reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker expresses the belief that Islam is an ideology that brings hate and terrorism, and therefore does not belong in the Netherlands. They suggest closing the borders to asylum seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries, ending the Schengen agreement, and reinstating border controls. They also propose dismantling Islamic institutions such as mosques, particularly those receiving foreign funding. The speaker advocates for imprisoning or deporting individuals who threaten or use violence, including supporters of jihadist movements. They call on schools, newspapers, and media to display images of Mohammed to demonstrate a refusal to yield to threats and violence. The speaker concludes by telling Muslims who do not respect freedom, democracy, and Dutch laws to leave the country and go to an Islamic nation.

In this video, the speaker expresses strong criticism towards President Joe Biden and his administration's handling of immigration. They argue that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to enter the country and that the razor wires at the border should not be removed, as it is the responsibility of individuals to go through the proper legal process. The speaker also raises concerns about the potential dangers posed by illegal immigration, such as drug smuggling and terrorism. They believe that President Biden's actions are intentional and aimed at causing division and possibly starting a civil war. The speaker concludes by stating their support for former President Trump and the need to take the country back.

The speaker contrasts European political responses to immigration and crime with American policies, arguing that European left-wing politicians ignore urgent problems. They claim: - In Spain, “they just legalized residents of half a million illegal aliens.” - In France, “they throw grenades into hair salons in a broad daylight.” - In Germany, “not a single day goes by without someone being murdered with a knife.” - In Sweden, “you have bomb attack every other day.” The speaker asserts that these are real problems for the European left-wing politicians, yet contends that those politicians do not care. The immediate target is a European debate about the rule of law in the United States and deportation policies: the speaker says, “You are seriously discussing here the rule of law in United States and criticizing American government for deporting illegal aliens, for deporting criminals out of their territory in the same time when Western European cities are gradually turning into a war zone.” A call is made to apply the same approach in Europe: “We should do exactly the same. We should deport them from Europe and not legalize their stay.” The speaker urges listening to them and not to “what you are proposing to all of us,” asserting that “Everybody can see, no, you are enemies of Europe. You hate Europe.” The rhetoric culminates in a warning: “You hate our nations, and you want to destroy the future for our children. We should stop you. We should defeat you politically if we want to survive. Otherwise, it will be the end of Europe.”

Speaker 0: Stop spreading the nonsense that a few bad apples are ruining it for the rest of the Muslims. This is a large majority of 700,000 Muslims who reject our free society. Mr. Prime Minister, you have imported a monster into our country with Islam, which poses a great danger. Here are some proposals for the umpteenth time, Madam Chair. One: acknowledge that Islam is an ideology of hate and terror that does not belong in the Netherlands. Two: immediately close our borders to asylum seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries, reinstate border controls. Three: start dismantling Islamic institutions like mosques, especially those funded by foreign sources. Four: imprison or deport anyone who threatens or uses violence, including hundreds of jihadist sympathizers. And five, ask schools and media to display a Mohammed cartoon to show our unwavering commitment to freedom. Finally, to the Muslims who do not respect our freedom, democracy, and core values, I say: Leave. Go to an Islamic country where you can enjoy Islamic rules. This is our land, not yours. This is the Netherlands.

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.

On August 31, 2015, Angela Merkel, the prime minister of Germany, declared "we can do this" as she opened the borders to millions of refugees. It is claimed that Merkel did not consider whether this action was good for Germany. It is asserted that Germany had no legal or moral responsibility to open its borders to millions of Muslim welfare recipients and that this violated international law. The speaker alleges that the international left supports this because it results in the displacement and destruction of Europeans. The speaker claims that the opening of borders led to mass rape, terrorism, crime, and welfare fraud. Angela Merkel is described as one of the greatest traitors in history, and it is stated that the full consequences of her actions have not yet been realized.

The speaker discusses the Biden administration's immigration policies and resource allocation. When asked about the best use of administrative resources regarding undocumented immigrants, the speaker refrains from stating a specific opinion on what percentage of released immigrants should be allowed to stay. The speaker asserts that all undocumented immigrants released into the country under the Biden administration should be deported. According to the speaker, ICE will prioritize raids against high-threat criminal aliens, and the federal government will use its full power to send all undocumented immigrants home. The speaker also claims that many will choose to leave voluntarily using the CBP home app. The speaker states that taxpayers will not subsidize any undocumented immigrants' presence in the country.

Islam is an ideology that fosters hatred and terror and is not compatible with the values of the Netherlands. The speaker proposes to close borders to asylum seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries, withdraw from the Schengen agreement, and reintroduce border controls. They advocate dismantling Islamic institutions like foreign-funded mosques, including those under Dyanet's authority. The speaker calls for locking up or deporting anyone who threatens or uses violence, and taking preventive action against jihadist supporters. They request all schools, newspapers, and media to display a Mohammed cartoon to demonstrate a refusal to give in to threats and violence. The speaker's message to Muslims in the Netherlands who prioritize the Quran over secular laws is to "get lost" and depart to an Islamic country. The speaker asserts that the Netherlands is "our country." Ruby Yona invites viewers to follow her on social media.

The speaker addresses the audience, stating that the AfD party has never used the word "deportation" and that it was the left-wing media who spread this misinformation. They clarify that the AfD simply advocates for the enforcement of existing laws regarding the expulsion of individuals without the right to stay and foreign criminals, excluding Germans with a migration background who have not committed any crimes. The speaker also mentions that they and other AfD members with a migration background are not afraid of deportation. Lastly, they affirm that their parents are proud of them and even vote for the AfD, as do many other people with a migration background. They wish the audience a wonderful day. Translation: The speaker addresses the audience, clarifying that the AfD party has never used the word "deportation" and that it was the left-wing media who spread this misinformation. They advocate for enforcing existing laws regarding the expulsion of individuals without the right to stay and foreign criminals, excluding Germans with a migration background who have not committed any crimes. The speaker also mentions that they and other AfD members with a migration background are not afraid of deportation. Lastly, they affirm that their parents are proud of them and even vote for the AfD, as do many other people with a migration background. They wish the audience a wonderful day.

**Spanish Summary:** El orador defiende que sellar fronteras y expulsar inmigrantes ilegales no es lo que hace Trump. Afirma que el Partido Popular (PP) coordina centros de menores para acoger inmigrantes. Señala que ante la crisis migratoria, solo las comunidades autónomas gobernadas por el PP (Galicia, Madrid y Aragón) se han ofrecido a ayudar a Canarias. Propone deportaciones masivas para violadores, delincuentes, bandas callejeras, narcotraficantes, yihadistas y quienes entren ilegalmente en el país violentando la frontera. **English Translation:** The speaker argues that sealing borders and expelling illegal immigrants is not what Trump does. He states that the Popular Party (PP) coordinates centers for minors to accommodate immigrants. He points out that in the face of the migration crisis, only the autonomous communities governed by the PP (Galicia, Madrid, and Aragon) have offered to help the Canary Islands. He proposes mass deportations for rapists, criminals, street gangs, drug traffickers, jihadists, and those who enter the country illegally, violating the border.

We're reclaiming our country from those in power who betray us. Under a new UK government, we will detain and deport all illegal immigrants and restore justice to the British people. It's time to remove the elite who disregard hardworking citizens. We are determined to take our country back. Additionally, we demand the release of political prisoners and support for Tommy Robinson.

The speaker discusses the immigration crisis at the southern border, highlighting the role of NGOs in facilitating illegal migration. They express concern over the influx of migrants, particularly military-aged men, and the potential national security risks posed by Chinese migrants. The speaker criticizes the Biden administration's open borders policies and warns of the consequences if the situation is not addressed. They emphasize the need for action to prevent America from being overrun by illegal immigrants.

Speaker 0 expresses a preference for deportations over death camps: "I don't want Hitler death camps. I just want deportations. You know? I don't want them all dead. Anybody." He adds, "I do want them all the fuck out of my country at the use of force, but, you know, that's it." He continues, "Other than that, you know, I I I I'm, like, one step below, you know, the third Reich. No death camps, but go the fuck home. Pretty much. Right? And we want our national identity back. But go the fuck home." Speaker 1 interjects with uncertainty: "I don't think they" Speaker 0 repeats, clarifying his stance: "I I'm, like, one step below, you know, the third Reich. No death camps, but go the fuck home. Pretty much." He adds again, "That's What do I care? I'm married. I'm the one. Yeah. Yeah." He emphasizes the personal boundary of his stance: "He's a Jew. He's a a a He's Alright. Let's go. Alright. We're off. Come on, guys. Follow-up." The dialogue centers on a vehement stance against certain individuals or groups remaining in the country, insisting on deportation by force while rejecting the notion of death camps. The speaker repeatedly rejects the idea of preserving national identity without expelling those targeted, using aggressive language to demand they "go the fuck home." There is an abrupt, fragmented back-and-forth between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with Speaker 0 asserting a position that falls just short of endorsing genocide, explicitly denying death camps but advocating removal, and tying this stance to the notion of reclaiming national identity. The exchange includes a personal aside about marriage and a claim about someone being Jewish but acceptable, followed by a call to continue the discussion with a "Follow-up."

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.

Speaker 0: Stop spreading the nonsense that a few bad apples are ruining it for the rest of the Muslims. This is a large majority of 700,000 Muslims who reject our free society. Mr. Prime Minister, you have imported a monster into our country with Islam, which poses a great danger. Here are some proposals for the umpteenth time, Madam Chair. One: acknowledge that Islam is an ideology of hate and terror that does not belong in the Netherlands. Two: immediately close our borders to asylum seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries, reinstate border controls. Three: start dismantling Islamic institutions like mosques, especially those receiving foreign funding. Four: imprison or deport anyone who threatens or uses violence, including hundreds of jihadist sympathizers. And five, ask schools and media to display a Mohammed cartoon to show our unwavering commitment to freedom. Finally, to the 700,000 Muslims who do not respect our freedom, democracy, and core values, I say: Leave. Go to an Islamic country where you can enjoy their rules. This is our land, not yours. This is the Netherlands.

Europe is changing rapidly and must address its issues or risk disappearing as it's currently known. It's crucial to prevent the entry of illegal immigrants, who may include murderers, drug dealers, and individuals unwanted by other countries. Taking a firm stance on immigration is essential.

- 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 speaker discusses the issue of immigration and the potential dangers it poses. They argue that there is a deliberate plan to undermine countries by encouraging mass migration, which will ultimately lead to the destruction of national borders and cultures. The speaker also highlights the use of propaganda and censorship to control the narrative and demoralize the population. They emphasize the need for individuals to resist and speak out against these actions. The speaker calls for strong leadership and a united front to confront the challenges posed by mass migration and the erosion of national sovereignty.

Speaker 1 stated she never intended to nor will she ever allow America to have a border that is not secure. She believes illegal immigration needs consequences. Part of her plan includes putting in resources, including increasing penalties. The full plan is available at kamalaharris.com.

We aim to consistently deport immigrants who are required to leave and are dangerous. This also serves the interests of Germans with a migration background, who are currently too often held jointly liable. We clearly state to citizens with a migration history: you belong to us, you belong to Germany, work with us for this country. All citizens in Germany have a shared interest in security, prosperity, and especially freedom in Germany. It's worth fighting to ensure this migration turnaround, which will only happen under the leadership of the AFD, finally succeeds.

The speaker states that the idea of law enforcement intentionally allowing individuals to cross the border illegally for the purpose of voting is preposterous. The speaker believes everyone should condemn that rhetoric.

The speaker states they will close the border, but people will still come in legally because the country needs them. The speaker believes the current system is unfair to those waiting in line for years, studying and taking tests. The speaker claims to tell these people to go to the southern border instead, because it's faster.

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.

The speaker asserts the primary concern is everyone's welfare and safety, but believes the individuals in question are illegal migrants, not refugees. The speaker claims it's telling that no one specifies what these people are fleeing from, what wars, countries, or persecution they are escaping. Because of this lack of information, the speaker believes they are by definition illegal immigrants and technically criminals. The speaker states they shouldn't be housed in five-star hotels but in cells. The speaker believes they should not be allowed to leave until they pay for their ticket back. The speaker's question is not where they will be moved to in a year, but how they will be removed from the country.