The Daily Signal - #504: Red States Could Lose Big Because of the Census, Rep. Mo Brooks Explains

Episode Date: July 16, 2019

Is it fair to distribute electoral college votes and congressional seats by counting all people, not just citizens? Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., is suing the federal government because he thinks Alabama will be hurt because of the current methodology of the census. We also cover these stories:•The Trump administration announces new asylum rules.•President Trump defends his "go back" tweets, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemns him. •Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley call on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate social media companies' practices.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, July 16th. I'm Kate Trinko. And I'm Daniel Davis. The national census is less than a year away. And even though it won't include a citizenship question, the controversy is hardly over. Alabama is suing the federal government over its counting of illegal immigrants in the census. They argue that illegal immigrants in the official population count would deflate their own representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama joined that. lawsuit, and today he'll join us in studio to discuss it. Plus, the actress Scarlett Johansson takes heat for saying she should be able to play

anyone in a movie, including a transgender person. We'll discuss. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please subscribe and please tell your friends about the podcast to help us grow. Now on to our top news. People who claim asylum when crossing the southern border must now show they try to get asylum in another country besides the U.S., the justice and homeless. land security departments announced. There are a few exceptions, but by and large, this will apply

to most migrants. Attorney General William Barr said in a statement, this rule is a lawful exercise of the authority provided by Congress to restrict eligibility for asylum. The United States is a generous country, but is being completely overwhelmed by the burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of aliens along the southern border. This rule will decrease forum shopping by economic migrants and those who seek to exploit our asylum system to obtain entry to the United States. Well, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a resolution on Monday to condemn President Trump's recent tweets as quote-unquote xenophobic.

The president ignited a firestorm over the weekend when he told a progressive group of Congresswomen to go back to their countries of origin. That comment appeared to be directed toward Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others, though notably only Omar was born outside the U.S. The president said, quote, so interesting to see progressive Democrat congresswomen who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world, even if they have a functioning government at all, now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation

on earth how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came? Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly. You can't leave fast enough. I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements, end quote.

Well, in a letter to her caucus on Monday, Pelosi said, The House cannot allow the President's characterization of immigrants to our country to stand, Our Republican colleagues must join us in condemning the president's xenophobic tweets. President Trump spoke out about the tweets on Monday saying this. If you're not happy here, then you can leave. As far as I'm concerned, if you hate our country, if you're not happy here, you can leave. And that's what I say all the time. That's what I said in a tweet, which I guess some people think is controversial.

A lot of people love it, by the way. A lot of people love it. President singled out Representative Ilan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota. Well, they're very unhappy. I'm watching them. All they do is complain. So all I'm saying is if they want to leave, they can leave, John. They can leave. I mean, I look at the one, I look at Omar. I don't know. I never met her. I hear the way she talks about Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has killed many Americans. She said, you can hold your chest out. You can, when I think of America, huh? When I think of Al-Qaeda, I can hold my chest out. When she talked about, the World Trade Center being knocked down. Some people. You remember the famous some people. These are people that, in my opinion, hate our country. Now, you can say what you want, but get a list of all of the statements they've made. And all I'm saying that if they're not happy here, they can leave. They can leave. And you know what? I'm sure that there'll be many people

that won't miss them. But they have to love, they have to love our country. They're Congress people. and I never used any names. Daily Wires Ryan Savrida claims Trump was referring to this clip of Omar. It's unclear what program she is on, who she is talking to, or the greater context of her remarks. Remember when I was in college, I took a terrorism class. Is that a such thing? Yeah, there was. So you go out, there is a lab for that?

There was a class that you said. Do you go to lab? No, we learned the ideology of... I'm glad you do that. And so it was, the thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said al-Qaeda, he sort of, like, his shoulders went up. And, you know, he's in command here. Al-Qaeda, you know, hospital. He's an expert.

And it was, you know, as it. What's his name? We are not saying his name. Senator Lindsay Graham also weighed in on the tweet controversy. Here's what he said Monday on Fox and Friends. Well, we all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of communists. They hate Israel. They hate our own country.

They're calling the guards along our border, the Border Patrol agents, concentration camp guards. They accuse people who support Israel of doing it for the Benjamins. They're anti-Semitic. They're anti-America. Don't get down. Aim higher. We don't need to know anything about them personally. Talk about their policies.

Senator, it sounds good. I think there are American citizens who are duly elected that are running on an agenda that is disgusting, that the American people were reject. Talk about what it means for America to have free health care for illegal immigrants and no criminalization of coming into the country. See how that works for controlling immigration. They're ideas. They're anti-Semitic. They talk about the Israeli state if they're a bunch of thugs, not victims of the entire region. They wanted to impeach Trump on day one.

They're socialist. They're anti-Semitic. They stand for all the things that most Americans disagree with. Make them the face of the future of the Democratic Party. You will destroy the Democratic Party. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley wrote to the Federal Trade Commission asking the agency to investigate social media companies. The two Republican senators wrote, quote,

companies that are this big and that have the potential to threaten democracy this much should not be allowed to curate content entirely without any transparency. These companies can greatly influence democratic outcomes, yet they have no accountability to voters. They are not even accountable to their own customers because nobody knows how these companies curate content. Congress empowered the FTC to conduct investigations in precisely these circumstances where more infreported.

information is needed to determine full compliance with the law. End quote. Meanwhile, libertarian investor and Facebook board member Peter Thiel said in a speech over the weekend that the FBI and CIA should look into Google. Teal accused the company of having, quote, unquote, treasonous dealings with the Chinese military. Google is saying that Teal's allegations are false. Well, up next, we'll discuss the census with Congressman Mo Brooks. What the heck is trickle-down economics? Does the military really need a space force? What is the meaning of American exceptionalism?

I'm Michelle Cordero. I'm Tim Desher. And every week on the Heritage Explains podcast, we break down a hot-button policy issue in the news at a 101 level. Through an entertaining mix of personal stories, media clips, music, and interviews, we help you actually understand the issues. So do this. Subscribe to Heritage Explains on iTunes, Google. play or wherever you get your podcast today.

Well, Alabama is suing the federal government over whether illegal immigrants should be counted in the census. The outcome will have real political ramifications for Alabama and other states. And today we're joined by one of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, none other than Congressman Mo Brooks, who represents Alabama's fifth congressional district. Congressman, thanks for being with us today. My pleasure. So, Congressman, before we get into the lawsuit specifically, I'd like to ask your

response to the president's executive order last week after the Supreme Court pretty much blocked off his path to adding the citizenship question to the census. He issued an order to the executive branch to gather as much information as it could piecemeal on citizenship. What's your reaction to the president's move there? Well, I have mixed reactions. First, it's unfortunate that the Supreme Court botched it in the way in which Supreme Court Chief Justice drafted his opinion, which in effect barred the asking of the citizenship question on the census, a question that has been asked far more often than not. And it's also unfortunate that the Trump administration, whoever it was that actually was involved in this process, I suppose a lower echelon person, botched it

by talking about improper motivations for asking a citizenship question. Had the Trump administration done it right and focused on what are legal motivations, then I believe we would have the citizenship question on the census. It's something that Justice Roberts probably would have agreed with, although quite frankly, I believe you should have agreed with it anyways, based on the history of the citizenship question on the census. So that's, You know, that's kind of the mixed reaction side of it. On the plus side, you've got the executive order that's going to try to determine how many illegal aliens there are in each state, which is fundamental to making sure that we have a proper dispersal of congressional seats and electoral college votes based on people who are lawfully within the United States,

not based in part on people who are illegally here. So tell us about the lawsuit that you and the state of Alabama are bringing on this question. Sure. You've got anywhere from 11 million illegal aliens in the United States, according to the 2010 census, to maybe 22 million, if you believe, a recent Yale University study. We have one congressional seat and one electoral college vote that is doled out amongst the 50 states, roughly 750,000 people equal one electoral college vote and one congressional seat. Well, if you've got 22 million illegal aliens in the United States of America, then you're looking at roughly 30 congressional seats and electoral college votes that are being allotted based on the count of illegal aliens rather than American citizens. So in effect, you're diluting the influence of American citizens over their own government,

and you're also, and this is part of the lawsuit, you are adversely affecting the one-man, one-vote principles that are enunciated in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that require congressional seats after reapportionment by way of example to be perfectly equal in population with maybe a fraction of a percentage point deviation. And that's to ensure that no one citizen's vote counts more than another citizen's vote. Well, if you have a congressional seat, say, in California, where half of the people who live in that congressional seat are illegal aliens, you've in effect doubled the political weight of a citizen's vote in that congressional seat versus one that's made up of primarily American citizens.

And so that dilution of the vote by the counting of illegal aliens, in my judgment, is unconstitutional because it violates one-man-one vote principles. And how do you see Alabama specifically being hurt by this? The odds are that the state of Alabama will lose a congressional seat if illegal aliens are counted nationally. Keep in mind that you're talking about a shift of roughly 30 congressional seats and 30 electoral college votes from one set of states that don't have a lot of illegal aliens to other states that have a lot of illegal aliens. and Alabama would likely be one of those 30 congressional seats that are shifted. That's wrong. Notably, there tends to be a shift to the socialist Democrat states

and away from states that are predominantly made up of American citizens, which in turn have a better understanding of the foundational principles that have made America a great nation, which in turn means that those states that are losing congressional seats, and losing electoral college votes, if you count illegal aliens, more often than not, they're red states. So that seems like pretty straightforward policy to count, you know, to count the people in your apportionment count that are actually going to be voting legally. But I guess the policy argument could be different from the legal argument. You've argued that this is also unconstitutional.

Could you explain that for us? Well, it's unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment one-man-one-vote principles. and you are diluting the vote of American citizens when you count illegal aliens for the purposes of distribution of political power. That political power being congressional seats on the one hand and electoral college votes on the other. There's a huge movement afoot in the United States to have illegal aliens voting in all of our elections, to have other non-citizens, lawful immigrants voting in all of our elections, That's something the socialist Democrats are pushing. In effect, what that does over the long haul is it steals from American citizens the ability to govern their own governments.

Now, we're not the United Nations. We're the United States. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there are probably about a dozen Democrat-controlled cities that have made it lawful to register to vote, even if you're not an American citizen. It makes no difference if you're a lawful immigrant or an illegal agent. alien, the largest such city that allows illegal aliens and non-citizens to register to vote and vote is San Francisco. So that gives you an idea of where the socialist Democrats want to take us as a country.

They want to undermine the very principles that have made America who we are, the greatest nation in world history, and they want to do that by bringing into our voting pool people who are not as well informed about the foundational principles that have made us who we are, the greatest nation in world history. I have to say, I grew up near the insanity in San Francisco, and it's amazing to see firsthand. Speaking of craziness. Have you spoken to any liberals, either in Alabama? Have you spoken to any Democratic colleagues?

Is there any sympathy for this argument from unexpected quarters? I have not spoken to any Democrats in the state of Alabama who are familiar with the National Democratic Party's goal of allowing non-citizens and illegal aliens in particular to participate in American elections. Now, right now, it's limited theoretically to municipalities. But with a wink, wink, and a nod, you have to wonder how many of those illegal aliens or lawful immigrants, both of whom are non-citizens when they show up with their voter registration card are allowed to vote in state and federal elections. Now, currently under the current apportionment count, legal non-citizens are also being included in that, correct?

I believe there's a pretty good argument for excluding all non-citizens in the count for the distribution of political power, that being the distribution of congressional seats and electoral college votes. However, the Alabama lawsuit is limited to the most egregious of those two groups, and those are illegal aliens who should. not even be here. His first act on our soil was to spit on our laws in our Constitution. So what's next for this lawsuit? We're waiting for the proceedings to develop to the point where a federal district judge in Birmingham will be able to render an opinion. Most of the issues are legal in nature,

although there is also some factual issue, and that comes down to whether Alabama will lose a congressional seat, as we believe, if illegal aliens are counted for the purposes of distribution of federal government political power. It seems like this is something that other states would really have a big stake in as well. Oh, they do. The red states have a huge stake in it, and the blue states do too. The blue states covet more congressional power, more electoral college influence on the election of the President of the United States, and they want to take those congressional seats and take those electoral college votes from the red states. Now, I'm using that as a generalism. It's not always that way. By way of example, Texas is probably a net gainer when you bring in illegal aliens in the count for the purposes of reapportionment. of congressional seats and electoral college votes.

California is a huge gainer. That's a big red state. Probably Illinois, New York, they're gainers. A state like Alabama, a state like Ohio. We're South Carolina, perhaps, a number of red states in the heartland of America. They tend to be the net losers if we count illegal aliens. Well, it's a lawsuit with very real political ramifications. Congressman, we appreciate you coming in and talking about it.

with us. My pleasure. Tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger government, become a part of the Heritage Foundation. We're fighting the rising tide of homegrown socialism while developing conservative solutions that make families more free and more prosperous. Find out more at heritage.org. Actress Scarlett Johansson reportedly told as if a magazine, quote, acting goes through trends. You know, as an actor, I should be a allowed to play any person or any tree or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job. There are a lot of social lines being drawn now and a lot of political correctness is being reflected in art. Well, after an uproar, Johansson recently was criticized for being

willing to play a transgender character despite not being transgender herself, although she later dropped out. Johansson said the comments were taken out of context. Quote, I personally feel that in an ideal world, any actor should be able to play anybody, and art in all forms should be immune to political correctness. That is the point I was making, albeit didn't come across that way, the actress said, according to an article by Tribune Content Agency, but don't worry, she did apologize. I recognize that in reality there is a widespread disruptancy amongst my industry that favors Caucasian, cisgendered actors and that not every actor has been given the same opportunities that I have been privileged to. I continue to support and always have diversity in every industry and will continue to fight for projects where everyone is included.

What do you think, Daniel? Well, now she's allowed back in after that little apology. All is forgiven. No, I don't think so because she insisted on maintaining that art should be immune to political correctness. I don't know that she's allowed to say that. But wasn't she apologizing about what she said? Sort of, but she was also like, I stand by it, but I'm also going to acknowledge my privilege so you don't all throw stones at me. Right.

I think that's what she was doing. She was just trying to appease people. Yeah, I don't know if it worked. Yeah, I don't know. I think it touches on identity politics. This is this ongoing thing now. And the interesting thing about acting is that acting is essentially. you playing someone that you are not you know you're representing someone else's narrative their

identity and you're claiming to tell their story and uh it seems like a lot of people now on the left don't believe that an actor should be able to portray someone whose narrative they don't personally they didn't personally experience which is odd because you know because you know since the beginning of movies since going back you know centuries in like theater um that's something that was happening. In fact, you know, all the actors in old ancient plays used to be men and men would play women. Ancient plays still Shakespeare. I know. I don't know. Men would play women. So I don't know. It's just a really odd and a new thing. Well, yeah. And in fact, I was reading a book about Paris recently and they were mentioning the famous French actress Sarah Bernhardt played a

couple of male roles very famously, I guess, in the 1800s or early 1900s. And I believe one of them was Hamlet. So yeah, there's a long history, obviously, mostly of men playing all the roles, but also of women playing some traditionally masculine roles. You know, I don't know. I think from a prudential standpoint, yeah, you probably shouldn't play a character of another race where race is inherent to it. Right.

But that's, I mean, you could argue that on artistic grounds. Like, obviously you can't play another race because it's just, you can't. Yeah. But, I mean, I just, the bigger question here, I'm just. so baffled by, and we're seeing this play out not just in acting, but, you know, in fictional writing, too, there's a lot of, like, how dare you write about a character whose race isn't yours or whose experience isn't yours. It'll probably soon be that if you're cisgendered, quote unquote, you can't write about transgender people. And I just, it's so limited. I mean,

basically, we've made this point before, but, like, all you're leaving is memoir. Right. You're leaving no ability for imagination. But the thing about stories is that they're not supposed to include all narratives. So even if you're, you know, writing a story about someone who's, you know, gay, that is not claiming to speak for the experience of all people who identify that way. It's just saying this particular person's story. So I really don't see what the problem is, since Wendy's stories have to include everyone's narrative. Also, if stories aren't truthful to experiences, they won't resonate and they won't sell and they won't endure. I mean, I just, you know, obviously, I mean, you would have almost no fiction, no stories, no, I mean, does anyone get worked up over how dare Jane Austen write Mr. Darcy, like when she's not a man? I mean, I don't know, probably some guys who've read it are annoyed. But obviously, most people don't find it so untruthful that they can't read it. I don't know. I think Johansson is actually, despite her annoying apology, is still trying to be somewhat brave. It'll be interesting if she has to apologize for even that in a couple of times.

days or what happens? Yeah. One of the things I'd like to ask these folks who are being critical of her is, are they upset that she won't be able to produce the kind of art that is accurate to their experience? Or are they just saying dogmatically, no, you as a non-trans person don't have a right to even enter into that space? Because if it's more about the art, then I can get that.

But if it's just about, no, you can't even try to understand our experience. And that just seems kind of wacko. I mean, but even if it is about the art, I just, so what? I mean, the famous transgender actress Levern Cox is she not allowed to play a person who's transgender? And if you do a good job, it shouldn't matter, you know? I mean, did you ever see Philadelphia? No.

Tom Hanks, one of his first big movies. I think it was his first big movie. He played a gay man with AIDS. He was like in the late 80s, early 90s. I haven't seen it. Yeah, I mean, he did a good job playing the character. his partner was actually Antonio Banderas, also a straight man. But they played it in a compelling way.

And the movie was a really big moment for the LGBT movement in terms of the AIDS crisis. And they weren't complaining. So, you know, I kind of, if you do a good job on screen, I don't see what the problem is. But anyway, not that I'm arguing against you, Kate. You're a lot to argue against me. No, I just, I don't know what to say. It just feels like things get crazier every day. And, you know, it's just, it would be, I would so love a reality show where they put a bunch of Hollywood people like in the middle of Texas.

And like they just had to live with Texans for a year and talk to them. Like, I just think that would be an amazing show. And oh, yeah. It just feels like such an alternative universe. Like when you listen to like what woke Hollywood people say and then you talk to, you know, most Americans who don't live in, you know, the political. politically correct coastal elite bubble. And it just feels like the gap is so insane. Oh, yeah.

That's a great idea. I think having maybe, say you had exchange students, you know, from like Boston, you know, like exchange students from like Boston to West Texas and the other way around and just follow them and see what it's like. That'd be great. I think the one key thing would be no one would be allowed to go to Austin where I'm pretty sure they're all liberal anyway. Yeah, they are. It's the People's Republic of Austin officially. It's a great time to party at.

Well, we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please use a review or a rating on iTunes to give us feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Lauren Evans and Thalia Ramprasad.

For more information, visit DailySignal.com.