Advocating for Victims of Illegal Alien Crimes with Don Rosenberg | Judicial Watch

➡ Judicial Watch in this podcast episode talks about the impact of illegal immigration on the United States, focusing on the crimes committed by illegal immigrants. The host, Chris Farrell, interviews Don Rosenberg, who started an organization for victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants after his son was killed by an illegal immigrant. They discuss the lack of attention this issue gets in the media and the need for stricter immigration policies to prevent these crimes. Rosenberg shares his personal experience and provides statistics to highlight the severity of the problem.

➡ The article discusses the issue of illegal immigration, focusing on the negative impacts it can have on society. It highlights that while many immigrants are seeking a better life, their illegal entry and subsequent actions, such as obtaining false documentation and potentially committing identity theft, contribute to a culture of criminality. The article also points out the significant financial burden on taxpayers, including the costs of education, healthcare, and other social services for illegal immigrants. Lastly, it criticizes the media for not adequately covering these issues.

➡ The article discusses the bias in media reporting, highlighting a case where a high school student was forced to cut his hair was given more attention than a murder case involving an illegal immigrant. The author criticizes the media for choosing to cover less significant stories over more serious ones, suggesting that this is not an accident but a deliberate decision. The article also talks about a father who lost his son and started an organization to support victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. The author argues that the media often misrepresents facts and uses specific language to skew the truth.

➡ The text discusses the difference between immigrants and illegal aliens, arguing that the two shouldn’t be mixed up. It criticizes the media for blurring the lines and creating confusion, and suggests that people should put pressure on politicians to address the issue of illegal immigration. The text also mentions the long-term consequences of illegal immigration and the difficulty of solving the problem. It encourages people to take action by contacting their representatives and writing to local newspapers.

➡ The text discusses the issue of sanctuary policies, which are seen as protecting illegal immigrants who commit crimes, giving them more rights than ordinary citizens. The speaker argues that these policies are unfair and unsustainable, but emphasizes the need to criticize the process, not the individuals. The speaker also stresses the importance of being honest and factual when discussing this issue, rather than resorting to name-calling or negative language. The text ends with an interview with Don Rosenberg, who advocates for victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

Chris I’m Chris Farrell, and this is on Watch. Welcome to on Watch, everybody, the Judicial Watch podcast, where we go behind the scenes to cover news stories that the mainstream media probably doesn’t want you to know about, where we try to recover some lost history and explain the inexplicable. We appreciate you taking time to join us. Whether you’re watching on the video version of this podcast or listening on one of the streaming platforms like Spotify, please be sure to subscribe to Onwatch, leave us a rating, and then communicate with us.

Let us know what you’d like us to cover, what topics, who you’d like us to interview. We appreciate your time and we want your input. And we value all the supporters of Judicial Watch out there who day after day have been loyal to us, have helped advance this podcast to really spread out and gain incredible viewership and listenership. So thank you very much. We appreciate it. Today I’m very pleased to be joined by a guest who has, I think, some really crucial, key insights into the consequences of President Biden’s unrestricted open borders on their southern border and what that means to average Americans.

You see a lot of headlines. You see imagery of crises at the border with waves of people entering border patrol, all the different law enforcement and social services groups trying to handle the crisis. But there’s another part of the border and immigration crisis that doesn’t get as much attention. It gets sporadic, intermittent attention, but it doesn’t get a real focus that it should. And so today, to address exactly that, I’m very pleased to welcome to the show Don Rosenberg.

Don, welcome to on Watch. Hi, Chris. Thank you for having me. Don, you’re the founder of an organization called Advocates for victims of illegal immigration crime. There’s certainly been a lot of attention paid to that, again, sporadically, but most recently with the case of the young nursing student in Georgia, Blacon Riley. But she’s really one name out of literally thousands of people who have been the victims of illegal immigration crime.

How is it that you came to found this organization? Well, a little over 13 years ago, my son was in law school in San Francisco. He was going home one evening to his apartment, and an illegal alien tried to make a last second left hand turn and collided with my son. Had he stopped, I wouldn’t be sitting here with you today because they were both going very slowly.

But he tried to flee, and he drove back and forth over his body three times trying to get away. Oh, my God. And killed him. And ironically, even though he was in the country illegally. And we were told that when we met with the police department they had confirmed that. But then a couple days later they called and said, oh, there was a mistake. He’s in the country legally.

So for the first eleven months, you know, weird things were happening in the legal case. And over the next eleven months, I was really advocating against getting people without driver’s licenses off the road because I thought the guy was here legally. I did a lot of radio shows, some tv shows locally, and I got contacted one night by an ice agent surreptitiously who said, you know, I hear you all the time and I got to tell you, Roberto Gallo is in the country illegally.

And he did prove himself, you know. Yeah, he definitely was an ice agent and that was definitely the case. And even at that point, I still for the next couple months tried to stay away from the immigration part of the equation since, you know, I am in California and people don’t want to hear that. But it got to the point where when I was both testifying at commission hearings and things where people were sort of justifying illegal aliens driving, even though I never mentioned the word illegal alien because they had to get to work, they had to get to school, they had to take their kids to the doctor.

And it was sort of like, yeah, we’re sorry. I mean, one person even said this to me at a la police commission hearing after I testified. He said, well, I’m sorry your son died, but, you know, Jose has to get to work. This is an incredibly cold and not just insensitive, but really a brutalist mentality that doesn’t take into account somehow the loss of human life is equated to somebody making their daily trip to work.

I mean, this is, it’s completely out of touch with the reality. Yeah, well, and I got a lot of that. At one point in Los Angeles they tried to, well, they actually ended up doing it. It was called special order seven, which if you were here illegally, you were allowed to drive without a license. It was eventually ruled unconstitutional, but it did go into effect. And one of the police commissioners, after I was done testifying, said to me, have you no compassion? And my answer is no, I don’t.

Well, I mean, even though I had done things publicly in other parts of my career and everything, I was so stunned by it, I didn’t say anything. Now today, if somebody said that to me, I would have, you know, torn them verbally, torn them to pieces, maybe physically as well. Right. But it was just, it was so outrageous a comment to me. Have I no compassion. But more and more, as I kept talking and people kept telling me all the great things, even though I was still talking about unlicensed drivers, all the great things that illegal aliens had done and do.

And my background, I do have some background in statistical analysis. I started looking at the studies they were quoting and realized, this is nonsense. This is not true. And they sort of forced me into the immigration issue because I had to defend that before I could even defend the not driving without a license part. I think for context, it’s important to note you’re not a professional activist. You’re not a public policy wonk who’s been running around dealing with these issues for your entire adult life.

By profession, you’re an entertainment and publishing guy. That was your professional life up to this point. And it was only the circumstances of the death of your son that even brought you into this arena at all. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I’ve always been a news junkie, and I’m probably one of those people that, you know, maybe I was two or three inches deep and 100 miles wide, as opposed to one inch deep.

Sure. So, no, you’re absolutely right. I got more sucked into this. I mean, first of all, if the guy had just taken the penalty, if he didn’t fight the case, this could have ended in. I mean, he would have gotten a year in jail in California. That means six months maximum, Max, right? He ended up getting convicted and spent 43 days in jail and released him. But had this happened at the beginning, I would have never gotten more involved.

It was only as things kept happening, and I kept like, why did this happen? What is going on here? What is going on there? So I kept getting deeper and deeper into this pandora’s box, and I realized how bad the situation really was. It wasn’t an aberration that this guy killed somebody. And I will tell you something. He wasn’t a bad guy. He was probably 50 years old.

I know he didn’t go out that day thinking, oh, I want to kill somebody. But just to note, however, this guy made a bad decision, took a bad act. I get it. He’s not some kind of career criminal who’s been running around assaulting people for. But there are people like the guy who killed Kate Steinle, who was a career criminal, who was a multiple felon, and they treat that kind of guy virtually the same.

Yeah, well, that’s the thing. I mean, I discovered, as I started doing a lot of research, getting a lot of statistics, that this is a big problem. I mean, there’s no group other than maybe criminals themselves. There’s no group that you can say, oh, all of these people are murderers and rapists and whatever. But the numbers that I found, and one of the great, if people really ever want to look at some numbers, because they don’t keep records on illegal alien crime like they do most other crime.

But the GAO has released three reports over the last 20 years where they compile data over years, and the last one was released in 2018, covering up to 2016, like six years. You’re talking about, like, your opening statement. We’re talking about since, if we go back to the last immigration act in 1986, probably close to 100,000 people have been killed by illegal aliens. About a million have been raped or are sexually assaulted.

And if you count all the other crimes, you’re talking millions and millions of crimes. So it doesn’t matter whether 100% of the people are committing those crimes of illegal aliens. 50%, 10%, 5%. That’s unacceptable. Yes. And the only way you stop that is stopping illegal aliens entering the country and deporting the ones who are here because they came in under false pretenses. Right. We have no idea who is a criminal past the fact that they came in illegally and who has any intention of what they come here, when they come here.

So all you can do is say, you can’t come that way, and if you’re here, you have to leave. You’re exactly right. I mean, I think there’s a certain perspective that’s lost on some people, because, look, there’s an awful lot of people who are very compassionate. And I get it. They say, look, these are just people who are trying to come here for a better life. They’re victims of circumstance and situation, and they’re looking for economic freedom, the opportunity for prosperity.

I get it. But there’s a process and a system, and they choose not to follow it. And then they enter the country unlawfully. And then very shortly after that, they often obtain documentation. That’s, again, illegal. It’s unlawful, it’s false documentation in order to obtain some kind of status or then go on to get a job, whether they’re using somebody else’s Social Security number or whatever. Now you’re getting into identity theft.

And, I mean, so this has a cascading effect. And so we’re not talking necessarily about crimes of violence against persons or property, but we are talking about sort of a culture or an environment. Yeah. An environment of criminality where they can’t cross the border unless they pay the cartels a percentage then they get here and it’s a series of lesser criminal acts to sustain their operations here. And even if they’re not axe murderers, the whole thing is predicated on illegality.

So I agree with your assessment that, you know, and when you look at the numbers, as you pointed out, of crimes against persons and other violent crimes, you know, robbery and such, it’s breathtaking. It’s staggering. I love that your website. And so the website for folks, well link this in the show description so folks can go to it. But the organization again, is advocates for victims of illegal immigration crime.

The website has tremendous resources, excellent reporting, lots of statistics, lots of reports, and then other commentary stuff as well to kind of give you a perspective. So I dont mean to interrupt you, but I just think theres some key pieces of the story that people need to really, they need to look at the full picture. There’s the immigration crime, but then there’s an entire environment of criminality that is the foundation.

It’s the predicate for this entire thing. Right. One thing, if someone’s trying to, you know, search us, it’s advocates for victims of illegal alien crime. I’m sorry, illegal alien crime. I misspoke. Yeah, yeah. I mean, we try to get as much information as we can onto the site. I mean, it’s interesting you talked about at the beginning, the media doesn’t cover, doesn’t want to cover this stuff. And their vetting process for an employee, no matter how low on the totem pole, is much stronger than is being done right now with the people we’re allowing into the country.

And even if the person’s only crime is how they come into the country, and everything you said is right, it’s almost impossible to that be your only crime. But even if it is, the cost to us taxpayers is staggering. You always hear this, oh, they come here and they’re contributing to the economy. Well, contributions can be both negative and positive. That’s one way to put it. Yeah. You know, well, it’s like the guy who sends a charity a check for $0.

50. Well, it costs the charity $3 to process the 50 cent check. They’d rather not have it, and maybe they don’t process it anyway. Well, here you have a case where it’s about a ten to one ratio of what they contribute to what they cost. When COVID started and Gavin Newsom wanted to give illegal aliens some money, since the federal government wouldn’t, he made a comment that, oh, they pay $2.

5 billion a year in taxes. Well, I’ll give him that. I have no idea where he gets his numbers, but fine. They cost California about $30 billion a year. It’s over 20 billion, just to educate their children. So they’re not doing anything illegal about sending their kid to school. But it costs a lot of money. Right now, we pay about $25,000 a year for a child k through twelve.

The average illegal alien maybe makes $40,000 a year. So how much in taxes is he paying where one kid give them health insurance now? And if they’re a citizen, if they were born here, you’re talking probably about, it cost us probably 40, $50,000 a year to support this one child. And most of them have more than one child. Sure. And then they take in the other factors, such as housing and health care, other social services.

That number spirals upwards. And it’s not just a matter of education, but it’s the entire kind of social fabric and network around that. It’s quite expensive. And I have a unique position. A very dear friend. I’m originally a New Yorker, and a very dear friend of mine did not flee New York. He’s there in a very senior law enforcement position. He tells me what his officers are dealing with when it comes to the influx of people in the city of New York and how mayor Adams is dealing with it and how a lot of the mood in New York city is turning.

All of a sudden, people are saying, hey, wait a minute. When your kid’s school is closed and they’re sent back to COVID era Zoom classes because the school’s being used to house and service illegal aliens, that has a tendency to make people kind of go, hey, wait a minute, right? All of a sudden, the local middle school is not a middle school anymore. And there’s just. There’s a wave of complications.

On top of it’s sort of all the unintended or unanticipated consequences that come from this. So I have to ask you, you’re sitting in California now, and I’m sure that, you know, from your days of being in the entertainment industry and publishing industry, particularly in California, there’s probably some old friends and colleagues who say to you, Don, what happened? Why did you, I guess they understand, obviously, the tragedy of your son’s death, but how do they interact with you? How do they sort of process or engage with you now? Because, you know, you had a career going one way, and now you’re a pretty strong proponent in the other direction.

Well, you know, most of them, you know, especially years ago when I had these conversations, they’ve been, you know, they listen to the media and they, and at the start, yes, they’re very, you know, very sorry for what happened. Look, many of the people knew my son, right. I was pretty high up in the food chain and dealt with people that were also high up. And many of them lived in the same area where I live and, you know, we’d get together and non business things.

So they knew Drew. Right. And while they were, you know, and most of them came to his funeral. So while they were very, you know, touched and saddened by what happened, they looked at it as an anomaly. Yes. It’s a terrible thing that happened. But, you know, what do we do about it? They believe it’s rare, which it’s not. Yes. Right. And the ones that I’ve been able to have long conversations with over the years have a very different position now because they know me.

They know that I’m not feeding them a line. And if they ask me, where did you get that information, I give them the source and tell them, here, you can go find it. You know, and it’s not, and I’m not being derogatory to Fox News, but I don’t, you know, my sources are typically government sources. I’m not going to quote, you know, people that have an agenda, whether it’s good or bad or whatever it is.

That’s, that’s not what I do. Yeah. So, you know, but it’s still, well, there’s so many other issues that we’re against the Republican Party, which is for that issue that I still have to vote this way. And as you were saying in New York, it’ll be interesting to see how many of those people say, okay, now that it’s impacting me directly, I’ve got an issue with this and I’m going to go the other way.

But a lot of it’s, look, it’s all media driven. You mentioned Lake and Riley at the beginning. The Los Angeles Times never printed the story at all. Yeah. I mean, that’s a trick. That’s a trick of sort of the propagandistic news cycle or news system that we’re in that if you don’t report on it, it never happened. Right. And a lot of it is lies of omission. Right.

Right. We’re just not, you know, but you know, and I follow this pretty closely, and I, particularly with the time, the LA Times, because that’s where I live. Sure. And I looked at the paper over the, when should this article have run and what else ran as opposed to this? The story the day should have run? There was a pretty big story in the front section, not the front page, but the front section of the newspaper on a kid in high school who was being forced to cut his hair.

Does that. And like you said, I was in publishing. How could you possibly. Who’s the editor that made the decision that said, let’s go with this story and not this one? Well, I think recently we’ve seen some reporting, an op ed piece written by an editor at NPR, where I think he pulled back the veil or the curtain and said, look. And he’s reporting about the National Public Radio office in DC and says, we’ve got a staff of 89 people.

Every single one of the 89 is a registered Democrat, and most of them are active giving dollars to candidates. And the total number of Republicans is zero. That’s a pretty hot House environment. You know, this is. But like you said, there’s the editor at the LA Times saying, don’t report on this case. Instead do this sort of frivolous piece. But they’re making decisions to do that. That’s what disturbs me.

This is not an accident or an oversight. They’re making decisions to do these things. Oh, absolutely. I mean, having been a publisher, you only have so much space. Even if you have an online component, you only have so many people to write the stories to go there. So there’s limitations and you have to pick and choose. But some things are very simple. And the murder of a young woman on a college campus by an illegal alien who was caught in New York and released.

Was caught in Georgia and released. That’s a story that there is no decision over, that there were probably half of the stories that day in the paper. This one would have, you know, outshine that one. Right. And particularly so the thing. Right. So the media, you know, I blame the media more than I blame the politicians. We expect politicians to lie. We expect them to, you know, go after the money and whatever the whole reason behind journalism is to control them from doing that.

Correct. And instead, we’re supporting them to do that with the media the way the media has taken positions on issues which they have no business doing. You’re not a journalist when you take a position. Yeah. I taught journalism law at George Mason University here in Virginia for five years. And sadly, I had innumerable instances and examples to use in class. And of course, I was kind of the token conservative of the faculty.

But I would go into class and say, you know, let’s try to you know, and I’ll cut both ways. Judicial watch. We are equal opportunity offenders. We’re philosophically conservative, but nobody’s got a monopoly on corruption. So if they’re a Republican or a Democrat, we’re happy to go after them. So it’s not a strictly partisan issue. But, you know, you could go through and point out stories and how they were covered or not covered or the use of language.

Right. The use of language is always a wonderful example in controlling language and terminology and those sorts of things. That’s another trick, another technique in the world of publishing as to what phrases are used and how they’re used. And you see this on television now all the time with the same talking heads, use the same lingo and same expressions. I mean, they’re literally, they’ve been emailed the talking points for that day, and they’re working off of them.

So it’s not like there’s a lot of original thinking going on. But, don, I want to go back to something. So you’re in this position where you’ve lost your son, you’re frustrated by the lying and the double talk and the yes but no and no but yes. And it’s kind of like they’re playing three card Monty with you, right? You’re supposed to guess what the truth is, but then you go from that experience to founding, and I’m going to say the name right this time, advocates for victims of illegal alien crime.

But you found this organization. So take us from, you know, mourning father to, I got to do something about this. Walk us through that. Okay. Well, for, you know, for years, I was kind of, you know, somewhat doing this on my own. I would reach out frequently. When I did get a story of someone who, you know, had just suffered a tragedy, I would try to connect with the person as quickly as possible just to give them a little both moral support and tell them what happened in my case and how the system was working.

And what I learned as I was meeting some of these people and talking to them was it didn’t matter whether it was a conservative area or a liberal area, the district attorneys or prosecutors, whatever they were called, they want to get rid of these cases as fast as they can with them. Right. And, you know, so, you know, the group got a little bigger and bigger. We ended up, you know, going to DC at various times to testify, meet with people.

And the core of us said, you know, maybe it’s time to form an organization. Maybe an organization will give us a little more strength. Plus the fact there were a couple of organizations out there, and I’m not demeaning any of them, but they’re all there. But they weren’t running by victims. Right. You know, I mean, some were professionals, some weren’t. Some were just, you know, somebody who had taken an interest, you know.

So we started, you know, we talked about starting. Aviac finally did in June of 2017. And I do need to give a call out to one of your people. Robert Stick became our attorney. He’s a very good man and a very good friend. Yes, indeed. And he still is. And he has been incredibly helpful. And, I mean, so I just did want to give him a plug. So what ended up happening? Because we really started talking about this probably in early fall of 2016.

So, of course, Trump gets elected president, and all of a sudden we have a friend in the White House, and we have the ability to talk to people in government that we never had before as an individual. We weren’t a group at the time, so we formed the group. And we’re still going our main objective, because the one thing that I found, and that we found that everybody we talked to that was a victim basically got screwed by the system and typically early on, and it impacted how their case went.

Yes. That was anywhere from what the person was charged with, people being released and fleeing. I mean, these things that are like that you need to know the first week after this happens, and it’s hard to do that when you’re in such shock. Sure. But these things were happening and, you know, we wanted to stop him, and we were doing that for a while. It’s become impossible now under both the Biden administration, lack of cooperation, and the fact that the media doesn’t even rarely covers these cases anymore.

You mentioned Kate Steinle and then Lake and Riley. Well, I used to have a, you know, when people would talk to me about Kate Steinle and the organization hadn’t started yet, my comment was, well, half the people think she’s the first person ever killed by an illegal alien, and the other half never heard of her. Right? Exactly correct. Well, today on Lake and Riley, I would say 80% of the people never heard of her, and the 20% that did think she’s the first person that was ever killed by an illegal alien.

So we also wanted to how do we get our voice heard? How do we influence things? So we spent a lot more time meeting with politicians because like I said, it’s so hard. We find out about these tragedies, typically death, but it could be four months after it happens, at which point the cast is, you know, the die has been cast as to how that person’s going to be treated.

And we still will reach out. Just as if you want to talk to somebody who’s been through this and is past the shock, you know, here we are. But we more now will deal with politicians. We write lots of emails to the news media, typically trying to correct factual statements they make that aren’t factual. Well, that goes back to the control of language issue I spoke about a moment ago.

There’s a lexicon of approved words and phrases, and almost all the reporting is skewed. Oh. And very few will ever respond. And it’s not, I don’t want to give anybody my opinion unless they ask for it. So it’s, you said this, but here’s the truth. I mean, even before I got, before we came on here looking at a column that was, it’ll be, it’s in the LA Times where the writer is accusing Trump of, you know, please don’t call them animals.

Now, he did say that, but he was talking about illegal aliens. But her article says, quote, that was Trump last week in Grand Rapids, Michigan, talking about immigrants. No, he wasn’t talking about it. Illegal aliens are not immigrants. Correct. And that’s a point we try to push as a group constantly, is there’s a difference. You don’t become an immigrant when you step over the border illegally. You don’t become an immigrant when your visa expires.

You don’t become an immigrant requesting asylum. And you certainly don’t become an immigrant when that asylum claim is denied and you refuse to leave. Right. So, you know, don’t do that. I tell you, I testified in July at a House judiciary committee hearing, and everybody always has a theme. So the Democrats theme that point was, don’t demonize immigrants. And what I tried to say, and it’s a little hard.

Cause you can’t speak unless you’re spoken. What I tried to say is, you’re the one, to the Democrats. You’re the ones demonizing immigrants by combining them with criminals. Correct. We’re not doing that. I’m not talking about immigrants. I’m fine. And a matter of fact, my son Drew, who was killed and in law school, you never know till it happens. But when he did a semester overseas, he met a girl that he would have probably married.

She would have been an immigrant. My other son married a first generation american. And, you know, her father is an immigrant. So I don’t even want to connect. The two should not be connected at all. Right. That’s what they do because it’s, they want to make criminals look better than they are, so they connect them with the people who followed the legal path. Right. I mean, their whole objective is just to blur it all up.

Yes. And make it as sensationalized in the way of saying, like you basically, you know, by what you’re saying, you’re attacking my grandmother. Right. And it’s like, no, no one’s trying to attack your grandmother. Right. I mean, that is not the issue at all. But they enjoy that kind of ambiguity. It’s strategic. They deliberately blur it up and try to mix and match. And it’s a dishonest effort on their part.

And they know better, which is even, I mean, these are not stupid people. They know very well what they’re doing. They’ve been very successful. They have. They have been extremely successful because when you, again, speaking as a publisher, we used to have a saying, don’t argue with the guy who owns the ink. And it’s when you’re trying to fight one person writing something and millions of people are seeing or hearing something.

One of the things that was interesting right after the state of the union address, I mean, you know, you talked about your, you know, your friends in New York and everything. And obviously we’re seeing people, you know, in much greater numbers being against illegal immigration. But right after the state of the union thing, there was an article in the paper and they were just, you know, showing the rankings and, you know, viewership.

And you always hear the left complaining about Fox News like they’re lying and poisoning everybody. And that’s why people are against illegal immigration. Well, I looked at that and Fox was the number one. They had the most viewers by one outlet they had about 7%. But then when you look at CB’s, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN on and on, they had about 25%. It was more than three times as many.

And then I went back and looked at newspapers that endorsed, in 20, 2044 papers, out of the top hundred endorsed Biden, seven endorsed Trump. And the others didn’t endorse anybody. So the news media in numbers is clearly on the other side of this issue than I am. Yeah. And that’s why people have such a false impression of what’s really happening. So they know illegal immigration is bad. They don’t know what to do about the people that are here.

And, you know, and it’s not going away anytime soon. I mean, this is now a generational problem. And even the folks that areyou know, if your last name is Mayorkas, you know, its still a problem and its going to have to be dealt with. These people are not just suddenly going to vanish into thin air. Trumps talked about deportation. Thats going to be a neat trick. Maybe you can get away with it in large part or in small part or maybe incrementally, but there are real consequences.

There are real sort of circumstances that we have to deal with now and were going to have to deal with for the next 510 years. Theres no magic wand solution to this. And the crime numbers are outrageous. Yeah, I think its, I think youre being generous, five to ten years. I think if, if everything was done the way it should be done and we sealed the border, we stopped, you know, we started, you know, deporting people that are here illegally.

2030 years from now, there’s still going to be stories of illegal aliens killing people and committing crimes, because no matter how hard you try to do it, it’s almost an impossible task. It doesn’t mean you don’t stop. But it’s like speeders. You can’t stop them from speeding. You control it to some extent. The problem is the Democrats think, oh, you can stop speeding, just raise the speed limit to 100 miles an hour and there’s no more speeding.

And that’s what they’re doing. Oh, just let the people in legally, and then we have no more problem with illegal immigration. Let me ask you a question. So you got somebody who’s watching this or listening to it on the audio version, and they’re motivated. They are fed up. Maybe they know somebody, maybe a relative or the person down the street or a guy at work. He’s had a family member who’s been assaulted or some other very unfortunate situation.

And they say, okay, that’s it. I listened to this podcast. I heard this guy Don, he’s telling a story, and they’re motivated to do something. What are your recommendations? John Q. Citizen sitting out there seeing the news, hearing us, says, okay, I’ve had enough. What do they do? What’s the next step? How do you be positive about this? Well, I think, I mean, one thing they should contact us, and you’re going to have, it’s av act us, aviac us.

They can contact us. And from there, they can contact me directly. I respond to everyone, typically with a phone call. But the other thing they need to do is they need to write to their congressman and senator. They need to write to their local politicians. They need to tell their friends to write, their friends to call. There has to be a massive amount of pressure put on, particularly purple politicians that feel they need to address this issue.

I have a belief that if you could take, let’s say, HR two, and if you could take an anonymous vote on HR two, it would overwhelmingly pass the House and Senate. I agree. And many Democrats would vote for it if they didn’t have attached, and we know that’s not going to happen. But if they didn’t have to attach their name to it because they know they’ll be destroyed if they did.

And, you know, the few that are in very, very safe districts, you know, they may come out and say something, but, you know, they still may not vote. So these people have to feel that I’m going to lose if I don’t address this issue. And the same thing. Write to your local newspapers. Let them see they probably won’t print your letter, but let them see there are more people out there than they think are.

I’ve written a lot of op eds, particularly the LA Times. They never run them. Occasionally they’ll run one of my letters. Then if I speak to somebody, they’ll say, well, we don’t get that many letters or op eds from your side of the issue. It’s like, yeah, because you would never run them. Surprise, surprise. Yeah, well, it takes a long time to write a good op ed, unless you’re an incredible writer, which, you know, I’m not.

So how much time am I going to waste sending something? I’ll tell you a quick story that I did get somewhat friendly with the guy who was the editor of the opinion page. He’s not anymore. And when California was becoming a sanctuary state, I wrote an op ed. And I said to him, look, can you do me a favor? I’m going to send this to the woman who runs that op ed page, but could you just send it to her as well? Just whatever he said? Yeah, sure.

So I sent it to her. I sent it to him. 15 minutes later, I get a response from her. This is an excellent op ed, but we’re already considering other op eds on the sanctuary state thing. Okay. I mean, I kind of expected that. So what ends up happening? They run three op eds supporting sanctuary state. They run one. They kind of explain was sort of neutral explaining what sanctuary state was.

And of course, every article in the paper was supporting. It’s like, so, okay, if it was so excellently written, then the only reason you didn’t run it is because you don’t want anybody to see what I’ve had to say. They’re trying to make it look like, and this is sanctuary. Every. Oh, we want to save Jose, the gardener and Maria the housekeeper for being deported. And no, sanctuary has nothing to do with them.

It has everything to do with protecting criminal, illegal aliens who actually have super citizen rights. They have rights above and beyond anything that you or I, we could do the exact same thing, the exact same unlawful act. They would walk, and you and I would be sitting in the jail till we got an attorney, had an arraignment, made bail and got out. Right? Absolutely. Three days later. Yeah.

And that’s the craziness. What I mentioned at the beginning, the special order seven, which was to allow illegal aliens to drive, statistically, about half and half at the time. I’m not sure what it is today, about half the people that were driving without a license were illegal, and they weren’t allowed to get one. And the other half were american citizens who had their licenses suspended and revoked for driving drunk, whatever the case.

So it was about a 50 50. But the special order seven only protected those who were here illegally, not those, because some of the people on that other side, they didn’t pay child support, so they had their license revoked, which didn’t mean they were a bad driver. Maybe that would have been a good penalty, but it wasn’t that. Oh, well, you’re a bad driver. You’re a drunk driver.

No, you were fine. So, yes, there’s clearly that they are a special class. They become a special class that has better protection than the citizens, ordinary citizens. They’re completely law abiding. Absolutely. So the organization is advocates for victims of illegal alien crime. The founder is our guest today, Don Rosenberg. Don, I’m going to give you the last word. Anything that I should have asked that I didn’t or something that you think is particularly important, I’m going to turn this over to you to.

To kind of do a little recap and finish up. Well, you know, one of, and this is probably what I think is one of the most important things other than, you know, what I said about writing and speaking out, you know, to people, is that we don’t want to demonize illegal aliens either. We want to demonize the process. We want to demonize, you know, what they’ve done, not necessarily who they are, because, as you mentioned earlier, there are a lot of people that come here looking for a better life and for valid reasons that they would want to come, but not a valid reason to be allowed to enter.

And every time people speak out so negatively and, you know, Donald Trump is one of the, you know, besides the fact that he gets heard more often. One of the worst offenders is that it turns off those independent people that we could win over if the conversation, you know, here’s a case where the truth is bad enough, you don’t have to go further. And like his comment that I mentioned earlier about animals to me, and I would get blasted if anybody would listen to me here, is, I think those people, the ones that are out, that are committing all these crimes, it’s demeaning to animals to say that they’re animals.

Well, let’s face it, animals do not care. I get it. Yeah. But I mean, it’s the off the cuff expression from a 74 year old New York real estate developer. I mean, you have to contextualize this, right? So you can say how bad they are, say how many crimes they commit. Like I said, all you have to do is be honest and state the facts. When you start name calling.

And again, like the article I said, you’re going to get quoted in the paper that all immigrants. He didn’t say that. It becomes a distraction. I agree. Right. So it’s just, you know, be careful what you say, but be strong about what you say and have the facts. You don’t need to go overboard because the winner of the election in November is going to be the guy who gets the most independence.

The bases are going to go where they go, and neither side has enough of a base to win the election on their own. So that’s where, you know, and those people don’t want to hear that because, you know, again, being from or not being from Southern California, been living here for 35 years. Most people’s experience with illegal aliens is a good one. Oh, they come out, they mow my lawn.

They do it cheap. They’re very nice, they work hard. It’s 100 degrees. They’re out now, you know, who knows what else they’re doing? And I don’t even want to, you know, I wouldn’t want to try to say anything about that. But the thing is, so when you tell somebody that, oh, these people are animals, it’s like, no, this guy’s been mowing my lawn for ten years, and they’re all nice people.

So it’s a tough juxtaposition to convince that person that they’re bad. And when they don’t read about any of the bad things out here in the LA Times or see it on the news and spread that nationwide, they don’t believe what’s being said. So all I would say is be honest and the truth is more than enough to make people realize this is not a sustainable policy, to allow these people to come here and to allow the ones that are here to stay.

Don Rosenberg, I appreciate all that you’ve done. You certainly have the sympathy of judicial watch and my colleagues and my good friend Robert sticht on your loss. But you’ve taken a loss and you’ve tried to turn it around and you’ve tried to come up with a positive solution that calls for accountability and respect and dignity for human life and for law abiding citizens to do the right thing.

So we thank you for taking time, joining us today. We really appreciate it. Chris, thank you so much for having me. I can’t bring my son back to life, but I want to try to, you know, stop this from happening to anybody else. Don Rosenberg, you’re a good man and we appreciate your time. Thank you. I’m Chris Farrell on Watch. .

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.