no one really knows why you're there. You don't know
why you're there, and kind of everything goes wrong because
you can't shut your mouth and just give like a
normal nice thing. You can't just play by the rules,
which is very how my life has always been. Okay,
So two things. One, this episode, the main point of it,
which I will get to in the second part, was
(06:05):
requested by more than one email person receiving an email
listener over email I get always asked me anything. Segment
emails now, which I love you can email me number
Ryan at numbers gamepodcast dot com and I try to
answer every email or get to it on the show.
Well more than one person asked the same question. So
(06:26):
this episode, the interview part and the second part will
be completely about the listener questions, which is about illegal
immigration when it comes to congressional redistricting and it comes
to reapportionment and getting and the sense is taking illegal
immigration information. I will get to that, but first, this
happened just as I'm about to tape, which is a
(06:49):
few days before it airs. Pew Research, which is one
of the premier nonprofits that analyzes elections, especially presidential elections,
came out with their post twenty twenty four analysis. Now,
I know we've gotten this from before, and I know
that we are half a year, more than half a
year since the twenty twenty four election, and people generally
(07:12):
don't care. They've moved on. I care, and I am
fascinated by this, and I want to talk about some
highlights in the Pew Research data about the twenty twenty
four election. So first, from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty four,
Trump coalition in twenty sixteen, eighty eight percent of all
people that voted for Donald Trump were white. By twenty
(07:33):
twenty four, that number had dropped to seventy eight percent.
His support among the number of voters in his coalition
that were Hispanic has essentially doubled, and those who are
black have essentially tripled, which is fascinating. Well, the Democrat
coalition from Clinton to kamalaw has actually gotten whiter, and
they've lost a significant portion of both their black and
(07:57):
Hispanic voter base, which isn't shocking. Of the people who
voted in the twenty twenty election right that voted for Trump,
eleven percent did not vote for Trump in twenty twenty four.
They didn't vote at all. Three percent voted for Kamala,
so it was a fourteen point drop off. Among people
who voted for Biden, five percent voted for Trump, number
(08:21):
three for Kamala. From Trump's Trump had a neck game
of two from Biden people, and fifteen percent of people
who voted for Biden in twenty twenty did not go
and vote for Kamala. Of the people who didn't vote
at all in twenty twentyteen percent of vote sorry didn't
vote in twenty twenty, but voted in twenty twenty four,
fourteen percent voted for Trump, twelve voted for Kamala, So
(08:45):
Trump got an advantage of boost and the raw vote
total of not only people who had voted for Biden
and then voted for Trump, but also people who didn't
vote at all and voted for Trump, which is part
of the reason why he won the popular vote among
those voters. Building on that, voters who didn't vote in
twenty sixteen but voted in twenty twenty favored Biden by
(09:06):
five points over Trump. People who didn't vote in twenty
twenty but voted in twenty twenty four have favored Trump
over Kama by twelve points. It's an immense group of
people who are inactive voters, in frequent voters, people who
are all of a sudden becoming very new and fresh
to the political scene. Very interesting, Okay. Trump's support among
(09:31):
his percentage of the vote that he received among certain
demographics from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty to twenty twenty four.
This is fascinating. Among men, Trump's growth of the male
vote has increased three points from twenty sixteen and went
from fifty two percent of the overall mail vote to
fifty five percent. Among the female vote, it is increased
(09:55):
by seven points from thirty nine to forty six. This
is what I'm about to say about the male female thing.
Just take it. I know there's a lot of numbers
coming at you, but take it in for a second.
White men, his numbers actually declined by three points among
white women. His numbers increased by four points among black men. Now,
(10:17):
that was from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty four. The
numbers from minorities are from twenty twenty to twenty twenty four.
Just asterisk. It's not that important, but it's worth analyzing.
From twenty twenty to twenty twenty four. Among black men,
his numbers increased by nine points among Black women, by
five among Hispanic men, eleven points among Hispanic women, thirteen points.
(10:41):
Trump's gain in the popular vote, and Trump's win of
the popular vote, was because women, especially non white women,
voted for him. That is the headline. Right. Of course,
the male vote counted, but Trump's growth among females with
white women and Latino women was larger than his gains
(11:04):
among Latino men and white men, and only black men's
were passed black women, which is not that surprising at
all anything else. Now, the white vote overall, Trump's numbers
improved by one point from twenty sixteen fifty four to
fifty five. Among Blacks, it went from six to fifteen.
That's a nine point gain. Among Latinos it went from
(11:26):
twenty eight to forty eight. That's a plus twenty point swing. Huge,
And among Asians it went from thirty to forty, so
that's plus ten pretty significant. It was. The Latino vote
is very signcoriing. He won Latino men by two points.
He went from losing them fifty seven to thirty nine,
losing them by eighteen points in twenty twenty to winning
(11:49):
them by two points fifty to forty eight and twenty
twenty four. Okay, Trump's base also became younger, which we
all knew, but it's fascinating to see the numbers among
all eighteen to twenty nine year olds. Trump went from
getting twenty eight percent of their support in twenty sixteen
to thirty nine percent in twenty twenty four. He went
from losing that by thirty points to gaining that, so
(12:11):
losing that by nineteen points. So he wasn't he wasn't
he wasn't, you know, losing them by huge numbers. The
same is true among thirty to forty nine year olds,
my demographic millennials. This is the group that builds Obama's coalition.
These are Obama voters. People forget he went from losing
them by eleven points to fifty one to forty in
twenty sixteen to losing them by two points. Millennials basically
(12:37):
broke even Trump, Harris, the Obama coalition is a solidly
mixed back now. The biggest group to sit there and
support Trump, we're gen xers. Fifty to sixty four year olds.
He went from winning them by six points to winning
them by fourteen points. And among people sixty five and
old older, he went from winning them by nine to
(12:58):
winning them by three. There was a move towards Democrats
with them. But remember I've said this to people before.
I'm kind of blue in the facement. People kind of
have a frozen time of when what a senior citizen
is like. They think, oh, I'm thinking of my grandma
from when I was a childhood, or my neighbor from
when I was a kid who was eighty twenty years ago. Well,
(13:20):
there's likely that person doesn't exist anymore. The person's probably
gone to their eternal rest. They're not alonger with us.
Remember Henry Fonda, who was very conservative, is not a
senior citizen. Jane Fonda is right. People who were anti
war activists in the sixties and seventies are now in
their seventies and eighties. Those are the people who are
(13:43):
Archie Bunker is dead, but Meathead is a senior citizen.
Think of it like that. People are wondering, how did
like the seniors become so left wing. They didn't just
become so left wing. Left wing people have aged into
being senior citizens, and that's what's important. Trump won men
under Trump won all men, but Trump won men under fifty,
(14:04):
which he had lost in twenty twenty. And his growth
among women between the ages of eighteen to forty nine,
a group that he lost by thirty six points in
twenty sixteen, he only lost by fourteen points in twenty
twenty four. This is the women who were supposed to
win for Kamala because of abortion. All they cared about
is abortion. Cared about abortion. Trump made eighteen point swing
(14:28):
among that demographic, people who were supposed to care about
abortion more than anything else in the world, all right,
which groups. When it comes to education, Trump made games
with college educated whites. He went from thirty eight to
forty three. The only demographic, though, to give Trump a
majority of support were non college educated white people. Trump
(14:49):
won sixty four percent of non college educated white people.
Oh sorry, he also won non college educated Hispanic people
as well. He won them by a single point, so
non college educated Hispanics and young college educated whites. Without
those two groups, Kamala Harris would have won. And I
think it's important to say those things out loud because
(15:12):
I have to hear and this will be in the
email from the listener later in the last segment of
the show, and no shame to them, but this is
what I hear all the time is how do we
win back white college educated women, or not white, just
college educated women in the suburbs. We hear this at nauseum.
(15:33):
What we should be talking about is how do we
deliver for the only people that make sure Republicans win
the White House? How do we deliver policy gains for
people who are delivering the White House and Congress and
Senate for Republicans, that is, non college educated whites and
(15:53):
non college educated Hispanics. If the policies we are advocating
do not fight for our voters. Why are we doing them?
And there's a lot of policies we do which hurt them,
hurt them. A lot high school voters without a high
school degree, which have backed Trump in twenty sixteen by
seven points, back Trump by twenty points this time, twenty
(16:17):
points this time. Huge swings by religion. Trump gained with
basically every religious group. Protestants he gained by six points
since twenty sixteen, Evangelical white Evangelicals by six points, Catholics
by three points, unaffiliated by four points, Black Protestants by
six points, Latino Catholics by ten points, non white Protestants
(16:38):
by fifteen points. They're all reflective in the other stuff. Okay,
last part of this entire autistic rambling that I've just
had on the twenty twenty four election. I promise this
is the probably the last time I reflect on it
and have a whole segment on it. Immigrants among people
who were born in the USA, Trump lost the American
(17:01):
native born American vote in the twenty twenty election by
three points, which is lower than the overall average. Because
the immigrant vote voted for Joe Biden by twenty one points.
The immigrant vote voted for Hillary Clinton by huge margins
in the CNN exit poll, which is different than Pew.
But immigrants delivered Democrats the popular vote and delivered Democrats
(17:27):
a lot of swing states. That is why you will
never hear the Democrats back away from it. They need
these voters. In the twenty twenty four election, Trump won
Americans people who were born in America, American born, natural
born Americans. He won them by two points fifty to
forty eight, which is about what he got in the
(17:47):
overall popular vote. Among naturalized citizens immigrants, Trump lost them
only by four. There was a seventeen point swing among
immigrants in this country, which is kray Z. I never
thought we would see this. I mean still, they voted
for Joe Biden. Other sorry, they voted for Kamala Harris.
(18:09):
So it's not like they were you know, Magahar right,
Trump free people. But the fact that they voted that
close and it wasn't a twenty point loss. So where
did this come from? Which immigrants made this swing? This
is going to surprise you. In twenty twenty, fifty six
percent of white immigrants i e. Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders,
(18:32):
Kiwis and Europeans voted for Joe Biden by a fifteen
point margin. White immigrants voted for Donald Trump by a
sixteen point margin. In twenty twenty four. There was a
thirty one point swing. It is the largest single swing
of any immigrant group, and actually of any group that
(18:55):
it's even larger swing than Hispanics. Thirty one point swing
among white immigrants from Canada Europe. I guess there's some
whites from South Africa, Canada, Europe, Eweis, and Australians wild.
Among Hispanic immigrants, Trump won. According to Pew Research, Trump
won Hispanic immigrants by three points. He lost them by nineteen,
(19:18):
so it was a twenty two point swing among Hispanic immigrants,
and among Asian immigrants he lost them only by five
after losing them by thirty last time, twenty five point
swing for Asian immigrants. There's no information on black immigrants.
I guess they don't have enough sample size to make
a accurate telling. Okay, why why did immigrants all of
(19:43):
a sudden become Republican? Obviously the economy plays a big
part of that, right, There's no rhyme or Reasoners say
that otherwise the economy was sour and they paid back
from it. But Trump campaign on mass deportations. There was
no hidden agenda that, oh Trump didn't really campaign immigration.
(20:04):
He came pade hard on immigration. I think, and this
is my belief, and there's a little bit of data
to back this up, but it's more my belief than
it is the data. And if there is, I can
go into this at a different time. I believe that
the Black Lives Matter riots in twenty twenty one and
(20:24):
the end of twenty twenty really change people's opinion on
a lot of things when it came to how the
Democratic Party governs, and then the COVID lockdowns that absolutely
affected people into sitting there and reanalyzing how Democrats act.
The education policies, not only of the transgender stuff in schools,
(20:47):
but closing specialized schools which so many Asian immigrants and
European immigrants benefit from. And then also the insane stuff
when it comes to the transgender thing. This is not
just for not just for Latino immigrants and Asian immigrants,
but also europeam Grants member. It's Europe which is at
the forefront at stopping transgender surgery. For minors. It's Sweden,
(21:09):
it's Norway, it's England. These are not you know, right wing,
hardcore countries. These are countries that Bernie Sanders wants the
model America after. They are at the forefront of all
these fights. So I think that that is fascinating and
I think it's worth telling, and I don't know if
it means something bigger going forward. If this was a
(21:30):
blip in the map, but a thirty one point swing
vote change among European immigrant white immigrants and a twelve
point change among Hispanic immigrants and an eleven point change
among Asian immigrants from twenty twenty twenty twenty four is
why that number among immigrants overall has changed significantly. Okay,
(21:53):
I'm not going to talk about that anymore. That's the
twenty twenty four election. That's the best data that there
is out there. We put a pin in this, we
put a bow in it. I'm landing the plane. That
is fascinating. It's the kind of the gold star. As
post election analysis goes, what the Democrats and Republicans campaign
on in the future will be based off of what
that information says. All right, So now go to the question,
(22:17):
the question that I received from listeners was about the
census in twenty thirty and the question was looking forward
into how the census is coming out and how congressional
districts are being up reapportion based on population. How is
the illegal immigrants affecting the number of seats different states
(22:39):
are receiving, different congressional districts are receiving. This matter is
not only for the House, but for the electoral college.
Right do you get the number of electoral College votes
that you get is based off of how many House
seats you have in any given state. Right after COVID
in twenty twenty two, a left wing organization called the
Brennan Center and they have this image of float on
(23:00):
social media. They show that based on current trends, states
like Tennessee, Arizona, and Georgia were all expected to gain
one seat. Florida and Texas we're supposed to gain four
seats each, while California, New York, and Illinois lost the
combined ten seats. Right this massive reshuffling, This came out
(23:20):
of Michael Lee, by the way, the Brennan Center, and
it was basically sitting there and saying COVID had so
affected the amount of blue state voters, leaving that in
dark blue states Illinois, California, Rhode Island, in Minnesota, and
New York and Oregon were slated to lose total of
twelve seats. The soul swing state Pennsylvania was supposed to
lose one, while red states like Idaho, Utah, Tennessee, Texas,
(23:43):
and Florida were supposed to gain ten. In swing states
North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona, we're supposed to gain one apiece. Okay,
so you might have seen that kind of floating around.
There was another one, but another graph, another map given
by Michael Lee Year an updated map since COVID, showing
the population changes because obviously we do every decade, so
(24:06):
he's just updating it year by year. The Brennan Center
found that instead of losing two seats, Illinois was slated
to lose one, instead of losing three, New York was
going to lose two, and instead of losing five, California
was going to lose three. Tennessee and Georgia, which was
supposed to gain seats, are not going to gain seats anymore.
Red states are going to be losing more and more
(24:27):
leverage During the reshuffling. Why is that? Why are these
states not gaining as many seats? Answers immigration, immigration, and
the Obviously, the number of people leaving states has slowed
since COVID, though it has continued, but immigration is padding
the numbers for failed blue state governance. Let's take New
(24:49):
York City for example, between twenty twenty three and twenty
twenty four, d eighty one hundred and fifty eight Americans
left the Borough of Brooklyn for greener pastures. There was
a natural increase, which is birth's minus deaths, of fifteen thousand,
so that means that Brooklyn should have had a population
trunk of twelve thousand, seven hundred, but thirty seven thousand
(25:12):
immigrants moved to the borough in the meantime, so that
means they actually grew by twenty five thousand, despite the
fact that nearly thirty thousand New Yorkers said New York
camp be governed. We got to get out of here,
We got to leave. We gotta go to Florida and
North Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, long, you know wherever. If you
look at New York City as a whole, in one
(25:33):
year time, ninety one thousand people left New York City,
there was a natural growth of thirty four thousand, six hundred.
That means there should have been a loss of fifty
six thousand over the course of a decade. That means
New York City should have lost one congressional seat. But
the number of people who immigrated to New York from
mostly the Third World, but across the globe was one
(25:54):
hundred and forty four thousand. So despite lockdowns and rising
crime in sky high taxi is, New York grew by
eighty seven thousand people because of immigration. That means New
York is on track not to not only not to
lose three seats, but they may not even lose two seats.
(26:14):
The same is true for Illinois and California. Now some
Red states experiences kind of boomed to Florida and Texas
have loads of immigrants, lots of illegals, but there's also
a lot of Americans moving there, which is why they're
going to gain four seats each. Immigration rewards failing Blue
states and robs red states of seats that they should
(26:34):
have gained. Tennessee and Georgia should gain a house seat each,
but they're not probably not going to. This is why
big Blue states fight so hard against deporting illegal immigrants,
their numbers are dependent on who's being counted by mass immigration.
There was researchers that went back to nineteen eighty to
(26:56):
see how congressional districts have been affected by illegal immigration.
They said this, under the hypothetical scenario of not counting
people who were not in the country illegally, two seats
would have switched. In nineteen eighty, California and New York
would have lost a seat, Indiana and Georgia would have
each gained one. To ninety, California would have lost two, seats,
Texas would have lost one, while Kentucky and Montana would
(27:18):
have gained one. In two thousand, California would have lost
three seats, Texas would have lost one, Indiana, Michigan, miss
it Being, Montana would all gain one. In twenty ten, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio,
North Carolina to all gained a seat, California would have
lost three, Texas and Florida would have lost one. And
in twenty twenty, California and Texas would have each lost
(27:39):
a seat, and Ohio and New York would have each
gained one. So put that know those numbers together. Since
nineteen eighty, California has ten extra congressional seats that they
would have not had had it not been for illegal immigration.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Ten.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Think of what the California delegation has voted on since
the last I don't know, forty five years. I'm a
care femnisties, cash for clunkers, green new deals, all of them,
not that all of them were benefited from illegal immigration.
Illegal immigrants absolutely padded it. While you know, states like Ohio, Montana, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Louisiana,
(28:22):
they all lost representation and you could see it in
how it how many votes it takes to win some
House seats some states, In some seats it takes. There's
three hundred and fifty three hundred and seventy five thousand
people who vote in Ohio's ninth congressional district, which is
I think Warren Davidson seat. There are three hundred and
(28:44):
seventy five thousandople who vote in that last presidential election
go to Nidia Vasquez. The seat in New York seventh District,
only two hundred and twenty one thousand people vote because
a lot of the people are illegal. One hundred and
fifty thousand extra people vote in this one district in
ad distrition with more Americans than a district with not
more Americans. So yeah, it's unfair representation. People are being robbed.
(29:06):
Your vote counts a lot more if you live in
Media at Native of Asquaz is Brooklyn based district. Then
if you live in the middle of Ohio because you're
around American citizens versus illegal immigration. What's the solution of that?
You know, how do we get forward on this? Well,
my guest this week has been writing about this and
talking with this for a very long time. He's an
expert on the issue. We're going to have him up
(29:28):
next with me today is RJ Holm, and he is
the president of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement. RJ
thanks for being here. You wrote a great article on
Fox News saying that illegal immigrants should no longer be
counted in the census data that counts congressional districts. Right first,
discussed with me how how desperate some Democrats are to
(29:52):
make sure illegals are counted. You brought up a needia
vat Native Asquez saying that she needs immigrants in her
district to keep her district.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Yeah. Well, first things for having me on Ryan, and
you pronounce my last name as Homan, which I love
every time. Was vinal great guy. But you know, let's
get something straight here. I mean, you know, congressional seats
and electoral College votes are supposed to represent the American
people citizens, you know, voters, not everybody who's physically present
on our soil. But you know right now, that's not
(30:20):
what's happening under current law. The census counts all persons,
so you're talking non citizens, even illegal aliens. I mean,
for the purpose of you know, abortioning congressional districts, and
it was very important too, is determining presidential electors. So
with this massive illegal alien population that Biden brought in
the country purposely, that party's effectively rewarded with more political power,
(30:43):
while states who actually enforced the law they're being punished.
I mean, and that is upside down, and it's happening
in plain sight. Back in twenty twenty, President Trump, you know,
tried to fix this. He issued an order that would
have excluded illegal aliens from the apportionment count. But on
day one, guess what happened. Buying reversed it, ensuring all
non citizens, regardless of their immigration status. So illegal aliens
(31:06):
and the mass migration he does through legal pathways are
counted the same as citizens when it comes to distributing power.
And I mean in practice, like states like California where
you have sanctuary policies under new some okay, you have
millions of non citizens, you'd get more seats in Congress
and more sway in electoral college than they otherwise would.
And say you follow the law, You're Ohio, you're Alabama,
(31:29):
what do you do? You lose that? This is a
corrosive matter, dilutes the votes of American citizens and warps
our entire representative system, and it creates a massive incentive
I think for open border states to keep flouting federal
immigration law California can't always be offset by people fleeing
when illegal aliens come in mass.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Right, So are there any bills in Congress that take
to take this on.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Well, I'm sound done here so consumed with reconciliation. But
last Congress I think it is still introduced. There is
a great solution. It's called the Equal Representation Act. That
was I think it was Warren Davidson and Bill Haggerty.
What they would do is two basic things. They'd add
a citizenship question to the census and require that only
citizens be counted for purposes of racial apportionment and electoral
(32:19):
vote allocation. I mean, that's it. There's no games, there's
no guess work for an approach like that. It's a
straightforward fix to restore fairness to our entire political system
because you know, let's be honest representation, Ryan, that's power,
and right now we're handing that power to people who
ain't even supposed to be here that they're making communities unsafe,
(32:40):
they're corrupting our system. And at the same time, we're
telling the American voter their vote means less. That's not democracy, man,
that's distortion.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Well, as have you ever pulled this issue? Because I
started looking at for polls on this and there were
not many. There was like a few in twenty nineteen,
and the America and the public were favoring idea of
citizenship being asked on the census. Was that if you
ever poll this question, just curious.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Well, first you got to make sure you pull the
right people, because will we have a very big poll
the presidential election and stuff, you know, illegal aliens are
impact again. But no, I think the American people. I
mean on both parties. I mean I can't. I don't
have data in front of me that would be a
great thing to kind of capture. I mean, if you
ask an American citizen, do you want your vote to
be diluted both for Congress, your congressional representation, and your
(33:28):
Electoral College votes, Everybody's going to say, hell no, that's
not what the founding fathers a tenant.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
That's a good leading question. Have you written a little differently?
But yeah, so you mentioned resolution sorry ecleation in Congress.
We'll tell my listeners what is going on with Congress
right now over the right. First of all, reconciliation bill
is part of the big beautiful bill. It's the vote
that they need for fifty one votes in order to pass.
It's not the sixty voth threshold. Explain what is going
(33:56):
on with immigration specifically in reconciliation right now on the
Republican side.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Well, aside from being in Texas. That's part of why
I'm sweating right now, being engaged on Capitol Hill from
down here as well. Listen, you know Republicans did send
a decently strong bill to the Senate. But one thing
that pisses us off and rightfully so. President Trump was
elected on a key electoral mandate. It was loud and clear,
it's mass deportation, not the worst of the worst, not
(34:24):
just the worst. Everybody should be eligible for deportation, and
I should get the resources to do so. Congress passed
a resolution which gave the amounts of money for each function. Arey,
Homeland Security was a ninety billion judiciary, which is ice
was one hundred and ten. You know what, I Scott
seventy four billion in that House version. Okay, so they
(34:48):
treated a number that was a floor like a ceiling.
And now what's over in the Senate. You're starting to
see a scrub. It's called the bird bath. A lot
of the paid for mechanisms of medicare me eligibility, getting
rid of both immigrants and illegal aliens from any eligibility
that would help pay for enforcement. That stuff's getting scrobbed.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
I want you before you go in further.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
What he says the bird bath is is that there's
something called the Senate parliamentarian, who is supposed to be
a nonpartisan figure who goes to the reconciliation bill and
says there and says, if anything is not to do
with budgetary items, it cannot be in the bill. So,
for instance, and I'm just making something up, an abortion
ban could not be in a reconciliation bill because it
(35:33):
has nothing to do with the budget. And the Senate
Parliamentarian's roles to go through and take things out that
have nothing to do with the budget. A number of
key Republican items have have been iced out by the
Senate Parliamentarian because of the Bird rule, named after Senator Bird,
who's been dead for quite a while now. The but
so you're saying is that a lot of immigration enforcement
(35:55):
has not made it through the Senate Parliamentarian.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Well, we don't. In terms of the immigration enforcement stuff. Listen,
I just had a lot of pay for is there
was a lot of fee increases, Okay. You know when
you put asylum at about two grand or something, you
use it to deter forms of you know, I call
it a legal legal juries under the guise of legality.
But the biggest thing here that's very irritating the parliamentarian
is an unelected, smoke filled back room figure. Senator Thune,
(36:22):
the Majority leader, kept her on as a show of
a good faith. She serves. Elizabeth MacDonald serves at the
pleasure of Senate Republicans. If she scrubs this whole damn thing,
it's on their plate. But what we're seeing though, in
terms of Medicare Medicaid tax credit eligibility, where they're allowing
legal aliens. Tell me why. I mean, it is still
budgetarian nature when you're getting rid of eligibility of someone
(36:46):
who shouldn't even freaking be here. Okay, that's going to
save the American taxpayer money, that's going to give the
program more integrity. How is that not compliant with the
Bird rule? And the birder will keep in mind the
reason they're doing reconciliation. You only need fifty one votes,
simple majority. If it is not compliant with Bird just
like everything else in the Senate, you need sixty votes,
which is as always a lost cost.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Yeah, and that's why I think partly why I think
the AI policy, which I talked about a different podcast,
that didn't make it through the Bird rule either on
AI technology. So is there anything making it through this
immigrat I mean you mentioned ice is so is border
wall funding getting through any of this other stuff?
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Yeah? I mean, well, first, you know, President Trump wasn't
elected on building the border wall to port sub not all. Okay,
the border wall funding is fully there. It's forty five billion,
but the border is secure. A lot of that money
needs to go to ice. But let me tell you something.
The most egregious thing that's happening kind of in the
shadows of reconciliation is the DHS Appropriations Bill. Okay, the
traditional funding mechanism for fiscal year twenty six was marked
(37:51):
up and left the House Appropriations Committee the day before yesterday.
There were two amendments that were included in it by
Republicans allowed it, and they were the most egregious things
I've ever seen. First. One of them essentially reputs Biorcus's
enforcement priorities back. Is like a sense in the text
where it's only criminals terrorist threats to public safety. Hell,
(38:12):
it's even weaker than my works, because my orcists said
recent illegal entries also our priorities for removal.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
Maorcist was President Biden's DHS secretary who let let immigration
flood the country. Just engage anyone who didn't know what
we're talking about. That's what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
Go ahead, Yeah, invasion architect Okay, and his memos were
guided it all civil guidelines to enforcement. They called it
it essentially handcuffed Ice. So they kind of mimic that
as we're seeing, you know, as Ice is just getting
directed essentially by like TV flips about hey, worst of
the worst criminals. No, we got to go after freaking everybody,
especially where that money comes in. And second, what they
(38:54):
did too is is told Ice. They gave a directive
President Trump in that EO too said I can enforce
the law anywhere, whether it's a school, a church, anywhere.
ICE has to go arrest the person that they're going
to go after. What they did in this language that
they put in there is they said ICE has to
do a sensitivity assessment of wherever they're going to go raid.
(39:18):
So I still has to sit back and check their
feelings about is this a good place that we should
go to. It forced the damn rule of law and
act in accordance to the EO. Republicans are going to
pay for that, and that stuff better be stripped in rules.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Who what Republican proposed that amendment?
Speaker 2 (39:35):
Mark Amma Day is a House Approached subcommittee chair who
did influenced it with Juan Siscamoni from Arizona.
Speaker 1 (39:44):
Both from Arizona and Mark and Madi from from Mark,
Amadi from Nevada and Jan Sescimoni from Arizona. Yeah, that
sounds about right. Juan Siscimony is terrible in immigration and
Emodi has always been squished, so that is not surprised.
But Emodi, I was this Coney has a border district.
You think that he would care more?
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Is there? Okay?
Speaker 1 (40:05):
I have was one question I want to ask you.
This wasn't even my topics. I want to ask you.
I keep hearing that deportations are not that is that true?
I hear arrests are high. I hear I hear people
are more, there are more people in in sorry detention centers,
but the actual deportations are not happening. Is that true?
Speaker 2 (40:27):
They're on the help percent true. I mean they're trying
to count to some extent the beginning a coast guard
at sea, repatriation, stuff like that. Listen, the American people.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Why the way, why why a deportation is it?
Speaker 2 (40:39):
Is it because it's a budget issue? Well, yeah, it
is a budget issue. Listen. Ice is in the red,
Ice is struggling. But here's my point, the American people,
your listeners, I mean, we all understand that ICE is
operating on a very low budget, that the Biden administration,
you know, they kept them constrained for a reason. They're
abolishing it from within.
Speaker 3 (40:57):
You don't need to pretend that if you're arresting, detaining
and deporting and mass you need to go to Congress
and say, guys, listen, the American people spoke loud and clear,
we're freaking struggling.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Give us the full one hundred and ten billion authorise
and then we could do it. Stop playing games. The
American people will see if mass deportation is either water
down or.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
This abb So the Big betfl bill needs to pass
so we can get the deportation. Okayah, important, we want
to RJ. Where can people go to follow your work?
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Yep, it's nice enforcement with one E dot org. I'm
also a fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Border Security and
Immigration Center. We'll lead the charge up there, also operate
the Mass Deportation and Border Security Coalition up on Capitol
Hill that drove passes to HR two. But nice enforcement,
the National Immigration Center for Enforcement ICE is nice. They
shouldn't be the line President Trump is'mpowered.
Speaker 1 (41:52):
That is great, great branding RJ. Thank you for coming
on this podcast. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (41:57):
Of course.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
Thanks Ryan, Hey, we'll be right back after this. Yes,
and now for the ask Me Anything segment of the show.
I love getting these emails. They're very helpful. I'm trying
to build a show around your interest and what you
guys are talking about, So please email me Ryan at
Numbers Game podcast dot com, Ryan at numbers Plural gamepodcast
dot com. I'll take a question on basically anything and
(42:20):
we can go through it and I can try to
find the best, most accurate information about political questions you
always wanted to know about. This question comes from Patrick. Hey, Ryan,
do you agree with the belief that a major deciding
factor in Trump losing a lot of the suburban white
and older white voters was because Trump and his supporters
were coded as a low class and they didn't want
to be associated with him, even if they agree with
(42:42):
his policies. If so, is it possibly someone like JDA,
well spoken conservative populist that isn't always an attack mode
to win back some of the white suburbs that were
scared away from being seen as trashies for supporting Trump.
In short, does JD scare the hose. Thank you Patrick,
I have the listeners. Thank you Badrick for that question. Okay,
(43:04):
so I don't think it's all about scaring the hoes, right,
And I worked for JD. I know him, I'm a
fan of him politically, so this is not a criticism
of him. First and foremost, I think part of why
the suburbs have shifted is changing demographics. Look at the
suburbs of Atlanta. When George Bush won them in two
thousand and four, they were sixty six percent white. They
(43:26):
are now thirty three percent white. As we said in
earlier in the podcast, the only group of people voting
for a majority nationwide. But this is true in Georgia.
It's also true that white college voters, you know, vote
Republican in Georgia as well. But white voters are the
ones who actually give Trump his majorities Republican. They are majorities, right.
(43:48):
Those being going from sixty six to thirty three is
why the Georgia suburbs have moved so far to the left.
But that's so, that's that's a big part of it. Secondly,
when we're talking about the female votes, specifically the college
educated female vote, let's look at the examination the numbers
from Catalyst Right. Catalyst is the Democratic firm that also
looked at the twenty twenty four elections. There was a
(44:10):
six point difference amongst college educated women from Mitt Romney
in twenty twelve to Trump in twenty twenty four. That's it,
it was the six points, and six points means a lot.
Six points among an fifty percent of the population will
swing suburbs for sure, right, especially in certain regions of
the country, But that six points is reflective of other
(44:33):
college educated women around the world. We saw similar ships
in Canada, in Britain, in Europe. I think that I
don't know if I mean, maybe there's a one or
two points that would sit there and swing back because
JD is different. I think JD has a lot of
advantages that Trump doesn't have. I think that being young,
having a young family. I think his wife, Usha Vance
(44:54):
is a major asset to him that has not been
talked enough about. I think him being more into like
Su'll absolutely would not scare as many people. But I
think that the media apparatus and the social media apparatus
will make him scary. Right, They're going to make him
too divisive about a million different issues and he speaks,
He's spoken a lot, He's spoken very thoughtfully, and unfortunately,
(45:17):
we don't live in a society that rewards thoughtfulness. So
when those things are boiled down to talking points for
thirty second TikTok videos or thirty second Instagram videos, they
will probably be viewed as negative. Can he win some
of them back? Yeah, maybe, Kenny get back to Mitt
Romney numbers. I don't think so. But you don't have
(45:39):
to get back to Mitt Romney numbers in order to
win them. That's my take on that. I think the
Trump the JD. Trump coalition, whoever the nomini is in
twenty twenty eight, is built on the backs of the
working class, especially working class minorities that I've moved to
the right, but also more working class white voters as well.
There's a lot of ground to still gain. Consider a
(46:00):
lot of them. I think twenty five or about twenty
five to thirty percent of all Kamala Harris voters were
whites without a college degree. There is a lot more
of that fruit to squeeze juice out of. Anyway, that's
my opinion. Hope you guys like it. I hope you
guys like this podcast. Please like and subscribe on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast. I
(46:20):
promise that every episode is can be this autistic. But
if you like the numbers and you like the data,
please give me a five star review. I really appreciate
it helps boost this podcast. Take five seconds of your time.
It's the Christiana skiff you guys didn't give me. I'm
just joking. Thank you guys so much. I will see
you guys on Thursday.
Welcome back to a numbers game. Happy Monday, everybody. I
am glad for you to be here with me for
one more week. So much happened with the New York
City election. I didn't guys, I didn't get you get
like to give my listeners the update on the Kansas speech,
So I gave for those who missed the episode. I
gave the keynote address the Bob Dolden Or in Kansas,
which is a very nice thing, usually reserved for a congressman.
(00:24):
I wasn't really sure why I was invited, but I
was honored to be there. I flew into Kansas and
had some barbecue at Joe's Barbecue in Kansas City, Missouri. Delicious, amazing,
I highly recommend. And then go to the speech and
I'm very nervous. I really didn't know why I was invited.
And I meet with the organizers the night before and
I say, why did you have me over a senator
(00:44):
or congressman whatever, And they say, oh, because you're so
edgy and funny. Just be edgy and funny, which is
not good guidelines for someone like me, because it's like, hey,
push every boundary you possibly can, like I'm a child
like you need to give me parameters, Like I work
very well within the lines, but like if I don't
see the lines, I you know, it's striving. Like I
(01:06):
drive like someone like a woman from New Jersey. I'm
all over the place. So anyway, I I'm very nervous.
I write my speech and then it dawns on me
like that right before the speech, nobody is going to
know who I am, Like, I guess if you're like
listen to me in my podcast, but I mean that's
not the whole audience. It's all donors and established from
people and elected officials. They definitely have no they're not
(01:28):
listening to my podcasts or not watching me or I'm
rooting my sub stack. Those are like the people like
those are not like the electeds. So I walk into
like the room. First of all, the MIC's not working,
which is or it's like working like kind of like
very shoddy. I go into the room. This very well dressed,
very elegant Asian, older Asian woman walks up to me, goes,
(01:48):
can we get a picture? And I go, oh, my god,
you know who I am? And she goes, no, I
don't know, but I get pictures with everybody and I
was like, oh my god, this is going to be bad.
So I meet some of the elected officials, the Senate president,
people running for governor. It was really nice whatever, but
once again, no one knew who I am. I'm having
to be introduced everybody for the first time and then
make the small talk and then talk about my pack
(02:09):
and nonprop with education. And I text my one friend
from who's a political political consultant from Kansas, and I'm like,
this is going to go horrible. He goes, no, No, it's
a Kansas audience. They give standing ovations to everybody. It's
just how they operate. So the state treasurer gets up,
he gets a standing ovation. The first speaker gets up,
he gets a standing ovation. The German ambassador's assistant god
(02:31):
a standing ovation. I'm like, okay, I'm cool. I'm you know,
it's going to be fine. Everything is gonna work out
fine for me. I go give the speech, and once
again I'm looking at the audience. They have no idea
who I am. So I say I'm the guy who
made the beeper a joke on CNN, and you hear
this like collective oh yeah in the audience. I'm like, oh, Okay, well,
(02:52):
this is going great. So I give the speech, and
I go on about how Republicans support immigration reduction, and
it's time that all the Kansas legislators, congressmen, and senators,
including those who live in Florida, because one Kansas senator
may have a residence, may spend most of his time
in Florida instead of Kansas, but all the Kansas congressmen
(03:14):
and senators should back immigration reduction. We can't let farmers
have low skilled workers flood our country in the name
of like picking crops. I just go off and then
I talk about AI policy and how Kansas needs to
regulate AI because they're taking jobs. And I said, if
you want to make sure you turn Trump supporters into
(03:37):
AOC supporters, make sure that our unemployment numbers reach twenty
percent in the country, especially why collar workers. And then
I go into education, how Kansas ranks thirty third in
the country. I lay it off with like a nice
thing about Bob Dole and the legacy of Bob Dole.
I could not over emphasize how few people clapped at
(03:58):
the end of my speech was so tepid. They absolutely
did not care. Oh this was the best part. Wait
one last thing. The only other famous Republican from Kansas.
I looked at my notes, this came back to me.
(04:18):
Only other famous Republican from Kansas that I know of
is Dwight Eisenhower. And I said in my speech, Dwight
Eisenhower had a much easier legacy to wrap up than
Bob Doles. He one d Day, he built the highways,
and he deported the illegal immigrants with Operation Wetback, which
was a real thing. You can look it up. Operation Wetback,
I said, Trump Show named Tom Holman the czar of
(04:40):
Operation wet Back two point zero. They did not like that.
Apparently that was not cool with them, to which one
evangelical lady walked up and said, I can't believe you
said the word wet back. It's like saying retard. I said,
retard's back. Okay, you could say retard now, okay, it's
Trump's amarror. So they also did not think that was funny.
(05:00):
I was. This was not my audience. This was not
a New York audience. This is not people who deal
with politically incorrect conversations. I heard that the Speaker of
the House was biting the inside of his cheeks when
I was started immigration reduction and slamming farmers for bringing
in cheap labor taxpayer expenses. So that was that. That
was Kansas. One woman, and I'm going to apologize for
(05:23):
my swearing. One state legislator walked up to me at
the end of my speech and said, so, were you
born without fox to give or did that come recently?
And I was just like, nope, born this way, just
ready for a barn burner anyway. Okay, that was I
was going to tell you my way more about Kansas,
but it's not worth it. But that was. It was
very funny. It was very my life in a nutshell,
(05:45):
where you end up in a very cool setting but
no one really knows why you're there. You don't know
why you're there, and kind of everything goes wrong because
you can't shut your mouth and just give like a
normal nice thing. You can't just play by the rules,
which is very how my life has always been. Okay,
So two things. One, this episode, the main point of it,
which I will get to in the second part, was
(06:05):
requested by more than one email person receiving an email
listener over email I get always asked me anything. Segment
emails now, which I love you can email me number
Ryan at numbers gamepodcast dot com and I try to
answer every email or get to it on the show.
Well more than one person asked the same question. So
(06:26):
this episode, the interview part and the second part will
be completely about the listener questions, which is about illegal
immigration when it comes to congressional redistricting and it comes
to reapportionment and getting and the sense is taking illegal
immigration information. I will get to that, but first, this
happened just as I'm about to tape, which is a
(06:49):
few days before it airs. Pew Research, which is one
of the premier nonprofits that analyzes elections, especially presidential elections,
came out with their post twenty twenty four analysis. Now,
I know we've gotten this from before, and I know
that we are half a year, more than half a
year since the twenty twenty four election, and people generally
(07:12):
don't care. They've moved on. I care, and I am
fascinated by this, and I want to talk about some
highlights in the Pew Research data about the twenty twenty
four election. So first, from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty four,
Trump coalition in twenty sixteen, eighty eight percent of all
people that voted for Donald Trump were white. By twenty
(07:33):
twenty four, that number had dropped to seventy eight percent.
His support among the number of voters in his coalition
that were Hispanic has essentially doubled, and those who are
black have essentially tripled, which is fascinating. Well, the Democrat
coalition from Clinton to kamalaw has actually gotten whiter, and
they've lost a significant portion of both their black and
(07:57):
Hispanic voter base, which isn't shocking. Of the people who
voted in the twenty twenty election right that voted for Trump,
eleven percent did not vote for Trump in twenty twenty four.
They didn't vote at all. Three percent voted for Kamala,
so it was a fourteen point drop off. Among people
who voted for Biden, five percent voted for Trump, number
(08:21):
three for Kamala. From Trump's Trump had a neck game
of two from Biden people, and fifteen percent of people
who voted for Biden in twenty twenty did not go
and vote for Kamala. Of the people who didn't vote
at all in twenty twentyteen percent of vote sorry didn't
vote in twenty twenty, but voted in twenty twenty four,
fourteen percent voted for Trump, twelve voted for Kamala, So
(08:45):
Trump got an advantage of boost and the raw vote
total of not only people who had voted for Biden
and then voted for Trump, but also people who didn't
vote at all and voted for Trump, which is part
of the reason why he won the popular vote among
those voters. Building on that, voters who didn't vote in
twenty sixteen but voted in twenty twenty favored Biden by
(09:06):
five points over Trump. People who didn't vote in twenty
twenty but voted in twenty twenty four have favored Trump
over Kama by twelve points. It's an immense group of
people who are inactive voters, in frequent voters, people who
are all of a sudden becoming very new and fresh
to the political scene. Very interesting, Okay. Trump's support among
(09:31):
his percentage of the vote that he received among certain
demographics from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty to twenty twenty four.
This is fascinating. Among men, Trump's growth of the male
vote has increased three points from twenty sixteen and went
from fifty two percent of the overall mail vote to
fifty five percent. Among the female vote, it is increased
(09:55):
by seven points from thirty nine to forty six. This
is what I'm about to say about the male female thing.
Just take it. I know there's a lot of numbers
coming at you, but take it in for a second.
White men, his numbers actually declined by three points among
white women. His numbers increased by four points among black men. Now,
(10:17):
that was from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty four. The
numbers from minorities are from twenty twenty to twenty twenty four.
Just asterisk. It's not that important, but it's worth analyzing.
From twenty twenty to twenty twenty four. Among black men,
his numbers increased by nine points among Black women, by
five among Hispanic men, eleven points among Hispanic women, thirteen points.
(10:41):
Trump's gain in the popular vote, and Trump's win of
the popular vote, was because women, especially non white women,
voted for him. That is the headline. Right. Of course,
the male vote counted, but Trump's growth among females with
white women and Latino women was larger than his gains
(11:04):
among Latino men and white men, and only black men's
were passed black women, which is not that surprising at
all anything else. Now, the white vote overall, Trump's numbers
improved by one point from twenty sixteen fifty four to
fifty five. Among Blacks, it went from six to fifteen.
That's a nine point gain. Among Latinos it went from
(11:26):
twenty eight to forty eight. That's a plus twenty point swing. Huge,
And among Asians it went from thirty to forty, so
that's plus ten pretty significant. It was. The Latino vote
is very signcoriing. He won Latino men by two points.
He went from losing them fifty seven to thirty nine,
losing them by eighteen points in twenty twenty to winning
(11:49):
them by two points fifty to forty eight and twenty
twenty four. Okay, Trump's base also became younger, which we
all knew, but it's fascinating to see the numbers among
all eighteen to twenty nine year olds. Trump went from
getting twenty eight percent of their support in twenty sixteen
to thirty nine percent in twenty twenty four. He went
from losing that by thirty points to gaining that, so
(12:11):
losing that by nineteen points. So he wasn't he wasn't
he wasn't, you know, losing them by huge numbers. The
same is true among thirty to forty nine year olds,
my demographic millennials. This is the group that builds Obama's coalition.
These are Obama voters. People forget he went from losing
them by eleven points to fifty one to forty in
twenty sixteen to losing them by two points. Millennials basically
(12:37):
broke even Trump, Harris, the Obama coalition is a solidly
mixed back now. The biggest group to sit there and
support Trump, we're gen xers. Fifty to sixty four year olds.
He went from winning them by six points to winning
them by fourteen points. And among people sixty five and
old older, he went from winning them by nine to
(12:58):
winning them by three. There was a move towards Democrats
with them. But remember I've said this to people before.
I'm kind of blue in the facement. People kind of
have a frozen time of when what a senior citizen
is like. They think, oh, I'm thinking of my grandma
from when I was a childhood, or my neighbor from
when I was a kid who was eighty twenty years ago. Well,
(13:20):
there's likely that person doesn't exist anymore. The person's probably
gone to their eternal rest. They're not alonger with us.
Remember Henry Fonda, who was very conservative, is not a
senior citizen. Jane Fonda is right. People who were anti
war activists in the sixties and seventies are now in
their seventies and eighties. Those are the people who are
(13:43):
Archie Bunker is dead, but Meathead is a senior citizen.
Think of it like that. People are wondering, how did
like the seniors become so left wing. They didn't just
become so left wing. Left wing people have aged into
being senior citizens, and that's what's important. Trump won men
under Trump won all men, but Trump won men under fifty,
(14:04):
which he had lost in twenty twenty. And his growth
among women between the ages of eighteen to forty nine,
a group that he lost by thirty six points in
twenty sixteen, he only lost by fourteen points in twenty
twenty four. This is the women who were supposed to
win for Kamala because of abortion. All they cared about
is abortion. Cared about abortion. Trump made eighteen point swing
(14:28):
among that demographic, people who were supposed to care about
abortion more than anything else in the world, all right,
which groups. When it comes to education, Trump made games
with college educated whites. He went from thirty eight to
forty three. The only demographic, though, to give Trump a
majority of support were non college educated white people. Trump
(14:49):
won sixty four percent of non college educated white people.
Oh sorry, he also won non college educated Hispanic people
as well. He won them by a single point, so
non college educated Hispanics and young college educated whites. Without
those two groups, Kamala Harris would have won. And I
think it's important to say those things out loud because
(15:12):
I have to hear and this will be in the
email from the listener later in the last segment of
the show, and no shame to them, but this is
what I hear all the time is how do we
win back white college educated women, or not white, just
college educated women in the suburbs. We hear this at nauseum.
(15:33):
What we should be talking about is how do we
deliver for the only people that make sure Republicans win
the White House? How do we deliver policy gains for
people who are delivering the White House and Congress and
Senate for Republicans, that is, non college educated whites and
(15:53):
non college educated Hispanics. If the policies we are advocating
do not fight for our voters. Why are we doing them?
And there's a lot of policies we do which hurt them,
hurt them. A lot high school voters without a high
school degree, which have backed Trump in twenty sixteen by
seven points, back Trump by twenty points this time, twenty
(16:17):
points this time. Huge swings by religion. Trump gained with
basically every religious group. Protestants he gained by six points
since twenty sixteen, Evangelical white Evangelicals by six points, Catholics
by three points, unaffiliated by four points, Black Protestants by
six points, Latino Catholics by ten points, non white Protestants
(16:38):
by fifteen points. They're all reflective in the other stuff. Okay,
last part of this entire autistic rambling that I've just
had on the twenty twenty four election. I promise this
is the probably the last time I reflect on it
and have a whole segment on it. Immigrants among people
who were born in the USA, Trump lost the American
(17:01):
native born American vote in the twenty twenty election by
three points, which is lower than the overall average. Because
the immigrant vote voted for Joe Biden by twenty one points.
The immigrant vote voted for Hillary Clinton by huge margins
in the CNN exit poll, which is different than Pew.
But immigrants delivered Democrats the popular vote and delivered Democrats
(17:27):
a lot of swing states. That is why you will
never hear the Democrats back away from it. They need
these voters. In the twenty twenty four election, Trump won
Americans people who were born in America, American born, natural
born Americans. He won them by two points fifty to
forty eight, which is about what he got in the
(17:47):
overall popular vote. Among naturalized citizens immigrants, Trump lost them
only by four. There was a seventeen point swing among
immigrants in this country, which is kray Z. I never
thought we would see this. I mean still, they voted
for Joe Biden. Other sorry, they voted for Kamala Harris.
(18:09):
So it's not like they were you know, Magahar right,
Trump free people. But the fact that they voted that
close and it wasn't a twenty point loss. So where
did this come from? Which immigrants made this swing? This
is going to surprise you. In twenty twenty, fifty six
percent of white immigrants i e. Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders,
(18:32):
Kiwis and Europeans voted for Joe Biden by a fifteen
point margin. White immigrants voted for Donald Trump by a
sixteen point margin. In twenty twenty four. There was a
thirty one point swing. It is the largest single swing
of any immigrant group, and actually of any group that
(18:55):
it's even larger swing than Hispanics. Thirty one point swing
among white immigrants from Canada Europe. I guess there's some
whites from South Africa, Canada, Europe, Eweis, and Australians wild.
Among Hispanic immigrants, Trump won. According to Pew Research, Trump
won Hispanic immigrants by three points. He lost them by nineteen,
(19:18):
so it was a twenty two point swing among Hispanic immigrants,
and among Asian immigrants he lost them only by five
after losing them by thirty last time, twenty five point
swing for Asian immigrants. There's no information on black immigrants.
I guess they don't have enough sample size to make
a accurate telling. Okay, why why did immigrants all of
(19:43):
a sudden become Republican? Obviously the economy plays a big
part of that, right, There's no rhyme or Reasoners say
that otherwise the economy was sour and they paid back
from it. But Trump campaign on mass deportations. There was
no hidden agenda that, oh Trump didn't really campaign immigration.
(20:04):
He came pade hard on immigration. I think, and this
is my belief, and there's a little bit of data
to back this up, but it's more my belief than
it is the data. And if there is, I can
go into this at a different time. I believe that
the Black Lives Matter riots in twenty twenty one and
(20:24):
the end of twenty twenty really change people's opinion on
a lot of things when it came to how the
Democratic Party governs, and then the COVID lockdowns that absolutely
affected people into sitting there and reanalyzing how Democrats act.
The education policies, not only of the transgender stuff in schools,
(20:47):
but closing specialized schools which so many Asian immigrants and
European immigrants benefit from. And then also the insane stuff
when it comes to the transgender thing. This is not
just for not just for Latino immigrants and Asian immigrants,
but also europeam Grants member. It's Europe which is at
the forefront at stopping transgender surgery. For minors. It's Sweden,
(21:09):
it's Norway, it's England. These are not you know, right wing,
hardcore countries. These are countries that Bernie Sanders wants the
model America after. They are at the forefront of all
these fights. So I think that that is fascinating and
I think it's worth telling, and I don't know if
it means something bigger going forward. If this was a
(21:30):
blip in the map, but a thirty one point swing
vote change among European immigrant white immigrants and a twelve
point change among Hispanic immigrants and an eleven point change
among Asian immigrants from twenty twenty twenty twenty four is
why that number among immigrants overall has changed significantly. Okay,
(21:53):
I'm not going to talk about that anymore. That's the
twenty twenty four election. That's the best data that there
is out there. We put a pin in this, we
put a bow in it. I'm landing the plane. That
is fascinating. It's the kind of the gold star. As
post election analysis goes, what the Democrats and Republicans campaign
on in the future will be based off of what
that information says. All right, So now go to the question,
(22:17):
the question that I received from listeners was about the
census in twenty thirty and the question was looking forward
into how the census is coming out and how congressional
districts are being up reapportion based on population. How is
the illegal immigrants affecting the number of seats different states
(22:39):
are receiving, different congressional districts are receiving. This matter is
not only for the House, but for the electoral college.
Right do you get the number of electoral College votes
that you get is based off of how many House
seats you have in any given state. Right after COVID
in twenty twenty two, a left wing organization called the
Brennan Center and they have this image of float on
(23:00):
social media. They show that based on current trends, states
like Tennessee, Arizona, and Georgia were all expected to gain
one seat. Florida and Texas we're supposed to gain four
seats each, while California, New York, and Illinois lost the
combined ten seats. Right this massive reshuffling, This came out
(23:20):
of Michael Lee, by the way, the Brennan Center, and
it was basically sitting there and saying COVID had so
affected the amount of blue state voters, leaving that in
dark blue states Illinois, California, Rhode Island, in Minnesota, and
New York and Oregon were slated to lose total of
twelve seats. The soul swing state Pennsylvania was supposed to
lose one, while red states like Idaho, Utah, Tennessee, Texas,
(23:43):
and Florida were supposed to gain ten. In swing states
North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona, we're supposed to gain one apiece. Okay,
so you might have seen that kind of floating around.
There was another one, but another graph, another map given
by Michael Lee Year an updated map since COVID, showing
the population changes because obviously we do every decade, so
(24:06):
he's just updating it year by year. The Brennan Center
found that instead of losing two seats, Illinois was slated
to lose one, instead of losing three, New York was
going to lose two, and instead of losing five, California
was going to lose three. Tennessee and Georgia, which was
supposed to gain seats, are not going to gain seats anymore.
Red states are going to be losing more and more
(24:27):
leverage During the reshuffling. Why is that? Why are these
states not gaining as many seats? Answers immigration, immigration, and
the Obviously, the number of people leaving states has slowed
since COVID, though it has continued, but immigration is padding
the numbers for failed blue state governance. Let's take New
(24:49):
York City for example, between twenty twenty three and twenty
twenty four, d eighty one hundred and fifty eight Americans
left the Borough of Brooklyn for greener pastures. There was
a natural increase, which is birth's minus deaths, of fifteen thousand,
so that means that Brooklyn should have had a population
trunk of twelve thousand, seven hundred, but thirty seven thousand
(25:12):
immigrants moved to the borough in the meantime, so that
means they actually grew by twenty five thousand, despite the
fact that nearly thirty thousand New Yorkers said New York
camp be governed. We got to get out of here,
We got to leave. We gotta go to Florida and
North Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, long, you know wherever. If you
look at New York City as a whole, in one
(25:33):
year time, ninety one thousand people left New York City,
there was a natural growth of thirty four thousand, six hundred.
That means there should have been a loss of fifty
six thousand over the course of a decade. That means
New York City should have lost one congressional seat. But
the number of people who immigrated to New York from
mostly the Third World, but across the globe was one
(25:54):
hundred and forty four thousand. So despite lockdowns and rising
crime in sky high taxi is, New York grew by
eighty seven thousand people because of immigration. That means New
York is on track not to not only not to
lose three seats, but they may not even lose two seats.
(26:14):
The same is true for Illinois and California. Now some
Red states experiences kind of boomed to Florida and Texas
have loads of immigrants, lots of illegals, but there's also
a lot of Americans moving there, which is why they're
going to gain four seats each. Immigration rewards failing Blue
states and robs red states of seats that they should
(26:34):
have gained. Tennessee and Georgia should gain a house seat each,
but they're not probably not going to. This is why
big Blue states fight so hard against deporting illegal immigrants,
their numbers are dependent on who's being counted by mass immigration.
There was researchers that went back to nineteen eighty to
(26:56):
see how congressional districts have been affected by illegal immigration.
They said this, under the hypothetical scenario of not counting
people who were not in the country illegally, two seats
would have switched. In nineteen eighty, California and New York
would have lost a seat, Indiana and Georgia would have
each gained one. To ninety, California would have lost two, seats,
Texas would have lost one, while Kentucky and Montana would
(27:18):
have gained one. In two thousand, California would have lost
three seats, Texas would have lost one, Indiana, Michigan, miss
it Being, Montana would all gain one. In twenty ten, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio,
North Carolina to all gained a seat, California would have
lost three, Texas and Florida would have lost one. And
in twenty twenty, California and Texas would have each lost
(27:39):
a seat, and Ohio and New York would have each
gained one. So put that know those numbers together. Since
nineteen eighty, California has ten extra congressional seats that they
would have not had had it not been for illegal immigration.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Ten.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Think of what the California delegation has voted on since
the last I don't know, forty five years. I'm a
care femnisties, cash for clunkers, green new deals, all of them,
not that all of them were benefited from illegal immigration.
Illegal immigrants absolutely padded it. While you know, states like Ohio, Montana, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Louisiana,
(28:22):
they all lost representation and you could see it in
how it how many votes it takes to win some
House seats some states, In some seats it takes. There's
three hundred and fifty three hundred and seventy five thousand
people who vote in Ohio's ninth congressional district, which is
I think Warren Davidson seat. There are three hundred and
(28:44):
seventy five thousandople who vote in that last presidential election
go to Nidia Vasquez. The seat in New York seventh District,
only two hundred and twenty one thousand people vote because
a lot of the people are illegal. One hundred and
fifty thousand extra people vote in this one district in
ad distrition with more Americans than a district with not
more Americans. So yeah, it's unfair representation. People are being robbed.
(29:06):
Your vote counts a lot more if you live in
Media at Native of Asquaz is Brooklyn based district. Then
if you live in the middle of Ohio because you're
around American citizens versus illegal immigration. What's the solution of that?
You know, how do we get forward on this? Well,
my guest this week has been writing about this and
talking with this for a very long time. He's an
expert on the issue. We're going to have him up
(29:28):
next with me today is RJ Holm, and he is
the president of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement. RJ
thanks for being here. You wrote a great article on
Fox News saying that illegal immigrants should no longer be
counted in the census data that counts congressional districts. Right first,
discussed with me how how desperate some Democrats are to
(29:52):
make sure illegals are counted. You brought up a needia
vat Native Asquez saying that she needs immigrants in her
district to keep her district.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Yeah. Well, first things for having me on Ryan, and
you pronounce my last name as Homan, which I love
every time. Was vinal great guy. But you know, let's
get something straight here. I mean, you know, congressional seats
and electoral College votes are supposed to represent the American
people citizens, you know, voters, not everybody who's physically present
on our soil. But you know right now, that's not
(30:20):
what's happening under current law. The census counts all persons,
so you're talking non citizens, even illegal aliens. I mean,
for the purpose of you know, abortioning congressional districts, and
it was very important too, is determining presidential electors. So
with this massive illegal alien population that Biden brought in
the country purposely, that party's effectively rewarded with more political power,
(30:43):
while states who actually enforced the law they're being punished.
I mean, and that is upside down, and it's happening
in plain sight. Back in twenty twenty, President Trump, you know,
tried to fix this. He issued an order that would
have excluded illegal aliens from the apportionment count. But on
day one, guess what happened. Buying reversed it, ensuring all
non citizens, regardless of their immigration status. So illegal aliens
(31:06):
and the mass migration he does through legal pathways are
counted the same as citizens when it comes to distributing power.
And I mean in practice, like states like California where
you have sanctuary policies under new some okay, you have
millions of non citizens, you'd get more seats in Congress
and more sway in electoral college than they otherwise would.
And say you follow the law, You're Ohio, you're Alabama,
(31:29):
what do you do? You lose that? This is a
corrosive matter, dilutes the votes of American citizens and warps
our entire representative system, and it creates a massive incentive
I think for open border states to keep flouting federal
immigration law California can't always be offset by people fleeing
when illegal aliens come in mass.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Right, So are there any bills in Congress that take
to take this on.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Well, I'm sound done here so consumed with reconciliation. But
last Congress I think it is still introduced. There is
a great solution. It's called the Equal Representation Act. That
was I think it was Warren Davidson and Bill Haggerty.
What they would do is two basic things. They'd add
a citizenship question to the census and require that only
citizens be counted for purposes of racial apportionment and electoral
(32:19):
vote allocation. I mean, that's it. There's no games, there's
no guess work for an approach like that. It's a
straightforward fix to restore fairness to our entire political system
because you know, let's be honest representation, Ryan, that's power,
and right now we're handing that power to people who
ain't even supposed to be here that they're making communities unsafe,
(32:40):
they're corrupting our system. And at the same time, we're
telling the American voter their vote means less. That's not democracy, man,
that's distortion.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Well, as have you ever pulled this issue? Because I
started looking at for polls on this and there were
not many. There was like a few in twenty nineteen,
and the America and the public were favoring idea of
citizenship being asked on the census. Was that if you
ever poll this question, just curious.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Well, first you got to make sure you pull the
right people, because will we have a very big poll
the presidential election and stuff, you know, illegal aliens are
impact again. But no, I think the American people. I
mean on both parties. I mean I can't. I don't
have data in front of me that would be a
great thing to kind of capture. I mean, if you
ask an American citizen, do you want your vote to
be diluted both for Congress, your congressional representation, and your
(33:28):
Electoral College votes, Everybody's going to say, hell no, that's
not what the founding fathers a tenant.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
That's a good leading question. Have you written a little differently?
But yeah, so you mentioned resolution sorry ecleation in Congress.
We'll tell my listeners what is going on with Congress
right now over the right. First of all, reconciliation bill
is part of the big beautiful bill. It's the vote
that they need for fifty one votes in order to pass.
It's not the sixty voth threshold. Explain what is going
(33:56):
on with immigration specifically in reconciliation right now on the
Republican side.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Well, aside from being in Texas. That's part of why
I'm sweating right now, being engaged on Capitol Hill from
down here as well. Listen, you know Republicans did send
a decently strong bill to the Senate. But one thing
that pisses us off and rightfully so. President Trump was
elected on a key electoral mandate. It was loud and clear,
it's mass deportation, not the worst of the worst, not
(34:24):
just the worst. Everybody should be eligible for deportation, and
I should get the resources to do so. Congress passed
a resolution which gave the amounts of money for each function. Arey,
Homeland Security was a ninety billion judiciary, which is ice
was one hundred and ten. You know what, I Scott
seventy four billion in that House version. Okay, so they
(34:48):
treated a number that was a floor like a ceiling.
And now what's over in the Senate. You're starting to
see a scrub. It's called the bird bath. A lot
of the paid for mechanisms of medicare me eligibility, getting
rid of both immigrants and illegal aliens from any eligibility
that would help pay for enforcement. That stuff's getting scrobbed.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
I want you before you go in further.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
What he says the bird bath is is that there's
something called the Senate parliamentarian, who is supposed to be
a nonpartisan figure who goes to the reconciliation bill and
says there and says, if anything is not to do
with budgetary items, it cannot be in the bill. So,
for instance, and I'm just making something up, an abortion
ban could not be in a reconciliation bill because it
(35:33):
has nothing to do with the budget. And the Senate
Parliamentarian's roles to go through and take things out that
have nothing to do with the budget. A number of
key Republican items have have been iced out by the
Senate Parliamentarian because of the Bird rule, named after Senator Bird,
who's been dead for quite a while now. The but
so you're saying is that a lot of immigration enforcement
(35:55):
has not made it through the Senate Parliamentarian.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Well, we don't. In terms of the immigration enforcement stuff. Listen,
I just had a lot of pay for is there
was a lot of fee increases, Okay. You know when
you put asylum at about two grand or something, you
use it to deter forms of you know, I call
it a legal legal juries under the guise of legality.
But the biggest thing here that's very irritating the parliamentarian
is an unelected, smoke filled back room figure. Senator Thune,
(36:22):
the Majority leader, kept her on as a show of
a good faith. She serves. Elizabeth MacDonald serves at the
pleasure of Senate Republicans. If she scrubs this whole damn thing,
it's on their plate. But what we're seeing though, in
terms of Medicare Medicaid tax credit eligibility, where they're allowing
legal aliens. Tell me why. I mean, it is still
budgetarian nature when you're getting rid of eligibility of someone
(36:46):
who shouldn't even freaking be here. Okay, that's going to
save the American taxpayer money, that's going to give the
program more integrity. How is that not compliant with the
Bird rule? And the birder will keep in mind the
reason they're doing reconciliation. You only need fifty one votes,
simple majority. If it is not compliant with Bird just
like everything else in the Senate, you need sixty votes,
which is as always a lost cost.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Yeah, and that's why I think partly why I think
the AI policy, which I talked about a different podcast,
that didn't make it through the Bird rule either on
AI technology. So is there anything making it through this
immigrat I mean you mentioned ice is so is border
wall funding getting through any of this other stuff?
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Yeah? I mean, well, first, you know, President Trump wasn't
elected on building the border wall to port sub not all. Okay,
the border wall funding is fully there. It's forty five billion,
but the border is secure. A lot of that money
needs to go to ice. But let me tell you something.
The most egregious thing that's happening kind of in the
shadows of reconciliation is the DHS Appropriations Bill. Okay, the
traditional funding mechanism for fiscal year twenty six was marked
(37:51):
up and left the House Appropriations Committee the day before yesterday.
There were two amendments that were included in it by
Republicans allowed it, and they were the most egregious things
I've ever seen. First. One of them essentially reputs Biorcus's
enforcement priorities back. Is like a sense in the text
where it's only criminals terrorist threats to public safety. Hell,
(38:12):
it's even weaker than my works, because my orcists said
recent illegal entries also our priorities for removal.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
Maorcist was President Biden's DHS secretary who let let immigration
flood the country. Just engage anyone who didn't know what
we're talking about. That's what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
Go ahead, Yeah, invasion architect Okay, and his memos were
guided it all civil guidelines to enforcement. They called it
it essentially handcuffed Ice. So they kind of mimic that
as we're seeing, you know, as Ice is just getting
directed essentially by like TV flips about hey, worst of
the worst criminals. No, we got to go after freaking everybody,
especially where that money comes in. And second, what they
(38:54):
did too is is told Ice. They gave a directive
President Trump in that EO too said I can enforce
the law anywhere, whether it's a school, a church, anywhere.
ICE has to go arrest the person that they're going
to go after. What they did in this language that
they put in there is they said ICE has to
do a sensitivity assessment of wherever they're going to go raid.
(39:18):
So I still has to sit back and check their
feelings about is this a good place that we should
go to. It forced the damn rule of law and
act in accordance to the EO. Republicans are going to
pay for that, and that stuff better be stripped in rules.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Who what Republican proposed that amendment?
Speaker 2 (39:35):
Mark Amma Day is a House Approached subcommittee chair who
did influenced it with Juan Siscamoni from Arizona.
Speaker 1 (39:44):
Both from Arizona and Mark and Madi from from Mark,
Amadi from Nevada and Jan Sescimoni from Arizona. Yeah, that
sounds about right. Juan Siscimony is terrible in immigration and
Emodi has always been squished, so that is not surprised.
But Emodi, I was this Coney has a border district.
You think that he would care more?
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Is there? Okay?
Speaker 1 (40:05):
I have was one question I want to ask you.
This wasn't even my topics. I want to ask you.
I keep hearing that deportations are not that is that true?
I hear arrests are high. I hear I hear people
are more, there are more people in in sorry detention centers,
but the actual deportations are not happening. Is that true?
Speaker 2 (40:27):
They're on the help percent true. I mean they're trying
to count to some extent the beginning a coast guard
at sea, repatriation, stuff like that. Listen, the American people.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Why the way, why why a deportation is it?
Speaker 2 (40:39):
Is it because it's a budget issue? Well, yeah, it
is a budget issue. Listen. Ice is in the red,
Ice is struggling. But here's my point, the American people,
your listeners, I mean, we all understand that ICE is
operating on a very low budget, that the Biden administration,
you know, they kept them constrained for a reason. They're
abolishing it from within.
Speaker 3 (40:57):
You don't need to pretend that if you're arresting, detaining
and deporting and mass you need to go to Congress
and say, guys, listen, the American people spoke loud and clear,
we're freaking struggling.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Give us the full one hundred and ten billion authorise
and then we could do it. Stop playing games. The
American people will see if mass deportation is either water
down or.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
This abb So the Big betfl bill needs to pass
so we can get the deportation. Okayah, important, we want
to RJ. Where can people go to follow your work?
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Yep, it's nice enforcement with one E dot org. I'm
also a fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Border Security and
Immigration Center. We'll lead the charge up there, also operate
the Mass Deportation and Border Security Coalition up on Capitol
Hill that drove passes to HR two. But nice enforcement,
the National Immigration Center for Enforcement ICE is nice. They
shouldn't be the line President Trump is'mpowered.
Speaker 1 (41:52):
That is great, great branding RJ. Thank you for coming
on this podcast. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (41:57):
Of course.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
Thanks Ryan, Hey, we'll be right back after this. Yes,
and now for the ask Me Anything segment of the show.
I love getting these emails. They're very helpful. I'm trying
to build a show around your interest and what you
guys are talking about, So please email me Ryan at
Numbers Game podcast dot com, Ryan at numbers Plural gamepodcast
dot com. I'll take a question on basically anything and
(42:20):
we can go through it and I can try to
find the best, most accurate information about political questions you
always wanted to know about. This question comes from Patrick. Hey, Ryan,
do you agree with the belief that a major deciding
factor in Trump losing a lot of the suburban white
and older white voters was because Trump and his supporters
were coded as a low class and they didn't want
to be associated with him, even if they agree with
(42:42):
his policies. If so, is it possibly someone like JDA,
well spoken conservative populist that isn't always an attack mode
to win back some of the white suburbs that were
scared away from being seen as trashies for supporting Trump.
In short, does JD scare the hose. Thank you Patrick,
I have the listeners. Thank you Badrick for that question. Okay,
(43:04):
so I don't think it's all about scaring the hoes, right,
And I worked for JD. I know him, I'm a
fan of him politically, so this is not a criticism
of him. First and foremost, I think part of why
the suburbs have shifted is changing demographics. Look at the
suburbs of Atlanta. When George Bush won them in two
thousand and four, they were sixty six percent white. They
(43:26):
are now thirty three percent white. As we said in
earlier in the podcast, the only group of people voting
for a majority nationwide. But this is true in Georgia.
It's also true that white college voters, you know, vote
Republican in Georgia as well. But white voters are the
ones who actually give Trump his majorities Republican. They are majorities, right.
(43:48):
Those being going from sixty six to thirty three is
why the Georgia suburbs have moved so far to the left.
But that's so, that's that's a big part of it. Secondly,
when we're talking about the female votes, specifically the college
educated female vote, let's look at the examination the numbers
from Catalyst Right. Catalyst is the Democratic firm that also
looked at the twenty twenty four elections. There was a
(44:10):
six point difference amongst college educated women from Mitt Romney
in twenty twelve to Trump in twenty twenty four. That's it,
it was the six points, and six points means a lot.
Six points among an fifty percent of the population will
swing suburbs for sure, right, especially in certain regions of
the country, But that six points is reflective of other
(44:33):
college educated women around the world. We saw similar ships
in Canada, in Britain, in Europe. I think that I
don't know if I mean, maybe there's a one or
two points that would sit there and swing back because
JD is different. I think JD has a lot of
advantages that Trump doesn't have. I think that being young,
having a young family. I think his wife, Usha Vance
(44:54):
is a major asset to him that has not been
talked enough about. I think him being more into like
Su'll absolutely would not scare as many people. But I
think that the media apparatus and the social media apparatus
will make him scary. Right, They're going to make him
too divisive about a million different issues and he speaks,
He's spoken a lot, He's spoken very thoughtfully, and unfortunately,
(45:17):
we don't live in a society that rewards thoughtfulness. So
when those things are boiled down to talking points for
thirty second TikTok videos or thirty second Instagram videos, they
will probably be viewed as negative. Can he win some
of them back? Yeah, maybe, Kenny get back to Mitt
Romney numbers. I don't think so. But you don't have
(45:39):
to get back to Mitt Romney numbers in order to
win them. That's my take on that. I think the
Trump the JD. Trump coalition, whoever the nomini is in
twenty twenty eight, is built on the backs of the
working class, especially working class minorities that I've moved to
the right, but also more working class white voters as well.
There's a lot of ground to still gain. Consider a
(46:00):
lot of them. I think twenty five or about twenty
five to thirty percent of all Kamala Harris voters were
whites without a college degree. There is a lot more
of that fruit to squeeze juice out of. Anyway, that's
my opinion. Hope you guys like it. I hope you
guys like this podcast. Please like and subscribe on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast. I
(46:20):
promise that every episode is can be this autistic. But
if you like the numbers and you like the data,
please give me a five star review. I really appreciate
it helps boost this podcast. Take five seconds of your time.
It's the Christiana skiff you guys didn't give me. I'm
just joking. Thank you guys so much. I will see
you guys on Thursday.
Host
Gill Alexander
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com