reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Listen to the Australian people. Pull back on immigration to focus on services. $4 billion for Aboriginal housing in remote areas, while other Australians live in tent cities. No hope of jobs or services. Government not listening to people. Demand a debate on high immigration. Make your vote count in the next election. Translation: Listen to the Australian people. Reduce immigration and focus on essential services. $4 billion for Aboriginal housing in remote areas, while other Australians live in tent cities. Lack of jobs and services. Government ignoring citizens. Call for a debate on high immigration. Make your vote count in the next election.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

In the past 3 years, there has been a significant increase in illegal border crossings and a backlog of asylum cases. The speaker questions why the secretary deserves to keep his job, considering these issues. The secretary responds by acknowledging the problems and emphasizing the need for legislation to address the broken immigration system.

We spend £15,000,000 daily on expenses like hotels, which is insulting to hardworking Brits struggling to make ends meet. There aren't enough schools, GPs, or homes being built, and the influx of people from other countries is changing our country beyond recognition.

The speaker discusses the target number for immigration in the country. They believe that the growth in immigration should align with the number of houses, doctors, and available jobs. They mention that their platform will link population growth to these factors, rather than setting arbitrary targets for political gain. When asked for a specific number, the speaker states that they cannot provide one at this time, as it will depend on the conditions in the year they form the government in 2025.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their plan to build 200,000 starter homes in 2014, pointing out that none were actually built. Speaker 2 asks if Speaker 1 has been affected by austerity, to which Speaker 1 responds that the whole country has been affected. Speaker 2 clarifies the question, asking specifically about Speaker 1's personal experience, but Speaker 1 avoids answering directly. Speaker 2 then asks about having another EU referendum, and Speaker 1 strongly opposes the idea, stating that the vote needs to be implemented as promised. Speaker 1 believes that people haven't changed their minds on the matter. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 mentioning their upcoming trip to Beijing and various achievements in agriculture and trade.

"And frankly, the there's a massive incentive on the left to import voters." "So if they can't convince their nation to vote for them, they're going to import people from other nations to vote for them." "This is a massive factor." "And frankly, it's a strategy that will succeed if it is not stopped." "It's really a voter importation thing." "That is 100% what is happening." "I mean, BBC is complicit in the destruction of Britain." "The '97 is a failure if we don't pay for it." "You're forced to pay for your own destruction." "We pay for it." "Yes."

In 2014, I predicted a war in Ukraine due to NATO and EU expansion, which I believed provoked Russia. I've been warning about this since the 1990s, and I was criticized for it. Recently, George Robertson, a former NATO secretary general, echoed this sentiment, stating that EU expansion directly contributed to the conflict. Regarding Brexit, two main expectations were controlling our borders and reducing immigration, yet numbers have surged due to a conservative government prioritizing cheap labor. Additionally, Rishi Sunak's promise to eliminate 4,000 EU laws was abandoned, hindering regulatory simplification.

The British people deserve an explanation for the significant failures in immigration policy. This situation isn't merely a result of bad luck or global trends; it was a deliberate choice. Policies were intentionally reformed to liberalize immigration, using Brexit as a means to create an open borders experiment in the UK. The concept of "Global Britain" reflects this agenda, which lacked public support and was downplayed by those in power.

The speech argues that the migration turnaround announced by Chancellor Merz and Interior Minister Dobrindt is a total bluff. It claims that hundreds of thousands still enter Germany’s social system each year, with 150,000 asylum applications last year and a matching number through family reunification, indicating ongoing immigration pressure. The speaker asserts that newly designated safe countries of origin affect only a fraction of illegal migration and that misuse of the asylum system persists. The speaker accuses the current and previous governments of “plundering” Germany, noting that more than half a billion euros in child benefits were sent abroad in 2025 alone. It is claimed that child benefit transfers have risen sharply over the last decade, totaling 5,000,000,000 euros since 2010. The main asylum-origin countries are described as among the world’s most violent, and the speaker contends that uncontrolled mass migration has brought escalating crime and the wars and conflicts of the Middle East into German streets. According to the speech, the migration policy harms the native population and erodes essential elements such as homeland, freedom, security, and educational opportunities. It is asserted that established policy has created No-Go areas and parallel societies within the country and at schools, and that it has opened and even naturalized Islamist subversion. The overall claim is that current policy is failing to protect German society, culture, and the social contract, while enabling ongoing and amplified immigration and its perceived negative consequences.

The key to successful leadership is showing empathy towards voters by addressing their concerns about immigration. It's not about specific policies, but about acknowledging and understanding their worries. David Cameron's failed immigration target still resonated with voters because it showed a desire to control immigration. By engaging in meaningful conversations and demonstrating empathy, leaders can build trust with the electorate, even if they don't always deliver on promises. This approach has been a longstanding tradition in British politics. Translation: Understanding and addressing voters' concerns, especially regarding immigration, is crucial for effective leadership. It's about empathy and meaningful conversations, not just policies. Even failed attempts to control immigration, like David Cameron's, can still resonate with voters if they show a genuine desire to address the issue. Building trust through empathy and dialogue is a key aspect of British politics.

The speaker states that an historic flood of undocumented immigrants crossed the border during the first three years of the administration, with arrivals quadrupling from the last year of President Trump. The speaker asks if it was a mistake to loosen immigration policies. The other speaker responds that the policies proposed are about fixing a problem, not promoting one. The first speaker reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The other speaker claims that they have cut the flow of illegal immigration by half, as well as the flow of fentanyl by half, but that Congress needs to act to fix the problem.

"absolutely convinced that amongst the reasons that people travel through France, which is a safe country, to come to The United Kingdom, amongst the reasons is because it's easier to work in our legal economy than it is in other countries." "Bosses who are prepared to hire people illegally are not asking them for their national insurance card." "You must have ID, mandatory digital ID in order to work because we have to stop illegal working." "It is an automatic collection of the information by the government, so we know exactly who is working in our economy, and it will help us enforce the rules that are there." "I made a pledge that we would do whatever was necessary, pull use whatever tools, were available to deal with illegal migration. I intend to do so."

You advocated for vaccines but now support limiting online speech. There are concerns about migration levels in the UK. You have a responsibility to be accurate, which you claim to be 95% of the time.

Brita Reeves is scrapping the Rwanda deportation scheme and cutting down on migrant hotels to save £8 billion. Concerns are raised about the cost of housing migrants and the lack of a clear plan from Labour. The acceptance rate for asylum applications has increased to 70%, leading to questions about future housing solutions and reforming the migration system. The discussion also touches on the impact on pensioners and businesses in the UK.

Speaker 0: In time, Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we're gonna be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not gonna be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Speaker 1: Now, I think we have a moral and political and social and economic obligation to look after refugees. You can't you have three alternatives. Leave them on the beaches. Send them back to have their throats slit in Syria, or let them walk up to the Balkans into razor wire borders, or welcome them. Those are the only alternatives. Speaker 0: Jews are gonna be at the center of that. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive. Speaker 2: There are 65,000,000 displaced people in the world right now. Matthew, that number is larger than the population of The United Kingdom, and it's not getting any smaller. What we've seen here is that governments are absolutely feckless in attempting to broker peace agreements, be it Syria or anywhere else, which has created this. Speaker 3: Billionaire George Soros says he's investing $500,000,000 to start ups founded by refugees. Soros is responding to president Barack Obama's call to action initiative. That's a request for companies to help refugees and migrants. Speaker 4: And Norwegian society has a very a very short history with ethnic minorities at a scale. So there is a job to be done. So we do have rising antisemitism, and we have rising antisignism, and we have Islamophobia, and we have racism. So we have a lot to do. So we still have have a need of NGOs like the center against racism. Speaker 5: But then he dismissed out of hand what the Prime Minister is doing in relation to migration. Now, I happen to believe that people in this country don't want to pull the drawbridges up, actually. But they do want a fair system. They don't want a free fall. They don't like this sense that people can come here and take us for a ride. And the point, Evan, is this. That in other member states, they have a contributory system of social insurance. I've seen it and discussed it in different contexts. So that people are sort of working and paying their taxes and putting in before they have the right to take out. Speaker 6: The European Union was intentionally set up to give minority organizations influence on the management of Europe. Harry Truman read an article about Kalergi in 1945. He was so impressed that he adopted the Kalergi plan as US official policy as well. After 1965, the real demographic changes of European countries would be seen. Brock Schisholm, former director of the World Health Organization said, what people in all places have to do is to limit a birth rate and promote mixed marriages between different races. This aims to create a single race in the world which will be directed by a central authority. Speaker 7: Very clear that the Jews want to exterminate the European race and that the means to weakening the European race would be to dissolve all the European nations, destroy all their cultural heritage and their national traditions and replace that with the European Union and then to invite in Africans, Middle Easterners and Asians to dilute the blood of Europeans through miscegenation to the point where they became a degenerate mixed race.

Speaker 0 states that voters in Pennsylvania and across the country consider immigration a key election issue, specifically the influx of illegal immigrants from over 150 countries. Speaker 0 asks how many illegal immigrants Speaker 1's administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years, suggesting a number like 1,000,000 or 3,000,000. Speaker 1 agrees immigration is a topic of discussion. Speaker 1 states that the U.S. has a broken immigration system that needs repair. Speaker 0 claims that 6,000,000 people have been released into the country.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 on leadership and promises, noting that public faith is essential to recover in the polls. They reference Speaker 1’s pledge to “smash the gangs” and point out that small boat crossings and the use of asylum hotels have continued to rise, asking if the mission is succeeding and whether the promise to end asylum hotels by the end of the parliament (2029) will be met. Speaker 1 responds that asylum hotels peaked at 400 and are now about 197, with some of that decline occurring before they came to power. The criticization centers on the previous government failing to process asylum claims, which allowed tens of thousands to arrive without determination. This, Speaker 1 argues, created a growing pool needing accommodation, making the hotel system “absurd.” The only long-term solution, he says, is to process those claims and determine who should stay and who should be removed. He claims they have removed 50,000 since taking office—the largest number in the best part of a decade—and reiterates a commitment to ending asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, though he notes it was not a fulfilled part of the manifesto. Speaker 0 presses again, asking for progress and whether the target will be met this year, emphasizing taxpayer frustration due to the last government’s mess and the tens of thousands in limbo awaiting decisions. Speaker 1 clarifies that there is no fixed date yet; he wants the timeline brought forward and accelerated, but he does not want to set a date until the team is confident it can be met. He asserts that the evidence of progress will appear in coming months, and, as they move into 2026, there will be visible steps toward closing the hotels. He stresses that the only lasting reduction in asylum hotels will come from swift processing of claims, ensuring those without a right to be here are removed, and that the pursuit of this objective must be brought forward, not delayed.

Could you define the far right? It's a political ideology, but a clear definition is elusive. You mentioned that only fringe commentators oppose your government's hate speech laws, yet 73% of public consultation replies were negative, and 65% oppose these laws according to the last poll. Isn't it your government that holds the fringe position? Public consultations over the past four years show a minority group in the country is targeted and victimized by hate speech and hate crimes. In Ireland, about 17,000 undocumented migrants, including 3,000 children, now have a pathway to regularization announced by Justice Minister Helen MacEntee. This means these individuals, who contribute to society and the economy, can now work towards citizenship.

Spreker 0 stelt dat er sinds het aantreden van het meest rechtse kabinet ooit in juli 2024, volgens het CBS, 273.000 mensen Nederland zijn binnengekomen. Het migratiesaldo overschoot is 130.000 in 1 jaar, wat overeenkomt met een stad als Leiden. Spreker 0 wil een debat met de minister van Asiel en Migratie, mevrouw Fout, over de vraag waarom het kabinet er niet in slaagt immigratie effectief een halt toe te roepen, ondanks verkiezingsbeloften. De SP steunt het debatverzoek, omdat ze het belangrijk vinden om het in brede zin over migratie te hebben en het te zien als vervolg op het eerdere debat over de staatscommissie demografische ontwikkelingen. De SGP en ChristenUnie steunen het verzoek ook. VVD, NSC en BBB steunen het verzoek niet en willen het bespreken in een commissiedebat. Er is geen meerderheid voor het debat. **English Translation:** Speaker 0 states that since the inauguration of what is called the most right-wing cabinet ever in July 2024, according to the CBS, 273,000 people have entered the Netherlands. The migration balance overshoot is 130,000 in 1 year, which corresponds to a city like Leiden. Speaker 0 wants a debate with the Minister of Asylum and Migration, Ms. Fout, on why the cabinet is failing to effectively halt immigration, despite election promises. The SP supports the debate request because they believe it is important to discuss migration in a broad sense and see it as a follow-up to the earlier debate on the state commission on demographic developments. The SGP and ChristenUnie also support the request. VVD, NSC and BBB do not support the request and want to discuss it in a committee debate. There is no majority for the debate.

An interviewer states that undocumented immigrant arrivals quadrupled during the first three years of the speaker's administration compared to the last year of President Trump's term and asks if loosening immigration policies was a mistake. The speaker responds that the problem is long-standing and that solutions have been offered since day one. The interviewer asks again if allowing the increase was a mistake. The speaker says the proposed policies are about fixing, not promoting, the problem. The interviewer reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The speaker claims that due to their actions, they have cut the flow of illegal immigration and fentanyl by half, but congressional action is needed to fix the problem.

Jenny Terry from the Daily Caller News Foundation asks the Secretary about the decrease in border numbers and the low illegal encounters. She questions why people are still being brought through the ports of entry and asks for an explanation.

In 2003, Labour faced a crisis under Tony Blair's leadership. Keir Starmer, a future Labour leader, challenged the government over immigration laws, leading to benefits for economic migrants posing as asylum seekers. Some believe Starmer contributed to Britain's current immigration issues. Can he fix a problem he helped create 20 years ago?

The speaker compares the current immigration situation to a Ponzi scheme, stating that the institution needs constant influx of immigrants to sustain itself. They mention that the number of immigrants coming into the country has reached a saturation point, using the example of Ugandan refugees and Afghan refugees. The speaker highlights that the rate of immigration in the last 25 years has surpassed that of the past 2000 years combined, contradicting the notion that Britain has always been a nation of immigrants.

It's common sense that we have many migrants here illegally who have committed crimes. It's hard to understand why anyone would defend allowing them to stay in the country. If someone is here illegally and engages in criminal activity, they should be removed. This issue was significant in the recent election. In the Senate, with 47 members, if we can't secure at least 7 votes on this matter, it reflects why we lost. This is one of the reasons for our defeat. Brett, consider that perspective; it's a crucial point being made.