reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that Democrats have been inconsistent on voter ID, particularly photo ID. He notes that for years Democrats claimed voter ID was a tool of voter suppression, then began hedging. He contends that Democrats now publicly say they support voter ID, with some leaders claiming their objection is not to a photo ID, but to other inclusivity formats like leases, utility bills, debit cards, or photocopies. He asserts that, in contrast, the Democrat floor leader said he objected to photo ID and called for inclusive voter ID options, but that Democrats have also supported photo ID in many other contexts (air travel, school enrollment, opening bank accounts). He argues this inconsistency shows Democrats “backpedaling” when pressed to support ID at the polls. The speaker cites severalDemocrats who have, at times, supported or stated favorable views toward voter ID, yet later qualified or avoided the position. He mentions a senior Democrat from New Jersey who said he would support a voter ID bill until pressed, then began avoiding the commitment. He references a junior Georgia Democrat who claimed, “I think you should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. I support voter ID,” while also noting concerns about the specific requirements under discussion. He also quotes additional Democrats to illustrate what he sees as mixed messages: a Democrat from Arizona suggesting support for a strict voter ID approach; a Democrat from Rhode Island describing their state’s “sensible voter ID law” and frequent roll reviews as effective; the Democrat Senate leader stating that “Democrats support voter ID” ten days earlier; and a Georgia Democrat reiterating the expectation to prove one’s identity before voting and describing it as “basic.” The speaker announces an amendment vote on a clean voter ID bill, intended to require a photo ID at the polls, such as a driver’s license, tribal ID, military ID, veteran ID, or a passport. He clarifies that this amendment would not affect the Save America Act and would not obligate Democrats to vote for the final bill; they could vote for the amendment and against the overall act. The amendment’s purpose, he says, is to force Democrats to demonstrate whether they truly support photo ID in a concrete, real-world form. The speaker invites Democrats to demonstrate their actual stance by supporting the clean photo ID amendment and asserts that this would reveal where they truly stand.

The SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, passed the House with every Republican and four Democrats voting for it, while 98% of Democrats voted against it, despite 84% of Americans supporting voter ID. One argument against voter ID is that it suppresses voting among elderly, poor, and minority groups, echoing post-slavery laws. Obtaining a valid ID can cost $10-$30, and updating documents or traveling to ID offices can be inconvenient. Recently, it was revealed that Social Security numbers were given to millions of illegal immigrants, and thousands of them were found on voter rolls and had voted. While voter ID has cons, the pros outweigh them. Subsidizing IDs for low-income people and acknowledging that voting is a shared inconvenience for all citizens could be solutions. The opposition to voter ID may stem from partisan politics, but politicians should prioritize the will of the people over party loyalty.

The speaker argues that Social Security cards are already widely used as identification. They claim that providing a driver's license and Social Security card is standard practice to prove eligibility for employment. The speaker characterizes the amendment as an anti-fraud measure to prevent illegal immigrants and others from obtaining jobs and benefits unlawfully. They believe the amendment is effective and doesn't alter government actions. The speaker expresses concern that the bill, despite good intentions, risks becoming ineffective due to opposition to rational proposals. They urge support for the amendment, stating that supporting it is the only way to stop fraud in immigration.

Speaker 0 argues that the administration should ensure Social Security numbers are used for the right purposes and not on benefit programs. He notes that over 6,000 individuals have been identified through their work as being on the terrorist watch list or known criminals, and asks, "How does that happen, madam secretary?" He attributes this to the current presidency, stating, "It happens when you put a train wreck like Joe Biden in the White House, and it's gonna be a lot of work to clean it up." He presents figures to support his claim about misuse of Social Security numbers. In the last four and a half years, he says, there have been "over 9,000,000 people [who] get Social Security numbers that are not US citizens." He elaborates that these may be people with some sort of legal status, but a lot are illegals who were given a Social Security number in the same period. He asserts a need to determine whether they should be here "legally under a program" and, if they are here illegally, that they "certainly shouldn't be using that Social Security number to be on our programs." Speaker 0 concludes with a policy preference attributed to President Trump, stating that they should be given "the opportunity to go home on their own" if they wish to. He emphasizes two actions: identifying and addressing improper use of Social Security numbers by non-citizens, including those on the terrorist watch list or otherwise known criminals, and considering removal or voluntary return for those here illegally.

The speaker states that everywhere people go, they’re asked for a Social Security card, and that proving you’re a bonafide person who can have a job involves asking for a driver’s license and a Social Security card. This is described as an anti-fraud amendment. The speaker notes that people ask why we can’t stop illegal immigrants or others from coming here, and to constituents, the number one answer given is that when they come here, they can get jobs and benefits against the law because of fraud.

The speaker discusses allegations of fraud involving “immigrants” and says foreigners are “getting popped all over the place for committing fraud.” They claim people in comment sections became angry after they said “they’ve been committing fraud,” with others responding by calling them a MAGA or Trump supporter. The speaker rejects those labels and says they work in human services and were “clearing the … applications,” which they say is how they know fraud was occurring. The speaker argues that Black Americans “could have been out there” snitching like “Nick Shirley,” and claims Black Americans have known about fraud connected to multiple POC immigrant communities “since the fucking nineties.” They say Black Americans have been aware that “$2 in a dream” stories are a lie and that people were receiving government benefits while working “under the table,” including food stamps, housing, AFDC checks, and Medicaid. They also claim these communities use childcare assistance, and they say they know about sending “husbands” to work while the individuals allegedly stay at home. The speaker asserts that Black Americans “know everything about every group of fucking people” because “no one pays us any” attention and because others think Black Americans are “too stupid” or “too incompetent” to read or do math. They describe having worked in “health care administration” and claim familiarity with fraud involving home health businesses and psychosocial rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, including “behavioral” services. They contrast Black Americans not troubling others with “the problem” beginning when others “began to trouble us.” The speaker says they join comment sections to explain what they claim to know, stating that other groups use Black Americans’ name to deflect from their own crimes, including robbing “local government funding,” “state fund government funding,” and “federal government funding.” They reference “anchor babies” and say others should “shut the fuck up” and stop making claims about Black Americans lacking culture or not working hard. They conclude by stating “Black Americans don’t snitch,” but say once others “started drinking your own fucking piss” and “talk[ing] to us crazy,” they “finna tell it all.”

Speaker 1 criticizes Speaker 0's statement that undocumented immigrants with no criminal history pay into Social Security, arguing that this is impossible without a Social Security number. Speaker 1 claims that if undocumented immigrants are paying into Social Security, they are either committing fraud by using fake numbers or engaging in identity theft by using someone else's number. Speaker 1 asserts that both of these actions are federal crimes that harm everyday Americans, including children. Speaker 1 suggests Speaker 0's subsequent video was an attempt to cover up his initial error after being confronted with these facts. Speaker 1 concludes that there is no moral high ground because these actions are criminal.

Speaker 0 outlines two priorities: first, go after welfare fraud and rewrite how programs work by requiring states to send biometrics to the federal government proving that the person exists and they're eligible for the services in question, with a focus on fraud “rampant in Minnesota and throughout these blue states through reconciliation.” Second, implement an affordability package to make America more affordable for the hardworking men and women of the country.

Speaker 0 raises concerns about AB 26-24, asserting it is a direct violation of the First Amendment and would hinder exposing fraud, including cases involving immigrants. They claim the bill would hinder investigations and public-interest reporting. Speaker 1 responds that legislative counsel checks the constitutionality of all bills and notes the speaker works on fraud issues, citing prior work on the budget subcommittee. They say Mia Bonta is involved through her role in pushing the bill, and remind that investigations into fraud are long-standing and handled by the attorney general. Speaker 0 alleges that Mia Bonta, who is described as the wife of the California attorney general, pushed the bill that would impede exposing fraud, and notes the bill would make it illegal for someone to go after fraud, particularly referencing immigrants and Armenians in California. They contend the bill is an assault on First Amendment rights. Speaker 1 counters that the claim is a misinterpretation of the bill and reiterates that constitutionality is reviewed with counsel. They maintain that the attorney general handles fraud investigations, framing the issue as ongoing and within established procedures. Speaker 0 asserts that the bill’s effect would be to criminalize publication of images recorded in public, and asks whether the government has the right to punish journalists for filming in public space. Speaker 1 again says this interpretation is incorrect, labeling it a misinterpretation of the legislation. They emphasize that the bill’s purpose is examined by ledge counsel and lawyers, and maintain that the First Amendment is a central consideration in their work. Speaker Rivas interjects and asks for their position on the Stop Nick Shirley Act AB 26-24, but Speaker 1 says they do not know anything about it. Speaker 0 reiterates concerns about potential conflicts of interest, suggesting there is clear evidence of a relationship between Mia Bonta and her husband, the attorney general, and states that these people won’t answer questions.

This proposal is a serious matter. People who register and vote illegally disenfranchise actual US citizens. The speaker objects to the suggestion that their motive is to disingenuously sow fear and uncertainty about election legitimacy, calling the accusation inaccurate and lacking proof. The speaker believes there is ample reason to bring the proposal forward and expresses deep disappointment that it cannot pass. It is not too much to ask to put teeth into existing laws stating that only US citizens can vote in US elections. The House passed it, and the Senate could pass it now. It is inexcusable not to.

Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than natural-born citizens. Statistically, a town or neighborhood is safer with immigrants because they commit violent crimes less often than people born in the United States. The speaker objects to the bill, stating it feeds a false narrative that the country should fear families coming to the United States fleeing economic desperation, violence, terror, or torture in search of a better life.

Speaker 0 accuses Minnesota of fraud on visas and their programs, asserting that 50% of them are fraudulent. They claim that Governor Walls is either an idiot or acted on purpose, describing him as bold for allegedly bringing people into the state illegally, who allegedly never should have been in this country, and who were said to be somebody they are not. The speaker contends that these individuals claimed to be married to someone who was really their brother or some other relation, and that fraudulent visa applications were signed up for government programs. They further assert that these actions resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars being taken from taxpayers. The speaker declares they will remove these individuals and recover the money, and that in the next year they will ensure that only people in leadership positions in the country who love this country are placed in those roles.

The speaker argues that Social Security cards are already widely used as identification across America. They state that proving one's eligibility for employment often requires a driver's license and a Social Security card. The speaker characterizes the proposed amendment as an anti-fraud measure designed to combat illegal immigration and prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining jobs and benefits. They claim the amendment is effective and doesn't alter government actions. The speaker expresses concern that the bill, despite good intentions, risks becoming ineffective due to opposition to rational proposals. They urge support for the amendment, stating that those who want to stop immigration fraud have no alternative.

To pass my amendment, the Senate must remove Democrat leaders blocking it. I propose a vote on whether American taxpayer money should be used to fly illegal immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti into the US. President Biden has secretly flown 320,000 illegal aliens into Blue City airports in 2023. Vote against me to stop this practice. Time has expired.

Governor Tim Wall signed the driver's license for all bill into law, allowing all Minnesotans to obtain a driver's license regardless of immigration status. One speaker stated that instead of changing the politician, the goal is to change the voter. Allowing undocumented immigrants to have an ID is considered un-American, and the speaker believes the intention is to flood the market with illegal voters, given concerns about free and fair elections. The speaker claims this policy will allow millions of people to have an ID. The speaker believes that taxpaying and everyday Americans find this policy disgusting and outrageous, and that policymakers are not listening to the concerns of the public.

Speaker 0 says they took an oath to the country, the Constitution, and the American people, and not to Europe, Islam, socialists, or globalists. They argue that “this is our country,” and that Americans “get to decide who comes in” and “who leaves.” They criticize members of Congress, including Republicans, for discussing amnesty, specifically referencing the “Dignified Dignity Act,” calling it amnesty. Speaker 0 argues that granting status to people who “shouldn’t be here” is amnesty. Speaker 0 states they are not a “brain surgeon,” but says the distinction is clear. They claim Congress has a “bad habit” of passing “band aids” and “empty resolutions” about the crisis of the day. They argue that the crisis is immigration, describing it as “illegal and legal because we are at war.” Speaker 0 says the conflict involves China, “the globalists,” and “the people within our own country that don’t believe what you believe.” They conclude by saying the founding fathers fought for a life where they could worship God, and not for Islam or globalists.

Speaker 0 argues that illegal voting occurs with penalties in place, and asserts that it happens all the time. He contends that the claim of illegality not being widespread is not reliable, insisting that we do not know how widespread illegal voting is because it is not being detected. He describes the California voter registration process, noting on the section where a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number are entered, there is a box underneath each one stating, “I don’t have one,” which allows a person to proceed to vote. He says this demonstrates that the notion of needing to present some form of identification to register to vote is not accurate and is not being implemented in California. Additionally, he states that people are being registered to vote at the DMV, and cites audits indicating that the DMV has improperly registered people, including illegal immigrants. He claims there is immunity in place that says if the DMV registers someone who is not eligible, they are immune from prosecution. Based on these points, he expresses the belief that there are not sufficient safeguards in place to detect and prevent people from committing voter fraud.

Speaker 0 argued that illegal voting occurs and that the penalties in place are not deterring it; “It happens all the time, senator. It happens all the time. You're just saying it's not widespread. But I'm saying we don't know how spread it is because we don't detect it.” He pointed to California’s registration process, noting that on the registration website there is a box under the fields for the driver’s license and the last four of the social number that says, “I don't have one. I don't have one.” He stated that one is allowed to proceed to vote after checking that box, implying that the requirement to present some form of identification to register is not accurate. He added, “So this idea that you're not allowed to register to vote unless you present some sort of identification is not accurate. It's not true. It's not being implemented in the state of California.” Speaker 0 further claimed that people are being registered to vote at the DMV, and cited audits indicating that the DMV has improperly registered people, including illegal immigrants. He asserted that there is immunity in place that says if the DMV registers someone who is not eligible they are immune from prosecution. Based on these points, he expressed the view that there are not sufficient safeguards in place to detect and prevent people from committing voter fraud.

The speaker claims the Biden-Harris administration and some states are undermining election integrity, not them. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting, but states have issues. The speaker says the House passed the SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, but Chuck Schumer and the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. The speaker alleges the open border policy is a Democratic strategy to enable non-citizen voting. They estimate 16 million illegal aliens are in the country since the border was opened, raising concerns about their potential illegal participation in elections, where some races are decided by very few votes. The speaker also cites California's ballot harvesting and unmanned ballot boxes in Wisconsin as potential sources of fraud.

Some people believe claims about illegal immigration are fabricated, but this is untrue. New York tried to legalize illegal immigrant voting until the State Supreme Court blocked it. California provides healthcare to all illegal immigrants, with costs rising from an initial $3 billion to $9 billion. The real reason for attacks is that payments to illegal immigrants will be terminated. FEMA funds were used to house illegal immigrants in luxury New York hotels with welcome packages and $10,000 debit cards. The speaker believes this is the biggest voter fraud in history. The asylum-to-citizen timeframe is roughly five years, so if the "Kamala puppet" machine had won, all those people would have been legalized, eliminating swing states. Benefit programs are ending, but this doesn't include the other 7.5-8 million illegal immigrants that ICE estimates are in the country. Voter ID is crucial because the Social Security number, while not a federal ID, is used to access benefits. One can obtain a Social Security number by answering questions and showing non-federal IDs like a medical bill and school ID, then get on voter rolls, and then operatives will form the vote.

Someone is allegedly going to be arrested for stealing 400,000 social security numbers and personal information from the Social Security database. This information was reportedly being sold to enable people to steal money from Social Security. The fraud is allegedly connected to illegal immigrants and voter fraud, as Social Security is the main way identification is established in the United States. Compromising the Social Security system can purportedly allow non-citizens to register to vote and obtain benefits. The speaker claims Democrats are using parts of the government to provide financial incentives for illegal immigrants to come to and remain in the United States, citing Social Security disability, Medicare, unemployment, and IRS refunds without income. FEMA funds meant for Americans in distress from natural disasters were allegedly diverted to pay for luxury hotels in New York for illegal immigrants, who are purportedly still there.

Let's admit the truth. Everywhere people go, they're asked for a Social Security card. In fact, one way to prove you're a bonafide person who can have a job is to ask for a driver's license and a Social Security card. This is an anti fraud amendment. All the over where we go, people say, well, why can't you stop illegal immigrants or others from coming here? And the number one answer we give our constituents is when they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud.

A Social Security card is currently used as an identification card across America. To prove someone can have a job, people ask for a driver's license and a Social Security card. This amendment is an anti-fraud measure. People ask why illegal immigrants can't be stopped from coming to America and getting jobs and benefits illegally due to fraud. This amendment is the most effective anti-fraud measure without changing government actions. The speaker worries the bill will end up being something that angers the public because nothing gets done. The speaker urges support of the amendment, stating that if you want to stop fraud in immigration, you have no choice but to support this amendment.

The speaker thanks the gentleman and states that Social Security cards are already used as identification across America. He suggests passing a law to prohibit this if desired, but acknowledges the current reality. He argues this amendment is anti-fraud, addressing constituents' concerns about illegal immigrants obtaining jobs and benefits through fraudulent means. He claims the amendment is the most effective anti-fraud measure available without altering government actions. He expresses concern that the bill, despite good intentions, risks becoming ineffective due to opposition to rational proposals. He urges support for the amendment, stating that those who want to stop immigration fraud have no choice but to support it.

The speakers claim to have discovered widespread fraud within the Social Security system while mapping it to understand where the fraud was. They found that the number of non-citizens receiving Social Security numbers has increased from 270,000 in 2021 to 2,100,000 in 2024. They allege that under the current administration, illegal immigrants can enter the country and apply for work authorization and receive Social Security numbers without an interview or ID. They claim the system defaults to maximum inclusion and minimum collection for these individuals, with many already receiving Medicaid. They sampled voter registration records and found instances of this population registered and voting, which have been referred for prosecution. They assert that human traffickers have made $13-15 billion due to these incentives, exploiting people and leading to a human tragedy, including the trafficking of children. They allege that people become indentured servants to pay off debts to traffickers, creating a system of exploitation.