Jimmy Sengenberger

Radio Host · Speaker · Commentator · Nonprofit President

Nationally-recognized Radio Talk Show Host Public Speaker Political Commentator Nonprofit President

#1Election2016: Immigration/Trump/Cruz/Rubio 12/19/15

January 22, 2016 2016 Elections, Political Philosophy, Public Policy, Radio Shows and Podcasts, Seng Center Blog Cruz/Rubio on legalization/citizenship, future of Islam reform, Muslim Immigration, Trump, wings of American Eagle

IMG_8523_1 copyGreetings Folks,

This is the first in a numbered series of podcasts/commentaries on the 2016 Presidential Election. The podcasts are from interviews on the Jimmy Sengenberger show KNUS710AM Denver radio. Transcriptions will now be provided. These will be unedited but will include interspersed commentaries and links when appropriate.

This was recorded on 12/19/15. It took a little time to get it together, then a welcome pause for the holidays, now here it is….

You will now have an option of listening or reading.

Here is the link to the podcast:
Here is the transcript with commentary and links in parentheses:
[Marvin Treiger 12/19/15, at 0:01:22:00]

JIMMY SENGENBERGER: Welcome back to the program. It’s always great to be here with you and to be able to wish you a very Merry Christmas. (303) 696-1971 is our telephone number. If you want to join in the festivities, we’ve got Dr. Marv Treiger on the line. I will welcome him to the program in just a second but I do want to encourage you to call in during our conversation to share your thoughts over the next hour. And then later in the next hour, the following hour, the 7:00 hour, the final hour of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show,” we will talk with former congressman Tom Tancredo and get his take on this omnibus spending bill. But without further ado, let’s talk to that man who was so radical, so Far-Left back in the 60’s and 70’s that on the 50th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, he said, “To hell with you Communist Party, you’re not radical enough for me, you’re too CINO, Communist-In-Name-Only,” Dr. Marv Treiger is with us. Marv, always great to talk with you my friend.
DR. MARVIN TREIGER: Greetings Jimmy, and happy, Merry Christmas and all that good stuff.
SENGENBERGER: Merry Christmas to you as well my friend, I appreciate the well wishes. Is it okay – you’re a Buddhist – is it okay for us to say Merry Christmas to you?
TREIGER: Oh, it’s okay for you to say, sure, absolutely.
SENGENBERGER: Absolutely, I understand that you’re somebody who really appreciates religious faith.
TREIGER: Absolutely. You know, I think that the mystical core of all the great teachings, if pursued in the deepest way, will come to the same place. It’s an inner experience of a relationship to that which is beyond us, and our non-separateness from it, and the quality of love that suffuses it. So I think that’s big and part of the whole spiritual/religious path.
SENGENBERGER: What do you think – we were just talking with the one and only Santa Claus and asked him about this push by opponents of Santa Claus’ policy of the naughty-and-nice list – what do you think about participation presents for every child?
TREIGER: Participation presents… [chuckling] Well, that’s not like trophies for —
SENGENBERGER: Yes, it’s like a participation trophy. Instead of getting a lump of coal for the naughty kids everybody gets a participation-present.
TREIGER: Oh, well I think when it comes to Santa and the kid who’s sitting on your lap, unless there’s an immediate confession of naughtiness – in which case, there should be, you know, some fun little kind of naughty present, which acknowledges the confession – I think this an occasion where, you know, you end up with a gift for the child that’s teasing.
SENGENBERGER: Sure, sure enough. Well, Merry Christmas to you Dr. Marv Treiger. But that, of course, is not why we’re having you on, to give analysis of the policies of the one and only Saint Nicholas, Santa Claus, Kris Kringle, whatever you want to call the many who comes every Christmas Eve to give us presents, but we are going to talk some politics, some serious politics here with you.
You and I, last time you were on, had a bit of a disagreement on immigration. I’m not sure how much we disagree really in the grand scheme of things but I wanted to bring you back onto the program to talk about that, national security and some other issues, and, of course, to welcome our callers at (303) 696-1971 to share their thoughts on this conversation.
Talk to us about immigration, just kind of your starting point. Where do you come from on this immigration issue? And I do want to help others to understand that the candidate that you are most supportive of in this race does happen to be Marco Rubio.
TREIGER: Yes, indeed. You know, I was reflecting on this Jimmy and I was thinking about the American eagle. And you know, you need two wings to fly when you’re a bird, and those two wings need to be Wisdom and Compassion. If you only have wisdom, it’s liable to become dry and legalistic and you’re subject to the charge of being heartless. But if you only have compassion, well then your policies become sentimental, mushy and you end up subject to the charge of being brainless like the soft-Left of the Democratic Party and their national anthem of John Lennon’s “Imagine,” “Imagine there’s no country…” But that Soft-Left position is actually kind of a cover for a deeper Hard-Left position, which is to capture power through expanding their voting base.
So that’s the Democrats, but the Republicans are really where it’s interesting. And I would just say on – just to mention a word or two about Trump – although he certainly started the dialogue his policies have this absolutist quality, deport 11 million – which is an impossible, utopian concept – each person has to get a hearing and who knows what other obstacles there are. And then he follows it up recently with ban all Muslims from entry into the country. Well then, that must mean our friends, our own American Muslims, our allies, it’s completely ~~ it’s the wrong way to go because it’s introducing a religious test for immigration and that would be a problematic – even though there have been national exclusions, Jimmy Carter with the Iranians and other things at times – to introduce a religious exclusion would start to raise constitutional issues. But even more than that, it would just potentially drive people on the fence in the Muslim world into the arms of the terrorists, so I don’t support that.
SENGENBERGER: But I do want to ask you though ~~ having religious exclusions, I agree with you, we shouldn’t be banning all Muslims from coming in the United States, but how about preference for, say, persecuted Christians, saying okay, we know that there is virtually a genocide going on against Christians in the Middle East right now by ISIS, making some sort of a preference – not an exclusion from one religion – but a preference for Christians? I’m not necessarily saying that’s what we should do, but what about that argument?
TREIGER: Well, I would say that we should do that 100%, that these are persecuted people for their religion and so therefore they should ~~ first of all, they’re unlikely to be terrorists, right. And secondly, there’s a definite case that is obvious, that is true. But I did want to say that, you know, that something that when Trump talks about all Muslims, and then you hear Hillary and Obama and this very fuzzy idea of all the peaceful Muslims and Hillary saying that there can’t be any relation between Muslims and terror, there was a Pew study in 2013 and even though we know that there’s a core of violent Muslim extremists who constitute maybe between 40 and 200,000 ISIS people and then all these other groups, Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah, there’s another concentric circle that the Pew poll was capturing and something like 76 to 85% of the Muslims in twenty-nine countries are in favor of execution for Muslims leaving the religion, and a smaller number may be 70% are for honor killings. So I was thinking that those silly questions they have when asked when a refugee comes in or someone applies for citizenship about, ‘are you planning a terror act,’ you know, I mean, who’s going to say yes, right? But, you know, we might, not have a loyalty oath – that would be ridiculous – but what about a disloyalty oath? What about raising the question of whether or not they approve of their country’s official policy that they’re leaving, of the execution of people who leave the Muslim faith, and get their opinion poll on that and let that be the basis of —
SENGENBERGER: So in other words, values judgment on whether or not their values are compatible with this country, say, supportive of Sharia law or not, as opposed to a religious test.
TREIGER: Exactly, exactly. And that would be, I think, appropriate because, you know, this is a nation of Judeo-Christian values, this is a nation of tolerance, of live-and-let-live, of freedom, of liberty. And if people are committed to some other alternative path in this world as it is right now, we ought to find that out in the initial inquiry of their coming into the country.
SENGENBERGER: Well, at the same time, what if, say, a terrorist wants to lie, and say yes, my views are compatible, but then they come through to this country and no matter what, they end up committing some sort of a terrorist act or conspiring to commit a terrorist act?
TREIGER: Well, you know, what can you do when somebody lies, you know, beyond a certain point? But if they have signed off on a number of points of view and then it’s shown that they’re in fact propagating those points of view, that’s why I’m calling it a disloyalty oath. So it’s not that it would affect freedom of speech in the country, the First Amendment, but what it would do is, you know, it would be compatibility with the terms under which you enter the country and you’re struggling for legal residency first, and then maybe later a path to citizenship. So that’s how I look at that one, but you know, I really think Jimmy that —
SENGENBERGER: Well, before we get onto another topic of immigration, we’re up against a hard break. So if anyone out there wants to, we’ve got a call on the line, if anyone’s interested in chiming in on this Muslim immigration question, be sure to give us a call, (303) 696-1971, we’d be happy to have your participation in this. When we come back, more with Dr. Marv Treiger and your calls, (303) 696-1971. Merry Christmas! We’ll be right back on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.”

[commercial break. Burl Ives’ “Holly Jolly Christmas” plays…]

SENGENBERGER: Have a Holly Jolly Christmas and welcome back to “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.” MTN News/Talk 710 KNUS, tonight’s bumper music, yes, is all Christmas all the time on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” because the holiday, just around the corner, just a few days away, I cannot believe it.
We are talking with Dr. Marv Treiger. He is a retired psychotherapist and someone who was so far to the Left he left the Communist Party because but he has thankfully come back around full circle to the Conservative side of the aisle. We are talking about immigration and I want to go to the phones now at (303) 696-1971.
Before we shift particularly from the Muslim immigration discussion, let’s talk with Ron in Littleton. Ron, you’re on with Jimmy Sengnberger and Marv Treiger.
RON: Hi, you’re talking about the immigration of Syrians and stuff —
RON: Trying to get into the United States. Have you read the papers of the Internet, that, anymore they can get as far as Greece. Macedonia and some of the other Balkan countries have effectively shut down the borders, including Bulgaria, because [phonetic] it was minefields and firearms.
SENGENBERGER: Interesting.
RON: Well look, Bulgaria’s history. Who freed them from the Muslim Ottoman Turks: the Russians, back in the 1830’s.
SENGENBERGER: Hmm. Marv Treiger? Any thoughts?
TREIGER: Well, you’re absolutely right. They have a history, they understand what this could mean and they are closing their border. I’m definitely in favor of closing the border to those countries in which there is an ISIS presence, such as Syria, Iraq at this time. You know, it’s kind of like if we bring in 10,000 refugees, it’s like giving somebody 10,000 M&M’s and then you say to them, here, there’s only a few poisoned ones that’ll kill you. So how many of those M&M’s are you going to eat, you’re not going to eat any of them. So I think we need a pause until we get our act together in the vetting.
SENGENBERGER: You know, I agree with that Marv, particularly because I love M&M’s but I wouldn’t want a poisonous one. Ron thanks for the call.
(303) 696-1971. Let’s check in with David in Denver. David, you’re on with Marv.
DAVID: Yeah, well, his last comment makes me fell a little bit better that he’s talking about at least putting a pause on Muslim immigration. But I feel that people today are still dancing around and they’re not willing to face reality. And we have to look at history, we have to look at the doctrines of Islam and face reality that Islam is not compatible with the free West, with our Constitution and with equal rights, etc. And so what we are doing is we’re being evil cowards today by continuing to allow Islam to spread in the West, and what will happen is our descendents one hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, we’ll be suffering just like the Christians in the Middle East. And that’s why I believe that anyone today who supports the spread of Islam in America, in any amount, even one Muslim, is an evil character. And I would even say that they might even be mentally ill —
SENGENBERGER: That’s a bit strong. That is a bit strong. Personally, I have no objections to a pause right now in Syrian refugees, I think that should be the case, but I don’t necessarily think that we should be stopping Muslims from coming into this country altogether. And —
DAVID: You are both, you are both smart enough to ~~ just take this one step with me. If – and that’s the – if I am correct, and factually as a matter of reality America cannot survive with Islam within our borders, then what should we do? And it’s not okay to just say well, I don’t believe that. If that is in fact the reality – and I believe it is – what should we do?
SENGENBERGER: It’s a big If. Marv Treiger, what do you think?
TREIGER: Well, well (David), first of all, we have many Muslims in this country already and many of them serve in the armed forces, they are physicians, they do various other things, and many of them are not on board with this entire policy. What we need to do is to really get those people, as far as we can, mobilized. They have to understand that their own faith and the fate of their religion will depend upon whether they’re willing to rise up and conduct and lead a reformation of the religion, that’s what’s really needed. That’s what ISIS – what Sisi said in Egypt, that’s what the King of Jordan has said. Hirsi Ali – I would recommend you look up her work. She makes a distinction between the Mecca Muslims and the Medina Muslims. The Mecca Muslims are the early stage of Islam, everything was peace, peace, peace when they were a minority. When they became a majority it turned into war, war, war and those were the Medina Muslims and their views ultimately in Islam prevailed because of the principle of abrogation, which means that anything in the Koran that comes later triumphs over anything that was written earlier, if there’s a contradiction between them.
So you are right, the problem in Islam is not just some strange faction. The problem is at the very root of Islam, but there are contradictory features at that root of Islam and they’re going to need a major reformation, we can’t do that for them. But I would wonder whether you thought —
SENGENBERGER: Hold on one moment Marv, we are up against another hard break, we’ll be back with —

[Commercial Break/A Word From Our Sponsor]

SENGENBERGER: Our telephone number here at 710 KNUS is (303) 696-1971. We’re talking with Dr. Marvin Treiger. He is a retired psychotherapist and a former radical Leftist – a reformed Leftist, I think we should say, Marv. I want you to pick up on that conversation because we were just talking about Islam and Muslim immigration into the United States, and it sounded like you had a question for our caller David.
TREIGER: Oh that was David, I’m sorry. Yeah, is he still there on the line?
TREIGER: Oh good, okay. So I liked your phrase David, evil cowards, because that certainly can be the case. So the question would be this: it seems to me that if we want to root out this extremist expression that we have to eliminate the Caliphate in the place where it exists, because the Caliphate is what a loyalty oath is given to by the Muslim jihadist. And as long as the Caliphate is in operation, they’re going to keep coming here one way or another, coming to Europe one way or another and this scourge is not going to be defeated, we have to go into the nest, destroy the nest, and destroy the Queen. Would you say that someone who wouldn’t support that would be another kind of evil coward?
DAVID: Here’s the thing: firstly, we have to acknowledge that Islam cannot be reformed. Because of the way Mohammed wrote it, any Muslim who suggests any changes to Islam should be killed. So it’s sort of a circular reasoning but it nevertheless works, it’s worked for fourteen hundred years. What we need to do is we cannot change Islam and we cannot destroy Islam, we can only protect our own civilization. So what we need to do is keep Islam out of America, keep a safe haven here. Any Muslim that wants to leave Islam can come here safely and not worry that the other Muslims will kill them, which is the penalty for leaving Islam. And as far as the Islam that’s all elsewhere in the world, we should try to contain it as much as possible within the lands that has [phonetic] already destroyed, but we cannot allow it to spread to the rest of the world and destroy the rest of the world. We cannot pick and choose which Muslims come here. There is a study that anyone can find on the Internet, and I don’t know the author but he goes through what happens all through history in every case, as there’s 2% Muslims, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, it will be no different in America, and once there’s 50% Muslims in America, they’ll just eliminate the Constitution. We won’t have any rights that we lost long ago anyway —
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, I don’t see that in the United States we’re going to end up with 50% Muslims. We are —
DAVID: Here’s why it happens Jimmy. People are born into Islam and you can’t leave it, so it can only grow. Christianity, when a kid reaches the age of eighteen, they can say I don’t want to be a Christian and walk away. But you can’t do that with Islam and so it grows wherever it is.
SENGENBERGER: Marv Treiger, what do you think?
TREIGER: Well, you know David, to me human beings throw up these doctrines (and) religions, trying to express what is ultimately inexpressible. And in so doing, they create structures and those structures being created by humans can and are inevitably changed by humans. There will come a moment, I am hoping and especially if we encourage it and if we go after the bad guys and if we encourage the good guys, when critical mass could conceivably go the other direction and a reform in Islam might take place – there have been reforms in Christianity, there have been reforms in Judaism – it is just the nature of human beings to ….(An important new organization has formed in the U.S. This group, years in formation, is led by Dr. Zudhi Jasser, a Muslim reformer who is willing to take on – not just Jihadism – but many of Islam’s core doctrines.)
DAVID: Here’s the difference: the words, when the reality has become impossible for them – and I don’t think that this would ~~ somehow Muslims and Islam is exempt from this human nature law —
SENGENBERGER: Real quick David.
DAVID: If you look at the way – Christ used parables, he spoke in allegories. That is why it can be interpreted. Mohammed, by comparison, is like an army drill sergeant screaming in your face direct commands, there’s no interpretation possible. And —
SENGENBERGER: I think there are Muslims out there that would disagree with you that there’s no interpretation possible —
DAVID: We can’t live the future of our civilization on the vain hope that maybe we can make Islam change. We have to at least keep it in the lands it’s already in and maybe try to get them to change there. And if we give them zero aid, give them zero technology, give them zero anything in those lands, they’ll come around, they’ll figure out that it’s not working so good for them.
SENGENBERGER: Alright David. Thanks for the call. Let’s go to Jack in Carpenter, WY here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.” You’re on with Dr. Marv Treiger and Jimmy.
Oh, it looks like Jack’s not there. You know, this question about Islam, I’m very much in agreement with you Marv, that there can be a reformation and that there should be. And the suggestions that David provided, I don’t think they are going to help foster that kind of a reformation.
TREIGER: No, I don’t’ think that they will. I think ~~ you know, I would say this: you know, maybe it’ll turn out Jimmy that we’re wrong, but we can only discover that for having made every effort to support those seeking reformation in Islam. But I’m with that camp that understands that this Islamic terrorism is not some deviation from Islam, that it’s also at the very heart and root of it. I do agree with the caller David on that point. It’s just that I think he’s got it a little bit too rigid for the reality of human intercourse.
SENGENBERGER: We’ve got Jack in Wyoming back on the line. Jack, what’s your thought?
JACK: Yeah, Jimmy.
JACK: I’ve got the argument as to why Islam cannot be a religion under our Constitution, are you ready for this?
JACK: Okay. In our Constitution, we all have the right to engage in contracts without interference by the government, isn’t that right?
JACK: And in the Bronx in the 1920’s, they had Murder Incorporated and they used to pay people and they’d sign a paper and they’d go out and kill somebody for money. Now, could they hide behind the Constitution and say we have the right to engage in contracts and the government cannot interfere? No, and the reason why they can’t is because they have to be lawful, okay. When you have the mission statement of an organization, a culture like Islam, where if you leave it they’ll kill you, if they don’t convert they’ll kill you, that’s Murder Incorporated all over again. Therefore, just like Murder Incorporated, they cannot hide behind the Constitution and maintain their religion, it’s an illegal entity under our Constitution. Every mosque in the United States should be shut down. Today.
SENGENBERGER: Marv Treiger, what do you think?
TREIGER: Well, you know, again, what you have to do is we have to see whether or not people’s actions and their commitments and the things that they say and do all move in a direction of violence. We’re not going to let their rigidity undermine our freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. We cannot do that. I mean you would end up with that position, you’d have to send all the Muslims in American who didn’t completely do all of this who are here right now – for generations, some of them – and deport them. (Shortly after the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, Maryam Namazie, director of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain created the hashtag “ExMuslimsBecause” on Twitter. She reports: “The result was a firestorm, through which tens of thousands across the world declared their apostasy, many gathering courage from the brave and often poignant words of others.”)
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, there’s no way that you can logically do that and that it fits with our constitutional framework. One of the things that I disagree with that Jack was making in his point – and he’s dropped off now, don’t know if that was intentional or not – but one of the things, one of the points that he made was that there are, if you leave the Islamic faith you are going to be killed, but I have heard cases of Muslims in the United States leave the Islamic faith and I haven’t heard widespread incidents of the killing of Muslims by Muslims in the United States for that purpose.
TREIGER: Yeah, yeah. You know, this is a hot topic, obviously —
TREIGER: And in the remaining time, thought, I would like to address the broader question of immigration —
SENGENBERGER: Yes, please.
TREIGER: And, because I think some things were revealed, particularly between the policies of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in the last debate. For a while there had been the thought that Cruz and Rubio were not that far apart on the broader questions of illegal immigration, in other words, that both more or less supported legal residency for a ten-year period, you had to pay fines, you had to go through hoops, you couldn’t get welfare, you had to keep a clean record, all of those kinds of things. But it then turned out that Cruz was ambiguous and never said anything about it, he seemed to be saying that he was against amnesty and that amnesty meant basically no forgiveness for any illegal crime.
So Rubio at the debate, if you remember a crucial moment, he asked him point blank what is your stand on the question of legalization, and pointed out his support for an amendment that would’ve made legalization possible, an amendment to the old Gang of Eight bill in 2013. And Cruz then said very clearly, he said, I never supported legalization, I never will support legalization. But the fact of the matter was it turned out that he had in fact supported legalization in this amendment. Well, his defense then was that it was a poison pill amendment, which is done in Congress where you add an amendment, which will hurt a bill. But that argument doesn’t pass the smell test in this case, and the reason it doesn’t is because he made numerous videos, speeches, conferences with good friends in which he said this would be a compromise we can live with. And then he even said – and I got the quote because I think it’s very telling – he says that ‘this compromise would secure the border and allow those that are here illegally to come in out of the shadows.’ Now, when you start arguing like that, “come in out of the shadows,” you’re arguing from a position of compassion, and you are using vivid imagery, and to say that he was putting all that forward and it was all a ruse suggests a deficit of character. So it’s not only a question of whether he’s congruent now and then, but if he is not congruent and would take that kind of an approach, well then he’s capable of saying anything, so I found that very troubling and disturbing.
Now my own view, I support the ten-year legal residency process, and from that point I am with Marco Rubio that those who are interested – and by the way, not that many are going to be interested – the number of Latin American people who go through legal residency, who actually become citizens, is very, very small and those who were granted amnesty in the ’88 Reagan years situation, something like only 35% were interested in actually becoming citizens because it’s different than the Europeans, these are people who want to go back home to their family, their village, their city, and they’re only here really because they can of a little better for themselves in that regard. Now, I would then support a path to citizenship, which would take another three to four years. It seems to me that if a person supports a program that involves those who are illegal to go through the hoops and everything else, so fourteen years, you can hardly call that amnesty.
SENGENBERGER: And we’ll be right back on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show,” more.

[Commercial Break/”There’s No Place Like Home For the Holidays” plays]

SENGENBERGER: There’s no place like “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” for the holidays. Welcome back one and all to the program. (303) 696-1971 is our telephone number if you want to be a part of the conversation. We’re talking with Dr. Marv Treiger, who just said that he would support after fourteen years of the process citizenship for illegal immigrants. Here’s one of my pushbacks for that point, Marv, and that would be this, and that is they can take more than ten years for somebody to just legally immigrate to this country, let alone become a citizen after that. I am very dubious of the argument that we should make special exceptions for illegal immigrants to go through this process, yes, ten years for regularization and so forth, but then even adding an additional three or four years and then giving the reward that is American citizenship, I’m very hesitant to support something along those lines even after fourteen years.
TREIGER: Well, here’s how I think about it. I think first, the border has to be secured and everyone has to be confident that it is secure. And at that moment, I feel that the American heartland and hearts will become generous, I think that that’s a natural Christian attitude, a natural Buddhist attitude. And I think about it like this, Jimmy: you know, we’re all culpable, the Democrats, the Republicans, the corporations, in wanting the illegal immigrants to come in for the sake of the cheaper labor; the middle class is all culpable because, you know, we want people in construction, get the homes remolded easier, gardening, hotel cleaning, house cleaning, nannies, restaurant workers, all of these things. So all of us have sort of been in on the thing and my own personal value system is that when you’re culpable in some situation and then something is done that isn’t exactly right, you have to own your part. And that would also be part of why this American eagle could then, having the wisdom of the secure border and have the compassion for its other wing, and without those two wings, that eagle’s going to crash.
SENGENBERGER: Well, here’s one point that I absolutely agree with you, and that is on securing the border first and then we can be looking at regularization, citizenship, those kinds of things, how we do the process. If we do allow for citizenship in the end for those who are here illegally, I definitely think that we need to have an adequate amount of time that also does justice to those who are outside of this country (and) coming in through the legal channels and who then want to become citizens.
TREIGER: Well, in order for there to be fairness, those who have applied and, depending upon their, you know, the conception of how the line is formed that have to be respected and observed. You don’t get to butt in line.
SENGENBERGER: We’re talking with Dr. Marv Treiger, our guest here on the program. We’ve only got about a minute left here with you Marv, and in this final moment, where do you think this election is headed as far as the immigration debate?
TREIGER: Well, I think that right now we’re in an interesting phase where the early states are very strongly kind of absolutely legalistic, there’s a strong section of the Republican base that takes that view. But I think that – and until there’s really a secure border – then that generosity (in the form of compassion) is going to be difficult to reach. But I think as the campaign progresses and as it develops, I think that the broader base of the Republican Party – and also people who are right now taking this more narrow position, in my opinion, humble opinion – will start to open up and begin to see that there are compromises, just like Ted Cruz himself talked about the legal residency as a compromise, so I think there’s a base for that as well.
SENGENBERGER: Well, we definitely have to – you’re absolutely right – secure the border. Once that’s done, we’ll be able to have a more complex discussion. Unfortunately Marv Treiger, we are out of time, but it is always a pleasure to talk with you. The time really flies by whenever you’re on the program, we’ll have you back real soon.
TREIGER: My pleasure. And my honey and I are going to just – in Bing Crosby’s (song you played) sense [phonetic] – we’re going to watch (Breaking Bad on) Netflix and cuddle up.
SENGENBERGER: Alright, thank you so much. Merry Christmas.

[End of Tape]