President Trump, California, Mexico discussed on Forum

KQED Radio
| KQED Radio

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Melvilletrust dot org and on Twitter at melvilletrust showers are likely this morning, and we'll see a chance of showers this afternoon. We're expecting highs from the upper fifties to low sixties along with southerly winds between ten and twenty five miles per hour. It's now six minutes past nine welcome to this morning's forum. I'm Michael Krasny. We're gonna be talking this hour about President Trump's Oval Office speech on the border wall last night. But first President Trump tweeted earlier today that he is cutting off federal money to fight California wildfires claiming the money is being wasted. And we're joined now by K acuity, politics and government reporter Marie so law goes, welcome marisha. Hey, Michael, thanks for having me. Glad to have you. Well, this is a tweet, and it's a threat. Or is it actually something that's an operation. Well, unclear as often happens with the president's sort of early morning tweets, you know, this came out cake, you eighty many of us have been reaching out to FEMA and two other officials doesn't state and federal government trying to get a hold on. Whether this is actually something that's happening or not. We haven't gotten any confirmation kick. You news has actually chosen not to report on this until we have a little more clear understanding, and I think the context is important because we've seen this happened before we've seen the president make sort of statements threatening California was funding around emergencies. And I think it's important to note that in the past at least, it's never there's never been realized I've been fed some always stepped up whether it was the Oroville dam crisis. Whether it's the fires that have swept the state over the last two years. And so I think that you know, one thing we're trying to do in the media is responsible and figure out what this means. Of course, it's the president. But you know, it's it's a pretty vague statement. He's saying I ordered to send no more money unless they get their act together on forest management. So that's pretty similar to what he said in the past. And again, those threats didn't materialize talking again about improper forest management and cash outlay in the billions because of that. But there's also and I'd like to get your read on this. There's also apparently some movement now of not only California under a new governor newsome's leadership, but also along with Oregon and Washington to essentially asked for a doubling federal funding to manage forest lands. Yeah. And it's unclear if if the timing of this is related to that. I was at the news conference yesterday up in this year foothills in the tunnel colefax where the new governor Gavin Newsom stood alongside everyone from the head of Cal fire and the state CHP and emergency services and the head of the national guard to talk about the need. For a you know, the state to do more obviously intimate initiatives that he was rolling out. But also for this appeal to the federal government, and what these governors of three western states wrote is that, you know, we've all put tens of millions of dollars in recent years into forest house and in contrast, the US for service has seen its budget cut by more than two billion since the president took office a couple of years ago. And so I think that you know, there's there's a lot of also just like factual things that I think are important to to clarify here. One of which is that most of the fires. We've seen have not been forest. Fires. I mean, clearly, we do need better forest management. I think that's something everyone across the political spectrum agrees with. But if you look at what happened in paradise with the campfire in cinema Napa county with the Allison tabs fires. These did start in areas where there's a wildland urban interface, but they quickly spread and became. I'm really more suburban and urban blazes. And so I think that you know, there's. A lot of just sort of confusion in the president put out statements like this that are totally based on what we're seeing on the ground here in California. We'll just remember tweeted that he was going to be pulling out of Syria. We'd be pulling out of Syria, and that seemed to change over a few days. But I appreciate very much your reporting. We will obviously continue to follow this story. And that's where he's a Lagos Cutie politics and government reporter. Thank you Maria. Well, let me bring Ron Elving on Ron Elving courses senior editor and correspondent on the Washington desk of NPR news and run. What do you make out of this life latest tweet before we go to the president's speech last night? It does seem to be very much in that category. That you were describing a moment ago. The president has also in recent days threatened to shut the border with Mexico closed down all transactions between the two countries. Cut down shut down all transportation between the two countries eastern that before he's never actually done it. Virtually no one thinks he could possibly be serious about that considering it's a six hundred billion dollars a year relationship. Not to mention the millions of people who would be involved, and as a result, the president just likes to tweet things like this. He likes to say that he is going to shut down a border or pull our troops out of a country. And then the people around him have to scramble for days weeks to either contain the damage or deny that it's even happening in the first place. I wanna talk with you run in some detail about last night's speech. But before I do I'm going to go to Salvador Rizzo who is reporting. For the fat. And and for the fact checker, which is in the Washington Post himself that are good to have you back with us on forum. Welcome great to be with you. Let's begin by talking about some of the facts from last night's speech with you. I mean, you're calling him in the post said from the first sentence, the president had to be challenged in terms of reliability or credibility talking about this being security crisis at the southern border. Yes. So the speech I got off in Iraq flight, in fact, checkers, you know, how they would certainly we saw it as a piece of the puzzle with President Trump since he's been a candidate. He has promoted the false. Construct that immigration leads to more crime. You know, any reputable research that you know, you might come across as the opposite. You know, legal and illegal immigration tends to lower crime rates where where those individuals settle in the United States. And so from the very top of the speech, the president described the situation along the US Mexico border is a security crisis. And he said that this was the time to act that it was an inflection point that he he profiled, you know, a few instances a few select cases of illegal immigrants who committed violent gory crimes, and he did it in detail how he's talking about drugs and overdose deaths in the United States, and it's all one big ball of misleading and carefully constructed deception. You know, if if you're wondering, you know, what a security crisis looks like at the border. I would point everyone to the year two thousand. When there were one point six million apprehensions of people trying to cross a legally in fiscal year, two thousand eighteen the number was below four hundred thousand and there has been twenty years of steady decline in the number border apprehensions. So the the idea that this is a new and urgent and, you know, dangerous crisis at the border is is just as just a false contract. There is however humanitarian crisis with all these families trying to come in. And we'll talk with Julie small later in this hour about that. K Kuti's criminal Justice and immigration team. But I want to talk with you a little bit more about misstatements and well lies for that matter. I mean when the president talks, for example, but thousands of people coming into legal immigrants trying to enter the country. I think you could say hundred safely at this point. But also, you mentioned drugs, and you've got the president talking about all these drugs coming through. And the fact of the matter is he's totally ignoring the fact that most of these drugs are coming through legal entry points. That's right. And so the irony here is that the proposal that is being discussed in congress that has Republican and democrat support which significantly enhance Puerto agents ability to enter dicked, you know, smugglers and drugs and all that kind of it would provide new technology training and resources for beefed up. You know introduction of those drugs at Lille personality. A wall would not necessarily stop the flow of commerce. You know, all these trucks and trailers and individuals and vans. It's still be crossing. They would you know, the opportunity to smuggle drugs inside those vehicles would still be there. The DA drug enforcement agency reports every year that only a very small percentage of the drugs that are interdicted on the border are not at ports of entry are trying to our people are trying to smuggle them through. You know, I mean while they're crossing somewhere along the wilderness. One thing that the president didn't say that he'd been saying right up to the speech was that. There are terrorists coming in. He seemed to obviate that. And the fact of matter is at the State Department says there's no credible evidence of that. But there was an outright lie in the speech last night. A couple of them. What are the perhaps the biggest ones are most obvious ones was the fact that somehow Mexico is paying for the new trade deal with NAFTA for this wall as he promised in his campaign Mexico with pay for it. This is nonsense. Mexico's not paying and the trade deal. Doesn't mean really that Mexico is putting forth money. The trade deal isn't even ratified yet. And you're right. I mean, it is nonsense. That's not how trade deals for trade works. There's no accounting. There's no Bank account where money is deposited by Mexican consumers are individuals for the purpose of building a wall. It's all based on the theory, you know, which is not entirely divorced from reality. But it's just, you know, very devoted the theory that the trade deal with spur economic activity in the United States, and the added tax revenue collected by the government from that activity. You know, could be re purpose at all. But it's all in terms of you know, I mean, there are so many things that affect GDP trade and tax revenue that you can't rely on on. You know, you don't you don't even know what kind of revenue you'll be getting at the deal isn't ratified, and it's not how it works. And at the end of the day, you still need an appropriation from congress to be able to build stuff with the money that you're collecting from taxes. What about his putting forth the arguments Democrats really want a steel barrier? Who said our in record is wanting is still very instead of a concrete one that was sort of the car ball that we all that pricked all of our ears last night as we were listening there. There is no democrat who's on record saying, you know, if you do steel wall instead will happily I zero not even not even one of them. And so this this proposal has been floated by the White House, including by Mick Mulvaney. The acting chief of staff and presumably it's come up in the discussions that top officials in the Trump administration are having with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and other Democrats, but it's wrong to say that Democrats are requesting that there's no evidence of that. And they deny it. So there's much more we could pick apart here..

Coming up next