Charlie Kirk Debates Abortion, Immigration, and Presidential Power at University of South Carolina Campus Event

I've talked about Patriot Mobile's commitment to faith, family, and freedom. Have you made the switch yet? Support your values with your cell phone without sacrificing quality or service. Are you worried about coverage? Don't be. Patriot Mobile uses all three major US networks. If you have a cell phone service today, you can get service with Patriot Mobile. Do you think switching is hard? It's not. Their 100% US-based customer service team can activate you in minutes. They even have a contract buyout. So go to patriotmobile.com/kirk25 or call 972 patatriot. Use promo code kirk25 for a free month of service. >> All right. It is great to be here at the University of South Carolina. Everybody >> you know how it works. You guys can come up to the mic. We'll have a discussion for a couple hours here. Uh feel free if you disagree to go to the front of the line. And I'll just say this. This is a much bigger crowd than we would have got at Clemson. I'll tell you what, a much bigger crowd, and I I'll say this in closing. It's a predominantly conservative audience. If someone from the left comes up to the mic, let's treat them with respect. Let's not interrupt or scowl or boo them. Show the left the respect that we don't get on these college campuses. With that, let's get started. >> Who's first? >> Hey, Charlie. Uh my name's Wyatt and I'm I'm definitely a liberal and uh obviously Donald Trump ran and won uh in no small part due to his stance on mass deportation and border security. >> And on the left I feel that there should be more consensus on border security. I think it's essential to national security. But my disagreement comes with mass deportation. I um examine policy in terms of uh costs and benefits. And when I look at mass deportation, I see massive costs and I see very few benefits. So my question to you is what benefits can the American people see from mass deportation? >> Sure. Fair, very fair question. Thank you and thank you for having the uh um position that border security is is important because not everyone in the Democrat party does. Why don't you outline some of the like one or two costs? I would imagine economic or maybe cultural. Let's line lay out two of the most pressing costs that you would see in your in your research. >> So from from my point of view, I I see that it will likely decrease jobs for Americans. I think you look at the um secure communities initiative under Barack Obama and the effects of that. Um the studies of that showed that for every 1 million um unauthorized workers that are deported, that's 88,000 American citizens who are forced into unemployment. Um the other cost is is the opportunity costs. Obviously, one of the the biggest points is to keep people safe. But if we're spending a trillion dollars to deport uh unauthorized workers, there are better ways to spend that money to keep people safe, such as investing in police departments, paying higher salaries, better training, things like that. So there's a third element which is also fairness. So those of us that are conservatives that support mass deportations think that it's wrong that you can cut in line to come into the United States of America when someone else has to wait 10 or 20 years to be able to come here legally. So it's an issue of fairness. But would you agree that we are headed towards an inevitable massive job displacement problem with artificial intelligence and robotics? Would you agree that that's probably on the nearevent horizon of 10 to 20 years? >> Yes. Tech tech will take take some jobs away for sure. So if we now agree that tech is going to make a lot of people in this audience basically have to figure out what they're going to do with their life and let's just take robotics. We're going to see mass application of robotics in the next couple of years and agricultural work and service work. What is then the argument to keep 30 million people in your country illegally if robots are going to be doing those jobs? I mean, shouldn't if there's any jobs, I guess the question I would ask is if you're designing a government, should jobs first go to native-born people of your country or to foreigners? >> Well, my issue with that is that native workers and immigrant workers typically work different positions, right? Unauthorized workers take the construction jobs, the low-level general labor, and those jobs create demand for plumbers and electricians and construction managers, and those jobs are held by American citizens. So the the fewer unauthorized workers we have, the fewer the less supply we have of the general position and that means less demand for the middle level. >> Uh we're going to see we're going to see a ve we're going to see in a near event horizon where those jobs are going to be completely replaced by robotics. >> So then what's the argument to keep the people here? >> I mean do you think that like a plumber could be replaced by >> absolutely >> by AI? >> No, by a robot. Absolutely. in 10 years without a doubt the the amount the I encourage you to dive deep into actually how sophisticated and how quick robotics is at applying they're building entire houses right now basically with robots right so what I'm getting at though is if you're getting advanced robotics that are displacing all these jobs then what is the argument to keep the people that broke our laws to come here why keep them here and they didn't follow our customs they cut in line it's an issue of fundamental fairness so outside of the economics which is not very persuasive to me isn't it fair to say that if you come here without invitation, you'll be returned to your country of origin. Isn't that an issue of fairness? >> So fairness is is absolutely an issue in my opinion, but it makes no sense to then uproot those people. Many of them have been here for 10 plus years. That's that's the thing. So pulling them up out of their roots is damaging to the rest of society. How is it damaging to someone, let's just say if a Native America, like a native born American plumber has to compete for wage growth against someone who came here illegally, wouldn't it actually be better for Americans that their wages would go up? >> Well, their wages wouldn't go up because there'd be less demand for plumbers. >> No, no, the demand stays the same. >> How does the demand stay the same? >> Well, because the demand side, you're talking about the supply side, not the demand side, right? So, demand is people want something customers. And if there's less people that are doing the plumbing job itself, the supply will actually decrease and wages will increase, >> right? But there wouldn't be less people doing the plumbing jobs because the unauthorized workers are working the the low level the the general construction positions >> and that creates the demand for the plumbers, doesn't matter. >> So that again, we I have a much different view of the labor market. I think that if we had a slight wage adjustment, Americans would do those jobs and can do those jobs. In fact, I think we think very too little of the American labor market. But let me ask you one final question here. Why do you think Americans voted for mass deportations? >> Well, I think it is an a thought of fairness. I think we have a uniquely punitive society. I mean, we see that with our with our sentencing. And so, it's an idea that, you know, well, one, it's the rhetoric that deporting them will make us safer, which I disagree with. And also, it's the >> Okay, I mean, wasn't there just a student here that got killed by an illegal alien? Are there >> I I don't want to play I don't want to overplay that card because I know it's just I'm not trying to politicize that. >> That's a tragedy and it's I mean absolutely every loss of life. >> Isn't it a material fact that if that illegal alien wasn't here that student would be alive? >> Absolutely. >> But let me ask let me ask are there are there American citizens that also kill people? >> Yes, of course. But they're here with warrant. >> Yeah. So the question is, if you have a big house party and a certain portion of the people in your house party aren't invited and they start stabbing the other guests, say, "Wait a second, they weren't invited, right? They're not supposed to be here. We have a process in order for you to come into our own nation, our country, whatever you want to call it." And so the failure to enforce those laws makes you no longer a country. >> Sure. >> And and just just so we are also clear, every single person who crossed the border illegally definitionally is a criminal because they committed a crime. Sure. So, so I guess my my proposition would be a small smarter alternative, an alternative where border security is important where we're limiting those that come across in the future. Fair enough. Let me ask >> also. >> Okay. Sorry. Al also concentrated dynamic deportation of those who are harmful and allowing those that contribute to society to stay so that the rest of us can benefit from their labor. >> So, let me ask this is a good moral question. I So, I'll tell you what I believe then I'm curious what you believe. >> Sure. If somebody crosses into a country without invitation, without warrant illegally, I believe that person should be returned to their country of origin, what do you believe the punishment should be, if at all, for somebody that comes into your country uninvited? >> Going forward, I believe they should be deported. But right now, they they have roots here and the and my argument. >> Okay. So, that's a fair that's a fair argument. So, you're saying that >> we've made our bed and we have >> Got it. So you're saying that there's an event horizon that if you've been here for more than 5 years, >> you're off limits. Yeah. >> But if you've come within 5 years, they could be deported. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> I I don't agree with the post 5 years, but that's a much more mature sophisticated view of immigration that if the Democrat party held, our country would be in a much better place. >> Right. I I believe it's a smaller smarter alternative and I advocate for that. So that again that that is that has some sophistication and prudence because there should be a punishment and you can understand why. If if we don't have deterrence then you're going to have as it happened under Joe Biden 10 million people a year coming into your country and it's full destabilization. So thank you for your question. Really appreciate it. Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. Thank you. [Applause] >> Thank you. >> Sorry about the weather guys. We tried our best but >> good. We love you. All right. >> How are you? >> Good to go. >> Make sure you talk right into the mic. Yeah. >> Okay. I'm not melting from the rain. >> Make sure you don't touch the mic. >> Don't touch the >> Sure. Um raise it for you. >> Sure. Thank you. Nice. Nice. One, two, three. Howdy, Charlie. My name is Ethan. um a little nervous. Uh I have a debate background. Um nowhere near this size, but it's pretty fun. Uh so I am a liberal and I would like to discuss with you the topic of abortion today. Uh I know and that's okay. Um, I I firmly believe that um the pro-life argument is something that is held in good faith and I I used to uh side with that, but I think from a philosophical background uh I don't think it holds a scrutiny and I'm happy to present my argument for you on that. All right. Uh so before I would like to establish a few uh I'll say like uh foundations that we can probably agree on. Uh so the first argument I'd like to make is that this has to be within a secular framework which I believe you have said that you can uh defend from a secular frame. Is that correct? >> Yes. However, define secular um not coming from religion. So no appeals to like a divine um entity or like objective like universal rights uh for example. >> Well, can we agree murder is wrong? >> Uh yes. >> Is that an objective truth? Uh, not necessarily because you could ask the question, wait, listen, listen, I can answer that. Murder by definition is wrong because it is the unjust killing. So you would have to make the argument, is killing objectively wrong, which obviously in cases of self-defense is not. Uh, so that is my statement. >> Was Hitler objectively evil? >> Object. It depends on who you ask. If you ask a Nazi, he's going to say no. If you ask a Nazi, to me, of course he was. But I'm not a Nazi. Was the Holocaust objectively evil? >> It depends on who you ask. >> I hope you can see this is where I I did this for a reason. This is where a secular philosophy leads you where you're not able to say objectively Holocaust wrong. And b most abortionists at their core are do not believe the Holocaust was objectively wrong. >> And that's not a criticism of you. That is a that is a fact of of philosophical morality. And I'm not trying to be unfair to you. I I know you said you're nervous, but that is the furthest extrapolation of basically secular proabortion um worldview. I interrupted you, so please continue. But at least we can agree murder is wrong. >> Um by definition, it has to be. >> Okay. Well, it actually doesn't have to be. Uh >> I disagree. >> Okay. But we said, is is murder objectively wrong? >> Um by its definition, it has to be. >> Okay. Um you're going to have to you're going to have to further educate me on that one. >> Sure. We're you you mentioned abortion. So continue. >> Um but at least uh can we agree that for for the purpose of this conversation as you stated >> I I will not appeal to scripture or God's word or >> like an objective moral um like unity or in the universe or anything like that. >> Well again at some point we're going to appeal to some agreed upon moral framework. Yes, >> which is the same thing as appealing to religion. But for the purpose of this argument, I will use agreed upon western morality. Sure. And bioeththics, biology and reason for the po point of this discussion. >> Excellent. Thank you. Um the second point I would like to um ask is uh I would like to make the statement that we ought to respect the and I want to make this statement clear the wants and desires of the unconscious such as dead people, sleeping people, uh comeos people, etc. Uh, would you agree with that statement? >> Well, what what wants does a dead person have? >> Um, easy. So, I can answer that. So, for example, let's say I have a heart attack right now, but my friends um let's say Charlie, I tell you um I would like to be cremated, right? And uh let's say you're like, "Sure, Ethan, I can take care of that." Um I think that you now have a moral obligation because you have a great >> fair. I got it. But actually, the dead person doesn't have the want. It was a wish while you were alive. >> Yes. I absolutely agree. I absolutely agree. But I I do believe that there is a moral >> This is a long This is a long wind up. So let's >> No, it's important. I promise. I promise. But I'm glad we agree on that. Um nextly, uh I want to make the argument that it is not life in of itself that we value, but it is the human experience that we value. >> No, I don't I don't agree though. >> Okay. Should we have let Are you familiar with the Terry Shave case? >> Very. Should we have let her uh basically be unplugged? >> Well, it's a question of we. Who is we? The government, society, or the family that made the ultimate decision. >> It can be any. >> Well, no, it actually matters. >> So, which we are we talking about? The doctors, the medical professionals, the county, the state of Florida, >> right? I mean, there's a lot. There's like nine different layers involved in this. >> But, so, let me just educate the audience. The Terry Shybo case is the most high-profile quote unquote brain dead case of this modern era. beautiful young woman goes into basically a coma and what ensued was a series of lawsuits where some people in the family wanted to keep her on life support and some people wanted to basically pull the plug. The government intervened. >> However, someone who is quote unquote brain dead is actually far more alive than you might realize. Did you know that someone that is brain dead, a woman for example, she still goes through her menstrual cycle? So if a woman is brain dead, how is she still menstruating and ovulating? Maybe we are more than just our brain activity. Maybe there's a lot that happens in our being beyond just what we can detect on a spec scan. >> Secondly, a brain dead person because I know I understand where you're going towards this. >> Sure. a brain dead individual, quote unquote, brain dead. There have been instances, albeit very rare, where people that have no detectable brain activity actually come out of that and they have full consciousness. Very, very rare, but those are documented cases. Did you know that someone that is brain dead, if you happen to, let's just say, put a knife in their knee, >> their norepinephrine and their adrenaline increases, even though they are brain dead, their immediate adrenaline response goes up. And so what you consider is brain dead, they're actually very much alive. Let me make one final point at >> to the menstruation part. A brain dead woman can get pregnant and deliver a child. >> She's not dead. It's just that her brain waves have decreased significantly. >> May I respond? >> Yeah, sure. Excellent. Uh so there was a lot to unpack there. Uh and because there's so much I uh and we only have so much time, I'm going to address the first thing that you said between uh who should we uh who is we and to that I would probably I'm not going to make a hard standing on this, but at least at first thought I would argue that it is between the uh loved ones of Terry Shave and the doctors who are taking care of there. I think that's a question that's between uh the person who is injured uh the people taking care of them and the doctors. So let's let's fast forward this to abortion and I can kind of cut to the essence of it. When does life begin? >> Conception. >> Oh, it does begin at conception. Okay. So then should every life be protected postconception? >> I believe that every conscious experience that the human body has should be protected not necessarily life in of itself. As I personally and as many people in the audience would agree, if I became brain dead, if I or you became brain dead, brain dead. And there was no chance of you ever waking up, you probably would want them to pull the plug. And if you disagree, that's okay. But I don't think that's the case. >> Hold on. But a four-week old baby left uninterrupted and properly nourished does wake up and have full consciousness and brain waves. >> Correct. >> So it's a completely different thing. You're talking about someone that has very little likelihood of brain activity reemerging versus a unborn baby in uterero who inevitably will almost certainly have brain activity. So interrupting one actually prevents the development of consciousness where interrupting the other actually does not respond. >> Uh the issue I have with this is the conscious experience hasn't begun yet. For example, um let's say this person right here to my left, if like I I I like punch him really hard. There is a person who we give moral consideration to that I have enacted violence upon the and we can make a objective statement on that or he he obviously has a conscience. We can agree on that. We can make an objective statement that I have uh violated uh what he wants. Uh but the thing is a fetus uh prior to approximately 20 weeks um or at least that's what I've read does not have a conscious experience. Therefore it cannot care. >> Brain waves start a lot earlier than that. They start around 8 to 10 weeks. But brain waves and consciousness are not necessarily the same thing. Right. >> Correct. >> So this is where we differ. >> Yes. >> We believe that the human experience is more than just brain waves. >> Mhm. >> And I've proven it to you that your body still continues to function even though your brain is brain dead. menstruate, adrenaline spike, so on and so forth. There is evidence to show that there's a lot more going on here than just the material between both of your ears. >> I suppose the question that I would ask though is do we have a moral right to protect humans along the stage of development regardless of whether or not they can feel or sense experience at those that period of time? >> Do you mind if I rewind back to Terry Shabo because I don't think you gave an objective answer to this. Should we have unplugged Terry Shabo who would have never woken up? >> That wasn't my family member. It's a very difficult >> Let's say you were. >> The answer is I don't know. >> Um if you had to guess or let's say you do have a family member and it does happen. We can do a >> trouble. It depends on the patients wishes first and foremost. >> Let's say you don't know. >> Yeah, it's a again it's a very subjective thing. I I tend to go towards life. I tend towards to go the continuation of life. >> Okay. So then you um let's say you have a very close uh relative and that person would not ever wake up from a persistent vegetative state then you would not allow that person um effectively like euthanasia. So uh yes it's too much of a hypothetical. I don't know because it depends on circumstances. There's a lot of there's a lot of difficulties and complexities. It depends on their age depends on their case history. It depends on whether or not they're responding to people's voices. All sorts of different things. However, there are two you are conflating two separate things. You're talking about one that is highly likely to stay in a vegetative state versus a being that is along >> Can the crowd be quiet, please? I'm trying to listen. >> Is alongside a process of human development. >> Can be quiet, please. >> We we just have we have a fundamental difference. >> Sure. >> Of what we believe a human being is. We believe a human being is far more than just consciousness and reason. And we we know this. I mean, this is objectively a proven fact. You are more than your five senses. Would you agree with that? >> Um, I don't know how to answer that. >> So, I want you to think for a second. Are you only five senses? >> Uh, the best I can answer is I and this is going to be very vague, but because that's a very hard question to ask. I am essentially me. The five senses are a uh incorporate part of me, but um I don't think that necessarily pertains to my No, it does personally. >> Well, it does because basically consciousness is exhibited in five senses, >> right? >> Maybe. I don't know. >> Okay. It is. So, but the point being is which one of your five senses tells you there's only five. There's something above just your five senses that transcend it. >> This sounds kind of like a non-secular argument when you make this like ascension like thing and we have to keep >> No, I mean you can be a secularist and still believe in a soul. >> You can believe an idea that there is a there is a being within you that is above reason. >> So, anyway, we're we're just going to disagree. I Let me ask you just one final question. >> Oh, wait, wait. Because I'm approaching you, can I ask uh this? >> Yeah, sure. I mean it has been a little yeah sure than you but uh the thing uh the ultimate crux of my argument is that because there is no sensience right in the same way like if I were to punch a person there's a person with a clear consciousness uh that I am uh uh enacting violence upon and this is a bad thing but because there was never consciousness to ever experience I don't understand how we can have harm or suffering in that moral system since nothing was ever negatively acted upon uh question if I go under general anesthesia Do you have a right to kill me? >> You already agreed with me that we need to uh value the rights of people who are unconscious. You already agreed. >> No, no, I know. But if I if I'm generally if I'm under general anesthesia. >> Yes. And you are unconscious. >> Okay. So, but explain to me the difference between unconsciousness and then the Terry Shybo case because people come out of brain dead all the time. >> You just said it was extremely rare and also we have very great methods of determining whether someone's going to be in a persistent vegetative state. So, we do have the tools to be able to tell when a person is going to come back. >> I I keep going back to this, but is a 6- week old baby going to stay in a persistent vegetative state? >> No, but it doesn't have an experience to begin with and therefore why is it granted moral consideration? >> Got it. Because we believe that all human life is equal regardless regardless of its size, level, development, environment, or its degree of dependency. >> But then people who say that they would pull the plug on Terry Shabo are now violating that principle. No, >> not necessarily. Again, the the Shybo case has a lot more complexities. And again, to to conflate a brain dead individual with a fetus that is struggling to develop and alive or a baby, they're two completely different things. >> Um, no. Yeah, you're right. And that's one entire life ahead of it. >> So, no. So, I'm sorry, I'm getting excited. >> The thing with Cherry with uh Terry Shaveo is that she would never have a human experience whatsoever. Ever. >> I I do want to get to the next question, but let me just ask you one final thing. Um, >> would you like to see less abortions in America? >> Um, it depends on the context. >> Okay. >> As long as something as long as uh no moral harm is done to a uh that we give. >> Are you glad you were not aborted? >> Um, if I was aborted, I wouldn't care cuz I wouldn't you wouldn't exist. You wouldn't care. And that's a fact. >> We we we have a we have a big difference of opinion. The final thing I'll say is this. We believe that life is a gift and an amazing thing. And to deprive another being of life is you then using basically your incumbent power structure to interrupt somebody else from being able to flourish and prosper, which we consider to be the apex of immorality. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. >> Thank you for having me. Uh thank you all. >> Thank you. >> All right. Can you do it on your phone? >> Hey, Charlie. So, everybody standing in the rain, I think they all need to hear this. Uh, I just want to thank you. Like, you come on these stages and you teach people how to debate professionally. You do it from a Christian values and you're very respectful. You let people finish and I think the world needs to see that. So, thank you very much, Charlie. >> And then, thank you. But before I hop into my question, um, I I just wanted to say like I listening to that last uh debate, I was actually in a coma for three weeks. I was killed on Airport Boulevard here in uh Columbia on a motorcycle. And thank God they didn't cut me off cuz I found God one year later, got baptized two years later and it's the best thing that's ever happened. So asking my question, this comes from the perspective of I started I'm the founder and owner operator of Ballot Access Pros. Uh we knocked over half a million doors for Trump last year. We got RFK on the ballot in multiple states and we fight for causes all over America. Um, and one thing I've always stayed away from is abortion petitions, right? I think that abortions are acceptable only in a very few cases, but I think the liberal side will continue to push abortions, right? So, this is where maybe you and I would disagree and I've brought this up to many people and I just want to hear an honest opinion, especially from somebody educated like you. Uh, so it'll take me about two minutes to explain. Is that acceptable? Perfect. So right now, if uh kids grow up in fatherless homes, they're 71% more likely to be incarcerated. They're less likely to graduate high school and college, and they're more likely to hold a lower paying job. Right now, yet the courts still award custody to the mothers the majority of the time, whether it's a good scenario for them or not. Then if a woman gets pregnant, right, she can choose to abort a child and the man has zero says so even though it was a 50-50 act, right? Now when you look at a man, if a man chooses to walk away from a child, he's going to spend 18 years in child support and if he doesn't pay, he's going to go to prison, which there's clearly 11 million people already incarcerated for this right now. So my idea is what would get me to support an abortion petition? It would be this. So let's say that a man and a woman decide to abort a child. They may do that in all 50 states up to six weeks before a heartbeat, right? What they will do is they will pay restitution to the state equal to what a uh father would pay in child support to programs for fatherless homes, right? So single parent families, they both would pay that fee separately. If a woman chooses to still have an abortion, but the man would like to have the child, the woman may do that, but she will pay restitution to the state for 18 years equal to child support. If the man decides that he wants it and the woman doesn't, right? He may have custody of that child and then he will pay all medical expenses for the pregnancy and after, but he will get full custody. So that's the premise of the idea. I want to know like what are your thoughts on that? >> Well, first of all, I'm glad God saved your life. Number one, so praise the Lord. Number two, thank you for your advocacy for President Donald Trump. That deserves to be noted. Uh three, thoughtful analysis. I I disagree just because >> human development begins at conception and we can play games with it and say, well, it matters when the heartbeat or the previous question consciousness. It comes down to the question of when did your life begin and when does objectively life begin? And if we start to play games with when well they really are a human being at six weeks but they're less than human at six weeks before that then we are diluting and compromising actually what a human being really is. So while your approach actually I would support in the sense that it would limit the amount of abortion. So it's a very pragmatic step it would not be the ultimate destination of where I'd like to see the abortion advocacy go. >> Great. So I'll end it on this um one because I have over 130 employees with uh ballot access work. I would love to partner with you and work with you in the future. So maybe after the event I can grab your number. >> I I've heard great stuff about you. So happy to talk. >> Thank you. >> You got a great reputation. Thank you, man. Appreciate you. >> Appreciate it. God bless you. Thank you. >> Disagreements can walk on up or whoever's up. Thank you, sir. >> Hey, Charlie. >> Hey. um as someone who has experienced the the power that is in the name of Jesus. Um I have a testimony for him about a year and a half ago. I was diagnosed with brain cancer and um in a matter of days um with prayer in the in the name of Jesus, he took them out of my head just like that. Um and so I have a testimony that is um super powerful for him and I'd love to hear yours. Um also my question is why do you believe the Bible being as you know the inherent word of God? Um, why do you believe that should be the forefront of of this nation? And what do you believe the effects of that will be on this nation? >> First of all, again, praise the Lord that God saved your life. That's the second one today. It's amazing. >> Praise Jesus. Praise Jesus. >> Um, I I do not have a testimony nearly as compelling as yours. Very simple. I was a fifth grader at Christian Heritage Academy. My teacher taught about sin. Sin terrifies you and then brings you to Jesus. Because when you realize the nature of sin, you realize you need a savior. I made Jesus Christ the chairman of the board of my life when I was in fifth grade. It's been the most important decision I ever made. Everything I believe stems from scripture, stems from God's word. We must submit to God's will and all that we do. It's okay to wrestle with God. That's literally what Israel means, to wrestle with God, to question and have tension with what God wants out of us. And so, why do I believe the Bible? Well, I could give a whole speech on this, but from a historical text standpoint, the Bible is one of the most is the most original source document, historically verified docu uh historical documents in history essentially. I could go on at length about it. I want to hear more about your story. Tell us more about it. Yeah. So, um about a year and a half ago, um I went down um spring break to Emerrella, Texas to visit um my grandma, but there I was diagnosed with brain cancer. Um and doctor came in and said, "Hey, man. I'm I'm really sorry, but you have cancer." And in that moment, it was just like, you know, never thought I would be here, but but God, like I'd known God for for most of my life, growing up in a church, and it's like, God, how could this be your good, pleasing, and perfect will for my life? Like, how are you going to work this for your good? Um and from then on I I got airlifted back to Denver in my home and um God moved in miraculous ways. Um you just talked about wrestling. There was a night where the L I felt like I was physically wrestling with God in my in my bed like Jacob wrestled with God um in the fort of Jabbach in Israel. Um which means to to press down to um squeeze. And that's what the Lord was doing on my heart. He squeezed me. Um, but from then on when I finally submitted my life to Christ, um, I was able to see him move in more miraculous ways than I have could have ever imagined. And he has been the forefront of my life. And if I could say anything about Jesus right now is guys, his return is coming soon. >> Amen. >> His return is coming soon. If you look at Israel, if you look at all the prophecy that's going on, if you look at Israel wanting to b build a third temple, they have red heers ready to sacrifice. If you look at um all the the AI and um all this stuff leading towards Christ, right, he's coming back and if your heart is not with Christ during that time that the what's going to happen because of that is you're going to go to hell. It's just what's going to happen. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And there is no way except through him. >> God bless you, man. Thank you so much. Thank you. Beautiful testimony. Thank you. Oh yeah, thank you. >> Hi, how are you doing today? Um, my name is Ash and I want to start off this conversation. I do want to get back into abortion a little bit, but I want to start off this conversation by saying I am a Christian. I go to church every Sunday. I believe in God. I've seen his work and I don't want that to necessarily be a basis for the discussion. Um, so we can both agree that fetus h a fetus has viability outside of the womb at 20 weeks. We've seen it happen. We have not seen a fetus be viable outside of the womb before 20 weeks, right? Okay. So, getting into that, we can go back to someone who is brain dead or um in a long-term vegetative state, right? They cannot live without the life mechanisms that are helping them breathe, like their ventilators, if they're on diialysis, if they're in um kidney failure, stuff like that, right? So, could you make the same argument that a fetus that is living inside of a mother's womb cannot live outside relating it to the life sustaining um like stuff that is keeping a person alive if they're in a coma or something, >> right? Not to rehash the prior argument, but you understand the moral difference. a 17week old allowed to continue to develop will become selfindependent where an individual in a vegetative state will almost assuredly not. They're two separate things. Secondly, it goes back to the question define viability. There are babies right now that are 27 weeks in the NICU, which is the neonatal intensive care unit that have all sorts of compartments all around them. Is it morally justified to pull the plug on a baby in NICU? >> So most women, so like going to abortion, most women are not getting late late term abortions if it is something that they want. People who are getting late term abortions are people where the fetus is either like already dead, so getting like kind of a miscarriage. >> So that's not an abortion. Just so we're clear, the the removal of a carcass is not an abortion. But yeah, >> an instance where a woman is getting an abortion because if she has this baby, she will die. >> Yeah. But why why would they not be counseledled to get a C-section >> if someone is going to die from giving birth? Whether that >> it's not C-section is not the traditional vaginal birth. It's way safer and quicker than an abortion. >> It might be safer, but there are still >> might be safer. You disagree. >> So then what shouldn't we counsel women to get the safer option? That that >> there is still a chance that they're going to die though. >> Well, there's there's a chance they die if they get an abortion, too. Abortion is actually the deadlier of all the options for a woman in a crisis post 20week situation, but the abortionists make more money and it's easier to just terminate the life. For example, if you have a uterine wall break at 28 weeks, serious problem, you have an option. Go get an abortion or go get a C-section. Which one is actually quicker? >> An abortion. But >> no, no, no, no, no. C-section's way quicker. Like you could go right now to Columbia General and you could get a C-section in like 15 minutes. they're primed for an abortion is actually like a 9-hour prep procedure. The point being is that you're talking about a very isolated set of cases. However, even with those isolated set of cases, we are led to believe that abortion will save the mother's life when there's an alternative cacaian section on the table that these moms are almost never told about. >> So then the issue is educating women on their options. So here's my thing, >> which OBS should be doing, but they're not. If there is a woman who you like you said 27 weeks uterine wall breaks most likely that woman wants to have this baby. They have carried it to 27 weeks. They didn't get an early term abortion before the fetus was viable. They want to have this child. So if they aren't given this option, then what are they supposed to do? So could you see a world in which we give legislation into where OBGYN's doctors, surgeons are forced to give? >> Yes. and it gets voted down by Democrats in the proabortion lobby all the time. This is our advocacy is that you are not stuck if your pregnancy goes wrong in the 20 weeks. In fact, a C-section is safer for you and safer for the baby like 99.9% out of 100 times when that terrible situation happens. The problem is that the OBGYn industry will present abortion as a much more viable option when it just isn't because also they don't even factor in the baby's life. It they it's like okay it's just a disposable component here where our perspective and I know you might disagree. We should seek to save both lives, both the mother and the child, where the OBGYn, and this is how they're medically trained, is first and foremost the doctor for the mother and then the baby second. Does that make sense? >> Yes. And I and I I can find middle ground here. I can agree with that. And because again, I don't think that any woman who's carrying to 27 28 weeks is wanting to have an abortion. So those options should be like educated and people should be given options. Fair enough. I agree. >> Can we move to early term abortion a little bit? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, is there any instance whether rape, incest, anything like that where you would agree with an early term abortion? >> Not a single instance. >> Correct. >> So, like a 13-year-old who was raped, has no financial stability, can't even get a job because you can't get a job until 14, 15, 16 in the US, who cannot support that baby. If it was her father, then she has no support from her parents. What is she supposed to do in that situation? >> You could put the baby up for adoption. But outside of going into the extreme specifics of your case, which does happen, it goes down to the fundamental question. Is it a baby that she is helping develop in her womb, or is it something else? If it's a baby, then you must have universal human rights applied to that baby definitionally. >> Can you claim a fetus on your taxes? >> No, you can't. Can you claim you can claim a one-year-old? who can claim a 9-month-old. >> Actually, that's a great idea. We should actually have child support starting 9 months earlier. So, >> you you won me over there. But if if your point is if your point is that our federal tax code reflects abortion laws, then you've made the point. But I guess my question for you, when does life begin? >> I think that life begins um at birth. And I know you're going to disagree with me on there. Um but I also believe that like once the fetus is viable if if it if the birth happens at 20 weeks 21 weeks then that is a child but before that when it does not have like all of its functionality to be able to live outside the womb even in like the niku then it is not alive it's not >> it's not babies in the niku are not alive >> they I said when they are able to >> I know but what's the moral difference though they have machines they have assistance >> you cannot have a 15week old fetus and have it live outside of the womb. Bottom line, we don't have the technology to do that. >> So, at one point, you were a fetus, right? >> Were you alive when you were a fetus? >> No. >> Really? >> I don't believe that I was alive. I didn't have thought. >> Okay. So, I I I do want to go back to one component of your argument. You talked about that you are a Christian. So, in the book of Luke, it says that John the Baptist leapt in the womb when it came near Jesus Christ. It's the word brephos for baby. >> Was that was John the Baptist and Jesus a baby or a fetus in the womb? >> I think he was a fetus. >> So Jesus was not alive in the womb. >> I think that he had his like functionality, but he wouldn't have been able to live outside of the womb. >> How do you leap if you're not alive? >> Babies move all the time. It's instinct. It's not like it's the same way. It's not like something that they're thinking about doing, >> right? So, my six-month-old has a lot of different instincts. When you get a newborn baby, it will wean for its mother's breast. It's not thinking, it's instinct. When you poke a baby in the stomach, it will react. So, a baby cannot hunt or gather for itself until it's probably four years old. Therefore, it's dependent on the mother, dependent on the father. How is that any different than a baby in uterero that needs nutrients from the mother? Because it's the in uterero, right? The mother doesn't have a choice. Whatever they eat going to the baby. Whatever they drink going to the baby. All of that. And sure, they're able to give it up for adoption and then they won't have to worry about it. And our adoption, the system currently is a whole another issue. But sure, they are able to give up this baby for adoption and then they don't have to worry about it. But it's having the choice of if you want to nourish that child, go through all of the pain and struggle and everything that comes with being pregnant. >> So outside of rape, would you say we should get rid of all abortions except except of rape and incest? >> I think um I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. And ultimately it's not up to me if like if she was pregnant and wanted to get an abortion, that shouldn't be my decision. And so I don't think it should be the government. So therefore, >> but I'm not proabortion. I don't think voluntary late term abortion should be allowed. >> I got it. Well, so let me ask you a question. Since you're pro-choice, should a mom be able to choose to abort her baby if she finds out she's having a girl and she wants a boy? >> So >> you're pro-choice. >> I don't think that voluntary late term abortion should happen by the question. So that's why I'm saying if that's the woman's choice, then that's the woman's choice. And a lot of times that's going to be a discussion. But the thing is, you're saying this, but people don't do that. >> Oh, no. They do it all the time. It's actually illegal in America to do it. In fact, they do it so much they had to pass a law where people would get genetics tests around 12 to 14 weeks. They would find out they were having a girl and the incident rate of abortion would spike. It is illegal in America to have sex selective abortion. So your view of basically developing a child is no different than like customizing a Ford Explorer. It's like I like this characteristic but not this characteristic. >> Do you think it should be legal if you find out your baby's having Down syndrome to terminate your baby? >> No. >> But you said you're pro-choice, >> so you're not. So you you are getting in the way of a mother's decision. The mom doesn't want to go through the pain of raising a down syndrome kid. She doesn't want to pay for the down syndrome kid. personal beliefs, not the beliefs of what thing. >> No, no, but I'm saying legally. Should it be legal? >> I think if the baby is and I have a I have a little brother with a lot of special needs. He lives off of oxygen. He's in a wheelchair. I have grown up around kids with special needs. And so I understand that it is it is so hard for parents, for siblings, for grandparents to go through that if somebody doesn't think that they're in the financial stability because children with special needs are a lot of money and they don't get as much support from the government as they should for them. They're a lot of work, they're a lot of time. So if somebody doesn't >> So knowing all that you're actually uniquely positioned to answer the question >> doesn't think that they are in the financial position to be able to give this child the best possible life that they could have if like they are poor if it was a thing of incest or rape and they don't have support from a partner. I do think that like in those instances I would agree more with giving up for adoption, but again the adoption like foster care adoption systems aren't built to support children with special needs. They aren't. It is so difficult for children with special needs to get out of the adoption system. And so in instances like that again I believe it's up to the mother's choice of what she wants to do. H >> how is your view of up to the mother's choice any different than eugenics? I don't believe that you should abort based off of like my personal beliefs, right? Separate from >> but your indifference, the lack of a law or you advocating for a law is you basically giving a tacit level of support of it cuz it does happen and it will happen. So we have laws that are a reflection of morality. That's why we have murder laws and you know can't steal and you can't commit arson. So we actually have a law where it's illegal to abort your baby based on Down syndrome. It's a law. You would you would support getting rid of that? Basically, >> I wouldn't support getting rid of it if it's already in place. My thing is is when we have we had Roie Wade, which were gave women reproductive freedom to have abortions, especially if they were deemed medically necessary, if it were in cases of rape or incest. And we moved back on those to get rid of them. We didn't have them and then we had them and then they were taken away. >> Do you think an abortion is a tragedy? >> It depends on the person. If if if someone got raped and they probably are going to carry so much resentment toward this child, and I'm not saying every case, some women won't carry resentments towards this child, but if you're carrying resentment towards this being due to how it came to be, then >> So then just murder it essentially. So somebody in this audience was conceived in rape. Can you tell me who? >> Was it you? >> No, but I mean someone is. Can you tell me who? >> No. No. >> Do they have a big R on their head? >> No. >> So wait, they're just the same type of human being that we are. >> So they're indistinguishable. So they get God granted human rights regardless of their method of conception. >> But that's like, yes, sure, the child is going to be the same or whatever, but we don't know how they're going to end up being raised because again, the mother might not have the support. She might not have this. She might not be able to get that. I'm curious though, how is it morally justifiable from a Christian worldview to I would say murder, but you would say terminate a life even if you're not sure how their life is going to work out by by what moral biblical standard is that justifiable? >> I think people should have their own right to choose and like I have a right to choose to believe in God. Other people have a right to choose what they want to do. >> Should I have a choice to be able to murder my cameraman? >> You have that choice and you're going to get punished for it. Well, but no, I'm saying so without without without law, >> meaning >> and there was no law. >> Yeah. I mean, get rid of murder laws, I should have a choice to be able to murder him, >> I guess. Like I mean, we live in a society where you're talking about you're talking about the repealing of murder laws at this point. >> We live in a society where that wouldn't be an option right now, right? We live in a society. >> But to be consistent, you should be able to say no murder laws cuz who am I to judge? You should be able to choose to do whatever you want with any other being. You have to be consistent. >> But then it like that's again that's where we just have a different discrepancy of what a fetus is. We have a different moral opinion. >> What species is the fetus? >> I mean if it is from a human it's a human fetus. If it's from a dolphin it's a dolphin fetus. If it's from an ant. >> If it's a human fetus then wouldn't it have human rights? >> But then it but like we don't they're not they don't have a social security number. They don't have you're not able to claim them on your taxes until after they're born. So that's why I'm saying they don't have the same rights as humans. They don't have the same as >> my my six-month-old can't buy a firearm. I don't understand your point >> because it's illegal. Like >> yeah, my my three-month-old didn't vote for Trump. She wanted to, but >> I I have age limits on those things. But again, if your three-month-old or three-year-old >> has a social security number, right? you're able to claim them as a dependent on their taxes because they are alive and breathing and are recognized by the US government as being so. >> Right. Again, if your argument is that the our US laws are reflective of abortion ethics, you you are correct. But I I suppose the question my I mean, you do know a three-year-old doesn't have a driver's license either. I mean, at some point we can get towards the documentation argument is a little insane, but a fetus is still a human being worthy of human rights. And so when you say it's at birth, just understand like the the cruelty of that argument that babies that are 28, 29, 30 weeks hear the mother's voice, they move completely, heartbeats, their own DNA. And I suppose the question I would ask, if it isn't your DNA, why should it be your choice? But what do you mean by that? It is your DNA. >> Well, no, it's not. A mother has her own separate DNA. Her baby has different DNA. So why should her DNA should be able to eliminate another set of DNA? >> Because it is inside of her. >> Your location means nothing. Whether you're inside URO or live in Columbia, South Carolina, you don't get more or less rights based on your location. >> Okay? So then take the baby out and have it live in whatever if it can survive on its own. >> I that's what the laws should say. take the baby out the best we can and don't terminate it. >> That's that's three weeks, right? Okay, sure. I don't want to terminate my pregnancy, but we're going to take it out and try to give it the best life. It's not going to survive. >> Well, at 3 weeks, first of all, you have a moral right to allow that baby to grow, which then goes back to my final point. >> Rape and incest, I disagree, but I think that's valid exceptions. How did the mother get pregnant in the 99% of the other time? >> Sometimes it happens by accident. So, >> no. What do you mean by accident? It's not like catching the flu. What do you mean by accident? >> Condom breaks, whatever. Like, even if you're using protection, not using protection, whatever. >> You made a decision to have sex, right? >> Sure. >> You you you don't have you don't have to have sex. It's not like eating or showering. So therefore, we as proifers believe you should take responsibility for your own actions and take responsibility for your own orgasms and not eliminate being smaller than you just because a mistake happened. Murder is not a option for a mistake. Murder is not the solution for a mistake. Does that make sense? >> That's probably where we're going to disagree here. So, >> yeah. But again, the the idea that you should be able to eliminate another human being because something happened that you don't like, I find to be wrong. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Pretty intense. >> You guys are champs for going through this rain. Who wants hats? Everybody [Applause] [Music] >> Oh, Charlie, please. Charlie. >> Yes. [Applause] >> Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Sure. I mean, >> okay. Yes. >> All right. What's up, Charlie? >> Um, so my position is I believe uh Trump is antithetical to everything American. Whether that is him abusing powers, going against the Constitution, I mean, mainly those two things. I his foreign policy, national policy is obviously all pretty atrocious. But if you want to talk about him abusing executive powers, I'd like to talk about that. Uh specifically uh in reference to Mayor Adams case where he's uh dropping the charges without prejudice. >> Go ahead. >> Is that not a blatant form of corruption that he's extorting? How is um dropping a charge without prejudice on a mayor that got fedally indicted and not corrupt? >> It happens all the time. I mean >> that's I mean, but I mean the charges were political in nature. President Trump got targeted by the Department of Justice. He goes out of his way to also show lawfare goes after both parties and drops the charges against a Democrat mayor, Eric Adams. Dropping charges without prejudice happens all the time. Biden did it for a lot of cases that the Trump administration had. If we want to talk abuse of power, maybe we should talk about how Joe Biden pardoned his entire family the last hour of his presidency. how Joe Biden pardoned Anthony Fouchy preemptively and Adam Kinzinger preemptively and Liz Cheney preemptively and Adam Schiff preemptively. Not that Donald Trump's DOJ dropped charges against Eric Adams. Joe Biden is the one that had to preemptively pardon his brother and his entire crime syndicate with the the stroke of a pen the last hour of his presidency. If anybody is abusing power, it would be the prior president who didn't even know he was president, not Donald Trump. >> Okay, so I mean, you kind of pivoted there, but I will acknowledge what Joe Biden did was probably a corrupt uh abuse of actions. I would say abuse of power. Uh but you also have to acknowledge Donald Trump is also abusing power in the same instant. I mean, you keep saying that because yes, he's extorting him because he's now letting ICE have run jurisdiction in Riker's Island. Um which he was he uh Mayor Adams signed an executive order letting ICE go back into Riker's Island. Um >> okay, so what are your facts? Where are the documents? Where are the first original source testimony that show there's an extortion at play? That's a huge accusation. >> It's Yeah. So, Emil Bo even said himself, the deputy attorney general, that he's dropping the charges um not based off any evidence, but it would be because it it would um interfere with his mayor duties. Um I don't know why we should drop federal charges on someone that's that for mayor like interfering with mayor duties. That doesn't really make sense to me. Um I mean, but you would acknowledge she I don't I I I'm confused on why you don't think this is corrupt. Him federally dro or dropping federal judges. >> It's not it's not corrupt. Again, lawfare is a problem that affects both parties. I mean, but wait. So, >> so you would agree what Joe Biden did corrupt on not Trump? >> No. What one was beart pardoning your family for the first time in American history. The other one is inheriting a sloppy politically targeted case of the Department of Justice and then dismissing those charges. >> But they're not dropping it based on the case of the evidence. They're not dropping it based on any type of evidence. >> You you can drop based on Again, that's one deputy attorney general's interpretation. But why don't you tell why don't you tell me what Eric Adams was charged with >> uh for uh bribery? I believe misuse of funds. He defrauded in New York for $5 million. >> Yeah. Like taking international flights on Turkish Airlines. I mean, it was like this insane case. >> I mean, you're downplaying it, but >> Yes, I am. Because let's be honest, why is it that Eric Adams was indicted? >> Because he got caught of committing federal crime. >> Because Eric Adams was the only blue state mayor in the country to speak out against Biden's mass migration invasion. And they used Eric Adams as an example to try to say, "If you dare step out of line against the 10 million people that come across the southern border, we will come against you." How is it an abuse of power to do what the Department of Justice is constituted to do? I >> because this isn't based off any evidence. This is a federal indictment. Obviously, if you want to make the distinction that he uh tried um was it his immigration policy could be reflective of why he got charged, that is only speculation. There'd be zero proof in that. What we do know is that Mayor Adams did go to Mara Lago um and then was it 3 days later he got the charges dropped on him without prejudice. And if it was corrupt, why is he dropping without prejudice? Why wouldn't he just drop the charges or pardon him? >> You know what without prejudice means >> they can bring the charges back? >> Yes. That's actually it's even less even a lower grade which means that if there's more if there's more evidence then they could reintroduce charges. They they didn't drop they didn't do it with prejudice but it's not based off evidence. >> I'm I'm I'm interested though. So out of all the examples you could use you think Donald Trump's corrupt and abuse of power because he has dropped the politically charged motivation the mayor of the largest state in the country. >> We can go to him improperly using tariffs calling national emergencies on Canada. Um he said there's a fentanyl crisis in Canada. There absolutely is. >> No, there's fentanyl crisis in our country coming from Canada. >> But he's saying it's happening at the northern border. That's how he's able to unil. So do you believe his Okay. Do you believe him uh implementing tariffs is a uh is him executing his economic policy or national policy? >> Well, national security both. >> Yeah. >> Do you think I mean you would agree that um if you're going to try stop try stopping fentinol from coming in the country, you would at least give them a target number to get to. He hasn't provided He hasn't provided anything. >> No, he did. That's not what was the number. >> Well, actually, it was privately discussed because you don't know that. But that's fine. It was privately discussed. >> What? So, what's the number? What What is he? >> We're not going to tell you the number, but I happen to know it. But like again, there was a benchmark that Canada was given in the intermediary period, Canada and Mexico. And by the way, do you know how many people die from drug overdoses every year in America? A lot. That's not what I'm actually asking. It's 100 Hold on a second. Absolutely. What it is. It's 110,000 people die from drug overdoses. A lot of people in South Carolina drug die from drug overdoses. That's a national security problem. When you have drugs flowing from a foreign country into your nation and you use tariffs as a way to stop it, that is well within the commander-in-chief duties of the president of the United States. And President Trump was elected to do that. >> Yeah. So, I mean, we're just talking about problems. 99.8% of the fentinol that comes in this country does not come from the northern border. Um the same way he's enacting national um emergencies on all the countries to implement his tariffs across the world. Well, just to be clear, the Canadian tariffs were also because more people on the terrorist watch list come across the northern border than the southern border. So, it was fentanyl plus the terrorist watch list. But then you would agree the Mexican tariffs are great because almost all the fentanel in this country come across the southern border from Mexico. >> I would say you have more of a case, but um I believe why Trump is enacting these tariffs is clear for his economic policy. Um it that's probably pretty corrupt. Him revoking constitutional rights is also pretty corrupt. >> Wait, hold on. What what constitutional rights is he revoking? the fifth amendment, first amendment >> from for on on who? For what US citizen? No. What US citizen does not have fifth amendment rights? >> Okay. So, you would agree that other uh people inside the United States like lawful permanent residents are also getting their green cards or I mean also getting their fifth amendment. >> No, but but green card holders don't get the same constitutional rights. No, they do not. If if an MS-13 member is in jail, they don't get fifth amendment rights. >> Garcia is not an MS13 member. That was all hearsay. >> Oh. Oh, no. Hold on. He was already charged for it in court documents. He's been here for 10 years. He tried to evade and he actually is back in his home country of El Salvador in a much different type of environment. >> Would you would you agree that the judge I mean Trump is literally ignoring judges orders. He got a withholding for removal. Correct. >> Hold on. Tension between the second and third branch is nothing new. But explain to me how a circuit court judge, a federal judge, a district court judge has jurisdiction about what happens over international waters. Explain that to me. >> I'm not even talking about the TTRO that was implemented. I'm talking specifically about the Maryland case. How um >> No, no, the Maryland case is that so they scoop this guy up. They send him to El Salvador. How does a guy a a a c a district court judge have jurisdiction what happens international? >> You're referring to Boseberg. I'm not. I'm talking about the Maryland judge that gave him withholding for removal. They violated that completely. They took him out of out of >> you have to answer the question. The guys the guy's in El Salvador now. >> Yeah, I know. >> So then how does that judge have any jurisdiction over that? >> Because you're referring to Boseberg um implementing the TRO. >> They're both >> I mean I mean if if you're if you're going to talk about him >> this Maryland judge just ordered the return of this guy in El Salvador. Yes. >> Yes, that's true. >> Okay. Yeah. So, how does that judge have jurisdiction? >> I'm not even referring to that. I'm referring to 2019 way before where he got was granted withholding for removal. Correct. >> Okay. I I'm not familiar. I'm not as familiar with that. >> He was granted withholder for removal and then uh was it the ICE agents took him and deported him? That is I do have to take a step back. Do you guys see how far the left fights for MS-13 members? >> Wait, wait, no. You are fighting for that because I'm fighting for constitutional rights, not MS-13. >> Hold on a second. These m these the the these illegals do not have the same constitutional rights we do. They don't vote. They don't get vote. They don't get to vote. They can't buy firearms. They don't get the same due process. You broke our laws to come into this country. You don't get the same rights as a US citizen, especially if you are part of MS-13, especially if you are part of an enemy occupying force. No. And what I find, and again, this is a left-wing tact to try to slow down the deportation effort, try to make saying, "Wow, we need to have human rights for all the people that are coming here. Where were the human rights for the student at University South Carolina that was just killed or the human rights of Lake and Riley that was just killed at University of Georgia?" And the left is intentionally trying to make permanent the enemy occupation of our land, trying to use our own customs against us for people that have never cared about our customs altogether. It is a giant scam and I hope the deportations continue at great pace. >> Once again, my point was not about uh me caring for illegal immigrants, MS-13 members, gang members.