reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker clarifies a headline, stating that three US citizen children (ages four, seven, and two) were not deported. Their mothers, who were in the US illegally, were deported, and the children accompanied them. The speaker asserts that if the children are US citizens, they can return to the US if their father or someone else wants to care for them. The speaker claims the US does not have a policy to deport children, even US citizens, without due process. The speaker explains that if someone is in the US unlawfully and has a young child, the parent can choose to take the child with them upon deportation. Alternatively, they can leave the child in the US. The speaker suggests the children likely have fathers in the US and that the family decides where the children go. The US deported the mothers who were illegally in America.

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.

Entering the U.S. legally and ignoring a judge's deportation order are crimes. Choosing to have a U.S. citizen child while in the country illegally puts the family in a difficult position. The speaker claims they removed children with mothers who requested it, calling it a parental decision. The speaker argues that if they hadn't removed the children with their mothers, they would be accused of separating families. They assert that when a parent wants their child to go with them, they facilitate it, and that the parents, not the government, made the decision. The speaker then references Lincoln Riley and Rachel Moran, stating they will never see their children again, and concludes that the administration is doing the right thing.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

The speaker clarifies that a headline is misleading because three US citizen children (ages four, seven, and two) were not deported. Their mothers, who were in the US illegally, were deported, and the children went with them. The speaker states that if US citizen children are deported with their parents, they can return to the US if a father or someone else wants to care for them. The choice of whether the children accompany their deported parents rests with the parents. The alternative would be for the US to hold the children while deporting the mother, which would lead to different negative headlines. The speaker assumes the children have fathers in the US who can care for them. The US deported the mothers who were in America illegally.

The speakers discuss the policy of zero tolerance, which includes family separation. Speaker 1 argues that zero tolerance is necessary and compares it to situations where parents are arrested with their children. Speaker 0 points out that legal asylum seekers are not charged with any crime. Speaker 1 argues that seeking asylum should be done through legal channels. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging the statement.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 recounts feedback from “real Chicagoans,” describing them as mostly Black and Brown, and claims they tell him that the other person does not seem to know the difference between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens. He asserts that these individuals feel the other person is siding with illegal aliens over their communities. He then pivots to a direct line of questioning. The real question, as Speaker 0 presents it, concerns a violent incident: “An illegal alien from Nicaragua grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her.” He presses for a direct response about what would have happened “if that had been your wife, Stacy.” He stages the hypothetical to elicit a clear stance from Speaker 1 on how to respond to such a crime and its immigration context. Speaker 1, however, interrupts to steer the conversation away from the loaded scenario. He repeatedly signals a move on, indicating a preference not to engage with the hypothetical or to answer the pointed ethical dilemma on the spot. The back-and-forth centers on the tactic of addressing the question versus avoiding it, with Speaker 0 insisting on a straightforward answer “as a man, not as mayor, but as a man.” The exchange escalates as Speaker 0 urges Speaker 1 to provide a simple yes or no and to address the issue directly, effectively challenging Speaker 1 to commit to a position regarding ICE and deportation in light of the described crime. Speaker 1 responds by again stating to move on, resisting the direct yes/no framework. Throughout, Speaker 0 persists in pressing for a candid, personal response to the hypothetical crime and its immigration implications, while Speaker 1 maintains a boundary about continuing the discussion in that moment. Ultimately, Speaker 1 declines to answer the specific deportation question in the moment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms the demand for a direct personal answer. The segment ends with Speaker 1 thanking the audience and moving on, leaving the explicit yes-or-no question unresolved in this exchange.

Democrats and the media have portrayed deported individuals as innocent, such as a supposed father of three who was actually an MS-13 gang member. An immigration judge determined in 2019 that this person had no right to be in the U.S., also noting traffic violations and missed court dates. The speaker asserts that the individual was an illegal alien who broke laws to enter the country, and that even left-wing media didn't criticize the deportation itself, only the reasoning behind it. The speaker states that the administration does not seek permission from Democrats to deport illegal immigrants. The speaker questions why Democrats are supposedly angrier about deporting violent gang members than they are about the victims of those gang members, suggesting they have lost touch with reality.

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.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 and the mainstream media of covering for a "vicious gang" that has taken the lives of American women. Speaker 1 claims individuals can be classified based on tattoos and streetwear, leading to deportation to El Salvador. Speaker 0 refutes this, stating the Department of Homeland Security and its agents use a "litany of criteria" to ensure individuals qualify as "foreign terrorists" for deportation. Speaker 0 asserts the president authorized a mass deportation campaign targeting "illegal criminal aliens" and defends the credibility of agents risking their lives, while Speaker 1 questions their credibility. Speaker 0 repeats the accusation of covering for a "vicious gang."

The speaker challenges Mr. Breer's claim that intentional trauma was caused by the Trump administration's separation of children from their parents. They argue that it is unknown whether these individuals are the children's actual parents, and criticizes Mr. Breer for using the term "parents" in quotes. The speaker questions Mr. Breer's knowledge and suggests that the reason for family separation is to prevent child trafficking. The speaker, identifying as a mother, ends the conversation, accusing Mr. Breer of being destructive.

Speaker 0 expresses a preference for deportations over death camps: "I don't want Hitler death camps. I just want deportations. You know? I don't want them all dead. Anybody." He adds, "I do want them all the fuck out of my country at the use of force, but, you know, that's it." He continues, "Other than that, you know, I I I I'm, like, one step below, you know, the third Reich. No death camps, but go the fuck home. Pretty much. Right? And we want our national identity back. But go the fuck home." Speaker 1 interjects with uncertainty: "I don't think they" Speaker 0 repeats, clarifying his stance: "I I'm, like, one step below, you know, the third Reich. No death camps, but go the fuck home. Pretty much." He adds again, "That's What do I care? I'm married. I'm the one. Yeah. Yeah." He emphasizes the personal boundary of his stance: "He's a Jew. He's a a a He's Alright. Let's go. Alright. We're off. Come on, guys. Follow-up." The dialogue centers on a vehement stance against certain individuals or groups remaining in the country, insisting on deportation by force while rejecting the notion of death camps. The speaker repeatedly rejects the idea of preserving national identity without expelling those targeted, using aggressive language to demand they "go the fuck home." There is an abrupt, fragmented back-and-forth between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with Speaker 0 asserting a position that falls just short of endorsing genocide, explicitly denying death camps but advocating removal, and tying this stance to the notion of reclaiming national identity. The exchange includes a personal aside about marriage and a claim about someone being Jewish but acceptable, followed by a call to continue the discussion with a "Follow-up."

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.

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 opened by saying that over the last week he has interacted with over 300,000 plus real Chicagoans who say it is hate speech to evoke the Civil War or the Confederacy, to say that law enforcement is a sickness, while the other person has over 150 sworn CPD officers on his detail. He asked what the other person would say to those people and whether he would ask his 150 sworn officers to stand down if he and his wife Stacy are ever attacked, shot at, or rammed with a protester’s vehicle. Speaker 1 responded with sarcasm about the large number, joking that the interactions had “gone down to 300,000,” and claimed he had checked the other person’s comments. He asserted that the addiction on jails and incarceration and the addiction of militarism is evil, referencing Doctor King, and said it is incumbent to ensure that “the real Chicagoans” or the real people of America receive attention, suggesting we should spend billions of dollars overseas on the people in Chicago instead. Speaker 0 pushed back, saying that the real Chicagoans he talks to, mostly Black and Brown, feel that the other person does not distinguish between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens, and that he is siding with illegal aliens over communities. He asserted that a recent incident involved “an illegal alien from Nicaragua” who grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her. He asked whether, if that had been the other person’s wife, Stacy, he would want ICE to deport that illegal alien, and asked for a yes or no answer. Speaker 1 pressed to get a direct answer, asking for a response “as a man, not as mayor,” and repeated the question about whether ICE should deport the rapist. Speaker 0 reiterated his question and stated that the answer for real Chicagoans is the deportation of the rapist, and that was the “answer for real Chicagoans.” Speaker 1 then apologized for being late, blaming traffic, and the other person quipped about the traffic, noting, “You’re not blaming me for the traffic, are you?” and said he had been watching.

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.”

The speaker asks Mr. Malnik how many deportations by the new administration would be objectionable. Malnik says a million would be a disaster, and two million would have severe negative ramifications, considering they would be law-abiding people who have been in the country for decades. The speaker states that President Obama deported nearly 5,000,000 people and asks if Malnik believes Obama was immoral and inappropriate for doing so. The speaker wants Malnik to state on social media that Obama did a horrible disservice to those he deported and was as wrong-minded as Republicans who want to secure the border and deport people. The speaker argues that one cannot be okay with one president deporting people but not another.

Here's the thing: Some estimate it would cost $88 billion to deport a million people a year. But what price do you put on national security? Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families? Of course there is, families can be deported together. I have given the secretary numerous options to secure the border and save lives. I recommended a zero tolerance policy, the same as when any U.S. citizen parent gets arrested when they're with a child. If I get arrested for a DUI with a child in the car, I'll be separated. When you're in the country illegally, it's a violation. If you want to seek asylum, go through the port of entry, do it the legal way. The Attorney General has made that clear.

- Speaker 0 states that criminals will be deported and that entering the US illegally increases the likelihood of being caught and sent back. They describe these actions as lawful and representative of the approach taken by every Republican and Democratic president for the past fifty years. - Speaker 1 asserts the need for tough conditions: people should be told to come out of the shadows, and if they have committed a crime, they should be deported with no questions asked; they will be removed. - Speaker 2 addresses widespread concern among all Americans about the large numbers of illegal aliens entering the country. They claim the jobs held by these individuals might otherwise be occupied by citizens or legal immigrants, and that public services used by them impose burdens on taxpayers. The administration is described as having moved aggressively to secure the borders by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, and by borrowing welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the upcoming budget, there will be efforts to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, and to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former congresswoman Barbara Jordan. - Speaker 2 concludes by emphasizing that we are a nation of immigrants, but also a nation of laws. It is described as wrong and self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the abuse of immigration laws seen in recent years, and there is a stated commitment to doing more to stop it.

"Whoever you are, get ready and sleep with your eyes open." The speaker believes the administration would deport US citizens, stating, "Oh, hell yeah." They claim it's already happening and that it happened to them with two kids, ages two and four, who were with their mom. The mom was not a US citizen.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 she will be taken too because she has brown skin. Speaker 1 calls this racist, stating she is an American citizen. Speaker 0 says it doesn't matter, and Speaker 1 accuses her of saying she will be deported because she is brown. Speaker 1 says she voted for Donald Trump, who she met and is very nice, and that Speaker 0 is racist. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 is supporting mass deportation. Speaker 1 says she supports mass deportation of people who are not American citizens. Speaker 0 says she is Catholic. Speaker 1 says American citizens are not going to get deported. Speaker 0 says potentially, citing Raz Baraka's arrest, claiming he was targeted by ICE. Speaker 1 says he was charged with trespassing. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 a whole ass adult calling people Nazis in 2025. Speaker 0 says this is Nazi behavior. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 thinks it was racist to tell her she was going to get deported because she's brown. Speaker 0 says she doesn't know that happened.

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.

Speaker 0 asks how to console parents of young girls killed. Speaker 1 discusses crimes committed by undocumented individuals versus others, rejecting the term "illegal." Speaker 2 clarifies they do not use the term "illegal."

If anyone tries to forcibly remove these women and children, there will be protests from American citizens who will stand to protect them. While there may be concerns about potential terrorists among them, it's difficult to identify who they are. The reality is that many people are committed to preventing children from being taken from shelters. This raises questions about the consequences if the military were to confront these citizens. The situation is complex, and emotions are running high as we navigate these challenges.