Cocktail Chatter and Closing Remarks

. Hello and welcome to Slate Plitical G Fest june twenty fifth, twenty twenty six, the New York Is Red Edition. I'm David Plots, Citycast in Washington DC, where there's a ferris wheel not quite out my window. What? Fly byys last night. Yeah, the great American State Fair has opened. That's cool. And the ferris wheel's all the way up by your place? No it's not quite out my. Oh, okay, sorry. I'm Captain literal this morning. sorry. Captain Literal, his new job as the captain is John Dickerson from Substack. Hello, John from New York City. Hi. And from New York Times magazine and Yale University Law School, is she is if John is capaptain literal, she is admiral metaphorical. Emily Baslon. Ict actually think John would be Admiral metaphoral. and you would be Captain Literal. Sadly it's the. No, I think that's exactly right. Yeah. ye And the then the ship would be possibly taking on water. Yeah. And I'm Kernel analogy. This week on the GavFest from the comy corridor to pink park slope to crimson Cown Heights, what explains the extraordinary victories of three Democratic socialist candidates in New York's congressional primaries. And what effect will that have on the Democratic Party in the midterms and in the twenty twenty eight election then the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration in huge immigration cases Then everyone's favorite visual metaphor, the reflecting pool we' discuss, pllus, we'll have cocktail, chatter. Three progressive candidates endorsed by mayor Z around M, Donny and pushed by New York's Democratic socialists won contested primaries in Tuesday bounced one incumbent and surprised more establishment candidates into two open seats. the candidates Brad Lander Claire Valdez and Daria Liza Vila, Chevalier were extremely unlike the candidates who have dominated New York politics for the past generations, they've been explicitly critical of Israel. That's a heart part of their campaigns, that very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, harsh toward the financial and business elites whose wealth has both funded and warped New York City. and they tossed off the traditional New York City Democratic machine, ethnic, establishmentarian, older for a very young and very left wing new Mamdani machine So John, this set of victories for the Mom Danni back candidates really, really unsettled traditional Democrats in New York and I think it's unsettling Democrats across the country for the thinking about the consequences of having this extremely left wing group of new members of Congress because all of them will win in the House and what that will do to the Democrats's reputation broadly as they try to position themselves to get a sweep in November and do well in twenty twenty eight. So where does this what is this political movement they come out of? and why is it so dynamic Right, there We have revolutionaries in the clubhouse. Well, I mean, it's dynamic There's either the energy of the dynamism behind the feelings about Israel, which obviously we should talk about because the Democratic Party over the last twenty years has twenty five years has essentially flipped its position. and feelings about Israel. And so it has some energy behind that. It also has energy behind the ongoing promise of the American dream which isn't of a promise at all when wealth is concentrated at the very top. and the people who are elected in the Democratic establishment have not delivered on trying to ameliorate the challenges of people who don't live in the top one percent I think also it's also fun to be at the noisy end of the table and Mum Danni and what he has built and the people who support him are U Politically great athletes. I mean, forget for a minute about policy positions on redistributing wealth and free buses and grocery stores and all that stuff. If you watch Mayor Mondane's speech when the Kicks at the Nicks celebration for their victory in the NBA finals, it was what great politicians do, which is take an ambient excitement and Without feeling like you can hear the gears grinding, he turns it into a moment of uplift for the city and also for himself. That kind of success is what makes this moment U and a challenge for Democrats because You know, the one the people who won are the liberal part of the party, which is a small part of the party in very liberal, I mean, in very safe districts The number of socialists or Democratic socialists in the Congress will go from two to four. That's not like, say, the Tea Party movement when seventy Tea Party members were elected into the House in twenty ten So Well we can talk about the national significance of this in terms of just raw numbers, but in terms of athleticism and buzziness and reaching the excited parts of the party That's why this is such a big deal Emily, what are the issues that or animating this group I mean, some of it is wealth distribution and anger with big corporations, like John was saying, but it was also you know really striking how much Israel is at the center of this. I mean the Um partarties afterward, people were chanting free Palestine. and there is a way in which Chanting more than that. Yeah. well, okay they What else were they chanting? Well, I mean APAC, they were there were people chanting FAPC so the Israel lobby. Yeah. I mean, that, I think just underscores my point. And You know, it's First of all, there's a way in which sometimes issues just come to symbolize everything, right? So are you take aside you're showing that you're part of this insurgency, that you're not staying with this establishment way of funding Israel and American allegiance to Israel. And also obviously, there have been these complete tragedies and humanitarian disasters in Gaza and the West Bank and now're having partial occupation of Lebanon in a way that I think is really upsetting to people when they see those pictures and they think about all the suffering that is happening. There is obviously like a real set of issues at the core of this It is, however, striking that in New York City This is so prominent, right? I mean, it is true. You're sending members of Congress who vote on whether Israel continues to receive American funding or not. So they have a role to play but the centrality of it, you know feels like a way of people identifying in a sort of tribal way that we've seen in the Republican side with various issues, but I don't remember seeing among Democrats before. and it's mixed into the way in which the gentrification of some of these neighborhoods is happening, right? So you know, Mum Dony's been so successful with young people who are moving into Brooklyn or moving into Queens as opposed to the older Black and Dominican and Hispanic people who are already there are not necessarily down for this whole agenda of the Democratic socialists of America. does seem like there is an opportunity for Democrats to move away from Israel in some way that could work more broadly across the party. Can I say one more thing about Israel too. It's important to be able to criticize Israel and talk about American policy toward Israel without vilifying all Israelis, refusing to demn Hamas and also flirting with really antiemitic tropes, which some of these candidates were totally doing. I mean you know the way in which Jewish identity is now getting polarized is really hard and it would be a real boon to try to figure out a way that the party could find that would not make people feel I'm so vilified and thed What do you think about that Well just one little data point in two thousand one Galluop survey that asks, do you sympathize more with Israel or the Palestinians? fifty one percent of Democrats in two thousand one sympathizeed more with Israel withith the Israelis, sixteen percent with the Palestinians, that number now in twenty twenty six. shows that sixty five percent of Democrats sympathize with the Palestinians. seventeen with Israel So at least within the Democratic Party, there is a lot more sympathy for or not there is less, obviously sympathy for Israel and therefore there might be more room to run there. In the nation, it's more split fifty fifty I mean, I broadly tend to think that the more Democrats M time Democrats of any stpe spend talking about the Israel, the worse it is for them. regardless of where they end up on it, it just it's an issue, which create so much heat and emotion and division and there's no safe place, there's no There's no D MZ for it and so you like move off towards issues. I mean, I think this is Mumani again to get to Mumdani's genius. Mum Dani is somebody who holds all the DSA positions on Israel. and I'm sure I know feels that what Israel has done is a moral abomination and sympathizes with the Palestinian cause, but like you know, he's he is the sewer socialist. He's running a city that he's he's focusing on what are accomplishments that can have a measurable impact in the lives of my constituents day to day, which a mayor mayor can do in a way that a member of Congress can't, I suppose I do, I mean, this gets to me to like the kind of critical question that the Democrats faceed, which is clelearly this incredible young energy very left wing energy, socialist energy in the party that has animated people in big cities you had in Washington, D.C, my hometown A Democratic socialist won the election in Seattle, a Democratic socialist won mayor election there How do you as a party take advantage of that energy but not get sucked into the the political issues that really piss people off when socialists talk about them, all the woke stuff all the cancel culture that came out of the far left a decade ago and continues right. I mean, there's a nastiness, an edge sometime and like the way that we prove our allegiance is by trashing everyone else, like an exclusion part of this that is really hard for building a big coalition mean just to give one specific example, just, which I noted because it's in DC, is that the kind of the top political advisor to the to Geniz Lose George will be the next mayor of Washington Democratic socialist, top loical advis to her is somebody who has some believably bad public statements about Luigi Mangioni. and political assassination of the United Healthcare exxecutive. This is a person who's going to be it leading official in the city government of Washington and she's more or less said like this form of murder is okay. And's That is just not where you want to live. And embedded in this, and this is where you have a gap between actually Mum Dani and those who love him so much. becausecause Mam Dani, what we've asserted, which I think is true, is he has some, I mean, anybody who can go into the Ovalffice with Donald Trump and manage that a couple of times and have Donald Trump say still favorable things about him even after his candidates one on Tuesday in New York, whatever reason Trump says that. Nevertheless, he's got some 's he's on the balls of his feet. He knows how to play U The nastiness that you're describing has an extra element, which is that part of this is we don't want to be handled. We don't want to be told what to do by an establishment. And what you have to do in coalitions is sometimes minimize your noisiest members for a moment. O other times you have to get them to be noisy and Whatever that is, it's your're managing them. And if part of that coalition's worldview is don't manage me, the management of the past has not only sublimated our issues, but our people, and that's why we've lost The very thing you need to do to build the coalition is one of the things that they are fighting against. Why do you think it is, Emily? the center left, theestl but the establishment Democrats, but also even the abundance Democrats who kind of are also opposed to the establishment of the party, but the non progressive elements of the Democratic Party have done such a poor job of offering a counter narrative to M Donny and the DSA offers. such poor candidates too. Well, I don't, I mean, you're being kind of broad brush. I guess I would say that I would say job right or sometimes it is anyway. rightight now it seems to be. I mean, I would say that There must be examples which John is going to have at his fingertips andonight don't of candidates who are doing a better job. But some of it is like have the tension between having an exciting story that is not Totally true, right? Because all grand narratives, all theories of everything are problematic. And then haaving kind of wonky more technical solutions. So you know, in abundance world You're talking a lot about systems that don't work, how to build things. It's pretty technical, you have to be kind of wonky to begin with. You have to be bought into caring about how government works to get in the mind space having listened to a lot of this, it doesn't necessarily have like an exciting charisma filled story. And I think one thing that Trump and Mandani share, right is the idea to kind of Sweep people along. L their people believe in them. and then like yes, M Donnie as the mayor can, you, keep Jessica Tish and have a police department that is not feeling like they're being totally changed and rebelled against from the mayor's office, but he can also go out and back these Democratic socialist candidates for ress like right and everyone kind of goes along with him. To answer my own tentious question, like the Democratic Party outside of New York City, there are plenty of candidates. Yes who don't fit this James Tala Rico is somebody who, you know, he's a maybe a progressive, but he's not really that's not who we that's not where he's running in Texas. That is not If he wins, that's not how he's going to win. Mary Peltola to told however you say here her in Alaska, the the who's going who's running for the Senate seat up there who may win basically by focusing on fishing I mean, Roy Cooper the Roy Cooper running in North Carolina is like way ahead in the polls. He's like the antithesis of all of this like, right? Yeah. I mean and on the purple sh hero and us off. I mean, ye, these are, I mean, this is these are not only safe districts in in a state that's having a peculiar moment, New York. But if you look at the most recent Pew political typology analysis of both parties, you see that essentially the Democratic socialist portion of the Democratic Party is about seven percent of the electorate. If you look at the hardest, a lot of people make comparisons between the most ideological part of the Republican partarty, depending on how you measure it, it's anywhere between twenty onecent and forty four percent of the Republican partarty. So the and I mentioned the tea partarty earlier, you had a tea partarty wave that was just far larger And you also have a situation in which in the Republican Party, the most high hard people members of the party, are completely in sync with the leadership of the party. You don't have that on the Democratic side. So the the seven percent number and I'm mixing apples and oranges a little bit between the share of the electorate and the share of the party. So let me fix that. It's seven percent of the electorate is the left wing is the far most left wing, but fourteen percent of the Democratic Party. on the Republican side It's basically like forty four percent is there most doctrinire wings. So you just have more there's fewer Democrats who are sympathetic to that most liberal part of the partarty. And so that's a problem within the Democratic Party let alone within the larger electorate Why is it Emily, justust going back to the DSA and the triumph in New York. I mean, I think we're we have to go back and retextualize again. But I do want to focus on the triumph There are fourteen thousand members of the DSA in New York, which is And by one standard, not a lot in a city of whatever it is, ten million people On the other hand, if the main goal is to just organize for a few Democratic primaries and relatively compact districts That's Pretty good. Why are they so good? What are they so good at I mean, I think they are good at getting young people excited to go vote and putting up candidates who they're in line with. And then the fact that they have Mom Donny I mean, none of this would be happening without Mom Donny, right? I mean he did an unusual thing. He threw himself into these endorsements made really effective ads. I mean, we were talking before about sports that ad that he made that was, you know Coming off of the Kicks where he had the people he wanted to get elected lined up with him like tossing around a basketball was like a pretty genius ad, right Um, so Maybe it's organizing, but maybe it's also this moment and kind of catching the wave. John, if you're Chuck Schumer, if you're if you're one of the Gavin Newsom, if you're somebody who is contemplating a either the role of the Democratic Party nationally or you're contemplating a national presidential run, what is your reaction to What happened in New York? How do you respond to it? How do you angle off of it? There are good ways and bad ways, and the problem is that the leadership to the extent there is leadership of the Democratic Party is in a different position than say the twenty twenty eight presidential candidates who are going to try to elevate themselves through differentiation, which is always what happens in primaries, but it can tend to royal parties. So if you're Let's say you're Josh Shapiro and your view is that battleground states have a far different electorate that even the word socialist is going to hurt you and hurt your party. Then you use these victories and you use this movement inside the Democratic Party to distinguish yourself, you are openly critical about it so that you you both show something to the general electorate, but more importantly, you just become defined as the sort of centrist candidate and you decide that's how you're going to succeed in life. That's one choice. The other choice is something the sort of Pelosi move. which would be recognize the political athleticism Who cares if it's in safe democratic districts? We need Our coalition is made up of lots of people in safe democratic districts. In America, right now, almost everybody in every coalition in the house is from a safe district. So like That's what you got to do. And you got to learn how to Listen to them, manage them Give them wins where you can, not let them define the party. You got to just like use your skill as a politician Um And then I guess the third option is some sort of ham handed effort to try to minimize them which they will smell and which every reporter who's going to write about this wing of the party, even if it's only got four members in the house is going to is going to pick up on and you're going to have like eighty six billion Democrats in disarray stories. I think the policy way you do it is that you takeake the lessons you learned from Bernie Sanders, whose rise surprised a lot of the establishment Democrats and say, it has always been based around affordability and the American dream. And Donald Trump was elected to deal with those things. And he went off and created an insane war in Iran and a tariff war with the rest of the world. He not only didn't address the issues that people care about, but he made them worse. And you just stay focused on what's affecting people's lives, which is that their wages aren't doing anything close to keeping up with the cost of health care, education and housing. And if you could just kind of live inside of those sets of policy conversations. And also by the way, let's not forget, another key point of this is corruption I mean, the inequality in wealth in America ties pretty easily to the corruption and self dealing that is that's in evidence in, you know, our topic on the reflecting pool and other issues inside the the Republican administration. And I think that is it motivates all these different Democratic groups, which again, are larger than the Democratic socialist groups But it's going to be a tough task for whoever gets anointed as the Democratic leader Emily, just to wrap up here. so a lot of the coverage of Tuesday night's election also focused on What does this mean for twenty twenty eight presidential campaign, and who the left wing of the party puts up. and whether this is a good news for AOC, should she choose to run for president or bad news for her, you know, it actually the presidential campaign isn't of interest to the theSA folks. What do you think Tuesday's results means for the presidential race and whether we're going to have a far left candidate in that race. I mean, I think it's helpful T OC if she wants to run, not clear as she does. It's notable and important that Mum Donnie cannot run because he was not born in the United States. I think that's actually like going to be a significant reality going forward. and it's just important to remember that this is New York. This is not the national scene and this is not a recipe for making the Democratic brand healthier and in red states, it's just not. And so the party's going to have to reckon with that for twenty eight. becausecause there are a lot of comparisons between the two parties, which don't really work I'll nevertheless engage in one, which is, I mean, there's a reason we don't have presresident Rudy Giuliani ike there was a time where Rudy Giuliani was the most powerful and popular. politician in America, Maybe it wasn't exactly the most popular but pretty darn close. But within his own party his positions couldn't fly. and I know Maman' can't run as a presidential, but I guess my just it's a shorthand way to think about how difficult it can be to take the politics that are successful in enclaves of New York and have them try to be successful in the broader party through a primary system and then through a general election, which is determined by states that are very much different than the most Democratic districts of New York Nor President Mikeloomberg I really the left wing of the Democratic Party. and I hope that Mamdani uses the next couple of years to model this super socialism to model the sort of we're just going to do things and tries to distract people away from Although. non. functioning elements of democratic politics, namely all of the really the social issues and the woke stuff and the cop stuff and cancel culture stuff and just focuses on affordability, infrastructure, affordability infrastructure. Yeah, I don't know if these new members of Congress are going to be helping with that. Here's a question to your point, David, which is that The sewing together you're talking about requires somebody like sort of Bill Clinton who was able to taken a party that had a restive liberal wing and kind of make it palatable by talking about affordability issues in the ' ninety two race in which the economy was bad One of the like politicians who' in a position to do that is Mamani I mean, you as you said earlier, but to in so doing it would require potentially irritating the people who he' whipped up so successfully. And it'll be just fascinating to see. because I think there's a way for Democrats to make the anti Donald Trump case in an afford in a purely affordability way. so that very quickly voters recognize that even though they may be criticizing Donald Trump, it's not the same old thing. It has a direct effect on the way they live their lives. And somebody with skill in the public square of the K Mamani has could do that But then he would, as Bill Clinton did run into potential problems with his own base Emily and I are here to talk about the Supreme Court rulings that came out on Thursday morning, John is not able to join us. He's in transit. We quorded this out of order, but John will be back for our conversation about the Relecting pool and for cocktail Chatter and for sllight plus. So Emily It's a decision month pme Court and the court today issued a bunch of decisions, one in a big Hawaii gun case. But then there were two decisions that related to immigration, migration One asylum and one about the Haitian and Syrian Imigrants who have temorary pr protected status. So in both cases, the court sixty to three consonservative majority found in favor of the Trump administration's position and against what the migrants would want. So you want to start with the asylum case? Yeah, let's start with that case. It's called Alolado. And this is a policy that actually dates back to the Obama administration in which the government faced with lots and lots of people trying to cross the border and present themselves for entry to apply for asylum, the government said, there are too many people here We're going to meter access. We're going to stop people from entering before they actually get to the border and say, only some of you can come in at a time to apply for asylum. This is the way we're handling this crunch. Biden ended this policy based on a district court order blocking it, and then Trump brought it back the court is saying in an opinion by Justice Alito, that the government is allowed to block people from reaching ports of entry in this way And the ruling turns on the phrase in the statute that says arrives in the United States. It's really all about The tiny preosition. Yeah. position. It's about in. And so there's this, you know, the majority is saying arriving in means arriving in and it doesn't matter if you're being stopped physically prevented from arriving in the country because somebody set up, you know, a block before you get there. I don't think this was a particularly surprising decision. We knew from oral argument that the conservative justices in particular were really skeptical of this idea that like even if it says arriving in, the government doesn't have this discretion The main argument that the dissent makes based on the statute is there's another part of the statute that talks about being physically present in the United States And so the question is like, well, why did Congress say both of those things? It seems redundant But the majority is just not really moved by that argument and says, look, like this is a big statute. Maybe Congress was saying a lot of stuff we are sticking with our position here. And so this is going to have major implications. I mean, this means that this administration and future ones can really slow asylum crossings to zero to a trickle. and it's a kind of discussion that you know, maybe has been there all along since nineteen ninety six when the statute passed, if you agree with the conservative reading of the statute, but you know, is not something that traditionally characterized asylum entry in the United States. I mean, I think you and I have squabbled about this notot this case, but this issue in the past. and I guess I I make no bones of understanding the legal nuances here. I mean, I know what in as a preposition means, but I don't pretend to understand all the the legal thood work that people are doing here to determine the right outcome. But I do, when I go back to the broader issue I think it bothoth the Obama administration and the Trump administration, and the second Tump administration tried to grapple with, but particularly the Obama administration, the Trump administration is this probleblem of asylum becoming an overwhelming source of of claim by people trying to migrate the United States and asylum who are using it, I don't want to use the word pretextual because no one whoakes undertakes a journey of migration is doing anything pretextually. You're doing it because you are driven by something very powerful and it is like you're taking an enormous risk with your life. So I do not mean to word I use the word pretext because I can't think of a better word off the top of my head, but that asylum became a way of getting into the United States for peopleeople who are fundamentally economic migrants and they were using this loophole or this, and you, I think would not characterize a loophole, you would characterize the fundamental human right, this loophole in the system to makeake an asylum claim, get in the U.S, and then effectively settle here in some in some fashion that was quas illegal. And I don't think was an intended use of the asylum laws, which seem to be really for people who are like in immediate extreme distress. and the point and like just to I know you you'll rebut all of this. But the thing that I kept coming back to over and over again with this is The reason we knew these asylum claims were kind of like maybe claims is that so many of these people were not coming They were transiting a whole other country to get to the United States. So they could have made an asylum claim if they were coming from Guatemala, they could have made an asylum claim in Mexico, but they wouldn't make that claim in Mexico. they would come all the way to the United States because this was a place of opportunity and where they thought they'd be treated more sympathetically. And so like again, I don't know whether the law the court is making the right decision here, but I understand why there was such distress in public policy circles asylum had become this source of migrants I mean, look, I think this reading of the statute about arrives in is a plausible reading. And a lot of the disents objections, like, yes, they have a statutory textual objection, but they also have a policy objection, which gets to the the issues you're talking about, I mean, just to say one more thing about the law the legal question is really like Did the nineteen ninety six immigration law allow all along for the kind of blocking of asylum that we're seeing here Or, you know, does the law not allow for that? And then you have to have Congress come in and make changes in order to change immigration policy? And we're going to see this come up again and again in the next few years because there are a lot of provisions of the nineteen ninety six immigration law that are super harsh that have just never been implemented before, that the Trump administration has implemented. So let's like put a pin in that But I think the policy questions you're raising are like the more fundamental and interesting ones here. I guess I would say that I think of asylum cases as maybe in like three different buckets. So there's political persecution, which seem to be the core point of asylum when it was created after the Second World War, right? Like peoplee were being persecuted by their governments, whether it was like post Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia desperately needing somewhere else to go Then there are people who come in who are part of groups could be persecuted by their governments or they could be persecuted by like other bad actors in their countries and the governments just aren't doing anything to stop them. And those policy questions have kind of gone back and forth depending on whether Democrats or Republicans in power. So like if you are going to be the victim of you know gang recruitment or violence in a country in Central America, do you count What if you're a woman experiencing domestic violence and your home country is not going to do anything to stop your abuser Those are cases of really sympathetic people and they're not really economic migrants, but I don't think that they fit most people's idea of what asylum was originally for Then there are the people you're describing. like they are in desperate circumstances, but really they are coming all the way to the United States to make a better life for themselves by getting a better job and making more money in the same way that lots of us identify with that because that's our family stories. But I think you're right that it's not what asylum was originally designed for Th then we have this enormous, enormous backlog of cases and so people come and maybe their asylum claim is weak, but they're going to be here for years while that plays out in the courts. and meanwhile, they're going to put down roots and then it's going to be very hard to make them go back. So that reality is totally part of what's at stake here And then you also raise this you important matter, Asylum law does require you to apply for asylum in the first country you get to, where it would be safe for you to do so. It doesn't say like, oh, here's your ticket to the United States. And so I think Both the Obama and the Trump administrations have been looking at that reality and saying, look, we have, you know, millions of people in the United States who got here without following the rules So from now on, we're going to try to change that at the border and create a more orderly process there and change the way asylum law operates. And now they're presidential administrations going forward are just going to have much more discretion to do that Let's go to the second case, which concerns people who are already in the United States and they're here because of truly desperate circumstances in countries they came from. category of people who are in the U. S. under temporary protected status and in particular in this case Syrians and Haitians who have had the right some right to be here under TPS for more than a decade So temporary prrotected status originally, Congress enacted this in nineteen ninety. And the idea is like things have become totally unlivable in your home country. There was a terrible earthquake. Hait There is a terrible war and you know, brutal regime, Syria And so you get to come here, you get to work and live here, but temporarily. Every eighteen months, the government's going to review this status and see if it continues to pertain In the case of some countries, Can I interrupt one second and ask a question, Emily, which I didn't quite understand So you declare it, the United States declares it for Haiti Does that mean that any Haitian at that point can come to the United States and live here or is it Who gets to do that It means that if you already here, you then can ask for this temporary protected status. It's not like automatic, you are a refugee. st migration, right? Exactly. It's for people who are already here. But I mean, obviously it becomes a pull factor, right? Like you know that if you come here, you're going to be able to apply for this. Some groups of immigrants, including Haitians and Syrians, have had their temporary protected status renewed time and again, mostly because the government takes a look and they're like, well, it's still really dangerous in your home country. so yes, you can stay. You know, it's also wor're saying there there are between two and three hundred thousand Haitians who are now deportable because of today's ruling in favor of canceling their status, which is what the Trump administration is doing There're also probably like a total of maybe a million people who could be deported because this ruling is going to extend to other groups of people of other nationalities. So this is really a very big deal. and it fulfills the Trump administration's promise of just trying to send people home. I'm not even going to say to send people who here illegally home because these people were legal, right? This is a way of like taking a million people who are here leillegally and turning them all into you're heregally illegally and we're putting you on a plane Now it's also important to note, like Congress could do something about this, right? I mean, the Haitians, the Senate already Well, the Senate already passed a bill to try to extend the temporary protected status for the Haitians for three years because the Haitians are veryer productive. like they have jobs, lots of them, they are doing lots of elder care For example, which Americans really need. So I don't actually think the political story of this is over though I understand your skepticism. We'll see what's kind of at least to me, like should I say shocking? I mean, I was really surprised by the part of this decision, which says that the determination of who gets PS temporary protected status is not reviewable by courts in almost all circumstances And what Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in both these cases, what he's saying here is like, look, if you look at the statute, it says, there is no judicial review of any determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the designation or termination or extension of a designation of a foreign state So this is about the word determination. L once the seecretary of DHS says your TPS determination is done thenen that's over The problem with this, which the dissent by Justice Kagan points out, is that that suggests that you don't have any rights if the process for that determination is broken and messed up. And there's lots of evidence in this case that Christine Noan, when she was the Secretary of DHS, was not really following any process that basically they just like terminated all statuses without really going through all the steps you're supposed to take to make sure that your country is not super dangerous. And so just to interrupt you, just the steps being that every eighteen months As they look at this, they're supposed to look at the conditions in the country in Haiti and Syria and say, okay, have things changed such that it is now safe for people to be back there? And you have to consult if you're the Scretary of Homeland Security. the law, the statute says you must consult with the state Department about this and I guess the The claim that the plaintiffs made was that that consultation was nononexistent slash sparse. sllash farle. I mean, when I was interviewing people who worked at DHS who had left for the times, this spring, someone who worked on this and watchalked all this happen said to me, this was a farce. L we didn't really review anything And now all of that's off the table. And I mean, it bears repeating, not is it only off the table for the Haitians and Syrians, It's everybody else whose TPS status has been canceled now and going forward. Yeah everyvery one that's been up review they' have cancellled thirteen of them Yes. So that is a real sea change in the law, in policy affecting people's lives There's another part of this opinion, which I also found quite hard to stomach, which was that, okay, so the one corner left where you do still get to have judicial review is if you have a constitutional challenge And the Haitians said our equal protection rights were violated because the Pident and Secretary Noome used race, racial animus as a reason for canceling our status And there are lots of disgusting things that Trump and Noam said about the Haitians along the way, right? Like you come from a shithole country, Why can't we have more people from Norway and Sweden here instead, et cetera, et cetera. Like it's gross. It'sating dogs and cats. Eating dogs and cats about it's so gross that Justice Lito doesn't put any of this a language in his opinion. Like it's kind of indefensible as a matter of like the way courts normally talk. So it's just absent. and Kagan is the one who includes it. Alito says this isn' ant overtly racist I mean, I just don't know what to say. It really means that you would like have to call someone the N word in order to count as racist for a claim here. I mean, isnt the cl I mean, I guess isn't it more that they are saying There's no animus because the animus is actually directed towards everyone every particular every one that they've looked at for TPS. they have said no And it's yes The Haitians are included there, but they've also said this about They've also rejected the claims made by every other person who's under TPS or every other group in TPS, they've said, you no longer have this status Yeah, that is completely what Alito says. He's like, ironically, there's a race neutral justification in your complaint, which is everyone's getting canceled. But what Justice Kagan says, and I think she is deeply correct about this as a matter of law, is that if you're using the standard of heightened scrutiny for evaluating a violation of equal protection this case this older case called Arlington Heights, and this is indeed the standard they should be using, then it's not okay to have race infect the whole thing. Like, sure, often there are mixed motives for doing things. Governments can come up with some race neutral justification for canceling your status. But if you're also saying all these racially inflected, disgusting things about people that still counts. And the majority's willingness to just kind of not see any of that and not quote it and not really engage with the implications of the way in which this changes that kind of evaluation really again, could have far reaching implications in the law here because this is this comes up a lot, right? The governments say Well, we have this perfectly good reason for doing something, even if we also said a lot of like bad things along the way do go back to the amazing. Every time I think of it, I almost choke fact the only people that have received Refugee status in the United States and the second Trump administration are white South Africans who are perceived as being a victim of racism in their Like literally, like literally the only people who are deserve any kind of protection or Yeah. Yeah, they're the ones having their refugee applications processed. And again, to not take into account that kind of context when you're evaluating whether there was racial animus and a government determination just seems like willfully blind in a way that's deeply problematic. I mean, another thing that's important about this case is it goes with other cases, the one involving the census several years ago, and then also the Trump travel bs in his first administration, where basically what the court is wrestling with is like, okay, it looks like the government was up to some bad juju here, something that is is pretextual in the way that word is intended to be used where like they're doing something for a bad reason, but then they're kind of claiming some legitimate reason And in the census case, the court was willing to say, no, no, no. like you say you're adding a question about citizenship for perfectly decent reasons, but that's just not plausible. In the Travel Ban case, no, the court was very deferential toward the Trump administration, despite all the racially inflected animus filled things Trump had said about majority Muslim countries And now we see this kind of further move in that direction by the conservative cour I mean, I think both these cases, Emily, I presume, sort of point to the general trend of this court to be extremely deferential to executive authority And especially as it relates to the president's ability to affect, control, immigration policy, which is a place where they see the most expansive vision of the executive is in matters of foreign policy. and I think they think of immigration as a matter of foreign policy effectively, right? Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And that's not a crazy idea, right? The idea that you have to have the executive control of the borders, like especially versus state control you could see some why that would make sense. I do think it's important to remember here that it is possible for Congress to pick up the ball again. I mean, these are statutory interpretation questions, like Congress can extend temporary protected status to groups if it chooses. Congress can rewrite the nineteen ninety six immigration law. There could be a kind of dialogue among the branches on policy grounds here. that lane is still wide open, whether it's plausible or not. That's good That's good. Great job, Bazzy The reflecting pool, I went down biked down to the it on Did you put your finger in? Did you get arrest? I did did not. I had the thought like I don't w want to put my finger in. And I have you know reporters at Cititycast DC and I had thought, o, I should ask them to investigate. And I was like, no, I should not ask them to investigate. That's just going to get them in trouble. There were thirty people. I counted thirty people were working on the reflecting pool. It was Saturday at past five o'clock. I mean, that's overtime work All right It looked dire It looked dire. The algae was evident. The blue does not show it all They've now fenced it off, or they're in the process of fencing it off allegedly to protect it for the fireworks display on july fourth really part of making The m all making this less of a story that people can, u spend their time visually and physically enjoying They've arrested people, the Trump administration has arrested people and accused them without any evidence of vandalizing the pool problems at the pool as an anntifa plot and It's just been I mean, it's a metaphor for everything. Is it a metaphor? Is it It's a metaphor for everything? Yes. Go ahead. What is What is it a metaphor for, Emily Describe the metaphor. I'm trying to understand the metaphor. It's the Trump presidency. you claim that you are gonna fix this enduring difficult problem. You're going to come in in a week in a day for five dollars, you know, do this thing no one has ever done before. You're the builder, you're the real estate developer. and then it all goes to shit. because you use no bid contract and there's grift and you try to do it too fast and it falls apart. And then instead of admitting that you made a mistake, you turn around and make up a lie about vandalism. You start arresting people using the power of the state in this very aggressive way And the pool is filled with algae and is a mess and also you've caused some harm to actual human beings along the way. And then you expect everybody in your party to lie about it on your behalf and say, oh, there's nothing to see here while you're also prosecuting a war that fits all those descriptions. So it's both a metaphor for a lot of the things the president has done But it's also a metaphor for what's happening exactly right now in his biggest foreign policy. gambut. and don't believe your lying eyes is a kind of you know, that's been a consistent theme in obviously the much more dire case of the two Americans who were killed by IC officers when the administration said you weren't supposed to believe what you were actually witnessing on video. I mean, it is look, I think what Trump has done is appalling here It is interesting. It's a metaphor I think for the Trump administration, but's also a metaphor for governance is hard, period. because of course there was the technocratic solution that the Obama folks tried The Obama folks spent a boatload of money and try to fix it Also like you know, they got I'm sure they got all the experts in and they they were like, we're going to we're going to deal with this. and they went after it. And they didn't fix it either. Like there was there was a huge algae problem then too. Um, Trump solution different impulsive, expensive, self glorifying Dishonest is also not working. So it's in a way, it's a metaphor not just for for the failures of the Trump administration, but also the failures of technocracy, which is not as easy as it looks. And illustrative of an important point, which is you can be unhappy with the way government works. You can see disadvantages and problems in the democratic version of doing things but that the response to disappointment in one area is not all those things you described, David. You know, it's not the Donald Trump presidency, which sometimes people have said, which is, well, sure, he isn't great, but like the other side's worse. There's another option Also the way the president keeps talking about it, right? I mean, the reason this keeps being a story is that beautifying Washington is his favorite thing to talk about because he doesn't want to talk about the war in Iran, which is completely now full of these concessions and failure. thoughtought he wanted to talk about these beautification projects, which also are all about him, his name on the Kennedy Center. you know, the idea supposedly, according to Maggie Haberman and Johson Swan' book that he was going to put his fist on top of the Like there's just so many examples of this, But then by talking about the pool, he has draw attention to the least successful imperial effort he has made in Washington genuinely, as I've said before, I genuinely like Trump's love of showy architecture and symbolism and wanting things to look great and wanting DC G What is G mean in this sentence, come on, gilded statues, please. goo ahead. Wait, David, so you think that he cares about Washington? I think he cares about look, this is a city where I live. And if this city can look good What what does look good mean in this sentence? Like look good according to who? This arch is going to be at looking good No, no. Thats ar is gonna be looking good. just weren is gonna be looking good. that was ar. I wanted to be a looking good. I went to Meridian Hill Park Midian Hillark is a beautiful urban in the heart of Washington of residential Washington, really off sixteenth street. And the fountains have not worked there for years. And Trump stole a bunch of money from National Park Service entry fees and used it to fix the fountains in Merian Hill Park, which now look quite nice. They are quite nice. And as a As a citizen of the United States, I appalled at the waste of resources. As a citizen of Washington, DC, I am glad that My city is looking a little bit cleaner and a little bit and could look better. Now, is Trump' style my style? No, it isn't. but I also like I like that the aspect of Trump that I like is his builder aspect. and it's kind of like, we're gonna make something here. I think that is a sympathetic aspect of it. It is endearing quality The least endearing quality is that he's completely fucking incompetent and everything goes wrong. Well okay, but don't on balanceced. Isn't the ball that you're putting on the tee here with laces facing towards me and the fact that you've ask You know, when you put a ball on the tee, laces don't faceward someone You're mixing these should m and face towards the back. Oh the O D ball. I thought youant golf. I was in it I was Oh my God, that just revealed you And you've asked the fielders to leave the field. I mean, aren't you essentially saying that like a mussolini made the fountains look pretty What are youini about? also the trains run on time Look, I'm not here to defend fascism, orre defend I'm not But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that the building aspects, the building aspects, I was just in Italy. There's some beautiful buildings in Italy, some of which are from, you know the Roman imperium, which is a pretty terrible time in a lot of ways, But do we look at those as monuments to human achievement? Yeah, we kind of do So do you think on that Washington DC is going to look better and be better off architecturally and beautification wise because of the Trump administration Do I think that on balance Yes. Wow I do I do. Do I think it is worth the cost and Was it a good use of resources and should they have taken the money from national parks? and should it be so corrupt No, but like if you strictly say like if you came in on january first, twenty twenty nine and compared it to where the city looked on january first, twenty twenty five and or twentieth, whatever, do I think the DC will look better Are you including the demolishing of the East Wing of the White House and the likely building of this triumphal arch it's called? Yeah, I am including that. Yes, which I think the demolish of the East wing of the White House is terrible, but I think the ballroom will be fine. The arch is going to be an abomination. Look, Obvious I'm not saying it is I'm not saying it's wise. I'm not saying it's good. It is hugely corrupt. It is it is a It is a misuse of government resources. But I am saying if you strictly say, is it somewhat better than it would have been? Yes, I will say it is somewhat better than it would have been. I'm not saying it's a good use of resources for the country, but can it can those things be true at once? Yes, they can all be true at once. I feel like you were in better safer territory when you were in with cleaned ponds because I think the thing about the East Wing and the ballroom and the arch is that they are objectively monstrosities, that that that beauty has always been associated with proportion. And that and that they both, both of those things out of proportion in size and also in gilded Bobble like Goopiness that they that that a clean fountain is I can see that. Like the white typewriter that I believe, which Mussolini erected in Rome U It's out of proportion. It's and therefore by objective beauty standards is actually ugly So therefore cannot I mean, I don't think There are objective beauty standards. I think that Yes, there are the Greeks and figured them out That an answer. I also don't think that I don't think that everyone agrees that gilding things is bad I know they have to look know they don't. Nice gilded.. They also like the clown paintings in thell. snobbish. Oh I think. I thinkum I think Trump's middle brow tastes are actually a strength of his. That helps him That people like stuff gilded. I don't think you should I don't think you should heap that calmny on middle brow people that they like things to be m possively out of proportion. This is like the seventh time we've had this arc. It's a good thing We're here holding down the for fl what to say Trump beautification. I'm not holding down the fort for Trumpian beautification. I'm holding down the forort for beautification, period. And I think some of what Trump is doing is good. I'm looking forward to this garden of American heroes honestly.at The statutory Garden. I'm looking forward to. I think that will be I love a statuary garden One argument about the Relecting pool to get back to the Reflecting Pool is just an unadulterated disaster and was stupid. and also the blue paint, you can't even it's not visible under any circumstance. One argument about it is, oh, it occupies Trump's time and attention isn't that terrible it' occupied No is Souldn't we say isn't that good? Yeah? Well, maybe except that it hasn't stopped him from this war, which has been terrible. And I mean, we're going to talk about this in a little bit, but also weird things where he's just like, you know vetoing the housing bill that just passed with bipartisan support because of his obsession with the Save America terrible voting rights bill that he not voting rights, voting non rights that he is backing. If you think of it as How best should a person you believe is not a good president spend an incremental minute? Bet that he spend it super gluing gold applique to the fireplace as Haberman and Swan reported he was doing when his press seecretary walked into the room. Better that he spend a minute doing that than picking the next country to invade However, if you think of that minute as a symbol of an absolutely bone deep obsession with his obsessions, which are all rooted essentially in his own ego and desires h, then not so good. because it's a demonstration of the shoddy thinking and the magical thinking that has been behind some of his blunders in office. And it also baobbles distract us I mean, literally, the bables are distracting us. gold the gold leaf is literally distracting us. And so when we focus on this, which is I mean, it's metaphorical but trivial Um Does that mean that we are, therefore not paying attention to whatever crruelty and abomination, Stephven Miller concocted last weekend. Yeah, but what what is the point of what we pay attention to? Like are we chronling you know current events because we're journalists and we're observing and we're talking about things that seem noteworthy Are we trying to persuade people who could be persuaded that Trump is a bad president and already Um donon't already think that. I don't know. like are there people who are going to think like, okay, yes, now I get it. This reflecting pool is a metaphor for everything? Like, I don't know. Probably not. On the other hand, is there maybe some sense perkling out into U Trump supporters that like maybe this guy is not always cracked up to be, like, yeah, I think that that could be possible and this is like one small thread of that, potentially. John, what do you think? you look skeptical No, no, I'm trying to sort through. I mean, let's be fair, though you know, this is a shiny object. Yes. and Although it's actually murky. This particular object is extremely however it's true And but I think the rescuing second sentence is, but this is a presidency of shiny objects. and wrestling with that is you know been our concern since twenty fifteen. U and it's gotten a lot of and I would include myself in this off track But I'd go back to my how do you spend your incremental minute. I mean, I think one of the things that comes through very clearly in the Haberman and Swann book, which is deeply reported is that this is a fishtailing president where the where the thing The engine behind all of it is his pursuit of power, his pursuit of just personal whim is emotional evacuation of his chambers of of humors and that he's built a White House and a system around him. that answers to that and that anticipates that. And so in the Reflecting pool, another thing you saw is that the president claims there were vandals and suddenly vandals are being arrested. Whether those vandals were a fiction or a figment of his imagination or not, the The law enforcement does what you know, it starts engaging in the reality hes started to create. The New York Times has the records of what happened. and there are gashes in the reflecting pool, but they don't the official documents don't say that they were created by a vandal or anything. So the point is that this world, the shiny object, murky object world that the president creates, I've said it a million times before, creates a market that people then behave in And those people are, you, his party, they are law enforcement officers. and therefore What what I might have, you know, gotten up on my high horse and said this is a distraction Like The distraction is the thing for a lot of this and is the story of this presidency And he is the author of the distractions. I mean, look like the Iran warar itself. Um is is not going well and And it is represented of the same kind of mindset, I guess is my point I'm sure there was no vandalism of the reflecting pool I kind of understand the paranoia of the Trump folks. Did you guys see the story about? The grass on the mall? No So somebody Probably an inside job useded some form of technology plus grass cutting plus fertilizer channel somehow place eighty six forty seven in gigantic grass different numbers, not let numbers, numumbers made from sort of dead grass on the mall. Interesting. And somebody managed to do that. If I were a Trump person, I'd be like, well, they managed to do that to the mall grass that we were about to have our fair on. Maybe they're maybe they're going after my reflection. Well, I mean, and the guysy there' been, you know, multiple assassination attempts I mean, multiple ass even the even the paranoid have real enemies Um Let us go to cocktail Chatter when you're having a reflecting pool this weekend, Emily, which is a mix of blue Cacow And what's a nice green liquor What's it green? Chartreuse. Chartreuse Uh and Mud, what will you and hydrogen peroxide what will you be chattering about? I had a couple of things that crossed my desk to talk about this week. So one is that the comic R Sekoriac sent me these delightful, illustrated comic versions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution quite charming and try to use know the whimsy of comics in lots of different styles, like there's Dunesbury, there's superhero, like Marvel Comics pages, there's all kinds of looks to these to bring to life these documents of ours. So I had a good time paging through those. And then also my friend Jake Halperurn, who makes a show called Deep Cver for Pushkin has a new season out. It's called The Family Man. I haven't listened to a narrative podcast. I really wanted to hear from beginning to end in a while and I really like the season. so I recommend that as well. J gers Before I get to my chatatter, just a brief shout out to Phoebe, who is a rising college freshman next year who is somehow a Gfest fan and wanted me to say hello to both of you So thanks always for saying hi. So thanks for saying hi, Phobe I was really impressed by a New York Times piece about pedestrian deaths from Sunday.. The graph I feel like art for that the graph little disturbing were amazing. And the headline is basically between two hundred and four hundred people a year, might have been alive if vehicles had remained roughly the same size as they were a generation ago And so what the Times did, essentially is it showed you what vehicles looked like. in a generation ago and then how they have gotten bigger and how basically the front end of those cars have gotten taller. And essentially if you just you know, do the simple math in your head, a bigger front end of a car and a bigger car in general, hitting a pedestrian means more dead pedestrians And I thought where the Times went further, which was, you know suspenders reporting is they both looked at they well not only explained why the vehicles kill more people, but the also measured the pedestrian sensing technology that the vehicle that the auto industry said was working. and the timimes found that a lot of those systems fail in basically pretty common conditions And the Times also, I should say, used a three dimensional scanner to look at some of four of the most popular pickups today and explain why the blind zones are doubled and and so forth. So it was just great example of really thorough reporting and obviously a tragedy for all of those extra deaths that can be attributed to the designs My chatter will get to this on a similar subject, Joh I Every city if you look at Many American cities, they all have these vision zero programs and the idea is we're going to reduce Pedestrian fatalities to zero And they all adopted these about a decade ago, and it's been Dastrous. None of them have managed it. They' not more pedestrians than ever being killed. And it's not because they don't haven't come up with really good strategies. It's because of what you just described that the vehicles that are are the enemy of the pedestrian are so much bigger and so much more deadly. And so all the other traffic calming measures you take you adopt to try to mitigate that are helpful, but they They don't get rid of the fact that the weapon is bigger and more powerful Um My chatter, first of all it truly U self serving chatter, but a really important one, which is I've been talking about Cititycast DC for a while, and I just want to say we are relaunched City Cast DC., if you're in Washington and you need news, we are now a place to get it. We've hired eight reporters. We are trying to fill the gap that the Washington Post left has left in the city and local coverage. and we are trying to do that. otherther outlets are trying to do it. Notice AxiOos, the Baltimore Banner we're all trying to serve the people of Washington with the news that they need, the news that they deserve. And so at City Cast DC, we have supporters who are going to be covering beats like politics and business in transit and the cultural life of the city. We have a daily podcast, we have newsletters, we have credible social content And we have a new website at dc. citycast. f obsessive about DC, We' the obsessively local news outlet for DC. And I would just urge you if you are looking for news about the city to consider following what we're doing at Cititycast DC It's been so good. stuff on the reflecting pool. they've done the great stuff on the election on the DSA effication of DC. And we have amazing contributors. We've got forormmer schools chancellor, former mayor, urban planners, economists Please sign up and follow us My actual chatter is in the same vein as John is sort of in a vision zero. the dangers to pedestrians and cities. I just learned this week. did you guys know that in many American cities, I don't know if it's most. In many American cities, the person responsible for building a sidewalk is you If you live on a street This sidewalk, whether or not a sidewalk gets built is up to the individual property owner. And so I was talking to. And you get to decide by yourself You decide by yourself Like your little like you have a sidewalk. Yeah there're blocks. they'll be blocks where you'll have your fifty feet of frontage will have a sidewalk but your neighbor won't And so it's this absolutely bizarre checkerboard. It's incredibly bad for pedestrians for anyone with disabilities. And it just doesn't work So Denver has just adopted a thing where the city is now they essentially put in a fee for all property owners and now they're going to build their whole sidewalk network becausecause of course, good sidewalks are one of the really true U amenities of a their necessity of a functioning todayity. I had this very strong feeling about, oh, yes, I remember places where that's the case. and then I was like, wait a minute, No, maybe I'm just like suddenly filling in a memory that is totally inspired by your description. I feel like I can visually understand that, but I never understood why or thought about it enough. It's bizarre It's a bizarre thing Listeners, you've got chatters. please keep them coming to us. somethingomething you're reading, watching consuming you experienced email them to us at Gabfest at slate. com and Our listener chatel this week comes from Jeff Watts in Moorstown, New Jersey My chatter this week is about an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Mike Newell In it he paints a picture of life in Philadelphia hundred and fifty years ago and of John Adams as he works on a resolution authorizing the colonies to form independent governments. Newell's historical sketch puts you right in the streets of colonial Philadelphia, the largest and wealthiest city in British North America You can hear the hucksters hawking their wares on the high street and picture the cherry blossoms billowing out of the courtyard of Red Brick Homes The mood is tense, There has already been fighting in Massachusetts and days earlier, a small fleet of America's Hodgebodge Navy beat back British men of W war fifteen miles south of Philadelphia As we approached the two hundred fifteth anniversary of the founding of our nation, I found Newell's peace and lightning as to what life was like for a colonial delegate in the city at the center of it all as the colonies considered revolting against the British Empire and declaring their independence We're not the only ateodcast this week You should listen to the final episode of the Slate culture Gab Fest good. Oh no, it's actually not the final episode. I take it back. St It's their final strut episode U They're talking about Disclosure Day, movie I loved, but everyone else did not seem to like. Dana Steven also liked that movie Well, if Dana liked it then I trust my own judgment. I think Julia hated it anyway The culture graph is going away, and you should listen to it before it goes away because they are the best Stephen Dane and Julia Man I know. We're going to miss you guys That's all for our episode this week. We also have a bonus episode in yourar feed. We're gonna talk about the housing bill that Trump won't sign. That's only for slate plus members who also get Bonus episodes on other Slate podcasts they never hit the paywall in the slate site. they get discounts to live shows like the live show we're supposed to be planning, which we somehow still have not planned. Anyway, if you are a member, subscribe to Slate pllus directly from the Political Gabfest S show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify or visit slate. com slash Gavfest plus cess wherever you listen. That's our show for today. The pololitical cathest is produced by Nina Korzuki, our researchers, Emily Ditto or Thee Music is by they might be Giants Ben Richmond, the senior Director for Podcast Operations, Emma Bell, executive producer of Slate Podcast, and Hillary Freice, and Sl, Emily Basilin and John Dicker some H in Plots. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to you next week