 Action Jackson is asking, he's the action Jackson is looking for trouble. So he's looking to get us in trouble. He's asking, what is your opinion on Trump threatening to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary states? He's going to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary states. No, is this the latest? Did he just do this? Illegal immigrants who were like waiting for their asylum hearing, right? People who've crossed the border and have applied for asylum and he's going to take them and he's going to take them to sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and he's just going to let them out there. He's tweeted this. He said this is what he's going to do. So he's saying, I can't have my preferred immigration policy, which is to just basically close the borders and keep everybody out. That's what a lot of those people want to do. And so because I can't have that, I'm just going to throw a temper tantrum and not even take the minimum appropriate precautions that we would have if we had a proper moral foreign policy, which to elaborate on what you said earlier, yes, we have a right to bring people in and hire them and give them a place to live, invite them in their homes, everything, but not if that person actually poses a threat, some sort of a criminal threat, enemy, they're, you know, walking around with Ebola or something. No. And so there has to be a proper screening procedure. And he's saying, forget the proper screening. Let's just say while they're waiting to see whether they know for asylum. So that's a different criteria, right? But asylum also involves background checks and everything else, right there. That's why they've been screened some minimum. Let's say, let's assume even that he screened them for infectious diseases and they're not terrorists, but they still haven't had their asylum hearing. Okay. So then he's saying the disproportionate economic, let's go to the Democrats basically, let's take all these people and dump them in, dump them in the city's claim. They, they, they are happy to take in as many illegal immigrants. Now I'd say a few things about this. One, it is a mockery of the rule of law. There is a process, there's law, there are courts, there is a written law about this, there's supposed to be. Now the law is bad, granted the law is bad. The whole idea that anybody who crosses the border, I mean, I'm asking for asylum then has to be somehow housed and fed and until asylum, you know, why, you know, the one thing that government could do right now is, you know, hire hundreds of, you know, train a bunch of lawyers and hire them to take care of this asylum crisis that's happening on the border. Because what's happening with illegal immigrants now, which is different than in the past, is in the past, they would sneak in and they would go, they would go to America, they would go to cities, they would go to places, they would find work. Now what they're doing is they're crossing the border and they're holding their hands up and they're, they're finding the police and they're saying, we crossed illegally but we want asylum so please take care of us and we're going to go to the front of a judge. It's because the asylum laws are bad laws but what Trump is doing is throwing out all of this, all of the laws, all of the rule of law and I'm just going to take this out on my political opponents. Of course, if you actually just let all these illegal immigrants free, where would they go? Well they're all going to go to sanctuary cities because they're going to treat them best over there so less likely to get rounded up. So what's the big deal out of this? But there is the whole crisis at the border is a pseudo crisis. It's a pretend crisis and the way to solve it is to have comprehensive immigration reform, to clearly articulate who we are willing to let into the country and who we are not. If you don't like the asylum laws and I don't like them and I know President Trump doesn't like them, then reform them as part of this comprehensive immigration bill but you haven't even proposed anything. You haven't put anything on the table and I mean it's just, it's flaunting. It really is turning everything into, it's turning everything into politics, turning everything into Republicans versus Democrats rather than actually issues and I don't think sanctuary cities are mockery of the law. Sanctuary cities are basically saying we're not going to force a law that we believe is irrational. I mean who cares? So I'm sure there were cities in the U.S. that during prohibition did not enforce the laws against alcohol. Sanctuary cities for alcohol distribution. Fine. You want to hear it interesting? Why is it irrational? You know not enforcing that law, I wish there were more sanctuary cities for drugs I think and if you want to see that play out what's season three of the wire. I think it's season three of the wire where they create a sanctuary city for drugs and in a sense they legalize drugs in the city and what a beautiful outcome it has. So I have no problem with sanctuary cities not enforcing particularly laws when the laws are so irrational, so stupid that they, you know, and they're not violating anybody's rights, right? It's not like I'm not enforcing murder, I'm not enforcing the laws against stealing. You know I'm not enforcing, you know, an irrational law that relates to what, how you define a legal immigrants versus a non-legal immigrant and the laws are so arbitrary and so irrational. He probably doesn't want the problem solved, right? Because then he can continue to talk about there's this emergency and he's the savior who's going to close the borders and get it all done regardless of Congress not working with him. He was just tweeting within the last day I believe but you know the Democrats they have to come and solve the immigration problem exactly how you know everybody's just punting everywhere. I'm being accused of advocating for anarchy so he's legalizing marijuana on a state level. Is that anarchy? Because it's only legal federally so is California, Colorado, all these states that have legalized marijuana by doing so, they basically established anarchy because they're not enforcing federal law. On the contrary, they're snubbing federal law, they're actually saying we don't give a shit about federal law, we're just going ahead and doing our thing. I'm saying there's certainly rational laws that if certain jurisdictions, you know the feds can still prosecute those laws but their jurisdictions they're not going to enforce again these none of these laws are rights violating laws. If it was a rights violating law then absolutely you know sanctuary anything would be wrong but again doesn't violate rights. Smoking marijuana doesn't violate rights, drinking alcohol doesn't violate rights and you know states decide how much of their budget is going to be allocated to which police doing x, y or z they you know they can decide I'm not going to enforce federal laws on immigration using my local police force. There was a really interesting case recently that touches on this immigration issue and the tension. Motel 6 the chain was told to pay 12 million dollars I believe because they handed over their records their guest records to ICE and then basically ICE used those records to find people and you know start deportation proceedings and things like this right and so think about the implication of this right so if they are bad for handing that over right then somehow the law is saying that there is some protection for these people who are not necessarily violating anybody's rights. The law is so confused and I think it's because like with the area of drugs right so much of Fourth Amendment stuff comes up because of drug cases and everything. If you got rid of drug laws and if you got rid of unjust immigration laws and policies so much of this would just clean out and there wouldn't be all this this mess. More than that you wouldn't have all these desperate people coming from places like Guatemala and El Salvador and other places Central America to a large extent the violence that they are escaping is caused by the war on drugs that we are causing and we are the reason for it. Our war on drugs and yet our demand for drugs at the same time so our population demands drugs and then our government launches a war on drugs that combination is what's creating the violence in Central America which is bringing this you know these desperate people to our borders. I want to make one clarification about what I said about sanctuary cities. I didn't say you as an individual have the ability to choose which laws to abide by and which not because you do you do do that. I speed and I am completely willing to pay the cost for when I speed. Ironman talks about this so you the laws you think are irrational and you violate them assuming they're not laws that violate individual rights. I don't have that big of a problem with you as long as you recognize the fact that if you're caught you're going to pay a price for them. So I'm not I'm not here arguing for individual anarchy. I'm arguing yeah you as an individual I know lots of people so the example here is gun control laws. I know lots of people who have guns that are not registered or not whatever and if they're caught they'll pay the price and they just hope they're not going to get caught and but they're going to live by their standards okay but you know the other thing is so I'm not advocating here for individual anarchy choose the laws that you want to abide by though again some laws yeah I mean what are the laws that I if there was prohibition I would flaunt it right as many of you probably smoke dope in places where it's still illegal even if you live in a state where it's legal it's not federally illegal so what rule do you go by I don't know you know it's been it's been legal in California now for what a couple years or something people smoking dope I still I still haven't dragged myself to one of these dispensaries and had any since it's been legal in California how pathetic is that it's not pathetic that's good for you I mean what do you need dope for what do you need well I mean just you know one time just okay it's legal and it should be like that I'm interested so second point is that the rejection of the laws here is by by state and local government state and local governments that are acting within their authority so if a city is doing something that is in violation of the American Constitution then the federal government should sue them if a state is doing something that goes against federal law to an extent and violating the Constitution is some fundamental sense then sue them so and that's what happens right if if a if a city if a city is too restrictive on gun control right more restrictive than people believe the Constitution demands and you can sue the government so if if these sanctuary cities are doing something that's clearly non-constitutional against federal law to such an extent that then the government would sue then the federal government would sue them the fact that the federal government is not suing these although I think there are some cases in the courts suggest that most of these most of the cases either the federal government doesn't feel strongly enough about these issues or the states the counties the cities are within their rights to decide how to allocate police hours and how what separation of powers what regulations of ice to buy by and what regulations of ice not to buy by separation of powers exactly and you know I don't know all the intricacies of this and how it all works out but it strikes me that if a city or state flaunts violates federal law then the federal government has recourse against it and right but then the only time that I would you know advocate for that is if I think that the state is doing something against the principle of individual rights so for example where we have had states that have legalized assisted suicide right so Oregon is one of the early ones that have allowed legal assisted suicide and then you have at least I think I don't know if sessions was doing this or not you know they were going to go after them from the federal government I would be against that you know you would never so it's yeah the federal government might try but I would only support it and I wouldn't support the federal government going after sanctuary city no I wouldn't support them either I don't think sanctuary cities are doing anything to violate individual rights right and you know vote the bastards out again my whole thinking about immigration is whenever the government is doing something you want its actions to be guided by the principle of individual rights and that includes immigration policy of every kind and so whatever the government is whatever the government does to act in that realm it's got to be guided by that principle are the individuals who are coming over the border are they a threat to individual rights if so the government has a proper role if not not and you know you giving them a quiz on their ideology or you know any of these other things that don't talk about actual concrete physical actions that they've taken that show that they're a threat or something about them like contagious disease thing that shows that they're a threat government doesn't have a role