Issues And Ideas: News Commentary & Analysis With Chris DeBello June 7 2026

Join us for expert discussions and analysis on today's news, politics, facts about the January 6 rioters, ICE actions at Delaney Hall in Newark NJ, how The GEO Group profits from immigration detention centers, a realistic solution to illegal immigration, birthright citizenship, seniors not applying for programs that would financially help them and how happiness and fun are Blessings from God.
 
(00:00) Details about January 6th U.S. Capitol rioters who Donald Trump pardoned plus now wants to give taxpayer money to and the crimes they've since committed.

(02:24) Brendan Glavin, Director Of Insights with Open Secrets, tells how and why The GEO Group has become the lead provider of detention centers for ICE including Delaney Hall in Newark NJ and the amount of money involved with this industry.

(13:29) GOP Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (FL-27) explains how her proposed immigration legislation would result in a realistic solution to illegal immigration versus the plans and actions being used today.

(26:51) Michael O'Neill, Vice-President For Legal Affairs with Landmark Legal Foundation, looks back at the U.S. Supreme Court hearing the case on birthright citizenship according to the 14th Amendment and what the ruling later this month may turn out to be.

(39:40) Jessica Johnson, Senior Strategist For Economic Well-Being with the National Council On Aging, discusses how many seniors aren't enrolling in benefits programs, how participation rates vary and the assistance provided by the Benefits Checkup website.

(49:10) Chris DeBello shares how the Bible teaches all to have fun in life through the Blessings of God.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hello, welcome to Issues and Ideas. I'm Chris Tabello. Did you believe that the $1.8 billion Trump slush fund was dead and buried? Maybe not. Well you see this past week, a couple of clues to the that caused the maybe to come about. There was a a get-together in the Oval Office, and Trump was asked whether the $1.8 billion fund was dead and buried. And he said, I don't know. Go ask the lawyers. Then toward the end of this past week, Senate Republicans blocked the vote to officially kill the $1.8 billion slush fund, which is the fund that was, at least by intent, going to give money to the January 6th Capitol rioters. Which brings me to this article, Courtesy of a Law Affair, by Catherine Pompillo. The January 6th pardons, how many clemency recipients have faced other charges is the headline. The number is at least 97 of the over 1,500 individuals that got clemency by Trump for their roles in the Capitol riot on January 6th have been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of crimes, separate from what they did on January 6th. These run the gambit from low-grade offenses like property damage, possession of drug paraphernalia, trespassing, although more serious ones too. Grand larceny, stalking, planning to assassinate law enforcement officials, prominent politician assassinations, defrauding government agencies. One of the pardoned people was convicted, this is in February 26th, of child molestation and sentenced to life in prison. Another one convicted last year of reckless homicide. In fact, at least 14 have been charged with sex crimes or crimes related to child sexual abuse material, and at least six have faced domestic violence charges. Others face charges for physical assaults, illegal firearm possession, other violent crimes, and at least 20 have been charged with driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs or public intoxication. We've been hearing Donald Trump talk about when it comes to immigration. We'll get to the that topic in a moment. Talk about how we're going to get rid of the worst of the worst when it comes to immigrants. Turns out that Trump pardoned the worst of the worst after January 6th. The events and actions which have happened at Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey, have certainly created concern and anger with a lot of people over the actions of ICE and how people in their custody are being treated. My first guest today joins us to examine, I think, a very important facet of all this. For ICE and DHS to do what they're doing, they of course need a place to do it. Delaney Hall, other location across America being provided to ICE by a select, and I mean select handful of for-profit companies who are taking in billions of dollars in what has now become one of the fastest growing industries in the nation. How do these companies gain access to these opportunities? And oh, by the way, are you unknowingly gaining from their actions via your investment plans? Here with the answers to this, Samore is the Director of Insights with Open Secrets, Brendan Glavin. How are you? Hey, Brendan.

SPEAKER_04 3:12

Very good. Happy to be here.

SPEAKER_00 3:14

And the work that Open Secrets is doing about this, which you can read at OpenSecrets.org. We're talking about the GEO group. How big of a player in for-profit detention operations is the GEO Group?

SPEAKER_04 3:29

Uh major, major player. You know, when you talk about ICE, they are the number one uh contractor w uh for ICE by a large amount, large amount, um, about two billion dollars contracts 2025.

SPEAKER_00 3:44

You know, I was looking at a chart the next closest to the GEO group is CSI Aviation, with just about half of the of the revenue that GEO group is. I guess the question becomes, as I said, this is uh certainly a hot industry for those which are companies that are publicly traded, and we'll get to that too in a minute. Why are there not more companies climbing on board what is indeed a financial gravy train for these handful?

SPEAKER_04 4:14

Well, one I um uh a group like Geo Geo Group has you know positioned themselves over time to be uh of course they're a longtime player in this uh private uh you know prison um incarceration industry, um, but they have positioned themselves over time to really be uh in a way ready for this moment. And you know that involves um you know they've been they didn't just pop on the scene for in a political sense in the in in the areas that you know we look at, they have since 2017 they've averaged about 1.3 million dollars in lobbying expenditures at the federal level every year. Um so from 17 to 25, so and they're on pace to hit that again this year. So they're consistently uh paying out lobbyists to be there, be on the hill, uh be in front of lawmakers and policymakers, um, and you know, pressing their position. And then of course that's one aspect of it is the lobbying, and then you have the contribution side of it, and have also been have a history of being uh strong contributors uh to the Republican Party, to uh Republican super PACs, and then uh of course they're also a very uh big funder to a contributor to uh Donald Trump's uh super PAC, uh the Make America Great Again Incorporated in 2024, um million dollars.

SPEAKER_00 5:47

Most certainly when when you have revenue, the most recent uh revenue report for Geo Group, $2.6 billion, a six percent increase, which that doesn't sound like a lot, but when you're looking at the previous year, $2.4 billion, 6% is a sizable chunk of change that you can get noticed in a variety of ways, like you just mentioned, Brandon. And it seems like the noticing is being paid off because it's it's not just a Laney Hall. Geo is operating pretty much nationwide and are looking for more, are they not?

SPEAKER_04 6:17

Right, correct. And um they're you know pretty uh out of bash about uh talking about when their uh you know CEO has uh you know conference calls, uh investor calls, and talks about you know how they had the best year ever last year. And in in the immediate wake of the election, he was talking about how they expected to do very well. Um so you know, they've as I said, they've you know put themselves in position ahead of time to be able to take advantage of this and then you know lean into it. And so these contribution amounts, you talk about the lobbying expenditures and the contributions they made, right, they feel like a lot and and it is a lot of money, and it's and it's uh they're very big contributions, but when you compare that to the scale of the um when you're talking about billions of dollars in revenue coming in, it's a no-brainer. These uh you know, this investment they're making on one side is you know paying out uh incredibly on the other side.

SPEAKER_00 7:13

Oh, no doubt about it. And uh they mentioned in their one of their conference calls this was back in December, I think. This sounds like a major move for most companies, but for Geo, it's a drop in the bucket. They're looking at just in the immediate time of investing $70 million in capital expenditures, which some companies can't even dream of having that for total capital, never mind capital expenditures. This is just the magnitude. Uh they're looking to fill beds by the tens of thousands. There they seem to be everything that ICE wants to do. Geo Group seems to be the uh the go-to to get it done.

SPEAKER_04 7:48

Right. And of course, when um, you know, that uh one thing I wanted to bring up was, you know, about the other way that this works too. I talk about contributions lobbying.

unknown 7:58

Right.

SPEAKER_04 7:58

Well, there's what we call the revolving door aspect of this. And of course, revolving door is a big thing in you know the government and the private sector, where meaning you have people who work in the private sector and then go and work for the government, and then they leave the government and go work for the private sector, and then maybe go back. So thus we have a revolving door. Well, this absolutely applies here. We have the um you know acting director of uh ICE, David uh Venturella, right? He's his history goes back to he's previously he's act been named acting director of ICE at this point. Well, previously for over 10 years, he was uh executive at Geogroup. And before he was an executive of Geo Group, he was working in the uh government. Um so not only are they making these financial investments, they also essentially have one of their own on the inside running ice.

SPEAKER_00 8:53

Well, another one too is Lindsay Corin. She served as a trial attorney with the with the DOJ from 2004-2007 as an advisor to the chief immigration judge. She's on the board of directors of the geo group.

SPEAKER_04 9:08

So it it's a exactly and it's a um, it just you know, it creates this web of influence. All these there's a lot of moving pieces and uh these you know companies, they they know how to play the game. And when you get all your pieces in place, um you can see how um it the uh it can lead to a lot of money flowing in and then to the company. And then when the company says, oh, well, we're being um, you know, the government's you know keeping an eye on us and making sure that we're um you know doing everything right. Well, you don't have a lot of faith in that when it turns out that you know the people in charge on the government side are actually you know uh former insiders uh with the company that they're supposed to be uh monitoring.

SPEAKER_00 9:56

And and as well, too, just for the cause overall, the the people in the various positions and the companies overall, like Geo Group, they don't want Trump to change his policies. I mean, you have all this debate going on in Congress and elsewhere that, well, we could just temper things down and the state government here in New Jersey, they're trying to do things. But uh put it bluntly, Geo don't want don't want nothing to change. They're they're they're more than happy to keep things going, and then some.

SPEAKER_04 10:23

Yes, exactly. So the you know the incentives it creates are you know not always uh obviously not in a uh concern about policy, just about money.

SPEAKER_00 10:33

This also comes into play, too, with the conditions that we hear about, not just at uh Delaney Hall but other facilities. As far as the uh the oversight, I mean, are uh are these companies you you say they're getting favorable treatment only because they have so many, so much of a of their foot inside the the decision makers. What hope is there for anything to improve as far as ethics, as far as God, even just straight out of humanity with some of these operations?

SPEAKER_04 11:03

Um it's a very very good question. Um, you know, in your your lead-in, and uh you know I know you haven't brought up yet, but you you mentioned the I uh idea of uh these you know, you have publicly traded companies, and you know, that does become an avenue for pushback um on the on the investor side. And because then basically you say, all right, well, where can we initiate change? And if people start to feel and the companies start to feel it in the pocketbook, then um then that's gonna become something that uh you know they're gonna pay attention to.

SPEAKER_00 11:36

Yeah, and a lot of people neglect that because they're involved with 401ks, for example, through the place of employment or individually, uh they invest in funds and you get this dictionary-size annual report, and you really don't want to take the time to look through it. But if you did ever take time to look for it, like I never knew by investing in Warner Brothers Discovery, which I divested for a whole other discussion of the time, I actually owned a piece of a pro wrestling promotion because of that. But it's it's a matter of if you look through the the elements, and they do have to list every single company that your fund is investing in, you might be unpleasantly surprised with some of the companies that you might be dropping your money in and gaining money from, granted, but do you really want to gain money from a company that is perpetrating some of the things that we're hearing that Geo Group is doing? I would hope the answer is no. And uh I think what you do, Brenda, with with the work at Open Secrets at OpenSecrets.org, you bring the information to people that I think can motivate so many more to say, okay, this isn't right, and I need to speak up, speak out, push back, push out, and try to get things right and make these companies more aware that people, more people are watching them, and not to put them out of business, but just to operate in a humane way, give it considering the operations and the focus of what their what their business is. So find out more at opensecrets.org about Geo Group, about the for-profit prison industry overall, and many other important topics that they put a focus on. He is the director of insights with open secrets, Brendan Glavin. Brendan, thank you for helping us better appreciate uh not I not talked about enough aspect of what we're seeing not uh not just unfolding at Delaney Hall but elsewhere for people listening on the podcast outside New Jersey. This will be a wake-up call for them too, and I appreciate you taking time to be here with us today.

SPEAKER_04 13:26

Great, thank you very much.

SPEAKER_00 13:29

I'm doing something I rarely do, go back to a previous conversation because I think it's important in light of the ongoing hamster wheel debate regarding immigration. This was a talk I had with Republican Representative Maria Elvira Salazar late last year, talking about legislation she introduced. It's HR 4393, the Dignity Act of 2025, and how she believes, as I do, how it provides significant answers to the immigration situation. Deport them all. That's what some people say is the only response to illegal immigration. Alright, if that's what you believe, then where do we get the money from to cover the cost of fighting, apprehending, and deporting, of best latest estimate, around 13 million people. These same people are the ones who throw blanket statements out at undocumented immigrants claiming that they're mostly violent criminals who are getting every government program benefit that exists. The reality, quite a bit different. Vast majority of undocumented immigrants came here for a better life. They're hardworking, they love America. The next guest is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who has stepped forward with a realistic and very responsible solution to the illegal immigration issue. She presents ideas in two ways, actually. In the House, she introduced the Dignity Act of 2025, H.R. 4393, if you want to look it up, and she expands on her immigration solution and insight. In her new book, Dignity, Not Citizenship. The truth about immigration, no one is telling you. She is a Republican representative for Florida's 27th District, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar. Thank you so much for being here. How are you doing? Well, I'm I'm pleased to bring your information, your ideas to as many people as possible because it seems like, and you you write about this in your book too, it's a historic headbutting that's been going on with immigration. What's what has been the uh just a brief what have been the common threads with the timeline? Why has so little been getting done as the problem continues to have grown since the Reagan administration?

SPEAKER_03 15:45

Well, the reason the problem here is that since the Reagan administration, we've had a problem with not having the border secured. And by not having the border secured, then you had all these people who were gaming the system and who had uh who uh were claiming a political asylum, and in reality, many of them that could did not um qualify. And then now we are in this situation where you have millions of uh uh undocumented people who do not have a criminal record, who do not have a criminal record. They are needed in construction, hospitality, agricultural, dairy farms, and then what are we gonna do with them? Which is that is my eternal question. What are we gonna do with those people who have been here for more than five years, who have families, American children, people who are part of our society and do not have a criminal record and then do not belong to any gang organizations. It's impossible to deport them all. So let's do what's Solomonic. Let's give them dignity, no citizenship, make them pay for their crimes, and let them stay in the country helping the economy.

SPEAKER_00 16:52

The we we've seen that when when Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, obviously, as it was in his first term, immigration was a big issue, and the promise was to deport the worst of the worst. And I think we all can agree with that. That's a might that might be an actual pi bipartisan issue right there. Yep. It's uh has it has been working out that way too much as at least by the visual.

SPEAKER_03 17:13

I don't know about No, no, it has not, and that's the big problem that we're taking everybody. We're taking the bad hombre's and we're taking the good hombre. We're taking the people who are here helping the economy, and that's why we have the labor shortage that we have at this hour. That's why we have the problems that we're having at this hour when it comes to the economy, having the roofers and the manufacturers and the and the farmers not having enough workers to do the job. That's all I'm saying. Let them stay, let them pay for their crime, let them no no federal programs, no rights to vote, no um no right to uh any type of federal programs, but then at the same time, let them stay. Because they have friends.

SPEAKER_00 18:02

Let's think about that for a second because again, like I said back in the introduction, a lot of people who are critical of illegal immigration saying that again the the the total mis uh misinformation that they're getting federal programs, these are people who are paying into the Medicare, the Medicaid system, the Social Security system. They're not getting any of those benefits. Well, if you take them out of the situation, what's that gonna do to the financial stability of those programs, which are already shaky to begin with?

SPEAKER_03 18:31

Look, some are and some are not. We're talking about millions and millions of people.

SPEAKER_02 18:37

Sure.

SPEAKER_03 18:37

Oh, that's some of them, of course. Yeah, I'm sure it's some of them, but I would say not the overwhelming majority of the illegals are in the federal system. They're not. Most of them are not. I'm sure it's some are, but it it's not the big bulk. The big bulk is in construction hospitalian agricultural and um giving their labor every day in jobs that other Americans are not willing to do. So, yeah, get them off the uh the rolls of the federal programs. No problem. We'll st we'll still need them. That's a problem. We still need them.

SPEAKER_00 19:16

So let's get into the ideas of your program and the Dignity Act 2025, because I think if you had to put a key word to this, it would be compromise. Would that be fair?

SPEAKER_03 19:28

Um no. Um what would be fair would be to what would be fair would be just to bring them out of the shadows period. Let them stay. Let them pay for their crimes. Let them uh stay here, work some more, pay taxes. Let them just stay. Period. And don't give them any right to citizenship, don't give them any amnesty, don't give them any federal programs, make them pay seven thousand dollars in fines with another one uh one million dollars, one percent of their salaries, and let them stay for seven years and then uh apply for another seven years, and we're gonna generate trillions of dollars for the economy. Trillions of dollars in the next ten years. That's what I'm looking at. Besides national security, we will know who our neighbor is. On top of that, the border secured. Let's codify border security in this the dignity law has the border security component. So it's Solomonic, it's in the middle, it's not perfect, but it's the best we've had in the last 40 years. It can definitely uh uh garnish um bipartisan support. I have 30 already, 30, 15, and 15, 15 them, 15 Republicans uh supporting the Dignity Act. And it's a it's a major problem in the country, the number one and is gonna send the largest minority in the country a very big message welcoming them to the GOP and telling them that they have the same values that are entrenched in the Republican Party, which are God fearing, law-abiding, taxpaying, family-oriented, churchgoers. Bring them into the fold.

SPEAKER_00 21:21

So Representative Maria Elviraz-Alizar, Republican Florida 27th District, about her Dignity Act of 2025, which you can, if you want to look up the actual legislation. It is H.R. 4393, and of course, her book, Dignity, not citizenship, the truth about immigration, no one is telling you. You're listening to issues and ideas. E-Verify.

SPEAKER_03 21:43

Talk about how that can be utilized because e verify mandatory, mandatory, mandatory. Uh not voluntary like now.

SPEAKER_00 21:52

Or yeah, if some states do, some states don't. It's got to well, that's the other problem.

SPEAKER_03 21:57

Come on. That's the other problem.

SPEAKER_00 21:59

We've been We've been putting the e verify onus on the illegal immigrants, and short of a rare exception, businesses who do illegal hiring, they've gotten away without any kind of penalties.

SPEAKER_03 22:12

Of course. Specifically the business owners.

SPEAKER_00 22:15

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 22:16

It's been going on for years. This is this is uh this is a this has been going on for years. Come on, you know, it's like it's time to put some order into this uh So how how do you how do you sell the idea then?

SPEAKER_00 22:28

Because as you point out, and this is a this is the I think one of the key points, you're right that border security isn't immigration. They have a connection, but one doesn't equal the other. You can you can and we already have are in the process of strongly addressing obviously border security, but that doesn't address immigration.

SPEAKER_03 22:48

And that's correct. One thing is border security, another thing is immigration. Border security has been an issue that is part of immigration, but is not the same thing. It's not the same thing. So uh that's why uh we we fixed, but wait, we fixed border security with an executive order. We need to codify it into law. We need to codify it into law.

SPEAKER_00 23:10

Right, because executive orders can be erased just as fast as they've been written.

unknown 23:15

Of course.

SPEAKER_03 23:16

Of course, and then the next guy who's sitting at the White House can say, Well, I don't like this policy, so uh let me just open the borders, which is exactly what Biden did when uh when doing Trump won left. And so people think, Oh yeah, the border's security, yeah, it is now, and then what about in 28? So let's let's put an end to the border issue and the caravans and all that BS. Let's just then seal the border forever and let's uh deal uh with the people who are here who will not be deported because we don't have enough hands, enough agents, and let's give the mandate to ICE to do what they do best, which is to catch the bad guys and concentrate on the bad guys, whether they're report, whether they are illegals or illegals. It doesn't matter. Get them out. But leave the people who are on the fields in construction, hospitality, dairy, slaughterhouses, greenhouses, carnivals, health care, all those people who are definitely contributing to the economy. Leave them alone. Give them dignity, no citizenship, no amnesty. Let them pay for their crimes, post a big fine, big taxes, and let them stay. So everyone wins.

SPEAKER_00 24:36

Well, it's just balancing the scale where uh illegal immigrant was avoiding certain responsibilities. You have a plan to help them equate everything and put everything back into some sort of balance. And I we have to end this segment here, but this would only apply if you've been here before 2021. So what uh Representative Salazar is doing is uh she's creating a path to bring the problem to a stop uh to a slowing down, at least initially, if not a complete end, eventually to mandatory e-verify and limiting the uh turning down the the neon lights on the welcome app that others before the current administration have have uh ignited, I guess we'd say, and to bring uh just sensible compromise into the discussion as opposed to political headbutting, which has just prolonged and uh allowed the problem to fester and grow to the degree it has as we see in the here and now. She writes about this in great detail and puts the human side into it, not just the political side and dignity uh citizenship. And look up the Dignity Act of 2025. It's H.R. 4393. Representative Maria Evaris Alazar, you have brought common sense to what has been a historically difficult, challenging issue. And I I hope I hope you're going to wake a lot more than the 30 you have up to realize that there is a solution.

SPEAKER_03 26:01

Thank you. And uh of course there is. It's just political willingness. It's just showing political willingness, believe you me. It's uh it's frustrating sometimes because I see the solution so easily uh accessible and it's not perfect, but it's very solemnic. And it's it's and it's so it's it's really very hard at this hour, but I do have hope that the GOP will wake up before the midterm elections.

SPEAKER_00 26:29

Again, dignity not citizenship. Get the book because it will educate you.

SPEAKER_03 26:33

And I have a book, yeah, in Amazon. You can go to Amazon Dignity Not Citizenship. The truth about immigration that no one is telling you.

SPEAKER_00 26:39

Thank you, Representative, for being here.

SPEAKER_03 26:42

My pleasure to you and thank you for the opportunity. Big hugs. Bye-bye.

SPEAKER_00 26:45

If you're listening on the podcast side of things, make sure you follow and subscribe. It's called Birthright Citizenship. Idea has long been considered to have its roots in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is referred to as right, the Citizenship Clause. Now, while the Citizenship Clause has long been seen by people and courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, as the confirmation of why people can remain in America, Donald Trump's administration supporters, they want to greatly narrow the meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Trump has tried to do via an executive order. That's all, as you would expect, landed before the U.S. Supreme Court, which between now and the end of this month will release their ruling on this human ex guest is here to review the elements of this case and tell if any clues of what the court's ruling might be can be found in the questions that they wound up asking both sides during the hearings. He's Vice President for Legal Affairs with the Landmark Legal Foundation, Michael O'Neill. How are you today, Michael?

SPEAKER_06 27:48

I'm great, Chris. Good to be with you.

SPEAKER_00 27:50

Likewise to have you back here, too. Landmarklegal.org is the website. Let me establish a foundation for you listening. Reading from the 14th Amendment, Section 1, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction there of any R citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. And to give you some numbers to talk about the magnitude and the importance that we're discussing here, there are 5.5 million U.S. children, at last estimate, who are living in households with at least one undocumented immigrant parent, and nine percent of U.S. births annually are to households with at least one undocumented immigrant as a parent. So we're talking about something pretty heavy duty, depending on which way the court goes, Michael. Uh when you look back at the hearings and both sides presenting their case, what stood out to you as maybe the the best point on but the best on point? And was there any either side trying to divert the justices' attention from law and trying to get them into opinion?

SPEAKER_06 29:00

Sure, sure. I think the the arguments and the briefing all focused on the that term subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that mean? Does that mean that you have simple territorial presence, as you indicated, Chris, which would be earlier, uh that's the earlier interpretation and the the historical interpretation here that simple territorial presence of the birth mother of is enough to convey automatic citizenship to the to the child, no matter despite the legal status of that birth mother. If you're born on the in the territorial confines of the United States, that means you're a citizen, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Others, uh, the President Trump included, and others who looked back into the history and terminology and the debates surrounding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment presented evidence to expand that it meant something more than just mere territorial presence. There had to be, in other words, there had to be some sort of permanency or political allegiance to the United States of America. And it had to be beyond something that just simply being present here. You had to have some some level of permanency. There's an ar there's a Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Arc, that was the precedent for this, and that's kind of the basis, which was decided in the in the mid uh I think in the late 1800s, so uh well over a hundred years ago. And that involved uh Chinese nationals who'd come to the United States and the court and gave birth and the United and the uh the court concluded that the territorial presence was enough to convey citizenship. Wang Kim Ark is distinguishable though in the fact that these individuals were here in a permanent manner and they were here legally. So they were although they were not citizens in the United States, they were Chinese nationals, but they were here permanently and they had established something beyond just mere mere temporary status in the United States. So I think there was some evidence to support the president's argument. The question, though, which really kind of sussed out during uh oral arguments, is that whether the executive order is the proper vehicle to accomplish this national, as this national important uh policy. As you indicated before, you're talking about potentially millions of people going forward, a very serious issue that's facing our country. And the question really is one of process for the court, can a president do this, effectuate this interpretation and implement this policy via an executive order, or is something more required? In other words, would it have to be an act of Congress? And I think oftentimes that that that might be a hang up for the court for at least some of those swing justices that we often talk about. Amy Comey Barrett, Justice Cavanaugh, maybe Justice Roberts as well, is they're questioning about whether a a executive, a president can effectuate this instrumental change and this fundamental change in the way our country interprets a uh critical constitutional provision via executive order, or does Congress need to step in here and act as the best body to present this sort of interpretation?

SPEAKER_00 31:46

So the w the two sides are looking at respectively as either prioritizing where a person literally and figuratively stands, where the argument against uh for the Fourteenth Amendment is where that person is standing and what they're standing on, soil versus location, I guess would be the f uh uh lay person term.

SPEAKER_06 32:07

Yeah, exactly. Uh and and it it it that came down to it. That's interpreting the constitutional, the constitutionality, and that you so we can kind of dissect this in a couple ways. We can look at what is the meaning of the constitutional phrase that that we're talking about, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. And we can discern and we can try to interpret this, and we can uh use stance uh canons of s of interpretation, we can use originalism. There's ways, there's methodologies in place to try to discern what the meaning of the ratifiers were when they when they enacted this provision of the 14th Amendment. What was their meaning? Would they have intended it to mean children of illegal immigrants or birth tourism, for example? I don't think you could ever say that that, you know, individuals of Chinese billionaire, I don't even know if they could get their head around that. A Chinese billionaire coming into the United States having a hundred surrogate children and then having those children taken out of the country, but still they retain those Americans, that citizenship. I don't even know if they could wrap their head around that, but you try to discern that meaning. What we're what you and I are talking about right now is constitutional analysis. There is a very distinct, let me let me let me make an interesting point here. There is a very distinct chance that a controlling majority doesn't go down this road that refrains from doing this. And let me explain why they would do this. There's something known as the doctrine of constitu of constitutional avoidance, canon of constitutional avoidance. And that means if the Supreme Court can withhold making an interpretation of a constitutional provision and still achieve an outcome that it would have achieved otherwise, it will ch it will go down that that alternative path. Now let me explain why this is an important thing, thing to consider here. If the Supreme Court, if a controlling majority of the Supreme Court, for example, interprets the terminology of the 14th Amendment, that stands as the the interpretation of the Constitution. And essentially what that does, say, for example, a majority of the justices, five of the justices conclude, agree with those who are challenging President Trump's executive order, and that that it mere that all you need is mere territorial presence to be a United States citizen. So if the court interprets the 14th Amendment in that way, that means it closes the door for any congressional action. And that's what I'm talking about before. So, say for example, Congress wanted to pass a law outlawing birth tours, which I think 90% of Americans would agree with, that law would be in effect unconstitutional. So the court, I think, is leery of carving out of kind of freezing out Congress. So my prediction is, and again, this is just a prediction, Chris, my prediction is that a majority of the justices, you have probably those three justices that I talked about before, would be in a position to say, hey, look, there's a law on the books that largely mirrors the language of the 14th Amendment. This was a law that was passed in the early 20th century and affirmed uh a few decades later, that largely mirrors the language of the 14th Amendment. Again, born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I could I could see a case where the court says the executive Trump's executive order violates the law. And we're not going to get into the constitutional question. We're just going to simply say his executive order violates the law, and the executive order is illegal, and therefore we're going to throw it out. It preserves Congress's role in this place. It's not an optimal, uh, from my perspective, it's not an optimal outcome because I happen to agree with the constitutional interpretation proffered by the Trump administration. However, it's the best of a bad outcome. In other words, Congress still has a role to play in this, and we don't have a final interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

SPEAKER_00 35:31

At the same time, doesn't the Trump administration and hypothetically if Congress decide to take some related action to the to the citizenship clause? There's literally a century of court rulings at all levels, includ up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court, which backs up what the people supporting the Fourteenth Amendment, the uh citizenship clause are saying. If you want to change something, alter something, add to the citizenship clause and any level of redefinition, you have a lot of court precedent you've got to battle and overcome.

SPEAKER_06 36:05

Yeah, but I think the best vehicle with that be would be doing it via a ch a statutory challenge rather than an executive action challenge. And that's what we're happening right now. Remember what we're dealing with, we're dealing with an executive order. And so the best vehicle to present the interpretation you want to proffer, and of course, this is what we're talking about, the the the interpretation that you have to have more than mere territorial presence. The best vehicle to challenge that would be a law that, for example, outlawing birth tourism, right? And so you're saying, okay, well, I think Congress passes a law, and again, we're in a hypothetical situation here. Uh Congress passes a law, for example, as I said, says that you can't come to the United States for purposes of surrogacy and have a bunch of children and then take those children out, however, the law works. Uh that would that would be a law that on its face would be consistent, and you would have to reconcile that law with the Fourteenth Amendment. And I think you'd have a very strong chance to proffer the argument again, to to succeed on the argument that the Trump administration is making now, hey, that you have to have more than a territorial presence. Look at the way it's presented. It's almost what's really important when we're talking about these constitutional and Supreme Court cases is how is the issue presented to the court? It's almost as important as the facts underlying it. What is the issue strictly before the court here? And again, as I'm talking about before, I'm reiterating this point. This has been presented to the court in the in the form of an executive order, which again, the court is kind of leery, you know, recognizing the separation of powers and the importance of that doctrine. It's a little leery of, just by nature, of a president accomplishing something with enormous national implications simply via an executive order. So you're operating under that, you know, that handicap right from the get-go if you're the Trump administration. And I I kind of think that that's where they're going to go. The court's gonna kind of say, look, executive order, we're a little leery of this, but we understand some practicalities here, so we want to preserve the the the Congress to do something. So we're gonna hold off on getting into a constitutional analysis. We're just gonna stay on this on the law, and we're gonna allow Congress the opportunity to pass laws that might affect birthright citizenship, and then we'll revisit the constitutionality question at a later time.

SPEAKER_00 38:04

So basically it's not what's being done, it's how it's being done, and what the court's gonna rule over that.

SPEAKER_06 38:09

You got it. That's absolutely right. So, yeah, and and again, I think the most the the best way, and and again, I am supporting the the Trump administration's position on this, and I I I understand the need for this this this executive action, uh, but so often now we're seeing this is Congress's inability to act, and you're seeing then well, you're seeing because Congress isn't doing anything. I mean, let's think about voter integrity, for example. They're not doing anything, and so what happens is there's a clear need for action, and the president is stepping into it. Well, Congress isn't doing anything to prevent uh birth tourism, they aren't doing anything to prevent this uh you know, birthright citizenship. It's become an enormous national security problem for our country. Think about this from a national security perspective. Congress isn't doing their job, and so the president's gonna have to step into that breach. But ideally, under our system of powers and our separation of powers, we want to have Congress stepping into it. That's how kind of the court looks at this. They don't deal with the politics of the issue, they kind of deal with it from a systems and a separation of powers perspective.

SPEAKER_00 39:06

As I said back in the intro, this is one of the big rulings that they always like to save for the end to leave you in suspense or curiosity, whatever whatever the case may be. So uh when it happens, believe me, you'll you'll hear about it one way or the other, and to follow along with legal matters that do indeed matter. Landmark Legal Foundation is the go-to at landmarklegal.org. Here's their vice president for legal affairs. Michael O'Neill, thanks for helping us understand the importance of this, the path to whatever the ruling is going to be, the path that it's going to be taken. Thanks for being here today.

SPEAKER_06 39:36

My pleasure, Chris. You have a great day.

SPEAKER_00 39:40

The tough economic times we're in have resulted in more people having to cut corners or simply do without things that they really need for their health and well-being. That includes things like food, health care. What makes this situation even more troubling is that many who are doing without well, they actually don't have to. They're eligible for assistance programs, but as recent statistics reveal, they don't even apply for them, maybe because they don't know about them. With us now to explore this issue and the solutions that are being provided by the National Council on Aging is their senior strategist for economic well-being, Jessica Johnson. Thanks for being here today, Jessica.

SPEAKER_05 40:16

Thank you so much for having me.

SPEAKER_00 40:17

Couple of websites. We have them on our homepage too, ncoa.org for the National Council on Aging. And equally as important, benefitscheckup.org. We'll get to what that's all about in a bit. And again, we have those linked at our homepage. Talk about what I was referring to in the introduction. What kind of void exists between what's available for people who are in financial need and how many are not reaching for what's available?

SPEAKER_05 40:48

Sure. So what we're seeing across the country is that older adults, so we're talking about those that are 65 and older, are not enrolling in many of the key benefit programs that they're eligible for. Specifically, I'm talking about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and Medicare Savings Programs, MSPs, that can help pay for your Medicare premiums and your co-pays. And what we're seeing across the country is that there are many, many millions of eligible older adults that are not enrolled in this program. And I know that your listeners are primarily in New Jersey. And so specifically, what we're seeing is that there are over 285,000 older adults that are likely eligible for SNAP that are not enrolled, over 109,000 that might be eligible for SSI that are not enrolled, and over 154,000 who are eligible but not enrolled for Medicare savings programs.

SPEAKER_00 41:51

That's that's a scary number. And I think this adds to importance to how you approach this through the information you make available, because a lot of times we see these as national average numbers, which you do present that as well. But if you look at it's the importance of looking at state by state and even more so by locality by locality, because you can have a few areas doing wonderful with a high participation rate that overshadow the areas where the participation rate is in much more need of boosting up. So I think the way that you present all the stats, because we also broadcast over the podcast all out of New Jersey, and everywhere there's going to be a need that people are unaware of, as well as the information you make, the programs that they can reach for, that is is it because they just don't think they're eligible for them, or is there any understanding why low participation, what's the what's the main catalyst for the low participation rates?

SPEAKER_05 42:48

So there's several reasons. Um some of the things that we hear frequently are long and confusing applications. There's also a stigma among many older adults in accepting public benefits. Many of them will often say that they feel like others might need these resources more than they do, and so they don't apply for them. Um, but the truth is that we all pay taxes into a system and that these benefits are there for people who really need them. I think many times too, older adults might not understand how much money this truly is and what difference it could make. Um, so the average monthly uh benefit for SNAP among older adults is $188. For SSI, it's $552, and for a Medicare savings program, it's $165. And so that could be $1,100 a month if you're eligible for all three of these programs. And that $1,100 could mean the difference between paying for food or paying for housing. We often hear from older adults who are cutting their medications in half to try to make them last longer, things that are really unhealthy for them. And we want to Make sure that they have access to these benefit programs so that they can stay healthy and active as long as possible.

SPEAKER_00 44:06

This might be an assumption on my part, but I'm I'm I think I'm safely saying that the awareness of the SNAP program as well as the Medicare savings programs are are pretty high up in the level of recognition. Do you think that the low participation rate when it comes to the supplemental security income program, because it's it's related to Social Security but different from Social Security, people hear SSI and they think, well, I'm already in Social Security, so I I don't I can't apply for that.

SPEAKER_05 44:36

I I don't have any information about people thinking that specifically, but you're absolutely right. Um I think it can be a lesser-known program. Another one of the issues, I think, is that you know there are many community-based partners out there that help older adults um with SNAP benefits, for instance. But SSI is a federal program, and you often need support from your local Social Security Administration office. Um, and you know, that can be bureaucratically very challenging, and you often have to go in person as well, which can be difficult for some older adults. And so, you know, we really encourage people to contact their faith-based organizations or maybe a senior center or an area agency on aging that might be able to help them assess if they're eligible for SSI and help them get the documents they need together to enroll. Um, we invite people to go on benefitscheckup.org or to call our national toll-free hotline 1-800-794-6559. And there's a person on the other end of that call that can help determine if you might be eligible for any of these programs.

SPEAKER_00 45:52

Starting with Jessica Johnson, Senior Strategist for Economic Well-being with the National Council on Aging, NCOA.org, their website. It's also where you can get access to the Benefits Participate Participation Map that they've come up with and developed. We'll throw a direct link to that part of their website as well. I want to move into this website, benefitscheckup.org, which you just mentioned, Jessica. Talk about what it features and how you, at least in design, made it, I think, very user-friendly and very comfortable even for the less than tech-savvy older person who were who could certainly benefit from it.

SPEAKER_05 46:29

Well, I'm so happy to hear you say that because we have put a lot of time and effort into making sure that it's designed with older adults and caregivers in mind. And so you can go to benefitscheckup.org and you can do a couple of different things. One, you can go directly to a resource. So if you need help affording food, you can access information that way. If you want to see what's available in your zip code, um, you can also kind of get a laundry list of all of the benefits programs that you might be eligible for based on where you live specifically. So we're trying to help people, one, um, access help for their exact need, but then also see what programs are available for them specifically where they live.

SPEAKER_00 47:21

And for you listening, if you're less than confident as far as giving information over the com through the computer, like Jessica just said, at least for the starting point, all you have to share is your zip code, which is certainly not not intrusive in any way, shape, or form. So unlike so many other outlets, Jessica, this uh again is just a comfort zone, secure zone, and a user-friendly zone that benefits checkup is providing people for no matter what their needs are or or what their maybe uh cautions are when it comes to doing anything online, you make it you make it indeed inviting, and I think that's important.

SPEAKER_05 48:01

Thank you for saying that. I do want to emphasize that yes, it is a completely anonymous website. Um and there is a chat feature in the website. That chat is manned by a real person on the other end, so you're not speaking with an AI chat bot if you engage with the chat on benefits checkup.

SPEAKER_00 48:19

So again, ncoa.org, and you can look at the interactive map to see the participation rates for very key programs. And certainly for you as a child of an older parent, check out and make sure that mom and dad, grandma and grandpa are clued into all this as well because maybe they're one of those non-participants who should be participating because they are indeed eligible. And to learn more about how to navigate into these programs, your starting point is benefitscheckup.org. We've been joined by the senior strategist for economic well-being with the National Council on Aging. Jessica Johnson, thank you so much for this information that so many have been probably looking for, and now you've answered that need. Thanks for being here today.

SPEAKER_05 49:07

Thank you so much, Chris.

SPEAKER_01 49:55

And another thing, uh, another nice thing happened to me today. NBC hung a star on my dressing room door. Mickey Rooney.

SPEAKER_00 50:07

Today is Dean Martin's birthday. Over on our Facebook page, which you can find the link to on our website homepage, we'll be celebrating Dean's birthday by sharing some memories of Dean. Dean Martin is also responsible for my all-time favorite quote. Said this during a 1983 interview in London. You gotta have fun. If you're not having fun, you might as well lay down, let him throw dirt on you. God wants us to have fun. In fact, fun, joy, laughter or blessings from God. I believe God himself liked to have some fun. If you don't believe me, then explain to me the giraffe, kangaroo, and armadillo for starters. Jesus himself wanted people to have fun and enjoy life. Let's go to John chapter two, verses one through ten. On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now both Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding, and when they ran out of wine the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine. Jesus said to her, Woman, what does your concern have to do with me? My hour has not yet come. His mother said to the servants, Whatever he says to you, do it. Now there were set there six water pots of stone according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, Fill the water pots with water, and they filled them up to the brim, and he said to them, Draw some out now and take it to the master of the feast. And they took it. When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from, but the servants who had drawn the water knew, the master of the feast called the bridegroom, and he said to him, Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior you have kept the good wine until now. What the master of the banquet meant was that you start off with a little of the good stuff, then you bring out the cheap wine once people have had too much to drink to really care what they're drinking anymore. Jesus cut out the cheap stuff and came up with first class award winning wine. Jesus and the Beatitudes, which we read in the sixth chapter of Luke, encourages us to work through the bad times because we are to be happy. This is from Luke chapter six, verse twenty one. Blessed are you who weep now for you shall laugh. Being happy is one of the major lessons we gain from the book of Proverbs. There's this in Proverbs chapter seventeen, verse twenty two. A merry heart does good like medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones. As well as these words in Proverbs chapter fifteen, verse thirteen, a merry heart makes a cheerful countenance, but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken. Solomon, who is considered the wisest ever king of Israel, called on his people to be happy and have fun, realizing that the experience is a great gift from God. Solomon declares this truth in Ecclesiastes chapter eight verse fifteen. So I commended enjoyment because a man has nothing better under the sun than to eat, drink, and be merry, for this will remain with him in his labor all the days of his life which God gives him under the sun. Since happiness and fun are good for us, James and James chapter one, verse seventeen, confirms who is the true source. Reading here, every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of Lights, with whom there is no variation or a shadow of turning. The thief does not come except to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly. God wants us to be happy every day. These instructions are given to us in Psalm chapter one eighteen, verse twenty four. This is the day the Lord has made, we will rejoice and be glad in it. The fun God wants us to have, by the way, isn't limited to adults. Happiness for children equally important to him. This wish is expressed in Zechariah chapter eight verse five. The streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets. Now it's important to establish that the fun God wants us to have in each one of our days, that's not permission to be reckless. Nor are we to hurt others, stealing, that's still a sin, property damage, mocking others, lying to others, as we maybe try to mask that sin as being all we're just joking around. Paul in first Corinthians chapter ten verse thirty one gives this instruction to us. Therefore, whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. We also receive this guidance in Colossians chapter three verse seventeen, and whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Fun and happiness comes to us from God and can only be experienced in the totally righteous way He wants when we turn to God. Let's go to first Thessalonians chapter five, verses sixteen through eighteen. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. And as we devote ourselves to that, we do it with the knowledge that the fun and happiness that comes from God is an eternal blessing placed before us by Jesus in Revelation chapter twenty one, verse four. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. Don't forget to check out our website, issues and ideasradio.com. That's where you'll find more information about the guests who joined us here on the show today. And if you've been listening to us via your favorite podcast platform, make sure you follow and subscribe. Always appreciate you coming along for the ride. Look forward to being with you right here this time next week for our next edition of Issues and Ideas.