PDB Situation Report | November 23rd, 2024: Ukraine’s Deadly Weapons Race & the Mass Deportation Debate

Welcome to the PDB Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. We'll begin today with the latest developments out of Ukraine, where new weapons on both sides are fueling the conflict as if it needed more fuel and prompting concerns about a wider war. Bill Rogial, from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, will join us to give us the skinny, or the 411, as the kids say. I'm sure they still say that.

Later, with the Trump administration adding immigration hardliners like incoming borders are Tom Holman, sanctuary cities are pushing back against mass deportation efforts. So what's the path forward and solving the crisis? Well, I'm glad you asked that question. We've got Jessica Vaught from the Center for Immigration Studies to weigh in.

But first, our Situation Report spotlight. Earlier this week, the Biden administration announced a major reversal in its long-standing policy limiting the use of US-made long-range ballistic missiles known as ATACOMs. The decision resulted in strikes from Ukrainian forces deep into Russian territory, hitting targets once deemed off limits by the Biden administration.

As expected, the White House's reversal and the subsequent strikes evoked a strong response from the Kremlin, which warned that the use of the weapons marked a new phase in the war. Oh, well, that would be the war that Putin started.

But Russia went beyond rhetoric, unleashing a new weapon of its own. On Thursday, Keith reported that the city of Neapro had been struck by what initially believed to be an intercontinental ballistic missile or an ICBM. Ultimately, it was revealed that Russia had used an experimental, intermediate-range ballistic missile known as Orchnik. Well, that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

in an address to the Russian people following the attack. President Putin warned, quote, we believe that we have the right to use our weapons against military facilities of the countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities. End quote. For more on this, let me bring in senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and editor of FTD's Long War Journal, Bill Rogio. Bill, great to see you again. And thanks very much for taking the time with us. Pleasure. Thanks for having me back on.

Oh, absolutely. Look, you were a crowd favorite, right? We've been getting emails and texts and postcards asking when you were going to be back on. I don't get that much, so thank you very much. Well, we're just here for affirmation. So, Bill, let's start with a very specific question. When we're talking about the Russia-Ukraine situation, how screwed are we? Yeah, it's a very concerning situation. Look, I find that the Biden administration

clearing the crayons' use of long-range strike weapons into Russia in between as it's going to transition power to a Trump administration that has talked about negotiations to just be, I don't even know how to describe that.

vindictive, I don't know what the right word is, Mike, but it's unseemly at the least. It seems to be an attempt to sabotage Trump administration policies. If after almost three years of war, the Biden administration wasn't going to approve the long-range strike capacity for U.S. weapons, why would it do so now? And to me, the only reason it's so is to complicate

uh, things for an incoming truck administration. But what bothers me even more about this is they've, they've, they've hooked it on, but I'm sorry for the weapon bill, but they, the white house obviously pegged to this decision, uh, both on the, on the, uh, the long-range munitions, the ATAC comes in the, and the, uh, use of anti personnel mines.

They've pegged both of those decisions to the North Korean presence, right? Suddenly that was the game changer from their perspective. That's what they're saying. So, is there any credibility in that from your perspective? It's an awful excuse. The North Koreans are providing, what, 10,000 troops to the combat? Look, I'm no fan of Putin or his invasion of the Ukraine. It's illegal. It's immoral. All of those things.

But look, Westerners have volunteered to fight in the ranks of the Ukrainian military. It's that kind of war. I don't understand how North Koreans, in a limited capacity, all of a sudden, clears the decks for the US to approve long-range strike capability for US missiles for something that bothers.

was the Russian to use an intermediate range ballistic missile that is equipped to use nuclear warheads to fire it on Ukraine. And the point I was going to make is that we're just seeing an escalation here. And I warned about this from the day one of this war. This is an administration that couldn't manage a war with the Taliban.

with a third rate militia that we've elevated into a regional power in Central Asia. And we think that it can manage a war with nuclear implications.

in, you know, against the nuclear power. And that's very disturbing. Where is Joe Biden? What is he? You know, look, I try to leave the police. I can answer that question. Yeah, I can answer that question. I believe he's still in the Amazon. Yeah. The last night, he was walking into the forest, all looking aside. I mean, you know, he was shoved aside, run for president because of this.

This administration should tread water in Ukraine and hand over the policy to an incoming Trump administration. Two months before leaving office, it's going to risk nuclear escalation. I find this to be both disturbing and irresponsible at the same time.

There's so many layers here, you know, when we're talking about the decision from the Biden White House to do this, right? And as you pointed out, look for the entire duration of this war, right? The one constant with the White House has been the fear of escalation.

Which is why, obviously, for all this time, they did not approve the use of these long-range munitions into Russian territory. Pending that decision, I agree with you on the North Korean issue. It seems like a disconnect. Sure, we're upset that Kim Jong-un is sending troops, but he's been sending munitions and hardware and other support for almost the duration of the war, sending troops. Yes, it's visually, it's bizarre.

you know, it's part and parcel of what you could probably have predicted from that relationship, particularly given the personnel issues that that Putin has and the desire not to have another conscription. But I kind of have to side with you on this one that it seems, I think he used the word vindictive and it almost, that almost fits, right, you know, because there's no other real logical reason for it unless, and let me get your opinion on this, unless

There's some intelligence that we're not seeing about a new counter-offensive in Kursk.

Obviously the Russians have been massing troops up there. Reportedly, they've got some 50,000 and that may be where the bulk of the North Korean troops are. My guess is they're at the front of the line about to be shoved into the meat grinder. Unless they felt as if Putin is close to moving on Kursk, taking back that territory and removing one of the few points of leverage that Silesky has in terms of sitting down at the negotiating table.

Hey, Mike Baker here. Let's talk warranties. I know, that's exactly what you were hoping I'd say, but let me ask you this. Would you buy a car without a warranty? Well, no, of course not. What about your other big ticket purchases? Specifically, your home's appliances and critical systems. Again, well, the answer should be no. The bottom line is that every day is a good day when you're not worrying about your appliances and home systems, and that's what you get with an American home shield warranty.

With an American home shield warranty, unexpected breakdowns like a leaky faucet or a faulty water heater won't break the bank, because covered repairs and replacements are taken care of, just like that. And having that sort of reassurance, well, that's peace of mind.

Choose a plan that works for you and your budget, and then it's simple. When a covered item in your home breaks, just contact American Home Shield, and their trusted and qualified pros will fix or replace it based on the coverage limits in your agreement. So, when it comes to protecting your appliances and home systems, don't worry, be warrantied. And I really honestly don't know if warrantied is an actual word, but let's go with it.

for 20% off plans. Visit AHS dot com slash Mike. For more details, see AHS dot com slash contracts for coverage details, including limit amounts, fees, limitations and exclusions. Yeah. I mean, that's certainly as possible. I think that the curse in the Ukrainian president, uh, presence in curse is

It's just a matter of time before the Ukrainians lose their foothold in Russia. The Russians are determined to take it back. I have a feeling that this isn't one that Putin will negotiate for. I think it's a matter of honor for Putin and for the Russians to retake that territory.

You know, what are the arguments I'm hearing about for permitting the law range strike capabilities is to force the Russians to the table, right, to get them to negotiate a settlement. But the Ukrainians insist that the only settlement they'll accept is full watch Russian withdrawal. That's not going to happen. It's not absolutely not.

And then the argument is what Putin's not going to negotiate. He wants to take the whole of Ukraine or split Ukraine, or he's not going to. So if you're not going to be able to get Putin to the table, how does launching missiles, which by the way, may have the opposite effect.

of what you think. It may harden Putin, and it may harden the Russia people to fight harder, to dismantle a Ukrainian government. The fact is, the Ukrainians are losing, and I don't like this. I keep making these arguments, Mike, because it sounds, I'll get it used to being pro-Putin for this.

We have to look at the reality on the ground. Ukraine is a country with a quarter population, probably more like a fifth at this point, given all the exodus of people from Ukraine. The fifth population of Russia does not have its own industrial capability. Russia is a nuclear armed country. It has a large economy with trollium and other exports. It has a large manufacturing base. It makes its own weapons. These are all stacked against

Against Ukraine, we could provide a limited number of weapon systems, even the low-range strike systems that we send to the Ukrainians. There's only so many of them that we can send. So they're going to have limited capacity. This war was always stacked against Ukraine. Ukraine would have been wise to take whatever kind of deal it could and then revamped and rearmed for whatever future conflict may come.

Thinking that we're going to drive the Russians to the table by allowing low range strike capabilities for a limited number of missiles and rockets is just its fantasy to me.

Well, I think you've got two options, right? As with most decision trees, right? People overcomplicate major decisions because they imagine there's endless scenarios. And they really typically are not. There's very few actual options. And in this case, granting permission for the long-range munitions

You're either going to drive them to the table or you're going to get what you get in this case, which is from his perception, further escalation, launching an IRBM and thinking, okay, well now, what are you going to do? You're going to keep firing these ATACMs at me or the Storm Shadows from the UK, their version.

I think perhaps there's an issue here where they've misread Putin's motivations and agenda. There's a lot of work that goes into profiling and understanding world leaders. We've certainly had a long time to look at Putin. I go back to, again, this White House decision because it is fascinating. I agree with you. Typically, on the situation report, we don't talk politics. I don't like to do that. I like to focus on what's happening operationally overseas.

But their policies seem to be at the White House for the duration of this war, up until just now, to essentially give just enough to not allow Ukraine to have any opportunity for victory, but to basically hold the line, to maintain a status quo in what essentially turned into trench warfare from World War I.

And then, supposedly because of the incoming North Korean troops, now the dynamics entirely changed. And the White House was very good about this. Everybody's memo said the same thing. When they went out and had to explain this to the press, they were all the same. Well, the dynamic of the North Koreans has changed the picture.

And you're right. There is a problem here that anytime you talk about a negotiated settlement that people say, well, you're just on Putin's side. No, no. You're trying to be pragmatic in a world where you don't want what you hope for is not your foreign policy, right? Foreign policy shouldn't be built on the world that you'd like to see, right? It's the world that you have to deal with.

So, you know what I'm going to do right now, Bill, is I'm going to climb down off my soapbox, and I'm going to go to break real quick, but if you could stay right where you are, we're going to hear from a couple of our most excellent sponsors, and then we'll be right back. Hey, Mike Baker here.

America, you might have heard about this, just got finished with a historical election. Yeah, it was in the news. Sure. Now there's going to be some change in the White House, but frankly, the fundamentals haven't changed. The dollar is still in decline with the US get this adding $100,000 in debt every second. Oh, that goes another 100 and another look at it. It's just building up, isn't it? Meanwhile, bricks nations have introduced the unit.

That's what they're calling a new global currency pegged 40% to gold and 60% to BRICS currencies, which could mark the beginning of a global monetary reset. Now, what to do about it all? I'll tell you what to do. Call the proud Americans of the Patriot Gold Group today before it's too late.

Mention PDB and you'll always get Best in Class service from Patriots, protecting Patriots. Look, the Patriot Gold Group has the No Fee for Life IRA where your IRA or 401K can be in physical gold and silver and you may be eligible for the No Fee for Life IRA on qualifying rollovers.

Call 1-888-870-5457 for a free investor guide. Now, Patriot Gold Group is consumer affairs top rated gold IRA dealer for seven years in a row. And I'm here to tell you that's a lot of years in a row. Call 1-888-870-5457.

welcome back to the pd b situation report joining me once again is senior fellow at the foundation for the defense of democracies and editor of fd's long war journal and man about town bill rogeo bill what do you think it seems to me that zielensky has been essentially quietly admitting that some negotiated settlement is going to mean that he doesn't get crime a back that crime a stays with with Putin

Are you seeing a softening in Zelensky's position? Because you mentioned earlier in our conversation that, you know, their position had been, certainly from the outset, a victory just means we get all our land and territory back. And that would be the most satisfying thing ever, right? To justify all this loss of life and cost for the sea Ukraine, you know, come back with Crimea. It would be eastern part of the country.

But it seems as if Zelensky himself is setting the table with his own population to say that that's probably not going to be how this ends up. Yeah, and like before I addressed that, I wanted to address what you had mentioned, not understanding Putin. This is a problem I witnessed in the entire war in terror. We didn't understand the Taliban. We didn't understand al-Qaeda. We didn't and don't understand Iran and its motivations.

I also think we don't understand Zelensky and what his motivations are when he says, and I believe it because he's under political pressure domestically from right-wing groups from the, let's face it, some of these are neo-Nazi organizations that have military formations, formations like Asaf.

Look, you read the New York Times about this up until the Russian invasion, reporting about these right-wing extremist groups, how they're power with the Ukraine. I don't think he's in a position to yield any land to the Russians, and yet the reality is from the Russian side, keep in mind they have next four oblasts or provinces in Russia. Most of them are

occupied by Russia, but not all of the territory. By Russian law, those are, that is now Russian territory to the Russians. Again, morally and legally, I don't think the Russians have a like to stand on, but internally, this is how Putin and his followers, remember, he has pressure that comes from his right as well. And that's why I think you have this intractable situation where even if you could get Putin and Zelensky or their people into a room,

I think their goals, their outcomes for this are so wildly differing that I don't think you really can come to a solution, but Zelensky can afford to seed even just Crimea to the Russians.

because the right-wing groups that have military power, there's actual military brigades, I see it all the time, you know, showing their Nazi symbolism while training in France even. These groups have said that they would not accept this outcome and have said that even some of them said they would kill Zelensky.

if that outcome came along. So he's handcuffed. You know, the best that he could hope for is to get all the territory back. And then maybe the thing that he could see would be Ukraine not agreeing to join NATO to be a neutral country.

But for the Russians, I don't think that's enough. But there's no, there's no, there's no, there's no way that that Putin's going to give back Crimea. Right. That's, yeah, there's no way. That's the thing. The Russians lack see fleet given the costs that they've incurred, like writing in the number of soldiers and there's wildly different estimates on that. The military hardware, international pressure, they're going to want something out of this. And I think there, I think there's serious about annexing those four provinces. And, you know, and keeping them and, and

Yeah, I just don't see a political outcome. The best outcome to me that's realistic, that Zelensky can hope for is some type of ceasefire, a cessation of fighting, of freezing the line of contact as it is today. That's the best they can hope for. If they wait till tomorrow, they're going to lose more ground. If they wait till next week, they're going to lose a little bit more ground. And if they wait till next month, they're going to lose a lot more ground.

Yeah. Now, yeah, I, again, I take your point. I think you're, I think you're correct. Right. I've been saying this forever. And look, Crimea is an interesting spot because when, when they annex Crimea,

But approximately zero people outside of Ukraine cared. I don't remember anybody on Twitter at the time posting little Ukrainian flags on their Twitter sites or, you know, putting little, you know, signs outside their yard saying we stand with Ukraine. Nobody, nobody gave it. Right? And he's had troops in Eastern Ukraine for all these years, same thing. So again, and you always have to caveat this, right? Because of the bizarre world we live in, you shouldn't have to state the obvious.

You know, nobody is behind this idea that Putin deserves any of that territory. He doesn't, right? He's a despot. He's a dictator. This whole mess is his fault. He's responsible for it. But in foreign policy, you know, and in dealing with the world as it is, not as you'd like it.

You know, sometimes you have to make very unpleasant decisions. And so the idea that this whole thing could end much with the lines similar to where it started, you know, which frankly, they've taken more territory during the past, you know, that thousand days. So if they got back to the original lines in February 2022, that would be that Russia would have to give back some of that turf.

This whole problem is, I think your word intractable, I think it makes sense, but the reality is that Zelensky has a manpower problem, right? He's gonna have a resource issue if the Trump administration comes in and says, you know, we're gonna cut back and, you know, you're sorry, the EU is gonna have to pick up the slack. Putin's got his own issues as you pointed out, but at some point,

The only way this ends is at a negotiating table. I think people have to set aside their hopes and dreams and wishful thinking and say, we have to deal with the world the way it is. What's the best way to get to that point? Because if we keep escalating it the way it's going,

I mean, Zelensky says, well, Putin is a paper tiger. Don't pay attention to his red lines. We showed that by our incursion into Kursk. I don't know if NATO, I don't know if the EU is fully on board with the idea that this turns into a full-blown shooting match with the Russian military. Yeah, I agree. Part of the problem with all of this, how did the rhetoric start out from the EU countries and from the US? We have to overthrow Putin. We need Russian needs to be handed a military defeat.

Again, I think that's harder than the Russians in some cases, but the irony is if all of those things were true, if Putin had to go, if the Russians needed to be dealt with defeat, if the Russians are a direct threat to Europe, then why are the European countries and the United States acting like it?

instead of sending, you know, warehoused weapons and limited number of weapons systems. As you mentioned, just enough for Ukraine to not lose, although I'd argue it's just enough for them to not lose quickly. They're losing slowly. Right.

You know, where is the uptick in defense spending in manufacturing? We still can't manufacture. I would argue probably somewhere around a tenth of the artillery shells of what Russia is manufacturing. And this is a war where artillery is the king of battle. It always has been, and it especially has been in this war. We act one way, but

You know, we say one thing, but we act another. And then, you know, the Russians see this and they don't take us seriously. So we have to become realist about how this will work, though, to end. Hopefully the Trump administration is able to do this.

I mean, we certainly will see. He said that he'll cut a deal in a day. I think that's Trump hyperbole means we'll kind of deal quickly. I'm not sure if that's enough. Wait, wait, wait, Phil, Phil, I just want to take a note on this just to make sure I understand your position. So you think when President-elect Trump says he's going to stop the war in a day, you think that's hyperbole? Okay. I'm just, I'm, I know that is such a controversial statement.

Yeah, so thank you for that. Look, it is fascinating when, and it's all speculation, which probably isn't worth taking up your time with, but if you look at

President-elect Trump coming in, right? And we know his somewhat is disdainful attitude towards NATO, although I think it's, again, I think if you take everything that Trump says at face value, I think you're playing a losing game, right? Because, you know, he'll throw stuff out there and that's been the problem, the media and the Democrats

tend to take everything he says literally. They go, no, he really means it. And they don't understand the mindset of a tri-state property developer, right? They've never, apparently they've never dealt with one, right? Who grew up in the New York tri-state area, punching people in the nose and then getting punched back, you know, developing properties.

And so they assume every time he says something that, oh, that's exactly what he means, right? And instead of just, you know, I'm just throwing some stuff on the wall. Maybe I'm spitballing some ideas. You know, maybe I'm saying things because I think it might be a good bargaining tactic to get what I want. Um, so I'm not sure how far I carry that idea that he's going to somehow abandon NATO, right? I think he wants what a lot of people want, which is them to, to, to, you know, pay their fair share, et cetera, et cetera. By the way, we should probably turn the wind right about that.

It was right about NATO not showing the load. His statements were taken in my estimation. Look, is it wise to prefer a president to say it that way? Sure, we can have that debate. I don't particularly like his style, but I understood where he was coming from. He was arguing for NATO to pick up its share of the load. And I'm certain he's watching this Ukraine conflict and sitting there going, I was right, and he was right.

You know, again, if this is an existential war, why are, particularly for Europe and Western Eastern Europe, why aren't they treating it as such? Yeah. Okay. Last question. And then we're going to have to go, unfortunately.

It could be just a yes or no. No, we're going to get a settlement of some sort, whether it's a ceasefire, a negotiated settlement. You think we'll have it by the end of the first quarter of 2025. That's a great question. I think there might be some type of ceasefire. And I think we might be able to see it by within the first half of the year, the half a year of this term. I think it's just

He's, you know, a incoming president has a lot to do. And the war in Ukraine is just going to be one of a multitude of things that are a priority for him. So there's a lot of legwork to be done to get the staff in place.

I don't think it's gonna be something that the Ukrainians or those with the Ukraine flags in their Twitter handles are gonna like, but I do think he may be able to achieve some type of ceasefire of freezing the lines. I think the Russians may accept that, but if that's the case and if that's what the Russians are perceiving, they may accelerate their military operations to gobble up more ground as much ground as they can in expectation of that ceasefire.

Yeah, I think that's exactly right, Bill. I think that's what we're going to see. Potentially, maybe even sort of a DMZ on the eastern side somewhere in that line of demarcation, perhaps, whatever that is at the point where they come to terms with some type of settlement or ceasefire. Bill Rogium.

Look, it's always delightful. I don't use that word very often, but it is delightful. A senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, I hope you'll come back next time we call and we keep talking because I'm guessing that this problem is not going away anytime soon.

No, it's not like always a pleasure. Just give me a call whenever you need me. All right. Coming up next, sanctuary cities push back against the incoming Trump administration's plans for mass deportations. Well, that's completely expected setting the stage for a potential major border showdown. Jessica Vaughn from the Center for Immigration Studies joins us to discuss the obstacles facing the new administration. Stay with us.

Hey, Mike Baker here. If you're tired of the same old coffee, and I know you are, from those mega corporations that push their woke agendas, and you know which ones I'm talking about, well, listen up. It's time to take a stand and support a brand that truly embodies American values. And of course, here I'm talking about blackout coffee. They stand with hardworking Americans who believe in family, faith, and freedom.

and they roast some of the most incredible coffee that you'll ever taste. Using only premium-grade beans roasted and shipped to you within 48 hours. Think about the speed on that, right? The beans are sitting in the roaster, and the next thing you know, they're in your mug. For the cold brew fans, blackout coffee is now also excited to announce the launch of their two new ready-to-drink cold brew coffee latte options. Look, don't settle for less. Make the switch to blackout coffee. Head on over to blackoutcoffee.com slash PDB.

and use the code PDB for 20% off your first order. That's blackoutcoffee.com slash PDB, and the code again is PDB. Join the movement and taste the difference. Remember, with every sip, you're supporting a brand that stands for America. And as we say around these parts, be awake, not woke.

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Now, Texas officials are offering President-elect Donald Trump 1,400 acres of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, proposing its use as a site for detention facilities. According to the Texas General Land Office, this land could serve as a hub for, quote, processing, detention, and coordination in what they describe as the largest deportation effort in U.S. history.

Now, the offer signals Texas' readiness to work with the incoming administration to tighten border security and ramp up enforcement measures. But, as you might imagine, questions remain about the feasibility of such a large-scale operation and the legal, logistical, and political hurdles that lie ahead, including leaders in sanctuary cities who are signaling, oh, they do signal a lot, don't they? That they will not be cooperating with federal efforts.

Joining us now to examine these challenges is Jessica Vaughn. She's the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. Jessica, thanks very much for taking the time to join us here on The Situation Report. Glad to be with you. There's so many things to talk about here. Mass deportation.

I'm not sure that's really the way they should have labeled this. I don't know that that's the narrative that's going to make this happen as effectively and efficiently as possible. How do you see this playing out?

Well, I think the term mass deportations might be useful from a messaging standpoint, but what this really seems to mean is a significant boost in immigration enforcement, not only at the border, but also in the interior that's going to end the catch and release policies that are drawing so many illegal border crossers here, but also a return to enforcing the law within the country.

so that people who've been arrested for state and local crimes, people who've already had their very generous due process and been ordered removed by an immigration judge but haven't left yet, they're going to be a target. People who've been deported before. If they start up worksite raids, people who get caught up in that, anyone here illegally is potentially subject to deportation, although of course they're going to prioritize the most dangerous people first.

Yeah, I think that I guess that's my that's my top line thought on this is.

I mean, I take your point, I think from a political perspective, certainly in the run up to the election, you know, I see why they were going with mass deportation. It was playing well, I guess, from a political messaging perspective. But now you have to implement it, right? And to do that, you know, you'd like to do it with as little pushback as possible, right? From the Democrats, from the media, it's always gonna be there. You're always gonna get that opposition.

But I think if the messaging had really been focused on exactly what you just said, I mean, really driving it home that, look, we're not talking about sending back 11 million people. We're talking about exactly the groups that you said, the criminals, those who have already made their way through the deportation process and just for whatever reason remain in the country still, if they would focus on that. But I think what they're setting themselves up for

is probably two to three to maybe 40 years of this constant battle against the media narrative and the Democrat narrative, which is that you're splitting up families, you're, you know, sending home all these valuable workers. And I think that Trump, again, coming Trump administration perhaps could have been a little bit more focused with that messaging.

And a lot of this, again, is rhetoric for the purposes of the campaign. But you're right, there is going to be a constant pushback, a constant narrative about how cool and heartless this policy is. And so I hope that the Trump administration will emphasize the importance of this for Americans, that this is gonna create job opportunities for Americans. This is gonna make our communities safer by removing gang members and drug traffickers.

and other people who are committing crimes. But we also need to remember that what I found through my research is that it only takes a modest increase in enforcement before people start following the law on their own.

Employers realize that they could be shut down with a raid if they're hiring illegal workers, so they start doing their due diligence. Illegal aliens who are sort of your regular people who came here for the opportunity of the catch and release program, but get their work permits rescinded are going to say, you know,

I've had a good run here. I've saved some money. I don't want to be arrested. I don't want to be separated from my family. So it's time to start planning my return home. And we find that just as many people leave on their own as actually get physically removed by ICE. And that's really the humane way to do it. I don't want to see ICE having to go door to door, picking up grandmothers on their way to church. That's not the kind of enforcement that's going to happen.

Thank you.

But Americans really wanna see our laws enforced and have confidence in that we can have a robust legal immigration program where more people are coming legally than illegally and hopefully not many at all coming illegally. And it will take time to get to that, but it's not gonna require Gestapo tactics to get it done. It will happen over time and people will start complying with the law on their own.

Yeah, I think your point is really well done. I think it needs to be amplified as often as possible, which is it doesn't take much in terms of the additional enforcement procedures to realize a much more significant change in behavior or an attitude.

I think that's a great bit of messaging that needs to be thrown out there. I think that the problem is never underestimate. Look, this is galvanized, right? The Democrats, the Democrats were demoralized right after this election and they were standing around wondering who they are and what they stand for.

And this idea is really galvanizing them again. And we're seeing that in terms of what the sanctuary cities are doing and what they're saying. We're not going to support any of this effort. In fact, we're going to do everything it takes to stand against it and have it.

Again, of Colorado talking about how the mothers in highlands are going to stand in some Tiananmen type wall against law enforcement from federal agencies, it gets bizarre, but it takes up all the oxygen. They tend to be very good at sticking with a message and driving that narrative.

Again, I think that that's where the company should hit back and say, look, we're going after gang members. We're going after employers who are completely abusing these trafficked workers. You know, we're going after drug dealers. And if they can keep on message with that and on task with that, then I think they're going to maintain public support.

Well, hopefully it's a new day because I would argue in the past anyway. I hope it will change. I hope with the incoming administration, they've got four years under their belt. They understand how Washington works. But typically, I think the Republicans tend to not do as well at sticking the message or at managing a narrative.

as the Democrats do, right? The Democrats tend to be a little bit more of this, more histrionics, of course, but I think in general terms, look, it's understandable why. When you're throwing out the term mass deportation and you're throwing out numbers like 11 million people out there, you know, or you're talking about now, in this case, you know, we're going to build, or at least they're talking about it, building detention facilities along the border down in Texas.

That's not necessarily a good look when you talk about detention camps. It kind of takes everyone's minds back to the World War II and the Japanese Americans and what they went through. So I think the administration needs the incoming administration. They don't have much time. If they want to get a grip on this, I think in a meaningful way, to your point, they've got to drive home that message.

And any so-called detention camps or temporary detention facilities, I think really the intent for that is to be at the border so that they can stop catching and releasing people. Instead, they can keep them in custody near the border and return them quickly.

I don't think they contemplate that kind of situation within the interior of the country. I'm not sure the public really would support that. They want the laws enforced, but they want it done in a humane way, not in a way that seems cruel. I don't think we're going to see county jails full of high school kids or something like that. That just wouldn't make sense.

No, I agree with you 100% there. But if you're talking about targeting the criminal element and others who have already gone through that process and are slated to be deported, then fine. Refer to it as a criminal detention facility, a temporary criminal detention facility or whatever you have to do to ensure that people don't

You know, then run wild with their imagination is, oh my God, we're, you know, we're detaining 11 million people. I just, I would do worry about this because, you know, a lot of times that perception can then drive the effectiveness of potential policy, right? And it takes the sort of, it takes a wind out of your sails.

But it's it's worth the fight right we're talking about national security now at the same time as as we're looking to round up the you know the criminal element again There also have to be other steps taken and and I want to talk to you about You know how successful you think the incoming administration may be and things just as simple as the ability to vet people Coming across the border in the future right because

You know, talking to CBP folks, there is almost no vetting that they're able to do at this point, right? It's not as if someone comes in in the San Diego sector from China and somehow we can run a database and go, oh, we understand who this person is. We have no idea. And then they're just released into the country.

People need to understand that it's almost impossible to vet anyone who's just coming across the border illegally. We have to take them at their word for their identity and their behavior in wherever they were living before. And that's why we have to have a legal process where people are vetted at embassies abroad when they apply for visa.

and then have their identity verified again when they arrived at a legal port of entry. We cannot continue to just allow people to show up on our doorstep at the land border and spend an hour asking them questions and then just releasing them to an NGO to go on to their final destination and expect that we're going to keep a good handle on who's coming in.

That just doesn't work. And I do think that our government can do reasonable vetting of people when given time and using a visa process and getting the cooperation of other countries. And that was the basis for this so-called travel ban that Trump put into place at the beginning of his first term. The whole idea behind that was not a Muslim ban, but instead a ban on travelers

who are coming from countries where we are not able to get good information about whether that person is a threat. And if we cannot do that, then we shouldn't be letting anyone in from those countries unless we can have confidence in our information sharing and our ability to understand who that person is and to verify their purposes for travel.

And this whole vetting process that was started with the first so-called travel ban, a lot of that was actually preserved by the Biden administration and not scrapped. So that will not be hard to get going again. And I think there's a good case for the whole process to be

sort of upgraded and potentially look at slowing down admissions from even more countries than were on that first list.

To your point about the travel ban, again, with messaging, that just became known as the Muslim ban. And it's still to this day, the Democrats, that's how they refer to it. And people, they're busy, right? And they don't sit and analyze or they don't think about it. And they don't hear what you've just said, because it's not like on their front burner. And so they just go with, yeah, it was a Muslim ban. And that created a lot of chaos and pushback. Look, if you don't know who's coming across your border, you don't have national security.

And so therefore, if they just stuck with these basic simple messages, there are a lot of Democrats who legitimately are somewhat moderate and understand that. And if you just kept hammering that point as well as some of the other things you're talking about, but right now, if I could, I'm going to ask you if you could just stay with us just for a moment. We got a very quick break, and then we'll be right back to the situation report.

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is Jessica Vaughn of the Center for Immigration Studies. Jessica frats the questions, but with limited time, let me throw this one at you.

We're talking about rounding up criminal elements. That's the initial focus of any deportation action for the incoming administration. Focus on those criminals who are in the country illegally. You would think reasonable people on both sides of the political spectrum could say, okay, well, that fine, that makes sense.

But here's a question. If you're talking, you're talking about a Venezuelan, you know, a TDA member, or you're talking about someone from China who's committed a crime, talking about someone from Haiti. I'm not picking on these countries. I'm bringing them up for a particular reason. They're not going to take those people back.

Right. It's just that we don't have the relationship. In the case of Haiti, they don't have the infrastructure. They're there in chaos. The Chinese regime is certainly going to cooperate with the incoming administration on deportation issues. And that's, I think, a bridge too far for them. So what happens? What's the technical process for individuals who should be in that first round of deportation? But where do they go?

Yeah, that's a really good question. And this is an issue that's going to be a problem, especially initially. Each one of these countries, and we call them recalcitrant countries, the countries that won't take their citizens back for deportation. And a lot of times it's criminals that we're talking about.

It's going to take an individual approach for each country. There's a role for diplomacy. There's a role for carrots and sticks. With the case of Venezuela, we have no relationship with Venezuela right now. But we need to remember also that a lot of the Venezuelans who came here and took advantage of the catch and release policies at the border.

were living in other countries before they came here. They were firmly settled with jobs and permission to stay in these countries. And I think we are going to have to try to work with some of those countries to take them back. Maybe not in the case of gang members like TDA or Pardon criminals, but other people who were doing fine in Chile or Peru or Argentina and now are going to lose their work permit.

With the criminals, it's going to take a tougher approach with Venezuela, but there's a tool in the law that allows our government, through the State Department, to impose a visa ban

on countries or groups of people within countries as a sanction to try to get them to, you know, to relent in their stance of not taking someone back. So you could go to a country like Venezuela or China and say, look, we're not going to issue visas to your diplomats.

or we're not going to issue visas to your kids of government officials who want to come to school in the United States or to the wives of government officials who want to go visit Vegas or these people who want to go to Disney World, those visas simply are going to be cut off until you start

living up to your international responsibilities and take your citizens back. And this has been successful times in the past when it has been applied. Again, it depends on the country, a country like Haiti. That's a tough situation. We may have to work with third countries on the Haitians.

But there are tools that we have at our disposal. Maybe we use carrots instead of sticks, offer aid, offer something that those countries want. But we do have leverage and tools available to us.

The problem is they've never been used by the federal, I shouldn't say never. They were never used under Biden, but they haven't been used as much as we should be using them to lean on these countries. So we just, you know, they can't just dump all of their criminals and dissidents and everything else on our doorstep.

Yeah, it's, I mean, I think just listening to that, it makes sense. I understand what you're saying. It's the complexity of it. And it tends to, things like this tend to happen in sound bites, right? Everybody, again, everybody's just busy. You're trying to put food on the table. You've got a million things going on. And so, you know,

Most people here are sort of a top line issue, a headline, right? We're going to do this. But when you start really examining it and you understand the complexity of it, that's why I think it's important for whoever's running communications for the incoming administration to make sure they understand the importance of messaging this as they go along. We can't just see saying, okay, we're sending everybody home.

Right. The groundwork has to be laid through a public relations campaign for how this is going to be messaged and make sure people understand why it needs to happen. And that will also, I think, that will also help in terms of slowing, you know, or changing behavior of folks who may be thinking, yeah, I'm going, I'm just going to cross the border, right? Because the more they see this, right? And then more they understand it.

You know, that, to your point earlier in the conversation, right? Just a little bit of messaging could have a really consequential change on behavior, on attitude. And that could include the numbers that we see coming across the border. Obviously, that's an element of enforcement and adjusting things. But I think, you know, we don't want to underestimate that. I don't want to keep beating that dead horse. But let's talk about, if we could, in the time that we've got sanctuary cities,

What do you make of, over the past week in particular, there's been a rush to the microphone from Democrat leaders of sanctuary cities around the country talking about how they'll do everything in their power to not help or to hinder, so what do you make of this?

Well, this also could be a big problem for the Trump administration because as we saw in the first Trump term, the sanctuary jurisdictions became very, very recalcitrant and obstructive and painted this narrative of an overzealous immigration enforcement.

They started passing laws that forbid local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with ICE. What that does is it necessarily means that the criminals that ICE is trying to get for removal are going to be released back to the streets and they end up committing more crimes.

There's a couple ways to address it. I think one way is what has been tried and that is to, since most of these sanctuary policies are in place for political reasons, they're not going to change. They think they get a benefit from that even though it's a problem for public safety. So what you have to do is either start

with holding certain federal funds from these jurisdictions that don't cooperate, certain federal law enforcement grant programs, you just have to say, look, if you're going to block our federal agents from getting custody of criminal aliens directly from the jails, then you're just not going to have access to grants for

certain law enforcement agencies in your state or in your city. And that did work to change certain jurisdictions like, for example, Miami-Dade County in Florida said, well, we don't want to lose that money. So we're going to start cooperating with ICE again. So there will be some that come around like that. With others, you may have to file lawsuits.

I think in other places, again, a public relations campaign on the part of ICE by saying, look, this week, the New York City Police Department released these criminals who we were trying to deport.

And if they commit a crime, now you know why. It's because your own police department released them. And I think that kind of public attention to what's really going on could work really well for ICE. Another thing Congress could do is give a private right of action for victims of these crimes.

if they're serious, to potentially hold the local sanctuary government liable for any problems that are caused when they deliberately release somebody that ICE was trying to take into custody for removal. That's the kind of thing that really gets their attention.

Yeah, I think you're right. That's actually a pretty clever way of looking at it. I can see whether it could be all sorts of bureaucratic problems. We're trying to implement that. But it is astounding. If you just step back and think, why would a leadership of a major US city object to removing

illegal migrants who have criminal records from their streets. I just, it is, you know, I'd get part of itself righteous virtue signaling, right? They're trying to say, look at us, you know, and then, because they never do, they never make these announcements, you know, quietly. It's always with a lot of fuss, you know, so they can be seen, you know, look at us, look how special we are. And then, and then the people of that city, like if we just take New York, right? And we say,

The average New York resident understands that they've got a criminal problem or they've got a crime problem. Everybody kind of looks over their shoulder a little bit at nighttime, particularly when you're walking around. It's not a lot of people that are excited to go down to the subways right now. You would think that public security law and order would be an issue that everybody, Democrat, Republican, get their heads around.

And yet, then they continue to vote the same way they vote, and nothing changes. So, I mean, if you look at the potential for obstruction on a project like this, and I know that Tom Holman, the incoming, assuming he's approved, the incoming borders are, he said, look, we're going to do this with you or without you, speaking to the leaders of these various sanctuary cities.

But how practical is that? Does the federal government, do they have the resources and ability to make an impact without the support of local police departments without the NYPD or the police force in Denver, Colorado?

Well, there's no question it's going to make it much, much harder without the support of local law enforcement agencies. And, you know, if ICE has to start taking to the streets to arrest people in public at their dwelling,

Or in other situations that's really visible to the public, it's dangerous, first of all, for ICE and for bystanders. But that's exactly the kind of operation that's going to generate a lot of public backlash. So it would be better if they don't have to do that. Another thing they could do, so a lot of these sanctuary policies are in place for political reasons.

But there's also an argument that's made that if local police have to cooperate with ICE, then immigrants in the community are not gonna trust them or not gonna come forward to report crimes. And I've actually learned from studying the Department of Justice data on victimizations, if that's not true, that actually immigrants and even illegal immigrants report crimes just as much, just as frequently as Americans do.

I think if there could be some outreach to immigrant communities to explain what ICE's priorities are and how they're going to operate and who they're looking for and why they need the cooperation, that itself could actually help restore some of that trust or at least

provide another way to get that trust in immigrant communities to avoid these kinds of fear campaigns that the sanctuary jurisdictions try to use to discredit ICE. They should be working with immigrant communities, with leaders, and with local law enforcement agencies to find ways that immigrants can access

public safety services without being worried that something's going to come back to haunt them. There's so many good community-oriented policing programs around this country that we can turn to, that the sanctuary policies really have no basis or no justification in reality.

Yeah, I'd say it's, you can almost argue it's a little bit racist on the part of sanctuary city leaders to, to imply somehow that, that illegal migrants aren't also concerned about law and order, aren't also concerned about public safety. Because frankly, I think they'd be just as happy as everyone else to see the criminal elements deported, right? I mean, it's, it impacts their safety, impacts the safety of their children. And, and I, again,

I'm not saying that that's going to be the case. I don't think they're going to change their stripes in terms of these sanctuary cities. So I think there is a fight coming up in the near future as they start to implement this process. Listen, this has been a fascinating conversation. I found it fascinating. I know the situation report viewers will find it fascinating. I hope you found it interesting. But I also hope that you'll come back next time we pick up the phone and give you a call because what I'd love to do is

You know, sometime after, shortly after the inauguration, because I think they're going to move on this pretty quick, once we start seeing some of their actions from within the White House and Tom Holman and others, it'd be great to sit back down with you, Jessica, and talk about where we stand at that point. That would be my pleasure. I've enjoyed our talk.

Well, that's all the time we have for the PDB situation report. Now, if you have any questions or comments that you'd like me to address on the air, reach out to me at pdb at the first TV dot com. Now, don't forget, right?

Every month, we put together what we call our Ask Me Anything episodes. And the way we do that is every couple of days, Carl the mailman, well, he stops by the secret compound of the PDB and he drops off another mailbag, stuff full of your questions and your comments and your postcards. And then our crack team of interns, well, what they do is they sift through all of those. They pick the most interesting questions and they smoosh them together.

into our monthly Ask Me Anything episode. So please, I'm serious about this. Keep your questions and your comments coming. To listen to the podcast of the show, add free while it's simple. Become a premium member of the President's Daily Brief by simply visiting pdbpremium.com. I told you it was very simple. I'm Mike Baker, and until next time, you know the drill, stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.