Speaker 1: Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gradowsky. I'm
Speaker 1: here again, Happy Monday. I hope you all had a
Speaker 1: great weekend back at it, and I know it is
Speaker 1: the dead of summer, so thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: In talking about politics, last week was a busy week.
Speaker 1: There was obviously a lot of news with Iran and Israel,
Speaker 1: and it was kind of whiplash following it all. It's
Speaker 1: very difficult when you're hearing international news, trying to understand
Speaker 1: who to believe, which side you get all the information from,
Speaker 1: and seeing clips online some of its Ai generated some
Speaker 1: of his old video, so that's been kind of wild
Speaker 1: to watch. Trump and Tucker even kind of got into it.
Speaker 1: Trump called Tucker a kook on truth social after Tucker
Speaker 1: did an introdut Steve Bannon about Iran, which I thought
Speaker 1: was something I didn't expect to happen. I don't have
Speaker 1: that many insights into the Middle East, and I'm not
Speaker 1: going to do an episode on the Israel stuff. It's
Speaker 1: just I don't have a lot of one deep felt
Speaker 1: opinions aside from kind of bland, generic ones, and there's
Speaker 1: just it's just not it's not for me, and it's
Speaker 1: not what I'm planned doing this podcast on. But I
Speaker 1: do have a good story about Tucker Carlson that I
Speaker 1: would like to share with the listeners because I think
Speaker 1: you guys would like it. I did Tucker's show when
Speaker 1: he was on Fox like six times and when you
Speaker 1: did it, because he did it out of his studio
Speaker 1: in Maine and of his house, so he wasn't like
Speaker 1: I was never in a room with him. I think
Speaker 1: he moved to me, like after the first year when
Speaker 1: there were protesters at his house in DC. This is
Speaker 1: not hidden information, by the way, this is well reported.
Speaker 1: So you would go. I would go to a satellite
Speaker 1: location and sit in a black room by myself and
Speaker 1: tape with just you know, a camera. They were not
Speaker 1: even a camera guy, just me in a camera. And
Speaker 1: there was complete silence on my end until the segment
Speaker 1: started because they would do whatever they needed to do.
Speaker 1: And that's how guests we're working with anyway, So the
Speaker 1: whole time you were there, I'm a note taker. I
Speaker 1: take tons of notes. If you couldn'tell him this podcast,
Speaker 1: and I'm sitting here in complete silence. And then one
Speaker 1: time I started to hear Tucker's side of the broadcast
Speaker 1: and what was going on, I guess with his EPs
Speaker 1: and his producers and whatnot. And they were blasting Willie
Speaker 1: Nelson's Roll Me Up and Smoking When I Die, and
Speaker 1: Tucker's like singing along. That's all I could hear as
Speaker 1: I'm trying to remember what I'm gonna talk about, and
Speaker 1: he's like singing, and he goes, let's go, and then
Speaker 1: they go right on air like there was no like previews,
Speaker 1: so you know, Tucker introduces me twenty seconds to that.
Speaker 1: All I could hear in my head was him singing
Speaker 1: roll Me Up and Smoking when I Die. Really funny anyway,
Speaker 1: total side note, nothing to do with Israel, but just
Speaker 1: a funny story anyway. This week also there is the
Speaker 1: upcoming New York City Democratic primary for them mayor of
Speaker 1: the city. It's tomorrow is the primary, June twenty fourth.
Speaker 1: Early voting has started last week. The numbers coming out
Speaker 1: of the Burroughs for who's showing up look very good
Speaker 1: for socialist Zoran Mandini. Mendini. I know, I just butchered
Speaker 1: that name, but don't worry about it. He's a socialist
Speaker 1: all you have to remember. But I saw some private
Speaker 1: democratic polling and they do believe that Andrew Cuomo got
Speaker 1: former Governor Andrew Cuomo is going to pull this out
Speaker 1: with a decent double digit margin. New York has the
Speaker 1: ranked choice voting, which is the stupidest way to do
Speaker 1: an election. Only someone with a PhD and political science
Speaker 1: could think of that. So we won't know who's the
Speaker 1: winner probably on election night. Will probably have to wait
Speaker 1: several days while they rank them all and count all
Speaker 1: the votes. But I've heard from Democrats they do feel
Speaker 1: like Kuoma is going to pull it out, which if
Speaker 1: he does, we'll see if the Working Family Party endorses
Speaker 1: the Socialist and it is a four Democrat to one
Speaker 1: Republican race, which is very possible.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Lastly, and most consequentially though, for this podcast, what I
Speaker 1: want to talk to listeners about was President Trump's many
Speaker 1: different takes on immigration enforcement. So we all know that
Speaker 1: immigration restriction was a centerpiece of Trump's two successful presidential campaigns.
Speaker 1: In twenty sixteen, it was build the Wall that was
Speaker 1: his rally and cry, and in twenty twenty four it
Speaker 1: was mass deportations. You could see signs at the RNC
Speaker 1: people waving saying mass deportations was a very proud logo,
Speaker 1: there was no hidden agenda around it. The only campaign
Speaker 1: that he didn't really emphasize immigration enforcement was in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: allegedly at the advice of his son in law, Jared Kushner.
Speaker 1: Trump also put out a white paper in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: where he said he would do all these things on
Speaker 1: legal immigration to reduce the numbers. When he first became president,
Speaker 1: he actually supported a bill from Senator Tom Cotton called
Speaker 1: the Rays Act, which would have created a point system
Speaker 1: people would have allowed been allowed entering into our country
Speaker 1: based on how many points they ranked up if they
Speaker 1: spoke English, if they had a college degree, if they
Speaker 1: had skills, if they had money, and it would have
Speaker 1: cut legal immigration by fifty percent. It never got passed
Speaker 1: into law, but Trump actually supported it when it first
Speaker 1: came out in twenty seventeen. Now, most of those promises
Speaker 1: on legal immigration never kept right. He just never kind
Speaker 1: of kept them, and they kind of were sidelined by
Speaker 1: a lot of people in the ADMIN who were big
Speaker 1: supporters of mass legal immigration. It wasn't all of Trump's fault,
Speaker 1: but it happened right before COVID and actually legal immigration
Speaker 1: started taking up. Throughout Trump's term, there was intense pressure
Speaker 1: from corporate donors and from the Republican business class. When
Speaker 1: he announced his run in twenty twenty four. President Trump
Speaker 1: really did back away from a lot of the earlier
Speaker 1: stuff he made in twenty sixteen about reducing legal immigration,
Speaker 1: but mass deportition was still the center theme. He was
Speaker 1: very much holding on to that campaign promise. And as
Speaker 1: someone who was a day one twenty sixteen, twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: whatever it was, Trump's supporter, which was actually ten years
Speaker 1: ago from last week, I was very skeptical that he
Speaker 1: would keep the promises the second time that he won
Speaker 1: successfully in twenty twenty four, the third time he ran,
Speaker 1: I was very skeptical he would keep those promises because
Speaker 1: he had walked away from so many of the legal
Speaker 1: immigration stuff in twenty sixteen. And I'm happy to sit
Speaker 1: there and say I was wrong, you know. And actually
Speaker 1: the reason I took the meeting, even with the Desanta's
Speaker 1: influencers in twenty twenty four was because I was so skeptical.
Speaker 1: But I'm happy that I was wrong. So here we
Speaker 1: are six months into President Trump's second term.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 1: Legal illegal immigration is down substantially. Right, he has completely
Speaker 1: kept his promises. On enforcing the border. There's essentially no
Speaker 1: border crossings. From February to April twenty twenty five, there
Speaker 1: were thirty five thousand illegal alien encounters at our southern border.
Speaker 1: That's down from five hundred and fifty nine thousand during
Speaker 1: the same three month period the year prior under President Biden.
Speaker 1: So from five hundred and fifty nine thousand to thirty
Speaker 1: five thousand, that's almost a complete shutdown. And ICE has
Speaker 1: done a really incredible job at increasing their capacity to
Speaker 1: do interior apprehensions. The most recent ICE detention data shows
Speaker 1: that the average number of people held is up twenty
Speaker 1: five percent since President Trump took office. You might have
Speaker 1: heard there's a trope coming out of the media that
Speaker 1: President Trump is deporting less people than President Biden or
Speaker 1: President Obama. That is really just based on how President
Speaker 1: Biden and President Obama cooked the numbers, because what they
Speaker 1: were doing where they were counting everyone arrested by CBP,
Speaker 1: that's the Border Patrol agents who were being turned back
Speaker 1: at the border as deportations, even though they were never
Speaker 1: in the interior of the country. So President Trump's apprehensions
Speaker 1: and deportations are coming from within the country. People who've
Speaker 1: been living here rather than people who just come to
Speaker 1: the border and are turned away, which President Biden wasn't
Speaker 1: really doing a lot of that anyway, at the advice
Speaker 1: of Ron Klain, So Ron claim was his advisor, who
Speaker 1: was very liberal and immigration anyway. So now let's talk
Speaker 1: about mass deportation. That's another story entirely. In the first
Speaker 1: one hundred days in office, I sufficially report that there
Speaker 1: were about sixty five thousand illegal aliens removed from our country.
Speaker 1: While there's been no official update since that one hundred days,
Speaker 1: the estimates coming out of people in the know and
Speaker 1: the administration, though not in ICE specifically, say that it's
Speaker 1: been one hundred and forty thousand to two hundred and
Speaker 1: seven thousand total deportation in the six months. We'll have
Speaker 1: to wait till ICE gives them gives an official number
Speaker 1: whenever they update their numbers periodically to find the exact amount,
Speaker 1: but one hundred and forty thousand, two hundred and seven
Speaker 1: thousand is our best estimate. There's a question also a
Speaker 1: self deportation, the number of people choosing to leave the
Speaker 1: country on their own devices because they don't want to
Speaker 1: be arrested and deported. President Trump's administration is actually offering
Speaker 1: to pay illegals one thousand dollars plus a free flight
Speaker 1: out of the country if they leave without having to
Speaker 1: go through the rigmarole of a cord and an arrest
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. And several thousand have
Speaker 1: taken the administration up on their offer. A story from
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal that's gone viral over the last
Speaker 1: few days is that data released alongside the recent job
Speaker 1: report from the Labor Department show that the number of
Speaker 1: form born people either working or looking for work fell
Speaker 1: by one million from March to April. That's the biggest
Speaker 1: two month decline in form born labor force since the
Speaker 1: early days of the pandemic. It's unclear if they are
Speaker 1: leaving the country or just leaving the workforce because they're
Speaker 1: afraid of being arrested and deported. A resource that I
Speaker 1: have started to use to look at if there's indications
Speaker 1: of self deportations by different groups is the CDC Wonder
Speaker 1: Fertility Data. Okay, let me explain. Back in twenty ten,
Speaker 1: there was a law that Arizona pass called SB ten seventy,
Speaker 1: which would allow local law enforcement to ask people for
Speaker 1: proof of citizenship during routine encounters like traffic stops that
Speaker 1: they suspected the person was not legally in the country.
Speaker 1: And what happened was when the Arizona Health Department updated
Speaker 1: their birth data year and year, year by year, there
Speaker 1: was a five percent decline in the number of children
Speaker 1: being born to Hispanic women in the state from twenty
Speaker 1: from two thousand and eight to twenty twelve. Because remember
Speaker 1: signed twenty ten, the number dropped by a while fourteen
Speaker 1: percent fewer children being born by Hispanic women. Hispanic women
Speaker 1: went from having three thousand more children than white women
Speaker 1: in the state to five thousand, five hundred fewer. That's
Speaker 1: because they were self supporting from the state. They were
Speaker 1: leaving the state in order not to be asked when
Speaker 1: they were driving to a stop line or whatever if
Speaker 1: they were legally in the country. Illegal aliens were not,
Speaker 1: you know, not just your regular legal Hispanic American, but
Speaker 1: illegal aliens were leaving. And they didn't necessarily all go
Speaker 1: to Mexico, but or or wherever their native country was.
Speaker 1: A lot went to California or Nevada or New Mexico,
Speaker 1: states with looser immigration laws, but they did leave Arizona.
Speaker 1: So what does the CDC wonder early data say about
Speaker 1: the country as a whole now that Trump is doing
Speaker 1: these strict immigration enforcement. I want to sit there and
Speaker 1: note that there's this is the preliminary data that only
Speaker 1: goes to April, so we're not but we're not getting
Speaker 1: like the full number because they didn't include May and
Speaker 1: June and that's when a lot of the immigration enforcement happened.
Speaker 1: So March and April twenty twenty five compared to a
Speaker 1: year ago, there's been about a one percent drop in
Speaker 1: Asian births, and Hispanic birth rate is basically flat. There's
Speaker 1: almost no change completely. Side note, birth rates among black
Speaker 1: women drop substained at four percent, and birth rates among
Speaker 1: white women who has dropped about one percent, which is
Speaker 1: kind of normal considering there's less of people having kids.
Speaker 1: But once again there's the Hispanic birth rate is flat.
Speaker 1: So it's only two months, it's only early data. But
Speaker 1: if there was a sign for mass deportation at a
Speaker 1: million people, which is a substantial amount of people, you
Speaker 1: would see something in the birth data, and it's not there.
Speaker 1: So I kind of have my hesitancy towards whether or
Speaker 1: not that million number is correct. Maybe it will, we'll
Speaker 1: have to sit there and wait for more data to
Speaker 1: come out in May and June. Maybe they will show
Speaker 1: numbers that coincide with the million number coming out of
Speaker 1: the Labor Department. This hasn't stopped researchers from believing that
Speaker 1: we're about to see the first net decline in overall
Speaker 1: immigration population for the first time in fifty years. According
Speaker 1: to The Washington Post, two economists from the Brooklyn Institute,
Speaker 1: which is liberal thing tank, and AI, which is a
Speaker 1: conservative thing tank. They both kind of suck on immigration
Speaker 1: as a side note, but they are coming out with
Speaker 1: a paper this month staying that immigration is likely to
Speaker 1: be in negative numbers for the first time in fifty
Speaker 1: years and twenty twenty five, which leads us back to Trump.
Speaker 1: Mass deportation was obviously on the menu when he became president.
Speaker 1: Democrats seemed completely shocked that that means actually deporting people.
Speaker 1: I think that they must thought of mean vibes or something.
Speaker 1: But it actually is what he says it is, and
Speaker 1: he was really carrying that vision out him and his
Speaker 1: advisors and Steven Miller and everything until last week when
Speaker 1: out of nowhere, President Trump, at the advice of his
Speaker 1: Agriculture secretary Brook Rollins, a former close ally of Jared Kushner's,
Speaker 1: announced that they would no longer be doing immigration enforcement
Speaker 1: in farms, restaurants, and hotels. It was this abrupt turn
Speaker 1: of events that led to a bit of a backlash
Speaker 1: amongst some conservatives. All progress was being made on the
Speaker 1: side of the American worker even in those industries. Meatpacking
Speaker 1: giant JBS signed a new labor contract with the Commercial
Speaker 1: Workers International Union for higher wages, better safety standards, and
Speaker 1: paid sickly. It was the first time in forty years
Speaker 1: that this meat packing giant chose to just that they're
Speaker 1: in doing improved wages and safety standards, and it was
Speaker 1: because they didn't have an endless stream of illegal aliens
Speaker 1: crossing the border like they had under previous administrations. After
Speaker 1: receiving initial pushback from conservatives, Brooke Rollins came out with
Speaker 1: a Twitter post which was very much like, these allegations
Speaker 1: against me are not true, but it's good that it's
Speaker 1: happening that we're not doing this enforcement very much kind
Speaker 1: of showing her face. Remember she has spent a decade
Speaker 1: on record supporting amnesty for illegal aliens and jail break
Speaker 1: for criminals, and definitely more one of more liberal people
Speaker 1: in Trump's orbit, so it wouldn't be surprising to anybody
Speaker 1: who knows people in the administration that she was doing
Speaker 1: this to begin with. President Trump came out with a
Speaker 1: truth social post quickly after she made those comments, stating
Speaker 1: that he was going to continue deportations, but only in
Speaker 1: blue states, as if millions of illegal aliens don't live
Speaker 1: in Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. Then within twenty four
Speaker 1: hours of that truth social post, a story from the
Speaker 1: Washington Post broke, where the Department of Home and Security
Speaker 1: announced to its depth they were reversed in the guidelines
Speaker 1: again and continuing mass deportations at farms, hotels, and restaurants.
Speaker 1: The Post suggested that Stephen Miller was behind the reversal
Speaker 1: of the earlier decision, which good for Stephen, But what
Speaker 1: about farms and endless stories about rotting fruit? You may ask,
Speaker 1: what about these need to have an endless supply of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens, which they always say whenever you have any
Speaker 1: pushback against illegal aliens at farms, Well, farmers can apply
Speaker 1: for an H two A visa, that is the farm
Speaker 1: worker visa. We issue more than three one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: h twoa VSAs per year. But here's the thing. If
Speaker 1: you apply the legal way, farmers have to ensure that
Speaker 1: they're not affecting American workers, that they're paying prevailing wages,
Speaker 1: and they're offering housing and transportation. With illegal immigration, they
Speaker 1: don't have to do any of that. They can pass
Speaker 1: any costs over to taxpayers who get sit there in
Speaker 1: fund illegal aliens when they go to the hospitals when
Speaker 1: they need when if they have children here, the children
Speaker 1: qualify for SNAP and for all these food benefits, and
Speaker 1: for public housing and all the rest of it. Taxpayers
Speaker 1: absorb the costs for big agriculture. Immigration enforcement is at
Speaker 1: the root of the Trump movement and by the way,
Speaker 1: most nationalist movements across the entire world, not just talking
Speaker 1: about Europe, but in Asia and Latin America and Africa.
Speaker 1: Immigration is the root cause of nationalist movements across the
Speaker 1: entire globe. The thing that established in politicians globalists establish
Speaker 1: political parties, the thing that they hate the most, which
Speaker 1: is a populist movement they are responsible for because they
Speaker 1: refuse to enforce immigration. That's the long and complete short
Speaker 1: of it. With me this week is an expert on
Speaker 1: immigration who's been writing about this for decades. He's been
Speaker 1: doing it longer than I've been an adult. He knows
Speaker 1: what's going on in the Trump administration, what they're doing right,
Speaker 1: what they can improve on, and if we're ever going
Speaker 1: to get real mass deportation. Stay tuned. Mark corn is
Speaker 1: my guest this week. He is the executive director for
Speaker 1: the Center for Immigration Studies, a fabulous nonprofit. I highly
Speaker 1: recommend everyone checking out. Mark. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 2: Glad to be here.
Speaker 3: Mark.
Speaker 1: What do you make of the administration's abrupt series of
Speaker 1: changes when it comes to immigration enforcement during the week.
Speaker 2: Well, what happened was that the President seemed to suggest
Speaker 2: and PIS actually ordered its agents to exempt from enforcement
Speaker 2: all farms, meat packers, restaurants, and hotels. And that was crazy.
Speaker 2: It just doesn't make sense. And it only lasted though
Speaker 2: for a brief time. He was caving to pressure from
Speaker 2: business interests and from even within his own administration, the
Speaker 2: Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, who was kind of, in
Speaker 2: a sense more of agriculture's lobbyist in the administration rather
Speaker 2: than the administration's representative high culture.
Speaker 1: But we saw this is the first Trump term two
Speaker 1: that the Secretary of Agriculture was very hesitant towards a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. So that's not unusual. But I went
Speaker 1: to brook and during my monologue but go ahead, sorry,
Speaker 1: yeah so, but I.
Speaker 2: Mean it is an example of I guess regulatory capture
Speaker 2: is what they call it in political science. But the
Speaker 2: fact is President is a good relationship with her. He's
Speaker 2: also a businessman. He hears from other businessmen, and so
Speaker 2: you know, he said, okay, yeah, this is important, and
Speaker 2: so we'll back off on this. Well, immediately he faced
Speaker 2: not just a resistance from his own base, you know,
Speaker 2: people online and elsewhere saying this is crazy, but within
Speaker 2: the administration itself there was extreme pushback. I only know
Speaker 2: a few of the details. I can't really talk about
Speaker 2: what the little that I know, but there was strong pushback.
Speaker 2: And so on Monday they reversed course and set the
Speaker 2: kind of a message reversing the ban on doing immigration
Speaker 2: enforcement in the whole sectors of the economy. And it's
Speaker 2: good he did both for political and policy reasons that
Speaker 2: he stuck to his original you know, his original strategy.
Speaker 1: What gets me is, and I don't know if you
Speaker 1: saw this or not, it just and it is not
Speaker 1: important if you did him. But I was watching two
Speaker 1: Way the other morning on Monday morning when they were
Speaker 1: talking about this, and they had this is pre reversal,
Speaker 1: and Sean Spicer, who was in the first Trump cabinet,
Speaker 1: was a very high ranking member of the Republican Party
Speaker 1: for some time has probably a year close to the
Speaker 1: president still or mouth close to the president, sat there
Speaker 1: and said, this is republic the Republican Party's chance to
Speaker 1: really go big on immigration and get an amnesty done
Speaker 1: without voting rights, which is it drives me genuinely wanting
Speaker 1: to jump through screens to scream at people when they
Speaker 1: say you can pass amnesties without voting rights. You've been
Speaker 1: working on immigration longer than I have been an adult.
Speaker 1: No shame in that. You're very qualified to talk about this.
Speaker 1: Can you talk about for anyone who was like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's a reasonable position, Talk about what happens when judges
Speaker 1: get their hands on things like the eighty six Reagan amnesty,
Speaker 1: how they kept it going for years and expanding it
Speaker 1: for years after you know, it was even assigned by
Speaker 1: the presid that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, to adapt something Ronald Reagan used to say,
Speaker 2: immigration control is only one memo away from extinction. In
Speaker 2: other words, the business interests and the libertarian interest on
Speaker 2: the Republican side, even if they appear in magaphace, really
Speaker 2: haven't changed. They still want as soon as the opportunity
Speaker 2: presents itself, they're going to say, now is the time
Speaker 2: to amnesty all the illegal immigrants and to you know,
Speaker 2: expand legal immigration even more than the million we take
Speaker 2: it now every year. So that's always going to be there,
Speaker 2: and you know, eternal vigilance is the price of immigration control.
Speaker 2: So this incident didn't really surprise me, at least the
Speaker 2: impulses of the people trying to take advantage of it.
Speaker 2: For instance, there were some before even this happened, there
Speaker 2: was an open letter from a bunch of Republican congressmen.
Speaker 2: I think there were his Spanic Republicans from.
Speaker 3: Narius Sorrows and are was I did the name person
Speaker 3: she's baffering, Ladeo from California. He's actually not Hispanic, he's Portugese.
Speaker 3: But he's also horrendous on immigration.
Speaker 2: Immigration. But they were saying, look, we backed the president
Speaker 2: and we wanted to deport criminals too, but let's not
Speaker 2: deport anybody else. So that that impulse is always there.
Speaker 2: And you know, the president has changed the kind of
Speaker 2: the perspective of the party in general, but that perspective,
Speaker 2: that minority perspective, if you will, among Republicans isn't going away,
Speaker 2: and it's always going to try to, like a weed,
Speaker 2: you know, grow up through the cracks and the sidewalk
Speaker 2: again if it's allowed to.
Speaker 1: Well, you've been you've been going, You've been writing. I
Speaker 1: think you started writing in nineteen ninety five. I think
Speaker 1: that that was the year I looked you up because
Speaker 1: I was like, I actually know Mark for a long time,
Speaker 1: but I don't know his whole biography. He marine's in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five. In there when you started, right, Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton was the president. The Barbara Jordan Commission, and for
Speaker 1: those who don't know what it was, it was a
Speaker 1: Democratic black congresswoman who had started a commission on how
Speaker 1: to improve the lives of working class people, and she
Speaker 1: came up with the idea of you need to reduce
Speaker 1: legal immigration was going on, and it was Republicans that
Speaker 1: really killed Barbara Jordan Commission's full adoption because I think
Speaker 1: Clinton was willing to do it. How has the Republican
Speaker 1: Party changed since the mid nineties amics, as you have
Speaker 1: they aside from Donald Trump, are we just one non
Speaker 1: Trump election away from fading back into old habits?
Speaker 2: Well, just to defend the some of the Republicans back
Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety five, the legislation that was introduced based
Speaker 2: on the Barbara Jordan Commission was in the Republican Congress.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 2: Written by Republican Senator Al Simpson and the Senate and
Speaker 2: Lamar Smith, republic congressman in the House. It was killed
Speaker 2: though by or not killed, but it was gutted by
Speaker 2: Spencer Abraham, who was a pro business Republican in the Senate.
Speaker 2: So it was almost a kind of debate among Republicans.
Speaker 2: The Democrats weren't even really part of the discussion. And
Speaker 2: Clinton would have gone along with it so long as
Speaker 2: Barbara Jordan was alive, because the woman had real moral
Speaker 2: theft among Republicans. As soon as she died, he just
Speaker 2: flushed the whole thing down the toilet. And so Congress
Speaker 2: passed a good law, but it was just enforcement. It
Speaker 2: didn't include legal immigration cuts. And what's changed, I think
Speaker 2: is that, and it has changed on the Republican side,
Speaker 2: is that although there are still pro amnesty, These de
Speaker 2: facto open borders Republicans, they are now no longer in
Speaker 2: any position to be driving the bus. In other words,
Speaker 2: they're kind of the tolerated rump of the old Republican
Speaker 2: consensus on mass immigration, who agree on other issues and
Speaker 2: every coalition has many parts to it, but they are
Speaker 2: now clearly pushed to the back of the bus. They're
Speaker 2: not in any position to you know, kind of dictate
Speaker 2: terms to the rest of the party.
Speaker 1: That's who are for Okay, So for the average listener,
Speaker 1: because I always try to give my audience as much
Speaker 1: facts as they can possibly get, they don't get a
Speaker 1: you know, more narrative driven podcasting and television shows. Who
Speaker 1: are members of Congress that are driving the bus on
Speaker 1: a more restriction as side of lower levels of league
Speaker 1: immigration and enforcing the laws to actually get rid of
Speaker 1: illegal immigration. Who are some people that people should look
Speaker 1: at and say, this is the little leader you know.
Speaker 2: On illegal immigration and enforcement, which is an easier issue. Obviously,
Speaker 2: pretty much everybody in leadership is in good you know,
Speaker 2: is solid on that speaker Johnson. You know, people a
Speaker 2: lot of sort of are more excitable. People on the
Speaker 2: right are dissatisfied with what he's doing, but he's actually
Speaker 2: with a what three vote majority or something, been phenomenally effective.
Speaker 2: And they passed in the last Congress HR two, which
Speaker 2: had a whole panoply of important changes, the kinds of
Speaker 2: things that can't be in a reconciliation built in other words,
Speaker 2: that substantive changes, and they're going to reintroduce that. So
Speaker 2: on immigration enforcement, you're pretty much going to be, you know,
Speaker 2: almost all the Republicans are going to be pretty good.
Speaker 2: Legal immigration numbers is where the issue is, and I
Speaker 2: think in the House a future leader on this issue.
Speaker 2: All current leader is Chip Roy. He's good in other words,
Speaker 2: he's committed to broadly reducing immigration, not just enforcing the law.
Speaker 2: And an up and coming person a freshman is Brandon
Speaker 2: Gill from Texas, who's definitely wants to make this issue
Speaker 2: again legal numbers as well his and.
Speaker 1: Who was Brandon's a GC for his first campaign.
Speaker 2: I don't know, thank you? Oh really, okay, congratulations yet,
Speaker 2: thank you?
Speaker 1: Then it has to be Tom Cotton, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: Tom Cotton, clearly, Josh Hawley as well, he's sort of,
Speaker 2: you know, taken the lead on other issues, but he
Speaker 2: is definitely on this issue. And I got to say,
Speaker 2: even Ted Cruz has become better on the legal immigration issue.
Speaker 2: He used to be more of just a kind of
Speaker 2: conventional legal good, illegal bad Republican. In fact, he literally
Speaker 2: said that once on the four of the Senate, my
Speaker 2: immigration policy is legal good, illegal bad. And I was
Speaker 2: I felt like saying, Ted, that's like a joke, that's
Speaker 2: a meb, what are you doing? But he's gotten better.
Speaker 2: And yeah, and I'm gonna say, one of the best
Speaker 2: people who's no longer in the Senate is Jade Vance
Speaker 2: on irbiration. So you know, if knock on wood, you know,
Speaker 2: things work out. In three and a half years, I
Speaker 2: think we would have, you know, an actual restrictionist in
Speaker 2: the White House. Whereas with Trump. Look, I voted for
Speaker 2: the guy all three times. I'm delighted his president, but
Speaker 2: you know, he's not really a restrictionist. He's more of
Speaker 2: an enforced the law. But we need lots of legal immigrants.
Speaker 2: Would you say transitional figure? I think?
Speaker 1: Would you say he's the most conservative president immigration in
Speaker 1: your lifetime? Oh?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, no question about it. Well, I mean I don't know, let's.
Speaker 1: See, yeah, lifetime thus far. Okay, So the left, the
Speaker 1: Democrats and the left broadly have used the law Fair
Speaker 1: to try to slow down his agenda on immigration. How
Speaker 1: effective have they been because you've seen screaming on the
Speaker 1: part of you know, commentary and commentators that he is
Speaker 1: usurped the judiciary, which is never wrong in their eyes,
Speaker 1: to deep poorty illegal aliens. Have they have they been
Speaker 1: that effective on it because it feels like he's kind
Speaker 1: of doing what we need to get done to do
Speaker 1: mass deportation. Anyway.
Speaker 2: Uh, he's been way more effective than the first time around.
Speaker 2: They learned a lot of lessons. They learned if you're
Speaker 2: gonna spark a lawsuit, get the thing going early so
Speaker 2: you have time to work it through the courts and win.
Speaker 2: Because there were things triggers they pulled at the end
Speaker 2: of the last administration and they just ran out of
Speaker 2: time and so Biden just reversed them all. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: he's been much more effective. But the Lawfair, Look, it's
Speaker 2: been pretty effective, but it hasn't stopped them from doing
Speaker 2: what they need to do. And in fact, if anything,
Speaker 2: the bottleneck in getting more deportations, for instance, has been money.
Speaker 2: That's what the big beautiful bill is. You know, we're
Speaker 2: going to do it's not just hiring more ice agents
Speaker 2: of what have you, because that takes years to recruit
Speaker 2: and train people and all that. It's more money for
Speaker 2: detention space because you're going to arrest all the people
Speaker 2: you want. If you've got nowhere to hold them while
Speaker 2: you do the paperwork send them home, you end up
Speaker 2: having to let them go, and that's sort of missing
Speaker 2: the whole point. So I think once that bill is
Speaker 2: passed and the money is authorized or appropriated for them
Speaker 2: to let out more contracts for detention space, you're going
Speaker 2: to see deportations actually go up significantly, and there's just
Speaker 2: nothing that the other side can do in court stop that.
Speaker 2: The lawfair has mainly been about more narrow issues like
Speaker 2: that jew hating crackpot in New York. Who is the
Speaker 2: Columbia guy. That's just one guy, So it's holding up
Speaker 2: that there's that you know, the court case is, you know,
Speaker 2: getting a lot of attention, but it's just the detention
Speaker 2: of one guy, and they're deporting a thousand people while
Speaker 2: that's going on, you see what I mean. So so
Speaker 2: the lawfare is almost more a kind of to make
Speaker 2: the left feel better because they're stopping the deportation of
Speaker 2: one guy rather than actually interfering with the president's agenda.
Speaker 1: Damy's allowed, but jew hitting crack pop, which is a
Speaker 1: very funny turn of phrase, though.
Speaker 2: It applies to a lot of people. I'm afraid that's
Speaker 2: one hundred is untrue.
Speaker 1: I wanted so. I did a debate in October September
Speaker 1: of last year with the libertarian cant running for president
Speaker 1: in case Olive I think his name was, and he
Speaker 1: would say things and I want you to answer them,
Speaker 1: because this is what a lot of regular people here
Speaker 1: day in and day out. And on its face it
Speaker 1: sounds good policy, but it's not good policy. So why
Speaker 1: is it not a good idea just to let the
Speaker 1: market and businesses set immigration standards.
Speaker 2: Because there's an unlimited demand to come to the United States.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's only you know, what is it, seven
Speaker 2: and a half billion people outside the United States, but
Speaker 2: you know ten percent of them come here. The United
Speaker 2: States seas is to exist in any mediefal sense. And
Speaker 2: this idea of a market based immigration policy means that
Speaker 2: every American worker is now in direct competition with everybody
Speaker 2: abroad who have you know, totally different expectations about salary
Speaker 2: or work. You know, conditions or any any of that.
Speaker 2: We have immigration limits precisely because there's only so much
Speaker 2: immigration our system, broadly speaking, can successfully deal with, for instance,
Speaker 2: in work in employment, we have a post industrial knowledge
Speaker 2: based economy. If we're going to let everybody in the
Speaker 2: world in, we're going to end up with a third
Speaker 2: world low productivity economy, because that's what we be important.
Speaker 2: We have a welfare state. Libertarians say, oh, that's true,
Speaker 2: but let's just and welfare. Well, okay, you know, do
Speaker 2: that and then give me a call.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean.
Speaker 2: It's a part of any modern society. And then there's assimilation.
Speaker 2: Even one hundred or two hundred years ago, assimilation was
Speaker 2: still a difficult thing. It always is, but in a
Speaker 2: modern society with both advanced communications and transportation so that
Speaker 2: you can keep in touch, you know, with the old
Speaker 2: country and basically almost live in two countries at the
Speaker 2: same time, combined with a leadership class not just in
Speaker 2: government but in business and schools and religion everywhere that
Speaker 2: basically don't believe in assimilation. How can you americanize people?
Speaker 2: So a market driven immigration policy is just a fancy
Speaker 2: way of saying unlimited immigration and everybody sort of gets
Speaker 2: except for some libertarians, that unlimited immigration is bad for
Speaker 2: the country.
Speaker 1: And and what I think a lot of people don't know,
Speaker 1: because not everyone knows history, especially on this issue specifically,
Speaker 1: as well as maybe they should, is that for forty years,
Speaker 1: we essentially had almost no legal immigration. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was very close to zero between what was in nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty four, ninety four.
Speaker 2: Nineteen sixty five, and I think we happy immigration, but
Speaker 2: it was a lot lower than it had.
Speaker 1: Been and during their forty year period we had. It
Speaker 1: was funny. I had a tweet that went slightly viral
Speaker 1: because someone was saying, the the fact that there is
Speaker 1: a white that people are perceived as being white, is
Speaker 1: a means assimilation works. Yes, after two hundred years, several
Speaker 1: forced integration through through the draft wars. I think there
Speaker 1: was four drafts between or three drafts between the nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen sixty five Vietnam Korea and World War Two,
Speaker 1: and a unique culture people who all came from a
Speaker 1: regions two hundred miles apart from each other seemed to
Speaker 1: assimilate in America anyway. Sorry, Okay, last question for you.
Speaker 1: What is something that Congress should be moving forward? To
Speaker 1: achieve the president's agenda on immigration.
Speaker 2: Let me just mention two things that Congress would need
Speaker 2: to do. One is mandatory everify.
Speaker 1: That's explain, explain explain that though.
Speaker 2: That's the online system that it's free for employers to use,
Speaker 2: and what it involves is when you hire somebody, you
Speaker 2: do the payroll information with Social Security and IRS. Anyway,
Speaker 2: it's just another website you go to verify the person's
Speaker 2: lawfully authorized to work. And it's not perfect, but it's
Speaker 2: pretty good. It's it can be gained, but it's not
Speaker 2: easy to gain. And it exists now. It's up and
Speaker 2: running for a government program and actually works pretty well.
Speaker 2: But it's voluntary and so only about half of new
Speaker 2: hires of screens through it. Everybody needs to do that.
Speaker 2: It needs to be just a regular part of the
Speaker 2: hiring process on its own. It's not a magic bullet
Speaker 2: that's going to end illegal immigration, but it's kind of
Speaker 2: the lowest hanging fruit. The most obvious thing we need
Speaker 2: to do, and the other thing Congress needs to do
Speaker 2: is reform asylum rules because under Biden, that was the
Speaker 2: excuse for opening up the border was while these people
Speaker 2: are asylum seekers and Asylum is an artifact of the
Speaker 2: Cold War and the end of World War Two. It
Speaker 2: basically was invented in nineteen fifty one by UN treaty.
Speaker 2: The president can in fact start the process of reforming
Speaker 2: it by withdrawing from the UN Refugee treat we signed
Speaker 2: the nineteen sixty seven version of but it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 2: But the point is he can withdraw from the treaty.
Speaker 2: Congress still has to change the law, but I think
Speaker 2: politically the way to get the ball rolling is for
Speaker 2: the president to withdraw from the treaty. I actually suggested
Speaker 2: that to the White House last time, and some people
Speaker 2: were perceptive, and it never went anywhere mean because Jared
Speaker 2: Kushner liked the idea, or Ivanka was like, oh, that's mean,
Speaker 2: daddy or something. Anyway, whatever it is, it didn't happen.
Speaker 2: It's put completely within the president's power and it is
Speaker 2: essential because asylum is different from refugee reso refugees. We
Speaker 2: could do it badly. We often have ilan Omar as
Speaker 2: an example a case in point, but it's something that
Speaker 2: we It's an active American it's a sovereign act of
Speaker 2: the government. Asylum is an illegal alien, breaking into your
Speaker 2: country and saying you you have no choice but to
Speaker 2: let me stay because I have a right to stay
Speaker 2: here whether you like it or not. That has to change.
Speaker 2: It's the big vulnerability in all developed countries. Europe is
Speaker 2: facing this asylum being the way that is sort of
Speaker 2: the vehicle for illegal immigration. Israel is facing it, people
Speaker 2: waiting across the Jordan River from Africa and saying you know,
Speaker 2: you have to let me stay. Australia's dealt with it.
Speaker 2: So all modern societies need to deal with the sylo
Speaker 2: n Ultimately it's Congress that needs to fix that. In
Speaker 2: our case.
Speaker 1: Where can people go to read more about from americansern
Speaker 1: Immigration Studies and from your stuff?
Speaker 2: We're online at CIS dot org. Everything's there. We have
Speaker 2: new blog posts every day, and anything we do elsewhere,
Speaker 2: like op eds and stuff, we always have in the
Speaker 2: link in the in the blog. So that's kind of
Speaker 2: the one place to go. And if you like snark
Speaker 2: and sarcasm, I'm on Twitter at Mark s as In
Speaker 2: Stephen Mark s. Crecoria.
Speaker 1: Well Mark, thank you for being here. Check out Center
Speaker 1: for Immigration Studies. I love that website. I go to
Speaker 1: it all the time. Thank you for being on this podcast.
Speaker 1: Thank you Ryan, you're listening to It's The Numbers Game
Speaker 1: with Ryan Grodwsky. We'll be right back after this message.
Speaker 1: Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment of
Speaker 1: the show. I have to tell you I have received
Speaker 1: so many emails recently and it means so much to me,
Speaker 1: Like it's I'm very humble by because everything that I
Speaker 1: do in my professional life are most things I do
Speaker 1: in my professional life is very solitary. I don't work
Speaker 1: in an office. I really never have worked in an office.
Speaker 1: I do a podcast with just a producer. I'll do television.
Speaker 1: I'm invited with just a cameraman. I write alone. So
Speaker 1: I don't ever feel like anyone is listening. Even though
Speaker 1: I see number of reports, it doesn't mean as much
Speaker 1: as getting some human communication that there's somebody else on
Speaker 1: the other side of this phone or wherever you're listening.
Speaker 1: So it really it means a lot to me. If
Speaker 1: you want to be part of the ask Me Anything segment,
Speaker 1: if you want to ask me any questions on polling
Speaker 1: or policy or my favorite movie or whatever, email me
Speaker 1: ryanat Numbers Game podcast dot com. Let's plug Ryan at
Speaker 1: Numbers Game Podcast dot com I read every email, and
Speaker 1: those that I can't answer on air, I will personally
Speaker 1: email them back. So I have two questions this week.
Speaker 1: First question this week comes from Jill. She writes, after
Speaker 1: listening to your May twenty ninth podcast about shifting political landscapes,
Speaker 1: I am interested in your thoughts on whether Americans would
Speaker 1: come together if attacked by another country. Seeing videos of
Speaker 1: bombs falling on Tel Aviv. I fear politically divided America
Speaker 1: would not stand strong and united. Your thoughts that is
Speaker 1: a great question. Thank you for sending me that email.
Speaker 1: I think, like many people of a particular age, when
Speaker 1: I think about Americans coming together in a time of tragedy,
Speaker 1: I think about nine to eleven. It happened twenty four
Speaker 1: years ago. So it's weird to say people of a
Speaker 1: certain age because it feels like it was just like
Speaker 1: last year in some sense, like it doesn't feel like
Speaker 1: as long as it actually was. And you know, I
Speaker 1: don't talk a lot about my personal life, but nine
Speaker 1: to eleven was deeply, deeply personal to me in a
Speaker 1: certain way because my mom worked on the ninety seventh
Speaker 1: floor of Tower One. Thankfully she made it out alive
Speaker 1: because she wasn't in her office yet if she had been,
Speaker 1: she would have been killed. My uncle was a window
Speaker 1: washer at the World Trade Center, so and thankfully he
Speaker 1: made it out alive. So the memories of that day
Speaker 1: were very real because of how personal it was, and
Speaker 1: I guess parts of the country it was, but it
Speaker 1: wasn't at the same way. But they was a feeling
Speaker 1: of we should all be together. I would actually love
Speaker 1: to do a podcast for nine to eleven with my
Speaker 1: mom and my uncle on it and talk about that day.
Speaker 1: I didn't even mention this on to this to them yet.
Speaker 1: They have no idea. I'm going to pitch this them,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to do it and we'll see if
Speaker 1: they're if they'll be up in it, they'll be up
Speaker 1: for it. But growing up in New York City, I think,
Speaker 1: and being middle aged at this point, I think that
Speaker 1: that day and those memories of even the post nine
Speaker 1: to eleven are so palpable and more than than they
Speaker 1: even were when when it first happened, because there was
Speaker 1: a real sense of unity and that everyone was for
Speaker 1: New York City, which being a New Yorker, you know
Speaker 1: that doesn't happen very often. I think there was a
Speaker 1: Woody Allen line from Annie Hall where he thinks everyone,
Speaker 1: if the whole country thinks everyone from New York is
Speaker 1: a Jewish, pornographic homosexuals, a socialist. And I think that,
Speaker 1: and I live here. That's very much true how some
Speaker 1: people view in New York City. So the fact the
Speaker 1: whole country came together is super powerful, super meaningful, and
Speaker 1: I don't think it would happen again. I talked to
Speaker 1: a veteran recently who served in Iraq and signed up
Speaker 1: after nine to eleven, and he was from the middle
Speaker 1: of the country, and he said some of the effect
Speaker 1: of like viewing how New Yorkers feel about us, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't go fight for them anymore. And I feel like
Speaker 1: he's probably not alone. So my heart tells me that
Speaker 1: they would, that we would do it, but because of
Speaker 1: the Internet, because of grifters who try to make a
Speaker 1: name for themselves pedaling conspiracy theories or unpopular sentiment, attacking
Speaker 1: our own country, attacking our own people. I think that
Speaker 1: there would be a real incentive for people out there
Speaker 1: to make money by, you know, tearing each other down
Speaker 1: in a time when we really need help. And I
Speaker 1: just feel it that way. Maybe I'm wrong maybe. I
Speaker 1: mean the floods in North Carolina were a good example that,
Speaker 1: and the fires and flora in California were a good
Speaker 1: example of people rallying around and coming together. My heart
Speaker 1: tells me that they would, but my head sits there
Speaker 1: and says, now, they would probably use the moment to really,
Speaker 1: especially in a war, to fracture us. So all right,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to leave it on a down or not.
Speaker 1: I'm going to do one more email. Here's the here
Speaker 1: is the so, he says, HI love the podcast. First
Speaker 1: heard you on Claim Buck and had to follow yours. Truly,
Speaker 1: keep keep this brief, and I get a lot of emails,
Speaker 1: And I don't get a lot of emails, by the way,
Speaker 1: I just get very few, but I appreciate them. In
Speaker 1: response to your Omaha e Verify story you covered Friday
Speaker 1: years ago, I ran EACHR at a small manufacturing plant
Speaker 1: in Lincoln. I guess Lincoln, Nebraska, forty miles southwest of Omaha.
Speaker 1: Low paid, no skilled jobs, hard to hire folks. We
Speaker 1: employed ninety percent immigrants. Received a letter from Social Security
Speaker 1: that sixty of our one hundred and twenty social Security
Speaker 1: numbers were invalid, not stolen, but they did not exist.
Speaker 1: I put out a notice that we need to reverify
Speaker 1: their social secure numbers, so to bring their IDs and
Speaker 1: Social Security cards the next day and we could clear it.
Speaker 1: None showed up to work the next day or ever again.
Speaker 1: My CEO often turned a blind eye to this, for
Speaker 1: one simple operational reality is that he needs workers and
Speaker 1: they only be paid. Over the years, we had a
Speaker 1: handful of stolen ones, but mostly fake social Security numbers.
Speaker 1: I copy them all as an onboarding and they looked legit,
Speaker 1: like a legit documentation. At the Omaha plant, they are
Speaker 1: facing a similar situation. I suspect a few residents like
Speaker 1: to want to work there or at all, so the
Speaker 1: illegal aliens who want to are welcome by the company.
Speaker 1: Supply met demand, and the firm used e verify the
Speaker 1: best that they could quote unquote and hope that they'd
Speaker 1: fly under the radar. Illegal entry is a crime, and
Speaker 1: I am for deportations and against the bogus orchestrated protests,
Speaker 1: but I do understand the business's case when citizens would
Speaker 1: rather sit at home and lemmit that they can't start
Speaker 1: their careers at the same point as their parents are today.
Speaker 1: I don't mean that to paint everyone the same brush.
Speaker 1: But I'm a finance but I'm a finance professor and
Speaker 1: see enough of the stereotype. I'm afraid. While the manufacturers
Speaker 1: need workers to get product out the door. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: don't write often a podcast I follow, but the story
Speaker 1: was literally so close to my home. Appreciate your intellect. LW. Hughes, LW.
Speaker 1: Thank you for this email. Yeah. I speak to people
Speaker 1: all the time, business people, and they say, what do
Speaker 1: you want me to do? It is a problem with
Speaker 1: the fact that there are a lot of Americans who
Speaker 1: are comfortable enough and this is true my own family,
Speaker 1: that they don't let their teenage children or sometimes twenty
Speaker 1: some adudi year old children work because they don't have to.
Speaker 1: So there's millions out of the laborpool who could be
Speaker 1: getting jobs. Let's not even say agriculture jobs, but just
Speaker 1: some jobs out there that have to go to resources
Speaker 1: like illegal immigration. But there's also the problem of that
Speaker 1: we do give out visas. We give out a million
Speaker 1: plus visas a year. We don't do the job of
Speaker 1: having our visas because most visas, most green cards and
Speaker 1: visas are through family reunification and not through work needs,
Speaker 1: so we don't have enough going to the right place.
Speaker 1: One and two, employers do not want to go through
Speaker 1: the process of housing and transporting these people and applying
Speaker 1: for the visas. They just want the illegal alien stuff.
Speaker 1: And I understand the need of businesses to operate. I
Speaker 1: completely get that, but for in the agriculture industry, they
Speaker 1: should be doing two to three things. One, changing the
Speaker 1: agriculture visa to make it possible for people to apply easier.
Speaker 1: To mechanize because we have I have the machinery to
Speaker 1: do most farm labor. Now Japan doesn't have a plethora
Speaker 1: of Mexican showing up every year to do their rice patties.
Speaker 1: They have machines that do them. We could mechanize a
Speaker 1: lot of our labor force. And Three, we need to
Speaker 1: reform the way we do welfare to make sure able
Speaker 1: body people are working. I mean, that's just I think
Speaker 1: the three things. And I wish we had lived in
Speaker 1: a culture that would produce people who war teenagers in
Speaker 1: Ano their twenties to do jobs. I mean, that's just
Speaker 1: that's just, you know, they don't I agree with the
Speaker 1: old w Thank you for your email. I appreciate you.
Speaker 1: I appreciate all you guys. Please like and subscribe to
Speaker 1: this podcast each and every week. It means a lot.
Speaker 1: You can do it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcast. I'll speak to you guys
Speaker 1: on Thursday. Thank you,