Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple CarPlay and then Rouno with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to the Tuesday edition of Balance of Power here on the radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube, where we invite you, as always to join us in our live feed. Search Bloomberg Global News. When you get to YouTube, we'll meet you there in the studio where the lights are lit and we have a lot to talk about. It's a beautiful day here in the nation's capital. Nice day for a picnic, you might say. And that's the big plan at the White House later. Imagine cats and
dogs feasting on hamburgers and hot dogs. This is the big congressional picnic at the White White House. Joe Biden, Joe Biden, six fifteen pm, South Lawn. There will be remarks and it's going to come after the President. You'll witness all of this live today on Bloomberg Speaks to the Nation around two o'clock. That's at least the schedule about an executive order that he is about to drop.
And we've talked about this a lot, with great reporting from Bloomberg's White House team in the formation the creation of this EO. We've actually been waiting for this four weeks and here we are today. This will be the topic of conversation at the picnic. You've heard of this before if you've been with us on the program here.
Reaching a certain threshold of illegal border crossings would trigger, essentially a shutdown of the border would effectively prevent new asylum claims by migrants who walk across the border until levels drop by roughly two thirds of where they stand. Okay, so here are the actual numbers. Where's the cutoff? The measure would kick in when levels hit roughly twenty five
hundred crossings per day. Authorities, for perspective, recorded about forty three hundred crossings per day encounters rather, I want to be specific per day in April with undocumented migrants between ports of entry, the most recent data available. It gives you a sense of the numbers here. Now, when we talk about restricting the definition of asylum and so forth, included in that Senate negotiated compromise that went nowhere the end of last year beginning of this year. We don't
see so much of that in the EO. But we're going to let this come out a little bit later on today when the President speaks. Although first we speak with Maria Fernanda Buzzmoski, who was with us during the debate in the Senate and back now that we have paper at the White House, deputy director of the Adrian Latin America Center at the Atlantic Council. Maria, it's great to see you. Thank you for giving us your time today. Is this the right thing for Joe Biden right now?
Thanks for having me again on the show. Joe. I think that.
This is.
Perhaps the most aggressive attempt from Joe Biden to address the border situation. He knows very well that elections are right around the corner. Mexico just had its election on Sunday, and we saw there will be a continuation of the Mona Party under Claudia Scheinbaum, and we expect the rhetoric around immigration create and Mexico to start to heat up. And I think that this is his attempt and the Democratic Party's attempt to address the numbers at the border.
Well, we're going to hear a lot about this today from Democrats and Republicans, including I'm sure quite a bit of criticism, just as we heard from Republican lawmakers the
last time around. It's interesting, though, Maria, to hear from Hispanic Democrats in the capital alex Badia, Democrat California Joe Biden quote paralleling some of what the Trump administration tried to do unsuccessfully unquote Greg Caesar, Democrat Texas, pushing back on Biden publicly if he pursues these policies quote, it's not going to help the president politically, because I don't think Fox News is ever going to give him any credit anyway, unquote.
Is there some truth to that.
I think that this is again his attempt to appear domestically as he's tough on the border and immigration. One of his talking points might be later tonight that he tried to do this in a bipartisan manner earlier this year and it didn't happen, and now this is what he has to do in order to bring those numbers back down.
I want to mention that a statement is just out from the White House on this, even though we've not heard from the President yet, this is official Maria. Quote, we must be clear, this cannot achieve the same results as congressional action, and it does not provide the critical personnel and funding needed to further secure our southern border. Congress still must act unquote. But you don't expect that to happen to you, Well.
I think it's quite unlikely. But at the end of the day, and I think that if we read between the lines on that statement that you just read, this is a band aid. This is a band aid to a much bigger wound that needs aggressive surgery, and it needs a team of people from both sides of the aisle to come together and start to address something that is very clearly broken, which is the immigration policies of this system of this country.
Well, so this is far from comprehensive, right, This would lower the number of daily crossings, that would allow the president a better story to hell, And I guess even if this were made permanent, it still wouldn't address the issue of demand at our southern border or security surrounding it, right, correct.
And this executive action that has been unveiled today does nothing to address the issues that are driving thousands of people to the US southern border every single day. And that's as you've just mentioned, it's everything from security in Minor America and the Caribbean, it's economic opportunities. This is
not addressing at all the root causes of migration. What we see at the border is just a symptom of a much larger problem that begins, as we repeatedly say, three thousand miles south of the US border.
Yeah, well, let's talk about that for a minute, because we spent quick bit of time yesterday talking about Claudia Shinbaum and a remarkable and historic election in Mexico. What is it going to mean though? For policy at the border. The timing here is, I'm guessing pretty difficult for this
Mexican president elect. Twenty four hours later, Joe Biden is rolling out an executive order to potentially close the border, but as a protege of President Amlo Or should we expect the same policies from Mexico.
Yeah, I think she had some time to calibrate her victory, but was quickly kind of reminded of the gigantic task that lays ahead for her and for Mexico. The timing of this executive order is probably not coincidental at all. He was waiting for that election on Sunday. Claudia thus far has said that she thinks the United States can do more to address again the pushing factors in Central
America and in Latin America and the Caribbean. We expect to see some continuation from the Shainebaum administration on the policies that President Lopez Alor has carried out. Thus far. She has been very explicit though in saying that with the United States she will seek a collaboration and cooperation and not a relationship where Mexico is subordinate to the United States. I think we'll have to see who's part of her team and we'll see where her policies carry her.
Just lastly, Maria, what happens to the border if Donald Trump wins the election.
I think we'll have to see if whether he has a willing partner in Mexico to kind of work on as he has in the past with Lopez. I think that, you know, Trump, were he to come to the Oval office once again in January, needs to recognize that Mexico, with the election that we just had, not only the strong mandate that fell the shame on hash, but also the composition of her Congress. She and Morena right now
has twenty four out of thirty one governorships. She Morena is pretty strong, and I don't expect Donald Trump to have an easy time pushing her to cave into some of his eventual demands.
No, we'll have a lot more to talk about in that scenario, Marie. I'm glad you could come back and see us. Thank you for your time from the Atlanta Council, Maria Fernanda Bosmoski.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and Enroudoo with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York State Joe Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
For just about an hour away from expective remarks from President Joe Biden about the executive order he's issuing today related to the border. It'll be interesting to hear Joe how he toes the line between trying to appeal to those critics who have been critical of this administration and its policies toward the border, and then those progressives who may think that this is going too far, and it's potentially alienating a key demographic.
You know.
It's kind of like the issue surrounding his policy with Israel, where he's managed to upset people on both ends of the political spectrum. Here, we're going to hear from the President in less than an hour, assuming he's on time. And we're joined now at the table by Bloomberg White House correspondent Josh Wingrove, who has been far out on this story. This is something that we've been reporting on for a couple of weeks in anticipation of this executive
order dropping. Josh, it's great to see you. We're going to be talking with critics all day or we're questioning to begin with the number, What is this twenty five hundred number? Why should twenty five hundred people be allowed to cross the border illegally every day?
The starting point officials have told us is that bipartisan bill, and that talked about or in the negotiations for that, they zeroed in on about four thousand. What they've done here is picked twenty five hundred, which appears to be the net when you take out the people that make appointments and those are allowed to happen In other words, asilum claims are still open as of tomorrow. If you have an appointment and go to a port of entry. What's closing are the people that simply walk across the
border between points of entry and backing up here. I mean we have just dealt with this for years. I mean we dealt with this in Trump's first campaign against Hillary Clinton.
Ye.
Biden, very early in his presidency proposed a immigration bill went nowhere. Neither party really has any interest in it for various reasons. Used to be that the grand bargain was border stuff for immigration stuff, not so much. And now the bipartisan bill collapsed. Trump had a lot of pressure on to kill it, and Biden has decided to try and do something, even though it is certain to be challenged. The ACLU has already said that they will challenge it. I will leave it to lawyers to say
whether that will be struck down. The Democrats himself have said that congressional action is the safest path. In other words, they will int ave at the farm that this thing will hold up. And that's where we're at.
Well.
And even in the release that the White House put out the statement, they said we must be clear this cannot achieve the same results as congressional actions, so perhaps they're trying to get in front of that narrative. But what we're hearing out of Congress Josh is Republicans on the one side essentially critical that he didn't exercise this authority way sooner, that he's waiting to do it until now.
On the other side, you have the likes of Senator Alex Padia, who in a statement today said President Biden has undermined American values with this decision. Is there real winning on this issue for the president?
I guess he's hoping that there's a silent majority in the middle and we're kind of up in the air right now and where those swing state democrats fall. Some border Democrats Mark Kelly and Arizona, for instance, have come out in favor of this. We'll be looking at two o'clock to see who will be there. It doesn't sound like a lot of the swing state senators, the ones that are up Tommy Baldwin Wisconsin, for instance, will be there.
So it's not just progressives who are mad about it, or people that are sort of immigration reform advocates like Senator Padilla. But where will those sort of middle of the road types go. We do in our story have an Custers saying that she thinks that this will appeal to sort of moderate swing voters. In our polls, people are worried about this right now. It is the second top issue, second only to the economy when you ask
people to name their single thing. Now, though when you drill down it's more Republicans that are worried about it. Then I'll follow by that independence, which is the problem. Democrats aren't so worried about it. Biden is basically trying to woo independence the power. He's using a Section two twelve F that is what Trump used. Trump got the courts tied up in the courts with it as well. Be fair to assume Biden will be tied up to
some extent in the courts with it. This is essentially a loophole that they're trying to drive a big mac truck through to get things for.
It's going to be a fun congressional picnic tonight. Yeah see, I'm guessing it'll be great.
And this is two days after the Mexican election, by the way.
Well, and that has a lot to do with the timing.
We understand would Republicans support this if the president set the daily cap at zero.
They might more?
Why not?
Well, I think the Republicans. A lot of Republicans want the issue to campaign on regardless, so if you set a cap and zero, they might find different ways to do it.
But why not set the cap and zero?
Because there's a legal right to asylum claims under international law and their American law, and that is what is probably going to lead to these challenges and may well end up getting struck down. They're trying to get around that with exemptions for instance and accompanied minors. This will not apply to, for instance, people in extreme health certainty. For instance, if you're you know, parched and at risk of you know, dying of thirst in the desert, you can walk across America.
We'll be like arrest or whatever.
But outside of legal asylum claims reports of entry, why not set the captain zero?
Because they believe that you can make asylum claims as an irregular crosser you don't necessarily need an appointment. But even the legal pathways they're creating have attractive political blowback. And Biden's whole philosophy is people will wait in line if there's a line that's moving right, and so they think that if they create these legal pathways, it'll lessen the incentive for people to pay thousands of dollars or some smuggler to take them across Mexico and put them
into the US. And so what they're trying to do is sort of short circuit that now ahead of summer months where things normally rise, and if this year is the same as other years, Biden would be facing rising members heading into election, which he doesn't want and hope that people will sort of go the other route, which is this CBP one app you know, obviously I roll my eyes with my bank asked me to use an
app let alone time, you know, So we'll see. The jury's out, I think obviously on whether that will be. Everyone agrees that Congress would have stronger powers here, and so might you know, look forward to the next Congress. The odds of a you know, one party holding all three levers don't seem particularly high, certainly possible, and so
if they are, will this happen. Some of the Republicans who were fans of the original bipartisan bill urge their Republican collegues to take it because they didn't think Democrats would have as much incentive to make a deal. So, even if Republicans were to sweep the House, Senate and Presidency in the elections, the odds that they get a comprehensive reform through I don't know.
Well, we're going to talk to one Republican lawmaker now, Josh wen Grove, Blueberg, White House Correspondent. Great reporting, Thank you Gran so much. We go now live to Capitol Hill where Republican Congressman Brian Style of Wisconsin is joining us. He's the chair of the House Administration Committee, also a member of the Financial Services Committee. Congressman, welcome back to
Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. You have been on this program repeatedly in the past talking about President Biden not exercising authority that he has when it comes to the border. It seems today he is doing so. Does he deserve credit for that?
What he's doing today is woefully insufficient. Joe asked the right question, why not set it at zero? And it should be noted that this only addresses one of the three key buckets of individuals who are in the country. This is addressing the bucket of individuals who are entering through non ports of entry. Think about somebody wading across the Rio Grand River and coming in and claiming asylum. We saw about two point four million of those individuals
last year. This would throttle that down to about nine hundred thousand individuals. It does nothing to address what we call known godaways. Last year roughly six hundred thousand individuals who were observed entering the country, but who got away, and we have no idea.
Who those individuals are.
And the third bucket is the one thousand, five hundred individuals a day, roughly another half a million people per year, who are coming through legal ports of entry. And so the action by the President is woefully insufficient to a challenge as large as he has created. He needs to take a series of executive actions, all of which are under his authority, to actually and truly secure the border.
Well.
I do know that you want more, Congressmen, and I anticipated that you would give us an answer like that. But if this would in fact lower crossings, illegal cross things on any level, and it appears to be by thousands, why not do this now and ask for more after.
There's nothing wrong with the President taking this executive action, But I think it's important for the American people to realize that this is woefully insufficient to address the crisis that he has created at the US Mexico border. The crisis is being felt not just in communities along the border, but being felt in my home state of Wisconsin and
across the country. And so the President needs to take a series of executive actions, most importantly to reinstate stay in Mexico and the catch and release program and the abuse of the parole system, and reinstart border wall construction immediately. Again, he's taking a small step in the right direction, but woefully insufficient to address the challenge that he is created by allowing the US Mexico border to remain unsecured.
Well, the way the White House is characterizing this Congressman is that to actually adequately address the challenge would require Congressional action. They said so in the statement, of course, the President had agreed to a bipartisan compromise with Senate
negotiators earlier this year. That quickly died, I know that you're probably going to tell me that the House passed HR two, But considering HR two was known to be dead on arrival when it passed the Houses, it received not a single Democratic vote, and obviously the bipartisan border deal didn't end up going anywhere. Should you not try to start fresh, try to find a compromise.
I'd critique a little bit of there what you said as it relates to the Senate bill. I think it's important to reflect back on the most recent vote on the Senate bill. They didn't even get all the Democrats on board. That's how broken the bill is. That is called, as your term, bipartisan. My view would be the opposition of the bill is bipartisan. Only a fraction of the Democrats even voted for it because it doesn't work. The House pass bill actually works. It actually secures the US
Mexico border. It was passed now approaching a year ago, the Senate should act on it. If the Senate thinks that they can make amendments to make it better, make adjustments, I'd love to see that vote take place on the Senate floor. Actually think that it would pass in the Senate because it works and the problem that's been created by this administration is so significant that actually there is
a political need to act further. The President has a series of executive actions that he could take over sixty in total that he could take to substantively secure the US Mexico border. Again, the four easiest that are at the top of the table is reinstating the stay in Mexico policy, end in catching release, restart border wall construction, and end abuse of the parole system. But there's a
series of actions that he could take. The action he is about to take today, as reported, is woefully insufficient to actually address the crisis that is impacting every community across the country.
Well, it'll be especially insufficient if it's struck down in court, of course, Congressman, and I wonder what your thought is on that section two twelve f of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Everyone suddenly an expert every time this comes up again. We saw this not play well in court for Donald Trump in some cases when he invoked those authorities. If that happens again, now it's kicked back to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and we start all over again.
To Kayley's point, right.
Well, this is in large part where the House pass Border Security package is so essential. We make essential reforms to the asylum system to end the abuse of the process. Importantly, what we're seeing right now is when individuals illegally enter the United States, they're often released with a notice to appear, in other words, a court date three, four, five years out, and at that point they're released into the country and able to travel freely. What we should do is dramatically
accelerate the process that we're reviewing those cases. And again, when they're reviewed, about ninety eight percent are ultimately rejected, meaning the vast majority of the individuals coming into the United States illegally are actually making an asylum claim that when adjudicated, when heard by a judge, are found to not be valid. And so we could dramatically increase the
rate and scope of how we're processing those claims. Again, the House Pass Border Security package makes those adjustments to our asylum laws that are essential. If the Court chooses to strike this down, which I don't think that they should do, but if they did, all the more reason the Senate should act on the House Pass Border Security legislation.
Congressman, one of your colleagues in the House, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia, yesterday floated the idea of forcing an impeachment vote against President Biden over this issue of the border. If she succeeded in getting that on the floor. Would you vote to impeach the president?
I think we got a big election coming up in November, and the American people are going to be able to have their say as relate to the disastrous policies being put forward by President Biden. I think we are always better served when the American people are able to make that decision. I'm incredibly concerned with the actions of President Biden day in and day out, but at the end of the day, we're about six months away from the election.
The American people are going to have their opportunity to have their voice heard.
Interesting, as the primary takes place today in the District of Columbia here in the Cap City, Congressman, something is going to happen that's never happened before, as non citizen residents are allowed to vote in primary elections to have a say in the communities that they live in. More than five hundred non citizen residents registering to vote and
have cast their ballots here today. This is an issue that you have strongly opposed and tried to take action against as chair of the Admin Committee in the House of Representatives.
Now that it's happening. What will it mean.
I've held a series of hearings on this exact point.
I think it's important for all of your listeners and viewers to realize that today, in our nation's capital, non citizens are legally allowed to vote in particular municipal elections for things like city council. This includes individuals working in an embassy. So, just to give you a flavor of how ridiculous the law is in our nation's capital, the front door to the country, an individuals, say working at the Russian embassy residing in DC for only thirty days
is eligible to vote in our nation's elections. I'm of the view that US elections should be for you, US citizens only. We passed a bill here in the House to ban non citizens from voting here in our nation's capital. The Senate has refused to act on that.
I think that they should, and more broadly, we need to make sure that we're.
Ensuring elections across the country are for US citizens only. The fact that our nation's capital today is allowing non citizens to vote in a primary election for positions like city council is absolutely absurd.
I think we need to change the law.
Congressman we have just a minute left with you. But to what extent are you concerned about in your home state of Wisconsin people who shouldn't be legally allowed to vote attempting to do so.
This is a broader concern that we've had.
We had a series of hearings, and what we have seen are non citizens registered to vote illegally in other locations. In particular, Ohio recently identified a number on their voter rolls. Georgia did a proper Czech Pennsylvania identified issues as well. I think in a period of time, we need to dramatically look at whether or not we have non citizens
on the voter rolls and states across the country. We need to make sure that we're protecting the integrity of our elections such that only US citizens vote in our elections.
In a period of time when seven million people have come across the border I legally under prison Biden's three and a half years, where you have cities in jurisdictions like Washington, d C. Not only allowing but encouraging non citizens to vote, I think it's absolutely imperative that we're making sure we're protecting the integrity of our elections by making sure our elections are for US citizens only.
It's good to have you back. Congressman.
Thanks for your insights to a Brian style, the Republican from Wisconsin with us on the fastest show in politics. As we mentioned, less than an hour from now, Joe Biden is set to speak to the executive order on the border.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Proudoro with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcast. I watch us live on YouTube.
It all starts at six fifteen pm Washington Time. That's the annual Congressional picnic on the South lawn of the White House. I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines. I can only imagine the conversation over hamburgers and hot dogs, because that will be less than four hours after the President speaks to the American people about this executive order he's
dropping today on the border. He's going to be speaking from the East Room, at least according to the schedule, about twenty minutes from now, and Kaylee, as we've learned over the course of this hour, he's upsetting both ends of the political spectrum today with this announcement.
Yeah, of course, Republicans think he is not going far enough. Progressives may think he's going too far with this executive action that essentially when crossings cross a threshold of twenty five hundred, that's right across the border, will shut down those seeking asylum, at least in some cases. There are carve outs and exceptions here, and perhaps the exceptions are
providing more fuel to the buyer who are upset. The thing is, though, Joe, there's something else to consider here politically, and that is the implication this could have for the economy.
Yeah, this is a big deal.
Standard chartered. Steve Englander, who's a great friend of Bloomberg TV and Radio, put out research today that found roughly half of non farm payrolls growth since October is accounted for by undocumented immigrants. According to his estimates looking at data from US Immigration Services, the Customs and Border Patrol, and others. He suggests, if you take those workers out, job growth may actually be running at a much lower pace of one hundred and twenty five thousand.
Imagine that per month.
So then couple the impact that this has had as well on shelter costs and housing immigrants in cities all over the country, not just New York, and the impact could be great. And you wonder, if you keep walking this line, does this executive order hasten the first interest right cut It's.
An excellent question. If it means more softening in the labor market, one could see how that argument could be made. But we want to pose these questions and more now to Rebecca She She is founding executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition. Rebecca, welcome to balance of power. How should we be thinking through the economic ramifications of this executive order today? Not allowing as many migrants to seek asylum in the US, something that will start effective immediately.
How is this likely to impact the economy?
Thank you so much for having me today. The President is moving forward on this executive order to ensure legal and orderly processing and crossing, and this is going to have important impact on both the economy and our communities.
I think you just mentioned that one of the reasons that our markets and economy continue to roar is because, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we have two point one million new migrants new workers in the economy over this last two and a half years, and this has made sure that jobs, particularly jobs and construction, hospitality,
tourism are filled despite our very tight labor market. And this has meant that you know, stock market is reaching historic highs as we have seen, as well as tamping down inflation. And just the last thing I would add is that you know, we see all the demographics data that average Americans are having, you know, less than replacement
rate in terms of births. And this new energy, new entrepreneurships from both new migrants and long term immigrants already here has been a gift to the economy and to our country well.
So as the President speaks to the American people, then today, Rebecca, should he also be making an announced about work permits.
That is something that we're hoping for as the American Business Immigration Coalition, and we are a bipartisan group of about fourteen hundred employers and CEOs across the country. Over this last year, we have been leading a national campaign we call it Here to Work actually calling on the administration and the President to issue more work permits for both the new migrants as well as the long term
immigrant contributors. You know, if you think about people that are picking crops, cleaning hotel rooms, emptying bedpans in nursing homes, or even designing semiconductors at our fabrication facilities. They're over represented and significantly contributed by immigrants of all scale levels. So having more work permits, legal work permits in the
marketplace is a good thing. It's a good thing for employers, is a good thing to protect immigrant workers from exploitation, and it raises wages and depresses inflation for every American consumer. And if nothing else, we've seen that work over this last two and a half years.
Well, Rebecca, you just said there that you've been pushing the White House and the Biden administration to do more in that effort. Is that effort something they can carry entirely alone? The administration and the White House when it put out a statement today talked about how realistically to get more substantive reform you need congressional action. What are the limits of what President Biden himself is able to do unilaterally?
Yeah?
Absolutely, And we've seen the President and particularly Democratic leaders and some Republican leaders as well, you know, know, the police Senator Langford of Oklahoma really trying very hard to come together on a bipartisan solution to our borders. I think this bill was brought to the floor several times this year, and then former President Trump intervene and it fell apart. And so then we see today that the President deciding to act, you know, laterally on executive order
around the border. So similarly, you know, given the gridlock in the Congress, that the executive action on work permits can continue and also be granted for people, particularly people that have been here for decades working, many of them are married to US citizens. We actually have one point one million US citizens in our country who are married
to undocumented spouses on average for sixteen years. Just just kind of bonkers to think about that people with such deep roots in our nation are still unable to have a passive permanence because of our broken immigration system. So I think the you know, to your point, ideally right, things are done on a bipartisan basis by congressional action. But we've just seen this Congress again and again, even on something that both sides have agreed on, like border security,
we can't even make any progress. And so as such, we're calling on the President to also do a executive action on legal work permits and something that everyday Americans support.
Well, as you call on this president to take action.
Having referred to the fourteen hundred CEOs and employers you represent, Rebecca, this is an election year. Who do they trust more with reforming the immigration system, Joe Biden or Donald Trump?
I would say that are just where we are in on the issue has been sally a failure of both sides. I mean, we are operating under a menagerie of the alphabet soup for our visa system that was created in nineteen eighty six, So over nearly forty years ago was the last time we had a reform to our immigration system and our economy. Today it doesn't look anywhere like how it looked in nineteen eighty six. And so the politics always keep getting in the way of this issue.
And the thing is that's American. Everyday Americans understand that we need to have legal, orderly border crossings and as well as bringing people out of the shadow, especially people that have been here working, paying taxes for decades with American family members, just again and again, you know, for
our dreamers, for our mixed status families. It always posts so well, it doesn't change because Americans know that those are the right solutions to fix this super outdated and just honestly beyond frustrating immigration issue.
Rebecca, it's great to have you.
Rebecca She founding executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enron Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa, playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
It's not just any Tuesday, It's a primary Tuesday. In a number of the primary day largely stopped paying attention to primaries as we have our presumptive presidential nominees. That doesn't mean that they're not worthy of at least some analysis, considering.
We do have primaries in Montana, which is going to be a key state in deciding the balance of the Senate, as well as in New Jersey, where there has been a lot of political intrigue about not just Senator Bob and Endesk, who is currently on trial for bribery charges, but his son, who was facing a primary challenger today.
Is the same first name.
So it's interesting that as we've been hearing from folks on the ground, some of the campaign signs have gone from Menendez to rob because of a difficult association here with what his dad's going through. That's New Jersey's eighth district, Cayley, and we can look ahead to some of these primaries, but of course it's all against the backdrop of this protest vote that we've been hearing about and watching just
about every Tuesday. How many Nicki Haley votes will there be in the Republican primary in a state like New Jersey. That will be part of the story tonight as well.
Absolutely, as we've seen continuously something in the ballpark of twenty percent of the Republican primary vote still going to Nicki Hayley, even though she suspended her campaign months ago. This will be the first time, though, we get those results after Donald Trump's guilty conviction, and I wonder if it will actually prove to be a tell on as to how many more voters are trying to protest the fact that he's the presumptive nomine.
Really great point. Let's see what the panel thinks about it.
Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis are with us at your panel Bloomberg Politics contributors on Bloomberg TV and Radio. What's your thought on that, Rick, As we anticipate votes tonight, could we see an uptick for Nicky Haley following the guilty verdict or might it look like the opposite?
Yeah, you know, it's a good question.
I mean, there's definitely been a rallying around Donald Trump to be expected after the indictment. Republicans, you know, they still want to win elections, and he's the top of the ticket.
Whether they like it or not.
And yet Nicki Haley has been cruising around twenty to thirty percent of the primary ballot and in most of these states that have been selecting primary candidates since the presumptive nominee has you know, sort of taken charge. So this will be interesting. I think it's a bit of a tell. I've never put much credence on primary results as it relates to general election, and there's no real
track record that they have an impact. But this is definitely an area that Nicky has now endorsed Donald Trump. Donald Trump is now a felon, so maybe maybe that booster up to the upper thirties, and we have a talking point for Wednesday.
Well, Jeanie, if that indeed does transpire, is that more telling than the mixed polls that we have gotten in the days after the verdict, because that's real votes being.
Cast, it is, and you know, for somebody to go out in a primary where at least at the top of the ticket in this case, it doesn't matter thou all too much because of course we know who the presumptive nominees are on both sides. It is a tell, and I'm not sure how this is going to come off, quite frankly, because you could see it going either way.
You could see people who, as it settles in that this is a convicted felon, say hey, I'm going to go out there and cast my vote for somebody else, or to Rick's point, you could see a sort of rally around the Trump effect, and people say this was political persecution. These are all Republicans for the most part, voting in a primary, after all, and it goes in
the op direction. So I think we have to wait and see where this pans out, but I think it is a tell in terms of at least where Republicans are in this case, and of course as you look at the Democratic side, you know, Joe Biden wants to make sure that there is not a lot of you know, loss to an independent third party candidate because of what's going on in the Gaza strip or any other issue. So on both sides, it is sort of an indication as to how at least the base of their party is feeling.
Well.
You mentioned the Trump effect in the House, and it brings me to what's happening today, Jeanie. I love both of your take on this, because we've had a knockdown, drag out hearing with the Attorney General Merrick Garland. Everyone knew that would be the case as he testifies before some serious Republican critics here on the Judiciary Committee is Jim Jordan's committee, and he came out swinging in his own prepared remarks to try to blunt some of this.
But beyond the Robert her testimony, the committee wanted to acquire Joe Biden's testimony with the Special Council. Beyond the contempt vote that went nowhere, there's something else going on here. Three members of the committee, this is Freedom Caucus, Andy Biggs, Chip Roy, Tom Massey sent Merrick Garland a letter stating their concerns about aggressive prosecutions of those who were at the US Capitol on January sixth, the January sixth rioters,
and they wanted to talk about the FBI. This is a quote from their letter, the FBI's possible involvement in facilitating the events of January sixth. This is like tinfoil hat time here, Rick, where we're talking about white vans and unmarked officers in the crowd. What does this tell us about the direction we're going in in this Republican conference.
Yeah, it's a pretty dark direction. Republicans in the House, especially the Freedom Caucus. Republicans want to take the country and that is basically creating their own set of facts. And in this case, just because they dream it up means that it should be a fact. And I think Merrick Garland going to the Capitol Hill and saying no, these things are simply not true. No, Joe Biden is not the reason that Donald Trump got prosecuted in New
York at a state level. No, the FBI was involved in January sixth.
Here's the thing.
If somebody doesn't say no to it, And frankly, I think the Biden administration has done a very poor job of pushing back on fake news that emanates from legitimate institutions like the House of Representatives and people like Donald Trump. Then that's going to become true over time. And so I think the fact that the Attorney General is up
there fighting the fight for facts is really important. And I don't understand why the Biden administration would not deploy their cabinet in an effort to do the same thing, Because Joe Biden can only get elected if the country is working off the same set of facts about the economy, about the border, about Gaza, and if he allows these fake facts to proliferate, you know, it's going to be very hard for him to find a clear path.
Jeannie, I'd love for you to weigh in on what Rick just said. Is the administration not been forceful enough in pushing back against miss and disinformation.
This is a challenge, I think for all of us, and you know, I look at this very broadly. We are living in a time when it is very very difficult to break through all the noise that we all hear. And you can watch two channels and get the exact opposite take on what is happening, and misinformation disinformation spreads broadly, and I think it speaks to a reality, and I wish the Biden administration, to Rick's point, would talk about this.
This is why leadership matters so much. It is very, very difficult to police all this misinformation and disinformation, and that's why we've got to be able to trust the people we choose to lead us, to lead us in an honest way. And that is where what's happening today on Capitol Hill is so frustrating, because there is not a sentilla of evidence that anybody in the FBI was behind January sixth, and yet you have elected leaders up
there on the hill asking the question. And so I think, you know, in a way, it's all of our responsibility as Americans when we go to the ballot box to remember that we have to choose people who we feel some modicum of trust in to tell us what is the truth, because this is where we are in this country, in this media environment. So no, you know, I don't think it's all at Joe Biden or the Biden Administration's feet.
He can use the bully pulpit as best as he can, but this is a problem that every president in the modern era is going to face from now as long as our media environment remains the way it is, and so it's much bigger than Joe Biden.
Suggesting it may become more difficult, not get easier.
It's a great panel.
Thanks to both of you as always for showing grace with complex issues. Jeanie Shanzano and Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributors. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.