3550 - The Immigration-Incarceration Pipeline; Neoliberalism in Crisis w/ Silky Shah, Tim Sahay

Summary

Podcast Title: The Majority Report with Sam Seder
Host: Sam Seder
Episode: 3550 - The Immigration-Incarceration Pipeline; Neoliberalism in Crisis
Release Date: July 31, 2025

---

Overview

In episode 3550 of The Majority Report with Sam Seder, host Sam Seder delves deep into two pressing issues: the intricate ties between U.S. immigration policy and mass incarceration, and the current crisis facing neoliberalism on a global scale. The episode features insightful interviews with Silky Shah, Executive Director of the Detention Watch Network and author of Unbilled: Why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition, and Tim Sahay, Co-Editor of the Poly Crisis newsletter and Co-Director of the Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins University. Throughout the discussion, the podcast critically examines systemic injustices, policy failures, and the shifting economic paradigms affecting both domestic and international landscapes.

---

Segment 1: Privatizing Social Security and Economic Policies

Timestamp: [06:29] – [13:46]

The episode begins with a critique of recent Republican initiatives aimed at privatizing Social Security. Emma Bigeland and Matt Binder discuss how Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant openly acknowledged efforts to shift Social Security towards privatized accounts, a move that has sparked significant backlash.

Matt Binder [06:29]: "Like societally, it's a laziness that is self-serving and intentionally self-serving to not actually drill down what he said that you're asking him about."

The conversation highlights the proposed "Trump Accounts," which function similarly to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) but are designed in a way that disproportionately benefits wealthier individuals. The hosts emphasize that these measures fail to address the root causes of economic inequality and instead serve to further concentrate wealth among the already affluent.

Emma Bigeland [07:19]: "This is insane, but he said the quiet part out loud at this Breitbart event two days ago now."

The segment underscores the skepticism surrounding these policies, noting that they offer minimal real support to low-income families and primarily serve to inflate Wall Street through increased investment in the stock market.

---

Segment 2: Interview with Silky Shah – The Immigration-Incarceration Pipeline

Timestamp: [23:01] – [52:19]

Silky Shah joins the show to discuss his book, Unbilled: Why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition, providing a historical analysis of U.S. immigration enforcement and its entanglement with the broader system of mass incarceration.

Key Points Discussed:

1. Historical Roots of Immigration Detention:

   • The origins trace back to the 1980s with the influx of Haitian refugees and the U.S. government's response.
   • The rise of mass incarceration in the U.S. during the 70s and 80s set the foundation for the expansive immigration detention system.

2. 1996 Immigration Laws:

   • Passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which expanded the criteria for deportation and limited due process rights for immigrants.
   • Shift from distinguishing between residents and non-residents to a binary of citizens versus non-citizens, exacerbating the detention pipeline.

3. Impact of Subsequent Administrations:

   • Obama Administration: Intended reforms led to the expansion of detention centers and alternative monitoring programs like ankle bracelets, inadvertently increasing the scope of immigration enforcement.
   • Trump Administration: Further intensified immigration detention with policies likened to "sadistic concentration camps" in Florida, emphasizing a zero-tolerance approach.

4. Intersection with the War on Drugs:

   • The drug war created conditions for increased incarceration rates, which were then applied to immigrant populations.
   • Layered punishments for immigrants, combining criminal sentences with immigration penalties, leading to prolonged detention periods.

5. Consequences of Current Policies:

   • Dehumanization of immigrants through narratives that paint them as either "good" or "bad," undermining comprehensive immigration reform.
   • Expansion of detention facilities under the guise of public safety, masking broader authoritarian objectives.

Silky Shah [30:06]: "The growth of prisons actually doesn't have a correlation with crime. And we actually what we really need to do is provide people with resources and those social safety nets so that we can have everybody be thriving."

Shah emphasizes the need to radically transform immigrant justice by abolishing current detention practices and addressing the systemic issues that perpetuate the incarceration of immigrant communities.

---

Segment 3: Interview with Tim Sahay – Neoliberalism in Crisis

Timestamp: [53:21] – [83:31]

Tim Sahay offers a comprehensive analysis of the declining legitimacy of neoliberalism, both within the United States and globally. As co-editor of the Poly Crisis newsletter and co-director at Johns Hopkins University, Sahay provides a forward-looking perspective on economic policies, international relations, and the future of global trade.

Key Points Discussed:

1. Crisis of Neoliberalism:

   • The financial collapse of 2008 marked the beginning of widespread skepticism towards neoliberal economic models.
   • Persistent joblessness, economic inequality, and the failure to deliver peace and prosperity have eroded public trust.

2. Trumpism and Global Protectionism:

   • Brandon Sutton [54:29]: "We have a return of war pretty much everywhere. We have massive amounts of inequality that is blowing up political coalitions, left, right, populists everywhere."
   • Trump's protectionist policies, including tariffs and trade wars, are seen as desperate measures to maintain American primacy amidst declining global competitiveness.

3. Energy Policies and Green Transition:

   • The U.S. under Trump regresses on green energy investments, favoring fossil fuels and hindering advancements in renewable energy sectors.
   • Contrasted with countries like Brazil and Mexico, which are aggressively investing in green technologies and diversifying their economies.

4. Global Response to U.S. Policies:

   • Countries in the Global South are forging new alliances and reducing reliance on the U.S., seeking economic partnerships with other nations like China and India.
   • The U.S.'s inability to adapt to future-facing industries like AI and renewable energy threatens its long-term economic stability.

5. Technological and Economic Shifts:

   • The rise of AI and increasing demand for data centers are projected to exacerbate energy shortages in the U.S., leading to potential blackouts and economic disruptions.
   • Brandon Sutton [82:09]: "We just don't have the, even the gas turbines, like there's a shortage of gas turbines. So if he's like, okay, you know what? I don't want to feed these new AI hungry data centers, sorry, electricity hungry AI data centers with renewables. I want to feed them with oil and gas and coal and you know."

6. Future of Global Trade and Industry:

   • The U.S. risks being left behind as other nations embrace green technologies and sustainable economic models.
   • Tariffs and protectionist measures may lead to increased costs for American consumers without addressing underlying issues like housing, education, and healthcare affordability.

Tim Sahay [44:19]: "We've got to try and do that by installing, you know, the cheapest, fastest forms of energy. But we basically aren't going to do that."

Sahay advocates for a proactive shift towards sustainable energy and comprehensive economic reforms to restore the legitimacy and effectiveness of neoliberalism.

---

Conclusion

Episode 3550 of The Majority Report offers a critical examination of systemic issues within U.S. immigration policy and the broader economic challenges facing neoliberalism. Through the expert insights of Silky Shah and Tim Sahay, the podcast underscores the urgent need for transformative policies that address deep-rooted injustices and adapt to the evolving global economic landscape. The discussions highlight the interconnectedness of domestic policies, international relations, and economic models, urging listeners to reconsider the foundations upon which current systems are built.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Sam Seder [07:19]: "This is insane, but he said the quiet part out loud at this Breitbart event two days ago now."

• Silky Shah [30:06]: "The growth of prisons actually doesn't have a correlation with crime. And we actually what we really need to do is provide people with resources and those social safety nets so that we can have everybody be thriving."

• Tim Sahay [54:29]: "We have a return of war pretty much everywhere. We have massive amounts of inequality that is blowing up political coalitions, left, right, populists everywhere."

• Tim Sahay [44:19]: "We've got to try and do that by installing, you know, the cheapest, fastest forms of energy. But we basically aren't going to do that."

• Brandon Sutton [82:09]: "We just don't have the, even the gas turbines, like there's a shortage of gas turbines. So if he's like, okay, you know what? I don't want to feed these new AI hungry data centers, sorry, electricity hungry AI data centers with renewables. I want to feed them with oil and gas and coal and you know."

---

For more detailed discussions and insights, visit Majority.FM.

Transcript

[Emma Bigeland]

You are listening to a free version of Majority Report with Sam Steder. To support the show and get another 15 minutes of daily program, go to majority SM please.

[Sam Cedar]

The majority Report with Sam Cedar.

[Emma Bigeland]

It is Thursday, July 31, 2025. My name is Emma Bigeland in for Sam Cedar and this is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Silky Shah, executive director of the Detention Watch Network, author of Unbilled why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition, joins us. And later in the show, Tim Sahay, co editor of the Poly Crisis, joins us to talk about neoliberalism in trouble, question mark and how the rest of the world is responding. Also on the program, inflation numbers accelerate with June showing a rise for the second straight month as tariffs begin to make their effects known. The Fed holds interest rates steady despite Trump having a meltdown over Canada. Joins France recognizing the state of Palestine. And labor is like maybe soon.

[Matt Binder]

Felix Bman said it's a preemptive land acknowledgement.

[Emma Bigeland]

Well, it do, it does seem to be pissing off Israel. The the more that this happens, I do think it matters for diplomatic reasons, not the least of which is Trump being such an insane baby that he says on Truth Social that he's gonna complicate that, that Canada recognizing Palestine complicates their tariff negotiations with the United States. America first baby.

[Matt Binder]

So it's not for the workers here then it's for, for Israel.

[Emma Bigeland]

Trump is also using tariffs as petty punishment against Brazil, imposing 50% because Bolsonaro was prosecuted for trying to do a coup. Brothers in arms. Besant unconvincingly walks back his explicit comments about privatizing Social Security. Trump's EPA moves to destroy all US climate regulations, undoing a key 2009 finding that says greenhouse gases are harmful. Half of Senate Democrats vote to block offensive arms sales to Israel, but the measure does fail. Alyssa Slotkin, she had other things to do. She missed the vote. She was on Stephen Colbert's show Priorities. The family of Virginia Guthrey, one of Epstein's victims, begs the Trump administration not to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell.

[Brandon Sutton]

You stole it from me.

[Emma Bigeland]

Oh, that was telling in and of itself, right? Viewing a teenage girl as a commodity.

[Matt Binder]

What's your name? Oh, yes, the masseuse. Yeah, I think he took it from me. I was very upset about that. I've, I have tens of thousands of plays, but I remember that.

[Emma Bigeland]

And lastly, Brown University settles with the Trump administration following Harvard's Cowardice. All this and more on today's Majority Report. It's good that we kind of held off on the. Thank you, Harvard thing. Thank you, Harvard. That a lot of other outlets left of center were kind of doing because they capitulated. Other elite universities are capitulating. But. Hello, everybody. It's an M. Majority Report Thursday. Hello, Matt. Hello, Brian. Hello, audience. It's good to be back. I missed Omar Fateh yesterday, which I realized, you know, I was excited to have him on and I'd been kind of, Matt had been pushing and then I joined the bandwagon and then of course, we booked him on a day that I forgot that I was off, which happened with Zoron as well, because.

[Matt Binder]

Kind of we do a lot of politician stuff on Wednesdays. That's usually the day you take off.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yes. And every other Wednesday I'm off. And this happened with Zordon. But when we're working by the rules of magical thinking, I wasn't, I mean, exactly.

[Matt Binder]

Don't do everything the same.

[Emma Bigeland]

You know, the world is really just I'm at the center of it. And all of my actions are in some way my actions as related to work hours are somehow setting off some chain butterfly effect that affects, it's like.

[Matt Binder]

We'Re in the same shirt for Timberwolves games.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah, well, which I don't do actually.

[Matt Binder]

I'm not superstitious at all.

[Emma Bigeland]

It'd be super weird if someone, someone like would do that and wear the same shirt the night before Giants games and sleep in it.

[Matt Binder]

Yeah.

[Tim Sahay]

Anyway, seems like that's been working really well too.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah. Recently. Sorry, I don't, shouldn't do that signal. Recently is not going that great. Anyway, so yesterday you guys played this, that at a Breitbart event. I think you played it in the fun half. So let's, let's, for the free audience, let's dive into this. At an event for Breitbart News, Scott Bessant, the Treasury secretary, he basically admitted that they're trying to privatize Social Security, which you're not supposed to say. You're supposed to do what Donald Trump does and say we are not cutting Medicaid while like aggressively whipping votes for his one big beautiful bill that fundamentally guts the entire program of Medicaid. You're supposed to just lie and besent didn't get the memo. He was also just a probably in a room of a bunch of other more traditional conservatives that really care about immiserating people. So he felt comfortable admitting that Republicans are trying to Privatize Social Security.

[Matt Binder]

Well, that's the thing is, like, I think he's always around like, like people like Cruella de Vil and something like that. He seems like sort of an arch villain rich guy, but now he's in front of cameras at a Breitbart conference. And I don't think he's really able to sort of adjust how he presents himself.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah. And the bill that, the budget bill that the Republicans passed did create this thing called Trump. They're calling it Trump Accounts, and it's functionally an IRA that's designed to exclude immigrants. It's building off of this notion of baby bonds, but it creates a tax deferred tax shelter, tax deferred investment account where the government would supposedly put $1,000 in it. And parents can contribute up to $5,000 to this account. Oh, yeah.

[Matt Binder]

Because poor parents have just that much money to just put in an account.

[Emma Bigeland]

Like that, Right, Exactly. This is an ira. And it also, in terms of the legislation, which is a little foggy, but it does say that the funds have to be invested in portfolios that are tied to the United States stock index, and that the. It would be managed. I don't know if it's exactly clear on this, but implicit in the legislation is that it would be managed by private firms. And like, say you have a 7% return on $1,000. Then when the kid is 18, that would be $3,570 that this child could use in the future to start a business, pay for a home, or use it towards their education. Those are the three stipulations for this small amount of money.

[Sam Cedar]

Eliminate stan a tent.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah. And this also does nothing. And you can't take it out. Right. This does nothing to address childhood poverty as they're growing up to be 18. It just gives you a little bit of seed money in theory, if you want to start a business. And it helps inflate Wall street because it's more and more money as babies are born that goes into the stock market, which helps speculators. The more money is involved in the stock market. So this is insane, but he said the quiet part out loud at this Breitbart event two days ago now. And then this is what he said this or yesterday. This is what he said this morning on cnbc. But first, let's hear his. His comments at Breitbart.

[Scott Bessant]

Understand everything about your pet. So if you had these accounts, why are you investing it this way? How are you doing it? How can you understand the power of compound Interest and also at the end of the day that I'm not sure when the distribution level date should be, whether should it be 30 and you can buy a house, should it be 60. But in a way it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security. Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out that to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds.

[Emma Bigeland]

Of thousands of dollars it's defined benefit plan. That's such a hilarious way to essentially say it's basically like a pension. That's the problem is that we've moved away from defined benefit plans to defined contributions. But the where you put the onus on the individual which is exactly what these like child Iraq accounts designed as baby bonds are there to do. Yeah. Apparently that the legislation says it has to be invested in a quote eligible investment like a mutual fund or an exchange traded fund, which is an etf. So that's just a giveaway to Wall street. Although there is rich people so they.

[Matt Binder]

Can move, give less money to taxes and call it actually it's for babies.

[Emma Bigeland]

Right, right. And so he said that quite openly. There was enormous backlash and he went on CNBC to try to clean it up this morning. I don't know, I mean that seemed pretty clear to me.

[Matt Binder]

Did people misunderstand that some of your comments and extrapolated to Social Security. Extrapolated to Social Security. Look buddy, I know it's early, it's an ink. It's, it's what, 7:49 tomorrow, wake up, drink some coffee, write the quote down that he said yesterday.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yes, we just heard it like we.

[Matt Binder]

Extrapolated to Social Security. He's the one who said Social Security. This sort of, this is, it's a laziness that is self serving and intentionally self serving to not actually drill down what he said that you're asking him about.

[Emma Bigeland]

Well, it's cowardly. We're going to have crystal ball on tomorrow to talk about her interview with Alyssa Slotkin who can show us how you actually interview politics, politicians. This is somebody that's terrified the person across from him and the Trump administration benefits from this because they're trying to intimidate all of our institutions at the moment.

[Matt Binder]

This is, this is PR fix.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yep.

[Matt Binder]

Did people misunderstand that some of your comments and extrapolated. Extrapolated to Social Security, Mr. Secretary, or.

[Sam Cedar]

Was that actually something you're thinking about, the privatization?

[Scott Bessant]

No, it was ridiculous. I was giving an interview and I was talking about the $1,000 baby bonds that every American citizen Every newborn is going to get. The Democrats hate this program because it brings capitalism and markets to every American, not just the their constituents at the upper end. And can you, over time, I like.

[Emma Bigeland]

The idea that the poorest among us are not experiencing capitalism enough. I would argue they're experiencing it quite acutely.

[Matt Binder]

Again, this is just going to be a way for rich people to sink money that's away from taxes toward like trust funds essentially. And yeah, when you hear let the market decide, that actually means like let the rich people just do as they will.

[Emma Bigeland]

Right. And the idea that this could be in any way a replacement for Social Security is laughable. I mean, you would run through average monthly Social Security payments with some of this within the first few months in terms of the distribution that they're talking about, even if you were to be contributing both like the maximum amount every year for $5,000. And there has been analysis, as Matt is saying, that this is designed to benefit people basically who are in the top 20% of income.

[Matt Binder]

I mean, it's sort of like the charter school thing where it's like, oh, we'll give you a $5,000 voucher to go to private school, but private school costs $15,000. Poor people aren't going to pay the extra $10,000, but the rich people who would have paid $15,000, they basically get a $5,000.

[Emma Bigeland]

Exactly, exactly. And it's no wonder that Texas is trying that because.

[Brandon Sutton]

Right.

[Emma Bigeland]

It's taking money that should be going from taxes to fund public schools to give a coupon to wealthy people to get private education that they would paid.

[Matt Binder]

For full price for anyway.

[Emma Bigeland]

Exactly.

[Scott Bessant]

And you know, over time the compounding is going to be an incredible supplement to Social Security. Not a replacement. It is a compliment. And you know, what I said was Social Security will continue as it is. It is intact. Everyone will get their check every month. But it's very exciting to me that there could be a big payout at the end of when people turn 59 or 60 for the first time, Joe, because as you know, bottom 50% of households in America do not have financial assets. And President Trump is giving them financial assets. You know, I believe that the reason you all have the mess you are about to have in New York, Caracas on the Hudson is because people have given up on a market based system. And the Trump administration is going to make every newborn a shareholder and they are going to have a stake in the system. When you have a stake in the system, you do not want to break.

[Emma Bigeland]

You know, that is the American dream. Is for every newborn to be a shareholder.

[Matt Binder]

This is what's been happening for basically all of our lifetimes as wages have stagnated and rich people have gotten richer. Oh, we're going to add the stock market is going to be the great democratizer of capitalism. Well, who is benefiting from the stock market?

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah, I mean, we're going to be talking about this with Tim in just a bit about neoliberalism and the privatization of our social services failing and how the world is coping with that. And in the United States, you have like the, we have Trump's tariff policy that is this protectionism that is entirely counterproductive, but it's still very much a reaction to, to the privatization of social services that we're talking about here over the past 30, 40, 50 years.

[Matt Binder]

I mean, and a political realization that actually you can't leave everything to the markets because clearly, like tariffs is not a free market position, right?

[Emma Bigeland]

No, it's not. He's saying, I'm going to, he's, he's. Trump is implementing economic policy to punish Canada for recognizing Palestine. And because he doesn't, like Lula, the leader down in Brazil. This is what, like, right wing populism entails, like the petty whims of one man because of his own politics. That's exactly what it is. Jennifer from St. Louis. Compound interest isn't what you're leveraging from a stock market account. Compound interest comes from a savings vehicle, which is not what the stock market is. Also, notice that Bessant there did not say how Social Security would continue, just that it would.

[Sam Cedar]

You're playing the game called capitalism.

[Emma Bigeland]

Does it continue as a government program or does it continue as an investment portfolio? That's the question. And so this is what Republicans have wanted my entire life.

[Matt Binder]

Look, they used to think they were actually going to get rid of Roe. Like, we can stop playing coy about their intentions on this sort of stuff.

[Emma Bigeland]

I mean, they're cutting Medicare. They also were saying we're not going to cut Medicare. But because of sequestration, this insane bill cuts Medicare. You think they're not coming for Social Security next? In a second, we're going to be talking to Silky Shah about the immigration detention pipeline and why, what we need to do to radically transform immigrant justice. But first, a word from our sponsors. Hey, don't forget. Remember that doctor's appointment? That doctor's appointment you were supposed to book a while ago, the one that you forgot about. You got sidetracked. You completely just blanked.

[Tim Sahay]

Okay.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah, yeah, I'm Sorry to happen to me today, give everybody anxiety. And I'm actually thinking about this too because I need my eyes checked. I need to probably get my eyes checked, get an upgrade on my, my prescription.

[Brandon Sutton]

So to Scott Bessant.

[Emma Bigeland]

Whoa. Zoc Doc will make it easy for me. I'm going to do that via Zoc Doc after the this after the show. Leave it to a professional. You don't have to call, you can just do it online and social media feeds, they're filled with different health trends, all of this stuff. But really you've got to go see a doctor. And if you get ZocDoc, you can do so online and instantly book an appointment. ZocDoc is a free app. It's a website where you can search and compare high quality in network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. Zocdoc lets you book in network appointments with more than 100,000 doctors across every specialty. You can filter for doctors who are near you take your insurance are a good fit. You can find the type of care that you're looking for. From a good bedside manner to fast wait times to doctors with the best listening skills. You can see their actual appointment openings. Choose a time slot that works for you and click to instantly book a visit. Appointments made through Zocdoc also happen fast, typically within just 24 to 72 hours of booking. You can even get same day appointments. I've used ZocDoc for years. It's allowed me to find honestly my favorite doctor that I've had here in Brooklyn, somebody you know that I'm going to stick with for a long time. And ZocDoc just has it like I don't know, it's hard to call and it's hard to get through to doctor's offices, especially if they like work at the hospital one day and then they have their office hours and all of that. And playing phone tag with the doctor or the dentist is just the worst. ZocDoc solves all of that for you. I would like to thank zocdoc for sponsoring today's episode. Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to Zocdoc.com majority to find and instantly book a top rated Doctor today. That's z o c-o c.com Majority Zocdoc.com Majority we will put a link below in the description wherever you you're listening to or watching this. And lastly, going online without ExpressVPN is like putting a sign in your front lawn that says hey, I do not have A lock on my front door. Come on in. Steal my stuff. Every time you connect to an unencrypted network in cafes, hotels, airports and more, your data is not secure. Any hacker on the same network can gain access to and steal your personal information, your passwords, you, your bank information, all of that. It doesn't take much technical knowledge to hack someone. A smart 12 year old could do it. So what can you do to protect yourself? Well, visit expressvpn.com majority and you can get up to four extra months free. Your data is valuable. Hackers can make serious money by selling your personal information on the dark web. But ExpressVPN stops hackers from stealing your data by creating a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the Internet. And ExpressVPN is super secure. It would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past ExpressVPN's encryption. It's easy to use. You just fire up the app on any of your devices, a one click button, get protected and stay private. ExpressVPN is a go to for me as I was just talking about in airports, in particular cafes. I like to do some reading or work in cafes and I'll be using the WI fi network. You just click the button and you're good to go. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com majority that's E X P R E S s v p n.com Majority to find out how you can get up to four extra months free. Expressvpn.com Majority all right folks, quick break and when we come back, we'll be joined by Silky Shah, author of Unbilled why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition.

[Sam Cedar]

It's.

[Emma Bigeland]

We are back and we are joined now by Soki Shah, executive director of the Detention Watch Network and author of Unbilled Walls why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition. So he thanks so much for coming on the show today.

[Tim Sahay]

Yeah, really great to be here with you. Thanks for having me.

[Emma Bigeland]

Of course. So Your book explores U.S. immigration policy, its relationship to mass incarce and obviously this could not be more relevant right now as the Trump administration is building these sadistic concentration camps in Florida and shipping folks off to seekot. And it's a dark moment in history within this subject, to put it mildly in your view. Let's start really I think, with tracing the history of immigration enforcement as it exists today. I know your organization, Detention Watch Network in part began as a reaction to the 1996 immigration laws. And we can go there eventually, but I know Your contention is that it goes back a little bit before that. So, so when did you see our. Or when do you see our incarceration immigration systems as they exist today, beginning in our history?

[Tim Sahay]

Yeah, I mean, the one thing to realize is that, like, part of the reason the US has the largest immigration detention system in the world is because we have the largest prison and system in the world. So other countries like Australia and Denmark and Israel and other places have actually offshored detention for a very long time. And this is, you know, this is a new thing that's happening under Trump. But the existence of us having, you know, right now some 60,000 people in immigration detention is because we have the largest prison system in the world. And that really dates back to the 70s and 80s when we started to see the rise of mass incarceration. And, and really, actually the immigration detention system as we know it today really started in the early 1980s when Haitian refugees were arriving. And, you know, the US was backing a dictatorship in Haiti at the time and deeming all these black migrants economic refugee, economic refugees not worthy of asylum. So they were just like, we're going to indefinitely detain them. And then people were like, well, this is pretty racist. And their response was, well, let's start detaining more people. And so they started detaining a lot of Central Americans who are fleeing US Backed wars in the region. And the detention system started to grow. And so over time, as mass incarceration was growing, there actually was less bed space for, at the time, Immigration and Naturalization Service to use, you know, federal prisons for immigration detention. So they became a sort of mass jailer in, in their own right. They were like, okay, we're going to have immigration detention now. And neoliberalism was on the rise. So private prison companies were seeing immigration as an opportunity and all those things were kind of coming together. Similarly, you see the war on drugs, like, you know, in full force at that point. And that's when you first see the policy of mandatory detention become law in 1988 in the Anti Drug Abuse Act. And so all these things are really interconnected with the rise of mass incarceration. And I think, you know, what we see now is actually in so many ways, the growth of the prison system and law enforcement and the increase on all those levels has led to the growth of the immigration detention system and mass deportation. But also now the way that Trump is operating, you're seeing how much the sort of like pathological obsession with mass deportation is changing, you know, prisons and policing. And also the military in the US.

[Emma Bigeland]

And the, the, the drug war piece, was the internationalization of it and the kind of importation of drugs into the United States a way to really begin, or did it begin, this almost extrajudicial piece of our incarceration system? And that almost exploits people being in between citizenship or not necessarily by certain kind of legal machinations. They justified it by saying they were outside of the law in some way. Like when we're talking about the drug war and drug trafficking, these caricatures and this like way to kind of warehouse people in response to that. It feels like that's where that fissure began to a degree.

[Tim Sahay]

Yeah. No, I think there's no question that the drug war in the 80s especially just really created more conditions for people to be incarcerated, to be in jails without having the right to bond. And these things start to be applied to immigrants. And the thing to understand and the way I talk about is like there's this sort of layers of punishment for immigrants. So if they are convicted of a drug crime, then they're serving their sentence for that, but then they are in civil immigration proceedings afterwards, which, you know, there's no sentence. Actually, when somebody's in immigration detention, they can spend months or years inside, depending on what's happening with their case. And then if they decide, you know, if they are deported and they have a lot of family here or their livelihoods are here and they try to come back, then they could be prosecuted for reentry, which would be 18 months to two years in federal prison. And then you have additional drug crimes. It could be up to 20 years in federal prison. So there's all these layers of punishment that happen. And what was happening at that time with this sort of implementation of mandatory detention, which grew a lot in 1996, when we saw the passage of two laws which are called the 1996 immigration laws, one of which was a response to the Oklahoma City bombing, where they actually stripped more and more rights from people. So before 1996, it was this framework of resident versus non resident. If you had a green card, if you had some sort of status, you still had these certain rights to due process. But after 1996, once you started to, they started to expand the scope of crimes which included these arbitrary crimes, including the crimes against moral turpitude, like really ridiculous broad frames. And so many more people were funneled into the system and it became resident versus non resident to citizen versus non citizen. So even now when people are alarmed that green card holders or people who have some sort of status are being detained and put in deportation proceedings. Actually, that goes back to 1996. I think the difference now is that actually they're using that sort of erosion of due process and rights for immigrants as a tool to carry out the authoritarianism that we're seeing by this government. And, you know, really a lot of suppression of dissent.

[Emma Bigeland]

So this is an era where Bill Clinton just passed the crime bill, he just passed welfare reform, AKA cuts to the social safety net, and then he signed this legislation, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It's a mouthful, but you just kind of explained the contours of it. The idea that green card holders can be deported if they have convicted certain crimes. But then this 96 bill expanded what crimes would make it that so that folks are eligible for deportation. And this kind of seems to set up the exact framework of the conversation that we're having across administrations around immigration, the good immigrants versus the bad immigrants. And like, if you could just expand on that framework and how this kind of point in 1996 is a real pivot point for immigration enforcement around criminals versus non criminals.

[Tim Sahay]

Yeah, I mean, at that period of time, this sort of idea of the quote, unquote, criminal alien was the thing to target, and it was sort of synonymous with illegal alien. Like those, those terms were being used a lot to target immigrants. But the thing that was also happening in 1996 with what we call IRA, IRA, the law that you just referenced was that they actually made it also harder for people to leave the country and come back. So if people, they had these things called the three and ten year bar. So if people on the were in the country for six months without, you know, kind of having documentation, they could end up having a three year bar to reenter. If they were in for over a year, they could have a 10 year bar to reenter, reenter the country. So then people started to feel trapped in the country also. And that also increases the number of people who are now like consider undocumented. Right. And so I think. Yeah, sorry, sorry.

[Emma Bigeland]

No, I just wanted to interject briefly just to say that, like, because prior to that, there were a lot of kind of more casual crossings of borders maybe in like the 60s or 70s, where people would come to the US, make some money for a little while, and then maybe go back home to their Central American country or Mexico or wherever and be back with their family as opposed to being separated for say like 10 years, that that farmer who just died in the ICE raid at the cannabis facility, for example, he'd been working there at that farm for 10 years and sending back money to his wife and daughter for that entire period of. Prior to this mass incarceration pipeline. He may have gone back and forth during that period.

[Tim Sahay]

Absolutely. And I think that that's the, you know, a combination of things were happening. NAFTA happened in that period of time as well. And also the like Border Patrol came up with this prevention through deterrence strategy that also made the border that much hardened. So the combination of the shift in laws and this more of this infrastructure at that at the border also kind of grew the undocumented population, while at the same time kind of hurting the livelihoods of agricultural industry and other industries in Mexico through things like nafta. And so all of those things are happening at the same time. And as you mentioned, the crime bill and welfare reform. So all of this is happening. I do think that the thing that happens with 1996, it really solidifies this idea that immigration is about public safety, which is a lie that's constantly told to us, really. Immigration is about family relationships. It's about seeking refuge, especially for those people who've been on the receiving end of US Foreign policy. And it's about labor, which is like a conversation that for some reason we can't have. It's about these other things. But what happens then is this public safety narrative gets pushed and then, you know, all these things become law. And then 9, 11 happens and you have so much more political will and institutional will and so many more resources going to this. And there is this sort of national security framework also at play. But I think we think about the global war on terror as a lot of injection of resources into, you know, what happened in the Middle east and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, really devastating impacts. But the domestic war on terror really operated through the criminal legal system and made the jails, local jails, actually a gateway to the deportation process process even more. So you see these kinds of ways that these, these systems are emerging more and more. And 96 really catapulted it. And then you have so many more resources, money going to it. And on the good immigrant versus bad immigrant, I mean, I do think that in, in so many ways I spend a lot of time on this in the book I wrote, but I do think the Obama administration really, really reinforced this idea and as a strategy to push for comprehensive immigration reform. And part of the problem is that they' some people are deserving of status and some people aren't deserving. And so they're saying, oh, we're going to criminalize those immigrants who are deserving of detention, deportation, and have more hardened militarization at the border. But what that does is it ends up dehumanizing immigrants and makes it harder to make the case for all the people that they're trying to make the case for. And it really kind of gave a lot of fodder to the Republicans that there are. You know, I mean, this is the narrative right now, right? Like the narrative is that good immigrant versus bad immigrant becomes all immigrants are bad. And that's what we're sort of seeing. And that's really the danger of these frames. Over time, they've just expanded the scope of who can be eligible for detention and deportation.

[Emma Bigeland]

And I keep going back to the notion of gang databases, which were very much an outgrowth of the tough on crime policies of the 80s and 90s and how the you could. There was no accountability. If you were black or brown and you were in certain usually urban communities, you would be put into this database and that would be used by police to trump up charges against you in order to make ties that you were related to this gang and incarcerate you for longer in offenses that normally wouldn't justify that kind of thing. And we're seeing this being used right now as justification for deportation with the tools that were created in the war on terror, which you just hit on. And like this is the most, in my view, important point in our history that explains the moment that we're in in a variety of different ways, the genocide in Gaza, but also of course, the explosion of this kind of surveillance technology and things like just no due process the way that the in. First of all, after 911 the Department of Homeland Security was founded and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, you know, people acted like AOC was such a radical in 2018 when she was saying abolish ICE. I mean, I'm older than the Department of Homeland Security as are you. So like, if you could just talk a little bit about the post 911 expansion of the tools and almost like federal federalizing of the already racist policing practices that I was kind of just talking a bit about.

[Tim Sahay]

Sure, yeah. I mean I, you know, I grew up in Texas and actually the organizing I started to do and I was, I was in college when 911 happened. And then I became an organizer after I graduated and I was a sort of criminal justice organizer. But everything that we were doing in Texas was fighting these new prisons at the border that were all for immigrants. And we were seeing the growth of not just ICE detention centers, but also the U.S. marshal Service and the Bureau of Prisons growing these facilities to hold more and more immigrants and immigrants who were being prosecuted en masse at the border. So one of the things that started after. After 911 and during the Bush era was something called Operation Streamline that actually would have a dozen people go through a sort of a hearing for their case at once while they're being shackled at their ankles and their wrists and also their waist because they had entered the border without documentation. So, you know, unlawful entry, and then getting six months in U.S. marshals jails. If they did it twice, they could get, like I said before, two years in federal prison. And this started to grow and grow and grow the number of people who are going through, who are then in, you know, serving a sentence for basically crossing the border without documentation. And so I think that is something to keep in mind. You see the growth of ICE detention, you see the growth of the Bureau of Prisons and U.S. marshal Service to incarcerate more and more immigrants. And all of that's happening. And actually that policy, Operation Streamline, is a sort of precursor to what we see in 2018 during the family separation policy under Trump. This, you know, this policy, again, what they were doing was saying, oh, these parents are coming. We're going to prosecute them and then ship their kids to far away, you know, detention camps or shelters and separate those families. And I think that thing about abolish ice, it was like, okay, I get that. But also there's all these other entities, Border Patrol, U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, of course, all these other entities involved. And so I think what we were seeing was a merger of the criminal justice system and also the immigration system happen at all these different scales and more and more ICE police collaboration. So the 287 program, which maybe people have heard of, which allows local police to actually have to be immigration enforcers, that first becomes law in 1996. But it was after 911 that the Bush administration said, oh, in response to 9 11, we're going to start implementing this. And so they start implementing it in Arizona with Sheriff Joe Arpaio implementing it in North Carolina and other places. And so you see also more and more people being targeted. And as a strategy, Arpaio was very intentionally, you know, racist and a xenophobe and doing everything he could to really warehouse more immigrants. And so all of those policies enabled a lot of these local sheriffs who see their role as, quote, unquote, protecting the homeland, to. To then target more immigrants and have and jails be the sort of gateway to the deportation process.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah. And another through line that we're, we're hitting on here is either the, when Democrats get into power, they're either exacerbating these systems or doing sort of, you know, Obama did attempt immigration reform and daca, you know, was, was an attempt, but as you write, like private prisons for immigrant attentions, it exploded under Obama. I mean, could you talk a little bit about how immigrant attention, the privatization of it and Tom Holman, one of the most notorious fascists in this administration on this front came, was working for Obama at the time, what his administration did and didn't do to address this crisis.

[Tim Sahay]

Yeah. I mean, so right when Obama came in, and this is actually when I started working at Detention Watch Network, there was a lot, I mean we were all. There was so much mystique around Obama. I don't know if people remember this, but it was so much like, oh my gosh, things are going to change. This is going to be incredible. And there was this whole intention to reform the detention system because there had been so many deaths in facilities. I mean, the average age of people who were dying was in their 30s. There was new York Times reports and Washington Post reports, like so much around how horrible the conditions in detention were. But there was response was to actually just build nicer facilities. And because at the time there was some 350 facilities, a lot of county jails in use, and there were so many varied actors operating those. The private prison companies were much more ready to play ball and be like, we'll create your nice, you know, perfect little detention centers in Texas and other places. And they actually had this facility Carnes in Texas where they had this whole dog and pony show of look, we have resident advisors and we have softer materials and we wear khakis and this and that. And it was a horrible facility. And then eventually they turned it into a family detention center where kids were going inside with their parents and losing weight and having all these psychological traumas. And so just to say so much of that era was, you know, to me, why, like these reformist approaches actually hurt us in so many ways. The other thing that Obama administration did was expand quote, unquote, so called alternatives to detention, which are ankle monitoring programs or other sort of GPS monitoring. We see a lot of like wristwatches now, like those smartwatches or phones, smartphones. But a lot of what that did instead of like the strategy was like, hey, do this instead of detaining people. And then what they did Was say, okay, actually we're going to grow the detention system. We're also going to grow these surveillance models, like alternatives to detention, and have people who would otherwise never have been detained now have an ankle monitor and have, like, you know, restriction of movement.

[Emma Bigeland]

And now the Trump administration is expanding on.

[Tim Sahay]

Right now. They're expanding. And they're also, I mean, the Biden administration took that to another level. Some 300,000 people were under some form of alternative to detention during his administration.

[Emma Bigeland]

Right.

[Tim Sahay]

And all those people, now Trump has access to their information to target them for deportation. And so that, you know, that's also really concerning to see how these attempts at reform under Obama just made the machinery much larger. And like I said before, also that sort of framework of felons, not families, quote, unquote, or gang members, not grandmothers, like, that actually gave a lot of sort of credence to Republican attacks to say that some immigrants were deserving and just like, really, really sparked a lot in that administration. And that's why, you know, that's part of the reason why they couldn't pass comprehensive immigration reform. But even then, when they tried to do that in 2013, I mean, there was some 46 billion for border militarization in that bill. So just really showing how much, like, in a lot of ways, the Democrats sort of, like, paved some of the way for what we're seeing now.

[Emma Bigeland]

Right. And if anybody's listening to this and say, you know, saying, okay, well, what are other models? I mean, these funds could be going towards processing people and not criminalizing them. Like, the, the. This fascist administration is exploiting this legal gray area that has been, frankly, purposefully not dealt with in many ways, because it gives more power to the state for so many folks where it shouldn't be this legal gray area, because we know that asylum protections are both internationally and domestically codified, but they have no teeth to them. And so this has just kind of been a funnel system to warehouse people.

[Tim Sahay]

Yeah. I mean.

[Emma Bigeland]

Or deport them.

[Tim Sahay]

Yeah, yeah. To warehouse and deport them. I mean, that's the thing. I think there's the. In a lot of ways, people don't always see the detention system or understand what it does, but when you have a detention center in a community, it actually makes it so much easier for them to target people for deportation. So it becomes a facilitator and sometimes a driver. Like, whenever the Adelanto Detention center opened up in Southern California, actually San Bernardino county in that area had the highest ICE arrest after that point. And so this is this is a really important piece of the puzzle is like their growth of the detention system. And with this most recent bill, they have now $45 billion to grow this system exponentially. And so I think we're really concerned about that growth and what that does to actually increase the deportations that we're seeing. And I also, to your point about just like erosion of these rights, I mean, the reality is that the first bill that Trump signed was the Lake and Riley act, which was what politicians do, repeatedly exploit a tragedy and kind of create stoke a moral panic and then extend state control. But like 50 something Democrats actually signed onto that bill because of so much of this panic and because the Democrats don't actually have a lot of vision around this issue and need to offer something and need to offer different solutions and there are opportunities. I think this enforcement only approach has hurt us so much in terms of what we can do about this issue. And I think similarly, you know, Trump gets a lot of attention. But Greg Abbott, the, you know, governor of Texas, also stoked a lot of this with his busing scheme. And again, I think the, the sort of scarcity mindset allows immigrants to be scapegoated more and more. And I think we, you know, the hope is to kind of like push away for that and say stop putting so much money, billions of dollars into immigration enforcement. And actually what does it look like if that money went to education and healthcare and other needs that we have as communities.

[Emma Bigeland]

Right. And it's, it's a tale as old as time in many ways in that money is being, we don't have a scarcity problem. We actually are the richest country on the planet that's just being concentrated at the very top in ways that rival the pre Great Depression era. And instead folks like immigrants bear the brunt of it. So I guess that brings us kind of to the, the current, present day. I've been quite alarmed by the crime panic that was exploited in the lead up to the election, which included violent videos that were heavily racialized of actions that were, you know, everything's on camera now, so it's pumped to the top of people's social media feeds. And these same billionaires that own our social media companies also are in bed with surveillance technology, like with Palantir and other mass incarceration vehicles that would benefit from more incarceration of immigrants and of people being painted as criminals. Even though we know that crime now has been precipitously dropping for three years in a row. It was hit highs in the pandemic but it was a temporary spike. But it felt like that moment created a lot of opportunities for people, whether it's Target claiming that shoplifting is the reason that their business is down, when we know that that wasn't the case. It was just that they weren't being profitable or even more insidiously here, being used to stoke further detention policies, even though crime is down generally. So, I mean, that's. That's barely a question. But it's just kind of my assessment of this confluence of factors, and I'm wondering what your view of it is.

[Tim Sahay]

Yeah, I mean, I think it's a real challenge right now because in, you know, in 2020 and leading up to 2020 with the black Lives Matter movement, there was actually so much opportunity to see, to have that sort of racial reckoning and really see the role that the crisis of mass incarceration and the crisis of racist and discriminatory policing and what it has done. And now it feels like it's actually so, so hard to have those conversations. And people are really leaning into these sort of innocence frameworks without realizing that actually the U.S. i mean, you know, 40 some years ago, we didn't have this many people incarcerated, we didn't have this many people in detention. The detention system barely existed. And I think we really need to sort of reckon with the fact that these systems, and as you were talking about before the rise in neoliberalism, welfare reform, all these things that have reduced social safety nets and now end up warehousing more black and brown and indigenous and working class and poor white communities as well, like in this country, like, that's what these systems have become. And I think so much of this is about the political economy. And essentially this, like, bill is kind of a jobs program at some level too. When you're looking at the number of jobs that ICE is going to be providing and all those things. And for us, so much of our challenge when we're trying to shut down a detention center in a community is local officials saying we're going to lose revenue from the federal government and also we're going to lose jobs. It's not actually about, you know, this question of detaining people or not. It becomes about this political economy. And so I think we have to really reckon with that and move away from these economies that are very extractive, like incarceration. And I think that's such a big part of this. And the crime panic is, you know, it's a distraction. It's an attempt to kind of really, you know, against scapegoat folks to sort of gain like, gain political points. But the reality is that, you know, the growth of prisons actually doesn't have a correlation with crime. And we actually what we really need to do is provide people with resources and those social safety nets so that we can have everybody be thriving.

[Emma Bigeland]

Well, can't thank you enough for coming on the show today. Soki Shah, executive director of the Detention Watch Network, doing great work over there. But also you can check out the book Unbuild why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition. We'll put a link to that below, wherever people are listening to or watching this. Thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

[Tim Sahay]

Thank you so much for having me.

[Emma Bigeland]

Of course. Quick break and when we come back, we're going to be talking to Tim Sahay of the Polycrisis newsletter and also of the Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins University about the kind of almost Trumpism going international economically and the crisis of neoliberalism. Be right back.

[Sam Cedar]

It.

[Emma Bigeland]

We are back. And we are joined now by Tim Sahai, co editor of the Poly Crisis with Kate McKenzie, which is published by Phenomenal World and co director of the Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins University. Tim, thanks so much for coming on the show today.

[Brandon Sutton]

Pleasure to be here.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah, of course. So you had you and Kate, I would really encourage people to follow the Poly Crisis just because it's it so succinctly describes the almost just collapse of the neoliberal period. Or if we're I don't want to count our chickens, I'm hoping that it collapses. Although the way that it's collapsing, at least in the United States, is with this protectionism and racism. So it depends how it goes. But just your view of like how Trump right now fits into this seemingly kind of global clamoring for new economic models and systems and how it's changing that move away from some of those systems. Yeah.

[Brandon Sutton]

I mean, I'd also add the protectionism and the tariffs and the wars. Right. So like whatever stable, peaceful, liberal, multilateral political system seem to have existed from the unipolar moment of the 1990s is no more. We have a return of war pretty much everywhere. We have massive amounts of inequality that is blowing up, political coalitions, left, right, populists everywhere. So there's not political stability. There's no safety and security. So the two things that neoliberalism was supposed to deliver, peace and prosperity are no more. And I think where sort of Trump fits in is almost like a desperate kind of rearguard action to keep American primacy, to keep the US Sort of still dominant. And it feels like the future is slipping away from the U.S. so, you know, I spent a lot of the last six months traveling and asking countries and asking people in Mexico and Brazil, in India, in Europe, in the U.K. you know, how are you responding to Trumpism? What are you thinking about your country's future? And, you know, one of the big answers was America doesn't seem to be giving up on the industries of the future. And it's sort of like a throwback to the 1950s of a fossil fuel economy of giant gas SUVs, and, you know, things that the rest of the world doesn't want. And it seemed to them that this is the world that they've never been in, where America is not the leading technological power that is producing an attractive set of consumer goods and an attractive culture that everybody wants to be a part of. And the rest of the world was just like, maybe we should just charge ahead and get on with it.

[Emma Bigeland]

When would you say that the crisis of legitimacy of neoliberalism truly began? Would you point it to the financial collapse of 2008? Because I think that's probably a good place for maybe our conversation to start moving towards the current political moment.

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah, absolutely. I think 2008 is like the big crash that, you know, completely dominates our lives. Right. So the massive amount of joblessness, unemployment, you know, people not being able to form families, not have kids, it's really sort of serious, serious sort of decline in expectations about the future. And the other moment I would point to is the massive instability from the wars in the Middle east, you know, the American invasion of Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Like, you know, that is the kind of the breaking apart of the neoliberal order. Again, if you can't deliver peace and prosperity, that's what it means to have a legitimate sort of political system. And it's that crisis legitimacy that's just kind of accelerated since then.

[Emma Bigeland]

And there is, like a bit of a recognition of it, too, or there was even with Biden in his term in that. You cited this in your piece. His usage of the Defense Production act to lift baby formula from Australia to the United States, because, what do you know, the market did not effectively deliver baby formula in this country. Speak about that as an example. That's like, more emblematic of what we're talking about here.

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah, I think, like, the shortages during the pandemic, like that crisis in 2022 for about four to six months, like if you had families and you know, we basically couldn't find baby formula for about six months. And the state kind of had to step in because this company, Abbott, that was making the baby formula, you know, was forced to shut down because of fears of contamination. And they were put, you know, serious sort of safety concerns. And at that point for four to six months, like families are running around trying to find infant formula. And so the state steps in and says, okay, like we really need to fix this problem. And that, that is the crisis of neoliberalism. Right before we would have just said let the market handle it, let some private companies go out and fix it. But if once you shortages on essential things like energy and food, you know, that's, that's when the state has to step in and try and pick some fix that kind of problem. And we had this like hilarious sort of episode of like a continuous Berlin airlift sort of airlift of C17s, like military C17s like flying off to Australia to pick up millions and millions of cans of baby formula. So that's, that kind of tells you that like, okay, this is a problem of shortages that forces the state to step in to guarantee basic goods.

[Emma Bigeland]

And it is almost poetic that Biden would be using a military, a Korean War era authority that's basically militaristic in its, in what it's designed to target to fix basically domestic shortfalls of like providing for its citizenry. This is very much what the global north seems to be dealing with right now when it comes to neoliberalism. You wrote about this too in your piece how failing to deliver right now for their citizenry domestically is causing this crisis in wealthier nations of this economic model which is distinct from the global south, which I want to talk about as well, but speak a little bit about that dynamic as well.

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah, I mean if you think about sort of like shortages, prices going up, like we had that multiple times post pandemic, you know, with the shutdown we had shortages in energy, prices went up, prices of gas went up, shortages in food, prices of food went up, inflation went up. And when you have shortages like the politics of inflation and the politics of sort of prices are, you know, they can topple governments like dozens and dozens of governments sort of fell if they couldn't provide people with cheap food and energy. And inflation is just like a politically toxic to whoever is incumbent. So you had like a wave of anti incumbency across the world. It's not just the U.S. you know, where the Biden government sort of fell. But Lots and lots of governments. And I really think that the future, I mean, I think this is a point that we sort of have been hammering away, that the future is going to be the politics of affordability and the politics of sort of supplying essentials, delivering on essentials, provisioning of food and energy and medicine and, you know, the basic things that people need. And you know, this current solution from Trump is just tariffs, right? Like tariffs are just taxes that Americans are going to be paying. There are real sort of like problems in America, housing, education, that is like expensive and unaffordable. And tariffs are not a solution to any of those real problems. They are just going to cause things to become more expensive. You know, the estimates are anywhere between $1,000 to $2,000 more that a family is going to be paying in basic sort of consumer goods. And the idea is that, you know, we were getting all of these things from abroad and, you know, it was Asia and China that were dominating all of these sort of low priced goods that are decent quality. And Trump's solution is basically like tariffs and that's not a serious solution to providing basic goods.

[Emma Bigeland]

And but his solution is one that acknowledges a problem. And I think there is like, that is the political science of it, where Biden's stopgap measure of using this military authority to deliver baby proposal formula to people is an emergency kind of situation that fixes a problem, but is not central at all really to what he was promising the American public. Where you, at the very least for Trump, his protectionism is in direct response to that. And he's not just, I mean, he's kind of borrowing from other new right wing figures across the world. But it all is a response to the same forces that really like left liberal, part liberal parties that are incredibly powerful, whether it's labor in the UK or of course the Democratic Party in the United States are just constitutionally incapable of really seemingly addressing it because it's fundamental to what the appeal of those parties has been for the past 50 years.

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think the response to a problem is very real. But, you know, the right, like, wants to fix these problems. It's just like, doesn't seem like their solutions are going to get anywhere. Right? Like, what are sort of Trump's MAGA solutions? Okay, we are going to do tariffs to reindustrialize and we're going to do deportations of immigrants to sort of nativize, you know, the labor force. And if you ask, if you ask yourself what is like, is this, is this, is this A solution to the problem of those expensive health care prices or housing prices or education prices. And you know, I don't think it is like, you know, it's just, it's just not going to work. And then where do we go next? You know, we do require left progressive forces to form and provide actual solutions.

[Emma Bigeland]

Talk a little bit about Brazil, India, some of the authoritarian populism movements there. I mean, I think we could also talk about Malay. Perhaps economically it's not similar, but go ahead.

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah, I think Brazil and Mexico are sort of like, you know, they're two big countries in our hemisphere. With Mexico, you know, it's almost like the leader of Mexico, Claudia Scheinbaum, you know, she's almost like the polar opposite of Trump, right? She's like a scientist, a climate scientist. Like she is a woman. She's like a feminist. Like, you know, she, she's pro Palestinian. Like, she's just completely the polar opposite of Trump. And she's running a government that had 80% approval rating before Trump got into power. And then after Trump gets into power and attacks Mexico, you know, her approval rating is shot up to 90% and she's moving on this politics of affordability, right? So she's just like, we need to provide cheap housing. We need like, it's just a left sort of populist government in Mexico and they want to go green. Like, unlike the U.S. which is just like going all out and cutting back on solar, wind, just like a total assault on climate. Like Mexico is just like, no, we want to really industrialize and provide more solar electricity, more batteries, more wind. It's a serious sort of prograin government, similarly to Lula's government in Brazil, which just sees itself as an enormous country with an enormous amount of green production potential, but is currently sort of selling raw materials to the rest of the world and it instead wants to industrialize off its massive green potential.

[Emma Bigeland]

But so, I mean, is this when we're talking about Mexico, but I think I was also mentioning India there. You could maybe use Bolsonaro as like the test case prior to the return to Lulo to talk about, you know, some of the right wing movements here. But it's more interesting what you're saying. Just the idea that some of these countries in the global south or, you know, or if it's Mexico or if it's Brazil, understanding that they have vast resources that have been, you know, outsourced in many ways, but potentially can bring more prosperity to people if they're, they more effectively use their economic potential. Whereas like some countries in the Global north are just doing protectionism with that, with right wing movements like the United States.

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah, I mean, I'll just go back to what I said earlier. Like US just seems to be giving up on the industries of the future. Right. So Biden tried to industrialize on green lines. Trump is giving up and not just giving up, actively smashing what is required for a green transition that's going to produce jobs and climate stability. Right. Like what has he done? He's like smashed the bureaucracy and the state capacity that could have guided and directed capital to these future facing sectors. The Department of Energy, the irs, the epa, the science agencies, like the investments in skill for people, investments in R and D, all of these things that we need state capacity and skill for the future is being smashed. And the attempt from the Biden Democrats has been just absolutely gutted and smashed. The ira. So in that sense it's like a throwback. It's like trying to preserve America's like, we produce so much oil, we have the world's largest oil and gas producer, we produce more oil and gas than Saudi Arabia. So he kind of wants to make sure that we remain a hydrocarbon sort of power. And the rest of the world is just like now we're moving on. Like the Chinese sort of green leap forward you could call it. Right. Like post pandemic, like they have just emerged as this stunning sort of solar panels, EVs, batteries, like you know, when I was in Brazil and Mexico, it's just BYD's everywhere. The BYD is the build your dreams car that we can't get in the United States States because it's been tariffed and protected out. But you see them absolutely everywhere in the rest of the world and they are cheaper. You know, they're like $15,000, $20,000, while we have hyper bloated, expensive, deadly SUVs that are like $50,000. And so that's, that's where you really get a sense that the, you know, we in the United States might just be left with these bloated, expensive goods. And we make these cars that no one else, no one in the rest of the world wants. And that might create a stunning sort of collapse of one of our biggest industries, the auto industry.

[Emma Bigeland]

It's also seemingly post colonial in a certain way where if some of these countries like Brazil, they're basically saying we have this vast, we're one of the biggest countries in the world, we have these vast national natural resources and we are investing in building an energy economy of the future. This creates just like natural alliances between China and other global south countries that are looking towards the future.

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I mean that was, that was the sort of the big sense that every country was like, we need to diversify away from the US because if we are so dependent upon one market and this guy comes in and yanks away market access, that creates a loss of jobs and incomes at home. So they're just like, we need to find new markets. So the Mexicans are talking to the Europeans, the Brazilians are talking to the Chinese. Like, you know, everyone is talking to each other to try and find and diversify away their markets. And then the second thing that they are all sort of doing like, is that, you know, the United States at the end of the day is just like 15% of global trade. Right. So there's a lot of other countries that are trying to stabilize an economic partnership with each other. And Kate and I have been just calling this countries are working around and without the US they're trying to figure out a world in which they are not subject to so much pain and punishment. And essentially they can't trust the US to even if whatever most stable Democratic party ever gets back in power, they just can't trust that the US might not do this all over again. So I think this is just a steady one way flow of countries sort of diversifying away from the US decarbonizing faster and faster because they want cheaper, better green goods. And that's not what we are selling them. We are selling them more oil and gas. In fact, Trump is using this extra power and leverage with the tariffs to basically force the Europeans, the Japanese, the Koreans. Like the deals that have been announced this past week are just like, buy more of our weapons, buy more of our oil and gas, we'll sell you more AI chips and we'll sell you. And then you, all of our allies have to invest in the US and not invest at home.

[Emma Bigeland]

And you know, and that chip dominance could be going away fairly soon too. Like in terms of bargaining chips not to overuse, that was not intentional.

[Brandon Sutton]

Right, right, right, right. I mean I think like both the Biden and the Trump presidency were really trying to preserve American dominance in chips. Right. So they were just like, we are not going to let Nvidia chip chips go high end, Nvidia AI chips go into the hands of the Chinese and we are just going to sort of do a technological blockade that was announced on actually October 7, 2022. And for the Chinese, it was just like an act of economic war, like, you want us to remain poor and weak forever. And the Chinese Communist Party just said, no, we aren't going to put up with this if you put up an economic blockade against us. And so what they did was that they massively invested in again, the technologies of the future, the green technologies that we talked about, and chips. So they just like sent thousands of engineers and scientists and said, okay, go at it like, come up with clever algorithms, come up with chip manufacturing technologies, because this is completely intolerable that the Americans don't want to give us chips. And I think like, that technological blockade and like assuming that the Chinese would not be able to catch up has just completely blown up in our face. Right, like, so, you know, what Trump is actually doing now in the last few months is trying basically realizing that if we have a chips blockade, the Chinese are currently doing a rare earths blockade, you know, the minerals that you need for magnets and whatnot. And the Chinese basically have blockaded rare earths. And Trump basically realizes, oh, we had a weapon of tariffs and chips blockades. They have a weapon and it's going to hurt American consumers and going to hurt. So they're trying to figure out a new deal where the US Starts to supply AI grade ships to the Chinese and in return the Chinese abandoned the rare earths blockade. So Trump might end up going to Beijing in October, November and do a very similar trip to the kind of trip that he went to the Middle East a few months ago, where he just goes with an entourage of CEOs and that CEOs promises some normal economic relationship with the Chinese. And the Chinese say, okay, we are going to invest in America and we are going to invest and bring you some of these high end factories that make those goods that you don't know how to make. That could be a possible Trump China deal. We don't know.

[Emma Bigeland]

Well, I mean, moving away from China for a second just to India here, I think their role in this is also really important. You wrote about brics and kind of their shying away from reliance, to put it mildly, on the United states. You know, BRICS countries basically reducing their share of long term U.S. treasury holdings even prior to the Trump administration as well, which is Trump 2.0, which was prescient given the fact that right now, you know, yields are up on long term US Treasuries because of the uncertainty Trump is creating with the tariffs and the economy. And India is becoming an even more kind of important player and trading partner for some of these countries. What's your view of India's role here?

[Brandon Sutton]

I mean, those are the two fastest growing economies and the largest economies in Asia. Right. So what they do matters. And the Indians, you know, thought that they were going to be the winners of the U.S. china sort of breakup and more American investment would go into India and, you know, India would work militarily with the US to contain China. Like, that was the idea.

[Emma Bigeland]

Right.

[Brandon Sutton]

For the last few years. And then, you know, Trump is like, no, you're just like every one of my other allies that I'm going to punish with higher tariffs.

[Emma Bigeland]

Which is funny because Modi has spent so much time sucking up to him.

[Brandon Sutton]

Sucking up to him. It's.

[Emma Bigeland]

It's not working out. And he suffered the last election cycle. Kind of. His party had the worst performance in quite a while.

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah, they thought they were going to get a massive majority in the parliament, but they got a very, very narrow majority, and it's now a coalition government. So he's been sort of weakened and. Which is good for Indian democracy. Right. Like, you want some counterbalancing forces in the parliament. But, like, the India US Relationship is, you know, it's just like this kind of triangular relationship with China where if India thought it's going to benefit, but now it's going to be punished. And then we had the whole blow up around immigration at the beginning of the year with a lot of the H1B visas, which people in Trump's coalition want to stop. And so the Indian US Relationship is bound to become more sort of more friction. But some of the interesting things about what Trump is doing, you pointed out earlier about how he's maybe mimicking a lot of autocrats and authoritarian sort of leaders in other parts of the world. And I think this whole presidentializing, the tariffs and sort of saying, like, I'm the person that other countries have to come and negotiate. And he sort of creates all of these levers and instruments that are in the White House. They're not in Congress, they're in the White House. And that's very similar to what sort of Modi did to kind of centralize power in his hands. And I really, really wonder if, you know, the Modi playbook or the Orban playbook or the Bolsonaro playbook, like, these are sort of things that. That Biden. Sorry, that Trump has been. Has been sort of maybe not consciously mimicking, but like, it is sort of like an autocratic sort of playbook.

[Emma Bigeland]

And the fossil fuel system of kind of energy production is also just so central to This, I mean, we've talked around a little bit, but when you see how countries like Saudi Arabia are in the UAE or whatever, they're, they're trying desperately in their own way to move away from an over reliance on that part of their economy, whether it's Saudi investments in entertainment and sports and things like that.

[Tim Sahay]

But.

[Emma Bigeland]

The United States, this level of enclosure around those sectors, I mean, this is somebody, this is an administration that just doesn't care about the future, not just on climate, but in terms of like American competitiveness in new sectors. And I wonder how folks that are more forward looking, like the authoritarian leaders in the Middle east that we prop up, what their reaction is to that when China and India are right over there and China's relationship with some of these Middle Eastern countries begins to become a little friendlier.

[Brandon Sutton]

I mean, I think the basic picture is almost every oil power in the world that is not the United States sort of sees the writing on the wall that oil demand is coming down. So for the first time in 100 years, instead of oil demand is going up and up and up every year as people fly and drive more, it's starting to peak and starting to go down. And the reason for that is that Asian and Chinese sort of miracle of more and more electrification and more and more EVs and solar panels so people have an alternative for the first time that are being installed very rapidly. So what happens if oil demand starts to go down? Is all of these countries revenues start to go down. So they need to diversify their entire business model away from oil and gas. So that's what the Saudis and the Gulf kingdoms and their Emiratis, you know, that's what they're up to. They're investing heavily in health and education and tourism and all sorts in financial services and building up cities, taxing their people for the first time instead of just getting sort of a fossil fuel social welfare state. And so that's what almost every country is up to, diversifying into the new industries of the future. And that's what the United States could be doing and at least was trying to do. We had a very real boom in the last five years on green goods, but it's being smashed, as we said, by the Trumpists that want to maintain the value of oil and gas and find and force countries to buy American oil and gas. And I just don't think it's going to pan out like if the Saudis see the writing on the wall like everybody else sees the writing on the wall.

[Emma Bigeland]

Right, right. The Saudis would be the number one people who should be the last to know. But I guess it's the dumbass who's the President of the United States States.

[Brandon Sutton]

Anyway, I think, I think, I mean, I just don't think this energy dominance agenda is going to play out. But what we are going to suffer is shortages and blackouts because we have said no to the fastest growing source of energy, which was solar and batteries, and we have said no to them. We've removed those incentives. We are like slowing down the permitting. We are preventing them from being installed and deployed. And factories are being mothballed, they're being canceled. The ones that were stood up in the last five years, they're being canceled over this year. And so that means shortages and blackouts are going to come to the US because we've gotten rid of that, that support. And when why are they going to come? It's because AI demand is shooting up. So, you know you have like crazy amounts of electricity, right? The report from Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Berkeley Lab is like somewhere between 6 to 12% of our country's electricity is going to go towards AI data centers by 2030. And it's a huge amount of electricity. That's a country's worth of electricity. And if you have those sort of massive demands coming in, people's bills are going to go up, right? So utility companies like are going to try and stand up more like plants to service that thing, and they're going to raise costs on people. So I think that there's a huge politics to sort of play out every time there's a blackout in any state, particularly in Virginia or Texas or, you know, some of the states where most of the data centers are going. Like, we should just be saying, like, this is caused by the, you know, one big beautiful bill that is just like a fossil fuel bill, right?

[Emma Bigeland]

And there's, we could be developing technology right now with say, like chips that could be able to take on that amount of energy right now. Like even if we were to make some of these more electric or useful use Nvidia, for example, my understanding is that they may not even have like the capacity to take on that amount of electricity. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Brandon Sutton]

We just don't have the, even the gas turbines, like there's a shortage of gas turbines. So if he's like, okay, you know what? I don't want to feed these new AI hungry data centers, sorry, electricity hungry AI data centers with renewables. I want to feed them with oil and gas and coal and you know.

[Emma Bigeland]

Which we're doing already.

[Brandon Sutton]

Which, which we're doing already. But then there's not enough of it. Like even the gas turbines are in shortage. So I just think there's absolutely inevitable shortages and blackouts sort of coming and that's going to be extremely, extremely disruptive, not just to AI and chips, but to everyone, to every other industry, to all consumers. Like, I don't think we've even lived in a country that has massive amounts of blackouts. And I think that's what all of the energy experts are very worried about over the coming years. And we really have to try and, like, get ahead of that problem by installing, you know, the cheapest, fastest forms of energy. But we basically aren't going to do that.

[Emma Bigeland]

Well, Tim, really appreciate your time today. The Poly Crisis is excellent with Kate McKenzie. You can check it out in Phenomenal World. Also co director of the Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab at John Hopkins University. We'll put a link to the Poly Crisis down below wherever people are listening to or watching this. Thanks so much for your time today. I really appreciate it.

[Brandon Sutton]

Thanks.

[Emma Bigeland]

All right. Well, with that, we're going to wrap up the free part of the show and head into the fun and not free half of the show where we will read your IMs. At the very least, we'll see how we're doing on calls. We went a little bit over today, folks. This show relies on your support. If you can please become a member, join themjorityreport.com you can help this show survive. Keep up with some of the interviews, keep giving you those great guests in the future. Matt, what's happening on Left Reckoning?

[Matt Binder]

Yeah, on Tuesday night had a good show. First with Neil Meyer of Left Notes talking about the difference between democratic socialism, social democracy and communism, which everyone' excited to talk about now that Zoran is is the nominee and they're trying to figure out how, if they can call it, can we call him a communist? Also, Tiara Gattimora, Spanish Italian journalist talking about the view from Europe's for patrons. Patreon.com reckoning so check that out.

[Emma Bigeland]

Check it out, folks. Hello, Brandon. Hello.

[Sam Cedar]

Hello.

[Emma Bigeland]

Look at that. What's up, guys?

[Brandon Sutton]

Nothing much.

[Emma Bigeland]

What's happening on the Discourse?

[G]

Well, we've been having our normal morning, I would say, therapy sessions since we found out that our Orange president may have, you know, not been up to some great things when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. So we'll be continuing that tomorrow. Likely we will also be doing another edition of Wu Tang versus the Flat Earth, which has become a recurring segment. And so, yeah, check out the discourse with Brandon Sutton on YouTube, on Twitch, wherever you want to check it out.

[Emma Bigeland]

Do it. Do it, folks. Bender, can we hear you? Just say one thing. Really?

[Brandon Sutton]

Yeah.

[Emma Bigeland]

Hello? Can you hear me? Perfect. I couldn't hear you for a second earlier, but now your mic has caught up. What's happening over on your shows and your budding newsletter?

[Sam Cedar]

Sure, sure.

[H]

So the newsletter still is. You're not too late if you haven't signed up yet. Disruptionist.com and then YouTube.com MapBinder did a live stream last night. Some Collins talked about a number of different things and you can go check it out. And then tonight at YouTube.com mapinder leftist mafia at 8:30pm Eastern time, tune in.

[Sam Cedar]

And dear God, if you want to come at me that way, you're gonna have to take it up with me.

[Emma Bigeland]

That we were talking about this before the show. Corey. It's like if you're gonna to be righteous is like if you're gonna come at X person that way, you're gonna have to deal with me first. Not if you're gonna come at me, you're gonna have to deal with me. That's self evident with coming at you.

[H]

Wait, what, what, what was that? I, I, I'm out of the loop.

[Matt Binder]

Corey's auditioning for Hamilton.

[G]

Yeah, they're just not good at this righteous indignation. It's because they just don't feel it. They don't feel it.

[Emma Bigeland]

Well, because the righteous indignation is spoiler alert. Not something to be righteously indignant about. We'll be talking about this in the fun half and maybe making fun of Cory Booker a little bit.

[Sam Cedar]

Like and dear God, if you want to come at me that way, you're gonna have to take it up with me.

[G]

He almost sounds like Charlie Kirk there.

[Emma Bigeland]

Yeah, he does a little bit. It sounded a little like when, when, when, when Charlie gets animated. Anyway.

[H]

All right, guys, we'll see when Charlie gets animated. You talking about his upcoming appearance on South Park. Have you, have you seen that?

[Emma Bigeland]

Oh, now they're gonna make fun of him over it. That's great.

[H]

Yeah, South Park's knocking Charlie Kirk next. Charlie Kirk is trying to play it off. He made he may. So the Cartman is. Looks like Cartman is doing the whole going to college and and challenging college students to debate.

[Emma Bigeland]

That's so funny.

[H]

Charlie Kirk's trying to play it off and making it his avatar, but I think he's gonna change that avatar pretty quickly once he Sees.

[Emma Bigeland]

Oh, opening it. I mean, give it a rest. Just to give people a preview of what we're about to see. This is. This is not. We didn't freeze this at any particular point. This is. Is how Cory Booker looks in the clip we're going to play. Just a sec. Again, this is not. This is not about the genocide in Gaza. This is not about the concentration camps in Florida. It's about a secret other thing that we'll be talking about in the fun half. See you on the other side, folks. See, in the fun half.

[Sam Cedar]

Okay, Emma, please.

[Emma Bigeland]

Well, I just. I feel that my voice is sorely lacking on the majority report.

[Sam Cedar]

Wait, Sam is unpopular? I do deserve a vacation at Disney World, so, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome Emma to the show.

[Brandon Sutton]

It is Thursday.

[Matt Binder]

I think you need to take over for Sam.

[Sam Cedar]

Yes, boys.

[Brandon Sutton]

No, no, no.

[Sam Cedar]

I'm.

[Emma Bigeland]

I'm. I'm gonna pause you right there.

[Sam Cedar]

Wait, what? You can't encourage Emma to live like this. And I'll tell you why. She was offered a tour. Sushi and poker with boys. Twerk, sushi and poker with the boys. Who was offered a tour? Yeah, sushi and poker with the boys. What tour? Sushi and poker.

[Emma Bigeland]

Tim's upset.

[Sam Cedar]

Twerk, sushi and poker with pooper. Boys was offered twerk, sushi, and that's what we call biz. Twerk, sushi, and poker with three boys.

[Emma Bigeland]

Right.

[Sam Cedar]

Twerk, sushi, and bulker.

[Emma Bigeland]

We're gonna get demonetized.

[Sam Cedar]

I just think that what you did to tpool was mean.

[Emma Bigeland]

Free speech.

[Sam Cedar]

That's not what we're about here. Look at how sad he's become now. You shouldn't even talk about it. I think you're responsible.

[Emma Bigeland]

I probably am in a certain way. But let's get to the meltdown here.

[Sam Cedar]

Sushi and poker with the boys. Oh, my God.

[Scott Bessant]

Wow.

[Sam Cedar]

Sushi. I'm sorry. I'm losing my mind. Someone's offered a tour. Yeah. Sushi and poker with the boys. Logic. Sushi and poker with the boys. A little kid. I think I'm like a little kid. I think I'm like a kid. I think I'm like a little kid. I think I'm like a little kid. Add this debate 7,000 times. A little kid. I think I'm like a little kid. A little kid. Think I'm like a dick. I'm losing my mind.

[Emma Bigeland]

Some people just don't understand.

[Sam Cedar]

So I'm not trying to be a dick right now, but, like, I absolutely think the US should be providing me with a wife and kids.

[Emma Bigeland]

That's not what we're talking about here, all right?

[Sam Cedar]

It's not a fun job. Twerk. That's a real thing. That's got a real thing. Real thing. Willy Wonka work. That's a real thing. That's got real thing. That offered. That's a real thing. That's real thing. That's a real thing. That's offered. Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Rogan has done it again. That offered Work. That's a real thing. That's. Oh, I think he might be blowing it out Proportion. Real thing. That's a real thing. That's. Let's go, Joey. Sushi and poker. Take it easy going twerk. Sushi and poker. Things have really gotten out of hand. Sushi and poker with the boys. You don't have a clue as to what's going on live. YouTube.

[Emma Bigeland]

Sam has the weight of the world on his shoulders. Sam doesn't want to do this show anymore.

[Sam Cedar]

Anymore.

[Emma Bigeland]

It was so much easier when the majority report was just you.

[Sam Cedar]

Let's change the subject.

[Tim Sahay]

Rangers and Knicks against great.

[Sam Cedar]

Now shut it up.

[Emma Bigeland]

Don't want people saying reckless things on your program.

[Sam Cedar]

That's one of the most difficult parts about this show.

[Emma Bigeland]

This is the pro killing podcast.

[Sam Cedar]

I'm thinking maybe it's time to bury the hatchet.

[Emma Bigeland]

Left his best Violet.

[Sam Cedar]

Don't be foolish. And don't tweet at me. And don't the way Emma has cucked all of these people. Love it.

[Emma Bigeland]

That's where my heart is. So I wrote my honors thesis about it.

[Sam Cedar]

I guess I should hand the main mic to you now. You are to the right of me on foreign policy.

[Emma Bigeland]

We already fund Israel.

[Brandon Sutton]

Dude.

[Emma Bigeland]

Are you against us?

[Sam Cedar]

That's a tougher question I haven't answered. Incredible theme song.

[Tim Sahay]

Hi, bumbler.

[Sam Cedar]

Emma Vinland. Absolutely one of my favorite people, actually. Not just in the game like period.