What's up, you beautiful bastards. Hope you had a fantastic Tuesday.
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show, and a quick note before we get started:
If you didn't see, yesterday we posted the Monday Philip DeFranco show.
We kind of expected, given the topics that we were covering that we were going to get hit by Youtube.
Ended up getting hit but what was the other option? Just not talk about those important stories?
So if you missed yesterday's show, and it's a big one, it's one of the top links in the description down below.
You can watch that; but with that said, let's just jump into it.
And the first thing we're gonna talk about is some interesting entertainment and money news that came out today
There's a piece that came out today from Variety where they talked about the salaries of top TV stars
Although "TV" should be in quotes or should just be changed to "series stars",
and I say that because streaming has become such a big part of where people consume series
That's what really stood out to me with this list is digital is throwing a ton of
Money at people which really does make sense for two reasons one
I believe since season 1 of house of cards Netflix proved to the world that the best way to get people to use your
Service isn't licensing but rather really good originals, although with Netflix nowadays. There's a constant conversation about quality versus quantity
they're also two thanks to the rise of so many digital platforms that have
exclusive
content actors have the ability to go into so many places because there is such a big content war going on and there are so
Many different places to go you can ask for more money
So on this list, yes, we do see examples of people getting a ton of money for broadcast television
You have John Goodman Laura Metcalfe Sara Gilbert of the Connors reportedly getting three hundred seventy five thousand per episode unscripted
We see a lot of money getting thrown at the rock Kelly Clarkson Alec Baldwin, Kevin Hart
but also here we see digital gain some ground nor McDonald reportedly getting seventy five thousand per episode Sarah Silverman reportedly getting
225 thousand per episode and then in drama
It gets really interested so much of the money is being thrown at actors and digital random broadcast
It's reported that Stephen Amell is making 125 thousand dollars per episode
And then you look at what Apple is throwing around and it is a wild difference for Glee
They're giving Reese Witherspoon, 1.1 million an episode Jennifer Aniston, 1.1 million an episode Steve Carell
$600,000 in episode Amazon reportedly giving Javier Bardem
1.2 million dollars in episode Elizabeth moss on Handmaid's Tale reportedly getting 1 million in episode and also an important note as some of these
actors are actually making money on top of this one of the examples that cited in this report is Milly Bobby Brown who's listed is
getting
$350,000 per episode and also she's reportedly set to collect additional fees and also thing to keep in mind
is there references all over for example, Dwayne Johnson is listed here at
$450,000 that's reportedly per episode of Titan games and not even what he's been getting paid on baller
well
This story is interesting to me from a standpoint of money and entertainment
specifically series versus movies that and then there's also the digital versus traditional
Media and also the evolution of traditional what I'm left wondering is how long is this viable?
how long is this sustainable for a lot of the companies involved and also with just the range of online services out there that have
Exclusives at what point? Is it economically viable for your everyday person, right?
One of the biggest reasons initially people were excited about cord cutting
it was like
Oh
I get to save money and she was what I actually want and it all adds up if you want to do it legally which
I recommend and I would never say to steal anything
Like if you legally want all the exclusives when this isn't considering the the TV replacement packages like PlayStation View sling TV
YouTube TV
You know that right which even there there are pockets in cover if you look at the other services if you want to do everything
Legally all of a sudden you need to have an account with Netflix and Amazon
and Hulu and now Apple and if you want DC stuff
They have their exclusive service and you got the Disney streaming service that's coming out
that's not even covering the channels that have evolved like HBO whether it be HBO go and
Connection to something else or HBO now even places like Hulu have evolved to the point where it's like you can have your regular
Hulu stuff and then live TV. So I wonder is there enough money?
Is there enough market share?
involved for this to be viable or are you gonna see kind of people tanked but actually on that note if I can pass a
Question off to you with this story. What is the top or to top pay subscription services you use online?
I'll allow you into this conversation. Even if you're just using someone's login, and you're not personally pay and also let me know
Why you gravitated towards those places rather than maybe somewhere else so from that I want to share some stuff
I love today and today in Austin brought to you by seeking and seeking is of course fantastic ticket app that takes confusion out of
Buying tickets for all kinds of live events from concerts to comedy shows to sport
They put all the tickets in one place. They give them 0 to 100 score. So you never getting a good deal or not
And you're so incredibly easy whether you want something kind of a last minute thing. Maybe it's date night
Maybe it's a present or something down the road. You're looking forward to that's a great time to test it out
You have the NFL season the NBA season
They're a ton of fantastic concerts the best of all for you beautiful bastards if you're new
You want to download the app and click the link in the description or go to see geek fill com?
however
You want to do it? Just make sure you use code fill and then we'll give you
$20 off your first ticket purchase and the first bit of awesome today is we got
A brand new bad lip reading around the MLB area Keira Knightley and Mackenzie Foy answering the web's most searched
Questions the official trailer of boy race official trailer of head full of honey
It's ed ed giving us the fascinating history of cemeteries
We had bone Appetit giving us some daily food porn
Then we got the honest trailer for Batman the Animated Series if you want to see the full versions of everything
I just shared the secret link of the day really anything at all
Links is always our in the description down below and then let's talk about one of the sexiest topics of all time ever
Birthright citizenship in connection to this. You also may have heard the term anchor, baby
So today why is everyone talking about birthright citizenship in the new?
Well Axios this morning released a small clip from their new show Axios on HBO and in it
We see this back and forth about birthright citizenship. It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment
Yes, one minute. You don't you don't number one. Number one. You don't need that number two next thing just
As well, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress
But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order now how ridiculous were the only country in the world?
where a
person comes in has a baby and the baby is
Essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous
It's ridiculous and it has to end have you talked about that with counsel? Yeah
So we're in the process in the process. It'll happen and after watching that clip
I just think it's really important to publicly fact check that what the president's describing in the clip about having a baby in a country
And that baby essentially being a citizen is birthright citizenship. What he said is inaccurate
The United States is not the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship
It's not even the only country in North America that has birthright citizenship Canada and Mexico recognize it as well
And in fact almost the entire Western Hemisphere recognizes birthright citizenship, although it is important to know that worldwide is a minority position
It's only around thirty countries that recognize citizenship. That way there are over a hundred ninety countries worldwide
You only include the world's top developed economies a list shrinks to the United States and Canada
You did have places like the UK and Australia recognized it
But they got rid of the practice back in the 80s and most recently you had Ireland and New Zealand get rid of it in
The early 2000 that's just something I wanted to point out since at least in the teaser clip
We don't know what the full looks like
But in the teaser clip Trump kind of says that uncontested with that out of the way, let's head on a few different things
So one of the main issues here is whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment applies to children of illegal and temporary residents like people traveling
On a tourist visa. So first things first can Trump actually do this with an exact
Well, there's debate on this point
But it seems very unlikely
even had conservatives who advocate for curved immigration like ben shapiro saying he doesn't think the president can and there's a nearly
unanimous view that if trump did try to sign an executive order to ban any
birthright citizenship so that it would end up in the Supreme Court and even if Congress changed the rules people are fairly confident that it
Would also end in the Supreme Court there article suggesting the Trump wants to end all birthright citizenship or right now that isn't completely clear
And hasn't been officially confirmed. But with that said we should answer a question that's incredibly important to this situation
How does birthright citizenship in the United States currently work?
Well, it applies to nearly everyone born in the United States and there are tiny exceptions
We're gonna jump into a bit a main point essentially right now
If you are born in the United States regardless of where your parents are from or how they got here
You are a US citizen at birth which brings up the big question does the Constitution explicitly allow for all birthright citizenship
And that's what we're seeing people debate right now with the 14th amendment the 14th amendment reads all persons born or naturalized
In the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
Thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they resigned if you're unfamiliar with 14th amendment
it was passed to give citizenship to people who were born in the United States and who were in citizen ie
It's how ex-slaves and even freed black people were given citizenship where the main debate lies with the 14th amendment is the end
subject of the
Jurisdiction there and this is a debate we've seen for decades and there are two interpretations of this law the mainstream one among legal scholars
is that if you're in the United States even to a temporary or legal resident you are still subject to US laws and police so
You're subject to the jurisdiction thereof and so are many it seems clear
It's like real estate location location location and of those who think that this is obvious you have Omar dois
He's a director of the ACLU immigrant Rights Project
Who said the President cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order and the 14th amendment citizenship guarantee is clear
This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional
Attempt to sow division and fanned the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms
But on the other side of this debate
You have people pointing to that same line
if they argue that it only counts for lawful permanent residents and citizens who owe full political allegiance to the US since they are always
subject to the jurisdiction of the US even when they are abroad so this view is at least partially used by the US government to
Deny citizenship to some people born in the United States. Most notably here
You have the children of diplomats born in the US since they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because of their diplomatic
Status they're denied citizenship
it's also been argued that it was worded this way to prevent children of foreign soldiers born in the United States to be citizen and
Also, unfortunately to prevent Native Americans born on natively within the u.s. To claim US citizenship
That was something that was reaffirmed at an 1884 Supreme Court case
but and then later changed in
1924 when Congress granted citizenship to nearly all Native Americans also on the note of important Supreme Court cases connected to what we're looking at
Today there are two that we can mention the last time this was an issue before the Supreme Court was in
1898 or the United States
became long our case the court found there that Kim was a US citizen despite being born a Chinese immigrants who were in citizens because
The parents were lawful permanent residents of the US, but obviously that's not an exact match to what we're talking about today
And since that case the court has an issued a ruling on whether or not the children of undocumented
Unlawful or even lawful but temporary residents of the u.s. Get citizenship
however
Justice William Brennan touched on this tangentially in 1982 because for a 1982 case he wrote quote. No plausible
distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose
Entry was unlawful also with the situation
It's an interesting thing to know that for the longest time birthright citizenship wasn't a massive issue
But that changed drastically over the course of three decades back in 1980
We saw 30,000 births to us unauthorized immigrants in the United States and that continued to increase until it hit its peak in
2007 with 370 thousand births a year in which the number of these births were actually 9% of all births in the u.s
that number though has declined since the Great Recession and now accounts for only about 7 percent of the births in the United States and
With all that said I do want to bring it back to the main point that a lot of this conversation
Ultimately revolves around can Donald Trump via?
Executive order do this not can it change by other means or should it change should should birthright citizenship come to an end
That's something we saw other Republicans in Congress hit on for example
You had Senator Lindsey Graham who didn't outright say the president can't do this rather praise the president for wanting to take on this
Policy and saying in addition I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines in the proposed executive order from President Trump, right?
So Graham's angle there is glad the president brought this up
I am going to introduce legislation to try and get this through Congress
Right, and if the president could just do this via executive order. Would that be necessary?
But at the same time you had House Speaker Paul Ryan kind of just cut to the point saying well
Obviously you cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order and adding as a conservative
I'm a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution
I think in this case the 14th amendment is pretty clear
And that would involve a very very lengthy constitutional process
But then adding where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting a the issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration
and also I Paul Ryan pointing to the past with President Obama because in the past
Republicans objected to when President Obama tried to issue executive orders on immigration
With all that said where I do want to end this story today is I want to know your opinions on birthright citizenship I ask
That is because the polls
Regarding this topic. They are all over the place and obviously a comment section is not a great way to take a poll
but what I want to see there are the varying opinions and explanations as to the reason what people see as the positives and the
Negatives that sort of thing actually connected to that let's talk about what's happening at our southern border right now
The reason we expressed a drum has talked a lot about the threat of the migrant caravan that we've covered on this show
Slowly heading towards the United States and last week there was talk about deploying active military to the southern border to repeal that group also
Saw president from tweet yesterday many gang members and some very bad people are mixed into the caravan
Heading to our southern border. Please go back
You will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process
This is an invasion of our country and our military is waiting for you and on Monday
We learned that the government will in fact be deploying active military troops to the border reportedly
800 soldiers are already on their way by the end of the week
They're expecting 5,200 active-duty soldiers to be deployed at the borders along the three southern border states and in each state
1200 to 1800 soldiers are estimated to be in those although according to reports
They'll first be deployed to staging areas where the we briefed and trained on their mission and effort that's reportedly being referred to as operation
Faithful Patriot and it's expected to last until mid-december
But with this news there's been a big question as to what role can the military actually play at the border at a press conference
Yesterday general Terrence O'Shaughnessy head of us Northern Command explained that role
Well, thank you commissioner Macklin for the partnership and the opportunity today to speak about how u.s
Northern Command as the operational command for the Department of Defense's forces is
Providing mission enhancing capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security and US Customs and Border Protection
To harden the southern border in a macro sense
Our concept of operations is to flow in our military assets with a priority
To build up southern Texas and then Arizona and then California will reinforce along priority points of entry
So as to enhance
CBP's ability to harden and
Secure the border and so like the general said the military's role here will primarily be a support role. You got military
Engineer groups to reinforce infrastructure along the border of three helicopter companies and four airplane
To help transport Border Patrol or identify crossings medical units military police other support personnel for planning and logistics
With Trump being so hardline about this issue actually sending the military
You might be wondering why the military is not taking a stronger role on
well
There's a law known as passe Comitatus which limits the role of the military in the enforcement of domestic law according to the RAND Corporation
it was first used and federal troops from policing state elections and former Confederate state and immigration enforcement is a domestic law that the military
Cannot enforce and so that's why you're seeing them in this support role. There's that part of the story
But okay, what about the actual care of it? Well yesterday we saw Kevin McAllen and the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection
Say this as of this afternoon, we continue to track a large group of approximately
3,500 traveling through southern Mexico with a stated intent to reach the US border
This group is near the Chiapas Oaxaca border in southern Mexico
So we learned from that as the caravan is essentially halfed from the last time we talked about it where it was
7,000 also based on their location the caravan appears to be a little under a thousand miles away from the southernmost part of the border
Also, michaleen and mentioned that there was another caravan that was reportedly forming along the Mexico Guatemala border
We're also aware of a second large group of migrants at the Ciudad inaudible border crossing between Guatemala and Mexico
Size estimates for the second group are around 3,000 as well
however reports have indicated that some of this group is currently stuck at the border there while several hundred across the river in defiance of
Police there are a couple of considerations here first another Caravan that was widely publicized
Earlier this year ended up making to the California border a lot of the 1500 actually started in southern Mexico
reportedly amounted to around 400 or so requesting asylum second under US and
International law migrants are entitled to apply for asylum regardless of how they cross the border
But on that know there is a huge backup of would-be asylum seekers waiting to apply at legal ports of entry
So I'm have reportedly been waiting for weeks and are waiting in Mexican border towns
Also an interesting thing of note are the reactions and conversations around this situation last night on Fox News
We saw Donald Trump being interviewed by Laura Ingraham and during that they talked about what was happening at the border
What if they're applying for asylum isn't the law because Congress if they applied for asylum?
We're going to hold them until such time as their trial where we have the facility
We're going to put up. We're going to build 10 cities. We're going to put tents up all over the place
We're not going to build structures and spend all of this, you know hundreds of millions of dollars
We're gonna have tents
they're gonna be very nice and they're gonna wait and if they don't get asylum if they get out,
You've also seen Trump's move to send troops to the border being
criticized as a political ploy by many saw Kelly maximun who served on the National
Security Council and in the Pentagon under Bush and Obama saying it's a craven misuse of the US Armed Forces for an obvious political stunt
And I'm surprised defense secretary mattis agreed to a given the range of real national security threats
Our military has to deal with this is not an appropriate use of the military that mattis feels the need to appease the President on
this should be shocking and Congress should have a lot of questions about scott cooper a marine veteran and director of national security outreach for
Human rights first saying I try not to be a cynic but this just smacks of looking for a political advantage during an election
I think that the military
redeploy is probably within the next couple weeks and they will have done very little I'm just kind of scratching my head as to the
need for this
We also saw the Shepard Smith an anchor on Fox News striking a very different tone from many of his colleagues tomorrow
The migrants according to Fox News reporting are more than two months away. If any of them actually come here
But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election
Which is what all of this is about
There is no invasion
No one's coming to get you
There's nothing at all to worry about
When they did this to us got us all riled up in April. Remember the result was 14 arrests
where America we can handle it as far as my personal take away do I think that this is at least in part a
political ploy
Yes immigration is one of the most important topics for voters this year, especially for Republican voters as well as Republican politicians. Just hitting on
immigration even to the point where we saw reports that Donald Trump was annoyed that last week's mail bomb coverage took away from the
Conversation around the caravan given where the current Caravan is and what happened with the last Caravan
I think that Donald Trump is doing this for political points that said it is important to know that he's not the only
president to engage in border operations in 2006
You had Bush deploy
6000 National Guard with 3,500 in the field in 2010 yet Obama deploying 1200 National Guardsmen to the border
But of course even with that at the top level there are differences another thing that comes to mind even even trying to compare this
Situation to things in the past is money according to a 2011
Government accountability and Department of Defense report the combined cause of those two deployments caused 1.35 billion dollars
And so the question pops up here. Well, what's the price tag going to be? But of course it's the pds
That's the story then my person will take away and I pass the question off to you
Well, what do you think about all of this?
Do you agree with Shepard Smith that this is all?
Political move that it's all for the midterms where you have the mindset that this is this is a massive deal and all these moves
They're justified, you know thoughts. I'd love to see in those comments down below and that's what I'm going to end
Today's show but of course remember, it's not just something you'll watch
I'd love for you to join the conversation in those comments down below
I can be on anything whether it be the last story the first one anything in between
I just want to hear from you also while you're at it
If you liked today's video you want to support the show hit that like button if you're new here hit that subscribe button
Make sure you get future episodes
Which actually if you missed the last philip defranco show you can click your tap right there to watch that
Maybe you're in the mood for something different. You can watch a brand new bonus video right here
But with that said, of course as always, my name's philip. Defranco. You've just been phill'd Zin
I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow