미등록그가 돌아온다…트럼프, ‘불법이민자 추방·출생 시민권 폐지’ 예고 [크로스로드]

Hey, good morning everyone. I hope you had a good time over the weekend. And that said, folks, Donald J. Trump is again the winner of the elections. He's going to be the 47th and 45th president of the United States. And now we're looking at some of the possible policies he's going to be rolling out. There are a lot of issues he's going to be tackling. One of the biggest ones, day one he's saying, is going to be illegal immigration. And one big policy he's looking at specifically on that is to change birthright citizenship, where a person is granted citizenship in the United States if they're born in the country, even if both parents are here illegally. So illegal immigrants can come here, have a child, or even just the mother. The kid is an American now and forever. Trump previously announced a day one policy to end this practice. And it's actually not just birthright citizenship. Trump also ran on the campaign promise of mass deportations. We'll be talking about his alleged plan for executing mass deportations today as well. I'm curious in the comments what you think about this. Polling suggests that it's not as divisive as people may think it is. Republicans and even a lot of Democrats seem to be on board with it, although it's split on kind of on both sides. I'm curious, folks, where do you stand on this? Let me know. But that said, let's dive into today's episode because, well, President-elect Donald Trump, right, he ran on the platform of fixing illegal immigration in America. One of his first appointees has now done is the border czar, suggesting this is a day one, number one policy for him. And one way he plans on doing this is by ending birthright citizenship. Now, again, currently under US law, a person is granted US citizenship if they're just born here. You can have both parents are illegal immigrants. Maybe your parents were on vacation and you were born in an American hospital. You are an American. Trump is arguing this creates an incentive for illegal immigration or for people just to travel to the US from other countries when a woman is pregnant or whatever else and game the system, basically. If the child can then be born in American soil, it opens the door for other things, including social benefits, welfare, and the whole nine yards. And of course, chain migration, where the parents stay here, they can bring in their relatives, and they move the whole family. Now, Trump posted an announcement on Truth Social about this back in May of 2023, saying that he will end this policy through executive order on day one of his administration. Watch. Under Biden's current policies, even though these millions of illegal border crossers have entered the country unlawfully, all of their future children will become automatic US citizens. Can you imagine? They'll be eligible for welfare, taxpayer-funded health care, the right to vote, chain migration, and countless other government benefits, many of which will also profit the illegal alien parents. This policy is a reward for breaking the laws of the United States and is obviously a magnet helping draw the flood of illegals across our borders. They come by the millions and millions and millions. As part of my plan to secure the border on day one of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic US citizenship. Trump says this policy will choke off a major incentive for illegal immigration and will also deter people who might try to, you know, want to illegally immigrate and maybe make them not want to do it, right? He says that under this executive order, kids will still become US citizens at birth if at least one of their parents is also a US citizen. That's how you become a citizen of the United States. Those of you curious, this is actually the standard for most countries on earth. America is one of the only countries that will give you citizenship if you just happen to be born here. This is not common among any country. America is an exception to this globally. Now look, remember this would be an executive order though, all right? Trump's saying executive order day one, it technically would not go through Congress to become legislation, which would make it a lot more solid. Technically an executive order can be overturned by any future president. All they have to do is come in, basically sign a paper and it's gone. That means that unless there's a legal review and the Supreme Court makes a ruling on this, or unless Congress follows this with legislation, it's probably not going to stick past the Trump administration. And that of course means that we'll have to see whether there's any pushback on it, because ironically if there is legal pushback, if organizations make lawsuits, they sue, they're ironically going to push it to the Supreme Court. If they want to wait four years, technically it can just vanish if they happen to get someone in who doesn't like it. Now that said though, this of course will likely start a very long legal process as well. You can expect many groups, and remember not all this is just political, just be one individual born here and says, what do you mean I'm not a citizen, although wait till they're older, to challenge it. Especially because right now it's based on a Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Birthright citizenship in the United States technically goes back to around 1898. Now the case at the time, that was It was a case in San Francisco of a 20 year old man, he was born in the United States, his parents were Chinese citizens under the Emperor of China, but were living in the United States. Now the case started because the man, Mr. Wong Kim Ark, he had gone on a trip to China, and when he tried coming back to the United States, they denied him entry because they said he was not a U.S. citizen. He's like, what do you mean, I've been here for 20 years. Now that went to court, he filed a lawsuit. The case on that is what was used to establish birthright citizenship. Let me show you what the actual court document stated way back in March of 1898. It said, quote, a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile in residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, become at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Now again, birthright citizenship was not part of the original ideas of the United States. That came in through the 14th Amendment, an interpretation of it, more importantly. Now that had been added to the Constitution just a few decades prior to that. Again, that was July 1868, and of course the 14th Amendment was there to bring an end to slavery, right, because one of the arguments some people were making against the ending of slavery is they said, well, these are citizens of Africa, not the United States, and so the 14th Amendment clarified that and said, no, these are American citizens. They're free and they're American citizens. Now section 1 of the 14th Amendment, that was what was used as the basis for citizenship at birth. Let me show you what that says. This is Congress. It says, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now a lot of that could be interpreted to go after a lot of things, but on this issue in particular, changing birthright citizenship, it may not be that easy. Again, because using an executive order to change an interpretation of the Constitution, it's been in place again since the late 1800s, that could be a bit of a challenge. But remember, we're seeing executive orders on other constitutional issues. It's not that uncommon to see executive orders or even state actions against things that constitutionally we would normally consider to be protected, like free speech, for example. In the United States, we have very broad protection on free speech. Some of that is now illegal, especially under like hate speech laws. And gun laws is another great example of this, where under the Constitution, we have almost like free reign, if you read it by the word. But in terms of interpretation at state levels especially, you know, gun laws are pretty deeply restricted. So again, it is possible that even if the surface reading of the Constitution can be one way, it can be interpreted another way. And it is because of this that, you know, this could be interpreted in many ways, especially because they could argue that the original interpretation of this that allowed for birthright citizenship, they could argue that it was not in context of the current problems we have of mass illegal immigration, which has kind of changed the rules of the game. There have also been a lot of attempts over the years to change the interpretation to end birthright citizenship. This is something that's been ongoing for a very long time. You know, Congress, just about every year, they have at least one bill on it. In fact, they have several going through right now being proposed. But for the most part, really, they tend to not get a whole lot of traction. But the important part with that is that if Trump were to pass an executive order on this, you would immediately see lawsuits, you would immediately see probably Congress trying to move forward with bills. It would begin both a legislative process and a legal process. The legislative process could set it in law, the legal process could move it eventually to the Supreme Court, where it could be decided one way or the other. And remember now, with Republicans taking the Senate, possibly taking the House, based on current numbers, it looks like they really might. They only need four more seats. They do have a shot at it. And again, not to mention that they technically also control the Supreme Court. Now, when it comes to birth citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, though, now we don't really know the numbers of how many people there are. Pew Research Center had some research on this going back to 2018. That was when Trump was also pushing to end birthright citizenship during his first term. This is what they said. They said about 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents, reading illegal immigrants, in the United States in 2016, the latest year for which information is available. We don't really know after 2016. And that's important because, well, a lot of the problems started after 2016. Now, they say this is according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. They say this represents a 36% decrease from a peak of about 390,000 in 2007. And they know that overall, around 5 million U.S.-born children younger than 18 were living with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent in 2016, up from around 4.5 million in 2007, according to the new estimates. Now, keep in mind, the data is from 2016. So again, that would mostly not cover the massive migrant caravans we started seeing during the Trump administration, especially during like the second half. It would also not include the mass, mass illegal immigration, right? Well over 10 million on a conservative estimate that we've seen over the last four years. Now, it's not clear what the current numbers are. And even then, there are a lot of debates on how accurate estimates are on the numbers of illegal immigrants in the United States just in general. And keep in mind, this is not the numbers for illegal immigrants we're talking about here. This is the number of kids they have once they come here, who then become citizens by virtue of being born here. Now, my personal take on this, look, I mean, I have, I literally have family members, through marriage, who are birthright citizens, right? Their parents came here illegally. They were born here. And I know they would argue like, well, what did I do? I mean, it wasn't my fault. I didn't illegally immigrate here. I was born here. The people I know personally are about as American as they come. I know actually quite a few people like this. At the same time though, on the other side, I'm very much aware there are people who exploit this as a loophole. There are even so-called maternity hospitals that set it up as a business. People set these up and they facilitate women to give birth in the United States. And they do this so they can gain the immigration laws. The federal agents actually, right? They actually, you might remember, raided and shut down a network of 20 of these places in California back in 2015. And right afterwards, they said it was an ongoing problem. Even raiding them did not end them. This is a business for some people. Now, I think the issue that's happening right now, right? It's going to be what you have with any kind of issue with lax standards like this. First of all, most countries do not allow this. America is a very unique exception on letting people become citizens just if they're born here. You're not going to find that in most countries, even the most on the surface benevolent, happy-go-lucky, welcome everyone in country on earth. It's not easy to become a citizen of many countries. America is very, very open on this, despite the criticism against it. And so this is not the global norm by any means. America is an exception. And part of the reason for that is this, right? There will be plenty of good cases like the people I know personally, right? People will say, well, it's not my fault. I was born here. What do you want me to do? I'm not from that country, right? But of course, the other argument is if the kids don't get granted citizenship, it might deter the parents from wanting to come here in the first place because they don't want to do that to their kids. The crime then is on the parents. It's the same argument of saying, well, sorry, your dad has to go to prison because he Well, the kid suffers for it, obviously, right? The kid suffers because they lose their father. What did the kid do to deserve that? But again, crime has punishment. And if somebody's violating the law, you have to hold them accountable for it. Two wrongs don't make a right, in other words. And the argument on the other side is, well, if you allow this to happen, you essentially legalize the crime because, again, of chain migration, and you also let them get various social benefits, right? And it's because of that that you have people who exploit it. With anything, you're going to have people who don't intentionally use it. People just travel here, people born here, whatever else. But you also are going to have people who exploit it. And because people exploit it, that's why it's not legal in most parts of the world. Now, the issue we're having now is kind of the fact that it's pushing it to the brink, right? Mass illegal immigration. And there are concerns that this could alter the fabric of the country. And that's what a lot of people believe it's being done for, in fact. Even if you don't believe that's the intent, that probably will be the effect. If you bring in 10 million or 20 million people, start a pathway to citizenship for them, offer them various incentives on one side of the political aisle, then add chain migration to the mix so they can bring in all their family members as soon as they get the right to vote. You're going to change the fabric of the country. Remember, a lot of states are won by very narrow margins. Georgia, under Biden, he won that state by 11,000 votes. It does not take that many people to flip a state. And so if one side incentivizes it, one side pays for it, one side gives the welfare, one side offers this and says the other side is going to deport you, who are you going to vote for? Now, we heard this mentioned by Joe Rogan also in his interview with Senator John Fetterman recently. And Joe Rogan at least believes this to be the intent. He kind of pressed Fetterman on it and Fetterman was like, yeah, you know, I guess kind of, right? But really it was kind of Joe pushing that a little bit, right? And the idea was that this is being made to flood swing states with new voters and then flip the states politically. That is the concern, at least among Republicans. And if that does happen and you could argue it'll probably happen even if you don't believe that's the intent, that would change the entire country within one generation. Now, this is a concern that people have and a lot of that is going to come down to the question of citizenship, right? Can these individuals become citizens? Can their kids become citizens? Because look, this isn't a threat to the election systems if their kids can't become citizens. If you bring in 10 million, 20 million, 30 million people and they again are here and then they have kids here and the kids aren't citizens, they're not going to vote. They're not going to vote. Their kids are not going to vote. Their kids' kids are not going to vote unless they marry American citizens. And because of that, they will not affect the elections. That is the concern with it. And that's one of the reasons why this is being made a real priority. Because again, as soon as they have birthright citizenship, the voting rights go with it. That is why this is becoming such a big concern on the side of the Republicans. Now look, when it comes to the topic of broader illegal immigration though, Trump is saying he has other policies in store and that includes, right, what he has also said Now as a legal pathway for that, Trump would invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. And it's interesting because we're seeing a lot of very old laws come up now. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is very, very legally sound and that's because it's been in place almost since the founding of the United States. That was put in place literally just a couple decades after the founding of the country. It includes notably a wartime component. Legally, that's going to be the battleground, I'll explain. But it could potentially also let a president carry out mass deportations in peacetime as well. In my personal analysis, that element of it is going to be where the legal challenges are, whether it requires an act of war or not. Now here's the caveat. If a foreign government threatens or undertakes an invasion or predatory incursion against any part of the United States, technically it says the president of the United States can respond to that by deporting all the people of that country, basically. And so although part of it does require a declaration of war, which would require Congress, the other side of it suggests that a president can say, we are being invaded by this country and that country. We are being victims of a predatory incursion where countries are sending people here intentionally. And then of course, based on that, they could deport them. What have Trump's narratives been? We're being invaded. That is the invasion clause. What is Trump's other statement? They're sending their prisoners here. They're emptying their mental hospitals. Trump, by stating that, this is where the legal language is important. By stating that, Trump is suggesting that he has a belief, as now the president-elect, that we are victims of a predatory incursion. So in other words, Trump is setting up the legal basis by stating that to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, in which he said he will invoke, by the way. The other part of declaring an invasion or predatory incursion, though, again, the president technically, based on a lot of historical interpretation, he would not need to go to Congress to invoke this. He would not need a declaration of war from Congress. This could potentially give Donald Trump himself as president a direct path to make a declaration, invoke this, and carry out mass deportations. Notably, the Alien Enemies Act was invoked several times through U.S. history, including notably against Germans, against Japanese, again, when we were at war with them, and a couple of other times as well. And so this does have some historical precedence. Now, some people would argue, well, technically, that was during World War II, there was a declaration of war. Yeah, but they kept it in place afterwards. And so that's the legal loophole with it. When the declaration of war had ended, it was still in place, actually. Now, we could assume regardless, it's going to face legal challenges. If Trump does invoke it, and again, whether or not you need a declaration of war is very likely going to be where the legal challenges happen. Now, on that note, the Wall Street Journal recently alleged that people close to Trump are actually looking for methods already to carry this out. Wall Street Journal said this, they said advisors to President-elect Donald Trump are drawing up plans to carry out his mass deportation pledge, including discussions on how to pay for it and weighing the national emergency declaration that would allow the incoming administration to repurpose military assets to detain and remove migrants, illegal immigrants, invoking against something that would let him use the military for that. Remember, Lloyd Austin is currently the head of the US military. He has to answer to the commander-in-chief, which will be Trump. Lloyd Austin has said publicly that he will carry out any lawful order of the president, suggesting that if Trump doesn't remove him, which he probably will, frankly, that if Trump does not remove him once he comes into office, that Lloyd Austin will carry it out. But again, the caveat here is he says he will carry out any legal, legally, you're right, any legal order, and if Lloyd Austin believes this is not legal, he might not carry it out. And the issue you're going to have here is it's legally questionable because there are legal arguments. Now, they say here, Wall Street Journal, the behind-the-scenes discussions, which started months before the election and picked up in the days since Trump's victory, include policy changes required to increase deportations according to people working on the presidential transition, members of Congress, and others close to the president-elect. That's important because the Alien Enemies Act would be through the president. The Alien Enemies Act may not be all they do. It might be the case that he invokes many other things alongside it. And those would need the other assets and other people involved to help invoke it. Now, on this note, Trump also spoke with NBC about this recently. And when he was pressed on this, Trump said it's not a question of a price tag. He said, quote, really, we have no choice. And notes that when people have been killed and murdered, he said, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they're going to go back to those countries because they're not staying here, there is no price tag. That's what Trump said to NBC. Now, some people would argue, well, geez, a lot of these people are fleeing gangs and fleeing cartels and fleeing violence. Another policy Trump is saying that's going to be day one for him, and I'll have to go into this in a future episode because that deserves a whole thing in and of itself, is Trump is saying he's going to declare war on the cartels. He's going to be using special forces to target them. He's going to set up a naval blockade to block all drugs from entering the United States. He's going to be targeting them within the United States. He wants to have the death penalty for all of them. And he said that he wants the cooperation of other countries. In any country that does not cooperate with the United States and going after the cartels, he said publicly that he will expose all the backroom deals where these governments have been bought off by the cartels. So Trump is threatening to expose the national connections to cartels among any country that tries pushing back against this policy. Meaning, of course, that when you're deporting people and the issue they're going to face, because a lot of them had to pay human traffickers, is those human traffickers might kill them for not paying off their debts. This will actually put a target on the heads of the human traffickers, many of whom are tied to the cartels. And so that problem may be alleviated as well. And actually on that note too, the thing, the element that made a lot of these people leave their countries in the first place would also be eliminated. The cartels, right? If Trump is targeting them like they're terrorists, which he says he will do. Now look, aside from this though, Trump is also saying that deporting illegal immigrants will be necessary. And we're already now seeing some of the pushback against this. Some of the groups going to protest and other things of that sort. The Guardian said this. The Guardian said thousands of people in major cities, including New York City and Seattle, demonstrated against the former president and now president-elect and his threats against reproductive rights, abortion they mean, and pledges to carry out mass deportations at the start of his upcoming presidency. They note that in New York City on Saturday, demonstrators from advocacy groups focused on workers' rights, that's going to be important note here. Advocacy groups focused on workers' rights and immigrant justice crowded outside Trump International Hotel and Tower on Fifth Avenue holding signs that read, quote, we protect us and Mr. Trump, how long must women wait for liberty? Others held signs that read, we won't back down, while chanting, quote, here we are and we're not leaving. A lot of those were the illegal immigrants. Now, similar protests to this that took place in Washington, D.C., it says, where Women's March participants demonstrated outside the Heritage Foundation, that's the right-wing think tank they said behind Project 2025, which Trump says he never read but which got pinned on him. And notes as well that crowds of demonstrators also gathered outside Seattle's Space Needle on Saturday and it says, quote, march and rally to protest Trump and the two-party war machine, suggesting they're against both Democrats and Republicans, right, the two-party war machine posters for them said, and adds, quote, build the people's movement and fight war repression and genocide. Now look, I've seen how this has been framed. Personally, I'd say the key words here are important. These groups are talking about their advocacy groups focused on workers' rights. Normally that would mean the socialist groups in terms of like journalist speech, that means they're socialist groups usually or Marxist. Slogans like the people's movement, again, these are not grassroots movements. These are, again, organizations very likely pushing for socialist or communist ideas. It looked like it was some of the same groups involved with like BLM demonstrations, the pro-Gaza demonstrations. It looked like it was mostly those groups. For those of you not familiar with this, there are networks of socialist and communist organizations in the United States. What they tend to do is whenever there's a popular movement, they'll register different front groups that will be sub parts of the main group. So you have the communist group, they'll register a social movement group. They're still under it, but that social movement group will then organize the community, so to speak, around that social issue, and they just hold protests like this. It was the same groups that were pushing for BLM. I know a lot of people were legitimately protesting for Black Lives Matter, but there were Marxist groups behind it that were pulling the strings on a lot of it. Those same groups are the ones behind the Gaza protests, especially the ones at the college campuses. They were the same ones behind a lot of things. Interestingly, you'll note some of the wording here as well, but they're saying that they oppose the two-party war machine. Ironically, a lot of those communist and socialist groups are kind of breaking from the Democrats now, which might be a good development for the Democrats, actually. I think actually it is a very positive one. In fact, even one of the aides of Hillary Clinton came out and recently said that the party has been captured by the far left. These extremists were the ones pushing a lot of the policies that were just too far, not even for Republicans, but even for a lot of moderate Democrats, and the concern a lot of them had was, well, if you push out these groups, they're going to lose. The concern was they were going to fracture their party. They wouldn't get enough votes anymore, not to mention these groups happen to be the on-the-ground protesters and the get-out-the-vote people and so on. It seems they've now broken from that. The question was going to be, well, are they now just opposed to the Democrats or will they oppose Trump as well? It looks like they're going to oppose Trump as well, and so they're coming out now both against Trump and against the incumbent Democrat party under Biden. It looked like there were also other groups that had joined in though. I did not get the sense looking at some of the videos that all of them were those types. There were some posts I saw saying that it was all illegal immigrants protesting. That was not the case. That was people kind of taking it to an extreme. There definitely were some illegal immigrants there and illegal immigrant groups, at least based on their signage, and there were also some organizations particularly on that, but they were not the only ones. It was a mix of organizations, and some of the organizations looked like the same ones we've seen over and over again. These groups are like professional protesters. They just do this all the time. This is how they operate. Now, there are also groups now organizing as well to try to stop the mass deportations. Some of this is again on that grassroots type level among, I don't know if you can even call them grassroots, the socialist and communist factions trying to stop this. There are also ones just going through normal legal advocacy groups trying to stop it as well. ABC News said this, they say now that Trump has won the election, local immigrant advocates, they say they are already organizing and ready to push back. It says that advocates are scaling up their services, focusing on legal consultation, emotional support, and emergency preparedness. Notably as well, you have groups at the ACLU coming out and saying they're going to be legally challenging a lot of the Trump policies as well. You're going to see the normal civil rights organizations become very active, very likely, and probably get a lot of donations as well. We've also mentioned before though, some states and state leaders are also now saying they're going to come to the forefront to try to stop Trump's policies, California in particular. California Governor Gavin Newsom, he announced what he's calling, that he's calling for state lawmakers to convene for a special session later this year, and he said publicly the focus of this is going to be how to push back against the policies of the future Trump presidency. This is the office of Governor Gavin Newsom in his official declaration on this. It says Governor Gavin Newsom today issued a proclamation convening a special session of the California legislature to safeguard California values and fundamental rights in the special session will focus on bolstering California legal resources to protect civil rights, reproductive freedom, i.e. abortion. Civil rights in this case very likely means more like DEI type policies. They're saying climate action, the global warming agenda, and also he says quote immigrant families. They always say families, I think that means illegal immigrants in general. They're going to be trying to stop, they're going to be taking actions to try to stop Trump from enacting these policies in ways that will affect California. Now they say quote, this is the first of several actions by the Newsom administration in partnership with the legislature as the governor begins shoring up California's defenses against an incoming federal administration, the Trump administration, that has threatened the state on multiple fronts. Now basically the announcement says the special session will also be quote bolstering legal defenses against federal actions and Newsom is calling for the state's department of justice and other state entities in California to use litigation, lawsuits, and so on to try to stop potential Trump policies that they argue may be unlawful. Now that's going to be important because what happens if they file lawsuits on these things? Eventually those are going to have to go to the Supreme Court. More quickly very likely because that's not individual plaintiffs, that's going to be state against federal and state against federal is going to get fast-tracked much more quickly to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court happens to be mostly Republican-led right now. That being said though, they're also planning to defend against any federal lawsuits against the state as well because it's very likely the lawsuit's going to be firing both ways. Trump's going to be trying to enact these policies, deporting illegal immigrants. The abortion thing is just a talking point because the interpretation of Roe v. Wade now, kind of overturning it, all it did was eliminated it as a federal policy and put it to the states. That doesn't impact California. Whatever California wants to have, that's California law, unless in the future Trump says he's going to enact something which he says he's not going to do. Trump's statement on abortion has been it's a state issue, not a federal issue, and so it's not going to impact California. I think they're using this just as a political talking point. But what it will impact are the trans issues. Trump is also saying he's going to end the whole trans thing, go after doctors that have been doing it to kids, go after educators who've been encouraging it, possibly with legal charges, making it so they can be sued or even sent to prison. That's going to be another future episode which I want to go over because he's saying he's going to do that. And he also wants to make a declaration at the federal level there are only two genders recognized in the United States. Trump is saying that will be a policy. California will probably push back against that. They'll make race training and race sensitivity training a part of the government policy. If you're a government worker, if you're a police officer, you have to sit through all these race and gender trainings and so on. I'm in New York, folks. They make you do it in New York. I've had to watch some of these also. It's New York law. That kind of stuff is what is going to be some of the initial targets. And of course California is going to be looking, alongside probably other Democrat-led states, looking to ensure that Trump cannot or at least faces very difficult challenges when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants. There's going to be a huge battle around that. Although we'll have to see how well states can hold up if there's a declaration of war or if Trump invokes the Alien Enemies Act and uses the military. Because states cannot stop the military. They cannot stop federal agents. When it comes to that level of things, the states don't have as much rights as they would on other legal issues. Ironically, again, this actually goes back to the Civil War. This actually goes back to the ending of slavery. Ironically, the 14th Amendment. Prior to the Civil War, states had broad legal sovereignty in relation to the government. And that was the argument they had with slavery. They said, well, it's a state rights issue. How can the federal government tell the state what laws it can or can't have? And of course, Civil War happened. Abraham Lincoln won. Republicans won the Civil War. And they made constitutional amendments establishing that, yes, states have rights, but there are limits to it. And funny enough, during the Biden administration, Republicans were the ones arguing for state rights. Let's be honest, right? Florida, Texas, in particular, were really fighting for state rights and trying to prevent some of the federal laws from entering the states. This time around, it's going to be the Democrat states pushing back against it, using that same argument, state rights, and talking about what they call federal government overreach, a term that under Biden was deemed to be an extremist term. But Democrats are going to probably use it this time around, because that's how our political system works, folks. I'm going to be doing some future coverage on this, because again, Trump actually has announced a lot of his policies already. A lot of the media have not been talking about Trump's policies. They've been talking about Project 2025, which is Heritage Foundation. It's not Trump policy, technically. And a lot of the conservative media, they talk about it a bit, but I want to kind of give a deeper analysis on what he's actually saying he's going to do, what the actual policies are, and my take on some of the history, whether it's going to work or not, and the very likely challenges he's going to face. I think with, again, leading up to the inauguration, some of this coverage is going to be important, because it'll help people understand what the actual administration is, and I haven't seen a lot of very good coverage on that. So, folks, stay tuned for some great coverage. There's a lot going on right now. And that said, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate all of you. Please share this episode. Tell a friend or family member about Crossroads. Help us get the word out, folks. And as always, please take care of yourselves, stay informed, and stay free. Thank you.