Speaker 1: Here's what you're really asking. See, you're not asking what
scholarly work some reading. You were saying, are you reading
Saint Basil the Great? Yes? Yeah, are you reading that right?
John Chris System on wealthy poverty? Yes? These are all libs.
By the way, like there's not one of these guys
that isn't I mean, it's not one of them.
Speaker 2: Well, I've been saying for a long time the only
people who can rightfully talk about social justice or the
medieval Catholics and everyone else should shut up.
Speaker 1: These are late antiquity right, lovely apostolic bothers. You know,
that's good one. That's that's a pastern.
Speaker 2: Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask
what you can do for your country, mister Gorbachew, Tear
down this wall.
Speaker 3: It's the Ricochet Podcast with Stephen Hayward and Rob Long.
I'm James Lilex. Today we're going to talk to Mark
recorying about of course immigration exilettes I was a podcast.
Speaker 1: You say to those that you're using a two hundred
year old door, it's a circumvent you an.
Speaker 2: Old law not as well as constitution. We still pay
attention to that, don't we. But someone take this man.
Speaker 4: We're going to be returning education very simply back to
the states where it belongs.
Speaker 1: And this is a.
Speaker 4: Very popular thing to do, but much more importantly, it's
a common sense thing to do and it's going to work.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, it's going to work.
Speaker 3: Welcome everybody. It's the Ricochet Podcast number seven hundred and
thirty three. And do we have a surprise for you today?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you got me James Lodax in Minneapolis. You got
Stephen Hayward probably in California. But we have Rob Long,
who I guess has come out of the monastery on
the East coast. Tom Seward in his robe with a
little you know, white.
Speaker 1: Benefiting belt and the rest of it.
Speaker 3: Welcome back, Rob, It's always good to see you.
Speaker 1: And you know, I have to say, it's like I
know that says seminary is a Princeton theological seminary, and
so people have this idea of it like that, you know,
we're walking around in robes. When I had dinner I
don't know last year round this time with Greg Gottfeldt
on our one of our regular dinners, and I was like, hey, listen,
by the way, I'm just going to this Prinson Theological Seminary,
and he's like, really, wow, it's amazing. So what does
that mean for the show. You can't do the show anymore?
I said, no, I can, Greg, I can do the show.
It's Princeton, it's not that far away. So they'll they'll
let you out for the show. Say well, Greg, isn't
like you. They don't let you out like you. I
can leave anytime. It's a school. As I'm getting a graduate,
it's a graduate school. Oh okay, But even now he
doesn't quite figure out. When I show up at the show,
He's like, so, like, are you like out now? How
does that work?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 1: No, So, yes, it's a normal graduate school in the
sense that I'm surrounded by younger, young people, and I'm
learning that I.
Speaker 3: Would never assume, even in an old monastery, that they
would keep them on the grounds. I mean they were not.
It's not like they were forbidden to go out. It's
just for to stay where they were made their job,
their life, the contemplation easier. But yes, of course you
can go. I mean it is a bit red. Does
he think perhaps that you would be chained to a desk,
you know, doing an illuminated manuscript with a quill or
something like that.
Speaker 1: I think he was hoping for that, and I think
he could kill That was his goal, like to like
to have me come a bald head except for one
little thing of hair coming out? What do you mean?
That was my goal too.
Speaker 3: We're going to trouble you with worldly matters now and Stephen,
any worldly matters or the last oh, I don't know,
seventeen minutes they're broken or something like that.
Speaker 2: The place right well, I have refresh Twitter about every
thirty seconds to see the latest federal judge imposing some
kind of restriction on the Trump administration, because they seem
to come at about.
Speaker 3: Three or four a day. Right now, Well, are they
going to stand up? Is Robert's going to say? And
you know the guy, he's got a point. What is
going to be the end result of all this? Are
the judges discovering brave, bold, new powers previously not allocated.
Speaker 1: Or is this something that they are entirely entitled to do?
Speaker 2: Well? For a very quick points, one is Trump has
had more I think federal judges interfering with his plans
than happened in the entire twentieth century. In other words,
temporary restraining orders or injunctions. Second, there's three parts to it.
One is his power to fire people in the executive branch.
That's one of the legal issues. The second one is
his power over spending, and that has many parts to
it as well that depend a lot on what the
specific language of a congressional statute might be, so that
gets tangled in a hurry. Then the third is, and
this is the most controversial part, is can a federal
judge who's supposed to just be a trial judge in
their district, can they issue nationwide injunctions and restraining orders?
And this has never been reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Several justices have said they don't like this practice. And
so I think that's the big question right now, and
I think that's the one that they're going to have
to confront at the Supreme Court. Yeah, very soon.
Speaker 1: Actually, I think it's also the good I mean, all
these things aren't the same. I mean, I really don't
think that the chief executive has the right or the
power to to change the way Congress has chosen to
spend money. I mean, in a way, Congress has got
to do that. I think, on the other hand, why
the chief executive can't hire and fire everybody in the
executive branch of government is baffling to me. That's the
that has to be one of the chief definitions of
a chief executive of a branch. Right, you get to
like pick who your staff is, all the way down
to the guy who, like, you know, I don't know
what makes the coffee. So that so all these things
need to be teased out. We have been so lazy
as a country for so long and basically allowing if
you're on the left, you think it's great that the
president has all these powers because he's my guy. And
then if you're on the right, like it's great at
the president of lege powers because he's my guy. In
the minute that changes, everbody acts like, my god, how
did this happen? You fascist dictator? You know, it'd be
good for us to sort these things out. And I
think sort them out along the lines that you know
the founders originally did, which is that, yes, you know,
you got a bunch of people elected, did they get
to choose how they're going to spend, raise and spend
your money? And then you have an executive chief executive
who gets to you know, CEO, the whole thing. I
don't know that that system seemed to work. I mean,
people blaming Trump for this, as much as I would
love to blame Trump for everything bad, it's like, no,
he's this is the logical conclusion of a thing that
began in nineteen thirty when was that FDR elected whenever?
Speaker 2: Yeah, thirty three act pretty much, but it is some
that's older than that, though, Rob. I mean, the question
about whether the president could withhold funds that Congress had
appropriated starts with Thomas Jefferson, so and it has never
been entirely sorted out. A simple way I think for
listeners to think about it, because it can't get technical,
is to say the Constitution says that, or we say
that the Constitution says that Congress has the power of
the purse, and what that really means is the power
to put money in the purse, and the president is
the one who takes it out of the purse and
spends it for the purposes to which it's been appropriated.
Speaker 1: If the appropriation is.
Speaker 2: Vague, and many of them are, then I think there's
more latitude for a president to say, no, I'm not
going to spend it on this or that or this
is a mistake or something like that. That's what Jefferson
did two hundred plus years ago. If Congress is specific
and we're all familiar with the scandals of earmarks, you know,
a clauset a bill that says I want six million
dollars for a post office in my district. That's specific
enough that the president has less discretion. And so it's
somewhere in between heres where we are a bit of
a no man's land. And finally, after as I say,
two hundred years of intermittent empowerments by presidents, I think
we're now going to finally clarify this and Congress will
either have to do this job better or you know,
we're going to have to sort it out.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean everyone's afraid of the answer, right, and
the left is afraid of the answer, and the right
is afraid of the left is afraid that the answer
is going to be the people don't want to need this,
and the right is going to be is afraid the
answer is going to be the people want all of it.
They want all of it, And that is that's why
we kept a murky for so long. I mean, I
would actually be willing my grand bargain to everybody is
to say, look all earmarks, pork barrel spending all okay, fine,
go right ahead, one knock yourself out, in exchange for
never writing in any spending or spending authorization bill to
phrase the Secretary shall or at the Secretary's discretion check
that to me is I'll I'll give you. I'll give
you the Robert Byrd Memorial Traffic Safety Building Members one
through ninety seven in West Virginia, in exchange for never
ever saying again the Secretary shall right.
Speaker 3: People don't in general want all of it. They want
their part. They want the part that comes to their community.
Perhaps they want their social security, their Medicare, and the
rest of it. But when it comes to many the
things that we learn government are spending on, I don't
think they're very popular. And I'm very happy that the
other side has chosen a variety of hill on which
to die which are not particularly attractively aesthetically, politically, intellectually.
You want to make the argument that it is necessary
for somebody to work half the year so that the
entirety of the money they contribute to the tax coffers
should go to an agency. On the other side of
the globe, which then pumps it into an NGO that
is studying disinformation technique in Scotland. No, not going to happen,
And when people realize this is what's going on, we think, well, how.
Speaker 1: Did this happen?
Speaker 3: Exactly? Well, because we haven't had specific budgets, but we've
been ruled by continuing resolutions, which is like stuff in
a burritle full of something, eating it halfway and then
putting it aside, and then restuffing it next year, and
everything gets rolled over and rolled over until the ingredients
are all intermingled and it's a mess and no one knows.
Burn it down and then build it up. That seems
to be the idea. Now, no one's ever tried this before,
but if they, you can actually find speeches by Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama talking about the need to go
through government line by line. You, I mean, Bill Clinton
was all about that government efficiency project. Barack Obama said
he was going to go line by line. Is it
only bad when the other side does it well? Or
did you just know that nobody really meant it at
all in the first place, which I think is the case.
But you know, we'll see education department is going to
be the big argument now, and this one is shaping
up to be as clearheaded and as non inflammatory, and
it's rhetoricaus everything else. I love the fact that people
say seventh graders can't read, fourth graders can't count beyond five,
college students can't write a paragraph, and this is the
time to destroy the Department of Educators. That well, no, actually,
that's the argument for perhaps changing what we've been doing
thus far. Where do you think this is going to go?
Speaker 1: Guys?
Speaker 2: Well, I think there are many programs in that the
Department of Education oversees that are driven by statute. So
Trump can't just wipe those away at the stroke of
a pen or with Obama's phone if he borrows in.
But he could move them to other departments. I think
that's what's happen in the executive orders. Let's move certain
student loan programs and certain other grants and aids to
other departments and break up the monopoly the Department of Education.
By the way, the rump you leave behind is some
of the really bad and ideological stuff, and that might
make it easier for Congress then to kill it. Or
the latest idea is see if you can't wrap getting
rid of the Department of Education in the reconciliation budget
process later in the year, that will require only fifty
one votes, so it will get around the inevitable democratic filibuster.
Maybe that will work and we'll just have to see
how it goes. As Trump likes to say, but I
think Trump as usual is on the attack and has
the back on their heels, and that's fun to watch.
Speaker 3: I haven't heard anything you said since you use the
phrase of the rump you leave behind. Yeah, well he
was actually a torch song from nineteen forty two.
Speaker 1: Rob. Yeah. I think it's I mean, look, it's this
is a thing that I mean, this is a thing
that conservatives have been like about, like this is crazy,
and then and now that it's happening, it's like, well,
wait a minute, is it really happening. I mean, I
kind of don't I kind of I will not believe
it's happening until the I see the for rent you know,
office space sign in the building. But it's you know,
and I have no doubt and no lack of confidence
that the Trump administration can fumble this and make this
a disaster for them, and also not accomplish it just
toxify the topic, because they're toxic in a lot of ways.
But this simple argument is, you know, is your child,
is your children, as George W. Bush said, is your
children being educated?
Speaker 3: Is it?
Speaker 1: Is it better or worse? Do you think that it's
better for there to be a pot of money in
DC that's sort of sprinkled around the nation, or you
think it's better for all that to go back to
your neighborhood and your school. And I just don't think anybody.
I mean, if you look at all the surveys and
people and their education, they generally believe in school choice.
Like that's actually a very popular idea at school choice
school vouchers. That tends to be popular. And then when
you say to those parents who are in favor of it, okay,
it's going to be a little chaotic. Obviously for the
first two three four years, they always say, well that
I'm against it because I have jury rigged and sorted
out my kids school and I don't want to mess
it up because I figured it out and I don't
want to mess it up. And then that's usually when
the school choice of initiatives go down. Arizona is a big,
big Arizona is a fantastic you know, Governor, do you
see in Arizona's great hero for this right? So the
question is whether people are going to have that psychology
is going to be applied to this too. Like I
generally agree with your idea, say some voters, and the
Department of Education is foolish and hasn't really accomplished the mission.
But I'm not sure I want to throw it away.
And I think there's subtle argument that the Trump people
are gonna have to make.
Speaker 3: It's something that I see all the time on Twitter.
There are two ideas. One in the Department of Education
is a tremendous waste of money and we should give
it back to the localities. And two, when you look
at these craziest school boards and the things they're saying,
so okay, right, fine, so we'll have to do something
about the local school boards then too. If they really,
if the Trump administration really wanted to get everybody on
board with destroying the dismantling the Department of Education, they
would push through an America first, classical Western aesthetics, patriotic
agenda that must be filtered down to every single school
district and taught and the follicles on fire would be
extraordinary all across the spectrum. This would be seen as
another attempt Nazi like to take the culture and indoctrinate
it from the top down winds. I tend to suspect
is to being done nowadays anyway, just from a different direction.
Stephen anything, before we go to the guest portion of
our piece.
Speaker 2: Well, let's just remember that federal aid education didn't start
till the nineteen sixties, which is relatively.
Speaker 1: Recent, when it had started getting really better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, and I mean, how do generations of American
children ever get educated without federal dollars? Then? Second, I
sometimes challenge people or defy people. Tell me one thing
about public education that the Department of Education has improved
with data, right, They've like lots of data, and you
can't They've had no effect on it. And finally, the
constitutional point, you know, the point that's starting in the sixties.
It was the late James COO. Wilson used to say,
because there's nothing in the Constitution about education, it's not
in the enumerated powers of Congress, it was left to
the states. And that was he said. That was the
moment when we crossed the line constitutionally to saying Congress
can now appropriate money for anything and blur, and it
wrote federalism further and so forth. So I think it's
long overdue to get rid of the department, and then
it will get better, as I think, for all the
reasons Rob knows and has advocated for so long.
Speaker 3: True, well, at least in bluryers will be happy about
it because they'll get better workers. And doesn't that sound
like some horrible thing you just want a bunch of drones. No,
they just want people who can make change without having
to consult an app on their phone. I mean, if
you're a business owner, for example, you might have felt
frustrated with hiring, or you just might feel totally lost
completely when it comes to be.
Speaker 1: Gone so long, I forgot how these these segways go.
Speaker 3: I hope you had. I'm glad I'm not going to
interrupt them, because as a problem, that's still a problem.
You're bad for business when something that people right now
are no doubt recalling with nostalgia and which you just
get on with the damn dad, right h hr hr
is what I'm talking about here. You know, it's not
what you do best. If you're a business owner frankly,
because you know that's you do your business, not the HR.
Speaker 1: But what you do.
Speaker 3: Do best is to find solutions. And the solution to
your HR problem is Bamboo HR. Bamboo HR. It's a powerful,
get flexible, all in one HR solution for your growing business.
Stop spending countless hours on your payroll and your time
tracking your benefits performance management. I know with Bamboo HR
those hours are shaved down two minutes and it's why
over thirty four thousand companies trust Bamboo HR because it's
an integrated system that's designed to handle your current and
your upcoming HR needs. Plus, Bamboo HR prides itself on
being easy. I'm being super easy, easy to use, easy
to learn, easy to implement, and very very easy to love.
Bamboo HR handles everything from hiring and onboarding to payroll
and benefits, and when business owners switched to Bamboo HR,
the intuitive interface stands out right away. Take a couple
of minutes to check out the free demo on the
site and see how nimble and affordable its valuable too
can be HR is hard, but Bamboo HR is easy.
Reclaim your time and check out the free demo at
bamboohr dot com slash free demo. See for yourself all
that bamboo hr can do and how truly affordable it
can be as well. That's bamboo hr dot com slash
free demo. Bamboo hr dot com slash free demo, and
we thank bamboo hr for responsoring this the Brigachet Podcast. Now,
welcome back to the podcast. Mark or Korean, executive director
of the Center for Immigration Studies and the host of
the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast. A lot of plosives in
that one, and you can find that excellent series right
here on the Ricochet Audio Network. Mark, how are you.
Speaker 5: I'm doing very well.
Speaker 3: Thanks for having me speaking of plosives and peas and
all the rest of these things. We have a new
paradigm in town. It seems Customs Border Protection released report
seventy percent drop and encounters at the southern border. What
massive government program was put into place that did that?
Did they actually build a wall that we were looking?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 5: No, a climate change ended, poverty, all of those things ended,
and magically the flow just stopped. In fact, what happened
was the policy changed. The reason people were coming is
because they could get away with it, and they could
succeed under Biden. It was worth paying smugglers, it was
worth taking the risk of going through Mexico because your
odds of being released into the United States were very high.
Now they're not. So why, you know, why spend the money,
Why take the risk? I mean it's in fact, we
had a couple of guys to go down to different
parts of the border last week and there were parts
of the border where there were days where there were
zero got aways, zero attempts to cross, you know, particular
sections of the border.
Speaker 1: Zero.
Speaker 5: It's not clear that's ever happened, at least not in
the twenty first or twentieth century. So it's a huge change,
There's just no question about it. And it's you know,
elections of consequences. Market's Steve Hayward.
Speaker 2: Actually, James, I'm in Dallas today, I'm on the move
as always, So Mark, I actually want to do it,
say congratulations, this is your moment. You've been toiling away
on this issue for as long as I can remember,
and I'm sure all kinds of frustrations over the years
with both parties, but especially the last administration. One question
just for information, because I do tend to leave this
to you and don't chase the numbers myself. How has
the composition of illegal immigration changed over the last ten
twenty years. I mean years ago it used to be
we thought, anyway Mexicans. Because in the last few years
it's been people from all over the world right who
managed to get themselves first to Central America and the
Darien Gap and then caravan up to the US. I
was always amazed by the way that the media wasn't
more curious as to what that was all about and
who was organizing and paying for that, because that did
not happen spontaneously. But anyway, I mean, what is the
composition and how has it changed over the years, and
what should we learn from that?
Speaker 5: I mean, the stock of illegal aliens here are still
mostly Mexican, just because a lot of them came a
long time ago. But the new illegal flow is actually
less than half Mexican. There's still some Mexican illegal immigrants coming,
still a significant number, but you know, there's no it's
just not that many people left in rural Mexico. The
transition from the countryside to the city has now they've
gone through that. Now half of those people came to
our cities but the fact is that transition is done,
and so the Central Americans obviously made up most of
the flow at one point, and it's diversified beyond that.
Now we've got South Americans, Caribbeans, and we have increasing
numbers of people, or we did under Biden coming from
what they call extra continentals, you name it, they were
coming from there. I mean, one of our guys went
down to various parts of Central America over the past
few years. He was running into people from Tajikistan and
Eritrea and you name it, large numbers of people from
China and India, just because there's a lot of people there.
But yeah, they're coming from all over in a way
that really wasn't the case before.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean the reason I thought to ask that
is I recall, gosh, thirty years ago now around the
time of Prop one eighty seven in California, some economists.
Speaker 5: At Stanford forty years almost right time, man, Yeah, feel yesterday.
Speaker 2: I remember some economists that I think at Stanford maybe
at Hoover saying as Mexico economy grows and their people
moved from the rural areas in the cities, Mexican illegal
immigration will will will diminish thought. Well, maybe that's happened,
and that's why I asked that question. The second one is,
as I say, in general, you must be looking with
some satisfaction at an administration determined to do something about this.
So give us, you know what we're at day sixty,
Give us a balance sheet. What do you think that
Trump people are doing well? What do you think they
should do better or differently?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, if you ever have a problem like this,
the first thing is you turn off the faucet before
you start mopping up the floor, and they've done that
very well. At the border, I mean, that's just the
border crisis is over. It doesn't mean no one that
was ever going to cross illegally, but the border crisis
is over. The jobs that are now ahead of them,
and it's not so much that they've fallen down on
the job. It's just sort of like the next steps
is and this is something people don't think about. New
illegal immigration is now going to be mainly visa overstairs,
and so dealing with that issue of people coming in
legally and then just never leaving is something that one
administration after another has never really grappled with. These guys
are going to have to and then the people who
are here illegally. Can you unwind you know, eight to well,
probably more like nine, ten eleven million illegal immigrants that
the Biden people let in. I don't think they're going
to be able to unwind all of it, but the
point is unwind as much as you can. And this
is where the challenge is going to be. Not just
looking for the rapists and murderers, because you know they're bad,
every one of them should go. But most illegal immigrants
are just working stiffs. They're not rapists and murderers. That's
why what they need. Work site enforcement has to be
stepped up significantly, and part of that needs to be universal.
Everify the online systems.
Speaker 1: When you hire.
Speaker 5: Somebody, you actually check whether they're telling you the truth
about who they are and what their Social Security number is.
Those are the jobs ahead of them. It's not that
they have fallen down on the job because they just started,
but those are the things that they're now going to
have to grapple with.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm really glad you mentioned the visa overstairs, because
one of the terms that's driven me nuts for years
now is no, no, we can't call them illegal immigrants,
they're undocumented it and I always raise my hand and say,
wait a minute. Many of them have documents. They're in
violation of those documents. That's called illegal. Okay, let me
shift gears for a minutes, because I know Rob wants
to get in with some more general questions. I want
to take us overseas for a minute. And I don't
know how closely you follow the immigration controversies in Europe,
but it seems to me they're behind us. But I
just read the headlines and I see that. I think,
is it right that Sweden last year had net out
migratory outflow. You see various countries starting to realize, boy,
we've made a big mistake. We have we can't assimilate
all these all the people we've let in. Some of
these cultures are actively hostile, whereas you know, I mean
Mexican immigrants. They may not speak English, but they're kind
of from a Christian or American, you know, American continental culture.
So we have it a little bit better off than
than Europeans do. But are you involved at all or
following in Europe? And what do you how do you
expect that story is going to unfold? Is it going
to follow ours.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I always tell Europeans, look, we have
real problems in the United States, but holy moly, I'd
rather have our problems than your problems. Yeah, we actually
have a network of restrictionist think tanks. We've got one
in Paris, one in Jerusalem, one in Budapest. And yeah,
so we do follow it. And the interesting thing is
the one country in Europe, well, yeah, the one Western
European country that does not have a kind of so
called far right whatever however you wanted to find that
movement is Denmark because the left of center government there
is actually restrictionist. So, in other words, they co opted
the issue that the and look, I'm a right winger.
I mean I'm not capolic, but I'm saying, you know,
they don't have They've taken it with oxygen out of
the room for those guys. And you would think that,
you know, the British and the French and the Germans
would understand, and they just they just don't seem to yet.
And I got to say, if you're Victor Orbon, you're saying,
fellas I told you so, hey, go listen to me,
and you didn't, I think how much just.
Speaker 1: A concrease of weird alphabets that they seem to get
it right.
Speaker 2: You must have seen that New York Times story that
noted the Denmark experience and saying, huh, maybe Democrats should
take a look at that anyway, Sorry, Rob, go ahead.
Speaker 1: I was to say, you know, Mark was going to
get on here with his socialist Scandinavian axe to grind
you love Denmark so much. I got to quit some
over a general question because it just, I mean, it
seems to I mean, although it has been exhausting and
it feels like it's been ninety thousand years. Trump has
only been president for two months, right, right? How does that?
How does it work? Just in terms of the hose
where I just get this idea that you know, there's
a it's a you know, it's a garden hose with
a big sprinkler on one end, and that's the north,
that's the border of the Rio Grande, and that people
come up and how where do they hear and how
do they hear and how and what effect does it
have on them when they are or wherever they are
trying to make the decision. I'm really just speaking about
just to just about people in Mexico and Latin American
South America. I don't. I don't the other people. I'm
assuming you're a sort of a longer tail, right, How
do what? What is it that discourages them? Is it
that they see something in that they read the news?
Is it? Is it rumor? How does that work? Well?
Speaker 5: I mean, look, every single one of these people has
a smartphone, so that you know, word travels fast. I mean,
it doesn't. It's not that hard to send out a
message to people that the party is you know, the
party is over. And in fact, when Trump took over,
there were a lot of people kind of in the
pipeline coming up to take advantage of Biden had created these,
frankly i think unlawful programs to corroll people into the
United States, so that, in other words, instead of them
jumping the border illegally, the Biden administration admitted them illegally.
And so a lot of these people had appointments and
what have you. But then that was just canceled. They
stopped at all at twelve oh one on inauguration Day,
and you know they're going.
Speaker 1: Back if you could, if you could, you know, there's
an unfair question about percentages to what percentage? What percentage
of the problem is solved by boots on the ground,
actual border enforcement, the things that physical things happening IRLA
and yeah, walls, And to what extent is it? Can
you leverage the smartphones and the rumors and the fact that, like,
if I'm in some village somewhere and I'm not going
to take a chance to come all the way to
the warder and not get in, and I'm not going
to give them some coyote five thousand dollars of my
hard earned money because he thinks he can. Maybe what
I'm hearing is that I'm not going to get in.
To what extent are you does that have an effect?
Just the fact that the federal government has made a
credible argument no more, and is that going to step
on the hose? Now, what percentage of that is going
to stop the flow?
Speaker 5: I can't come up with a percentage, but you can't
have one without. They're both necessary and they're but neither
is sufficient. Because if you just tell people, Okay, you're
not going to get in, but then if they walk,
they can just wander across the river or wait across
the river. I mean, I've waited across the real grand
into the United States. Myself. It's not that difficult to do.
There are parts of it there's no water at all.
You just walk over a dry riverbed depending on the
time of the year. So you need you need.
Speaker 1: But you did it just as an experiment, right, that's
exactly Okay.
Speaker 5: Actually I stopped right. I didn't go into the Mexican
side because there was border patrol agents watching, and I
might have had that.
Speaker 1: You may have made me.
Speaker 5: Go to the port of entry all the way and
across anyway. But the fact is you need to have that.
But on its own it's not going to do it.
There is this idea as well, we just build a
wall tall enough and to moat deep enough and all
the rest of it, and it'll all work. No, you
need to have all of it. You need to have
enforcement outside the country where the state Department makes it
tough to get a visa and all of that. You
need to have enforcement at the border, and you need
to have enforcement inside the country too, so that for
those people who do get by, they make it as
difficult as possible to live a normal life here. You
can't get a job, you can't get a bank account,
can't get a driver's license. You need to do all
of that stuff. I can't come up with a percentage.
Let's just say it's thirty three and a third percent each.
Speaker 1: You know it's pretty good though.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So my other question was that I remember when all
of these arguments are happening, this is the pre Trump
right and the immigration hawks, and you said something like
e verify, they would kind of roll their eyes again.
Speaker 4: No, no, no.
Speaker 1: No, that Jesus you slow down, my friend, has Trump
in a way kind of cut the Gordian knot here
by being incredibly tough both verbally and also you know,
administratively on border crossings, And has that given him, or
given the Trump administration the kind of I don't know,
leverage or credibility among the other folks to say, okay,
now we actually do need everifying, because I can remember.
I'm old enough to remember that when you people talking
about everify were like, you guys are that that's it
sounds like amnesty to me? Is that is that helped politically?
Are we are we really in a different moment or
or is it just a moment? I don't mean.
Speaker 5: Look, the point of everify is to keep people from
getting jobs. I mean, in a sense, what potentially could
happen the kind of thing you're talking about, where do
you build up credibility so that you can then be
Nixon and going to China kind of thing, you know
what I mean, that's sort of the issue. And we
are just you know, we're not We're nowhere near that.
We're not even at the beginning of the end where
that may be the end of the beginning, you know,
as Churchill said in other words, the kind of thing
where And I look, I'm a squish on amnesty, honestly,
I mean, I'm not as much of a squish as
you are in a lot of things, but I am just.
Speaker 1: You know, Rober talking about there no one really is.
So they get close, I get it, I get I
go farther. So it doesn't mean it's no way to win.
Speaker 5: But but the point is you can't do it until
you've solved the problem. And we haven't solved the problem.
We've just literally we literally just stopped making it worse
and are beginning to solve the problem. So I actually
the way I would kind of game it out in
my head is that in the second jd Vance administration,
after the illegal population cut and shrunk by half or more.
Speaker 1: The earth is lava again and a smoking ruin, and.
Speaker 5: We have in place. We have in place the enforcement
systems necessary, not just everify, but like a checkout system
for foreign visitors we don't have. It's amazing we've tamed
sanctuary cities. And then is the time for a Nixon
going to China deal. But the deal is not the
deal that they've always talked about, where we promise to
enforce the law tomorrow for a Hamburger amnesty. Today the
deal is we amnesty the people who are left, rip
off the band aid, not a lot of bs about
thirteen years of jumping through hoops, just get it over
with in exchange for deep permanent cuts in legal immigration.
Speaker 1: So I guess my question is, like, if you split
it into two groups, right, there's the I mean not
the one is more legal or more illegal than another,
but there are the visa overstayers, And that seems to
me to be that's actually where Europe and all those
lacks European countries seem to be excelling. They are really
really strict about that stuff, and they're really really strict
about where you can work and where you can't work.
That doesn't seem like the hardest problem for us to solve.
The factually seems like the easiest, like low hanging fruit. Right,
it's basically a computer. I mean, it's you know, you know,
and and then some kind of government you know, oversight
on employment and payroll attack, which they already do. Like it.
It doesn't seem like like it should be. I mean,
obviously it's a greater higher scale than say what happens
in France, but it's basically what the French do. You
cannot work here?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, yes, we're a bigger country, our rules
are looser, we have a more decentralized system, so it
is harder for us to deal with. But yes, the
key is employment, making it as difficult as possible to
live a normal life here as an illegal alien. And
jobs are number one, but also driver's license and what
have you. Look, states are authorized to give driver's licenses
to illegals, they just have to be different from the
ones acceptable for federal purposes, you know, getting out your plane,
for instance. So are the challenges are are different here,
but and it's not quite you know, Belgium or whatever
is just easier to control even though they don't have
the will to control their own country. We're a bigger place.
It's harder to control. Have you been to the border.
I mean, holy moly, there's no way you can stop
everybody everywhere from coming across. I mean, it's a gigantic thing.
Speaker 1: So that's always been the argument about employment control. But
I just mean that the the spicott of airport arrivals, right,
that hose is so much narrower. Yeah, And it just
feels to me like that shouldn't be that hard.
Speaker 5: It shouldn't be because and we have done better since
nine to eleven at the check in part, at screening
people before they get in and knowing who people are.
Really is the checkout part that's the problem, because they've
done some experiments on when you would check people out
when they're leaving. Do you do it at the Jetway?
Do you do it at TSA? It's not in Superbowl problem.
No one has really ever wanted to bother with it.
In fact, Janet Napolitano, who was Obama's first DHS scretary,
actually testified that, yeah, you know, we really don't care.
We're not working on that. Even though Congress has mandated
I don't know nine times now that they come up
with an electronic checkout system for visitors. So yes, it's
not that hard, but you have to have the will
and want time and the money into doing it. And
that's my point to Steven's question, is that that's a
challenge that is lying down the road for this administration.
Speaker 3: Let's talk about the deportations which have been very high profile.
Put a bunch of guys on a plane, taking them off,
shackling them, shaving their head, and shoving them in an
Al Salvadoran prison. The effect of this perhaps has been
to concentrate the mind of people who might otherwise have
just lulled around the country and thought they wouldn't be
caught or not. Do you think they're just going to
be better about not being caught or is this one
of those things that encourages self deportation on a with
alacrity but the quick.
Speaker 5: Hopefully it will. And but the thing is the president
always is talking about getting you know, gang members, rapists,
criminals out of the country. It's all good, obviously, everybody's
for that, but most illegal aliens are not you know,
raping gang members. And so if you're not a criminal.
You figure, okay, well, you know, I'm okay, I'll just
keep my head down and it's not going to be
a problem. That's my point about why you need work
site enforcement, because if you raid, first of all, you
get much higher numbers because you send five ICE agents
to go after one criminal because it's labor intensive. The
same five ICE agents raid a warehouse or something like that,
you can come up with twenty illegal aliens and most
of them are going to be normal people, I mean
gang members. You'll still find some criminals because gang members
often have day jobs as well, but most of those
people are going to be ordinary folks. That's how you
can get some self deportation going, not if you're just
talking about TDA.
Speaker 1: You know, gang.
Speaker 5: Members and rapists and murderers. So that's the challenge that's
ahead of them.
Speaker 3: And we're told constantly that if we do do that,
then we're going to suffer a labor shortage. That means
the vegetables and the fruits will rot in the fields,
and that nobody will be able to get anything from
the back of the store because there's nobody back there
to stock it in the first place. It doesn't even
particularly compelling argument for unlimited, untrammeled immigration. But is that
the case too. We have a period ahead where we
have to adjust and figure out new ways to do
things because the pool of illegals can be paid under
the table quietly and not enough is going to shrink.
Speaker 5: No, I mean on a national scale, that's a ridiculous argument.
There will be particular places, particular companies that will be
I mean, somebody is going to be inconvenience frankly, by
trying to change the way we're doing things. But the idea,
first of all, this is a process. It's not an event.
There was this movie number of years ago, a day
without an immigrant, and everybody wakes up one day and
all the immigrants are gone. I think maybe it was
just in California, and they're joking about people in alleys
with raincoats selling vegetables secretly, you know, under the cable,
all that kind of nonsense. It's that's I mean, it
was a funny movie, but it's not the way things work.
You would have a gradual process of shrinkage of the
illegal workforce, and you know, the market would adjust. And
I know that because Uncle Adam Smith told me that's
the way things work. And you know, we've seen that
in all kinds of areas where let's say, you know,
there's fewer people working, you know, available for a bakery
to hire. In Chicago, that happened there was a raid,
they got a lot of illegal aliens out. Well, guess what.
They hired locals who were in this case were black
who weren't able to get hired because the workers were
all Mexican. They raised the wages, they passed the net
wider for looking for employees, and they look into new,
less labor intensive ways of doing their work. It's this
isn't rocket science. And so I yes, if eleven million
twelve well actually now it's more like sixteen million illegal
aliens if they disappeared tomorrow, Yeah, absolutely, it would be
enormously disruptive. There's literally no way that's going to happen.
And so it's one of those things that you know,
it's a hypothetical that's irrelevant to even respond to because
it can't and won't happen.
Speaker 3: Mark, thanks for joining us again, and would you please
come up with a book or something so we can
push it here. Yeah.
Speaker 5: I got to come up with a new one. I
have a book from before, but it's too old and
Penguin ran away from it. So maybe when, maybe when
Rob gets ordained, because I outrank him now I'm a deacon,
but if he gets ordained, then.
Speaker 1: I'll be a You're digging to the Armenian Church, so right.
Speaker 5: Yes, I am, but we're all part of the Holy
Apostolic and you know, right, yeah, you guys have that
those great hats.
Speaker 1: Though I might be I might be looking at that.
You got better outphabits. I know that's a reason to
do it, but you know it's not not a reason
put it that way exactly.
Speaker 5: Although I don't have to wear one of those. I'm
just a deal.
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you, Deacon Mark, and we look forward to
talking to you again about something that will no doubt
be four front for the next two, three, four five years. Marcu,
Corny and ladies and gentlemen, see you later.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Oh it's a pleasure. The Armenian apple. Okay, let me
get this straight. Is there an Armenian Orthodox Church that
is separate from other? Correct me, Rob, No, I don't
know much.
Speaker 1: I don't know much about the I mean, I mean
all the Armenian churches I've ever heard of are pretty Orthodox,
but it's a different from the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, okay, all right, because I know that, you know,
there's the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and I think recently, if
I remember correctly, they did some calendar adjustments so that
Easter was not as far off. You know, am I
right there? And I think it the same with with Christmas.
I think they adjusted it so that it's a little
closer to the to the Western traditions because you know,
all the Yukes I know would say Merry Christmas and
then they'd have their own like fourteen fifteen days later.
Same thing with yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The Easter. Orthodox Easter, though, is actually one of the
great chaotic scenes in world religious sort of celebration. You know,
they are now on the show like scenes from Devali
or something, or the water festival in Vietnam or even
you know, parts of Ramadan. I e to the end
of Ramadan. And I mean it looks crazy, but if
you've never seen you go on YouTube the Orthodox Easter
in Jerusalem in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher that
the banana's quality of that is so incredibly inspiring. Crazy.
It's like this fire everywhere. The idea that nobody dies,
nobody gets immolated multiple times in that celebration is just
crazy to me, and somehow it all works.
Speaker 3: Well, you mentioned these other, these other ceremonies and celebrations
in other religions around the globe, you know, roughly the
same time. Why do you think that is? I mean,
you go back to Roman times and you will find
that there's particular, you know, celebrations around at that particular time.
Speaker 1: What do you mean you mean spring or spring? Yes, spring, well,
I mean it's a there are I mean, first of all,
everybody has a different kind of spring, right, so if
you're in the Southern hemisphere, Global South, your spring is
different from our spring. It's a different month. So it
doesn't really work in the same time of year. But
we as Christians believe that the year, the Church year,
is both symbolic and meaningful, and that it coincides with equinoxes.
Right that aren't necessarily on the twenty fifth of December
or the or the twenty first of March, whenever the
spring one is. But they're meaningful. I mean there's a
the actual day, specific days, sick days of Good Friday
and Easter Sunday are they're not consistent in the Gospels, right,
but you know how you read it? Good Friday could
be Thursday.
Speaker 3: I think it's in John well what but but it
all appears it's all within the same time. It's all
these equinoxes, it's all the shifts. There are things globally experienced.
You know, spring for example, it's got massive temperature swings
at least up here, and that can leave you waking
up with the sweats.
Speaker 2: I knew it.
Speaker 1: I knew it.
Speaker 6: I was just I was searching for this and I
was looking through that one like going with it, strolling
me and I is this an episode of the Prisoner
where we don't know who is Dan?
Speaker 1: Who's to dance?
Speaker 3: I threw that five minutes ago, and I've been.
Speaker 1: Just man, sinker. Good for you. I knew what was
going on, but I kind of was looking at you, Steve,
like what Steve's face is there?
Speaker 3: Anyway, if I may reset and tell you about cozy Earth,
because I really want to, because it is a spring
and it's getting warmer here and you know, but it
could be cold one day and it yeah, I mean
temperature swings. Yeah, you don't want to have an uncomfortable
night and that's why you want to have the most
comfort ortable sheets you can possibly lay down in, and thankfully,
our friends at Cozy Earth have designed temperature regulating sheets
that can keep covered and comfortable throughout the night. Cozy
Earth's goal is to help you turn your home into
a sanctuary, a place where you can escape the outside
world's demands and truly unwind. Because life gets hectic and
finding comfort and calm, well, it's essential your time outside
the only nine to five should be all about relaxation,
recharging and soaking in a sense of peace. With Cozy Earth,
you can create that space. It feels like a personal
retreat where comfort and serenity coming together naturally. Now, if
trying to Cook were with us see w Cook of course,
of one of the podcasts here at the Flagship, he
would tell you all about bamboo sheet sets and it's
temperature regulation because his wife actually got them first and
she loves them and endorses them, and Charlie is completely
happy as well. Why well, because Cozy Earth only uses
the best fabrics and the best textiles to provide the
ultimate ingredient for a luxurious softness. Let's you sleep like
a baby, and they're not just soft. Their weave fabric
is enhanced for a durability that won't pull the best
of all. Cozy the Earth betting products have a one
hundred night trial sleep trial and a ten year warranty.
That's how much Cozy Earth believes in them. So luxury
it shouldn't be out of reach. There is a cozyearth
dot com slash ricochet and use the exclusive code ricochet
for up to forty percent off Cozy Earth's best selling sheets, towels,
pajamas and more. That's cozyearth dot com slash ricochet. And
if you get a post purchase survey telling me you heard
about Cozy Earth right here, if you would, thank you,
and we thank Cozy Earth for sponsoring this the Ricochet podcast.
Before we go here, we've got a few minutes left
to discuss amongst yourselves. Let's see, Oh war, that's right,
one of the old hoothis, didn't we How is that
ongoing at the moment? Don't think so? Was the point made?
Doesn't seem so because they're still saber rattling. And but
there's a space two or three days ago where people
were convinced that something big was going to happened to Iran,
and there was the usual contingent of people who say, no, sorry,
nothing ever happens. And when it comes to Iran, what
do you guys think?
Speaker 2: Well, Okay, this hoothy business is tiresome. At this point,
remember that the Biden administration came in took the Hoothies
off the terror sponsored list of our State Department because
we thought if we were nice to them, maybe they
behaved better.
Speaker 1: They didn't.
Speaker 2: Biden escalated a little, but it seemed like Vietnam style.
Let's shoot a few rockets at them and a couple
of bombs and maybe they'll behave better. And they didn't.
Israel has struck some hard blows against them several times
now following rocket attacks, and now Trump seems to be
saying we've had it with the disruption of shipping there
around the Red Sea. So and then supposedly people say,
what Trump is really doing is signaling the Iranians, because
Trumps keeps saying the Huthians, the Cuthians, right Uthians, and
the blowfish or the blow of Heart's eye anyway, that
they're the cat's paw for Iran. And look, James, I
do think that if there's an attack on it run.
It's going to come out of the blue. And whether
it's going to be Israel or Israel and US or
Israel with our help, who knows. But I think that
will be at a time of hour in Israel's choosing
because left out of course, and I know you know
about it is the Israel has turned the guzz of
war back on in a big way in the last
seventy two hours or so.
Speaker 3: Did they turn it back on or do they just
resume the I mean, if Gaza had released all the hostage,
if the if the Hamas had released everybody, do you
think that would be resumption of the hostilities or do
you think this is a reaction to Hamas not doing.
Speaker 2: Oh well, I think it's the latter, I think. But
they've sent troops. Ground troops are back in Gaza. It's
not just air strikes. So I think it's it's on again.
And yeah, I mean, there was some possibility that if
the Hamas had released all the hostages, that we might
have made a ceasefire stick and postponed it for another day.
That's unpopular in Israel, but Hamas is so determined to
go down with all fours flying and all people dying,
that Israel had no choice but to start it up again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I also figure that they know more now. I
mean there's every single one of those hostages that's given
them intelligence, and they have a better map of Gaza
now and they have a better understanding where to look
for hostages. So they may be going in to perform
you know, some percentage of rescues, and which would be
a disastrous for Hamas, right, I mean, like you you
have you every every rescued hostage is one chip you
can't bargain with. And that is clearly, that's clearly the
the the Israelis preferred position, which is understandable. The strangest
thing here is that I feel like we we we
keep getting into this strange trap as Americans, sort of
American policymakers for foreign policymakers, where we think that the
people who are orchestrating the terrorism, you know, Hamas or
Hoodies or whoever, or Iran, they what they have an
agenda of policy, positions have goals, they need to be addressed,
and the problem with that is that they don't when
the reason the Whodi's attacked is because we haven't been
paying attention to them for a while, and they want
some attention. And it's not just the childish attention kind
is that those those organizations only work if their own
population is subdued and cheering for them, so they need
to be attacked. I mean, Hamas doesn't see this disaster
in Gaza as a disaster for Hamas. It's exactly what
they want. They don't care that all these Gosins are dead.
They really don't care. It wasn't the point that those
have always been pawms that you sacrificed for a larger point,
which is power. So when we when we treat them
as we say them, treat them with respect, or when
we try a different diplomatic attack on all of these groups,
we actually end up encouraging them to be more and
more incendiary. And then the only alternative really is to
attack them with They also makes them stronger, but that
is or makes them feel stronger, but that is That's
been the Israeli position all along, is that you have
to you have to keep going. You know, the blood,
the cold blood at Israeli position is Hamas and its
members must be destroyed, All of them must be destroyed.
And we don't like to say that. It just doesn't
sound right, but their argument, and you talk to Israeli politicians,
really policymakers, and they're almost always go to a kind
of a public health metaphor, a viral metaphor. The virus
has to be destroyed. And unfortunately that's us people, and
it's horrible to hear, it's horrible to think. It's a
horrible position to be in. But the people that you're
dealing with aren't operating under any other set of priorities.
So you know, if you're playing a game and the
person you're playing with is playing by different rules, guess what,
you're playing their game because they're playing by different rules.
That's how that works. And there's no there's no effort
on the yet I don't know, or no public effort
on the part of Hamas's paymasters to change that.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Sorry, it's not very uplifting.
Speaker 3: And Steve and you are.
Speaker 2: Well sorry, Well, I don't know if we want to
continue on this or not. James, I'll just chime in
this way. You know, the mistake that the American foreign
policy makers have been making for decades with with just
about everybody is we think that everybody is going to
be rational in more or less the same way we are,
and I think we're very slow to realize that while
people can make rational calculations in the ordinary sense, there's
often much deeper currents of thinking. So I could go
back and give you examples from the Middle East for years.
But what's on my mind right now is you may
have caught the story a week or so ago where
Trump sent some new guy with no experience in foreign
policy and negotiation to meet with Hamas in Qatar, and
he said publicly, gosh, they turned out to be really
nice guys, really foolish, stupid things, and in fact that
Trump people have since pulled this guy back because he
was an embarrassment. But you know, I can give you
lots of examples where people in the Middle East to
Hamas Amas thought, by the way October sixth, that hes
blow is going to come in from the north, the
West Bank would rise up, and they were going to
crush Israel at a stroke.
Speaker 1: That's sort of their view of how the world would work,
or should work.
Speaker 2: I could easily imagine some Hamas people thinking, ah, Trump
secretly wants to put distance between himself and Israel. We're
not on the ropes, after all. All we need to
do is hold out and we're going to win. Or
and as I say, this is the sort of a
deep conspiratorial thinking, or deep sort of perverse contrarian thinking
that's very deeply embedded in a lot of these really
cult like groups of people like Hamas and so forth.
So and by the way, gee, Trump is't He's easily
capable of confusing people on purpose or quite by accident,
or both. Right, So I got to think that the
Hamas people are they say, I mean, we think, and
I think it's right that Trump is very pro Israel,
very supportive of net and Yahoo. But I could easily
imagine certain certain precincts of the radical air of mind thinking, no,
there's something else going on here, and it's all very
strange and byzantine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, yes, it makes me think that if you
stuck a Queers for Palestine bumper sticker in the back
of a tesla, right when I make some people's heads,
smoke would come from their collar like a computer that
Kirk could arg get into an a logical position. I mean,
this is one of the more interesting developments in the
last week is the is the transfer of hatred of
everything Doge related and Musk related onto the vehicles of
the car company. So that now what used to be
a sign a virtue that I care about the earth,
I am not consuming the awful hydrocarbons. Look at me,
I'm electric, is now proof that you somehow are that
you are, if not a Nazi sympathizer or tall, an
actual Nazi yourself. And when you have these coordinated protests apparently,
I I forget what days is it, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
Everyone is going to rise up and go to the
deal to They're going to go protest at the car dealership,
which I find an odd thing. Now I can imagine
if this was Ford in the nineteen twenties and people
were concerned about some of his policies in regards to
the Holy Land.
Speaker 2: You know, but this is ridiculous, Well, James, I mean,
this just shows you Trump's genius. Trump has accomplished one
thing that Republicans have tried without success for sixty years,
and that's get Democrats to hate the Kennedys, or at
least one Kennedy right. And it's now managed to get
many people on the left to hate and get rid
of their electric cars. Was that Senator Mark Kelly dumped
his test life and bought a Chevrolet Suburban?
Speaker 1: I mean, I love it.
Speaker 3: I was reading we had there was apparently there was
a Tesla charge at charging station around Fargo or something
that was vandalized, and the people on the reddit were saying, yeah,
it's really weird, man. I mean a couple of years ago,
as all the rednecks who were vanalyzing the EV charging
station and wait a minute, did I miss that part? Yeah,
I don't think they cared one bit of the other.
They laughed at them. Laughterism vandalism, unless, of course it's
language in case by violence.
Speaker 1: But I don't.
Speaker 3: I can't know. I think the people who were probably
chopping it up were going for the copper. And I
don't see the good old boy sitting around saying, well,
we're done, We're done being sarcastic about bud Light. Why
don't we go vandalize a test list. I just don't
see it, No, I don't. What I do see is
that all of you are going to go to Apple
Podcasts didn't give us five reviews. What I do see
is that you're going to go to ricochet dot com
and click on the member feed. Oh you can't. Sorry,
that's right, you can't because you're not a member. But
if for just you know coins, for just a pittance,
you can find out exactly what you've been missing all
these years, and the same civil center rights something else
with a sibilants know home on the internet. That's ricochet
dot com.
Speaker 1: You can read the.
Speaker 3: Main page and listen to the podcast all you like,
but you join and there's lots of stuff, including the
right to comment.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 3: As Rob has said for seven hundred and thirty two
podcas asked, you get skin in the game, and that
means a place where people are invested in the community, working,
and that's why it's a great place exactly.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 3: Also cozy Earth for the sheets. You want to regulate
your temperature and make for a nice spring and bamboo
hr which will help you with the difficult parts of
running a business. You really don't want to think about
what you got to do anyway, Stephen, thank you, Rob,
always a pleasure yourself. Give regards to everybody back in
the you know, in the monastery, in the cloisters, and
we'll see everybody. We'll see everybody in the comments at
Ricochet for point. Oh good aye, thanks Fellows, Ricochet, Yeah,
Join the conversation.