Have you ever found yourself drowning in a sea of sensational headlines, trying to decipher the border crisis while sidestepping media bias? Joe and I have been there, and we're bringing you a candid exploration of the truths often shadowed by the noise. We tackle the struggle of sorting through the fruit salad of information and confront the reality that our perspectives are tinted by personal experiences. Join us as we journey through the intricate dance of distinguishing fact from fiction, and how this shapes our understanding of immigration policies and their human impact.
Schools transforming into shelters in Chicago during a cold snap is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ethical quandaries we face in this episode. We grapple with the value of human life in crisis times, drawing stark parallels to global conflicts and the contentious immigration debate on home soil. Listen as we navigate the treacherous political and budgetary tensions, questioning who is deemed worthy of aid. This isn't just a dialogue; it's an invitation to reflect on the delicate balance of empathy and economics in policy-making.
Compassion, sacrifice, and the broader economic ramifications of immigration policies are dissected in our discussion, which spans from biblical inspirations to the realities of border security. Weaving personal anecdotes with critical thought, Joe and I share our vision of the U.S. as a safe haven. And for a dose of levity, we reminisce on the charm of antiquated tech like DOS, while championing the courage to embrace change. This episode isn't just a podcast; it's a lighthouse guiding you through the complexities of one of today's most pressing social issues.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/sally-snowman
Have you ever found yourself drowning in a sea of sensational headlines, trying to decipher the border crisis while sidestepping media bias? Joe and I have been there, and we're bringing you a candid exploration of the truths often shadowed by the noise. We tackle the struggle of sorting through the fruit salad of information and confront the reality that our perspectives are tinted by personal experiences. Join us as we journey through the intricate dance of distinguishing fact from fiction, and how this shapes our understanding of immigration policies and their human impact.
Schools transforming into shelters in Chicago during a cold snap is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ethical quandaries we face in this episode. We grapple with the value of human life in crisis times, drawing stark parallels to global conflicts and the contentious immigration debate on home soil. Listen as we navigate the treacherous political and budgetary tensions, questioning who is deemed worthy of aid. This isn't just a dialogue; it's an invitation to reflect on the delicate balance of empathy and economics in policy-making.
Compassion, sacrifice, and the broader economic ramifications of immigration policies are dissected in our discussion, which spans from biblical inspirations to the realities of border security. Weaving personal anecdotes with critical thought, Joe and I share our vision of the U.S. as a safe haven. And for a dose of levity, we reminisce on the charm of antiquated tech like DOS, while championing the courage to embrace change. This episode isn't just a podcast; it's a lighthouse guiding you through the complexities of one of today's most pressing social issues.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/sally-snowman
Today on the Idiots Guide, we're talking about the border crisis. Is it really a crisis or is it a political chess match? Stay tuned. And I like lighthouses I really do. They're cool, almost majestic, but mostly useless.
Speaker 1:At this point, I'm your host, adam Richardson, aka the prophet hacker, and I am joined by the man in charge. Mr Joe has. Welcome to the Idiots Guide. All right, so to really launch us into a potential potential hot button? I mean, I don't, I'm not even going to say potential. This is an absolutely on fire issue right now, like actively within everything political, and if you can go a day without hearing about this on any news channel, I don't know what news you're listening to because it is everywhere, and I think the sad part about that is is literally like well, let me say this. I'll start off by this I did my homework, but it was the wrong kind of homework, because I wanted this to be the representation of a true form of an idiot guiding people Only, in the sense that I listened to news broadcasts, I read news articles, I scoured, I scoured the Internet with the intention to identify stories about what's going on in the border, and then not just the southern border, but borders everywhere, predominantly the southern border.
Speaker 2:Ok but there have even been classroom. The flash is on the northern border.
Speaker 1:Yep, and and honestly, like learning what I've learned, I feel like I have kind of like a fruit salad full of information. You know, like some of it's this, some of it's that, some of it's good for the salad, some of it's not good for the salad, but and I have this cough that drives me nuts. The point is is that I'm looking at this going man, how do I make this so overwhelmingly confusing? Much like everybody out there, much like everybody who listens to the broadcast, listens to the news they're not going to be like hey, today I'm going to focus on getting all factual information about what's going on on the border, because I know it's out there, I know that information is there, but again, even that factual information coming from one side or the other kind of sounds biased.
Speaker 2:Well, everyone has their own natural bias. Yeah, and that's the important thing, as neutral as you try to stay, it is fundamentally impossible to be neutral, and that's just because there's so much information out there that you are swayed one way or another. Your own experiences, your own background will define what your opinion is.
Speaker 1:I mean even the sense of saying, like I have a bias in the fact that I just disagree with you, saying everyone has a bias and that's my bias, right, okay, sorry, maybe not my head thought that but, yeah, everyone has a bias.
Speaker 2:So even when you try to get the neutral opinions, it's not going to be neutral. Yeah, it's it's, even if it's, you know, slightly skewed to one way or another or one viewpoint or another, because it's not just right or left, it's not just red or blue. There's there's a lot of nuanced views and opinions that go along with it, and I think that's something that gets lost in a lot of the media. Attention Is there. There is a lot of nuance to it, but any nuance that you look at, there's going to be bias. Yeah.
Speaker 1:I think you know my goal in doing it that way is just to absorb as much information as I could so that I didn't really have I'm going to have my natural bias, but I have enough confusion about it to go like well, it said, they said this and so and so said this, but none of it is like I have this truth or this fact. I have the opinions of news broadcasters and journalists and what they wrote, a statement that took whatever someone so said, to match their article. I'm not going to say anything's out of context because you know you can. You can judge that by yourself. However, you know it also reduces the amount of things that I have to attach at the bottom of our podcast, because I don't I don't have any of those.
Speaker 1:Like, I literally just went everywhere, typed in on YouTube, went and started Google search and read articles from every direction, and I might mention like hey, I read an article in this, you know feed, but I don't know. I'd have to go back and see if I could search it up. But I don't have any like word for word things that I'm going to say. I'm just I formed an opinion based on a fruit salad of information and, for those of you, who think we are just stealing information or anything like that.
Speaker 2:We're doing this on purpose, because this is how the average person gets their information. They're not going to remember what article it came from. They're not going to remember what. They're not going to cite the source when they're having a discussion with someone else.
Speaker 1:When your friend and you're pouring a cup of coffee, standing next to the coffee maker at the office and you're like, you know that border crisis? Golly, I was reading in this article, page 273. No, you're like man. Did you hear about that border crisis and what they just did yesterday? Oh, my goodness, I don't know why I held a sudden. I have a Texas accent but it's happening there, but yeah, and that's the thing I mean.
Speaker 2:You know, when we talk about idiots guiding idiots, we're not, we're all idiots. We don't know all the information and we have to use the information that's presented to us in order to get the best argument possible. Now there are ways to get information I mean you can go and talk to first hand sources but that's just not feasible for the vast majority of Americans, for everyone.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean, maybe if you're living in Texas, in those areas or along the Canadian border I think Wisconsin is the biggest hotbed for all the Canadian border issues If you're living up in those areas then, yeah, you can go to the borders and see what's actually going on. But realistically, there's no way of getting information other than just reading the news and trying to filter through it to find the truth or as close to the truth as possible.
Speaker 1:So I think what I'm going to do is I feel like I'm going to ask some poking questions and see how we can unpack that a little bit. Yeah, I think one of the things that really stands out to me is when we talk about a border crisis, but then we have this concept of safe haven cities and safe haven states, and one of them that comes to mind is, like New York, New York or Chicago. Those are a couple really big ones right now that are making the news, and not that good of news Like a lot of them. They're saying like hey, man, we're in a state of emergency, we can't handle this influx, but in the last three days, they documented 30,000 people coming across the border. In three days. That's an insane amount of people. And though you know, though, that's that, you know that's. That's kind of the typical thing at this point in life. It's like, yeah, I don't want to say that you should just accept that. That's what they. You know what was basically seen at the border processed at the border. That's not everything else coming across the border that isn't coming through a processing center, Right, and so you have, you know, a number well beyond that. This is just okay, this is what we can track, we, and then we can speculate that, because of this tracking and because of the many gaps in the system, that that all of a sudden, we're running into an extensively larger number than that.
Speaker 1:But thinking about Chicago, Chicago is a good example. Recently it made it in the news because they were talking about how it um, there's a cold front moving through and freezing out the city. Well, they, they've, they've already filled every, every place possible. So what they do? They made the schools a school system, basically, uh, online, educate their students and opened up the schools so that they're a safe, warm place for the migrants to live. Yeah, and it's. It's one of those things where you're like I understand the need, but now we're trying to be like, okay, we're taking from well established systems and going. This becomes the priority. Yeah, and, and, and you know, now you're going. At what cost? What? What are we? Now you have normal citizens who, who have been here, and, and they have to compromise and adjust what they're doing. And I don't want to sound like a jerk, but, but I feel like something's wrong in that.
Speaker 2:There, there's a great line, um. This is from a TV show called the West Wing, and I'm going to butcher the quote, but the, the essence is there, um, but the, the show it goes through. It's a political show, um, but it goes through, um, basically every potential of what a president might, or a presidency might go through, uh, throughout the series, um, which is kind of crazy to think that would all happen to one president. But um, there there's a um massacre going on in, I think it's Africa. Uh, I think it's Kundo. It's a fake nation that they made up for the show. Um, and the uh, martin Sheen, who plays the president, uh, asks one of his staffers why is an American life more valuable than the Kundo knees life? And the guy that he's talking to says I don't know, but it is. And then later on in the show he says he's right, but that disturbs me. He's perfectly right, but I don't. I don't know why.
Speaker 1:So it's, you know, basically your your answer to the question that I have is is literally to agree that I'm okay, feeling like something's wrong with that scenario. However, you know like feeling like this life is more important than this life.
Speaker 2:It's yeah, and that's the thing is whose life is more valuable? Whose life is more important? Is it the American life that's more important? Is it the education of the American children that need that? In person schooling? Obviously in person schooling is better, um, but is it for the majority of students? No, all students, um, but is that more valuable than the life of someone coming from South or Central America? And that's, I think that's really the crux of it is we come down to the idea of we value American life as greater than the lives of others. Yeah, now, is that right? Depends on who you ask, and I think that's one of the ideological this is one of the nuances that comes in that I was talking about with the border crisis is some people will say it's not wrong to value one life over another. I mean, we look at what's going on in Russia and Ukraine. We're assisting Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So why are we valuing Ukrainian life over Russian life? You know we have to deal with these kinds of issues all the time. Now we value Ukrainian life. That one's a little bit simpler because they were invaded by Russia Right, and so they are the victims in that situation. That's relatively easy to see, but even in the US there's still some consternation over Ukrainian assistance.
Speaker 1:So I like. What's interesting is that the Ukraine Russian issue, initially, that war and conflict is because of a border. Okay, I'll shift gears to the Middle East, where there's a conflict happening because of a border and the refugees that are wishing to not be part of that are not being allowed into other border countries for the sake that they can't. Those other countries feel they can't trust individuals from that particular region. And I'm not going to try to inflame, like you know, any side of this. I'm just kind of I had this thought of the perspective the US is in this situation that we're in, even budget wise, because of a border and all of this conflict, all of this confusion is circulating around border crises everywhere. And you know, when we talk about and I say budget because that's the hot button currently in the news is that you know the GOP won't approve any budgeting because of the fact that it's full of another pile of billions going to Ukraine, another pile of billions going to Israel-ish and then a little bit to add to the employment side to be able to process more into the country at our borders. And so the GOP obviously is the pushback on this, but they're not approving a budget because they're looking at this going.
Speaker 1:We brought. The biggest, most hot button issue right now for us in our country is our border, and it is the smallest ticket item that you have and it's reinforcing what you're doing down there and we're saying we can't. We can't do that, we can't sustain this. I don't know like, on either side of this, that was something that, for me, I felt like okay, I felt like maybe this was something you know, we all can admit at some point. We can admit at some degree or another, our families came as immigrants to, or migrants to, the US. Okay, that's normal and natural.
Speaker 2:Unless you are of native blood. All citizens of the United States are immigrants to the United States.
Speaker 1:Originally, yes, immigrant, or you know relative to. At this point, I was born in Boise, idaho, so that you know I'm technically I'm not a Native American, but I'm native. I'm native to the country. I can't say I'm not Native American. Have I been in American Blah?
Speaker 2:You are a natural born citizen of the United States.
Speaker 1:There, that's. That's the word. You're smarter than me. You're not native.
Speaker 2:You are natural born citizen.
Speaker 1:So my, my guess is, like I always kind of hear that part of the argument where there's like hey, we're going to put this out there as a disclaimer, that we recognize that we come from ancestry that is migrants to the US, and and that's great, that's, that's, that's important to acknowledge. However, I don't feel like it's an important aspect of the current setting. But how do I, how do I reconcile with this, this idea that, though my, my family came over at some time to become, you know, part of the United States, is it then my responsibility to, at this point, without some level of, you know, serious control, allow other people into the country? I want to be able to do that, but I also don't want it to just be like here. It's wide open, come on in, you know, and they're making holes and digging tunnels and hopping on trains and buses and cruising through on on like, like it's nothing.
Speaker 1:Then they get processed, and they're processed with you know a date to come back to it, because they can't process and have a judge sit before this today to be able to process 10,000 immigrants a day, or migrants a day I don't want to say immigrants, it's migrants, but 10, 10,000 migrants a day and and in that processing, like they're giving this, hey, return to court this day, and then that person's gone, they're, they're allowed to just poof and they never return and they just maintain being an illegal immigrant at that point, yeah, and you know, I think that's that's a good viewpoint Not necessarily one that I agree with, but that's a good standing viewpoint.
Speaker 2:Is that, yeah, we're immigrants, but does that require or my ancestors were immigrants Does that now require me to be nice to other people and to offer that same beneficial?
Speaker 1:attitude. I mean I, I let's say I'm nice to people.
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, no, no, no, I nice was the wrong word.
Speaker 1:No, no, let's see it. Hold on, Hold on. I need more coffee before I can be nice to people. Yeah.
Speaker 2:But I think it it still applies is because I think there's a level of, there is a base behavior which is to protect oneself and one's family. To be nice is to sacrifice of oneself for someone else. That's what being nice is. You are giving up something that you have to give to someone else. So if you are giving donations to charity, I would categorize that as being nice, being generous.
Speaker 2:Well, in order to do that, you are sacrificing your own monetary benefit for the benefit of someone else, and so it's always an above and beyond behavior, and so I look at this from an economic standpoint. So the first rule in economics all people do things for their own benefit. That's, that's the number one rule in economics. That's how all the graphs, all the formulas, everything is based on. People will do things for their own benefit. I agree. And so when I say to be nice and to go above and beyond, I simply mean we are sacrificing of ourselves to do that. And does our background, does our history require that of us? Just because our families came from other nations, does that mean that we are then obligated to sacrifice of ourselves for someone else in the same category?
Speaker 1:I think of this as, like you know, an airplane ride Okay, and they always say you know, they always have the introduction. You know, pull the rip cord if you. Whatever it is like to the oxygen, pull the oxygen if, if in case this happens and oxygen does drop from there, like Alaskan Airlines happened just the other day. Funniest part about that is the kid that was sitting there lost his shirt. I know there's a video, apparently.
Speaker 1:That sounds amazing, but anyway, that's that's another thing but no, I think about always in those instructions is you first put the mask on you and then assist others Exactly, and I think that that you know, like I know that's a real simple scenario or equation, but that's that's the most honest I can say Is to go like look when I pay taxes and at the end of the day, those tax dollars are now being inundated and consumed by people who are entering our country illegally and that's enabling that to continue to perpetuate Like that. That to me doesn't sound like. I put my mask on first. That sounds like okay, I'm going to suffer from that. I'm going to put my mask on first. That sounds like okay. I'm going to suffocate while everyone else benefits.
Speaker 2:Right, and that's exactly the point I was just making is there is that base level of behavior that one must look out for oneself first, and to sacrifice of oneself is going above and beyond. Now, my personal opinion and my personal viewpoint and you know my background and you know I love good old George Washington, His viewpoints as well from a political standpoint, is you help people in need.
Speaker 1:Absolutely.
Speaker 2:And if that means sacrificing everything that you have, then yes, you do it. And that's the thing is. You can either live in prosperity while the world around you falters.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Or you all live in poverty together.
Speaker 1:I think maybe the pushback that I would have, and only because I'm a combat veteran, I swore to go defend people's lives at the cost of my own potential cost of my own Right, and because of that it's a conscious decision to do that and be self-sacrificing beyond. You know, I don't have to check to make sure that my you know, my will is in place and my legacy is there, it's. I sign on a line said I will go do it, regardless of if I have a legacy in the future or not, and it's not a question, it's a yes, that's what I do. Not everybody thinks that that's the same way. So I identify with what you're saying in that capacity. However, when I see that what, what's being done, is not just hurting somebody, that, like for myself, is is, is going okay.
Speaker 1:Where I'm at right now, I still am taking care of my wife and children, not necessarily me. So the mentality is there. I want my wife and children to benefit. But when it starts tackling into our own countries, poor and you know, and destitute, and that's the impact that it's pulling from, that's robbing the poor, and I don't, I don't agree with it at all because I go and defend that and I'll go and help that situation, and we're just inundating it with more and flooding it and prioritizing the new, the new addition to you know, rather than take care of what we have first.
Speaker 2:Right and and and I think this is the big ideological difference here is when you look at Republicans and Democrats, generally speaking, the Republicans are very much about individual liberty. You, right, you look at the individual and that's exactly the point that you're coming from. Is that it is, you know, the idea of if I choose to give, that's my choice, if I choose not to give, that's my choice, whereas you look at the Democrat side, the liberal side, and it is no, you should always give, I Don't care if you don't want to, you should.
Speaker 1:And so we're going to mandate it.
Speaker 2:Yes, and and that really is so when I was young, my uncle, who is a libertarian. So I grew up with a Republican mother, a Democratic father and a libertarian uncle. So this is my political background.
Speaker 1:He explains gentlemen, this is the reason why we call it the idiots.
Speaker 2:He explained to me now this is to the terms of a nine or ten year old, but I think he did a very good job of explaining this. But he said If you get an A and someone else in your class gets an F, then what the Republicans say is that you keep your A, they keep their F. The Democrats say you both get C's, and the libertarians just want you to stay out. There were some more colorful words, but the idea here is you know, the, the choice of the matter comes into play. Now.
Speaker 2:I am also of the opinion that these are human beings. We are all of the same human race. You know, whether we come from Ethnic race or Ethnic background or societal background, anything like that, we are all still part of the human race. And who are we if we are leaving people to suffer? And so I am also of the opinion that we are not taxing the rich enough. Yeah, if we raised taxes, if we increased and again this, I am not alone in this George Washington agreed with my viewpoint. Okay, if we were to tax the rich enough, that it was actually Equitable taxes, and I'm not talking flat tax, because that tax is more of the poor than the rich right so an equitable tax system when we are taxing the rich, we would be in a much better position.
Speaker 2:But again, that goes back to I Get an A, they get an F, we both get C's and so, yeah, is that appropriate? Is that fair?
Speaker 1:And I, I think I Agree with you in that in the taxation side of it, you know I hear the arguments. Like you know, I like the concepts of capitalism. I like that. You know, being, you know like I, I want to be, I'm an entrepreneur in mind, so for me to, to think about, like the ingenuity that comes behind that and creativeness constantly is Is an awesome feeling. There's risk in that, but also the benefit on the other side of it has has a really good thing.
Speaker 1:But you know, so I hear the argument about like, well, you know, like we need to tax the rich more. And. And then the rich turn around and be like, no, you tax, I pay lots of taxes. I'm like it's not that you pay taxes, I do get that you pay taxes. It's that you don't pay the right amount for what you make. Yeah, and that's only because of the fact that I, as a middle class, pay. I pay significantly more as far as my taxes in comparison to somebody who makes Tons more than I would. And and that's that's where I think the system you're right is not fair and it's always kind of like Dodged, we're gonna just pull this behind the curtain on the other side of the stage Be like, yeah, we're not, we're not actually talking about that, but the border, you know, look at the border over here. Well, somebody ought to do something about that. You're, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 2:And and I think you know we try to simplify the issue way too much. You know, bringing in a bunch of Migrants on the border. Some are coming in with ill intent. I Would say probably the majority are coming in with the proper intent and are just trying to live the American dream right. Oh, that's the same thing we're trying to do. They see the value of America and they want to be Americans, and so they come here with that dream, with that view in mind that they can accomplish anything.
Speaker 1:You know, I think the hard perspective in that is that how do you? You know I think it's One of the phrases that I keep hearing is slow, the, the migrant In intake so it's not, not necessarily that we don't want to make it possible.
Speaker 1:I Think there's some people that are like shut it down completely, just make us a sovereign single country, no more, you know whatever. That's not true, but but the con, the idea of slow this down and Adding the manpower one that doesn't poof, all of a sudden there's a whole bunch of new employees down there or up there, wherever this is at it's. It's more about the fact of creating those positions available and then facilitating that over the period of months. Well, if you have 30,000 migrants move in in the last three days, then you have I think it was over three years. I looked at a number it's eight million people, migrants. That's the, that's the population of Tennessee, like unbelievable numbers compared to any other time in history. And and so I think it's a fair thing to say whoa, let's slow this down. So it's not just gaping holes that people are rushing through and that's just processed numbers. That's not everything else that's getting across.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and, and I think part of that is, you have to ask why not? Not? Why are they coming to the United States? But why are they leaving their countries? They're coming to the United States because they know that this is the land of prosperity, right, you know this is, of all the nations in the world, you know, you, you, the United States stands out as a A nation of prosperity, a nation of freedom, all of these things that we value, and so that's why they're coming to the United States when they are leaving their home country. But you have to ask why are they leaving their home country in the first place? And if we want to try to slow things down, well, that may not be possible. Because of the reasons these people are coming to the United States, right, why are they leaving their home country? We've got poverty, we've got Dictators. I mean, the number of dictators in the world right now is just astounding.
Speaker 1:Well, and you, you think about, I can, I can try and chase around all over the world the issues that are causing people to migrate, and and we are a safe place for them to be able to come to. So we are a beacon or a lighthouse per se, but, but, but. But. The challenge again is to go like, look, I'm not saying no, I'm just saying we got it, we got to ease this a little bit and use, you know, for the fact that our, our border has to contend with the influx, and the countries beyond that border are just Barely starting to agree in some level. We don't know yet how they are going to stem Some of that so that it's not just this inundation at the border, and that's. That's not fair to the US to create that expectation on us to be like, look, we want to do this, but we can't handle it at the capacity and the influx that's happening. That being said, I I look at this and I go. You know some of the statistics. They say we had the statistics about, you know, democrats versus Republicans on a couple episodes ago. Okay, and you talk about the. The noisiest parts of the extremes are what, what? Or the noisiest parts of the parties. Are these extremes that are two and a half percent and two and a half percent.
Speaker 1:If one percent of Anybody coming across the border, just one percent, was, was, was, was a risk, that's still 80,000 extremists. That's a lot to think about. To think that, you know, my mind can wander in a lot of really scary directions. That's almost the population of the city I live in, you know. So that's scary to contemplate and think about. That's just 1%. Now I wouldn't even give credit to that because it took 2000 to cause the conflict that we're currently in with Israel, you know. Or Israel's currently in with Hamas. But you know it takes, you know, like that, that's the amount of numbers it's taken. If you think about the orchestration for 9-11 and how many it took just to accomplish that, like, it's 80,000, even if it's a fraction of that, if it's 1% of that, 1% is still so many that it's a threat to our country, right and I totally agree, and that's where, when I was talking about it, we're oversimplifying this problem at the border is that we're using bureaucratic systems to solve what should be done on an individualistic basis.
Speaker 2:And, you know, by trying to shut it down as much as they have, it's opening up a lot more. There needs to be a lot more budget for the border not to build a wall but to build systems to allow more to come in. You think about it from an economic perspective. If we've got, what was the number again of immigrants coming in, of migrants?
Speaker 1:coming in.
Speaker 2:It was last three years it was eight million, eight million. So eight million migrants coming into the United States. Okay, now if we give them all the right to work here in the US? Okay, so we better the processes. We make sure we do background checks before we let them in, make sure we look at all the history, do all these things that are a more robust border system, but instead of keeping people out, we allow more in but, with better checks and better processes at the border.
Speaker 2:So that gives us you said what was the number? Again Eight million, eight million.
Speaker 1:So we've got eight million, that's three times. You better remember it now, yeah.
Speaker 2:I don't know why I wanted to say three million, but eight million people coming in. Okay, let's assume that they are each working a basic job making $10 an hour. Okay, and they're working 40 hours a week. So that's $400 a week that these eight million people over the last three years have brought in.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Now, if we give them not necessarily citizenship, but give them a status as a migrant to where they're paying into taxes, their income taxes, social security taxes, Medicare taxes, all those things that we as citizens are getting, I mean, and even if you want to, you can separate that out from the citizen fund and this would be a migrant fund for social security, for Medicare, those kinds of social services that are out there, these eight million people making what is that? That's $20, $22,000 a year. So what's eight million times 22,000? That would be what.
Speaker 2:It's a lot of money okay, and 15% of that goes toward 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 160 billion.
Speaker 1:I don't have my calculator with me. 160 billion, so 160 billion, I think.
Speaker 2:Okay, so 15% of that. I'm right. I'm completely wrong about that. Let's use that number. What number did you say? 160 billion, 160 billion, so 160 billion. So we're looking at what is that? $24 billion of revenue to support the migrant populations, that's just the 15% for FICA taxes, which is Social Security and Medicare that we, as citizens, pay. So that is an increase, and that funds not only them but, just like our Social Security and Medicare, it funds all of the people who have been in there before and all who are coming after. And so now we have this fund set up and now let's look at, so $160 billion of income that these individuals are making, assuming they're making the lowest wage, and so we've got 160 billion. Let's just say they pay the minimum tax bracket, 10%. Okay, that is $16 billion of income tax revenue to the federal government by allowing migrants into the country, and that's just three years.
Speaker 1:So what we see as a budget issue that's really what the crisis is is we keep throwing manpower issues at this. Processing power and, like I said, slowing the flow technically is kind of that heart behind this. Like we want to be able to do this but we've got to slow it down mainly because our infrastructure can't handle it and that's not necessarily the responsibility of the migrant. It's the responsibility that we have to do and adjust and maintain. By the way, you should probably run for president and run that budget, because we're something, whatever it is like the what is it Greenspan right now, that doesn't.
Speaker 2:No, the problem is we think about these things so simply and we rely so heavily on a structure that was built 200 years ago.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:And the world today is not the same as it was 200 years ago. And so we need to update the structures, we need to update the processes, we need to update everything to be today's world. And when we do that and actually so, a few years ago, the Medicare system so I have a client down in Georgia. Okay, A few years ago the Medicare and Medicaid system for the Southeast was still running DOS-based computers. And when I say a few years ago, this was like three years ago. Okay, they were running DOS. This is what our government runs on, is DOS.
Speaker 1:For those of you watching on YouTube YouTube, google, the World Wide Web and the all of it, aol didn't exist when DOS was the king.
Speaker 2:It is so archaic, so archaic, and the reason I know this is because they-.
Speaker 1:I had an old Atari computer that had DOS and it was epic.
Speaker 2:They were holding payments because they were updating their system, and so it took a month to update their system before they started sending out payments again, and we're running 50 years behind.
Speaker 1:Easily.
Speaker 2:Just upgrade the systems update improve.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:You do that and you're in a completely different world. You've got so much more ability to be able to function, and so it's not necessarily, in my view, a problem with migration into the United States. So you look at Utah. Utah is one of the foremost states for refugees, because Utah is becoming the new Silicon Valley. We have tech investments, we have infrastructure that can handle a very good influx of the system, because we've got the technology behind it.
Speaker 1:I think the problem that you run into is the state.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, but you've got, we know how to handle the influx of refugees.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Whereas the federal government is still running on DOS. They can't handle it.
Speaker 1:I think that that's a good comparison, because you think that if this one example of this one place that was running on DOS taking a month to run, probably a two kilobyte update, because that was massive back then but this idea that if you were to contrast our society and the way that we as citizens can adapt to these kinds of changes, it's not necessarily a crisis in our eyes. But when a government is that level of stupid lack of a better word I couldn't think of anything archaic, antiquated, if they're running on a computer system like that, and basically I would say that that's a representation of the operation in itself. Its own infrastructure is built on this concept of DOS and we are light years ahead of that at this point. It just means, I mean, we all have the conversation about like you're too old, get out of office, kind of a thing. But I don't wanna go on that kind of an attack.
Speaker 1:The problem is that we as a society wanna see this thing move forward and we're trying to still wait for an update on DOS for the next month and it's moving like a snail. But even if it was moving lightning fast, we don't have the infrastructure. It's constantly being shuffled, dismantled, stopped hurtled. It depends on what administration comes into office and their agenda in the society. That will determine whether or not we can advance, get out of the way Right, and that I think we agree on this.
Speaker 1:Like we may not see the border the same way but I think we see that the problem is not it's the fact that we keep leaning towards the government to make a decision where we're like, wait a sec, like I hate to say this, but Texas, right now, texas government is doing this, but Texas citizens, the city, they're getting around this. They're handling things within their area, maybe not in the way that the world would agree with, but they're trying to basically make this thing happen in the safest way possible. But you know safest ways. There's the possible and by cracking down on people who are exploiting a new community that doesn't exist. They're selling houses to these people and they're advertising in Mexico for a community to come up here. They're giving their life savings. I'm like you're no different than a cartel that's mulling these people across the border, like you're terrible, you should go to jail. It still exists, but they're being fought at this point. You have other issues where you have individuals offering health services, bringing people in. It's a sex trafficking ring and they're moving them right off into the next big hurdle that you're dealing with. So it's horrific what's happening and I think that everybody agrees. I mean, the biggest thing that I keep hearing is it's gotten to a point where it's bipartisan In the government side of it saying we can't do nothing.
Speaker 1:This is a problem, but the problem is our infrastructure everywhere has a hard time handling this because we've done a poor job of preparing our societies, our economies, to do that. You're right in the state of Utah how we also have a tremendous amount of dead dry desert just west of us. That it's not the prettiest, but we have the intelligence as a society, a modern society, to create an oasis in the middle of that desert, and we don't need the resources nearby to be able to do that. We can do it all right there, and so I think that we don't give ourselves enough credit for the ability to. Even though the government's antiquated old, can't keep up, has a failed infrastructure, I can't blame it entirely on them If I know that when that person arrives in my neighborhood or in my block or on what happens, I can use my own ingenuity to make a difference in their life. And I think that that's a message that we can say is I can yell and scream at the border that I'm not going down and doing anything about. I'm saying I can yell extreme from here and say like, oh, this is so difficult and I can't put up with this. We're at a state of emergency when really I just gotta get off my butt. And I always use this when I'm talking to people in my own community kind of circle of individuals.
Speaker 1:I teach from the Bible. It's a Bible verse, okay, and it's James 1, 27. One of the last parts of that verse it says go to their trouble. So it's talking about widows and orphans and the people who are removed from their communities and moving to somewhere else. You go and basically the idea is you meet them where they are. It doesn't mean I'm gonna go down to Columbia and go hey guys, I got a bus but what it means is when they arrive, they've got a whole lot of trouble they're showing up with. And I don't mean that they are trouble. It means that they have a story, they have a past, they have a situation and they've traveled thousands of miles to get here. How can I make them feel like it's okay and they're safe? Because that's what I do when I pick up a rifle and I go defend our country somewhere else in the world.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I think there's another line that goes along with that those people that are religious out there or that are Christian out there. There's a lot of complaints about illegal immigration. Now there is illegal immigration that is harming the US. I'm not gonna deny that. That obviously happens but there's a lot of illegal immigration of people who feel that they have no other option and so they are running from something and this is the best route.
Speaker 2:And how many of us haven't done that ourselves when we need to go over the speed limit because we're trying to get somewhere to the hospital or to an appointment that we're running late for and to say an emergency is because we're running late to an appointment and therefore we're allowed to break the law? There are a lot of situations that we run into every single day where we feel this is more important to break the law than to follow the law, because there's a reason for it. And so in the Bible, when the woman was taken in adultery, jesus said let he who is without sin first cast a stone, and I like that because it is who among you haven't done something similar.
Speaker 2:He didn't say he who has committed adultery, let him, or who anyone who comparatively yeah, it's not just that specific sin, it's anyone who has sinned is not allowed to condemn her. And so the same idea with illegal immigration. We need to get cracked down on the illegal immigration that is damaging society. But the illegal immigrants that come in that just have no other option and they are escaping something. And so they are breaking the rules. And they know they're breaking the rules, but in their view, they are breaking the rules because they need to. They need to get out of whatever situation they're in. And so who among us is, quote unquote, without sin, who haven't broken the law, to condemn them.
Speaker 2:Now we've talked about a lot of very serious things, and there are a lot of people that are probably gonna leave comments on this or this or that, and even Adam and I don't see eye to eye on this topic, inherently, some of the nuances here. I have a quote here. This is from GK Chesterton Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly. This is a really important concept. Anytime you come across someone where you are in a debate situation where you have differing views, take yourselves lightly. Do not take yourself so seriously that you are going to destroy who you are. You know, adam and I take ourselves lightly. We can have a discussion and we're still friends and colleagues and coworkers after it.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And that's an important thing is treat each other with kindness and treat this topic with what it deserves. When you have someone of a differing opinion, don't take yourself too seriously.
Speaker 1:You know I think about this and I didn't realize the correlation between these two. But when I looked at what the subtopic is gonna be, you know I think about it being a lighthouse. And you know the purpose of a lighthouse is to really make sure that you are in front of the harbor and bringing those ships in safely, so that they know that, hey, let's navigate it this way so that you avoid this rock outcropping. And realistically, you know, from all parts of the world, the United States really represents a lighthouse in its sense of saying like, look, we put out that beacon. It's out there saying come here, we have the land of opportunity, the land of the free, the land of great benefits you know like whatever it is, you know, and citizens and people who are here can get really jaded, because it's not just an advertisement slogan, it's.
Speaker 1:You know there is opportunity, you can. You know this is a place where you can make that happen and you're not going to face, you know, severe, oppressive, you know type dictatorship that governs and steals. But at the end of the day, you know like, we have our problems. We're not squeaky clean, we still have a giant mess that we're trying to navigate together and we're all still just a bunch of idiots running through this, you know. And so I think that considering yourself a lighthouse in this situation is to say how can I make it so that this isn't just a crisis, but know that those people are coming to me in crisis, and so you know, rather than it being like I take it personal that you're invading my land, kind of a thing. One, don't take your land so personal, you know. And two, be the lighthouse. Be the lighthouse that makes sure that other people can come into the harbor safely.
Speaker 1:Now, I don't disagree with the sense of it needs to be looked at, taken under control in some capacity, running wild. The way that it is right now is hurting things, and so the attention needs to stay on it until something is done about it. But I think that we're going about that wrong in the something that we're pursuing and the blaming and pointing in what direction and not. But as far as lighthouses are concerned, the biggest thing is that Sally Snowman or Snowman I don't know how you would say that, but I feel like that name is made up but for 300 years the Boston light beacon lighthouse on Little Brewster Island in Boston guides ships safely back to harbor and there's been 70 lighthouse keepers there. Wow, and she is. Sally Snowman is the last lighthouse keeper in the United States and as of the beginning of the year is there's no more lighthouse. She stepped down, officially retired. She was in the US, officially retired Well, stepped down from lighthouse keepers. She'll probably do something else.
Speaker 1:But this is an article I found Kalina Fraggle or Fragga oh goodness, I messed up that name published just a week ago. But really honestly, I like this story because it talks about kind of what we're talking today is how can we be a lighthouse for a big problem of people coming for safety and I'm supposed to guide them in with a light. That's what a lighthouse's job is for. And to say that the reason why she's stepping down is because the Coast Guard doesn't use lighthouses anymore. They there's too many other technological advances that have made it obsolete. They're cool, they're really pretty, they're nice, memory like museum stops at this point in time, but there's not really a use for them, even this one that if she's stepping down as a lighthouse keeper you might have a few dingies that are out there doing stuff, but honestly, everybody's, there's just too much tech out there now, kind of like DOS Kind of like DOS so you know, hey, us government, take a note out of the national cards for this.
Speaker 1:Or the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard. That is sad. But you know Sally Snowman, so she really she admires this. It was. You know, she's served at this Boston lighthouse for the last 21 years and, like I said before her, 70 others have served at that lighthouse. So it has a big heritage, it has a big long line of people who have been there and served there and but she grew up, she, you know, she was super, super happy about serving there for the last 21 years and also it stems longer than that, back in I guess 1994, 1994, back in the 1900s, as my kids would say, makes me feel way old. But you know, being that like she's had that love for lighthouses going way back when she was a child and I feel bad that she was, you know, she's actually younger than me. So I look at the math here.
Speaker 1:She was 10 years old in 1994 when she, like she goes she's my dad, daddy, when I grow up I want to get married out here and I did and I, oh, no, no, no, hold on a sec, she's not that old, she's older than that. Oh, man, I don't know. Let's see, my first was when I was 10 years old. I'm not Okay, she was okay. I'm just gonna say this because it's easier than trying to mess it up as I've done so far. She said my first experience to Boston Light was when I was 10 years old. Snowman said I stepped off to the beach and looked up at the light and said daddy, when I grow up I want to get married out here, and I did in 1994.
Speaker 2:So I'm like, oh, that makes more sense, that's the picture of her, I was like there's no way she's younger than me there you go.
Speaker 1:Anyway, the story is just basically some heartfelt story about you know, hey, like this is the last lighthouse that was being kept here and there's no more in the US at this point. They're being purchased by well, they're being sold off by the Coast Guard and they're being purchased by private owners that just want to. I mean.
Speaker 1:I don't know what they're gonna do you know, but I think a lot of these, especially ones that have such a deep story behind it, like this Boston Light, is something that's gonna stick around for a while. They're gonna preserve that history, yeah.
Speaker 2:And you know it's great to have that kind of history. But again, being Buddhist, one of the Buddhist teachings is not to be attached. Yeah, because attachment brings sorrow and suffering, and we see that a lot. We get so attached to these old things and we don't want to move on and we don't upgrade, we don't improve because we're so attached to what we had. And we have to let go, we have to move forward and we have to move on into the future and that's how we're going to develop, that's how we're gonna grow. And so we have to, in my view, remove a lot of those attachments. Yeah, they're great, they're fun, but we can't rely so much on them that we don't move forward.
Speaker 1:I remember. So I think this is a great move yeah, well, I think so too. I, you know, if it had a use other than nostalgia, you know, and maybe pictures that you could hang on your wall and plastered designs of the to scale of what it looks like. Neat, keep it up, you know. But at the same time, I do understand, like we're just moving in a direction in our world that it doesn't require that and that's okay, like DOS should be. Yeah, you know.
Speaker 2:Move on from DOS.
Speaker 1:Anyway, we have reached the end of our show and, honestly, I think that this was a peaceful one. Surprisingly no, I'm not surprised. I enjoy having a conversation with you, joe, and but as for our listener, life is too short, so keep laughing and keep learning. Consider yourself angelic, don't take things so hard and remember idiots have way more fun. Check your shoes.