Speaker 1: Welcome back to It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Gradusky.
Speaker 1: Thank you again for being here this week very special episodes.
Speaker 1: So right before the end of the year, the New
Speaker 1: York Times released a very important story about immigration, immigration
Speaker 1: being the number of net migrants that came in during
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's presidency. Net migration, of course, is the number
Speaker 1: of new immigrants who come to a country subtracted by
Speaker 1: those who have left, so that's where the net comes in.
Speaker 1: And the number of the net migrants that came in
Speaker 1: during Joe Biden's presidency from twenty twenty one to twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three averaged two point four million per year two
Speaker 1: point four million overall. During Biden's first three years with presidency,
Speaker 1: it was about eight million total. That's the Esmen number.
Speaker 1: Eight million is larger than the population of thirty seven
Speaker 1: US states. It's essentially like adding the state of Washington
Speaker 1: to the overall population again, a new state of Washington.
Speaker 1: All those people from diverse backgrounds into the country over
Speaker 1: a four year period, it was, according to the New
Speaker 1: York Times quote, the fastest pace of arrivals than during
Speaker 1: any other period, including the peak years of the Ellis
Speaker 1: Island it's the fastest rapid change of the country since
Speaker 1: eighteen fifty when illegal immigration remains a large part of
Speaker 1: the story. Legal immigration and executive actions like special programs
Speaker 1: to bring thirty thousand migrants a month from places like Venezuela, Haiti, Colombia,
Speaker 1: and Cuban Nicaragua are also added into it. It's a
Speaker 1: mixture of legal immigration, executive action, and illegal immigration. No
Speaker 1: doubt that this was a very big reason why Trump won.
Speaker 1: No doubt that part of the backlash towards the Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris presidency vice presidency, this was the surge of population.
Speaker 1: Because with that many new people comes a drain on resources,
Speaker 1: certain criminality, housing crisis, a lot of things followed all
Speaker 1: this surge of people, both legal and illegal. So it
Speaker 1: comes into question now that Donald Trump is approaching the
Speaker 1: presidency in just a few days, what can he do
Speaker 1: about it? What can he do to actually, you know,
Speaker 1: govern with his presidential mandate on immigration. Part of that
Speaker 1: is put into two different boxes, right, legal immigration versus
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, and another box is Congress what their responsibility is,
Speaker 1: what they have to do to help Trump achieve his agenda,
Speaker 1: and what he could do on his own. Those are
Speaker 1: the essential questions he will be looking at his administration
Speaker 1: will be looking at going into the initial first few days,
Speaker 1: going into the first month. That will be essential. And
Speaker 1: my first guest on this podcast ever, knows a lot
Speaker 1: about this because he was in the trenches the first
Speaker 1: time around. Back during the first term of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: THEO Wolds served as the Deputy Assistant at the President
Speaker 1: for Domestic Policy under Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner. He
Speaker 1: currently serves as a Solicitor to General for the Graces
Speaker 1: of Idaho, and he knows about more about this than
Speaker 1: basically anyone in the world. So thank you for coming
Speaker 1: on THEO. Thanks for adming Ryan so in an honor
Speaker 1: to be your first guest. Thanks for you well with you.
Speaker 1: You're a smart guy, and I know your time is valuable,
Speaker 1: so I really appreciate it THEO. What are some executive
Speaker 1: actions that the presidents oversaw during the first term of
Speaker 1: the Trump White House when it comes to immigration. I mean,
Speaker 1: we know the big ones like remain in Mexico and
Speaker 1: the travel ban, but what would you say were like
Speaker 1: some things that didn't make the cover of the New
Speaker 1: York Times or at people on MSMB screaming MSNBC screaming
Speaker 1: about that were essential for Trump to achieve any real
Speaker 1: gains when it came to immigration, both illegal and legal,
Speaker 1: and you think we're notework.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well so the first place I'd start is just
Speaker 2: to say, one of the central thesis that we had
Speaker 2: in the Trump administration on immigration policy in one point
Speaker 2: zero in Trump forty five was really this simple question
Speaker 2: that a mutual friend of ours, Ryan first gave to me.
Speaker 2: And I would repeat this almost as a yoga mantra,
Speaker 2: which is who decides who decides who's coming into the
Speaker 2: United States and under what terms? And how long are
Speaker 2: they going to stay for? And when you start to
Speaker 2: ask that question as sort of like the governing principle
Speaker 2: of any immigration action you want to take to expand
Speaker 2: immigration as some people like Lindsay grant that proposed over
Speaker 2: the years, or to contract it like some of our
Speaker 2: friends at Center for Immigration Studies have often advocated for.
Speaker 2: When you start to ask that question, then you really
Speaker 2: get a view of how little the average American or
Speaker 2: their elected representatives in Congress know or understand about the
Speaker 2: year to year immigration flows. And I think that's great
Speaker 2: that you started with net migration, because again, it will
Speaker 2: come as a shop And I do this experiment quite
Speaker 2: often when I speak to to lay groups here in Idaho,
Speaker 2: just you know, your local rotary club or a group
Speaker 2: of Republican dentists or something, and I'll say, you know,
Speaker 2: how many legal we're not talking illegal, but legal immigrants
Speaker 2: came into the United States last year? And usually, you know,
Speaker 2: they'll throw out a number of like five hundred thousand,
Speaker 2: and it will come as an absolute shock to your
Speaker 2: average American that legally we let in about one point
Speaker 2: five million people every year, or as you said, you know,
Speaker 2: to give another example of this, a city the size
Speaker 2: of San Jose is added to the United States every
Speaker 2: year and the composition of that one point five million.
Speaker 2: Some of them come under the EB five EB three visas,
Speaker 2: which are investor visas. They open a business or they're
Speaker 2: willing to put up so much capital in the United
Speaker 2: States so they get a greedy card.
Speaker 1: Some are coming through family immigration status. The bulk is family.
Speaker 1: That's change. The bulk is the bulk by far is
Speaker 1: family migration.
Speaker 2: Yes, but some come through means like the diversity of
Speaker 2: the lottery, which is often talked about. You know inside
Speaker 2: the Beltway, inside Washington, d C circles, But the average
Speaker 2: American has no idea that fifty five thousand legal immigrants
Speaker 2: come to the United States every year who have no
Speaker 2: prior ties, they have no famine.
Speaker 1: Why say, somebody for diversity vis the lottery explain that.
Speaker 2: So the diversity thes The lottery was a concoction of
Speaker 2: in large part Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer in the
Speaker 2: early nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1: It was meant to power brain trust that learned to
Speaker 1: trust in Washington. Always, Chuck Schumer, go ahead, Yeah.
Speaker 2: When they're gaining up, it's always going to be a
Speaker 2: good result for the American people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so their view.
Speaker 2: Ted Kennedy had a particular obsession with increasing immigration from
Speaker 2: Ireland because of the way the immigration flows were structured
Speaker 2: at that time under the Heart Seller Immigration Act in
Speaker 2: the nineteen sixties, which essentially did away with some of
Speaker 2: the migration caps, the ethnic or racial caps that were imposed.
Speaker 2: In nineteen twenty, he bring some flows to the entire world.
Speaker 2: Ted Kennedy thought that Ireland was really losing out on
Speaker 2: its possibilities of increasing net migration into historic Irish American
Speaker 2: cities like Boston, and so the Diversity Lottery was designed
Speaker 2: to ensure that nation states that have low representation in
Speaker 2: our overall immigration flows, either because of family chain migration
Speaker 2: or the investor visas or the short term labor employment visas,
Speaker 2: that the Diversity Lottery is meant to target those nation
Speaker 2: states increase their overall representation almost if you will, DEI
Speaker 2: for our nation's immigration system.
Speaker 1: And well, and then I asked you a question. Is
Speaker 1: Ireland still represented in that number? Yeah? Oh cool, not
Speaker 1: at all. Wait a minute, they have a long term
Speaker 1: vision there, Teddy Kennedy. So who does come on the
Speaker 1: diversity visa.
Speaker 2: It at It's a great question. So just last week
Speaker 2: I had an Uber driver who was from Sri Lanka
Speaker 2: and I have some interesting tie to Srila.
Speaker 1: Got my wife and I honeymoon there, for example. And
Speaker 1: I said to him, I said, oh, Sri Lanka.
Speaker 2: You know, when I was in Sri Lanka, not many
Speaker 2: people actually knew much about America. But you know, they
Speaker 2: thought we were British because of the traditional Commonwealth connections
Speaker 2: to England. And he said, yeah, yeah, you know, I
Speaker 2: came here kind of on luck. And I said, what
Speaker 2: do you mean by luck? He said, I'm a winner
Speaker 2: of the Diversity Lottery. Oh, how did you know to
Speaker 2: apply for that? Well, my neighbor, he and his wife
Speaker 2: had applied for it for years and they told us
Speaker 2: about it. He never won, but I put my name
Speaker 2: in and first time I got chosen. And that's what
Speaker 2: the Diversity Lottery is doing, right. Fifty five thousand people
Speaker 2: a year, no prioritized, no family connections here, don't necessarily
Speaker 2: have to speak the language, have any understanding about our civics,
Speaker 2: our form of government, the constitution. And that is by
Speaker 2: design how the Diversity Lottery chooses these people. And by
Speaker 2: and large, the Diversity Lottery will cap participation of nation
Speaker 2: states that are overrepresented. So you will not get any Mexican,
Speaker 2: Mexican nationals, Chinese nationals, Indian nationals winning the Diversity Lottery.
Speaker 2: You will see Kazakhstani's, Huzbaki's, Sri Lankan's, Bhutanese. Those are
Speaker 2: the kinds of people. Nepalese are big winners in the
Speaker 2: versus lottery. And then a lot of countries, Well I.
Speaker 1: Did with that, our Appleleese nationals right, And the biggest
Speaker 1: defenders of the Diversity Lottery today is the Congressional Black Caucus.
Speaker 2: They see it as a non negotiable item because often
Speaker 2: the versity lottery will come up in these discussions about
Speaker 2: comprehensive immigration reform. Well, let's take those fifty five thousand,
Speaker 2: you know, diversity latter of visa slots and turn those
Speaker 2: green cards into more H one b's or something. And
Speaker 2: the Congressional Black Caucus will say, absolutely not, because those
Speaker 2: fifty five thousand year year really increased the overall share
Speaker 2: of African immigration into the United States, and.
Speaker 1: They feel like by bringing in more black people as
Speaker 1: better representation for them, because most Black members represent black
Speaker 1: majority districts overwhelming They did right, right, And this is
Speaker 1: the this is the feature that is so often overlooked.
Speaker 2: And Ryan, I think you're you're very, very unique in
Speaker 2: this respect, which is seeing the connection between immigration policy
Speaker 2: and the raw brass tacks of electoral politics and Congressional
Speaker 2: Black Caucus members, as you said, they want to see
Speaker 2: the increase of the African diaspora because that will increase
Speaker 2: their percentage share of seats and also the power of
Speaker 2: their of their representation for their constituency in Congress. So
Speaker 2: you know, the point about raising the diversity lottery is
Speaker 2: here's this little rabbit ward of a visa class that
Speaker 2: most Americans have no idea about, but fifty five thousand
Speaker 2: over ten years starts to be pretty significant.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Let's just say, for example, let's just take a random
Speaker 2: visa class here, you know, just just a random one,
Speaker 2: and we say, oh, well, you know, look, the American
Speaker 2: people have nothing to worry about because this random visa
Speaker 2: class is capped eighty five.
Speaker 1: Thousand a year.
Speaker 2: And let's say this visa class is dedicated to improving
Speaker 2: high skilled.
Speaker 1: Workers in the visa first.
Speaker 2: You know, yeah, we could say, hypothetically we called Bagman
Speaker 2: b people say, well, there's there's nothing to worry about, Ryan,
Speaker 2: because it's just eighty five thousand people a year. And
Speaker 2: this is part of the game that the policy makers
Speaker 2: and the immigration open borders lobby play with the American people,
Speaker 2: which is it's eighty five thousand year, but one individual
Speaker 2: visa in that eighty five thousand is good for six years.
Speaker 1: And so the next greeneryard you can then switch from
Speaker 1: from visa to green card, from green cartesses and then
Speaker 1: through family migration, sponsor a whole village. Eventually.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right, right, even staying within the terms of
Speaker 2: those eighty five, it's eighty five this year, and eighty
Speaker 2: five next year, and eighty five the year after that,
Speaker 2: and so very quickly that eighty five thousand, they said,
Speaker 2: don't worry, you're pretty little little head about because it's
Speaker 2: just eighty five thousand quickly becomes six hundred thousand people, right,
Speaker 2: or you know, very quickly becomes as you noted, net
Speaker 2: migration two point two million a year, or a city
Speaker 2: the size of Houston coming into the United States every year,
Speaker 2: taking jobs, taking social services, crowding our schools, crowding our
Speaker 2: emergency rooms. And look like where I live in Idaho,
Speaker 2: you know, the second fastest grossing state in the country.
Speaker 2: We don't have the infrastructure to support American citizens, let
Speaker 2: alone the influx of assylies and refugees who are coming
Speaker 2: into into the state, coming into the country. So on
Speaker 2: the numbers alone and the pathway you just named, I mean, really,
Speaker 2: this this sort of myopic focus that has happened on
Speaker 2: the last two weeks on H one B, I've kind
Speaker 2: of found amusing because the real pathogen in this whole
Speaker 2: chain of displacing American workers starts with the student visas.
Speaker 1: I mean, the pathway. Is no one avertars to the
Speaker 1: student visas you're listening to. It's a numbers game with
Speaker 1: Ryan Gerdsky. We'll be right back when you talk about
Speaker 1: Idaho and how fast Idaho is growing, and many cities
Speaker 1: have experienced this giant influx, especially during the Biden presidency
Speaker 1: because he let the whole world in. Everyone talks about
Speaker 1: housing primarily as a demands issue. We don't build enough houses, sorry,
Speaker 1: as a supply issue. They don't talk about as a
Speaker 1: demand issue that there were so many more new people
Speaker 1: per year asking for housing that it's a course causing
Speaker 1: prices to rise excemely high in some metro markets. It's
Speaker 1: not just a supply issue. It is a demand issue
Speaker 1: primarily driven by immigration. And there's other things that go
Speaker 1: into this. I don't want to focus completely on that,
Speaker 1: but yeah, that's a big part of it, as well
Speaker 1: as the plethora of visas like the student music you mentioned, So.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right on the demand side. And you know,
Speaker 2: I don't want to wear the tinfoil hat here, but
Speaker 2: I think it's reasonable at this juncture to say, well,
Speaker 2: who are the biggest backers for expanding legal immigration? And
Speaker 2: when you go through the numbers and the recipients either
Speaker 2: of these short term labor visas or the people who
Speaker 2: expend the most resources in Washington lobbying for expanding the
Speaker 2: visa carve outs. Remember this is another number here. There
Speaker 2: are over one hundred and eighty five separate visa classes
Speaker 2: and categories. One hundred and eighty five. I mean there's
Speaker 2: a visa for ice dancers and cardival cruise ship performers,
Speaker 2: right right, There's a visa nearly for everything. So the
Speaker 2: people who are always looking to expand the nexus of
Speaker 2: those visas and to expand the total numbers that are
Speaker 2: issued year to year, they often turn out to be
Speaker 2: the same people who are buying up residential neighborhoods, who
Speaker 2: are speculating in the.
Speaker 1: Creation of new apartment buildings.
Speaker 2: And the question I get asked all the time here
Speaker 2: in the Boise metro area with the construction of new
Speaker 2: apartment facilities and the building of all these new suburb
Speaker 2: you know, sort of flop, you know, suburban homes. Is
Speaker 2: who's coming to live in these? And you look and
Speaker 2: see who the financiers and who the constructors are, and
Speaker 2: it's black Rock, It's Vanguard. I mean, just as people
Speaker 2: have long started to figure out, and who are those
Speaker 2: people advocating for not the American worker, those are some
Speaker 2: of the people, the biggest fish advocating for expanded short
Speaker 2: term visas and expanding the F one, the M one,
Speaker 2: the J one, the H one, B and so they're
Speaker 2: filling the apartments with short term and seeking immigrants. Well,
Speaker 2: and it's it's sort of an unbreakable cycle, if you will.
Speaker 1: Now going back to the original question, is there anything
Speaker 1: a lot of those things are done by Congress. Is
Speaker 1: there anything the executive branch can do on its own,
Speaker 1: the press can do on its own when it comes
Speaker 1: to immigration, when it comes to maybe making the threshold
Speaker 1: to qualify for those visas much harder. Yeah, here, here's
Speaker 1: like a couple of basic things. So at the very
Speaker 1: end of the administration the last year and a half,
Speaker 1: the President asked me to essentially rewrite the Immigration and
Speaker 1: Naturalization Act, you know, all several thousand pages of it,
Speaker 1: and typical Trump fashion, he said, dude, in two weeks.
Speaker 1: But you can hire, but you can hire.
Speaker 2: Whoever you want to help you to you, okay, And
Speaker 2: so you know what I asked around, We've got some
Speaker 2: of the best people on on sort of our side,
Speaker 2: if you will, work in Congress, on the Committees of
Speaker 2: Judiciary and Senate and the House, some of the folks
Speaker 2: who are embedding the civil Service at DHS, and we
Speaker 2: really did do a significant rewrite. I mean, we took
Speaker 2: the text from the beginning to the end, and look,
Speaker 2: I mean the inventory of the oddities, you know, the
Speaker 2: vast discrepancies in the actual text, the statutory text of
Speaker 2: the Immigration and Naturalization I mean, it would make a
Speaker 2: lot of your listener's eyes glaze over. But for policy
Speaker 2: and legal wanks, it would shock people to know how
Speaker 2: porous and how indefensible a lot of what we think
Speaker 2: are ironclad statutes statutory text in that in the overall Act,
Speaker 2: how really broken they are. But a couple of the
Speaker 2: things that we really worked on to give you an
Speaker 2: example in this this answers your question. Ryan. Back in
Speaker 2: the nine to eleventh Commission report, which seems like ancient history, now,
Speaker 2: there were a number of do outs that the nine
Speaker 2: to eleven Commission asked Congress to pursue, and a lot
Speaker 2: of them, no surprise, had to do with legal immigration, because,
Speaker 2: as it's often sort of bandied about on x and
Speaker 2: social media.
Speaker 1: You know, the nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: Hijackers were all legal immigrants to United States. They were
Speaker 2: given visas and came into this country, uh, totally legally,
Speaker 2: and so ronos do outdate pass the visa? Which is
Speaker 2: which is which is honestly, fifty three percent of our
Speaker 2: illegal immigration population used to be around sixty two percent prior.
Speaker 1: To people who are legally allowed to come and then
Speaker 1: oversaw their visas and they get it and never lost Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you ever leave, and then Democrats will later beg
Speaker 1: that we give them some kind of legal status even
Speaker 1: though they violated the terms under which the American people
Speaker 1: originally allowed them to come into the country in a
Speaker 1: first place. Right, that's right? So what are the do
Speaker 1: outs from the nine to eleven Commission?
Speaker 2: Was very simple and it was modeled after what a
Speaker 2: lot of our peers do around the world, which is
Speaker 2: the concept is called to push the boundaries, the borders
Speaker 2: of the United States out And what does that mean, Well,
Speaker 2: you know in Australia, and Australia is really not, you know,
Speaker 2: the poster boy for great immigration policy anymore.
Speaker 1: They used to be.
Speaker 2: But Australia doesn't allow anyone to board a Quantus or
Speaker 2: British Airways airplane headed for Sydney unless you have a
Speaker 2: verifiable proof of visa or documentation that you have been
Speaker 2: granted asylum. The United States doesn't do that. Anyone could
Speaker 2: get on an airplane coming to JFK or LAX, show
Speaker 2: up and then say, oops, I claim asylum or OPSI
Speaker 2: I bought this ticket, but I don't actually have a
Speaker 2: visa to be here. And so the idea pushing the
Speaker 2: borders out is to say the State Department, in conjunction
Speaker 2: with EHS, when folks come for their visa adjudication, for
Speaker 2: their appointment, to argue or to pursue the paperwork to
Speaker 2: get a visa, they need to provide us with biometric
Speaker 2: information upfront, collect the biometric information and ryan. It sounds
Speaker 2: so simple, but if you do this, the number of
Speaker 2: people who will drop out of the process because they
Speaker 2: know they're coming to gain the United States. They know
Speaker 2: our system is incredibly permial. So just saying you know what,
Speaker 2: if you show up at a consulate or an embassy
Speaker 2: requesting a student visa or travel visa, We're going to
Speaker 2: take all of your biometric information here, and now we're
Speaker 2: going to know who you are. The amount of fraud
Speaker 2: that occurs in our system when Ryan Gurdusky, uh, you know,
Speaker 2: makes an appligation at the state department at a consulate
Speaker 2: let's say Poland or Slovakia and is not the actual
Speaker 2: Ryan Graduski who shows up an lax. So verifying the
Speaker 2: online identity of the applicant with the person who actually
Speaker 2: arrives in you as another big f exit. And then
Speaker 2: you know, look, here's another one that we can do
Speaker 2: very quickly, which is to say no status adjustments.
Speaker 1: And this is right, this is a part part of
Speaker 1: the innovation. Just explain what status adjustment is, right.
Speaker 2: So status adjustment, let's say, you know, back to that
Speaker 2: H one B pipeline we were discussing a moment ago.
Speaker 2: A lot of the H one B population actually comes
Speaker 2: into the country originally on an F one or an
Speaker 2: M one student visa, and they're attending you know, we
Speaker 2: like to think that all these people are BRAINI acts
Speaker 2: at Harvard, but in many cases they're at fake diploma mills.
Speaker 2: I mean, there was a great bust under the Trump
Speaker 2: administration in Virginia. It was a Virginia Polytechnic Institute for
Speaker 2: Computer Science, and it was a diploma mill in the
Speaker 2: basement of a seven eleven in a and though it
Speaker 2: was a totally fake institution.
Speaker 1: That's the question. How some of these universes go bankrupt
Speaker 1: Like Bernie Sanders's wife friend of college, they ran bankrupt,
Speaker 1: Like how did you manage to bankrupt the college? They
Speaker 1: give you free money, and you can bribe visa holders
Speaker 1: across the world really and they'll pay full freight full
Speaker 1: really horrendous business model. You got there, uh, missus Sanders? Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: So that's and once they get there.
Speaker 2: They so they come in on their their F one,
Speaker 2: on their student visa, and then their employer, let's say,
Speaker 2: you know, they're they're sponsored for a summer internship or something,
Speaker 2: and says, you know, it'd be really great if you
Speaker 2: could make this application for the OPT program, the Optional
Speaker 2: Practical Training Program, which was originally designed to help America
Speaker 2: provide agricultural sciences like it basically like a subsidization and
Speaker 2: augmentation to the Peace Corps and is really now part
Speaker 2: of this the tech worker pipeline. And so they have
Speaker 2: to adjust their status. They're here on an F one,
Speaker 2: they have to apply to DHS in the State Department
Speaker 2: and say I would like now to be considered for
Speaker 2: one of the openings in this optional practical training program.
Speaker 2: And from optional practical training, then they'll make a status
Speaker 2: adjustment application to say I'd like to now apply for
Speaker 2: an H one B, and could I And then the
Speaker 2: final as you noted a moment ago, is the final
Speaker 2: sort of chain in the status adjustment pathway is to say, well,
Speaker 2: I have an H one B, I'd like to be
Speaker 2: considered now with the sponsorship of my employer, to adjust
Speaker 2: into a green card. And once you have a green card,
Speaker 2: five years to citizenship. So one thing we could say
Speaker 2: is just like, hey, look the gig is up. No
Speaker 2: more status adjustments, or you can only do status adjustments
Speaker 2: this percentage of people every year and only if you.
Speaker 1: Are willing to put up this kind of capital.
Speaker 2: And my personal favorite, the one I keep advocating for,
Speaker 2: is you hand over all of your personal banking information
Speaker 2: to us because you want to solve overstays real quickly.
Speaker 2: You say, every time you open an account in this country,
Speaker 2: a credit card, a banking account, the United States government
Speaker 2: is going to garnish any money that you earn or
Speaker 2: spend until you leave right so like look like you're
Speaker 2: you're not supposed to be here, you overstayed, You're welcome,
Speaker 2: and when you open an account, you get a paycheck
Speaker 2: that's going straight to the US taxpayers because they didn't
Speaker 2: agree for you to be here.
Speaker 1: And you'll see people really very quickly start to leave
Speaker 1: the country. And that's so so smart because people constantly
Speaker 1: say when they think of massy portations, uh Ilion Gonzalez,
Speaker 1: where we're going to have you know, troopers break into
Speaker 1: a boy's bedroom with guns pointed him in the closet.
Speaker 1: And what it really is is making sure people leave
Speaker 1: by making their lives inconvenient when they're breaking the law,
Speaker 1: brazenly breaking the law. What about illegal immigration, which is
Speaker 1: the one that everyone talks about, but I mean you
Speaker 1: mentioned extending the extending the Bayrier, the borders the United States.
Speaker 1: That's really what Remained in Mexico did to a necessarily
Speaker 1: exactly yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: That was that was having worked on Remain in Mexico
Speaker 2: and spent you know, years of my life working on it,
Speaker 2: that was I was absolutely the understanding pieces there, which was,
Speaker 2: let's make this somebody else's problem. If they're if they're
Speaker 2: not willing to defend their own borders and allowed caravans
Speaker 2: and uh, you know, Chinese nationals to traverse their airways
Speaker 2: to come into our country. Then we'll say no longer,
Speaker 2: are you able to immediately declare uh, you know, asylum
Speaker 2: of refugee status once you touch American soil, you're you're going.
Speaker 1: To be adjudicated in due time. In due time, but
Speaker 1: we're not.
Speaker 2: Releasing you into the interior United States. You can wait,
Speaker 2: and you can wait where you came from, which is
Speaker 2: usually through Mexico, and we'll get to you, and we
Speaker 2: get to you. So that same concept I mean with
Speaker 2: illegal immigration. I think what you just said, that's one
Speaker 2: of the crucial pieces. I mean, you know, as a
Speaker 2: big you know, power fan, I mean, Powell was laughed
Speaker 2: at in the sixties and seventies for this idea of
Speaker 2: incentivized repatriation, which is probably more generous than I think
Speaker 2: is necessary under current circumstances. But Pale said, you know,
Speaker 2: everyone's got a price, right, and a lot of these
Speaker 2: immigrants would be willing to return to Ceylon, you know,
Speaker 2: to Rhodijia, to wherever. If we if we just said, look,
Speaker 2: here's two thousand dollars two thousand pounds, you know, just
Speaker 2: for inflation, but two thousand pounds and you can go home.
Speaker 1: Episodes. I'm already bring up Enoch Pal. This is going
Speaker 1: to be out there. Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, but but like, but the same notion here is
Speaker 2: to say we're sort of like what we call, you know,
Speaker 2: the kill switch on the financial system, is to say,
Speaker 2: it's a little less good for you to be an
Speaker 2: illegal alien here, a little bit better for the American citizen.
Speaker 2: And so we're going to shut off your ability to
Speaker 2: earn illegally in a shadow economy, to earn an income
Speaker 2: on the backs of American workers. And so it's not
Speaker 2: a raid. It's not guys in you know, kevlar vest
Speaker 2: with you know, heavy arm and storming into someone's house.
Speaker 1: It's just saying, hey, you.
Speaker 2: Know, your ability to freeload off of the American people
Speaker 2: ended yesterday, right. A lot of a lot of immigrants
Speaker 2: will actually return when they realized they can no longer
Speaker 2: defraud the American people in the shadow economy.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's a really important part that people.
Speaker 1: People listen. A lot of immigrants are very nice, and
Speaker 1: a lot of immigrants work very very hard. There's a
Speaker 1: ton of the every minute. I don't have anything against them,
Speaker 1: but people one, they'll sell the lie that immigrants don't
Speaker 1: take any welfare at all, where if they have a
Speaker 1: child here and the child goes to school, they're definitely
Speaker 1: using government taxpayer money for that. If they go to
Speaker 1: the hospital, if they go to prison, if they use
Speaker 1: our roads, if they use any of our systems whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It is a drain on the tenet taxpayers. What the
Speaker 1: taxpayer is putting out there. They don't pay income tax
Speaker 1: most of the time, they pay sales tax or where
Speaker 1: the hell it is, but not an income tax. And
Speaker 1: also the fact is if they have a child, the
Speaker 1: child then has the ability to enroll in every welfare
Speaker 1: program under the sun. That's right, And that's what people
Speaker 1: don't see is they don't have They're like eligal immigrants
Speaker 1: don't take welfare, no, but their children that they bear
Speaker 1: into this country do. As I mentioned before, Biden created
Speaker 1: this program for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguins to come
Speaker 1: in thirty thousand months to sit here and apply for
Speaker 1: legal status. Well they did that because he didn't want
Speaker 1: them rushing the border anymore. They just flew them into
Speaker 1: the country, and they just diverted the flow to in
Speaker 1: different category. I'll tell you something wild. This CDC just
Speaker 1: prot of the number five percent of all births from
Speaker 1: non Hispanic Black women in this country were from Haitian
Speaker 1: born women. Last year of Venezuelans having children increased by
Speaker 1: five hundred percent in a one year, because specifically, they
Speaker 1: know that this is their ticket to never being deported,
Speaker 1: never or getting part of the American welfare system, or
Speaker 1: having a footal where the kid can sponsor them for
Speaker 1: chain migration through family migration, family visa. All of this
Speaker 1: is very much how they know the system and how
Speaker 1: they rig the system, and they know the system better
Speaker 1: than the average American knows the system.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think here's a little shorthand tip for
Speaker 2: your listeners to educate themselves, to empower them in their
Speaker 2: discussions with elected officials or when their score keeping at
Speaker 2: home on who to believe you trust on this issue.
Speaker 1: You'll hear a lot of.
Speaker 2: Members of Congress say, hey, I'm with you Ryan, and
Speaker 2: hey THEO, I'm with you on this immigration issue. And
Speaker 2: how you know how byzantine it's become, how how it's
Speaker 2: diverted by all these special interests. But look, I gotta
Speaker 2: have you know, my my my agricultural guys in my
Speaker 2: district got to have workers, my roofers, construction guy for
Speaker 2: and constantly rot in the field. Yeah, you gotta have labors.
Speaker 2: And here's the easy test at this juncture in our
Speaker 2: nation's history. I'm not saying this is this is ideal.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying this is what I want. But I'm saying,
Speaker 2: at this point, you want to take the temperature of
Speaker 2: these kinds of elected officials, and you say, great, then
Speaker 2: get your dairymen, get your apple picking crews.
Speaker 1: Get your slaughter house guys, and let's all agree that
Speaker 1: you can have your short term labor visas your H
Speaker 1: one is your H two b's and everyone will agree
Speaker 1: there's no more birthright citizenship. Right.
Speaker 2: They will piss and moan, they will fight tooth and nail,
Speaker 2: and they will oppose any change.
Speaker 1: To birth right slationship. And that's how you know they're lying, because.
Speaker 2: If they say, well, they're just short term workers, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: they're human beings, and human beings do human things. They
Speaker 2: form relationships, they have babies, and once those babies become
Speaker 2: American citizens, then you have now subverted the demographic trajectory
Speaker 2: of the country. You have created wards of the state
Speaker 2: who are entitled to entitled it spending welfare and the like,
Speaker 2: and changed and the right to vote. So if they
Speaker 2: were serious about short term labor visas, which they're not,
Speaker 2: they would be one hundred percent behind the effort for
Speaker 2: Congress to change the statutes on birthright citizenship or President
Speaker 2: Trump's efforts to executive action to change birth right ssitions.
Speaker 1: Well, e then, but they don't support that. You're listening
Speaker 1: to it's a numbers game with Ryan Grodski. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back after this message. I'll close on this and
Speaker 1: I'll ask this questions. The last question, what can the
Speaker 1: president the presidents talk about changing birthright citizenship? Obvious, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has ruled about birthright citizenship for legal residents
Speaker 1: that they have the legal right to declare to be
Speaker 1: citizenship at they're legally here. The Supreme Court is not
Speaker 1: one time ruled on illegal immigration. That is a complete thing.
Speaker 1: We just we are what does and culders say by
Speaker 1: dictum we are sitting there and giving illegal alien citizenship.
Speaker 1: Can the president, through executive action and birth right citizenship
Speaker 1: for illegal alliance. Yes.
Speaker 2: So I wrote two of the executive orders for the
Speaker 2: President on birth right citizenship last time. And that's a
Speaker 2: separate discussion about the deep state, how the deep state,
Speaker 2: even in the Trump White House, operated and subverted your
Speaker 2: real work product. But one of the executive orders look
Speaker 2: at two things. The Constitution is very clear. The children
Speaker 2: of consular or ambassadorial officials, they are not entitled by
Speaker 2: natural birth in the US to US citizenship. And that
Speaker 2: makes sense. The representatives of a foreign nation, right, they
Speaker 2: have no allegiance to our government. They're only here representing
Speaker 2: their government. Yet it is so almost standard practice today.
Speaker 2: It's almost standard practice that when the Spanish ambassadors White
Speaker 2: gives birth in DC hospital, officials will walk in and
Speaker 2: present her with an application for a Social Security Card
Speaker 2: and averse birth certificate. Oh it's Ryan as is dead,
Speaker 2: you cop. Oh, it happens everywhere in the country. And
Speaker 2: so you think about it. Who has the largest legitimate
Speaker 2: form presence in the United States. The government of Mexico
Speaker 2: with one hundred and thirty two consulates.
Speaker 1: All of those consulate officials live and work in our communities,
Speaker 1: and we have a consulate office here in Boise, and
Speaker 1: those officials on behalf of the Mexican government, where they
Speaker 1: will have human relations, they'll give birth to children, and
Speaker 1: when they go to the hospital here, they will be
Speaker 1: presented social security application, a birth certificate application. So the
Speaker 1: easiest thing that the executive work could do is one.
Speaker 2: Say we're not doing that anymore and instruct all secretaries
Speaker 2: of state or those who handle vital statistics in state
Speaker 2: governments that say, you are no longer to be issuing.
Speaker 1: If you were, that's bad news.
Speaker 2: You're not supposed to be, but you are no longer
Speaker 2: able to issue birth certificate applications to foreign ambassadorial consulate officials.
Speaker 2: That's an easy test case. Your listeners may say, well,
Speaker 2: what does that do. It's just an easy test case
Speaker 2: to get appellate courts to degree. Yep, that is what
Speaker 2: the constitution says. And then the next step is an
Speaker 2: executive order that we worked on. I mean, these were
Speaker 2: combined in one vehicle, but to say now we know
Speaker 2: for certain that it's an arguable question as to whether
Speaker 2: or not legal residents are entitled by birth natural birth
Speaker 2: on US soil to citizenship. That's fine, we can argue
Speaker 2: about that another day, but we know for certain it
Speaker 2: does not extend to illegal immigrants. The executive order was
Speaker 2: two paragraphs long, two paragraphs long, and you have your
Speaker 2: perfect test case. It will be sued for injunction immediately
Speaker 2: by leftist groups and you're on your way too, Supreme Court. Right.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's so crazy because when the whole
Speaker 1: thing was happening in New York, I heard that an
Speaker 1: entire floor of the Roosevelt Hotel was just basically an
Speaker 1: award for women to give birth. Yeah, birth, that was
Speaker 1: exactly what was happening. I mean, there are the the
Speaker 1: what is it called pregnancy, pregnancy hospitality or pregnancy tourism?
Speaker 1: Is birth tourism is huge. You have Russians in Florida,
Speaker 1: you have a plethora of people coming Chinese to makem
Speaker 1: count California, and South Americans coming through Texas, and you
Speaker 1: have people all over the globe coming to New York
Speaker 1: to give birth for that thing. So if if the
Speaker 1: executive order were to one be signed by President Trump
Speaker 1: and he is set there and said this is you know,
Speaker 1: I'm going to do it this time, and he doesn't
Speaker 1: have to run for reelection, so it's all on him.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court is conservative majority six y three, So
Speaker 1: there's really nothing stopping him. Now that would be that
Speaker 1: will be the case, and that would fundamentally change a
Speaker 1: lot of the illegal immigration if that kind of executive
Speaker 1: order that you worked on was signed.
Speaker 2: And h I mean, that's exactly right, right, And it's for
Speaker 2: the point that you mentioned just a moment ago, which
Speaker 2: is again a lot of this policy discussion is meant
Speaker 2: to be hidden from the average American that it's so complex,
Speaker 2: it's all these special words at one H one B
Speaker 2: what was any of this mean? But one of the
Speaker 2: underlying just human facsis of this discussion is that an
Speaker 2: illegal immigrant comes and their child is entitled to free
Speaker 2: public education, freehouses, free healthcare, and rain. Now this is
Speaker 2: gateway that free meals. That's the magnet, to say nothing
Speaker 2: of the entire cottage industry the Left has constructed to
Speaker 2: provide through NGOs and grant through those NGOs these same
Speaker 2: features in these same services free housing, pre healthcare, free meals,
Speaker 2: et cetera. So there's an entire industry dedicated to servicing
Speaker 2: the needs of illegal immigrant children. If you were to
Speaker 2: change that dynamic, a lot of the magnet for I
Speaker 2: legal immigration would disappear overnight.
Speaker 1: Theowold. You are brilliant and I appreciate your time immensely.
Speaker 1: Where can people follow if they want to read more
Speaker 1: of your stuff?
Speaker 2: At Real Field World, at the American Conservative, and at
Speaker 2: the Claremont Institute, often writing at.
Speaker 1: Both those publications. Thank you so much for being here, Really,
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. If you are interested in any of
Speaker 1: this information, you want to read it seasoned visual Graphics,
Speaker 1: go to my substack where I write all this stuff
Speaker 1: out for you guys. You can go to NAT Popnewsletter
Speaker 1: dot com and get a thirty day free trial for
Speaker 1: my newsletter and all the information you've heard here today.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening. Check us out every Monday on
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your
Speaker 1: podcasts