reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Concerns about terror cells crossing the border arise when hundreds of thousands of people are allowed in. While terrorists and individuals on the watchlist have been caught, the accurate number of those who have sneaked through remains uncertain. The influx of migrants, with videos showing long lines at the border, raises questions about the wisdom of such a policy. Building a wall is suggested as a solution, but opposition to it is often labeled as racist. It is also speculated whether other countries, like Russia, are engineering social media outrage surrounding this issue.

Kamala Harris is decrying the idea of a mass deportation plan, which may sound callous and unfeeling to many Americans. America is a generous country, and for people to be okay with mass deportation means something has fallen through the cracks: the consent of the people. The government did not seek the consent of the people in allowing the mass influx of immigrants. Imagine waking up and finding your community centers, hotels, and schools overrun with migrants without your consent. This is how you manufacture hate, racism, and bigotry. If the government understands that bringing in thousands of migrants without consent will engender dissatisfaction, why are they doing it, unless it is their plan to sow chaos? The generosity of Americans has never been due to government dictate or coercion; it has always been voluntary and genuine. The fastest way to create hate is to force people into a corner. Over the last three and a half years, Kamala Harris has forced Americans into a corner, and it is the speaker's hope that Americans will help her pack her bags out of the White House in November.

I spent a week in Tapachula, Mexico, where thousands of migrants are trapped due to a military operation aimed at controlling the situation before the U.S. elections. The Mexican government is relocating some migrants to other cities but is keeping most of them in the south to avoid a surge at the border. Many migrants are anxious about a potential Trump victory, fearing he would close the border. As a result, they are increasingly attempting to cross illegally. I predict that once the election is over, there could be a significant influx of migrants as the Mexican authorities may no longer hold them back. The current situation is unprecedented, with around 150,000 migrants in Tapachula, all eager to move north.

Most Americans believe the administration is failing on the border issue as the number of people attempting to cross the southern border is at a record high. The speaker acknowledges the broken immigration system and emphasizes the need for a safe and humane border policy in the short term. They also highlight the importance of addressing the root causes of migration in the long term. The speaker urges Congress to take action and stop playing political games, encouraging them to be part of the solution.

As a legal immigrant, the speaker expresses frustration with Democrats for supposedly weaponizing diversity. The speaker asserts the U.S. does not need people who will support the ideologies that ruined their home countries. The speaker left their country because people kept voting for a party promising handouts. Legal immigrants supposedly want closed borders to prevent the same problems from arising in the U.S. Many immigrants run away from bad countries, then support the same ideologies in the U.S., expecting government assistance. The speaker claims legal immigrants oppose open borders and illegal immigration not out of selfishness, but because they know what happens when those types of people are the majority. It is frustrating to see America turning into what they ran away from after sacrificing to make America home.

Mexico struggles to handle a sudden influx of millions of people, despite the desire to welcome them. Many have lived in the U.S. for decades, building lives and families there. The idea of deporting them back to Mexico, where they may find nothing left and face violence, is unrealistic. This situation could lead to a significant crisis, as these individuals cannot simply return to a life of lower wages and instability.

In the transcript, Speaker 0 asserts that the surge from Mexico during the Biden administration occurred due to two explicit actions. First, after Joe Biden won in November 2024, AMLO, the president of Mexico, convened Mexican legislators and enacted legislation that they knew would radically encourage mass migration to the United States, specifically acknowledging that this would be the effect they sought. Second, governments in Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega allegedly responded by allowing anyone from anywhere in the world to obtain a visa if they fly to Nicaragua, and then they would be taken to the border to head north toward the United States. According to the speaker, millions of people from Africa, Latin America, and Asia flew to Nicaragua on chartered planes and then proceeded toward the U.S. border. The speaker characterizes these developments as intentional and directed.

A woman was offered money to house immigrants, but found guns in a container. The influx of immigrants is causing strain on the country. The fear is that the immigrants will be armed and lead to civil war. The government provides them with everything for free, causing anger among locals. The immigrants, largely Muslims from countries affected by the West, may rise up. The speaker warns that the immigrants have faced worse in their own countries and are more capable of violence than the locals.

The speaker boarded a bus full of African and Hispanic migrants heading to Costa Rica, then potentially to the United States. They highlighted the organized nature of the migration, with multiple camps sending thousands daily. The speaker expressed concern over undisclosed bus owners and the influx of migrants, calling it an invasion. They emphasized the issue's significance in an election year and the need for transparency.

Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and Speaker 2 discuss immigration and U.S. foreign aid policy, focusing on roots, outcomes, and political implications. They begin with a provocative assertion: immigration is a major issue, with Speaker 0 claiming, “mostly with immigration… I wish people knew that we’re letting in criminals daily.” The speakers note migration as a central concern for the region, describing large U.S. aid to Central America—“4,000,000,000 over four years”—and acknowledging migrants now arriving from other places, including Venezuela. The dialogue questions the end goals of policy, asking, “What is the end goal? Why are they allowing children?” and “So what does he say to that?” along with a reference that “a lot of children” are involved. Speaker 2 mentions aid directed to female prisons in Mexico and to work on training, and to gender issues in Pakistan, noting initiatives to recruit, retain, and advance more women in law enforcement. A lingering question is asked: should U.S. taxpayers’ money be spent in their own country on these issues when they are described as fatal or concerning to others. The conversation shifts to specifics of administration and oversight: “Secretary Lincoln, how close are you to him? Five degrees separation.” The group references briefings on the FY2025 budget request and budget cycles, then reiterates the migration issue with a call to “stop migration.” They discuss a “root cause strategy” involving funding to address migrants at their origins, “Central America, basically,” aiming to support development there. A critical point is the assertion of substantial U.S. funding to the region and the concern that migrants are still coming from elsewhere, notably Venezuela, which “looks bad for the administration.” The dialogue notes the difficulty of finding a clear answer, with a sense that the other side might benefit politically. The speakers reflect on the scale of the funding relative to past decades and acknowledge uncertainty about what is effectively changing. There is talk of internal discussions with colleagues who manage migration processes and foreign assistance, with admissions of confusion or lack of clear messaging: “I don’t know what we do… there’s no clear answer.” They touch on messaging about immigration, including a belief that “we’re letting in criminals daily,” and contrast the status of “good, honest, hard work” Mexicans who stay in Mexico with others who come to the United States. Towards the end, Speaker 0 argues that traditional Americans—“Nebraska… Americans that have my family’s been in United States for four hundred years”—are not leftists, while stating that Latin Americans are leftist, framing it as a broader political and societal divide connected to immigration policies. They propose a hypothetical: allowing 100,000 Mexicans a year if they are not in the country illegally and have no criminal record, suggesting a quality filter on entrants.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss immigration and migration as the central issue for their region. They express a belief that immigration policies are letting criminals into the country daily and emphasize the need for the world to know this. They note a large shift in migration patterns, with migrants coming from Central America as well as Venezuela, despite substantial U.S. aid to the region. They describe a U.S. aid strategy they call the root causes strategy, which involves giving money to support and develop the origins of migrants so people can stay where they are. Specifically, they mention pouring 4 billion dollars over four years into Central America and question whether it is effective, acknowledging the continued flow of migrants despite the aid. There is mention of how the aid is allocated: some of it goes to female prisons in Mexico to help train inmates, and there is reference to working on gender issues in Pakistan aimed at recruiting, retaining, and advancing more women in law enforcement. They raise the broader question of whether U.S. taxpayer money should be spent in other countries on these issues, noting that some people claim “women simply don’t seem to care about” certain issues. Speaker 2 frames the discussion with formal gratitude to the committee and indicates upcoming briefings on the FY 2025 budget request on the Hill, highlighting migration as a big issue for their region and asking what is being done to stop migration. The dialogue reflects uncertainty about how to respond to migration and whether the administration can or will justify the policy choices. The speakers discuss the political impact of migration and aid, suggesting that “the end all be all” solution for politics does not exist, and that the other side might gain advantages from perceived failures. They observe that the public view of migration has evolved and that attitudes toward the issue are politically consequential. There is a provocative assertion comparing criminal elements among migrants to the worst criminals in the United States, and a hypothetical claim about if the worst criminals went to Canada, billions of dollars would be sent back, implying a desire to limit illegal entries or criminal migrants. They debate how to adjust the quality of entrants, proposing that a metric change—allowing a high number of entrants only if they have no criminal records and are not in the country illegally—could alter outcomes. Finally, they discuss perceived demographic shifts in the United States, noting that traditional Americans and Latin Americans have different political leanings, with a suggestion that demographics are being shifted by migration and related policy.

The speaker describes the mass migration crisis as a clearly defined event with a definite beginning, middle, and a trajectory spanning over three and a half years, calling it one event unlike any other in US history and perhaps in world history—even comparing it to times of war and ancient history. The trajectory of this crisis, the speaker claims, will depend entirely on the outcome of the election. If there is another four years, it will “cement and expand a fundamental transformation of The United States,” and it is argued that “we can't have another ten, fifteen, 20,000,000 illegal immigrants join the ten, fifteen, 20 that came in under this thing.” The speaker describes the numbers as “too many, too much, and it’s destructive,” and asserts that “change is more than anybody can handle.” Regarding potential political responses, the speaker asserts that “Trump is gonna shut it down and try to ameliorate the worst effects of what happened,” while claiming that “Harris is going to let them roll.” The speaker contends that “they dig this,” and that “they love this stuff,” describing the crisis as “the ultimate moral good in their eyes.” Overall, the speaker frames the crisis as an unprecedented, defining event whose future hinges on the election outcome, with the implication that the political leadership will either curb or permit continued migration flows depending on who is in power.

In this video, the speaker shares their perspective on the challenges of immigration. They mention their personal experience as an immigrant in Miami during the Mariel boat lift, where 125,000 Cubans arrived in just two months. They highlight the stress it puts on cities, communities, and social services. The speaker also mentions that with global warming and climate change, more people will be forced to leave certain parts of the world, making the situation even more challenging.

In December, the southern border usually experiences low activity, but since the Biden administration took office, record-breaking numbers of migrants have been arriving. The speaker mentions that the migrants believe now is the right time to come because they feel they will be released into the United States due to President Biden's policies. They mention an interview with a Moroccan migrant who expressed gratitude towards Joe Biden and later confirmed that he was released by border patrol and is now in New York City. The speaker also reveals that there are currently over 25,000 migrants in federal custody, exceeding capacity, and predicts that mass releases will continue to increase in the coming days.

The speaker addresses the historic mass migration crisis at the US Southern border, asserting its root cause is President Biden's open border policy, as perceived by immigrating foreign nationals via social media. They are motivated by the success of those who came before them. This has led to record border patrol apprehensions and significant "gotaways." The speaker claims that UN agencies like IOM and UNHCR are materially contributing to illegal border crossings by providing cash, food, shelter, and legal/psychological services along migrant trails. They cite examples of cash debit cards given to migrants, and psychologists helping migrants recover memories of persecution to pass asylum interviews. The speaker suggests this UN assistance, funded partly by the US, keeps migrants on the trail to the US. They also raise national security concerns, citing an example of an FBI watch-listed Venezuelan released by ICE and now pursuing asylum in Detroit.

Speaker 1: Mentions there are many things she wishes people knew, but mostly with the administration she wishes people knew that “we're letting in criminals daily.” Speaker 2: States the big issue for the region is migration, noting “we poured a lot of money into Central America,” amounting to “4,000,000,000 over four years,” but migrants are now coming from elsewhere, including Venezuela. Speaker 3: Asks, “So what is the end goal?” Speaker 1: Asks why aren’t they allowing children, noting “a lot of children travel to The United States, David.” Speaker 2: Explains aid goes to female presence in Mexico, training women, and mentions working with gender issues in Pakistan, aiming to recruit, retain, and advance more women in law enforcement. Asks whether US taxpayers’ money should be spent in “our country on this issue,” implying women may not care about certain aspects. Speaker 2: Asks how close Secretary Lincoln is to him, “five degrees separation,” and notes migration is a niche industry that flies under the radar; the average American doesn’t know what they do. Speaker 1: Thanks the chairman, ranking member, and members for the opportunity to testify. Speaker 2: Mentions upcoming briefings in two weeks on the FY 2025 budget request on the Hill. Speaker 0: States migration is the big issue for the Hill and asks, “Stop migration. What are we doing to stop migration?” Speaker 1: Responds that he’s not accountable for that and says, “We do stuff,” referencing the root causes strategy, which is about giving money to support and help people at the origins of migrants so they feel they can stay there instead of migrating. It’s “Central America, basically.” He says they poured a lot of money into Central America, and again mentions “4,000,000,000 over four years.” Speaker 2: Asks if it’s doing anything; response: yes, for them, but migrants are now coming from elsewhere like Venezuela, and acknowledges that outcome looks bad for the administration and for politics in general. Speaker 3: Seeks the end goal and asks again why there’s a limit on who’s allowed in. Speaker 1: Cites changes in demographics in the United States; notes that Nebraskans are traditional Americans not leftists, while Latin Americans are described as leftists, framing it as a system to try to change demographics.

Scientists' warnings about mega storms, floods, droughts, ice melting, rising sea levels, stronger storms, tropical diseases, and climate migrants have been accurate. Without action, there could be 1 billion climate refugees crossing international borders in the coming decades. A few million refugees have already contributed to a wave of populist authoritarianism, and a billion could overwhelm our capacity for self-governance. People are already being displaced from their homes, and areas are becoming physiologically unlivable due to heat and humidity. These areas, currently small, could expand to include most of India, large parts of Northern South America, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Pakistan if no action is taken. The survival of our civilization is at stake.

Speaker 0 explains that a CIA document from after the Bay of Pigs failure stated there was no direct, immediate way to overthrow Castro in Cuba. Instead, the path forward required a massive commitment from Congress in terms of money and manpower, beyond the special operations already tried in the form of the Bay of Pigs. The CIA was frustrated because that political will from Congress did not exist. Because they could not get Congress to take the action they wanted, and because they lacked authority due to the American people not voting for what they wanted to do, the CIA considered an alternative: mass immigration of exile communities and refugees. The idea was that by providing unlimited support to these exile groups, they would form enough of a lobby to affect internal congressional politics. The document posits that importing tens of thousands of Somalians into Minneapolis, Minnesota, could lead to political influence, such as the emergence of a Congresswoman like Ilhan Omar, who would then advocate on behalf of Obama’s foreign policy for Somalia and Eritrea and Kenya and the broader region. Speaker 0 notes that this is a writing from the Central Intelligence Agency, sixty years ago, and that it is addressing the same issue currently as the immigration issue is being taken on, describing it as a sort of back-to-the-future moment.

The speaker discusses the issue of immigration and the potential dangers it poses. They argue that there is a deliberate plan to undermine countries by encouraging mass migration, which will ultimately lead to the destruction of national borders and cultures. The speaker also highlights the use of propaganda and censorship to control the narrative and demoralize the population. They emphasize the need for individuals to resist and speak out against these actions. The speaker calls for strong leadership and a united front to confront the challenges posed by mass migration and the erosion of national sovereignty.

The speaker highlights the impact of climate change, which is leading to an increasing number of climate refugees. They express concern about the xenophobia and political authoritarianism that has arisen from the relatively small number of refugees. With the projected number of refugees reaching one billion in this century, the speaker warns that our ability to govern ourselves will be compromised. Urgent action is necessary to address this global challenge.

New York City is facing a major problem with migrants coming through the southern border. This issue is going to have a devastating impact on the city, with 10,000 migrants arriving each month from various parts of the world. The entire city will be affected, and there is a $12 billion deficit that will require cuts to all services. The speaker emphasizes that everyone needs to take responsibility and asks the community what they have done to address this issue. The speaker warns that if action is not taken, the city will be lost. The speaker also mentions the back-and-forth between different boroughs about where to send the migrants, stating that this is not a game.

Mass immigration will destroy any country that allows it, causing that country to cease to exist. This is due to the numbers: with 8 billion people in the world, even a few percent moving to a country of 50 million, 60 million, or even 350 million, would change it fundamentally. A country is not its geography, but its people. If the people of Italy were teleported to the United States, it would still be Italy. Conversely, if a large number of people from elsewhere were teleported to Italy, replacing the original population, the geographic region would no longer be Italy.

Speaker 0 explains that transparency has been lacking and that tracking money through organizations is difficult. He says there is now at least a parameter for opacity, and that this parameter must be solidified to understand how money moves internally—through contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and networks of friends and associates. He predicts that over the next five years criminal activity will be uncovered as these money flows are examined more closely. Speaker 1 adds that there is a distinction between the border situation and how funds were dispersed north and south. As NGOs realize their federal funding is drying up, he questions whether there is enough momentum or private-sector money to sustain them, and what will happen to groups that no longer receive taxpayer dollars. Speaker 0 responds that hundreds of NGOs will close, noting that hundreds were created specifically for the mass migration crisis—serving as bus companies or as handlers at the border to assist migrants. He implies these organizations were established to address a surge and suggests their disappearance will follow as government funding wanes. Speaker 2 raises the issue of blanket preemptive pardons and asks if there should be an investigation into how the large influx of people—10 to 15 million—came about, characterizing the situation as not chaotic but well thought through. He asks if a thorough investigation is warranted. Speaker 0 calls for a full-throated investigation, including a presidential committee if needed, targeted at the DOJ under the new FBI director and the Attorney General. He argues there should be a focus on the political appointee class rather than only high-level officials like Mayorkas. He references his book, Overrun, Chapter Four, asserting that the situation was orchestrated and engineered at the political appointee level within the Domestic Policy Council, the DOJ, and all DHS agencies. He identifies people brought in from the NGO world, such as Tyler Moran, Esther Olavaria, Lucas Guten Tag, and Amy Pope, claiming they orchestrated the effort and undermined federal law and statutes that require faithful execution of laws. Speaker 2 adds that hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to the former NGO employers, implying a link between the orchestration and financial rewards. The dialogue ends with a continued assertion of movement toward an expansive influx, described as an invasion, and a call for accountability at the administrative and policy-making levels.