Full interview: Colorado CD1 candidate Melat Kiros

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Our next conversation today is with Malak Kiros, who's one of three Democrats running for Congress in Colorado's first congressional district, which is largely Denver. You can see our extended interview with Wanda James in the same place that you are watching this interview. The incumbent Democratic congressman, Diana DeGette, declined to appear and take questions. Malak Kiros, thanks for your time. [00:00:19] Malak Kiros: Thanks for having me. [00:00:21] Speaker 1: Congresswoman Diana DeGette has represented Denver in Congress for about 30 years. Why should voters fire her and hire you? [00:00:27] Malak Kiros: Because the congresswoman, I think, has really failed to meaningfully push the kind of progressive legislation that would make a meaningful difference for working families in this country. She, I believe, has failed to do so because she's taken millions of dollars from big pharma, big energy and oil, defense contractors. And Denverites know that the only meaningful way things change in this country is if we have leaders that are unbought and unafraid. And so because she's refused to stop taking that corporate PAC money, I think it's time for a change. [00:00:52] Speaker 1: You draw that direct line between the money that she receives and the votes that she casts and the stances that she takes. Yes. Lots of people give to campaigns. Lots of organizations give to campaigns because they believe in what the person stands for. What evidence do you have that she's changed a belief or refused to take a stand because of cash that she's received? [00:01:12] Malak Kiros: What I identify in her voting record and its relationship with some of the companies that support her is a direct relationship with either advancing their agenda or doing nothing to advance the agenda of working people. So, for example, she takes a lot of money from big pharmaceutical companies, from big health insurance companies, and the crowning achievement that she constantly touts is the Cures Act, a piece of legislation that, frankly, was just a big giveaway for a lot of big pharmaceutical companies. And Senator Warren and Senator Sanders both said this as this bill was getting debated. And, again, she takes all this money from these big pharmaceutical companies that were benefiting from this specific piece of legislation. Another example is the fact that she's voted against cutting the Pentagon budget by 10 percent twice in the middle of a pandemic when those resources were sorely needed. She's taken donations from the defense contracting industry. Those are direct connections between her votes and the donations she receives. [00:02:02] Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever heard you say that the congresswoman is corrupt. You use kind of a different phrasing with it. But when people hear you say she takes money and then she votes the way people would want her to vote, some people might look at that and say corruption. Do you view it that way? [00:02:17] Malak Kiros: I think the system is corrupted. I think we have a campaign finance system that incentivizes our representatives to take money from these companies, from these industries, with the expectation that it's going to help them get reelected because that's their number one priority. I think the congresswoman is doing her best to try and represent the people of this district, but it's not good enough right now. We are looking at multiple crises on the front of the economy, on our democracy, on our climate, and we need representatives that are fighting aggressively to progress our agenda. And, frankly, sometimes the thing that corporations and special interests get out of donating to a campaign isn't proactive legislation on their front. Sometimes it's just that they sit there and keep a seat warm. [00:02:56] Speaker 1: So I think sometimes people tend to think of the current strife within the Democratic Party as being between centrist Democrats and leftists. Diana DeGette's not a centrist. She's a progressive Democrat. But you just feel like she hasn't been an effective progressive? [00:03:09] Malak Kiros: Yeah. She is the least effective member of the Colorado Democratic delegation. [00:03:13] Speaker 1: Measured how? [00:03:14] Malak Kiros: By the center of effective lawmaking. [00:03:17] Speaker 1: Congresswoman DeGette says that if Denver sends her back to Congress, then she'll be in a position to lead the health subcommittee. And she says she'll be able to wrangle the votes for Medicare for All. Do you believe her? [00:03:28] Malak Kiros: I believe that she'll try, but I don't believe that Medicare for All would ever get passed while we still have a majority of representatives in Congress taking money from big pharmaceutical companies and big health insurance companies that will effectively be legislated out of existence if we get Medicare for All passed. [00:03:41] Speaker 1: So you don't doubt the fact that she would earnestly try because she says that would be her big deliverable if she's sent back. [00:03:48] Malak Kiros: And if she were to get it through the subcommittee, that doesn't actually guarantee passage of that legislation. What guarantees passage of that legislation is building the coalition necessary to actually get it done. And the only way we're going to get that coalition is if we vote out the Democrats that are taking money from those industries. [00:04:03] Speaker 1: Best I can tell, Colorado has never elected a self-described socialist to Congress. Not in the current era with Democratic Socialists of America, D.S.A., not in the previous heyday of socialist candidates in, say, like 1900 to 1930. What do you say to Democratic primary voters who are not socialists, who are capitalists, and are deciding who to vote for in this race? [00:04:24] Malak Kiros: Well, first I'll tell them that we already have socialism, right? It's in the roads that we drive on. It's in our fire stations. It's in the public schools we send our kids to. What I'm calling for is the same security that we have in those institutions to be in our health care, to be in our access to nutritional food, to be in making sure that we have universal child care and universal elder care. We're embarking on a new era right now where AI is going to change the entirety of our labor economy as we know it. And we're not ready. We're not ready for what it looks like when all these jobs potentially get taken away and wiped out by machinery. And if that happens, we need to make sure that people's basic needs are protected. And that's only through programs that would be socialist. [00:05:04] Speaker 1: Let's talk about your experience and qualifications to be in Congress. You were one year out of law school at an elite global law firm, is how they describe themselves, before you got fired for writing an essay that was critical of Israel. You came home to enroll in a Ph.D. program. You've been working at a coffee shop. What life experiences and knowledge do you have to be effective in Congress? [00:05:28] Malak Kiros: Yeah. Well, the first I would describe is the life experience of just being a young renter in this city, you know, being a tipped minimum wage worker. And Denver is the fifth least affordable city in the country right now. And so experiencing what it's like to stretch your paycheck and try to pay for rent, try to pay for health insurance, try to pay for your car notes, all of those things, the proximity to that struggle, I think, is something that's important to have when you're going to Congress to represent the people of the city. [00:05:53] Speaker 1: Can I ask you a question? You can return to that thought in a minute. But when you talk about knowing financial struggle, I mean, you're knowing financial struggle by choice. You are a corporate attorney who's going to get a Ph.D. I have no doubt that you're having trouble making ends meet when you step out of that world, but you kind of chose to step out of that world. [00:06:11] Malak Kiros: Yeah. I think that's a fair assessment. But I did grow up with the same struggle, right? I emigrated here in 98 when I was a baby. My dad had nothing to his name when we first moved here, and so I watched him and my mom worked two to three jobs at a time. I watched them try and figure out how to stretch those dollars for our rent, to stretch those dollars for me and the resources that I needed, and even when my little sister came. And then I saw him be able to graduate from pharmacy school and be able to build out the American dream that, you know, I'm fighting to make sure that people are capable of having right now. But also, to be clear, you know, after getting fired from that law firm, it was abundantly clear that no other law firm of that caliber was going to hire me either. And I did make the choice to go to a Ph.D. program, to do the work that actually mattered to me. But I think that's the world that I believe in, right? I should be able to choose something that I'm actually passionate about and to be able to do that comfortably rather than having to go into a choice, into a job, just because that's the only thing that's going to be able to meet my basic needs. [00:07:08] Speaker 1: Who in Congress currently would you seek to model your service after? [00:07:11] Malak Kiros: I would probably say Representative Summer Lee. She's also made it a big part of her agenda to focus on the money and politics issue. She's introduced the banned super PACS bill with Senator Bernie Sanders and does the incredible work of really staying in her district, staying connected to the people of the city, while also maintaining, I believe, I might be wrong on this, but I believe she has a 100% voting record right now in the House as well. She's committed to the work and she's committed to actually addressing the root problems. [00:07:43] Speaker 1: Who is the most effective member of Congress in the Colorado delegation? [00:07:50] Malak Kiros: I think by the metrics of the center of law. [00:07:52] Speaker 1: No, I want your opinion. Who's the most, who, even if you don't share every one of their views, who do you think is the most effective member of Congress from Colorado? [00:07:59] Malak Kiros: Probably Joe Negus. Yeah. I think he's done an incredible job, not only of just, you know, the work of legislating and getting bills passed, but I think also of coalition building and building relationships within our party and also across the aisle. And, you know, the ineffectiveness in Congress is directly tied to the decrease of bipartisanship in Congress as well. And I think Negus has done a good job of trying to mend that bridge. [00:08:22] Speaker 1: We have seen in the past couple of years how a small group of hardline ideologues on the right side of the political spectrum can hold a slim majority in the House hostage to extract concessions or to basically gum up the works and then nothing happens. If Democrats take the House and you win, you would be part of a group of democratic socialists in the House who similarly could extract concessions or could hold up the entire democratic agenda. What is your thought process about how that would play out? [00:08:49] Malak Kiros: That's the goal. The goal is to build out a coalition of members that are committed to these ideas and these policies that are securing the most basic needs for every single American across this country. And frankly, these are the ideals and the values that are of the democratic base of voters. We are seeing this chasm between the policies that voters actually want to see and the legislation that our leadership is actually progressing. And so I think this is actually a reminder to the party of this is what we're supposed to be doing. This is what our base wants us to be doing. And taking care of that legislation and identifying people that are holding up that legislation is, I think, the responsibility of legislators that you send to represent you. [00:09:28] Speaker 1: So we've seen the way that that actually works in practice, though. It's meant that those far-right Republicans will often vote with Democrats to knock down their party's own priorities if they feel like the solutions being presented are not to their liking. Would you be comfortable doing that if you went to Congress in the majority voting against some Democrat priorities in order to push them more in line with yours, even if that meant you were voting with Republicans? [00:09:50] Malak Kiros: I don't think it's a question of, you know, whether or not I'm voting with Republicans. I think it's a question of whether or not the legislation is something that would make a meaningful difference for working families. If that means voting with Republicans or voting with Democrats, I'm going to do whatever is best for the people of the city. [00:10:03] Speaker 1: What is within the power of Congress to do to make life more affordable in Colorado? [00:10:08] Malak Kiros: We could pass universal health care, we could pass universal child care, we could pass housing first measures that would deliver the federal funds necessary to create social housing, to create affordable housing. We could get the federal funds necessary to build out free public transit and high-speed rail across the country. It's not a question of what can we do, it's a question of what will we do. And the political will is what's missing right now, and that's the responsibility of voters to make that choice this election cycle. [00:10:33] Speaker 1: What is most within reach and is most obtainable in two, four, six years? [00:10:40] Malak Kiros: Medicare for all, without question. You know, I sincerely believe that the last thing Democrats did to meaningfully help working families was Obamacare, and that was a monumental achievement. You know, millions of Americans got health insurance that didn't have it before. But it was also a Band-Aid for a system that is now still hemorrhaging, and we're fighting for subsidies to be able to stop that bleed. Medicare for all is something that would meaningfully make real relief for working families in this country. And the position that I'm calling for in the next Democratic administration, where we hopefully have a trifecta, is to pass health care for all as a package, which would include Medicare for all, which would include canceling all medical debt and breaking up big medicine, a bill that Senator Warren and Senator Josh Hawley have introduced as well. That's how we MAGA-proof our future. Democrats are not going to win again. You know, we'll win in 28. We'll win this cycle as well. But that's just because the pendulum swings. But in order for us to have a lasting impact and make sure that we win in 2032 when whoever fills Trump's shoes comes into power, we have to make sure that we're delivering for working families and giving them the reason to trust us when we say that we're going to fight for them. [00:11:46] Speaker 1: How do you pay for single payer? [00:11:48] Malak Kiros: So single payer actually pays for itself, right? I think there's a misconception that, you know, the health care is free and that's not what's happening. When you pass Medicare for all, you're just cutting out the middlemen that are frankly just making a profit off of people being sick. And when you have Medicare being the most efficient health insurance program in the country compared to all of the other private health insurance companies, this is the most common sense thing to do. It's the thing that every other developed wealthy nation in the country has done. And it's been estimated to save thousands of dollars for taxpayers and to save $2 trillion for the government over 10 years. [00:12:22] Speaker 1: You mentioned earlier that you're a renter. Denver is the only large city in Colorado with a majority of its residents being renters and it's a slim majority, it's like 51%. Do you support rent control and what role, if any, should there be for the federal government in making rent more affordable? [00:12:38] Malak Kiros: I do. I support rent stabilization more specifically and, you know, social housing has to be a part of that fabric as well. When we're talking about the issue of housing and specifically homelessness, the solutions that have been identified have mountains of evidence behind them. In fact, multiple countries around the world have instituted housing first. Places like Finland have completely eradicated homelessness as we know it here in this country, and that's because we're doing the common sense thing of giving someone who's homeless a home and not, you know, tying it to these other requirements of getting clean or getting a job, but also making sure that we're coupling that with the wraparound services that are necessary, right? The institutions that would give people the resources that they need if they are mentally ill and suffering from any mental health issues for folks who are dealing with drug addiction, they need specific resources. And a lot of these institutions have been defunded and it costs something like $10,000 a bed for folks, giving them those resources and making sure that the people who economically are incapable of finding affordable housing have that social housing as well. [00:13:43] Speaker 1: You're running for federal office, not local office, but give me your assessment of Denver's all-in mile-high effort to help people who are living on the streets. It's a Housing First model. It certainly has critics and it has folks who support its aims. How do you assess what the mayor's done here in Denver? [00:13:59] Malak Kiros: I think what we're missing in the way that Housing First has been done here in the city is making sure that the housing that's being given to people is dignified, right? It's not about just getting a room with a bed and maybe a lock in the key. It's about making sure that it's dignified. It's about making sure that it's safe. It's about making sure that the housing that we're giving people, the shelter that we're giving people isn't just for the sake of it, but to be the foundation for these folks to be able to rebuild their lives as well. I think people think about Housing First as if it's charity when really it's treatment that's necessary for an ailment, and in order for people to get better, in order for people to truly and fully be living and existing in the city, again, they have to have that security of housing, and when it's not dignified, when it's not safe, you don't actually have the security of that shelter. [00:14:48] Speaker 1: You pointed to the Finnish model. Is there a city or state in America that you think has done Housing First well? [00:14:56] Malak Kiros: Not quite, and I think that points to the problem that we've seen when it comes to programs that seek to fix problems like this that are underfunded and under-resourced, sometimes intentionally, you know, on the Republican side, so that they can point to these programs and say, look, it doesn't work. We have to privatize this model, and I think what we're missing when it comes to making sure that we are funding these things efficiently and effectively is our failure to actually talk to the people who are running these programs. It's one of the things that, you know, you learn first at CU Denver in the PhD program for public affairs. We rarely ever actually talk to the folks that are administering these programs and talking about what are you missing? What are resources that you really need? What are some staffing issues that you're identifying? What are some problems that we don't even have anything on the books to identify and talk about? Those kinds of conversations, I think, are what's missing for us to be able to do this effectively and what has been done in Finland where it has been done successfully. [00:15:51] Speaker 1: So we've talked a bit about how you would spend money. Let's talk about the taxing side. Who in America should be paying more taxes than they're currently paying? [00:15:59] Malak Kiros: The ultra-rich. We have not had a fair tax code, frankly, probably since the 50s, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that wealthier people and wealthier interests and corporations have been able to influence the government through their lobbying, through their campaign donations, to get tax breaks or to change tax codes for their own benefit. If we're talking about lost revenue as the tax code exists today, the IRS is estimating that we could be losing as much as $1 trillion in revenue every year. If we're talking about the money that we're losing out on because we're just not taxing people fairly, that's going into the trillions now. So we have to just make sure that our tax code is fair, and when you have people like Bloomberg, like Zuckerberg, like Bezos, that are paying an effective tax rate of less than 1%, when everyday working Americans are paying their fair share with an average tax rate of around 30%, it's not fair, it's not efficient, and it's not sustainable. This isn't just a matter of making sure that our country and our economy functions for working people. So frankly, if, you know, ultra-billionaires and trillionaires now want to live in a society that's functioning and thriving, they also would want to be paying their fair share, too. [00:17:13] Speaker 1: When you talk about the ultra-rich, I think that allows people to kind of assign their own number to it, you know? Yeah. I would describe ultra-rich as very different than like the top 2% of earners in America who are still making a lot of money, but people who are earning in the top 2% are obviously not in the stratosphere like the folks that you mentioned. Where do you actually draw the line and say these are the folks who should be paying more taxes in America? [00:17:35] Malak Kiros: I think if we're talking on a federal level, we need to generally make sure that our tax code is adjusted to make sure that it's fair for everybody. So starting at the bottom, we're talking about a poverty level index that hasn't been updated for decades, right? It's currently calculated at the cost of food times 3. It doesn't take into account health insurance or child care or housing. So if you actually calculate the cost of living in even the cheapest county in the country, the minimum wage should actually be around $21 an hour. So the poverty wage index is actually around $45,000 for an individual person. So making sure that our tax code is fair for those folks and then just increasing it for everyone going upwards to account for cost of living. But when we're talking about, you know, the ultra wealthy, I think we just need to create a new tax bracket at the top for folks that are centimillionaires, for folks that are centibillionaires. Those are the folks that have concentrated so much wealth that frankly, it's not even doing anything. [00:18:30] Speaker 1: You're talking about a percentage of the 1% at the top. Okay. Your views on Israel have become a focus in this race. You've called Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide. You've called for an arms embargo against Israel. Would that include the U.S. selling or financing defensive weapons that Israel uses to protect itself against rocket attacks from Hezbollah or Iran? Yes. It would. [00:18:53] Malak Kiros: It would. This is the position of a supermajority of Democratic voters. This is a position of multiple members of Congress right now, including organizations like J Street that also agree that we need to end our arming of Israel right now in order to force them to the table so that they can actually agree to delivering the aid, to agree to dismantling some of the systemic oppression that's taking place against Palestinians right now. This isn't about, you know, punishment. This is about making sure that the people of Palestine and people that are suffering under this genocide right now get the relief that they need and that we actually address the conditions that led to this genocide in the first place. [00:19:31] Speaker 1: Why not differentiate between offensive weapons used to wage war against another population and then defensive weapons that are used to protect civilians from outside attack? [00:19:40] Malak Kiros: I believe that our selling of arms to Israel, defensive or offensive, gives them the cover to continue the genocide that's taking place in Palestine and now the ethnic cleansing that's taking place in Lebanon. Again, this is a position of a supermajority of voters in this country. We want our taxpayer dollars to fund our resources and programs here in America, not to fund the genocide abroad. [00:20:04] Speaker 1: You shared an ad from a progressive PAC that's supporting you that used a derogatory and sexual term for many Democrats' support for Israel. It's one thing to disagree with somebody's views over a foreign policy issue, but that's something else entirely to describe them as being subservient or sexually subservient to Israel. Why align yourself with attacks like that? [00:20:24] Malak Kiros: That ad was one that we missed. We were asked to repost it because there was going to be an anti-war panel that weekend. We didn't catch the language that was on the screen. Had we caught it, we wouldn't have reposted it, and we've since taken it down. [00:20:39] Speaker 1: I believe that the ad also suggested that centrist Democrats suck shit. Is that your belief as well? Okay. First time I've ever said that in an interview. Let's return to the foreign policy stuff. You've said that the October 7th massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas fighters was the, quote, inevitable consequence of apartheid. Can you explain what you meant by that? [00:21:01] Malak Kiros: Yeah. You know, I think identifying what's happened over the course of these events in Israel and Palestine is inevitable. It doesn't take away the horror and the tragedy from what's taken place, from the innocent loss of life in Palestine and in Israel. My foreign policy has always been rooted in protecting the basic dignity of people, regardless of where they live, regardless of what they believe in, regardless of what race they are. And because of that true commitment to that kind of foreign policy, I believe it's incumbent upon us to actually identify why this violence is happening in the first place and to understand that certain conditions lead people to feeling like violence is their only answer. And our responsibility is to make sure. And our responsibility is to make sure that we're actually being responsive to the protest and to the resistance, the peaceful resistance that people have, you know, from December of 2018, from March of 2018 to December of 2019, Palestinians marched peacefully almost every single Friday asking for reprieve from the apartheid that they were existing under. And over the course of a few months, over 100 Palestinians, over 100 innocent Palestinians were killed as a result of that. And that was tragic. And I sincerely believe that we have to heed the words of, you know, President JFK said it himself, those who make peaceful resistance impossible make violent revolution inevitable. That's not to justify what happened. That's not to take away from the horror of it. It's to recommit ourselves to preventing the conditions that led to it in the first place. [00:22:36] Speaker 1: So you've said that that phrase that you use, inevitable consequence, is not justification for the attack on Israel. Is it a suggestion that Israel had it coming? [00:22:45] Malak Kiros: No, not at all. It's about understanding the conditions in which violence and war happens, right? Israel is a country that has been accused of apartheid and occupation for decades now. And has been able to resist any kind of change despite all of the, you know, frustration on the world stage that people have had for the conditions that Palestinians have been living in. And I hope that as an ally that Israel claims to be, that they would be responsive to our demands to make sure that they change those conditions so that we can actually finally start to the work of peace building and delivering aid to the people in need. [00:23:27] Speaker 1: Do you believe that the 9-11 terrorist attacks on America were the inevitable consequence of American foreign policy? [00:23:36] Malak Kiros: I believe that the quote in which that is probably being referenced by, in the context in which it was happening, was referencing a Pentagon official who was talking about the acts that America was taking in parts of the Middle East. [00:23:53] Speaker 1: I want to clarify, I'm just asking you about your own words, your frame of the October 7th attacks was that that was an inevitable consequence for Israel based on its actions. And I'm asking you, was 9-11 an inevitable consequence for America based on U.S. foreign policy? [00:24:09] Malak Kiros: Inevitable in the sense that we destabilized a lot of the Middle East that forced people to believe that another act of violence was the only response. And again, just like I said before, our responsibility is to getting rid of those conditions that lead to violence in the first place. [00:24:28] Speaker 1: You recently campaigned with Hassan Piker, he's got a huge streaming audience. Do you agree with his statement that Hamas is a lesser evil than Israel? [00:24:36] Speaker ?: No. [00:24:37] Speaker 1: Okay. The Jewish Community Relations Council wrote you an open letter saying that the way that you talk about Israel, quote, reinforce many of the same reductive and dehumanizing dynamics that are making many Jews feel increasingly unsafe and alienated. I imagine you've given some thought to that letter that you got. Do you think you're contributing to an environment where Jewish people in Colorado feel less safe? [00:24:58] Malak Kiros: I don't intend to. That's not what I mean to. And I don't believe that the words that I'm using necessarily do either. I think it's really important that we make clear that talking about the plight of one group does not mean that you're talking against the plight of another group. And in order for us to meaningfully get to the solutions that are necessary to end the genocide that's happening in Palestine, we have to center the Palestinians. But I've made it abundantly clear over the course of this campaign, over the course of, you know, the last few years, including the letter that got me fired in the first place, that what happened on October 7th was a horrific tragedy, that what's happening to Jewish people, not just in this country, but all across the world that are experiencing a rise in anti-Semitism as a result of what's happening in Palestine right now is wrong. And we have to do everything in our power to make sure that Jewish people feel safe, particularly the Jewish people in this city that, you know, I really was grateful for the opportunity to sit down with folks at the JCRC and we've continued to have those conversations. And, you know, we may not always agree on what to do about how to fix this problem, but I think it's most important in those disagreements to continue to have those conversations. [00:26:06] Speaker 1: Their letter specifically said that they weren't asking you to agree, but they felt like you didn't take away their core concern and that you continue to use language that they felt contributed to a lack of safety for people. [00:26:16] Malak Kiros: Yeah. And again, sometimes we won't agree on what we think certain language means and how, you know, describing certain parts of this conflict should not be conflated with speaking negatively against another part of this conflict. Speaking about what's happening in Palestine, speaking about what's happening to the Palestinians does not mean that I don't also feel the same desire and commitment to protecting dignity and peace and self-determination for the Israeli people as well. But that's not what's at threat right now. What's at threat is the Palestinian people's existence as they're under genocide. And so, again, I just want to clarify, you don't think that Jews around the world are under threat right now? No, specifically Israelis is what I said, that the I'm specifically focusing on the fact that Palestinians in Israel right now do not have the constitutional right to self-determination. That is what stems all of the laws that discriminate, that create the system of apartheid that the Palestinian people are existing under right now. And what I said in the letter that got me fired is what I still believe today. My hope is that we can work together to build a region where Palestinians and Israelis can live peacefully, that can live under a government that treats them all equally and ensures that each of them get to experience and enjoy the land, which does have a uniquely Muslim, uniquely Jewish, uniquely Christian character, and to do it peacefully and coexisting. [00:27:39] Speaker 1: And that letter is still posted. If people want to read your words, they can go back and they can read your words in full. A last question on this. There's a debate within the Democratic Party and elsewhere about what is anti-Semitism and what is anti-Zionism. That firebombing attack in Boulder on the group of peaceful protesters there that were protesting in support of the Jewish hostages being held by Hamas, was that firebombing attack on them an act of anti-Semitism? [00:28:02] Malak Kiros: I don't know what was in the heart of the perpetrator. All I know is that he went and attacked innocent people because of what they might have believed. And I don't even know what the people that were at that protest believed, too. In fact, most of them were probably just there to, you know, ask that the people who were kidnapped during October 7th be returned home to their families. That's not a political statement in and of itself. I think the fact that we're having a conversation about whether it was anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism is, you know, a political debate that, you know, I think everyone has the freedom to have. But to me, it was a loss of innocent life, regardless of what the perpetrator had in mind when he took those lives matters less to me than, you know, our responsibility to making sure that people understand that even in the face of these kinds of disagreements, that violence is not the answer. [00:28:52] Speaker 1: But you wouldn't you would not describe it as anti-Semitism? [00:28:56] Malak Kiros: I don't I don't know. I don't know what his intentions were. [00:28:58] Speaker 1: Let's talk about immigration. You've called for ICE to be abolished. How would border security work? Obviously, CBP would still exist in your world. Is that OK? So CBP would still exist on the borders. How would interior enforcement in America work if ICE was eliminated? [00:29:13] Malak Kiros: The same way it worked before ICE existed in the first place. You know, this was an agency that was created in the aftermath of 9-11 at a time of fear, but also at a time of, you know, Islamophobia and discrimination that was taking place. And we saw in the early stages of ICE that they very much targeted Muslim and Arab Americans because of where that fear was coming from. This isn't a question of how do we protect our borders. That has to be a priority of our country and a priority of interior and CBP. This is about making sure that we are not weaponizing an agency against innocent Americans, multiple of which are citizens and shouldn't have even been under the jurisdiction of ICE to begin with. Anyone who violates our immigration laws, that being said, our immigration laws are antiquated and broken. And as an immigrant who, you know, went through that process with my family, as someone who is in a family of immigrants who are going through that process right now, it takes too long. It takes too much money, it takes too much resources, and frankly that's just because of our inability to fully fund the immigration system in the way that it needs. We need more immigration judges, we need more caseworkers, we need more people at the border, and our responsibility should be to make sure that for folks who want to come to this country and be Americans, that it's a seamless process for them to be able to. And for folks who get through that process and become Americans, if they commit crimes and they go through the criminal justice system just like anybody else, anybody who's going through the system as well, it should be the same case, due process in those conditions. If there's specific immigration laws that as a country we want to decide on that would warrant deportation, then that's what the legislature is for, and that's what conversations we should have as a city and as a country. But the way deportation is taking place today is a function of how broken our immigration system is. [00:31:14] Speaker 1: If somebody who is here and is a non-citizen commits a felony level crime, should they go? [00:31:19] Malak Kiros: If they're a non-citizen not going through the immigration process, then yes. Okay. [00:31:23] Speaker 1: The technology and surveillance company, Palantir, suddenly left Colorado earlier this year. Some people cheered their exit, some people were upset about it. How did you feel about it? [00:31:32] Malak Kiros: I was excited to see them leave. Palantir is a company that's made it abundantly clear that they have every interest in embedding itself within the United States government, taking as much of our data as possible and using it for their own benefit. I believe our privacy is paramount, and Palantir is a company that stands in the face of that. [00:31:51] Speaker 1: Are there any other companies with a significant presence in the Denver metro area that you would similarly like to see go? There are certainly other, there are defense contractors and so forth. [00:32:00] Malak Kiros: Lockheed, Suncor, multiple. [00:32:03] Speaker 1: Lockheed Martin is a significant employer in the Denver metro area. I think almost 15,000 people, you'd like to see them go? [00:32:07] Malak Kiros: I sincerely believe that companies that profit off of war are not companies that we should seek to promote and grow, right? I want to see a world where war doesn't exist anymore. [00:32:28] Speaker 1: Lockheed's employment in Colorado, their employees, I no doubt would say that they profit or their business is protecting Americans and their interests. But you don't believe that that's the case? [00:32:38] Malak Kiros: I don't believe that's the case, no. If Lockheed wants to continue into other avenues or industries that don't profit off of war, I'd be happy to see that, though. [00:32:45] Speaker 1: Two more questions for you. If Democrats win back the House, there's going to be significant pressure to impeach Donald Trump. Do you think that would be a good idea? [00:32:51] Malak Kiros: I think the president of the United States went online to Truth Social, I believe it was, and called for genocide of an entire people. I think that's an impeachable offense, and I would vote to impeach him. [00:33:06] Speaker 1: Congressional races obviously focus on federal policy, but they involve highly local interests. District 1 is Denver almost entirely. Is there something that you would seek to do for Denver specifically, not federal policy, that you'd seek to do for Denver specifically that Congresswoman DeGette has failed to do in her almost 30 years in office? [00:33:26] Malak Kiros: I think something, and I was actually just on Colfax today at a meet and greet. I think I would fight for federal dollars to make sure that the project on Colfax gets done speedily and quickly so that we can support all the small businesses that are really struggling right now. [00:33:42] Speaker 1: So you were on East Colfax, I mean those are federal dollars behind that project. [00:33:46] Speaker ?: Yeah. [00:33:46] Speaker 1: Just not moving fast enough or not supporting the businesses or, tell me. Not enough. Okay. Not enough. So you would seek to bring additional federal dollars in to get the project done more quickly and so forth. Absolutely. [00:33:57] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:33:58] Speaker 1: Maylock Kiros, thank you for your time. I appreciate it very much. Thank you for having me.