Episode 986: Dignity Status for Illegal Immigrants—Yes or No
Air Date: October 14, 2026 | Host: Bob Metz
Clip (Ugly Betty S01E012):
Constance: Mr. Suarez, do you have anything to prove your year of entry was 1977?
Mr. Suarez: Yeah, I think there's some ticket stubs or Saturday Night Fever somewhere in there.
Constance: What are you writing down?
Mr. Suarez: None of your business.
Mr. Suarez: Listen, lady.
Constance: My name is Constance, not Lady. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Look, I've been living in this country for 30 years now. I have two kids. My wife is buried here. For the last two hours you've been grilling me nonstop, like I'm a criminal?
Constance: Mr. Suarez, in the eyes of the ICE, that's exactly what you are. Let me remind you, you are in this country illegally. My department is the one thing standing between you and deportation. Now I gotta go grab myself a smoothie. I hope by tomorrow morning you've found a new attitude and something to prove that year of entry. Good day, Mr. Suarez.
Bob Metz:
Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, October 14th, 2026. I'm Bob Metz, and this is Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that's not right wing. It's just right.
With the midterms right around the corner, U.S. President Donald Trump has some very contentious and difficult issues to resolve, even though he is not running in the midterms himself and will still be president regardless of those election outcomes. Not the least of which is how to deal with those quote-unquote illegal immigrants who fit the profile of Mr. Suarez depicted in our opener from the TV series Ugly Betty, which aired from September 2006 to April 2010. And what we heard in that exchange was a self-identified ICE agent hard at work long before most Americans had even heard of ICE agents.
So here's the dilemma, and it is a real one and a highly contentious political one. In the ICE deportations of millions of illegal immigrants who flooded into America thanks to the insane open borders policy of past administrations, should those illegal immigrants who fit the profile of Mr. Suarez, who says, "Look, I've been living in this country for 30 years now. I've got two kids, my wife is buried here," should folks like him be treated the same as those who have been flooding into the country as part of a planned invasion by the globalists?
That's the question of the day, one that we shall attempt to resolve right after our reminder that you can write us at feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on Channel 292 Shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform, and visit us at justrightmedia.org where you can access all of our social media links, archive broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show. Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.
Now to say that immigration has become a serious problem in the Western world would be a gross understatement. The violence erupting across Europe and spreading to North America is but one symptom of trying to assimilate incompatible cultures, but is a very desirable consequence created by those determined to destroy the current culture. While Europe seems lost, America at least is taking action, and under Trump's deployment of ICE agents, and ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, many controversies have arisen. And that's because to assume that simply deporting all quote-unquote illegal immigrants will solve the problem would be foolish and unwise and counterproductive to boot, because it's looking more and more like that solution could cause more problems than it solves.
So to kick off this conversation about a very serious issue, in this December 3rd, 2025 GB News interview, Victor Davis Hanson offers a perfect introduction to the greater issues involving what to do about illegal migrants, particularly those who fit the profile of Mr. Suarez, as heard in today's opener.
Clip (GB News, December 3, 2025, Victor Davis Hanson):
Interviewer: There has been some criticism recently. The Trump administration is not raiding enough businesses which use illegal migration or illegal immigrants. For example, construction companies and so on, because they're worried about the impact not only on the businesses and on the economy. Do you feel that that's fair criticism that they need to ramp up the deportations from those kind of companies?
Victor Davis Hanson: Well, what they're doing is they're going through these gradations. And Joe Biden, we think it's hard to know between entries and entrance, because when you can go in twice or three times. But people have suggested there may have been 10 million people who came in. That's 10,000 a day on many days or more. So there was a pool, and then there was a pool of 20 million that we know were here. So there were 30 million out of a population. It's the highest we've ever had percentage-wise, and then if you count foreign-born, the foreign-born is 53 million and 16 percent of the population, and yet we lecture Europe and we have a higher percentage, I think, than any country of foreign-born except for Germany.
So what they were trying to do is do the ones that were the most dangerous and the biggest bang for the buck, and they thought there was a pool of a half a million illegal criminals. Mostly not all, but a lot from Venezuela, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Southern Mexico and Central America. And they have deported almost all of 500,000 of them. Then they get to the next rubric that they feel will be the easiest, and those are people who have already gone through the system, were issued a deportation order, did not show up at a hearing to appeal or something, and there's a lien on them. And those are about a half a million, and now they're starting in on them, and a lot of them didn't show up because they had committed crimes even though they weren't known to be a foul, they weren't the hardcore.
So that's who they're going after now. People who have already gone through the system, they don't need a warrant, they can just deport them, and a lot of them, like Karoline Leavitt's brother had a girlfriend who had a child, which is her nephew, and years ago she was ordered out from Brazil. She never went. Now she speaks perfect English, she's not with the press secretary's brother, but my point is that's who they're going after now. People who have already been ordered out and have had some brush with the law, and she had been accused of battery. I don't know if she's ever convicted. And those are getting more each time you go down this, it gets more controversial.
Twenty or thirty percent are things like there's a felon or there's a person with a deportation warrant, you go to their home and you learn that they're outside Home Depot waiting to get a job. That's everywhere in America. There's eight or nine people when you go to every time I go to Home Depot, there's eight or nine people out there. And basically people drive up with a pickup and say, "Well, if you dig holes for my fence, I'll pay you twenty dollars an hour in cash." Well, when they deport those people, they see others there who have no criminal record and may have been here ten years. But they ask them for ID and they said, "If you're illegal, we have to enforce the law." So that's the third gradation. Those are incidentals that they bump into that shouldn't be here and came illegally, and those are the most controversial.
So what the left does is they'll say, "Well, Maria was on her way to clean my home. I've known her for ten years. She speaks perfect English. I didn't know she was illegal. She just happened to be in that house where there was a criminal." And that's the controversy.
And he's getting enormous pressure. Trump is for two things. One is to give green cards for businesses, and the second is what do you do about the prior pool that have been here 10 or 15 years, they speak perfect English, they've never committed a crime, they're not on welfare, they're able-bodied and working, and you're not going to give them citizenship, and you say, "Well, you pay a fine. Pay us five thousand bucks, three thousand and get a green card." And there may be five million of those. So there's a lot of people on the conservative side that say, "Look, of the thirty million, we can target two to three million that are veritable citizens after twenty years and just give them a green card, no amnesty, and that will take the wind out of the sails of the left, because we'll say, well, if they don't speak English and they just got here and they've got a criminal record or they're on public support, of course, but we gave everybody an avenue to pay a fine and get a green card if they hadn't committed a crime and they're not on public assistance. They've been here five years, they speak English." So that's where we are right now.
And I don't know if they're going to be the MAGA base says, "No, we're not going to give any of the thirty million a green card. They all have to go back." But the problem is when you have some of these people who came under Clinton or George Bush or Obama, and now they're 25 years old. They came as one-year-old, two-year-olds, they don't speak Spanish. I know some of them. And you would never know they were illegal. They don't even know any other language but English. There's not by any means a large number, but there's three or four million, I would imagine, of the 30 million.
So it would be political. I don't know if it would be ideologically correct with the base, but it would be politically smart to take that small group who will play by the rules and not give them amnesty, just give them a green card and they pay a fine, and then I think the left would be kind of flummoxed, but I don't know if that's going to happen. I know they're examining that.
Interviewer: Now, in the answer, it seems to me that you're expressing some sympathy for some of the illegals. Of course, you're not going quite as far as the New York Times.
Victor Davis Hanson: No. What I mean is this, I'll give you an example. I went out to dinner with a police officer. And I went out to dinner with another government official, and I know them really well. And one of the spouses said she was here illegally. But she's been here since she was one year old. And she's probably 40, 30, 28. She doesn't speak any other language but English. She's gainfully employed, their children are citizens. I think it was wrong that she didn't get citizenship, but where would you deport her? She doesn't even know anybody in Mexico, because she was one year old. So is that, I don't know, five or ten percent of the illegal.
I just think if you make the argument for that very small subset, then you get more ammunition to deport the people, the 10 or 15 million who came illegally, and they may be working as roofers, they've never committed a crime, but they're really they don't know English. They came, they're illegally working, they have falling. Get rid of them. That was the strategy behind it.
But right now, what the left is doing is saying that every single person that Trump deports is that little tiny category. And he's not making the argument that they're not effectively enough. They're not saying that. And Tom Homan will admit that the message is not getting out that they have deported mostly all people with deportation orders or criminal backgrounds, and I think they have another two or three million that fit that with the deportation orders. But when they get beyond that, it's gonna get more controversial.
The left, the polls show that when Trump came into office, everybody said they wanted 65% wanted no exceptions. And now it's gone like this down to about 40 percent. And why is that? The facts haven't changed. It's just the left has said that all the people who are being deported are wonderful people, they're misunderstood, they shouldn't be deported, they had one DUI, something like that. And they're losing that argument and they're losing the economic argument. And they've gotta find out a better way to explain what they're doing.
Clip (Alex Assoune, December 22, 2025, Comics Roasting Migrants):
I don't care who you vote for, like left, right. It's just crazy to me that Trump, he got right to it. He wasn't even playing around. I thought we were gonna get a month head start at least. I didn't think he was gonna give it right. He was like, "Yo, soon as I get in office, I'm getting rid of the immigrants." But I didn't think he was gonna do it right away.
When you get home and you're pulling into your driveway and you're thinking about everything you gotta do. You're like, "Yo, I gotta put in a load of laundry, take out the trash, clean up the kitchen a little bit." But you don't do it all right away. You put on Netflix, you heat up a meal, you do things in between, you take little breaks, but Trump, he didn't watch no Netflix, bro. He just got right to it.
Bob Metz:
So let's get right to it ourselves. By first putting into perspective the broader immigration crisis on a global scale. Because this has been an issue we've addressed many, many times on past broadcasts. Now, being located in Canada, such as I am, the only federal party leader offering Canadians an opposition to the uniparty that runs a country is the People's Party of Canada's leader, Maxime Bernier. He is, as we described him on our January 29th 2025 broadcast, the only Canadian leader focused on putting Canada first, and examples of his agenda that we cited back then included a moratorium on immigration, the deportation of illegal aliens, a zero percent inflation policy, freedom of speech, withdrawing from the Paris Accords, staying out of foreign wars, re-establishing a Canadian identity and culture, ending government financing of the media, acquiring adequate respect and compensation for Canada's war veterans, supporting the right to self-defense and the freedom to bear arms, and of course, negotiating with, not fighting against, the Trump administration. Otherwise, Canada is a lost cause and a lost nation.
And of course, Britain is in a complete state of an immigration war, being invaded by hordes of so-called migrants. And back on our February 5th broadcast last year, we asked, is Rupert Lowe's newly forming political party Restore Britain really Britain's last hope to preserve its culture?
Clearly, Lowe's determination to, quote, "not just stop but reverse," end quote, the immigration flow to Britain was the issue that most resonated with the voting public. And as we later commented on our June 10th show of that year, the incompatibility problem of Islam in Britain, we commented that what is particularly sinister about this whole situation is how complicit British authorities have become in the commission of these crimes. Which makes the whole disturbing affair all the more difficult to comprehend or accept.
From encouraging and funding mass immigration, to treating white victims of interracial crime as the criminals, to criminally charging thousands of British citizens for their critical social media posts, to outright direct participation in the crimes themselves, all of these horrific realities now being pushed into public view to be seen in full context. And then, of course, there's France, about which much more will be said later in the closing quarter of today's show.
But first, returning our attention to the Trump administration's efforts to deal with America's immigration crisis, about which he was quite blunt and candid, as we reported on our December 10th, 2025 show, we couldn't help but notice how America's immigration crisis was being debated and discussed in an increasingly aggressive and hostile manner. From America's president right down to the average guy on the street. Trump's reference to an America flooded with quote-unquote "garbage people" metaphorically reflected the reality of literal rivers of garbage associated with cultures whose people not only do not clean up the garbage but live in it.
And finally, on our January 21st broadcast of this year, titled "Ice Storm Sliding Down the Slippery Slope to Insurrection," protests and unrest in Minneapolis at that time had been ongoing since early that month, primarily against ICE agents detaining and arresting illegal immigrants. With Trump then clearly in a position to unilaterally declare the Insurrection Act over the ongoing obstruction of federal law enforcement by ICE agents, we speculated on how far the situation might escalate. Well, it is now October 2026, and I just learned after hearing a brief conversation between lawyer Robert Barnes and David Frei on his October 11th Viva Frei podcast that there have been some recent charges laid against ICE agents regarding an ICE shooting in Minnesota, coincidentally enough, where various individual ICE officers have now been charged with crimes in state court in Minneapolis. They have removed those charges to federal court and are now deciding which court should rule on these federal cases.
But the key case they described sounded very much like those protesters who got shot ramming ICE agents in the course of their duties way back when we first heard about that. But it's not even close. Nobody got shot or killed. The ICE officer being charged did not shoot anyone, but quote-unquote "brandished his gun at a downward angle," end quote, identifying himself as an ICE agent to get someone to get out of his way while he was responding to a crime. They charged the ICE officer with second degree assault, and then Robert Barnes sarcastically responds, "Well, welcome to Minnesota criminal law."
And get this, the complainant refused to testify for fear of self-incrimination, which I think kind of points the finger of guilt against the complainant, not the ICE officer. Apparently now the question is which court will hear the case, which is absurd on its face, according to David Frei.
But Barnes commented that Minnesota's politicized prosecution has framed a lot of these cases as having taken place, quote-unquote, "under federal occupation and federal siege." So he thought it was ironic that the state was now arguing that this charge has nothing to do with the ICE agent's federal job.
And get this. The federal district court leaked to the media how they were conspiring to screw the Trump administration over these ICE cases. Any question how reliable these courts can be to do the job of justice is an open question. And so we can also see how political the interpretation of these laws are.
So to address Victor Davis Hanson's concern that Trump's administration is, quote, "losing the argument and must find a better way to explain what they're doing," end quote, he might be happy to learn, if he doesn't already know, that there's one significant voice in Trump's administration who's attempting to do exactly that. And that person is Florida Congresswoman Maria Salazar, who appeared in conversation with Dave Rubin on his October 2nd Rubin Report. She's putting forth a proposal that actually inspired our discussion on this issue today. One that addresses the status of those long-time illegal residents who have no criminal records and have otherwise played by the rules. Specifically, she has introduced a piece of legislation that she calls dignity legislation, which, strangely enough, echoes Hanson's observation that Trump is getting pressure to give green cards to businesses and is being asked what to do with people who have been here 10 to 15 years or longer with no crime, and they are working, etc.
It would be politically smart to take that small group who have played by the rules and not give them amnesty, but give them a green card, let them pay a fine and stay here, he suggested. Now, of course, it's never quite as simple as that, as we shall now hear from the Congresswoman herself.
Clip (The Rubin Report, October 2, 2026):
Dave Rubin: I'm Dave Rubin. This is the Rubin Report, and today I'm joined by my Congresswoman from right here in Florida 27, Maria Salazar. Welcome back to the Rubin Report.
Maria Salazar: Love to be here and love to be with you.
Dave Rubin: You made some news this week. We have a running joke on my show about The View. So Ana Navarro, she lives in this district, though, and she's constantly complaining about Florida and all of the stuff. But she really went after you and actually basically endorsed your opponent, which I don't even know if they're allowed to do on a quote-unquote ABC News show, but let's throw it to the clip.
Ana Navarro: And this is like a Republican on Republican crime telenovela going on in South Florida. It's actually the district I live in. So I don't know if you all heard about this, but this Cuban American Republican Congresswoman, Maria Elvira Salazar. Yeah, right. She, District 27 in Miami, she put out an ad where she's looking straight to camera and she says, "Mr. President, some of your immigration enforcement efforts have gone too far."
Really, girl? This is after you voted for the big beautiful bill that funded them. But okay. And so it was astounding, though. And I had taken for granted this race because she won two years ago by 20 points. And this is a district that Donald Trump won by 15 points. So I thought, okay, no point in paying attention. The polls have her dead even. Pay attention to that race and go vote because it's going to matter, and we can actually knock this woman out. There's a great guy running, his name is Elliot Rodriguez. Give him a look. Look at what has happened.
Dave Rubin: Okay, Maria. So first off, I like that you fact-check her while we're playing the clip, you won by 22 points, not 20 points. So that's worth noting. It's interesting to me that they finally talk about you on that show as you're taking a position that's a little bit closer to their position. Do you find that a little bit curious?
Maria Salazar: Yeah, well, no, listen, I think that she has all the right in the world to say whatever she wants to. And as I was telling some of my friends, if she were to say that in Cuba or in Nicaragua right now, or in Venezuela, chances are that she will be in jail. So she is enjoying the American system that we are trying to preserve. While the Democratic Party that she is now officially a member of, even though she says that she's a Republican, she's not really embracing the Republican values.
So she has all the right in the world to say everything she wants to. Now the constituents in district number 27 will decide what to do.
Dave Rubin: Okay, so we'll get into the immigration part of this obviously in a second. It is worth asking you. They're talking about you on the show. Seems like you would make a great guest on the show. Would you go on the show?
Maria Salazar: If they invite me, I'll go everywhere. Sure.
Dave Rubin: Okay, so let's dive into the specifics, because it's strange to me that as you took a position slightly closer, let's say, to her on immigration, that's when they decided to go after you.
Maria Salazar: No, I do not have a similar position on immigration with her.
Dave Rubin: I'm not saying it's the same thing, but you were taking a position that was a little bit off of Trump's position. Is that fair to say?
Maria Salazar: Not really either, because the president has said in many interviews that there are some good hombres among those who are illegals. That is the problem with immigration. And that's why I was telling you before. Immigration is a very big problem that we have in this country, and the Republican Party has this fantastic opportunity to solve it.
Dave Rubin: All right, so let's let people decide watching it. So let's put up your ad that sort of started the whole controversy.
Maria Salazar: Mr. President, some of your immigration enforcement efforts have gone too far. In July, 50% of the 50,000 people that were detained had no criminal record. Be careful what your advisors are telling you about immigration policy. The same Hispanics who help you get to the White House in 2024 feel betrayed today. You can be for immigration where Lincoln was for slavery and Reagan was for communism. I'm not talking about giving them amnesty. I'm talking about giving them a dignified life in this promised land.
Dave Rubin: Okay. Since you're here, I'll ask you.
Maria Salazar: Trump said yesterday that immigration has been the most difficult job he has had, right? Because his advisors are telling him one thing and the other. Didn't you hear it when he was with a group of Hispanics at the White House? So that goes to show you what he is feeling, because he really doesn't know which way he's gonna go. Or which one of the two sides that he's being pulled from he's going to side with.
But that's what I was telling him on the phone and on that commercial. You can go in the middle. You do not have to give the illegals who are not the bad hombres but the good hombres, don't give them amnesty, which we do not know what amnesty means, so we can delve into that too. Give them the dignity status. That is not citizenship.
Dave Rubin: Right. Okay, so what does that mean? Because I think most people hear that and they go, "Oh, that's just kind of a fancy way of saying amnesty."
Maria Salazar: No, it's not.
Dave Rubin: Okay.
Maria Salazar: Okay, so if we go to what is amnesty, let's define amnesty first so we can understand. Amnesty for some people is path to citizenship. All right. Dignity legislation, which I wrote five years ago, does not have ever, ever, ever a path to citizenship. Number one.
Number two, what could amnesty be for the illegals to have federal programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, right? Dignity does not give them ever, ever, ever any type.
What could amnesty be? That for illegals to vote. Dignity tells you that if you vote, you're out of here. What could be amnesty? Oh, those people who are in sanctuary cities and have criminal records. If you have a criminal record, you cannot ever, ever be covered by the dignity legislation. So it's not amnesty, it's dignity.
So then what this piece of legislation has is that if you, Pepe, who've been here for 10, 15, 20 years, and you're serving construction, hospitality, agriculture, health care, or manufacturing, you do not have a criminal record ever, and you have been paying taxes and you have a job, then you can stay. You can pay $7,000 over seven years. You can pay 1% of your salary over seven years, and the only thing you can do is stay. Go back to your home for Christmas if you want to, bury your mother, come back, work, pay taxes, buy homes, and just be part of society, raise your American children, and that's it. That's the dignity status.
Dave Rubin: So I actually can get on board some of that, but you can understand why.
Maria Salazar: Say that again, please.
Dave Rubin: No, no, but I've said that type of thing before. First off, there's a couple things here. But in essence, you're saying these people can stay forever, correct?
Maria Salazar: You apply for the first seven years for the dignity legislation, and you can reapply for another seven years, and you can continue applying and you can go home whenever you want to. You will never be an American citizen.
But do you know how many millions of people are here right now? That indeed they broke the law. Yes. But they are in those industries that I just mentioned, and they're good for the economy. Because on top of that, that's why the president is so torn. Because immigration is also an affordability issue. It's an economic issue.
Dave Rubin: What would you say to people that would say, "Well, okay, so then in essence, you just want a sort of permanent underclass of people to do the jobs that Americans don't want"?
Maria Salazar: Well, that depends on the Hispanics who are going to have the dignity status, are not going to feel an underclass. They're going to be very proud because they have been able to stay after they broke the law, raise their American children, and have the possibility of working in the promised land.
Dave Rubin: And what about the fact that robotics and AI are gonna change this? That quite literally now your tomatoes are being picked by robots, and we're not just gonna need as many of these jobs.
Maria Salazar: On agricultural, but there are some fruits like what you call the stone fruits that need hands, human hands. And there are some type of jobs in construction, hospitality, agricultural, health care, people cleaning and people providing some services in the hospitals, which is what's happening right now, it's a certain population of the Haitian population in some hospitals. There will always be jobs for these people that do not want to be occupied by American citizens. It's important to know.
I'm just give you two statistics. The National Association of Manufacturers that has supported dignity legislation, all right? One of the top associations of manufacturers in the country. They say that they have 400,000 jobs available, and only 150 Americans have applied. 400,000 jobs in manufacturing, so someone has to do the jobs. So we need that labor force. What about Farm Bureau? Farm Bureau says that out of 200,000 jobs or 400,000 jobs available, only 180 American citizens have applied.
Dave Rubin: 180 or 180,000?
Maria Salazar: 180. 18 zero. Why? Because those jobs are pretty hard. So you see what I'm saying? I'm thinking about the beauty of the American system. There's no other system better than this one. And I'm trying as a legislator and as a congresswoman to help my party, the Republican Party, understand that Hispanics have the same values that are entrenched in the Republican Party. God-fearing, law-abiding, taxpaying, churchgoers. Welcome them into the GOP and have them vote for us so that socialists will not penetrate the system. Am I getting a little bit enthusiastic here?
Dave Rubin: You like this topic, huh? You're pretty shocked.
Maria Salazar: I feel it in my heart because I fear for your children and my grandchildren.
Dave Rubin: So, what would you say to the person that's a Republican that said that would just say, "Sorry, you came here illegally. It does not matter. You already broke the law. That is true. You broke the law. If you came here illegally, it's nice to hear the seven-year renewal thing. It's nice to see you will never apparently have an American passport, and you're gonna have to pay this little penalty. Like they get all of that. They heard what you just said, but they go, 'Sorry, you broke the law, and we are trying to clean up a mess that is so broken, there's just we just have to get rid of these people.'" What would you say to them?
Maria Salazar: And that person that I know means well does not have all the information. And I'm going, I would say, and I know that they are good Americans and they mean well. It's just that information is power. And information in this case is that Biden, what he did was despicable by opening that border for four years. I agree that most of those people will not fall into my dignity legislation.
Dave Rubin: Wait, a moment ago, I thought you said it was all of them.
Maria Salazar: No, no, all of them. That's right, they won't.
Dave Rubin: So anyone that came in under those four years of Biden, you are not applicable to this. You have to be deported.
Maria Salazar: They would have to apply for another type of status, which is not the dignity status. Biden people do not fall in the dignity legislation, which is the only thing I'm responsible for. But answering your question to that person that says, "You know, they broke the law, all of them, even the guy who's been here for 20 years." True. They broke the law. Someone gave them a job, someone that is an American, right? So right there, things get complicated. Biden, Clinton, Obama, Bush, Bush two. They all led them to stay.
He stayed. This is a human being, right? And then that person has roots and has four American kids. So that person has not committed a crime. And on top of that, he is part of society and he's been helping, let's say, manufacturing, health care, agricultural, construction.
So I understand that he broke the law, he's an illegal, yeah, but then there are remedies in the law for those people, not to give them the full stay, which is path to citizenship, but then let them stay, helping us. Because going back to affordability, which is one of the most important things right now in this election. People want to buy homes. Well, if you don't have a roofer, if you don't have people laying the bricks, if you don't have those people that are just building the shell, how are you gonna have more supply if you have the same demand? Then the supply is gonna be more expensive, and then comes inflation, and then we don't have affordability in construction.
Say listen, it's all the same thing. So dignity does one thing, which I think is even more important, which is it codifies border security and enforcement. What does that mean? That then from now on, no one else can come in illegally. Because I'm not sure if you're not sure.
Dave Rubin: But we're doing that already, right?
Maria Salazar: No.
Dave Rubin: We're not doing that. Who's coming in? Who's coming in illegally?
Maria Salazar: No, no one is, but it's not codified. And you know what that means? Then I want to do that.
Dave Rubin: Oh, yes, that it can be flipped by the next Democrat, sure. But I mean, right now no one's coming in. Yeah, I get it, it's not codified by Congress.
Maria Salazar: And enforcement is not codified either. So most people do not know, and that's why I very much appreciate and very grateful that you're giving me the opportunity to talk to your audience, is that most people do not know that in 28.
Dave Rubin: No, no, the Democrats will open up the door, period.
Maria Salazar: Come on! And do you think Hispanics want that? No, we don't.
Bob Metz:
You're listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online.
I have to say I found those statistics cited by Florida Congresswoman Maria Salazar to be kind of difficult to believe. Only 150 to 180 Americans applied for jobs in a pool of hundreds of thousands of jobs available? Really? Because those jobs are hard?
Hard or not, I think we're looking at a symptom of something else. On the positive side, it would be nice to believe that the reason so few citizens are applying for these jobs is because they already have a job they're satisfied with. Or on the negative side, this could be something as dangerous as uncontrolled immigration itself. Socialism's welfare state, one not based on offering people a hand up, but on a handout, making it unnecessary to even have to work for many of the recipients getting those handouts.
But once again, I just heard of another current report of an ICE agent purportedly shooting a quote-unquote "New Yorker" made by Dave Rubin just this past Monday, from which the following short collage of comments by New York mayor's Zohran Mamdani was taken.
Zohran Mamdani:
Good evening, everyone. Around 4 p.m. this afternoon, a New Yorker was shot by ICE agents in Marble Hill. Many of the facts surrounding this shooting are still unclear.
And the pretext of ICE is in their words to keep this country safe. How is it keeping anyone safe to have, as you just heard from the police commissioner? Individuals wearing construction vests in masks with long guns. Residents have no idea if these are law enforcement agents or if they are simply attacking someone on the street.
We know that ICE is rotten to its core.
I am demanding that ICE cease their operations in our city immediately, because these operations make New Yorkers less safe. They leave New Yorkers in a state of terror, and that is something that should be opposed by all of us.
Bob Metz:
Well, if there's anyone who leaves me in a state of terror, it's Mamdani himself. And the socialism that he so strongly supports, and how ironic that Salazar in saying that she fears for the country's children and grandchildren, called upon people to vote Republican in the upcoming midterms, quote, "so that socialists will not penetrate the system," end quote.
Well, I don't know. When the mayor of New York is a hardcore Islamist socialist, how much more of the system is left to penetrate? But once again, as Rubin revealed, this person referred to by Mamdani simply as a "New Yorker" wasn't illegal with a past crime record, including armed robbery in 2023, multiple arrests for assault, robbery, drug possession, weapons possession, criminal sales of controlled substances, gang associations, etc., etc.
But right now it's time to turn the discussion to a focus of the immigration crisis as it presents itself in Europe and in particular France. And I have to confess that I've never heard of a syndrome like the one our next podcaster will be bringing to our attention. But it's one directly related to the consequences of mass immigration. On this side of the upcoming bumper, Black Pigeon Speaks introduces us to the Paris syndrome, which is not what you might think, other than it does indeed relate to the city of Paris, France. And on the return side of the bumper, he broadens the discussion of the global immigration crisis by citing all of the mass rioting and street violence across France that we've been seeing over the past few weeks. But first, welcome to Paris.
Clip (Black Pigeon Speaks, October 7, 2026):
Some of the most interesting mental maladies are those conditions that are also named after places, and probably the most interesting one is the Paris syndrome. And given the absolute dissent, not only with this week's ongoing violence in the Parisian rioting season, but that the city of not so much light has seen over the past several decades. It's no wonder why visitors no longer see splendor, but instead see an open sewer.
Now the Paris syndrome, according to an article on the SBS website, is a psychological condition experienced up until recently, almost exclusively by Japanese tourists who are utterly disappointed when the City of Lights does not live up to their romantic expectations. The syndrome is considered an extreme case of culture shock, and it causes symptoms such as an acute delusional state, hallucinations, anxiety, dizziness, and sweating, and has been documented by medical journals.
So why does Paris make the Japanese visitors so sick? Well, a French psychiatric journal cites the disappointment many visitors feel being caused by romanticized expectations of Paris as a city of love, fashion, and glamorous people, being hopelessly dashed by the grubby, rude, and increasingly dangerous reality of the city.
The city is a popular tourist destination due to Japan's fascination with all things French. And Paris itself is seen as an idealized version of a utopian culture and center of a refined and cultivated society, and this has been perpetrated for decades in media depictions.
Paris is a city that, while retaining beautiful architecture in the central part of the city, it is without doubt a city in cultural and societal decline. Its famed boulevards are litter-strewn, dilapidation and graffiti are everywhere, aggressive migrant gangs. And as seen this week, yet again, protests and uprisings, currently the migrant descent students. Well, they are now a common occurrence.
Add that most famous smug and rude attitude of the Parisians, well you have a perfect storm of unmet expectations crashing into disheveled reality. And because of this reality, according to the BBC, the Japanese embassy in Paris repatriates up to 20 tourists a year, sending them home with a doctor or nurse to ensure they recover from the shock. The embassy also runs a 24-hour helpline for expatriates experiencing the syndrome.
The syndrome seems to be getting worse rather than better, as Chinese tourists are now also experiencing the Paris syndrome. Now, this seems strange because according to Foreign Policy, the stereotypes that the Chinese have for the French are not associated with things like romance, splendor, cultivation, or style. In fact, the Chinese actually have some pretty interesting stereotypes of European nations. But for France, the top stereotype that the Chinese people have for the country is not about beautiful people, fashion, or romance, but the country has, quote, "so many black people," closed quote.
And here's the thing. Maybe the Paris syndrome is actually not a mental illness at all. I do remember Paris in the early 2000s, and it has definitely changed and not for the better. And what is very clear is that the people of Paris have changed, with fewer and fewer French people living there year by year, and it clearly shows and it clearly matters.
Maybe the Paris syndrome is just a realization by sensitive outsiders from the Orient that a once grand and majestic city has slowly but surely been reduced to a hollowed-out shell of its former greatness. And sadly, this is something that is happening in almost every other large Western city in the West, too.
Well, here we go again. Mass rioting and street violence in Europe, this time across France. The answer, as always, of course, from the governing financial and media classes, is that nothing fundamentally can be done, and that an African and Islamic hybrid Europe is inevitable, and that whatever remains of the native population must simply accept this new reality.
Well, what is true is that the civilizations that refuse to defend themselves do not get to negotiate the terms of their own replacement. They simply disappear into someone else's story. And the only eulogy on offer is the complaint that they should have been kinder, more open, and more tolerant while it happened. But if history has taught us anything when we are talking about the future, it is that nothing is inevitable.
Unknown Speaker: Young people, the newest generation of migrants, are much more radicalized than their parents were.
Unknown Speaker: The second and third generation from Muslim majority countries is usually more radical than their parents or grandparents who arrived and left an Islamist country or majority Muslim country.
Black Pigeon Speaks:
Historically, when populations become divided by ethnicity, religion, language, or competing national identities, governments eventually have to confront the demographic question, sometimes through borders, partition or population exchanges, and unfortunately, as is so often in the historical record, through violent expulsions.
Of course, none of these were pleasant solutions. But history does not support the idea that demographic conflicts simply disappear because politicians refuse to discuss them or allow anyone else to do so.
In that context, what has to be understood is the very real fact that we human beings are tribal. We have always been tribal, we will always be tribal. Small family groups became clans, tribes, kingdoms, and eventually nation states. The terminology changed, the borders changed, but one basic human instinct remained remarkably consistent. People organized themselves around common ancestry, history, language, culture, religion, and territory.
The word nation itself comes from the Latin natio and nasi, meaning to be born or original and stock. Now, of course, there's never been a society in history that was some perfectly homogenous racial utopia. But there is a rather large difference between people moving gradually over generations, like the Huguenots into England, to what now, when governments are bringing in millions upon millions upon millions of people over into the country in a relatively short amount of time, whilst at the same time telling the native population that the resulting demographic and cultural transformation of their nation is inevitable and something they must not only accept but celebrate.
But history is full of things that were supposedly inevitable right up until they weren't. If you want to see how rapidly populations can be transformed, you don't have to go back that far. In 1923, Greece and Turkey formalized a population exchange involving roughly two million people.
After the Second World War, millions of Germans were expelled from territories in eastern Europe.
The partition of India and Pakistan after the Raj produced one of the greatest and largest population movements in modern history.
And of course, there was the population exchange of Greek and Turkish Cypriots after the 1975 partition.
The implosion and multi-sided ethnic conflict in 1990s Yugoslavia is where the term Balkanization was coined. Even the 2014 ethnic conflict known as the war in the Donbass, which has culminated in the current Russian Ukraine war, could be called an ethnic civil war.
So you have exchanges, partitions, expulsions, civil wars. Different circumstances and very different levels of violence, but the basic lesson is the same. Demographic and political arrangements that appear permanent can change remarkably quickly when the political assumptions sustaining them change.
Why is demographic change treated as irreversible when almost every other form of political change is treated as malleable? Apparently, even asking this question is now extremely controversial. Governments can change tax policy, welfare policy, trade policy, and environmental laws, yet somehow the policy of mass demographic transformative immigration is an irreversible law of nature. It cannot be changed, it cannot be stopped, it cannot even be spoken about. Well, who decides this?
Mass immigration was a political decision. It wasn't an asteroid hitting the continent. Governments chose it, parliamentarians voted for it, institutions facilitated it, and the media has covered up the consequences of it. And if it was a political choice to begin with, then surely it remains a political choice to change it. That doesn't mean violence, that doesn't mean collective punishment, that doesn't mean repeating the horrors of the 20th century population transfers. It means a return of borders, immigration law, citizenship policy, integration, and where appropriate, return, being treated as legitimate instruments of a sovereign state rather than as unspeakable concepts.
Because once a civilization accepts that its future is inevitable, it has already surrendered something far more important than its borders. It has surrendered the belief that it even has one.
Bob Metz:
Yeah, the future. But of course, as we learned last week on our show about time travel, the future has already happened, so all we need to do is hop into our time traveling devices to get there, right?
Okay, jokes aside, you may recall our October 22nd, 2025 broadcast entitled "There's No Time Like the Future," during which we discovered that there are many African cultures whose concept of time literally do not include any recognition of a future. And while that may have seemed innocuous and a harmless notion, when linked to immigration by people who fail to conceptualize a concept of the future, you're going to be faced with a very dark cultural malaise.
But the conclusion by Black Pigeon Speaks that what is required is a return of borders, immigration law, citizen policy, integration, and where appropriate return seems very basic and reasonable. And yes, they are legitimate instruments of a sovereign state. And that's pretty much on target with what Maria Salazar was advocating when stressing that dignity legislation codifies border security and enforcement. What she was talking about is actual and enforceable immigration law and citizen policy written into law.
But after seeing all of the mass rioting across not just France but the rest of Europe and of course Britain, it's a chilling prediction to hear governments suggest that nothing can be done about this African slash Islamic hybrid of Europe that is inevitable. And with the observation that the native population must simply accept this new reality, I was reminded of this example of exactly how that acceptance is actually being promoted, believe it or not, brought to us by Sydney Watson on an October 5th X post.
Clip (Sydney Watson, October 5, 2026):
I've seen it all. I think I have finally seen it all. Why sexual assaults by migrants is a price worth paying to end racism. I thought this was satire. I scoured the entire website trying to figure out if this was satire. It's not satire. And if you thought it was just the insane headline, it's not. There's more. Aren't you excited? Get excited.
"Quasi-consensual encounters between refugees and white Western women may help assimilation."
This next part absolutely makes me want to take a bath with my toaster. "Pioneering women are placing the burden upon themselves to become the most powerful force undermining the very architecture of racial exclusion."
That's great on its own, but this goes on to say that these "beautiful interracial unions permanently puncture the entire narrative of the xenophobic right."
Now, the xenophobic right is arguing that creepy men from third world countries are raping and hurting and being horrible to Western women, and that's a problem. This article is arguing that that behavior, that exact behavior actually leads to loving unions between white women and these migrants. And that apparently is smashing a hole in this right-wing narrative that we've created.
This isn't edgy. This isn't edgy trolling. This is a published piece that argues that white women need to be collateral damage in this war against racism. And as horrifying and disgusting as this is to people like you and me, hopefully, this is actually not an isolated idea at all, and I have seen this argued online before. So believe me when I tell you that what white women are experiencing right now at the hands of migrants en masse is the point. This type of thing, this type of belief system is the point. And like I said, white women regrettably are the collateral damage.
Bob Metz:
Now just think about what we just heard. Under a headline referring to sexual assaults by migrants, this so-called published piece continues with the argument that these quasi-consensual encounters represent beautiful interracial relations that puncture the entire narrative of the xenophobic right. Well, talk about a political target and agenda, one that represents the type of belief system that is the point, according to Sydney Watson, otherwise called the left.
But to equate in their own words, sexual assaults with quasi-consensual encounters is so beyond the pale that how any belief system could possibly think like this is truly beyond any rational person's comprehension. Quasi-consensual is an anti-concept. There is no such thing. Something's either consensual or it isn't. There's no middle of the road here, any more than there is a political center. It's either left or right.
So how do you even come up with a concept like that? Well, I was thinking maybe the writer was thinking of the term quasi-consensual by assuming that the consent was being exercised by the rapist because he wanted to do it, and the quasi was being experienced by the rape victim who was resisting. But even here, the concept of consent cannot be applied alone to a single individual, be he a rapist or whatever, since consent implies a two-way street.
And by the way, the political concept of consent is exclusively a value on the right, which is why it makes perfect sense for the left to try to use the concept of quasi-consent as a weapon against the so-called quote-unquote xenophobic right.
But on a personal level. The references to all of the population expulsions that took place over history, that struck home with me. Particularly the observation that after the Second World War, millions of Germans were expelled from territories in eastern Europe. Well, my parents were among them. They were both born in Hungary, where they lived under a system of serfdom. But being of German descent, they were part of that expulsion and happened to be in Germany in 1952, the year that I was born there. The following year, they legally immigrated to Canada, and I recall my mother telling us that before being allowed to immigrate to Canada through a vetting process, they had to be what they called quote-unquote "denazified." And that essentially meant just filling out some form attesting to their rejection of Nazi ideology, which ironically Canada itself has today adopted.
I mean, I'll never forget how every member of the Canadian Parliament stood to honor an actual Nazi fascist as a war hero because he fought against Canada's ally during World War II, Russia. And in openly supporting a fascist like Ukraine's Zelensky and sending Ukraine millions of tax dollars to fund its war against Russia, the Canadian government is essentially supporting a regime that murdered my grandfather after being captured from his farm in Hungary and sent there to work as a slave.
So please forgive me if I express no sympathy for those using America's encounter with slavery that ended in 1865 as some grounds for forcing white Americans of 2026 to pay reparations to black people. Because I, and many others like me, don't have to go back over 160 years to have experienced ancestral slavery. But nobody's offering us any reparations, and nor should they.
So, once again, with the midterms right around the corner, this would be a good time to recall the principle that, as we heard earlier, demographic and political arrangements that appear permanent can change remarkably quickly when the political assumptions sustaining them change.
And that's certainly what it appears the Trump administration has done, changed the political assumptions previously associated with open borders and unvetted immigration. Now, whether or not Maria Salazar's dignity legislation will be part of that change remains to be seen. But the way that the left is responding to these changes is the best proof that what they're doing on the immigration issue is moving in the right direction, as we ourselves shall continue to do when you join us again next week, as we continue our journey in the right direction. And until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We'll see you then.
Clip (Alex Assoune, December 22, 2025, Comics Roasting Migrants):
Everybody on the internet, they've been making fun of this one dude. I don't know if y'all seen that picture. It's a Mexican dude wearing a Latinos for Trump shirt, and he's being arrested by ICE. And everybody in the comments was like, "That's what you get. That's what you get for supporting Trump."
But I don't think he was really a Trump supporter. I think he was just like incognito. You know what I mean? Like when Bugs Bunny dresses up like a woman who's like, "He went that way."
I think this man just knew that any day now ICE would pull up to his job so he wore the shirt and so that he could be like, "What do you mean? Come on, it's me, baby. Come on! I was at the rally, you remember."
I recommend everybody should wear those who can't tell you apart.