Gun Radio Utah: The John Lott Special

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, hello everybody, Happy Saturday, Happy New Year. You are
actually on Gun Radio Utah. But I am not Clark.
Clark is indisposed for today. I'm John Lott and this
is going to be the last show of twenty twenty five.
Now I have to confess I'm taking a big professional

(00:23):
risk today because I've brought my wife with me and
she knows me all too well, and what questions I'll
probably have the most difficult time answering. So I hope
I'm able to actually answer all the questions that she
may be throwing at me today. But Laura, can you
say hi to everybody?

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Hello?

Speaker 3 (00:40):
How are you everyone?

Speaker 1 (00:42):
So anyway, anyway, I'm probably best known for my book
More Guns Less Crime. I've been on Gun Radio Utah
a few times in the past, and I run something
called the Crime Prevention Research Center, which Laura helps me with,
and we cover all sorts of crime issues, everything from

(01:05):
things dealing with policing to gun control laws to vote fraud,
you name it. If it had illegal alien crime, if
it has something to do with crime, there's a good
chance that we're going to be covering it. So I
thought i'd start out today with just mentioning what it's
actually some really good news. And the latest data that's

(01:28):
just come out from the FBI indicates that the United
States right now is on track for the lowest murder
rate ever recorded in US history. The previous lowest murder
rate that we had was about four point five per
one hundred thousand people. In twenty twenty four, it was

(01:49):
about five per hundred thousand, but right now we're on
track for being about three point nine per one hundred thousand.
So it just gives you an idea of of a
huge drop and it's amazing change from what we had
during the Biden administration. During the Biden administration, violent crime

(02:10):
increased by fifty nine percent, as from the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, their National Crime Victimization Survey, which gets a
measure of total crime, and it was by far the
largest increase over any four year period of time that
we've ever seen. Nothing's even come close. And to me,

(02:33):
it's not too surprising.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
I mean, we had.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
Massive flow of illegal immigrants coming into the country. We
had something like twelve million that we know of, plus
unknown millions more that came across the border that we
weren't able to observe because seventy six percent of the
border agents were pulled off of guarding the border. We

(02:58):
had thirty percent of the passive monetary equipment was broken
during the Buid administration and they weren't bothering trying to
fix it. And now we're seeing massive drops in murder
and violent crime. And to me, it's not too shocking.
You know, it's not rocket science. If you want to

(03:20):
go and reduce crime, you have to make it risky
and costly for criminals to commit crime. That means things
like higher rest rates, higher conviction rates, longer prison sentences,
letting individuals go and defend themselves. And you know, as
Trump is demonstrated in places like DC and Memphis, that matters.

(03:42):
And of course for the FBI, the number of arrests
that the FBI has engaged in this year is one hundred,
is twice what it was during the last year of
the Biden administration. That's an amazing increase and change that's occurred,
and it's made it more risky, but it's also not
too surprising given the record increase of illegal immigrants that

(04:05):
came into the country during the Biden administration and now
Trump is deporting a lot of criminal illegals. But more
than that, even the ones that he isn't catching are
finding it risky to go and commit crimes right now.
And the reason is is because they're worried that if
they get arrested and being brought into a station for booking,

(04:31):
ICE is going to be there in order to arrest
them and deport them. And so one way to keep
off of that happening is to keep off of police radar.
And the way you keep off of police radar is
not to go and commit crimes right now. So I think,

(04:52):
you know, for all the people that are out there
saying that Trump may be making the country less safe,
I think it's pretty clear that the opposite is true here,
and in very dramatic fashion.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
We won't have the.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
Final crime data for twenty twenty five until September next year,
but at least right before the election for the midterms,
people are going to know what has actually happened. So
it's a really really amazing change. And by the way,
I've recently completed something that's going to be in the

(05:29):
New York Post on Monday that looks at New York
State and crime by illegal aliens there. What you find,
in fact, is that fourteen percent of the incarcerated population
in New York State, both the prison and the jails

(05:49):
in the state, are people who have ICE detainers. And
that's probably an underestimate of the number of illegals, because
obviously New York is not helping out ICE in any
way to identify whether somebody's there illegally or not. But
on top of that, if you compare it to the

(06:10):
percent of the population which are illegals, you're talking about
something that may be about three and a half to
four percent or so of the state population. So you're
talking about a number that may be about four times
higher in terms of their share of the prison population
than their share of the general population in terms of

(06:33):
illegal So they're massively overrepresented, and there are many reasons
for believing that that that that will underestimate the total
that's there. So anyway, we're going to be able to
take some calls a little later, maybe during the last

(06:54):
segment of the show. But the number, just so people
have it is eight eight eight five seven zero eight
zero one zero. And there are all sorts of things
that we're going to be able to talk about. I
want to talk about Australia and the new gun confiscation
that they're talking about there and whether the earlier one

(07:15):
actually worked.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
You have.

Speaker 1 (07:19):
Democratic Senators Corey bok Booker and Andy Kim have just
reintroduced a bill for Federal Firearms Licensing Act to require
every American to have to get a federal license to
be able to go and own a gun, and the
different hoops that they want people to go through to

(07:40):
do that. We've recently completed some work looking at how
often people are able to when they use a gun defensively,
whether they accidentally shoot a bystander, and how that compares
to police. And there's a range of other things that
we're going to be looking at. Laura has been looking

(08:01):
into some things that are going on with regard to
the state legislature and should probably have a comment on
that too. So anyway, I look forward to hopefully hearing
from you guys. But there's a lot that we're going
to try to get into in this show. And you know,
there's a Supreme Court case coming up on January twentieth,

(08:26):
oral arguments, Woolford v. Lopez out of Hawaii dealing with
gun free zones and whether that's going to make people say, hopefully,
with the Supreme Court decision, thank you filling in for
Clark Oposcian. Right now, you have an ad for us, Laura,

(08:46):
You're going to give us in.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
A world where privacy matters more than ever. Sure Talk
radio dot Com keeps your conversation secure, reliable, and crystal
clear whether you're in the field, on the road, or
off the grid. Our encrypted push to talk radios ensure
your team stays connected without compromise, no contracts, no eavesdropping,
just pure secure communication. Visit sure talk radio dot com

(09:10):
today because when every word counts, you need a signal
you can trust.

Speaker 2 (09:15):
Well.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
I'm sure the people for one of that ad appreciate
her voice much more than mine for reading it. I
wanted to talk a little bit about this new bill
that Democratic Senators Corey Booker and Andy Kim have have
put up, the Firearm Federal Firearm Licensing Act. They're going

(09:37):
to go and require training, fingerprints and other restrictions there
for people being able to go and get guns. And
you know, to me, the thing that's most interesting is
who these gun control laws primarily stop from owning guns.
If my research convinces me of anything, it's basically the

(10:00):
most vulnerable people in society who benefit the most from
owning guns. The people are the most likely victims of
violent crime, and that tends to be poor blacks who
live in high crime urban areas, and people who are
relatively weaker physically, women and the elderly, and you know,
you particularly, you're talking about single women having to be
on their own, usually their lower income individuals, and so,

(10:23):
you know, you go and you have all these requirements,
you know, these additional costly training, the fees that they
have to pay in order to go and get a license.
Who do they think they're stopping from being able to
go and get a gun to protect themselves and their families.
It's going to primarily be the most vulnerable people that
are there, the ones who benefit the most from having

(10:47):
a gun because they're the most likely victims of crime. Now,
police are extremely important. Anybody who's read my academic work
knows that I think police are the most important factor
for reducing crime. But you know, police can't be there
all the time, and the police know that themselves. Even

(11:07):
though they know that their importance, they know also that
they virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the
crimes occurred, and that raises the question what people should
do when they're having to confront a criminal by themselves,
and just telling people to behave passively, particularly for women
or the elderly, is bad advice. They're much more likely

(11:30):
to end up being seriously injured. Women who behave passively
when they're confronted by a criminal are two point four
times more likely to end up being seriously injured than
a woman who has a gun for protection. And so,
you know, Democrats claim that they care about the poor,
that they care about minorities, that they care about women,

(11:52):
and yet they push these laws that primarily these are
the very people that they're going to be making it
difficult for them to be able to go and defend themselves.
If you have to go and get a license and
go through all these loop you know, hurdles that you
have to go to get a license. That also makes

(12:12):
it longer before people were going to be able to
go and get a license to be able to go
and own a gun. If you're you know, you look
at something like concealed carry permits, maybe it takes sixty days.
There maybe a couple places where you can get it
in forty five days. In some places like Connecticut, it's
a year to be able to go and get a
license if you're being stalked or threatened. If some X

(12:35):
is threatening a woman, do you think she has forty
five or sixty days or a year that she's going
to be able to wait before she's going to be
able to go and protect herself. It's simply crazy to
think that she's going to have that amount of time
to be able to go and do that. I also

(12:57):
wanted to talk about the Wilford v. Lopez case out
of Hawaii. This one is dealing with essentially after Bruin,
after the twenty twenty two Supreme Court decision that struck
down the concealed carry laws in seven states, including Hawaii, California,

(13:22):
and New York. You know, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts. People
pretty much have a list that they know of in
these places where you had to go and provide a
good reason to some local public official for why you
should be able to go and protect yourself it. You know,
they said, well, okay, we'll issue the permits, but we'll

(13:44):
make it so that you can't really carry them any place,
because every place just about's going to be a gun
free zone. And so now the Supreme Court is going
to be facing this, and I think there's a very
good chance that they're going to strike down these on
free zones that are going to be there. In Hawaii,

(14:05):
I actually wrote an amekas brief with the California Police
Officer and Highway Patrol Officers Associations, where the police themselves
are putting themselves on records saying that, yeah, you know,
we're important, but we can't be there to protect people,
and we think that allowing law binding citizens to be

(14:27):
able to go and protect themselves is extremely important in
being able to make sure that people are safer.

Speaker 2 (14:35):
I don't know, did you.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
Have anything you wanted to add on this or not,
or you want to ask me some questions about stuff.

Speaker 3 (14:45):
I guess my only comment as I was sitting here
thinking is I was just wondering, like how people correlate
gun free zones to their possibly being less crimes or
less shootings. I just don't remember a time where we
had a mass shooter and then maybe they took to

(15:06):
Twitter and were like, you know, I was going to
shoot that up, but then I saw this gun free
zone sign, so I took my arsenal weapons and I
went home that they helped me.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
Excellent question. I mean obviously they wouldn't want to break
the law. I mean just because they were going to
go and murder lots of people.

Speaker 3 (15:24):
Yeah, that one would put them over the edge. They'd
be like, no, we can't violate the gun free zone,
right though we were going to mass murder. So yeah,
it's just it's a fascinating line of thinking. And I
just wonder how people come to that, how they think
that's going to keep people safer as more gun free zones. Right.

Speaker 2 (15:45):
No, you bring up an excellent point, and.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
Basically what these gun free zones actually do is serve
as magnets for these attacks. So take something like the
Minneapolis school shooting to emphasize her point. If Laura or
I were to take a concealed handgun onto school property
in Minnesota, we would be facing a five year prison

(16:08):
sentence for us, our lives would be completely destroyed if
we had to spend five years in prison and become felons.
But let's say you're the murderer in that case who
murdered two people and wounded seventeen others, and maybe would
be facing four or five or six life sentences in prison.

(16:29):
Does anybody think that taking five years away from the
murderer's fifth life, he'd say, Okay, you know I can live,
as Laura was saying, with the five you know, with
all the murder sentences that are there, but you know,
take you impose this one additional penalty that would be
too much, taking five years away from my fifth life,

(16:51):
That that would put me over the edge.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
And I wouldn't want to go and commit a crime
in that situation.

Speaker 1 (16:57):
So yeah, I mean it's I don't you know anybody
who reads you know, she's mentioning, go look on Twitter
or something. But you know, we actually have statements from
these murderers. What they do is in their diaries and manifestos,
time after time after time they say the opposite. They

(17:18):
say they picked these targets because they wanted to go
to a place where their victims weren't able to defend themselves.
These guys may be crazy in some sense, but they're
not stupid. Their goal, in many cases is to commit suicide,
but they want to commit suicide in a way that's
going to get the media attention. And they know the
more people they kill, the more media attention that they're

(17:40):
going to get, and so they know if they go
to the place where their victims are defenseless, they're going
to be able to go and kill more people and
get more media attention. And so, you know, they explicitly
but say they're going to pick gun free zones. The
thing that upsets me the most, and one of my
biggest at peeves, is that even though the media will

(18:03):
very frequently cover the diaries of manifestos for these mass murders,
they just refuse, absolutely refuse to cover those parts of
their diaries and manifestos where they actually explain why they
picked the targets that they do.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Maybe Laura's smart, she's smarter than I am. Maybe she
has an explanation for why they pick you know, why
the media refuses to cover these parts of these diaries
of manifestos.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
But you know, that's benign. I don't know. Do you
have any thoughts about why they do that?

Speaker 3 (18:41):
No. I think it's just flat out media bias. I
don't think there's any reason for it. But I think
when media bias is affecting public safety, I don't know
how they can actually sleep at night, you know, having
that media.

Speaker 2 (18:59):
Bias, it makes people less safe.

Speaker 3 (19:02):
I don't know how they reason that in their minds.
I'm really not sure.

Speaker 1 (19:06):
Well, anyway, look forward to continuing this more after the break.
But anyway, appreciate everybody listening to us, and we'll be
back lots of other things to cover Australia. I'm sure
Laura will have a couple pointed questions for me to answer.
I'll try not to embarrass myself too much, but anyway,
talk to you, listen, talk to you in a minute.

(19:29):
Kind of filling in on this last show of twenty
twenty five for Clark. Laura has one more ad that
she's going to do here and then we'll get to
some questions from her.

Speaker 2 (19:41):
Laura, Locked loaded Ready.

Speaker 3 (19:44):
When you are at Flashmybrass dot com, we bring the
firepower straight to your doorstep, whether you're stalking up for
the range, the hunt, or home defense. We've got the
ammo you need when you need it, fast shipping, unbeatable prices,
and a massive selection of top brands. Don't get how
empty Flashmybrass dot Com has your back.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
Okay, thank you. Did you have a question you wanted
to throw at me? Take a big professional risk here.

Speaker 3 (20:12):
Well, I'd asked you earlier about Australia, and you've obviously
done previous research on Australia's bands and gun laws and
how it's affected it. But I guess I was just
wondering what the next step is for Australia, what they're
planning on doing. Yeah, anything about Australia and the new things.

Speaker 2 (20:34):
They're starting, right.

Speaker 1 (20:36):
So, back in ninety six and ninety seven Australia had
a gun confiscation where they took about thirty percent of
the guns that people owned, and they're talking about kind
of doubling down on that, taking more guns away from people.
The murderers at Bondi Beach, who ended up killing fifteen

(20:58):
people and wounding forty three others, had a total of
six guns between the two of them, and so now
they're talking about limiting the number of guns people can
have to maybe five guns total. And I'm not really
sure whether anybody really seriously thinks that that's going to
make a difference on anything.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
New.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
South Wales apparently is having a legislative session this week
while the iron's hot, before people have any real chance
to think about the discussions that are there, and the
Federal Parliament, though probably won't act until some time after

(21:41):
the beginning of the year, maybe the middle of the month.
But you know, just to kind of follow up, everybody
from Obama to Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden have extolled
the Australian gun control laws from ninety six as a
template that maybe we should consider or that we should

(22:03):
consider in the United States. Just two days after the
mass murder in Australia, Chuck Schumer went to the floor
of the Senate saying, you know what great gun control
laws that they have in Australia, and that is kind
of based on the notion that they were able to

(22:27):
dramatically reduce firearm homicides and firearm suicides after the confiscation.
The problem is, it's really statistical malpractice that they have there.
You know, just imagine for a second that you have
a line that's falling over the entire period, a perfectly
straight line. You could pick any point along that line,

(22:50):
and the after average would be below it, below the
before average. People are simply making before and after comparisons,
and that can be extremely misleading. So if I have
a drop in firearm homicides that's falling at exactly the
same rate before and after some lawgoes into effect. I'd

(23:12):
look at and I said, I don't see any impact
from it. What you'd want to do is does it
fall at a faster rate or a slower rate? Is
there some discontinuity that occurs in the line. And in fact,
what you see is that the firearm homicide and suicide
rates were falling for fifteen years prior to the confiscation,
and then firearm homicides stopped falling. I look at that,

(23:36):
and I think that's not good. You know, it was
falling and then it stopped falling after that. If anything,
I view that as a bad impact. And you had
a similar type of change after firearm suicides with firearm suicides.
And the other problem is why are you only looking
at firearm suicides? Why not total suicides or total homicides.

(23:58):
There are lots of ways example, that people can commit suicide.
And what you find is that total suicides actually increased
by twenty percent after the confiscation. Firearm homicides also increased.
You know, I'm not going to go and argue that

(24:19):
suicides increased because of the confiscation, but it's sure as
heck is evidence against the supposed benefits that are there
in terms of making people better off. And you know,
but for some reason, the media just doesn't cover those things.
From the New York Times to the Worston Post to

(24:39):
USA Today, different TV shows constantly keep repeating the claim
that firearm homicides and firearm suicides fell after the confiscation,
and as I say, it's really based on statistical malpractice.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
That's there.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
Did you have anything else that you wanted to ask
about or not?

Speaker 3 (25:05):
No, I was just trying to think of why suicides
would increase.

Speaker 1 (25:10):
There are lots of reasons. All I can tell you
is it. I'm not going to go and blame it
on the confiscation. It could be something else that's occurring,
but it's not the drop that they keep on claiming
and the benefits that's there. One of the things that's
interesting to me also is a lot of liberals want

(25:31):
to be able to allow people to be able to
go and commit suicide, and maybe I don't you know,
libertarian type, I'm more than happy to let people do that,
but for some reason they're opposed to people using firearms
to be able to go and commit suicide. So I
don't know, it's hard for me to kind of get
my head around the logic there why that one type

(25:53):
of suicide isn't acceptable when other types are to them.
But anyway, you know, there are lots of other issues
we can talk about. We talked about illegal aliens and
crime earlier. One thing that's going to be coming up
in April is the Supreme Court is going to be

(26:15):
hearing this case about birthright citizenship, and hopefully we'll have
a decision by June.

Speaker 2 (26:24):
And Political.

Speaker 1 (26:27):
Politico's Playbook, which is kind of the inside Beltway Bible
for a lot of people on the left, had an
amazing discussion today about how illegal aliens are talking about
making sure they can have kids before the Supreme Court decision,

(26:48):
and also trying to speed up the berths and having
the kids be born prematurely so that they can go
and create these anchor babies for themselves before, you know,
in case, just in case the Supreme Court were to
go and say, what I think is the right decision

(27:10):
there in that the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was
never intended to go and allow illegal aliens to be
able to go and have their children become us citizens.
I mean, the fourteenth Amendment was written for slaves that
were here. In fact, there was no even concept of

(27:30):
illegal aliens at that time when it was written. And
then eighteen ninety eight case involving a couple of Chinese
individuals really isn't relevant. We could go and talk about that,
but it's just kind of interesting the extreme degrees to

(27:51):
which people are willing to go. I mean, do you
really want to have and induce a child to be
born a couple months early just so you can go
and create an anchor baby for illegal alien parents that
are in the United States? I mean, all the health
issues and other things, the huge medical costs that presumably

(28:14):
Americans are going to have to pick up for dealing
with a premature baby there? Is that really fair? Is
that fair to the baby that you're bringing into the world.
Is it fair to Americans who are going to be
having to pick up the huge healthcare costs that could
be involved with dealing with the premature baby just so

(28:35):
you can create an anchor baby there. It's really something
that I find is someone smarter than myself described as
gross earlier to me today, it's hard for me to understand. Well,
thank you, we'll be back in a minute or two
lots more to cover, and again the phone number is
eight eight eight five seven zero eight zero one zero.

(29:00):
Talk to you in a minute. We're filling in for
Clark on this last show of twenty twenty five. Just
covering a range of issues. The Crime Prevention Research Center
that we run basically a group of academics and researchers
who go and cover a range of crime issues, everything

(29:20):
from gun control to policing to vote fraud. If it
has to deal with crime, there's a good chance that
we've looked at it, and we have. Myself, just my
own background, I've been an academic most of my life.
I've had research and teaching positions at Stanford, University of Chicago,

(29:41):
the Wharton Business School, Yale UCLA. I was Chief Economists
for the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, and then
more recently I was Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics
in the Department of Justice. So kind of been around
the track a few times. Anyway, I'm just very thankful

(30:03):
to be able to go and spend a Saturday afternoon
with you all. I think we have a call in
here if we could take the caller, put on your headphones.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
Okay, are you on? Do we have the caller on? Arthur?

Speaker 3 (30:23):
Arthur?

Speaker 1 (30:24):
Hi, Arthur, can you have a question for us?

Speaker 4 (30:28):
Yes, I used to live in Portland, Oregon. In fact,
I grew up there, and I might want to go
back and visit.

Speaker 2 (30:37):
Okay, but.

Speaker 4 (30:40):
Not less there's reciprocity. What's the prospect we're going to
get recipros because I do not want to go visit
the People's Republic of Oregon.

Speaker 1 (30:51):
Right, No, I trust me. I understand exactly where you're
coming from on that. Unfortunately, Oregon does a really recognize
anybody else's permits, and federally it doesn't look good. I mean,
Trump has said that he would sign it a bill

(31:12):
if it came to him, and it's really universally supported
by all the Republicans in the House and the Senate.
It would make it so that your concealed carry permit
would be similar to your driver's license. You know, you
get a driver's license, you can drive from Florida to
Washington State or California to Maine, and you know you

(31:36):
have to obey the different traffic rules in different states.
You know, some places allow you to turn right on
red and others don't, but you'd have to have the
same types of obeying local rules with regard to the
concealed carry permits. But unfortunately, there's not one Democrat in
the Senate who will support reciprocity. You know, the irony

(32:02):
is is a lot of them. A number of Democrats
come from states which recognize the permits from everybody else. Virginia,
for example, has two Democratic senators who have already indicated
that they will vote against reciprocity, and but Virginia it
recognizes the permits from all the other states that are there.

(32:25):
Vermont is similar. You have two Democratic senators there, both
of them will vote against reciprocity, even though their state
recognizes anybody who's caring from any other state. And there
are no problems that those states that have the that reciprocity.

Speaker 2 (32:42):
Can point to.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
But you know, unfortunately, unless you can go and pick
up seven Democratic senators, you're not going to be able
to get federal legislation passed. And so that's not going
to go any place federally. And Oregon, given the.

Speaker 4 (33:01):
Had an Oregon I had an Oregon state permit permit
right since nineteen seventy two. Okay, but what I left
the state, right, right, I could, I could get get
out of state license right.

Speaker 1 (33:20):
Well, there are cases that are working their way through
the courts right now that would make it easier or
require states to go and issue permits to out of
state individuals, but you know that's going to take a
while to get up to the Supreme Court. The Democrats
still control the Ninth Circuit, and so even if you

(33:42):
can win with district court judges time after time, when
it gets to the full unbank decisions by the Ninth Circuit,
they will, you know, support basically any gun control laws
at California or the other states that are in the
Ninth Circuit support so get passed. So unfortunately, it doesn't

(34:09):
sound like you're going to be able to go and
visit Oregon in the near future.

Speaker 4 (34:14):
I used to be a Democrat. I voted for Trump
the first time as a Democrat, and I've come to
the audible conclusion that the Democratic Party is valid. It
always has been the party of slavery and treason.

Speaker 1 (34:31):
Well, I'll confess something to you if you promise not
to tell anybody, and that is I was a registered
Democrat myself up until nineteen ninety three.

Speaker 2 (34:41):
Okay, and don't tell anybody. No, please promise me.

Speaker 1 (34:45):
I'm really trusting you on that, and.

Speaker 4 (34:51):
I won't tell anybody if you don't tell anybody. I
voted for Jimmy Carter seventy six.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
Okay, well, I won't hold that against you. Both have
skeletons in our closets, I guess. But you know, I
look at some of the stuff that's going on right now.
Somebody has to explain to me why Democrats we fight
so hard against deporting somebody who's like a child rapist,

(35:18):
illegal alien. Why do you want to keep people like
that in the country. Why is that something a hill
that they want to go and die.

Speaker 4 (35:27):
On, And why did they put all those millions in
there they wanted voters.

Speaker 1 (35:34):
Yeah, well, it's not just the voters. I mean, that
may be occurring to some extent. But also the problem
that you face is that the number of congressional seats
that you get and federal aid it goes to the
states is dependent upon the number of people that are there.
But you think, you know, the irony is the Democrats
want to claim though they're not that many criminal illegal aliens,

(35:55):
so it shouldn't make that much difference. I mean, maybe
the total number of illegals you're talking about out in
California will be at least five or six congressional seats
that are there. My guess is probably more. And you
have obviously the same thing in Illinois and New York
and some of these other sanctuary places that are there.
That would be a huge change in congressional representation if

(36:20):
you know, they lost those illegal aliens, and Trump during
his first term tried to have it so that the
census wouldn't count illegals the same way as American citizens
and things like apportionment.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
But well, thank you very much. Really appreciate the chance
to talk to everybody today. We really appreciate it. Thank you.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
You can find more crimeresearch dot org.