reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A Mexican man states he supports Trump and believes people are wrong to call him racist. He argues that as president of America, Trump is looking out for Americans. He suggests that non-Americans may not understand this perspective. He believes things were better and cheaper under Trump's presidency. He expresses frustration with his current financial situation, working 70 hours a week and still struggling to afford things.

It's my first time voting. Who do you want to win? Trump? As a Puerto Rican, I find that concerning. I don't really like it. So, as a Puerto Rican, you're okay with that? No, definitely not. It hurts when people express dislike for Puerto Ricans, but I'm proud of who I am. Ultimately, I want to focus on having a better future.

As a legal immigrant, the speaker expresses frustration with Democrats for supposedly weaponizing diversity. The speaker asserts the U.S. does not need people who will support the ideologies that ruined their home countries. The speaker left their country because people kept voting for a party promising handouts. Legal immigrants supposedly want closed borders to prevent the same problems from arising in the U.S. Many immigrants run away from bad countries, then support the same ideologies in the U.S., expecting government assistance. The speaker claims legal immigrants oppose open borders and illegal immigration not out of selfishness, but because they know what happens when those types of people are the majority. It is frustrating to see America turning into what they ran away from after sacrificing to make America home.

The speaker encounters someone from Haiti and questions why they are going to America. The speaker expresses frustration with people disrespecting the country and suggests that those who only want free benefits should not come. The speaker criticizes the lack of vetting and implies that the person from Haiti is seeking free stuff. The video ends with the person from Haiti asking not to be killed as they enter America.

The discussion claims an “observable correlation” between Indian-born CEOs rising at major US companies and increased offshoring and outsourcing work to India. Examples given include Google: Sundar Pichai became CEO in 2015, when Google reportedly filed 2,896 H-1B visa applications, and by 2021 the number reportedly increased to 9,315. A participant describing work at FedEx says they noticed more Indians working internally and that the company outsourced work to India; they say that is what happened to their jobs and team after they were fired. They state that “They all went to India,” and describe being asked to train their replacement from India as “crushing,” adding, “if you go broke.” The conversation turns to job loss and difficulty finding work. One person says they had to sell a home in Sunnyvale that was custom made for them, and reports looking for a job for two years despite having experience and believing they “should have walked right into these corporate jobs.” They attribute their struggle to Silicon Valley being “flooded with people who work for two thirds of the price or even half price.” Another participant argues that the Indian community has helped America’s growth because Indians “come with a lot of academics” and have “always contributed very highly to the… American economy.” A further perspective describes dehumanizing and humiliating experiences, saying it felt like Google cared so little about the worker-investment that it would “just throw it… to any group” believed capable of doing the work. They also say forcing training for replacement workers “was sometimes kind of felt mean, you know, and harsh.” A different voice says they are an American and a US citizen but do not feel threatened about their job because they show up and perform their work, believe they have not replaced a US worker, and have adapted to the environment while continuing to work.

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.

Speaker 0 asks why the other person is spirit painting, stating that asking questions is their job. The other person questions if they support Palestine, to which Speaker 0 responds that they support free speech in the United States. Speaker 0 mentions living in Jordan for 6 months and believes America is our last hope. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 1 telling Speaker 0 to leave and mentioning Zion.

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.

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.

Don't tell me "Viva Mexico" if you've never lived there on Mexican wages, or if your kids haven't been trafficked. Many are living off American privilege. Don't tell me "Viva Mexico" when kids are slaughtered, women are murdered, and the government doesn't care. Kids at the border are drug trafficked, killed, and their organs sold on the black market by cartels. There is no justice; money buys impunity. The government doesn't care about the people, or they would eliminate the cartels. Many parents almost died crossing the border for their children's benefit, or escaped the cartels. Visiting Mexico is different than living there. Don't say "Viva Mexico" while benefiting from American privilege. Mexico isn't what it was; it's not safe anymore, except for the wealthy. Live in Mexico on pesos, then say if it's enjoyable. Don't burn the American flag while being ungrateful. Don't praise Mexico if you've never lived or struggled there.

Speaker says Mexico is conducting mass deportations of people who stayed illegally to 'manage a country,' insisting this is not about hating people but enforcing laws. They note signs saying 'no human is illegal,' but insist 'once you enter the wrong way, you're breaking the law.' They compare Mexico to the US, claiming Mexico 'start beating you up and then they question you later,' and 'In Mexico, they are doing mass deportations and are using force. Nothing like you see here in The US.' They state, 'Crossing the border illegally, that's a crime,' while adding, 'you don't see it that way, but I do.' They add a Japan analogy: 'Go to Japan and try to do it illegally and guarantee you, you're gonna You don't live in Japan. That's not a crime. You're not breaking the law. I mean, you are breaking the law, but it's not a criminal act.'

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?”

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their lack of concern for the financial burden on Americans due to immigration. Speaker 1 expresses their love for America and willingness to pay for their dream. Speaker 0 points out that Speaker 1 entered illegally, but Speaker 1 admits to not knowing the legal process. Speaker 1 plans to work as an Uber driver and mentions their admiration for American music culture. Speaker 0 raises concerns about homelessness and lack of work permit, but Speaker 1 remains optimistic about finding work. Speaker 1 expresses willingness to do any job for America and mentions paying taxes. Speaker 0 asks about Speaker 1's family, and Speaker 1 hopes they can visit but acknowledges language barriers. Speaker 1 is not scared of potential rejection and expresses gratitude towards Joe Biden.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's ethnicity, stating they look "ambiguous" and "weird," and asks if they are Arab or Indian. Speaker 1 identifies as Indian, Ugandan, and a New Yorker. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 would claim African American status, like Elon Musk. Speaker 1 says they would not. Speaker 0, noting Speaker 1 is African, asks why not, stating their own middle name is Kwame. Speaker 1 affirms they are proud to be Ugandan.

Speaker 0 shares a racist online comment they received: "If her parents did not immigrate here, she would be sleeping in cow shit with no rights, the irony." Speaker 0 asks their mother to react to the comment. The mother asks for clarification, then states that they did have cows in their house, so it's not a big deal.

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.

Speaker 1 discusses the crisis at the border, claiming that politicians in the United States are lying to the American people. They mention the large number of people entering the country illegally and the overcrowding at immigration centers. Speaker 0 expresses admiration for Speaker 1's courage and suggests that people heading north are doing so because they believe they are invited by President Biden. Speaker 0 argues that if the border cannot be effectively closed or if people cannot be deported or imprisoned, then the United States does not truly have a country. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 being asked about rescuing children at the border.

Speaker 1 expresses a negative opinion of someone, questioning where she was born and stating he was born in India. He claims to receive many spam calls from India attempting to defraud elderly women. He asserts that many Indian people are uneducated and relegated to sweatshop jobs where they take advantage of others through phone scams and fake caller IDs. He refuses to reveal his name and calls the other person a loser. He also claims India profits from Tesla cars in the US.

Speaker 0 asks how to console parents of young girls killed. Speaker 1 discusses crimes committed by undocumented individuals versus others, rejecting the term "illegal." Speaker 2 clarifies they do not use the term "illegal."

Being Mexican American, I face unique challenges. Many come here illegally, make money, and avoid taxes, which feels unfair. There's a cultural divide; I see disrespect in how some treat their women, expecting them to serve while they relax. You come to America but expect us to know Spanish; English should be a priority for you. While you seek a better life, many still wave the Mexican flag instead of embracing American identity. I’ve worked hard and my family has served this country, so I expect respect. Stereotypes affect us all, but I speak English well and have succeeded in my career. I wish you well, but I need to stand up for my values.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with being labeled as an African American, stating that they identify as simply American. Speaker 1 reacts strongly to this statement, causing a stir on Twitter. Speaker 2 interrupts, asking for clarification. Speaker 0 explains that while they don't know their African roots, they do know their roots are in Louisiana. They believe in being colorless and that everyone is just a person. Speaker 2 warns that Speaker 0 will face backlash for rejecting the African American label. Speaker 0 insists on not labeling themselves and reiterates that they are American. The conversation ends abruptly.

Two voices, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, erupt in a heated argument filled with confrontation, insults, and conflicting accusations. Speaker 0 insists he did not assault anybody and denies any wrongdoing, repeatedly accusing others of criminal behavior and bullying. He berates the others as “piece of shit,” “fat bucks,” and “bunch of fucking pussies,” while predicting that they will die a “sad fucking lonely death.” He claims, “Arresting American citizens” and says, “You slam it on him,” denying that he slammed the door. He asserts that “you guys are abducting people off the streets” and challenges the group to meet him, asking for a street wave and directing them to a location. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0, urging him to avoid assault and to provide clarification on what just happened. He notes that they “exited here” and that they are “around you guys.” He and Speaker 0 discuss their location: “ Sheridan and Belmont. Sheridan and Belmont. We’re on the corner,” specifying the intersection to reach them. He asks for patience, saying “Hold on. Stand by.” He reports surrounding actions and voices concern about the confrontation, emphasizing they will soon be in contact with each other and that they are near the other party. The exchange grows more acrimonious as Speaker 0 continues to threaten and insult, telling the other party to tell a Facebook group where they are “Camping out like a bunch of buck bunch of fucking pussies.” He repeats the charge that others are “arresting American citizens” and asserts that the situation is not assault, while Speaker 1 maintains it could be considered assault “at the next stoplight.” The dialogue reveals a tense, personal clash, with Speaker 0 attacking the other side’s families and immigration background: “All your families came from different fucking countries.” As the tension escalates, both speakers exchange directions and indications of where they are relative to the others. Speaker 0 directs a left turn at various landmarks, asking, “Where do I turn? I turn left, turn left, right, turn left,” and acknowledges the need to communicate their location to the other group. The dialogue ends with continued dispute over the events, the concept of assault, and where each party should proceed, punctuated by raw insults and threats. The exchange centers on alleged abduction and assault, the fear of being targeted by authorities, and the urge to confront the other group at a nearby intersection near Sheridan and Belmont.

A South African immigrant states they left behind their house, car, dogs, and mother. They say they didn't leave for fun, but for their children's safety. According to them, in South Africa, if you're white, you're considered wrong, a land thief, and a racist, regardless of personal involvement in apartheid. They recount being overwhelmed by the Trump administration's welcome, expecting instead to be put to work immediately and start from the bottom.