TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions the number of people deported out of the 2 million encounters and releases at the border. The secretary avoids answering the question and claims the immigration system is broken. The speaker presses for a specific number of non-criminal deportations, but the secretary doesn't provide an answer. The speaker also criticizes the lack of removals for those who received removal orders. The secretary denies this claim. The speaker accuses the secretary of implementing a policy that allows people to stay in the country without committing a crime, burdening social services. The secretary denies this and defends the safe and orderly pathways policy. The speaker argues that encounters at ports of entry have increased, suggesting corruption within the Mexican government. The secretary disagrees with the speaker's statements but fails to provide any numbers. The speaker concludes that the Mexican government and the secretary are influenced by cartels.

If you're a criminal, you'll be deported, and if you enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught just went up. According to Speaker 1, these actions are lawful and have been taken by both Republican and Democratic presidents for the past half century. Speaker 0 claims the media portrays Trump negatively for deporting illegal alien criminals, while Obama, Bill Clinton, and other Democrats were on board with this for years. Speaker 2 states their administration has moved aggressively to secure the borders by hiring a record number of new border guards, deporting twice as many criminal aliens, cracking down on illegal hiring, and barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Speaker 3 says using phrases like "undocumented workers" conveys that the government is not serious about combating illegal immigration. Speaker 1 says we cannot allow people to pour into The United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Speaker 2 says they will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes and to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace. Speaker 0 claims Obama deported 5,300,000 people, and Bill Clinton deported 12,300,000, questioning why there is a sudden change of heart now.

In the past 3 years, there has been a significant increase in illegal border crossings and a backlog of asylum cases. The speaker questions why the secretary deserves to keep his job, considering these issues. The secretary responds by acknowledging the problems and emphasizing the need for legislation to address the broken immigration system.

We need to surge to the border to hear asylum seekers. The border is closed and secure, but officials are encountering 10,000 migrants a day. It's not a border crisis, but rather imperialism, climate, and trade crises. The president is working on immigration. There have been over 250,000 migrant encounters since December.

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.

We should be very clear about helping the lower-income population, but every country has to control its borders. Asked about taking a Republican deal that funds other things in exchange for accepting their border and immigration policies, the speaker says they probably would. The speaker states we need to control the borders, and we need more merit-based and seasonal immigration. DACA should have a place here, and we need a path to citizenship. According to the speaker, if you do not control the borders, you are going to destroy our country. The speaker suggests people are now realizing what a problem it is, as migrants are being sent to New York. The speaker says we want to have a big heart for the world, but we have to [control the borders].

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.

Donald Trump went to Texas and stood next to officers, but one speaker believes he is not there to help and is a self-serving man. He could be on a beach instead of getting shot at. Trump killed the border bill, making jobs harder. Another speaker asks for the president or a member of his administration who can make decisions to come to Texas and speak with at least 12 Texas sheriffs dealing with the border issue firsthand. They want someone from Washington to get boots on the ground. Another speaker claims to have been to the border. Someone questions what she is fighting with, suggesting it's ineffective, and states that many law enforcement officers and sheriffs would disagree with her claims. They also believe she is lying about fighting for the country at the border.

The speaker states that an historic flood of undocumented immigrants crossed the border during the first three years of the administration, with arrivals quadrupling from the last year of President Trump. The speaker asks if it was a mistake to loosen immigration policies. The other speaker responds that the policies proposed are about fixing a problem, not promoting one. The first speaker reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The other speaker claims that they have cut the flow of illegal immigration by half, as well as the flow of fentanyl by half, but that Congress needs to act to fix the problem.

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.

One estimate claims it would cost $88 billion to deport one million people a year. A speaker questions whether that is what American taxpayers should expect. Another speaker asks what price should be put on national security and whether it is worth the cost. A speaker asks if mass deportation can occur without separating families. Another speaker claims families can be deported together.

One speaker believes there are two camps: one that views the U.S. as the world's policeman and another focused on domestic problems. One speaker believes the Biden administration has made decisions about the border, including flying people in using an app, which they find insane. They suggest a motivation for this is cheap labor, while acknowledging that some find the new Haitian workers in Springfield, Ohio, to be hard workers. However, they also claim this incentivized effort to move people into the country illegally will bring in gang members, cartel members, and terrorists, some of whom have already been arrested. Another speaker believes both Trump and Kamala Harris will have to act on the border, as the current situation is unsustainable. One speaker fears the goal is to give these immigrants a clear path to citizenship to buy their vote. They claim Democrats are incentivizing them with benefits like EBT cards and housing, which they are not giving to veterans and poor people in this country. They believe that if these people are given the opportunity to vote, especially in swing states, they will vote for the party that brought them to America.

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.

If you're a criminal, you'll be deported, and if you enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught just went up. According to Speaker 1, these actions are lawful and have been taken by both Republican and Democratic presidents for the past half century. Speaker 0 claims the media portrays Trump negatively for deporting illegal alien criminals, while Obama, Bill Clinton, and other Democrats were previously on board with this. Speaker 2 states their administration has moved aggressively to secure the borders by hiring more border guards, deporting twice as many criminal aliens, cracking down on illegal hiring, and barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Speaker 3 says using phrases like "undocumented workers" conveys that the government isn't serious about combating illegal immigration. Speaker 1 says we cannot allow people to pour into The United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Speaker 2 says they will try to speed the deportation of illegal aliens arrested for crimes and better identify illegal aliens in the workplace. Speaker 0 claims Obama deported 5,300,000 people, and Bill Clinton deported 12,300,000, questioning why there is a sudden change of heart now.

Speaker 0 asks: “Can you talk about the number of missing children… Yeah. You guys have discovered in Memphis? That's amazing.” Speaker 1 responds: “Well, it's hundreds of thousands were lost through Biden and the Biden administration, and we are getting a lot of them back. But they're either dead, they're slaves, they're captured in some form. But think of it, hundreds of thousands we're talking about. Not even believable. And they came in through the border, they were sold, They were bargained for. And this was all Biden. Meaning Biden and Obama, the same, you know, the same mentality, frankly. I think it's the same mentality. Let me tell you, Barack Hussein Obama was a lousy president. A lot of bad things happened. Remember when they used to talk about Trump with the jail cells? Well, he built the jail cells for the children. He built those jail cells. Remember that came out? But sure, they were built in 2014. You remember when that came out after me going through that stuff for about two weeks, and then they found out it was Barack Obama that built those jail cells. No. These people are they were bad leaders. I hope I hope we don't have it again. I hope we don't have it again because, you know, our country has come back a long way, but it can only withstand so much, and we don't wanna ever go through that again. We never wanna have open borders again. We don't wanna have we don't wanna have men playing women's sports. We don't wanna have transgender for everybody. We don't want that. We wanna have a great country with low interest rates, nice housing, great education, a strong military. The basics. Yes, please.”

I've appointed the VP to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle to help stem the migration of many individuals to our southern border.

The speaker was asked when the border situation became a crisis, and responded that the immigration system has been broken for a long time, even before the Trump administration. The speaker stated the system needs to be fixed and more resources are needed, such as more judges to process cases faster. Congress is the only place that can fix it. The questioner noted that many Trump border policies were rescinded and that the border patrol union supported a bipartisan bill, but also endorsed Donald Trump and called the current administration a failure on border security.

Speaker 0 states that voters in Pennsylvania and across the country consider immigration a key election issue, specifically the influx of illegal immigrants from over 150 countries. Speaker 0 asks how many illegal immigrants Speaker 1's administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years, suggesting a number like 1,000,000 or 3,000,000. Speaker 1 agrees immigration is a topic of discussion. Speaker 1 states that the U.S. has a broken immigration system that needs repair. Speaker 0 claims that 6,000,000 people have been released into the country.

Speaker 1 discusses the crisis at the border, claiming that politicians in the United States are lying to the American people. They mention the large number of people entering the country illegally and the overcrowding at immigration centers. Speaker 0 expresses admiration for Speaker 1's courage and suggests that people heading north are doing so because they believe they are invited by President Biden. Speaker 0 argues that if the border cannot be effectively closed or if people cannot be deported or imprisoned, then the United States does not truly have a country. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 being asked about rescuing children at the border.

An interviewer states that undocumented immigrant arrivals quadrupled during the first three years of the speaker's administration compared to the last year of President Trump's term and asks if loosening immigration policies was a mistake. The speaker responds that the problem is long-standing and that solutions have been offered since day one. The interviewer asks again if allowing the increase was a mistake. The speaker says the proposed policies are about fixing, not promoting, the problem. The interviewer reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The speaker claims that due to their actions, they have cut the flow of illegal immigration and fentanyl by half, but congressional action is needed to fix the problem.

Secretary: Today, we are announcing that we have stopped all grant funding that's being abused by NGOs to facilitate illegal immigration into this country. It's amazing to me the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent by the federal government that has been sent to NGOs to facilitate this invasion of our country. I have taken action to stop that funding, to reevaluate it, and to make sure that we're actually using taxpayer dollars in a way that strengthens this country and keeps us safe. People are curious how grants given out by federal agencies are utilized, and that evaluation needs to be done. We're not spending another dime to help the destruction of this country. We're going to follow through on what president Trump promised, to secure our border, depart those who are here illegally and committing criminal actions, and ensure taxpayer dollars aren't spent to assist it. Speaker: And, Madam Secretary, I don't think people fully understand the role that NGOs play in facilitating illegal immigration. I want to share these numbers up on the screen: we spend over $380,000,000 in 2024 for sheltering and service programs for illegal immigrants. But the vast network of NGOs that help facilitate it through Panama, through Mexico, and make it a landing spot here in the United States is a massive contributor to illegal immigration. So what you're telling us today is that now stops? At least the federal funding of that stops? Secretary: Yes. The Department of Homeland Security has stopped spending those dollars to fund those NGOs. What’s been revealing is that many of these NGOs actually have infrastructure and operations set up in Mexico on that side of the border, telling illegal immigrants to come to them, and they will get them across the border. So they're not just operating in the United States. They're operating outside of the United States to help make it easier for those who want to break our laws. And while I was one of those Americans years ago when somebody said NGO to me, I thought, oh, that's amazing—a nonprofit telling somebody about Jesus or spreading faith and charitable work, helping people less fortunate. Then I realized over the years it's been perverted into this shadow government. An NGO is sometimes an operation that does things the government cannot do, can't legally do, so they create an entity to use government dollars, taxpayer dollars, to do something that the federal government isn't allowed to do—to perform a shadow government operation that has recently been used to undermine our country's national security.

Speaker 0: Have you considered talking to the president of Colombia who you called a drop leader? Speaker 1: No. I haven't really thought too much about him. He's been fairly hostile to The United States, and I haven't given him a lot of thought. He's he's gonna have himself some big problems if he doesn't wise up. Speaker 2: Did you say Colombia is producing a lot of drugs. Have cocaine factories that they make cocaine, as you know, and they sell it right into The United States. So he better wise up or he'll be next. He'll be next too. I hope he's listening. Speaker 0: So was this operation a message that you're sending to Mexico, to Claudia Scheinbaum, president there? Speaker 2: Well, it wasn't meant to be. We're very friendly with her. She's a good woman, but the cartels are running Mexico. She's not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico. We could be politically correct and be nice and say, oh, yes. Is no. No. She's very, you know, she's very frightened of the cartels that are running Mexico. And I've asked her numerous times, would you like us to take out the cartels? No. No. No, mister president. No. No, no, please. So we have to do something because we lost the real number is 300,000 people, in my opinion. You know, they like to say a 100,000. A 100,000 is a lot of people, but the real number is 300,000 people. And we lost it to drugs, and they come in through the southern border, mostly the southern border. A lot plenty come in through Canada too, by the way, in case you don't know. But but they come in through the southern border, and something's gonna have to be done with Mexico. Cuban government, the Trump administration's next target, mister secretary, very quickly. Speaker 3: Well, the Cuban government is a is a huge problem. Yeah. The the the the Cuban government is a huge problem for Speaker 2: some So is that a yes? Speaker 3: Cuba. But I don't think people fully appreciate. I think they're in a lot of trouble. Yes. I'm not gonna talk talk to you about what our future steps are gonna be and our policies are gonna be right now in this regard, but I don't think it's any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro. His entire, like, internal security force, his internal security opera apparatus is entirely controlled by Cubans. One of the untold stories here is how, in essence, you talk about colonization because I think you said Dulce Rodriguez mentioned that, the ones who have sort of colonized, at least inside the regime, are Cubans. It was Cubans that guarded Maduro. He was not guarded by Venezuelan bodyguards. He had Cuban bodyguards. In terms of their internal intelligence, who spies on who inside to make sure there are no traitors, those are all Cubans. Speaker 0: He felt very strongly. We we needed for nationals. We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals. We had some we have so many sites for minerals and oil and everything. We have more oil than any other country in the world. We need Greenland for national security.

Why don’t we just clean up the border? Biden has the power to do that, but the asylum backlog is overwhelming due to increased immigration. Many cases don’t lead to deportation because they’re often approved for asylum. The current administration is influenced by special interests, which complicates immigration policy. There’s a significant number of people applying for asylum at the border, and many enter the U.S. on visitor visas before seeking asylum, exploiting a loophole. While some argue deportation is necessary, it doesn’t align with the Democratic Party platform, which is shaped by those who fund the party. This influence affects how immigration issues are addressed.

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.