SCOTUS Could END Birthright Citizenship, DEBATING Mayra Flores
Tate Brown and Mayra Flores debate the Supreme Court's potential 7-2 ruling to end birthright citizenship, which could enable mass deportations by closing "birth tourism" loopholes. While Solicitor General John Sauer argues the 14th Amendment must reflect modern global travel realities, Chief Justice Roberts remains skeptical of such interpretations. Flores counters that Republicans should invest in Hispanic voters rather than pursuing denaturalization, claiming Hispanics are naturally conservative, whereas Brown insists mass deportations are essential to counter demographic shifts and foreign allegiances. Ultimately, the episode highlights a fierce ideological clash over whether citizenship stems from birthright or political loyalty. [Automatically generated summary]
I was locked in on the arguments before the Supreme Court regarding birthright citizenship.
It's bleak.
It is very bleak.
We're not going to get any good news out of this.
Unfortunately, I think it's over.
I expect probably a 7 2 decision.
Really, really ugly.
Roberts is extremely skeptical.
He had an insane response.
We're going to get into some of the arguments so far.
Obviously, this is.
You know, before the Supreme Court, the birthright citizenship, you know, obviously the Trump administration, in addition to the entire right wing, is hopeful that we can overturn birthright citizenship.
This is just a completely antiquated law on the books that allows effectively anyone around the world to pop out a baby on our soil and they become an American citizen, as American as you and me.
That is literally what is written down in the law.
Very, very, very grim, very grim situation.
We're going to get into all of that.
We do have Myra Flores joining us at the half hour mark for the debate.
It's going to be a debate.
It's going to be a very cordial debate.
I'm not one of these blood sport guys that's going for takedowns.
It's not going to be like that.
But she has made a statement at CPAC that has sparked a debate across, again, the conservative movement regarding Hispanics, Hispanics within the coalition.
Should we be catering more to them?
What is the status?
I'd put up a post.
Saying that actually, instead of investing in the Hispanic community, we should be pursuing denaturalizations and deportations, something I unironically believe should be the case because Trump has demonstrated that running on mass deportations can actually be quite popular across multiple demographic groups.
It can actually be a way, it's a very popular policy, it's a way to expand your coalition.
So we'll bring her on, we'll have a conversation with Myra.
Again, she's scheduled to join us at the half hour mark, and we'll get that going.
But obviously, yeah, again, I was running a little late.
Was locked in.
I was locked in.
The ACLU's, what's her title?
The legal director, national legal director, is giving arguments before the Supreme Court as we speak.
Soda Mayor literally was making her arguments for her to the point where Cecilia Wang, the ACLU national legal director, was just going, Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what I'm saying.
So it's very, very bleak to say the least, very black pilling, quite frankly, because we'll get into all that.
Look, before we do, We do need to give a quick shout out to today's sponsors.
It is Casbrew.
Wow, did you hear that?
Jeez Louise.
Casbrew Coffee.
My, oh my, we love Casbrew Coffee, don't we, folks?
Casbrew Coffee.
Head on over to Casbrew.com, get you our newest item fresh, hot off the press, some really exciting stuff.
It is Casbrew Vault Black, 375 milliliters of this delicious cold brew concentrate nectar.
I would say it's a heavenly nectar.
I've been sampling it, we have a few bottles laying about.
I'm a fan.
I'm a fan.
I really do.
It is really convenient.
You can just drop some in your water, shake it up, and then boom, you got cold brew ready to rock.
It's a very beautiful thing.
Saves you $5 from having to go to Starbucks for their cold brew, which tastes pretty much the exact same.
Like, I'm not a coffee snob, I'm very much a coffee utilitarian.
I just want to get that down the hatch and get the caffeine in and keep going with my day.
The Casper tastes quite nice.
Again, I'm not a coffee snob, but I would say it holds its own.
It definitely holds its own.
So head on over to Casper, grab you a bottle of our Volt Black.
Cold brew concentrate.
Also, head on over to shop.boonieshq.com for some fantastic skateboarding gear.
Obviously, this is our Boonies brand or in house skate brand here at Timcast.
We got some fantastic products on here on this beautiful, beautiful website for you guys.
The boards are a little thin right now.
We're running a little thin on the boards.
We still have some of the classics like the Be Gay board.
We also have the Don't Be Gay board, which I think is on page two Declaration of Independence.
We got grip tape.
We got t shirts.
This t shirt is pretty cool.
This flag board.
It's skateboards forming an American flag.
The Uncancelable board.
We've got a lot of great skateboards and skateboard gear for you.
Even if you're not a skater, I'm not a skater, but I have some boonies in the closet.
And if you're still in the closet, you can get the Be Gay boards really.
With that, we're going to get into the action so far out of the Supreme Court regarding the birthright citizenship case.
Again, I don't really have any good news to report, and I'm very black pilled, quite frankly.
I'm fairly demoralized because, look, let's just cut to the chase here.
Let's cut the crap.
If, again, if we fail to overturn birthright citizenship, mass deportations kind of lose their teeth.
Right?
They kind of lose their teeth.
Any talks that we've seen in the Trump administration, Trump himself has used the words remigration.
Stephen Miller and co. have used the term remigration.
Any hopes of that kind of go out the window if you don't have birthright citizenship?
Again, you're just kind of paling water out of the Titanic because we have a massive leak, a massive legal loophole, which again allows foreign nationals to come into our country, even if they're literally a tourist, which is an industry in and of itself, birth tourism, pop out a kid, and that kid is now a citizen.
And now that child's family have a degree of entitlement to domicile in the United States.
It's a really ridiculous law, very adequate.
Again, it comes from the 14th Amendment, from the 1800s, where we're debating these freed slaves what is going to be the status of these freed slaves?
And they're saying, well, they're legally residing in the U.S., they were born here, therefore they should be citizens.
Very sensible, makes a lot of sense, made a lot of sense at the time, and that was the law of the land.
That Chinese would be participating in birth tourism?
Could they have anticipated massive migrant caravans crossing our southern border and squatting in the United States?
No.
Could they have anticipated people, quite literally, at eight months pregnant, visiting New York City and having a child?
People from Ghana visiting New York City, having a child, and then leaving immediately.
And then that child has a U.S. citizenship.
And then that child returns when they're like 17 or 18 years old with zero ties to the United States, but they have paperwork that says, I'm an American.
Not just that, I'm as American as you and me.
No, they could not have anticipated any of those things.
And that is what Tom Sawyer, not Tom Sawyer, friend of the show, John Sauer, that was the argument he was making.
The only receptive voice on the court so far is Alito.
Alito's fantastic.
We love Alito.
The blackpillar thing, again, is, you know, Clarence Thomas has not said much, which is if you know anything about the Supreme Court, that's kind of his MO.
He's not a very vocal, you know, not a very vocal during oral arguments.
That's always been the case.
But Alito, you know, is active.
Alito's making some great points.
Outside of that, it is very bleak.
Roberts, not just skeptical, outright, like basically debating John Sauer.
Very, very, very grim.
Any Comey Barrett, who was kind of the last hope, you know, everyone is following this live on Twitter.
And John Roberts, very skeptical.
They're saying, okay, it could be 5'4.
We could still win over Amy Comey Barrett.
Now, Amy Comey Barrett, I think, was less likely than John Roberts.
If you know anything about Amy Coney Barrett's personal background, she's adopted two children from Haiti.
I mean, does that sound like someone that, uh, I'm not trying to be rude or mean here, but does that sound like someone that has a hardline stance on American citizenship and who ought to be in the country and who ought not to be?
I don't think so.
And then we saw later in the oral arguments that she also sounds quite a bit skeptical.
Gorsuch will have to see.
Who knows?
Again, either way, we lose.
That's four to five to the liberals.
Very, very grim stuff.
I'm going to play you some of the highlights thus far, or lowlights, depending on who you ask.
This is the first one.
This was Eric Daughtry is doing a good job clipping from Fox News and CNN.
This is obviously the same feed that every news channel has coming live from the Supreme Court from the oral arguments.
Donald Trump is present, which, you know, I saw Batya Unger Sargon make this point that it's really unprecedented for the president to, you know, show up to the Supreme Court.
It's never happened before.
And that probably creates kind of an ugly precedent if this doesn't go our way.
Again, if we don't win in the end.
There's something to be said about that.
She was getting attacked for that, but that's actually a W point.
That's neither here nor there.
Look, let's play this clip.
This is really some shocking stuff.
Listen to what John is saying here.
He's saying China has 500 birth tourism companies to bring people here to give birth and return to our nation.
And then Robert says this has no impact on legal analysis.
It's a new world.
It's the same constitution.
You know, again, John Sauer is basically saying we live in a new world, right?
These laws.
Fail to apply, you know, concisely to the situation that we're in.
Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.
I think it's, I quote what Justice Scalia said in his Hamdan dissent, where they have, where like their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment.
I think that shows that they've made a mess, their interpretation has made a mess of the provision.
No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.
As Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Alito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils.
He said that about statutory interpretation.
I think the same principle applies here, and I think we quote that in our brief.
So, okay, it's a new world, but it's the same constitution.
Now, the Reddit woffin's eating this up.
The Redditors are all over this.
Tim, my boss, made an excellent point here.
He says, The debate on birthright citizenship is hilarious.
Justices be like, Yes, this will destroy the fabric of our nation, but it was written down, so.
Whatever.
Unbelievable.
I mean, you could make the point that, like, look, this is what a lot of my friends that are very conservative and are legal minds are saying.
Look, it's the justice's job to interpret the law as it is written.
So you could go back and say, well, it's the authors that mess this up.
It's the authors that mess this up.
And that's true, but this is just the issue.
This is the issue with the whole debate whatsoever.
And we have this debate over and over again in all constitutional matters how can a framer.
In the 1800s, possibly predict this environment that we're in, possibly predict this world that we're in.
This is why I am holding out hope.
The one thing I'm holding out hope on that, you know, potentially we could get out of this mess is there is a situation, an instance in which the Supreme Court decides to kick this to Congress.
Now, here's the thing that's blackpilling do we expect Congress to, you know, strike here?
Do we expect Congress to, you know, actually correct this, this, you know, legal disaster?
Probably not.
I mean, we can't even get the Save Act passed.
You think if we can't even get like nationwide ID for voting passed, there's not a chance in Haiti that we're getting birthright citizenship.
Banned, effectively overturned through Congress.
Just, I mean, this is, it's just, it's bleak, folks.
It's bleak.
To Alito's credit, I mean, Alito's holding the line here.
Dautry's copy here, he says, Look, Justice Samuel Alito says perfectly on birthright citizenship.
He suggests that just because legal aliens were not a problem at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted does not mean they shouldn't be addressed today.
They had in mind when they adopted the general rule, or do we?
Say they adopted a general rule, they meant for that to apply to later applications that might come up.
Justice Scalia had an example that dealt with this situation.
He imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven, and then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven, and this fellow says, Well, I can't be convicted under this because the microwave oven didn't exist at that time.
And he dismissed that.
There's a general rule there, and you apply it to future applications.
And what we're dealing with here is something that was basically unknown at the time when the 14th Amendment was adopted, which is illegal immigration.
So, how do we deal with that situation when we have a general rule?
Yeah, I strongly agree with the way that you framed it that there is a general principle that's a broad principle that's adopted in the phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
And we submit that our theory of allegiance and domicile based allegiance is what explains those specific exceptions that everybody was aware of, but it is broad enough to sweep in.
Future situations, and as you pointed out, illegal immigration did not exist then.
Now, the problem of temporary visitors did exist, and it's very interesting that as you look at pages 26 and 28 of our brief, commentators going from you know 1881 until 1922 are uniformly saying the children of temporary visitors are not included.
Now, that logic we say it's naturally extends, it's really an a for sure case.
If you have someone who enters illegally by the 1880s, there are restrictions on immigration.
If you've entered illegally, it's kind of you know a well established principle of law going back to the code of Justinian that says you're not allowed to be there.
You cannot, you don't have the legal capacity to create domicile there.
But I think, General Sauer, that what you just said suggests that you can't be arguing in the way Justice Alito suggests, because most of your brief is not about illegal aliens.
Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country, where there was quite clearly an experience of and understanding of that they were going to be temporary inhabitants.
So, okay, so what John, what the Solicitor General, obviously he's kind of parodying what Alito's saying here, which is absolutely correct.
Alito's saying, like, okay.
You know, again, these statutes need to be reflected with the context of the situation we're in now.
What John has been making so far is that, again, in the original 14th Amendment, there were exceptions for like American Indians, there were exceptions for ambassadors and their children and whatnot.
Like people that, again, were not legal, that were not under the legal jurisdiction of the United States, therefore, you know, the birthright citizenship wouldn't apply to them in this instance.
And what John is saying, this sort of Precedent allows us to expand the definition of who wouldn't be under the legal jurisdiction of the United States, which There's some obvious ones.
I mean, like, look, if you're from Iran and you're born to an Iranian national, you are also an Iranian national.
Therefore, you have allegiance to Iran because Iran has, like, you know, service requirements.
Same thing with, you know, citizens from, you know, China or Russia or anywhere like this.
And then obviously that can be expanded then to illegal immigrants because it's like they're not even legally domiciled here.
So how could they possibly be subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States in its totality if they're not even legally domiciled?
If you're not legally domiciled, how can you be extended?
The sort of principles that come in tandem with being legally domiciled here.
Makes a lot of sense to us.
It does not make a lot of sense to these Supreme Court justices.
Here's Amy Coney Barrett.
This is the last couple of plays, and then we'll keep moving along here.
Again, Coney Barrett, obviously not as keen, not as receptive to the Solicitor General's arguments either.
Well, yeah, and personal jurisdiction, I mean, 1332, diversity jurisdiction.
And the thing is, it has to be litigated because it turns on intent.
And both the virtue of both use solely and use sanguinis, whichever one you pick, it's a bright line rule.
How would it work?
How would you adjudicate these cases?
You're not going to know at the time of birth for some people whether they have the intent to stay or not, including U.S. citizens, by the way.
I mean, what if you have someone who is living in Norway with their husband and family but is still a U.S. citizen, comes home and has her child here and goes back?
How do we know whether the child is a U.S. citizen because the parent didn't have an intent to stay?
The practical point is under the terms of this executive order, you don't have to because the executive order turns on objectively verifiable things, which is immigration status.
Are you lawfully present but temporarily present, or do you have an illegal status?
So, those kind of like taking evidence, so to speak, on your subjective intent wouldn't be done.
And as to the constitutional point, obviously domicile is baked into a lot of constitutional and legal concepts, and there may be situations where facts are determined, but if you look at the guidance, The guidance that all the agencies did after this court and Costa said the agency could go forward and issue guidance.
The guidance provides, I think, very, very clear, objective, verifiable approaches to doing this.
And so, as a practical matter, I don't think it's presented by this executive order.
Stephen Miller weighing in here, kind of trying to attempt a buzzer beater here.
Really just rallying the troops, if anything.
Birthright citizenship means the children of legal aliens can vote to tax your children and seize their inheritance.
Again, to Tim's point, The debate on birthright citizenship is effectively yes, this will destroy the fabric of our nation, but it was written down, so whatever.
I mean, look, again, you can point back.
Again, this is what a lot of my friends are saying is like their job as Supreme Court justices is to interpret the law as it was written, doesn't leave a lot of room for nuance.
So we're just, it's just a mess.
It really is just bleak.
Again, I'm going to go through some of the ways in which birthright citizenship is just completely like robbing our nation.
I mean, take a look at this, this stat right here.
It's really just unbelievable.
This is really unbelievable.
This is, again, this would fall within the purview of Congress to really step up to the plate on this.
Again, this is just data from CIS, and CIS just uses Census Bureau data.
So, you know, people cite CIS, but CIS is using Census Bureau data.
Sometimes they throw in some Pew Research data.
Again, gold bear, you know, gold star, standard bearers of data, of demographic data.
This is from the White Papers Policy Institute.
A common sense piece of legislation, he's referring to, or they're referring to, this Missouri bill that would require citizenship proof for food stamps and health care.
Again, common sense.
According to the CIS, again, using Census Bureau data.
Some 46% of non citizens use traditional welfare benefits compared to 27% of those who are American born.
Completely eviscerates any argument for immigration writ large, that data point right there.
This includes 61% of illegal aliens and 51% of legal immigrants.
No more welfare benefits for foreigners.
Again, there's not many indications that the children of illegal aliens perform that much better than their parents, even with all the legal documentation that is granted to them through birthright citizenship.
You're effectively just battery farming foreigners in your country to strip away your inheritance.
And they're doing this, again, through welfare nets, welfare systems that were set up at the time for American citizens.
And even then, that's still up for debate whether even American citizens should be entitled to effectively having their lives bankrolled by the taxpayer.
It's so bleak.
It's so bleak.
So 27%.
So that's 73% of the country is subsidizing their replacement.
73% of the country is subsidizing their replacement.
With 51% of legal immigrants, the majority of immigrants, legal or illegal, taking welfare benefits.
I mean, there's data points like this.
The Mexican origin population of the United States is roughly 40 million people.
28.5, or about 11.4 million, were born in Mexico.
Another 12 to 13.6 million are the children of immigrants.
Americans never voted to host a quarter of all Mexicans within their border.
Again, a quarter of the entire Mexican diaspora is currently residing in the United States.
Correction, a quarter of all Mexicans on earth, including Mexicans in Mexico, are currently residing in Mexico.
The United States of America.
I mean, the reason this comes up is obviously this is the clip.
So, okay, so she's basically, you know, I'm being as objective and fair as possible.
She is saying that the Republican Party needs to cater to Hispanic voters to keep them within the coalition.
Cater.
And I already went through, I mean, again, there's just not really a good argument for why this wave of Hispanic migrants should have been permitted to enter the country in the first place.
I mean, take a look at this stat right here.
Her own state, Texas.
State of Texas.
This is where she was a congresswoman hailing from.
In 1980, only 6% of Texas was foreign born.
68% of the population was born in state, including 64% of whites, 80% of blacks, and 74% of Hispanics.
Now, 20% is foreign born, 13% are the children of immigrants, and 56% of the population is Texas born.
Just 59% of whites, 61% of blacks, and 60% of Hispanics were born in state, a 5.19 point and 14 point decline, respectively.
White Texans went from 70% of the population, a share that they held for 120 plus years, to about 38% today.
You can't maintain a culture if you replace the population.
Only remigration solves the issue.
Again, it's just unbelievable.
It really is just unbelievable.
What's going on in this country?
There has been a replacement that has taken place.
There's really no ifs, ands, or buts.
That is just statistically a replacement.
And not only that, it's a replacement that Americans never signed off to.
It was never up for vote.
It was never up for vote for Texans specifically to, again, change the demographic composition of their state, to change the way that their state is composed.
That was never up for debate.
That was never up for vote.
I mean, I'll find it here in the stack.
Patrick Casey made a great point here.
He says, Look, responding to Myra Flores, who was responding to a lot of people who were critical of her statement, and she said, Trump proved in 2024 that you can gain Hispanic voters while running on mass deportations.
You do not need to invest in the Hispanic community, whatever that means.
Also, Myra Flores appears giddy at the prospect of phasing out white women.
Not sure what that means.
Yeah, I don't really know what that means either.
I mean, that's what I'm going to ask her about.
And, you know, she was responding to a post.
It was a pretty, like, post antagonizing her.
But, She responds, she's like, Look, I helped President Trump with swing states, et cetera.
I put together a Hispanic roundtable.
But Patrick Casey is just upset.
I mean, rightfully so.
He's saying, Well, okay, put that aside.
Like, thank you.
Thanks for helping, you know, win an election.
You know, seriously, like, thank you for doing your part here.
The phasing out, that's kind of what we have an issue with.
Because, again, I can go back to this data point here.
Oh, not Tim's.
This point here, again, 6% of Texas was born in 1980.
Now it's 20%.
Again, you know, in 1980, 64% of the state was white.
Or, sorry, correction.
Um, whereas 70% of the population was white to about 38% today, the majority of the displacement has occurred from uh Hispanic migration.
Again, wasn't up for debate.
So, this was my point.
I mean, my point is look, if you want the Republican Party to succeed long term, mass deportations need to be pursued and mass denaturalizations.
Again, a lot of people have come to the country.
I mean, look at this data point right here there are more than 2 million Guatemalans in the United States, 1.3 million or 65% are foreign born.
Another 740,000 are their children.
That means that 99% of the Guatemalan population of the US are first or second gen immigrants.
Again, America never asked to host 10% of all living Guatemalans.
Again, an insane, insane data point.
10% of all Guatemalans currently alive reside in the United States.
Unbelievable, unbelievable.
99% of the Guatemalans.
So these are all people that have showed up again like yesterday.
Wasn't up for debate.
Was not up for debate.
So that's why I go back to my point again.
I think in her head, and I'm going to steal, man, and I'm going to ask her about this.
She's probably thinking about like Tejanos, people that have a long legacy residing in the state of Texas.
But that's not really what we're talking about when we're thinking about Hispanic migration, Hispanic migration that's occurred over the last 40, 50 years.
Again, we're thinking about illegal immigrants that have come to the country and their children are born and now their children have citizenship.
That's the type of people that, to guarantee long term success of the Republican Party, you would look to denaturalize and then deport.
Same thing with Guatemalans.
You have to start looking.
You got to make some tough calls.
You got to make some tough calls.
The state of the country, we're not in a good state.
So, with that, let's bring in Myra.
We're going to have a conversation with her and see what she has to say on all of this and so much more.
Obviously, before we get into everything, could you just give the people who maybe aren't familiar with you a quick intro of who you are and what you do?
Blessed to come to this amazing, beautiful country.
When I was a little girl, my dad being an American, I was given citizenship.
As in, when I was a little girl, my dad lived the right way, brought us to this amazing country.
When I was six years old, parents, migrant workers, moved a lot growing up.
Graduated from San Benito High School, San Benito, Texas.
And I became a respiratory care practitioner.
And it wasn't until 2016 that I got interested in politics.
I saw the need here in South Texas and how the Hispanic community didn't have all the information and didn't really understand what they were voting for, and the values that we were raised with were not aligning with the Democrat Party.
And so that is what motivated me to get involved in politics and educate the Hispanic community on the political.
Platforms and convince them to vote Republican.
And that's how I got involved in politics.
And in 2022, we made history.
I decided to run for Congress, made it to Congress, and got an opportunity to serve one term.
Unfortunately, I was not able to win my reelection due to redistricting.
And here I am, but very proud of the work that we did in 2024.
We lost a district that Hillary Clinton had won by 36 points.
36 points, and Biden won it by almost 20 points.
We lost it by only two points.
And that's a testament to the work that we did in convincing Hispanics to vote Republican.
And the work continues, and I'm still involved.
Why?
Because I want to make sure that we win this Senate seat in November and that we keep Texas red.
As you're saying, look, for the future of the Republican Party, in order to guarantee future electoral success, we need to invest in the Hispanic community.
And my contention, my issue with that was I was saying, look, my concern with that, I should say, is that when I hear this kind of rhetoric coming from politicians within the Republican Party, from officials or elected officials, for me, that sounds like we're sort of Of trying to water down aspects of the agenda in order to appeal to other groups that are not considered part of the core sort of Republican base.
And my main contention would be President Trump himself ran on the most staunch deportation platform of our lifetimes.
You know, he was saying, like, you know, at the RNC, they're holding up signs saying mass deportations, and he performed better than any candidate before with, you know, Hispanic voters.
And so, I want them to know all the amazing things President Trump is doing and not lying to the Hispanic community, because that's what they're doing.
The Democrats are.
Just spreading a lot of misinformation.
And I'm like, wait a minute.
I didn't put in all this work in 22 and 24 and help President Trump putting together Hispanic roundtables, spoke at his rallies for all this to be wiped out because the GOP doesn't have the right message.
My concern is President Trump is not in the ballot.
And just because they supported President Trump doesn't mean that they're going to vote Republican.
So this could be, I think this could be the instance in which maybe people are talking past each other.
What you're addressing is you're saying, look, in the short term, like coming up to the midterms, you know, you do need to make pitches to the Hispanic community to turn them out to vote.
I think what a lot of people, sort of, in the sphere, their contention is the existence of channels like Telemundo and Univision in the first place indicate that there's a massive issue.
That it indicates that the fact that we do have ethnic voting blocs by and large in the United States is a concern.
And that's a concern that a lot of Americans have that's driven a lot, quite frankly, a lot of sort of the MAGA movement.
Is they're saying America increasingly.
Is becoming unrecognizable.
And people, for what it's worth, just say the closer the country resembles Mexico, the less I like that.
My great great grandfather founded a city here in Texas.
My grandfather was born here in South Texas.
Fell in love with the women in Mexico.
So we're Americans.
We're proud Americans.
See, I'm pushing back white liberals, white liberals that were born and raised in this country and that hate this country.
See, our values align with the founding fathers of this amazing country of putting God first, our family, patriotism.
We love this country.
We work hard for this country.
We're Americans.
There's no reason for us to compete.
We should be compete with each other.
We should be complimenting each other.
This is what America is.
The white liberals or all these liberals, they are not a representation of this country.
Because how can you be born and raised here and hate your own?
That's another thing and hate your own race.
You should be proud.
No matter what, you should be proud.
You should be proud of being white.
You should be proud of being Hispanic.
You should be proud.
You should be proud of being an American.
Because that's what makes this amazing country great.
So, my point here, when I look at the census, when I look at the birth rates in Texas, I'm concerned that if we do not get a message to the Hispanic community about all the amazing things.
President Trump is doing and this administration, I want them to know so we can keep their support in November.
You know, that's my message here I want Texas to stay red.
I want to win the majority and that we shouldn't be competing here with each other because at the end of the day, we're all Americans.
And I mean, I think the Trump administration, the Trump campaign rather, ran a terrific campaign.
It really did build a broad coalition.
You saw a lot of people that probably wouldn't have voted for President Trump jump in and vote for President Trump.
It wasn't just like Hispanic men, like they're typically not part of the coalition.
You saw libertarians, even like disaffected liberals.
I guess my point is, and this is what you responded to, is my quote on your clip was I think what would be viable long term for the Republican Party is pursuing denaturalization and deportations.
I mean, that seems to be kind of viable because, again, the fact that Texas is becoming increasingly.
Because again, like we, I have to go back to earlier in 2025, we saw in Los Angeles, you know, there was the pushback on the ice raids.
And you saw a lot of Mexican Americans turn out in the streets, but they're flying Mexican flags or Hispanic Americans broadly, flying Guatemalan flags, flying Honduran flags.
To me, what the problem I see is that even with people that are born in the United States, there's nothing magical about the citizenship.
The citizenship just becomes paperwork at that point.
There has to be something deeper to what an American is beyond.
Just paperwork because what I'm seeing and what a lot of people are seeing, and this is why they're frustrated, is again, a lot of people are arriving at the country and they're not actually leaving those allegiances.
Nobody should be waving the Mexican flag in the United States, just like, you know, I don't know if you know this, but in Mexico, it's illegal to wave a foreign flag in a protest.
I mean, we're seeing some trends that indicate that in certain places, yes, the Hispanic community is moving to the right, the white community is moving to the left, but white voters still, by and large, are voting, like a majority, and in some cases overwhelmingly, for the Republican Party and no other ethnic group.
But your contention, and this is what you said in response to my tweet, was I want to swap or replace, I think you used the word replace, white liberal women specifically with conservative Latinas.
First of all, we hear replacement.
That was my pushback.
I was like, I think we've had enough with replacement for a while.
I'm sorry, but just let me finish my point real quick.
So if a white liberal failing to show allegiance to the United States is grounds, For rejection, then that would put a lot of Hispanic Americans up for denaturalization and deportation, considering we are seeing, you really don't have to go far.
I mean, I went to high school in San Antonio.
The south side of San Antonio doesn't feel like the United States.
You see Mexican flags everywhere, you see Honduran flags everywhere, you see Panamanian flags everywhere.
These people do need to have their citizenship reevaluated because, again, citizenship isn't what it used to be.
Citizenship has become paperwork that allows people to domicile in the United States.
Well, people, again, that have arrived in the country yesterday, yes, their citizenship should be up for evaluation because, again, we saw under the Biden administration, under the Obama administration, they played it very fast and loose.
Even the Bush administration, we saw mass amnesty.
What I'm saying is there is a distinction between, again, white liberals who we disagree with, but Again, they've been in the country for hundreds of years.
But I want people like ourselves, like you and I, that love this country, that believe in God, that believe in family, that believe in hard work, that respect the Constitution and what this country was built on.
And so I'm wanting to make sure that if they're American citizens, that if they're American citizens, that they're voting Republican and that they understand what our country was built on.
And so those values continue living in our country.
Because they're going to vote in November whether you like it or not.
You can complain all you want, but they're going to vote in November.
But these people, again, a good majority of these people, I mean, we can go back to there's various data points indicating that they don't actually have that same level of love that you're talking about, that same level of attachment, of loyalty to the United States as they do to their home country.
Again, I'm not contending that, but what I'm saying is that white voters are the only voting group in the United States, the only ethnic group that is voting Republican.
And what we're doing right now with the way that the immigration policy has been over the last six years.
But what I'm saying is that if denaturalizations is like a breaking point for Hispanics, then we need to have a conversation about the Hispanic community.
So, therefore, we need to start reevaluating people's citizenship because, again, what citizenship has become over the last 50, 60 years, it doesn't mean very much.
It really doesn't mean very much.
What I'm contending is crazy, even to those born here, and what I'm and what I'm liberals, and what I'm contending is we need to like the definition of American can't just be these like vague, you know, I love liberty and freedom and believe in God because, again, that's like the majority of the world.
The majority of the world agrees with those things.
But again, the welfare participation rates are far higher in the Hispanic community.
I mean, the majority of Americans who are born outside of the United States are on welfare versus 27% of Native born Americans.
And then in addition to that, Again, Hispanics, the majority of Hispanics are voting for the Democrat Party and the ones that are voting for the Republican Party and the ones that are voting for the Republican Party.
That's not going to change because it's not going to change.
But these deportation policies, again, these amnesty policies, these are Or rather, amnesty and then again, mass immigration from Latin America is popular with Hispanic Americans.
So, in order for the Republican Party to win more Hispanics, you're going to have to back away from some of those positions.
You know, what's important is that they're actually hearing people like me in these networks in Univision and Telemundo why we're having these deportations and because they're being lied to and manipulated.
And most people vote what's best for their family.
It doesn't matter what the background is.
They vote for the Democrat Party.
But at the same time, if they hear from us why President Trump is doing what he's doing, and that a lot of these people have a horrible criminal background, and that he hasn't put in place a new policy, these have been the laws.
This is what we ran on.
We don't have a spokesperson in Univision or Telemundo to talk about this.
No, we shouldn't stop deportations just to cater to certain people so they could vote for us in November.
I mean, obviously, Twitter is just a bit of a cesspool.
People end up talking past each other.
I respectfully disagree.
I mean, I just don't think it's a good electoral strategy to.
Appeal to groups that won't vote for you.
They really won't vote for you.
I think it would be best case scenario to deliver on policies that's widely popular with white Americans who are the base of the Republican Party.
White Americans are tapping out.
They're increasingly disenfranchised with the Republican Party because they just don't feel like they're delivering on things that are popular with them.
And it's just frustrating that white Americans aren't allowed to organize and promote interests that would benefit them, but every other ethnic group in the United States is allowed to.
So, with that, you can follow me on X and Instagram at Real Tape Brown.
We'll be back tonight for Tim Cast IRL at 8 p.m.
Thank you very much for watching, and I'll catch you guys next time.