Speaker 1: Hi, I'm an Colter. Welcome to my sub stack. I'm
Speaker 1: interviewing probably the best member of the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: Representative Chip roy the actual MAGA representative on immigration who's
Speaker 1: now running for Attorney General of Texas, which I also
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about, but mostly immigration. Welcome
Speaker 1: Representative Roy.
Speaker 2: Well, a good morning. It's a very low bar to
Speaker 2: crossing Congress to be the best member of Congress, but
Speaker 2: I appreciate it. You know.
Speaker 1: One of the things that is so impressive about you,
Speaker 1: and maybe we'll get to that, though I really want
Speaker 1: to talk more about immigration, is you know, there are
Speaker 1: moments in history where you know, wild things are going
Speaker 1: on and you don't know what you should be saying
Speaker 1: now when how it to look in history? And I
Speaker 1: would say January sixth was one of those moments. Fox
Speaker 1: News certainly got it completely wrong, and oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it every step of the way. If you could go
Speaker 1: back and write a history of what a politician in
Speaker 1: Washington should have said, at every step of the way
Speaker 1: you did it, it's just incredibly impressive. Starting with asking
Speaker 1: Meadows for the evidence. We're happy, we're happy to back
Speaker 1: up President Trump, but you got to give us something
Speaker 1: to work with, and defending Liz Cheney for to some
Speaker 1: extent not being thrown off simply for what her position was,
Speaker 1: but then going after her for turning it into looking backwards.
Speaker 1: But anyway, was there anyone as good as you were
Speaker 1: during that time? You were really pitch perfect every step
Speaker 1: of the way.
Speaker 2: Well, and you know, it was an interesting time to
Speaker 2: go through. And I tried to let the Constitution be
Speaker 2: my guide. I tried to at every step of the
Speaker 2: way seek truth wherever it may lead. Right, I'm a
Speaker 2: Jefferson guy. That's Jefferson quote. And at every step I'd say, look,
Speaker 2: I know there was fraud here. Of course there was.
Speaker 2: We turned our elections over to a mail in ballot scheme.
Speaker 2: No kidding, there was fraud. So that was a mistake.
Speaker 2: So we go through all that and say, all right,
Speaker 2: there was fraud, let's pursue it. Then we need the evidence.
Speaker 2: Let's make sure we can demonstrate that they're in fact
Speaker 2: a state might present different slate of electors. Okay, great,
Speaker 2: let's go work with the states to try to demonstrate
Speaker 2: where we believe there's fraud, work through the process, and
Speaker 2: then get to election day. Do what you think is
Speaker 2: right in my view, we only had fifty slates of electors.
Speaker 2: You got to defend the constitution. You can't just unilaterally
Speaker 2: empower the Vice president. And at various points in times
Speaker 2: the point about Liz, my opponent is attacking me for
Speaker 2: quote defending Liz Cheney and my race for Attorney General.
Speaker 2: What I said was what I was doing was try
Speaker 2: to defend the process and then say, Liz, you can't
Speaker 2: lose your frigging mind and then not represent the Republican Conference.
Speaker 2: So we work through a process to do that with
Speaker 2: then Speaker McCarthy, who I was pushing from the right,
Speaker 2: and at the end of the day, then Liz, continue
Speaker 2: to lose your mind, and I said, all right, Liz,
Speaker 2: we got to go get a different Republican Conference chair.
Speaker 2: But at every point you're trying to figure out how
Speaker 2: to navigate things, to try to preserve a country and
Speaker 2: to stand up and defend a sovereign nation under the
Speaker 2: rule of law and the constitution. And that's what I
Speaker 2: think the American people want right now. It's why running
Speaker 2: for Attorney general, to try to secure the border, to
Speaker 2: try to stop the March of Islam, to try to
Speaker 2: stop members of Congress, and you know, the swamp creatures
Speaker 2: from destroying our country and ignoring that we need to
Speaker 2: actually do the job that we said we would do,
Speaker 2: and that's what I've always tried to do.
Speaker 1: Yes, No, it's very impressive. I recommend that anyone go
Speaker 1: read your Wikipedia page for all these controversies, and if
Speaker 1: you could go back and write the history of Oh
Speaker 1: I wish I'd said that. I wish I'd been in
Speaker 1: that position. You did it right. They are live in
Speaker 1: real time. I also like how you've worked for worked
Speaker 1: with lots of Republicans and cross them when they were wrong,
Speaker 1: but then you know, defend them personally, come back and
Speaker 1: endorse them, as in the case of both Ted Kruz
Speaker 1: and Ken Paxton. No, you really are. It's very impressive
Speaker 1: the way you've handled your career. But let's get to
Speaker 1: the most important issue, immigration, About the only one I
Speaker 1: trust on immigration one is why? Well, probably the overarching
Speaker 1: question is what is it with your fellow Republicans? And
Speaker 1: I'd say Democrats, but forget them, your fellow Republicans not
Speaker 1: understanding that immigration determines every other issue. Does everyone have
Speaker 1: to live in Texas and California before they understand how
Speaker 1: the country will change if we just continue this unrestricted
Speaker 1: third worlder is pouring into our nation. You talk to them,
Speaker 1: you work with them. Is it the donors? Are they
Speaker 1: afraid of being seen as racist? What is it with them?
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of things going on with
Speaker 2: your kind of radical leftists or are weak Republicans. Some
Speaker 2: of them do come from states where they just have
Speaker 2: no idea. I remember I was getting lecture by a
Speaker 2: member of Congress from Vermont and I was like, they're
Speaker 2: talking about the immigration issue, and I was like, I
Speaker 2: looked up the data, and you guys have like sixteen
Speaker 2: thousand people, you know that aren't lily livered leftist white
Speaker 2: people up in Vermont, And you want to lecture me
Speaker 2: when we've got like three or four million people in
Speaker 2: Texas illegally, Like it's insane. They have no idea, right.
Speaker 2: But the real issue, the real issue, I think has
Speaker 2: been that the Chamber of Commerce Republicans have been the
Speaker 2: driving force behind the Republican Party for at least three
Speaker 2: or four decades, and so it's always the default to, oh,
Speaker 2: but we've got to have the talent ship. We won't
Speaker 2: have a workforce, right, you've got to go to India,
Speaker 2: You've got to go to you know, the Middle East,
Speaker 2: you got to go to the you know, China, and guys,
Speaker 2: we're not going to have a country left, right Like
Speaker 2: in other words, it goes well beyond just the fact
Speaker 2: that we were being weak about the border and securing
Speaker 2: the border. It goes to the fact that they don't
Speaker 2: want to acknowledge that maybe we have a country we
Speaker 2: need to preserve, right And you know, I'll talk about
Speaker 2: how we are now at the highest percentage of foreign
Speaker 2: born people in the United States that we've ever had.
Speaker 2: We're at fifty one and a half or fifty two
Speaker 2: or fifty three million people. That's sixteen plus percent, and
Speaker 2: that's higher than even it was in nineteen twenty right
Speaker 2: after we'd had the massive migration late eighteen hundreds early
Speaker 2: nineteen hundreds. Yet we froze immigration for about four decades
Speaker 2: in nineteen twenty five or so, right, and then it
Speaker 2: was Ted Kennedy and the leftist then a bunch of
Speaker 2: weak Chamber of Commerce Republicans that exploded the doors after
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty five, and then heavily in the nineties and
Speaker 2: two thousands. So I just don't think people want to
Speaker 2: acknowledge it. They've been you know, they've been trained to say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, we're a boarder. We're a country that you
Speaker 2: know opens our doors to everyone. Well, we yes, but
Speaker 2: we're a country that is supposed to acknowledge sovereignty and
Speaker 2: that we want to preserve who we are as America
Speaker 2: and a Christian culture. And that's what's at stake. And
Speaker 2: people I think are finally waking up to it, But
Speaker 2: only when you've got basically jihattists coming to our country
Speaker 2: and there's still not a way to it.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's true. Speaking of keeping our doors open, I
Speaker 1: don't think there are any true assi LEAs in the
Speaker 1: world anymore. Most of them requesting asylum they just come
Speaker 1: from crappy countries. Well, the crappy countries because of the
Speaker 1: people who live in those countries. That's what they're used to.
Speaker 1: You bring them here, we become a crappy country. And
Speaker 1: even if there were another Hitler and another Holocaust going
Speaker 1: on someplace in the world, I don't know why they
Speaker 1: all need to come here. There are other countries that
Speaker 1: could take them out. Why don't Japan or Israel take
Speaker 1: a few of them?
Speaker 2: And this is exactly right. And this was actually what
Speaker 2: was so frustrating during the Biden Mayorcus years when you know,
Speaker 2: we had all these people coming in that were claiming
Speaker 2: asylum and then parole. Right, they were doing this purposely,
Speaker 2: and they were bastardizing our laws to show people into
Speaker 2: the country. But I think we've got this mistaken idea
Speaker 2: of asylum anyway. And you know, there's this whole concept
Speaker 2: of a save third country within our law, where you know,
Speaker 2: if you can get to the neighboring country and seek asylum,
Speaker 2: that's what you do. But we've been saying, oh, no,
Speaker 2: whatever will be the country that you just everybody can
Speaker 2: come to. You can go through thirty six countries to
Speaker 2: get here, and that's all fine, even though you were
Speaker 2: saved at thirty three of them along the way. And
Speaker 2: that has turned it into something that was never meant
Speaker 2: to be. And this is one of those things that
Speaker 2: I think drives me crazy the most because I can
Speaker 2: say something as a Christian, which I'm probably a Christian this,
Speaker 2: you know, coming out of this Holy weekend and Easter weekend,
Speaker 2: that yes, you've got someone, You've got a child, you
Speaker 2: got someone who's sick, or someone who's really fleeing oppression
Speaker 2: and they're on your front porch. Yes, we're called to
Speaker 2: help them, but what you don't do is turn your
Speaker 2: country over to say anybody can come here have babies.
Speaker 2: Let's not talk about the birthright citizens thebacle of the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court appears a poise to make which we should
Speaker 2: talk about, but that you can just anybody can come here,
Speaker 2: so we share. I shaired a hearing on these kinds
Speaker 2: of topics, and I was pressing one of the leftist witnesses,
Speaker 2: and I said, look, I want to be very clear.
Speaker 2: It's not PLYL or V do same topic. Right about
Speaker 2: free education for legal aliens. That's the same as birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2: That's the same as asylum and parole. Hey, everybody just
Speaker 2: come here. Don't mind to use our resources, spend our money,
Speaker 2: you know, marry our women, go to our hospitals, whatever
Speaker 2: you want. Insanity, Well, I asked this liberal. I said,
Speaker 2: let me ask you if there were you know they're
Speaker 2: about came remember the number. I said, there's a you know,
Speaker 2: maybe a trillion kids you know that are that are
Speaker 2: miners around the country. Can they all come to the
Speaker 2: United States tomorrow? The guys that will, of course not.
Speaker 2: And then I just went through it logically, five hundred billion,
Speaker 2: one hundred billion, a billion, you know how many can come.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to play your games, Congressman, It's not
Speaker 2: a game. You guys seem to think that anybody can
Speaker 2: come here have a baby, or anybody can come here,
Speaker 2: come to our school, and we're supposed to just educate them,
Speaker 2: and then you no longer have a country. That's the
Speaker 2: same issue with asylum, same issue with parole, birthright, citizenship,
Speaker 2: plalar vedo. We're either a nasian or or not. We
Speaker 2: have to decide.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, And it's I mean that pretend we're open
Speaker 1: to the world, is it self discriminatory If we'll take
Speaker 1: all all the poor people of the world. Somehow we
Speaker 1: seem to be getting only those who live within walking distance.
Speaker 1: What about the poor who can't just walk here? Oh no, no,
Speaker 1: well they're on their own. And that's kind of a
Speaker 1: weird way to decide who gets to be your fellow citizen.
Speaker 2: Well, and importantly, what we're also doing is we're destroying
Speaker 2: a lot of other countries, right I remember, I think
Speaker 2: of in the Northern Triangle, one of the think was
Speaker 2: the first lady of I can't remember which country it was,
Speaker 2: but said, hey, you know, we're losing a lot of
Speaker 2: our people to America and we need to build our
Speaker 2: own country. I'm like, yes, we ought to be projecting
Speaker 2: power in the Western hemisphere and projecting and gay in
Speaker 2: the rule of law rather than saying, oh, that's okay,
Speaker 2: we don't have any doors, walk on in, because we're
Speaker 2: destroying countries in the process of saying that, we're trying
Speaker 2: to quote help people. And by the way, you're helping
Speaker 2: them by coming here making the wards of the state.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's it's insanity. That's not helping people. You know. Look,
Speaker 2: Milton Friedman famously said he was fine with open borders
Speaker 2: if you don't have a welfare state. Well, there are
Speaker 2: reasons why I would quibble with that, right Islam, other things,
Speaker 2: but in general, the point is right, right, if you
Speaker 2: don't have a welfare state and you have to make
Speaker 2: your own way, fine, I'm pretty I'm a lot more
Speaker 2: flexible and saying you want to come here and work hard, Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm listening, But we have a welfare state and we
Speaker 2: have you know, islam As who want to kill us,
Speaker 2: color me crazy. I think maybe we should keep that,
Speaker 2: you know crazy, you know Muslims out who are coming
Speaker 2: here or trying to kill us, and we should actually,
Speaker 2: you know, not invite people to come join a welfare
Speaker 2: state and have to carry the bill.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, And not surprisingly Pwiler was a Texas case
Speaker 1: about whether Texans would have to keep paying for the
Speaker 1: free education of illegal aliens. Of course these cases come
Speaker 1: out of Texas and California. Y're the first ones. I mean,
Speaker 1: do people in Vermont and I don't know, tenth District
Speaker 1: of Kentucky. Your friend Thomas mass or whatever district he's from,
Speaker 1: is also one of those nineteen fifties demographic congressional districts.
Speaker 1: Ask you about him in a moment? Do they have
Speaker 1: do they not know anyone in Texas or California? Can
Speaker 1: they call them and ask how's it working out? And
Speaker 1: it was im pliler video, as you surely know. That's
Speaker 1: where Justice Brennan dropped the dicta not part of the
Speaker 1: ruling of the case, saying I see no difference in
Speaker 1: legal and illegal immigrants. And that's what led to what
Speaker 1: they're called birthright citizenship, which is really anchor babies, not
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship, birthright citizenship would be the children of legal aliens,
Speaker 1: and you know that's the big issue in the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case. I listened to the argument again recently in
Speaker 1: the Supreme courtans it's not about our but I wish
Speaker 1: both Attorney General John Sower and I guess our side
Speaker 1: would stress the points that there weren't There wasn't an
Speaker 1: illegal immigration problem back then. It would be like, you know,
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how we would deal with I
Speaker 1: don't know, computer viruses or something after the Civil War.
Speaker 1: But they were the facts that in the case they're
Speaker 1: all looking to Wang King kim Ark, which was the
Speaker 1: child of a legal immigrant. They used the word domicile
Speaker 1: so much. Well, they wouldn't have used the word illegal
Speaker 1: alien because that expression didn't exist back then. It was
Speaker 1: what you're describing sink or swim, no welfare state, you
Speaker 1: can't make it, you go home. And I actually think
Speaker 1: sours argument was was pretty good in retrospect. I was
Speaker 1: kind of confused at the time because this whole domicile
Speaker 1: thing is trying to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
Speaker 1: But I just don't think the point is being stressed
Speaker 1: enough that no, it was never expressly stated because it
Speaker 1: didn't exist. But when Justice run and slipped that dicta in,
Speaker 1: it wasn't the rule that the children of illegal aliens
Speaker 1: were citizens. That's why he snuck it in there. Otherwise
Speaker 1: there couldn't even have been the case, Bler Beado. But
Speaker 1: you surely listened to the audient. What did you think
Speaker 1: of it?
Speaker 2: So in general, I mean I could and I could.
Speaker 2: I could go through this for a two hour segment, right,
Speaker 2: but let's let's just kind of get into the summary.
Speaker 2: I thought that when sour and when I think the
Speaker 2: case that the that the government was making, I think
Speaker 2: that led to I guess it was Kataji Brown Jackson's
Speaker 2: absurd japan Wallet, you know, line of questioning, which was
Speaker 2: ridiculous because he was basically, you know, trying to make
Speaker 2: I think a cogent case. And then the other issue
Speaker 2: that bothered me was when he said what he said
Speaker 2: about people can fly to our country to your point
Speaker 2: about illegal aliens, and then John Roberts says, yeah, but
Speaker 2: you know it's still the same constitution. Well, hold on,
Speaker 2: that's not the point. The point is we didn't have
Speaker 2: an entire machine dedicated to moving line some masses of
Speaker 2: people as a legal aliens and then coming here to
Speaker 2: have babies on our soil in that time period, as
Speaker 2: we do now. But here's what I wish that the
Speaker 2: government had stressed further, the absurdity of if you just
Speaker 2: had twenty million Chinese Communist mothers show up tomorrow pregnant
Speaker 2: with babies, and they had the babies on our soil tomorrow,
Speaker 2: you mean to tell me we suddenly have twenty million
Speaker 2: Chinese Communist babies because that's what the fourteenth heat Amendment meant.
Speaker 2: That's just clearly false. The fourteenth Amendment was to deal
Speaker 2: with slavery, So I wish we'd have made that argument
Speaker 2: a little bit more clear. When i've the amicus brief
Speaker 2: that I filed that a great appellate lawyer named Chuck
Speaker 2: Cooper worked with us on and Eric Schmid, who's the
Speaker 2: chair of the Subcommittee Constitution in the Senate. The three
Speaker 2: of us filed this brief. We were trying to really
Speaker 2: focus in obviously on subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and
Speaker 2: really highlight that issue and that important aspect of the
Speaker 2: fourteenth Amendment, because it gets to the heart of what
Speaker 2: the purpose of the fourteenth Amendment was about and like
Speaker 2: we can nerd out on the law here, but for
Speaker 2: everybody listening, it's so really important that we get this
Speaker 2: right or we literally, I don't think, have a country anymore.
Speaker 2: And if the court is going to side with the
Speaker 2: idea that the absurd example I gave that if twenty million,
Speaker 2: but it's not that absurd. If twenty million people come
Speaker 2: here and moms and have babies, bam, you have twenty
Speaker 2: million citizens that are now get they're citizens of China
Speaker 2: and the United States. That's clearly wrong. So I don't
Speaker 2: understand where Roberts and Amy Cody Barrett and a couple
Speaker 2: who seemed to be indicating that they were going to
Speaker 2: go you know, against the president's executive order. I don't
Speaker 2: know where they want to try to set the line.
Speaker 2: There's some line of DOMICILEI you're talking about this as well,
Speaker 2: that wouldn't be it. But if you're here, but you
Speaker 2: live here and you set up and you own a
Speaker 2: house because you came here illegally ten years ago, and
Speaker 2: then you have a kid, well, now you're just making
Speaker 2: crap up in the court instead of us setting a
Speaker 2: bright line. You're born of citizens and you're subject to
Speaker 2: the jurisdiction of the United States, then you're a citizen.
Speaker 2: Otherwise you should be naturalized. Anyway, we'll have to keep
Speaker 2: fighting and working through it, depending on what the court does.
Speaker 2: You know, that was a nineteen eighty two case, and
Speaker 2: you know, if you go back and look at the law,
Speaker 2: the court was basically acknowledging that they thought it was
Speaker 2: kind of ridiculous, but even in their own words, like
Speaker 2: in what they were acknowledging and saying in the case.
Speaker 2: But the court at that time, remember that was the
Speaker 2: same court that had decided Row ten years earlier in Texas,
Speaker 2: by the way, and you know, and it set this
Speaker 2: completely ridiculous notion that somehow the constitution says that if
Speaker 2: you're an illegal alien child and you can be deported,
Speaker 2: which under a law you could be deported. Nevertheless, a
Speaker 2: Texas taxpayer has to pay for that child's education. And
Speaker 2: the court basically acknowledge, oh, yeah, you could be deported,
Speaker 2: but oh, by the way, we just think it would
Speaker 2: be bad. We just think it would be wrong if
Speaker 2: you don't educate the child. Where in the hell is
Speaker 2: that in the constitution. It's not, And that's what we're
Speaker 2: dealing with.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes boy judges and Supreme Court wreck a country
Speaker 1: in the war in court or those years certainly showed it.
Speaker 3: I'm Greg Corumbus. Join Jim Garrity of National Review and
Speaker 3: me each weekday for the Three Martini Lunch Podcast. We'll
Speaker 3: give you the good, bat and crazy news of the
Speaker 3: day and lots of laughs too. Find us right here
Speaker 3: on the Ricochet Audio Network at ricochet dot com or
Speaker 3: wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: I know what you reminded me of, Yeah, I guess,
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett. I'm worried about and I'm also worried
Speaker 1: about Roberts for that insane done a ruling that Roberts gave.
Speaker 1: They acknowledge that Obama issues a completely illegal executive order
Speaker 1: allowing illegal aliens to Dreamers. I want the dreamers to
Speaker 1: go first, by the way. I want them gone before
Speaker 1: the felons. They're here illegally and they're obnoxious and stamping
Speaker 1: their feet. Now, dare you not give us amnesty? No?
Speaker 1: I want them gone for obnoxious. But anyway, he for
Speaker 1: the Dreamers, he says, we're going to give you work
Speaker 1: permits and you know the equivalent of a citizenship card.
Speaker 1: After saying over and over and over again to illegal aliens,
Speaker 1: I can't do anything. Congress has to pass the law.
Speaker 1: Congress didn't and wouldn't pass such a law. And then
Speaker 1: Trump comes in and overturns what Roberts acknowledges was an
Speaker 1: illegal executive order, which he overturns by executive order, and
Speaker 1: Roberts finds, Nope, can't do that. No, you can issue
Speaker 1: the illegal executive order, but you can't overturn an illegal
Speaker 1: executive order with an executive order. It's utter, complete madness.
Speaker 1: And if he'll do that with Dreamers, we have to
Speaker 1: hope Katanji Brown Jackson cares about the Civil War, the
Speaker 1: fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was entirely about freed slaves.
Speaker 2: Well, well, I'm glad you mentioned that. It's a really
Speaker 2: important argument. And when I was the first assistant Attorney General,
Speaker 2: we were arguing, DAPPA right, DAPA, that's right, and that
Speaker 2: because that was our foray into the arguments. At the
Speaker 2: point in time, I got to remember exactly why that
Speaker 2: the batting order was was what it was. But we
Speaker 2: were setting up the stage for the DACA fight. Leaning
Speaker 2: into the case, I think where we had to strut
Speaker 2: the strongest case and parents, right, that's correct. And deferred
Speaker 2: action for parents. People don't know what the acronyms mean, right,
Speaker 2: deferred actions for these these children that the that the
Speaker 2: Obama administration just manufacturer had a thin air, then this
Speaker 2: was a okay. And if you're the parents of these children, right,
Speaker 2: it's what they always do that it's just like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: it's you know, we're gonna do one the little thing,
Speaker 2: and then we're gonna do another, and then do another,
Speaker 2: and we're making it all up as we go. Well,
Speaker 2: we won that case, right, the Dappa case, and it
Speaker 2: was very clear that it was a erroneous order by
Speaker 2: the president and that it wasn't enforceable. And then you know,
Speaker 2: fast forward your point about the arguments on on on DACA.
Speaker 2: You know, the problem is is when you have a
Speaker 2: court in the case of the Roberts Court, where you know,
Speaker 2: Roberts I think wants to is concerned about the legacy
Speaker 2: of the court. Right, When when that's your driving motivation,
Speaker 2: that's a problem. And I think that's what we solve
Speaker 2: with the saving Obamacare by calling it attacks, right, not
Speaker 2: a mandate. That's that's when you're dangerous. When when a
Speaker 2: judge is going to say, well, I know what's right here,
Speaker 2: but you know there are bigger things at play, and
Speaker 2: so we, the geniuses and rogues, are going to have
Speaker 2: to come in and be the adults to solve the problem.
Speaker 2: That's not at all what you're supposed to do. You're
Speaker 2: supposed to literally just look at the law and say
Speaker 2: what it is and then make the ruling. And had
Speaker 2: we done that with Obamacare, then we could have gone
Speaker 2: back to the Congress and fought it out. Had had
Speaker 2: we done this with Dappa and Dhaka, you know, you
Speaker 2: know we were successful at DAPPA, but had the had
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Roberts not done that, you know, we need
Speaker 2: to have a much more thorough understanding with the American
Speaker 2: people that the president cannot just unilaterally declare people status.
Speaker 2: You just can't do that contrary law. And that's what
Speaker 2: we need to be very clear about. And as Attorney General,
Speaker 2: I mean that's what I'll be fighting. Like Pylo Bido,
Speaker 2: we've not had to fight. We need to have it.
Speaker 2: Let's go at that fight. We need to keep fighting
Speaker 2: on birthright no matter what the Court does. If they
Speaker 2: get it wrong, we're going to go find other angles.
Speaker 2: Who fight it more. I don't accept that because some
Speaker 2: one court makes a bad decision, Well you're just stuck
Speaker 2: with it for one hundred years and then we'll just
Speaker 2: then maybe maybe you can reconsider precedent. That's ridiculous. We've
Speaker 2: got to fight everything right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're so into precedent, and the precedent is overwhelming
Speaker 1: that the Fourteenth Amendment, at least the citizenship clause refers
Speaker 1: only to freed slaves. It's just that later case that
Speaker 1: applied to the Chinese child of Chinese legal immigrants. But
Speaker 1: I mean, the distinction in everyone's head is legal illegal.
Speaker 1: They just didn't use the word illegal anyway. One thing
Speaker 1: I also wanted to bring up was why are you
Speaker 1: one of the few guys who wanted to do the
Speaker 1: correct thing and impeach Homeland Security Secretary Ale jend the
Speaker 1: rule of my orcs. I thought it was so stupid, impeaching,
Speaker 1: trying to impeach big and it's not going to go
Speaker 1: any place. It's going to die. But myorcus, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: he was violating federal I want him. Try maybe as
Speaker 1: Attorney general you could do that. Try him as an
Speaker 1: accessory to murder thousands upon thousands of mergers. But I mean,
Speaker 1: as you know, and I think much of the public doesn't,
Speaker 1: he was openly violating written federal law. You even if
Speaker 1: it's illegal, Assi Lee, and none of them are genuine assilies,
Speaker 1: you have to detain them. No, they're all just being processed,
Speaker 1: process processed, just open violation of our laws. Flying the man.
Speaker 1: If any cabinet official ever deserved to be impeached, why
Speaker 1: didn't that go any place? Why didn't all Republicans see
Speaker 1: he's the guy we need, we need to impeach.
Speaker 2: So in that in that summer, remember which year that was,
Speaker 2: Let's see the twenty third, twenty twenty one, maybe I
Speaker 2: can't remember. At the height of all of that, I
Speaker 2: was the first call Forer's impeachment. Wrote an entire case,
Speaker 2: like a whole memo outlining why he should be impeached.
Speaker 2: And there were multiple points in the argument. My good
Speaker 2: friend Andy Biggs, he's running for governor in Arizona, and
Speaker 2: he was also a champion of this very early to
Speaker 2: give credit words due and we leaned in hard, but
Speaker 2: we couldn't get the numbers we needed right, We forced
Speaker 2: the question at one point fell short. Then we're ultimately
Speaker 2: able to get the numbers and get him impeached, but
Speaker 2: it took two years of working at it to get
Speaker 2: it there. My argument was pretty simple one. He was
Speaker 2: very clearly violating our laws for an intentional policy choice
Speaker 2: of flooding our country with people from around the world
Speaker 2: in the false name of asylum, false name of parole
Speaker 2: and compassion. Literally, parole is supposed to be a singularly
Speaker 2: focused policy for one person for special cases. They were
Speaker 2: parolling thousands of people via an app and there was
Speaker 2: no basis in law to do it. That was endangering
Speaker 2: the American people. So he was not just negligent, but
Speaker 2: he was not even just wilfully blind. I mean he
Speaker 2: was literally orchestrating the conspiracy against our lause. And furthermore,
Speaker 2: he lied to me under oath when I pressed him
Speaker 2: on these questions, when he was sitting in front of
Speaker 2: me in the House is Shary Committee, and he would
Speaker 2: explicitly lie about the impact of these The border secure,
Speaker 2: we have it secure, Like I'm literally on the phone
Speaker 2: with border patrol right now. It's not secure, man. And
Speaker 2: the idea that we would not impeach somebody like that
Speaker 2: is absurd. We probably had about ten Republicans to go, well, Chip,
Speaker 2: you know, high crimes and misdemeanors, and they start arguing
Speaker 2: this arcane absurdity out of the Constitution and the truth.
Speaker 2: And look, by the way, I'm obviously I'll go to
Speaker 2: great pains at my own expense to remain faithful and
Speaker 2: fidelity to the Constitution. But I think it is a
Speaker 2: wrongheaded reading to not look at what the impeachment clauses
Speaker 2: were about. To say that if you're undermining the sovereignty, security,
Speaker 2: safety and well being of the American people, and you're
Speaker 2: the Secretary of Homeland Security and you're purposely making us
Speaker 2: less safe, that somehow that's not a high crime and misdemeanor,
Speaker 2: a violation of the public trust. Of course, he can
Speaker 2: be impeached. And as I said, he lied to me
Speaker 2: on the road, so we bought it. We got it.
Speaker 2: We obviously got him impeached. We weren't able to get
Speaker 2: him convicted, but it was an important and important statement
Speaker 2: and message to the world, and I was happy to
Speaker 2: lead that effort.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just couldn't understand why they bothered with the
Speaker 1: impeachment of BIB And that's that's for Twitter. The impeachment
Speaker 1: of my orcis. So that's going to be one of
Speaker 1: my tasks for you if when you become a journey
Speaker 1: General of Texas, because I happen to notice Texas is
Speaker 1: pretty aggressive about prosecuting accessories to murder, giving them the
Speaker 1: death penalty.
Speaker 2: Well, I think and one of the things that I
Speaker 2: think matters when we go back and look at all
Speaker 2: of this, it's all going to be tied back. Every
Speaker 2: question you've asked is all going to ultimately be tied
Speaker 2: back to the march of Islam across our country. And
Speaker 2: so everything that my orchest did, everything that happened in
Speaker 2: that administration, everything that we talked about impliler on birthright citizenship,
Speaker 2: everything we've talked about about the Chamber of Commerce, Republicans
Speaker 2: not understanding it, all of those issues tied back to
Speaker 2: one primary issue. If we don't stop the march of
Speaker 2: Islam into our country, we will not have a country.
Speaker 2: That's it Paris, London, It's coming here. We see it
Speaker 2: happening here. I'm Donnie Dearborn. You know, we were seeing
Speaker 2: it in Dallas and all these issues. So that's one
Speaker 2: of the reasons I'm so animated by this and happened
Speaker 2: for a number of years. As I've been watching the confluence,
Speaker 2: so many of these people are like, oh, but it's
Speaker 2: just about you know that Mexican wants to come here
Speaker 2: and work and you know, come get a job, Because
Speaker 2: that's not what it's about. It's about something much greater
Speaker 2: and much bigger than that.
Speaker 1: And what we're sorrying about the Mexicans? What's that in
Speaker 1: I'm more worried about the Mexicans because the numbers are
Speaker 1: just so enormous. We're turning ourselves into another failed Latin
Speaker 1: American country. And I can't tell you how much I
Speaker 1: wish one tenth of the firepower we're using on a
Speaker 1: row we're being used against the Mexican drug cartels. I
Speaker 1: mean they kill about one hundred thousand Americans every year
Speaker 1: in America. How many Iranians? How many Americans have Iranians
Speaker 1: killed every year for the past oh twenty twenty years,
Speaker 1: Like the Mexican drug cartels, that's whom we should be
Speaker 1: declaring war against. It's this Americans have this weird instinct
Speaker 1: that that we can't do anything that's good for America.
Speaker 1: No since since since the drug cartels are only killing
Speaker 1: Americans well, we can't do that. We have we have
Speaker 1: to go clean up the Middle East, someplace that is
Speaker 1: not killing Americans, at least not in America.
Speaker 2: But it looks like, well, I think we're we agree
Speaker 2: in that. You know. One of the first things I
Speaker 2: did in twenty nineteen was to make a put forward
Speaker 2: legislation to designate cartels as terrorist organizations, which is ultimately
Speaker 2: something the President's signed an executive war on a year ago.
Speaker 2: Because I had so many members of Congress who're like, ship,
Speaker 2: we can't do that, because you know, we got other
Speaker 2: things that are they're real terrorist organizations. What do you
Speaker 2: mean real terrorist organizations? These people are cutting people's heads
Speaker 2: off and making us in danger, to putting fentanyl into
Speaker 2: our communities and like running gangs and cartels up into Texas.
Speaker 2: Of course they're a terrorist organization, which you could take
Speaker 2: them out and treat them as such. And look, I
Speaker 2: think I do think this administration is serious about that,
Speaker 2: and part of the operation of Venezuela was dedicated to
Speaker 2: that task. I think we need to be much more
Speaker 2: aggressive in Mexico. I'm a Western hemisphere guy. I think
Speaker 2: we need to focus on the Western hemisphere and figure
Speaker 2: out how to root out all the terror activities and
Speaker 2: so forth. And my main point about Islam is one
Speaker 2: predominantly because I've been very public about my suspicion about
Speaker 2: a two hundred billion dollars blank check about not putting
Speaker 2: ground troops on the ground and so forth in what's
Speaker 2: going on in the Middle East. But my biggest issue
Speaker 2: is is the legal immigration system. We're importing people here
Speaker 2: who don't love America, okay, from all walks of life,
Speaker 2: and the growth of Islam in Texas is one of
Speaker 2: those byproducts. And just for everybody listening out there, it's
Speaker 2: all of this bine. You're going to lose your country
Speaker 2: if you don't have a border and if you don't
Speaker 2: stop imboarding people who don't share your values. Whether there's
Speaker 2: two million people rooting for Mexicans in the World Cup
Speaker 2: or rooting for you know, all the other countries. When
Speaker 2: you've got the World Baseball Classic here, you've got a
Speaker 2: stadium full of people in an American stadium rooting for
Speaker 2: the other team. I think you've got a pretty good
Speaker 2: idea of the problem you have here. That's true from
Speaker 2: that standpoint as well as from the March of Islam.
Speaker 2: Hi I'm Ben Sas and I'm Chris Sneierwald, And this
Speaker 2: is not dead yet.
Speaker 3: We're all dying, but some of us have been brought
Speaker 3: face to face with that reality. However long each of
Speaker 3: us have to do it though.
Speaker 2: We all want to live a good life.
Speaker 3: One with meaning, love and joy, and our guests are
Speaker 3: here to help us do exactly that.
Speaker 2: Now available for download and streaming at ricochet dot com.
Speaker 2: Ricochet Join the conversation.
Speaker 1: Do you know how many mosques there are in Texas?
Speaker 2: Three hundred, three hundred and thirty and growing. There's more
Speaker 2: being built in Texas every year than any other state.
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, that's an important issue for you. Also, I
Speaker 1: loved I think I just mentioned. Although we're always saying
Speaker 1: the right thing at each moment. Although you did call
Speaker 1: for Ken Paxton's resignation when when he fired staffers instead
Speaker 1: of I don't know, owning up to bribery or whatever
Speaker 1: it was, even endorsed him for the Senate. Now am
Speaker 1: I right on that? Well?
Speaker 2: I've said that I'm good with with with Ken, and
Speaker 2: we've we've kind of made amends and moving forward. We
Speaker 2: neither one of us have endorsed each other, but it's
Speaker 2: you know, we're all working together and trying to get
Speaker 2: elected and get through this, you know, make sure we
Speaker 2: beat Democrats here in Texas. And you know, look, Ken
Speaker 2: and I move move forward, and we're working together and
Speaker 2: how we can represent Texas. So we're important.
Speaker 1: One of the great things about him that I hope
Speaker 1: you will continue as AG. I had an injuryw with
Speaker 1: Chris Koeback AG of Kansas a week or two ago,
Speaker 1: and I know Chris Paxton spearheaded which Kobac followed very
Speaker 1: quickly with asking Department of Homeland Security for lists of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens in their states so they could to help
Speaker 1: them purge the voters roles of illegal aliens. And by
Speaker 1: the way, breaking the law like voting illegally, using home
Speaker 1: and Social Security card, illegally crossing the border illegally, those
Speaker 1: would very clearly be contradictory to domicile, which is why
Speaker 1: I think General Souer was stressing that so much domicile
Speaker 1: is a synonym for illegal. Paxton has been pretty good
Speaker 1: on immigration.
Speaker 2: It's been very good. I mean the reason that I
Speaker 2: was delighted to work for Ken when I was a
Speaker 2: first assistant and we built a great team and went
Speaker 2: to war. Was because of our very much in line ideology.
Speaker 2: I'll say this. He's been advocating for the Save America Act,
Speaker 2: which I authored obviously in the House representatives of Mike
Speaker 2: Lee in the Senate. The Save America Act, it gets
Speaker 2: right to the heart that people say, oh, you're going
Speaker 2: to have these owners requirements to check citizenship. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: give me a break. I mean, this is ridiculous. But
Speaker 2: it's a good bill on voter idea in that. But
Speaker 2: the part that people don't understand is that we clean
Speaker 2: up the mess that the courts created on the state's
Speaker 2: ability to check voter roles, because right now there are
Speaker 2: restrictions and limitations that were put in place by judges
Speaker 2: limiting the state's ability to check the voter roles. Arizona,
Speaker 2: for example, has two different systems, one for state law,
Speaker 2: one for federal where they check the voter rules for state.
Speaker 2: They don't for federal because of those limitations.
Speaker 1: So what are the limitations. I didn't realize that.
Speaker 2: Well, what the court came in and said was that,
Speaker 2: I guess under the what was it, the MVRA from
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety whatever, it was ninety five or six that
Speaker 2: the way it was interpreted by the courts was a
Speaker 2: limitation on your ability to check the voter roles when
Speaker 2: you're running the database against it for your elections in
Speaker 2: the state. So the state says, hey, we want to
Speaker 2: check them. This was a limit on that. So the
Speaker 2: Save America had cleans that up and says that is
Speaker 2: not the case. We not only want to get rid
Speaker 2: of that barrier, we want to require states and the
Speaker 2: federal government to check the voter rolls so that you
Speaker 2: know that everyone is a citizen that is voting, in
Speaker 2: addition to the other requirements we put in place. I'll
Speaker 2: send you the details on that, but it's absurd.
Speaker 1: One question I have about the Save Act, which seems
Speaker 1: like a legit complaint, and maybe this is fake news,
Speaker 1: but that a woman who's gotten married takes her husband's name,
Speaker 1: her birth certificate won't have her married name, has to
Speaker 1: go dig up the marriage certificate, go back in and
Speaker 1: present it and I don't know. I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: it's not an insuper bowl burden, but it does seem
Speaker 1: a little annoying.
Speaker 2: So the way we handled that was we put in
Speaker 2: place whatever the states want to do to be able
Speaker 2: to make it to where whatever you have to do
Speaker 2: when you want to prove citizenship. So let's take a
Speaker 2: step back. We don't change anything. If your exist, if
Speaker 2: you're already registered, you can go vote. It's when you
Speaker 2: have a life changing event, whatever it is, if you move,
Speaker 2: you know, yes, you get married, divorce, whatever, and you
Speaker 2: got to go what you have to do anyway, right,
Speaker 2: you got to go change all your paperwork with a state.
Speaker 2: When you do that, you just have to take that
Speaker 2: extra level of documentation to demonstrate citizenship. And we added
Speaker 2: a clause in their end, which I think should be
Speaker 2: the one that takes care of it, which says a
Speaker 2: state must allow a woman, or really doesn't say woman,
Speaker 2: a person to sign an affidavit that just says I'm
Speaker 2: the same person. So I'm Sarah Smith on my birth certificate,
Speaker 2: I'm Sarah Jones on my driver's license. I'm the same person. Done,
Speaker 2: and that's under penalty perjury. But what that does is
Speaker 2: enables anybody to do it in a one step process.
Speaker 2: So if you can't, if you don't have a passport,
Speaker 2: if you can't find your old license, just go to
Speaker 2: the DMB. You sign up to register to vote, and
Speaker 2: your citizenship. All you're doing is saying I'm the same
Speaker 2: person and I'm signing it under penalty perjury. Then if
Speaker 2: we get people trying to do it for fraud, we
Speaker 2: can go back and go after them because they signed it.
Speaker 2: That's all we do.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, that's an important clarification that, weirdly I haven't
Speaker 1: heard on CNN or MS. Now, Okay, I'm going to
Speaker 1: let you go soon. I know you have an important
Speaker 1: campaign to run, But I have one last important question
Speaker 1: that is just something that's always driven me crazy about
Speaker 1: the way we talk about illegal immigration. So, for example,
Speaker 1: under Biden, you know, on a particular year, first year,
Speaker 1: I think two point seven encounters at the border something
Speaker 1: like that with illegal aliens. But then they always act
Speaker 1: they anyone who talks about this, the border patrol, politicians,
Speaker 1: everyone just axcepts some absolute definite number for the quote
Speaker 1: got aways, i e. The ones who slipped in past
Speaker 1: the border patrol. Well, if they slipped in past the
Speaker 1: border patrol, how do we know it's exactly seven hundred thousand.
Speaker 1: How do we know it's not ten millions slipped in past?
Speaker 1: The way they got away is the point?
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is one of those questions that I've always
Speaker 2: especially in the height of the crisis two three, four
Speaker 2: years ago, that's what I would go out and say, guys,
Speaker 2: we have no idea. What we have our estimates that
Speaker 2: border patrol and good faith. You know, my friends down
Speaker 2: there that are all working on it, they'll look at cameras,
Speaker 2: they at somebody's job, they check it right and say, well,
Speaker 2: we saw thirty six go across that camera spot. You know,
Speaker 2: we've got to work you know. Then they try to
Speaker 2: go on, are those the same people? Because the camera
Speaker 2: will catch a mirror and then over there. So they
Speaker 2: do an estimate, and that's all they can do. So
Speaker 2: there's no way to really know for sure, especially where
Speaker 2: cameras aren't working wherever they're crossing. So that's one of
Speaker 2: those things that I think people don't know. And I
Speaker 2: got to say right now, and with all due respect,
Speaker 2: and by the way, you know, this administration border patrol,
Speaker 2: they're doing a great job. They're doing what they're supposed
Speaker 2: to be doing. But you can always do more. Right
Speaker 2: and right now, we can't get good answers on all right,
Speaker 2: how many gudaways are there right now? How many get
Speaker 2: you know, we're trying to push to say, as good
Speaker 2: as it is now, I know there's still people sneaking
Speaker 2: into our country, and so we're trying to press for
Speaker 2: that as we're supposed to do, and people have no
Speaker 2: under no idea in understanding now bad at how wide
Speaker 2: open the border was. But importantly this part what you
Speaker 2: brought up rightly on asylum and parole. When you're basically
Speaker 2: inviting people here and saying that we're going to allow
Speaker 2: you to come in. You can have a wall that's
Speaker 2: a an on four efens for a wall, let me
Speaker 2: be clear, but you can have one from the Gulf
Speaker 2: America to the Pacific. But if you're opening the door
Speaker 2: and saying asylum and parole, then it's all academic. That's
Speaker 2: why I drafted HR two. I actually drafted a bill
Speaker 2: that was better than HR two, but Tony Gonzalez through
Speaker 2: a fit. So we worked through and got a bill
Speaker 2: that was pretty much ninety percent of it in HR two.
Speaker 2: And that was a part of the speaker deal. Remember
Speaker 2: that we had that big fight on the floor of
Speaker 2: the House and everybody's like, Chip, you're going to cost
Speaker 2: us the speakership. It's like, no, we're not calm down.
Speaker 2: We worked out a deal. We got HR two as
Speaker 2: a part of that agreement. We need to pass that again.
Speaker 2: Now we're eighteen months into this Congress. For sixteen months,
Speaker 2: why haven't we passed HR two. Let's send another message
Speaker 2: that we want to codify all of the things the
Speaker 2: president's doing on an asylum, on parole, on you know, catcher,
Speaker 2: release flores, all that stuff we got to fix because
Speaker 2: once you get another Democrat in there, they're going to
Speaker 2: abuse it and put people into our country and then
Speaker 2: you're back to square one. So we got to do
Speaker 2: it now.
Speaker 1: Well. Also, Republicans majority days as a majority are dwindling fast,
Speaker 1: and I mean, I can't believe thun can't get more
Speaker 1: of this through. There's got to be some way to
Speaker 1: do this. This is like first term where we're about
Speaker 1: to lose a majority in the House and very slight
Speaker 1: majority in the Senate, but by the majority speaking, which
Speaker 1: I lied. I do have another question. Do you know
Speaker 1: how much of the wall has been built?
Speaker 2: No, don't. I don't have an estimate on the miles.
Speaker 2: I'll get you an answer on that because I'm due
Speaker 2: to go catch up. I know they're making progress, but
Speaker 2: I have no idea what the mileage is at the moment,
Speaker 2: I should know. I'll find out.
Speaker 1: We really need to light a fire under the president
Speaker 1: on that the first week of the Iran war could
Speaker 1: have built the entire eleven billion dollar wall across two
Speaker 1: thousand miles. It's enough of this off.
Speaker 2: Well. I do think your point about the Senate is
Speaker 2: really important on all of this, whether it's wall building,
Speaker 2: whether it's getting the border secure, whether it's what we're
Speaker 2: trying to push them on on Save America, and then
Speaker 2: now DHS funding. Like I'm fighting these guys because I
Speaker 2: don't believe we should isolate border patrol and ice in
Speaker 2: this DHS funding bill. I just disagree. I would take
Speaker 2: the entire DHS package, put it in a reconciliation bill,
Speaker 2: send it back over the Senate that fund it for
Speaker 2: the rest of the president's term. Stick my middle finger
Speaker 2: up at Democrats and say, we have funded every single
Speaker 2: ounce of this for the next three years. But what
Speaker 2: I wouldn't do is isolate border patrol and ice out
Speaker 2: of some hope that we might fund them. It's the
Speaker 2: most biggest It's.
Speaker 1: Explain that more because that was one of the dumbest
Speaker 1: things that fun did. I've ever ever seen a politician do.
Speaker 1: As everyone knows, Democrats don't want to fund ICE. It's
Speaker 1: much like they're defund the police. They want they want
Speaker 1: illegal to have more rights than US citizens do. And
Speaker 1: immigration enforcement is part of DHS. But of course that's
Speaker 1: also well TSA, as we've all found out. So House
Speaker 1: passes it's bill and then it goes over to the Senate.
Speaker 1: Now explain what idiot Boyfoon did or however you want
Speaker 1: to refer to him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we the House have passed full funding of
Speaker 2: DHS four times and Senate to the Senate. The Senate
Speaker 2: is getting obstructed because of the sixty vote threshold that
Speaker 2: they can't get due to fund it because Democrats won't
Speaker 2: won't fund ICE and border patrol components of DHS. Let
Speaker 2: me back up for a minute. I didn't want to
Speaker 2: isolate DHS back in February. I argued with the administration
Speaker 2: and the Senators and my own leadership. Once you do that,
Speaker 2: they're going to now zero in and try to gut
Speaker 2: all the things we want out of DHS. I sucked
Speaker 2: it up as a team player. I voted for the
Speaker 2: approaches that didn't include DHS. While I was complaining the
Speaker 2: whole time, and now here they are trying to isolate
Speaker 2: Ice and border patrol. So last week or two weeks here,
Speaker 2: whatever that was, they tried to jam us by sending
Speaker 2: through the bill the just approaches with no Ice and
Speaker 2: border patrol. It's don't worry, we'll fund it. Late said no,
Speaker 2: that's ridiculous. So we fought. We stayed. You know, I
Speaker 2: skipped my seedback thing and whatever. It didn't come home
Speaker 2: in campaign. I stayed an extra day and a half
Speaker 2: to fight it, and God blessed the Speaker. We said no,
Speaker 2: screw to you. We took it and sent full funding back. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: over the last week they've all said, well, now we'll
Speaker 2: do it the smart way and we'll try to get
Speaker 2: it done, and we'll do it as we'll get border
Speaker 2: patrol and ice done through reconciliation at the same time
Speaker 2: as we moved the appropriations bill. I still oppose it
Speaker 2: because I mean, look, if we get that out of it,
Speaker 2: at least it's something that will get it funded first
Speaker 2: for three years. I'll take that as at least a
Speaker 2: small win compared to what they were going to do.
Speaker 2: But I still don't want to isolate it. On principle.
Speaker 2: I don't want to send a message to American people.
Speaker 2: I think that's wrong. We ran on this own it.
Speaker 2: Take the entirety of DHS, send it over the Senate,
Speaker 2: make them have to pass it as a package. Well, Chip,
Speaker 2: it will take too long. It's complex and committees. These
Speaker 2: guys would have gotten on the boats, gone to Normandy,
Speaker 2: looked up at the cliffs and said, there are clips.
Speaker 2: I guess we've got to turn around. It's just it's extraordinary.
Speaker 2: So we're working on it. I'm going to keep fighting
Speaker 2: for it. Hell, I would send DHS and Defense in
Speaker 2: one package. Get's idea, and then say, you know what,
Speaker 2: if you've got then if we have a shutdown, we're
Speaker 2: just shutting down the stupid Department of Education. Who cares?
Speaker 2: You know? So well, we'll keep fighting over the next
Speaker 2: couple of weeks and see what happens.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's great. No, you're a very good strategist, and
Speaker 1: I guess this isn't one of those tough interviews where
Speaker 1: you can show your genius. Because I'm a huge supporter
Speaker 1: of yours and I wish you the best of luck
Speaker 1: in the Attorney General's race. Thanks for coming on Representative
Speaker 1: Roy Well.
Speaker 2: Thanks Anne god bless Ricochet. Join the conversation.