Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys and in this episode of Call Like I See it, we're going to take a look at what's going on at the US and Mexico border and the struggles we as a nation are having with the large number of migrants that are there that are wanting to to cross into the US and later on we're going to have a Nick Cannon and Elon Musk inspired discussion on what may or may not be a developing trend of the ultra rich and celebrities having and apparently providing for double digit numbers of kids.
Joining me today is a man who knows what it takes to rock the mic. Right, Tunde ogonlana Toonday, Are you ready to show the folks today how you always up in the place to be?
[00:01:07] Speaker B: Yes, sir. Always.
[00:01:09] Speaker A: Always.
[00:01:10] Speaker B: And I'm proud to say, by the way, I only have children in the single digits. I don't. I don't.
[00:01:15] Speaker A: Well, you're not ultra rich. Honestly, you're not. You don't qualify for this.
[00:01:20] Speaker B: Geez. Okay, you didn't have to tell everyone the second part.
[00:01:24] Speaker A: You have to put it like that.
Now we're recording this on May 15, 2023, and last week we saw Title 42 expire, which was a COVID 19 pandemic era regulation on how we were handling migrants and immigration at the southern border. And its expiration has turned a lot of focus back onto our southern border and the migrants who are seeking to enter the US there. Now, many expected a surge in migrants at the expiration of Title 42, but ultimately what that hasn't hit yet. So far that has not materialized. But the most important part of that statement actually may be the quote so far, part of it. Because right now there's just a lot of uncertainty and you know. Right. That has caused some hesitation, but the issue has not dissipated or gone away in any way. So get us started. Tunde, how concerned are you about this ongoing crisis at the border? And when we think about crisis it has, you have to include also the thousands that are in Mexico on the border, posted up in camps and shelters and tents and stuff, hoping to cross in, you know, which is a humanitarian, humanitarian crisis on its own. But you know, what's your thought on this crisis as we as this pandemic era of Title 42 expires?
[00:02:39] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I would say thoughts are all over the place.
I think this is one of the most complex issues that we've faced in our politics as Americans. This whole I this discussion of immigration.
So on the specifics we're discussing the ending of Title 42 and, you know, Title 42 having been the restriction that was put on during the COVID pandemic so that the country could quickly and more easily deal with sending asylum seekers and others back, you know, whether across the border to the specific countries they came from because of the pandemic. You know, not wanting to risk having people coming in here with infection and.
[00:03:24] Speaker A: Then having to hold them for a while like that. Just to kind of simply, you put it simply, it actually took away a lot of the criminal and the penalty part of it, but it made it very quick to actually just get them back out.
[00:03:36] Speaker B: Correct. So now, you know, obviously we all acknowledge the pandemic is officially over. So obviously at some point this had to end and get back to a more, I'd say, long term way to deal with the border. And so the reason why I say that this is a very tough topic, I think, for our country at all times. Like, there's never been a time in my life, I'm 45 years old, where immigration and the discussion about the southern border has not been some sort of topic of politics.
So I think the reason why it's so difficult is because, number one, we are the world's superpower, we're the greatest economy in the world, so on and so forth. So when you are at that level, naturally people who are in conditions that are much more difficult than other countries want to come to a country like this, which has been actually the story of America before we even became a country. Right. I mean, the idea of the colonies back in the day was that a lot of European immigrants were coming here to escape religious persecution, famine, remember the potato famine in Ireland in the 1800s, all that kind of stuff. So before we were officially our own country, we were still seen as this beacon of immigrant for immigrants who had something hard somewhere else. But on the more modern discussion is really just the idea that we have a border with two countries on the north and south and on the southern border we're about 2,000 miles or so, and I think the northern border is 3,000. And I know we're not going to be talking too much about Canadian migration into the United States today, but the idea of the southern border and then a lot of the countries south of us having had a lot of issues at least over the last hundred years, means that immigration is something that probably, or let's say the intent of others to immigrate to our country on their feet is probably not going to stop anytime. Soon. And the fact that Americans aren't comfortable with it won't stop anytime soon. So that's why I say it's. It's one of these very complex issues that.
[00:05:42] Speaker A: I agree. It's something that at the same time, you'll have a high level of concern and then actually no concern, because it's like this is going to be happening at all times no matter what this issue, so to speak. And I mean, immigration and migration of people is something that has plagued or empowered societies throughout history. You know, so the fact that we have people, and you've made this point before, the fact that we do have people trying to come here actually does reflect well on our country, you know, because there are a lot of places where you don't see people banging down the borders trying to get in, you know, and those countries are, you know, places where, generally speaking, people don't look at it, say, hey, I can make a better life there. So the fact that we have the problem is one signal of success.
If we get to the point where nobody's trying to get in here, then you know, we might have bigger problems than that. But I mean, to me, I think that the biggest thing here that I take away is that when we're looking at the crisis or, you know, the. It's multiple crisis, we have a crisis and we don't know what to do. We don't know where people should go. And then there's the crisis, the actual humanitarian crisis of people locked in cages, you know, families that are being separated or, you know, all this, just the people aspect of this is that I don't think we know, we as a nation know what we want to do here. You know, and I say that collectively because in a democratic government like we have, people have to buy in to at least a certain number of people. Everybody doesn't have to buy in. Everybody's never going to buy in on the same thing, but a certain number of people have to buy in. And so I don't see us getting behind a theme, so to speak, in any area of politics, really, that you could get a critical mass behind. And the example I'll give in this for it is like Obamacare and the healthcare wheat. There was a collective will in the nation to change the way the healthcare system worked in the early 2000. And there were plans like, okay, and then enough people got behind some of those plans that we put them in place. Now, the plans didn't solve everything, but at least was a step towards something. And, you know, that's still in place now. And with immigration, I don't even see people coming up with, okay, well here's what we need to do. Here's, here are the people that are going to, you know, have this burden. We're going to spread this around. Whether we're talking about domestically in the US or even the international community. It seems like everybody's just holding on by the seat of their pants and just hoping that magically things won't blow up on their watch, you know, so that to me is kind of what's, what stands out the most. So my concern is less about the actual what's actually happening and more about saying, okay, well, who's looking forward and trying to come up with a way that we can deal with this in a way that, you know, we treat people like human beings and, but we also establish a predictability and a law and order aspect to it and say, okay, well here's, everybody knows what to expect. If you meet this, then we're good. If you don't, then, you know, this is what's going to happen and so forth and across the board, you know, with some kind of, with enough people buying it.
[00:08:38] Speaker B: Well, I think that's, I mean, you make a great analogy to, to health care. I'd say that's probably the other thing in my whole life I've heard about that's been an issue and everyone knows it, but there's just no consensus on how to deal with it. And so, and I think, but that's.
[00:08:53] Speaker A: An example where there was enough of a consensus at a certain point to do something, you know, and again, it didn't solve every problem, but we took a step towards something.
[00:09:01] Speaker B: Yeah, no, and I think, you know, but just like healthcare too, I think sometimes, and you know, not to really get on this tangent, but sometimes the messenger who delivers the message is also important.
And I think that, you know, for no matter what anyone thinks, right. The fact that health care was restructured in a major way under Barack Obama just meant that there was a certain percentage of people that were not going to take it at all. Right. And that's just the way it was and for better or for worse. And I think the same thing that depending who is the one in charge trying to make a genuine play at immigration, they will get buy in from the country or they won't based on maybe just who they are, certain factors. I don't say I know who that person is. I'm just making the point that the way that we are so polarized today.
[00:09:52] Speaker A: You know, what's interesting about that just real quick. Cause I know you don't wanna spend a ton of time there, just is that.
That's an excellent point you point out with Obama. But if you go back historically, it was always considered to be that it was the person from the other side politically that would typically be associated with an issue that could get something done on it. And like Nixon's always pointed to as, you know, like opening up China or affirmative action, like the things he was doing there. If a Democrat would have tried to do that stuff, they would have been held a pet. But Nixon, that did it, it was like, oh, people were more like, oh. Because the people that wanted to do it were kind of. Or the people that were more gung ho about doing it were the people that opposed him and generally. But they were like, well if he's going to do it, then yeah, I agree.
[00:10:32] Speaker B: Like I think, you know, had it been John McCain 1 in 08 and he did health care, maybe this, the response would have been different as a moderate Republican because most Democrats would have probably been on board, would have been.
[00:10:42] Speaker A: On board with it and then enough.
[00:10:43] Speaker B: Republicans would have said he's one of us, he's a good guy and all that. So I do think that, yeah, the right messenger, again, I don't know who that is in the future for immigration could probably get the country together. But I think going back just to continue down the road we were going is the problem I realized even in preparing today, just the reading and stuff is we have too much disagreement in our own country about the concept of immigration. Right. Because like you and I, what should we be doing? That's what I'm saying. Like you and I could be very wonky and get in all the stats and say, oh, you know, tell all the intellectual facts, right. Oh well, unless you're a Native American. Right. Everyone here is descending up of an immigrant.
[00:11:21] Speaker A: Gotta hold your nose when you say that. Unless you're a Native American. Actually that's what I'm saying.
[00:11:25] Speaker B: Like you can say all that which everybody knows, right. And half the people here railing against immigrants are probably second generation or third. You know, their grandparent or their parent came from somewhere else and they're going to say how they got to pull the bridge up now. So there's that part of it that none of us agree what this means. Then you've got the reality that yes, are there some bad people coming over our borders or even on rafts from, you know, Haiti and Cuba and other places coming up at the Florida Straits and through the Gulf? Yeah, there are. That's just life. And so. But, you know, then it's an open question, do you punish probably the greater number of people who are just trying to live better and all that, just like it's always been trying to immigrate somewhere else because of these few bad apples. And I think that's where you get to the dynamic of the tribalism and some of the punitive things that we've even seen internally in our own country. Like, for example, we could say this isn't about migration. How do you deal with inner cities in America? Are there bad actors in these inner cities? Yeah, there are. Are there a lot of people trying to go to school and go to work every morning? Yeah, there are. Do you deal with them by creating a police force that's like a military and going down, beating down walls? I mean, I don't know. You can, but you're probably going to get a result that even more negative. And so. And so that's what I'm saying.
[00:12:40] Speaker A: Change the nature of what could you say the country based on law and order is correct. It's a free and open society.
[00:12:46] Speaker B: And so, and that's what I'm saying about immigration is you. And I could sit there and say, oh, countries that let them in, immigrants have better economies because you got people willing to work for less and blah, blah, blah and all that. But then I realized, you know, there's a lot of people in this country that just don't want to fix immigration because to them, it's not about any of that. They actually, from their cultural view, immigration will help hasten the replacement of who they feel they are, whether culturally, demographically or whatever.
[00:13:19] Speaker A: Placement. I mean, that's a loaded, you know, or even dilution, though, you know, like where.
[00:13:23] Speaker B: That's my point.
[00:13:24] Speaker A: People were like, oh, well, because I know people that, you know, the language issue, you know, people are like, oh, you know, we need more English speakers, you know, and like, they'll, they'll be like, oh, then, so if you bring in more people who speak different languages, then that dilutes the importance of English. And some of that, all of that may come back to xenophobia. It may not.
[00:13:39] Speaker B: I don't know. That's what I'm saying is that. But when you have those, those two factions and they don't even know that they're not talking to each other the right way, like, meaning the people like me and you, telling someone who's, who's more concerned about dilution and replacement that. Oh, but, but you know, this country was always founded on immigrants. That's a waste of time, right? To them, that's the next essential threat. Their own culture and their survivability.
[00:14:01] Speaker A: But I think the big benefit is that I don't think that those type of people have ever been the prevailing majority. Majority, you know, now whether or not they rig things so that they are the majority of voters.
[00:14:12] Speaker B: Can I disagree with you, but. Well, because we did a show on eugenics that Talked about the 1920s and the laws that were put in there. Stopping.
[00:14:20] Speaker A: But it's still an exception, though, the fact that there is. Yeah, you're correct about that, but that's still an exception. If you look back at the history of the United States, because in the history of the United States, you, You've for the vast majority of the times always had this net positive of immigration coming in and immigrants.
[00:14:34] Speaker B: No, you're right, but I'm just saying that Americans haven't been happy about it. The ones that were here. That's interesting as well.
[00:14:39] Speaker A: Like Americans have been angry about it the whole time.
[00:14:41] Speaker B: Like the gangs in New York was such a good movie on that.
[00:14:43] Speaker A: But that's why I said a prevailing majority in that sense is because people have been mad about it. But it's been like the same types of people have been mad about it the whole time. But those people, other than very, you know, on occasion they do are able to influence policy enough that they. That we change the whole policy and stuff. But by and large, immigration has been pretty steady in the United States. And so. And to me, I think your point that there's been no consensus or there is no consensus right now, like there, at least in terms of leadership and in terms of a developing nation, when the United States was a. With less population, more open space and stuff, there seemed to be more of a consensus like, yeah, more people would not be a bad thing for us because we got all this open space nowadays. It doesn't. It does. I don't think people feel that way anymore. Like people. I think you do have people who legitimately feel that there's just enough people here already. Now. I don't agree with that. You know, from the standpoint of, as you pointed out, like, it seems like more people and the type of people that immigrants are, people like, oh, they're, they're, you know, immigrants are likely to be this or that. I don't see any of that. To me, they. By immigrate, by immigrating themselves. It seems like immigration or people who Immigrate are the type of people that are more motivated than average, that are more enterprising than average, and that are more risk takers than average, because most people wouldn't do that, get up and leave everything they know and so forth and go to try to work for a better life. And so I think we always forget about that in terms of like, that's the kind of people we want to draw, you know, to the highly motivated, you know, like, and so forth. But nonetheless, I mean, I think I want to drill down on this issue a little bit more. Like, so what other reasons or what reasons do you see in terms of why it's impossible beyond just kind of people that are by natural, naturally, just, they're just inclined for the status quo, like, whatever it is. Right now, I'm just trying to fight for that. But beyond that, like, you know, why do you think it's. This is such an issue where it's so hard to get and really, I'll say not even get, but keep people on, you know, the same page, you know, in terms of how to deal with it.
[00:16:35] Speaker B: I think it's like we mentioned just before and even some of the stuff you just mentioned, like, meaning, first of all, many of us have a different view of what immigration kind of means and what it is, right? Like I'm, and you and I, we've talked about this on other shows, right? Look at you and I, people look at us from the outside and say, oh, there goes two black Americans. Right? Yeah, we have totally different histories. You are what I'll consider you as like an African American because of the history of your family being here for generations. I'm a first generation American. My parents are from Europe and Africa. So the point is I'm the descendant of immediate immigrants. And so I have a lens that says, okay, well, my mom and dad spoke with an accent and they came here from some other country to make their lives better, which they did. They had me and I became part of the American story. And I grew up and I own a business now and I have my own kids. And so to me, immigration is not threatening, Right. I'm a product of it directly versus maybe someone who's, you know, great grandparent, came here in 1920 from a Russia or an Italy or somewhere like that, no longer has that same connection with, with, with an immigrant story. And so that's where I think that we're all having this conversation through different lenses. And then I think that as we have discussed many times in our modern world, I think the kind of media and Internet ecosystems have done nothing but misinform and scare people. So, for example, I know we talked about this, that if you were to ask the average American and just go stick a microphone in their face and ask them, hey, what period over the last 50 years, post 1970 was the period of the lowest border crossing? Over that 50 year period from 1970 to now, most people have say a lot of things. Guess what? They probably won't say that it was the time between 2010 and 2016 when Barack Obama was president. And we went from a height in 2000 of 1.643 million in that year of or might have been 99, because I'm looking at a chart. So it's close to 2,000. It bottomed in 2016 under Obama at 303,000.
And this country responded by electing Amanda president after that, who ran on and who won mostly by saying he was going to build a wall that very year.
[00:18:57] Speaker A: So like with the year of the lowest border crossing in 50 years, the most salient political message was let's build a wall because people crossing the border is such a big problem.
[00:19:06] Speaker B: Yep. And by 2019, so this is before the pandemic, it was back under that next president to 850, 860,000. So it had more. Almost tripled in just a couple of years after Obama left office. And now I want to be very.
[00:19:22] Speaker A: Clear, point being that our perceptions of immigration as a quote, unquote problem are defined in large part by what we see in the media and not by what's actually going on.
[00:19:32] Speaker B: Correct? That's exactly correct. So, and my point here, and that's why I want to be very clear here, I'm not saying this to say that Obama was the best president or to kiss his butt. I really don't care about any of that. I'm not here to support Obama.
[00:19:42] Speaker A: And that's why I wanted to say.
[00:19:43] Speaker B: That's why I'm saying it. Yeah, I'm just saying that that's the fact between 2010 and 2016 is the lowest border crossings illegally and legally in the last 50 years of United States history. Yeah. From 1970. So that's from Nixon on. So it's not about who's president, it's just about recognizing the facts. And that's my point though. But if you were to ask the average American, they'd probably switch it and say it was highest under him and lowest under the next guy. And so if you look at what.
[00:20:12] Speaker A: Actually happened, like in response to migration and immigration, you would think that because it's like, oh, things got so bad that people felt compelled to build a wall. And then once they started talking tough, of course it would go down. And it was exactly the opposite. But that's the perception piece that I think and I want to just piggyback on that real quick because that piece, I think that's actually why it's so hard to get people on the same page with this. Because we don't, we're not operating from the standpoint of a solid understanding of what's going on. Like if you don't live in border is, then all you know about immigration is what you see on television. And if tele. If. If it. Seeing people crossing the border has become something that drives clicks, you know, so now you'll see it a certain amount, you know, based on either what's happening in the political environment or not, you know. And then like right now, people are probably more worried about immigration right now, independent of whether or not there are more border crossings right now, because that's what people are talking about. And so for that reason, it's hard to get people on the same page to address an issue when the contours of the issue are defined differently based on what you're watching. You know, like what, what we can't all, if we all go look at healthcare, it's like, okay, well we all can understand that the problems are co pays or the problems are non uncovered stuff, or the problems are pre existing conditions. We're not learning that based on our interaction with the media. It's like, oh, well, I only know pre existing conditions are a problem because of my interaction with media. No, we know people that deal with that. That's something that we deal with when we deal with health, health insurance. And so for that, the problem for so many people is an abstract one. It's the idea of immigration or migrants. So therefore it's difficult to have a coherent way for all of us to come to. Like now again, not all of us, but a substantial number of us to come to say, okay here, this is what we need to do about it.
[00:22:08] Speaker B: Yeah. And look like you're saying, right, all the hysteria into last week, let's draw this line just for the audience. We're recording this on a Monday and Title 42 was lifted on Thursday, like morning, I think it was at midnight or something. So all the hysteria leading up to this was that there was going to be this massive surge at the border and all these migrants were going to come and all that. And up until at the beginning of last week, they were still recording like 10 or 11,000 attempted crossings a day, like where they were catching that many people. And it's interesting, ever since Title 42 expired, they've cut almost in half. I think the border crossings are down to about 6,000 a day. Yeah. So the bottom line is, and I have no explanation why. Right. Like, I feel like when I saw that stat, I felt like when I look at sometimes the stock market, like people anticipate all this market's going to crash, it's going to crash, and all of a sudden it takes off and goes up another 15% and no one can figure it out why.
[00:23:03] Speaker A: Well, a lot of people are pointing to just, you know, for the sake of completeness, a lot of people pointing to the fact that the expiration of Title 42 means that the penalties are now reinstated, but, like criminal type penalties. And just there, it's not just kind of a we get you and we send you back right away. Now, like Title 42, because it was a prevailing system at the time, there was a predictability to it. Now it's more unpredictable, which is driving some of this. But, I mean, I think that we can't walk away and, you know, brush our hands off and say the issue is solved at this point, though. So I think.
[00:23:31] Speaker B: Of course it's not. But what I'm saying is it's a great point you make right there because it actually illustrates what we're talking about that no one really pays attention and to know what's going on. Meaning I get it, that the people in government do, and that's not a support or detraction from anyone.
[00:23:46] Speaker A: They're not paying enough attention to it and we're all paying too much attention to it at the wrong time.
[00:23:50] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm sure that's probably the best way to put it. But what I mean is, though, what you just said about Title 42 and what it meant. Right, meaning I get it, that the Trump administration and the Biden administration both understand Title 42 because they've had to deal with it. That's my point. But what I'm saying is, if you really think about it, the expiration of Title 42 is actually in the favor more of people who want stronger immigration, like borders and all that, because you make a great point, knowing that there was going to be no criminal penalties for coming across the border illegally. Man, you had all these waves and surges over the last few years, and maybe that's what we're seeing. Like you're saying that bringing criminality back. I saw something that now that it's expired, if you're caught crossing the border and if you're caught again within five years, like, you really get thrown in jail for a long time. And all those things that are penalties. And I think at some point we have to have a realistic conversation as Americans also is like, what do we expect to do with people that get to the border?
Because you could be very extreme and you could just say, let's just shoot them all. Right. I mean, that's the most extreme way to handle it. Yeah, let's just mow everybody down. Let's mow down women with kids. Let's mow down every time they try and cross the Rio Grande River. Let's just mow them down. So, okay, so that seems to me to be very, you know, I'll say this on air personally, that's too extreme for me.
[00:25:08] Speaker A: So if you're not going to go that limb there. Yeah, let's find the Rio Grande.
[00:25:12] Speaker B: Exactly. So, so if you're going to go say that that's too extreme to just kill everybody, then, okay, take that off the table. Then what do you do? Do you just detain them all? Do you separate the kids from the parents?
[00:25:22] Speaker A: I think the next step down from that would be the wall is to put up a barrier that's intended to keep them out. Make it so that you get to that wall and you can't get over. You try to climb over, you'll fall and die. But we're.
[00:25:32] Speaker B: Let's ask the Germans how well that worked for east and West Germany. Why don't we ask the Chinese how well their wall kept out all the barbarians and all that. My point is that people. What we're not recognizing is. And people don't want to hear this, right? This is what happens when people get that desperate.
Think about it. Most of these people now are coming from countries that aren't Mexico, right? So first of all, Mexico's got to deal with them coming in. They're coming from Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela primarily coming to the southern border. So if you got from Haiti or Cuba to the southern border of the United States, mean you got off an island, literally, you took a boat somewhere else and then spent time from when you got to shore in South America to get to the. To the border. And obviously Venezuela, for everyone that wants to take the time to look at a map is not on our border. So for these people, that's all the.
[00:26:21] Speaker A: Way in South America.
[00:26:22] Speaker B: That's my point. So that's why I said, if people want to look at. Don't tell them. Don't tell them they got to look at a map. But if. So, my point is, if someone spends three or four months of their life and fighting, you know, gangs and fighting the elements of the natural, you know, the, you know, the desert and the heat and all that stuff and all that. Yeah, and animals and people who act like animals and all that stuff. And they get to this border and there's just a wall there, you think that's really going to stop them?
[00:26:49] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:26:50] Speaker B: And I just. I said, this is one of those.
[00:26:52] Speaker A: Solutions, though, by the way.
[00:26:53] Speaker B: Hold on real quick. Let me say this to the audience to go check it out and then I'll give it back. Remember I told you the new Modern Warfare 2?
[00:27:00] Speaker A: Oh, yeah.
[00:27:01] Speaker B: So for the audience, this is a video game that I played on PlayStation 5 this year. So it's not that old. They already have. One of the missions is you got across from the southern border with the Mexican Special Forces into some town in Texas to take. To take out some dudes. So not. Not to spoil it too much. And the way we get from Mexico into the United States in the video game is by throwing a rope ladder over the exact same type of wall with the slats in it. And I remember telling myself, so hold on, there's a PlayStation game which is already telling me how I can get over that wall. That means everybody's doing. Yeah, but see, but that goes back to, do you want to feel good and be told that you got this barrier that's protecting you, or do you want to actually do something to make it more effective?
[00:27:42] Speaker A: That's what I was going to say. Like, the wall, if you look at it, really, the wall is kind of an emotional reaction that's like a middle finger to everybody. Like, look, this. It's a. It's a physic. And that's what the Berlin Wall and then the Great Wall of China were, too. They were like, we are. We want to tell you that you're not welcome. You know, like. And so it. But whether it's effective or not is almost secondarily important. Important to it. So that's. We got to be careful. Anytime we're getting into the solutions that are just meant to make us feel good about certain things or make some of us feel good about how we're really sticking it to somebody else, those aren't. Those generally aren't good solutions. But the other thing I'll say, though, because I do want to keep our conversation moving. But the thing I will say about this that I think stands out to me, if you really look beneath, beyond the surface of it, is that, and I'm not going to say this from an ideological standpoint, I'm going to say this from a political standpoint, and that is that this issue doesn't really fit well on any of our established political lines, you know, and because if you look back historically, you know, from a historical standpoint, this isn't an issue that one side, so to speak, has generally championed and another side generally has. And in fact, it's mixed in terms of, you know, a lot of times big business, you know, is some, hey, you know, immigration is a good thing. You get more people to work, you know, that pushes down wages. You know, all these other things, you know, like you have the humanitarian concerns, which may oftentimes are not on the same side of the aisle as immigration, or, excuse me, as big business, which are like, yeah, immigration's good, you know, we're, we're opening our welcoming, you know, our, you know, neighbors around the world and so forth like that. And so it's really, a lot of times been. The people that have guessed it have been more nativist, which nativists, generally speaking, hasn't been a political one political party, you know, like. So I think that's one of the reasons it's very difficult to deal with, though, is because we're so many people right now and in the past are used to looking at issues and just saying, okay, well, what side should I be on based on my side? And then they'll just do that side. And then if, hopefully people, you know, some people at least are on a side that has something constructive to say about it. But when you have all these different constituencies within these coalitions, basically, then if it doesn't fit really where it becomes a priority for one of the sides, then there's no political will for people to say, hey, we're going to go out on a limb here and make this happen again. Pointing back to the healthcare thing that coalesced a. Coalesced enough where one side was like, they put their political will on the line and said, look, we're going to make this happen. And that's, you know, they got something done on that. And so in this case, I just don't see that happening in the near term. Like, Joe Biden's the president right now. I don't see him with saying, hey, I gotta, I've gotta make this a thing. We're gonna we're gonna solve this problem, you know, if I'm. My name isn't Joseph Biden.
We're gonna, you know, we're gonna. We'll let it slide back to what it was before and, you know, we'll keep it moving because again, there's. He doesn't have the political. Well, I don't see. I mean, the political will with Donald Trump was to build a wall, which was just an emotional solution, you know what I'm saying? So I think that's something we can't overlook, is that it just doesn't fit from, you know, like, who. Who can bang the drum politically here.
[00:30:43] Speaker B: Well, yeah, and you're right. And now that we're all driven by more of the media is what the politicians respond to more than anything else. Yeah. No one's going to be rewarded for solving immigration because. And it goes back to, like I said, because everyone has a different idea of what immigration is and should be. Going back to not just what it.
[00:30:59] Speaker A: Is, but what it should be.
[00:31:00] Speaker B: Yeah. And going back to just some of the historic stuff. I mean, you know, I was looking up just kind of our. We don't have much legislative history in immigration, but you got some strong stuff in the 20s, then you have by 19 in 1965, as part of the Civil Rights act. They had to take some of that stuff away because it was just racist, you know, that you can't come here because you're from this country or because you're this color. So they had to get rid of that. And then the next one was actually 1986. It was the Immigration Reform and Control Act. And that's when they actually did amnesty. They let 3 million people that were already here illegally and they just waved the wand and said, okay, now you're just citizens.
[00:31:34] Speaker A: And that's what I'm saying. That was Reagan.
[00:31:36] Speaker B: Yeah, Reagan.
[00:31:37] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. And so you know what? It doesn't.
[00:31:39] Speaker B: When you think about it, the country hasn't, like, fallen apart since 1986. And for whatever we can say that it fell apart maybe compared to back then, it probably wasn't these people's fault. Meaning there's a lot of other stuff that's been going on. So my point is, is that. And that's where I get back to things like looking at our history. And again, we talk a lot about history and relates to certain things like black history and all that. But this case, this is just good old American history, which is we did a show probably six, seven months ago on eugenics and not to talk about eugenics itself. But the history of that era was very interesting because in the 1920s, 1930s, you had the term he uses very well, which is the kind of nativism, that fear. And that was the interesting thing. That's why this isn't just about even race. This is bigger than that because back in the early 20s and the 30s, it was actually the xenophobia was against mostly Europeans and it was, you know.
[00:32:38] Speaker A: Back into the 1800s as well.
[00:32:39] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:32:39] Speaker A: Against the Irish and Italians and.
[00:32:42] Speaker B: And so, and so now, you know, now that the demographics have shifted, 100 years later, there's no more kind of white quote, unquote, infighting. But back 100 years ago, if you were Italian or from Czechoslovakia or Irish or something, you were not considered white. Like the people who were descendants from England and Germany and the Dutch would look down on you and they, in some cases, you know, looked at northern Negroes as smarter than a lot of Eastern Europeans. I mean, there was all that stuff going on back then.
[00:33:12] Speaker A: Well, that's in the literature. Yeah.
[00:33:15] Speaker B: So that's what I'm saying. So this isn't about just race or just things like that. This is truly like about human tribalism and what people feel when they, like when they feeling encroached upon, you know.
[00:33:25] Speaker A: And that zero sum thinking basically, that drove the nativism aspect. I mean, because look, if the nativists would have won out, you know, like the United States wouldn't bit wouldn't have become the power that they ultimately became because it, a lot of that was built on, particularly after slavery ended, a lot of the growth of the United States was built on all this constant influx of immigrants, this constant increasing workforce and constant growth that was able to be derived from that. And so it's one of those things that, I mean, but again, that's one of those. You get into the nuance, you get into the detail of how. Why immigration can be a net benefit. But I'll tell you this though. We're not the country that we were in 1900 or, you know, and I say for good, you know, good, that's good. But the only thing about the immigration and that this is the last part I wanted to get to this is you do need to have, if you're not, if you don't just have open frontier or if you don't have cities that are, you know, like you can fit many, many, many more people in them, you do have to have somewhat of a plan, you know, like, okay, here's what we're going to do and A lot of times that takes collaboration, you know, amongst people who may not agree on some things, or collaboration among different states or collaboration in different countries. And just from the collaboration standpoint, like, does anything stand out to you? Or what do you think? You know, like, you know, just from a human side, you know, like, we could be doing better. And whether that's, you know, there is collaboration with Mexico, there's collaboration with other countries as far as this type of stuff, but from a humanitarian standpoint, because I don't want to just talk about this from a very selfish standpoint and say, oh, how does this affect me? Or how does this affect us? Or, you know, like, yada, yada, yada. But, like, this is a people issue more than anything. And if people are, wherever they are, have decided that they. It's better to risk it all, literally. I'm not, you know, I'm not. I'm not speaking out of turn. They decided to risk it all for the chance that they might be able to pop into here so that they could bust their ass and work. That's literally thousands of people are deciding all the time. And so, like, what could we be doing here?
[00:35:24] Speaker B: I think, look, I think most of us Americans just can't appreciate that, Right? And I can't either. I mean, I heard stories from my mom and grandma and stuff like that about when the countries they came from, for example, but I never lived in that kind of environment. And I think that, you know, for Americans that believe in liberty and freedom and don't like this tyranny stuff and don't like authoritarianism, you know, it's very, you know, disheartening in a certain way that we look at people coming from those kind of environments, and we tend to want to shut the door on them. Now, that might sound me like me being, you know, all pious and on my high horse, but what I really get back to is something actually that we also learned when we read the book Sapiens. You know, it's the ability for us as people to dehumanize other people. And that's really what's happening and what we get at. I mean, I've heard so many things from people that I care about about why we shouldn't let these people in. During COVID it was because they were bringing in Covid. Remember when there was a time when they were saying on certain news outlets that they were bringing leprosy over? They said, man, I thought leprosy went away in the Bronze Age. And then it's about the crime. It's always about the crime and how many people get killed by illegals. But then we don't talk about how many people get killed by fellow Americans. Right. Is still more like. That's my point.
[00:36:43] Speaker A: Like it's not even close.
[00:36:44] Speaker B: It goes back to. But it goes back to like when they used to say, you know, 100, 150 years ago that they're, you know, they had to lynch black people because they were raping white women. Like I'm sure that there's one black guy that raped a white woman out there back then at some point. But how many white women were getting raped by white men? And no one did anything about it. So it's, it's, it's like you always say about these, these off ramps. Emotionally, these are all off ramps that people can take just to be satisfied so they don't have to look themselves in the mirror and accept that. The same people who keep talking about grooming and pedophilia also are ignoring the fact that we got 10,000 kids over the last, what, five years unaccounted for. Unaccounted for?
[00:37:23] Speaker A: Yeah.
Unaccounted for on our watch.
[00:37:26] Speaker B: Our watch. Yeah. They were separated by us from their parents and we live with that. So. And that's. And you know what? Because most people are good people deep down, if you really had to hear a four month old or a three year old kid crying for their mom, most of us would break down and wouldn't be able to take that. Right?
[00:37:45] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:37:45] Speaker B: So that's where the dehumanization comes in to say these people are all like cockroaches. And the imagery, remember, a lot of images are powerful for humans. So think about it. All the right social media posts and cable news posts of people crossing the border and all this stuff. And that's what I started thinking. Like I'm Pretty sure in 1945 or 1962 or 1938, people were swimming across the Rio Grande river into Texas the same way. It just wasn't on TV every day. You know what I mean? And so that's what I'm saying. Like, that's why.
[00:38:16] Speaker A: No, I feel you. I mean, so like, yeah, I think that to your point, it doesn't get any better. Like people have to do a better job. I mean, and this is, this is, you know, this is like the tax for being in an open, free and open society. People got it. Actively think you can't just live in autopilot. But to try to reject that dehumanization, I think that's a Good point. As far as, you know, like, what we can do to do better. Because a lot of the things that, if you look at it with people, once people have been dehumanized, a lot of the things that may sound plausible or okay or whatever become less, much less okay. If you're looking at people as other human beings, you know, again, the ones that are, that all they aspire to are the things that we claim we hold dear.
[00:38:57] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:38:57] Speaker A: You know, and so I think that that's, that's a really good point. You know, like, from my standpoint, I look at, I mean, and it's, it's, it's secondary to what you said, I would say, but just from a structural standpoint, I would like to see more international collaboration on this.
[00:39:11] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:39:11] Speaker A: And also, and you make this point often, and I'll piggyback on it or I'll bring it into this conversation is the soft power piece. And like, they're leaving places where they are in large part because of what's happening in those places. And the United States isn't necessarily responsible for what's happened in all those places. But in some cases there is some level of responsibility. When you look at how, you know, our, like if you do, you know, we've done the economic hitman stuff, you know, when we read that book and talked about that in terms of what we've done, you know, exploitative in other nations and so forth, or the governments we've put up or backed in terms of, you know, what they've. And then what they're doing to their people, but forget about all that. That wouldn't necessarily be the reason that we need to come in and make everything right. The reason we would want to come in and help make things right is because we don't want the problem that we're having at the border right now. And as long as people make the calculation that the reason that we have that problem right now and it's a humanitarian problem and it's a problem that we need to solve from a political standpoint and from a human standpoint. The reason we have the problem is that again, people are independently looking around at their scenario. Thousands of people are independently looking around at their scenario and saying, anything is better than this. Let me shoot. Let me take this one in a thousand shot to see if I can truck through deserts and mountains and jungles for three months. I might get a chance to get into this other place. We got to change that calculation. And part of that, we don't want to change that calculation by making ourselves worse.
So maybe we should try to help make where they are better. So I think international collaboration, I mean, we see the world is still capable of it.
A lot of people, you go back a year and a half, didn't think the world was capable of the collaboration that it's had with Ukraine.
And so some type of collaboration between the U.S. mexico, Canada, you know, like if there's, you know, Spain that, you know, wants to. To help out other countries. And we've read some about that. I mentioned Spain, not off cuff, but they're actually actively involved right now with some level of collaborative effort to try to help deal with this. But that I think would be very. Would make an impact, basically going into that.
[00:41:13] Speaker B: Magnanimous of that, seeing as those were all their colonies 2, 300 years ago, but they all speak Spanish. So I apprec. Appreciate they're coming back over this side for a little bit of help. But no, you know what, it's. As you're talking, it reminds me also of. And then I know we want to get to part two is what happened in Europe last decade, right? Like, yeah, and that's. It's so easy. And this is where it's hard just to ask people not to be tribal because that's who we are as humans in a certain way. Right. But think about it. Syrians never, I mean, en masse, I don't think really cared about getting to Europe that much prior to, let's say, ISIS's involvement in Bashar al Assad, you know, bombing his people with Russia's help. So what happened is when all that stuff started going negative around 2013 through 2015 in Syria, all of a sudden what happened? People got on boats in the Mediterranean and tried to get to mainland Europe, and a lot of them died on the way. And then you saw a lot of the same stuff happen in Europe, which is the kind of nativism, right? All these others are coming and they're gonna bring their terrorism and they're going to bring their Muslim influences and all this, you know, it's going to ruin our.
Not just German, but just any native, you know, whatever culture and all this stuff. And so my point is, is that it's no different than what we're hearing about here, that it's the same thing. And like you're saying, but the root cause is the same, which is the Syrians weren't going there before their country got screwed up. And then people got to leave and they got kids and they want to protect their family.
[00:42:41] Speaker A: And I mean yeah, because human beings are still human beings, you know, and so the same kind of things. But we do want to get to our second topic. The second topic is, I'd say, significantly lighter than the migration immigration topic we just dealt with. And that's just. We saw recent reports talking about, and it was actually a write up, you know, that we saw on Nick Cannon talking about his 11 children and, you know, how he provides for all of them. He tries to spend time with all. Like, he's not just had a bunch of kids and then is just completely absent from all of their lives. And then he talks about, hey, I make a lot of money and, you know, I spend my money to make sure I'm providing for my kids, to try to spend time with them. So it was just a different way to look at kind of parenting. You know, like, a lot of times people look at having kids that, you know, they can spend time with. And then a lot of times people just look at, I'll have as many kids as I can and not spend time with any of them. Like, we, we kind of see both of those tropes, but this was just kind of a different one and one that would be out of reach for most people because it does talk about a lot of wealth. And then when I mentioned this to you, you said, oh, yeah, Elon Musk is kind of doing the same thing and he has 10 kids and, you know, is, you know, make it, I guess, still doing the same kind of thing where it's like, yeah, I'm not just having the kids and dipping, you know, but obviously I can't spend the same amount of time with 10 as I could with two. But, you know, I'm a man of substantial means, and so therefore I can provide for kids. Like, I mean, Elon, conceivably, if you go by, you know, like, average wealth, you know, he could have more kids than most people would still be able to provide for him. So what's your thoughts on this kind of. Is this a. Is this a trend, a growing trend where, you know, if you got the money, you just keep having kids, or is this just kind of these. It's eccentric guys?
[00:44:17] Speaker B: Yeah, I think these two guys are eccentric. I don't, I don't see, like, listen, we got kids. Kids aren't easy. I don't see a bunch of guys with money just like, oh, I just want to have 20 kids just because I feel like it, because I got money. So I think this, I think this speaks more about this, these two guys, and just who they are. But it's a fun topic because it's interesting. You know, we're definitely not used to seeing this in our culture. Right.
But I thought about it when I said my, you know, just in the last section, I said, you know, I'm half European, half African. Right. So my dad's from Nigeria. You know, my grandfather actually was more that traditional, you know, world back then. He had four wives.
[00:44:54] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:44:54] Speaker B: So I probably got, you know, cousins and all that stuff that, you know, or great cousin, whatever you call that, you know, that. I got no idea how many of us would probably run around there. And, you know, that was not uncommon back then. But I remember learning. Cause as a kid, I thought that was a funny story. So I used to ask, like, well, how did you know, who did he live with more and how did he do this? And I remember being explained like that in that culture at that time, you know, And I think this is what I've heard in other cultures in the Middle east that have similar is, it wasn't like you just went out there and had a bunch of babies and had a bunch of chicks and all that, you know, living with you. They actually, like, the culture was very strict about you had to be able to provide for them and they didn't. So there was a certain etiquette of this kind of stuff as well. Like, people weren't just having babies. Like, we picture people here that are poor, whether they're in kind of Utah, living that polygamy life and living off the system of welfare, if they're in some inner city doing the same thing. Right. I think that's our American version of what it looks like to have 10 kids. But for a lot of other cultures, historically, it has not been abnormal for the patriarch to have several wives and to have, you know, the well to do patriarch. Yeah.
[00:46:08] Speaker A: Like not more kids, not just every dude.
[00:46:10] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:46:10] Speaker A: But like. Yeah.
[00:46:11] Speaker B: And also words like, we've learned better real words from kind of history. Right. Like a harem. Yeah, right. Like, I mean, emperors and kings all had harems. And I mean, you're gonna go with.
[00:46:22] Speaker A: This, by the way.
[00:46:22] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:46:22] Speaker A: I think this is an issue of. Well, let me. Let me jump in real quick.
[00:46:25] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:46:25] Speaker A: I think this is an issue of societal norms more than anything. And so this is shocking to us or surprising to us because of societal norms. But if you play out the logic of it, it's not really that crazy. And to your point, as far as different cultures throughout the world, people have like, hey, if you can provide for the Kids, then society is not looking down on you for having a bunch of kids. And, you know, whether you spread that out over multiple women or not, you know, whatever.
But in those same type of societies, a lot of times, behavior that we would consider common here would be looked up, looked down upon, because what if you're broke? If you're broke, should you not have any kids? You know, like, because you. You're gonna. You're not gonna be able to provide for them or something like that. We don't really look down at people in our society. And I'm not saying we should. I'm just pointing out, you know, just. Just calling, like I see it. We don't look down at people necessarily. If. If they try like we. We do there. There's much more of a stigma if you're just out, if you dip out or whatever. But if people are trying and they just maybe not are succeeding, but, you know, like, we don't look down at them. So I look at it, you know, like, yeah, you talk about historical, like the stories of Solomon and Ramses, you know, things you hear most about.
[00:47:31] Speaker B: Hundreds.
[00:47:32] Speaker A: Yeah, hundreds of kids, you know, and like. But they have all the wealth of the kingdom, you know, so it's like.
[00:47:36] Speaker B: Well, if I have all the wealth of the kingdom, the two men we just mentioned, like you said, I mean, they could be equivalent to the nobility or kings of those eras. Right. Maybe they're not politicians that can make legislative choices, but their wealth, I would say, would be on par with what we would say. I mean, Elon Musk is, you know, at this point, the wealthiest guy in the world. Right. In history.
And then I think Nick Cannon, he makes an income of over $100 million a year, which, I mean, I don't know what kind of billionaire he is or is not yet, but he. Obviously, with all the kids, you know. It's cute, though. It's funny. I was going to read this. He goes, so two things. One is, I don't know if this true or not. He says, quote, a lot of them are in the same age group, and I just wanted to give them what they desired. I can handle it. Meaning the mothers were probably in their mid, late 30s and just wanted babies. So I'm like, okay, that's interesting. But I like when he was like.
[00:48:31] Speaker A: What a noble guy.
[00:48:32] Speaker B: Yeah, no, what a noble guy. So I said, if that's true. I don't know if that's true. But I love this one when he goes, quote, when you think about my lifestyle, I have to generate at least $100 million a year. As a father of 11, I was thinking like, oh, cause 70 is not enough to take care of 11 kids. I was thinking like, I could probably figure it out off 3 million. I mean, if I had to. Come on, you know, I mean, it's like, you know, I was just thinking like, yeah, you gotta make 100 million a year for 11 kids.
[00:48:56] Speaker A: Hey man, you gotta tell yourself whatever stories you gotta tell yourself, man. That's how it works. That's how this.
[00:49:01] Speaker B: I'm like, okay, so if you only made 20 million a year, your kids would be starving, clearly.
[00:49:05] Speaker A: Yeah, well then you could only have four kids then, or five kids, you know. Yeah, so. But no, I mean it, it is really. I think it's notable again to us because of the societal norm. And again, I'm not throwing judgment on the societal norm. Societal norms happen for a lot of different reasons in our society. We have a particular norm. But yeah, if you extrapolate this out though, like, I wonder if there is an upper limit where, because people, these guys aren't getting like, at least from a serious standpoint, a bunch of blowback. Like I wonder if there is an upper limit to like if somebody literally like Elon Musk type of wealth was like, yeah, I'm gonna have 50 kids or I'm gonna have 70 kids or I'm gonna have 100 kids. Like, you know, which again is not unprecedented from a historical standpoint. Is there a certain point, I wonder where society would be just like, like, like people would really begin to like have a major problem with this. And I don't know the answer to that, but yeah, I throw it to you. Like, do you think there's is, is it a thing where, because now, and I'll say this, even double digits, we, we know of stories, you know, farming families and stuff like that. Or people might know people with double digit siblings or stuff like that. You know, I've met people with double digit siblings, so. But is there an upper limit? Is kind of, do you think where people no longer is cute or funny and like, oh, glad it's not. I don't know where people are like, oh man, that's, that's too much. That's ridiculous.
[00:50:24] Speaker B: So in the comment you just made, I got three. So if there was four, then I'm glad it's not me. So that's my start, right? Because three's enough. Three's Company. And I got like Three's Company, like the show.
[00:50:37] Speaker A: I wasn't gonna outnumber Myself.
[00:50:39] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. So there you go.
[00:50:40] Speaker A: Me and my wife and we had two.
[00:50:41] Speaker B: So there you go.
[00:50:42] Speaker A: We can play man to man or we can play Zone.
[00:50:44] Speaker B: Yeah. For us, anything more than what we got is probably a lot. But no, I mean, look, I think, man, I don't know what the record is and if there is even a recorded record for. I'm sure that part of it is the woman's biology of when she starts having children to when one woman can finish having kids and how many, you know, women you had. Yeah. And, you know, I was thinking about this more as we were actually as I was reading in preparation, because I never thought to do the math on Genghis Khan because remember, there's some estimate. I heard that he fathered like 20,000 children.
[00:51:15] Speaker A: Something. Yeah, it is.
[00:51:16] Speaker B: Yeah. And I just look. And it's just like Will Chamberlain to think that he slept with 20,000 women. I could never believe those numbers because.
[00:51:22] Speaker A: But Genghis Khan is a little different, though, because he was a traveling man.
[00:51:26] Speaker B: No, but I just think. But think about it. I did the math. If you divide 20,000 by 365 days, that's 54 years. Think about it.
[00:51:35] Speaker A: Everybody's done that math because of the wilt chamber.
[00:51:37] Speaker B: He would have had to impregnate a woman every day for 54 years straight. I just think, like you said, he's a traveling man, but he was fighting in those campaigns too. He couldn't have been having sex every single day.
[00:51:49] Speaker A: Had to been multiple times a day. Is the point that you just got. Because he wasn't doing it for 50 years.
So you're telling me that conceiving three to four skins every day.
[00:51:59] Speaker B: Yeah. In certain bursts, he went like two weeks, three to four times a day. I mean, I don't know.
[00:52:03] Speaker A: Yeah, the 20,000 is an exaggeration. I would think that's an effect.
[00:52:06] Speaker B: Of course.
[00:52:07] Speaker A: But the. The thing of, like, they do those genetic analysis where they try to track all that stuff back sometimes to like the famous. And then they've said one out of every so and so in Asia, DNA or whatever. But I think that when I. And I. Because I looked at that example too, but I didn't give that example when I was talking about like Solomon and Ramsey's, because they were more stationary.
[00:52:27] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:52:27] Speaker A: So like, it was still like. Like Genghis Khan because he moved around and because he was a conqueror. Like, that does change the math a little bit because it's like, okay, well, you go places and you leave your mark. So to Speak in a lot of places.
[00:52:42] Speaker B: I'm just saying.
[00:52:42] Speaker A: But, yeah, 20,000 is. I think that's more for effect. Like, people, like dozen.
[00:52:46] Speaker B: Maybe 100 over a few years. I get it. But a 20,000? Come on.
[00:52:51] Speaker A: So.
[00:52:52] Speaker B: No. So I think, like you said, though, I mean, just to wrap this up, I don't think there's. I think this is all cultural. I think that, you know, we're not used to seeing guys having 10, 11 kids and being good dads, so to.
[00:53:02] Speaker A: Speak, or trying to be a good dad. Like, hey, like, whether they're a good dad, whether you consider a good dad or somebody else would. They're actually. They're not just saying, I did this and I'm not worried about it. They're like, no, we want to be a part of this.
[00:53:14] Speaker B: I think, to your point, like, yeah, I think many people. Not all of us, right? But many people have met people. Like, I've met people that have, you know, maybe not double digits, but I think I've met people with, like, seven or eight siblings, right? Like, a lot. But usually there's some story they come from either a Catholic or Mormon or some kind of. There's usually a religious conversation around there where that was part of kind of the ethos of the way they were. They were kind of. And so in that sense, I think we're used to that and understanding. Okay, those are family units that just decided to do that. I think where these. These guys stand out is because they're celebrity wealth, you know, like.
[00:53:48] Speaker A: Well. But it's also a lot of women, too, though. That's the other thing is it's not like, oh, yeah, my mom and my dad just, you know, like, they didn't believe in birth control. It's like, no, no, no. I have a bunch of, like, a bunch. A bunch of kids all between the age of five and one.
[00:54:01] Speaker B: Yeah. And I mean. And look to the point that we're discussing, right? I mean, these guys should actually be commended in a certain sense, both Musk and Cannon. Not because they had a lot of kids with different women, but just because they're not running from it, you know, that they're.
[00:54:12] Speaker A: I was wondering where you were going with that.
[00:54:14] Speaker B: They're the idea that they're comfortable with. I see. Like, I was reading on both men, like, people beating them up. Oh, you can't be spending that much time and this. And I'm thinking, like, well, first of all, that's not our business. We don't know how they deal with stuff. And no matter as Long as they genuinely spend time with their kids, whenever they spend the time, and they let the kids know they love them and the moms are in a good shape and living good lives, the kiddo can grow up happy and that's what counts. You know what I mean? Like, why are we sitting here criticizing these guys? Because they choose to live again. Another thing like we talk about, we live in a free country where everybody says, they praise the freedom and the freedom of speech and all that. And then you got guys living how they want to live who can afford it too. That's the thing. Who can afford it and who don't look like they're trying to hold money over to mother's heads or anything. And, and they get criticized. So.
[00:54:58] Speaker A: Yeah, no, no, I mean, it's, it's interesting to see that's always, you know, people, that's why everybody's free. People always, like a lot of people always live by that thing. People are free to live like me. You know, if it's not like me, then it's like, that's why topic one.
[00:55:11] Speaker B: I'll never get solved. Because if people about part two, this is, this is what it is.
[00:55:16] Speaker A: But we brought it up not to be about it, but it was, it is interesting. It's an interesting conversation. It's interesting thing to look at. And you know, like I said, it's one of those things. Yeah, I mean, I, I point, I, I go back to the fact also though, that they're making the attempt. Like, I think the try is, is more. Because there's plenty of people that have one kid that aren't trying, you know, even if they live with a kid, you know. Yeah, that's what I mean, you know, so, I mean, it's, it's one of those things, like as long as you're trying to be a part of that kid's life, then, you know, I'm not here to speak on it. Then from a judgment standpoint, point it. I can find it interesting though, which you.
[00:55:46] Speaker B: We did here.
[00:55:46] Speaker A: So. But I think we can wrap from there. We appreciate every for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast. Rate it, Review us, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Until next time, I'm James Keys tuned.
[00:55:56] Speaker B: To all right, we'll talk to you next time.
