Matt (00:01.474)
Hello and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. It's good to have you with us today. I'm your host, Matt, along with your host, Sean, and our special guest, host, Melanie. How are you guys doing?

Melanie (00:15.841)
Pretty good, pretty good.

Shawn (00:17.689)
Great. Wow. I'm already winning. I'm doing great. She's only doing pretty good

Matt (00:17.87)
Uh-huh.

Matt (00:22.592)
Yeah, right. don't know why she's Melanie is not so happy about being with us. I guess she's just like.

Melanie (00:27.783)
no no no I'm super happy to be here but like you had to bring up the BYUKU basketball game and so like just remembering that brought me down from great to pretty good.

Matt (00:33.69)
Yeah.

Shawn (00:37.656)
Because why? Not because you slaughtered but because you weren't there to watch the slaughter. Is that correct? Yes, okay.

Melanie (00:42.621)
Exactly. Like anytime I miss a basketball game, I'm sad. And like that was an iconic basketball game.

Shawn (00:47.387)
Matt (00:47.758)
Sean, I tell you that Melanie won some airline credits from participating in a time out activity at a BYU basketball game? Yeah, she had to dribble the ball across the court left-handed, dribble it back to the foul line, and then shoot a free throw, and whoever did it fastest won the airline credits, and Melanie won.

Shawn (00:57.688)
What?

Shawn (01:09.365)
You did that, Melanie?

Melanie (01:11.263)
So it wasn't left-handed, it was just one-handed. And it was really funny, because I was losing the dribble race by like a lot. But then I have terrible free throw form anyways, so when I got to the free throw line and they were like, make a free throw one-handed, I did it on my first try.

Matt (01:26.798)
Did you do underhand the like the long layup underhand thing? okay. Well, yeah, you did it. You made a free throw on your first shot.

Melanie (01:33.109)
No.

Melanie (01:37.309)
I did, I did.

Shawn (01:37.846)
That's amazing. I love that story. I wish it was recorded. Is it recorded? okay. After this, I want to see that. That's amazing.

Melanie (01:42.163)
We do have a video.

Matt (01:42.806)
Yeah, we have a video of it.

Matt (01:47.47)
So we had a listener write in who was not pleased with inaccurate information about immigration. So they sent us some links. We'll put them in the show notes, but just to clear things up, this is where I was wrong. So I said that it's a misdemeanor to enter the country illegally or without documentation. I was wrong about that. It's actually not a misdemeanor. It's not even a crime at all to enter the country without documentation. But if you are here or you overstay your visa, then there's a court hearing

And at the end of that hearing, if they determine that you are here, unlaw, or unlawfully, then they can deport you. They can also detain you until it's time to deport you. But there's no like crime that you've, it's like a civil penalty. There's no crime that goes on your record for coming in the country without documentation.

Shawn (02:38.882)
Good clarity, I guess that makes sense, right? If you're not a citizen, then you don't really fall under the, legal, the titles.

Matt (02:45.206)
you actually get all the rights. You get all the rights that said everything in the U S constitution that protects citizens of the United States, everybody who is in the country of the United States is protected by all of those rights. So you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to against unlawful search and seizure. You have the right to bear arms if you want to bear arms. But if they're, if for some reason the immigration authorities say, Hey, we're going to have a hearing.

we think you're here without proper documentation, then you can have a hearing and then at the end of that, the judge could say, you don't have proper documentation, you should leave the country. And then if after you've been told to leave the country, then you come back in after that, that is a misdemeanor. Yeah.

Shawn (03:27.5)
Wow, fascinating. Good, good, good. Props and points to whoever sent that in. Genius.

Matt (03:33.358)
Yeah, yeah good job you guys

Melanie (03:33.696)
Our favorite listener.

Shawn (03:36.16)
Now, and that's a I mean, it's a good preface into our first topic. I've actually done a ton of, like I've been waiting for this discussion for a long time because I'm coming with strong opinion. I can't wait to hear Melanie's feedback. I can't wait to hear Matt's because I kind of know where you stand on everything, Matt. You're pretty clear on that.

Matt (03:47.914)
Matt (03:53.773)
Okay.

Matt (03:59.392)
Okay, well then I'll start. my topic is this faith based profits, nonprofits who've long been partners with the government in refugee resettlement care for unaccompanied minors and aid to migrants at the border, find themselves under attack after Trump's recent executive orders. Despite decades of service and government funding, including during the Trump administration, these organizations are now being branded as corrupt, blamed for the border crisis.

And this highlights a dramatic shift in the political landscape surrounding immigration and the role of religious charities. In a letter to bishops, the Pope criticized mass deportations, stating that equating illegal status with criminality is wrong and that such actions damage human dignity and create vulnerability. While acknowledging a nation's right to secure its borders and address crime, the Pope insists that policies must be grounded in respect for human dignity and the common good.

prioritizing welcoming, protecting, promoting, and integrating the most vulnerable. 27 different religious organizations are suing the Trump administration over his recent executive order. And our church released a statement which is much less clear, but it basically says we want to love our neighbors and obey the law. So my question is this, what would Jesus do in the present fight over immigration in the United States?

Shawn (05:23.768)
Well, first of all, I would say that the Catholic Church probably doesn't have much of a moral high ground when it comes to commenting about.

Matt (05:32.878)
But don't you like the Pope? I like the Pope. Even if I didn't agree with his particular statement, I still like the Pope. think Pope Francis tries hard to look out for vulnerable people all over the world. No? You don't love the Pope?

Shawn (05:45.496)
I'll just say I think the Catholic Church has a lot of...

Matt (05:48.718)
Okay, fine, fine. You started with that, but you said you came ready to discuss this, Sean. So let me hear, what would Jesus do?

Melanie (05:49.288)
Hahaha

Melanie (05:53.306)
You

Shawn (05:55.192)
I do. Okay, I am ready to discuss. No, I didn't.

Melanie (05:57.717)
He came ready to discuss the Catholic Church.

Matt (06:00.174)
Jesus would leave the Catholic Church and become a member of our church.

Shawn (06:05.464)
But Melanie, I don't want to hijack this. So do you want to give your response first?

Melanie (06:12.71)
No, no, you came prepared, so I want to give it to you.

Shawn (06:15.49)
Okay, all right. Okay, well, I mean, Matt, I think you're pretty clear in your statements on where you stand with immigration. And so I've often, for many months now, kind of considered, okay, based on what principles do I want to an opinion? And being the latter day lens, I thought, obviously, there's gotta be clarity, maybe not on the specific thing, but guiding principles for us. So I've discovered from scripture and from prophets, four,

four principles that I think guide us to know exactly what Jesus would do and what we should do, how we should look at immigration. Okay, Matt's smirking, because, yeah, yeah.

Matt (06:52.753)
OK. I'm excited. This is a good lead up. Your four better be good for Sean.

Shawn (06:59.32)
Okay, good. Okay, the first one, scripture based on what is the most important law? To love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves, right? So I think principle number one is real simple. We should love people, we should love everybody. We should love equally the person in China who is seeking a better life for themselves, the person in Mexico who's seeking a better life for themselves. We've been blessed and

Matt (07:10.979)
Mhm.

Shawn (07:29.788)
We shouldn't, I mean, I love that people should try and better themselves. And if America can provide that, then that's amazing to me. So principle number one is obviously we should love our neighbors ourselves. Okay, principle number two comes from lots of scripture as well as the family proclamation that we talked about it last week. What is the central, absolute necessary central unit of society? It's the family. It's the family, right? God took Adam and Eve and first thing he did was he entered them into an order

Matt (07:40.12)
Okay.

Matt (07:52.344)
family.

Shawn (07:59.606)
which is the structure of the entire planet. And that order is marriage. And then he gives commandments regarding children. Okay, now that's important, because I'll bring that up later. So that's principle number two, that families are the essential unit. Okay, principle number three. What is it, Article of Faith 12? We believe in obeying, sustaining, and honoring the law.

Matt (08:11.799)
Okay.

Matt (08:21.752)
honoring the law.

Melanie (08:22.472)
And obeying, honoring, and sustaining the... Yeah.

Shawn (08:25.302)
Right. Now that is attached to another one. Remember the Lord talked a lot about, minus house of order and not confusion, order and chaos. I think that has a lot to do with that. So I'll bring that up in a minute too. And then the final principle would be this. Do you guys familiar with the Latin legal terms, Malam and say, and Malam, Malam prohibitum.

Matt (08:37.282)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (08:48.142)
Yes, because you've told it to me before. No, I'm not going to tell it to you. You have to say it. If you throw out Latin words, you have to define them yourself.

Shawn (08:49.792)
I love it so much, dude. Tell me, do remember what it is? What is- Okay, Malam and Say.

Melanie (08:51.346)
you

Shawn (08:59.326)
so mentally Malam and say is Latin for legal or, or moral in and of itself. Whereas Malam prohibitum refers to laws that are laws because we needed some order, but in and of themselves are not actual moral or legal. for example, I think society would agree that murder is Malam and say in and of itself, murder should be legal.

Melanie (08:59.328)
you

Shawn (09:28.96)
or illegal because it's immoral, right? Whereas seat belts would be mal and prohibitive because it's not immoral for you to not wear a seatbelt if you drive down the street in your neighborhood. But it is a law that we have decided for ourselves. It's somewhat arbitrary, but we've decided for ourselves. Okay. Do you agree with those two things, Matt, Melon?

Melanie (09:30.624)
Yeah.

Melanie (09:50.291)
Yeah, I think President Oaks actually gave a talk like way back when where he used these similar ideas talking about Adam and Eve in the garden, which is a whole nother tangent, but I think he distinguished them as like sins versus transgressions. So I like those ideas. Yes.

Shawn (10:03.224)
Interesting. Yes, he did. I remember that.

Matt (10:06.018)
I agree with your definition of the Latin words. I don't know how it applies to immigration, because you haven't told me that yet. okay. okay.

Shawn (10:09.976)
Well, you'll see. Well, you're gonna see. You're gonna see. Okay, so your big question is how is God or how does Christ want us to look? Right, well, this is, think that it's given me clarity to look at immigration based on these things. So principle number one, is immigration in the United States a good thing or a thing? It's sad to me that people debate that. Of course it's a good thing. If people can improve their lives, we want them. We want you. We love you. Come, improve your lives. This is a blessed country with lots of freedoms. Come.

Melanie (10:10.814)
I think he's gonna get there.

Matt (10:15.948)
What would Jesus do? What would Jesus do?

Shawn (10:38.93)
That should be a stance, that is a guiding principle that anyone who says otherwise, I think they're unprincipled. We don't want people in our country. Agree? Agree or disagree?

Matt (10:49.078)
I agree that we should welcome everybody into our country. I'm not in favor of saying that some people are not allowed in our country. Now, if they want to break the laws, that's a different thing, right? We shouldn't necessarily, yeah. But generally as a general rule, of course, I want everybody to come here.

Shawn (10:56.993)
Right, the wood.

That's a totally different thing. Totally different thing. Yeah, when it... Right, the worth of a soul is great in the sight of God, whether it means spiritually, physically, economically. So come, please, we love you, come, right? Okay, so that's principle number one. I'm gonna skip to principle number three now. We believe in honoring laws, okay? Now, would you say that immigration laws are malum in se or malum prohibitum?

Matt (11:13.518)
Well, uh-huh.

Matt (11:27.542)
Mal and prohibit them. There's not a moral foundation to immigration laws.

Shawn (11:31.404)
Melody, what would you say?

Melanie (11:33.052)
also no moral foundation.

Shawn (11:35.37)
And I, three, two, one, agree. I totally agree. Completely agree, right? These are arbitrary laws set up to establish order. Do you agree? So if the third, so if the...

Melanie (11:39.264)
Consensus.

Matt (11:39.278)
You

Matt (11:47.886)
Mm hmm. Yeah, I wouldn't say it's order. I do not think that the motivation behind immigration laws is or ever has been order.

Shawn (11:58.37)
There has to be, obviously, a law that's...

Matt (12:00.352)
No, the motivation behind immigration laws is racism.

Shawn (12:04.266)
No, no, no, you take it, come on.

Matt (12:07.286)
It began with racism. It continues with racism and it always has been racism. Always. You can't find any immigration act in the United States that was not motivated by some form of racism.

Shawn (12:21.09)
Okay, I will agree with you, we've hashed this out. There were certain acts that were absolutely racist. That doesn't mean that forever the policy of the United States has been based in racism. No, it's not, it's based in order.

Matt (12:27.703)
Yes.

Matt (12:31.264)
Listen, immigration policy is, has been, always has been based in racism. You might be able to find somebody who argues that there's order behind it, but you won't find a historical precedent for this is why we have immigration laws. It's not there.

Shawn (12:49.91)
You can say that there's always been, there has been much or maybe always racism in the policies. That doesn't mean that they are based in it.

Melanie (12:50.282)
So dad.

Matt (12:57.216)
It's the motivation. It's the motivation behind it. What is the, tell me how the Chinese exclusionary act was not racism.

Shawn (13:03.256)
Okay, let me, let's say I concede that argument to you, except for let's start from, I don't know, five years ago or 10 years ago. Let's start with Barack Obama. How about that? Is modern immigration law or policy about order and law or is it about racism? Barack, okay, so Barack Obama, what was the main title that he came, walked away with from his presidency? Do you guys know?

Matt (13:14.348)
Okay.

Matt (13:22.637)
racism.

Matt (13:29.87)
like president of the united states the honorable mr obama i agree obama deported more people than any other president i agree with that

Shawn (13:32.884)
No, deporter. No, deporter in chief or what?

Shawn (13:40.664)
So he, and it was based in racism, obviously, yeah.

Matt (13:44.363)
The immigration policies, even under the Obama administration, were based in racism, sure.

Shawn (13:48.408)
So you're saying that Barack Obama was a racist president because he deported more people than any other president of all time. How is he not? If he deported more people, if he was the most stringent person on immigration,

Matt (13:53.386)
No, no, that's not what I said. Those aren't the same things. Those are equivalent statements.

Matt (14:05.166)
political pressure, political expediency, the way that he chose to enforce the border, the negotiations he had to make with Republicans and members of his own party. So the policies were racist in their origin and intent and purpose. Well, so when you say the fact that Obama decided to enforce those policies, that doesn't make him racist because he chooses to enforce policies that he's...

Shawn (14:16.46)
So was it racism?

Shawn (14:23.384)
I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about, let's just talk about today.

Shawn (14:33.208)
Okay, so then let's get the word racism out of this discussion.

Matt (14:36.98)
You said that the purpose of immigration laws is order and I don't agree with that. The purpose of those laws is racism. That's the purpose of those laws.

Shawn (14:40.79)
And you just said that you just said that.

Shawn (14:46.754)
Well then concede that Barack Obama was racist and don't don't try and make up other motives for his deportations. No.

Matt (14:53.464)
So you're telling me like, if people, if you're saying if a president doesn't do some kind of like civil disobedience and refuse to enforce laws, that he's automatically inherently racist because he's enforcing laws that have a racial basis in them.

Shawn (15:08.854)
No, I'm saying that I don't think you're right to say that when Barack Obama looked at his no, when he looked at his policies for for immigration and illegal immigration and decided to deport millions and millions of people, I don't think racism had anything to do with it, despite what 100 years ago someone's motive was in putting a law in place. All I'm saying is I do think that he looked at the situation and said, we don't it's better for us to have order.

Matt (15:15.212)
You're the one that said that!

Shawn (15:38.21)
than to have confusion and chaos.

Matt (15:39.872)
No. Did we have more order because he was deporting people? Did that somehow create order in American society? Did that somehow reduce the number of people coming to the border and seeking asylum? No, no, no, no. His deportations did not reduce the number of people coming into the country.

Shawn (15:51.426)
Yes did. Yes it did. Yes it did.

Shawn (15:58.658)
Well, not to seek for asylum, that's a different category, but people coming in illegally, it was a deterrent for sure. People coming in undocumented, did, because they were afraid that they would get deported. The numbers.

Matt (16:01.229)
Right.

Matt (16:04.846)
How? You're showing... That's just an assumption you're making.

Melanie (16:09.664)
Do you think maybe we could say that whether it's effective or not, the pursuit of implementation of immigration policies can be motivated by order, sometimes?

Matt (16:19.51)
I do not believe that, no.

Shawn (16:19.544)
I'll give you an example, Matt. I'll give you an example. So Barack Obama decided this is chaotic and there's confusion here. I'm going to implement some order. Then after

Matt (16:30.154)
When did he when did he say that? When did he ever say that? He never ever said that.

Shawn (16:33.63)
when he when he deported millions and millions and millions of people. That's right because what he

Matt (16:37.272)
That was just a policy as part of his administration. He didn't say that the purpose was order, Sean. You're deciding that it was. So now you're making me say that Obama's either a racist or he wanted law and order. I'm saying it was neither of those.

Shawn (16:43.8)
No, no, no.

Melanie (16:47.634)
you

Shawn (16:48.822)
Well, I'm basing it on in my research watching Obama give countless speeches. And when he talks, he would talk along these lines. He would say, it is unfair that our borders are not being enforced and our laws are not being enforced. It is chaotic that people are coming over the border without the proper documentations, not coming through the ports of entry. He was saying it is chaotic and it is confusing. It is not fair and it is time to add some order.

to the process, we need to get it organized, it needs to be clean.

Matt (17:18.382)
And at the same time, he's fighting with Congress trying to get a bill that would grant amnesty to every undocumented immigrant in the United States. Okay, so then you can't say the fact that he's enforcing the law is law and order because he's wanting to change that law to grant them all amnesty. So you can't say that like Obama is Mr. Like I want to enforce the border and I want to keep these people out when he's saying I'm deporting at higher record numbers.

Shawn (17:27.17)
That's fine, I don't- that's fine. Nothing wrong with that!

Shawn (17:39.18)
with his- with his-

Shawn (17:46.658)
Yeah, more than any other president of all time.

Matt (17:47.51)
At the same time, at the same time, I would like to grant amnesty to everyone who's here undocumented. And at the same time, I would like birthright citizenship. would like citizenship for these dreamers. And I would like, I would like the undocumented people who grew up here to get free college tuition paid for by Pell Grant and.

Shawn (17:58.326)
Okay, so he was, so he was.

Okay, maybe he was a terrible negotiator because that doesn't make any sense. My vision is to give amnesty to everyone, yet I'm deporting more than any other president in the history of this country.

Melanie (18:07.177)
you

Matt (18:13.186)
You like it. That's politics, Sean, right? That's politics. You have to play the game. have to play. You have to, you have to please Republican constituents in order to get them on board, to support the policies you want them to support. And by the way, by the way he had, he had a majority, a bipartisan majority that was willing to support exactly the bill that he wanted. But Mitch McConnell refused to bring that up for a vote. So yeah, he, he, it worked. mean,

Shawn (18:16.362)
Not very good. I mean, was, I don't, if that was, if you're.

Shawn (18:25.346)
Did he get amnesia? Did he succeed in his amnesia?

Shawn (18:38.306)
Did he get his amnesty?

Matt (18:41.143)
I'm sorry that Mitch McConnell wouldn't bring it up for a vote, but Barack Obama was trying to do that. No, of course.

Shawn (18:47.202)
Did he get his amnesty? Okay, so maybe he's not racist. Let's not say that, because I don't think either of us think that. Let's say that his ability to be what you say to be a politician failed miserably, because the end result of him trying to get amnesty was deporting more people than ever. Anyway, my point was not to bring up Barack Obama as a debate. The point was to bring up the fact that

Matt (18:54.232)
But the policies were

Matt (19:02.858)
I wouldn't say he failed miserably.

Melanie (19:09.984)
you

Matt (19:10.252)
Shawn (19:14.314)
At times where the border has been in most chaos, usually there comes a president that comes back in to get order. So Biden is an example, right? Biden was trying to implement something. He didn't do very well at it. And the result was chaos and confusion at the border. Now that gives an opportunity for a knucklehead like Trump to come in and say, watch this, we're going to be order. We're going to put an order to this. And that's what they're doing. So my point in bringing this up though, Matt, is this. Scriptures, I found six scriptures where God says order.

is my way, not chaos, not confusion. So I think it's a principled idea to try to have a process at the border that is orderly and not chaotic or confusing. Are we?

Matt (19:58.19)
Do you know what would do that? Maybe the bill that the Democrats tried to get passed about a year ago that would like dramatically increase the number of the number of judges to hear cases on these amnesty cases so that you don't have such a backlog. Like, was it? Yeah. Because, because now, because now we have order, because these policies are creating the order that you'd say is

Shawn (20:04.981)
After

Shawn (20:09.77)
It was too little too late, Yes, because it was four years of chaos!

They. Well, OK, so let's let's get to the crux of my point. So like. To me, we love our neighbor. We invite everyone over. God's principle is there's got to be an order to it, though it cannot be chaotic and confusing. I don't know why you'd fight against that. You don't agree that the border.

Matt (20:36.3)
just don't believe that that's, I have, I don't believe that that has any part to do with the immigration policy in the United States ever. It never has been. I don't think that if, if I asked the question, what would Jesus do? I don't think that Jesus comes in and says, first, let's establish some order. No, in chaotic places,

Shawn (20:43.03)
Okay, should it be, should it be, should it be orderly or should it be confusing and chaotic?

Shawn (20:54.232)
Why not? I'm showing you in scripture. I can read them if you want. He constantly is talking about, every house that you set up, whether it be spiritual, physical, governmental, it needs to be a house of order. There needs to be an order to it that takes away from, that's the pattern, Matt. He looks at matter unorganized.

Matt (21:11.244)
No, no, he's talking, he's talking about organizing, he's talking about organizing his church. He's talking about organizing his kingdom. When Jesus is in a, when Jesus is in a very chaotic revolutionary time in the Roman empire, he's not going around saying, let's establish some rules here. Let's make sure there's some order here. Let's make sure that everybody's following the rules. That wasn't what Jesus's message.

Shawn (21:19.257)
yeah, every house.

Shawn (21:33.482)
You're talking, well, when he was, no, but that was part of his message because a lot, again, I can find, can back you up and find six or seven scriptures that talk about mine is a house of order. So when I create the, when he created the universe, it was chaos. The elements were in chaos and he ordered them. And that's what his intention is.

Melanie (21:51.507)
But then again, I think we can look at when he cleansed the temple, right? And he went in and he said, this is a flawed, broken system that's not representing what I stand for. And in that case, I will wreak havoc if that's what I need to make sure that my father's laws are respected and loved.

Matt (22:07.374)
All right, Sean, we got your four principles. Melanie, what would Jesus do?

Melanie (22:11.54)
Hey, I just said he cleansed the temple. That's my that. That's my that's what Jesus would do.

Matt (22:13.686)
I know.

Shawn (22:15.96)
Cleanse it up.

Matt (22:16.206)
What does cleanse the temple look like in terms of immigration in the United States today?

Melanie (22:21.106)
I think Jesus would let everyone in. the way I see him and understand him.

Matt (22:23.776)
I think so. I'm-

Shawn (22:24.984)
in a chaotic and racist way or in an orderly and loving way?

Matt (22:30.328)
Sean Sean

Melanie (22:32.232)
I think he would work towards order, but I think his first priority would be keeping families together at the border and giving them a place where they could be happy and grow and progress.

Shawn (22:38.562)
because that's a principle.

Matt (22:40.526)
I'll tell you this.

Shawn (22:42.104)
Okay, so let me ask you a question about that. Hang on, let me ask you a question about that, Melanie. Okay, so if I'm trying to judge now from my own point of view on these four principles, here's where I look at a situa, I take, now I take anecdotal situations, right? Let's say you've got a family, let's say from Mexico. Let's say they've been here for seven years, they have a child here, right? So that child now is natural born in the US. Let's say Trump decides in order to implement some order or whatever his motives are, maybe he's a racist, we gotta get that.

that illegal family out, that undocumented family out. But now you've got this dilemma, right? So now I gotta look at it and go, okay, if the laws are malum in se, or malum prohibitum, if they're malum prohibitum, in other words, it's not like these laws are so righteous and moral that we have to live by them. They are just a way to establish some order and some rules. And then I look at the principle that families probably shouldn't be separated if you look at every doctrine from the family proclamation, from God's commandments.

They shouldn't be separated. So now what do you do, Melanie? What in that situation do you do?

Melanie (23:45.66)
Why are we so concerned with getting them out?

Matt (23:48.259)
Right, that's right. There's no reason. There's no reason to make the

Shawn (23:49.002)
I'm not, no, no, no, no, no, hang on, hang on, hang hang on. Matt gave the law, right, let's say a judge, because that's what the law is, Matt. You said the order in the law is the judge decides, yeah, that family needs to leave. Okay, that's the, now, now, now it's not our decision whether they're having to leave or not. Now that family has a decision. Do I leave my child here or do I keep him with me and leave? Is that not the decision?

Melanie (23:50.101)
you

Matt (23:58.286)
Yeah.

Matt (24:01.688)
Okay.

Matt (24:10.67)
I would imagine in that case that that information would be presented to the judge and immigration hearing. And then I would just trust the legal proceeding on that. That's actually not why people are separated. Families were separated because in the Trump administration, they made a choice to separate children from their parents when they came here seeking asylum. There is no judge out there that's ordering a family of parents to leave and saying, sorry, your children are going to have to stay here. Or there's no

Shawn (24:32.204)
They can, yeah they can.

Shawn (24:38.328)
No, I know, but they have a choice of what I'm saying. You know, I, I, I agree. Yeah, I agree.

Matt (24:40.844)
Yeah, but I just what would Jesus do? Jesus would not be the judge that split up the family. That's really simple.

Shawn (24:45.75)
No, I know, but no, I know. in a law that isn't Malam and say that says now we've got a choice, a judge has made his arbitrary decision that this family has to leave.

Matt (24:55.231)
You have to follow the judge. Why wouldn't you just follow the judge?

Shawn (24:58.422)
So then that family has a decision then to leave their child or to keep them together.

Matt (25:01.818)
now, now, I see. You're asking me what the family should do if they should follow the law?

Shawn (25:06.136)
Well, of course, because if because of course, if the law is well, no, the law doesn't say you have to bring your kid with you. The law says you got to leave.

Matt (25:15.138)
Well, Sean, what would you you're to leave your kid behind?

Shawn (25:17.504)
No, I would not. So I think the right, so I think the righteous thing to do would be to take your kid, right?

Matt (25:22.55)
Of course. Well, I don't know. It depends on where I have to go to. There are some war torn terrible places in this world that as much as I wouldn't want to, I probably wouldn't bring my children home to those if I had to go there. no, I would allow families to make that decision for themselves. But I would say that in all instances, what Jesus would do, it's really interesting to me, Sean, that conservatives who say I love the constitution, divinely inspired constitution,

Shawn (25:28.706)
that you can't... I see.

Shawn (25:34.678)
So in some cases, you would separate the family.

Shawn (25:39.863)
I agree.

Matt (25:50.668)
Let's revere the founders and the system they set up. For some reason, when it comes to immigration, they don't care what the founders had to say on this subject. They don't care what the founders did. They don't even pay any attention to the constitution. The founders, when they're writing the constitution, they use the word citizen to refer to every single person who lives in the United States. And they don't make a distinction between you have citizenship and you don't have citizenship. And the founders,

Shawn (26:10.808)
Yeah, I know, but then...

Shawn (26:16.908)
Constitution but the Constitution does it was amended to

Matt (26:19.968)
No, the constitution does not. The constitution where it says the word citizen means any person living in the United States except for black people because they didn't think the black people were people. No, it wasn't. It was changed by racist people. Yes, I know. And then let's just stick with the founders and go all the way to the civil war. Are there any immigration laws in the United States prior to the civil war in the United States? The answer is no, no immigration laws at all.

Melanie (26:28.382)
you

Shawn (26:29.89)
But that was but that was also changed here. What was it? Amendment?

Matt (26:49.282)
then go after the civil war and reconstruction all the way up until the late 1800s, no immigration laws in the United States. So I say, since I believe in a divinely inspired constitution and I say, what would Jesus do? I say, Jesus would do what the founders did and there would be no immigration laws and there would be no division between citizen, non-citizen, a person who lives in the United States gets all of the rights and privileges of any other person who lives in the United States. And they also have the obligations that go along with that.

Shawn (27:15.648)
Yeah, that's I don't think just because you're interpreting the early opinions of founders doesn't mean that those are principled ideas, right? Like you look at the 14th Amendment and it is and it grants citizenship to all people born or who are naturalized. Those two things.

Matt (27:30.552)
They only have to put that, that is about African-Americans. That's why the 14th amendment comes in. again, 14th amendment is after the civil war, before the civil war, they don't even have to think about that.

Shawn (27:36.692)
It applies to everybody, it just apply to African Americans.

It doesn't matter. Today's law...

It doesn't matter today's law today's law because of the 14th Amendment says if you define what a citizen is, it is either being granted because of being natural born or being naturalized through whatever whatever Malamand say process gets established.

Matt (27:51.369)
I'm saying what would Jesus

Matt (27:56.514)
Yes.

Yes, Sean.

No, no, this would be Malam, whatever racism is because, because, because racists in the South decided to create different classes of citizen, citizen, non-citizen. Jesus doesn't do that. Jesus doesn't divide. Jesus doesn't split people up. He doesn't say these people get these rights and benefits and these people don't. Everybody is the same. So

Shawn (28:05.132)
Prohibit them. mal and prohibit them.

Melanie (28:06.613)
you

Shawn (28:24.248)
So when you say you believe the Constitution was divinely inspired, you don't believe that the 14th Amendment was, is that right?

Matt (28:30.968)
The I'm what I'm saying is the 14th Amendment came after the Civil War. And so if we go, now I have to say that every amendment was divinely inspired on definitely not go there, Sean.

Shawn (28:34.24)
Yeah, is it part of the divinely inspired constitution?

Melanie (28:41.056)
Thank

Shawn (28:42.324)
No, I'm asking you, honestly, do you believe that the 14th Amendment is a divinely inspired part of the Constitution?

Matt (28:45.934)
I believe that the 14th amendment was an important step in the nation becoming more equal. But as it, as it relates, but the 14th amendment doesn't really even relate to immigration, right? It doesn't really, it doesn't.

Shawn (29:00.12)
sure it does. It does because it's it establishes who is and who is not a citizen. So if you're not a citizen.

Matt (29:05.836)
really? So what immigration laws were there after the 14th Amendment?

Shawn (29:09.59)
I'm not saying laws, I'm saying they many law exactly the 14th Amendment says we're going to define who is a citizen and who is not and how how you become a citizen and then after that, come and get implemented that talk about well, how do we treat people who aren't natural born or and what is the process of becoming naturalized?

Matt (29:19.136)
No no no no no no no no no no

Matt (29:27.406)
Okay, we spent too long on this topic. Melanie, I'm giving you the points because your bit was short and sweet and I think you were right. That's what Jesus would do.

Melanie (29:31.147)
Yeah

Shawn (29:36.12)
Well, you didn't give me a chance to answer, so I'm not sure what is your answer.

Melanie (29:46.048)
I just think he would let people in because he lets everyone in.

Shawn (29:48.465)
gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Gotcha. that was dissatisfying.

Matt (29:51.181)
Alright, Sean you're up.

Matt (29:55.576)
Sean that was 30 minutes, 30 minutes on that. I'm sorry it wasn't.

Shawn (29:57.752)
Maybe it's because you took your stance that was pretty tangent based.

Matt (30:04.362)
Okay, you gotta move on.

Melanie (30:05.202)
I think my dad just started fighting before you even got to your question.

Shawn (30:08.63)
Yeah, you didn't even let me finish my questions. All right, well, this one's going to go quick because a guy named David from, argues that this is about COVID-19 and the current state of our health. Yeah, Right, so what his report is saying, he says that the pandemic made many people lose trust in scientists and government leaders.

Matt (30:11.31)
All right, next topic.

Melanie (30:12.678)
Hahaha

Matt (30:22.734)
Cause we're at the five year anniversary of the pandemic.

Melanie (30:25.622)
gosh dang.

Shawn (30:35.34)
because health advice kept changing and some rules seemed unfair or it was politically motivated. People started doubting doctors and looking for answers on social media instead, especially when health recommendations didn't match what their favorite politicians were saying, right? People took sides. So now five years later, the distress is still strong. So many Americans now question vaccines and other health advice that anti-vaccine leaders have been chosen and they've been chosen to lead our government, right? You had anyone in mind there, Matt? You got any people in mind?

Matt (30:59.864)
Mm-hmm.

Melanie (31:01.78)
Thank

Matt (31:02.356)
RFK Jr. is definitely anti-vaccine. The head of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Shawn (31:04.682)
who? What?

Melanie (31:08.522)
Thanks.

Shawn (31:08.684)
So that's not actually a true statement that he's anti-vaccine. That's a dumb statement. He's not, he's not. Well, it's true.

Matt (31:12.654)
okay. I hate like brushing with such a broad brush somebody who has spent most of their life talking about the link between vaccines and autism, which doesn't actually exist.

Shawn (31:25.688)
Well, so look, later on, could represent him if you'd like. But the Pew Research study found that there are three quarters of Americans believe that COVID-19 pandemic drove the country further apart, that the response to it. While most Americans have moved on from the pandemic, majority believe it's no longer a major threat. Stark partisan divides persist regarding its impact on the appropriate response. So Republicans are more likely to downplay the virus of severity and criticize all the restrictions and the responses while the Democrats

Matt (31:30.798)
Hahahaha

Shawn (31:55.146)
express greater concern about its ongoing effects in the need for precautions. So the question is this, do we think David Frum is correct? Are these partisan divides caused by, was it all political and by political leaders or is there something else?

Matt (32:09.474)
What do you say, Melanie?

Melanie (32:11.776)
I say I think that these divides existed before the COVID-19 pandemic, and I think they may have been accentuated by that, but I think there's definitely another cause as well.

Matt (32:23.062)
Yeah, I actually saw sometimes during the pandemic where Trump would try to say something like you should get vaccinated and the crowd would boo at him. So I don't think that people were just following what their political leaders were saying. I think political leaders were following the crowd more than the other way around.

Shawn (32:42.807)
interesting. So what do you think is the reason then?

Matt (32:44.248)
Yeah.

Like I think that someone like you, Sean, is skeptical of government and science generally. You're probably skeptical of a lot of things. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so I think that people that are skeptical that spills over into how they process information about something where nobody really knows the answer, right?

Shawn (32:55.414)
I'm skeptical of religion, government, science, your stance on immigration.

Matt (33:13.046)
When the pandemic starts, nobody really knows how severe it's going to be, how contagious it's going to be. When the vaccines are first rolled out, nobody knows is one vaccine going to stop the spread? Should I get the vaccine? Is the vaccine safe? And so in these environments that I would call low information, but high risk people default to sort of like their, cause you can't use reason to get you through it. So you default to sort of your affective responses and

some people just see things differently. And so the pandemic just sort of like accentuated that because it was high risk, at least it appeared to be for a long time and there was not a lot of good information. And so how do you make a really important decision when there's not a lot of good science? And so I think people made their sort of initial responses and then as new information came out, it just reinforced whatever that initial response was. And that changed the way that they process that information.

So I think Sean, I don't know where you stood on the vaccine, but I think I would guess initially you were not excited about going and getting vaccinated by something that was not tested and FDA approved. And I would imagine over time as new information came out, it didn't make you be like, yeah, I've changed my mind. Like, of course, this is super good for everybody to do this.

Shawn (34:32.148)
Yeah, I mean, of course. But are you so you do you think that most people then are skeptical like I am and this is what's caused the

Matt (34:34.092)
Yeah.

Matt (34:37.836)
No, no, no, no, no. No, there's a whole other group of people that their biggest concern, and I actually think Levi, our cohost is this way. His biggest concern is preventing harm and stopping people from experiencing harm. And so if there is a slight risk that something terrible is going to happen to a small group of people, but there's an enormous risk for good and stopping harm for a greater number of people, then I think that there are people that are inclined to

Shawn (35:07.178)
go with it. Just to confirm that thought right there in my studies. 270 million people got vaccinated and 13,000 people have applied for a vaccine injury compensation claim. Did you know that? This Harvard study just... This Harvard study, did you read this Harvard study that just came out? It just came out and it basically...

Matt (35:07.372)
take that approach. Yeah, so

Melanie (35:28.192)
Mm-mm.

Matt (35:28.718)
That doesn't surprise me at all.

Melanie (35:31.412)
Hehehe.

Shawn (35:36.504)
lays out, it validates these 13,000 people because there really are. So the article that came out basically saying, look, Yale has done a study, it validates that there was injury, 13,000 people, these are real injuries. And they go in depth of what the injuries are and what the side effects are. And so they're basically messages, look, yes, it's 0.005 % are the people that got injured.

So it's not very, it's just a teeny amount. However, that's 13,000 people. We need to be not so, not so.

Matt (36:10.766)
How many millions died from COVID in the United States?

Shawn (36:15.65)
No, no, no, but their point.

Melanie (36:15.904)
I just Googled it and it says 111 million died.

Shawn (36:19.5)
Yeah. Yeah.

Matt (36:20.886)
Well, globally, that has to be globally. Yeah, because that would be like a third of our-

Melanie (36:23.21)
I'm looking, yeah. One million died. 111 million cases, my bad. A million died.

Matt (36:28.634)
a million died, right? Right. So then there, are other people that would say, Sean, you're talking about 13,000 injuries versus a million deaths. Of course we do what we need to do to prevent the million deaths. Cause that's, I don't know that that's my stance. I actually trust science. So my position on the vaccine always was I trust the science on this. I saw the, the rapid pace of the vaccine and I saw that

Shawn (36:41.11)
Yeah, that's your stand. I was just supporting your claim.

Matt (36:57.774)
They were using this new messenger RNA technology and the science to me was both exciting and compelling. So my wife chose to not get the mRNA vaccine because she didn't like the way that that vaccine was produced. So she did the Johnson and Johnson one and I think she only ever did one dose. And honestly, I think she probably could have not done anything because she's the only person I know, oh wait, and her dad, the only people I know who never ever got COVID.

Shawn (37:24.024)
Okay, let me ask you about that. Let me ask you about that, though. You said trust the science. The government based on what their scientists were saying was everyone needs to get vaccinated. Everyone needs to wear masks, everyone. But you just said, I don't think my wife would have needed to do that. So that's not trusting the science.

Matt (37:33.142)
Yeah. Yeah.

Right. But I still just follow this. Sure. I follow the science on that. I wore masks. I got vaccinated as soon as I could. And actually getting vaccinated made me really sick. I was sick for a long time after I got the vaccine, but whatever, right? I'm gonna just follow the science on it. Like I don't care.

Shawn (37:52.824)
So when but but your conclusion that your wife doesn't ever get sick and maybe doesn't need the vaccine, you still say, well, I'm to trust instead of her genetics, I'm going to trust the scientists in the government and have her get vaccinated.

Matt (38:07.074)
Well, I let my wife make her own decision, right? I didn't ever pressure her to do anything, so...

Shawn (38:11.596)
Melanie, did he pressure you and her?

Melanie (38:13.6)
I was at college, but I want to chime in with something else. I feel like something I noticed happening during the COVID pandemic is you had this thing coming from these scientific officials that most people didn't understand, right? Like my dad, sure, he followed the science, but like, can you actually tell me much about why an mRNA vaccine works?

Shawn (38:15.158)
Okay, Yes.

Matt (38:32.833)
I could have at the time, but not anymore. Cause I forgot it. But yeah, there was this, Nova, one of my favorite shows had an episode all about messenger RNA vaccines and it came out before the pandemic. And so there was like this, I forget the name of the company that, anyhow. So I knew a lot about that science at that time.

Melanie (38:35.902)
Yeah.

you

Melanie (38:51.832)
Yeah, but like this is kind of beside the point because I feel like people have two reactions when they're given science that they don't understand, right? You have people kind of like me or my dad who say, I don't really understand this, but I trust the people who are telling me this information because that's what I did, right? I was like, I don't know how mRNA vaccines work, but I trust the people who are telling me this. So I'll get a vaccine because I want to help people. And then you have the individuals who say,

I don't trust this, so I'm going to rely on what I understand and pursue my own understanding instead. And so I think the people who were willing to trust the science got vaccinated and they were like, I trust the science. And the people who didn't, like didn't get vaccinated and they stood by that no matter how much other information they were given.

Shawn (39:36.216)
And my stance would be, don't be judgmental of either of those groups. I like the way you framed it all, Matt. This is an unknown territory. This is a complicated, nuanced thing. So don't be judgmental of people who are doing their best to make their decisions. That's part of what causes the divide. And you can analyze it on both ends. You can say, there's always a price to pay for all those people that got saved.

Melanie (39:42.174)
Right, right.

Matt (39:55.415)
Yeah

Shawn (40:05.484)
You could argue that the impact on children and mental health, the educational damage that was done, there's all kinds of externalities that come off of it. And so you can include those in all our discussions. I think the key point here is that the latter day lens would be people are doing their best, don't judge them.

Matt (40:25.314)
Alright Sean, you get my points. I give you the points, Sean. that's gotta feel good, Sean. Alright, Melanie, you're up.

Melanie (40:25.896)
Amen.

I give you the points too. I like that. I like that a lot.

Shawn (40:33.841)
Melanie (40:36.168)
Okay, so my question stems from comments President Trump has made this week about Ukraine. So this week, Trump and Putin met in Saudi Arabia for peace talks, right? And they did not invite President Zelensky to these talks. And understandably, President Zelensky expressed some frustration and President Trump did not respond kindly to President Zelensky's complaints.

Shawn (40:43.543)
Mmm... UGH!

Melanie (41:01.832)
In President Trump's responses to Zelensky, he made a couple claims that are... As I read them, yeah, blatantly false. Among these claims, he said that President Zelensky had an approval rating of 4%, which is not true. Zelensky's approval rating is somewhere in the 50s. President Trump also claimed that the lack of recent elections kind of indicates that Zelensky may or may not be a dictator.

Matt (41:07.864)
Blatantly false. Blatantly false.

Melanie (41:28.608)
I'm inclined to say that Zelensky is not a dictator and the lack of elections is more inclined to the fact that they're in the middle of a war and martial law is a thing. And finally, Trump claimed that Ukraine started the war with Russia, which is demonstrably untrue. Russia invaded first. So as I was reading these, I felt that the factually inaccurate nature of these claims raises some questions about the duties of a leader to the people he leads.

Is a leader obligated to provide his people with truth? Is he obligated to avoid deception? In what situations are these obligations waived? Are there situations in which a leader can lie? And what should we do when we discover that our leader is misleading us? So those were the things I wanted to discuss.

Matt (42:11.639)
Mm-hmm.

Shawn (42:11.764)
good question. Good question, Melanie.

Matt (42:15.51)
Well, Sean made me watch this movie last night called doubt. And I just have to say it's a long and tedious and slow movie, but it does bring up interesting, moral dilemmas at the end of the movie. one of the, there's like a nun who thinks that a priest has abused sexually abused a kid. And so she's on the, she's trying to take this priest down. And at the end, she lies to the priest and tells him,

Shawn (42:20.403)
What?

them.

You

Matt (42:43.672)
that she's done something that she hasn't actually done. And the way that the priest behaves in response to that lie makes her conclude that she was right after all, because if, if, if he hadn't done something wrong, he wouldn't have responded the way that she did when he, when she presented this information to him. And my position on this was what I said to my wife was you cannot use the means of the devil to get at truth because

The ends never justify the means to get there. So if the only way you think that you can get at truth is to lie, then you just have to accept the fact that you're not going to ever get at the truth because lying is not going to get you to the truth. in answer to your question, is there a situation in which a political leader is justified in lying? The answer is no. Is there a situation in which any person on this planet

is justified in lying, the answer is no. We are always supposed to be people of integrity under any situation. And if somebody asks you a question and you feel like the truth is not the appropriate answer in that situation, then the appropriate answer is to say, I don't want to answer that question or I declined to answer that question. It's never appropriate to say something that's untrue or misleading or deceiving. And particularly political leaders,

Polls out recently show that Donald Trump's approval rating is declining and distrust in him is on the increase. So think right now it's something like 65 % of Americans say that Donald Trump is not a trustworthy person. That means that there are 45 % of Americans that don't say that. And there is somewhere in the like 20 to 30 % that really, really believe Donald Trump and think that he's a trustworthy person.

So if you choose to occupy a position of trust, you have even more of an obligation to be an individual of integrity at all times. Because as we were just discussing with the pandemic, sometimes people live in low information spaces and all they know how to do for information is rely on people they trust. So if you choose to put yourself in a position of trust, you choose to take upon yourself the obligation of being trustworthy at all times.

Shawn (45:04.12)
Interesting.

Melanie (45:04.49)
So I want to raise another question though, because I think in my mind propaganda and outright lies are not necessarily the same thing, right? But every once in a while you'll have a national cause or a question of national security, right? Where the people leading the nation definitely stretch the truth, even if it's not an outright lie, right? So how do you...

Shawn (45:12.376)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (45:25.332)
Always, always wrong. We.

Shawn (45:27.705)
Shut up and let her talk.

Melanie (45:27.962)
Always, always wrong. What about national secrets, right?

Matt (45:32.586)
national secrets, like you don't have to share them, right? You just say that's classified. You never have to share a national secret.

Melanie (45:38.783)
Okay, dad, do you remember when I was growing up, you would ask me questions and sometimes I wouldn't want to tell you the answer, right? And so you'd ask me a question and I'd say no. And then you'd ask me another one and I'd say no. And then you'd ask me another question and I'd say maybe. And then because I said maybe you'd be like, that's the yes. That's the answer I'm looking for that she didn't want to give to me. And eventually I wised up. Eventually I was like, I've got to just always say maybe. But because like,

Matt (45:46.017)
Yes, yes.

Shawn (45:58.584)
Manipulation.

Matt (45:59.24)
Well

Melanie (46:08.286)
because of how my answers were delivered, because I wasn't willing to straight up lie, you were able to find the thing I didn't want to tell you. Do you ever think like national officials might run into those sorts of situations?

Shawn (46:17.72)
Great point. Great point.

Matt (46:19.982)
they have what kinds of staff like they could hire an unlimited number of speech writers and unlimited number of PR people to help them get out of those situations. Also, Donald Trump is under no obligation to have a press conference. Every time he looks at a mirror or every time he does, he chooses to talk and talk and talk and talk. So he could exercise his rights under the constitution to just be quiet. He doesn't have to keep saying things all of the time. So

Melanie (46:37.534)
You

Matt (46:49.206)
I think that it's wise for people to learn that there's a time to speak and a time to be quiet. And if you, if, people, like journalists or whatever, or like catching onto your mannerisms, which by the way, everyone has figured Donald Trump out. If they're starting to do that, then you can just say, I'm not going to talk anymore or let my lawyer answer that question for you. He's actually really good at that when it comes to things that'll get him in legal trouble. Not actually because he does get into more legal trouble than, but in court,

Shawn (47:14.668)
What?

Matt (47:18.412)
Like you watch all like Trump will come out all fiery. Like I didn't do anything wrong and lie and lie and lie. And then it's time for deposition. And suddenly, suddenly he's like, I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. Like when he's under oath in court where it could cost him money, he does a better job of keeping quiet, but no, it's never okay to lie. Sean, is it okay to lie?

Melanie (47:27.36)
you

Shawn (47:38.68)
Matt, if you were in a situation where, I don't know, your family was, life was threatened and the only requirement that you, if you could save them, if you told a lie, you're saying you wouldn't lie? Or would you lie in the

Matt (47:39.832)
Okay.

Matt (47:46.008)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (47:50.318)
Mhm.

I would do what is right and let the consequence follow, Sean. But yeah, of course.

Shawn (47:55.756)
Really? you have to do is say, I don't know what, I've left the Mormon church and they would leave your family alone.

Melanie (47:56.614)
Ouch. Ouch.

Matt (48:04.396)
What would Sean Sean, what would Jesus do? What would Jesus do? I am. I will be forever and eternally grateful to Jesus that he never ever sinned, and I guarantee there were situations where there was temptations or whatever that suggested Jesus just sin in this particular instance and it'll make things better. But if he had done it even one time, then he can't fulfill his mission as savior of the world. So if Jesus can live a perfect life, I don't think it's too much that he asks us.

to follow the commandments as best we can.

Shawn (48:35.928)
Yeah, as best we can. Yeah. But I think there's also wisdom in a situation where maybe the... No, there's

Matt (48:41.484)
You there's wisdom in lying? You find me that scripture, Sean. You find me that one. What did?

Melanie (48:44.958)
What about Nephi and Laban? Nephi didn't explicitly tell Zoram he was Laban, but he did talk to him as if he were Laban, which is deceit. Yeah.

Matt (48:53.614)
And he also killed somebody. So now what I'm hearing from Melanie is slippery slope. The spirit tells you to slay him. And now Nephi goes on justifying all kinds of bad behavior because he's already killed somebody. And after that, what was so bad about lying to his servant in this particular situation.

Shawn (48:55.052)
He also, and he also killed someone, which did Jesus ever kill anyone, Matt?

Shawn (49:07.608)
Ciao!

Shawn (49:14.134)
Matt, I don't believe you for one second that if you were faced with a situation to save your family or tell a white lie, I don't believe you for one second that you wouldn't feel the spirit justifying you in doing what it did for Nephi, right? God's will.

Melanie (49:27.25)
Has he told you about his favorite movie where these converts are silence? Where you have these Christian missionaries? He can describe it better than I can.

Matt (49:31.534)
Silence. Silence.

Shawn (49:35.453)
yeah. yeah. That's right. That's right. You do love that movie.

Matt (49:37.366)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I love that. Sean, you asked the wrong question.

Melanie (49:40.456)
We should deliver the punchline for our listeners so they know what happened.

Shawn (49:41.601)
I didn't ask any question.

Matt (49:44.14)
What's the point? how does they lie, right? They deny the Christ to save people's lives.

Shawn (49:49.558)
Yeah, and you admired that about them.

Matt (49:53.066)
No, I did not admire that about them. You're asking the wrong question, Sean. The question is, if you were in a, yeah, you asked me this situation of like, if your family was gonna die, would you tell a lie? The right question is, if you're in a social gathering and you could tell a story that's untrue about your family and it would make people laugh, would you be untruthful for the sake of a joke? And the answer is every single time I would choose to do that.

Shawn (49:54.943)
so you're going back on what you're saying. Now what? I didn't ask a question.

Melanie (49:59.617)
you

Shawn (50:01.632)
What's the right question?

Melanie (50:10.651)
You

Shawn (50:13.144)
that's a good point. That's a good point. I've seen you do that many times. That's a great point.

Matt (50:20.428)
The life of my family, who cares, but a punchline? Sometimes you gotta be a little bit dishonest to make the punchline work.

Shawn (50:28.687)
Melanie, wonder if in fact, Trump is smarter than Matt thinks he is and is actually everything he says is calculated to posture himself for a negotiation. I wonder, I wonder, I wonder. I'm not justifying it. I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm playing full time.

Matt (50:40.684)
What, what good does it do? Spouting Russian propaganda. geez. You're wondering, you're wondering if there was, I wonder if maybe there's some advantage in negotiations. If I just repeat everything that Putin said in that meeting as if it's true. I wonder.

Melanie (50:58.012)
I want to hear the question. I want to hear the position.

Shawn (51:00.44)
Yes, sit on your mouth for a minute, Matt. Like for example, when Trump says to Zelensky, hey, you're going to give us X amount of precious metals or materials from your company or from your country in exchange for us continuing to help you. It's like, what are you doing, dude? Like, why are you making everything so transactional? That's what I would accuse him of is, is just because he's the businessman that he is or whatever.

Matt (51:01.097)
sorry.

Melanie (51:03.872)
You

Matt (51:04.494)
you

Shawn (51:27.99)
He seems to look at life that everything is transactional. And I think that sometimes justifies him in his own mind to be dishonest, none of which is good. No, no, no, no, no.

Matt (51:37.518)
Sean, Sean, that's really, that's really harsh on business people. I don't think business people would appreciate you characterizing them that way. I don't think that business people see everything as transactional.

Shawn (51:48.01)
I didn't. Hey, need to take less caffeine for this podcast because you're talking to me. Listen, I didn't say that business people are all transactional. said Trump views his relationships I think as transactional. For example, what he did was Zelinsky. And I think he really does.

Matt (51:54.166)
No, no, I'm just- okay.

Matt (52:04.694)
You said you said because of his business background.

Shawn (52:08.28)
No, I didn't say that. said, because he considers himself a business person, that's his identity. So I'm just saying that maybe he does know and is calculated with everything that he does and says, and he's posturing in an sometimes immoral way to negotiate. And that may be what he's doing, or he is just a lying idiot.

Matt (52:13.183)
okay.

Matt (52:25.752)
Do I get the points? Do I get the points?

Shawn (52:28.76)
for filibustering. I'm going to give you the points.

Matt (52:30.936)
Okay

Melanie (52:32.32)
I think you just want the points more than either of us do. So I'll give them to you two.

Shawn (52:35.082)
No, for that, no, for that exact reason. No, Melanie, you actually earned the points. like that you questioned, questions Matt's monologue, Matt monologue, and you questioned it with an actually good idea. He wasn't able to see both sides. And so he didn't really debate it, but your idea was good. It was open-minded. It's the Matt Miles that I know. The guy that is open-minded is being personified in.

Matt (52:35.595)
Okay, okay.

Matt (52:40.712)
hahahahah

You

Matt (52:54.121)
hahahahah

Melanie (52:54.944)
Thank you, thank you.

Matt (52:57.9)
Okay, so here's the big question. This is actually far more important than Sean's question about Trump and Putin and negotiation or whatever. Okay. After World War II, many countries created a system to try to keep peace and encourage working together. This system includes includes groups like the United Nations, trade deals, the World Trade Organization, alliances like NATO, which have helped prevent another world war.

Shawn (53:07.17)
Ha

Melanie (53:07.795)
Oof.

Matt (53:26.572)
Organizations like the World Trade Organization have made it easier for countries to trade with each other, which has led to more economic activity and jobs globally. The system also helps spread ideas about human rights and democracy around the world. It played an important role, I would say a crucial role in the fall of the Soviet Union and preventing the spread of communism during the Cold War. For a long time, the United States has been a major player in this international system. However, this wasn't always the case.

At the end of World War II, the United States could have chosen a different path, but we chose this path. And so because we chose to support that system, it has flourished and been a tremendous success over the last 80 years. However, it seems like the U.S. or at least people in the United States are in favor of changing the role of the United States in this system. And my question is, is it a mistake for the United States to begin changing?

this international order that we developed after World War II.

Shawn (54:29.526)
I would say that it's in constant change. It's not like, it's been one set of order until Donald Trump came. think you people tend to make Donald Trump the center of the universe, which is why he's president again. It's your fault. It really is your fault. You guys could have shut up about him. He's a narcissist. If you would have shut up about him three years ago, he would have gone away. Anyway, my point is he's not the center. He's not the center. No, hang let me finish my point and then you can respond. He's not the center of the universe.

Matt (54:37.354)
It has. Okay.

Matt (54:45.494)
I know, listen.

Matt (54:50.033)
jeez. Sean, it's not- I

Melanie (54:52.447)
you

Matt (54:57.216)
okay.

Shawn (54:58.104)
We didn't have a single world order now all of a sudden Donald Trump is screwing up that single world order It changes all the time, right? So to me, I don't think the question is as much about is are we in a stage in life where one President that we don't like is changing the world order. I think the question is more about is it okay to audit? The existing some of the existing systems and and and organizations that we've been put in whether it's within our government or it's in the world stage I think it is okay, and I'm not

displeased with the audit that is going on of both our government and all these organizations that we've been a part of. It's fine. Audit them. Let's decide if they're still relevant. Let's decide if they still function. Let's decide if the arrangements that we've entered into with other countries is being lived up to. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with auditing them. I think that that's a good thing. We should definitely not leave the relationships with

the world. can't just be isolationists. But there's nothing wrong with auditing all of the existing systems. That's what my stance is.

Matt (56:02.936)
But I'm not talking about auditing the systems. Did you hear JD Vance's speech in Europe? Have you heard the things that they're saying at the World Trade Organization? They're not talking about auditing the systems. They're talking about ending United States support for the international order as it has been. ending when the United States says we will no longer support NATO to the extent that we agreed to in treaties. When the United States...

Shawn (56:07.64)
I did,

Shawn (56:25.1)
No, no, no, hang on, hang on, on. NATO, they're saying we are, it's absolutely an audit. They're saying, let's audit to see if we have, have we been true to our obligations and have you been true to your obligations? And they were saying simply, you're not being true to your obligations. You committed to do something you're not doing. So in the audit, we're gonna renegotiate until you do what we have agreed to do.

Matt (56:32.938)
We

Matt (56:46.998)
Okay, when you talk about renegotiating treaties and in the, in exactly in the case of Ukraine, when you choose to violate the treaties that we have in place, when you have the NAFTA, right? The free trade agreement between Canada and Mexico. When you say, we do not care what the previous administrations or the United States has done in the past. We are willing to renegotiate every single thing that we have. Then the net result of that is the world says,

we can no longer trust the United States to meet the obligations that they've made under these existing arrangements. You're wrong, Sean, that these things change all the time. They don't change all the time. We always meet our obligations in these systems. And many times we're the ones that, that's right, but now we're talking about not doing that anymore. And so what I want to focus on Sean is the cost that that has to the global world, like to what the, what effect this has on

Shawn (57:30.678)
We do. Yeah, we do.

Matt (57:43.724)
the way of life that we know as a country, right?

Shawn (57:46.698)
So I just math. go ahead.

Melanie (57:47.647)
And I feel like there's a place and a time for an audit, right? Like if the US, five, 10 years ago had looked at Ukraine and said, hey, we feel like supporting you and standing by you might be a drain on our resources. Let's renegotiate. Versus saying, hey, we know you're stuck in this war that you've been stuck in for three years and you're relying on us a lot and we're sick of it. So we're going to pull our aid. Those are two very different situations because there's one where you say, hey,

Shawn (58:12.248)
Mmm. Good. Well, that's good.

Melanie (58:15.892)
We may have been unwise in this agreement and let's talk about it as equal partners. And then there's one where you say, hey, we know you need us, but we're done.

Matt (58:24.62)
Or in particular, you say Russia is actually losing in Ukraine right now. They have to hire North Koreans to come fight their war for them. Now we're going to give Russia a position of strength in the negotiations and we're going to take their side over the Ukrainian side. But, but the two big points, Sean, why I think that this is a big deal that maybe our listeners haven't thought about the two net results that have come from the world order that existed before, no matter whether you like the United Nations or not, the two things that they did.

Shawn (58:25.613)
Well said.

Matt (58:52.736)
is they stopped the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. So Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons because they believed that we would protect them. If all of those rim countries around Russia no longer believe that the United States is going to hold up its end of treaties and its end of the bargain, you will see nuclear proliferation, not just in Ukraine, but in Poland and in Lithuania and in Latvia, and you'll have nuclear weapons spreading throughout the world. And we will not be able to stop that from happening.

because we've already taken away whatever leverage we might have and stopping that from happening. That's not good. the, when more nuclear weapons are out there, it's easier for people who we don't want to have nuclear weapons to get access to those nuclear weapons. So that's the first one. The second one is the U S dollar has no backing. The only thing that makes the dollar valuable is that it is backed by the full faith and credit of the U S government and the, and United States has been prosperous because the world

trades in US dollars and Putin and China and other countries have been for at least 20 years trying to find an alternative currency to the US dollar. And if you ask me like what is Putin's real end game in Ukraine, the real end game in Ukraine is to get the world to move off of the dollar and move to cryptocurrency because that ends the United States as financial global dominance that we've had. So those two things, the strength of the dollar,

nuclear proliferation or stopping nuclear proliferation, we need both of those things. And so no matter what else we might think about like these like international organizations, we should be grateful for them because they create the way of life that we have.

Shawn (01:00:34.038)
I mean, take those two examples and I 100 % agree with you. Take the other 3000 examples and we're gonna have different opinions. Those two examples, I'm with you, good. But that's not the established world order. You can't use the name, there's an established world order and it has, no, Hang on, but you can't say that, take one anecdotal situation with Ukraine and Russia and say, see, that's it. If that changes, the entire world order changes. There's things like, for example, UNESCO, right?

Matt (01:00:44.033)
okay.

Matt (01:00:49.826)
There is the United Nations, NATO.

Shawn (01:01:03.628)
That's something that is has been part of the world order and then it wasn't. and then it is. and then it wasn't.

Matt (01:01:08.59)
Well, it's funded by the United Nations, right? UNESCO is just this little charitable group funded by the United Nations.

Shawn (01:01:14.838)
Yeah, no, but it has no power unless the United States is involved, really.

Matt (01:01:18.766)
The power is by the way, where is the United Nations headquartered in New York City, right? The United States is the driving force behind international law as we know it. And international law as we know it is what is responsible for the peace and prosperity we've experienced over the last 80 years.

Shawn (01:01:28.962)
Right, so yeah.

Shawn (01:01:34.136)
Right, right. I'm so I'm saying what you're calling the world order isn't as simple as you're making it. It's okay for us to look at existing systems, audit them and decide if they're still relevant. I was watching yesterday C-SPAN. I curse you Matt for turning me on to C-SPAN, but I was watching C-SPAN in this annoying discussion about the PBS and NPR and whether or not those should continue to be funded. And the whole story was

Matt (01:01:58.35)
Mm-hmm.

Shawn (01:02:01.568)
In the fifties before internet, before like national networks, before all these things existed, the government had a nice, it was a nice idea to let's, let's make sure that most people can get access to relevant news from real journalists. And so it put billions and billions of dollars into these two organizations. Well, now they study it and go, that's no longer needed. There's no reason billions of dollars should be put into these two organizations. And so it's okay to audit an existing situation. I by no means am defending.

let's change our commitments to countries and contracts, especially to Ukraine in that situation. Not at all. But it is okay to audit and renegotiate. That's nothing wrong with that.

Matt (01:02:42.092)
I think Sean, would just differentiate between domestic policy, which is the federal government funding PBS or NPR and international policy. Because when it comes to international politics, every time you say, let's renegotiate this or let's take a look at this, there is a risk that things get worse for you. There is a risk that things take a turn dramatically for the worst.

Shawn (01:02:59.688)
Right, thank you, Ness.

But taking a, let's take UNESCO. Trump got out of UNESCO and Biden remained out of UNESCO until the very end. And the reason they did that was a pretty good reason, right? They were funding certain organizations that were known terrorists. And so both of them decided, both Biden and Trump decided, yeah, that's not good. Let's disrupt, let's renegotiate, let's audit it and let's disrupt the world order that you're calling and let's move out of that.

Matt (01:03:28.044)
What I'm talking about of disrupting the world order is we have treaties with Ukraine. We have treaties with China. We have treaties with Canada and Mexico and the Trump administration. And I'm not saying Donald Trump because it's entire administration. Think that it's a good idea to use, to say, we're going to renegotiate our treaties with you as some kind of like a bargaining chip. And that's.

Shawn (01:03:55.256)
That's why I'm calling it an audit. No it is because hang on, hang on, hang on, on. If we made an agreement that you will pay this much for your defense, you European countries, and instead of paying the 5 % they committed, they pay 1%, there's nothing wrong with auditing that and saying, hey, you gotta do what we agreed to. Nothing wrong with that.

Matt (01:04:13.303)
If we make

If we make a treaty with Mexico that says we're going to have free trade with your country and then Trump says we're going to put a 25 % tariff on you unless you move troops to the border and does the same thing with Canada and then starts talking about having Canada be the 51st state as if that's a really funny joke in some way. That's not funny to the rest of the world. That has real world consequences that nations, leaders of other nations take that seriously and in some cases they use it to justify authoritarianism in their own countries.

And in some cases they use that as an opportunity to renegotiate their treaties with us. That hurts the global order. I know you say it doesn't exist, but it exists. There's a global order.

Shawn (01:04:52.502)
No, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. No, I'm not saying it doesn't. What I'm saying is you can't wrap up. It's more nuanced than we think. You would include UNESCO in the world order, but it's it's just one element.

Matt (01:05:02.798)
No, UNESCO is a program funded by the United Nations. Whatever, let the United Nations, that's not the same as a treaty. That's not the same as international law.

Shawn (01:05:07.564)
right

Shawn (01:05:12.504)
Okay, we'll then be more specific. If you're saying, if you were talking about treaties specifically, is that what you're talking about? That wasn't in the question.

Matt (01:05:16.332)
Let's be real specific.

Matt (01:05:20.952)
Treaties is one of them, sure. Another one very specifically is there's an international criminal court that has indicted Putin for war crimes for what he did in Ukraine. And if the United States comes out, which Trump did, Melanie reminded us of, if the United States comes out and says, Ukraine was the aggressor, that is the United States taking a position contrary to the international criminal court. And that undermines those institutions. And when we say we have these arrangements with NATO,

Melanie (01:05:34.858)
Mm-hmm.

Shawn (01:05:43.576)
Yeah, it's horrible. I I agree.

Matt (01:05:50.732)
And we may protect you, we may not protect you when we're treaty bound to protect. When you start talking about, you're calling it an audit, I'm calling that, we're publicly stating that we're not as committed to treaties that we said that we would be committed to that has real world effects. it's...

Shawn (01:06:05.548)
Melanie, what do you say?

Melanie (01:06:07.686)
I think there are different things you can audit, right? And when you look at a treaty or an international agreement, then that is the U S making a commitment and the U S backing out of a commitment just because it's no longer convenient or no longer optimal still feels a little wrong because I think that commitments and treaties and agreements should mean something. And I don't think they should be used as bargaining chips. So.

Shawn (01:06:25.003)
I agree with that.

I do agree with that,

Shawn (01:06:33.09)
No, I agree with that. Totally agree with that. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm to use Matt's words. Melanie, you get the point because you said it in like 30 seconds, whereas Matt took like 10 minutes. Look at how does that feel? How does that feel, Matt? I throw that right back at you.

Matt (01:06:35.544)
Hey, we all agree. This is wonderful. In the end, we all agree.

Melanie (01:06:36.308)
You

Matt (01:06:44.398)
I love it.

Melanie (01:06:45.312)
you

Matt (01:06:49.154)
That feels so good. I think we should have that be the last word. Thanks you guys so much for the wonderful podcast today. Listener, we hope you enjoyed the back and forth. Clearly in this one, there was a lot of disagreement, but no less love than we always have. We hope that you feel that. We'll talk to you again next week.

Melanie (01:07:03.808)
you

Shawn (01:07:06.68)
you