« The Weeds

Deferred action podcasting

2017-09-01

Dara Lind joins Matt to talk about the past, present, and future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This is called brew and cook another cry after full strength, Colbert yeah matters are gonna, be more equipped fur whenever the seven p M Friday news dump is. I welcome to another so did the weeds on the box media pod cast an eye worth. I met three glaziers join me today is Darlin immigration reporter extraordinaire and DORA will also be joining me and Sarah Cliff at the now here. This festival in New York in September tenth adds can be alive. they were doing there along with a number of other podcast, also at, is all part of the festival. There's the sir one great ticket for the whole thing hoping to see. You know plenty its fans there has otherwise we're gonna have to be talking in front of God knows what fans of other shows, which would be would be
I'm gonna super wheezy unit plan, for two, so we're gonna be regaling a bunch of people who care less than you do about the things you care about gas. No, it's gonna be wheat. We need weeds fans there. It's gonna be great, so doors with me today, because we want to talk about darker than deferred action for childhood arrivals programme, which there has been a lot of rumour in the winds that Donald Trump my announced its demise. This week, we are sort of hoping for and trial purposes of, of the show and also reasons of policy substance that that doesn't happen, but we are pine casting mindful of the fact that its at least the radically possible that announcement today saying that its killed, I would say I add a note, our woods. What's your judgment this, I would say that the volume of was around this. It just suggest
not necessarily that anything is gonna happen today or this week, but that Donald Trump does not think that continuing darker is really good idea by key he's, not he's not saying to people Hagar I, like I looked at this. I decided we shouldn't, kill this programme. So can we stop talking about it right? So obviously, in this administration, the president thinking that something may or may not be a good idea, doesn't necessarily mean that any you know policy announcement is forthcoming. He is not known for being. The most resolute and decisive of United States President's on the reason that what is it Actually some White House intrigue rumours with, yet there are people in the White House who are known to what these protections to end because they see them as an amnesty, their people in the White House. Dont want. The president did I tell you that the reason that the story is actually being taken seriously isn't minute. Policy change is that
If there is no announcement about the future of the programme by September fifth, which is Tuesday, a group of Republicans, the attorney general led by the attorney general of Texas, have told the administration, or see that they are going to file they lawsuit to get a federal judge to rule that this programme is unconstitutional. So it's a centrally they ve been trying to force the administration to make a move before the courts kind of take. That decision out of their hands and because of the way they would be doing this lawsuit. It is plausible that the federal court would at least initially we can see administration. So it's you know, Donald Trump. Do you want to be the person whom? Who is that a cider who does this or, do you want some so called judge to do it for here so because as there is kind of that looming deadline, it does seem as if a decision is going to have to be made on doctor one way or the other before Tuesday and the room
from within the White House have been that there isn't a whole lot of support for really in fighting the state of Texas in court too, keep a program that isn't Obama era programme to protect a bunch of unauthorized immigrants from deportation that their that there's just there? Maybe people in the White House who art particularly key on ending the programme. But there have been. very few rumours that Donald Trump, despite having said in out after his election, that he wanted to come up with some sort of compromise that the people who doc was protecting were terrific people that he had a heart when the rubber hits the road it doesn't. Look like he's, really moving toward kicking a fight with his own party on this. So we d visa is important and would like to sort of look at the machinations,
and the policy options. But but I really do want to rule this sort of back of the sort of four vocs explain our treatment to this topic, because people came across this issue, normal people who don't necessarily have relevantly affected people in their lives came across. This topic lie in its development and have developed a lot of shouldn't strong, polarized feelings. Rounded, the dreamers are a sort of potent symbolic group as well as actual human being things and as well as and organise Juno political and re. So you know, I think we should really trying to understand that. The questioner Because it's an initially obvious what, when you think about one rate, would come to be the case that a large quantity of children were being brought into the country. illegally like how did that you know I mean anything, can happen once or twice, but we don't have a job.
Only a large number of people here Sab. Oh, oh someone over a million in terms of broadly speaking, who fits the categorization eight hundred thousand people and world in the program like where did they come from right? So I think of this. In generational terms, this is really the first time in. U S, history, and say that there is a generation of you know a million people in this case, but in a part of many of their siblings R. U S born! So, if you think about that really millions of people who are growing up in this legal penumbra there in their unauthorized immigrants, but they ve socially, been with. U S, citizens in it, like I said there, siblings, their classmates have been: U S, citizens their life. Experience has been that of: U S, citizens up until the point they had like sixteen and they can't get driver's licence is or can apply for her in a federal financial aid and lake. At that point it becomes obvious. Oh, there is something different
That is not something that has really happened in. U S history before, and there are a lot of reasons you know there are a lot of things that make this. Unlike you no passport, AIDS, but really the immigration the issue in the way. We think that in the way we deal with it right now, where you have this very settled population of people who are living without legal status in the majority of unauthorized immigrants in the? U S have been here for more than ten years. Many of them have been here for more than fifteen years. that is not super precedent. It partly because usually Congress passes some big bills that fixed these things when they come up, but also partly because the wave Congress acted over the last half century, created this asian, where you had a bunch of families growing up in? U S without immigration status, so the real problem here is border security, to a certain extent, this, like really the case for a while.
Dont work in the ninety nineties, the? U S really started trying to build up the? U S, Metzger Border in a way it never really had to make it. It had done kind of the enforcement at sea to make sure that people were coming into the Eu S from other from the rest of the world and then in the second half. the century it was like out. We should probably treat Mexicans and central Americans more. Similarly to the way we treat Europeans and Americans, we can be giving the free pass. The problem is that there is this land border, Finally, in the nineties, they start trying to make sure that you can't get into the U S without papers. What that means is that what had previously been this, you know work migration of working age, men usually from Adele, who would keep their families in Mexico and go into the you asked for a couple of years and work and make some money and go back to Mexico and take care of their families and then go back up to the? U S, those repeated border crossings.
came much rescue. I mean I think this is important to understand is this is sort of vat classical phase of unauthorized immigration for from Mexico in there in the What would you say, seventies and eighty is yeah really you're talking about from seventy six till eight, the early Ninetys white and and This is the situation on the border that many people sort of imagine as occurring more recently that the border itself is just very lightly secured, and it is simply not that difficult for a person from Mexico to physically enter the United States without papers, and then you face since you're not cure legally various kinds of legal encumbrances, but you can work off the bucks. You can
you can work in farm labour. These various sectors in which you know another as workers from Mexico are traditionally employed. So this was a real thing that was happening. People good people could come pretty easily, but the upshot of that is that they would tend to come and go right. I mean it's actually even you know the other thing that people think of as being more current. That actually used to be the case in a longer is how easy it was to come here legally right in the research programme, which is kind of the guest worker program that everybody points to, because it was so large for agricultural workers in the mid twentieth century format. As a labour programme had plenty of issues, but it was a unity. It didn't mean that it was not super difficult for someone who wanted to keep their family in Mexico and work in the. U S to get that work authorization. So, like you have people who
had been working legally. Who, then, in me, you know, nineteen sixty nineteen seventies no longer have the opportunity to work legally, but they can work illegally pretty easily so them and they can cross into the Eu S pretty Lee and then suddenly, you gonna, so legal guest worker rights become illegal but in effect, still guesswork right who come and go and then in the nineties. Congress wants to harden the border to, in their mind, fix the illegal migration problem and what they actually do is they transform the illegal migration problem into much more about closer to like a one in done. You you come here and now you don't want to go back to Mexico, because you're not coming to get back into the United States
right in saying that I am like, if you want to have your family here, you're gonna have to have them crossed the border, which is sure dangerous, but it's a lot less dangerous than you crossing the border back and forth over and over again by keeping them in Mexico. So the demographics of v in unauthorized population go from being largely EL, largely working age, to being something that much more resembles the inner Lake a community as a whole. You have families, you have children settling down to the extent they can in the? U S, because this is, it is less for them to leave, and this is actually something that you still see n in dreamers. Even though you know, I'm twenty nine. Am I what I'm kind of in there in some of the sweet spot of the dark net recipients? The media need for darker recipients of twenty five
Many of those people are like you are merely twenties, haven't left the? U S, because they couldn't come back in legally, so they have actually seen less of it. Oh they're pulling unquote home countries less of world. Then then you know. Even U S citizens much less than you would imagine, because that kind of you know the you. and up sticking in the? U S, because you have it because you know you couldn't get back if you laugh I've been to Latin America three times. Yes, I have a passport, but in a sort of typical dreamer type person, you know and able to go to their quota got home country because they wouldn't be able to take
that certainly who use their lorries of lay people who you know hadn't had never hadn't seen their grandparents, since they were to be able to go back to their home countries. But you know over the last few years because Doc I allowed them to come back without in getting barred. You ve hurt into some stories of people whose parents were deported, haven't been able to see their parents were then able to do so. Is it it's just, there is kind of the stereotype of Vienna. Dreamers are american, adult paperwork. They don't even speak Spanish stay on innovative, they ve been. U S, goals that is true too burying extends depending on the population, but there is a kind of an experience of being in America, because you can't be anywhere else that this generation shares
really excited they did this week were sponsored by the economist magazine. This is like one of the very first things that I started reading when I was in high school. I think they got me really interested in politics and in world affairs is a fantastic publication, has for years. I, if you're somebody who loves to get down into the beads, the economist really gives you a chance to dig deeper into what's happening in the world. The horse and raise you know you can trust me when you straight up thats a huge range of vital topics, takeover politics, technology gee, science, the environment, obviously economics. I particularly like this or global viewpoint that they have on coverage. There Headquarters, London, they ve got bigger offices it in the United States, but us all over Europe, Asia. They they cover the whole world and really rigorous sort of insight away. You know I can only get into the weeds and so many stories myself do yourself. A favor visit economist outcome, slash weeds and they will give you a free copy of the economy. Right now. I think that the low down on the forces that are impacting our lives tinge of our world and its really
Think it's a well written publications, really an they. They don't waste a single word. They cut through the noise, they help. You say: well informed and entertaining pined away so digging The economist today visit W, w w tat economists, dot com, sluggish weeds out for this special free copy. The surgeon I missed weeds that you'll find it there. It's it's a great special offer, I think you're gonna love the magazine. I loved the magazine, checking. starting in there in the middle of the night, and you have family migration into the United States, and this means, including some some quite young, children are coming in and you can enroll ease their specific. the legislation that sort of you associate with the the hardening of the border, so I tend to Associated. The ninety ninety six la I have been told that is a little bit over.
simplified- that it could have started a little bit before that. But IRA Ira really does a lot to make it harder for you to become legal. If you have been in the U S as an unauthorized ever- and I used to be the case that if you had a child who was a? U S, citizen who was twenty one could just apply for you to become yet to come as a family immigrant. Even if you were living in, U S ear, you would be quoting Admit it, and You know in ninety. Ninety six Congress says well, if you ve lived in the: U S as an unauthorized emigrant for more then in several months you are barred from legally entering the Eu S for ten years, so it made it. It became much harder to kind of code, unquote get legal, it really became practically impossible. to get legal if you had been living in the? U S and your only option for me An illegal immigrant was to leave for ten years if you're like eighteen
why would you do you know what I'm gonna? Do that that's another important rikers, that's another thing that it was supposed to be a disincentive two coming illegally and give em. Maybe maybe it created some disincentive effect, but not the it had another impact of sort of freezing in place, a population where classically people who come here to work illegally when either trend to go back home or else would sort of legalise themselves over time through family connections at and things like that. But now you have a situation where you can be quite rooted in the United States, including new, a citizen relatives and not be able to legalise yourself and not be able to come and go. And so that's like the dreamer. Core rights stems from this also kind of plays into the question of lake the
the proximate reason that doctor would be ended would be because of this inner these this potential lawsuit. The lawsuit, is based in the claim that what President Obama didn't twenty twelve. By allowing these many of these dreamers to apply for temporary protection from deportation and work permits that that was legally unconstitutional, because you can't just tell a bunch of people were not gonna deport you that's like that, an unconstitutional grant of Executive authority. The reason that that argument is in any way legally grounded is that in the past, when President's have done, this sort of thing have given temporary protection from deportation to a group of people. It's usually been because they're about to have some way
get legal, but it hasn't materialised for them, yet so they're kind of bridging them in right. George H, W Bush did this for women and children who, in a were related to people who were covered under the reckon amnesty, for example, they were gonna in Congress, was gonna pass a bill, but hadn't done so yet. So in this case you have people who, for five years, have kind of had this temporary protection Congress didn't step up and give them any kind of permanent way to get legal status. So Dhaka is unprecedented in that way, but its unprecedented because for most of the rest of U S, history, it wouldn't have needed to happen. There would have been some other way for someone he was working legally in the U S and had an employer to petition for them. All. Who had a their siblings would, already allowed their parents to become citizens there sit their parents would have allowed them to become citizens. There would have been. Some way for a bunch of people to get it couldn't
get in line that doesn't make destiny or twenty. Seventy- and I see this, as you know, we ve been trying maps are aware as it as a demographic cohort, just scooper people come from and then another It is like we're. Does the Dreamer court unquote as a kind of social construct come from like they win winded that happen and- and you know how share so their pint of, I think, levels to think about this right ones. The individual level in one's the political level individually, I mentioned earlier a lot of dreamers. Didn't necessarily know about that. Didn't know the details of their immigration status until it became relevant to their lives. Rightly, you will hear people saying yeah. I remember having been put in a closet. You know till I hide from when I was ten, because my parents were worried because they saw a ban, but you also hear people saying I grew up with a bunch of people who looked like me and whose parents look like my parents and I
no that there is a difference between me and them. Until I thought I was gonna go to college in my parents said we don't really think that's a good idea were worried that if you apply that something will happen, we can't you know you will have a social security number. You can apply for financial aid, so that causes a couple of things. For one thing, if you're icicles do and you've been told for your entire life. You know you hear the entire life. You can remember that the goal is to excel in school, so you can go to college, so you can get a college degree, so you can get a good job, and you understand that the second that, like second and third parts of that are really intended for people who aren't you, the question of why you should bother to excel in school, become super relevance
there is a lot either. There are a lot of cases of people kind of losing motivation to succeed in school, even dropping out having mental health issues, because they realise that the things they ve built their life on were you know, were necessarily lies, but were intended for people who went that the other thing that does that was because we're talking about people who are fluent in english word, socially integrated, who have had this experience of you know being raised as Americans that the idea of not being not having the full operating to something that they can get angry about and mobilise against. So Congress has been talking about what do we do with these kids for literally sixteen years? The first built illegal Ask them. The dream act was proposing twenty one by that point, literally, if the dream act worry Docker recipient, it could apply for doc itself. That is how long we ve been talking.
Well this, but also a Social movement began to go here of people who had who felt comfortable enough standing up and saying we are in a we want to stay here. We are contributing. You should pay attention to us should do something for us. So not only was that kind of a political mobilization that ultimately pressured Obama into doing Dhaka to begin with, because a bunch of unauthorized emigrate activists were basically dogging him everywhere. You add and saying hi you're still deporting us, but also said Surely there's been a move for people to come out as undocumented? That's really been led by this group of people. It hasn't been led by their parents, who have been often more worried, more conservative, less fluent in English, less comfortable,
in public spaces. It's been led by these. In a fairly socially integrated people saying well, we have in it like we have the the privilege to be able to stand up and speak out, and if I surprised to deport us, we know that there's going to be a lot of activist marching and we're going to be able to get some good clips in the is we're. Gonna use this to make it clear to everybody around us that they do know somebody who's in our not authorized ever ran and that its income it on them to kind of thing, to treat us like human beings and to think about what it means that we don't happy little privilege
This is also a group that I think is more able to assert itself politically because they can make the claim I mean, I think, quite quite accurately that they have not done anything wrong way. That I mean, if you have people who you know, cross the border without authorization as adults, saying you know whatever in standing up for it for themselves and their interests, you are going to hear from a lot of people like well, you know you shouldn't a broken. The law, if you didn't, want to get kicked out of the country right and the claim that the dreamers are able to make that garners. I think sympathy from a broader cohort of people is that you don't break the law when your seven years old right. You do with your parents, I'm telling you to do and
a much more a sort of a more aggressive posture. You know like cells, in a way that isn't necessarily the case for for the parents of this kind of court of people. I do want to be super specific work of this is the claim that it about the dreamers much more often than its made by them on theirs. Actually, I many dreamers, cells, realized. You know in that, as as the idea if they were blameless because their parents were fully the problem began to pick up steam. Many of them realise that they didn't that they were setting themselves up to get legalised while their parents weapon certain didn't necessarily want that. So you know, if you talk to you, dreamers themselves, we often say no Would I be mad at my parents? They did what any parent would do. They brought me to have a better life in the? U S, they were really during the twenty thirteen comprehensive immigration refer, fight really on the front lines of trying to make sure that everybody was eligible, for
essentially, I think, you're right that big. There are circumstances make them really broadly sympathetic to. You know like seventy percent of em, Erica supports in Dhaka programme. That's not the case for legalizing. Unauthorized immigrants on mass. But it's it's a coalition bread thing right. There are definitely disinterest in what is at this point. The centrist argument of these people brought here. No fault of their own yadda yadda yadda, and there is also the restive argument that is well. Finally people shouldn't be treated, swayed generally fight, ones. Who can stand up and demand our right? So I take it. But what do I mean? This is important to the politics, though I because part of how we ve gotten to where we are, is exactly as you were saying where the wind
It seems like there would have been potentially some members of Congress who were comfortable with something like the dream act who were not comfortable with the sort of broad legalization, but the Dreamer group, themselves were not asking for them. I mean they weren't demi. They were obviously they weren't like refusing legalization for themselves, but they were very much in the coalition for comprehensive reform so like the idea that, like what we could do, dream act and now to address the remainder of the population was a purely like DC idea. Not a the main idea that had support from the activists themselves and that big, that's like
one of the reasons. Why doesn't happen right? It's it's easy for people who are not invested till. I spent up hypothetical compromises, but if nobody who really cares about the issue actually wants good deal than it's very hard, yeah, no end you're gonna, see thus becomes super relevant if Dhaka is in fact ended because there's then gonna be a lot of pressure on Congress to enow find some way to protect this group of people legislatively, because the executive branch won't do it anymore, but so be fundamental quest. And legislatively and immigration policy. Now that, in of the Democratic Party, is fairly uniformly in favour of a path to citizenship for an authorized immigrants and the Republican Party is less uniformly, but certainly for the most,
are opposed to it that ten years ago it was an issue that split both parties. That is less the case now so now getting a bill. Past is really a question of. Why are democrats willing to give up to get legalization that calculus looks different for demo as for activists cetera when you're talking about. Why are you willing to give up for eleven million people verses? What are you willing to give up for a million people? and so there's been a reddish. Is to treat you know. Okay, we could just you thing for the dreamers as an option, if you're going to give up anything at all doing the dream ACT as a stand alone thing? You know they tried doing that twenty ten came within a few votes in the Senate actually passed the house by doing something that is in the kind of compromise that you think of like well, will do more border security will do more work place in for meant, but will also legalised people. That's not appealing when you're talk
about a million of the eleven million and like seven hundred thousand of the eight million people who are working in the? U S without authorization. So you have the situation where Democrats dont want to negotiate with themselves. and Republicans there are a whole lot of republican standing up in saying. Well, it is affirmatively important that we took our necks out and protect these people in that respect. What about dead on Dhaka kind of allowed them to dodge a bullet a little bit. There wasn't a whole lot of republican complaining about Dhaka when it happened, because- everybody understood that he was acting to protect a group of people who, of America didn't really want deported. I was over when he tried to expand deferred action in twenty fourteen that people started taking a hard look at that effort, action programme that already existed in immigration hawks
started feeling embolden to say. Well, we have this him to already right here. I've loved cooking for four years. Personally, but you know I've. I've had a candid, my life for the past two and a half years, and that's love me with it with a lot less time and in blue apron is a really great way to do some creative cooking. in a streamlined way that sort of fits into my kind of busier lifestyle, its affordable to the less than ten dollars per person per meal. They deliver seasonal recipes and with clean portion too greedy, and to make she's meals, there's a lot of rioting. You can choose from functioning recipes each week or you can live. There came surprise. You recipes are not repeated within a year or so you never get bored, of course, really love a recipe want to cook it again. You can just like save the hard and cook it again. They keep sending a new stuff, it's flexible. You can customize what you get basement preferences. We got a few different delivery options. You can find one that fits or ignore needs. Your wants. Your schedule is no weekly commitment. Ceiling
Yet deliveries when you actually want them, it's it's super easy. You know the meals come you get a box for, while these ingredients and great stuff they step by step, easy to follow instructions proportionate, greedy. and you can make it and forty minutes let their blue apron freshness, guarantee promised Every ingredient in your delivery arrives ready to cook, or they will make him right for you. So that's really great is good for the environment too good for the community. There c4 sourced sustainably in a programme that sponsored by the Monterey Bay, where him seafood watch their beef chicken imports come from responsibility raised animals,
produces sourced from farms, have practised regenerative farming towards like it's, a great convenient, affordable, fun, weight of cooking, and you can feel good about the food that your cooking. So here's the fears are often three check out this week's menu in your first three meals, free with free shipping like going to blue apron that comes Swedes. You couldn't live, how good it feels and taste a great incredible uncle meals with Blue Abrams. So don't wait. You gotta blue apron, dot com, slash weeds, it's blue apron, Tibet, Awake So I very much regret that the dream active use. It was first introduced him in some form it way back and into that's. Why? I really you know heard about it. Just in the two thousand. I in two thousand and ten Congress lilies- I don't I don't recall it- is having been that much in the mix back in two thousand seven we're hungry was, Looking at immigration, I mean
but maybe I just missed it, but, like I dont remember this, I will maybe we'll do the dream act instead as having been particularly on the table back there there was a Senate vote on the dream act in two thousand and seven and it failed. I do not. I seem to recall that they're, just like with comprehensive reform, there was some kind of brouhaha about what food Barack Obama had taken on various in a in various parts of that process, but it was a similar thing in six or seven to what it was. No nine and ten, which was people were trying to do comprehensive immigration or form comprehensive immigration form wasn't going to work. Ok, can we try the dream act instead in twenty seven, because again it was still cutting splitting both parties.
That was not a super compelling thing to do in wait. Ten, partly because a comprehensive bill had not actually been introduced. Partly because again, there was a lot of civil disobedience activity on the part of dreamers themselves in our people sitting in Harry reads Office trying to force a vote. You know- and in that case it wasn't that they were trying to abandon their parents and the rest of the community. It was well you can do this without trying to give up anything. You know you can you can pass this just a way to legalise asked without having to do a bigger package. So they tried that in a lame duck session- and you know it in a period where Democrats had just taken kind of a blood bath in twenty ten. It was interesting to see a party that had been even as late as the twenty Twond Midterms super reticent to talk about immigration in anything other than well. Of course, you have to secure the border was interesting to see. You know Nancy policy be willing to bring to build the floor, a bunch of them
rats, many of whom were about to lose their seats, be willing to vote for it, and you know Harry Reed, who had just had see saved from it? surprisingly strong challenged by Sharon Angle in those elections, thanks in part to the latino vote. The oak follow through on what he'd basically promised the latino voters in his state and make that a priority in the wind accession it just partly because of a lot of procedural complaints on the parts of Republicans who had previously supported a duration of the dream that you know it didn't go through hearings. Yadda yadda yadda was not able to kind of surpass these sixty vote filibuster threshold, those procedural complaints, Usually a stocking horse in the Senate, for I dont support this, but I don't want to be on the right
they had. It was opened. Yet that's! What's at the table, he ass right. So I mean to those any Democrats win the sort of be you know, Landslide victory Obama's pray. and they have fifty nine and sixty and then fifty nine Senate seeds. The democratic platform of two thousand eight, an immigration, was very much a fudge. You know they were. This was still very much back in the day of we're going to secure the border, we're going to secure the border we're going to secure the border. Oh, oh, by the way, this can be a path to legal status, for eleven million people and we're going to secure the border, but the lead Chino community Obama had made a fairly specific commitment. That was I would say, maybe heard more optimistically than it was really stated, but at any rate There was a feeling that, over her had promised Latinos that he was going to
a major push for legalization early in his presidency. friends it as Obama one the endorsement of major latino groups over Hillary Clinton, because he was willing to put a timetable on when he was going to produce immigration bell, and she was not our eye and he beat Emily. We, I think the other friend resumed important in this is that he one vast majority in support of the latino community against John Mccain, even though Mccain had been a fairly consistent champion of immigration or form types, then in Congress and then about proceeded, do not move forward with any kind of immigration Bell and a lot of ill will is engendered by this process of events, both like in the latino community in the head of John Mccain
you know me like a is actually quite important. I think you have to understand that their and, of course, not only as a bomb and not moving on immigration by his White House on the political theory, if they demonstrated that they were tough on enforcement. The Republicans would stop complaining that Democrats were soft on the borders. I decided that they were going to continue. The trend did George W Bush started of ramping up interior enforcement deportations. So that's when you have Obama deporting four hundred thousand people a year and the mix of that and not moving in Congress to fix this situation not only did not have the intended effect. Among Republicans, because immigration, hardliners in the Republican Party did not either here you know, but- Eve did, Obama was fudging the numbers or did not take that seriously as in because they knew that Obama did support. Position, meanwhile, actual Latinos
are saying that the President who they voted for two legalise unauthorized emigrants is instead deporting record numbers of them and are losing faith in the democratic Party is best suit, so let Tito groups are mad at Obama. John Mccain is mad. It latina right where life Nothing credo is saying that Obama should be impeached because he's not succeed the border and a lot of republicans are hearing the same things that they heard in twenty seven, the lake nothing being diet. That more needs to be done right in the end, the political strategy was to clearly are delayed right. I mean it was like everybody understood that the stepped up deportations and the border enforcement was part of a political strategy whose end game was to proclaim that the illegal immigration problem, has been fixed and now what we need to do to like mopping up is to legalise the majority of the long term resident. relation and they get. Everybody knew the right if it wasn't.
There was nobody sitting there who was like saying why How Obama is just fanatically focused on fixing the illegal immigration problem? Who then, if he at some point pivoted too, now it's time to authorize people would be like wow. What a surprising development where's Donald Trump has come. It's the saw that, like he, really hates immigrants right so if he were to prove it It's like, I don't think he will, but if you were to it would be like a big shocking surprise was everything. Obama did was read by people who are sceptical of Obama as part of a fake out, but immigrants were feeling very targeted because in practice he wore sober locked up and deported, and then Democrats overall popularity is sinking like a stone because The economy is garbage even unlikely, affordable care act. The finance
services industry has like turned on them because of TAT, Frank Bell and its beginning to look Whatever Obama's political strategy may or may not have men, they were gonna. Clearly like lose tons and tons of seats. Congress and there was gonna, be no like well I'll make it up to you next time, right and so that's where you get like a lame duck push dream right. I mean there is aid effort by her Red Nancy Policy, Barack Obama whoever's left to be like ok like what? What can we make good? I'm here right here, and this is what they come up with a bill that had had republican support sort of you know in theory, they put on the table in the lame duck it hasn't, had regular order, blah blah blah blah. So there gives a certain number of republican members the pretext to sorting get off the boss but I mean people should know when this fund
He does come up for a vote in twenty ten. It actually you'd have enough republican votes to get over the top, given the large number of Democrats in in the Senate, but K hey, in Mark prior Ben Nelson, John Tester and MAX Bokkis also voted Joe Mention, didn't, show up for the vote, but he said he would have voted down had he had he not been there, and you know this is a to call him in most of these people are no longer with us politically, but you know people remember that the Democratic Party use to win have have one when we more elections in the passes. One recently and in part of that dynamic was that Democrats particularly needs Democrats from that from the great plains area, where we have Nelson tester and back ass. You know we're not like
on board for the new dervish position on immigration that has come to take over that the Democratic Party and, at the same time there was historic Lee more of a division inside that the Republican Party as well obviously would Donald Trump. You know the Republican Party has shifted well to the right on animals asian, but the Democrats have also it is someone to the officials, Hence is different from the one that, like Barack Obama bomb, but the parties become much more uniformly aligned behind this kind of position right modern day. Democrats had as many seats as they had had in twenty ten like this would have gotten done, but but they weren't modern day grants air and I mean I do think that some of this is that it simply because immigration enforcement in particular is concentrated in the executive branch. The party that doesn't hold the White House is for Europe,
criticized without having to have not turned it over, which I think is a kind of helped Democrats in this regard. But I want to go back to what you were saying about the political pressures that led to the dream. And twenty time, because there really similar to what ultimately pushes Obama to pat to Institute darkened twenty twelve. It's just that in twenty twelve, the Democratic Party realised that this was necessary before an election. Instead of after the election that you know because the dramatic doesn't pass and twenty ten and because the you know, enforcement bank shot strategy has continued with an asterisk that I'm going to get you in a second theirs. still no good reason for latino voters to show up to support Barack Obama, very election or other darker, ass, theirs
very little good faith it's being extended from the Republican Party on immigration. I and there's not enough that the clock is ticking for something to get produced. So at that point there is actually a pull in the field of letting o voters in MID June of twenty twelve, when Obama announced Dhaka and his inner approval ratings went for ITALY jumped by twenty points over a couple of days with looting of voters. add motivation to vote dumped as well, because he was actually offering something that had been. You know, version of something that had been asked for, for he know you could argue the first time since the affordable care act was passed in the affordable care act, as you mentioned, not super popular that point, but they want to get too, as I think something that might be more instructive for Donald Trump than people might think, because the
Other reason that the ombudsman is straightens, an enforcement bank shot was kind of hamstrung was that they weren't consistent and how they were message at right. They were downplaying the extent to which they were deporting people which, if your politically trying to build flip, Capital, for you know by saying your tough on the borders and then most of You say as well we're not actually being as aggressive as you say. We are you undermine yourself and, in particular the Obama administration they were not deporting dreamers in it were not round, students were deep, prioritizing people who have lived in the? U S and dont have criminal records were telling ice agents not till after them, Cetera on the whole that they certainly were telling agents not to do that, and it's not like you know. It's not like dreamers were disproportionately represented among the people who were getting too
in twenty two and twenty eleven, but simply having grown up in the. U S and not having a criminal record could not prevent you from being deported because you are still the portable, because you were still unauthorized and so Obama. going around to latino communities. In saying no guys, I ain't no fake news. Without doing some, people were holding up their orders of deportation and seeing what the hell do you mean, which is, I know both a it's, It's not a good way to build face. Not only that you're going to keep your promise. to legalise people, but also fundamentally, but you're not trustworthy
voting overt or community, and so fixing that both fixing the kind of internal ice agent problem of managers could tell agents to de prioritize in the depraved. I certain categories of immigrants, but couldn't actually prevent them from deporting them and a fixed. The kind of public facing executive problem of your not being consistent in who you're going after Doc allowed them to be much more for write about, this is a category of people we are not supporting. This is the kind of people we are departing. The reason this is relevant to the Trump Administration is that, even though you're right that President Trump at every opportunity is talked about how tough he is on the borders, He and his administration have also said that their mostly going after criminals, which as in the Obama administration, is not entirely false,
but is also not like they're keeping blinders on their from what we can tell of whose actually getting deported it is people who are coming into onto ices radar, many of whom do have criminal records cause. That's a good way to get onto ices rate, many of whom are just collateral, damage, being doctoring raids or check coming to check in because they were picked up a few years ago, and I decided not to deport them then, etc. That means that if the Dhaka is ended and if dreamers start getting the port that there is a strain of messaging from the trumpet ministration. That's gonna start looking really sketchy the bat embrace like the real reason, we're cracking down on immigration is because immigrants cause crimes. pouring dreamers, even even more than just stripping them of their work permits, will do a lot to make it clear that that is not waiting
and this could come to discuss whether this is difference between a sort of stated enforcement priority and a real protection right. I mean it's some wine wet, but when I was a, I got a good arrested for behind apart quit beside my friends, and I seriously doubt that this was ever like an enforcement priority of the New York City Police Department, I'm sure there probably somebody on paper somewhere being why? What are you doing with your time? Mr undercover detective like you know, but you can't show up in court this elegant Our legal defence right like whether or not the detectives should have been spending their time, busting, kids, drinking beer and apart coherent bothering any body the fact of the matter heads we got busted we had to show up and like we were duly punished according to the rules that were on the book
and this was the whole issue and the Obama air as they like. He could say, however, many times he wanted, but beware instructing the people to not target certain kinds of populations But if you wound up in the system, you are in the system. Right right now Initially they were trying to. You noted that for while they were focusing on well, if we open a case and immigration court against you but really you're someone we shouldn't be going through the whole rigmarole of immigration court. We should be spending our resources report. You then we'll cut. No look will quietly clothes. That case we won't like. You know we're not to give you legal status or anything. But will you know, give you temporary work, authorization and we'll just will kind of officially say that this wasn't a case that we need to pursue in court. That creates a weird situation where, if you get arrested and that put into deportation proceedings. You end up with more safety than someone here.
Ever been arrested and put into deportation proceedings at all. So it's not only a super perverse incentive for people themselves who, like now what no, you don't want to create a situation where people want to go to ice where turned themselves in by it? Also, in a way, it didn't do a whole lot for people who were just going around and living their lives and knowing that, if something happened to them, they could get the case against them closed, maybe, but in the meantime they still can't work legally. They still kept private, legally amazed, etc, etc. We talk a lot about about health and health care and on the weeds, but a lot of people don't think about the role that gentle health place and had. But a lot of studies suggest
good oral health. If your overall health, but a lot of us, don't rush hour teeth properly and you can start brushing better today with quick paths is the new company. There were freshen way, people approach brushing their teeth and it's an electric toothbrush, the pact's premium patient time features. You're, really cool slim designed in half the cost of bulkier brushes its you know you imagine like like, if apple made it made a toothbrush accepted, didn't caused a thousand dollars, you gotta see, healthy. It looks really nice brush with yourself that works well, you can even subscribe receive new brush heads. Dentist recommended three month plan for five dollars: Gooding Free shipping, that's really for its part- and I got one of these- you no fancy electronic brushes and the problem is I don't, I actually think, to go exchanged for the new brush head on. The kind of scheduling was do with quip. You know, you'd get the three month find the dentist worth man, it's it's not expensive five dollars a brush, and it just comes to your door. Issues can be
so you're doing the right thing without thinking about it, taking care your teeth. The way you ought to be there by leading dentist over names, one time, magazines, best diminish the twenty sixteen and they made an opera twenty seventeen new year's oldest. It starts it just twenty five. Right now, if you gotta, get quick dot com, slash weeds and get it quit. Electric toothbrush, you're gonna get your first refilled hack for free. I bet your first refill pack. Three. It get quick that consular Swedes Debts G, T Q, you ip that harm slash, get quit darker, so darker, it's it's twenty twelve. The sort of political calculus has shifted a little bit and it's like time to do something popular something that lead he knows will be excited about.
thing. That's a down payment and the idea that in the second, her Obama's gonna deliver on his promises and a way to take advantage in part of Mitt Romney and self deportation to like drug to draw a clear line right to say. Look guys like there is a real difference between us on immigration like you should come vote for me. So what does dug it do eyes? So there are lots of ways that the federal government can kind of give temporary relief or protection to immigrants, and one of them is called deferred action which, as you know, for a certain period of time, we're not gonna, deport you force or an during dinner. Usually it comes with a authorization to work legally in the? U S during that time. So what Dhaka does is it says we're gonna, open up. Applications for people are actually apply Ford.
Further action instead of just having given to them in the process of their case and you'll. Be able to do this if your view came to the? U S before he, where sixteen, if you're, sixteen or older. Now, if you're under one now a few. You know how our in high school or have I support a plumber have idjit idea if you dont have much of a criminal record, etc. And if you apply and are granted deferred action that will work for two years and then you can renew and as long as you still fit the criteria
will renew that application. So that's twenty twelve! It's now twenty seventeen, so over the course of you know a lot of people applied for doktor when it opened up in August of twelve a lot of people didn't either because they didn't know that they qualified or because they were a little wary of giving their information to the federal government when all the federal government had done for a decade was deport them and their families or because they didn't have the money that the application took, etc. So the kind of bump in the snake of doktor has kind of occurred in twenty eight late, twenty twelve and then in late, twenty fourteen and then delete twenty. Sixteen is
well, you know apply for renewals. It spread out a bit because, even though even renew before you're Dhaka officially expires suit. The reason I'm going through all of this in the reason that that two year period is super important, is that if Dhaka is indeed what is probably most likely is that Trump will say we are not taking away work permits from anyone who already has them, but when those work permits expire, you're not gonna, be allowed to apply for renewal, so the two year grant that people currently have is gonna. Be there last one. That's gonna sound like everybody's.
We call for two years in practice. What it means is that fairly consistently starting? You know a few weeks from whenever from makes this announcement. People are gonna, start falling out of Dhaka protections, there's gonna be a pretty someone's, actually run the numbers, and it's a pretty consistent decline over the two years that the programme itself will sunset of only a few thousand people every week, losing protection from deportation and losing their work permits that's something the bill be able to prepare for, because they'll know when the date of exploration on their dhaka is, but it's not gonna create the kind of chaos that, like the travel ban to ETA people immediately not knowing what was going on with them, but it still going to be. You know a pretty short. It's not great to be in a situation where you that three months from now you're gonna lose your job and you're gonna be able to get deportment one also so to be in the programme
applied your now like on some list somewhere right, I mean this seems like, even if it feels to me at least intuitively, that, even if Europe your nine months, even if you're, even if your twenty three months away from you know you you're authorization expiring. If you no, that you're gonna lose this permission. You're gonna work. a start doing something like probably soon to create a situation where there are just like ice agents at your door. You know that the next morning, right, It seems like politically they're, not gonna want to like start rounding up, gainfully employed, sympathetic law abiding
people like by the thousands week after week, but it also I don't- I don't quite see how it supposed to work from the Trump administrations perspective if you're hoping to get this done like quietly. Somehow it's the big question after is, and that is why it is what happens to the east is right. It is not super likely that, both because The agency that has the dock information is not ice and there are some regulations or at least agency norms that would discourage them from the handing over a list, but also because, as you said, it's not gonna look politically great for aid to be going to everybody's door the day after their dockets buyers. It's also not any possible like we're talking about a hundred thousand people over the course of two years.
four hundred thousand people a year, which is the maximum. That's ever been deported in modern? U S, history and that counts a lot of people who it was easier to deport because you didn't have to go through immigration courts is really no way that, without a whole, lot more ice funding and immediate hiring and a lot of other things government isn't very that it doing quickly. Do you can actually talk about people reported on mass. This is much more. You know. The enforcement strategy here would have to be some kind of self deportation variant of well. If people have several months and they can plan, then maybe what, though, to do as leave the country which may be that is true, I believe that is not just sort of running that playbook. With these Haitian the earthquake that, yes, I mean I I tv ass is an acronym you're, probably gonna, be hearing a lot more of in the next six months to a year, because it's very similar to what Trump is doing with Dhaka. In so far as there are a lot of groups of
look. I didn't hear they ever protections temporary protected status because there have been natural disasters or something else in their home country and that's kind of stretched out for a while and now the troubled ministrations. Taking a really hard look, and is planning to kind of sun is his made noise that it's gonna be Sunsetting, that for a lot of these people, including most immediately Haitians, the difference between those is that, while Haitians, many of the Haitians who currently have temporary protected status have been in the? U S for a while. It's not a group of people who have grown up here right. So there is. There is kind of an important difference there back in he says, you're basically telling people who have been? Who were at one point in the? U S without authorization? Well, we're gonna take your authorization away from you, and maybe this time it will somehow work to deter you when it didn't work initially, if you're,
ending darker you're, either doing it, because you want to send a message that people should not be in the: U S without proper others in order to send that message, you're willing to expand the number of people who are working in the? U S illegally, who were to portable living in the Eu Ass, just for the sake of kind of sending the message that the rule of law is important or you're trying to do it, because you think you can actually reduce the unauthorized population. That second option only works if you're gonna have self deportation and with this particular population of people who are brought to the? U S at an average of six years old who lived in the? U S while being unauthorized from their lives and didn't appear to be. You know packing up in moving before getting pretty actions who now, over the five years that they ve had protections have gotten have bought. Cars have bought, houses have gotten new degree
are absolutely by any measure. You can assess their mood integrated than they were before dark. It was instituted to assume that there, going to somehow now pick up and leave when they are more. Rooted in the U S is now a sound policy assumption it is the only likely out of the likely outcome if Dhaka gets ended is that you are essentially expanding the number of people who are living in the shadows. You are putting people back into the shadows legally, if not socially, and that is
hard to wrap one's head around as a matter of what you're trying to get out of this, but it makes a lot of sense if the trumpet ministration is not thinking TAT is, is not does not care terribly much about, because that is being imposed on these people and is very concerned about the putative message that is sent by the law here. So I mean to hand out maybe some some political advice. You know too my old friend, your Kirshner, and you know anyone else from the White House whose listening, I think you should really consider that, something you're gonna wanna say in general, is that you have succeeded in securing the border. You know by taking this tougher stance that you know, unlike Barack Obama, like you, ve done this done. You ve may be scared central american families off from coming here and in applying for asylum
you're already maxing out what the immigration court system could do in terms of deportations, that cross border flows appear to be down. You want to take credit for that and to a good thing to say to people would be luck. It's okay! We do not need to increase the intimidation level to deter future unauthorized crossings, because at this point the unauthorized crossings have fallen a lot they're going to continue to fall because I'm so top. You should focus on The economic consequences you got a jobs report number today that was okay, but it was softer throughout two thousand and seventeen. The jobs numbers have been softer than they were, and two thousand and sixteen the employment population ratio numbers only a little bed is a prime working age population really like you. Don't you don't need this mass and in many ways sends up anything
clear signal in whose side are you on sense to rescind it? And I get that that sort of the appeal of this but he is genuinely sends a mixed and confusing message to the sort of muddled middle voter here as to what you're trying to say about immigration enforcement in the trunk Ministration. You ve been saying for six months now that John Kelly did a great job of getting tough on the border and soon was down. If that's true ended, it's sort of seems to be true. There is no need to deter increase the deterrence level like with darker in place and with whatever else you ve done in place. You have succeeded in creating a fair amount of deterrence and, like you can really just like let this thing lie. You don't don't be bullied by republican attorney general's in into doing best like go on twitter and go bully them. That's that's what I think. I think that is like sound non concern: trolling advice,
that picking this fight at every turn sort of pointless. But can we talk about this lawsuit yeah? Because I guess the political origins of this is that the Dhaka happens. This very kind of popular I don't know I mean that some people complain but its a bit. It's not a big deal right. There's there is very little. Even the kind of you know, the Steve kings of the world, the immigration hardliners looks like we're, gonna go hard on Doc, and then data and Inner Steve King famously and twenty fourteen during the comprehensive immigration reform fight. You know come leaned about dreamers and said that they were. You know all drug smugglers with calves, the size of Kant lives and was pilloried for it right. There wasn't like he wasn't.
As the lab in the same way that people Hussein equally inflammatory things these days become like celebrated on the right given outcome or of the Washington Post actually wrote. I wrote an article yesterday that kind of pointed out. The Obama was the victim of his own success on doc and I think that's the right way to think about it right, because Dhaka was popular because with this it was effective as a policy programme in a way that really there little did. Obama had done in his first term was successful immediately successful as a policy programme. He then you know feeling a similar pressure to do things for other groups of unauthorized immigrants who hadn't been you know, because comprehensive immigration or form had hadn't past haven't been protected, and so in late, twenty fourteen. He, that he was going to create similar programmes. First of all, he was going to allow more people to qualify for data, for example, if they had been too old, when the initial programme was announced,
on twelve, and also that he was going to create this new programme for parents of. American citizens or legal permanent residents and that you know we're going from a population of about a million people who would have been eligible for the initial Dhaka programme to Lake four and a half million, which is a substantial proportion of the unauthorized population as a whole and really seems spur publicans like a bridge too far, rate of republican state officials in particular decide that you know this is a period, during which its very popular for Republicans, to sue the Obama administration, to stop Obama, administration policies, and so a group of Republicans decide to do this with the deferred action programmes. They choose the fit circuit, which is one of the more conservative appellate courts in the nation and they choose within the Fit Circuit de Southern District of Texas, aware
Large Andrew Hannan is known for going out of his way to talk about how bad illegal immigration is in opinions where that may not be super relevant, so ends up in hand in court and Hannan, surprising, very few people says yes, this programme is likely enough to be unconstitutional that it probably shouldn't start. We should make sure that word. You know I'm gonna, I'm gonna look over the claims, but I'm confident- after I'm, initially gonna strike this down that you shouldn't even bother to put into place that's the case that eventually becomes becomes the USB Texas cases that the Supreme Court in twenty sixteen deadlocked on four four, because they only had a people which meant that the fifth circuits ruling, which kept the programme on hold, became de facto, the law theoretically that loss. It is still on
after breakfast, Mama was in a wood was replaced by Donald Trump and the presidency. The question of why this lawsuit was still ongoing became very relevant, especially when the trumpet minutes asian, officially rescinded. All of the things that were supposed to put the programme in place, but they ve been kind. stalling on, formerly closing it and so in Why, when these attorney general again led by the Texas attorney General said, look you're gonna have to fish, were cut bade on Dhaka. What they said was we're gonna file in this lawsuit. You still haven't closed on. These other deferred action programmes to get the judge same judge who initially struck struck down the first programmes to rule that by this logic, Dhaka is all one constitutional, which is something he's he's pretty clearly believes is the case so they're using this They're using the same, you know lawsuit that his
well for them in the past to target a program that initially in twenty fourteen. They were very here they weren't, targeting because initially in twenty fourteen, it was still popular enough did it seemed kind like over reach. Where does it we're gonna? Do this x we're gonna cut down this existing thing, in addition to stopping stuff from going into effect of the politics of darker and dogma, but tat power with these bees, the bigger later programme are, are quite different and sort of the problem, the both of armour and now Republicans hand is it the legal issues are actually fairly similar, even though that the politics of it are quite different no I mean. I think it's really didn't help themselves really like they started by saying this isn't about Dhaka. This isn't about darkened and many of their arguments over the course of the litigation were we can't trust the administration to dude this other.
This new programme in a constitutional way, because if you look at how Dhaka is being conducted, its not being conducted in the constitutional way which It's really hard to then draw the line and say, but we're not talking about the constitutionality of dark, and conversely, I mean I think the Obama administration and its hearts would have really loved it to be the case that Dhaka was obviously constitutional, but that DARPA was completely impossible and that there was nothing whatsoever that they could do and that it could be like. I did this thing for you, it's totally legal hundred percent legit, I'm with you all the way the other thing I just I cannot do you have to elect democratic Party senators, but the reality is that the legal issues considerably mightier than that, unlike on the theory that he could do this somewhat unprecedented extension of executive of deferred action here
could do a big or extension of different action and therefore, since he could do it Hughes under a lot of pressure to in fact, do it and take it, take a step that that I think Denmark I think the White House always knew was like a lot political, clean Dacia. They would have done it back in two out of every with something they were like, really enthusiastic about running on in defending politically, but it became impossible to to not do it because they had a under their own legal fury. Is they had the authority to push the boundaries further, so you know that they had to sort of dance with one's the Brung mum and it it created. problem for them, and now it sort of swinging. The other way where I think a lot of Republicans would, in some ideal lized way.
Want this to be just something they can't address, but the fact is that, by the logic of their own law suits their own criticisms of DARPA everything else like This should go forward and the Trump Administration to write. I mean this will be a great issue to just point on and like not make a decision either way, but if a lawsuit is gonna be file they're gonna have to say either no like we are going to court to say, the state of Texas is wrong or they're men have to say no more cutting bait on this programme. You can't really just keep saying well were viewing it, it's a tough issue and talk about something you're more come, yeah. I mean this brings us back as a policy matter to what we describe. What we're talking about at the beginning of this episode and like the way that things worked for most of american history on immigration, you can't have big problems. If you have small and easy solutions to small uneasy pro,
he's right. If you, if it's easy for someone to come to the? U s legally, it's really hard to build up a substantial unauthorized population. If it's real the easy to legalise someone whose living in the? U S illegally, it's really hard to build up substantial unauthorized population. The reason that it was so hard for the Obama administration to draw lie
the sand and stable Dhaka was cool, but all of these other things you're asking us to do or not cool is because that line in the sand doesn't exist. There is a lot of flexibility for the executive branch to give this kind of temporary protection out, because the executive branch is supposed to have a lot of control over who dozen doesn't get to port it. The reason that that Dhaka and certainly DARPA seemed unprecedented regardless is because they were being and because there wasn't an obvious way like I was talked about earlier, for people who had protections to get full legal status and eventual citizenship from there that it seemed like a substitute for congressional action, because there wasn't an obvious path forward. That only happens when you don't have easy ways for people take to kind of when the system is influx
enough for these things to kind of balanced themselves out so by you know. By having these big congressional bills by having a lot of money poured into border security, you created a situation and where is the only way that the problem can be solved with a big splashes solution? The big splashes solution in the case of Dhaka didn't create a political problem. In the case of dogma, it did, but we now are in a position where the Trump Administration has a big problem and the only thing they can do is a big splashy solution. There is no compromise for the Trump Administration says: well we're going to we're going to protect the people who already have it we're just not going to give us any way they could. Theoretically do that still fight them. They still have the court battle that they don't they clearly don't want to make a big production out of ending Daca they clearly have to because they put the
those in a position where they have a big problem and they're gonna need a big response to it. And meanwhile the thousand people who are living Underduk are now going through what is like the third or fourth round since inauguration of rumours that the programme is eminently going to end their looking at this Tuesday deadline, their hearing all of these reports out of the White House from various interested factions that say the president's made a decision. The present hasn't made a decision even if they passed the Tuesday deadline, lake in life, mats There's still gonna beat S court battle and that uncertainty is creating its own. It's it's not. It is better to have darker and be worried that you're going to lose it than not to have it from that from their perspective, but it still not good and so they are kind of waiting because they're at the mercy of a system that has become so square
logic, that the only way is that it can be addressed our through big splashing actions on the part of the executive branch or from Congress. I won't you know what that sort of sobering thought I get gonna leave you. We will see how this plays out over over the next few days, thanks very much darker effort for coming on and explain the cell to us. If something dramatic happens, we may have to hand back on to talk about talk about the consequences and and what follows from One think producer Julian Wine, Burger Peter Leonard Engineer, for this episode, thanks at one for listening up to see some EU the now this fast it your coming up soon will, and we will. I will be back next week with someone.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-13.