TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Over 6 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the southern border since 2021, leading to concerns about deliberate planning by government and non-government entities. The migration pipeline starts in South America, with migrants flying into Ecuador before crossing the dangerous Darien Gap jungle into Panama. Various international organizations, including the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, aid migrants and provide maps and instructions on how to reach the US border. This organized mass migration is part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which promotes world socialism and views migration as a core development consideration. The facilitation of illegal migration poses national security threats and could lead to permanent political demographic change in the United States.

Over 6 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the southern border since 2021, leading to concerns about deliberate planning by government and non-government entities. The migration pipeline starts in the Darien Gap, where migrants cross from South America to Panama, facing dangers such as rape and robbery. Various international organizations, including OIM, Red Cross, UNICEF, and Doctors Without Borders, aid migrants and provide maps and instructions on how to reach the US border. The United Nations' 2030 agenda for sustainable development promotes mass migration as a means to achieve global goals. The facilitation of illegal migration raises national security concerns, with military-aged males and Chinese nationals passing through the camps. The consequences include permanent political demographic change and potential dominance by one political party if action is not taken.

NGOs assist migrants by providing shelter, food, and transportation to their final destinations within the US after they cross the border. Due to a decrease in migrant crossings compared to six months or a year ago, organizations like Jewish Family Service and Catholic Charities have fewer people to help. As a result, these NGOs are laying off staff and volunteers because the need for their services has diminished significantly.

UNHCR receives millions in donations, mainly from the US, yet only provides basic tents and trash cans in the Darien Gap. The organization profits from human suffering, failing to address the ongoing crisis and educate migrants on safe migration. This mass migration is destroying culture and values. Funding is misused, lining pockets instead of aiding those in need.

The United Nations is confirmed to be funding the migrant crisis, as revealed by the Center for Immigration Studies. Public documents show that the United Nations plans to allocate $372 million in cash and voucher assistance to approximately 624,000 immigrants heading to the United States in 2024. This information eliminates any need for speculation, and the article link is provided for further reading.

I spent a week in Tapachula, Mexico, where thousands of migrants are trapped due to a military operation aimed at controlling the situation before the U.S. elections. The Mexican government is relocating some migrants to other cities but is keeping most of them in the south to avoid a surge at the border. Many migrants are anxious about a potential Trump victory, fearing he would close the border. As a result, they are increasingly attempting to cross illegally. I predict that once the election is over, there could be a significant influx of migrants as the Mexican authorities may no longer hold them back. The current situation is unprecedented, with around 150,000 migrants in Tapachula, all eager to move north.

DHS allegedly admitted in a memo that the Venezuelan government was emptying prisons and rehabilitation centers, releasing inmates with instructions to go to the U.S. It is claimed that DHS knew this was happening, and that the Tren de Aragua gang is now heavily present in the U.S. DHS has allegedly acknowledged in writing that Venezuela is emptying prisons and rehabilitation centers with the understanding that those released should go to the United States. DHS is purportedly processing these individuals without knowing their whereabouts. The estimated number of people who have come across the border in the last 2-3 years is said to be about 10-11 million, but one speaker believes the number is closer to 15-18 million.

In the transcript, Speaker 0 asserts that the surge from Mexico during the Biden administration occurred due to two explicit actions. First, after Joe Biden won in November 2024, AMLO, the president of Mexico, convened Mexican legislators and enacted legislation that they knew would radically encourage mass migration to the United States, specifically acknowledging that this would be the effect they sought. Second, governments in Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega allegedly responded by allowing anyone from anywhere in the world to obtain a visa if they fly to Nicaragua, and then they would be taken to the border to head north toward the United States. According to the speaker, millions of people from Africa, Latin America, and Asia flew to Nicaragua on chartered planes and then proceeded toward the U.S. border. The speaker characterizes these developments as intentional and directed.

In Panama, new camps are being built to accommodate the increasing number of migrants. One camp, already tripled in size, can hold up to 15,000 people. Currently, 3,000 to 5,000 migrants pass through daily, but this number is expected to triple. The organizational structure has become more efficient, with migrants staying in the camp for shorter periods, sometimes just a few hours. Those without money work in the camp to pay for a $60 bus ticket to leave Darien and cross the Costa Rican border. Two additional camps are being constructed, and it is predicted that by January, there could be 10,000 migrants per month, reaching 1,000,000 per month by 2025. The speaker emphasizes the importance of Darien Gap as a major invasion route to the United States.

Since Joe Biden became president, there has been a surge of immigrants crossing the US southern border. The head of US border control, Alejandro Mayorkas, is an immigrant himself and was on the board of HIAS, a group supporting open borders. HIAS receives over $100 million annually from the government and is helping immigrants cross the Darien Gap to reach the US. Despite this conflict of interest, it is rarely discussed in mainstream immigration debates.

The speaker describes a scenario of a trendy illegal immigrant arriving at the U.S. Southwest border during the 2023 crisis, aided by taxpayer-funded NGOs, and released into the interior with a notice to appear in immigration court. He asserts the person will file a bare-bones, frivolous asylum application, aided by another NGO, and that due to a nearly 4,000,000-case immigration court backlog, the case will take years to be heard. In the meantime, the individual is said to move to a major city, receive taxpayer-funded benefits, commit crimes, be supported by sanctuary-city leadership, and be defended by Democrats who oppose strict immigration laws. The process allegedly drags on with continuances and motions, and years later an immigration judge supposedly denies the asylum claim. The individual is said to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which allegedly takes months or years, followed by appellate denial in a federal court of appeals. The speaker charges that federal departments and courts expend many taxpayer dollars on such cases, all to deport an apparently frivolous claimant. The focal policy proposal is the expedited removal of criminal aliens act, described as straightforward: criminal aliens cannot misuse the asylum system and must be detained and deported quickly if they are in the U.S. with certain criminal convictions. The speaker notes that current law already permits expedited removal for aggravated felon aliens, who are considered ineligible for asylum and relief and are presumed deportable; this is said to be constitutionally upheld by every federal court of appeals that has addressed it. The bill would expand categories of criminal aliens who may face removal proceedings when in criminal custody and authorize the Department of Homeland Security to place additional criminals in expedited removal. It would allow fast-track deportation for non-lawful permanent residents who are in a gang, transnational criminal organization, or foreign terrorist organization, or who have been convicted of dangerous crimes. The bill’s specified conviction categories include: any felony; any misdemeanor against a member of a vulnerable group; any assault on a law enforcement officer; any sexual offense; any crime of domestic violence; any stalking; any crime against children; sex trafficking or sexual exploitation of minors; sexual abuse of a minor; any activity involving child sexual exploitation; or any violation of a protective order. The term “vulnerable group” covers a child under 16, a pregnant woman, a person with severe disability, and seniors over 65. The speaker cites a poll claiming 78% of Americans support deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, including nearly 70% of Democrats, and asserts broad public support for tougher immigration action while criticizing Democrats’ handling of border policy. He accuses Democrats of previously expanding border openings, cites alleged prior high border encounters, millions of entrants, and 2,000,000 “gotaways,” along with terrorists allegedly released and a record immigration court backlog, blaming the Democrats for a perceived border crisis. He argues recent House actions and votes against border-security measures and declares the bill a step toward securing the border and reforming immigration policy, urging support. He concludes by urging colleagues to back the expedited removal of criminal aliens act.

Chairman Perry and members of the caucus, I thank you for inviting me to discuss what I describe as the most historic mass migration crisis ever to strike The United States. What has happened at the Southern border is history-making in scope with long-lasting second, third, and fourth order implications for American citizens. The mass migration that began around inauguration day 2021 calls for a broader public discussion about what it is and how it works. During its first year and now into its second, I interviewed hundreds of immigrants, most recently on an eight-day fact-finding journey to Tapachula, on the Guatemala–Mexico border. From my vantage point, there is one root cause most often cited by the immigrating foreign nationals for coming now: that President Joe Biden opened the American southern border wide to them. They see on social media, from hundreds of thousands who have gone before, secure quick releases and resettlement into America—the ultimate golden chalice—and they decide to gamble large smuggling investments that criminal smuggling gangs will get them in to stay too. With such an enticing return on smuggling investment, no thinking person should wonder why this global migration hit a national record of nearly 2,000,000 border patrol apprehensions in a single year with probably 500,000 more gotaways, an undercount. The caucus should know that nonprofit advocacy groups and, more notably, the United Nations appear to be working alongside the criminal smuggling organizations on the same mission. United Nations agencies such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are providing hard cash, food, shelter, legal services, and psychological services along the migrant trails, which also materially facilitate journeys that everyone involved knows lead to illegal American border crossings. In various forms, the UN and the nonprofits it funds contribute to the current mass migration crisis. I found a UNHCR stamp booklet discarded on the Rio Grande riverbank on the Mexican side, and I observed handout cash debit cards to migrants in long lines. Workers reported that they give $400 every fifteen days to families of four, renewable every two weeks. The UN tells me only the most vulnerable receive this cash, yet in Reynosa and Tapachula, long lines at UNHCR offices revealed regular family units, many with debit cards, who said they might have to leave the migrant trail and go home without this money. The cards are part of a vast and escalating UN program called cash-based interventions along the migrant trail through Latin America, including unrestricted, unconditionally usable plastic cash cards, cash-filled envelopes in some areas, money transfers for lodging and pharmaceutical prescriptions, and something called movement assistance—transportation money to move forward when camps empty and reform further north. Credible reporting shows the UN is providing these forms of assistance along the trail from South America to Texas. On a Kakuta to Bogota, Colombia segment, the UN was seen handing out food, clothing, and necessities worth an estimated $200 to $300 per migrant per day. Non-cash assistance keeps migrants on the US trail; in Tapachula, Mexican asylum approval is important for permission to move legally beyond the southern provinces toward the US border. But many coming from Guatemala tell Mexican immigration they are seeking US jobs, which is not an eligible asylum claim, so they are denied. I did learn of a UN-funded migrant advocacy center where a full-time staff of certified psychologists helps migrants recover repressed memories of more eligible persecution. This manager said his group also trains migrants on how to pass muster with Mexican asylum interviewers the first time around, producing a 90% success rate for thousands a year. Other UN-funded psychologists offer similar work. If true, the UNHCR in Mexico has found another way to keep thousands more on the trail toward the American border. Some will defend this UN assistance as lifesaving; others will view it differently, and they will want to know more. Americans deserve to know the full extent of it, because the United States is the UN’s largest donor, and the US Congress appropriates a huge amount of money to the UN each year. Thank you. I note that the border is a national security concern. Recently, I reported a Venezuelan crossing the Rio Grande from Matamoros to Brownsville, and the FBI-wanted individual held in ICE headquarters here in Washington, D.C. intervened and demanded he be ordered released because he might get COVID in detention. He is now living freely pursuing an asylum claim in Detroit. Thank you.

Immigrants have been crossing the U.S. southern border since Joe Biden took office, raising questions about border policies. Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, is an immigrant from a Cuban Jewish family and was previously on the board of HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), an NGO advocating for asylum seekers and refugees. HIAS, which receives over $100 million annually from the government, has been linked to facilitating border crossings by aiding immigrants in navigating the Darien Gap, connecting South America to North America. They have processing facilities and provide resources, including maps, to help immigrants reach the U.S. southern border. This situation raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, yet it remains largely unaddressed in mainstream immigration discussions.

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 discusses a conspiracy involving the US government and NGOs bringing illegal immigrants into the country. A DHS employee reveals how NGOs receive millions of dollars to facilitate this operation. The employee mentions Jewish Family Services receiving $600 million for a few months, with subcontractors requesting more funds. The partnership between NGOs and the government is described as a massive money laundering scheme.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss immigration and migration as the central issue for their region. They express a belief that immigration policies are letting criminals into the country daily and emphasize the need for the world to know this. They note a large shift in migration patterns, with migrants coming from Central America as well as Venezuela, despite substantial U.S. aid to the region. They describe a U.S. aid strategy they call the root causes strategy, which involves giving money to support and develop the origins of migrants so people can stay where they are. Specifically, they mention pouring 4 billion dollars over four years into Central America and question whether it is effective, acknowledging the continued flow of migrants despite the aid. There is mention of how the aid is allocated: some of it goes to female prisons in Mexico to help train inmates, and there is reference to working on gender issues in Pakistan aimed at recruiting, retaining, and advancing more women in law enforcement. They raise the broader question of whether U.S. taxpayer money should be spent in other countries on these issues, noting that some people claim “women simply don’t seem to care about” certain issues. Speaker 2 frames the discussion with formal gratitude to the committee and indicates upcoming briefings on the FY 2025 budget request on the Hill, highlighting migration as a big issue for their region and asking what is being done to stop migration. The dialogue reflects uncertainty about how to respond to migration and whether the administration can or will justify the policy choices. The speakers discuss the political impact of migration and aid, suggesting that “the end all be all” solution for politics does not exist, and that the other side might gain advantages from perceived failures. They observe that the public view of migration has evolved and that attitudes toward the issue are politically consequential. There is a provocative assertion comparing criminal elements among migrants to the worst criminals in the United States, and a hypothetical claim about if the worst criminals went to Canada, billions of dollars would be sent back, implying a desire to limit illegal entries or criminal migrants. They debate how to adjust the quality of entrants, proposing that a metric change—allowing a high number of entrants only if they have no criminal records and are not in the country illegally—could alter outcomes. Finally, they discuss perceived demographic shifts in the United States, noting that traditional Americans and Latin Americans have different political leanings, with a suggestion that demographics are being shifted by migration and related policy.

During the four years of the Biden administration, the United States directed significant taxpayer funds to facilitate illegal immigration. While much reporting has focused on the role of NGOs after migrants cross the border, the center examined what happened before migrants reached the Rio Grande, specifically how NGOs and UN agencies were paid by US taxpayers to facilitate illegal movement through South and Central America and Mexico. The center documented a large UN-NGO support network from field reporting and annual reports from the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan. This network comprised way stations along Latin American migration routes that enabled millions of foreign nationals from as many as 180 countries to illegally reach the U.S. border, in part funded by US taxpayers. Some funds were provided directly to NGOs by the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) or USAID, while other funding was sent indirectly through UN agencies that then funded NGOs. This was often described as humanitarian assistance to people who would travel anyway, but the center states this amounted to coordinated, well-funded assistance designed to undermine US immigration laws. Starting in South America and Central America, NGOs distributed millions of dollars’ worth of supplies intended to help recipients plan to illegally breach borders of the United States and several other countries along the way. In Northwestern Colombia, the center found NGOs working in coordination with the paramilitary drug-smuggling group Clan Del Golfo, also known as the Gaitanistas, which controlled the smuggling routes. Nekocli, a town in Northwest Colombia, is described as a major staging area for migrants aiming to cross at the Gulf of Urabá and then reach the jumping-off point for trips through the Darién Gap. The researchers visited Nekocli and observed what resembled a swap meet or farmer’s market of NGO and UN organizations providing assistance, with booths for various groups, including the Florida-based Cadena and the Silver Spring–based Adventist Development and Relief Agency, among others. They provided services such as guidance on navigating the Darién Gap, food, dry socks, backpacks, and more. After crossing the Gulf of Urabá in Colombia, migrants reach Akande, where the jumping-off point to the Darién Gap lies. There, the UN-backed camp provided security for the camp, reportedly by a drug-smuggling gang, though the center notes that it does not have direct evidence of this, it seems likely that NGOs and the UN paid for security through the drug-smuggling gang. After crossing through Central America, migrants reach southern Mexico, entering via Guatemala into Southern Mexico, with Tapachula identified as the first large entry point. A large, one-stop-immigration-mall-like facility under construction there housed UN agencies and NGOs. Similar camps exist in northern Mexico as well. In Tapachula, an NGO funded by the UN (and thus by the United States) provided repressed memory therapy for illegal immigrants who had been rejected for asylum by Mexico, enabling them to obtain certificates acknowledging the persecution they had forgotten, which they then used to appeal and obtain asylum status. Throughout Latin America, these networks—funded in part by US taxpayers—facilitated the flow of illegal immigrants, but oversight has been lacking, and Congress has not acted to require recipients of funding not to promote illegal immigration.

The speaker addresses the historic mass migration crisis at the US Southern border, asserting its root cause is President Biden's open border policy, as perceived by immigrating foreign nationals via social media. They are motivated by the success of those who came before them. This has led to record border patrol apprehensions and significant "gotaways." The speaker claims that UN agencies like IOM and UNHCR are materially contributing to illegal border crossings by providing cash, food, shelter, and legal/psychological services along migrant trails. They cite examples of cash debit cards given to migrants, and psychologists helping migrants recover memories of persecution to pass asylum interviews. The speaker suggests this UN assistance, funded partly by the US, keeps migrants on the trail to the US. They also raise national security concerns, citing an example of an FBI watch-listed Venezuelan released by ICE and now pursuing asylum in Detroit.

Illegal crossings at the southern border have decreased by 35% since the start of the Trump administration. According to Todd Bensman at the Center for Immigration Studies, the UN and NGOs have used billions of US tax dollars to support illegal southern border crossings. These organizations plan to spend $1.4 billion in 2025 to support 2.3 million foreign nationals traveling to the US through 17 Latin American countries. Bensman says this collaboration between the Biden-Harris State Department, 230 NGOs, and 15 UN agencies has been ongoing for four to five years, using at least $6 billion to aid migrants on their journey to the US border. Religious groups like Haius, Keritas, Lutherans, and Seventh Day Adventists are involved. Bensman urges the Trump administration to cut off funding to these organizations, which operate waystations from South America to northern Mexico.

UNHCR, OIM, and UNICEF are part of a globalist contract of immigration and mass migration. The border remains open, and these organizations are waiting tactically for the 2028 election, in case a leader says the border will be open or CBP one will be operating again. OIM, UNHCR, and UNICEF never want to talk or say anything to anyone because they don't want anyone to know they are still operating effectively.

Chairman Perry and members of the caucus, I am here to discuss what I term the most historic mass migration crisis ever to strike The United States, noting that what has happened at the Southern border is history making in scope and will have long lasting second, third, and fourth order implications for American citizens. During its first year and now into its second, I have interviewed hundreds of immigrants, most recently on an eight day fact finding journey to the Guatemala–Mexico border city of Tapachula. From my vantage point, there is but one root cause that the immigrating foreign nationals most often cite for coming now: that President Joe Biden opened the American southern border wide to them. They see over their cell phones, social media, hundreds of thousands who have gone before, secure quick releases and resettlement into America, the ultimate golden chalice, and they gamble huge smuggling fee investments that criminal smuggling gangs will get them in to stay too. With such an enticing return on smuggling investment, no thinking person should wonder why this global migration hit the all time national record of nearly 2,000,000 border patrol apprehensions in a single year with probably 500,000 more gotaways, and that’s an undercount. But the caucus should also know that nonprofit advocacy groups and, more notably, the United Nations appear to be working side by side with the criminal smuggling organizations on the very same mission. United Nations agencies such as the International Office of Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are providing hard cash, food, shelter, legal services, psychological services along the migrant trails, which also materially facilitate journeys that everyone involved very well knows despite any protestations to the contrary always lead to an illegal American border crossing. In whatever small or large way the United Nations and the nonprofits it funnels money to can reasonably be said to contribute to the current mass migration crisis. I found my first clue on a Rio Grande riverbank on the Mexican side, a discarded UNHCR stamp booklet. Hand out cash debit cards to migrants in long snaking lines. The workers handing them out said they give $400 every fifteen days to families of four, renewable every two weeks. The UN tells me only the most vulnerable get this cash. But in Reynosa, and again most recently in Tapachula, Mexico, where I saw the same long lines at the UNHCR office, nothing about them indicated acute vulnerability. They were regular family units of the sort crossing by the tens of thousands right now. Some showed me their debit cards there too and said, were it not for this money, they might have to leave the migrant trail and go home. Further inquiry showed the cards are just part of a vast and sharply escalating UN program called cash based interventions all along the migrant trail through Latin America. According to the UN documents and migrants, these include the unrestricted, unconditionally usable plastic cash cards, but also cash filled envelopes in some areas. Never a good look cash filled envelopes. Money transfers for lodging, pharmaceutical prescriptions, and something called movement assistance, which means transportation money to move forward when camps empty and reform further north. Credible reporting shows that the UN is providing these forms of assistance all along the migrant trail from South America to Texas. On a Kakuta to Bogota Colombia segment, the UN was seen handing out food, clothing, and necessities worth an estimated 200 to $300 day per migrant. And then there’s important non-cash assistance keeping migrants on the US trail. In Tapachula, approval for Mexican asylum these days is important for permission to move legally beyond the southern provinces where I was, always to The US border, of course. But many coming in from Guatemala innocently tell Mexican immigration they’re going for US jobs, which is not an eligible asylum claim. So they get denied. But I found a UN funded solution recently. The manager of a UN funded migrant advocacy center told me a full time staff of certified psychologists help these migrants recover repressed memories of more eligible government persecution. This manager told me in a recorded conversation that his group also trains migrants on the front end of the process how to pass muster with Mexican asylum interviewers the first time around. He said these operations produce a 90% success rate for thousands a year. Other UN funded psychologists offer what sounds like similar work. If all this is true, the UNHCR in Mexico has found another way to keep thousands more on the trail over the American border. Many can and will defend this UN assistance as lifesaving, but others who learn of it reasonably interpret this in a very different way, and they wanna know more, of course. However, Americans wanna interpret this assistance to migrants, they undoubtedly know they are joining a historic mass migration. All Americans deserve to know the full extent of it because The United States is the UN’s largest donor, and the US Congress appropriates a huge amount of money to the UN every year. I’ll also mention that the border is a national security concern. Just recently, I reported that a Venezuelan crossed the Rio Grande from Matamoros to Brownsville and that the FBI wanted that FBI watch listed individual held in that ICE headquarters here in Washington DC intervened and demanded that he be ordered that he be cut loose because he might get COVID in detention. That individual is now living freely pursuing an asylum claim in Detroit. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.

The speaker shows how NGOs like HIAS are closely connected to migrant camps, providing maps and instructions for migrants to reach the US. Despite attempts to get information from HIAS, they remain secretive. The speaker calls for these groups to be shut down and their employees arrested for aiding illegal immigration. The speaker emphasizes the need for border security and an end to funding organizations facilitating illegal immigration.

Secretary: Today, we are announcing that we have stopped all grant funding that's being abused by NGOs to facilitate illegal immigration into this country. It's amazing to me the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent by the federal government that has been sent to NGOs to facilitate this invasion of our country. I have taken action to stop that funding, to reevaluate it, and to make sure that we're actually using taxpayer dollars in a way that strengthens this country and keeps us safe. People are curious how grants given out by federal agencies are utilized, and that evaluation needs to be done. We're not spending another dime to help the destruction of this country. We're going to follow through on what president Trump promised, to secure our border, depart those who are here illegally and committing criminal actions, and ensure taxpayer dollars aren't spent to assist it. Speaker: And, Madam Secretary, I don't think people fully understand the role that NGOs play in facilitating illegal immigration. I want to share these numbers up on the screen: we spend over $380,000,000 in 2024 for sheltering and service programs for illegal immigrants. But the vast network of NGOs that help facilitate it through Panama, through Mexico, and make it a landing spot here in the United States is a massive contributor to illegal immigration. So what you're telling us today is that now stops? At least the federal funding of that stops? Secretary: Yes. The Department of Homeland Security has stopped spending those dollars to fund those NGOs. What’s been revealing is that many of these NGOs actually have infrastructure and operations set up in Mexico on that side of the border, telling illegal immigrants to come to them, and they will get them across the border. So they're not just operating in the United States. They're operating outside of the United States to help make it easier for those who want to break our laws. And while I was one of those Americans years ago when somebody said NGO to me, I thought, oh, that's amazing—a nonprofit telling somebody about Jesus or spreading faith and charitable work, helping people less fortunate. Then I realized over the years it's been perverted into this shadow government. An NGO is sometimes an operation that does things the government cannot do, can't legally do, so they create an entity to use government dollars, taxpayer dollars, to do something that the federal government isn't allowed to do—to perform a shadow government operation that has recently been used to undermine our country's national security.

Since Joe Biden took office, over 8 million illegal immigrants have crossed the US southern border. Many wonder why the US allows this "invasion." Alejandro Mayorkas, the head of the US border, is an immigrant himself and was a board member of HIAS, an NGO advocating for open borders. HIAS receives over $100 million annually from the government and is now found to be assisting immigrants in crossing the Darien Gap to reach the US. They have a processing facility and provide maps in Spanish to guide immigrants. Despite this conflict of interest, mainstream immigration discussions rarely address it.

Speaker 0 explains that transparency has been lacking and that tracking money through organizations is difficult. He says there is now at least a parameter for opacity, and that this parameter must be solidified to understand how money moves internally—through contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and networks of friends and associates. He predicts that over the next five years criminal activity will be uncovered as these money flows are examined more closely. Speaker 1 adds that there is a distinction between the border situation and how funds were dispersed north and south. As NGOs realize their federal funding is drying up, he questions whether there is enough momentum or private-sector money to sustain them, and what will happen to groups that no longer receive taxpayer dollars. Speaker 0 responds that hundreds of NGOs will close, noting that hundreds were created specifically for the mass migration crisis—serving as bus companies or as handlers at the border to assist migrants. He implies these organizations were established to address a surge and suggests their disappearance will follow as government funding wanes. Speaker 2 raises the issue of blanket preemptive pardons and asks if there should be an investigation into how the large influx of people—10 to 15 million—came about, characterizing the situation as not chaotic but well thought through. He asks if a thorough investigation is warranted. Speaker 0 calls for a full-throated investigation, including a presidential committee if needed, targeted at the DOJ under the new FBI director and the Attorney General. He argues there should be a focus on the political appointee class rather than only high-level officials like Mayorkas. He references his book, Overrun, Chapter Four, asserting that the situation was orchestrated and engineered at the political appointee level within the Domestic Policy Council, the DOJ, and all DHS agencies. He identifies people brought in from the NGO world, such as Tyler Moran, Esther Olavaria, Lucas Guten Tag, and Amy Pope, claiming they orchestrated the effort and undermined federal law and statutes that require faithful execution of laws. Speaker 2 adds that hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to the former NGO employers, implying a link between the orchestration and financial rewards. The dialogue ends with a continued assertion of movement toward an expansive influx, described as an invasion, and a call for accountability at the administrative and policy-making levels.