Victor Davis Hanson (31:03)
Well I mean it's pure nihilism as I, I think I said with Sammy, we, we mentioned just a second that he Biden hates Trump more than he likes the American people because if he liked the American people he would have said the following. The people have spoken. The wall came up in the campaign. Even my vice president Kamala Harris supported it. She did not oppose it during her hundred day metamorphoses. And by the way Jack, where is she now? All those positions that she carved out that were not representative of her last 40 years, but she swore to us that she was for fracking, for border enforcement, for a wall. I haven't heard her. She could stay. She could appear out of nowhere in the last 30 days and say you know what, I had a change of Heart during this last hundred days of that campaign. And I told you that I would stop illegal immigration in a wall. I assumed and I was asked about it and I said I was happy to say it. Built. Okay, let's build it. She's not going to do that, obviously, because she was never sincere. She was always disingenuous. But it was very cynical because they would rather charge the. The American taxpayer will get hit twice on this. Not that it's a great sum, but it's emblematic. They'll get hit the fact that the. The materials are there for a lot of miles. They sold them for scrap or for other uses. You know, other federal agencies, other private entities that will use it for some type of fencing may perhaps. And then due to the Biden hyperinflation, and that included building materials, when we have to purchase the next elements of the wall, they'll be much more expensive. But, you know, it's the. I just want to talk a little bit about illegal immigration. I first started talking about this, I wrote Mexifornia 23 years ago, and it was very controversial. It was so controversial, Jack, that I had just been appointed to the Hoover Institution. And the director, John Rayson, who was a saint, he was a wonderful person, he called me, he said, victor, I got a problem. I've got a lot of open borders, free market libertarians. And they have no problem with you. In those days, you didn't. I was the first person you. That came in that under the new system that you had to be tenured by Stanford. But in that transitional period, the old system of a unanimous vote was assumed for senior fellows. Okay. And he said, there's a lot of otherwise conservative, moderate, some left, but they don't like what you wrote. So I got to wait six months. And that shows you how controversial it was because it wasn't just the left, it was the corporate right who wanted cheap labor and the libertarian philosophers who thought that, you know, borders was a federal regulation and get rid of it. That being said, the attitude of the left right now is they said it could cost a trillion dollars to deport people. It's too expensive. And think of that logic, everyone. The that logic is if you say, well, when you. A highway patrolman is going down the road and he sees somebody swerving around, it's very expensive to pull the guy over, give him a breath test, arrest him, have somebody come out and confiscate the car, take him in, book him, then have a trial, then maybe a jury and that. Da, da, da, da. It's much cheaper just to let him go. And then that's economical. That's the attitude of the left. Well, yes, we let in 12 million people and yes, there's crime and yes, they tax Social Security and people have suggested it may be a trillion dollars in labor and capital for now, what would be 30 million plus illegal immigrants. But the cost to rectify what they did is what they're arguing. And therefore we shouldn't follow the law because basically they're saying, well, we were weaving all over the road. It's too expensive at this late date to put us, to punish us, but we can do it very quickly. There were three things that Trump did. He built, he, he repaired 500 miles plus and then he built 30 or 40 with a trajectory and you couldn't fortify all of it. But it's a 2,000 mile wall and there's, he will do it in a year. The second thing is he will bring back the demand that you apply for refugee status before you come here. You just don't come over here and say, you know what, I'm here and I'm illegal, by the way. I look back at my situation, I think I'm a refugee. No, you go to an embassy or consulate and you make the argument and then you're adjudicated before you come. You don't come illegally. The third was catch and release. We're going to catch you, but you have rights of anybody else. And we don't know whether it's illegal that you came illegally or not. So we'll give you a court date. A million and a half people have not showed up that already have deep, they've already been adjudicated. They have quasi deportation. So if he did those three things, stop, catch and release, refugee status back in your native country, finish the wall. The other thing he could do is he could stop the tax free remittances. And there's 63 billion that go to Mexico and there's 60 that go to Central America. And he slaps a 30% tax. You're, you're talking 18, $20 billion. It would more than pay for the wall. And you could just say, we don't care what the status is of anybody who use Western Union or online banking. Anything electronically that goes to Mexico or Central America until the immigration problem is solved, will be taxed at 20 or 30%. And then you can threaten tariffs as well as he did last time, because Mexico knows what it is doing. It sees this as a deliberate policy. It's the Frederick Jackson Turner Safety valve which going to let all these people go so they don't march on Mexico City for redress of grievances. People in Chiapas, Micho, Khan, Oaxaca, we get the money. It's a greater revenue stream than oil or tourism. We have to have it. We want, as Obrador said, We've had 40 million expatriates. It's a beautiful thing. The third thing is, and I think they're really going to hit this, if you look at the 14th amendment, it does not say flat out unequivocally that anybody born on the soil of the United States is a citizen. It says anybody born on the soil who is not subject to the laws of a different entity, basically. And so when you're coming here as foreign parents, you are subject as a citizen of Mexico or Russia to those laws. If you look at the 27, I think it is European countries, 17 of them just say no way. These are liberal left wing that we all admire on the left. Leftists are always saying got to do what the EU does. They don't allow anchor birth and the 10 that do. I went back and looked at this. They require all sorts of things that at least one parent be a citizen or a naturalized citizen or they apply in advance, that they know they're going to be in a foreign country when the baby, it's just completely different. And those are the liberal and they would be considered conservative. I think there's only three countries that have this anchor baby clause. And if we stop that, believe me, we would remove an enormous incentive of people coming here deliberately to have a baby so they could anchor relatives, etc. The other, I think it's really important is that the deportations, they have iterations. So the first deportation, easy, 500,000 felons. We know that, everybody will love that. The next, a million and a half felons. Now, excuse me, a million and a half. The next one. These are people, as I said, they're not felons. But they have already been adjudicated and found to be here unlawfully and either didn't go to their deportation hearings or refugee status hearings and they're subject to immediate deportion. Deportation. That's 2 million. The third, I think is, is politically viable. Those are people who are able bodied, not working on public assistance, state, local or federal, and have only been here, say been here less than five years. That would, that would be 3 or 4 million. The fourth iteration would be easy. Those would be people and Trump had signed that order. Remember Jack, about terrorist People on from countries that sponsor terrorism would not be given visas.