Welcome And Format Shift

SPEAKER_02 0:26

Yeah. You guys like that sound of that studio audience every single time. Hey, welcome back to Theology in Pieces, uh, where we hope to rebuild your theology that the church, the world, or somebody has shattered to pieces, and we are your host, Slim Ann. And Malcolm. Um, oh, that's right. Malcolm's not here today. Um, because today we have a little bit of a different podcast. Usually Malcolm and I are here together, uh, working through some theological questions or cultural controversies or something happening in the world. Um, what it what it means to follow Jesus in the middle of it all. But today it's just me because today I'm actually just doing a setup for to share uh a podcast episode uh from another podcast um where I actually had a debate. Yes, it was a brutal fight, uh, between uh myself and Dr. Stuart Riley, English professor, on another podcast. Uh and the my argument of why I think that we have the least compassionate, the least practical and the least Christian version of a government policy towards immigration.

College Football Loyalty And Identity

SPEAKER_02 1:33

Uh but before we talk about that, I want to talk about college football. Do you want to talk about college football? Is that why you came to this podcast? Uh no, I don't want to talk about it per se. There's a lot to to mourn with the state of college football and uh uh and NIL deals uh and things like that, and how quickly people can change. Um that that is something to be um to be mourned. Um but uh I want to talk about college football and the the loyalty that we have to it. Uh we are in the middle of a college football season, which means every Saturday millions and millions of people are gathered around their TVs, uh wearing their team colors, talking trash about their rivals, experiencing the emotional highs that we all experience if we love this sport, and the lows that are completely disproportionate to what's actually matters in life. Um and I say this as someone who understands the appeal. Uh, I'm there. Thankfully, my my Texas ain't Maggie's have have rid me of my idol of college football to say, you know, it's not gonna be your year this year. So I've been I've been freed. Thank you. Thank you for sucking so bad. Um but I understand the appeal and I understand the the loyalty you have to your program when it's your team and you hear during the offseason that some of your players um got busted for drugs, that some of your players uh got arrested for speeding or duis, we go, hmm, okay. Not you know, small, you know, small potatoes. But when it's the other team, that is an example of how horribly run that department is, how horrible this coach is, how horrible that that state is. Um, and so I think college football is a great example of how we can become so identified with a team that we start to see everything through the lens of us versus them. My team is good, your team is bad. My team got robbed by the refs, your team has been snorting cocaine in juicing, it's illegal. When my team wins, it proves something about us, about our heart. When your team loses, it proves something about you. And the thing is, we don't just watch the games, uh, we become emotionally invested in defending our team. We reinterpret all the evidence in our favor. We give our team the benefit of the doubt, and we assume the worst about the other team. And eventually it doesn't actually matter what happened on the field. What matters is that our side won. Now, here's the question I want

College Football Christianity Explained

SPEAKER_02 4:24

to ask. What if we started doing the same thing with our Christianity? Uh I think last episode I called this phenomenon Jersey Christianity. Um, but I think that confused some people and they think like new New Jersey Christianity? Uh what what what's distinct about that? And so I I'm not talking about New Jersey, I'm talking about the jerseys we wear. And so I think a better term, maybe that hopefully will communicate this truth clearer, is college football Christianity. In college football Christianity, it's when we wear our faith like a jersey. It's a marker of our identity. It tells everyone which team we're on, and it tells who belongs with us and who doesn't. It's not enough to wear our team's jersey, we have to beat the other team. And when human beings are lumped together as the other, as the team to beat, then they are your adversaries. We are not in this together. We actually don't want each other to do well. I I personally have never rooted for LSU. I can't stand them. They they they they they cheat. They're they they're they're the worst, right? This is how we see um other football programs, but we do this as Christians if you are not wearing my political jersey now. When we do that with politics, which has a far greater impact on our lives, then we are in danger of missing the Imago Day in the other. Which is why um there was this wild interview that just came out recently that that sh I think has shocked

Loving Opponents Before Voting Day

SPEAKER_02 6:05

a lot of people. Like this is really strange to hear from a US Senate candidate talking about his opponent, and already you you you you you can already hear what that's probably gonna about to happen. You're you're probably about to hear one candidate say the other candidate is is demonic, is um uh you know, is they're gonna they're they need to go through metal detectors because of the this is Islamophobia around Abdul Syed. Um you can hear that, but that's not that that is the norm. It's to see the other side in the worst possible light. And so when James Talarico was asked the question, um, do you love Ken Paxton? His answer just was I mean, it was shocking. Here's what he says.

SPEAKER_00 6:51

Ken Paxton is your Yes. I guess he's your sort of adversary. Um running against. Yes. Um you said that Ken is one of the most corrupt politicians in America.

SPEAKER_01 7:06

Yes. Do you love him? Yes. Ken Paxton is a child of God. He is my brother in Christ. It doesn't mean there's not accountability, right? Love requires accountability. Um we talked about the story of my mom, and her love meant standing up to a bully. And you know, if you uh think about when you're like out having a drink with your friends, and your friend grabs their car keys to drive home under the influence. Your job as their friend is to take those keys away, to physically block them from getting in the car. And that feels um aggressive, it feels maybe even hostile, but it is done out of love for that person and for everybody else, for all of your neighbors. Ken Paxton, from every I I don't know Ken Paxton personally, but from everything I've been able to read and and learn about his service and his life, he has clearly shown that he only cares about himself. He was indicted for investment fraud.

SPEAKER_02 8:10

Because we can stop there. He he goes into why he wants to take the keys away. But I I think what shocked everyone was do you love Ken Paxton? And it was just without a uh a break, he says, Yes. Ken Paxton is a child of God. I mean, that was just that is shocking to have someone see the the Imago Day in someone else instantaneously, the person you're supposed to hate, to say, no, I actually see him as that. Like he is and he says he is a uh my brother in Christ. And then he does say, like, yeah, but like love does mean sometimes, then basically he's trying to say, like, we need as Texans take the keys away from Ken Paxton. Um however you view this, I just think that is what I hope we can have in our civility and care for one another, um, and in loving the other. And so this is I I think it's incredible. Tomorrow, um, I'm recording this on Monday, November 2nd. Tomorrow is voting day. Uh, if you haven't voted, please go vote. Vote your conscience, vote to help other children of God, however you see them across the political spectrum. But I want to say, like, like, please make a plan to vote, please. But don't stop there. Don't stop with just the vote. I want, I I think I want us to be able to embody that same love for one another, that's uh to see others as children of God and to lean into conversations with the LSU tigers of your life. Um, the people that you can't stand. Um, but to say, I want to see their their Imago Day.

Rogerian Dialogue And Dinner Table Challenge

SPEAKER_02 9:55

Um this conversation I I I have um with uh on this podcast uh made me long more for this. Serena Higgins, uh who's doing the the podcast of Words Do Things, is doing something I think very, very needed in our day. And she is bringing together people who disagree and not just having them argue and fight, she is forcing us to listen. The podcast you'll hear is actually kind of slow and sometimes tedious. I found it at many times tedious. I I I forgot the rules of what I was supposed to do, and she, as a good moderator, was in inter inter interceding. Because she's using this uh Rogerian style of discussion where before I can respond to your point, I have to repeat your point accurately to your satisfaction before saying why I disagree. Which stinks if I want to just lob my grenades, which is what most of us want to do. But it is perfect if we want to actually listen and engage with one another, which I think is what we all deeply want to be true for our our conversations and our politics. And so I hope you do enjoy this episode. I hope you go listen to some of the other ones she's got. There's some spicy ones on there. But I hope it also puts you in a position to where say you saying, like, yes, I want to engage in that type of conversation with someone who disagrees with me. Um and so I would say, when was the last time you actually had someone who voted differently than you at your dinner table? Invite them to the dinner table and don't bait and switch with them. Yes, you yes, just have a good friendship with them. But I think it's also worthwhile of saying, Hey, I want to invite you over, and I just want to understand your your point of view on immigration. Uh I I prom, I'm coming to understand if you can set it up in a way that says, like, I really just I I want to understand you. I do think there is something about that. If you say, like, I know we disagree on on this, you know, whether you say, like, hey, I want to understand your view on Trump and Trumpism. Can you help me? I I just and you truly be honest to say I want to understand this. I just think this could be a way we actually move against this college football Christianity. And that I think is the thing that I'm I'm desperate for is for us to move past that, uh, to actually see the other as the children of as a children of God. So uh I hope you enjoy this episode. Uh after the episode, if you are still uh still longing for more, stick around after the debate. Uh because you'll hear um my argument uh that um Dr. Stuart Riley and I had prior to this um this conversation as a warm-up to this conversation about why I believe Batman is the far greater superhero than what he would argue is Nightcrawler, which I know is such an important conversation.

SPEAKER_03 12:58

Welcome

Words Do Things Series Setup

SPEAKER_03 12:59

to Words Do Things, a podcast about the powers and limits of language. I'm Dr. Serena Higgins, and I'm interested in the ways words make things happen. This is season two, series four, entitled A Gentle Answer. I'm bringing on guests who passionately disagree with each other on one of the controversial issues of our time and pairing them up to have a guided, collaborative, rhetorical conversation. I lead them to listen thoughtfully, repeat back carefully, and respond respectfully to each other. Because a gentle answer turneth away wrath. Today, think to yourself: words do things. What do you want your words to do? Welcome back to you thoughtful listeners and viewers, and thank you for coming on this journey, and thank you to those of you who stay through these long episodes in this current series. I know where this really takes a lot of time to get through these Rigerian dialogues, and I think that's one reason this sort of discourse doesn't happen in settings like social media where we want to give quick responses. So I have another pair of generous guests today giving me their time to go through a conversation. Welcome, Slim. Hey. Welcome, Stuart.

SPEAKER_05 14:17

Hello.

SPEAKER_03 14:19

Dr. Stuart Riley was a colleague of mine at Baylor and is now adjuncting as an English professor. And the Reverend Slim Thompson is one of the pastors of Mosaic Church in Waco, Texas. And they are here today to discuss one of the more important topics and one of the more heated things that's going on in the United States right now, which is immigration. And over 2026, this topic has been one of the biggest in the headlines. And it has been one that I see has sparked some of the worst sort of angry and condemning statements that I've come across on social media. I think some of the most vitriolic conversations that I've been engaged in have been around this topic. So you two gentlemen would like to discuss today what is the most compassionate, practical, and Christian approach to immigration in the United States at this moment. And as usual, we're not necessarily here to change each other's minds, although if that happens as a fringe benefit, that's wonderful. We're more here to try to listen respectfully to someone whom it's easy to characterize as being the enemy, somebody who thinks the opposite. And so therefore it would be easier to just not listen. So instead, we're going to try to listen respectfully. Let's start out by each of you giving your description of the situation as you see it, not with your position yet, if you can do that.

Sponsor Message Writing Coach

SPEAKER_03 15:46

A client came to me with a manuscript for editing. It was a psychoanalytic memoir. I took one glance at it and saw how it could be reorganized for greater impact, how the historical and autobiographical information could come first, and then the psychoanalytic section. We spent the next several months redeveloping this manuscript, and it is now ready for publication. Another client came to me with a science fiction novel manuscript. Again, I took one look at it and saw how it could be dramatically reorganized into two sections, the first of which takes place on Earth, and the second of which takes place on another planet. Over the next few hours, we worked together with the material, reorganized that, putting it into two sections, and that manuscript as well is now ready for publication. Do you have a manuscript in hand of a memoir, a science fiction novel, perhaps a volume of poetry or a nonfiction how-to or academic study? Well, then hire me as your developmental editor, and I will take one look at it, or many looks at it, and go through it with you and see whether it is in the most effective order to communicate your material to your reading audience. So available for deeper dives into the internal organization of chapters and paragraphs, as well as stylistics or any other areas of writing that you might like help with. So please go to wordhoard.com, U Y R D H O A R D, and hire me as your consulting editor or writing coach today. I look forward to reading your manuscript.

Opening Positions On Immigration

SPEAKER_03 17:40

Slim, what do you see happening at this moment as regards immigration and especially the discourses around what's compassionate, Christian, and practical?

SPEAKER_02 17:49

Yeah, and I really appreciate the opportunity for this conversation. I strongly believe in the ability to have difficult conversations. And in as you mentioned at the beginning, that feels almost impossible to happen in um without having some time to have these back and forths and some nuance. Um and so I'm gonna try to honor the rules of this thing. You see, uh, but uh also I want uh I'm coming as a Ennegram nine. I could see everyone's side on these things, but I'm um I'm also feeling like at this moment we are living in the very opposite of we're in the least compassionate, the uh least practical. Um what was the other category? Uh Christian. And the least Christian version of immigration uh policies possible. So that's where I'm coming from.

SPEAKER_03 18:37

Okay. Thank you very much. Now, Stuart, you and I actually maybe broke away from that stereotype of social media that I described at the beginning because I put up on social media right after the killing of Renee Good. I put up, I really want to understand how someone could think that this was potentially justifiable. Um, and you wrote a really, really thoughtful response and let me post that. And then you got some thank yous and some not so nice comments and response. But how would you describe the situation right now?

SPEAKER_05 19:08

Yeah, I would um describe it as complicated, uh difficult. Uh, I think the at least some of the facts on the ground are you just have a lot of people who want to uh immigrate into the United States, and that's creating a lot of tensions and um problems. And we're trying to figure out well, how do we how do we respond to this?

SPEAKER_03 19:27

Okay, thank you. So it's interesting to me when I ask that, when I ask my guests to describe the situation, sometimes they describe it really, really differently. And so, Stuart, you went more for the here's what's happening. And Slim, you went a little bit more for the ways that people are responding to what's happening, right? So whether or not that's a reflection of your priorities or just how you thought you would lead your way into that conversation, I find it interesting. Those were both well, Stuart, yours was fairly neutral. Slim, the way you described it was a little more weighted. Stuart, would you be willing to state Slim's back to him if you can remember it or I can ask him to say it again?

SPEAKER_05 20:06

Uh yeah, well, I think Slim was saying that thinking of the three um kind of opening categories for the conversation, what's the most compassionate, practical, and Christian um response to this, to what's going on? Um Slim, you were saying, well, that we are just we're in the least, you know, the the most impractical, um, the least Christian, the least compassionate situation today. Uh, and therefore we're we're needing to correct that.

SPEAKER_03 20:29

Is that right, Slim, to get that right?

unknown 20:31

Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 20:32

Now, Slim, is there anything else you would like to say as far as your position on the topic? Because that was your view of the situation. Do you want to, is there more you want to state to be like, I believe XYZ?

SPEAKER_02 20:42

Aaron Powell Yeah, I'd say up front that I I actually think we probably have a lot of in common, Stuart, uh, you and I. Um I think we I I would ag I would assume we'll see where it goes. Uh we both have uh you know uh a belief that a uh a country should have you know a reason and a right to to regulate its borders enforcing immigration law. And I think the disagreement we will probably have is over how that looks um when we're dealing with uh human beings, families, legal rights, protections, all those things. So I just I just want to say like I I think there's probably a lot more in common, um but we'll see.

SPEAKER_03 21:15

But to get this going, tell me more what you believe, Slim. Tell me more like I think such and such is right, or I think such and such is wrong, or let's get more of your position.

SPEAKER_02 21:27

Great. I I believe we need to defund and abolish ice. I think it we are at a level, you know, 10 or 11, uh, if you want to use the spinal tap reference um uh on this issue. It is it is dangerous, it is unchristian, it is uncompassionate. Um I think we need to reject mass deportations. I think we need to cancel using the word illegal around illegal immigrants. And I can give you a lot more uh things, but just a top three there of are some positions. That I think would be worth our time.

SPEAKER_03 22:03

Thank you. Thank you very much for being clear. And I hope that we do get to the other ones in the course of the discussion. If we're not getting to them, make sure you say them at some point. Stuart, why don't I hear your position loud and clear first? And then we can go back and forth on restating each other's.

SPEAKER_05 22:16

Yeah. Well, I I think my position is not necessarily that the status quo is good or that the status quo should be maintained, but but I'm not convinced that the right way to change things is to um, I would say, ignore immigration law. And I'm not convinced that abolishing ICE is also uh the right way forward. Um I think that there has to be at least some level of enforcement of the law. And it has to be done by somebody. Now, I think criticism of the way that ICE is handling things can be totally valid. Um, but but I think at the end of the day, if it's not ICE, it's gonna be someone who's going to have to use force on some level.

SPEAKER_03 22:56

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for laying that out so clearly. Stuart, can you summarize Slim's position? Or he could say it again if you'd like.

SPEAKER_05 23:03

Yeah. Um, well, specifically, uh, I mean, you mentioned Slim that abolishing ICE is is one of the one of the things you think is necessary because it is unchristian and because it's uh it it is uncompassionate. Um and uh I was focused on ice, I may have missed some other parts of your position.

SPEAKER_02 23:21

Uh yeah, the the other two ones I put out there were to reject mass deportations and to cancel using the the verbiage uh illegal to sort of describe human beings. Right. Thank you.

SPEAKER_03 23:34

Before I have you respond to that position, Stuart Slim, can you restate Stuart's position?

SPEAKER_02 23:38

Yeah, I think he said he's he's he's not necessarily um he's for the the status quo for how things are. I think there's uh there's probably some common ground we'll have there. Um but also he's not against immigration, immigration law, and ways to enforce our borders. And we need something to to do that.

SPEAKER_03 23:56

Is that reasonable, Stuart?

unknown 23:58

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 23:59

Um Stuart, what do you think about deportation? Are you willing to make a statement about that right now?

SPEAKER_05 24:04

Yeah, um I think that I think that deportation is certainly not an unqualified good, but I don't think that it is an unqualified evil either. Uh I think that it is sometimes a necessary means of enforcing the border. Um because the way I see it, um, I think you have uh just a few options. Um if if somebody crosses the border and that's in violation of the law for whatever reason, um, you can either turn them away at the border, right there, not let them in. You can have them come in and release them into the interior. You can detain them, or if they've been here for a certain period of time, um, you you can deport them. And if if you are to actually enforce the border at the end of the day, it's either got to be detainment or deportation if if you have determined, if the state has determined that that individual should not be in the country.

SPEAKER_03 24:56

Okay. Now I'm making a decision right here whether to have you two go back and forth on that point, or maybe I'd like to hear you each make a statement, a position statement on detention, like on what you believe regarding detention. So, Slim, do you have a a position on detention you might like to make?

SPEAKER_02 25:12

I think Stuart said that the you you have either deportation or detention. Um, and I would say that there's there's some other options in between there. Uh, and we've we've used them and we still use some of those. Um of you know, there are ways to have people check in with uh for their you know immigration hearings, and it's kind of a uh uh a process here. Um so it's not one or the other, uh, you know, in a um a detention center, or as I would argue, that they are concentration camps. And we'll get to that shortly. Or to to kick out of the country. I think there is a a large swath in between there. And I think there are times when and uh I'm not I'm not against deportation, um I think but I think the mass deportation is what I'm against. And as well as detention center um the on the way it's going about of just throwing everyone in and then realizing they can't they can't support it. I've we have yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 26:10

Yeah, we'll get to we'll get to nitty-gritty details in a minute. Stuart, do you have a position, either practical or moral, on detention, you know, as an option that you'd like to state?

SPEAKER_05 26:21

Yeah, um, I think again, it's it's not an unqualified good. Uh, it is certainly something that's um regrettable if it has to be implemented at all. Just like I would say the same of incarceration, right? Um uh nobody wants incarceration to have to be a necessary tool of enforcing the law in general. But it's necessary sometimes. And I would say it's probably necessary in the case of immigration law as well.

SPEAKER_03 26:45

Okay. So I had you keep going a little bit because I wanted to get more of your positions out there first. You know, usually uh let you start going back and forth earlier. But I think let me know if if I've got it right. I think there's sort of four subcategories we've got here. We've got ice or more generally enforcement, right? So, like you both agreed there need to be some laws. And so therefore we have a topic of enforcement. Who, how, to what extent, etc. And then we have the topic of deportation, when, whom, how, to where, etc. Then we have the topic of detention, and then the topic of rhetoric, of whether or not to use the term illegal. And I didn't get your thoughts on that one, Stuart. Do you have thoughts on what rhetoric is used or isn't used? And just, you know, give me the principle now and we'll get into the details later.

SPEAKER_05 27:31

Yeah, um, I'm I think if you use the term illegal alien in a way to primarily dehumanize people who are crossing the border, uh, I think that's inappropriate and sinful. Um, but I think if you I think we have to be honest about um somebody's legal status, and maybe we can use undocumented migrant if we want to do that. Um But I I think that when when when most conservatives, for example, use the term illegal immigrant or illegal alien, they they merely are saying this person is here in violation of the law. And I think that is an appropriate term to use because I think it is just simply factually true in some cases.

SPEAKER_03 28:09

Well, that's a good transition into defining terms. And so here's where we'll probably need to do more back and forth, and where I'll have each of you restate the others and then get a chance to debate

Defining Immigrant Refugee Asylum

SPEAKER_03 28:20

it. So we've got a bunch of terms that may have simply objective definitions that you both agree on, or they may have more weighted definitions that you might disagree on. So, how about the core term immigrant? Slim, how would you define immigrant?

SPEAKER_02 28:36

Uh yeah, immigrant is anyone who leaves their home country, uh the place where they were born and goes to live in another place.

SPEAKER_03 28:43

Okay. Stuart, what's your definition of immigrant?

SPEAKER_05 28:46

Uh I think the same. Uh, somebody who leaves another country in order to live in another country that's not their own.

SPEAKER_03 28:52

Okay, very good. Um, Stuart, how about refugee?

SPEAKER_05 28:56

Uh I think a refugee is somebody who is uh fleeing their home country uh for for whatever reason, could be um conflict and war, uh, could be economic devastation, but they are fleeing for some reason. That means that they are in danger of their life um in order to live somewhere else.

SPEAKER_03 29:13

Okay, thank you, Slim. How about your definition of refugee?

SPEAKER_02 29:16

Yeah, nothing nothing different. The only thing I add is I think I think some of the verbiage in our uh law or something says has a credible fear of persecution. Um I think that's where people want to debate, but I think that's that's it's important to state.

SPEAKER_03 29:31

Yeah, and usually it's a credible fear of persecution based on some demographic category defined by the law, right? So it has to be a credible fear based on that you are a member of this group that is being persecuted. Right. Okay. Slim asylum seeker.

SPEAKER_02 29:46

Aaron Powell An Asylum Seeker is one who uh you could say is a refugee who is arriving at, you know, we'd say for our country, U.S. border, seeking refuge from violence and or persecution. Um they become an asylum if that request for asylum has been approved and living in the United States. Aaron Powell Okay.

SPEAKER_03 30:03

So is the difference that the refugee is not here yet or has not arrived at their destination yet? They're either in the place they're trying to escape from or they're en route. And then once they apply, they become an asylum seeker. Once it's granted, they become an asylum. Did I get that right?

SPEAKER_02 30:18

Yes. Yes. And so you you say in kind of concentric circles that uh a refugee is an asylum seeker, but not all asylum seekers are refugee. Uh let me say the other way. Asylum seeker is a refugee, but not all refugees are asylum seekers. Right, here you go. Thank you.

SPEAKER_03 30:34

Stuart, any changes, nuances, additions to asylum seeker?

SPEAKER_05 30:39

Not only that my my understanding anyway, to distinguish uh, let's say somebody who's fleeing a an economically bad situation from their home country, um, they might be, we might call them a refugee or simply a migrant. Whereas an asylum is a little bit more narrow and specific, uh, something like fleeing an oppressive political regime and therefore they're seeking asylum in a in a country that will protect them from that uh uh said regime.

SPEAKER_03 31:04

Do you want to define migrant then as well? Do you want to distinguish that since you mentioned it in your definition?

SPEAKER_05 31:09

Yeah, well, I think a migrant could be anybody who's traveling for any reason.

SPEAKER_04 31:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 31:14

Uh I think we tend to mean somebody who's doing something more long term. Um, but you could um I suppose you could be a tourist and be a migrant. Um but an asylum is somebody who's specifically applying for a a legal, uh, a legal protection from the country that they're migrating to for a particular reason.

SPEAKER_03 31:33

Right. Whereas a migrant could be like a migrant worker. You know, they have a home, they're happy in their home country, they're not trying to leave it, they're coming to another country for a specified period of time for a job that has a beginning and ending to it. Am I right? Yeah. Okay. Islim, anything to add correct nuance from what Stuart just said?

SPEAKER_02 31:53

No, that's good. That's good. I mean, I I was a migrant from Ohio to Texas. Uh and so you know there any type of migration would be a migrant. Um, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 32:01

So you emigrated from Ohio and immigrated to Texas.

SPEAKER_02 32:05

That's right. That's right.

SPEAKER_03 32:06

Very good. Um, there's the term undocumented that gets used a lot. And I have a very good friend who is an immigrant activist who spent a lot of time volunteering to work with undocumented people. And the first thing she wrote to me was she's like, the word undocumented seems so strange. People walk in with piles of documents. It's not like they don't have documents, but what does the term undocumented usually mean, Slim?

SPEAKER_02 32:31

Uh I believe it the definition is a common, it it it's it's someone who lacks current lawful immigration status. So it has not been granted one way or the other. Um so you're right, but they they they have documents, um, but it's not been decided.

SPEAKER_03 32:45

That they're sort of in an in-between stage. Right. Stuart, you agree with that or something to change or offer? Um Yeah, maybe.

SPEAKER_05 32:54

I I have assumed that if in if you're an in-between stage, you would still be considered documented while your paperwork is being processed. Um but I I could just be factually wrong about that. Uh I think it includes that as well.

unknown 33:09

Okay.

SPEAKER_03 33:10

Um I believe that is one of the discussion, that is one of the topics we will have to discuss because I know that that's been one of the huge questions that people have been debating is well, this person was documented and yet detained or deported. What what was the status of their documentation? Were they illegal? Were they in process? You know, what what exactly? That's one of the big questions we probably will have to get into in the next section. Um now, Stor, I think you already defined illegal alien just a minute ago. Do you want to run it bias? Maybe I did. You may have done, but you want to run it bias again.

SPEAKER_05 33:43

Yeah, sure. Uh I think an illegal immigrant is somebody who is has migrated into the US illegally. The only way that they have um either crossed into the US or the reason that they're are in the US is in violation of immigration law.

SPEAKER_03 33:58

All right. Thank you. Slim, agree, disagree, want to offer a different definition?

SPEAKER_02 34:03

Yeah, that that that's fine. Um, yeah, someone who's not currently a US citizen, um, say it that way. Um But that's yeah, we go into the whether we should or shouldn't use it.

SPEAKER_03 34:15

Could I ask you to go a little further with that, Slim? Because there are plenty of people who are not US citizens, but who are not illegal aliens. So do you want to push your definition a little further?

SPEAKER_02 34:29

Yeah. Um, I just think uh someone who immigrated that is undocumented, uh, that is uh you could say they don't lack the lawful immigration status, therefore they would be in this, as some might describe them, illegal or illegal alien.

SPEAKER_03 34:44

Great. Okay, and we'll get we'll get more into why you dislike that term later. Okay, let's see. I'm losing track of who started the last one. But Stuart, how would you define detention center? Or I could ask each of you, what do you think is the correct word or phrase for the places within the US borders where people without correct immigration status are held? So, Stuart, you want to tackle that first? Um I'm I'm not sure I understand the question. Yeah, because I threw two at you at once. Um let me take the second one and see if you if you like it. What do you think we should call the facilities where people are held due to immigration anomalies?

SPEAKER_05 35:25

Right. I think we should probably call them detention centers. Um I would qualify that by saying that doesn't mean that um that they're necessarily being run well. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have concerns about the conditions of the people in detention centers. But I think that to use the language of concentration camp is um a little too charged. Um I think that conjures up sentiments uh based off of other historical precedents that I think are um not appropriate in this situation or not accurate, I would say.

SPEAKER_03 35:54

All right. I'm gonna finish us through these definitions, but I think we probably want to come back to that one as a really important point of discussion. Slim, what do you think we ought to call the places where such people are held?

SPEAKER_02 36:05

Yeah, I think I would say all detention centers are detention centers. I think there are some that probably act as such. Um there are some that act as concentration camps or internment camps. I think the more uh the the newer warehouses that are packing people in that are of a particular race, ethnicity are the ones that we would say, you know, like Alligator Alcatraz or the three outside of San Antonio have acted like concentration camps and purposefully using that because it does remind us of the horrors of what concentration camps uh were in the World War II.

SPEAKER_03 36:44

This might be the most charged point we've come across yet, which is which term to use. And I think that's important. But before we uh unpack it and go back and forth on it, any other terms that you think it's important for us to define? Misdemeanor, felony, criminal similar offenses, any other words that are important here? Either of you?

SPEAKER_02 37:05

Yeah, I mean, I think misdemeanor is helpful just when we think of you know people who've done something that might uh put their immigration status in question, whether it's a misdemeanor versus someone who has a felony. Uh those are you know, I think it's just helpful to be specific and to make distinctions um and for the law to respond in proportionality. So a misdemeanor is a minor criminal offense that usually is um punishable with less than a a year in in prison, um, and a felony would be over a year, right?

SPEAKER_03 37:33

Thank you. Stuart, anything on that or another term none that come to mind at the moment. What about civil versus criminal offenses?

SPEAKER_02 37:42

Yeah, that that I think that's also important. So, you know, you could say civil, we you uh did not um make your immigration hearing. Uh so there's there's certain things like that. Um and then there's criminal of you know, you you robbed a place, you um murdered someone, right? Like these are those are those are helpful distinctions.

SPEAKER_03 38:00

Aaron Powell And it's not that civil offenses are not crimes. It's that they're treated, they're treated differently, again, like a misdemeanor, they're treated as less serious. They're treated differently in the judicial system as well. Like, for instance, at least in Pennsylvania, where I served on a jury, a civil offense has an eight-person jury, and a criminal offense has your traditional 12-person jury, for instance. And they come with different penalties, more like fines or cease and desist orders or something like that, rather than imprisonment is generally the case. All right. So thank you, gentlemen, for defining these important terms. I think it's probably time to really dig in. So this is the main act. This is where, if we were in a traditional debate setting, this is where the two of you would go at it, and you know, you'd shout and tell the other person they're wrong and they're stupid, and you know, blah, blah, blah. If you need to do that, do it, and I'll just cut you off. But let's pick one of these points: ICE, deportation, detention, or terminology. Let's pick one of those, and I'll give each of you a significant amount of time to lay out your thoughts on that point, and then the other one will respond and back and forth. So let's see.

ICE Legitimacy Versus Abolition

SPEAKER_03 39:13

Stuart, which of those four big categories do you think you'd like to dive into first?

SPEAKER_05 39:18

Yeah, um, I think maybe I'll start with I'll start with ice.

SPEAKER_03 39:23

All right. You have the floor for a significant period of time to lay out your position as regards to ice.

SPEAKER_05 39:28

Um, so uh my motivation here, um, and I'll put my cards out on the table. I come from a law enforcement law enforcement family. Um, so part of this is um just from the background of of that being part of my upbringing. So I think my position on ice is that we don't have to say that there aren't problems. We don't have to say that uh there aren't terrible things that happen. They they clearly do. But what are what are the appropriate ways of responding to those problems in one of the inappropriate ways? Um and I'm not responding to anything that you've said so far, Slim, um, but things that I've seen in the discourse. Uh so for example, uh Governor Tim Walls, he was using the language of um ICE is our current day Gestapo. Um, they are disappearing people. ICE is uh an extension of a fascistic regime, right? So this this very strong language. And I think my position is that that is an unhelpful way of approaching, even if you have criticisms of the organization and what it's doing for a couple of reasons. And I think the first one is because on the extreme side, that can result in murderous intent. And we we have seen that actually last year. There was an assassination attempt on ICE officers at an ICE facility that regrettably uh resulted in the death of two detainees. Uh a few months before that, there was a uh group of Antifa members that uh assaulted a detention facility in Texas. Um they shot one officer in the neck and he was uh not killed, he survived. Uh but they they they did they went into that with the intention of killing ICE officers because they believed that it represents a fishistic project. So I want to say that if we if we agree that U.S. immigration law is legitimate, it comes from the legitimate authority of the state. Um it's a part of our democratically uh elected law, uh, either from elected representatives or the executive that are there legitimately. It is a part of the legitimate form of our government. And as such, the executive has an obligation to enforce that law. And therefore, ICE has a legitimate objective. Um enforcing the law is is a necessary thing that it does. So ICE enforce and again, I'm not saying that this is a positive good, but it has a job to do and it has a legitimate job to do. And if ICE is not the agency that's doing it, somebody else is going to have to. Um, whether that's the US military, some new organization that we would create uh if we were to abolish ICE. The the law has to be enforced.

SPEAKER_03 42:01

And thank you. Is that enough for for Slim to respond to in one go, maybe? Thank you, Stuart. Thank you for laying that out very clearly. Slim, can you get at the the heart of what Stuart was saying, sort of the main points and see if you understand them well?

SPEAKER_02 42:18

Yeah, I think he's arguing that ICE is needed in the sense that that you need laws and customs uh enforcement. Uh we need laws and order uh to be able to organize as a society. Uh he thinks the rhetoric around um ice being a tool of a fash fascist government is extreme and it has caused some uh blowback uh in in actual fatalities and negative repercussions.

SPEAKER_03 42:46

Stuart satisfactory? Anything maybe that's unless that you want to yeah.

SPEAKER_05 42:53

Yeah, and I I would say I would say uh the goal is not just to enforcing the law is one one end, but that also is a means to an end of of justice, right? We want a just society, we want um, we want a harmonious society, and I think this is one one part of that law enforcement in general. Um, so it's not just as though the goal is just, you know, enforce the law because that's the way it is, but that law is is for the good of society.

SPEAKER_03 43:21

Um Slim, so you have a choice here now. You can either just lay out your case as regards ICE, or you can respond to what Stuart has said and offer an alternative perspective on the points that he's made. Or those might be the same thing.

SPEAKER_02 43:36

Yeah, yeah. Um, I I I'll uh uh affirm Stuart's um you know notion or uh point that you know there needs to be something. Uh you need to have you know a government uh is uh charged with it having some law order protection uh of its people. Um and so there needs to be something. I think what if we had a fascist government, how would A fascist government act. And if it did act in such a way as ICE is acting, what would be different? And that's the part that like I we I lament and I you know condemn any of the violence. I'm I'm a very non you know, I believe in kind of pacifist, nonviolent uh response. Uh so any action towards ICE uh officials highly you know condemn. But going into the question though of if it is a fascist government, which I think if you look at what has happened, um where our government is is, as Wals said, is taking people off the streets, just ramming them with their car. This happened in Austin, Texas, a couple just an hour south of us, just two days ago. Uh, rammed into a guy's car, shot the man in the back. The bullet today is still in his back. There is it's how is would this be different if it wasn't a fascist government? Um and then trying to deport him prior to even getting the bullet out of his back, working towards these things. And so I know you're not arguing this for this specific case, but I want to make the point um that the Trump immigrant Trump administration is disappearing migrants, immigrants, and asylum seekers, they're changing the law all the time. They are kind trying to find ways to um denaturalize people so that those who were here legally are now all of a sudden not here legally. And so this is where the if I like I want to be one of the most pro-law, most pro-order people, but when you find yourself in a in a government that is hiding the facts, hiding the truth, going against the law, changing the law, you you start, you start to wonder, like, well, then what do you do? And so this is where I would say you have to abolish ICE. And I think to your point, it there still needs to be something, but we we existed as a country for 250 years prior to ICE. I know ICE wasn't just this year created, it was in 2003 or something like that. Um, after I think it was after 9-11, uh, some of this this came about. But we had we had border and customs uh enforcement uh that that took on a lot of this. And so there's gotta be a a way where there's a little bit more oversight because we just gave so much money. ICE just got $85 billion or something, I have to look at the numbers. Um, so much more money than the FBI, the NSA, the CIA all have. They've got so much more money, and it's so unaccountable where all these shootings that happen with Renee Good and um Alex Predi uh and this man in Austin, every single time the the unless there's a uh bystander with a phone, we wouldn't know what happened because their their uh body cams aren't on. And you're like, with all that money, you should be able to have a body cam that works. And there's never been any repercussions for any of these people who get, you know, that shoot these people. I'm sorry. You don't have to repeat all that. Maybe you do. I don't know. I'm not in charge.

SPEAKER_03 47:06

Instead of repeating all of that, do you think you can pick out the main points, Stuart, and see if you can understand why Slim cares about this so much?

SPEAKER_05 47:14

Yeah, yeah. I think, Slim, you see this seems to be not just business as usual. The Trump administration is changing the laws. It's actively trying to denaturalize people. It is doing all of these things that we have a hard time distinguishing from what a fascist regime would do. Um, and therefore you think it's appropriate to call it that and therefore to respond accordingly. Yeah.

unknown 47:35

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 47:35

That's good.

SPEAKER_03 47:36

Did he get the main core of that?

SPEAKER_05 47:39

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 47:39

So what do you think of that, Stuart?

SPEAKER_05 47:41

Yeah. Um, is this a a good time to ask questions? Yes, sure. Um, so a genuine question that I have is how how would you how would you say things are different now than they were, for example, under the Obama administration? Um because deportations did happen under the Obama administration. There were detention centers. Uh the numbers that I was looking up, um, that I think the Obama administration actively deported something like two and a half to three million people in his uh in his time. And and I take it that that that some of that was by force. We didn't have the high profile um things that we have today, but I think that's in part because uh the Obama administration was not resisted in the way that the Trump administration is. And I think that I think things are just more tense now as part of it. But anyway, what's um would you call that the Obama administration's efforts also fascistic? Um, or or maybe that's not the word you want to use, but um, do you see any differences? How would you call it then? How would you call it now? If things are different now, in what ways are they different?

SPEAKER_02 48:46

Yeah, yeah. No, I think the I think you're absolutely right. And this is where I think it's helpful for us to see on both sides of the aisle uh that there are, there is a need for um immigration reform. And I think there was uh some opportunity right before or at the end of Biden's administration to for that to get done and it was almost ready to go um until Trump said kill it from to his Republican uh colleagues so that he could use it in his political campaigning. But for Obama to have the amount of uh deportations, I think is is one of those things that we go, yeah, what's the difference between then and now? I think right now, the what we see here is the cruelty is the point. And I think you see that across the Trump administration, whether it's bombing boats in the the in the Pacific and um putting it on uh you know TikTok and Twitter, and or it's putting kids in cages in his first term, or now it is putting, you know, separating families and ramming people with the cars. And so that to me, the difference now is the cruelty uh that at which is done. And then also when people are coming from, let's say from Venezuela, I think in Obama's administration, they they were deported back to Venezuela. Now we are sending them to other third countries and without any regard to, you know, oh, is this a safe country? Like, this is where I'm like, to me, this is where I'm like, the cruelty is the point. And to the Stephen Miller's project to like make people see that I don't want to go to America because I might end up in a in a whole different place. And so they're they're accomplishing their goal of of making it to where there's you know, the border is closed. It is absolutely closed. No one's coming through. Um, and it that's that's the the cruelty is working.

SPEAKER_03 50:39

Now I'm supposed to make you say it back that you understand, Stuart, but you guys are just doing such a beautiful job of the street. I'm a pastor.

SPEAKER_02 50:47

I've prepared to go too long.

SPEAKER_03 50:48

No, no, I think you're both doing such a good job of like saying your responses in a respectful way and like trying to get at the heart of it that I feel like you almost don't need me for a little while here. So if instead, if you just want to respond to that, Stuart, I think that would be great.

SPEAKER_05 51:04

Yeah, I think well, I one thing that I think is just true is that I mean Obama also separated families um at the border. Um he the you know, the the infamous photos of of um children in in detention centers that went around when this was first um being talked about by places like NPR in Trump's first term. It actually turned out that those photos were from the Obama era. They weren't from Trump the Trump administration. So that's at least one example where I see, like, well, it seems like uh at least we didn't care about it in the same way when Obama was doing it, but we care an awful lot about it now when Trump is doing it. And that's not to say that there aren't differences, at least on the point of rhetoric, certainly, right? We didn't have Twitter accounts that were kind of like loudly going, like, hoorah, we, you know, detained somebody um under Obama. But I think there were real things going on. So True. Um and I'll I suppose so I I suppose a reason why I sometimes wonder, no, not wonder. I think your criticisms are genuine and the criticisms of the other side are genuine. But part of me wonders how much of this is amplified, how much of this is perception we perceive that this big change is happening, when is this actually just business as usual? And how much of this is motivated by um people just really not liking Trump from the get-go. Because, you know, I remember before he became president and NPR, or not NPR, Saturday Night Live had all the jokes about like, oh, the you know, the Nazis are voting for him. And he hadn't done anything yet, you know. So I guess to kind of sum that up, I wonder how much of this change is is real and how much of it is perception.

SPEAKER_03 52:40

That seems like a point worth having you repeat back, Slim, because it's such an important one that I hear from the right. So would you mind just trying to inhabit that position for a minute, Slim?

SPEAKER_02 52:49

Yeah, I think your your your your point is is the the change now because Trump's in office uh is our is our concern around immigration, around these things because it's Trump versus uh someone else. So are is it because they're not a part of our team and that we that we now care about it, or is it not? And I think I think that that is something we as a society struggle with in our um polarized, you know, whether you're on my team or not. If you're on my team, then I'm gonna defend you. But if you're not on my team, I'm gonna lambast you. And yes, and so like what can I you know affirm? Um, you know, one of the things that Obama was famous, you know, famously, sadly for um was a lot of the the drone strikes that uh he he commissioned. And you go like that was ugly and wrong, and you know, the amount of people that were killed through that, like let's condemn it. And so those are things that if this was under Trump, I bet it would be even a louder response. But I don't think we need another thing from Trump. The and but I I want to push back though, and I affirm that that that's a that's a that's a that's a uh reality. We need to make sure we're not existing in. The pro the due process that has just been taken out of this whole thing is is the the part that is so concerning to to kill people right on the street and to be like, no, they deserve it. Like the the rhetoric, and this goes to the my my last you know, the last thing about like canceling the word illegal, the rhetoric that came up after Wilbur um Perez uh in Austin uh was sh was shot just a couple days ago. I look on on Twitter replies and it's like, well, he shouldn't have been here. He's a leg, he's here illegally. And it's it's like wait, there's no due process. Do you even know if he is here? If he's like going through the immigration process, like do we do we have any ref framework for this? And that is the part that I'm like, it is different. It is very different than what what it was under Obama. So yeah.

SPEAKER_03 54:55

Stuart, you want to see if you can inhabit that position for a minute about what the core differences are.

SPEAKER_05 55:00

Yeah, yeah. So um, it's not even oh, and and first of all, um appreciate the the acknowledgement there. And and of course, right, it's it's on both sides. The tribalism, yeah, bad rhetoric, it's all uh it all happens everywhere. But you are you are especially concerned by the what appears to be a lack of due process, and that's also a change from the Obama era to the Trump era, maybe kind of fecklessness or uh yeah, just a lack of due process.

SPEAKER_03 55:25

That leads me to something that we didn't quite cover in our sort of opening, setting everything out, which I don't know if you gentlemen would like to address now, which is what is the law and what makes someone legal and illegal?

Law Changes Asylum And Due Process

SPEAKER_03 55:38

And um, Stuart, for you, I'd be interested to hear like, is there a consistent immigration law that can be justly enforced? From Slim, I'd like to hear do you think that the law is part of the problem or do you think that the law ought to be changed? You know, so I'd I'd love to hear you each speak on that point for a moment, because I think that's an important one. I don't know which of you is prepared to go first on that one. You want it?

SPEAKER_05 56:05

Sure, sure. I'll I'll I'll go. Right. So yeah, thinking about law. Um so my understanding is that illegal immigration most often is migrants who come into the country, they have uh they get a visa and they overstay that visa. Also, there are individuals who cross uh the border, not in a port of entry. Um, and that is also in and of itself um a violation of of uh immigration law. So they're kind of in two categories. Two main ways one becomes becomes uh an illegal immigrant. Okay. Or an illegal alien in the US.

unknown 56:39

Okay.

SPEAKER_03 56:39

Uh Slim, is that your understanding as well? Did you want to add anything to just sort of the factual situation?

SPEAKER_02 56:45

No, I mean I thought you were asking how does one like what's the immigration law like that? It how does one become um like you know, go through the process. Yeah, sure. Give us that. Not just illegally, but also like legally. Legally. I mean, I think before there was there was the process of here's why, and you know, you could say we go through it as we did before around someone is seeking asylum. I think that's the um most extreme case when someone's seeking asylum um because of you know, credible fear of persecution, which talk about the things that have changed uh over the years. Christians, that used to be not even a debate. Um if someone is seeking asylum, then we find a way to care for them. Um but that has changed because of the political waters that have changed now.

SPEAKER_03 57:27

Well, and tell us specifically what has changed regarding asylum, if you know.

SPEAKER_02 57:31

Well, it's n before Christians would say, so if someone's seeking asylum, we we find way, like if they're if they're if they're fleeing from Syria, let's take care of them. If they're fleeing um, you know, they're from you know from Haiti, let's let's let's take care of them. Um and we have. But just recently, the as I said, trying to denaturalize the Haitian immigrants, um, they were just had their temporary protective status removed. And so now you have all of these immigrants and all of these you know cities are now having to find home. They're now all of a sudden, you could say, illegal because they are not here legally.

SPEAKER_03 58:02

Now, am I correct that there is no longer an asylum process coming to the United States? Or was the shutting down of the asylum process temporary? Because I know it was completely shut down. Has it been restarted? Like, is it possible to apply for asylum right now, or is that shut down at the moment?

SPEAKER_02 58:17

Aaron Powell I think I think it's technically possible, but it does not happen. Um, although the we I think I just read today that the white African Southern Africaners um have just been given green light to to come to America.

SPEAKER_03 58:31

So there's sort of some little some little pockets of asylum, but like the general process of like show up at the border and apply for asylum, like that doesn't exist right now. Is that right?

SPEAKER_02 58:40

That's right. That's right. You'll be turned away. Okay. And so on the other side of the border in Mexico, um, whereas some of the churches we have relationships with would say they had, you know, sometimes 200, 300 people that they were caring for while waiting on on the process to work itself out, went from two, three hundred down to five people because they know no one's going through. And if they are, then they might be getting shipped to another country. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_03 59:04

I mean, it was already an incredibly long process. It could already take 24 years to go from submitting your asylum application to receiving asylum. And so then there's a question of, well, what status are you for those 24 years in between?

SPEAKER_02 59:18

But that's and then that again, there's also those who just want to find like do the American dream, find a better uh right, like work and be, you know, find something that would work for them in this country, whether it's not out of fear of credible, but that also that for sure is, you know, people here for work visas and things like that. Like these things are like whittled down.

SPEAKER_03 59:38

Like it's so just to clarify, um, again, what I'm asking, I'd love to hear uh more specifically from each of you. Slim, do you think the law as it stands is fine and it's an enforcement problem? Or do you think the law needs to be changed, or do you think the problem is that the law is changing? What do you think about the law itself, Slim?

SPEAKER_02 59:58

I think the law as it stands was needs to be changed. Um I think it is not is not sustainable, um, which is what we were trying to do. Um I think well, I think both, I think both sides, left and right, want there to be a change in our immigration process and want the law to be able to have a more clear path. Now, clear for some might be completely shut down. That's clear. But I do think something clearer is needed. And I think we can come up with some solutions here and um later. But that that's probably that. But I do think that is something that that needs to be changed. The law itself needs to be, as well as the enforcement and the way it's enforced needs to be changed.

SPEAKER_03 1:00:38

And Stuart, what do you believe about the law? Do you think the law is good as it stands, is not clear, is mu is morphing as we speak, should be changed? What do you think?

SPEAKER_05 1:00:47

Um I mean, with my limited knowledge of the law, I think I think parts of it probably need to change. Um, but I think that we should be able to recognize that those in charge of enforcing the law and of making the laws need to be able to seriously consider should we restrict things or should we open things up? So I think I do think the law needs to be more streamlined. It appears to be pretty inefficient, costly, takes probably too long. So I'm sure there's plenty of good that we can do to make it a better system. But I don't know if that uh if the answer, it seems like one side wants to say, well, we just need to open things up. It should be easier. And I think that's assuming too much. Um, there might be a good reason to restrict uh immigration in general. There might be a good reason to say uh we can't we can't afford to do this right now or it's too dangerous. So uh I think just automatically saying, well, there's no good reason for for that, uh I I think that's just assuming too much.

SPEAKER_03 1:01:44

Do you want to give us more on that? On more about why you think they might be assuming too much and what the what the good reasons might be for restricting immigration? I think it'd be useful for us to hear that.

SPEAKER_05 1:01:53

Yeah, sure. Well, I think I think a state has to be able to say uh a state has to be able to determine, well, yes, this uh it immigration is good in this context and in this way. Um because I think I think we can say immigration can go badly if it's not regulated and if it's not controlled. So a state has to be able to say, yes, we um, you know, this is a context in which we can admit X number of people reasonably, they can be integrated in society well, uh, they can contribute to the economic system. And then on the flip side, a state could say, no, we can't afford it. Um, or this is a, you know, uh, you're you're in a dangerous country. There's a, you know, we have terrorists that's from that country. We should be able to say, no, uh, you you can't come in right now. Those are at least just a couple of of examples that come to mind.

SPEAKER_03 1:02:42

And before I before I let you respond, Slim, would you like to add one more layer to that, Stuart? Wrapping us back to the question we started with, do you want to tell us, I think you've showed us how that's practical. Do you want to add the compassionate and Christian part to that as well so we can get the fully rounded picture of that?

SPEAKER_05 1:02:59

Yeah, yeah. That's uh that's that's a good um uh that's a good uh push. So as I've been thinking about it, uh I do think we have to come at it from the perspective of how can I love my neighbor? Um, you know, every migrant who wants to come into my country is my neighbor. But I think that loving my my migrant who wants to come in the country is also in tension with, well, how do I love my neighbor who's already here? And I think that that's sometimes attention. Um, sometimes it might be really easy, right? I can say, yeah, you know, uh you coming here is good for both you and me and my other neighbor. And sometimes it isn't. And uh that's something we have to contend with. Um so all that to say, I think, I think for for Christians, um loving our neighbor, I think we have a particular care and attention that we need to pay to the poor and to the stranger and to the migrant. But that doesn't eliminate the obligation that we have to say, the uh, you know, my white middle class conservative neighbor who uh has concerns about it.

SPEAKER_03 1:03:57

Hey Slim, can you try to repeat that back to us and see if you can inhabit Stuart's perspective there?

SPEAKER_02 1:04:03

Yes, I forgot about that part of our job.

SPEAKER_03 1:04:06

That's what I'm here for. It's okay. You don't have to remember.

SPEAKER_02 1:04:11

There's a lot. Yeah, you were arguing uh that there are some like the good, um, you know, like the practical part of this, um if loving our neighbor means also loving the people that are here. And so would uh considering whether to have immigrants uh come in or not, it does affect the neighbors that are currently here. Is that was that right? Um was one of the points. And then in loving that neighbor, considering how what immigrants are coming, if someone is uh violent or whatnot. Is that part of what you're saying?

SPEAKER_05 1:04:44

Yeah, part of what I'm saying, but I don't even think violence is is the the I mean that could be a uh a problem, but I think even just well, uh even if you know the well-intentioned migrant um or well-intent people who just want to come into the United States to write have a good job and pursue the American dream, um, that might not be possible. That might create more problems uh uh for for whatever situation. So it's not always just you're from a violent population. I do think in specific cases of of, let's say, countries where we know that uh significant number of the population uh has problems with terror cells or something like that. That's uh that's also a consideration, but that's a different situation. But it's okay. Is that clear?

SPEAKER_03 1:05:28

You want to have another go at it, Slim?

SPEAKER_05 1:05:30

Um Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 1:05:35

No, just do do a little more of repeating Stuarts, if you would. Just make sure you see the full picture and can kind of live inside that for a minute.

SPEAKER_02 1:05:42

Yeah, so maybe the the the pressure that immigration might press put on communities, um, not just necessarily around the violent uh part, but it would there be uh space, would there be jobs, would there, you know, have the economic effects, the uh cultural effects um and how that that impacts uh our country. Is that right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:06:01

Now would you The only thing I would just say is I don't think it's just a matter of yes or no, you know, um, but it's also a matter of like, well, how can how can we do it well?

SPEAKER_03 1:06:10

I would love to hear more about that, but for the sake of moving the conversation forward, maybe Slim, we'll hear your response now to that position or your alternative or your perspective.

SPEAKER_02 1:06:19

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think this is a consistent concern from from uh I I've I've heard around immigration, uh, of the pressure it puts on communities. And I think want to affirm um in certain communities, when there are a you know a large influx of immigrants, you do see the strains it might put on the city. I I am reminded of when both California governor um Ron DeSantis and the Texas governor Greg Abbott, uh, wanting to make a political point, shipped some immigrants to communities outside of their states to try to make a point in other states. And so now all of a sudden you have in uh Cleveland, Ohio, or what was the place in Ohio where you had the Haitian communities that was famously being told that they were eating cats and dogs? Um, there are these moments when you have all of this this really, you know, it's maybe a small town all of a sudden now has you know 10,000 immigrants in it. Um so that that does, that does, you know, initially have a a strain, I think, on on a community. But I think the research shows, and this is from both right and left research, this is you know, so that you can kind of maybe see it as this way, this is from the Bush Center. Um, I'm looking back at this um back in 2016, when life was a little bit different, was arguing that that immigrants are a far more net positive on the economic growth of our society than a drain on it, that they create jobs, they fill labor gaps, um, they bring cultural diversity, uh, which brings innovation uh and contribute more to public services than they consume. And so there are some real costs for state and local governments when they there is that initial uh strain, but there is a another cost when they are now mass deported. Um so those same immigrants in Ohio, those Haitian immigrants or in Florida or in Georgia, many of them growing up, grow up in Haiti, have a cultural commitment uh to care for the elderly, and they're serving in in elderly care um, you know, older homes. And now all of a sudden their status is in flux or they are now deported. And now it's all of a sudden trying to fill these jobs um in Florida and in Georgia and caring for the people that we want to love our neighbors, like our and our own grandparents. And so you're seeing that that cost is becomes real in other ways. And so I would argue that immigrants are both a you know financial good to the community, thinking of practically culturally good, but also um it it it that diversification helps us as a country, you know, see the imagoday in every single human being, but also it it spurs innovation to learn from different different backgrounds and different ways of new new uh ways of approaching the problems in our society.

SPEAKER_03 1:09:10

Thank you. Stuart, can you reflect back that perspective for a minute? Sorry again.

SPEAKER_05 1:09:15

Yeah, yeah. Um so you wanted to say, yes, there are some short-term strains that a large influx of migrants can can have on a on a local community or uh a particular place, but that overall, the even just from an economic perspective, to say nothing of cultural or uh or any other kind of benefit, it it does um it's a net good in the long term. Um economically, culturally, socially, migrants um are good for society and not not negative. And what do you think about that, Stuart?

Economic Strain Debt And Hospitals

SPEAKER_05 1:09:47

Yeah, I I think that that's largely true. Um I think the the sense that I have is I think it might be a little bit more complicated in in part because I think some things are different now in 2026, even than 2016. And I I I am a little bit skeptical as to the conclusions of of that um study maybe in isolation. And I think that's because a l my read of then this is a more big picture maybe question or conversation, but I think that the only reason why we've been able to get along so far in in America is because we keep we keep kicking the can down the road financially. Yeah, there there is some economic growth, but there's a whole lot of debt that we're in. And that's no argument here. Right. Um and that's for all sorts of things.

SPEAKER_03 1:10:34

The trillion, 42 trillion or something.

SPEAKER_05 1:10:38

Right. And that's for a lot of reasons. But it's primarily uh social welfare. Um that's that's the that's the largest thing we spend our money on for by far. I think I read something recently that I think we've spent roughly $20 trillion on defense since the year 2000, and we've spent about $65 trillion on welfare, uh, just Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid since the year 2000. And I broke that down, and that's roughly about $200,000 per person in the U.S. we've spent on social welfare spending in 25 years. So that's a house per person, you know.

SPEAKER_02 1:11:13

So who helps pay for that? Immigrants. Right, right. And does not take from it.

SPEAKER_05 1:11:22

I I wonder, though, uh if that's true entirely.

SPEAKER_02 1:11:26

At least uh at least we could say undocumented immigrants uh that aren't able to receive the benefits, but they are taxed, right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:11:34

But uh just to push back on that a little bit, on paper, they don't receive certain benefits. So they don't qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. Um they are taken care of in hospitals, though. And I I did some work as a grant writer a number of years ago, and I saw a little bit of how hospitals have to shuffle the costs around because they they just care for a lot of people that can't pay. And that includes undocumented people. Um, so there there is a I think my contention is there is a there is some strain. There is some uh I think a lot of the costs of our welfare state we just don't see because the state has done a good job of hiding where that actually comes from. And that's in part because a hospital can't ask a patient what their immigration status is. Um so yes, in in one way, they don't take the benefits, but I think in some way it does, it does have a cost.

SPEAKER_02 1:12:25

But you're we need to just be honest, that we are in so much debt that we have to address that. And I was saying that the immigrants are are helping offset that debt into the the main area of social welfare. You're saying in the hospitals, though, they're they might be receiving this benefit, but that would be kind of a separate argument, right?

SPEAKER_05 1:12:47

Um well I think the connection is yeah, uh they're not a direct recipient, but they're an indirect recipient.

SPEAKER_02 1:12:53

Um that also doesn't say I would say the hospitals and the the these uh that are getting you know record profits can uh can afford that bill, but that's a different argument. I'm not trying to make that argument. I'm just saying that I don't know if it's a drain on the the society.

SPEAKER_05 1:13:10

Right, right. Um I would say it's it's not the you know it's not like I'm I'm trying to go gung-ho for the hospitals and the insurance companies, for example. Um but I think that this is one piece of the of a very complicated pie where I think we've got to have our house in order a little bit. Um and healthcare is one of them. Um I think healthcare is the kind of thing where you will get care um if you're undocumented. If you are documented and you're on the bottom end of the economic run rung, you will get a lot of benefits. And that's squeezing those who are in the middle. And then those who are at the very top will benefit from migrant labor. Um, right. So, you know, very top, mass migration is good. Very bottom, you can get a lot of benefits, not necessarily comfortable, but you'll get by. Whereas if you're in the middle, you'll get squeezed.

SPEAKER_02 1:13:59

Yeah, that feel like that's this this could be opened up a whole other can of uh com conversation where I I'm actually you know for Medicare for all and uh you know, you think you should have universal health care, and why not um as as Christians uh care for a yeah, I'm deciding here whether to keep going with this because this is a really, really important conversation.

SPEAKER_03 1:14:17

And Stuart, I think I might be sensing from you that you feel like we don't talk about this part of it enough, that perhaps we're talking more about sort of the humanitarian and then maybe we're not adding up the numbers enough. So I don't want to shut you down on that since it's important to you. We do also have three other big topics that we proposed out there in the beginning that it might be worth digging into. So are you okay if we go a slightly different direction now, both of you? Because we could go back and forth on that one, and that would be valuable. But let's see, because some of the others might be even more um, there might be even more passion behind them. Um, and that's the rhetoric, the deportation, and the detention. So why don't we why don't we tackle one of those now?

Detention Centers Or Concentration Camps

SPEAKER_03 1:14:55

Why don't we tackle detention? Because that's so closely related to the economic questions. So I'd love to hear from either of you, you know, what your thoughts, concerns are about like what actually is happening right now, and then what you think ought or ought not to happen. So maybe Slim, you could take this one first.

SPEAKER_02 1:15:14

Yeah, so the the detention centers, um, or you know, I argue that they would be um more aptly termed concentration camps, internment camps. I mean, when we look at when you read the your history books and you read what happens with the the Japanese internment camps and you go, like, how could America do this? You know, to these human beings. Um, and then we live it and you go, this is how. When you dehumanize people to be monsters, you can justify anything to them, to where you come up with creative names, alligator alcatraz, um, and you have these, you know, these structures that are existing in the outside, outdoors, uh, that are you know all the elements and not getting proper medical treatment and care. You have you know women who are pregnant who can't get uh the um prenatal vitamins and things that they need to care for their child. Like there's just so much that's wrong, and then you are robbing of a possibility for people to actually contact them because you don't know where they're at. Um, they're just being taken. And then when they you find someone, they're kind of being moved to another detention. It's the cruelty is the point. And so when and besides the cruelty, like for like just as a moral dilemma, I feel like they need to be shut down. But let's say we're devoid of morals financially, they're huge strain. If Doge was going to doge itself and you know have government efficiency, I believe um this past year they bought 11 warehouses to to fill with with immigrants, and they've had to sell seven of them because they didn't, you know, didn't consider all the things. And so then they actually lost money in these sales uh of the of the 11 that they bought. And so you're like, and then uh when we we visited a church that's um caring for immigrants outside of San Antonio that that are being picked up in Minnesota and being dropped off in the internment camp here at in at Dilly, uh that is the camp that also takes children, they only have so much space. And so before they get deported, so they're in the internment camp at for a time. And so there's sometimes when you know the ice will be picking up you know busloads of people, dropping them off at Dilly, and then Dilly says, Hey, we actually don't have space for you. What do you do then? And now the ICE workers here in San Antonio and Dili find compassionate Christians. The Mennonite church that we were partnering with in San Antonio has a stable house for people to have for two to three weeks before they then find a way to go back to Minnesota. Like it's it's so inefficient in their cruelty. Like you just watch how you know sin is wrong and evil, but it's also dumb. It's just dumb the way they're going about it. I'm sorry, I'm rambling. Um you can tell I don't, I'm not happy with the way things are at.

SPEAKER_03 1:18:15

Well, I was gonna I was gonna push you on the practical, but I think you got it there when you got um you mentioned both cost and disorganization, right? So we'll see if we need to come back to that. Stuart, would you be able to repeat back Slim's major concerns there?

SPEAKER_05 1:18:28

Yeah, yeah. Um well of course the the moral aspect of it, um, people not being taken care of at these at these detention centers or concentration camps as you call them. And then of course there's the practical element too, they're inefficient, they're expensive. And your contention, Slim, is that the again, the cruelty is the point. Yep.

SPEAKER_03 1:18:44

And what's your response to it? What's your perspective on that?

SPEAKER_05 1:18:48

Yeah, well, I uh I mean, I'm I'm certainly willing to believe that uh the government is not implementing something efficiently, uh, but I in spite of uh you know the the the rhetoric that's around this, which is not good, and that that comes from the administration too. But when is it also how can we distinguish when cruelty is the point and when just actually enforcing the law is the point? Uh because if if you follow the law and if you enforce it and you say, well, this person is here illegally, that's that's just factually true. Um what what are you going to do? And uh at some level, I just wonder what are you going to do that couldn't be interpreted as cruelty, maybe? Um because if you if you agree, yep, we got to enforce the law, either we deport them or we detain them, and letting them into the interior does not count as enforcing the law. Uh, I would say those are, you know, those are your only two options. Side point, you did mention earlier, Slim, about, well, what about this, you know, uh, isn't there another option? And it's true that while people are in the process of of trying to get a visa uh or citizenship status, um, yes, that is a third category. But uh, I think I'm talking about when when that process is over or when the state has determined, like, no, you you you you cannot be in the interior while we're while we're figuring out what to do. Um I guess I just wonder what what uh what option is there?

SPEAKER_02 1:20:11

No, that's good. That's good. Um I'll repeat back. Kind of you're we're starting to ask, is there a moment where we can say that there's a difference between the cruelty is the point and actually enforcing the laws that we have? There has to be a mechanism to enforce the laws that we have. And you're contending it it's either deportation or uh detainment. Yeah.

Alternatives To Detention And Nuance

SPEAKER_02 1:20:35

And did I decently represent that? And so I think my I think the options, as I said before, I think, yes, deportation, detention. I think what we have now, we have we have check-ins that happen. You know, we say like, hey, you have to come in and regularly check in while we we we figure this out. We also can do electronic monitoring. Um, this is kind of the same mindset when we talk about, you know, um with the police. The police don't have to engage in violence when someone does a speed, you know, when someone does breaks the law. They can see what happened and then go back to them and go, hey, you now owe $500 for that speeding ticket. You know, they don't have to chase them down and ran them off the road, whatever it may be. I think there's like safer, uh, less escalatory uh responses that don't endanger other people in that time. And so I think there's ways to do this of detention, yes. And I think I think I do think there's probably times when someone is, and this is where I think the the conversation is important for us to consider um the proportionality around immigrants, because you can have someone, you say, let's say person A is uh an immigrant who's been here for 40 years, who's who's uh started their own business, who's still in the process, but maybe missed a check-in, right? There's a there was a uh a man here in Waco, Sergio, he had a s had a food truck here, he was a staple of the community. He misses a check-in. I think it was it was told that he it went went to a wrong address or something, like the mail. So he did he missed it. He gets deported. So there's there's one person. But then you have another person who entered in who is is a criminal, maybe a member of the cartel. We could say, you know, like we could depict the monster here. But we treat them the same. And I think there's a proportionality that I think is needed when we talk about these things. So, like for someone who might be dangerous to the society, you go, okay, detention, deportation, let's enforce our laws. Someone like Sergio, you go, all right, let's do regular check-ins. Uh or you know, there's a scale there, going like, well, we're not certain about this, so maybe we do electronic monitoring. Like, there's there's I think there's there's ways for us to be more compassionate in our uh enforcement of these laws. Again, also I know that our government is not a Christian, you know, like this is not, you know, like they're trying to be Christ-like, although sometimes uh our government uh tries to quote scriptures to uh justify what they're doing, like the here am I, send me moment that Pete Heggseth is all on right now, which is such a bastardization of that Bible verse. But I think just out of like compassion and care for humanity, we we can we can do better.

SPEAKER_03 1:23:14

So, Stuart, you asked, did Slim have another option to propose? And would you uh repeat back to us the option he proposed and then give us your response?

SPEAKER_05 1:23:22

Yeah, yeah. At least one example of you could do a regular check-in. So so uh there isn't just there isn't just deportation or or detainment, but but something like a regular check check-in or electronic monitoring. And that that would be both more practical and more compassionate.

SPEAKER_03 1:23:37

And what do you think about that?

SPEAKER_05 1:23:39

Yeah, I I do think that that's uh a viable option. Um I think this is an example of where I would say, I I I'd want to know what more of the facts are. I just don't know. Um I don't know when that kind of option is viable and when it's not. But I think I would say that at some point the state needs to be able to say, you know, this individual, um, we don't have to go to the monster example, but let's say got a criminal record, can't do a regular check-in because there's a strong likelihood that they will just flee or you know go to another state, right? Um, gotta arrest this person, we gotta keep them somewhere, but we don't um don't necessarily know where this person is gonna end up long term, right? Um that's just at least one example where I don't think there's a middle option. There there are gonna be some exam some instances where there's gonna be have to there's gonna have to be some enforcement option.

SPEAKER_02 1:24:33

And I and that's where I I would I I agree, and I'm like, yes, there's gonna be some instances where that has to happen. But when we do mass deportation, and this goes to one of the other big ones, um, or mass detentions where they I think that's a part of this conversation. So it's detention to deport. Um so that these are kind of like you know, um together part of the the conversation. When we're doing mass deportations, you we don't have room for nuance. We don't have room for complexity. The fact that we said, you know, uh we have Trump campaigned on mass deportations and we voted for it is I think it's an indictment on us that we said, like, yeah, let's just get rid of everyone. And then all of a sudden we're shocked when our favorite taco truck and our favorite you know uh softball coach um and teacher are all gone. And you go, what do we do? Like the I the mass part, yeah. I think when we you know try to take my emotions out of it, I I think that part practically is is is taking the ability for us to say this person is doing harm to our society and this person like that this it's removing due process. It's just let's just wipe wipe the slate clean, and then you go, uh oh, for for who? Who is that gonna be? And and what we're seeing from the way it's acting is I mean, we have you know people on on audio, you know, pulling someone over, and some of them are now citizens and getting deported and having to be returned back. The guy there's a guy from Colorado that got deported and then had to be flown back, talk about government of efficiency, uh had to be flown back as a you know, they were like, Well, you you your accent made me think that you were uh Hispanic. And you're like, we're doing this based on accent now, on melanin? And the so just the all of this is coming forward, and you're going like defund about you know, defund and abolish ice, reject mass deportation. This has to happen whenever there's a chance for us to change some laws and policies. Um question.

SPEAKER_05 1:26:39

Oh, go ahead, Serena.

SPEAKER_03 1:26:40

Yeah, I was gonna interject something though, which I don't know if I'm allowed to do as moderator, but like, you know, my game, my rules.

Resources Judges And System Capacity

SPEAKER_03 1:26:46

As I've been listening to this whole conversation and thinking about the practical part of it, I I keep coming up against a problem in my mind that seems to be a massive problem for everything both of you are suggesting, which is there just don't seem to be the resources to do what either of you are suggesting. There don't seem to be the personnel. So if we're gonna enforce the law, it doesn't seem like there are enough immigration judges, enough immigration lawyers. Slim, if you want every case considered, who's gonna do that? Like there just don't seem to be the employees and the infrastructure for either of what what I hear, I'm hearing proposed right now. So I wonder if either of you wanted to. But there is address that. But I don't want to forget you had a question, Stuart. So we'll come back to it.

SPEAKER_02 1:27:29

Yes, Let's absolutely is. Uh this is the thing where it's as you see with our you know, 40, what is it, $42 trillion debt. We have the money. It's all play money anyways. Um, right. But let's just say we defund ICE with the billions and billions of dollars that we gave to ICE and we then reallocated it to border enforcement and to hiring a lot more judges, right? Like this is, I think, part of, you know, I would say, like, my my let me give you my immigration policy. It's to defund abolish ice, it's to reject mass deportation deportations. But then hire more judges. Hire more border control. Like there's there's ways to do this that I think actually is more effective and more compassionate. So that there is not such a huge backlog that people then like, well, I guess I'll check in in three years when my case comes up.

SPEAKER_03 1:28:18

I have an idea. Hire all the unemployed English PhDs because we're really smart. We know how to read, we know how to sort through documents, we know how to do research and look at data, and we know how to listen to human stories, right, Stuart? There's a pool right there for you to hire. Stuart, did you want to reply to my big question about like the personnel problem? Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:28:37

Um I I do think that's a problem. I find my brain's a little bit scattered.

SPEAKER_03 1:28:42

So Yes, because you had a question for Slim before I interjected that. So I don't know which direction you want to go.

SPEAKER_02 1:28:50

Slim, could you just repeat your last point quickly? It was to basically I have a let's let's just call it. It's it's the the the cheapest way to fix our immigration system, it's to take all the money we use for ice and let's put it all into the court system. Let's pay the courts and let's let's let's let's boost our border control. Right, right.

SPEAKER_05 1:29:09

Um right. So uh yes, now I now I I I've been able to get back to my thought. Um I think one of the frustrations that um that I have felt and that I definitely know uh from the conservatives that I know feel. Um part of it is uh part of the question is like, well, why why don't we just why don't we just let the people stay? Uh why don't we um it'll cost less. Uh we'll just be able to to move forward with it. So I wonder, would it be fair to call that extending a mercy? Because uh for this community they did break the law and letting them stay, granting amnesty, right? That would be a kind of extension of mercy, possibly. Yeah. Um and I think I think it might be possible to to say that's what we should do, but I think that that has to be done in such a way that you that we can communicate to the people who are frustrated to be able to say, here's here's why we should be extending mercy and why that's actually a good thing for you too. Because I I think I I think there is a sense of like, well, what about just the the justice of the situation? Isn't it unjust that millions of people can break the law and have no suffer no consequences for it? Deportation is the reasonable consequence of breaking immigration law. We just want to see justice done. Right. Um so I I think that's um I I I I think I've skipped over your question, Serena, so we can definitely come back to it on the practical side.

SPEAKER_03 1:30:35

But I think this is more, I think you're both more passionate about this. So go ahead and address that slim.

SPEAKER_02 1:30:40

Yeah, I I would say you're probably making the good argument that I would make to my kids is uh if I let you get away with this, then now I'm just I've I've I've lost all control. And now everyone's gonna be able to do that. You're everyone's gonna be able to have dessert uh in bed or whatever it might be. Is that uh a form of what you're saying? That if we just say, you know what, we're gonna wipe the slate clean, everyone that's here is now you know free to be to be citizens. Does it undercut our our commitment to the law and order and justice?

SPEAKER_05 1:31:11

Yeah, and and maybe I would I would um say, do you think, Slim, that there's any validity for the people who feel like ignoring the breaking of the law is unjust, right? Um is there any validity to the frustrations of people who think you shouldn't break the law? And if you do, well, deportation is a consequence of it. That's just how it is.

SPEAKER_02 1:31:33

Yeah, yeah. And I think this, you saw, I think we see this in some of the immigrant community that voted for Trump this past um election, that were saying, you know, I I went about it the right way. Um so we do need stricter border enforcement. And so I do think there's a there's a valid argument there of saying, hey, I've I tried to go in the right way. Why is all of a sudden now okay for others? Um and I think, again, I'm all for having stricter border in policies. Like I think we can we can we have strict border policies, um, but if someone is you know approved, then amen, hallelujah, and let's not change the law on them. And that's what I feel like is is difficult right now, is that we we've we've we've swung the pendulum so hard from let's say, you know, it wasn't open borders, but it was pretty, they were pretty open, to now it's completely shut, and we are now deporting, mass deporting uh so many uh, and so you can see that you're we're gonna probably see the the pendulum swing with you know some of our uh immigrant brothers and sisters that are still able to vote with Trump because they're seeing, oh, this isn't what I meant, right? I so I think this is I I so I I I affirm that you know there's a a way for there's a desire for us to have a little bit more stricter borders security, and a if someone is doing you know something illegal to um to get around those things, then for there to be consequences. Amen. Yep. So I think this is where I I think sometimes the rhetoric is you know, there are those who are like open borders and those are not. And I've you know, if you Texas politics, but there's the there's this Senator Palo Rico where he says, you know, we should have a welcome mat on our front porch, and all of the the right wing people have clipped that and stopped it there. He's like, he's but he his his whole thing is we should have a uh we should have a big welcome mat and a and a lock on the front door as his approach to immigration of treating it like his house, where it's like, hey, you're welcome, but also like we should have we should work through and talk through this. You can you want to push that illustration too far, I think is a problem. Um but but I I just think there is a sometimes there are there's a way to depict you know maybe a an argument like that I'm trying to make about having a more compassionate view as just saying, no, you're for open borders. And like that's not necessarily what we're arguing. We're just saying let's let's see the humanity in in in in being compassionate to one another, you know, love, justice, and mercy or kindness in this way. And I'm not saying you are arguing for without kindness. Um but I think that that um argument had gets thrown out. And then you I would say it's probably true that then the other side is being you know condemned as being with a lack of kindness and mercy. And so I don't want to depict it one way or the other there. But to me, it feels like we're at a five-alarm fire.

Mercy Justice And Mass Deportations

SPEAKER_02 1:34:25

That it to do nothing right now feels really hard. Um, this feels like a MLK uh letters to Birmingham Jail moment where, or letters from Birmingham jail, where he writes to the pastors and he's like, Where are you? Like, are my black brothers and sisters are being killed in the streets and you're silent. And so this feels like the that type of moment of hemming and hawing around this is so frustrating when you're like, this guy just got killed. This these people just get are getting you know shipped away to countries that they they don't know where they're going, they're going to countries they don't speak that language. And so it seems pretty wild for us to uh kind of have the the silence of the ministers. We'll say it that way.

SPEAKER_03 1:35:06

Stuart, did you feel that that Slim really understood the heart of what you were saying, the heart of the frustration of people who feel like but you're just saying get away with breaking the law. Did you did you feel like Slim got that?

SPEAKER_05 1:35:20

I I think Slim may acknowledge part of it. I think um I think that there's still ways in which I might push back a little bit. This is your chance. Right. Uh so I mean if we use that, if we use Talarico's analogy, which you said could be pushed too far. Um, but I think the push that back there would be something like, well, the door was open, a lot of people came in, and a lot of people, you know, slept on our couch and ate our food. And and okay, fine, you know, we've we've shut the door, but what about all the people who have been in here doing stuff? Isn't it okay for us to type, sorry, you came in, you gotta go back out. And you know, if you want to come back in, not politely, and you can do the process the the right way next time. Slim, I think that's again, argument by analogy is limited, but I think that that fairly represents a lot of the frustration from the conservative system.

SPEAKER_03 1:36:08

That was really helpful for me to get a vivid illustration. So thank you, Stuart. Yeah, Slim, can you just live inside the illustration for a second, Slim? Before Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:36:18

Yeah. I think that the the the house analogy it is helpful in the sense of like I tell people um many times I you know live in a let's say uh a neighborhood that has been overlooked, redlined, um, and you know um economically. We have to have boundaries as a uh as a family of saying, like, hey, we will we will give you food from our pantry, um, but we are not uh handing out money. Um there are certain th boundaries that we as a you know as a society ought ought to have. We can say laws, you know, in this in this conversation. The word the where the analogy fails for me is we're not inviting people into our homes. It's into a country, and there's a lot of a lot of opportunity, a lot of space. Um and so that that's where it's I think you know, as you as you said, like it analogies don't go all the way. And so I think that's something that I think we have to be able to go like, it's not as if they're taking my bed. There's there's there's there's room, and we want to, as Christians, uh, you know, treat the foreigner, um, you know, welcome them, treat them better than our own family.

SPEAKER_03 1:37:20

Um so what do you think, Stuart? Is there room? Are they not taking our beds? Are we denying them other open beds?

SPEAKER_05 1:37:29

That's that's part of my question. I think another question I have is, yeah, I I think I think it's fair to say, I mean, yeah, we're a prosperous country, uh, there should be a lot of room. But I I think that uh the system as it's set up right now, I think, is is two-tiered. And we might say two-tiered in multiple ways, but I think it does create a situation where it's like, yeah, you can come. The feeling is, uh the feeling is, yeah, you you can come and we'll, you know, we'll give you a bed, we'll give you food, we'll uh pay for your education, we'll pay for your kids' education. But you over there who's been here and you've been following the law the whole time, uh, we're gonna tax you more. Uh, you don't qualify for that benefit. And also, by the way, be cut you're the the problem, right? So the this conversation feels like it's part of a whole slew of things where I feel like not that there isn't so much room, um, but that the state is making all the accommodation on one side and is uh penalizing the other.

SPEAKER_03 1:38:22

Okay, I want to do something here that might be annoying, but I guess that's my job. Before I have Slim repeat that one back since he did the last one, Stuart, could I get you to go back two clicks in the conversation to um when Slim was talking about the letters from Birmingham Jail? When Slim was talking about like, we've got a fiber alarm fire. And like, so can you can you inhabit that analogy that he was that historical comparison he was making?

SPEAKER_05 1:38:46

Yeah, yeah. Um, I mean, I I certainly think that there are things to be concerned about. Um, I'm you know not convinced that alligator Alcatraz is is doing what it should to meet the basic needs of the people who are there. On the other hand, there are plenty of things that uh I just see examples all the time where it seems like, well, I think Obama did the same thing and we didn't say it was a five-alarm fire. Uh Clinton did the same thing and we didn't say there was a five-alarm fire. So I and I agree the rhetoric is different, and I agree that the tone is different with with this administration, but I'm not sure that the things that the facts on the ground are all that dissimilar.

SPEAKER_03 1:39:21

But um Let me push you a little bit. Can you spend a little longer, Stuart, trying to understand why Slim feels that way?

SPEAKER_05 1:39:30

Right, right. Well, sure. I mean, we there are just things that we see on the news, right? We we we do see people getting killed. Uh we see people getting um uh removed from their homes, we see people getting separated. Uh, I mean, these are these are all terrible things. Uh they're all they're they're all painful things. I I certainly think some of them, some of them are are wrong. They shouldn't have happened. Some of them are are a result of evil. Um sometimes, though, I think enforcement of the law is just gonna be painful, but it's actually part of part of justice. We incarcerate people sometimes, and that's painful, but it's necessary. Um and I think I think uh you know Obama deported people. He deported millions of people, he separated families. It's painful, but uh at least Obama argued it was necessary. And I didn't see people saying at that time this is a five-alarm fire situation. So, respond to that real quick.

SPEAKER_03 1:40:22

Yeah, yeah. But then I want to do a summary thing. So go ahead.

SPEAKER_02 1:40:26

Just uh respond uh to the I don't see the difference between then and now conversation. And we honestly a lot has changed for me in whenever Obama was president. So like my mind was not political. I was probably in the like apolitical Christians shouldn't even think politics moment, you know, of of my my my walk. So I I don't even know where that where I can't I can't speak to it. But what I'm curious or what I what I want to push back on is regardless if that's true or not, if what you're saying is, yeah, there are bad things happening right now, there is evil happening right now, regardless if it if it was also happening with under Obama, we as Christians ought to call it out and say, no, this this shouldn't be, this can't be, versus, well, that's how it was under Obama. That makes sense. Oh, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:41:18

And I I think you're right there. I don't think my point is to say, well, it's it's all fine. I think my point is to say, I don't think we actually know what's going

Renee Good Shooting And Hasty Judgment

SPEAKER_05 1:41:27

on. Um, so I would take the the Renee Good shooting, for example. I would contrast that with Alex Predi. This is just my impression. Uh, but I I think that the um Renee Good shooting was possibly justified. I think there are good reasons for at least being hesitant about it. Less so for Alex Predi. Um justified, justified.

SPEAKER_03 1:41:47

Hang on, listen, listen, see, let it let him make his case. I won't do the summary yet because this is too important. So go ahead, Stuart, and then Slim. You'll uh try to stay at back.

SPEAKER_05 1:41:57

So uh I think, and in that case, I saw a lot of people jumping to conclusions, and this is where, again, with my family's background in law enforcement, I see people making hasty judgments all the time, and they're actually wrong. I think people jump to um condemn the the officer very quickly, and they're often wrong. Not always, there are bad cops. There are bad cops that do wicked things. That could have been, uh, you know, I don't have all of the data to say for sure that I would vindicate um the shooting of the shooter of Renee Good. But I I I think I can say I shouldn't, I shouldn't assume that he's he's evil. I don't have enough knowledge to know that he's evil and that he did an evil thing.

SPEAKER_03 1:42:40

Did you want to add any more to that before Slim responds? Did you want to like actually give the justification or did you just want to leave it there as a like we don't really know?

SPEAKER_05 1:42:50

Yeah, and and that is in part because at least at the time, and it's been a while since I've looked at all the data, maybe there's more that's come out since then. But but I remember when people were talking about at the time, um, there's just both legally and I think morally, um, if somebody is legitimately threatened by the person that they're interacting with, that response of of using a lethal weapon can be justified. Um, the I'm not saying it's good necessarily, right? Um, it's not a positive good, it's not an unqualified good, but there are just situations.

SPEAKER_03 1:43:20

The law does make space for that to happen.

SPEAKER_05 1:43:23

Yeah, there are just some situations where some cops will end up shooting an unarmed person, and it's actually, I think, both legally and morally justified. It just it happens. There are also plenty of instances where it's not justified, but I see a lot of hasty judgment on the one side.

SPEAKER_02 1:43:39

Okay, Slim. Uh Hasty judgment. I think that's how I would have described her shooting. So if this was something that we did not have any video of.

SPEAKER_03 1:43:50

Okay, but first I need you to restate Stuart's position. I'm sorry.

SPEAKER_02 1:43:55

This is the whole point of the colour. Do the hard part of good joke.

SPEAKER_03 1:43:58

Do the hard part.

SPEAKER_02 1:44:00

So thank you. Thank you. Sorry, I'm breaking the rules. Stuart, forgive me.

SPEAKER_03 1:44:05

So you're justifying my existence here, Slim. You're just giving me a chance. Go ahead.

SPEAKER_02 1:44:09

Yeah, Stuart, you are arguing that there are many times when we um we we we are quick to judge a situation and uh cast doubt or uh skepticism on the part of the officers in these moments. And there are times when the officer um is justified in shooting even unarmed persons in those stuff in those instances.

SPEAKER_05 1:44:29

And could I briefly add one other qualification to my statement though? I think that the way that Christine Ohm responded to that was moronic and awful. The calling um either Renee Good or Alex Predi a terrorist in that situation was uh way out of line. So I just wanted to acknowledge that before for um something that I we probably all agree on here.

SPEAKER_02 1:44:50

Yeah, yeah. And so I think to the that point, if we did not have footage of this incident from other bystanders, we would have been walking away with Renee Good is a domestic terrorist that tried to run over an ICE officer, that Alex Predi is a domestic terrorist that that uh was trying to stop an ICE uh detainee. So you could say that that's all Christy Nome, but it was backed up by other people. Um right, and then not all, but it that's where it came down from the top. Yeah, yeah. Most of his own. And so that this is where I like I don't cast um doubt on all police officers, but I also believe that institutions try to protect their own, right? Um churches do this, sadly, companies do this, and in this moment, ICE is doing this, and so they're trying to protect theirs. But ISIS also was rapidly hiring people because they had to to to get enough people to get work on this mass deportations, not training them to go through the the proper procedure. So let's let's let's lift the police officers in a high esteem. So your your your your your your family. I'm sure they went through a lot more training than our ICE officers have gone through in their three-week training. The fact that they're pulling the gun on this woman with her, I think she uh was married to another woman and then also had a son in the back seat. So, and the video shows of her pulling away from it's clear that she's pulling away, not trying, and they're saying, Oh, he she hit him. And so all the the facts, even afterwards, the domestic terrorists saying that this man had internal bleeding, by definition, if you have a bruise, it counts as internal bleeding. The things that they would say afterwards, you're like, it is completely unjustified to shoot a human being. Because if we want to say that we are pro-life as Christians, then we ought to be very against killing another human being. If this person is uh a someone who is interrupting a an ICE uh raid, or if this person is someone that needs to be deported, I'm sure you could look at that license plate and follow them back to their home and and and go to down that path.

SPEAKER_03 1:47:04

But this is this is you mean as an alternative to a confrontation on the spot. You mean a later follow-up?

SPEAKER_02 1:47:09

Yeah. And so I just like that to me was absolutely unjustified. And to call it that, uh, that's where I would disagree with you.

SPEAKER_05 1:47:19

Um and and I appreciate that. I think we I think we do interpret the facts differently. So when I when I looked at the video.

SPEAKER_03 1:47:27

Before you say that, go ahead, Serena. Can you repeat back Slim's perspective why he thinks it's unjustified?

SPEAKER_05 1:47:33

Yeah. Um, well, first of all, uh the response, the immediate response was to say they were a terrorist, they intended to kill or they intended to harm the officer, and the officer was responding in self-defense. Some of the rhetoric from Christy Noah was also this person was a domestic terrorist, which again I think was um completely uncalled for. And we have the video, and that there isn't anything in that that situation that you think would justify um killing someone.

SPEAKER_03 1:48:02

Yeah. Okay. And then your response to it. Thank you.

SPEAKER_05 1:48:05

Yeah. Um, and I I I'm not sure as to the, you know, the there might be a legal question, but at least what I saw from the videos. And I looked at the New York Times breakdown, I looked at uh some of the analyses. It is, I think it was clear from us when we're breaking down the video, you know, sl frame by frame. You can see that she's turning the wheels in the other direction. I don't think that would be apparent if you were the one in front of the car. And what I perceived was, you know, the shout from the other person saying, Go, go, go, the car revs up. And and it did hit him. Um, may not have rammed him over, but it did hit him. So the car was close enough and the acceleration was enough that if I were in that situation, I could see why someone wouldn't think this person is trying to run me over. Um, that does not seem that implausible to me.

SPEAKER_02 1:48:53

It this is this is not uh a gotcha question. This is actually curiosity. Is do you know enough about you what your uh family's training was? Is that a normal response for uh police in that situation? Are they trained to respond to pull their their their weapon if they perceive the the car is driving in to them, which I would argue that he stepped in front of the car as she was trying to pull away.

SPEAKER_03 1:49:21

Just ask the question.

SPEAKER_05 1:49:22

Yep. Just ask the question. Let him answer. No, it's a fair question. I I don't know the specifics, so this is all with a grain of salt. I think that the I think that the standard is if if there is um if you can reasonably conclude that the that A, it it is being used as a weapon against you, and B the only way to stop that from being used against you, those are the situations in which lethal force can be justified.

SPEAKER_03 1:49:49

Yeah, and I did look that up right after the situation, and yes, there is uh there is space for for that, you know, for an officer to pull his weapon if he perceives that that's coming towards him.

SPEAKER_05 1:50:00

And and um I would say, you know, uh I mean a horrible what happened either way. It might not be justified, right? There might be another video that shows an angle that shows maybe he did step in front of the car, right? Maybe um maybe he was lying about about the situation. But just from what I saw within the few days immediately that after that happened, it it seemed I think it was plausible to interpret what Renee Good did as intentional. It wasn't, I think from what we can tell. But you don't know that when you're in front of the car and it's a split second and all you hear is go, go, go, and the carries in front of you. This is I just think that could plausibly be um interpreted as a threat.

SPEAKER_03 1:50:38

Well, and apparently it was, right? Like apparently in the moment it was interpreted as a threat. Now, whether or not that means because an action is justified, it needs to be taken is another another way this conversation should go. I'm gonna pause for your question.

SPEAKER_05 1:50:54

Um if I could just yeah, I um that's not a good idea.

SPEAKER_03 1:50:58

I want to I want to pause and do a summarizing. So I'll give you like 10 seconds to say say that thing you want to say, and then I want to back do a summary. So do you want to say this thing first, or or is it okay if I go ahead?

SPEAKER_05 1:51:08

Um yeah, uh just um I think that there was enough for us to again to hesitate to say, I'm not sure. Um and I think I just saw a lot of people rush to judgment first.

SPEAKER_03 1:51:20

I think that what we've just seen in this exchange about Renee Good follows the pattern that we've seen in the exchanges through the whole conversation. So I want to kind of observe what I've seen unfolding and and let and let you guys tell me if you agree. That I think I see the passion, the heat, the intense feeling coming from sort of a theme from both of you. And let me know if I'm getting this right. Slim, it seems like the theme I'm hearing from you is but so many people are suffering that don't have to, and that the people who are suffering tend to be the ones that have less power, that have less say, that have less leverage in our society. And it it sounds like I'm hearing from you that you think the Christian response is that we ought to be doing above and beyond to protect these people who don't have much power, and furthermore, that you think it's reached unprecedented heights of horror to the point that you're comfortable using words like fascism and concentration camps.

unknown 1:52:18

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 1:52:19

So do you think I'm kind of boiling down like sort of where your emotion is coming from?

SPEAKER_02 1:52:23

Yeah. Yeah, that's good. That was good.

SPEAKER_03 1:52:25

And Stuart, I think I want to really try to pull this out because I want to make sure I've understood you. I think I hear a lot of the emotion coming from the two-tier system. That's where I really thought you were getting to the heart of where maybe the feeling is coming from, is you might even agree with most of what Slim was saying, but you might also add, yes, but there's a whole other group that's suffering. And they're the group that's sort of the target of a lot of the nasty rhetoric. And that's kind of the white middle class that's being squeezed from both sides, that you know, the elites are taking all the money, and then the people that Slim is defending are taking all the all the compassion and all the energy and all the air in the room. And you feel like there are a lot of really nasty accusations being thrown against kind of the faithful, ordinary American citizen who's been here for generations, who's been hardworking, and who are now suddenly the ones who are attacked, who are sort of like, you know, who do we look at as the bad guy now? It's like the white middle-aged middle-class man, and that you feel like maybe that person has some legitimate complaints that aren't being listened to. Have I understood more or less where your feeling is coming from? Okay. What should we do about it? What should we do about this, gentlemen? What should we do to help more people who hold your positions talk to each other? What should we do about the actual situations regarding immigration? Do you see any places either of you are willing to compromise? Let's let's talk about like ways forward as we kind of wrap this up because you've been so generous for coming up on two hours. But like Okay. I'll ask one specific question to get this part started. Do you feel you've made any progress in this conversation? Does either of you understand a little more where the other's coming from and feel a little less enemy energy?

SPEAKER_02 1:54:15

Uh yeah, I mean, I'm the I guess the odd, not odd, but the the fact that I don't really know you, Stuart. Uh I I'm able to I've I I've learned a lot about you in the in this short time, your history and your family uh background in the police force and things like this. But uh so it and not in that sense that I was I had prejudiced you one way and think of you in a completely different way. It was more of like, I'm coming in blind. How I'm not sure what you're argued.

SPEAKER_03 1:54:38

And Slim, do you feel like you know more the human behind the arguments now that when you see the memes, that when you see the tweets, that do you think you'll be able to think like, well, Stuart gave me some thoughtful reasons why that person might be posting this?

SPEAKER_05 1:54:52

Yeah, yeah, definitely. Yeah. Stuart, how about you? Oh, certainly. Uh and I think uh I think Slim, you've helped me to see some of the areas where uh, you know, the rhetoric is unfortunately so extreme, but it's like it's either open borders or it's it's cruelty. And it's like, no, actually, there's there's a whole lot in between. And a lot that's that's um I I think achievable. And I think I think we can work towards towards some of the middle ground, and and you're helping me see some of um, I think what where that is possible.

Common Ground Language And Next Steps

SPEAKER_03 1:55:20

So can either of you give me one of those like practical, what would be a middle ground practical step? Because, you know, like Stuart, you don't want to completely defund and abolish ice, Lim, you do want to completely defund and abolish ice. What are there any practical steps that you think many people might support?

SPEAKER_02 1:55:36

I think one thing I I had put forward as uh an important thing that I heard Stuart affirm at the very beginning of the conversation that we would say is a good common ground is uh around describing human beings as illegal. I I correct if I'm wrong. I think you also affirm that that that's not where you want to just dehumanize someone to describe them as illegal. They might have uh done illegal acts, um, just like I've done, you know, you know, elite well.

SPEAKER_03 1:56:02

Let's hear the list, Slim, right here on air. Not on the podcast.

SPEAKER_02 1:56:06

We will at least but I wouldn't describe me or anyone else as like you are you are a liar um because you lied or you are, you know, all of these things. And I think that's just a way to help us see the humanity. Um I there was a a church that we were partnering with um that disagrees with us on um some political things, but we were partnering with them. And this lady, the older lady came to me and she's like, I might disagree with you on immigration, but I do not disagree with you on immigrants. And I thought that was like a good, like um, we can have a conversation, we can have some common grounds here. Like we see the humanity of these people, uh, you know, one another.

SPEAKER_03 1:56:39

So you didn't want the phrase illegal aliens used at all, Slim. Stuart, you thought that was just a legal phrase that it could be used, but that maybe it's gotten too freighted. Is that correctly? Correct?

SPEAKER_05 1:56:51

Oh, I th I think it's fair to say that there are some people who use that uh to dehumanize or to dismiss. But I do also think that um there is a there is a a valid point to be made where it there just are people who have broken the law in this way and we should be able to talk about it.

SPEAKER_03 1:57:07

What about using the word illegals as if it's a noun? Because that's that's one that I think might lean towards what Slim is saying, to to call them illegals instead of adding a noun after the adjective. How do you feel about that one?

SPEAKER_05 1:57:22

Um I sure uh I see some I see some use of that that uh term in the same way, but I also see it used as just uh I think you know, I I think when you're let's say stereotypical Texan conservative man is saying, well, you know, the illegals, I think he just means people who broke the law in this way. And he's not trying to say they're they're less than human, but they're frustrated about the law breaking.

SPEAKER_03 1:57:47

Aaron Powell And that's consistent with the the theme that I've been hearing from you throughout, is like maybe listen to that guy as well and what his frustrations are.

SPEAKER_05 1:57:55

Aaron Powell And that they're not all valid, you know, from everybody. You know, they're they're the um yeah, there are the people who are just racist and who are um you know bigoted and they they just don't want that there are the racists out there, so I'm not trying to ignore that that is a thing.

SPEAKER_03 1:58:09

But well, but there are a lot of people who are not that this has been really interesting because this is the third, the fourth of these that I've recorded. And this was the hardest one for me to hold my tongue. This was the hardest one, and I I didn't even quite succeed in one or two places, but I wanted to respond to almost every point. And that's interesting to me that this should be the topic that I care about the most. Like I'm super passionate about AI, but I didn't, I wasn't as tempted to jump in on that one and the others. So I really I understand better after this conversation why it's so hard for us to keep our tempers over this conversation. So that's very useful for me. And I hope that each of you will go out there and encourage other people to listen to others and to know that they have a whole set of reasons behind it. And to the audience, I hope that you um have stuck with us um and that you've learned something new, heard something from the person that you were less likely to agree with, and will maybe think twice before posting some of those horrible things on social media. And also, I forgot to say at the beginning, so maybe I'll clip this or add a clip at the

Support The Show And Paywall Note

SPEAKER_03 1:59:14

beginning. You two did a lovely practice round on who is the best superhero. So to my paid subscribers on Substack and to my financial supporters and author circle, you get access to that practice round. Um, and if you would like to become one of my supporters, please visit buymeacoffee.com slash Higgins Sorina and join today. Thank you again, Stuart Slim. Thank you for your time and your generosity. And I hope we keep these conversations going off air.

SPEAKER_05 1:59:42

It was an honor. Indeed. Likewise, uh great to talk with both of you.

Batman Versus Nightcrawler Debate

SPEAKER_02 1:59:50

All right. As said, wanted to give you the uh the lowdown on the the great debate that happened before that debate on what is the best, uh, who is the best superhero. And uh, as you may have heard, uh she has that behind a paywall, and so uh you won't get to hear the back and forth between uh Stuart and myself, but I do think I clearly won this debate, and probably the other one, because you know it's always a contest. Um, and this one uh was who's the best superhero? Um, and I will give Stuart uh the uh the you know a pass because I think he also was gonna argue for Batman being the best superhero. Uh, but when I claimed it, he chose someone else. He chose Nightcrawler. Um, Nightcrawler versus Batman. Um and a superhero just uh you know what what is the best one? Why does this matter? You know, maybe maybe it doesn't matter, but I think it's also interesting to think about. A superhero is you know generally this this fictional character um possesses extraordinary abilities, skills, resources used to pro um to pursue heroic ends. Um but by what do we mean when we're saying best superhero? What what what categories do you use to judge that? Um and I think you know someone's heroism, you know, like do they consistently choose good is part of that. Um do they uh have the moral character, they they the strongest virtues? Um someone you you may want to emulate or you're like I want to be like that. Um but I think one of the biggest ones that you see in superheroes, whether it's a an anti-hero or not, um, it's sacrifice, someone who gives up the most for others. Um you could argue, you know, you know, their their skills, their effectiveness, things like that, we you might see, and you're like, okay, clearly the the greatest impossible unstoppable superhero would be Superman, you know, flies, strength, uh laser vision, uh, all these things. Um, but we chose we chose Batman versus uh Nightcrawler. And I I argued that if we're just uh arguing based on franchises, uh Marvel franchise, which is X-Men, Nightcrawler is one of the X-Men. Um but Marvel franchise hands down wins the competition over DC. Map Batman is you know kind of the figurehead of DC. Um uh you could say Superman, but in terms of uh movies and production, like amount of money Marvel's made, uh, so much better because most of DC movies are flops, but Batman consistently carries the torch. Um, but that's not the what we're arguing here. We're arguing best superhero. And uh what what would be Nightcrawler's uh greatest strength? Um, I mean, he really is this uh compassionate, uh he's a faithful, uh it seems uh Catholic Christian. Um chooses goodness. He can he can uh teleport wherever he goes, um, which is uh you know a fun um fun uh uh superhero uh ability um teleporting himself. Uh you know, he gets to cling to these services. Um I think one of the one of the strengths to say like he's most one of the more interesting superheroes is that his appearance uh makes him an outsider. Night nightcrawler is you know visibly different. Uh he's got blue skin, yellow eyes. He almost looks demonic. Um and yet he he's one of the most compassionate uh superheroes. I think that's one of his strengths, is he's he's deeply, deeply compassionate. He's deeply loving of other people. Um, there's a lot of forgiveness and grace in his stories. Um and you know, can you remain good in a world that uh gives you plenty of reasons to become bitter? Um, and that I that's Nightcrawler's I think greatest superpower. Um it's not teleportation, it's that he still is joyful and loving. And so it's one of those you're like, I I I love I love his storyline. I wish he had his own movie, and maybe one day he will. Um, but um Batman demonstrates um something different. Batman demonstrates it's not about the powers you possess, it's about what you do with what you have. Because Batman's greatest strength, and one of the reasons why I I think I and many others really enjoy that storyline, is that he's human. He he doesn't have amazing gifts of teleportation or super strength or mutant abilities. Um his his fundamental strength is that he's a human being. Nightcrawler is is interesting because he can he can teleport, and Batman is extraordinary because he refuses to believe that uh his ordinary abilities make him powerless. He's like a MacGyver. He's he's finding ways to make something out of nothing. Um he is he isn't just simply brave, he he he actually leans into um all of the things that you're like he he trains hard, he trains he physically, he he studies criminology and technology. There's there's uh comic comics that are more of like detective novels of you know um Sherlock Holmes almost. He he he investigates, he plans, he he's he's incredible at his preparation. Um and so like there's the thing about Batman is so fascinating is you're like, oh, but I I I could do those things. And the other superheroes are like, no, I can't do those things. And so I think Batman's greatest uh weakness is maybe his strength isn't is that he doesn't have those superhero powers. And this is why I think as I as you get older, you get less fascinated in like, oh, they can fly. You're more of interested in these stories that that relate to humanity. And so I think one of the the things that the newer Batman movies have done have made him more gritty uh and more um you know relatable in this way, and so you're you're going, that is interesting, that's the story that I can get behind. And so Nightcrawler is saying the world rejects me, um, which is a powerful storyline to follow up with. But Batman's struggle is the world gave me every reason to become what I hate. So he you his famous story of his parents being killed and you thinking he wants to go in and and and retaliate, but he never he never chooses that. Batman always is always um he always has that no-killing principle, and so it's someone I think that's worth um mimicking, that's the heroic in this way. He doesn't you know merely fight evil, he he he puts those moral limits on himself. Um and so Batman he yeah yeah, he does use violence, and some of them are pretty violent. Um and you could say, and this is what uh Stuart argued is like, yeah, but Batman wouldn't do all this if he wasn't a billionaire. Um and I I I would argue that that's actually, and I did argue that like his wealth doesn't make him less likable because we can think of many billionaires and a current trillionaire who do not use their wealth for good. So many are just self-serving, and Batman's wealth is being used for good, and so I think that's like one of his his like you could say it's a weakness, but it's his his strength, and so Batman's method. Um I uh there's a there's a madness in him. Yeah, he can get a little uh obsessive, um, which makes it interesting, and sometimes his darkness makes it interesting. Uh he's not an anti-her, but he is um not always perfect. Um, Nightcrawler, I I've not seen them do kind of a you know a an in-depth view on like, does he struggle with showing compassion and things like this? Um but he he definitely is a little more morally superior. Um but I don't know if religious is like needed for us to really enjoy these these movies. I think both can actually uh speak to some of these things that we we would want to emulate as Christians and things like that. And so I think what I I I I I said to him is that um you know Batman is like the thing that he represents is you know not the limits of humanity, but like what what you can push against. Um and again, this is a it was a fun, fun debate back and forth, but it was like it was preparing us for that conversation you just you just heard around immigration. Um but I think it's also good for us to be thinking about when we when we watch movies, what are some of the the themes and and and you know goodness that we can pull from them, not just to be entertained, um, but what are some of the things that we can say, like, oh that's good. I I wanna and I think pausing after watching a movie and having this conversation with your kids or with one another, um, I think that helps us uh not just consume movies, but to actually have art do what art's supposed to do, and that's supposed to spur a conversation. So, well, y'all thank for a super long episode of Theology of Pieces. I know it was uh not the normal one, but hey, I hope you enjoyed it. Uh hope you enjoy going listening to some more of those uh words do things uh episodes. They get spicy. Um, but hey, next week, knock when I would be back. Talk to you later. See y'all.