January 13, 2025 • 34 mins
In this episode of "It's a Numbers Game," Ryan discusses the significant increase in net migration during Joe Biden's administration, referencing a New York Times article. Theo Wold, former Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy under Trump and current Solicitor General of Idaho, provides insights into immigration policies and executive actions from the Trump era. They explore the complexities of legal and illegal immigration, the role of Congress, and potential actions Donald Trump could take if he returns to the presidency. It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Girdusky is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more from Ryan check out natpop.newsletter.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome back to It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Gradusky.
Thank you again for being here this week very special episodes.
So right before the end of the year, the New
York Times released a very important story about immigration, immigration
being the number of net migrants that came in during
Joe Biden's presidency. Net migration, of course, is the number
(00:28):
of new immigrants who come to a country subtracted by
those who have left, so that's where the net comes in.
And the number of the net migrants that came in
during Joe Biden's presidency from twenty twenty one to twenty
twenty three averaged two point four million per year two
point four million overall. During Biden's first three years with presidency,
(00:52):
it was about eight million total. That's the Esmen number.
Eight million is larger than the population of thirty seven
US states. It's essentially like adding the state of Washington
to the overall population again, a new state of Washington.
All those people from diverse backgrounds into the country over
a four year period, it was, according to the New
(01:14):
York Times quote, the fastest pace of arrivals than during
any other period, including the peak years of the Ellis
Island it's the fastest rapid change of the country since
eighteen fifty when illegal immigration remains a large part of
the story. Legal immigration and executive actions like special programs
to bring thirty thousand migrants a month from places like Venezuela, Haiti, Colombia,
(01:39):
and Cuban Nicaragua are also added into it. It's a
mixture of legal immigration, executive action, and illegal immigration. No
doubt that this was a very big reason why Trump won.
No doubt that part of the backlash towards the Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris presidency vice presidency, this was the surge of population.
(02:02):
Because with that many new people comes a drain on resources,
certain criminality, housing crisis, a lot of things followed all
this surge of people, both legal and illegal. So it
comes into question now that Donald Trump is approaching the
presidency in just a few days, what can he do
(02:23):
about it? What can he do to actually, you know,
govern with his presidential mandate on immigration. Part of that
is put into two different boxes, right, legal immigration versus
illegal immigration, and another box is Congress what their responsibility is,
what they have to do to help Trump achieve his agenda,
(02:44):
and what he could do on his own. Those are
the essential questions he will be looking at his administration
will be looking at going into the initial first few days,
going into the first month. That will be essential. And
my first guest on this podcast ever, knows a lot
about this because he was in the trenches the first
time around. Back during the first term of the Trump administration.
(03:07):
THEO Wolds served as the Deputy Assistant at the President
for Domestic Policy under Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner. He
currently serves as a Solicitor to General for the Graces
of Idaho, and he knows about more about this than
basically anyone in the world. So thank you for coming
on THEO. Thanks for adming Ryan so in an honor
to be your first guest. Thanks for you well with you.
You're a smart guy, and I know your time is valuable,
(03:29):
so I really appreciate it THEO. What are some executive
actions that the presidents oversaw during the first term of
the Trump White House when it comes to immigration. I mean,
we know the big ones like remain in Mexico and
the travel ban, but what would you say were like
some things that didn't make the cover of the New
York Times or at people on MSMB screaming MSNBC screaming
(03:52):
about that were essential for Trump to achieve any real
gains when it came to immigration, both illegal and legal,
and you think we're notework.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, well so the first place I'd start is just
to say, one of the central thesis that we had
in the Trump administration on immigration policy in one point
zero in Trump forty five was really this simple question
that a mutual friend of ours, Ryan first gave to me.
And I would repeat this almost as a yoga mantra,
(04:23):
which is who decides who decides who's coming into the
United States and under what terms? And how long are
they going to stay for? And when you start to
ask that question as sort of like the governing principle
of any immigration action you want to take to expand
immigration as some people like Lindsay grant that proposed over
the years, or to contract it like some of our
(04:43):
friends at Center for Immigration Studies have often advocated for.
When you start to ask that question, then you really
get a view of how little the average American or
their elected representatives in Congress know or understand about the
year to year immigration flows. And I think that's great
that you started with net migration, because again, it will
come as a shop And I do this experiment quite
(05:05):
often when I speak to to lay groups here in Idaho,
just you know, your local rotary club or a group
of Republican dentists or something, and I'll say, you know,
how many legal we're not talking illegal, but legal immigrants
came into the United States last year? And usually, you know,
they'll throw out a number of like five hundred thousand,
and it will come as an absolute shock to your
(05:28):
average American that legally we let in about one point
five million people every year, or as you said, you know,
to give another example of this, a city the size
of San Jose is added to the United States every
year and the composition of that one point five million.
Some of them come under the EB five EB three visas,
which are investor visas. They open a business or they're
(05:50):
willing to put up so much capital in the United
States so they get a greedy card.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Some are coming through family immigration status. The bulk is family.
That's change. The bulk is the bulk by far is
family migration.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Yes, but some come through means like the diversity of
the lottery, which is often talked about. You know inside
the Beltway, inside Washington, d C circles, But the average
American has no idea that fifty five thousand legal immigrants
come to the United States every year who have no
prior ties, they have no famine.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Why say, somebody for diversity vis the lottery explain that.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
So the diversity thes The lottery was a concoction of
in large part Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer in the
early nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
It was meant to power brain trust that learned to
trust in Washington. Always, Chuck Schumer, go ahead, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
When they're gaining up, it's always going to be a
good result for the American people.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Yeah, so their view.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Ted Kennedy had a particular obsession with increasing immigration from
Ireland because of the way the immigration flows were structured
at that time under the Heart Seller Immigration Act in
the nineteen sixties, which essentially did away with some of
the migration caps, the ethnic or racial caps that were imposed.
In nineteen twenty, he bring some flows to the entire world.
(07:07):
Ted Kennedy thought that Ireland was really losing out on
its possibilities of increasing net migration into historic Irish American
cities like Boston, and so the Diversity Lottery was designed
to ensure that nation states that have low representation in
our overall immigration flows, either because of family chain migration
(07:27):
or the investor visas or the short term labor employment visas,
that the Diversity Lottery is meant to target those nation
states increase their overall representation almost if you will, DEI
for our nation's immigration system.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
And well, and then I asked you a question. Is
Ireland still represented in that number? Yeah? Oh cool, not
at all. Wait a minute, they have a long term
vision there, Teddy Kennedy. So who does come on the
diversity visa.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
It at It's a great question. So just last week
I had an Uber driver who was from Sri Lanka
and I have some interesting tie to Srila.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Got my wife and I honeymoon there, for example. And
I said to him, I said, oh, Sri Lanka.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
You know, when I was in Sri Lanka, not many
people actually knew much about America. But you know, they
thought we were British because of the traditional Commonwealth connections
to England. And he said, yeah, yeah, you know, I
came here kind of on luck. And I said, what
do you mean by luck? He said, I'm a winner
of the Diversity Lottery. Oh, how did you know to
apply for that? Well, my neighbor, he and his wife
(08:27):
had applied for it for years and they told us
about it. He never won, but I put my name
in and first time I got chosen. And that's what
the Diversity Lottery is doing, right. Fifty five thousand people
a year, no prioritized, no family connections here, don't necessarily
have to speak the language, have any understanding about our civics,
our form of government, the constitution. And that is by
(08:49):
design how the Diversity Lottery chooses these people. And by
and large, the Diversity Lottery will cap participation of nation
states that are overrepresented. So you will not get any Mexican,
Mexican nationals, Chinese nationals, Indian nationals winning the Diversity Lottery.
You will see Kazakhstani's, Huzbaki's, Sri Lankan's, Bhutanese. Those are
(09:11):
the kinds of people. Nepalese are big winners in the
versus lottery. And then a lot of countries, Well I.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Did with that, our Appleleese nationals right, And the biggest
defenders of the Diversity Lottery today is the Congressional Black Caucus.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
They see it as a non negotiable item because often
the versity lottery will come up in these discussions about
comprehensive immigration reform. Well, let's take those fifty five thousand,
you know, diversity latter of visa slots and turn those
green cards into more H one b's or something. And
the Congressional Black Caucus will say, absolutely not, because those
fifty five thousand year year really increased the overall share
of African immigration into the United States, and.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
They feel like by bringing in more black people as
better representation for them, because most Black members represent black
majority districts overwhelming They did right, right, And this is
the this is the feature that is so often overlooked.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
And Ryan, I think you're you're very, very unique in
this respect, which is seeing the connection between immigration policy
and the raw brass tacks of electoral politics and Congressional
Black Caucus members, as you said, they want to see
the increase of the African diaspora because that will increase
their percentage share of seats and also the power of
(10:21):
their of their representation for their constituency in Congress. So
you know, the point about raising the diversity lottery is
here's this little rabbit ward of a visa class that
most Americans have no idea about, but fifty five thousand
over ten years starts to be pretty significant.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
You know.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Let's just say, for example, let's just take a random
visa class here, you know, just just a random one,
and we say, oh, well, you know, look, the American
people have nothing to worry about because this random visa
class is capped eighty five.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Thousand a year.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
And let's say this visa class is dedicated to improving
high skilled.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Workers in the visa first.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
You know, yeah, we could say, hypothetically we called Bagman
b people say, well, there's there's nothing to worry about, Ryan,
because it's just eighty five thousand people a year. And
this is part of the game that the policy makers
and the immigration open borders lobby play with the American people,
which is it's eighty five thousand year, but one individual
visa in that eighty five thousand is good for six years.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
And so the next greeneryard you can then switch from
from visa to green card, from green cartesses and then
through family migration, sponsor a whole village. Eventually.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
That's exactly right, right, even staying within the terms of
those eighty five, it's eighty five this year, and eighty
five next year, and eighty five the year after that,
and so very quickly that eighty five thousand, they said,
don't worry, you're pretty little little head about because it's
just eighty five thousand quickly becomes six hundred thousand people, right,
or you know, very quickly becomes as you noted, net
(11:56):
migration two point two million a year, or a city
the size of Houston coming into the United States every year,
taking jobs, taking social services, crowding our schools, crowding our
emergency rooms. And look like where I live in Idaho,
you know, the second fastest grossing state in the country.
We don't have the infrastructure to support American citizens, let
(12:16):
alone the influx of assylies and refugees who are coming
into into the state, coming into the country. So on
the numbers alone and the pathway you just named, I mean, really,
this this sort of myopic focus that has happened on
the last two weeks on H one B, I've kind
of found amusing because the real pathogen in this whole
(12:36):
chain of displacing American workers starts with the student visas.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
I mean, the pathway. Is no one avertars to the
student visas you're listening to. It's a numbers game with
Ryan Gerdsky. We'll be right back when you talk about
Idaho and how fast Idaho is growing, and many cities
have experienced this giant influx, especially during the Biden presidency
because he let the whole world in. Everyone talks about
(13:01):
housing primarily as a demands issue. We don't build enough houses, sorry,
as a supply issue. They don't talk about as a
demand issue that there were so many more new people
per year asking for housing that it's a course causing
prices to rise excemely high in some metro markets. It's
not just a supply issue. It is a demand issue
(13:23):
primarily driven by immigration. And there's other things that go
into this. I don't want to focus completely on that,
but yeah, that's a big part of it, as well
as the plethora of visas like the student music you mentioned, So.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
That's exactly right on the demand side. And you know,
I don't want to wear the tinfoil hat here, but
I think it's reasonable at this juncture to say, well,
who are the biggest backers for expanding legal immigration? And
when you go through the numbers and the recipients either
of these short term labor visas or the people who
expend the most resources in Washington lobbying for expanding the
(13:58):
visa carve outs. Remember this is another number here. There
are over one hundred and eighty five separate visa classes
and categories. One hundred and eighty five. I mean there's
a visa for ice dancers and cardival cruise ship performers,
right right, There's a visa nearly for everything. So the
people who are always looking to expand the nexus of
those visas and to expand the total numbers that are
(14:19):
issued year to year, they often turn out to be
the same people who are buying up residential neighborhoods, who
are speculating in the.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Creation of new apartment buildings.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
And the question I get asked all the time here
in the Boise metro area with the construction of new
apartment facilities and the building of all these new suburb
you know, sort of flop, you know, suburban homes. Is
who's coming to live in these? And you look and
see who the financiers and who the constructors are, and
it's black Rock, It's Vanguard. I mean, just as people
(14:51):
have long started to figure out, and who are those
people advocating for not the American worker, those are some
of the people, the biggest fish advocating for expanded short
term visas and expanding the F one, the M one,
the J one, the H one, B and so they're
filling the apartments with short term and seeking immigrants. Well,
and it's it's sort of an unbreakable cycle, if you will.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Now going back to the original question, is there anything
a lot of those things are done by Congress. Is
there anything the executive branch can do on its own,
the press can do on its own when it comes
to immigration, when it comes to maybe making the threshold
to qualify for those visas much harder. Yeah, here, here's
like a couple of basic things. So at the very
(15:33):
end of the administration the last year and a half,
the President asked me to essentially rewrite the Immigration and
Naturalization Act, you know, all several thousand pages of it,
and typical Trump fashion, he said, dude, in two weeks.
But you can hire, but you can hire.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Whoever you want to help you to you, okay, And
so you know what I asked around, We've got some
of the best people on on sort of our side,
if you will, work in Congress, on the Committees of
Judiciary and Senate and the House, some of the folks
who are embedding the civil Service at DHS, and we
really did do a significant rewrite. I mean, we took
(16:13):
the text from the beginning to the end, and look,
I mean the inventory of the oddities, you know, the
vast discrepancies in the actual text, the statutory text of
the Immigration and Naturalization I mean, it would make a
lot of your listener's eyes glaze over. But for policy
and legal wanks, it would shock people to know how
porous and how indefensible a lot of what we think
(16:35):
are ironclad statutes statutory text in that in the overall Act,
how really broken they are. But a couple of the
things that we really worked on to give you an
example in this this answers your question. Ryan. Back in
the nine to eleventh Commission report, which seems like ancient history, now,
there were a number of do outs that the nine
to eleven Commission asked Congress to pursue, and a lot
(16:58):
of them, no surprise, had to do with legal immigration, because,
as it's often sort of bandied about on x and
social media.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
You know, the nine to eleven.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Hijackers were all legal immigrants to United States. They were
given visas and came into this country, uh, totally legally,
and so ronos do outdate pass the visa? Which is
which is which is honestly, fifty three percent of our
illegal immigration population used to be around sixty two percent prior.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
To people who are legally allowed to come and then
oversaw their visas and they get it and never lost Yeah,
and you ever leave, and then Democrats will later beg
that we give them some kind of legal status even
though they violated the terms under which the American people
originally allowed them to come into the country in a
first place. Right, that's right? So what are the do
outs from the nine to eleven Commission?
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Was very simple and it was modeled after what a
lot of our peers do around the world, which is
the concept is called to push the boundaries, the borders
of the United States out And what does that mean, Well,
you know in Australia, and Australia is really not, you know,
the poster boy for great immigration policy anymore.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
They used to be.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
But Australia doesn't allow anyone to board a Quantus or
British Airways airplane headed for Sydney unless you have a
verifiable proof of visa or documentation that you have been
granted asylum. The United States doesn't do that. Anyone could
get on an airplane coming to JFK or LAX, show
up and then say, oops, I claim asylum or OPSI
(18:24):
I bought this ticket, but I don't actually have a
visa to be here. And so the idea pushing the
borders out is to say the State Department, in conjunction
with EHS, when folks come for their visa adjudication, for
their appointment, to argue or to pursue the paperwork to
get a visa, they need to provide us with biometric
information upfront, collect the biometric information and ryan. It sounds
(18:48):
so simple, but if you do this, the number of
people who will drop out of the process because they
know they're coming to gain the United States. They know
our system is incredibly permial. So just saying you know what,
if you show up at a consulate or an embassy
requesting a student visa or travel visa, We're going to
take all of your biometric information here, and now we're
(19:10):
going to know who you are. The amount of fraud
that occurs in our system when Ryan Gurdusky, uh, you know,
makes an appligation at the state department at a consulate
let's say Poland or Slovakia and is not the actual
Ryan Graduski who shows up an lax. So verifying the
online identity of the applicant with the person who actually
arrives in you as another big f exit. And then
(19:31):
you know, look, here's another one that we can do
very quickly, which is to say no status adjustments.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
And this is right, this is a part part of
the innovation. Just explain what status adjustment is, right.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
So status adjustment, let's say, you know, back to that
H one B pipeline we were discussing a moment ago.
A lot of the H one B population actually comes
into the country originally on an F one or an
M one student visa, and they're attending you know, we
like to think that all these people are BRAINI acts
at Harvard, but in many cases they're at fake diploma mills.
(20:02):
I mean, there was a great bust under the Trump
administration in Virginia. It was a Virginia Polytechnic Institute for
Computer Science, and it was a diploma mill in the
basement of a seven eleven in a and though it
was a totally fake institution.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
That's the question. How some of these universes go bankrupt
Like Bernie Sanders's wife friend of college, they ran bankrupt,
Like how did you manage to bankrupt the college? They
give you free money, and you can bribe visa holders
across the world really and they'll pay full freight full
really horrendous business model. You got there, uh, missus Sanders? Yeah, no,
So that's and once they get there.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
They so they come in on their their F one,
on their student visa, and then their employer, let's say,
you know, they're they're sponsored for a summer internship or something,
and says, you know, it'd be really great if you
could make this application for the OPT program, the Optional
Practical Training Program, which was originally designed to help America
provide agricultural sciences like it basically like a subsidization and
augmentation to the Peace Corps and is really now part
(20:59):
of this the tech worker pipeline. And so they have
to adjust their status. They're here on an F one,
they have to apply to DHS in the State Department
and say I would like now to be considered for
one of the openings in this optional practical training program.
And from optional practical training, then they'll make a status
adjustment application to say I'd like to now apply for
an H one B, and could I And then the
(21:21):
final as you noted a moment ago, is the final
sort of chain in the status adjustment pathway is to say, well,
I have an H one B, I'd like to be
considered now with the sponsorship of my employer, to adjust
into a green card. And once you have a green card,
five years to citizenship. So one thing we could say
is just like, hey, look the gig is up. No
more status adjustments, or you can only do status adjustments
this percentage of people every year and only if you.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
Are willing to put up this kind of capital.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
And my personal favorite, the one I keep advocating for,
is you hand over all of your personal banking information
to us because you want to solve overstays real quickly.
You say, every time you open an account in this country,
a credit card, a banking account, the United States government
is going to garnish any money that you earn or
spend until you leave right so like look like you're
you're not supposed to be here, you overstayed, You're welcome,
(22:08):
and when you open an account, you get a paycheck
that's going straight to the US taxpayers because they didn't
agree for you to be here.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
And you'll see people really very quickly start to leave
the country. And that's so so smart because people constantly
say when they think of massy portations, uh Ilion Gonzalez,
where we're going to have you know, troopers break into
a boy's bedroom with guns pointed him in the closet.
And what it really is is making sure people leave
by making their lives inconvenient when they're breaking the law,
(22:35):
brazenly breaking the law. What about illegal immigration, which is
the one that everyone talks about, but I mean you
mentioned extending the extending the Bayrier, the borders the United States.
That's really what Remained in Mexico did to a necessarily
exactly yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
That was that was having worked on Remain in Mexico
and spent you know, years of my life working on it,
that was I was absolutely the understanding pieces there, which was,
let's make this somebody else's problem. If they're if they're
not willing to defend their own borders and allowed caravans
and uh, you know, Chinese nationals to traverse their airways
to come into our country. Then we'll say no longer,
(23:15):
are you able to immediately declare uh, you know, asylum
of refugee status once you touch American soil, you're you're going.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
To be adjudicated in due time. In due time, but
we're not.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Releasing you into the interior United States. You can wait,
and you can wait where you came from, which is
usually through Mexico, and we'll get to you, and we
get to you. So that same concept I mean with
illegal immigration. I think what you just said, that's one
of the crucial pieces. I mean, you know, as a
big you know, power fan, I mean, Powell was laughed
at in the sixties and seventies for this idea of
(23:44):
incentivized repatriation, which is probably more generous than I think
is necessary under current circumstances. But Pale said, you know,
everyone's got a price, right, and a lot of these
immigrants would be willing to return to Ceylon, you know,
to Rhodijia, to wherever. If we if we just said, look,
here's two thousand dollars two thousand pounds, you know, just
for inflation, but two thousand pounds and you can go home.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Episodes. I'm already bring up Enoch Pal. This is going
to be out there. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
No, but but like, but the same notion here is
to say we're sort of like what we call, you know,
the kill switch on the financial system, is to say,
it's a little less good for you to be an
illegal alien here, a little bit better for the American citizen.
And so we're going to shut off your ability to
earn illegally in a shadow economy, to earn an income
on the backs of American workers. And so it's not
(24:35):
a raid. It's not guys in you know, kevlar vest
with you know, heavy arm and storming into someone's house.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
It's just saying, hey, you.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Know, your ability to freeload off of the American people
ended yesterday, right. A lot of a lot of immigrants
will actually return when they realized they can no longer
defraud the American people in the shadow economy.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
And I think that that's a really important part that people.
People listen. A lot of immigrants are very nice, and
a lot of immigrants work very very hard. There's a
ton of the every minute. I don't have anything against them,
but people one, they'll sell the lie that immigrants don't
take any welfare at all, where if they have a
child here and the child goes to school, they're definitely
using government taxpayer money for that. If they go to
the hospital, if they go to prison, if they use
(25:14):
our roads, if they use any of our systems whatsoever.
It is a drain on the tenet taxpayers. What the
taxpayer is putting out there. They don't pay income tax
most of the time, they pay sales tax or where
the hell it is, but not an income tax. And
also the fact is if they have a child, the
child then has the ability to enroll in every welfare
program under the sun. That's right, And that's what people
(25:35):
don't see is they don't have They're like eligal immigrants
don't take welfare, no, but their children that they bear
into this country do. As I mentioned before, Biden created
this program for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguins to come
in thirty thousand months to sit here and apply for
legal status. Well they did that because he didn't want
(25:57):
them rushing the border anymore. They just flew them into
the country, and they just diverted the flow to in
different category. I'll tell you something wild. This CDC just
prot of the number five percent of all births from
non Hispanic Black women in this country were from Haitian
born women. Last year of Venezuelans having children increased by
(26:19):
five hundred percent in a one year, because specifically, they
know that this is their ticket to never being deported,
never or getting part of the American welfare system, or
having a footal where the kid can sponsor them for
chain migration through family migration, family visa. All of this
is very much how they know the system and how
they rig the system, and they know the system better
(26:42):
than the average American knows the system.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Yeah, and I think here's a little shorthand tip for
your listeners to educate themselves, to empower them in their
discussions with elected officials or when their score keeping at
home on who to believe you trust on this issue.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
You'll hear a lot of.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Members of Congress say, hey, I'm with you Ryan, and
hey THEO, I'm with you on this immigration issue. And
how you know how byzantine it's become, how how it's
diverted by all these special interests. But look, I gotta
have you know, my my my agricultural guys in my
district got to have workers, my roofers, construction guy for
and constantly rot in the field. Yeah, you gotta have labors.
(27:17):
And here's the easy test at this juncture in our
nation's history. I'm not saying this is this is ideal.
I'm not saying this is what I want. But I'm saying,
at this point, you want to take the temperature of
these kinds of elected officials, and you say, great, then
get your dairymen, get your apple picking crews.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Get your slaughter house guys, and let's all agree that
you can have your short term labor visas your H
one is your H two b's and everyone will agree
there's no more birthright citizenship. Right.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
They will piss and moan, they will fight tooth and nail,
and they will oppose any change.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
To birth right slationship. And that's how you know they're lying, because.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
If they say, well, they're just short term workers, no, no, no, no,
they're human beings, and human beings do human things. They
form relationships, they have babies, and once those babies become
American citizens, then you have now subverted the demographic trajectory
of the country. You have created wards of the state
who are entitled to entitled it spending welfare and the like,
and changed and the right to vote. So if they
(28:18):
were serious about short term labor visas, which they're not,
they would be one hundred percent behind the effort for
Congress to change the statutes on birthright citizenship or President
Trump's efforts to executive action to change birth right ssitions.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Well, e then, but they don't support that. You're listening
to it's a numbers game with Ryan Grodski. We'll be
right back after this message. I'll close on this and
I'll ask this questions. The last question, what can the
president the presidents talk about changing birthright citizenship? Obvious, the
Supreme Court has ruled about birthright citizenship for legal residents
(28:53):
that they have the legal right to declare to be
citizenship at they're legally here. The Supreme Court is not
one time ruled on illegal immigration. That is a complete thing.
We just we are what does and culders say by
dictum we are sitting there and giving illegal alien citizenship.
Can the president, through executive action and birth right citizenship
(29:15):
for illegal alliance. Yes.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
So I wrote two of the executive orders for the
President on birth right citizenship last time. And that's a
separate discussion about the deep state, how the deep state,
even in the Trump White House, operated and subverted your
real work product. But one of the executive orders look
at two things. The Constitution is very clear. The children
of consular or ambassadorial officials, they are not entitled by
(29:40):
natural birth in the US to US citizenship. And that
makes sense. The representatives of a foreign nation, right, they
have no allegiance to our government. They're only here representing
their government. Yet it is so almost standard practice today.
It's almost standard practice that when the Spanish ambassadors White
gives birth in DC hospital, officials will walk in and
present her with an application for a Social Security Card
(30:02):
and averse birth certificate. Oh it's Ryan as is dead,
you cop. Oh, it happens everywhere in the country. And
so you think about it. Who has the largest legitimate
form presence in the United States. The government of Mexico
with one hundred and thirty two consulates.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
All of those consulate officials live and work in our communities,
and we have a consulate office here in Boise, and
those officials on behalf of the Mexican government, where they
will have human relations, they'll give birth to children, and
when they go to the hospital here, they will be
presented social security application, a birth certificate application. So the
easiest thing that the executive work could do is one.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Say we're not doing that anymore and instruct all secretaries
of state or those who handle vital statistics in state
governments that say, you are no longer to be issuing.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
If you were, that's bad news.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
You're not supposed to be, but you are no longer
able to issue birth certificate applications to foreign ambassadorial consulate officials.
That's an easy test case. Your listeners may say, well,
what does that do. It's just an easy test case
to get appellate courts to degree. Yep, that is what
the constitution says. And then the next step is an
executive order that we worked on. I mean, these were
(31:07):
combined in one vehicle, but to say now we know
for certain that it's an arguable question as to whether
or not legal residents are entitled by birth natural birth
on US soil to citizenship. That's fine, we can argue
about that another day, but we know for certain it
does not extend to illegal immigrants. The executive order was
two paragraphs long, two paragraphs long, and you have your
perfect test case. It will be sued for injunction immediately
(31:30):
by leftist groups and you're on your way too, Supreme Court. Right.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
And you know, it's so crazy because when the whole
thing was happening in New York, I heard that an
entire floor of the Roosevelt Hotel was just basically an
award for women to give birth. Yeah, birth, that was
exactly what was happening. I mean, there are the the
what is it called pregnancy, pregnancy hospitality or pregnancy tourism?
(31:53):
Is birth tourism is huge. You have Russians in Florida,
you have a plethora of people coming Chinese to makem
count California, and South Americans coming through Texas, and you
have people all over the globe coming to New York
to give birth for that thing. So if if the
executive order were to one be signed by President Trump
and he is set there and said this is you know,
(32:14):
I'm going to do it this time, and he doesn't
have to run for reelection, so it's all on him.
The Supreme Court is conservative majority six y three, So
there's really nothing stopping him. Now that would be that
will be the case, and that would fundamentally change a
lot of the illegal immigration if that kind of executive
order that you worked on was signed.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
And h I mean, that's exactly right, right, And it's for
the point that you mentioned just a moment ago, which
is again a lot of this policy discussion is meant
to be hidden from the average American that it's so complex,
it's all these special words at one H one B
what was any of this mean? But one of the
underlying just human facsis of this discussion is that an
illegal immigrant comes and their child is entitled to free
(32:58):
public education, freehouses, free healthcare, and rain. Now this is
gateway that free meals. That's the magnet, to say nothing
of the entire cottage industry the Left has constructed to
provide through NGOs and grant through those NGOs these same
features in these same services free housing, pre healthcare, free meals,
et cetera. So there's an entire industry dedicated to servicing
(33:19):
the needs of illegal immigrant children. If you were to
change that dynamic, a lot of the magnet for I
legal immigration would disappear overnight.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Theowold. You are brilliant and I appreciate your time immensely.
Where can people follow if they want to read more
of your stuff?
Speaker 2 (33:34):
At Real Field World, at the American Conservative, and at
the Claremont Institute, often writing at.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Both those publications. Thank you so much for being here, Really,
I appreciate it. If you are interested in any of
this information, you want to read it seasoned visual Graphics,
go to my substack where I write all this stuff
out for you guys. You can go to NAT Popnewsletter
dot com and get a thirty day free trial for
my newsletter and all the information you've heard here today.
(34:02):
Thank you for listening. Check us out every Monday on
the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your
podcasts
Welcome back to It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Gradusky.
Thank you again for being here this week very special episodes.
So right before the end of the year, the New
York Times released a very important story about immigration, immigration
being the number of net migrants that came in during
Joe Biden's presidency. Net migration, of course, is the number
(00:28):
of new immigrants who come to a country subtracted by
those who have left, so that's where the net comes in.
And the number of the net migrants that came in
during Joe Biden's presidency from twenty twenty one to twenty
twenty three averaged two point four million per year two
point four million overall. During Biden's first three years with presidency,
(00:52):
it was about eight million total. That's the Esmen number.
Eight million is larger than the population of thirty seven
US states. It's essentially like adding the state of Washington
to the overall population again, a new state of Washington.
All those people from diverse backgrounds into the country over
a four year period, it was, according to the New
(01:14):
York Times quote, the fastest pace of arrivals than during
any other period, including the peak years of the Ellis
Island it's the fastest rapid change of the country since
eighteen fifty when illegal immigration remains a large part of
the story. Legal immigration and executive actions like special programs
to bring thirty thousand migrants a month from places like Venezuela, Haiti, Colombia,
(01:39):
and Cuban Nicaragua are also added into it. It's a
mixture of legal immigration, executive action, and illegal immigration. No
doubt that this was a very big reason why Trump won.
No doubt that part of the backlash towards the Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris presidency vice presidency, this was the surge of population.
(02:02):
Because with that many new people comes a drain on resources,
certain criminality, housing crisis, a lot of things followed all
this surge of people, both legal and illegal. So it
comes into question now that Donald Trump is approaching the
presidency in just a few days, what can he do
(02:23):
about it? What can he do to actually, you know,
govern with his presidential mandate on immigration. Part of that
is put into two different boxes, right, legal immigration versus
illegal immigration, and another box is Congress what their responsibility is,
what they have to do to help Trump achieve his agenda,
(02:44):
and what he could do on his own. Those are
the essential questions he will be looking at his administration
will be looking at going into the initial first few days,
going into the first month. That will be essential. And
my first guest on this podcast ever, knows a lot
about this because he was in the trenches the first
time around. Back during the first term of the Trump administration.
(03:07):
THEO Wolds served as the Deputy Assistant at the President
for Domestic Policy under Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner. He
currently serves as a Solicitor to General for the Graces
of Idaho, and he knows about more about this than
basically anyone in the world. So thank you for coming
on THEO. Thanks for adming Ryan so in an honor
to be your first guest. Thanks for you well with you.
You're a smart guy, and I know your time is valuable,
(03:29):
so I really appreciate it THEO. What are some executive
actions that the presidents oversaw during the first term of
the Trump White House when it comes to immigration. I mean,
we know the big ones like remain in Mexico and
the travel ban, but what would you say were like
some things that didn't make the cover of the New
York Times or at people on MSMB screaming MSNBC screaming
(03:52):
about that were essential for Trump to achieve any real
gains when it came to immigration, both illegal and legal,
and you think we're notework.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, well so the first place I'd start is just
to say, one of the central thesis that we had
in the Trump administration on immigration policy in one point
zero in Trump forty five was really this simple question
that a mutual friend of ours, Ryan first gave to me.
And I would repeat this almost as a yoga mantra,
(04:23):
which is who decides who decides who's coming into the
United States and under what terms? And how long are
they going to stay for? And when you start to
ask that question as sort of like the governing principle
of any immigration action you want to take to expand
immigration as some people like Lindsay grant that proposed over
the years, or to contract it like some of our
(04:43):
friends at Center for Immigration Studies have often advocated for.
When you start to ask that question, then you really
get a view of how little the average American or
their elected representatives in Congress know or understand about the
year to year immigration flows. And I think that's great
that you started with net migration, because again, it will
come as a shop And I do this experiment quite
(05:05):
often when I speak to to lay groups here in Idaho,
just you know, your local rotary club or a group
of Republican dentists or something, and I'll say, you know,
how many legal we're not talking illegal, but legal immigrants
came into the United States last year? And usually, you know,
they'll throw out a number of like five hundred thousand,
and it will come as an absolute shock to your
(05:28):
average American that legally we let in about one point
five million people every year, or as you said, you know,
to give another example of this, a city the size
of San Jose is added to the United States every
year and the composition of that one point five million.
Some of them come under the EB five EB three visas,
which are investor visas. They open a business or they're
(05:50):
willing to put up so much capital in the United
States so they get a greedy card.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Some are coming through family immigration status. The bulk is family.
That's change. The bulk is the bulk by far is
family migration.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Yes, but some come through means like the diversity of
the lottery, which is often talked about. You know inside
the Beltway, inside Washington, d C circles, But the average
American has no idea that fifty five thousand legal immigrants
come to the United States every year who have no
prior ties, they have no famine.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Why say, somebody for diversity vis the lottery explain that.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
So the diversity thes The lottery was a concoction of
in large part Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer in the
early nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
It was meant to power brain trust that learned to
trust in Washington. Always, Chuck Schumer, go ahead, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
When they're gaining up, it's always going to be a
good result for the American people.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Yeah, so their view.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Ted Kennedy had a particular obsession with increasing immigration from
Ireland because of the way the immigration flows were structured
at that time under the Heart Seller Immigration Act in
the nineteen sixties, which essentially did away with some of
the migration caps, the ethnic or racial caps that were imposed.
In nineteen twenty, he bring some flows to the entire world.
(07:07):
Ted Kennedy thought that Ireland was really losing out on
its possibilities of increasing net migration into historic Irish American
cities like Boston, and so the Diversity Lottery was designed
to ensure that nation states that have low representation in
our overall immigration flows, either because of family chain migration
(07:27):
or the investor visas or the short term labor employment visas,
that the Diversity Lottery is meant to target those nation
states increase their overall representation almost if you will, DEI
for our nation's immigration system.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
And well, and then I asked you a question. Is
Ireland still represented in that number? Yeah? Oh cool, not
at all. Wait a minute, they have a long term
vision there, Teddy Kennedy. So who does come on the
diversity visa.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
It at It's a great question. So just last week
I had an Uber driver who was from Sri Lanka
and I have some interesting tie to Srila.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Got my wife and I honeymoon there, for example. And
I said to him, I said, oh, Sri Lanka.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
You know, when I was in Sri Lanka, not many
people actually knew much about America. But you know, they
thought we were British because of the traditional Commonwealth connections
to England. And he said, yeah, yeah, you know, I
came here kind of on luck. And I said, what
do you mean by luck? He said, I'm a winner
of the Diversity Lottery. Oh, how did you know to
apply for that? Well, my neighbor, he and his wife
(08:27):
had applied for it for years and they told us
about it. He never won, but I put my name
in and first time I got chosen. And that's what
the Diversity Lottery is doing, right. Fifty five thousand people
a year, no prioritized, no family connections here, don't necessarily
have to speak the language, have any understanding about our civics,
our form of government, the constitution. And that is by
(08:49):
design how the Diversity Lottery chooses these people. And by
and large, the Diversity Lottery will cap participation of nation
states that are overrepresented. So you will not get any Mexican,
Mexican nationals, Chinese nationals, Indian nationals winning the Diversity Lottery.
You will see Kazakhstani's, Huzbaki's, Sri Lankan's, Bhutanese. Those are
(09:11):
the kinds of people. Nepalese are big winners in the
versus lottery. And then a lot of countries, Well I.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Did with that, our Appleleese nationals right, And the biggest
defenders of the Diversity Lottery today is the Congressional Black Caucus.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
They see it as a non negotiable item because often
the versity lottery will come up in these discussions about
comprehensive immigration reform. Well, let's take those fifty five thousand,
you know, diversity latter of visa slots and turn those
green cards into more H one b's or something. And
the Congressional Black Caucus will say, absolutely not, because those
fifty five thousand year year really increased the overall share
of African immigration into the United States, and.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
They feel like by bringing in more black people as
better representation for them, because most Black members represent black
majority districts overwhelming They did right, right, And this is
the this is the feature that is so often overlooked.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
And Ryan, I think you're you're very, very unique in
this respect, which is seeing the connection between immigration policy
and the raw brass tacks of electoral politics and Congressional
Black Caucus members, as you said, they want to see
the increase of the African diaspora because that will increase
their percentage share of seats and also the power of
(10:21):
their of their representation for their constituency in Congress. So
you know, the point about raising the diversity lottery is
here's this little rabbit ward of a visa class that
most Americans have no idea about, but fifty five thousand
over ten years starts to be pretty significant.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
You know.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Let's just say, for example, let's just take a random
visa class here, you know, just just a random one,
and we say, oh, well, you know, look, the American
people have nothing to worry about because this random visa
class is capped eighty five.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Thousand a year.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
And let's say this visa class is dedicated to improving
high skilled.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Workers in the visa first.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
You know, yeah, we could say, hypothetically we called Bagman
b people say, well, there's there's nothing to worry about, Ryan,
because it's just eighty five thousand people a year. And
this is part of the game that the policy makers
and the immigration open borders lobby play with the American people,
which is it's eighty five thousand year, but one individual
visa in that eighty five thousand is good for six years.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
And so the next greeneryard you can then switch from
from visa to green card, from green cartesses and then
through family migration, sponsor a whole village. Eventually.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
That's exactly right, right, even staying within the terms of
those eighty five, it's eighty five this year, and eighty
five next year, and eighty five the year after that,
and so very quickly that eighty five thousand, they said,
don't worry, you're pretty little little head about because it's
just eighty five thousand quickly becomes six hundred thousand people, right,
or you know, very quickly becomes as you noted, net
(11:56):
migration two point two million a year, or a city
the size of Houston coming into the United States every year,
taking jobs, taking social services, crowding our schools, crowding our
emergency rooms. And look like where I live in Idaho,
you know, the second fastest grossing state in the country.
We don't have the infrastructure to support American citizens, let
(12:16):
alone the influx of assylies and refugees who are coming
into into the state, coming into the country. So on
the numbers alone and the pathway you just named, I mean, really,
this this sort of myopic focus that has happened on
the last two weeks on H one B, I've kind
of found amusing because the real pathogen in this whole
(12:36):
chain of displacing American workers starts with the student visas.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
I mean, the pathway. Is no one avertars to the
student visas you're listening to. It's a numbers game with
Ryan Gerdsky. We'll be right back when you talk about
Idaho and how fast Idaho is growing, and many cities
have experienced this giant influx, especially during the Biden presidency
because he let the whole world in. Everyone talks about
(13:01):
housing primarily as a demands issue. We don't build enough houses, sorry,
as a supply issue. They don't talk about as a
demand issue that there were so many more new people
per year asking for housing that it's a course causing
prices to rise excemely high in some metro markets. It's
not just a supply issue. It is a demand issue
(13:23):
primarily driven by immigration. And there's other things that go
into this. I don't want to focus completely on that,
but yeah, that's a big part of it, as well
as the plethora of visas like the student music you mentioned, So.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
That's exactly right on the demand side. And you know,
I don't want to wear the tinfoil hat here, but
I think it's reasonable at this juncture to say, well,
who are the biggest backers for expanding legal immigration? And
when you go through the numbers and the recipients either
of these short term labor visas or the people who
expend the most resources in Washington lobbying for expanding the
(13:58):
visa carve outs. Remember this is another number here. There
are over one hundred and eighty five separate visa classes
and categories. One hundred and eighty five. I mean there's
a visa for ice dancers and cardival cruise ship performers,
right right, There's a visa nearly for everything. So the
people who are always looking to expand the nexus of
those visas and to expand the total numbers that are
(14:19):
issued year to year, they often turn out to be
the same people who are buying up residential neighborhoods, who
are speculating in the.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Creation of new apartment buildings.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
And the question I get asked all the time here
in the Boise metro area with the construction of new
apartment facilities and the building of all these new suburb
you know, sort of flop, you know, suburban homes. Is
who's coming to live in these? And you look and
see who the financiers and who the constructors are, and
it's black Rock, It's Vanguard. I mean, just as people
(14:51):
have long started to figure out, and who are those
people advocating for not the American worker, those are some
of the people, the biggest fish advocating for expanded short
term visas and expanding the F one, the M one,
the J one, the H one, B and so they're
filling the apartments with short term and seeking immigrants. Well,
and it's it's sort of an unbreakable cycle, if you will.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Now going back to the original question, is there anything
a lot of those things are done by Congress. Is
there anything the executive branch can do on its own,
the press can do on its own when it comes
to immigration, when it comes to maybe making the threshold
to qualify for those visas much harder. Yeah, here, here's
like a couple of basic things. So at the very
(15:33):
end of the administration the last year and a half,
the President asked me to essentially rewrite the Immigration and
Naturalization Act, you know, all several thousand pages of it,
and typical Trump fashion, he said, dude, in two weeks.
But you can hire, but you can hire.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Whoever you want to help you to you, okay, And
so you know what I asked around, We've got some
of the best people on on sort of our side,
if you will, work in Congress, on the Committees of
Judiciary and Senate and the House, some of the folks
who are embedding the civil Service at DHS, and we
really did do a significant rewrite. I mean, we took
(16:13):
the text from the beginning to the end, and look,
I mean the inventory of the oddities, you know, the
vast discrepancies in the actual text, the statutory text of
the Immigration and Naturalization I mean, it would make a
lot of your listener's eyes glaze over. But for policy
and legal wanks, it would shock people to know how
porous and how indefensible a lot of what we think
(16:35):
are ironclad statutes statutory text in that in the overall Act,
how really broken they are. But a couple of the
things that we really worked on to give you an
example in this this answers your question. Ryan. Back in
the nine to eleventh Commission report, which seems like ancient history, now,
there were a number of do outs that the nine
to eleven Commission asked Congress to pursue, and a lot
(16:58):
of them, no surprise, had to do with legal immigration, because,
as it's often sort of bandied about on x and
social media.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
You know, the nine to eleven.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Hijackers were all legal immigrants to United States. They were
given visas and came into this country, uh, totally legally,
and so ronos do outdate pass the visa? Which is
which is which is honestly, fifty three percent of our
illegal immigration population used to be around sixty two percent prior.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
To people who are legally allowed to come and then
oversaw their visas and they get it and never lost Yeah,
and you ever leave, and then Democrats will later beg
that we give them some kind of legal status even
though they violated the terms under which the American people
originally allowed them to come into the country in a
first place. Right, that's right? So what are the do
outs from the nine to eleven Commission?
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Was very simple and it was modeled after what a
lot of our peers do around the world, which is
the concept is called to push the boundaries, the borders
of the United States out And what does that mean, Well,
you know in Australia, and Australia is really not, you know,
the poster boy for great immigration policy anymore.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
They used to be.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
But Australia doesn't allow anyone to board a Quantus or
British Airways airplane headed for Sydney unless you have a
verifiable proof of visa or documentation that you have been
granted asylum. The United States doesn't do that. Anyone could
get on an airplane coming to JFK or LAX, show
up and then say, oops, I claim asylum or OPSI
(18:24):
I bought this ticket, but I don't actually have a
visa to be here. And so the idea pushing the
borders out is to say the State Department, in conjunction
with EHS, when folks come for their visa adjudication, for
their appointment, to argue or to pursue the paperwork to
get a visa, they need to provide us with biometric
information upfront, collect the biometric information and ryan. It sounds
(18:48):
so simple, but if you do this, the number of
people who will drop out of the process because they
know they're coming to gain the United States. They know
our system is incredibly permial. So just saying you know what,
if you show up at a consulate or an embassy
requesting a student visa or travel visa, We're going to
take all of your biometric information here, and now we're
(19:10):
going to know who you are. The amount of fraud
that occurs in our system when Ryan Gurdusky, uh, you know,
makes an appligation at the state department at a consulate
let's say Poland or Slovakia and is not the actual
Ryan Graduski who shows up an lax. So verifying the
online identity of the applicant with the person who actually
arrives in you as another big f exit. And then
(19:31):
you know, look, here's another one that we can do
very quickly, which is to say no status adjustments.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
And this is right, this is a part part of
the innovation. Just explain what status adjustment is, right.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
So status adjustment, let's say, you know, back to that
H one B pipeline we were discussing a moment ago.
A lot of the H one B population actually comes
into the country originally on an F one or an
M one student visa, and they're attending you know, we
like to think that all these people are BRAINI acts
at Harvard, but in many cases they're at fake diploma mills.
(20:02):
I mean, there was a great bust under the Trump
administration in Virginia. It was a Virginia Polytechnic Institute for
Computer Science, and it was a diploma mill in the
basement of a seven eleven in a and though it
was a totally fake institution.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
That's the question. How some of these universes go bankrupt
Like Bernie Sanders's wife friend of college, they ran bankrupt,
Like how did you manage to bankrupt the college? They
give you free money, and you can bribe visa holders
across the world really and they'll pay full freight full
really horrendous business model. You got there, uh, missus Sanders? Yeah, no,
So that's and once they get there.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
They so they come in on their their F one,
on their student visa, and then their employer, let's say,
you know, they're they're sponsored for a summer internship or something,
and says, you know, it'd be really great if you
could make this application for the OPT program, the Optional
Practical Training Program, which was originally designed to help America
provide agricultural sciences like it basically like a subsidization and
augmentation to the Peace Corps and is really now part
(20:59):
of this the tech worker pipeline. And so they have
to adjust their status. They're here on an F one,
they have to apply to DHS in the State Department
and say I would like now to be considered for
one of the openings in this optional practical training program.
And from optional practical training, then they'll make a status
adjustment application to say I'd like to now apply for
an H one B, and could I And then the
(21:21):
final as you noted a moment ago, is the final
sort of chain in the status adjustment pathway is to say, well,
I have an H one B, I'd like to be
considered now with the sponsorship of my employer, to adjust
into a green card. And once you have a green card,
five years to citizenship. So one thing we could say
is just like, hey, look the gig is up. No
more status adjustments, or you can only do status adjustments
this percentage of people every year and only if you.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
Are willing to put up this kind of capital.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
And my personal favorite, the one I keep advocating for,
is you hand over all of your personal banking information
to us because you want to solve overstays real quickly.
You say, every time you open an account in this country,
a credit card, a banking account, the United States government
is going to garnish any money that you earn or
spend until you leave right so like look like you're
you're not supposed to be here, you overstayed, You're welcome,
(22:08):
and when you open an account, you get a paycheck
that's going straight to the US taxpayers because they didn't
agree for you to be here.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
And you'll see people really very quickly start to leave
the country. And that's so so smart because people constantly
say when they think of massy portations, uh Ilion Gonzalez,
where we're going to have you know, troopers break into
a boy's bedroom with guns pointed him in the closet.
And what it really is is making sure people leave
by making their lives inconvenient when they're breaking the law,
(22:35):
brazenly breaking the law. What about illegal immigration, which is
the one that everyone talks about, but I mean you
mentioned extending the extending the Bayrier, the borders the United States.
That's really what Remained in Mexico did to a necessarily
exactly yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
That was that was having worked on Remain in Mexico
and spent you know, years of my life working on it,
that was I was absolutely the understanding pieces there, which was,
let's make this somebody else's problem. If they're if they're
not willing to defend their own borders and allowed caravans
and uh, you know, Chinese nationals to traverse their airways
to come into our country. Then we'll say no longer,
(23:15):
are you able to immediately declare uh, you know, asylum
of refugee status once you touch American soil, you're you're going.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
To be adjudicated in due time. In due time, but
we're not.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Releasing you into the interior United States. You can wait,
and you can wait where you came from, which is
usually through Mexico, and we'll get to you, and we
get to you. So that same concept I mean with
illegal immigration. I think what you just said, that's one
of the crucial pieces. I mean, you know, as a
big you know, power fan, I mean, Powell was laughed
at in the sixties and seventies for this idea of
(23:44):
incentivized repatriation, which is probably more generous than I think
is necessary under current circumstances. But Pale said, you know,
everyone's got a price, right, and a lot of these
immigrants would be willing to return to Ceylon, you know,
to Rhodijia, to wherever. If we if we just said, look,
here's two thousand dollars two thousand pounds, you know, just
for inflation, but two thousand pounds and you can go home.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Episodes. I'm already bring up Enoch Pal. This is going
to be out there. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
No, but but like, but the same notion here is
to say we're sort of like what we call, you know,
the kill switch on the financial system, is to say,
it's a little less good for you to be an
illegal alien here, a little bit better for the American citizen.
And so we're going to shut off your ability to
earn illegally in a shadow economy, to earn an income
on the backs of American workers. And so it's not
(24:35):
a raid. It's not guys in you know, kevlar vest
with you know, heavy arm and storming into someone's house.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
It's just saying, hey, you.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Know, your ability to freeload off of the American people
ended yesterday, right. A lot of a lot of immigrants
will actually return when they realized they can no longer
defraud the American people in the shadow economy.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
And I think that that's a really important part that people.
People listen. A lot of immigrants are very nice, and
a lot of immigrants work very very hard. There's a
ton of the every minute. I don't have anything against them,
but people one, they'll sell the lie that immigrants don't
take any welfare at all, where if they have a
child here and the child goes to school, they're definitely
using government taxpayer money for that. If they go to
the hospital, if they go to prison, if they use
(25:14):
our roads, if they use any of our systems whatsoever.
It is a drain on the tenet taxpayers. What the
taxpayer is putting out there. They don't pay income tax
most of the time, they pay sales tax or where
the hell it is, but not an income tax. And
also the fact is if they have a child, the
child then has the ability to enroll in every welfare
program under the sun. That's right, And that's what people
(25:35):
don't see is they don't have They're like eligal immigrants
don't take welfare, no, but their children that they bear
into this country do. As I mentioned before, Biden created
this program for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguins to come
in thirty thousand months to sit here and apply for
legal status. Well they did that because he didn't want
(25:57):
them rushing the border anymore. They just flew them into
the country, and they just diverted the flow to in
different category. I'll tell you something wild. This CDC just
prot of the number five percent of all births from
non Hispanic Black women in this country were from Haitian
born women. Last year of Venezuelans having children increased by
(26:19):
five hundred percent in a one year, because specifically, they
know that this is their ticket to never being deported,
never or getting part of the American welfare system, or
having a footal where the kid can sponsor them for
chain migration through family migration, family visa. All of this
is very much how they know the system and how
they rig the system, and they know the system better
(26:42):
than the average American knows the system.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Yeah, and I think here's a little shorthand tip for
your listeners to educate themselves, to empower them in their
discussions with elected officials or when their score keeping at
home on who to believe you trust on this issue.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
You'll hear a lot of.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Members of Congress say, hey, I'm with you Ryan, and
hey THEO, I'm with you on this immigration issue. And
how you know how byzantine it's become, how how it's
diverted by all these special interests. But look, I gotta
have you know, my my my agricultural guys in my
district got to have workers, my roofers, construction guy for
and constantly rot in the field. Yeah, you gotta have labors.
(27:17):
And here's the easy test at this juncture in our
nation's history. I'm not saying this is this is ideal.
I'm not saying this is what I want. But I'm saying,
at this point, you want to take the temperature of
these kinds of elected officials, and you say, great, then
get your dairymen, get your apple picking crews.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Get your slaughter house guys, and let's all agree that
you can have your short term labor visas your H
one is your H two b's and everyone will agree
there's no more birthright citizenship. Right.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
They will piss and moan, they will fight tooth and nail,
and they will oppose any change.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
To birth right slationship. And that's how you know they're lying, because.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
If they say, well, they're just short term workers, no, no, no, no,
they're human beings, and human beings do human things. They
form relationships, they have babies, and once those babies become
American citizens, then you have now subverted the demographic trajectory
of the country. You have created wards of the state
who are entitled to entitled it spending welfare and the like,
and changed and the right to vote. So if they
(28:18):
were serious about short term labor visas, which they're not,
they would be one hundred percent behind the effort for
Congress to change the statutes on birthright citizenship or President
Trump's efforts to executive action to change birth right ssitions.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Well, e then, but they don't support that. You're listening
to it's a numbers game with Ryan Grodski. We'll be
right back after this message. I'll close on this and
I'll ask this questions. The last question, what can the
president the presidents talk about changing birthright citizenship? Obvious, the
Supreme Court has ruled about birthright citizenship for legal residents
(28:53):
that they have the legal right to declare to be
citizenship at they're legally here. The Supreme Court is not
one time ruled on illegal immigration. That is a complete thing.
We just we are what does and culders say by
dictum we are sitting there and giving illegal alien citizenship.
Can the president, through executive action and birth right citizenship
(29:15):
for illegal alliance. Yes.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
So I wrote two of the executive orders for the
President on birth right citizenship last time. And that's a
separate discussion about the deep state, how the deep state,
even in the Trump White House, operated and subverted your
real work product. But one of the executive orders look
at two things. The Constitution is very clear. The children
of consular or ambassadorial officials, they are not entitled by
(29:40):
natural birth in the US to US citizenship. And that
makes sense. The representatives of a foreign nation, right, they
have no allegiance to our government. They're only here representing
their government. Yet it is so almost standard practice today.
It's almost standard practice that when the Spanish ambassadors White
gives birth in DC hospital, officials will walk in and
present her with an application for a Social Security Card
(30:02):
and averse birth certificate. Oh it's Ryan as is dead,
you cop. Oh, it happens everywhere in the country. And
so you think about it. Who has the largest legitimate
form presence in the United States. The government of Mexico
with one hundred and thirty two consulates.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
All of those consulate officials live and work in our communities,
and we have a consulate office here in Boise, and
those officials on behalf of the Mexican government, where they
will have human relations, they'll give birth to children, and
when they go to the hospital here, they will be
presented social security application, a birth certificate application. So the
easiest thing that the executive work could do is one.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Say we're not doing that anymore and instruct all secretaries
of state or those who handle vital statistics in state
governments that say, you are no longer to be issuing.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
If you were, that's bad news.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
You're not supposed to be, but you are no longer
able to issue birth certificate applications to foreign ambassadorial consulate officials.
That's an easy test case. Your listeners may say, well,
what does that do. It's just an easy test case
to get appellate courts to degree. Yep, that is what
the constitution says. And then the next step is an
executive order that we worked on. I mean, these were
(31:07):
combined in one vehicle, but to say now we know
for certain that it's an arguable question as to whether
or not legal residents are entitled by birth natural birth
on US soil to citizenship. That's fine, we can argue
about that another day, but we know for certain it
does not extend to illegal immigrants. The executive order was
two paragraphs long, two paragraphs long, and you have your
perfect test case. It will be sued for injunction immediately
(31:30):
by leftist groups and you're on your way too, Supreme Court. Right.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
And you know, it's so crazy because when the whole
thing was happening in New York, I heard that an
entire floor of the Roosevelt Hotel was just basically an
award for women to give birth. Yeah, birth, that was
exactly what was happening. I mean, there are the the
what is it called pregnancy, pregnancy hospitality or pregnancy tourism?
(31:53):
Is birth tourism is huge. You have Russians in Florida,
you have a plethora of people coming Chinese to makem
count California, and South Americans coming through Texas, and you
have people all over the globe coming to New York
to give birth for that thing. So if if the
executive order were to one be signed by President Trump
and he is set there and said this is you know,
(32:14):
I'm going to do it this time, and he doesn't
have to run for reelection, so it's all on him.
The Supreme Court is conservative majority six y three, So
there's really nothing stopping him. Now that would be that
will be the case, and that would fundamentally change a
lot of the illegal immigration if that kind of executive
order that you worked on was signed.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
And h I mean, that's exactly right, right, And it's for
the point that you mentioned just a moment ago, which
is again a lot of this policy discussion is meant
to be hidden from the average American that it's so complex,
it's all these special words at one H one B
what was any of this mean? But one of the
underlying just human facsis of this discussion is that an
illegal immigrant comes and their child is entitled to free
(32:58):
public education, freehouses, free healthcare, and rain. Now this is
gateway that free meals. That's the magnet, to say nothing
of the entire cottage industry the Left has constructed to
provide through NGOs and grant through those NGOs these same
features in these same services free housing, pre healthcare, free meals,
et cetera. So there's an entire industry dedicated to servicing
(33:19):
the needs of illegal immigrant children. If you were to
change that dynamic, a lot of the magnet for I
legal immigration would disappear overnight.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Theowold. You are brilliant and I appreciate your time immensely.
Where can people follow if they want to read more
of your stuff?
Speaker 2 (33:34):
At Real Field World, at the American Conservative, and at
the Claremont Institute, often writing at.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Both those publications. Thank you so much for being here, Really,
I appreciate it. If you are interested in any of
this information, you want to read it seasoned visual Graphics,
go to my substack where I write all this stuff
out for you guys. You can go to NAT Popnewsletter
dot com and get a thirty day free trial for
my newsletter and all the information you've heard here today.
(34:02):
Thank you for listening. Check us out every Monday on
the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your
podcasts
Host
Gill Alexander
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!