Vivek Ramaswamy Defends Mass Deportation Policy in Heated Immigration Debate with College Student
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Charlie Kirk Debates Immigration on California Campus: Should America Deport All Illegal Immigrants?
37:51
Charlie Kirk's Advice for High School Students Who Want to Skip College and Enter Ministry or Politics
2:49
Charlie Kirk Explains Three Intelligent Reasons Why The Wall Must Be Built To Conservative Struggling With Liberal Friends
2:26
Vivek Ramaswamy Defends Mass Deportation Policy in Heated Immigration Debate with College Student
Vivek Ramaswamy confronts a college student who challenges mass deportation as inhumane. The exchange covers illegal immigration, fentanyl deaths, government assistance to illegal immigrants, and the fundamental question of rewarding lawbreaking. Ramaswamy argues that America's immigration system currently rewards dishonesty over merit, while the student claims illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than citizens. The debate highlights the stark divide on immigration policy, with Ramaswamy emphasizing rule of law and the student advocating for a faster path to legal status for working immigrants.
A college student approached Vivek Ramaswamy with a direct challenge about mass deportation, calling the policy to deport 25 million immigrants inhumane. As the son of legal immigrants, Ramaswamy immediately drew a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, stating that the first act of entering the country cannot be breaking the law. He emphasized that lawbreakers need to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law when it comes to illegal immigration.
The student acknowledged that the legal immigration process is broken, noting it takes on average about 10 years to come to America legally, which motivates people to enter illegally. While Ramaswamy agreed that much is broken with the legal immigration system in all directions, he firmly stated this is not an excuse for breaking the law to enter the country.
The Fentanyl Crisis and Border Policy
Ramaswamy shifted the conversation to what he considers truly inhumane: fentanyl pouring across the southern border and killing Americans, including the children of a young mother who had asked a question earlier in the event. The student challenged this assertion, claiming that about 88% of fentanyl coming through the Mexican border is carried by legal immigrants or legal American citizens.
Ramaswamy countered that the fentanyl crisis is a consequence of border policies and cartel networks. He explained that synthetic fentanyl is made by Mexican drug cartels and transported across the southern border. Even when the student insisted on the 80% statistic, Ramaswamy pointed out that the remaining 20% is still enough to kill 20,000 Americans. The student clarified he wasn't supporting anyone dying, and both agreed that illegal immigrants who come to America and kill American citizens should be deported.
Merit-Based Immigration vs. Rewarding Lawbreakers
Ramaswamy posed a critical question about fairness in the immigration system. He asked whether it's fair that people who enter the country illegally are being rewarded with the benefits of this country, while those who tried to follow the law are penalized. The student initially denied that illegal immigrants receive government assistance, claiming they can't get Medicare.
Drawing from personal experience, Ramaswamy described his first job in New York City during the 2008 financial crisis. He recalled hotels in New York that his own family couldn't afford when visiting him as a natural-born citizen, which are now being used to house illegal immigrants. He also referenced the South Side of Chicago, a traditionally left-leaning region, where residents are being displaced from Southshore High School because it's being used to house illegal immigrants, who are receiving sneakers and baby formula that many people in that community couldn't access the previous year.
What America's Immigration System Actually Rewards
Ramaswamy made a pointed observation about what the current immigration system truly rewards. He stated that the number one human attribute rewarded is not the ability to work hard, not intelligence, not love of country, and not whether someone can speak English. Instead, the primary attribute rewarded is the willingness to lie to the US government. If you lie, you get in. If you don't lie and honestly say you can't check the box for asylum because you're not facing persecution, you're not rewarded.
He argued it's no accident that people whose first act of entering the country breaks the law and who lie while doing it tend to continue committing more crimes once they're here. The student disagreed with this assessment, claiming that illegal immigrants are 60% less likely to commit a crime than natural-born citizens. Ramaswamy responded that this is by definition untrue because the first act of entering the country illegally is itself a crime.
The Venezuela Connection and Criminal Deportation
The student brought up US sanctions on Venezuela, arguing that Venezuelans are going through hardship and want to come to America, but it's not the US job to take them. Ramaswamy countered that Venezuela has effectively placed sanctions on the United States by deporting their criminals to America without consequence. When asked for evidence, Ramaswamy affirmed that tens of thousands of Venezuelan criminals have come to the United States over recent years.
The student reiterated the statistic about illegal immigrants being less likely to commit crimes and stated that these people shouldn't even be in a position to commit crimes because of what he called inhumane immigration policies. This led to Ramaswamy asking what the alternative would be for someone who enters the country illegally and then breaks the law while here.
Making Illegal Workers Legal: The Fundamental Disagreement
The student clarified he's not advocating for an open border, then proposed that the 8 million illegal immigrants currently in the workforce who are hardworking should be made legal. He argued that making them legal would drive up wages for everyone. Ramaswamy expressed opposition to this approach because it rewards the incentives for the kind of behavior the country doesn't want to see more of.
Ramaswamy laid out his position clearly: if you want to follow the rules and do it the right way, we respect you. If not, we will return you to your country of origin—not because all illegal immigrants are bad people, but because they broke the law. He emphasized that the United States of America is founded on the rule of law, and this is where he stands on the issue. He believes this approach will save the country for the long run.
The student maintained his position that hardworking individuals should be invited to become legal if they get a job. Ramaswamy added that he also thinks immigrants need to speak the language. The exchange ended cordially, with both thanking each other for the conversation.
