reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker emphasizes the need to close the borders and reject all illegal migrants without exceptions. They advocate for the deportation of anyone staying without authorization and the surrender of German passports from criminals, terrorists, and fraudsters. They believe in remigration as the only solution, without any other interpretations. Speaker 1 invites viewers to follow them on various social media platforms.

The speaker states they will bring back the border security bill that Donald Trump tanked and do more to secure the border. To reduce illegal border crossings, they will take further action to keep the border closed between ports of entry. Those who cross unlawfully will be apprehended, removed, and barred from reentering for 5 years, with repeat violators facing more severe criminal charges. The speaker claims that if someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum. The speaker's goal is to have an orderly and secure system, while understanding that many people are desperate to migrate to the United States.

The speaker discusses the Biden administration's immigration policies and resource allocation. When asked about the best use of administrative resources regarding undocumented immigrants, the speaker refrains from stating a specific opinion on what percentage of released immigrants should be allowed to stay. The speaker asserts that all undocumented immigrants released into the country under the Biden administration should be deported. According to the speaker, ICE will prioritize raids against high-threat criminal aliens, and the federal government will use its full power to send all undocumented immigrants home. The speaker also claims that many will choose to leave voluntarily using the CBP home app. The speaker states that taxpayers will not subsidize any undocumented immigrants' presence in the country.

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.

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].

- Speaker 0 asserts that there will never be a country like the current one and questions whether Republicans should frame it that way. - Speaker 1 asks if the H-1B visa issue will not be a big priority for the administration, arguing that to raise wages for American workers you can’t flood the country with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of foreign workers. - Speaker 0 counters that there is a need to bring in talent, and questions whether there are enough talented people domestically, implying that some people must be brought in from outside. - Speaker 1 retorts that there aren’t enough talented people domestically. - Speaker 0 argues that you can’t simply take people off unemployment lines and place them in factories manufacturing missiles, asserting that this doesn’t work. - Speaker 1 asks how such work has been done historically. - Speaker 0 provides an example from Georgia: they raided to remove illegal immigrants and hadSouth Korean workers who needed batteries and were capable of producing them, noting that battery production is dangerous and complex, with explosions and problems. - Speaker 0 notes that they had five or six hundred people in the early stages to make batteries and to teach people how to do it, and that the aim was to get them out of the country. - Speaker 1 acknowledges disagreement, stating you can’t simply invest billions to build a plant and take people off unemployment lines who haven’t worked in five years to start making missiles, concluding that it doesn’t work that way.

The speaker emphasizes the need to address the issue of illegal workers coming across the border. They argue that these individuals contribute to our society by providing essential services such as food production, construction, and hospital cleaning. The speaker believes that a fair immigration system is necessary to ensure that honest work is rewarded with fair pay. They also mention that some individuals on the opposing side want to close off immigration, which the speaker disagrees with.

The speaker asserts immigration should benefit the country: 'If the foreigner doesn't benefit the fucking country, they shouldn't be here.' He argues immigration exists because countries needed to survive, by bringing in skilled or labor intensive workers. 'That's not why immigration was invented.' He rejects the view that immigration is democracy or a human right, calling refugee slogans 'political BS.' He says, 'That's not a immigrant. That's a transplant.' He concludes, 'I am all for immigration,' noting his country was built on immigrants who contributed, 'That's completely different than giving safe haven to a bunch of broke and poor people because you feel like it's the nice thing to do.'

The speaker discusses a position held by some in the immigrants' rights community who advocate granting legal status to those who are in the country illegally, or at minimum pausing deportations until better laws are enacted. This view is often framed in moral terms, emphasizing compassion and the idea that people should not be punished simply for trying to earn a living. The speaker acknowledges the sincere humanitarian impulse behind this argument but asserts that such an indiscriminate approach would be unwise and unfair. First, the speaker argues that granting legal status or suspending enforcement without regard to existing laws would send a problematic signal. It would suggest to people who are considering coming to the country illegally that there will be no consequences for that decision. The speaker warns that this could lead to a surge in illegal immigration as fewer barriers or penalties are perceived to exist, encouraging more individuals to attempt entry or stay despite being in violation of the law. Second, the speaker emphasizes the existence of a global queue or waiting process for legal entry. By offering widespread legal status or de facto amnesty, the policy would overlook or sideline the millions of people around the world who are currently waiting their turn to come to the country through legal channels. This aspect highlights a sense of fairness and order in immigration policy, underscoring that legal pathways and timelines are in place for a reason and should be respected. Third, the speaker reiterates a fundamental principle about national sovereignty and governance. The United States, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and to establish laws governing residency and citizenship. This point frames immigration policy as a matter of sovereign rights and societal rules that nations set to maintain order, security, and the integrity of their legal framework. In sum, the speaker presents a cautious stance against broad, indiscriminate legalization or halting deportations, arguing that such measures would be unwise and unfair, could encourage more illegal immigration, would disregard the legal processes that many people are patiently awaiting, and would conflict with the nation’s right and obligation to regulate entry and residency.

We prioritize securing the border to protect our nation. Undocumented individuals should be treated with respect. They have helped build our country.

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.

The speaker states the intention to lower energy prices "almost immediately" by drilling. The speaker plans to close the border and remove "the crooked ones" and "the bad ones," while still allowing people to immigrate due to labor needs, particularly with the rise of AI and the needs of farmers. The speaker specifies that immigrants should not be "murderers, killers, drug dealers, and the kind of people that we have largely coming in right now."

All Americans are disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering the country, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in the United States. Speakers describe U.S. immigration policies as a “shambles,” saying the borders are “amazingly porous” to people who “shouldn't be here,” including terrorists and drug smugglers. The transcript also asserts that if someone breaks U.S. laws by entering without permission and gives birth to a child, the child is “reward[ed]” with U.S. citizenship, and it questions why the country has an illegal immigration problem under those circumstances. Another point emphasized is that unlawful immigration is not acceptable. The transcript states the U.S. is both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, and it characterizes the reported abuse of immigration laws in recent years as wrong and “ultimately self defeating.” It concludes that the country “must do more to stop them.”

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.

The speaker asserts the southern border was secured under President Trump, upsetting some colleagues who claim it was done the wrong way. The speaker believes their colleagues are upset it was done at all, alleging President Biden reversed these measures, effectively inviting illegal immigration. The speaker estimates President Biden has allowed up to 20 million people into the country illegally, likening it to adding 10 Nebraskas. The speaker suggests that either President Biden and supporting Democrats believe in open borders, or they appointed incompetent individuals to manage the border. The speaker asks if vetting at the border is considered racist and if these foreign nationals are viewed as potential new voters. The speaker states that opposing illegal immigration while supporting legal immigration does not make someone racist, but rather someone who believes in the rule of law. The speaker concludes by reiterating the border was secured under the current administration, upsetting some colleagues.

A speaker argues that allowing young men from countries where women aren’t treated as equal to live in four-star hotels and work illegally leads to attitudes toward women that are completely different and have appalling social effects. A second speaker recounts a case in Warwickshire, England where a 15-year-old girl was raped by two asylum-seeking Afghan men. The attackers’ lawyer blamed the assault on cultural differences, saying his client was not used to a society where women are free and deemed equal to men. The speaker says this defense illustrates why those young men shouldn’t have been in that country in the first place, and suggests that a similar mindset should be applied in the United States to prevent such things from happening here. The speaker asserts that if one sees someone getting hit by a car, it should remind us not to walk into the road, implying we should act to prevent harm before it occurs. The argument continues that action is needed now, not once it becomes widespread in the United States. This is offered as a justification for borders and for ICE, and a warning against those who advocate getting rid of ICE or removing borders. The position is that borders and immigration enforcement are necessary to keep the country sustainable economically, arguing against importing “the whole world.” The speaker contends that immigration should be controlled to prevent overwhelming the systems, and that people who do not share the country’s cultural values should be kept out or removed and sent to another country. The speaker then promotes a free email newsletter, noting it is sent every morning around 7 AM Central and occasionally covers specific topics in more depth. The link is stated to be in the speaker’s profile; readers are invited to subscribe. In closing, the speaker signs off, indicating they will see the audience in the next video.

I strongly support expanding the legal immigration system and welcoming hardworking and honest individuals who will contribute to the United States. However, we should not allow people into the country if they are breaking the law. It is important to maintain the law for a reason. We need to balance both aspects by streamlining legal immigration and stopping the overwhelming flow of illegal immigrants. The current situation is straining social services, even in major cities like New York. If we don't take action soon, social services will collapse further.

This plan for immigration reform is not a free pass. Immigrants must pay fines, learn English, and wait their turn. Citizenship can be earned over time, but it's not guaranteed. The American people support immigration, but it must be controlled. We need a comprehensive approach that balances border security with compassion for those who have built lives here.

- 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.

Increasing immigration levels to open borders is seen as a right-wing proposal that would benefit the global poor but harm Americans by lowering wages. The speaker argues for creating jobs for struggling American youth instead of bringing in low-wage workers. They emphasize the importance of addressing international poverty while also prioritizing the well-being of citizens in the United States and other countries.

As president, the speaker will collaborate with Congress to establish a pathway to citizenship for long-term, hardworking immigrants. The speaker believes these immigrants deserve a functional system. As president, the speaker will protect national sovereignty, secure the border, and fix the broken immigration system.

There's a clear legal path to get one guy back, but what about all the other people? People are upset about illegal immigration, but who cleans hotel rooms, provides food, washes dishes, and does gardening? Immigrants are here through grit and will to give their families a better chance. White men in America are 45 times more likely to commit a violent crime than an immigrant. The media says to appeal to white voters, but Joe Biden, an 81-year-old Catholic from Scranton, got 81,000,000 votes by challenging Trumpian sentiments and showing empathy for transgender people and immigrants. If president, the speaker would call the president of El Salvador and demand they send people back or face invasion, because what they're doing is a crime.

The speaker asserts that the Trump administration's immigration policy treats immigrants like criminals. They claim America is too great to fall prey to Donald Trump's anti-immigrant agenda. The speaker advocates for restoring basic humanity to the immigration system, starting with repealing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 through the "Neighbors Not Enemies Act," with the goal of ending what they describe as this xenophobic law.

The speaker states they will close the border, but people will still come in legally because the country needs them. The speaker believes the current system is unfair to those waiting in line for years, studying and taking tests. The speaker claims to tell these people to go to the southern border instead, because it's faster.

The speaker claims illegal immigration has dropped from 10,000 people to zero, and ICE and border patrol morale is at an all-time high. Mexico is allegedly no longer cooperating with illegal immigration forces because they are afraid. The border wall will be completed to the Gulf in some form. Comprehensive immigration reform is unnecessary; enforcing existing laws is sufficient.