January 27, 2025 • 36 mins
Rush Limbaugh would be so proud of Vice President J.D. Vance rejecting the premise of Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan's line of questioning on illegal immigrant deportations. Ryan breaks down exactly how Vance achieves his objective in completely deconstructing the leftist talking points parroted by her and others.
John Fabbricatore joins with his informed take on Governor Jared Polis's preposterous claim that Colorado is not a 'sanctuary state' for illegal aliens.
Another installment of 'Trump's Hot Takes' has our 47th President absolutely obliterating Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass on the public stage during a press conference about California's wildfires.
John Fabbricatore joins with his informed take on Governor Jared Polis's preposterous claim that Colorado is not a 'sanctuary state' for illegal aliens.
Another installment of 'Trump's Hot Takes' has our 47th President absolutely obliterating Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass on the public stage during a press conference about California's wildfires.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
If you are a lawful permanent resident or a legal
immigrant who plans to stay, your children, of course, should
become American citizens. But let's say you're the child of
an ambassador, you don't become.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
That's not part of it.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Well, that is, that's an important principle, but we're saying
that that carve out should apply to anybody who doesn't
plan to stay here. If you come here on vacation
and you have a baby in an American hospital, that
baby doesn't become an American citizen.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
If you're an illegal alien and.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
You come here temporarily, hopefully your child does not become
an American citizen by virtue of just having been born
on American soil. It's a very basic principle an American
immigration law that if you want to become an American citizen,
and you've done it the right way, and the American
people and their collective wisdom have welcomed you into our
(00:47):
national community, then you become a citizen. But temporary residents,
people who come in here, whether legally or illegally, and
don't plan to stay, Yeah, your children should become American citizens.
I don't know any country that does that or why
we would be different.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
As Rush Limbaugh El Maha Rushi might say right on,
this is exactly how you handle the fake news mainstream media,
formerly legacy media like Margaret Brennan obvious lib thumb on
the scale and the debate that she moderated along with
(01:22):
Nora O'Donnell was a disgrace. And she tries on face
the nation to get a little fresh with Vice President
Vance and JD. Vance knows exactly how to handle it,
and he absolutely schools her, perhaps without her knowledge, even
I could tell, as somebody who does this for a living,
(01:44):
and granted most of my interviews are by phone, but
some of them are in person, that she wasn't even
really listening to interpret or understand what Jade Vance, Vice
President Vance was saying. She had her own set of
talking points, her own agenda that she went into this
interview with, and she was determined to get through them
(02:05):
one by one. And she was eviscerated on this point
because Vice President Vance points out the logical fallacy of
birthright citizenship. One foot on dry land in the United States,
you just happen to be born here and you're automatically
an American citizen. What a lottery ticket win that is,
(02:26):
but that's not how the Constitution is laid out. And
hear me now believe me later to quote Hans and
Franz from the old s and l sketch. This is
going to come before the Supreme Court of the United States.
It's time to revisit this. There needs to be clarification,
it needs to be updated. This decision goes back to
(02:47):
a case called the United States the Wong Kim arc
of eighteen ninety eight. So we're talking about almost one
hundred and thirty years ago on which the President upon
the entire argument of birthright citizenship is based. And I'm
(03:08):
no Mark Levin, but I'm going to do my best
to go through this in parts and explain how we
got to where we are today. First of all, the
fourteenth Amendment. That might sound familiar to you because there
are aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment that have been argued
in other ways. This would have come down, of course,
(03:28):
in the aftermath of the United States Civil War the
freed men and women of the United States African Americans
brought here originally as slaves, but that it would establish
and clarify that indeed they are citizens of the United States,
and nobody today would argue that the Fourteenth Amendment is
(03:48):
as follow Section one. All persons born or naturalized in
the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That
is going to be the key phrase you want to
keep an ear out for when this case is are
argued before the United States Supreme Court, and it no
doubt will be in due time. And that was the
reason and the motivation that President Trump issued the executive
(04:11):
order that he did on this topic. He wants it
to be challenged by the Libs in court. It has
been already, and he wants it to go to the
Supreme Court of the United States to be resolved once
and for all, because there are loopholes in this that
again defy logic. All persons born or naturalized in the
(04:31):
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No States shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property without due process of the law, nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of
(04:55):
the laws equal protection Clause Section one of the fourteenth Amendment.
You might remember the abortion argument stood on this at
one point. We continue now with Section two. Representatives shall
be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians,
not tax Native Americans. The nomenclature at the time was Indians.
(05:19):
But when the right to vote at any election for
the choice of electors for President and vice President of
the United States, representatives in Congress, and executive and judicial
officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof,
is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such
state being twenty one years of age and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged except for
(05:39):
participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number
of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number
of male citizens twenty one years of age and such state.
Now this is outdated for obvious reason. That jump off
the page. Women can now vote, but that would come later. Also,
you can be eighteen years of age now in vote,
(06:01):
it was twenty one back then. This again was supposed
to ensure that freedmen at the time, men black men
in the South were allowed to vote free of any
kind of incursion or obstacle. But we know what manifested
itself in the wake of the Southern Democrats in the
late eighteen hundreds through reconstruction and after the Jim Crow
(06:23):
laws that would apply, the poll taxes that would apply,
and this disenfranchised many African American voters at that time.
It was wrong, it was wicked, and it was the
South's way of clinging to whatever power they had along
racial lines. Section three of the fourteenth Amendment continues, no
person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or
(06:45):
elector of President and Vice President, or held any office
civil or military under the United States or any State,
who have previously taken an oath as a member of Congress,
or as an officer of the United States, or as
any member of a state legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution
of the United States, shall have engaged an insurrection or
(07:05):
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to
the enemies thereof. But Congress made by a vote of
two thirds of each House remove such a disability. And
now remember section three, fourteenth Amendment. Insurrectionists. This was the
argument that leftists and fascists in our own state used
(07:25):
to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, that he engaged
in insurrection rebellion that was never charged in a court
of law. It was never proven in a court of law.
Trump was never convicted of such in a court of law.
Yet the mere accusation led us through people that were
adjoined to that case, and joined to that case, whether
(07:46):
it's Mary On Nicholas or Christa Kaefer or any other
person who was named on this took a giant leap
of legal logic and said, by the mere accusation that
Donald Trump did, indeed, we include on behalf of all
Americans engage in an insurrection. Therefore he cannot run. So
(08:08):
we continue throughout this and the cases that would follow
in sequential order. Che Chan Ping the United States. That
was eighteen eighty nine. It's also known as the Chinese
exclusion case. And this would lead to the next case
that I'll talk about in just a moment. One of
the grounds of the challenge of the Act was the
Act ran a foul of the Berlin Game Treaty of
(08:29):
eighteen sixty eight. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge upheld
the authority of the US federal government to set immigration
policy and to pass new legislation, even if it overrode
the terms of previous international treaties. The decision was an
important precedent for the Supreme Court's deference to the plenary
power of the legislative branch in immigration law and the
(08:51):
government's authority to overturn the terms of international's treaties. Although
the term consular non revealability would not be used until
the twentieth century, the case was cited as a key
precedent in the defining cases that established that doctrine. As such,
it played an important role in limiting the orl of
the judiciary in shaping immigration. The United States short version
(09:15):
Congress controls immigration law the executive branch also through executive order,
and Donald Trump right now has brought this to the
fore and put this in the arena for debate and
perhaps reform by the legislative branch in the form of
the Senate. In the House. What the Supreme Court will do, though,
is further interpret and perhaps update the case that I
(09:37):
mentioned a moment ago United States v. Wangkim Ark, eighteen
ninety eight. You will hear more about this case as
time goes on. This from Justice Stephen Johnson Field. He
was in the dissent earlier in a case that led
to this being heard before the Supreme Court, but he
was not serving on Scotis at the time that the
(09:57):
case was decided by a six ' to two margin.
The citizenship clause Justice Field rights was a response to
dread Scott, one of the worst all time decisions by
the Supreme Court. However, its reach doesn't extend to non
citizens who owe their allegiance to another country. Now, the
underscored theme of this whole thing, Jan kim Ark was
(10:20):
born in the United States to two Chinese nationals way
back in the eighteen hundreds, and the argument against it
was those who have an allegiance to China and not
the United States, who are not United States citizens. And therefore,
as we go back to the Fourteenth Amendment, subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are they loyalists to China or the
(10:42):
United States? If they're not citizens, they have not sworn
their loyalty to the United States of America, they are
not citizens of the United States of America. This seems
to be a rather cogent premise upon which to base
immigration law. That if you were in this country illegally,
and you have not followed the law of this country
to become a legal American citizen, why then, should any
(11:05):
child who happens to be born here simply by sheer
luck be awarded and granted and bestowed upon citizenship status.
The example I use, and that Jade Vance uses in
this interview with Margaret Brennan on Faced the Nation is
if a foreign national, a sale woman from Venezuela or
Brazil or France or wherever, flies into Miami's International Airport,
(11:29):
is pregnant and spends enough time here to deliver that
baby on American soil, she is not an American national.
She does, however, have a valid passport that got her
here on a flight to Miami, so she has more
legal standing in this country than a so called undocument
an immigrant, illegal alien who has come here without any
(11:51):
kind of vetting or green card or legal status of
any kind. That is what talking about here, So obviously
it follows that the child of such a woman who
would come to this country pregnant and ultimately deliver a
baby while visiting the United States on a foreign passport
(12:13):
without any allegiance to the United States and not subject
to the jurisdiction of our laws. Her child, therefore, of course,
would not be an American citizen. So why a woman
with greater legal standing. She got here legally, she has
a passport, she traveled the right way, she made it
through security. She's on American soil. Her child's not an
(12:35):
American citizen. But somebody that crosses the border in the
middle of the night, avoids all ice, customs enforcement, vetting
of any kind, and they just set up shop and
they have a baby. Kelly has talked about this during
her time growing up in California that China. There are
women in China that engage in this practice of coming
(12:55):
to the United States for the sole purpose of having
a baby on American soil to become an American citizen.
And this is ridiculous. It's a mockery of our immigration, naturalization,
and citizenship laws. There is no other country in the
planet that should have to tolerate this, and not even
the United States further to this point, I know this
(13:16):
is a touchy subject for many, and my good friend
and colleague Dan Kaplis who is very supportive of Catholic charities,
and I want to preface this by saying that by
and large, Catholic Charities, both here locally and throughout the nation,
is a wonderful organization and a tremendous net positive. However,
(13:38):
there is a very big blind spot, and that would
be putting it kindly that they may be aiding and
abetting the illegal transport of people who are in this
country without proper documentation and they're facilitating that. And I
know Brian and Arvada comes to mind a caller who
(14:00):
is really hot on this topic. This is what Jade
Vance had to say about the Conference of Catholic Bishops
as Margaret Brennan posed the question to him. Let me
ask this question. Let's separate the immigration issue.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
If you had a violent murderer in a school, of
course I want law enforcement to go and get that
person out.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Of course, the point of the question, you change the
regulation this week. That's the point of the question.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Exactly giving the authority to go into churches and going
to school.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
The empowered law enforcement to enforce the law everywhere, to
protect American in fact.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
A chilling effect arguably to people to not send their
pods to school.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
I desperately hope it has a chilling effect.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
The US Conference of Catholics bishops are actively hiding criminals.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
I think the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Frankly not been a good partner in common sense immigration enforcement.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
That the American people voted for a powerfully ignorant and
arguably very idiotic forty three seconds there by Margaret Brennan.
Why initially she goes, of course, of course the violent
criminal who's found in a church should be deported, but
don't target the churches. What she's worried about this having
(15:16):
a chilling effect. People won't go to church, people won't
go to schools. Think about it the opposite way, not
the chilling effect for those who might want to attend
those places who are not otherwise breaking the law, but
they're illegal immigrants. If you are a member of trendy
Arragua and you know that a church, a school that
those are no go zones for ice, where do you
(15:38):
think they're going to go? It's a heated effect, a target,
a magnet for such behavior that they're going to congregate
and attend those places where they know they won't get apprehended.
Why would you set up such designated areas. It's ridiculous,
(15:58):
Bishop Mark site to CBS here. He is the chair
of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Trump
immigration policies.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Is the Catholic Church in the United States taking a
formal position on President Trump's immigration policies in recent days?
Speaker 4 (16:14):
We are we think we have to speak to many
of these policies which we see as going against some
of the basic tenants of our faith. Frankly, the fundamental
right of every human person that need to be respected,
no matter their origin, no matter their situation.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Tough crap. The doctrine of the Catholic Church does not
trump the laws of the United States of America. Where
are the liberals? Where is the ACLU always targeting religious
organizations when they feel there's a blend of the interest
of church and state. Where are they now? The Catholic
(17:00):
Church does not, should not have any jurisdiction, overreach, control,
or influence over American immigration policy. Further that point, how
many illegally entered aliens, immigrants however you want to label
them live in the Vatican. If the answer is zero,
(17:22):
then go ahead and take a seat. Anybody in the
Catholic Church who would suggest that the immigration policies of
the United States has set forth by our President, our
chief executive, in our legislature, in our Congress, are in
violation of Catholic law, well go fight that battle somewhere else.
The United States has an absolute right to exist to
(17:46):
its own borders, to the enforcement of those borders, to
determine who comes in and who does not. And I
say it time and time again, as the son of
an immigrant, as the grandson of two immigrants who came here,
who were granted that privilege by President Harry S. Truman,
granted asylum from a communist nation known as Yugoslavia. You
(18:09):
do not have a right to be here if you
live anywhere else. That's tough. You weren't born here. Dan
Kaplis says, well, we're the luckiest. We're Americans. We were
born here. Yep. I thank God every day. But you
know what, if my grandparents had applied to come here
and Harry S. Truman said, you know what, no vacancy
(18:29):
at the end, We're full, you can't come here. My grandmother,
my bubba, she had an alternate plan. She would have
taken my two year old mother and they would have
moved to Brazil and they could not have come to
the United States, and that would have been tough. But
that was at the Behesse, that was at the jurisdiction
the complete control of the President of the United States
at that time. And thank God for Harry Truman. I
(18:51):
am an American citizen, but my mom at two, my
grandparents at the time they wanted to come here, had
to play by the rules, had to have a sponsor
in place, had to apply to become citizens of this country,
had to be gainfully employed, had to learn English, had
all of this. And for anybody who was a first
(19:12):
generation of America, or if you're an immigrant to yourself,
I know that there is a lot of energy and
passion out there saying I don't want people cutting in
line when I played by the rules and I should
be punished. No, you should not a timeout. More on
this topic when you come back. John Fabricatory joins me
next on Ryan Schuling Live.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
What was the reaction like when you talk to local
forces there, like the local police well, look, I went
to Chicago a couple of times, met with the black pastors,
met with the community. They're begging for ICE enforcement action
because of the crime in Chicago. I made a commitment
to him that we'd be out there. I also made
comment to the Mayor of Chicago that I'm coming to Chicago,
even though he said I wasn't well and long the
governor Prisker and plus just a few days ago Prisker
(20:03):
did put on social media. ICE was in an elementary school.
I wanted to to make a point that ICE is
going to do that job, regardless that they don't help
us or not. As far as the local community, nothing
but cheers walking to the airport, cheers walking through the streets.
We stopped at a police station to take a nature break,
and we went on a road so long and every
uniform that building walked up shook our hands and thanks
(20:24):
us for being there and helping them make their communities
more safe.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Tom Holman, I can only imagine the reaction of local
law enforcement. On the one hand, not allowed in a
city like Chicago, for whatever constraints or hoops you're supposed
to jump through, not to cooperate with ICE. You can't
do it here the sanctuary city. There's laws on the books.
It's stupid, it's totally counterintuitive. Why would you purposely not
keep a record. This is something Mayor Mike Johnston here
(20:49):
in Denver talked about with Colorado's Morning News. Well, we
don't know, don't ask, don't tell, We don't ask your
legal status. You get pulled over, traffic stop, we don't know.
We don't want to know. We don't want to make
a list, We don't want to co operate with ice,
don't want to help him out. Well, what if they're
trend Air Rodwood gag no no no, no, no, no,
no no, we don't want to know. Well, they happen
to come in and they're committing rapeer murder. Those are
(21:12):
the two crimes that Mike Johnston single out. Nothing else,
property crimes, theft, shoplifting, any other crime wasn't named specifically
by Mayor Mike Johnson. And keep a careful ear on
exactly what the sanctuary city mayors say and how they
say it. And now we've got Governor Jared Polis incredulously
(21:33):
suggesting that Colorado is not a sanctuary state. It is
John fabricatory has the receipts. The song was for him,
and of course he's a retired ice Field Office director.
I think his head is spinning right now, but we're
going to try to slow that down.
Speaker 6 (21:52):
John.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Welcome back to Ryan Shuling Live.
Speaker 6 (21:54):
Hey, Ryan, thanks for having me on again.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
I'll start I guess with what happened over the weekend
in a row. I texted you about this in reports
that as many as fifty maybe illegal aliens who were
criminals congregated, and I asked you whether this was some
kind of organized sting operation. Take us from there, what
you know and how this usually goes down.
Speaker 6 (22:16):
Yeah, that actually happened up in North Adams County off
Federal And you know something like this, where you have
a massive operation like this, there's been a lot of surveillance. Then,
there's been a lot of homework. This wasn't something where
they just hopped on something overnight. They've probably been looking
at these pop up gatherings that have been happening and
(22:37):
looking for the right time, right place to bring in
the right officers so they could have a safe and
successful arrest as they did Saturday into Sunday morning with
arresting fifty people. I mean it was a great operation,
very successful. They took guns off the street, drugs off
the street, and a lot of illegal alien criminals.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
John, I want you to hear from this care Do
package Channel thirteen and Colorado Springs Emily Coffee reporting and
she got to sit down with Governor Jared Poulis. I
heard this, I immediately thought of you also, Representative Jeff
Krank from the fifth District down there in the Springs.
He's going to join us tomorrow. This was absolutely jaw
dropping to me. This narrative is false.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
That Colorado's any way, shape or form of sanctuary state.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Weird it is.
Speaker 7 (23:26):
Your response to that, John, You know, I can't help
but laugh because it's such a lie.
Speaker 6 (23:35):
It's such a blatant gas lighting lie. And you know,
I took the X right away as soon as I
saw the interview, and I listed every single law that's
been passed since twenty thirteen which makes the state of
Colorado a sanctuary state. And there's multiples of them. I've
got lists.
Speaker 7 (23:54):
I've done so much research on this, and you know,
he can say it all he once, it doesn't make
it true. The state of Colorado has been voted in.
Speaker 6 (24:05):
By Democrats in this state to be a sanctuary state.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
In fact, those Democrats went so far as to even
repeal House Built thirteen twelve fifty eight, which in two
thousand and six Governor Bill Owens passed, which said that
Colorado would never be a sanctuary city and that you know,
we would ice needed to work with law enforcement. Democrats
(24:30):
came in and repealed sen At Bill ninety with House
Built thirteen twelve fifty eight to repeal that so that
they could make the state a sanctuary state.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
John Fabricatory our guest, retired ice field officer and agent
Kwame Raoul. He is the Attorney General for the state
of Illinois, which of course is commandeered by the City
of Chicago, despite a lot of rural red areas in
that state. Sound familiar, yep, It's a lot like Colorado
in that regard. He is twisting the logic by saying
(25:01):
that Tom Holman bringing doctor phil into Chicago is quote
meant to upset a community relied upon to resolve public
safety problems. John, I want you to hear this and
then get your informed response to it.
Speaker 8 (25:15):
Unfortunately, this shotgun awe approach, which involves trying to have
cameras and having you know, celebrities like doctor Phil embdefit
within is meant to upset a community, a community that
we rely on to partake in solving public safety problems.
(25:36):
Having this undermines the ability for communities to come forth
and collaborate with law enforcement to solve crimes. When when
it's being said that this operation is to focus on
people who have committed crimes, I think it's it's going
to have an opposite effect in the long run. It's
it's a wide net seemingly being casted, and inevitably you'll
(26:02):
have effects of racial profiling and upsetting a community that
would otherwise collaborate with law enforce.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Chat. How about this point that a person that their
only crime, and it is a crime, is that they
came to this country illegally. They're not committing any other crimes.
They might be somehow gainfully employed, and they're relied upon
by law enforcement maybe to turn in other bad criminal
illegal alien elements within their let's say Venezuelan community or
whatever community it is. What's your response to.
Speaker 6 (26:30):
That they're not doing it now they weren't doing it before. Look,
the law enforcement gets calls from the illegal immigrant community
when crimes are committed normally. Okay, they don't do it
a lot. There's a lot of crimes that go unreported
in those communities. It's always happened. But to say that
(26:50):
bringing in law enforcement to arrest criminal illegal aliens is
a wrong thing, what do they want us to do?
I mean, it's just that's ridiculous. And to say that
there's going to be racial profiling. Immigration is not a race,
It is a status. I don't care if you're from Canada, New.
Speaker 7 (27:09):
Zealand, Russia, Great Britain, Africa, wherever you're from. If you're
here illegally, you committed a crime. Even if you are
gainfully employed, that's another crime. You're not allowed to legally
work in the United States if you enter illegally. So
not only did you break a law entering illegally.
Speaker 6 (27:28):
But then you've got a job which you were not
authorized to have, which is another crime. So we're just
stacking crimes on these people. Initially, we're going to go
after the really bad criminals. But to say that we're
casting a wide net we should. There needs to be
a reckoning with our immigration laws and we need to
get this figured out. The only way to do that
is to clean it up before.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
We make it better, John Fabricatory, our guest. The reason
why I know John that our side, yours and mine
and our listeners largely as well, is winning one else
of November fifth. That's one, but two, the absolute ineptitude
and weakness of the arguments coming from the other side.
They're reduced to red herrings and canards like this from
(28:11):
the senator from my home state of Michigan, Democrat Alyssa
Slock and saying, Hey, look, I don't think anybody anticipated
ICE targeting eleven and twelve year olds. This is not
what we're looking but to do.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
I mean, I just don't understand, you know, if the
focus and the priority is on criminals, I'm not sure
going after an eleven year old is where you start.
And this is again the inconsistency between what they're saying
and then what we saw happen in this past week,
right going after places that were not sanctuary cities kind
of in this sort of what felt sort of arbitrary way.
(28:41):
So I think, to me, you know, the idea of
going in to children and terrorizing children, I just don't
believe in supporting that kind of action, and I don't
believe it that most Americans think that eleven and twelve
year olds are the ones who are the hardened criminals
that need to go back to their country.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
ICE is targeting and prioritizing John According to Senator Slotkin,
eleven and twelve year olds, terrorizing children, focusing on schools.
Is this happening?
Speaker 6 (29:09):
Am I allowed to say she's an idiot on the air?
You did, she's an idiot? Oh good, okay, So number one,
we're not targeting ICE is not targeting eleven and twelve
years is not happening. In fact, Governor Pritcher lied when
he said that Ice went to a school. You know
who went to the school? Secret Service because one of
those students threatened the life of Donald Trump. Secret Service
(29:30):
went there. People freaked out and they said it was Ice.
There needs to be an apology to the men and
women of ICE from Governor Pritzker, because that's not what happened.
This is, like you said, the red herring. This is
the straw man arguments. This is the gaslighting that they're
going to throw at us. They're going to do this.
They're going to say we're going after kids. We are not. Well, no,
(29:51):
I can't say that we are going after kids. You know,
the kids that we're going after, the three hundred thousand
that are missing. Yeah, those are the kids that we're
going to go after. You know what, kids were going
to go after, the ones that are being such traffic
right now, those are the kids we're going to go after.
Speaker 7 (30:04):
You know what.
Speaker 6 (30:04):
Other ones we're going to go after, the ones that
are being human smuggled and a back of box trucks
and treat it badly.
Speaker 7 (30:12):
Those are the kids that we're gonna save. Those are
the kids that we're going to go after.
Speaker 6 (30:15):
And all this other left wing bananas that's being thrown
at us. We just got to be steadfast and what
we're doing where we're gonna get through this. Donald President
Donald Trump knows what he wants to accomplish, and it's
going to get accomplished.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
And the overwhelming majority of Americans support this effort. They
even go a step farther. In recent polling by CNN,
Harry Enton focuses on the fact that Americans in general
want legal immigration curve, that we got to tighten up
this whole process, even for those that might come here
the right way. John, So, I think again, the tide
is turned and it's definitely on the side of ice
(30:52):
and carrying these deportations out.
Speaker 8 (30:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:56):
Like, look, you know, if your car's breaking down, you're
driving down a road, engines going bad, you don't put
fender flares on and say the car looks better and
then things are going to be better. You've got to
fix everything.
Speaker 7 (31:08):
So we have to fix this and the only way
to do that Number one is to arrest the criminal
illegal aliens first. Then go after those who entered the country,
saw an immigration judge and now have a final order
of deportation on them. They broke into the country, they
were allowed to see an immigration judge.
Speaker 6 (31:26):
And he still didn't listen.
Speaker 7 (31:27):
We need to go after those as well. We need
to straighten this out, get rid of the overstage. The
people who lawfully.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
Came here were only allowed to stay for a short
period of time, and they violated that law and they
stayed here. The only way to fix the immigration system
is to scrub it up from the bottom to the top,
and then we can talk about other things that we
need to do.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Follow him on an X He is an expert in
the subject at John E. Underscore fab with two B's
fabb John fabricatory. Always grateful for your insights. I'm sure
we'll talk again soon. I hope so, Ran I'll talk
to you. Say bye, right John fab right there, and
we'll take this time out. When we come back a
special extended version of Trump's Hot Takes. I couldn't cut it.
It was so good. And it has to do with
(32:10):
the LA wildfires. When we come back on Ryan Schuling Life,
(32:34):
It's time once again for another edition of Trump's Hot Takes,
charting the forty seventh president's epic interactions with the fake
news media. And the number one thing that we are
going to do immediately and you will see this happen,
is to clear out the debris. And you know, we're
concerned right now over the weekend because.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
Of the potential rain.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
But we are going to move as fast as we can.
But we want you to be safe. We want you
to be back in your homes.
Speaker 9 (33:01):
But the people are willing to clean out their own debris,
it doesn't because you should let them do it, because
another time you hire contractors, it's going to be two years.
If a family people are willing to get a dumpster
and do it themselves and clean it out, and they
can there's not that much left.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
It's all incinerated. That's right, and you know it's just
going to take a long time.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
If you do, you can do some of it.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
But a lot of these people, I know that guy
right there that's talking to me. I know my people.
Speaker 10 (33:29):
You'll be on that thing tonight throwing the stuff away,
and your site will be it'll look perfect within twenty
four hours.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
And that's what he wants to do.
Speaker 11 (33:36):
He doesn't want to wait around for seven months till
the city hires.
Speaker 10 (33:40):
Some demolition contract and it's going to charge your month.
Speaker 11 (33:42):
Twenty five thousand dollars to do his lot.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
I think you have to.
Speaker 10 (33:47):
You have emergency powers, just like I do, and I'm
exercising my emergency powers.
Speaker 11 (33:52):
You have to exercise them also.
Speaker 10 (33:54):
I did exercise them because I look, I mean, you
have a very powerful emergency power, and you can do
everything within twenty four hours.
Speaker 9 (34:01):
Yes, and if individuals want to clear out their property
they can, yes.
Speaker 6 (34:09):
But you know that you will be able to go
back soon.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
We think within a week. That's a long time.
Speaker 11 (34:19):
A week.
Speaker 10 (34:19):
I'll be honest to me, that everyone's standing in front
of the house.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
They want to go to work and they're not allowed
to do it. And the most a week is a
long time. He's safe, it's safe, they're safe.
Speaker 8 (34:30):
You know what, They're not safe.
Speaker 6 (34:31):
They're not safe.
Speaker 11 (34:31):
Now they're going to be much safer.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
A week. A week is actually a long time.
Speaker 11 (34:37):
The way I look at it, I want I watch
hundreds of people standing in front of their locks and
they're not allowed to go in.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
It's all burned, it's gone, it's done.
Speaker 11 (34:48):
Nothing's gonna happen to it, not gonna burn anymore.
Speaker 7 (34:50):
There's nothing to burn.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
There's almost something to burn.
Speaker 11 (34:52):
And they want to go in there. The people are
all over the place. They're standing and they say, warren't
you going in? We're trying to get a permit and
the r it's gonna take him. Everybody said eighteen months,
you said eighteen months, you said eight ten months.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
It's just a masterclass holding court with all these leftists, liberals.
There were some assembled conservatives there in that meeting. Donald
Trump shows up and he shows them whose boss and
Karen Bass just withers in his presence. But think about this,
who is more relatable? Who do you hear there and
(35:27):
say you know what that person cares about? Someone like me.
That person's gonna fight for someone like me. This followed
on the heels the same day of Donald Trump visiting
western North Carolina, where he turned over the press conference
and the microphone to those who had lost their homes
and asked them questions on camera. Again, brilliant optics, but
(35:50):
more than that, effective governance of our president, our forty
seventh president of the United States. That is how it's done.
Let him clear it out. Let them bring in the dumpsters. Okay,
they're ready. Oh, we've got to be safe. They're not
safe now,
If you are a lawful permanent resident or a legal
immigrant who plans to stay, your children, of course, should
become American citizens. But let's say you're the child of
an ambassador, you don't become.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
That's not part of it.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Well, that is, that's an important principle, but we're saying
that that carve out should apply to anybody who doesn't
plan to stay here. If you come here on vacation
and you have a baby in an American hospital, that
baby doesn't become an American citizen.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
If you're an illegal alien and.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
You come here temporarily, hopefully your child does not become
an American citizen by virtue of just having been born
on American soil. It's a very basic principle an American
immigration law that if you want to become an American citizen,
and you've done it the right way, and the American
people and their collective wisdom have welcomed you into our
(00:47):
national community, then you become a citizen. But temporary residents,
people who come in here, whether legally or illegally, and
don't plan to stay, Yeah, your children should become American citizens.
I don't know any country that does that or why
we would be different.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
As Rush Limbaugh El Maha Rushi might say right on,
this is exactly how you handle the fake news mainstream media,
formerly legacy media like Margaret Brennan obvious lib thumb on
the scale and the debate that she moderated along with
(01:22):
Nora O'Donnell was a disgrace. And she tries on face
the nation to get a little fresh with Vice President
Vance and JD. Vance knows exactly how to handle it,
and he absolutely schools her, perhaps without her knowledge, even
I could tell, as somebody who does this for a living,
(01:44):
and granted most of my interviews are by phone, but
some of them are in person, that she wasn't even
really listening to interpret or understand what Jade Vance, Vice
President Vance was saying. She had her own set of
talking points, her own agenda that she went into this
interview with, and she was determined to get through them
(02:05):
one by one. And she was eviscerated on this point
because Vice President Vance points out the logical fallacy of
birthright citizenship. One foot on dry land in the United States,
you just happen to be born here and you're automatically
an American citizen. What a lottery ticket win that is,
(02:26):
but that's not how the Constitution is laid out. And
hear me now believe me later to quote Hans and
Franz from the old s and l sketch. This is
going to come before the Supreme Court of the United States.
It's time to revisit this. There needs to be clarification,
it needs to be updated. This decision goes back to
(02:47):
a case called the United States the Wong Kim arc
of eighteen ninety eight. So we're talking about almost one
hundred and thirty years ago on which the President upon
the entire argument of birthright citizenship is based. And I'm
(03:08):
no Mark Levin, but I'm going to do my best
to go through this in parts and explain how we
got to where we are today. First of all, the
fourteenth Amendment. That might sound familiar to you because there
are aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment that have been argued
in other ways. This would have come down, of course,
(03:28):
in the aftermath of the United States Civil War the
freed men and women of the United States African Americans
brought here originally as slaves, but that it would establish
and clarify that indeed they are citizens of the United States,
and nobody today would argue that the Fourteenth Amendment is
(03:48):
as follow Section one. All persons born or naturalized in
the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That
is going to be the key phrase you want to
keep an ear out for when this case is are
argued before the United States Supreme Court, and it no
doubt will be in due time. And that was the
reason and the motivation that President Trump issued the executive
(04:11):
order that he did on this topic. He wants it
to be challenged by the Libs in court. It has
been already, and he wants it to go to the
Supreme Court of the United States to be resolved once
and for all, because there are loopholes in this that
again defy logic. All persons born or naturalized in the
(04:31):
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No States shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property without due process of the law, nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of
(04:55):
the laws equal protection Clause Section one of the fourteenth Amendment.
You might remember the abortion argument stood on this at
one point. We continue now with Section two. Representatives shall
be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians,
not tax Native Americans. The nomenclature at the time was Indians.
(05:19):
But when the right to vote at any election for
the choice of electors for President and vice President of
the United States, representatives in Congress, and executive and judicial
officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof,
is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such
state being twenty one years of age and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged except for
(05:39):
participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number
of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number
of male citizens twenty one years of age and such state.
Now this is outdated for obvious reason. That jump off
the page. Women can now vote, but that would come later. Also,
you can be eighteen years of age now in vote,
(06:01):
it was twenty one back then. This again was supposed
to ensure that freedmen at the time, men black men
in the South were allowed to vote free of any
kind of incursion or obstacle. But we know what manifested
itself in the wake of the Southern Democrats in the
late eighteen hundreds through reconstruction and after the Jim Crow
(06:23):
laws that would apply, the poll taxes that would apply,
and this disenfranchised many African American voters at that time.
It was wrong, it was wicked, and it was the
South's way of clinging to whatever power they had along
racial lines. Section three of the fourteenth Amendment continues, no
person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or
(06:45):
elector of President and Vice President, or held any office
civil or military under the United States or any State,
who have previously taken an oath as a member of Congress,
or as an officer of the United States, or as
any member of a state legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution
of the United States, shall have engaged an insurrection or
(07:05):
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to
the enemies thereof. But Congress made by a vote of
two thirds of each House remove such a disability. And
now remember section three, fourteenth Amendment. Insurrectionists. This was the
argument that leftists and fascists in our own state used
(07:25):
to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, that he engaged
in insurrection rebellion that was never charged in a court
of law. It was never proven in a court of law.
Trump was never convicted of such in a court of law.
Yet the mere accusation led us through people that were
adjoined to that case, and joined to that case, whether
(07:46):
it's Mary On Nicholas or Christa Kaefer or any other
person who was named on this took a giant leap
of legal logic and said, by the mere accusation that
Donald Trump did, indeed, we include on behalf of all
Americans engage in an insurrection. Therefore he cannot run. So
(08:08):
we continue throughout this and the cases that would follow
in sequential order. Che Chan Ping the United States. That
was eighteen eighty nine. It's also known as the Chinese
exclusion case. And this would lead to the next case
that I'll talk about in just a moment. One of
the grounds of the challenge of the Act was the
Act ran a foul of the Berlin Game Treaty of
(08:29):
eighteen sixty eight. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge upheld
the authority of the US federal government to set immigration
policy and to pass new legislation, even if it overrode
the terms of previous international treaties. The decision was an
important precedent for the Supreme Court's deference to the plenary
power of the legislative branch in immigration law and the
(08:51):
government's authority to overturn the terms of international's treaties. Although
the term consular non revealability would not be used until
the twentieth century, the case was cited as a key
precedent in the defining cases that established that doctrine. As such,
it played an important role in limiting the orl of
the judiciary in shaping immigration. The United States short version
(09:15):
Congress controls immigration law the executive branch also through executive order,
and Donald Trump right now has brought this to the
fore and put this in the arena for debate and
perhaps reform by the legislative branch in the form of
the Senate. In the House. What the Supreme Court will do, though,
is further interpret and perhaps update the case that I
(09:37):
mentioned a moment ago United States v. Wangkim Ark, eighteen
ninety eight. You will hear more about this case as
time goes on. This from Justice Stephen Johnson Field. He
was in the dissent earlier in a case that led
to this being heard before the Supreme Court, but he
was not serving on Scotis at the time that the
(09:57):
case was decided by a six ' to two margin.
The citizenship clause Justice Field rights was a response to
dread Scott, one of the worst all time decisions by
the Supreme Court. However, its reach doesn't extend to non
citizens who owe their allegiance to another country. Now, the
underscored theme of this whole thing, Jan kim Ark was
(10:20):
born in the United States to two Chinese nationals way
back in the eighteen hundreds, and the argument against it
was those who have an allegiance to China and not
the United States, who are not United States citizens. And therefore,
as we go back to the Fourteenth Amendment, subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are they loyalists to China or the
(10:42):
United States? If they're not citizens, they have not sworn
their loyalty to the United States of America, they are
not citizens of the United States of America. This seems
to be a rather cogent premise upon which to base
immigration law. That if you were in this country illegally,
and you have not followed the law of this country
to become a legal American citizen, why then, should any
(11:05):
child who happens to be born here simply by sheer
luck be awarded and granted and bestowed upon citizenship status.
The example I use, and that Jade Vance uses in
this interview with Margaret Brennan on Faced the Nation is
if a foreign national, a sale woman from Venezuela or
Brazil or France or wherever, flies into Miami's International Airport,
(11:29):
is pregnant and spends enough time here to deliver that
baby on American soil, she is not an American national.
She does, however, have a valid passport that got her
here on a flight to Miami, so she has more
legal standing in this country than a so called undocument
an immigrant, illegal alien who has come here without any
(11:51):
kind of vetting or green card or legal status of
any kind. That is what talking about here, So obviously
it follows that the child of such a woman who
would come to this country pregnant and ultimately deliver a
baby while visiting the United States on a foreign passport
(12:13):
without any allegiance to the United States and not subject
to the jurisdiction of our laws. Her child, therefore, of course,
would not be an American citizen. So why a woman
with greater legal standing. She got here legally, she has
a passport, she traveled the right way, she made it
through security. She's on American soil. Her child's not an
(12:35):
American citizen. But somebody that crosses the border in the
middle of the night, avoids all ice, customs enforcement, vetting
of any kind, and they just set up shop and
they have a baby. Kelly has talked about this during
her time growing up in California that China. There are
women in China that engage in this practice of coming
(12:55):
to the United States for the sole purpose of having
a baby on American soil to become an American citizen.
And this is ridiculous. It's a mockery of our immigration, naturalization,
and citizenship laws. There is no other country in the
planet that should have to tolerate this, and not even
the United States further to this point, I know this
(13:16):
is a touchy subject for many, and my good friend
and colleague Dan Kaplis who is very supportive of Catholic charities,
and I want to preface this by saying that by
and large, Catholic Charities, both here locally and throughout the nation,
is a wonderful organization and a tremendous net positive. However,
(13:38):
there is a very big blind spot, and that would
be putting it kindly that they may be aiding and
abetting the illegal transport of people who are in this
country without proper documentation and they're facilitating that. And I
know Brian and Arvada comes to mind a caller who
(14:00):
is really hot on this topic. This is what Jade
Vance had to say about the Conference of Catholic Bishops
as Margaret Brennan posed the question to him. Let me
ask this question. Let's separate the immigration issue.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
If you had a violent murderer in a school, of
course I want law enforcement to go and get that
person out.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Of course, the point of the question, you change the
regulation this week. That's the point of the question.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Exactly giving the authority to go into churches and going
to school.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
The empowered law enforcement to enforce the law everywhere, to
protect American in fact.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
A chilling effect arguably to people to not send their
pods to school.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
I desperately hope it has a chilling effect.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
The US Conference of Catholics bishops are actively hiding criminals.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
I think the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Frankly not been a good partner in common sense immigration enforcement.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
That the American people voted for a powerfully ignorant and
arguably very idiotic forty three seconds there by Margaret Brennan.
Why initially she goes, of course, of course the violent
criminal who's found in a church should be deported, but
don't target the churches. What she's worried about this having
(15:16):
a chilling effect. People won't go to church, people won't
go to schools. Think about it the opposite way, not
the chilling effect for those who might want to attend
those places who are not otherwise breaking the law, but
they're illegal immigrants. If you are a member of trendy
Arragua and you know that a church, a school that
those are no go zones for ice, where do you
(15:38):
think they're going to go? It's a heated effect, a target,
a magnet for such behavior that they're going to congregate
and attend those places where they know they won't get apprehended.
Why would you set up such designated areas. It's ridiculous,
(15:58):
Bishop Mark site to CBS here. He is the chair
of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Trump
immigration policies.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Is the Catholic Church in the United States taking a
formal position on President Trump's immigration policies in recent days?
Speaker 4 (16:14):
We are we think we have to speak to many
of these policies which we see as going against some
of the basic tenants of our faith. Frankly, the fundamental
right of every human person that need to be respected,
no matter their origin, no matter their situation.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Tough crap. The doctrine of the Catholic Church does not
trump the laws of the United States of America. Where
are the liberals? Where is the ACLU always targeting religious
organizations when they feel there's a blend of the interest
of church and state. Where are they now? The Catholic
(17:00):
Church does not, should not have any jurisdiction, overreach, control,
or influence over American immigration policy. Further that point, how
many illegally entered aliens, immigrants however you want to label
them live in the Vatican. If the answer is zero,
(17:22):
then go ahead and take a seat. Anybody in the
Catholic Church who would suggest that the immigration policies of
the United States has set forth by our President, our
chief executive, in our legislature, in our Congress, are in
violation of Catholic law, well go fight that battle somewhere else.
The United States has an absolute right to exist to
(17:46):
its own borders, to the enforcement of those borders, to
determine who comes in and who does not. And I
say it time and time again, as the son of
an immigrant, as the grandson of two immigrants who came here,
who were granted that privilege by President Harry S. Truman,
granted asylum from a communist nation known as Yugoslavia. You
(18:09):
do not have a right to be here if you
live anywhere else. That's tough. You weren't born here. Dan
Kaplis says, well, we're the luckiest. We're Americans. We were
born here. Yep. I thank God every day. But you
know what, if my grandparents had applied to come here
and Harry S. Truman said, you know what, no vacancy
(18:29):
at the end, We're full, you can't come here. My grandmother,
my bubba, she had an alternate plan. She would have
taken my two year old mother and they would have
moved to Brazil and they could not have come to
the United States, and that would have been tough. But
that was at the Behesse, that was at the jurisdiction
the complete control of the President of the United States
at that time. And thank God for Harry Truman. I
(18:51):
am an American citizen, but my mom at two, my
grandparents at the time they wanted to come here, had
to play by the rules, had to have a sponsor
in place, had to apply to become citizens of this country,
had to be gainfully employed, had to learn English, had
all of this. And for anybody who was a first
(19:12):
generation of America, or if you're an immigrant to yourself,
I know that there is a lot of energy and
passion out there saying I don't want people cutting in
line when I played by the rules and I should
be punished. No, you should not a timeout. More on
this topic when you come back. John Fabricatory joins me
next on Ryan Schuling Live.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
What was the reaction like when you talk to local
forces there, like the local police well, look, I went
to Chicago a couple of times, met with the black pastors,
met with the community. They're begging for ICE enforcement action
because of the crime in Chicago. I made a commitment
to him that we'd be out there. I also made
comment to the Mayor of Chicago that I'm coming to Chicago,
even though he said I wasn't well and long the
governor Prisker and plus just a few days ago Prisker
(20:03):
did put on social media. ICE was in an elementary school.
I wanted to to make a point that ICE is
going to do that job, regardless that they don't help
us or not. As far as the local community, nothing
but cheers walking to the airport, cheers walking through the streets.
We stopped at a police station to take a nature break,
and we went on a road so long and every
uniform that building walked up shook our hands and thanks
(20:24):
us for being there and helping them make their communities
more safe.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Tom Holman, I can only imagine the reaction of local
law enforcement. On the one hand, not allowed in a
city like Chicago, for whatever constraints or hoops you're supposed
to jump through, not to cooperate with ICE. You can't
do it here the sanctuary city. There's laws on the books.
It's stupid, it's totally counterintuitive. Why would you purposely not
keep a record. This is something Mayor Mike Johnston here
(20:49):
in Denver talked about with Colorado's Morning News. Well, we
don't know, don't ask, don't tell, We don't ask your
legal status. You get pulled over, traffic stop, we don't know.
We don't want to know. We don't want to make
a list, We don't want to co operate with ice,
don't want to help him out. Well, what if they're
trend Air Rodwood gag no no no, no, no, no,
no no, we don't want to know. Well, they happen
to come in and they're committing rapeer murder. Those are
(21:12):
the two crimes that Mike Johnston single out. Nothing else,
property crimes, theft, shoplifting, any other crime wasn't named specifically
by Mayor Mike Johnson. And keep a careful ear on
exactly what the sanctuary city mayors say and how they
say it. And now we've got Governor Jared Polis incredulously
(21:33):
suggesting that Colorado is not a sanctuary state. It is
John fabricatory has the receipts. The song was for him,
and of course he's a retired ice Field Office director.
I think his head is spinning right now, but we're
going to try to slow that down.
Speaker 6 (21:52):
John.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Welcome back to Ryan Shuling Live.
Speaker 6 (21:54):
Hey, Ryan, thanks for having me on again.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
I'll start I guess with what happened over the weekend
in a row. I texted you about this in reports
that as many as fifty maybe illegal aliens who were
criminals congregated, and I asked you whether this was some
kind of organized sting operation. Take us from there, what
you know and how this usually goes down.
Speaker 6 (22:16):
Yeah, that actually happened up in North Adams County off
Federal And you know something like this, where you have
a massive operation like this, there's been a lot of surveillance. Then,
there's been a lot of homework. This wasn't something where
they just hopped on something overnight. They've probably been looking
at these pop up gatherings that have been happening and
(22:37):
looking for the right time, right place to bring in
the right officers so they could have a safe and
successful arrest as they did Saturday into Sunday morning with
arresting fifty people. I mean it was a great operation,
very successful. They took guns off the street, drugs off
the street, and a lot of illegal alien criminals.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
John, I want you to hear from this care Do
package Channel thirteen and Colorado Springs Emily Coffee reporting and
she got to sit down with Governor Jared Poulis. I
heard this, I immediately thought of you also, Representative Jeff
Krank from the fifth District down there in the Springs.
He's going to join us tomorrow. This was absolutely jaw
dropping to me. This narrative is false.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
That Colorado's any way, shape or form of sanctuary state.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Weird it is.
Speaker 7 (23:26):
Your response to that, John, You know, I can't help
but laugh because it's such a lie.
Speaker 6 (23:35):
It's such a blatant gas lighting lie. And you know,
I took the X right away as soon as I
saw the interview, and I listed every single law that's
been passed since twenty thirteen which makes the state of
Colorado a sanctuary state. And there's multiples of them. I've
got lists.
Speaker 7 (23:54):
I've done so much research on this, and you know,
he can say it all he once, it doesn't make
it true. The state of Colorado has been voted in.
Speaker 6 (24:05):
By Democrats in this state to be a sanctuary state.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
In fact, those Democrats went so far as to even
repeal House Built thirteen twelve fifty eight, which in two
thousand and six Governor Bill Owens passed, which said that
Colorado would never be a sanctuary city and that you know,
we would ice needed to work with law enforcement. Democrats
(24:30):
came in and repealed sen At Bill ninety with House
Built thirteen twelve fifty eight to repeal that so that
they could make the state a sanctuary state.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
John Fabricatory our guest, retired ice field officer and agent
Kwame Raoul. He is the Attorney General for the state
of Illinois, which of course is commandeered by the City
of Chicago, despite a lot of rural red areas in
that state. Sound familiar, yep, It's a lot like Colorado
in that regard. He is twisting the logic by saying
(25:01):
that Tom Holman bringing doctor phil into Chicago is quote
meant to upset a community relied upon to resolve public
safety problems. John, I want you to hear this and
then get your informed response to it.
Speaker 8 (25:15):
Unfortunately, this shotgun awe approach, which involves trying to have
cameras and having you know, celebrities like doctor Phil embdefit
within is meant to upset a community, a community that
we rely on to partake in solving public safety problems.
(25:36):
Having this undermines the ability for communities to come forth
and collaborate with law enforcement to solve crimes. When when
it's being said that this operation is to focus on
people who have committed crimes, I think it's it's going
to have an opposite effect in the long run. It's
it's a wide net seemingly being casted, and inevitably you'll
(26:02):
have effects of racial profiling and upsetting a community that
would otherwise collaborate with law enforce.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Chat. How about this point that a person that their
only crime, and it is a crime, is that they
came to this country illegally. They're not committing any other crimes.
They might be somehow gainfully employed, and they're relied upon
by law enforcement maybe to turn in other bad criminal
illegal alien elements within their let's say Venezuelan community or
whatever community it is. What's your response to.
Speaker 6 (26:30):
That they're not doing it now they weren't doing it before. Look,
the law enforcement gets calls from the illegal immigrant community
when crimes are committed normally. Okay, they don't do it
a lot. There's a lot of crimes that go unreported
in those communities. It's always happened. But to say that
(26:50):
bringing in law enforcement to arrest criminal illegal aliens is
a wrong thing, what do they want us to do?
I mean, it's just that's ridiculous. And to say that
there's going to be racial profiling. Immigration is not a race,
It is a status. I don't care if you're from Canada, New.
Speaker 7 (27:09):
Zealand, Russia, Great Britain, Africa, wherever you're from. If you're
here illegally, you committed a crime. Even if you are
gainfully employed, that's another crime. You're not allowed to legally
work in the United States if you enter illegally. So
not only did you break a law entering illegally.
Speaker 6 (27:28):
But then you've got a job which you were not
authorized to have, which is another crime. So we're just
stacking crimes on these people. Initially, we're going to go
after the really bad criminals. But to say that we're
casting a wide net we should. There needs to be
a reckoning with our immigration laws and we need to
get this figured out. The only way to do that
is to clean it up before.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
We make it better, John Fabricatory, our guest. The reason
why I know John that our side, yours and mine
and our listeners largely as well, is winning one else
of November fifth. That's one, but two, the absolute ineptitude
and weakness of the arguments coming from the other side.
They're reduced to red herrings and canards like this from
(28:11):
the senator from my home state of Michigan, Democrat Alyssa
Slock and saying, Hey, look, I don't think anybody anticipated
ICE targeting eleven and twelve year olds. This is not
what we're looking but to do.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
I mean, I just don't understand, you know, if the
focus and the priority is on criminals, I'm not sure
going after an eleven year old is where you start.
And this is again the inconsistency between what they're saying
and then what we saw happen in this past week,
right going after places that were not sanctuary cities kind
of in this sort of what felt sort of arbitrary way.
(28:41):
So I think, to me, you know, the idea of
going in to children and terrorizing children, I just don't
believe in supporting that kind of action, and I don't
believe it that most Americans think that eleven and twelve
year olds are the ones who are the hardened criminals
that need to go back to their country.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
ICE is targeting and prioritizing John According to Senator Slotkin,
eleven and twelve year olds, terrorizing children, focusing on schools.
Is this happening?
Speaker 6 (29:09):
Am I allowed to say she's an idiot on the air?
You did, she's an idiot? Oh good, okay, So number one,
we're not targeting ICE is not targeting eleven and twelve
years is not happening. In fact, Governor Pritcher lied when
he said that Ice went to a school. You know
who went to the school? Secret Service because one of
those students threatened the life of Donald Trump. Secret Service
(29:30):
went there. People freaked out and they said it was Ice.
There needs to be an apology to the men and
women of ICE from Governor Pritzker, because that's not what happened.
This is, like you said, the red herring. This is
the straw man arguments. This is the gaslighting that they're
going to throw at us. They're going to do this.
They're going to say we're going after kids. We are not. Well, no,
(29:51):
I can't say that we are going after kids. You know,
the kids that we're going after, the three hundred thousand
that are missing. Yeah, those are the kids that we're
going to go after. You know what, kids were going
to go after, the ones that are being such traffic
right now, those are the kids we're going to go after.
Speaker 7 (30:04):
You know what.
Speaker 6 (30:04):
Other ones we're going to go after, the ones that
are being human smuggled and a back of box trucks
and treat it badly.
Speaker 7 (30:12):
Those are the kids that we're gonna save. Those are
the kids that we're going to go after.
Speaker 6 (30:15):
And all this other left wing bananas that's being thrown
at us. We just got to be steadfast and what
we're doing where we're gonna get through this. Donald President
Donald Trump knows what he wants to accomplish, and it's
going to get accomplished.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
And the overwhelming majority of Americans support this effort. They
even go a step farther. In recent polling by CNN,
Harry Enton focuses on the fact that Americans in general
want legal immigration curve, that we got to tighten up
this whole process, even for those that might come here
the right way. John, So, I think again, the tide
is turned and it's definitely on the side of ice
(30:52):
and carrying these deportations out.
Speaker 8 (30:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:56):
Like, look, you know, if your car's breaking down, you're
driving down a road, engines going bad, you don't put
fender flares on and say the car looks better and
then things are going to be better. You've got to
fix everything.
Speaker 7 (31:08):
So we have to fix this and the only way
to do that Number one is to arrest the criminal
illegal aliens first. Then go after those who entered the country,
saw an immigration judge and now have a final order
of deportation on them. They broke into the country, they
were allowed to see an immigration judge.
Speaker 6 (31:26):
And he still didn't listen.
Speaker 7 (31:27):
We need to go after those as well. We need
to straighten this out, get rid of the overstage. The
people who lawfully.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
Came here were only allowed to stay for a short
period of time, and they violated that law and they
stayed here. The only way to fix the immigration system
is to scrub it up from the bottom to the top,
and then we can talk about other things that we
need to do.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Follow him on an X He is an expert in
the subject at John E. Underscore fab with two B's
fabb John fabricatory. Always grateful for your insights. I'm sure
we'll talk again soon. I hope so, Ran I'll talk
to you. Say bye, right John fab right there, and
we'll take this time out. When we come back a
special extended version of Trump's Hot Takes. I couldn't cut it.
It was so good. And it has to do with
(32:10):
the LA wildfires. When we come back on Ryan Schuling Life,
(32:34):
It's time once again for another edition of Trump's Hot Takes,
charting the forty seventh president's epic interactions with the fake
news media. And the number one thing that we are
going to do immediately and you will see this happen,
is to clear out the debris. And you know, we're
concerned right now over the weekend because.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
Of the potential rain.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
But we are going to move as fast as we can.
But we want you to be safe. We want you
to be back in your homes.
Speaker 9 (33:01):
But the people are willing to clean out their own debris,
it doesn't because you should let them do it, because
another time you hire contractors, it's going to be two years.
If a family people are willing to get a dumpster
and do it themselves and clean it out, and they
can there's not that much left.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
It's all incinerated. That's right, and you know it's just
going to take a long time.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
If you do, you can do some of it.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
But a lot of these people, I know that guy
right there that's talking to me. I know my people.
Speaker 10 (33:29):
You'll be on that thing tonight throwing the stuff away,
and your site will be it'll look perfect within twenty
four hours.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
And that's what he wants to do.
Speaker 11 (33:36):
He doesn't want to wait around for seven months till
the city hires.
Speaker 10 (33:40):
Some demolition contract and it's going to charge your month.
Speaker 11 (33:42):
Twenty five thousand dollars to do his lot.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
I think you have to.
Speaker 10 (33:47):
You have emergency powers, just like I do, and I'm
exercising my emergency powers.
Speaker 11 (33:52):
You have to exercise them also.
Speaker 10 (33:54):
I did exercise them because I look, I mean, you
have a very powerful emergency power, and you can do
everything within twenty four hours.
Speaker 9 (34:01):
Yes, and if individuals want to clear out their property
they can, yes.
Speaker 6 (34:09):
But you know that you will be able to go
back soon.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
We think within a week. That's a long time.
Speaker 11 (34:19):
A week.
Speaker 10 (34:19):
I'll be honest to me, that everyone's standing in front
of the house.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
They want to go to work and they're not allowed
to do it. And the most a week is a
long time. He's safe, it's safe, they're safe.
Speaker 8 (34:30):
You know what, They're not safe.
Speaker 6 (34:31):
They're not safe.
Speaker 11 (34:31):
Now they're going to be much safer.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
A week. A week is actually a long time.
Speaker 11 (34:37):
The way I look at it, I want I watch
hundreds of people standing in front of their locks and
they're not allowed to go in.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
It's all burned, it's gone, it's done.
Speaker 11 (34:48):
Nothing's gonna happen to it, not gonna burn anymore.
Speaker 7 (34:50):
There's nothing to burn.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
There's almost something to burn.
Speaker 11 (34:52):
And they want to go in there. The people are
all over the place. They're standing and they say, warren't
you going in? We're trying to get a permit and
the r it's gonna take him. Everybody said eighteen months,
you said eighteen months, you said eight ten months.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
It's just a masterclass holding court with all these leftists, liberals.
There were some assembled conservatives there in that meeting. Donald
Trump shows up and he shows them whose boss and
Karen Bass just withers in his presence. But think about this,
who is more relatable? Who do you hear there and
(35:27):
say you know what that person cares about? Someone like me.
That person's gonna fight for someone like me. This followed
on the heels the same day of Donald Trump visiting
western North Carolina, where he turned over the press conference
and the microphone to those who had lost their homes
and asked them questions on camera. Again, brilliant optics, but
(35:50):
more than that, effective governance of our president, our forty
seventh president of the United States. That is how it's done.
Let him clear it out. Let them bring in the dumpsters. Okay,
they're ready. Oh, we've got to be safe. They're not
safe now,
Popular 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!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.