Sunday School 9/18/22

We're talking immigration this week, starting with your Sunday School and ABC's This Week classroom. Jon Karl was in the host's chair, and talked first with Oscar Leeser, El Paso's mayor. 

Karl asked him to describe what's happening in his city, with 1300 migrants a day arriving there. Leeser said it's more than that - north of 1500, nearly 2000 in recent days and some 80% are Venezuelans. 

Leeser said he's got a good working relationship with the Border Patrol, and that

our goal, and it will continue to be our goal, is never to drop anybody off in the streets of El Paso and make sure that no one’s homeless, no one’s hungry. So, we have our NGOs, which is non-governmental organizations that really have opened up their doors and we’ve gotten hotels. And in the last few days we’ve not had any people released into the streets of El Paso...

Karl asked Leeser to explain what he does when he arranges for migrants to move north, which is different than what Gov. Greg Abbott is doing by dropping them in front of the Vice President's residence. 

Leeser made a great point in his response.

...if you look at -- the people are not coming to El Paso, they're coming to America, and that's something that's really important.

While (in my words, not the mayor's), Abbott shoves people on a bus and sends them to a political target, Leeser and NGOs in El Paso try to get them where they want to go, where they have people they know. In the past, around 95% of asylum seekers and migrants had sponsors - family or friends who have arranged transportation, and who are waiting for the person to arrive. And now?

So, we have about 50% of the people today that do not have a sponsor, they don’t have money. So, we're helping and working to get them to where they want to go. So, that's been really important that we don't send anyone where they don't want to go. We make sure we help them and we put human beings and, you know, and we put them on buses with food and make sure they get to their destination where -- and make sure that we always continue to treat people like human beings.

NYC Eric Adams was up next; I'll have a longer interview with him in your Extra Credit, so I'll keep his remarks here brief. Adams said he's been working with New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as with the Biden administration, 

to talk about how do we coordinate and their goal is to make sure that we get the resources and the coordination that’s needed, as the mayor of El Paso stated. These migrants and asylum seekers are not coming to any particular city. They're coming to America. This is an American crisis that we need to face, the humanitarian crisis that were made by human hands by some of the governors in our southern states.

He said there's no coordination with the childish governors Abbott and now DeSantis. He reached out to Abbott and his team, asking for coordination but that's not what they got.

They took the call and stated that they would coordinate... and they did not coordinate at all because I don’t think it was politically expedient for them to coordinate. It was more to do this basically political gamesmanship that you're seeing now.

And, finally, he's committed to New York City remaining a sanctuary city, echoing Mayor Leeser's thoughts.

Let's be clear here, we've all come from somewhere. Our lineage came from a location and the pursuit of the American dream is what we’ve all fought for... And I will always believe that this is a country where people want to pursue the American dream, and there are ways it can be done correctly.

So, having heard from a sender, and a receiver, it's time to hear from the panel: Marc Short, former chief of staff to VP Mike Pence; former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp; Mariana Sotomayor (WaPo), and Alex Burns (Politico). Here are a few highlights.

• Heitkamp said that the 'stunts' perpetrated by Abbott and DeSantis aren't working. She also said that some of what's happening now was predictable, and there was a "lack of preparation" which she blames on both the current and previous administrations. She also said there's a difference between how we treat Cubans and Venezuelans, even though both are "fleeing the same kind of dictatorial, communist regime. And finally, Biden should sit down with Abbott and DeSantis now and figure something out.

• Short said none of this was happening under the previous administration because it "actually secured the border." He also talked about the "hypocrisy and...in many cases, fake outrage" by folks on the left and in the media. And, he said, migrants in Florida aren't walking there themselves, the Biden administration is flying them in - and it's not just Florida. How's that OK, he asked, but it's wrong for governors to ship them to "one of the wealthiest communities in America..."

• Sotomayor said there doesn't seem to be much of a strategy from the administration or from Capitol Hill. It might be a topic this week, what with the Martha's Vineyard shenanigans, but this close to the midterms, no one's apt to want to talk about it, other than the Rs - but they're not talking about legislative solutions; they've "tried and tried and tried again and there's just no discussion right now about whether to actually engage in any changes."

• Burns said the governors are "playing to gallery on the right in their own parties and in their own states, ahead of re-election votes that both of them are highly, highly likely to prevail in and then, maybe, turn around and run for president." He said that we have a "generational, bipartisan policy failure" on immigration, but Abbott and DeSantis aren't doing anything that serious from a policy perspective.

• Karl noted that "the administration is not putting forward anything" either.

I agree with Jon Karl on that point, the Vice President's comments last week about our "secure" border notwithstanding.

I'll close with perhaps the oddest comment from the classroom, which came from Marc Short, who said

... if we were really concerned about the humanitarian crisis, Jon, then actually what we would be doing is we'd be stopping the crisis at the border, where there's 200,000 migrants every month. And they estimate 50 percent of the young women are either raped or sexually molested making that long journey from Peru and Colombia up there. If we actually had a policy in place that returned migrants to Mexico while they waited for their asylum appeals, as happened in the Trump-Pence administration, you wouldn't have the same humanitarian crisis we have today.

What on earth is he trying to say here? That the women who are raped or sexually assaulted on the way here would be better off if they were kept in Mexico? Or is it that he couldn't care less about what happens to them on the trip, as long as we don't get stuck with them?

Pretty sure we all know the answer to that question.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 6/5/22: Extra Credit

I'm switching gears from your Sunday School lesson on people trying to do something about gun murders, to people trying to do something about the January 6th insurrection... let's dive into this week's Extra Credit.

Jake Tapper had former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) in the State of the Union classroom. He worked as an advisor to the House January 6th Committee for several months, leaving at the end of April to focus on helping Ukraine.

Before we get into his interview, the Committee is unhappy with Riggleman's appearances on CNN, as Politico noted last Friday. After one interview last week, the Committee's staff director sent an email regarding an "unauthorized" interview. Per the article, the email said Riggleman's appearance was "in direct contravention to his employment agreement."  And, of course, Riggleman "sharply disagreed" with that portrayal.

So, in the interest of not piling on to the Committee's dismay, I'll limit my excerpts to Riggleman's exuberance and personal opinions, and omit anything that could be remotely sensitive.

He said that the hearings are "going to be very concise," and "very exciting," and

...I think people are going to be absolutely surprised how much was known... And I think that's what's going to be exciting to see the committee. There's some very talented investigators behind the doors, and even with our teams and things like that and what they found, but, again, the investigators going through the thousands of interviews that they have and all the data and the videos.

I think -- I do think they're going to be very successful in those six -- I think in those six hearings.

And, he has hopes for the rest of us.

... the American people have to look at this from the beginning, take their notes, and understand that the committee has to build a case in a very solid, facts-based way. There's not going to be a lot of partisan whining or screaming. The investigators behind the door are nonpartisan individuals. They're going to present this case in a very cogent way. But the American people need to -- they need to take notes.

Tapper pressed on whether there's some kind of orange-haired smoking gun here. The only part I can comfortably repeat is that Riggleman said there were multiple groups looking at more data than he'd ever seen before - "it's absolutely incredible" - and that the Committee has to put it all together and that's what makes it exciting, and the "talent behind the door" made all of this possible, or something.

He agrees with Rep. Liz Cheney (R- stands for Real Republican) that the GOP has become a personality cult, not a party, and said he doesn't consider himself a Republican anymore. What he saw during his time with the Committee

has even pushed me further away, that the party has moved away from conservative principles to this cult of personality that Liz Cheney is talking about. She's absolutely correct. And when you see it behind the door... it's absolutely stunning, that cult of personality, but also the belief systems, that I don't think any real conservative could follow at any point. It's absolutely insane what people have sort of put their arms around. 

I can't agree more with that assessment, even without peeking behind the door. 

Down the hall, Margaret Brennan spoke with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Face the Nation. Schiff, you'll recall, was involved in both Trump impeachments, and is a member of the January 6th Committee. 

On the DOJ not charging Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Schiff said it is "very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two" the DOJ decided to prosecute (Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro). 

These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6th, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it's a, I think, a grave disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can likewise refuse to show up with impunity.

He also said there's plenty of stuff they could have testified about that wouldn't come close to executive privilege - things about the campaign, relevant documents and the like.

None of which is protected by privilege. And the idea that you can simply refuse to show up, rather than show up and say, as to this question I'm going to assert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country in other courtrooms. And I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

Schiff said he wouldn't comment on any specific witnesses or testimony, but did say

...one of the themes that we will be fleshing out is the fact that in advance of the 6th, that there was an understanding of the propensity for violence that day, of the participation of white nationalist groups, of the effect that the continued propagation of his big lie to rile up the country and rile up the president's base was likely to lead to violence. 

Sunday School 9/20/20 Extra Credit

We'll wander around the halls for a couple more classroom visits for you Extra Credit this week, starting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who popped in the This Week classroom with George Stephanopoulos.

First, here's how the Speaker remembers Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "petite, tiny in size, huge in impact, and powerful, brilliant brain on the court." And, she moved quickly to what's at stake.

...she would want us to keep our eye on the ball of the 200,000 people who will be, probably this weekend, will reach -- sadly reach that number. This challenge that we have is directly -- if the president thinks this isn't about the coronavirus, it is. It's about health care. So the president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because he -- November 10th is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act. He doesn't want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.

She said that "any one of us who knew her, who loved her, who respected her" mourn her loss but understand the need to move forward to protect people who are sick, and who have pre-existing conditions.

George asked how Dems can slow or block the nomination. Pelosi focused on voting, noting that 10 states have already started early voting

We just want everyone across the country who cares about health care for all Americans, who cares about crushing the coronavirus, who cares about a woman's right to choose, who cares about LGBTQ rights -- the list goes on and on -- to vote. The election is very important.

Pelosi also pointed out that Congress does have the ability to make good law from bad SCOTUS decisions, and referenced RBG's dissent in the Lilly Ledbetter case which became the first law that Barack Obama signed as president, and that's another reason why people need to vote, "why we have to have a big turnout" in the election. 

She also said she was not interested in shutting down the government, which would have "such a harmful and painful impact on so many people in our country," even as she noted "some enthusiasm, some exuberance on the left" - but that's not going to happen.  

George asked if Trump and the GOP Senators try a lame-duck session nomination, even if Biden wins, should the Dems impeach Trump or Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, "as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting' on Trump's pick?"

Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made. So right now, our main goal and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be, would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus... 

So again, when people say, "what can I do?" You can vote. You can get out that vote, and you can do so as soon as possible. Ten states, as I said, on Friday, started their early voting, the day that we lost Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

George then said, "but to be clear, you're not taking any arrows out of your quiver, you're not ruling anything out?" 

Yeah. We have a responsibility. We've taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. That is when we weigh the equities of protecting democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver. 

I don't know about you, but by this point in the interview, I was quivering myself at the thought of all those arrows flying around, I really was. Quivering, and quaking, and probably some other 'q' words... 

Not ready to quit trying to quapture stuff from the quiver, George asked about "expanding the court in retaliation," which has been mentioned as a possible reaction by other Dems. 

Well, let's just win the election. Let's hope that the president will see the light...So people have something at stake in this decision, and how quickly the president wants to go. I don't think they care about who said what, when, and all the rest of that, but they do care about their own health and well-being and the financial health and well-being of their families if they are subjected to unlimited costs because of preexisting conditions, as well as eliminating the caps that have been placed by the Affordable Care Act on what insurance companies can charge.

...We have a great deal at stake here. I think we should be very calm. We should be inspired by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was brilliant, and she was strategic, and she was successful. And she did more for equality for women in our country than anyone that you can name, and women appreciate that, and I think that you will see women weighing in on all of these decisions, be the elections, confirmations or the rest.