Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Professor Pape: "We're In A New Era Of Violent Populism"; Trump Ups Redistricting With Call For New Census; C.A. Gov. Threatens Redistricting Plan Based On What T.X. GOP Decides. Fed Agents In L.A. Conduct A Big Immigration Raid At Home Depot. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired August 09, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:44]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Running for office shouldn't require a flak jacket. I'm Michael Smerconish from the Philly burbs.

On Monday, I spoke at a gathering of the National Conference of State Legislatures. It was in a PAC convention center in Boston. According to the NCSL, it was the largest gathering of elected state legislators ever. The opening session focused on civility in crisis. It was bipartisan, it was moving.

Minnesota's state legislative leaders, Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, a Democrat, and House Leader Lisa DeMuth, a Republican, they spoke in tribute to Speaker Emeritus Lisa Hortman, who was assassinated along with her husband, Mark on June 14. In a separate but related attack, Senator John Hoffman was shot nine times. The attack also left his wife Yvette wounded. In his first public remarks since the shooting, Hoffman spoke to the assembled thousands by videotape. And part of what he said is this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN HOFFMAN (D-MN): Terror in the night isn't legislative reform. It's repulsive. Showing up at somebody's door in the dark pounding, screaming with a gun, impersonating law enforcement is not a strategy for positive change. It's intimidation. It's violence.

And it has no place in a healthy democracy. You know, we can never make sense of the actions of a sociopath, but we can choose to reject it. And we can govern. We can govern, that's what we are elected to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: After the video, I led a fireside chat with Wisconsin House Speaker Robin Vos, focused on the rise of political division in America. When Speaker Vos asked me how we got here, I said we're living in the midst of a mental health crisis, that we've become too fragmented of a society, that the Internet has fueled our disconnect, powered polarization, harmed the well-being of our kids. I cited gerrymandering, self-sorting and the lack of campaign finance reform, among other factors. And I said that we've normalized political violence. I said, what we lack the most today is shared common experience.

And when we finished, on stage walked Gabby Giffords, herself no stranger to political violence. In 2011, she was shot in the head while doing constituent outreach in Arizona. A gunman that day killed six people and wounded 12 others. Not lost on me was that this Boston event occurred one week to the day that a gunman in New York City walked into a prestigious Park Avenue office tower and killed four in cold blood. And two days after this Boston gathering, five army soldiers were injured at Fort Stewart in Georgia by an active duty sergeant.

That we live in dangerous times, that's sad, not a surprise by now. But less obvious is the impact on the willingness of people to serve. Consider this quote, safety shouldn't be a deterrent for people who want to run for elective office. Grechen Shirley said that to Barbara Rodriguez, a reporter for The 19th, that's an independent nonprofit newsroom.

Shirley herself lost a congressional bid in 2018, then helped change federal policy to allow candidates to use campaign funds for child care. And now she's advocating for campaign funds to be used for security measures. This week, the Vote Mama foundation, in which she's involved, released a report documenting the rise in federal candidate security spending. An FEC rule in 2024 opened the door for the reasonable costs of security for federal candidates. Think alarms and alarm lock systems and gates and personnel.

But many states lag behind. North Dakota recently became just the 10th state to allow campaign funds to be spent on candidate safety. Robert Pape is a political scientist at the University of Chicago. He's been studying political violence for three decades. He's going to join me in just a moment.

But in June, he wrote for the "New York Times," and Pape noted that just within the last five years, we've seen two assassination attempts against President Trump, the brutal attack on then Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, an assassination plot against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the January 6th assault on the Capitol, riots after the murder of George Floyd, potentially deadly arson against Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, attacks on Tesla dealerships and the killing of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C. and by the way, that's not a complete list.

[09:05:20]

According to Pape, today's political violence is occurring across the political spectrum and there's a corresponding rise in public support for it on both the right and the left. And the targets of such violence are found at all levels. At Princeton University, the Bridging Divides initiative tracks hostility against local officials in the United States. They maintain a threats and harassment data set. It's a longitudinal event based track data track on the rate, frequency, types and targets of threats and harassment faced by a wide range of local officials around the country, from elected officials at the municipal, county, township level to appointed officials and election workers.

In June, the most recent month for which data is available, they report a 40 percent increase of 40 incidents from the previous two months. In total, more than 250 incidents have been reported in the first half of 2025, up 9 percent from the same period in 2024.

The Princeton Research gets very granular in its detail. It categorizes hostility by issue type. Another example of the localized nature of political violence and hostility, in July, Bridging Divides released analysis titled Mitigating Threats against School Board Officials. The report noted that nearly 80,000 individuals serve on school boards around the country and that these frequently unpaid community members have seen an upsurge in hostility, often fueled by the national political environment.

These threats, they spill over into their personal lives. They undermine their ability to carry out their work safely. It all makes me wonder if we can't protect the safety of our public servants, who will be willing to serve? Who will be willing to run for office? Probably only the extremists.

And as for what to do about all this, Robert Pape says, "My research suggests that to de-escalate the political environment and reduce the risk of violence, America's political leaders need to cross their political divides and make joint statements and ideally, joint appearances that denounce all political violence, welcome peaceful protest and call for respecting the rules, process and results of free and fair elections in the country."

It all makes sense, but I think it's going to be a challenge. According to the FBI, crime was down in every category in 2024, and yet public disruption has been normalized, especially by the events of January 6th and President Trump's subsequent pardoning of the offenders. His supporters see his four indictments as the equivalent. The solution lies in zero tolerance by all sides of the political spectrum, in violent rhetoric and violent conduct backed up by aggressive law enforcement and prosecution. That seems unlikely as long as Trump is president.

I'm not blaming him for everything, it's just a fact. The message from Boston was clear, democracy should not be a contact sport, and public service shouldn't require Kevlar. If we want good people to step forward, we have to make sure that they can serve without fearing for their lives.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, is the risk of violence a sufficient reason to not run for office?

Joining me now is University of Chicago Professor Robert Pape. He's also the director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats.

Professor, nice to have you back. You heard my explanation as to how we got here. A witch's brew of a mental health crisis, fragmentation of society, polarized media, gerrymandering, self-sorting, lack of campaign finance reform, what am I missing?

ROBERT PAPE, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: You're missing the deeper social changes that are happening in our country, Michael, that are adding the real fuel to the fire. We're going through in our country two historic changes at the same time. For the last 20 years, we've been going through a major demographic shift where we're shifting from a white majority democracy to a white minority, more racially balanced population. We're also shifting to a high degree of economic inequality at the same time. We have shifted huge portions of our national wealth from the bottom 90 percent of the country to the top 1 percent.

We live, most of us, in a negative sum society. You put those two big social changes together, this is a recipe for political violence. It's a recipe for fragile politics, polarization. All those issues you talked about are made fantastically worse by these social changes. And this is why we've got to take this very seriously.

[09:10:18]

For the last five years, the violence, the political violence is getting worse as normal crime is coming down. These social changes will be with us for years. So that's why it's crucial that we take steps now to do more to push back on the growing political violence in our country.

SMERCONISH: I quoted from your essay from June in the Times where you spoke to Solutions. Amplify on what you wrote. What can we do about this? I'm alarmed, the people in Boston were alarmed, I think the nation is alarmed.

PAPE: So the people in Boston are taking a page right out of the op-ed I wrote in the "New York Times," I called for leaders from both parties to come together. But we need this to become more of a national event, not simply an event that you're reporting on very usefully here today. So, for example, imagine if you have the survivors of the political violent attacks, you have Brett Kavanaugh, you have Pelosi, you have Steve Scalise, you have Josh Shapiro coming to a single national event hosted, say by a major university, University of Chicago, also with a major prominent figure like yourself, now, we could -- we could command national attention for that event. This would not just be an event that's happening under the radar. And this is how you stand together against political violence.

And why do this? It's because our surveys show that 70 plus percent of the public on both sides of the aisle abhor political violence. They understand this is a race to the bottom. What we need to do is galvanize that 70 plus percent that abhor political violence and literally change the incentive structure for politicians around the country.

SMERCONISH: So please extend those invitations. I'd be honored to participate.

And a final thought from me and a quick response from you. I think there's something we can all be doing in our local communities and that is to imitate, to emulate our parents. Our parents were joiners. Our parents were active in their communities. Our parents were involved among their neighbors.

And when, professor, there's shared common experience, I think some of the perception of dividend dissipates. So I'm here to say that there's something each and every one of us can be doing at home in our neighborhoods. Final thought is yours. You have 30 seconds.

PAPE: We need to have the phrase, it is not OK, stand together against political violence.

SMERCONISH: Professor, thanks so much for being here. I appreciate all your good work.

PAPE: And thank you for what you're doing.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on -- thank you, sir. Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program.

I don't think violence, although I do think the smear campaigns would be a deterrent. I don't think violence, although I do think the smear campaigns would be a deterrent. Who needs it? Jim's responding today's poll question at smerconish.com because as I'm reflecting on all these trends and all these events and all of this data and the experience that I had surrounded by literally thousands of elected state legislators on Monday, I find myself saying, who's going to step forward and serve in this climate of violence? And by the way, I'm not playing what aboutism at all today, so spare me those social media responses.

This exists at both ends of the political spectrum and I have to believe that there are good folks out there who say, hey, I'm interested in running for township supervisor. I'd be willing to serve as one of the 80,000 school board members across the country. But who needs it? And why would I subject myself to the risk of hostility and potential violence?

That's what I'm asking in today's poll question, is the risk of violence a sufficient reason to not run for office? I know it's an unusual question. Go vote. I can't wait to see the result.

Up ahead, the president is escalating the redistricting war with calls for a new census. He doesn't want undocumented immigrants included. I'm going to talk to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report about the latest battle lines. No one knows the subject like David.

[09:14:39]

And don't forget, sign up for the newsletter at smerconish.com when you're voting on the poll question. You'll get the work of award winning illustrators like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SMERCONISH: It started as a skirmish over gerrymandering. It's turned into a civil war. And then, just as it looked like the armies had settled in for a long fight, President Trump dropped an atom bomb on top of everything. The first shot fired at the request of President Trump, Republicans in Texas proposed a rare mid-decade redistricting, which if successful could mean the GOP picks up perhaps five seats in the House of Representatives. Returning the volley last Sunday, more than 50 Texas Democratic legislators hightailed it to Illinois hoping to deny a quorum.

Firing back, Texas Republican state leaders want to remove these Democrats from office. Governor Greg Abbott threatened to arrest them and fine them. Every day the tally increases, it's already in the hundreds of thousands. The Texas House will be reconvening on Monday, hoping to achieve a quorum. In addition, Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows is suspending direct deposit, meaning if Democrats want a paycheck, they better come to Austin.

Both sides have allies in the war. Texas Senator John Cornyn says the FBI will help locate the expatriate Democrats. Meanwhile, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has promised to protect them while they're in his state. On top of which, a number of other states have threatened to retaliate. The governors of the two most populous Democratic run states, Governor Newsom of California, Kathy Hochul of New York, say they're willing to redo their electoral districts as well.

[09:20:22]

Indeed, some say if Texas moves forward on its plans, there might be a cascade of gerrymandering with other states, including Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, Maryland and Indiana seeking to get in the game. And then a couple of days ago, the man who started it all, President Trump, changed everything yet again with the Truth Social post. He said, "I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate census based on modern day facts and figures, and importantly, using the results and information gained from the presidential election of 2024." Adding, "People who are in our country illegally will not be counted in the census." This would cause a massive nationwide change in America's official population count as well as its representation in Congress.

So the war continues on several fronts. Making sense of all of it, we hope, is David Wasserman, the senior editor and elections analyst for the Cook Political Report. He's the top election forecaster specializing in the House of Representatives and an expert on gerrymandering.

Great to have you back. Let's start with the basics. Of 435 congressional districts as you look to the midterms, how many do you expect will be in play?

DAVID WASSERMAN, ELECTIONS ANALYST THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Well, Michael, the House right now is effectively 220 Republicans to 215 Democrats, which means that both parties are desperate to claw for every single advantage that they can get. Democrats only need to win three seats to retake the House, and we only rate 18 out of 435 districts as toss ups. Which means that in Texas, where Republicans under this proposed new map could pick up three to five seats, when you combine that with Ohio, where a new map that we knew was coming is likely to give Republicans at least two more seats, that could effectively triple the Republican cushion in the House. And that's why we're in this place where we have the potential for a gerrymandering apocalypse that might have been inevitable given that for both parties, the ends increasingly justify the means.

SMERCONISH: You heard me make reference, David, to the states where Democratic governors are contemplating some kind of a response to Texas, but is it that simple?

WASSERMAN: It's not that simple because every state has a unique set of criteria and rules. Now, Texas is the Wild West and the Republican legislature there can do whatever it wants. Yes, there's a quorum break, but we've seen this movie before, Republicans are very likely to get their way at the end of the day. Democrats, a lot of blue states have embraced good government redistricting reforms that set up independent or bipartisan commissions and Governor Newsom is asking voters effectively to set that aside for a few years so that Democrats can retaliate and draw five Republicans out. Now, the logical endpoint of this arms race would seem to be the eradication of blue state Republicans and red state Democrats.

We already have seen the eradication of them in the Senate, so the parties figure why not the House through gerrymandering. And it's the self-sorting of voters choosing to live in very like-minded communities that makes it easier for partisan mapmakers to essentially segregate them into heavily red or heavily blue districts and make these delegations really warped and unproportional.

SMERCONISH: I asked the question about whether it's so easy as Gavin Newsom throwing a switch or Kathy Hochul doing likewise, because I have a clear recollection of Governor Schwarzenegger being, and I think understandably, pretty proud at bringing about reform in California and also there being a ballot measure that passed with overwhelming success. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure where the public would stand in California if Governor Newsom wanted to reverse that trend. Your thought?

WASSERMAN: That's right. And in California, he's got to convince voters to set aside what voters passed by 61 to 39 margin back in 2010 when voters established the Independent Redistricting Commission. And he's got to reframe this as fighting back against Trump. This is really the only state where Democrats could reap large gains to retaliate because there's very little low hanging fruit in the other states Democrats control, for example, Illinois is already 14 to three, Massachusetts is nine to zero, Maryland is seven to one. And there are procedural obstacles in other blue states as well.

And keep in mind, if Governor Newsom is successful in California and they succeed in converting that delegation from 43 to nine to set, say 48 to four, then Governor DeSantis in Florida could seek to revisit Florida's map. That might happen anyway.

[09:25:10] Republicans are very likely to come out ahead in this fight to squeeze out a few more seats, whether it's Missouri, Indiana, Ohio or Florida. That doesn't guarantee that they'll hold the house in 2026, but it does make the race much more complicated.

SMERCONISH: David, I think that the president is constitutionally precluded from beginning a census process that would only count citizens, that's just my view. But let's just assume for the sake of this discussion that he gets what he wants. Give me the 62nd version on what would be the impact of now changing who gets counted.

WASSERMAN: It's important to remember that the Supreme Court has already rejected, with a conservative majority, the Supreme Court rejected a bid to only count citizens as part of the census. Now, of course, the president is seeking to not only revisit that, but to conduct a census that counts citizens only. There are going to be a variety of legal and logistical hurdles to upending another constitutionally established norm, and it's going to be up to the Supreme Court most likely to dictate whether the administration can make preparations for such a mid-decade census. But if were only to count citizens, it would penalize states with large populations of non-citizens.

Keep in mind that the core vulnerability for Democrats in Texas in this remap is the low citizenship and eligibility and turnout rates of Hispanic voters. Because, for example, there's an area of Houston with 218,000 residents that cast just 24,000 votes in the 2024 presidential election, that area is represented by two Democrats now. It's fairly straightforward for Republicans to parcel these areas out into surrounding Republican seats without too much electoral consequence because they cast so few votes. And that's a big reason why Republicans are poised to gain between three and five seats out of Texas.

SMERCONISH: And to which I would add, maybe, be careful what you wish for because given the Republican gains among Hispanic voters, they might not want to easily give up some of those individuals if in the future they could be registered themselves.

David, you never disappoint. Thank you for your expertise. You should be reading what David Wasserman writes for the Cook Political Report.

Here's some of your social media reaction thus far to today's program, from the world of X, why weren't you concerned when Democrats have been doing this for decades?

Woody, I've always been concerned about it. I've been concerned about gerrymandering. I've spoken about it repeatedly. And I'm also largely because of David Wasserman's influence, I'm also concerned about self- sorting.

We're all familiar of, you know, Elbridge Gerry and the lessons of gerrymandering and the way in which these districts have been run. But the one metric that I like to point out to folks is the metric that says the number of blowout counties, landslide counties, counties that are won by 20 or more percentage points, has been on the rise significantly in the last several decades.

I'm doing this from memory, but I'm pretty secure in my recollection, if you look at the 1980 election, which was Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan, of roughly 3,000 counties, 391 of them, only 391 of them were won by 20 or more percentage points. In the most recent election, Harris versus Trump, more than 80 percent of those 3,000 counties were won by more than 20 percentage point.

What's the lesson? The lesson is one, we don't change county boundary lines. So the self-sorting that David just referenced is as big a problem as gerrymandering. We are living among associating with the like-minded. This goes back to the conversation at the top of the program today about political violence and hostility.

It's all interconnected, we need shared experience. OK, but I was on gerrymandering for the last three decades as well.

Coming up, more of your social media reaction. And President Trump asks the Supreme Court to allow mass deportations. Opponents say that it's open season on undocumented immigrants. But to the White House, there's no place like Home Depot.

I want to remind you to go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, is the risk of violence a sufficient reason to not run for office? While you're there, sign up for the newsletter and check out the work of illustrators like Scott Stantis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:34:12]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Why not follow me on X and then you can react during the course of the program?

I don't support gerrymandering and it's unusual to do it mid-cycle. That being said, it's ridiculous to act like it's unconstitutional or cheating. Evidently, they are able to redistrict mid-cycle, and most states gerrymandering.

So, you're saying essentially, they're using it to their advantage and they're not violating any law when they do so. So, why the heck not? And I guess my short answer is to say, because then every other state that's able is going to respond in kind. And I don't think that we want to start a process where instead of every 10 years, we're now doing it every two, three, four or six.

Look, if the argument were -- here's the only benign explanation that I can offer for mid-decade redistricting or reapportionment, it would be because we have such control now of data that we need not wait every 10 years for the census, and we can do so in a way that protects the interests of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

[09:35:18]

But that's not what this is. This is -- this is a raw power grab. And I understand your point, which is to say, well, it's lawful for them to do so. So, why wouldn't they? And my answer is because it's going to touch off a chain reaction that I think is unhealthy for every other state.

More social media reaction. What else has come in during the course of the program?

When you allow fear to control you, you've relinquished your freedom and liberties to tyranny.

I love that response. You're giving something up if, all of a sudden, you're too fearful to run for political office. But I was really impacted this week by having the opportunity to speak to literally thousands of elected state legislators who came together in Boston. And it was a series of events that began with a tribute to Lisa Hortman, who, of course, was assassinated in Minnesota. And then here's her colleague John Hoffman, speaking by video, his first public appearance. And then out on-stage watch -- walks Gabby Giffords.

And I'm reflecting on the assassination attempts of President Trump, two of them, and all of the other events, the assassination of those two embassy workers, Israeli embassy workers in Washington, and on and on and on. I could spend the next 25 minutes just going through all the violence.

And I'm saying to myself, who the hell is going to be willing to serve if we don't get this under control? That brings me to today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is the risk of violence a sufficient reason to not run for office? And that last social commenter, obviously, thinks that it's not.

Still to come, the fed say that they're upholding the law. California says they're breaking it. Welcome to the border patrol's latest tactic, Operation Trojan Horse. Have you heard of this?

Don't forget to sign up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com As you're voting on the poll question, Jack Ohman drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:29]

SMERCONISH: It was called Operation Trojan Horse. On Wednesday, a man in a Penske truck pulled up to a Home Depot in Westlake, California. Day laborers hang out there. He was offering work. As they gathered near the truck, several border patrol agents jumped out. The workers scattered. Sixteen were arrested.

Many city leaders from Mayor Karen Bass on down, as well as advocates for immigrants, were indignant. They thought such sweeps had ended due to a July 11th temporary restraining order from the U.S. district court. It banned indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests on Fourth Amendment grounds.

The order had been upheld earlier this week by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Local authorities were wondering what legal steps to take next. But as far as the feds were concerned, the raid was successful. They were enforcing federal law and would continue to do so. Not that they didn't care about the TRO.

On Thursday, the Trump White House petitioned the Supreme Court, asking them to lift the ban on roving patrols. And before I forget to mention this, Penske Truck Rental made clear that they did not authorize their vehicle to be used in such a way. It looks like the Trump administration is involved in yet another legal standoff.

Joining us now is Gregory Bovino, Chief Patrol Agent, El Centro Sector at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Chief, thank you for being here. This is not the first time that this particular Home Depot has been the focus of an enforcement action. What is it that is going on at Home Depots, generally, from your perspective?

GREGORY BOVINO, CHIEF BORDER PATROL AGENT, EL CENTRO SECTOR: Sure. Well, good morning, Michael, and thanks for having me. It's (INAUDIBLE) or any other location here in Los Angeles. What we're looking at is targeted enforcement efforts.

Targeted. enforcement efforts against known violators of Title 8. Title 8, our immigration statutes, our immigration laws. So, when individuals violate Title 8, especially those individuals that may have criminal history, significant criminal histories, prior deports, or things like that, we're going to go after those folks.

And it doesn't matter if it's at a Home Depot or anywhere else. We're going to go after those folks. And that's what we did at this particular location as well as many other locations throughout Los Angeles.

SMERCONISH: I read that TRO last night. It says that you're not allowed to rely on race, ethnicity, accent, location, or type of work. So, what was the reasonable suspicion on which you were acting?

BOVINO: Sure. Michael, the -- what we look at here, again, as I said, prior criminal histories. And if we know that someone is an illegal alien, then that's not only reasonable suspicion, that is probable cause. So -- which is actually a higher level than reasonable suspicion.

So, in looking at locations throughout Los Angeles, including that Home Depot, we understand -- we knew that there were individuals that were in fact Title 8 violators. In fact, several of them at that Home Depot, and it was proven right during that raid. So, that's -- that's typically what we look at is that targeted enforcement.

Michael, we've got 40 plus teams spread across Los Angeles conducting that Title 8 mission. And the Home Depot was one of those 40 teams.

SMERCONISH: Chief, I want you to get rid of the rapists and the murderers and the assaulters. I'm not so sure what to do about, as I like to put it, the short order cook in New Jersey, in Jersey City, maybe.

[09:45:02] It's like a hypothetical of mine. Peggy Noonan, not exactly a progressive, she was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. In the "Wall Street Journal," she wrote within the last week the following. I'm going to read it aloud to you.

She said, immigrants, legal and not, keep my town going. I know them, they work themselves hard and they are all about family. They touch my heart. Sorry to be corny. And if you're reading this you know they touch your heart too, and you're for them.

The border appears to be closed. Hypervigilance is no longer in order. It's past time to show a filial connection and appreciation.

Stop picking on them. Cease and desist. Get the bad guys, not the good guys.

The American people won't support these raids. It's wicked to remove a man or woman from an honest job. And we aren't a wicked people.

She was talking about workplace enforcement. I think the enforcement actions at Home Depots comes under the same umbrella. What do you say to that mindset, that argument?

BOVINO: Sure. Michael, I think that -- again, that's wishful thinking at its very worst. When we look at some of the heinous, heinous criminals that we've apprehended at Home Depots throughout California, I think, it becomes evident that we have a problem in this country that stems from that four years -- four plus years unmitigated migration of illegal aliens across that border, folks that were unvetted. We don't know who these individuals are. But one thing we do know is that they're walking our streets with impunity.

Michael, there was an individual that was apprehended here just a few weeks ago in front of a Home Depot who was a child rapist. Would Miss Noonan -- would Miss Noonan like that individual to come into her house, perhaps with her grandchildren --

SMERCONISH: Of course not.

BOVINO: -- if she has any? And paint --

SMERCONISH: No, of course not.

BOVINO: -- and paint a wall?

SMERCONISH: Of course not.

BOVINO: So -- absolutely.

SMERCONISH: No.

BOVINO: So, we're going after those individuals -- and let me finish here. Is one of the things that we're now finding, Michael, is 30 to 40 percent of the illegal aliens that we apprehend in these larger operations, like you saw at Home Depot, have significant criminal and or immigration history. That's 30 to 40 percent. And, Michael, when I joined the border patrol three decades ago, that figure was generally around five percent. We apprehended a large group.

SMERCONISH: OK.

BOVINO: Maybe five percent would have significant criminal histories. A lot more now --

SMERCONISH: OK. But let me -- let me respond to that. Let me -- let me -- let me respond to that because I want to address that and then you can have the final word, I promise. So, if 30 to 40 percent have a serious rap sheet, then the remaining 60 or 70 percent don't.

So, I'm most concerned about the person -- I'm not excusing it. I just think that we need to be practical. I'm worried about, yes, the person who came here without playing by the rules, they overstayed a visa, but have since proven to be a solid individual. They work. They have a family. They pay taxes. And they haven't broken any other laws.

What are we going to do about that case? Because I don't want to catch them all under that one big net. You get the final word.

BOVINO: Sure. Michael, thank you. I enforce federal immigration law. And one of the things that we don't talk about here are what about ma- and-pa America that are put out of business because of people that -- they may be hard workers, but that doesn't negate the law. Hard work does not negate the law.

If you -- if you rob a bank and you're a hard worker, does that make it OK to rob a bank? Absolutely not. So, we have a lot of these folks that are unlicensed, unlicensed vendors. We actually apprehended several of those at that Home Depot.

So, immigration is not a victimless crime. It affects all of ma-and-pa America. And the 30 to 40 percent we're definitely going after those. But everyone else has to do it right. If they don't, then -- and we come into contact with them, we're going to arrest them.

And they have an out here, Mike. It's called the CBP Home app. Do it right. We'll pay you $1,000 and a free plane ticket. Fly home, do it right. That's all we're asking here.

SMERCONISH: Right. And I looked at that, too. But there's no assurance as to how and when and in what circumstances you're going to get to come back. I promised you would be the final word. I don't want to violate that. Chief, come back on a different occasion, because I really want to continue this conversation, and I thank you for being here.

To everybody else at home, make sure that you're voting on today's poll question. And your social media comments, I really appreciate.

I voted in favor of such tactics. It isn't any different than an undercover officer posing as a drug buyer or posing as an underage child to capture a predator, says Michael. I guess about Operation Trojan Horse. Hey, Catherine, can you put up that image of the guys in the back of the Penske truck, if you have that handy? And I hear the chief's point. The chief's point is like we go to the Home Depot -- there it is. We go to the Home Depot, and we pop out of the back of the Penske truck.

And if you don't know, everybody at home, Home Depots in many parts of the country, I know this from radio listeners, have become gathering places where day laborers go and people show up and they want to hire them, you know, to do odd jobs and work and so forth.

[09:50:13]

So, if that net is capturing the 30 percent who has got a serious rap sheet, OK. I'm concerned about -- what about the person who's also getting caught in that dragnet who doesn't have a significant -- who doesn't have any rap sheet other than the original sin? We need a pathway to citizenship, or at least to a green card that allows some of these folks to stay here and work and be good citizens.

You have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Here it is. Is the risk of violence a sufficient reason to not run for office? Subscribe to my newsletter when you're there, you'll get the exclusive editorial work from the likes of Steve Breen. Love that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:07]

SMERCONISH: So that's where the voting stands right now, 26,105 have voted. Is the risk of violence a sufficient reason not to run for office? That's distressing, 56 percent say, yes, it is, given the climate today.

Social media reaction to today's program. What do we have? Follow me on all the usual platforms and you can get in on it.

Get over it, Michael. The U.S. has a long history of violence from the Boston Tea Party to J-6. There are circumstances of political dissent that require measured levels of violence. There are circumstances of political dissent that require certain levels of violence.

Really? Was the assassination of the Minnesota legislator and the wounding of another and his wife, the assassination of Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the dog, by the way, was that one such circumstance?

Like, how much more -- that's so -- that's so mind-boggling to me. How much more do you need to see before you realize what a significant problem we have on our hands? And I'd love to know if that person would go run for office in this this climate.

If missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)