December 12, 2024 • 29 mins
Agustina Vergara Cid is a Young Voices contributor, writing and speaking about the intersection of philosophy with immigration. Then we talk with Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall about the issue of Birthright citizenship.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Immigration has been a hot button issue in Alabama and America.
With the reelection of Donald Trump to the presidency, we're
seeing a renewed interest in addressing some of the shortcomings
of the immigration system. Hello, I'm John Mountin today on
Viewpoint Alabama. I'm speaking with Augustina Urgada. Did Augustina, Did
I say your name correctly?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yes, that's that's perfect. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
You are an opinion contributor to Young Voices. Augustina, welcome
to our program.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Thank you so much for hirving me.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
So have you.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Recently penned a digital op ed that's a critical of
some of President Trump's immigration policies. And before we get
into that, I want to know the basis of your opinion.
So what's your background and why do you hold the
beliefs that you espouse on immigration.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yes, so, I am an immigrant United States. I came
here in twenty seventeen to pursue a master's degree and
then I stayed here. I am fortated to be able
to be here legally, and it took a long It
took a lot for me to be able to United States.
It's really really hard for people to immigrate legally here,
(01:04):
and I myself witnessed the hardships that the immigration system
puts people through, good people with degrees, people who want
to come here to work and just be old the lives.
So I started getting interested in the topic after the
injustices that went down upon me with this system, and
so I came to study. And I'm also interested in
(01:25):
the ideas of iron Ran, the philosopher from some time ago.
And I apply the philosophy of iron Rant to this
issue of immigration. It gives me a framework I think
that is very much pro freedom and for American.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
And August you know, where did you immigrate from?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
I immigrated from Argentina.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
And are you a citizen? Are I obviously you're here legally,
but are you just on a visa? Are you actually
a citizen? Are you working on citizenship?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
I am a legal permanenty resident and I am working
on my citizenship because I can't wait to become a
citizen of this country. I love America very much.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So when you hear about the issues with illegal immigration,
and by which I mean people who are being brought
to the country, either they're coming on their own or
they're being trafficked here not by their own volition.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
How do you.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Feel about that when you see those people at the border,
in those border camps, or when they get into the
country and all the hardships they have to deal with,
How does that make you feel as a legal Immigrantuck?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
It makes me very very sad. It makes me outrage
because a lot of these people that are coming through
the southern border and crossing and going through everything that
they go, right, because it's not just a really nice
strip through the border. They go through what can only
described as hell to get to America. So imagine also
the things that they are escaping, is going through that
(02:46):
is worth it for them? Right? I think? So most
of the people that are coming through the border, I
think are people who just want to come here to
deal a better life, and the current immigration system doesn't
allow for those people to come here legally. Right, So
all the people that you see at the border are
those who there's no visa available to them for them
(03:06):
to come here and work legally, so they decide to
do so illegally because they have no alternative. So I
wish there was a way for our legal immigration system
to allow for people that are genuinely coming here to
work and build a life and want to become Americans,
to be able to do so legally and peacefully and
(03:29):
not have to mask at the border and go through
all the dangers that are going on there, right And
I think that also would have a great benefit for
Americans as well.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
And it really is, as they say, the American dream
to come here from a country that's far more oppressive.
You said you came from Argentina, and I know there's
a lot of South American countries that either they're economically
depressed or in some cases they are ideologically depressed, i e.
They have a system of government that doesn't allow people freedom.
So it makes a lot of sense people would want
(04:00):
to come. But at the same time, you do agree
that there needs to be some sort of control at
the door, because if we don't have a border, we
don't have a country. So there needs to be some
sort of a control at the door to make sure
we have people coming in like you who want to contribute,
but not people who are, say, coming across the border
to traffic, drugs or people or things like that.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Absolutely, yes, absolutely there has to be control. We have
to have a border, we have to have a very
strong border.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
We have.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
In fact, I am not opposed to building a wall, right,
Like I think that it's great. Like I've spoken to
a border patrol and I know some of the details
about what it needs to build a wall, and I
think a wall is very helpful in many areas of
our southern border. And yes, absolutely, there's a lot of
people that should be excluded from coming to America, and
(04:50):
only people that are coming here to without ill intentions
to harm Americans should be able to come. So criminals know,
criminals should be excluded. Any sort of national security like terrorist,
members of terrorist groups, associates, people who finance terrorists, all
those people should be excluded. As a matter of fact.
(05:12):
Even people with certain infectious diseases that are highly contagious
should be excluded as well until they can recover.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
And Augustine, one of the things that has been i
think largely used for political gain on both sides is
the issue of migrant children. And you hear reports, I'm
sure it's not happening constantly, but hear reports of children
showing up sometimes as young as two years old without
any sort of supervision. Now you know, somebody didn't walk
from Venezuela to the US border with and they're two
(05:42):
years old on their own. Somehow they got very close
and somebody turned them loose at the last minute, I assume.
But still this is an issue that's going on, and
it's also an issue that's been kind of used as
these poor people and we talk about, you know, separation
of families and things like that, but at the same time,
some of these people they're being brought not by their
own family members, but rather being trafficked into the country.
(06:03):
They're being coached to say you know, this is my dad,
and really it's not their dad, but they you know,
they're not questioned, and so they say, Okay, we can't
separate the family. So what do you think about these situations?
How do we handle those sort of things?
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Yeah, I think that is extremely unfortunates. I know this
issue has been on the news lately, but it's an
issue that has been happening for many, many years, and
it's extremely I am very distrubt when I hear any
of these stories. So these children usually come because sometimes
(06:36):
their parents are already in the United States, and then
there are other family members that are in whatever other
country in the south of the border. They send the
children but to their parents and they have to engage
with essentially cattail members and coyotes, as they call it.
Is human traffic, human smugglers that are trying to whose job,
(06:57):
who's They've decided to tap into this black market of
immigration and bring people and make help people across the border.
So I think that I can't even imagine the positions
of a parent where like the situation in the home
country is bad enough that they would have to make
(07:19):
the decision to send their children in these conditions to
the United States. I can imagine what that children is
facing back at home, or what the child could face
back at home if they don't come here. But I
think it's all the consequence of the immigration black market.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Right.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So when you have some activity, some activity, especially a
human activity like coming here, like moving to a different
place to work, and you make that illegal, then there's
a whole black market that is created because of that,
and a lot of really bad actors, like the cartels,
the human smugglers, the creaties, will take opportunity to build
(07:58):
a business around it, and they are masters in violence,
they are masters in breaking the law, and they take
advantage of this immigration black market that has been created
by the restrictions that are in place right now.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
That's because a lot of these people they really don't
have the best interest of those that're bringing into the
country in mind, they have one interest and that's the
you know, being paid and being paid quite they basically
extort money, and it's an ongoing process of well, we've
got you know, you know, like it's not just like
they pay one time thing, right there's a lot of
situations where they're having to pay ongoing amounts of money
(08:33):
or you know, there's a thought that, well will come
after you if you don't continue to pay us for
us having brought in your your buela or your your
children or whoever it is, because you know, that's their
income stream, and they're not really concerned. That's why you
hear these stories about like a truck overturning and like
like twenty four people died because they were crammed in
the back, or they were left to die in the
(08:54):
desert because you know, they just abandoned it and it
got to be one hundred and twenty degrees and they
smothered to death. All these horrible stories because these coyotes,
they don't care what happens to these people as long
as they make their money.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Exactly, the things that the coyotes and the cartels who
control that essentially the Miglans journey, the things that they
do to people are like, it's something that is absolutely
inhuman and unimaginative that when I started reading about it
and making myself acquainted with the activities that actually go on,
I literally got sick to my stomach. It's things that
(09:27):
one could not even possibly conjure in their minds and imagine.
And yeah, when you remove the government protections and the law,
the rule of law from a whole area, right like
in this case immigration, because immigration is illegal, then you
open it up to all these horrible bad actors to
do whatever they want and there is nothing to do,
(09:50):
like there's they just control that whole market, right and
they can do whatever they want that including the horrific
in humanity that they do to migrants that try to
cross the border. And even after the cross to the border,
like you said, often they continue on us soil to
extort migrants and to continue to ask money and threaten them.
(10:14):
And that's how they operate. It's absolutely disgusting.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
And Augustina in your new op ed, that's the reason
we have you want to talk about the new op
ed you wrote, which was titled ideological vetting of immigrants
is an awful idea and I like for you to
expound upon that a little bit more. What do you
mean by ideological vetting?
Speaker 2 (10:32):
So the article talks about so there's this policy that
Donald the president, Donald Trump was to implement, which is called,
actually the way that he calls it is extreme vetting.
An extreme vetting is the exclusion of people based on
beliefs that the government doesn't like. Essentially, so it's not
(10:54):
only an exclusion based on their actions or actual threats
that a person may may pose to the country or
to others, but the idea is that they hold and
whether they say is are good or bad is decided
by the government. It's a policy that conflicts, kind of
like the sent with danger. So part of what President
(11:15):
Trump wants to do is to keep out, as he
puts it, and as it's in the Republican Party platform,
is to keep out Christian hating, communist, Marxists, and socialists.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
So you say it's in the platform. So are thoset
is that the exact wording in the platform or is
that something that Donald Trump? Because you know, Donald Trump
is known to do these speeches where he doesn't talk
with a prompter, right, He's just kind of talking off
the top of his head. And sometimes he says stuff
that isn't exactly what he means, and very quickly people
take it and run with it and say, oh, I
(11:47):
can't believe he said this, But he didn't really mean that.
He doesn't want people here who disagree with him. He
more wants people. He doesn't want people here who mean
to do us harm. Now, maybe it was just confusion there,
or was it actually put play those exact words in there.
They're trying to keep out people who espouse Marxist communists,
and you know, a specific ideology.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
That is literally world by world what it says in
the Republican platform. So, and it also says those who
don't love our country, whatever that means, those should also
be excluded. That's the world in the Republican Platform. I
invite the audience to look it up. It's what it says.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Now that that seems like that would be hard to
implement that exclusion, because how do you how do you
scream for love of America? You know, you bring somebody
into it? Do you love America. Yes, you get to
say you don't love us, you get to go back.
So how do you actually screen for ideologists? One thing
to screen somebody's you know, you can take their temperature,
you can check their medical records, you can check their
you know, their their criminal record. But it's really hard
(12:46):
to check somebody's ideas before they're allowed in the country.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yes, that is one of the of the issues is
because there's several issues going on here. One is that
it gives the government all this power to determine what
ideas are doing, what ideas are bad. So it makes
government kind of like the arbitter of morality of ideology,
and that is a very dangerous thing, not just for
(13:10):
emigrants but also for American citizens to open the door
to government decided deciding what ideology should people should hold right,
what God they should pray to, whether they should pray
or not, and that sort of thing. So it's not
just a practical problem of oh, I mean, it's going
to be a subjective of screening. So how do you
how do you screen for that? Is that the very
(13:31):
fact of giving government that power is just so inappropriate.
Government is there to protest our individual rights. So the
one of the government here is to exclude the actual
objective threats, which the government usually does a good job
at screening for already with current existing law. It could
be better, and it could be. It could be there
(13:51):
could be more investment in that for sure, and that
should happen. But government is rightly excluding people already who
have they potent or how of violating the rights of
American of America. So Calding an idea. If you're a socialist,
like AOC who is a native orn American, if you're
a socialist, you have in my opinion about ideas. I
(14:12):
don't agree with socialists. I grew up surrounded by them
in Argentina. I left because of the socialism. But that
doesn't mean that it is a threat to someone that AOC,
or if AOC were an immigrant, if she's talking about socialism,
it doesn't mean that it's an actual objective threat threat
to someone else.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Now, you make an excellent point there. Just because somebody
doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're a bad person
or that they mean malice. Now, if they are coming
into this country, regardless of what the religion is, but
they intend to come in here and blow things up,
or kill people, or the very purpose of why they
came in here was to smuggle drugs or you know,
flout our laws. That's a different story. Then I think
(14:53):
that there should definitely be some immigration there, And it
could well be that if you're trying to enforce arbitrary rules,
you're kind of losing sight of enforcing the ones that
probably should be enforced.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Yes, that's exactly right. People who are actual criminals, or
who are terrorists or members of sterist groups, or even
people who maybe have not committed an act of terrorism,
but there's evidence that the person has been radicalized, right instance,
it is our government can actually right now screen for
people who have been radicalized online. They can do that,
(15:29):
So those people should definitely be excluded. People that have
that do now right now present, that have committed.
Speaker 5 (15:37):
Acts that violate the rights of Americans, or that are
non criminals in the country of origins, or that actually
post an objective threat, those people should definitely be investigated
and excluded.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
So Augustina, clearly you've given a lot of thought to this,
and you've been through the process, so you have a
better understanding than certainly I do. Where I'm just viewing
it from afar and reading about it that you've actually
done this. If you were given the control they let's say,
Donald Trump, put you in the cabin they made you
the borders are. What do you think the US policy
(16:10):
towards immigration should be?
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Look, I would start, So, the problem right now is
that the immigration system is based on premises that are
really bad. The whole system right So, essentially one of
the core issues with the immigration system is that it
prohibits people from working. So the fact that in America
we have a system a set of laws that prohibit
people from working in America, of all places, I think
(16:36):
that is extremely un American. So ultimately I think that,
you know, we don't need to reform the immigration system.
We need to rethink it entirely and have really a
pro American approach where people can come to build a
life and Americans are free to associate with them and
hire them and trade with them. But we have the
system that we have right now, and unfortunately, not soon,
(17:01):
Congress is going to completely overhaul the immigration system. So
what I think that could happen within the system that
we have right now, There are certain limits to people
that for the few people that are eligible to come
to work to America. There are there are limits so
how many of them could come. So I would get
rid of those limits. Part of what could happen is
we have a system where if you have a job
(17:22):
offer from an American, from an American employer and your
American employees willing to sponsor, you pay all the fees
because it shouldn't be free, it should have a cost,
and pay all the fees and actually the employer also
that's from then in themselves. If you have a job
offer and you pass all the all the screenings national
security from the government, you can come to America and
(17:45):
work as long as you have that active job offer.
I think some system like that would be very incredibly thoughtful.
It would be great for Americans, it would be great
for immigrants community to work. And I wouldn't discriminate whether
that immigrant is a high tech you know, an engineer
or a tech engineer or something like that. And for
(18:07):
a Silicon valley or if someone who wants to come
here to pick apples, right, I would just let the
free market decide who should should come here by having
employers submit their job offers to them.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
And Augustina, I can tell you have read the works
of Ann Ran, because that is that sounds like a
very very rand thing, the idea of the free market deciding.
I think if we have more of the free market
making more of our decisions like that, I think America
would probably be an even better place because we've somewhat
gotten away from the free market controlling things. And I
(18:40):
think that might be one of the reasons why we're
in the mess that we're in and just a few
waiting moments we have left. Is there a place people
can go to read more of your work?
Speaker 2 (18:50):
People?
Speaker 5 (18:50):
Can?
Speaker 2 (18:51):
I have a Twitter account, It's my name is Agustina
the sis CID. You can find me there, just put
me on Google. And of course people thanks for your
comments and saying that it was a very iron Rand position,
because I do I do think that I'm running got
it exactly right. So if people want to find more
about iron Rand, they can go to the iron Run Institute,
(19:14):
the web suities Ironrand dot rg and learn more about
her there as well.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Augustina, thank you so much for joining us today on
Viewpoint Alabama.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Thank you so much for having me sin a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
And while we're on the subject of illegal immigration, up
next on Viewpoint, Alabama. We'll be speaking with our own
Attorney General, Alabama's Steve Marshall. He is going to do
everything he can to stop the Biden administration from giving
Obamacare or health Care free healthcare to illegal aliens. The
federal court has halted a Biden administration rule that would
(19:45):
have provided taxpayer subsidized health plans for illegal aliens, and
our own Attorney General, Steve Marshall, he's joined a coalition
of eighteen other states attorneys general insuing to stop that
from going into effect. Steve, welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Well, good to have you. It's weird, bad linked to
the bitter end, right. I mean, it's just another opportunity
for AGS to push back against the bad administration.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
It's kind of lame duck season. So it's sort of
like they're going to going to throw everything against the
wall and see what sticks.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
It seems like no, and this is again part of
the radical immigration policy that we've seen kind of come
from this administration. And this is an ounce rule that's
completely contrary to anything that we've seen come from Washington before,
making illegal immigrants and certain individuals that are here for
(20:31):
work purposes eligible for state funded assistants, and it's a
recent rule change that is completely contrary to even what
happened during the Obama administration. And the good thing is
that the district judge who heard the case accepted what
Alabama and eighteen other states asserted, which is that this
(20:51):
was completely contrary to the authority granted by Congress and
to put a stop on this effort.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Why is it that it seems like a state issue,
yet the federal government isn't. Should the federal government really
have any oversight of this, No.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
There's no doubt, just because of the amount of money
that comes from the federal government to pay for medicaid services.
And they have the opportunity to engage in rule making,
which is a lawful exercise for them, but they can't
engage in rulemaking that's completely contrary to the statute that
gives them the right to do. So what this court
found and it really had to do with this definition
(21:24):
and what does it mean to have somebody lawfully president
in our country? They just simply wholesale changed that definition,
completely contrary to how that term had been interpreted by
both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
So, I guess because the thrust of what I meant was,
you know, Okay, the federal government's going to throw their
money away. I hate that because that's yours in my money.
But it seems like they really shouldn't be throwing away
the State of Alabama's money because that's definitely our money,
and I don't think that they should have any control
over what we do in the State of Alabama with
our dollars with regards to how we allocate them.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
No absolute, and in fact, you know, we've seen it
in other areas as well.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
You know, we've had.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
Wonderful discussions with you in the past about the work
that we've done to push back against the so called
gender affirming care, but we've seen the effort to use
the federal dollars to medicate and rulemaking to make abortions
required for states that otherwise don't accept it. And then
we've seen it for purposes of giving gender changing surgeries
(22:25):
and want to make the taxpayers be able to cover that.
This again, when you look at kind of the signature
issues of this administration where they were wholesale rejected in
the most recent election, immigration being one of those. It's
a last ditch effort by the minor administration to put
something across the finish line that frankly is unlawful and
really really pleased with the victory that we got this week.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And speaking of victories, with Donald Trump taking the White House,
one thing is he is definitely a huge state rights
He loves I think as much as he likes the
First Amendment, he really likes the Tenth Amendment too, And
it seems like he wants to grant as much power.
You already saw what he did on the issue of abortion.
I think that as he takes office, we're going to
see for a second administration, you're going to see a
lot more seating of authority back to the states to
(23:07):
make autonomous decisions about things like this and more. And
this is just a great time to go ahead and
plant the flag right here right now. Alabama is not
going to mess around. And for that matter, you're We're
not alone, right You've You've been joined by a bunch
of other states too, haven't you.
Speaker 4 (23:21):
No, we have a variety of issues, but look, we
don't want the signature things that President Trump's talked about
eliminating the Department of Education. Clearly, educating children is fundamentally
a state's obligation. And when we see the efforts at
the federal government level to dictate how certain instruction takes place,
the type of instruction that takes place is one of
the ways that you know, CRT and DEI issues get
(23:45):
integrated into states that otherwise would push back. You know,
that is a reflection of the President Trump's idea that
truly the Framers believe that there ought to be limited
federal power and everything else should be the states. And
I think He's going to put together administration over the
next four years that embodies that principle.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
And Steve, that is such a great issue you bring
up because I heard a stat and I guess it's true.
I haven't checked it out directly. That when we you know,
we've had education in America since before we were even founded,
but we didn't have a Department of Education until the
Carter administration in the seventies. And when it was established,
our education system in America it was one of the
best in the world, I think, the best in the world,
(24:23):
and now we've fallen behind most of the other the
rest of the industrialized world. You got to think cause
and effect here, don't you.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
No, I think clearly. So I mean, and look, what
have we done is we just created an additional layer
of bureaucracy. And what's been the value of those additional
federal dollars and that auction and created, I think very
little and the tangible result of being able to say,
are our kids better prepared today compared to others in
the world than they were previously, And you know, the
(24:53):
data just doesn't dictate that. Now it's coming upon states
to do their jobs, so make sure they're educating our
children correctly. But if we can unburden the regulatory issues
that impact day to day education, then we have free
op teachers to be able to teach our kids and
not worried about what box they have to check to
be able to comply with some federal grant program.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
When you talk about unburdening the states, I think that's
exactly right. In terms of with these federal regulations, there
comes a lot of oversight and then a lot of
checks and balances to make sure that we're doing what
the federal government says. So one of the biggest I
think problems we have is for every educator in a classroom,
we've got multiple people above them. In some form of
(25:34):
administration in the public school system, keeping an eye on
making sure we're checking the boxes and we're following those
federal those federal dictates. And if we didn't have the dictates,
we wouldn't need those people. Those dollars could actually go
towards the classroom as opposed to the people watching over
the classroom, people who probably haven't been in a classroom
in thirty years or even ever.
Speaker 4 (25:53):
Yeah, and driving the dollars. This is the base exceeding level. Look,
I think it's one of the fundamental driving force behind
the school choice movement and the ability for states like
Alabama recently could be able to tie students with the
dollars that are coming in, and so we give incentives
at the local level to truly do remarkable things for kids.
(26:15):
But even if you look at the money that came
for education during COVID, you know, you look at a
lot of data, A lot that money went to enhance
those who weren't directly in the classroom or going into
the classroom itself, But it was more paying people to
supervise other projects and other things. And again, I don't
think that's the best and most efficient use of taxpayer dollars,
and I think that's one of the changes that'll come
(26:36):
in most recent and change in administration with President Trump.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
I could talk to you all day, Steve, because you've
covered so much ground here, and I'm glad that we
have a Attorney general that's watching out on all of
these guys. You know, your job is much more far
reaching than just than just say, putting bad guys behind bars.
It's about taking care of those of us who aren't bad,
people who are just trying to live our lives and
don't want government in our way. And I appreciate what
(27:02):
you're doing keeping Washington out of our business.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
In the state of Alabama, well, hey, it's a remarkable
privilege of been given. And like the Tenth Amendment has
to have meaning, Alabama is a separate sovereign and I
love our modo. We dare defend our rights and you
give me the ability to do that.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Thank you so much, Steve for joining us this morning
on Alabama's Morning News.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
And finally, to round out viewpoint today, I'm joined by
the United States Marine Corps, Corporal Padia and Corporate Padia.
You are doing something very special here. Why don't you
tell me about that.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Toys for Tots helps kids all over America, but including
right here in our state. Tell me more about what
the mission is for Toys for Tots.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Toys for Tots is a program that we develop to
give back to the community. We collect donations and we
burst them to the community for the holidays.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
So what sort of things are you looking for from
from the community.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
Pretty much anything that they want to donate that new
to though, right, New toys, yes, sir, New toys that
can be given out for the holidays.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
And I imagine you guys sort the toys and decide
what's appropriate for what age, girls, boys, that kind of thing, yes, sir. Now,
is there a list of people who are expecting these toys, like, say,
if you're a family in need or you know a
family in need, are you able to sign up to
be distributed to?
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Yes, sir. You can also go directly to the reserve
units and sign up.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Where should somebody go? Because the reserve units not everyone
knows where the reserve is, So where should people go? Specifically,
we're talking to the entire state of Alabama. But is
there a list online or something like that? There is, sir,
Oh yeah, here it is, I see it right here.
Thanks you answer my question. Toysfotts dot org. What you
do is you go online to that site, you pick
a chapter, and that is where you can get involved,
(28:47):
either as somebody in need or also somebody who wants
to make a difference. Corporate Roudia, what is one thing
that you have ran into in helping out with this mission?
The families? Some of the things that you have heard
or said from some of the families.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
The community, because sometimes you know, they can afford to
make purchases for their family, so when they see that
we're giving out free gifts, it's usually very positive and
it's also a pleasure on our end to be able
to help.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
And I'm sure there's a lot of for you. It's
something you're able to do to give back, to feel
like you're doing something. Of course, you're doing something on
the front line for America, but also right here at home.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Yes, sir, it it just kind of reminds us that
there's people here that we're fighting for.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Corporate Reuben Pidia from the United States Marines, thank you
so much for joining us in simplify.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Thank you five.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
You've been listening to Viewpoint Alabama, a public affairs program
from the Alabama Radio Network. The opinions expressed on Viewpoint
Alabama are not necessarily those of the staff, management, or
advertisers of this station.
Immigration has been a hot button issue in Alabama and America.
With the reelection of Donald Trump to the presidency, we're
seeing a renewed interest in addressing some of the shortcomings
of the immigration system. Hello, I'm John Mountin today on
Viewpoint Alabama. I'm speaking with Augustina Urgada. Did Augustina, Did
I say your name correctly?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yes, that's that's perfect. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
You are an opinion contributor to Young Voices. Augustina, welcome
to our program.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Thank you so much for hirving me.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
So have you.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Recently penned a digital op ed that's a critical of
some of President Trump's immigration policies. And before we get
into that, I want to know the basis of your opinion.
So what's your background and why do you hold the
beliefs that you espouse on immigration.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yes, so, I am an immigrant United States. I came
here in twenty seventeen to pursue a master's degree and
then I stayed here. I am fortated to be able
to be here legally, and it took a long It
took a lot for me to be able to United States.
It's really really hard for people to immigrate legally here,
(01:04):
and I myself witnessed the hardships that the immigration system
puts people through, good people with degrees, people who want
to come here to work and just be old the lives.
So I started getting interested in the topic after the
injustices that went down upon me with this system, and
so I came to study. And I'm also interested in
(01:25):
the ideas of iron Ran, the philosopher from some time ago.
And I apply the philosophy of iron Rant to this
issue of immigration. It gives me a framework I think
that is very much pro freedom and for American.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
And August you know, where did you immigrate from?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
I immigrated from Argentina.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
And are you a citizen? Are I obviously you're here legally,
but are you just on a visa? Are you actually
a citizen? Are you working on citizenship?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
I am a legal permanenty resident and I am working
on my citizenship because I can't wait to become a
citizen of this country. I love America very much.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So when you hear about the issues with illegal immigration,
and by which I mean people who are being brought
to the country, either they're coming on their own or
they're being trafficked here not by their own volition.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
How do you.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Feel about that when you see those people at the border,
in those border camps, or when they get into the
country and all the hardships they have to deal with,
How does that make you feel as a legal Immigrantuck?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
It makes me very very sad. It makes me outrage
because a lot of these people that are coming through
the southern border and crossing and going through everything that
they go, right, because it's not just a really nice
strip through the border. They go through what can only
described as hell to get to America. So imagine also
the things that they are escaping, is going through that
(02:46):
is worth it for them? Right? I think? So most
of the people that are coming through the border, I
think are people who just want to come here to
deal a better life, and the current immigration system doesn't
allow for those people to come here legally. Right, So
all the people that you see at the border are
those who there's no visa available to them for them
(03:06):
to come here and work legally, so they decide to
do so illegally because they have no alternative. So I
wish there was a way for our legal immigration system
to allow for people that are genuinely coming here to
work and build a life and want to become Americans,
to be able to do so legally and peacefully and
(03:29):
not have to mask at the border and go through
all the dangers that are going on there, right And
I think that also would have a great benefit for
Americans as well.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
And it really is, as they say, the American dream
to come here from a country that's far more oppressive.
You said you came from Argentina, and I know there's
a lot of South American countries that either they're economically
depressed or in some cases they are ideologically depressed, i e.
They have a system of government that doesn't allow people freedom.
So it makes a lot of sense people would want
(04:00):
to come. But at the same time, you do agree
that there needs to be some sort of control at
the door, because if we don't have a border, we
don't have a country. So there needs to be some
sort of a control at the door to make sure
we have people coming in like you who want to contribute,
but not people who are, say, coming across the border
to traffic, drugs or people or things like that.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Absolutely, yes, absolutely there has to be control. We have
to have a border, we have to have a very
strong border.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
We have.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
In fact, I am not opposed to building a wall, right,
Like I think that it's great. Like I've spoken to
a border patrol and I know some of the details
about what it needs to build a wall, and I
think a wall is very helpful in many areas of
our southern border. And yes, absolutely, there's a lot of
people that should be excluded from coming to America, and
(04:50):
only people that are coming here to without ill intentions
to harm Americans should be able to come. So criminals know,
criminals should be excluded. Any sort of national security like terrorist,
members of terrorist groups, associates, people who finance terrorists, all
those people should be excluded. As a matter of fact.
(05:12):
Even people with certain infectious diseases that are highly contagious
should be excluded as well until they can recover.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
And Augustine, one of the things that has been i
think largely used for political gain on both sides is
the issue of migrant children. And you hear reports, I'm
sure it's not happening constantly, but hear reports of children
showing up sometimes as young as two years old without
any sort of supervision. Now you know, somebody didn't walk
from Venezuela to the US border with and they're two
(05:42):
years old on their own. Somehow they got very close
and somebody turned them loose at the last minute, I assume.
But still this is an issue that's going on, and
it's also an issue that's been kind of used as
these poor people and we talk about, you know, separation
of families and things like that, but at the same time,
some of these people they're being brought not by their
own family members, but rather being trafficked into the country.
(06:03):
They're being coached to say you know, this is my dad,
and really it's not their dad, but they you know,
they're not questioned, and so they say, Okay, we can't
separate the family. So what do you think about these situations?
How do we handle those sort of things?
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Yeah, I think that is extremely unfortunates. I know this
issue has been on the news lately, but it's an
issue that has been happening for many, many years, and
it's extremely I am very distrubt when I hear any
of these stories. So these children usually come because sometimes
(06:36):
their parents are already in the United States, and then
there are other family members that are in whatever other
country in the south of the border. They send the
children but to their parents and they have to engage
with essentially cattail members and coyotes, as they call it.
Is human traffic, human smugglers that are trying to whose job,
(06:57):
who's They've decided to tap into this black market of
immigration and bring people and make help people across the border.
So I think that I can't even imagine the positions
of a parent where like the situation in the home
country is bad enough that they would have to make
(07:19):
the decision to send their children in these conditions to
the United States. I can imagine what that children is
facing back at home, or what the child could face
back at home if they don't come here. But I
think it's all the consequence of the immigration black market.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Right.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So when you have some activity, some activity, especially a
human activity like coming here, like moving to a different
place to work, and you make that illegal, then there's
a whole black market that is created because of that,
and a lot of really bad actors, like the cartels,
the human smugglers, the creaties, will take opportunity to build
(07:58):
a business around it, and they are masters in violence,
they are masters in breaking the law, and they take
advantage of this immigration black market that has been created
by the restrictions that are in place right now.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
That's because a lot of these people they really don't
have the best interest of those that're bringing into the
country in mind, they have one interest and that's the
you know, being paid and being paid quite they basically
extort money, and it's an ongoing process of well, we've
got you know, you know, like it's not just like
they pay one time thing, right there's a lot of
situations where they're having to pay ongoing amounts of money
(08:33):
or you know, there's a thought that, well will come
after you if you don't continue to pay us for
us having brought in your your buela or your your
children or whoever it is, because you know, that's their
income stream, and they're not really concerned. That's why you
hear these stories about like a truck overturning and like
like twenty four people died because they were crammed in
the back, or they were left to die in the
(08:54):
desert because you know, they just abandoned it and it
got to be one hundred and twenty degrees and they
smothered to death. All these horrible stories because these coyotes,
they don't care what happens to these people as long
as they make their money.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Exactly, the things that the coyotes and the cartels who
control that essentially the Miglans journey, the things that they
do to people are like, it's something that is absolutely
inhuman and unimaginative that when I started reading about it
and making myself acquainted with the activities that actually go on,
I literally got sick to my stomach. It's things that
(09:27):
one could not even possibly conjure in their minds and imagine.
And yeah, when you remove the government protections and the law,
the rule of law from a whole area, right like
in this case immigration, because immigration is illegal, then you
open it up to all these horrible bad actors to
do whatever they want and there is nothing to do,
(09:50):
like there's they just control that whole market, right and
they can do whatever they want that including the horrific
in humanity that they do to migrants that try to
cross the border. And even after the cross to the border,
like you said, often they continue on us soil to
extort migrants and to continue to ask money and threaten them.
(10:14):
And that's how they operate. It's absolutely disgusting.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
And Augustina in your new op ed, that's the reason
we have you want to talk about the new op
ed you wrote, which was titled ideological vetting of immigrants
is an awful idea and I like for you to
expound upon that a little bit more. What do you
mean by ideological vetting?
Speaker 2 (10:32):
So the article talks about so there's this policy that
Donald the president, Donald Trump was to implement, which is called,
actually the way that he calls it is extreme vetting.
An extreme vetting is the exclusion of people based on
beliefs that the government doesn't like. Essentially, so it's not
(10:54):
only an exclusion based on their actions or actual threats
that a person may may pose to the country or
to others, but the idea is that they hold and
whether they say is are good or bad is decided
by the government. It's a policy that conflicts, kind of
like the sent with danger. So part of what President
(11:15):
Trump wants to do is to keep out, as he
puts it, and as it's in the Republican Party platform,
is to keep out Christian hating, communist, Marxists, and socialists.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
So you say it's in the platform. So are thoset
is that the exact wording in the platform or is
that something that Donald Trump? Because you know, Donald Trump
is known to do these speeches where he doesn't talk
with a prompter, right, He's just kind of talking off
the top of his head. And sometimes he says stuff
that isn't exactly what he means, and very quickly people
take it and run with it and say, oh, I
(11:47):
can't believe he said this, But he didn't really mean that.
He doesn't want people here who disagree with him. He
more wants people. He doesn't want people here who mean
to do us harm. Now, maybe it was just confusion there,
or was it actually put play those exact words in there.
They're trying to keep out people who espouse Marxist communists,
and you know, a specific ideology.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
That is literally world by world what it says in
the Republican platform. So, and it also says those who
don't love our country, whatever that means, those should also
be excluded. That's the world in the Republican Platform. I
invite the audience to look it up. It's what it says.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Now that that seems like that would be hard to
implement that exclusion, because how do you how do you
scream for love of America? You know, you bring somebody
into it? Do you love America. Yes, you get to
say you don't love us, you get to go back.
So how do you actually screen for ideologists? One thing
to screen somebody's you know, you can take their temperature,
you can check their medical records, you can check their
you know, their their criminal record. But it's really hard
(12:46):
to check somebody's ideas before they're allowed in the country.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yes, that is one of the of the issues is
because there's several issues going on here. One is that
it gives the government all this power to determine what
ideas are doing, what ideas are bad. So it makes
government kind of like the arbitter of morality of ideology,
and that is a very dangerous thing, not just for
(13:10):
emigrants but also for American citizens to open the door
to government decided deciding what ideology should people should hold right,
what God they should pray to, whether they should pray
or not, and that sort of thing. So it's not
just a practical problem of oh, I mean, it's going
to be a subjective of screening. So how do you
how do you screen for that? Is that the very
(13:31):
fact of giving government that power is just so inappropriate.
Government is there to protest our individual rights. So the
one of the government here is to exclude the actual
objective threats, which the government usually does a good job
at screening for already with current existing law. It could
be better, and it could be. It could be there
(13:51):
could be more investment in that for sure, and that
should happen. But government is rightly excluding people already who
have they potent or how of violating the rights of
American of America. So Calding an idea. If you're a socialist,
like AOC who is a native orn American, if you're
a socialist, you have in my opinion about ideas. I
(14:12):
don't agree with socialists. I grew up surrounded by them
in Argentina. I left because of the socialism. But that
doesn't mean that it is a threat to someone that AOC,
or if AOC were an immigrant, if she's talking about socialism,
it doesn't mean that it's an actual objective threat threat
to someone else.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Now, you make an excellent point there. Just because somebody
doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're a bad person
or that they mean malice. Now, if they are coming
into this country, regardless of what the religion is, but
they intend to come in here and blow things up,
or kill people, or the very purpose of why they
came in here was to smuggle drugs or you know,
flout our laws. That's a different story. Then I think
(14:53):
that there should definitely be some immigration there, And it
could well be that if you're trying to enforce arbitrary rules,
you're kind of losing sight of enforcing the ones that
probably should be enforced.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Yes, that's exactly right. People who are actual criminals, or
who are terrorists or members of sterist groups, or even
people who maybe have not committed an act of terrorism,
but there's evidence that the person has been radicalized, right instance,
it is our government can actually right now screen for
people who have been radicalized online. They can do that,
(15:29):
So those people should definitely be excluded. People that have
that do now right now present, that have committed.
Speaker 5 (15:37):
Acts that violate the rights of Americans, or that are
non criminals in the country of origins, or that actually
post an objective threat, those people should definitely be investigated
and excluded.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
So Augustina, clearly you've given a lot of thought to this,
and you've been through the process, so you have a
better understanding than certainly I do. Where I'm just viewing
it from afar and reading about it that you've actually
done this. If you were given the control they let's say,
Donald Trump, put you in the cabin they made you
the borders are. What do you think the US policy
(16:10):
towards immigration should be?
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Look, I would start, So, the problem right now is
that the immigration system is based on premises that are
really bad. The whole system right So, essentially one of
the core issues with the immigration system is that it
prohibits people from working. So the fact that in America
we have a system a set of laws that prohibit
people from working in America, of all places, I think
(16:36):
that is extremely un American. So ultimately I think that,
you know, we don't need to reform the immigration system.
We need to rethink it entirely and have really a
pro American approach where people can come to build a
life and Americans are free to associate with them and
hire them and trade with them. But we have the
system that we have right now, and unfortunately, not soon,
(17:01):
Congress is going to completely overhaul the immigration system. So
what I think that could happen within the system that
we have right now, There are certain limits to people
that for the few people that are eligible to come
to work to America. There are there are limits so
how many of them could come. So I would get
rid of those limits. Part of what could happen is
we have a system where if you have a job
(17:22):
offer from an American, from an American employer and your
American employees willing to sponsor, you pay all the fees
because it shouldn't be free, it should have a cost,
and pay all the fees and actually the employer also
that's from then in themselves. If you have a job
offer and you pass all the all the screenings national
security from the government, you can come to America and
(17:45):
work as long as you have that active job offer.
I think some system like that would be very incredibly thoughtful.
It would be great for Americans, it would be great
for immigrants community to work. And I wouldn't discriminate whether
that immigrant is a high tech you know, an engineer
or a tech engineer or something like that. And for
(18:07):
a Silicon valley or if someone who wants to come
here to pick apples, right, I would just let the
free market decide who should should come here by having
employers submit their job offers to them.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
And Augustina, I can tell you have read the works
of Ann Ran, because that is that sounds like a
very very rand thing, the idea of the free market deciding.
I think if we have more of the free market
making more of our decisions like that, I think America
would probably be an even better place because we've somewhat
gotten away from the free market controlling things. And I
(18:40):
think that might be one of the reasons why we're
in the mess that we're in and just a few
waiting moments we have left. Is there a place people
can go to read more of your work?
Speaker 2 (18:50):
People?
Speaker 5 (18:50):
Can?
Speaker 2 (18:51):
I have a Twitter account, It's my name is Agustina
the sis CID. You can find me there, just put
me on Google. And of course people thanks for your
comments and saying that it was a very iron Rand position,
because I do I do think that I'm running got
it exactly right. So if people want to find more
about iron Rand, they can go to the iron Run Institute,
(19:14):
the web suities Ironrand dot rg and learn more about
her there as well.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Augustina, thank you so much for joining us today on
Viewpoint Alabama.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Thank you so much for having me sin a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
And while we're on the subject of illegal immigration, up
next on Viewpoint, Alabama. We'll be speaking with our own
Attorney General, Alabama's Steve Marshall. He is going to do
everything he can to stop the Biden administration from giving
Obamacare or health Care free healthcare to illegal aliens. The
federal court has halted a Biden administration rule that would
(19:45):
have provided taxpayer subsidized health plans for illegal aliens, and
our own Attorney General, Steve Marshall, he's joined a coalition
of eighteen other states attorneys general insuing to stop that
from going into effect. Steve, welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Well, good to have you. It's weird, bad linked to
the bitter end, right. I mean, it's just another opportunity
for AGS to push back against the bad administration.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
It's kind of lame duck season. So it's sort of
like they're going to going to throw everything against the
wall and see what sticks.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
It seems like no, and this is again part of
the radical immigration policy that we've seen kind of come
from this administration. And this is an ounce rule that's
completely contrary to anything that we've seen come from Washington before,
making illegal immigrants and certain individuals that are here for
(20:31):
work purposes eligible for state funded assistants, and it's a
recent rule change that is completely contrary to even what
happened during the Obama administration. And the good thing is
that the district judge who heard the case accepted what
Alabama and eighteen other states asserted, which is that this
(20:51):
was completely contrary to the authority granted by Congress and
to put a stop on this effort.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Why is it that it seems like a state issue,
yet the federal government isn't. Should the federal government really
have any oversight of this, No.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
There's no doubt, just because of the amount of money
that comes from the federal government to pay for medicaid services.
And they have the opportunity to engage in rule making,
which is a lawful exercise for them, but they can't
engage in rulemaking that's completely contrary to the statute that
gives them the right to do. So what this court
found and it really had to do with this definition
(21:24):
and what does it mean to have somebody lawfully president
in our country? They just simply wholesale changed that definition,
completely contrary to how that term had been interpreted by
both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
So, I guess because the thrust of what I meant was,
you know, Okay, the federal government's going to throw their
money away. I hate that because that's yours in my money.
But it seems like they really shouldn't be throwing away
the State of Alabama's money because that's definitely our money,
and I don't think that they should have any control
over what we do in the State of Alabama with
our dollars with regards to how we allocate them.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
No absolute, and in fact, you know, we've seen it
in other areas as well.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
You know, we've had.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
Wonderful discussions with you in the past about the work
that we've done to push back against the so called
gender affirming care, but we've seen the effort to use
the federal dollars to medicate and rulemaking to make abortions
required for states that otherwise don't accept it. And then
we've seen it for purposes of giving gender changing surgeries
(22:25):
and want to make the taxpayers be able to cover that.
This again, when you look at kind of the signature
issues of this administration where they were wholesale rejected in
the most recent election, immigration being one of those. It's
a last ditch effort by the minor administration to put
something across the finish line that frankly is unlawful and
really really pleased with the victory that we got this week.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And speaking of victories, with Donald Trump taking the White House,
one thing is he is definitely a huge state rights
He loves I think as much as he likes the
First Amendment, he really likes the Tenth Amendment too, And
it seems like he wants to grant as much power.
You already saw what he did on the issue of abortion.
I think that as he takes office, we're going to
see for a second administration, you're going to see a
lot more seating of authority back to the states to
(23:07):
make autonomous decisions about things like this and more. And
this is just a great time to go ahead and
plant the flag right here right now. Alabama is not
going to mess around. And for that matter, you're We're
not alone, right You've You've been joined by a bunch
of other states too, haven't you.
Speaker 4 (23:21):
No, we have a variety of issues, but look, we
don't want the signature things that President Trump's talked about
eliminating the Department of Education. Clearly, educating children is fundamentally
a state's obligation. And when we see the efforts at
the federal government level to dictate how certain instruction takes place,
the type of instruction that takes place is one of
the ways that you know, CRT and DEI issues get
(23:45):
integrated into states that otherwise would push back. You know,
that is a reflection of the President Trump's idea that
truly the Framers believe that there ought to be limited
federal power and everything else should be the states. And
I think He's going to put together administration over the
next four years that embodies that principle.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
And Steve, that is such a great issue you bring
up because I heard a stat and I guess it's true.
I haven't checked it out directly. That when we you know,
we've had education in America since before we were even founded,
but we didn't have a Department of Education until the
Carter administration in the seventies. And when it was established,
our education system in America it was one of the
best in the world, I think, the best in the world,
(24:23):
and now we've fallen behind most of the other the
rest of the industrialized world. You got to think cause
and effect here, don't you.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
No, I think clearly. So I mean, and look, what
have we done is we just created an additional layer
of bureaucracy. And what's been the value of those additional
federal dollars and that auction and created, I think very
little and the tangible result of being able to say,
are our kids better prepared today compared to others in
the world than they were previously, And you know, the
(24:53):
data just doesn't dictate that. Now it's coming upon states
to do their jobs, so make sure they're educating our
children correctly. But if we can unburden the regulatory issues
that impact day to day education, then we have free
op teachers to be able to teach our kids and
not worried about what box they have to check to
be able to comply with some federal grant program.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
When you talk about unburdening the states, I think that's
exactly right. In terms of with these federal regulations, there
comes a lot of oversight and then a lot of
checks and balances to make sure that we're doing what
the federal government says. So one of the biggest I
think problems we have is for every educator in a classroom,
we've got multiple people above them. In some form of
(25:34):
administration in the public school system, keeping an eye on
making sure we're checking the boxes and we're following those
federal those federal dictates. And if we didn't have the dictates,
we wouldn't need those people. Those dollars could actually go
towards the classroom as opposed to the people watching over
the classroom, people who probably haven't been in a classroom
in thirty years or even ever.
Speaker 4 (25:53):
Yeah, and driving the dollars. This is the base exceeding level. Look,
I think it's one of the fundamental driving force behind
the school choice movement and the ability for states like
Alabama recently could be able to tie students with the
dollars that are coming in, and so we give incentives
at the local level to truly do remarkable things for kids.
(26:15):
But even if you look at the money that came
for education during COVID, you know, you look at a
lot of data, A lot that money went to enhance
those who weren't directly in the classroom or going into
the classroom itself, But it was more paying people to
supervise other projects and other things. And again, I don't
think that's the best and most efficient use of taxpayer dollars,
and I think that's one of the changes that'll come
(26:36):
in most recent and change in administration with President Trump.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
I could talk to you all day, Steve, because you've
covered so much ground here, and I'm glad that we
have a Attorney general that's watching out on all of
these guys. You know, your job is much more far
reaching than just than just say, putting bad guys behind bars.
It's about taking care of those of us who aren't bad,
people who are just trying to live our lives and
don't want government in our way. And I appreciate what
(27:02):
you're doing keeping Washington out of our business.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
In the state of Alabama, well, hey, it's a remarkable
privilege of been given. And like the Tenth Amendment has
to have meaning, Alabama is a separate sovereign and I
love our modo. We dare defend our rights and you
give me the ability to do that.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Thank you so much, Steve for joining us this morning
on Alabama's Morning News.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
And finally, to round out viewpoint today, I'm joined by
the United States Marine Corps, Corporal Padia and Corporate Padia.
You are doing something very special here. Why don't you
tell me about that.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Toys for Tots helps kids all over America, but including
right here in our state. Tell me more about what
the mission is for Toys for Tots.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Toys for Tots is a program that we develop to
give back to the community. We collect donations and we
burst them to the community for the holidays.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
So what sort of things are you looking for from
from the community.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
Pretty much anything that they want to donate that new
to though, right, New toys, yes, sir, New toys that
can be given out for the holidays.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
And I imagine you guys sort the toys and decide
what's appropriate for what age, girls, boys, that kind of thing, yes, sir. Now,
is there a list of people who are expecting these toys, like, say,
if you're a family in need or you know a
family in need, are you able to sign up to
be distributed to?
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Yes, sir. You can also go directly to the reserve
units and sign up.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Where should somebody go? Because the reserve units not everyone
knows where the reserve is, So where should people go? Specifically,
we're talking to the entire state of Alabama. But is
there a list online or something like that? There is, sir,
Oh yeah, here it is, I see it right here.
Thanks you answer my question. Toysfotts dot org. What you
do is you go online to that site, you pick
a chapter, and that is where you can get involved,
(28:47):
either as somebody in need or also somebody who wants
to make a difference. Corporate Roudia, what is one thing
that you have ran into in helping out with this mission?
The families? Some of the things that you have heard
or said from some of the families.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
The community, because sometimes you know, they can afford to
make purchases for their family, so when they see that
we're giving out free gifts, it's usually very positive and
it's also a pleasure on our end to be able
to help.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
And I'm sure there's a lot of for you. It's
something you're able to do to give back, to feel
like you're doing something. Of course, you're doing something on
the front line for America, but also right here at home.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Yes, sir, it it just kind of reminds us that
there's people here that we're fighting for.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Corporate Reuben Pidia from the United States Marines, thank you
so much for joining us in simplify.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Thank you five.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
You've been listening to Viewpoint Alabama, a public affairs program
from the Alabama Radio Network. The opinions expressed on Viewpoint
Alabama are not necessarily those of the staff, management, or
advertisers of this station.
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!