June 7, 2026 • 56 mins
Join us for expert discussions and analysis on today's news, politics, facts about the January 6 rioters, ICE actions at Delaney Hall in Newark NJ, how The GEO Group profits from immigration detention centers, a realistic solution to illegal immigration, birthright citizenship, seniors not applying for programs that would financially help them and how happiness and fun are Blessings from God.
(00:00) Details about January 6th U.S. Capitol rioters who Donald Trump pardoned plus now wants to give taxpayer money to and the crimes they've since committed.
(02:24) Brendan Glavin, Director Of Insights with Open Secrets, tells how and why The GEO Group has become the lead provider of detention centers for ICE including Delaney Hall in Newark NJ and the amount of money involved with this industry.
(13:29) GOP Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (FL-27) explains how her proposed immigration legislation would result in a realistic solution to illegal immigration versus the plans and actions being used today.
(26:51) Michael O'Neill, Vice-President For Legal Affairs with Landmark Legal Foundation, looks back at the U.S. Supreme Court hearing the case on birthright citizenship according to the 14th Amendment and what the ruling later this month may turn out to be.
(39:40) Jessica Johnson, Senior Strategist For Economic Well-Being with the National Council On Aging, discusses how many seniors aren't enrolling in benefits programs, how participation rates vary and the assistance provided by the Benefits Checkup website.
(49:10) Chris DeBello shares how the Bible teaches all to have fun in life through the Blessings of God.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
Hello, welcome to Issues and Ideas.
I'm Chris Tabello.
Did you believe that the$1.8billion Trump slush fund was
dead and buried?
Maybe not.
Well you see this past week, acouple of clues to the that
caused the maybe to come about.
There was a a get-together inthe Oval Office, and Trump was
(00:20):
asked whether the$1.8 billionfund was dead and buried.
And he said, I don't know.
Go ask the lawyers.
Then toward the end of this pastweek, Senate Republicans blocked
the vote to officially kill the$1.8 billion slush fund, which
is the fund that was, at leastby intent, going to give money
to the January 6th Capitolrioters.
(00:43):
Which brings me to this article,Courtesy of a Law Affair, by
Catherine Pompillo.
The January 6th pardons, howmany clemency recipients have
faced other charges is theheadline.
The number is at least 97 of theover 1,500 individuals that got
clemency by Trump for theirroles in the Capitol riot on
(01:03):
January 6th have been arrestedfor, charged with, or convicted
of crimes, separate from whatthey did on January 6th.
These run the gambit fromlow-grade offenses like property
damage, possession of drugparaphernalia, trespassing,
although more serious ones too.
Grand larceny, stalking,planning to assassinate law
(01:24):
enforcement officials, prominentpolitician assassinations,
defrauding government agencies.
One of the pardoned people wasconvicted, this is in February
26th, of child molestation andsentenced to life in prison.
Another one convicted last yearof reckless homicide.
In fact, at least 14 have beencharged with sex crimes or
(01:47):
crimes related to child sexualabuse material, and at least six
have faced domestic violencecharges.
Others face charges for physicalassaults, illegal firearm
possession, other violentcrimes, and at least 20 have
been charged with driving underthe influence of either alcohol
or drugs or public intoxication.
(02:07):
We've been hearing Donald Trumptalk about when it comes to
immigration.
We'll get to the that topic in amoment.
Talk about how we're going toget rid of the worst of the
worst when it comes toimmigrants.
Turns out that Trump pardonedthe worst of the worst after
January 6th.
The events and actions whichhave happened at Delaney Hall in
Newark, New Jersey, havecertainly created concern and
(02:29):
anger with a lot of people overthe actions of ICE and how
people in their custody arebeing treated.
My first guest today joins us toexamine, I think, a very
important facet of all this.
For ICE and DHS to do whatthey're doing, they of course
need a place to do it.
Delaney Hall, other locationacross America being provided to
ICE by a select, and I meanselect handful of for-profit
(02:51):
companies who are taking inbillions of dollars in what has
now become one of the fastestgrowing industries in the
nation.
How do these companies gainaccess to these opportunities?
And oh, by the way, are youunknowingly gaining from their
actions via your investmentplans?
Here with the answers to this,Samore is the Director of
Insights with Open Secrets,Brendan Glavin.
How are you?
Hey, Brendan.
SPEAKER_04 (03:12):
Very good.
Happy to be here.
SPEAKER_00 (03:14):
And the work that Open Secrets is doing about
this, which you can read atOpenSecrets.org.
We're talking about the GEOgroup.
How big of a player infor-profit detention operations
is the GEO Group?
SPEAKER_04 (03:29):
Uh major, major player.
You know, when you talk aboutICE, they are the number one uh
contractor w uh for ICE by alarge amount, large amount, um,
about two billion dollarscontracts 2025.
SPEAKER_00 (03:44):
You know, I was looking at a chart the next
closest to the GEO group is CSIAviation, with just about half
of the of the revenue that GEOgroup is.
I guess the question becomes, asI said, this is uh certainly a
hot industry for those which arecompanies that are publicly
traded, and we'll get to thattoo in a minute.
(04:05):
Why are there not more companiesclimbing on board what is indeed
a financial gravy train forthese handful?
SPEAKER_04 (04:14):
Well, one I um uh a group like Geo Geo Group has you
know positioned themselves overtime to be uh of course they're
a longtime player in this uhprivate uh you know prison um
incarceration industry, um, butthey have positioned themselves
over time to really be uh in away ready for this moment.
(04:38):
And you know that involves umyou know they've been they
didn't just pop on the scene forin a political sense in the in
in the areas that you know welook at, they have since 2017
they've averaged about 1.3million dollars in lobbying
expenditures at the federallevel every year.
(04:59):
Um so from 17 to 25, so andthey're on pace to hit that
again this year.
So they're consistently uhpaying out lobbyists to be
there, be on the hill, uh be infront of lawmakers and
policymakers, um, and you know,pressing their position.
And then of course that's oneaspect of it is the lobbying,
(05:20):
and then you have thecontribution side of it, and
have also been have a history ofbeing uh strong contributors uh
to the Republican Party, to uhRepublican super PACs, and then
uh of course they're also a veryuh big funder to a contributor
to uh Donald Trump's uh superPAC, uh the Make America Great
(05:42):
Again Incorporated in 2024, ummillion dollars.
SPEAKER_00 (05:47):
Most certainly when when you have revenue, the most
recent uh revenue report for GeoGroup,$2.6 billion, a six
percent increase, which thatdoesn't sound like a lot, but
when you're looking at theprevious year,$2.4 billion, 6%
is a sizable chunk of changethat you can get noticed in a
variety of ways, like you justmentioned, Brandon.
And it seems like the noticingis being paid off because it's
(06:10):
it's not just a Laney Hall.
Geo is operating pretty muchnationwide and are looking for
more, are they not?
SPEAKER_04 (06:17):
Right, correct.
And um they're you know prettyuh out of bash about uh talking
about when their uh you know CEOhas uh you know conference
calls, uh investor calls, andtalks about you know how they
had the best year ever lastyear.
And in in the immediate wake ofthe election, he was talking
about how they expected to dovery well.
(06:37):
Um so you know, they've as Isaid, they've you know put
themselves in position ahead oftime to be able to take
advantage of this and then youknow lean into it.
And so these contributionamounts, you talk about the
lobbying expenditures and thecontributions they made, right,
they feel like a lot and and itis a lot of money, and it's and
it's uh they're very bigcontributions, but when you
(06:59):
compare that to the scale of theum when you're talking about
billions of dollars in revenuecoming in, it's a no-brainer.
These uh you know, thisinvestment they're making on one
side is you know paying out uhincredibly on the other side.
SPEAKER_00 (07:13):
Oh, no doubt about it.
And uh they mentioned in theirone of their conference calls
this was back in December, Ithink.
This sounds like a major movefor most companies, but for Geo,
it's a drop in the bucket.
They're looking at just in theimmediate time of investing$70
million in capital expenditures,which some companies can't even
dream of having that for totalcapital, never mind capital
(07:35):
expenditures.
This is just the magnitude.
Uh they're looking to fill bedsby the tens of thousands.
There they seem to be everythingthat ICE wants to do.
Geo Group seems to be the uh thego-to to get it done.
SPEAKER_04 (07:48):
Right.
And of course, when um, youknow, that uh one thing I wanted
to bring up was, you know, aboutthe other way that this works
too.
I talk about contributionslobbying.
unknown (07:58):
Right.
SPEAKER_04 (07:58):
Well, there's what we call the revolving door
aspect of this.
And of course, revolving door isa big thing in you know the
government and the privatesector, where meaning you have
people who work in the privatesector and then go and work for
the government, and then theyleave the government and go work
for the private sector, and thenmaybe go back.
So thus we have a revolvingdoor.
Well, this absolutely applieshere.
We have the um you know actingdirector of uh ICE, David uh
(08:24):
Venturella, right?
He's his history goes back tohe's previously he's act been
named acting director of ICE atthis point.
Well, previously for over 10years, he was uh executive at
Geogroup.
And before he was an executiveof Geo Group, he was working in
the uh government.
Um so not only are they makingthese financial investments,
(08:48):
they also essentially have oneof their own on the inside
running ice.
SPEAKER_00 (08:53):
Well, another one too is Lindsay Corin.
She served as a trial attorneywith the with the DOJ from
2004-2007 as an advisor to thechief immigration judge.
She's on the board of directorsof the geo group.
SPEAKER_04 (09:08):
So it it's a exactly and it's a um, it just you know,
it creates this web ofinfluence.
All these there's a lot ofmoving pieces and uh these you
know companies, they they knowhow to play the game.
And when you get all your piecesin place, um you can see how um
it the uh it can lead to a lotof money flowing in and then to
(09:31):
the company.
And then when the company says,oh, well, we're being um, you
know, the government's you knowkeeping an eye on us and making
sure that we're um you knowdoing everything right.
Well, you don't have a lot offaith in that when it turns out
that you know the people incharge on the government side
are actually you know uh formerinsiders uh with the company
(09:53):
that they're supposed to be uhmonitoring.
SPEAKER_00 (09:56):
And and as well, too, just for the cause overall,
the the people in the variouspositions and the companies
overall, like Geo Group, theydon't want Trump to change his
policies.
I mean, you have all this debategoing on in Congress and
elsewhere that, well, we couldjust temper things down and the
state government here in NewJersey, they're trying to do
things.
But uh put it bluntly, Geo don'twant don't want nothing to
(10:19):
change.
They're they're they're morethan happy to keep things going,
and then some.
SPEAKER_04 (10:23):
Yes, exactly.
So the you know the incentivesit creates are you know not
always uh obviously not in a uhconcern about policy, just about
money.
SPEAKER_00 (10:33):
This also comes into play, too, with the conditions
that we hear about, not just atuh Delaney Hall but other
facilities.
As far as the uh the oversight,I mean, are uh are these
companies you you say they'regetting favorable treatment only
because they have so many, somuch of a of their foot inside
the the decision makers.
(10:53):
What hope is there for anythingto improve as far as ethics, as
far as God, even just straightout of humanity with some of
these operations?
SPEAKER_04 (11:03):
Um it's a very very good question.
Um, you know, in your yourlead-in, and uh you know I know
you haven't brought up yet, butyou you mentioned the I uh idea
of uh these you know, you havepublicly traded companies, and
you know, that does become anavenue for pushback um on the on
the investor side.
(11:24):
And because then basically yousay, all right, well, where can
we initiate change?
And if people start to feel andthe companies start to feel it
in the pocketbook, then um thenthat's gonna become something
that uh you know they're gonnapay attention to.
SPEAKER_00 (11:36):
Yeah, and a lot of people neglect that because
they're involved with 401ks, forexample, through the place of
employment or individually, uhthey invest in funds and you get
this dictionary-size annualreport, and you really don't
want to take the time to lookthrough it.
But if you did ever take time tolook for it, like I never knew
by investing in Warner BrothersDiscovery, which I divested for
a whole other discussion of thetime, I actually owned a piece
(11:58):
of a pro wrestling promotionbecause of that.
But it's it's a matter of if youlook through the the elements,
and they do have to list everysingle company that your fund is
investing in, you might beunpleasantly surprised with some
of the companies that you mightbe dropping your money in and
gaining money from, granted, butdo you really want to gain money
from a company that isperpetrating some of the things
(12:21):
that we're hearing that GeoGroup is doing?
I would hope the answer is no.
And uh I think what you do,Brenda, with with the work at
Open Secrets at OpenSecrets.org,you bring the information to
people that I think can motivateso many more to say, okay, this
isn't right, and I need to speakup, speak out, push back, push
out, and try to get things rightand make these companies more
(12:43):
aware that people, more peopleare watching them, and not to
put them out of business, butjust to operate in a humane way,
give it considering theoperations and the focus of what
their what their business is.
So find out more atopensecrets.org about Geo Group,
about the for-profit prisonindustry overall, and many other
important topics that they put afocus on.
(13:06):
He is the director of insightswith open secrets, Brendan
Glavin.
Brendan, thank you for helpingus better appreciate uh not I
not talked about enough aspectof what we're seeing not uh not
just unfolding at Delaney Hallbut elsewhere for people
listening on the podcast outsideNew Jersey.
This will be a wake-up call forthem too, and I appreciate you
taking time to be here with ustoday.
SPEAKER_04 (13:26):
Great, thank you very much.
SPEAKER_00 (13:29):
I'm doing something I rarely do, go back to a
previous conversation because Ithink it's important in light of
the ongoing hamster wheel debateregarding immigration.
This was a talk I had withRepublican Representative Maria
Elvira Salazar late last year,talking about legislation she
introduced.
It's HR 4393, the Dignity Act of2025, and how she believes, as I
(13:53):
do, how it provides significantanswers to the immigration
situation.
Deport them all.
That's what some people say isthe only response to illegal
immigration.
Alright, if that's what youbelieve, then where do we get
the money from to cover the costof fighting, apprehending, and
deporting, of best latestestimate, around 13 million
(14:15):
people.
These same people are the oneswho throw blanket statements out
at undocumented immigrantsclaiming that they're mostly
violent criminals who aregetting every government program
benefit that exists.
The reality, quite a bitdifferent.
Vast majority of undocumentedimmigrants came here for a
better life.
They're hardworking, they loveAmerica.
(14:37):
The next guest is a member ofthe U.S.
House of Representatives who hasstepped forward with a realistic
and very responsible solution tothe illegal immigration issue.
She presents ideas in two ways,actually.
In the House, she introduced theDignity Act of 2025, H.R.
4393, if you want to look it up,and she expands on her
immigration solution andinsight.
(14:59):
In her new book, Dignity, NotCitizenship.
The truth about immigration, noone is telling you.
She is a Republicanrepresentative for Florida's
27th District, RepresentativeMaria Elvira Salazar.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
How are you doing?
Well, I'm I'm pleased to bringyour information, your ideas to
(15:21):
as many people as possiblebecause it seems like, and you
you write about this in yourbook too, it's a historic
headbutting that's been going onwith immigration.
What's what has been the uh justa brief what have been the
common threads with thetimeline?
Why has so little been gettingdone as the problem continues to
(15:41):
have grown since the Reaganadministration?
SPEAKER_03 (15:45):
Well, the reason the problem here is that since the
Reagan administration, we've hada problem with not having the
border secured.
And by not having the bordersecured, then you had all these
people who were gaming thesystem and who had uh who uh
were claiming a politicalasylum, and in reality, many of
them that could did not umqualify.
(16:08):
And then now we are in thissituation where you have
millions of uh uh undocumentedpeople who do not have a
criminal record, who do not havea criminal record.
They are needed in construction,hospitality, agricultural, dairy
farms, and then what are wegonna do with them?
Which is that is my eternalquestion.
What are we gonna do with thosepeople who have been here for
more than five years, who havefamilies, American children,
(16:30):
people who are part of oursociety and do not have a
criminal record and then do notbelong to any gang
organizations.
It's impossible to deport themall.
So let's do what's Solomonic.
Let's give them dignity, nocitizenship, make them pay for
their crimes, and let them stayin the country helping the
(16:51):
economy.
SPEAKER_00 (16:52):
The we we've seen that when when Donald Trump
returned to the Oval Office,obviously, as it was in his
first term, immigration was abig issue, and the promise was
to deport the worst of theworst.
And I think we all can agreewith that.
That's a might that might be anactual pi bipartisan issue right
there.
Yep.
It's uh has it has been workingout that way too much as at
least by the visual.
SPEAKER_03 (17:13):
I don't know about No, no, it has not, and that's
the big problem that we'retaking everybody.
We're taking the bad hombre'sand we're taking the good
hombre.
We're taking the people who arehere helping the economy, and
that's why we have the laborshortage that we have at this
hour.
That's why we have the problemsthat we're having at this hour
when it comes to the economy,having the roofers and the
manufacturers and the and thefarmers not having enough
(17:38):
workers to do the job.
That's all I'm saying.
Let them stay, let them pay fortheir crime, let them no no
federal programs, no rights tovote, no um no right to uh any
type of federal programs, butthen at the same time, let them
(17:58):
stay.
Because they have friends.
SPEAKER_00 (18:02):
Let's think about that for a second because again,
like I said back in theintroduction, a lot of people
who are critical of illegalimmigration saying that again
the the the total mis uhmisinformation that they're
getting federal programs, theseare people who are paying into
the Medicare, the Medicaidsystem, the Social Security
system.
They're not getting any of thosebenefits.
Well, if you take them out ofthe situation, what's that gonna
(18:25):
do to the financial stability ofthose programs, which are
already shaky to begin with?
SPEAKER_03 (18:31):
Look, some are and some are not.
We're talking about millions andmillions of people.
SPEAKER_02 (18:37):
Sure.
SPEAKER_03 (18:37):
Oh, that's some of them, of course.
Yeah, I'm sure it's some ofthem, but I would say not the
overwhelming majority of theillegals are in the federal
system.
They're not.
Most of them are not.
I'm sure it's some are, but itit's not the big bulk.
The big bulk is in constructionhospitalian agricultural and um
(19:01):
giving their labor every day injobs that other Americans are
not willing to do.
So, yeah, get them off the uhthe rolls of the federal
programs.
No problem.
We'll st we'll still need them.
That's a problem.
We still need them.
SPEAKER_00 (19:16):
So let's get into the ideas of your program and
the Dignity Act 2025, because Ithink if you had to put a key
word to this, it would becompromise.
Would that be fair?
SPEAKER_03 (19:28):
Um no.
Um what would be fair would beto what would be fair would be
just to bring them out of theshadows period.
Let them stay.
Let them pay for their crimes.
Let them uh stay here, work somemore, pay taxes.
(19:52):
Let them just stay.
Period.
And don't give them any right tocitizenship, don't give them any
amnesty, don't give them anyfederal programs, make them pay
seven thousand dollars in fineswith another one uh one million
dollars, one percent of theirsalaries, and let them stay for
seven years and then uh applyfor another seven years, and
(20:15):
we're gonna generate trillionsof dollars for the economy.
Trillions of dollars in the nextten years.
That's what I'm looking at.
Besides national security, wewill know who our neighbor is.
On top of that, the bordersecured.
Let's codify border security inthis the dignity law has the
(20:35):
border security component.
So it's Solomonic, it's in themiddle, it's not perfect, but
it's the best we've had in thelast 40 years.
It can definitely uh uh garnishum bipartisan support.
I have 30 already, 30, 15, and15, 15 them, 15 Republicans uh
(20:56):
supporting the Dignity Act.
And it's a it's a major problemin the country, the number one
and is gonna send the largestminority in the country a very
big message welcoming them tothe GOP and telling them that
they have the same values thatare entrenched in the Republican
Party, which are God fearing,law-abiding, taxpaying,
(21:16):
family-oriented, churchgoers.
Bring them into the fold.
SPEAKER_00 (21:21):
So Representative Maria Elviraz-Alizar, Republican
Florida 27th District, about herDignity Act of 2025, which you
can, if you want to look up theactual legislation.
It is H.R.
4393, and of course, her book,Dignity, not citizenship, the
truth about immigration, no oneis telling you.
You're listening to issues andideas.
(21:42):
E-Verify.
SPEAKER_03 (21:43):
Talk about how that can be utilized because e verify
mandatory, mandatory, mandatory.
Uh not voluntary like now.
SPEAKER_00 (21:52):
Or yeah, if some states do, some states don't.
It's got to well, that's theother problem.
SPEAKER_03 (21:57):
Come on.
That's the other problem.
SPEAKER_00 (21:59):
We've been We've been putting the e verify onus
on the illegal immigrants, andshort of a rare exception,
businesses who do illegalhiring, they've gotten away
without any kind of penalties.
SPEAKER_03 (22:12):
Of course.
Specifically the businessowners.
SPEAKER_00 (22:15):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (22:16):
It's been going on for years.
This is this is uh this is athis has been going on for
years.
Come on, you know, it's likeit's time to put some order into
this uh So how how do you how doyou sell the idea then?
SPEAKER_00 (22:28):
Because as you point out, and this is a this is the I
think one of the key points,you're right that border
security isn't immigration.
They have a connection, but onedoesn't equal the other.
You can you can and we alreadyhave are in the process of
strongly addressing obviouslyborder security, but that
doesn't address immigration.
SPEAKER_03 (22:48):
And that's correct.
One thing is border security,another thing is immigration.
Border security has been anissue that is part of
immigration, but is not the samething.
It's not the same thing.
So uh that's why uh we we fixed,but wait, we fixed border
security with an executiveorder.
We need to codify it into law.
(23:08):
We need to codify it into law.
SPEAKER_00 (23:10):
Right, because executive orders can be erased
just as fast as they've beenwritten.
unknown (23:15):
Of course.
SPEAKER_03 (23:16):
Of course, and then the next guy who's sitting at
the White House can say, Well, Idon't like this policy, so uh
let me just open the borders,which is exactly what Biden did
when uh when doing Trump wonleft.
And so people think, Oh yeah,the border's security, yeah, it
is now, and then what about in28?
So let's let's put an end to theborder issue and the caravans
(23:39):
and all that BS.
Let's just then seal the borderforever and let's uh deal uh
with the people who are here whowill not be deported because we
don't have enough hands, enoughagents, and let's give the
mandate to ICE to do what theydo best, which is to catch the
(24:01):
bad guys and concentrate on thebad guys, whether they're
report, whether they areillegals or illegals.
It doesn't matter.
Get them out.
But leave the people who are onthe fields in construction,
hospitality, dairy,slaughterhouses, greenhouses,
carnivals, health care, allthose people who are definitely
contributing to the economy.
(24:22):
Leave them alone.
Give them dignity, nocitizenship, no amnesty.
Let them pay for their crimes,post a big fine, big taxes, and
let them stay.
So everyone wins.
SPEAKER_00 (24:36):
Well, it's just balancing the scale where uh
illegal immigrant was avoidingcertain responsibilities.
You have a plan to help themequate everything and put
everything back into some sortof balance.
And I we have to end thissegment here, but this would
only apply if you've been herebefore 2021.
So what uh RepresentativeSalazar is doing is uh she's
(25:00):
creating a path to bring theproblem to a stop uh to a
slowing down, at leastinitially, if not a complete
end, eventually to mandatorye-verify and limiting the uh
turning down the the neon lightson the welcome app that others
before the currentadministration have have uh
ignited, I guess we'd say, andto bring uh just sensible
(25:23):
compromise into the discussionas opposed to political
headbutting, which has justprolonged and uh allowed the
problem to fester and grow tothe degree it has as we see in
the here and now.
She writes about this in greatdetail and puts the human side
into it, not just the politicalside and dignity uh citizenship.
And look up the Dignity Act of2025.
It's H.R.
(25:44):
4393.
Representative Maria EvarisAlazar, you have brought common
sense to what has been ahistorically difficult,
challenging issue.
And I I hope I hope you're goingto wake a lot more than the 30
you have up to realize thatthere is a solution.
SPEAKER_03 (26:01):
Thank you.
And uh of course there is.
It's just political willingness.
It's just showing politicalwillingness, believe you me.
It's uh it's frustratingsometimes because I see the
solution so easily uh accessibleand it's not perfect, but it's
very solemnic.
And it's it's and it's so it'sit's really very hard at this
(26:23):
hour, but I do have hope thatthe GOP will wake up before the
midterm elections.
SPEAKER_00 (26:29):
Again, dignity not citizenship.
Get the book because it willeducate you.
SPEAKER_03 (26:33):
And I have a book, yeah, in Amazon.
You can go to Amazon Dignity NotCitizenship.
The truth about immigration thatno one is telling you.
SPEAKER_00 (26:39):
Thank you, Representative, for being here.
SPEAKER_03 (26:42):
My pleasure to you and thank you for the
opportunity.
Big hugs.
Bye-bye.
SPEAKER_00 (26:45):
If you're listening on the podcast side of things,
make sure you follow andsubscribe.
It's called BirthrightCitizenship.
Idea has long been considered tohave its roots in the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, specificallysection one of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which is referred toas right, the Citizenship
Clause.
Now, while the CitizenshipClause has long been seen by
(27:07):
people and courts, including theU.S.
Supreme Court, as theconfirmation of why people can
remain in America, DonaldTrump's administration
supporters, they want to greatlynarrow the meaning of Section
One of the Fourteenth Amendment,which Trump has tried to do via
an executive order.
That's all, as you would expect,landed before the U.S.
Supreme Court, which between nowand the end of this month will
(27:29):
release their ruling on thishuman ex guest is here to review
the elements of this case andtell if any clues of what the
court's ruling might be can befound in the questions that they
wound up asking both sidesduring the hearings.
He's Vice President for LegalAffairs with the Landmark Legal
Foundation, Michael O'Neill.
How are you today, Michael?
SPEAKER_06 (27:48):
I'm great, Chris.
Good to be with you.
SPEAKER_00 (27:50):
Likewise to have you back here, too.
Landmarklegal.org is thewebsite.
Let me establish a foundationfor you listening.
Reading from the 14th Amendment,Section 1, all persons born or
naturalized in the United Statesand subject to the jurisdiction
there of any R citizens of theUnited States and of the state
(28:10):
wherein they reside.
And to give you some numbers totalk about the magnitude and the
importance that we're discussinghere, there are 5.5 million U.S.
children, at last estimate, whoare living in households with at
least one undocumented immigrantparent, and nine percent of U.S.
births annually are tohouseholds with at least one
(28:31):
undocumented immigrant as aparent.
So we're talking about somethingpretty heavy duty, depending on
which way the court goes,Michael.
Uh when you look back at thehearings and both sides
presenting their case, whatstood out to you as maybe the
the best point on but the beston point?
And was there any either sidetrying to divert the justices'
(28:55):
attention from law and trying toget them into opinion?
SPEAKER_06 (29:00):
Sure, sure.
I think the the arguments andthe briefing all focused on the
that term subject to thejurisdiction thereof.
What does that mean?
Does that mean that you havesimple territorial presence, as
you indicated, Chris, whichwould be earlier, uh that's the
earlier interpretation and thethe historical interpretation
here that simple territorialpresence of the birth mother of
(29:24):
is enough to convey automaticcitizenship to the to the child,
no matter despite the legalstatus of that birth mother.
If you're born on the in theterritorial confines of the
United States, that means you'rea citizen, subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.
Others, uh, the President Trumpincluded, and others who looked
back into the history andterminology and the debates
(29:44):
surrounding the ratification ofthe Fourteenth Amendment
presented evidence to expandthat it meant something more
than just mere territorialpresence.
There had to be, in other words,there had to be some sort of
permanency or politicalallegiance to the United States
of America.
And it had to be beyondsomething that just simply being
present here.
You had to have some some levelof permanency.
There's an ar there's a SupremeCourt case, Wong Kim Arc, that
(30:07):
was the precedent for this, andthat's kind of the basis, which
was decided in the in the mid uhI think in the late 1800s, so uh
well over a hundred years ago.
And that involved uh Chinesenationals who'd come to the
United States and the court andgave birth and the United and
the uh the court concluded thatthe territorial presence was
enough to convey citizenship.
(30:27):
Wang Kim Ark is distinguishablethough in the fact that these
individuals were here in apermanent manner and they were
here legally.
So they were although they werenot citizens in the United
States, they were Chinesenationals, but they were here
permanently and they hadestablished something beyond
just mere mere temporary statusin the United States.
So I think there was someevidence to support the
president's argument.
(30:48):
The question, though, whichreally kind of sussed out during
uh oral arguments, is thatwhether the executive order is
the proper vehicle to accomplishthis national, as this national
important uh policy.
As you indicated before, you'retalking about potentially
millions of people goingforward, a very serious issue
that's facing our country.
And the question really is oneof process for the court, can a
(31:09):
president do this, effectuatethis interpretation and
implement this policy via anexecutive order, or is something
more required?
In other words, would it have tobe an act of Congress?
And I think oftentimes that thatthat might be a hang up for the
court for at least some of thoseswing justices that we often
talk about.
Amy Comey Barrett, JusticeCavanaugh, maybe Justice Roberts
as well, is they're questioningabout whether a a executive, a
(31:32):
president can effectuate thisinstrumental change and this
fundamental change in the wayour country interprets a uh
critical constitutionalprovision via executive order,
or does Congress need to step inhere and act as the best body to
present this sort ofinterpretation?
SPEAKER_00 (31:46):
So the w the two sides are looking at
respectively as eitherprioritizing where a person
literally and figurativelystands, where the argument
against uh for the FourteenthAmendment is where that person
is standing and what they'restanding on, soil versus
location, I guess would be the fuh uh lay person term.
SPEAKER_06 (32:07):
Yeah, exactly.
Uh and and it it it that camedown to it.
That's interpreting theconstitutional, the
constitutionality, and that youso we can kind of dissect this
in a couple ways.
We can look at what is themeaning of the constitutional
phrase that that we're talkingabout, the citizenship clause of
the 14th Amendment.
And we can discern and we cantry to interpret this, and we
can uh use stance uh canons of sof interpretation, we can use
(32:30):
originalism.
There's ways, there'smethodologies in place to try to
discern what the meaning of theratifiers were when they when
they enacted this provision ofthe 14th Amendment.
What was their meaning?
Would they have intended it tomean children of illegal
immigrants or birth tourism, forexample?
I don't think you could ever saythat that, you know, individuals
of Chinese billionaire, I don'teven know if they could get
(32:51):
their head around that.
A Chinese billionaire cominginto the United States having a
hundred surrogate children andthen having those children taken
out of the country, but stillthey retain those Americans,
that citizenship.
I don't even know if they couldwrap their head around that, but
you try to discern that meaning.
What we're what you and I aretalking about right now is
constitutional analysis.
There is a very distinct, let melet me let me make an
interesting point here.
(33:12):
There is a very distinct chancethat a controlling majority
doesn't go down this road thatrefrains from doing this.
And let me explain why theywould do this.
There's something known as thedoctrine of constitu of
constitutional avoidance, canonof constitutional avoidance.
And that means if the SupremeCourt can withhold making an
interpretation of aconstitutional provision and
still achieve an outcome that itwould have achieved otherwise,
(33:35):
it will ch it will go down thatthat alternative path.
Now let me explain why this isan important thing, thing to
consider here.
If the Supreme Court, if acontrolling majority of the
Supreme Court, for example,interprets the terminology of
the 14th Amendment, that standsas the the interpretation of the
Constitution.
And essentially what that does,say, for example, a majority of
(33:56):
the justices, five of thejustices conclude, agree with
those who are challengingPresident Trump's executive
order, and that that it merethat all you need is mere
territorial presence to be aUnited States citizen.
So if the court interprets the14th Amendment in that way, that
means it closes the door for anycongressional action.
And that's what I'm talkingabout before.
(34:17):
So, say for example, Congresswanted to pass a law outlawing
birth tours, which I think 90%of Americans would agree with,
that law would be in effectunconstitutional.
So the court, I think, is leeryof carving out of kind of
freezing out Congress.
So my prediction is, and again,this is just a prediction,
Chris, my prediction is that amajority of the justices, you
(34:38):
have probably those threejustices that I talked about
before, would be in a positionto say, hey, look, there's a law
on the books that largelymirrors the language of the 14th
Amendment.
This was a law that was passedin the early 20th century and
affirmed uh a few decades later,that largely mirrors the
language of the 14th Amendment.
Again, born and subject to thejurisdiction thereof.
(34:58):
I could I could see a case wherethe court says the executive
Trump's executive order violatesthe law.
And we're not going to get intothe constitutional question.
We're just going to simply sayhis executive order violates the
law, and the executive order isillegal, and therefore we're
going to throw it out.
It preserves Congress's role inthis place.
It's not an optimal, uh, from myperspective, it's not an optimal
(35:19):
outcome because I happen toagree with the constitutional
interpretation proffered by theTrump administration.
However, it's the best of a badoutcome.
In other words, Congress stillhas a role to play in this, and
we don't have a finalinterpretation of the 14th
Amendment.
SPEAKER_00 (35:31):
At the same time, doesn't the Trump administration
and hypothetically if Congressdecide to take some related
action to the to the citizenshipclause?
There's literally a century ofcourt rulings at all levels,
includ up to and including theU.S.
Supreme Court, which backs upwhat the people supporting the
(35:52):
Fourteenth Amendment, the uhcitizenship clause are saying.
If you want to change something,alter something, add to the
citizenship clause and any levelof redefinition, you have a lot
of court precedent you've got tobattle and overcome.
SPEAKER_06 (36:05):
Yeah, but I think the best vehicle with that be
would be doing it via a ch astatutory challenge rather than
an executive action challenge.
And that's what we're happeningright now.
Remember what we're dealingwith, we're dealing with an
executive order.
And so the best vehicle topresent the interpretation you
want to proffer, and of course,this is what we're talking
about, the the theinterpretation that you have to
have more than mere territorialpresence.
The best vehicle to challengethat would be a law that, for
(36:28):
example, outlawing birthtourism, right?
And so you're saying, okay,well, I think Congress passes a
law, and again, we're in ahypothetical situation here.
Uh Congress passes a law, forexample, as I said, says that
you can't come to the UnitedStates for purposes of surrogacy
and have a bunch of children andthen take those children out,
however, the law works.
Uh that would that would be alaw that on its face would be
consistent, and you would haveto reconcile that law with the
(36:51):
Fourteenth Amendment.
And I think you'd have a verystrong chance to proffer the
argument again, to to succeed onthe argument that the Trump
administration is making now,hey, that you have to have more
than a territorial presence.
Look at the way it's presented.
It's almost what's reallyimportant when we're talking
about these constitutional andSupreme Court cases is how is
the issue presented to thecourt?
It's almost as important as thefacts underlying it.
(37:13):
What is the issue strictlybefore the court here?
And again, as I'm talking aboutbefore, I'm reiterating this
point.
This has been presented to thecourt in the in the form of an
executive order, which again,the court is kind of leery, you
know, recognizing the separationof powers and the importance of
that doctrine.
It's a little leery of, just bynature, of a president
accomplishing something withenormous national implications
(37:34):
simply via an executive order.
So you're operating under that,you know, that handicap right
from the get-go if you're theTrump administration.
And I I kind of think thatthat's where they're going to
go.
The court's gonna kind of say,look, executive order, we're a
little leery of this, but weunderstand some practicalities
here, so we want to preserve thethe the Congress to do
something.
So we're gonna hold off ongetting into a constitutional
analysis.
We're just gonna stay on this onthe law, and we're gonna allow
(37:56):
Congress the opportunity to passlaws that might affect
birthright citizenship, and thenwe'll revisit the
constitutionality question at alater time.
SPEAKER_00 (38:04):
So basically it's not what's being done, it's how
it's being done, and what thecourt's gonna rule over that.
SPEAKER_06 (38:09):
You got it.
That's absolutely right.
So, yeah, and and again, I thinkthe most the the best way, and
and again, I am supporting thethe Trump administration's
position on this, and I I Iunderstand the need for this
this this executive action, uh,but so often now we're seeing
this is Congress's inability toact, and you're seeing then
well, you're seeing becauseCongress isn't doing anything.
I mean, let's think about voterintegrity, for example.
(38:30):
They're not doing anything, andso what happens is there's a
clear need for action, and thepresident is stepping into it.
Well, Congress isn't doinganything to prevent uh birth
tourism, they aren't doinganything to prevent this uh you
know, birthright citizenship.
It's become an enormous nationalsecurity problem for our
country.
Think about this from a nationalsecurity perspective.
Congress isn't doing their job,and so the president's gonna
(38:52):
have to step into that breach.
But ideally, under our system ofpowers and our separation of
powers, we want to have Congressstepping into it.
That's how kind of the courtlooks at this.
They don't deal with thepolitics of the issue, they kind
of deal with it from a systemsand a separation of powers
perspective.
SPEAKER_00 (39:06):
As I said back in the intro, this is one of the
big rulings that they alwayslike to save for the end to
leave you in suspense orcuriosity, whatever whatever the
case may be.
So uh when it happens, believeme, you'll you'll hear about it
one way or the other, and tofollow along with legal matters
that do indeed matter.
Landmark Legal Foundation is thego-to at landmarklegal.org.
(39:26):
Here's their vice president forlegal affairs.
Michael O'Neill, thanks forhelping us understand the
importance of this, the path towhatever the ruling is going to
be, the path that it's going tobe taken.
Thanks for being here today.
SPEAKER_06 (39:36):
My pleasure, Chris.
You have a great day.
SPEAKER_00 (39:40):
The tough economic times we're in have resulted in
more people having to cutcorners or simply do without
things that they really need fortheir health and well-being.
That includes things like food,health care.
What makes this situation evenmore troubling is that many who
are doing without well, theyactually don't have to.
They're eligible for assistanceprograms, but as recent
(40:00):
statistics reveal, they don'teven apply for them, maybe
because they don't know aboutthem.
With us now to explore thisissue and the solutions that are
being provided by the NationalCouncil on Aging is their senior
strategist for economicwell-being, Jessica Johnson.
Thanks for being here today,Jessica.
SPEAKER_05 (40:16):
Thank you so much for having me.
SPEAKER_00 (40:17):
Couple of websites.
We have them on our homepagetoo, ncoa.org for the National
Council on Aging.
And equally as important,benefitscheckup.org.
We'll get to what that's allabout in a bit.
And again, we have those linkedat our homepage.
Talk about what I was referringto in the introduction.
What kind of void exists betweenwhat's available for people who
(40:40):
are in financial need and howmany are not reaching for what's
available?
SPEAKER_05 (40:48):
Sure.
So what we're seeing across thecountry is that older adults, so
we're talking about those thatare 65 and older, are not
enrolling in many of the keybenefit programs that they're
eligible for.
Specifically, I'm talking aboutthe Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, SNAP,Supplemental Security Income,
SSI, and Medicare SavingsPrograms, MSPs, that can help
(41:12):
pay for your Medicare premiumsand your co-pays.
And what we're seeing across thecountry is that there are many,
many millions of eligible olderadults that are not enrolled in
this program.
And I know that your listenersare primarily in New Jersey.
And so specifically, what we'reseeing is that there are over
(41:33):
285,000 older adults that arelikely eligible for SNAP that
are not enrolled, over 109,000that might be eligible for SSI
that are not enrolled, and over154,000 who are eligible but not
enrolled for Medicare savingsprograms.
SPEAKER_00 (41:51):
That's that's a scary number.
And I think this adds toimportance to how you approach
this through the information youmake available, because a lot of
times we see these as nationalaverage numbers, which you do
present that as well.
But if you look at it's theimportance of looking at state
by state and even more so bylocality by locality, because
(42:13):
you can have a few areas doingwonderful with a high
participation rate thatovershadow the areas where the
participation rate is in muchmore need of boosting up.
So I think the way that youpresent all the stats, because
we also broadcast over thepodcast all out of New Jersey,
and everywhere there's going tobe a need that people are
unaware of, as well as theinformation you make, the
(42:35):
programs that they can reachfor, that is is it because they
just don't think they'reeligible for them, or is there
any understanding why lowparticipation, what's the what's
the main catalyst for the lowparticipation rates?
SPEAKER_05 (42:48):
So there's several reasons.
Um some of the things that wehear frequently are long and
confusing applications.
There's also a stigma among manyolder adults in accepting public
benefits.
Many of them will often say thatthey feel like others might need
these resources more than theydo, and so they don't apply for
them.
(43:08):
Um, but the truth is that we allpay taxes into a system and that
these benefits are there forpeople who really need them.
I think many times too, olderadults might not understand how
much money this truly is andwhat difference it could make.
Um, so the average monthly uhbenefit for SNAP among older
adults is$188.
(43:30):
For SSI, it's$552, and for aMedicare savings program, it's
$165.
And so that could be$1,100 amonth if you're eligible for all
three of these programs.
And that$1,100 could mean thedifference between paying for
food or paying for housing.
(43:50):
We often hear from older adultswho are cutting their
medications in half to try tomake them last longer, things
that are really unhealthy forthem.
And we want to Make sure thatthey have access to these
benefit programs so that theycan stay healthy and active as
long as possible.
SPEAKER_00 (44:06):
This might be an assumption on my part, but I'm
I'm I think I'm safely sayingthat the awareness of the SNAP
program as well as the Medicaresavings programs are are pretty
high up in the level ofrecognition.
Do you think that the lowparticipation rate when it comes
to the supplemental securityincome program, because it's
it's related to Social Securitybut different from Social
(44:28):
Security, people hear SSI andthey think, well, I'm already in
Social Security, so I I don't Ican't apply for that.
SPEAKER_05 (44:36):
I I don't have any information about people
thinking that specifically, butyou're absolutely right.
Um I think it can be alesser-known program.
Another one of the issues, Ithink, is that you know there
are many community-basedpartners out there that help
older adults um with SNAPbenefits, for instance.
But SSI is a federal program,and you often need support from
(44:58):
your local Social SecurityAdministration office.
Um, and you know, that can bebureaucratically very
challenging, and you often haveto go in person as well, which
can be difficult for some olderadults.
And so, you know, we reallyencourage people to contact
their faith-based organizationsor maybe a senior center or an
(45:21):
area agency on aging that mightbe able to help them assess if
they're eligible for SSI andhelp them get the documents they
need together to enroll.
Um, we invite people to go onbenefitscheckup.org or to call
our national toll-free hotline1-800-794-6559.
(45:45):
And there's a person on theother end of that call that can
help determine if you might beeligible for any of these
programs.
SPEAKER_00 (45:52):
Starting with Jessica Johnson, Senior
Strategist for EconomicWell-being with the National
Council on Aging, NCOA.org,their website.
It's also where you can getaccess to the Benefits
Participate Participation Mapthat they've come up with and
developed.
We'll throw a direct link tothat part of their website as
well.
I want to move into thiswebsite, benefitscheckup.org,
(46:13):
which you just mentioned,Jessica.
Talk about what it features andhow you, at least in design,
made it, I think, veryuser-friendly and very
comfortable even for the lessthan tech-savvy older person who
were who could certainly benefitfrom it.
SPEAKER_05 (46:29):
Well, I'm so happy to hear you say that because we
have put a lot of time andeffort into making sure that
it's designed with older adultsand caregivers in mind.
And so you can go tobenefitscheckup.org and you can
do a couple of different things.
One, you can go directly to aresource.
So if you need help affordingfood, you can access information
(46:53):
that way.
If you want to see what'savailable in your zip code, um,
you can also kind of get alaundry list of all of the
benefits programs that you mightbe eligible for based on where
you live specifically.
So we're trying to help people,one, um, access help for their
(47:13):
exact need, but then also seewhat programs are available for
them specifically where theylive.
SPEAKER_00 (47:21):
And for you listening, if you're less than
confident as far as givinginformation over the com through
the computer, like Jessica justsaid, at least for the starting
point, all you have to share isyour zip code, which is
certainly not not intrusive inany way, shape, or form.
So unlike so many other outlets,Jessica, this uh again is just a
(47:43):
comfort zone, secure zone, and auser-friendly zone that benefits
checkup is providing people forno matter what their needs are
or or what their maybe uhcautions are when it comes to
doing anything online, you makeit you make it indeed inviting,
and I think that's important.
SPEAKER_05 (48:01):
Thank you for saying that.
I do want to emphasize that yes,it is a completely anonymous
website.
Um and there is a chat featurein the website.
That chat is manned by a realperson on the other end, so
you're not speaking with an AIchat bot if you engage with the
chat on benefits checkup.
SPEAKER_00 (48:19):
So again, ncoa.org, and you can look at the
interactive map to see theparticipation rates for very key
programs.
And certainly for you as a childof an older parent, check out
and make sure that mom and dad,grandma and grandpa are clued
into all this as well becausemaybe they're one of those
(48:39):
non-participants who should beparticipating because they are
indeed eligible.
And to learn more about how tonavigate into these programs,
your starting point isbenefitscheckup.org.
We've been joined by the seniorstrategist for economic
well-being with the NationalCouncil on Aging.
Jessica Johnson, thank you somuch for this information that
(49:01):
so many have been probablylooking for, and now you've
answered that need.
Thanks for being here today.
SPEAKER_05 (49:07):
Thank you so much, Chris.
SPEAKER_01 (49:55):
And another thing, uh, another nice thing happened
to me today.
NBC hung a star on my dressingroom door.
Mickey Rooney.
SPEAKER_00 (50:07):
Today is Dean Martin's birthday.
Over on our Facebook page, whichyou can find the link to on our
website homepage, we'll becelebrating Dean's birthday by
sharing some memories of Dean.
Dean Martin is also responsiblefor my all-time favorite quote.
Said this during a 1983interview in London.
You gotta have fun.
If you're not having fun, youmight as well lay down, let him
(50:29):
throw dirt on you.
God wants us to have fun.
In fact, fun, joy, laughter orblessings from God.
I believe God himself liked tohave some fun.
If you don't believe me, thenexplain to me the giraffe,
kangaroo, and armadillo forstarters.
Jesus himself wanted people tohave fun and enjoy life.
Let's go to John chapter two,verses one through ten.
(50:52):
On the third day there was awedding in Cana of Galilee, and
the mother of Jesus was there.
Now both Jesus and his discipleswere invited to the wedding, and
when they ran out of wine themother of Jesus said to him,
They have no wine.
Jesus said to her, Woman, whatdoes your concern have to do
with me?
My hour has not yet come.
His mother said to the servants,Whatever he says to you, do it.
(51:16):
Now there were set there sixwater pots of stone according to
the manner of purification ofthe Jews, containing twenty or
thirty gallons apiece.
Jesus said to them, Fill thewater pots with water, and they
filled them up to the brim, andhe said to them, Draw some out
now and take it to the master ofthe feast.
And they took it.
When the master of the feast hadtasted the water that was made
(51:38):
wine, and did not know where itcame from, but the servants who
had drawn the water knew, themaster of the feast called the
bridegroom, and he said to him,Every man at the beginning sets
out the good wine, and when theguests have well drunk, then the
inferior you have kept the goodwine until now.
What the master of the banquetmeant was that you start off
(51:59):
with a little of the good stuff,then you bring out the cheap
wine once people have had toomuch to drink to really care
what they're drinking anymore.
Jesus cut out the cheap stuffand came up with first class
award winning wine.
Jesus and the Beatitudes, whichwe read in the sixth chapter of
Luke, encourages us to workthrough the bad times because we
are to be happy.
(52:20):
This is from Luke chapter six,verse twenty one.
Blessed are you who weep now foryou shall laugh.
Being happy is one of the majorlessons we gain from the book of
Proverbs.
There's this in Proverbs chapterseventeen, verse twenty two.
A merry heart does good likemedicine, but a broken spirit
dries the bones.
As well as these words inProverbs chapter fifteen, verse
(52:42):
thirteen, a merry heart makes acheerful countenance, but by
sorrow of the heart the spiritis broken.
Solomon, who is considered thewisest ever king of Israel,
called on his people to be happyand have fun, realizing that the
experience is a great gift fromGod.
Solomon declares this truth inEcclesiastes chapter eight verse
(53:02):
fifteen.
So I commended enjoyment becausea man has nothing better under
the sun than to eat, drink, andbe merry, for this will remain
with him in his labor all thedays of his life which God gives
him under the sun.
Since happiness and fun are goodfor us, James and James chapter
one, verse seventeen, confirmswho is the true source.
(53:25):
Reading here, every good giftand every perfect gift is from
above and comes down from theFather of Lights, with whom
there is no variation or ashadow of turning.
The thief does not come exceptto steal and to kill and to
(53:45):
destroy.
I have come that they may havelife and that they may have it
more abundantly.
God wants us to be happy everyday.
These instructions are given tous in Psalm chapter one
eighteen, verse twenty four.
This is the day the Lord hasmade, we will rejoice and be
glad in it.
The fun God wants us to have, bythe way, isn't limited to
(54:06):
adults.
Happiness for children equallyimportant to him.
This wish is expressed inZechariah chapter eight verse
five.
The streets of the city shall befull of boys and girls playing
in its streets.
Now it's important to establishthat the fun God wants us to
have in each one of our days,that's not permission to be
reckless.
(54:26):
Nor are we to hurt others,stealing, that's still a sin,
property damage, mocking others,lying to others, as we maybe try
to mask that sin as being allwe're just joking around.
Paul in first Corinthianschapter ten verse thirty one
gives this instruction to us.
Therefore, whether you eat ordrink or whatever you do, do all
to the glory of God.
(54:47):
We also receive this guidance inColossians chapter three verse
seventeen, and whatever you doin word or deed, do all in the
name of the Lord Jesus, givingthanks to God the Father through
him.
Fun and happiness comes to usfrom God and can only be
experienced in the totallyrighteous way He wants when we
turn to God.
Let's go to first Thessalonianschapter five, verses sixteen
(55:10):
through eighteen.
Rejoice always, pray withoutceasing, in everything give
thanks, for this is the will ofGod in Christ Jesus for you.
And as we devote ourselves tothat, we do it with the
knowledge that the fun andhappiness that comes from God is
an eternal blessing placedbefore us by Jesus in Revelation
chapter twenty one, verse four.
(55:32):
And God will wipe away everytear from their eyes.
There shall be no more death,nor sorrow, nor crying.
There shall be no more pain, forthe former things have passed
away.
Don't forget to check out ourwebsite, issues and
ideasradio.com.
That's where you'll find moreinformation about the guests who
joined us here on the showtoday.
(55:53):
And if you've been listening tous via your favorite podcast
platform, make sure you followand subscribe.
Always appreciate you comingalong for the ride.
Look forward to being with youright here this time next week
for our next edition of Issuesand Ideas.
Hello, welcome to Issues and Ideas.
I'm Chris Tabello.
Did you believe that the$1.8billion Trump slush fund was
dead and buried?
Maybe not.
Well you see this past week, acouple of clues to the that
caused the maybe to come about.
There was a a get-together inthe Oval Office, and Trump was
(00:20):
asked whether the$1.8 billionfund was dead and buried.
And he said, I don't know.
Go ask the lawyers.
Then toward the end of this pastweek, Senate Republicans blocked
the vote to officially kill the$1.8 billion slush fund, which
is the fund that was, at leastby intent, going to give money
to the January 6th Capitolrioters.
(00:43):
Which brings me to this article,Courtesy of a Law Affair, by
Catherine Pompillo.
The January 6th pardons, howmany clemency recipients have
faced other charges is theheadline.
The number is at least 97 of theover 1,500 individuals that got
clemency by Trump for theirroles in the Capitol riot on
(01:03):
January 6th have been arrestedfor, charged with, or convicted
of crimes, separate from whatthey did on January 6th.
These run the gambit fromlow-grade offenses like property
damage, possession of drugparaphernalia, trespassing,
although more serious ones too.
Grand larceny, stalking,planning to assassinate law
(01:24):
enforcement officials, prominentpolitician assassinations,
defrauding government agencies.
One of the pardoned people wasconvicted, this is in February
26th, of child molestation andsentenced to life in prison.
Another one convicted last yearof reckless homicide.
In fact, at least 14 have beencharged with sex crimes or
(01:47):
crimes related to child sexualabuse material, and at least six
have faced domestic violencecharges.
Others face charges for physicalassaults, illegal firearm
possession, other violentcrimes, and at least 20 have
been charged with driving underthe influence of either alcohol
or drugs or public intoxication.
(02:07):
We've been hearing Donald Trumptalk about when it comes to
immigration.
We'll get to the that topic in amoment.
Talk about how we're going toget rid of the worst of the
worst when it comes toimmigrants.
Turns out that Trump pardonedthe worst of the worst after
January 6th.
The events and actions whichhave happened at Delaney Hall in
Newark, New Jersey, havecertainly created concern and
(02:29):
anger with a lot of people overthe actions of ICE and how
people in their custody arebeing treated.
My first guest today joins us toexamine, I think, a very
important facet of all this.
For ICE and DHS to do whatthey're doing, they of course
need a place to do it.
Delaney Hall, other locationacross America being provided to
ICE by a select, and I meanselect handful of for-profit
(02:51):
companies who are taking inbillions of dollars in what has
now become one of the fastestgrowing industries in the
nation.
How do these companies gainaccess to these opportunities?
And oh, by the way, are youunknowingly gaining from their
actions via your investmentplans?
Here with the answers to this,Samore is the Director of
Insights with Open Secrets,Brendan Glavin.
How are you?
Hey, Brendan.
SPEAKER_04 (03:12):
Very good.
Happy to be here.
SPEAKER_00 (03:14):
And the work that Open Secrets is doing about
this, which you can read atOpenSecrets.org.
We're talking about the GEOgroup.
How big of a player infor-profit detention operations
is the GEO Group?
SPEAKER_04 (03:29):
Uh major, major player.
You know, when you talk aboutICE, they are the number one uh
contractor w uh for ICE by alarge amount, large amount, um,
about two billion dollarscontracts 2025.
SPEAKER_00 (03:44):
You know, I was looking at a chart the next
closest to the GEO group is CSIAviation, with just about half
of the of the revenue that GEOgroup is.
I guess the question becomes, asI said, this is uh certainly a
hot industry for those which arecompanies that are publicly
traded, and we'll get to thattoo in a minute.
(04:05):
Why are there not more companiesclimbing on board what is indeed
a financial gravy train forthese handful?
SPEAKER_04 (04:14):
Well, one I um uh a group like Geo Geo Group has you
know positioned themselves overtime to be uh of course they're
a longtime player in this uhprivate uh you know prison um
incarceration industry, um, butthey have positioned themselves
over time to really be uh in away ready for this moment.
(04:38):
And you know that involves umyou know they've been they
didn't just pop on the scene forin a political sense in the in
in the areas that you know welook at, they have since 2017
they've averaged about 1.3million dollars in lobbying
expenditures at the federallevel every year.
(04:59):
Um so from 17 to 25, so andthey're on pace to hit that
again this year.
So they're consistently uhpaying out lobbyists to be
there, be on the hill, uh be infront of lawmakers and
policymakers, um, and you know,pressing their position.
And then of course that's oneaspect of it is the lobbying,
(05:20):
and then you have thecontribution side of it, and
have also been have a history ofbeing uh strong contributors uh
to the Republican Party, to uhRepublican super PACs, and then
uh of course they're also a veryuh big funder to a contributor
to uh Donald Trump's uh superPAC, uh the Make America Great
(05:42):
Again Incorporated in 2024, ummillion dollars.
SPEAKER_00 (05:47):
Most certainly when when you have revenue, the most
recent uh revenue report for GeoGroup,$2.6 billion, a six
percent increase, which thatdoesn't sound like a lot, but
when you're looking at theprevious year,$2.4 billion, 6%
is a sizable chunk of changethat you can get noticed in a
variety of ways, like you justmentioned, Brandon.
And it seems like the noticingis being paid off because it's
(06:10):
it's not just a Laney Hall.
Geo is operating pretty muchnationwide and are looking for
more, are they not?
SPEAKER_04 (06:17):
Right, correct.
And um they're you know prettyuh out of bash about uh talking
about when their uh you know CEOhas uh you know conference
calls, uh investor calls, andtalks about you know how they
had the best year ever lastyear.
And in in the immediate wake ofthe election, he was talking
about how they expected to dovery well.
(06:37):
Um so you know, they've as Isaid, they've you know put
themselves in position ahead oftime to be able to take
advantage of this and then youknow lean into it.
And so these contributionamounts, you talk about the
lobbying expenditures and thecontributions they made, right,
they feel like a lot and and itis a lot of money, and it's and
it's uh they're very bigcontributions, but when you
(06:59):
compare that to the scale of theum when you're talking about
billions of dollars in revenuecoming in, it's a no-brainer.
These uh you know, thisinvestment they're making on one
side is you know paying out uhincredibly on the other side.
SPEAKER_00 (07:13):
Oh, no doubt about it.
And uh they mentioned in theirone of their conference calls
this was back in December, Ithink.
This sounds like a major movefor most companies, but for Geo,
it's a drop in the bucket.
They're looking at just in theimmediate time of investing$70
million in capital expenditures,which some companies can't even
dream of having that for totalcapital, never mind capital
(07:35):
expenditures.
This is just the magnitude.
Uh they're looking to fill bedsby the tens of thousands.
There they seem to be everythingthat ICE wants to do.
Geo Group seems to be the uh thego-to to get it done.
SPEAKER_04 (07:48):
Right.
And of course, when um, youknow, that uh one thing I wanted
to bring up was, you know, aboutthe other way that this works
too.
I talk about contributionslobbying.
unknown (07:58):
Right.
SPEAKER_04 (07:58):
Well, there's what we call the revolving door
aspect of this.
And of course, revolving door isa big thing in you know the
government and the privatesector, where meaning you have
people who work in the privatesector and then go and work for
the government, and then theyleave the government and go work
for the private sector, and thenmaybe go back.
So thus we have a revolvingdoor.
Well, this absolutely applieshere.
We have the um you know actingdirector of uh ICE, David uh
(08:24):
Venturella, right?
He's his history goes back tohe's previously he's act been
named acting director of ICE atthis point.
Well, previously for over 10years, he was uh executive at
Geogroup.
And before he was an executiveof Geo Group, he was working in
the uh government.
Um so not only are they makingthese financial investments,
(08:48):
they also essentially have oneof their own on the inside
running ice.
SPEAKER_00 (08:53):
Well, another one too is Lindsay Corin.
She served as a trial attorneywith the with the DOJ from
2004-2007 as an advisor to thechief immigration judge.
She's on the board of directorsof the geo group.
SPEAKER_04 (09:08):
So it it's a exactly and it's a um, it just you know,
it creates this web ofinfluence.
All these there's a lot ofmoving pieces and uh these you
know companies, they they knowhow to play the game.
And when you get all your piecesin place, um you can see how um
it the uh it can lead to a lotof money flowing in and then to
(09:31):
the company.
And then when the company says,oh, well, we're being um, you
know, the government's you knowkeeping an eye on us and making
sure that we're um you knowdoing everything right.
Well, you don't have a lot offaith in that when it turns out
that you know the people incharge on the government side
are actually you know uh formerinsiders uh with the company
(09:53):
that they're supposed to be uhmonitoring.
SPEAKER_00 (09:56):
And and as well, too, just for the cause overall,
the the people in the variouspositions and the companies
overall, like Geo Group, theydon't want Trump to change his
policies.
I mean, you have all this debategoing on in Congress and
elsewhere that, well, we couldjust temper things down and the
state government here in NewJersey, they're trying to do
things.
But uh put it bluntly, Geo don'twant don't want nothing to
(10:19):
change.
They're they're they're morethan happy to keep things going,
and then some.
SPEAKER_04 (10:23):
Yes, exactly.
So the you know the incentivesit creates are you know not
always uh obviously not in a uhconcern about policy, just about
money.
SPEAKER_00 (10:33):
This also comes into play, too, with the conditions
that we hear about, not just atuh Delaney Hall but other
facilities.
As far as the uh the oversight,I mean, are uh are these
companies you you say they'regetting favorable treatment only
because they have so many, somuch of a of their foot inside
the the decision makers.
(10:53):
What hope is there for anythingto improve as far as ethics, as
far as God, even just straightout of humanity with some of
these operations?
SPEAKER_04 (11:03):
Um it's a very very good question.
Um, you know, in your yourlead-in, and uh you know I know
you haven't brought up yet, butyou you mentioned the I uh idea
of uh these you know, you havepublicly traded companies, and
you know, that does become anavenue for pushback um on the on
the investor side.
(11:24):
And because then basically yousay, all right, well, where can
we initiate change?
And if people start to feel andthe companies start to feel it
in the pocketbook, then um thenthat's gonna become something
that uh you know they're gonnapay attention to.
SPEAKER_00 (11:36):
Yeah, and a lot of people neglect that because
they're involved with 401ks, forexample, through the place of
employment or individually, uhthey invest in funds and you get
this dictionary-size annualreport, and you really don't
want to take the time to lookthrough it.
But if you did ever take time tolook for it, like I never knew
by investing in Warner BrothersDiscovery, which I divested for
a whole other discussion of thetime, I actually owned a piece
(11:58):
of a pro wrestling promotionbecause of that.
But it's it's a matter of if youlook through the the elements,
and they do have to list everysingle company that your fund is
investing in, you might beunpleasantly surprised with some
of the companies that you mightbe dropping your money in and
gaining money from, granted, butdo you really want to gain money
from a company that isperpetrating some of the things
(12:21):
that we're hearing that GeoGroup is doing?
I would hope the answer is no.
And uh I think what you do,Brenda, with with the work at
Open Secrets at OpenSecrets.org,you bring the information to
people that I think can motivateso many more to say, okay, this
isn't right, and I need to speakup, speak out, push back, push
out, and try to get things rightand make these companies more
(12:43):
aware that people, more peopleare watching them, and not to
put them out of business, butjust to operate in a humane way,
give it considering theoperations and the focus of what
their what their business is.
So find out more atopensecrets.org about Geo Group,
about the for-profit prisonindustry overall, and many other
important topics that they put afocus on.
(13:06):
He is the director of insightswith open secrets, Brendan
Glavin.
Brendan, thank you for helpingus better appreciate uh not I
not talked about enough aspectof what we're seeing not uh not
just unfolding at Delaney Hallbut elsewhere for people
listening on the podcast outsideNew Jersey.
This will be a wake-up call forthem too, and I appreciate you
taking time to be here with ustoday.
SPEAKER_04 (13:26):
Great, thank you very much.
SPEAKER_00 (13:29):
I'm doing something I rarely do, go back to a
previous conversation because Ithink it's important in light of
the ongoing hamster wheel debateregarding immigration.
This was a talk I had withRepublican Representative Maria
Elvira Salazar late last year,talking about legislation she
introduced.
It's HR 4393, the Dignity Act of2025, and how she believes, as I
(13:53):
do, how it provides significantanswers to the immigration
situation.
Deport them all.
That's what some people say isthe only response to illegal
immigration.
Alright, if that's what youbelieve, then where do we get
the money from to cover the costof fighting, apprehending, and
deporting, of best latestestimate, around 13 million
(14:15):
people.
These same people are the oneswho throw blanket statements out
at undocumented immigrantsclaiming that they're mostly
violent criminals who aregetting every government program
benefit that exists.
The reality, quite a bitdifferent.
Vast majority of undocumentedimmigrants came here for a
better life.
They're hardworking, they loveAmerica.
(14:37):
The next guest is a member ofthe U.S.
House of Representatives who hasstepped forward with a realistic
and very responsible solution tothe illegal immigration issue.
She presents ideas in two ways,actually.
In the House, she introduced theDignity Act of 2025, H.R.
4393, if you want to look it up,and she expands on her
immigration solution andinsight.
(14:59):
In her new book, Dignity, NotCitizenship.
The truth about immigration, noone is telling you.
She is a Republicanrepresentative for Florida's
27th District, RepresentativeMaria Elvira Salazar.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
How are you doing?
Well, I'm I'm pleased to bringyour information, your ideas to
(15:21):
as many people as possiblebecause it seems like, and you
you write about this in yourbook too, it's a historic
headbutting that's been going onwith immigration.
What's what has been the uh justa brief what have been the
common threads with thetimeline?
Why has so little been gettingdone as the problem continues to
(15:41):
have grown since the Reaganadministration?
SPEAKER_03 (15:45):
Well, the reason the problem here is that since the
Reagan administration, we've hada problem with not having the
border secured.
And by not having the bordersecured, then you had all these
people who were gaming thesystem and who had uh who uh
were claiming a politicalasylum, and in reality, many of
them that could did not umqualify.
(16:08):
And then now we are in thissituation where you have
millions of uh uh undocumentedpeople who do not have a
criminal record, who do not havea criminal record.
They are needed in construction,hospitality, agricultural, dairy
farms, and then what are wegonna do with them?
Which is that is my eternalquestion.
What are we gonna do with thosepeople who have been here for
more than five years, who havefamilies, American children,
(16:30):
people who are part of oursociety and do not have a
criminal record and then do notbelong to any gang
organizations.
It's impossible to deport themall.
So let's do what's Solomonic.
Let's give them dignity, nocitizenship, make them pay for
their crimes, and let them stayin the country helping the
(16:51):
economy.
SPEAKER_00 (16:52):
The we we've seen that when when Donald Trump
returned to the Oval Office,obviously, as it was in his
first term, immigration was abig issue, and the promise was
to deport the worst of theworst.
And I think we all can agreewith that.
That's a might that might be anactual pi bipartisan issue right
there.
Yep.
It's uh has it has been workingout that way too much as at
least by the visual.
SPEAKER_03 (17:13):
I don't know about No, no, it has not, and that's
the big problem that we'retaking everybody.
We're taking the bad hombre'sand we're taking the good
hombre.
We're taking the people who arehere helping the economy, and
that's why we have the laborshortage that we have at this
hour.
That's why we have the problemsthat we're having at this hour
when it comes to the economy,having the roofers and the
manufacturers and the and thefarmers not having enough
(17:38):
workers to do the job.
That's all I'm saying.
Let them stay, let them pay fortheir crime, let them no no
federal programs, no rights tovote, no um no right to uh any
type of federal programs, butthen at the same time, let them
(17:58):
stay.
Because they have friends.
SPEAKER_00 (18:02):
Let's think about that for a second because again,
like I said back in theintroduction, a lot of people
who are critical of illegalimmigration saying that again
the the the total mis uhmisinformation that they're
getting federal programs, theseare people who are paying into
the Medicare, the Medicaidsystem, the Social Security
system.
They're not getting any of thosebenefits.
Well, if you take them out ofthe situation, what's that gonna
(18:25):
do to the financial stability ofthose programs, which are
already shaky to begin with?
SPEAKER_03 (18:31):
Look, some are and some are not.
We're talking about millions andmillions of people.
SPEAKER_02 (18:37):
Sure.
SPEAKER_03 (18:37):
Oh, that's some of them, of course.
Yeah, I'm sure it's some ofthem, but I would say not the
overwhelming majority of theillegals are in the federal
system.
They're not.
Most of them are not.
I'm sure it's some are, but itit's not the big bulk.
The big bulk is in constructionhospitalian agricultural and um
(19:01):
giving their labor every day injobs that other Americans are
not willing to do.
So, yeah, get them off the uhthe rolls of the federal
programs.
No problem.
We'll st we'll still need them.
That's a problem.
We still need them.
SPEAKER_00 (19:16):
So let's get into the ideas of your program and
the Dignity Act 2025, because Ithink if you had to put a key
word to this, it would becompromise.
Would that be fair?
SPEAKER_03 (19:28):
Um no.
Um what would be fair would beto what would be fair would be
just to bring them out of theshadows period.
Let them stay.
Let them pay for their crimes.
Let them uh stay here, work somemore, pay taxes.
(19:52):
Let them just stay.
Period.
And don't give them any right tocitizenship, don't give them any
amnesty, don't give them anyfederal programs, make them pay
seven thousand dollars in fineswith another one uh one million
dollars, one percent of theirsalaries, and let them stay for
seven years and then uh applyfor another seven years, and
(20:15):
we're gonna generate trillionsof dollars for the economy.
Trillions of dollars in the nextten years.
That's what I'm looking at.
Besides national security, wewill know who our neighbor is.
On top of that, the bordersecured.
Let's codify border security inthis the dignity law has the
(20:35):
border security component.
So it's Solomonic, it's in themiddle, it's not perfect, but
it's the best we've had in thelast 40 years.
It can definitely uh uh garnishum bipartisan support.
I have 30 already, 30, 15, and15, 15 them, 15 Republicans uh
(20:56):
supporting the Dignity Act.
And it's a it's a major problemin the country, the number one
and is gonna send the largestminority in the country a very
big message welcoming them tothe GOP and telling them that
they have the same values thatare entrenched in the Republican
Party, which are God fearing,law-abiding, taxpaying,
(21:16):
family-oriented, churchgoers.
Bring them into the fold.
SPEAKER_00 (21:21):
So Representative Maria Elviraz-Alizar, Republican
Florida 27th District, about herDignity Act of 2025, which you
can, if you want to look up theactual legislation.
It is H.R.
4393, and of course, her book,Dignity, not citizenship, the
truth about immigration, no oneis telling you.
You're listening to issues andideas.
(21:42):
E-Verify.
SPEAKER_03 (21:43):
Talk about how that can be utilized because e verify
mandatory, mandatory, mandatory.
Uh not voluntary like now.
SPEAKER_00 (21:52):
Or yeah, if some states do, some states don't.
It's got to well, that's theother problem.
SPEAKER_03 (21:57):
Come on.
That's the other problem.
SPEAKER_00 (21:59):
We've been We've been putting the e verify onus
on the illegal immigrants, andshort of a rare exception,
businesses who do illegalhiring, they've gotten away
without any kind of penalties.
SPEAKER_03 (22:12):
Of course.
Specifically the businessowners.
SPEAKER_00 (22:15):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (22:16):
It's been going on for years.
This is this is uh this is athis has been going on for
years.
Come on, you know, it's likeit's time to put some order into
this uh So how how do you how doyou sell the idea then?
SPEAKER_00 (22:28):
Because as you point out, and this is a this is the I
think one of the key points,you're right that border
security isn't immigration.
They have a connection, but onedoesn't equal the other.
You can you can and we alreadyhave are in the process of
strongly addressing obviouslyborder security, but that
doesn't address immigration.
SPEAKER_03 (22:48):
And that's correct.
One thing is border security,another thing is immigration.
Border security has been anissue that is part of
immigration, but is not the samething.
It's not the same thing.
So uh that's why uh we we fixed,but wait, we fixed border
security with an executiveorder.
We need to codify it into law.
(23:08):
We need to codify it into law.
SPEAKER_00 (23:10):
Right, because executive orders can be erased
just as fast as they've beenwritten.
unknown (23:15):
Of course.
SPEAKER_03 (23:16):
Of course, and then the next guy who's sitting at
the White House can say, Well, Idon't like this policy, so uh
let me just open the borders,which is exactly what Biden did
when uh when doing Trump wonleft.
And so people think, Oh yeah,the border's security, yeah, it
is now, and then what about in28?
So let's let's put an end to theborder issue and the caravans
(23:39):
and all that BS.
Let's just then seal the borderforever and let's uh deal uh
with the people who are here whowill not be deported because we
don't have enough hands, enoughagents, and let's give the
mandate to ICE to do what theydo best, which is to catch the
(24:01):
bad guys and concentrate on thebad guys, whether they're
report, whether they areillegals or illegals.
It doesn't matter.
Get them out.
But leave the people who are onthe fields in construction,
hospitality, dairy,slaughterhouses, greenhouses,
carnivals, health care, allthose people who are definitely
contributing to the economy.
(24:22):
Leave them alone.
Give them dignity, nocitizenship, no amnesty.
Let them pay for their crimes,post a big fine, big taxes, and
let them stay.
So everyone wins.
SPEAKER_00 (24:36):
Well, it's just balancing the scale where uh
illegal immigrant was avoidingcertain responsibilities.
You have a plan to help themequate everything and put
everything back into some sortof balance.
And I we have to end thissegment here, but this would
only apply if you've been herebefore 2021.
So what uh RepresentativeSalazar is doing is uh she's
(25:00):
creating a path to bring theproblem to a stop uh to a
slowing down, at leastinitially, if not a complete
end, eventually to mandatorye-verify and limiting the uh
turning down the the neon lightson the welcome app that others
before the currentadministration have have uh
ignited, I guess we'd say, andto bring uh just sensible
(25:23):
compromise into the discussionas opposed to political
headbutting, which has justprolonged and uh allowed the
problem to fester and grow tothe degree it has as we see in
the here and now.
She writes about this in greatdetail and puts the human side
into it, not just the politicalside and dignity uh citizenship.
And look up the Dignity Act of2025.
It's H.R.
(25:44):
4393.
Representative Maria EvarisAlazar, you have brought common
sense to what has been ahistorically difficult,
challenging issue.
And I I hope I hope you're goingto wake a lot more than the 30
you have up to realize thatthere is a solution.
SPEAKER_03 (26:01):
Thank you.
And uh of course there is.
It's just political willingness.
It's just showing politicalwillingness, believe you me.
It's uh it's frustratingsometimes because I see the
solution so easily uh accessibleand it's not perfect, but it's
very solemnic.
And it's it's and it's so it'sit's really very hard at this
(26:23):
hour, but I do have hope thatthe GOP will wake up before the
midterm elections.
SPEAKER_00 (26:29):
Again, dignity not citizenship.
Get the book because it willeducate you.
SPEAKER_03 (26:33):
And I have a book, yeah, in Amazon.
You can go to Amazon Dignity NotCitizenship.
The truth about immigration thatno one is telling you.
SPEAKER_00 (26:39):
Thank you, Representative, for being here.
SPEAKER_03 (26:42):
My pleasure to you and thank you for the
opportunity.
Big hugs.
Bye-bye.
SPEAKER_00 (26:45):
If you're listening on the podcast side of things,
make sure you follow andsubscribe.
It's called BirthrightCitizenship.
Idea has long been considered tohave its roots in the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, specificallysection one of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which is referred toas right, the Citizenship
Clause.
Now, while the CitizenshipClause has long been seen by
(27:07):
people and courts, including theU.S.
Supreme Court, as theconfirmation of why people can
remain in America, DonaldTrump's administration
supporters, they want to greatlynarrow the meaning of Section
One of the Fourteenth Amendment,which Trump has tried to do via
an executive order.
That's all, as you would expect,landed before the U.S.
Supreme Court, which between nowand the end of this month will
(27:29):
release their ruling on thishuman ex guest is here to review
the elements of this case andtell if any clues of what the
court's ruling might be can befound in the questions that they
wound up asking both sidesduring the hearings.
He's Vice President for LegalAffairs with the Landmark Legal
Foundation, Michael O'Neill.
How are you today, Michael?
SPEAKER_06 (27:48):
I'm great, Chris.
Good to be with you.
SPEAKER_00 (27:50):
Likewise to have you back here, too.
Landmarklegal.org is thewebsite.
Let me establish a foundationfor you listening.
Reading from the 14th Amendment,Section 1, all persons born or
naturalized in the United Statesand subject to the jurisdiction
there of any R citizens of theUnited States and of the state
(28:10):
wherein they reside.
And to give you some numbers totalk about the magnitude and the
importance that we're discussinghere, there are 5.5 million U.S.
children, at last estimate, whoare living in households with at
least one undocumented immigrantparent, and nine percent of U.S.
births annually are tohouseholds with at least one
(28:31):
undocumented immigrant as aparent.
So we're talking about somethingpretty heavy duty, depending on
which way the court goes,Michael.
Uh when you look back at thehearings and both sides
presenting their case, whatstood out to you as maybe the
the best point on but the beston point?
And was there any either sidetrying to divert the justices'
(28:55):
attention from law and trying toget them into opinion?
SPEAKER_06 (29:00):
Sure, sure.
I think the the arguments andthe briefing all focused on the
that term subject to thejurisdiction thereof.
What does that mean?
Does that mean that you havesimple territorial presence, as
you indicated, Chris, whichwould be earlier, uh that's the
earlier interpretation and thethe historical interpretation
here that simple territorialpresence of the birth mother of
(29:24):
is enough to convey automaticcitizenship to the to the child,
no matter despite the legalstatus of that birth mother.
If you're born on the in theterritorial confines of the
United States, that means you'rea citizen, subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.
Others, uh, the President Trumpincluded, and others who looked
back into the history andterminology and the debates
(29:44):
surrounding the ratification ofthe Fourteenth Amendment
presented evidence to expandthat it meant something more
than just mere territorialpresence.
There had to be, in other words,there had to be some sort of
permanency or politicalallegiance to the United States
of America.
And it had to be beyondsomething that just simply being
present here.
You had to have some some levelof permanency.
There's an ar there's a SupremeCourt case, Wong Kim Arc, that
(30:07):
was the precedent for this, andthat's kind of the basis, which
was decided in the in the mid uhI think in the late 1800s, so uh
well over a hundred years ago.
And that involved uh Chinesenationals who'd come to the
United States and the court andgave birth and the United and
the uh the court concluded thatthe territorial presence was
enough to convey citizenship.
(30:27):
Wang Kim Ark is distinguishablethough in the fact that these
individuals were here in apermanent manner and they were
here legally.
So they were although they werenot citizens in the United
States, they were Chinesenationals, but they were here
permanently and they hadestablished something beyond
just mere mere temporary statusin the United States.
So I think there was someevidence to support the
president's argument.
(30:48):
The question, though, whichreally kind of sussed out during
uh oral arguments, is thatwhether the executive order is
the proper vehicle to accomplishthis national, as this national
important uh policy.
As you indicated before, you'retalking about potentially
millions of people goingforward, a very serious issue
that's facing our country.
And the question really is oneof process for the court, can a
(31:09):
president do this, effectuatethis interpretation and
implement this policy via anexecutive order, or is something
more required?
In other words, would it have tobe an act of Congress?
And I think oftentimes that thatthat might be a hang up for the
court for at least some of thoseswing justices that we often
talk about.
Amy Comey Barrett, JusticeCavanaugh, maybe Justice Roberts
as well, is they're questioningabout whether a a executive, a
(31:32):
president can effectuate thisinstrumental change and this
fundamental change in the wayour country interprets a uh
critical constitutionalprovision via executive order,
or does Congress need to step inhere and act as the best body to
present this sort ofinterpretation?
SPEAKER_00 (31:46):
So the w the two sides are looking at
respectively as eitherprioritizing where a person
literally and figurativelystands, where the argument
against uh for the FourteenthAmendment is where that person
is standing and what they'restanding on, soil versus
location, I guess would be the fuh uh lay person term.
SPEAKER_06 (32:07):
Yeah, exactly.
Uh and and it it it that camedown to it.
That's interpreting theconstitutional, the
constitutionality, and that youso we can kind of dissect this
in a couple ways.
We can look at what is themeaning of the constitutional
phrase that that we're talkingabout, the citizenship clause of
the 14th Amendment.
And we can discern and we cantry to interpret this, and we
can uh use stance uh canons of sof interpretation, we can use
(32:30):
originalism.
There's ways, there'smethodologies in place to try to
discern what the meaning of theratifiers were when they when
they enacted this provision ofthe 14th Amendment.
What was their meaning?
Would they have intended it tomean children of illegal
immigrants or birth tourism, forexample?
I don't think you could ever saythat that, you know, individuals
of Chinese billionaire, I don'teven know if they could get
(32:51):
their head around that.
A Chinese billionaire cominginto the United States having a
hundred surrogate children andthen having those children taken
out of the country, but stillthey retain those Americans,
that citizenship.
I don't even know if they couldwrap their head around that, but
you try to discern that meaning.
What we're what you and I aretalking about right now is
constitutional analysis.
There is a very distinct, let melet me let me make an
interesting point here.
(33:12):
There is a very distinct chancethat a controlling majority
doesn't go down this road thatrefrains from doing this.
And let me explain why theywould do this.
There's something known as thedoctrine of constitu of
constitutional avoidance, canonof constitutional avoidance.
And that means if the SupremeCourt can withhold making an
interpretation of aconstitutional provision and
still achieve an outcome that itwould have achieved otherwise,
(33:35):
it will ch it will go down thatthat alternative path.
Now let me explain why this isan important thing, thing to
consider here.
If the Supreme Court, if acontrolling majority of the
Supreme Court, for example,interprets the terminology of
the 14th Amendment, that standsas the the interpretation of the
Constitution.
And essentially what that does,say, for example, a majority of
(33:56):
the justices, five of thejustices conclude, agree with
those who are challengingPresident Trump's executive
order, and that that it merethat all you need is mere
territorial presence to be aUnited States citizen.
So if the court interprets the14th Amendment in that way, that
means it closes the door for anycongressional action.
And that's what I'm talkingabout before.
(34:17):
So, say for example, Congresswanted to pass a law outlawing
birth tours, which I think 90%of Americans would agree with,
that law would be in effectunconstitutional.
So the court, I think, is leeryof carving out of kind of
freezing out Congress.
So my prediction is, and again,this is just a prediction,
Chris, my prediction is that amajority of the justices, you
(34:38):
have probably those threejustices that I talked about
before, would be in a positionto say, hey, look, there's a law
on the books that largelymirrors the language of the 14th
Amendment.
This was a law that was passedin the early 20th century and
affirmed uh a few decades later,that largely mirrors the
language of the 14th Amendment.
Again, born and subject to thejurisdiction thereof.
(34:58):
I could I could see a case wherethe court says the executive
Trump's executive order violatesthe law.
And we're not going to get intothe constitutional question.
We're just going to simply sayhis executive order violates the
law, and the executive order isillegal, and therefore we're
going to throw it out.
It preserves Congress's role inthis place.
It's not an optimal, uh, from myperspective, it's not an optimal
(35:19):
outcome because I happen toagree with the constitutional
interpretation proffered by theTrump administration.
However, it's the best of a badoutcome.
In other words, Congress stillhas a role to play in this, and
we don't have a finalinterpretation of the 14th
Amendment.
SPEAKER_00 (35:31):
At the same time, doesn't the Trump administration
and hypothetically if Congressdecide to take some related
action to the to the citizenshipclause?
There's literally a century ofcourt rulings at all levels,
includ up to and including theU.S.
Supreme Court, which backs upwhat the people supporting the
(35:52):
Fourteenth Amendment, the uhcitizenship clause are saying.
If you want to change something,alter something, add to the
citizenship clause and any levelof redefinition, you have a lot
of court precedent you've got tobattle and overcome.
SPEAKER_06 (36:05):
Yeah, but I think the best vehicle with that be
would be doing it via a ch astatutory challenge rather than
an executive action challenge.
And that's what we're happeningright now.
Remember what we're dealingwith, we're dealing with an
executive order.
And so the best vehicle topresent the interpretation you
want to proffer, and of course,this is what we're talking
about, the the theinterpretation that you have to
have more than mere territorialpresence.
The best vehicle to challengethat would be a law that, for
(36:28):
example, outlawing birthtourism, right?
And so you're saying, okay,well, I think Congress passes a
law, and again, we're in ahypothetical situation here.
Uh Congress passes a law, forexample, as I said, says that
you can't come to the UnitedStates for purposes of surrogacy
and have a bunch of children andthen take those children out,
however, the law works.
Uh that would that would be alaw that on its face would be
consistent, and you would haveto reconcile that law with the
(36:51):
Fourteenth Amendment.
And I think you'd have a verystrong chance to proffer the
argument again, to to succeed onthe argument that the Trump
administration is making now,hey, that you have to have more
than a territorial presence.
Look at the way it's presented.
It's almost what's reallyimportant when we're talking
about these constitutional andSupreme Court cases is how is
the issue presented to thecourt?
It's almost as important as thefacts underlying it.
(37:13):
What is the issue strictlybefore the court here?
And again, as I'm talking aboutbefore, I'm reiterating this
point.
This has been presented to thecourt in the in the form of an
executive order, which again,the court is kind of leery, you
know, recognizing the separationof powers and the importance of
that doctrine.
It's a little leery of, just bynature, of a president
accomplishing something withenormous national implications
(37:34):
simply via an executive order.
So you're operating under that,you know, that handicap right
from the get-go if you're theTrump administration.
And I I kind of think thatthat's where they're going to
go.
The court's gonna kind of say,look, executive order, we're a
little leery of this, but weunderstand some practicalities
here, so we want to preserve thethe the Congress to do
something.
So we're gonna hold off ongetting into a constitutional
analysis.
We're just gonna stay on this onthe law, and we're gonna allow
(37:56):
Congress the opportunity to passlaws that might affect
birthright citizenship, and thenwe'll revisit the
constitutionality question at alater time.
SPEAKER_00 (38:04):
So basically it's not what's being done, it's how
it's being done, and what thecourt's gonna rule over that.
SPEAKER_06 (38:09):
You got it.
That's absolutely right.
So, yeah, and and again, I thinkthe most the the best way, and
and again, I am supporting thethe Trump administration's
position on this, and I I Iunderstand the need for this
this this executive action, uh,but so often now we're seeing
this is Congress's inability toact, and you're seeing then
well, you're seeing becauseCongress isn't doing anything.
I mean, let's think about voterintegrity, for example.
(38:30):
They're not doing anything, andso what happens is there's a
clear need for action, and thepresident is stepping into it.
Well, Congress isn't doinganything to prevent uh birth
tourism, they aren't doinganything to prevent this uh you
know, birthright citizenship.
It's become an enormous nationalsecurity problem for our
country.
Think about this from a nationalsecurity perspective.
Congress isn't doing their job,and so the president's gonna
(38:52):
have to step into that breach.
But ideally, under our system ofpowers and our separation of
powers, we want to have Congressstepping into it.
That's how kind of the courtlooks at this.
They don't deal with thepolitics of the issue, they kind
of deal with it from a systemsand a separation of powers
perspective.
SPEAKER_00 (39:06):
As I said back in the intro, this is one of the
big rulings that they alwayslike to save for the end to
leave you in suspense orcuriosity, whatever whatever the
case may be.
So uh when it happens, believeme, you'll you'll hear about it
one way or the other, and tofollow along with legal matters
that do indeed matter.
Landmark Legal Foundation is thego-to at landmarklegal.org.
(39:26):
Here's their vice president forlegal affairs.
Michael O'Neill, thanks forhelping us understand the
importance of this, the path towhatever the ruling is going to
be, the path that it's going tobe taken.
Thanks for being here today.
SPEAKER_06 (39:36):
My pleasure, Chris.
You have a great day.
SPEAKER_00 (39:40):
The tough economic times we're in have resulted in
more people having to cutcorners or simply do without
things that they really need fortheir health and well-being.
That includes things like food,health care.
What makes this situation evenmore troubling is that many who
are doing without well, theyactually don't have to.
They're eligible for assistanceprograms, but as recent
(40:00):
statistics reveal, they don'teven apply for them, maybe
because they don't know aboutthem.
With us now to explore thisissue and the solutions that are
being provided by the NationalCouncil on Aging is their senior
strategist for economicwell-being, Jessica Johnson.
Thanks for being here today,Jessica.
SPEAKER_05 (40:16):
Thank you so much for having me.
SPEAKER_00 (40:17):
Couple of websites.
We have them on our homepagetoo, ncoa.org for the National
Council on Aging.
And equally as important,benefitscheckup.org.
We'll get to what that's allabout in a bit.
And again, we have those linkedat our homepage.
Talk about what I was referringto in the introduction.
What kind of void exists betweenwhat's available for people who
(40:40):
are in financial need and howmany are not reaching for what's
available?
SPEAKER_05 (40:48):
Sure.
So what we're seeing across thecountry is that older adults, so
we're talking about those thatare 65 and older, are not
enrolling in many of the keybenefit programs that they're
eligible for.
Specifically, I'm talking aboutthe Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, SNAP,Supplemental Security Income,
SSI, and Medicare SavingsPrograms, MSPs, that can help
(41:12):
pay for your Medicare premiumsand your co-pays.
And what we're seeing across thecountry is that there are many,
many millions of eligible olderadults that are not enrolled in
this program.
And I know that your listenersare primarily in New Jersey.
And so specifically, what we'reseeing is that there are over
(41:33):
285,000 older adults that arelikely eligible for SNAP that
are not enrolled, over 109,000that might be eligible for SSI
that are not enrolled, and over154,000 who are eligible but not
enrolled for Medicare savingsprograms.
SPEAKER_00 (41:51):
That's that's a scary number.
And I think this adds toimportance to how you approach
this through the information youmake available, because a lot of
times we see these as nationalaverage numbers, which you do
present that as well.
But if you look at it's theimportance of looking at state
by state and even more so bylocality by locality, because
(42:13):
you can have a few areas doingwonderful with a high
participation rate thatovershadow the areas where the
participation rate is in muchmore need of boosting up.
So I think the way that youpresent all the stats, because
we also broadcast over thepodcast all out of New Jersey,
and everywhere there's going tobe a need that people are
unaware of, as well as theinformation you make, the
(42:35):
programs that they can reachfor, that is is it because they
just don't think they'reeligible for them, or is there
any understanding why lowparticipation, what's the what's
the main catalyst for the lowparticipation rates?
SPEAKER_05 (42:48):
So there's several reasons.
Um some of the things that wehear frequently are long and
confusing applications.
There's also a stigma among manyolder adults in accepting public
benefits.
Many of them will often say thatthey feel like others might need
these resources more than theydo, and so they don't apply for
them.
(43:08):
Um, but the truth is that we allpay taxes into a system and that
these benefits are there forpeople who really need them.
I think many times too, olderadults might not understand how
much money this truly is andwhat difference it could make.
Um, so the average monthly uhbenefit for SNAP among older
adults is$188.
(43:30):
For SSI, it's$552, and for aMedicare savings program, it's
$165.
And so that could be$1,100 amonth if you're eligible for all
three of these programs.
And that$1,100 could mean thedifference between paying for
food or paying for housing.
(43:50):
We often hear from older adultswho are cutting their
medications in half to try tomake them last longer, things
that are really unhealthy forthem.
And we want to Make sure thatthey have access to these
benefit programs so that theycan stay healthy and active as
long as possible.
SPEAKER_00 (44:06):
This might be an assumption on my part, but I'm
I'm I think I'm safely sayingthat the awareness of the SNAP
program as well as the Medicaresavings programs are are pretty
high up in the level ofrecognition.
Do you think that the lowparticipation rate when it comes
to the supplemental securityincome program, because it's
it's related to Social Securitybut different from Social
(44:28):
Security, people hear SSI andthey think, well, I'm already in
Social Security, so I I don't Ican't apply for that.
SPEAKER_05 (44:36):
I I don't have any information about people
thinking that specifically, butyou're absolutely right.
Um I think it can be alesser-known program.
Another one of the issues, Ithink, is that you know there
are many community-basedpartners out there that help
older adults um with SNAPbenefits, for instance.
But SSI is a federal program,and you often need support from
(44:58):
your local Social SecurityAdministration office.
Um, and you know, that can bebureaucratically very
challenging, and you often haveto go in person as well, which
can be difficult for some olderadults.
And so, you know, we reallyencourage people to contact
their faith-based organizationsor maybe a senior center or an
(45:21):
area agency on aging that mightbe able to help them assess if
they're eligible for SSI andhelp them get the documents they
need together to enroll.
Um, we invite people to go onbenefitscheckup.org or to call
our national toll-free hotline1-800-794-6559.
(45:45):
And there's a person on theother end of that call that can
help determine if you might beeligible for any of these
programs.
SPEAKER_00 (45:52):
Starting with Jessica Johnson, Senior
Strategist for EconomicWell-being with the National
Council on Aging, NCOA.org,their website.
It's also where you can getaccess to the Benefits
Participate Participation Mapthat they've come up with and
developed.
We'll throw a direct link tothat part of their website as
well.
I want to move into thiswebsite, benefitscheckup.org,
(46:13):
which you just mentioned,Jessica.
Talk about what it features andhow you, at least in design,
made it, I think, veryuser-friendly and very
comfortable even for the lessthan tech-savvy older person who
were who could certainly benefitfrom it.
SPEAKER_05 (46:29):
Well, I'm so happy to hear you say that because we
have put a lot of time andeffort into making sure that
it's designed with older adultsand caregivers in mind.
And so you can go tobenefitscheckup.org and you can
do a couple of different things.
One, you can go directly to aresource.
So if you need help affordingfood, you can access information
(46:53):
that way.
If you want to see what'savailable in your zip code, um,
you can also kind of get alaundry list of all of the
benefits programs that you mightbe eligible for based on where
you live specifically.
So we're trying to help people,one, um, access help for their
(47:13):
exact need, but then also seewhat programs are available for
them specifically where theylive.
SPEAKER_00 (47:21):
And for you listening, if you're less than
confident as far as givinginformation over the com through
the computer, like Jessica justsaid, at least for the starting
point, all you have to share isyour zip code, which is
certainly not not intrusive inany way, shape, or form.
So unlike so many other outlets,Jessica, this uh again is just a
(47:43):
comfort zone, secure zone, and auser-friendly zone that benefits
checkup is providing people forno matter what their needs are
or or what their maybe uhcautions are when it comes to
doing anything online, you makeit you make it indeed inviting,
and I think that's important.
SPEAKER_05 (48:01):
Thank you for saying that.
I do want to emphasize that yes,it is a completely anonymous
website.
Um and there is a chat featurein the website.
That chat is manned by a realperson on the other end, so
you're not speaking with an AIchat bot if you engage with the
chat on benefits checkup.
SPEAKER_00 (48:19):
So again, ncoa.org, and you can look at the
interactive map to see theparticipation rates for very key
programs.
And certainly for you as a childof an older parent, check out
and make sure that mom and dad,grandma and grandpa are clued
into all this as well becausemaybe they're one of those
(48:39):
non-participants who should beparticipating because they are
indeed eligible.
And to learn more about how tonavigate into these programs,
your starting point isbenefitscheckup.org.
We've been joined by the seniorstrategist for economic
well-being with the NationalCouncil on Aging.
Jessica Johnson, thank you somuch for this information that
(49:01):
so many have been probablylooking for, and now you've
answered that need.
Thanks for being here today.
SPEAKER_05 (49:07):
Thank you so much, Chris.
SPEAKER_01 (49:55):
And another thing, uh, another nice thing happened
to me today.
NBC hung a star on my dressingroom door.
Mickey Rooney.
SPEAKER_00 (50:07):
Today is Dean Martin's birthday.
Over on our Facebook page, whichyou can find the link to on our
website homepage, we'll becelebrating Dean's birthday by
sharing some memories of Dean.
Dean Martin is also responsiblefor my all-time favorite quote.
Said this during a 1983interview in London.
You gotta have fun.
If you're not having fun, youmight as well lay down, let him
(50:29):
throw dirt on you.
God wants us to have fun.
In fact, fun, joy, laughter orblessings from God.
I believe God himself liked tohave some fun.
If you don't believe me, thenexplain to me the giraffe,
kangaroo, and armadillo forstarters.
Jesus himself wanted people tohave fun and enjoy life.
Let's go to John chapter two,verses one through ten.
(50:52):
On the third day there was awedding in Cana of Galilee, and
the mother of Jesus was there.
Now both Jesus and his discipleswere invited to the wedding, and
when they ran out of wine themother of Jesus said to him,
They have no wine.
Jesus said to her, Woman, whatdoes your concern have to do
with me?
My hour has not yet come.
His mother said to the servants,Whatever he says to you, do it.
(51:16):
Now there were set there sixwater pots of stone according to
the manner of purification ofthe Jews, containing twenty or
thirty gallons apiece.
Jesus said to them, Fill thewater pots with water, and they
filled them up to the brim, andhe said to them, Draw some out
now and take it to the master ofthe feast.
And they took it.
When the master of the feast hadtasted the water that was made
(51:38):
wine, and did not know where itcame from, but the servants who
had drawn the water knew, themaster of the feast called the
bridegroom, and he said to him,Every man at the beginning sets
out the good wine, and when theguests have well drunk, then the
inferior you have kept the goodwine until now.
What the master of the banquetmeant was that you start off
(51:59):
with a little of the good stuff,then you bring out the cheap
wine once people have had toomuch to drink to really care
what they're drinking anymore.
Jesus cut out the cheap stuffand came up with first class
award winning wine.
Jesus and the Beatitudes, whichwe read in the sixth chapter of
Luke, encourages us to workthrough the bad times because we
are to be happy.
(52:20):
This is from Luke chapter six,verse twenty one.
Blessed are you who weep now foryou shall laugh.
Being happy is one of the majorlessons we gain from the book of
Proverbs.
There's this in Proverbs chapterseventeen, verse twenty two.
A merry heart does good likemedicine, but a broken spirit
dries the bones.
As well as these words inProverbs chapter fifteen, verse
(52:42):
thirteen, a merry heart makes acheerful countenance, but by
sorrow of the heart the spiritis broken.
Solomon, who is considered thewisest ever king of Israel,
called on his people to be happyand have fun, realizing that the
experience is a great gift fromGod.
Solomon declares this truth inEcclesiastes chapter eight verse
(53:02):
fifteen.
So I commended enjoyment becausea man has nothing better under
the sun than to eat, drink, andbe merry, for this will remain
with him in his labor all thedays of his life which God gives
him under the sun.
Since happiness and fun are goodfor us, James and James chapter
one, verse seventeen, confirmswho is the true source.
(53:25):
Reading here, every good giftand every perfect gift is from
above and comes down from theFather of Lights, with whom
there is no variation or ashadow of turning.
The thief does not come exceptto steal and to kill and to
(53:45):
destroy.
I have come that they may havelife and that they may have it
more abundantly.
God wants us to be happy everyday.
These instructions are given tous in Psalm chapter one
eighteen, verse twenty four.
This is the day the Lord hasmade, we will rejoice and be
glad in it.
The fun God wants us to have, bythe way, isn't limited to
(54:06):
adults.
Happiness for children equallyimportant to him.
This wish is expressed inZechariah chapter eight verse
five.
The streets of the city shall befull of boys and girls playing
in its streets.
Now it's important to establishthat the fun God wants us to
have in each one of our days,that's not permission to be
reckless.
(54:26):
Nor are we to hurt others,stealing, that's still a sin,
property damage, mocking others,lying to others, as we maybe try
to mask that sin as being allwe're just joking around.
Paul in first Corinthianschapter ten verse thirty one
gives this instruction to us.
Therefore, whether you eat ordrink or whatever you do, do all
to the glory of God.
(54:47):
We also receive this guidance inColossians chapter three verse
seventeen, and whatever you doin word or deed, do all in the
name of the Lord Jesus, givingthanks to God the Father through
him.
Fun and happiness comes to usfrom God and can only be
experienced in the totallyrighteous way He wants when we
turn to God.
Let's go to first Thessalonianschapter five, verses sixteen
(55:10):
through eighteen.
Rejoice always, pray withoutceasing, in everything give
thanks, for this is the will ofGod in Christ Jesus for you.
And as we devote ourselves tothat, we do it with the
knowledge that the fun andhappiness that comes from God is
an eternal blessing placedbefore us by Jesus in Revelation
chapter twenty one, verse four.
(55:32):
And God will wipe away everytear from their eyes.
There shall be no more death,nor sorrow, nor crying.
There shall be no more pain, forthe former things have passed
away.
Don't forget to check out ourwebsite, issues and
ideasradio.com.
That's where you'll find moreinformation about the guests who
joined us here on the showtoday.
(55:53):
And if you've been listening tous via your favorite podcast
platform, make sure you followand subscribe.
Always appreciate you comingalong for the ride.
Look forward to being with youright here this time next week
for our next edition of Issuesand Ideas.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.