Can Charlie's Home State Prove Him Wrong?
01:33:22 Share

Thank you.

And make sure you guys consider becoming a member today. Members.CharlieKirk.com. That is Members.CharlieKirk.com. Thanks to Allen Jackson Ministries for your continued support. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here.

Thank you, everybody. Please take a seat. It's great to be back in Illinois. I'll tell you what.

All right, let's see. Anyone from Wheeling? Come on, someone's got to be from Wheeling, inevitably. Hersey? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We don't like Hersey. Anyone from Wheeling up there? All right. I'll tell you what. Illinois, one person from Wheeling? You go to Wheeling High School? That's what I'm talking about. Anybody else? No, no, no, Hersey, no, no, we don't like Hersey. Where'd you go to middle school is the real question. Where? No, River Trail's even worse. London? No, no, no, MacArthur Middle School, everybody. That's the best. Where? Wheeling? Wheeling?

I love it. All right. Well, I went to Wheeling High School. I'm from Illinois. I know we got a lot of people from the suburbs of Chicago here. It's great to be here, everybody. Thank you for the great welcome. Sorry for the delay getting in. But a lot I could talk about here. We honestly want to get right into question and answer because that's the most fun, and that's why people wait in line to kind of see that and experience that. A lot happening in the country. In case you missed it, I don't know, a couple months ago we won a presidential election, which was pretty awesome. And...

What you are seeing is sometimes the not-so-perfect process of taking back a government from a prior regime that ignored its own citizens.

The very good news is we have a southern border again, which is amazing. There was 10,000 people crossing the border a day under Joe Biden. Now that number is basically and effectively zero, securing the southern border. President Trump is doing everything he said he was going to do. I believe we're going to get the whole tariff thing figured out. We'll talk about that tonight. We'll have a great discussion there. President Donald Trump signed an executive order saying no men and female sports, no men and female locker rooms.

declaring the cartels as a foreign terrorist organization, signing an executive order, of course, drill, baby, drill. Oil prices, by the way, are down nearly $20 in just the last couple of days. You're going to see that at the pump very soon. All that to say, though, nothing, obviously, when you take over an administration is going to go perfectly. But what is so refreshing is to finally see a person who was a candidate, who became president, doing exactly what he campaigned on and not just

turning his back on his voters and doing something that is the opposite. Everybody in this room, regardless if you're a Trump lover or a Trump hater, there is a sense of urgency for you. Gen Z, thankfully, by the way, is increasingly becoming the most conservative generation in history. It's moving very, very quickly. It's some great stuff, everybody.

A lot better than millennials, I'll tell you what. When I spoke here eight years ago, we could barely fill a 100-person room, and now we're going to turn away like 600 people tonight. It's incredible. But it is a serious...

issue that is facing Gen Z. You are the first generation in American history to have a future that is materially worse off than your parents. You are the most suicidal generation in history, the most depressed generation in history. It is harder than ever to own a home, harder than ever to be able to work hard and get ahead. Many of you are going to experience yourself in the red, not in the black, of your financial situation. What has gone down is a breakdown of the social compact and the social contract.

which is that we have decided that the next generation does not deserve the same future that your parents had. And I believe that's one of the big breakdowns as to why so many young people decided to trust Donald Trump with their vote back in November. It was basically, it was a signal, it was a cry for help, it was a distress signal of a generation that owned nothing and is not happy and understands that if you do not have

a meaningful opportunity to do the very basic things, get married, have children, start a family, own a home. And instead, you have to go move to the big cities like Indianapolis or Chicago, rent for the rest of your life, and maybe get married, maybe have kids, maybe not. And you kind of continue on this cycle of misery. Meanwhile, your parents are like, oh, yeah, it was super easy for us to buy a home in Hinsdale in the 1970s or 80s.

Like, well, I don't know if you're ever going to be able to do that under the current economic established order. So what you are seeing is hopefully a rebalancing of that. Young people overwhelmingly voted for that in an amazing way back in November because regardless of your political affiliation, the next generation –

I believe doesn't just deserve better, but it's generational theft. It's intergenerational thievery to steal from young people just so that the older generation can have a nice decade. And we saw this explicitly during the lockdowns. The lockdowns, in my opinion, was one of the greatest mistakes in modern American history, was one of the greatest public policy mistakes. We never should have locked down our schools. We never should have canceled prom graduation. One of the greatest mistakes ever.

And the argument that was made was that, well, we're going to make you, the kid, suffer because you might infect grandma. This is a moral disaster. We are the first generation in American history where parents were willing to make their kids suffer so that they could have it nicer. I want you to think about how perverse that is. Every other generation would be, I, the adult, will live a worse life so my kid can live a better life.

This is the first time where they said, we're going to shut down the schools, even though the kids are going to commit suicide more. They're going to be more isolated. They're going to be more depressed, even though half of girls by the time they reach the age of 25 are going to be on antidepressants or clinically depressed or some sort of general anxiety disorder, largely because of the outgrowth of COVID. Even though we're going to see all of these mental health issues coming out of COVID, we're still going to lock everything down for something that was never a threat to you in this audience.

This virus was never a threat to you in this audience, but we did this under the guise and the medium that, well,

You might go infect somebody older than you. Well, hold on a second. Wouldn't the smarter thing have been just to quarantine the older individuals and let the younger people still have school and still have sports and not shut down Illinois schools for a year and a half? And we saw it as a catastrophic failure. Reading levels went down. Math levels went down. And it's a generation that is left behind. And now we're trying to catch up. By doing that, we need to see wages go up. We need to see debt levels go down. And quite honestly, we need to allow women to be women again and men to be men again. Enough of this...

persistent war on masculinity.

In my personal opinion, we need to see young people get married earlier and have more children and have increased families. The cycle of just going to go move to a major metropolitan area, as I said, go work for a company that does not like you, does not care for you, and quite honestly resents you, just so that you could have like a two-bedroom, two-bath in the Gold Coast and act like you're living the dream. Let me tell you what the actual dream is. The real dream is being able to wake up every single day with a wife who loves you or a husband that loves you

And even if you're struggling, even if you're going through life with tension, to have children, not just a bunch of cats and a nice job working for Boeing because, oh, I'm told that we have to go pursue the corporate dream. There is a deeper existence out there than what you have been sold.

For the young ladies out there, I understand that there's hyper-feminist lie that's being pushed. You've got to go to college. You've got to get a job. That's all fine. That's great. Pursue your passions. Do all that. But understand, the happiest women in America, this is definitionally true. The data shows it. The happiest women in America are not the CEOs. They're not the mid-level managers. They're not the HR executives. The happiest women in America are married with kids, by far. They are the happiest women in America, by far. And...

We need to not just give young ladies the permission for that. We need to say that the most elevated, heroic, and courageous thing that you could do in this country is not go get a second master's degree at University of Chicago. It's maybe have more kids than you can afford, build a family beyond what your apartment can actually hold. That is actually what it looks like to be a hero in modern America, not wearing a mask, fighting systemic racism in the streets of Grant Park, acting as if you're some sort of social justice warrior activist.

One is a hero and one is a coward. Okay, with that, I actually just did a three-hour event earlier at Illinois State University. Don't hold that against me. So I'm largely talked out until we start getting to Q&A. These events, as you can imagine, take incredible stamina. We're doing this every day. Yesterday we were in South Carolina, two events today. Then we go to Purdue. We don't like Purdue. And then we, yeah, exactly. We don't like Purdue. Thank you.

Um, and then, then we go to, we really don't like Michigan state where I'm going to Michigan state, uh, on Friday. So let's do Q and a, how are we doing this guys? We're going to line it up somewhere in, in the aisles. Uh, we're going to, we're going to dive right into it. Cause I know that's the most fun. Um, as a reminder, guys, be respectful of people who ask questions, even if you might disagree. Um,

With the questioner, do not interrupt. Give them the respect that you don't always get. And also, if you disagree, the line will form right here. If you disagree, work your way to the front of the line. We want active disagreements. We will take a question, of course, from conservatives. But I love all my MAGA hat people. Honestly, thank you. We could talk all day long about how great things are. We want to hear the disagreement. We want to have the back and forth. That's why we're here tonight. Right? Okay. With that, let's get to some questions. Yes, sir.

What's up, Mr. Kirk? How we doing? I've been a fan of you for about six or seven years now. Awesome. It's totally nerve-wracking. But hey, I'm honestly feeling duped by the Trump administration. I feel like they're not totally delivering on their promises, right? And I think the biggest promise was mass deportations, right? And, you know, the ICE Instagram and Twitter accounts, they made a big stink about it. They were posting like, you know, 1,000 deportations today, 2,000 today, and then it slowly started to trickle down. And I know Trump called ICE or something and was like, hey, pump the numbers up or whatever, but...

It just doesn't seem like it's going to materialize. And it looks on paper that Obama is going to pass him. He's going to have more career deportations than Trump. $14 million.

illegal aliens came over the border during Biden's term, right? And it looks like we're not even going to make a dent in that. I mean, Susie Wiles, the campaign manager, she came out. Chief of staff, but yeah. Hmm? Chief of staff, yeah. Chief of staff, yeah. Okay, chief of staff. She came out and she said, if we get 3 million deportations, it'd be a success. But there are 40 million illegals in the country. I know there are judiciary problems, but isn't there something Trump can do? I mean, I can't, I'm not the only one that's feeling duped, and I'm not a part of the extreme right, but. It's been 75 days, so let's start with the duped language. Yeah.

Number one, can we acknowledge we have a border so there's no new people coming in? Yes, yes, 100%. I totally support that. Awesome, great. Number two, there's self-deportation happening. The New York Times just did this huge story saying that hundreds of thousands of people are now self-deporting back to their country of origin because they're afraid that they might be deported. So that's good, too. We can agree. But I would offer you – I would argue you need to also offer –

the president and his administration a little bit of grace. He's being enjoined to actually be able to do deportations. He has been sued over 114 times by circuit courts, basically handcuffing his ability to do that. Now, we had an amazing Supreme Court victory yesterday where the Supreme Court came and said, yes, actually, you can use the Alien and Invaders Act to be able to get MS-13 and Tren de Aragua out of the country, which is amazing.

I do agree with you, though. Even though it's been three months, we do need to keep on boosting these numbers up. Largely, it is a legal problem. Every time a single person gets deported, there's a lawsuit and a judge that does an injunction. Lawsuit and judge that does an injunction. Yeah, totally. So we have to wait for the Supreme Court to continue to weigh in on that. With that being said, though, the administration is constantly innovating as a way to solve this problem. And the final thing I'll say is this, and I understand your urgency.

We've never dealt with this kind of a problem before where you have 14 million new people. It might be 12, but I think 14 is about right in four years. I mean, it's an unprecedented amount of people to put that into perspective that there are 30 states that have less people than 14 million people. I mean, it's a big deal, but I mean, Tom, Tom Holman came out and he said, Hey, we're not going to be rounding up people in the street in vans. And I'm like,

how else is it going to get done? I get that would look bad. It'd be a terrible look, bad optics, but it's got to get done somehow. And if Trump doesn't do it, how's it going to get done? Fair enough. It's been 75 days. Give him a little bit of time, right? The deportations will increase. And I believe that any person that crossed under Joe Biden should be returned back to their country of origin. And we need to keep the pressure on. And I believe President Trump will deliver. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.

We're honored to be partnering with the Alan Jackson Ministries. And today I want to point you to their podcast. It's called Culture and Christianity, the Alan Jackson podcast. What makes it unique is Pastor Alan's biblical perspective. He takes the truth from the Bible and applies it to issues that we're facing today. Gender confusion, abortion, immigration, Doge, Trump and the White House.

issues in the church. He doesn't just discuss the problems. In every episode, he gives practical things we can do to make a difference. His guests have incredible expertise and powerful testimonies. Each episode will make you recognize the power of your faith and how God can use your life to impact our world today. The Culture and Christianity podcast is informative and encouraging. You could find it on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss any episodes.

Alan Jackson Ministries is working hard to get biblical truth back into our culture. You can find out more about Pastor Alan and the ministry at alanjackson.com. That is alanjackson.com. Again, that is alanjackson.com.

Hey, Charlie. I'm a freshman here majoring in aerospace engineering. First of all, I just want to say I respect your ability to engage in civil discourse. I think that's very important. And I think a lot of the times we on the left kind of get into shouting matches and start ostracizing people much to our, not to our advantage. So I respect that. That being said, there's a lot of things I disagree with you about. I think I want to talk about abortion with you. I

I've never debated that before. It's a fan favorite, I know, and I've seen some of your stuff on it. I'm sure you're familiar with J.J. Thompson's argument about abortion, the violinist. Yeah, correct. Okay, so I want to propose a slightly different take on that, maybe a variation. So if there's a mother and a daughter, the daughter can be a teenager, 20, whatever, and let's say this daughter has some

some kind of condition or organ failure or something where she needs a body apart from her mom, like a kidney transplant, and only her mom is capable of giving her that kidney transplant. She's the only person for DNA reasons or something. Do you think that mom should be required legally by the government to give her kidney in order to keep the daughter alive? Otherwise, the daughter dies. It's not an analogous situation to a pregnancy. Okay, so why is it not analogous?

Well, first of all, because pregnancy only lasts nine months and you don't lose a kidney. Okay. So let's say, okay. You realize when you have a baby, you don't lose a kidney. Okay. So the mother has to give up her kidney for nine months and then she gets it back. How does that work? It doesn't matter. That's why it's not analogous. I understand. But if, okay, let's say the mother has to be. So come up with an example that is. Okay. The mother has to be hooked up into the daughter's bloodstream for nine months. Use a real example, not something theoretical. Okay.

I don't understand. Like, what part... I understand it's theoretical, but what part of this analogy is not analogous? Because it doesn't happen. I mean, of course it doesn't happen. But why... Of course. So then why are we talking about it? Because it's an analogy. Analogies don't happen. That's the point of analogies. Well, some analogies actually do happen. Okay. So can you think of one that would be rooted in reality? An abortion. But, okay. Okay. Let's say, like...

I think the reason you're trying to avoid this is because you realize that the government... Let's flip this hypothetical around. Let's say that you had a very awful disease for nine months, a killer disease. And if you took a magical pill, because we're going to use hypotheticals, that could kill somebody randomly around the world, would you do it? I would not do it, no. So you would let the other person live? I would. But, okay, the difference here is that... That's your pro-life.

No, okay, here's my distinction I wanted to make, though.

I think there's a very important distinction to be made between thinking that abortions are good versus thinking that women should have the choice to have an abortion. Because in our scenario, the mother-daughter, you can argue that the right thing to do, the thing you would want to do, or the thing that I would want someone to do, is to donate the kidney and save the daughter. But I think there's kind of an instinct that for the mother, some sort of autonomy, bodily autonomy perhaps,

is stands in the way and basically says the government cannot enforce her to do that, even if it's the thing that we would feel is right for her to do. So what about that situation is different? Is it the mother's DNA? What do you mean? Is the baby in her DNA? Well, in my first analogy, I guess, yeah. But it's a separate human being, right? So every human being should have separate protected universal rights.

Every human being. Does the mother have the protected universal right to not have her kidney taken to go to the daughter, right, in this scenario? I thought we were over that one. So I'm trying to get to at least some semblance of landing the plane here. When a woman is pregnant, there's two sets of DNA, mother-baby. If the mother terminates that baby, abortion,

then she is basically saying my DNA matters more than this other human being's DNA. Don't you think a human who is...

physically entangled with another human has the right, purely on bodily autonomy, to do that. If someone else is reliant, plugged into my body, do I not have the right to disconnect that and retain... No, you do not have the right to starve another human being of nutrients that would kill them. You do not have a right to do that. If you woke up tomorrow and someone was plugged into you, reliant... Again, that's not going to happen. Use a real example. You're not addressing the root...

The root issue here... The root issue is to be philosophically consistent. A woman or a man, especially a woman in pregnancy, does not have a right to terminate another human being, regardless if it's in their utero, in their nursery, or whether it's in their car. If someone comes up to you and is trying to cause you bodily harm, like trying to, I don't know, not kill you, but trying to attack you and cause you harm, do you have the right to defend yourself? Well, hold on. Hold on a second. Are you saying that a baby's an invader in a woman's uterus?

I mean, in a way it is, right? The baby...

Okay, let's say... Is the baby breaking and entering? In an instance of rape. Hold on, that's less than half of 1% of all the cases. So I am pro-life in all the cases, but let me just say, let's say that we allow abortion and rape. Should we then outlaw abortion for all the other cases? I don't think so. Okay, so then we're not going to talk about rape because you're using it as an externality to try to... So let's now talk about the other 99.9% of the cases, right? I agree, I'm down. So now let's...

But just to be clear, in the 99.9% of the cases, how did that baby appear? Did it just knock, knock, I want to come in, breaking and entering? Probably accidentally. Hold on, accidentally. What do you mean? That's like catching COVID? You didn't like...

I mean, what did the woman do to get the baby there? Probably had sex. Yeah, so she made a decision and she'd take responsibility for your orgasms, right? Okay, but if you, I think there's a distinction between, there's a distinction between if you're trying to have sex protected or unprotected. It doesn't matter what your intent is. The action has a consequence.

If you get on a plane and the plane crashes, can we say that you consented to die in a plane crash because that was your intent? Well, actually, anyone who gets on a plane knows that when you play certain games, you can win certain prizes. So, okay, there's a... But is it your fault? No, it's probably the pilot's fault or the DEI person running the air traffic control's fault, whatever. But more concretely or more realistically, do you agree with the principle that people should take responsibility for their actions? Of course you do.

Generally, yes, but I think... Generally, except, of course, when it involves sex. Of course, people should take responsibility for their actions. But in the scenario where your body is being...

like used by another entity, your body, your argument would have a lot of merit. If babies just appeared, if all of a sudden, like a woman woke up, we decided that we're going to put that aside. Cause we think in cases of rape, abortion should be allowed. Of course. You know why? I do. Cause I do not. And of course, I'm sorry. They should not be allowed. I'll tell you why. I have two ultrasounds in front of me. One is a baby conceived in rape. One is a baby with a loving family. Which one is which?

There's no distinction. Exactly, because they're both human beings. There is a distinction between the mother. The method of conception does not give you more rights or less rights. Somebody in this auditorium, hold on, somebody in this auditorium was conceived in rape. Who is it? I don't know. You don't know because they're a human being just the same. Human rights are universal. The conception doesn't matter and the human rights of the mother are also universal. The bodily autonomy, if you're going to say... Then come on, that right there.

Thank you. Like I said, like I said, there's, being pro-choice is not necessarily being pro-abortion. It's just pro the right. Should I, again, this might sound awfully elementary or pedantic. Yes. But do I have a right to murder you?

No, because that would infringe my bodily autonomy. Bingo. So why... No, time out. Why does a mom then have a right to be able to murder the being in her temporarily? Because that being in her is infringing upon her bodily... If I was infringing on your bodily autonomy, you could murder me. If I came up and tried to attack you, you could murder me. How could you possibly... Infringing on bodily autonomy because...

The baby's there for nine months getting nutrients from the mother? Yeah, and when they're birthed, they rip a hole in the mother, and there are a ton of side consequences that could come out of that. There's all of these... It is reliant on the mother's body. It's biologically the same as the past. Let me just say, I'll grant you all of this. So therefore, eliminate the life. Which definitionally infringes on that human's rights. Okay, so...

The bodily autonomy of the fetus does not trump the bodily autonomy of the mother. No, it's equal. They're both human beings. Yes, but the fetus is already infringing on the autonomy of the mother. What species is the fetus? It's a human. So call it a human, not a fetus. Don't use dehumanizing language to try to make it seem like it's a clump of cells because it's easier to murder things you cannot see. It's easier to eliminate things you cannot witness. So they use words like fetus, not you. Were you a human being when you were a fetus?

I was a, yes. Okay, great. So therefore, if it's a human being, shouldn't it get human rights, the same as you and I? Just because it's smaller, just because it can't talk like us, doesn't it deserve human rights? It does as long as it's not infringing upon another human's rights. Wait, hold on. Time out. Is my six-month-old who demands food all the time and can't hunt and gather infringing on my rights and my income because it needs food all the time? No, because it's not hooked up into your body.

Hold on, no, no, no. Hold on. It's in my home. If I don't feed my child, I will go to jail for intentional child starvation. I will get locked up by CPS. So how is it any different to have a six-month-old under my custody, which is infringing on my income, infringing on my rights, infringing on my sleep, infringing on a lot of different things as a father?

How is it any different than the nine months up to umbilical cord? By the way, how many people in this audience are currently having their tuition paid for by their parents? They're infringing on their parents' income. How is it any different, actually? Because...

You don't think that there is a difference between the baby after it's born versus the baby? What's the difference? Okay, because while it is in utero, while the woman is pregnant, it can cause the woman physical harm. It is life-threatening. There are a ton of cases where it can cause all kinds of things to happen, and it is physically hooked up into your body. It incapacitates you to some extent. Wow, I just, I encourage you. You have such, like, a lot, you have,

Just so we are clear, that babies can infect moms with terrible diseases. Babies are like disease mongers by the time that they're age one. I'm not anti-baby. No, but here's the point, is that there are risks at every point of human development. There are risks when the baby is two weeks old. There's a risk when they're 16 years old and they start driving. Then there are risks to all of humanity.

But you don't think there's a fundamental difference when they're physically connected into your... Let's play this out. If the idea of somebody being physically connected... Right now, there are tens of thousands of babies right now in what is called NICU. It's a neonatal intensive care unit. They're 26, 27, 28 weeks...

They cannot breathe on their own. They have contraptions and machines all around, and it's extremely expensive. Hold on. It's extremely expensive for the parents. They have to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt. Do they have a right to say, you know what, that baby in NICU, it's going to cost us 300 grand as all these machines. Do they have a right to pull the plug on that baby? Do you think...

Answer the question. I don't think so. But do you think... Well, how is it any different than what it's in utero? Because it's not bodily autonomy. Do you think they would have a right to go pull someone random off the street and hook up the baby into that person's bloodstream because the baby would die otherwise? If the NICU machine doesn't exist, what do you think?

If the NICU machine didn't exist and you had to pull a random person off the street to save that baby's life. Again, none of that is even remotely relevant and hypothetical. You're dodging this because you understand that the person... The answer is no because it's not applicable to what I'm saying. But again, in some ways you're overthinking it. In some ways you're underthinking it. Let me just kind of end with this. That human development at its very core, irrefutably, starts at conception.

I believe human life and human development start the same. You can have your own thoughts on that, but human development, our process as human beings, start when our deoxyribonucleic acid as a zygote attaches to the uterine wall. That is when life begins, like irrefutably. I'm not arguing that. I never once argued that. But allow me to finish, and then we'll get to the next question. Therefore, at every step of the process of development, you have the same human rights as when you're 18 or 30 or 40. And the most fundamental of all those rights is life.

And if we cannot defend your life right, then what good are we defending all of your other rights? Final point. So I still think, I really don't think it would hurt you to answer the original analogy. I think you see where it would go, that you can't infringe upon someone's bodily autonomy in order to save someone else's life. Do you agree with that? Well, hold on, time out. Just so we are clear, we infringe on people's bodily autonomy all the time. Want me to give you an example?

We drafted men into World War II to go fight for this nation. That infringed on their bodily autonomy. We told them that your time is not your own. Your passion is not your own. You must go run onto Normandy Beach. Would you agree that is an infringement on bodily autonomy? It is, but the government has the right to do that to uphold the nation, right? There's a difference... Saving babies upholds the nation, my friend. All the time. How? In the same way as fighting a war? Yeah, even more so. In fact...

Reducing abortions by a million a year would be an enrichment of our society. We might find the next Einstein, the next Nikola Tesla. We might have the next Michael Jordan that is being aborted every day. The government's right to be able to do that, I think, needs to be justified by some reason that it affects the government. It doesn't affect the government to terminate a baby in pregnancy.

Like you don't think I don't think a million abortions a year affects anybody. I'm not saying it affects nobody, but I'm saying in the same what you're saying, it affects people in the same way that the government not being able to have an army does. Like, I think there's a difference. I would actually think it's an even bigger moral crisis than not being able to enlist an army. If you are a moral crisis, if you are massacring a million of your own people every year, that's a bigger problem than being able to properly staff the Marine Corps.

You're, you're, okay, so you think we're mastering the people, but we also are forcing women. No, but to go, to just to go back to your analogy, just so we're clear. Yeah. The government does infringe on bodily autonomy in times of national crisis. Yes. And therefore, again, I even reject. What is the national crisis that results in having. Murder, a million a year. That's a crisis. Okay. Right? If I told you that a million people are murdered a year, blanket, you would say, boy, that's a big problem. In fact, we used to call that the Holocaust.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. In fact, right? I mean, you would say, so just so we're clear, Holocaust went for about six to seven years, six to seven million people died. I understand. We remember it. I know a lot about the Holocaust. Was the Holocaust a crisis? Yes, it was a crisis. So how is abortion not a crisis? Because the... Because there are smaller human beings?

The unborn, the baby, the fetuses. Hold on, you said baby, therefore it's murder. It's a baby, it's a baby, whatever you want to call it. I still think if, okay. Whatever you want to call it, okay. I think the big distinction here is that that baby, that child is still infringing upon someone else's body using their body and I think the owner of

that body okay i might even grant you that the point being is that throughout history we are able to sometimes say that in order for life liberty the pursuit of happiness defeating the nazis in world war ii there is a greater good and i will say that what is the greater good that those that are being massacred in the womb can have life because life is good and it's the first of all human rights and that's the last question are you glad you weren't aborted

Of course I'm going to. Then why wouldn't you want to give that gift to millions of other people? Do you want to give the gift? What about there's mothers, there are mothers that die in medical situations all the time. That is a red herring. No one wants those mothers to die, but it is a fact that if we outlawed abortion, 99% of them, all of a sudden we'd have a 990,000 increase in our population every year. And we'd have a much more life. Those children would, would be

See, that is a cynical view. You know there's over 2 million people on the adoption waiting list every year, and there are a million abortions. We have twice as many people that want to adopt than actually abort in this country. There is no such thing as an unwanted child, and I refuse to live under the bigotry of low expectations.

Where we can justify, oh, they're going to have a bad life or they're going to grow up in a crime-ridden neighborhood. I'm sorry. I know you don't mean it. That's how you get to eugenics. If you start to all of a sudden say that their life is going to be terrible, therefore we can eliminate them. That's not the point I was trying to make. That is exactly the point you were making. No, I started with the bodily autonomy thing.

No, no, but eventually, you interjected. You granted for a moment there. You granted for a moment the thing about... No, I said if I were to grant you the bodily autonomy, it doesn't even bear out that at times the government can actually take possession of your bodily autonomy. When did Roe v. Wade start? Like 60s, right? From the 1960s. 1970-something. Okay. Okay.

From then until now, until Trump banned abortion, what national crisis has arisen? Has there been a national crisis because all of these babies have been aborted? 55 million souls that never had a chance to live. That's beyond a national crisis. We didn't lack scientists or politicians because of unborn babies. How do you know?

I mean, we, like, there was no... So you know all 55 million identities and what they could have achieved in their dreams? I mean, at some point, you have to take a step back and say, boy, when 55 million people never had a chance at life, that's kind of dark. What does that say for a society? 55 million, I don't know if all of them wanted to have an abortion, but millions of women...

didn't want to be pregnant and were forced to continue being pregnant against their will like that affected their physical bodies we're going in circles but outside of rape if you don't want to get pregnant then save yourself for marriage and stop having so much sex with everybody okay certainly do not murder babies as an excuse for your gratuitous sex we've been here for 15 minutes thank you so much thank you thank you i don't know if we made any progress on that but we we definitely tried next question yes

Hello, Charlie Kirk. I hope you have some fiery responses for me. I don't know about that. Before I ask my question, I just wanted to say to the vegan conservative, wherever he is, I thought he had some great moral points, but I do still love meat, even though I think he's right. But anyway, I consider myself a proud American patriot. And my question for you revolves around January 6th, 2021. You would consider Donald Trump to be the law and order president or candidate, I would assume, from what you've said in the past.

How do you feel about Donald Trump commuting the sentence of Dominic Pizzola, who was the man who stole a riot shield from a police officer on the Capitol grounds and was the first person to enter the Capitol by using said riot shield to break through a window in the Capitol? I don't like what he did, but why did Trump commute him?

I don't know. Yeah, because there was a deprivation of basic due process rights. What was that deprivation of due process? Well, a lot of them, first of all, some of the January 6th defendants were in... We're talking about Dominic Pozzola right now, who was on camera stealing a riot shield, breaking through a window. I let you talk, so let me talk, right? Some of the January 6th defendants were in pretrial detention for nearly two to three years. They were not given proper examination of the prosecution's evidence.

If you believe in the principle that a rotten tree bears rotten fruit, the entire prosecution of the government around January 6th was politically motivated, was basically a hit job from the inception, where basic human rights were deprived of many of these January 6th defendants.

I don't know the specifics of this case, but I can almost guarantee you he was not given a fair trial in Washington, D.C. to be able to have all of the evidence presented as any other American deserves in that kind of a setting. Are you familiar at all with the results from the January 6th committee? Yeah, I'm in it, actually. Have you read it?

I read my part. You read the part about the Proud Boys and their plans. Just so we're clear, the January 6th committee that got preemptive pardons from Joe Biden on the last day because they were so worried that they were going to go to jail for the rest of their life? Does that entirely invalidate everything that they found? It does make you wonder, why did they need pardons if you were just a January 6th committee? That's kind of weird, right? I don't really see why that matters. I think it matters a lot. It's kind of bizarre. That does not dispute the actual evidence, the text messages they found that were between members of the Proud Boys

that were coordinating what they were going to be doing on January 6th. So let me ask you, what do you think happened on January 6th? I think that Donald Trump had a plan for months before January 6th. I'm sure you're aware of the false lace of electors that he sent to seven different states. Again, I've been through this so many times. It's like, yeah, sure, I think I'm going to be answering this question in like 2076. I'm telling you guys. And you should be because it was a stain on American history.

So, I mean, yeah, you know what was a stand on American history? The fact that Joe Biden let 14 million people across our border and called it like Joe Biden gave us a booming economy. Oh, he was really booming. Donald Trump is currently tanking our economy and also tanked our economy in 2020 when COVID hit and he locked down this country. All those school closures that you were complaining about were done by Donald Trump. If Joe Biden's economy was so great, then why was Kamala Harris afraid to run on it?

I don't really care for Kamala Harris. I think Joe Biden was a great American president. I don't think Kamala Harris was a great candidate. Wait, hold on, hold on, hold on. So do great American presidents pardon their whole family the last hour of their presidency? I think you do when you have criminals like Donald Trump who are going in saying that we are going to weaponize the Department of Justice to go after people like Hunter Biden. Criminals, yeah. Wait a second. So Donald Trump is a criminal because he was charged and found guilty of multiple crimes.

Oh, you mean the New York stuff? Oh, so you mean that we just shouldn't trust any judicial system unless it's done by the people that we are in favor of? Well, so tell me the details. What exactly was his crime that Alvin Bragg prosecuted? I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to talk about the January 6th crimes that you are trying to deflect from. Hold on a second. I could talk about January 6th all day long, and I support President Trump's pardons. But let's go back because you said Trump was a criminal. Since you don't know, it was the falsifying of business records. You said you were going to be talking about it until 2020.

It was the falsifying of business records. It was the falsifying of business records to cover up a crime. What was the crime?

Yeah, the prosecution didn't know either because they literally said we can't tell you what crime that they were covering up. So they can't even tell you what the crime that Donald Trump committed. And now it has been downgraded to a misdemeanor. Alvin Bragg literally had to invent a crime that has never been tried before in American history. And Donald Trump faced 700 years in federal prison in in because of Jack Smith and January 6th case and all that. And still, despite all of that.

Donald Trump won the popular vote and 312 electoral votes. It's funny how that works, isn't it? That's wonderful for you, but I don't see how that changes anything that happened on January 6th. Well, so I am curious, though, about the... We got to this part because... Do you think it was an insurrection? I think that the acts Donald Trump did beforehand was an insurrection. I don't think what happened on January 6th was an insurrection. I think it was the delaying of the peaceful transfer of power, which has not happened in American history before.

Again, it's just, we're on such different planets. There is no evidence whatsoever. That's because I actually believe what I'm saying unlike what I would assume you do. You think I don't believe what I'm saying? I think there's a lot of things you don't. Oh, really? It's interesting. You can like read my mind and see my spirit. Honestly, it's even scarier to think that you believe what you're saying because it's so insane. Like, it's not a shtick. Well, I,

I was able to actually watch what happened on January 6th and feel disgusted. Were you thinking those were just American patriots protesting the election? I don't like people that assault police officers or damage windows, but you can agree that 95% of the people that faced federal prison time were nonviolent offenders that were welcomed into the Capitol building by police officers

and said, come on in, come on in, that did nothing except go and say a couple prayers. How does that negate in any way the people who actively broke in and were the first ones inside of the building? Well, hold on. So it was such an overemphasis of using the FBI Department of Justice statute of interference of the delay of a certification of congressional results

that you had people that were just like everyday Jones. They launched the largest manhunt in history. The FBI's number one priority on their website was not the cartels, it was not fentanyl, it was not inner-city gang violence, it was let's go find all the January Sixers that went in and did nonviolent offenses. Don't you think there's something wrong with that? How does that have anything to do with Donald Trump pardoning all the violent offenders on January 6th? Okay, I can go back to that. As I said, the legal system itself...

that deprived him of, deprived many of these people of basic declaration of constitutional rights. Trump wanted a clean slate, and that is why he did it.

So for the people who committed violent crimes, that's just perfectly fine because they did it for him? I'm not justifying what they did. I'm saying... I thought Donald Trump was the law and order president. It is an indictment. Law and order. Yes, in fact, he cares about law and order so much that if somebody doesn't have attorney-client privilege, which was broken, if somebody does not have Fifth Amendment rights or Sixth Amendment rights, then that is an indictment of the entire Biden Department of Justice system. And he, as president, has the pardon power to wipe that slate clean. I'm glad he did. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you.

Y-Refi. Check it out at Y-Refi.com. Call 888-Y-Refi-34 or log on to Y-Refi.com. That is Y-R-E-F-Y.com. You don't have to ignore that mountain of student loan statements on your kitchen table anymore. Y-Refi does not care what your credit score is. When the payment on your distressed or defaulted private student loan is so big that you can't ever get ahead in your finances, Y-Refi is surely your best option. Go to Y-Refi.com. That is Y-R-E-F-Y.com. Private student loan debt in America totals about $3.5 billion.

Hey, Charlie, before I ask the question, I just want to say on behalf of everyone here, thank you so much for coming out. I think we all appreciate it.

I tend to be pretty economically free market oriented, and so maybe you know where this is going. I have a question on the tariffs. In all fairness, I don't fully know where you stand on this. I do think you're broadly in support of the tariffs, but I had a couple of questions on that.

First of all, what do you think of how the Trump administration and Trump in particular squares the idea that a trade deficit broadly means that we're getting ripped off or he's equated these in the past? For example, you have a trade deficit with your grocer. We have a trade deficit with maybe Madagascar. I don't really see why that means we're getting ripped off per se because...

Sure. Our market's just far bigger. We have a lot more people that want stuff from there. I don't see why that's an issue. Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, a trade deficit is also a capital account surplus, as you know. The biggest issue with trade deficits is industrial policy.

If you can't make your own drones, if you can't make your own pharmaceuticals, if you can't make your own vitamin C, then you're not a nation. You're basically a colony. You're a de facto consumer state. What President Trump is attempting to do with tariffs is a fundamental contention that if you can't make and design your own physical products, your own hardware, then you fail to be a country in the 21st century.

especially when we are reliant on our number one enemy, the Chinese Communist Party, to make all those products ourselves. So what I think you're going to start to see, you're going to see deals struck with Japan.

South Korea, you're going to start to see them marching in. The market was up today. It was down today. It's all over the place. I think all of a sudden you're going to see China be the last one where you're going to see tariff relief at a lot of our allies, as it should happen. And by the way, just so we are clear, there's no reason why Europe should not buy more of our LNG. There's no reason why Japan should not buy more of our energy. There's so much, like for example, Australia,

We have not imported any of our beef to Australia over the last 20 years. They have a huge tariff there. It's a $27 billion beef industry. We should be able to sell our products there as well. And so, yeah, you can counter there. Yeah.

On the national security front, I broadly agree, but then I have a couple of questions. First of all, do you think that... So tariffing China, I completely understand. What do you think of the idea that you tariff China and you tariff all these other nations, that's going to push them to be more...

to establish more, like, stronger ties with China. And so it reorient-- That is the risk. That is a good point. It is a risk. I hope it doesn't happen. I don't think it's going to happen. Japan, for example, right now is doing the opposite. Japan and South Korea are on planes right now landing in DC in the next couple hours coming saying, please, America, let's get this done. Let's drop the tariffs. We want to work together. And that should be the resolution. Right.

And so I guess just one more point. If it's to do with national security strictly, then why did we have an exemption on the tariffs for the Taiwan, the semiconductor stuff? Because I feel like that would be the number one, one of the number one national security infringements

but I guess that you might say that we need, it's like it's an interest in protecting Taiwan. Oh, it's huge. Yeah, I mean, we by no means should try to impoverish Taiwan if we want to try to stick it to the Chinese. But I do want to push back one other thing and we'll get to the next question. It's not strictly national security. There is a point where you, when you are the incumbent economic power and you are in a trade deficit, you have an opportunity to force the other actors to redomicile some of their manufacturing back domestically.

And that would be a good thing for this country. Can I have one last question on South Korea, for example, where they're coming and they're striking a deal? We already had like a free trade agreement in South Korea. So what would be the purpose of us imposing these huge tariffs on South Korea and then negotiating and coming back down to zero? We're already at zero. There's a lot of products we cannot sell in South Korea.

South Korea. So there have been carve-outs and exemptions. So part of it is a forcing. So you can use tariffs for three reasons. You can use it for national security. You can use it for industry protection. And Trump has created a third category. You can use it for negotiation.

You can bring people to the table. You can reevaluate. You can get back down to brass tacks. And I think we should consider permanent tariffs on certain industries that can last a long time, especially around drones, steel, critical manufacturing, tanks, things that China should not be making for us. There's no argument whatsoever as to why, if China just kind of cuts the cord, why we should be dependent on them. Very smart question. I think the goal should be this.

The goal should be balanced trade with our allies. And the fact that the Chinese stock market is collapsing, honestly, it's well past time that we show that we are the dominant player in the world. And the Chinese Communist Party is the greatest enemy of the United States. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. Disagreement? Yeah, sure. Hi, my name is Samantha. I just want to say, like, excuse me for, like, looking at my phone for notes. No worries. Whatever. I want to talk about, like, have a good discussion about abortion. Yeah.

We're going to keep it shorter if that's okay because we did half an hour with that other guy. Yeah, sure. I'm currently agnostic normatively. I'm leaning towards pro-choice and the virtue of the fact that I take it that pro-life views ultimately fail in accounting for relevant data being the facts of the conversation like biological, philosophical, and identity information. And I'm not convinced that identity is reductible down to the physical properties or the organism. I think we are our mind. Are we just a mind? What do you mean? You tell me. You're making the contention.

I think our identity is down to our mind, yes. Just consciousness or the mind? You had to explain what you mean. Yeah, the mind is just going to be like sentience. Okay, so what's your contention? I think they fail because I don't think that the being one is at conception is the same being that they are now. And I don't mean that descriptively. I take it that you are like your mind, and before a certain week in gestation, there is no mind or sentience, right? And thus no person, just physical properties, and that would eventually be informed by that said mind. Right.

Okay, yeah, I'm not totally following what you're saying because you're using the word mind, which is not usually a word. Yeah, I just said that mind is like sentience, like having a human subjective experience. So what is your contention then? That you're not persuaded by? Yeah, I'm not persuaded by pro-life views that we are reductible down to our organism. Okay, yeah, so an 85-year-old in an old person's home that has Alzheimer's

Are they less of a human than you? I didn't say that they were less of a human for having Alzheimer's. Answer the question, because they have... Yeah, so people with Alzheimer's still have the capacity for subjective experience. I wouldn't say that... They can't remember anything. Memory isn't sentience, no. It's a part of sentience, isn't it? Yeah, it's not going to be the... I'm not going to say that the full capacity for sentience is going to be what grants them that moral consideration. I'm telling you that any level of sentience, which is why I hold a cautionary principle, but at any level of sentience is going to grant them moral consideration.

consideration. When does human development begin? What do you mean? Human life? Human development. It's going to be at conception, yeah. That's human life? Yeah, human life begins at conception. I'm not contending that. No, no, got it. So then shouldn't our laws then protect the first possible moment of human development? Why should they? Well, because it's a human life. That's begging it, the question.

Well, no, it's actually not. No, you're just telling me what the human is. You're not telling me why they should deserve race. Oh, so like why murder is bad? Do we need to do that? You're going to have to explain as to why abortion is going to be the unjustified unaliving. You're just telling me that it's because murder is inherently unjustified. You're just telling me that it's inherently unjustified. You're going to need to tell me why it's unjustified.

Well, personally, I think murder is wrong is pretty intuitive, right? Yeah, it's intuitive, but you're going to need to tell me why abortion fits within that unjust category. Okay, because you're your own unique deoxyribonucleic acid at the time of conception. Yes, DNA. Thank you. Yes, when you attach to the uterine wall and the moment at that time your life began when your DNA was formed. Absent intervention, you then form into a fully developed adult adult

And you do not have a right to interrupt the development of another human being. You do not have a right to interrupt a six-month-old or a six-year-old from growing or flourishing. You do not have a right to be able to do that.

That is a basic self-evident moral principle that just because you are larger or just because you're older, you're able to interrupt another human being from growing. Yeah, I didn't say any of that, but sure. So do you think that... Okay. Well, I don't really know what you did say, actually. That's okay. Do you? Yeah. So what did you say? Yeah.

Yeah, so I said that we're reducible to our mind. Our mind is what makes our identity. And I said my contention was that we are not reducible to this organism. Yeah, again, so we have clarity but not agreement. We believe you're more than just consciousness. We believe a human being is, in essence, valuable because it is a human being. This deduces back... What do you mean by being? Being.

Um, what do I mean by a human being? Yeah. A homo sapien? Okay, sure. I was asking simply because some people denounce being to be personhood. That's all I'm asking. Okay. Um, but sure. So are you, are you familiar with a partial molar pregnancy?

A partial molar pregnancy. Yes. Not necessary. Okay, a partial molar pregnancy is where one egg drops and two sperm go in. And it's going to basically create this, like, ball of fat, but it's still going to be human, alive, and obviously of the human species. Should the mother be obligated to carry that partial molar pregnancy? I don't know enough about that. Okay.

So I can get back to you on that one. Okay, sure. Do you think, what do you like value? Do you value it being like a human being? Yes, human beings inherently are valuable. Yeah, why are they inherently valuable? Well, you want my religious definition or do you want my biological one? Either one's fine. Okay, well, I believe every human being is made in the image of God and therefore it's uniquely designed and crafted and created. Thank you.

And since every human being is made in the image of God, we do not have the authority morally to destroy another being that bears the image of the Creator.

Okay, sure. Yeah, so the idea, I believe, that God grounds this intrinsic value in a fetus, I don't think satisfies that. Human, yeah. I'm using them colloquially. I'm not using them to dehumanize. I'll use child, baby, whatever. Because intrinsic value is also expected under the atheistic hypothesis. So I don't know what kind of argument you're making here because, unfortunately, God itself is just not going to ground that a fetus is inherently valuable.

Okay, you asked for my scriptural analysis, but okay, let's just take... Yeah, and I have contention with it. Let's just... Because it is grounded under atheism, too. Right, so therefore, okay, if you would agree that your life is valuable, my life is valuable, yeah? I believe we're valuable because of our sentience, yeah, sure. Okay, yeah, so we disagree. But if a being is going to get sentience in a couple of weeks, shouldn't you allow that being to continue to develop? After it's born? No, no, no, in utero.

In utero, no. I don't find it to be morally considerable before sentience. Oh, got it. So you can eliminate anything even though it's growing towards sentience. Yeah, so are you making like a potential argument? Well, I'm just making a rather rational one. Just so we are clear, just so you know, when a baby is born, your mental faculties of a baby are not completely sentient. Like, for example, when a baby is five days old, they're only awake like two hours a day. They can't speak. They cannot really reason properly.

And sentience is like barely there for a one-week-old or a two-week-old. In fact, a brain is not fully developed until a boy is 30 years old. So what I'm saying is that the growth of the human being continues all throughout this process if you allow that process to go uninterrupted. The abortionist argument is that we are going to interfere with that development because of some convenient, it's too hard to raise the human being.

Okay, yeah, so I think you're making this like it has the potential to actualize sentience, sure. But also, if it's going to gain sentience in three weeks, I just said no. It's not going to be morally considerable to not be unaligned or killed, sorry. But yeah, so I kind of forgot one point that you made. What was it? Yeah.

So just so we are clear, humans are bodies and minds. We are more than just... Wait, I remember the point that you made about the baby. Yeah, so we gain sentience in the womb. Are you aware of that? Yeah, around eight weeks, nine, ten weeks, brainwaves are detected. What's the argument for nine to ten weeks? Brainwaves? Yeah, brainwaves. Okay, you're a little snarky. You've got to calm it down a little bit, okay? Okay, cool.

So around 9 to 10 weeks, brain waves are detected. A baby can respond to a mother's voice around 27 weeks. Around 20 weeks, we have some understanding that a baby's cognitive ability is being formed. These are approximations. What is the argument that brain waves are sentient?

What is the, we actually don't know. We're inferring it. Yeah, so sentience is going to be the subjective experience where you can have interest, desires, and motivations. Interesting. How do you know a newborn has interest, desires, and motivations? Yeah, so I find it that they have the subjective experience, and I said it can include things like interest, desires, which is going to include people like you or me, and we have interest, desires, and motivations, yeah. So I also find it that they're going to have a subjective human experience at birth,

I'd say within the second trimester. I don't hold 20 to 24 weeks or after that. I hold a 12-week cautionary stance because we know that they don't get sentient in the first trimester. Let's do this all the way. You want to go all the way on this? Let's do it. What proof do you have that anyone is sentient?

Yeah, so we have proof that they're sentient on the basis of their thalamocortical connections. It's actually a faith claim. And their conjunctions with their cerebrum. It's a faith claim. Are you going to make an argument for that? Yes, definitionally you don't know that anybody else is sentient except yourself. How? Because you cannot prove consciousness. We don't know where consciousness exists in the brain. How don't we know? We can't. We don't know where it is. You can't see somebody else. Are you going to expand on why we don't know? Yeah, again, I'm getting there. Like...

Did they teach you to talk like this at University of Illinois? Like, you're paying for this? Like, jeez. Again, I want to get to the other questions. But like, yes, this is called the consciousness paradox. You do not know if anybody else actually has consciousness except yourself. Everybody else could be an illusion. It could be a mirage. It could be a projection of artificial intelligence. Sentience is by definition a faith claim. We can guess it. We can infer it. You cannot measure it and you cannot see it.

Yeah, sure. I'm going to make the claim on the basis of like it. I didn't agree. I was just saying, okay, sure. But anyways, so I'm going to make the claim on the basis of empirical data that we have thalamocortical connections that work in conjunction with our cerebrum that is going to allow us to have thoughts, desires, and motivations and have the human subjective experience, which those, the mind sentience is what makes us able to have complex intelligence and higher rationale as humans and

Right. Again, so all of that, you could detect the effects of consciousness. You cannot actually see consciousness itself. Does seeing consciousness matter? We see it in their neurological structures and mechanisms. Again, you see the effects of it. We can keep on going in circles. Of course, I believe sentience exists. You cannot measure it. You cannot see it because there is no objective proof that somebody else is sentient except yourself.

You can just look at the effects of it. But that's fine. Again, we just disagree. We as pro-lifers believe that in the essence of a human being is your value and your worth. If a human being is at one week or 10 weeks or 12 weeks, the process of development starts at conception and goes all the way through. Higher faculties, higher rationality is an added bonus alongside the growth curve of what it means to be a human being. And you do not become more human because your IQ is higher or less human or if you have Down syndrome.

The spectrum does not work that way. You're equally human all the way through. Thank you very much. I got to get to the next question. Hi, Charlie. They just pulled me from outside, so I wasn't even prepared, but here I am. So my question is on immigration. Considering the U.S. has caused instability in a whole host of countries around the world that leads to violent conditions that people have to leave and then they therefore come to the U.S., do you support...

Do you support creating faster paths to citizenship and also keeping families together that here are in the United States? Number one, no. Number two, yes. Keep families together by sending the whole family back to their country of origin. So if I understand you correctly, you don't believe in a faster path to citizenship? Oh, goodness gracious, no. Why is that? Well, first of all, we have way too many people coming to this country right now. Way too many people.

Okay, so considering the United States has always been a country of influx and not outflux. Interesting. Let's pause on that. So would you say we're a nation of immigrants? Absolutely. I think we're a nation of settlers. Sure. I mean, we did start on colonization, absolutely. Hold on, but what's the difference between settling and immigrating?

I think, well, the difference is if you're displacing the people that originally take that land, if you're using force to displace the people that you are now taking the land from. Yeah, look, 99% of settlers that went west were not displacing anything. They were going to barren, unlivable land like Oklahoma. That's not true.

That's not true. They displaced and killed thousands of natives. That's not true. Okay, some people did, but it's an insult to the millions of pioneers that went west saying that they were all violent. Many of these people were courageous, incredibly brave people. Sure, because the United States government killed people for them so that they could then take the land. Again, I don't want to divert away from the point of settlers or immigrants.

But as a timeout, acting as if the Native Americans, who have been treated poorly, as a side note, are nothing but peace-loving people. They were a highly violent, incredibly tribal warfare people before the white man came to North America. They were not living in harmony. They were not just like all singing John Lennon songs walking through the hills. Sure. I'm not saying that. I know. But this idea that it was just a conflict of conquest or the white man always displacing them is a little bit of a misreading of history. Secondly, but I think this is important.

We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of settlers that went to a barren land and built something new. Immigrants have helped enrich the United States of America over 100 years. But immigration is always a question of whether or not it benefits the home country. If immigration ever gets to a place where you are not being benefited, where your schools are being overrun or your wages aren't keeping up with inflation or crime is going up, then you could turn down immigration and prioritize on the native-born families.

You don't think that immigration is currently benefiting the U.S., is what you're saying? No, not at all, actually. I think that the 14 million people that Joe Biden led across the southern border has caused mass destabilization. In fact, in downtown Chicago, there were black neighborhoods that were protesting against their schools being used as migrant shelters because Joe Biden was sending these people in almost every major city across the country. Go ahead.

I think that the anti-immigration rhetoric you have is not new. I think that you try to paint a picture of it being this current phenomenon that we're facing, but there's been rhetoric from a

you know, your side from for a long time throughout the entirety of history. I mean, if we look at the immigration policies in the U.S., even though Chinese immigrants built the entire Western Railroad, there was still the Chinese Exclusion Act because they were providing insane value to the United States. But we still had these exclusion acts because of xenophobic attitudes.

And so this is not a novel idea that immigrants are bad for the country. So I'm interested in why you think that all of a sudden we need to change the way the United States works.

Well, first of all, immigration has gone in great influxes. We basically turned off all immigration in the 1940s and 50s. We had like net zero immigration for almost 15 years. Most people don't even know that. So we had Ellis Island in the early 1900s, and then we turned on the guzzle of immigration. But let's be honest. For 40 years, we have tried this mass immigration project for the last 40 years.

Has it worked? Are we a more connected country? Have middle class wages kept up? Look at the material data. Has immigration enriched the well-being of the United States of America, especially the last five or six years?

I would say, of course not, actually. We're more divided. We're more factious. And we see this in almost every European country as well. When you import a bunch of people that don't speak your language, that are from the third world, all of a sudden you have mass destabilization happening in your country. It's not a matter of being xenophobic. Instead, it's a matter of being patriotic to your own country and your own citizens. It's not about hating the foreigner. It's about loving the citizen. And your obligation is always to citizens first, not foreigners. Okay.

So you don't think that the MAGA movement has led to xenophobic attitudes at all? I don't even know how to answer that. Why not? Well, because you have to first define what you mean by xenophobic attitudes. I mean, just like you said, we're living in a divided society.

You don't think that comes from people being anti-immigration? No, I think it's the opposite. I think when you allow a bunch of people that aren't native-born Americans too quickly with no checks, no background, no idea who they are, and flood them into your towns, definitionally, diversity is not a strength when it comes to local community ties. If you don't use it. If you don't use it. I don't know that you're committed to finding its strength. Hold on. Explain this to me. This is a good question. What country has ever grown stronger the more divided it's been?

None, but I'm not saying that we have to get more divided via immigration. No, no, no, but diversity definitionally will divide you. Unity unifies you. You notice they never say unity is our strength, they say diversity is our strength? In fact, just so we are clear, there is nothing racist or xenophobic to say that you want your kids to be around people that speak English. There's nothing racist to say that. It actually means that you want to be able to communicate with your neighbor. There's nothing racist and xenophobic to say...

For example, we don't want to import people from a far-off distant land that don't share Western values, that don't treat women the same, that don't have the same respect for freedom of speech. So what we see is the unraveling of the United States of America because a country is, again, just undoubtedly...

It is the people that inhabit it. So you have to be very careful what people you allow into your country. Sure, but I think that what you're talking about, this mass shift in American culture is not happening. I think you're fear-mongering. And also, I think that the United States forever has been a mix of culture. I don't really know where you can point to a time in U.S. history that hasn't

included immigrants in its culture? Again, from the 1920s to 1960s, we had very little immigration in this country, nearly 40 years. In fact, that is what largely led to us becoming a world superpower in the 1950s. We had the Bracero program back then where we brought in tons of laborers from Mexico to the United States to work in agriculture, and that's how we fed the United States. So I really don't think that you can say that. Again, that was such...

It was very limited in scope versus what we see today. But again, I will ask a more moral question. Does a politician have first loyalty to its own citizens or to another country's citizens? Absolutely. I'm glad you brought this because I wanted to circle back to my original question about the United States creating instability in the rest of the world. I do think that every single politician, like let's say I'm the prime minister of South Africa, you know, my... Which is an incredibly anti-white country. Like, oh my goodness. Okay.

Dangerously anti-white. Okay, okay. Anyway. Do you know about that, by the way? Apartheid? Yes. Oh, no, no, no, no. It's like they're killing white people in the streets in South Africa. They're stealing farmland. If you don't know about that, that shows how the media is lying to all of you. It is literally a mini white genocide happening in South Africa right now. But I don't think that we should... No, it's fine. You brought up South Africa, not me, but yes.

That was just an example. Anyway, let's stay on topic. So let's say I'm the prime minister of a country. I do agree with you that my first job is that country, for sure. That's who I'm leading. But considering the United States has created mass violence, instability, and poverty around the world, you don't think that we have some sort of obligation to the people who then have to flee from that? No. Wait, hold on. I'll...

Well, why not? Define your terms. Where have we created mass stability? I'll grant you Iraq. That was a disaster. Where else? In all of Latin America, in different countries, in Africa, places like the Philippines that we colonized, Puerto Rico. Have you not heard of the U.S.'s intervention in tons of different elections?

Yeah, I mean, of course, I'm always so interested in this as if it's like you can never blame those countries for not having their act together. It's somehow America's fault. Like, oh, it's America's fault that Nicaragua can't get its act together. It's America's fault. Even though we welcome Puerto Rico to become U.S. citizens, like we've colonized them. So here's the paradox. You don't think that Puerto Rico is colonized? No, no, no, no. I'm saying, though, so if we don't help Puerto Rico, we're evil.

When they become a territory, we colonize them and we haven't done enough. It's like, which one is it exactly? So the Puerto Rico was taken from the Spanish as a colony and used as a sugar farm for years where the workers were paid less than a dollar per day to create sugar for the United States. And it's not really about statehood or independence. It's about letting Puerto Rico decide that for themselves. And anyway, this isn't about Puerto Rico. No, it's fine. But more broadly, and I'll get to the final couple of final questions here.

I can sense that your problem is that like America's super successful and these other countries aren't. And foundationally, it's rooted in envy, bitterness, and resentment because we are the world's superpower. It's not because we've held anybody back. It's because we've had incredible people, really good ideas. So you don't think the U.S. has intervened in a negative way in other countries? At times, yes. At times, we've intervened very favorably.

Can you at least acknowledge at times that... Sure, there has been aid, but there's also been terrible... Not just aid. South Korea exists because of American involvement. Kuwait exists because of American involvement. But it's not... But to look at American accountability, you have to look at the whole of that accountability. And to say that certain countries are less developed...

on their own fault is to ignore history. So that's where we disagree. Countries have to take responsibility for their own future. Which again, this is one of the reasons why so many people hate Israel. Every other country around there is like a third world country. And Israel is super successful and super agentic and they're able to be like one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. You're going to wonder, what is it that they're doing? Oh, it's the Jews because they're stealing all this money. No, actually they like work super hard and they don't believe in Islam and they... I mean, they were...

And like, wow, you mean that like every other Islamic country around you is like a third world hellhole? And the one place that... Have you ever been to those countries? Yeah, actually, I have been to Israel and I've been to the Palestinian Authority. I've been to that. I've been to the West Bank. I've actually visited it. Even if I hadn't, that doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong, just for the record. By the way, I encourage you to try to go to Lebanon or Syria. Not exactly the Four Seasons, right? So...

Not great. And you don't think that U.S. intervention has anything to do with that? Partially. But again, to blame the evil U.S. intervention for every single problem is at its core intellectually sloppy. I don't think so because the United States has two times the military of the rest of the world. And it has been in our DNA to intervene...

In a military way in other countries. So to say, I mean, I know you believe in... So I want to try to square this all together. I got to get to the other questions. Just make sure I'm clear. So you're mad at America for getting involved in other people's countries, right? So America's bad for that. But then you want everyone to come to America. I thought America's bad. Yeah.

I'm saying that the United States needs to be held accountable. You can't meddle in our country. So we're held accountable by inviting the entire world here? If you are going to mess up that country, you have to do something about it. Oh, do something. Invite them here. Maybe, if you're the reason that they have to leave. No? That at its core, I'm glad you articulated it, is neoconservatism, which is invade the world, invite the world. Which is that you don't support the invasion part of it, but somehow we have to invite the world as some sort of mass penance. But that's like you invade and then...

I don't support the invasions. I think you are overly ascribing fault to the United States of America when in reality it's these own broken countries that cannot get their own act together. A great example is this, and I'll close with this. El Salvador is actually safer than America. It has billions of dollars flowing into El Salvador. Why? Because they elected Bukele who decided to go after MS-13 and clean up the streets of El Salvador. Which, again...

It was because they decided to do good things with massive action. Countries can be wealthy. Singapore is wealthy. You could be a very wealthy country if you embrace Western market ideas, private property with low crime, and it's not always... I mean, in the case of El Salvador, the United States was the reason that the country broke down into gang warfare, and now if you look at the way they were able to turn around, they had to declare a state of emergency just to be able to turn things around. It's just like...

This is where we're different. And then we have to get going. I look at America as a force for good. You look at everything wrong and you say it must be America. No, sir. I'm looking at bad things that they have done and calling for accountability. Okay. Again, I... Maybe we disagree. I don't know. I guess I think we're a wonderful country and I think of a country as poor. They're poor by choice and they have to be able to get their act together, make better decisions and stop acting like victims all the time. Thank you very much.

The battle between good and evil seems to be escalating. It is easy to blame politicians, government, or poor leadership, but behind all of that is a spiritual battle. Pastor Alan Jackson's new book, Angels, Demons, and You, talk about the reality of this battle and the spiritual realm that exists around us.

It has a real impact on us every day. As you read, you will discover that angels and demons are not imaginary. They actually exist. You can find them playing a variety of roles throughout the Bible, and they're still influencing the world today. We don't need to be afraid, but we do need to be aware and prepared. Angels, Demons, and You provides valuable insight

practical tools, and biblical truth to help you recognize the spiritual battle around us and become a difference maker in our generation. Get your copy today at alanjackson.com slash angels. Hear from people whose faith directly impacts our culture on Pastor Alan's Culture and Christianity podcast. Find it wherever you get your podcasts.

Yep. The mass deportations are extremely dangerous to our country morally, economically, and for how they allow for the erosion of our civil liberties. How can you support the mass deportations and Trump's broader immigration policies despite his lies, disinformation, and inherent contradictions with his other actions? I can provide several examples if you would like. Okay. What should the punishment be for when someone breaks into your country?

I think it's a civil violation. What should the punishment be? I think that you probably should find them, and I think you should know where they are, but I don't think you should put them in jail or necessarily deport them. Okay, yeah, I mean, look, a very basic custom and principle is if you come into a country unwanted, unwarranted, uninvited, you return back to your country of origin. Very simple, very morally clear. When you cut in line and break into the United States, you do not get to stay here.

But not all of the people that you're calling illegal immigrants did that. Some were granted TPS by Joe Biden. Some were granted TPS. Which they shouldn't have, of course. Temporary protected status. And by Donald Trump. It should not have happened. The law says you go back. Just so we are clear, when you go into 18 U.S.C. 1312, it says as a punishment of remuneration, return back to your country of origin. So you might not like the law. The law itself says return back to your country of origin.

If you're looking at the law, does it say for Mahmoud Camille, he was Khalil? Oh, that's time out. That's a whole different category. So can we now agree mass deportations are good? Because that's how you start it. No, no. So tell me why they're wrong. I think they're wrong. Yeah, of course. No, I don't agree with that. Hey, you said no heckling. It says no heckling. He just did a Nazi salute. Yeah. Do you want to come up here and talk? Come on up, tough guy. Come on. You want to come up here, tough guy? Hey, stop.

It's okay, we'll allow him to finish and then the machiso man can finish us off. No, no, no, whichever, you guys can rock, paper, scissors for it, I don't care. Sorry, man, I was just saying that that's Nazi America. Oh, it's Nazi America? Yes, that's Nazi America. To return people that break into your country back home? No, no, man, I mean, I'm just saying, like, because mass deportation really just is like cleansing the land. No, it's not, it's restoring the law. Yeah, man, but law is not a moral compass.

Yes, it is. Justice is greater than the country, greater than money, greater than God. Justice is the human universe. Justice is not greater than God. What are you talking about? Yes, it is. You're tripping, bro. Hold on. Let me ask you a question. If someone breaks into your country, what should the punishment be? I was going to give you a different question, man. Well, I just answered. You said we're Nazi America. So tell me, if someone breaks into the United States, what should the punishment be?

I wouldn't say it's breaking in most of the time. No, it is. I would say, like, I mean, dude, because, like, if other countries are economically bad and they're coming here, like, they want to come here and work. It doesn't matter. If someone goes and robs a 7-Eleven, you don't get, like, a lesser penalty if you're broke. What is wrong is wrong regardless of your socioeconomic status. I get you, man. No, I get you. But, like, law is not a universal thing.

No, they are. No, that's not correct. We believe as Christians and in the West and an axiological truth, which that every human being has written on their heart, some form of right or wrong. It is inherently wrong to steal their people's stuff. It's inherently wrong to walk into people's homes uninvited. It's inherently wrong to go after somebody and harass them or whatever. So it's a universal law that you don't get to go places where you aren't invited. You agree? Yeah.

Like to show up to a wedding uninvited, that's a wedding crasher. To show up into a home that you weren't invited, that's a squatter. We have terms in our own moral compass where that is not okay. How is it any different when someone shows up into your country uninvited, unwarranted? How is that morally permissible? My boy, I really wanted to ask you a different question, man. Okay, well. I'm sorry. I would not, it's okay. Okay.

I want to ask you, do you think it's okay for us to proclaim ourselves land of the free with the world's highest prison population? Oh, we don't have enough prisoners. Huh? Yeah, we don't have enough prisoners. So we're not land of the free? Well, no. In fact, we remain free because people remain in prison. Do you know that half? No, you can laugh. You're tripping, bro. You know half of all murders in Chicago go solved? I'm sorry? Half of all murders in Chicago go solved.

Half of people that kill other people in Chicago walk free. Should they be in prison? What about the dirt pigs that kill people? Wait, hold on. You mean police officers? Yes. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on. First of all, let's give it up for our wonderful police here tonight. Let's give it up for them. Hold on. How many people die from unarmed police incidents every year? How many unarmed people are killed by the police every year?

I mean, dude, we're like number... Yes. We're up there, bro. We're like ranked number seven in the world. About 15 people a year that are unarmed killed by the police. We're ranked seven in the world.

Killings by cop. We're the only industrialized nation in that list, man. I know how violent we are. Do you know who's doing the killing? I'm saying death by cop. It's not police. No, no, no, no, no, no. It is not police. Now, there's two types of police killings. There's justified and unjustified. Unarmed people killed by the police, it's 10 to 15 a year. But if a police officer sees somebody showing up with a gun, they better pull out a gun and defend themselves. That's a justified police killing. Can I say something to you? What? As a...

How are we, like, how do we proclaim to be, like, Second Amendment conservatives? Don't laugh at me, bro. So how do we proclaim to be like that, dude? I'm sorry, what? How do we proclaim to be, like, conservatives, Second Amendment, gun-loving people? But, like, we give, like, how do I say it? I mean, I completely disagree that police and military should not be the only ones with guns. Would you agree with that?

I'm sorry. No, citizens should be able to own guns. Citizens should be allowed? Yes. So, okay. So, like, why would I have to call the cops if I got my own gun? You know what I mean? You don't have to. Yeah.

What's the point? But you called the cops pigs when cops in most cases are not actually responding to violent crime. They're responding to domestic abuse incidents. They're responding to carjackings. They're responding to businesses being broken into. Cops have like the hardest job in America right now. And they're treated like trash. And they're called pigs by people like you. Thank you.

And let's just be honest. Even though you call cops pigs, if you got attacked here on this campus, you would call the cops very quickly to go save you. No, no. Oh, yes, you would. I invite anybody to attack me. I invite anybody to attack me. Anybody could get it. And by the way, these hands are ready to eat for everyone. And the cops and the cops would help him. No, they would not help me. Probably not.

Hold on, but just so we are clear, you asked the question, you know, the prison population. Do you know that the average rapist only serves four years in prison in this country? That the average person that has second degree murder only serves about 15 years in this country? There are not enough people in jail. We need more and more people to be incarcerated. Violent crime is under-incarcerated in this country. What about rehabilitation? Can you rehabilitate a murderer?

I mean, a lot of your veterans come back. You know what I'm saying? Like, can you rehabilitate them to come back? Whoa. So, you think that... So, it's okay to kill... It's okay to kill people outside the country and then come back in? Yeah.

A theater of war in an act of self-defense is a morally different universe than going and just plowing and gangbanging in the south side of Chicago. But we were just saying that we wouldn't like... You wouldn't allow a draft. Would you be okay with a draft? With what? Would you be okay with a draft nowadays? Not in today's America. But it was fine during World War II. But I just... It's... I'm not even sure where to start or where to end on this. But...

You're a very morally confused person. I want to ask you something else. And then I got to get to the guy I cut off. I'm really sorry to interrupt everything, you know. Because you don't like people that cut in line, which is why we should deport people that cut in line in our country, because cutting in line is wrong. Can I please get one more Charlie T.

Because line cutting goes against something we all know in our own being. Ha, he didn't wait his turn. He started to scream like a spoiled brat saying Nazi America. And he wanted attention. And that should not be rewarded. And shame on me for rewarding it. But our immigration policy should be, hey, you don't get to cut in line. You got to wait your turn. I have to ask you something else. Do you... For...

So much, so much for free speech. Let me ask one more question, please, guys. All right. Dude. Just let him. Yeah, yeah. Final point. Free speech. Like whether you like it or not. All right. Anyways, can I ask you something, though? So, dude, if we were to consolidate all the police budget in the country, it would make like the second greatest military. Are you okay with that? We need more police.

When we have police on the streets, crime goes down. There is a police enrollment issue in Chicago Police Department. There are ungoverned areas. There are ungoverned areas in the city of Chicago where police are not even go. And there are poor girls that are gunned down by crossfire, gun traffic and fire. We are about to enter the bloodiest summer in Chicago's history. And the police are not to blame. The police, you know what the police operate as? They come and just bring body bags and they don't even intervene.

In fact, Brandon Johnson, who will go down as one of the worst politicians in American history and the worst mayor in Chicago's history, that good for nothing, petulant Marxist. He removed shot detectors from the streets of Chicago that would have increased police response time by nearly 10 minutes because he said they were racist.

Police save lives every single day. It's just if they are, you know, if they are ranked second in the world with this, if the police budget is number two in the world to be the greatest military, I would think they're like the internal occupying army in the U.S. It's not just people of color, man. It's going to get to you guys too, man. Like, for real. No, it actually won't because we followed the law. Do you follow the law, actually? You seem so worried about the police. Like, what are you involved in? Law is not the moral compass. Like, I would smoke weed before it was legal, you know what I'm saying?

Yeah, again, so we massively expanded police in the 1990s. America had less crime. And then as we increased more and more police, even black America flourished. After 2015, the Ferguson lie, we retreated police 2020. We retreated police even further. And crime has gone up in black neighborhoods in particular. And it is a tragedy. More police equals less crime for all colors. Police are heroes for putting their lives on the line for all of us. I think there's some horrible trade-offs. There's

Thank you. Last question. Thank you very much. I will not be bailing you out sometime soon. Yes. Final question. Yeah. Do you want to get back to the guy? Okay. I'm sorry. All right.

The mass deportations are extremely dangerous to our country, morally, economically, and how they allow for the erosion of our civil liberties. How can you support the mass deportations and Trump's broader immigration policies, despite his lies, disinformation, and inherent contradictions with his other actions? I mean, again, I've kind of been through this. You come into the country illegally, you should be returned back to your country of origin. That's how I can support it.

I think that it should matter the context for why the person is coming. For example, we have asylum seekers and the processes they're supposed to go into the country and then claim asylum. That is international law. And if you are being threatened in your home country, you should claim asylum for your life and the life of your family. We should not necessarily inherently turn those people away. First of all, our asylum process is a total sham. But let's take that moral standard that you have set. That's an opinion.

You're going to state this opinion. No, it's not an opinion. That's an opinion. The left has damaged it where it is you get in six years you get a court date. You get like a piece of paper to notice and you get put into the interior of the country and we never hear from you again. It's five or six scripts that people are taught to recite. You save these five or six words. You say poof the magic words and you're released into the interior United States. You get a phone. You get benefits and we never hear from you again. But let's just take that moral standard and we'll close with this.

Because I think it's a great defining distinction of conservatives and people that I don't want to say are on the left, but wherever you might be. You say we should take into account when people come into this country illegally. Yes. Correct. That was. Yeah. OK. If somebody were to rob a grocery store or a convenience store, do we take into account their life story when they commit a crime? I mean, we take into account their age and other factors around it. Yeah, we do.

So basically, if somebody is super poor and can't feed their family... We do do that, though. If someone has practiced good behavior, that's why we have character references. We do that for criminal justice. That's what you said. We're taking their life into account. Is it justifiable to commit a crime based on the suffering you might be having? I'm poor. I can go rob a convenience store.

I mean, that's your own moral judgment. It depends. I think that if you would die... It depends. Wow. No, no, no. Listen to me. I think that if you were going to die, if you do not steal a loaf of bread, it's okay to steal a loaf of bread.

I think that if you were going to break into another country because someone has a gun to your head or they're going to kill your family, it's okay. And that's actually the opposite is happening on the southern border. Instead, it's people paying the cartel to come into the United States of America, not the other way around. But again, we do not look at things through a moral prism of victim and victor. Like, oh, these are a bunch of victims. We look at things through right and wrong.

moral and immoral, and just and unjust. And it is unjust to show up to a country uninvited and plead third world poverty and say, here are the five magic words, and poof, you come into the United States of America. Citizenship must be earned. It must be something that you prove over a period of time that you are invited into the country. And we as native-born Americans

have every right to decide who comes into the United States of America. And finally, that's why the people overwhelmingly voted for Trump, because we were sick of seeing citizenship thrown around like Frisbees to every person around the world. You just monologued. Can I respond at all? Yes. We're over time. Then we've got to wrap up. Okay.

Do you then think it's okay to deport the illegal immigrants without due process? When the Constitution— They get due process. No, no, no. They do not get due process. They do not get to prove that they are citizens when they've been deported. That's why an American citizen was deported, and that's why— No, he wasn't. A permanent resident was also deported. This is a fraudulent lie. I'm trying to help you. An American citizen was not deported. You are wrong. That is a complete fabrication. A permanent resident. That's not an American citizen. I was saying both.

No, he was an illegal immigrant that had pre-trial detention. No, no, no. You're Mahmoud Kamil or the guy in Maryland? I'm not talking about Mahmoud Kamil. There's a guy in North Carolina. The guy in North Maryland, I think you're talking about, was not an American citizen. We have not deported any U.S. citizens. That is not correct. Period. End of story. And so, again, you can nitpick on all the elements of it.

But fundamentally, a nation is allowed to expel people at their own choosing. You do not have a right to just come squat in America and say, well, I'm here now. Too bad. No, we can kick you out as quickly as we choose. You do not get the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. Period. Can they vote?

Look it up. Can they vote? That's not the same. The due process right has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Can they own a firearm? Not every right has been applied equally. Ah, so they don't get every right. Not every right has been applied equally. But the Supreme Court, am I correct or am I incorrect? Depends what you mean by due process. Due process can be a 20-second thing. Show me your paper. Not necessarily. Just so we are clear, what you are proposing means that 14 million people would have to get trial dates over the next four years, yes? Yes.

I think we should increase the amount of immigration. No, no, no. Let's just play this out. It does not need to be over the next four years.

Hold on. But just there's 14 million people. You cannot break into this country and then demand a six-month trial before you send you back. It is logistically and morally impossible. And what it is is it's throwing sand in the gears to – Morally impossible? Is that what you said? It's morally impossible. What's morally impossible? Morally impossible to say to the American people that you can't kick out people of your own country because you have to wait six months for all 14 million of them. You have to allow them their due process. That is a foundational part of our democracy. Again, first of all, we're not a democracy. We're a republic. I don't want to get into this all over again.

But again, this due process is being used as a weapon against the process of deportations. Mass deportation. A six-month trial for every single person is an intentional tactic to slow this down. Not to mention, many of these people already have had trials. They've had two trials, three trials, four trials, five trials. Is that all of them?

I mean, many of them. Again, what you are saying is you are hiding behind the Fifth Amendment because you're hiding behind our constitutional right for U.S. citizens. Again, no, it's for everyone. It is. It is. So really, Chinese citizens get the Fifth Amendment rights. Process of human right earlier when talking about the January Sixers for U.S. citizens. They were all U.S. citizens. Human right only for you.

For Americans, that doesn't make sense. It applies to all humans. If somebody magically transports into the United States of America, we do not believe they get the same. Yes, we do. That's what the Constitution says. No, it does not. Again, if you don't believe me, look this up. This is also why we are going and revisiting the birthright citizenship because we don't believe birthright citizenship applies to everybody under the 14th Amendment. It's as simple as this.

Are they citizens? No. They are not citizens. Then we could deport them home to their home countries at our own choosing. He's lying to you. Hold on. I'm not lying. The Immigration Naturalization Act, the repelling of the Alien Invasion Act, all of them point towards one simple thing, that we can accelerate the deportation of foreign invasions

and foreign invaders. And it's funny. I've been now doing this camp-- - By the gang? - It's very funny. I've been doing this tour now for two weeks, and I could tell you everybody more macro what's happening. All of a sudden, people that have never said a single thing about due process the last five years or 10 years are popping up. I'm gonna tell you what's going on on the left.

Because they'll only use the Constitution if it fits their political agenda. They never used due process when they went... Let me finish. They never used due process when they raided Trump supporters' homes. They never talked about due process. Let me finish. Instead, all of a sudden, when a bunch of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua members are getting deported back to their country of origin, they're big defenders of the Constitution. It is an intentional ploy and weapon to stop mass deportations, and we'll not fall for it. We are over time. Thank you guys so much. Thanks for being here. Thank you.

Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.