Ryan Girdusky sits down with immigration expert Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, for a deep dive into America’s immigration debate — from rising housing costs to border security and deportations.
As new data links immigration levels to increased demand for housing, Ryan and Mark discuss how both illegal and legal immigration impact home prices, rent, and working-class Americans. They also examine President Trump’s immigration enforcement strategy, the future of mass deportations, workplace enforcement, self-deportation efforts, and the renewed push to finish the border wall.
Plus, they revisit the forgotten history of the Barbara Jordan Immigration Commission, why bipartisan immigration reform failed in the 1990s, and how past decisions shaped today’s immigration challenges.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Grodski. Thank
you guys for being here. A new study by the
Federal Reserve found that the Biden's illegal immigration wave raised
prices of housing and rent for young people and working
class families. We're going to get to that, and also
like recentcities on the deportation by the White House, what's
going on with DHS And actually I'm also going to
(00:21):
bring up a listener requested question with Marco Coreyan about
Barbara Jordan and what Democrats were like in the nineties
around the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. It's
going a great, great fascinating thing that I want to
bring to my audience because they've asked about it. But
first let's talk about Grand Platner and Maine because we
have to. I mean, everyone's talking about it. Allegedly, he
(00:45):
is trying to negotiate the terms of his surrender and
holding the party of hostage.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
It's very juicy.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
So the last of Platner's allies, big allies, have backed
away from him, with Bernie Sanders privately calling him and
asking him to step aside from the race. All he
has now as far as people doubling down from him
is like Sunny Haustin from the view who is the
most racist woman on television, and sank Yougar from young
(01:14):
Turks who never saw an issue that the Jews aren't
responsible for. Platner's campaign has stopped running ads on meta
platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. As of Tuesday, they
were running even late into Monday evening after the scandal broke,
So he's kind of really winding down the campaign, but
(01:35):
allegedly he's trying to negotiate who is picked in his place.
Progressives are already spinning the narrative that Chuck Schumer, of
all people, is really to blame for all of this
stress from Platner because he tried to clear the field
for Governor Janet Mills and no one was excited about
the seventy nine year old candidate. According to The New
(01:58):
York Times, Platner said on private call with the campaign
step on Monday evening that he believed he still had
the leverage to influence which can replace him on the ticket.
According to three people familiar with the conversation. On the call,
he did not announce his plans withdrawal, but implied such
a decision would becoming the people said, so, who does
(02:18):
Platner want to pict to replace him? All signs are
pointing to a man named Troy Jackson. Who is Troy Jackson.
He's a longtime politico in Maine. He ran for governor
remain this year and earned the support of Bernie Sanders,
Rocanna of the Democratic Socials of America, and of course,
Graham Plantner himself. He even appeared at rallies with Plantner.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
He came in.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Third place in the first round of the governor's election
with twenty one percent because their stupid ranked choice voting rules,
ended up in third place in the final or the
second to final round, which is shy of twenty nine percent.
It would make the most sense from a progressive standpoint
for Jackson to fill in the shoes of Planner. He
is the president of the Maine State Senate. He's only
(02:59):
fifty eight yearsyears old, and he is formerly a Republican.
Like Plantner, he has also voted for Susan Collins in
the past. He used to be pro life and against
gay marriage, but switched his positions on both those issues
and endorsed Bernie Sanders for president, but within hours of
announcing that he was looking to possibly replace Platner. Stories
and rumors have flooded the Internet about Jackson and some
(03:23):
uncomfortable things he has done in the past. Allegedly, he's
had some angry issues. A senior fellow at the Center
for American Progress tweeted that as as the main Senate president,
Jackson got into a heated argument with a female colleague
and struck her with a bottle that he threw at her.
There were allegedly many eyewitnesses to this incident. Now, Troy
(03:45):
Jackson has a discord server. If you don't know what
that is, it's like a chat website. We can go
in and chat and add things with each other like
a messaging board. It's mostly done by younger people and
some politic laugh activists on the far left. People send
to be pretty edgy on discord server. So put a
(04:07):
pin in that we may come back to the Troy
Jackson discord server in due time. But according to his
discord server, he said that this was not true, that
he actually did not throw a glass at this female colleague,
that he had thrown a water bottle on the floor.
It shows that they're already in full spin mode, that
(04:30):
they're working as a campaign almost instantaneously to try to
get him to get the nomination. Planner has until Monday
to get out of this race. It's not a lot
of time. If for some reason he decides to stay in,
there's nothing Democrats can do to get him off. It
really depends on Planter himself. If he withdraws. The State
(04:51):
Democratic Party has until July twenty seventh to name a replacement.
Main law does not dictate what process the State Democratic
Party would use to replace Planner should he step aside,
So this could be a very open campaign, it could
be behind closed doors. As I said yesterday's emergency episode,
things have to be done relatively quickly. There is as
(05:14):
of now, and they Planner are still in the races
and recording this podcast, and Planner are still in the race.
There are twenty days to find this replacement.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
And that's it.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
This is like, uh, you know, a Kamala Harris style sprint,
and they just blew through fifteen million dollars to campaign
for a candidate who's on the precipice of dropping out.
And the new candidate is going to start with zero
name ID nationwide, and they are kind of between a
rock and a hard place top Main Democratic officials just
(05:45):
according to The New York Times, top Main Democratic officials
have discussed possible plans to replace Planner on the ballad
with the options of pop up conventions on the weekend
of July twenty fifth to choose a nominee or hold
a statewide caucus, effectively reduce doing the party's primary election.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
According to two people who talk to officials and spoke
on the conditions.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Of anonymity, here's the problem with that Main takes so
long with the ranked choice voting. I don't know about
how a convention would work if ranked choice voting does
or does not count. And also how does a candidate
raise money in time to get activists together to do
(06:26):
something like that to campaign across the state in multiple conventions.
It's very difficult. This is not an easy ordeal whatsoever.
Officials have already ruled out that having a state party
committee do it, which would include about one hundred members.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
She's not me.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
They say they're not going to do that. They've also
said that Jenamills is not going to be selected. She's
the governor. Of course, this is a mess. Democrats are
really in a pickle. If they pick a candidate who
is too progressive. They run the risk of finding a
candidate with ishe shoes personal issues like Platner, or someone
(07:03):
who's so closely tied to Planner and campaigns so aggressively
for him that they run the risk of making him
putting him in Platner's shadow. I mean, everyone's talking about
the rape allegation, but Platner had all the warning signs
way before them, from the Nazi tattoo to the Reddit post.
(07:25):
Everyone kind of knew what they were doing and where
they were getting. If they pick a moderate cadet with
now close association to Platner, they also run the risk
of alienating progressive activists from showing up and donating. It's
a mess. As I said before, it's really a tough
spot that Democrats have found themselves in. And if they
(07:45):
do a convention, it is likely that only the most
radical members of the party will show up to do
to do anything, So it's very confusing. You know what
else is a mess the country When Joe Biden was
president and in the illegal immigration way that he he
had allowed in this country, it is truly chaotic. The
numbers on the details on that are coming up next
(08:07):
stay tuned. Marco Corein is the executive director of the
Center for Immigration Cities, and he's a friend of mine.
So Mark the Federal Reserve announced that there are the
wave of illegal aliens under Biden caused a spike in
housing and rent that obviously affected younger people, working class people.
President Trump posted on to social quote, Biden's illegal immigrant
(08:29):
wave drove up home prices by thirty percent. The Washington
Post responded with a follow up story, It was like, actually,
the study found that the inflow of unauthor unauthorized workers,
which is, you know, illegal immigrants equal to one percent
of the local workforce or raised area home prices by
two point two percent, and the estimate that unauthorized immigration
(08:50):
raised home prices by just six point six percent. Still
a lot in early twenty twenty one to early twenty
twenty four, and the actual home price was twenty two
point four percent, So it was only thirty percent of
the overall home price growth. Still a lot. That's a
lot for people who make our working class or young
(09:10):
What does that say about if it's if illegal aliens
in that three year period rose prices for home by
thirteen percent and prices for rent by nine percent. What
does it say about our legal immigration system, which is
nearly as pervasive as the Biden wave and it's never ending.
(09:32):
How is that affecting home prices for working class people
and for young people?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
The effect of immigration on raising rent and raising home
prices is something that for at least a couple of
decades kondomists to recognize this isn't some new thing. And
the response that a lot of the libertarians make is what,
we just need to build more houses. It's like, okay, well,
you know, I'm not against that, but you know, if
(09:58):
there were less gravity, I could jump higher too, you
know what I mean. So you know, you've got NIMBYism,
and even without nimbiism, just just natural limitations on how
fast you can build stuff, you know, how densely you
want to build things all that, and immigration always exceeds
the ability to do that and really does raise the
(10:20):
issue of you know, is the only point of immigration
policy to cram in as many people as quickly as
possible and we need to adjust everything else to that.
It's crazy, right, And you know it's so funny. One
of these libertarians from Cato, I forget which one he was, like,
look at all the rural counties that are dying and
(10:41):
losing population.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
This is why we should have mass immigration. And I
was like, okay, but they're not going there either. We're
all living in the same thirty metropolitan areas where there
is limitations on homes. And if you look at data
on what kind of structures people want to live in
and people want to have families, and it's always single
(11:04):
family homes, like it is just what it is. You
can build as many high raises if you want, but
you know, you live in a million dollar, two bedroom,
two bathroom, the chances of that, one it's affordable for
most people is very low. And two that that people
who are want you know, larger families who live there
is virtually impossible. And we've just been seeing this massive
(11:27):
flow of legal immigration for thirty some odd years. And
when do you remember when JD. Vans made this comment
and was basically laughed at for saying that legal immigration
was causing higher home prices.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Yeah, absolutely, and it was. It was again he was
mocked for it.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
And yet you know, economists back, I mean, we have
we're actually writing something on this issue. We've got an
article coming out in an academic journal. This fall on
this issue. Economists have been writing about this for twenty years.
This isn't some new thing, you know, the advance. I
don't remember if this was during a campaign or the campaign.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yeah, this was. It's kind of a standard thing.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
In other words, it's like, well, the sky is blue
and rain is wet, and yet it was treated as
this absurd, you know, kind of kooky conspiracy, nativist hater thing,
when in fact it's just math.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
There's no way around that.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
They can only they will only deal with the supply
and demand from the supply issue, not from the demand issue,
which increases exponentially with mass immigration. I want to ask
you also about mass deportation. So Mark Wayne Mullen has
said that he's basically running a more discreet DHS, and
there are claims that they are doing more work set
(12:45):
enforcements and the deportations. There was ten thousand and five days.
What is the status of our mass deportation effort by
the Trump administration under Mullen?
Speaker 3 (12:57):
I think yeah, I mean yeah, I think early on, well,
let me start this start with this. The only way
you can get real reductions at scale of the illegal
population is by doing work related enforcement. You've got to
flush illegal aliens out of the job market, because if
you can't get a job and can't work legally, or
(13:20):
you can only work, you know, for cash episodically under
the table, which most illegals don't do, you're not going
to stay here something less appealing to stay and less
appealing to come. The problem is the President is kind
of ambivalent about work related enforcement, and so I think
DHS originally at the beginning of the administration said okay, look,
(13:42):
we got to do something here to goose self deportation.
And so the thing we're going to do is have
this theatrical, high profile stuff that Bovino was in charge of,
but you know, he was just the instrument of it.
And it kind of blew up in their face in Minnesota.
And look, the people the protesters weren't protesting. These were
(14:04):
communist provocateurs. I mean, let's face it. But nonetheless it
worked from their perspective. And so what Trump tasked first
Homan and then picking Mullen to be Secretary of Homeland
Security with is do the enforcement, but keep it out
of the news. Because, as one of my colleagues has said,
(14:28):
even after Minnesota, the majority of voters still want all
illegal aliens out. They just don't want to see it
and hear about it, right, And so that's kind of
what they've been tasked with. And so you know, it
looks they've got to gear they've been gearing up to that.
(14:49):
Numbers arrests and deportations have been going They fell initially
after Minneapolis, they've been going up. But the key issue
is are they going to be doing work related enforcement
at scale, not just occasional one here and there. And
that doesn't just mean rais Obviously, you've got to have
some actual raids of work sites where you know there's
(15:12):
lots of illegals and your arrest a bunch of people.
They also need to do what I call briefcase enforcement
as opposed to the body armor enforcement, and that is
you send employers letters from Social Security saying, hey this
payroll info. You said, this doesn't match our records. Because
most illegals work on the books, they're just using fake
or stolen social Security numbers. Say hey, here's these people.
(15:37):
Info doesn't match. ICE is going to come and audit
you figure it out. That kind of you know, if
you will paperwork enforcement, like I said, I've been trying
to get it called briefcases opposed to body armour enforcement
really can work, But the President's ambivalent about it. And
(15:58):
I think it's both because he hears from a lot
of business people who, you know, whine about their can't
you know, Americans are too lazy to work. But also
I think there may be a political concern. They don't
want to cause too much political I mean too much economic,
you know, dislocation in the run.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Up to election.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
So the key for me, the tell is going to
be whether they're serious about this. The tell is are
they seriously stepping up work related enforcement all over rather
than just an occasional one for the press release.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Well, and it's also when you do these large raids
and they do make a lot of news, you do
still instill concern among other illegals that they just self
deport Sure, and we don't have real self deportation numbers.
I mean, we have all these estmenates from all these
different organizations. Who knows what the actual number is, but
it's clear that self deportations were going up. You're a
(16:57):
Christineome for all of her falls, and there were men
that was a successful part of the administration. There's alos
thing I just read about a little while before getting
in this podcast, a nineteen ninety six law allowing illegals
to be fine for every day they stay in the
United States, according to the.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
MARSHA, after they're after they're order deported. Correct, when you
get a what's called a final order of removal, you've
done all your due process or whatever it is. Every
day you stay, it's almost one thousand dollars a day
fine after the ninety days you're supposed to leave.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
And so they're now starting to levy these fines.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Yes, sixty five are in thousands, and some of them
there's one or two that have been like a million
or two million dollars.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Yeah, sixty five thousand illegals have been fined thirty six
billion dollars.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Yea.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
In some instances you're going to get the money, but
most you know, if you're finding somebody a million dollars,
you're probably not going to get a million dollars out
of an illegal alien who ignored his But you can
repose car, you can seize his bank account, and you
can scare other people to say, holy moly, you know
I've got this money saved up you know, and we've
(18:11):
got a car and let's pack up the kids and
get out of here before the Repoman comes. So that's
absolutely an important thing, and they are doing that. My
point on the my criticism on work site enforcement is
not that they're doing nothing else. It's that they need
to also do this, because they're doing bank related enforcement
now too, because under George W. Bush, the Treasury Department
(18:33):
actually issued a regulation authorizing banks to open bank accounts
for illegal aliens. It's insane, and so that's another thing,
another way of making it impractical to live here, so
people choose to leave.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
There are so many times when you hear about a
law that favors non citizens where you're like, wait, what
is our government doing? Tell me if you can about
the TPS. Now, this court rules in favor of the
Trome administration that Haitians and Syrians they have to go home.
Is there is there any effort to now get them,
(19:10):
Because there's hundreds of thousands of Haitians in Syrians who
are supposed to be here for a short period of
time and they've been here for decades, is there any
real effort now to support them.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
That's a good question.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
We're going to have to see because their tps only
ended July first or June thirtieth or whatever it is.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
And so I don't know.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
I mean, we're going to see what they're going to do.
They haven't advertised what they're going to do about that.
And understand, the Supreme Court decision wasn't just about those
two nationalities. That was the case that came before them.
But what Supreme Court said is the English language means
what it means, and when the bill says the determinations
of the administration about starting or ending or not renewing
(19:52):
tps are not reviewable by courts period. And so that's
what they said, is that not words mean what they mean.
And so there are gonna be other grants of tps
that the administration is and again they're not ending them,
they're just letting them expire and not renewing them. And
so you know, this is the way it should be.
(20:14):
Temporary he means temporary. And so again this is another.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Thing that on CNN one time, it did not go
over well with the liberals and the panel. Yeah, last
question at current events the border wall. I get asked
this all the time. Is there arms for construction happening.
Is there any effort happening? Do you know, can you
give me any update because it's really actually hard to
find news about border walk construction.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
I interviewed actually Rodney Scott, who's the head of Customs
and Border Protection, which oversees all the border stuff, both
the customs and the border patrol and everything else. And yeah,
he said there I think his number was something like
six miles a week are being completed, and so yeah,
they're doing construction all over and he said the primary
(21:02):
wall they're looking at completing this year, and in some
places there's going to be a secondary second level of wall,
second layer, and the new construction.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Yeah, this is new construction as well.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Wow, the second layer is they're talking about having done
next summer.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Because I've been to the border and there are times
where you have the border wall and then there's just
a giant gap and then there's nothing, and then the
water wall starts again and you're like, why.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Is this Well, in some of those places, the reason
you have that is because the whole point to a
wall is to slow people. It's not that somebody wants
to get over the wall that can't well, I mean
your Grandma can't. But I mean people who really want
to get.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Over the wall. I'm not gonna lie. Well, I mean,
look mean neither.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
But so, but the point is the real point of
a wall is to slow people down so the border
patrol can get there or can get them before they
get across or get away. You know, it's never kind
of a build it and forget it thing. It's a tool,
along with cameras and everything else. And I asked Rodney,
(22:09):
you know how many miles it? He said, basically there.
The way they're looking at the wall is it's gonna
be Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. But with
specific places they're not gonna build it because there's no
sense to it. For instance, there's a near Big Ben
National Park in Texas, West West Texas. There are places
(22:31):
there where the Mexican side of the border is a
like a two hundred foot cliff, and so nobody's coming
across there. I mean, that's not you know, they'll go
on other places. In fact, I was there on the
Rio grand with a with a guide, you know, a
river guide, and he said, behold the Great Wall of Chihuahua.
(22:56):
And so there are places like that where there's no
point to it. But basically this point was, with certain
narrow exceptions, they're looking at pretty much doing it everywhere.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Okay, So I had a listener. I have a segment
on my show called asked Me Anything, and a listener
asked me months ago, I talked to you about this
sense about Barbara Jordan. For those of you who don't know,
she was a congressman from Texas, the first black woman
elected congressman, and in the nineties she vo from the South,
from the South right. She was not just Texas, from
the whole South. Yes, And in the nineties Bill Clinton
(23:28):
put her in charge of a commission on why explain
the commision. Commission was to explore why poor people were
staying poor? Well, it was specifically an immigration commission. I
thought it became immigration, but didn't start that way.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
No, No, it started the whole point was an immigration was
called the US Commission on Immigration Reform.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Now, what was the finding? What year was this and
what was the findings? Her reports came out in early
ninety ninety five ninety six. There were like several reports,
one on enforcement, one on legal immigration, and then they
had to kind of package them all together and release them.
And the upshot was one She really put this well
(24:10):
in congressional testimony. Integrity in immigration means those who should
not get in don't get in, those who should get
in do get in, and those who shouldn't be here
are made the lead. I mean, it's kind of like
third grade stuff.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
But unfortunately it required saying. And they called for what
is now we call everify, and they were really quite
It was a pretty strong recommendation on all the enforcement areas,
and they got all Democrat and Republican commissioners to agree
on that, and they also called for They didn't say
(24:53):
the point of it was reducing immigration, but they said,
you know, we need to have we need to fix
lead immigration such that we promise and are able to
deliver what we promise, so we don't have long weight line.
You know, people have to wait forty years for a
green card. The result of that, the upshot of it
was reducing immigration thirty forty percent. And even there, all
(25:16):
the commissioners but one signed onto it, and the one
who didn't sign onto it was the president of the
Immigration Lawyer's Lobby, but all the rest of them agreed
to it. So this was a serious proposal that President
Clinton actually had to take seriously when Barbara Jordan presented it,
because she was not just a congresswoman. I mean, she
(25:38):
was a civil rights phenomenon. She made her bones nationally
during the Watergate hearing. So she was a serious Democrat.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
She was a Democrat and emphasis.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
She was a Democratic.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
She had real haft and real legitimacy and what sabotaged the.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Well, that's why I want to get to so yeah,
so wait, so she proposes this. It calls for all
these enforcems of illegal immigration and a national reduction of
legal imgration by forty percent, which at the time would
have been basically reduced immigration down to the nineteen eighties
or seventies levels something like that.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
Six hundred thousand is kind of what it would have
been to write so like one point one million.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
It would have reduced overall immigration from today by twenty
million people, about twenty twenty five million people about over
the course of like all these years since. Oh sure, yeah, yeah.
So she puts this proposal out. She Clinton looks like
he is going to back everything in her proposal.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Correct, yeah, okay, he yeah, he you know, he welcomed
her to the White House and said great things about
the findings, and then she died of muscular dystrophy or
multiple sclerosis, I forget which she died prematurely.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
But it was Republicans that really destroy that, all the
reductions on legal immigration. Who were the Republicans that really
worked against that?
Speaker 3 (27:02):
The I mean again, I don't want to look the
Democrats off the hook here, but yes, when you got
onto into Capitol Hill, because remember this was the first
Republican majority in both Houses of Congress since World War
two or right after World War two, so this was
you know, the Gingrich Revolution and all that. So what
happened was Spencer Abraham, who was the Senator from Michigan,
(27:27):
Republican really libertarian senator from Michigan. He engineered in the
Senate a splitting of the bill. There was an overall
bill based on her commission's recommendations, and he said, you
know what we should do. We should have two separate
bills because we shouldn't deal with legal and illegal immigration
(27:49):
and the same bill. So the illegal immigration stuff passed,
and there's all kinds of strong and important measures in there.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
And a lot of that is what Trump's used to
death exactly that Barbara Jordan.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
It was, and it was phenominally and important the legal immigration.
Once it was cut off, and once she died and
wasn't there to defend it, the whole point was to
kill it by separating it out. And yes it was Republicans,
specifically Spence Abraham, but really a lot of other Republicans
were happy to have it.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
There was Paul Ryan's mentor who helped killed it, whose
name I had just lost was just in my mind.
And then the congressman from Texas to Brandon Gill ended
up taking a seat later on obviously.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
Well look he was the one fighting to keep the
whole thing together. His name was Lamar Smith.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
He was a talking about I'm talking congressman, but I
don't know who it was.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Yeah, yeah, but I mean Spence Abraham really was the
one who took the lead. Oh what's his name? I
think you're thinking of Congressman Cannon from Utah. He was
terrible on this issue too. All of these people are gone.
This was thirty years ago, right, I'm still here somehow.
But anyway, yes, it was Republicans who were responsible. I mean,
(29:06):
in a sense, if you think about it, Republicans really
are responsible for the high level of legal immigration because
the nineteen ninety Immigration Act, which increased immigration even beyond
what it was in the eighties, was under George H. W.
Bush's watch, and then Spence Abraham killed the immigration bill,
(29:27):
the immigration part of the Jordan Commission, and then in
Trump won it was Paul Ryan who killed the administration
proposal that would have ammed Trump administration posed that would
have amnesteed some Dreamers but in exchange for a whole
bunch of loophole closings and reductions in legal immigration.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Paul Ryan is the one who killed that.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Dick Army is I'm thinking, by the way, Oh yeah,
Dick Army. Nick Army was the one who was branded
and for place later on.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
It is really the corporate arm of the GOP that
has It's very funny, and I wrote about this in
my book when I wrote it years ago. But they
are the ones who hated Trump the most and are
responsible more than any of the group of people for
his rise. It is very ironic that they refuse to
give in even the smallest concessions towards immigration restrictionism because
(30:20):
they always need that cheap labor mark. Thank you for
coming this podcast where we'll go to read more about
you and Center for Immigration Studies and everything you guys do.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
The centers online at CIS dot org and all our
stuff is there. We have new blog posts every day practically,
and if you have a taste for snark and sarcasm,
I'm on Twitter. It's spelled X but it still pronounced
twitter at mark s as in Stephen Crecory Mark s
Crecoryan Well.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
I love everything CIS puts out. I read it and
reference it all the time. So thank you on this podcast.
I appreciate you and check out all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment. Part
of the Ask Me Anything Segment E only Ryan at
Numbers Gamepodcast dot com. That's Ryan at Numbers Plural Numbers
Game Podcast dot com. First question today comes from John
from Tennessee. He was, Hey, Ryan, a huge fan of
the podcast. I'm always one of your first listeners when
a new episode drops on YouTube because you probably clicked
label to get every episode. And if you like this podcast,
(31:20):
also subscribe on YouTube and click the bell so you
don't miss an episode. He says, you're basically one of
my only regular political listens. I really really appreciate that
you make everyone else sound dumb.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Okay, I'll take it. You wrote.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
My eighteen year son is about to start his freshman
year of college. He's very ANTIAI. He understandably feels like
it's robbing his generation of the future in so many ways.
He's not alone, especially among young people. In response, I'm
encouraging him to pursue AI policymaking as a career path
because his views is his view reviews is shared by
a majority of people right now, and someone has been
(31:55):
doing hard work to keep AI in check. However, that's
all I know about that. My question for you is
how should he begin to pursue AI policy as a
career path and what do you need to major in
during college? Are there anythink tanks or policy groups he
should reach out to to begin his college career. Honestly,
any recommendations would be great, because I don't know how
to help get him started. Okay, because AI is so new,
(32:19):
this is actually very difficult. So there's one group that
is I know of Coled Humans First. It's headed up
by my friend Amy Kramer. She's been on this podcast.
I would definitely reach out to them about what they're
doing as far as AI policy stuff goes. What we're
seeing right now with a lot of AI policies in
(32:39):
terms of safety regulations is the AI industries are starting
to do regulations themselves and pursue regulations. Now that's not
always because they're trying to make the world a better places,
because they're sometimes making regulations that make new AI business.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Is harder to start.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
They're basically trying to corner the entire market of a
booming market. What I would say is this, he should
one no AI back, back and forward. I would even
recommend him getting a job or starting a job in
an AI company, working for an AI company to learn
(33:18):
it better. I know he's anti.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
AI, but.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
Whatever he could learn about the industry is extremely useful.
And then he has to know and learn the laws
of whatever he wants to do. As far as lobbying
federally or state lobbying or city lobbying. Lobbying you're from Tennessee,
so that would be Marshall Blackburn as governor, I would
(33:43):
and she's very Blackburn is very thoughtful on a bipolicy,
one of the smarter members of Congress of either party
on AI policy and she's very protective of certain industries
from AI. So what I would do is I would
do an internship. This is my kid, I would say.
(34:04):
I would say, either do an internship with an AI
company to learn about the industry as much as possible,
or work for a lobbying shop. But when you work
for a lobbying shop, you don't get topick on which
issues you're necessarily going to lobby on. Behalf of the
only nonprofit that I know of our Humans first. You
could reach out to them as well and see if
they're starting this program. I know they have a good
(34:26):
chunk of money. And I would also look at what
AI industries are doing to lobby because they're doing that
right now as well, and they're funding some of the regulations.
I don't think it's anthropic, but I think it might be.
It's definitely not meta. Maybe is anthropic and not meta.
And open AI is going back and forth on it
(34:48):
as well, So those are the ones that I would
really look at to see how they are effectively trying
to do some sort of lobbying. Florida is going to
be a major place for this. Tennessee be a major
place in this text, be a major place for this
because Republican states are also looking to regulate AI, so
it's not just a California thing, as a lot of
talking heads like to say very ignorantly. Uh, that's what
(35:11):
I would suggest. Look into that. Look into either the law,
the government policies that are that are doing this, or
into the nonprofit of of of humans first, and then
I would honestly tell them, you know, you may hate AYE,
but you have to learn the industry to a point.
So anything you could do to become well acquainted with
(35:32):
the industry is extremely important. Next question comes from Padrol
says probably Praj here as always big fan, love your show,
Love you for listening. I always get super excited when
you read my questions and answer them. Thank you so much. Well,
here's your here's your time. I've seen communism, lived under
communism growing up.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
I wonder where you lived. Email me where you lived.
I'm curious.
Speaker 1 (35:54):
So people in my pure rural community fall for it
when I was born, got nothing back as.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
A result of all of it.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
All leaders of the movement seem seemingly rich due to corruption.
I freaking hate communism now. I can't believe people in
the most prosperous countries in the history of the world,
with such awesome opportunities to be whatever they want to
be if you work hard enough, are falling for the
same dumb, bad free this, free that arguments in front
of my eyes?
Speaker 2 (36:19):
How can someone put.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
The message out there about the bad consequences of communism
and socialism without just saying the word and hoping people
are afraid of those labels. How would you put an
ad out there if you were saying managing Bruce Blakeman's campaign,
because it would be a campaign malpractice for not using
it right. Okay, great question. So Bruce Blakeman's running for
(36:43):
governor of New York State. He's running with Kathy Hople.
He's the county chairman of Nasau County, one of the
largest counties in New York State. What I would say
for Bruce Blakeman is I would try to do the
one I would I would I would say, I mean,
(37:06):
you're advertising different things to different people. So for the suburbs,
I would bring up the most radical elements of what
they have said about the police and what they've said
about about the policing industry. I would actually use that
broader because remember the police. For if you're a middle
class or opper middle class, the police is an institution,
(37:28):
is an institution to protect you if you are working class.
As my family was growing up, my grandparents, my dad's
parents were poor, poor, poor. I'm talking thirteen people, fourteen
people in a one bathroom, four bedroom house with no
(37:48):
running hot water at times and no indoor heat in
New York City in the nineteen seventies. Like they were poor.
They could not afford college like that was of possibility.
The only possibility for a lot of them to get
out of poverty was to become a civil servant. That
(38:10):
is your avenue to the middle class. And for a
lot of Irish people back in the seventies and eighties
in New York and a lot of Latinos in the
twenty twenties, that is your chance. If you join the
civil servant job, you get a pension, you get a
middle class income, you can retire like that is your
opportunity to make it either as a teacher or as
a teacher needs a lot of college, police officer, firefighter, sanitation.
(38:32):
You know, those are the that gives you a level
of respect. I would talk about the fact that socialists
right now in New York City are preventing the hiring
of more police officers. Yes, that makes your area safer,
But more importantly, it's a thousand new police officers, is
(38:52):
one thousand new opportunities for working class people to get
into the middle class and provide them with a job.
That is so critical I think in a lot of poor,
especially Latino heavily areas. I would talk about also where
money is wasted when the money is so big, when
(39:12):
when the budget is so ballooning, I would bring up
the fact that so much of the money is wasted
on nonsense. I bring up every bad program, the amount
of New Yorkers who live on work for nonprofits that
are almost entirely funded by the city, as some astounding rate.
(39:33):
I think it's like nine percent of the entire city's workforce.
It's something like that. Like it it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
I would bring that up.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
I would bring up that we fund nonsensical things, and
the deep level of corruption by the government, government governor,
by the former mayor when it comes to contracting, when
when it is an inside job and you're not part
of it. And then lastly, I would also bring up
the fact that there are I would go to you know,
(40:05):
white male voters, and I would say to them, you
are discriminated against by this governor when it comes to contracting.
You do not have a step up specifically because you
were born as a man who was Caucasian. That is discrimination.
So talk about the discriminating factors. With that, I would
micro tark of those issues across the board and show
(40:26):
how socialism fail without having to just bring it up,
because a lot of times, unless people have real negative
feelings towards one word or that word I would bring
it doesn't create the same type of type of energy.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
Also, I would also.
Speaker 1 (40:41):
Compare it in immigrant communities to other foreign countries. I
would go to the Chinese community and compare it to
the CCP because it's ultimately going to lead down to
the same road in many in many many cases, when
you don't have the freedom and the ability to make
money on your own. Last question is Sean from Utah
A question for you, President Trump has been on the
general election ballot three times in a row. What will
(41:03):
the electric look like without him on the presidential ballot?
Will things look radically different in twenty twenty eight or
things so polarized that as a result, we're pretty much
much be the same. Hope that makes sense. Yeah, that's
an interesting question. So you have to remember one that
the electorate from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty eight is
remarkably different. There's less white people, there's less baby boomers,
(41:24):
there's more Gen z ers, there's more racial diversity. All
those things have changed. Certain areas, certain counties are remarkably different.
The Atlanta suburbs when George W. Bush was running for
president in two thousand and four were two thirds white.
By the time Trump was running twenty twenty four, they
were two thirds non white, that is, and they were
(41:46):
remarkably larger. So all those trends will continue as far
as is there an electorate maybe that is substantially open
to listening towards Republicans messaging without Trump to a point,
but it's on the margins, right. Are there some suburban
(42:07):
voters who just hated Trump and would look at a
different candidate beside Trump? Possibly on the margins, but it's
not going to be substantially different. I think that the
trend line is clearly that working class people will lean
more heavily Republican. I think the opportunities there are still
built on the Latino movement and the Asian movement under Trump,
and of course to get working class white Republicans to vote. Yeah,
(42:33):
I think that the rest of it is kind of
really baked in. I don't see, you know, twenty nine
or thirty nine year old single woman who has never
been married and always vote a Democrat switching the electorate.
There'll be some suburban voters, but not many, and also
depends heavily on who the Democrat nominate. That's a big,
(42:56):
big question. If they nominate a'm Donnie's style socialist, I
think a lot of Jews will just be like this
is over for me. I'm done with this, and you
might see shifts in those kinds of communities as well.
All Right, that's this episode. Thank you guys for listening.
You've liked this podcast, Please like and subscribe on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast, and
I will talk to you guys on Friday.
Speaker 2 (43:17):
Have a great day.
Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Grodski. Thank
you guys for being here. A new study by the
Federal Reserve found that the Biden's illegal immigration wave raised
prices of housing and rent for young people and working
class families. We're going to get to that, and also
like recentcities on the deportation by the White House, what's
going on with DHS And actually I'm also going to
(00:21):
bring up a listener requested question with Marco Coreyan about
Barbara Jordan and what Democrats were like in the nineties
around the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. It's
going a great, great fascinating thing that I want to
bring to my audience because they've asked about it. But
first let's talk about Grand Platner and Maine because we
have to. I mean, everyone's talking about it. Allegedly, he
(00:45):
is trying to negotiate the terms of his surrender and
holding the party of hostage.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
It's very juicy.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
So the last of Platner's allies, big allies, have backed
away from him, with Bernie Sanders privately calling him and
asking him to step aside from the race. All he
has now as far as people doubling down from him
is like Sunny Haustin from the view who is the
most racist woman on television, and sank Yougar from young
(01:14):
Turks who never saw an issue that the Jews aren't
responsible for. Platner's campaign has stopped running ads on meta
platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. As of Tuesday, they
were running even late into Monday evening after the scandal broke,
So he's kind of really winding down the campaign, but
(01:35):
allegedly he's trying to negotiate who is picked in his place.
Progressives are already spinning the narrative that Chuck Schumer, of
all people, is really to blame for all of this
stress from Platner because he tried to clear the field
for Governor Janet Mills and no one was excited about
the seventy nine year old candidate. According to The New
(01:58):
York Times, Platner said on private call with the campaign
step on Monday evening that he believed he still had
the leverage to influence which can replace him on the ticket.
According to three people familiar with the conversation. On the call,
he did not announce his plans withdrawal, but implied such
a decision would becoming the people said, so, who does
(02:18):
Platner want to pict to replace him? All signs are
pointing to a man named Troy Jackson. Who is Troy Jackson.
He's a longtime politico in Maine. He ran for governor
remain this year and earned the support of Bernie Sanders,
Rocanna of the Democratic Socials of America, and of course,
Graham Plantner himself. He even appeared at rallies with Plantner.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
He came in.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Third place in the first round of the governor's election
with twenty one percent because their stupid ranked choice voting rules,
ended up in third place in the final or the
second to final round, which is shy of twenty nine percent.
It would make the most sense from a progressive standpoint
for Jackson to fill in the shoes of Planner. He
is the president of the Maine State Senate. He's only
(02:59):
fifty eight yearsyears old, and he is formerly a Republican.
Like Plantner, he has also voted for Susan Collins in
the past. He used to be pro life and against
gay marriage, but switched his positions on both those issues
and endorsed Bernie Sanders for president, but within hours of
announcing that he was looking to possibly replace Platner. Stories
and rumors have flooded the Internet about Jackson and some
(03:23):
uncomfortable things he has done in the past. Allegedly, he's
had some angry issues. A senior fellow at the Center
for American Progress tweeted that as as the main Senate president,
Jackson got into a heated argument with a female colleague
and struck her with a bottle that he threw at her.
There were allegedly many eyewitnesses to this incident. Now, Troy
(03:45):
Jackson has a discord server. If you don't know what
that is, it's like a chat website. We can go
in and chat and add things with each other like
a messaging board. It's mostly done by younger people and
some politic laugh activists on the far left. People send
to be pretty edgy on discord server. So put a
(04:07):
pin in that we may come back to the Troy
Jackson discord server in due time. But according to his
discord server, he said that this was not true, that
he actually did not throw a glass at this female colleague,
that he had thrown a water bottle on the floor.
It shows that they're already in full spin mode, that
(04:30):
they're working as a campaign almost instantaneously to try to
get him to get the nomination. Planner has until Monday
to get out of this race. It's not a lot
of time. If for some reason he decides to stay in,
there's nothing Democrats can do to get him off. It
really depends on Planter himself. If he withdraws. The State
(04:51):
Democratic Party has until July twenty seventh to name a replacement.
Main law does not dictate what process the State Democratic
Party would use to replace Planner should he step aside,
So this could be a very open campaign, it could
be behind closed doors. As I said yesterday's emergency episode,
things have to be done relatively quickly. There is as
(05:14):
of now, and they Planner are still in the races
and recording this podcast, and Planner are still in the race.
There are twenty days to find this replacement.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
And that's it.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
This is like, uh, you know, a Kamala Harris style sprint,
and they just blew through fifteen million dollars to campaign
for a candidate who's on the precipice of dropping out.
And the new candidate is going to start with zero
name ID nationwide, and they are kind of between a
rock and a hard place top Main Democratic officials just
(05:45):
according to The New York Times, top Main Democratic officials
have discussed possible plans to replace Planner on the ballad
with the options of pop up conventions on the weekend
of July twenty fifth to choose a nominee or hold
a statewide caucus, effectively reduce doing the party's primary election.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
According to two people who talk to officials and spoke
on the conditions.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Of anonymity, here's the problem with that Main takes so
long with the ranked choice voting. I don't know about
how a convention would work if ranked choice voting does
or does not count. And also how does a candidate
raise money in time to get activists together to do
(06:26):
something like that to campaign across the state in multiple conventions.
It's very difficult. This is not an easy ordeal whatsoever.
Officials have already ruled out that having a state party
committee do it, which would include about one hundred members.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
She's not me.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
They say they're not going to do that. They've also
said that Jenamills is not going to be selected. She's
the governor. Of course, this is a mess. Democrats are
really in a pickle. If they pick a candidate who
is too progressive. They run the risk of finding a
candidate with ishe shoes personal issues like Platner, or someone
(07:03):
who's so closely tied to Planner and campaigns so aggressively
for him that they run the risk of making him
putting him in Platner's shadow. I mean, everyone's talking about
the rape allegation, but Platner had all the warning signs
way before them, from the Nazi tattoo to the Reddit post.
(07:25):
Everyone kind of knew what they were doing and where
they were getting. If they pick a moderate cadet with
now close association to Platner, they also run the risk
of alienating progressive activists from showing up and donating. It's
a mess. As I said before, it's really a tough
spot that Democrats have found themselves in. And if they
(07:45):
do a convention, it is likely that only the most
radical members of the party will show up to do
to do anything, So it's very confusing. You know what
else is a mess the country When Joe Biden was
president and in the illegal immigration way that he he
had allowed in this country, it is truly chaotic. The
numbers on the details on that are coming up next
(08:07):
stay tuned. Marco Corein is the executive director of the
Center for Immigration Cities, and he's a friend of mine.
So Mark the Federal Reserve announced that there are the
wave of illegal aliens under Biden caused a spike in
housing and rent that obviously affected younger people, working class people.
President Trump posted on to social quote, Biden's illegal immigrant
(08:29):
wave drove up home prices by thirty percent. The Washington
Post responded with a follow up story, It was like, actually,
the study found that the inflow of unauthor unauthorized workers,
which is, you know, illegal immigrants equal to one percent
of the local workforce or raised area home prices by
two point two percent, and the estimate that unauthorized immigration
(08:50):
raised home prices by just six point six percent. Still
a lot in early twenty twenty one to early twenty
twenty four, and the actual home price was twenty two
point four percent, So it was only thirty percent of
the overall home price growth. Still a lot. That's a
lot for people who make our working class or young
(09:10):
What does that say about if it's if illegal aliens
in that three year period rose prices for home by
thirteen percent and prices for rent by nine percent. What
does it say about our legal immigration system, which is
nearly as pervasive as the Biden wave and it's never ending.
(09:32):
How is that affecting home prices for working class people
and for young people?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
The effect of immigration on raising rent and raising home
prices is something that for at least a couple of
decades kondomists to recognize this isn't some new thing. And
the response that a lot of the libertarians make is what,
we just need to build more houses. It's like, okay, well,
you know, I'm not against that, but you know, if
(09:58):
there were less gravity, I could jump higher too, you
know what I mean. So you know, you've got NIMBYism,
and even without nimbiism, just just natural limitations on how
fast you can build stuff, you know, how densely you
want to build things all that, and immigration always exceeds
the ability to do that and really does raise the
(10:20):
issue of you know, is the only point of immigration
policy to cram in as many people as quickly as
possible and we need to adjust everything else to that.
It's crazy, right, And you know it's so funny. One
of these libertarians from Cato, I forget which one he was, like,
look at all the rural counties that are dying and
(10:41):
losing population.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
This is why we should have mass immigration. And I
was like, okay, but they're not going there either. We're
all living in the same thirty metropolitan areas where there
is limitations on homes. And if you look at data
on what kind of structures people want to live in
and people want to have families, and it's always single
(11:04):
family homes, like it is just what it is. You
can build as many high raises if you want, but
you know, you live in a million dollar, two bedroom,
two bathroom, the chances of that, one it's affordable for
most people is very low. And two that that people
who are want you know, larger families who live there
is virtually impossible. And we've just been seeing this massive
(11:27):
flow of legal immigration for thirty some odd years. And
when do you remember when JD. Vans made this comment
and was basically laughed at for saying that legal immigration
was causing higher home prices.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Yeah, absolutely, and it was. It was again he was
mocked for it.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
And yet you know, economists back, I mean, we have
we're actually writing something on this issue. We've got an
article coming out in an academic journal. This fall on
this issue. Economists have been writing about this for twenty years.
This isn't some new thing, you know, the advance. I
don't remember if this was during a campaign or the campaign.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yeah, this was. It's kind of a standard thing.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
In other words, it's like, well, the sky is blue
and rain is wet, and yet it was treated as
this absurd, you know, kind of kooky conspiracy, nativist hater thing,
when in fact it's just math.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
There's no way around that.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
They can only they will only deal with the supply
and demand from the supply issue, not from the demand issue,
which increases exponentially with mass immigration. I want to ask
you also about mass deportation. So Mark Wayne Mullen has
said that he's basically running a more discreet DHS, and
there are claims that they are doing more work set
(12:45):
enforcements and the deportations. There was ten thousand and five days.
What is the status of our mass deportation effort by
the Trump administration under Mullen?
Speaker 3 (12:57):
I think yeah, I mean yeah, I think early on, well,
let me start this start with this. The only way
you can get real reductions at scale of the illegal
population is by doing work related enforcement. You've got to
flush illegal aliens out of the job market, because if
you can't get a job and can't work legally, or
(13:20):
you can only work, you know, for cash episodically under
the table, which most illegals don't do, you're not going
to stay here something less appealing to stay and less
appealing to come. The problem is the President is kind
of ambivalent about work related enforcement, and so I think
DHS originally at the beginning of the administration said okay, look,
(13:42):
we got to do something here to goose self deportation.
And so the thing we're going to do is have
this theatrical, high profile stuff that Bovino was in charge of,
but you know, he was just the instrument of it.
And it kind of blew up in their face in Minnesota.
And look, the people the protesters weren't protesting. These were
(14:04):
communist provocateurs. I mean, let's face it. But nonetheless it
worked from their perspective. And so what Trump tasked first
Homan and then picking Mullen to be Secretary of Homeland
Security with is do the enforcement, but keep it out
of the news. Because, as one of my colleagues has said,
(14:28):
even after Minnesota, the majority of voters still want all
illegal aliens out. They just don't want to see it
and hear about it, right, And so that's kind of
what they've been tasked with. And so you know, it
looks they've got to gear they've been gearing up to that.
(14:49):
Numbers arrests and deportations have been going They fell initially
after Minneapolis, they've been going up. But the key issue
is are they going to be doing work related enforcement
at scale, not just occasional one here and there. And
that doesn't just mean rais Obviously, you've got to have
some actual raids of work sites where you know there's
(15:12):
lots of illegals and your arrest a bunch of people.
They also need to do what I call briefcase enforcement
as opposed to the body armor enforcement, and that is
you send employers letters from Social Security saying, hey this
payroll info. You said, this doesn't match our records. Because
most illegals work on the books, they're just using fake
or stolen social Security numbers. Say hey, here's these people.
(15:37):
Info doesn't match. ICE is going to come and audit
you figure it out. That kind of you know, if
you will paperwork enforcement, like I said, I've been trying
to get it called briefcases opposed to body armour enforcement
really can work, But the President's ambivalent about it. And
(15:58):
I think it's both because he hears from a lot
of business people who, you know, whine about their can't
you know, Americans are too lazy to work. But also
I think there may be a political concern. They don't
want to cause too much political I mean too much economic,
you know, dislocation in the run.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Up to election.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
So the key for me, the tell is going to
be whether they're serious about this. The tell is are
they seriously stepping up work related enforcement all over rather
than just an occasional one for the press release.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Well, and it's also when you do these large raids
and they do make a lot of news, you do
still instill concern among other illegals that they just self
deport Sure, and we don't have real self deportation numbers.
I mean, we have all these estmenates from all these
different organizations. Who knows what the actual number is, but
it's clear that self deportations were going up. You're a
(16:57):
Christineome for all of her falls, and there were men
that was a successful part of the administration. There's alos
thing I just read about a little while before getting
in this podcast, a nineteen ninety six law allowing illegals
to be fine for every day they stay in the
United States, according to the.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
MARSHA, after they're after they're order deported. Correct, when you
get a what's called a final order of removal, you've
done all your due process or whatever it is. Every
day you stay, it's almost one thousand dollars a day
fine after the ninety days you're supposed to leave.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
And so they're now starting to levy these fines.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Yes, sixty five are in thousands, and some of them
there's one or two that have been like a million
or two million dollars.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Yeah, sixty five thousand illegals have been fined thirty six
billion dollars.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Yea.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
In some instances you're going to get the money, but
most you know, if you're finding somebody a million dollars,
you're probably not going to get a million dollars out
of an illegal alien who ignored his But you can
repose car, you can seize his bank account, and you
can scare other people to say, holy moly, you know
I've got this money saved up you know, and we've
(18:11):
got a car and let's pack up the kids and
get out of here before the Repoman comes. So that's
absolutely an important thing, and they are doing that. My
point on the my criticism on work site enforcement is
not that they're doing nothing else. It's that they need
to also do this, because they're doing bank related enforcement
now too, because under George W. Bush, the Treasury Department
(18:33):
actually issued a regulation authorizing banks to open bank accounts
for illegal aliens. It's insane, and so that's another thing,
another way of making it impractical to live here, so
people choose to leave.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
There are so many times when you hear about a
law that favors non citizens where you're like, wait, what
is our government doing? Tell me if you can about
the TPS. Now, this court rules in favor of the
Trome administration that Haitians and Syrians they have to go home.
Is there is there any effort to now get them,
(19:10):
Because there's hundreds of thousands of Haitians in Syrians who
are supposed to be here for a short period of
time and they've been here for decades, is there any
real effort now to support them.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
That's a good question.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
We're going to have to see because their tps only
ended July first or June thirtieth or whatever it is.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
And so I don't know.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
I mean, we're going to see what they're going to do.
They haven't advertised what they're going to do about that.
And understand, the Supreme Court decision wasn't just about those
two nationalities. That was the case that came before them.
But what Supreme Court said is the English language means
what it means, and when the bill says the determinations
of the administration about starting or ending or not renewing
(19:52):
tps are not reviewable by courts period. And so that's
what they said, is that not words mean what they mean.
And so there are gonna be other grants of tps
that the administration is and again they're not ending them,
they're just letting them expire and not renewing them. And
so you know, this is the way it should be.
(20:14):
Temporary he means temporary. And so again this is another.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Thing that on CNN one time, it did not go
over well with the liberals and the panel. Yeah, last
question at current events the border wall. I get asked
this all the time. Is there arms for construction happening.
Is there any effort happening? Do you know, can you
give me any update because it's really actually hard to
find news about border walk construction.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
I interviewed actually Rodney Scott, who's the head of Customs
and Border Protection, which oversees all the border stuff, both
the customs and the border patrol and everything else. And yeah,
he said there I think his number was something like
six miles a week are being completed, and so yeah,
they're doing construction all over and he said the primary
(21:02):
wall they're looking at completing this year, and in some
places there's going to be a secondary second level of wall,
second layer, and the new construction.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Yeah, this is new construction as well.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Wow, the second layer is they're talking about having done
next summer.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Because I've been to the border and there are times
where you have the border wall and then there's just
a giant gap and then there's nothing, and then the
water wall starts again and you're like, why.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Is this Well, in some of those places, the reason
you have that is because the whole point to a
wall is to slow people. It's not that somebody wants
to get over the wall that can't well, I mean
your Grandma can't. But I mean people who really want
to get.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Over the wall. I'm not gonna lie. Well, I mean,
look mean neither.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
But so, but the point is the real point of
a wall is to slow people down so the border
patrol can get there or can get them before they
get across or get away. You know, it's never kind
of a build it and forget it thing. It's a tool,
along with cameras and everything else. And I asked Rodney,
(22:09):
you know how many miles it? He said, basically there.
The way they're looking at the wall is it's gonna
be Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. But with
specific places they're not gonna build it because there's no
sense to it. For instance, there's a near Big Ben
National Park in Texas, West West Texas. There are places
(22:31):
there where the Mexican side of the border is a
like a two hundred foot cliff, and so nobody's coming
across there. I mean, that's not you know, they'll go
on other places. In fact, I was there on the
Rio grand with a with a guide, you know, a
river guide, and he said, behold the Great Wall of Chihuahua.
(22:56):
And so there are places like that where there's no
point to it. But basically this point was, with certain
narrow exceptions, they're looking at pretty much doing it everywhere.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Okay, So I had a listener. I have a segment
on my show called asked Me Anything, and a listener
asked me months ago, I talked to you about this
sense about Barbara Jordan. For those of you who don't know,
she was a congressman from Texas, the first black woman
elected congressman, and in the nineties she vo from the South,
from the South right. She was not just Texas, from
the whole South. Yes, And in the nineties Bill Clinton
(23:28):
put her in charge of a commission on why explain
the commision. Commission was to explore why poor people were
staying poor? Well, it was specifically an immigration commission. I
thought it became immigration, but didn't start that way.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
No, No, it started the whole point was an immigration was
called the US Commission on Immigration Reform.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Now, what was the finding? What year was this and
what was the findings? Her reports came out in early
ninety ninety five ninety six. There were like several reports,
one on enforcement, one on legal immigration, and then they
had to kind of package them all together and release them.
And the upshot was one She really put this well
(24:10):
in congressional testimony. Integrity in immigration means those who should
not get in don't get in, those who should get
in do get in, and those who shouldn't be here
are made the lead. I mean, it's kind of like
third grade stuff.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
But unfortunately it required saying. And they called for what
is now we call everify, and they were really quite
It was a pretty strong recommendation on all the enforcement areas,
and they got all Democrat and Republican commissioners to agree
on that, and they also called for They didn't say
(24:53):
the point of it was reducing immigration, but they said,
you know, we need to have we need to fix
lead immigration such that we promise and are able to
deliver what we promise, so we don't have long weight line.
You know, people have to wait forty years for a
green card. The result of that, the upshot of it
was reducing immigration thirty forty percent. And even there, all
(25:16):
the commissioners but one signed onto it, and the one
who didn't sign onto it was the president of the
Immigration Lawyer's Lobby, but all the rest of them agreed
to it. So this was a serious proposal that President
Clinton actually had to take seriously when Barbara Jordan presented it,
because she was not just a congresswoman. I mean, she
(25:38):
was a civil rights phenomenon. She made her bones nationally
during the Watergate hearing. So she was a serious Democrat.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
She was a Democrat and emphasis.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
She was a Democratic.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
She had real haft and real legitimacy and what sabotaged the.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Well, that's why I want to get to so yeah,
so wait, so she proposes this. It calls for all
these enforcems of illegal immigration and a national reduction of
legal imgration by forty percent, which at the time would
have been basically reduced immigration down to the nineteen eighties
or seventies levels something like that.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
Six hundred thousand is kind of what it would have
been to write so like one point one million.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
It would have reduced overall immigration from today by twenty
million people, about twenty twenty five million people about over
the course of like all these years since. Oh sure, yeah, yeah.
So she puts this proposal out. She Clinton looks like
he is going to back everything in her proposal.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Correct, yeah, okay, he yeah, he you know, he welcomed
her to the White House and said great things about
the findings, and then she died of muscular dystrophy or
multiple sclerosis, I forget which she died prematurely.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
But it was Republicans that really destroy that, all the
reductions on legal immigration. Who were the Republicans that really
worked against that?
Speaker 3 (27:02):
The I mean again, I don't want to look the
Democrats off the hook here, but yes, when you got
onto into Capitol Hill, because remember this was the first
Republican majority in both Houses of Congress since World War
two or right after World War two, so this was
you know, the Gingrich Revolution and all that. So what
happened was Spencer Abraham, who was the Senator from Michigan,
(27:27):
Republican really libertarian senator from Michigan. He engineered in the
Senate a splitting of the bill. There was an overall
bill based on her commission's recommendations, and he said, you
know what we should do. We should have two separate
bills because we shouldn't deal with legal and illegal immigration
(27:49):
and the same bill. So the illegal immigration stuff passed,
and there's all kinds of strong and important measures in there.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
And a lot of that is what Trump's used to
death exactly that Barbara Jordan.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
It was, and it was phenominally and important the legal immigration.
Once it was cut off, and once she died and
wasn't there to defend it, the whole point was to
kill it by separating it out. And yes it was Republicans,
specifically Spence Abraham, but really a lot of other Republicans
were happy to have it.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
There was Paul Ryan's mentor who helped killed it, whose
name I had just lost was just in my mind.
And then the congressman from Texas to Brandon Gill ended
up taking a seat later on obviously.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
Well look he was the one fighting to keep the
whole thing together. His name was Lamar Smith.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
He was a talking about I'm talking congressman, but I
don't know who it was.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Yeah, yeah, but I mean Spence Abraham really was the
one who took the lead. Oh what's his name? I
think you're thinking of Congressman Cannon from Utah. He was
terrible on this issue too. All of these people are gone.
This was thirty years ago, right, I'm still here somehow.
But anyway, yes, it was Republicans who were responsible. I mean,
(29:06):
in a sense, if you think about it, Republicans really
are responsible for the high level of legal immigration because
the nineteen ninety Immigration Act, which increased immigration even beyond
what it was in the eighties, was under George H. W.
Bush's watch, and then Spence Abraham killed the immigration bill,
(29:27):
the immigration part of the Jordan Commission, and then in
Trump won it was Paul Ryan who killed the administration
proposal that would have ammed Trump administration posed that would
have amnesteed some Dreamers but in exchange for a whole
bunch of loophole closings and reductions in legal immigration.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Paul Ryan is the one who killed that.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Dick Army is I'm thinking, by the way, Oh yeah,
Dick Army. Nick Army was the one who was branded
and for place later on.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
It is really the corporate arm of the GOP that
has It's very funny, and I wrote about this in
my book when I wrote it years ago. But they
are the ones who hated Trump the most and are
responsible more than any of the group of people for
his rise. It is very ironic that they refuse to
give in even the smallest concessions towards immigration restrictionism because
(30:20):
they always need that cheap labor mark. Thank you for
coming this podcast where we'll go to read more about
you and Center for Immigration Studies and everything you guys do.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
The centers online at CIS dot org and all our
stuff is there. We have new blog posts every day practically,
and if you have a taste for snark and sarcasm,
I'm on Twitter. It's spelled X but it still pronounced
twitter at mark s as in Stephen Crecory Mark s
Crecoryan Well.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
I love everything CIS puts out. I read it and
reference it all the time. So thank you on this podcast.
I appreciate you and check out all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment. Part
of the Ask Me Anything Segment E only Ryan at
Numbers Gamepodcast dot com. That's Ryan at Numbers Plural Numbers
Game Podcast dot com. First question today comes from John
from Tennessee. He was, Hey, Ryan, a huge fan of
the podcast. I'm always one of your first listeners when
a new episode drops on YouTube because you probably clicked
label to get every episode. And if you like this podcast,
(31:20):
also subscribe on YouTube and click the bell so you
don't miss an episode. He says, you're basically one of
my only regular political listens. I really really appreciate that
you make everyone else sound dumb.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Okay, I'll take it. You wrote.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
My eighteen year son is about to start his freshman
year of college. He's very ANTIAI. He understandably feels like
it's robbing his generation of the future in so many ways.
He's not alone, especially among young people. In response, I'm
encouraging him to pursue AI policymaking as a career path
because his views is his view reviews is shared by
a majority of people right now, and someone has been
(31:55):
doing hard work to keep AI in check. However, that's
all I know about that. My question for you is
how should he begin to pursue AI policy as a
career path and what do you need to major in
during college? Are there anythink tanks or policy groups he
should reach out to to begin his college career. Honestly,
any recommendations would be great, because I don't know how
to help get him started. Okay, because AI is so new,
(32:19):
this is actually very difficult. So there's one group that
is I know of Coled Humans First. It's headed up
by my friend Amy Kramer. She's been on this podcast.
I would definitely reach out to them about what they're
doing as far as AI policy stuff goes. What we're
seeing right now with a lot of AI policies in
(32:39):
terms of safety regulations is the AI industries are starting
to do regulations themselves and pursue regulations. Now that's not
always because they're trying to make the world a better places,
because they're sometimes making regulations that make new AI business.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Is harder to start.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
They're basically trying to corner the entire market of a
booming market. What I would say is this, he should
one no AI back, back and forward. I would even
recommend him getting a job or starting a job in
an AI company, working for an AI company to learn
(33:18):
it better. I know he's anti.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
AI, but.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
Whatever he could learn about the industry is extremely useful.
And then he has to know and learn the laws
of whatever he wants to do. As far as lobbying
federally or state lobbying or city lobbying. Lobbying you're from Tennessee,
so that would be Marshall Blackburn as governor, I would
(33:43):
and she's very Blackburn is very thoughtful on a bipolicy,
one of the smarter members of Congress of either party
on AI policy and she's very protective of certain industries
from AI. So what I would do is I would
do an internship. This is my kid, I would say.
(34:04):
I would say, either do an internship with an AI
company to learn about the industry as much as possible,
or work for a lobbying shop. But when you work
for a lobbying shop, you don't get topick on which
issues you're necessarily going to lobby on. Behalf of the
only nonprofit that I know of our Humans first. You
could reach out to them as well and see if
they're starting this program. I know they have a good
(34:26):
chunk of money. And I would also look at what
AI industries are doing to lobby because they're doing that
right now as well, and they're funding some of the regulations.
I don't think it's anthropic, but I think it might be.
It's definitely not meta. Maybe is anthropic and not meta.
And open AI is going back and forth on it
(34:48):
as well, So those are the ones that I would
really look at to see how they are effectively trying
to do some sort of lobbying. Florida is going to
be a major place for this. Tennessee be a major
place in this text, be a major place for this
because Republican states are also looking to regulate AI, so
it's not just a California thing, as a lot of
talking heads like to say very ignorantly. Uh, that's what
(35:11):
I would suggest. Look into that. Look into either the law,
the government policies that are that are doing this, or
into the nonprofit of of of humans first, and then
I would honestly tell them, you know, you may hate AYE,
but you have to learn the industry to a point.
So anything you could do to become well acquainted with
(35:32):
the industry is extremely important. Next question comes from Padrol
says probably Praj here as always big fan, love your show,
Love you for listening. I always get super excited when
you read my questions and answer them. Thank you so much. Well,
here's your here's your time. I've seen communism, lived under
communism growing up.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
I wonder where you lived. Email me where you lived.
I'm curious.
Speaker 1 (35:54):
So people in my pure rural community fall for it
when I was born, got nothing back as.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
A result of all of it.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
All leaders of the movement seem seemingly rich due to corruption.
I freaking hate communism now. I can't believe people in
the most prosperous countries in the history of the world,
with such awesome opportunities to be whatever they want to
be if you work hard enough, are falling for the
same dumb, bad free this, free that arguments in front
of my eyes?
Speaker 2 (36:19):
How can someone put.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
The message out there about the bad consequences of communism
and socialism without just saying the word and hoping people
are afraid of those labels. How would you put an
ad out there if you were saying managing Bruce Blakeman's campaign,
because it would be a campaign malpractice for not using
it right. Okay, great question. So Bruce Blakeman's running for
(36:43):
governor of New York State. He's running with Kathy Hople.
He's the county chairman of Nasau County, one of the
largest counties in New York State. What I would say
for Bruce Blakeman is I would try to do the
one I would I would I would say, I mean,
(37:06):
you're advertising different things to different people. So for the suburbs,
I would bring up the most radical elements of what
they have said about the police and what they've said
about about the policing industry. I would actually use that
broader because remember the police. For if you're a middle
class or opper middle class, the police is an institution,
(37:28):
is an institution to protect you if you are working class.
As my family was growing up, my grandparents, my dad's
parents were poor, poor, poor. I'm talking thirteen people, fourteen
people in a one bathroom, four bedroom house with no
(37:48):
running hot water at times and no indoor heat in
New York City in the nineteen seventies. Like they were poor.
They could not afford college like that was of possibility.
The only possibility for a lot of them to get
out of poverty was to become a civil servant. That
(38:10):
is your avenue to the middle class. And for a
lot of Irish people back in the seventies and eighties
in New York and a lot of Latinos in the
twenty twenties, that is your chance. If you join the
civil servant job, you get a pension, you get a
middle class income, you can retire like that is your
opportunity to make it either as a teacher or as
a teacher needs a lot of college, police officer, firefighter, sanitation.
(38:32):
You know, those are the that gives you a level
of respect. I would talk about the fact that socialists
right now in New York City are preventing the hiring
of more police officers. Yes, that makes your area safer,
But more importantly, it's a thousand new police officers, is
(38:52):
one thousand new opportunities for working class people to get
into the middle class and provide them with a job.
That is so critical I think in a lot of poor,
especially Latino heavily areas. I would talk about also where
money is wasted when the money is so big, when
(39:12):
when the budget is so ballooning, I would bring up
the fact that so much of the money is wasted
on nonsense. I bring up every bad program, the amount
of New Yorkers who live on work for nonprofits that
are almost entirely funded by the city, as some astounding rate.
(39:33):
I think it's like nine percent of the entire city's workforce.
It's something like that. Like it it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
I would bring that up.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
I would bring up that we fund nonsensical things, and
the deep level of corruption by the government, government governor,
by the former mayor when it comes to contracting, when
when it is an inside job and you're not part
of it. And then lastly, I would also bring up
the fact that there are I would go to you know,
(40:05):
white male voters, and I would say to them, you
are discriminated against by this governor when it comes to contracting.
You do not have a step up specifically because you
were born as a man who was Caucasian. That is discrimination.
So talk about the discriminating factors. With that, I would
micro tark of those issues across the board and show
(40:26):
how socialism fail without having to just bring it up,
because a lot of times, unless people have real negative
feelings towards one word or that word I would bring
it doesn't create the same type of type of energy.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
Also, I would also.
Speaker 1 (40:41):
Compare it in immigrant communities to other foreign countries. I
would go to the Chinese community and compare it to
the CCP because it's ultimately going to lead down to
the same road in many in many many cases, when
you don't have the freedom and the ability to make
money on your own. Last question is Sean from Utah
A question for you, President Trump has been on the
general election ballot three times in a row. What will
(41:03):
the electric look like without him on the presidential ballot?
Will things look radically different in twenty twenty eight or
things so polarized that as a result, we're pretty much
much be the same. Hope that makes sense. Yeah, that's
an interesting question. So you have to remember one that
the electorate from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty eight is
remarkably different. There's less white people, there's less baby boomers,
(41:24):
there's more Gen z ers, there's more racial diversity. All
those things have changed. Certain areas, certain counties are remarkably different.
The Atlanta suburbs when George W. Bush was running for
president in two thousand and four were two thirds white.
By the time Trump was running twenty twenty four, they
were two thirds non white, that is, and they were
(41:46):
remarkably larger. So all those trends will continue as far
as is there an electorate maybe that is substantially open
to listening towards Republicans messaging without Trump to a point,
but it's on the margins, right. Are there some suburban
(42:07):
voters who just hated Trump and would look at a
different candidate beside Trump? Possibly on the margins, but it's
not going to be substantially different. I think that the
trend line is clearly that working class people will lean
more heavily Republican. I think the opportunities there are still
built on the Latino movement and the Asian movement under Trump,
and of course to get working class white Republicans to vote. Yeah,
(42:33):
I think that the rest of it is kind of
really baked in. I don't see, you know, twenty nine
or thirty nine year old single woman who has never
been married and always vote a Democrat switching the electorate.
There'll be some suburban voters, but not many, and also
depends heavily on who the Democrat nominate. That's a big,
(42:56):
big question. If they nominate a'm Donnie's style socialist, I
think a lot of Jews will just be like this
is over for me. I'm done with this, and you
might see shifts in those kinds of communities as well.
All Right, that's this episode. Thank you guys for listening.
You've liked this podcast, Please like and subscribe on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast, and
I will talk to you guys on Friday.
Speaker 2 (43:17):
Have a great day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
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