BUFFALO BILLIONS SHOULD TAXPAYERS FUND A NEW STADIUM?

FALLING APPROVAL RATINGS FOR THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CRISIS AT THE BORDER.

STAY TUNED.

"IVORY TOWER" IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO THE 1,000th EPISODE OF "IVORY TOWER."

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

I'M JOIN BY THIS WEEK'S PANELISTS, BOB SPITZER FROM SUNY CORTLAND, NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA, FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, AND RICK FENNER FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE BUFFALO BILLS LOOK LIKE ONE OF THE NFL'S BETTER FOOTBALL TEAMS THIS YEAR.

SO WHAT BETTER TIME TO ASK THE TAXPAYERS TO BUILD THEM A NEW STADIUM.

THE TEAM IS A WESTERN NY TREASURE, WITH A 50-YEAR OLD STADIUM NOT UP TO PRESENT-DAY NFL STANDARDS.

BUT SHOULD THE PUBLIC FOOT THE BILLION DOLLAR BILL?

RICK FENNER?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THE BILLS WILL GET A NEW STADIUM.

AS FOR WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT, I THINK THE ANSWER IS, IT DEPENDS.

FIRST LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IT DOESN'T DEPEND UPON.

IT DOESN'T DEPEND UPON ECONOMIC GROWTH BECAUSE EVEN PROPONENTS OF PUBLIC SPENDING HAVE DROPPED THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS SOME SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC IMPACT FROM HAVING AN NFL FRANCHISE IN A COMMUNITY.

I ALSO DON'T THINK IT DEPENDS IF THE PEGULAS, THE OWNERS, CAN AFFORD IT BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY ASK CAN AFFORD TO SPEND MONEY ON A NEW STADIUM.

THEY ARE, ACCORDING TO FORBES, THE FOURTH WEALTHIEST OWNERS IN THE NFL.

WHAT IT IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO, DAVID, I THINK IS LEVERAGE.

THE PEGULAS HOLD THE CARDS HERE.

A NUMBER OF OTHER CITIES WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN RELOCATION FROM BUFFALO.

SECOND, I'VE HEARD PEOPLE FROM ALBANY AND OFFICIALS IN WESTERN NEW YORK JUST FALLING ALL OVER THEMSELVES SAYING HOW IMPORTANT BUFFALO IS AND HOW THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS TO KEEP THE TEAM THERE.

IT CERTAINLY IS GOING TO UNDERCUT THEIR NEGOTIATING POWER BUT FINALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE 20 STADIUMS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT OR RENOVATED IN THE NFL SINCE THE YEAR 2000, THERE IS AN INTERESTING PATTERN.

THOSE THAT WERE BUILT IN LARGE CITIES SUCH AS NEW YORK OR FOXBORO NEAR BUFFALO AND WASHINGTON-- BOSTON, I MEAN OR WASHINGTON.

THEY WERE BUILT PRIMARILY WITH PRIVATE FUNDS.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE BUILT IN SMALLER MARKETS, KANSAS CITY, TAMPA BAY, CINCINNATI, YOU WILL FIND THOSE WERE BUILT PRIMARILY WITH PUBLIC FUNDS AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE BUFFALO IS GOING TO FIND ITSELF.

SO IF YOU WERE TO ASK ME, I THINK A NEW STADIUM WILL BE BUILT AND TAXPAYERS WILL END UP PAYING AROUND TWO-THIRDS TO THREE QUARTERS OF THE AMOUNT.

>> THE AMOUNT SCHEDULED THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS $1.4 BILLION.

AND THE IDEA IS THE STATE WOULD KICK IN A BILLION OR 1.1 AND REST PAID BY THE OWNERS.

IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT AND I'M SURE, AS ANY ECONOMIST AS YOU KNOW IN PARTICULAR, ECONOMICALLY, IT IS NOT A BOON FOR JOBS.

IT DOES NOT HAVE THIS MASSIVE ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT PEOPLE HAVE CLAIMED IN THE PAST PERHAPS THEY'RE NOT MAKING THAT CLAIMS NOW.

>> THEY'RE NOT AND IT'S COMING DOWN TO COMMUNITY SPIRIT, NATIONAL RECOGNITION, THOSE QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES THAT ARE-- THEY'RE REAL.

MEASURING THEM IS TOUGH.

I WOULD AGREE PUTTING A PRICE TAG OF A BILLION DOLLARS ON THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF WHAT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE... >> I SEE YOUR POINT.

HOW CAN YOU HAVE BUFFALO WITHOUT THE BILLS?

>> I WENT TO COLLEGE IN WESTERN NEW YORK AND I FOLLOWED THE BILLS BACK IN THE 70s WHEN THEY HAD A RUNNING BACK NAMED O.J.

SIMPSON WHO I THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS AN OKAY GUY.

TURNS OUT I WAS WRONG ABOUT THAT.

SO THERE IS STRONG EMOTIONAL TIES AND SOMETHING ELSE.

OUR GOVERNOR, KATHY HOCHUL WAS AN ERIE COUNTY CLERK.

IMAGINE FOR A MINUTE IF SHE DECIDES NO, THE STATE IS NOT GOING TO PONY UP THE MONEY.

CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW HER BASE IN BUFFALO WOULD FEEL?

SURELY THEY WOULD ACCUSE HER OF STABBING THEM IN THE BACK.

IT'S NOT A SURPRISE THAT SHE IS STRONGLY BEHIND THAT PURELY FOR THE POLITICAL REASON BEHIND THIS.

AND I THINK THE EMOTIONAL DESIRE TO WANT TO KEEP THE BILLS.

THEY HAVE BEEN A GOOD TEAM.

THEY HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1959, AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT SMART ECONOMICALLY, POLITICALLY YOU CAN SEE IT HAPPENING.

>> YEAH, WELL, THE WHOLE EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT DOESN'T CARRY A WHOLE LOT OF WEIGHT FOR ME BECAUSE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PEGULAS HAVE THREATENED TO LEAVE OR AT LEAST THEY'VE THROWN THAT POSSIBILITY OUT THERE.

THAT COULD, OF COURSE, JUST BE A NEGOTIATING TACTIC.

BUT FOR ME, EVEN IF IT IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND MAKES THOSE FOLKS WHO LIVE IN BUFFALO FEEL GOOD, ULTIMATELY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BUSINESS DECISION AND SO LET ME JUST SAY, I HAVE ZERO MESSENGER CREDIBILITY ON THIS STORY BECAUSE I HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUFFALO BILLS ARE A FOOTBALL TEAM.

BUT I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

AND IT SORT OF TIES BACK TO WHAT RICK THREW OUT AND THAT WHAT IS WOULD BE THE IMPACT ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE PROJECTED PROFITABILITY OF THIS PLAN TIED TO THE EXPECTATION OF SOME SORT OF EXPANSION IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY?

IN OTHER WORDS, IS THE PROFITABILITY TIED TO NEW HOTELS, NEW RESTAURANTS, NEW LODGING AND SO FORTH?

THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.

AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I WOULD MENTION, IS WHAT SOURCE OR SORTS OF STIPULATIONS WOULD BE BUILT INTO THE CONTRACT WERE THIS TO HAPPEN?

IN FACT, WILL THERE BE A STIPULATION THAT THE BUFFALO BILLS STAY IN BUFFALO AND FROM MY OWN PERSONAL STANDPOINT, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE WOULD BE A STIPULATION THAT THE BUFFALO BILLS MUST WIN THE SUPER BOWL UNTIL THE STADIUM PAYS FOR ITSELF.

>> THEY MIGHT DO THAT THIS YEAR.

>> I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT THERE AND THERE IS A CONSENSUS NOW THAT THE SINGLE USE LARGE STADIUMS DO NOT REALLY GENERATE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THERE IS A CITY EFFECT THAT YOU ARE TALKING BUT BUT ALSO THE IDEA THAT SMALLER AREFUGEES A, WHICH ARE EMBEDDED IN BROADER KIND OF DEVELOPMENTS MAKE MORE MONEY BECAUSE THEY CAN HOST MORE SHOWS OR MORE EVENTS.

SO THAT IS ANOTHER POSSIBILITY THAT A SINGLE-USE LARGE STADIUM, MAYBE THAT CAN BRING OUT A SMALLER ARENA WITH OTHER MULTIUSE EFFECTS BUILT WITHIN IT.

HONESTLY I THINK ITS LIKE SOCIALIZING THE COST AND PRIVATIZING THE PROFITS.

PERSONALLY I WOULD CALL THE BLUFF ON BUFFALO BILLS.

IF YOU LOVE THE CITY SO MUCH.

STAY IN THE CITY.

YOU CAN'T SAY YOU LOVE THE CITY AND THEN SAY YOU WANT TO LEAVE.

>> WHAT DOES THE COUNTY DO WITH THE EXISTING STADIUM?

THAT STADIUM IS ALMOST UNUSED EXCEPT FOR THE BUFFALO BILLS.

RIGHT NOW THEY'RE GETTING RENT FROM THE BUFFALO BILLS, AT LEAST ENOUGH TO COVER MAINTENANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

YOU NOT ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE COSTS GOING FORWARD BUT IF THE BILLS DO PULL OUT, WHAT REVENUE STREAMS WILL BE LOST?

>> THE CURRENT STADIUM IS OWNED BY THE COUNTY.

>> COUNTY, YES, AND HERE'S THE BIG ISSUE BETWEEN WHY OWNERS IN LARGE CITIES ARE WILLING TO OWN THE STADIUMS AND NOT WILLING IN SMALL MARKETS.

IF YOU LOOK AT NEW YORK, MET LIFE, FOXBORO, THEY'RE USED FOR MANY THINGS OTHER THAN NFL FOOTBALL GAMES.

FOXBORO, THEY HAVE MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER TEAM AND THE LIKE.

BUT IF YOU GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT WHAT HIGH MARK STADIUM HAS BEEN USED FOR OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS WHEN THE BILLS ARE NOT PLAYING.

HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS, DRUM AND BUGLE CORPS.

THINGS THAT ARE NOT BRINGING IN REVENUE.

SO THE OWNERS OF THE BILLS ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE ERIE COUNTY OWN THE FACILITY, PAY RENT FOR THE FEW WEEKS THAT THEY'RE USING IT AND LET SOMEONE ELSE HOLD THE BILL.

>> NOW THE SUPREME COURT BEGAN ITS NEW TERM THIS WEEK WITH SOME OF OUR MOST DIVISIVE ISSUES ON THE DOCKET.

FOUR OF THE JUSTICES RECENTLY WENT PUBLIC DEFENDING THE COURT AGAINST CHARGES OF PARTISANSHIP.

THEY INSIST JUSTICES FOLLOW LEGAL PRINCIPLE AND NOT IDEOLOGICAL PREFERENCE.

AS THE COURT WADES INTO HIGH PROFILE CASES, ITS APPROVAL RATING HAS FALLEN SHARPLY.

HAS THE COURT BECOME JUST ANOTHER POLITICAL BRANCH?

IS THE PUBLIC APPROVAL RATING, NINA, A CONCERN FOR THE RULE OF LAW?

>> NO,I WOULD SAY THAT PUBLIC APPROVAL RATING IS NOT A CONCERN FOR THE RULE OF LAW BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK OVER THE HISTORY OF THE COURT, THE PUBLIC SUPPORT HAS ALWAYS SORT OF GONE UP AND GONE DOWN, DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE POLITICS AT THE TIME.

AND TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT IS A POLITICAL BRANCH, I'D SAY YEAH, THERE IS MORE PROOF THE POLITICAL BRANCH YOU CAN SHAKE A STICK AT.

THIS IS NOT A RECENT PHENOMENON.

THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.

LET ME JUST OFFER YOU THIS AND SAY THAT ALMOST ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE COURTS, THE MOST BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE COURT CAN PREDICT WITH RELATIVELY CERTAINTY THIS: THAT JUSTICES THOMAS AND ALITO WILL VOTE DIFFERENTLY THAN JUSTICES KAGAN AND SOTOMAYOR ON ABORTION AND OTHER HOT BUTTON ISSUES WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE CASE INVOLVED, THE LEGAL QUESTIONS AND SO FORTH, ALL SORTS EVER ANECDOTES BUT THERE IS A PRETTY WELL ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL POLITICS LITERATURE THAT SHOWS THAT WHEN YOU SORT OF SET UP THE METHODOLOGY IN A SOPHISTICATED WAY, WE SEE THAT JUDGES FOLLOW THEIR PREFERENCE MORE SO THAN PRECEDENT.

AND THEN BEYOND THAT, THERE ARE VERY SOPHISTICATED STATISTICAL CORE CORRELATIONS THAT SHOW A TIE BETWEEN HOW JUDGES VOTE AND ALSO WHAT WE CALL THEIR IDEOLOGY SCORES, TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY ARE POLITICAL OR WHETHER THE COURT IS POLITICAL?

ABSOLUTELY.

LET ME JUST SAY HERE'S WHY.

BECAUSE THE FRAMERS SORT OF SET THINGS UP THAT WAY SO THAT SURE, THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO ELECTIONS; HOWEVER, THEY'RE NOMINATED AND CONFIRMED BY POLITICAL BRANCHES AND THE POLITICS OF THOSE BRANCHES FILTER THROUGH.

>> THE CONSERVATIVE COURT IS THE PRODUCT OR THE CURRENT COURT IS THE PRODUCT OF A LONG-TIME CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT TO, YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL SOCIETY AND ALL THAT.

IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 50 YEARS.

>> THAT IS TRUE.

AND TO ME, THAT'S KIND OF THE PIVOTAL ISSUE RIGHT NOW.

NINA IS EXACTLY CORRECT ON HER DIAGNOSIS ON HOW JUDGES TEND TO BEHAVE.

BUT WE ARE SEEING THE FRUITION OF A MOVEMENT THAT BEGAN IN THE 1980s DURING THE REAGAN ERA OF A NEW ORIGINALISM.

AND THEY TALK, THESE CONSERVATIVES ON THE COURT AND THE FEDERAL COURTS IN RECENT YEARS ABOUT ADHERING TO ORIGINALISM.

MEANING THEY LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL TEXT, AT THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 18th CENTURY AND USE THAT AS THEIR GUIDE.

AND IN THE ABSTRACT, IT DOES SOUND LIKE A SENSIBLE AND NARROWLY FOCUSED WAY TO LOOK AT THE LAW.

BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A BIG SHELL GAME.

FIRST, BECAUSE THEY'RE TERRIBLE AT DOING THE HISTORICAL WORK.

WHAT YOU FIND IS THAT WHEN JUDGES, THESE JUDGES TOO FREQUENTLY REACH BACK AND SAY WELL THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL MEANING AND THEREFORE WE ARE RULING ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROVIDES A PERSONAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN, AS THEY RULED IN 2008, BASED ON AN ORIGINALIST HISTORICAL ARGUMENT, THEIR HISTORY WAS ALL WRONG IT WAS AN ACCURATE READING OF HISTORY ONLY IF YOU WERE STANDING ON YOUR HEAD AT THE TIME.

AND VIRTUALLY EVERY REPUTABLE HISTORIAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORIANIAN OF THE TIME WOULD TELL YOU SO.

IT'S A DODGE AND THAT'S WHAT I FIND PROFOUNDING UPSETTING AND DISTURBING.

SHOULD JUDGES LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL MEANING?

OF COURSE THEY SHOULD BUT THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT THE ORIGINALISM NOTION ASSUMES NOTHING HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST 230 YEARS.

230 YEARS AGO WE WERE SMALL, AGRARIAN, AATLANTAIC COAST HUGGING NATION.

TODAY WE ARE A INDUSTRIAL AND POST INDUSTRIAL GIANT.

THE NATION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

IF YOU DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE LAST 230 YEARS, IT'S NOT A SENSIBLE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THE LAW.

>> I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS, BOB, BECAUSE THE WHOLE IDEA OF HOW TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION, WHETHER THROUGH THE LENS OF ORIGINALISM OR THE LIVING DOCUMENT FRAMEWORK, THAT GOES BACK TO THE 19 40S AND I COULD POINT OUT JUST AS MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE IDEA THAT YOU INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION IN LIGHT OF CHANGING TIMES.

WHICH PARTS OF THE CHANGING TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO FOCUS ON?

WHICH ARE MORE PROMINENT?

AND ARE YOU, IN FACT, GETTING IT RIGHT?

AND IF YOU GO THAT ROUTE, WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION MEAN IF IT MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR EVERY GENERATION?

>> I WOULD AGREE.

I THINK YOU NEED TO MARRY THOSE TWO IN A SENSIBLE WAY.

>> YOU SAID THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME AND I AGREE.

I REMEMBER WHEN CONSERVATIVES WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT ACTIVIST JUDGES AND HOW LIBERAL JUDGES ON THE COURT WERE, YOU KNOW, INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS... >> THE LAW, MAKING LAW.

THEY WERE MAKING LAW IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS.

SO I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT,THE POLITICAL VIEW OF THE COURTS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AROUND.

WHAT CHANGES IS WHO HAS THE MAJORITY AND RIGHT NOW IT'S CONSERVATIVES HAVE THE MAJORITY AND PART OF THAT IS LIBERALS HAVE HURT THEMSELVES.

I MEAN WE HAVE RUTH BADER GINSBURG WHO COULD HAVE RESIGNED AND CHOSE NOT AND WHEN REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITIES-- >> SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE THE SUPREME COURT IS A POLITICAL INSTITUTION BUT OPAQUE.

BUT ONE DISTURBING TREND THAT MANY LEGAL EXPERTS ARE OBSERVING IS THAT THE SLEEFNGING SHRINKING OF THE MARRIAGE CASES AND SHADOW DOCKET WHERE THE EMERGENCY UNSIGNED ORDERS ARE COMING OUT SO STEVEN VLADIC GAVE EMOTIONAL TESTIMONY SAYING SUPREME COURT SHOULD SHOW THEIR WORK AND THERE IS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT WE ARE GETTING THESE UNSIGNED HALF A PAGE, TWO PAGE DECISIONS ON HIGHLY POLITICALLY DIVISIVE ISSUES AND THAT'S NOT OKAY.

AND ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS WHEN ARE THE CONGRESS CAN COMPEL THE SUPREME COURT TO ACTUALLY SIGN THE DECISIONS, OR EVEN WRITE TO THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE LARGER DECISIONS ON THESE THINGS.

THAT'S A DISTURBING TREND BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HEARD THE LOWEST NUMBER OF MERIT CASES SINCE 2019.

>> WE MAY NOT HAVE A WALL, BUT WE STILL HAVE AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM AND IT'S GETTING WORSE.

HERE EGOS AN AN ATTENTION GETTING STATISTIC.

IF ALL THE MIGRANTS INTERCEPTED AT THE BORDER THE FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR LIVED IN A CITY, IT WOULD BE THE TENTH LARGEST IN THE COUNTRY.

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HAITIANS ARE REPORTEDLY EN ROUTE TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER AFTER 15,000 OTHERS WERE CLEARED FROM A MAKE SHIFT CAMP IN DEL RIO TEXAS.

IF YOU ARE SITTING IN THE WHITE HOUSE ADVISING THE PRESIDENT, WHAT ON EARTH SHOULD WE DO?

>> BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS IN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION.

FIRST, THE U.S. HAS INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE 1951 REFUGEE CONVENTION, THE U.N. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE, TO ALLOW ASYLUM.

NOW THERE ARE TWO THINGS HAPPENING HERE.

ONE IS THE TITLE 42.

WHICH IS KIND OF THIS REGRESSIVE KIND OF HEALTH CODE THAT IS NOW USED AS A SHORT CIRCUIT FOR SENDING IMMIGRANTS TO MEXICO AND HAVING THEM STAY THERE UNDER HORRIBLE CONDITIONS.

NOW TO BE FAIR, THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO OVERTURN IT BUT THE SUPREME COURT, AGAIN, TALKING OF UNSIGNED ORDERS, GAVE THIS HALF PAGE ORDER SAYING THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO REINSTATE THE TRUMP ERA POLICY, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF STAY IN MEXICO AND THE TITLE 42 IS LIKE STRAIGHT UP DEPORTING THEM WITHOUT GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO, YOU KNOW, APPLY FOR ASYLUM.

SO THERE IS TWO THINGS GOING ON WITH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND, YOU KNOW, HIS OWN PARTY, YOU KNOW, DANIEL AND HAROLD COULTER RESIGNED BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT IS HANDLED.

WE SEE THE BORDER SECURITY AND EVERYBODY IS WHIPPING MIGRANTS, THAT WAS A TERRIBLE OPTIC, SIMILARLY TERRIBLE AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STAGING IMMIGRANTS.

I THINK THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SHOULD LISTEN TO THE PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS OF THE PARTY AND MAXINE WATERS BUT ALSO HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO BASICALLY MAKE THE BORDER PATROL AGENTS ACCOUNTABLE.

BASICALLY BORDER PATROL HAS BEEN OPERATING WITHOUT IMMUNITY IMPUNITY FOR A LONG TIME.

>> I HAVE SOLVED THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, YOU WILL BE HAPPY TO HEAR.

I'VE GOT A FIVE POINT-- NOT QUITE AS IN THE MIDDLE AS YOU SUGGESTED.

I THINK A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP HAS TO BE PROVIDED FOR THOSE WHO ARE HERE.

DREAMERS, THEIR PARENTS PERHAPS AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE A NUMBER OF YEARS AND DON'T QUALIFY THERE.

SECONDLY, AMEND THE 1965 IMMIGRATION ACT SO THAT IT IS NOT BASED PRIMARILY ON FAMILY TIES BUT INSTEAD ON THE KINDS OF SKILL SETS THAT THE U.S.

NEEDS BUT BECAUSE OF THE SOURCE COUNTRIES AND SETTING ASIDE RACIST ELEMENTS, YEAH.

>> YOU MIGHT HAVE A FIVE POINT PLAN BUT IT WILL NEVER GET THROUGH CONGRESS.

>> I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE PARTS OF THESE WERE IN FACT INCLUDED AND AS TO THE PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP, A CLEAR MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT THAT INCLUDING BOTH THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS REPUBLICANS AND I THINK IT WAS A GANG OF EIGHT THAT INCLUDED SOME OF THESE-- >> AND THERE WAS-- THE DEMOCRATS HAD PUT ON THE TABLE DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WE'LL GIVE YOU THE MONEY FOR THE WALL IF WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE DREAMERS.

>> RIGHT, RIGHT.

>> AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DECIDED NOT TO... >> BUT LET ME FINISH BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE MULTI-PACKAGE AND I WILL DO THIS QUICKLY.

THIS IS WHERE I DISAGREE WITH AN ANIRBAN.

THERE HAS TO BE DETERRENTS FOR MORE COMING OVER AND DEPORTATION HAS TO BE PART OF THAT BUT TO MAKE SURE IT IS DONE IN A FAIR FASHION, WE FEED MORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES.

RIGHT NOW THERE IS A BACKLOG AND THEY'RE ALSO RUN BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SO IT'S POLITICAL.

AND HERE I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING THAT MIGHT RUFFLE SOME FEATHERS.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE FASHION.

I WAS REALLY PISSED WHEN I DIDN'T SEE LIBERALS AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES PULL OUT THEIR VIOLINS AND PLAY THE SAD SONG FOR HAITIANS WHO WERE ESCAPING DIRE SITUATIONS IN THE SAME WAY THAT OTHERS, WHO WERE BEING VANGTED FOR COMING ADVOCATED FOR COMING FROM GANG AND VIOLENCE INFESTED COUNTRIES.

>> BIDEN IS BETWEEN AND ROCK AND A HARD PLACE, TO MENTION THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE ICE.

THEY'RE A SEMI-ROGUE AGENCY THESE DAYS.

FOR FOUR YEARS OF THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY, HE GAVE THEM A COMPLETE GREEN LIGHT TO ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY, WHICH THEY DID.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL TO CONGRESS.

THEY DID IT LAST MONTH.

BUT IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS BEING BY THE PARLIAMENTARIAN AS ONE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED THROUGH RECONCILIATION SO IT WILL HAVE TO CONFRONT THE FLUB FILIBUSTER AND THAT LEGISLATION IS GOING TO BE DEAD BECAUSE IT'S NOT HIGH ENOUGH IN THE PECKING ORTD TO GET TO IT AND THERE ARE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS THAT BIDEN CAN'T GET AROUND.

WHEN HE BECAME PRESIDENT, THE WORD WENT OUT TO IMMIGRANTS, BIDEN IS PRESIDENT, YOU CAN GET IN NOW AND IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT WAY.

>> BIDEN IS PRESIDENT OR NOT THERE IS GOING TO BE AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PEOPLE TRYING TO ESCAPE PROBLEMS SOUTH OF THE BORDER WITH CLIMATE.

AND THEY'RE COMING THIS WAY.

>> AND THEY ARE HERE AND SO I THINK NINA'S PROPOSALS MAKE A LOT OF SENSE BUT THEY'RE LONG-TERM.

THEY DEAL WITH THE LONGER TERM.

WE'VE GOT A CRISIS RIGHT NOW WHERE WE ARE NOT PROVIDING ENOUGH, I THINK, RESOURCES JUST IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH THE PERMITS AND THE PAPERWORK OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE AT THE BORDER OR HAVE BEEN OKAY TO GET INTO THE UNITED STATES.

PART OF THAT IS AGAIN BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS THAT STARTED IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

BUT I THINK THEY'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT ARE HAPPENING TODAY, AS WELL AS REASONABLE REFORMS SO THAT WE HAVE A LOGICAL IMMIGRATION POLICY GOING FORWARD.

>> THAT'S THE IMMIGRATION JUDGES.

THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE PEOPLE PILED UP BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BEING PROCESSED.

>> AGAIN, THE UNITED STATES HAS OBLIGATIONS TO PROCESS ASYLUM SEEKERS.

THE HAITIANS, IT IS THE MOSTLY LEGAL WAY TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES.

NONE OF THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO ENTER ILLEGALLY.

>> IT IS UNDER AMERICAN LAW.

>> AND THE U.S. HAS OBLIGATIONS OTHERWISE U.S. HAS TO SCRAP THE TREATIES THEY HAVE.

>> AS AND FS NOW.

>> F TO ELISE STEFANIK AND CLAUDIA TENNEY, BOTH SENT OUT TWEETS THIS WEEK THAT SAID WHACKY STUFF, SAME THEME.

STEFANIK WAS HOW JOE BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATS STOLE CHRISTMAS.

FIRE FAUCI FIRE PELOSI, FIRE BIDEN, SAVE CHRISTMAS.

CLAUDIA TENNEY SAID I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM BIDEN AND FAUCI THAT REGARDLESS WHAT THEY SAY, AMERICANS ARE CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS.

THESE WOMEN WERE NOT ELECTED TO CONGRESS TO DEFEND ABSURD FICTIONAL IDEAS.

>> A MUSEUM IN DENMARK GAVE AN ARTIST $85,000 TO CREATE A WORK OF ART.

WHEN HE DELIVERED THE FINISHED WORK, HE DELIVERED TWO BLANK CANVASES AND SAID THEY WERE TITLED "TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN" WHICH IS APPARENTLY WHAT HE DID.

>> GOOD WORK.

>> ANIRBAN?

>> MY F GOES TO THE SHADY AND SHADOWING SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY THAT WE CALL FACEBOOK.

THERE IS A RING TO THAT.

AND YES SURPRISINGLY FACEBOOK HAD KNOWINGLY ADOPTED POLICIES THAT HAVE FUELED VIOLENCE, DIFFICULT DISSEMINATED LIES AND WORSENED MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS AMONG CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS.

NOT JUST HERE IN THE U.S.

BUT AROUND THE WORLD.

SO MAYBE BRING OUT THE DISLIKE BUTTON.

>> OKAY.

THE DISLIKE BUTTON.

RICK.

>> MY F TO CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS.

INSTEAD OF QUICKLY PASSING THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL AND USING THAT MOMENTUM TO HELP SUPPORT BIDEN'S PLANS TO EXPAND SPENDING ON HEALTHCARE, CLIMATE CONTROL AND THE LIKE, LEFT AND RIGHT WINGS OF THE PARTY ARE HOLDING EACH OTHER HOSTAGE AND MAY DEAL PRESIDENT BIDEN A STUNNING DEFEAT AT A TIME WHEN HIS POPULARITY NUMBERS ARE FALLING.

>> OKAY.

AND As BOB.

>> I'M GIVING AN A TO FEDERAL JUDGE ROBERT PITMAN WHO ORDERED A TEMPORARY HALT TO THE NEW TEXAS ANTI-BORINGS LAW.

MOST SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE OF HIS BLISTERING 100 PLUS PAGE COMMENT ABOUT WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE TEXAS LAW.

HE RIPPED OFF THE SHEEP'S COVERING AND EXPOSED IT FOR THE NAKED ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN ROE THAT IT IS.

>> NINA.

>> MALARIA KILLS ABOUT A HALF MILLION PEOPLE EACH YEAR.

HALF OF THEM CHILDREN IN AFRICA.

ON WEDNESDAY, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ENDORSED THE FIRST EVER VACCINE FOR MALARIA.

"THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTS THAT EACH YEAR THE VACCINE COULD PREVENT 5.5 MILLION CASES OF MALARIA AND SAVE THE LIVES OF SOME 23,000 CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN FIVE YEARS OLD.

>> ANIRBAN?

>> MY A GOES TO DIE JIM CROW RECORDS FROM NEW YORK CITY.

OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED AS THE FIRST NON-PROFITER RECORD LABEL FOR FORMERLY AND CURRENTLY INCARCERATED PEOPLE IN THE U.S.

THE RECORDS RELEASE IS AN ALBUM BY FORMER AND PRESENT INMATES OF THE COLORADO TERRITORIAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.

IT IS CALLED TAX TAX, WHICH MEANS CALLING THE SPIRIT TLAXIHUIQUI AND IT IS REFRESHING AND WONDERFUL WORK.

>> MY A GOES TO DAVID BROOKS, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST FOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES" FOR HIS COLUMN "THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO SPEND $4 TRILLION" THE MOST ARTICULATE AND THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION, DEFENSE OF BIDEN'S INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOCIAL BILLS.

BROOKS BELIEVES BOTH PARTIES HAVE BECOMEY ELITISTS AND ABANDONED THE WORKING CLASS AND FEELS BIDEN'S PLANS WOULD REDISTRIBUTE NOT ONLY DOLLARS BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY DIGNITY DOWNWARD.

I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS REQUIRED READING FOR THOSE THAT I JUST GAVE AN F TO A COUPLE MINUTES AGO.

>> AND NINA, YOUR A, THE VACCINE FOR MALARIA, THAT SHOULD BE THE LEAD STORY, BIG HEADLINES ACROSS EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS, YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVE DAVID CHANATRY AND FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.