No Spin News - Weekend Edition - February 21, 2026

Summary

Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis

Weekend Edition - February 21, 2026

Host: Bill O’Reilly
Date: February 21, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This Weekend Edition of No Spin News dives into two major topics:

1. U.S. immigration policy and its complexities, featuring interviews with Christian Ulver (Edge Communications, Miami) and Jeh Johnson (former Secretary of Homeland Security).
2. America's economic landscape, income inequality, and the role of the wealthy in democracy, exploring themes from the new book "Why Democracy Needs the Rich" with author Professor John McGinnis.

Bill O’Reilly probes into how current government approaches to these issues affect everyday Americans, with a “no spin, just facts” approach—holding policymakers to account and challenging guests on specifics.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Immigration Policy and Enforcement

O’Reilly’s Introduction on Miami's Refugee History

• Bill reflects on his time teaching in Miami, noting the city’s legacy as a haven for refugees from Cuba, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, and contrasting past presidential policies on immigration.
• Sets up the discussion with Christian Ulver regarding changes in immigration procedures and consequences for immigrant families under recent administrations.

  “Florida has been a refuge place for people persecuted not only in Cuba, but in Nicaragua, in El Salvador and all of these countries that totally out of control, okay?” – Bill O’Reilly [00:14]

Christian Ulver: Critique of Recent Policy Changes

• Main Argument: The current administration is not following the immigration process it campaigned on in 2024; shifting policies have destabilized legally settled families.

  • Specific example: The abrupt cancellation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Venezuelans.
  • Courts have intervened, finding the actions exceeded presidential authority.
  • Ulver emphasizes that families following the legal process lost legal status overnight, creating fear in immigrant communities.
  • Contrasts the intent of TPS (protection from danger in home countries) with perceived punitive actions by the government.

• Noted Court Dynamics:

  • Courts have blocked deportations, but government continues to challenge those orders.

  “...overnight, someone who had legal status because of this president no longer has legal status. That's what's happened with Venezuelans. It's what's happening with Venezuela.” – Christian Ulver [04:01]

  “At the end, they are targeting innocent families who are Venezuelans... locking them up. Children, families, women. We don't know where some are today. That is a problem.” – Christian Ulver [05:19]

O’Reilly: System Capacity and Political Stalemate

• Emphasizes the impossibility of unlimited acceptance—“destabilizing” for the U.S.—and claims Democrats oppose migration caps.

  • Argues for congressional action to set limits, claiming the Democratic party doesn’t sponsor legislation to cap migration.
  • Asks Ulver for examples; Ulver asserts there are bipartisan measures but O’Reilly maintains no such Democratic-led cap exists.

• Expresses skepticism about mass deportations, saying no “roundups” are taking place.

  "The United States cannot absorb all these people, okay? That is a destabilizer for our entire country.” – Bill O'Reilly [05:50]

Community Sentiment (Ulver)

• Reports widespread feelings of “betrayal, fear, and hope" in Miami’s immigrant communities.
• Calls for restoration of dignity, rule of law, and compassionate treatment for those fleeing oppression, while reaffirming respect for legal process.

  “A sense of betrayal, a sense of fear and a sense of hope that Congress acts to restore a sense of dignity and a full rule of law of order.” – Christian Ulver [08:17]

Asylum Hearings and Deportation

• O’Reilly: Presses on rule of law—should people who miss their asylum hearing be deported?

• Ulver: Acknowledges importance of hearings but points to fear and bureaucratic obstacles; ultimately agrees that laws and process must be followed.

  “If you don't show up, you're out, right?” – Bill O’Reilly [18:28] (echoed later to Jeh Johnson)

ICE Operations and Congressional Gridlock

• O’Reilly notes DHS investigations into ICE have stopped due to defunding standoff in Congress—blames Democrats for insisting on ICE overhaul.

  “Department of Homeland Security... out of business for the time being because Democrats won't fund it because they want all kinds of modifications to ice.” – Bill O’Reilly [10:57]

---

2. Jeh Johnson Interview: Enforcement under Obama, Trump, and Biden

Obama vs. Trump: Enforcement Realities

• Johnson: Under Obama, deportations were at record levels—Obama labeled “Deporter in Chief.”

  • Emphasizes enforcement plus attempts at comprehensive reform.
  • Notes Democratic leaders (e.g., Schumer) broadly supported border control efforts.

  “President Obama was labeled the deporter in Chief in 2013, 2014… the deportation numbers were high.” – Jeh Johnson [12:22]

What Changed? Politics Over Policy

• O’Reilly: Wants to know why leading Democrats don’t press for enforcement now, amid “flood” of border crossings.

• Johnson: Cites polarized politics; when both left and right are angry, you’ve found the compromise point.

  • Suggests “racist component” to some anti-immigration arguments but affirms border security as legitimate.
  • Notes that politics have overtaken policy:

  “The politics of immigration have overwhelmed any desire for smart policy…” – Jeh Johnson [16:31]

Enforcement Nuances and Local Resistance

• Johnson discusses ICE’s operational challenges:
  • Interior enforcement less effective when state/local governments withdraw cooperation after controversial incidents.
  • Describes his efforts to rebrand/deescalate enforcement (priority on removing felons).
  • Asserts not all people rounded up are deported; must have due process.

ICE Training and Tactics

• Johnson critical of ICE training on de-escalation strategies; believes the force is inadequately prepared on this front.

  “I see a force that is not adequately trained in the tactics of de escalation…” – Jeh Johnson [21:32]

O’Reilly: Biden Era “Floodgates”

• O’Reilly claims Biden adopted de facto open border, causing surge (15 million crossings)—asks if Johnson was surprised.

• Johnson: Surprised, but explains immigration flows are highly sensitive to perceived enforcement changes—any hint of lax policy triggers spike.

  • Notes “push factors” (conditions in home countries) always restore upward trend over time, regardless of policy.

  “Biden came into office, he was perceived as being soft. And you saw the results... so long as the push factors persist, the numbers are always going to revert back…” – Jeh Johnson [22:23]

Mexico’s Role

• O’Reilly: Points to Mexican government’s enforcement (or lack thereof) as key factor—Johnson agrees.

  “2014. One of the reasons we got the numbers under control is because President Pena Nieto agreed to do more enforcement on his southern border.” – Jeh Johnson [23:28]

---

3. Economic Segment: Affordability Crisis & Role of the Rich

Affordability Concerns

• O’Reilly references polling: 90% of Americans see a crisis in cost of living.
• Gives demographic breakdowns of millionaires/billionaires; notes U.S. median net worth (just under $200k) second only to Switzerland.

“Why Democracy Needs the Rich” — Professor John McGinnis

• McGinnis:

  • Affirms cost-of-living struggles, but claims regulation—not the rich—drives unaffordability (esp. in housing, healthcare, education).
  • Markets and deregulation are keys to affordability.

  “They're not caused by the rich. They're caused rather than by government regulation.” – John McGinnis [26:19]

• Argues the wealthy help democracy by:

  • Contributing diverse political views (not just left-leaning like media/academia).
  • Counterbalancing professional “influencers” in public debate.
  • Fostering innovation and economic growth via entrepreneurship.

  “One way the rich help is by able to counterbalance… professional influencers in the media, academics, entertainers…” – John McGinnis [27:21]

• On Trickle-down vs. Entrepreneurial Impact:

  • While wealthy spending helps, the true benefit comes from risk-taking and creating technologies (e.g., smartphones, internet).

  “The great way that the wealthy help, [is] by actually bringing new ideas… making people better off, making things very affordable.” – John McGinnis [28:11]

• Elon Musk cited as an example of positive influence—both in tech and in defending free speech.

• On political attacks on the rich:

  • Claims leftist opposition is about consolidating influence for “professional influencers,” not just fairness.

  “You scapegoat people you don't like as a way of gaining power. And that's a very unfortunate aspect of democracy.” – John McGinnis [30:08]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Bill O’Reilly: “The United States cannot absorb all these people, okay? That is a destabilizer for our entire country.” [05:50]
• Christian Ulver: “A sense of betrayal, a sense of fear and a sense of hope that Congress acts to restore a sense of dignity…” [08:17]
• Jeh Johnson: “The politics of immigration have overwhelmed any desire for smart policy.” [16:31]
• John McGinnis: “They're not caused by the rich. They're caused rather than by government regulation…” [26:19]

---

Important Timestamps & Segments

• [00:07] – Discussion of Miami’s immigrant history and setup for immigration debate
• [01:39] – Christian Ulver interview: TPS, rule changes, family impact
• [10:57] – O’Reilly on Congressional defunding of DHS, ICE investigations frozen
• [12:22] – Jeh Johnson interview: Obama’s deportation record, party politics, enforcement nuances
• [22:19] – Reaction to Biden-era border “floodgates” and analysis of push factors
• [25:58] – Transition to economic segment: Polling on affordability crisis
• [26:19] – John McGinnis interview: Causes of affordability issue, role of the rich, democracy

---

Summary Takeaways

• Immigration: The episode illustrates the practical and emotional turmoil created by shifting U.S. immigration enforcement and policies, especially when legal status is abruptly changed. Guests from both sides of the aisle agree that the rule of law should prevail, but differ on where compassion and security should intersect. Politics, not policy, drives the current debate.
• Economy: Rising cost of living is nearly universally recognized. The guest author argues that blame rests more with governmental regulation than with wealthy citizens, and contends that the rich, through both entrepreneurship and diversity of thought, ultimately strengthen democracy.

Listeners are left with a sense of policy gridlock—whether on the border or in the economy—and an urgent need for pragmatic, non-partisan solutions.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[B]

Now, I used to teach high school in Miami, Florida. You guys know that many of the students that I taught history and English to, their parents were refugees from Cuba. I would say 50% that high. And Dade county, where I was, Florida has been a refuge place for people persecuted not only in Cuba, but in Nicaragua, in El Salvador and all of these countries that totally out of control, okay? And they would come to South Florida because they had relatives there. And depending on who the president was, it was fairly easy. Reagan let everybody come in. Remember that? Everybody come in and they made a deal and the deal wasn't upheld. They were going to build a fence, they were going to skew the border. That never happened. So the Overt family came and they arrived in 1981 and they're here legally and they went through the process to become American citizens. Christian Ulver is now the founder of Edge Communications, very successful man in Dade county and he has a big problem with Homeland Security and what they are doing. He joins us now from Miami. Is that intro accurate?

[C]

For the most part, with much respect, it's not that I disagree and have a big problem with what Homeland Security is doing is that what the president campaigned on in 2024 is not what's living out on American streets today. And you talked about my family coming here following the process. We know TPS was offered to Venezuelans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and following the law in a process and the rug got pulled under them by this president overnight. And the courts have now said that it is beyond the president's authority to have done that. So I agreed with what you said at the intro, which we have processes and we have policies in this country and this president should follow them. I agree that.

[B]

But what policy? Let's get specific. Let's get specific, Christian. What policy is Donald Trump not following? Give me the big one.

[C]

Well, tps, for example, TPS courts ruled as early as last week that him canceling with one swipe of a pen CPS for Haitians did not follow the process in our country. Courts have ruled it independently.

[B]

Okay. But remember now, remember most of the initial rulings by the federal judges been overturned by the appeals court. Now, I'm not going to say that the Haitian thing, I don't know, this

[C]

ruling just happened last week, has even gone to an appellate process. Venezuelan TPS has been upheld and it's now pending before the US Supreme Court. So yes, it's ultimately to the highest court of our land to rule if the president to rule what what the

[B]

boundaries are for the executive branch. And the reason, and people should know this, that President Trump put a stop on a Haitian migration is because Haiti has fallen apart. It's collapsed. Whole country's collapsed. Okay? So that the sheer volume of Haitians who want to get the hell out of there. All right. Is too much for any American state to absorb. Can't absorb it. So there was a reason. It wasn't like, oh, I hate Haitians. Okay. And that reason will be. Will be taken into account by the appeals court.

[C]

But let's talk about policy and process. What you just described does not bear out to be true here, because TPS is impacting people here. I agree. Haiti is at the point of collapse. It's unsafe, it's dangerous. Families are being targeted and persecuted. But the rules that have been changed are impacting families here. That again, overnight, someone who had legal status because of this president no longer has legal status. That's what's happened with Venezuelans. It's what's happening with Venezuela.

[B]

I don't know, Christian. I don't know. I don't know of any mass deportations on Haitians. And you live in a city where there's a little Haiti, a huge neighborhood, and in New York, there's a huge neighborhood of Haitians. There hasn't been any ICE going in there and rounding up anybody, as far

[C]

as I know, because the court intervened.

[D]

Okay? That's.

[C]

That's ultimately what happened.

[B]

But that's our process.

[C]

Correct. And the same thing is true with Venezuelans. The courts have issued stays. The. The administration under this president is challenging those court orders, which. That is part of our process. I'm not negating that. But at the end, they are targeting innocent families who are Venezuelans. And they have. This administration has acknowledged the d. Dangerous regime. That is the Maduro regime.

[D]

Right.

[C]

And now they're saying, we're going to round up Venezuelans who have been vetted through tps, who are not criminals, and locking them up. Children, families, women. We don't know where some are today. That is a problem.

[B]

Well, look, I said that quite clearly. But again, there are no mass roundups. There are no mass roundups of Venezuelans. The president issues the order because the system is becoming overwhelmed.

[D]

And I want.

[B]

That's what I want to get to you. You know as well as I do, because your heritage is Nicaraguan, and I covered the war in El Salvador, so I know the area very well. The United States cannot absorb all these people, okay? That is a destabilizer for our entire country. And in Europe, they're going. They're going. Wait, wait, Christian. They're going nuts in Europe and I'll prove it in a minute. With Switzerland's referendum. You cannot absorb them all. You can't. So it's got to be a limit, a cap. And that's what Congress should be doing. But they won't do it because the Democratic Party doesn't want any limits. Would you agree with that?

[C]

No, that's not accurate. The Democratic Party does not believe that there should not be leniency.

[B]

Has always said, give me one piece of legislation advanced by the Democratic Party that doesn't lead to leniency for migrants. Give me one.

[C]

There are number of bipartisan.

[B]

Give me one.

[C]

Policies. There are a number of. With much respect, there's a number of policies dating back to former President Reagan.

[B]

Okay, you're not giving me. You're not giving me one because it doesn't exist.

[C]

Christian, let's go back to President Reagan.

[B]

I'm not going back anywhere. We're living in 2026. You've got Democrat. Christian, I asked you a simple question. You're a smart man. I asked you a simple question. Give me one thing. The Democratic Party has advanced in Congress to limit unlimited migration. You can't do it because it doesn't exist.

[C]

Legislation today in the halls of Congress being discussed by Democratic leaders working with their Republican counterparts that advance legislation that allow for those who are in our country to have a pathway to a residency, to make sure that our borders are secured, that the rule of law is followed and that there are processes in place to reinstate tps. Those are legislation filed today in bipartisan form.

[B]

There is no written legislation. Anybody can discuss anything. Final thing, you live in a Nicaraguan community, right?

[C]

Primarily, yes.

[B]

Right.

[C]

I'm married to a Venezuelan American. Yes.

[B]

All right. What's the mood?

[C]

What's the mood? It's very simple. A sense of betrayal, a sense of fear and a sense of hope that Congress acts to restore a sense of dignity and a full rule of law of order. Because we are a country of laws. We believe that Hispanic families have always understood that there's a time and place and there's a process. We don't believe that you should just have open borders. We believe that there should be continued compassion in this country. Those who are fleeing political persecution, those who have entire lives destroyed by oppressive governments have found an opportunity in this country. I am living proof of that. We need to get back to a country that accepts.

[B]

And your parents, your mom and I don't know about your father, but your mom did it the right way. Here's another one, more specific. And I'm not trying to make you look bad, but I'm curious.

[C]

I appreciate the tough question, sir.

[B]

Somebody comes here from Nicaragua and says, I want asylum because the Sandinista communist government is oppressive. They're going to hurt me. And they get in because Biden let everybody in. And then they're given a hearing date. They don't show up for the hearing date. And we have hundreds of thousands of migrants in that category. Do you deport that person if that

[C]

person broke the law? No and is not.

[B]

I gave you the scenario. Don't show up for the asylum. Hear him. Do you deport? Yes or no?

[C]

You have to understand that under this administration they have weaponized those hearings because people live in fear. So if you dodge it back, no, I'm not dodging. This is a life. Every day I invite you to come to our community and talk to folks here who want to show up to those hearings understanding that there's a pathway to resolve.

[B]

Well, then they got to show up

[C]

because they had to. P.S. i agree. I agree. I encourage folks to show up.

[B]

I know they don't show up. They gotta go, sir.

[C]

And that's where we have to get back to a place that laws are followed. But when you have a Department of Homeland Security who's acting and you've seen the videos and you touched on it at the beginning of your show, we need to get back to a place where the department is executing the laws correctly and with compassion, understanding that these are people's lives. If you committed a violent.

[B]

But it got to be Christian, it got to be rules and it got to be standards. And that's where I think you and I. All right, I got to run.

[C]

I want that time. I do.

[B]

Sure. Give my best. Everybody down. Indeed. And we really appreciate being a stand up guy and coming on in.

[A]

You're listening to the no Spin news, Weekend edition.

[B]

Department of Homeland Security. Okay. It's out of business for the time being because Democrats won't fund it because they want all kinds of modifications to ice. And so they're down. And here's the kicker, they have to stop all their investigations. There are eight active investigations being done by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security against ICE because let's face it, let's be honest, all the ICE agents aren't perfect and there has been some abuse and have been investigated. Well, that stops. Okay. So I expect this thing will be. Congress is on A recess now. When they come back, they'll work it out, I think Joining us from Montclair, New Jersey, is a former secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, four years under Barack Obama. We're very pleased to have the secretary with us. You know, you, in Obama's second term deported more people, all right, than Donald Trump did in his first term. And so when I see that stat. And the Democrat Party didn't give you a hard time on that, did they?

[D]

There were certainly activists on the. First of all, Mr. O'Reilly, thank you for having me on your show. There were certainly activists on the left that gave us a very hard time about deportations. President Obama was labeled the deporter in Chief in 2013, 2014. And I knew that that aggravated him because it was in the midst of an effort to try to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. But yes, the deportation numbers were high. It's a product of a bunch of different things. Crossings, interior enforcement and the crossings into the United States were fairly low. During his second term, my second full year in office, border crossings, illegal border crossings were, I think, the second lowest number since 1972. And that, too, is a product of a lot of different things. But enforcement certainly contributed to that.

[B]

Yeah, there was no, I wasn't railing about lax enforcement under the Obama administration, but the party, yes, you're right. Radicals will always do that. Open border people, always. But the party, Schumer, all these guys, they supported you and Barack Obama in trying to regulate who was coming into the country by and large. Is that correct?

[D]

That is correct. I would, I would agree with that statement.

[B]

Right. So what's changed? What's changed now that you have a flood because of President Biden, why isn't Chuck Schumer saying, no, we got to get this under control?

[D]

So I don't, I don't quite know the answer to that. What I do know, the hard lessons I learned managing this problem is you probably have found the right balance. When both sides are screaming at you or you don't hear anything at all about this issue, you've got people on the right who say there are too many illegal crossings. I believe there's a racist component to that.

[B]

But also you think that if Belgians were coming over to the tune of 15 million that the Republicans wouldn't scream.

[D]

I believe that there is a racist element. Element. I also believe that securing our border is a legitimate government objective. I believe Americans are entitled for the most powerful nation on earth to know who is entering our country. So that that is a legitimate government objective. That I and President Obama certainly work toward. I also believe that there is a very large category of people in this country who entered this country illegally who have become de facto Americans. You know who they are?

[B]

Sure.

[D]

They've committed no crimes. They want to be accountable. They want to get on the books. They have kids who are U.S. citizens, and we got to deal with that population and trying to.

[B]

And President Obama, your boss, did want to do that with the dream Iraq, and he got nowhere because his party and the Republican Party didn't cooperate with him. But I'm more interested in this. So you're probably one of the five guys in the country who know this subject best. And I'm sitting there and I'm watching an evolution of a party, the Democrats from. Yes, we have to enforce immigration law to know we don't want to enforce it because they are using that issue to hammer the Trump administration. Now, here's the key question. What is the Trump administration doing differently than what you did?

[D]

Well, I'm going to come back to something. I may be one of the five people who understand how to manage this problem, but you're much more astute politically than I am. And the politics of immigration have overwhelmed any desire for smart policy. And the evidence of that is what is happening now. And the evidence of that is what happened two years ago after Senator Lankford and Senator Murphy negotiated a pretty good bipartisan bill that was pretty strong on border security. But the politicians didn't want to fix the problem. They'd rather have the problem as something to complain about.

[B]

Okay, so you believe that the political aspect overwhelms the fairness aspect. This is important on both sides. This is important. Mr. Secretary, you guys deported a million and a half people under your term. Four years. And that doesn't count the first term. Okay, That's a lot of folks. The Trump administration so far, one year, about 700,000. All right, so you guys and the Trump administration were simpatico in saying we have to round these people up, see who they are. Okay. And then decide whether they should stay or go. Not everybody the Trump administration rounds up gets deported. Not everyone. So what is the difference between the agents, the ICE agents, under you and under Trump?

[D]

Well, there's a. There are elements of deportations. You know, is it. Is it expedited deportation of people who just crossed the border, or are you trying to deport people in the interior of the country who've been there for a very long time?

[B]

Well, you gotta have a warrant, you gotta have a reason, and that's what's unreported a lot. The press won't report that. If you don't show up for an asylum hearing, for example, you're right on the deportation list. You may not be a violent criminal, you may not have. But if you don't show up, you're out. Right?

[D]

So here's what I believe is the big difference, Bill. This administration started off, we're going to go after the worst of the worst. I think that's totally legitimate. In fact, that was my objective while I was in office. Go after the worst of the worst. But you don't want to. You don't try to achieve a quota for the sake of achieving a quota. You got to be smart about this. What is inevitably going to happen, which has happened in Minneapolis and other places, is the way ICE goes about its business becomes so controversial that the mayors, the city councils, the governors don't want to work with you anymore, which is essential if you're going to get at the worst of the worst for the benefit of public.

[B]

Okay, but you had that, too, though. You had sanctuary. California was a sanctuary state when you were in office. They didn't cooperate with you.

[D]

And we had a program called Secure Communities, which I totally changed, rebranded to call the Priority Enforcement Program, so that I could get people like Bill de Blasio and Michael Nutter in Philadelphia to start working with us again. I'd encounter people in city councils in Chicago who I'd say, why don't you give us the guy who was undocumented, who just finished a lengthy prison sentence because he committed a felony. And the answer I got was, why should I do that? He's already served his time. He's been punished.

[B]

Come on.

[D]

He's undocumented, Right? So it was that kind, right? It was that kind of attitude that we would often encounter. And my response would always be, work with me. Now before you are faced with a crisis, you've got a murder committed by an undocumented person who was released from jail. Wouldn't you rather work with me now on this? So we were making great strides to do that. And what I used to say to leaders of ice, Tom Holman included, who worked for me, use your common sense. When you're on the streets conducting interior enforcement, one controversial incident could derail your entire mandate, your entire ability to work within a community, to get stuff done and turbocharge the sanctuary cities community.

[B]

Well, it's certainly logical. Now, do you believe Homan's a good man?

[D]

Homan was one of my key advisors. The Answer is yes, he was. He's very pro law enforcement. He's pro enforcement. I knew the label on that bottle of wine I was getting. But he's fundamentally a law enforcement officer. He's not an ideologue.

[B]

Do you believe that ICE agents in general are trained enough? Are they professional people

[D]

in general? What I see sitting here, you know, as an armchair quarterback these days, watching the videos, the images, I see a force that is not adequately trained in the tactics of de escalation, which is

[B]

common, all legitimate criticism. Right. I've made that criticism. Finally, were you surprised when President Biden took office and the floodgates opened open border, 15 million. Anybody wants asylum, you don't have to go to a port of entry anymore. You can just wander right across. Cartel's helping. You say, I want asylum, they'll give you a bus ticket, you go anywhere you want. Were you surprised at that kind of a policy?

[D]

Yes, I was.

[B]

Why do you think he did it? Why do you think he did it?

[D]

Well, I can tell you, I can explain the reaction better than the rationale. Illegal immigration bill is a very information sensitive phenomenon. It reacts sharply upward or downward to perceived changes in our enforcement policy on the southern border. Biden came into office, he was perceived as being soft. And you saw the results when Trump came into office. The numbers plummet. But, and here's the key corollary, so long as the push factors persist, the numbers are always going to revert back to their longer term trend lines. So when Trump took office in 2017, the numbers dropped. But by 2019, because the push factors persist, the numbers started to escalate again to the point where in 2019 he had something like a million crossings.

[B]

Well, that's because of the Mexican situation. No, they didn't stop the caravans and they were working with the drug cartels. The corruption in Mexico was off the board. And the reason.

[D]

That's a key component.

[B]

Yes, of course. And the reason. Go ahead.

[D]

2014. 2014. One of the reasons we got the numbers under control is because President Pena Nieto agreed to do more enforcement on his southern border.

[B]

Absolutely.

[D]

With Central America, which is only 300 miles.

[B]

Right. All right, Mr. Secretary, it's very nice of you to come on and I hope you come back and we really appreciate it.

[A]

This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[B]

All right, let's go to the economy. Tomorrow. President Trump will be going to Rome, Georgia to talk about the affordability crisis, which is going to mean who wins in the midterm elections, no doubt about it. And there is a poll talker. Research. 5,000Americans online says 90% believe that there is a crisis in the cost of living in America. 90%. Wow. So the President knows that and has to take it seriously. Some stats. We have about 335 million people in America, most of them citizens. There are 935 billionaires at a 335 million. So the billionaire population is minuscule on the millionaire front. 25 million Americans have assets of more than a million dollars, and that is 9% of the population, which is the highest in the world. Okay. We have more millionaires than anybody else because we have capitalism. The median net worth, that means 50% lower, 50% higher. Close to $200,000. That's what people are worth. Half more, half less. And we are behind in that one country. Only Switzerland has a higher median net worth, but there's only 9.5 million Swiss. So it's much easier for them to accumulate money than it would be in a nation of 335 million. Now, there's a new book out that you might want to check. It's an interesting book. It's called why Democracy Needs the Rich. So remember, the left and the Democratic Party is saying, hey, income inequality is destroying the country. This is the opposite. It's written by a professor at Northwestern University, John O. McInnes, who joins us now from Chicago. First of all, do you think it's a crisis, a cost of living crisis in America right now?

[E]

Well, I do think there are affordability problems. They're not caused by the rich. They're caused rather than by government regulation. I mean, what's striking is that a lot of things have become much more affordable. Everyone can have a library on their cell phone. The communication is much less, much more affordable than it's ever been. But sectors where the government regulates a lot, housing, medical care, education, those have an affordability crisis. But the answer is actually better markets. Not to attack rich people or indeed to. It's deregulation. It's an old way of providing affordability.

[B]

There's a lot of jealousy in the world. And very wealthy people like Jeff Bezos, who flaunts his wealth in your face. I mean, they don't do a lot of good for the affluent, I don't think. It's my opinion. But you say that wealthy Americans actually help the country more than harm it.

[E]

Yes, in a whole variety of ways. Well, one way that I think is very important is that they are a group of people with very diverse political views.

[B]

Views.

[E]

They're liberals, they're Conservatives and the other people in the country who have a lot of influence in politics are professional influencers in the media, academics, entertainers, they all lean one way to the left. And so one way the rich help is by able to counterbalance these by getting out and supporting people who do not have these views. So that's one important perspective in which they help democracy boost. The democracy thrives through diversity of opinion.

[B]

What about trickle down economics? So wealthy people spend a lot of money and that helps working people. Is there anything to that? That's what Ronald Reagan believed.

[E]

I certainly think that's true to some extent. But I think wealthy people help people in a different way through their entrepreneurial ideas. I think that's even more important. We look at particularly our technology. It's one of the things that has actually made things free. People have a library of all information in the world in their cell phones. People have be able to connect to relatives without any costs. People have an access to information that's unparalleled in human history. And that's because of entrepreneurs who've taken a lot of risks. So I think that's really the great way that the wealthy help, by actually bringing new ideas and bringing them to market and making people better off, making things very affordable.

[B]

And Elon Musk would be in that category, right?

[E]

He would certainly be in that category. And he's been taking over Twitter. He's also helped diversity of opinion because he's actually made it much less likely that Twitter's going to kick people out for opinions that other people don't like. And he has the ability to do that. And this is crucial about the rich because he is an independent. He doesn't really care so much about public opinion or what some politician thinks of him. And the independence of the rich is very important for democracy because democracy sometimes is very censorious and you need to have people to stand up against the majority. And that's happened throughout American history. At the heart of the abolition movement, for instance.

[B]

Well, the best example would be founding fathers. Most of them were very true, very affluent. And they weren't tied to where they all had a commonality. We don't want a king. But then they were just brawling out. Final question for you, Liberal and Democratic party demonizing the rich. They're bad, they're greedy, they're hurting you. Purely politics or is there something else there?

[E]

Oh, no, I think there is politics. Because if you reduce the influence of the wealthy, not because they're all conservative, you actually increase the influence of what I call the professional influencers because they're the people who have influence in politics, the media, academics, entertainers, and they're just tremendously on one side of the political spectrum. So I see this as a political power grab, which has often happened. You scapegoat people you don't like as a way of gaining power. And that's a very unfortunate aspect of democracy. And it's something the rich are able to stand up against better than some other sectors of society.

[B]

Yeah, but they haven't in New York City because that's exactly what happened. So Mandani is in there and the city is going to collapse, in my opinion. The book is why Democracy Needs the rich, John McGinnis, and we appreciate it. Professor, thanks for coming on TALK with US today.

[E]

I very much enjoyed it. Thanks so much, sir.

[A]

Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the no spin news, visit billoriley.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's billoriley.com Sign up and start watching today.