Immigration, Nuance, and a Leonhardt Vault Cut

Summary

The Gist Summary – “Immigration, Nuance, and a Leonhardt Vault Cut” (Sept 6, 2025)
Host: Mike Pesca (Peach Fish Productions)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Gist navigates the complexities of immigration politics in America, the nuances often lost in media coverage, and the interplay between popular will, policy outcomes, and party messaging. It features two main segments: a retrospective interview with New York Times’ David Leonhardt (excerpted from a past discussion on his book Ours Was the Shining Future) and Pesca’s contemporary “spiel” reflecting on media approaches to immigration — using CNN’s coverage as a case study.

With responsible provocation and a willingness to critique all sides, Pesca presses for nuance over dogma, especially regarding how Americans and their media frame the perennial, contentious topic of immigration.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. How Democrats and Republicans (Mis)understand Voters on Race and Immigration

• Latino Voter Trends ([06:08-07:46])

  • Pesca opens with the paradox: many border-area Latinos shifted toward Republicans, undermining the simplified view of Democrat=racial justice, Republican=racism.

• Democratic Outreach Often “Cosmetic” Not Substantive ([06:08-07:46])

  • “What we usually see is an addressing of the cosmetic concerns ... not an actual accounting for where the voters are” – Mike Pesca
  • Leonhardt points out politicians' superficial appeals (John Fetterman’s hoodie, Sherrod Brown's “union” talk), insisting these matter but must be paired with policies that respect voter attitudes.

• Historical Parallels: Robert F. Kennedy's Balancing Act ([07:46-11:29])

  • Kennedy was progressive on civil rights but conservative on crime, showing respect for mainstream American sensibilities, says Leonhardt.
  • “If we don’t [address crime], the racists will and we’ll lose.” – David Leonhardt, paraphrasing RFK (09:21)
  • Pesca: The pattern of left-leaning media downplaying hard truths (e.g., actual rises in crime) is not new.

2. The Power and Limits of “Going to the Middle” in Politics

• Charisma and “cross-political” trust allow some politicians (like Obama, RFK) to diverge from party orthodoxy without severe backlash ([12:12-12:46]).
• The modern professional, affluent, highly-educated left is more powerful but more ideologically narrow, constraining flexibility for today’s politicians ([11:58-12:13]).

3. Republicans, Populism, and the Trump Effect

• Trump's incoherent policy, but strong sense for base inclinations, revealed GOP voters’ appetite for economic populism paired with social conservatism ([15:19-17:17]).
  • Trump’s left turn on Medicare/Social Security, but overall, Supreme Court and party leadership resist full populism.
• International comparisons: Other nations combine social conservatism with genuine economic benefits for lower classes — possible, but not common in U.S. politics.

4. Why Don’t People “Feel” Progress? ([17:17-21:10])

• Biden’s tangible legislative wins (infrastructure, union support) yield no perceived credit.
• Leonhardt partly blames polarization, social media, and Biden’s age.
• There’s a core disagreement on whether quality-of-life measures have objectively improved; Leonhardt argues inflation, stagnant real income, and declining life expectancy blunt any positive change.

5. Optimism: Then and Now ([21:10-22:55])

• The changemakers of history (e.g., A. Philip Randolph) persevered with optimism despite setbacks.
• Leonhardt remains hopeful: The U.S. still has the means to achieve social and political progress, though admits recent major victories (e.g., marriage equality, minimum wage hikes) are several years old.

---

The Spiel: “Immigration and the Fourth Estate’s Mirror”

([23:38-34:47])

Immigration as a Global and National Flashpoint

• Record-high (14%) foreign-born U.S. population, approaching the tipping point cited in research at which social stress rises.
• “A plurality of Americans” see immigration as a major problem; Trump fulfilled electoral promises by focusing on it directly ([23:38-24:40]).

Harsh Realities, Mixed Results

• Trump’s policies (border security, detention, deportations) are working by their stated measures – border crossings are down ([24:47-25:25]).
• There’s a tendency among some opponents and media to label these policies as not only immoral, but deeply unpopular, which is misleading.

Polling Myths and Media Narratives

• Pesca critiques Mehdi Hassan for misrepresenting public opinion:
  • Polling consistently shows immigration is Trump’s least unpopular area; his approval here is higher than on economy, inflation, or Ukraine ([27:00-28:25]).
• “I oppose nearly all aspects of how Trump is executing his policy ... But ... the policy is what the people voted for, which is something to consider if we want to be a democracy and a constitutional democracy.” – Pesca ([29:40])

Case Study: The Chavez Deportation Story

([29:55-34:00])

• CNN coverage of migrant Lionel Chavez illustrates advocacy-style reporting over strictly factual analysis.
  • Chavez had criminal convictions, which CNN omitted, focusing instead on sympathetic imagery (video of brother being tased; story framed around “injustice”).
• Pesca stresses: difficult cases often involve “competing virtues,” not villains and heroes; approaching them only through the lens of racism or authoritarianism is reductive.

What is Truly Authoritarian?

• Is the authoritarian move to deport aggressively, or to ignore established laws or popular will in favor of activist definitions of justice?
  • “Isn’t it also authoritarian to simply violate the popular will? ... or to give in to the whims of supporters even when doing so ignores the law?” ([34:01])
• Immigration remains a hard story to tell truthfully; few media outlets strive for true complexity.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “If you don’t address the immigration issue, the fascists will.” (Referenced from Eric Fromm, Paraphrased at [00:56])
• “On immigration, Democrats think more is good, less is racist.” – David Leonhardt, as quoted by Pesca ([00:56])
• “You have to pair [superficial politics] with actual respect of voters attitudes and their views rather than condescendingly say to them... if you don’t vote for us, you’re obviously either ignorant or hateful. That is not good politics.” – Leonhardt ([10:27])
• “Trump’s immigration policies, as harsh as they may be, are working. Immigration border crossings are down.” – Pesca ([24:47])
• “I would have approximately none of Trump’s specific procedures for detention and deportation. But there are great examples out there of Trump ... acting like a quasi autocrat ... Immigration is not such a case.” – Pesca ([29:40])
• “What’s the authoritarian stance on immigration? ... Isn’t it also authoritarian to simply violate the popular will?” – Pesca ([34:01])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 06:08 – Start of Leonhardt interview on Latino voters and Democratic missteps
• 07:46 – Discussion of RFK, political balancing act, liberal media’s blindspots
• 11:29 – Charisma, “going to the middle,” pressures on politicians
• 15:19 – The Trump phenomenon, GOP realignment on economic populism
• 17:17 – Why Americans don’t feel progress, Biden’s record, skepticism
• 21:10 – Optimism then and now in political changemakers
• 23:38 – Pesca's “spiel” on immigration: facts, polling, political realities
• 27:00 – Critique of Mehdi Hassan's polling claims
• 29:55 – CNN’s Chavez deportation story and the limits of advocacy journalism
• 34:01 – The paradoxes of democratic will, law, and authority in immigration
• 34:47 – Close of substantive content

---

Takeaways

• Immigration remains a fiercely divisive issue, complicated by policy realities, media framing, and the fundamental difficulty of reconciling competing virtues and identities.
• Both parties have elements unresponsive to the meaningful concerns of the electorate, with Democrats sometimes relying too much on optics, and Republicans struggling with populism vs. elite economic interests.
• Media plays a significant role in shaping (and sometimes distorting) the public’s understanding, often failing to give the complexity of immigration its due.
• Ultimately, the show advocates for a more nuanced, honest, and less dogmatic public debate — for the “responsibly provocative” approach The Gist seeks to model.

---

Transcript

[A]

Back to school is better with Family freedom from T Mobile we'll pay off four phones up to $3200 and give you four free phones all on America's largest 5G network. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com familyfreedom up to $800 per line via virtual prepaid card typically takes 15 days. Free phones via 24 monthly bill credits with finance agreement eg Apple iPhone 16128 gigabyte 820099 eligible trade in eg iPhone 11 Pro for well qualified credits end and balance due if you pay off earlier. Cancel contact T Mobile hey everybody, it's.

[B]

Nicole Byer here with some hot takes from Wayfair. A cozy corduroy sectional from Wayfair. Um, yeah, that's a hot take.

[A]

Go on and add it to your.

[B]

Cart and take it. A pink glam nightstand from Wayfair. Scalding hot take. Take it before I do. A mid century modern cabinet from Wayfair that doubles as a wine bar. Do I have to say it? It's a hot take. Get [e-mail] and enjoy that free shipping too.

[A]

Wayfair every style hi, it's Mike. It's Saturday. It's the Saturday show where we bring you one from the vault and one from the week and the one from the week. I did a couple of. Well, one was a spiel almost talk about it at the top of the show. And the it is immigration. Because I do think, and this was spurred on by my thoughts on a CNN report which I turned into a Pesca profundities posting. And please do follow me on substack. You get the gist list, you get that, you get the Pesca profundities, which are my written pieces, because I do think that immigration's a tough issue. We're not being totally fair and we reach for the phrases like racist, which is an apt phrase in many cases, or unconstitutional. And when I taped my comments, an example of the unconstitutional was Alligator Alcatraz. And now that I bring the Saturday show to you, that has been ruled by courts to be allowable or as we can broadly say, constitutional. So I was talking about a CNN report that sympathized with an immigrant who is sympathetic in many ways, but not in the ways that Americans have articulated that they want their immigration policy to go. And that includes the desire that only criminals be deported. That includes the desire that that things be done with due process. It's not an easy issue. I do think our media tries to treat it as a lot easier or simpler than it is now. In these comments I also referenced a David Leonhart quote and so why not just play the whole interview I did with Leonhart from a couple of years ago when his book was out. It was actually a two part interview originally. We'll play half of it that was mostly about immigration. And from and Leonhardt are two guys I quote all the time. Two very pithy statements both about Democrats and immigration and the perception of their policies and their actual policies. And what from says is if you as Democrats or just in general as people of goodwill, if you don't address the immigration issue, the fascists will. And what Leonhardt says is on immigration, Democrats think more is good, less is racist. So let's hear him on that. Let's hear me on immigration. And let's hear it for the alligators of Alcatraz who are back in business. Quite shamefully I would say. But shameful and unconstitutional. Don't always have a perfect overlap. Falls in Full Swing I'm feeling the chill maybe you are feeling the chill of an old wardrobe that leaves you cold. It's the perfect time to refresh your wardrobe with pieces that feel as good as they look. Quince makes it easy to look polished, to stay warm, to save big oh, you're saying you have to stint on quality? No. No stinting. You know what they have essentials for fall? 100% Mongolian cashmere from $50 washable silk tops. You know me and the tops and the skirts. All right. This is my wife. She went online. She found these perfectly tailored denim pieces. There are these wool coats. They look designer level. Somehow they cost a fraction of the price. It depends on cutting out the middle person. You get luxury quality goods at half the price of similar brands. I've talked a lot about the linen shorts, but we're getting the wool. The wool is coming. I'll tell you how my wife likes the wool. The wool coat. I think she's going to like it. I think that it's cut and its comfort will be second to none and oh so cheap. Keep it classy and classic and cozy this fall with long lasting staples. From quince. Go to quince.com the gist for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U I N C E.com the gist to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com the gist hey, this is Dan.

[C]

Harris, host of the 10% Happier podcast. I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% happier. The goal is to help you do your life better. The series is called Reset. It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life. Each week we'll tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career. We're going to bring on top notch scientists and world class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice. It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility and practicality. 10% happier is self help for smart people. Come join the party.

[A]

And we're back with David Leonhardt. He is the author of Ours Was the Shining Future, the Story of the American Dream. And I started by asking him, in contrast to the major message of Republicans being the party of racism and Democrats being the party of racial justice, what's the actual facts and finding on the ground? There was, and he talks about this in his book and in our conversation, there was a major study that showed Latinos defecting massively towards Republicans, especially on the border counties of Texas, Latinos whose lives were very much affected by immigration, showing their preferences with their votes, thus undercutting the premise that maybe Republicans are irredeemably racist. On the question of the lives of Latinos, however, is what I began asking Leonhardt. It does seem to me that what Democrats do, faced with those facts, that there is a defection of voters that they need on the very issues that they think they're very good in, what we usually see is an addressing of the cosmetic concerns. So John Fetterman wears a hoodie and Sherrod Brown in his gravelly tones talks about the unions. And I believe both of those gentlemen are earnest. But those are the differences and the outreach that comes to mind, not an actual accounting for where the voters are, which is to say a different place from where the Democratic Party is. Here's what Leonhardt says about that.

[B]

I think that's fair. I also think the superficial is okay when it's paired with other changes. So one of the other characters in my book who surely all of my readers have heard of, but I don't think they fully understand his importance, is Robert F. Kennedy, senior, not junior.

[A]

Very, very important senior, yes.

[B]

And when he ran for president in 1968, and let me start by saying even if he had survived, he might not have won. I'm not saying the world would be totally different if he hadn't been assassinated. I'm just saying look at how he ran for president. He ran for president as someone who was an unapologetic defender of civil rights, who was the most popular white politician in black America, who was in favor of very progressive economic policies, and yet who talked about a bunch of issues in ways that were so conservative that publications like my own employer, the New York Times, wrote articles saying, what the heck's going on with this conservative Bobby Kennedy? And I think what he was doing was he was respecting the moderate and yes, sometimes conservative views of large numbers of Americans. When he talked about the Vietnam War, he said, it's been a disaster. But he also criticized the student deferments that basically allowed rich kids to stay out of the war while poor kids fought. He honored the service of people who did go to Vietnam. Other Democrats in 1968 claimed crime wasn't really rising, that it was all just an invention of conservatives and racists. Well, crime really was rising in the 1960s. And both white and black people, the population that was Latino or Asian at the time was very small. Both white and black people were really concerned about it. And Bobby Kennedy used the phrase law and order because he said, if we don't, the racists will and we'll lose.

[A]

And liberal publications at the time would run many articles saying, well, if you compare it, if you compare crime rates to some earlier time, it's actually not so bad. Which is exactly what's going on today in 2020-2023. Exactly, exactly.

[B]

No, when I was researching the stuff from the 60s, I had these moments. I guess they're flash forward moments, not flash. That's. I mean, your point there, Mike, is dead on. Right. Which is you had a bunch of people typically on the political left, who in, in like 2020 and 2021 weren't talking about the fact that crime spiked and now that it's fallen a little bit from its 2020 highs, but crime is down.

[A]

But from where? From where? From last. The 7% from last year or the three years ago.

[B]

Yeah. And in the 60s, you had the nation and the New Republic run headlines about the crime wave in which they used quote marks to make clear that they thought it was bogus. It was.

[A]

That would be a lack of scare. Quote.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

How we call that.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, it wasn't bogus. It was real. It was clearly real at the time. And so to me, and the reason I bring up Bobby Kennedy is in addition to talking about crime in ways that spoke to voters concerns and doing these policy changes, he also changed his haircut so that instead of looking Looking like one of these hippie long hairs. He looked, he cut his hair shorter. And so the idea that John Fetterman would wear shorts or Sherrod Brown wouldn't get too dressed up. I actually think these small, superficial parts of politics are real. Many voters don't make decisions by reading white papers, but you have to pair them with actual respect of voters attitudes and their views rather than condescendingly say to them, no, no, no, you're wrong on all these issues and explain how our positions on economics are more in your interest. And if you don't vote for us, you're obviously either ignorant or hateful. That is not good politics.

[A]

Did Bobby Kennedy, if you asked him, did he feel hemmed in? Did he feel, do you think he felt sort of crushed by the institutions of the progressive scene at the time, such that he would mark himself as an apostate by taking these stances? I mean, he was, he was essentially royalty. So he had a lot more leeway than an average politician trying to earn the good graces of the party apparatus. But I see that as a difference from today.

[B]

I agree. The kind of professional, highly educated, affluent, quite left wing, left is, is more, is more powerful than it was back then, but, you know, more powerful and.

[A]

More narrow in a way.

[B]

Yes, absolutely. It helps to be a politician who also has a connection to voters beyond policy. Right. I mean, Barack Obama got people excited that Barack Obama was also able to do some of these things where he really went to the middle. I mean, you read what Barack Obama says.

[A]

If you have charisma, if you can communicate, you can buy yourself, I called it some leeway, but you could buy yourself some credibility and some grace where maybe you have a position that's slightly off the reservation in terms of ideology and you don't get crushed for it.

[B]

Yes, that is right. I still think it's important to remember that what Kennedy did, what Bobby Kennedy did in 1968, there was a lot of pressure telling him to go to the other way. Some of his young aides, who of course came from college campuses, were saying to him directly, whoa, why are you sounding so conservative? What are you doing? And he said that we need to.

[A]

Did 400 of those aides put out an open letter which they didn't sign their names to?

[B]

I don't, by the way, I do think the 68 campaign is really fascinating. Obviously I would encourage people to read my account of it in the book, but just generally, I mean, the Making of the President, the Theodore white book about 1968, it really is fascinating and it is, I do think it has a very good claim on being the start of the modern political era and still the era that we're living in. I mean you have Bobby Kennedy and Ronald Reagan and George Romney running in the primaries and then ultimately the race comes down to George Wallace, who's Trump before Trump, Richard Nixon and Hu Humphrey. It's just, it's just an amazing campaign.

[A]

Yeah. And lest the listeners to this show think ok, Leonhart has pretty much written off the Republican Party. He hasn't. It's there. If you want a good platform from the for the Republican Party, it's on page 375 of his book. It's one paragraph, but it's about different senators and prominent Republicans who are endorsing economics in decidedly unreagain esque way. Josh Hawley of Missouri. Okay. Shamed himself in other matters. Urge aggressive enforcement of antitrust policy in the tech sector. Rubio calling for a capitalism of the common good. Mitt Romney, not exactly a member in good standing among other Republicans, proposed a new government program to reduce child poverty. The think tank American Compass publishing ideas similar to that. So the point is, okay, you could take four ideas and that's not a platform. And I don't know that that platform would gain purchase among the typical Republican voter. But I think it's there. I think there is a possibility for each party to more or less generally offer good ideas that also sharpen the ideas of the opposing party. It's not entirely the case that we can only achieve progress through one party because the other we just need to discard in terms of just totally being out of ideas.

[B]

Yeah. And let's acknowledge the orange haired elephant in the room, which is Donald Trump had no coherent policy. Donald Trump said a lot of false and yes, racist things when he was running for president. But Donald Trump also showed that the Republican voters, the Republican electorate was not where Paul Ryan and many people long thought it was. Donald Trump ran well to the left of the Republican Party on Medicare, on Social Security, on trade. And so this idea that there are large numbers of Republican voters who are hungry for something that looks like, like true economic populism along with deep social conservatism and that some of those forms of economic populism actually could deliver economic benefits to people, as I say in the book, I think that's less likely to be the party, the Republican Party is the less likely one to be the party that really favors policies that help working class people, in part because of the Supreme Court, which Which really still is that kind of Paul Ryan, Ronald Reagan, Republican Party. But if you were trying to craft a platform that, that was socially conservative and economically populous, you could do so. There are signs of it among people in this country and it's not a very unusual combination in much of the world. I mean, Asian politics are very different than American politics. So using an analogy is always fraught. But large parts of Asia, including China, including Singapore, basically marry this idea of pretty deep social conservatism to a form of economics that isn't simply really low taxes on rich people. It actually includes very meaningful benefits for middle and lower income people. This can be a coherent political philosophy.

[A]

So one thing that very much bothers me is if the entire book is about how progress has been eluding us and undergirding that idea, is if there is real progress, people will feel it and they'll feel that their lives are improved. I see some counter evidence to that. And since the Great Recession, there has been a lot of economic progress and it hasn't been centered on the non college educated, but even among the college educated, especially in the last few years. And not just going by this or that perhaps flawed economic statistic, going by just as you say, well, look at lifespan and look at happiness and look at all these other measures. Things are improving. But I wonder if because of technology or sociology or doomerism or whatever, we have lost the ability to recognize that progress. And how do you actually fight it out in the public sphere and try very hard to get a bill passed that you know will take. You'll need to drag it across the finish line and then you deliver progress to people and the progress actually happens in ways they, that are measurable and they should feel and people just don't feel it. Do you see that going on?

[B]

I think I'd half agree and half disagree there. Look, Joe Biden has been a more successful president by a whole bunch of measures than I frankly expected. I mean, he really has gotten more bipartisan legislation signed, including opening semiconductor factories in Ohio and getting Republicans to vote for bills that I just didn't think Republicans would vote for. He's made these big investments in America's future. He has supported labor unions in a way that no president has in decades, and he seems to be getting no credit for it. Right. This is, there isn't this thing of oh, you know what, all those factories are opening in Ohio and Ohio's in play in 2024. I mean, no one thinks that. And so that's the part of your argument That I think is right. And I, and look, I do think probably social media and the feedback loops and polarization and doomerism play a role there. Biden's really old. I know he's only a few years older than Trump, but like he looks more than a few years older than Trump. And so I can't fully tell you exactly why he's not getting the credit on that. The way in which I disagree is I don't think things have actually gotten that much better for most people. I mean, so life expectancy because of COVID is actually down substantially. I mean the long term problems with life expectancy among working class Americans haven't reversed. And then we got this shock of COVID So the most recent.

[A]

Well, yes, but you know how they calculate life expectancy is if all the conditions were the conditions of that year. So when it's a time of widespread Covid, it's going to depress life expectancy. But also people trending great.

[B]

Right. People have died. So I, you know, yes. I mean, I just think when you look at health of the last few years, when you look at the fact that, and I think this also plays into why Biden's not getting credit. Inflation has been really high and it's not mostly Joe Biden's fault. Inflation's also been really high in other countries. But, but I get why people are angry. And when you look at real income, it's fallen in the last year or two because inflation has just been so, so high. And so I agree with you that like you, I have some concerns that certain parts of the feedback loop of the American economy and American politics are either broken or different. But I don't think we'll have really a good test of it that until we get to a point where life is actually better for most Americans than it has been over last two or three years. Because I don't think most Americans, when you look at the condition of downtowns and you look at crime and you look at inflation adjusted income and life expectancy, I don't think things are great.

[A]

So last question is, so many of the people in your book are change makers, do you? I detected this, that there was a strain among them that even if they were getting their heads beaten up by Pinkerton's, they were optimistic. Do you think the changemakers of the past were more optimistic and hopeful than the current change makers of the present?

[B]

I hope not. I think, I mean a Philip Randolph might be my favorite figure in the whole book. He spent more than a decade trying to form the first major labor union for black Americans and just failed and failed and failed, but never stopped trying to push the boulder up the hill and finally succeeded. And when I think about the people who set out to win these raises at the uaw, despite years of losses and frankly corrupt union leadership before the current leadership, I think there's a lot of optimism built into that. When I think about the people who set out to start this movement to raise the minimum wage even in red states, when I think about the people, many of them in the disability rights community, who said, I know Donald Trump has the votes, but I think we can stop him from repealing Obamacare. So I still do think there are optimistic people and I still do think for all of the concerns we have, I think there is a demonstrated history, including in recent years, whether it's the minimum wage or Obamacare or marriage equality, which is an incredible victory that came much more quickly than people thought. I still think that the American political system has the capability to make our society and economy work better. I'm not predicting that that will happen, but I am confident that we have the tools to make it happen and it has the potential to happen.

[A]

Yeah, I think some of those accomplishments were in 2010, 2012, 2014. It's been a while. But anyway, let's not end on cynicism. Let's end with praise for David Leonhardt, senior writer for the New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner and author now of Ours Was the Shining the Story of the American Dream. David, thank you so much.

[B]

Mike, thanks for this great conversation.

[A]

And now the spiel. Immigration is a vexing problem the world over. It has toppled governments, it upsets the populace in places like Germany. It has turned liberal democracies into much more illiberal democracies. There is excellent research that indicates that above a threshold level, 15 to 20% of the population becoming non native born, there are dislocations and popular discontent. The United States, by the way, is currently at 14% of the population foreign born, which is an all time high. Yes, that even includes the massive waves of immigration at the beginning of the 1900s. A lot of our feelings about immigration is understandable. On the one hand, people the world over believe in borders. On the other hand, there absolutely is a fundamental human distrust of outsiders. The word for this is xenophobia. But there is also the less pernicious belief that a people define themselves as who they are, not not as an embrace of people they aren't or aren't. Yet. Immigration's a major issue and to A plurality of Americans, a major problem. Donald Trump, like all good politicians, correctly identified the problem. In fact, compared to his Republican rivals in 2016, he was the only one putting his finger on the mood of, at first the Republican voter and eventually much of, if not under, the Electoral College, the majority of Americans. Cut to today, where Donald Trump and his administration are actually following through on the agenda and the implementation of the policies that they promised. True, courts have struck down some of the more outrageous and clearly unconstitutional, quote, unquote solutions. You can't just put people, especially children, on planes after a court tells you they have not had due process. Alligator Alcatraz clearly violated environmental rules rules. But by and large, the Trump immigration policies are actually what he was elected to pursue. And I have to say, if I'm being totally fair, not if I'm being totally moral, not if I'm acting within the utmost definition of justice or Christian values, but if I'm being fair, Donald Trump's immigration policies, as harsh as they may be, are working. Immigration border crossings are down. Some people will tell you that they're not working. However, these are almost all people who are against the policies. A lot of these people will also tell you that they are not just unfair and immoral, but they'll go so far as to assert that they are unpopular. Here is one of those people, Mehdi Hassan, talking to Jon Stewart. Look at the polls he's crated on immigration. New York Times Siena poll a couple of months ago found that his most unpopular issue, the single most unpopular issue for Trump in his first hundred days days was his handling of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the deportation to El Salvador. We were told by Republicans that's an 8020 issue. Democrats are on the wrong side of it. Nobody wants to be on the side of MS.13. In fact, no. The American public said no. We don't want people being deported who haven't committed any crimes. We don't want judges being ignored. We don't want people being sent to a gulag in El Salvador. We don't want our American Latino citizens being picked up outside of Home Depot just because they're brown. He's hugely unpopular on the immigration issue, so Hasan gets the big picture wrong there. True, Americans don't like the specific treatment of Abrego Garcia. But immigration is Trump Trump's most popular position. Nate Silver doesn't look at one poll, he looks at several. And the average of many polls weighted for quality bears out that Trump is underwater more disapproval than approval on almost all the issues his Handling of the economy is minus 13, inflation is minus 22. But on immigration, he's pretty close to even. In fact, he was more approved of than disapproved of as recently as June. He's slightly three points underwater now. Now, in fact, let's go back to that very New York Times Siena poll in which Hasan said immigration was Trump's least favored policy. That is, I don't want to say, a lie. That is the opposite of the truth. It was his most favored policy. I'll read to you the polling on different issues. Immigration, 47% approve, 51 disapprove. So he was minus 4. Here is every other issue they asked about. Managing the federal government. Minus 8 the economy minus 12 trade with other countries minus 11 foreign conflicts minus 14 the war between Russia and Ukraine minus 21. And there at the end, the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia also -21, for which Hasan inaccurately and quite knowingly extrapolated the inaccurate point that I played for you. I want to state for the record that I oppose nearly all aspects of how Trump is executing his policy. He's doing it with bluster, bombast, and not just an indifference to humane treatment, but a strategy of leaning into the headline generating shock of mistreating migrants. It's quite awful, as are clearly unconstitutional aspects which courts have inveighed against. But if I were reporting this as a straight news story, which I endeavor to do right here, I would attempt not to convey my views of horror and immorality. I would also note that the policy is what the people voted for, which is something to consider if we want to be a democracy and a constitutional democracy and a constitutional democracy that does not violate the voter's will. I would also try to get at the fact that some of the shock and awe is a rational strategy for dissuading the world's would be migrants from coming to our shores. Now, I'm not certain that Trump or the architects of his policy like Stephen Miller are first and foremost emphasizing the strategy. They may well be taking glee in the cruelty and also telling themselves that plays well with the base, because it does. But to be totally factual about what's going on, the administration is in fact act pursuing a popular policy in a way that achieves a popular or relatively popular result, let's just say the most popular result that Donald Trump is achieving. Again, so I'm not misunderstood. The times where it's excessive or unconstitutional absolutely need to be forefronted. And again, so as not to be misunderstood, if I were President I would have approximately none of Trump Trump's specific procedures for detention and deportation. But there are great examples out there of Trump doing the thing he's accused of, acting like a quasi autocrat, violating the will of the people, betraying his own voters. Take tariffs and prices. Immigration is not such a case. Now this brings me to a CNN report I heard about Lionel Chavez, a migrant from he was living in Connecticut, originally from Mexico. He was detained and deported along with his brother by immigration officials. This became an international cause celeb. The president of Mexico even commented on the harsh circumstances of his deportation. The CNN report was entirely in sympathy with Chavez and I too sympathize. But see if we could pick up a few of the reporting ticks and tactics that don't adhere to my ideal of plainly stating facts so that that listeners and viewers can decide. Here the reporter Maria Sanchez gives context for Chavez's migration to the U.S. leonel says he was just 17 years old when he moved to the U.S. he started his own masonry business, married an American citizen and has three US born children. He says he has worked with an attorney over the years to file for legal status, but was never able to get his papers. We then see video of of Chavez's brother Ricardo being shocked by Tasers as he runs from authorities. It is graphic, it is violent. This was the picture of the Tasing that aroused the world's sympathy. And I was sympathetic too. However, I could not find how the detention, the capture, the deportation was contrary to US law or even the Trump stated procedures of prioritizing the detention of illegal migrants who had broken the law in ways other than their migration system status. It turns out Chavez had criminal convictions. Court documents show Leonel has several decades old misdemeanor convictions. Mistakes he says were made in his youth. But that's in my past, like my.

[B]

Teenagers, you know, after maybe 25, I.

[A]

Do everything right and try to be a better person, which is how time works. Your past deeds are in your past. No one is anticipatory being deported for future precog crimes. Of course I was sympathetic to the children he leaves behind. I was sympathetic that he leaves behind a wife. Although when you marry an American citizen, that usually provides a pathway to citizenship yourself. It is harder if you came to the country illegally and it is harder still if you had criminal convictions, which was the case with Leonel Chavez. But these are complications that are constant under all administrations, Democrats and Republican. CNN didn't report this. I assume CNN thought most of its audience was interested in the Injustice in the pictures of the tasing, not the thorny issues of what is the definition of justice in this case, they tag their story with this. He now longs for the day he is reunited with his family in the only place he's ever called home. What are you talking about? The story started with the fact that he came here at 17. Immigration could be seen as a story of an unvirtuous administration. And sometimes it is. But it's actually more often a story that's of competing virtues. A story that gets to the core of how we decide and what we decide as a people. It's quite tempting to default to characterizing all deportations as motivated by racism. And maybe the better ratings lay along that path. But what's the authoritarian stance on immigration? Let's say what we want to do as the media is hold up a mirror to authoritarianism. Okay, what would the authoritarian do about immigration? Would the authoritarian always deport? I mean, authoritarians do vilify others. They valorize the native born. But isn't it also authoritarian to simply violate the popular will? The actual popular demonstrated voted for at the polls that popular will. Isn't it authoritarian to ignore the law based on one's own definition of what's right? Or to give in to the whims of supporter to gain their favor even when doing so ignores the law? It's a near impossibility. It's a conundrum for any government to balance. And this current government has no real interest in balance. Even so, it is a hard story to tell truly, which is probably why so few are trying to tell it. And that's it for today's show. Corey War is the producer of the Gist. Ashley Codd is the production coordinator. Asher Green is our social media coordinator. Leo Baum. He wanted to come to the meeting today and I said no Leo video. You just relax. Relax. Kathleen Sykes writes the Gist list. Philip Swissgood chips in on that. Michelle Pesca oversees so much of the goings on here at the Gist, including our very controversial redesign. And thanks for listening.

[C]

Hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10 Happier podcast. I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10 happier. The goal is to help you do your life better. The series is called Reset. It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life. Each week we'll tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career. We're going to bring on top notch scientists and world class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice. It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility and practicality. 10% happier is self help for smart people. Come join the party.