reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker clarifies a headline, stating that three US citizen children (ages four, seven, and two) were not deported. Their mothers, who were in the US illegally, were deported, and the children accompanied them. The speaker asserts that if the children are US citizens, they can return to the US if their father or someone else wants to care for them. The speaker claims the US does not have a policy to deport children, even US citizens, without due process. The speaker explains that if someone is in the US unlawfully and has a young child, the parent can choose to take the child with them upon deportation. Alternatively, they can leave the child in the US. The speaker suggests the children likely have fathers in the US and that the family decides where the children go. The US deported the mothers who were illegally in America.

If you're a criminal, you'll be deported, and if you enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught just went up. According to Speaker 1, these actions are lawful and have been taken by both Republican and Democratic presidents for the past half century. Speaker 0 claims the media portrays Trump negatively for deporting illegal alien criminals, while Obama, Bill Clinton, and other Democrats were on board with this for years. Speaker 2 states their administration has moved aggressively to secure the borders by hiring a record number of new border guards, deporting twice as many criminal aliens, cracking down on illegal hiring, and barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Speaker 3 says using phrases like "undocumented workers" conveys that the government is not serious about combating illegal immigration. Speaker 1 says we cannot allow people to pour into The United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Speaker 2 says they will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes and to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace. Speaker 0 claims Obama deported 5,300,000 people, and Bill Clinton deported 12,300,000, questioning why there is a sudden change of heart now.

Entering the U.S. legally and ignoring a judge's deportation order are crimes. Choosing to have a U.S. citizen child while in the country illegally puts the family in a difficult position. The speaker claims they removed children with mothers who requested it, calling it a parental decision. The speaker argues that if they hadn't removed the children with their mothers, they would be accused of separating families. They assert that when a parent wants their child to go with them, they facilitate it, and that the parents, not the government, made the decision. The speaker then references Lincoln Riley and Rachel Moran, stating they will never see their children again, and concludes that the administration is doing the right thing.

The speaker states they will bring back the border security bill that Donald Trump tanked and do more to secure the border. To reduce illegal border crossings, they will take further action to keep the border closed between ports of entry. Those who cross unlawfully will be apprehended, removed, and barred from reentering for 5 years, with repeat violators facing more severe criminal charges. The speaker claims that if someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum. The speaker's goal is to have an orderly and secure system, while understanding that many people are desperate to migrate to the United States.

A family seeking asylum was arrested but later released with a court hearing date, which they attended. This is the first time in US history that asylum seekers must apply in another country. President Trump argues that the catch and release policy is flawed, as dangerous individuals could enter the country. He claims that less than 1% of released individuals return, and only those with low IQ might come back. Vice President Biden disagrees, stating that the president's claims are untrue and encourages fact-checking.

Speaker 1 confirmed signing a memo but denied being the author of the family separation policy. Speaker 1 stated they gave Secretary Nielsen numerous recommendations on how to secure the border and save lives. Speaker 2 claimed that Speaker 1 recommended family separation as option three. Speaker 1 stated they recommended zero tolerance, the same as when any US citizen parent gets arrested with a child. Speaker 2 stated that legal asylees are not charged with any crime. Speaker 1 stated that being in the country illegally is a violation and that if one wants to seek asylum, they should do it the legal way at the port of entry. Speaker 1 referred to a congresswoman as the dumbest ever to listen to congress.

The speaker clarifies that a headline is misleading because three US citizen children (ages four, seven, and two) were not deported. Their mothers, who were in the US illegally, were deported, and the children went with them. The speaker states that if US citizen children are deported with their parents, they can return to the US if a father or someone else wants to care for them. The choice of whether the children accompany their deported parents rests with the parents. The alternative would be for the US to hold the children while deporting the mother, which would lead to different negative headlines. The speaker assumes the children have fathers in the US who can care for them. The US deported the mothers who were in America illegally.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 recounts feedback from “real Chicagoans,” describing them as mostly Black and Brown, and claims they tell him that the other person does not seem to know the difference between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens. He asserts that these individuals feel the other person is siding with illegal aliens over their communities. He then pivots to a direct line of questioning. The real question, as Speaker 0 presents it, concerns a violent incident: “An illegal alien from Nicaragua grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her.” He presses for a direct response about what would have happened “if that had been your wife, Stacy.” He stages the hypothetical to elicit a clear stance from Speaker 1 on how to respond to such a crime and its immigration context. Speaker 1, however, interrupts to steer the conversation away from the loaded scenario. He repeatedly signals a move on, indicating a preference not to engage with the hypothetical or to answer the pointed ethical dilemma on the spot. The back-and-forth centers on the tactic of addressing the question versus avoiding it, with Speaker 0 insisting on a straightforward answer “as a man, not as mayor, but as a man.” The exchange escalates as Speaker 0 urges Speaker 1 to provide a simple yes or no and to address the issue directly, effectively challenging Speaker 1 to commit to a position regarding ICE and deportation in light of the described crime. Speaker 1 responds by again stating to move on, resisting the direct yes/no framework. Throughout, Speaker 0 persists in pressing for a candid, personal response to the hypothetical crime and its immigration implications, while Speaker 1 maintains a boundary about continuing the discussion in that moment. Ultimately, Speaker 1 declines to answer the specific deportation question in the moment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms the demand for a direct personal answer. The segment ends with Speaker 1 thanking the audience and moving on, leaving the explicit yes-or-no question unresolved in this exchange.

The speaker challenges Mr. Breer's claim that intentional trauma was caused by the Trump administration's separation of children from their parents. They argue that it is unknown whether these individuals are the children's actual parents, and criticizes Mr. Breer for using the term "parents" in quotes. The speaker questions Mr. Breer's knowledge and suggests that the reason for family separation is to prevent child trafficking. The speaker, identifying as a mother, ends the conversation, accusing Mr. Breer of being destructive.

The transcript shows a volatile exchange centered on immigration and constitutional rights. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks how many constitutional rights the other participants are willing to give up to “get these people out,” framing the issue as a test of loyalty to the country. He emphasizes a confrontational stance against immigrants and their supporters, pressing for an explicit, finite number of rights to sacrifice. Speaker 1 responds with extreme, inflammatory rhetoric. He declares, “As many constitutional rights as it takes to keep the race in the country alive is how many I’m willing to walk on,” and identifies as a “national socialist authoritarian,” asserting a willingness to sacrifice rights to preserve a “race in the country.” He attacks the idea of protecting the Constitution, stating, “my constitution, my democracy, my fucking… inalienable fucking constitutional car driven rights,” and contrasts that with what he sees as the real priority of protecting the country and race. He references “the force doctrine” and asserts that “your rights are whatever the fucking force doctrine says you’re allowed to do.” He also claims that the United States acts as “the force doctrine of the entire world.” During the exchange, Speaker 0 derides Speaker 1 as “white racist fuck” and “unamerican,” while Speaker 1 escalates, declaring that he does not care about the constitution if it endangers the country or race. He asserts, “What I care about is our country,” and later says, “Willing to let this country burn and your entire race burn if it meant that you didn’t violate the constitution? I don’t give a fuck about that.” He proclaims, “If I need to throw away the first amendment, the second amendment, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth, and all of them in order to make sure that The US and its people stays alive,” questioning how that could be acceptable. The dialogue includes explicit harassment and slurs, including “chill faggot,” and culminates in a moment where Speaker 0 calls for clipping the exchange, expressing it as “fucking gold.” The participants debate whether constitutional protections should yield to perceived national or racial imperatives, with both sides railing against the other’s stance and repeatedly foregrounding the primacy of protecting the country over preserving constitutional rights, according to their respective positions.

Let me be clear, our zero tolerance policy is about saving lives. We started prosecuting those who break the law and endanger children, and it worked, the numbers went down. It's unfortunate that families were separated, but this also happens to American families every day when a child can't go to jail with a parent. If you want to talk about family separation, under Joe Biden, half a million children were trafficked in this country. They can't even find 300,000 of them. That's separation. President Trump is committed to finding these children and saving them, as many are in forced labor or sex slavery. We're going to save them.

Speaker 0 asks why the person is removing kidnapped people and requests them to call the police. The speaker insists on calling the police and asks for an explanation for the removal. They mention that there are babies and kids who have been kidnapped. The person being spoken to refuses to talk and the conversation ends.

If you're a criminal, you'll be deported, and if you enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught just went up. According to Speaker 1, these actions are lawful and have been taken by both Republican and Democratic presidents for the past half century. Speaker 0 claims the media portrays Trump negatively for deporting illegal alien criminals, while Obama, Bill Clinton, and other Democrats were previously on board with this. Speaker 2 states their administration has moved aggressively to secure the borders by hiring more border guards, deporting twice as many criminal aliens, cracking down on illegal hiring, and barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Speaker 3 says using phrases like "undocumented workers" conveys that the government isn't serious about combating illegal immigration. Speaker 1 says we cannot allow people to pour into The United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Speaker 2 says they will try to speed the deportation of illegal aliens arrested for crimes and better identify illegal aliens in the workplace. Speaker 0 claims Obama deported 5,300,000 people, and Bill Clinton deported 12,300,000, questioning why there is a sudden change of heart now.

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

Here's the thing: Some estimate it would cost $88 billion to deport a million people a year. But what price do you put on national security? Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families? Of course there is, families can be deported together. I have given the secretary numerous options to secure the border and save lives. I recommended a zero tolerance policy, the same as when any U.S. citizen parent gets arrested when they're with a child. If I get arrested for a DUI with a child in the car, I'll be separated. When you're in the country illegally, it's a violation. If you want to seek asylum, go through the port of entry, do it the legal way. The Attorney General has made that clear.

- Speaker 0 states that criminals will be deported and that entering the US illegally increases the likelihood of being caught and sent back. They describe these actions as lawful and representative of the approach taken by every Republican and Democratic president for the past fifty years. - Speaker 1 asserts the need for tough conditions: people should be told to come out of the shadows, and if they have committed a crime, they should be deported with no questions asked; they will be removed. - Speaker 2 addresses widespread concern among all Americans about the large numbers of illegal aliens entering the country. They claim the jobs held by these individuals might otherwise be occupied by citizens or legal immigrants, and that public services used by them impose burdens on taxpayers. The administration is described as having moved aggressively to secure the borders by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, and by borrowing welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the upcoming budget, there will be efforts to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, and to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former congresswoman Barbara Jordan. - Speaker 2 concludes by emphasizing that we are a nation of immigrants, but also a nation of laws. It is described as wrong and self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the abuse of immigration laws seen in recent years, and there is a stated commitment to doing more to stop it.

The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer. - Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person. - Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility. - Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum. - Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate. - The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder. - Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.

Speaker 0 states that entering the country illegally is not a criminal violation. Speaker 1 strongly disagrees, calling the statement "one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard" and asserting that it lacked any rational thought. Speaker 1 concludes that everyone who heard the statement is now dumber.

Speaker 0 questions the practicality of a mass deportation program, particularly concerning families with American-citizen children, suggesting a single negative image could halt the entire program. Speaker 1 acknowledges that deporting a woman with children, resulting in media coverage, would complicate the effort. Speaker 0 then asks for confirmation of support for mass deportation, "even of women and children." Speaker 1 responds that they will look at it very closely, noting that the deportation of even one "wrong person" could be exploited by the "radical left lunatics."

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 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."

The speaker criticizes MSDNC for spreading lies about family separation policies, claiming the Obama administration did not separate children from parents. The speaker dismisses the accusations as nonsense and tells MSDNC to leave.

In the video, Speaker 0 states that around 1.4 million people without legal basis were expelled from the US last year, the highest number in recent history. Speaker 1 challenges this by pointing out that only 72,000 illegal migrants were removed in 2022, compared to 267,000 in 2019. Speaker 1 also highlights that border encounters have increased from 458,000 in 2019 to 2.3 million under the current administration. Speaker 0 responds by mentioning the success of their approach in providing lawful pathways and consequences for irregular border arrivals. They also mention that the public health authority in 2020 limited removals.

Speaker 0 states Speaker 1 is wanted in multiple states and every country with laws due to fake addresses, accusing them of being thieves, criminals, and liars. Speaker 0 claims Speaker 1 is not who they say they are and accuses them of stealing children. Speaker 1 asks why they are being stamped with addresses and questions if due diligence has been done. They state there is no law requiring 15 days of residency and mention Pedro Rodriguez's wife saying they were not a shelter. They express distrust, stating NGOs protect each other and the federal government is involved, calling it dangerous. Speaker 1 describes following the journey of immigrants and children, stating they are in a cartel tunnel. They say some things must be lived, not read. Speaker 1 concludes that nobody is present to stop what is happening.