Loading summary
Transcript82 lines
- [00:01]
Joy Reid
This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year.
- [00:26]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Verify.
- [00:26]
Joy Reid
Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off. Terms apply.
- [00:36]
Hello, Hello. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Joy Reid Show. We are live in the great city of Jackson in the great state of Mississippi. We're here for the 100th anniversary of Medgar Evers birth. He would be 100 years old, July 2nd. That would be his 100th birthday, had he not been assassinated by a Klansman. You know how that's how the US History goes. I got to show you guys this is pretty cool. This is a piece of graphic art that is related to this event. We had a really, really, really great event yesterday. Had a panel with some of the daughters of the civil rights era figures of our time. Carrie Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, she told a really funny story about how she represents an organization that's named for her father, not her brother, RFK Jr also a woman named Betty Dahmer, whose father is one of the unknown sort of the hidden figures of the civil rights movement who was killed by a Klansman in front of his own home in 1966. Vernon Damer is his name, and he was trying to help black folks register to vote and exercise their civil rights. And of course, Rena Evers Everett, who is the daughter of Medgar and Merle. So we talked to them yesterday, did a thing, read a letter from Vice President Kamala Harris, who sent a personal letter to the family. And then today I was on a panel. There was a bunch of panels today. They're doing all sorts of stuff. So that's why we're here in Jackson. That's why we are on in a different location. But we really appreciate you all joining us. Welcome to all of our new readers and all of our members. I'm going through and just looking at all the fun folks in the chat. Hey, Chad. How y' all doing? There's a lot of news. There's a lot of news, but let's go through it. Let's start with the fact that Gavin Newsom. Let's actually start with a fun one. Gavin Newsom, bringing the kind of shade that we can all love and Respect. Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News. I have to put the news in scare quotes because they pretty much are just state propaganda. He's suing Fox for The beautiful total $787 million. That is the same amount Fox had to pay a because they lied about January 6th. He's suing for that precise amount. Suing them for defamation because they did a story in which they, in his mind lied about a call about something that he said about Donald Trump. Here it is. Newsom is arguing, according to media, arguing that host Jesse Waters. Jesse defamed Newsom when he accused the Golden State executive of lying about a call with Donald Trump earlier this morning month. Per the New York Times, Newsom is accusing Fox of using deceptive video edits and making false statements to support Trump's June 10 claim that he had spoken to Newsom. The day before that, Newsom had publicly disputed that claim. And Trump pro provided Fox with screenshots showing that he had spoken with Nome on June 6, etc. Etc. So suing for $787 million. I love that. That's the kind of shade that we're actually here for. Another story also reporting out of from media. Well, media just reporting it from someone else. Republican. A Republican. Get this, guys. Has called on the attorney General, Pam Bondi, basically Fox News side host, who sometimes acts as attorney general to denaturalize and deport Zohran Mamdani over rap lyrics. Yes, they would like him to be denaturalized for him to lose his US Citizenship and be deported. This is Representative Andy Ogles of the great state of Tennessee citing lyrics from a rap song that Mamdani made back in 2021. And as you remember, we talked to Mr. Momdani about the fact that he used to be a rapper called DJ Carter Mom. And in that era of his life, he did a song in which he talked about the Holy Land 5. They're members of a Muslim charity organization called the Holy land Foundation. The five men were convicted in 2008 for providing material support to Hamas. The families of the convicted, as well as some human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, have questioned the ruling and call for the release of the men. I will note that this was a charity that raised money for Palestinians and operated with some of the very same entities that the federal government operated with in order to provide charitable wreath to Palestinians. But of course, in this country, there's a strong prohibition against being friendly to the Palestinians. We're going to be following up on that story right here. On this show. So keep a weather eye out for that. The other big story in the news right now is the question of whether the Supreme Court is going to do more than what Mr. Ogles would like to do to Mr. Hamdani, meaning take away his citizenship. And he was a he's a naturalized citizen. They would Mr. Ogles would like to reverse that so that he can be deported. But this aggressive move to deport support any brown or black person that this regime can get their hands on. In order to meet Stephen Miller's 3,000 brown person a day quota. They have a literal quota that ICE is required to meet, which is the reason why they are stopping and frisking brown, particularly brown people. But brown and black people, anywhere they can get them. Dodgers Stadium, the parking lot at Disneyland, at restaurants, Home Depots, warehouses, anywhere they can get them. And if you've had so much, say, parking ticket, they grab you and they immediately deport you. This is a wild story and I'm going to also follow up on this story on my substack, so subscribe to Joann Reid.com you can subscribe for free and I'm going to post this story so you can read it. Texas man born to a U. S Soldier on U S. Army base deported 10 years ago, Jermaine Thomas was at the center of a case brought before the US Supreme Court. Should a baby born to a US Citizen father who was deployed to a US army base in Germany have US Citizenship? Last week, Thomas was escorted onto a plane with his wrists and ankles shackled. He says he arrived in Jamaica, a country that he'd never been to, never been to a stateless man. I'm looking out the window on the plane, thomas told the Chronicle, and I'm hoping the plane crashes and I die. Thomas has no citizenship, according to court documents. He's not a citizen of Germany, where he was born. He's not a citizen of Germany when he was born in 1986, or of the United States where his father served in the military for nearly two decades, or or of his father's birth country of Jamaica, a place he's never been. Thomas doesn't remember Germany. He says he thinks his first memory is Washington State, but he moved around so much in his military family it was hard to keep track. Basically what happened is he was arrested for a minor thing and something to do with his dog. And this is was used to then pick him up and deport him to Jamaica. And the claim is that he has no citizenship anywhere. He's a citizen of nowhere. This is the world that we're living in in these United States in the year of our Lord 2025. And that brings me to this Supreme Court ruling that just happened today. This is on top of a series of Supreme Court rulings that we've seen that have really maximized the power of the presidency. This is a Supreme Court majority that clearly believe in a monarchy, and they would like that monarch to be a Republican named Donald Trump. This ruling that we want to unpack is a little strange. It's kind of hard to understand, but this is what the New York Times reports. The Supreme Court has limited judges ability to issue nationwide injunctions. In a win for Trump, the decision could reshape the way US Citizenship is granted, even if temporarily. The Supreme Court on Friday limited the ability of lower court judges to block executive branch policies nationwide, opening the door for a majority of states to at least temporarily enforce President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. With their decision, the justices appeared to upend the ability of a single federal judge to freeze policies across the country. The powerful legal tool known as a nationwide injunction had been used frequently in recent years to block policies put in place by both Democratic and Republican administrations and gave rise rise to charges of judge shopping. But the immediate effect of the 6 to 3 decision, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who just like 10 minutes ago a lot of pundits on the sort of Democratic side were praising, as if she's had some sort of change of heart and has become a liberal. Not so, and split along ideological lines, was to give Mr. Trump a major, if perhaps temporary victory in his efforts to redefine citizenship in the United States. The justices did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order signed by Mr. Trump in January, which seeks to end the practice of automatically granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even if the parents are not citizens. That question is likely to come back to the Supreme Court perhaps as soon as next week. Of course, the three liberal justices, Justice Assault, Minnesota Mayor Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented in this case because it opens the door to allowing a single person, the president of the United States, to decide if you're a citizen or not, to decide if Zorhan Mandani, who was naturalized a citizen at seven years old, is still a citizen. If he displeases the king, can he be denaturalized? Can this man who was born on a US base in Germany, which technically means you're a US citizen, note that the late John McCain was born in Panama on a US base to citizen parents, therefore he's a citizen. Right. But according to, I guess, Donald Trump, if he's displeased with John McCain, which he was, could he just say, now you're Panamanian, I'm going to send you off to Panama. Like, this is incredible power to give a president of the United States. We have some really great guests to talk to tonight, and we're going to bring them on shortly to really sort of get into this, because it's the actual frightening possibility that we're now looking at a Supreme Court which doesn't believe that Section 3 of Article 14, I mean, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Article 3 of the 14th Amendment means what it plainly says it does, that no one who is an insurrectionist, who foment an insurrection can serve in. In political federal office. They negated that. They wiped it away for Donald Trump to allow Donald Trump to serve despite being accused of insurrection. The state of Colorado adjudicated this case in their Supreme Court and said he is an insurrectionist, therefore he cannot be on the Colorado ballot. The Supreme Court majority, the John Roberts majority, said, oh, no, no, no, that doesn't apply to Donald Trump. Maybe it applies to somebody else, but it sure don't apply to him. And they've made these decisions, including allowing Donald Trump to continue to deport people. This is another ruling this week to deport people to countries they've never been to, just like they did to this young man in Texas who's now suddenly in Jamaica where he knows no one, where he's never been, he's never set foot there. But because his father was Jamaican and was a naturalized citizen, they've decided he's not a citizen because he was physically born in another country, but the father was a naturalized citizen. I don't get it. The father served this country in the United States army for nearly 20 years. And they're still saying that black guy is not a citizen, so we don't want him. They've also allowed the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court did, allowing the Trump administration to continue deporting people to countries they've never been to. And they've chosen countries like Libya, South Sudan, which is in the midst of a near civil war, El Salvador, and all sorts of other countries. So I guess they're paying cash, money, bounties to take them. So we're looking at a crisis, I think, of democracy in this country where you cannot count on the Supreme Court, which traditionally people of color have relied on as the backstop to civil rights. What I'll say is here we are in Jackson, Mississippi, where during Medgar Evers time, it was common to go to the federal government, to go to the Supreme Court to look for relief when state governments denied people civil rights. But now, a whole different world. Do we have our guests? I believe we do. Let's bring in the great Sherrilyn Ifill, the former chief director counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. She is now at Howard University leading the charge on educating the next generation of legal scholars. My friend, a wonderful, brilliant human being from the great, from the great city of Baltimore. Sherlyn Ifill, are you there?
- [13:37]
Sherrilyn Ifill
I am here.
- [13:40]
Joy Reid
So I tried to listen to a description unpacking this Supreme Court decision limiting single federal judges ability to do nationwide injunctions. I didn't quite understand it. I just read it again to our audience here. But can you explain in layman's terms what this decision means?
- [14:00]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Yeah, absolutely. It is. Well, let me start at the beginning and then I want to put it in context of what we've seen really over the last week. So to begin with, the President Trump issued an executive order earlier this year purporting to remove from the protection and the guarantee of birthright citizenship a set of individuals who are born in the United States but who do not have a parent who is a permanent legal resident or a citizen. Now, that is directly contrary to the Words of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1866. 68. The opening line is all persons, all persons born in the United States or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state in which they reside. In 1898, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the children of undocumented migrants, that is, of migrants who could not become citizens. And at that time, the Chinese were not able. They were legally barred from becoming citizens of this country. So the parents are not citizens. Right. And their child is born in this country. And the Supreme Court said, yes, that child, in accordance with the birthright citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment, is in fact a citizen. The language subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which was argued at that time and which Trump now argues excludes certain people like the children of migrants. The Supreme Court recognized that that language was there for the children of diplomats and others who actually are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As you know, if you've heard of diplomatic immunity, you know that, right? So that's what that was meant to refer to. Or children who were born in a US A prisoner of war camp on US Soil. But it was not meant to refer to the children of migrants. And in fact, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the founders actually talked about whether or not it would apply, for example, to the children of Chinese laborers. And the answer was yes. So Trump issues this EO at the beginning of this year to exclude children, children who don't have at least one parent who is a legally permanent resident or a citizen who's born here. Of course, it is challenged. It is challenged in Trump versus casa. It's challenged by attorney generals. It's challenged in a number of cases. And in each of the three cases, the federal district court judge, the trial court judge before whom this case is filed in, issues an injunction. An injunction is an order from a court that either tells you to do something or stops you from doing something. In this case, the injunction was to stop the administration from proceeding with enforcing the eo, the executive order. Whilst the trial was pending in the case, each of those judges issued a nationwide injunction, or what we call a universal injunction, meaning nowhere in the country could the President enforce the executive order. This is a case where that seems like a very obvious thing to do, because, of course, you don't want to have a hodgepodge of citizenship status depending on where you are in the country. Right? You don't want an injunction in Maryland, so the EO can't be applied. But then ICE is rounding up babies, you know, and toddlers in Iowa. So the nationwide injunction makes sense so that we have a uniform policy regarding citizenship in the United States, which is, of course, what the 14th Amendment was designed to do. The Trump administration took this case to the Supreme Court solely on the question of whether the federal court, the federal district courts, have the power to issue nationwide injunctions. Now, this was a sleight of hand. Very clever, because, of course, this is a losing case. Anybody reading the text? If you're a textualist, if you're an originalist, if you're. If you can read right, know that this EO is contrary to the words of the 14th Amendment.
- [18:42]
Joy Reid
Well, one second, Sherilyn, as you're. Give me one second. Can you turn your. Can you crank your audio up? Crank your audio up on your end. So folks in the chat are having a little trouble hearing you. So just crank it up just a little bit more, please. Or get closer to the mic. That, too. We got. We got you. Yeah.
- [19:06]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Does this sound a little bit better?
- [19:07]
Joy Reid
It's a. It's a little bit better. Yes. Go for it. Speak up into that mic and you're good to go.
- [19:16]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Now I'm on mute. So you essentially have a situation in which Trump goes straight to the Supreme Court, not on the core issue of the case, but on the issue of whether or not federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions. Why does he do that? Because this is a favorite issue of the far right. Conservatives have been angry about nationwide injunctions for years now. Interestingly, they were not so angry when nationwide injunctions were issued to stop some of the initiatives that President Biden sought to advance. But they have been for some time agitated about this idea of a federal district judge having this power. So that's the issue that he brings to the court, and that's the issue that the court decided. Now, you're going to hear a lot of pundits saying, therefore, we don't have anything to worry about because they didn't touch birthright citizenship. They didn't say anything about birthright citizenship. But if you look at the facts of this case and then you place it in the context of what we have seen this past week, you understand that this decision is very, very troubling indeed. And this is why Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, why Justice Sotomayor, why Justice Kagan dissent in this case, why Justice Jackson issued her own separate dissent, which the majority derides, because they recognize the danger of this case. Think about two scenarios, Joy. First of all, by simply saying there can be no nationwide injunction, it means that every individual child born here who believes that Trump may try to scoop them up as part of this EO has to bring their own case. They have to get their own lawyer, they have to file their own case, and they have to get an injunction from a district court judge if they want to be safe during the period in which they're challenging the merits of this eo. That's one option. Second option, which we're already seeing play out today, is that lawyers file what we call a class action. Class actions are basically aggregated litigation. When a number of people come together who have similar claims to bring the claim together as part of one piece of litigation. We use it in civil rights cases all the time, Right. So if children are being discriminated against in schooling, if there's discrimination in an employment space, we might bring it as a class action. The problem is the Supreme Court hates class actions. And I was there at the oral argument in this case, in the birthright citizenship case, when I heard them bandying about talking about class actions. First of all, the Solicitor General, that is the, the attorney who would handle this for the federal Government for Trump made clear that even though he was arguing that the CASA plaintiffs should pursue a class action, he will oppose class certification, a certification of that class action, when and if they do that. Secondly, it is no secret to those of us who litigate in this space that many federal, particularly appellate courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, dislikes class actions and absolutely dislikes nationwide class actions. So we already have at least two lawsuits that have been filed by organizations like the ACLU Defending Democracy, LDF one filed in New Hampshire, one filed in Maryland, two class actions now pending. And that's important. But we should understand that those cases are going forward. And the first thing that will have to happen is the federal court will have to grant class certification to allow this to move forward as a class action. And that will have to be upheld in the court of appeals. And then we will see whether this case can even proceed as a class action. So essentially what the court does is by using procedure, they essentially allow Trump to be able to move forward. Think about if you live in Texas and you're one of these kids, first of all, you'd have to find your own lawyer and proceed with the case. If you try to bring it as a class action, how successful are you likely to be if you file it in certain jurisdictions in Texas and then you appeal it to the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals? So this is not going to be an option everywhere in the country, which is exactly what they wanted by striking down the ability of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Now, when you put this in the context of what this court has done the last week, just a few days ago, allowing for the deportation of individuals to third countries with which they have no connection whatsoever, without being able to challenge being sent to that particular country and without being able to raise the possibility of being subjected to torture or other unsafe conditions in that country? And then you put it together with what we have been seeing for the last six weeks with masked ICE agents running down women, men, children and taking them into custody. Now, you put all of that together with this decision. It's interesting to see the kind of wide eyed kind of innocence with which Justice Barrett seems to write the majority opinion. There's no context. She never touches on this attempt by the president to step to the Constitution and overcome it with an executive order. There could have been one line in this opinion that even gave a nod to the fact that the president is not likely to prevail on this claim. We saw that when the Supreme Court wants to talk about a fact scenario that's not before them, as they did the other day when they wanted to reassure everyone that the Federal Reserve chief could not be removed, even though others in other agencies could be removed. We know that the court is willing to step out and talk about things that are outside the four corners of the case when they want to. So why in this case, when we think about the implications of it and we have this kind of conduct from the executive, why would we have a majority opinion in which they pretend that the context of this particular nationwide injunction simply doesn't exist?
- [25:49]
Joy Reid
Yeah, well, and for the same reason probably, that they didn't even bother to write anything when they issued the ruling allowing Donald Trump to continue rapidly deporting people to countries they didn't come from. Only those who dissented decided to speak up. Just John Roberts thinks that he can preserve his Tea Party invitations and thinks he can still get invited to the nice parties in Washington if he's not an open fascist like his friends. And I'll put that on myself, not you. I want to read a couple stories just for our audience, just so that you guys understand that the idea that the right keeps putting forward is that it is the brown people. It's Mexicans, it's Hondurans, it's just Chinese people, it's Asians, it's all the brown people that scare them. It's Africans that are coming over here that are cannibals. As Donald Trump says, they're Hannibal Lecter. That's why he keeps talking about that in the state of Florida. This is a story from 2019. This is something we covered a lot on AM Joy, and this is from the Associated Press. Every year, hundreds of pregnant Russian women travel to the United States to give birth so that their child can acquire all the privileges of American citizenship. They pay anywhere from $20,000 to sometimes more than $50,000 to brokers to arrange their travel documents, accommodations and hospital stays, often in Florida. While the cost is high, their children will be rewarded with opportunities and travel advantages not available to their Russian countrymen. The parents themselves may benefit someday as well. And the decidedly unrushan climate in South Florida and the posh treatment they receive in the maternity wards, unlike dismal clinics back home, can ease the financial sting and make the practice seem more like an extended vacation. The Russians are part of a wave of birth tours that include a sizable numbers of women from China and Nigeria. President Donald Trump has spoken out against the provision in the US Constitution that allows birthright citizenship and is vowed to end it, although legal experts are divided on whether he can actually do that. But here's the funny thing about this story. Donald Trump claims to oppose that what I just described to you, birth tourism, where people come from other countries, a lot of them from Russia, in order to give birth to an American so that they can have the benefits of American citizenship along with their American child. Guess where a lot of these Russians like to stay when they come here to do birth tourism in South Florida? Trump Properties. Trump has become one of the most popular hosts of Russian birth tourists in the country. He also uses lots of H1B visa holders, people who are in the country to work for Donald Trump at Mar a Lago, at the places where he works. And if they happen to have a kid while they're here, they're also citizens. Let me ask you, Sherilyn, because that is the thing that the right constantly says must be ended. The people from all these other countries, and in their mind, just brown and black people, come here and give birth to Americans. But what I just described to you that Russians are doing under the Constitution, are those children citizens?
- [28:54]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Absolutely. If you are born on this soil, you are a citizen. But here's the thing, Joy, as we've seen again the last six weeks with the actions of ice, it's all in the enforcement. Do you honestly think that there are no, as you say, Russians or Belarusians or. Or other Slovenians?
- [29:14]
Joy Reid
Slovenians maybe. Maybe a Slovenian or two, shall we say?
- [29:17]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Or French or Germans who have overstayed their visas? Do you see ICE running after them on the street, tackling them and putting them in the back of a van? No, you don't. So we can say that we know that that is true, but the reality is, as we see on the streets every day, that they are targeting black and brown. This is a giant racial profiling program that allows them to quell their irrational fears of being overtaken in this country by black and brown people. That's why he wanted Canada to be the 51st state.
- [29:58]
Joy Reid
Yes, that.
- [29:58]
Sherrilyn Ifill
You know, all of this is an effort to shore up the white population. It is lunatic. It is unhinged. But what is disturbing about it is that when a president is this flagrantly willing to step to the clear text of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is silent. They are silent about it and all of the other atmospherics around it, they're giving him the green light. This president doesn't hide what he is trying to do. They cannot credibly claim that we are making a decision, as Justice Gorsuch likes to say. For the ages. That's what he said about the insurrection case, right? For the ages, the immunity case. This was a president who was actually violating the law, who was engaged in that process. So you can't pretend you don't know what he's going to do with a decision that says he cannot be held accountable even for crimes. You cannot pretend you don't know what is going to happen. And if you heard the president today, he said, great, now we can start getting at some of these people who have to get out. And of course, he said he misinterpreted the 14th Amendment by saying that the birthright citizenship was meant for the babies of slaves. Now, I want you to notice how much the word slaves is going to be used by him and by Chris Ruffo and by Stephen Miller. They love using that word. That is an inaccurate reading of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. It was designed to ensure the citizenship of black people for sure. Both enslaved black people and free black people had nothing to do with babies. Nobody was thinking about babies. They were thinking about black people who, under the first Constitution written by the original framers, who everyone loves so much, Hamilton and Jefferson and Madison and all of those, those guys, black people were still being counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation. And this Supreme Court, the precursor to this Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Roger Taney of Maryland, had declared in the Dred Scott decision that black people not only were not citizens, but could not be citizens, rendering not only enslaved black people in the three years prior to the Civil War unable to be citizens, but also rendering free black people stateless persons. And so we needed birthright citizenship to ensure that black people were not only free as they were, were under the emancipation, not only could not be enslaved, as was the, the language of the 13th amendment, but needed to be citizens and full first class citizens for sure. But as I said earlier, they also debated the issue of whether children of migrants, children of workers who were from another country, if they were born here, would be citizens. And the answer was yes. So we understand that the clear language does not support the EO and the legislative history does not support the eo and the intention of the framers, which was to ensure there was no caste system in our country, that we did not have tiers of citizenship, that that language is violated by a system that Trump has done developed in which to be merely seen on the street and be perceived to be Latino, can mean that you are chased by ICE agents. And we have seen how many people have been citizens. How many people have been Native Americans? Right. We have seen black people who have been taken into ICE custody who are citizens. And, and now when we add to it this President's desire to send deportees to third party countries, countries that they have no connection to, and countries to be placed in prison, like in El Salvador with the notorious Sea Cot prison where they are disappeared. We are now a country that disappears people. And I'm a little alarmed that no one seemed to ask about it today when the President was meeting with representatives from the Congo and from Rwanda, because those are two other places that he has talked about sending prisoners in this country. And please remember that what Trump said to the Prime Minister of El Salvador, he said, you need to build more prisons because now we need to get the homegrowns.
- [34:42]
Joy Reid
Yeah.
- [34:43]
Sherrilyn Ifill
And so he's talking about US Citizens who are in our prisons.
- [34:47]
Joy Reid
And I will note that, you know, we tried to forget about him, but Ron DeSantis is still governor of Florida. He took the Comfy Couch Hosts on a tour of the concentration camp that he's building in Florida in order to round up people, brown people, and throw them in a camp because he doesn't want them in Florida. Surprise, surprise. The economy of Florida is going to be severely harmed by rounding up brown people who, by the way, all over this country, Latinos are afraid to go to work. Anybody who is perceived or looks Latino is afraid to go to work. I know people who, who are not Latino, but they're brown. And so they look Latino to the naked eye. If you don't know any better, who are walking around with their passports, who never leave home without a passport, because this is a question I want to ask the audience. How would you prove you're a citizen if ICE came up to you and dragged you off? How would you prove it? I mean, do you have any proof that you're a citizen? There have been even cases where people showed their real id, their real ID with a little star in it, and that still wasn't believed. They've still been roused, they've still been harassed. And even if you're not actually taken into custody, imagine being a brown person in this country right now where you can't even walk the streets without fear of being tackled by random people with masks on. That's who we are now. This is like being in apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. I want to note for you guys just for a moment, Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz, that's his real name is Raphael. He goes by Ted. Rafael Cruz. Was born in 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. His father, Rafael Sr. Is from Cuba. He was born in Cuba. He's a naturalized citizen. His mother is from Delaware. She's a white American woman. When Ted Cruz was running for president, far right people said maybe he can't be president because they don't. They're not sure how much of an American he is. Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio's parents were both born in Cuba. They came to this country. He used to try to try to claim that they came to escape Fidel Castro. That's not actually true. They came during the Batista era and they came to this country and he was born here. So he is an American citizen by birthright citizenship. That's literally why he's a birthright citizen. I mentioned John McCain. John McCain was born to American parents on a US military base abroad. He's a citizen by virtue of the same system of birthright citizenship. He's an American because he's an American. I wonder if I don't know the next time Donald Trump has a beef with Elon Musk. Are Elon Musk's kids citizens? Is X a citizen? Because his mother, whose name goes by Grimes, the singer, she's Canadian. And Elon's a naturalized citizen. If Trump gets mad at him again, what he wants for himself is the ability to just say you're not a citizen anymore and delist him as a citizen and send him back to South Africa. By the way, they don't want him. And I want to go to Donald Trump himself. A lot of people in the chat talking about Melania, who is a naturalized citizen, who Trump got a genius visa for. I'm not sure what her genius was in order to get a genius visa, but she got one. She also got her parents through families, you know, she extended that citizenship. Got it for her mom and her migration for chain migration. Exactly. So she, she came through that way. But Donald Trump herself, himself, her husband, his father, Friedrich Trump came from Bavaria. He was a barber from Bavaria who apparently also did some pimping for a while in Alaska. Failed at gold.
- [38:05]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Let me stop you. That's his grandfather.
- [38:07]
Joy Reid
Grandfather.
- [38:08]
Sherrilyn Ifill
So yeah, not his father.
- [38:10]
Joy Reid
Yeah, yeah, exactly. The grandfather, Friedrich, Friedrich Trump came here in 1885. 18 year old German barber, boarded a ship and on a one way trip to America, escaping three years of compulsory German military service. He'd been a sickly child, unsuited to hard labor and feared the effects of the draft. So he was a draft dodger. So Friedrich Trump came to this country he was also a he. And I don't know if he even became a citizen. But his father then was born here. Fred. Fred was born here. But Donald Trump comes from immigrants. I believe his mother was a Scottish immigrant. So. So the immigrant. It's interesting to me, Sherilyn, that some of the people who are the most vehemently anti immigrant. My understanding is that Ron DeSantis's grandmother came from Italy just after she came in, just after the, the, you know, or just before, I should say, the draconian immigration acts in the 1920s that would have kept her out as an Italian. These people themselves are the children of immigrants or the grandchildren of immigrants, as is Stephen Miller. Your thoughts?
- [39:08]
Sherrilyn Ifill
And that is what actually Joy reveals the racist nature of the project. Right. They know. Their presumption is that those people are citizens. Right. You know, they are not hiding the ball at this point. They're making it clear that this is not about citizenship. It's about belonging. And belonging is different than citizenship because you can be a citizen and still not be seen as belonging. And that's what they're trying to establish. They're trying to establish a system in which, if you are white, there is a presumption of belonging and of legitimacy to your presence here. And if you are not white, people have the right to question your legitimacy here. But you're so right to point out the hypocrisy of the individuals. Someone like Marco Rubio, he knows the story of his parents. One thing you didn't include is that his grandfather also immigrated here and received a deportation order and remained after that deportation order. I have not heard one reporter ask Mark Rubio whether he thinks during that period when his grandfather had received the deportation order and had yet not left the United States, whether he would have been comfortable with his grandfather being treated the way we see people on the street being treated by ice.
- [40:36]
Joy Reid
By the way, can I stop you for one second? Sherilyn Christopher Rufo, the guy who is the author of the anti DEI policies, the anti immigrant racist policies, trying to essentially whiten the United States population by ending any sort of assistance or academic access for people of color. His wife, his wife came here, I want to say, from Thailand and was in the country illegally. I want to read you a tweet from Christopher Rufo dated November 16, 2018. I'm also going to put this on the substack on joynreid.com where you're going to get all, all of this backup on there. There have been rumors circulating that call into Question the harassment against my family. Here is a statement from my wife, Sufatra. I came to the United States as an undocumented immigrant in the late 1980s. My mother brought me here to escape abuse and human trafficking in my native Thailand. I grew up in a small town in New Hampshire where we were the only minority family. I experienced a lot of intolerance growing up. I remember being refused service in a restaurant.
- [41:41]
Teray
I remember.
- [41:41]
Joy Reid
I remember boys holding back the doors at my school so I couldn't get in, yelling, go back to your country. I remember the school librarian asking me if I was a child prostitute in Thailand. I remember my college boyfriend being stopped at a grocery store and asked if he had purchased me abroad. Christopher Rufo's wife is a Thai former undocumented immigrant. You could go to J.D. vance, whose wife, I believe her mother also came here as an immigrant. And what was the. What is the guy's name? Ramaswamy. Vivek Ramaswamy. His parents were both immigrants from India, and the father never became a citizen. So he only has one citizen, one naturalized citizen parent. And he is for total, you know, end of quote, unquote, illegal immigration.
- [42:25]
Sherrilyn Ifill
People think proximity to whiteness. I mean, so first we have the, you know, you are. You are legitimate because you're John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader. His maternal grandmother is from Canada and his paternal grandfather is from Norway. So all of these people who used to brag about being the grandson of immigrants and the great grandson of immigrants, they used to brag about it, right?
- [42:49]
Joy Reid
Yeah.
- [42:50]
Sherrilyn Ifill
These same people are acquiescing in this project of Trump's to declare certain people illegitimate and not belonging. And we have to understand, this is where, Joy, we lost so much traction and so much time because when people like me were trying to get the mainstream media, not you, Joy, but the mainstream media, to recognize that racism and white supremacist ideology was at the core of the Trump project and at the core of his appeal in 2015 and 2016.
- [43:24]
Joy Reid
Yep.
- [43:25]
Sherrilyn Ifill
They would not listen. They insisted that this was not true. It wasn't until Charlottesville that they began to even think that the project that was at the heart of Trump's ideology was a white supremacist project. And because we lost all of that time, because the alarm bells were not heated, because the alarm bells didn't come from the people who are supposed to be expert, didn't come from the tappers and the people who, who, you know, the Ezra Klein. And we hang on their every word. You know, in the mainstream media, we were ignored and now we can see it. But look, he has the full reigns and he has a six member majority on the Supreme Court that seems prepared to allow him to proceed with this project. You could not watch what we have seen around this country over the last six weeks with masked ICE agents running after people, chasing them through fields.
- [44:25]
Teray
You.
- [44:25]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Know, rolling them on the ground and, and, and threatening them, beating up the father of three United States Marines. You couldn't see that and think for one second that a decision that you issue today might mean that those same ICE agents might be going after toddlers. Right. Whose parents who don't have two permanent resident or citizen parents. That's essentially what you're saying. And so when Amy Coney Barrett tries to push back against Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent in pretty harsh terms, and almost tries to gaslight Justice Jackson by making it as though Justice Jackson, not a wild eyed flamethrower, someone who has very carefully unfolded a very distinguished legal career and who has been a judge for a very long time, to suggest somehow that she's being hysterical because essentially the tone of Justice Barrett's opinion when she is referencing Justice Jackson's dissent is completely disingenuous. It is gaslighting because Justice Barrett didn't have the, the courage to speak in that majority decision about the consequences of the decision.
- [45:41]
Joy Reid
That's it.
- [45:42]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Right. And we're seeing this with the Supreme Court. They just say whatever they want to say, throw it on the table and good luck to the rest of you to not even think about or anticipate what the consequences might be. We saw this with Dobbs, we saw this with, with ssfa, we're seeing it with these, with the decision last week about the third party deportation. There's not a section of the decision when they say this is what may happen. And of course, we expect the following and the following.
- [46:12]
Joy Reid
Yeah.
- [46:12]
Sherrilyn Ifill
So the mere fact that Justice Jackson is prepared to talk about the consequences of the decision drives Barrett into a tizzy and pushes her to kind of disparage the intellectual and rational decision making of Justice Jackson, when any rational person can understand what the consequences of this decision would be. And by the way, as I said, I was in the room, those consequences were presented to the court at oral argument. They all heard them and they all engaged with them.
- [46:44]
Joy Reid
Yeah.
- [46:45]
Sherrilyn Ifill
And so part of what disturbed me about this decision today was the court essentially taking this pilot like stance of washing their hands of the consequences of this decision by merely talking about the power of district courts, the Judiciary act, the history of judicial power and so on and so forth, without ever touching the consequences for actual human beings and thinking that that makes them superior as judges to someone like Justice Jackson, who can meet them historical analysis, originalist and textualist analysis toe to toe, but also understands that these decisions have consequences in the lives of real life people and is not afraid to explore what those consequences are.
- [47:35]
Joy Reid
Cheryl and Ifill so appreciate you. And by the way, and who could run rings around Amy Coney Barrett's sorry, unqualified behind who should not even be on the court. She's nowhere near the intellectual equal of Justice Jackson.
- [47:48]
Teray
She.
- [47:48]
Joy Reid
She's nowhere near the career equal. She's had very little time in terms of her judicial career versus Justice Jackson, who's had this broad career and who's this brilliant genius. Sorry, Amy, you don't have the range, Mommy. Sherrilyn Ifill, who I think would have been an incredible member of the United States Supreme Court. I thank you so much for being here. I appreciate you, my good sis. We're going to keep the fight up. Thank you.
- [48:11]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Thank you, Joy. Appreciate it.
- [48:12]
Joy Reid
Thank you. And I want to note for our audience here, Justice Jackson apparently doesn't understand the power that she's giving Donald Trump and the leverage that she and her friends are giving them over her. Justice Jackson has two adopted black children. Not one, but two I believe came from Haiti. Donald Trump at any moment could say to Justice Jackson, you do what I say. Or maybe them kids are not citizens anymore. Maybe we'll take those citizens. Citizens. Maybe take your two children's citizenship away. Maybe he can say to Christopher, Ruffo, you do what I say, you obey me. Or. Or maybe your wife gets deported back to Thailand. He could say to Ted Cruz, you want your daddy to stay here? You do what I say. You vote how I say. You vote for my big, beautiful bill, or you and your dad are going back to Cuba. What this Supreme Court is doing, maybe without knowing it, they're giving him the power of life and death over any American he wants. They're turning him into a king, and they're giving away leverage that can at any moment be used by against them. J.D. vance, you will obey. Or that lady that you're married to might not be here. She might be on a plane to Bhopal tomorrow morning along with her mom and dad. You will obey Donald Trump or you will lose your citizenship. Or Stephen Miller will have the power to decide who was a citizen of the United States. I can't think of anything scarier than giving that guy the Power to decide who gets to be a citizen because he has an insane, obsessive hatred of. Of people who are not white. Let's bring on our next guest because we need a change of. We need a change of subject. Let's lighten it up. What is. I don't know if it's lighter. It's actually not lighter because we got to talk about this. This case that we're talking about that we've been talking about with our friend Teray. Let me bring in Teray. Teray is not just my pal, former MSNBC fellow msnbc, or when he used to host the cycle. He is right now the lead host of. Of Truth Talks. Truth Talks. And I wanted to tell us a little bit about that. That's an actually cool show that I'm hoping I get to go on at some point. The lead house of Truth Talks. And also, of course, the writer of Culture Fries on Substack, which I subscribe to and you should do Terray. Welcome back, Joy.
- [50:24]
Teray
Thank you so much for having me back.
- [50:26]
Joy Reid
I listen, you can come back anytime you want to. Ray, you kind of like my co host. You. You and I interviewed mom Donnie together, as well as Lander.
- [50:32]
Sherrilyn Ifill
Like.
- [50:32]
Joy Reid
Right. We're kind of a team.
- [50:35]
Teray
Well, that. We got to get you to come on Truth Talks. I'm really excited about what we're doing over there. It's. This is the second season, so I'm the new lead host. And we just get in there and we have like, it's me and three amazing, beautiful black people, multi generational. So we're having, like, barbershop argument conversation. Friend. But like, politics, culture, what's really, you know, we might get into, like, how people feel, how black men feel versus how black women feel about a specific. So we get, like, really deep into how the culture feels and how we feel politically about different issues. You know, my co hosts are brilliant, each in their own way. And, like, we just sort of come at issues in a really powerful, amazing, passionate way that will remind you of, like, you and your friends arguing about an issue and trying to figure out, like, what's really what.
- [51:27]
Joy Reid
I love it. I love it. Okay, well, you guys tuned in to Truth Talks, and I love it. I think that sounds really fun and I definitely am looking forward to being on. All right, we got to talk about this diddler Terry, what in the hell Is this thing over yet? I can't bear to watch. I literally just read Culture Fries and let you tell me or I look on your TikTok because I can't take it. What is going on with this Diddler trial?
- [51:46]
Teray
So today was the end of closing arguments. The defense did their close, their, their summation, which was. I was not there for the defense summation. I was there for the rebuttal. However, Mark Agnifolo, whose wife you may know, Karen Agnifolo, who's defending Luigi Magione, he apparently gave a very powerful close that a lot of people who saw it were very moved and swayed by. They said he was very direct in how he communicated with the jury. Now I saw the government's rebuttal by the lead government attorney, who was Maureen Comey, who is the daughter of Jim Comey, the FBI director. Extremely powerful presentation where she said, here are the defense's arguments. These are ridiculous. She pointed out that sex trafficking is just, I have coerced you or forced you into saying yes. So you're kind of saying yes against your will. So when one time of doing that, it doesn't have to be a pattern. We could be having a relationship. And then one time, Diddy at one point has his second freak off girlfriend. That as far as the trial, there are others, right. That we didn't talk about that much in the trial. But as she is flying, she says to him in la, I don't want to do this anymore. And he says, come to New York, it'll be just us. And she said, I don't want to be trapped in a hotel again. He's like, come to New York, it'll be just us. She gets on the plane, he calls a sex worker and then once she's on the plane, then he lets her like, oh, sorry, like we're going to freak off now. She has been coerced and lied to into getting to come to the event that sex trafficking, you can't be lying people into sex. And there's multiple situations that she pointed out where she is basically lying. Or there's two horrific stories where Jane and Cassie, two different stories where they are beaten up and then they go right into a freak off. And she's that those are, that's two examples of sex trafficking. Because that yet she can't possibly consent to that. Right? You can't possibly think she wanted it to come. Right. So I was really deeply won over by what the government was presenting in their rebuttal. I think that I understand the racketeering argument. A lot of legal smart people are like, no, I don't see it. They, you know, friends of ours, like, they shouldn't have even brought the case I see an argument for racketeering. You can't have people in your employ who are working on crime, even if they're doing legitimate business most of the time. But he also, you know, buries bodies for me. You cannot do that.
- [54:34]
Joy Reid
Right.
- [54:35]
Teray
You know, and the sex, I mean, he's not going home. Whenever the jury comes back, he's not going home at all. There's no chance of him going free because the other charge is transportation to engage in prostitution. And there's so many examples of Diddy himself texting with Paul or Anton or Cabral or the Punisher, saying, okay, what's your full name for the flight? We want you to come to Miami, to New York, to LA, to Turks and Caicos. You know, this one three different times, that one, four different. Like, you cannot. You can't do. That's a 99% conviction. You can't get past that one. So you're not going home after this with the other two are what the rest of your life is about. You know, 15 years, the life. You know, this one good. You know, transportation could be a five, six year thing in prison, but I think he's gonna get more than that.
- [55:30]
Joy Reid
Wow. What was going on in the 90s and early 2000s? Seriously, Tourette, you've been a music journalist for a really long time. But I mean, Russell Simmons, this guy, the Diddler, did, you know, Puffy. You know, it feels like this was. I mean, R. Kelly, L.A. reads go. What?
- [55:55]
Teray
Yeah.
- [55:55]
Joy Reid
What was going. I mean, like, it seemed like the. I mean. And then if you go outside the music industry, Bill Cosby, you know, we know that there was the Harvey Weinstein thing happening as well. There's something about that era, right, where you had. What was the guy from. The actor who just. Who just recently, I think is trying to make a comeback. Oh, my God. Who was in Kevin Spacey. Kevin Spacey. Like, I don't know what was happening in the 90s.
- [56:20]
Teray
I don't know that it's the era, although I see, I think that where you have gatekeepers who can make you famous and powerful and people with no power coming into their orbit saying, I want what you have. You're going to have. Some of those gatekeepers are going to be horrendous people who take advantage of them and the power dynamic. And I look at politics tough as akin to Harvey Weinstein, as far as I can make you famous if you do everything that I say. And everything I say includes some crazy stuff. So, you know, R. Kelly is a little bit different in that he's trapping people. But he's similar to Diddy in that he's using the power of having a label and having assistance to trap people and then sex traffic them. I mean, you know, Diddy did some of what Bill Cosby did as far as drugging people. Throughout the lawsuits, they are consistently talking about he drug, he seems to be drugging people a lot to where it was almost a joke where people like, well, what, what was in the baby oil? Remember? And Cassie was on the stand would be like, there was nothing in the baby oil. It was just baby. But the people were like a lot.
- [57:36]
Joy Reid
Of baby oil, by the way, like 800 bottles of baby oil.
- [57:39]
Teray
I mean, I, I, I do think that the record business engendered young aggressive people having money being at the party 24 hours a day. You know, the music business was like, we were at the party, we're selling the party and we never leave the party. Even though what they did from nine to five would be, you know, they were like, we worked, you saw us, we were actually working at our desk. But it was a super party atmosphere. A lot of stuff went. And I think a lot of people felt like they could get away with whatever. And because of that power dynamic, because there were so much dreams involved, if you were in the record business, even if you're an A and R, you had a dream, you wanted to be at the circus, you want to be in a creative professional and you were willing to go for some bullshit to be there. And it separated for that. It showed you what early into your time, the music business, like, well, this is, this is the price. And some people are like, yeah, it's cool, I'm down. And some people were like, oh, no, no. And they ran screaming and it wasn't for them.
- [58:49]
Joy Reid
It's, it's frightening to me because you think about all these young people, you know, I mean, and I don't, I don't know if Usher and Justin Bieber testified, wound up testifying, but you think about, these were like 14 year olds and 13 year olds that are coming into the music business. They just want to be famous, you know, they just want to be like new kids on the block. And you know, like, you know, all of these little, they see all these people getting famous and it feels like it was just pure exploitation, including a lot of child exploitation.
- [59:14]
Teray
You know, I mean, one of the moments that I returned to every once in my life happened with you off air.
- [59:22]
Joy Reid
Yeah.
- [59:22]
Teray
Where we were taught. You saw the Michael Jackson documentary before I did. Yes, and we talked about it and you were like, it's really bad. And I'm like, how bad is it? And she said, prepare to live in a world where Michael Jackson does not exist. And like, what are you talking about?
- [59:37]
Sherrilyn Ifill
What would that possibly be?
- [59:40]
Teray
And it was like, I have already crossed over to the other side. Like, wait, you know, when you take the pill, you'll see.
- [59:47]
Joy Reid
And I love Michael Jackson. I am a super fan. The thing is. But. But the thing that I came away with in the Michael Jackson piece, and maybe this is a through line to a lot of it, is so many of these parents, there is nothing you could do to let me put. Put my child on a plane to fly out of the country or across the country with a grown man without me. You know what I mean? Like, one of the issues with Destiny's Child was that some of the moms were like, no, you're not getting on that bus. My girls are not getting on that bus without us. And that caused the rift that kind of split up Destiny's Child because two of the girls were like. The moms were like, we're involved here. But you have these parents who are willing to hand their kids over to an adult stranger with mo.
- [60:26]
Teray
Well, well, hold on. Michael Jackson, I'm not going to defend the parents, but Michael Jackson was not a stranger to them.
- [60:35]
Joy Reid
Right?
- [60:35]
Teray
They knew who he was before they met him. They met him multiple times. They had multiple vacations. He's grooming. The first vacation, you are staying with your parents and I'm over here and we're hobnobbing. And. And then the second vacation, can he spend one night over here? Like. And by the third or fourth vacation, that's Uncle Mike.
- [60:58]
Sherrilyn Ifill
He's part of the family. Sure, go ahead.
- [61:02]
Joy Reid
You know, you know what's so, you know what's so crazy though, Terry, is that, you know, the guy with the freakiest lyrics. Prince was like the most wholesome person out of the group because, you know what I mean? Like, he had the freaky lyrics, but he wasn't doing the freak offs.
- [61:19]
Teray
See? No, see, see, Prince was out here trying to form a family. And now you. Now you're like, really? So how. It's like, how much longer do we have in the segment, Prince was trying to form a family. He's trying to get. He was grooming people too, but he was trying to form family. He tried to have children with Maite. It didn't work out. He remarried. He's trying to form family. He's not able to form family. He's emotionally stunted to where he cannot form a lasting emotion. His relationship is music. That's his wife. For always you are. And people will say that, like, you know, you're always like third place. Like music and music will always be one and two.
- [62:00]
Joy Reid
Yeah.
- [62:01]
Teray
So, you know, but like Prince's music, the sex was a loss leader to get you in the door. The real point of the music was, hey, Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior. Maybe save your life too, right? Like that's like when you get to the point of princess. That's what he was really saying. Like, would you give Christ a chance? Michael Jackson is not dealing with that.
- [62:25]
Sherrilyn Ifill
At all, at all, at all.
- [62:26]
Joy Reid
And they're both jo witnesses, which is another crazy thing.
- [62:29]
Teray
The sweetness of Michael, where he seemed like a child. Like out of all the adults males in the world, you would have thought, well, Michael is the timidest, you know, sweetest, cutest, most childlike. He's not even a man. He's like a boy who's grown up. Like, he is like boys hanging out together. You would never have left Prince with your child because you're like, yo, don't leave him with your wife. Like, he'll turn out your wife, you know. But Mike, that was part of Mike's whole thing that he was the sweetest a million men in the world and Michael and you didn't know, you'd be like, oh, yeah, I let him babysit the baby because he is the sweetest, meekest, sweetest, cutest thing you'd ever seen. You know what I mean? Was he not.
- [63:12]
Joy Reid
I'm sad. Ture I appreciate you, my friend. It makes me very sad because I really love Michael Jackson. I think he's genius. He's an actual genius. So is Prince, obviously. There were two. You were either a Prince person or a Michael Jackson person. I, weirdly enough, was both. I love them both. Ture. The show is called Truth Talks. Where do we see Truth Talks?
- [63:29]
Teray
We see it on truth talks-live.com. we're on YouTube. We're on Roland Martin's network, Black Star Network. So shout out to Roland for like letting us be part of the family. He's like, yes, big brother to so many of us in black media. Been doing incredible things. So you can find us on YouTube. Truth Talks. We want to get you to come on the show and like yap it up with us and argue with us and have a good old fight about whatever issues going on. That's what we do.
- [63:58]
Joy Reid
I, I am there for it all you have to do is ask Terray. You are my friend. You know, I'm always going to go wherever you want to go. And Uncle Ronnie, that's all our unk. We appreciate them. We appreciate you. We appreciate you. Thank you, Terry. Come back again often, okay? Appreciate you. All right, see you soon. All right, guys, that's it. We, we, we, we're kind of going to wrap it up. But I do want to thank so many of you guys who have been in the chat. The chat has been booming. You guys have been doing your thing. So thank you very much. I want to big up Eyvette Smith, a new member of Team tjrs. And now I have a great announcement. We've got another yali who's also a member of the readers went really big on the upgrade. And by the way, with the, with the club memberships give you, we're going to get you. We're launching our merch store very soon. You're going to get discounts if you want to buy some merch. We're going to definitely do that. But we're also going to do exclusive chats. Ask me anything chats. Our very first one is going to be July 4th weekend. So keep, keep it on your calendar. Put a soft date in your calendar because we are going to do a Team TJRS and readers chat as well as our premium subscribers for substack. We're going to get to chat with you guys. You guys can ask me questions. I'm sure you got questions about this show, about my career, about anything you want. Don't ask me about the diddler, though. I don't know anything about him. I, I can't, I can't with the diddler. You got to ask her. I cannot help you with that. But yes, and we should be paying attention. What's going on with this birthright citizenship stuff? Look, I'm a birthright citizen, right? I'm a citizen. I was born in the United States. Brooklyn, New York, East Flatbush. But my parents were both immigrants. My father was not a citizen. Me and you know, Vivek Ramaswamy, same deal. And here's the problem with underplaying that issue. It's because it gives the President of the United States and his henchmen the power to decide who belongs in the country and who doesn't. And surprisingly enough, coincidentally enough, they keep deciding it's non white people who don't belong here. Weird. They're not rolling up on Irish folks. They're rolling up on anybody brown and black. You did Notice that. Right? And the Supreme Court has said yes, they can. Even though Amy Coney Barrett has two people in her household who could be subjected to that kind of disconnection from the United States. Makes no sense to me. All right, well, y' all, thanks you for watching. Make sure you that you smash that, like button. Hit that subscribe button. We want to make sure you like and subscribe so that you never miss a thing. Also share. Why not share this? Share it with a friend, share it with a foe just to piss them off. Chris, what happened? He had almost 70 of people watching. Oh, I want to let you guys know this. Jason, let me know to remind you guys that 70 of the people who watch these episodes are non subscribers. 70. We've had over 2 million streams. Over 2 million streams. And we appreciate every single person who's watched. But 70 of y' all are just lurking. You're not. You're not joining the family. So if you're watching, hit subscribe, subscribe. It costs you nothing. It gets you in the family. It makes sure that you never miss a thing. And there's going to be really fun stuff coming up for just subscribers. So please do not be in the 70%. Be in the adorable 30% who are not just watching but also subscribing. All right, you guys, thanks so much for tuning in. Like, subscribe, share and be well. And also truck on over to Joanne Reid dot com. You can also subscribe there for free. And that is where I'm going to put the notes from this show so that you know all the links that I used to talk to you on today. All right, guys, take care and I will see you on the next the Joy Reid Show. Peace.