The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.30 Digital vs Traditional $$$, Trump's Birthright Citizenship Controversy & Border Dispute

Episode Date: October 30, 2018

Latest episode of The Philip DeFranco Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Tuesday Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and a quick note before we get started if you didn't see yesterday We posted the Monday Philip DeFranco show we kind of expected given the topics that we were covering that we were going to get hit By YouTube ended up getting hit, but what was the other option just not talk about those important stories So if you missed yesterday's show and it's a big one It's one of the top links in the description down below you can watch that but with that said let's just jump into it And the first thing we're gonna talk about is some interesting entertainment and money news that came out today. There's a piece that came out today from Variety where they talked about the salaries of top TV stars.

Although TV should be in quotes or it should just be changed to series stars. And I say that because streaming has become such a big part of where people consume series. That's what really stood out to me with this list is digital is throwing a ton of money at people. Which really does make sense for two reasons. One, I believe since season one of House of Cards, Netflix proved to the world that the best way to get people to use your service isn't licensing, but rather really good originals.

Although with Netflix nowadays, there's a constant conversation about quality versus quantity there. But also too, thanks to the rise of so many digital platforms that have exclusive content, actors have the ability to go into so many places. And because there is such a big content war going on and there are so many different places to go, you can ask for more money. So on this list, yes, we do see examples of people getting a ton of money for broadcast television.

You have John Goodman, Laura Metcalf, Sarah Gilbert of The Conners reportedly getting $375,000 per episode. In Unscripted, we see a lot of money getting thrown at The Rock, Kelly Clarkson, Alec Baldwin, Kevin Hart. But also here we see digital gain some ground. Norm Macdonald reportedly getting $75,000 per episode. Terry Silverman reportedly getting $225,000 per episode. And then in drama it gets really interesting. So much of the money is being thrown at actors and digital. Right on broadcast it's reported that Stephen Amell is making $125,000 per episode.

And then you look at what Apple's throwing around and it is a wild difference reportedly They're giving Reese Witherspoon 1.1 million an episode Jennifer Aniston 1.1 million an episode Steve Carell $600,000 an episode Amazon reportedly giving Javier Bardem 1.2 million dollars an episode Elizabeth Moss on Handmaid's Tale reportedly getting 1 million an episode And also an important note is some of these actors are actually making money on top of this one of the examples that cited in This report is Millie Bobby Brown, who's listed as getting $350,000 per episode, but also she's reportedly set to collect additional fees. And also a thing to keep in mind is there are differences all over. For example, Dwayne Johnson is listed here at $450,000, but that's reportedly per episode of Titan Games, and not even what he's been getting paid on Baller.

And all this story is interesting to me from a standpoint of money and entertainment, specifically series versus movies. Right, there's that, and then there's also the digital versus traditional media and also the evolution of traditional What I'm left wondering is how long is this viable? How long is this sustainable for a lot of the companies involved and also with just the range of online services out there that have Exclusives at what point is it economically viable for your everyday person? I one of the biggest reasons initially people were excited about cord cutting was like, oh, I get to save money and choose what I actually want. And it all adds up if you want to do it legally, which I recommend and I would never say to steal anything.

Like, if you legally want all the exclusives, and this isn't considering the TV replacement packages like PlayStation View, Sling TV, YouTube TV, you know, that route. Which even there, there are pockets uncovered. But if you look at the other services, if you want to do everything legally, all of a sudden you need to have an account with Netflix and Amazon and Hulu and now Apple, YouTube TV, you know that route. Which even there, there are pockets and covers. But if you look at the other services, if you wanna do everything legally, all of a sudden you need to have an account with Netflix, and Amazon, and Hulu, and now Apple, and if you want DC stuff, they have their exclusive service,

and you got the Disney streaming service that's coming out. And that's not even covering the channels that have evolved, like HBO, whether it be HBO Go in connection to something else, or HBO Now. Although even places like Hulu have evolved to the point where it's like you can have your regular Hulu stuff and then live TV So I wonder is there enough money?

Is there enough market share involved for this to be viable or are you gonna see kind of people tank? Which actually on that note if I can pass a question off to you with this story What is the top or two top pay subscription services you use online? And I'll allow you into this conversation Even if you're just using someone's login and you're not personally paying and also let me know why you gravitated towards those places rather than maybe Somewhere else and then let's talk about one of the sexiest topics of all time ever birthright citizenship using someone's login and you're not personally paying. And also let me know why you gravitated towards those places rather than maybe somewhere else. And then let's talk about one of the sexiest topics of all time ever, birthright citizenship. And in connection to this you also may have heard the term anchor baby.

So today, why is everyone talking about birthright citizenship in the news? Well Axios this morning released a small clip from their new show Axios on HBO and in it we see this back and forth about birthright citizenship. It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Right. Fourth Amendment. You don't. You don't.

Number one. Number one, you don't need that. Number two, you could definitely do it. I mean, that's in dispute. That's very much in dispute. Well, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order. Now how ridiculous, we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has

a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous and it has to end Have you talked about that with counsel? Yeah, I have so we're in the process. It's in the process. It'll happen after watching that clip I just think it's really important to publicly fact-check that what the president's describing in the clip about having a baby in a country And that baby essentially being a citizen is birthright citizenship. What he said is inaccurate. The United States is not the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship. It's not even the only country in North America that has birthright citizenship. Canada and Mexico recognize it as well. And in fact almost the entire Western Hemisphere recognizes birthright citizenship. Although it is important to note that worldwide it is a minority position.

There's only around 30 countries that recognize citizenship that way. There are over 190 countries worldwide. When you only include the world's top developed economies, the list shrinks to the United States and Canada. You did have places like the UK and Australia recognize it, but they got rid of the practice back in the 80s. And most recently you had Ireland and New Zealand get rid of it in the early 2000s. But that's just something I wanted to point out since at least in the teaser clip we don't know what the full looks like. But in the teaser clip, Trump kind of says that uncontested. But with that out of the way,

let's hit on a few different things. So one of the main issues here is whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to children of illegal and temporary residents, like people traveling on a tourist visa. So first things first, can Trump actually do this with an executive order? Well, there's debate on this point,

but it seems very unlikely. You even had conservatives who advocate for curbed immigration, like Ben Shapiro, saying he doesn't think the president can. And there's a nearly unanimous view that if Trump did try to sign an executive order to ban any birthright citizenship, that it would end up in the Supreme can. And there's a nearly unanimous view that if Trump did try to sign an executive order to ban any birthright citizenship, that it would end up in the Supreme Court.

And even if Congress changed the rules, people are fairly confident that it would also end in the Supreme Court. There are articles suggesting that Trump wants to end all birthright citizenship, but right now that isn't completely clear and hasn't been officially confirmed. But with that said, we should answer a question that's incredibly important to this situation.

How does birthright citizenship in the United States currently work? Well, it applies to nearly everyone born in the United States, and there are tiny exceptions that we're gonna jump into a bit. But main point, essentially right now, if you are born in the United States, regardless of where your parents are from

or how they got here, you are a US citizen at birth. Which brings up the big question, does the Constitution explicitly allow for all birthright citizenship? And that's what we're seeing people debate right now with the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment reads, "'All persons born or naturalized in the United States

"'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof "'are citizens of the United States "'and of the state wherein they reside.'" And if you're unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment, it was passed to give citizenship to people who were born in the United States and who weren't citizens, i.e., it's how ex-slaves

and even freed black people are given citizenship. But where the main debate lies with the 14th Amendment is the and subject of the jurisdiction thereof. And this is a debate we've seen for decades. And there are two interpretations of this line. The mainstream one among legal scholars is that if you're in the United States, even to temporary or legal residence,

you are still subject to US laws and police, so you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And so for many, it seems clear. It's like real estate, location, location, location. And of those who think that this is obvious, you have Omar Jadwa. He's the director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, who said, the president cannot erase the constitution

with an executive order, and the 14th Amendment citizenship guarantee is clear. This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms. But on the other side of this debate, you have people pointing to that same line. But they argue that it only counts for lawful permanent residents and citizens who owe full political allegiance to the U.S. since they are always subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., even when they are abroad. And so this view is at least partially used by the U.S. government to deny citizenship to some people born in the United States.

Most notably here, you have the children of diplomats born in the U.S. Since they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because of their diplomatic status, they're denied citizenship. It's also been argued that it was worded this way to prevent children of foreign soldiers born in the United States to be citizens,

and also, unfortunately, to prevent Native Americans born on native lands within the U.S. to claim U.S. citizenship. And that was something that was reaffirmed in an 1884 Supreme Court case, but it then later changed in 1924 when Congress granted citizenship to nearly all Native Americans. Also on the note of important Supreme Court cases connected to what we're looking at today, there are two that we can mention. The last time this was an issue before the Supreme Court was in 1898, in the United States v. Kim Wong Ark case.

And the court found there that Kim was a U.S. citizen despite being born to Chinese immigrants who weren't citizens because the parents were lawful permanent residents of the United States v. Kim Wong Ark case. And the court found there that Kim was a US citizen despite being born to Chinese immigrants who weren't citizens because the parents were lawful permanent residents of the US. But obviously that's not an exact match to what we're talking about today. And since that case, the court has an issue to ruling on whether or not the children of undocumented, unlawful, or even lawful

but temporary residents of the US get citizenship. However, Justice William Brennan touched on this tangentially in 1982, because for a 1982 case, he wrote, quote, "'No plausible distinction with respect "'to 14th Amendment jurisdiction can be drawn "'between resident aliens whose entry "'into the United States was lawful "'and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.'"

Also with this situation, it's an interesting thing to note that for the longest time, birthright citizenship wasn't a massive issue. But that changed drastically over the course of three decades. Back in 1980, we saw 30,000 births to US unauthorized immigrants in the United States. And that continued to increase until it hit its peak in 2007 with 370,000 births.

A year in which the number of these births were actually 9% of all births in the US. That number though has declined since the Great Recession and now accounts for only about 7% of the births in the United States. Now with all of that said, I do want to bring it back to the main point that a lot of this conversation ultimately revolves around can Donald Trump via executive order do this? Not can it change by other means or should it change? Should birthright citizenship come to an end? And that's something we saw other Republicans in Congress hit on.

For example, you had Senator Lindsey Graham who didn't outright say the president can't do this, but rather praised the president for wanting to take on this policy and saying, in addition, I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President Trump. Alright, so Graham's angle there is I'm glad the president brought this up. I am going to introduce legislation to try and get this through Congress.

Right, and if the president could just do this via executive order would that be necessary? But at the same time you had House Speaker Paul Ryan kind of just cut to the point saying well obviously you cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. And adding as a conservative I'm a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case, the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process. But then adding, but where we obviously totally agree

with the President is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration. And you also had Paul Ryan pointing to the past with President Obama, because in the past, Republicans objected to when President Obama tried to issue executive orders on immigration. But with all of that said, where I do want to end this story today is I want to know your opinions on birthright citizenship. And the reason I ask that is because the polls regarding this topic, they are all over the place.

And obviously a comment section is not a great way to take a poll, but what I want to see there are the varying opinions and explanations as to the reasoning. What people see as the positives and the negatives, that sort of thing. And actually connected to that, let's talk about what's happening at our southern border right now. In recent weeks, President Trump has talked a lot about the threat of the migrant caravan that we've covered on this show, slowly heading towards the United States. And last week, there was talk about deploying active military to the southern border to repel that group. We also saw President Trump tweet yesterday, are mixed into the caravan heading to our southern border. Please go back, you will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our country and our military is waiting for you."

And on Monday we learn that the government will in fact be deploying active military troops to the border. Reportedly 800 soldiers are already on their way. By the end of the week they're expecting 5,200 active duty soldiers to be deployed at the border. This along the three southern border states and in each state 1,200 to 1,800 soldiers are estimated to be in those. Although according to reports they'll first be deployed to staging areas where they'll be briefed and trained on their mission. An effort that's reportedly being referred to as Operation Faithful Patriot and it's expected to last until mid-December. But with this news there's been a big question as to what role can the military actually play at the border. And at a press conference yesterday General Terence O'Shaughnessy, head of U.S. Northern Command, explained that

FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling, winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling, saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling, winning, in an exciting live dealer studio, exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem?

Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. It's truck month at GMC. Tackle the open road with added confidence in the 2025 Sierra 1500 Pro Graphite at 0% financing for up to 72 months. With an available 5.3 liter V8 engine,

20-inch high-gloss black-painted aluminum wheels, off-road suspension with available 2-inch factory-installed lift kit, plus a towing capacity of up to 13,200 pounds, you'll be ready for anything this Truck Month. Truck Month is on now. Ask your GMC dealer for details. Well, thank you, Commissioner McElhinney, for the partnership and the opportunity today to speak about how U.S. Northern Command, as the operational command for the Department of Defense and Forces, is providing mission-enhancing capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to harden the southern border. In a macro sense, our concept of operations is to flow in our military assets with a priority

to build up southern Texas and then Arizona and then California. We'll reinforce along priority points of entry so as to enhance CBP's ability to harden and secure the border. And so like the General said, the military's role here will primarily be a support role. You've got military engineer groups to reinforce infrastructure along the border. You have three helicopter companies and four airplanes to help transport border patrol or identify crossings, medical units, military police, other support personnel for planning and logistics. And with Trump being so hardline about this issue, actually sending the military, you might be wondering why the military is not taking a stronger role on it. Well, there's a law known as Passe Comitatus, which limits the role of the military in the enforcement of domestic laws. According to the RAND Corporation, it was first used to end federal troops from policing state elections in former Confederate states,

and immigration enforcement is a domestic law that the military cannot enforce. And so that's why you're seeing them in this support role. So there's that part of the story, but okay, what about the actual caravan? Well, yesterday we saw Kevin Michelinan, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, say this. As of this afternoon, we continue to track a large group of approximately 3,500 traveling through southern Mexico with a stated intent to reach the U.S. border. This group is near the Chiapas-Oaxaca border in southern Mexico. So what we learned from that is the caravan is essentially halved from the last time we talked about it, where it was 7,000. Also based on their location, the caravan appears to be a little under 1,000 miles away from the southernmost part of the border.

Also, Michelinian mentioned that there was another caravan that was reportedly forming along the Mexico-Guatemala border. We're also aware of a second large group of migrants at the Ciudad Hidalgo border crossing between Guatemala and Mexico. Size estimates for the second group are around 3,000 as well.

However, reports have indicated that some of this group is currently stuck at the border there while several hundred have crossed the river in defiance of police. But there are a couple of considerations here. First, another caravan that was widely publicized earlier this year ended up making to the California border. But of the 1,500 that actually started in southern Mexico, it reportedly amounts to around 400 or so requesting asylum. Second, under US and international law, migrants are entitled to apply for asylum regardless of how they cross the border.

But on that note, there is a huge backup of would-be asylum seekers waiting to apply at legal ports of entry. Some have reportedly been waiting for weeks and are waiting in Mexican border towns. Also an interesting thing of note are the reactions and conversations around this situation. Last night on Fox News, we saw Donald Trump being interviewed by Laura Ingraham, and during that, they talked about what was happening at the border. What if they're applying for asylum? Isn't the law because Congress didn't change the law? If they apply for asylum, we're going to hold them until such time as their trial takes place. Where? Do we have the facilities?

We're gonna put up, we're gonna build tent cities, we're gonna put tents up all over the place. Where? Do we have the facilities? We've also seen Trump's move to send troops to the border being criticized as a political ploy by many. We saw Kelly Magsman, who served on the National Security Council and in the Pentagon under Bush and Obama saying It's a craven misuse of the US Armed Forces for an obvious political stunt and I'm surprised Defense Secretary Mattis agreed to it given The range of real national security threats our military has to deal with this is not an appropriate use of the military that Mattis feels The need to appease the president on this should be shocking and Congress should have a lot of questions about Scott Cooper a Marine veteran and director of national security outreach for human rights first saying I I try not to be a cynic, but this just smacks of looking for a political advantage during an election. I think that the military redeploy is probably within the next couple weeks, and they will have done very little. I'm just kind of scratching my head as to the need for this. And we also saw Shepard Smith, an anchor on Fox News, striking a very different tone from many of his colleagues.

Tomorrow, the migrants, according to Fox News reporting, are more than two months away, if any of them actually come here. But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about. There is no invasion. No one's coming to get you. There's nothing at all to worry about. When they did this to us, got us all riled up in April, remember? The result was 14 arrests. We're America. We can handle it. And as far as my personal takeaway, do I think that this is at least in part a political ploy? Yes. Immigration is one of the most important topics for voters this year, especially for Republican voters as well as Republican politicians just hitting on immigration. Even to the point where we saw reports that Donald Trump was annoyed that last week's mail bomb coverage took away from the conversation around the caravan.

And given where the current caravan is and what happened with the last caravan, I think that Donald Trump is doing this for political points. That said, it is important to know that he's not the only president to engage in border operations. In 2006, you had Bush deploy 6,000 National Guard with 3,500 in the field. In 2010, you had Obama deploying 1,200 National Guardsmen to the border. But of course even with that, at the top level there are differences. But another thing that comes to mind, even trying to compare this situation to things in the past, is money. According to a 2011 Government Accountability and Department of Defense report, the combined cost of those two deployments cost $1.35 billion. And so the question pops up here, well what's the price tag going to be?

But of course it's the PDS, that's the story, then my personal takeaway, and I pass the question off to you, what do you think about all of this? Do you agree with Shepard Smith that this is all a political move, that it's all for the midterms? Or you have the mindset that this is a massive deal

and all these moves, they're justified? Any and all thoughts, I'd love to see in those comments down below. And that's where I'm going to end today's show, but of course remember, it's not just something you watch, I'd love for you to join the conversation in those comments down below. and it can be on anything, whether it be the last story, the first one, anything in between. I just want to hear from you. Also, while you're at it, if you like today's video, you want to support the show,

hit that like button. If you're new here, hit that subscribe button. Make sure you get future episodes, which actually, if you missed the last Philip DeFranco show, you can click or tap right there to watch that. Maybe you're in the mood for something different. You can watch a brand new bonus video right here. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.