Tanzina Vega:

Nearly 50,000 asylum seekers have been sent back across the border since the start of an immigration policy known as Remain in Mexico.

 

Daveed:

I don't have anywhere to go. I don't have anything. I don't know anything about Mexico. I don't know anything. They tell me that here where we're staying, they kidnap people and I don't know what to do.

 

Tanzina Vega:

I'm Tanzina Vega and today on The Takeaway for October 3rd, a look at the human toll of the Trump administration's asylum overhaul. Also on the show. Why is everyone so serious about the Joker?

 

Jonathan B.:

I think the problem with this movie to me is that all the outrage and the cynicism feels very borrowed. It feels a bit like a pose to me.

 

Tanzina Vega:

We'll talk about the new movie and why it doesn't have everyone laughing. All that on The Takeaway. Let's get going. Earlier this year, a man named Daveed presented himself and his child to US immigration officials requesting asylum. But under an asylum policy change called the Migrant Protection Protocol. Daveed was sent to Mexico to wait for his day in court. We've disguised his voice for his protection.

 

Daveed:

I don't have anywhere to go. I don't have anything.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Daveed is saying there. Just moments after being returned over the border to Mexico. Due to the danger Daveed and his family's still face. We're omitting some identifying details including his home country and for the rest of the segment, we will only be using an English language translation of his words. Daveed is not his real name.

 

Daveed:

They told me that here where we're staying, they kidnapped people and I don't know what to do.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Just five hours after the US government sent Daveed and his child to the border town of Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, he was kidnapped by cartel members.

 

Daveed:

I saw when they killed the man. They killed him because he tried to run away. I saw how they beat people.

 

Tanzina Vega:

The state of Tamaulipas where Daveed was sent and then kidnapped is a hotbed for organized crime. It's listed on the US state departments do not travel lists because of the high rates of violence. The department of Homeland security started sending asylum seekers there under the migrant protection protocols, in July of this year.

 

Daveed:

I could not stop crying. One of the men told me that my child's kidneys were good to remove. Nobody could leave.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Daveed sister who lives in the United States spent days desperately trying to negotiate his release and after she paid a ransom to the cartel, they dropped Daveed off at a bus station in Nuevo Laredo.

 

Daveed:

Mexican immigration agents turn migrants over. They know exactly what they're doing. They do not have a heart. They don't have dignity. They only do what they have to do in order to turn you over. They don't care if you are killed.

 

Tanzina Vega:

But Daveed Remain in Mexico story is not unique. Under the Trump administration, the US government has sent nearly 50,000 asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait for their day in court. Today we're going to examine the migrant protection protocols policy and its effect on asylum seekers nearly nine months after it began. Emily Green is with us. She's a freelance reporter based in Mexico who wrote Daveed story for Vice News. Welcome back to The Takeaway, Emily.

 

Emily Green:

Thanks so much for having me.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Also with us in studio is Jonathan Blitzer, staff writer for The New Yorker. Jonathan, great to have you back with us.

 

Jonathan B.:

Thanks for having me.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Emily, you've reported Daveed story for Vice. You shared the audio with us. We really appreciate that. Is Daveed safe?

 

Emily Green:

No, I don't think so. He is still in Mexico. He is no longer in Nueva Laredo, but I would not say that he is safe. After his kidnapping, he was essentially living in a small room in the house of a friend of his sisters and he was too terrified to leave. He just stayed in the room for days on end. I think things have gotten better and that he has come up with the courage to leave and he is operating and functional, but I would hardly call him safe.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Jonathan you were in Ciudad Juarez reporting on the Remain in Mexico policy? Is Daveed case typical? I mean what are you hearing from asylum seekers that you talked to?

 

Jonathan B.:

I think people are absolutely horrified and terrified, not just because of cartel activity. But all of the other associated dangers with some of these Northern Mexican border cities. I think one of the important things that's come through in Emily's reporting is specifically the idea that this policy puts migrants at risk, because it exposes them particularly to criminal groups who can extort them.

 

Jonathan B.:

One of the most common things I would hear is that people, the most vulnerable moment in the lives of these migrants as they've been returned to Mexico is specifically the moment after which they've been returned. There's kind of a narrow window as I heard it in interviews during which most of the criminal activity tended to occur. Precisely, because that is the moment when the combination of American and Mexican immigration agents are essentially putting a target on the back of these migrants.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Emily you are reporting from Nuevo Laredo. The state, as we mentioned, has been flagged by the US state department for its violence. Give us a sense of the situation there, are officials attempting to help migrants?

 

Emily Green:

Nuevo Laredo was a place of complete and utter impunity. I've spent a lot of time on the border and I have never been in a place like that. Where criminal activity just runs so rampant and there are no repercussions. Just like Jonathan said, one of the most dangerous times for migrants is right after they are returned. They are returned to Mexican immigration officials and essentially no help is provided them.

 

Emily Green:

When I was there, migrants were given two options. One, the Mexican government would put them on a bus to a location, some 30 hours away on the Mexican-Guatemalan border or they had to basically go it alone in Nuevo Loredo. I just want to paint a picture for you, right outside of the offices of Mexican immigration.

 

Emily Green:

There was a two door truck, a white truck just sitting there and it's what the locals referred to as [Spanish 00:00:06:46]. The bad guys. Essentially, the cartels are just sitting outside the offices of Mexican immigration to see who comes and who goes. It is completely wild and when the migrants are sent back, there's no support given to them.

 

Emily Green:

It's not like we're going to take you to a shelter or we're going to take you to the bus station. So it's incredibly dangerous. Those first few hours after they are returned and indeed Daveed was kidnapped five hours after he was returned by US immigration officials to Mexico.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Jonathan, one question that stands out to me is, how are these cities chosen to be part of this program, if you will? Are they chosen... Is it just the default because they happen to be on the border? Do the cities benefit at all from doing this or does this just increase the level of crime and insecurity in these cities?

 

Jonathan B.:

It's a good question. I think in effect, the reason these cities have been sort of conscripted into this Remain in Mexico or MPP policy is because they're are border cities and they tend to be these major transit points for Central American migrants, primarily. The US government has essentially rolled this program out over the last nine months. So it started on the Pacific coast in Tijuana and month by month slowly sort of moved into increasingly dangerous areas farther East.

 

Jonathan B.:

So the area where Emily has been doing her reporting is notorious for being one of the most dangerous places, probably in Central America. A place with a long history of cartel activity and even more specifically cartel activity premised on the extortion of migrants.

 

Jonathan B.:

So these are places that we already know a lot about. We know that they're not safe. We know that they're under equipped to deal with this sudden influx of migrants. But their main utility for the US government rolling out this program is simply their proximity to these ports of entry along the border.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Jonathan, what's supposed to happen? I mean obviously, folks are not supposed to be kidnapped by drug cartels. So, what was the plan when the United States or the Trump administration rolled this out? So I'm a migrant, I crossed the US Southern border pleading asylum. I'm sent back to Mexico, regardless of whether I'm from there or not. What's supposed to happen in this scenario?

 

Jonathan B.:

In my understanding, there were sort of two broad ways of thinking about this. The first is essentially that the administration has become obsessed with the fact of people seeking asylum at the US border basically being allowed to live in the US while their claims are pending in the American immigration courts.

 

Jonathan B.:

So to the Trump administration, this has been described as catch and release. It's been described as open borders, pick your your term. But essentially the administration has tried to prevent migrants from even having access to US soil during the course of their asylum claims going through the court process.

 

Jonathan B.:

So the idea, this sort of first broad way of understanding this policies to think, okay, what the administration is trying to do here is it's trying to essentially give the Central American and other asylum seekers, but primarily Central American asylum seekers, access to US immigration courts without giving them access to the US. So the idea is to essentially shuttle them back and forth between these Northern Mexican border cities and immigration courts in the US every month, every several weeks when their court dates come up.

 

Jonathan B.:

So the idea is essentially to string out someone's very long term asylum adjudication, while that person is basically living in Mexico and crossing the border every time, the indicated moment to go before court. So, that's the first broad way of understanding it. The second broad way I've come to understand this policy is essentially as a kind of punitive mechanism that's meant to deter asylum seekers from even attempting the trip.

 

Jonathan B.:

So if word gets out, of course, that when you come to the US and seek asylum, you're going to be shunted to Mexico. Imagine being shunted to the Tamaulipas or to Juarez. You are essentially going to think twice about what you're doing and whether or not you even want to pursue your asylum claim. So a key part of what this policy has meant in effect is that huge numbers of people, thousands of people have abandoned their asylum claims because it's so unsafe to remain in Mexico.

 

Jonathan B.:

So that is also one of the by products. I would argue intended of the policy. US officials would deny that specifically. But the idea is to both cause people to abandon their claims. The flip side of that is for people not to be able to make their court dates. Some people have missed court dates because they've been kidnapped.

 

Jonathan B.:

Others haven't been able to make court dates because they've lost identification, because they've been stolen. They've not been able to make it back to the port of entry in time. So what that results in is their immediate, what's called a final order of removal. In other words, short circuiting their asylum process and thus basically ending their entire asylum claim.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Emily, What is, if there is any infrastructure in place in these border towns where folks who are being sent back to Mexico can actually seek refuge, whether that be churches, shelters. Are there human rights organizations or attorneys helping folks on the ground there?

 

Emily Green:

There are shelters in places like Ciudad Juarez I believe the shelters are overrun. They're just simply too many people and not enough space and that's something that Jonathan has reported on. In places like Nuevo Laredo. One of the major issues is that the asylum seekers have zero access to US attorneys. There's been a lot of data about if you have an attorney you have a much higher chance of winning your asylum claim.

 

Emily Green:

But US lawyers are simply too scared to go into Nuevo Laredo and counsel clients. So you are also effectively limiting asylum seekers from being able to win their case, because they don't have access to attorneys. In Nuevo Laredo and also in Matamoros and other places along the border, what you see are just thousands of migrants waiting for months on end.

 

Emily Green:

They often don't have work. They're often too scared to go out and work. So they're just stuck. It's really a disheartening situation. I want to emphasize that it's something that I think people have no idea that it's going on. Back in the spring we saw these images of thousands of asylum seekers in El Paso, Texas and McAllen, Texas. But right now it's all on the Mexican side of the border and it's completely out of sight and out of mind.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Jonathan, why did the Mexican government agreed to this policy? Remind us the history here.

 

Jonathan B.:

Yeah, I mean that remains a real question. Essentially, how I've come to understand the Genesis of this MPP policy is as a kind of alternative that emerged when negotiations that were going on between the US and Mexico failed on another front. So basically last year, one of the things that the Trump administration was trying to do with Mexico was get the country to agree to what's called a Safe Third Country Agreement.

 

Jonathan B.:

That agreement basically would mean that asylum seekers would have to seek asylum in Mexico rather than the US. So if someone were to show up seeking asylum at the US border, the US could turn that person away, send them to Mexico and say, "Look, you have a shot to apply for asylum. It's just not in the US it's got to be in Mexico." Now, the Mexican government has dragged its feet on that and has resisted from the start.

 

Jonathan B.:

That hasn't kept the administration from pushing and it pushes to this day. But in the meantime, basically I would say in the fall of last year, an alternative emerged. It was an idea that had been kicking around for some time and it ended up being this policy Remain in Mexico, MPP. In effect, the Mexican government is between a rock and a hard place in many ways in terms of how it's dealing with the Trump administration.

 

Jonathan B.:

The Trump administration is already threatened things like tariffs, threatened all kinds of punitive measures. I tend to think those measures are largely a bluff and I actually feel like Mexico of all of the countries in Central America has the most bargaining power and the most leverage and it's back and forth with the US on these points.

 

Jonathan B.:

Nevertheless, the new president of Mexico Manuel Lopez Obrador is very conscious of not wanting to anger the Trump administration too much. He's got an ambitious domestic agenda of his own. I think for the most part, this Remain in Mexico or MPP policy was kind of seen by the Mexican government as a kind of middle of the road alternative to the other things that were on the table. It shows you how far to the right the whole conversation has shifted. That a policy like this is seen under the circumstances as being relatively sort of modest.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Emily, are the folks that you're talking to, local mayors, local police forces, able to handle what's happening? Because obviously there's been an increase in crime and instability in some of these areas they were already trying to handle this.

 

Emily Green:

Right. 50,000 people, asylum seekers have have been sent back under this policy to Mexico. It strikes me as a game of hot potato. They're sent to Nueva Laredo, the mayor there doesn't want them. So he ships them off to Monterrey. The mayor in Monterey doesn't want them. Should they ship them off to Chiapas.

 

Emily Green:

One of the things I want to emphasize that, so striking to me in my reporting is that they are being kidnapped, writ large at bus stations in these border cities. So Mexico has accepted this policy and yet accepted zero obligation to protect the migrants. It says it does, but it really doesn't.

 

Tanzina Vega:

This fight is not over here in the United States either. The US Nine Circuit heard arguments regarding a lawsuit, which challenges this policy essentially. Jonathan, where does that go from here?

 

Jonathan B.:

Well, we'll see. I mean, the arguments were on Tuesday of this week. The judges seemed, on the Ninth Circuit, seemed pretty skeptical of the legality of this policy. We can only hope that there's a swift resolution in the courts. I imagine whatever the resolution is, if it goes against the administration, the administration will challenge it. So we'll kind of continue on this path.

 

Jonathan B.:

I do want to stress one thing, and actually, it's good that you bring up the legal challenge. One thing I've heard is that on the Mexican side, this is to the question of why the Mexican government would agree to such an insane policy. I had always heard from former Mexican officials that there was an expectation on the Mexican side that a policy like this would actually get held up in US federal court.

 

Jonathan B.:

So from a political standpoint, the incoming Mexican government, because at the time it had just only recently been elected. Thought, "All right. Let's sort of be smart about this. We don't have to be the one to pull the plug on this arrangement. We can let this thing go to the courts. It'll get challenged in the US courts, it'll get enjoined, it'll get blocked, and we'll kind of be off the hook."

 

Jonathan B.:

I do know that was part of the conversation and I think sort of one of the ways I've come to understand the relationship between the US and Mexico on these points is. You look on the US side of the border and effectively US domestic politics and this obsession with immigration in that context is dictating US foreign policy.

 

Jonathan B.:

The inverse is almost happening on the Mexican side. The main people within the Mexican government who've pushed this policy aren't members of the interior ministry who were mostly opposed to it. It's been members of the foreign ministry who are trying to keep relationships good with the Trump administration.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Jonathan Blitzer is a staff writer for the New Yorker and Emily Green is a freelance reporter based in Mexico who shared her audio of Daveed with us. Thanks to you both for joining us.

 

Jonathan B.:

Thanks again.

 

Emily Green:

Thank you.

 

Tanzina Vega:

At the top of the show, we heard the voice of Daveed. One of thousands of people who've been subjected to the migrant protection protocols policy. But I want to bring you a few more voices now of other migrants affected by the policy. Dani Marrero Hi, is an outreach coordinator with the Texas civil rights project and she spoke with several Cubans seeking asylum because of their LGBTQ status. They're now stuck in Matamoros, Mexico because of the MPP policy. Here are Marty, Dylan and Alberto.

 

Marty:

In Mexico, there is a lot of violence. We arrived and the first thing we found is that the police took all of the money we have.

 

Dylan:

Here, there's a lot of bullying in the LGBTQ community. They're very aggressive and they don't tolerate it.

 

Alberto:

Friends that I've come with have been kidnapped and they have been extorted for money and so you live around that. That thing has... I mean, it could happen to you any day. I mean, we're living in an apartment building because we're renting. This happens every week. I mean the police goes and just knock on the door and ask for papers and just tells you what are you doing here? They're just looking for money.

 

Marty:

It is not fair, what they are doing to us. Everyone's going through a hard time, but us, we are a bit more vulnerable than others. There something that says that vulnerable populations should not be in this process here. I don't know why we are here.

 

Dylan:

We're not here because we just want to be here. We're here because we've been left to no other choice but that.

 

Tanzina Vega:

That was Marty, Dylan, and Alberto Cuban asylum seekers stuck in Matamoros, Mexico because of MPP or Remain in Mexico. Thanks to the Texas civil rights project for sharing their stories with us.

 

Amy Walter:

I'm Amy Walter and I'm the host of politics with Amy Walter from The Takeaway. Every week we get behind the chaotic headlines from Washington and tell you how policies in this country are actually changing.

 

Speaker 8:

You're going to see access to healthcare determined by where you live.

 

Speaker 9:

Tribalism works.

 

Speaker 10:

There is a crisis of institutional decay.

 

Speaker 8:

Money follows power.

 

Amy Walter:

Join me each week on politics with Amy Walter from The Takeaway

 

Tanzina Vega:

(singing) For decades, audiences have made it clear that they liked their villains with a good sense of humor and there's one character that filmmakers keep coming back to who always has a smile on his face.

 

Cesar Romero:

Come my comical cohort and cry.

 

Jack Nicholson:

I thought my jokes were bad.

 

Heath Ledger:

You can call me Joker. And as you can see, I'm a lot happier.

 

Tanzina Vega:

That was Cesar Romero, Heath ledger, and Jack Nicholson with their takes on the Joker. In 2016 Jared Leto tried his hand at the role, but just three years later, DC is hoping that film goers are ready for yet another version of the killer clown. This time played by Joaquin Phoenix and director Todd Phillips Joker.

 

Tanzina Vega:

The film doesn't come out until tomorrow, but it's already generating a divisive response. While some critics are hailing the film as a dramatic milestone in the superhero films genre, others are wondering whether it lends too much sympathy to its violent main character. Joining me now to weigh in on all this Rafer Guzman film critic for Newsday. Hi, Rafer.

 

Rafer Guzman:

Hi, Tanzina.

 

Tanzina Vega:

And Alison Willmore, film critic at Vulture and New York Magazine. Alison, welcome back.

 

Alison Willmore:

Thank you for having me.

 

Tanzina Vega:

So happy that we're here again. Alison, I mean I heard this and I said, "Really? Do we need another joker movie?" Really we do. Do you think? Where are we?

 

Alison Willmore:

Well, I don't think we have any choice at that point. Especially, when it comes to any superhero. I think that we are locked in a constant cycle of watching maybe them to trail away and then start over from the beginning.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Got it.

 

Alison Willmore:

Yeah, but this one is definitely different. It doesn't really tie into a whole larger universe. It's a kind of standalone movie. It attempts to be, if not psychologically realistic, at least psychologically grittier. It's got a lot of Martin Scorsese references more than say your standard DC references.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Speaking of, what does the origin story look like, Rafer for the joker in this film? I mean to kind of off of Alison's point, it's not as connected to other films in the DC universe.

 

Rafer Guzman:

Right. We're no longer in the vat of chemicals origin story that we had in past films that gave the joker his strange look and his green hair. He's a real world character. Arthur Fleck. He's got a real name. He's a guy living in sort of near poverty in a Gotham city in the early '80s which is clearly a stand in for Manhattan at the time. Very gritty rundown, rotting city.

 

Rafer Guzman:

He lives with his mom, played by Frances Conroy. He's a struggling standup comedian and a part time clown. Which is too because he seems in the film to inspire loathing and cruelty and pretty much everyone he meets. So he's picked the wrong career and this kind of resentment and clearly also a mental illness that he has and also a medical condition which causes him to laugh uncontrollably at inappropriate moments. All of this makes him a very poor choice for comedian and he takes this resentment out eventually on society.

 

Tanzina Vega:

So at the top of the show, Alison, we heard Cesar Romero version of the Joker, Heath Ledger's version, Jack Nicholson's version. We have Joaquin Phoenix stepping into the role now, what's your assessment of his performance?

 

Rafer Guzman:

Well, this character has kind of toggled between being this outrageous character and then being this much darker character both in the comics and in movies. I would say this is probably the darkest version we've gotten. But also I would say the one that for better and worse has the most kind of resonances to a particular type of white male rage. That I would say we are contending with a lot in the real world these days in the non-Gotham city world.

 

Rafer Guzman:

I think that the movie really leans into that in a really committed performance Joaquin Phoenix that I think is intended to and certainly will make you feel uneasy watching it just because of what it evokes.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Rafer, how much of that has to do with Todd Phillips direction here? He wrote and directed the film. He's known for things like the Hangover trilogy. So what was his take on all this?

 

Rafer Guzman:

I think as we've heard from him, he apparently got a little sick of "woke culture" and decided to move out of comedies into drama.

 

Tanzina Vega:

That seem to be a trend by the way. A lot of white guys getting tired of woke culture. Yeah. Okay.

 

Rafer Guzman:

That's right. That's right. He decided to move into a drama. I think as Alison noted, there are a lot of Scorsese references and I think Phillips had the idea to make the kind of movie that he probably liked from the '70s these very incisive, sharp, shocking social commentary films. Clockwork Orange is in this movie, Network is in this movie, Taxi Driver, King of Comedy. It's a long list of movies that he's borrowing from here.

 

Rafer Guzman:

I think the problem with this movie to me is that all the outrage and the cynicism feels very borrowed. It feels a bit like a pose to me. He wanted to make that kind of movie, but he didn't actually have anything to say underneath it. I think that's one of the things that people are responding to with this movie when they're calling it irresponsible or dangerous.

 

Rafer Guzman:

I think what they're seeing here is just what looks kind of a one-note of violence and self-pity without any kind of underlying real trenchant commentary.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Alison, what was your take on Todd Phillips comment about woke culture and should I say his critique about leaving comedy because of that?

 

Alison Willmore:

It's funny, because I can't recall a time in which Todd Phillips who has made some very successful R-rated edgy comedies. I don't recall a time in which anyone attempted to cancel him. So I don't know... He is speaking at large, I don't know what happened to him in back rooms where he's been pitching projects, but it's a little exasperating for me to hear that.

 

Alison Willmore:

Not just because who tends to make that complaint and how little they actually seem to be hurt by people yelling at them on Twitter. But also it's hard for me not to be cynical about it and read a certain amount of strategy into that. Because these days that's a kind of dog whistle for a type of audience to be like, "The PC police are trying to keep me down, but you should come out and support my project."

 

Alison Willmore:

My project, which is bold and says things people are afraid to say. I don't think I dislike it as much as Rafer, I think does. But I also agree, I don't know that it has a lot to actually say.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Off of that point Rafer. I mean there's been criticism that the movie is just glorifying the joker and his violence. What did you think of that critique?

 

Rafer Guzman:

Well, one thing I would say, I do think that Todd Phillips actually did get a lot of flack for the Hangover movies, sort of post Hangover in a way. I think people started looking back at it a little bit and criticizing the film for being a glorification of essentially white guys behaving badly and literally getting away with murder-

 

Tanzina Vega:

Literally.

 

Rafer Guzman:

... and the women are nowhere to be seen. Everyone thought that was very funny. There was this sense that Todd Phillips was making these kinds of movies. He did War Dogs, which was very similar, a little more realistic and darker, but very similar.

 

Rafer Guzman:

I do think that also plays into the reception that I think this movie has gotten. I feel people kind of don't trust someone like Todd Phillips to make an incisive point about the Joker. I think there's a little bit of a suspicion that maybe he identifies too strongly or maybe hasn't thought hard enough about what he's putting up on screen.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Alison, we've got about 10 seconds in the segment. Your thoughts on how well this film is going to do over the weekend? I mean, is it going to attract the typical Joker crowd?

 

Alison Willmore:

Yeah, I think it'll perform well. I don't think it will do the numbers that maybe a standard typical superhero movie will, but I think there's a lot of brand recognition there. People will come.

 

Tanzina Vega:

You're not kidding about brand recognition. Alison Willmore is a film critical at Vulture and New York Magazine. Rafer Guzman is our film critic here at The Takeaway and at Newsday. Thanks so much to you both.

 

Rafer Guzman:

Thanks Tanzina.

 

Alison Willmore:

Thank you.

 

Tanzina Vega:

That's our show for today. If you don't already, make sure to follow us on Twitter @TheTakeaway. You can find me at Tanzina Vega. And of course we're on Facebook and Instagram. Our team includes producers, Alexandra Botti, Ethan Oberman, Jose Olivares, Jeeva Kavaman, Rob Gunther, Meg Dalton, Jason Turesky and Andres O'hara.

 

Tanzina Vega:

Polly Irungu is our digital editor. Our engineers are Vince Fairchild and Claire Maheen. Our director and sound designer is Jay Cowit. David Gebel is our administrative assistant and Leada Hollowell is our intern. Deidre Depke is our executive producer. Thanks so much for listening. I hope you'll join us next time. I'm Tanzina Vega, and this is The Takeaway.

 

Copyright © 2019 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.