3569 - Dismantling The Immigration-Carceral State w/ César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández

Summary

---

Summary of The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3569 – "Dismantling The Immigration-Carceral State"
Guest: César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Date: January 29, 2026
Host: Emma Vigeland (in for Sam Seder)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Majority Report focuses on the history, expansion, and politics of America's immigration-carceral state, featuring César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández—law professor and author of "Welcome the Wretched: In Defense of the Criminal Alien." The conversation details the bipartisan mechanisms that have criminalized immigration, the interweaving of carceral and immigration policy, and the present failures of Democratic leadership to meaningfully challenge or dismantle the punitive immigration system. The show also covers the historical roots of immigration enforcement, the impact of the "war on drugs," and explores possible pathways for reimagining immigration that moves beyond criminalization.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Current Political Context: ICE, DHS, and Democratic Complicity

• ICE and Policing: ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) now operates with a massive, ballooned budget ($85 billion, up from ~$10 billion pre-Trump), acting more as a tool for ethnic cleansing and less as a standard law enforcement agency ([31:56]).
• Tom Holman’s Replacement of Bovino: The new ICE leadership frames violence as aberration, promises "targeted enforcement," and urges the lowering of protest rhetoric—moves seen as superficial reforms ([07:20]).
• Democrats' Negotiation Failures:
  • Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, are proposing "demands" for DHS funding—like increased body cameras, codes of conduct, and local collaboration—that essentially replicate or concede to existing Trump/ICE priorities ([16:16]).
  • These reforms, particularly body cameras, are critiqued as performative, not substantive, and may expand surveillance ([13:57]).

Notable Quote:

• "Do not become distracted by meaningless and counterproductive so-called reforms...body cameras are not a reform to any form of police violence." - Alec Karakatsanes ([13:57])

2. History of Immigration Restriction & Criminalization

• Forced Immigration as Punishment: In colonial times, migration to America was sometimes a punishment for criminals in Britain—a reversal of current dynamics ([34:23]).
• Shift with Chinese Exclusion Act (1882): Post-railroads, anti-Chinese sentiment led to overtly racist exclusion policies and the formal beginnings of immigration policing ([38:17]).
• Quotas, Drugs, and Race:
  • U.S. laws began targeting racial groups, e.g., anti-opium laws tied to anti-Chinese sentiment, and marijuana laws for Mexican immigrants ([42:00]).
  • The ‘aggravated felony’ concept came in the 1980s under Reagan, then expanded vastly under Clinton, covering even minor infractions ([45:05]).

Notable Quote:

• "Immigration law structures where people move...it responds to politics." - César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández ([36:31])

3. The "War on Drugs" and Rise of the Immigration-Carceral State

• The 1980s–1990s saw the "war on drugs" and immigration enforcement become closely linked, leading to the ballooning of mass incarceration for both citizens and immigrants ([48:01]).
• Clinton-era legislation (IIRAIRA 1996) further blurred criminal and immigration laws, massively expanding who could be detained or deported—often for minor offenses ([45:05]).
• The current system criminalizes border crossing, creating "criminal aliens" and providing a pretext for large-scale enforcement ([58:35]).

Notable Quote:

• "That category [criminal alien] has never been easy to define... its boundaries are constantly expanding. They never contract." - García Hernández ([47:28])

4. Post-9/11 Era: National Security State and Tech Surveillance

• Creation of DHS and the transformation of immigration enforcement into a core part of the national security apparatus ([50:49]).
• Under Obama, federal-local police collaboration intensified through technology and shared databases, creating a direct pipeline from “mundane traffic violation” to detention/deportation ([52:56]).
• This infrastructure is increasingly hard to dismantle or reform as it becomes entrenched and technologically sophisticated.

5. Present Reform Debates: Futility of "Reformist" Measures

• The current Democratic proposals (body cameras, codes of conduct, police collaboration) are derided as out-of-touch, ineffective, and, in some cases, counterproductive expansions of the police state ([16:16]).
• There is a call for public pressure (Senate phone numbers provided on air) and mass mobilization, not technocratic reforms ([18:17]).

6. Reimagining Immigration Law

• García Hernández emphasizes that migration is fundamentally a social, political, and economic response—not inherently criminal ([65:54]).
• True reform must move away from structures that permanently criminalize immigrants for minor or past offenses.
• The U.S.’s appeal to migrants is not destiny; loss of political or economic stability would shift migration patterns elsewhere ([63:49]).

Notable Quote:

• "Migration is certainly going to continue. It’s probably going to increase as greater parts of the world...become less hospitable. But where migrants go is not necessarily a preordained destination." ([63:49])
• "Immigration law right now looks to see what was that flaw that you were caught living...can we tie you to it?" ([65:54])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On ICE as Ethnic Cleansing Tool:
  "This is how a white supremacist views the role of ICE...it is a tool that is outside of traditional law enforcement...participating in an ethnic cleansing campaign." - Emma Vigeland ([09:00])
• On the Obama era’s complicity:
  "Under President Obama, we start to see close relationships, not just in terms of personal relationships, but technological relationships..." - García Hernández ([52:56])
• On the Democrats’ proposals:
  "More technology and more surveillance and more integration of immigration enforcement with local law enforcement—that’s apparently the Democrats’ response." - Emma Vigeland ([55:04])

---

Important Timestamps

• 07:20 – Tom Holman’s "somber" ICE leadership replaces Bovino; promise of "internal changes"
• 13:57 – Alec Karakatsanes critiques body cameras as a fake reform
• 31:54 – Main interview with García Hernández begins
• 34:23 – History of forced migration as colonial penal punishment
• 38:17 – The Chinese Exclusion Act and racial roots of immigration policing
• 45:05 – Impact of 1996’s IIRAIRA and Clinton-era reforms
• 50:49 – Post-9/11: Creation of DHS and national security focus
• 54:19 – Obama era’s technological collaboration between ICE and local police
• 58:35 – On how immigration law itself manufactures "criminals"
• 65:54 – Reimagining immigration law, challenging the logic of permanent criminalization

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is candid, analytical, and has moments of dark humor (“Cookie Monster giving a eulogy” ([08:40]); “the mumblecore ethnic cleanser” ([08:37])). The hosts use pointed, irreverent language to critique both Republican and Democratic failings. García Hernández is measured, thorough, and historical in his analysis, explicitly tying policy trends to their historical roots.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a deep, historically grounded critique of the U.S. immigration enforcement regime, tracing its roots from colonial penal practice through racist exclusion laws, the war on drugs, and the rise of the post-9/11 security state. The conversation is clear: reforms that technocratically tinker with the current system without addressing the underlying logic of criminalization and exclusion are doomed to fail. Listeners are left with both a political critique and an ethical imperative: to dismantle, not merely “reform,” the immigration-carceral state.

---

For Further Exploration:

• Read: Welcome the Wretched: In Defense of the Criminal Alien by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
• Resource: "Copaganda" by Alec Karakatsanes

---

Transcript

[Emma Vigeland]

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

[Sam Cedar]

The Majority Report with Sam Cedar.

[Emma Vigeland]

It is Thursday, January 29, 2026. My name is Emma Vigeland 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, Cesair Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez, author of welcome the Wretched In Defense of the Criminal Alien, will be with us to talk about dismantling the immigration car show, incarceral state and punishment complex. Kind of relevant right now. Also on the program, Chuck Schumer narrows his lists of demands for DHS funding as Republicans are on their back foot.

[Unidentified Commentator]

Typical.

[Emma Vigeland]

ICE is now being directed to avoid interacting with agitators. But the Gestapo can still terrorize immigrant communities if they so choose. DHS places the two agents who murdered Alex Preddy on administrative leave. Gonna need more than that.

[Brian]

Lock them up.

[Emma Vigeland]

Liam Ramos, the five year old kidnapped by ice, is reportedly sick due to poor conditions in detention. I saw that. Representatives Castro and Crockett visited him. More of that from our representatives. Trump's FBI raids the election headquarters in Georgia's Fulton county for records related to the 2020 election, but also its weekly voting. South Carolina's measles outbreak surpasses Texas's last year, the one that killed at least two young girls. Are we making America healthy again? TikTok bans prominent Palestinian journalist Bizon Auda amid its right wing free speech crackdown on anti genocide voices and protests against ice. Trump still mulling striking Iran. What does John Bolton call that?

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Edging?

[Emma Vigeland]

Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to give that image to people. A pro crypto pack has already raised nearly $200 million for 2026. Amy Klobuchar announces her run for Minnesota governor. And lastly, the Supreme Court will hear Trump's challenge to the five million dollar verdict against him in the Eugene Carroll sexual abuse verdict. You know the most important constitutional issues of our time. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome to the show everybody. It's an M Majority Report Thursday. Hello, Matt. Hello, Brian. And special guest Gino in the office who runs our social media. Shout out to Gino for people who aren't aware he's doing the work of promoting the show that had been put off, I don't know for how many.

[Brian]

Years if you appreciate our Instagram presence lately. Yeah, thank Gina gotta thank.

[Emma Vigeland]

Gina doesn't have an allergy to promotion. Yes, yes. Well, I mean, I'm a big fan of that because, you know, I've been trying to get Sam on that for a while. But we're there, we're there. Now we have Gina. The thank for that. Hello, everybody. I'm happy to be back. Good to take a day off yesterday a little bit because the news gets you down. Gets you down a bit.

[Brian]

I don't know what you mean.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah, I'm not sure what you. Yeah, you guys, I'm sorry you had to deal with it, but at least I had.

[Brandon]

About Bovino being fired.

[Sam Cedar]

I mean, you are having an emotional breakdown right now.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah. I'm going to miss his sort of like. Like the evil Nazi Kenneth Parcel energy. Effete fascism.

[Brian]

Yeah. Somebody said retired WNBA player.

[Emma Vigeland]

Play a point guard or he's. He's like a lesbian comic from the 90s who's now a turf. That's his energy. Yeah. So Bovino is now out off to retire. And my hope is, is that that retirement will be short lived because hopefully prosecutions are coming.

[Brian]

Yeah.

[Emma Vigeland]

But the Democrats will get to them in just a second what they're doing in the negotiations in the Senate. But here is Tom Holman. He is now the moderate of maga, the left wing of MAGA on immigration. The guy who took $50,000 in a bribe in a kava bag is the moderating force on the Gestapo in our communities. Because the numbers are so bad on this for Trump. You're seeing polling, it's just beginning to trickle out. He'd already lost ground on his best issue polling wise. Like he was plus 10 around this time last year on the issue. And he's -17, -19 net on the issue of immigration. And we still don't have the numbers after the Preddy murder that are going to impact that. They're shuffling the deck chairs here to try to save the public relations of their violent thuggery.

[Brian]

The phrase they're using is we're not wavering. But the truth is that they removed Divino and put those guys on leave. That's a waiver. And also changed their story after saying he was there to massacre people. They are wavering now, whether it means anything. Well, no, they're continuing their ethnic cleansing campaign.

[Emma Vigeland]

Exactly. And the point is that when your opponent's wavering. Brian, you're a fan of boxing. You're supposed to go in for the, for the kill the. Kill the ko. You gotta finish again. We're about to get to the Democrats.

[Brian]

They're not there.

[Emma Vigeland]

That's not what they're doing.

[Brian]

They're collaborating.

[Emma Vigeland]

Anybody can see that. They're on their back foot and this is what they want. Listen to Tom Holman saying here as he announces that he's basically taking over these operations in Minneapolis and that Bovino's out, he's the new guy in town, and he's going to make sure that these ICE operations are on the up and up. Here's Tom Holman.

[Tom Holman]

I do not want to hear that everything that's been done here has been perfect. Nothing's ever perfect. Anything can be improved on. And what we've been working on is making this operation safer, more efficient. By the book, the mission is going to improve because of the changes we're making internally. No agency organization is perfect. President Trump and I, along with others in the administration, have recognized that certain improvements could and should be made. That's exactly what I'm doing here. As such, in meetings I've had with federal law enforcement managers, including ICE and CBP and other federal partners, as well as state and local officials, I have conveyed the president's expectations with regard to federal immigration enforcement efforts. We will conduct targeted enforcement operations. Targeted.

[Brian]

Will schools be targeted? Still?

[Emma Vigeland]

Can. Can. We shouldn't trust you on that. The Democrats need to get that in these negotiations.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

No.

[Emma Vigeland]

He has a new somber tone, though. I know.

[Brian]

Whispering Tom, the mumble core ethnic cleanser.

[Emma Vigeland]

Sounds like Cookie Monster giving a eulogy. I mean, I almost fell asleep in the middle of that, but then I was awoken to the reality of who was speaking. Mr. Marble Mouth, he's way more.

[Brian]

He's way easier to understand when he's talking like.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

He.

[Emma Vigeland]

He also was lecturing people about turning down the rhetoric, as if that's the problem. The people that are protesting the, the immigration operations are the ones ramping up the rhetoric. Maybe not like the frothing at the mouth, screeching Nazi Stephen Miller, who was demanding they get their quotas up, criminality be damned. Because this is how a white supremacist views the role of ice. And it is the role of ICE and has. That is what this agency is now. It is a tool that is outside of traditional law enforcement, not under the auspices of the Department of Justice, under the auspices of our national security state that is participating in an ethnic cleansing campaign. So it's not just that two white people, Renee Goode, heroes and Alex Preddy, two heroes, were killed by ice. That's not the problem. That's not the only problem. That is an outgrowth of the problem that I just described, that this is not a law enforcement agency. It is a part of the national security state and does not have that accountability in the construction of ice. It is untenable to maintain it.

[Brian]

This entire mass deportation thing has not been about going after. It's crazy how much they have to say, we're going after violent criminals or what are you protecting rapists? Again, they're staking out schools and courthouses and, and restaurants and places like that where people who are just undocumented are like, that is a paperwork issue. That is not a crime issue. And people do not, will not tolerate staking out schools and kidnapping 5 year olds. Because frankly, the only reason is Stephen MILLER and like 30% of Republicans want an ethnic cleansing in this country.

[Emma Vigeland]

And they overplayed their hand in thinking that the American public wanted that. Because in reality, Trump was not elected on this strong ideological basis. He was elected because there was increased, there was depressed turnout amongst a lot of core constituencies for the Democratic Party because they were supporting a genocide and because the economy was not working for them. And the party was not addressing that. In fact, they were saying, actually, look at these traditional economics indicators. It's going pretty well now. The economy is getting worse under Donald Trump, which we all could have foreseen. But the point is, is that the Nazi, Stephen Miller overplayed his hand thinking that this was the agenda item that people were on board with. No, it was more a reaction to a Democratic Party dropping the ball. And so when you have Tom Holman saying something like this, this is a deep reforms right now ahead of the abolishment, like we abolishing ice, it's a nonstart. I mean, not a nonstarter. That's non negotiable for, for the, when the Democrats are back in power. Totally get it. But in terms of the demands on the appropriations, there should be expansive demands. The news from Wednesday that Democratic leadership in the Senate, they had their caucus lunch and instead of keeping that internal, they basically decided that they were going to pare down their demands from the initial ask because they could all come to consensus around it. And these, these consensus items that the Democrats are apparently asking for are further restrictions on federal agent patrols, tighter warrant requirements, and collaboration with state and local law enforcement. That is, by the way, what ICE has been asking for. They've been asking for state and local law enforcement to collaborate with them. And the Democrats are calling this a demand. The other one is that a uniform code of conduct and review within Independent investigations. We know that there was a code of conduct for ICE and for dhs, including specifically as it relates to the Renee Good killing that was violated every time they are disregarding the code of conduct. So this is completely non binding. And then the third ask is apparently a ban on masking the agents, which, okay, that's the one tangible thing that I'm like that matters. But also requiring them to carry ID and wear body cameras. And here is Alec Karakatsanes, author of the great book Copaganda on democracy now yesterday or two days ago, explaining why this body camera thing is, you know, absolutely a step in the wrong direction.

[Unidentified Commentator]

If I have to say one thing in this moment, it is do not become distracted by meaningless and counterproductive so called reforms. Everybody who studies these questions understands that body cameras are not a reform to any form of police violence. There has been overwhelming research, there's so much research and overwhelming consensus on this question that even the federal government's own position for a decade or more has been that body cameras do not reduce police violence. Okay, that's the consensus. So you have to ask yourself, in the wake of outrage over police violence, why are so many public officials, particularly Democrats, pushing body cameras? I mean, after all, the person who shot Renee Goode filmed himself in that interaction. What we know from all of the data is that there was a moment where the police were so desperate to get body cameras, so were prosecutors. They badly wanted them to dramatically increase their surveillance capacities to link to facial recognition software. There was billions of dollars at stake in cloud computing contracts for the tech industry and the surveillance policing industry. Prosecutors wanted them so they could prosecute in higher volume, low level cases against the most vulnerable people in our society. There were all these reasons they wanted for crowd control. You're seeing now with ice, when they go out in the street, they have these cameras, they scan crowd, they're mapping people's faces. The policing industry wanted body cameras. They wanted them so badly that before they got public funding for them, they were getting private donations from people like Steven Spielberg because they were so desperate to get these cameras. Something happened after the killing of Michael Brown. Prominent Democrats like Barack Obama, Eric Holder, many local mayors and governors, they came together and they said we should pitch body cameras, not as something the police want, which hasn't worked. We haven't been able to get those body cameras. So the companies got together at the Obama administration and they decided to shift their marketing strategy. They decided to shift to, instead of marketing as something that were good for the police and the police Wanted, they said, in the wake of Michael Brown, we'll market it to low information people in the public, to well meaning liberal people. We'll market it as accountability and transparency.

[Emma Vigeland]

That is a great. You know, people should read Copaganda for that reason. ALEC makes phenomenal points. It's a great book. But, like, just to give you a recap of that, what Schumer's demands are that they agreed upon in this caucus lunch are restrictions on the patrols. Okay, fair.

[Brian]

What does that mean?

[Emma Vigeland]

Not sure.

[Brian]

When we still see patrols out, which I'm guessing we still will because they got a giant budget. What's. What's going. What does that mean?

[Emma Vigeland]

The other one is collaboration with state and local law enforcement, which is literally what ICE and the Trump administration have been desperately pushing for. So they're. You're giving them something they want accountability with a code of conduct, which we've already seen they have violated repeatedly, and a ban on mass. That's the one good thing here. And then the body camera stuff that Alex so, you know, effectively talks about, it's just a continuation of the police state and the national security state. The MASS thing is they're recording everything. Everyone's recording everything. It didn't stop them. Cameras haven't been stopping them so far. Sorry.

[Brian]

The mask thing is fine, but the guy that we played yesterday that said you raised your voice, I'll erase your voice, didn't have a mask on. So, like, it's fine. But really, what needs to happen is people need to go back in time and not have passed this giant budget for it last year. Or what could happen now when we've been led into a place where there isn't a victory and fascism is galloping around our cities? Is leadership should step the fuck down?

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah.

[Brian]

Why are Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer still there? Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, did a Nazi salute at Trump's at Trump's inauguration last year. And then these guys give the Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol a budget greater than the FBI's just to keep things rolling. Step down.

[Emma Vigeland]

They should, they should call there. You know, we have the Capitol switchboard number in our description all the time, but if you have a senator, a Democratic senator, especially one that was one of the ones that voted for, you know, reopening the government, they are prime targets. Call 200-222-43121. Talk to your senator, 202-224-3121. And say that these demands are insufficient and there's you can probably find some resources. We'll put them in the link in the description down below of some suggestions of what you can offer them. But the fact that this is what they're called, they have them. I mean, the Republicans are panicked right now and that's why Homan is going out there and trying to. And they're thinking that if some heads roll that they can stave off some sort of systemic change that should not be allowed by this party right now. But unfortunately, that's what they're set up to do. That's what they're set up to do.

[Brian]

So people need to continue these street actions.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yep. One more quick story and then we're going to talk to our guests a little bit more about like what it looks like to dismantle the immigration carceral state and how we can do so. Developing story. We're getting more and more information about this. But like the FBI, it's just, it's so horrifying. This is not a great development here. The FBI just carried out a raid at the election headquarters in Georgia's Fulton County. This was a search warrant signed by a judge where basically probable cause is the standard. It's not necessarily like you can't draw a direct line to this being some sort of Trump MAGA judge here because the FBI purported to present some evidence about this. But as we're going to hear from this state senator, that may not even be accurate evidence. They can be spurious claims, as we've seen this administration, whether it be the FBI or the Department of Justice, deploying quite flexible legal theories in writing regularly. This would not be out of character. The FBI was seizing numerous records from the 2020 election ballots, voter rolls, data on voters. This is the kind of thing that they were trying to shake the people of Minnesota down with. Pam Bondi was trying to leverage voter information from Minnesota in exchange for removing the gangs that were harming communities in that state. This is what they're after. And Trump has been obsessed with Georgia ever since it was at the center of his criminal effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. A reminder that he called the secretary of state of state in Georgia at the time, said, find me the votes. That was on audio recording. And yes, this is related to 2020, but we can't ignore that Georgia's early voting begins in just weeks. And this is about something larger. Apparently they took hundreds and hundreds of records. And here is this Georgia State Senator Josh McLaurin speaking to the media about this raid election.

[Josh McLaurin]

Yeah, well, Obviously, Fulton county officials and the state delegation, which I'm a part of, were extremely alarmed by this. I have to stress what I know so far is unconfirmed rumors from officials talking to each other. But what we've heard is that the main FBI office, not the local FBI office, has been dispatched here to try to collect 20, 20 ballots again, ballots from not the last presidential election, but the one before that. And famously, Donald Trump has made Fulton county the object of his ire throughout the country. It's made Fulton county national news for all the wrong reasons because he has pushed these baseless conspiracy theories that the election was somehow stolen and that Georgia was the epicenter of this. And unfortunately, Fulton county officials paid the price. If we recall, that there were county election workers who were harassed, who had to bring defamation lawsuits, who were under physical threats, needed security because of the lies and conspiracy theories that Donald Trump has been pushing. And here we are, it's January 2026, and now Donald Trump is dispatching FBI officials from Maine, FBI, I guess, in D.C. to try to disrupt county election administration here in Georgia. Now, obviously, they have a warrant signed. We don't know what's in the warrant. We know that a magistrate judge approved it. It's very possible, and we need to stress this, that the FBI lied in their warrant to try to get these ballots or use some small irregularity to justify a wholesale raid. All I can say about that is you have federal judges all throughout the country.

[Emma Vigeland]

That's good. So the, the base saying that it's quite possible that the FBI is lying and the evidence that they're presenting to justify this, and I think that that theory is a good one. A piece of evidence I will present for this is this insanely bizarre photo of Tulsi Gafford, who's the Director of National Intelligence. So it seems like they're going to try to take these Sidney Powell, esque, like Venezuela infiltrated our voting machines arguments to justify this. Here she is looking like she's doing some, I don't know, Stalking. Yeah, some stalking. She looks like. Yeah, Joe, from you there to steal your personal belongings. I mean, the fact that she's there is concerning the Director of National Intelligence. What is this? What is the nature of the investigation? If they're trying to make some claim that this was foreign interference. And then it really went, as we've seen with ICE and with dhs, when you call something a national security concern, the guardrails are off in what you allow yourself to do or what, what you can do there. So this is just a story that we're monitoring because I think it's not.

[Brian]

Because the guy who's the president now tried to do a coup that same election of six years ago.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah, yeah. And this is, you know, we play that clip of Laura Ingraham who was saying how she's not a fan of DHS and too much bureaucracy. And my theory on that is, is that there are some people in the conservative base that were unhappy with the designation of the Jan Sixers as domestic terrorists. And that's the one area where I want to be like. There's a point to a degree in that, you know, the what the terrorism designation and the outgrowth of that from the war on terror has contributed to the erosion of our rights more broadly. And terrorism has such a broad definition. I mean, Hamas is the governing body of Gaza, for example. But they're terrorists. And that justifies X. Or we're seeing it with the narco terrorist designation by the Trump administration. How this can be abused. Both parties are complicit in not reining in the national security state and putting better guardrails on this front to curb that designation because it is quite broad and it allows for the abuse of the federal government in many ways.

[Brian]

And it actually isn't ever used against the right. Like people talk about Posse Comitatus and how it means that we shouldn't have. The Fed, shouldn't be allowed to occupy our cities. The truth is that that was invoked by the south after the Civil War when we should have occupied them for like several generations. And a lot of the problems we have now because we didn't.

[Emma Vigeland]

Well, I mean, the point is like, yes. Should the Jan Sixers have been prosecuted? Absolutely. But you know who should have definitely been prosecuted? Merrick Garland. The people at the top.

[Brian]

Yeah.

[Emma Vigeland]

Like, this wasn't a domestic terrorism exactly problem.

[Brian]

It was a terrorism from the top.

[Emma Vigeland]

It was a problem that the President tried to do a couple, you know, and this is where the leadership has failed us. Merrick Garland should have launched an investigation into Trump and his cronies from day one. Day one.

[Brian]

And so, and you know, I believe Cori Bush was the first one out there saying we should expel these Congress people who supported January 6, the coup against this body that we're a part of right now. And that never happened. And by the next election, AIPAC was already given money to Gen 6 supporting congresspeople.

[Emma Vigeland]

Exactly right. A quick word from one of our sponsors here. This episode of the Majority Report is brought to you by Wild Grain and yes, my mouth is beginning to water at just the name there. Because Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, seasonal pastries and fresh pastas. Plus, all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less. Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce in a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. There are no preservatives and no shortcuts. Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, vegan box and a new protein box. And Wild Grain is phenomenal in the winter. There's nothing like warm bread when it is this damn cold outside. And I've really, really enjoyed their sourdough. Oh my goodness. They also have these like apple. It's not apple cider, but. Oh, it is apple cider.

[Sam Cedar]

Apple cider donuts.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yes. Right, right. Well, I was thinking of apple cider vinegar and that's not like I was like, that doesn't taste good, but this tastes amazing. Yes, apple cider donuts. Those were so, so good. If I had a bigger freezer, I would get even more wild grain and I will be getting some soon because it really in January and February, this is the kind of thing you don't have to leave your house. You have warm bread and it can be a part of easy dinners, cozy weekends, brunches, warming you up in the cold weather. You have the convenience of delivery and baking in under 25 minutes and it really helps your daily routine, helps you save not ordering in as much. There's nothing like having an artisan bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy comforting homemade meals with Wild Grain. I highly recommend giving Wild Grain a try. Right now, Wild Grain is offering our audience $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life when you go to wildgrain.com majority to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box and free croissants for life when you go to wildgreen.com majority or use promo code majority at checkout link below in our YouTube and episodes descriptions to get $30 off your first box and free croissants in every box. You go to wildgrain.com majority to start your subscription. Quick break and when we come back, we'll be talking to Cesar it. We are back and we are joined now by Cesar Cuo. Taimoc Garcia Hernandez, law professor at Ohio State University and author of welcome the In Defense of the Criminal Alien. Cesar, thanks so much for coming on the show today.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

My pleasure to be here.

[Emma Vigeland]

So you wrote this book before ICE became the highest funded US Law enforcement agency in the country, I believe. And so, you know, with the Trump administration coming in, its budget ballooned from around $10 billion to 85 billion. And there's right now, when we're talking about appropriations, an increase in funding is currently on the table. I guess just reflecting on this year and that the fact that that happened, I mean, your book looks incredibly prescient with that understanding, if you don't mind just reflecting on that development.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah, I think that's right. But keeping. That's certainly right. The book came out in 2024. But keep in mind that ice was not a poorly funded agency even before this massive historic influx from the one big beautiful bill act last year. If we com isis budget with its counterpart in Customs and Border Protection, which houses the Border Patrol. The amount of money that Congress was already spending on these two key immigration law enforcement agencies already surpassed the FBI or the DEA, the rest of the U.S. marshals Service, the rest of the federal law enforcement entities. The fact that ICE and Border Patrol have gotten a historic influx of cash that they've been spending quite vigorously in communities around the United States, both in terms of personnel, but also in terms of weaponry. The armaments that they're using in Minneapolis and Chicago and elsewhere are not cheap and they come courtesy of congressional appropriations.

[Emma Vigeland]

So how does this. We'll get, I think back to the modern day in a second. But your book talks a little bit about the history of immigration restriction in this country. There were periods at the founding of the nation where actually importing criminals, so called criminals, was useful to the United States. Say when we needed labor versus the Chinese Exclusion act of the late 1800s. Take us through that history a bit.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah, it's a very poorly known, very little known part of the early days of British colonization of North America. Let them become the fledgling colonies. We needed people. Well, not we. The British needed people. These were corporate endeavors primarily. And so they needed able bodied, fairly young, healthy individuals who would come and probably die. There was disease, there was weather. There were already people on the North American seaboard that were not particularly excited about having these newcomers arrive. And so the British were struggling to populate these settlements that eventually become colonies. And so one way in which they incentivized leaving Britain and coming to North America was as a Condition of punishment for crime. You could either be punished at the time, capital punishment, death was a fairly common punishment for a wide range of crimes committed in Britain. Or you could roll the dice, take your luck in North America. Maybe you would die because of the weather, because of the lack of food, because the folks who are already there didn't take kindly to your presence, but maybe you would not. And so there was the certainty of punishment, including death through the criminal process in Britain or the possibility that maybe you would get lucky. And so that's how we started bringing some folks to what become the colonies and then eventually the United States after a few years.

[Emma Vigeland]

Can I just pause there for a second just to say it's amazing to see forced immigration as essentially a punishment versus how we've made the immigration carceral state a form of punishment in and of itself now.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah, that's right. And I think it's a testament to the fact that migration responds to politics and law responds to politics and law structures, the way that people move and structures where they move. These were not people who were hoping to end up in Virginia or in the Carolinas or in Massachusetts. This was the best of bad options that were available to them. These were primarily poor people who didn't have the way of paying their way out of the criminal process in Britain. And then after a few decades, when the population does start to settle, to stabilize in these British colonies, at that point the political winds turn. They start being able to populate their naturally through reproduction as well as just incentivizing the opportunities that become available to British colonists. And so at that point the political winds turn against those migrants who are being brought to North American colonies. And that becomes the first time in which we see the political winds on migration start to blow in a different direction. And that's the sort of cycle of political storms that continues to the present day.

[Emma Vigeland]

And then I guess the more perhaps modern form. I also was saying as an example to contrast that with the Chinese Exclusion Act. A lot of comparisons are being drawn to this current moment of incredibly vile anti immigrant sentiment to the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century when there were racial and ethnic quotas about immigration. Take us through that period of time.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah. So in the aftermath of the Civil War, the United States was in tatters, obviously. But on the west coast we also had a developing economic engine in California that needed to be united with the country that was very much in the reconstruction process. And one way of doing that was in that literal infrastructure development, the railroads this is a much more well known part of US History. And Chinese migrants were an absolutely integral component of that labor force, but also of the labor force that supported the folks who were building the railroads and also going into small mining towns or potential mining towns in the west and the Mountain West. They were very much recruited into the western United States. But in the aftermath of the construction of the railroad, once that's completed, then there isn't that same desire for a large group of essentially cheap labor to be going into these dangerous conditions where many of them were actually losing their lives. And that's when we see the political tide turning yet again, targeting specifically Chinese migrants. Eventually that political movement against Chinese migrants reaches Washington and it starts to result in enactment of some of the first federal laws on immigration at all. Beginning in 1875 when Congress enacted a law targeting Chinese women. And then in 1882 when Congress adopted the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was actually the name of the law and it actually did exactly what it sounds like. From there, we started to expand that to other Asian countries as well, and making it harder for migrants from Asian countries to come to the United States. But of course, that means somebody has to police that. And that's when we start to see the origins of immigration policing. Somebody's got to decide, are you Chinese or are you not Chinese?

[Emma Vigeland]

And this also, I think, not coincidentally, there's the outgrowth of also a quota system when it comes to different European immigrants. Some European immigrants are cool to come into the United States, some aren't on the federal level. But I also still think about, you know, drug laws too. And when you saw, when we're looking at the criminalization of immigrants and how this system is very much designed to kind of by force define a nation state racially to a degree. Like we see that the criminalization of drugs like opium or cocaine or others start shortly after this as well. And you read the explanations of what the lawmakers were saying at the time. And it's like specifically targeting different racial groups, like trying to use the state to criminalize, say, like the actions of different immigrant groups as another way to reify these class dynamics in conjunction with the immigration enforcement.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yes, it's class, but also race. We start to see the targeting of opium because of disfavoring of Chinese migrants. We then turn in the early 20th century to very much the same pattern with regard to Mexicans and marijuana. They're such to be served as this, this political attempt to limit how many Mexicans are coming into the United States. And that one of the ways of doing that becomes penalizing, criminalizing possession and use of marijuana, so that then you're not targeting Mexicans per se for being Mexican, you're targeting Mexicans because they are using, supposedly using marijuana in greater numbers. Fast forward to the end of the 20th century and we start to see a similar pattern developed in the middle of the 1980s under Ronald Reagan's presidency, when again, we start to see that migrants become targeted, but not through immigration law. They become targeted through criminal law and specifically drug control laws. This is the biggest, the moment in which the Reagan administration develops what we now call the war on drugs. And they do so by targeting folks who are getting caught up in illicit drug activity, specifically expanding the number of crimes that can result in the immigration, detention and deportation. And they do so by enacting laws like the Anti Drug abuse Act of 1986, the Anti Drug Abuse act of 1988. These are the laws that for the immigration folks who deal with immigration law, these are the laws that give us the concept of the aggravated felony, which sounds like this horrible type of crime. It's actually very long list of 21 categories of crime. But it develops. It's first introduced through the course of this anti drug campaign that Reagan spearheads working with Congress and that then said to expand the amount of money that's available for immigration, detention and deportation. And that's the pattern that we haven't shifted away from in the 40 years since then.

[Emma Vigeland]

And then you have 1996, the Clinton signing, the IIRA. Right, I think I got that.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah. Illegal Immigration, Immigrant Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah, yeah, yes, thank you. That's easier. And that is another important development, combining kind of local policing too, with immigration enforcement. Tell us a little bit about that.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah. 1996, President Clinton is echoing what had started two presidencies before him under President Reagan, the sort of harsh line on. On criminality with a special emphasis on illicit drug activity, and one that takes as a given the fact that immigrants ought to be a core part of who is targeted. And so we see that IRA. IRA in 1996, it's signed by President Clinton along with another law he signed in that same year, the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act, which is a response in part to the horrific bombing of that federal building in Oklahoma City by two US Citizen white guys, veterans of the armed forces in the United States, nonetheless results in a piece of legislation that has a substantial impact on immigration law. And combine these two laws, again, expand the number of people who can be detained by, boosting funding, but also by increasing the number of crimes for which people can be detained. So that that concept of the aggravated felony that's signed into law by Reagan when it first started, it actually is pretty serious crimes. It's a sexual abuse of a minor, it's murder and it's trafficking and drugs and firearms. By the time Clinton gets out of office, it's 21 different categories. It includes jumping the turnstile in the subway system, it includes messing with a passport, it includes not showing up for a court date, it includes a theft offenses. And of course it still includes the more serious crimes. But now it's this sort of sprawling mess that's justified by the desire of politicians to say, look, we're going to target these dangerous people. We're going to target criminal aliens, as they like to call them. That category has never been easy to define. And what we see is that its boundaries are constantly expanding. They never contract. And we see that to the present day under the Trump administration, where they keep saying we're going after the criminal illegal aliens. And that apparently means anyone who they run across.

[Emma Vigeland]

And as the immigration kind of carceral strict state is growing, so is the mass incarceration state in the United States with U.S. citizens. I think it's just important to point out that the tough on crime Clinton administration was directing that towards immigration, but also towards the use of and sale of drugs in the United States. And is in many ways like, you know, Michelle Alexander's the New Jim Crow is a very important book. You can read that as well, almost a partner piece to our discussion here.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah, those two pieces of legislation that I mentioned earlier, the Anti Drug Abuse act of 88 and 86 signed by Reagan, those are fundamental foundational pieces of the war on drugs. They are equally important to the expansion of immigration, detention and deportation. In 1990, President George H.W. bush, he signs the Immigration act of 1990. And when he's signing it, he says in his remarks at the time, he says, this is a centerpiece of my administration's war on drugs. Key figures from the 80s and the 90s of are seeing their attempts to regulate illicit drug use to build the war on drugs as going hand in hand with their attempts to limit who can come to the United States and under what conditions they stay in the United States. And the consequences of this are quite severe as we start to make it easier for what was then the INS now ice to to detain and deport greater numbers of people who get caught up in the illicit drug trade that continues to Boom in the United States. We make it easier for young people, primarily who are raised in communities around the United States, to get deported. And that's how we end up exporting gangs like MS.13 that was actually created in California in the 80s by young people who fled the civil wars in Central America, only to then get caught up in gang activity and illicit drug activity in communities throughout California. They then get deported. Those fledgling associations then become the transnational menace that we now know as MS.13, which then of course, spurs another generation of Central Americans to leave their homes and try to find safe harbor in the United States.

[Emma Vigeland]

And so laying this groundwork is so key because we are approaching as the 90s, as the 20th century closes, 9, 11 and the war on terror. And the story of immigration enforcement is much longer than DHS and ice. But what we're experiencing today is very much a part of that infrastructure. So take us to that point and where the kind of national security infrastructure of immigration enforcement begins. I mean, turbocharges, really the criminalization of.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Immigration, the taxes, September 11, 2001, really catalyze immigration policing. They bring it all under this, this new agency, the Department of Homeland Security, that is created in 2002, it stood up in 2003, and they start to increase funding specifically for policing efforts. Not so much for the benefits parts or the bureaucratic part of deciding visas, issuing permanent residency, that kind of thing, deciding naturalization issues, staffing the asylum court, but instead focus on the enforcement part of the federal government's immigration responsibilities. And they're housed in the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, it becomes a security focused component of the federal government. It becomes a core feature of how we view national security. And what that means is that the people who are coming to the United States are viewed as potential threats. And they're very much talked about as potential or in fact, real threats, not only to individual people, but to the country as a whole. As if migrants present an existential threat to the United States, certainly if they're coming to the United States without the federal government's permission. But even if they are coming to the United States with the federal government's permission, and they deign to, say, speak a language that's not English, or act in a way that, that rubs folks who are already here the wrong way. And so we begin to see a continued influx of congressional dollars into these agencies so that they can detain more people, they can deport more people. And then we see this really pick up steam under the Obama administration. Ironically enough, when he starts to emphasize the Department of Homeland Security under his leadership starts to emphasize building relationships between federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and state and local counterparts. The police officers who patrol streets in every city in the United States and the sheriff's deputies who run county jails in communities all around the United States who far surpass ICE or Border Patrol's ability to have a physical presence in every town and every community in the country. Under President Obama, we start to see close relationships, not just in terms of personal relationships, but technological relationships. We start to see the back end computer databases get interwoven with one another, start to see access being shared between local cops on the ground working their beats in cities around the country and ICE officers so that the federal government starts to develop a technological pathway between an initial encounter with a local police officer for anything from the most serious reasons to the most mundane traffic violation reason. And that becomes an entryway to the immigration detention deportation pipeline. Of course, that only gets developed further over the decades that have ensued since Obama left office.

[Emma Vigeland]

I want to pause and linger on that for just a second because when you're talking about how the Obama administration was essential in pushing the collaboration of immigration enforcement with local policing. I just opened the show speaking about some of Chuck Schumer and the Democrats supposed demands in this fight over the appropriations for dhs. And one of the things that they are saying needs to happen, and Chuck Schumer's been saying this for weeks, is more collaboration with local law enforcement. It's just. And then the body camera stuff as well, which is more of the continuation of what you're saying. Cesar.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

The.

[Emma Vigeland]

More technology, what we need is more technology and more surveillance and more integration of immigration enforcement with local law enforcement. That's apparently the Democrats responses, or at least leadership's response to this Immigration and Customs Enforcement kind of rogue agency brutalizing communities. It really is quite stunning when you put it in those terms. And. And it also shows how outdated Schumer's frame of mind is because. Because the fact that that was Obama's tactic, I mean, it's a relic even as you describe it, even though it wasn't that long ago.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

In Senator Schumer's defense, he's been making that argument since the early 1990s. So there's something for consistency here. No one should be surprised. No one who's familiar with Chuck Schumer should be surprised that that's his position. That was the position he articulated when he was a member of the US House of Representatives. That's the position that the Clinton administration embraced and the Obama administration after that. So this is not unusual. If anything, it reflects the fact that the leadership of congressional leadership of the Democratic Party is very much tied to the past, tied to the sort of tough on crime mentality, hopeful that they can outmaneuver the Republicans from the right when it comes to their approach to migrants. Hasn't worked. I haven't seen it work in the past. I guess if they keep trying, maybe one day it will work. I don't know what the political strategy is there, but certainly what we've seen is that there is an immense amount of collaboration. The Trump administration has in fact, been saying that the reason why there are these violent episodes in Minneapolis is because they're not getting the support that they want from Minneapolis and from the state of Minnesota. And they're comparing that to Texas and Florida as being the positive examples. Where, of course, we haven't seen this kind of violence in cities like Houston or San Antonio that have enormous migrant populations. It has nothing to do, apparently, with the fact that there are 3,000 immigration agents in Minneapolis and not that many in Houston and San Antonio and elsewhere. So I suppose I can't speak to the political strategy that Senator Schumer's articulating, but I can say that this is nothing new from him. I've been hearing this for decades, and I don't expect him to change at this point in his life or his career.

[Emma Vigeland]

That's sobering analysis. It doesn't make me less outraged about it, but fair enough. You know, we're kind of zeroing in a little bit on the core of this problem here, which is the criminalization of immigration. And your second chapter really goes into how immigration law creates criminals by its nature. Can you expand a little bit on that notion? Because we're seeing the growth of immigrants in detention. It's people with no criminal record, no criminal history. But this fascist administration treats any border crossing without full documentation as essentially a criminal offense. That's where we're at at this point.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

That's right. Immigration law is immensely powerful. And one of its great powers is that it actually does have the legal authority and the option to turn people into criminals in the most formal legal sense. As somebody who's prosecuted and convicted of a crime in a courtroom by a judge and sentenced accordingly. The fact of the matter is that since 1929, it has actually been a federal crime to enter the United States without the federal government's permission. That's a misdemeanor. The felony version of this is entering the United States without the federal government's permission after having previously been deported. Those two laws have been on the books for almost a century at this point. They were born in a moment in which there was an enormous amount of animus, not only towards Europeans coming from the southern Europe or eastern Europe, but also specifically toward Mexican migrants. This was a period in which there were quotas that were being set on southern and eastern European migration to try to keep out the number of Italians, numbers of Jews, numbers of Poles who were hoping to come to the United States. And there was also, at the same time, a political impetus to try to curtail the number of Mexicans who were coming to the United States. But the problem for the immigration restrictionists when it came to Mexicans was agriculture. The agribusiness lobby was simply too powerful. They realized that they needed Mexican migrants in order to operate those citrus groves and those fields in California and Arizona and Texas. And so they kept blocking immigration legislation that would do to Mexicans what was possible to do politically to southern and eastern Europeans. And so in 1929, a guy from South Carolina, Senator from south Carolina, Coleman Livingston bleeding is elected. And one of his key platform issues is to limit migration. He's willing to limit migration from everywhere. But he sees this political opportunity to make his name by targeting Mexicans who had so far been untouchable at the federal level. He partners with some other restrictionists that were already in the house and in the senate, as well as the secretary of labor at the time, and they are able to enact a piece of legislation that actually turns to criminal law. When you can't do something through immigration law, you turn to criminal law and you say, look, we're not targeting Mexicans. We're targeting people who come to the United States without the federal government's permission, Ignoring, of course, the fact that labor markets transcended the border, existing labor relationships trans. Transcended the border, and the fact that those jobs were still very much there in the late 1920s, early 1930s across the Southwest. But now it was possible to criminalize those folks and to turn on and turn off the power of criminal prosecution according to whatever the labor market demands were. So when agricultural businesses needed Mexican laborers, local prosecutors said, you know, we're going to turn to other things. We have better things to do. Once those, those. Those farms did not require the workers any longer, well, that's when prosecutors suddenly became interested again. Criminalize somebody, then you can deport them. And now you're not deporting them because they're Mexican. You're deporting them because they are criminal aliens. This is a pattern that we've seen over and over again.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yep, yep, yep. Fits nicely with our previous kind of talk about the drug laws as well. But it also, I mean, when we're looking at what this project of criminalizing immigration is really about, you know, ICE is acting right now as a police force to ethnically cleanse the country at the behest of Trump and Stephen Miller. But, you know, even the Western project of like, say, nation building nation states and defining those on, like, some sort of oftentimes racial lines and who's a desirable immigrant to come into this country and who's not, that also feels like part of the infrastructure here as well. And it's one that we need to reckon with immediately. Given the fact that migration is going to only increase due to the climate catastrophe disproportionately affecting the global South. That part is very much, I think, endemic to this kind of immigration criminalization project that we're speaking about here.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Migration is certainly going to continue. It's probably going to increase as from greater parts of the world, including the Western Hemisphere, become less hospitable to human life. But where migrants go is not necessarily a preordained destination. If the United States ceases to be a politically stable and economically vibrant destination, then migrants will go elsewhere. There's nothing preordained about the fact that they will come here. We have to remember, an ocean away, Europe. And Western Europe right now is a destination of choice. But there are folks who are very much alive today. Not me, not you, but many of our parents and grandparents who remember a time when Western Europe was not a destination of choice. It was a place to flee. And so the reality is that the migrants don't pay places simply because they are easy to get to. They pick places because they think that they are going to have an opportunity for a better life there. And if the United States ceases to be the economically vibrant and politically stable place that it has been for generations, then, of course, it is possible that we will have fewer people who are trying to reach our communities. And in fact, there may be some of us who are already living here who may be looking, setting our own side on other potential destinations.

[Emma Vigeland]

And lastly, before we let you go, can you just speak a little bit about what it means to treat immigration as, say, a kind of the result of social or political choices, economic choices that those immigrants have to make as well, versus one that's based in criminality, and what dismantling the system looks like and what reimagining it looks like.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Look, unless something radically changes in the United States, where we do become sort of a dystopian, politically unstable and economically depressed place that I hope that doesn't become, at least not in my own lifetime, then what we should expect is that many people will continue to want to make their way to the United States. The labor markets in the United States obviously need more migrant labor. The migrants are a key contributor to economic growth in the United States. Of course we can decide that we want a smaller economy, we want a smaller economic footprint across the globe. That's a values choice. That's a conversation that potentially some people may want to have. I certainly appreciate the economic or the benefits of the economic vibrancy of this country. But at the same time, there are people who, there are interpersonal relationships that transcend boundaries. There are people like me who are are not only biliterate and bicultural, but whose lives are very much bi national. And as a result, the very human, basic human desire to live and to be close to the folks who are most important to your life, the people who bring meaning to your life, that's not going to end anytime soon. And right now we have an immigration law regime that really seeks to ignore those very fundamental human relationships. But at the same time, it seems to emphasize those worst moments in migrants lives not because they are somehow different. Of course all of us make mistakes. We all engage in activities that we wish we didn't. We all do things that we try to forget, leave in our past. And some of us are lucky enough that there isn't an immigration law regime that sort of ties those worst moments around our necks. But immigration law does actually try to keep people tied to those moments of failure and it makes it next to impossible for them to move beyond that. There are very few options for escaping from the immigration detention and deportation pipeline. Once somebody is in it, there is no statute of limitations, after which you get to move on with your life. Instead, immigration law right now looks to see what was that flaw that you were caught living, realizing and can we tie you to it? No matter how much you've improved, how much you've left that behind, no matter how firmly embedded you are in a community in the United States.

[Emma Vigeland]

Cesaire Cuatoma Garcia Hernandez, you can read his book welcome the Wretched In Defense of the Criminal Alien. We will put a link to that down below in the video and episode descriptions. Cesar, thanks so much for coming on the show today.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

My pleasure.

[Emma Vigeland]

All right folks, with that we're gonna wrap up the free part of this show and head into the fun half of this show. We do have some fun clips today. I believe we will get into that with Brandon and Binder. Matt, what's happening on Left Reckoning with your Jacobin show?

[Brian]

Yeah. Tomorrow on Left Reckoning or sorry, tomorrow on the Jacobin show at 10am Eastern time, Luke Savage on to talk about Mark Carney and the admission that the entire world order that the left has been criticizing for 50 plus years was in fact a lie and that it's over now. And so Luke is great to talk about that and also put Mark Carney in the proper context because it is sort of the type of thing where if Sheinbaum said that everyone would like roll their eyes and be like, okay, but because it's a Goldman Sachs neolib that runs a party that's basically been collaborating with this stuff the whole time, it gets a shockwave. So, yeah, check that out. Tomorrow o' clock at 10am Eastern.

[Emma Vigeland]

All right. And I believe we have Brandon.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Hey. Hey.

[Emma Vigeland]

Let's go, Brandon. How you doing? I'm doing great.

[Brandon]

How you doing? I. I never stop. I never stop saying it. That's the benefit of it being your name. You just, you never stop going.

[Brian]

In 75 years, they'll look back at like the list of presidents and they'll just see Brandon under Joe Biden.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah. No one will remember what Joe Biden looked like or looked like or what he did.

[Brian]

One of the worst presidents of all time.

[Emma Vigeland]

I mean, auto pen, they have the.

[Brandon]

Auto pin photo, so it's still there.

[Emma Vigeland]

I mean, in terms of one term, presidents in recent memory, like, I mean, Jimmy Carter was at least a good dude.

[Brian]

Yeah.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah. I don't know. Brandon, what's happening over on the Discourse?

[Brandon]

Well, I am pleased to say that we are actually only I think 100 and about 70 subscribers away on the YouTube page from 15,000. And when we hit that number, we're gonna do a little bit of a, I guess, marathon stream. And I say marathon, but I mean like maybe like six hours, if that. I'm being honest, I hate working. But we'll do a longer than average stream to celebrate. It'll be fun. We'll look at pictures of animals, we'll listen to music, we'll play games. And you know, I hate to be that person, but one day when my stream is huge, you're gonna remember back to this time. If you're listening now, when I asked you to subscribe and you didn't and you had the opportunity to be in on the ground fl and you'll think to yourself like, wow, I really missed the boat. And now I'm not telling you what to do based on that information. I'm just putting that information out there for you to make an informed decision.

[Emma Vigeland]

Did you read some sort of multilevel marketing book? Is that what you're stealing this pitch from? Because that's what you sound like. You better get in now or you're going to really regret it later on.

[Brandon]

No, I mean, honestly, I just to be, you know, I'm being. I've been watching and this is kind of unrelated a lot of the PBD network in their like series of shows. I've been watching pbd. I've been watching PBD comedy, which is like a skit based show, like starring Vinny. I've been watching her take, which is their lady companion show.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah, yeah.

[Brian]

One of our producers informed us that Vinnie does a comedy thing which is pretty. I mean, I told Brian this is like what it must feel like if you're a prospector and you find a new vein of like gold to like mine. Like that is. That's a great. For our purposes, that is, you know, money in the bank.

[Brandon]

It's pretty bad. I'm going to tell you before you get too excited that it's actually pretty bad. It's pretty unwatchable.

[Unidentified Commentator]

It's a lot of.

[Emma Vigeland]

It's in a fun way.

[Brandon]

Sure. For a little bit.

[Emma Vigeland]

Okay. Yeah. I was considering in terms of bad in a fun way. I said to Sam, I was like, maybe I'll go to Melania this weekend, but I don't want to buy a ticket. So I should, you know. And this sucks because now all of the theaters they. You have reserved seating, which I generally like. I like that practice if I. It's a movie I want to see. But back in the day, you know how you get into R rated movies was you just buy a ticket for like Finding Nemo or something and then go and see the R rated movie. I wanted to do this method this weekend, but I don't know, we'll have to report back on sneak.

[Brandon]

Sneak in.

[Emma Vigeland]

I know the reality is it's going to be I think like 2 degrees somewhere between like 11 and 2 degrees this weekend.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

So.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah, I don't know.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Yeah.

[Brandon]

How is it? Is it cold there? Is it like really.

[Emma Vigeland]

It's awful. I mean my nose is running just constantly. Yeah, it's not very cold. It's very cold. Hopefully next week's a Little bit better. Hi, Matt Bender. What's happening in your neck of the the woods?

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Left is Mafia Tonight at 8:30pm at.

[Emma Vigeland]

YouTube.com mattbinder all right, we will head into the fun half now. As always, please, if you can keeps us resilient in these dire times. Join themjorityreport.com Please become a member. If you are able, you can im the show and just support us as well.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Oh.

[Emma Vigeland]

All right. See you in the fun half.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Okay.

[Tom Holman]

Emma, please.

[Emma Vigeland]

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

[Sam Cedar]

Wait, look.

[Emma Vigeland]

Sam is unpopular.

[Sam Cedar]

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

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

It is Thursday.

[Brian]

I think you need to take over for Sam.

[Josh McLaurin]

Yes, please.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

No, no, no. I'm.

[Emma Vigeland]

I'm.

[Sam Cedar]

I'm gonna pause you right there. Wait, what? You can't encourage us to live like this, and I'll tell you why. Who was offered a tour? Sushi and poker with boys. Tour, sushi and poker with boys. Who was offered a tour?

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah.

[Sam Cedar]

Sushi and poker with boys.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

What?

[Sam Cedar]

Tour, sushi and poker.

[Emma Vigeland]

Had Tim's upset.

[Sam Cedar]

Twerk, sushi and poker with pork. Boys. It was offered with twerk, sushi and that's what we call biz work. Sushi, sushi, and poker.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Boyd.

[Emma Vigeland]

Right.

[Sam Cedar]

Sushi and.

[Emma Vigeland]

We're gonna get demonetized.

[Sam Cedar]

I just think that what you did to Tim Pool was mean.

[Emma Vigeland]

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 Vigeland]

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

[Sam Cedar]

Sushi and poker with the boys.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Oh, my God. Wow. Sushi.

[Sam Cedar]

I'm sorry. I'm losing my mind. Someone's offered sushi and poker with boys. Logic. Sushi and poker. I think I'm like 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.

[Josh McLaurin]

A little kid.

[Sam Cedar]

I think I'm like a little kid. A little kid. I'm losing my mind. I'm not trying to be a dip right now, but, like, I have absolutely think the US should be providing me with a wife and kids.

[Emma Vigeland]

That's not what we're talking about here.

[Sam Cedar]

It's not a fun job. That's a real thing. That's a real thing. Real thing. Willy Wonka. That's a real thing. That's a real thing. That's a real thing. Real thing. That's a real thing. That's a real boss offer to work.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

And.

[Sam Cedar]

And gentlemen, Joe Rogan has done it again. That's a real thing.

[Brandon]

Oh, I think he might be blowing.

[Emma Vigeland]

It out of proportion.

[Sam Cedar]

Real thing. That's got poker with the boys offer. That's a real thing. Let's go, Joey. Twerk, sushi, and poker with the boy.

[Josh McLaurin]

Take it easy.

[Sam Cedar]

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. Sam has the weight of the world on the shoulders.

[Emma Vigeland]

Don't want to do this show anymore.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Anymore.

[Emma Vigeland]

It was so much easier when the majority report was just you happy?

[Sam Cedar]

Let's change the subject.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Rangers and Nicks are doing great now.

[Unidentified Commentator]

Shut up.

[Emma Vigeland]

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

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

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

[Emma Vigeland]

This is the pro killing podcast.

[Sam Cedar]

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

[Emma Vigeland]

Left his best Violet twerk.

[Sam Cedar]

Don't be foolish and don't tweet at me. And don't the way this. All of these people love it.

[Emma Vigeland]

That's where my heart is. So I wrote my honors thesis about it. I guess I should hand the main.

[Sam Cedar]

Mic to you now. You are to the right of the unforeseen.

[Emma Vigeland]

We already formed Israel.

[Cesar Cuautemo Garcia Hernandez]

Dude.

[Emma Vigeland]

Are you against us?

[Sam Cedar]

That's a tougher question I have an answer to. Incredible theme song.

[Emma Vigeland]

Hi, Bumbler.

[Sam Cedar]

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