reSee.it - Related Video Feed

First speaker asks if the other person will sit down with Hakim Jeffries after the trip. Second speaker responds: I would. I'd be willing to. I would've now too. You know, I left. I said, come on over. Just put the government back. All they have to do is say yes and then it's over. Start. And then we go into a negotiation. Look, Obamacare has been terrible. We can make it better. I'm all for that. But they're not. And they they want to allow many, many illegal people that came into our country illegally from prisons, from mental institutions, from all over the world. They want them to get paid, and that's gonna hurt the citizens of our country, and I just can't do it.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about a question they appear to be dodging. The discussion centers on the Healey administration and Beacon Hill lawmakers proposing to charge Massachusetts taxpayers for SNAP and direct cash assistance for noncitizens living in the state. Speaker 1 notes that, as the governor stated when she established the task force they are part of, Massachusetts has done this before and provided state-funded benefits to immigrants, and it can be done again. The conversation recalls Massachusetts’ history: from 1997 to 2002, the state did provide those benefits, but Governor Mitt Romney eliminated them. Senate Bill 117, sponsored by Sal Di Domenico, has been voted favorably out of committee and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. State Representative Antonio Cabral offered testimony for the House version of that bill. Afterward, they caught up with him to ask a question. Speaker 0 asks whether such benefits would make Massachusetts more of a magnet for people, drawing more individuals to the Commonwealth, as has been seen with other policies like the right to shelter law. The question is specific: if more benefits are offered to noncitizens, how long would they have to be residents to qualify? The question asks, “How long would they have to be a resident for?” and emphasizes the concern about potential magnet effects. Speaker 1 asserts that they did not need to look up the answer because it is known: there is no length-of-time requirement to be considered a Massachusetts resident. Cabral’s dismissive attitude toward the question is framed as a warning that another magnet could be on the way if taxpayers do not speak out on the issue. The transcript underscores debate over whether noncitizen benefits should be funded by state taxpayers and the potential implications for residency and migration, highlighting a political contention around the policy and its potential allure.

The speaker asks if cities should be allowed to ignore federal law regarding reporting illegal immigrants and provide sanctuary. Speaker 1 claims cities ignore federal law due to lack of federal funding for enforcement. They cite a city that imposed similar sanctions, resulting in economic decline with stores closing, leading to a policy change. The speaker asserts the federal government has been derelict in not funding the requirements needed to enforce existing law. The speaker asks Biden if he would allow cities to ignore federal law. Biden answers, "No."

Speaker 0 states that permanent residents in the U.S. are mandated to be up to date on CDC-recommended vaccines, but this is not mandated for those entering the country illegally. Speaker 0 claims that measles cases in New Orleans are coming from people entering the country from elsewhere. Speaker 0 asks if the federal government should mandate that those becoming U.S. citizens be up to date on their immunizations. Speaker 1 states they are strongly pro-vaccine, an advisor to a vaccine company, and supports the CDC vaccine schedule.

The speaker accuses Hakim of lying about Medicaid cuts. The speaker questions if Hakim wants taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants. The speaker repeats the question of whether Hakim wants US taxpayers to fund healthcare for undocumented immigrants.

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.

The speaker discusses a candidate's stance on healthcare for undocumented immigrants. The candidate stated that everyone in the world deserves healthcare, which the speaker interprets as supporting Medicaid for undocumented immigrants. The speaker argues this position exemplifies "suicidal empathy," prioritizing emotional optics over resource sustainability and national boundaries. They claim this approach overlooks the strain on hospitals and public systems, and the burden on taxpayers to fund care for those who entered the country illegally. The speaker believes this creates a terrible incentive structure and is "boundaryless," sacrificing America for perceived moral superiority. The speaker concludes that people with this viewpoint should not be in government.

The speaker states they will fight for all Angelenos, regardless of immigration status, because Los Angeles is a city of immigrants. The speaker claims this impacts hundreds of thousands of Angelenos.

Speaker 0: I haven't heard anybody in my party saying that illegal immigrants should get access to the health insurance marketplace. Speaker 1: I'm so glad you said that. Actually, I have some tape of of your Democratic party members saying this on the debate stage. So they've all said it. Let's play the clip. Speaker 0: A lot of you have been talking tonight about these government health care plans that you proposed in one form or another. This is a show of hands question, and and hold them up for a moment so people can see. Raise your hand if cover if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants. Speaker 1: Senator, that that's that's literally every member of your party from moderate to more progressive that have said that in the past.

Every U.S. resident, including those here illegally, should have access to healthcare, according to the bill. I am against denying anyone public safety, education, or health services in our country.

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.

A speaker claims that in Britain, over a quarter of a million people have been issued non-crime hate incidents, and people are imprisoned for reposting memes and social media posts. They ask if the Trump administration would consider political asylum for British citizens in this situation. Speaker 1 responds that they have not heard this proposal or discussed it with the president, but they will speak to the national security team to see if the administration would entertain it.

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.

If Trump is convicted, would you still support him as your party's choice? Raise your hand if you would.

The speaker asks for a show of hands from those who have proposed government healthcare plans. The question is whether their government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.

Do you support cutting Medicaid, particularly regarding federal investment known as FMAP? I consider it a restroom break. President Trump hasn't instructed me to cut Medicaid; he wants to improve it. So, if President Trump asked you to cut Medicaid, would you do it? It's not my decision to cut Medicaid; that falls to Congress. I will focus on working with them. You seem hesitant to answer. Let’s move on. Do you know how many states will be affected?

Speaker 1 questions a congresswoman about taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and condemns violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 does not answer. Speaker 0 then challenges others to harass him as they allegedly harassed the congresswoman. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to condemn the violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 declines to answer and asks who Speaker 1 is. Speaker 1 attempts to continue the conversation, but Speaker 0 walks away. Speaker 1 then asks Speaker 0 if he has a foreskin.

Speaker 0 raises the question of whether cities should be allowed to ignore federal law regarding reporting of illegal immigrants and effectively provide sanctuary to immigrants. Speaker 1 responds by explaining that cities ignore federal law because there is no funding at the federal level to support the kind of enforcement required. He references the New York Times, noting that a city near his state implemented similar sanctions and subsequently experienced adverse effects—“their city went in the dumpster,” with stores closing and other consequences—leading to a policy reversal. He argues that the underlying issue is the need for a federal government capable of enforcing laws and asserts that the administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding the requirements needed to enforce the existing laws. Speaker 0 follows up with a direct question to Senator Biden: yes or no—“Would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?” Speaker 1 answers: No. Speaker 0 closes with a brief, informal remark: “You okay.”

The speaker questions whether Democrats support an open border and asks if noncitizens will be eligible to vote in New York. The other speaker denies this, stating that noncitizens have not been eligible to vote in New York since the 19th century. The first speaker disagrees, mentioning that the New York City Council recently passed a law allowing noncitizens to vote in municipal elections starting in 2023. They argue that this is part of a plan to turn illegal immigrants into voters. The second speaker clarifies that this is only being considered in certain areas, not the entire country. The first speaker expresses concern about the impact on American elections and the constitution.

Do Democrats wanna prioritize the health care of illegal aliens over a government shutdown? Because if the government does shut down, Americans will be able furlough. We're not prioritizing. What we're doing is saying simply we wanna keep the government open, and we wanna work with the Republicans and have a bipartisan agreement to keep this government open, and health care is at the top of our agenda. But are Democrats demanding health care for illegal aliens? Democrats are demanding health care for everybody. We want to save lives. We wanna make sure that health care is available to those who would die but having the help of their government. So you're good with the government shutdown even if it means giving health care to people who aren't American citizens? We want to save health care for all people.

Nobody likes Democrats anymore. We have no voters left because of all of our woke trans bullshit. Not even black people wanna vote for us anymore. Even Latinos hate us. So we need new voters. And if we give all these illegal aliens free health care, we might be able to get them on our side so they can vote for us. They can't even speak English, so they won't realize we're just a bunch of woke pieces of shit, you know, at least for a while until they they learn English and they realize they hate us too.

"Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and in fact provide sanctuary to these immigrants?" "The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need." "Pick up the New York Times today. There's a city not far across the river from my state that imposed a similar sanctions." "And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps in in the dumpster. Stores started closing." "Everything started to happen, and they changed the policy."