June 23, 2025 • 47 mins
In this conversation, Ryan speaks with Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, about the recent changes in immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, the evolving stance of the Republican Party on immigration, the impact of judicial challenges on immigration policy, and proposed reforms to improve immigration control. They discuss the influence of business interests on immigration policy, the historical context of immigration in the U.S., and the necessity of mandatory e-verify and asylum reform. It's a Numbers Game is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
Read Mark's Work HERE
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gradowsky. I'm
here again, Happy Monday. I hope you all had a
great weekend back at it, and I know it is
the dead of summer, so thank you for being here.
In talking about politics, last week was a busy week.
There was obviously a lot of news with Iran and Israel,
and it was kind of whiplash following it all. It's
very difficult when you're hearing international news, trying to understand
(00:27):
who to believe, which side you get all the information from,
and seeing clips online some of its Ai generated some
of his old video, so that's been kind of wild
to watch. Trump and Tucker even kind of got into it.
Trump called Tucker a kook on truth social after Tucker
did an introdut Steve Bannon about Iran, which I thought
(00:48):
was something I didn't expect to happen. I don't have
that many insights into the Middle East, and I'm not
going to do an episode on the Israel stuff. It's
just I don't have a lot of one deep felt
opinions aside from kind of bland, generic ones, and there's
just it's just not it's not for me, and it's
(01:09):
not what I'm planned doing this podcast on. But I
do have a good story about Tucker Carlson that I
would like to share with the listeners because I think
you guys would like it. I did Tucker's show when
he was on Fox like six times and when you
did it, because he did it out of his studio
in Maine and of his house, so he wasn't like
I was never in a room with him. I think
(01:30):
he moved to me, like after the first year when
there were protesters at his house in DC. This is
not hidden information, by the way, this is well reported.
So you would go. I would go to a satellite
location and sit in a black room by myself and
tape with just you know, a camera. They were not
even a camera guy, just me in a camera. And
(01:51):
there was complete silence on my end until the segment
started because they would do whatever they needed to do.
And that's how guests we're working with anyway, So the
whole time you were there, I'm a note taker. I
take tons of notes. If you couldn'tell him this podcast,
and I'm sitting here in complete silence. And then one
time I started to hear Tucker's side of the broadcast
(02:15):
and what was going on, I guess with his EPs
and his producers and whatnot. And they were blasting Willie
Nelson's Roll Me Up and Smoking When I Die, and
Tucker's like singing along. That's all I could hear as
I'm trying to remember what I'm gonna talk about, and
he's like singing, and he goes, let's go, and then
(02:38):
they go right on air like there was no like previews,
so you know, Tucker introduces me twenty seconds to that.
All I could hear in my head was him singing
roll Me Up and Smoking when I Die. Really funny anyway,
total side note, nothing to do with Israel, but just
a funny story anyway. This week also there is the
upcoming New York City Democratic primary for them mayor of
(03:00):
the city. It's tomorrow is the primary, June twenty fourth.
Early voting has started last week. The numbers coming out
of the Burroughs for who's showing up look very good
for socialist Zoran Mandini. Mendini. I know, I just butchered
that name, but don't worry about it. He's a socialist
all you have to remember. But I saw some private
(03:23):
democratic polling and they do believe that Andrew Cuomo got
former Governor Andrew Cuomo is going to pull this out
with a decent double digit margin. New York has the
ranked choice voting, which is the stupidest way to do
an election. Only someone with a PhD and political science
could think of that. So we won't know who's the
winner probably on election night. Will probably have to wait
several days while they rank them all and count all
(03:45):
the votes. But I've heard from Democrats they do feel
like Kuoma is going to pull it out, which if
he does, we'll see if the Working Family Party endorses
the Socialist and it is a four Democrat to one
Republican race, which is very possible.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Lastly, and most consequentially though, for this podcast, what I
want to talk to listeners about was President Trump's many
different takes on immigration enforcement. So we all know that
immigration restriction was a centerpiece of Trump's two successful presidential campaigns.
In twenty sixteen, it was build the Wall that was
his rally and cry, and in twenty twenty four it
was mass deportations. You could see signs at the RNC
(04:22):
people waving saying mass deportations was a very proud logo,
there was no hidden agenda around it. The only campaign
that he didn't really emphasize immigration enforcement was in twenty twenty,
allegedly at the advice of his son in law, Jared Kushner.
Trump also put out a white paper in twenty sixteen
where he said he would do all these things on
legal immigration to reduce the numbers. When he first became president,
(04:45):
he actually supported a bill from Senator Tom Cotton called
the Rays Act, which would have created a point system
people would have allowed been allowed entering into our country
based on how many points they ranked up if they
spoke English, if they had a college degree, if they
had skills, if they had money, and it would have
cut legal immigration by fifty percent. It never got passed
(05:05):
into law, but Trump actually supported it when it first
came out in twenty seventeen. Now, most of those promises
on legal immigration never kept right. He just never kind
of kept them, and they kind of were sidelined by
a lot of people in the ADMIN who were big
supporters of mass legal immigration. It wasn't all of Trump's fault,
but it happened right before COVID and actually legal immigration
(05:28):
started taking up. Throughout Trump's term, there was intense pressure
from corporate donors and from the Republican business class. When
he announced his run in twenty twenty four. President Trump
really did back away from a lot of the earlier
stuff he made in twenty sixteen about reducing legal immigration,
but mass deportition was still the center theme. He was
(05:48):
very much holding on to that campaign promise. And as
someone who was a day one twenty sixteen, twenty fifteen,
whatever it was, Trump's supporter, which was actually ten years
ago from last week, I was very skeptical that he
would keep the promises the second time that he won
successfully in twenty twenty four, the third time he ran,
I was very skeptical he would keep those promises because
(06:10):
he had walked away from so many of the legal
immigration stuff in twenty sixteen. And I'm happy to sit
there and say I was wrong, you know. And actually
the reason I took the meeting, even with the Desanta's
influencers in twenty twenty four was because I was so skeptical.
But I'm happy that I was wrong. So here we
are six months into President Trump's second term.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
And.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Legal illegal immigration is down substantially. Right, he has completely
kept his promises. On enforcing the border. There's essentially no
border crossings. From February to April twenty twenty five, there
were thirty five thousand illegal alien encounters at our southern border.
That's down from five hundred and fifty nine thousand during
(06:56):
the same three month period the year prior under President Biden.
So from five hundred and fifty nine thousand to thirty
five thousand, that's almost a complete shutdown. And ICE has
done a really incredible job at increasing their capacity to
do interior apprehensions. The most recent ICE detention data shows
that the average number of people held is up twenty
(07:19):
five percent since President Trump took office. You might have
heard there's a trope coming out of the media that
President Trump is deporting less people than President Biden or
President Obama. That is really just based on how President
Biden and President Obama cooked the numbers, because what they
were doing where they were counting everyone arrested by CBP,
(07:40):
that's the Border Patrol agents who were being turned back
at the border as deportations, even though they were never
in the interior of the country. So President Trump's apprehensions
and deportations are coming from within the country. People who've
been living here rather than people who just come to
the border and are turned away, which President Biden wasn't
(08:01):
really doing a lot of that anyway, at the advice
of Ron Klain, So Ron claim was his advisor, who
was very liberal and immigration anyway. So now let's talk
about mass deportation. That's another story entirely. In the first
one hundred days in office, I sufficially report that there
were about sixty five thousand illegal aliens removed from our country.
(08:21):
While there's been no official update since that one hundred days,
the estimates coming out of people in the know and
the administration, though not in ICE specifically, say that it's
been one hundred and forty thousand to two hundred and
seven thousand total deportation in the six months. We'll have
to wait till ICE gives them gives an official number
(08:43):
whenever they update their numbers periodically to find the exact amount,
but one hundred and forty thousand, two hundred and seven
thousand is our best estimate. There's a question also a
self deportation, the number of people choosing to leave the
country on their own devices because they don't want to
be arrested and deported. President Trump's administration is actually offering
(09:04):
to pay illegals one thousand dollars plus a free flight
out of the country if they leave without having to
go through the rigmarole of a cord and an arrest
and all the rest of it. And several thousand have
taken the administration up on their offer. A story from
the Wall Street Journal that's gone viral over the last
few days is that data released alongside the recent job
report from the Labor Department show that the number of
(09:27):
form born people either working or looking for work fell
by one million from March to April. That's the biggest
two month decline in form born labor force since the
early days of the pandemic. It's unclear if they are
leaving the country or just leaving the workforce because they're
afraid of being arrested and deported. A resource that I
(09:49):
have started to use to look at if there's indications
of self deportations by different groups is the CDC Wonder
Fertility Data. Okay, let me explain. Back in twenty ten,
there was a law that Arizona pass called SB ten seventy,
which would allow local law enforcement to ask people for
(10:10):
proof of citizenship during routine encounters like traffic stops that
they suspected the person was not legally in the country.
And what happened was when the Arizona Health Department updated
their birth data year and year, year by year, there
was a five percent decline in the number of children
being born to Hispanic women in the state from twenty
(10:33):
from two thousand and eight to twenty twelve. Because remember
signed twenty ten, the number dropped by a while fourteen
percent fewer children being born by Hispanic women. Hispanic women
went from having three thousand more children than white women
in the state to five thousand, five hundred fewer. That's
because they were self supporting from the state. They were
(10:54):
leaving the state in order not to be asked when
they were driving to a stop line or whatever if
they were legally in the country. Illegal aliens were not,
you know, not just your regular legal Hispanic American, but
illegal aliens were leaving. And they didn't necessarily all go
to Mexico, but or or wherever their native country was.
A lot went to California or Nevada or New Mexico,
(11:16):
states with looser immigration laws, but they did leave Arizona.
So what does the CDC wonder early data say about
the country as a whole now that Trump is doing
these strict immigration enforcement. I want to sit there and
note that there's this is the preliminary data that only
goes to April, so we're not but we're not getting
(11:37):
like the full number because they didn't include May and
June and that's when a lot of the immigration enforcement happened.
So March and April twenty twenty five compared to a
year ago, there's been about a one percent drop in
Asian births, and Hispanic birth rate is basically flat. There's
almost no change completely. Side note, birth rates among black
(11:58):
women drop substained at four percent, and birth rates among
white women who has dropped about one percent, which is
kind of normal considering there's less of people having kids.
But once again there's the Hispanic birth rate is flat.
So it's only two months, it's only early data. But
if there was a sign for mass deportation at a
(12:21):
million people, which is a substantial amount of people, you
would see something in the birth data, and it's not there.
So I kind of have my hesitancy towards whether or
not that million number is correct. Maybe it will, we'll
have to sit there and wait for more data to
come out in May and June. Maybe they will show
numbers that coincide with the million number coming out of
(12:44):
the Labor Department. This hasn't stopped researchers from believing that
we're about to see the first net decline in overall
immigration population for the first time in fifty years. According
to The Washington Post, two economists from the Brooklyn Institute,
which is liberal thing tank, and AI, which is a
conservative thing tank. They both kind of suck on immigration
(13:05):
as a side note, but they are coming out with
a paper this month staying that immigration is likely to
be in negative numbers for the first time in fifty
years and twenty twenty five, which leads us back to Trump.
Mass deportation was obviously on the menu when he became president.
Democrats seemed completely shocked that that means actually deporting people.
(13:25):
I think that they must thought of mean vibes or something.
But it actually is what he says it is, and
he was really carrying that vision out him and his
advisors and Steven Miller and everything until last week when
out of nowhere, President Trump, at the advice of his
Agriculture secretary Brook Rollins, a former close ally of Jared Kushner's,
(13:48):
announced that they would no longer be doing immigration enforcement
in farms, restaurants, and hotels. It was this abrupt turn
of events that led to a bit of a backlash
amongst some conservatives. All progress was being made on the
side of the American worker even in those industries. Meatpacking
giant JBS signed a new labor contract with the Commercial
(14:09):
Workers International Union for higher wages, better safety standards, and
paid sickly. It was the first time in forty years
that this meat packing giant chose to just that they're
in doing improved wages and safety standards, and it was
because they didn't have an endless stream of illegal aliens
crossing the border like they had under previous administrations. After
(14:32):
receiving initial pushback from conservatives, Brooke Rollins came out with
a Twitter post which was very much like, these allegations
against me are not true, but it's good that it's
happening that we're not doing this enforcement very much kind
of showing her face. Remember she has spent a decade
on record supporting amnesty for illegal aliens and jail break
for criminals, and definitely more one of more liberal people
(14:56):
in Trump's orbit, so it wouldn't be surprising to anybody
who knows people in the administration that she was doing
this to begin with. President Trump came out with a
truth social post quickly after she made those comments, stating
that he was going to continue deportations, but only in
blue states, as if millions of illegal aliens don't live
in Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. Then within twenty four
(15:20):
hours of that truth social post, a story from the
Washington Post broke, where the Department of Home and Security
announced to its depth they were reversed in the guidelines
again and continuing mass deportations at farms, hotels, and restaurants.
The Post suggested that Stephen Miller was behind the reversal
of the earlier decision, which good for Stephen, But what
about farms and endless stories about rotting fruit? You may ask,
(15:43):
what about these need to have an endless supply of
illegal aliens, which they always say whenever you have any
pushback against illegal aliens at farms, Well, farmers can apply
for an H two A visa, that is the farm
worker visa. We issue more than three one hundred thousand
h twoa VSAs per year. But here's the thing. If
(16:04):
you apply the legal way, farmers have to ensure that
they're not affecting American workers, that they're paying prevailing wages,
and they're offering housing and transportation. With illegal immigration, they
don't have to do any of that. They can pass
any costs over to taxpayers who get sit there in
fund illegal aliens when they go to the hospitals when
they need when if they have children here, the children
(16:27):
qualify for SNAP and for all these food benefits, and
for public housing and all the rest of it. Taxpayers
absorb the costs for big agriculture. Immigration enforcement is at
the root of the Trump movement and by the way,
most nationalist movements across the entire world, not just talking
about Europe, but in Asia and Latin America and Africa.
(16:47):
Immigration is the root cause of nationalist movements across the
entire globe. The thing that established in politicians globalists establish
political parties, the thing that they hate the most, which
is a populist movement they are responsible for because they
refuse to enforce immigration. That's the long and complete short
(17:09):
of it. With me this week is an expert on
immigration who's been writing about this for decades. He's been
doing it longer than I've been an adult. He knows
what's going on in the Trump administration, what they're doing right,
what they can improve on, and if we're ever going
to get real mass deportation. Stay tuned. Mark corn is
my guest this week. He is the executive director for
(17:30):
the Center for Immigration Studies, a fabulous nonprofit. I highly
recommend everyone checking out. Mark. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Glad to be here.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Mark.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
What do you make of the administration's abrupt series of
changes when it comes to immigration enforcement during the week.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Well, what happened was that the President seemed to suggest
and PIS actually ordered its agents to exempt from enforcement
all farms, meat packers, restaurants, and hotels. And that was crazy.
It just doesn't make sense. And it only lasted though
(18:08):
for a brief time. He was caving to pressure from
business interests and from even within his own administration, the
Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, who was kind of, in
a sense more of agriculture's lobbyist in the administration rather
than the administration's representative high culture.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
But we saw this is the first Trump term two
that the Secretary of Agriculture was very hesitant towards a
lot of stuff. So that's not unusual. But I went
to brook and during my monologue but go ahead, sorry,
yeah so, but I.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Mean it is an example of I guess regulatory capture
is what they call it in political science. But the
fact is President is a good relationship with her. He's
also a businessman. He hears from other businessmen, and so
you know, he said, okay, yeah, this is important, and
so we'll back off on this. Well, immediately he faced
not just a resistance from his own base, you know,
(19:06):
people online and elsewhere saying this is crazy, but within
the administration itself there was extreme pushback. I only know
a few of the details. I can't really talk about
what the little that I know, but there was strong pushback.
And so on Monday they reversed course and set the
(19:27):
kind of a message reversing the ban on doing immigration
enforcement in the whole sectors of the economy. And it's
good he did both for political and policy reasons that
he stuck to his original you know, his original strategy.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
What gets me is, and I don't know if you
saw this or not, it just and it is not
important if you did him. But I was watching two
Way the other morning on Monday morning when they were
talking about this, and they had this is pre reversal,
and Sean Spicer, who was in the first Trump cabinet,
was a very high ranking member of the Republican Party
for some time has probably a year close to the
(20:05):
president still or mouth close to the president, sat there
and said, this is republic the Republican Party's chance to
really go big on immigration and get an amnesty done
without voting rights, which is it drives me genuinely wanting
to jump through screens to scream at people when they
(20:26):
say you can pass amnesties without voting rights. You've been
working on immigration longer than I have been an adult.
No shame in that. You're very qualified to talk about this.
Can you talk about for anyone who was like, oh,
that's a reasonable position, Talk about what happens when judges
(20:46):
get their hands on things like the eighty six Reagan amnesty,
how they kept it going for years and expanding it
for years after you know, it was even assigned by
the presid that.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yeah, you know, to adapt something Ronald Reagan used to say,
immigration control is only one memo away from extinction. In
other words, the business interests and the libertarian interest on
the Republican side, even if they appear in magaphace, really
(21:23):
haven't changed. They still want as soon as the opportunity
presents itself, they're going to say, now is the time
to amnesty all the illegal immigrants and to you know,
expand legal immigration even more than the million we take
it now every year. So that's always going to be there,
and you know, eternal vigilance is the price of immigration control.
(21:44):
So this incident didn't really surprise me, at least the
impulses of the people trying to take advantage of it.
For instance, there were some before even this happened, there
was an open letter from a bunch of Republican congressmen.
I think there were his Spanic Republicans from.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Narius Sorrows and are was I did the name person
she's baffering, Ladeo from California. He's actually not Hispanic, he's Portugese.
But he's also horrendous on immigration.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Immigration. But they were saying, look, we backed the president
and we wanted to deport criminals too, but let's not
deport anybody else. So that that impulse is always there.
And you know, the president has changed the kind of
the perspective of the party in general, but that perspective,
that minority perspective, if you will, among Republicans isn't going away,
(22:37):
and it's always going to try to, like a weed,
you know, grow up through the cracks and the sidewalk
again if it's allowed to.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Well, you've been you've been going, You've been writing. I
think you started writing in nineteen ninety five. I think
that that was the year I looked you up because
I was like, I actually know Mark for a long time,
but I don't know his whole biography. He marine's in
nineteen ninety five. In there when you started, right, Bill
Clinton was the president. The Barbara Jordan Commission, and for
(23:05):
those who don't know what it was, it was a
Democratic black congresswoman who had started a commission on how
to improve the lives of working class people, and she
came up with the idea of you need to reduce
legal immigration was going on, and it was Republicans that
really killed Barbara Jordan Commission's full adoption because I think
Clinton was willing to do it. How has the Republican
(23:25):
Party changed since the mid nineties amics, as you have
they aside from Donald Trump, are we just one non
Trump election away from fading back into old habits?
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Well, just to defend the some of the Republicans back
in nineteen ninety five, the legislation that was introduced based
on the Barbara Jordan Commission was in the Republican Congress.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
It was.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Written by Republican Senator Al Simpson and the Senate and
Lamar Smith, republic congressman in the House. It was killed
though by or not killed, but it was gutted by
Spencer Abraham, who was a pro business Republican in the Senate.
So it was almost a kind of debate among Republicans.
(24:12):
The Democrats weren't even really part of the discussion. And
Clinton would have gone along with it so long as
Barbara Jordan was alive, because the woman had real moral
theft among Republicans. As soon as she died, he just
flushed the whole thing down the toilet. And so Congress
passed a good law, but it was just enforcement. It
(24:32):
didn't include legal immigration cuts. And what's changed, I think
is that, and it has changed on the Republican side,
is that although there are still pro amnesty, These de
facto open borders Republicans, they are now no longer in
any position to be driving the bus. In other words,
they're kind of the tolerated rump of the old Republican
(25:00):
consensus on mass immigration, who agree on other issues and
every coalition has many parts to it, but they are
now clearly pushed to the back of the bus. They're
not in any position to you know, kind of dictate
terms to the rest of the party.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
That's who are for Okay, So for the average listener,
because I always try to give my audience as much
facts as they can possibly get, they don't get a
you know, more narrative driven podcasting and television shows. Who
are members of Congress that are driving the bus on
a more restriction as side of lower levels of league
(25:38):
immigration and enforcing the laws to actually get rid of
illegal immigration. Who are some people that people should look
at and say, this is the little leader you know.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
On illegal immigration and enforcement, which is an easier issue. Obviously,
pretty much everybody in leadership is in good you know,
is solid on that speaker Johnson. You know, people a
lot of sort of are more excitable. People on the
right are dissatisfied with what he's doing, but he's actually
with a what three vote majority or something, been phenomenally effective.
(26:14):
And they passed in the last Congress HR two, which
had a whole panoply of important changes, the kinds of
things that can't be in a reconciliation built in other words,
that substantive changes, and they're going to reintroduce that. So
on immigration enforcement, you're pretty much going to be, you know,
(26:35):
almost all the Republicans are going to be pretty good.
Legal immigration numbers is where the issue is, and I
think in the House a future leader on this issue.
All current leader is Chip Roy. He's good in other words,
he's committed to broadly reducing immigration, not just enforcing the law.
And an up and coming person a freshman is Brandon
(26:56):
Gill from Texas, who's definitely wants to make this issue
again legal numbers as well his and.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
Who was Brandon's a GC for his first campaign.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I don't know, thank you? Oh really, okay, congratulations yet,
thank you?
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Then it has to be Tom Cotton, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Tom Cotton, clearly, Josh Hawley as well, he's sort of,
you know, taken the lead on other issues, but he
is definitely on this issue. And I got to say,
even Ted Cruz has become better on the legal immigration issue.
He used to be more of just a kind of
conventional legal good, illegal bad Republican. In fact, he literally
(27:40):
said that once on the four of the Senate, my
immigration policy is legal good, illegal bad. And I was
I felt like saying, Ted, that's like a joke, that's
a meb, what are you doing? But he's gotten better.
And yeah, and I'm gonna say, one of the best
people who's no longer in the Senate is Jade Vance
on irbiration. So you know, if knock on wood, you know,
(28:02):
things work out. In three and a half years, I
think we would have, you know, an actual restrictionist in
the White House. Whereas with Trump. Look, I voted for
the guy all three times. I'm delighted his president, but
you know, he's not really a restrictionist. He's more of
an enforced the law. But we need lots of legal immigrants.
(28:25):
Would you say transitional figure? I think?
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Would you say he's the most conservative president immigration in
your lifetime? Oh?
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Absolutely, no question about it. Well, I mean I don't know, let's.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
See, yeah, lifetime thus far. Okay, So the left, the
Democrats and the left broadly have used the law Fair
to try to slow down his agenda on immigration. How
effective have they been because you've seen screaming on the
part of you know, commentary and commentators that he is
(28:58):
usurped the judiciary, which is never wrong in their eyes,
to deep poorty illegal aliens. Have they have they been
that effective on it because it feels like he's kind
of doing what we need to get done to do
mass deportation. Anyway.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
Uh, he's been way more effective than the first time around.
They learned a lot of lessons. They learned if you're
gonna spark a lawsuit, get the thing going early so
you have time to work it through the courts and win.
Because there were things triggers they pulled at the end
of the last administration and they just ran out of
time and so Biden just reversed them all. So, yeah,
he's been much more effective. But the Lawfair, Look, it's
(29:37):
been pretty effective, but it hasn't stopped them from doing
what they need to do. And in fact, if anything,
the bottleneck in getting more deportations, for instance, has been money.
That's what the big beautiful bill is. You know, we're
going to do it's not just hiring more ice agents
of what have you, because that takes years to recruit
(29:59):
and train people and all that. It's more money for
detention space because you're going to arrest all the people
you want. If you've got nowhere to hold them while
you do the paperwork send them home, you end up
having to let them go, and that's sort of missing
the whole point. So I think once that bill is
passed and the money is authorized or appropriated for them
to let out more contracts for detention space, you're going
(30:23):
to see deportations actually go up significantly, and there's just
nothing that the other side can do in court stop that.
The lawfair has mainly been about more narrow issues like
that jew hating crackpot in New York. Who is the
Columbia guy. That's just one guy, So it's holding up
(30:44):
that there's that you know, the court case is, you know,
getting a lot of attention, but it's just the detention
of one guy, and they're deporting a thousand people while
that's going on, you see what I mean. So so
the lawfare is almost more a kind of to make
the left feel better because they're stopping the deportation of
(31:05):
one guy rather than actually interfering with the president's agenda.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
Damy's allowed, but jew hitting crack pop, which is a
very funny turn of phrase, though.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
It applies to a lot of people. I'm afraid that's
one hundred is untrue.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
I wanted so. I did a debate in October September
of last year with the libertarian cant running for president
in case Olive I think his name was, and he
would say things and I want you to answer them,
because this is what a lot of regular people here
day in and day out. And on its face it
sounds good policy, but it's not good policy. So why
(31:45):
is it not a good idea just to let the
market and businesses set immigration standards.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Because there's an unlimited demand to come to the United States.
I mean, there's only you know, what is it, seven
and a half billion people outside the United States, but
you know ten percent of them come here. The United
States seas is to exist in any mediefal sense. And
this idea of a market based immigration policy means that
every American worker is now in direct competition with everybody
(32:16):
abroad who have you know, totally different expectations about salary
or work. You know, conditions or any any of that.
We have immigration limits precisely because there's only so much
immigration our system, broadly speaking, can successfully deal with, for instance,
(32:40):
in work in employment, we have a post industrial knowledge
based economy. If we're going to let everybody in the
world in, we're going to end up with a third
world low productivity economy, because that's what we be important.
We have a welfare state. Libertarians say, oh, that's true,
but let's just and welfare. Well, okay, you know, do
(33:02):
that and then give me a call.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
It's a part of any modern society. And then there's assimilation.
Even one hundred or two hundred years ago, assimilation was
still a difficult thing. It always is, but in a
modern society with both advanced communications and transportation so that
you can keep in touch, you know, with the old
country and basically almost live in two countries at the
(33:25):
same time, combined with a leadership class not just in
government but in business and schools and religion everywhere that
basically don't believe in assimilation. How can you americanize people?
So a market driven immigration policy is just a fancy
way of saying unlimited immigration and everybody sort of gets
(33:48):
except for some libertarians, that unlimited immigration is bad for
the country.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
And and what I think a lot of people don't know,
because not everyone knows history, especially on this issue specifically,
as well as maybe they should, is that for forty years,
we essentially had almost no legal immigration. I mean, it
was very close to zero between what was in nineteen
twenty four, ninety four.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Nineteen sixty five, and I think we happy immigration, but
it was a lot lower than it had.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Been and during their forty year period we had. It
was funny. I had a tweet that went slightly viral
because someone was saying, the the fact that there is
a white that people are perceived as being white, is
a means assimilation works. Yes, after two hundred years, several
(34:41):
forced integration through through the draft wars. I think there
was four drafts between or three drafts between the nineteen
twenty fourteen sixty five Vietnam Korea and World War Two,
and a unique culture people who all came from a
regions two hundred miles apart from each other seemed to
assimilate in America anyway. Sorry, Okay, last question for you.
(35:05):
What is something that Congress should be moving forward? To
achieve the president's agenda on immigration.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Let me just mention two things that Congress would need
to do. One is mandatory everify.
Speaker 1 (35:23):
That's explain, explain explain that though.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
That's the online system that it's free for employers to use,
and what it involves is when you hire somebody, you
do the payroll information with Social Security and IRS. Anyway,
it's just another website you go to verify the person's
lawfully authorized to work. And it's not perfect, but it's
pretty good. It's it can be gained, but it's not
(35:46):
easy to gain. And it exists now. It's up and
running for a government program and actually works pretty well.
But it's voluntary and so only about half of new
hires of screens through it. Everybody needs to do that.
It needs to be just a regular part of the
hiring process on its own. It's not a magic bullet
that's going to end illegal immigration, but it's kind of
(36:07):
the lowest hanging fruit. The most obvious thing we need
to do, and the other thing Congress needs to do
is reform asylum rules because under Biden, that was the
excuse for opening up the border was while these people
are asylum seekers and Asylum is an artifact of the
(36:28):
Cold War and the end of World War Two. It
basically was invented in nineteen fifty one by UN treaty.
The president can in fact start the process of reforming
it by withdrawing from the UN Refugee treat we signed
the nineteen sixty seven version of but it doesn't really matter.
But the point is he can withdraw from the treaty.
Congress still has to change the law, but I think
(36:49):
politically the way to get the ball rolling is for
the president to withdraw from the treaty. I actually suggested
that to the White House last time, and some people
were perceptive, and it never went anywhere mean because Jared
Kushner liked the idea, or Ivanka was like, oh, that's mean,
daddy or something. Anyway, whatever it is, it didn't happen.
It's put completely within the president's power and it is
(37:13):
essential because asylum is different from refugee reso refugees. We
could do it badly. We often have ilan Omar as
an example a case in point, but it's something that
we It's an active American it's a sovereign act of
the government. Asylum is an illegal alien, breaking into your
country and saying you you have no choice but to
(37:34):
let me stay because I have a right to stay
here whether you like it or not. That has to change.
It's the big vulnerability in all developed countries. Europe is
facing this asylum being the way that is sort of
the vehicle for illegal immigration. Israel is facing it, people
waiting across the Jordan River from Africa and saying you know,
(37:56):
you have to let me stay. Australia's dealt with it.
So all modern societies need to deal with the sylo
n Ultimately it's Congress that needs to fix that. In
our case.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Where can people go to read more about from americansern
Immigration Studies and from your stuff?
Speaker 2 (38:12):
We're online at CIS dot org. Everything's there. We have
new blog posts every day, and anything we do elsewhere,
like op eds and stuff, we always have in the
link in the in the blog. So that's kind of
the one place to go. And if you like snark
and sarcasm, I'm on Twitter at Mark s as In
Stephen Mark s. Crecoria.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
Well Mark, thank you for being here. Check out Center
for Immigration Studies. I love that website. I go to
it all the time. Thank you for being on this podcast.
Thank you Ryan, you're listening to It's The Numbers Game
with Ryan Grodwsky. We'll be right back after this message.
Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment of
the show. I have to tell you I have received
so many emails recently and it means so much to me,
(38:57):
Like it's I'm very humble by because everything that I
do in my professional life are most things I do
in my professional life is very solitary. I don't work
in an office. I really never have worked in an office.
I do a podcast with just a producer. I'll do television.
I'm invited with just a cameraman. I write alone. So
I don't ever feel like anyone is listening. Even though
(39:20):
I see number of reports, it doesn't mean as much
as getting some human communication that there's somebody else on
the other side of this phone or wherever you're listening.
So it really it means a lot to me. If
you want to be part of the ask Me Anything segment,
if you want to ask me any questions on polling
or policy or my favorite movie or whatever, email me
(39:41):
ryanat Numbers Game podcast dot com. Let's plug Ryan at
Numbers Game Podcast dot com I read every email, and
those that I can't answer on air, I will personally
email them back. So I have two questions this week.
First question this week comes from Jill. She writes, after
listening to your May twenty ninth podcast about shifting political landscapes,
(40:01):
I am interested in your thoughts on whether Americans would
come together if attacked by another country. Seeing videos of
bombs falling on Tel Aviv. I fear politically divided America
would not stand strong and united. Your thoughts that is
a great question. Thank you for sending me that email.
I think, like many people of a particular age, when
(40:24):
I think about Americans coming together in a time of tragedy,
I think about nine to eleven. It happened twenty four
years ago. So it's weird to say people of a
certain age because it feels like it was just like
last year in some sense, like it doesn't feel like
as long as it actually was. And you know, I
don't talk a lot about my personal life, but nine
(40:44):
to eleven was deeply, deeply personal to me in a
certain way because my mom worked on the ninety seventh
floor of Tower One. Thankfully she made it out alive
because she wasn't in her office yet if she had been,
she would have been killed. My uncle was a window
washer at the World Trade Center, so and thankfully he
made it out alive. So the memories of that day
(41:08):
were very real because of how personal it was, and
I guess parts of the country it was, but it
wasn't at the same way. But they was a feeling
of we should all be together. I would actually love
to do a podcast for nine to eleven with my
mom and my uncle on it and talk about that day.
(41:28):
I didn't even mention this on to this to them yet.
They have no idea. I'm going to pitch this them,
but I'm going to do it and we'll see if
they're if they'll be up in it, they'll be up
for it. But growing up in New York City, I think,
and being middle aged at this point, I think that
that day and those memories of even the post nine
to eleven are so palpable and more than than they
(41:52):
even were when when it first happened, because there was
a real sense of unity and that everyone was for
New York City, which being a New Yorker, you know
that doesn't happen very often. I think there was a
Woody Allen line from Annie Hall where he thinks everyone,
if the whole country thinks everyone from New York is
a Jewish, pornographic homosexuals, a socialist. And I think that,
(42:13):
and I live here. That's very much true how some
people view in New York City. So the fact the
whole country came together is super powerful, super meaningful, and
I don't think it would happen again. I talked to
a veteran recently who served in Iraq and signed up
after nine to eleven, and he was from the middle
of the country, and he said some of the effect
(42:35):
of like viewing how New Yorkers feel about us, I
wouldn't go fight for them anymore. And I feel like
he's probably not alone. So my heart tells me that
they would, that we would do it, but because of
the Internet, because of grifters who try to make a
name for themselves pedaling conspiracy theories or unpopular sentiment, attacking
(42:58):
our own country, attacking our own people. I think that
there would be a real incentive for people out there
to make money by, you know, tearing each other down
in a time when we really need help. And I
just feel it that way. Maybe I'm wrong maybe. I
mean the floods in North Carolina were a good example that,
(43:19):
and the fires and flora in California were a good
example of people rallying around and coming together. My heart
tells me that they would, but my head sits there
and says, now, they would probably use the moment to really,
especially in a war, to fracture us. So all right,
I'm not going to leave it on a down or not.
I'm going to do one more email. Here's the here
(43:41):
is the so, he says, HI love the podcast. First
heard you on Claim Buck and had to follow yours. Truly,
keep keep this brief, and I get a lot of emails,
And I don't get a lot of emails, by the way,
I just get very few, but I appreciate them. In
response to your Omaha e Verify story you covered Friday
years ago, I ran EACHR at a small manufacturing plant
(44:01):
in Lincoln. I guess Lincoln, Nebraska, forty miles southwest of Omaha.
Low paid, no skilled jobs, hard to hire folks. We
employed ninety percent immigrants. Received a letter from Social Security
that sixty of our one hundred and twenty social Security
numbers were invalid, not stolen, but they did not exist.
I put out a notice that we need to reverify
their social secure numbers, so to bring their IDs and
(44:23):
Social Security cards the next day and we could clear it.
None showed up to work the next day or ever again.
My CEO often turned a blind eye to this, for
one simple operational reality is that he needs workers and
they only be paid. Over the years, we had a
handful of stolen ones, but mostly fake social Security numbers.
I copy them all as an onboarding and they looked legit,
(44:45):
like a legit documentation. At the Omaha plant, they are
facing a similar situation. I suspect a few residents like
to want to work there or at all, so the
illegal aliens who want to are welcome by the company.
Supply met demand, and the firm used e verify the
best that they could quote unquote and hope that they'd
fly under the radar. Illegal entry is a crime, and
I am for deportations and against the bogus orchestrated protests,
(45:08):
but I do understand the business's case when citizens would
rather sit at home and lemmit that they can't start
their careers at the same point as their parents are today.
I don't mean that to paint everyone the same brush.
But I'm a finance but I'm a finance professor and
see enough of the stereotype. I'm afraid. While the manufacturers
need workers to get product out the door. Anyway, I
(45:28):
don't write often a podcast I follow, but the story
was literally so close to my home. Appreciate your intellect. LW. Hughes, LW.
Thank you for this email. Yeah. I speak to people
all the time, business people, and they say, what do
you want me to do? It is a problem with
the fact that there are a lot of Americans who
are comfortable enough and this is true my own family,
(45:51):
that they don't let their teenage children or sometimes twenty
some adudi year old children work because they don't have to.
So there's millions out of the laborpool who could be
getting jobs. Let's not even say agriculture jobs, but just
some jobs out there that have to go to resources
like illegal immigration. But there's also the problem of that
we do give out visas. We give out a million
(46:14):
plus visas a year. We don't do the job of
having our visas because most visas, most green cards and
visas are through family reunification and not through work needs,
so we don't have enough going to the right place.
One and two, employers do not want to go through
(46:34):
the process of housing and transporting these people and applying
for the visas. They just want the illegal alien stuff.
And I understand the need of businesses to operate. I
completely get that, but for in the agriculture industry, they
should be doing two to three things. One, changing the
agriculture visa to make it possible for people to apply easier.
(46:56):
To mechanize because we have I have the machinery to
do most farm labor. Now Japan doesn't have a plethora
of Mexican showing up every year to do their rice patties.
They have machines that do them. We could mechanize a
lot of our labor force. And Three, we need to
reform the way we do welfare to make sure able
(47:19):
body people are working. I mean, that's just I think
the three things. And I wish we had lived in
a culture that would produce people who war teenagers in
Ano their twenties to do jobs. I mean, that's just
that's just, you know, they don't I agree with the
old w Thank you for your email. I appreciate you.
I appreciate all you guys. Please like and subscribe to
(47:41):
this podcast each and every week. It means a lot.
You can do it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
wherever you get your podcast. I'll speak to you guys
on Thursday. Thank you,
Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gradowsky. I'm
here again, Happy Monday. I hope you all had a
great weekend back at it, and I know it is
the dead of summer, so thank you for being here.
In talking about politics, last week was a busy week.
There was obviously a lot of news with Iran and Israel,
and it was kind of whiplash following it all. It's
very difficult when you're hearing international news, trying to understand
(00:27):
who to believe, which side you get all the information from,
and seeing clips online some of its Ai generated some
of his old video, so that's been kind of wild
to watch. Trump and Tucker even kind of got into it.
Trump called Tucker a kook on truth social after Tucker
did an introdut Steve Bannon about Iran, which I thought
(00:48):
was something I didn't expect to happen. I don't have
that many insights into the Middle East, and I'm not
going to do an episode on the Israel stuff. It's
just I don't have a lot of one deep felt
opinions aside from kind of bland, generic ones, and there's
just it's just not it's not for me, and it's
(01:09):
not what I'm planned doing this podcast on. But I
do have a good story about Tucker Carlson that I
would like to share with the listeners because I think
you guys would like it. I did Tucker's show when
he was on Fox like six times and when you
did it, because he did it out of his studio
in Maine and of his house, so he wasn't like
I was never in a room with him. I think
(01:30):
he moved to me, like after the first year when
there were protesters at his house in DC. This is
not hidden information, by the way, this is well reported.
So you would go. I would go to a satellite
location and sit in a black room by myself and
tape with just you know, a camera. They were not
even a camera guy, just me in a camera. And
(01:51):
there was complete silence on my end until the segment
started because they would do whatever they needed to do.
And that's how guests we're working with anyway, So the
whole time you were there, I'm a note taker. I
take tons of notes. If you couldn'tell him this podcast,
and I'm sitting here in complete silence. And then one
time I started to hear Tucker's side of the broadcast
(02:15):
and what was going on, I guess with his EPs
and his producers and whatnot. And they were blasting Willie
Nelson's Roll Me Up and Smoking When I Die, and
Tucker's like singing along. That's all I could hear as
I'm trying to remember what I'm gonna talk about, and
he's like singing, and he goes, let's go, and then
(02:38):
they go right on air like there was no like previews,
so you know, Tucker introduces me twenty seconds to that.
All I could hear in my head was him singing
roll Me Up and Smoking when I Die. Really funny anyway,
total side note, nothing to do with Israel, but just
a funny story anyway. This week also there is the
upcoming New York City Democratic primary for them mayor of
(03:00):
the city. It's tomorrow is the primary, June twenty fourth.
Early voting has started last week. The numbers coming out
of the Burroughs for who's showing up look very good
for socialist Zoran Mandini. Mendini. I know, I just butchered
that name, but don't worry about it. He's a socialist
all you have to remember. But I saw some private
(03:23):
democratic polling and they do believe that Andrew Cuomo got
former Governor Andrew Cuomo is going to pull this out
with a decent double digit margin. New York has the
ranked choice voting, which is the stupidest way to do
an election. Only someone with a PhD and political science
could think of that. So we won't know who's the
winner probably on election night. Will probably have to wait
several days while they rank them all and count all
(03:45):
the votes. But I've heard from Democrats they do feel
like Kuoma is going to pull it out, which if
he does, we'll see if the Working Family Party endorses
the Socialist and it is a four Democrat to one
Republican race, which is very possible.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Lastly, and most consequentially though, for this podcast, what I
want to talk to listeners about was President Trump's many
different takes on immigration enforcement. So we all know that
immigration restriction was a centerpiece of Trump's two successful presidential campaigns.
In twenty sixteen, it was build the Wall that was
his rally and cry, and in twenty twenty four it
was mass deportations. You could see signs at the RNC
(04:22):
people waving saying mass deportations was a very proud logo,
there was no hidden agenda around it. The only campaign
that he didn't really emphasize immigration enforcement was in twenty twenty,
allegedly at the advice of his son in law, Jared Kushner.
Trump also put out a white paper in twenty sixteen
where he said he would do all these things on
legal immigration to reduce the numbers. When he first became president,
(04:45):
he actually supported a bill from Senator Tom Cotton called
the Rays Act, which would have created a point system
people would have allowed been allowed entering into our country
based on how many points they ranked up if they
spoke English, if they had a college degree, if they
had skills, if they had money, and it would have
cut legal immigration by fifty percent. It never got passed
(05:05):
into law, but Trump actually supported it when it first
came out in twenty seventeen. Now, most of those promises
on legal immigration never kept right. He just never kind
of kept them, and they kind of were sidelined by
a lot of people in the ADMIN who were big
supporters of mass legal immigration. It wasn't all of Trump's fault,
but it happened right before COVID and actually legal immigration
(05:28):
started taking up. Throughout Trump's term, there was intense pressure
from corporate donors and from the Republican business class. When
he announced his run in twenty twenty four. President Trump
really did back away from a lot of the earlier
stuff he made in twenty sixteen about reducing legal immigration,
but mass deportition was still the center theme. He was
(05:48):
very much holding on to that campaign promise. And as
someone who was a day one twenty sixteen, twenty fifteen,
whatever it was, Trump's supporter, which was actually ten years
ago from last week, I was very skeptical that he
would keep the promises the second time that he won
successfully in twenty twenty four, the third time he ran,
I was very skeptical he would keep those promises because
(06:10):
he had walked away from so many of the legal
immigration stuff in twenty sixteen. And I'm happy to sit
there and say I was wrong, you know. And actually
the reason I took the meeting, even with the Desanta's
influencers in twenty twenty four was because I was so skeptical.
But I'm happy that I was wrong. So here we
are six months into President Trump's second term.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
And.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Legal illegal immigration is down substantially. Right, he has completely
kept his promises. On enforcing the border. There's essentially no
border crossings. From February to April twenty twenty five, there
were thirty five thousand illegal alien encounters at our southern border.
That's down from five hundred and fifty nine thousand during
(06:56):
the same three month period the year prior under President Biden.
So from five hundred and fifty nine thousand to thirty
five thousand, that's almost a complete shutdown. And ICE has
done a really incredible job at increasing their capacity to
do interior apprehensions. The most recent ICE detention data shows
that the average number of people held is up twenty
(07:19):
five percent since President Trump took office. You might have
heard there's a trope coming out of the media that
President Trump is deporting less people than President Biden or
President Obama. That is really just based on how President
Biden and President Obama cooked the numbers, because what they
were doing where they were counting everyone arrested by CBP,
(07:40):
that's the Border Patrol agents who were being turned back
at the border as deportations, even though they were never
in the interior of the country. So President Trump's apprehensions
and deportations are coming from within the country. People who've
been living here rather than people who just come to
the border and are turned away, which President Biden wasn't
(08:01):
really doing a lot of that anyway, at the advice
of Ron Klain, So Ron claim was his advisor, who
was very liberal and immigration anyway. So now let's talk
about mass deportation. That's another story entirely. In the first
one hundred days in office, I sufficially report that there
were about sixty five thousand illegal aliens removed from our country.
(08:21):
While there's been no official update since that one hundred days,
the estimates coming out of people in the know and
the administration, though not in ICE specifically, say that it's
been one hundred and forty thousand to two hundred and
seven thousand total deportation in the six months. We'll have
to wait till ICE gives them gives an official number
(08:43):
whenever they update their numbers periodically to find the exact amount,
but one hundred and forty thousand, two hundred and seven
thousand is our best estimate. There's a question also a
self deportation, the number of people choosing to leave the
country on their own devices because they don't want to
be arrested and deported. President Trump's administration is actually offering
(09:04):
to pay illegals one thousand dollars plus a free flight
out of the country if they leave without having to
go through the rigmarole of a cord and an arrest
and all the rest of it. And several thousand have
taken the administration up on their offer. A story from
the Wall Street Journal that's gone viral over the last
few days is that data released alongside the recent job
report from the Labor Department show that the number of
(09:27):
form born people either working or looking for work fell
by one million from March to April. That's the biggest
two month decline in form born labor force since the
early days of the pandemic. It's unclear if they are
leaving the country or just leaving the workforce because they're
afraid of being arrested and deported. A resource that I
(09:49):
have started to use to look at if there's indications
of self deportations by different groups is the CDC Wonder
Fertility Data. Okay, let me explain. Back in twenty ten,
there was a law that Arizona pass called SB ten seventy,
which would allow local law enforcement to ask people for
(10:10):
proof of citizenship during routine encounters like traffic stops that
they suspected the person was not legally in the country.
And what happened was when the Arizona Health Department updated
their birth data year and year, year by year, there
was a five percent decline in the number of children
being born to Hispanic women in the state from twenty
(10:33):
from two thousand and eight to twenty twelve. Because remember
signed twenty ten, the number dropped by a while fourteen
percent fewer children being born by Hispanic women. Hispanic women
went from having three thousand more children than white women
in the state to five thousand, five hundred fewer. That's
because they were self supporting from the state. They were
(10:54):
leaving the state in order not to be asked when
they were driving to a stop line or whatever if
they were legally in the country. Illegal aliens were not,
you know, not just your regular legal Hispanic American, but
illegal aliens were leaving. And they didn't necessarily all go
to Mexico, but or or wherever their native country was.
A lot went to California or Nevada or New Mexico,
(11:16):
states with looser immigration laws, but they did leave Arizona.
So what does the CDC wonder early data say about
the country as a whole now that Trump is doing
these strict immigration enforcement. I want to sit there and
note that there's this is the preliminary data that only
goes to April, so we're not but we're not getting
(11:37):
like the full number because they didn't include May and
June and that's when a lot of the immigration enforcement happened.
So March and April twenty twenty five compared to a
year ago, there's been about a one percent drop in
Asian births, and Hispanic birth rate is basically flat. There's
almost no change completely. Side note, birth rates among black
(11:58):
women drop substained at four percent, and birth rates among
white women who has dropped about one percent, which is
kind of normal considering there's less of people having kids.
But once again there's the Hispanic birth rate is flat.
So it's only two months, it's only early data. But
if there was a sign for mass deportation at a
(12:21):
million people, which is a substantial amount of people, you
would see something in the birth data, and it's not there.
So I kind of have my hesitancy towards whether or
not that million number is correct. Maybe it will, we'll
have to sit there and wait for more data to
come out in May and June. Maybe they will show
numbers that coincide with the million number coming out of
(12:44):
the Labor Department. This hasn't stopped researchers from believing that
we're about to see the first net decline in overall
immigration population for the first time in fifty years. According
to The Washington Post, two economists from the Brooklyn Institute,
which is liberal thing tank, and AI, which is a
conservative thing tank. They both kind of suck on immigration
(13:05):
as a side note, but they are coming out with
a paper this month staying that immigration is likely to
be in negative numbers for the first time in fifty
years and twenty twenty five, which leads us back to Trump.
Mass deportation was obviously on the menu when he became president.
Democrats seemed completely shocked that that means actually deporting people.
(13:25):
I think that they must thought of mean vibes or something.
But it actually is what he says it is, and
he was really carrying that vision out him and his
advisors and Steven Miller and everything until last week when
out of nowhere, President Trump, at the advice of his
Agriculture secretary Brook Rollins, a former close ally of Jared Kushner's,
(13:48):
announced that they would no longer be doing immigration enforcement
in farms, restaurants, and hotels. It was this abrupt turn
of events that led to a bit of a backlash
amongst some conservatives. All progress was being made on the
side of the American worker even in those industries. Meatpacking
giant JBS signed a new labor contract with the Commercial
(14:09):
Workers International Union for higher wages, better safety standards, and
paid sickly. It was the first time in forty years
that this meat packing giant chose to just that they're
in doing improved wages and safety standards, and it was
because they didn't have an endless stream of illegal aliens
crossing the border like they had under previous administrations. After
(14:32):
receiving initial pushback from conservatives, Brooke Rollins came out with
a Twitter post which was very much like, these allegations
against me are not true, but it's good that it's
happening that we're not doing this enforcement very much kind
of showing her face. Remember she has spent a decade
on record supporting amnesty for illegal aliens and jail break
for criminals, and definitely more one of more liberal people
(14:56):
in Trump's orbit, so it wouldn't be surprising to anybody
who knows people in the administration that she was doing
this to begin with. President Trump came out with a
truth social post quickly after she made those comments, stating
that he was going to continue deportations, but only in
blue states, as if millions of illegal aliens don't live
in Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. Then within twenty four
(15:20):
hours of that truth social post, a story from the
Washington Post broke, where the Department of Home and Security
announced to its depth they were reversed in the guidelines
again and continuing mass deportations at farms, hotels, and restaurants.
The Post suggested that Stephen Miller was behind the reversal
of the earlier decision, which good for Stephen, But what
about farms and endless stories about rotting fruit? You may ask,
(15:43):
what about these need to have an endless supply of
illegal aliens, which they always say whenever you have any
pushback against illegal aliens at farms, Well, farmers can apply
for an H two A visa, that is the farm
worker visa. We issue more than three one hundred thousand
h twoa VSAs per year. But here's the thing. If
(16:04):
you apply the legal way, farmers have to ensure that
they're not affecting American workers, that they're paying prevailing wages,
and they're offering housing and transportation. With illegal immigration, they
don't have to do any of that. They can pass
any costs over to taxpayers who get sit there in
fund illegal aliens when they go to the hospitals when
they need when if they have children here, the children
(16:27):
qualify for SNAP and for all these food benefits, and
for public housing and all the rest of it. Taxpayers
absorb the costs for big agriculture. Immigration enforcement is at
the root of the Trump movement and by the way,
most nationalist movements across the entire world, not just talking
about Europe, but in Asia and Latin America and Africa.
(16:47):
Immigration is the root cause of nationalist movements across the
entire globe. The thing that established in politicians globalists establish
political parties, the thing that they hate the most, which
is a populist movement they are responsible for because they
refuse to enforce immigration. That's the long and complete short
(17:09):
of it. With me this week is an expert on
immigration who's been writing about this for decades. He's been
doing it longer than I've been an adult. He knows
what's going on in the Trump administration, what they're doing right,
what they can improve on, and if we're ever going
to get real mass deportation. Stay tuned. Mark corn is
my guest this week. He is the executive director for
(17:30):
the Center for Immigration Studies, a fabulous nonprofit. I highly
recommend everyone checking out. Mark. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Glad to be here.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Mark.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
What do you make of the administration's abrupt series of
changes when it comes to immigration enforcement during the week.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Well, what happened was that the President seemed to suggest
and PIS actually ordered its agents to exempt from enforcement
all farms, meat packers, restaurants, and hotels. And that was crazy.
It just doesn't make sense. And it only lasted though
(18:08):
for a brief time. He was caving to pressure from
business interests and from even within his own administration, the
Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, who was kind of, in
a sense more of agriculture's lobbyist in the administration rather
than the administration's representative high culture.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
But we saw this is the first Trump term two
that the Secretary of Agriculture was very hesitant towards a
lot of stuff. So that's not unusual. But I went
to brook and during my monologue but go ahead, sorry,
yeah so, but I.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Mean it is an example of I guess regulatory capture
is what they call it in political science. But the
fact is President is a good relationship with her. He's
also a businessman. He hears from other businessmen, and so
you know, he said, okay, yeah, this is important, and
so we'll back off on this. Well, immediately he faced
not just a resistance from his own base, you know,
(19:06):
people online and elsewhere saying this is crazy, but within
the administration itself there was extreme pushback. I only know
a few of the details. I can't really talk about
what the little that I know, but there was strong pushback.
And so on Monday they reversed course and set the
(19:27):
kind of a message reversing the ban on doing immigration
enforcement in the whole sectors of the economy. And it's
good he did both for political and policy reasons that
he stuck to his original you know, his original strategy.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
What gets me is, and I don't know if you
saw this or not, it just and it is not
important if you did him. But I was watching two
Way the other morning on Monday morning when they were
talking about this, and they had this is pre reversal,
and Sean Spicer, who was in the first Trump cabinet,
was a very high ranking member of the Republican Party
for some time has probably a year close to the
(20:05):
president still or mouth close to the president, sat there
and said, this is republic the Republican Party's chance to
really go big on immigration and get an amnesty done
without voting rights, which is it drives me genuinely wanting
to jump through screens to scream at people when they
(20:26):
say you can pass amnesties without voting rights. You've been
working on immigration longer than I have been an adult.
No shame in that. You're very qualified to talk about this.
Can you talk about for anyone who was like, oh,
that's a reasonable position, Talk about what happens when judges
(20:46):
get their hands on things like the eighty six Reagan amnesty,
how they kept it going for years and expanding it
for years after you know, it was even assigned by
the presid that.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yeah, you know, to adapt something Ronald Reagan used to say,
immigration control is only one memo away from extinction. In
other words, the business interests and the libertarian interest on
the Republican side, even if they appear in magaphace, really
(21:23):
haven't changed. They still want as soon as the opportunity
presents itself, they're going to say, now is the time
to amnesty all the illegal immigrants and to you know,
expand legal immigration even more than the million we take
it now every year. So that's always going to be there,
and you know, eternal vigilance is the price of immigration control.
(21:44):
So this incident didn't really surprise me, at least the
impulses of the people trying to take advantage of it.
For instance, there were some before even this happened, there
was an open letter from a bunch of Republican congressmen.
I think there were his Spanic Republicans from.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Narius Sorrows and are was I did the name person
she's baffering, Ladeo from California. He's actually not Hispanic, he's Portugese.
But he's also horrendous on immigration.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Immigration. But they were saying, look, we backed the president
and we wanted to deport criminals too, but let's not
deport anybody else. So that that impulse is always there.
And you know, the president has changed the kind of
the perspective of the party in general, but that perspective,
that minority perspective, if you will, among Republicans isn't going away,
(22:37):
and it's always going to try to, like a weed,
you know, grow up through the cracks and the sidewalk
again if it's allowed to.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Well, you've been you've been going, You've been writing. I
think you started writing in nineteen ninety five. I think
that that was the year I looked you up because
I was like, I actually know Mark for a long time,
but I don't know his whole biography. He marine's in
nineteen ninety five. In there when you started, right, Bill
Clinton was the president. The Barbara Jordan Commission, and for
(23:05):
those who don't know what it was, it was a
Democratic black congresswoman who had started a commission on how
to improve the lives of working class people, and she
came up with the idea of you need to reduce
legal immigration was going on, and it was Republicans that
really killed Barbara Jordan Commission's full adoption because I think
Clinton was willing to do it. How has the Republican
(23:25):
Party changed since the mid nineties amics, as you have
they aside from Donald Trump, are we just one non
Trump election away from fading back into old habits?
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Well, just to defend the some of the Republicans back
in nineteen ninety five, the legislation that was introduced based
on the Barbara Jordan Commission was in the Republican Congress.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
It was.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Written by Republican Senator Al Simpson and the Senate and
Lamar Smith, republic congressman in the House. It was killed
though by or not killed, but it was gutted by
Spencer Abraham, who was a pro business Republican in the Senate.
So it was almost a kind of debate among Republicans.
(24:12):
The Democrats weren't even really part of the discussion. And
Clinton would have gone along with it so long as
Barbara Jordan was alive, because the woman had real moral
theft among Republicans. As soon as she died, he just
flushed the whole thing down the toilet. And so Congress
passed a good law, but it was just enforcement. It
(24:32):
didn't include legal immigration cuts. And what's changed, I think
is that, and it has changed on the Republican side,
is that although there are still pro amnesty, These de
facto open borders Republicans, they are now no longer in
any position to be driving the bus. In other words,
they're kind of the tolerated rump of the old Republican
(25:00):
consensus on mass immigration, who agree on other issues and
every coalition has many parts to it, but they are
now clearly pushed to the back of the bus. They're
not in any position to you know, kind of dictate
terms to the rest of the party.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
That's who are for Okay, So for the average listener,
because I always try to give my audience as much
facts as they can possibly get, they don't get a
you know, more narrative driven podcasting and television shows. Who
are members of Congress that are driving the bus on
a more restriction as side of lower levels of league
(25:38):
immigration and enforcing the laws to actually get rid of
illegal immigration. Who are some people that people should look
at and say, this is the little leader you know.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
On illegal immigration and enforcement, which is an easier issue. Obviously,
pretty much everybody in leadership is in good you know,
is solid on that speaker Johnson. You know, people a
lot of sort of are more excitable. People on the
right are dissatisfied with what he's doing, but he's actually
with a what three vote majority or something, been phenomenally effective.
(26:14):
And they passed in the last Congress HR two, which
had a whole panoply of important changes, the kinds of
things that can't be in a reconciliation built in other words,
that substantive changes, and they're going to reintroduce that. So
on immigration enforcement, you're pretty much going to be, you know,
(26:35):
almost all the Republicans are going to be pretty good.
Legal immigration numbers is where the issue is, and I
think in the House a future leader on this issue.
All current leader is Chip Roy. He's good in other words,
he's committed to broadly reducing immigration, not just enforcing the law.
And an up and coming person a freshman is Brandon
(26:56):
Gill from Texas, who's definitely wants to make this issue
again legal numbers as well his and.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
Who was Brandon's a GC for his first campaign.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I don't know, thank you? Oh really, okay, congratulations yet,
thank you?
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Then it has to be Tom Cotton, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Tom Cotton, clearly, Josh Hawley as well, he's sort of,
you know, taken the lead on other issues, but he
is definitely on this issue. And I got to say,
even Ted Cruz has become better on the legal immigration issue.
He used to be more of just a kind of
conventional legal good, illegal bad Republican. In fact, he literally
(27:40):
said that once on the four of the Senate, my
immigration policy is legal good, illegal bad. And I was
I felt like saying, Ted, that's like a joke, that's
a meb, what are you doing? But he's gotten better.
And yeah, and I'm gonna say, one of the best
people who's no longer in the Senate is Jade Vance
on irbiration. So you know, if knock on wood, you know,
(28:02):
things work out. In three and a half years, I
think we would have, you know, an actual restrictionist in
the White House. Whereas with Trump. Look, I voted for
the guy all three times. I'm delighted his president, but
you know, he's not really a restrictionist. He's more of
an enforced the law. But we need lots of legal immigrants.
(28:25):
Would you say transitional figure? I think?
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Would you say he's the most conservative president immigration in
your lifetime? Oh?
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Absolutely, no question about it. Well, I mean I don't know, let's.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
See, yeah, lifetime thus far. Okay, So the left, the
Democrats and the left broadly have used the law Fair
to try to slow down his agenda on immigration. How
effective have they been because you've seen screaming on the
part of you know, commentary and commentators that he is
(28:58):
usurped the judiciary, which is never wrong in their eyes,
to deep poorty illegal aliens. Have they have they been
that effective on it because it feels like he's kind
of doing what we need to get done to do
mass deportation. Anyway.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
Uh, he's been way more effective than the first time around.
They learned a lot of lessons. They learned if you're
gonna spark a lawsuit, get the thing going early so
you have time to work it through the courts and win.
Because there were things triggers they pulled at the end
of the last administration and they just ran out of
time and so Biden just reversed them all. So, yeah,
he's been much more effective. But the Lawfair, Look, it's
(29:37):
been pretty effective, but it hasn't stopped them from doing
what they need to do. And in fact, if anything,
the bottleneck in getting more deportations, for instance, has been money.
That's what the big beautiful bill is. You know, we're
going to do it's not just hiring more ice agents
of what have you, because that takes years to recruit
(29:59):
and train people and all that. It's more money for
detention space because you're going to arrest all the people
you want. If you've got nowhere to hold them while
you do the paperwork send them home, you end up
having to let them go, and that's sort of missing
the whole point. So I think once that bill is
passed and the money is authorized or appropriated for them
to let out more contracts for detention space, you're going
(30:23):
to see deportations actually go up significantly, and there's just
nothing that the other side can do in court stop that.
The lawfair has mainly been about more narrow issues like
that jew hating crackpot in New York. Who is the
Columbia guy. That's just one guy, So it's holding up
(30:44):
that there's that you know, the court case is, you know,
getting a lot of attention, but it's just the detention
of one guy, and they're deporting a thousand people while
that's going on, you see what I mean. So so
the lawfare is almost more a kind of to make
the left feel better because they're stopping the deportation of
(31:05):
one guy rather than actually interfering with the president's agenda.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
Damy's allowed, but jew hitting crack pop, which is a
very funny turn of phrase, though.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
It applies to a lot of people. I'm afraid that's
one hundred is untrue.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
I wanted so. I did a debate in October September
of last year with the libertarian cant running for president
in case Olive I think his name was, and he
would say things and I want you to answer them,
because this is what a lot of regular people here
day in and day out. And on its face it
sounds good policy, but it's not good policy. So why
(31:45):
is it not a good idea just to let the
market and businesses set immigration standards.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Because there's an unlimited demand to come to the United States.
I mean, there's only you know, what is it, seven
and a half billion people outside the United States, but
you know ten percent of them come here. The United
States seas is to exist in any mediefal sense. And
this idea of a market based immigration policy means that
every American worker is now in direct competition with everybody
(32:16):
abroad who have you know, totally different expectations about salary
or work. You know, conditions or any any of that.
We have immigration limits precisely because there's only so much
immigration our system, broadly speaking, can successfully deal with, for instance,
(32:40):
in work in employment, we have a post industrial knowledge
based economy. If we're going to let everybody in the
world in, we're going to end up with a third
world low productivity economy, because that's what we be important.
We have a welfare state. Libertarians say, oh, that's true,
but let's just and welfare. Well, okay, you know, do
(33:02):
that and then give me a call.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
It's a part of any modern society. And then there's assimilation.
Even one hundred or two hundred years ago, assimilation was
still a difficult thing. It always is, but in a
modern society with both advanced communications and transportation so that
you can keep in touch, you know, with the old
country and basically almost live in two countries at the
(33:25):
same time, combined with a leadership class not just in
government but in business and schools and religion everywhere that
basically don't believe in assimilation. How can you americanize people?
So a market driven immigration policy is just a fancy
way of saying unlimited immigration and everybody sort of gets
(33:48):
except for some libertarians, that unlimited immigration is bad for
the country.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
And and what I think a lot of people don't know,
because not everyone knows history, especially on this issue specifically,
as well as maybe they should, is that for forty years,
we essentially had almost no legal immigration. I mean, it
was very close to zero between what was in nineteen
twenty four, ninety four.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Nineteen sixty five, and I think we happy immigration, but
it was a lot lower than it had.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Been and during their forty year period we had. It
was funny. I had a tweet that went slightly viral
because someone was saying, the the fact that there is
a white that people are perceived as being white, is
a means assimilation works. Yes, after two hundred years, several
(34:41):
forced integration through through the draft wars. I think there
was four drafts between or three drafts between the nineteen
twenty fourteen sixty five Vietnam Korea and World War Two,
and a unique culture people who all came from a
regions two hundred miles apart from each other seemed to
assimilate in America anyway. Sorry, Okay, last question for you.
(35:05):
What is something that Congress should be moving forward? To
achieve the president's agenda on immigration.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Let me just mention two things that Congress would need
to do. One is mandatory everify.
Speaker 1 (35:23):
That's explain, explain explain that though.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
That's the online system that it's free for employers to use,
and what it involves is when you hire somebody, you
do the payroll information with Social Security and IRS. Anyway,
it's just another website you go to verify the person's
lawfully authorized to work. And it's not perfect, but it's
pretty good. It's it can be gained, but it's not
(35:46):
easy to gain. And it exists now. It's up and
running for a government program and actually works pretty well.
But it's voluntary and so only about half of new
hires of screens through it. Everybody needs to do that.
It needs to be just a regular part of the
hiring process on its own. It's not a magic bullet
that's going to end illegal immigration, but it's kind of
(36:07):
the lowest hanging fruit. The most obvious thing we need
to do, and the other thing Congress needs to do
is reform asylum rules because under Biden, that was the
excuse for opening up the border was while these people
are asylum seekers and Asylum is an artifact of the
(36:28):
Cold War and the end of World War Two. It
basically was invented in nineteen fifty one by UN treaty.
The president can in fact start the process of reforming
it by withdrawing from the UN Refugee treat we signed
the nineteen sixty seven version of but it doesn't really matter.
But the point is he can withdraw from the treaty.
Congress still has to change the law, but I think
(36:49):
politically the way to get the ball rolling is for
the president to withdraw from the treaty. I actually suggested
that to the White House last time, and some people
were perceptive, and it never went anywhere mean because Jared
Kushner liked the idea, or Ivanka was like, oh, that's mean,
daddy or something. Anyway, whatever it is, it didn't happen.
It's put completely within the president's power and it is
(37:13):
essential because asylum is different from refugee reso refugees. We
could do it badly. We often have ilan Omar as
an example a case in point, but it's something that
we It's an active American it's a sovereign act of
the government. Asylum is an illegal alien, breaking into your
country and saying you you have no choice but to
(37:34):
let me stay because I have a right to stay
here whether you like it or not. That has to change.
It's the big vulnerability in all developed countries. Europe is
facing this asylum being the way that is sort of
the vehicle for illegal immigration. Israel is facing it, people
waiting across the Jordan River from Africa and saying you know,
(37:56):
you have to let me stay. Australia's dealt with it.
So all modern societies need to deal with the sylo
n Ultimately it's Congress that needs to fix that. In
our case.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Where can people go to read more about from americansern
Immigration Studies and from your stuff?
Speaker 2 (38:12):
We're online at CIS dot org. Everything's there. We have
new blog posts every day, and anything we do elsewhere,
like op eds and stuff, we always have in the
link in the in the blog. So that's kind of
the one place to go. And if you like snark
and sarcasm, I'm on Twitter at Mark s as In
Stephen Mark s. Crecoria.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
Well Mark, thank you for being here. Check out Center
for Immigration Studies. I love that website. I go to
it all the time. Thank you for being on this podcast.
Thank you Ryan, you're listening to It's The Numbers Game
with Ryan Grodwsky. We'll be right back after this message.
Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment of
the show. I have to tell you I have received
so many emails recently and it means so much to me,
(38:57):
Like it's I'm very humble by because everything that I
do in my professional life are most things I do
in my professional life is very solitary. I don't work
in an office. I really never have worked in an office.
I do a podcast with just a producer. I'll do television.
I'm invited with just a cameraman. I write alone. So
I don't ever feel like anyone is listening. Even though
(39:20):
I see number of reports, it doesn't mean as much
as getting some human communication that there's somebody else on
the other side of this phone or wherever you're listening.
So it really it means a lot to me. If
you want to be part of the ask Me Anything segment,
if you want to ask me any questions on polling
or policy or my favorite movie or whatever, email me
(39:41):
ryanat Numbers Game podcast dot com. Let's plug Ryan at
Numbers Game Podcast dot com I read every email, and
those that I can't answer on air, I will personally
email them back. So I have two questions this week.
First question this week comes from Jill. She writes, after
listening to your May twenty ninth podcast about shifting political landscapes,
(40:01):
I am interested in your thoughts on whether Americans would
come together if attacked by another country. Seeing videos of
bombs falling on Tel Aviv. I fear politically divided America
would not stand strong and united. Your thoughts that is
a great question. Thank you for sending me that email.
I think, like many people of a particular age, when
(40:24):
I think about Americans coming together in a time of tragedy,
I think about nine to eleven. It happened twenty four
years ago. So it's weird to say people of a
certain age because it feels like it was just like
last year in some sense, like it doesn't feel like
as long as it actually was. And you know, I
don't talk a lot about my personal life, but nine
(40:44):
to eleven was deeply, deeply personal to me in a
certain way because my mom worked on the ninety seventh
floor of Tower One. Thankfully she made it out alive
because she wasn't in her office yet if she had been,
she would have been killed. My uncle was a window
washer at the World Trade Center, so and thankfully he
made it out alive. So the memories of that day
(41:08):
were very real because of how personal it was, and
I guess parts of the country it was, but it
wasn't at the same way. But they was a feeling
of we should all be together. I would actually love
to do a podcast for nine to eleven with my
mom and my uncle on it and talk about that day.
(41:28):
I didn't even mention this on to this to them yet.
They have no idea. I'm going to pitch this them,
but I'm going to do it and we'll see if
they're if they'll be up in it, they'll be up
for it. But growing up in New York City, I think,
and being middle aged at this point, I think that
that day and those memories of even the post nine
to eleven are so palpable and more than than they
(41:52):
even were when when it first happened, because there was
a real sense of unity and that everyone was for
New York City, which being a New Yorker, you know
that doesn't happen very often. I think there was a
Woody Allen line from Annie Hall where he thinks everyone,
if the whole country thinks everyone from New York is
a Jewish, pornographic homosexuals, a socialist. And I think that,
(42:13):
and I live here. That's very much true how some
people view in New York City. So the fact the
whole country came together is super powerful, super meaningful, and
I don't think it would happen again. I talked to
a veteran recently who served in Iraq and signed up
after nine to eleven, and he was from the middle
of the country, and he said some of the effect
(42:35):
of like viewing how New Yorkers feel about us, I
wouldn't go fight for them anymore. And I feel like
he's probably not alone. So my heart tells me that
they would, that we would do it, but because of
the Internet, because of grifters who try to make a
name for themselves pedaling conspiracy theories or unpopular sentiment, attacking
(42:58):
our own country, attacking our own people. I think that
there would be a real incentive for people out there
to make money by, you know, tearing each other down
in a time when we really need help. And I
just feel it that way. Maybe I'm wrong maybe. I
mean the floods in North Carolina were a good example that,
(43:19):
and the fires and flora in California were a good
example of people rallying around and coming together. My heart
tells me that they would, but my head sits there
and says, now, they would probably use the moment to really,
especially in a war, to fracture us. So all right,
I'm not going to leave it on a down or not.
I'm going to do one more email. Here's the here
(43:41):
is the so, he says, HI love the podcast. First
heard you on Claim Buck and had to follow yours. Truly,
keep keep this brief, and I get a lot of emails,
And I don't get a lot of emails, by the way,
I just get very few, but I appreciate them. In
response to your Omaha e Verify story you covered Friday
years ago, I ran EACHR at a small manufacturing plant
(44:01):
in Lincoln. I guess Lincoln, Nebraska, forty miles southwest of Omaha.
Low paid, no skilled jobs, hard to hire folks. We
employed ninety percent immigrants. Received a letter from Social Security
that sixty of our one hundred and twenty social Security
numbers were invalid, not stolen, but they did not exist.
I put out a notice that we need to reverify
their social secure numbers, so to bring their IDs and
(44:23):
Social Security cards the next day and we could clear it.
None showed up to work the next day or ever again.
My CEO often turned a blind eye to this, for
one simple operational reality is that he needs workers and
they only be paid. Over the years, we had a
handful of stolen ones, but mostly fake social Security numbers.
I copy them all as an onboarding and they looked legit,
(44:45):
like a legit documentation. At the Omaha plant, they are
facing a similar situation. I suspect a few residents like
to want to work there or at all, so the
illegal aliens who want to are welcome by the company.
Supply met demand, and the firm used e verify the
best that they could quote unquote and hope that they'd
fly under the radar. Illegal entry is a crime, and
I am for deportations and against the bogus orchestrated protests,
(45:08):
but I do understand the business's case when citizens would
rather sit at home and lemmit that they can't start
their careers at the same point as their parents are today.
I don't mean that to paint everyone the same brush.
But I'm a finance but I'm a finance professor and
see enough of the stereotype. I'm afraid. While the manufacturers
need workers to get product out the door. Anyway, I
(45:28):
don't write often a podcast I follow, but the story
was literally so close to my home. Appreciate your intellect. LW. Hughes, LW.
Thank you for this email. Yeah. I speak to people
all the time, business people, and they say, what do
you want me to do? It is a problem with
the fact that there are a lot of Americans who
are comfortable enough and this is true my own family,
(45:51):
that they don't let their teenage children or sometimes twenty
some adudi year old children work because they don't have to.
So there's millions out of the laborpool who could be
getting jobs. Let's not even say agriculture jobs, but just
some jobs out there that have to go to resources
like illegal immigration. But there's also the problem of that
we do give out visas. We give out a million
(46:14):
plus visas a year. We don't do the job of
having our visas because most visas, most green cards and
visas are through family reunification and not through work needs,
so we don't have enough going to the right place.
One and two, employers do not want to go through
(46:34):
the process of housing and transporting these people and applying
for the visas. They just want the illegal alien stuff.
And I understand the need of businesses to operate. I
completely get that, but for in the agriculture industry, they
should be doing two to three things. One, changing the
agriculture visa to make it possible for people to apply easier.
(46:56):
To mechanize because we have I have the machinery to
do most farm labor. Now Japan doesn't have a plethora
of Mexican showing up every year to do their rice patties.
They have machines that do them. We could mechanize a
lot of our labor force. And Three, we need to
reform the way we do welfare to make sure able
(47:19):
body people are working. I mean, that's just I think
the three things. And I wish we had lived in
a culture that would produce people who war teenagers in
Ano their twenties to do jobs. I mean, that's just
that's just, you know, they don't I agree with the
old w Thank you for your email. I appreciate you.
I appreciate all you guys. Please like and subscribe to
(47:41):
this podcast each and every week. It means a lot.
You can do it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
wherever you get your podcast. I'll speak to you guys
on Thursday. Thank you,
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.