The Munk Debates Podcast - Be It Resolved: No One Is Illegal

Episode Date: September 16, 2020

A wall that stretches 300 miles along the US-Mexico border. The suspension of the Dreamers program that shielded 800,000 children born to undocumented immigrants from deportation. The launch of a zero-tolerance policy that separates unauthorized migrants from their children. These are some of the hallmarks of the immigration policy of President Donald Trump's administration. Tackling the growing number of unauthorized migrants was central to Trump's election in 2016 and will be key to a second term. Supporters of Trump's immigration policies argue that mass illegal migration is destabilizing the border, costing billions in social services, and driving down wages for struggling blue collar workers. Critics of President Trump's immigration policies take issue with the very concept of a migrant being “illegal.” They argue that a realistic and humane immigration policy needs to recognize that undocumented immigrants are part of the fabric of America, with more than two-thirds having lived in the U.S. for over ten years. In this episode of the Munk Debates Podcast Rev. Sam Rodriguez, who leads the world's largest Hispanic Christian organization, and Allen Orr, President Elect of the American Immigration Lawyer's Association debate the essence of these two competing arguments. Sources: KPIX, Financial Times, Fox Business, News Max TV, PBS Newshour, KPRC, Al Jazeera, BloomberBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I think it's time for this toxic binary zero-sum madness to stop. We're not an imperial power. We're a revolutionary power. We are no longer in a world where you can plot out moves statesmen to statesmen like a chessboard. You don't know anything about my background to where I came from. It doesn't matter to you because fundamentally I'm a mean white man. We can't do this to the next generation because America will cease to exist. Welcome to the Monk Debates podcast. Every episode, we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issues of the day. Free of Spin, focused on the facts and animated by smart conversation to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind.

Today's debate, be it resolved, no one is illegal. The Trump administration announces its decision on DACA, ending the program that shielded hundreds of thousands of people from deportation. Good afternoon. I have put in place a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry on our southwest border. If you cross the southwest border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. Let the children go. In two weeks, we will have hit 300 miles of wall.

Those are anti-climb plates at top. So that makes it much more difficult when you get to the top because you see these guys climbing up with drugs on their back. They look at the wall and they say, let's pass. Let's take a pass on it. Hello, I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffith. Well, a wall that now stretches 300 miles along the U.S. Mexico border, the suspension of the Dreamers program that shielded 800,000 children born

to undocumented migrants from deportation. The launch of a zero-tolerance policy that separates unauthorized migrants from their children. These are just some of the hallmarks of the immigration policy of the United States under President Donald Trump's administration. Tackling the growing number of unauthorized migrants estimated at as many as 12 million currently in the United States was key to Trump's election in 2016 and his case for a second term. The president really needs to show significant progress. on one of, if not the key issue that, you know, he thinks matters to his re-election. And if you have unauthorized migration levels at their highest point in 13 years, then that's a major political liability.

Supporters of Trump's immigration policies believe the rule of law must be paramount when deciding who gets to become a U.S. citizen. They argue that illegal immigrants are cue jumping, making it harder for migrants who apply lawfully to enter the United States. Mass migration is also destabilizing the border, costing billions in social services, and driving down wages for struggling blue-collar workers. And even if it isn't specifically housing aid and food stamps, they're taking advantage of free public schools, of free public health. I am sure they realize more than the average American, the more people competing for those maid and nanny jobs, the more their wages go down. Critics of President Trump's immigration policies take issue with the very concept of a migrant being illegal.

They say that unauthorized border crossings are a civil violation, not a criminal offense. They argue that a realistic and humane immigration policy needs to recognize that undocumented migrants are part of the fabric of America, with more than two-thirds having lived in the United States for over 10 years. A fair and just immigration policy in America would recognize the vital, role immigrants and their families play in the workplace, in their communities, in society at large. Here's Joe Biden during the Democratic primary debates early last year. A 15 second, if you could, if you wish to answer, should someone who is here without documents, and that is his only offense, should that person be deported?

That person should not be the focus of deportation. We should fundamentally change the way we deal with them. On this installment of the Monk debates, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the resolution, be it resolved, no one is illegal. Arguing for the motion is Alan Orr, founder of Orr Immigration in Washington, D.C. He's the Immigration Section Chair for the National Bar Association in the United States and president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, where he is their national spokesperson. Arguing against the motion, be it resolved, no one is illegal, is Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, the world's largest Hispanic Christian organization. He's been nominated as one of the world's 100 most influential people by Time Magazine. He's also known as an advisor to President Trump, Obama, and Bush on immigration

and frequently consults with Congress on immigration issues and criminal justice reform. Alan, Sam, welcome to the Monk Debate podcast. Thank you for having me. Likewise. Thank you for having me. I'm really looking forward to today's debate of all the kind of big issues that I think are top of mind as 330 million Americans go to the polls in November. I think immigration policy has to be one of those kind of critical issues.

I think it affects everything from the economy. to some of our most treasured moral and ethical principles. And I think to have two people of your quality, your standing, your caliber here to help us unpack the key arguments in this debate as a privilege indeed. So thank you again. What we're going to do is, as we usually have on this podcast, short opening statements that kind of give our listeners a sense of where you're both coming at in terms of this debate. We have our resolution before us, be it resolved.

no one is illegal. Alan, you're speaking in favor of the motion. So we're going to put two minutes up on the clock and pass the proverbial microphone over to you. Please, take us away. Thank you. Be it resolved that no one is illegal. A person cannot be illegal. While certain actions may be criminal or illegal, people cannot be illegal. And with this fundamental understanding that all humans have basic rights, it will sort of lead us in the right direction for an immigration conversation and how we treat our brothers and sisters from different lands. People may be undocumented, and they might have entered the United States without inspection. People may be living here without appropriate authorization, but that does not, in fact, make them illegal. People and others who use the term to sort of state that someone is illegal is using it in a derogatory fashion to sort of devalue the life of,

of that individual and their rights against others. We don't call pedestrians who cross the street without the appropriate sign illegal pedestrians, nor do we call kids who skip school illegal kids. And it's the very same parallel that we must control our language to say certain actions may not be appropriate, but that does not disqualify those particular individuals in the conversation. as a lawyer is in fact important to note that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not anywhere in it say the term illegal alien. It does use the term alien to speak about individuals who are not nationals of this country, but it does not use the term illegal alien. A legal alien only became part of the lexicon of the legal department in this country in 2018 to sort of further add flames to the fire of the immigration conversation. Using such terms dehumanizes immigrants and doesn't push America and Congress towards a resolution with regards to the millions of people who are living here without documentation.

Once we're moving that stigma and we start talking about individuals and the documents they need to achieve the right to remain here, then we can have a more fruitful conversation. is important to understand in this conversation, there are no lines. There are many individuals who have been here for 20 years or more who, under this conversation that claims they need to go home to start in a line again, there would just be no line because there's no route for them to achieve their citizenship. And as this country moves forward, as sort of a young team country, it's time for us to understand that immigrants are the background of this country and what we need to continue to make this country great.

Thank you. Alan, thank you for those opening remarks. We're now going to go to Sam for his opening statement. Again, our resolution to remind our listeners today is be it resolved. No one is illegal. Sam, you're arguing against our motion. Let's hear your opening arguments, please. Well, I'm arguing against the motion as it pertains to public policy, advocacy, or clarity of definition. But as a Christian, I do agree that no human being can be. deemed illegal. A person created in the image of God cannot be called illegal. However, government does have a commitment to the English vernacular, the responsibility to deem actions as illegal.

For example, individuals that come into this country legally, be the conduit of our current law infrastructure, these individuals come in here legally. You juxtapose them or you create a dichotomy with those that are not coming in legally, hence, if they're not coming in legally, they are coming in illegally. And I do not believe that every single application of the phrase, illegal immigrant, seems to demean, deemone, or speak disparagingly, or in a condescending manner, or diluting the value of that human being's worth as a person created in the image of God. I believe it speaks to an action, not to the definition or the value of that individual. So the, utilization of the term illegal immigrant, not the preferable choice for Reverend Samuel Rodriguez,

who uses undocumented individuals. However, it does not speak to a collective intention of demeaning or devaluing the humanity of that undocumented immigrant that is currently in this country. Thank you, Reverend Sam. Let's go to a rebuttal's here, get a chance for both of you to kind of reflect on what you've heard in each other's opening statements and kind of push this debate forward. So, Alan, is there a specific point that you'd like to take up from Sam's opening statement here to underline with the audience to support your contention that no one is illegal? I think the point was pretty clear in the conversation that he stated that the action that that individual might have taken at some point in time was illegal, but that doesn't

make the individual illegal, even with the Christian argument that he also applied, that we must have a fundamental understanding that saying that these individuals are illegal pushes the immigration conversation in a different way than sort of saying someone is undocumented. And when you start talking about documentation, we start talking about solutions. Got it. Let's go to Sam. Let's have your reaction to Allen's opening remarks or what he's just said now about how we call people vis-a-vis labels, illegal, undocumented. These things fundamentally matter.

The term undocumented does not capture, in essence, the legitimate sort of conversation we should be having. What does that mean undocumented? It does not mention anything, does not reference anything regarding the illegal entry into a nation that has every right to protect this border, a sovereign nation. We're not living in Utopia. We're living in a very difficult world, a broken world, for that matter. So it behooves us to protect the sovereignty of our borders, to protect the sovereignty of our nation. So individuals that are undocumented, that's sort of a grandiose ambiguous term. So when we talk about individuals that are here illegally, we may have to rewrite the narrative.

So instead of illegal immigrants, individuals that are here illegally, that may be better. But the term undocumented speaks nothing to the legality of law and to the fact that there are wonderful people coming in here legally. And as a nation committed to protecting our safety and security, and as an individual, committed to ending sex trafficking and human trafficking at the border. We want to protect our border. We want people coming here legally. Thanks, Sam. Okay, let's get into the kind of key issues here on this debate about immigration that I think are

top of mind for listeners. And I'll maybe start with you as the lawyer. How do you respond to people who say, look, there are tens of thousands of people in Canada, the United States, who've applied legally to enter the country. They've filled out their applications. They've queued up at foreign embassies. They've paid their fees. And they're sitting there waiting for their application to be processed while other people are proceeding to simply enter the country without any kind of application.

How is that in any way just for those tens of thousands of people who have behaved in a way that respects the laws of the country to which they wish to belong? So jokingly, I say you mean like Christopher Columbus, but sort of in response to that, there's no sort of binary choice. You can grant them all the right to be here. It isn't a choice of these people or those people or this line or that line. That's a very close-minded sort of conversation. It can be everyone because there needs not be a line because we have a shortage of individuals here. So therefore, the inefficiencies of the administration and running the immigration system should not hurt individuals who, who also potentially have rights to be here that have been here for a long time. We must also remember that half of the people who are currently here that are undocumented came in documented and then overstay their visa. So therefore, does the analysis sort of change when someone sort of enters the country legally and they overstay their visa? Are they different than someone who's undocumented?

No, it becomes a conversation about documentation. And the greatest way to address this problem as a community and as a nation is to talk about documentation and to move in that direction. So Sam, come back on that. You're a Hispanic American, so you're working as a pastor with a variety of communities. As you said, you're very involved in the border around issues of sex trafficking and the exploitation of minors. I mean, what is your view on how we approach this ethically, morally? What do we do to these people that are showing up at the border who have nothing except to close on their backs? And they are looking to your country. to America for opportunity, for simply a meal on the table to feed them and their families. Why shouldn't we respond to this crisis morally as opposed to legally? We're great due deference to my friend Alan. It's not just an issue of documentation.

It's an issue of legality. But it's an issue likewise. Alan and I would probably agree on this of morality. I am pro-legal immigration. I do believe, like Alan believes, that the immigrant community is not a burden. I think the immigrant community may be very well be America's greatest blessing the 21st century. I work with this community. I pastor this community. Our churches are filled with individuals that are undocumented throughout our congregations. So it's arguably one of the most hardest working communities

in America. Without a doubt, I live in California, 12, 14-hour workdays in the agricultural sector, in the Central Valley on Route 99 in California, bless people indeed. And by the way, God-fearing, love their families. So it breaks my heart to see individuals coming in here illegally. The vast majority, 99.9% of them are not coming in here to do America any harm or any damage. They come here for a better day for their children and their children's children. It breaks my heart, but they need to come here legally. It's the rule of law. The opposite of the rule of law is anarchy. Put this in perspective. I'm a Californian. And during COVID, the governor issued a number of decrees about certain things we can and cannot do. However, you can't say these laws apply here, but by the way,

we're going to look the other way while thousands and millions come over our border without respecting the law illegally. There has to be a clear application of the law across the board. The conversation we need to be having is what do we do with those that are currently here undocumented? And I do believe that we should be pushing advancing, just like we've done. I worked with President Bush in advancing immigration reform. I worked with President Obama in advancing immigration reform. And now I'm believe it or not working with President Trump and trying to find immigration reform solution. So we want to bring legality or better yet legalizing those that are currently here undocumented while simultaneously securing the border and making sure those that come in in the future come here legally.

That's the best prescription, one that the American electorate and the American community will embrace. Thanks, Sam. Alan, do you feel that someone who comes to the American southern border who's in urgent humanitarian need has a greater kind of human right that allows them to transit that border into the United States from Mexico without having performed an act that violates. American law? I would argue to you, under the current law, the individual who's applying for asylum at the southern border is no different than the rich national who's applying for a business visa at an embassy abroad, and they should be treated with the same respect and due process under the law. The problem is that now our immigration system says individuals of a higher social class have more value than individuals who are now applying at the southern border. And if you're becomes a thing about numbers. So therefore, if it was just a smaller number of people who needed

help and sort of weren't in a disarray because their country's falling apart, then that would be okay. But because there's thousands of them in a country where there are 300 million plus people, that becomes problematic for the administration of our law to process these cases appropriately. Some 1,200 on the move from Central America and Cuba, marching toward the U.S. southern border. says the border patrol had to shut down El Paso, Texas checkpoints why they were so overwhelmed agents could not properly process other asylum seekers. More than 5,000 additional troops are preparing to head at the U.S.-Mexico border to keep thousands of migrants from entering the country.

Most of Central America, especially Honduras and have been here for months. They're waiting for their asylum request to play out in a clogged-up U.S. system. And so we meter them and keep them outside of the country for two to three months at our border, not providing them with any food, any health care. We just say, wait into your turn. So therefore, we create a problem where then individuals who are surviving for their lives are saying, someone please take me across them other way. The problem with the current administration, the immigration debate, is we want to make everybody

illegal, right? People who have been here, TPS, deferred action, people who have been here for 20 years, the concept is deport them all. And when you have 20 million individuals to deport at a constitutional budget that only allows for 400,000, a number that has not been reached under any of the administrations that he spoke about before, it becomes problematic to say deportation is the answer.

So then it becomes about documentation. And we have seen under Reagan that there was a chance to sort of make people become documented in this country. I supported this bill. I believe in the idea, of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. And that's the better solution.

Once you sort of deal with making the legal process work pursuant to what the economic process is and to the humanitarian call, then you won't have these problems of people showing up at the border. Okay, Sam, come back on this. Because what Alan's basically saying here, just to summarize, is that there's a way to reconcile or align three separate crises that are going on. A humanitarian crisis at the border, let's say an economic crisis in terms of a shortage of labor

and people who are willing to do the jobs that many migrants do, like picking vegetables in the valleys of Central California. And then finally, a kind of a legal crisis, a crisis of the lack of the application of laws fairly and justly to these internal populations of undocumented migrants. I mean, why don't just pull the Band-Aid off,

get these three crises resolved all at once and just make these 20-odd million people in the country legal citizens and be dumb with it. I do agree. The immigration system in America is completely broken. I do agree we need a system where we streamline and it's equally applicable across the board as it pertains to who comes in. I do not agree with this exclusive myopic way of thinking that the only immigrants that America should welcome into this nation are highly educated, highly skilled. I disagree with that. I think it needs to be reflective. Not necessarily an Australian system, looking at the Canadian system, which is primarily both Canada and Australia, merit with a little chunk for compassion. I think that chunk of humanitarian compassion should be large.

It should be equal with the highly skilled, highly educated. But if we look at 20 million individuals who are here currently undocumented. I don't believe every single individual born on this planet has a God-given right to come to America. We are a sovereign nation, and that right is extended via the conduit of legal mechanisms. Those that are currently here undocumented, I believe we can, and we should, as expeditiously as possible,

legislatively speaking, not being the conduit of executive fiat, we should find a solution, one that deport those that are engaged in nefarious activities, deport them, immediately. The 99.9% rest of the undocumented individual community in America, let's look at them. Let's find a way to legalize them. Let's get them a green card. I offered that solution to President Obama and I offered it to President Trump. Matter of fact, I said, here's a solution. Republicans will definitely agree on Democrats may a bulk add, but let's give them green cards. Let's do away with the issue of citizenship for a moment. Let's legalize them where they are here in America in perpetuity.

their children should not pay for their sins. Their children should become American citizens. If we do that, secure the border. The vast majority of Americans will sign off. Republicans, conservatives will sign off. I believe the majority of Democrats will sign off. And we would have a better day and do away with demonizing a community that is created in the image of God that came over because they want to do better things

and they want health and security and safety for their children and their children's children. but we can do this in a way that's comprehensive and that reconciles even to political spheres around an issue that I do believe transcends politics. Thanks, Sam. Okay, so this is getting interesting. Let's try to push this debate a little bit towards what is possible. Maybe not perfect, but what is possible? And, Alan, your take on, let's say a deal like that, where instead of making people citizens,

you paper them with documentation to the extent that they can function in the economy legally. and then you shut down the southern border. You, in a sense, stop the flow of undocumented migrants across the border, new migrants into the United States. Is that something that you think would meaningfully address this legal crisis in America right now? As long as those home conditions are the same, people are going to continue to look for other places. So I think starting in any conversation that says southern border rather than all borders, it's problematic because that's sort of going to a specific spectrum. It doesn't seem like due process to say everybody before you has a right to a claim,

but now you don't have a right to a claim because you're just too late in time, although the rules are the same. So if we say we're no longer taking asylum cases anymore, which doesn't seem to be a smart thing with the actual population concerns that we have now and the job market that we have right now of sort of giving people a legal way to come in, then it's going to be sort of a replica of just creating another underground system. So for some of my clients, having the right to be here and work without being deported is enough. Citizenship doesn't really add anything when you've been in a country for 20 years and you never could vote.

I don't need to make that decision today for those individuals. I think the answer should be go for as much as we can and see where we end up with justice and liberty and mercy and equity. But if people were just able to go to work, pay their taxes, a normalization of the system would be enough for many people who are here without documentation. That is a great solution. I think. Okay, Sam, you are advising President Trump on immigration issues. I mean, he seems an awful long way right now from this type of conversation about giving undocumented migrants in America the necessary green card, whatever it is to, you know, integrate legally into the economy. That seems to be far from what is on the table right now in terms of the Republican offer for

meaningful immigration reform? Listen, I've had conversations of President Trump on this issue, and I was there at the White House when the president looked at me and said, he said, Sam, how about this? I want you to go over and speak to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, which I did.

He said, Sam, how about if I do more for dreamers than President Obama? My jaw dropped. And that's when he unveiled the plan to increase the number of individuals that would be covered in a proposal that he laid out before the Democratic House, Republican Majority Senate. This president put the tweets aside here for a moment as it pertains to dreamers,

as it pertains to finding a solution. There was an opportunity to work with Congress in exchange for securing the southern border that would have brought legality, made citizens, not just green cards, citizens of every single dreamer. Amazing. Hoping to bridge the ideological gap with a compromise, they arrived at the White House on Wednesday evening, Democratic House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Chuck Schumer. A short time later, they heralded a landmark deal they'd made with the Republican president

to create a law allowing more than 800,000 children of illegal immigrants to stay in the United States. Or did they? The next morning on Twitter, Donald Trump said from his point of view, there was no deal on the program known as DACA. And because of political partisanship, it did not take place. I am open to the idea that this administration will actually consider, if we remove citizenship from the table, it's about citizenship. There's a political equation embedded here. And this is an issue of voters. There is angst and fear that if citizenship is included within any proposal, and that's why immigration reform has stalled, it's about numbers.

It's about elections. It means X number of new Democrats in the world of those that are involved in immigration reform conversations. And if we remove that from the table, we can bring a legal status to these individuals. They stop hiding in the shadows and they can thrive here in American society with the exception of being able to vote. I believe that we have an opportunity with this administration to negotiate such a deal because I've had these conversations with this administration.

So, Alan, what's your take on the current administration, maybe more important? importantly, does candidate Biden have a better policy prescription for immigration as it relates to the issues that we've discussed today? So I think Biden is the exact polar opposite of everything on the Trump policies with regards to treating and returning to your main system and trying to do it with Congress's help. So therefore, the Biden-Harris administration, Harris herself being that of an immigrant background, as everyone in the country is, but her a little bit closer to her time of being, has a strong foundation.

And she's been strong on immigration for a very long time in the Senate as well as in California. So those are good things ahead. Contrary to everything the Reverend spoke of, since the president initially stepped in office, he has done everything to deport and to make more individuals undocumented in this country. At the time of this podcast today in the Ninth Circuit, they have just made a class of people who have been here for 20 years under temporary protective status because of the conditions of their home country,

now undocumented in six months, which means they need to leave and return to their home country unless the Biden administration changes them. His very first act was to end DACA, right? And the conversation, while I wasn't there, that was had with Nancy Pelosi was, can we save this class of maybe 900,000 individuals at the cost of their parents and the other 12 to 13 million individuals? So that's problematic, and that's not really. really a solution when you sort of say, I'll give you five for a million. And it's a greater perspective

than that because when you sort of look at the president's current policies, they are sort of directed at brown and black communities with regards to travel bans, deportation, and also confinement. Most of the individuals who are now in these immigration detention centers are Haitian or are black, all of those things are facts that have sort of happened recently that sort of speaks to Trump's ban and sort of even winning the election was this concept of fear your brother. It's this constant concept of saying someone is illegal and therefore that creates fear in the individuals. These are our brothers and sisters, right? They can help where they were born and they might not be able to help the situation that they were sort of brought into the United States.

But as a country, we can address this. And that's a failure of both parties. That's where I do agree. The reason that immigration does not have a solution today is not because of President Trump. And it's also not because of President Obama. It is because of Congress. Congress has failed to do what is needed to be done for over two decades. That's the problem. House Speaker Paul Ryan reminded reporters Republicans still control Congress and write the legislation. Have you asked the president to at least check with you before he makes an agreement with Democrats?

We have not begun negotiations. What we're doing is talking with ourselves here in our majority to make sure that we're We are all on the same page ourselves before we proceed on all of these things. So, Sam, come in on this. I mean, Alan's laid out a pretty scorching indictment here of President Trump in terms of, in effect, racializing immigration policy and targeting visible minorities for incarceration, removal, and punishment. Yet you still, I'm reading between the lines here, but I think you're saying you're going to vote for him come November 3rd. I'm not going to share who I vote for it. But nevertheless, I can tell you this. Two things.

Alan receives from me a big evangelical amen on this is an issue. The onus falls on Congress. Congress has failed miserably on this issue, miserably. More than the executive branch, it's the legislative branch in America. Without a doubt, the onus falls on them. But as it pertains to labeling President Trump, as it pertains to his immigration policies with racial or racist, Again, I can tell you firsthand from conversations I've had with the president. I was there. We have a smile on his face. He said, Sam, we're going to get $1.6 million. Not $900,000.

We're going to expand the number of dreamers that will become citizens like this. Never ever sacrificing their parents and met with General Kelly, Secretary Nielsen, went back to Congress and met with Speaker Pelosi. It was a starting point of a viable conversation that may have brought about immigration report, but it never took place because of the actions of my friend Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer, unfortunately. You talk about President Trump's rhetoric, which I do not necessarily completely perfectly agree with. However, why did President Trump get elected? He got elected because the American populace, including a significant portion of individuals that voted for Obama

2008 and 2012, voted for President Trump because they thought the previous administration went too far, even as it pertains to immigration, they went too far in not applying the rule of law. You can't permit the borders to be open and let people come here illegally and then ask Americans to follow the law within the confines of their border, within their state borders. It doesn't work like that. And the American community said, we're going to push back the pendulum. So it's not a matter of racist rhetoric. It's a matter of the rule of law.

Can we apply the rule of law equally? If we have laws, let's apply them. If not, let's change the laws, but let's not permit millions of individuals to break the law and then we are to act like that law was never broken. There are consequences to breaking the law. And that's what I believe it's the Trump administration's rhetoric regarding immigration reform. Thanks, Sam. Okay, we're going to move to closing statements in a moment.

But just I want to take one more kind of political slice of the pie here. And Alan, what do you think is going to be? going to surface of all the different controversies that we've discussed from the border itself to undocumented people in the United States to the idea of a point system to assess people coming in? What do you think is going to surface as the number one immigration issue going into November 3rd? So based on the polls, the number one immigration issue for voters that are in the middle, someone who can change their voter independent, has been the treatment of children at the southern border to sort of persuade people to vote for a democratic ticket.

So with regards to immigration in the global stage, the world is in shambles and in need of grace and a blessing and direction from the church to say, if you see someone in need, the answer is not to turn your shoulder. And I think that people are going to be moved and returned perhaps to that sort of American principle of we can do anything we put our mind to. We're trying to go to Mars, and you're telling me we can't solve a problem with a couple of thousand people at the southern border. Even the Reverend said that walked thousands of miles to get to the border, and then when they're at the border, we're going to turn them away without even giving them due process or making sure they have a safe return. And that's the same for children and adults.

We look at the detention centers and we see the inhumane treatment over and over again. The rapid spread of COVID in these detention centers are sort of what's speaking to that populace that's sort of in the middle to sort of do this vote. So there are two things that are going to happen. Part of it is the Democrats have to be mobilized. And it's going to be a greater issue than just immigration, but immigration is going to be at the platform of it. And I think the other side of it is just sort of for the other side to say, you know what, this is not who we are. This is not who we'll ever be. Sure, people don't have a right to be here. And sure, we're not about open borders, but we are humane and there's due process. And asylum is a proper way

to enter the United States. And every one of those individuals gets due process. And And then the resolve of that is whatever the finding is from the judge is the finding that we will follow. It's one of the conversations we didn't have today, which I think is a big problem is, that in our immigration justice system, the immigration court is part of the police and they all work for the attorney general. So therefore, the attorney general sets out what justice is and has consistently twice, which has never happened in the 10 years that I followed. The attorney general has gone back and overruled something that a judge has done and made new principles and policies which impact our community. Thanks, Alan. So, Sam, what's your prediction as to, you know, the issue, and maybe give us two views. One, because you're working with a large Hispanic community as a pastor. You know, what's number one issue for them? But also, what do you think is going to surface before November 3rd as the defining ballot question when it comes to immigration for the country as a whole? Recent Pew research really brings about a very ironic truth regarding the Hispanic American community. Hispanic Americans are in favor of legal immigration, but oppose by majority, illegal immigration.

How about that? Latino Americans, Hispanic Americans. What's going to be the immigration issue that will determine the election? Open borders and amnesty or the rule of law. People coming in here legally or people coming in here illegally. Those voters from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, these workers working up there, they're going to say, wait a second, Biden-Harris ticket reflects this, open borders amnesty, the Trump ticket looks at legal entry. And again, because President Trump did make an offer regarding the dreamers, it's a firewall against the idea that President Trump is anti-immigrant period. President Trump in the Trump administration are anti-elegal immigration. So that will determine the election

as it pertains to the immigration reform debate. I think we're going to be surprised by the number of Latinos last time, 28 to 30 percent supported President Trump. This time around, numbers right now indicate somewhere between 34 and 37 percent. So ladies and gentlemen, it's going to be an interesting election. Immigration would be an integral part of it. And I do look forward to having more spirited debates around the subject matter. Indeed. You're listening to the Monk Debates podcast. If you like this podcast, check out our other episodes, including debates on everything from the U.S. election to the future of globalization to whether the scientific community has overreacted to the threat of COVID. All free to download or stream on our website, monkdebates.com.

Well, this has been a terrific debate. So let's move to closing statements. We're going to do those in the opposite order of the opening statements. So Sam, you're up first. What are the key points that you want this audience to take away from your debate with Alan today, as they grapple with their own moral, ethical, economic, political understanding of this issue. Immigrants are not a burden. They are a blessing. Immigrants have been a blessing from the beginning of this nation, without a doubt. We want people to come here legally, not illegally. We need immigrants not just because of our economic sectors. We need immigrants in order to enrich the spiritual and moral compass of this nation. We need to go beyond the political, political rhetoric on both the left and the right. We need to look at a comprehensive solution

that will address those that are currently here undocumented that will bring to legality and bring citizenship to every single dreamer without exception. We need to legalize their parents of a green card, do away with the issue of citizenship for their parents, take that away from the table, provide a comprehensive immigration reform solution that future entry continues. We need to continue to be a nation of immigrants, not just merit base, merit base plus compassion. If we do that, We will enrich the soul of this nation going forward into 21st century. Thank you, Sam. Impassioned words.

We appreciate it. Alan, we're going to give you the last word on our debate. Be it resolved. No one is legal. You've been arguing in favor of the motion. Let's have yours summing up. So I think that we could agree that we will stop using this sort of lexicon to define people by an act and sort of move forward in a different direction and talk maybe even if imperfect

about undocumented individuals and solutions. And in doing that, we sort of understand. that it's not just the president we need to focus on, but it's also Congress. And we should make sure they know that this is not a political ball to be kicked from year to year because these are about our communities and it should be addressed. So sort of focusing on Congress and pushing them to make these difficult decisions so that people can have a foundation to live their lives on a daily basis. I think we should also have an understanding that is inappropriate and equitable

to ask individuals who've been in this country for 20 years to leave just because it makes us feel better and the concept that there is some sort of line, because there's really no equity in that, there's no justice in that, and there's no humanity in that. And so by understanding those terms and understanding that we're talking about people in our community, we can reach a more humane solution with regards to a problem that we created

by not addressing this in Congress. Thank you. Well, Alan, Sam, look, I think if this conversation, this debate today could be invocative, an exemplar for the type of national conversations we need not just in the United States, but in Canada and across Europe on this big issue, immigration that affects us all.

I think we would all be better off. So thank you for the substance, the civility, and the willingness to listen to each other and engage with each other in our debate today. It's greatly appreciated by our audience. Thank you both. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that wraps up today's debate.

I want to thank our participants, Reverend Samuel Rodriguez and Alinor. you certainly gave us a lot to think about. While the Monk Debates podcast, as you've just heard, is that special place for civil and substantive debate on the big issues of the day. To listen to more debates on everything from the latest developments on COVID-19 to the major issues that will decide the outcome of the U.S. election

to big ideas like the future of human progress, visit our website, triple-wmunkdebates.com. You can also find detailed show notes on today's debate. Thank you for helping us bring back the art of public debate one conversation at a time. I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffith. The Monk Debates are produced by Antiquot Productions and supported by the Monk Foundation. Rudyard Griffiths, Maryland, Missouri, and Christina Campbell are the producers. Abbey Rahesia is the associate producer.

The Monk Debates podcast is mixed by Kieran Lynch. The president of Antiquet Productions is Stuart. Cox. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thanks again for listening.