There's an issue I wanted to discuss where I think some conservatives are getting mad at the wrong kinds of people, and it actually has a Fresno element to it. So some news came out over the last week or so that, obviously this is in the context of we have this horrible situation at the border and the Biden administration's alteration of actually quite successful Trump administration policies, and they
changed them for the stupidest reasons possible. I really genuinely think a lot of the changes that happened to American border policy with the Biden administration, for example, ending the remain in Mexico policy catch and release. Basically, I think a lot of these policies were We're just going to do the opposite of whatever it was that the Trump administration did, because the Trump administration is bet the
Orange Man was bad. Therefore we need to do something different, and it's led to actually a worse situation, a more unjust situation, the situation where we've incentivized more and more people from Latin America to come to the United States, to try to come to the United States illegally or to abuse the asylum system, and the asylum system is the root of the whole thing. Basically, people coming to the border claiming that they're coming to seek asylum when they're
not really there to seek asylum. Asylum is I'm fleeing from Cuba because Fidel Castro wants to kill me and my family. I, you know, lash a bunch of you know, old tires from the fifty seven Chevy together. I make a raft and I float from Cuba to Miami Beach Beach. I wash up on the shore of Miami Beach. Now, I have not legally immigrants, I have not gone through the legal immigration process to get to America.
But I land on the beach. I run to a coast Guard official or a you know, a police officer or something, and I say, I'm seeking asylum. Fidel Castro is trying to kill me. I am fleeing Cuba to come to the United States to save my life. And so you have an asylum process. Some people come to America because they are fleeing for
their lives. So we have a process to bring in people in that situation, and maybe we extend asylum claims to Hey, I'm living in Gaza and it's in the middle of a war, and I'm terrified I'm gonna get killed, either collateral damage from an Israeli bomb or that, you know, I don't know. There's a decent little population of Christians to live in Gaza.
I'm afraid that the Musslim authorities might kill me. I'm afraid I might be collateral damage to an Israeli bomba I am fleeing from Gaza coming to the United States seeking as soamp At different times, in different ways, the United States has extended asylum refugee status to people in situations like that. I don't actually know if we're doing that for people in Gaza. But nonetheless, I'm in Iraq and it's war torn and ISIS is killing everybody. I'm coming to the
United States. I'm in this war torn part of the world. So not all the time, not in every situation, but that's what the asylum system is for now. The asylum system could extend to possibly the cartel in Mexico is going to kill me in my family, so I'm fleeing to the border to seek safety. I'm going to die because the cartel is going to kill me. Okay, well, maybe we grant asylum to you, but how do you process an asylum claim? Will you process an asylum claim through some
kind of legal prete That's what you have to do. You have to have a judge, you have to have lawyers who presumably you're going to need lawyers to speak Spanish or the language of whoever this asylum seeker is to process. Okay, Well, is this a legitimate request for asylum or are they full
of it? Are they just making this up? Okay? Are they actually fleeing for reasons that we legitimately allow for asylum seekers or do they just want a better economic opportunity for themselves, which is the reason that most people immigrate
to the United States. And I think that's the problem. The number of asylum seekers who have come to the United States has gone up and down, not on the basis of, oh, there is this huge spike in you know, cartel activity in Mexico and more people had to flee for their lives and seek asylum. No, it's fluctuated based on American border policy. And it's a ton of people who are all coming. Why because they want the
same reason anyone else immigrates to America. They want the economic opportunity that's available to them. From living in the United States. It's the reason why anyone wants to come here, and that's fine to want to come here for that, but the asylum process is not the avenue for doing so. And it's extended to the point of sending your unaccompanied child wandering over to the border by him or herself. And I've seen like videos and documentaries and stuff like this.
It's heartbreaking. These people are sending their child with barely any idea of where he or she is going, just by him or herself to the border, with the saying that he seeks he or she is seeking asylum. He might have a seven eight year old kid who's crying, has no idea what the heck he or she is doing, with barely a note about who he or she is. Like, it's heartbreaking what some of these people are doing.
So the asylum process is screwed up. There was a story in the last week or so though about people who seemingly were seeking asylum from Venezuela or making a claim of seeking asylum. A group of supposed refugees from Venezuela who came to Fresno, group of about nineteen of them and who received assistance from the Fresno Mission. We've had their director, Matthew Dilldne on the show. I apologize to get his name wrong. Dil Dean. He's a great guy.
He's a really smart guy. He does he and his organization do wonderful work helping the homeless, helping those in need. And he did not even realize that the Fresno Mission that these people whom they had helped. He didn't realize that they were specifically like refugees from Venezuela who had come on a bus or something. He just knew. He didn't know the whole background. He just knew they were people who came who were in need of help, and
that the Fresno Mission helped them. He didn't know about it until media reports came out locally about this, and he said, yeah, well we're gonna help people. I mean we're you know, we're the Yeah. We they they presented themselves to us, they were in need of this, that and
the other, and so we helped them. And this led to concert local conservatives getting mad at the Fresno Mission writing to him, including people who I guess had donated to the Fresno Mission writing to him and saying I'm never giving you another dollar your facilitating illegal aliens coming to this country. Now, this
is not a unique criticism of the Fresno Mission. A lot of Catholic social welfare agencies, a lot of Catholic charitable agencies, particularly different Catholic charities entities in Texas and other places, have received similar criticism from people on the right saying that basically, by taking care of these people, you're facilitating illegal immigration. And this has really annoyed me so and it annoys me also in this
regard. Okay, I run Right to Life of Central California, and I founded and was the CEO, and now I'm just in charge of development for the Obria Medical Clinics of Central California. So it's pro life, nonprofit obji on clinic. I we are. Our organizations have helped a lot of people. We've provided care for a lot of people. We have not discriminated in the help we've given on the basis of well, did you come as a
as an asylum seeker? Did you come in claiming asylum but you weren't really seeking asylum and you came here in a bus and blah blah blah blah, blah, No, I'm not asking about that stuff. If I've got a pregnant woman who's in need and is considering abortion but needs help and doesn't maybe doesn't want to have an abortion, I don't give a darn about her immigration status. I just want to help, because that's my job in this capacity.
Okay, that's all I'm asked to do. I can go on the radio and I have my opinions about American immigration policy and what it should be and how it should be structured. But in my role as directing a nonprofit who's tasked with helping people, it's not my job to suss all that out. First of all, I don't know that I even could. And secondly, if I did, does this person I shouldn't help. I should just say to this woman, sorry, you're on your own, go have an
abortion. Is that my job? Is that me doing a good job because otherwise I'm helping foment illegal immigration. No, that's an evil way of thinking. That's an actually evil way of thinking. Okay, these people are here, they're here. It's not the presd No Mission's fault that these people are here. It's not my fault that these people are here. They're here, So what are we gonna do. Are we gonna let them starve on the
streets, or they're in need and we help them. Furthermore, it doesn't even seem like these these Venezuelan people who came to the United States look I fully agree. I think President Biden is violating the law through the methods in which he is allowing asylum seekers into the United States. The law says people seeking asylum are to be detained until their legal case can be heard. Now that is impossible to do because there are like ten thousand holding cells and millions
of people seeking asylum. Okay, there's no way we could physically detain all these people seeking asylum. So the Trump administration's policy, which they were broadcasting to all of Latin America, is we're doing the remain in Mexico policy. Basically, if you're coming to America and seeking asylum, you've got to stay in Mexico until your court date can come up and we can process your asylum
claim. But you're not gonna you're not in the United States. I think what the Biden administration has done is basically allowed people to come to the border they say they're seeking asylum. The Biden administration says, okay, well, here's your court date. We know we're supposed to detain you, but we're giving you parole, which the President has no authority to do because it's not provided for in any statute the Congress has passed. All Congress has said is
there to be detained, not that they're to be given parole. And what basically what these people are told they get to the United States, they claim asylum. The Biden administrations said, Okay, here's your court date six years from now, you're free to go into the United States. Se yah. And then they go into the United States, and you know, let's see if they ever show up for their court hearing. I'm guessing not so.
I think the method in which the Biden administration has allowed these people in has violated the law quite possibly. But you know what else I know. None of that is the Fresno Mission's responsibility. None of that is my responsibility. They're here. I can't suss out what happened when they came here to the border. I can't. I'm not here to suss out or to mitigate the charitable help that I'm offering to people in need. On the basis of,
oh, well, did they actually seek asylum appropriately? Well, are they actually showing up for their court date? Did President Biden have the constitutional? No? What I see as a poor family that needs clothes, what I see as a pregnant teenager who needs help. So I guess I would just say any local conservative who's mad at the Fresno Mission for helping these people out, get a grip. It's not their job to suss that out. It would be impossible for them to suss that out. And frankly, the fact
that someone is the fact that someone might have done something bad. That's literally the whole point of Christian charity is that we've all done something bad and Jesus loves us anyway. So if we're going to mitigate the charity we're offering people on the basis of they did something bad, then you know, we might as well give up Christian hospitals, Christian charitable organizations, Christian soup kitchens, whatever. Anyway, I just think any anger at Fresno Mission for taking these
people in is ridiculously misplaced. When we return what is charity on the macro level versus the micro level? That's next on the John Girardi Show. I've been thinking more about this story that there was a group of Venezuelan refugees who came to the Fresno Mission. Fresno Mission served them without not even fully like understanding their whole background, how they got to the United States, that they
were part of some group of refugees, blah blah blah blah blah. And this has led to some local conservatives getting angry at the Fresno Mission that they
were helping these people out. And I am ticked off that anyone, because this is an instinct on for a certain segment of the right to get mad at private charitable entities that help out people coming to the border, and the idea that those entities are engaged in, you know, some kind of that that they are the part of the of the illegal immigration problem in the United States. And it leads me to sort of think about this idea, Well,
what is charity? What is charity on the macro and what is justice and charity on the macro level of public policy and the micro level of serving this person who's right in front of you. All right, so let let's let's sort this out. I think policymakers need to think about things in the big picture, because that's the level at which they govern. So I think,
and I think part of that involves questions like deterring people. What is more just the Biden catch and release policy or the Trump remain in Mexico policy. Now, some people might argue, well, the Trump remain in Mexico policy, that's very harsh. These people come all the way to the border trying to get refugee status and then they have to sit around in these border
towns in Mexico and that's kind of a chaotic situation. Okay, that's bad, but maybe that deters hundreds of thousands of people from coming to the border in a dangerous situation. If people know, hey, you come to the border, you're gonna have to stay in Mexico, that's gonna deter people from coming in the first place. If you have a really strong bord. Some
people might say, well, putting up walls is harsh. But if you have a really strong border that it's well nigh impossible to cross or extremely difficult to cross, guess what that might deter people? For I'm doing dangerous things like paying members of the cartel or smugglers to get people across the border, some of these people involved in you know, many of these people involved in human sex trafficking. Maybe it deters people from making that kind of a desperate
and dangerous decision. If you know, we had this tragedy happen at the border where a couple of people were trying to cross the Rio Grande and drowned. And this is terrible, but hey, if we had a very solidly built wall there that people couldn't cross, so they're not going into the Rio grand in the first place, would those people have drowned? You know,
probably not. Those people drown because the borders really poorous and people realize they can get across, and so they'll make a dangerous and desperate effort to do so. So what's more charitable? Okay, on the macro level, At the level of public policy, what is kinder? What is a better policy for immigration? I mean, I'll agree that American immigration policy is kind of screwed up, but I think people confuse the micro level of charity and the
macro level of sound public policy. Like, okay, on the macro level, and I think this is one of the questions for this that I think is this is sort of a classic question that you're not sure about the macro to the micro. California has extended medical coverage to everyone, regardless of their
immigration status, whether they're here legally or not medical eligibility. So on the one level, we're thinking well, the micro level, we're thinking, well, these people are here, we need some way of taking care of them, so this is the right thing to do. The macro level, you might have the argument, this is just incentivizing more people to come to the United States unlawfully. Is this really helpful in the aggregate? At the macro level, it's hard to say. I mean, frankly, I can see
the arguments for both sides. That people are coming here regardless and they need some form of healthcare. Now, the other questions of is that justiforce taxpayers to pay for that? Is it just to you know, is this sound Given the strains that are already on the medical system, medical can't reimburse doctors sufficiently with the patient load that medical already has. Now we're going to add
all these new people on how is that going to work? So I'm kind of you know, I can see both sides of it, but I hope you guys are seeing what I'm saying, there's a macro level to this stuff, or we have to look at what is just, what is charity, what is right at the macro level. But that's maybe a different calculus at the micro level. All right again, thinking about me at right to life
or our obria medical clinics. Okay, if I've got a pregnant teenager and she's considering abortion and she needs help, I don't give a damn what her immigration status is. I don't care. I'm trying to help a human being created in the two human beings created in the image and likeness of God. That's what I'm trying to do. I don't care about whatever past since she's
committed. I don't care about what choices she made or didn't make, or her parents made, whatever happened that resulted in her being in the United States legally, illegally, maybe legal if she's over state or visa. I don't give a darn. What I'm here for is to help her. That's my job. That's the Fresno Mission job. The big picture questions of public policy, while I care about them, while I think they're legitimate, is not for me to decide. Right here, right now, presented with this pregnant
fifteen year old girl who's standing in front of me. So conservatives don't be mad at the Fresno Mission for taking these people in Fresno. Mission is doing as much good in this city as just about anybody. When we return, I want to talk a little bit about this border bill that the Senate is considering, that the House is considering. What seems to be the plus is what seems to be the minuses. That's next on the John Girardi Show.
So this border bill that the Senate is considering, which also for some reason has Ukraine aid, which I don't get that well, I do get, So let me explain this. This is just Washington at it's worst. It really is, And I know that sounds. I hate sort of leaning into people who are, oh, Congress is just terrible. Like it's a very easy thing to say Congress has had terrible approval ratings since forever, because well,
it's easy to blame all of those guys out there. But I do think I want to dig into it more than just a cynical like sort of argument that everybody in Congress is a bad guy. I don't think everybody in Congress is a bad guy. Okay, I don't think David Valadeo's a bad guy. I don't think that Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, is a bad guy. I think Mike Johnson's a great guy. I'm I was really excited when he was named Speaker of the House. I don't even
necessarily think Kevin McCarthy was a bad guy. I think that the forces at play, the pressures and incentives at play in Congress, naturally result in gridlock and sort of naturally inherently lead you to do things that will result in nothing getting done because basically you have certain priorities. You know that the other side is not going to go along with those priorities, so you try to sneak those priorities in to a bill that has something the other side cares about.
Both sides have done this with aid to Israel. Now, Liberals tied military aid to Israel post October seventh to a bill that would also give military aid to Ukraine. Why the Democrats really want to give more military aid to Ukraine? They know that a bunch of Republicans are very skeptical of that. But they know that those same Republicans want to give military aid to Israel. So
that's the poison pill. Democrats say, oh, we can give military a Israel, but you got to give you know, forty billion bucks to the Ukrainians. Now, Republicans kind of do the same thing. Republicans say, all right, we'll give military aid Israel, but there's this other thing we want, which is a cut and spending over here. So you got to cut spending over here on this thing that you care about. Democrats, and
what happens. Nobody passes a bill. Now I'm I'm over here saying I'm not sure why we need to give military aid to the Israelis at all. You know, nothing for or against them, but they seem to have enough of a military already. I don't understand this instinct in Washington that our way of showing that we support or oppose something is by giving billions of dollars to one side or the other. We can just say that we support them. You know, we don't have to give them tens of billions of dollars they
have. You know, Israeli citizens pay their own taxes, and you know they have their own funding for their own military over there. So you know, we we don't have to fund it necessarily, Like it's not a law that says Israel must be funded by the United States. They can they can kind of fund them themselves. They seem to be doing quite fine without us anyway. But that's sort of the game in Washington is you try to get your goals accomplished by enticing the other side to vote for a thing that has
some of what the other side wants. But what more often tends to happen is that the poison pill is too poisonous for the other side to swallow, so nothing it's done. And that seems to be what's happening with this border bill. Why any bill to regulate what's going on at the Mexican border needs to have anything to do with Ukraine funding is beyond me. It's absurd.
Why is it there, well, because the Democrats control the Senate. This is the deal that was worked out for this compromise bill that James Langford, the Republican from Oklahoma wrote. There are some Republicans who are still very enthusiastic about giving military aid to Ukraine. There are a lot of other Republicans who are not very enthusiastic about that idea. And by the way, it's also this thing like conservative activist land is so ready to call any and every Republican
a rhino that it's kind of infuriating to me. Okay, James Langford, for example, James Langford wrote this bill, this bill for regulating the border but also giving money to Ukraine. Why. I think Langford genuinely wants to try to do something to improve the border situation. I think he knows that this doesn't ideally fix the border, but I think he thinks that this moves
the ball forward. And by the way, if we had one hundred James Langford's in the United States Senate, this would be a much better country. James Langford is like one of the most pro life guys in the whole Senate. He is a pastor from Oklahoma. He's a very devout Christian dude. Like I would take one hundred James Langford's in a second over one hundred Mitch
McConnell's or one hundred of a lot of other guys. All Right, So people jumping to call James Langford a rhino or saying he should resign from the Senate get a freaking grip, like you disagree with him on one stinking bill. And also I feel like the reporting on it from hard right wing sources
on this bill has been somewhat deceptive. So I've heard conflicting reports on this that, well, you mean we're just gonna let five thousand immigrants in and then we close the board it. Well, no, it's when we have five thousand migrant encounters at the border. Doesn't mean they get in, just means that they've been encountered. Then we shut down the border. Now I agree, why not just have it be shut down permanently? Good question.
So but again you see this problem that the Democrats have laid in this bill with a poison pill that's going to tick off Republicans and then acting outrage that Republicans got ticked off at it. It's clear that the Republicans are not going to support this, that this thing is never going to pass. It's just not It may not get the necessary sixty votes in the Senate, and it's certainly not going to pass in the House. There are even liberals who are
upset. There are a bunch of liberal activist groups, liberal border activist groups who think that this is the most draconian, horrible piece of border policy that's ever been drafted. So I feel like this effort at compromise that Lankford nobly engaged in to try to get something done to fix the problem, all it's
doing is making everyone mad. And here's the other thing. There's this report out that, and who knows how true or not it is that Trump is privately calling senators and congressman telling them not to support it because he doesn't want Biden to get something passed. That incentive is also there in Washington, because everyone's aware of the political ramifications if some bill gets passed to help resolve stuff at the border, in spite of the fact that the whole reason we have
a problem at the border is because Biden created the problem. Biden's going to get credit for it during an election year, And there are a bunch of Republicans who don't want that. And it's kind of understandable that they maybe it's not right, but it's understandable that they don't want that. They don't want Biden to get a major policy victory in what's likely to be a very close
election. You know, nine months before election day, how did Barack Obama win In twenty twelve, he had a couple of key moments in twenty eleven and twenty twelve ten, twenty eleven, twenty twelve where he got a couple of things accomplished that really seal the deal that he was going to win in twenty twelve, if you're an incumbent president, you just have to get a couple of things done, and it almost guarantees that you're going to get reelected.
And with Barack Obama, it was getting Obamacare across the finish line and the Supreme Court upholding it. After that, there was no way Obama was going to lose. I think that just kind of sealed the deal. He was a president who had clearly accomplished something, and then you know, tie
tends to go to the incumbent in that situation. Outside of some you know, total black swan event, like you know, a global pandemic that shuts down the economy of the entire country, probably President Trump would have been re elected for the same reasons. He had accomplished a decent amount. Trump had accomplished a very good amount of stuff in his four years, did some very
good things with foreign policy. He got a tax cut pass, the economy was doing really well, like you know that that should have been a slam dunk victory for Donald Trump. The only reason it wasn't, I think was COVID. So I don't even know what to think about this bill because I get so many conflicting reports about it. I don't think you know it. I think one of the big problems with it is that it winds up sort
of legalizing the Biden catch and release policy. You come to the United States claiming asylum, we let you into the United States to await your asylum court date, and you're just in the country. Not a remain in Mexico policy, not a remain at the border of policy, not a no you're just in the country. Now. Biden's been doing that, I think, in possible violation of the law over the last you know, three years. This would legalize what Biden's been doing. If this bill passes, I don't know
that that's a good idea. But on the whole, is this better than the status quo we have right now? A good question, And I think that's the impossible situation that being a member of Congresses, you either don't vote for this and you're just letting the status quo continue, or you vote for this, and you formalize all the bad things in the bill. If I
remember the House representatives and I were representing you know, Clovis. Okay, let's let's say magically I'm put in Kevin McCarthy's old seat, that that's the district I live in. Uh, how would I vote for this? I feel like either way it would suck. If I vote for it, my constituents would be John Girarti's a rhino piece of crip. He's given all of our money to Ukraine. He's just letting all the illegals in. John Girardi.
Sucks if I don't do it, People say, just typical Congress sit on their asses and do nothing while the borders in a state of utter chaos. If you don't vote for this, it's just a total lose lose. So there you go the the And it's not because I'd still be the same guy. I'd still be the same guy who kind of wants the border to be fixed and doesn't want this that. It's not that I personally am a corrupt guy. The forces at play in Congress are just such that they're forced
into these suckers' choices. When we return On the Biden Snelody Watch Front, President Biden talks about a conversation he just had with a president of France who died in nineteen ninety six. Next, on the John Jobarnei Show, President
Biden had a speech the other day yesterday. I talked about this speech he gave in which like he reveals the shallowness of his engagement with Catholicism, where the only piece of like Catholic literature, music, poetry, culture, whatever that he could think to cite was this terrible hymn that was written in the nineteen seventies that's very popular in American Catholic churches called on Eagle's Wings. It's written by this guy, Michael Joncas and it's just sappy, emotive clap trap.
It stinks, but everyone wants to play it at funerals. Oh my gosh. It's like we have Catholics have like the greatest treasury of music known to mankind. I mean, how much amazing music was written for the Catholic Mass, and we use this crappy music that was written in the seventies. Anyway, the one thing that Biden could think to cite from the Catholic you know, literature or musical tradition is a terrible hymn from the nineteen seventies.
And he also said it was based on Psalm twenty two, which it manifestly is not. It's based on Psalm ninety one. Also, Biden's saying, we got to remember who the hell we are? And he was at you know, the National the National Prayer breakfast. Maybe don't say who the hell we and he kind of caught himself, but you know, it was Biden's snility Watch today. On Biden's Sanility Watch, Biden was talking in speech about going to a G seven somewhat summit that was somewhere in England, and he
said he turned and was talking to President Miteeran Midrand. I'll say mid Rand whatever, who is? He was the president of France in nineteen ninety six. Well he died in nineteen ninety six. I'm guessing Biden meant Macron, Emmanuel Macron, who's the current president of France, because yeah, Biden would not have met with President Mitrand, who was you know, he died in nineteen ninety six. So this is just going to be a great election.
I'm really just looking forward to this senile old man making the case for why he should be leader of the free world for four more years when he you know, does stuff like, you know, talk about a meeting he had with the President of France who died in nineteen ninety six. That'll do it for John Girardi Show. We will see you guys next time on Power Talk.