5-6-25 - 8am - What Is Deportation

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mike, maybe we don't need intelligence anymore. We had AI
and autism. It could be the new norm, the intelligence
that we haven't tapped yet, and all part of our evolution.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
So I have parted around a little bit with some
of the AI apps that this kid was showing me,
and I find it interesting and I find it I mean,
you know, he gave me a list of different things
I could try doing with it, just out of curiosity.

(00:40):
But I haven't quite yet got beyond the mental block
that it's really just an enhanced Google machine.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
It's just kind of advanced research.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
Now I know you can do it, you can use
it for other things, and I know that you can
actually make it do things you know that like a
Google or any any sort of search engine could do.
I understand that I haven't really played with it, but
at very basic level, it is just kind of like
a It's just kind of like a search engine that
is much more powerful than say, you know, Google or

(01:15):
buck Duck Go or being But anyway, moving on, So
I want to go back in time just because I
want to lay a foundation that it's not just Democrats
who are out there screaming about how.

Speaker 3 (01:35):
Much more.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
Barack Obama or Joe Biden, either one. How they deported
more illegal aliens than say Donald Trump is. For example,
you can go back to September of twenty twenty three,
Ron DeSantis is running for running for the presidency and

(02:01):
he says this.

Speaker 4 (02:06):
Voluble say, so everyone that has come illegally under Biden,
we got to go. They're sending back. So that's going
to be the first priority. That's probably six or seven
million people right there. It's going to require a lot
of effort. It's going to require us to lean in.
But if you don't have a sanction for violating the law,

(02:29):
I support building a wall, I support all this, you're
going to continue to have it. I would note that
the former president is campaigning on the same promise he
made in sixteen that he didn't deliver on. In fact,
Obama's first term there were more deportations than under Trump's
term in office. Now he's saying he's going to do
this great thing. He had four years and didn't get

(02:51):
the job done. You know, we're get the job done.
But I definitely think the people that are coming over
kind of last one in, first one out, and we're
gonna really push forward strongly on that.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
So there's Ronda Santis running back in twenty twenty three,
obviously didn't get the nomination and didn't win, complaining that well,
if you really look at the numbers, Obama deported more
than Trump did in his first term. Democrats are not
now out putting down the same plane.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
But is it true?

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Is it really true that Obama and Biden and Bush
and Clinton and everybody else is deported.

Speaker 3 (03:32):
More than Trump has? Well?

Speaker 2 (03:37):
O Sensibly the numbers don't lie, right, But we also
know that numbers can be made to say anything that
you want them to say, whether it's talking about, you know,
global warming or global cooling, or it's talking about you know,
who pays how much in taxes. I mean, you can
make the stats do whatever you want to do. Let's

(03:59):
start with this that over the past three administrations now
three years, three administrations, how we define deportation has shifted
so dramatically that I think comparisons across presidents going all
the way back to Clinton or go back to Reagan,

(04:21):
I don't care how however far you want to go back.
That's the definition of deportation has changed so much that
it's not just misleading to make the comparison, it's actually
meaning this unless you get the context. So in progressive circles,
the claim is that Obama and Biden deported more illegal

(04:41):
aliens than Trump, and it's a textbook case of manipulating
the definition to get the number that you want. So
once we kind of figure out what the terminology really
does mean, then we consider what was actually done to whom,
and then you get the truth, and that the truth

(05:02):
is that Trump has deported more illegal aliens than any
prior president, not because he cooked the books, but because
he enforced the law. And now on the second term,
even though you and I may complain and bitch and
moan about he's not doing it fast enough, turns out
he actually is doing it faster and more effectively than before,

(05:23):
which I would still argue is great and keep going.
But you know, step on step on, the accelerator is
a little harder, need even more of a lead foot.
But as I said yesterday, it's probably wiser the way
he's doing it than the way I would do it,
because I would just want to start doing well. I'd
be like Eisenhower. I just take Operation Wet back nineteen

(05:46):
fifty four, and I just start rounding them all up.
But then I probably wouldn't last as president either, probably
never get elected in the first place. So let's think
about what is deportation. When you look at the Immigration
and Naturalization Act, a deportation very simply refers to the

(06:07):
formal removal of any individual that has no lawful basis
to stay or remain in the United States. Now, that
process of deportation usually culminates with an order of removal.
Remember we talked about orders of removal yesterday comes from

(06:28):
an immigration judge. And let's be clear about immigration judges.
Those aren't always federal trial judges, and they aren't always
technically just immigration judges. They could be administrative law judges.
They could be assigned any number of cases, or in
some cases under that nineteen ninety six law, could actually
be something as simple as a oh A supervisor in

(06:53):
customs and border patrol. But over time there's been kind
of a sleight of hand. Transforming, of course, is all,
which is why these rules are written the way they are,
so that you can change the meaning without ever actually
having to officially change the meeting. So it's transformed administrative,

(07:15):
bureaucratic mumbo jumbo into political theater. So during the Obama administration,
a large number of what were known then as returns,
informal turnarounds at the border without a legal order, which
is what I described in the nineteen ninety six law. Yesterday,

(07:37):
there within one hundred miles, less than fourteen days, you
can remove them. Then, during the Obama administration, those were
known as returns, informal turnarounds at the border without any

(07:58):
judicial legal order. Well, now they've taken those and they've
reclassified those as removals. Now why would they do that?
Because that allowed the administration to inflate deportation statistics by
including those very quick expulsions of individuals who were caught

(08:18):
attempting to cross the border and just simply flipped around
and said go back, turn back to Mexico. They barely
got their feet wet coming across the border before they
were turned back to Mexico. They never saw the inside
of the courtroom. There was never a formal order of removal,
but under the Obama's revised accounting standards, they were labeled

(08:41):
as deportees. Now there is evidence that border agents inflated
the number of turnarounds, the number of returns. Why because
there was nobody to refute the number. There's nobody counting.
There is nobody down there with the clicker click click,
click clicked. There was none of that was occurring. So

(09:02):
you could claim whatever number you wanted to and call.
You could say internally as the Biden as the Obama administration,
we did a million returns. Great, Okay, well, I don't
care how many of this. Just calling me movals instead,

(09:23):
because that's the technical term for a deportation. Okay, we'll
call them that. And by the way, you didn't have
to be in office to do that. They could go
back post Obama administration and do that. But if Obama
invented the redefinition, Biden was the master at it, or

(09:45):
I should say, more correctly, whoever was running the show,
may orcus. Probably under the Biden administration, there were millions
of illegal border crossers who were never removed, who were
never prosecuted, never ordered to leave, but yet we're counted
as deportations. Now, I know you're scratching your head at

(10:07):
this point and going, how could that possibly be? Do
you remember the word parole? Remember paroles? There was so
much you never hear that phrase anymore in the news,
But if you go back to just even last November,

(10:27):
last summer twenty twenty four, we always heard a lot
about paroles and a number of parolee who were deported. Well,
Biden's hoole Land Security Department implemented a really expansive use
of humanitarian parole or what was that It allowed millions

(10:48):
of inadmissible aliens to come into the country legally remain
in the interior. It specifically granted them work permits and
then they could just sit out and await proceedings that
never occurred.

Speaker 3 (11:07):
Or they might get a date.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
They might get a date that says you have to
appear on November five, you know, twenty twenty eight. Well,
that date hasn't come yet, or you might get a
TBD hearing date or TVD Thursday beyond daylight no to

(11:29):
be determined. And yet when you look at the internal
Homeland Security documents and their statements to the media, these
paroles were counted in the Biden's enforcements statistics as using
returns as removals. They were marked as either returns or removals.

(11:54):
It's I guess like letting subody in the front door
now counts as escorting them out the back door, but
they didn't really do any of that. Now you might think,
well why, well, come on, are you seriously gonna ask why?
Because if you are an administration and you know that

(12:16):
the country poll after poll after poll, anecdobal story after
anecdotal story, you knew, you knew that across the country
there was this growing objection to the thousands, literally thousands
that we were seeing coming across the border. So face

(12:41):
with those historic levels of illegal immigration over two point
four million reported encounters, just encounters in fiscally year twenty
twenty three alone, they found themselves politically vulnerable. So they
didn't want to fix the problem. They just wanted to
fix the political problem. So we know that even some

(13:04):
of the cabal is beginning to report these outlandish numbers,
and we know that this is regardless of whether Biden
was going to run or not, or whether some other
Democrats are going to run, didn't make any difference. They
knew politically they had a problem, but they didn't want
to change course. So what they do They changed definitions.
That's when may Orcis began reporting these large aggregated numbers

(13:27):
of deported or returned individuals.

Speaker 3 (13:31):
So when they describe it as deported or returned.

Speaker 2 (13:36):
What do they do well, They simply lumped together formal
removals under either the nineteen ninety six law or the nineteen.

Speaker 3 (13:44):
Thirty four law.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
They lumped formal removals with voluntary returns or expulsions under
the now defunct Title forty two. And even individuals who
accepted perol after being caught the border included in those.
So think about that.

Speaker 3 (14:03):
I mean, that is Orwellian.

Speaker 2 (14:05):
So you accept parole, which means you get to come
into the country, you can get a work permit, and
you'll get a TBD for a court hearing somewhere in
the future or maybe never in the future, because it's
just TBD. They counted those as removals. They counted those
as deportations. That's some sort of magic elixir that allowed
Majorca's to claim that his administration, the Biden administration, had

(14:30):
removed a return more individual than it any time since
twenty ten, when actually not true at all. But you
got to contrast that with Trump not only during his
first term, but even more impressively, just in the first
one hundred days of the second term. From day one
of Trump's return to office in January Trump treated immigration

(14:54):
enforcement as a matter of national sovereignty and that attached
to it and urgent see that we've never seen before.
So between Christino, DHS Secretary Tom Holman, the enforcements are,
and Marc Larubio, Secretary of State with control over student
visas and others, they have executed what is probably the

(15:16):
most aggressive and efficient deportation initiative in American history. And
you know that for a fact, the border has been
effectively sealed. Yes, there's still drops, you've got you've got
a bathtub that leaks. You need you need to replace
the faucet, but you haven't done it because while you're

(15:37):
too busy still mopping up the floor. While you're mopping
up the floor, they're still adrip. So yes, some people
are still getting through. But illegal entries themselves have actually
just plummeted, and deport deportations, actual deportations has served beyond
anything seen under Biden, Obama or even under Trump's, even

(15:59):
even trump first term. Trump has in his first hundred
days removed more illegal aliens than Biden did in his
four years. And that's not creative accounting, that's not you know,
puttson around with the numbers those are physical removals, arrests

(16:20):
by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, expedited removals, immigration court orders
that are enforced, and including even the airlifts where they're
taking illegal aliens to their home countries. Parole's been rescented.
There's no such thing as parole anymore. The CBP one loophole,
that app loophole that's closed, remain in Mexico is fully

(16:44):
reinstated with Mexico's cooperation, and Interior enforcement is no longer
handcuffed by sanctuary jurisdictions or bureaucratic guidelines. You've seen them
arresting people in Denver, a sanctuary city, Aurora. You've seen
them arresting people in New York, Chicago, all over the country.

(17:04):
And unlike the predecessors Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, any of them,
Trump's not conflating legal admissions with deportations, which is exactly
what Obama was doing, So they've eliminated the statistical gamemanship.

(17:25):
A deportation today means what it ought to mean. Someone
here illegally is sent out, whether that's the home or
somewhere else. They are sent out of the country, no parole,
no release with the court dating you know twenty twenty
eight or twenty thirty two, no redistribution flights into the interior. No,

(17:47):
we're not taking them from al Paslam now to Chicago.
It's a border system is finally aligned with common sense
in quite fronty the rule of law.

Speaker 5 (18:01):
Good morning from South Dakota. Trump derangement syndrome is real.
Yesterday on social media, someone referred to anyone who voted
for Trump as a dumb fire truck. When I pointed
out that I would vote for him again, he went
into a big diatribe of MSNBC talking points and refer
to anyone who still voted for Trump was a dumb

(18:22):
fire truck.

Speaker 3 (18:23):
Everyone have a great day.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
There we go fire trucks again. The National Endowment for Democracy,
that's an NGO, and the purpose of it is to
influence domestic politics of other countries. Apparently is claiming that

(18:48):
their efforts are part of a campaign to promote open
and transparent government. Now it's funded by Congress, it works
in tandem with the State Department. It's back by activists
and all these civil society groups. It's across Europe, Asia,
the Middle East, Africa, and it's pushing for greater disclosure

(19:13):
among government entities. For instance, there's a recent report from
this group that argues that enhancing transparency is vital for
building trust in institutions and democratic governance, and urges the
adoption of new disposure laws for countries in the Balkans,
for example. Now, who could disagree with that, because transparency

(19:38):
is indeed the sunlight that cleanses and gives us all
the vitems that we need and everything else to make government,
you know, to be above board, to be following the
rules that we set out for to protect our rights,
which is the primary purpose of the Constitution. But interestingly,
despite all those altruistic goals that the National Endowment for

(20:01):
Democracy has, it's going dark hm hm. In a policy
that was published this week, a duty of Care policy,
they've they've announced a new rule to conceal the names
of the recipients of its programs from the public. Now,

(20:25):
remember their their mission. This nngo's mission is to go
to all these countries around, you know, all over the
world Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East everywhere to
enhance transparency. And they themselves are now concealing the names
of the recipients of its programs from the public. But

(20:48):
anytime I read about an NGO it's getting tax payer money,
that starts refusing to tell you what they're doing with
our money. Yeah, my radar goes up, he goes ballistic.
It's twenty twenty four grant list. Who was president in
twenty twenty four?

Speaker 3 (21:07):
Oh, we don't know.

Speaker 2 (21:08):
It's called the Bide administration, but we don't know who
was the president. It's twenty twenty four grant list, which
is attached to the policy features dollar figures and one
sentence summaries for more than seventeen hundred grants, but all
of the external names of these recipients and their identities

(21:28):
have been redacted. So we got a fundamental shift in
the National Endowment for Democracy programming in what they're supposedly
supposed to be doing. In fact, now I couldn't tell
you what they're doing based on all the reductions. So

(21:50):
for decades prior to, oh, interestingly, May of twenty twenty five,
when that fire truck guy Donald Trump becomes president, you could.
In accordance with demands for transparency, they've published annual lists
featuring all the grant recipients, the name of the grant,

(22:13):
and the purpose of the Grant. Now, this group started
way back in the Reagan administration, because there was increasing
controversy obviously during the Reagan administration around the activities of
the CIA and the NED was supposedly to engage in
pro American foreign influence initiatives that were once the domain

(22:35):
of covert operations. Reagan said in nineteen eighty three, this
program will not be hidden in the shadows. It will stand.
It will stand proudly in the spotlight, and that's where
it belongs. So even Reagan was like, Yeah, we're going
to take these problems we've had with the CIA, and

(22:55):
we're going to put this bright sunlight on it, and
we're going to show exactly what we're doing in these
foreign countries, and we're going to do it through the
National Endowment for Democracy. A former president of the NEED
the National Endowment for Democracy, Alan Weinstein, is widely quoted
in a nineteen ninety one interview with David Ignatius of

(23:17):
The Washington Post. A lot of what we do today
was done covertly twenty five years ago by the CIA.
The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly,
the flat potential is close to zero. Openness is its
own protection. What's changed? Why suddenly are we hiding stuff?

Speaker 3 (23:42):
Now?

Speaker 2 (23:43):
The primary US funder of overt operations has been indeed,
the National Endowment for Democracy, this NGO, this quasi private
governmental organization that's controlled by Congress. Throughout the eighties, it
did openly what had once been covert it. For example,

(24:06):
a great example is they gave money to anti communist
forces behind the Iron Curtain, UH, funding distant media, doing
things like that, trying to undermine communism. Well, that seems
like a pretty good goal to me. And it seems
to me that as much as I despise NGOs, that
the National Endowment for Democracy was doing exactly what we

(24:29):
wanted it to do.

Speaker 3 (24:33):
So now why.

Speaker 2 (24:36):
Why suddenly the redaction? Well even recently they were highly
active trying to highlight human rights abuses in China, especially
in the Weager Autonomous Region where the Wigers have been
absolutely subject to genocide. The grantees worked in Ukraine trying

(25:00):
to counter Russian influence. In fact, they even put out
a report long term investments pay dividends in Ukraine?

Speaker 3 (25:09):
Well, okay, what are they?

Speaker 2 (25:13):
They even fought the media registration law that Zelenski put
in in twenty twenty three to shut down media outlets
that were accused of spreading Russian narratives. Okay, so you
tried to counter that. You tried to show us what
the Russian narratives were, and you tried to expose that
for what it was propaganda. Well, it's still serving as

(25:34):
an army of the US government. Ninety nine zero point
three percent or something of the three hundred and fifty
six million dollars in revenue comes from you and me,
the taxpayers. So why is it redacting that information? They
justify it as a security measure designed to protect the

(25:57):
recipients of its funds. Why. In a statement, the group
noted that the Taliban had targeted Afghan associated with its
organization and that grantees from the association were on Russian
killing capture lists.

Speaker 3 (26:19):
Well, I'm just kind of curious if that's true.

Speaker 1 (26:23):
Now.

Speaker 2 (26:25):
Hasn't that probably been true for the past ten, twenty
or even longer years, perhaps for decades? So suddenly this
push for secrecy comes about Now. The more I dug
into it, the State Department doesn't say much about it.

(26:46):
I can't find anything that Trump said about it, or
that Rubio said about it. I found a couple of
news reports about it. But rather than I just want
to know, when they announced the new policy, which was
just done this past week, the president of the organization

(27:11):
wrote this, rather than listing names that could serve as
a roadmap for those seeking the silence advocates for freedom,
we provide descriptive information that reflects the nature of their
work without compromising their security, going on to claim that
the new policy still maintains the spirit of transparency.

Speaker 3 (27:32):
But does it really?

Speaker 2 (27:34):
And I can't help but wonder why suddenly the secrecy?
Why do we go through Reagan who openly touts what
they're doing, Clinton, Bush, Obama and whoever is running the
Biden administration, Trump and Trump back during the Trump administration.

(27:55):
Why now do we allow this government backed in GOO
to suddenly get out the black magic marker and redact
names and redact programs at a time when we're probably
more closer to international conflict in numerous hotspots across the country.

(28:20):
Why suddenly the secrecy? Why suddenly? And who ordered it?
Did someone in the government order? Does somebody in Congress
order it? Did somebody in the Trump administration order it?
I just don't understand why when we faced the Cold War,
when we had Reagan bringing down the Berlin Wall, we

(28:43):
had Berlin, when we had Reagan walking out of negotiations
with Gorbachev, did we openly talk about what we were doing?
And now all of a sudden it becomes a big
giant secret.

Speaker 3 (28:56):
I'd like to know, Parklot, the President Trump has signed
off and then gain a function research.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
You know, the beagles have been freed. The beagles are free,
and so is doctor Fauci. And of course doctor Fauci
is free because he got a pardon. But my guess
is there are probably some state rules, state laws that
he broke, and he could probably be prosecuted if some
attorney general, obviously in a red state, wanted to go

(29:29):
after him.

Speaker 3 (29:29):
But they're not going to, so at least the beagles
are free.

Speaker 2 (29:34):
So, speaking of transparency, I casually mentioned yesterday that China's
economy is in a lot worse shape than I think
is being reported by the media. Well, I wanted to
go back to that because the numbers are really astonishing.
This was published in the Wall Street Journal on two

(29:55):
days ago, on the fourth, and the headline is how
bad is China's ec I mean, the data needed to
answer is vanishing. Beijing is stopped publishing hundreds of stats,
making it harder to know what's going on in the country.
But when you look at when, and when you look
at when they stopped publishing the data, and you look

(30:15):
at where the data was when they stopped the publishing,
then the only conclusion that you can draw is they're
in the cropper. For example, national land sales by area.
You go back to about it looks like about twenty ten,
four and a half some four and a half billion

(30:38):
square feet of land was being sold annually, and then
it starts on a trend lined downward. It peaks it
I mean it drops all the way down to slightly
more than two billion, but peaks again around twenty eighteen
at about three billion, and then just plummets to less

(31:00):
than a billion square feet of land in twenty twenty three.
And guess what happens in twenty twenty three. The Communists
start publish stop publishing the data. And when I mean plummet,
I mean plummet from twenty twenty at about two and

(31:20):
a half billion square feet to twenty twenty three or
so down to less than a billion square feet.

Speaker 3 (31:27):
It's just vertical.

Speaker 2 (31:28):
It's just a vertical drop, and then suddenly the data
just completely stops. The number of people in urban areas,
say Beijing or Shanghai or fat matter, Hong Kong that
received unemployment insurance benefits again, you go back to say
twenty ten, and it's hovering around twenty million, I mean,

(31:50):
I'm sorry, two million, and then it's kind of a
fairly steady trend line until you get to twenty twenty
when it drops. But obviously during COVID between twenty twenty
and twenty twenty one, it's skyrockets to almost three million,
slight drop, and then again in twenty twenty three when

(32:12):
the data stops, it starts to skyrocket once again again,
approaching three million in the data stops. So assuming that
that trend line continued, because nothing's happened that would have
changed it, the number of people in the urban areas
who are no longer working and getting government payouts is

(32:33):
probably skyrocketing. You go to, for example, they're quarterly GDP
growth estimates, which are always a farce because they always
you know, hey, we predict five percent GDP growth and
then ban they suddenly get it. Well, the official GDP
was This is hilarious. The official GDP in twenty twenty one,

(32:58):
at the height of COVID was around fifteen percent.

Speaker 3 (33:03):
That's one hell of a growth rate.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
But then while it's still being published drops down in
twenty twenty one, twenty two, drops down to five percent,
stays around five percent, bunts up a little above five,
and then stays around there, and then boom, the official
data drops off and you can no longer find it anywhere.

Speaker 3 (33:23):
It's a vanishing act.

Speaker 2 (33:25):
They're trying to prevent us from understanding exactly how bad
things are. National land sales, that's another great example. Almost
almost two trillion YON one in twenty twenty three, when
it plummets from twenty from I'm sorry, twenty twenty two
plummets to less than a trillion. That's land sales by

(33:49):
value drops to less than a trillion dollars, and the
data stops. If you don't think that China is going
to be the first one to bleed, which I said,
they've already done by saying, hey, there's nothing wrong with
talking to the United States about terrace. That was opening
the door, and they've got to open the door because

(34:12):
Trump's strategy is absolutely working.

Speaker 3 (34:15):
When it comes to the Chinese Gnomist Party,