Cross Examiner is the Internet’s courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Did you hear about the jurisprudential fetishist?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: He got off on a technicality.

>> <name></name>: Welcome to the Cross examiner podcast, the Internet’s courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion. Here our host uses his experience as both an attorney and an atheist to put religion on trial. We solemnly swear that it is the most informative, educational and entertaining jury duty you will ever do. And now it’s time for the Cross Examiner.

Cross Examiner is alarmed by the rise of Christian nationalism

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Welcome, welcome, welcome to the Cross examiner podcast.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I’m your host, the Cross Examiner.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I am an atheist, I am an attorney and I am alarmed. I’m alarmed by the rise of Christian.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Nationalism and more importantly I’m ris m. I’m alarmed as you can tell by.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The massive amount of misinformation that is powering that rise. Ah. As you may have recognized, I’ve been.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: On a bit of a sabbatical. life events sort of took over.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: For a while there. But I am starting season three.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Here with renewed vigor and an intent to put out regular content.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This season for a good long while.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: so today I’m just goingna sort of get back into things by talking about a topic that is in the news today.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But I want to start off with asking you a question.

Rachel Maddow: Blazing Saddles is one of the smartest films on racism

Have you ever seen the movie Blazing Saddles? One of my favorite films of all time.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It’s set in the, let me see, 1874 is when blazing Saddles is hit. is set, it is a comedy and it depicts life as it was in 1874, surrounding the railroad and small towns out on the frontier. And it addresses the core issue of racism, just overt racism.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: A lot of people when they see.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The movie today, I’ve seen a lot of people react to it on YouTube. They make claims like it could never be made. these days it’s too offensive, things like that.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I tend to disagree.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I think that it’s a, one of.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The smartest films made on racism.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: it, one of the screenwriters in fact was one of my all time favourite stand up comedians, Richard Pryor.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: it makes liberal use of the.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: N word to make a point. everybody in the film that is a racist is an absolute moron and they are outwitted time and time again by all the other people that are fighting against racism. So I think that if you made it today and you made it with the right screenwriters, u it would be a smash hit. the same way that

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Tropic Thunder was a huge hit, it lambasted Hollywood.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: A lot of people look at that which wasn’t made that long ago and say that could never be made in modern times again. I disagree. I think, people who say that do not give audiences enough credit. But the reason I’m bringing up u, Blazing Saddles is because it sort of sets the stage. If you’re, if you’re familiar with it, with the mentality that was rampant in America in the late 1800s. As I said, it was set in 1874. and it opens, in fact, with a pan. You know, there’s. You’ve got your opening credits, and it opens with a pan across a bunch of workers, hammering spikes into, the railroad. You know, they’re building a railroad out to populate the country and connect the coasts. And the workers are, mostly black, but there are a few obviously Chinese, workers. and right in the opening scenes, one of the Chinese workers, you know, you know, obviously shows that he’s, wiping his brow, it’s very hot, and he collapses and dies. And the foreman immediately uses a racial slur and says, Doc, that guy, days’s worth of pay as they other workers gather his body and cart him off.

>> Speaker D: Come on, boys. The way you lolly gagging around here with their pecs and them shovels, you think it was 120 degrees. Can’t be more n. 114, doc, that chick a day’s pay for napping on the jaw. Yes, sir.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And the reason I’m focusing in on that particular moment of the movie is that captures the attitude of America in the late 1800s towards specifically Chinese people. I didn’t realize how well it captured it until I started doing some research for this story that I’m going to do today. Now, I have, decided that, one of the reasons I am not. I have not been doing content for the last eight months, is u. for two things I should, I should give you this update. One, I’ve been doing a lot of.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Work for the aca.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I’ve been hosting the Atheist Experience, every month, which has been a thrill. And I’m going to continue to do that. It’s a wonderful experience for me, and I’d love to continue to work with the ACA and donate my time there.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But also, I have found over my.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Two seasons of the Cross examiner podcast.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: That I am attracted to two types of stories.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: One, interviewing people. I really enjoy interviewing people. I like to get to know them.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I like to have conversations. I like to learn from them.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And I like to ask questions that I think will help my audience learn something and I like to bring expertise to the channel that can do those things. Educate my audience and educate me. And the other type of story I found that I really like are the Deep Dive episodes. Episodes where I can tell a story sort of a. If Rachel Maddow wrote a podcast, which she did. If you’ve seen Ultra or, or listen to Ultra, that’s the type of long form reporting storytelling journalism that I really find I enjoy. There’s one problem with that and that is I have a full time job. I’m an attorney. I work for a patent ah, software company. I’m not practicing law in that role. I’m actually managing software developers and managing a government contracts and all sorts of stuff there have sort of gotten into this u, interesting job that we can talk about later. but it’s a full time job. I also have a child on the spectrum. I have a son that’s just finished his freshman year in college. Life takes a lot out of you.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Especially at my age.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So I found that my desire to do this high quality Deep Dive content was conflicting with my energy and my time availability for one of a better concepts. So after doing some research and watching other content out there I’ve decided I’m going to forego the preparation side. Like you can tell right now I’m, I’m off script. I’m just talking to you guys to let you know what my plans are. but I still want to tell those stories and I think I can accomplish that. This is going to be an attempt.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: At that of sort of conveying a.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Story to you to make a point about what’s happening in America today by giving you what I know about the past and an interesting angle of a personal story that relates to what’s happening today. So that’s what’s going on. this is a bit of experiment. I’m just going to put this on online and see how it does. if people like it, I’ll continue to do this. it will let me hop on and do a content that I think is relevant and informative on a much shorter notice and much more frequently without having to take up eight hours of prep time to do one episode which is literally the type of research I like to do. for example my series on face, healing and Killing children in the name of Faith healing. I would read three or four books to write one episode would, I would do lots of research. I would write scripts, and then I would refine those over multiple takes of episodes. There’s a lot that goes into just getting something that’s cohesive. It doesn’t sound like it’s jumping all over the place.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And that tells a message with an.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Arc that’s got some sort of dramatic arc that pulls people in and keeps you with the story. And let’s be honest, that’s hard to do these days.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Right.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I like doing that, but it’s a challenge because I’m competing against u,

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: TikTok videos that last for 30 seconds.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And contain, you know, 12 false claims. And in order to debunk those claims, I have to take time, I have to tell a story and I have.

To hold people’s attentions. Especially since the rise of Trumpism in America

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: To hold people’s attentions.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Right now people are just scrolling through shorts on their phones and, that’s not the space I operate in. My intention is to be somebody that you can point your friends to when they get something wrong and say, go watch episode. This guy explains it thoroughly. He’s an attorney. He knows how the law works and he knows how, the legal process works. He knows what the Constitution says. you can, fact check him and if he got something wrong, he wants to hear about it so he can correct himself. So that’s what I’m going to try and we’ll see how much content I can put out. Again, I don’t run ads. I don’t have a Patreon. I don’t do any money. This is completely voluntary on my time. It is my charity. It’s my way of giving back. Especially since the rise of Trumpism in America.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: That’s my main reaction here, is to.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Try to push back on that. And I think the only way to push back on it is to educate people.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The only, the reason we’re in the.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Situation we are with this country right now with idiots at the helm is because the average voter, is thinks they’re acting in their best interest, but they have not learned enough either in facts, history, or in critical thinking skills to, finely tune their bullshit detector. And I think their bullshit detectors need work. And that’s what I’m going to try to do. One fact at a time.

The story of Chinese immigrants in America begins in the 1800s

So today we’re talking about Blazing Saddles. What a great place to start.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: If you haven’t seen it, you may.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Want to stop listening to me and go watch it.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: You can stream it on Amazon for.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Like three or four bucks.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Literally.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I think it’s one of the best movies ever made. It’s intelligent way beyond what People give it credit for it is ranked like 5 or 6 on the American Film Institute’s top 100 comedies of all time. they know what’s going on. It’s just a great film.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But why am I talking about Blazing Saddles?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So, I guess what we should do is start the story back and I’m going to pull up a few notes I made here beforehand. So give me a second here to talk about this. So, I guess the story begins in the mid-1800s, when thousands of Chinese immigrants began arriving on the Americas, coast, west coast, coming from China. they were coming in search of opportunity. They were driven by poverty, there were.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Wars, they were escaping.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And there was political turmoil in China at the time. So, and we also had, what was going on, if you know your history in California at that time. There was a gold rush and there was a gold rush and there was a drive to build the transcontinental railroad. So they came for opportunity. That railroad, being depicted, of course, in Blazing Saddles. so they had to brave dangerous conditions to get here. and then when they were here, many of them faced the brutal labor.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Conditions that we saw in the opening.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Scenes of Blazing Saddles. And then, I guess we need.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: To flash forward to the setting of blazing saddles.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The 1874. By 1870s, Chinese workers were a large visible part of the American workforce, especially in the West. but with that visibility came resentment. And this is where I think the story will start to sound somewhat familiar. so white workers seeing the rise of Chinese immigrants and facing economic problems. There was this big thing called The Panic of 1873, a year before the setting of, Blazing Saddles. that was a huge economic sell.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Off that created a downturn in the economy.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The white population, the working class, saw Chinese immigrants as competition. They had their labor unions, white labor unions exclude them. they had their politicians scapegoat them. And newspapers ran headlines that used phrases like the Yellow peril. And I’m not kidding here, that’s, that’s the condition. So again, going back to Blazing Saddles where, you know, you’ve got little old ladies walking up to Cleveland. Little the main character who is the black sheriff, the unexpected black sheriff of a, of a white frontier towne. And him saying good day, madam, and her saying up yours n wor. it was just out in the open. Headlines are talking about the yellow peril and all of that.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: and keep in mind this is 1874. So not very like less than a generation after the end of the Civil War.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So the black workforce was still essentially slaves, but they got paid a nominal wage. And then now we’re coming in the Chinese immigrants seeking opportunity, escaping bad conditions at home, and they were willing to work for very little as well. And the whites saw this as, subverting their salary and taking away jobs, if this sounds familiar to you, but they were doing jobs that most of the whites would not do. They were building the railroads, they were, digging irrigation. They were doing, picking fruits, just like we have in our modern society with the Mexican immigrants today or South American immigrants. So, what this led to is violence in cities, especially in San Francisco and la. You had, Chinese communities were burned down. People were attacked. There was a lynching that not many people are aware of, which stuns me. I think it was 18 Chinese people.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Were lynched in one day in one location in California. This is the level that it reached.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And all the while, a political.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Movement was gaining steam to try to.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Basically outlaw being Chinese in America. That’s where we were at the time of Blazing Saddles. so what this culminated in is in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. That’s literally what it was called, the Chinese Exclusion Act. And it was signed into law by then, President Chester A. Arthur.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: One of the worst things that a.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: President ever did, this law did several things. One, it banned Chinese laborers from entering the US for 10 years.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: 1982 to 1992.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Okay, 1982 to 1992.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It denied naturalization to all Chinese immigrants. Chinese people could not be citizens.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Even Chinese people born here, could not become citizens. And, this. The third thing it did is basically created a legal framework that treated Chinese people as permanently foreign, even if they have lived in the US for decades, even if they were born here. this.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This is a watershed moment in US History.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This is the first time the United States act enacted a federal law barring.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Immigration on the basis of race or nationality.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Just band it all together. That’s where we were. So this is,

Grant Wasinsky: Congress made Chinese exclusion permanent in 1902

Let’s see, when was this? 82. So it’s about, eight years after the time of the Blazing Saddle.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So we’re in.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Still in that same space. And I said that it lasted for 10 years, but that was the original Act. But like so many acts that we deal with today, ceg, the Patriot act and things like that, it was extended.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Congress extended it.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So there was the Scott act of 1888, extended it and barred reentry to Chinese who left the country even if they had lived in the US legally.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And then there was the Gary act.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Of 1892, which required residents to carry internal, passports or risk arrest and deportation. This is, this is not quite Holocaust.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But it is definitely the Nazi mantra.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Of papers, please for a whole race of people, not based on, anything they’d done that was illegal, not based on any constitutional provision, but literally based on your race. Hey, Grant, let me pause for a second here.

>> Speaker D: Oh, you.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So as a result of all of these things we, I forgot to mention. Okay, I’m going toa start over. And then in 1902, Congress made the exclusion permanent. So, like so many things we see.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: You start with an act that says.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Hey, for 10 years we’re going to treat these people kind of badly. And then we’re going to later, because politicians want to get elected. Let’s understand how this happens, right?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: People get pissed off.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They need a scapegoat, and it’s always a minority group somewhere. Today it’s going to be the trans community. That’s the cause of all your woes, right? Back then it was the Chinese community. So, your representative democracy, that’s what you’re in. And so you want your representative to be at least seen, or you want to perceive them as actually doing something.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So they pass a bill and then they can go and run for reelection.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Saying, I voted for this bill that said that there would be no Chinese in the country for 10 years and.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Then they need to run again.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Right?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: You have to run for the House.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Every two years, run for the Senate every six years. So, Scott, Act 19, 1888, we’re going toa bar Chinese from who left the country from ever coming back in.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Vote for me again.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And then four years later, the Gearary act, you have to carry papers. The Nazis papers, please. moment. This is all representatives reacting to the fervor of an uneducated, ignorant, racist community. and then in 1902, 10 years later, what else can we do? We’re just going to make this all permanent.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So it starts with little bills.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It starts with chipping away here or there, but then there’s this insatiable thirst for more and more and more from the voters. And if you are not a, a person of high moral standards as a representative who needs to be a leader and not just a follower of his people, you will fall prey to this and you will embrace, the dark side of humanity, which is what happened. Back then. So as a result, communities shnk. Chinese community shrank. Families were separated. Chinese Americans lived in a state of legal limbo. They were neither fully accepted nor allowed.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: To leave and return freely from the United States.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: there’s a story about angel island.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Which is west’s coasts immigration station, sort.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Of like Ellis island, but on the west coast. Chinese immigrants there were subjected to long detentions and humiliating interrogations. And it was a far cry when you compare what happened there to what happened at those at Ellis Island. In Ellis island it was, hey, welcome to the country. What’s your name? Wasinsky. I’m going to just change it to Walter. Come on in. have a nice day. That was basically what happened. Yes, there was racism against the Irish and things like that, but that’s the extent of it at Ellis Island. At angel island, it was multi week detentions, interrogations, rejections, all of that. Again, just because somebody is Chinese.

What did the Chinese Americans do in response to this?

So, that leaves us with, a question. What did the Chinese Americans at that point do in response to this? I hope you’re starting to hear how this is very similar to a, to what we’re living in today. Right. they didn’t disappear, the Chinese Americans dis’appear.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They resisted.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They, they built mutual aid societies, they built legal defense groups, and they built cultural communities in Chinatowns all across the country.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: One of the reasons all of the.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Cities you visit have a Chinatown is because of this, because of this era of the exclusion, we’ll call it the Chinese exclusion era. Right. 1880s all the way to early 1900s. This is why.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And there’s lessons to be learned here.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: That we’ll get to. But the last thing they did is.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They turned to the courts.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And I want to tell a story about, and you know me, I always.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Get to the courts.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Right? That’s the point of this. As we need is my podcast’s main.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Lesson is we can sit here and.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Bitch and moan all we want, we can sit here and criticize and we.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Can sit here and worry, we can sit here and hope. We could do all of those things. But nothing matters in this country, at.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Least until you get into the courtroom, because that’s where the rubber hits the road. That is where we get to attempt to get the guns on our side. And what I mean by that is.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Once you have a court ruling in.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Your favor, it’s going to be enforced. And if the people refuse to force.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It, it may take many emotions, it.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: May take contempt hearings, it may take all sorts of things.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But sooner or later a sheriff or a federal officer is going to force.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Somebody to obey that court at gunpoint.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Right? Whatever it may be, if it comes.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Down to it, they will arrest the person and takes him to jail at gunpoint.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: If they need to surrender your house.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Because you’re a landlord and somebody wasn’t paying their rent, at some point the sheriff is going to come and kick them out. If you don’t pay your taxes and you don’t go to court when you’re subpoenaed and you get a, conviction and absentia and somebody, decides you owe the government enough that they need you to show up, they’re going to issue a warrant and if you don’t show up, they’re going to. The sheriff or the feds in this case would show up at your door with that warrant and arrest you at gunpoint. So yes, the law is the majority of us getting together and saying at some point this is important enough that we’re going to enforce this decision at gunpoint. And this is what the Chinese citizens and non citizens knew they were. They had their educated elders in their community just like every other community. And they knew nothing matters if we can’t win in the courts. And so that’s where they turned. And to address that case, I want to talk about a little boy.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870

A little boy. So this little boy was born in.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: San Francisco in 1870. His name was Wong Kim Ark.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: He was the son of Chinese immigrants. Ah, those immigrants had legal residents in the U.S. again, this is 1873. So we’re back in this early fervor of anti Chinese energy right when Blazing Saddles is set. and his parents came to the US to seek a better life.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They were there under a merchant status.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Sort of a work visa, today, if you are familiar with that. So what happened was, is when he turned 17, his parents had decided that, the stress of living here, the longing for their family, they decided they were going to move back home. But Wong was an American.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: We’ve seen it today.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This is no different than your, your friend, your child’s friend in school.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Who was born in the United States.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But they were South American, let’s say Mexican, and all they know is how to speak English. Maybe the Chinese, their parents taught them the culture, the language, the work ethic, the laws, everything that they were raised with is United States focused.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So he decided at 17 years old.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: That he was going to stay in the United States as a laborer. That’s brave.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Think about that when you’re 19. Excuse me, 17.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And your parents in.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: When would that be?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: 1873. He was born.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So 90.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: 1890.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They decide, we’re gonna go home. Please come with us.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And you say, no, I’m not going toa fit in back there. I’m gonna try to make it on my own as a, laborer. Back when there’s no Internet, you’re not talking to them. You don’t know if your letters are gonna get through or lost or soaked and become ungible. You’re going to communicate only, periodically from long distances. And you’ll, you’ll probably only see them.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Once every five or ten years if.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: You, you choose to visit them. That’s incredibly brave. maybe done out of necessity, maybe just done out of, bravery or trying to, make a life for himself. But regardless, he stayed. five years later, he wanted to visit his parents. They were aging.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And he decided to return.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This is in 1895. He decided to return to China. He again was born in San Francisco. And, the 14th Amendment was in effect, which says that anybody born in the United States is a citizen.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So he went to visit his. He was confident he could come back.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: He went back to visit China and then returned to San Francisco. When he was interviewed and interrogated at, the port, he was denied reentry by the U.S. customs officials. Why?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They said he was not a citizen. They argued that the 14th Amendment didn’t.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Apply to the children of specifically Chinese immigrants. That was the law at the time, if you remember the bills I had passed, that you cannot be a citizen.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: If you are Chinese. It didn’t. The law did not make an exception.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: For people who were born here, as the 14th Amendment commands them to do.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: At this point.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: He was 22 years old, American born, and effectively he was stateless. he couldn’t go back to China.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And the US Wouldn’t let him in.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So he sued.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This is part of that community.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I talked about the legal community that the Chinese community in California built. They sued this case. You know, quick cut. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court, asked a question.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Does the 14th Amendment guarantee citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Of their parents, race or immigration status? And in 18, 98, three years.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: After he tried to enter. So he waited for three years not.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Knowing what his life would be, not able to do anything in the United States, not able to go back. the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment does indeed guarantee birthright citizenship.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: With only two exceptions.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Children of diplomats, enemy occupiers. Enemy occupiers. That’s the interesting part. So you may be you may be catching on to why I’m bringing up this story. because even though u, this was settled law from 1898 so one ah hundred twenty six years ago, if.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I’m doing the math right, this is.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: 120, 26 year old precedent. the Supreme Court today heard arguments on a executive action, an executive order that President Trump issued that said that people who are born in the United States are not citizens. In direct defiance of this opinion in Wa Kim Ark’s opinion.

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments today over the immigration executive order

so that’s the last bit I want to talk about today. The what the oral arguments that were heard today. The u, I’ll tell you right now, I have not had time to listen to them. The Supreme Court hears oral arguments and.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Then they post them online and then.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: You have to listen to them and they can be up to two hours long. I haven’t analyzed them. I will in a little bit.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: There’S going to be some confusion in the media over reporting on.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This particular case that’s in the court today. And that’s because the case was not on the merits.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The hearing today was over a subtle.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Procedural issue that I think is more.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Important quite frankly than this individual case.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The hearing today was about the executive order being u, suspended by the court. So what happened was Trump issued an executive order.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: He’s issued a bunch of them, many of them unconstitutional.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This one in particular says I’m.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Just going toa say if you were.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Born in the United States but your parents were not citizens, you are not a citizen and this is in a.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It’s a direct contravention of the Supreme Court ruling in the ARC case, the one we just talked about. and immediately people sued, right? They people like ACLU and Freedom from Religion foundation, all these organizations that are stand ready when any government, Democratic or ah, Republican does something unconstitutional, they go to court right away. So they went to court and the trial judge says oh yeah, absolutely, this is a no brainer.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: You are not going. Well let me back up.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The very first thing that happened is you filed the case and then immediately.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: After that you file a motion for the court to issue an injunction and joining the executive branch from enforcing the executive order while litigation is taking place on this case. So what does that mean? That means they filed their lawsuit and then one of the first things they did as soon as they just filed the lawsuit was to say, judge, this is obviously going to go through the courts. We would like you to issue an order that says while we are arguing in the courts, do not the executive. Trump is forbidden from enforcing this executive order because if you, the courts decide that the 14th Amendment says what it actually says and that this executive order is unconstitutional and could not legally be followed anyway, but he is allowed.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: To move forward in enforcing it.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: While we’re arguing, there are going to be people who are going to be kidnapped off the street and flown to any place like El Salvador or Syria or Uganda or wherever Trump wants to throw these people because they look different or he doesn’t like them or they’re woke or who knows what reason.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Right?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: and he has already demonstrated that once that’s happened, even if the courts find that no, this order was unconstitutional, he will refuse to do anything to lift a frickin pinky to help them get back in the United States. So please judge, order that you cannot enforce this executive order until we’re done.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: With all of the appeals in the.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Court system and the initial court, the.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: District court judge agreed and issued a.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Stay saying, or an injunction. Excuse me, a stay is when you stay your own order. An injunction is when you’re coming in and saying, hey, I’m going to enjoin you. I’m going to prevent you from doing.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: A thing that you would normally do.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Or you might want to do. So they are enjoining the executive thugs ICE from deporting people, based on, they having birthright citizenship. Only the MAGA fanatics, the Christian nationalist racist fanatics appealed and it’s gotten to the Supreme Court.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So the question before the court is.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Not does the 14th amendment guarantee birthright citizenships to people who were born here, that whose parents were not citizens, but they were born in the jurisdiction of the United States. The question today is can a single judge, a district court judge, issue a nationwide stay? And what the racists and the cavemen are arguing is no, no, no, no.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: No, we shouldn’t let a single judge.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Issue an injunction for the whole country.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Why should one federal judge be able.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: To stop what a president wants to do, even if it’s temporarily, even if it’s just to sort things out, even if that judge finds, as a matter of fact, that there is risk of extremely, possibly irreversibly, harming, the, the defendants or the subjects, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, if we end up deciding in favor of them, that there’s going to be damage we can’t undo.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They’re saying a judge should not have that power.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: That if we want that to happen, then we need to file suit in every district courtridor in at least in every circuit there’s. I forget how many circuits there are. I’m sorry, was 10 is now I think up to 13 circuits.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: 14Th.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: maybe if you conclude D.C. i’m not sure. so you have to file a whole, basically working to make it harder to try to get injunctions in every jurisdiction that they think you should have to go to to prevent this. it’s not in my mind a good faith argument. It’s literally just saying, hey, if I find one judge, in this district that says I’m going to enjoin you, then I can go to another.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Judge somewhere else and maybe that judge.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Will say, no, I won’t enjoin you while you’re dealing with the courts over here. and what happens then is you have to ask the question, okay, what happens then?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: One judge has enjoined me from doing this anywhere.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This other judge is not issuing injunction.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Does this one federal judge only have.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Jurisdiction in certain areas? Because they are not state judges, they are federal judges. They just take cases that originate in certain geographical, areas.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But they are a federal judge.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They are practicing federal law.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They’re ruling on federal issues.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: That is a nationwide issue.

A federal judge can issue a nationwide injunction on immigration cases

so that’s where we are today is we’re hearing oral arguments about whether.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Or not a judge, a federal judge can issue an injunction saying, whoa, whoa.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Whoa, whoa, whoa, this sounds like plaintiff’s probably going to win.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And if I don’t issue an injunction.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They’Re going to be permanently harmed. So I’m going to issue an injunction. Just hold your breaths.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Let’s keep status quo that we’ve been.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Doing for 240 damamn years while we figure this out. That’s what, what we’re trying to do. So the question becomes, what do we think is going to happen? I have not, like I said, I have not listened to the oral arguments. I have read, legal commentators who.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Have commented on what the arguments indicated. And this seems to be the consensus.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The one we are unlikely to see a court come out and say that federal judges cannot, cannot issue nationwide or.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: What they call universal injunctions. We are unlikely to see the court say that.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: That would be, that would be a little crazy.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: We may see some limitations.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: We may say, hey, we, the court are going to create two buckets of cases, cases in this bucket you.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Can issue universal injunctions for, but cases.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: In that bucket you can’t. And so they might give some sort.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Of rule and it might be along the lines of things I’ve said, hey.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: You have to find, as a judge, things like there’s a decent chance that plaintiffs are going to prevail, or there’s a high chance that if pltons gained relief, but in the meantime, were affected by whatever the issue is, that that relief would, would never be.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Fully available to them.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And by that I mean what we’ve got here, if Trump deportss these people to El Salvador where they’re disappeared and murdered, or if they go to Libya, and they are, where human trafficking is going on and they are trafficked and killed, there’s no way we can get them back, right?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So why don’t we hold on? Even if there’s like a 5% chance.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They’Re going to win, there’s no skin.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Off the back of the US Government.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: To wait for several months it’s going.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: To take for these cases to move.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Through the courts till we five a final answer.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And then if the court holds that.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Yeah, you can deport them, then go.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Ahead and deport them.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But in the meantime, just hold your horses. The, the racists, the Magah heads, the cavemen that are running this, movement do not want to wait.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They don’t want to wait several months.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: For this to happen. Because why? Why do you think they don’t want to wait? Ah, I propose it’s because they realize, just like back where, we were talking about the history of all the.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Laws that enabled the Chinese exclusion and.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Then extended it and finally made it permanent. They need to keep showing results to their racist, scapegoating voters. They want soundbes and video clips of people of brown skin being shipped out of this country on a daily basis. That’s what they want.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And if this one little judge who.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Is holding the Constitution is going to get in their way, they don’t like it. They don’t care about whether or not it’s constitutional. They don’t care about whether they’re doing a moral thing or destroying lives. They don’t care about history, they don’t care about precedent.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: What they care about is power. And the way they get power, and.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The way they got power is by inciting racism, by inciting, xenophobia, and by inciting, Christian nationalism in getting people to vote for them on the promise of getting people out of this country. They’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I’mnna save you from that.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: That’s what’s going on here.

This case is going to affect 14 different executive orders

So, please pay attention to this case. This case is going to affect, I think it’s 14 different executive orders. We were sort of bound up into one case and the question applies to all of them.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: In all, 14 judges said, Whoa, no.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: This is unconstitutional probably, but it will definitely harm people if I don’t.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Issue an injunction now.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So let’s hold our horses, let’s fight it out on the courts and then we’ll take action.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: I’m hoping that at least this.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Court will find that yes, federal judges can actually issue injunctions because let’s imagine the parade of horribles if they couldn’t. If the court comes out and says.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: A, ah, judge cannot issue an injunction.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: At all, right then what does somebody like Trump do? As soon as I, the lawyer for somebody like Ark here, if that case was decided today, as soon as I file suit, they are going.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: To file 8 million motions to slow the case down. They’re going to ask for extensions, they’re.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Going to ask for reschedules, they’re going to ask for, they’re going to file, interrogatories. These are written questions that you’re allowed to file in certain civil cases asking, a whole bunch of questions that are going to be hard for us to answer. And then they may even ask for depositions. They then may, do a bunch of different things, to play around with discovery. Now this is a guess for where there’s civil actions here in some of these cases, like, hey, I’ve issued this order and it’s unconstitutional. You may not have all of these available to you, like discovery and depositions and stuff, but some you will. But the point is that they’re going to do everything possible to slow this down so that just to get through the first trial court, the district level court will take months and months and months.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And we all know what they’re after.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They’re after the video clips, they’re after the reels, they’re after the YouTube shorts where they can have christin nome like cosplay of thugs with guns and balaclavas on their heads shipping, people of brown skin out of the country for months. That’s what they want. They don’t care that they will ultimately lose and they don’t care about the lives they will destroy. They don’t care about the families they will separate.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They don’t care about any of that.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They don’t care about the morality of the thing. They just care about power. And then when they lose at the district court level, they’re going to appeal and then they’re going to do the same thing at the appellate level.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And then they’re going to try to.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Get in front of the Supreme Court and only if the court hears it and rules against them or the court says no, no, no, no, we’re not going to hear this.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It’s called granting cert or certiori.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: We’re not going to grant cert. We’re not even going to hear this. We’re going to let the lower courts’s decision stand. That could take years. And that’s the playbook here for them.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Do not be fooled and say, and.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Listen to anybody on Fox News or the Jim Jordans of the world who want to look like they’re very reasonable people but underneath know what they’re doing, which is to say, I want my president to be able to do horrible things that they know is unconstitutional even if the effect of it is only temporary. Because that will get us news cycles, that will get us clips that will, that will sate the hungry monster that put us here in power. The racism, the xenophobia, the ignorant. All of those people want us to do these things because the point is the cruelty. They want to be cruel for some period of time. so pay attention to this one. I should put in a caveat or an epilogue here to the story of Mr. Arc, in 1943, this is during World War II, 1943, the United States finally repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. 1943. But its damage, you know, lasted generations after that. even after its repeal, only one.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Hundred and five Chinese immigrants per year.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Were allowed into the United States by law until 1965.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: What had happened in the middle 60s.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The civil rights Act. Who brought you that?

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The liberals.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Why did we do it? A lot of reasons. Mostly the discrimination against African Americans in the United States.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But this was one of those issues.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So, after the Civil Rights act, followed, there was legal questions about this exclusion based on race of immigrants.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: the Immigration act of 1965, right.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: After the Civil Rights act put an end to race based immigration quotas or discrimination. And then in 2012 a century later, more than a century after, the Chinese Exclusion act was created, Congress finally formally expressed regret for the Chinese Exclusion Act. So this, this is how it happens, right? We have a democracy which has.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Good things and has bad things.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: One of the bad things is,

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The most ignorant and angry among us.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Can demand action from, people in power who have no morals and no sense of leadership, which is what’s happening today. So let’s fight, please, for, pushing back against that xenophobia, that hate, that anger and that ignorance by educating ourselves.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: So what you know, today, in short.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: When you’re talking to your family and friends, is the Supreme Court is deciding.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Whether or not a single federal judge.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Has the power to say, let’s pause.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: On these executive orders while we’re fighting.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It out, because if we don’t, people are going to be hurt. And then add, and if it was Biden taking away your guns, or if.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It was Obama trying to kick white.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Christians out and lock them up in the prisons, of Russia, you would want the injunctions. This is the part that the other side doesn’t give a shit about and doesn’t think about. And I’m not talking about the leaders. The leaders know what they’re doing. They are corrupt, money grubbing, power hungry.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Officials who do not give a shit.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: About any of this.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But what the electorate that supports them.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Doesn’T understand is the pendulum swings. Right? This was 1874 we’re talking about where conditions are identical to today.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They were just focused on Chinese laborers.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Instead of South American laborers.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But the pendulum swings.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: It could just take a hundred years.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: 200 years to swing back and forth.

There will be a liberal executive who uses the same tactics that Trump taught

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And at some point in the future.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: There will be a liberal executive who.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Wants to do things that are plainly unconstitutional.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And if you allow Trump to do.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: What he’s doing today, then your children.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Are going to suffer at the hands.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Of a liberal executive who uses the same tactics that Trump taught them in doing whatever they want to do in.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: The name of their radical, unconstitutional beliefs.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: But nobody seems to care about that. it’s sad. I’ll end on the final note. It was just, within the last 24 hour news cycle that this whole anti immigrant, deport people who were not citizens, fervor was really exposed for what it is when, 40 plus.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: refugees were admitted under the Trump.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Administration, because, and it’s very obvious it’s because they were white and came from South Africa and claimed discrimination. And if you look at the video of them coming to the United States, what do you see? Do you see the people coming with just the clothes on their back, battered, injured, sick, after making, ah, a migrant trek that could kill many people and does kill many people, leaving,

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Their family behind, risking the lives of.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Their children because they were at risk of dying in their home countries. No. You see people with Gucci luggage, ten pieces of luggage each coming into the United States on a plane sponsored by the United States. That’s what you see under the Trump administration. they don’t care about hypocrisy, they.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Don’T care about consistency. They want white people coming in because.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: They want that Snapchat, they want that TikTok, they want that YouTube short, they want that reel to show, look, Trump’s in office.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: And now these immigrants that we’re granting.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Asylum to are whites that really aren’t facing anything similar to what these browns we’re facing for the last, ten years. they’re horrible, horrible people.

Cross examiner podcast returns with first episode since presidential election

So I think I’ve ranted long enough for my first episode back. I wanted to get back in the saddle, talk to you guys about what’s going on. I hope this was informative. I do have another episode that I’m planning on doing. I have recorded in the past. It was pre electionion that I recorded several episodes that I want to put out as well. I did one with Ryan Jane of the Freedom from Religion foundation where we talked about, what is Project 2025 that is still very relevant. Project 2025 is doing what we’re seeing in this case and so many other things. Again, Project 2025, the Plan all along was destroy the agencies from the inside and put incompetent people in charge of them. And that’s what we’re seeing today. So I’d like to get that out. lots, lots to come. So thank you for sticking with me.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: If you have suggestions, please contact me.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: You can go to www. Do thecossexaminer.net or, send me email at info thecossexaminer.nett and I look forward to chatting with you again. For now, I’ll just say please take.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Care of yourselves and please take care.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: Of those around you.

>> <name></name>: This has been the Cross examiner podcast, the Internet’s courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider subscribing.

>> The Cross Examiner/Graham: See you soon.