Alternative Facts Episode 12: DACA Media Meltdown and NYT Makes a Convenient Mistake

absolutely made a promise yeah let me know good morning Facebook my name is Sagar and jeti this is my colleague Kevin Daly we are coming at you live from the Daily Caller News foundation this is alternative facts episode 12 before we again Kevin I have a very special request of you both we would like you to check in with your location let us know where you're coming from snow if you're a deplorable let us know if you're deplorable that's actually the key I particularly like it if you're deplorable ex checking in from so-and-so so I can make sure that's the tailor my show looking specifically for you so please let me know we're gonna begin with dhaka Oh what the hell's going on Kevin what's going on so the president is I'm sure our viewers know at this point announced this week that if Congress does not pass legislation to abide for the legalization right of individuals who were brought to this country illegally as children yeah that he will rescind an Obama era directive that effectively extended a temporary amnesty interest to children who were brought to this country illegally right so if that's what the president is doing why don't we go ahead and take a look at what the media says that the president is doing the vast majority of American people and the people I speak to our appalled by the actions that have happened recently and yes you're right and I asked a question at the beginning of the show what does this say to Americans of color it says again which you said you're not wanted and I can speak to that and I spoke to it during the election a lot of people were upset about when I came out and talked about the president after the David Duke comment after the speech he gave in Minnesota that he said wasn't that one of his advisors sat her on the program and said wasn't a speech about race when it was touted as a speech about race this whole gaslighting that's come to so many issues especially racial issues in this country it's so obvious it's not even a dog whistle anymore it's just flat-out bias flat-out discrimination that they're touting coming from this White House basically what happened is that President Trump ended a program which is probably unconstitutional we'll get it we'll get back to that in a little bit and you would have thought that Trump is kicking 800,000 people out of this country illegally the International Rescue Committee called it inhumane likened it to a Syrian genocide I mean this is insane yeah well okay first of all let's start with legal arguments obviously because you know we are a country of laws despite what people would like you to think so oh wait break that down for us there's there's a good argument that daca as President Obama promulgated it is not lawful for several reasons Wow in the first place this is effectively a regulation and when the administration issues a regulation that has to follow a law called the Administrative Procedure Act which requires regulations to conform to certain expectations one of them is if you're going to pass a regulation you need to establish what's called a notice and comment period before you promulgate that regulation you have to let all interested for you in the first place you have to let people know that yeah going to institute this regulation and then you have to invite comment on that regulation before you promulgate it that didn't happen during the you know when when daca was issued and that's not even in dispute and then there's also a constitutional argument which is simply this that Congress in 8 USC I believe it's 8 USC 1225 has clearly established that individuals who are in this country unlawfully are to be removed period okay had the Obama administration which sets aside this piece of legislation and issues its own guidance that expressly contradicts what Congress has codified in law and this is important because the Constitution's take care Clause requires that the president faithfully enforce and to faithfully enforce and carry out laws that are passed by Congress President Obama in the view of money people did not do that here so there are two arguments there's a constitutional argument and then there's this Administrative Procedure Act argument but the arguments against daca from a legal perspective are quite strong and it's parallel program Thapa yeah was stopped by the federal courts during the Obama administration so the idea that you can just kind of like bulldoze over these like important legal arguments is is is ridiculous and you and you you know see almost no coverage of these importance in the media so you're absolutely zero coverage none every the word I hear from all of it it's obviously a coordinated campaign they knew this was coming this is an inhumane and cruel decision do you want to know what's cruel president Obama giving 800,000 people false hope with something that he admitted is a temporary stopgap measure right turn it into a five-year long law effectively legalized and integrated fight you know almost a million freaking people into the economy and and then we have to and then a president comes in who decides he's gonna enforce the law and that's inhumane and cruel I mean come on think about like about the scope of the promise that President Obama made to this population with most most people are like should we kick them out yeah probably not but if they're gonna stay they have to stay legally and not only come through an act of Congress and you know these these so-called dreamers because of daca were given access to all sorts of benefits they can apply for home loans ya get all the work permit right they share private information with the government President Obama's administration encouraged them to do this on the basis of a promise that they could not do in President Obama's moral culpability in this very difficult situation has not at all been yes giving you something that makes you feel good but doing it illegally and then calling the guy who enforces the law inhumane and cruel is legitimate insanity and that's all that we've seen here but what it really is is a full-scale media narrative geared towards a full-blown amnesty for most illegals right and I think a place that we saw that most clearly was an Associated Press story now I'm sure that The Associated Press did not mean to do this but it's a slip of a tongue you know kind of a Freudian phrase that perfectly illustrates the way that these people think about these things so Kevin tell us what happened oh the Associated Press ran a story that about daca that used the phrase undocumented citizens yes right to describe dreamers ie to describe people who entered this country unlawfully right there's a lot of debate as to the nomenclature surrounding these terms yes even if you accept undocumented let's accept undock accept undocumented the idea that these people are citizens is it's that's a whole separate universe assertion I mean that's not even in evidence exactly and and I you know it's difficult to know what to make of that I'm sure it was a mistake I doubt that you know the writer of that ap wire story was making some kind of ideological claim but wow what a revealing mistake it's just the way exactly it's revealing into the mindset of these people these people want you to believe that just because you're an undocumented person does not preclude you from suburban Shipp whatsoever and they're not waiting for an act of Congress they want to refer to you as a citizen right now they want to disregard the law they want to make it so that we're constantly arguing about like oh no immigrant and one of my favorite things that these people do is that they will group in you know undocumented or illegal immigrants in terms of immigrants as a total population right so they'll be like immigrants added X percent to GDP and I'm like guys what else is really interesting here is the AP is apparent willingness to extend a concept of citizenship or participation in society ah to a group of people who are not legally citizens yes sort of it's sort of like the AP is operating off of this assumption that the concept of citizenship or the context of participation in the culture extends to people who lawfully are not members you have our republic right and so that creates this interesting in-group and out-group dynamic and so you say okay so this incredibly sympathetic population for which I'm sure you know people feel a lot of empathy our citizens are participants in the country what about Trump voters okay yes Joey Jim would you lump them would you lump them into the same category are they lawfully citizens but not really participants in the society that's the way really there are really interesting kind of principled dinah principled clashes that are taking place I'm glad you put it that way because the thing is this is about cultural citizenship they're like these people you know are worthy of our empathy elite empathy and ergo they are a citizenship of my America and you hear this all the time you hear that's not the America I grew up in that's not the America I know America is a legal entity have you heard this before no you're not who we are yeah that's not who we are what's know who we are is people who reside by a code of law in this country we disagree with each other on a lot but you can't justly no you can't just refer to some people's like oh these people in a part of America yeah you're like well you know they don't have citizenship and they're like no no but they're part of it right really fascinating dynamic even though it is interesting and I'm sure you guys see this all the time in terms of the media's coverage it's just this constant narrative this mean thrown into your face for the benefits of immigration if you even discuss crime rates or like you know you know welfare recipients etc etc you're a bigot automatic bigot you know it's like it's this PC culture that surrounds this discussion that just makes is that you can have any rational debate yeah speaking of labels oh okay yeah please I made it lead us into this all right so we're gonna switch gears a little bit from Doc I know you guys love to look read about it and so we're gonna go to the trial of the century some are calling it many people are calling many people yeah I'm saying as the trial is I think so the trial of the century is Democratic Senator Bob Menendez on trial we've got a few stories nobody's really covering it because I don't think people really want to reckon with the fact that a guy who was supposed to be one of the most respected members of the US Senate is incredibly corrupt Oh Kevin what the hell's going on here times did a piece on Senator Bob Menendez his trial for corruption at the Royal Court in New Jersey left out kind of an important detail but what was that Democrats yeah [Applause] we can talk about in all of its copies and yeah times didn't mention them as a Democrat Democrat what's worse oh yeah our colleague Peter Hassan noticed this and wrote a story about the New York Times overlooking this like kind of key detail it's important for reasons we can discuss in a moment and after this story the New York Times as it often does and this we could do our own they do it all but they do it all the time they did what's called a stealth at it so they went in they edited the article but when that happens you're supposed to include a note at the bottom of your story or maybe even at the top depending on how scrupulous we're about the sort of thing that this copy has been edited since it was first published the New York Times didn't do that in other words they snuck in the fact that Menendez is a Democrat after they originally drew a widespread condemnation right here and this is again this is exactly what we're talking about did the guy mean to do it probably wasn't willful exclusion but it's the things that you choose not to cover its the things that you'd choose not to include which are the most important and revealing and the insidious mindset and the fact that he's a Democrat is actually very important to this why is this why is it important if he's convicted he's probably going to have to resign there's no yeah it says a convict can't be a senator but he's probably going to have this is important because if there is a Senate vacancy in New Jersey then the senator temporary senator is appointed by the governor who happens to be Chris Christie to be a Republican here we go all of a sudden if this you know if in fact Menendez is convicted there's a good chance that there will be another Republican senator in the upper chamber of Congress in the upper chamber of commerce and that matters because Republicans in the Senate need every single vote they can get their hands on to do tailor care tattoo information maybe even a health care veto exactly and so we know that there are you know at least two there are 52 Republicans in the upper chamber there are two who are very moderate willing to buck a party Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins right bringing on one more Republican stall it's a big deal on Jim right and so the fact that that Menendez is a Democrat could in if you know if he has to leave the Senate that dramatically changes the political calculus exactly and and so this is an important detail that you keys are these are details that they overlooked but they hope that you guys won't notice and that's exactly what we're trying to do here we're trying to bring the shroud from the media these these will these not willful but you know Freudian slips or something it tells us everything you need to know about them and that's exactly what we try and do here for you guys so Sagar and jetty Kevin daily Daily Caller News Foundation alternative facts remember if you haven't checked it already please check in please check in right back in now yes thank you we love you