The Texan Podcast - An Panel on Border and Immigration — The Texan’s 89th Session Kickoff

Episode Date: February 3, 2025

State Reps. David Spiller (R-Jacksboro), A.J. Louderback (R-Victoria), and Eddie Morales (D-Eagle Pass) joined Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX-21) and The Texan’s reporter Cameron Abrams for a discussion on Texas’ border policies and how the new Trump administration’s plans will intersect with the state.Listen to more interviews from our 89th Session Kickoff wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you hear, subscribe and leave us a review.

Thank you everyone. Yes, this is going to be our border and immigration panel. Obviously, a huge topic this year, especially at the federal level, but even here at the state level, very important topic. So we're going to talk about a number of different things first off let's introduce who we have with us today we'll start here with Congressman Chip Roy representing the 21st district remember the House Freedom Caucus lucky to have him here today with us and we have rep David Spiller a Republican from a rural district, lawyer, who's also carried SB4, big bill, last year in the House. So that'll be interesting to talk about.

We have Representative A.J. Latterback, Republican, former Jackson County Sheriff. And I think your perspective on the law enforcement side of things will be very useful today. We also have our Democrat on our panel today, Rep. Eddie Morales, representing a border district in the House. He has taken some nuanced stances on border security and provides very valuable insight for his community. So thank you, everyone, for being here. I want to start with the new Trump administration, especially since he's taken the oath of office just a few hours after that, issued a number of executive orders. And I actually want to start with possibly one of the more controversial ones, that being

clarifying the 14th Amendment and citizenship. So let's start on the very end with Brett Morales being a lawyer. What are your thoughts on this, and what do you think are the chances of taking a new look at the 14th Amendment, how that might be held up in the courts? Well, first of all, thank you for the opportunity to be up here. And if you can tell, they threw the Democrat out first, out in front, you know. And I think that's a sign of what's expected. And then he calls me first also.

So, you know, a lot, I think, I think the people spoke this November. And I think that although some of the steps that President Trump and his administration have currently taken are a little bit more drastic than what I believe many people may have concerns over, I think the message is clear that they felt that the border was not being secured. And in fact, we got to see it day in and day out in places like my hometown in Eagle Pass. And I think that that was representative, even though in January, when the White House and Blinken and Mayorkas went down with Mexico and finally agreed, and the numbers dropped from 10,000, 12,000 that were crossing daily to substantially less, and you've seen that, it was too little and too late. For

three years, we'd been advocating for them to secure the border and it didn't happen. So, you know, those issues have consequences and I think we're seeing them now. I do think that we need to make sure that there are the protections and that we don't lose sight of what happens in situations when this country goes through them. Especially when you consider that at the end of the day, we don't want to erode our own personal freedoms in the process of trying to secure the border or protect Americans. In many instances, I think that government will overstep that line, and I think that we need a good checks and balances,

and we need people questioning it. And I hope that we can continue down that path to make sure that there is a pathway by which people are actually making sure that there is that checks and balances in place well you mentioned the checks and balances that need to be in place but i i was interested to hear about this clarification on the 14th Amendment, because that is one of the more controversial aspects. Is this something that is going to have to be taken up in the courts? Is it just going to fall flat? Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, I understand that there's already litigation involving that, and it's a pathway to citizenship, and you want to, you know, basically remove it. Look, I understand what the issue may be.

They think, the other side thinks people are coming and basically just, you know, having children here and then enjoying the benefits of them claiming to be an American. But at the same time, I think that we sold for centuries that America was a beacon of light to the rest of the country, that this is where they should come if they want to make their dreams a reality. And now we're at this point, and I know that it needs to be done orderly and we need to secure the border. I know that it needs to be done differentlyly and we need to secure the border. I know that it needs to be done differently, but at the same time, I don't think that we should stray away from that dream and from who we are and what our soul is in America. And I think that that is the issue that sometimes we fall at. People in Latin America have always held America and the U.S. to high esteem. I think for us now to complain that these people want to come over here for a better life, especially when I'm a

first-generation immigrant, when my parents had the opportunity to buy a tortilla factory when I was 12 years old, that completely changed our family and that it provided for me to be able to go to a four-year university and then go on to St. Mary's Law School and then be practicing now for 25 years as an attorney. I think that is the dream and that is the goal that we should provide every immigrant. But if we do it in an orderly fashion and we make sure that we protect and we address those issues. So that's what I would say. I understand that we have to find a scapegoat at times, and it seems that that's where we are right now. But I also think that we can't have sold ourselves for years as that beacon of light and then be upset over the fact that people want

to come in here for a better life. Well, I want to bring in one of your colleagues reps filler What are your thoughts on this? Birthright citizenship executive order. What's your perspective on it? Well, first of all, thank you. Thank you Cameron and thank you To the Texan and the folks at Texan and TPF for sponsoring this event Let me just say is as far as that, and I get Eddie's concern there, I do think it's wrong, it's wrong-headed to say that if you just happen to come across illegally into our state, into our country, that you're automatically, and you have a child, that that child is automatically a U.S. citizen.

And so when you look at the executive order, President Trump signed a number of executive orders on day one. On that one in particular, the effective date of that, if I recall, is 30 days after the date that that's signed. So this is not a retroactive, we're going to undo what we've done, unbake the cake. This is just moving forward. And I don't see anything under the 14th Amendment or anything that says that would indicate to me that that's not a fair position to take. And I think it will be in the courts. Let me also say while we're talking about those executive orders, there were a number of things, President, and I don't want to stray off your question, but there were a number of things that

President Trump did to reinstate the 94 plus policies that we had in place to make Texas and our country secure that the Biden administration obliterated so that we could have open borders and have all the problems that come with that. The one that kind of flies under the radar that people don't, I think, is going to be a big deal is the one where President Trump designated the Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, because what that does is gives prosecutors a great deal more scope and breadth of what they can do and what they can prosecute. The punishments are significant and enhanced, and more importantly, because of even the

criminal cases as a practicing attorney that I've handled where people, where I've been appointed to represent people that have been prosecuted that are here illegally, is every one of them has paid a fee to the cartels. It could be $8,000, $6,000. It could be, in my instance, the latest one I did was $10,000. But if they do that, they're providing material support to the cartels, which means that it makes them automatically immediately deportable, but also means that therefore, since they're providing that material support, that they're not allowed to be U.S. citizens. So I think that's, a lot of folks don't realize the effect of that particular one, but I think it's going to be a game changer. Well, I have some questions about that a bit later, but Rep Roy, I want to bring you into this,

and what's been the reaction from some of your congressional colleagues to this birthright citizenship order? It is more controversial, but what are some of the conversations happening with your colleagues? Yeah, thanks, Cameron. Thanks to the tech Senate TVVF Great to be here with these guys. I always say the ballot should be upside down You know Congress should be at the bottom Senate president It's the the local guys that that are running the show in terms of our actual lives So appreciate very much being here with the with the ledge guys look I Am on the House Judiciary Committee. I'm the chairman of the subcommittee on the

Constitution. I've worked on this issue for a while, whether it was Ted Cruz's chief of staff or serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Look, I don't think this is a close call. I think the president got it not just right. I think that the United States Supreme Court got it right in 1872, a mere four years after passage and ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The clause in the 14th Amendment subject to the jurisdiction thereof is pretty clear. It was very directed to deal with Dred Scott. It was very directed to deal with the people who are here who were in slavery and who were very much, by definition, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In 1872, in the slaughterhouse cases, the United States Supreme Court said very clearly that it did not apply to people who were here.

It didn't qualify between illegally or legally, but people who were foreign nationals on our soil, subject to the jurisdiction of their home country and then had a child that was four years later that united states supreme court subsequent supreme court upheld that same view and it wasn't until the what is it the long kim arc or whatever the opinion was in the 1890s where they then had a narrow view that in the situation of a legal permanent resident that if someone was here as a legal permanent resident, that if someone was here as a legal permanent resident, that that individual, and this was Dicta, if I remember correctly, that that person would then be able to be a citizen

by virtue of being born on American soil. I think the court got that wrong. It's not the first time the court's got something wrong. We've flipped Roe on its head. We've flipped Plessy on its head. But my point is, I think the court got that wrong. I think Trump got it right. I think we ought to fully back President Trump. I think Congress ought to stand behind it. I think

we ought to pass legislation to reinforce it. It is absurd, facially and patently absurd, that you can have a cottage industry for profit of moving human beings across our border to give them citizenship based on what five people in robes said in 1895. It's insane. So, look, I don't think this is a close call. We'll have hearings on it in the House Judiciary Committee, but also agree on all the other great executive orders. One of the first bills I introduced in March of 2019

was to designate cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Everybody said I was a nutball. Well, I'm used to being called a nutball. The president's right. They should be foreign terrorist organizations. We should take them out and we should defend our country. Thank you. Well, let's transition to another executive order, the declaring a national emergency at the southern border. And I want to bring Representative Lauder back into this. With the declaration of a emergency at the southern border and i want to bring representative louder back into this with the with the declaration of a emergency at the southern border rep ladder back can you tell us

what in the context of texas the coordination between federal authorities state authorities what will that kind of look like well honored to be here today. Thank TPPF for putting this together. In so many ways, as we move forward here, the executive order was necessary. In my career, I've worked the border issue for 40 plus years and putting us into a position of an emergency is is correct it's absolute it's been needed for some time the growth the empowerment of the cartels is is phenomenal most lay people have no idea of the strategic importance, their abilities, their tactics, their methods of business are so effective, and they have hurt this state,

and they've hurt this country. And it was necessary. It's necessary to... The lawlessness that the cartel represents is unprecedented. I wish I could tell you more about their strategy, about their business model that is so effective here. But as a foreign terrorist organization, FTOs, this is necessary. This is necessary for our safety. It's necessary for your children's safety and for your safety.

They have done far too much damage in the last four years. They have grown exponentially in power, in strength, in knowledge, and they're here in more numbers than we've ever seen before. So strategic locations here in Texas, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, these areas are inundated with thousands of workers in the cartel. They work this state every day. They work the highways every day. They're back and forth with human trafficking and narcotics and criminal illegality. So the criminality of what they represent here is absolutely phenomenal. It's

an eye-opening experience. And, you know, my intent here is to bring the law enforcement perspective and the knowledge of working the border and working the cartels and working the immigration system to a point where they have become way too powerful. And local law enforcement, our state law enforcement, even our federal law enforcement has not had the resources and not had the the type. I mean we're just coming off of four years worth of a concerted organized Invasion and so everything from this point forward as we try and craft a method in a in a response It's going to be critical. It's going to be critical to your safety and our safety here in the state of Texas Well rep Morales, I want to ask you, what are you sort of hearing from your colleagues?

You talked a bit at the top about how important border security is, but bring in some nuanced perspectives to this debate here. What are your colleagues saying, especially as we've seen Trump be elected, we've seen many shifts to the right with many different demographics. So what are your colleagues saying about border security immigration as we are beginning this 89th session? I think it's important to understand what the root cause of this and not just deal with after the issue comes and deal with the aftermath. I think if we go back, Congress has failed us, I'm sorry Congressman, I think you've been one of the few proponents to actually address this issue

positively and trying to do something about it and I've seen your frustration in some of those videos. But for 30 or 40 years, we have had Congress fail us in an effective immigration and reform policies and making those. So we ourselves by our own actions have created this billion dollar industry of human traffickers and the drug cartels. Now we're dealing with the effect of that. So we wouldn't have to be dealing with considering whether remove or modify the 14th amendment if we had held Congress to their feet to the fire and made

sure that they passed effective immigration reform policies and secured our border. While it may not have been perfect, the January 6 negotiations that took place with Senator Lankford proposed the most, you know, in decades, the most tight border security measures that Congress has ever taken. And yet, because of our former president, now president, made that one call, and we didn't pass it because he was running on that one issue instead of protecting Americans. We're up here talking about how we need to protect Americans. We had a perfect opportunity to do it, whether it was two years or three years. We could have done that in January 6th of 2024,

and we didn't do it. And so I think we need to address that. We need to make sure that this Congress, I'm rooting for Trump and this Congress, because I want them to pass effective border security measures and make sure that they fix our broken immigration system. I hope he addresses that and not just uses this as more political theater, which is what we've seen down in Eagle Pass.

How many congressmen have visited Eagle Pass, get on that boat, take that picture, then go back knowing that Texas taxpayers and federal dollars, billions of them, are being spent every day on the border, and yet go and do nothing about it to fix it. They should have had this as an emergency declaration and made sure that they addressed it whenever that time was appropriate. And so I think, and I'm rooting for Congress, I'm rooting for Trump to be able to address this, so that we stop. We have now spent in two legislative sessions and a special session.

We have appropriated over $12 billion of Texas taxpayers' monies. We're supposed to be fiscally responsible. We're supposed to answer to Texas taxpayers. And I think that we have much better uses of those $12 billion that we can put into infrastructure, into public education, into access to quality health care for Texans. That could really reshape how Texas is. We're already, you know, the top state. Can you imagine how much more if we actually, instead of treating Mexico as our adversary, they're our biggest trade partner in the world. After COVID, the nearshoring that is taking place with all of those companies moving from India and China to the northern states of Mexico are creating economic opportunities that you would be,

that's going to make Texas unrecognizable. And I think that we need to use that as a resource to be able to work together with Mexico. Mexico is up and coming. And it's not Mexicans mostly that we're crossing. It was Latin Americans that were doing it. So I think that we need to double down on making sure that we are hand-in-hand working with Mexico so that they can not only protect our border as well, but that we have that economic opportunity that I know is coming

and has already been seen with the billions of dollars that is being invested in northern Mexico. Thank you for that very detailed answer. And Rep Roy, could I bring you in on this? Because you mentioned the border bill that wasn't able to be passed last year in the federal government. Can we expect another border bill that has a number of different aspects to it to pass now that Trump is in office? Or can we expect individual pieces of legislation addressing individual issues? What are you hearing?

Well, first of all, I want to say hi to my former colleague, Pete Olson, who came in the room. Also my first boss on Capitol Hill when he was chief of staff to Senator John Cornyn. So welcome to Pete. But look, and I'm going to do my best to meter this to just a few minutes because this is a panel discussion, but this would take actually probably 30 minutes to fully answer in the context of the history of the voting and the bills that we've had before the House and where the actual political posturing has existed, both among my Democrat colleagues and frankly, my Republican colleagues, who I will agree on a bipartisan basis have utterly failed and have failed repeatedly. It was eight years ago right now that we saw

Republicans fail President Trump with respect to the health care package that Paul Ryan brought forward as Speaker. And then fast forward to the summer following, about six and a half years ago, in the summer of 2018, Republicans failed when they brought what was called Goodlatte 1 and Goodlatte 2, the chairman of the Judiciary committee, and those two bills failed. There's a long history as to why they failed, but the short version is this. There was a movement among my Democrat colleagues in Washington and a large block of Republicans who did not want the level of security necessary and wanted significant amnesty. Thus has been the debate for now a good two decades, three decades plus. The bill that was brought forward by Republicans in the spring of 2023,

which became known as H.R. 2 as its moniker and the number, but it was the Secure the Borders Act, and I think that's what his name was. And that legislation was the product of what we had debated with the speaker remember the whole debate with the speaker McCarthy in January of 23 in order to get a republican version of the bill because we could get very few of our democrat colleagues to join with us on that Henry Cuellar would sometimes sit at the table with us and uh we put forward a bill that was a border security only version of the bill. It didn't deal with anything about future immigration flow, nor did it deal with status at all. We believe that was the right approach because we recognize the crisis at the border. You must triage, secure the border.

What was happening under the Biden administration was an abuse of the law. There's no other way to put it. And look, I will 100% agree with Eddie about Texas, $12 billion on the hook for having to do the job the federal government should be doing. It was a failure of both the president and, yes, Congress. Understand in H.R. 2, in our border bill, what were we doing? It wasn't just wall. It wasn't just stopping people at the border or resources for border patrol. That's old thinking, okay?

We need it. We need those resources. But it was stopping the abuse of our current laws to release people into the United States purposefully under parole and asylum. That was what was happening. Don't let anybody obfuscate that reality, whether it's being debated in Texas or in Washington. It was a purposeful abuse of the law, using parole to dump people in the United States. One of the first executive

orders was ending the so-called CBP1 app and ending the abuse of parole to release people into the United States. Our bill did that. Our bill stopped the flow of people coming into the United States. And it said that it was built on a bill that I'd introduced, H.R. 29, last Congress, to say that the secretary shall detain, not release, not do alternative detention, shall detain for the adjudication of any claim to asylum or anything else, or they shall be turned away. That is what our immigration system needs to be based upon. And then we can actually have order. The last point I'll make. The bill that was brought forward that Senator Lankford worked on with a handful of people, but not many, it did not move in the Senate. Don't put too much stock in it. It didn't move. And by the way, many of us were opposing it long before President Trump ever said a word. That's important because

it gets put on. It's like, well, we didn't do it because President Trump didn't want to do it. False. It was a, no offense, it was a bad bill. It was a very bad bill.'t do it because President Trump didn't want to do it false. It was a no offense It was a bad bill. It was a very bad bill. We opposed it and look I think it's somewhat comically noted notable that I'm not afraid to occasionally disagree with President Trump When I agree with him 90 X percent of the time But in this instance he was right We were right because that bill would have codified the release of 5,000-plus people a day into the United States.

It would have codified the asylum procedures that were being violated by Biden. That's what that bill would have done. It would have cemented the abuse of our laws by the previous administration. We had to oppose that bill. We had to oppose it strongly. So to answer your question, the first thing we need to do is provide resources to deal with the border so that Tom Homan can continue to remove people who are wrongly released into the United States. The second thing we need to do is repass H.R. 2, send it back, the last year's version of H.R. 2, last Congress's, send that over to the Senate.

The Senate will have to deal with it because we have seven Democrats to get to 60, and then we'll have a back and forth. But under no circumstances should we do anything on future flow or status slash amnesty until we put in stone policy changes with respect to asylum parole and all the abuses that have been undermining our border security for now decades. Can I add I would would respectfully disagree with the Congressman's comments with respect to the 5,000. Remember, the 5,000 threshold would allow for the U.S. to be able to close effectively the border if we had 5,000 encounters. The way that it was interpreted to us and the way that I read it meant 5,000 encounters.

Border patrol or law enforcement would encounter somebody at the border could send them back not actually cross and stay in the U.S. and that would be considered an encounter even if they didn't stay in the U.S. so if you had 5,000 people that you stopped from crossing kept them on the Mexico side that would be effectuate the ability for the U.S. to close down the border which is a different interpretation from what I'm hearing from other folks such as the congressman. So I think that needs to be ironed out to see. And I'm totally in favor of 5,000 encounters, meaning, you know, they don't end up on the U.S. soil.

Just the ability to make that interaction, that detention, and make sure that they stay on the Mexico side is sufficient, and you'd get to trigger the 5,000 number and then close the border. If I might have 30 seconds, then I want to let these gentlemen speak. I will just say this. Number one, the number should be zero. It shouldn't be 5,000. Number two, that bill did not do that. It would have allowed the administration to release 5,000 or more.

But let's put that aside for a minute. The bill also codified NGOs continuing to be able to fund what they were doing to abuse our system. It also refused to actually change the parole laws that would be necessary. I mean, it had some tweaks to the parole laws, but it didn't change the parole laws so that we wouldn't be flying people in and using the CBP1 app. It would have codified and put our rubber stamp on the very mechanisms of disaster that the Biden administration was putting forward. And it's not even really actually close. There's a reason the bill went down in flames. And while

Lankford doesn't talk about it anymore. Well, thank you guys for that discussion. And I want to bring in Rep Spiller here. We saw the revival legislation to create the Border Protection Unit being a sponsor of SB4 last session, which was a major border bill. Do you see a piece of legislation like that having an easier time of making it to the governor's desk this time around? I think so. I think there are a number of measures we can do because what we've got to do, rather than just pour billions of dollars into it, now that we have a cooperative partner in Washington

with President Trump and with Congress, I think we need to work hand-in-hand. Now, we were working hand-in-hand with Border Patrol and so forth at the local level here, but the problem was at the Biden administration. So the folks that are doing it here, not a problem. But, yes, there are a number of things that we can do. One of those, I think, is a huge issue.

You know, we talked about the board protection. I think that there is also a bill coming forward that may be slightly different, tweaked a little bit. We're working, and I'm working with some stakeholders on that to have basically the best thing of what we need and the most efficient thing that we need here in Texas to do that. But there are some other bills that we have. In addition, of course, I'd love for SB4, for the Fifth Circuit,

to go ahead and rule, and maybe now that President Trump's been elected, look for that any day now. But there are some other things we can do. I think one of the most important bills that I'm working on now, it's in Legislative Council, is the 287G bill, Section 287. And what that does, I think, is not really on most people's radar, but I think it's a very important bill. right now with President Trump and with Congress, to do what he wants to do as far as the removal, the deportations that need to occur of these folks that are a huge public safety threat, convicted murderers, rapists, we have

terrorists, we have all these folks. To remove the people of priority that need to be removed, we don't have the resources at the federal level and the manpower. By the time that you developed what that looked like and hired those folks, trained those folks, it would take, I've been told, a year and a half to two years. Nationality Act is allows local law enforcement to cooperate with with us to work towards removing folks and there are two different programs that you can do under that but we have 26 currently of either counties or cities that have their law enforcement police department whatever cooperating right now that, but they're not required to do that. And so I have a bill that says that they are required to at least offer and apply to do that if they fail to do that because we need those resources.

And that's a game changer to be able to – that's the only way that we're going to be able to get these folks back is with the cooperation of local law enforcement to do that over the next two years. So we need that. And so my bill says that the attorney general requires local law enforcement to do that. If they do not do that and they do not offer to help and cooperate and at least offer and sign an agreement, if offered to do so from us, then they not only will be subject to enforcement by the Attorney General's office, but they don't get any state grant funding for the year after that. So it cuts off their ability to do that. So I think that's a huge issue. We've got to get that passed. It's not really on anybody's radar yet, but it needs to be. And so we've got that bill in Legislative

Council. I've got some other things dealing with E-Verify for local governments. I've got a bill to require law enforcement to determine someone's immigration status. They can do that now under federal law and under Texas law on the Code of Criminal Procedure. They're allowed to do that. This would require them to do that. So I can talk about that more if you want. But there are a number of things that we're doing. We also need to fully fund our Texas military department and have them do what they were originally designed to do and give them the tools and the resources necessary to do that.

So there are just a number of things. But we've got a plan. We've got to be smart about what we're doing, and we have to be efficient about what we're doing. Well, I want to ask about one of those aspects you brought up the e verify and I actually want to bring representative ladder back in on this you filed legislation to institute a verify program what do you see is that being useful to deter people from hiring illegal immigrants and for people to leave voluntarily possibly but also how do you address the concerns people might have with personal privacy with E

verify what do you think well let me back up just a little bit the E verify I think is necessary just to cut down on the massive amounts of fraud that we have here in the state the the amount of people that we're paying every month that are not actually that person who they say they are is phenomenal. But let me back up a little bit on Representative Spiller. There are 26 programs in the state today of 287G. I administered the 287G program. I was the second one in the state in 2016 and actually received the homeland security award 19 for bringing in those 26 counties so 16 of them

were right around jackson county so they're they're all 287 G so understand this the 27g program is two factions one is a tactical enforcement the other is a jail program so I have a bill that was I just got just got back yesterday from the AG's office I have Tom home it's approval on this bill and also have Jean Hamilton, Stephen Miller's approval on this bill. So bringing 287G here in the first phase of President Trump, of his plan, in Tom Holman's plan, is the removal of criminal aliens. And so we have to start this whole process with being able to put hands on them in the jails. So the jail model, if we made a requirement here state requirement which my bill says let's make it a state requirement for

the 244 jails in texas to have a 287g program we've covered all costs here from the federal government from the state government so this is this is the start of us cleaning up some areas here that we've had for a long time. And if you run that through and say, what are we going to have if we had 20 states do this? You could actually get a good start on removing criminal aliens from this country. So it's a very good program. It's a solid program. It is a very – a program that's, it's not popular. There are two other counties right now that have applied and are awaiting the deal.

But it's a program that is astoundingly clean. It meets every requirement of what we want to do. It's humanitarian. It allows us to put our hands on a person and remove them. So back to E-Verify, I just want to clear that up David. So back to E-Verify, I don't think anyone possibly in this room can understand the the fraudulent use of identification here. So we're faced with a situation where Social Security numbers are duplicated to a tremendous amount. The entire name structure is unbelievable.

I have plenty of clinics that are running through people, and they'll call me some days and say, look, 99% of everyone who came to do a physical today is not coming back as a lawful person. So I think the E-Verify will start to get a handle on those folks. And it's not so much a punishment as it is for an acknowledgement on finding out who exactly you are. And let's get the right person and the right name and the right family members that are going to school. Let's get all that correct so that we're paying the right person. And actually, if they want to become a productive member of Texas society here, that they do that under their correct name. And we do that under their correct fingerprints.

And everything is clean. And I think that's the goal overall. It's my goal for sure. I know very few people that have been anti-immigrant. I think what we want is to come in with the rule of law, want to come in the right way, and work here and assimilate in this country under our standards, Texas standards, and go to work.

I think that's what the majority of people are looking for. So it's not so much a deportation issue. It's a matter of getting it right, getting it cleaned up, getting all the information that we can, and having them pay their taxes and becoming productive members of society here in Texas. Thank you for that. And we only have a few minutes left. We hardly covered everything I wanted to ask, but just if we could go down the panel here, just for each of you to talk briefly about your expectations moving forward. If we really zoom in, what does success in immigration and border security legislation look like for you and for your

district? Let's start with you, Representative Roy. Well, thanks for having this panel. I mean, this is obviously arguably the most important issue for every Texan, certainly all the ones I talk to. And we've been taking it on the chin, and we're working hard to try to get Texas paid back. I'm talking to the governor about that today. He led in having a meeting with the Speaker of the House about the need to get Texas paid back. We think that ought to be a part of the whole debate as we go through the reconciliation process. $12 billion is a lot of money, and Texas ought to be made whole for the failures of the federal government. But you ask, you know, what does it look like going forward?

I want to say two things. I mean, one is you have to get the flow of illegal immigration down to zero. Like this notion that we should have this tolerance of 30 or 40,000 and celebrate when we get it down to 30 or 40,000 is insane to me. We ought to get that number down to zero. We're, you know, the strongest and freest and, you know, most powerful country in the history of mankind. You mean we can't stop the flow at our border? Of course we can't. And we need to recognize that we need legal immigration to be done properly, but understand we currently have between 1 million and 2 to 3 million opportunities every year

for people to come to the United States under existing visa programs, existing student visa programs, existing guest worker programs. Can they be improved? Yes. Must they be improved? Yes. But we have by far the largest door of any country in the world and have had for a very long time. And this is the thing that I want everybody to take away from this. Because while Tom Homan is doing the Lord's work, and the president is giving him the authority to do it, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, and they're all doing the work to remove people from our country who need to be removed, and talking about the dangerous aliens, like the ones from the gangs from Venezuela, TDA, that killed Jocelyn Nungre, whose mom, Alexis, I was

proud to have her as my guest at the inauguration last weekend. A beautiful young woman herself who lost her 13-year-old daughter last July. And there's dozens of those examples. But I want to, removing the criminal aliens and the gang members is all really important. But guys, that's like breathing. Okay, that's like our basic duty as a government government like to keep our streets safe I want everybody to remember that there are 51 and a half million foreign-born people in the united states of america When jd vance was pressed the other night in his interview and was asked by what's her name was cbs And was asked. Oh, you know, everybody came over on the mayflower. We're a nation of immigrants

Okay was asked, oh, you know, everybody came over on the Mayflower. We're a nation of immigrants. Okay. J.D. properly said, yes, we're a nation of immigrants, but those were not immigrants who came over on the Mayflower. There was no nation to migrate to, right? We are a nation. We are a sovereign nation. We are a nation of laws. We are a nation that has the rule of law. We are a beacon of hope. We do bring people here. We have a big door. But when you have 51.5 million people who are foreign born, which is 16.5% of the population, which is higher than at any point in our history, including the late 1800s and early 1900s,

I want to understand, I want everybody to understand what that means for our schools, for our language, for our culture, for who we are. And we need to remember that we are a sovereign nation and start with that. In 1920, we slowed immigration down for 30 or 40 years. And then we regrouped and said, this is who the United States of America is. And I think we need to think about that.

And you'll back. Well, we are out of time. I'm sorry, everyone. No, they're giving me the red light up there. We've got to get off the stage. Well, thank you, everyone. Thank you to all of our panelists who came here today. Let's give them a round of applause, please.

And everyone stick around. We have a conversation with Comptroller Glenn Hagar coming up next. And we have a whole bunch of panels, so please stick around. I'm I'm I'm