We're honored to be partnering with the Allen Jackson Ministries and today I want to point you to their podcast. It's called Culture and Christianity, the Allen Jackson Podcast. What makes it unique is Pastor Allen's biblical perspective. He takes the truth from the Bible and applies it to issues that we're facing today. Gender confusion, abortion, immigration, Doge, Trump, and the White House, issues in the church. He doesn't just discuss the problems. In every episode, he gives practical things we can do to make a difference. His guests have incredible expertise and powerful testimonies. Each episode will make you recognize the power of your faith and how God can use your life to impact our world today. The Culture and Christianity podcast is informative and encouraging. You can find it on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss any episodes. Alan Jackson Ministries is working hard to bring biblical truth back into our culture. You can find the Culture and Christianity podcast, sermons, and other thought-provoking teachings on our Pastor Allan's YouTube channel, Alanjack Ministries. [Music] It's >> a big crowd for California. All right, you guys know how it works. We're going to do questions for a couple hours here. If I really like your answer, you get a hat. We'll be signing hats as well. And uh God bless you guys. We're going to have a great time. Thank you. Okay. Hello. Yes. >> Hello. Uh my name is Yardo. I have a small YouTube channel. I'm a political commentator as well, much smaller than you are. Um I just wanted to thank everybody at Turning Point USAD for having this debate. And also I would thank the Turning Point uh USA San Diego State because they uh gave a voice to one of my dear friends who was a victim at the December or the October 7th um Nova Music Festival and his name is a Muzzai. Um I really appreciate that you guys did that and like you have my sincere gratitude. Um, I'd also like to um quickly state uh that this is a message for the far left first and then we'll get into what I highly disagree with you about. But um I just read Hassan Piker's New York Times article where he claims that he did not stifle free speech in his chat. I do not believe that's true because I was banned multiple times for having a simple disagreement with him. That is one thing on the right that you guys do far better is not creating echo chambers. And this is a a complete amazing thing that you guys are doing right now. And I just want to let you know right now, Hassan I will donate $5,000 to Palestine if you debate me. Now, after and I I 100% mean that and I will make sure that that is as public as possible. Um, my question for you, Charlie, is I just want to make it clear, I am against affirmative action. Um, of course, I do not believe as a disabled person myself, I do not believe that affirmative action is the entirety of what DEI entails. That being said, I would be fine with DEI gotten rid of if it meant the mer like a true meritocracy in the United States. But why would I trust Donald Trump to create a meritocracy when he himself has appointed the least accomplished and the least essentially? Yeah, perfect word. The least accomplished um cabinet in US history. At least in my opinion. If you disagree, I can explain why I feel that way. Right. Well, first of all, one thing doesn't have to do with the other, but I'm going to reject the premise that it's the least qualified cabinet ever. So, we could talk about that, but even if it was just Donald Trump picking his family members, it has nothing to do with the merits of DEI or getting rid of DEI, right? So, that's a red herring. They actually have nothing one to do with the other one's a repeal of a policy, one is your critique of a cabinet. So, which one would you rather debate? Would you rather debate DEI and all of its implications or Trump's cabinet? seems like you have more problems with Trump's cabinet because we actually might be on the same side of meritocracy. So, want to talk about the cabinet, whichever you >> Yeah, we can talk about I personally don't see it as a red herring, but we can talk about that. >> Well, yeah, one doesn't have anything to do with the other, right? I mean, you can personally have hypocrisy in your own life and still do really good things in policy, right? It doesn't doesn't necessarily equate, right? Well, I mean, in in the way that I see it is that when you a lot of people talk about like when they're talking about their choice to vote for Kla or Trump instead of Kamla, they talk about the personal aspects of Donald Trump that make them want to trust him, right? He's a a lot of people trust him. You can see the way that people look. I mean, everybody's wearing the MAGA hats. People trust him. Why would I trust him? >> Okay. So, yeah, that that is your contention. So, yeah. What about his cabinet is unqualified? Let me just get ask you a couple examples. So, I mean, Scott Besson, who's one of the most accomplished bond salesmen and individuals in the hedge fund space ever, right? That's not unqualified. Pete Hexa, who's actually a frontline war fighter, unlike Lloyd Austin, who never fought a war in his life, right? We have Christy Gnome, who was an accomplished congresswoman and governor from a major state running Department of Homeland Security. You've Howard Lutnik who's a very famous and well-known uh financial mind and titan from uh Wall Street running Caner Fitzgerald. Uh Marco Rubio who was a very wellrespected US senator on foreign affairs who's now doing a great job as Secretary of State. So build out your argument why you think this cabinet is unqualified. Seems to me very very qualified actually across the board. >> Okay. So, the first thing that I'm going to start with, I mean, this is the most obvious one, and I have many other examples that I'd like to get into, but Pete Hexath you mentioned. I think that that is kind of I don't really understand why you would mention somebody that leaked war chats to a liberal journalist. To me, that doesn't seem like the the kind of person that I would want to be >> Well, hold on. Time that he did not leak it, first of all. >> Okay. Well, he he added the person >> the person who actually is responsible was just removed as national security adviser to >> Oh, you mean the person who was the ball guy for Pete Hex's problem? No, he added somebody without his knowledge, but fine. >> Okay, so why wouldn't he see him? Why wouldn't he see the person is in the chat before talking about war policy? >> So, well, time out. Just so we're clear, I'm sure you've been added to group chats with 30 or 40 people sometimes, and you enter in with trust that every acronym is actually a government official. Obviously, that will not happen again. Just so we're clear, Signal was an approved chat by the Biden administration. It's an approved secure channel by talking. >> However, time out. Let me ask a question about Pete Hegath. Would you rather have a war fighter or a bureaucrat run the United States military? I would rather have somebody that doesn't have a history of alcoholism. I'd rather have somebody that I I mean, realistically. >> So, do you think Lloyd How about Mark Millie and Lloyd Austin? Were they better at running the US military than Pete Hegsth? >> I mean, I think you're going to probably start talking about how there's higher enlistment numbers, Seth. So, recruitment of the military is up majorly. Thank you, Pete Hegsth. He's doing a pretty good job. Number two, procurement. We're saving money. Estimates are that we'll save hundreds of billions of dollars in efficiency. War games are up. We are see the amount of war games we're doing in the southeast Pacific has increased by 30%. This is a military town here in San Diego. They have a massive increase in people wanting to join the Navy, want to join the military. That wasn't happening under Biden. The morale is actually 30 points higher now. Now that Pete Hegsathth, a war fighters warfighter, is running the US military. >> We have a complete difference. We'll never get agree on this. >> No, but no, not an agree, but show me then prove the evidence. What is one number that is worse with the US military now that Pete Hex's in control? >> The numbers that you're talking about are numbers that I are that I actually actively do not care about because I think that we have an overly powerful military and I think too much of our money goes to the military. >> I know, but like tell me one thing he's done like numerically like empirically judge his performance, right? What what is one thing that you could say wow the Pentagon is in a worst place because of Pete Hegath? I would say his inconsistent foreign policy where he backs on statements depending on whether or not Donald Trump has heard them or not. Like in the beginning we were talking about what happened with with um Ukraine and Russia. Like they've had disagreements already within the first like couple months of the administration. >> What? But first of all, the president is the commander-in-chief. So he executes the running of the military. I'm just saying that there has the operational manager, right? And so when you want a military, you have rec recruitment going up. You have war games going up. You have morale going up. You have by the way, how about this? Do you agree that physical fitness standards for men and women should be the same in the US military? >> Yes. >> Pete Hexath is the thank for that. He has brought physical fitness standards to be the same for men and women. Lloyd Austin didn't do that. Mark Millie didn't do that. Do you also agree that we should not have like transgender pronoun type policing of our military members on the front lines of combat. >> See, the thing is has gotten rid of all that. But I'm saying you're trying to make a contention that he's not qualified. the military is in a much better place. Thanks, Tim. Only after a 100 days, man. And that's the that is the weakest example of all the ones that you have in the cabinet. You didn't address Rubio. You didn't address Gnome. You didn't address Bessant. You didn't address Lutnik. You didn't address Bobby Kennedy. You didn't address all these people. So, I have to ask. >> Well, I can continue. I can continue addressing people. >> But every one of these departments is in a substantially and an empirically better place than it was. >> Including the Department of Education that's been completely defunded and somebody who literally >> I'm so glad it's being defunded. >> Okay. I I bet you are. But guess what? Most Americans aren't. And that's the reality. >> Wrong, wrong, wrong. Donald Trump. >> Okay. Yeah. Just cuz you have a bunch of people here saying that doesn't mean that's >> But let me prove it to you. Donald Trump ran on a pledge to get rid of the Department of Education. We can agree with that. >> Uh I >> No. Yes or no? >> Yes. >> Yes. He won a popular vote. The vast majority of people voted knowing that the Department of Education was going to get eliminated. If you truly believe that the vast majority of people were educated enough about the fact of Donald Trump voters aren't very smart. Now that's what we're going after. >> No, I'm simply just responding to what you said. What you said >> insult the voters. They don't know. >> No, a lot I know a lot of people that voted for Trump who had absolutely no idea that he was going to defund the And of course this is just an anecdote, but I know that that this is the truth. Not everybody look when they vote looks at every single little thing and every little aspect like you and I might of why we would vote for somebody like we're both political commentators. >> Right. So the fine and and as a political commentator then I will I will argue more forcefully against you because now you're not just like a college kid searching for this. Has education America improved or gotten worse since the department of education was formed? >> It has literally been 3 months. I have absolutely >> no since the department of education was formed in the 70s. We we now have 50 years of evidence. Has American education gotten better since we've had a Department of Education or has it gotten worse? >> I personally don't think that that has to do with Department of Education. I >> Well, well, when you spend when you've spent over $4.5 trillion with one federal department and we have 30 schools in Chicago where a fifth grader cannot read at grade level. We have 35 schools in Baltimore where kids cannot do math or reading at grade level. We have cannot find a single school, not a single school in in downtown Detroit where by the time they graduate high school in the heavily black areas that they're proficient in reading or math. We are now like 31st in the industrialized world of education. We spend more in education than almost any other country per capita and yet our results are worse. Maybe it's because we sent all this money to DC to overly centralize the way we educate and the Department of Education has been a complete disaster. And so I I just we can go anywhere you want with this. Okay. So, I I'm just going to say one more thing about this and we can move on. I And thank you for talking to me for this song. I really appreciate it. But you're talking about like people that are coming from poor backgrounds where education in their families is not a like a part of the way that they're raised. Of course, they're are going to be the ones that have a lower >> No, no, no. That's not correct. You see, I highly doubt the competing Catholic schools in the same area that do it for twothirds less money. Almost all the kids can read by the time they graduate middle school. >> And where does that money come from? Well, sometimes from charter schools, taxpayers, or from private donors. So, take for example in downtown Chicago, downtown Philadelphia. The private Catholic school can educate a kid for around 12,000 bucks a year. Philadelphia, it's about $30,000 a year, and none of the kids can read. So, the local religious schools, they have kids that are less likely to be unruly, less likely to commit crimes, they're more likely to graduate high school and college, they can read, and they could do math. And yet, the local public school spends triple what the local Catholic school does, and they can't do any of that stuff. Why? Because a a government-run program of educ education has been a failure in this country. And that's what President Trump is doing by abolishing the Department of Education. >> Okay. So, how if if there's no public I'm not saying that the the public education system is perfect. I'm saying that what like having p I think the the private privatization of public things in general is bad. And obviously that's a very >> why would you say that? So, I mean, that's just we can go through the list of that, but >> because it's not because getting rid of, for example, DEI or getting rid of and again, I'm not super pro. >> Where did you grow up? >> Uh, I grew up in I grew up in California. I'll put it that way. >> I'll try to apply it to your like where >> Okay. I grew up in a very one of the most expensive towns in California. >> Okay. Uh, Monaceto, I don't know. I'm guessing. >> Yeah. No, something like that. I don't want to talk because I'm a political commentary. I'm not saying my name, but I will tell you that seeing that we had three 82 in TVs in my school for a public school when other kids in Compton had absolutely nothing. And I know a big part of that. >> Why is that? It's property taxes, right? And so, yes. However, let's just get down to the the core of it, which is that in San Diego, are the private schools or the public schools more desirable? Um it's kind of complicated because we have charter schools that are public like most like we have like high-tech high we have >> people pay money to go to private school right for a reason. So what do what is our perspective? The money should follow the child. You should have school choice. You should be able to go to whatever school of your choosing and it works super well. >> But the good private schools that you're talking you talk about these ones in Chicago with cherrypicked data when we're talking about San Diego. They cost about $40,000 a year. >> It's not it's not cherrypicked data. It is cherry bat talking about a single like a single example of a Catholic school that's that's publicly funded or funded by donor. >> There's hundreds of these examples, right? >> Okay. Hundreds of these examples, but the reality is that the majority of them you have to pay an exorbitant amount of money in order to get into them. >> Right. So, okay. So, go but then what is what per cap per pupil in San Diego? What do you think they they charge per student in the public school? >> Anywhere between 25 to >> I have no idea and I don't think that has anything to do with having no it has everything to do with and I'll just close with this. So there's 21 million people that work for the government in this country. 11 million in education. 11 million in education. How many of the 11 million do you think are teachers? >> I I see you're just coming up. Look, you repeat your question cuz I thought we were going to because we barely talked about anything I want to talk about. But >> no, I mean we we did freewheeling. That's what this is, right? So there's 11 million people that work in education in America. How many would you guess are teachers? Um I'm assuming that it's very bloated and I'm just going to guess that two million are teachers. >> Yeah, it's about two to three. It's like three and a half to four million. So that means that 7 million people that work in education are unnecessary administrators and paper pushers. And why is that important? Because we've not been funding teachers or education the last 30 years. We've been funding unnecessarily bureaucracy in our education the last 30 or 40 years. And President Trump goes to abolish it. Thank you for your time. I got to get to the next question. Thank you. [Applause] Hello. >> Hi. >> Um, my name is Ellie. Overall, just to go into my question, I I am on I am conservative. So, going into this, I was like, oh, like what what should what should I ask you about? I think overall that was going through different policies and in general, I agree. Ultimately, I think the topic of my question is how to approach politics in school and in general with dysfunction, I found that a lot of times when I talk to people who are on the other side of me, they are surprised to find out what I think and my ideas are not that crazy. It's like when you actually get into the meat of it, it's like, oh, actually, maybe it does make sense. And so, I think it's really valuable to start giving these ideas to the world. So, this is this is one of these options. But I guess my question is, is this the best way? Because when I um when I hear like for example on Reddit, they're like, "Don't approach him. Don't do this. He's just doing that. He's doing this. He's doing that. He's using all these tactics." And so I wonder if you've considered not to say that this is a bad way to go about it, but if there's maybe a slightly better way because I think what you're saying has a lot of value in this world, but it's proponent like in this school specifically, it is thought of as evil and is like not like a a valid way to >> that's a UC San Diego problem, not not a Charlie problem, right? >> No. And it's not and it's and it's not to say it's a problem of you. No, no, no. And meaning like if and I read the there was some op-ed journalists where they said ignore Charlie, you know, ignore him. But what they're saying is that they are not either smart enough or they're not intellectually mature enough to have a discussion with a conservative on any issue. I have literally almost no notes. I have like a couple charts to show you if the topics come up. You guys can use AI, you guys can use Grock, you could use whatever you want. You could bring a professor. You could bring five of your top libs together. >> Debate me, right? >> Yeah. Do I other side? Okay. Thank you. And you guys can debate me at any time. I I I fail to understand why. Well, actually, I know the reason. Speech is not a left-wing value. And they do not believe in freedom of speech. They believe in totalitarian control. There are exceptions to that. So, if they have a problem, I I think this is one of the best ways, not the best way. I literally could not be more open to disagreement. I say if you disagree, you go to the front of the line. >> Yeah. And I mean, how often do you as conservatives get a chance to challenge liberals on campus, right? And being welcomed ever. >> Absolutely. Almost never. Definitely not >> because speech is not a leftwing value. >> No. But to say that I mean with all of that being said, that is very true. But ultimately what happens here is I see a lot of like the ideas just being like bubbled against. And so like when I talk to my friends, they're not their ideas aren't changed from these conversations. And so I wonder if there's >> you would be surprised. I'm sorry to interrupt. What we what happens here gets seen hundreds of millions of times on social media. Absolutely. The crowds are growing. >> And so, look, some people are going to remain closed-minded. They're not going to, you know, have their horizons open, but that's on them, right? They have to actually want to pursue the truth and not just have their own worldview confirmed. >> And then I guess that's where I I disagree because I think fundamentally there is truth within anything. And I believe that maybe I would ask you like to say or to see that like you have a big role in this. You have a big fan base and a big media base that you can make you are making incredible change and to take it one just one step further would be really trying to push the narrative against this being like a place where people are just like debating. It's it's more than that. >> What would you like to see? >> I no I guess maybe it's more of a question. And I guess I don't know like moving forward like trying to m maybe um to see that like instead of using these really fast tactics and to really like try to bring it down. Not to say someone is No, no. I not to say that they're No, >> I I disagree with all that. That's fine. >> Yeah. >> I I mean you're thinking way too much about libs on Reddit. I care about normal people. So >> No, I And No, but the >> I mean, you did bring up Reddit. I'm sorry. You're like >> No, I guess that's true. No. And I >> these people are not well socially adjusted, right? I talked to the 90% of the American people that actually want to make something of their life and you know have kids and >> no and I I couldn't agree more with that like stance. I guess maybe stepping away from Reddit, it's to me the people on this campus, this is a school I go to and almost everyone I'm surrounded with has a completely different view from me and I love >> Not everybody. >> No. No. And this is like but this like the people here to find them it feels like you're h like sipping through a needle in a hay stack. >> You want a hat? >> Sure. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next question. >> Disagreements come to the front of the line. Yes. So, I have um I have a couple points that I want to talk about in illegal immigration. Um is it okay if I write if I say all of them with no interruptions? Okay, cool. So, first, illegal immigrants power our economy. They're 50% of US farm workers, harvesting the food on our tables, and fill 70% of construction jobs in states like Texas. They pay 13 billion annually in taxes, including 2 billion to social security that they can't claim. Deporting them would slash agriculture output by 60 billion, and raise food prices by 6%. Why gut our farms and wallets when these workers fuel our prosperity? That's my first point. Second point, they strengthen our communities with lower crime rates. So in Texas, undocumented undocumented immigrants have a 26 lower percent homicide conviction rates. So which is 2.2 per 100,000 versus three for native born citizens. Nationally, immigrants are incarcerated at half the rate of native born where it's 85% versus 1.7 1%. Uh that's according to Bureau of Justice Statistics um from 2019. So, if safety is your goal, why deport people who make our streets safer? This is my third point. Uh, mass deportation tears apart American families. Over 4.4 million US citizens uh children have an undocumented parent and in Texas, one in seven kids lives in a mixed status household. Um, okay, this is my fourth point. Deportation is a fiscal nightmare. removing 11 million people would cost 315 to 400 billion more than the entire homeland security budget and shrink our GDP by 1.7 trillion over 10 years and um this is my last point our immigration system is broken pushing people to cross illegally visa waits Mexicans can exceed 20 years and the asylum blockage is 1.3 million cases with hearings four to six years out. Uh, okay. >> You done? >> That's pretty much it. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. So, without looking at the phone, look at me. What should the penalty be for breaking into America? >> I think there should be a system where it's more merit-based. So, if this person >> penalty So, what is the penalty? So, what what what should happen? >> It's a fel It's It's not a felony. It's a mis that's not true. It's 8 USC 1312. You can look it up right now. >> It's a felony if it's done twice. If you try to go That is correct. >> That is not correct. I Googled it, dude. to illegally go across the southern border with the well intent to come into harbor yourself into the interior of the United States to violation of 8 USC 1312 which is a felony in the federal criminal code. Now it can be enforced as a misdemeanor or it can be upwards to 5 years in prison. Now I want to know since it's a felony law on the books 8 USC 1312 what should the penalty be? Um well, in my opinion, these kinds of like um laws are not are are usually they're they're um what do you call it? They're um sorry. >> Usually the the the like the the sorry >> um wait sorry. Can I can I choke my phone real quick? I apologize. Can you can you repeat the the question? Sorry. >> What should the penalty be? >> Penalty be >> for someone that breaks or comes into America illegally, what should the penalty be? >> I think there should be a a merit system where the people Okay, the penalty. All right, let's >> that's not the answer. It's a very simple moral and legal question. What should the penalty be if you come into America illegally? Okay. So, since it's a misdemeanor, not a felony, misdemeanor are just I just told you it's not eight. You can look up on your chat GPT. What is 8 USC? Look up what is 8 USC 1312. >> No, I I know. I've already looked it up. >> Yes. It's which is >> when it's your second time crossing the border illegally, then it becomes a felony. It can it can be and it is enforced as a felony and it usually is done as a misdemeanor citation because no one has the stones to do 20 million felony you know uh applications. >> Okay. >> So I just want to ask >> what should the penalty be then >> for someone that comes into this country illegally? >> Usually there's there's three ways that go about this. is when there's a penalty. It's there's either like a fine or there is some kind of like uh public service that this person does. Um or you send them back. But but >> send it back. I agree. That's what we should do. >> Okay. Okay. So, okay. So, this is this is interesting. So, one of the stats, one of the statistics that I read said that illegal immigrants don't cause as much as much like they don't break the law as often as people who are native born. That is statistic. But every single one of them are criminals. They're all criminals. >> Okay. Sure. By law. By law. No. By law. Of course. Of course they are. Wait. So if they if they commit less crime and they're all criminals. >> Wait a second. By definition. >> They they all have broken the law by being here. And they break the law every day by staying here cuz you're actually not allowed to stay here either. Do you know that? So every day you're here, you're actually continually breaking the law. You can't break in or harbor. That's what the federal law says. So by breaking in, it's not just the only law they broke. every second you remain here, you're also breaking the law. So, that statistic is invalidated by just them breathing here, they're breaking the law. >> No, of course not. Of course not. So, of course, it makes sense for them when they're here, they're breaking the law because they're illegal immigrants, obviously. Obviously. But once they're Okay. Yeah. Of course. So, once they're here, once they are here, what kind of harm are they actually doing? When we look at the numbers, statistically. No, no, that's not true. Okay. >> Black wages have gone up. Okay. In Texas, >> DUI have gone up dramatic dramatically. >> Try not to interrupt, bro. >> Hold on. I I I'm I'm interjecting and I let you go uninterrupted with your whole siloquy, right? So >> So let me just let me ask you a question. No. >> Okay. >> So if it is correct >> Yeah. >> that illegal aliens commit less crimes, which of course it's not correct. >> That is correct. Look it up. In Texas, they made a study in 2019% >> any crime. It's just not correct, but I'm not going to debate that. It's it's it's I just I just proved it at its face because they commit a crime by being here every day. That is a crime. >> Okay. Once they are here, what kind of crimes are they committing? Just >> Okay. Well, >> there they're 26%. >> Do you know the name Lake and Riley? >> No. Educate me. >> Oh, you don't? >> No. No. No. >> Do you know Wow. Do you know the name Rachel Morren? >> No, I don't. >> Wow. >> Educate me. What? What? >> Lake and Riley was a girl at the University of Georgia. Okay. >> There was a peeping Tommy illegal alien that was deported five times prior and Biden kept on letting him back in. He hunted her down, raped her, sodomized her, and murdered her on a hiking trail University of Georgia. >> One person doesn't represent alligants. Every person who is killed by an illegal alien is one that should not happen. Every single one. >> Of course. And also the ones that are born. >> Everyone. And so that's the point is that it's not a matter of the rate. >> The the rate, even if I accept your premise, which is incorrect, the rate is irrelevant. The number is what's relevant. There should be zero illegal aliens. There should be zero Americans being killed by illegals. Not to mention, there's six other problems with illegal aliens. They steal social security numbers. They depress wages. They are heavily involved. By the way, not to mention a lot of people that cross on the southern border are also smuggling girls, weapons, and drugs alongside the southern border when they come. It's the largest slavering operate slavery operation in American history that many illegal aliens help make possible on the southern border. And I guess the final question I'll have is, should a government serve its citizens first and foremost? >> No, of course. Of course. Well, okay. There's many there's been many people who are like very political leaders who have said that this place is built off of immigrants. >> Oh, is it? Well, hold on. Let's think about that. Was was first of all, it's legal, not illegal. But was America founded by immigrants or settlers? >> Settlers. >> That's not an immigrant. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's not my point. My point is that >> you brought up the the nation built by immigrants. >> Yeah. Because the political leaders have said that this place is built >> Yeah. And they're wrong. They're wrong. political leaders are wrong. George W. Bush is wrong. All these political leaders who have built America, >> By the way, the first person to say that was >> How is that wrong when illegal immigrants make they grow the economy statistically? >> Allow me again. Allow me to build it out for you. >> Immigrants have helped at times in American history. But we are first and foremost a nation founded by settlers. Immigrants come to a country already built. Settlers come to a barren place and build something new. This land was barren when people came >> in the 1840s gold rush. This was not an easy place to live. Yeah, >> California was not exactly industrialized. There was not immigrants coming west to California. Those were settlers building a new place around, you know, western western values. Finally, I would just ask the question, >> do you see a moral distinction between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant? >> Well, the argument is that they're cutting in line. Like their argument is that they're cutting in line in the 20ear process that it would take for someone to be to cross. >> It's not 20, but >> at most it's 20. At most it's 20. Right now, there's around like 1.2 million people who are currently waiting. That would take six to seven years for a hearing. >> And by the way, no one has a right to come to this country. Just to be clear, >> wait, let me stay on track of what I was going to say. >> Okay. So, so people people who come here usually almost all the time when they come here, it's they benefit society. They benefit society. There's studies that have done this. >> Not necessarily. >> Okay. Not necessarily. But overall, in general, when you look overall, >> fundamentally disagree with that. >> You can't disagree with a fact. Hold on a sec. Do you think Elon Omar has enriched the United States of America? >> I I don't know who. >> Do you think Rashida Talib? >> Uhhuh. >> I mean, I could go through person by person by person. >> So, I don't know these people. Are these people who have like are illegal immigrants that have caused harm? >> Yeah. Again, I if you don't know, I don't mean to pick on you. It's fine. But I I guess the the final question is >> sure. >> Do you have any concern that there are too many people coming into this country and we're a nation of strangers, not a nation of neighbors? If the people who are coming are creating America, making it more growing, like the economy is growing, then what harm is that doing? Especially if the people are coming an economy though, aren't we? We're a culture. We're a language. >> Okay, so let's talk about that front. When they come here, they don't have any kind of they're not committing as more more crimes than the people who are already here. That is >> We've already dispelled that, but >> that is not You can't make Do you think there's anything wrong that a majority of young people in California speak Spanish, not English? >> Is there Wait, sorry. Can you see the >> Do you think there's anything wrong or troubling to the fact that a majority of people under the age of 30 here in the state speak Spanish, not English? >> Um, >> is there a problem with that? >> Well, yeah. Everyone should be able to have a ability to communicate with the rest of the crowd. >> So, I I guess I don't know what the big issue of that. >> See, I think it's a huge problem when we have a nation where you can't communicate with your family. >> Okay. Simple solution. Teach them how to speak English. What is your >> Yeah. And that our schools don't do that actually. And also, have a better solution. Don't import a bunch of people that don't speak English. You mean importing people who actually grow the economy? >> Reject I reject your premise. An >> that's not a premise. That's a study that's been done. >> Do you know what a premise is? I don't actually care as much about economic growth cuz we're one nation under we're one nation under GD. We're not one nation under GDP. We're a nation under God. And when we lose social cohesion >> and you import a bunch of people that don't share our values, that don't necessarily always assimilate, that's a major and serious problem. And we are a we are a people first and foremost with a creed. And that creed is falling apart. Massigration has not helped that creed. Yes, they might buy more trinkets. They might help depress wages. Massigration of course can help. >> All good things. All great things for America. >> Well, they help major corporations, but you know what they also do? They keep down the wages of working people. If you are a plumber, yes, of course. If you think about it, if you're a plumber, electrician, or a welder, and you have to compete against someone from Nicaragua who's willing to do it for five bucks less an hour, that depresses the wages of the American citizen, >> right? Yeah. So, there's been studies that done that also like counteract that. >> illegal immigrants reason our studies. How about statistics? >> How about our reason? So, we've had mass migration for 20 years. Have wages gone up? >> I I don't know. >> No, they haven't actually. So, forget your studies. For 10 years, we've had For 10 years, we've had 30 million people come into America. >> Wages have gone down dramatically. Maybe there's a reason why. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, what I encourage you to do just because there's a study that confirms, you should use your reason and look actually at self-evident truths. Be like, "Huh, does that make sense?" Can you name >> statistics are self-evident truth. >> Well, not always. Statistics are very misleading. Yes. you like for example I could say did you know that 600 people a year die because of seat belts well that's a misleading statistic because over 100 thousand lives are saved by seat belts that's an incomplete statistic >> wait okay so where where is the so that's a gray area so where's the gray area where people are talking about where 26% of illegal immigrants who come here commit less crimes than native born >> okay we have how many times have we been over this that's just not correct >> that is correct that is correct >> every single crime it doesn't matter >> this is a study that was done in Texas the most diverse second most diverse Every crime an illegal commits is one that should never have happened. It is a period. They should not be here. So I don't care about the rate. The rate is irrelevant. So let me just ask one final question. >> It is relevant. >> Someone broke into the country and cut in line. What should happen to them? >> Well, they get they're given ideally there's a system ideally there's a system that's merit based where these people then become part of the part of the the citizen like they become a legal citizen. >> Yeah. I mean we have clarity but not agreement. I say deport them all back to their country of origin and put Americans first. >> That's not that's not an appropriate solution when >> the American people voted for it and it is appropriate. >> It isn't appropriate because most of the people that do come here illegally contribute positively to society. Not again, dude. Statistically, everything backs this. >> You're not listening to anything I'm saying. And that's fine. They take jobs from Americans. They depress wages. They steal social security numbers. They commit a crime every single day that they're here. They flood our public schools. They flood our social services. They flood our hospitals. They are a burden on the taxpayer. They should go back and make their own country great again and apply and become a legal immigrant if they want to live here. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next question. Yeah. >> Wow, that's aggressive. >> All right. >> Okay. Jeez. >> Perfect. >> Get that guy a Valium or something. Xanax je. All right. Good morning. Um, so I am conservative, but there is one thing that I did want to debate you on. Um, so you say that college is a scam and that so many students go hundreds of thousands in debt and useless degrees. I completely agree with that. My question is why is it on the institutions and colleges and not on the students since we as conservatives always focus on personal responsibility when a quick >> That's a great question. Yeah, it should it should also be on the students as well. >> All right. Is there any um thing about the universities and univers uh universities should be doing then um since it is a capitalist society and they are trying to get profits. >> Yeah, I think that I mean I don't know what the endowment is here but I think that the endowment should be used to help repay kids student loans that they scammed. I think the fact that Harvard is sitting on $55 billion I think that we should take the endowment money from place like Harvard, Princeton and Yale and help kids pay off their student loans because they've been so severely scammed by the system. And what can students do? Uh I mean there's Google, there's tons of things. I think personal responsibility is a huge issue that a lot of students that I know are blaming it on the universities when they pick degrees that don't have uh much money or job opportunity or things like that. What should students be doing? >> Say that again. Sorry. >> Uh what should students be doing? Uh since it is a personal responsibility and a lot of students are blaming the universities and colleges for tricking them when a quick Google search would suffice. >> Yeah, it's it's hard to say. I mean, again, that's why I don't think as many people should be going to college. So, >> yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> I'll sign your hat. Thank you. Yeah. >> All right. Disagreements, you guys can come up. >> Yes. If you guys disagree, come on to the front. Come on. >> Hi, Charlie. Thank you so much for coming here. I think it's really good that uh you come to campuses and talk to uh people who disagree with you. Um, I also think it's like a testament like you've like gotten a really big following and it's a testament to the fact that capitalism works and merit based societies work that we can actually grow our influence and uh yeah so I agree with you with a lot of things but I do disagree with you with like two or three particular uh points um and I hope to like go touch on all of them. Um firstly uh it's about morality and the fact that you your claim that objective morality exists. Um I disagree with that. I think uh morality is relative for everyone and or subjective and it uh kind of like grows as uh with the culture and as the culture uh changes. Um so yeah what are your thoughts about that and how do you justify objective morality? >> Uh do you believe in absolute truth? >> What do you mean by absolute truth? >> Absolute truth like that there is truth absolute for all people. >> Yes, >> you do. Okay. That's objective morality. >> That's objective fact. So, I won't say that's morality. >> Okay. So, do I have permission to ask you a provocative question? >> Sure. Was >> I I I know what you're going to ask. >> Okay, fine. I mean, was Hitler objectively wrong? >> No. >> So, I do So, >> was was the Holocaust objectively evil? I do I I want to like make a distinction between like my personal views that I do feel that it is wrong but I I I can't say that it is like objectively wrong because I don't believe that objective morality exists like why can can I ask you like why do you think objective morality exists and how do you like ground that objective morality in >> well first of course we believe that the Lord of the heavens and the earth gave us that objective reality through revelation >> okay >> but secondly we believe it's written on the heart of of every human. You know, in Nuremberg, it's very interesting when they did the Nermberg trials and the Nazis basically said, "Well, in our country it was right, therefore it's right." Do you know that in Nuremberg they rejected that? They said, "No, every human being knows that killing 6 million, you know, babies and kids is wrong." And so, do you think there's anything built into us of a moral compass that that prevents us from doing evil and we have to try to stifle it? I think there are moral intuitions that everyone has but but again like those moral intuitions can differ from person to person right like I might say that um like I don't know like doing something is wrong but like someone else might say oh it's fine in this situation so like how do you distinguish like so it's obviously subjective right like everyone might have their own opinions on what is right and what is wrong so how do you ground how do you make a framework that says that like these are the rules of what is right and what is wrong and like how do you ground The more important question is do you believe in God which I guess you do not? >> Uh I'm agnostic. >> Yeah. Okay. So yeah that that's where Okay. So if you don't believe in this actually what's your name? Sorry. >> Above. >> Yeah. Well you're making a great argument >> and your argument is totally correct which is that if you don't believe in God then you cannot say that the Holocaust was wrong. >> I in order to believe that in order to believe something is objectively wrong you must believe in God. Because if you believe in God, then you believe that there's a transcendent moral order that is over all of us. >> And you're proving that point and it's not even a criticism. You're you are being consistent. >> Okay. >> And and to your point, which is that so we believe that there is a God that has a that has rules for life. We believe that was given to Moses primarily at Mount Si, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery. And that every society and every culture lives under that natural law. And so, but it's very interesting that if we get away from the idea of a belief in God and the transcendent, you can see how dangerous that is for society, right? >> I wouldn't say it's dangerous because it really depends on what what the morals the society adopts and like what their constitution is, what their values are. I don't know why that needs to be grounded in uh in a religion. >> Well, so let me ask. Okay. So, would you say that murder is bad? Yes. >> I I would say that >> by what standard do you measure bad? >> Um I would say that like it's based on um the my environment, how I was raised, like what my cultural beliefs are. Um like how everyone else like morality has influenced my morality. So it's like I believe that it's uh it's like for example like I think you brought this up in some other debate that like some tribes might like uh are okay with child sacrifice or cannibalism or things like that, right? So for them that is okay. For me it's not right. It really depends on where what society we grow up in. I think >> yeah. So you so child sacrifice is not something you think that is objectively wrong. >> I just I I'm just trying to understand how do I ground >> let's pay attention up here guys. Let's >> how do we ground what is objective? And also you brought up a point that like if you do believe in God then we do have objective morality right? And you obviously believe in Christianity, but um my point is like if for example a different religion has different morals, how do you determine which one is objective? Because both will think that it's objective, right? So how do you make that determination? >> It's a great question. Um well, first you have to look at side there's just a sideeshow going on here. Um you have to look at the proof and the fruit of which that moral system has delivered. >> And so are are you from India? I don't mean to. Okay. >> I'm from Delhi. Do you and I can I ask you a provocative question? I don't mean to offend you by any way but >> sure. >> Do you think that the moral system of India or the moral system of America which is better? >> What do you mean by moral system like cast system? >> Yeah, I disagree with the cast system. >> Got it. So you disagree with it but is there something objectively evil and wrong with saying that 200 million people are permanently in poverty? Again I I want to ask you like how do we ground objectivity like what like for example we like for a for scientific theories like we can like conduct experiments and say okay it's objectively true but like for morality like it depends person to like for example people living in India at that time for them it might have been okay right so like how do we ground the objectivity like >> you have you have to believe in God you have to believe in a power more specifically a monotheistic one >> okay why is that >> well Because if you have many gods, polytheism, you have many moralities. >> And one one god, one morality. So that's why ethical monotheism founded America. And so of course it's a faith claim in some ways, but we can use science also to get us pretty close to believing in God from spacetime and matter from the the the teological argument for God for how the all the fine-tuning of our universe exists. But then in order once you believe in a god, then you can then say there is an objective morality. If you don't believe in God, your position is correct. It's all just context. >> Um I I do disagree with one thing that like because um there are multiple religions, right? Multiple monotheistic religions. So how do you determine which monotheistic religion is true? >> So well my why why why is mine true? Because I because the resurrection is the most documented, followed, and proven fact of history of all the different things is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is by far the most compelling event in human history besides the creation of the world is that we know Jesus existed. We know that he was killed. We have extra biblical sources that prove it from Josephus, from the Talmude to the historians of the day. And there are so many facts surrounding the resurrection that cannot be explained other than that Jesus actually rose from the dead from why use female witnesses. We know that he was in the tomb of Joseph of Arya. We know that the the tomb was empty. Where did Jesus's body go? For example, if you wanted to disprove Christianity, why didn't they just march to the streets with Jesus's corpse and say, "Nope, actually he has not risen from the dead. Here he is right now." from all these different elements. We we stake all of our chips as Christians into the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Amongst many other things that the Bible is materially true every time that we do an archaeological discovery in the Middle East, the more that we discover, the more that we search in the Middle East, the more we find out that the Bible is true. >> Okay. So, u your your belief is basically based on the truth value of Christianity basically, right? And like the fact that like you you believe that your your religion is true and therefore that's where you derive your morality from. Right. >> Partially. Yes. But even before that you don't have to believe in the resurrection to believe in God. >> You can believe in God and not believe in the resurrection. But you asked me why I believe in Christianity. >> So for example uh there are a lot of arguments for example the cosmological argument or teological argument that you mentioned which do not really like uh uh like do not refer to like a particular god right. It just refers to God in general. Correct. So how do you like derive morality from just the existence of God without associating it with a particular religion? >> Yeah. So that's a great question. So you can use reason that if there is a God then god would want us to live a certain way and which way is best, which way is most efficacious. I'm not this is not my argument for it, but this would be a more deistic morality, >> okay, that some of the some of the founding fathers had that if there is a god, well then he probably wouldn't want us to screw up this place too much. You wouldn't want us to hurt each other, right? You can use your reason to get to that. Does that make sense? >> It's not a perfect fit. The Christian answer is a far better one, right? And a lot of what we consider to be correct moral thinking is rooted from a belief in objective morality. >> Um that's fine, but like then you would have to contend with things like the problem of evil, right? Because um that would be like a problem, right? Because like for example, the Christian theistic like the god is like uh all good, right? Yes. But sorry to interrupt, but atheists have a problem of evil too. >> Do you know what the problem of evil is for atheists? They can't tell us what evil is. >> That is true. >> That is true. So we have a problem of evil, which is to explain evil. >> We we struggle with that. Atheists have a problem with evil, which is they can't tell us what is evil or good. >> But that's because they don't believe in objective. >> Exactly. So that that's a bigger problem. So they can't even use the problem of evil against us because by what definition do they consider something evil? They can use a problem of suffering >> because suffering is objectively measured, right? pain or struggle. So yeah, I mean, look, the problem of evil, I don't have a great I'm not going to like give an answer that no one's ever given. Evil actually, you could argue is an absence of a good thing. Evil itself does not necessarily exist. It's just the absence of good. The same way that dark is the absence of life. But look, we as Christians, we have a couple things that are very hard to answer, right? Problem of evil and like why kids die. I mean, amongst many other things, right? Atheists have to explain everything else. They have to explain why we're here, how the earth was created, love, mercy, mercy, justice, forgiveness, everlasting life. And so, we do have an answer in, you know, the Christian faith that God uses all things for good for those who loves him. God works in mysterious ways is the old thing that we say. But also, we also believe in original sin. But all that actually appeals that there is a transcendent good. >> Evil itself does not disprove God. It might question what you think of God and the nature of God but itself does not necessarily disprove it. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I did have like one more point on >> Yeah. And then we'll get to the next question. Very good though. Yeah. >> Very quickly like I like you mentioned that uh like we like the previous person also talked about you believe that uh like university is a scam, right? Um I just wanted to like ask you specifically like what aspects do you think are a scam? Like do you think all uh majors are a scam? All unities? necessarily, but I mean half the kids in this audience if they get a job, they'll end up getting a job that does not require a college degree. So the uh and you think about that I mean by the way the national graduation rate is only 59%. 41% of people that enter college do not graduate. So >> I do agree with you that the tuition part of it can like like nowadays like on the internet you can find almost any information. I do believe that like the utility of universities is the networking that you can do with peers as well as like industry professionals and also the resources that universities provide especially for the STEM uh subjects and I wanted to ask you like since you >> really quick yeah >> yeah I last question last question >> I wanted to ask you like uh since you did not like uh go to university and like you built this entire big organization yourself how did you tackle those networking challenges and like how did you like step by step build up to this >> phenomenal question. You find somebody you want to go meet and you go find them. You don't need to go to college to meet important people. You literally can be like, "Okay, what do I want to do? Who's the best person in my local area? Find out what charities are involved." Call their office. Show up at their office. You'd be amazed at how many people are willing to work with you and meet you, but you don't need to necessarily go to college to be able to do that networking opportunity. Thank you so much. Very good. Do you want a hat? >> Okay. Thank you. Excellent questions. Very thoughtful, my friend. Thank you. That's how it should be. Give it up for him. That was really good, everybody. Can you throw me a hat? >> All right, next question. >> All right, so I would like to ask you about um for abortions, right? How do we explain to those who are are for it. How do we explain that? Um, even I don't know if you believe this or not, but in terms of like a rape or unintentional or really unconented pregnancies, do can we say that we should still be anti-abortion in that scenario? >> Yes. >> Uh, what's your grounds for that? And how would I explain it to someone else? >> Sure, it's a good question. Uh, let's say I have two ultrasounds here. >> One is an ultrasound of a baby from a loving marriage. The other one is a baby conceived in rape. Which one is which? >> We can't exactly tell. >> So, they're both human beings, >> right? >> They both deserve human rights. >> Okay. But then what is if someone pushes back against with the idea? >> Do I? >> Oh. uh what happens if someone pushes back with the idea that now in terms of the mother right one of them was willingly conceived while the other one is was a force cons >> yeah I mean that that's a fair argument the question then should be when if ever in your moral universe is it okay to do something evil after an evil act to try to make that evil act correct >> but how about for in terms of what is if we're in the position of the mother and she is I don't want to take the risk of illness, death, or whatever to have this child. >> Sure. So, it's a little bit of a false choice because they're acting as if the termination of the pregnancy will have no consequences or costs. A lot of women that get abortions have regret. Women die when they get abortions. They have a lot of their health issues. It's not just like getting a haircut. So, it's a little bit of a false choice, but we come after it from a very basic moral argument. There are two lives involved. There's a little life and a grown life. And no one has the right to eliminate a human life in utero. Period. >> So Ben at that point now we're forcing someone to do something that they never consented to, never wanted to do. How isn't this violating their human autonomy? >> Well, again, but eliminating the human being would also violate the baby's autonomy, too, wouldn't it? Well, then we would have to ask, right? Maybe in future years we will have the technology to be able to extract a fetus and grow a fetus outside of the uterus. But given our state of medicine right now, we do not have that. >> Sure. I mean, but again, no one is delighting or rejoicing in these circumstances. I mean, it's a terrible situation. I want to reiterate that. But you have a you have a unspeakably difficult choice that is very morally, you know, clear though, which is that you don't eliminate a human being because an awful action happened. >> Are you saying that as someone who can get Well, I guess my push back against that would be then if we say that it's entirely wrong, right? We are I guess we're sacrificing someone's choice for someone's life which is admirable but >> it's also morally correct. You you you don't get you don't get to murder someone smaller than you if it makes your life difficult. >> But then we can't exactly see the you the fetus does not have autonomy. It cannot exist outside the universe. >> Doesn't matter. Human dignity does not ex does not correlate with dependency. So dignity and dependency are not two things corrected. You have human dignity because you're a human being, not because how dependent you are. >> So would you say that viability happens when >> viability is irrelevant? >> So then at what point does human life begin then? >> Conception. >> Conception. Not even sperm or eggs. Okay. >> That's conception. That's >> I just wanted to get >> when an egg is fertilized. When an egg is fertilized, human life begins. >> Okay. So then when it's still a single cell with both chromosomes pairings, right? >> Well, it creates new DNA, right? So once the sperm and egg meet literally something magical and inexplicable happens where new DNA is formed. >> Okay. And then what happens? So then >> then it attaches to the uterine wall and I can go through the whole yeah justational process. >> All right. So then we have the basis of human life. Now what is if within the uterus now that life is still alive but is unable to proceed to like let's say actual birth due to some medical situation that has happened. Well, has has the baby died without outside intervention or with outside intervention? >> Is it an ectopic pregnancy or what what you got to be very clear about the type of >> uh the amniotic sac has an ectopic pregnancy, right? So, yeah, you can remove the baby from that situation without aborting it. The baby will die outside of the womb, but you do not have to abort it. So, those are two different things. The removal of a baby is what's called the cescareian section. You can do that very early on. Now, ectopic pregnancy is very real. It's very terrible. But you can you can solve an ectopic pregnancy outside of having an abortion. >> But okay. So then what creates an abortion? Is it the heartbeat? The removal of the fetus? What exactly? >> Well, so I don't again I don't want to go too deep in this. Do you know what happens in an abortion? I mean, maybe you don't. They literally will break the back of the baby's skull, right? They will insert to the back a syringe of cyanide poisoning until the baby no longer I mean, this is one of the most gruesome things. Everyone who's pro-choice, in my opinion, has a moral obligation to watch a video of an abortion just to know kind of what you're supporting. It's so beyond inexplicable. But yeah, look, I really quick, what's the final question on this because I want to keep keep moving. >> Oh, sure. So, um, you didn't really finish the question of when can we do that procedure, right? If there's still a heartbeat, >> I I don't I don't think we should ever do that procedure. >> What happens if like now the mother's life is going to die in like the next 15 minutes, but the baby is still having a heartbeat? It depends on again I I don't want to speak to every specific. Some OB/GYN say abortion is never medically necessary. I'm not a professional enough to say that. But it depends how far advanced the woman is. If she's past 22 weeks, have a cescareian section. Try to have the baby live in NICU. >> So there are situations where abortions are okay, right? >> Well, no. I'm not even saying okay. Again, I don't know enough about some OBGYNS that they can defend their statement here. They will say abortion is never medically necessary. I'll allow them to defend that. I don't know enough about the details there to be able to say that. >> So you're saying that you do not have a statement of whether abortions can never be true or always. I >> it is murder. Whether or not an OBGYn can prove to me of which there's a lot of debate, it is ever medically necessary. So take for example, if a baby is 26 weeks >> and the baby's, you know, some the mom's life is in danger, deliver the baby by C-section. Don't terminate the baby. Does that make sense? >> Yes, I hear. >> The baby can survive outside of the womb. Okay, at that point. Yeah. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next question. [Applause] >> Hi, Charlie. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Good to go. Thank you. Uh, let's start off by laying some things that I think you and I would both agree on. First, uh, I'm sure you like our Constitution. I'm sure you're a big fan of our bill of rights uh the haviest corpus inclusion in the before even the bill of rights in the constitution itself. Um when we look at the current league of uh deportations that's happening particularly when it predates to uh Kilmargo Garcia right uh he is a man who hasn't had his due process. He never had his day in court. >> That's you know that's not true. You know that he spent four years in court from 2017 to 2021. In fact so much so that the judge even ruled on his immigration status saying that he could be deported at any time for any reason. uh that la that uh court order actually elapsed. So it wasn't valid at the time of his deportation. If we want to go through these, we need people to have their haviest corpus rights. We need people to have the ability to show up in court and actually exemplify their uh uh have their case be heard in front of a judge, be heard by a prayer of their jer jury of their peers, pardon, and uh yeah, have a chance to be >> okay. But again, I don't I've done this so many times. Let me just pause and I don't mean to pick on you. how hard the left is fighting for this MS-13 scumbag is just remarkable to me. It's like it's un it's like the you not I'm not trying to pick on you. Let me just make let me make a broad state the worst person in the world. He could be an absolute >> he a US citizen. >> No. >> Oh, that actually changes things. >> It does. Absolutely. And so, >> but it does not change uh um >> due process. Yes, it does. The Alien Enemies Act says you do No, no, that that's not correct. Okay. >> The Alien Enemies Act says you do not have to give due process to those that you are dep
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.