2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Charlie Kirk Debates Catholic Student on Immigration, Biblical Arguments, and America's Strained Resources at UC Riverside
At UC Riverside, Charlie Kirk engages in a detailed debate with a Catholic student whose parents immigrated legally to the United States. The student uses Biblical references, including the story of Jesus fleeing to Egypt, to argue for compassionate immigration policies. Kirk counters by distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration, arguing that illegal entry constitutes lawbreaking regardless of circumstances. The exchange explores questions of national sovereignty, resource constraints, and whether immigration should primarily benefit the receiving country. Kirk proposes a complete immigration pause for ten years, citing California's strained hospitals and schools as evidence that America needs time to assimilate those already here.
Opening the Immigration Debate with Biblical Arguments
A Catholic student at UC Riverside approached Charlie Kirk with a deeply personal perspective on immigration. Her parents came to the United States legally and are currently navigating the renewal process, which she describes as lengthy and complex. Drawing from her religious upbringing, she referenced Matthew 2:13-15, where an angel warns Mary and Joseph to flee Bethlehem because someone seeks to kill the infant Jesus. The student argued that many immigrants face similar desperate circumstances, forced to leave everything behind not by choice but by necessity.
She challenged Kirk to consider the human cost of immigration restrictions, noting that she would personally hate to sell her car and house, leave her parents and friends, and abandon her entire life. Her question centered on how Biblical principles of welcoming strangers should inform American immigration policy.
Kirk's Distinction Between Legal and Illegal Immigration
Kirk immediately clarified a critical theological point: Jesus did not actually immigrate when fleeing to Egypt because Egypt was under Roman jurisdiction at the time, meaning He remained within the same empire. However, Kirk acknowledged that Scripture does contain verses about welcoming strangers. He then pivoted to what he considers the fundamental question: should immigration always benefit the home country? When the student agreed it should, Kirk seized on this common ground.
The conversation then shifted to the mechanics of illegal immigration. The student mentioned that illegal immigrants have taxes deducted from their paychecks for Social Security and other benefits they cannot access. Kirk challenged this premise, asking how illegal immigrants obtain Social Security numbers in the first place. His answer was blunt: they steal them. Kirk argued that obtaining employment as an illegal immigrant requires identity theft, using a stolen American Social Security number. This act of theft, he contended, drives down wages and reduces opportunities for American workers.
The Line-Cutting Problem and Rewarding Legal Immigration
Kirk framed illegal immigration as fundamentally unfair to those who follow proper procedures. Illegal immigrants, he argued, were not invited to the country and broke in line ahead of those waiting legally. He insisted that America should not reward line cutters or border jumpers, but should instead honor people like the student's parents who came legally. This argument received applause from the audience.
The student acknowledged Kirk's point but shared her mother's story of fleeing a terrorist attack on her family, receiving immediate legal entry. She contrasted this with others who wait ten, twenty, or even thirty years. Her grandmother has been waiting about ten years just to visit the United States as a tourist, despite having sufficient financial resources in her home country. The student argued that these long wait times create impossible situations for people facing genuine danger.
Zero Tolerance Policy and Questions of Humanity
The student criticized what she called Trump's zero tolerance policy, describing it as cruel because it requires people who are doing well in America to leave the country. She characterized this approach as inhumane. Kirk responded by emphasizing that America is not their country, and that distinction matters legally and morally.
To illustrate his point, Kirk posed a hypothetical: if he went to Mexico without invitation or permission, took a job, and Mexican authorities discovered him, what would happen? When the student said she wasn't sure, Kirk provided the answer: Mexico would send him back to America. He argued that every country has the sovereign right to control its borders and determine who may enter.
Can Reasons Justify Breaking the Law?
Kirk pressed the student on whether there is ever a legitimate reason to commit a crime. When she answered no, he asked why that moral standard shouldn't apply to immigration. The student responded that the immigration system isn't doing its job, which is why she believes more funding should be directed toward it. She acknowledged that some illegal immigrants commit crimes, but insisted not all do.
Kirk made a categorical distinction: all illegal immigrants are criminals by definition because their very presence violates federal law, specifically 8 USC 1312. Their existence in the country constitutes lawbreaking, regardless of their behavior afterward. He rejected the premise that individual circumstances could justify illegal entry.
Death Threats and the Personal Safety Argument
The student then proposed a hypothetical involving Kirk's own family. She asked what he would do if someone were attacking or targeting his children, whom he presumably loves. Kirk interrupted to note that this isn't hypothetical for him—he receives death threats every day saying people want to murder him and kill his family. Despite these genuine threats, he stated firmly that he is staying in America.
When the student asked if anyone had ever driven to his house or done a drive-by, Kirk declined to provide details. He then challenged the logical extension of her argument: if everyone in danger were allowed to come to America, would she be okay welcoming 500 million people? The student suggested implementing a system to examine each case individually. Kirk pushed back, asking if 500 million people would be too many. When she agreed that the United States couldn't fit that many people, Kirk argued this proved his point.
The Scale Problem and Root Solutions
Kirk elaborated that if everyone suddenly declared their life was in danger, America would have to admit all of Nicaragua, all of Honduras, and almost all of Venezuela. The standard, he argued, falls apart at scale. Furthermore, he suggested that people lie and deceive about their circumstances to gain entry.
Kirk then proposed what he considers a better solution: empower people to make the countries they're leaving greater and stronger, addressing the problem at its root rather than treating symptoms through mass migration. The student acknowledged this made sense but expressed doubt it could be that simple.
Peru's Corruption and the Brain Drain Problem
The student shared her Peruvian heritage and described recent presidential elections in Peru. According to her account, the candidate who would have been better for the country and helped more was prevented from winning due to corruption. This candidate received death threats, nearly was killed, had to fake his death and leave the country, while his female running mate was jailed. The corrupt candidate won through rigged elections. She argued that when corruption runs this deep, it's nearly impossible to fix a country without external help. The Peruvian people wanted the good president and wanted to rebuild their system, but the rigged election prevented this.
Kirk asked whether Peru becomes greater or weaker when millions of people leave. The student answered neither, describing Peru as currently in a weak state. Kirk pressed his point: mass immigration is bad for everybody—bad for America and bad for the countries people are leaving. The only economic connection that remains is remittances, where immigrants send American money back home, which he argued subsidizes the entire problematic system.
Penalties for Illegal Entry and System Reform
Kirk posed a final question: what should the penalty be for someone who comes to America without invitation and illegally? The student responded that it would be humane to examine their case and understand why they had to leave everything they've ever known. Kirk stated his position clearly: illegal immigrants should be sent back to their country of origin.
The student made one final point, asking if Kirk agreed that more money should be invested in the immigration system. Kirk answered with an emphatic no, proposing instead that America should accept zero immigrants for the next ten years. He argued that the country already has too many people.
California as Evidence of Immigration Overload
To support his position, Kirk pointed to California itself. He described California hospitals as overrun and schools as overrun, asking the audience if they agreed their state is crowded. He characterized California as a cluttered state with strained social services. America needs a pause on all immigration, Kirk argued, to "metaphorically digest the major meal that we just ate." Without this pause, he warned of major assimilation problems, cultural problems, cohesion problems, and all sorts of other issues.
Kirk acknowledged this is a provocative position, but he emphasized that immigration should be used as a tool to benefit the homeland. Countries are not obligated to have immigration. The student countered with her parents' success story—coming legally with zero dollars and now having made hundreds of thousands of dollars, calling it the American dream. Kirk praised this outcome, calling it exactly what the American dream should be. However, he concluded by emphasizing that he wants American-born young people from UC Riverside to also have access to that American dream without having to compete against foreigners for opportunities.
