>> EXTREMISM IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY TIME FOR A SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION?

AND SHOULD BIDEN BUILD THE WALL?

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT BY KRISTI ANDERSEN FROM THE MAXWELL SCHOOL AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, BEN BAUGHMAN FROM GANNON UNIVERSITY AND LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

IN A SPEECH LAST WEEK IN PHILADELPHIA, PRESIDENT BIDEN LAID IT ON THE TABLE.

IN THE PLACE WHERE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY WAS ESTABLISHED, BIDEN CALLED OUT DONALD TRUMP AND MAGA REPUBLICANS AS SEMI-FASCIST EXTREMISTS WHO THREATEN THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR REPUBLIC.

BEVIN, IS THIS ANY WAY TO UNIFY THE COUNTRY.

HE SAID HE WOULD UNIFY THE COUNTRY WHEN HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT.

>> HE DID SAY THAT.

I THINK IT WAS A GOOD POLITICAL SPEECH THAT MAY HELP SWAY SOME UNDECIDED VOTERS AND SHORE UP HIS BASE.

BUT THE FACT THAT HE MOVED FROM THE POINT THAT HE GAVE OF HAVING THE SPEECH WITHIN 14, 15 MINUTE MARK WHERE HE MOVED TO RHETORIC AND DOMESTIC AGENDA TOOK AWAY FROM THE GENUINE COMPONENT OF IT, THE COGENT ARGUMENT HE WAS MAKING FOR THE FIGHT OF THE SOUL OF AMERICA, WHICH I THINK DETRACTED FROM THE GENUINE YNESSE ABDUL-MALAK OF IT.

, HAD HE STUCK TO THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS NO WIDESPREAD ELECTION FRAUD AND STUCK WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE SEEING AN UPTICK IN POLITICAL VIOLENCE, I THINK WOO WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE AUTHENTIC AND SPOKE TO WHAT HE RAN ON.

>> SO YOU ARE SAYING HE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED MORE EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIM THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE... >> I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE STUCK-- HE WENT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION RIGHT BEFORE THE MID TERM KICKOFF, RIGHT?

THE TIMING ALREADY DETRACTED FROM THE GENUINENESS OF IT.

I THINK STICKING WITH SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON WHAT THE FACTS ARE.

>> I'M SORRY, DID YOU WANT TO GET IN THERE.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> LET'S SAY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT EVERYTHING HE SAID ABOUT MAGA REPUBLICANS WAS TRUE.

FOR ME, BEN, THE QUESTION IS MORE WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE SPEECH?

WHAT WAS HE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH?

WAS HE TRYING TO JUST SHAME MAGGA REPUBLICANS OR CALL THEM OUT?

I WOULD SAY CERTAINLY IS NOT A UNIFYING STRATEGY.

WAS THIS RED MEAT FOR THE PROGRESSIVE END OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR TO THE POINT OF ELECTIONS WAS THIS ABOUT WINNING OVER INDEPENDENTS AND IF IT WERE, I THINK THERE WAS A BETTER WAY OF ACCOMPLISHING THAT I THINK YOU WOULD FIND THAT ONLY 25% OF REPUBLICANS CONDONE WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6.

ALTHOUGH 40% DO BELIEVE THAT POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY.

BUT SO DOES THE SAME NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS.

AND THEN LASTLY, IF IT'S A QUESTION EVER-- IF IT'S A QUESTION OF NOT BELIEVING THE ELECTION RESULTS, TRUE, 70% OF REPUBLICANS DON'T BELIEVE THE ELECTION RESULTS BUT LET'S THINK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS THAT QUESTION WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH V GORE CONTEST IN 2000.

>> YOU HAVE TO PERSUADE, HE NEEDS TO PERSUADE PEOPLE TO WIN ELECTIONS AND DO RETAIL POLITICS BUT THAT'S KIND OF DEMONIZING PEOPLE.

LUKE?

>> I DON'T THINK HE HAS TO PERSUADE PEOPLE.

I THINK HE HAS TO PRIME DEMOCRATIC VOTERS TO TURN OUT.

TWO-THIRDS OF THE SPEECH WAS A PRO-DEMOCRACY SPEECH, THAT DEMOCRACY IS UNDER ASSAULT AND AS WAS MENTIONED, IT IS AN INFLECTION POINT LIKE THE PRESIDENT SAID AND THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION.

THE OTHER THIRD OF THE SPEECH AS BEN REFERENCED WAS A CAMPAIGN SPEECH.

HE TRANSFORMED IT INTO THE STATE OF THE UNION.

WE SHOULD BE HOPEFUL.

THIS IS WHAT I'VE DONE.

AND IF I WERE HIS CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST, I WOULD SAY IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO DO BOTH BUT AS A PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLAR LIKE BEN, I WOULD RATHER HIM STICK TO THE DEMOCRACY MESSAGE.

>> I MEAN HE USED THE FASCIST WORD, RIGHT?

WAS THAT TOO STRONG?

>> I THINK IT ABSOLUTELY WAS TOO STRONG BECAUSE THERE IS A CASE TO BE MADE TO WIN OVER, WHETHER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM MAGA REPUBLICANS OR TRUMP SUPPORTERS AND IT'S NOT TOO FAR OFF FROM WHAT OBAMA TRIED TO POINT TO IN 2008 WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT PEOPLE BEING BITTER, THE TYPES THAT SUPPORT TRUMP AND CLINGING TO THEIR GUNS AND RELIGION.

IT PROBABLY WASN'T THE BEST PIVOT.

BUT I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO SAY THAT YOUR ANGER MAY BE JUSTIFIABLE AND HERE ARE POLICIES THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT FORWARD IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THEM.

AND THAT IS, IN FACT, HOW BIDEN STARTED OUT.

HE STARTED OUT SAYING I'M FROM PENNSYLVANIA.

I GET IT.

I UNDERSTAND AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO ADDRESS ISSUES IN WAYS THAT WORK FOR THE WORKING CLASS, WHITE WORKING CLASS FOLKS.

>> AND HE IS STILL TALKING ABOUT THAT AND HE STILL, I THINK, IS TRYING TO CAMPAIGN AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CAMPAIGN ON THE DEMOCRATS DELIVER KIND OF ISSUE BUT HE IS ALSO REALLY TRYING TO SAY THAT OR TRYING TO WORK ON SEPARATING THE REASONABLE REPUBLICANS FROM THE MAGA REPUBLICANS.

AND TO DO THAT, HE WANTS TO BRING HOME THE ISSUE OF THE LIES AND... >> BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IT WAS A BAIT AND SWITCH.

HE WAS ON NATIONAL TELEVISION ON A THURSDAY NIGHT, ON ALL THE MAJOR NETWORKS AND HE HAD SAID I'M HERE TO FIGHT FOR THE SOUL OF DEMOCRACY.

HE DIDN'T SAY I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO MY PARTY AND MAKE A CASE AGAINST THE OTHER PARTY THAT JUST HAPPENS TO RUN AGAINST ME.

WHAT WOULD IT BE LIKE HAD IT BEEN THE PARTY THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING?

>> IF THE THREAT IS AS GREAT AS HE IS SUGGESTING IT IS, I THINK BEN, THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT.

IS THE WARNING DIMINISHED BY THEN PIVOTING TO ALL THE STUFF I'VE DONE.

>> WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN IT THE SAME WAY?

>> I COME BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT I THINK EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE IS AGREEING ON AND I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I AGREE A: THAT THERE IS THE KIND OF THREAT THAT-- SURE THERE IS A LOT OF DIVISION AND THAT IT IS GREATER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST BUT IS THE THREAT COMING SOLELY FROM ONE SIDE AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, HOW DOES THAT THREAT MANIFEST ITSELF BECAUSE WHAT THE PRESIDENT WENT THROUGH AND SAID THEY BELIEVE LIES.

WELL IT'S NOT JUST MAGA REPUBLICANS THAT BELIEVE LIES, THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN ELECTIONS.

WELL, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

AND I THINK THERE IS A SORT OF BLIND SIDE THAT SOME DEMOCRATS HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR, YOU KNOW, OWN STUFF.

>> SO THE RABBIT HOLES THAT PEOPLE CAN GO DOWN, THERE IS RABBIT HOLES ON BOTH SIDES IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

WE JUST HEAR THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER.

>> I DON'T WANT TO SAY TO THE SAME EXTENT.

I'LL STOP THERE.

[LAUGHTER] >> BOTTOM LINE IS PERCEPTION IS HUMAN NATURE'S REALITY, RIGHT?

SO WE ARE SILOED AND WE ARE SEEING WHAT WE WANT TO SEE.

THAT'S THE EXPECTANCY THEORY THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> OKAY, NOW INDEPENDENCE HALL OF COURSE WAS WHERE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS DEBATED BACK IN 1787.

NOW SOME POLITICIANS WANT IT TO BE UPDATED.

THEY'RE CALLING FOR A SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION SAYS CONGRESS MUST CALL ONE IF TWO-THIRDS OF THE STATES PETITION IT.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION?

KRISTI?

>> I WOULD SAY SOME OF THE RISKS ARE DOING THIS AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A POSSIBLE CIVIL WAR.

THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE TIME YOU WANT TO ALL SIT DOWN AND COME UP WITH A REVISED CONSTITUTION JUST TO BEGIN WITH.

>> DOES IT NEED SPRUCING UP?

>> I'M NOT SURE IT NEEDS SOME SPRUCING UP.

I MEAN THE REPUBLICANS OR SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR A LONG TIME THAT WE NEED A-- HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL INVESTIGATION FOR QUITE A WHILE.

NOW I'M TAKING A PRETTY JADED VIEW OF THEIR REASONING.

BUT I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS CAN BE SEEN IN KANSAS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO BE GOING AGAINST THEIR LEGISLATION STOPPING ABORTION, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND SO A NEW CONSTITUTION COULD BAN ABORTION.

IT COULD DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

I MEAN OUR CONSTITUTION IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF CONSTITUTIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S VERY FOCUSED ON STRUCTURE, NOT FOCUSED ON POLICIES.

IT DOESN'T HAVE-- I MEAN IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHILEAN POTENTIAL NEW CONSTITUTION NOW, IT WAS LADEN WITH ALL KIND OF POLICY.

>> THAT MAY WELL BE ONE REASON WHY OURS HAS LASTED SO LONG.

>> EXACTLY.

IT'S A STRUCTURE, NOT A SET OF POLICIES.

AND IT HAS LASTED A LONG TIME.

BUT WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO DO IS EMBED THEIR POLICIES IN IT AND JUST ONE MORE THING.

THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT IN THE MAJORITY AND THEY HAVE TO GERRYMANDER OR HAVE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO BE ABLE TO BE CONFIDENT THAT THEIR POLICIES... >> WE SHOULD BE CLEAR WHEN YOU SAY THE REPUBLICANS WANT DO THAT.

THERE MAY BE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE PUSHING FOR THIS BUT IT'S NOT WIDESPREAD MOVEMENT.

>> YEAH, I AGREE.

>> AND THEY MIGHT BE IN THE MINORITY NATIONALLY BUT AT THE STATED LEVEL THEY CONTROL MOST OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES AND STATE GOVERNORSHIPS SO IT MAKES SENSE POLITICALLY TO PURSUE THIS.

I THINK IT IS A BAD TIME TO OPEN UP THE CONSTITUTION IN A CONVENTION FASHION GIVEN THE HYPERPARTISANSHIP AND WHAT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR AND INHERENT UNCERTAINTY.

MOST POLITICAL SCIENTISTS WOULD SAY BE REALLY CAREFUL IF YOU ARE GOING HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AT THE NATIONAL OR STATE LEVEL.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE THE MOST BACKWARDS LOOKING NATION ON EARTH WHEN IT COMES TO OUR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION.

AS I TELL MY STUDENTS IN INTRO CLASSES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EVERY ISSUE IN A WAY WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO ENVISION WHAT A SMALL GROUP OF MEN 200 YEARS AGO THOUGHT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA AND THERE ARE CERTAIN FLAWS AND LIMITATIONS IN DOING THAT AS WELL.

I THEIR SOME FLUIDITY AND HOW IT COULD CHANGE APPROPRIATELY OVER TIME IS WORTHWHILE.

>> I WOULD SAY, LUKE, THAT THE ISSUE NOT SO MUCH WHO THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMERS ARE, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BUT MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING THEY WERE WHITE SLAVE OWNERS, MEN.

AND IT'S REALLY THE IDEA.

AND I WOULD SAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMERS AND THE PRODUCT THAT THEY GAVE US HAS NOT FAILED THE COUNTRY BUT REGARDS THE COUNTRY HAS FAILED THEIR EXPECTATIONS.

SO IF YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT FEDERALIST NUMBER 10 IN 51 MADE CLEAR THAT THE PUBLIC'S PASSIONS WOULD, AT TIMES, OVERTAKE REASON AND THEY EXPECTED THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS DURING THOSE TIMES WOULD REFINE AND ENLARGE-- THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT MADISON USES IN SO-- REFINE AND ENLARGE PUBLIC VIEWS.

AND IF AND WHEN NECESSARY, IGNORE THEM ALL TOGETHER.

THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE ARE WELL AWARE OF THEIR WORRY ABOUT TOO MUCH DEMOCRACY; THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE COULD BE OVERBEARING MAJORITIES AND MY CONCERN ON THE DEMOCRAT SIDE OF BEING UNHAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT THERE ISN'T ENOUGH POPULISM IN THE CONSTITUTION, IS THAT REMOVING THOSE KINDS OF GUARD RAILS THEY THINK WOULD WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF MARGINALIZED MINORITIES WHO BENEFIT FROM A SORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITED DEMOCRACY.

>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

BUT THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT FEDERALIST 10 TALKED ABOUT TODAY IS THE PRESCRIPTION WAS TO TRY TO CREATE MORE FACTIONS AND IN THE INFORMATION AGE WE LIVE IN, WE HAVE INSURRECTIONISTS AND CONSPIRACY THEORISTS AND THEY CAN AMASS IN THE MILLIONS TO REALLY THREATEN THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE BOTH SHARE ABOUT THE VALUE AND THE CONSTITUTION AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE.

>> I LOVE THAT BECAUSE WE ARE BOTH TEACHING THAT IN OUR CLASSES, RIGHT?

THAT MADISON SAID THE WAY YOU HANDLE THAT IS YOU ENLARGE THE SIZE OF THE REPUBLICAN.

YOU TAKE IN A GREATER VARIETY AND THEN YOU EMPOWER ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT FACTIONS TO CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.

>> I WOULD LOVE TO SIT IN EITHER OF YOUR CLASSROOMS.

THIS IS GREAT STUFF BUT I WANT TO HEAR WHAT PROFESSOR BAUGHMAN HAS TO SAY.

>> I THINK WAS WE ARE SPEAKING TO IS RISK AND REWARD AND THE UNFORTUNATE COMPONENT OF THIS, IN ARTICLE 5, IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE WITH IT; THAT THERE IS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF IT.

AND I THINK THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE TALKED ABOUT DURING THE CONVENTION IS REALLY AT THE HEART OF THIS.

NOW FEAR COMES INTO PLAY WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW SOMETHING AND THAT'S WHERE, LIKE THEY CAN VOTE SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY TOMORROW BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO.

>> ALTHOUGH THEY-- RON DeSANTIS HAS SUNSET... >> THERE HAS DEFINITELY BEEN A PUSH.

>> RON JOHNSON.

>> AND THERE IS GOING TO BE TALK AND PUSH IF THIS GOES TO PLAY.

BUT IT REALLY DOES COME DOWN TO RISK AND REWARD.

>> AND SO IF THINGS LIKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS COULD BE ON THE TABLE THEN, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

IT WOULD BE-- >> AND THAT'S THE ISSUE.

NOBODY KNOWS.

THEY WANT TO SAY IT'S SPECIFIC TO DEAL WITH THE ECONOMIC CRISIS THAT WE ARE IN AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> NOW WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS BUT IMMIGRATION CONTINUES TO BE A POINT OF CONTENTION IN WASHINGTON AND AROUND THE COUNTRY.

MILLIONS OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS HAVE BEEN RELEASED INTO THE U.S.

WHILE AWAITING IMMIGRATION HEARINGS.

TEXAS IS BUSING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO NEW YORK CITY AND WASHINGTON.

A RECENT POLL SAYS A GROWING NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS WANT TO REDUCE LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

DO WE EVEN HAVE AN IMMIGRATION POLICY?

>> I WOULD SAY THAT WE DO NOT.

WE HAVE A POLICY THAT IS ON THE BOOKS BUT WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY THAT'S IN OPERATION AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WORKING.

AND I WOULD JUST PREFACE MY REMARKS BY SAYING IT'S OBVIOUS ALSO THAT, IN TERMS OF GETTING TO A POLICY, WE ARE NOT QUITE EFFECTIVE AT WALKING AND CHEWING GUM AT THE SAME TIME.

BECAUSE AS A COUNTRY, I DON'T THINK WE'VE DECIDED WHETHER OUR IMMIGRATION POLICY SHOULD BE PRIMARILY ABOUT WHAT BENEFITS THE COUNTRY VERSUS WHAT IS PRIMARILY BENEFITING IMMIGRANTS.

I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE EXCLUSIVE OF ONE ANOTHER BUT WHAT SHOULD THE EMPHASIS BE?

EVERYONE HAS TALKED ABOUT SECURING THE BORDER.

WE ARE NOT DOING THAT EFFECTIVELY BECAUSE NOW THE NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS ON THE BORDER HAS DOUBLED FROM A MILLION TO TWO MILLION, JUST SINCE 2019 AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT THE OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE COMING IN.

AND SO I THINK SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.

I DON'T BUY THE ARGUMENT THAT IF YOU PUT UP A DOOR AT THE FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE, BECAUSE SOMEONE CAN BREAK DOWN THAT DOOR, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE A DOOR.

I THINK THAT'S JUST A STUPID LINE OF REASONING.

BUT I'LL SAY THIS ALSO.

I FIND IT DEEPLY TROUBLING THAT TEXAS AND ARIZONA AND FLORIDA ARE BUSING HUMAN BEINGS TO OTHER CITIES AS IF THEY'RE JUST OBJECTS, LIKE PAWNS ON A CHESS BOARD.

AND THESE SAME FOLKS TALK A LOT ABOUT JUDEO CHRISTIAN VALUES.

WELL NOSE VALUES SHOULD LEAD THEM TO SEE THEM AS HUMAN BEINGS FOR WHOM WE SHOULD PROVIDE WELFARE AND SAFETY AND NOT LOCK UP BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE DOCUMENTATION.

>> LUKE.

>> WE SPENT $15 BILLION ON 52 MILES OF FENCE.

WE HAVE THOUSANDS MORE MILES TO GO AND COST $56 BILLION MORE.

PEOPLE ARE GOING OVER AND THROUGH THE FENCE.

I THINK FROM A PRACTICAL PROBLEM SOLVING PERSPECTIVE, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS RECOGNIZE, AS NINA POINTED OUT, WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY, MOST RECENTLY ASYLUM SEEKERS AWAITING THEIR HEARING.

THERE IS CURRENTLY 150-DAY WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THEY CAN APPLY FOR EMPLOYMENT.

THERE IS A BILL BEFORE CONGRESS TO EXPEDITE THAT.

BUT GIVEN WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW, WHERE YOU TALK TO SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, AS I HAVE, THEY WANT TO HIRE PEOPLE AND THEY CAN'T FIND PEOPLE WHO HIRE AND YOU HAVE ASYLUM SEEKERS NOT ALLOWED TO WORK AND BEING TAKEN CARE OF BY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS IN HOTELS AND SHELTERS.

LET'S FIGURE OUT A WAY, WHICH ISN'T THAT HARD, TO GET THEM WORKING.

IT'S GOOD FOR THEM.

THEY CAN MAKE MONEY.

IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESSES AND THEY CAN BE PUT ON THE TAX ROLL.

IT'S GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

THAT'S A SIMPLE STEP WE CAN DO TO DO BETTER.

>> THIS IS A GOOD STEP AND IT'S BASICALLY DOING BOTH OF WHAT YOU SAID SHOULD BE DONE.

IT'S TO THEIR BENEFIT AND TO THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE WHO HIRE THEM.

I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC OPINION, AND MAYBE WHY REPUBLICANS ARE NOW LESS LIKELY TO EVEN SUPPORT LEGAL I AM-- LEGAL IMMIGRATION WHICH HASN'T BEEN THE CASE BEFORE, IS THAT TRUMP HAS FOCUSED SO MUCH ON THE BORDER AND THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING AT THE BORDER, THAT WE DON'T THINK ABOUT IMMIGRATION HAPPENING IN OTHER WAYS; FOR EXAMPLE, MORE THAN HALF OF THE UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE PEOPLE WHO OVERSTAYED THEIR VISAS.

THEIR STUDENT VISA OR TRAVEL VISA.

THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE WHO CAME OVER THE BORDER.

MOST, YOU KNOW,-- WELL, I CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON.

MOST IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT COMMITTING CRIMES.

MOST CITIES WITH A LOT OF IMMIGRANTS HAVE LOWER CRIME RATES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

AND AS LUKE SAYS, WE NEED THESE IMMIGRANTS.

SO THE THIRD POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THEY'RE NOT TAKING JOBS AWAY FROM AMERICANS, PARTICULARLY, WHICH IS ANOTHER.

>> THEY MAY... >> ONE OF THE POINTS YOU OFTEN HEAR IS THEY MAY NOT BE TAKING JOBS AWAY, THEY DO DEPRESS WAGES.

>> THEY DEPRESS THE WAGES OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE; PARTICULARLY AT THE LOWER END OF THE LABOR SPECTRUM WORKERS.

THEY ARE TAKING AWAY OR DEPRESSING WAGES OF SIMILARLY POSITIONED AMERICANS, PEOPLE... >> THAT HAPPENS TO BE MINORITY WORKERS.

I MEAN YOU DON'T NEED TO PUT THE NUMBERS TOGETHER BUT WE DO HAVE THE NUMBERS TO SHOW BY A NUMBER OF SCHOLARS THAT IT'S MOSTLY AFRICAN-AMERICANS THAT HAVE BEEN DISPLACED.

BUT YES,... >> THERE ARE TONS OF... >> LET'S GET BEN IN ON THIS.

>> IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE, NOT SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO SUM UP IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.

THERE ARE A LOT OF FACETS TO IT.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE LOSE 30 HUMANS IN A MONTH DROWNING JUST TRYING TO COME OVER THE BORDER SO IT REALLY IS A REAL ISSUE WITH REAL PEOPLE DYING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSES AND IT CAN'T BE ADDRESSED WITH SOUNDBITES.

>> IT STRIKES ME, TOO, THAT THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM THAT'S GOING AWAY, BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT IS CAUSING PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT PRETTY DESPERATE JOURNEY AND I MEAN THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF REASONS BUT A LOT OF IT GOES BACK TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES.

AND GIVEN CLIMATE CHANGE, IT'S NOT GOING TO GET BETTER.

>> AGAIN, THIS IS SORT OF THE NARRATIVE THAT IS OUT THERE.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND YOU CAN GO TO THE D.H.S.

TO SEE THE NUMBERS, THEY SHOW THAT MOST ARE HERE IN CONNECTION WITH FAMILY TIES, NOT THE WORK VISAS.

SO I THINK THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO DO IS GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.

>> OKAY.

AND IN THE 30 SECONDS OR SO WE HAVE LEFT, SHOULD WE GO-- YOU SAID NO, WE SHOULD NOT PUT UP ANYMORE FENCING OR BORDER WALL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WOULDN'T THAT NOT BE EFFECTIVE?

>> I AGREE WITH LUKE THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO COVER THE ENTIRE BORDER.

THAT WOULD BE ONE OF SEVERAL FIXES.

THE OTHER IS TO PROVIDE FOR MORE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE, ALSO MORE BORDER PATROL AGENTS.

BUT MOST OF ALL, MOST OF ALL MORE JUDGES WHO CAN EXPEDITE THE REVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS.

>> AND WE CAN'T FORGET THE FACT THAT THE DRUGS, A LARGE AMOUNT OF DRUGS ARE COMING ACROSS THE BORDER ALONG WITH HUMAN TRAFFICKING WHERE ADDITIONAL LIVES ARE PUT AT RISK.

>> OKAY.

WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

MAYBE WE SHOULD COME BACK AND DISCUSS THIS AGAIN BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO GET TO OUR As AND OUR Fs AND KRISTI, WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN WITH YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO FEDERAL JUDGE CANNON WHO GRANTED DONALD TRUMP'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL MASTER TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS.

THIS WILL DELAY THE FBI INVESTIGATION.

HOW UNUSUAL AND WRONG WAS THIS.

SENIOR OFFICIALS WHO SERVED IN PRE-TRUMP REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS ASKED TO SUBMIT A FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO TRUMP'S REQUEST.

CANNON DENIED THEIR REQUEST.

ONE LEGAL ANALYST SAID HE HAD NEVER SEEN A COURT REJECT THE FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF.

HE WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD TRUMP.

>> A NEW YORK STATE SENATOR INTRODUCED A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE CAR MAKERS TO INSTALL SPEED LIMITING TECHNOLOGY IN ANY PASSENGER VEHICLE BUILT AFTER JANUARY 2024 KNOWN AS INTELLIGENT SPEED ASSISTANCE, THE DEVICE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY SLOW DOWN A VEHICLE AND PREVENT IT FROM GOING FASTER IF THE DRIVER EXCEEDS THE SAFE OR LEGAL SPEED LIMIT.

I CAN SEE IN THE FUTURE OF THIS MORE TICKETS, MORE FINES, MORE REVENUES FOR THIS SENATOR AND OTHERS TO SPEND.

>> BEN, YOUR F. >> MY F IS GOING TO BEING TOO SOFT ON VIOLENT CRIME.

MEMPHIS HAS HAD QUITE THE FEW DAYS THIS WEEK.

THE SUSPECT THAT WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF ELIZA FLETCHER FOR KIDNAPPING AND MURDERING THIS TEACHER, HAD PREVIOUS ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS FOR THEFT, BURGLARY AGGRAVATEDDED ASSAULT, RAPE AND EVADING ARREST.

THIS SPEAKS TO THE VIOLENT CRIME THAT CONTINUES TO GO UP NO MATTER WHAT A NEWSPAPER MAY SAY.

>> AND LUKE.

>> IT HAS BEEN A YEAR SINCE HURRICANE IDA DECIMATED NEW YORK CITY.

MY F GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL BASEMENT APARTMENTS WHERE MOST OF THE PEOPLE DIED IN THE FLOODING.

>> AND NOW OUR As.

KRISTI.

>> AN A TO THE FACT THAT SYRACUSE'S POPULATION HAS INCREASED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 70 YEARS FROM 2010 TO 20, POPULATION GREW BY ABOUT 2.5%.

THIS IS DUE IN PART TO A BIG INCREASE IN ASIAN AND HISPANIC RESIDENTS AND MANY OF OUR NEW NEIGHBORS ARE YOUNG.

IT'S NOTABLE THAT OF THE 100 LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS, SYRACUSE HAD THE THIRD HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF NEW RESIDENTS BORN BETWEEN 1980 AND 1998.

AS BEN WALSH SAYS, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY INCLUSIVE AND WELCOMING.

>> NINA, YOUR A.

>> SEVEN-YEAR-OLD TARIK WAS RECENTLY NAMED A STATE CORN BASSADOR.

A YOUTUBE VIDEO HE TALKED ABOUT HIS LOVE OF CORN.

SOUTH DAKOTA IS A TOP PRODUCER OF CORN IN THE COUNTRY AND ISSUED SEPTEMBER 3, CORNBASSADOR DAY.

HE MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE AMAZING ENDORSEMENT CONTAINED IN THE KERNEL OF TRUTH THAT HE OFFERED AND THAT HAS REACHED EARS ACROSS THE WORLD.

>> HOW LONG DID HE WORK ON THAT ONE.

>> SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THEY FOUND A NEW TREATMENT FOR THE MOST SEVERE FORM OF SKIN CANCER.

THEY DISCOVERED A WAY TO INHIBIT THE GROWTH ENZYME IN MELANOMA.

AND THIS IS THEORIZED THAT THEY COULD TARGET THIS THROUGH PHARMACY OR DIETARY INTERVENTION.

>> AND LUKE YOUR A.

>> I'LL GO FROM THE SERIOUS TO THE SILLY.

MY A GOES TO THE GARLIC AND HERB FESTIVAL TAKING PLACE THIS WEEKEND IN LITTLE FALLS AFTER A TWO YEAR HIATUS, AS A RESULT OF THE PANDEMIC.

I LIKE THEIR SLOGAN.

EAT, STINK AND BE MERRY.

>> OKAY.

KRISTI, ON YOUR A, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SYRACUSE POPULATION INCREASING AND JUST A NOTE, THE SAME THING HAS HAPPENED RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD IN MY FAVORITE CITY IN UTICA.

>> GOOD.

>> POPULATION HAS GONE UP FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YEARS.

WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.