reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

The speakers are addressing concerns about immigration enforcement and its impact on communities. One speaker claims ICE is deporting American citizens, which is disputed. They argue for prioritizing the safety of Florida citizens and upholding the rule of law, citing instances of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, including members of the Tren de Aragua gang. They accuse the Biden administration of allowing millions of people into the country illegally and not enforcing immigration laws. Another speaker defends ICE's work in protecting communities after the Biden administration "opened the borders," asserting that ICE is working to protect communities jeopardized by the administration's policies. They state that anyone in the country illegally is a criminal and will be deported, but will have the opportunity to return legally. They claim their priority is to protect Americans from criminals who should not have been allowed into the country.

You think anyone can come to the U.S.? If you visit the Statue of Liberty, it seems welcoming. I picked up three guys from Honduras at Home Depot; they have nowhere to go. Hector needs medication twice a day, and they all need to use the bathroom. Can they stay here? No, why not? You support them coming to the country but not into your home? Come on, that's hypocritical. Let’s go, guys. Sorry, man.

Speaker 0 is upset because they are being denied entry. They threaten to call the police and challenge the other person's legal status. Speaker 0 mentions having a citywide water certificate, but it is not applicable to the current location. They suggest talking outside and mention having multiple certificates. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking the other person to read a line that states the certificate is valid everywhere.

Speaker 0 describes having friends in the US embassy in Belize and knowing what was coming. He says he arranged with the head of security to enter the embassy, but the head of security told him, “we have it from the highest authority. We are not to allow you entry into the US embassy. Understand me.” He asserts, “Who was the highest authority in the state department? Hillary Clinton.” He emphasizes that he is an American citizen with “a fucking American passport,” stating, “I'm sorry. I'm not wanted in America. I've got no crimes in America. Is it not reason to say, I don't think I'm gonna vote for you?” Speaker 1 notes, “And yet you're here now.” Speaker 0 explains that for a month and a half he was on the run. He claims the government wanted to collect him because, after they raided his property in 2012 in the jungle, they shot his dog, abused him, and destroyed “a half million dollars worth of my property over a bogus charge.” He says he was pissed off and then “donated too many secretaries within the government laptop computers, really nice ones that were preloaded with viral spyware.” He contends that within a week, “the entire government computer system was in under my control. I was watching, monitoring, listening.” He continues that he was looking for information that they had set him up for that raid, and he didn’t find that. Instead, he discovered that “the minister of national defense was the largest drug trafficker in all of Central America, and the minister of immigration, the largest human trafficker.” Speaker 1 responds, “We don't wanna get killed by them either, so we're probably not—” and Speaker 0 agrees, “You're not gonna,” adding, “That's fine.”

Speaker 1 requests recognition of their rights in their territory, asserting that it is their business. Speaker 2 acknowledges this but states that the line cannot be crossed at the moment. Speaker 1 disagrees, emphasizing their right to free access. Speaker 2 insists on holding the line temporarily. Speaker 1 argues that it is not the officer's business and reiterates their ownership of the territory. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by denying Bill Jones access to his own territory.

Speaker 1 requests recognition of their rights in their territory, asserting that it is their business. Speaker 2 acknowledges this but states that the line cannot be crossed at the moment. Speaker 1 disagrees, emphasizing their right to free access. Speaker 2 insists on holding the line temporarily. Speaker 1 argues that it is not the officer's business and reiterates their territorial rights. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by not allowing Bill Jones on his own territory.

The speaker expresses concern about illegal immigrants at Houston International Airport, emphasizing the need for awareness and change. They engage in a discussion with airport security about recording in a secure area, highlighting their rights as a US citizen and military member. Security explains the prohibition on video due to national security concerns, regardless of citizenship status. The speaker questions the legality of the immigrants and their documentation. The conversation revolves around the importance of following rules and maintaining security protocols.

Speaker 0 is frustrated about receiving two tickets in one week for helping people in need. Speaker 2 joins in, expressing anger towards the feds and border patrol. Speaker 1 tries to calm the situation, warning not to damage equipment. Speaker 0 questions the treatment of his people and asserts his American identity. Speaker 1 emphasizes freedom in America. Speaker 0 urges them to go home, while Speaker 1 explains they are showing what's happening in El Paso. Speaker 0 insults someone named Perez. Speaker 1 blames illegal entry for disrespecting the country and criticizes Joe Biden's policies.

The exchange centers on filming rights and the status of the location. Speaker 0 challenges whether they are allowed to film, asking, “Oh, turn off the camera? Yeah. Do I not have a right to have the camera? I’m not giving you permission to check my face.” They then inquire about authority, asking, “Are you a public servant? Or United Nations against the city. Okay. Does because this is my city, and so I have a right to film.” This line underscores Speaker 0’s insistence on their right to record within the space, coupled with a demand for clarity about the other party’s authority to restrict that right. Speaker 1 responds by questioning the premise of the filmed area, asking, “This is United Nations compound?” and clarifies the location’s status by confirming whether it is a compound. The conversation shifts to the status and sovereignty of the area, with Speaker 1 asserting control and jurisdiction over the space in question. A pivotal point in the dialogue arises when Speaker 1 provides a long claim about the compound’s ownership and territorial status. They state, “Since Sunday evening, we took over this compound. This is international territory.” They further elaborate the contrasting jurisdictions, stating, “When you step outside, it’s US. Here is international territory.” This statement frames the location as international territory within the compound, implying a distinct legal or political status compared to the surrounding area. Overall, the interaction is a brief confrontation over visual documentation and the governing authority of the space. Speaker 0 emphasizes the right to film and presses for clarity on who can permit or deny that right, while Speaker 1 asserts that the space is an international territory under their control since Sunday evening, differentiating it from the surrounding US jurisdiction. The dialogue highlights tensions between individual or press rights to film and a claimed change in sovereignty or control of a contested compound.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if biological men should be able to use women's restrooms. Speaker 1 questions the relevance to immigration. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has ever used the women's restroom, after Speaker 1 allegedly said everyone should use the other gender's bathroom today as a protest. Speaker 1 says they have not and denies advocating for men to use women's restrooms. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 regrets encouraging men to use women's restrooms and if Speaker 1 ever considered that women don't want men in their bathrooms. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 thinks it's appropriate for men to use women's restrooms because Speaker 0 believes Speaker 1 is taking rights away from underage girls.

Speaker 0: We're here because of the comments you made online about The Speaker 1: US community. Are you So what? I'm saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude. Yeah. No. Speaker 0: We we we get that. We get that. We just we gotta make sure that you're not Do you have warrant? No. And what you're doing is basically soliciting. Speaker 1: You understand that. Right? Yeah. Means you're not welcomed here. Okay. Speaker 0: K. Bye. Okay. Stay off the lawn, please.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 are taking audio and video when Speaker 0 approaches and demands to know what they are photographing. Speaker 1 refuses to answer and asks Speaker 0 to leave them alone. Speaker 0 refuses, claiming they can't take photos on federal property. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 tried to hit them with their car. Speaker 2 says they witnessed the near-hit and that the photography is constitutionally protected. Speaker 1 threatens to have Speaker 0 arrested. Speaker 0 refuses to leave, stating they don't take orders from "schmucks." Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 they made a mistake and should go home. Speaker 0 asks again what Speaker 1 is photographing. Speaker 1 again refuses to answer.

The video documents an undercover-style investigation at the New York City Board of Elections on the 10th Floor at 200 Varick Street, focusing on whether noncitizens can register to vote. Speaker 0 plans to pose as a noncitizen Canadian green-card holder and attempts to engage a staffer about voter registration. In the first encounter, Speaker 2 tells Speaker 1 that “Everything you fill out, you’re swearing an affidavit that everything you’re putting down is true,” and notes that “you gotta be a citizen to fill it out.” Speaker 1 identifies as “a green card holder from Canada.” The staffer initially signals uncertainty about whether to fill out the form, saying, “I wouldn’t fill it out,” but also suggests the possibility that noncitizens have previously registered. Speaker 0 observes that the staffer does not state it would be illegal to complete the application as a noncitizen, only that the staffer “doesn’t recommend it.” The conversation reveals that the staffer acknowledges noncitizens have registered before: “We have people who come in here and they have legal situations and they registered, they weren’t a citizen, boom boom boom.” The staffer also admits that they “can’t stop you from submitting the application,” and that there is generally no full background check; “we can’t do our background check on you. We just collect it. That’s it.” Speaker 2 reinforces that the staff’s role is to collect and submit, not to verify citizenship, stating, “we accept anything that comes over the counter,” and reiterating that “if it comes back to you, it comes back to… If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.” When Speaker 1 asks if they will report the noncitizen, the staffer responds, “No. No. No. I’m not… that’s not my job to report anyone. My job is just to collect the application and put it and submit it to the department.” Speaker 0 cites New York election law—“Under New York election law, section seventeen one zero six, any election officer who willfully violates any provision of the election law relative to the registration of electors is guilty of a felony”—to argue that processing a noncitizen registration would be a criminal offense. After leaving the office, the pair return to request more information, but the staffer becomes suspicious, consults a coworker, and then refuses to accept their application. The video notes that, according to the staff, “we get registrations come to the mail. We, you know, we whatever comes through, we accept and then it’s submitted,” and emphasizes the absence of ID or proof of citizenship requirements at registration, solely requiring an affidavit asserting citizenship. The segment concludes by highlighting concerns about potential threats to electoral integrity, asserting that there is no requirement to show ID or documentation to register, and that all that is required is signing an affidavit claiming American citizenship.

Two participants engage in a heated campus discussion on immigration, due process, and abortion. One speaker opens with: 'Let's talk about the 200 people deported without due process to El Salvador. I don't know if you saw this morning, but a United States citizen was actually deported.' The other interrupts: 'It was not a US citizen.' They debate whether terrorists should be allowed in the U.S. 'Should members of a terrorist organization be able to stay in The United States after they've murdered, raped, and gone after American citizens? No.' They discuss due process, MS-13, and the idea of an 'invasion' versus 'illegal immigration,' alleging 'the Venezuelan government has been found with a bipartisan congressional study' sending citizens to the U.S. They weigh police protection of private property, energy around Elon Musk’s actions, and, in the abortion debate, argue 'Every human being has a right to life' and 'Women having control over their own body.' The session ends with a call for abortion abolition federally.

Speaker 0 asks for an ID from Speaker 1, insisting, “Do you have an ID on you, ma'am?” Speaker 1 replies, “I don't need a ID to walk around in in my city.” Speaker 0 presses for IDs, warning, “If not, we're gonna put you in the vehicle. We're gonna ID you.” Speaker 1 refuses, saying, “I don't need to take out you take out your ID.” Speaker 0 presses again: “Hey, ma'am.” Speaker 1 asserts, “It's ma'am. Am US citizen. I am US citizen.” Speaker 0 asks, “Alright. Can we see an ID, please?” Speaker 1 repeats, “I am US citizen. I don't need to carry around an ID in my home. Well, where were born?” Speaker 0 questions, “Where were you born?” Speaker 1 responds, “This is my home,” and then, “Minneapolis is my home.” Speaker 0 clarifies, “Ma'am, that's not that's we're doing an immigration check. We're doing a citizen check. We're asking you where you were born.” Speaker 1 insists, “This is where I belong. This is my home.” Speaker 0 pushes, “Ma'am, can belong here, but where were you born? Not gonna give you a ID.” Speaker 1 repeats, “I belong here. I should be walking around here at three. I shouldn't be afraid in my life at this point.” Speaker 0 presses, “Ma'am, do you have an ID to give us? Skirt? Yes. You're correct.” Speaker 1 protests, “You're making me a skirt. You're making me a Do you have an ID?” Speaker 0 again asks for an ID, and Speaker 1 repeats, “This is my home.” Speaker 0 states, “Ma'am, where were you born?” Speaker 1 responds, “I am US citizen. I am US citizen. I don't think so. You have a right to picture me while I am in my home or walking around in my home. This is not acceptable.” Speaker 0 continues, “You guys, you terrorizing people.” Speaker 1 emphasizes, “Ma'am And it's not.” Speaker 0 asks again, “Where were you born?” Speaker 1 states, “It doesn't matter where I was born. Belong here. I am US citizen.” She adds, “What else can I say? I am citizen. This is my home.” Speaker 0 warns, “Menia realize that if… [you] lie,” and Speaker 1 reiterates, “Menia, but this is my home.” Eventually Speaker 1 declares, “I am US citizen. I am not gonna take out anything. What the fuck?”

A heated exchange unfolds between Speaker 0, who identifies as part of a community protection group, and Speaker 1, who represents ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Speaker 0 confronts the ICE team as they arrive in the neighborhood, insisting on seeing a warrant and demanding identification. The dialogue centers on whether the agents have a warrant signed by a judge and whether they should reveal badge numbers or other identifying information. Speaker 0 repeatedly presses for documentation: “Could you show me it, please?” and asks, “Do you have a warrant signed by a judge?” He questions the legitimacy of the officers’ presence, asking, “What’s your badge number, sir? Do you have a badge number? Can you identify yourself, please?” He emphasizes that “you’re coming into my city” and challenges why they would be in the area. Speaker 1 responds briefly and evasively, asserting identity as ICE and insisting that Speaker 0 has no business being present: “I’m ICE. Immigration. Immigration. Immigration. Customs enforcement. Okay. That’s all I am.” He adds, “You don’t have business when we get out of here, sir,” and later, “We’re looking for somebody,” though Speaker 0 pushes to know the name of the person they are pursuing: “Do you know his name? Do you have his name or her their name? What is their name?” Speaker 0 emphasizes community scrutiny and accountability, stating, “These are one of my neighbors, so I just wanna,” and challenges the officers’ transparency, asking for their identifications and accusing them of hiding their faces: “Why are you covering your face? Why don’t you take your mask down?” He taunts them with a threat to publish the encounter: “I’m gonna get this on the Internet. Your family is gonna be ashamed of you when they learn what you’re doing.” As the exchange escalates, Speaker 1 asserts authority and tries to disengage: “You don’t have business when we get out of here,” and “Okay. That’s all I am.” The confrontation intensifies with Speaker 0 inviting an on-the-record discussion and challenging the officers to converse “down” with him instead of remaining in their vehicle. The dialogue culminates with a physical and verbal standoff as Speaker 0 steps back and the officers retreat, while Speaker 0 continues to voice distrust, calling the actions “Gestapo”-like and insisting that the officers come talk to him in the street rather than remaining behind a door or in a car.

Anyone can come to the US, like going to New York and seeing the Statue of Liberty. The speaker picked up three guys from Honduras who were at Home Depot and had nowhere to go. One of them, Hector, needs medication twice a day and they all need to use the bathroom. The speaker called to ask if they can stay, but the person on the other end said no because they don't know them. The speaker calls them a hypocrite and tells the guys to leave.

Speaker 0 argues that they have the right to take photos because they have a mandate from the prefecture and America. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that it is forbidden to take photos in certain areas. Speaker 0 questions the basis of this rule, but Speaker 1 insists it is prohibited. Speaker 0 points out that they are also in France and should have rights. Speaker 1 agrees to discuss the matter elsewhere, but maintains that it is still forbidden.

Speaker 1 refuses to answer questions at a federal immigration checkpoint, citing their 5th and 6th amendment rights. They argue with border patrol agents, leading to a tense confrontation where they are threatened with arrest. The situation escalates as Speaker 1 refuses to comply with the agents' requests, resulting in a physical altercation. The confrontation continues as Speaker 1 asserts their rights and demands not to be touched by the agents, leading to a standoff. The situation remains unresolved as Speaker 1 continues to resist the agents' attempts to detain them.

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.

The speaker questions why they are being detained at an immigration checkpoint and asks for the grounds of their detention. The other speaker explains that it is an immigration inspection and justifies the detention based on Supreme Court cases. The speaker argues that they should not be detained if they are a citizen and questions if they need to prove their citizenship. They express concern about discrimination and refuse to answer the question. The other speaker states that they will stay detained until they answer and the speaker agrees to stay and see what happens. The conversation ends with the speaker expressing their opposition to being detained and comparing it to historical events.

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.

A man states he is on a public sidewalk at the steps of City Hall, saying "God bless homeless veterans." An officer says there have been complaints about him begging for food and money, which he denies. The officer asks for his ID and states it is required. The officer says he will go to jail if he doesn't provide it. The man claims he is standing on a public sidewalk engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, safeguarded by the First Amendment: freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. The officer says he doesn't care and instructs him to leave, stating that this is how it is in the state of Mississippi.

The first speaker says they are here because of online comments the other person made about the US community. The second speaker asserts freedom of speech. The first speaker acknowledges that but says they must ensure compliance, asking, “Do you have a warrant?” and stating, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting.” The second speaker says, “Yeah,” insisting on freedom of speech. The first speaker notes, “We get that. We just…,” then declares, “You understand that. Right?,” and asserts, “Means you’re not welcomed here. Okay. Bye.” They add, “Stay off the lawn, please.”