Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:00]
Ben Shapiro
Brendan I'm Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the alliance for Secure AI. We're a coalition of patriotic Americans who want to stop AI from taking our freedoms. Big Tech is propping up AI powered mass surveillance and exploiting our children online. This is not the future we want. The alliance is working hard to ensure that we put Americans first. Join us@secureainow.org to learn more.
- [00:28]
Brendan Steinhauser
Paid for by the alliance for Secure
- [00:30]
Ben Shapiro
AI we'll get to more on this in a moment. First, a lot of people assume investing is really complicated. Like you need a finance degree or a lot of money. You need to constantly watch the markets. The reality is, for most people, the biggest challenge is not understanding every detail. It's simply getting started in the first place. This is why Acorns exists. Acorns is the financial wellness app designed to help give your money a chance to grow. You can sign up in minutes and automatically invest spare money, even if all you've got is spare change. What I find interesting is Acorns potential screen. It helps illustrate the power of compounding over time, lets you see how changes to your investing habits today could impact your financial future down the road. Acorns is built for people at every stage. Whether you're just getting started, building toward a major goal or thinking about the future, sign up right now. Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus investment join the over 14 million all time customers who've already saved and invested over $27 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com apparel or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non client endorsement compensation provides incentive deposit of the promote Acorns Tier 2 compensation provided potential subject various factors such as customers, accounts, age and investment settings. Does not include Acorns fees. Results do not predict or represent the performance of any Acorns portfolio. Investment results will vary. Investing involves risks. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor View important disclosures@acorns.com Shapiro hey there,
- [01:44]
Wayfair Announcer
it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone. You're relaxing in an old hammock, scrolling Wayfair's app when you spot it. A brand new patio set. Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up. Oh, you need a new grill too. All right, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's room of choice delivery and fast expert setup on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit Wayfair.com or the Wayfair app.
- [02:09]
Ben Shapiro
Wayfair. Every style, every home. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld birthright citizenship. And that is a legal abomination. It's legally wrong. But that does not mean that America is doomed to a future of open immigration. In fact, we can fix this, and we have to fix this. Actually, we have branches of government designed to fix this. They are called the executive and the legislative branches of government. And what's more, we may not even be done at the judicial level. We actually don't need a constitutional amendment to fix all of this. We'll get into all of that. Plus another communist series of wins in Colorado and the left's latest hot takes on manhood. This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
- [02:46]
Democratic Representative
Foreign.
- [02:53]
Ben Shapiro
So here's the quick recap from yesterday's big Supreme Court decision. And if you want the full breakdown of the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case, you should listen to the hour and a half breakdown on yesterday's show. I read all of the judicial decisions as they came in. It was like 300 pages. Read them in about 45 minutes and give you the full breakdown. So check out yesterday's show. But here is the actual finding in a 6, 3 decision. That's really kind of 5, 4, because Justice Kavanaugh had some quibbles with the majority. Basically, the finding is this. The citizenship clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment says, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The question in the case was what does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Is a superfluous clause meaning if you're born in the US you're automatically a citizen? Or does it mean something different? Well, the court found that basically it was kind of superfluous. You are a citizen if you're born in the United States, unless you're the kid of a foreign ambassador or something. And the majority said that that was rooted in a British citizenship idea called ju soli, law of the soil, which goes all the way back to pre revolutionary days. The Supreme Court essentially found that aside from a brief period after the passage of the 14th Amendment when Congress and the courts seemed to say that you had to have what's called domicile, meaning America had to be your home in order to be a citizen, ju sol was the actual rule. There were a bunch of dissents. They were led by Justice Thomas and Alito, and they said that you actually had to have domicile in the U.S. it's not just enough to be born here. You and your parents couldn't owe allegiance to a foreign power or be governed by the law of a foreign power. So if you are a Chinese citizen and you temporarily come here for five minutes and you drop a baby, the baby isn't an American citizen because you actually have allegiance to the government of China and you are subject to the laws of China. By the way, we should note that everyone, except for Thomas basically agreed that even if you were the child of an illegal immigrant, you could theoretically still be a citizen. Thomas was the only one who sort of disagreed on that proposal. With that said, the majority is clearly wrong. Like, clearly wrong. And there's been a long line of scholarship on all of this. And the majority decision is, is. Is twisting the history, I believe. And there's some people who think this is kind of a close call legally. I actually don't think it's a close call legally. When the Supreme Court says that there is basically nothing you can do about the 4.6 million illegal immigrant born in the USA children who are currently here, that's a problem, and it's not constitutionally correct given political considerations. What it actually means is that you probably can't do anything about their parents either. That's theoretically another 4.2 million people. So you're talking about 9 million people who you can't do anything about. Now, again, we should know that those kids who were born in the US for the last 140 years under American policy likely would have been considered citizens anyway. So you're really talking about their parents who are now being given sort of expedited citizenship or certainly immunity from deportment because of their kids. And this is an increasing problem, obviously. Pew did a study of American births in 2023, and it found that almost 1 in 10 birds in the United States was to an immigrant, illegal immigrant mother. It's about 320,000 babies every year. And if the court had ruled the other way, about 260,000 of those babies would not have qualified for birthright citizenship. The number of illegal immigrants more than tripled, of course, between 1990 and 2007. And the number of births also tripled from about 120,000 in 1990 to a peak of about 380,000 in 2006. So, obviously, this is a major decision. It has a major impact. President Trump was very upset about it yesterday, as he has a right to be. He put out a truth saying, I would like to congratulate President Xi and the great country of China. On their massive birthright citizenship win. And the idea here is that China is engaging in birth tourism, which of course is true. They are doing that. Borders are. Tom Homan went off on the court's decision yesterday. But on the national security issue. Let's just play that out, Tom. Right? You've got these Chinese birth tourism centers. A kid could be born here, taken back to China, raised under the Chinese Communist Party with that education system, and then have American citizenship to come back with. With those beliefs and run for the highest offices in the land and have power here in America. Is that right?
- [07:20]
Tom Homan
That's absolutely right. I think it's one of the biggest national security issues we're facing right now under Biden administration. The open border was a huge national security issue, but this year is equally important. That's why I was very disappointed in this state's decision, and that's why I agree with President Trump. Congress needs to get on this right away.
- [07:40]
Ben Shapiro
Speaker Mike Johnson said yesterday, there's no question that birthright citizenship has been grossly abused over time.
- [07:46]
Conservative Commentator
I do think that this has been grossly abused in recent years. Okay. And that is the case that was being made by the plaintiffs in the case, and we're very sympathetic to that because it is a serious problem we have. We have, you know, it's become a tourism, birthing tourism. They call it, you know, a trend where people will just come and you just come onto the soil and have your child, and then they're. They're able to avail themselves of the welfare state and everything else. It's. It's been abused.
- [08:18]
Ben Shapiro
Now, Democrats, of course, were extremely excited about the decision because their goal is, in fact, birth tourism. It is, in fact, dropping babies across the American border in order to create demographic change in the United States. Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, was very enthusiastic yesterday.
- [08:34]
Brendan Steinhauser
It was one of our nation's clearest declarations that citizenship is not determined by race, ancestry, or where you come from. For generations, the promise has affirmed something bigger than legal status. It has affirmed that every child born here belongs here. Our city joined a coalition of 106 jurisdictions across 26 states in speaking out against the administration's base, faceless attempt to dismantle birthright citizenship. Today's decision allows our residents to continue to live, work, and contribute to the fabric of our city without fear of losing their most fundamental right. We are proud to have stood in defense of the health, safety, and dignity of our communities. No family should have to wonder whether their child's place in this country can be taken away
- [09:25]
Ben Shapiro
Hassan Piker, who of course despises the United States and loves all of America's enemies. He put out a tweet saying america remains America. This would have fundamentally changed the country for the worse. Again, he is a beneficiary of birthright citizenship because he was born in America and then he grew up in Turkey and owed his allegiance to Turkey, presumably. And then he came back to the United States later in life and. And is here to undermine us. He's. He says this would have fundamentally changed the country for the worse and ushered in an era where Trump could change 100 year established constitutional precedent by executive order in ways that would destroy citizenship. This was our modern Nuremberg Race Laws moment. No, it certainly was not. That is really, really stupid. But of course, what else do you expect from the Cartier communist who spent most of his early formative years in Turkey? Okay, so listen, I get it. I get everybody who's depressed about this decision. I get it. I even largely agree on an emotional level, it seems like yet another massive roadblock to the enforcement of our border. And it definitely is. But it's not the end of the story. In fact, it's not even the beginning of the end of the story. In order to understand what we can do and should do, we have to understand what went wrong with immigration in the United States. And the answer primarily is not Supreme Court decisions. It really is not Wong Kim Ark in 1898 or even the Supreme Court's decision yesterday. What went wrong with immigration in the United States is the elected branches of government. It is legislative and executive policy. Over the course of decades, our legislators and our presidents let in tens of millions of people who should not be in the country. That needs to stop. And some of it needs to reverse. In a second, we'll get to the history of American immigration policy and where it all broke down, where it all fell apart. But here is the thing. You need great cell phone service that doesn't fall apart on you. You know, cell phone service that actually has a great tower network and has great customer service and all the rest. And only one wireless company in America earned five out of five stars in every single category. That company is Pure talk coverage, 5 stars. Customer support, 5 stars. Value 5 stars. Data 5 stars. That's why I use Pure Talk. You're getting outstanding service without paying those inflated prices charged by the major carriers. And something else. Pure Talk. They love America. Not only do they love America, they are sponsoring donations dollar for dollar until they reach a quarter million dollars from America's Warrior Partnership. Helping veterans across the country get the support and services they deserve. Go to pure talk.com Shapiro switch to the only wireless company in America awarded five stars in every category by Consumer Reports. No contracts, no cancellation fees. Just awesome US based customer service on that 5G network that powers America. Again, that's PureTalk.com it's the best coverage. It's the best customer service. It's the best everything. And by the way, they love America and you help us out here at the show when you go and switch on over to Pure Talk. So go do it right now. PureTalk.com Shapiro so let's start with a question. If we want to understand America's immigration policy, where exactly do you think America's immigration policy broke? So this is a chart 1850 on showing the number of immigrants and their share of the US Total population. So as you can see, the percentage of immigrants in the United States percentage of immigrants is a percentage of the total US population from 1850 to essentially 1930 was well north of 10%, like quite high. Very few people think about immigration in that period as breaking America. It obviously created significant social problems. You watch Gangs of New York, which is largely about immigration problems. But nobody tends to think of that period in American life between 1850 and 1930 as a time that wrecked America, what America was. And then, of course, the share of immigrants as a percentage of the US population radically dropped between 1930 and essentially 1970, and then it spiked again. So if you look at the immigrant share of the US population, the answer is about 9.7. In 1850, percent of the American population was immigrant. In 1890, it was all the way up at almost 15%. And again, people don't tend to think of this as like a bad time for America because of immigration. Yes, there were social concerns, but overall, in retrospect, we don't see this as a time when America was quote, unquote, being hollowed out. And then from 1930 on, that percentage declined radically from well north of 10% to down to 4.7% in 1970. And now it is spiked up again to about 14% as of 2022. So what exactly changed? Because again, we tend to think of immigration as a massive problem now. We don't tend to think of immigration as a massive problem in, say 1900 when the percentage was about the same. So what exactly happened? Okay, so we need a quick history lesson here on the nature of American immigration. What changed is the nature of of American immigration, not the sheer number, the nature. Okay, so I show you A series of charts showing the origin of where these immigrants were coming from and what changed over time. So remember, America is a land of people who came to settle, right? They came to settle unsettled wilderness. And they came from Europe in large measure. And there were no welfare programs. They didn't come here to take advantage of existent welfare programs. They did not move from a country where they had no welfare to a country with welfare. They didn't move in many cases from a richer country to a. In from a poorer country to a richer country. In many cases they're moving from a richer country to a poorer country. I mean, if you're moving from the UK to the United States in 1850, in some cases you're moving from a richer area to a poorer area like the Utah Terrier or the Oregon territory. So in 1850, the top five foreign born populations were Ireland, Germany, the UK, Canada and France. Right, All European. And as you can see, the east coast was largely Irish population. The Midwest was German. And then if you move down over to the west, the northwest was British, uk, Scottish presumably. And then the southwest was Mexican because that territory had only recently been integrated into the United States. Okay, move forward to 1860 and you can see, sorry, move forward to 1880 and you can see that the pattern remains the same except for massive Chinese immigration onto the west coast. But even that massive Chinese immigration onto the west coast was not top five in terms of foreign born population. So once again, in 1880 when you had a very serious percentage of Americans who are immigrants, by 1880 you were talking well into the double digits. The top five foreign born populations were Germany, Ireland, UK, Canada and Sweden. Right, so move forward again now 1910. Okay, so you can see in 1910 the top five foreign born populations are now Germany, Russia, Ireland, Italy and the uk. So Italy and Russia have been added to this chart. Russian immigrants, large number of those are Jewish immigrants coming from Russia. Okay? But as you can see still European immigrants, including in Pennsylvania, Austria was actually the number one source of immigrants. So it's, it's largely European immigrants again, except for the Southwest, like New Mexico, Arizona and Texas, all of which Mexican immigration is still the number one source of immigration. Okay, now check this out. Move forward to 1990, things have shifted quite a bit. It turns out that number one with a bullet is Mexico. Huge, huge percentage of immigrants are now coming from Mexico. 4.26 million immigrants in 1990 are from Mexico. The next highest number is 0.91 to 910,000 people from the Philippines. You may notice that neither of those countries is European. 740000 from Canada, 740000 from Cuba. Right. This is the, the Cuban migration into Florida that's happening. And then Germany clocking in at a very low number five. So the source of the immigration has radically shifted and now move forward to 2022. And what you can see is that the entire country is blanketed with immigrants from India, China, Philippines, El Salvador and Mexico in 2022. Top five foreign born populations by country of origin 10.6 million immigrants from Mexico, 2.83 million immigrants from India, 2.23 million from China, 2.01 from Philippines and 1.42 from El Salvador. So again, that is a giant shift in the nature of the places from which people are coming. Because to pretend that gigantic numbers of Mexican immigrants is going to be the same as gigantic numbers of say, German, Irish or British immigrants, that's silly. Same thing for India, same thing for China. And that is not a case against any individual immigrant. It is just a fact. When you import large numbers of people from cultures that don't cohere as well to the core culture of the United States, which is an Anglo Protestant culture, from the beginning, then it's going to be harder to integrate those people. And when you add on top of that the fact that from the very beginning our immigration programs were rooted in the idea there was no welfare. You came here and that was a self selecting group. You came here for the adventure. You came here because you wanted a better life, not because you wanted welfare benefits. And once you add welfare benefits on top, the kinds of people who are coming here change. I mean, this is the difference between you open a Michelin Star bakery, your clientele is going to be a certain type of person. And then if you open a donut shop and you put in the window free donuts, that's going to be a different type of person who shows up to the donut shop. Not quite the same thing. We're going to get to the history of immigration in a second. See where we went wrong. That's really important to determine how we get things back on track. But first, as we've been saying, America celebrates its 250th birthday this year. You're going to hear a lot about our founding principles like life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But human life must be protected even before it is born. Unborn children deserve protection. Any moment now, my wife is going to give birth. And when that happens, the baby that emerges is going to be the Same as it is right now in her tummy. It is the same baby. It is the same human. It is the same life. This is why the work of preborn matters so much. When a mom sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the first time, her baby is twice as likely to be given the gift of life. Because every child who is born has the potential to shape the future of the country. We're talking future parents, teachers, entrepreneurs, members of the military, first responders. But it's not just that human life is sacred, and human life in the womb is just as sacred. Will you help? Just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound in honor of America's 250th birthday. Asking friends to prayerfully consider a special gift of 250 bucks to help save even more lives. Donate D£250. Say keyword baby. That's pound250 baby. Or give securely@preborn.com Shapiro Every gift is tax deductible. And again, if you look at the history of American immigration, you can see why these sort of dips happened, right? Why? Why there was a gigantic wave of immigration, then a dip. The dips happen because of congressional action. It is not as though Congress has not acted before it. 1882, Congress passed what was called the Chinese Exclusion Act. Again, if you go back to that 1880 chart for a second, what you can see in the 1880 chart that you did not see in any prior chart is the entire west coast. In California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho. The number one source of immigration was China. And this created concerns in Congress. So in 1882, they passed the Chinese Exclusion act, which actually barred Chinese laborers from entering the United States for 10 years, then was later extended and it barred Chinese immigrants from naturalization entirely. And then, thanks to the incredible uptick in immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, again, it's funny because we tend to flatten all sources of immigration. Go to that chart in 1910. And what you see in that chart in 1910 is a radical uptick in the number of, for example, Italian immigrants, right? IR Ireland, Italy and Russia. These were then considered these sort of bizarre sources of new populations. And so the Immigration act of 1917 was passed and it created a barred zone extending from the Middle east to Southeast Asia, from which no immigrants were permitted and instituted literacy tests for people who are coming into the country. In 1921, there was the Emergency Quota act, which was the first federal law to set numerical limits on immigration. And basically the goal was to keep people coming at very low levels from countries we had already allowed in into the country. So a lot of british, a lot of irish, a lot of germans, a lot of italians, et cetera. And then in 1924, the National Origins act, the immigration act, tightened it still further and intentionally barred immigrants from south, southern and eastern europe and banned virtually all immigration from asia. And so you see a giant dive in the percentage of immigrants as a percentage of the american population between then and essentially 1965. And then something seminal happens. The 1965 immigration and nationality act. And this act radically changes the nature of immigration in the united states. It's why you go from a bunch of european immigrants to a bunch of immigrants from places like el salvador, mexico, china, philippines and all the rest. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality act, which was pushed forward by senator ted kennedy and lyndon baines johnson, it repealed the quota system entirely. So that meant radical uptick of immigrants from asia and africa and latin america and south america. It had a no discrimination clause that said no person could be discriminated against in the issuance of any visa because of race, sex, nationality, place of birth or residence. Okay, before, there are kind of two types of visas, Permanent visas and temporary visas. We had limits on temporary visas too. All those go away essentially under the 65 Immigration and Nationality Act. It also created a seven tier preference system designed to reunify families of U. S. Citizens and legal residents. This created massive illegal immigration because there was a cap that was placed on western hemisphere immigration, but there was no guest worker program. So instead, people just started crossing the border en masse and just staying. Okay, Add on top of this gigantic welfare systems that were created by lbj's great society programs and the accessibility of those welfare systems to illegal immigrants. And again, now you have the free donut shop. You have people who are coming across the border because the benefits here are great. You'll get a better job, but not just a better job. You also will have access to american systems. There are some supreme court decisions you want to talk about supreme court decisions that actually mattered when it comes to immigration. One that was huge was Plowler versus Doe in 1982. That was a 5, 4 ruling that states texas had a law. It said that if you are an illegal immigrant child, you could not access free public K through 12 education in Texas. And the court ruled that that violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. So now you come across the border and you immediately get to enroll your children in a public school, in an american public school. There are also rulings like Graham versus Richardson in 1971, which struck down state statutes restricting welfare benefits solely to US Citizens or long term lawful residents. So if you came in and you were a short term visa holder, you were here for a year, you could then get on welfare. Congress also acted in order to ensure on a humanitarian basis that basically illegal immigrants could take advantage of our medical systems. So Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1986 the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. And you understand why? Because basically the idea was you don't want somebody walking into the ER who's an illegal immigrant bleeding out from a bullet wound and there's no obligation to take care of them. But the unintended consequences of the law are pretty significant. The EMTALA requires hospitals with Medicare participating emergency rooms to provide a medical screening, examination and necessary stabilizing treatment to everyone, regardless of citizenship, immigration status or ability to pay. So want to know why illegal immigrants now take up large shares of emergency rooms in places like California? That would be the reason. And there are a bunch of other laws that were then interpreted to prohibit healthcare facilities from denying medical care on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or handicap. Now theoretically those healthcare facilities could discriminate on the basis of legal versus illegal status, but in re. In reality they just don't because they're afraid of discrimination lawsuits. And in the end they figure the government will fill in the gaps or other patients will fill in the gaps. So now you have a system where people illegally immigrate to the United States. They illegally immigrate, they have access to our emergency medical care, which increasingly just means medical care. More broadly speaking, they have access to state welfare systems. In many cases like California, they have access to, to public school systems. So literally tens of thousands of dollars in benefits. And we shifted the entire cap system and quota system on national origin basis. And so what you have is a different group of people who want to get into the United States. And I don't blame them. I mean, hell, everyone wants to get in. It's a great place, the United States. But you will draw a different type of clientele depending on whether you're the free donut shop or the Michelin star place. It's two different things. I mean, by the way, you'll draw a different type of clientele to a come in and bake your own donuts with your own materials that you buy. And free donuts, which is actually better comparison because in 1900 that was the case. Come here. Government isn't going to help you. We're just going to protect your Private property rights. And you come here and you build. This is why assimilation happened at a very, very high level in the United States in the early 20th century and before. When my great great grandparents got here in the very early 20th century, they spoke Yiddish, they didn't speak English, and then very quickly, their kids learned to speak English. And then they integrated into the economy. And then generation after generation, they live better lives because they assimilated to Anglo American traditions. But when you change the math, when you pay people, when you give them free monies, they don't have to integrate, they don't have to assimilate by nature. And you change the system, pretending that all cultures are equally capable of mass migration to the United States, you end up with the current system of immigration in the United States. Okay. There are other judicial rulings, by the way, that made it nearly impossible to enforce immigration law if a Democrat was in office in 2002. For, in 2012, for example, famous case Arizona versus United States. That's when the Supreme Court ruled that federal law prevented essentially Arizona law from, from helping to enforce federal statutes. So the rule now on the federal level is that states can ignore federal law or enforce refuse to enforce federal law by calling themselves sanctuary states or cities. But if you want to enforce federal law, you can't do that. The court nullified Arizona laws in 2012 that, for example, made it a crime for noncitizens to carry federal registration documents or made it a crime for unauthorized immigrants to work. Okay, so what does all this mean? You'll notice that in this entire litany of immigration history, the vast majority of this action is either bad congressional action, bad presidential action, like Joe Biden opening the border widely refusing to enforce immigration law, or judicial actions that are likely reversible at the Supreme Court level today. So there are a lot of solutions still on the table. The black pilling, in other words, is actually counterproductive. So what is the solution? Let's talk about things we can actually do. One, you can enforce immigration law. Two, you can get rid of the possibility of government dependency for illegal immigrants. Right? Those are the two things. Get rid of the welfare incentives and enforce immigration law. Those are the two things. The first thing, enforcing the law is the job of the executive branch. The second, getting rid of the welfare benefits is the job of the legislature and also the judiciary. So start with enforcing immigration laws. You don't need a, a, an invalidation of birthright citizenship in order to enforce immigration laws. It is illegal to illegally immigrate. You can deport people before they have babies. Temporary visas need to be widely curbed. About 50% of all illegal immigrants are not just crossing the southern border. They are coming on temporary visas and then overstaying. So our enforcement mechanisms on temporary visas need to be significantly stronger. About 1 million legal immigrants per year get in using work visas or family sponsored visas. So go back to those numbers for a second where we are talking about the percentage of the American people who are, who are immigrants. Now if you look at that original chart, the one that shows sort of the line that the, the, the orange line and the, and the blue line, right. What you see is again, between 1970 and 2022 and 2024, a large spike in the percentage of American population that is immigrant. Basically, if you just got rid of the illegal immigration, forget about legal immigration for a second, which you can also curb, but talk about just illegal immigration. If you had curbed that, that percentage would have stabilized in about 1990. And right now you'd be in the 8 to 9% range, not in the 15 plus percent range. So if your borders are. There would be a bunch of things you would do. You would actually, you know, push for, yes, mass deportation of people who are involved in anything criminal. And that would include things like carrying around fake ID using false Social Security numbers. By the way, a huge majority of illegal immigrants have to do these things. And when it comes to visa tests for permanent visas, we would have to more carefully screen. You'd have to share our values or come from a system that shares our values, wish to assimilate into American values on an individual level, be able to prove the first two. So if you're coming from a place where you can't prove it, you shouldn't get in. And you have to show that you're going to be of net economic benefit to the United States. You're not going to be a welfare draw. And when it comes to temporary visas, we would boot people as soon as the temporary visa has expired. We'd actually follow up, which we don't do right now. And of course we would shut the border. We would start deporting people who are in the country illegally and are welfare dependent and are engaged in illegal activity of any sort. Again, you can start with the most egregious criminality and work your way down. One of the things you keep hearing is while the states aren't participating with the federal government in identifying illegal immigrants for deportation. Well, cool story. You can actually that like the federal government. Are you telling me the federal government has no capacity to look up the immigration status of the some tens of thousands of illegal immigrants in state prisons right now. They can't look up the name and the immigration status. Is that impossible? I feel like you could design an AI to do that and it would take about an hour. The idea that you require the state governments to participate with you is not true. And you could actually just look at criminal pleasure and then immigration status and you could just go in and enforce the law. It's all public record. And of course, we can crack down on birth tourism, which was the key issue with regard to birthright citizenship here. We can criminalize people who come to the US through birth tourism networks. In fact, the DOJ put out a memo on prosecution of birth tourism schemes literally yesterday. We can change our travel regulations to prevent people from abroad traveling to the United States in the late stages of pregnancy. So if you're coming in six months pregnant should not give you a four month visa. We should give you a one month visa and then kick your ass out. Right? These are the things that we can do. None of this requires congressional action. It's all encoded in American law already. And then there's welfare. If you're going to come in and be on welfare, you should not be able to come in. And if you're on welfare, you should be in line to get the boot. Again, we actually do not require congressional action here. And on the judiciary, in the level of the judiciary, we can actually get some action here. This court would likely overrule Ply Plyler versus Doe. Right. You could probably get a majority on this court, everybody, probably not, including Roberts, to rule that you do not have a 14th Amendment constitutional right to access public education as an illegal immigrant. That would be a major, major thing. It would. And Congress could still do things with regard to birthright citizenship. Justice Kavanaugh noted in his concurrence SL descent. He wrote, quote, Congress could, consistent with the 14th Amendment, amend the law or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so. So that's an open question, right? Trump went after birthright citizenship via executive order. Kavanaugh says, no, no, no. There's legislation on the books that doesn't allow that, but you could have legislation that overrules it. So maybe we should try that. Now, listen, I know there's systemic obstacles to things like congressional action, the filibuster, and I get the argument that's made by a lot of folks, dump the filibuster otherwise nothing will ever get done. As I've said before, I think that's a bad idea because once you break that glass, you cannot unbreak that glass. And the same dumping of the filibuster that will allow you to ram through harsher immigration policy will allow Democrats to ram through an open border. But bottom line is this. Yes, the birthright citizenship decision is a really, really bad Supreme Court decision. But if you are concerned about the radical shift in immigration in the country, the worst thing you can do is black pill because that removes responsibility from the executive and the legislature. It basically says, ah, the judiciary blew it for us. Nothing we can do. I guess we're screwed. Now that's not helpful. Again, I get that you think the legislature is not going to do anything, but the executive still can and maybe the states can if the Supreme Court overrules, for example, Plyler. And again, here's the most important thing. The most important thing. The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday, which is a bad, wrong ruling, did not actually change the existing state of the law yesterday. They simply didn't do the right thing. Which sucks. It's a blown opportunity, but the answers are still there. The President himself says this, by the way. Here he was on Truth yesterday, quote, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country. But we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the President. That has now been determined. During this process, no long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary. Congress should start today to work on ending expensive and unfair to our country birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support. And he's not wrong about this. And here is the thing. For conservatives and Republicans, immigration remains a winning issue because it is not that Democrats are so in love with the concept of birthright citizenship. It is that they are in favor of open borders. If they were just making the case that probably Amy Coney Barrett or Justice Roberts might make the Birthright citizenship is the law of the land. But Congress can do something and congressional and executive policy can do something. But that's not what Democrats are doing. Democrats are celebrating because they want birthright citizenship to be the basis of mass migration.
- [36:51]
Wayfair Announcer
The grill is shot. The chairs are held together by optimism. And what happened to the rug? Sounds like your outdoor setup is not ready for patio season. Fix it all with Wayfair. Shop Wayfair for grills, rugs, furniture and more. With 20 million 5 star reviews, room of choice delivery and expert setup on qualifying orders. It's never been easier to do. More for less. Get 10 10% off your first eligible purchase. Hurry to Wayfair.com or download the app now.
- [37:21]
Good Ranchers Announcer
July is National Grilling Month, and there's no better time to stock up on America's best meat from good ranchers. They source 100% of their meat from American farms and ranches and deliver it straight to your door, making summer grilling easier than ever. Good Ranchers makes it simple to stock the kitchen with quality American raised meat while also supporting the farmers and ranchers keeping American agriculture alive. Visit goodranchers.com to get 50 off your order when you use the code Daily Wire. That's code daily wire for $50 off. But you can also get free meat with every order on top of the $50 off. If you decide to start a plan today. Goodranchers.com American meat delivered.
- [37:54]
Ben Shapiro
And you can see it in the way that they would love to actually go after victims of illegal immigration. So yesterday, the mother of a Loyola student from Chicago was murdered by an illegal immigrant thanks to sanctuary city policies. It was Jessica Gorman. Her daughter was Sheridan Gorman. You remember, this is a very fraught issue in the middle of the election cycle. Democrats were having none of it because Democrats do not want to talk about the cost of illegal immigration. Representative Pramila Jayapal, head of the House Congressional Progressive Caucus. Here's what she had to say.
- [38:36]
Democratic Representative
Unfortunately, this hearing is. It's the fourth time in this committee that we've had a hearing on sanctuary cities. The fourth time. And there's many other things that we could be doing other than this.
- [38:52]
Ben Shapiro
Oh, many, many other things. Many other things. Well, Sheridan Gorman's mother, Jessica said, you know, I've noticed that you seem to not really care about what happened to my daughter.
- [39:02]
Democratic Representative
I don't understand why. It's only the Republican side that cares about our American children. And I know that you're a mother. I know that you're a father. I deeply value that. But basically what you just did, what you said was, I'm so sorry for your loss. I have a daughter, too. I have a son. I feel your pain. You don't. You don't feel my pain because the next words out of your mouth were, but. There's no but. When your child is in the coffin, there's no but. And I need you to understand that. And if you ever want to talk about it, I'm here. I'm going to buy you a bench. I'm going to buy. You can put that on the record. I'm going to buy Congress, the bench, and they can come and sit and hold my hand and look me in the eye and explain to me why illegal immigrants are more important than my daughter.
- [39:49]
Ben Shapiro
Okay. Well, Democrats then reiterated that they kind of believe that illegal immigrants are more important than, than her daughter. Representative Mike Lawler and Representative Jamie Raskin got into it because Raskin was basically giving short shrift to the mother. The same outrage you feel about Renee Good and Alex Preddy, you feel about Sheridan Gorman and Lake and Riley and every angel family in this country. I do feel that outrage. You do not. Because if you did, you would support the outrage about Alex. You should be ashamed. You should get the hell out of this. You don't understand the rules of the committee. You don't understand the Constitution. Say one word about Alex.
- [40:36]
Democratic Representative
I did.
- [40:37]
Ben Shapiro
I wrote a whole New York Times op ed about it. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Opposing sanctuary policies that resulted in their daughter death. Again, not a winning issue for Democrats here. Not a winning issue. Ezra Klein over at the New York Times full on, concedes to Chris Rufo that, you know, all of the concerns about rapid demographic change through mass migration are not unfair, not wrong, not racist. There are people who just don't like the way their community is changing. And there's the kkk.
- [41:09]
Democratic Representative
Right.
- [41:10]
Ben Shapiro
Everything exists on a spectrum. But would you say someone who is like, for example, hesitant about rapid large scale demographic change is just a kind of 1% white nationalist? Yeah, because that would be like the majority of the country. Yes. I don't think it is a problem or unfair or even wrong to worry about large scale, rapid demographic changes. I mean, that's correct. But if Democrats pretend that it is, it's going to be a problem for them. Speaking of a problem for the Democrats. So there was one good Supreme Court decision yesterday which basically said that it turns out you don't have to have boys compete against girls in sports. The media couldn't handle it because the legacy media are, of course, the left. They are identical. NBC's Craig Melvin basically refused to use the term male and female, biological male and female, because we all have to pretend along with the legacy media that sometimes girls are boys.
- [42:05]
Tom Homan
Just a quick note here. The terms that we're using here during our reporting. Biological male, biological female. The high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their descent. But just so you know, we're using those terms from the decision itself. Biological male, biological female.
- [42:28]
Ben Shapiro
Okay. Again, it's just amazing. The media will continue with this. They will never let go of it. CNN's Laura Coates called women's sports, so called girls sports. What else would you call them? Weak people sports.
- [42:41]
Progressive Commentator
Like, what are we.
- [42:41]
Ben Shapiro
What are we supposed to call them? Like, give me a substitute name for it that makes any sense here. This is a monumental decision, not unexpected, however, given how the oral arguments went. Here was the crux of the issue. It was whether or not somebody who was assigned, assigned the male gender at birth would be allowed to play in a traditionally so called girls sports in a public, a high school, or of course, in the college setting. Man, their lack of ability to actually make basic linguistic distinctions is insane. So called girls. What is it? What are we even talking about? Okay, so here's the problem for the Democrats. The radicals are in charge of the party. So the radicals are going to take the 20% position on some pretty obvious issues. And they have the upper hand in the Democratic Party, without a doubt. Bernie Sanders is. Is this insane bat, bleep loony old man is somehow in charge of the levers of the Democratic Party. What have you guys done? This is old man. Rancid clouds. Old man marks rancid clouds. This complete useless trash heap who, by the way, is a millionaire ranting at the cloud. You decided this one is what you. This one. This one is what you needed more of this. You needed more of this dude who looks like he went through the washing machine several times before he got on the air. Here we go.
- [43:59]
Progressive Commentator
But we also have to understand how Trump gets elected. And the answer is that millions of working class people looked at the alternative. They looked at the Democratic Party and say, what the hell are you doing? You guys had power. Did you create health care for all? Did you raise my wages? Did you build affordable housing that I need? Did you make the schools better? I mean, and the answer is no. So the struggle that we as progressives are engaged in are on two separate fronts. Number one, we're going to lead the effort against Trump and his disastrous policies. But number two, we have to transform the Democratic Party completely from being a party dominated by the wealthy and the powerful to a party of the working class and young people in this country.
- [44:42]
Ben Shapiro
What we have to do is we have to fight on two fronts. We have to kill the Kulaks, and then we also have to kill the Mensheviks. That's the thing we have to do. It's always two fronts. It's two fronts and two fronts only. Unbelievable. You guys decided to do this, and it's working out well for the Democrats in Colorado. A person named Milat Kiros won her primary against a 15 year congressperson named Diana Dejet. And this is wild because this person is crazy. Milat Kiros was born in 1997 in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, which again is the. She's a 15 term congressman, not a 15 year congresswoman. Jet. She moved with her family to Colorado as an infant and was raised in the Denver area and has taken every possible insane position it is possible to take. So she was actually fired from a major law firm called Sidley Austin for her support of Hamas. Essentially. This is a person who you will Recall said the 911 attacks were inevitable. Here she was again. It's just a few weeks ago. I mean, this is like June 22nd. Do you believe that the 911 terrorist attacks on America were the inevitable consequence of American foreign policy?
- [46:05]
Milat Kiros
I believe that the quote in which that is probably being referenced by, in the context in which it was happening was referencing a Pentagon official who was talking about the acts that America was taking in parts of the Middle East.
- [46:21]
Ben Shapiro
I want to clarify. I'm just asking you about your own words. Your frame of the October 7 attacks was that that was an inevitable consequence for Israel based on its actions. And I'm asking you, was 911 an inevitable consequence for America based on US foreign policy?
- [46:38]
Milat Kiros
Inevitable in the sense that we destabilized a lot of the Middle east that forced people to believe that another act of violence was the only response. And again, just like I said before, our responsibility is to getting rid of those conditions that lead to violence in the first place.
- [46:56]
Ben Shapiro
She also could not say that a murderous attack on Jews was in fact anti Semitic, because this is who Melat Quiros is. But she was not the only victor from the psychotic wing of the Democratic Party who won last night in Colorado. According to Politico, progressive candidate Manny Rootnil was overwhelmingly picked by Colorado Democrats over his more moderate opponent, Shannon Byrd to run in one of the most purple swing districts in America. It is Colorado's 8th congressional district held by Republican Representative Gabe Evans. Also, Michael Bennett, who's a senator from Colorado, was running for governor and he lost his primary to again, another radical named Phil Weiser, who is the current Attorney General in Colorado. So clearly the momentum is with the ambulatory psychotics in the Democratic Party and we'll see how it works out for them. Now, right now, again, it is possible that bad candidates could do to Democrats what bad candidates did to Republicans back in 2021. In a series of Senate races in 2021, 2022 where Republicans picked sort of the most radical candidates in a series of primaries and then lost elections in states they should have won. That could easily happen here. James Talarico is currently running head, head and head with, with, with Ken Paxton. They're basically neck and neck at this point. 47% for each according to the New York Times Sienna poll. Again, the trend lines for Republicans are bad, but is Talarico going to pull out a victory in Texas? I find that hard to believe. Graham Platner, Nazi tattoo guy in Maine currently has a 2% advantage, which is margin of error in the New York Times poll over Susan Collins. What's interesting about that is that the electorate there, which has Collins down by two, that same electorate said that they voted by 11 for Kamala Harris. So Platner is wildly underrunning these sort of Democrats here. I started Ornod in 2013 and we make bike apparel. The best part of Shopify for me is our ability to run, run the business as essentially non technical people. We're able to admin everything on the back end, front end and sell things online easily. If Shopify were a bike accessory, I think it would actually be the bicycle. It's the thing that you do the thing on. We run the business on Shopify. Start your free trial on shopify.com and again, Republicans have a lot more money in the bank right now. The the RNC the currently has $125 million in the bank. The DNC has negative $3.5 million. The NRCC has an advantage. The NRSC has an advantage. Yesterday the President announced a September GOP midterm convention in Dallas. So again, this is a thing that the President has started before, is sort of having a midterm convention so he can try and generate some coattails, he says. Big news. For the first time ever, the Republican Party will hold a midterm convention. It will be held in Dallas, Texas. One of my favorite places in the world, will be fantastic. It has never been done before. It will be a truly historic event. We're going to celebrate the great American comeback and the incredible successes of the American people who transformed our country through the America first agenda, et cetera, et cetera. Now meanwhile, while the President tries to run Republicans to victory, precisely who you would think is trying to undermine all of that, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, who, who explains that she is trying to start her own party. Now on with the Jerry Springer of Internet tv, Piers Morgan.
- [50:16]
Piers Morgan
There is a group of us that have literally fought the system and I think there's a group of us that if we decide to align, we could launch a true America focused party that doesn't fall into the traps of Democrats and Republicans, but could align some serious players from the right and the left and move forward. But Piers, I'm also very realistic because I was in the system, I've served in Congress, I've run campaigns, I know what it takes. It's difficult to launch a third party. So the reality is this isn't something that gets off the ground in just a couple of campaign cycles. This is a movement that has to be developed in and would take time to develop.
- [51:08]
Ben Shapiro
So again, there are people who are trying to break the Republican party right now. And you can see who they are. You can see who they are. They're the splinter faction. Alrighty. Meanwhile, for some reason, the left is still having a very, very difficult time trying to figure out what a man is. They can't not just figure. They don't know what a woman is. They also don't know what a man is. So Vox has an entire piece out today called the manly appeal of Zoran Mandani. Oh my dude. Oh my dude. No. The answer is no. The manly appeal of Zoran Mandani, one of the most feminized politicians in America. Truly just a smarm factory. According to Vox, a lot of Democratic insiders are starting to worry the party is a bit too low t even its new successful faces like Jon Ossoff and James Talarico might still be too soft. They say the newest icon of Democratic power fits that bill almost exactly. He's a Carhart wearing, marathon running, fully bearded dude who loves to chow down. He's obsessed with the Knicks and recently made a basketball themed campaign ad. When he was campaigning last year, he toured edgy manosphere podcast world and easily traded riffs about bench pressing and boosting. Analysts describe his politics using testosterone forward metaphors like muscled power broker and kingmaker. This, of course, is Zoran Mamdani. Why isn't Mamdani the Democrats a new icon of masculinity? Because, says one commentator, we've consistently reduced masculinity to white maleness and femininity to white femaleness. It's not a crisis of manhood. Oh my goodness. So zor mom's ani is going to be like your new male image. Zaramdani. Seriously? Zaramdani is a complete useless man for his entire career who was elected after basically living high on the hog because his parents are rich and privileged. He has no children with his wife and he marches in both Pakistan day parades and pride parades. And he is the image of manhood. Good luck. Why do they have such struggles with this? Honestly, it's not that hard to be a dude. It really is not that difficult. But somehow Democrats are like, what does a model dude look like? What does he look like? Probably he is like Zara Momdani. Okay, well, maybe it's like Elliot Page again. We are still on the search for Ellen. Cannot find Ellen. But Elliot Page is now putting out posts of herself, know, post surgery, shirtless, obviously saying that she is now hooked on boxing. Here we go. Wow. She might be able to knock down a small child with that. With that brutal hook. Wow. Well, I guess that's an image of manhood. Basically, a. A woman cosplaying as a man because she has gotten surgeries. That's. That's exciting. Good stuff. Good stuff. Again, the. The fact that the left cannot determine what is a man and what is a woman will continue to dog them. It will continue to dog them. Okay. Meanwhile, a quick World cup update. The Iranians are very ticked off about the World Cup. The foreign minister, Abbas Araki, is now criticizing the Department of Homeland Security secretary for the World cup being mean to the Iranians. He put out a tweet quote, Mission accomplished, Mr. Mullen. Mark Wayne Mullen, the homeland Security secretary, you accomplished something. Proving to the world that you have no business holding an international tournament. Your conduct has been a masterclass for how to squander the dignity that comes with being a host. Oh, my goodness. I need to hear more about dignity and treating people with dignity from the regime that mowed down 42,000 people a few months ago. And frankly, I think there's a good case that the Iranians should have been barred from the World cup given the fact that they are a terrorist state that murders their own citizens en masse. A quick update, by the way, on. On the World cup for the United States. So the US Is actually in pretty good position here. So the US Is set to play Bosnia and Herzegovina. Our friends and sponsors over at Kalshi. The markets there show that the United States is a heavy favorite. 83 of people are betting on the U. S advancing as opposed to 17% who are saying that Bosnia and Herzegovina will. Will advance. And the. The World cup bracket is. Is getting pretty interesting. Germany got knocked out the other day in kind of a shocker against Morocco. Currently, I believe that the. The teams that we know are in the final 16 at this point. Canada versus Morocco, Paraguay versus France. Because Paraguay, sorry It was Paraguay that knocked out Germany. Morocco beat the Netherlands. That was also an upset, sort of. I believe Netherlands is ranked 7 and Morocco is actually ranked 6. Shockingly, Brazil versus Norway, which would be a hell of a match. Mexico is in now. It's awaiting the winner of England versus Dr. Congo, which I assume that will be England. So Mexico versus England, you know, it's, it's shaping up. My, my, you know, my son is a big sports fan, so now is the time for me to get him a little bit into the World Cup. I'm not a huge World cup guy, but now we've gotten to the point where I can actually follow the number of teams so I can see it. And yes, I think that the United States is in a pretty good position again that, that World cup bracket. Just looking at it again, the United States would be set to play probably Belgium in the, in the 16 round and then likely Spain, you would think, if it made it beyond that. So the US Bracket is actually not the craziest bracket. There are a few of these brackets that are pretty wild, but that, that is not one of the toughest bracket. The, the. The Brazil, Norway, Mexico, England bracket. That's a tough bracket. Alrighty, folks. Coming up, we will jump into your questions in the mailbag. Remember, there's always more show. You think that the show ends right now. It does not end right now. There is much more coverage. There is you. I answer your questions. We can be best friends. But you have to be a member. Become a member. Use code Shapiro Checkout for two months free on all annual plans. You can click that link in the description and join us.