The Tucker Carlson Show - Paris Burns as the Great Replacement Reaches Its Inevitable Conclusion

Episode Date: October 22, 2026

Paris burns as the Great Replacement reaches its inevitable conclusion. Jason Killmeyer departed as the Chief of Staff of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in April 2026, and before that served as Chief of Staff of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Strategy, Policy & Plans. He is the author of "Battle Over the Demos" and "Rise of the Restrictionists," published in The American Mind in July and August 2026, and of "Mass Deportation After the Midterms," Parts I and II, published in The Daily Caller in August 2026. As a congressional candidate in 2022 he called for a complete immigration moratorium, a position he restated in 2024 in "Modern American Restrictionism," "Confederate California," and "How to Defuse Leftist Hysteria Over Mass Deportations." Jason is developing Matching the Mandate, a study of what mass deportation requires: the on-the-ground logistics, the legal authorities, and the great society-wide civic effort needed to carry it out. He has given more than 100 radio, television, and podcast interviews. He previously served as Chief Operating Officer of Project Veritas and spent a dozen years in national security. Jason continues to advocate for the centrality of immigration restrictionism in the next era of American politics.Follow him on X @JasonKillmeyer Paid partnerships with: Dutch: Use code TUCKER for $80 off your vet care at https://dutch.com/tucker American Financing: NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. Average savings based on borrowers who save over $199.99. Call 800-685-5696 or visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Tucker. Hallow prayer app: Get 3 months free at https://Hallow.com/TuckerLast Country Supply: Put your fears at ease. Stock up on survival essentials at https://lastcountrysupply.com/tucker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, good evening and welcome. If you've got internet access, you may have spent part of the weekend looking at horrifying violent images from Europe, particularly from France and its capital city, Paris, where protests turned, as they so often do, into riots and then chaos and stores burning and people assaulted and mobs of black-clad, apparently young people with face masks, running through the streets, setting things on fire, basically just hellish chaos that you wouldn't want in your home. town. And in the days since, there's been a lot of analysis over what this is and what it means for France and Europe and honestly for the United States and the rest of the West. And it does mean something and we'll tell you what we think it means in just a minute. But before we get to that, before we get to the analysis and superimposing our worldview on a world event, just to the facts of it because those are real too. So the riots you're watching in France were originally organized and maybe even conceived as protests.

And the organizers were not just fringe groups, but they were all kinds of different groups, including the country's largest labor union, which is hardly fringe. In France, labor unions are still powerful. So they are stakeholders. They may be crazy, but they're not nihilistic. They don't want to burn it all down

because, well, they live off GDP like everybody else in the nation of France. And so they began as protests specifically, about France's education system and the lack of funding and the poor state of at school, supposedly, which honestly, not having checked, we can believe. But really, they were protests against the nature of the French economy. And we know this because that's what they said they were, but also because almost simultaneously protests of a similar nature broke out across Europe

in a whole bunch of different countries. Italy and Belgium and Serbia, even Albania. had similar protests. And all of them, though they call themselves different things, were basically expressions of outrage against the one thing that unifies all of those countries, and maybe every Western country, which is the boomer economy. These are all economies in which the majority of wealth is held by people who are much older and a vanishingly small and, in fact, diminishing percentage of wealth, household wealth, is held by young people. And that's not, necessarily natural. It hasn't always been that way, but it is that way now. And a big percentage

of these economies, particularly the French economy, is absorbed by payments to retirees. So something like 30% of the entire French education budget goes not to teaching or schools or lunches, but to the retirement of retired teachers. Teachers who no longer teach there. Now, they signed up and signed on the dotted line to terms that, you know, are still in place. Like, no one's arguing that their pension should be taken away from them. On the other hand, when you get to a system where 30% of your education expenditure is really retirement fees, that's not working correctly. That's dysfunctional.

That can't last. In fact, what you're really doing is shafting the next. generation, and they are. And again, not just in France, all through Europe, and by the way, all through the West, including in this country. So in the United States, we have a boomer economy, too. The majority of household wealth is held by boomers, people born between 46 and 65, the post-war generation, the generation of Woodstock, the generation of the civil rights movement, the generation of basically every defining fact of modern life, those people, the ones who can't stop talking about themselves, celebrating themselves.

In the end, we shouldn't be surprised to learn that they turned out to be, on average, not all of them, but as a group, the greediest and selfish, most selfish generation, really in American history. So they own the majority of household wealth, and no one's saying it's ill gotten or they stole it or anything, but it's just a fact. They have the majority. And people under 40 have about 6.5% of total household wealth in the United States. Not under 20, these aren't kids.

These are under 40. So these are almost middle-aged adults themselves. And so it shouldn't surprise you that the media named for first time home buying in this country is 40. And that's because not that houses have gone out of style or people don't want to own their own place. They do as much as they ever have, which is a lot. That's because they can't afford it because all the money is tied up in an older generation or a couple generation, the Fox News viewer generation, the boomers. and it's also probably not a surprise that every president we've had since 1992, with one exception, Joe Biden, they've all been boomers, all of them.

So we live in a boomer culture. It's going away, not quickly enough, but we definitely live in a boomer economy. And when you have an economy like that, of course, people who are left out of it, who feel unfairly excluded by it are going to be mad. And in the current world, they have even more reasons to be mad, not simply because they don't have the money that older people do, but because older people just don't care. And that's obvious in every public opinion poll on the subject.

If you were to ask boomers, and this has happened a lot, in a public opinion poll, what do you think of this arrangement? They will tell you, well, this is money that we deserve. In fact, there was a recent poll in the United States of boomers, who again hold the majority of the household wealth in the country. And they were asked, would you support higher taxes on young people, people under 40, the ones who own 6.5% of household wealth in America, in order to keep your Social Security benefits going.

Now, keep in mind, this is the richest segment of the population, talking about the poorest segment of the population, and 89% of them said, oh, yeah, well, of course I would. Yeah, this is our money. We deserve it. The Woodstock generation deserves its Social Security. And if that means, I don't know, moving the median home buying age to 50, well, sorry. And again, it probably shouldn't surprise you that the generation that has never stopped talking about itself would have these attitudes. But they're ugly attitudes.

And again, they're on display everywhere. You see them in our ruling class. You see elderly billionaires whose motivating impulse is to make more money. Well, if you're a billionaire, particularly a billionaire, say over 60, let's say you're an 80-year-old billionaire. And your main goal is to make more money. You have to ask, like, what is that? Make more money for what?

You're a billionaire. Why do you care about making money in your 80s? Maybe you think you're going to live forever thanks to Neuraling or something, but probably not. Maybe it's just a disease. Maybe it's something called greed. Maybe it's an unfillable void. like lust or gluttony. Maybe it's just a very recognizable character defect, in fact, a sin.

And maybe it's infected everybody in charge in the West. Possible. In any case, that's the perception. And young people are mad about it. And so, again, you probably shouldn't be surprised if that's the system you have that at some point you're going to get protests. And whenever you have lots of young people gathered, those protests are apt to become violent and they did across Europe, but particularly in France for reasons that we'll describe in a

minute. But first, to video of the protests we're talking about. Here's a montage. If you haven't seen that tape, you may have thought to yourself when you heard there are riots in France or big demonstrations in France that got out of control. You may have dismissed it in your own mind as something you have heard before because, of course, you have heard it before. The French are always protesting. The French love to protest. Often for reasons the non-French mind can barely comprehend. There's some sort of theoretical reason we need to take to the streets. And they've been doing this for a very long time. Well, hundreds of years, of course, the French Revolution began this way. But there's something a little different about these protests. One, they were legitimately chaotic. These were

not yellow vests on tractors going down the Champs-Lise, demanding more attention to French agriculture or something. That seemed fine and very French. These seem like protests that were from the beginning riots, which is to say they were not organized. They were chaos. and they were violent, and they were taking place in central Paris, which is not only the capital of the country, and has been for more than a thousand years, but is really the center of the country. In a way, Americans may find hard to understand. There's no American city that represents to France what Paris does to France. You wouldn't want New York to go away, but if it did, it wouldn't take with it the soul of America. It would be our biggest city. That's sad. In some ways, it's already

conned, and that is sad. But it's not like America ceases to exist. Paris is really the core of France. It's in the center of France and it's in the center of the French mind. But it's also, or was for centuries anyway, the center of Western culture. France. I mean, fashion week in Paris. Everybody goes to Paris.

It's another way of saying that the scenes you're watching are unfolding in places you probably have been personally. Many Americans have, even ones who don't travel very much. They want to go to Paris. And of course, the French authorities know that. Of course, they know that because France doesn't really have much of an economy anymore. They make weapons and they make high-end consumer goods. France itself is a high-end consumer good, really, if you think about it.

And so to allow that kind of chaos and violence in recognizable places in front of landmarks in downtown Paris, a pretty wild thing to allow, if you think about it, where were the French authorities? Well, this is something else you should know about France. The French authorities are not maybe quite as incompetent as you may assume they are. If you get your news about France from the Simpsons and imagine the French are fundamentally cheese-eating surrender monkeys,

kind of buffoonish and absurd and full themselves, and baguettes and galois and all the rest. And of course, all of that's true, and they work about 20 hours a week, and cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche. you may not know that there are parts of the French state which are ruthlessly and famously efficient, and that would include their internal security services. French intelligence is not a joke, and anyone familiar with the topic will tell you that. French intelligence

assassinates as many people as any other intelligence service, maybe more, probably more. France is nuclear weapons. And if you talk to anyone in the nuclear weapons business, they will tell you that of all nations in Europe, France is by far considered the most likely to use those nuclear weapons. Lots of countries have been protested by, say, Greenpeace, but it was only France that blew up a Greenpeace ship in Auckland Harbor in 1985 called the Rainbow Warrior. They sunk it right to the bottom of the harbor with limpid mines and killed a guy on board. Britain didn't do that.

Spain didn't do that. France is kind of a serious place. It was only a couple of years ago that France grabbed Pavel Derov, the guy who owns Telegram, the social media app, the messaging app. and they were mad that they didn't have a back door into telegram. And so they just arrested him at an airport where he was refueling. And they held him for over a year in France. They didn't ask anybody's permission.

They just did it. Well, that's disgusting, of course. Authoritarian, obviously, but that's the way they are. And if you doubt that, read any account of the Algerian wars of the 1950s where the French colonial authorities tried to crack down on separatist independence movements in North Africa, they were tough and brutal and decisive. And so it's only worth noting that to say that if the French authorities wanted to crack down on these protests at the very beginning, well, they certainly could have.

They have the technology, for sure. They have the will and they have the personnel. It's like the most functional part of the French state is its internal security services. But they didn't. In fact, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, was at a it's hard to believe we're not making this up, but we're not. He was at a Celine Dion concert when this all happened, literally. I mean, like, that just, that had to be scripted. That can't be real. Speaking of the Simpsons, but he was. He was a Celine Dion concert. As a half a million people,

and they knew this was going to happen, gathered in central Paris in anger. So what is that? Why would they allow? Of course, we don't have an answer for that other than, to note the obvious, which is they've been allowing this kind of thing for 40 or 50 years, probably since de Gaulle. And we know that because we've been to Paris recently, and it's filthy. And it's filled people from other countries making a mess. It's covered in graffiti. And everyone can see that. So what you're watching now probably is just the most obvious expression of what has been happening for decades, which is the implosion of a nation overseen by its own authorities. They know what's happening. You can't allow graffiti in your downtown for decades without having the

whole thing fall apart. The broken windows theory is real. Minor displays of disorder lead to greater displays of disorder, which leads to chaos and collapse. That's just the nature of life in this world, and everybody knows it intuitively. And that's why functional cities like Tokyo or Moscow or Abu Dhabi or Pick one, there are a lot, Singapore, they don't allow that. But France does and serially does, which is to say lots of French leaders over many, many years have allowed their country to degrade which suggests over time that that's kind of what they wanted or being paid to allow or whatever, but it's not an accident. So we probably shouldn't be surprised that the French authorities sat back and watched their own capital city burn, which they have.

So those were kind of the newsreel clips, just to give you an overview. Here is a much tighter shot on an individual facing the mob. This is the street-level view of the riots in Paris this weekend. watch. education funding or a boomer economy, both of which seem pretty legitimate, actually. The economy is ridiculous in the way that it's structured. And everybody knows that. And if young people are poor, it doesn't work by definition. So it's okay to protest. But that wasn't protest. That was looting. And that was roughing up some woman. Now, apparently that woman, we have read,

is some sort of left-wing activist or fashion icon or something. And people are saying that she deserved to get roughed up by the mob. Okay. No, she didn't, actually. no matter what her views are, no one deserves that. No one deserves to be intimidated by people in black masks in their own city. That's awful. And more than awful, of course, you're watching the collapse of a civilization, of civil society. That's what that is. Even people with stupid political views are allowed to have the expectation they can walk

down the street without being tossed around by rioters. You can never allow that. So that's the first thing you notice. This is really bad. no matter how you feel about the protests or the politics of it or whatever. That's the first thing. The second thing you notice is not many people in that video seem to be very French at all. The girl was getting roughed up is obviously French, kind of pretty French, you know, their women famously are. But most other people seem to be non-French, non-European.

And no one really wants to say that. It's considered bad to say that, but why is it bad to say that? It's obvious. And it's meaningful. And it also refers to. a reality that cannot be avoided by anyone who visits Paris or any other European capital these days, which is these cities don't seem very European because the majority of the people you see in the street are not from Europe, and you know that, sorry, by looking at them. So people in the United States have notices, and because we're in such a politically polarized time and because there's so much lying and everyone's working out some agenda, usually has to do with a faraway Middle Eastern conflict. People are motivated to make polemical points. People are motivated to make polemical points.

and the basis of clips like that. And the one that you're hearing a lot is that, well, the Muslims took over Paris. And there's definitely some truth in that. France had a bunch of different colonies in North Africa, which are Muslim countries. And after they gave up those colonies, as a lot of colonial powers did, they allowed people from those countries to move to France for the cheap labor. And that turned out to be a pretty bad deal over time, both for the French economy and for France itself, for the culture, for everything about France. But it's also true that that's not the whole story. So people are using this to tell you that Muslims are bad. And well, of course, any Muslim who's behaving like that is bad. But if you look carefully, it's not just Muslims,

actually. Paris is a little different from other European cities in that there is a huge population of sub-Saharan Africans, not North Africans, sub-Saharan Africans. And then there for a simple reason, which is that they speak French. There are more than 20 countries in Africa that are French-speaking. a lot of them are former French colonies and the people there speak French. And when they show up in mainland Europe and speak French, and no one else does. If you're in Frankfurt and you speak French, you probably want to get to Paris where other people speak French. And so France is an awful lot of sub-Saharan Africans living in it, particularly in Paris. And it's very noticeable.

Not noticeable in a bigoted way, but there is a difference. And anyone who tells you there's no difference between people from different countries hasn't been to other countries. There's a massive difference. And so you hear on American television, this is a Muslim invasion, okay, but it's also a little more simple than that. It is the result of mass migration in this case from sub-Saharan Africa. And if you don't think that matters, ask yourself, would you be willing to take your family on vacation in Marrakesh, Morocco? Probably a lot of people do, spend a lot of money doing it. Would you bring your family on vacation to Wagadougu-Brikina Fasa?

Probably not. And you probably wouldn't because it's a dangerous place like almost every single city in sub-Saharan Africa outside of Cape Town. That's just a fact. Now, why that's a fact, why that is a consistent fact across the continent unknown. And we're not going to speculate, but it is a fact. And so when you import a lot of people from dangerous, chaotic places that have always been dangerous and always chaotic that have no history of stability, you're probably going to replicate the conditions they left. over time if it's a big enough group of people. And that's exactly what has happened in Paris. Now, the extent to which it's happened, we don't know, because in 1978, the French government banned counting people within the borders of France by race. That was 1978, which kind of happened to be the beginning of a massive ramp up in immigration into France. Kind of weird. There were something like 11,000 immigrants admitted that year. There are now millions and millions and millions and hundreds of thousands admitted every year still into France. a lot of them from sub-Saharan Africa. So again, it's not to say that there aren't troublesome Muslim

immigrants in France. Well, of course there are those no-go zones you keep hearing about. But to make a clean and fast polemical point about it, and then it also raised the question how do these people get there? How did they make it to France in the first place or any other European country or for that matter of the United States? Was it the Muslim lobby that got them here or there? In the United States in 2001, on the eve of 9-11, there were about a million Muslims in the entire country, 320 million people probably in the U.S. then, and there were about a million Muslims. There are now about 6 million Muslims after 9-11. And the lesson of 9-11 were told is that 19 arrows with box cutters committed the greatest act of terrorism in American history. Muslims are bad,

and yet somehow we got an extra 5 million Muslims in 25 years. Was it the Muslim lobby that did that? How did that happen? It might be worth finding out. out. In fact, we definitely should find out, and we need to find out what happened to Europe, because this is the effect of it. Not because all the people who came are bad. A lot of them aren't bad, doubtless, because most people aren't bad. But if you move a huge population of completely different people into your ancient country, you are going to have conflict. And it almost doesn't matter what the population is. What matters most is its size, but that is always in everywhere a recipe for disunion. And if you're bringing people in from violent countries where

they express disagreements with, say, machetes, you're going to get machete attacks. And of course, all these European capitals have. So this was never the plan. And if you raise this question, which you're not invited to, ever. But if you dare to, you will hear that, that the the people who are you're watching on the street are every bit as French as anybody else. But of course, that's demonstrably untrue. It's not true in any sense. They are not the historic French population.

They don't share a common history with the rest of the French nation. And there was a time not that long ago when people could just say that out loud, that there was a balance in any society between the willingness to welcome people from the outside and the obligation to keep a stable population.

an obligation not simply to your ancestors, but to your grandchildren. Don't change the country overnight. It's not your right to do that. In fact, it was Charles de Gaulle, who was not any kind of lunatic or whatever. He was, in fact, the founder of the modern French state, the Fifth Republic, who made that point in 1959. In fact, we have the quote, and it might be worth reading it, because when you first hear this, it might be sort of titillatingly fringe, but if you think about it, it's entirely

reasonable and decent, and it represented the majority public opinion. in 1959, and we would bet, though no one would ever poll it, it represents the majority opinion in every country on the globe at this point in history. Here's the quote. It is very good that there are yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They prove that France is open to all races and that she is a universal mission. All right. But it is good on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are, after all, primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture and the Christian religion. So if you find yourself in a place where saying something

like that is controversial or hateful, by the way, if you do say something like that, if you ever dared to you, would be immediately attacked by the Anti-Defamation League as a supremacist of some kind, evil. But if you come to a place where that happens and people take the attack seriously, where you're not allowed to acknowledge that different people behave, at least on the margins, differently. They may have identical value in the eyes of God, and we believe they do, each imbued with a soul. You can't kill them or mistreat them. But you also are under no obligation to mix them all up and pretend that it's a coherent country, because that's not how things work or ever have. And in fact, it's an act of great hostility to do that to a nation. And this will show you in a minute,

it has been done to the nation of France and to the surrounding nations and to every country in the West, but no other country, which is kind of interesting. Well, in any case, at this point, we're not exactly sure what percentage of the French population or the population of Paris is non-white, but it's huge. It's obviously huge. In fact, it's so big, and this is also part of an inevitable process, that there are elements of the French political system who are no longer complaining about it, but instead embracing it. In fact, the leader of the French left, who will be facing off to, in the coming elections in France, to vie for the presidency, he'll likely lose, but said recently that he doesn't want France to be French,

he would rather it be Creole. And he described this process of changing historic France into something new and different and less white, as, and we're quoting now, the great replacement. which made us laugh. Only the French dare say the obvious out loud. Because of course, the term the great replacement is totally verboten in the United States. It's considered a racist or somehow anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, the idea that the populations of white countries are being intentionally turned non-white. The countries when you were a kid that had white majorities no longer do and that that's not organic, it's not an accident. Someone decided to do that, which is, of course, true. Obviously, none of this happens by accident. Nobody actually wants this, but it happens nonetheless.

And you're not allowed to note it or else you're the criminal, which is a kind of consistent theme in the modern world. You catch someone doing something wrong, committing genocide in Gaza, for example, and noting that they're committing a crime makes you the criminal. Shut up, you're a hater. No, I'm not the one who's killing people. I'm not the one who's replacing historic indigenous populations with foreigners against the will of the population, which is to say in violation of the precepts of democracy and decency, I'm not the one committing war crimes in Europe. But that's not kind of how it works right now.

You say it, you're the bad guy. But at this point, it's so obvious and it's so obviously non-hateful to note what is right in front of your face or to cite census numbers, that why not just say it? And why not also straighten out the kind of moral hierarchy here? the people who note what's happening are not the bad guys. The people who are doing it are the bad guys. The people who commit the crimes are the ones who should hang their heads in shame,

not the ones who object to those crimes. And make no mistake, this is a crime. And one of the reasons it's a crime, and this is really no one's fault, it's just kind of the nature of it, is that once you change the population of a country, the new population will want that country. It will believe and have reason to believe, by the way, that this is their country too.

And by country, we mean not simply the infrastructure of the country or the economic machinery of the country. We mean the culture of the country. And that would include the history of the country. So people want to look out their door and say, you know, my ancestors had a role in building all of this. There's a continuity to my life, which is limited. I was preceded by my parents and grandparents and unbacked to the generations,

and I will be followed by my children and grandchildren, et cetera. I am part of a continuum. them. That's the most human desire to want that. This is why people visit or used to visit their ancestors' graves before somehow we were all convinced to incinerate them and toss them into the wind and pretend they never existed in the first place. That's called cremation, which is now the overwhelming choice of white Americans. But most cultures, even in the United States, still stick to the old ways. And they do it for a really obvious reason. This is my country, and I want my people buried in its earth, and I want to visit them, and in so doing, I establish a connection between

my life and theirs and the lives to follow. History not simply matters because we can learn lessons from it, though, of course it does, because the cliche is true. It repeats itself. But history is important because it roots us in something larger than ourselves, which is the whole scope of time and the human experience. It has significance to our lives, it has formed to our lives, meaning to our lives. And so we want it. And any group that is a majority in a country will demand it and we'll take it

and we'll rewrite the history. Of course. To reflect our own beliefs and our own aspirations. To highlight our own wounds. If you want to know who runs a country, it's often said, ask who you can't criticize. But a maybe more accurate way

to measure who's in charge is to ask who's in charge of history. Who gets to make sense of the past, an endless number of details, who gets to assemble them into recognizable form and draw lessons from it? Those who control history control the present, obviously. And so the mark that you have reached a point where you no longer have the same culture is when history starts to be destroyed. When mobs say, I don't know, tear down the statues to your ancestors or your ancestors' heroes.

or when, as just happened in France, the mob in the name of protesting school funding starts torching old buildings. Watch this. I've been based in France quite a long time, and this is the first time I've seen a town hall deliberately set a light. This is a very beautiful building. It dates back to the 1800s, and the people of Limoges are very proud of this building. They say it's one of the most attractive.

And all day, fire crews, there's still some smouldering here. fire crews have been going inside, checking out what the conditions are of the walls, whether there's a chance that they might actually collapse and at the moment they just don't know. What you need to know is that there were actually some police cars just next to the building when the mob came in, the police cars were set alight and there were some police officers right there in front and they were overwhelmed as the mob came in and set a light of this building. There was even marriages being celebrated in this building on the first floor just a few hours before the arson is struck. You need to know that there are hundreds of people here on the walls,

behind me who've been watching all day and they've been telling me they're shocked, scared, and don't understand why this happened. So to any normal person, certainly any normal European, that is more than an act of vandalism. It's an atrocity and it's intentional. Torturing a building like that, of course, doesn't raise school funding, doesn't change the economy to the advantage of young people. It's an act of desecration meant to erase the past in order to build a new future along lines that immigrants decide. So that's exactly what that is. And in that sense, it's an active war.

But more even than an act of war, it's a kind of foreshadowing of the future, a future in which Europe does not at all belong to the people you thought live there, the people whose ancestors built it, everything about it, including that building. It will belong to a new set of people who will be by definition, and it's not their fault, it's just the truth, totally disconnected from the history of Europe, the history you grew up reading about, the history that, in fact, defines our lives even here in the United States to this day. The history of Europe is central to the history of the United States, and New Zealand and Australia and Canada and the entire Western world. Of course, that's our history. But when the population changes, that history will be

replaced in the same way that Lakota or Hopi or any other Native American, in history was completely erased. Of course. Do you know anything about Pasamacquoddy history? No. Do you care? Of course not. Why not? Because you don't have to because the pastamquoddies have been replaced. That's not so flagellation. That's not, oh, we committed genocide, though there's a case for that. It's merely a straightforward observation about the nature of replacement. And when the old is replaced over time, it's not mourned. And, it's not mourned. And he's a more than people are. In the end, no one visits their grave. In the end, no one remembers their history. Why would they any more than we celebrate the milestones of Assyrian history? We don't. The reason it's worth

noting all of this is because it's happening right in front of us. And it's, again, not the product of a conventional war. Europe didn't get invaded and conquered. In fact, we're still told Europe was somehow liberated back 80 years ago. Hard to see how that's true now. In any case, it is no less an active war simply because it happened over time in much more subtle and hidden ways. And it did happen. And we're going to read some of the numbers now, not to be pedantic or boring, but just to show you kind of the scope of this. So here's a list of European cities. And as we said, the numbers in France are a little bit hard to guess at because they're not officially available, having been banned in 1978, when immigration really started in earnest.

But they are available in other countries. So here's, I think, the second biggest, French-speaking city in Europe, which would be Brussels, Belgium. 195, so 10 years after the end of the war, Brussels was 95% European. 95%, which shouldn't surprise you. It's a European city. It's an ancient European city. Brussels is now 21% European. 21% 95% to 21%.

Well, that's pretty amazing. London, 1955, 97% English, European, white. today, 36%. 97 to 36%. Amsterdam. 98% now 40%. Minority. Berlin, 98% in 1955.

10 years after losing the war, today 57%. Vienna, 95%. Today, 51%. Barely a majority. Stockholm, Sweden. A little kind of out of the fray up in Scandinavia, that big peninsula up there to the west. Scandinavia, kind of not in the same.

the heart of things, right? Even Stockholm, big city. 1995, not surprisingly, Stockholm, Sweden was 97% Swedish. Today, it's 65%. And other cities in Sweden, Malmo, most famously, are minority Swedish. So you may think that's great. You may think it's terrible. It almost kind of doesn't matter what you think. You will spend all day. In fact, you'll spend the rest of your life trying to find a corollary in world history. Nothing like this has ever happened before. know of, certainly since the pyramids, you have never seen a replacement on this scale and this precisely targeted. It is only, and we would dare anybody to refute this with numbers and not just hysteria about white supremacy, it is only the majority white cities and countries that have

turned over in population. Nothing like this has happened in Africa or Asia or the Middle East. It has happened only in nations with a white majority, and they no longer are a white majority. And at this pace, very soon, in fact, within our lifetimes, there will not be a single white majority nation in the world other than Russia. And that's, of course, assuming that Russia isn't destroyed in the current war. And it raises the question about the motives behind this current war. Is it possible that the fact that Russia is the last big majority white country in the world, does that play a role in the hatred that many feel for it?

we don't know, just throwing that out there. But it's not a crazy thing to ask, given that this is a universal fact across the globe from Australia to Ottawa, from Canberra to Ottawa, that majority white nations either are no longer majority white or are moving so quickly to minority white status that there will be none left in 20 years. And that would include, by the way, even Iceland, the tiny frozen country settled by Vikings a thousand years ago, which until recently had one of the most homogenous populations in the world. In fact, so homogenous that Icelanders famously did a lot of genealogy before getting married because the chances your neighbor was your cousin were pretty darn high.

Even Iceland all of a sudden is struggling with immigration. Unwanted immigration. There's never been evidence. that the majority of Icelanders wanted immigration, but they were bullied from the outside, and you can read about it in some detail if you're interested how exactly that happened, but it did happen to the point that immigration is,

if you talk to anyone who lives in Iceland, one of the big issues in that country, and its jail population reflects that. What was an orderly, homogenous, prosperous country still is in a lot of ways, but becoming much less so very quickly, thanks to mass migration that they didn't want. It's almost like, in fact it's not almost like,

it is a fact that they were targeted because they were too white. Now, what is that? Well, it's not an act of love. It's the opposite. It's an active hate. And if it was an active love, if the principle held universally that diversity is our strength, that it's good for you to have a country that has no working majority of anybody, certainly not a white majority. But if it was just always good to be diverse, then there would be well, consistent, in fact, equal and consistent, pressure on every nation in the world to adopt the same standard. And the United Nations and the Soros organizations and the Democratic Party of the United States and every green party on the planet would be working in concert to do to the rest of the world what they have done to the

white world. And that is to mix it up a little bit. Why is China 99% Han Chinese? Why is India all Indian? Why is Burkina Fossa all African? Those countries must be weak. But of course, that hasn't happened. It is only white countries that have been targeted. And so the onus is not on people who notice it to explain what that is. The onus is on the people who did it to explain why they did it. And to tell the rest of us why this isn't hate. Because it so clearly is.

You don't act this way to people you love. And of course, countries that are cherished and loved by their leaders and their supporters don't have this. That would include China. It would include Israel, which has fought. many wars over demographics. In fact, is fighting currently on seven fronts over the question of demographics. And you can revile that in the behavior of the Israeli military, and of course we have. But it doesn't change the fact that at its root, Israel's struggle is over demographics.

They would like their country to be filled with people like them, and they're willing to fight for it, or at least they're willing to use the U.S. military to fight for it. And that's not an attack. it's just an observation, but it's almost never made. Because of course, the obligation is for white countries to diversify, but everyone else to do exactly what they want. And why is that? And why does no one ask that question? But even if you're in favor of that, you would have to look at what is happening in Paris, even if you hated the French, if you hated whites, you would have to look at that as sad. Is rioting ever good? Is chaos ever good? You see the video with a blonde girl getting hassled by men in masks pushed around, a normal person would feel

sympathy. A normal person look at that and say, oh, I mean, not like the French or what I don't hate Europe. But gee, that's tough. I wouldn't want that at my town. But that's not how people looked on it at all, actually. And here's one example. Here's the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Nanyahu asked in a recent interview in just the last few days. You saw what's happening in France. What do you make of it? And here's his response. Macron called me on October 7th. What did he say? He said, you know, we have to work for an immediate ceasefire and to solve this by diplomacy.

And I said, no, no, Emmanuel. It's not going to be solved by diplomacy. These are monsters. These are neo-Nazis. You don't solve a problem of the SS, as I told the German chancellor who came here. With diplomacy, you destroy them. And I'd said to him this, I said, you know, Hamas is like ISIS. In fact, it's worse in some respects than ISIS, even worse than ISIS.

And let me tell you, if we don't stop Hamas here, you'll see them on the streets of Paris. And that's exactly what is happening right now. Do you think Emmanuel Macron has learned his lesson today, seeing what's happening in France? Well, I think the French people see what's happening in the streets of France, and probably will, as it looks like, it could foster a change in the political makeup of France. It's an amazing clip that should be saved for future generations to savor and learn from. So the first thing you notice is how the Prime Minister of Israel immediately makes it by himself. So France is literally burning.

Paris is burning. Dowell he's an international person. He's been to Paris. And it's a city that the world has loved for hundreds of years, maybe more than a day. deserves, but in any case, it is Paris. It's not your average city. It's not Tucson or Tel Aviv, for that matter. It's a great global city. And it's on fire. And so rather than extend any sympathy at all, you have the Israeli prime minister making it immediately by himself. Well, Macron called me about Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, and Hamas is on the street. Hamas is not on the streets.

What? It had nothing at all to do with Israel, we think. But here the guy is talking about himself. and then he is expressing something. You watch the tape again, if you're checking this out on your phone. Rewind that. Pretty obvious that he's taking some satisfaction in the fact that Paris is burning. And it's not the first time that the Israeli prime minister or other leaders, including in the United States, certainly in our neocon community, have taken pleasure in the destruction of Europe.

When the invasion of Spain from North Africa accelerated a few weeks ago, you saw the same reaction. deserve it. They criticize what we're doing in Gaza. They deserve it. They deserve it. Your average Spaniard deserves to have his country destroyed. That chick outside the store in Paris deserves to get roughed up by a mob because Macron wanted a negotiated settlement to the Gaza conflict. Really? Are you saying that? He is saying that. And as he says it, you can feel what is absolutely real and what he has expressed in public before, which is hostility to Europe and Europeans. Now, where does that come from?

We're not even going to speculate. We don't know. We don't have to say where it comes from, by the way. We don't have to guess. All we have to do is show that it's real. That hatred, that coldness, that contempt, that delight in the suffering of Europeans is everywhere. It's everywhere. Including in our country.

Ask yourself in this moment of resurgent tribalism in the United States, and we should note, parenthetically, that mass migration causes tribalism. If you're over 50 and you grew up in the United States, unless you grew up in some inner city scenario like Philadelphia or New York or something, you probably didn't think of yourself in terms of your ethnicity. You were just like an American. Most Americans actually had that experience. Believe it or not, I'm an American. In fact, people were hesitant even to name their ancestry. Again, if you're in some big eastern city, yeah, the Italians and the Polacks and, you know, famously West Side story stuff, but most Americans, certainly in the Sunbelt, in the emerging states, the growing states, did not identify themselves

by their race or their ethnicity. Because tribalism, despite the propaganda you doubt was heard, was not the defining fact of American life, but it is becoming the defining fact of American life, as it always does through mass migration. When there's no working majority of anything, people retreat to their tribes. And their compassion evaporates, their suspicion, grows always and everywhere. But in the United States, it is also true that one form of tribalism is not only banned, legally banned, probably. Is it a crime to be a white supremacist, whatever that is, to be aware of your whiteness? Probably. Talk about it enough. And you're definitely going to get surveilled by the federal government. But more than that, more than that,

it is the one ethnicity that is not only okay to discriminate it against, but to openly hate and to call for genocide against. Now, how do we know that? Well, just from the reading lists at our leading universities. And every single one of them has a roster of books dedicated to calling for killing white people. Oh, that's an overstatement. Is it? Is it? White fragility, white rage? These are books that, about how the concept of whiteness, when they've tried to alide the genocide accusation by making about whiteness, inventing a new term, but basically these are attacks on white people. If they were attacks on Jewishness or blackness, Chineseness, they would be called rightly what they are, which is attacks on a people for characteristics they were born with.

And they're everywhere. Here's our favorite, just because it's hilarious ever. This is like the most amusing thing ever. is a book by Professor Jonathan Metzell of Vanderbilt University called Dying of Whiteness, how the politics of racial resentment is killing America's heartland. And what's hilarious about it? Is it the American Heartland is dying, of course, but probably not because it's too white or too aware of being white.

It's also possible the Sackler family pumping opioids into Appalachia, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the heartland had some role in its dying with the guys who offshoreed all the jobs to Asia in order to get quick hit, that may have had some role in it, maybe. But according to Professor Jonathan Metzell of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee,

it's their whiteness that too much whiteness. Now, again, you don't have to be white or love whites, or it doesn't even matter. Who treats another group like that? Who talks like that about other human beings? beings. Well, only people with genocidal intent. That's the language of hate. And of course, they've constructed this kind of amazing system where pointing out the hate is itself hate. And there are a lot of nonprofits dedicated to enforcing these absurd, completely 180-degree

inverted rules. And one of them, of course, is the ADL, the Anti-Diffamation League, which would defend Professor Metzell to the end and attack anyone who criticizes Professor Metzell's obviously genocidal intent, whiteness is killing people, being white is a crime, would attack those people as the criminals and the haters. But no, this is silly. It's obvious now that this kind of language of this ideology is the actual threat.

How would you rate them? The shred of Sharia law, which we're not for, by the way, as an Episcopalian, not for Sharia law, okay? But to the average American, the threat of anti-white hysteria and hate that results in your kid not getting into college or getting a job or the threat of Sharia law, which is, I don't know, are we in the verge of getting Sharia law? Probably not.

Don't want it. Hope we don't get it. But that's not coming anytime soon. The anti-white stuff is already here. And yet no one ever mentions it. Why is that? It's almost like there's a conspiracy of silence to prevent us from noticing the most obvious thing around us, which is that our country has totally changed in the same way the rest of the previously white world has changed.

And it's not an accident. It's on purpose. And it is somehow a crime to talk about it? No, thanks. Because clearly we can see where it winds up, which is with conflict. and it would wind up that way in any country in which the demographics changed this dramatically against the will of the population, obviously. So you have to kind of wonder how this happened in this country. And this hate posing as concern has been allowed to kind of continue for all these years,

specifically since 1965 when the immigration law changed. And those changes were specifically designed to make the country less worse. white, how has this been allowed to continue without anybody saying anything about it? How was, for example, Chuck Schumer, who is the head Democrat in the Senate, allowed to say things like this without being challenged? Watch. Now more than ever, we're short of workers. We have a population that is not reproducing it on its own with the same level that it used to. The only way we're going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace it. immigrants, the dreamers, and all of them, because our ultimate goal is to help the dreamers

but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented. There are here. Okay. I mean, it just says it. So he correctly identifies the problems. The birth rate is falling off a cliff. That's not a surprise to anybody if you create a system in which the majority of the wealth is held by people who are beyond their reproductive years.

And people 40 and under have 6.5% of the wealth. It's going to be a lot harder to start families and have kids, right? So, and there are a lot of other problems. The education system is terrible and drugs are rampant. And there are a lot of problems in the United States. But instead of fixing any of them or even mentioning them, Chuck Schumer says, our goal, you can replay it. Our goal is to help the dreamers and all other undocumented.

In other words, the people we care about are not the people who live here because they're white. the people we care about are the people we're importing who are not. So he was cheered by all the people around him, the emerging coalition, but that's an expression of deep hostility toward the people who live here, not just a lack of caring, not just ignoring. This is mocking them as they die, using their money. And it's had a huge effect.

So we're going to do something that you're definitely not allowed to do, which is read the census numbers. Now, the census numbers are a product of the census, which is taken every 10 years, and it's taken because it's mandated in the Constitution. Now, why is that? Because the framers understood, as anybody who runs a country understands, that who lives within your borders is the single most important fact about your country. Who lives there is the most important fact, because people are always the most important variable in any equation. So, in order to find out who lives here, they mandated, and we still do it, a census and nationwide census, find out who lives here in the census every 10 years. And those numbers, which are federal

numbers available on the internet, tell an amazing story. But an even greater story is that no one feels free to read those numbers. So again, if you reach a place where the ADL slanders you and you may get debanked by J.P. Morgan Chase for reading federal census numbers, then you know that something unhealthy is going on here. That's not good at all. But whatever, here are the numbers. So in 1955, New York City, believe it or not, was 90% white. New York City, our biggest city, 10 million people, 90% white. Today, it's 31% white. Chicago was 85% weight. Today, it's 32% white. Angeles in 195 was 93% white. Today it's 28% white. So what do you get when you add all that up? You get a non-white country, which is, despite what you may hear, what we already have.

The three biggest cities in the United States are overwhelmingly non-white. In fact, there is not a single city in the United States of size that is majority white. more. Now again, you can say that's great or it's terrible, but you first have to answer the question, how did that happen? Nothing like that has ever happened to any country ever. How did that happen? Our three biggest states are in order by population, California, Texas, and Florida. All of them are majority non-white. California is like 32% white. Texas is in the 40s. So, and those three states together, just those three states, not including the other 47, or about 100 million people, all told out of a country of 350. So that's the country right there.

Of our cities, and cities define a nation, of our cities, and look this up if you don't believe it, there is not a single city in the United States of size that has a white majority, not one. Not one. Out of all of our cities. There's not one city. Over a million for sure. In fact, our biggest city, I think this is right. The biggest city in the United States is still majority white is Boise, Idaho, which is about, what, 280,000, something like that. It's under 300,000. That's our biggest majority white city. And in 1955, Los Angeles was 93% white. Does it make you a white supremacist to note that? All demographers know it. They probably talk about it in private. What the hell is that? And it's our turn to ask, what the hell is? that because is it better? First of all, even if it is better, it wasn't wanted. There was never a referendum on this. And whenever people have been allowed to vote on immigration, and the last couple of presidential campaigns, they have been because Trump ran on immigration, the overwhelmingly vote, the majority votes against it. They don't want this. And by the way, not just white people.

There are a lot of non-white people who don't want new waves of immigrants. But all of this, the point is, was imposed on the American population against its will, but not just the American population. That's the amazing thing. So France, and we're all like France is taken over by immigrants. Well, France is about, we think, about 13% foreign-born. That's not as high as the United States. Not even close.

Now, our official number, 16% could be way higher than that because we don't know who lives here. Because despite all our advanced technology and flock cameras, the federal government hasn't gotten around to figuring out how many people live here. Well, they probably know, but they won't tell us. And it seems very clear there are tens of millions, tens and tens and tens of millions of people here illegally, mostly from third world countries.

So that's the United States. But that's also true in Australia, which is about 32% foreign-born. 32% have you been to Australia recently? We have. It doesn't look like the Australia that Outback Steakhouse told you about. It's completely different country. Maybe it'll be way better or maybe not. But how did that happen? How did that happen to New Zealand? How that happened to Canada, which will soon be non-white in its majority?

We need to find out how that happened. One thing we know for certain is that it happened with the complicity of those governments. None of this was imposed on any of these governments by force. The leaders of every one of those countries, every white country in the world other than Russia played along with this. But what was the motive? And instinct tells you it has something to do with the post-war consensus after World War II, which really is our secular religion. Good defeated evil. Order was restored. And by the way, good did defeat evil. Britain was in the U.S.

are a lot better than Nazi Germany, for sure. Hitler was bad, of course. But the consensus is a little bit deeper than that. And part of the consensus appears to be that majority white countries are a threat to the world and inherently immoral, therefore we have to get rid of them. And the result is that we have. And the result of that is Paris. And so before we take a single further step down this road,

it might be nice to get a clear accounting of the mechanism by which something that none of these populations wanted was imposed on them. And it would be especially gratifying to see the perpetrators of this crime held to account for it, punished for it, because it is a crime, one of the greatest crimes ever committed. But in the meantime, a lot of people, certainly our leadership class, has no idea that it happened or unwilling to acknowledge it, don't care. There's a kind of boomer mindlessness

about it, a kind of everything will be fine because it always is about it. And that would extend, unfortunately, to our current president here in the United States, the man who was elected twice on the promise to shut the borders and deport the people who are not American. who are living here, even that guy somehow all of a sudden is telling us we need more foreigners in a country that has changed beyond recognition in the past 50 years. So here's Donald Trump excitedly chattering about changing the population still more. Look, I've always been in favor of students coming in from other countries. That includes China. And we have 500,000 Chinese students coming in. I've always been in favor of it. Does it mean,

you that you have to watch people yeah you have to watch students but you have to watch other people also i've always been strongly in favor of it i think it's a great thing it's also it's good for our schools it's good for i think it's good for our country i'm also in favor of having them stay i'm in favor of having them stay now just again with the caveat that applies to all people since people are fundamentally just people good and bad probably tons of great people in the hundreds of thousands of Chinese students that he's talking about. But that's not really the point, whether they're great people. They're not American people. And America has too many people here who are not American people. And as a result, the country is becoming fragile and disunified and volatile. And its history is being

rewritten. And all of that will continue at accelerating pace unless we slow way down. But in the mindless boomer mind, it's fine. It's fine. They're great people. This is not what the population of these countries want, they have never wanted it, they've gotten it anyway, and it needs to stop. And if there's one thing we can learn from what's happening in France right now, it's that if you marry the economic stagnation of the boomer economy where only the people at the very top seem to be getting along well and are hoarding the money because they're greedheads, if you marry that and the inevitable frustration that it engenders among young people, with mass migration, which causes your society to be inherently chaotic, the churn prevents any

kind of national identity from jelling. If you combine those two things, then people are going to start burning things down. Things will get super, super crazy. You will destroy your country if you do that. And that's why smart countries don't do that. And for all the lecturing that we've received over the past 20 years about how diversity is our strength and immigrants built this country. And if we didn't have immigration, we'd be nothing. And then windy lectures from some person about my parents came okay, stop, stop, stop. For all of that, no one has asked the obvious question, which is, is it true? And if it is true, then what does China's immigration policy look like? And that's especially relevant now because thanks to a totally deranged policy put in place by previous generations of

Chinese leaders, called the one-child policy, China has demographic problems. China was always, you know, sort of had an abundance of people. Maybe they would argue too many people, too many mouths to feed. China now is the opposite problem. It has, and much has been written about this, an aging population. And they're worried about that because Chinese leadership, whatever you think of them, does think long term, and they're serious people, unlike the mindless boomers who run our society. And so you would think, just logically, if we don't have enough people, We need more young people that China would be importing people. But China is doing exactly the opposite. And you can't argue with its success because China has the largest economy in the world and over the past 30 years the fastest growth rate.

Of course, China dominates global commerce. So what they're doing is working. But what they're not doing is importing a lot of new workers despite the fact they might be able to use some. So the, and you should look this up because it'll make you laugh. The Chinese immigration rate is, is zero. China gives out a thousand or two green cards, permanent resident status cards per year, and no one is naturalized into Chinese citizenship, ever. China is Chinese. And weirdly, the ADL does not have a problem with that. Nobody has a problem with that. Chuck Schumer does not have a problem with that. He's not threatened by Chinese supremacism. He doesn't think that's inherently racist for the Chinese or the Indians who have exactly the same policies or the Israelis, for that matter, he's not threatened by those countries, which are all to some extent ethno-states.

It's only when white countries think about returning to the status quo of 60 years ago that the alarms go off and people start getting surveilled and arrested. So the onus is on Chuck Schumer to explain what that is. What it is, of course, is insane. and an act of warfare and cruelty against people who did nothing wrong. And this has all been predictable for, well, we'll just say thousands of years. You want to exit this on a quote from Aristotle. Never quote Aristotle, but this quote is so amazing.

And this was written 2300 years ago in his famous treat as politics. And it's just so clear and sensible that you sort of wonder what the rebuttal from the ADL might be. Here's Aristotle, who, by the way, was not American. He was Greek. And his view was this. A lack of common dissent is also a cause of revolution, as long as the citizens do not share a similar outlook. For a state does not emerge out of a random population,

nor from a chance period of time. It's not organic. It doesn't just happen by accident. People come together with people with whom they share fundamental characteristics and beliefs. Hence, those states who have admitted resident alien, and settlers from abroad have mostly succumbed to factional strife. Yeah.

That's what's happening to France. And in the BLM riots of five years ago, you could see a foretaste of what might happen here unless we take this seriously. We say it and we mean it, dogs are one of God's greatest blessings. If you love your dogs, you want to take care of them. But vet care has made it impossible for people to keep their dogs healthy. It's so expensive. Private equity is rolled in and made your vet bills out of control.

control. So a lot of people is don't go to the vet. Don't be embarrassed about that. Maybe you can't afford it. So while back, we did one of our favorite interviews ever with Joe Specter from a company called Dutch, and he sat down with us and explained how this is happening and how private equity now owns up to a third of all the vet practices in the country, and prices are raising at double the rate of inflation. It's astounding, and your dog or your cat is likely to be the victim, and that's what we love our partner with Dutch. It's the fastest growing, telehealth service, and we use it. One price for the whole year, no exam fees, no visit fees, no surprise bill at the front desk. You know exactly what you're paying for before you even

started. By the way, a lot of vet visits don't require a visit. And a lot of people's dogs hate go into the vet, including mine. So if you can do it with a vet over the phone, it's way better for everybody. You get real licensed veterinarians, unlimited visits, and follow-ups as many as your dog or cat needs. One plan covers up to five animals. If they need a prescription, That ships it right to your house. Free shipping. Right now, Dutch is giving listeners of this show $80 off. That brings a full year of unlimited vet care down to $119 a year, the whole year.

Last one trip to the clinic. That's quality care you can really afford and you're doing the right thing for your dog or cat. Go to Dutch, dutcch.com slash Tucker. Dutch.com slash Tucker. Use the code Tucker for $80 off your first year, your dogs, your cats, your budget. All of them will be grateful. Jason Kilmire has taken it seriously. He was Chief of Staff over at ICE,

and we sat down with him yesterday for a conversation about the state of immigration in the United States and what to do about it so that we don't become France. Here's that conversation. Thanks a lot for doing this, Jason. So when people think of immigration, I think they think of unwanted

people coming over their borders into their country, taking American jobs, changing the complexion of the country, whatever. That's how people envision immigration. So you just close the borders and it's done. But there's a whole separate variety of legal immigration in one of the forms of it is called the H-1B visa program. And it turns out that's a really significant part of immigration, the immigration picture and a part of the problem. So would you just describe what it is? What is the H-1B program? Yeah. So H-1B was, I mean, is something H-1 visas existed as early as the 19.

They were for supposedly special or, and particularly meritorious immigrants to come over to the country. Okay. We don't have any of this category of workers. We need them or importing them. That's exactly right. And so, and then in 1990, they signed something, or split it out in law, Bush signed it called the H-1B. So the idea was for specialty occupations, right? To your point. Apparently, the American market cannot produce this very particular skill set in enough, and we're supposed to believe right in enough volume or it doesn't exist. And so it was both temporary, tied to a specific individual, and for what they called specialty

occupations. And what kind of occupations would those be? So it might have been anything from someone with tech skills, right? And a lot of it was like about mechanical or other engineering skills and then IT or other development skills. Right. And so out of the gate, okay, hey, we're moving into the digital world. everybody's in kind of that 90s mindset.

And those were the types of roles originally in Fission. Learn to code. And these are people who already knew how to code, so we need to import them. Exactly. Huh. How big a program was it at the beginning? So when it started out, the caps were much smaller. The caps are how many that the government shall issue on an annual basis.

And I think it started out at only 20,000 or so out of the gate. And then I may have this wrong. I think then expanded to 40,000. Right now we are at 85,000 a year. and we are at another, there's a group that's called cap-exempt universities, nonprofit research institutions, government-affiliated research institutes. That might be another 45, 55, 60,000 every year. So the overall population right now of people who are here on an H-1Bs of the visa,

the government hasn't done a total count in a while, but it's estimated to be north of 700,000 people. The government hasn't done the count. So they run the program, they bring people in, and then they don't keep track of how many there are. Correct. Or like what I'll say, a running total of those. And so what I tell people is if this was originally a specific human being certified to do a specific job for this skill set that apparently the American system does not produce, what it has now become is essentially just a foreign mobile labor workforce. Right. And the output of that very, very clearly is the depression of wages for Americans.

So over the history of that program, let's just say from 1990 when H1B was created, the estimate is it's above 3 million people overall have been on those visas over the history of that program. And so that impact on all the things that we think about family formation for Americans, right? the ability to grow your way up, right? So not just here's the 700,000 people who are displacing Americans right now. But what about 10 years ago? That person would be moving into middle management, right? That is a good salary.

Let's stay with computer development, right? Or computer science. That's a house in the suburbs for an American. That is kids in soccer. So when I think about the program, I don't just think about the individual numbers, but I think about the effect of now a generation of displacement. So the conversation about immigration has changed dramatically.

So in 1924, the United States basically ended immigration into the country after decades of historically high levels of immigration, mostly from Eastern and Southern Europe. And there was a sense that the country's getting volatile, and we need just a holding pattern for a minute for things to settle, people to assimilate the country to become united again, and that lasted until 1965 when a manual seller passed his famous Hart Cellar Act. And the country changed completely. But the point is, the pressure to stop immigration in 1924 came from whom? Labor unions, because

immigration was understood as a tool that employers used to depress the value of labor. Because if you've got more of something, it's worth less, right? supply and demand. Then the conversation became, and it kind of still is, about race. And it was like, well, if you're against immigration, you're a racist. And that was used, that slur was used as cover by employers to continue doing what they've always done, which is to disempower labor. But there's nothing you could kind of say because you were racist. And the labor unions, which are irrelevant now and also complicit in this, went along with it.

Am I missing it? No. And I, and I, and the evidence of that is in a system that started again for this, this temporary, uh, supposed need for individual position A or B, right? And the vice president talked about this. He said all of these H1B, all these other programs are just a pathway to permanent residence. That's all that they are. Right. And so if the answer was, hey, I had this individual finite need as a company because I can't find it here and I'm willing to maybe down the road invest in growing Americans who can do that, that would, be one thing. But the reality of the program is you get here. There are student visa statuses that allow people to work. You've got the H-1B, and they all flow into that eventual permanent status. What is the evidence of that? About a year ago, they took a survey of FHA-backed mortgages, right? And this is, people think about this in terms of North Texas, where we've seen this dramatic change. One in every 17 FHA-back mortgages issued in this country two years ago was to someone here on a temporary status, was to a foreigner here on a temporary status? Why would FHA, federally backed, be giving taxpayer-guaranteed mortgages to foreigners?

Because they knew that they were going to be here. Because they knew the program, right, was never really temporary. But why would, for sure. Yeah. But why would the other side of the federal government, FHA, be doing this for people who are not American citizens when American citizens can't buy homes. Yeah, I don't think there is any good reason. But fortunately, this administration has stopped that and taken that down to zero, as of, I think, May or March 2025. And so the way that I look at that too, right, so if you think about

FHA in particular, it's insidious because that is how you get your starter home. And so every time we think about this now, and this is to your point, right, in 1924, we came to this realization as a country. It is where I think we're at the beginning of that movement. Maybe we're 100 years, right? Maybe we're two years behind schedule. But what the American people I think are waking up to is that term racist doesn't keep them quiet as much anymore, right? That the great well of the great well-being for foreigners is running out.

Understanding that the asylum program has been completely run through with fraud and is illegitimate. Like, we are catching up to the moment in terms of recognizing that we're going to have to put Americans first in some realistic capacity. And so, like, when you think about, right, all of the places that the business community is going to push for these things. Here's a lobby that doesn't want to curb illegal immigration. Here's another lobby that just wants the agricultural workers, right? Here are the tech guys that don't want to curb H-1B. I just think that like what they have to recognize is or let me put that more simply. They just need to read the room.

Like this movement is coming. The restrictionist movement I think is going to continue. There's a new justification for continuing it. So I do think there's a recognition that people are just the idea that I complain about being mistreated and I'm the bad guy for complaining about being mistreated. My kids can't get into college. My kids can't get jobs. Shut up racist. Like I think that's kind of over shut up anti-Semite or whatever they're calling you.

Now the justification is, well, of course we need it for tech, and that's a national security question. Like, we're literally going to get nuked unless we keep Silicon Valley supplied with H-1Bs from India. Yeah. I mean, they're kind of making that case, right? Yeah, but I think there's been enough progress. Like, the way that I would suggest it is what we've seen is moving against the program. I mean, they just suspended Microsoft from, the Perm program, right, which is the ability to recommend for green cards as well as Adobe.

And, you know, there's been these, what I'll call like other investigations that are coming forward under something called Project Firewall that was announced by the Department of Labor. Like, for an administration that is, you know, big tech was part of that coalition coming in in 2024, these are real moves that are happening in terms of reining in this program or at least pushing it back towards what it was originally meant to be in. statute. I might frame it that way instead. Owning a home has always been the core of the American dream. It's the asset that families work their lives to build,

a place of stability, security, and actual wealth. But too many homeowners right now are stuck swiping credit cards to cover groceries, paying a survival tax of 20% interest or more. So we're against debt. We always say that. But you can't buy a house without debt right now. Almost anybody has to take out a loan. So the question is, who you're going to get a loan from? Why are you handing your money to big banks when you can keep it for your family?

Our friends at American financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners tap into their hard-earned equity. They're supporting Americans looking to fulfill the American dream of owning a home. American financing saves its customers an average of $800 a month. That's nearly $10,000 a year. It's not just a loan. It's a total financial reset. And so American financing is worth looking at.

They're called America's Home for Home Loans for a reason. Find out more. at 800-685-56-56-800-6-85-56-86-86 or visit Americanfinancing.net slash Tucker. That's, well, that's certainly gratifying to hear. H-1B admittance into the country, are they taking jobs that Americans can't do, like, practically speaking? No, and here's the way to think about that, right? So there are levels of, the way the H-1B program is administered, there are levels within any occupation.

So we'll just stick with software developer because we've been using that. Right. So there's levels one, two, three, and four. And four being the highest, and it's theoretically tied to different occupation skill and amount of responsibility, one being the lowest. And then those are tied to a prevailing wage. It's a percentile thing. The vast majority of the H-1B applications are at those bottom two layers of the extent. experience route, right? So everything we hear, the example, I think the vice president used this

example of, you know, it's an American accountant being replaced, making 60K a year, being replaced by an Indian accountant making 45K a year. Like the program was largely concentrated at those lower ends of the wage scale. And so the idea that those were skill sets that could not be replicated here, in my opinion, that fiction has revealed itself as no longer. right being the case and and the reality of it is that's every program that eventually succumbs to institutional capture over time the idea that you know hey a program that was originally meant to be for specific specialty field is now a a function of labor depression it's a way to keep wages low let me suggest too right so there's the the program perm which is where

you move over to get the green cards um the answer there is you're supposed to to have, you're supposed to prove that you tried to hire Americans. And everybody knows that that's been, it's not really happening, right? And they put ads, these companies will put ads in ethnic newspapers and all these things. But people are shocked that that's happening. And my point is, no, the purpose of the system is to get foreign labor over here to service cheap labor for these companies. Of course that, that check is not well manufactured. It would defeat the purpose of the program, which was to bring people over here to do these jobs. And so when I think about like, H-1B as a labor depression mechanism. There have been a variety of studies, right? And to be fair,

some studies say, hey, the overall boon to economic growth balances itself out in some other way. Maybe that exists. But the average H-1B worker, I saw a recent statistic that makes $19,000 less than an American doing a comparable job. And there are others that say it's about $10,000 less. So you have two things happening. You have a program that is now concentrated at the lower end of the labor scale for jobs that are clearly by no real stretch of the imagination specialty. And then you also have them being paid less despite the prevailing wage rules. And that undercuts the ability of Americans in those same jobs to advocate more effectively for increases. So these are not, like we're not importing nuclear engineers.

Correct. Right. Yep. So once people are here, so let's say I own a business in the United States and I'm importing people on visas, foreigners, on visas. How many of those visas do I get? Well, if you are, there's a couple different types. So if you are looking at H-1B, you, you can apply for as many as you want.

And again, they issue $85,000 or so a year, and then there's a bunch of existing ones where if someone is here on an H-1B status, they can transfer to a new employer, so you can collect another one that way, and it doesn't count against your cap. But the way to think about what you were talking about is the employers want to bring these folks on.

It's really just a supply chain of cheap foreign labor. It starts at the university level. There's something called the curricular, practical training. It is the right for a student here on an F1 visa to work in the United States while they are an undergrad, while they're a student, right? And the program we can talk about is extremely corrupt, but here's an easy way to think about it. You are a university. You advertise this ability to eventually work as part of the way you get students here. That employer hires that foreign student. It's no visa. It's just a

status that exists as a subfunctioner your F1, that employer gets to hire that student and not pay FICA taxes on that student, 7.65%. So they are immediately cheaper than hiring an American student for that job. The foreign student themselves does not pay FICA taxes. So they are taking home more of their paycheck than the American student working directly next to them. What? Yeah. And then you're the university. You get to charge. charge that full freight tuition to that foreign student that our universities have become so addicted to. And so that is the beginning of a supply chain of foreign labor. Why does the, that is totally crazy.

They don't have to pay FICA, which for people at the low end of the labor scale is often higher than your income taxes. Correct. Your FICA taxes are higher than your federal taxes. Yep. And so the idea is they're here temporarily so they don't have to, in those student. But why would you give an advantage to non-citizens in the labor market? Yeah, well, well, because everybody involved in two answers. The easier one is because our Congress is, and even though that program's not in statute, but our Congress is, you know, bought by interests who are addicted to cheap labor, but the easier answer, why does that program exist the way it does?

It's because every incentive points at it continuing. The university benefits, the foreign student benefits, and the company benefits. There's no institution in American life that's more corrupt than the universities. Correct. It's the medieval church. Yeah. And sodomy in the people. pews, you know, it's like totally corrupt. Yeah. And not only that, the universities get the J1 visas, which I think Vance called out, which is exchange visas that are issued. And so then they employ these postdoc and these researchers, and so they can have those individuals.

Then they have the curricular training program, I'm sorry, the curricular practical training. All that they're finding is ways to not employ Americans. And everybody you talk to who works at a university over the past 15 or 20 years has talked about the cultural change just within the. the actual working for the administration because they've been able to so successfully depress wages here. So then there's another program, if I can keep going, called the optional practical training. This is generally for people who have now graduated.

So you come over here, you're on CPT. Now you graduate. You, again, no visa issued yet. This is pre-H1B can work for 12 months. if your STEM, you can have a 24-month extension. So you graduate from college, you get that first job. Let's say it's a great paying job. It's $100,000 a year.

You're still not paying FICA. So to an employer who's picking from college graduates, right, there are about 2 million of those every year, we issued 290,000 of these OPT, registrations this year. So of our two million graduates, and there's another maybe 800 or a million of associate degrees, but let's just say the pool is two million. Two hundred ninety thousand foreign graduates authorized to work in the United States just last calendar year competing against our American graduates. You could take a mad scientist and tell them

come up with a program to maximally disadvantage American students, who you mentioned earlier, we told go learn to code, move your way up this economic value chain. This is like, this is what they would come up with. So that company is again saving 7.65% out of the gate. The foreign student is taking home more of their paycheck than the American student. And the university has gotten to advertise this as part of their package to attract again additional foreign students at full freight. So the whole point of universities, I thought, was to exist as the engine of advancement for ambitious smart Americans. I thought that was the whole point of the GI Bill

and the whole point of the meritocracy that we built post-war was we use standardized testing to identify the smart, ambitious people, we funnel them into these universities and they work their way up, the latter to manage our country and our empire. Yep. And that was all lie.

People feel this intuitively, by the way, I think they do, but you're describing the mechanics of it, which are really dark. Yeah. So how hard would it be to end that? So that program, as a lot folks know who have been keyed in and I think Senator Eric Smith's been involved here. That program is not prescribed in statute. It is something that exists via DHS regulation. So what the administration has done is, and I follow this stuff, not because I'm affiliated with them, but just

because I am just a restrictionist immigration sort of fan and there's been a lot of movement. And what they have done is announced as a regulation of fee. And a lot of folks may be familiar. There's a $100,000 fee. And we can talk about that imposed last year via presidential proclamation for H-1B, and it got struck down. It was in effect last cap season. The OPT fee is being proposed now through like the formal notice and comment program,

et cetera, et cetera. And they're proposing that for. every single one of those issued, the university, not the employer, the university will have to pay $70,000. And then for anybody where they want to exercise the 24-month extension for the graduate, I'm sorry, for the STEM graduate, it's another $30,000. And so the idea here is to say to the universities, you no longer have a chance to, if you're going to use this as a recruiting mechanism, which is really what it is. And again, everybody in that little circle benefits, that in investment needs to be worth you paying $70,000, whether you pass that on to the employer,

or you find another way to recoup it. And then what I think the administration probably learned from is what happens if they can't collect that fee? And so essentially in the regulation, what they wrote is if we are unable to collect this fee due to lawsuit or injunction or any other court action, it will harm our ability to effectively administer the program given the risk of fraud that has been discovered at various points in the program. And then the administration will retain the right to kill the entire OPT program. And so it's a smart way that they've written it to kind of last. When you look at some of the term one stuff that got struck down kind of at the end of Trump's term one, a lot of what they're building now around reforming these processes, I think, has a chance

to kind of really stick. So the truth is, you are going to die someday, so am I, and that's okay. If we don't acknowledge our mortality, we will grow to think that we are gods, and you're seeing that all around. I'm going to live forever because of AI. Well, no, you're not. So with that in mind, Hallow is launching the first ever Momentumori challenged. Memento Mori means remember that you will die,

and that is the root of wisdom and of peace, amazingly. recognizing that creates focus on what's important. Bones and money worship are not important. Believe it or not. This challenge uses C.S. Lewis as the Great Divorce. It's one of the best reflections on heaven, eternity, and earthly choices ever written. And it asks us to consider the things that we cling to that keep us from becoming who God is calling us to be. Throughout the challenge, Hallow uses the Great Divorce as a starting point for prayer and reflection on life and death and what happens after, which is eternity.

death is real, but it is not the end of life. Join Hallow beginning October 26th from Memento Mori challenge for prayer and reflection. It's not on any other app. Hallow is amazing. We mean that with total sincerity, download it and start praying today. So people on the internet went crazy a couple of weeks ago when they were photographs, the University of Texas at Austin online. And it's like, wait, a lot of the people in the picture weren't just that they weren't white.

They clearly were not from this country at all. and people said, wait a second, there's a public university that we support with our tax dollars, state and federal, and why is it filled with people who aren't from the United States? And the answer, as always, was shut up racist,

including from all the Republicans and the Texas delegation who I hope will all lose soon, along with their Democratic friends. But anyway, I think that's a real question. These are for us, these universities, we pay for them. We built them.

They're ours. Why are they being maintained for the rest of the world? Like, how did that happen? Yeah, well, I mean, your kids can't get in, but people from other countries can. Like, what is that? Yeah, I look at it in two different lenses, and I'll answer that a little more specifically. So one, I'd see the universities as Black Rock as these other. They are entirely institutionally captured.

Half of them, not the public ones as much, but have endowments that insulate them from any real pressure. Which are not taxed. Correct, right? So they get... How are their endowments not taxed? I don't know. Think about that. Non-taxed endowments.

J-1 visa so that they can have... You can get taxed? I sure do. Okay. J-1 visas so that they can bring over these post-stock researchers underpay them. No pretense even of a prevailing wage, of pretending to hire an American. None of that exists in the J-1 program. And then the CPT program, curricular, practical training for undergrad labor.

No pretense that they had to hire an American. No prevailing wage. None of these controls are built into a lot of these other visas. And so the universities are as ruthless as any, right, caricature we have of a private equity firm or any of these other things. And they have moved away from serving the American people. And what I sense, like, so last week I went and talked to the Texas Young Republicans group. And they were fired up. And the week before I was in Knoxville, I talked to a group of young Republicans there.

they understand very intuitively and are speaking explicitly about the fact that these institutions are no longer for them. They understand entirely that they're going to have to build from scratch, right? And so there is both that what I'll call the tech bro model. I got to go start my own thing, but that feels devoid of meaning to a lot of them. And so what I see is there is a need. The young men understand that the universities have no stake in their, future. Well, hate them, exactly, and teach people that that hate is the right thing. I remember that when I was in undergrad and hearing from people. I remember literally, I was on a college,

I went to Penn State. And I didn't know about all of that antagonism necessarily. And somebody I knew for a very long time said, well, of course you would think that way you're a white male. And I, I like blanched. I didn't know that that was, I didn't know that we were dividing ourselves that way. And so I remember the beginning of that culture sort of right back then. But so what I've learned from these young men that I've been lucky. And it's not just an attitude. It's encoded in admission standards.

Correct. Like people are, it's Jim Crow at scale. But with the federal government backing at this time, not just the government of Mississippi and Georgia. That is correct. Yeah. I know I'm highly aware. it's still in place, by the way, amazingly. But I don't understand why that's allowed to continue.

Yeah. I don't have a good answer for that. Here's the way that I look at it, right? I believe that we're at the beginning of this kind of realignment or awakening that we have. And I mean that, like, let me see if I can express this outside of the partisan binary, because I'm still, I was in D.C. And I'm plugged into X and I drink the Kool-Late sometimes. we are at the beginning of a realignment where I in my brain these things seem obvious to me

but I realize that like we haven't actually won the argument yet and so all of the things where we go wait a second why did we just tolerate that for 30 years you kind of shake yourself out of that stupor but we're at the very beginning of that and so the realignment that I have when you when you notice something like that that is obviously corrupt and obviously why would we permit that the old incentive structures that were there are still exerting influence, right? Or from a pure electoral perspective, 2024, it was a big tent that got the president across the stage. There are inherent pressures built into that. And so where I'm going with that is the way that the realignment, I think, will happen

is we are further into the era of populism, but not anywhere near the crest. and the American people are starting to look around and recognize that, like, if they do not loudly demand that they are put first, all of these things will persist in a perpetuity. So the media loves to scare the crap out of you with reporting about crises. Some are fake. Some are not fake, which is real. Well, the source of concern is often the best measure. Take artificial intelligence.

Fears about AI ending humanity are coming not just from crazy, people, they're coming from the people who are creating AI right now. People working on AI are terrified of AI. So if the people who created the technology fear it, then you probably should pay some attention because they know what they're talking about. So how can you prepare for whatever is coming in this AI dominant future? Well, it's hard to know for sure, but you definitely need to own key survival essentials, obviously. I mean, like, why wouldn't you? And that's why we started last country supply to make it easy for you to do that. They would include survival food, light, energy, and just basic supplies. Last Country Supply has everything and it's high quality. We've got

all of it in our garage. You probably should too. So if you're concerned at all, that maybe the future won't be quite as stable as today, last country supply is a very quick way to put your fears at ease and to do the right thing for your family. Lastcountry supply.com slash Tucker. Well, yeah, and they'll accelerate and like multiculturalism is not possible. It's never existed anywhere at any time. There's always one culture. Maybe multiracial, even multi-religious.

That's all possible. Multicultural is not possible. There's a dominant culture and every other culture is subsumed into it or destroyed, period. That's just the way people are. So, you know, someone's in, a culture is in charge. You have a culture. And so you either assert yours because you think it's worth saving or you lose it, period. And it's not the same as race, but whatever.

No, I strongly agree with you. I also wonder, like, can I ask you about AI? Because I think it's connected to this. So AI is, you know, the hope of the American economy. and the biggest companies in the country are all in. They're leveraged for, I mean, they just put everything into AI. AI doesn't produce a ton of revenue, but the hope is that it'll be the great driver of revenue in the American economy.

Where's that money coming from? That money is effectively the future of American young people. They won't have jobs, and that savings is the revenue that these companies are banking on, right? It's a labor saving. technology. That's what it is. So I don't understand how you could import anybody into your country on an H-1B or any other kind of visa, legal or illegal, with that looming on the horizon. Like, what the hell is going? Does no one noticing this? Yeah. Nobody's going to have a job, but we're still importing people? Like, what are they going to do? Yeah. And I think that that is,

when you look at some of the actions that have been taken by the administration, and I'll name a couple here and second, the goal right now, what they've achieved is to move at least that visa program, in particular H-1B, back up the labor chain, right, and away from the jobs that, let's say, let's suggest are more likely to be swept away by that. But let me answer that more broadly, because I don't want to cheat on my answer, is what we're seeing right now is I think the American people are waking up to that, and to my point, recognizing that nobody will advocate for it. Like, politicians are a function of the Overton window that the culture presents for them. And so, like, if you look at what Brandon Gill is introducing in Congress, what crane or self or Chip Roy, there is an H-1B reform bill, it doesn't go far enough, but it's the first major thing in many years.

I think we're at the beginning of a realignment where the American people are saying, like, this, you will either put us first or we will be displaced. There's no longer an in between. Or I use a phrase, we will have mass deportation or we will have mass importation. There's no longer a third option available to us, right? our political opponents, and by that, I'm not presumed, I say, our, typically I'm talking to Republican groups, I say, our political opponents have decided that for us because they are committed to the wholesale industrial importation of people into this country, so we will have one of those two.

So when I think about like AI, if it's going to start to move its way up that value chain with these replicable tasks, et cetera, right, I think about what the administration did in, I'll call it the first year. So H-1B, you have all of these lottery tickets, right? And then that's how they pull to get to the 85,000 cap. So there is a system in place where you submit that, and it used to be more robust, but essentially what you do is you put in someone's name, their passport information. We need this employee because they have this irreplicable skill set, you know, all out of the same country.

Right. And then we put a $100,000 fee. It was via presidential proclamation currently blocked by the courts. So $100,000 for any of these to be awarded to a company. So that company now has to decide, am I willing to spend $100,000 to have this person for three years? And by the way, H-1B is for three years. It always gets extended for the next three. And then most of the time, then it gets turned into what's called perm.

And so a green card application. And so you get essentially it's to infinity is what it really. means but the company has to decide that um and what we found is that and that was for new it was for a company to bring over somebody new into the country to have an h1b uh um uh visa issue to them uh and what we found is that nobody was really willing to pay that 700 companies 700 positions overall that's all that's all that we're filled under this new 100 000 dollar fee that was in effect in the last what's called cap season or lottery season. So, so, and I'll talk in a minute about where all those folks went to. But there was a second thing that was initiated, right? And it was called the wage weighted

lottery system. So if you are a level one, which is, let's say, within that software developer skill set, you were someone towards the lower end of that experience level and skill set, etc. You have to be paid at the 17th percentile of that entire occupation and then there's different prevailing wage levels. Well, that's where all the outsourcers were coming in. They were sweeping up at level one and level two and displacing again Americans for jobs that were clearly in no way specialized. Vance's accountant example. Yeah. So what the administration did is said, well, level one is now worth one lottery entry. A level two is worth two. A level three is worth three. A level four is worth four. So they drastically changed the scale of how these will be awarded, saying if, right, if you have a

level three or a level four theoretically work that you could argue is more specialized or at least is not displacing people who are on a on a more vulnerable end of the labor scale and and it worked but not maybe as much as we wanted to but it drove the percentage of those up towards those level three and four by 20 or 30 percent so so not a perfect fix but but real progress and then what happened i mentioned the hundred thousand dollar fee because that one got some media attention companies weren't willing to pay to bring somebody new in at that cost because it defeats the entire purpose of the outsourcers whose job it is is just to traffic in these lower-end jobs. So one that's become somewhat infamous. They're based in New Jersey is called cognizant. Cognizant's number of H-1B applications that cap season declined 100%.

TCS, I think it was, Tata Consultancy Services, 97%. Like it just, it discouraged them from trying to take advantage of that lower end of the labor market. And, but these things got filled, right? We still filled 85,000. So where did they come from? They came from largely the existing student population that I mentioned earlier, OPT, those graduates who are already here on an F1B, they can transfer to an H-1B. And so that's how they filled all those jobs, the majority of them. And so what the administration is now doing,

but I would argue, by the way, that that in itself was still a public good, here's why. Because we did not at least by tens of thousands increase the size of the foreign labor pool. That's competing with American workers, right? So here's what the administration then is doing. I think this was in September. They are now recommending a new fee.

And this one is through the notice and comment period, all the right regulatory stuff. Boxes are being checked. And so they said, okay, we estimate that this cost federal agencies and departments about 8.8.8 billion a year to run the program, to administer the program or costs to the government, whatever that was. We're going to divide that by 85,000, and we're going to charge companies $103,000 for every single H-1B awarded, not just new people coming in, but anything

that fills that cap to include people who are on the student side. And so the idea here is we're going to limit the amount of new foreign labor coming in under this mechanism, which does exist in statute. And then we are going to limit the main feeder of individuals who are here from students that feed into the H-1B. And then companies can decide, do they have a truly special or truly unique person? I don't they shut it down. Well, I want that too. And quite frankly, what is this?

Yeah. Well, the argument I think is, and Vance said the same thing. He goes, if it was up to me, I would just shut it down right now. Who is it up to? Right now H-1B is in statute And it literally says shall issue up to the cap So it's not an argument I want to say no

I mean no one else obeys the law around immigration The illegal aliens don't You try to deport them and all these NGOs Soros-funded NGOs like Stage a riot It's like okay the only people obeying the rules Are the people who are getting shafted Yeah I and I explicitly

make the argument as it relates to illegal immigration that we're going to have to be willing to defy the courts because illegal immigration is at this point so clearly the purview of the executive right or what we'll call immigration enforcement and Barack Obama guaranteed that with DACA and DAPA and we've just seen that demonstrated right now my argument is we're at the beginning of the movement as it relates to legal immigration of people waking up to what needs to happen and that this program you could argue is still what I would call within the scope of our normal policy politics, right? That the legislature owns this. The administration is working within the boundaries that it can to limit it. Let me give one quick example, but I want to get back to that

broader point about legal versus illegal, because I was actually going to highlight that disconnect that I have here, I think is justifiable, is the other thing, too, is people can hop. You get here on H-1B, you can hop between employers, right? So the whole thing feels like a scam set up to screw American young people. That's the way it looks to be. Yeah, the way to think about it, right, is the whole point is for these companies to have a cheap foreign labor force. It is to pay a Delhi salary in Dallas. That's all that this is. And so all of the mechanisms.

That'd be fine if our young people were thriving, but they're increasingly radical. All they get is like a lecture. Stop being so radical. You're watching X too much. It's like, well, maybe they're radical for a reason. Happy people are not radical. Correct. They're moderate.

Correct. And what I've always said, and this is about folks on the left and the right is when someone tells you what they believe, just believe what they just told you. right and so when i talk to young men who are like we're your generation needs to handle this or we're prepared right like those things i believe them i believed bernie sanders when he called for a political revolution i believe dsa members when they say they want to essentially dismantle the constitution um so what i tell people is what i describe as the mechanics and each of those individually are surprising they are not surprising when you realize the whole purpose of it is just to get a giant foreign cheap labor force here. I mentioned it's about

700,000 right now in the country overall may be higher for H-1B. And OPT itself is 290,000. So you're talking to at least a million people in our country who are here competing against Americans for jobs, the vast majority of which are not specialized in any real capacity. What I also tell people is even if all those people were not explicitly taking American jobs, the point is they are the wages for everybody, not just the individual software developer who got laid off at 32, forced to train his replacement and now can't find a job, right? And that family is destroyed. They're depressing the wages for everybody. Well, and they're also changing everyone's attitudes. Like, our schools are terrible. Even our good schools are absurd. They're not real. And everyone

knows that. And so we just rely on other countries to invest in their young people. we think that India does a better job with STEM than we do, which is probably true. So we just let India educate them and then bring them in. So, okay, but there's no incentive to fix our schools for our young people. Well, it was the last time you heard any rich liberal talk about our schools? They don't care about our schools anymore. They used to care about our, remember, rich liberal ladies would be like, our schools. Well, okay, that's a fair point.

They never mention our schools anymore because they don't care, because they don't have to care. Does that make sense? No, it does. There's no investment in our young people, even beyond just the wages, because there doesn't need to be. Yeah. And if you think about it, like the, when I think about the left or liberals, let me frame it that way, I go, it used to at least be that there were articulable elements of a program that I could identify. Exactly. Yeah.

And now the- Whether or not they worked. We could at least, like, at least they had Head Start, which suggested head start was designed to raise the IQ of urban children. That's why it started. You can look it up, 1965. And that was a real problem. and the IQ of Urban Kids was too low to participate in our economy. That's real.

It's still true. But it didn't work. So then they're just like, we're just going to ignore it. And we'll support other people from South Asia. But that's not actually an answer to the problem that still exists. Yeah. And think about Chuck Schumer a couple weeks ago just laid it out there, right? And it's funny because the liberals, they're very explicit sometimes about the fact that they just want to bring everybody in.

And then other times they realize, oh, we shouldn't say that out loud, right? It was demographics. Yeah. Right. You get that. But Schumer said, we have to bring these people in because there are communities where people aren't having enough children and we need the economic right. And France makes that same argument. And I say, so there's no proposal to give people hope or to invest in economic policies that would aid in family formation or to just do any of those things.

Exactly. And my argument is like our, my political opponents have embraced a post-nationalism that like it is hard for us to understand that that era is now here. I used to... I heard of just say what era is down. That like a significant non-minor percentage of the American population

of our fellow citizens have embraced a globalist mindset have explicitly cast allegiance with foreigners. Like I remember I used to draw... Which is to say they don't care at all

about their countrymen at all. Correct. I mean, they find the idea of nationalism itself, right? Yeah, but it's one of those ideas that impulse is not even an idea that's dressed up as progressive forward-thinking, inclusive, when in fact its core is hate and resentment of their fellow Americans.

Like they're disappointed in their fellow Americans. They hate them. No one hates them more than Chuck Schumer, of course. And he said it many, many times. But it's a common view. And then they're like, no, no, no, this is progressive. It's like you don't even care about the people living down the street from you. That's called hatred, actually.

And if you think about it this way, right? So we talked about here's the tech, here's, here's where the tech money is. Here's where the, here's where the Chuck Schumers are. And I say, okay, so you don't want to train us and you don't have any plan at any other phase of people's lives to make it better. And I can just go, what is going to have to happen when we say, you just kind of have, like, why aren't, why aren't we enough? Why do you not, why are you not okay just with the people who are here? Can we endeavor to make their lives better? And so, like, to me, that is what the realignment is going to be.

No, but we can monitor them. And then the tech that we're getting is what, like, flock cameras and you can't have a wife, but you can have, like, an AI chatbot and more realistic pornography and crate them at the grocery store. It's like, none of this. There's, I don't see the upside at all. Like, where is the upside? Yeah. Well, and there isn't, and it's not sustainable, right? All of the, every element of that modern life that you talked about, right?

it is a it is a a cope for the next thing that you have to cope with for the next thing to like none of it is sustainable and so but they're not even promising a beautiful future they're not even bothering to lie to me yeah right promise me eden anyway even if you're going to deliver me the bedford stuyvesant at least tell me it's going to be great but they don't even care no but i think for the chuck schumers what they offer is the the thing that they are signaling to the thing that he is signaling to his base is that you can you know forget about that that that old school version of people, you can come up here and be one of the shiny, right, shiny happy people if you think about his party as a deal between the super, super elite and the dependent

class below them, right? And they've abandoned kind of everybody in the middle. The way that I, and the way that I think about that is like, don't you think they're playing with fire with this? They're going to make people super radical. They are making people super. I can feel it. Yes. I mean, all my spidey senses are alert to this. Yeah. People are getting radical. The risk that they are, the risk is they are by by failing to be that responsive right we had we had an election in 24 yeah for the first time in a long time i participated in that there we go right there was a night of decision that hadn't happened in a while right um and and the goal was we're going to get rid of everybody all legal aliens are going home here's what we're to do and if that if we can't deliver on

that if if if and and i'll make an argument right that when we saw our fellow citizens take to the streets endeavor to physically obstruct federal law enforcement from enforcing law at scale in different cities if that is sufficient if the street veto is sufficient for the federal government not to follow through and execute on that policy you mean mob rule right right it's what we saw right we saw we saw people abandoning essentially rejecting the the results of the election in any practical sense and saying we We refuse to allow the federal government to exercise authority here as it relates to immigration, which was like the key issue, right, in the entire election. Then the government loses legitimacy.

Forget about a far-off census argument or a Democrat. Like that lack of responsiveness is the legitimacy crisis that things start to unravel much, much faster than we think. But I mean, we've lived with this for decades. The sanctuary city is. defiance of federal law. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Central High School in Little Rock in 1957 because they were defying federal law, court order, Brown versus Board

of Education three years before. And on principle, you just can't allow that or else is this really a country? No, it's not. But we've been allowing that for, I don't know, 40 years, something like that. We're just, I don't know, Tucson doesn't want to participate in the, in federal law. Like, what? And everyone's allowed that.

So at this point, can you actually enforce federal law nationally? Well, and we don't know, right? It doesn't seem like it. Yeah, where we are is at a precarious point, which is, right, and forget about we live in an era of political assassinations, all those other things, right? I think our- Thank you for saying that. I think our political union is straining at its boundaries. But the great test of the immediate term is, does federal law apply across the land or not? And if you think about that, the need, the test, the exercise before us is, can we recapture American sovereignty?

And there is no way to do that that doesn't involve sacrifice or great national effort. And the answer is we just don't know yet. And you said, well, hey, we let this happen for 40 years, right? And every American is in some way implicit. We allowed this kind of permanent underclass of people to exist here, right? And but if us saying it isn't enough, isn't enough, I'm sorry, if us saying it's enough isn't enough, then we have a problem. I was talking to a few friends and I said, look, I don't need to look down on Indians or Haitians

or Somalis. The reason these people have to go home is because we fucking said so. and if that isn't enough, then the government, right, exactly. But very literally, to your point, whose country is it? We have a, think about the phrase replacement theory. Okay. And I said to somebody recently, I said, well, Republicans have to stop using the phrase replacement theory. And they agreed with me, but not for the reason.

And I said, oh, yes, of course, we can't get tied up. And I said, no, no, no. the Ugandan-born mayor of New York City called for the end of federal immigration enforcement in the largest city in our country. That's not theoretical anymore, right? Chuck Schumer's telling We have census numbers every 10 years. And so anyone who calls it a theory is participating in a lie. It's not a theory. Yes. Look at the numbers. I was born in 1969. Let's just plot it out from 1969, has the population in the country in 1969 been replaced by a new population? What percentage of people living in the United States say had an ancestor in the Civil War?

Right. So anyway, maybe you think that's great. Maybe you think it's terrible. Maybe, I don't know, whatever you think of it to deny that it happened is a lie. And so, like, let's not participate in lies. How's that? Yeah. And also, like, the most important part here you said, whose country is it, right?

the reality is the control of it who will end up owning it is right now up for grabs let me let me suggest why i'm arguing it that way uh aOC or or some other uh you know uh what i will call someone who is unlikely to be more moderate than joe biden may have the presidency in 26 27 months does anybody believe that any of the three million or so outstanding asylum cases will be adjudicated under them. Of course not. They will be, Biden, they were given a six-year-out court date, a work permit, and a free ID. It wasn't, it was a pretense, right? It was abuse of the system for their goal. Again, they've gone under the law. So none of those people, if a Democrat comes to office, none of those cases will ever be heard, and I don't think anybody rationally thinks

that they will be. They'll be mass adjudicated. Okay. So that happens. Everybody who's here what it means to be an illegal alien, they are deliberately blurring it, right? Kathy Hochold, the governor said this is a working man, right, when there was someone who was shot all these things. So all of the rights and privileges that were unique to your citizenship, right, are being distributed at a state-by-state level. I think the high watermark recently, because I used to talk about the ability for illegal aliens to vote in municipal elections. And that to me is just so alarming. And here's all the benefits that they can sign up for. But in Illinois, you can be a police officer.

You can even, I think, be a deputy sheriff if you were an illegal alien. You could get arrested by an illegal alien right now as an American citizen in Illinois. And the courts have walked back some of this, but they're not going to save us. So my point is what it means to even be an illegal alien, they are deliberately blurring this, right? And so if we have two years, my planning horizon, that's why I think, right, our politics can handle the legal immigration issue that I've been advocating for for a long time. for it to be seized. I think our politics will get there. But illegal immigration, our political opponents have so abandoned the law that what we will have to then resort to to get this done, will itself have to involve those types of compromises. Yeah, I mean, I can't overstate the bitterness.

I feel when I hear all of that because, you know, we just wasted it all for war with Iran. It's really, it's the most bitter thing I have ever seen in my entire life. That's how I feel about it. But anyway, sorry. Well, can I jump in? So what I tell people, so I have, I'm arguing in reasonably public areas that we need to hire 250,000 people in the next, after the midterms, and build what's called a civilian deportation core. And I'm not here to give a full pitch on that. But what I mean is, I have to believe we can still do it in the next two years.

I have to believe that we will not hand the country back over to a Democrat without this problem acted upon significantly. Because if we do, the definition, forget about the sense of the definition of citizenship will splinter beyond repair. All of those individual rights that are being granted to legal aliens across the country are strengthening into a real right now parallel rights regime. And so to your point, whose country is it, it might not be ours if that. happens. Oh, of course, if you feel that way. All of that splintering and you add, you know, a Newsom or an AOC who adds another 10 or 15 million people back in or in, how do we recover that? If the unitary definitive citizenship splinters, there is no good path forward as a country, and nor do we really have a model for that. We don't know what to do.

I think Americans don't know what to do with that information right now. And so what I think is, there is a path forward and what I hope is it will become more clear as the prospect of handing that power back over comes into sharper relief and the answer is we stop seeing the American people as a political audience to be abided by or to be placated and we say the reestablishment of our sovereignty is going to be exceptionally painful um we need you to be part of doing it and so the linear expansion of traditional enforcement capacity all the all the capacity building that was here is good but the numbers were never going to to get close to where we need them to. It's just DHS literally, it can't do it on its own. And so what I, what I say is we bring the American people along on this journey and we say, help us from a logistics capacity, pick up an extra shift as a nurse. Let's go door to door. We know where these illegal aliens are. Even the ones that didn't come across, we could buy two dozen individual commercial database indicators and just, I want to directly communicate with these people. Shatter the illusion to them that they've seen the high water market enforcement, text them, send them DMs.

We know who you are. We're going to be at the post office. One is correct for the employers. I think we should, but I don't actually think that will be sufficient on its own. Really? Yeah. I think right now what we're seeing are all necessary pieces of what I think will be an insufficient pie. Here's why. And by the way, worksite enforcement would be probably the individual single biggest leverage than we could do. It would remove that incentive. but we could remove that person's job and we could cut them off from certain federal benefits but they probably still qualify for three other state benefits and a county benefit and the

nonprofit down the street that's helping them and Sierra Leone isn't going to become that much more attractive to them just because we've cut off some of those things or Haiti or pick your country um so in my opinion we're we're going to have to and again you sense that if you get through the next 27 months and a Democrat wins, you're never going it where everybody knows that. And so my argument is the physical removal of millions of people is unavoidable. And the sooner we get serious about doing that at scale, both in terms of building that physical infrastructure, but also in communicating that we're going to build it, the more chance we have of people voluntarily leaving and leaving in these other ways that will be less disruptive.

But I think if we do this the way that I want us to, which is to hire all these people, it is to bring the American people along, but also because it won't get done any other way. If there isn't enough support for this, that 250,000 Americans sign up, we were never going to survive it politically anyway. The model of doing it the way that it's happening now isn't going to marshal that support. There's some smart things you could do communications-wise to sustain the Overton window. But we're not actually asking enough of the American people in terms of having them help kind of deliver on this mandate. Well, they tried something like that with ICE. How'd that go? Well, I think what ICE actually accomplished is very few agencies have done anything at that scale in... Did public support for deportation go up or down? It went down.

It did. And it's remained fairly steady. But my argument is this is, is, what I'm saying is the DHS alone approach is part of it. What I want what I want ICE to do and there's serious hardworking people right there working until 10 p.m. every night and dealing with all the threats and all the vitriol. I want them to keep enforcing at the scale that they are.

And my argument is that exact model cannot be the only face of the effort. I'm talking about a civic effort, right, that enlists Americans to do this. So did public support go? up or down and went down and then stabilized and has remained relatively there or a little bit higher. But what I'm saying is don't just think of the American people from a poll numbers perspective, bring them into this, physically bring them into it.

Can I ask those? So the ICE effort, I mean, I think most people, even most Democrats, like, no, a country should have control of its borders. I mean, what's a country? It's a physical place that has territorial integrity. And that's a non-controversial point. whether, you know, how you go about it, whether you're humane in doing it. You know, there's a lot of subjective elements here. But conceptually, people are for this. It didn't work because there were massive, organized, violent efforts to prevent it that were paid for, not by grassroots support from Americans, but by a small number of rich people who were totally committed to the status quo.

The Soros NGO world. Okay, that's a criminal enterprise that is. awarding federal law. And there have been no arrests of any of those people, just as there was never one arrest of anyone who funded the destruction of the Midwest during the BLM riots. So like, what?

Why is that different from a drug cartel or the mafia or any organized criminal organization that's like hurting my country? But there's been no effort to hold any of those groups to account. Yeah, I think there's two things. I don't think America knows how to, what happened in Minneapolis was the single largest anti-federal uprising in, you know, I don't know, decades, as long as I've been alive, right?

Let's just say since the Civil War, since Fort Sumter, because it seems that way. Right. And so my argument is we, no one knows what to do with that yet. We have RICO statutes, don't we? Yeah, but I just mean, literally, I'm talking more about people don't know how to process that information. Here's an example I tell people, right? There's still a significant number of American people think that there were, it was that Minneapolis, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, We were treated there because of protests.

Like I, and so what I tell people is a protester doesn't stock a federal agent at an airport, feed their license plate to a source in the local PD, I don't know, go to their hotel and break windows and then threaten their wives on Facebook. Exactly. Right. So we don't yet know. What I'm saying is as a country, we are waking up to figuring out how to deal with that. So your name the- Yeah, but the DOJ exists to deal with that.

And they haven't. They ignored it. And that's what I find so baffling. It's like it wasn't that a bunch of rich white housewives like, I feel sorry for the illegals. I'm going to go out and stalk ice agents at an airport Marriott. That's not what happened. It's an organized group paid to do this from outside of the state, flew in there to do it. It's like, who paid for that?

And why? And why can't we know? And why aren't they indicted? But they're not. So like, why? Yeah. I don't know. where the way that I kind of process it, and I really mean that, I don't know, the way that I kind of

process this all is there was anti-ice violence starting back in 2013, 2014. People forget that. And there were, right, and then people physically endeavoring to prevent federal law enforcement back then. Even, and some of them were, they would just chain themselves to the tires of a bus taking people to a detention facility. And then, and then, and we had Occupy and all those things back then. And then BLM happened and then we had the, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, I just the, I don't know how to jfk or different pieces. What we don't know how to grapple with yet is that one of, like, the two major political parties in a country has a street arm and, and, and, and, like, what the, I don't, I just think the right doesn't understand how to apply power in the same capacity. And so when, when, when, what, what, what, what, what, what, we have is, The de facto reality that we're not doing mass deportation anywhere near the scale than we need to. And a significant reason is because there will be violence that American citizens will physically obstruct federal law enforcement at scale in defense of non-citizens. I just think like that is a hard thing for people to adjust.

I couldn't agree with you more. And I'm grateful that you're saying this out loud. I would just add that that violence comes from organized paid militia with a leadership structure and a funding structure that is discoverable. And, you know, you had the numbers in New York for 90 years. You had heroin trade in New York. You had prostitution in New York. You had loan sharking in New York. And all of it was ended with the recode statute by the FBI.

They took it down the five mafia families in New York. like they figured out, where's this coming from? Well, there's an organized criminal group that's doing it. Let's just take them out. But that's what we're seeing here. But there has been no effort. I just think it's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in my life. That's fair.

You know, one of the things I think about too related to that is we've got a, we've got, we talked about the border a second ago. And I'm saying this to answer what you're talking about. Everybody agrees that we should have a strong border. Okay. Yeah. The reality is. Like when the next, when the next mass importation wave happens under the next Democrat,

I think they're going to be smart enough to avoid the images of caravans. Right. So what are they going to do? They're just going to fly everybody over. And what are we going to do? I'm sorry, and I keep saying we, I'm used to addressing these right-wing audiences. I ask people, I say, well, what is our model for that? How do we organize against that?

I remember illegal aliens sleeping on the linoleum floors of Logan Airpoll. I remember the NGO volunteer NGO play word for government contractor that happens to be left, left wing, right, in the vest escorting an illegal alien through the line while all of us waited. So are we going to go challenge those people physically? Are we going to form human change around them? Like, we don't know what to do against what I will call kind of the unlawful or sublawful actions of the left as relates to these pieces. And so my argument, what you're talking about is clearly something that should happen. My argument is the only approach and the one that, by the way, keeps government legitimacy is to marshal the state in an aggressive capacity and just enforce the law. And what I mean by that is we hire a couple hundred thousand people. We go to all 630 commercial waste stations. We post up at post offices. We build the 50 city infrastructure that Joe Biden built to mass import people into this country at industrial scale very successfully,

proof that the capacity can exist when the will is there. And we start to enforce this. And there will be those protests. There will be limited elements of political violence. But what starts out as outrageous, I think, can become ordinary. And so the function of your federal government, the legitimate state-directed function of your federal government,

enforcing a mandate that it was delivered by the people, like, if we can't do that anymore. Like, I guess when I said I had, have faith that this will eventually happen, it is because I'm not willing to contemplate what will happen if we can't do that anymore. Because it will, yeah. So the solution is to hire a quarter million Americans to enforce immigration law. Do you arm them? Not generally. So here's what I want, is it isn't just to hire them. It is to say that we are going to mobilize as a country for this or it's not going to happen, right? And I think Europeans that I talk to are starting to

have that same understanding. And both also the ability to mobilize is the evidence that there would be the political will. Those things are right there. So what I want to do is the enforcement agencies keep doing what they're doing. We build a meta layer of infrastructure to relieve and support them. We have 49,000 commercial or chartered, buses in the country. We have something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet that can be activated. We have DOD planes. We have the logistics capability and we have people around the country who can deploy that skill set. The tougher part, to your point though, right, isn't just that. Logistics is, again, a function of will and dollars in time, is how do you come in contact? Let's say ICE gets to that

vaunted 3,000 arrests a day that we hear about. And let's say that we even converted those to removals. That would still, even if that was applied for four years full, would still maybe only be 30% of who just Joe Biden brought in. So there has to be a way to scale, whether or not the way that I recommended is the right one. Doing this at scale is a new and different thing than what's occurring right now. And again, despite the really significant work happening in enforcement right now. So how do you make contact with these people? I think that a lot of it can be civilian contact. Hey, we know who you are. Hey, come exercise your right to self-removal. Hey, here's a piece of certified mail. Sign it. But at some point, there will have to be

a greater force that comes in enforcement contact with the illegal alien population if we're going to do this at scale. So you can deputize people through DOJ. And again, of course, that comes with risk. You can DHS can deput. And that doesn't, DOJ's definitely. And that doesn't, DOJ's deputization authority does not confer immigration enforcement authority. DHS can deputize people, but they have to be existing federal employees. So what I'm working to do right now is just mix and match all of these authorities to somehow build towards enough daily contact with illegal aliens that their removal at scale is possible. And so that is a new and different infrastructure than what exists right now.

What do you think the incoming Democratic president, assuming a Democrat wins in 28, would think if there were a quarter million Americans out there trying to enforce federal immigration law, like, what would they think of that? Yeah, they would say there's an army on our streets. It's not loyal to me that I don't command that's dangerous. That's how they think. I mean, look how they treated January 6th was obviously set up, right, clearly, but they still put over a thousand people in prison.

They were scared of, like, elderly diabetic grandmothers. Yeah. How do you think they'd feel about a quarter million young people on the street? Well, not good. They already tell us that. They already say ICE is an invading army. They say that they're illegitimate. They say that they're lawless. So we have to just accept that we will either use the federal government and its powers in a way that the left is very comfortable with and the right is still catching up to. And by the way, to your point, employing lots of the under-employed young men and women of our country to a cause, which is who are we? we can do that or we can accept that we do not have a response to this to the lawlessness

of the other side and and that ties to your point which is uh like what january six also did with a thousand prosecutions is it killed any semblance of a of a right wing street movement of of any protests right of any mass gatherings um that was the point of it right and so there is no like we do not have any other mechanisms which by the way is is is okay we can use the legitimate mechanisms of the federal government and we employ a couple hundred thousand young men and women to a cause that is significant we've done this at scale before the civilian conservation corps i think in the 1930s hired 2775 000 people in four months and and just say to you who ran it i've no general douglas mccarthy ran it really was

the largest mobilization in american history yeah fantastic and so and so think about Could we be marshaled to that cause? It seems crazy right now, but I don't think it will. The more that we see what's happening in Paris, or in France, the more that we see, right, the perspective of someone who will come in an industrial scale move another 10 million people into the country.

And so my argument is we can either marshal ourselves for that or we are out of other options, really. Is there any way to apply pressure to the current government to just kind of do what it said it was going to do? Well, in my opinion, we have, there is no extension of current capability that gets us there. It has to be something this, we got two years left. It has to be something at much greater scale. Just from a raw capability's perspective, I'll give you an example.

So one of the successes is the extension of something called the 287G program, right, it's bringing the sheriffs on for immigration enforcement. And sheriffs are one of the greatest tools you can have. They know their neighborhood, right, et cetera. They're all patriotic. They take that off. But so they've expanded that dramatic. But even that accounts for under 1,000 a rest a day, maybe 500.

If we're going to do mass deportation in the millions, this is just, it is an entirely different enterprise. And so what my sort of going around and talking to folks about that part is much simpler. The only thing that I want to do is start to like kind of do that trial balloon thing. You know what I mean? Where I just go, if we're not thinking along these lines, then the degree of national, mobilization required, then we're not going to get there, right? That's where I'm trying to go. On the promises as it relates to legal immigration, I want H-1B canceled, I called for an

immigration moratorium five years ago, is there are real things that are happening. Some of the things we talked about, the wage-weighted the lottery, there's other stuff coming down the pike that's been introduced. for example let me give a quick example i want to get back to is we see all those advertisements in in a small ethnic newspaper or somewhere very obscure when an american wants when a company doesn't want to hire an american but they have to meet that that that circumstance for a green card um well there's a rule i haven't read it but that is i think under white house review right now that is saying no you like actually have to try to have hired an american first like if

you advertise this job on linkedin for foreigners it had to have been previously advertised for Americans LinkedIn, same with Indeed. Or for H-1B, there's no longer deference to extensions. It is a brand-new investigation, and they're going to look at whether or not you as a company have had recent layoffs. So there are things happening on the legal immigration side, and to include the suspensions that we talked about and some other things, they're going to use equal opportunity law to sue companies for discriminating against national origin, if they only have H-1B. I believe that the boundaries of our normal politics, can handle that and i believe that joe biden broke them over here and that a decade and a half of of

of clear executive branch sovereignty over immigration enforcement broke that and that the the the litmus test for 2028 is two things if you are a republican anywhere county state national mass deportation is your limitest test real in the millions mass deportation but two the idea that we would hand over 3 million unadjudicated or 2.5 million or 2.4 million unadjudicated asylum cases, the majority of which right now are people who are coached to do this under Joe Biden, right, is a non-starter. You can't, we can't do that. So my goal is to start to speak those things into ether and eventually make them, you know, the limit of test. Can I ask you a meta question? Sure. You keep referring correctly to what happened between 2020 and 2024, which is like one of the

biggest changes in our lifetime, didn't get enough attention, the total transformation of the American population by Joe Biden and his cabinet secretaries. What was the motive there? I'm not buying that this was just like lower wages. No. Because a lot of these people were indigent and had no skills and actually didn't fit into our labor market. Yeah. Oh, no. What was the point? Why would you do that? because your entire political project depends on whole scale social and demographic engineering and let me be very explicit about why it is because they believe in a different or an alien form of government and so the way that i the way that i sort of explains people previously as i say you know i remember when um george w bush in 2000 uh right one down flor and and the the the thing was now all of a sudden the electoral college was the problem right it was antiquated or whatever all the problems with the were. And then, you know, years later, some legislation didn't pass for liberals. And the proportional representation in the Senate is now, you know, and a created relic, right? Can't have a Senate. We've got too few states. Yeah. And Supreme Court's too small. Right. And the only way to save the court is to

pack it, right? So, so what I think happened is our political opponents, like the, the actual left, the DSA left, which is a Senate. What they recognized, I think, is that their political program does not have the depth and breadth of support. And this was, I'm talking in the past, did not have the depth of breath of support to be enacted. And so what they did is they attacked the rules. Here's how we played the game, right? So this institution that's been around for hundreds of years has to be changed, is antiquated, etc. And my argument is that the results to that were too slow.

And then our opponents innovated. And they said, okay, a democracy is both the cratos, the rules, the state container, and then it's also the demos who we are. And I think the innovation is they realize that then they could just do that. They change who gets to decide in the first place. And when you recognize that the, like you said, what Joe Biden did is one of the most aggressive, I mean, it's the most consequential policy decision in a very, very long time.

That is the reason for it. It was a deliberate social and demographic engineering move at industrial scale, at brutal scale, drowned children in the Rio Grande, handing off kids to sponsors they barely knew. Well, what would justify that? The goal was to move people in here as fast as they hear. Nobody wants a white population. They're hard to deal with. They're demanding. They have their rights. But also, like, it is that I think legitimately it's two things. They reject national sovereignty. And like, when I used to have that. But they weren't moving people from South Korea in here. They're moving people from the poorest countries on the planet here. Yeah, well, I just think they could, I think they could get.

get them there that you're going to have a never-ending well of those folks in my opinion right this is a if you think about for a hundred years or however long the goal of international communism the goal of these these old uh belief systems isn't just the economic system it is the global nature of it these are people who reject national sovereignty right and so if you have a population here who does not subscribe to that that that again the depth death and breath that change is not going to take here. What they've realized is they can change the who. And that's how you get a New York City mayor who is explicitly,

DSA is explicitly revolutionary, born in Uganda, who can win. And a poll a month out shows that, you know, people who are actually born in New York City were, you know, were some absurd percentage against him and he can win anyway. And I think that they've seen that in some UK election. where the distinction, where the gap between, say, two years previous or whatever it was, was well within the margins of, and they would switch back over, was well within the margins

of the people who had been naturalized and able to vote in that time. And so to me, these are the same old foes. It is a socialist globalism, right? And I remember, I used to deliver pizza when I was young driving around in a little old car. Me too. And I would listen to, yeah, and I would listen to like, great gig. Yeah. And I would listen to, and I would listen to, and I would listened to, and I knew the neighborhoods where the tips were good, so I applied, right? So I remember I'd listen to like Glenn Beck and I think it was Mark Levine back, whoever those guys were, and they would warn about the globalists. This globalism, they rejects sovereignty and even back then.

Mark Levine and Glenn Beck were warning about the globalists? Yeah, way back in the day, right? That's before they joined the team. And then if you think about this too, like... They're on the globalist side now, just so you know. And if you think about this too, like the Kyoto protocols back in 98, right? We all rejected. And so what I'm saying is what people don't understand is the actual manifestation of that is now happening and that there is, our politics is now much more crude.

It is going to be a foreign-tinge socialism or it is going to be federal law prevails and national sovereignty prevails and that there's going to be very painful choices that we have to make as a country as we as we sort that out. And the reason it's going to be painful is because we know that people will, you know, physically endeavor to prevent federal law from being in front. force. Yeah, I mean, you either have it or you don't, you know, and it doesn't seem like we have it at all. Yeah, my argument is American sovereignty has been pierced and the job of us now is to figure out canopy put back together and to paint a realistic path for that. And part of the reason I suggest, you know, we need to bring so many people into this effort into that type of national mobilization is if we just think of them as bystanders, we'll fail. The federal government can do communications at times effectively,

see something, say something way back in the day, or those color-coded terror things, right, from way back in the day. That is not to endorse or not endorse any of those programs. It is to say we could be communicating much more effectively at scale, both to American people, what the cost of this is, what's coming down the pike, what is going to be required if we're actually going to do deportation, or remigration, which is going to be mainstreamed

in the US and Europe, but also to communicate to the legal aliens directly. We can text them. Like we live in a technological era now where we can communicate to them at scale. We could have billboards that say, hey, let's say you're in Houston. Guatemala City is Tuesdays and Thursdays at noon.

Just show up at the airport. Like there are ways that we can do this. So here's one meta concern that I have is that you notice that under the Biden administration, the federal agencies that flooded the country with illegal aliens were built not by Biden, but a lot of them were built by Bush, DHS specifically. Republican president built that.

And so because leadership of our system changes perennially, like what you build can be used by people who are a totally different program. So if you're building data center, if you're building a digital control grid, which we are, without any breaks on it at all, why would that not be used by the next administration to surveil and control anyone who opposes their agenda? All of it will be.

All of the power that we're talking about will be marshaled by both sides. And again, I'm not calling for a huge government-run surveillance program. What I'm suggesting is-well, I don't think you are. Yeah, yeah. I'm just saying, no, no, no, but I don't mean surveillance of wrongdoers. Yeah. Flock cameras are great because they're to prevent child abduction. Okay, now.

Yeah. But why wouldn't they be used against American citizens who just want sovereignty and borders? Very well, maybe, right? My argument is what we need to do for illegal aliens who are not subject to those same protections is use the basic amount of information available to any, like, firm bidding on internet advertising or to a credit agency, right? So when they do background checks for tenants, right? It's three major companies that process those.

Like, that's commercial data we can buy and reach the vast majority of the illegal alien population who aren't what people use the phrase in the shadows, for example. So that's what I want to do. But yes, much more broadly, what I'm asking for is us to use federal power as aggressively as we just watch Democrats do when they build a 50 city infrastructure. Right. And to be even more explicit, like to then be legally creative and how we do. that too in ways that have gone beyond what we have. And so there was a program called the

CHNV program, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, right? Hey, there's an emergency at the border, so now we have to fly people in. At one point, they were flying in 30,000 people a month on that program. That probably gets close to or is a little bit under a single month of best removals by ice. And maybe ice was closer to 40,000. I'm just talking in terms of scale here. New York in 2023 had about 215, quote unquote, migrant shelters operating.

That's when you would see stories about like homeless people being displaced, literally being displaced because these shelters were taking on illegal aliens. Well, and hotels that tourist stayed and were taken over. Exactly.

250, 15, I'm sorry, at the peak, more people at one point in New York City, there was at a single point in 2023, so I'm not saying persistent, then ICE has had in its custody at one time

at any given point in the next past. two years. So the scale at which Democrats were willing to wield this power, right, with the courts just rubber stamping it all and get it, they did walk certain things back, but like is still something we're not approaching yet. And so what I ask is like, where is that pioneering legal strategies related to the immigration that CHNV was? Where is that proposal that bold? where is that that function

of logistics at scale that will get millions of people out. We know that the federal government is capable that they just did it in the reverse direction four years ago. And so what we have to figure out though is like, well, no one's done it this way before how does that work?

And to your point, all of these mechanisms want to build, right? All of these legal innovations, when the opponents come back in power, they will have it. But the sole metric that I believe will be the most impactful for the American people

at the end of all of this discussion is, did we remove millions of people or not? That to me will impact every other element of the quality of life discussion that we have. And that is why I think our politics are inherently moving in that direction. Like if there are two waves of,

yeah, if there are two waves of populism, one of those, the one on the right, that has showed at times in fits and starts that it can capture a multi-class, you know, multiracial, et cetera, coalition, that one versus the one on the left, which is moving into explicit socialism and revolution, one of those involves continuing to bring in millions of foreigners

to displace American workers in one dozen, and that one over here might have a chance to win. And so, like that to me, this is the political program. It is we are moving towards an error in which we need to prevent people from coming to this country, and we need to physically remove the folks who are here because the former, I don't think, survives without the latter. Last question.

As noted at the outset, the original restrictionist movement was blue-collar Democrats, because they were the ones hurt by it. It was the factory owners who were for it. It was the factory workers who opposed it. Is there any such constituency in the Democratic Party left? Yeah, I think this realignment will include bringing a bunch of those folks over. We all remember... Renner Sanders was against it.

Exactly, right? And I tell people, 80% of my immigration policy is Barack Obama 2008 or Bernie Sanders 2003, right? It is, so what I think is that is the way that we can knife through this other emerging coalition of socialism. It is to peel off the people who recognize that there is going to be one side that will put Americans first. And again, we're in the process of that happening and building this out. Like I said, we're at the beginning of this movement. But yeah, we can split people off. Because there's no reason that the AOC,

momdani, kind of rich kid, I went to Bowdoin, variety of socialism, which is really just globalism, actually, that that should prevail. If you're going to have left-wing politics, at least it should be pro-American politics. Yeah, well. We've seen that before.

We've had that before. So why, I don't understand why they get the entire other half of the political system. Yeah, I agree. And I think it's because they, the reason it is that version, the globalist version, is because they have abandoned, they find the working class distasteful, right? Exactly. And so my argument is a little bit simpler in that what we can do, what we are at the beginning of doing is marshalling this pro-American coalition.

And there is, it is just explicitly a pro-foreign one. I don't know why. I just know that they've abandoned. Because Lindsay Graham and Mamdani actually agree, despite. Right. A lot of pretending agree on the basic issues. Yeah, yeah. Sorry, they do.

Yeah, I understand. And so here's a way to frame that, though, right? So that is the shaking that off, shaking that consensus off, right? It's something everybody's talked about for 10 years. We're in the process of that happening. And that is work that has to be continued. And what I tell people is it stinks. Like, a lot of my friends that I talk to say when I go back to D.C.,

we presume we've won this argument. And I say, well, there's all this work still to carry it forward. the opposite of becoming unvigilant is literally a foreign-tintin socialism. But what I tell people is like, when we actually articulate that we're going to put American workers, first, you cannot lose that. And so what I tell like the business class or the tech guys is like, just read the room. You're, you've gotten away with, when we lived in an era where Amazon employees were urinating in bottles at their workstations, there was time for things to swing back. And so in right now, we are in a pitch battle. It seems like a pitch battle. And after the midterms, there's going to be a push for amnesty.

But we're in a pitch battle between what I would call the business class and the base or whatever the right, the working class element of it is. The business class is going to lose this one. It is inevitable. All of our politics are trending in this direction. The American people are moving towards demanding that they're put first. Their great well of well-being for foreigners is running out. and like I just I see that we will be victorious man I hope you're right Jason thank you very much thank you for having me I see that we will be victorious I think so I really believe it

I have to thank you thanks