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.

The speaker claims Democrats don't want to stop waste and fraud because it attracts and retains illegal immigrants. They allege FEMA money was used to pay for luxury hotels in New York for illegal immigrants, even after an executive order to stop it. The speaker asserts this was done because Democrats are trying to import voters. They also state that California and New York State do not allow voter ID, which they find insane and a violation of the Constitution.

The speaker emphasizes the necessity of a long-term effort to combat waste and fraud, claiming that it will return if vigilance is relaxed, especially if Democrats regain power. The goal is to eliminate funding and grants, making it difficult to restart wasteful and fraudulent activities. The speaker questions whether government employees respect taxpayer money, suggesting a lack of incentive to do so. They assert that incentives determine outcomes and that the payment system is structured such that requests for money are automatically approved.

The speaker criticizes the government for spending $66 billion on illegal immigrants compared to $3 billion on homeless veterans in 2023. They suggest reallocating funds to support veterans' mental health, caregiver programs, and homeless services. The speaker blames the Biden administration for not prioritizing American citizens over illegal immigrants. They urge for transparency in spending to redirect funds to benefit veterans.

Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers roughly $9,000 each, more than what we spend on Medicaid beneficiaries, vulnerable American citizens' healthcare, and military retirement benefits for veterans. This highlights the significant and unsustainable cost of the current border crisis, especially at the state and local levels. Translation: The cost of illegal immigrants to taxpayers is high, exceeding spending on healthcare for Americans and military benefits for veterans. This emphasizes the significant and unsustainable expense of the current border crisis, particularly at state and local levels.

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.

Our payments to NATO are disproportionate and ridiculous compared to others. Solving this issue is crucial because it will allow us to address important causes like homelessness, farmers, and healthcare. Unfortunately, we don't have the funds to support these priorities because our country is financially strained. If we had better business abilities, we could generate surplus profits that could be used to defend and support our homeless, poor, sick, and farmers. Instead, we are giving money to countries that don't care about us.

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.

The speaker presents a hypothetical scenario of an illegal gang member arriving at the U.S. Southwest border during the Biden-Harris era in 2023. He traveled with assistance from taxpayer-funded NGOs and, after being encountered, was released into the interior with a notice to appear in immigration court and a work permit. The individual files a bare-bones asylum application that is described as frivolous. Because the immigration court backlog is nearly 4,000,000 cases, the case would take years to adjudicate. In the meantime, the person would relocate to a major city, receive taxpayer-funded benefits, potentially commit crimes, be protected by sanctuary city leadership, and be defended by Democrats who allegedly say immigration laws are too harsh. The asylum claim would be denied by an immigration judge years later, followed by appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, then to a federal court of appeals, all taking months or years and expending extensive federal resources. The speaker claims this illustrates a broader pattern in what he calls “open borders” policies and a system that wastes federal resources on frivolous claims. The speaker introduces the bill: the Expedited Removal of Criminal Aliens Act. It aims to prevent criminal aliens from exploiting the asylum system and to ensure quicker deportation. It states that foreign nationals convicted of certain crimes are ineligible for immigration relief, must be detained, and deported quickly. The speaker notes that decades of immigration law already authorize a more efficient process to remove certain dangerous criminal aliens through administrative or expedited removal, particularly for aggravated felons, with due process upheld in federal appellate courts. The bill would expand categories of criminal aliens who may be placed in removal proceedings when in criminal custody and authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to place additional criminals in expedited removal proceedings. It would allow DHS to fast-track deportation for aliens who are not lawful permanent residents and who are part of a criminal gang, transnational criminal organization, or foreign terrorist organization, or who have been convicted of dangerous crimes. The speaker then lists the specific crimes that would trigger eligibility under the bill: any felony; any misdemeanor against a member of a vulnerable group; assault on a law enforcement officer; sexual offenses; domestic violence; stalking; crimes against children; sex trafficking of a minor or sexual abuse of a minor; activities involving exploitation of minors or violations of protective orders. The “vulnerable group” includes children under 16, pregnant women, individuals with severe physical or mental disabilities, and seniors over 65. The speaker cites polling: 78% of Americans support deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes, including nearly 70% of Democrats; 56% support deporting all illegal immigrants, with 36% of Democrats agreeing. He contrasts these views with what he claims were Democratic actions during the previous administration: high border encounters, 8,000,000 illegal entries (including 2,000,000 gotaways), hundreds on the terrorist watch list encountered and released, and a record immigration court backlog. He accuses Democrats of inaction on border security and comprehensive immigration reform, citing several bills the House allegedly passed or votes by Democrats against, including bills on border security, identity theft, driving-while-illegal offenses, and increasing penalties for felons, as well as naming acts after victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens. He concludes by arguing that the American people rejected the Democratic approach and gave Congress a mandate to secure the border and reform the immigration system, and asserts that the expedited removal bill moves toward that goal.

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 argues that the federal government should address remittances sent by illegal workers, stating that stopping those remittances would be a huge disincentive for people to come and remain illegally. They advocate using federal tools to influence immigration behavior and enforcement. They also address sanctuary cities, noting that Congress can defund them. The speaker mentions that Republicans in the House had voted to continue funding sanctuary cities, and questions why that would be the case. They urge defunding sanctuary cities, implying that using available tools to create an environment that promotes the rule of law is important.

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 asserts that last year California spent $9.6 billion on health care for illegal immigrants. They claim the media has misled people by saying that no federal dollars go to undocumented immigrants, stating that this is fundamentally wrong. The speaker points to Governor Newsom, who allegedly announced that California is the first state in the nation to provide health care to illegal immigrants. They also claim that San Francisco operates the only universal health care plan in America for all undocumented residents, expressing pride in that status. According to the speaker, a key mechanism behind federal funding for care provided to undocumented individuals is the expansion of medical access through emergency departments. They contend that emergency departments are backfilled and funded at a rate of one dollar from the federal government. The implication is that any time an illegal immigrant uses the emergency room, federal dollars are brought in to cover or support that care, effectively meaning there are federal dollars being spent on illegal immigrants. The speaker asserts that the statement that there are no federal dollars going to illegal immigrants is a lie, arguing that California is facilitating this funding. They also claim that the media is lying about this issue as well. Throughout the statement, the overarching themes are the existence of substantial state spending on undocumented health care, the involvement of federal funding through emergency department backfill, and the portrayal of these facts as being misrepresented by the media. In summary, the speaker emphasizes four main points: (1) California’s reported $9.6 billion expenditure on health care for undocumented immigrants, (2) Governor Newsom’s assertion that California is leading the nation in providing health care to illegal immigrants, (3) San Francisco’s universal health care plan for all undocumented residents, and (4) the mechanism by which emergency department funding from the federal government allegedly backfills care for undocumented individuals, leading to federal dollars being spent on them. The speaker concludes by asserting that the claim of no federal dollars supporting illegal immigrants is false and accuses the media of lying.

About a third of Medicare and Medicaid spending, and likely a lot of private sector spending, doesn't go to good healthcare. The challenge is eliminating waste, fraud, and duplication without affecting good care. The speaker references instances of seeing inflated charges on medical bills for minor procedures. Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare means cutting some spending. The speaker disagrees with the idea that no money can be cut from Medicare. If a third of Medicare spending doesn't go to patient care, then cuts are necessary. The speaker believes there can be common ground in cutting the "bad stuff" while keeping the "good stuff." The Republican Party has historically stood for eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, but now there seems to be resistance to this idea.

The speaker discusses a recent vote in the US House of Representatives to defund the National Endowment for Democracy, arguing that this measure is not neutral or benevolent, but a leftist enterprise. The speaker states that leftists are free to contribute to it, but insists that hardworking Americans should not be forced by the government to contribute to causes they find repugnant, including the NED. Despite this stance, the speaker notes that 81 Republican members of the House voted with all the Democrats to keep the funding stream going, funding the enterprise with federal money. The speaker contends that there should be legitimate disagreement within the Republican Party, but asserts that this issue should not be one of them. When campaigning as a Republican, the speaker says, voters expect basic precepts, including that the US government is too big and expensive because it does too many things it was never intended to do. The speaker argues that Republicans should agree that funds should not be taken from hardworking Americans and given to left-leaning enterprises that undercut everything the party stands for or purports to stand for. If viewers share the speaker’s frustration, they are urged to find out how their representative voted and raise the issue with them. The speaker anticipates that some Republicans will blame the outcome on the Senate filibuster, though they claim the Senate filibuster rule should not affect the House. The speaker argues that such blaming is severely exaggerated and emphasizes the importance of ending the zombie filibuster, calling for a speaking filibuster instead of silent or asleep filibustering. With the procedural concerns addressed, the speaker says the party should move on to implementing policies for which Republicans were elected, including reducing federal wasteful spending, ending funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, and passing the SAFE Act. The speaker describes the SAFE Act as something that “like, 80% of all Americans agree with,” which is to take steps to stop noncitizens from voting in elections. The speaker reiterates the admonition to stay true to the Republican Party and not align with another party, ending with a caution: “Don’t get on the other one. And, good heavens, don’t get on a donkey.”

"We have to realize the democrats, their whole argument is we are going to shut down the government unless you give a trillion dollars for medical benefits for illegal aliens." "And they're saying that unless you give that money to those legal aliens, unless you give those benefits to those illegal aliens, we are going to shut down the people's government." "It's such a stark contrast between two parties priorities." "We want to put the government to work for the American people first." "We're not gonna be taken hostage by the Democrats' desperate desire to give your tax money to illegal aliens." "We're just not gonna do it."

The speaker wants Medicaid to be used for mothers and children as it was meant to be. They do not want it used for 1,400,000 illegal aliens or able-bodied people.

We are halting all grant funding to NGOs that facilitate illegal immigration. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been misused to support this issue, and we are reevaluating how these funds are spent to ensure they strengthen our country and enhance safety. Many NGOs operate not only in the U.S. but also in Mexico, encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the border. Initially, I viewed NGOs as charitable organizations, but I've come to see that some function as shadow governments, using taxpayer money for actions the federal government cannot legally undertake. This has compromised our national security, and we will no longer support these operations with federal funding.

The speaker asserts that 1.4 million undocumented immigrants are currently enrolled in the Medicaid system. This number, the speaker claims, is equivalent to the population of Hawaii or New Hampshire. The speaker states that Medicaid is intended for pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, the elderly, and low-income families, and that undocumented immigrants are sharing these resources with qualified Americans. The speaker supports the president's plan to remove undocumented immigrants from Medicaid, questioning why there is outrage over this decision when Americans who have contributed to the country are also in need. The speaker predicts that people will continue to be upset because President Trump will be re-elected.

The president wants to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse from Medicaid to protect it for tax-paying citizens. His priority is the sick, needy, and poor Americans who deserve these benefits, not the 1,400,000 illegal aliens allegedly receiving them. The president aims to remove these illegal aliens from the program through this bill. This is intended to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicaid for the American people. The president has communicated this message to senators.

We're announcing that we've halted all grant funding to NGOs that facilitate illegal immigration. It's shocking how much federal money has been misused in this way. I've taken action to reevaluate these funds to ensure taxpayer dollars are used to strengthen our country and keep it safe. We need to scrutinize how federal grants are utilized. No more money will be spent to undermine our nation. We will uphold President Trump's commitment to secure our border, remove those here illegally, and ensure taxpayer funds are not used to support this situation.

California provides state Medicaid to all illegal migrants and has allegedly created a system to siphon Medicaid dollars. Governor Newsom initially estimated free healthcare for illegal immigrants would cost $6 billion, but it's now $10 billion. This incentivizes illegal immigration. The governor claimed the federal government would reimburse the cost, but it's hitting the general fund, with one in four Medi-Cal dollars going to illegal immigrants. Newsom admitted Medi-Cal is broke and can't pay healthcare providers. Providing free healthcare to illegal immigrants risks health insurance for the neediest. The Medi-Cal system should be audited. It is illegal for federal Medicaid dollars to cover illegal migrants.

The speaker asserts there is an enormous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in the government, particularly within Medicare. They claim past proponents of budget cuts are now opposing efforts to eliminate waste. The speaker states that eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare will require cuts, with the goal of cutting the "bad stuff" while preserving the "good stuff." The speaker accuses certain individuals, identified by a picture, of rooting against these efforts, labeling them as examples of waste, fraud, and abuse.

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.

The speaker addresses concerns about Medicaid cuts, arguing that many proposed cuts are sensible. The first cut limits federal health program eligibility based on citizenship status, affecting those here illegally. The second eliminates Medicare coverage of bad debt, which is unpaid debt after insurance pays. Currently, taxpayers cover up to 65% of Medicaid bad debt, incentivizing hospitals to inflate prices. The proposed change would stop this practice. The third is Medicare site neutrality, ensuring Medicare and Medicaid patients are charged the same prices as those with private insurance or cash. The speaker claims these three cuts alone amount to over $200 billion in savings and suggests that people would agree with these cuts if they researched them.