Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay and then
Speaker 1: Brounoo with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: The weekend of strikes also took place alongside a deal
Speaker 2: actually being struck on the border, and the text has
Speaker 2: been released. The headline on the terminal now Senators reach
Speaker 2: deal on Ukraine aid US border, but hurdles remain. And
Speaker 2: that's for sure. You've got the Speaker of the House
Speaker 2: still calling this doa in the House of Representatives. Even
Speaker 2: conservatives and progressives in the Senate are making us wonder
Speaker 2: if this can pass the chamber in which it was born.
Speaker 2: This is, of course, the deal that we have been
Speaker 2: talking about here for weeks, if not months. The final
Speaker 2: price tag on this. We finally have the text here
Speaker 2: after talking about this for so long. One hundred and
Speaker 2: eighteen billion dollars. That is more than first estimated, more
Speaker 2: than was requested by the White House, and it's supplemental ask.
Speaker 2: It cuts the number of migrants eligible for asylum, It
Speaker 2: changes the way claims are processed, and everyone's finding something
Speaker 2: to hate here. That's where we start our conversation with
Speaker 2: Maya McGuinness. Always fascinating to talk to Maya with the
Speaker 2: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget where she is president.
Speaker 2: It's interesting here Maya, to learn that we can in
Speaker 2: fact reach compromise on something. Whether it gets past is
Speaker 2: another matter. But is any of this paid for?
Speaker 3: Well, we are right now in a moment of lots
Speaker 3: of emergency or supplemental spending, which basically means nobody bothers
Speaker 3: to pay for it. And there's a good argument that
Speaker 3: when you're talking about emergencies, it's not something that needs
Speaker 3: to be offset because it's unexpected. It's a one time thing.
Speaker 3: You jump in, you find the money later, you deal
Speaker 3: with that later. But obviously the border is an emergency
Speaker 3: in terms of how big of a problem it is,
Speaker 3: but it is not something we haven't known about. So
Speaker 3: there is a lot of emergency spending right now on
Speaker 3: the agenda, border Ukraine, Israel, all sorts of different things
Speaker 3: that they are contemplating. None of these things would be offset.
Speaker 3: They would add to the national debt. And I would
Speaker 3: say that at a time when the debt is as
Speaker 3: bad as it is even legitimate emergencies, we should try
Speaker 3: to offset those costs of a reasonable amount of time,
Speaker 3: because debt is debt, and we really we've got to
Speaker 3: deal with the emergencies that are piling up in the
Speaker 3: world right now, but we also have to deal with
Speaker 3: the emergency of the national debt, and you do that by.
Speaker 2: Paying for things because it is its own emergency. Mia
Speaker 2: mcguinnis debt is debt, You're right about that. Now, I
Speaker 2: see Speaker Johnson who doesn't like this bill and says
Speaker 2: it won't even get a vote. Steve Scalise said that
Speaker 2: he is planning a vote this week Maya on a
Speaker 2: seventeen billion dollar standalone Israeli aid package. Remembering he did
Speaker 2: this at one point and there were offsets that were
Speaker 2: coming out of enhanced funding for the IRS. It appears
Speaker 2: there are none here. The Freedom Caucus is unhappy about it.
Speaker 2: So is that little honeymoon over now? The Speaker of
Speaker 2: the House is putting bills on the floor that aren't
Speaker 2: paid for.
Speaker 4: Well, this was a complicated one.
Speaker 3: So when they came out and said they were going
Speaker 3: to pay for the Israeli funding, that was really a
Speaker 3: great sign of understanding. They are very important things we
Speaker 3: have to do. Important things are worth paying for. There's
Speaker 3: an important caveat on this one, though, which is repealing
Speaker 3: the money for the IRS doesn't actually save money.
Speaker 4: It makes the deficit larger.
Speaker 3: Because all of the experts who have evaluated this say
Speaker 3: that a dollar additional dollar for the IRS actually generates.
Speaker 4: More than that in terms of closing.
Speaker 3: The tax gap or the amount of taxes that are
Speaker 3: owed by corporation, small businesses, the well off that aren't paid.
Speaker 3: This is probably the only program that you will ever
Speaker 3: hear me say actually could pay for itself. So when
Speaker 3: you appeal IRS funding, that would be scored as making
Speaker 3: the deficit worse. So I loved the principle of let's
Speaker 3: pay for it the one policy they picked to do.
Speaker 3: So I don't think really he was the right one.
Speaker 3: But your question is more about politically, what does this mean.
Speaker 3: I think we're in a different situation this speaker. I
Speaker 3: think he has more leeway. I think that the members
Speaker 3: of his conference may disagree on specifics, but they understand
Speaker 3: how difficult this is and they don't want to go
Speaker 3: through another exercise of kicking out the speaker.
Speaker 4: So I think he's communicating with him and trying to
Speaker 4: figure out what to do.
Speaker 3: But this is really about House versus Senate and showing
Speaker 3: who's going to have the upper hand and creating what
Speaker 3: the agenda is for what emergency supplementals move forward, and
Speaker 3: what the format of those bills are.
Speaker 2: We're going to have a lot more on the contents
Speaker 2: of this border deal and break it down coming up
Speaker 2: with our panel a little bit later on this hour.
Speaker 2: But when I look around at what's happening here Maya
Speaker 2: and you're looking at the same calendar, I am there's
Speaker 2: going to be discord apparently a lot of handwringing and
Speaker 2: gnashing of teeth over this. But we have less than
Speaker 2: a month to figure out how to keep the government
Speaker 2: from shutting down in March. And there are a couple
Speaker 2: of other issues that need to be handled as well,
Speaker 2: whether it's FAA or Faiza. We've got this tax deal
Speaker 2: that was passed last week that may not see the
Speaker 2: light of day. I guess I'm wondering if you worry
Speaker 2: that this border debate with Ukraine and Israel attached bogs
Speaker 2: us down on a level where we can't get anything
Speaker 2: else done. Are we going to shut down in less
Speaker 2: than a month.
Speaker 4: Well, listen, I worry about everything.
Speaker 3: There's lots to worry about, but I think there's actually
Speaker 3: capacity to deal with emergency supplementals, the border tax deals,
Speaker 3: and funding of government if we work efficiently in these things.
Speaker 4: The problem is that.
Speaker 3: There is a very small group of people who are
Speaker 3: really rolling up their sleeves and working on each of
Speaker 3: these issues, and then a lot of members in the
Speaker 3: House and the Senate kind of sitting on the sidelines
Speaker 3: waiting to see what happened so we can work in
Speaker 3: this very differently.
Speaker 4: The process is not conducive to getting things done.
Speaker 3: But to go to your first point, which is so important,
Speaker 3: we are one third of the way through the fiscal year.
Speaker 3: We have not passed a bundt, we have not funded
Speaker 3: the government, and from everything I can see, we are
Speaker 3: doing very little to move those appropriations bills forward. I
Speaker 3: was really impressed when the Republicans were saying, we don't
Speaker 3: want another omnibus. That's where you hide all sorts of
Speaker 3: unpaid for legislation.
Speaker 4: Sure, they wanted to go through.
Speaker 3: The actual act of budgeting, and I think calling for
Speaker 3: that's very important, but I just haven't seen any signs
Speaker 3: that as we are only four weeks away from that deadline,
Speaker 3: there's any progress being made on coming up those appropriations
Speaker 3: bills and importantly working out the differences between the House
Speaker 3: and the Senate, because the conversations I'm having right now,
Speaker 3: tensions between those bodies are also running very.
Speaker 2: High, which makes me wonder. I have to ask you
Speaker 2: if at some point here maya is it more likely
Speaker 2: that Joe Biden's State of the Union will be postponed
Speaker 2: because of a shutdown or canceled, or is it more
Speaker 2: likely that he'll give that speech but Mike Johnson will
Speaker 2: not be sitting behind him.
Speaker 4: Oh boy, that's a good one.
Speaker 3: Well, first off, I each of the could have been
Speaker 3: shut down moments. I didn't think we were going to
Speaker 3: shut down, and I was pretty confident. I'm not quite
Speaker 3: as confident this time. I don't think we're going to
Speaker 3: shut down. I don't think it's in anybody's interest, and
Speaker 3: it's a very important political year where I think people
Speaker 3: are understanding that. But there's a risk this time that
Speaker 3: there wasn't last time, because I don't think they'll be
Speaker 3: further continuing resolutions and there is a lot of resistance
Speaker 3: to one big funding or a couple big funding bills,
Speaker 3: that kind of paper over the details.
Speaker 4: But I think we will.
Speaker 3: See the state of the Union. I think that the
Speaker 3: speaker will be there. I think it will be a political.
Speaker 4: And contentious state of the Union. But I think it
Speaker 4: will go ahead as planned.
Speaker 2: On the date, and that I think will just go
Speaker 2: ahead and call progress if that happens. Mayam Aguinnis, I
Speaker 2: have to ask you about a big story here at
Speaker 2: that say you'd better believe it. I want to throw
Speaker 2: a big log on the fire while I have you
Speaker 2: in a couple of minutes that we have less than
Speaker 2: the commentary that I saw you writing at the Post
Speaker 2: and couriers. Social Security is in trouble is the headline.
Speaker 2: Most Canada won't admit it. This is for sure, Maya.
Speaker 2: We've been talking about this a lot in our campaign coverage.
Speaker 2: In fact, an interview that I had with Nicki Haley
Speaker 2: ended up being part of a Trump ad because she
Speaker 2: dared to answer a question about raising the age for
Speaker 2: eligibility for Social Security. Your point in this column is
Speaker 2: well taken considering the fact that no one will touch this.
Speaker 2: It's still in al Gore's lock box somewhere. Will we
Speaker 2: be able to have this conversation after the presidential campaign.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what I'm really worried about.
Speaker 3: And I've been actually quite impressed with all of the
Speaker 3: coverage that you all are putting out there. Because this
Speaker 3: is this issue that is so political and gets politicized
Speaker 3: and demagogued, and people just are outright.
Speaker 4: Not telling the truth. It's very difficult.
Speaker 3: For in a campaign cycle for the policies to get coverage.
Speaker 3: And I have to say that I have thought Nicki
Speaker 3: Haley has talked about this issue. She's talked about some
Speaker 3: of the things that she would do that would actually
Speaker 3: close the solvency gap. And while you've had a lot
Speaker 3: of other candidates, including both President Trump and President Biden,
Speaker 3: talking about what they won't do, the bottom line is
Speaker 3: Social Security and Medicare have trust funds that are going
Speaker 3: to become insolvent.
Speaker 4: Nobody likes it.
Speaker 3: Everybody who paid into the program does not appreciate the
Speaker 3: fact that these are structurally imbalanced. But there are lots
Speaker 3: of reasons for why, and the end result is we're
Speaker 3: going to have to make some changes.
Speaker 4: There are ways we can do this that.
Speaker 3: Will protect people who depend on the program that make
Speaker 3: a lot of changes for that start in the longer run,
Speaker 3: so people have time to plan younger people, not current retirees.
Speaker 3: But the more they demagogue, the candidates who do demogogue,
Speaker 3: the more they do exactly what we're difficult going to
Speaker 3: be to fix this program.
Speaker 2: Come back and talk to this when we can talk
Speaker 2: about solutions. Maya mcguinnis, this is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: royd Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen.
Speaker 1: I have on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York
Speaker 1: station just say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 5: We also have to talk about something the UK has
Speaker 5: been involved in with the US in recent weeks, which
Speaker 5: is strikes in the Middle East. We've of course seen
Speaker 5: a multitude of them over the weekend. And joining us
Speaker 5: now as General David Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute
Speaker 5: for Aerospace Studies and of course a former US Air
Speaker 5: Force retired lieutenant general. So Lieutenant General, thank you so
Speaker 5: much for joining us. If you could just react to
Speaker 5: what we have seen develop over the weekend, the actions
Speaker 5: the US has taken thus far, how escalatory in nature
Speaker 5: were they to you?
Speaker 6: Well, first, Joe and Kayley, thanks for having me to
Speaker 6: join into this very important discussion. The bottom line up
Speaker 6: front is that that airstrikes has past Friday against the
Speaker 6: Iranian militia groups. We're an appropriate response, and quite frankly,
Speaker 6: it's good to hear that they're the first part of
Speaker 6: a series of operations will continue to degrade Iranian militias
Speaker 6: that are attacking US forces.
Speaker 7: This is not a one and done kind of attack.
Speaker 6: Iranian proxies in the area are numerous and robust, and frankly,
Speaker 6: as I mentioned, it's about time.
Speaker 7: It's well past.
Speaker 6: Time that the United States signify the importance of responding
Speaker 6: to the kinds of aggression that its forces are facing
Speaker 6: in the region.
Speaker 2: I want to hear about some of the choices that
Speaker 2: the Pentagon made here. General, knowing that you flew the
Speaker 2: F fifteen, we saw b ones fly around the world
Speaker 2: from basis here in the US to take part in
Speaker 2: that initial strike on Friday, saw the Navy get involved
Speaker 2: with F eighteen's off the USS Eisenhower. Over the course
Speaker 2: of the weekend, some cruise missiles have been used here.
Speaker 2: What do you make about the selections of hardware. How
Speaker 2: effective was it?
Speaker 6: Well, first, you know, the military commands in the region
Speaker 6: are still assessing impact.
Speaker 7: But if you look at the use of the.
Speaker 6: B One, which many people are wondering, why did you
Speaker 6: do that and launch it from the United States?
Speaker 7: I tell you that first it.
Speaker 6: Induced a degree of surprise with respect to adversaries in
Speaker 6: the region. Second, it's an aircraft that has a very
Speaker 6: large precision payload. In other words, it can drop many
Speaker 6: weapons from one platform and stay airborne for long periods
Speaker 6: of time. And finally, it also signaled that the United
Speaker 6: States can project power without local basing. Our US based
Speaker 6: bombers can reach.
Speaker 7: Anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. It
Speaker 7: doesn't take weeks or months to do so.
Speaker 6: So, by the way, as you mentioned over the weekend,
Speaker 6: but even on that strike on Friday, the b Ones
Speaker 6: were not the only aircraft.
Speaker 7: That were used.
Speaker 6: Air Force aircraft are deployed to the Middle East and
Speaker 6: they were also part of the attacks that you saw
Speaker 6: on Friday.
Speaker 5: Well, Luchdrum, you mentioned the projection of power on the
Speaker 5: part of the US. How much power is projected if
Speaker 5: the signal being sent is that the US is reluctant
Speaker 5: to directly strike Iran in its own territories. The US
Speaker 5: giving too much away here in terms of what it
Speaker 5: is not willing to do, what power it will not utilize.
Speaker 6: Kaylee, that's a wonderful question. Let me speak to a
Speaker 6: minute or for a moment about deterrence, and let me
Speaker 6: remind your audience that the way one deters a wider
Speaker 6: war is not by saying that you don't want a
Speaker 6: wider war or that we won't strike inside Iran, but
Speaker 6: by making sure Iran understands that.
Speaker 7: If they and their proxies continue.
Speaker 6: Attacks on US personnel, then they can expect disastrous consequences.
Speaker 6: In other words, deterrence is achieved by instilling in the
Speaker 6: minds of the Iranian leadership sufficient uncertainty of achieving their
Speaker 6: objectives so that they decide not to continue their attacks
Speaker 6: due to the potential consequences. So I'm afraid that attacks
Speaker 6: on US forces in the region won't stop until Aron
Speaker 6: understands that their critical interest are at stake. So the
Speaker 6: administration has to stop telling our enemies what the US
Speaker 6: is not going to do. Is that only will encourage
Speaker 6: them to continue their attacks. So I got to tell you,
Speaker 6: it's very frustrating, and frankly, the kind of attacks you
Speaker 6: saw on Friday and follow on the weekend are ones
Speaker 6: that should have been conducted when attacks against US forces commenced.
Speaker 7: Back last year.
Speaker 6: That would have increased the probability of deterring the four
Speaker 6: months of attacks on US forces since then.
Speaker 2: Well, are you taking them at their work here? We
Speaker 2: were speaking with Michael Knights a couple of days ago.
Speaker 2: Generally he said, we are out of runs on the
Speaker 2: escalation ladder. If this doesn't work in say, a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks and we're still playing with this, is a
Speaker 2: strike against Iran out of the question.
Speaker 6: Well, no, it shouldn't be out of the question, and
Speaker 6: quite frankly, as I just said, we shouldn't be telling
Speaker 6: or telegraphing what we may or may not be doing.
Speaker 7: What I tell you.
Speaker 6: Is that actions directly against Iran will be fundamental to
Speaker 6: halt their continued aggression and the aggression by their clients.
Speaker 7: Now, that action can take many forms.
Speaker 6: It can be lethal, non lethal, economic, diplomatic deterrent, or
Speaker 6: combination of all of these. And while I don't want
Speaker 6: to get into specifics in terms of what I would target,
Speaker 6: because all that does is a the Iranians. I believe
Speaker 6: that it would be wise to initiate full up sanctions
Speaker 6: on Iran against all forms of their economic income, particularly
Speaker 6: they're oil exports, and then if necessary, direct attacks against
Speaker 6: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard core leadership. They're key essential systems
Speaker 6: which allow them to function, their infrastructure, their personnel, and
Speaker 6: they're deployed forces. And again without getting into specifics, those
Speaker 6: are some general areas that Iran needs to be put
Speaker 6: on notice. Are libel to be struck and that may have.
Speaker 7: The effect of deterring the Iranians.
Speaker 6: But we also have to be ready to back up
Speaker 6: these statements. So we're not I mean, Michael's a friend
Speaker 6: of mine, but I have to tell you no, we're
Speaker 6: not anywhere close to getting to the last rung in
Speaker 6: the escalation ladder.
Speaker 5: Well, of course, when we're thinking about rungs and ladder
Speaker 5: here you also there is the latter in terms of
Speaker 5: how financing from Iran goes to these different proxy groups.
Speaker 5: As we talk here about deterring Iran, are we assuming
Speaker 5: that the connection between Iran and its proxies are strong
Speaker 5: enough that that directly translates or is there a certain
Speaker 5: degree of control that Tran, even if it decided it
Speaker 5: wanted to, cannot exercise over some of these groups.
Speaker 6: And now again another great question. You know, the short
Speaker 6: answer is complex, but that's why I said that with
Speaker 6: respect to deterrence, you know, we have to keep the
Speaker 6: issue of actions directly against the government of Iran on
Speaker 6: the table. Only when they understand that their critical interests
Speaker 6: are threatened, will they pull back the throttles on the
Speaker 6: aggression that they may in fact be orchestrating. Yes, to
Speaker 6: a degree, there is some independence of these proxy groups,
Speaker 6: but these proxy groups rely one hundred percent on Iran
Speaker 6: for their military capabilities.
Speaker 5: All right, Lieutenant General, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 5: We really appreciate your time. That was Lieutenant General David Deptula,
Speaker 5: who is now Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.
Speaker 5: We really appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay and then
Speaker 1: Broud Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. I'll watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5: Welcome back, indeed to Balance of Power on both Bloomberg
Speaker 5: Television and Radio here in Washington. We've talked at length
Speaker 5: Joe about the politics around the border deal, the text
Speaker 5: of which was just released yesterday. Politics really defines the
Speaker 5: name of the game right now. Less so the actual
Speaker 5: policy you were running through it just a moment ago.
Speaker 5: The changes to asylum and parole authorities, the sheer number
Speaker 5: that would be allowed in before President Biden would have
Speaker 5: to use the authority to shut things down. There is
Speaker 5: real policy substance here. It's just a question of how
Speaker 5: much that actually matters.
Speaker 2: I'm just wondering how many people are getting to the
Speaker 2: point of reading it, because minds seem to be made
Speaker 2: up last week based on leaks and Facebook reports, social
Speaker 2: media Trump tweets because these were considered out of reach
Speaker 2: for Republicans until very recent history. Kayley, and it looks
Speaker 2: like they might let it.
Speaker 5: Go well dead on arrival in the house. That's what
Speaker 5: we're hearing from the world leadership. So maybe you just
Speaker 5: don't even catch it in the first place, you just
Speaker 5: don't touch it at all, less so letting go. But
Speaker 5: the fact of the matter remains, the policy we're talking
Speaker 5: about is about what happens when people arrive here when
Speaker 5: they're actually at the border, whether they're let in, whether
Speaker 5: they're granted asylum, what happens in the United States. There's
Speaker 5: also the really important question about why the people are
Speaker 5: arriving here in the first place, where they're coming from.
Speaker 5: We are on this conversation. We want to bring in
Speaker 5: now Maria Franda Bazmoski. She's deputy director of the Adrian
Speaker 5: Ash Latin America Center at the Atlantic Council. Maria, thank
Speaker 5: you so much for being with us as we consider
Speaker 5: what is primarily a border measure, not necessarily immigration policy
Speaker 5: changes as a whole. Here are these policy initiatives doing
Speaker 5: enough to address the actual root cause of why we
Speaker 5: have a border issue in the first place.
Speaker 8: Thank you so much for having me. And I think
Speaker 8: that that's a great question to kick off the conversation.
Speaker 8: Very few things are being done from a policy perspective
Speaker 8: to address what is pushing thousands of people to the
Speaker 8: US Mexico border every single day. I think that you'll
Speaker 8: hear in the halls of Washington, DC that you know,
Speaker 8: there's a crisis at the border, and I don't disagree
Speaker 8: with that. There's certainly a security, humanitarian, economic crisis, but
Speaker 8: it doesn't start at the US border. It starts three
Speaker 8: thousand miles south. We're seeing a huge security crisis in
Speaker 8: Latin America. Weeks ago, we saw in Ecuador on Life
Speaker 8: TV just anchors being held at gunpoint, and we're seeing
Speaker 8: that across Latin America. The whole security situation is deteriorating
Speaker 8: in the countries, and that is one of the top
Speaker 8: three reasons that migrants cite as the reasons that are
Speaker 8: pushing them out of their countries.
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 2: Among the provisions in this deal includes something that Republicans
Speaker 2: have been asking for for some time, new expedited removal
Speaker 2: authority for migrants who do not qualify for asylum, and
Speaker 2: that definition of asylum, as we've been discussing, is being tightened.
Speaker 2: We heard from one of the negotiators, Cirsten Cinema, that
Speaker 2: they will be sent back home what happens when they
Speaker 2: get there.
Speaker 8: One of the things that this bill, as I was
Speaker 8: looking through it, that I think is worth pointing out
Speaker 8: in relation to your question, Joe, is that there's at
Speaker 8: least four billion dollars that would be allocated to the
Speaker 8: Department of State that would be roughly divided into fifty
Speaker 8: percent of that would be to help build capacity in
Speaker 8: the countries to accept and reintegrate individuals that have been
Speaker 8: removed from the United States. I think that that is essential.
Speaker 8: I think that the countries in Nine America really need
Speaker 8: that kind of support. And then the other half of
Speaker 8: those four billion dollars, four hundred million dollars, sorry, is
Speaker 8: going to be, if this bill were to pass, allocated
Speaker 8: to address some of those root costes that are pushing
Speaker 8: Latin Americans, lots of Central Americans to come to the
Speaker 8: US border.
Speaker 5: Yeah, if it were to pass, is a good point
Speaker 5: to me, because it looks, sorry now that this bill
Speaker 5: will not in fact be passing. But when it comes
Speaker 5: to asylum specifically, something else you hear from, specifically Republicans
Speaker 5: who have pushed back against having two expansive asylum allowances
Speaker 5: here in the US is that these migrants should be
Speaker 5: applying for asylum in the other countries through which they're passing.
Speaker 5: Just with your knowledge of Latin America, how hard, how
Speaker 5: difficult is it to attain real asylum in these other
Speaker 5: countries that are not the United States.
Speaker 8: I think, unfortunately, the infrastructure throughout Lne America for seeking
Speaker 8: asylum is not very robust. For example, in Costa Rica
Speaker 8: after twenty eighteen when there were huge crises and manifestations
Speaker 8: in Iconawa, the system was very quickly overwhelmed, and Costa
Speaker 8: Rica is arguably one of the most well equipped countries
Speaker 8: in the region to support assylees and applications. The other
Speaker 8: thing to note is that these migrants, many times when
Speaker 8: you talk to them, you realize that leaving their countries
Speaker 8: is their last resort. They don't want to leave their homes,
Speaker 8: but they're being threatened, they're being extorted, they don't have
Speaker 8: economic opportunities. And so going back to the previous question,
Speaker 8: I think that this bill again, if it were to pass,
Speaker 8: would maybe potentially be a game changer if it could
Speaker 8: help address some of those key factors that are pushing
Speaker 8: people out and then creating this situation at the border.
Speaker 2: Not a mention of Dreamers here or for that matter,
Speaker 2: any undocumented immigrants already living in the country, should there be.
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 8: I think that this is a comprehensive effort to start
Speaker 8: to address a system that is broken. That you can
Speaker 8: say that from I think any point in this country.
Speaker 8: And I think that this is kind of low hanging fruit.
Speaker 8: It's we can't deny. This is a political year, of course,
Speaker 8: It's also sorry elections are happening in Mexico this year too,
Speaker 8: So I think that that's an interesting dynamic that is
Speaker 8: shaping some of the substance that is in this in
Speaker 8: this bill.
Speaker 5: And finally, as we talk about the idea that this
Speaker 5: bill may not pass, what a lot of Republicans are
Speaker 5: calling for instead is for the president to just use
Speaker 5: authority that they argue he still has or he already
Speaker 5: has without Congress granting it, to just shut down the
Speaker 5: border entirely. If the US were to do that, Maria,
Speaker 5: what would that realistically look like what happens on the
Speaker 5: other side of the border.
Speaker 8: Well, you would need Mexico's cooperation, and President Lopez Roelo
Speaker 8: in Mexico has in the past been willing to work,
Speaker 8: especially with former President Trump, on those on receiving individuals
Speaker 8: who have been removed. It's an election, yeer, his main
Speaker 8: the candidate for the opposing party, So ChIL Galvez is
Speaker 8: in BC today and politics in the US Mexico. Sorry,
Speaker 8: immigration in the US Mexican relationship is like a It's
Speaker 8: a tricky thing and I don't know how the president
Speaker 8: might receive this request.
Speaker 2: Maria, thank you for joining us. It's great analysis in
Speaker 2: the hours following the release of this text. We appreciate
Speaker 2: your insights here from your perch at the Atlantic Council.
Speaker 2: Maria Fernande Buzzmaski, Kaylee, There's going to be a lot
Speaker 2: more time to decipher this, but we're getting some interesting
Speaker 2: reactions here today already.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, Although to her point, we're talking about what happens
Speaker 5: if the bill passes. That is still a massive if.
Speaker 5: Is the reality here in Washington today it looks like a.
Speaker 2: Good get a vote Wednesday. We'll find out together here
Speaker 2: on Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 2: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 2: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 2: at Bloomberg dot com.