Louder with Crowder - 🔴 Trump is Winning so Big Even The Left Can't Deny It: Featuring Jason Calacanis of the All In Podcast 2025-10-14 18:05

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 14, 2025 - Louder with Crowder

01:20:21

🔴 Trump is Winning so Big Even The Left Can't Deny It: Featuring Jason Calacanis of the All In Podcast 2025-10-14 18:05

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Um, close the border.
	Okay.
	It always should have been closed.
	So great, check.
	I think we both probably agree: violing criminals and any crime done by somebody who's also here illegally, they should go immediately.
	So I think that's two strong agreements that we'll have.
	Then, how do we deport that?
	I think that it's a legal to come here illegally.
	And I say this as someone who is, you know, was raised in Canada.
	My mom is French Canadian, came here legally.
	I have people who work for me who've come here legally.
	So that is a crime.
	I know that people say it's a misdemeanor, but that's enough for me.
	That's my, I would take it a step further.
	Continue.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I think it's totally valid to have that position as well.
	It is a crime.
	And it's a crime that's been allowed.
	As you mentioned, it's a misdemeanor.
	We don't take it seriously.
	And we, in fact, kind of have waived people in because we need a cheap labor in this country.
	So, how do we deal with it now?
	Well, Trump is at an all-time low in his ratings.
	This is the worst rating since like season five and six of The Apprentice.
	Like, how's that relevant?
	How's it relevant?
	It's very relevant if you want to.
	It's very relevant in terms of convincing you if you want to win the midterms and finish what I call the Trump 2.0 agenda, which is the one I agree with.
	Close the border, lower taxes, fair trade, less regulation, and a smaller government with Doge.
	I agree with that platform.
	That's why I supported Trump in this last election.
	That's also, and freedom of speech and no censorship.
	So if you put that collection of issues, I'll call Trump 2.0, when he brought in a bunch of Democrats, classic New York Democrats, to build out this administration.
	That's a big part of why he won is because he was able to convert fiscally conservative, socially liberal Democrats like Trump.
	That's exactly what Trump is.
	He's a lifelong Democrat who is incredibly certainly the most socially liberal Republican we've had in recent memory.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So he brought all those Democrats in to win for actual Christian conservatives like you.
	And I also am a Christian.
	And so in order to win those, he got that base and then he added something.
	We're going to lose the midterms because Trump has Stephen Miller and Pam Bondi out here doing things that are highly, highly unpopular with those moderates.
	Those moderates are what won him the election.
	Okay, so please tell me, because this is important because you throw it all in your Donald Trump's approval rating.
	And we know, for example, I use this as an example.
	Phelps won Olympic medals in spite of eating McDonald's every day, right?
	It didn't help him.
	So we can't attribute it to McDonald's.
	Donald Trump, his approval, and there's some debate about that about his approval ratings right now, but I know that they're not ideal.
	It may be in spite of the fact that deporting illegal aliens has been consistently and overwhelmingly popular.
	In other words, someone could make the argument that that's what's keeping him afloat when you look at the most recent Harvard Harris poll.
	Deport all immigrants over 54%.
	The last poll that we had that would be accurate showed that a majority of Hispanic Americans, a huge block of them, support deporting all illegal aliens.
	So you're not going to say that he's unpopular because of deportations.
	That would be a pretty big leap to make.
	So violence in chaos is the thing that the moderates, who I represent, as you know, which is why you have me on the show.
	I speak for them.
	They don't like it.
	And so I sent you a chart.
	I think I would encourage you, instead of cherry-picking specific polls, to just look at The Economist and be careful with the language.
	Again, I didn't cherry pick.
	I picked the most recent one.
	You could use CBS and you could use the most accurate ones, and we'll list them all publicly.
	I'm not cherry-picking anything.
	Okay.
	It was an overwhelmingly popular policy, just to be clear.
	And I don't think that what determines what is morally right, right, is popularity, but it is.
	We do have to be clear about that.
	When we talk about violence, we'll have to define that because I agree antifund Black Lives Matter are a huge problem.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we can get to that.
	The horseshoe, the tip-tip-tips of the horseshoe.
	We'll get to that in a minute.
	We'll touch tips.
	So, yeah, we can touch tips, not a problem.
	Just not gay.
	Don't look me in the eyes.
	It's fine.
	It's a little bit.
	I mean, we can correct streams.
	We'll talk off here.
	Okay.
	I have to say, there's a lot of gay shenanigans.
	I was listening to the warm-up to this.
	Because I think it's on the ship.
	We're children, yes, but go on.
	Yes, absolutely.
	But I do because I do not make you bad guys.
	No, no, no, no.
	It's fine, right?
	God loves us.
	Doesn't make you bad guys.
	Red and yellow, black and white.
	But I will say this: we do have to go to Rumble Premium pretty soon.
	So I'd like you to kind of wrap up your premise so we can go to a very quick.
	Look at the aggregate poll data.
	There are people who pull this together like economists silver bullets and they'll pull together all of the things.
	And what you'll see is I gave you a little chart here.
	As you watch Trump's net approval rating, people who approve, minus people who disapprove, it's plummeted.
	It plummeted the first time at Liberation Day when he did the tariffs.
	Obviously, he went too far.
	He pulled back.
	I don't like the term taco because I think it's insulting to the president, but he did adjust.
	Then you had the protest in LA that got violent.
	He dipped again, not releasing the Epstein files, which I know you want to see them released like everybody else.
	That also caused implumbet.
	And now the Chicago ice raids are having him go down.
	So on a practical basis, for the people listening here who are staunch conservatives or part of the MAGA movement or even part of the Proud Boys, losing the midterms is going to be disastrous for Trump.
	You say you're a moderate, but come on, throw an or maybe part of the Proud Boys.
	Like this is this.
	Seven different kinds of misleading.
	It's not a good faith, the kind of smoke that you're throwing there.
	People watching are 1%.
	I just went down like conservatives and then down to MAGA, and then you would say the tip there.
	And then on the other side, it's Democrats, woke Democrats and then Antifa.
	Well, just even the difference is Donald Trump was elected with a mandate of the masses specifically on two issues, immigration and, of course, the economy, because it was disastrous.
	And so when you say that, I didn't see you include, because you don't need to go to Proud Boys, radical Democrats, which would be Joe Biden, which would be Kamala Harris, which would be Elizabeth Warren, right?
	People who believe that it's evil to not allow your child to transition.
	Like, I think they're more radical than the Proud Boys, to be clear.
	So you're doing it on one side.
	No, no, I'm with you on the horseshoe theory.
	I actually totally agree on it.
	But it's not a horseshoe.
	That's the entire mainstream Democrat.
	I'm comparing Donald Trump to the candidates on the left.
	I would say there were a lot of the moderates who now support Trump probably voted for, almost certainly, in my experience, voted for Obama and Clinton.
	Let's put it aside for a second.
	So my first argument to you is it's critical to not have Trump become a lame duck president.
	You got to win the midterms.
	You're going to lose them right now because of what I perceive as people don't like chaos and people don't like the violent nature of the deportations and then rapid fire.
	The other thing I'd like to appeal to you on is there is a better way.
	In no point in history of this country, did we want to have people with masks on, without their badge numbers, going and tackling people?
	Now, I know there are some people who are in the city.
	I agree.
	COVID was a travesty.
	What they were doing to their own citizens was a travesty.
	Yeah.
	Agree with that as well.
	100% agree with it.
	So neither of these things are correct.
	Neither of them should have been done.
	And the difference is one was done against American citizens who were following the law while criminals were aided and abetted.
	And right now, the violence you're talking about comes from illegal immigrants and their supporters and their ilk.
	So I don't have a problem with someone wearing a riot helmet to deport someone who has no business being here.
	I do have a problem with someone wearing a mask during the summer of love, shooting paintballs at American citizens.
	But that's where I'm an extremist.
	What I would say is also, you know, be careful in terms of giving too much power to the federal government because when President AOC is in and she's coming around with a mask on and then picking up people because you said a homophobic joke or that she perceives it or a trans joke and then she comes and knocks on your door like they're doing in the UK and says, oh, I need you to come downtown with me because we have to have a conversation.
	Or like they did here.
	Like they did here in the States with the Department of Misinformation and us being demonetized, us being shadowbank.
	You were in all of them.
	I know.
	I was with Elon during the transition at Twitter when we uncovered all this stuff.
	So I'm going to make a financial one for you.
	Okay.
	If the violence is going to be a good idea.
	I just want to be clear.
	Your first argument is the popularity argument that it's unpopular about optics.
	The second one is a financial one.
	I'm going to do both of these because I think these are the ones that I can get through to you on.
	I know I'm not going to win any of the legal arguments.
	And I know people are tweeting.
	This is what I voted for.
	This is what I voted for.
	I can't get through to you on that.
	So I'm not going to even try.
	You're allowed to have that opinion.
	Hey, people came in illegally, deport every single one of them.
	I, along with the majority of Americans, even up till this minute.
	Yes, go ahead.
	But I think I can win you on these two.
	One, you're going to lose the midterms, and then you're going to lose all power.
	And we're going to spiral back into Trump being impeached and chaos for the last few years of his presidency.
	Second thing I hope I can appeal to you on is there's a better way.
	Okay.
	You can just go, I don't know if you saw the 79-year-old who got tackled and he's suing the government for $50 million.
	He owned, you know, and all this is breaking you, so there'll be back and forths on the details.
	I'm willing to bet there'll be a lot of fourths, but yes.
	Exactly.
	And so, you know, he claims he had well-documented employees.
	And he wound up, you know, getting tackled by these guys.
	They came in like, you know, it's the raid of Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.
	And so it would be much easier to go to that person and just say, can we see the papers of everybody?
	They run off.
	You say, okay, who ran off?
	And you give a $10,000 fine for each person.
	Then the next week, you come back and you give two.
	The only reason these people are here is to make it better lives, putting aside criminals.
	And that's, you know, whatever percentage you want to believe it is.
	But the majority of them are here, as we all know, like our parents who came before us.
	I don't know how many generations you are, but I'm eighth generation Irish here in the country.
	Oh, gross.
	Sorry about that.
	I don't know.
	You're Italian or something.
	I'm French Canadian.
	We're worse than the Irish or Italian.
	I am American.
	And then the worst part is I was born in Detroit, the worst part of the country.
	So believe me, you're gross.
	I'm grosser.
	I get it.
	Yeah, no.
	There's rungs to this.
	Yeah.
	God, French-Canadian.
	Jeez.
	Yeah.
	So here's what we need to understand.
	We're spending $30 billion on ICE.
	We'll get 300 or 400,000 people out in the first year.
	Stephen Miller has done a terrible job on these deportations, even with the violence.
	It's only going to be 300 or 400.
	100 of them will self-deport in all likelihood, and you'll have 300 taken out by force.
	It's much easier on an economic basis rather than spend $60,000 to $100,000 per deportation and lose the midterms and possibly lose 2028 because you create too much chaos and you don't make enough progress that you will turn it into a profit center.
	One of the great gifts Trump has is taking something where we're losing money and turning it into a profit center.
	You give these fines.
	The people who are coming here are coming here for jobs.
	They will leave because they will not have jobs.
	On the employment thing, we are in the lowest unemployment of your lifetime, 4.5% or less for the last couple of years.
	We actually need workers, but better to have them documented, better to have them come through a clean process.
	We all agree.
	So by doing these fines, instead of burning $30 billion a year for four years and burning $120 billion, losing the midterms, probably going to lose 2028, putting all that wind in the face of the Trump 2.0 agenda, you can actually stop the violence, stop the lawsuits, and win over and not lose the moderates who got you here.
	That's my pitch.
	I hear it.
	Tell me if I'm crazy.
	Let me address.
	I think it's a good pitch.
	I think some pretty flawed premises there.
	So I'm not, like you said, there'll be a back and forth with this recent one, this man suing for $50 million, right?
	I get that.
	You sort of try and set the stage that ICE is violent.
	But the truth is the examples that we have for crying out loud, you're talking about the media fomenting violence, right?
	Remember, Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man, turns out MS-13.
	Turns out this guy was a serial criminal.
	Just recently, we had this with the ICE raids.
	The journalist was at Debbie Brockman.
	She said that she was arrested for reporting.
	The reality was that she threw an object at an ICE vehicle.
	We had another one who was Rafi Ola, whatever her name was.
	You guys remember the Van Eyes car wash owner was arrested, we were told, even though he was a citizen.
	The reality is that there were five illegals there.
	They were arrested and the raid was impeding officers.
	I've heard your numbers where you talk about the economic one.
	And just give me, I won't take nearly as much time.
	Where you say that costs $100,000 per violent deportation, just kind of like using the number 8 million to 12 million.
	You always send to pick the low end.
	It's a U Penn study.
	And by the way, these UPenn studies give a range of 30,000 to 109,000.
	So you're taking the high, high end, where even if they average it out, they say 70,000.
	But if we go to the DHS, if we go to CPU.
	I said 600.
	Okay, so it's pretty similar.
	So the real number, the real number, well, we have it 30 to 109.
	The real number, according to DHS, according to other reporting, is $17,000 to $20,000.
	So let's just deal with that and go, okay, you said I was cherry picking.
	You're cherry picking those numbers.
	And I will say this: I understand where you're talking about the midterms and you're talking about optics, but we have to also account for the fact that this is yet again goalpost moving.
	And what do I mean by that?
	You have young people who've lived through this, right?
	You address previous Republicans while not really addressing Democrats.
	We look at this and we go, okay, illegal aliens are costing American taxpayers anywhere from $150 billion to $450 billion per year.
	Conservative estimates are $150 billion.
	I remember because I did a build a wall, changed my mind in 2018, and that number was $116 billion.
	But in dealing with this, let's go through the timeline.
	Building a wall was racist.
	It was opposed.
	They didn't want to build a wall.
	Leftists said, we're going to create sanctuary cities.
	They were opposing the literal deportation of illegal aliens in our federal prisons who had committed violent crimes.
	They oppose that.
	They oppose President Trump when he offered in his first term a DAC, a three-year extension.
	Then they have a policy that leads to 18 million, you say 8, 12 million in about three years.
	And now the left, who had wide open borders, who created sanctuary cities, who said, you know, we're not going to deport violent felons.
	It was never about dreamers.
	It was never about anchor babies.
	They didn't want to deport violent felons in our prison system.
	Say, yeah, yeah, but now, hold on a second.
	We all agree on a sensible border policy, right?
	Well, they didn't.
	And now they say, well, we all just want to deport violent criminals, right?
	But they didn't.
	And now it's just, but how about just a path to citizenship?
	And this is the final argument that I'll make.
	We can go through the economics of it.
	We can go through the optics of it.
	I think that Donald Trump would be far worse off if he didn't deliver on the promises, especially the promises that, by the way, were the reason for him being propelled into office on immigration and on the economy.
	But it is morally imperative that we create a culture of deterrence.
	And what do I mean by that?
	I get it where people say, hey, even though we don't want to deport violent felons, and even though we create sanctuary cities, and even though legal immigrants have to live in this personal hell that we've created in blue cities across this country, there are still people, my God, who are here and just want to seek out a better life.
	But even if we are as charitable as possible, that is what allows, encourages, and abets more slaves on earth than ever in recorded history.
	A huge amount of sex slaves, 300,000 under Joe Biden's tenure, 13,000 of whom have been recovered.
	And I don't know if you had the opportunity to.
	I would highly encourage you to do so.
	Tom Hallman was on this show, and I asked him about this exactly.
	I said, look, what are people who are just seeking a better life?
	50 grand first appearance.
	There we go.
	So put in the camera.
	I said, how do you address people who say, hey, look, these people are just seeking a better life, and we should only be deporting, for the first time, Democrats agreeing with it, you know, violent felons.
	And he answered that question.
	And this is something that people need to understand.
	It doesn't exist in a vacuum.
	And the worst thing you can do is create a strong border policy, but at the same time, give some kind of a path to amnesty or citizenship because it only encourages and will propel the human traffickers and the cartel forward.
	Here's Tom Holman's answer.
	Let me just play this clip for you.
	And then, because I gave you a long, and then let's go back and forth.
	But Tom Holman, very powerful answer.
	And those who are not, we're going to continue on Normal Premium.
	You'll be able to watch it probably later on Jason's channel.
	Let's watch this Tom Holman clip.
	Here we go.
	If they knew what I knew, if they wore my shoes for the last, you know, I started a board in 1984.
	If they wore my shoes for the last four years, if they stood in the back of the tractor trailer like I did, surrounded by 19 dead people who baked to death, including a five-year-old little boy who begged his father not to let him die, but that was the first child to die.
	When they standing back there and you smell it and you see it and you feel it, when they talk to little girls like I have, as young as nine years old, that's been raped multiple times by the members of the cartel.
	When you get down and talk to that little girl like I did and you see everything innocent and pure everything innocent and pure within her has been stolen and she has no faith in humanity anymore.
	Her life will never be the same.
	Wear my shoes for four decades and see the travesties I've seen.
	Go to Phoenix, Arizona and run Operation Ice Storm where smuggling cartels are ripping each other off for the people they smuggle because they're worth a lot of money.
	And when Alien couldn't afford to pay the smuggling fees, they agreed to $10,000 smuggling fee.
	They call the relative up, okay, we got your guy here.
	Now I've got your brother here.
	You owe us $20,000.
	They say, no, it's $10,000.
	Well, guess what?
	We're going to make a $20,000.
	If you don't pay it, we'll kill them.
	And they did.
	They would call relatives up and put them on the phone and listen to a relative get tortured and slowly killed because they pay the smuggling fees.
	So I can go on and on and on.
	Wear my shoes for 40 years.
	See what I've seen?
	You can understand my anger when you open up a border.
	When Joe Biden won the election, six months before the election, I wrote an op at Foxnews.com.
	I said, if Joe Biden becomes president, we lose the border.
	And what does that mean?
	More children will die.
	More women would get raped.
	More aliens would die.
	More Americans will die.
	More public safety threats will cross the border.
	More fentanyl is going to get in the country.
	I call it because I've seen it for four decades.
	So when people say, well, you're angry, why are you so emotional?
	you don't know what I know.
	And we are back.
	And again, this will be available for everyone there.
	Sorry, we have to do this.
	But there's that.
	So if we're going to make the moral argument, I think it's immoral to have open borders.
	So does every other country on the face of it.
	Sounds like now you're on board with having strong, closed borders.
	Great.
	For the first time.
	I think we have our moderates.
	But it's not been the Democratic Party.
	And it certainly wasn't the policy.
	And of course, it wasn't the policy of the Republicans either.
	Yeah.
	They wanted to pour us.
	Well, it is a policy of Donald Trump, and it is a policy that Americans support right now.
	So we can't.
	You made incredible arguments against ones that positions I didn't take.
	So I wanted to give you the Shrawman of the Year.
	Well, you said there was a better way.
	And you were basing it on faulty costs from UPenn studies that I cited.
	I broke them.
	You always use the high end when it favors you and the low end when it favors you.
	Just like going to MAGA, Proud Boys.
	I get it, and I appreciate it.
	Hold on a second.
	Hold on a second.
	I gave you a very, very long swab.
	Yeah, but this is bad faith now.
	No, no, no, no.
	What's bad faith is talking about Proud Boys.
	I'm just saying the math.
	Give it, hold on a second.
	Explain the math.
	It's just menu.
	Allow me to assert my presupposition first because I have it.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Don't get tricked.
	And I'm not getting tricky.
	You're a little tricky.
	I'm going through your math.
	I'm going through what you've cited.
	I don't care about Ronald Reagan.
	I don't care about what we're talking about with George W. Bush.
	I'm not fine.
	I got it.
	What we're talking about right now is the deportations where you said ICE is violent.
	It's not.
	I give you multiple examples where the case is the people are violent, right?
	And they're trying to subvert the will of the American people.
	Where you say that it costs American taxpayers more?
	No, it doesn't.
	Illegal aliens cost the taxpayers more.
	Now, if we just want to get two optics in winning the midterms, well, then I would say this.
	You want to dance.
	And none of us can actually have an answer, right?
	We won't know until the midterms.
	And even then, we wouldn't have an answer because he could lose in spite of his popularity on immigration.
	The Epstein files, a big ding.
	The tariffs, that's a big ding at that point in time, especially when you have an incredibly biased media who misrepresent it.
	I'm not talking about the optics and the midterms.
	I'm talking about this policy, which was specifically addressing the idea of have a heart.
	I think if you want to have a heart, you have to deport every person you possibly can who's here illegally right now.
	Good news is, like you're saying, a lot of them are self-deporting.
	Seal up the border.
	That's the moral imperative.
	And that's what people want.
	Yeah, so just to clean up, I think you're making it as if we have this trend of doing the numbers wrong.
	If you ask the comment browser by, just okay, if you ask the comment browser by perplexity, I'm not sure if you gentlemen have ever tried it, but it's an excellent browser.
	You use a promo code, Crowder for 10%.
	I appreciate it.
	Gentlemen and the scholars, sir.
	Absolutely.
	Well, we always got a little pause for the cause there.
	According to comment, ICE 2025 budget, around $28.7 billion.
	Yep.
	And the ICE has deported nearly 200,000 people first seven months of 2025, placing it on track to exceed 300,000 deportations by the end of the year.
	You just put those numbers together, 30 million, 300,000, you get the 100,000 number.
	The reason there's a little debate about this is some people are talking about the incremental cost.
	So when you hear the 17 or the 30K, what they're talking about is the incremental cost of sending them over a plane, the legal issues, all that.
	But if you take a holistic number, just take the budget and divide it by the number.
	Let's take the ICE annual budget.
	You could take the annual budget and then there's going to be plus plus plus on top of that, all these settlements of lawsuits and plane traffic.
	Ah, the plus plus plus.
	Does it take the minus minus minus into account?
	For example, the peripheral effects of a 96% decrease in crossings or 1.6 million self-deportations?
	Can we do the minus minus?
	Well, it's possible in a couple of years we could lower the ICE budget if we were to automate the wall on the southern border.
	That is possible with new technologies, but that would be like a five to ten.
	No, I'm talking about factoring into the cost where you just say 100,000, taking the annual budget and dividing it by deportations, right?
	That's not according, according to the DHS, and according to many media sources, which we will list publicly, it's $17,000 to $20,000.
	And what you just said is there's a plus plus plus the lawsuits.
	I'm going, yeah, but that peripheral.
	The plus plus plus is the incremental.
	The incremental.
	The 17 number is the, yeah, what they're doing is they're not including the overall budget of ICE, which tripled this year.
	But anyway, it's definitely not 17.
	It's definitely not 120.
	So we'll just agree.
	It's somewhere from 40 to 80.
	We can just agree on that.
	And I think it's 17 or 20.
	Who are your co-host names?
	I'm sorry.
	I don't want to call them Baba Booi and Artie.
	Gerald is here and Josh Feierstein is here.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Josh, let me go on to the number of things.
	I'm addressing that, and then let's move on to the next claim.
	No, you can't just take the annual budget and go, and this is what it is.
	We're going to estimate increasing costs and then throw lawsuits in there.
	Hold on a second.
	There are much more notable numbers that we need to take into account or cost in effect.
	Peripheral effect of 96% of a decrease in crossings, which of course will affect the budget, and 1.6 million self-deportations.
	So you can't say the incremental costs based off of simply an annual budget that cannot be predicted and not take into account the savings from the biggest peripheral numbers over which this policy has had a cause and effect.
	It's not fair to do that one way and not the other.
	It's just not accurate.
	I'll take the lowest end of the range.
	It'll be 40K.
	And we can work with that number.
	If we work with those numbers, it's a much better, and one of your co-hosts said this on a previous episode.
	And I think you may have agreed.
	Increasing the number that we pay people to self-deport would be magical because you would just have them flowing over the border.
	And if you combined the idea that you endorsed, which is increasing the number we pay them to leave, and your co-hosts came up with and noted in the last episode or two episodes ago, if you combine that with my idea, and there's no bad ideas, we just should put these ideas out here and we should try together to brainstorm them.
	Well, there are some bad ideas.
	Come on.
	The final solution is not a grand one.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, fair enough.
	And by the way, I'm not comparing anyone here to Hitler.
	I'm just saying there can be bad ideas, just to be clear.
	I mean, Stephen Miller, you do get a little gerbil vibes on the margins, but let's put that aside.
	One of those Jewish Nazis.
	I mean, that is the great paradox.
	Or it's just not true.
	Literally, though, but he does take the verbiage from some of those speeches.
	I think he does it to troll to bait the Democrats into calling him Hitler so that they can say, well, we're not Hitler, obviously.
	Anyway, let's put aside the politics of it.
	If you go with my idea, which he didn't address, of fining the business owners, I just want you to say, hey, J. Cal, that's a great idea.
	We should find the business owners.
	I think we should.
	Great, perfect.
	So now we agree.
	I think we should do all of it.
	Yeah.
	Perfect.
	I guarantee you, you win the midterms if you do it with kindness.
	You're a Christian.
	I'm a Christian.
	Christ said to us, how you treat the meek and the poor is how you treat me.
	These are amongst the meekest and the poor.
	And I'm not just pulling the Christ card here to do a gotcha to you.
	I'm doing it because, no, no, I'm doing it because I am a Christian myself and I grew up Catholic and I believe that.
	I believe how you treat the poor is how you treat God himself.
	It's how you treat Christ.
	And you agree with me, I know, if you are informed.
	No, I don't agree with you.
	I don't agree with you.
	No, let me explain to you where I don't agree.
	I do believe that we are a nation of borders and we need to treat our people here who definitely are struggling, have had some tough breaks with compassion and empathy.
	I certainly don't think that people have committed a crime to come here who would be tolerated in most nearly no other countries with this level, this level of magnitude when we're talking about 18 million people over the last three years.
	I don't think that's compassionate.
	I think when we have a struggling American middle class, and Barack Amon just talked about the wealth gap, I talked about the wealth transfer and the increase in poverty that sometimes you see, that's the greater problem, which I think we would both agree as moderates.
	The wealth gap is not as important as the poverty and the increase therein.
	No, I don't think it's empathetic to allow people into this country who cannot be tracked as you enable drug cartels, MS-13 gang members that you cannot deal with any other way outside of sealing up a border and creating a culture of deterrence, which at the same time will save the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars.
	And you're misrepresenting the policy or the idea that Gerald proposed.
	I believe that was kind of tongue-in-cheek with a very, very short turnaround timeframe.
	Here's what mine is.
	Yeah, go after the business owners.
	Agree.
	Yeah, seal up the border.
	Absolutely agree.
	Great.
	check check we're good we were saying for years hey how about we start with deporting violent felons It was never done.
	Democrats fought it.
	They created sanctuary cities.
	You could not deport violent felons who were here illegally in our prison system.
	Deport them, deport everyone else who's broken the law.
	If you want, hey, you know what?
	If you want to go to path to citizenship, how about this?
	All right, you're here.
	You just want to be American.
	Would you agree with this?
	Go after the businesses, everything else you're saying.
	Okay, immediately you have to pay your back taxes that you haven't paid an income tax, along with interest, 9% a year.
	You have to pass a civics and language test that shows you understand our national language here.
	You speak it fluently.
	You're going to pay a remittance tax from here on out, 50% for every dollar sent out of this country that doesn't benefit the American taxpayer or worker and proof of contributing to your community.
	If you do that immediately, starting this second, maybe there's a way to work toward a path to citizenship.
	Should it come with those prerequisites or which ones are you proposing?
	I think it's a brilliant proposal.
	And your proposal is very similar to the point-based system in Canada, which that's where you were born.
	Yeah.
	I was born in Detroit, but I was raised in Montreal.
	Got it.
	Both terrible cases.
	So then you know the point-based system.
	And they have that also in New Zealand, Australia.
	And actually, the Nordics have done this as well, which is where you say, hey, if you speak the language, you get two points.
	If you speak it fluently, if you have a college degree, if you're investing in the country, you just add up the points.
	People with the most points go to the front of the line.
	What you've described is that you're not going to be able to do that.
	But it's a pass or fail.
	Yes.
	It's all of it or you're gone.
	Perfect.
	So pretty extreme.
	I think what you do is you start with yours.
	Start with yours.
	You got to hit seven out of seven or however many bullet points you got.
	If you hit seven of seven, you stay.
	And, you know, the thing I think that was lost is the beauty of the melting pot in America.
	This was drilled into us as Gen Xers.
	As a millennial, I don't know what that is.
	One note, just really quickly, because this is really important.
	I see what you, and you're very clever with it.
	That point system only applies to people who migrated legally to those countries, right?
	Just are we clear about that?
	100%.
	So the point system, just to be clear, in Norway, for example, in Korea, it doesn't apply to people who've entered illegally in those countries.
	The due process is, you're gone, yeah, right?
	This is why you're saying that.
	Yeah, you are so Christian that you are taking something that was just for people coming legally and you're giving the opportunity to give it to the poor and the meek who came here illegally and who did something wrong.
	Christ forgave the people who put him on that cross.
	Christ forgave the people who were tax collectors who were predatory with the poor.
	You, as a Christian, are being actually very kind to the poor with your proposal.
	Now, I might say you hit four of seven or you get five years to do it, but we're just splitting years here.
	Well, no, we're not splitting here.
	Otherwise, you're gone right away.
	In other words, if you don't pay your back taxes today, in other words, while you're sitting in the ICE facility, back pay now or you're gone.
	So I'm not saying you even have time to get your finances today.
	I might take a more, I may take a slower approach to it, but I'm with you on that.
	And this is where I think the country could do more work.
	This is where, dare I say, I think, Stephen, we did some good work today, which is just taking a moment to consider the other person's position and maybe meeting them halfway and thinking as all Americans and taking all Americans' positions and just trying to find a way to agree on what we can agree on and make some forward progress, as opposed to what's happening in this country right now, which is the extremes which win the primaries now have taken over the dialogue.
	What we did here today is we thought about some ideas that you don't hear in mainstream media.
	We don't hear these ideas and this granular discussion about point-based systems, about, hey, what's the actual real number and can we triangulate on it and get a point-based system aside from you and you pulled a bait and switch and attributed it to illegal immigration when it only applies to legal immigrants.
	They're far more stringent.
	I'm saying a test that no one can do.
	I'm just giving you credit.
	I was giving you credit.
	I know, I know, but we're not actually discussing a point-based.
	That's a great idea.
	I know, but the problem is you've been regurgitating a lot of the mainstream talking points here today while distancing yourself from it.
	The idea that ICE is violent.
	You know that there have been a ton of false stories.
	You know, the media has fomented violence.
	Of course, there'll be stories that...
	That's important.
	Listen, if you told me, like, should you trust the media, I would just pull up a chart that shows trusted media has plummeted our whole lifetime.
	So again, it's another straw man argument.
	I've never argued that you should trust the media.
	I didn't say you should.
	I said you're using their points.
	You trust them enough to use their talking.
	No, no, I'm not using their points.
	They talk a lot.
	So, everything we've said today here, probably 90% of it has been said on Fox or by Rachel Maddow or by Tucker.
	You know, everybody's talking about every point.
	But the thing that we made progress here, despite you not wanting to give us credit for it, and I'm going to make you give us credit for it, is that we listened to each other deeply.
	We got beyond the talking points in mainstream media and said, hey, maybe there's some common ground here where we could work towards something.
	And if you and I both agree the border should be closed, that we shouldn't blow a bunch of money on this, and that Americans should come first, I think we've got a pretty good path here to maybe coming up with some solutions that take both sides into account.
	And that's what I'm hoping we see more of.
	That's why I came on the program.
	I appreciate you.
	And by the way, I really do appreciate you coming on the program.
	My solution is to seal up the border and deport every single illegal legal alien you find.
	I was proposing.
	I'm going to get a $40 million.
	What will that cost?
	How much are you willing to spend?
	Well, it costs $150 to $450 billion per year to the taxpayer.
	Just to give you an idea, too, these are estimates.
	That's why they're so wide.
	I mean, I think we could both agree, right?
	$500 billion a year in fraud.
	That's just vapor, right?
	If you just add up the remittances from India, you just add up the illegal immigration and you add up the fraud, not waste, not necessarily misspending or inflation costs of government, you're at $1.2 to $1.5 trillion.
	Hey, that could help a lot of Americans.
	You know, Jesus Christ, empathy.
	But instead, we've allowed this to balloon completely out of control and lost sight of it.
	And every single proposal that has been put before the left has been a no, including deporting violent felons from our prisons.
	And now they say, no, no, hold on a second.
	We've always wanted a secure border.
	No, they don't.
	It's bullshit.
	I'm not going to accept that premise.
	Let me ask you one thing, though.
	You talk about the extremes, right?
	Because they win primaries.
	This is what's interesting to me.
	Would you say that, for example, paying for transgender surgery for inmates, taxpayer-funded, would you say that's pretty extreme?
	Oh, don't get me started on the trans stuff.
	But would you say that's pretty extreme?
	It is insane.
	Okay.
	It's deranged.
	Because there was no primary.
	I'm trying to come up with a more extreme term than deranged.
	It is sociopathic to do something like that.
	I agree.
	It's deranged.
	But there was no primary.
	And the person who supported that, who, by the way, followed the man who also supported that, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, she was a candidate.
	So we can't blame this on primaries.
	And I don't know how you say the most extremes win primaries when you just said that we have Donald Trump, who won the primary, right, in 2015, 2016, where he was the most socially liberal Republican that we've seen in the modern era.
	He was a law and order president.
	He was an illegal immigration president.
	But like you said, pretty moderate by all accounts, right?
	So I don't know how that checks out.
	I can.
	I can explain that.
	Great.
	Great challenging question.
	So what he did is during the primaries, he said, I will, for the evangelicals, I will overturn Roe v.
	Wade, and I will do that for you.
	And I will turn over two or three seats in the Supreme Court and do that.
	Incredibly unpopular, except amongst a very small part of the country.
	About 20% wanted to see Roe v.
	Wade overturned.
	And so he did that.
	And then he took credit for it.
	Now, that was unpopular with 60 or 70% of the country who want to see women make that own decision or have limitations.
	And that's why when he's a very European, I think it's why he got a massive turnout.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I think the abortion issue, when you go back and look at it, because you have to understand those primaries, I'm talking about beating out the Republicans.
	Other Republicans weren't willing to take that position.
	He was.
	So that's just but one example.
	You think that would contribute to it?
	Just to be clear, this is an actual question.
	More than his stance on immigration, which he repeated?
	Look, immigration.
	2024, obviously, immigration was the big winner.
	Back then, abortion was a big part of mobilizing evangelicals and Christians to come down.
	The speech when he came down the escalator, please refresh my memory, Jason.
	That speech when he came down the escalator.
	Am I misremembering it or was he talking about they're not sending their best illegal immigration, our border and law and order?
	Wasn't that kind of the speech he gave when he announced?
	Absolutely.
	It's been an issue for him from day one.
	I'm telling you the one I think that most people believe tipped it over.
	And you know what?
	And not every issue lands.
	The trans issue was the hugest mistake the Democratic Party made because if you look at the DSM, you know, up until the last one, it was gender dysphoria.
	It was a mental illness.
	It was a mental condition that was to be treated in that way.
	And then the Democrats did one of the stupidest decisions ever.
	They decided that this would be a cost celebrity, like gay rights.
	And it wasn't.
	This is an incredibly small niche issue.
	And if you talk to any Democrat woman quietly and you surveyed them and said, do you think you should give a double mastectomy or castration hormones to a child?
	They would say, are you crazy?
	What is this, Dr. Mengele?
	This is the craziest thing I've ever heard.
	But the Democrats conflated what they were experiencing in New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles and these little pockets to think that applies to women everywhere.
	It does not apply to women everywhere, obviously.
	So this is amongst the stupidest things the Democrats did.
	And that's really how they handed the election to Trump.
	And I think the number one reason they lost was just picking Kamala without even having a primary.
	Number two was the border.
	I would probably say the trans thing was number three.
	If you look at the money that was spent on ads, the most effective one.
	Yeah.
	The most effective one was she's for they them.
	Yeah.
	And so you're going to get strong agreement with me there on that one.
	And again, I'm a moderate.
	I'll vote forever the best candidate is.
	Yeah, but yeah.
	And this goes back to your point about sort of the mainstream media talking points.
	Yeah.
	Because you say, yeah, most Democrat women, not a single one on the national platform, right, of DNC.
	Would we agree on that?
	They all follow a lockstep on the trans issues.
	All notable Democrats.
	Absolutely.
	Every president, vice president, virtue signaling, dumb.
	So they all are all having to reverse it now.
	They're all having to reverse it now and say, I don't know if you saw Emmanuel, Ari Emmanuel, coming out and saying like he's against it.
	Kind of mostly.
	And what we're going to see, something you should look into.
	Well, can I just continue that thought?
	Because this is the point that's a detransitioning moment.
	How did they all get together in a room and make this giant mistake and make it a part of their platform?
	And I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree.
	And I understand you looking out for optics and midterms.
	I disagree with you strategically.
	By the way, I would assume that you probably predicted Hillary Clinton was going to win that election, right?
	No, I'm a poker player.
	I play high-stakes poker, in fact.
	And if you told me you have pocket ACEs and you're playing two other players, and there's a pretty good chance you're going to lose.
	And, you know, I think Nate Silver had it at 65 to 75 to 25 to 35 percent, depending on the month or the week before it.
	That's that means you have a very significant chance of winning.
	One in three is a significant chance of winning.
	So I think people just fundamentally don't understand probability in this country.
	Okay, so you said that Donald Trump was likely to win.
	And that's credit to you.
	You were clairvoyant in a way that the New York Times and mainstream press was not.
	And that's very impressive.
	He wasn't the likelihood.
	He had a strong chance.
	But I will say this: as someone who has been around, I know I'm pretty young, but been around a long time and was at Fox News for four and a half years, left there with my hair on fire, did stuff with HLN and all these other networks.
	They were saying that Mitt Romney was the next George Washington.
	They were telling us who's most likely to win, what's going to win primaries, and they were wrong most steps of the way, just like the Democrat Party was wrong, where every single person made the mistake of LGBTQAAIP.
	And I do think we both would have to agree that Donald Trump has sort of turned over that cart in the sense that, hey, you know what?
	There's an us versus them.
	You often say we, we.
	People who vote for Donald Trump are saying we, the American people of this country and them, is not just Democrat or Republican.
	It's those institutions that we have been commanded to trust.
	And those institutions, this is something that I wanted to ask you, where you say, and ICE is violent.
	People don't like it.
	Okay.
	And then you say, and this is actually more costly than if we just said these people self-deported gave them a close to citizenship.
	And you say it's very, he's going to lose the primaries.
	And this is a very unpopular policy.
	Okay.
	Good chance.
	And then you cited some recent example, which I'm sure, by the way, will be turned around in its head and we'll find out that it's another bullshit story, just like we did with Brego Garcia and these other people mentioned.
	Can I ask you, because you say they don't have these conversations, what that you have presented is in any way discernible from legacy media mainstream talking points?
	Because I can't.
	Oh, I don't think the legacy media cares about anything other than ratings.
	So they will pick their topics and stories based on what gets them the most money from advertisers.
	But they hold the same stance in all these issues, that ICE is violent while not discussing the actual violence, right?
	Exacerbating, fermenting the violence, this idea that Donald Trump is deeply unpopular because of immigration, not in spite of the fact that he's overwhelmingly popular.
	Yeah, so I'll tell you where I deviate.
	I'll give you a place where I deviate.
	When it comes to cities with crime, I lived in San Francisco for a bit.
	It was brutal and I was near the tenderloin.
	I'll tell you where the Democrats are making a really significant mistake.
	When you talk to anybody who lives in a violent area, my brother was a cop during Stop Ask Frisk.
	It wasn't stop and frisk.
	It was stop asking frisk.
	Very important note there.
	If you ask anybody.
	Yeah.
	And, you know, a couple of questions.
	If you jump the turnstile or you're loitering, it's not the end of the world.
	When they ask, I have a hot tip.
	I just say no.
	Yeah.
	But, you know, when I, it was interesting in New York, when stop, ask, and frisk happened, the communities that were the most in favor were the poorest communities with the projects, with black and brown people in them, poor people in them, because they were the most impacted by crime.
	And another stupid decision by Democrats is when Trump says, hey, we're going to send in the National Guard to help you with crime, the easiest thing to say is, oh, thanks, Mr. President.
	Here's the four hotspots.
	Can we put people there?
	And how long can you keep them there?
	How long do we get them for before you move to the next city and help us remove these gangs?
	Instead, they fall for the trap because Democrats are dopes.
	They're idiots right now.
	They fall for every Republican position or booby trap that they lay for them.
	And J.D. Vance, friend of mine, really does a great job at laying these traps all the time.
	And this is the easiest one to navigate.
	They could say, we're going to pull up the National Guard, great decision.
	When I lived in San Francisco, David and I led a campaign to get Chesa Boudin out, and we succeeded.
	And then what we learned during that was it didn't even matter because the judges in San Francisco would just let them out anyway.
	And now Dan Lori won on a little bit of safety.
	He's arresting people at a great clip and trying to do the right thing.
	And he's facing the same thing.
	The judges won't put people in jail.
	So, you know, those are the same.
	So what part of this is a trap?
	This is where we, I guess, view it differently.
	I view it as decades of Democrat rule and correcting the wrong, but you're saying a trap.
	It's not an accident that they've led to this policy.
	When Trump says, I'm going to send the National Guard, fighting it is the trap.
	You should just say, absolutely, we'll do it.
	Instead, what is J.B. Pritzker doing?
	He's like, you can't stop crime in my city.
	We need this crime.
	That's literally what he's telling the voting populace: no, no, no, no.
	I'm pro-crime.
	You want to stop the crime?
	I'll keep it going.
	It's so dumb.
	You just have to, again, like our conversation here today, you know, it's not unreasonable to want to fix immigration.
	And if you reframe it and you put it into buckets, illegal immigration, compassionate immigration, and then recruiting the greatest talent in the world, which we didn't get into, but I'd love to come on again and talk to you about H-1B visas and all that, which is an hour-long conversation.
	If we broke it into those and we just agreed on some numbers, hey, we can have this many compassionate, like true asylum seekers, not like I got the test off of TikTok and I cut and paste the text into the form, but like you actually passed it.
	Define asylum seeker.
	What is a legitimate refugee?
	A legitimate refugee would be if they went back to their country, they would be murdered or killed for their beliefs, religious, political, et cetera.
	And we have some vested interest in that country.
	So the classic example would be Russians when they were defecting to the United States, Olympians, et cetera.
	Remember Moscow and the Hudson where Robin Williams was based on their trend.
	Oh my God, he's defecting.
	Yes.
	He's defecting?
	Yeah.
	Rest in peace, Robin Williams.
	The good.
	But, you know, we would want to accept them because there's a benefit to the country.
	There's a strategic benefit.
	And the same thing with the people in Afghanistan who helped us take out the Taliban and find Osama bin Laden.
	If there was somebody in Pakistan who helped us figure out where Osama bin Laden's compound was being held, Cuban Americans would be an example, right?
	People fleeing the cash regime.
	Sure, sure.
	That's, I think, the most appropriate example because we're also a country that could be argued is in close proximity as opposed to other refugees or asylum seekers who should go to their nearest nation.
	And then, in terms of recruiting talent, what we should use as a really interesting playbook is what happened during the Manhattan Project.
	A lot of incredible Jewish scientists left Germany.
	They fled.
	And then we went and we looked for the German scientists who were the next smartest who were working there on rockets and engines, and we recruited them.
	And recruiting the most talented, most intelligent people from Pakistan, which has distributed nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea, you can jump down a whole route.
	Well, the problem is this is another hour conversation.
	We're talking about H-1B.
	So can we hold that for another?
	Because I would love for you to come back and discuss it.
	I feel like we got a vibe going here.
	And I'm anti-H-1B.
	I think that if the most talented existed in Pakistan or India, it wouldn't look like Pakistan or India.
	But I know that that's reductive.
	And again, that's a little, it's a little bit racist.
	I accept it.
	Yeah, I think India sucks.
	I think India sucks.
	No, no, I'm not a little bit.
	I'm all.
	Let me be really clear.
	We're talking about India and Pakistan.
	There is nothing about India or Pakistan that I want to import to the United States.
	No, you got to try the chicken makne.
	You got to try the chicken.
	All right, food, but we already have that here.
	We can still have that with the folks who are here.
	If you want to get great engineers to make incredible products like Comet by Perplexity, use the promo code Steve Crowder to get six months' freeze.
	You're not building Perplexity.
	I think you actually can do it without people who poop in streets and whose greatest export is credit cards.
	I've got you guys on here.
	What do you guys think of our third?
	It's a third.
	Hey, why have they never gotten it right?
	Because you just said we're a nation of immigrants.
	I do want to go back to this.
	We're a nation of immigrants, right?
	You said built by immigrants.
	Okay.
	What's the difference?
	Why does India still look like India in these countries?
	Like, what's the difference?
	And then one final question.
	You mentioned legitimate refugees, asylum seekers.
	They would have to be fleeing a nation where they would be politic, politically persecuted, or for their faith, where they would be killed if they went back.
	What percentage of the 40 million people here illegally right now do you think would be made up of legitimate refugees, asylum seekers?
	We both would agree it's single digits.
	It's very, very low.
	I would say less than 1%.
	I mean, you're talking about a very small, you're talking about a small number of countries that are small countries.
	Right.
	So it's an outcome.
	I was going to say Venezuela.
	It is absolutely an outlier, which is why it's not.
	And then what's the difference between immigrants from these countries that are third world countries that are awful, that have nothing that we want to import culturally?
	We're talking about the culture.
	And the people who founded the United States.
	Like, you say, is there a difference, for example, between immigrants who come who have a shared culture, a shared language, a shared value system, coming to the United States with no promise of anything in return versus people coming from a third world crap hole, I'll use that term.
	I don't think it's racist at all, to a giant welfare state in the United States.
	Is there a difference?
	Certainly there's a difference.
	And I don't mean to speech police you, but the proper terms now are frontier and emerging markets in the developed world.
	Okay.
	So, Stephen, if you could please frontier development.
	I'll just shorthand will be inferior country.
	You know, and people said that about America.
	And I say it about Canada, but I'll say it about Indian Pacific.
	I don't know why you got to punch down on Canada.
	Come on, man.
	Haven't they been through enough?
	They're awful.
	I get it.
	But I just want to drive that point home.
	Yeah.
	Absolutely.
	So I think the way to look at it is: yes, the people who came here to America, you know, that was really hard to get here.
	It was a real struggle to survive here.
	These were the rugged of the most rugged, brave people in the world.
	And if you were to look at folks coming across the southern border, is it as tough of a trip as you described it and as Tom Holland described it?
	Yeah, pretty rough.
	Pretty rough.
	Is there a difference in values and what they are seeking?
	That's what I'm trying to get to.
	Because that's where you disconnect with the average American worker.
	I think you have a blind spot here.
	I grew up blue-collar.
	My mom's a nurse.
	My dad's a bartender.
	Okay, then the answer should be easy.
	So, no, what I'll say is it's a mixed bag.
	I think a number of them are coming here.
	If you were to look at Muslim countries specifically, some number of them do not assimilate.
	And assimilate is a dirty word right now, but I think it's a very important one.
	You pointed out, do you speak the language?
	Do you understand the culture?
	And in Europe, there was a big problem of them not assimilating.
	And then you'll have second and third generation French citizens who are not accepted into the country where they were born.
	And then this creates, you know, really dark times for those countries.
	And so, no, you don't, you want to make it clear.
	If you want to come to this country, you got to understand what it means to be an American.
	You got to speak the language.
	I'm all for assimilation and the melting pot.
	So we're in strong agreement there.
	And that's why we should take the most rugged individuals.
	And that's actually why the point-based system exists.
	You can pair the point-based system with the needs of the country.
	If we don't have enough doctors, we don't have enough.
	Because there's 7 million people looking for jobs, you understand.
	And we have more than those job openings.
	So even in the United States right now, the reason we have the lowest unemployment of our lifetimes is because a lot of great immigrants came here and had kids, or immigrants themselves came here and started amazing companies, including Elon, including Sergey Brin from Google.
	You know, we have a long history in this country of those immigrants who really work hard and strive.
	Theoretically, you should have been amongst them, Stephen.
	I don't know what happened there.
	But these are again, I was born in Detroit, but it's technically a third world emerging frontier or whatever.
	It's a frontier emerging market, whatever gay language they want us to use now.
	We call it New Reut now.
	It's the New Reuters.
	Is it New Reut?
	Well, the funny thing is, when your new shit looks just like your old shit, you haven't improved your shit.
	That's the problem with Detroit.
	But what's the difference as far as culturally and values, right?
	Because you have Americans who, let's be honest, someone from Ireland and someone from Italy and someone from England, assuming they speak the language, and back then immigrants largely did.
	It's not like one is from Mars and from Venus.
	It's not the same.
	Are you just referring to the color of their skin, Steven?
	No, no, I'm referring to people coming to this country where, you know what, even if you look in neighborhoods in New York where you talk about this, people who are coming first, second, third generation immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and they're living across the street and they're speaking.
	It's not like they don't have some kind of a common ground or understanding as to what America is.
	And the most important aspect there is they did it at great risk, right?
	They risked everything, came with nickels in their pocket.
	People come here with a guaranteed check.
	Now, let me ask you this.
	How many jobs?
	Because this is important, right?
	If we want to be compassionate, the American worker who can just be priced out by people who come from the third world and they're skimming agencies, right, where they just place people and they take off.
	H-1B is a huge scam.
	We've discussed that.
	How many new jobs were added, for example, under Joe Biden that were native-born American jobs?
	Wow, off the top of my head.
	And I would agree with you, about the bottom third to even upwards of 50% of H-1B visas are pure grift and just a way to get cheaper employees.
	And the easiest way to solve that is to just charge 10, 20, 30K a year for those, which is exactly what Trump did.
	So we're going to be in strong agreement on that.
	I think we had, if you look at labor participation, another way to look at that, we've had about 61, 62% labor participation down from about 68 at the peak amongst people who want jobs.
	And we had upwards of 12 million job openings under Biden, and it went from about 6% unemployment down to 4%.
	We had a lot of people.
	How many new jobs added were native-born jobs, meaning American citizens versus foreign-born workers who came?
	I don't have that statistic.
	The answer is none.
	Negative.
	I believe it was about 100-something thousand.
	And plus, if I'm not mistaken, I'm sure they can fact check me here.
	We have this source somewhere.
	I believe it was plus 4 million foreign jobs that were, by the way, on an average, 30% less than what they were paying a standard American.
	The exact inverse of what we saw under Donald Trump's first term.
	Doesn't that matter?
	Because those are the people who are talking about the optics for the midterms, right?
	Sure, sure, sure.
	I would say the two numbers that really matter to look at is the overall unemployment rate in relation to job openings in relation to labor participation.
	One of the things we're dealing with in this country is that baby boomers have so much of the wealth that they're passing on to Gen Xers and millennials that a lot of folks are opting out of working or they're working, you know, gig economy or part-time.
	It's very hard to get those affluent people, as we saw in Europe.
	You brought up France and Germany and a lot of these places, Spain.
	There's so much wealth, and they experienced this 20 years ago because they had a bit of a head start on us here.
	We're only 250 years old.
	They're, you know, 2,000 years old, you know, developed societies there.
	They have so much wealth that people just decide, you know, and I don't need to work or I don't need to work so hard or two people in the household can work and two people can't.
	So that's what we're starting to experience.
	They're lazy Euro trash, yes.
	And they've basically provided nothing like that.
	They provided nothing to the world in recent decades.
	If you were to make a list of the top 50 market cap companies, we're the majority.
	You got a couple in China and you have LVMH.
	I mean, things like Europe.
	Everything else is us.
	Everything else is us.
	Oh, and a Ramco, oil.
	Yeah.
	So, you know, we do, that's one of the greatest.
	This is one thing where I think, and I appreciate you, but I think you have a blind spot.
	Because I used to agree with you when I was a younger libertarian.
	Employment returning?
	I was.
	I used to think that, and the drug war turns out legalizing black tar heroin has bad results.
	This is like when I was a teenager, but I will say that job or employment rates and labor force participation rates are important.
	We would agree, right?
	Those numbers were tweaked and massaged under Barack Obama, and that's why people are going, well, I'm not here and not experiencing what I'm hearing, but it doesn't really apply anymore when all of the new jobs added.
	So you're looking at those two numbers.
	That doesn't take into account millions of jobs being added to people who are being imported at lower rates to replace jobs that Americans can and are willing to do, and a net job loss to native-born Americans.
	We can't say that it's because all of them have gone to the gig economy and don't want to work.
	That wouldn't be accurate.
	And if people don't understand those numbers, I think that's where you'll make predictions, very similar to those political analysts in the past who predicted people like Mitt Romney, who predicted Hillary Clinton winning, where you don't understand why Donald Trump is immensely popular on the immigration issue.
	Americans are losing jobs.
	They're being imported.
	That's a big factor.
	Yeah, I mean, the real issue around these jobs is also the ability to move from state to state.
	Geography matters in addition to skills matching.
	And easier than moving from Calcutta.
	Well, in fact, you know, if you have nothing in Calcutta and you can get a one-way ticket here, as you know, you're going to get a lot of services here for free, depending on which state you land in.
	So in fact, you are correct.
	It is easier to go from Calcutta because nobody's paying for an American in Detroit to move to a job in Austin.
	So yes, you're correct.
	Yeah.
	And that's the priority that needs to be set.
	Right.
	And that's the, and that's those are the people who have been left behind.
	Those are the people who, again, support this country and are the driver of this country.
	The person who's being screwed right now.
	And this is the reason for Donald Trump.
	It's not moderate.
	I mean, for the first time you saw, I believe it was the SEIU, where they didn't endorse a candidate because their own union membership, it was going to be, you know, mutiny on the union because they were going, hold on a second, we don't want to elect the same people.
	You mentioned NAFTA, TPP, of course, which they see as a deeply Clinton and kind of, you know, classically Democrat stance as well.
	And we could argue that both sides have supported this at our own peril.
	But right now, the working class Americans, the people footing the bill, the people paying taxes who are then being met with a bill of $150 to $450 billion a year for people who come in, enjoy these services, in some cases pay nothing because they come illegally.
	But even those who migrate to this country illegally take a job at 60, 70% of the American salary.
	And we look and go, hey, unemployment's great, but they can't afford a house.
	They can't get a job for which they're qualified.
	These are the people who are sort of the forgotten, the uncounted men.
	100%.
	Yeah.
	And this is why Trump won is because he speaks to those folks.
	And I'm curious what you think, because you're a conservative, you're a Christian, you were formerly libertarian.
	I'm going to try to get a guess on this.
	I think you're also for free markets and capitalism, but I don't know that.
	So just open-ended question.
	What do you think about the minimum wage and raising the federal minimum wage?
	Do you think that should be a priority?
	Because that was one of the things I thought Trump might want to, because he did a really good job with no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, really speaking to the lost people you're talking about.
	What do you think about the minimum wage and raising it, you know, just to match inflation or maybe double inflation for the lowest jobs?
	I think it's a red herring because I think we don't have enough time to discuss it and it actually wouldn't help with those jobs.
	Because what we're discussing are jobs that would pay an American $110,000 to $160,000.
	Oh, you're a good idea.
	But you can get an immigrant do it for $75,000 living with six families while a placement agency skims some off the top.
	We're not talking about the lowest paid jobs.
	I was actually, funny enough, this is a funny story, on the mailing list back in, I believe, 2014, 2015, it was Fight for 15.
	And we all know that was a racket that was funded by NGOs because they would say, we're going to host some kind of a protest or a rally, but they never sent it out.
	They would only send pictures afterwards of them at a local McDonald's, and it was always the same people.
	And now it's Fight for 25.
	So I think that's a number that doesn't actually apply to what we're discussing here because we've been told who's going to pick your lettuce.
	Well, it turns out, you look at, I believe it was in Nebraska, plenty of Americans will work in a meatpacking plant.
	But we're also being told now, hey, who's going to do your highly skilled engineering jobs?
	Well, what happened?
	I thought Americans just didn't want to pick lettuce.
	It sounds to me like Americans are just not considered for a lot of jobs that they're qualified and willing to do.
	And if you look at the numbers, the employment numbers under Biden, we see a proactive orchestration of bringing in cheap labor and pricing Americans.
	We agree 40 years of bringing in cheap labor has an impact.
	This is where three years.
	It was a huge change.
	It was 1.5, I think it was 1.5 million, I believe, lost jobs.
	Yeah, I thought it was 100,000.
	Hold on, they're going to send me.
	It was 1.5 million lost native jobs.
	1.5 million foreign jobs increased.
	The exact opposite of Donald Trump: 1.5 million native jobs, and we lost 1 million foreign jobs.
	So that tells a different tale in the employment and job participation.
	Well, and this is why, you know, to just go full circle here, this is why finding businesses that hire undocumented labor, that creates pain for them.
	And then they go, oh, paying a living wage or paying a wage that gets an American who has a mortgage or two kids to come to work and not feel insulted, and that it's a waste of time to even go because the gas and the child care doesn't even add up.
	It doesn't math.
	Well, now you're penalizing them for breaking the rules and you're incenting them to, hey, raise the rate up.
	This is why I am really doing a deep dive into what a reasonable minimum wage would be.
	And it is a big, longer discussion, but I do wonder if, as a backstop, you know, just even modest, like $1 a year for 10 years or something, just to have you keep up with inflation a bit would be interesting.
	And then on top of that, obviously, as you're pointing out, the business owners are going to do what is the most convenient for and what drives the most shareholder value.
	I know this because I'm an investor in these companies.
	And what I watched when New York City aggressively did their $15, $20 an hour thing was that most people matched it.
	But we had a number of companies we'd invested in, and I had seen a number of pitches of automation for things like fast food.
	And I passed on investing in these companies that were doing kiosks because I was like, yeah, that doesn't make any sense.
	Nobody wants to order from a kiosk.
	Like maybe in 10 years, people will, or the order on their mobile phone is probably a better bet.
	Sure enough, all of those business owners and the people who own those kiosk companies, they call me back.
	Oh my God, our revenue went 10X this year.
	And I said, what happened?
	They said, oh, New York City and Seattle raised the minimum wage $2 a year.
	So all of a sudden, our kiosk systems made sense.
	And now you go to a McDonald's.
	They're like, there's no cashier.
	If you want to use a cashier, they're like, give me five minutes.
	I'll go find one.
	Or you go to a waffle house if you want to fight at 2 a.m.
	But I will say this.
	I think it's right hanging.
	Let me explain to you why.
	The average salary increase, we just discussed this under Barack Obama.
	I've never been to a waffle house.
	Well, that's your white privilege showing.
	No, no, there's only one waffle.
	When I first came to the state, so I thought it was like, oh, a magical land of all these different waffles, assortments of like 31 flavors.
	There's just a basic waffle.
	They toss an egg on a griddle and go, good enough.
	But I will say this: it doesn't really apply because we would both agree.
	The Democrat Party is the one who largely championed minimum wage, fight for 15, now it's fight for 25.
	It always has to increase.
	But under Barack Obama, average salaries eight years only went up about $1,000.
	First term of Trump, about $4,000 under Biden, went down $4,000.
	There's a far greater effect on the average American wage that we see a direct impact that relates to immigration policy.
	And it's a far better precursor or metric to use than some minimum wage because most people aren't staying in those jobs.
	And those aren't the jobs that are affected by this immigration policy.
	So I do appreciate you.
	We could do a whole other episode on H1.
	I mean, listen, this was great.
	I appreciate it.
	Hey, what are your co-hosts think of this?
	I want to hear their feedback on how we did.
	Oh, all right.
	Well, I know Gerald.
	They are.
	It's just because if they talk, then you can't hear me and I can't.
	I can't collar on them.
	I do not know.
	Oh, come on.
	Sometimes.
	It's more of a shock rear plug.
	I do, but you don't want to worry.
	It's a shock plug.
	Oh, my God.
	And honestly, it takes four hours to wipe the smile off their face when we wrap.
	Absolutely.
	This is why they keep getting out of line.
	They like it.
	You may need a different punishment.
	There's a lot to look.
	I think having you on another time we are, we're pretty much out of time today, but I think having you on.
	But I have two points.
	When you consider your minimum wage increases, the dollar a year, do me a favor and consider another number for the minimum wage altogether, which is $0, because I think the math works out really well.
	But I also, and I'm dead serious on that.
	I don't think there should be a minimum wage at all, but I understand there's issues with that.
	We could talk about it.
	And then consider this.
	Aren't you incentivizing people to be violent in the future when they don't like what the government does?
	Because what it will do is create enough public pressure and worry about losing races and campaigns that they will just become violent so that they don't have to do whatever we're trying to get them to do.
	I mean, nobody said immigration enforcement was going to be easy.
	In fact, we called it.
	We said, just wait.
	The media is going to spin up these stories.
	It's going to be very, very difficult to do.
	And we've already got rules and fines in place for businesses that hire illegals.
	And it isn't working out very well.
	Yeah.
	Violence is immoral.
	And I don't even agree with that.
	Well, I mean, okay.
	I don't think this needs to be done violently, as we talked about.
	I agree.
	Anthony should not be acting violently towards these ICE agents.
	Neither should the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.
	You're pulling Johnny.
	I'm holding January 6th.
	How many incidents?
	No, there we go.
	Back to January 6th.
	That's how you know you've lost the argument.
	How many oath keepers or these militiamen have attacked ICE agents right now, carrying out the mandate?
	Oh, no, they are the ICE agents.
	They're being aware of that.
	No, they literally are.
	How many innocent American citizens are?
	They're a smart guy, and that's not a very smart argument.
	Yeah.
	I respectfully say that.
	Hold on a second.
	This is why I didn't want them to come in.
	I didn't want you to feel ganged up on it.
	I always tell them, hey, it's not fair if there's two or three of us.
	That's why.
	And they like the shock butt plug.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	Now I understand about plugins.
	I think you're a funny guy.
	This has been fun sitting here.
	Yeah.
	Having a good time.
	Well, I'll give my take.
	Very nice.
	Thank you, Josh.
	That was shocking.
	Did he shock him?
	He asked another shock.
	He wants to turn it up.
	I think he said the GIMP said turn it up.
	Bring out the GIMP, Stephen.
	Yeah.
	Well, I don't know.
	I have a habit on SpeedDAO.
	Yeah.
	And if you want to get more GIMP, go to the comment browser and search GIMP.
	You're not going to like the results.
	All right, guys, this is great.
	Yeah, I appreciate it.
	Well, yeah, I appreciate it.
	And I think we're, and what I mean by I don't even support the idea that violence is immoral.
	I think that's largely a leftist talking point because you'll never hear me say political violence is never the answer because we wouldn't have a country.
	It's silly.
	It's a platitude.
	It's dumb and doesn't pass the basic logic test.
	I think violence is amoral, just like money.
	I think I can violently rape someone or I can violently stop a rape.
	I think I can break the law by breaking into a country, by entering illegally, and I think I can enforce the law.
	So I think force is used to violate a law.
	And in this case, force can be used to enforce the law.
	And for people, not that you are on the left who say that everything is so nuanced, right?
	It seems like one of those areas where violence is more nuanced than they give it credit for.
	I don't want to make the blanket statement that violence is immoral.
	I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting pepper balls at the ground when people are trying to firebomb an ICE facility, even though I also agree it's an act of it.
	I like that.
	That's a better way than doing than hitting people in the face.
	Yeah, if you can avoid it.
	Yeah.
	That's what they've been doing.
	I'm going to hope so.
	You know, all of this is, you know, all this is a moving target.
	Can't trust the press on either side, I don't believe.
	And so we'll find out over time.
	But I hope maybe I convince somebody in the audience to even consider other possibilities here that there could be other ways to do this.
	And if I didn't, at least I tried.
	No, I really appreciate it.
	And the show is, the show is the all-in podcast.
	And did I pronounce it right, by the way?
	Jason Callakanis is.
	You did.
	It's Greek for to have done well.
	And you can find the all-in podcast in the rankings.
	Steven Crowder's down here at 272.
	And then if you go to the top 10, you'll find us up there.
	You'll find us up in the top 10.
	I know.
	I see it.
	It's just a top 10.
	Well, you put yourself behind a paywall.
	I mean, that was.
	Well, no, we don't.
	We had six figures watching live here in front of the paywall.
	That's pretty amazing.
	Was impressed at how many people were in the chat room.
	Like, the chat's moving so fast.
	Is the chat only paid partner?
	Only paid.
	Only paid, yeah.
	And the toughest numbers to cheat in this industry, as you well know, are live viewership and live ticket sales.
	And we'll put them up with anybody.
	But yeah, we're number 252.
	Let me ask you.
	Final question.
	Final question.
	What's my daily point?
	The point system.
	Oh, I do it.
	Well, no, don't tell anyone.
	You can tell me off there because I don't, you know, you want to keep it a surprise.
	But I will say.
	P365.
	P365.
	That one's okay.
	It's not going to go off on its own.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	It's not.
	Point system.
	Just to make sure we click.
	So point system in places like Korea and places like these Nordic countries.
	That is for legal immigrants, correct?
	Right now?
	100%.
	And what do they do with the illegal immigrants?
	I mean, pick the country, but you can get deported pretty quickly in Japan or Korea in the Nordics and other countries.
	It's a whole process.
	It depends.
	But it's in the cards.
	Deportation's in the cards.
	In the European countries, getting deported is one of the hardest things to do.
	So if you looked at the China, I mean, just they basically reserve the most rights for the immigrants, illegal immigrants, and the least rights for the native in those countries.
	I mean, if you want to talk about backwards countries, they've really flipped the script over there, which is why they're losing any of the top entrepreneurs.
	I see this in my day job.
	Top entrepreneurs, they're like, I've got a great idea.
	I've got a great prototype.
	I am out of here.
	There is no way to build this company in this country.
	With the exception of Sweden.
	Sweden's got a disproportionate number of unicorns like Spotify, but most of them just bolt immediately.
	They got out of there as quick as possible.
	If you want to fire somebody in France, oh my Lord, you have to take them to court.
	It takes two years in America.
	It's employment at will.
	So you can just shock these guys with their butt plugs.
	And if they complain, I get it.
	I don't want to mimic France, but they got new beaches.
	They're going to get the minimum wage.
	They got nude beaches, just not in the winter.
	Jason, of the all-in podcast, we really appreciate it, brother, and we will definitely have you back on.
	Good times.
	Thank you very much.
	I appreciate you standing in here and having this discussion.
	And hopefully it was productive for both of us.
	Yeah, I enjoyed it.
	Take care, boys.
	Thank you, guys.
	God bless, brother.
	That has been Jason and Calicanus, everybody.
	Sorry, we didn't pick that picture on purpose.
	I thought it was a promo picture somewhere.
	You didn't like the way he looked.
	He has to go to men's warehouse.
	He looks more now like you're going to like the way you look.
	No, no, no.
	He looks better.
	No, he looks like, what's his name?
	The English guy in Mad Men.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Listen, I thought it was original.
	He found Stringama on his pubis.
	That guy.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	That's not what I was thinking.
	What was his name, Norris?
	I don't know.
	Some of his expressions, he looks like my father-in-law.
	Really?
	Yeah, there's some expressions in me.
	I was like, oh, that's Troy.
	Yeah.
	Well, let's grab a couple of chats.
	I know we've gone late.
	Just a couple of chats, and we've got to go.
	I'll try and rapid fire them because I know probably a lot of people who have questions about the discussion.
	I'm trying to see if I have any on the discussion, but I don't want to.
	That's what.
	How many are you having the discussion?
	How many about my butt plug?
	Yeah, no, seven about that button.
	That's a butt plug.
	All right.
	Come on, guys.
	You're better than that.
	Well, silicone.
	We'll start with this and I'll go searching.
	So, first chat from I Ortega.
	During the peace signing yesterday, a woman brought each leader their deal to sign.
	Do you think this was a power move by Trump to these Middle Eastern leaders or just a coincidence?
	I don't know.
	I don't care right now.
	I thought you guys were talking about the discussion between me and that guy.
	Was she in a skirt?
	I don't think Trump really cared about that.
	I don't think it's a power move.
	I don't think he does.
	I think it's a nice little bonus for America, but I don't think it's an intentional power move.
	I think that Jason is sort of someone from a, but doesn't realize that he still has talking points from a bygone era of those in legacy media and those who are kind of moderate consumers.
	It just doesn't really apply today anymore as it relates to immigration.
	As it relates to race relations right now in this country, people say, well, it's not race, it's cultural.
	Well, yeah, that's most of it.
	But now people are also acknowledging the realistic differences where race is at least a pretty good co-indicator of what kind of a culture people are going to have.
	And he said, well, it's just employment and labor force participation.
	Well, sure, if you didn't know the numbers as far as an orchestration of bringing in cheap foreign labor by design, then say, well, everyone's done it.
	Not if you contrast Trump and you contrast Biden.
	Like these numbers matter.
	I think Donald Trump just sort of circumvents the so-called experts, and he's kind of still in that class where everyone was so surprised.
	And everyone was really surprised by Gen Z men.
	And everyone was really surprised by younger Hispanic men because they sort of view it through this prism that just doesn't exist anymore.
	And I think that's he just sort of, like you said, I don't think he cares about the optics.
	I think he cares about getting something done.
	He just sort of plows through and goes, at the end of this, it's going to be good.
	And that's why we saw him re-elected.
	Well, and I think one of the reasons that I think Jason was wrong in how he was looking at midterms is that typically the ruling party does have a bit of a hard time in midterm.
	Of course, it always turnout, typically, right?
	It's not necessarily the policies.
	It's basically turnout and the other side wants to protest.
	So I think what he's looking at is like, oh, man, I really want to win a race.
	That's the problem.
	I don't want to win a race.
	I want to do what is right, and I want to bring the American people along to also win a race.
	I want to preserve our country.
	And I want to do what is right.
	Right.
	You want to give people a reason to show up, go out, do exactly what you told people you were going to do, and do it in the face of withering criticism while you're doing the right thing.
	That will motivate people to get out to the polls in a non-presidential cycle more than anything else.
	So I think he's completely wrong.
	And I think he's just, he's strawmanning the proud boys and the oath taker.
	What are they saying?
	Well, you see him do it on one side and not the other side.
	That's what you see.
	You go, Magaj, Proud Boys.
	Well, I don't need to go down to Proud Boys, who, by the way, aren't even as radical as you think.
	I'll just go Kamala Harris, the candidate.
	That's as radical as we're talking about.
	I'll just go to Joe Biden.
	Hey, look at the policy.
	Right.
	And I just think it's unchair because he's a very articulate guy, soft-spoken guy.
	So sometimes people will seem like, isn't this reasonable?
	And you go, wait a second, that's not reasonable at all.
	No.
	I don't agree with that whatsoever.
	I don't agree with this ever-increasing minimum wage.
	And by the way, the numbers aren't able to provide those numbers publicly.
	They're just not accurate.
	I don't know what he's doing.
	What he was citing was UPenn, because I read these and I know what he was citing on air.
	And then switched it to the math of the ICE annual budget.
	And I believe sort of prorating the deportations that we have now, which isn't an entire annual budget, but then saying in the increasing cost and throws lawsuits into this.
	Well, hold on a second.
	Then we have to take into account the self-deportations.
	We have to take into account money saved there at the border and dealing with far fewer border crossings, interactions.
	And he's going to be like, yeah, well, I don't know about that.
	It's like, well, the labor force in Japan is like, yeah, but how many of them were native and how many of them were foreign?
	I don't know about that.
	Well, how do you not know about that?
	Because that's central to this.
	And I just think that I think that Donald Trump has a wide open field where people who are even more moderate, and I think a very nice guy, have a blind spot.
	And that's the American worker, the American taxpayer.
	Not everything is theory.
	Not everything is negative.
	Not everything is like, well, we could do this and we could do that.
	And I don't think he understood that I was saying basically this would still result in the same number of people being deported because they wouldn't be able to pay their back taxes immediately with interest.
	They don't speak the language and they're not refugees.
	In other words, it'd be single digit.
	He said less than 1%.
	Less than 1% can stay.
	On that, we agree.
	Let's grab some chats.
	Okay.
	And real quick, here's your madman actor.
	That's Jared.
	Was his name Lane Price?
	Yes.
	Jared Harris is the actor.
	Ah, he's a great actor.
	I like him.
	Yeah.
	Great.
	Okay.
	Next chat from Mr. Nevermiss.
	A question for Stephen.
	After seeing him use many leftist legacy media talking points, you rightly pointed out that he's not moderate.
	So what stance do you think a moderate would take?
	I think a moderate stance right now is seal up the border and deport as large of a percentage of illegal immigrants here as possible.
	I think that's really pretty.
	I think anything else is leftist extremism.
	That's what I think.
	Now, if you want to talk about allegator Alcatraz and those optics, okay, sure.
	I don't think there's anything radical about saying, hey, you're here illegally.
	We can't track you.
	This isn't able to cartel human trafficking trade.
	You've got to go and go back through the process.
	You know, similar process to the countries that he cited, like Korea, like Japan, like these Nordic models.
	There's a point system for legal immigrants.
	And that's true, by the way.
	In Quebec, which is a socialist province, you don't get your esturance médé unless you're attacked, unless you can prove that you are contributing.
	They are far more strict than where.
	You know who else is just as strict?
	More strict?
	Mexico.
	So I don't think it's radical to have the same kind of policy that all of these other countries have.
	I think it's actually completely moderate.
	So I don't believe that his viewpoint is moderate.
	I believe his president is.
	Or compassionate.
	No.
	And listen, I'm sorry.
	I had to bite my tongue several times.
	You want to throw the Jesus argument out of compassion?
	Like, how about the compassion for the people that are here?
	What about the compassion that you have for the American people?
	And just go dive into that because it just doesn't hold water.
	And look, I understand where he's trying to go, but there's a couple of places either he's a little ill-informed or he's being a little disingenuous.
	And I overall thought it was a good conversation.
	Yeah, I think he's trying to find solutions, honestly.
	But some of the paths that he's going down either has blinders on or just doesn't work.
	It's a little bit of got you.
	When someone goes to January 6th, it's like, okay, all right.
	Of course.
	We just had like 20 of them in the last two months just in dealing with ICE as far as January 6th.
	Final chitty chitty chat.
	All right.
	So Rizzy Prime Minister.
	You seem surprised, noodles.
	Why are you so stressed?
	Stressed noodles over here.
	I have to gauge which chats are final chat ones.
	All right, final chat from Rizzy Page.
	Question for Stephen: How do we help people understand that we're not immigrants?
	Americans who have been here since 1776 are Americans.
	Yeah.
	Well, they won't acknowledge that.
	That's why throughout the, I don't think anyone here is Native American.
	It's like, you mean we don't suck and eat each other?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's a lazy argument.
	My family's been here since before the Civil War.
	And this is one thing that has bothered me for a long time: we're all immigrants, we're all immigrants.
	And I know where they're getting, where that talking point leads to.
	Especially with this guy, he seemed like he was agreeing with most of the things you're saying, and he's getting to a certain point.
	But, you know, my family's been here for generations and generations.
	I think it's sixth-generation infantrymen.
	It's like, how long before you're a Native American?
	Well, here's also the thing.
	How long have you, how much have you done for this land?
	By that standard, you know who's not Native American?
	Native Americans.
	You guys heard about the land bridge theory?
	They're basically Asian.
	That's why they can't hold their firewater.
	And then.
	And what percentage of Britain is Native American?
	And which one of them are Roman descendants?
	Yeah.
	Which are, you know, you can do this with any place in the world.
	I'll tell you where it starts.
	Kate, we got a new country.
	All right.
	Shine on this dial.
	I got some scrolls here.
	You can check them out.
	Try the coffee.
	We don't do tea anymore.
	Fuck it.
	So, and they go, a new country, your old country doesn't exist.
	You're promised nothing.
	You're American.
	Them is the rules.
	You guys want to be here?
	Every single person thereafter who said yes, predating the modern Welfare state is an American.
	That's the difference.
	People going, Do you have good benefits?
	Do you have good, can I get a good job?
	No, not coming here to take, coming here to risk, coming here to establish, coming here and declaring proudly that you are American.
	That is a huge difference.
	And that's what I tried to laser in on, and I felt like I didn't get it.
	What is the difference?
	And there's a little bit of shock there.
	I think it's a crap hole.
	I don't think that people coming from India today who send their money back home and still identify as Indian and when asked can't list anything for you that they love about America more than their the crap hole they left.
	I don't think it's the same as people who came here, whether they're Italian, Irish, British, French saying, I'm American.
	I know I'm promised nothing, but I'm going to stake my claim here.
	Go forth.
	And you know what?
	I'm going to try my hand at it.
	There's a huge difference between someone fleeing a country that they view as they view as persecuting them.
	In most cases, that was actually the case.
	Fleeing a country of persecution with a promise of nothing in return in order to be a part of the great new experiment, the great new country that is, that is not the same as someone who goes, oh, the great new country that already exists.
	What can I get from it and send back?
	Because the difference is now you're taking from those people who built it and they're not sending back anywhere.
	They're keeping their resources, not only financial resources, but they're keeping their emotional, their spiritual, their community resources, how they contribute.
	They have nowhere else to send it to.
	They build America.
	America.
	The big difference is these generations of immigrants built America and stayed in America.
	Now, these people are coming in who have not built America and they don't continue to build America.
	They take from what has been built in America and send it back to another country that's never gotten it right.
	And I don't think it's the same thing, and I don't think we share the same culture, same values, and I don't think that it's genuine to act like we do.
	We're the United States of America.
	My opinion, unlike Michelle Obama, who was never proud of this country until her husband stepped foot in that office, think it's the greatest country on earth.
	I think we're better than the other countries that existed before us.
	That's why we left.
	Let's try and keep that track record going.
	That means we have to be vigilant on our toes.
	We'll see you tomorrow, Black and White, the Great Issues, Thursday.
	Oh boy.
	That's what I know.

▲