Speaker 1: There was a piece in the New York Times yesterday,
Speaker 1: of course, the perfect thing to run on Father's Day,
Speaker 1: a liberal author giving a screed about her dad, about
Speaker 1: how insufficient, inadequate, bad her dad was, while her dad
Speaker 1: is still alive, by the way, and presumably able to
Speaker 1: read The New York Times, and she had written some
Speaker 1: things about how, you know their relationship was sort of
Speaker 1: improving in some way. Well, I ain't going to be
Speaker 1: improving after this. What my dad gave me this opinion
Speaker 1: guest essay. And you read through this piece and it's
Speaker 1: got stuff like this. My father gave me his freckly skin,
Speaker 1: and like him, I had melanoma. He gave me asthma
Speaker 1: and protruding elbows that are identical to his own. I
Speaker 1: don't know what a protruding elbow is. He gave me
Speaker 1: reddish hair that's kindly reluctant to go gray. He gave
Speaker 1: me an aversion to drinking by not having one himself,
Speaker 1: by not having an aversion, So my dad's an alcoholic. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's super nice. He did not give me the seat
Speaker 1: next to him at a San Diego Chargers game. He
Speaker 1: had season tickets when I was a kid, but I
Speaker 1: only found out about it years later. Okay, so we're
Speaker 1: complaining that he didn't take you to football games. He
Speaker 1: gave me the ability to talk to anyone because I
Speaker 1: couldn't stand the awkward silences that he provided. He gave
Speaker 1: me really nice houses to grow up in, but we
Speaker 1: moved a lot for his work, and things never seemed
Speaker 1: to be going well. So he gave me the financial
Speaker 1: He gave me financial anxiety too. He gave me the
Speaker 1: tools to withstand a sexist world. He would say, Hillary
Speaker 1: looks ugly in her pantsuits and her voice. Women don't
Speaker 1: belong on the golf course. This was my exposure therapy.
Speaker 1: He gave it generously. She's just bringing up every not
Speaker 1: kind thing her her dad ever did. He didn't give
Speaker 1: me a response. When I was little and watching a
Speaker 1: baseball game on TV with him, why I wanted to
Speaker 1: know did the umpire call a strike when the batter
Speaker 1: didn't swing his back? He couldn't be bothered to explain.
Speaker 1: So she's bringing up like one ran. I mean, really
Speaker 1: should a dad be like you know? Any one question
Speaker 1: that a kid asks that he doesn't answer is gonna
Speaker 1: be fodder for a hit piece against him in the
Speaker 1: New York Times thirty years later. Some things I took
Speaker 1: from him his Fox News when I set up his
Speaker 1: cable copies of love letters he'd written to a woman
Speaker 1: who wasn't my mom that I found when I was
Speaker 1: helping him move. So your dad was cheating on your mom?
Speaker 1: Well do you know? Well there's no context for that.
Speaker 1: That just throw them that out? Was it before he
Speaker 1: met your mom? Was it while he was married to
Speaker 1: your mom? Was it like? Did you hear and your
Speaker 1: mom get divorced? And then he was writing love letter?
Speaker 1: What's going on? I gave him things too. I gave
Speaker 1: him disappointment when I was born a girl. Then I
Speaker 1: gave him grandsons. I once gave him something really nice.
Speaker 1: He'd been forced to sell his signed baseball collection when
Speaker 1: he was having financial trouble. I wrote about it in
Speaker 1: the Times, and the fact that he'd gotten all the signatures.
Speaker 1: When he was fourteen and a batmoy for the Chicago
Speaker 1: White Sox, the White Sox front office contacted me asking
Speaker 1: if my dad would throw out the first pitch at
Speaker 1: a game. I took him to Chicago and at eighty
Speaker 1: five he took to the mound. I didn't give him
Speaker 1: a hard time about missing the plate. The time for
Speaker 1: all the giving and withholding feels over And I couldn't
Speaker 1: tell you the tally you just did. You just gave
Speaker 1: a tally of all the rotten things you're like, some
Speaker 1: of which didn't seem that bad. Your dad had a
Speaker 1: lot of awkward silences in his conversation. Okay, some guys
Speaker 1: are not talking. I don't know, no sympathy there for
Speaker 1: your dad. That maybe your dad just had a difficult
Speaker 1: time relating to his children, That maybe that was a
Speaker 1: thing he felt bad about all. The fact that your
Speaker 1: dad watched Fox News makes him an evil, horrible person.
Speaker 1: There's a feeling of loss. Of course, that's stronger now
Speaker 1: that I know that he had it in him. But
Speaker 1: it comes with warmth for him, and that is new
Speaker 1: and it feels good. On a recent visit, we had
Speaker 1: coffee together in the dining room of the assisted living place.
Speaker 1: Refusing his eternal gift of awkward silence, I kept the
Speaker 1: conversation going. She keeps going on and on about the
Speaker 1: fact that he has awkward silences. Maybe he just had
Speaker 1: a personality like that that he found it difficult to
Speaker 1: talk and relate to people. I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: remember what he talked about, but I am sure he
Speaker 1: eventually asked questions about my husband, my boys, and David Brooks. Again,
Speaker 1: that's another shot that he only wants to talk about
Speaker 1: men or something. At one point, I reached across the
Speaker 1: table and gave him my hand. I'd never done anything
Speaker 1: like that before. I'm not sure why I did it.
Speaker 1: Then he took it. I just cannot fathom this. This
Speaker 1: is a big old essay in the New York Times,
Speaker 1: clearly and boils down to a couple of thoughts about it.
Speaker 1: I was really revolted seeing this. First of all. I
Speaker 1: am more and more believing this. I'm not saying every
Speaker 1: liberal is this way, but a lot of liberal leaning
Speaker 1: people are. So much of modern day liberalism feels like
Speaker 1: resentment against your parents, and it's hard to psychoanalyze, you know,
Speaker 1: millions of people all in a single political movement, But
Speaker 1: I kind of feel like it's true. I think there
Speaker 1: are millions of millennials who became liberal with some sort
Speaker 1: of resentment and antipathy to the fact that their parents
Speaker 1: watch Fox News. This seems to be a constant, repeated theme,
Speaker 1: annoyance at your parents because they watch Fox News, annoyance
Speaker 1: at your parents because of this and that, and you
Speaker 1: can kind of see it. I mean, I think of
Speaker 1: how much, you know, how broad of a stereotype do
Speaker 1: I want to paint with today, How broad of a
Speaker 1: brush do I want to paint with? How big? How
Speaker 1: much do I want to you know, play to stereotypes.
Speaker 1: I'm hardly the first person to bring up the idea.
Speaker 1: I don't know how scientifically rigorous it is, but it
Speaker 1: seems anecdotally true quite a bit that a lot of
Speaker 1: same sex attracted persons if I will, report having bad
Speaker 1: relationships with their fathers and the absence of fathers and
Speaker 1: of father figures. Again, I don't know how rigorous that is.
Speaker 1: It's just a thing that's out there in the either.
Speaker 1: I don't know how true it is, find it. It
Speaker 1: seems to make sense to me as far as my
Speaker 1: relationship with my own children, and just sort of seeing
Speaker 1: on a day to day level the practical positive impact
Speaker 1: it makes to be there providing a different kind of parenting,
Speaker 1: a complementary kind of parenting to that which their mother provides.
Speaker 1: And I can see how, especially for my girls, if
Speaker 1: I am distant if I am cold, if I am
Speaker 1: pigheaded towards them, if I model certain kinds of bad behaviors,
Speaker 1: I can see how that can, especially depending on a
Speaker 1: kid's personality type, result in deep resentments. I can see
Speaker 1: all of that, and I can see how some of
Speaker 1: those resis can lead to becoming more liberal, sort of
Speaker 1: being too authoritarian or being too distant or whatever. But
Speaker 1: the thing about that article that just most saddened me.
Speaker 1: I mean, just the idea of publishing something like that
Speaker 1: about your father when your father's still alive. It led
Speaker 1: me to think about my own dad and my own
Speaker 1: dad who passed away. My dad was sixty seven years
Speaker 1: old when he passed back in March of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: and to think about, you know, one of the things
Speaker 1: that I guess was kind of clarifying about his passing
Speaker 1: was that after he's gone, there's this part of you
Speaker 1: that is sort of thinking about, well, were there things
Speaker 1: that could have been said or should have been said,
Speaker 1: or you know, were there things about how my dad
Speaker 1: raised us that could have been better? Could have you know?
Speaker 1: You know, maybe I think my dad was an amazing dad.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say he was perfect, certainly, no one is.
Speaker 1: And I think sort of the good thing about the
Speaker 1: Christian attitude or the Christian worldview. The Christian ethic is charity,
Speaker 1: loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself,
Speaker 1: loving your dad as yourself. And part of loving your
Speaker 1: parents as yourself is loving them for all their faults
Speaker 1: and seeing that you're no peach either, that you're not
Speaker 1: perfect either, and to afford a bit of grace, a
Speaker 1: bit of compassion understanding for your parents, who often were
Speaker 1: going through crap. You had no idea of stresses that
Speaker 1: they didn't burden you with because you were a kid
Speaker 1: and they loved you, and it's not your responsibility to
Speaker 1: bear the burden of you know, my dad took care
Speaker 1: of a patient who died, or you know, maybe something
Speaker 1: you know, there was a doctor at work who was
Speaker 1: doing drugs and my dad had to fire him, or
Speaker 1: you know, something stressful. His partners were getting angry about
Speaker 1: this and that and the other, and he's trying to
Speaker 1: negotiate something very tense. You don't as a kid, you
Speaker 1: can walk away with resentments based on things you barely
Speaker 1: even halfway know. And at my dad's death, it's like
Speaker 1: I was sort of thinking of like, well, there were
Speaker 1: things I wish I had done better by him with
Speaker 1: and I had no serious grievances against my dad, and
Speaker 1: believe me, but I do sort of think, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, it would have been nice to have been
Speaker 1: able to do this or do that. And I felt
Speaker 1: like after he passed the embrace of Christian charity, that
Speaker 1: I felt for my dad and that you know, I
Speaker 1: hope he is able to enjoy towards me right now
Speaker 1: in the next life is such that it allows all
Speaker 1: to be forgiven, that I bear no ill will towards
Speaker 1: my dad for any flaw he may have had. And again,
Speaker 1: my dad was a wonderful, wonderful man and a wonderful,
Speaker 1: wonderful father, and I have so much to be grateful for.
Speaker 1: So it's not like I've got some big lineup of
Speaker 1: you know, critiques of him that I'm shouldering or anything.
Speaker 1: So you know, maybe that's easier for me. And again
Speaker 1: I'm not saying, you know, there's some dads who are monsters.
Speaker 1: There's some dads who are horrible, horrible, horrible people. And
Speaker 1: this discussion sounds different for someone whose dad, you know,
Speaker 1: beat them or beat their mom, or you know something
Speaker 1: like that. I think though, that having the grace and
Speaker 1: wisdom and maybe the maturity to see I am deeply imperfect.
Speaker 1: I am not the best person. I would wish that
Speaker 1: my parents would have grace and mercy and forgiveness and
Speaker 1: compassion towards me for the difficulties that I put them through,
Speaker 1: and the difficulties that I present to them, and the
Speaker 1: ways that I annoy them, and the ways that I
Speaker 1: am sometimes you know, no peach to be around, the
Speaker 1: ways that I disappoint them, and the ways that I'm inadequate.
Speaker 1: I would want them to have grace and forgiveness and
Speaker 1: love me in spite of those failings. And I think children,
Speaker 1: especially adult children, should model that should should demonstrate that
Speaker 1: that this is part and that maybe this is just
Speaker 1: a healthy way to grow up. I found this more
Speaker 1: and more in my marriage is don't don't carry baggage
Speaker 1: with you. Don't carry the baggage of a little fight
Speaker 1: over a little thing. Apologize even if you think that
Speaker 1: you're not in the wrong, because half the time you
Speaker 1: probably are in the wrong. Forgive other people, because half
Speaker 1: the time you're probably doing stupid stuff that you should
Speaker 1: be forgiving. That you should be seeking forgiveness for and
Speaker 1: I think that's an important thing to think about on fire.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why I hated this, this New York
Speaker 1: Times piece so much. Or the author's just trashing her
Speaker 1: dad in the pages of the New York Times. Well,
Speaker 1: the poor guy's still alive, like airing is dirty laundry out,
Speaker 1: Like that's no way to treat your father, because it's
Speaker 1: no way you would want to be treated. I guarantee
Speaker 1: you this woman, she's probably got things in her life.
Speaker 1: She's not proud of things, she's embarrassed about things she
Speaker 1: should be embarrassed about, and she would hope, I presume
Speaker 1: that her parents would love her enough not to trash
Speaker 1: her for it, and to still love her in spite
Speaker 1: of her faults. Why wouldn't you afford that same grace
Speaker 1: to your father? Anyway, it was a horrible thing, I
Speaker 1: think for the New York Times to publish that on
Speaker 1: Father's Day. But at very least I think I think
Speaker 1: it's a kind of clarifying thing. How I don't know
Speaker 1: what it is. Maybe it's the modern industry of therapy
Speaker 1: that it's so often built around resentments towards your dad
Speaker 1: or something. I don't know. It seems bizarre, all right.
Speaker 1: When we return, I drove past the No King's Rally,
Speaker 1: one of them in Fresno. Anyway, we'll talk about it
Speaker 1: next on the John Girardi Show. So I was driving
Speaker 1: around on Saturday morning. It's sort of Saturday mid day
Speaker 1: about I guess about eleven eleven thirty, and I drove
Speaker 1: past Fashion Fair and I saw one of the big
Speaker 1: No King's rallies. So these are the astro turfed anti
Speaker 1: Trump rallies that are taking place all over the country,
Speaker 1: which hilariously, Judge Charles Bryer, the judge from the Northern
Speaker 1: District of California who tried to block President Trump's activation
Speaker 1: at the California National Guard, was talking about, oh, Donald,
Speaker 1: He's not allowed to act like a king. He can't
Speaker 1: just activate the National Guard anytime he feels like, you
Speaker 1: can't act like a king, which is hilarious that this
Speaker 1: is a judge who is just repair atting liberal talking
Speaker 1: points right now that Trump is acting like a king.
Speaker 1: Trump is acting like a king. And the idea that
Speaker 1: which I felt it was a very odd, just a
Speaker 1: very odd kind of rhetorical angle to take Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: seeing like a king, and we don't have kings in
Speaker 1: America because because of ice immigration enforcement and because of
Speaker 1: activating the National Guard. Neither of those things to me
Speaker 1: seem characteristic of a king. It seems characteristic of a president.
Speaker 1: Presidents execute the law. Federal immigration law is what it is.
Speaker 1: The president can tell federal employees federal law enforcement to
Speaker 1: go enforce federal law. It's kind of one within the
Speaker 1: constitutional wheelhouse of the president. Even activation of the National
Speaker 1: Guard is like pretty one hundred percent obviously within the
Speaker 1: scope of the president, he can activate the National Guard.
Speaker 1: John Kennedy activated the National Guard to enforce federal law
Speaker 1: when the governor of Alabama wasn't allowing schools to be desegregated,
Speaker 1: and so John Kennedy activated the Alabama National Guard. Like
Speaker 1: I find it, it's just seems like a weird angle. No,
Speaker 1: we don't believe in kings in America. Well, well yeah, obviously,
Speaker 1: but nothing that he's doing seems like characteristic of a king.
Speaker 1: Seems characteristic of a president who's very vigorously trying to
Speaker 1: enforce federal law. You can say it's good or bad,
Speaker 1: but you know, it is what it is. So I
Speaker 1: drove past and The thing I thought was funniest about
Speaker 1: the No King's rally was I it seems to be
Speaker 1: a very scattershot mission focused, a very diffused sort of mission,
Speaker 1: Like what what is the point of this rally? Driving past,
Speaker 1: I saw upside down American flag, a Palestinian flag, Mexican flag,
Speaker 1: Gay Pride flag, trans flag. I saw someone holding up
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood signs, So what the cause that they were
Speaker 1: advocating against? Now? I saw several people with anti ICE signs.
Speaker 1: I have a friend who works for PG and E
Speaker 1: who was texting us laughing like what did we do?
Speaker 1: Because he saw someone with a sign that said, you know,
Speaker 1: for f ICE and FPG and E. And he's like, well,
Speaker 1: whoa wait, what does PG and have to do with
Speaker 1: any of this? Why are we taking space line? And
Speaker 1: to which I said, you guys know why no one
Speaker 1: likes PG and E. So I just thought it was
Speaker 1: funny in that sense. But it relates to this that
Speaker 1: some people have pointed out the left has more and
Speaker 1: more sort of they seem to insist that every issue
Speaker 1: is connected to every other issue, that it's the uniticause
Speaker 1: as people call it, that being pro LGBT is the
Speaker 1: same as being pro gazo, which is the same as
Speaker 1: being pro labor, which is the same as being anti ice,
Speaker 1: which is it's this bizarre attitude they have. It's the
Speaker 1: intersectionality concept that all these things are interconnected and that
Speaker 1: the more sort of historic aggrievances you have, the higher
Speaker 1: you are within the liberal hierarchy. So it was funny
Speaker 1: to see it all on display in a way that
Speaker 1: was like puzzling as far as like, what actually is
Speaker 1: this rally about? And it seemed just to be about
Speaker 1: the entire I guess Democratic Party platform more or less.
Speaker 1: All right, when we return, some really significant shifts in
Speaker 1: what President Trump is saying about immigration enforcement and trying
Speaker 1: to grapple with the ethics of it. Next on the
Speaker 1: John Gewardy Show, a lot of odd shift, odd and
Speaker 1: very sudden shifting from President Trump in the last week
Speaker 1: when it comes to immigration and immigration enforcement and immigration prioritization.
Speaker 1: And I kind of want to break down what's happening
Speaker 1: and why now. I'm trying to sort through my own
Speaker 1: opinions on it, because on the one hand, there's a
Speaker 1: part of me that's a little look generally speaking, I'm
Speaker 1: in favor of stricter immigration enforcement. I think what Trump's
Speaker 1: done to actually secure the border has been fantastic, even
Speaker 1: the if only the attitude the Trump has created on
Speaker 1: the part of Latin American immigrants of don't try, don't
Speaker 1: try to cross the border illegally, because it's not going
Speaker 1: to work. Trump's going to deport your ass. That has
Speaker 1: been the biggest signal success of the first five months
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration is to stop that trafficking at
Speaker 1: the border, so that that's to be applauded and in general, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think people who come into the country illegally should
Speaker 1: be sent back. My problem is, and it's this legal
Speaker 1: concept of reliance. Okay, you have acted in reliance on
Speaker 1: certain representations made to you, You have incurred costs or
Speaker 1: damages or something based on acting in reliance to what
Speaker 1: someone says to you, and then someone pulls the rug
Speaker 1: out from under you. I see that. So the reliance
Speaker 1: angle is one area where generally speaking, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not too sympathetic to you know, I'm not a bleeding
Speaker 1: heart crying at every single illegal alien, sob story. At
Speaker 1: a certain point, people are adults and they know they
Speaker 1: were skirting the law, and they skirted the law that
Speaker 1: there are consequences to doing that, and I feel bad
Speaker 1: for them. And I'm not saying we should, you know,
Speaker 1: whip them with chains or anything, but that you know,
Speaker 1: if you're not in the country legally, you gotta go
Speaker 1: back often. I mean I at a certain level. That's
Speaker 1: you know, that there's a little bit of a tough
Speaker 1: love or whatever whatever you want to call it. The
Speaker 1: one part of that, though, that gives me pause, is
Speaker 1: the ping ponging back and forth that we've seen with
Speaker 1: American immigration policy. Slightly better control of the border, though
Speaker 1: still a lot of illegal immigration happening under Bush, a
Speaker 1: lot of illegal immigration happening under Obama, though Obama did
Speaker 1: deport quite a few people, Trump locking things down, Biden
Speaker 1: opening things wide up, Trump locking things down again, And
Speaker 1: the fact that people came into the country illegally stayed
Speaker 1: here because we didn't rea enforced the law for a
Speaker 1: long time. Either Obama or Biden gave this these representations
Speaker 1: basically to these people, ah yeah, just come on in,
Speaker 1: ah whatever. And the real problem was Biden letting people
Speaker 1: in under color of law, but simultaneously him breaking the
Speaker 1: law in order to do that. That's the thing that
Speaker 1: people I think don't grasp. The biggest category of people
Speaker 1: for which this was problematic was asylum seekers. Okay. People
Speaker 1: in Latin America figured out, if you go to the
Speaker 1: border and you make an asylum claim, that can be
Speaker 1: a way to get you to the front of the
Speaker 1: legal immigration line. Why, okay, asylum was a process that
Speaker 1: was set up. I don't actually know the historic setup
Speaker 1: for it, but I think the paradigmatic example would have
Speaker 1: been someone fleeing from Cuba. All Right, Fidel Castro is
Speaker 1: going to kill you and kill your family. You get
Speaker 1: a bunch of tires together from the fifty seven Chevy,
Speaker 1: you strap them together, you make a little raft, and
Speaker 1: you float from Cuba to wash up onto Miami Beach.
Speaker 1: Now did you legally immigrate to America? Did you legally
Speaker 1: immigrate to Miami? Well, no, you didn't have time. Fidel
Speaker 1: Castro is going to put a bullet through your head.
Speaker 1: So no, you didn't have time to contact the relevant
Speaker 1: immigration authorities say hey, I would like to apply for
Speaker 1: a visa blah blah blah. No, you're fleeing an active persecution.
Speaker 1: There's something happening in your home that's so dangerous that
Speaker 1: you have to flee Now I could see someone in
Speaker 1: a situation like that. In Mexico. Your town is controlled
Speaker 1: by the cartel. They can operate pretty freely throughout Mexico.
Speaker 1: You're near the American border, you realize that they are
Speaker 1: going to kill you and kill your family because you
Speaker 1: don't want to pay them or something, and so you
Speaker 1: flee to Brownsville, Texas and say, hey, I gotta leave. Like,
Speaker 1: if I stay where I am in Mexico, the cartel
Speaker 1: completely controls the area. The civil authorities can't do anything.
Speaker 1: They can't protect me. If I don't come here, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna die. My family's gonna die. Okay, I'm sure there
Speaker 1: are some people for whom that's legitimate. The problem is
Speaker 1: that everyone and their brother realize that's a way to
Speaker 1: sort of bypass the normal waiting around applications, et cetera
Speaker 1: that come with the normal legal immigration process. So you
Speaker 1: go to the border, you make an asylum claim, and
Speaker 1: what has to happen, Well, a judge has to review
Speaker 1: your asylum claim, and the American immigration judges are backed
Speaker 1: up years with asylum applicants all making asylum claims. Now,
Speaker 1: what was really happening, Well, the vast majority of people
Speaker 1: were making bogus asylum claims. They were making claims that
Speaker 1: really they just wanted to come to America so they
Speaker 1: could make money. That's what it was. That's all it was.
Speaker 1: They just wanted to go to America for the same
Speaker 1: reason that millions of people for years and years and
Speaker 1: years have wanted to come to America, which is more
Speaker 1: economic opportunity. But they're pretending it's an asylum claim so
Speaker 1: that they can kind of get to the front of
Speaker 1: the line, don't have to do the normal application process
Speaker 1: visa dah bah bah bah. Now, American laws says while
Speaker 1: you're waiting for your asylum claim to be processed and adjudicated,
Speaker 1: you are to be held basically in a holding cell
Speaker 1: like incarcerated. Basically you're supposed to be kept underlocking key.
Speaker 1: We only have like forty thousand such rooms, sells whatever
Speaker 1: it is accommodations for people making asylum claims. And we
Speaker 1: got millions of people making these asylum claims. So that's
Speaker 1: what federal law requires that this person is to be
Speaker 1: detained until their asylum claim is adjudicated. So what do
Speaker 1: you do? We physically cannot detain these people. The Trump
Speaker 1: administration answer was remain in Mexico. Okay, while your asylum
Speaker 1: claim is being adjudicated, you gotta wait in Mexico. The
Speaker 1: Biden administration action was, while your claims adjudicated, we will
Speaker 1: give you a kind of reprieve from your need to
Speaker 1: be detained, and we'll just let you into the country.
Speaker 1: Let you into America. We will give you a kind
Speaker 1: of parole. That Biden just made up. He just invented
Speaker 1: this idea that he was allowed to give people parole
Speaker 1: from the normal detainment that comes with the time when
Speaker 1: you're supposed to have your asylum claim processed. And he
Speaker 1: was doing this so much that that was what the
Speaker 1: whole CBP one app was about. It was basically a
Speaker 1: way to have people coming to the border who are
Speaker 1: about to get to the border, have them pre submit
Speaker 1: their asylum claim, pre receive their parole from the necessary
Speaker 1: detainment process, then they come into the United States. It
Speaker 1: was also a way for Biden to cook the books,
Speaker 1: basically to lessen the number of you know, border encounters,
Speaker 1: you know, not legally authorized border encounters that the border
Speaker 1: patrol was experiencing. If the people had already gone if
Speaker 1: the people had already gone through the app already made
Speaker 1: the asylum request, already got the necessary parole to allow
Speaker 1: them to come into the country. Well, then this isn't
Speaker 1: someone making a border encounter who's not legally authorized to
Speaker 1: be here. So the numbers looked better at the border,
Speaker 1: but Biden had no legal authority to do that. I
Speaker 1: think you can make a very credible argument that Trump,
Speaker 1: the first Trump administration remain in Mexico policy. That that
Speaker 1: was more colorably, Like you have sort of this impossible
Speaker 1: situation of you cannot detain all these people while their
Speaker 1: asylum claim is made. So what did the Trump administration do?
Speaker 1: Well leave it, stay in Mexico, Stay in Mexico while
Speaker 1: your asylum claim is being adjudicated. There's an impossibility at
Speaker 1: following the law. I think that's more reasonable. I think
Speaker 1: creating a parole that does not exist, that you don't
Speaker 1: have legal authority to create is ludicrous, Like you're creating
Speaker 1: this whole program, this whole setup, like that it's done
Speaker 1: under cover of law. And this, I think is the unfairness.
Speaker 1: You had all these people coming to America because the
Speaker 1: President of the United States was saying, come on in,
Speaker 1: come on in, I give you this parole. Come into
Speaker 1: the country, and now all of a sudden, an election
Speaker 1: happens and they're being yanked back when they just acted
Speaker 1: on a kind of reasonable reliance on what American legal
Speaker 1: authorities were saying at the time. The problem is, I
Speaker 1: think the American legal authorities were breaking the law, not
Speaker 1: following the law. I think Biden's actions were violating American law. Now,
Speaker 1: the big change Trump has signaled is shifting enforcement away
Speaker 1: from businesses like hotels and farms. All of a sudden, Trump,
Speaker 1: who was like, We're gonna do mass deportations and deport
Speaker 1: everybody is saying, well, not these people, And it's kind
Speaker 1: of leaving me scratching my head. Not sure how I
Speaker 1: feel about it. On the one hand, I would want
Speaker 1: a merciful policy, if you will, a policy that recognizes
Speaker 1: the fact that a lot of people were acting in
Speaker 1: reliance on the Biden administration And are you know, hey,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration said we could come in, they gave
Speaker 1: us this parole. We're just acting in reliance on that.
Speaker 1: Now now you're gonna yank us back like that. That's crummy. Now,
Speaker 1: I guess my enforcement measures would be anyone who committed
Speaker 1: a crime, you're out anyone who's still trying to cross
Speaker 1: the border now while the Trump rules are in place,
Speaker 1: get out of here. But I don't know that I
Speaker 1: love this whole. All of a sudden, Trump's like, oh,
Speaker 1: but not not farm workers, because they're really good workers.
Speaker 1: No one was disputing that illegal aliens were good workers,
Speaker 1: many many, many of them. That the problem was they
Speaker 1: were here illegally. And I guess my frustration is that
Speaker 1: some sort of business interests, probably Republican aligned business interests,
Speaker 1: got to Trump and said, hey, man, you're going to
Speaker 1: really hurt businesses here. And I'm guessing what it is.
Speaker 1: It's red state or red region farming and hotel conglomerate
Speaker 1: types who are Republicans go to Trump and say, hey,
Speaker 1: this is really going to hurt our bottom line here,
Speaker 1: Which leads me to to this point. This, This is
Speaker 1: one of the great injustices of illegal immigration. One of
Speaker 1: the big injustices of illegal immigration is it allows huge
Speaker 1: corporate entities to get away with paying people terrible wages,
Speaker 1: bad benefit back, you know, bad working conditions, bad wages,
Speaker 1: and get away with it because oh, you're gonna complain,
Speaker 1: how about we get your ass deported? You know, Jose,
Speaker 1: I guess the whole, the whole idea that we just
Speaker 1: sort of accept that, well, of course we need illegal
Speaker 1: aliens to work for our hotels. That just strikes me
Speaker 1: that this is not a just system. Then if you know,
Speaker 1: this sort of almost like an indentured servitude type situation,
Speaker 1: It's it's not quite indentured servitude, But what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is this sort of employment situation where you have this
Speaker 1: massive upper hand on the person working there that if
Speaker 1: they do anything to get out of line, you will
Speaker 1: ship their rear end out of here. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the sort of threat that gets implied with these relationships
Speaker 1: of industries that are reliant on illegal immigrant labor. So
Speaker 1: I find it unsavory that it's sort of all of
Speaker 1: a sudden they get Trump's ear and Trump's like, oh, well, well,
Speaker 1: of course not farm workers. They're hard working people. Well,
Speaker 1: the point here is a lot of the point about
Speaker 1: illegal labor is that it's replacing American labor, and all
Speaker 1: these are the jobs Americans wouldn't do. Yeah, well Americans
Speaker 1: won't do it for illegal alien wages and conditions, and
Speaker 1: maybe they shouldn't. Maybe that's not a just thing. So
Speaker 1: I can't say I'm overwhelmingly thrilled with this new shift
Speaker 1: from Trump. I guess we'll have to see how it
Speaker 1: actually plays out when we return. A ridiculous law proposed
Speaker 1: by Scott Wiener saying that cops can't have face coverings
Speaker 1: next on The John Girardi Show, Scott Wiener the worst
Speaker 1: person in all of American politics. A state senator who
Speaker 1: represents San Francisco, has announced a new piece of legislation,
Speaker 1: the No Secret Police Act SB six twenty seven. In
Speaker 1: this bill, he purports to ban local, state, or federal
Speaker 1: law enforcement from covering, with some exceptions, from covering their
Speaker 1: faces when interacting with the public, and require them to
Speaker 1: wear identifying info. All right, if he wants to try
Speaker 1: that with California police, go ahead. He has no legal
Speaker 1: authority to do that with federal officers, not with ICE,
Speaker 1: not with the FBI, not with the military. That is insane. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is just basic federalism. State government can't tell federal
Speaker 1: officials what to do. Not like that. That'll do it,
Speaker 1: John Jolready show see you next time on Power Talk