Hy and Christopher begin the show with a spirited dive into New Orleans’s bohemian past where the funerary tradition is honored by a drink comprised of absence, gin, and vermouth. Chronicling this history, author Sue Strachan joins us on the Founders Show, talking about her new book The Obituary Cocktail, and it’s premier at the Garden District Book Shop on Friday, July 18. More information at gardendistrictbookshop.com
We then ask the question if only Nixon could go to China, can Trump be the only person who brings about amnesty for illegal immigrants?
Could an amnesty deal be possible, allowing millions of illegal migrants to stay legally in the United States?
Through the intervention of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Mandonna Kashanian, a 64-year-old Iranian-born resident of Louisiana, was released from ICE detention on Tuesday, July 8. She was arrested last month while picking figs in her Lakeview yard while her American-born husband and daughter sat inside unaware.
Kashanian entered the U.S. legally in 1978. She overstayed her visa; though, she was granted a stay of deportation more than 20 years ago. Her family noted that she applied for asylum multiple times, consistently reporting to immigration officials since. Until this year, she had never been arrested for any criminal or immigration-related offense.
Despite the recent postulations of pundits, MAGA world has not begun to rip itself apart over the Epstein list, Ukrainian weaponry, Russian sanctions, fiscal prolificacy, or bombing Iran. It’s this, a battle between those who wish to deport anyone with questionable legal status, and those who wish for a pathway to legalization. Lately, the latter group has included the president of the United States.
The GOP stands on the precipice of Civil War over Donald Trump’s proposal of amnesty for illegal immigrants in key industries (such as agriculture) who have not been arrested for other crimes. The irony is shocking, yet Democrats may have been provided with an unexpected opportunity to finally give a pathway to legal status to migrants. Otherwise, stories like Mandonna Kashanian’s might become all too common. The only question that remains is how much in penalties will progressives concede to conservative congressmen to get amnesty legislation passed.
It seems impossible, but that’s what the president has been telegraphing over the last two weeks, much to the chagrin of some of his senior advisors. He would agree to amnesty for the right price. Trump’s proposed pathway will likely include cash payments in exchange for the right to stay in the United States, if the president’s “Gold Card” proposal proves any indication. Yet with strong opposition on the MAGA right of the GOP, Democrats will have to put forward a deal, however much they might dislike Trump personally, to avoid as many as 11 million deportations.
A window of opportunity exists. Trump does not like to be thwarted, even by his allies. Especially by his allies – just ask Elon Musk. MAGA theorists have condemned his $5 million cash payment to come into the United States. Moreover, the federal courts will likely strike it down, absent any congressional action. However, the simple idea that a cash payment could render a green card has some deportation purists in the MAGA movement unnerved.
In recent weeks, Trump has flummoxed deportation advocates, like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, “Border Czar” Tom Homan, and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who have rushed to “clarify” Trump’s comments that migrants employed in farming and industrial activities without a criminal record should not face expulsion from the country. In point of fact, as Trump tries to thread the proverbial needle, thousands of (otherwise) law abiding illegal immigrants face round up from ICE agents. With a greater boost in funding thanks to the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill, which will provide Immigration & Customs Enforcement with more money than the FBI and all other federal security agencies put together, the round ups will probably skyrocket. The otherwise innocent will be the victims.
That is bad news for agri-business interests who are disproportionately powerful in key pro-Trump electoral constituencies in rural America – and corporate ambassadors from Archer-Daniels-Midland, Tyson and Smithfield have been letting the president know of their displeasure.
Realists around Donald Trump, and quite a few senior GOP members, have been trying to find a solution that their base would accept. An economic paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on Tuesday, July 8, found that “high interior deportation,” with removals gradually rising to 437,500 a year, would cut economic growth by 0.83 percentage point this year and 0.84 in 2027.
Trump fears recession above all else; however, deportation advocates, like the MAGA-allied Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), estimates the annual net cost of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local levels to be at least $150.7 billion, as of early 2023. Put another way, FAIR states that this translates to a cost of $8,776 annually per illegal immigrant. That has given deportation hawks a fiscal counter argument.
Of course, libertarian advocates like the CATO Institute argue that there is a net $203,000 positive to the economy for each illegal immigrant over a 30-year period, but that carries little sway with the mainstream of the Republican Party currently. Payments, however, do.
$8,776 multiplied over 30 years would amount to $263,280. That’s not a lot higher than the $200,000 cap that the Trump administration has put on graduate student loans, such as for medical school tuition. Nevertheless, if the American people are willing to let someone borrow for medical school or law school over 30 years at $200,000, why will not even our most recalcitrant citizenry allow an immigrant earn their citizenship by paying the same amount over a similar period of time?
Or perhaps levy a more reasonable fine?
Understandably, Democrats will decry the notion of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the right to simply live, especially as this amounts to far more than the $5,000 penalty that they proposed in the 2006 amnesty legislation. Nevertheless, progressive may have no choice but to swallow a high fine threshold to get a deal done.
MAGA Republicans have the law on their side right now. A strict reading of the federal statutory code allows for deportation for any reason, if one’s status is even slightly illegal, as Mandonna Kashanian learned. Advocates for amnesty for those who have obeyed the law for decades (like she has) might hope for a far lower fee based on years living in the United States. Nevertheless, if a congressman’s empathy for the situation of law-abiding citizens being arrested will not move him to co-sponsor an amnesty bill, perhaps money will?
If efforts toward such a compromise fail, Democrats will win the moral argument. MAGA opponents will have made very clear that they have predicated their deportation agenda not predicated upon questions of national economic security – as they have claimed – but upon race and ethnicity.
Equally, Democrats have to be realistic. Some Republicans are racist, but not all. Currently, progressives are losing the immigration debate according to national polling. The deportations remain popular. Splitting the economic conservatives from the MAGA conservatives may ensure that law-abiding mothers from Lakeview do not find themselves in detention cells. If Mike Johnson and Steve Scalise do not champion their cause, if presented with a profitable alternative for the federal treasury, then their true motivations will have become clear.
The House majority leader from Metairie stepped up for Mandonna Kashanian. Will he do so for everyone else? And will the pathway be affordable for immigrants to make the payments?
Scalise argued last Thursday, that’s exactly the course of action which he demands of Congress. “What do you do with the people who are here illegally but aren’t violent criminals? And by the way, how do you know the difference? Well, some unelected bureaucrat in Washington working for a federal agency who’s processing thousands of cases a day really doesn’t have enough information to know."
“We will have to change the law in Congress," Scalise said, "and that means both parties are going to have to come together to do it, not to yell and scream and demagogue the issue."