November 13, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a dynamic mix of political analysis, cultural commentary, and audience engagement, headlined by a wide-ranging interview with bestselling author and media veteran Bill O’Reilly. The hour opens with a deep dive into the political fallout from the recent government shutdown, which O’Reilly attributes to far-left consultants steering the Democratic Party into a failed strategy aimed at making pandemic-era Obamacare spending permanent. He argues that the shutdown hurt millions of Americans and yielded no real gains for Democrats, who now risk being branded as the “mean party” heading into the 2026 midterms. The hosts and O’Reilly also discuss the resurfacing of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, which they believe was used as a distraction from Democratic missteps.
The conversation shifts to the 2028 presidential race, where Clay and Buck predict Gavin Newsom and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the likely Democratic ticket. O’Reilly disagrees, citing Newsom’s poor record in California, including mass outmigration and corruption scandals, and suggests Maryland Governor Wes Moore as a more viable alternative. The trio also debate the dangers of artificial intelligence in politics and media, highlighting the rise of deepfake videos and AI-generated misinformation. O’Reilly references a false image involving President Donald Trump that was cited by Rep. Melanie Stansberry, warning that AI will make it increasingly difficult to distinguish truth from fiction. The hosts call for urgent reform of defamation and libel laws to protect public figures and citizens from malicious AI content.
The second half of Hour 2 centers on the controversial H-1B visa program. Buck clarifies that Trump’s comments about lacking domestic talent were aimed at highly specialized roles, such as semiconductor manufacturing, where foreign expertise is temporarily needed. Multiple callers share firsthand experiences with H-1B hires, sparking a robust debate. A computer programmer from California claims foreign workers were paid less despite equal performance. A North Carolina business owner defends the program, citing higher productivity among foreign hires. An engineering manager warns of wage suppression and offshoring trends, while another caller shares how his son’s defense contractor job was outsourced to foreign engineers despite national security concerns.
The hosts argue that the H-1B program should prioritize extraordinary talent and not be used to undercut American wages or create modern indentured servitude. They emphasize the need for a merit-based immigration system that protects American workers and ensures national competitiveness. Hour 2 concludes with reflections on the broader economic and cultural implications of offshoring, wage erosion, and the shifting incentives in the U.S. job market, particularly in engineering and tech sectors.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, second hour of play in Buck kicks off
right now. We've got Bill O'Reilly with us, mega bestselling
author commentator. You all know where to go get his stuff,
billarilly dot com latest book, Confronting Evil, Assessing the worst
of the Worst. I'm sure Bill, there's a whole chapter
(00:20):
on people who chew with their mouths open, the worst
of the worst. Thank you so much for being here
with us. Appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Listen, guys, I always like talking to you. Thanks trapping
me in.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Let's get into the shutdown right away, shall we? What
the heck was this all about? I mean, give us,
give us your census to what the Democrats think they
got out of this and what they really got out
of this, and how they're going to go forward now
that a lot of people, I think saw this not
the way that they had intended.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well, I went a partial victory last week when New
Jersey when in the gubernatorial race, when it was supposed
to be considered very tight, it was not. People were
angry about the government shutdown. Whenever the American public is angry,
they vote against the incumbents. That's all the way back
to John Adams, and it's always been that way. But
(01:16):
the genesis of this is that the Democratic Party was
getting beaten so badly by President Trump that it had
to make a stand somewhere sometime. And the people who
run the party, which are far left progressive consultants, not
senators or congress people. The party is being run is
(01:40):
an ark on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, say
a very good article about money people calling the shots
and the Democratic Party, well, they decided, look the Republican's weaknesses.
They don't have a healthcare plan to bring down costs,
so we'll insist that the temporary Obama spending which rose
(02:04):
and was supposed to come back down after the pandemic subsided,
be made permanent. And the Democrats who fostered that new
that Trump and the Republicans would never agree, never two
more spending in a chaotic program. So they knew that
(02:24):
the government's going to shut down now. They thought that
they might be able to wait it out. But when
eight Democrats affected, it was over. So forty three days,
millions of Americans hurt for nothing. The Democrats got nothing.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Bill.
Speaker 4 (02:46):
It seems quite clear that Democrats recognize that they misplayed this,
that they have created a mess for themselves, and so
they decided, Hey, the government's opening back up, let's distract
every let's throw out this Epstein story all over again.
You've known and Buck and I talked about that yesterday
(03:08):
and said, hey, this is a clear attempt to try
to avoid attention being placed upon their and you know,
their incompetence. What is the game plan here as we
look ahead to twenty twenty six? Aren't we shouldn't we
be concerned that they're just going to shut down the
government again and again. That seems to me to be
(03:29):
the most likely outcome because they don't really have any
game plan, but they just want to be reflexively anti Trump.
And if that's true, what would be a remedy? Do
you support adjusting the filibuster here to stop the government
from being able to be shut down until sixty senators,
which requires you know, eight seven eight Democrats actually come
(03:51):
to their senses.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Oh, there's a lot of questions in their clay. Okay,
So number one is obvious the Democrats through this Epstein
stuff out to deflect from the embarrassment of losing the shutdown.
Everybody with an IT over fifty knows that. Okay, Number two, No,
I wouldn't miss around with the filibuster at all, because
(04:15):
then you're going to create a monster that is going
to come back and do some serious damage. You can't
be changing the filibuster rules every two years. Number three.
The way to do this is for a new law,
and the Republicans have in the votes in both the
House and Senate. The passage it says you get one
(04:36):
shot at an adjustment of spending during a fiscal year one.
So we have a January date coming up where this
might happen all over again, But I since like it
won't because Democrats now are becoming the party of mean Party,
(05:01):
and well a lot of Americans aren't smart enough to
understand what's going on and don't really care. Most do,
and so if the Democrats try the same stunt in January,
it's gonna be a lot of anger. And then you're
only talking about nine months until the midterms. So the
(05:22):
Democrat's gotta be very careful here. But the way to
stop it now is to pass a new law. You
get one shot on a continuing funding basis a fiscal.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Year makes sense. I mean, they've got to figure out
something to stream on us. We're talking to Bill O'Reilly
confronting evil his latest massive bestseller. Make sure you go
out and get a copy of it. So Bill, we watched,
or at least I watched. I think Klay saw some
of the clips you on on Bill Maher well done,
by the way. That's that's always a it's a good
(05:53):
show when they have somebody who doesn't just agree with
all the communists, the lunacy out in California. So it
was good that you were there. One thing though, where
Clint and I both wanted, we wanted to press on
this one a little bit. You said something about how
you don't think Gavin Newsom has a shot at the
national level for the Democrats. Expand upon this one because
we were both we're both thinking that that's look, I'll
(06:15):
just say it. We both have said we think it's
going to be him at the top of the ticket,
AOC at the bottom. It sounds like you disagreed. Tell
us why.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Because his record is so abysmal in California it would
be very easy for the Republican has just take him apart.
And you know, the spending, irresponsibility and just yesterday as
chief established indicted on corruption. I mean you said to
look at this guy Newsom, You're going to find a
thousand things that are going to weigh him down. And
(06:47):
I'm not sure the Democratic Party wants to go with
a candidate who's going to be on the defensive every
single day. So I would say that a guy like
Wes Moore, he was not as defined governor of Maryland,
and he's a patriot, you know, a military guy, has
done a decent job trying to combat crime in Baltimore.
(07:10):
I'd say he had a much better chance because he
doesn't have that baggage. Now. Newsom is a good campaigner,
he's using Trump tactics, he's, you know, running on a
populous thing. But when you get is a million citizens.
That's how many have left California under Newsom. One million,
(07:31):
most of whom were affluent, did big taxes. One million.
You got something wrong with your state?
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Is all right?
Speaker 4 (07:40):
Well, we agree that he's done an awful job. Unfortunately,
I think Democrats don't care about results, and he's the
most strident in his attention gathering.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Kamala Harris though, Yeah, they care about winning the next election,
the presidential So if you're gonna put up a Kamala Harris,
all right, and she can't articulate anything, which is what
the case was. Has not one solution to any problem nothing.
You're gonna lose. Should we do a guy from California
(08:16):
whose record is disastrous? You're gonna lose.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Should we do a steak? Bet here?
Speaker 4 (08:23):
I don't think the three of us have gone out
to dinner together. And it's a little bit unfair because
you know, Buck and I get to pay half and half.
But we think that Newsom will be the nominee.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
You do not.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
We're giving you the field, which actually is a great
deal for you. Do we have a handshake? Bet here?
Buck and I say, right now, Gavin Newsom will be
the nominee in twenty eight. Are you willing to put
a steak on the line? Would actually be two steaks
for you over this over this situation.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Sure, but not because I'm that confident I'll win. Because
it's gonna be a totally different country and three gonna
be a totally different country in one year. Yeah, that's
why the election last week. Is it going to have
any direct bearing on the midterms next year? The country
is changing with lightning speed lightning.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
How concerned are you about that? By the way, because
Buck and I.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
I think one of the big stories that is still
not getting enough attention is AI and how quickly it's
going to change everything in this country. Buck and I
have been talking about it a lot on this program.
Are you of the opinion that AI is going to
be transformative in many ways in terms of jobs, in
terms of just right with that?
Speaker 5 (09:37):
Yes, the AI.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Approach, because it's not quite here yet, is going to
alter the media above all else. Because on social media,
where you can't track these people down, can't hold them
accountable court of law, you're gonna have fake videos. Twenty
four to seven, twenty four to seven, there is a
(10:02):
congress woman who accused Trump yesterday. Let me get her name,
and I got it my notes because I'm going to
do it on the No Spin News tonight. I'm Bill
O'Reilly dot com. And I just read a quote Melanie
Stansbury from New Mexico. Okay, she says, I'd like to
(10:24):
say to the American people, believe your eyes. We have
all seen photographs of Donald Trump with underage girls sitting
on his lap. That's a quote. There are no photographs
of Donald Trump with any girl on his lap. There
was an AI photograph that was put out. Now, this
(10:49):
congressperson from New Mexico is lying to the American people. Now,
I don't know whether she is just stupid or venal
or based upon some ai fake image that she saw.
So multiply that by ten thousand, because that's what's going
(11:12):
to happen and there's no regulation about it. How about
that for a frightening scenario.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
No, And also, how do you hold someone legally responsible,
let's say, for defamation bill if they say, well, I
saw this news site shared this photo and it looked real.
Because especially for a public figures, as you know, the
standard has to be malice has to be false. Tough
to prove malice if someone's actually looking at a photo
that looks like a real photo, right, I mean, I
(11:39):
just think it complicates matters tremendously.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
It makes it harder. But I think if Trump wanted
to sue Stansbury, he would win because their statements about
Trump are malicious. So you can bring in a whole
bunch of other stuff. And it's the responsibility of any
person trafficking in the public arena to make sure what
(12:02):
they're saying ex accurate.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Well, especially something like that, right, No, doubt.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, insinuating you know, some kind of sexual uh you
know violation and you know violation of laws.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Well of course, right, but you're gonna see a lot
more of this.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Okay, an Ai image may exist, it's without a picture.
If I would shop, I go after her, and if
somebody does to me, I'll go after them.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
It's gonna happen to everybody. Bill, I think you're hitting
on something that's so incredibly important, because it's going to
become virtually impossible to distinguish between.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Photos, videos, what is real and fake.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
And honestly, people are gonna believe whatever they want to believe,
so there is gonna be no ability to really kind
of rain this in.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
This is kind of a silly one, Bill. But you know,
there was that photo after the Louver heist. You know,
this is much less serious than the Trump But after
the Louver heist, Uh, there was the photo of the
detective who looked like he was, you know, dressing up
as like a French detective from you know, like the
nineteen fifties, and.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Everyone was like, is it Ai? Is it not Ai?
Speaker 1 (13:14):
It was actually a real photo, apparently, but the guy
had nothing to do with the cops. And but by
the time that photo had made it around everywhere, nobody knew.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
What was reality. Everyone thought this guy was the lead
detective on the Loof case.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
You know, even gets worse than that. There was a
picture of me, waters Beck and Carlson at the White House,
but that was a real picture.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
But AI, No, this is also gonna be funny, Bill,
the things that are actually real. Do you know what
the number one response is gonna be, it's Ai. Everybody's
gonna say that we're not gonna have any idea what
is real and what is fake. Because if something's out
there that you don't like, you just be like, ah,
that's totally made up. That's a And if it's really fake,
(14:01):
you're gonna say, wait, that's fake. And none of us
are gonna have any idea what's real and fake.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Well, that's why Congress has to pass new laws, new defamation,
libel and slander laws, and they have to pass them
pretty quickly to make it easier for people to sue.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
But that's my that's my point, Bill, is people are
gonna people are gonna hide behind a bad faith Oh
I was acting in good faith standard unless we change
these laws because of AI. They're gonna say, I'm just
going on what was a reg you know, So you're right.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
We got to change. It's gonna be a huge problem.
Speaker 4 (14:34):
But to your point, Bucket, it's gonna be hosted websites
that are in foreign countries that are hard to be
able to track down because they're gonna be a lot
of these sourcing, right, and then it's gonna go everywhere.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Yeah yeah, yeah, to the South Asian people. But we
should have the British system anyway, and the burden of
defamation should be lowered here because the Charlatans are running
wild and it's gonna make it even harder for decent
(15:12):
people not to get framed and extorted. And that's why
Congress has got to get involved.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Look, I think.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
You're thanks for the time, Bill, and we encourage everybody
to go check out Bill's newest book.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I think the Times v.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Sullivan's standard, and I've said this for a long time,
is gonna have to be readdressed. That's a nineteen sixties
early sixties civil rights era precedent. It doesn't really play
in the modern era very effectively.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Bill. We appreciate the time, and we'll get you on
again soon.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Thanks hearing in guys anytime that's Bill O'Reilly. Check them
out Bill O'Reilly dot com. He's got to go have
great stuff there, in addition to one of the best
selling nonfiction book series of all time. When we first
met up with the team at the International Fellowship of
Christians and Jews, they were understandably focused on helping tens
of thousands of Israeli citizens displaced and affected by the war,
(16:06):
but for many years before then, even today, they're continuing
to help members of the Jewish faith no matter where
they are in the world. That includes Jewish community members
in our nation as well that have been affected by
anti Semitic acts. For the IFCJ, this is an important effort.
The IFCJ is on the front lines providing real help
where it's needed most, giving food and shelter to Jewish
(16:27):
families that feel under threat. I have seen this for myself,
and I have helped to do some of the charity
work that they have done in Israel. I was over
there about a year ago in December. Your gift of
forty five dollars will help support their life saving work
by helping provide food, shelter, much more support the If
(16:48):
supporting the IFCJ is a spiritual stand too, please call
eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight
eight four eight eight four three two five. You can
also go online to IFCJ dot org. Every dollar helps,
don't wait be the difference. IFCJ dot org.
Speaker 6 (17:09):
Stories of Freedom, Stories of America, inspirational stories that you unite.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Us all each day.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
Spend time with Clay and find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Welcome back in.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
We got a quick turn here, but we have a
ton of you lined up right now who want to
talk about this H one B issue from a variety
of different perspectives.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Stick with us.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
We will go to you when we come back at
the top bottom of the hour and take your calls.
We got Southern California, Saint Paul, North Carolina, Florida, Raleigh,
North Carolina. We got a bunch of different places everybody
wants to weigh in. We will hit all of y'all,
I promise when we come back. But in the meantime,
I want to tell you about the incredible work that
(17:56):
I have seen.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Tunnel to Towers do.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
I was up in New York Line last week last
month helping to MC their big event at the Liberty
Golf Course where they've raised millions of dollars, which is
fantastic to see. But even better is every time I
go to a Tunnel to Towers event, I'm fortunate because
I get to meet some of the family members that
(18:19):
have been helped by Frank Siller and his organization and
just the incredible work that they do to help ensure
that all of our first responders, that all of our
military officials, that all of their families are taken care of.
I donate Buck donates. We would like you to join
us in donating to support the bravest and most selfless
(18:40):
among US first responders, military their families. Donate eleven dollars
a month to Tunnel to Towers at T TOWO T
dot org. That's t the number two, T dot org.
Welcome back into Clay and Buck. All right, something here
real quick. I want to get back into HMB discussion
because we've got all lines lit about this. We want
(19:01):
to have Uncle Bill on to give us the general
political rundown of what's happening right now. But we'll get
back to h one b's the big conversation, and I
had mentioned this in the first hour, said, look what
Trump said when he said we don't have.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
The talent here.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
He didn't mean that, I know, Trump, he didn't mean
that in the broadest sense. He meant that for specific things,
which is why we have an H one B program.
There are times when we actually do need to bring
in and by the way, they're very You know there
countries like South Korea, Taiwan, there are specific instances where
there is a skill set. I brought up TSMC, one
(19:37):
of the most valuable companies in the world. We cannot
run that fab without Taiwanese assistance, even the one in Arizona,
like we need them. So that's where your H one
B program is very Now, I think that's a small fraction,
but that's what Scott Bessant, He went, this is cut
twenty eight. He said, look, what Trump was really saying
is what Buck just said to you.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
Play it.
Speaker 7 (19:57):
The President's point here is we again, we can't snap
our fingers and say you're going to learn how to
build ships overnight. We want to bring semiconductor industry back
to the US. There's going to be big facilities in Arizona.
So I think the president's vision here is to bring
in overseas workers where these jobs went to have skills,
(20:19):
who have the skills three five, seven years to train
the US workers, then they can go home the US
workers fully takeover.
Speaker 8 (20:28):
So that's what you do.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
You understand the concern that people have, Hey, an American
can have that job, why you give it.
Speaker 7 (20:34):
To it can have that job specific skills because we
haven't built ships in the US for years, we haven't
built semiconductors. So that this idea of overseas partners coming
in teaching American workers then returning home, that's a home run.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
It just has to be what he's talking about. It's
so funny because okay, that makes sense. Yeah, that's what
the H one B program is supposed to be. It's
not supposed to be low level coding where you get
to pay someone Clay from India thirty percent less than
you'd pay an American that you could find to do
the job.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
Not only pay them less, basically have them handcuffed because
their ability to stay in the country is entirely reliant
on them being productive workers for you.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
This is why people start to say it's a little
bit like a modern indentured servitude exactly what it is.
And then they said, well then why would they willing
to do it? Well, one, that make a lot money,
more money here than they will in India, for example.
And two, as I said, there's the whole incentive of well,
I get to bring my family here, I get to
skip the overall immigration line. I get to then apply
(21:40):
in America to try to stay with my get a
green card. There's a whole thing here. All right, we
got we got back and forth on this one, so
we're gonna try to move quickly through the various opinions here.
Jerrolin in southern California, a computer programmer, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (21:55):
Jerlin?
Speaker 9 (21:57):
Hey, nice to talk to you again. Claim back, I
am a computer programmer, and you all just kind of
covered the points that I made to producer Greg. I
used to work for a company that was multinational and
it was kind of a it passed the initial startup dhase,
but it was a pretty young company and they were
still trying to trade on their startup culture and a
(22:18):
lot of the programmers I worked with were h one
V visa holders from India, and I think I couldn't
prove it, but I'm pretty sure that they and we
never discussed it because that's tachy in spite of what
kids these days think. I've noticed it's the trend among
millennials and generations. Need to discuss your salary. Don't do that, kids,
(22:38):
it's bad. Anyway, we never talked about it, but I'm
pretty sure all of those programmers from India were making
a lot less than the rest of us were, and
they were very good at their jobs, but not necessarily
better than the rest of us.
Speaker 5 (22:50):
Who were.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Sorry to cut you off, Jerlyn, but you feel like
in your experience that they could have found American workers
who could have done the job that these H one
B workers were being hired to do.
Speaker 9 (23:03):
Yes, I think they could have, and I think they
would have had to pay them more. And I think
that my Indian coworkers were happy to accept less money
because they got to stay in America. I think we're
just making are exactly correct.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Thank you for the call. I mean, this is fantastic.
By the way, I wanted you guys who had experience.
I appreciate Jaa Lynn. Let's go to gem in North Carolina.
You've run a business and you've had you say dozens
of H one B employees. First question for you, could
you not have found Americans able to do those jobs?
Second question for you, what, if anything, do you think
(23:39):
should be changed about the policy or do you think
it works well?
Speaker 10 (23:42):
Now, well, great to be with you, Clay and Buck. First,
let me just say that the H one B program
is abused in various places around the country, and particularly
in the IT arena. I will tell you that the
dozens of H one bs that I managed, we hired
them for one specific purpose, and that was because they
were more productive than their equivalent American counterparts. When you
(24:04):
run a business, it's the bottom line that drives your business.
You've got to be productive. And if you've got foreign
workers who are willing to work harder, with more attention
to detail than their counterparts in America, then you're just
drawn to have to hire them and keep them employed.
We always were on the search for hard working American
workers in the IT arena, particularly in the data warehousing
(24:26):
business intelligence arena, but we just couldn't find the ones
that could work at the same level, the same degree
of attention to detail.
Speaker 4 (24:33):
So your position is there was no fungible alternative for
American workers. You legitimately believe you couldn't have run your
business without being able to hire these individuals.
Speaker 10 (24:44):
We couldn't work, We couldn't be as competitive as a
business by hiring workers that were fifty percent less productive
than their H.
Speaker 8 (24:52):
One B counterparts.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Where did you go to get your workers? Mostly India?
Speaker 10 (24:57):
Most of them were South Asia Indian. In fact, I
still have maintained relationships with a lot of them. One
other thing that's been missing in all of this, when
you're looking at a merit based immigration program, there's no
better kickstart for that than the H one B program
because a good percentage of those do become American citizens
over time, and they add so much value to our
employment sector.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Thank you for the call. David and Raleigh. You say
you have been an engineering manager.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
I think that's what that says for fifteen years and
worked with a lot of H one B employees.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Your take, Yeah, I believe.
Speaker 5 (25:33):
That for the most part. Laura's right. We're flooding the
market with too many engineers, and it's clearly disrupting the
supply chain of engineers. If you look at when I
came into the industry in the early two thousands, engineers
aren't making that much more than justice for inflation than
we were back then. But I think the bigger issue,
(25:55):
like when Lutnick came out and said, hey, it's gonna
be one hundred thousand per year per h one B,
a lot of us were excited because that would fix,
you know, the issue to a large extent. But what
will happen is the companies are just going to offshore
these jobs. We're already setting up design houses in India.
Every big fortune five hundred company has a design house
(26:15):
essentially under their umbrella in India right now, and they're
growing those right now. And so we're watching these jobs
just go straight to India.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
Thank you for the call.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Well, you know, part of this is also the upstream,
downstream reality of when you have the consistent and systematic
undercutting of an American wage in a certain industry from
let's be honest, in the case of India, the most
populous country on Earth. There are a lot of Indians,
like one point three billion or something like that, and
(26:47):
when you have this going on, it's going to create
deficiencies in the American sector. Because Clay perfect example, when
I got out of school, when you got out of school.
Everybody in the top of my class at amor unless
you wanted to go Save America at the CIA, everybody
in the top of my class. There were two job
tracks for you, investment banking, management consulting. Both of those,
(27:11):
by the way, you could argue, where's the value add
long you know, there's there's a lot of more detailed discussions.
You know, there's been a whole series TV shows made
about management consulting and like how it's you know, yeah,
lower your costs, raise your profits, Like that's that's brilliant.
Speaker 4 (27:25):
That's the one that's really being a race by AI
because you can plug the large data sets in.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
But those were two areas where in your twenties, you know,
you could come out and you could start making And
I'm talking about twenty years ago, mind you, twenty years ago,
you could make two three hundred grand in your twenties
pretty pretty readily within a couple of years. I mean,
I think the starting salary at the investment banks I
got an offer from one at City Group was like
one hundred and fifty and then with bonus it could
(27:52):
be up to one hundred and you know, if it
was a good year anyway, very variable. But the point is,
you went to be an engineer, you make a like
seventy or eighty grand.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Now, I know it. A lot of you're saying, well,
that's a great job, that's a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Sure, but if you had the grades to be a
top engineering recruit, you also probably had the grades to
go work at McKenzie and tell people how to run
their companies that you've never run before and make a
whole lot of money. So this is the I'm just
saying the incentives that have been set up because people
were thinking, oh, well, coding almost became or you know,
(28:24):
a lot of these computer skills that we're hiring h
oneb's for ore back office. And as long as you're
in a back office situation, you're never going to really
be rinting your own ticket and determining your own fate.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
No doubt, we still got a bunch of calls. We'll
get to some of those calls when we come back.
I appreciate everybody reaching out and sharing what your perspectives
on what is a challenging situation. Will continue to break
all that down going forward. But in the meantime, Buck,
I think you got something for us here.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
I do.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Indeed, my friends, Good Ranchers, I've got Captain flatt visiting
down here. That's right, Captain Flatley. He's a captain of
airlines or airline flying rather, and he likes a great
steak just like I do, and so does my wife,
and we go to Good Ranchers for them. My friends,
we are stocked for this holiday season thanks to Good Ranchers.
(29:19):
They deliver great tasting steaks, burgers, pork chops, bacon, even salmon.
It arrives via overnight shipping pack securely, ensuring freshnet freshness.
It's like having a restaurant meal at home every night. Look,
no matter how good a cookie you are, if you
don't have high quality proteins, you're not gonna be at
that top tier of deliciousness at your kitchen table. Good
Ranchers gives you exactly what you need, the raw materials
(29:41):
for the best dinner. You're gonna have a great time
with your family. And it's all really good, top quality,
top tier stuff too, No antibiotics, no hormones.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
We're both subscribers, Clay and I. You should be too.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
You'll get twenty five dollars off every box delivered, free shipping,
and a free gift in every order for all life,
the shop America's best meat. Visit goodranchers dot com. Start
your subscription today and if you order before December first,
and you're a first time subscriber, use my name Buck
as your promo code. You'll get an additional one hundred
dollars off your first three orders plus free meat for life.
(30:16):
That's code Buck for one hundred dollars off plus free
meat for life, Good ranchers dot Com code Buck.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
You ain't imagining it.
Speaker 6 (30:25):
The world has gone insane. Reclaim your sanity with Clay
and Buck. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
Welcome back in Clay Travis bock Sexton Show. We appreciate
all of you hanging out with us as we are
rolling through the Thursday edition of the program. Still have
a ton of people who want to weigh in this
h one b idea debate, I think is one that
many people have strong takes on. And let's see Jeff
(30:57):
and New Orleans what you got for us.
Speaker 8 (30:59):
Jeff, I used to be an engineer and got forced
out of that career field because of the H one
v vass.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
Because you were competing with foreign sorry, because you were
forced out because there were people who would take lower
salaries to do the job that you were doing.
Speaker 8 (31:18):
Correct And one case in particular one of my coworkers,
when you're not in union, there's no set pay rates,
no pay grades, and so you just negotiate for whatever
you want. Well, I had one particular coworker who had
never been in the United States before and negotiated his
(31:38):
salary based on what he thought his budget was going
to be. He knew what a one bedroom apartment in mumbaikos,
he knew what the exchange rate was, He could do
the math, and so he figured that he could get
a one bedroom apartment in the middle of downtown Chicago
for four hundred and fifty dollars a month, and he
negotiated his salary based on that. Then he gets the
(32:01):
United States and he realizes he's been screwed, and he
calls the Home Office asking for a pay raise. After
they stop laughing at him, they said, you've got two choices.
You can either fulfill the contract as you originally signed it,
or you can get deported.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
That's the end of it.
Speaker 8 (32:21):
And I'm having a call gotihape my own salary competing
against this.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Yeah, look, thanks for the call.
Speaker 4 (32:27):
This is what's not supposed to happen, Buck, but that
many people feel is happening, which is American based workers
are competing with H one B employees who are actually
doing the same jobs.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
This is where I think we need to inject also
into the conversation America and Americans. First, I'm hearing a
lot of on the more pro H one B side, Oh,
they work so hard, Oh they'll work for a little
bit less pay, or whatever it is. And to this
I just want to say, yeah, but Americans should get priority.
(33:03):
I don't think it should be a controversial thing. Someone
should have to be clay so much better than their
American counterpart for us to say we're going to bring
you from wherever you are on the other side of
the world. You're not an American. We're going to put
you in a chair and pay you a salary and
give you a role that an American could do. It
really should only be that an American. It's not possible.
(33:25):
I keep hearing like, oh, they're a little more efficient,
or they take a little less pay, or they the
whole program was set it wasn't set up so that
a company can have a little advantage over other companies.
It was there is nobody else who can do this,
and I'm not here, and a lot of there's nobody
else who can do this, I'm hearing, well, I had
some good experiences with that.
Speaker 4 (33:44):
Well, what a good analogy that you made earlier, and
I think one of our callers made is if sho
hey Otani, you know, is a such a unique talent
in Major League Baseball. I don't know if he's qualifying
some of you guys may know. I don't know if
athletes qualify under H one B VSUS to be able
to come in. But if you are one of the
(34:04):
best in the world at what you do and otherwise
you would not be able to come into the country,
that's a great example. You mentioned the NBA. The NBA
is a global game, the best basketball players in the world.
There's only whatever it is, four hundred and fifty jobs
that NBA players do. If seventy five of them are
foreigners and they happen to be one of the best
(34:25):
four hundred and fifty people at something, but to your point,
there's a lot of Yeah, basically, this guy has a
skill set that's very similar to the skill sets that
exist in the United States. They are not one of
the best extraordinary talent people. And this is what Jay
and Florida is saying, Jay, what you got for us?
Speaker 2 (34:45):
Yeah?
Speaker 10 (34:46):
You're there?
Speaker 11 (34:47):
Yeah, yeah, okay yeah. I think if listening to the
conversations here, I think you can notice that the people
that have been speaking in favor of the H one
b ones are people that are doing the engineering. They're
the ones that are managing higher up in the companies
whose bonuses depend on how little their department spends on
(35:09):
what they're trying to accomplish. But I've got my son
has a master's electrical engineering. He's been working for a
major defense contractor for about the last ten years, and
his job, which he really enjoys, was to, you know,
be given a project, design it, take it into the lab,
test it, and you know, produce the product and then
(35:33):
go around and market it. But what has happened over
the last few years is that basically he was told
that why should we use you when we can hire
five engineers for your salary from India or China. Now
he's a defense contractor and supposedly the people that are.
You know, these are classified jobs are not supposed to
(35:55):
be worked on by foreigners. And what he has become
now is they've tiken him out of the lab and
he's become like.
Speaker 8 (36:05):
The face of the.
Speaker 11 (36:07):
Products where he's going around to other defense contractors to
try to convince them to use our product. And he's
talking with the American faces of those other defense contracts.
Speaker 4 (36:18):
Thank you for the call. Sorry to cut you off.
We're coming up on the end of the hour, so
we have a hard out. I think the other interplay here,
which this gentleman's talking about is H one B requires
you to come to the country. They're certainly still a
lot of offshoring, which is what he was saying, like
his son's job, based on his salary, can be replaced
(36:39):
by Indians working overseas, and that is part of the
interplay here, but a little bit of a different dynamic.
We come back a couple of breaking news stories we
want to hit you with.
All right, second hour of play in Buck kicks off
right now. We've got Bill O'Reilly with us, mega bestselling
author commentator. You all know where to go get his stuff,
billarilly dot com latest book, Confronting Evil, Assessing the worst
of the Worst. I'm sure Bill, there's a whole chapter
(00:20):
on people who chew with their mouths open, the worst
of the worst. Thank you so much for being here
with us. Appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Listen, guys, I always like talking to you. Thanks trapping
me in.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Let's get into the shutdown right away, shall we? What
the heck was this all about? I mean, give us,
give us your census to what the Democrats think they
got out of this and what they really got out
of this, and how they're going to go forward now
that a lot of people, I think saw this not
the way that they had intended.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well, I went a partial victory last week when New
Jersey when in the gubernatorial race, when it was supposed
to be considered very tight, it was not. People were
angry about the government shutdown. Whenever the American public is angry,
they vote against the incumbents. That's all the way back
to John Adams, and it's always been that way. But
(01:16):
the genesis of this is that the Democratic Party was
getting beaten so badly by President Trump that it had
to make a stand somewhere sometime. And the people who
run the party, which are far left progressive consultants, not
senators or congress people. The party is being run is
(01:40):
an ark on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, say
a very good article about money people calling the shots
and the Democratic Party, well, they decided, look the Republican's weaknesses.
They don't have a healthcare plan to bring down costs,
so we'll insist that the temporary Obama spending which rose
(02:04):
and was supposed to come back down after the pandemic subsided,
be made permanent. And the Democrats who fostered that new
that Trump and the Republicans would never agree, never two
more spending in a chaotic program. So they knew that
(02:24):
the government's going to shut down now. They thought that
they might be able to wait it out. But when
eight Democrats affected, it was over. So forty three days,
millions of Americans hurt for nothing. The Democrats got nothing.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Bill.
Speaker 4 (02:46):
It seems quite clear that Democrats recognize that they misplayed this,
that they have created a mess for themselves, and so
they decided, Hey, the government's opening back up, let's distract
every let's throw out this Epstein story all over again.
You've known and Buck and I talked about that yesterday
(03:08):
and said, hey, this is a clear attempt to try
to avoid attention being placed upon their and you know,
their incompetence. What is the game plan here as we
look ahead to twenty twenty six? Aren't we shouldn't we
be concerned that they're just going to shut down the
government again and again. That seems to me to be
(03:29):
the most likely outcome because they don't really have any
game plan, but they just want to be reflexively anti Trump.
And if that's true, what would be a remedy? Do
you support adjusting the filibuster here to stop the government
from being able to be shut down until sixty senators,
which requires you know, eight seven eight Democrats actually come
(03:51):
to their senses.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Oh, there's a lot of questions in their clay. Okay,
So number one is obvious the Democrats through this Epstein
stuff out to deflect from the embarrassment of losing the shutdown.
Everybody with an IT over fifty knows that. Okay, Number two, No,
I wouldn't miss around with the filibuster at all, because
(04:15):
then you're going to create a monster that is going
to come back and do some serious damage. You can't
be changing the filibuster rules every two years. Number three.
The way to do this is for a new law,
and the Republicans have in the votes in both the
House and Senate. The passage it says you get one
(04:36):
shot at an adjustment of spending during a fiscal year one.
So we have a January date coming up where this
might happen all over again, But I since like it
won't because Democrats now are becoming the party of mean Party,
(05:01):
and well a lot of Americans aren't smart enough to
understand what's going on and don't really care. Most do,
and so if the Democrats try the same stunt in January,
it's gonna be a lot of anger. And then you're
only talking about nine months until the midterms. So the
(05:22):
Democrat's gotta be very careful here. But the way to
stop it now is to pass a new law. You
get one shot on a continuing funding basis a fiscal.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Year makes sense. I mean, they've got to figure out
something to stream on us. We're talking to Bill O'Reilly
confronting evil his latest massive bestseller. Make sure you go
out and get a copy of it. So Bill, we watched,
or at least I watched. I think Klay saw some
of the clips you on on Bill Maher well done,
by the way. That's that's always a it's a good
(05:53):
show when they have somebody who doesn't just agree with
all the communists, the lunacy out in California. So it
was good that you were there. One thing though, where
Clint and I both wanted, we wanted to press on
this one a little bit. You said something about how
you don't think Gavin Newsom has a shot at the
national level for the Democrats. Expand upon this one because
we were both we're both thinking that that's look, I'll
(06:15):
just say it. We both have said we think it's
going to be him at the top of the ticket,
AOC at the bottom. It sounds like you disagreed. Tell
us why.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Because his record is so abysmal in California it would
be very easy for the Republican has just take him apart.
And you know, the spending, irresponsibility and just yesterday as
chief established indicted on corruption. I mean you said to
look at this guy Newsom, You're going to find a
thousand things that are going to weigh him down. And
(06:47):
I'm not sure the Democratic Party wants to go with
a candidate who's going to be on the defensive every
single day. So I would say that a guy like
Wes Moore, he was not as defined governor of Maryland,
and he's a patriot, you know, a military guy, has
done a decent job trying to combat crime in Baltimore.
(07:10):
I'd say he had a much better chance because he
doesn't have that baggage. Now. Newsom is a good campaigner,
he's using Trump tactics, he's, you know, running on a
populous thing. But when you get is a million citizens.
That's how many have left California under Newsom. One million,
(07:31):
most of whom were affluent, did big taxes. One million.
You got something wrong with your state?
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Is all right?
Speaker 4 (07:40):
Well, we agree that he's done an awful job. Unfortunately,
I think Democrats don't care about results, and he's the
most strident in his attention gathering.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Kamala Harris though, Yeah, they care about winning the next election,
the presidential So if you're gonna put up a Kamala Harris,
all right, and she can't articulate anything, which is what
the case was. Has not one solution to any problem nothing.
You're gonna lose. Should we do a guy from California
(08:16):
whose record is disastrous? You're gonna lose.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Should we do a steak? Bet here?
Speaker 4 (08:23):
I don't think the three of us have gone out
to dinner together. And it's a little bit unfair because
you know, Buck and I get to pay half and half.
But we think that Newsom will be the nominee.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
You do not.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
We're giving you the field, which actually is a great
deal for you. Do we have a handshake? Bet here?
Buck and I say, right now, Gavin Newsom will be
the nominee in twenty eight. Are you willing to put
a steak on the line? Would actually be two steaks
for you over this over this situation.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Sure, but not because I'm that confident I'll win. Because
it's gonna be a totally different country and three gonna
be a totally different country in one year. Yeah, that's
why the election last week. Is it going to have
any direct bearing on the midterms next year? The country
is changing with lightning speed lightning.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
How concerned are you about that? By the way, because
Buck and I.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
I think one of the big stories that is still
not getting enough attention is AI and how quickly it's
going to change everything in this country. Buck and I
have been talking about it a lot on this program.
Are you of the opinion that AI is going to
be transformative in many ways in terms of jobs, in
terms of just right with that?
Speaker 5 (09:37):
Yes, the AI.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Approach, because it's not quite here yet, is going to
alter the media above all else. Because on social media,
where you can't track these people down, can't hold them
accountable court of law, you're gonna have fake videos. Twenty
four to seven, twenty four to seven, there is a
(10:02):
congress woman who accused Trump yesterday. Let me get her name,
and I got it my notes because I'm going to
do it on the No Spin News tonight. I'm Bill
O'Reilly dot com. And I just read a quote Melanie
Stansbury from New Mexico. Okay, she says, I'd like to
(10:24):
say to the American people, believe your eyes. We have
all seen photographs of Donald Trump with underage girls sitting
on his lap. That's a quote. There are no photographs
of Donald Trump with any girl on his lap. There
was an AI photograph that was put out. Now, this
(10:49):
congressperson from New Mexico is lying to the American people. Now,
I don't know whether she is just stupid or venal
or based upon some ai fake image that she saw.
So multiply that by ten thousand, because that's what's going
(11:12):
to happen and there's no regulation about it. How about
that for a frightening scenario.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
No, And also, how do you hold someone legally responsible,
let's say, for defamation bill if they say, well, I
saw this news site shared this photo and it looked real.
Because especially for a public figures, as you know, the
standard has to be malice has to be false. Tough
to prove malice if someone's actually looking at a photo
that looks like a real photo, right, I mean, I
(11:39):
just think it complicates matters tremendously.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
It makes it harder. But I think if Trump wanted
to sue Stansbury, he would win because their statements about
Trump are malicious. So you can bring in a whole
bunch of other stuff. And it's the responsibility of any
person trafficking in the public arena to make sure what
(12:02):
they're saying ex accurate.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Well, especially something like that, right, No, doubt.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, insinuating you know, some kind of sexual uh you
know violation and you know violation of laws.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Well of course, right, but you're gonna see a lot
more of this.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Okay, an Ai image may exist, it's without a picture.
If I would shop, I go after her, and if
somebody does to me, I'll go after them.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
It's gonna happen to everybody. Bill, I think you're hitting
on something that's so incredibly important, because it's going to
become virtually impossible to distinguish between.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Photos, videos, what is real and fake.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
And honestly, people are gonna believe whatever they want to believe,
so there is gonna be no ability to really kind
of rain this in.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
This is kind of a silly one, Bill. But you know,
there was that photo after the Louver heist. You know,
this is much less serious than the Trump But after
the Louver heist, Uh, there was the photo of the
detective who looked like he was, you know, dressing up
as like a French detective from you know, like the
nineteen fifties, and.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Everyone was like, is it Ai? Is it not Ai?
Speaker 1 (13:14):
It was actually a real photo, apparently, but the guy
had nothing to do with the cops. And but by
the time that photo had made it around everywhere, nobody knew.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
What was reality. Everyone thought this guy was the lead
detective on the Loof case.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
You know, even gets worse than that. There was a
picture of me, waters Beck and Carlson at the White House,
but that was a real picture.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
But AI, No, this is also gonna be funny, Bill,
the things that are actually real. Do you know what
the number one response is gonna be, it's Ai. Everybody's
gonna say that we're not gonna have any idea what
is real and what is fake. Because if something's out
there that you don't like, you just be like, ah,
that's totally made up. That's a And if it's really fake,
(14:01):
you're gonna say, wait, that's fake. And none of us
are gonna have any idea what's real and fake.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Well, that's why Congress has to pass new laws, new defamation,
libel and slander laws, and they have to pass them
pretty quickly to make it easier for people to sue.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
But that's my that's my point, Bill, is people are
gonna people are gonna hide behind a bad faith Oh
I was acting in good faith standard unless we change
these laws because of AI. They're gonna say, I'm just
going on what was a reg you know, So you're right.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
We got to change. It's gonna be a huge problem.
Speaker 4 (14:34):
But to your point, Bucket, it's gonna be hosted websites
that are in foreign countries that are hard to be
able to track down because they're gonna be a lot
of these sourcing, right, and then it's gonna go everywhere.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Yeah yeah, yeah, to the South Asian people. But we
should have the British system anyway, and the burden of
defamation should be lowered here because the Charlatans are running
wild and it's gonna make it even harder for decent
(15:12):
people not to get framed and extorted. And that's why
Congress has got to get involved.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Look, I think.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
You're thanks for the time, Bill, and we encourage everybody
to go check out Bill's newest book.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I think the Times v.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Sullivan's standard, and I've said this for a long time,
is gonna have to be readdressed. That's a nineteen sixties
early sixties civil rights era precedent. It doesn't really play
in the modern era very effectively.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Bill. We appreciate the time, and we'll get you on
again soon.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Thanks hearing in guys anytime that's Bill O'Reilly. Check them
out Bill O'Reilly dot com. He's got to go have
great stuff there, in addition to one of the best
selling nonfiction book series of all time. When we first
met up with the team at the International Fellowship of
Christians and Jews, they were understandably focused on helping tens
of thousands of Israeli citizens displaced and affected by the war,
(16:06):
but for many years before then, even today, they're continuing
to help members of the Jewish faith no matter where
they are in the world. That includes Jewish community members
in our nation as well that have been affected by
anti Semitic acts. For the IFCJ, this is an important effort.
The IFCJ is on the front lines providing real help
where it's needed most, giving food and shelter to Jewish
(16:27):
families that feel under threat. I have seen this for myself,
and I have helped to do some of the charity
work that they have done in Israel. I was over
there about a year ago in December. Your gift of
forty five dollars will help support their life saving work
by helping provide food, shelter, much more support the If
(16:48):
supporting the IFCJ is a spiritual stand too, please call
eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight
eight four eight eight four three two five. You can
also go online to IFCJ dot org. Every dollar helps,
don't wait be the difference. IFCJ dot org.
Speaker 6 (17:09):
Stories of Freedom, Stories of America, inspirational stories that you unite.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Us all each day.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
Spend time with Clay and find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Welcome back in.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
We got a quick turn here, but we have a
ton of you lined up right now who want to
talk about this H one B issue from a variety
of different perspectives.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Stick with us.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
We will go to you when we come back at
the top bottom of the hour and take your calls.
We got Southern California, Saint Paul, North Carolina, Florida, Raleigh,
North Carolina. We got a bunch of different places everybody
wants to weigh in. We will hit all of y'all,
I promise when we come back. But in the meantime,
I want to tell you about the incredible work that
(17:56):
I have seen.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Tunnel to Towers do.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
I was up in New York Line last week last
month helping to MC their big event at the Liberty
Golf Course where they've raised millions of dollars, which is
fantastic to see. But even better is every time I
go to a Tunnel to Towers event, I'm fortunate because
I get to meet some of the family members that
(18:19):
have been helped by Frank Siller and his organization and
just the incredible work that they do to help ensure
that all of our first responders, that all of our
military officials, that all of their families are taken care of.
I donate Buck donates. We would like you to join
us in donating to support the bravest and most selfless
(18:40):
among US first responders, military their families. Donate eleven dollars
a month to Tunnel to Towers at T TOWO T
dot org. That's t the number two, T dot org.
Welcome back into Clay and Buck. All right, something here
real quick. I want to get back into HMB discussion
because we've got all lines lit about this. We want
(19:01):
to have Uncle Bill on to give us the general
political rundown of what's happening right now. But we'll get
back to h one b's the big conversation, and I
had mentioned this in the first hour, said, look what
Trump said when he said we don't have.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
The talent here.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
He didn't mean that, I know, Trump, he didn't mean
that in the broadest sense. He meant that for specific things,
which is why we have an H one B program.
There are times when we actually do need to bring
in and by the way, they're very You know there
countries like South Korea, Taiwan, there are specific instances where
there is a skill set. I brought up TSMC, one
(19:37):
of the most valuable companies in the world. We cannot
run that fab without Taiwanese assistance, even the one in Arizona,
like we need them. So that's where your H one
B program is very Now, I think that's a small fraction,
but that's what Scott Bessant, He went, this is cut
twenty eight. He said, look, what Trump was really saying
is what Buck just said to you.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
Play it.
Speaker 7 (19:57):
The President's point here is we again, we can't snap
our fingers and say you're going to learn how to
build ships overnight. We want to bring semiconductor industry back
to the US. There's going to be big facilities in Arizona.
So I think the president's vision here is to bring
in overseas workers where these jobs went to have skills,
(20:19):
who have the skills three five, seven years to train
the US workers, then they can go home the US
workers fully takeover.
Speaker 8 (20:28):
So that's what you do.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
You understand the concern that people have, Hey, an American
can have that job, why you give it.
Speaker 7 (20:34):
To it can have that job specific skills because we
haven't built ships in the US for years, we haven't
built semiconductors. So that this idea of overseas partners coming
in teaching American workers then returning home, that's a home run.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
It just has to be what he's talking about. It's
so funny because okay, that makes sense. Yeah, that's what
the H one B program is supposed to be. It's
not supposed to be low level coding where you get
to pay someone Clay from India thirty percent less than
you'd pay an American that you could find to do
the job.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
Not only pay them less, basically have them handcuffed because
their ability to stay in the country is entirely reliant
on them being productive workers for you.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
This is why people start to say it's a little
bit like a modern indentured servitude exactly what it is.
And then they said, well then why would they willing
to do it? Well, one, that make a lot money,
more money here than they will in India, for example.
And two, as I said, there's the whole incentive of well,
I get to bring my family here, I get to
skip the overall immigration line. I get to then apply
(21:40):
in America to try to stay with my get a
green card. There's a whole thing here. All right, we
got we got back and forth on this one, so
we're gonna try to move quickly through the various opinions here.
Jerrolin in southern California, a computer programmer, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (21:55):
Jerlin?
Speaker 9 (21:57):
Hey, nice to talk to you again. Claim back, I
am a computer programmer, and you all just kind of
covered the points that I made to producer Greg. I
used to work for a company that was multinational and
it was kind of a it passed the initial startup dhase,
but it was a pretty young company and they were
still trying to trade on their startup culture and a
(22:18):
lot of the programmers I worked with were h one
V visa holders from India, and I think I couldn't
prove it, but I'm pretty sure that they and we
never discussed it because that's tachy in spite of what
kids these days think. I've noticed it's the trend among
millennials and generations. Need to discuss your salary. Don't do that, kids,
(22:38):
it's bad. Anyway, we never talked about it, but I'm
pretty sure all of those programmers from India were making
a lot less than the rest of us were, and
they were very good at their jobs, but not necessarily
better than the rest of us.
Speaker 5 (22:50):
Who were.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Sorry to cut you off, Jerlyn, but you feel like
in your experience that they could have found American workers
who could have done the job that these H one
B workers were being hired to do.
Speaker 9 (23:03):
Yes, I think they could have, and I think they
would have had to pay them more. And I think
that my Indian coworkers were happy to accept less money
because they got to stay in America. I think we're
just making are exactly correct.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Thank you for the call. I mean, this is fantastic.
By the way, I wanted you guys who had experience.
I appreciate Jaa Lynn. Let's go to gem in North Carolina.
You've run a business and you've had you say dozens
of H one B employees. First question for you, could
you not have found Americans able to do those jobs?
Second question for you, what, if anything, do you think
(23:39):
should be changed about the policy or do you think
it works well?
Speaker 10 (23:42):
Now, well, great to be with you, Clay and Buck. First,
let me just say that the H one B program
is abused in various places around the country, and particularly
in the IT arena. I will tell you that the
dozens of H one bs that I managed, we hired
them for one specific purpose, and that was because they
were more productive than their equivalent American counterparts. When you
(24:04):
run a business, it's the bottom line that drives your business.
You've got to be productive. And if you've got foreign
workers who are willing to work harder, with more attention
to detail than their counterparts in America, then you're just
drawn to have to hire them and keep them employed.
We always were on the search for hard working American
workers in the IT arena, particularly in the data warehousing
(24:26):
business intelligence arena, but we just couldn't find the ones
that could work at the same level, the same degree
of attention to detail.
Speaker 4 (24:33):
So your position is there was no fungible alternative for
American workers. You legitimately believe you couldn't have run your
business without being able to hire these individuals.
Speaker 10 (24:44):
We couldn't work, We couldn't be as competitive as a
business by hiring workers that were fifty percent less productive
than their H.
Speaker 8 (24:52):
One B counterparts.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Where did you go to get your workers? Mostly India?
Speaker 10 (24:57):
Most of them were South Asia Indian. In fact, I
still have maintained relationships with a lot of them. One
other thing that's been missing in all of this, when
you're looking at a merit based immigration program, there's no
better kickstart for that than the H one B program
because a good percentage of those do become American citizens
over time, and they add so much value to our
employment sector.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Thank you for the call. David and Raleigh. You say
you have been an engineering manager.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
I think that's what that says for fifteen years and
worked with a lot of H one B employees.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Your take, Yeah, I believe.
Speaker 5 (25:33):
That for the most part. Laura's right. We're flooding the
market with too many engineers, and it's clearly disrupting the
supply chain of engineers. If you look at when I
came into the industry in the early two thousands, engineers
aren't making that much more than justice for inflation than
we were back then. But I think the bigger issue,
(25:55):
like when Lutnick came out and said, hey, it's gonna
be one hundred thousand per year per h one B,
a lot of us were excited because that would fix,
you know, the issue to a large extent. But what
will happen is the companies are just going to offshore
these jobs. We're already setting up design houses in India.
Every big fortune five hundred company has a design house
(26:15):
essentially under their umbrella in India right now, and they're
growing those right now. And so we're watching these jobs
just go straight to India.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
Thank you for the call.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Well, you know, part of this is also the upstream,
downstream reality of when you have the consistent and systematic
undercutting of an American wage in a certain industry from
let's be honest, in the case of India, the most
populous country on Earth. There are a lot of Indians,
like one point three billion or something like that, and
(26:47):
when you have this going on, it's going to create
deficiencies in the American sector. Because Clay perfect example, when
I got out of school, when you got out of school.
Everybody in the top of my class at amor unless
you wanted to go Save America at the CIA, everybody
in the top of my class. There were two job
tracks for you, investment banking, management consulting. Both of those,
(27:11):
by the way, you could argue, where's the value add
long you know, there's there's a lot of more detailed discussions.
You know, there's been a whole series TV shows made
about management consulting and like how it's you know, yeah,
lower your costs, raise your profits, Like that's that's brilliant.
Speaker 4 (27:25):
That's the one that's really being a race by AI
because you can plug the large data sets in.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
But those were two areas where in your twenties, you know,
you could come out and you could start making And
I'm talking about twenty years ago, mind you, twenty years ago,
you could make two three hundred grand in your twenties
pretty pretty readily within a couple of years. I mean,
I think the starting salary at the investment banks I
got an offer from one at City Group was like
one hundred and fifty and then with bonus it could
(27:52):
be up to one hundred and you know, if it
was a good year anyway, very variable. But the point is,
you went to be an engineer, you make a like
seventy or eighty grand.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Now, I know it. A lot of you're saying, well,
that's a great job, that's a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Sure, but if you had the grades to be a
top engineering recruit, you also probably had the grades to
go work at McKenzie and tell people how to run
their companies that you've never run before and make a
whole lot of money. So this is the I'm just
saying the incentives that have been set up because people
were thinking, oh, well, coding almost became or you know,
(28:24):
a lot of these computer skills that we're hiring h
oneb's for ore back office. And as long as you're
in a back office situation, you're never going to really
be rinting your own ticket and determining your own fate.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
No doubt, we still got a bunch of calls. We'll
get to some of those calls when we come back.
I appreciate everybody reaching out and sharing what your perspectives
on what is a challenging situation. Will continue to break
all that down going forward. But in the meantime, Buck,
I think you got something for us here.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
I do.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Indeed, my friends, Good Ranchers, I've got Captain flatt visiting
down here. That's right, Captain Flatley. He's a captain of
airlines or airline flying rather, and he likes a great
steak just like I do, and so does my wife,
and we go to Good Ranchers for them. My friends,
we are stocked for this holiday season thanks to Good Ranchers.
(29:19):
They deliver great tasting steaks, burgers, pork chops, bacon, even salmon.
It arrives via overnight shipping pack securely, ensuring freshnet freshness.
It's like having a restaurant meal at home every night. Look,
no matter how good a cookie you are, if you
don't have high quality proteins, you're not gonna be at
that top tier of deliciousness at your kitchen table. Good
Ranchers gives you exactly what you need, the raw materials
(29:41):
for the best dinner. You're gonna have a great time
with your family. And it's all really good, top quality,
top tier stuff too, No antibiotics, no hormones.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
We're both subscribers, Clay and I. You should be too.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
You'll get twenty five dollars off every box delivered, free shipping,
and a free gift in every order for all life,
the shop America's best meat. Visit goodranchers dot com. Start
your subscription today and if you order before December first,
and you're a first time subscriber, use my name Buck
as your promo code. You'll get an additional one hundred
dollars off your first three orders plus free meat for life.
(30:16):
That's code Buck for one hundred dollars off plus free
meat for life, Good ranchers dot Com code Buck.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
You ain't imagining it.
Speaker 6 (30:25):
The world has gone insane. Reclaim your sanity with Clay
and Buck. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
Welcome back in Clay Travis bock Sexton Show. We appreciate
all of you hanging out with us as we are
rolling through the Thursday edition of the program. Still have
a ton of people who want to weigh in this
h one b idea debate, I think is one that
many people have strong takes on. And let's see Jeff
(30:57):
and New Orleans what you got for us.
Speaker 8 (30:59):
Jeff, I used to be an engineer and got forced
out of that career field because of the H one
v vass.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
Because you were competing with foreign sorry, because you were
forced out because there were people who would take lower
salaries to do the job that you were doing.
Speaker 8 (31:18):
Correct And one case in particular one of my coworkers,
when you're not in union, there's no set pay rates,
no pay grades, and so you just negotiate for whatever
you want. Well, I had one particular coworker who had
never been in the United States before and negotiated his
(31:38):
salary based on what he thought his budget was going
to be. He knew what a one bedroom apartment in mumbaikos,
he knew what the exchange rate was, He could do
the math, and so he figured that he could get
a one bedroom apartment in the middle of downtown Chicago
for four hundred and fifty dollars a month, and he
negotiated his salary based on that. Then he gets the
(32:01):
United States and he realizes he's been screwed, and he
calls the Home Office asking for a pay raise. After
they stop laughing at him, they said, you've got two choices.
You can either fulfill the contract as you originally signed it,
or you can get deported.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
That's the end of it.
Speaker 8 (32:21):
And I'm having a call gotihape my own salary competing
against this.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Yeah, look, thanks for the call.
Speaker 4 (32:27):
This is what's not supposed to happen, Buck, but that
many people feel is happening, which is American based workers
are competing with H one B employees who are actually
doing the same jobs.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
This is where I think we need to inject also
into the conversation America and Americans. First, I'm hearing a
lot of on the more pro H one B side, Oh,
they work so hard, Oh they'll work for a little
bit less pay, or whatever it is. And to this
I just want to say, yeah, but Americans should get priority.
(33:03):
I don't think it should be a controversial thing. Someone
should have to be clay so much better than their
American counterpart for us to say we're going to bring
you from wherever you are on the other side of
the world. You're not an American. We're going to put
you in a chair and pay you a salary and
give you a role that an American could do. It
really should only be that an American. It's not possible.
(33:25):
I keep hearing like, oh, they're a little more efficient,
or they take a little less pay, or they the
whole program was set it wasn't set up so that
a company can have a little advantage over other companies.
It was there is nobody else who can do this,
and I'm not here, and a lot of there's nobody
else who can do this, I'm hearing, well, I had
some good experiences with that.
Speaker 4 (33:44):
Well, what a good analogy that you made earlier, and
I think one of our callers made is if sho
hey Otani, you know, is a such a unique talent
in Major League Baseball. I don't know if he's qualifying
some of you guys may know. I don't know if
athletes qualify under H one B VSUS to be able
to come in. But if you are one of the
(34:04):
best in the world at what you do and otherwise
you would not be able to come into the country,
that's a great example. You mentioned the NBA. The NBA
is a global game, the best basketball players in the world.
There's only whatever it is, four hundred and fifty jobs
that NBA players do. If seventy five of them are
foreigners and they happen to be one of the best
(34:25):
four hundred and fifty people at something, but to your point,
there's a lot of Yeah, basically, this guy has a
skill set that's very similar to the skill sets that
exist in the United States. They are not one of
the best extraordinary talent people. And this is what Jay
and Florida is saying, Jay, what you got for us?
Speaker 2 (34:45):
Yeah?
Speaker 10 (34:46):
You're there?
Speaker 11 (34:47):
Yeah, yeah, okay yeah. I think if listening to the
conversations here, I think you can notice that the people
that have been speaking in favor of the H one
b ones are people that are doing the engineering. They're
the ones that are managing higher up in the companies
whose bonuses depend on how little their department spends on
(35:09):
what they're trying to accomplish. But I've got my son
has a master's electrical engineering. He's been working for a
major defense contractor for about the last ten years, and
his job, which he really enjoys, was to, you know,
be given a project, design it, take it into the lab,
test it, and you know, produce the product and then
(35:33):
go around and market it. But what has happened over
the last few years is that basically he was told
that why should we use you when we can hire
five engineers for your salary from India or China. Now
he's a defense contractor and supposedly the people that are.
You know, these are classified jobs are not supposed to
(35:55):
be worked on by foreigners. And what he has become
now is they've tiken him out of the lab and
he's become like.
Speaker 8 (36:05):
The face of the.
Speaker 11 (36:07):
Products where he's going around to other defense contractors to
try to convince them to use our product. And he's
talking with the American faces of those other defense contracts.
Speaker 4 (36:18):
Thank you for the call. Sorry to cut you off.
We're coming up on the end of the hour, so
we have a hard out. I think the other interplay here,
which this gentleman's talking about is H one B requires
you to come to the country. They're certainly still a
lot of offshoring, which is what he was saying, like
his son's job, based on his salary, can be replaced
(36:39):
by Indians working overseas, and that is part of the
interplay here, but a little bit of a different dynamic.
We come back a couple of breaking news stories we
want to hit you with.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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.
Medal of Honor: Stories of Courage
Rewarded for bravery that goes above and beyond the call of duty, the Medal of Honor is the United States’ top military decoration. The stories we tell are about the heroes who have distinguished themselves by acts of heroism and courage that have saved lives. From Judith Resnik, the second woman in space, to Daniel Daly, one of only 19 people to have received the Medal of Honor twice, these are stories about those who have done the improbable and unexpected, who have sacrificed something in the name of something much bigger than themselves. Every Wednesday on Medal of Honor, uncover what their experiences tell us about the nature of sacrifice, why people put their lives in danger for others, and what happens after you’ve become a hero. Special thanks to series creator Dan McGinn, to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and Adam Plumpton. Medal of Honor begins on May 28. Subscribe to Pushkin+ to hear ad-free episodes one week early. Find Pushkin+ on the Medal of Honor show page in Apple or at Pushkin.fm. Subscribe on Apple: apple.co/pushkin Subscribe on Pushkin: pushkin.fm/plus
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