Are immigrants a drain on society, or does America benefit from their presence? It’s a hot topic, with Republic politicians telling lies during the last election about Haitians in Springfield eating dogs and cats—and telling these stories solely for the purpose of political gain. What was really stunning is that those lies resonated with some number of people, and Haitians were threatened with violence.

We talk with Flannery Rokey-Jackson of Community Refugee & Immigration Services here in Columbus, Ohio, about two classes of immigrants. Because of the crisis in Haiti, the Haitians were granted temporary protection status by the U.S. government. Other immigrants have fled their homes because of race, religion, nationality, membership in certain social groups, or political opinion, and have met the criteria set by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to merit refugee status.

Whether we’re talking about temporary protected status or refugees, these are people who want to integrate into society, educate their children and become productive citizens.

Here’s a snippet of the conversation with Flannery:

“So first, your first question about criminality, I've personally never experienced. Helping a family resettle here and then seeing them turn to any kind of crime, especially with refugees who … are required to apply for their green card after one year in the United States, and if they are commit any kind of crime, even a misdemeanor, that could jeopardize that ability to get their green card.

“So, I have worked with families who won't even jaywalk across the street with me because they don't want to break the law. They're also so excited to start their new lives, and to join the workforce, get jobs, go to school, and become contributing members of society.

“And of course, we see refugees using benefits more earlier on in their resettlement and then once they're, you know, 10 years after resettlement, they are paying back into the system quite significantly.”

Do police officers get it right more often than not when it comes to shooting a suspected threat? Are police trained adequately in terms of simulated scenarios and stressful situations? Are small police departments able to access the same level of training as police departments in large metropolitan areas? Do people suspected of a crime, who fail to comply with police commands, bear responsibility for being shot?

We talk with retired police officer Bob Meader, who served as a commander at the Columbus Police Academy, about the challenges that come with police work.

As Bob puts it, how many skills do you need to have to play a certain sport versus how many skills a law enforcement officer must have? Officers are tasked with dealing with myriad situations, ranging from intervening in an emotional domestic dispute to stopping an armed robbery in a convenience store.

And then there’s the matter of stress… “You have the epinephrine dump, the heart becomes quicker, the breathing becomes more shallow, the pupils become constricted, and what goes is your finite motor skills, which you need to hit that target 50 feet away.” That’s a different situation than just shooting at paper targets.”

Bob calls police work “the hardest job in America, and everything officers are doing today is recorded, and then guys like you and me get to sit in a temperature controlled office and hit rewind.”

Complexities of the job aside, there are shootings where you scratch your head and say, “What in the world was that cop thinking? I didn’t see anything close to a threat.” Sure, officers face prosecutions for bad shootings and incarceration, but still we’re left with someone dead who shouldn’t be dead. And these are the stories that make the news.

Do we judge police shootings fairly? Do we expect too much? Do we give officers more deference than we should. Listen to the conversation.

Guessing the outcomes of cases brought before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) can be challenging, and, sometimes, the court's decisions leave you scratching your head. Jack and Gonzo discuss our current court’s propensity to rule in favor of popular conservative causes.

If the casinos in Vegas took bets on how SCOTUS were to decide a case, the odds makers probably wouldn't give long odds, because you pretty much know how the justices will rule by their political affiliation. Oh, sure, the justices are supposed to look at each case objectively, but we’re all subject to subliminal inclinations and beliefs that guide us. Even the justices.

Jack and Gonzo take a look at two cases to explain.

The first concerns Marcellus Williams, a black man of humble means, who was convicted of murder. His attorney asked SCOTUS to stay Williams’ execution (legal speak, for temporarily stopping the execution) because of multiple problems with the case. It wasn't a matter of asking the court to overturn Williams’ conviction, just a pause. SCOTUS was asked to intervene so as to avoid the very real possibility that the state of Missouri might execute an innocent man.

Even the prosecuting attorney for the county where Williams was convicted was advocating for a stay, and the family of the person who was murdered stated that Williams should not be executed.

But a majority of justices (all appointed by Republican presidents) couldn't be bothered and didn’t grant the stay. And Williams was executed.

The second case concerns how SCOTUS handled the Trump immunity case. With nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity—literally, not a single word or even an inference about immunity—the court held that presidents have immunity for just about everything they do. Respected constitutional lawyers were stunned.

The court couldn’t be bothered to stay the execution of a black man who grew up in an impoverished and dysfunctional household, but the court went out of its way to protect a man of privilege. The two cases really make you question where the court is.