Speaker 1: We have got a lot to talk about on today's show,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to give you a little bit of
Speaker 1: a preview because there is a new ruling that's come
Speaker 1: down that is just the most insane thing ever. And
Speaker 1: I'm going to deal with this in a little bit
Speaker 1: because it's that important. It is that undocumented immigrants, that's
Speaker 1: how Newsweek puts it.
Speaker 2: So let me let me just wash that through reality
Speaker 2: for you.
Speaker 1: Illegal immigrants have the right to own guns in America.
Speaker 2: A new judge has ruled yes.
Speaker 1: A judge is now saying that illegal immigrants can possess
Speaker 1: firearms in America as a right under the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: even though they broke into this country illegally.
Speaker 2: I'm going to deal with that coming up. But before we.
Speaker 1: Get to that, there's fallout now from President Trump using
Speaker 1: the word blood bath. We talked about this on this
Speaker 1: show and the President used the word blood bath.
Speaker 2: I'm going to play you the full clip.
Speaker 1: So you haven't in case you missed that episode where
Speaker 1: he was talking about a bloodbath on the issue of
Speaker 1: trade in car manufacturing. The media ran with it and
Speaker 1: said that Donald Trump threatened basically America that we were
Speaker 1: going to spiral into a civil war and there was
Speaker 1: going to be countless dead bodies in America, a blood
Speaker 1: bath in America if he is not re elected as
Speaker 1: president of the United States of America in the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four election cycle. All right, so this is yes, totally, absolutely, utterly,
Speaker 1: ridiculously insane.
Speaker 2: But that's what the media did.
Speaker 1: They ran all these headlines ABCNBCC, and and everybody was
Speaker 1: running donald Trump warns a bloodbath if not reelected. They
Speaker 1: put it in print all over the place. So let's
Speaker 1: go back to what Donald Trump actually said. This is
Speaker 1: Trump in his own words. Listen, he's not talking about
Speaker 1: there being a civil war in America. He is talking
Speaker 1: about a trade war and talking about automobiles.
Speaker 3: Mexico has taken, over a period of thirty years, thirty
Speaker 3: four percent of the automobile manufacturing business in our country.
Speaker 2: Think of it went to Mexico.
Speaker 3: China now is building a couple of massive plants where
Speaker 3: they're going to build the cars in Mexico.
Speaker 2: And think they think that they're going to.
Speaker 3: Sell those cars into the United States with no tax
Speaker 3: at the border. Let me tell you something to China.
Speaker 3: If you're listening, Presidency, and you and I are friends.
Speaker 3: But he understands the way ideal those big monster car
Speaker 3: manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and
Speaker 3: you think you're going to get that, you're going to
Speaker 3: not hire Americans and you're going to sell the cars.
Speaker 3: As now, we're going to put a one hundred percent
Speaker 3: tower for in every single car that comes across the line,
Speaker 3: and you're not going to be able to sell those
Speaker 3: cars if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected,
Speaker 3: it's going to be a blood bath for the whole
Speaker 3: that's going to be the least of it. It's going
Speaker 3: to be a blood bath for the country.
Speaker 2: That'll be the least of it.
Speaker 3: But they're not going to sell those cars. They're building
Speaker 3: massive factories a friend of mine.
Speaker 1: All and you can hear there. I even let you
Speaker 1: hear the part where he says blood bath. And what
Speaker 1: does he say about blood bath? It's actually pretty simple.
Speaker 1: He's saying that when it comes to trade and manufacturing,
Speaker 1: it'll be a blood bath for American workers. That is
Speaker 1: obviously the only thing he's saying here. And he's also talking,
Speaker 1: I'm sure about other issues right when he says that'll
Speaker 1: be the least of it. He's implying things are going
Speaker 1: to get worse on many other fronts as well. We've
Speaker 1: already seen this with a wide open southern border, for example.
Speaker 1: We've seen this with a number with a actual Hesblo
Speaker 1: Terras who came across our southern border that we reported
Speaker 1: on yesterday. And guess what he said, I'm here because
Speaker 1: I want to kill people. I'm here and I want
Speaker 1: to make a bomb, and I'm going to New York Like.
Speaker 1: That's an example of what the president's talking about here.
Speaker 1: But if you get down to what he actually was saying,
Speaker 1: he was saying it is clear there is a blood
Speaker 1: bath when it comes to trade. If you don't elect me,
Speaker 1: there's going to be hell to pay for the American
Speaker 1: worker and the manufacturing. Second, during manufacturing jobs in America,
Speaker 1: you're going to lose out to China, You're going to
Speaker 1: lose out to Mexico.
Speaker 2: That's what he's talking about. Now.
Speaker 1: The media is now treating the word blood bath like
Speaker 1: it is some sort of domestic terrorist word that should
Speaker 1: put you on a terrorists watch lists.
Speaker 2: Well, guess what we've done.
Speaker 1: We put together a montage of the media using the
Speaker 1: word blood bath. I hope every single one of you
Speaker 1: will take what I'm about to play for you and
Speaker 1: we'll share it everywhere you can, because this shows the
Speaker 1: hypocrisy of this media as they sit there and they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump used the word bloodbas They've been using the
Speaker 1: word blood bath over and over and over and.
Speaker 2: Over again for years now.
Speaker 1: I'm going to play you this montage in just a second,
Speaker 1: but before I do that, I want to tell you
Speaker 1: about my friends over at Patriot Mobile. If you're like
Speaker 1: me and you have finally said enough is enough. I
Speaker 1: am not giving my money to woke liberal companies that
Speaker 1: are fighting against my family, my family values, my Christian faith,
Speaker 1: then it is time for to know about Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 1: They are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
Speaker 2: And when I say only, I mean it, they're the
Speaker 2: only one.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile is not only a great supporter of this show,
Speaker 1: but they are also great supporters of organizations and causes
Speaker 1: that stand up for what we believe in. And every
Speaker 1: time you pay your bill to Patriot Mobile and you
Speaker 1: get amazing, dependable nationwide coverage, they give you access and
Speaker 1: the ability to access all three major networks. What does
Speaker 1: that mean? It means you get the same exact coverage
Speaker 1: you've been accustomed to, but without funding the Left. And
Speaker 1: when you switch to Patriot Mobile and you pay your bill,
Speaker 1: you're sending a clear message that not only are you
Speaker 1: putting your money where your mouth is, but a percentage
Speaker 1: of your bill, about five percent every month, goes directly
Speaker 1: back to support free speech causes, religious freedom causes, going
Speaker 1: to support and protecting the sanctity of life, as well
Speaker 1: as defending our Second Amendment and supporting our military, our
Speaker 1: wounded veterans, and our first responder heroes. That is what
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile does when you pay your bill.
Speaker 2: Now, switching is easy.
Speaker 1: They have one hundred percent US based customer service team
Speaker 1: and you get to keep your same number you have
Speaker 1: right now. You can keep your same phone or upgrade
Speaker 1: to a new one and their team will help you
Speaker 1: find the best plan that saves you big money. So
Speaker 1: don't give your money to Big Mobile any longer. Switch
Speaker 1: to Patriot Mobile. Go to Patriot Mobile dot com slash
Speaker 1: ben that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash ben. You can
Speaker 1: also call them nine to seven to two Patriot that's
Speaker 1: nine seven to two Patriot get free activation when you
Speaker 1: use the offer code Ben join me, make the switch
Speaker 1: today and stand up for what you believe in nine
Speaker 1: seven to two Patriot or Patriot Mobile dot com slash
Speaker 1: ben promo code ben and you'll get free activation.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: Back to the media here.
Speaker 1: The media tell you that bloodbath is like some I
Speaker 1: don't know KKK slogan, now, some anarchist slogan, some nine
Speaker 1: to eleven terrorist jihadis slogan, right, Like that's.
Speaker 2: What their net.
Speaker 1: White supremacists are the only ones that use the word bloodbath, right,
Speaker 1: that's their messaging now.
Speaker 2: Because Donald Trump used it.
Speaker 1: Not in reference to an actual blood bath in America,
Speaker 1: not in references civil war, No, No, in reference to
Speaker 1: what will happen to American manufacturing if he is not
Speaker 1: re elected in the automobile industry. So does the media
Speaker 1: use the word hell? Yes they do. How often do
Speaker 1: they use it? Let's start with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. You're
Speaker 1: going to recognize many of these voices of many of
Speaker 1: these communists on TV.
Speaker 5: Politico dot com reports tonight on the quote bloodbath at
Speaker 5: the RNC.
Speaker 2: Headline's calling it a quote blood baths. You have blood bath.
Speaker 2: Not only is it going to be a blood bath,
Speaker 2: but after they leave New Hampshire. It's a bloodbath on
Speaker 2: her home turf. That's really tough. Has left a lot
Speaker 2: of corpses in his wake. I mean, we haven't count
Speaker 2: in the body.
Speaker 5: As part of the quote Maga Drive to take over
Speaker 5: Maricopa County Line refers to it as an impending blood bath.
Speaker 5: Columnist Charles blow As a new piece for The New
Speaker 5: York Times entitled a Biden blood Bath twenty eighteen Midterms,
Speaker 5: you can bet that they one hundred percent of fearing
Speaker 5: a slaughter. In fact, the word blood bath and massacre
Speaker 5: come up frequently.
Speaker 2: The Republican Party will be destroyed. It's going to be
Speaker 2: a bloodbath. There's going to be a bloodbath one way
Speaker 2: or the other. Bloodbath for Bernie Sanders, it's been a
Speaker 2: blood beat. They're shaping up to be a blood bath.
Speaker 3: Head off a blood bath in next year's crucial midterm.
Speaker 2: Off Your elections are often a blood bath. This week's
Speaker 2: blood bath for Democrats, a blood bath at the ballot box.
Speaker 2: There could be a Republican bloodbath. We'll talk about a
Speaker 2: blood bath. Is a bloodbath. I have to talk about
Speaker 2: you and Eli.
Speaker 4: It's going to be a bloodbath all day long is
Speaker 4: in for a bloodbath?
Speaker 2: Has it been a blood bath on the way down?
Speaker 2: With Donald Trump? Blood bath?
Speaker 5: Be a blood bath, predicted to be a blood bath,
Speaker 5: may not be the blood bath.
Speaker 2: It would be a blood bath more of a blood bath.
Speaker 2: It's going to be a blood bath in November as well.
Speaker 5: Biden blood bath this November, a blood bath on war
Speaker 5: All Street.
Speaker 2: There's gonna be a blood bath in Alabama. Into a bloodpath.
Speaker 5: Obviously there was a blood bath.
Speaker 2: It was a blood bath. Who were down eight hundred points?
Speaker 3: This blood bath at Department Homeland Security, and it's a
Speaker 3: blood bath today.
Speaker 2: There was going to be this blood bath election blood bath.
Speaker 2: It could be a bloodpath for that blood bath.
Speaker 5: Possibly bloodbath that went through with the Attorney general blood
Speaker 5: bath ninety nine days out.
Speaker 2: The blood bath that's going to look like.
Speaker 5: Resided over a bloodbath in the diplomatic core folute.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, blud blood bath.
Speaker 5: The Democrats are calling it a ticket sales turned into
Speaker 5: a blood bath.
Speaker 2: Ticket sales VI singer Taylor Swift's latest tool. It's safe
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 5: The fans had a blood bath for the company.
Speaker 2: Off to the gasket. That's your media. Everything's a blood bath.
Speaker 1: There by the way some of the headlines, I think
Speaker 1: we're even more damning that we're in that report when
Speaker 1: they were talking about a blood bath at the Republican
Speaker 1: National Committee politicos headline back then was blood bath at
Speaker 1: rn C, Trump team slashes staff at committee. The Guardian
Speaker 1: absolute blood bath that RNC has new leadership, loyal to Trump,
Speaker 1: purges staff, Vandy Fair Donald Trump's mob like takeover of
Speaker 1: the r NC.
Speaker 2: Those are the headlines.
Speaker 1: Bloodbath at RNC, Trump team slash the staff, began the
Speaker 1: process of pushing out dozens of officials. Another one sets
Speaker 1: So I'm just curious, why are they allowed to use
Speaker 1: this word? Anyone want to guess the media should be
Speaker 1: ridiculed and publicly shamed for this. I give you this AMO,
Speaker 1: You are the ones that have to do something with it.
Speaker 1: You guys can spread this to tens of thousands, that
Speaker 1: turn into hundreds of thousands, that turn into millions of
Speaker 1: people seeing exactly what Trump said, hearing exactly what Trump said,
Speaker 1: and then hearing the media using the word bloodbath over and.
Speaker 2: Over and over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: So so make sure, okay that you share this on
Speaker 1: social media, because otherwise it didn't happen. Like I think
Speaker 1: that's a really important point that people need to understand.
Speaker 1: Otherwise they get away with it every time. We have
Speaker 1: to fight back one hundred times more than anybody else
Speaker 1: does in the political world because of what I just
Speaker 1: described to you, because they will do this to our
Speaker 1: side and we let them get away with it. And
Speaker 1: when we catch them red handed, lying, making up and
Speaker 1: fabricating news that never happen, attributing it to the former
Speaker 1: president of something that he never said, in no context
Speaker 1: about it being a civil war, they deserve to be
Speaker 1: to be ridiculed endlessly for this to remind people of
Speaker 1: just how corrupt the media actually is. So please take it,
Speaker 1: use it to your advantage, send it to everyone that
Speaker 1: needs to hear it, because otherwise, when people read stories
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump warns of a bloodbath if he's not
Speaker 1: re elected, they believe the propaganda like they believe it
Speaker 1: through and through, and they will continue to believe it
Speaker 1: every single time. Now, I want to get to some
Speaker 1: other news that is pretty significant here, and that is this.
Speaker 1: A judge this month dropped gun charges against an illegal
Speaker 1: immigrant in Illinois, sparking a new debate about the rights
Speaker 1: associated with a Second Amendment.
Speaker 2: This is a United States District.
Speaker 1: Court Judge Sharon Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois
Speaker 1: reference lower court rulings and dismissing the firearms possession charges
Speaker 1: against the illegal immigrant who is illegally or unlawfully. This
Speaker 1: is the court's words in the United States when he
Speaker 1: possessed a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago
Speaker 1: on June the first of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 1: The court finds that the criminal the criminal record containing
Speaker 1: no improper use of a weapon, as well as the
Speaker 1: non violent circumstances of his arrests, do not support a
Speaker 1: finding that he poses a risk to public safety such
Speaker 1: that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly
Speaker 1: and should be deprived of his Second Amendment rights to
Speaker 1: bear arms in self defense. Is what Coleman, who was
Speaker 1: appointed under President Barack Obama, wrote in her eight page
Speaker 1: ruling that has just come out that no one of
Speaker 1: the media seems to be touching this. This illegal immigrant
Speaker 1: was charged under Title eighteen of US Criminal Code. So
Speaker 1: what is Title eighteen of the US Criminal Code. It's
Speaker 1: pretty simple. It legally disallows undocumented individuals, meaning illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: to possess firearms and ammunition, or quote, to receive any
Speaker 1: firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
Speaker 1: interstate or foreign commerce. In other words, if you're here illegally,
Speaker 1: you cannot have, you cannot receive, you cannot own, you
Speaker 1: cannot have on your person the firearms or ammunition which
Speaker 1: has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Speaker 2: Seems pretty normal to me now.
Speaker 1: The defendant who contended the firearm was possessed for quote,
Speaker 1: self defense and protection of property during a time of
Speaker 1: documented civil unrest in the spring of twenty twenty in
Speaker 1: Chicago has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime,
Speaker 1: or a crime involving the use of the weapon. The
Speaker 1: only thing he's done is basically what they're saying, is
Speaker 1: just broken into the United States of America and been
Speaker 1: here illegally and possessed a firearm. Just so you understand,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of protests across the nation, he said.
Speaker 2: In the spring.
Speaker 1: Following the May the twenty fifth killings of George Floyd
Speaker 1: by Minneapolis police officer Derrick Chauvin, he was sentenced twenty
Speaker 1: one years in prison. The illegal immigrant has quote consistently
Speaker 1: adhered to and fulfilled all of the stipulated conditions of
Speaker 1: his release, the ruling says, adding that he is gainfully
Speaker 1: employed and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants. So
Speaker 1: you basically have a US judge who's saying, I don't
Speaker 1: believe that breaking into America is actually breaking the law.
Speaker 2: She's making the point that she believes.
Speaker 1: That this is a law abiding citizen, even though every
Speaker 1: moment of every day that he's in this country illegally,
Speaker 1: he is breaking the law. Every moment of every day,
Speaker 1: when he's sleeping, when he's working, he is in this
Speaker 1: country breaking our law. Now, the court previously quote denied
Speaker 1: two motions by the illegal immigrant to dismiss the charges.
Speaker 1: The first time was on April the thirteenth of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, and the second was on December the nineteenth
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty two, about six months after the US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court voted six to three to strike down a
Speaker 1: one hundred year old New York claw requiring that individuals
Speaker 1: show proper cause to get a license to carry a
Speaker 1: firearm outside a home, and that was stemming from a
Speaker 1: twenty twenty twenty excuse me a twenty twenty two ruling
Speaker 1: in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association verse the
Speaker 1: New York State Police Superintendent on that issue. Now, I
Speaker 1: agree you shouldn't have to show quote probable cause to
Speaker 1: carry a firearm or proper cause saying all right, I
Speaker 1: got a bunch of people that want to kill me.
Speaker 1: They're on the record is saying they want to kill me. Therefore,
Speaker 1: now I should have the right to carry a gun.
Speaker 1: New York and places like Washington, d C. Have gotten
Speaker 1: this wrong for far too long, and it's about time
Speaker 1: they're held accountable for that.
Speaker 2: Thank goodness, we're winning on that issue now.
Speaker 1: The ruling that was brought to the Higher Court after
Speaker 1: being challenged by New York State Rifle and Pistol Association
Speaker 1: gun owners Brendan Cock and Robert Nash, saying this, This
Speaker 1: is what Justice Clarence Thomas said, quote.
Speaker 2: We hold that.
Speaker 1: When the Second Amendments plain text covers an individual's conduct,
Speaker 1: the Constitution presentaively protects that conduct. That is what Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. To justify its regulation,
Speaker 1: the government may not simply post that the regulation promotes
Speaker 1: an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the
Speaker 1: regulation is consistent with the nation's historical traditions of firearm regulation.
Speaker 2: So he's saying, all right.
Speaker 1: Well, if people can have guns, then why can't I
Speaker 1: have a gun? Shouldn't I be able to have a gun.
Speaker 1: So in May of twenty twenty three, the US Supreme
Speaker 1: Court ruled in favor of gun control advocates in Illinois
Speaker 1: and denied every quest for an emergency injunction against the
Speaker 1: state's ban on the sale and new possession of firearms.
Speaker 1: All right, so this new possession of semi automaticquote unquote firearms.
Speaker 1: The request was made by the National Association for Gun
Speaker 1: Rights and response to the Illinois governor signing a legislation
Speaker 1: that enacts as a statewide ban on quote assault style weapons,
Speaker 1: including limits on magazine capacities. So you understand just the
Speaker 1: background there, and it's important that you understand this. So
Speaker 1: what this judge is said, and what the illegal immigant
Speaker 1: was saying, was like, all right, well, look, I should
Speaker 1: be able to have the right to carry gun to
Speaker 1: protect myself just like anybody else, even though I'm in
Speaker 1: this country illegally and breaking laws. And what this judge
Speaker 1: is now saying is they agree. You get to decide
Speaker 1: what you think about this. But I do not believe
Speaker 1: that an illegal immigrant who is in this country illegally
Speaker 1: should have the right to go out there and carry
Speaker 1: a firearm in this country while they're breaking the laws
Speaker 1: or immigration laws of this country. I completely fundamentally disagree
Speaker 1: with that, full stop.
Speaker 2: It's insane. Let me also just give you some other
Speaker 2: breaking news.
Speaker 1: Is that connects to what we're talking about here in
Speaker 1: this court case with this illegal immigrant. We're now being
Speaker 1: told that the Supreme Court is allowing Texas. Let me
Speaker 1: say this again, the Supreme Court, this just happening, is
Speaker 1: allowing Texas to temporarily enforce its new law that allows
Speaker 1: it to arrest illegal immigrants crossing the border, making it
Speaker 1: a state crime.
Speaker 2: Here it is from Fox all Right, big news on
Speaker 2: the border.
Speaker 5: The Supreme Court of the United States is allowing Texas
Speaker 5: temporarily to enforce its new law that allows it to
Speaker 5: arrest illegal immigrants crossing the border, making it a state crime.
Speaker 2: David'spot here Live with more.
Speaker 4: David John I'm at the Justice Department right now waiting
Speaker 4: to see if Attorney General Meyrick Garland or anyone from
Speaker 4: the Justice Department has any comment on camera, we assume
Speaker 4: they're not going to be happy about this after they
Speaker 4: went to the Supreme Court recently and asked the Supreme
Speaker 4: Court to put a stay or a pause on this.
Speaker 2: Texas lot was called SB four.
Speaker 4: And it would allow Texas state officials to arrest people
Speaker 4: suspected of illegal immigration. Texas Governor Greg Abbott says it
Speaker 4: is a necessary tool to fight this crisis at the
Speaker 4: southern border with people illegally crossing from Mexico into the
Speaker 4: United States, specifically into Texas. Although the Biden administration said
Speaker 4: that it's up to federal officials to make such arrests
Speaker 4: and up to border patrol, Governor Abbott has said, well,
Speaker 4: border patrol has not been doing their job or doing
Speaker 4: its job for the past two and a half or
Speaker 4: three years, so that's why this law was enacted in Texas.
Speaker 4: Right now, the Supreme Court has allowed it to continue
Speaker 4: going forward while the greater fight over the merits of
Speaker 4: the case makes its way through the system. Justice Sodo
Speaker 4: Mayor dissented in this, supported by Justice Katanji Brown Jackson,
Speaker 4: expressing their issues with this moving forward, but as of now,
Speaker 4: Texas officials can continue to enforce this law which allows
Speaker 4: them to arrest those suspected of a legal immigration Again,
Speaker 4: waiting for some comment from Attorney General Merrick Garland or
Speaker 4: others here at the DOJ, which we expect they will
Speaker 4: have something to say and not in a good way.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so hopefully we get that response soon.
Speaker 2: Sandra here, David.
Speaker 5: Obviously, now it becomes a question.
Speaker 4: Of resources for Texas to be able to carry this out. Well,
Speaker 4: that's exactly right, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Majorkis has
Speaker 4: said on camera for well over a year now that
Speaker 4: they are strapped resource wise, So that becomes the question
Speaker 4: that Governor Abbott has posed to these federal officials is
Speaker 4: that if you can't do it, somebody has to do it,
Speaker 4: and we're going to do it. The Justice Department, though,
Speaker 4: has said it's about territory and the border is federal territory,
Speaker 4: which is correct, and they say that they should be
Speaker 4: making the arrest meeting border patrol and other federal related agencies.
Speaker 4: But Governor Abbott said that this is the tool in
Speaker 4: his toolbox that he will use to stop this record
Speaker 4: flow of migrants crossing the southern border.
Speaker 5: Sandra, So, David, how long do we think the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court is going to allow them to arrest people?
Speaker 4: You know, we don't know exactly because right now this
Speaker 4: case is making its way through we call it on
Speaker 4: the merits, the actual case itself of SB four and
Speaker 4: whether that's constitutional or whatnot. So that's making its way
Speaker 4: through on the merits. So right now this is just
Speaker 4: something that allows them to temporarily continue. But short answer is,
Speaker 4: we don't know how long this could con continue because
Speaker 4: just yesterday, and not to make things more confusing for
Speaker 4: our viewers, the Justice Samuel Alito put out a brief
Speaker 4: order announcing that he was going to continue the pause
Speaker 4: of this law. And that was not even twenty four
Speaker 4: hours ago. So yesterday at five point thirty pm, we
Speaker 4: got to notice from the Supreme Court that Texas could
Speaker 4: not enforce this law. It was the second such pause
Speaker 4: from the Supreme Court. And now not even twenty four
Speaker 4: hours later, Texas is able to go ahead and enforce
Speaker 4: this controversial law. So things truly, not to be trite
Speaker 4: and use an over overuse phrase, things can truly change
Speaker 4: by the hour and by the day, especially in this
Speaker 4: case and with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So what this means is the celebrating that happened yesterday
Speaker 1: by the left who said lawlessness can continue in this
Speaker 1: country and legal immigrants can come flying across our southern border.
Speaker 2: They're now saying, never mind.
Speaker 1: Just kidding, that's not going to be the case here
Speaker 1: at all, right like that, We're gonna no, you guys
Speaker 1: actually got it wrong.
Speaker 2: We're gonna let you do this temporarily.
Speaker 1: This is significant and it's going to be a huge
Speaker 1: victory for law and order as the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: okay in the law letting Texas police arrest illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: suspected of illegally crossing the southern border. Now, the question
Speaker 1: is how fast can the governor and law.
Speaker 2: Enforcement respond to this.
Speaker 1: So let me give you another headline to this comes
Speaker 1: as Texas said, it put law in place to quote
Speaker 1: compensate for Biden administration's inadequate response at the southern border.
Speaker 1: So that is the reason why they're saying now that
Speaker 1: this is a thing, okay, that this is a you
Speaker 1: know that this is that this is going to be
Speaker 1: something they're allowing them basically to do. The question is,
Speaker 1: then what's going to happen. Is it going to be
Speaker 1: local law enforcement that then goes out there and starts
Speaker 1: arresting people left and right instead of and what will
Speaker 1: the federal government do with this right? That's another part
Speaker 1: of this. Will the federal government then fight local law
Speaker 1: enforcement if law enforcement is sitting there at the border
Speaker 1: and border security, you know, the Department of Owned Securities
Speaker 1: state the How that's going to play out, I don't know,
Speaker 1: But the Supreme Court this is coming again from the
Speaker 1: highest court in the land, saying, look, Texas, we're going
Speaker 1: to let you enforce this local law, this state law
Speaker 1: that allows local police to arrest migrants suspective crossing border illegally,
Speaker 1: making a significant but temporary win for the state's efforts
Speaker 1: to control the massive amount of illegal immigration coming into
Speaker 1: the state of Texas. The ruling comes to day after,
Speaker 1: as you heard that at the end of that news brief,
Speaker 1: the day after, the court extended a block on the
Speaker 1: state law that at the request the Biden administration, they
Speaker 1: soon to strike down the measure. The Biden administration argued
Speaker 1: the law, known as the Senate before and signed by
Speaker 1: Governor Abbot in December, what do you serve federal authority
Speaker 1: on matters related to immigration enforcement? It marked the most
Speaker 1: significant effort by a state to take control of the
Speaker 1: enforcement mechanism since the court struck down parts of an
Speaker 1: Arizona law back in twenty.
Speaker 2: Twelve, saying this in the bill quote, the United.
Speaker 1: States springs its action to preserve its exclusive authority under
Speaker 1: federal law to regulate the entry and removal of non citizens.
Speaker 1: That's what the DOJ lawsuit filed in January stated. Then
Speaker 1: they went on to say this Texas cannot run its
Speaker 1: own immigration system. Its efforts through sbfore intrude on the
Speaker 1: federal government's exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal
Speaker 1: of non citizens. It frustrates the United States immigration operations
Speaker 1: and proceedings, and interfere with the US foreign relations. That
Speaker 1: is what was argued by the Biden administration. Texas said
Speaker 1: the state law mirrored federal law and was in place
Speaker 1: to compensate for the Biden administration's inadequate response at the
Speaker 1: southern border. So that's obviously very important Texas is the
Speaker 1: fee of the Biden administration and the ACL used in
Speaker 1: emergent motion excuse me at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: Our immigration law sked before is now in effect.
Speaker 1: As always, it's my honor to defend Texas and its
Speaker 1: sovereignty and lead us to victory in court, is what
Speaker 1: the Texa Attorney General Ken Paxon said his statement as well.
Speaker 1: The ruling was not focused on the merits of the
Speaker 1: case itself, but on the stay on the law issued
Speaker 1: by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had blocked
Speaker 1: the law in February from taking effect. The Court did
Speaker 1: not explain its reasoning for ending the stay, but in
Speaker 1: a concurring opinion, Justice amy Cony Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: expressed concern about the moves by the appeals Court and
Speaker 1: suggests it could rule differently on the merits itself, saying
Speaker 1: this quote. Before this court intervenes on the emergency docket,
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit should be the first mover, is what
Speaker 1: amy Cony Barrett wrote, saying this, so far as I know,
Speaker 1: this court has never reviewed the decision of a Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals to enter or not enter an administrative stay.
Speaker 2: I would not get into the business when entered.
Speaker 1: An administrative stay is supposed to be a short lived
Speaker 1: prelude to the main event, a ruling on the motion
Speaker 1: for a stay pending appeal. Barrett wrote, Justice side of
Speaker 1: my Oar and Brown Jackson issued a scathing descent, accusing
Speaker 1: their conservative counterparts of inventing quote, further chaos and crisis
Speaker 1: in immigration enforcement, saying this, Texas passed a law that
Speaker 1: directly regulates the entry and removal of non citizens and
Speaker 1: explicitly instructs its state courts to disregard any ongoing federal
Speaker 1: immigration proceedings. The law up ends the federal state balance
Speaker 1: of power that has existed for over a century, in
Speaker 1: which the national government has had exclusive authority over entry
Speaker 1: and removal of non citizens. Sodoman Or wrote, well, when
Speaker 1: you have an invasion and the federal government doesn't do
Speaker 1: its job, Texas is saying they must do what the
Speaker 1: federal government already has in runing in what they're supposed
Speaker 1: to do, and that was their argument, and so far
Speaker 1: it is a win for Texas. They can now start
Speaker 1: and this is massive arresting people they believe are coming
Speaker 1: into the country illegally. God blessed Texas and the people
Speaker 1: fighting in Texas. The governor down there as well as
Speaker 1: the Attorney general. Ken Paxton's job well done. Make sure
Speaker 1: you share this podcast with your family and your friends,
Speaker 1: and I'll see you back here tomorrow.