© Pixelrobot Dreamstime.com

Democrats Call For The Abolishment Of ICE

Marc Lotter, RNC / RJ Hauman, FAIR

The Annie Frey Show
July 02, 2018 - 4:11 pm

AF: Joining us now Marc Lotter from the RNC. Marc, thanks for coming on the show today. What do you think, abolish ICE? Is that the rallying cry that's going to cause the Blue Wave?

ML: You know, you have to wonder and as we see in front of our very eyes that the Democrats are running full sprint toward socialism and the extreme radical left. They're just forgetting about everyone in the middle of the country who supports rule of law and making sure that we welcome immigrants who legally come to our country, but we prevent illegal immigration which can also lead to drug smuggling and human trafficking and gang violence that's terrorizing many people's neighborhoods.

AF: Why do you think the left gets away with this because it's pretty clear what they're doing. How do the Democrats get away, Dick Durbin saying ICE is a group of incompetent...how come they get away with it?

ML: Well, and it goes even worse there, one of the candidates in New York Cynthia Nixon compared to a terrorist organization and well it's because the main stream media won't hold them to account. And right now they are only trying to appeal to people who live on the left and the Lefter coast and are forgetting about the hard-working people who built things grow things and work it out Heartland where these fundamental rule of law is one of the fabrics of our country and you have to ask yourself this if you're one of those Senators who is up for reelection a democrat in a red State, how can you be on board with people like Maxine Waters and a Democrat socialist who openly portrays herself in that way, who are now the leaders of the democratic party

AF: Yeah, certainly here we're watching very closely that race for Claire McCaskill's seat and there's a pretty strong primary going right now. We're hearing from a lot of the candidates. We had them on the show, but we're watching to see how Claire mccaskill reacts to these specific cases when it comes to immigration, and the question that I always want to try to get the answer to is, is the Democratic Party the party of open borders or did the Democrats admit that we even have an illegal immigration problem at all. What do you think?

ML: Well, I think as they embrace an agenda that includes abolishing our Customs and Border Patrol agency that they have now shown themselves to be nothing but open borders. In fact they want anyone who comes into our country illegally to just be released into our country and and hope that maybe in 3 to 5 years they'll show up for a court hearing, but we decided they should have been here in the first place. That's just not the way that the American people feel we are for immigration. Let's make it legal immigration and people who are here based on their merit and their ability to compete and succeed and make our country a better spot a better place and clearly that's not where the Democrats are right now.

AF: The Republican Partyusually tends to speak with facts to to reality and that's not always a friendly thing. The left gets away with just going all-in with emotion to try to tug on the heartstrings of individuals who may not have all the information or may have not provided themselves with the necessary information. How do Republicans push off this Blue Wave come November a very important election to continuing to get done things that the president wants to have done. How can Republicans position themselves on this issue that will still speak to the voting majority in in the country.

ML: I think we've got the benefit of having results whether it's historically low unemployment, rising wages more jobs, more jobs now than people who are seeking jobs for the first time in the United States history. More money in people's pocket books, but also the fact that we do stand with law enforcement. We do stand for at legal immigration and while they call for raising taxes and going back to over-regulation and abolishing ICE, we needd point out the fact that last week in the New York-New Jersey area ICE arrested three dozen people who are on the darknet selling illegal goods, weapons, and drugs. This is what our border and Customs Patrol agents do in addition to protecting our borders they shut down these International rings that are that are also causing problems for real people in the heartland of America.

AF: Yeah, certainly is Tammy Duckworth even made the comment that that might the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be the the movement of the democratic party in the Bronx but not so much in the midwest. Claire McCaskill's seat is a very important seat when it comes to contributing towards moving forward President Trump's agenda and the Supreme Court retirement, is a huge huge deal when it comes to giving president Trump the opportunity to help shape a constitutionally focus Supreme Court. How do you see President Trump's, you know next week, two weeks shaping up and how will it affect seats like Claire McCaskill's here in the middle of the country where you have a very very red Trump state with a very prominent blue seat senator going for reelection in November?

ML: Well,this has got to be the worst news for a Senator McCaskill in a long time and it's because she knows that and  Democratic National Talking Heads of already warned Democrats if you vote with the president's nominee, whomever that might be you will alienate your radical base and those people who are funding your campaign. If you vote against the president's nominee, you will be alienating the Trump voters and the moderate Common Sense voters who elected Donald Trump in the first place. So she's between a rock and a hard place and we shouldn't forget that she voted against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court, so she's already gone against one of the President's nominees. I would have no reason to believe that she will side with Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters and the Socialist to now run the Democratic party and vote against the next one. So the voters of the voters in Missouri that asked himself. Who is she representing?

AF: Yeah, certainly and will be paying close attention to that. Real quick before I let you go Marc Lotter with the RNC, Yyu've mentioned Maxine Waters a couple of times. It doesn't seem to me like the Democratic party as a whole is completely in lockstep with her, you know, very, very aggressive way of pushing back against the President, but I feel as though sometimes the Democrats are good at getting all of the bases covered. How do you define the party of the democratic party today? What Republicans are up against in November?

ML: Right now it's just it's just resistance and they and they have no agenda that they're actually supporting other than things like abolishing ICE and turning back the tax cuts that unleashed jobs and and put more money in people's pockets. But their primary goal is resisting the president and resistant then and Maxine Waters is showing that and Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the like, that's their goal. They're already talking about trying to do everything they can just to stop a supreme court nominee whon the President hasn't even named yet. They have no idea who this person is going to be. It's going to come from that list of 25 Jurists who believe in the Constitution we know and believe that it is the law as written. Not as how others wanted to be. But they're already out there trying to gin up their base, in opposition because that's really all they've got right now is resistance and they are tearing each other apart. You've  got canididates who are try to distance themselves from Nancy Pelosi and running to the left and and it's really kind of a mess right now.

AF: It is a mess, and we're gonna keep watching it and we're gong to keep playing it on the airMarc Lotter with the RNC. Thank you so much for coming on in and providing us some expertise on the subject.

ML: It's always good to be on with you.

AF: Joining us now is R.J. Hauman from FAIR. It's good to have you on. The left is calling for the abolishment of ICE. Is this a gift to the Republican party or what? What in the world do they think is going to happen if ice goes away.

RJH: I can't even believe this conversation we're having after what happened in 2016, but here we are. Kind of three points, I guess to make on this. I mean first ICE is an indispensable component of US law enforcement. I mean without an agency to enforce our  immigration laws in the interior of the country we have essentially we have open borders. That means if you are able to cross our borders and you get to in you get into the interior of the country, then you get to stay. And second, I mean if you're going to call to abolish an entire Federal agency, you also better know what it does and what you want to replace it with. This all seems to stem from the family separation outrage and what people need to understand is that ICE wasn't separating any families that was CBP when they were transferring people that cross the border illegally to Federal custody, ICE isn't involved in that. They're not down at the border they enforce the laws in the interior of the country. So these two things aren't even related. And then Third kind of what you just said this is just a real slippery slope for Democrats. I mean if it's if it ends up becoming a litmus test of sorts, you know abolishing ICE is not a mainstream idea. There was just a pole by a former Clinton pollster Mark Pen that polled people on on do you think ICE should be abolished, 78% of Republicans said no,73% of Independence said no. And even 59% of Democrats said no, so they better tread lightly for this if they're just they're just trying to extract some is in a new party stamps from a small primary in the Bronx and I think they're misguided.

AF: So, when people think that they're going to get rid of ICE, do you think that the message they're trying to convey whether they actually the conveyors actually believe it or not. Do you think that they're they're assuming that everything will be you know puppies and sunshine now crossing the border that there won't be any problem there because I contend that the Democrats don't approach immigration or illegal immigration as if it's even an issue for the country.

RJH: Right, no, and the whole abolish ICE idea, let's be real, it's not a serious policy proposal. ICE will not be abolished. But the fact that Democrats are even saying that, it just you just almost a code word for saying hey, we want open borders, you know, if you look at there's a sign it was all over Twitter out of his Democratic socialists of America protest up in New York. They had a big banner hundreds of people out there. It said abolish ICE and then abolished profit. It just goes to show that these are just absurd ideas near and they were showing that how far the left is going under Donald Trump and he's making them crazy. It seems like.

AF: Yeah it certainly does. So as far as the Border problem goes the big issue that is really still front and center is this idea, you know if you just flipped on any specific Network on the cable news options that you have you would think that President Trump was single-handedly taking children out of the arms of their mothers and and putting them in separate rooms. Are we still separating families? Whose fault is it, and what needs to be done about it?

RJH: Yeah, well, again, when this started again the President was not having a policy where he separated families, he was simply I had a policy at DOJ where they were going to prosecute a hundred percent of Border crossers, which means that some people that came across here with a child that they were getting prosecuted, they do get separated for them. Just like we do in the United States every day when somebody commits a crime. We charge them in respective whether they have a child or not. But again, you're right, now at the Administration has kind of reverse course they bowed to go to a political pressure and you know, maybe we thought something. So now again that they're there detaining families together. But you know again right now. We have the Flores settlement a a a a court agreement that requires them to release the children after 20 days. So families will continue to be separated unless Congress acts. And again the White House is still looking forCongress, you know to do something, but you know, we just saw some numbers even that came across our esk here at FAIR that he be put out this weekend, you know border arrest between ports of entry that means across the border dropped by about 6,000 in June after being up month after month. So it goes to show after the President, you know, put in place the zero tolerance policy that resulted in some family separations, that border crossings did go down. If we are discouraging people from bringing their children on these treacherous journeys here and exposing them to human smugglers and trafficking we're doing the right thing

AF: We're speaking with R.J. Hauman of FAIR, which is the Federation for American Immigration Reform. You can find them online at Fair.us.org. You bring up a good point. Explain to me what we have been doing in the past at least, you know is a government where we have laws. We have processes we have systems. But then how we enforce those is is a different story. Have people been incentivisedt o come here based on our lack of enforcement of our lawss previously?

RJH: Oh, yeah, of course. You just look back to the Obama Administration, I mean their whole mantra was prosecutorial discretion. Now I mean that is used across the country in the end of variety of different areas outside the immigration sphere. Obviously, law enforcement entities in our courts. I mean they all have limited resources. So you want to go after  people that are priorities, and the administration here certainly still does that obviously they prioritize criminals and everything. But right now, you know the administration and sent the message that listen if you are here illegally you can have the law enforced against you and you can be deported.  That wasn't really the case under the Obama Administration and you know, everybody's acting like this, you know the unaccompanied children crisis and family separation is bad right now, you know, I don't recall the media covering this back in 2014. I'll tell you what I was working on it. You at the surge of unaccompanied minors at the border was unheard of in 2014 and what what came right before that, DACA. Again, that just goes to show President Obama's showing I'm not going to I'm going to give Amnesty on my own to young people. It caused a crisis of young people flooding the Border without their parents many of that many of them with smugglers and exposing themself to  terrible terrible things on their journey to the United States.

AF:  You know I've been looking, just out of curiosity, at the Gang of 8 converstation that really tanked Marco Rubio's, his potential prospects of becoming the President, in my opinion, in the primaries in in 2016, but I'm looking at some of these names that are on this gang of eight Dick Durbin, Robert Menendez, Chuck Schumer, and then the Republicans will sit here Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Jeff Flake. And the things that were entitled in this gang of eight solution to our immigration problem. When you look at the caliber of Democratic senators that are on this list, I don't think that they would even agree to these things anymore. And this was this was their solution or as a pathway to a specific a separate Pathway to citizenship for essentially the DACA people. Work-related Visa options, so on and so forth. I mean the Democrats once were willing to work with Republicans for something here. But it's and it's everything against Trumpn now, is there anything that the Democrats are bringing to the table to address the problem at the border. Is there anything whether you agree with it or not? Do they have a solution?

RJH: No, you actually actually bring up a fantastic point again, you know where we are opposed to the gang of eight bill obviously for a variety of reasons. Yeah, you're right you look at some things in there, the Democrats did come to the table and agreed to certain enforcement  hings. Now, you know, our question was always whether those would actually even get put into place but no, you're right. Now you're saying I guarantee e-Verify things like that. Oh my gosh, no Democrat that there anything with e-Verify if it was probably an amnesty for everybody here to country would get 0 votes in the House.  Maybe in the Senate, you know, you have a couple of these red states  Democrats that might not even be there anymore. Your Joe manchin Heitkamp people at Donnelly people like that,they may come and vote for for some of these provisions. But in the House, I can't I can't pinpoint one single Democrat that will vote for any type of immigration enforcement and I think what the Republicans should do and what they may do in the coming weeks is put a stand-alone family separation bill on the floor. You override the Flores settlement, say families can get detained together, maybe tighten some asylum loopholes, increase soem immigration judges, a really narrow fix to address this problem down there. I guarantee you no Democrat will vote for either of those things cuz remember separating families is inhumane to them, detaining families together is also inhumane to them. The only humane solution in the eyes of the current Democratic party today is releasing everybody who crosses the border into the interior of our country.

AF: In that same logic and in that same vein, we can never arrest another mother or father in the United States for anything ever ever again cuz it would be inhumane.

RJH: Right, of course. I mean like if you look at these properties the scale of these problems just think we have four hundred and something thousand children in foster care for the main reason because their parent or parents committed a crime and are incarcerated in federal custody. And this problem in the scale doesn't even compare. But you know if we start sending the message down to Central America that if you bring a child to the United States, if you bring a child up here and cross the border illegally that you get to stay we are going to see a a humanitarian crisis like we never seen before. You're gonna have parents putting their kids in the in the in the arms of human traffickers in these coyotes that that do terrible things to these children on this journey, and it's going to be all our fault if  we entice them to do that. And Democrats better understand what they're opening themselves up for. Are more voters worth that?

AF: The way I see it right now, that's what these children are. They're a bargaining chip and that's the grossest thing of all of it. R.J. Hauman with FAIR, the Federation for American Immigraion Reform, you can find them online at fair.us.org. Thank you so much we appreciate it.

RJH: Thank you so much, enjoy the Fourth.