Speaker 1: What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream,
my daily show prep with all of the links, become
a patron, go to dpeakclendarshow dot com. Make sure you
hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free, rite
to your smartphone or tablet, and again, thank you so
much for your support. So the North Carolina House debated
and then passed by a sixty to forty six vote
party line vote, Cenebill one fifty three that forces mandates
more state cooperation with ICE, particularly in the Departments of
Public Safety and Adult Correction and the Highway Patrol and
the State Bureau of Investigation. They would be required to
participate in the two to eighty seven g program. Right
the Senate version passed a while ago, the House has
made some changes, so the bill now has to go
back to the Senate for a concurrence vote, and then
it would go to the Governor's desk for the likely veto.
Will they have enough votes to override the veto? Does
not appear that they would. In the House unless some
Democrats were to break rank or something. Senate Bill one
fifty three, according to the Charlotte Observer, comes a year
after Republican lawmakers successfully enacted a law that forces county
sheriffs to cooperate with ICE. I call it Gary's Law.
It is not the only immigration bill this session. Lawmakers
are also moving a bill that would require further cooperation
with ICE from sheriffs, expanding on the requirements that were
already passed last year. Maria Servanna, she is a Democrat
from Wake County, and she opposed a portion or a
measure in the bill that requires a review or an
audit of public benefits to ensure that there are no
illegal aliens receiving those benefits who are not eligible to
do so.
Speaker 2: This is Undodocumented people are already ineligible for most public
benefits that are under federal and state laws.
Speaker 1: Okay, so then what's the problem with auditing the roles
to find out that that's actually occurring?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: What's the problem. See, here's here's the problem. When you
guys as the resistance, when you find all sorts of
ways to obstruct and to help people skirt the law,
we kind of don't trust you anymore. We don't believe
you when you say, oh, it's already against the law. Yeah,
but we don't know if you guys and the bureaucrats
are actually following the law. We just saw two judges
help illegal aliens avoid deportation, So don't tell me that, oh,
it's already against the law.
Speaker 4: So that's enough. It's not enough.
Speaker 1: It requires a check to see if anybody, maybe erroneously
but maybe intentionally, have been put onto the roles, and
if everybody is following the law, we'll get a clean
bill from the auditor and everything will be fined.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: You can say see that we told you that there
wasn't any of this going on, and we would say,
good thing, we checked.
Speaker 4: It's good to have the confirmation.
Speaker 1: But they're arguing that we shouldn't even check, which makes
me a little bit suspicious or sus as the kids
would say.
Speaker 5: So that includes they are not eligible for Medicaid, childcare subsidies,
mental health crisis services, rental assistance. These doors are already close.
So I'm not sure and very can why we included
in this bill. So what this bill proposes is not
a clarification, it's an escalation and it's inadvertently making our
state agencies creating to create fear, confusion and delay of
delivering care to people who are eligible to receive their
care because the extra burdens that we put on in
this bill.
Speaker 4: This is catastrophisation.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, we can't even look as if we look,
then other people are going to die and they're going
to be afraid.
Speaker 4: Oh my gosh, the trauma.
Speaker 1: If that's the standard, then you can never check for compliance.
Speaker 4: It's so absurd.
Speaker 1: See when you take a step back and you hear
somebody's argument and they're talking about a specific thing, I
always try to take a step back and examine what
is the standard or principle that is informing this position,
because if you look at the if you look at
the principle or the standard, a lot of times it
doesn't make any sense. And if you were to apply
it to other areas, as you should with a standard
or principle, then the dumb assery of the position crumbles.
Marcia Morey, Democrat from Durham County another awful. She is
a former judge who apparently has a misguided idea of
how government works and the system of that government.
Speaker 6: My issue with this, as my colleagues have very eloquently stated,
is a part one. Whereas we the General Assembly, the
legislative branch, we are ordering the executive branch what to do.
We the legislative branch, are ordering the executive branch of
the Department of Adult Correction, the Department of Public Safety,
the State Highway Patrol.
Speaker 3: To do numerous things. And the state SBI.
Speaker 6: Is Congress passing laws to direct the president an executive.
Speaker 7: To do things.
Speaker 6: Yes, is Congress telling President Trump your FBI must.
Speaker 3: Do these things? Yes?
Speaker 6: Your Department of Defense, your Bureau of Prisons.
Speaker 3: Yes, No, it's got separation of powers.
Speaker 1: No, that's not separation of powers. Congress passes the law
and then the executive implements it. That's why Congress and
you guys in the legislature, you write bills that say,
shall blah blah blah, this agency shall do this, you
shall do that. The legislature mandates things through law. The
executive branch then implements it carries them out. How do
they do that? At the direction of the legislature. They
have to follow what the legislature is intending and what
they have written down in the law. This woman was
a judge for like eighteen years, and she doesn't understand this.
I'm assuming she doesn't understand it. I'm giving her the
benefit of the doubt, right when it's either ignorance or malevolence,
I'm not going with the malevolence. Like she knows this
isn't true, but she's lying in order to make this
argument to her, you know, her base and her donors
or something. But that, like, it is shocking to hear
somebody in the legislature not understand what the role of
the legislature is in relation to the executive branch. Yes,
the legislature tells the executive of what to do.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Then there's Abe Jones. Abe Jones is a Democrat from
Wake County, also a former judge. He said the federal
government needs to do their jobs and that we shouldn't
be helping because that's the federal government doing this stuff.
They need to do their job, and that Trump killed
the bipartisan immigration bill last year.
Speaker 4: This lie again, he called it.
Speaker 1: He called this bill stupid and preposterous to mandate highway
patrol cooperate with ice, that's stupid and preposterous, he said.
He called it horrifically bad and a piece of junk,
and mean, these.
Speaker 8: Are people, they got children for God's sake, their ways.
I'm not fully legal immigration frankly speaking, I thought we
ought to have If we're going to have a boorder,
have it protected. If you have the round, people have
to send them home.
Speaker 3: May have to do it, but there's a.
Speaker 8: Way to do it, and the federal government should be
about his.
Speaker 3: Business and do it.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 8: But when we stick our nose into something we don't
have to, we have to do it in a humane
and humanitarian way. And this is an.
Speaker 4: End so on this issue of you know, these are
people that have kids. You know who else has kids? Murderers?
Not all murders hashtag not all murderers, but.
Speaker 1: A lot of people who murder other people, or you
commit violent acts against other people and get sent away
to prison.
Speaker 4: They have kids.
Speaker 1: Do we not punish them because we don't want to
break up their family?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: These are the consequences of choices that individuals make. The
federal government is doing immigration enforcement. And I know that
maybe you don't understand what this looks like because you
haven't seen it in so long, but this is what
it looks like. That's what they're doing. The State is
not sticking its nose into it. The state is offering
to assist the FEDS.
Speaker 4: That's all.
Speaker 1: Here's a great idea. How about making an escape to
a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina.
Just a quick drive up the mountain and Cabins of
Asheville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon,
maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get
family and friends together for a big old reunion, Cabins
of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you
can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that
truly matter. Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres
of the Pisga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene
escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally
located between Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and
proximity to all the local attractions, with hot tubs, fireplaces,
air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi, grills, outdoor tables, and.
Speaker 4: Your own private covered porch. Choose from thirteen.
Speaker 1: Cabins, six cottages, two villas and a great lodge with
eleven king sized bedrooms. Cabins of Ashville has the ideal
spot for you for any occasion and they have pet
friendly accommodations. Call her text eight two eight three six
seven seventy sixty eight or check out all there is
to offer at Cabinsofashville dot com and make memories that'll
last a lifetime. Let's talk to Mary. Hello, Mary, welcome
to the program. How are you hi, Date.
Speaker 4: I love your show, Thank you, I appreciate it.
Speaker 9: So, my friend's daughter who had gotten her master's in
Spanish et cetera perfectly respectable young woman, and she was
working as an all pair in Spain and would they
went to Disney euro Disney. When they came back into
the country, they checked her papers and said, you don't
have the correct kind of visa. You know, you can't
be working, and you have like twenty four to forty
eight hours to get out of the country, as in,
you will leave here, you will go straight back to
where you were, pack your bags and we will be
monitoring you get out of the country.
Speaker 1: And why she wasn't allowed to stay there her visa?
Was she there on a tourist spiel.
Speaker 9: I think she had a work visa, so if she
was working as an all pair, she was not allowed
to earn any money. She had no idea and yeah,
and that.
Speaker 1: Was it out Yeah when out Yeah, when you look
at the immigration rules that every other country uses, we
are the outlier in America.
Speaker 9: It is absolutely Yeah.
Speaker 1: The abuses that we allowed to occur are there's no
other explanation except it's intentional.
Speaker 9: Right, right, And I'm from the West Coast, although I
try to keep that on the downlow, but I've been
here a long time, but I knew illegals out there,
and you know, wonderful, wonderful people. But it kind of
goes back to that thing of like we have a
border or we don't. And here's the thing. The wonderful
illegals now are are flying under the radar just like
they always have. You know, they're going after these troublemakers.
Speaker 4: Well, and that's the first that's the first wave.
Speaker 1: So like the idea is that eventually they're going to
start going after others, and I think at that point
it becomes way less politically appealing, right when they start
rounding up people that are you know, law abiding except
for the obviously the illegal alien part.
Speaker 4: Then I think you're going to get a lot more pushback.
Speaker 1: But the fact that they are already pushing back when
they're going after the worst of the worst, is indicative
of their general, you know, posture, which is, anybody who
gets in should be allowed to stay, no matter their
criminal history or their behavior once they arrive.
Speaker 4: And it's not a winning issue for them.
Speaker 1: I don't know why they've taken it except for their
incentive to do so.
Speaker 4: That's it.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's true. And I mean I have a super
good One of my dear friends is here from Kenya.
It took her twenty two years to get to get
her citizenship, to get a great I can't remember how
many years. Probably took twenty years to even get her
green card. She was doing everything right. They came here
on student visas. They kept having to pay these out
of stators fees and all this, and finally I asked her,
you know, like, what is the deal, Like, we have
all these illegals that are coming here from south of
the border. This was you know, a million years ago,
And I said, they're getting their citizenship. What is the deal?
And she said, it's much easier if you come here
illegally than if you come and try to do it
the right way.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, they're not getting citizenship, they're getting authorizations, and
then because the system is so overloaded and backlogged again
by design, that they're never removed. And so that's why
I like the guy that was just you know, that
was just arrested for attempting to torch a bunch of
Jewish people to death. You know, he had overstayed his visa,
and this is a very common thing. Come in and
then they don't leave, and then there's no way to
go about rounding them up and getting them out because
we've we've brought in so many people the system can't
handle it all.
Speaker 9: So right, right, and what a horrifying situation that was, Yeah,
absolutely it is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Yeah, Mary, I appreciate the call.
Speaker 1: Good to talk with you, you.
Speaker 4: Too, all right, take care.
Speaker 1: Next audio clip here is Julia Greenfield, Democrat from right
here in Mecklenburg County. She called this legislation a harmful,
despicable bill that sends a hurtful message to our immigrant
friends that that's not her, that's Abe Jones, this is
Julia Greenfield.
Speaker 7: It's upsetting.
Speaker 10: We are sending a message that these hard working people
who have left untenable circumstances in their own home country,
not all of them.
Speaker 7: That they are not welcome here.
Speaker 10: They can't have an opportunity to work and to raise
their children safely, to educate their children. And as we
have seen, as certain states have deported immigrants, what's happened.
Speaker 7: The crops are not being paid.
Speaker 4: Oh my gosh.
Speaker 10: The hotels do not have anyone providing the service.
Speaker 1: So it's best that we just keep employing people for
low wages. Right to keep an indentured servant class. That's
the idea here. You know how racisty this sounds. Also
note the conflation of legal with illegal, and the conflation
of criminal versus non criminal.
Speaker 10: And I was adam beating and someone asked who wants
manufacturing brought back to the United States. Everybody raised their hand,
and then we asked who wants to work in manufacturing?
Speaker 7: Not one hand went up.
Speaker 4: Well, it's a democratic town hall.
Speaker 10: We are shooting ourselves in the foot for no reason.
Speaker 7: Immigrants are not the boogeyman.
Speaker 10: Nobody say they help us build this country.
Speaker 1: Okay, nobody said they're a boogeyman. They're just in violation
of the law. And so what you're advocating is that
we have laws that should just be ignored because somebody
needs to pick my crops.
Speaker 4: I don't think that. I don't think that sounds the
way you think it sounds.
Speaker 1: All right, if you're listening to this show, you know
I try to keep up with all sorts of current events,
and I know you do too, And you've probably heard
me say get your news from multiple sources. Why well,
because it's how you detect media bias, which is why
I've been so impressed with ground News. It's an app
and it's a website and it combines news from around
the world in one place so you can compare coverage
and verify information. You can check it out at check
dot ground, dot news slash Pete. I put the link
in the podcast description too. I started using ground News
a few months ago and more recently chose to work
with them as an affiliate because it lets me see
clearly how stories get covered and by whom. The blind
spot feature shows you which stories get ignored by the
left and the right. See for yourself. Check dot ground,
dot news slash Pete subscribe through that link and you'll
get fifteen percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage
plan to get unlimited access to every feature your subscription
then not only helps my podcast, but it also supports
ground news as they make the media landscape more transparent.
John Blust is a Republican from Guildford County and he
spoke in favor of passage of the cenatepill that was
debated yesterday in the North Carolina how Centipil won fifty
three and he started off with a quick recap. He
says of how we got here, which is important, I hear.
Speaker 3: Due process, rule of law.
Speaker 11: We got here because the last administration did not enforce
the law, refuse to enforce laws on the books, and
twelve million people came right across the border and were
often aided by our government in being bussed to different
places around the country.
Speaker 3: Some flown in the dead of night so that they
could be resettled.
Speaker 11: It was a purposeful, purposeful policy, and I've wondered why.
Speaker 3: I keep thinking, why.
Speaker 11: Are they choosing this hill to die on? Why did
they refuse to enforce the law. And then I read
a few weeks ago that because they count illegal aliens
in the census, the Republican majority would be twenty seven
seats in the Congress instead of three.
Speaker 4: It's a majority.
Speaker 11: So these are people not here under law, but being
counted and getting represented in the Congress.
Speaker 3: And I would say, right here in this chamber.
Speaker 1: Yeah, makes sense. Otherwise, why would you why would you
do this? Why would you open the border up to
twelve million illegal aliens in four years?
Speaker 4: Why would you do that?
Speaker 1: Why would you rip away all of the controls, be
opposed to a border wall and opposed to these these
audits of the roles to clear them out and get
people off of them that are ineligible, thereby saving money
for those who are eligible.
Speaker 4: Right, Why else.
Speaker 1: Would you do all of these things? Let me go
over and talk to Richard real quick. Hey, Richard, welcome
to the show.
Speaker 12: Hey, how are you doing.
Speaker 4: I'm all right? What's up?
Speaker 12: Me and my wife? Sorry, me and my wife have
been together eighteen years, been married sixteen and we paid
a lot our money for her legal She hates the
fact that people come over illegally from Mexico. So how
come we can't give our money back?
Speaker 4: That's a fair question. Yeah, yeah, no, it's a fair question.
Speaker 1: And the people who are most insulted and defended by
the illegal immigration problem are the legal ones, like Richard
just outlined. I appreciate the call, Richard, Yeah, it's an insult.
You spend thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars
to do it the right way to become a citizen,
to go through the courses, the background checks, right, all
of that stuff, and then you see other people just
jumping the line and enjoying the benefits of being here
without any of the costs. Bluss then addressed the lie
that a new that bipartisan bill in Congress, that that's
what was needed in order to fix the broken immigration system.
Speaker 11: We have seen in a couple of months the border
closed under current law. By just following current law, that
is a humanitarian thing to do. No longer are there
trains of people coming through dangerous areas across Guatemalo, Mexico,
subject to the cartels and their wrath. They are now
staying home and not being abused like they were for
four years while the border was wide open.
Speaker 3: That's humanitarian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is why I see no moral ground to
the left on this issue. This idea that it's moral
to encourage people to make that trek and suffer the abuses,
be murdered, raped, sold into human trafficking. That is not
the humanitarian position to take. You should not be encouraging
people to do that. I have documented over years the
various abuses that occur because of our system. And so no,
you do not occupy the moral high ground in this
argument because well, they got here, you should let them stay. No,
they everybody should not be encouraged to come in the
first place. And the way you do that is to
not incentivize that after four years of no due process,
no adhering to the rule of law, now all of
a sudden Democrats are crying for it. There is a
vast difference, Blust said, between legal and illegal immigration.
Speaker 11: There is a specific due process for those who come across.
Speaker 3: The border in violation of immigration laws.
Speaker 11: These are Article two proceedings within the Justice Department. They're
not a full fledged court proceeding like in a criminal.
Speaker 1: Trial, right, which is what Democrats are arguing for. This
is a conflation because they obviously well they're either ignorant
of the process or they are counting on you being
ignorant of the process. That they are different This is
not the same as somebody violating a state statute being
arrested by local police being put on trial, right because
that's the state versus pete calender. It's not an administrative
civil proceeding. The due process rules are laid out already,
they are codified, and that's what ICE is enforcing. So
this idea that there isn't due process, it's a red herring.
It's a red herring. And again it's predicated on either
you being ignorant or the person making the argument being ignorant.
All right, so spring is here a time of renewal
and celebrations. You've got graduations, weddings, anniversaries and the special
days for mom and dad. Your family's making memories that
are going to last a lifetime. But let me ask you,
are all of those treasured moments from days gone by?
Are they hidden away on old VCR tapes, eight millimeter films,
photos slides? Are they preserved? Because over time, these precious
memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the magic of yesterday.
At Creative Video, they help you protect what matters most.
Their expert team digitizes your cherished family moments and transfers
them onto a USB drive, freezing them in time so
they can be enjoyed for generations to come. I urge
you do not wait until it's too late this spring,
celebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and let them
preserve your legacy with the love and care that it deserves.
Creative Video Preserving Family Memories since nineteen ninety seven, located
in mint Hill, just off four eighty five. Mail orders
are accepted to get all the details that create a
video dot com.
Speaker 4: Let's go to the phones and talk to John. Hello, John,
welcome to the show.
Speaker 13: Hey, Hey, a couple things. The gentleman you had on
mentioned that it came to his attention like two three
weeks ago that this was the impetus for why the
Democrats did this. That's shocking, because, if I'm not mistaken,
you made mention of this motivation that they had to
do it two or three years ago, don't.
Speaker 1: I don't remember how long. I mean, well, I don't
know if it was two or three years ago, but
it's been a while. It's probably around twenty twenty four. Yeah,
it's probably yeah, probably last year.
Speaker 13: But it's been spoken about, and I've heard about that
this for at least a couple of years as to
why they were doing it so and it was always delivered.
People are like, wow, is Joe bilden Biden failing at
the or he's not failing. He's doing exactly what their
intent is. And then the other thing is we throw
around this word on occasion and it's a it's a
powerful word. But isn't this action? Couldn't it be regarded
as reason?
Speaker 4: Which action?
Speaker 13: I mean, it's an absolute under trying to undermine the
principle of this country was founded upon.
Speaker 4: Which action are you saying will be the.
Speaker 13: Democrats are doing by flooding this country with illegals.
Speaker 4: I have heard people make that case that action.
Speaker 13: I mean, what do you think?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's thing.
Speaker 1: You would have to nail down actual motive, right you,
Like you would have to get proof that this was
the plan. And I don't know if you would ever
be able to do that because they could just say, oh, no,
we were just giving asylum to all the people that
were fleeing, you know, war torn countries, even though like
it's like nine out of ten of them are not
actually in any threat, any danger. That's why they were
the asylum claims are always rejected.
Speaker 13: So okay, but yeah, can we speak off the record, then.
Speaker 4: Well you're on the radio, so.
Speaker 13: No, it's clear what their motivation was.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean, I'm assuming that, but I don't know
for sure, but I am assuming it based on the
report from the Center for Immigration Studies. But also remember
for the last twenty five years they've been operating under
this This strategy of demographics is destiny, right, the belief
that if you can turn America into a more say,
well let's say, diverse country. You know, when all the
white people die off, then the Democrats will have a
permanent majority to rule.
Speaker 4: And that's what they've been banking on.
Speaker 1: And that's I mean, so you could say that this
is also part of the plan is to get as
many people in as possible, then eventually give them amnesty,
and then they'll vote Democrat for the rest of their lives,
thus ensuring the future of the Democrat Party. And there
was also a little bit I would submit racism, and
where Democrats thought, well, if we can import brown people
from South and Central America, they're going to vote for
us because brown people like us better than the Republicans,
which is kind of racisty and is also not true
as we saw in the last election where you saw
Hispanic voters start moving over to Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: So yeah, so I yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: And I mean, what's the point of calling it treason
except for a talking point because you're not going to
get trials, right, Who do you go after for treason?
Speaker 4: Joe Biden?
Speaker 13: Yeah, that's a good point, But it's just to understand
the significance of what was undertaken and why is just
it just makes your blood. Boy, Yes, they and justify
the means they're willing to do anything anything for political power.
Speaker 3: It does.
Speaker 13: That's pretty scary.
Speaker 4: Yeah, No, it absolutely is. It absolutely is. John. I
appreciate the call.
Speaker 1: Let me get to this one last SoundBite here because
I think it's important. This is a Democrat from Cumberland County,
Charles Smith. He actually raises issues with the waiver of
government immunity that I think should probably get tightened up
because I think he is I think he is correct.
Speaker 14: Here, County or later on, a city shall have waived
its immunity from civil libdality and tort if it does
not comply with GS. One five three eight. THAT'SH one
four or five point five, and an authorized alien commits
a crime against a person or property within the corporate
limits of the county or later on it would be
the city. I made this point in committee yesterday that
I think it's important to define commits a crime. I'm
not sure exactly what that means. You could argue, as
Representative Stevens did, that it's it's at the time someone
is charged with the crime. I don't read it that way,
and I think there's it's vague for that reason. I
think commits a crime to me suggests some type of conviction.
And so that's important when you start talking about exposure
to civil ibetally, because douse you have to have standing,
and until someone has standing, they cannot bring a lawsuit.
And if it does require a conviction, as I think
you could reasonably interpret, that could take two or three years.
And if you're exposing a county or a city to civiliability,
there's going to be a sexual limitations to that tortue claim.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 14: And so even if you were a proponent of this provision,
there are concerns. As an attorney, and I don't think
that we should enact legislation that lends itself to subjective interpretations.
Speaker 4: I think that's completely fair. I think that is completely fair. Right.
Speaker 1: If the legislation says somebody you know that you can
sue in the jurisdiction where somebody you know commits a crime,
what does that mean? It could be mean it could
mean that they're charged with a crime, or it could
mean convicted of a crime, so that would get litigated.
And if it's conviction, then that takes a certain amount
of time for that process to run through the courts,
and then you may have expired the statute of limitations
to sue the local jurisdiction. So it's unclear. So whatever
the intent of the legislature is, I think they need
to make it clear. Is it being charged with a
crime or convicted? All right, that'll do it for this episode.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1: I could not do the show without your support and
the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast,
so if you'd like, please support them too and tell
them you heard it here. You can also become a
patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetecallanershow dot com. Again,
thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything
while I'm gone,