This debate explores the fundamental tension between enforcing immigration laws through mass deportation versus providing pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. One perspective argues that deportation is the only moral response to illegal entry, as it maintains rule of law and prevents rewarding illegal behavior. The opposing view contends that mass deportation would harm good people, break families, and undermine the nation's founding principles of diversity and inclusion. The debate also examines whether laws should be moral and just, and whether immigration policy should prioritize American citizens or apply equally to all individuals regardless of status.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Shocking Immigration DEBATE Doesn't End as Expected...Added:
It was never about make America great again. It was make America white again.
I think that to the extent that we already have a legal justification for removing illegal immigrants, every single crime that they could ever commit is automatically one that we could avoid by simply enforcing the first law that they bring. Then the name of Trump in the Epste. But what you did is lied with statistics.
>> Didn't lie. I made a statement. You said something that is literally true. There lies a reality. How can you call yourself a Christian and vote for this guy? I can say I have actually undergone a great transformation in my ideology since the 2024 election. Okay. At the time based off of what I knew. I felt very very confident that Donald Trump would be the correct >> Now who would you vote for? Kla Harris or Donald Trump?
>> Right now I would either not vote or probably vote for Kla Harris.
>> Okay guys, we're live. We're going to do a twoon-one debate here today. First time on the channel doing a twoon-one.
We got Brian Shapiro back on and uh got some newcomers today, Jackson and Kai.
Thanks for joining us, fellas. Debate will be immigration. If you guys feel like it gets out of hand at any point, just raise your hand. I'll step in or say appeal to moderator. Otherwise, let's get it going, man. Immigration.
Who wants to start off?
>> I'll start. Yeah.
>> By the way, I don't think this is going to get out of hand.
>> I don't think these are lunatics like some of the people that you've hooked up with me debating. Just for the record, I don't I think this is going to go fine.
>> Let's do it.
>> I just Go ahead.
>> Makes my job easier. Okay, sounds good.
Yeah, I'm I'm I'm a pretty nice guy.
I'll say I'm so nice that in order to to create a thumbnail where I look angry, you had to use generative elite. So, you know, it's a good it says something good to me at least. Um yeah, I think the the way we'll we'll split this up just so the audience understands as well because it's a twoon-one situation. We don't want you to feel bombarded. We don't want it to be that one of us can tackle some fact or look it up while the other is debating. Um so, we'll kind of address it point by point.
>> Okay. I think one of the major issues uh that presents itself I I want to give you some time to frame. I'm very interested in because I'm not sure what your position is uh where you stand on deportation. I'm sure we differ.
>> We both disagree with Trump to some extent. My disagreement is that I don't think he's doing enough. Your disagreement, I'm sure, is that he's doing too much or it's being done wrong or maybe it shouldn't happen at all.
Where do you stand on the issue of deportation?
>> Well, first of all, in basic sense, I I want violent criminals out of the country and I think most of America agrees on that. Okay, >> but I want it done the right way. What is the wrong way? And yes, you're right.
I think he's going about it the wrong way. First of all, in our constitution, it says any person has the right to due process.
>> Uh it doesn't say any citizen.
>> When you're deporting people that have lived in this country for decades and sending them to El Salvador prisons, most of those people nonviolent criminals. I have a serious problem with that. If not for Donald Trump, uh Renee Good and Alex Prey would still be alive today. What took place uh in Minneapolis is is a joke. It's sick. It's sad. He's taking away our first amendment rights, our third amendment rights, and our fourth amendment rights. You can't be going up to people and asking them for paperwork with no reasonable or articulable suspicion that they've committed a crime. Um >> so, so, so then to to kind of hone in on your position, um all felons we should deport who are undocumented immigrants.
>> I think, um I would probably be comfortable with that. I think if you're a felon, >> uh, proven him, obviously, um, right, and, um, you're undocumented. Yes, I don't have a problem with that. But that's not what Donald Trump is doing.
There's a lot of nonviolent criminals in this country, >> uh, some, like I said, who have been, you know, sent to El Salvador prisons.
We have uh, citizens that are being detained, American citizens. I think the way he's gone about this is a joke and despicable. I want secure borders.
>> Okay, sounds good. And yeah, I I I understand there's, you know, certainly these kind of branches, the the ICE shootings. I'm really interested in figuring out kind of what the your policy solution would be. Are you in favor of deporting um unlawful entries or undocumented immigrants?
Do you agree with anybody who is not a felon being deported who has entered the country illegally?
>> Um I think it depends on circumstance. I would prefer to do what Donald Trump promised he was going to do, which was prioritize the violent criminals, which we know he's not doing. Well, then then then under that that >> um term and again not to interrupt you but I really want to hone down your position. You said prioritize that means you do believe in the deportation of non-felons who have entered the country illegally.
>> Um not necessarily. Um so here's my issue with this.
>> Okay.
>> And it's a little complex but there is one party in this country that wants to make it more difficult for people to become naturalized citizens. That's called the Republican party. It takes 10 to 15 years in some cases >> for somebody to become a legal citizen.
In some cases, I had a guy call into my show today said, you know, $30,000 it cost him. So, >> I I want everyone to have the opportunity to come to this country as long as they're vetted, as long as they have good intentions, so long as they're not violent criminals.
>> Uh for the people that are already in this country illegally, that are not violent, my best answer would be this.
It has to be a case- by case basis.
there has to be some sort of penalty that I think they would need to pay, especially if they have families here.
>> There there is a penalty, >> right? But but but I believe a lot of these people, not all of them, but a lot of these people are important for our economy. They're important for our society. And I think there has to be a way of doing it that is different than the way the Trump administration is doing it. violent criminals. Yes.
Nonviolent criminals. Let's work out a way where Republicans and Democrats could come together, which Donald Trump is not capable of doing, but let's try to figure out a way where Republicans and Democrats come here and say, "Okay, we're going to get rid of the violent criminals. We agree on that. We disagree with the nonviolent criminals. What's the proposal?" And sit at the table and try to iron something out. But deporting some of these people that are nonviolent that have lived in this country for 20 or 30 years. Uh stories that we've heard of of a father who has three sons that serve in the military and the guy's never committed a violent crime. you can't be okay with that. Somebody like that that's being deported and separated from their families. And then the excuse I hear, well, just just follow the law.
And these are the same people who have no problem voting for a 34count felon.
So, >> well, I I think you're you're I I I want to let you monologue cuz I because I know this is like >> Well, do you understand my position though?
>> 100% 100%. But but I I think that that position can exist independent of, you know, particular case studies that that make for good clips. Um, now that I understand that you do at least believe in some sense, and I think you're actually not being super clear, do you believe that the part of US code in in title 8 of the US code which specifically enumerates the penalties for illegal entry? Yes.
>> Do you think we should get rid of those penalties?
>> No, I don't think we should get rid of those penalties.
>> Do you think do you think that the penalty or rather the consequence which is being placed in removal proceedings ought not be the consequence of illegal entry? Well, my retort to that or my my answer to that would be the overwhelming majority of people that are in this country illegally don't cross the border illegally. They overstay their visas.
>> I I either either way, the penalty is being placed in removal proceedings.
>> I understand that.
>> Do do you think that should change?
>> Um I think it it I would be okay with it changing to another sort of penalty other than deportation if we're not talking about violent criminals. Maybe it could be a financial penalty. Maybe it could be something other than that. There currently is a $250 financial penalty. I think it might even be a little bit more. Um, that is the penalty for >> you should have to go through the process, maybe take some English courses, maybe maybe learn the history of this country a little bit. Maybe I think there are other ways that we can handle this situation other than just let's just deport everybody that's undocumented.
>> Isn't Isn't deportation the perfect and moral response to a crime which concerns illegally entering a place?
>> Say that one more time. I isn't removal, isn't deportation the perfect calculated response to if somebody enters a place illegally?
>> I don't think it's a a calculated response when you have uh families and children family members. I think it's a case by case basis.
>> Okay. Okay. So, so in a case where somebody has illegally entered the country.
>> Yes.
>> And let's say we find them in the first year.
>> Mhm.
>> Is it okay for the government to deport that individual because they've entered illegally?
>> Um are we talking about somebody who's nonviolent? Are we talking about >> Yeah. somebody who was nonviolent who has committed, >> how do they deport that person? How do they go about that process?
>> They they are they are sent Well, it depends if they've been here, right, for for not >> what if they what if they're seeking asylum and they filled out proper paperwork.
>> One of the things we're going to get into cuz you've already led into a lot of it is that I think there are huge problems with the way that asylum claims are being made. I think there is huge corruption in the process of um asylum claims. And one of the big issues, right, is that people tend to believe that they have a unique right to claim asylum in the United States of America.
There are immigrants that come from countries other than Mexico, which means that as those immigrants, if they are not, you know, immigrating by plane and overstaying a visa, if they immigrate northward through a variety of Central American countries, they ought to claim asylum in the first possible country where they are not being threatened.
>> My question though is, >> do you think that they ought to do that or do you think that they have a right to come to the United States and declare asylum here?
>> It depends what country.
>> Okay, so let's say they come from Bolivia.
>> Okay.
>> Where should they claim asylum? um if they're doing it legally. In our constitution, there are countries Well, hold on a second. This is important because the Trump administration, what you're talking about, right now, in some cases, are breaking the law. Somebody's seeking asylum from Mexico. Yeah.
>> And they're filling out the proper >> Well, we're not talking about Mexico.
We're saying, "What if they come from Bolivia?"
>> Okay. Well, there are different laws.
There are different laws Bolivia than they are for Mexico. For people that are seeking asylum, you have to abide by those laws.
>> You're correct. What I'm asking is where do you believe that they should claim asylum? Do you think it has to be in the United States? Do you think it could be in any number of countries that they would find a priority?
>> I don't think it has to be the United States. No, I never would say that.
>> The problem is I I think that the way we talk about immigration and certainly asylum claims, >> it seems like the United States has this unique responsibility and it's almost as if people feel privileged that they have the right to claim asylum in the United States.
If if they're persecuted by a government, by their own government, there are plenty of states next to the next to the states where they are coming from where they ought to be claiming asylum because the threat disappears as they cross.
>> Kai, we're going to get into this, but you use the word privilege and this is my problem with this and and I would ask you this question, but I would also say we are both privileged.
>> If you're tired of paying for 10 different tools just to manage your podcast, leads, funnels, email, SMS, and bookings, I've got something that'll change the game for you. Gohigh Level is the all-in-one platform thousands of creators and entrepreneurs are using to run their entire business from one dashboard. No more app overload, no more misleads. And right now, because you're part of the DSH community, you get a completely free 30-day trial when you sign up through my special link gohighlevel.com/digital hour. That's 30 full days to test everything, funnels, automations, calendars, websites, even white label mobile apps for your brand. Click the link in the description or pin comment.
Block in your free trial and start running your business like the pros. Go high level plus digital social hour.
Next level growth. Don't sleep on this one. Let's go.
>> We were born in the United States of America. We both happen to be white. And we're very lucky. We hit the lottery because I still love this country even though I am I am very >> uh very upset with where this country is headed because of Donald Trump and the Republican party. But >> but we're very privileged, right?
Absolutely. These are people that are not as privileged as us. 100%. So why do you see these people as a threat to the United States of America? You know, the people that I see as a threat to the United States.
>> Have I said that?
>> Well, why is this a big issue for you? I I I respect the fact that you're willing to have this conversation, but >> I I think the application of the laws is the duty of the American government. So long as 1325 of Title 8 of US code exists, in order to be a moral and a just country, we have to enforce the laws. And you've actually relied on that as the metric. The metric for the debate that you have applied is the Trump government is doing something wrong because it is it is defying the law. So to the extent so to the extent that we are using the law as the benchmark by which we are you know discussing the morality or the righteousness of the debate and the and the issue of immigration it would be wrong for a government to not enforce current immigration law to an extent I agree with you. Barack Obama did it the right way. Yeah. And I'll give you a couple of reasons why.
>> Do you think Bush did it the right way?
Um, I don't have enough knowledge of of Bush's policy, so I'm not going to give you an answer if I don't know. That's right. But when we talk about Barack Obama, he didn't have Dr. Phil out there with a microphone gleeful over people that are being deported. He wasn't sending people to El Salvador prisons.
He wasn't taking away their first, third, or fourth amendment rights to my knowledge.
>> I I can I caveat that >> to an extent. There there are there are some situations exceptions. There are some right >> within 100 miles of the border within the first two years.
>> There are some specific exceptions exceptions. You are right about that.
But I feel like with the Trump administration and the Laura Loomers of the world, and I'm not putting you in that category because I do not think you are like that, but deport all everybody, you know, denaturalize and deport ill.
I'm not an Ilhan Omar fan, but deport and denaturalize. Medi Hassan, deport, I feel like this is attacks on brown people. See, I don't like those statements because I think it's it's racist.
>> Well, I think if I think it's horrible.
>> If we're applying the law, the penalty for illegal immigration from Ukraine is the same as the the penalty for illegal immigration from from Mexico. I mean the penalty is the same. The issue is that it seems like you are creating an arbitrarity in the application of the laws and I'm willing to admit that there is a lot of arbitrarity in the way that we you know apply many we can start with I think impartiality is the best thing we could do.
>> We can start with the most extreme circumstance. I hope I hope I hope you would agree with me that um violent felons go first what's happened in Minneapolis is a travesty and >> which which part? There's a lot >> Renee Good and Alex Prey for two specific examples. Uh barging down the door as ICE agents when you don't have a warrant to go into a home is against the law. I would also say >> I I I would caveat that there there's there's significant uh judicial consideration of that question right now and it's being debated in such a way where the Trump admin is actually currently seeking to amend the process of investigation for ICE agents. if you've been keeping up at all with >> there are but there are multiple examples with video that show ICE agents doing something wrong breaking the law >> you you could you could cite every single one of those cases and every single time I will tell you including in the cases of Renee Good or Alex Prey that an investigation should occur and to the extent that something is done unlawful well hold on that's a separate issue what I'm telling you is my response what I'm telling you is what I think ought to occur what ought to occur is that it should be investigated and to the extent that a law is being egregiously broken it ought to certainly be prosecuted the officer not to be an officer. And I would say the exact same thing about any law enforcement officer.
>> But this is Donald Trump's immigration policy. 47 hours of training for a bunch of goons wearing masks that are not properly trained.
>> I I want to say I've I've seen it's been very difficult for me to find substantiation of that claim.
>> What the Trump has said the 47 days >> 47 days. Yeah.
>> See this this is not the that has not been the standard for DHS historically.
And although and and although there have been amendments in recent uh months, I have not seen a ton of substantiation other than a couple reports um that that claim that there is a uh training that is as limited as 47 days. What I believe >> even Pavano agreed or or or spoke about this publicly asked about >> what I think it often is probably the more applicable case is you have circumstances of cross trainining right or cross- deputization. So you could have a law enforcement officer who's being cross-d deputized to become >> there are some examples of that but there are also examples of people that were looking for the $50,000 cash bonus and you know they are not properly trained and qualified to be in those very high stress and difficult positions that they were in. I I I could I could maybe even grant you that. But again, um what I think we're going to get to and and this is why I don't like maybe the minutia. You and I will probably overlap a lot in all the ways that I think deportation and ICE operations could be done better. But none of that matters if you and your heart of hearts don't believe with enforcing the current immigration law. And you have been very hesitant to even say that the penalty for illegal entry ought to be being placed in removal. There are better ways that our government can handle these people, many of whom I think are decent people.
>> That I think is our debate.
>> There are better ways to go about it.
And the point that I'm making is that I would assume the party that you're in, the Republican party and MAGA Republicans seem to make an emphasis on how horrible these people are. They're going to rape your kids. They're going to kidnap you. And we see specific anecdotal evidence of some horrible crimes. you. Well, you've given me the exact same thing, but for law enforcement officers.
>> Well, well, like I could say the exact same thing. You've given me specific examples of very horrible things that law enforcement officers have done.
>> Sure. But here's the difference. They're not all bad. Here's the protect us.
Never said they're all bad.
>> I know. But that's kind of what's >> a lot of these ICE agents in Minneapolis did not protect anybody. So, I completely disagree with you on that based on what they were doing and their behavior and what they've done.
>> Because the police ought to be the ones that stop the confrontation between ICE.
>> Kai, they're supposed to be professionals. Okay. When I talk about Hold on. Do you disagree that there was a lack of cooperation with the police and ICE in order to remove protesters from interfering with ICE agents?
>> Okay. So, first of all, they wouldn't even allow local law enforcement there.
If we're talking about the jails, ICE wouldn't >> uh Yes. If you're talking about the jails, so if you're going to >> I'm not talking about the jails. I'm talking about street confrontations.
>> Well, well, first of all, when it comes to ICE agents and and and what was going on there in Minneapolis, the reason why there wasn't a lot of communication, according to Tim Waltz and the mayor there, Frey, uh is because there wasn't cooperation with them. They wanted to help and they wanted to make sure that things didn't escalate in those cities and I don't think tear gasing >> I I disagree that they wanted to cooperate. Their calls were to get ICE out of the city. Like they were against deportations occurring at all.
>> Why are border patrol agents 1500 miles uh from the border in Minneapolis? Can you please explain to me why they're there?
>> Absolutely. Because what ICE does is interior removals.
>> So hold on, hold on. That is literally the job of ICE.
>> So So border >> like ICE wouldn't exist if we weren't deporting people from the interior of the country. Then why weren't these things happening under the Obama administration? Why didn't we have this kind of violence?
>> They were. So, so when when you have the creation of ICE in the early 2000s, that's when you have a renewed or rather uh a focus in on the issue of interior removals. So while that while you're right that okay, Obama was deporting a lot of people. The deportations were at the border. Trump Trump doesn't have as many at the border deportations, >> but there's a difference between border patrol and ICE.
>> You're right. Absolutely. Can you explain to me the difference? What is the difference between border patrol?
First of all, first of all, the ICE agents, many of whom, like for example, what happened to Alex Prey, were border patrol agents. What happened to Renee Good, my understanding, were ICE agents usually, usually, not all the time, it is the responsibility of border patrol agents to protect the border at the border. That's for the most part that Okay. Why they are 1,500 miles from the border to me is insane and in my personal opinion not appropriate. I'd have to look into the spec specifics of that because I don't know about the issue of jurisdiction and I I think there's a very reasonable possibility that again this is an issue of cross deputization.
>> 5-year-old kid should not be getting deported though. I mean it's just it just >> well this is like that's a total like but we're talking about >> you're right but but you have not yet explained to me what is the difference between ICE and DHS? What is the difference in their functions?
>> Well obviously the function is protecting the border. Obviously the function border patrol. Yeah. Well, obviously to an extent it's protecting the border, but the point that I was trying to make >> but but the hold on the job of ICE though is not necessarily in the same way protecting the border.
>> Well, the the the majority of ICE agents are supposed to be uh detaining, deporting and and and undocumented immigrants, criminals >> from where?
>> Uh well, from the United States of America, of course.
>> Yes. But in which specific region?
That's typically not at the border. ICE agents are more >> border agents are typically at the border. Yes, that's 100%. ICE agents go into the interior of the country hundreds of miles away from the US Mexico border and they go through the process of removal of people who have gotten already into the interior. That's the reason we have ICE is because there are people that get past the US Mexico border. They leave Texas. They leave California and they go up north to a state like Minnesota. But it sounds like you're not even in favor of deporting people from the interior of the country.
And what I think that depends on the circumstance and and this will maybe frame my argument. I think what that does is it perpetuates lawlessness.
>> Let's be real. Losing weight isn't just about knowing what to do. It's actually sticking to it. WGO's got a plan, but staying consistent is where it gets you to WGOI. Why I started looking into HIMS and their weight loss program. They now offer access to FDA approved GLP-1 medications, including WGO, even a pill version, which is huge if you don't want to deal with injections. And when you combine that with diet and exercise, people are seeing real results up to 20% weight loss. What I like is how simple they make it. Everything happens online.
You connect with a licensed provider.
They figure out if it's the right fit for you. And your treatment gets delivered straight to your door. No insurance needed. And it's not just the medication. You also get access to 24/7 support and in-app tools like meal plans, workouts, and nutrition guidance to help you stay on track. So instead of guessing, you've got a plan built for you. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hymns.com/dsh to get a personal WGO affordable plan that gets you. That's hs.com/dsh hims.com/dsh based on advertised cash price for 30-day supply of medication only membership required fee not included and build separately. Weight loss by HIMS is not available in all 50 states. WGOI is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk as to get started and learn more including important safety information clinical study information and restrictions visit hys.com. It tells people as long as you can avoid detection for a year or maybe two years, then it will be it will just appear so bad optically that you will have gotten away with the crime of illegal entry and we will no longer deport you. And what does that do? It actually incentivizes more and more illegal entries. And what I think you have kind of been arguing for is a United States that simply does not uh police entry into the country illegally.
>> No, I didn't say that. I I didn't say it shouldn't be policed.
>> But what would But what would arguing But what would be the point if you're granting amnesty to all of the people who get past the border and what I'm arguing is the way the Trump administration is doing it. And you said perpetuate lawlessness. Yes.
>> And I do find that extremely hypocritical. Now, you told me off the air that you did not vote for Donald Trump, but you probably maybe would have if you if you had the opportunity to.
>> In 2020, uh I I would have in 2024. I don't know.
>> Does this perpetuate lawlessness when the leader of the free world is ripping apart? No, this is important. You're laughing. Is it going to >> Do you believe in our Constitution? Yes, I do. Yes. Okay. Does it perpetuate lawlessness >> when you're not giving people the right to due process? Does it perpetuate lawlessness when these ICE agents and many of these thugs are trying to cover up murder? Does it perpetuate lawlessness after a shooting? Let's talk about Alex Prey for a moment. When Christine Nom calls Alex Prey a domestic terrorist. When Steven Miller calls Alex Prey, uh I I'm trying to remember the word that the terminology that he used.
Um I think you want to talk about getting uh you know getting off or getting away with a crime. What about we can disagree with Renee Good. There is not going to be an invent investigation.
And guess what? Jonathan Ross is now a millionaire because of right-wing idiots and [ __ ] I'm sorry. I'm just going to call it for what it is. That have donated money to this guy without an independent investigation. So if you want to preach to me about if you want to preach to me about people getting away with crimes, you should start with your leader, Donald Trump, who is getting away with crimes every day.
>> So So I I I think the signing of these particular cases, specifically, you know, the ability of people to raise money for people on GoFundMe.
>> Did Jonathan Ross get maybe get away with a crime without an independent investigation?
>> I think I think there absolutely should be an investigation.
>> So he could have gotten away with a crime.
>> So well, so hold on, hold on. I what what I was pointing out is the fact that, you know, the rhetorical framing, you have to just obviously admit that this can come both ways. You know, there was hundreds of thousands of dollars given to a black teen who stabbed Austin Metaf in the neck.
>> Let's talk about Texas. Let's talk about Happy to Happy. I've heard this argument and it's ridiculous >> that Wait, hold on. Hold on, hold on, hold on. It's which part of the claim?
The fact that thousands hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised prior to an investigation or conviction. No, the reason why it's completely different is because of this. There is an investigation there and he will have the opportunity to defend himself in a courtroom. If he was found guilty of murder and people were still sending him money, I would agree with you. Well, Jonathan Ross, there's no investigation.
>> Has he has he been found guilty of murder? Has he been found Okay, perfect.
There's no independent investigation.
>> Brian, Brian, in in neither case had there been an investigation into the crime. You're arguing. What do you mean neither case? Neither of course that was invest it's being investigated charges that were filed.
>> Being and was are two different tenses.
>> You're speaking in the present tense.
>> So you're saying there's going to be an independent. They've already said the Trump administration has already for a second. Just listen to me for a second.
>> We're comparing two cases in which neither case at the moment of the donations was there an investigation.
>> That's not true. There was an ongoing investigation when those donations he was arrested. He was charged with a crime.
>> So the the murder of Austin Metaf.
>> Yes. Okay. By the way, we don't know if it was murder. He was charged. We don't know.
>> That proves my point. Prior to Hold on, hold on. Hold on. Brian, prior to an investigation and conviction, people were spending and sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to the murder potential alleged murderer of Austin Met.
>> Right. Right.
>> That proves my point. People were sending money investigation. People are sending money to both sides of the political. People were sending money to Jonathan Ross after he had been charged because there's no independent investigation.
>> Yes, Brian. But but you're not understanding that in either case, look, I I agree with you that there should be an investigation. But what we're comparing are two situations in which differing circumstances.
>> What we're comparing are two situations in which neither has had a thorough investigation which has resulted in a conviction, which hold on. Which means in in both cases, we do not know if either individual is anur is a murderer.
We know that it has >> he was indicted by a grand jury. I don't know what you're saying. The the the the prosecutors put forth evidence already.
>> Upon indictment, is an individual a convicted murderer?
>> No, but that's not my argument.
>> What is the purpose of an indictment?
>> My argument number one is that first of all, there is no video, okay, of what this kid did. There was eyewitness testimony. He was charged and I don't know whether he'd be found guilty or not. Here's >> But you think sending money to him was fine.
>> I think they're two completely different circumstances.
>> Then we can scrap them both. I think I've made my case sufficiently completely which is that this cuts both ways on the political.
>> No, I don't think it does. And I'll give you another example. Do you remember the white woman who uh the white woman who >> that said the n word?
>> Who called a 5-year-old the n-word?
>> Yes.
>> And all the pe Give me give me an example on the left of of of donations made for something very similar to that.
I'm sure if I had more time I could give you another example that but then what it is what it what it is.
>> I do want to let Jackson speak in a second.
>> I have an example of that. I mean you look at Slay the GOP who celebrated Charlie Kirk's death. She had a large GoFundMe that supported her.
>> Wait. So who who celebrated Charlie Kirk's death?
>> Slay the GOP.
>> Who leftist influencer? You asking for counter examples.
>> A leftwing influencer celebr And people sent her money. I don't understand.
>> She was sent money to support her because she was fired for supporting Charlie Kirk's death. Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, I disagree with that.
>> Okay. But that's an example. So just >> I I disagree with that. Will you Will you do the same?
>> I just said there should be an independent investigation.
>> No, no, but hold on. The lady who donated money to >> Yeah. People shouldn't send her money.
That's wrong, right? Okay. Yeah, that's I don't think you should call I don't think you should call 5-year-olds the nword. Like I don't know what you expected me to say to that.
>> Well, to be honest with you, I've debated people on Pierce Morgan, like idiots like Jack Bobic who would not call it out.
>> Well, Jack's not in this room.
>> Yeah, he's not. But I just I didn't know what your opinion was on that. I'm glad to hear you say that. I think we both call out bad people that send people >> I I don't like people that say swear words, you I'm not I'm not in favor of people calling 5-year-olds the n-word.
Like I I don't know. I'm I'm surprised to hear that that was um a ridiculous idea. But I mean, he's proved the point, which is that you can cut both ways with these anecdotes, but all you're doing is throwing darts at a board when we talk about the larger issue. And this will maybe be my closing, so so we can pass it over. Um and maybe you'll tackle something different, maybe you'd like to continue. But the framing is that look, >> as it stands, if we are using the metric of a law in order to determine the uh you know justness, right, of what we're doing, it is just, it is reasonable to deport people who have illegally entered the country, regardless of how much time there is. And the example I'd like to use is this. If you have people, let's say you you are renting a property, you're renting a property and um there's some time where the landlord uh simply is not really on your case and you can get away with not paying the rent for several months. So, let's say the first month you pay the rent anyway. Let's say next month, you know, he doesn't remind you and you realize that you forgot to pay. Third month goes by, you just stop paying. Let's say four years go by, you haven't paid the rent, but you signed initially a contract and the condition stipulated in the contract is that you would pay a certain amount each month.
Now, if the landlord changes, that contract is then assumed by a different landlord and the landlord comes to you the next month and says, "Hey, I need you to start paying the rent." You have no grounds upon which to complain about needing to pay the rent. And in this case, the rent is the consequence of illegal entry when you enter the country. And if you want to talk about being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you're also subject to its laws. The law concerning illegal entry is that you should be placed in removal proceedings. And it seems like you are hesitant to apply that law if the individual is not a violent felon.
But I don't believe in a reactive or a reactionary way of enforcing our laws. I think that to the extent that we already have a legal justification for removing illegal immigrants, every single crime that they could ever commit is automatically one that we could avoid by simply enforcing the first law that they break. Yeah. So my response to that would be number one I think that's a very poor analogy. First of all uh not paying the rent I think is very different than some of these individuals that are seeking asylum and and and their lives are in jeopardy either themselves or their family. So I think that's a extremely poor analogy to make that compared to somebody who's irresponsible who who's not paying their rent or or what have you. That I would say number one. And I would say number two I want consistency. If you're very adamant about people, you know, the standards of our laws and people abiding by law, then maybe the leader of your party, you know, may maybe maybe he shouldn't be there. Maybe maybe the Republican party and people in the party shouldn't support a felon, a liable sexual abuser. I want consistency. If you think that committing a misdemeanor, >> what do you think I I think about Trump's sexual promiscuity and impropriy?
>> I don't know what you think about it.
>> I'm absolutely against it.
>> So, your entire They look at this guy like a messiah. Why won't more people like you out? Are they in the room?
>> What do you think? I mean, you referring to individuals who are not debating, who are not in the room?
>> All right, I'll ask you flat out. Is Donald Trump a really bad guy?
>> Um, I don't make heart judgments.
>> You don't even somebody that goes into a a girl's locker room without their permission and looks at them, that's not a bad guy.
>> I think there are I think there are so many ways and and moments of an individual's life that you could point out and say, don't you think for this thing that that person is a bad guy? I just don't judge people's hearts. I think I can judge their actions.
>> Well, guess what? I do. And when somebody goes into when somebody goes into a girl's locker room and brags about it in a sexual manner and brags about grabbing women by the genitals, when somebody attacks black people and says, "I don't want black people counting my money in my casinos. I want Jews counting my money." When somebody associates themselves, see, but I don't think honestly I don't think that's funny when the leader of the free world says things like that. I think it's bigotry. I think it's racism. And yes, I think he's an atrocious human being, as you know, who has 25 women have accused him of of sexual abuse or his own ex-wife, are you aware, accused him of in a deposition under oath and then he paid her off.
>> I I I believe uh in in a nation of laws and and for that reason, I don't think that should be the president. I >> I don't think an accusation alone is actually enough to convict an individual of a crime.
>> What about liable for sexual abuse? What about thousand? You know, you're a religious guy, right? Okay. Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files more than Jesus Christ's name is in the Bible. Are you aware of that?
>> Not even true. That I' I've heard that on TV, dude. That is just literally >> How many times is he in the Epstein files? And how many times is Jesus Christ named in the Bible? How many pages are in the Bible? And how many pages I didn't talk about?
>> Hold on. Well, hold on. Hold on. You You wanted to site something, so let's let's analyze it from an accurate statistical framework.
>> Do you understand how proportions work?
>> I do. But it doesn't mean my statement isn't true.
>> Hold on. Hold on. Proportionally, your statement is incorrect.
>> Jesus Christ's name is in the proportionately. That's not what I said.
>> Well, that's not what I said.
>> Well, then we're getting in the No, no Brian, we're not getting into the weeds.
What I'm doing is calling you out for lying with statistics. What you said may be factually true. But the reason it's factually true is because there's 3 million Epstein files that have been released and there are not even a million pages in the Bible, which means that as a proportion, the name of Jesus obviously occurs more in the Bible than the name of Trump in the Epste. But what you did is you lied with statistics.
>> Didn't lie. I I made a statement that you you framed it. You said something that is literally true. A reality less pages in the Bible if you'd like me to clarify. But the leader of your party >> would you agree that as a proportion Jesus's name is mentioned more in the Bible.
>> As a proportion, I didn't think I would have to do that. How do you feel about the leader of your party? This is the leader of your party. He's the leader of the free world.
>> Jeffrey Epstein was his best friend for over a decade. How do you feel about that? thousands of times. How do you feel? How do you feel about Nam Chsky hanging out with uh Do you know Nom?
>> Why are you doing what aboutism?
>> Because you do that with Donald Trump impossible moment.
>> Trump's the president.
>> Nam Chosky is a leftist scholar who is one of the most foundational thinkers of linguistics of the last decades.
>> Okay. So what I'm talking about the leader of the free >> and I'm talking about a left a leftist intellectual.
>> Is he a politician? Is he is he a policy maker?
>> Okay. Then you're creating an arbitrarity. What what's the difference between what aboutism? What's it what's an intellectual and a policy maker? Why is one more important than the other?
>> Because he does policy makers get their ideas if not from intellectuals.
>> Because he doesn't write law and he can't get us into ill-advised wars.
That's why I'm talking about the leader of the free world. We're getting past the point. But I think I'm I'm showing what what >> No, I think you're showing what aboutism and you're defending the indefensible.
Let's go back to Donald Trump for a moment because we're talking about immigration.
>> I think he never I think he never should have had extrammarital or premarital sex.
>> Yeah. I didn't I didn't one of the worst things.
>> You think he's a liable? Are all these women lying?
>> No. No. I'm saying he never should have had premarital or extrammarital. I'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about that.
>> Well, I am because I think that's wrong.
>> Yeah. Well, I I would tend to agree with you on that. And he's done a lot.
>> You're against premarital sex.
>> No. Not premarital sex, but cheating.
You know, cheating on women. Wait. Why is cheating bad?
>> Uh lying to your spouse. I I don't >> Is that a serious question?
>> No. No. I I I think you can deduce it.
But I think that cheating is actually, you know, it has a significant Christian moral implication. But we're we're we're way off the plot of immigration. I I I want to give my my uh my duo here. So, just give me 20 seconds here.
>> Okay. I'll let you finish. I interrupted myself. I want consistency and you're so adamant about somebody who commits a misdemeanor being deported because it does say legally that if you're undocumented uh you know if you're not filling out the proper you should be but then why doesn't the same rule apply to the president of the United States? Why doesn't the same rule apply when we talk about fraud and MAGA Republicans and the Nick Shirley's of the world who I think is an imbecile when we talk about fraud but yet Donald Trump you said what >> I think he's cool I think Nick >> you think he's cool >> yeah he's a buddy he's a friend yeah I think yeah >> so you think going to Ukraine and making uh satire videos about a war when when women and children are dying you think that's cool >> I that's I'm going to be honest it's the first time I've heard sad >> well you haven't let me finish >> uh I think that's the first time I've heard somebody mention the Ukraine video when Nick Shirley has been brought up. I haven't seen the video so I can't speak to it. Okay, so I'll Okay, I'll educate you on it. So Nick Shirley, >> I'd rather you finish up your statement just because I won't be able to corroborate or agree with >> Well, you can cooperate by looking on your phone right now. So Nick Shirley did an interview about that and he was challenged on that and he admitted it was satire. In fact, those were his words. He made a joke about a war. He went over there.
>> I think you can make jokes about wars. I don't have >> I think I think when women and children are dying, I don't think there's anything funny about that. And I wouldn't take my money from my YouTubers and go to another country and make jokes to get a war. By the way, Nick Shirley, my friend is a [ __ ] idiot. Okay. He's an idiot.
>> Let's not say the f word.
>> Okay. Well, I mean, listen, he's a he's an idiot.
>> Well, I don't think >> you have a problem with the f- word.
>> Yes, >> you do.
>> Yeah, with most swear words. Yeah, >> you do. You have a problem with swear words?
>> Yes.
>> How about when Trump talks about grabbing women by the genitals? Do you ever >> Yeah, I think that his his verbiage was very crash. Not a fan.
>> At least you're consistent, so I'll respect that. Like I said, I wish he hadn't had premarital sex or grabbed anybody by anything.
>> I'm glad to hear that. I met Nick Shirley in Phoenix, your friend.
>> Me, too.
>> And um I met his mom.
>> Awesome.
>> I think he's an extremely ignorant person. I think he's a grifter. I think, by the way, let me ask you a question.
If he exposed all this fraud, can you name me any new investigations or any arrests that have been made because of his videos? Can you name me one?
>> I I haven't taken the sign.
>> Because there aren't any. Because there aren't any. You didn't expose anything.
Well, to the to the extent that that's the case, I think it's probably because a lot of the uh consequence of his investigation in Minnesota just led to an inefficient use of um Department of Homeland Security resources and uh I think because of the you know blatant insurrection occurring in the state, it was very difficult actually to prosecute.
>> So you care about wasteful spending and you care about fraud. Is that a fair characterization?
>> Yes. But is this going to wrap up the statement? Okay, we can we can we can continue that. I'm sorry. We'll table that. Yeah. Well, so we were talking a lot about, you know, illegal immigration. I guess I follow some stuff I want to clarify, but I want to talk about sort of the uh moral and justice implications of not doing mass deportations.
>> So, firstly, do you believe that we should have mass deportations for any noncriminals?
>> Should we have mass deportations for noncriminals? Well, it's a crime coming.
>> You know what I mean? But like non post illegal immigration criminals.
Um, I don't necessarily agree with with mass deportation for nonviolent criminals.
>> Yes.
>> Um, I think there are better ways to go about it. Uh, like I told Kai, >> I agree, too.
>> Uh, I don't agree with the way the Trump administration is handling it.
>> I agree.
>> I don't like what they're prioritizing.
>> I agree.
>> Um, >> and I have a serious problem >> in with with the way ICE in general are handling things for the most part. I don't think they were violent protesters in Minneapolis. were some I by the way I even if it's not against the law just to be clear I don't want people following ICE I don't think you're going to get anywhere by doing that I wish Renee good got out of the car doesn't mean she deser be shot in the face I wish she got out of the car and complied um and I don't want people throwing things at ICE officers I don't I listen you're allowed to scream you're allowed to yell you're allowed to blow your whistle and if that gets ICE agents that angry that they they'll tear gas somebody for doing that then they shouldn't have the job um but I yeah I don't want people put in dangerous situations I want people to be alive. Um, and uh, so I want to be clear on that. I've called out violence on both sides. Um, I think following ICE officers is very stupid. It might not be illegal, but it's very stupid. And what are you trying to accomplish by doing that? Peacefully protest, right?
Peacefully protest. Everybody has the right to peacefully protest. Um, I believe Alex was doing that. Um, what was Renee Good doing? Maybe a misdemeanor. Let's just say worst case scenario, she was blocking traffic.
Didn't deserve to die. Um, but anyway, we're getting a little off.
>> Absolutely. We can get into renegade later. It's a separate topic. But I can say almost all those descriptors about ICE behavior I can agree with. I think the Trump administration has failed in many if not most ways in regards to mass deportations. But my big discrepancy with your position is a pure ideological standard. I believe that it's extremely important to have uh deportations of illegal immigrants regardless of violent criminal offense or not.
>> And I can go through the reasons, but first I want to ask a couple of questions.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> So I guess what do you think the purpose of government action or law should be like in a broad sense?
>> Um the purpose of law in general I think the purpose of laws in general are to protect people. Um I in a general term you know I I don't I don't agree with every law that's put on the books obviously but I think in a general term uh they're they're put on the books to to to protect individuals to protect people.
>> In a lot of senses that's accurate. I always go for the terms good and just, but I think these things are both very similar in the scenario. And I guess we have to say like, you know, who what who should our laws be serving?
>> You if we're a nation making laws for by people who were if people in our nation are making laws and they're liable to the electorate of American citizens, then who should our laws primarily be serving?
>> Um, I think the people. I know what you're trying to get me to say.
Americans.
>> Yes. But in some instances, the laws in our country do not just protect American citizens. They're also meant to protect everybody. Example, if you have undocumented immigrant that was robbed and somebody calls the police, the police aren't going to come out and they shouldn't come out and say, "I'm not going to get your information and I'm not going to try the per uh try to find the perpetrator because you're not an American citizen." That's not the way all the laws work. Um, so I think that's important to note. Um, law enforcement, they're not only here to protect the United States citizens, but in general terms, they're all just like a hospital, right? If somebody shows up at a hospital and they don't have um health care insurance and maybe they're undocumented and they need life-saving care, we're still going to give them life-saving care, right? So, I think the same thing applies to to to laws in a sense. We're all human beings, right?
And uh you know, if an undocumented immigrant is the victim of a crime, we're still going to investigate that crime, we're still going to try to find the people who committed the crime. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. I maybe a better question is what should our laws be prioritizing? Uh US citizens or illegal immigrants?
>> What should our laws be prioritizing? Um I think it depends on the law. I think it depends on >> You think there are some laws that should be prioritizing?
>> I think I think in general terms, yeah, you should probably prioritize American citizens.
>> I think in every single term, you should prioritize American citizens. I think I think for the most part I would agree but I think it depends there are some exceptions to the rule there >> the purpose of democracy right the law should be made you know liable to the people to serve the people I would say so at least >> I just I I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying but I just want consistency I want the laws to be applied in what it says in our constitution to people that are undocumented as well >> people that are not getting due process um I agree with you that yeah as a whole Americans should be prioritized. Sure, I don't have a problem with that. That's not what this administration is doing.
They're prioritizing Israel. They're prioritizing Vladimir Putin.
>> Let's slow down a little bit. I guess >> I want consistency though.
>> I agree. Well, we're moving on to prescriptors, but I want to focus the descriptors. Like, is it a problem?
Should it be done if it could be done?
And we talk about how because I I have an answer to both. So, talking about should it be done? So, obviously, if we're talking about illegal immigration and we just said, you know, law should be doing good and just and law should be prioritizing US citizens. I believe that gives sufficient grounds for mass deportations. And it's because mass deportations is not a binary on andoff switch. It's a set of three options where you have to pick one. Option one is to keep them here and do nothing.
Option two is to deport them. And option three is to codify them. You know, making them a US citizen. I believe that both keeping them here and doing nothing and codifying them are immensely more immoral and unethical than deportation.
>> Okay. But what about what about an example of of somebody that's been here illegal that has children that were born here? Do you think they should be deported?
>> Let's focus on the topic of just non nonviolent offenders. If we're talking about like younger people Well, that's what I'm talking about.
>> There's area of nuance. Well, but no, you're not because you believe that even nonviolent offenders who are older shouldn't be deported.
>> Um, so let's say let's just let's let's isolate the >> I didn't necessarily say that. That's not necessarily my characterization. Um, I don't like the way that, again, I I'll repeat kind of like my stance on this. I don't like the way the Trump administration is going about this. What I said was I wish there was a better way. I don't like the way they're going about it.
>> I have the better way for you. And I guess but focusing on the descriptor, do you agree that a man if you if you are a man who has no kids >> and you're here illegally and you've not committed a violent crime, if you can be deported, should you be deported?
>> What if they're a benefit to the economy?
>> Doesn't matter.
>> Doesn't matter.
>> And they're not. We can talk about that.
>> There's a there are a lot of undocumented immigrants that are benefiting the economy. A lot of people that are working jobs that Americans won't take. There's a lot of examples that I can give you of how uh undocumented immigrants are actually helping.
>> We can go into that, but I have a counter for that. That's all right. But I guess moving on, just focusing on the main point. If a guy's here who has no kids, >> came in illegally and is a nonviolent offender, if possible, should he be deported?
>> Uh, is the Trump administration targeting them?
Uh, are they targeting them? Are they are they prioritizing them? How how is he getting deported? I guess that's my question.
>> If you have a button right in the middle of the table, it says deport all, nonviolent, single, no kid having, you wouldn't I don't I don't agree with that.
>> Okay. Well, let's express why.
>> I don't. So I guess moving into it, why do you believe? Actually, let's go through the three options because obviously, you know, we can criticize mass deportations endlessly. They're not optically pleasing. They cause damage.
They cause suffering, but we have to obviously with all policy decisions, weigh them with our counter options.
>> Wait, say that again. Who causes damage and suffering?
>> Who causes damage?
>> Yeah. I'm sorry. Repeat that one more time.
>> He means mass deportation.
>> Mass deportations, like almost any policy implemented by the US government, will damage and hurt some people.
>> Well, yeah, of course.
>> So, but it's comparative comparative policy choices. So our options are to keep them here and do nothing, to deport them or to codify them.
>> Yeah. So I don't think we should do nothing. I never said that. As I've said before and I'll say again, my personal opinion is I think there is a better pathway for these people. If they're good people that have not committed a crime in their life other than coming to this country and not having the right proper documentation, I number one do not see these people as a threat that both of you see them as. per capita in this country, you have a better chance of being the victim of a crime from an American citizen than you do an undocumented immigrant. Number two, they're working jobs that I think a lot of Americans are not willing to work. Number three, uh I would tell you that a lot of these people, not all of them, but a lot of these people have families here. A lot of these people, you're breaking their families. A lot of these people have children, maybe they have wives, maybe they have husbands.
>> Can I The families is a very complicated issue and by some studies, it may not even affect most illegals here. So for now I want to focus just strictly on the policy decision of as I said our token illegal immigrant who's here with no wife no kids no one knows him he lives in a ghost town you know but if we're talking about the issues here I think when you talk about you know obviously they have low crime rates they work non-American jobs you don't see the threat the threat for me is not the illegal itself I understand the logistical reality that they may not demonstrate a direct threat to me as a person but there's a lot more that policy problems can arise from than just like high crime rates right I'd say one of the biggest most important Important parts of US policy decision-making is rule of law. When you look at nations that are about to collapse, one of the best anthropological indicators for a nation's collapse is decay of rule of law. You agree with this, Brian. You criticize Trump endlessly. I criticize Trump endlessly. We share this commonality. I'm simply asking that we could express this and move this into mass deportations. Because, as you'll see with the arguments for not doing mass deportations, any area where we subvert rule of law inherently builds in injustice and sews in immorality to the United States justice system. I don't believe we should have selective notification for some people and not others. I call that injustice and selective punishment which is extremely immoral to me and I believe to you as well.
>> Selective. Okay, let's talk a little bit about that. Um, so Donald Trump gave a pathway to citizenship for I think it was somewhere around 40 or 50 South Africans that are 100% white who came into this country. This was about eight or nine months ago.
>> I'm confused as why we're talking about Donald Trump. Why not Donald Trump?
Because we're talking about immigration policy in 2026 and Donald Trump is the president of the United States. That's why. Why is it that he gives full citizenship and grants asylum to 100% white people from South Africa?
>> I don't know. You guys should have him on the show, but I'm right here. At the end of the day, >> we're talking about immigration policy.
>> What does that have to do with Donald Trump?
>> Because I believe a lot of this is the color of their skin. Our policies right now of the UK. He's the president of the United States.
>> The UK. Hey, if we were in Russia, my policy position would be exactly identical because it's based on political fear.
>> Why won't you address that though? Why won't you answer that?
>> I'll answer right now. I think it's wrong. I I I think Donald Trump generally when it comes to immigration policy has made a lot of blunders and mistakes.
>> I think it's attacks on people for being brown. I think a part of Trump's policy, I'm not saying you believe in this.
Trump's policy is attacking brown people and treating them very different than white people. I repeat, 50 people from South Africa he granted asylum to.
They're 100% white. I see no reason. I see no reason to engage with Trump hypotheticals when I'm not a Trump supporter.
>> It's not a hypothetical. It happened.
>> Okay. Well, I see no reason to engage with Trump based moral dilemmas when I'm not a Trump supporter.
>> Okay. I didn't say you were a Trump supporter. We're talking to this >> because this is immigration policy in 2026.
>> Is invading Ukraine right now. Is that good or bad?
>> Well, he started a war. Of course, it's bad.
>> See how it's inside, right? It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant.
>> You're comparing somebody who starts a war and kills people. Let's focus on the policy.
>> Okay. But you're you're you're you're making analogy to somebody that they're responsible for killing a bunch of innocent people. Most im would you agree with me? Most can we at least agree on this?
>> I'm making analogy to the fact that Trump is completely unrelated to this conversation.
>> But he he creates immigration policy right now.
>> Okay.
>> What's going on in this country?
>> Am I Donald Trump?
>> I didn't say I can't ask you any questions about Donald Trump.
>> You can, but I'm not going to answer him. No, cuz it doesn't matter. Cuz I'm not a Trump supporter.
>> I didn't say you were a Trump supporter.
>> Then what is the point?
>> Because we're talking about immigration.
We're living under Donald Trump's regime.
>> Talking about political theory. I'm talking about policy. Let's focus on >> I like to focus on what's going on in the country right now.
>> I bet that if we talk about that, we could sit down for an hour. I'd be happy to do it. And we would say I agree bad.
I agree with that.
>> I'm here to talk about what's going on in the country right now.
>> Exactly. But what should I do for what should be going on is mass deportations.
I want to talk about that.
>> And they're not going on because as you've said, Trump has been failing in many, many ways. So when we talk about the problems, rule of law is extremely integral. When rule of law degrades, nations degrade. It is one of, if not the best indicator for things like the fall of Rome, the fall of civilizations, it is an amazing indicator. And the thing is, when you're looking at mass deportations, obviously we're juxaposing that to codification. What does codification do?
>> Can I just I'm sorry to interrupt you.
>> Of course, you can interrupt it.
>> And then I I you have the floor. Yes.
>> Okay.
>> We're talking about immigration. I understand you you are for mass deportation. Okay, fine. I'm happy to have that conversation with you. I really am because I think you're coming from the right place. I think both of you are.
But my job and what I do for a living besides having these debates which I I enjoy is talking about the news of the last 24 hours, the news of the last week, the last month, who is making immigration policy. That's what we're talking about. My disagreements on the policies right now in general, I understand what you're saying. You're talking you're for mass deportation.
Okay, fine. We could have, like I said, we could have a conversation about that.
Trump is the reason why Renee Good and Alex Prey are dead. Trump is the reason why we have a bunch of goons that are that uh when it comes to immigration and ICE agents that are not qualified to be in those positions. Trump is the reason why there are immigrants everywhere all over this country, even legal immigrants that are scared, that are afraid, the intimidation by this administration.
Again, I understand you want mass deportation. You know what I want? I want people treated in this country as human beings. I don't see these people as bad people. I see the majority of them as very good people. That's why I don't want mass deportations. That's why I don't want one of the whitest regimes in American history. And I'm going back to Trump and I know both of you are not Trump supporters. I get that. I'm not saying you are. But this goes to immigration.
His saying or whatever you would like to call it, make America great again.
That's not what makes America great. We were founded on immigrants. What makes America great are diversity. People from all sorts of different backgrounds.
Every color in the crayon box.
Diversity. It was never about make America great again. It was make America white again. That's why I'm against mass deportations. The overwhelming majority of these people, brown people that are treated differently in this country by the Trump administration than people that look like you and me. I have a problem with his policy. I know you want to talk about in general terms immigration, but I am extremely anti-Donald Trump. I hate what happened in Minneapolis. I hate what's going on in this country right now and the attacks on immigrants. So, in general terms, that's why I disagree with you when it comes to mass deportation.
>> In general, wait, wait, hold on. First off, Donald Trump's still not in the room. He can't hear us.
>> That doesn't mean we can't talk about him just because he's not in the room. I don't understand that.
>> Deb debate, though. We're debating mass immigration, >> which and Donald Trump is the president of the United States and he makes immigration policy.
>> If he was here, he would also be on the opposite side of me. I wouldn't be agreeing with him. So, I don't know why we're talking about him at all.
>> Can I can I jump in?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
>> But but but on top of that, I want to say also the strategy I I know the strategy. We throw out a bunch of points a in rapid secession with hopes that I'll disagree with one of them and then we'll go into a nuance debate about Trump, which is what you really want to talk about. I'm not going to entertain that and we're not going to talk about Trump. I want to talk about the policy of why I agree and or disagree with >> policies of of of what are just in general our policies when it comes to >> policy as in like how a government should be behaving in relation to a problem >> and and what I just wanted to jump in and say it's like we're we're not trying to obiscate we're not trying to lead you down like a dialogue tree. it. What what we're coming at this from is look, if tomorrow JD Vance or Marco Rubio was president and they supported mass deportations, I mean, we we believe you would still be against mass deportations regardless of who the president is, your immigration prescription would probably be the same.
>> I I I think there's there's certainly a better way to go about than just deport every single person in this country that's undocumented. I don't think I'm not with respect, I'm not sure you guys understand.
>> Let's get back to our economy, but I want to keep talking about the rule of law degradation. I agree, Brian, flat out on the board. Every single person who's committed a crime treated equally.
All people treated equally. I'm a big believer in that. But if we're talking about mass deportations, the problem is that we're not in a vacuum. We're not in a vacuum of deport or do nothing. We're in a vacuum of, as we said, we're not going to do nothing. That's wrong. So, we have to codify them, make them legal, or deport them. Making them legal is extremely immoral by both of our standards. I would assume, and I can talk about why >> why is why is making somebody a legal citizen immoral? It's well there's multiple reasons but I can go through them all. So initially when you talk about codification we talked about the benefits earlier. You mentioned how they're working jobs that Americans won't work. They're helping the economy.
Firstly I want to alienate this problem.
We have a very very long extensive weight list for immigrants to the United States. Every single problem that is solved by illegal immigrants aside from the ones that are solved because they operate as a slave class would be equally if not greater solved actually fully I can just say greater solved by legal immigrants. So, if we're talking about this button of deporting people, that's irrelevant. If we need the 20 million people, we can let 20 million in legally, which are vetted, and it will solve all economic problems. So, I want to alienate the economic issue. They don't help us economically in relation to legal immigrants, which we have in excess of.
>> There's a lot of studies that could tell you that undocument I could I could source those that undocumented undocumented immigrants in this country do actually benefit us and benefit the economy more so than you would you would know that.
>> Do you know why though?
>> Well, there's a lot of different reasons for that. Sometimes they're working for very low wages. Sometimes they're working. Sometimes uh they're willing to do jobs that uh the average American citizen is not willing to do. There's a lot there's a lot of different reason because I can tell you why. It's >> saves people money >> cuz they're a slave class.
>> Um I don't want people >> they pay into social security and they can't get it back.
>> I don't want people jobs below the minimum wage. So it's unethical.
>> I don't want people treated as slaves. I don't want people taken advantage of.
Okay. I'm just giving you reasons why it does benefit the economy.
>> Oh, it does. Slaves benefit the economy, >> too. Okay. Well, yeah. Obviously, I'm not proslavery. Um but >> why not?
>> Why? I don't like people being taken advantage of, >> but it's incredibly economically efficient.
>> Uh, in some cases, uh, undocumented immigrants are efficient in certain areas where they're not being treated as slaves or being used. Uh, you know, uh, is it underneath the table? Sure. I know you don't want to talk about Trump, but he has employed a lot of people in his lifetime that have been undocumented at Mara Lago.
>> And that's good. It's abuse, right?
That's labor abuse.
>> Um, it depends on the circumstance. If you're paying someone a really good salary, but you're paying them under the table, I wouldn't necessarily call that abuse.
>> I would always call abuse.
>> Okay. Well, I would >> paying social security, they can't get a back out, that's abuse. Um, >> we agree that as a >> There are some undocumented immigrants that do pay taxes, believe it or not.
>> They pay them, but they get no benefits.
So, that's like a slave, like a slave, you know, you pay the government, they give you I don't want, but it goes back in a circular motion to what I said. I believe there is a better pathway.
when you just you just want to doc you just want to you just want correct me if I'm wrong but you just want everybody that's undocumented to be deported >> right now we are right now we are focusing on the young adult male who's came here doesn't have kids doesn't have a wife >> do you want everybody undocumented in this country to be deported if you can snap the finger and do it tomorrow leave their children here leave their families here because you don't what do you how what's your feeling about anchor baby >> so there's variability in it I think that um some of the solutions offered by DACA were preferable to just deporting people blanket but in general that's a policy area that I think has a lot of gray area and would be better solved by specific experts in the field of immigration.
>> But I can say I'm not for blanket deportation of every single child who's here or every single parent who is here.
However, I think the greater problem what I'd like to reach the common ground on because we can agree at levels like this maybe should be an exception. This maybe should be an exception. I don't want to focus on that. I want to focus on the issue of should we deport >> what most people are which is just people here illegally. And I think we should and I want to talk about why. So codification obviously we've agreed that keeping them all and doing nothing will not help. We've agreed that illegal immigrants they can help the economy.
They do. The only ways they can help it is through being either a slave or through being a legal immigrant who doesn't get benefits back. So it's pointless all of the process.
>> You agree with me though that if you're born in this country and one of your parents is an undocumented immigrant, you should still be considered a legal citizen.
>> I'm waiting for the Supreme Court ruling on that. But currently it seems as though it will probably rule in your favor.
>> What's your Okay. regardless of the Supreme Court. What's your opinion on that?
>> My opinion on statues is it should be interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.
>> So you don't have an opinion. Just let the Supreme Court >> off of morality of it because you talk about the morality of birthright citizenship. It's it's a really complex topic. I I don't want to go too.
>> So you're not sure whether Baron Trump is a legal citizen then?
>> Well, hold on. What does that have to do with anything?
>> We're talking about anchor babies. Baron was >> not sure if he's legal. It's that you aren't sure either because >> I'm asking you your opin No, I'm very clear on this. Yes, I think yes. I'm answering my own question immediately.
Sure. Cuz it hasn't been ruled by the Supreme Court. I don't care. I'm not giving you my opinion on the Supreme Court.
>> You're talking about legality.
>> Supreme Court also overturned Row versus Wade. I think it's a joke.
>> Okay. That's unrelevant. Okay. You're talking about legality.
>> No, you're talking about Baron Trump here legally. That has nothing. Is Baron Trump here legally? That has nothing to do with >> I personally believe that if you're born in this country and one of your parents is undocumented, you are a legal US American citizen. Supreme Court is going to be the >> Do you Hold on. Do you believe Do you believe that it should be or that you are? because you know both of us will agree of course you are given the current law. Do you believe that they should stay that way?
>> Okay. Yes. Well, before we get into the weeds, I I want to go back to the issue of the illegal immigration because I feel like we're we're constantly getting dragged away and I think it's a very straightforward problem. The problem is what I consider to be unjust or immoral is something that rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. A system where it makes it to where people who should be here are here instead and either and also they're placed in the position through immoral means. So, you know, talking about like, you know, we have a duty to do things a certain way.
That's why I agree with you about the methods of deportation being wrong. No amount of good results can justify evil or bad behavior. I agree that we're seeing some level of bad behavior through our current deportation procedures. But we have to say is the direction we're moving in correct. And I think it is. And the reason why is because if you talk about codification, codification first off, it hurts the rule of law which we talked about has very negligible or not neglig intense effects on a on a government and is a large subversion of rule of law because it would be you know upwards of 20 million people who are codified. That's a very large amount of rule of law violation. We only have a country of like 380 million people. So that's a significant portion of our population is only here because of a rule of law violation.
>> But in addition, we talk about hurting people who are good and helping people who do wrong. Mhm.
>> If you look towards codification, codification, if you are a a immigrant in Mexico or you're a person in Mexico and you want to come to America, >> there's two immigrants. We cannot let in every immigrant from Mexico. I think we can agree on this, right?
>> Can I just Can I just ask you something of what you just said just to respond to something? You you really you really think we're headed in the right direction?
>> Uh I mean like and as a policy we're headed in the right direction, but no, not I don't believe >> I'm saying deportation better than not deportation, but bad bad deportation. I know you don't like I know you don't like talking in general terms about Trump.
>> I'm saying that deciding to transportation is the good.
>> I'm just going to make a very clear statement here on everything that's going on in this country right now. Yes.
>> I believe for the most part everything including what you're talking about right now. I feel like we're heading in the wrong direction.
>> I actually agree on most of that. Yeah.
>> We could talk about the economy. We could talk about immigration.
>> Ryan. Ryan. What does the economy have to do with this? Brian, we're talking about >> the economy has a lot to do with immigration.
>> Okay. No. Okay. Well, we we've just talked about that issue and I just nullified the point. I just I just disagree with you when you said you think we're heading in the right direction. I couldn't disagree with you.
>> Allow me to clarify. Okay. When I say head in the right direction, I believe that the universal position that mass deportations are not good is worse than the universal position that nasty deportations are good.
>> That's what I'm saying. But back to the issue. It rewards the unjust and hurts the just. There's two people as we agree we cannot take all immigrants from Mexico or at least we won't. Right?
>> So there's two people in Mexico. One person waits in the immigration waiting list for 10 years.
>> They sit there and they try and get in and they don't get in.
>> Mhm. Unfortunately, that happens. And even if they did get in, they had to wait 10 years. Another immigrant hops the border illegally or flies in, overstays his visas with most people.
Yeah. And that immigrant is rewarded with codification down the road due to your ideal policy decision. What that does is it means that the good man in Mexico who waited is hurt and the bad man in Mexico who came over the border illegally is helped.
>> Yeah.
>> Is that not the textbook definition of unjustice and immorality?
>> Um I I I think you can make that argument. Um I think there's a lot of immoral uh you know uh stuff going that you can you can go around it. We just fundamentally disagree. Um I do agree with what you're saying to an extent that you know there should be rewards for people that have been in this country undocumented but you know maybe some sort of pathway if you haven't committed you know a violent crime. You have a family here. Uh I I I really truly believe it should be a case by case basis.
>> Well there is a pathway to citizenship.
I >> I understand that. Here's the problem.
And again, I'm I know you don't like general terms here, but here here's where I go with this. There's And by the way, I'm not even a registered Democrat, but I will tell you this. There is one party that is making it as difficult as possible for people to come to this country legally. And you hear MAGA Republicans particularly, maybe not Republicans, MAGA Republicans, say in general terms, we want people coming in here the right way. We don't care what you look like. Oh, really? Then why is it when Democrats put bills uh forth in Congress to try to make the pathway to citizenship a little bit easier, like not 10 to 15 years, Republicans always vote against it. So I think many of these Republicans in DC are liars. Make Here's where I would agree with both of you. Are you ready for this?
>> I'm ready.
>> I would be okay with mass deportation to an extent if if if becoming a legal citizen was much easier. M it didn't take 10 or 15 years.
>> Okay. Why >> you think you're okay with 10 or 15 years?
>> No, no, no. That's not what I'm asking.
I'm asking why would that change your position on the immoral policy of codification?
>> Because the reason Hold on. Because the reason why so many people are seeking asylum and so many people come to this country and they're not documented is because it's almost virtually impossible for them to come to this country legally. Those that are trying to seek asylum, those that are coming to other countries in many cases, not all, they have no choice or at least they feel like they have no choice. unrelated points though because we're talking about mass deportation.
>> But I'm telling you if if in any aspect I could agree with mass deportation then I would need both parties to come together and say you know what it shouldn't take 15 years for a nonviolent criminal somebody who's educated a decent human being to come to this country legally. They shouldn't have to wait 10 or 15 years if they're seeking asylum and they followed the law which you guys want people to follow. Okay, great. Let's be consistent. They followed the law from Mexico and they're seeking asylum and they're get grandmothers are getting tackled outside of courtrooms.
>> These positions are fundamentally unrelated, >> but it's immigration we're talking about and we're talking about mass deportation and I'm telling you why I could agree with you. If this stuff wasn't happening in this country right now, a lot of my opinions tied to Donald Trump.
>> Ryan, I have a question.
>> Yeah.
>> If it was easier, do you believe that cocaine should only be illegal if it was easier for people to rise up through tax brackets? You're comparing uh taking an illegal drug that kills people >> because of something. No, no, no. Okay, you're not I'm not comparing that. I'm comparing the fact that because people are incentivized to break the law, that absolutely changes no amount of how they should be treated for breaking the law.
So, it's irrelevant. And even so, I I don't want to talk about legal.
>> To me, it's not irrelevant. And I would say that I would say that again I I know you didn't mean it this way, >> but comparing a drug that is illegal that kills people is very different than talking about many of these people, undocumented immigrants that are good human beings that don't want to harm you, don't want to harm me. So I think that's a very poor analogy with respect.
>> I agree that the illegals are not the bad people in this area. I mean, they're making them.
>> Well, they needed to talk to a lot of MAGA Republicans in this country, too.
>> Dude, where is MAGA's not in the room?
We need to have like Mai in the corner to nod. Yes or no?
>> If you're talking about >> Where is he? I can't find him.
>> If you're talking about immigration, you have to be able to >> talk about the Trump administration.
>> Brian, is is your opinion of immigration going to change after Trump's out of office?
>> I think the policies will change.
>> Do is your opinion about what the policies should be going to change when Trump is out of office?
>> Depends who takes over. Depends who takes over and what's their position. So your opinions about what a policy should be depends entirely on president.
>> Uh if Trump's policies if we're specifically talking about the way he's handling we're talking about what the immigration law should be because by the way you already in this debate have made a normative claim about what law should be. You did this about birthright citizenship. You were able to say well hold on that's that's again we're talking about normative claims. We're not talking about a desript a descriptive claim of what the law is.
You said you believe that birthright citizenship should be the law. We all agree that it is the law.
>> It is the law right now. I don't think it should change.
>> Perfect. That is the claim. You don't believe it should change.
>> If there was a different president, your opinion on that issue shouldn't change.
As long as your opinions are heartfelt.
>> Why would it change? I don't understand what you're >> It shouldn't. That's the point we're making. We're saying that your immigration opinions should not depend solely on who is the president. They should be universal. Which means that you should be able to respond to the questions that he's asking, which I am.
But the policies would change under a different president.
>> That's true. We all know that's true.
But can we I want to go back into the issues here. So talking about codification, you agreed that cautifification is immoral >> a minute ago.
>> Uh it depends on the circumstance. Give me an example and then let's talk about >> example. There's a man in Mexico who wants to come in legally. He's doing all the precautions. He's now violating our sovereignty.
>> He gets denied >> or he gets accepted. Let's say we accept everyone from Mexico. He is accepted, but it takes him even two years. Even if we reduced it like you're saying, >> that's two years of waiting time where he's in Mexico.
>> Two years is better than 15.
>> So, he's not seeking asylum or is >> unrelated. He's trying to immigrate.
>> Did he fill out the necessary paperwork as the government asked?
>> Yeah. He just filled out the paperwork.
Took him two years to get through.
>> So, then we're saying, okay, but so then he's another man who flies in illegally, >> overseas his visa, violates our sovereignty. Whether he's an evil man, I don't hate the guy, but obviously that's not the right thing to do. and now he's rewarded. So what we've done is we've created a system that rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. And there's many more examples where immigration uh codification policies are extremely immoral. Well, you could also make the argument that there are laws in the United States of America sometimes that are immoral as well. But going back to what you just said, uh if you're seeking asylum from Mexico and you filled out the proper paperwork, the law says >> not asylum, you want to immigrate.
>> Okay. But but I used the term asylum and I thought that's what we were referring to. It is illegal for us to deport somebody like that. If they filled out the proper paperwork and they're seeking asylum, that was why I was bringing up Donald Trump because they're breaking the law.
>> Yeah. I want to focus. I want to avoid asylum. Obviously, there's tricky issues with the asylum system where like you can claim economic asylum.
>> But what I just said is not tricky. Can we just agree on that?
>> Wait, what was what was your statement?
If you're seeking asylum and you filled out the proper paperwork, it is illegal for our government to deport you.
>> I think that's the statute. I mean, either way, >> doesn't that bother you?
>> What does what bother me?
>> That they're ripping up parts of our constitution and they're arresting people outside of I mean, >> yeah, my argument is rule of law based.
Any rule of law violation?
>> Okay. So, so it bothers you that the Trump administration is breaking the law.
>> Yeah, I haven't looked at that specific scenario, but if that's illegal, yeah, that would bother me.
>> I'm surprised you don't know that.
>> Well, I mean, for me at least, I don't focus on this is a very important issue for you. on every single thing that Trump does because generally I look at policy position say I disagree with his actions here. I don't need to look for every single thing I disagree with.
>> But this is immigration specifically. I understand what you're saying. You're not going to know every policy or agree or disagree. I understand that I understand you are seem to be correct in that statement. But either way, moving on to the morality of it as we're saying laws should be moral. Laws should be just they should be good and just we agree that >> in general. Yes, of course.
>> They should serve the American citizens that Yes. So then why is it that we're having a law which makes it to where people get rewarded for doing bad and hurt for doing good?
>> I I don't agree with being rewarded from quote unquote doing something bad. Uh at the same time, uh you'd have to define bad. Uh you know, >> I can define bad.
>> Okay. Well, there are certain situations where technically it might be against the law to do something, but I wouldn't necessarily let me give you an example.
American citizen can't put food on the table, doesn't have food stamps, kids are starving.
I don't condone people that shoplift.
It's against the law. But I understand.
I understand why somebody who's basically homeless, who needs to put food on the table for his kids, might go into a supermarket, might steal a sandwich. I'm not condoning it. I'm not going to give that person a high five.
But I understand that moral. Would you call that good?
>> Hold on. It's against the law. Yeah. Is it bad?
>> Wait, yeah, the law doesn't mean bad, but would you call that moral?
>> I think when you have no other option and there are some people in this country that are in that position where they have no other option, they don't even have a food pantry and they need to provide a meal for their kids and they might steal $10 worth of food. Would I call that immoral? Not necessarily. No.
>> So, the ends justify the means.
>> I don't think it's immoral. Uh, you said you they do that.
>> Okay. There are certain things that people do are bad. So maybe this is where the immigration discrepancy comes from. Cuz as with the ends just by the means which I see to be immoral, I believe that we have a duty based ethics. Things have to be done a certain way. It's not right for the poor man to steal just because he really really needs to. He needs to do things the proper way. Same way.
>> Have you ever been in a situation like that?
>> Uh me personally, I mean where I'm have to do something.
>> I'm sorry if I'm being personal.
>> That would be irrelevant to my moral.
>> No, it's very relevant and I'll explain why. And I'm sorry if I'm being personal. Do you come from a family of means? Do you have money?
>> Oh yeah, I do. Yeah. Okay. So, you come from a wealthy family. Yeah. So, you have no idea what it's like to be starving.
>> No, but it's irrelevant to my >> No, it's No, it's extremely relevant.
>> No, with respect, it's extremely relevant.
>> When people and shoulds, ought claims and want claims are opposite. They're not identical. They're >> okay. With respect, you don't know what it's like to not know where your next meal is coming from.
>> What does not knowing where my next meal come from happen?
>> Because you haven't been in This is my whole argument here. You don't know what it's like to be in their shoes.
>> That that doesn't mean what Okay, this is like a philosophy disagreement. I don't believe that you can say that a moral statement is founded entirely based off of in their shoes. Moral statements are across the board for everyone cuz >> Okay, but hold on a second. Codes are codes.
>> You're saying it's immoral for somebody that is starving and their family is starving for a man of the household to steal food. Now, I admit it is illegal, but you are making a case for that. And the point that I'm trying to make to you is you've never been in that situation before. You don't have any life experience as far as struggling. You you've admitted, self admitted that you come from a family of means and you will probably never know what it's like to be in that position. It's called But it's called empathy.
>> Yeah. No, it's not. It's called immorality. Brian, I have a question.
Have you immorality?
>> Have you ever murdered someone?
>> No. I've never not to my knowledge.
>> Have you ever really really wanted to murder someone?
>> No. Maybe in debates. Maybe in debates.
>> Then you don't understand what it's like, Brian. It's like no morality. So hold on, hold on, hold on. Stop.
Stopire.
>> You're comparing somebody ending somebody's life. You're you're you're with respect. No, but your your your analogies are insane.
>> Brian, no, it's not. Brian, this is insane. Brian, have you ever had a philosophy? Like, you ever had a moral dilemma? Brian, if I offered you >> I'm having a moral dilemma right now.
>> Brian, if I offered you, Brian, if I offered you the trolley problem, would you say you're comparing my choice to do this to hitting people with a train?
>> Listen, you're morality. It's a dilemma for the purpose of exposing how psycho But I have more respect for people that have been in that dilemma. You've never experience this. I know you don't care and I get the sense that you don't care about people that are struggling in this country because I do care.
>> I'm getting the sense that you don't quite frankly.
>> That's why I care, Brian. I care about you and that's why I want your country to have just laws so it doesn't collapse into my country. It's our country.
That's number one.
>> I'm speaking to you. And number two, first of all, comparing murder to somebody that needs to steal a loaf of bread to put food on the table for their family iss.
The point is you use hyperbole and ethical dilemmas in order to illustrate the fact that a point is absurd.
>> No, you did. You said it was bad. That's where >> you as an individual in search of ethical >> you are defining what is bad. Okay. Just because you break the law and you you make a mistake. There are some circumstances where somebody might break the law. Uh, for example, if somebody is caught speeding because they're with someone in the car that is dying, I wouldn't necessarily call that bad.
>> Yeah. Right. Obviously, obviously morality and the law are separate. Like obviously in Nazi Germany it wasn't stitch on like people.
>> Why do you think it's immoral and bad for for somebody who is struggling in this country who has no money, who has children, and needs to put food on the table and they have no other option but to steal $20 worth of food. I admit it's illegal. I wish they wouldn't do it. But why is that so immoral and bad when you've never been in a situation like that before and you don't know what that situation is?
>> So Brian, I'm what you call a deontologist. I believe that when we talk about ethics, we have a duty to do things a certain way. The outcome, while we should be striving for a better outcome, is irrelevant to the goodness of the action. Well, it has relevancy, but it's not the decider of the goodness of the action. So a good example is um if you talk about like mass genocide or mass murder, obviously this is a hyperolous example. I'm not trying to, you know, trap you in a false like uh portrayal of your ideas, but this is where I see problems with the ends just by the means. A lot of people when they're debating people who believe in mass genocide, the argument comes down to, well, it wouldn't have fixed your problems. I don't choose to go there. I always say, well, regardless of what you are doing, if an action is wrong, even if it has the greatest of outcomes, it is still wrong. Which is why I can say that we have a duty to do things a certain way. The poor man, yes, it would be nice for him to have food. It would be good. And I think that actually as an American, I have a duty to give him my money if I see him and he needs food.
However, duty to give is far different from privilege to take. Just because someone has a just because we have a duty to help someone. If I have a duty, says if you're homeless and I feel that I have a Christian or atheist or whatever moral system we have, if I feel that I have a moral duty to bring you into my house, let you sleep on my couch. However, that does not mean that you have the privilege to enter my house and sleep on my couch. I would never say that somebody uh because they're undocumented or homeless that you have to have them in your home. I would never make that statement.
>> I would say that you should help people.
Not in their home, but if there was the duty.
>> Okay. But I I know you're religious as well.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And Kai, you're okay.
>> Yes, sir. Do you agree with me that when somebody is has no money, they have a family and they have no other option, okay, than to go into a supermarket or and and steal $105. While it is illegal, obviously, >> I wouldn't attack that person or call them bad or immoral.
>> Yeah. So, so um I I 100% get what you're saying. The problem is that's not the case that either of us have made this entire debate. The entire time we've been talking about whether or not the system that you believe in or the system that we believe in, deportation or just codifying or naturalizing everybody, whether that is moral or just, right? We have never said all of these illegal immigrants are, you know, evil people and they're coming here for all the wrong reasons. Most of them are here because they think they could make more money here and their families and improve their lives.
>> I appreciate the fact that you said that.
>> Yes. Nonetheless say that also nonetheless even even if they have the best of motives that doesn't justify you know doing a bunch of things that would be destructive to the morality of the country just like you know cottifying all of them naturalizing all of them and then okay priority to evil.
>> I disagree with you when you say you think it's destructive for the morality of the country.
>> Well that that's what you two were talking about.
>> Yeah because you agreed well firstly you agreed that cotification is an immoral policy correct? I >> I I I I guess so. Yeah.
>> Okay. Do you so then I mean if that's immoral policy wouldn't immoral policy implementation be bad because the purpose of policy as you outlined earlier is to be moral and just so I want our laws to be moral obviously I want our leadership people to be moral I want people to have character I want people to have empathy of course the whole nine yards there >> and we agree on all that. Yeah. But but but the problem I have and again I keep up using the word consistency and I believe that what is going on in this country right now and this is a problem I think we both could agree way before you guys were born. I'm old. God I'm old. I'm like add your both your ages. I'm I'm still probably older than you guys. That's really sad. But I'm I'm an old man. But the point I'm trying to make is for decades we've had this issue, right? I think we both could agree on that. We've had immigration issues for decades. George W. Bush did a woolfully terrible job dealing with uh immigration. I'll be the first one to admit Joe Biden did not do a good job either. Um they failed from an immigration standpoint. I'm not going to sit here like some people on the left do and and defend Joe Biden when it comes to immigration policy. No, they did not do a good job. Period. I don't think Trump's doing a good job either. Sure, they've deported a lot of people, but what good is it in my opinion when they're going about it the wrong way?
Thought Obama did a pretty damn good job considering the circumstances. Can we focus on the descriptor of if we should do it before we talk about how we should do it because I believe that I have a solution to that problem as well.
>> Um yeah, I like I said I I don't necessarily believe in in in mass deportation. We obviously we fundamentally disagree on that.
>> But let's let's let's hammer it in on that because it's not opinions don't come out of the ether and they live in your heart. They're in our brain. So let's talk about why you agree to me that codification is immoral. That's the only option other than mass deportation which isn't uh doing nothing which you also agreed is immoral. So in that scenario, why don't we do nothing? Under under what circumstance should we implement a policy which is immoral?
>> Can you name any circumstance?
>> What if I said we should implement a policy that's immoral?
>> You said you don't believe in doing nothing. You believe in codification.
>> Yeah. I think we should help people. Why would I say we should do nothing?
>> Because you believe that codification is immoral as we talked about earlier.
Under what circumstance in any legal precedent should we do something that is legally should we implement a law that we agree is immoral? I think uh first of all when we talk about law in general uh it doesn't mean I agree with every judge doesn't mean I agree with every law. Do I want people to abide by the laws uh in general terms? Yeah, of course I do. But I also think there are exceptions to the rule and I also think that there are people regardless of whether they are breaking the law or not. Uh we have to go to motive. We have to go to why they're doing this. We have to go to how they got here.
>> So speaking of should why should >> because this is a legal measure scenario. It's not nothing. It's amending the law. I'm you're making a positive claim in this scenario. I'm not making a positive claim. So in this scenario, I'm trying to argue against codification. So if we're talking about codification in what >> why why are you against it? Tell me.
>> I'm against it because I think it's immoral. As I said before, tell me why.
>> I think it rewards injustice and hurts people who are just. There's a lot more reasons that we haven't even gotten into yet. In addition, I believe that all of >> How is it unjust? Tell me. It's unjust because people in Mexico who wanted to come here legally and then people in America who wanted to or people in Mexico who came here illegally, the person who came here illegally gets the reward and the person who came here legally or tried to come here legally gets the negative side of that coin.
>> Well, obviously >> that's the definition of justice. Things in the place are things in the right place.
>> So again, and that goes to my opinions on why things need to change a little bit and and and if you I understand the argument that if you come to this country the legal way and you had to wait 10 or 15 years, there's probably a lot of people that would say, "Well, wait a second. Why did I have to wait 10 or 15 years and why are you rewarding people that have come to this country illegally? I understand that argument, but it goes to another argument. You know, I remember when Joe Biden uh wanted to do uh student debt forgiveness and I heard a lot of people complaining about it that had gone to college that had, you know, paid off their student debt or continuing to pay it off and they said, "Well, why should I have to suffer when they don't have to suffer?"
In my personal opinion, laws change.
things changed for the better of the people.
>> Wait, I have a question. Do you think that policy was moral or immoral?
>> I think it was absolutely moral.
Absolutely moral.
>> Only 10% of people got their loans forgive.
>> Okay. I think it's moral. And I think I think I I think I think I think here's why. Okay. First of all, I'll give another example. How about during co during the PPE loans, you had a bunch of MA Republicans and Democrats that got all these loans from private business. Guess what? They didn't have to pay those loans back, but that was totally okay for them to not have to pay off their loans to the government. But these are some of the same people, and I've talked to some of these people that argue about student loan debt forgiveness. So why is it that it was okay for you who owns a private business during co to not have to pay back your loans to the government, but if you're somebody going to school, somebody in your 20s that's struggling to get a job, no, you should have to suffer. It is hypocrisy. Again, I think most people on the right are >> hypocrit. How is it that we are able to whenever I'm evaluating policy?
>> Do you agree with what I just said or >> that it would be hypocritical? I think in some ways that be hypocritical. Yeah.
But if we're evaluating if we're evaluating um PPE loans are a little bit different because obviously you're trying to stimulate the economy while student loan forgiveness has a different incentive. If you go to college, I would argue that regardless of incentives probably equally if you go to college to get your degree, you would think that would stimulate the economy as well because you're going to probably get a job and you're going to be paying taxes.
So you can make the absolutely >> clearly would be helping people who didn't. Why is it immoral to help people that are struggling?
>> So I believe that whenever you're evaluating policy, you're making a big mistake pretty readily where you evaluate policy comparatively. You say, well, this thing happened, so it should be like this. I don't think that way. I have what's called first principles. So I believe that some things are good, some things are bad, and there's a lot of reasons that we can probably both find for that reason. So, and I'm talking about student loan forgiveness.
I don't think student loan forgiveness is bad because we shouldn't be forgiving student loans. In fact, actually, I think there's good arguments for broad student loan forgiveness. However, if only 10% of the society had their loans forgived and if it's not arbitrary that I actually retracted from what I understand it was arbitrary.
>> Do you know why only 10%?
>> Why?
>> Take a guess.
>> I don't know.
>> Republicans fought it. They fought it to high end. What Joe Biden was trying to do was try to make it universal. He spoke about this in his speeches. He talked about student >> but even they shouldn't have implemented to 10% even if they if >> it was either it was either 10% or nothing.
>> Get all loans forgiven. Say that we agree that there won't be economic downsides to student loan forgiveness.
That's a pretty complicated issue. But if we talk about So say that we agree on that even then I think that it's always wrong to help some people and not other people for arbitrary standards.
>> So in a perfect world I wish that it was 100%.
>> Policy is designed to create the best world.
>> Okay?
>> So if it's better that way then we should do it that way.
>> Not with certain politicians.
>> Codification that doesn't matter cuz they're not here. I'm right here. So we're talking about if codification is immoral.
>> But what good is it if politicians aren't doing that? What good is it?
>> What good is it? So people right here like me and you can make the points and change their mind. So let's ask the question.
>> We're not going to do that. Okay.
>> Contation is immoral and deportation which I think we can agree is just if it could be done.
>> I don't know if it's necessarily immoral. I think it depends on a case-by case basis as I've told you.
>> Is it in any case immoral?
>> Depends on the case. You'd have to talk to me about it. I think every single >> everyone and there's one case where it's immoral then it's immoral inherently.
I'm we're talking about blanket cification. So if you're arguing for a codification like exclusion metric where some people >> you think welfare is immoral.
>> What does that have to do with anything?
>> Because you're making the case if one person does it then it's immoral. Here's why I'm bringing that up. Food stamps, welfare, government programs in general.
There's always going to be a small percentage of people that are going to take advantage of the system. So just because a small percentage of people when it comes to this specific situation are taking advantage of it that means just wipe everything out. I disagree with that.
>> Wait, the difference is that I don't believe that anyone ought be codified. I think it's I think we hear the the morality of it. Every single person is taking advantage of the system because every single person subverted the law by hopping the border and the people who we agree should be here as valid refugees in this scenario would not be deported under my ideal deportation scenario. And we're arguing in pure hypotheticals here. So you have to entertain that.
>> Well, everything's a hypothetical of course.
>> Of course. What's the policy?
>> Um again, my opinion is I think it should be a case by case basis. Um uh I' I' I've been pretty clear on that. Uh >> so do you agree now after this conversation that in the case of the single man who came here and has no kids and is not a violent criminal, he should be deported?
>> Explain to me again um how long he's been here?
>> How long he's been here? Um >> he's not seeking asylum. Is that correct?
>> What point for you would that make it moral?
>> Uh he's he's uh well because you'd have a history. You you'd have to be able to ask him what have you done? How long have you been here? You're saying he doesn't have a family. You're saying he doesn't have >> Let's say he's been here for one day.
>> Mhm. Good. Okay. It's good. Um, >> he's been here for one day. He came here illegally.
>> Yes.
>> Um, he doesn't have a family here. I'll Okay, I'll answer your question this way.
>> I'd be I'll be much more >> I don't know if we can make it easier.
>> These are yes or no questions. Answer.
>> I would be much more comfortable with deporting that individual than somebody that would be here with a family that has been here. Do you believe Can I rephrase it? Do you believe Yes or no question? It's pretty simple. that if that guy was here for literally one day, we should deport him.
>> Um, it's a difficult question for me to answer.
>> How is that difficult?
>> Um, the reason why it's a difficult question for me to answer because in general terms, um, >> I don't think these are bad people for America. I think it's good for America.
>> Okay, but but the policy, >> I don't know why that's funny. It's because because Okay, first off, we can get in this later, but the policy holds absurdity. It's absurdity. If El Chapo, if El Chapo came here, he would produce such economic growth.
>> You're comparing El Chapo to somebody that has >> No, no, no, no, no. I'm not doing any comparison. What I'm doing is demonstrating the principle that economic growth is a sufficient justification for a person's illegal entry to the country.
>> Yeah. But we're not talking about Chapa.
We're not talking about a convicted crime.
>> Even then, even if we're just the guy who came over, >> we're not we're not talking.
>> If the guy is over, this is a moral absurdity.
>> I disagree. I think what you're doing is a moral absurdity. not a morality.
>> I think what you guys are doing is a moral interested. Let's let's after I explain this point, I will allow you to express why my position >> Oh, wait. Hold on a second. Let's rewind a second. You're comparing >> I almost I almost said the f word. I'm trying to I'm trying to I'm trying to show you respect because I almost said the f- word, but I'm I'm showing you respect. Okay. Okay. Because you're being respectful and I I appreciate that as well.
>> You're comparing El Chapo to somebody who has no criminal history who comes into this country.
>> No. and and and the fact don't do that and and the fact that you think I've done that shows that >> Well, why would you bring up El Chapo, though?
>> Well, if you would have allowed me to finish, I would have very Go ahead. I'm listening.
>> Um and I'm I'm sorry, man. I know we're way off.
>> Right after this, I'm going to stick you to what he just said, which is I want you to define what is morally absurd about our position.
>> Yeah. But the El Chapo example, you have used multiple times during this debate the amount of economic stimulus an individual um adds to the United States as a reason for keeping them here despite their illegal entry. You just did that in the hypothetical case of this, you know, familyless individual who's been here for one day.
>> Yeah, he has not helped. Yeah, he hasn't done a thing. But you qualified, you know, in order to say, well, we shouldn't deport him. The first question you asked was, well, what has he produced for the United States? My argument is there are people who could come to this country and produce so much economic stimulus but it would still be wrong to have them in the country because fundamentally like we've said so many times before you would be rewarding the unjust and you would be punishing or you know the the poor side of the equation would be suffered by the just people who have gone and followed the laws people who have done things properly. So that argument and and it's totally arbitrary. You could say any number of things. You could say, "Well, how much love has this individual produced in the United States?" Love is a good thing. Well, we shouldn't deport them because of love. You're just choosing to focus on economic stimulus.
But we've also already defeated the one aspect, but we Yeah. Well, exactly. Many aspects of why I don't have a problem with a lot of these people being here.
That's one aspect.
>> Here's the thing. You you you cannot agree with or you have not yet agreed with deporting anybody.
>> And in every That's not true.
>> Well, he agreed with violent offenders.
>> True. True. Violent offenders. One of the first thing I said, >> "Hold on. Hold on. What if somebody What if the violent offender, the violent undocumented immigrant >> murdered somebody >> and they were good for the economy? No.
No. They they were convicted of murder, but they did so in a way that we could find morally justifiable. So, let's say they went out of their way and they killed somebody who they thought was posing a threat to their family.
>> Should they still be deported?
>> You just said they were a convicted murderer. If it was justifiable, then they wouldn't have been convicted.
>> No, no, no. I I said morally justifiable. Things could be illegal, but morally justifiable, like stealing, they're a convicted felon.
>> No, no. They're a convicted murderer, but we could felony. Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah. Convicted felon. Perfect.
Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I I was thinking I got confused.
>> Be very clear. I'll I'll repeat it. If you are a convicted felon, >> Yes.
>> I believe you should be deported no matter what that crime is. I'm being very clear on that. Perfect. Very clear on that.
>> Yes. Yes. The problem is all of that's arbitrary. So, can you agree that you do not believe in the deportation of anybody who is not a felon?
>> Can you just agree to that? Because that's what you've been proving time and time again. every single hypothetical we've given you. Time and time again, you have been hearing that you believe in deporting anybody who is not >> um here's why I feel that way.
>> Um because >> well, can you just say yes or no on that? I don't want to stick you to a yes or no, but please just answer the question.
>> I want to stick him to yes or no.
>> Right now, >> in the climate that we are in right now, I would say no. However, there's a caveat to that.
>> Okay.
if there was an easier pathway to citizenship and there was a way that if they are deported, okay, if they are deported, let's just say every single undocumented immigrant today >> is deported, >> I would be o somewhat okay with it >> if we had laws put in place and a process that expedited them becoming naturalized citizens so they wouldn't have to wait 10 or 15 years to be reunited with their families. That's a very logical approach that I'm giving you and I've tried to become very consistent on this approach. If you want all these people deported if they I I completely disagree with you. I can't even bring up Donald Trump in this conversation because he's not in the room. But you just But you just brought up El Chapo, but I can't bring up Donald Trump.
>> First of all, I can't even bring up Trump. He's the president of the United States. You're bringing up El Chapo.
>> No, no, no. What we're saying, what we're saying, >> what is immoral about what I just said?
Brian, Brian, I I'll tell you why we're saying you shouldn't bring up Trump.
It's because you are asking us to answer for something we don't agree with. You could say, "Well, well, the Republican >> because I don't Okay, hold on. First of all, my my best identifier is that I'm a child of God. Second of all, I stand more to be a conservative, but what I align myself with are values rather than people. I'm not a Republican because of John Republic who founded Republicanism or whatever." Values. Let's talk about values. Hold on.
>> I would love to do that. Yeah. And I was going to bring up I let it go. I wasn't going to bring up Trump.
>> You you've been but I want to talk.
>> I do not believe for a second, Brian, that you were not going to bring up Trump.
>> Values of the Republican party way before we bring up Trump >> way if if if we can because we've talked about immigration for like 90 minutes.
>> Got 20 30 minutes left.
>> Okay. And I know you wanted to bring up we wanted to talk about a little bit.
Okay. But but you said you're a game, right? Okay.
>> Let's talk about Republican values.
Okay. Without me even bringing up Donald Trump, >> why is it that Republicans consistently vote? Can you define republicanism before we engage in >> conservative values as I hear? Okay.
>> Okay. What what >> Christianity, which I assume you are.
>> Does somebody have to be a Christian to be conservative?
>> No. But you're a Christian, right?
>> I am.
>> Okay. Thank you. What do you think about being gay?
>> Perfect. This is a question directed at me. This is the way you do this discussion.
>> We've gotten so far from immigration. I just want to acknowledge that for everybody.
>> We've done this for 90 minutes. But I I think I think every every single individual who who um has samesex attraction is a child of God. And I believe that they should not act on those sexual impulses.
>> Okay. You believe that? Okay. Fine.
>> Yeah. You fine. Correct. Correct.
Correct. But how do you feel about the Republican party? 99 >> I think I think they are way too accepting of homosexuality in the Republican party.
>> So you think that So what would be not accepting? What do you think they should do about that?
>> I I think that we should not have legalized gay marriage. I I don't think that that should have been a part of the Republican party.
>> You're okay. What does it What does Jesus say about judging people? I'm just curious. What did he say? says that we should judge with righteous judgment in the >> And you think that's righteous to judge other people that are not like you?
>> No, hold on. Well, well, I'm actually I haven't judged people.
>> Yes, you are. No, >> you're saying they shouldn't get marry each other. Why? Hold on. No, no. I've made a judgment of an action. You're right. I've judged whether or not they should do something. It's not a judgment of a person's heart. I didn't judge.
>> Are you sinners?
>> Well, we're all sinners. Absolutely.
>> So, being gay is a sin.
>> Hold on, hold on, hold on.
>> Why can't you answer that? We're all sinners. I don't know. I I did answer your question. I said that.
>> So, it's a sin. Well, let me let me be clear. Samesex attraction in and of itself is not sinful. My attraction to a woman is not sinful. It is the way that I act on those impulses. Which is what I said. I said I do not believe that samesex attracted people should act on those impulses. That's all I said. That is not a character judgement. That is not a judgment of an individual.
>> What's an impulse? Sex having sexual >> sexual attraction. Yeah. Okay.
Certainly. What about a man having sex with a woman?
>> I've been sexually attracted to plenty of women and it would have been totally wrong for me to have engaged in sexual intercourse with them.
>> Okay. There's >> you're entitled to your beliefs on that and your behavior >> and I would never tell you what you should or shouldn't do when it comes to sexual >> attraction. But you would certainly make a judgment as to whether or not what I am doing is good or bad based on your moral framework.
>> Certainly >> when it comes to being attracted to somebody, no, it's not my business. Why do you care who people are attracted to?
>> Because because >> why do you care? Why do you give a crap?
I >> Well, I just want to be clear. I completely reject the framework that you can divorce um culture, civilization, and a nation from the actions of every individual in the privacy of being of their own home.
>> You think it's a choice acting on samesex impulses? Yeah, absolutely.
Okay, so that is I mean, well, action is a choice. So, >> absolutely. So, Richard Simmons was born straight. Is that what you're saying?
>> Well, I'm not familiar with >> you think a man just wakes up or or a 10-year-old or a 15-year-old just wakes >> Hold on. No, it's this is important.
>> Brian, can you can you repeat to me what I said 5 seconds ago?
Uh, you said being gay, you believe it's a sin, right? Repeat what you said.
>> I didn't actually say that. Okay. I thought that's what you said because it sounded like you said you were against gay marriage, right? Right. And you think that conservatives are too accepting of of gay people, which I think >> No, no, no, no, no. I I I think they are too accepting of homosexuality in the conservative movement. And I specified specifically that that is borne out in the fact that we have adopted uh legalized gay marriage as a party platform. I don't >> Why are you against gay marriage?
Okay, I'd like you again. I'm going to stick you to it and then I do want to get to what's absurd about our moral position because you're not going to make me forget about that.
>> What did I say when you asked me, "So, you think gay people are sinners?"
>> Um, I think you were judging their behavior.
>> No, no. What did I say?
>> Uh, I said, "We're all sinners." And then you asked me, "You think being gay is a sin?" What did I say?
>> Did you say no?
>> Correct.
>> You don't believe it's a sin?
>> Yeah. I said that sexual attraction in and of itself is not a sin, >> but acting on it is >> exactly.
>> So why is it when a man acts on has sex with a woman that's morally okay with >> Well, it's actually not always morally okay.
>> It's not.
>> No, certainly not. Okay.
>> Like like I talked about with Trump.
>> Why?
>> Because extrammarital and premarital sex is also immoral.
>> Sex in general.
>> Sex in general is not immoral. Of course not.
>> So So why would it be immoral for >> because there are contexts within which certain actions are inappropriate and appropriate. It is appropriate for me to have sex with my wife if I had one. It is not appropriate for me to have sex with another woman while I married with my wife despite the fact that the attraction >> most people would morally agree with that. But why but why do you believe in the separation between church and state then?
>> Uh to an extent but I think it's been misunderstood. That's a whole different issue. I'd like to stick you to the point of the moral obser what is morally absurd about the position that we presented.
>> Okay, but hold on.
>> What about it is morally absurd?
>> Okay. I I I want to answer that but but let me do I want to go to one more.
Okay, we can talk about that.
>> Okay. Wait, so I guess >> I know. Let me answer his question. I'll answer his question. and you're not going to like my answer, >> okay?
>> You both have been very respectful to me, which I appreciate.
>> And likewise, I know we get heated, but >> and and I think you guys I've talked to you off the air and and let me be very clear. I don't put you in the same category as some people on the far right that I have debated.
>> Um you guys are young, but I appreciate the fact that you're both engaged in politics. I think that's great.
>> Thank you.
>> However, you both are privileged.
>> Certainly.
>> You both were born into money. We were all born.
>> Um, no, no, no, no, >> no, no. We were all born. That is a privilege.
>> Hold on a second. We were born in the United States of America, I agree.
>> No, we were we were born at all. Yes.
I'd love to unpack this.
>> But being born in the United States of America and looking the way we look, we're very lucky. Okay.
>> I don't think, and I think this is where both of you struggle, um, you don't see life >> through the lens of other people that haven't had the opportunities that both of you had or have had. And I find that extremely problematic. Do you know how many judgments you've made of our lives?
>> Okay, so I asked you as I didn't ask you. I didn't ask.
>> Well, but you're talking to me, too.
You've made a lot of judgments about your background. I apologize for saying that, but you judged it.
>> Okay. I made a mistake there. I I misworded. I was specifically I asked him. I did not ask you just he is privileged.
>> Well, uh I'm just giving my general sense of this conversation.
>> I think all I'm trying to point out is that you're making lots of assumptions.
And it's ironic and it's and it's ironic given the fact that what you are actually condemning us for is the fact that we assume and speak from a position of not knowing other people's difficulties and then you proceeded to do exactly the same thing with us.
>> I'd like to say one thing.
>> Okay. But I Okay, I was going to finish.
Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> Okay. So, talking about the idea that, you know, the position you're in can change the morality of your action. I fundamentally reject this. I have a question. Do you believe that there are certain actions that are always bad regardless of circumstance? Absolutely.
>> Okay. Okay. So, a good example is you talk about like >> um let's talk about this is a moral hypothetical people use quite a lot.
>> So, say there is a judge and a judge knows that a man committed some kind of crime but the evidence wasn't so he couldn't use the evidence for that crime. So, he knows this guy's like a murderer maybe and he couldn't get him on that tri on that crime. So then he decides, okay, I'm going to try him for like treason or a crime he didn't commit and then convict him for that.
>> Would that to you be a moral action?
>> Do me a favor and repeat that one more time. So can you basically if there's a judge who I'm a judge I know this guy committed a crime but the evidence is thrown out because >> I believe in our justice system doesn't always get it right but I believe >> obtained illegally. Do you believe that it would be moral for that judge and >> well evidence if evidence was obtained illegally then that person would not be convicted and there would be a hung jury or not hung jury I'm sorry it would be it wouldn't go through the thing this is a moral ethical so this is a trial by judge country would it be moral for the judge then to falsely convict the guy for like another crime that he committed with similar punishment in order to get the outcome that is more moral or just in your system >> that's a really weird hypothetical um so first of all uh if if there's uh evidence that's inadmissible that's it would be inadmissible subvert the process morally, not legally. Can you morally subvert the process of justice?
>> You're talking about a different case, though. I mean, like, >> no, no, but the point is it's it's a logical it's a direct uh syllogism. It's a direct.
>> Yeah. Well, look, >> it's morally identical.
>> I'm going to again I'm going to give you a general answer. Um, our courts sometimes get it wrong, >> sometimes not intentional, right? Right.
I think we could agree the courts aren't perfect. But for the most part, I believe in our system, which I do believe is targeted at sometimes uh for and helps people that are wealthy, people that are rich, people that look like you and me, rather than people that are brown or people that are minorities or people that can't afford good legal representation.
>> This will refine it more. Say you're a judge and you're you can make all the decisions you want. There's no penalty.
>> You are showed a video that is deemed later inadmissible, which shows a man murdering his wife. This video is now inadmissible.
>> Why would it be inadmissible?
>> I don't know. This is a hypothetical.
>> Okay. It's a very hypothetical. The idea is you know someone committed.
>> Why would the video be inadmissible?
>> The idea is to decide whether or not duty you have a duty certain. Okay. Of what you're talking about.
>> How would you have felt?
>> Kyle written. How would you have felt um if you did not eat breakfast this morning?
>> Okay. Hold on a second.
>> Uh going to go to Kyle Writtenhouse for a moment.
>> Can we hypothetical? How would you fell?
Can we finish hypothetical?
>> Well, I didn't today actually, but uh but >> can we finish the hypothetical?
>> Okay, but what you're talking about, I'm going to direct it to Kyle House.
>> Can we stay in the realm of the abstract so we don't have to talk about Kyle Written House?
>> I want to just finish the hyp.
>> Sometimes judges make mistakes.
>> Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. But but if you're the judge, Brian, and you know someone did something wrong. Obviously, we agree would be better if someone was in jail for doing something wrong. You have a duty. Do you have a duty?
>> Do you do you have a duty?
>> A judge doesn't decide whether someone's guilty or not. This is a hypothetical, Brian. I know, but it's a church.
>> Ryan, you're in a room. You have a gun.
Someone killed somebody. You're not He's testing the logic.
>> Brian, the logic is, can you use immoral means to get a moral outcome?
>> So again, your question doesn't make any sense to me. Hypothetical. You You keep Your question doesn't make any sense to me.
Um, does that make sense, Brian?
>> Well, first of all, if you see someone on a tape murdering somebody, there's no way that that would be not admissible in a murder case. Number two. Number two, a judge doesn't decide. A jury decides. I' I've got a >> You got to give me a better analogy.
>> I've got it. We'll fix it. We'll fix it.
The evidence was submitted late.
>> It is a perfect It is a >> That happened in the Bill Cosby case.
That's why he's out right now.
>> Okay. Would it have been moral if Would it have been moral if he framed Bill Cosby to get him in jail?
>> No. No. He just gave the answer. You You said You said it is wrong for Bill Cosby to be out of jail. But But the prosecutors effed up. See how I said effed up there? The prosecutors effed up >> and we should be angry at the prosecutors for not uh going by the standards at the courtroom.
>> I agree. But if the judge decided to frame him instead, >> obviously that would be wrong. Yes, that would be wrong.
>> Yes, we're here. So now we agree it is wrong to do immoral things to achieve a moral end.
>> Your definition of immoral is very different than mine.
>> Okay. Our definition of immoral in the case.
>> We've made that very clear.
>> Do you believe that justice is moral? Do I believe that justice is moral? In most cases, sure. Of course.
>> Most cases.
>> Yeah. Absolutely. Depends what you define. What situation would be justice or not? Your definitions of words are very different than mine.
>> Justice inherently is a loaded term.
Justice means things in the right place.
That's inherently subjective.
>> Did Rene Good get justice?
>> What does that have to do with anything, Brian? Brian, >> because your definitions of words are very different than my definition of what a word is. We don't agree in what what justice is for certain people. We don't agree what moralities are for certain people. No, I don't think No, I don't think >> we agree on the core assumption of what justice is, which is that things should be here, should be there. Can we say that there's a system by which that we should go through to get something done and the system it has to be upheld and you can't system just because the outcome is more >> the problem with this conversation is it's extremely subjective.
engage with an objective hypothe >> I am I am engaging and I answered your question but but the problem I have is I think there are too many people in society that are very judgmental on others that haven't walked in their shoes I have to say that's the problem >> have you ever killed somebody >> not that I know of >> then why is it and then how can you in your heart say that it's right for that man over there who killed someone he really felt like he needed to do it how can you say that that guy should be locked up you haven't lived in his shoes it's a direct >> syllogism You haven't lived in shoes.
You don't know what it's like.
>> Again, your analogies are crazy. You are trying to compare. No, it's not.
>> Hyperbole is a tool for philosophical discernment in analogy. Always works.
>> There is nothing comparable.
>> Identical.
>> Identical, comparable, whichever word you want to use. There is nothing identical or logical with a man or woman who who needs to who needs to hold on a second. Let me just finish my sentence.
who needs to put food on the table for their kids. who steals $20 worth of food and somebody that intentionally murders somebody. How can you try to compare the two?
>> What you are saying is the exact same fallacy. And the fallacy is that because I haven't been in dire situations or I haven't done a crime that I can't say that the crime should be illegal. For example, legislating murder. Should it be the case that we cannot make murder illegal because everyone who's making that law has not committed murder? Like >> that's ridiculous.
>> It's a direct analogy. Do you know what analogy means?
>> Yes. Analogous.
>> I know what a lot of the words you're using means. We just have very different definitions of what those words are.
Unfortunately, >> philosophical direct comparison. Can you say that because you have not done a crime, you cannot say that that crime is immoral? I feel as though we can both say that we've not done many crimes.
We've not lived in >> So, I'll answer that. I'll answer that.
Hold on. I'll answer that. I'll answer that and I'll go back to what I said earlier and I'll answer that. The reason why I bring up you not being in that person's shoes, that person that is starving, that has to put food on the table for his family, is because you don't understand what that feels like and the position that that person is in.
Now, we're not Hold on, hold on, hold on. We're not talking about murder.
Okay? We're talking about shoplifting.
>> Okay? People store I'm not I'm not saying everybody should shoplift if they're hungry, but stores do have insurance. Nobody's dying. It's not a violent crime and I'm not condoning it, but I'm also not going to say you are an immoral person because your family I don't know I mean what I'm saying here is I think most people would say it's pretty logical what I'm saying I'm not condoning okay well you can call everybody immoral that shoplifts okay you can do that if you would like to disagree with you okay let's disagree with you this is where I want to get to the we're here we agree that we disagree so my question is if we agree that we can't do we can't use immoral means means to do to reach moral outcomes.
>> Depends on what it is.
>> Okay. So, sometimes we do. So, >> depends on what it is.
>> Okay. So, here's the question. How do you draw that line?
>> I'm just I just told you.
>> At what point? No, no, you didn't. Yes.
>> At what point ideologically can you say that someone is in a situation where they deserve the privilege or the right, I guess, to do an immoral act?
>> I didn't say they had the right yet.
Better yet, actually, >> I never said that. What I did say better question I'm understanding of it and I wouldn't call that person an immoral person.
>> Wait, hold on. Just because you understand something, you can't say it's I understand people, for example, the Christian thing. I totally understand people who have premarital sex. I don't think it's moral.
>> I totally understand people. I I' I've been in a car, you know, before and had someone cut me off. I could understand someone.
>> How old are you, by the way? I don't know how old you are.
>> I'm 19 years old.
>> You're 19. So, you voted in the last election?
>> No, I didn't.
>> Why? Why not?
>> Was 17.
>> Okay. So, you weren't able to vote.
Okay. I wasn't. Who would you have voted for?
>> Um, I don't know how this is related, but you know what? We can about it. I would have related. I would have voted for Donald Trump. However, >> and you want to preach to me about morals.
>> Okay. Well, let's talk about >> You're laughing, but you guys can't defend this. Let's talk about this. How can both of you guys How can you call yourself a Christian and vote for this guy?
>> Brian, I can say I have actually undergone a great transformation in my ideology since the 2024 election. Okay.
>> At the time, based off of what I knew, I felt very, very confident that Donald Trump would be the correct >> Right now, who would you vote for, Kla Harris or Donald Trump? Let's end that discussion. I would either not vote or probably vote for Kla Harris.
>> You would vote for Kla Harris >> or I'd not vote. I probably just wouldn't vote.
>> Did you vote for Obama?
>> No, I did not.
>> Okay.
>> No, I could say I probably >> And I'll tell you why. Since we're talking about morals, because I'm glad you brought that up.
>> He's escaping.
>> Uh, no, I'm not escaping anything. I think if anything, you're escaping. Um, >> I just told you. I just told you that. I know based on what I know now.
>> You're saying you wouldn't vote?
>> I'm saying I >> That's escaping.
>> No, no, it's not. Okay. Under Catholicism, harm reduction is is is mixed over when you can't.
>> Why wouldn't you vote for Kla Harris?
>> Why wouldn't I vote for Kla Harris? Um, based off of what I know right now, it's hard to go back in hindsight because in hindsight, a lot of Trump's promises were a lot better than >> Forget about Trump. Forget about Trump.
What What policies about Kla Harris were you against?
>> What policies about Kla Harris was against? I was mainly against that. She had a lack of economic policy descriptions. So, I I agree with Yes, I agree with some of your >> You know what she wanted to do with the tax bracket? Do you know what she wanted to do with with the policies that she wanted to put in place when it comes to the economy under $400,000 under $400,000 a year household income? She wanted to lower the tax bracket to 26%.
She wouldn't have given the biggest tax breaks to the top 1%. I can tell you that right now. She wouldn't have done tariffs.
>> Can we make it more clear? So going back, my only mix is up with Kla Harris's campaign. If we're talking about Joe Biden's economic strategy as opposed to some of Trump's economics, I can pick and choose and find points that I agree with are more on Biden's side and more on Trump's side. And assuming that Kla Harris would have been a continuation of that, I can say that it would have been tolerable to have her economic strategy and not have the war in Iran. Assuming that wouldn't have happened and not have uh what I see as a failure of mass deportations that has galvanized people like you against the idea of mass deportation in a way that I think is frankly immoral.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't think that undocumented immigrants are are the threat to this country that you guys >> threat they're a big threat to rule of law because rule of law collapse is one of the number one things that ruins empires and destroys civilizations. I don't >> I want to bring uh Kai back in for the last 10 minutes cuz you've been patient.
Thank you, Kai.
>> You're anti I wanted to talk about that, but I don't know.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, I Yeah, >> the last 10 minutes I >> You want to do that?
>> We could just clip for him the last 10 minutes.
>> I'm I'm surprised to hear that that anybody is is like super in favor of illegal.
>> I'm in favor of people that are not breaking the law having the right to do what they want to do and not taking those rights away from them.
>> Okay. So, you know, if heroin was legal, would you be in favor of that? uh give me evidence how um is horrible for society.
>> Um so it is one of the most addictive substances particularly due to the age at which people are exposed which is on average.
>> No no the age of first exposure is on average 12 years. So that would be illegal.
>> Well hold on >> I didn't say I support illegal.
>> No no no the hold on the itself is not illegal. What we're talking about is the way that policy influences accessibility. Right. So legalization of influences the um availability of which obviously is going to affect the amount uh and the rates at which is accessed by people who are underage.
>> Okay, understood I'm with you. If you're underage, >> you shouldn't get absolutely >> perfect. Awesome. Here here's talk about hold on. Here's the issue.
We don't exist in a society where simply saying that you should not do something is going to stop people from doing >> people under the age of 16 that drive cars too. I can't control that. You're right. But would you legalize? Would you legalize or make the driver's license age 12? No, you wouldn't. Of course not.
>> So why would you legalize and make more accessible?
>> We agree that um >> No. No. Can you answer that?
>> Like that's a that is another great analogy. If you if you believe >> if you want to talk about accessibility and I would I would agree with you on that.
It should be less accessible. Hold on.
If you want higher standards to prove that you're of age, I would be okay with that. Perfect.
>> I'm okay with that. So, let's focus on the legal age now. Why is bad for legal legal?
>> Why I think is always bad. I I think I think destroys marriages. It increases perceptions of violence or rather the the uh morality or or the acceptance of violence.
>> You make the argument that sometimes uh can help a marriage uh that's struggling. So, I would disagree with you on I think you can make every single take in the book, but I don't think that that would uh be >> So, if a woman wants to show off her body and be an Only Fans model, which clearly you're against, which I find bizarre, >> certainly.
>> Um, what >> just because you care about the consistency, I'm against men doing it, too.
>> Okay, that's fine. Um, if a woman wants to do that and it's and it's not against the law and she wants to show off her body and make money in doing so, >> why are you so against that? I I just I don't understand. be because the the metric by which I oppose or agree with something is not simply based on whether or not the person wants to do it. Like I don't think hedonism should be our overarching moral philosophy.
>> Why should you but okay if you don't want to watch I completely I would never force you. You have the right to be anti >> glad you would not want I'm glad you would not force me to watch.
>> But the point I'm trying to make is live your life and if you're anti no problem.
Now, I'm going to be the first one to admit I'm not really into I do go to the Avan Expo because I have a few people that are friends that are in the industry. I've never paid for in my life. People interesting people. Well, I'm just saying I'm not I'm not coming from the aspect of, oh my god, Brian loves he's obsessed with it. I'm not.
>> No, it doesn't. But what I am telling you is I don't like the government getting involved in other people's lives. We could be talking about abortion, which obviously I'm sure you're against.
>> Do you believe there should be that that any drug should be illegal?
If if there first of all it has been proven that there are certain substances and drugs that are extremely harmful. My sister died of a drug overdose. Correct.
So so obviously there needs to be certain parameters put in place and there are certain drug listen I think doctors in general overprescribe people that are suffering from depression specifically the drugs that are currently illegal.
>> If I just really wanted to do heroin >> and I'm not forcing that on anybody.
It's like I want to take it because it makes me feel great. Why is the government, you know, >> you're comparing drugs with s?
>> Yes, that is you're comparing drug a drug literally.
>> Really? So, so can you give me an instance where somebody was watching pornography and they died because of it?
>> Um, actually, yes. Actually, yes.
>> Okay. I'd love to hear that.
>> It's it's typically related in autoerotic asphixxiation, which is an offspring of sexual deviency and obsession, which springs, by the way, because what it does is desensitize people to natural stimuli.
>> So, there's your example because you asked for it. Um, but again, let's let's go back to >> drug. I I just think that's >> No, no, it is it is a drug. It is a drug.
>> There there are a lot is addictive is a drug.
>> I think food is addictive. So, should we ban food, too?
>> Well, this is actually a perfect example. Um, yeah, you should absolutely place limits. You should place limits on food. Yeah, we do it actually all the time. Are you are you in favor of some of the restrictions? Hold on. Well, let me finish >> actually. Yes. But um are you are you in favor of getting rid of the limits that we place on the production of food that the department of of uh what is it? Um yeah the FDA Yeah. The Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration places limits and places specific boundaries on how food can be produced, what kind of nutrients it has to have. We put excess labels. They do that all over Europe and in Argentina.
Do you think we should get rid of all of those?
>> Um I think it's good to have certain standards when it comes to certain uh products that are that are exceptionally horrible for you. perfectly. Yes.
Awesome.
>> But but I don't think uh we should also stop people from buying chocolate, which we know in general chocolate's not good for you. Sodas in general cigarettes.
There's a lot of things in life. Should we stop people from buying cigarettes?
>> Um I I really want to smoke cigarettes.
I >> I certainly don't think cigarettes are very good for society, but if you're going to ban cigarettes, then weed has to be illegal. Perfect.
>> Um so you think all that stuff should be illegal? Absolutely. Everything.
Absolutely. So So >> alcohol, too. I'm actually Yeah.
>> No alcohol.
>> Yep.
>> Wow. Oh, I mean that would I mean I mean life would be okay.
>> It would be a dream. In fact, you know, far fewer far few far far fewer people die. There'd be less domestic violence.
You would have far fewer people who would be destroying property publicly involved in everything. All right. So in K I I just think that it should be easier for good people to live good lives. So I think I think right now we push vices onto people and we expect them to get out scotch-free. But in this day and age there is not a single child who is going to get out of his teenage years without having seen and likely >> So So respectfully I'm are you married?
>> No, not yet.
>> Okay. Do you believe in sex before marriage? Do I believe it exists or do you believe I believe people should do it? I think I've I've answered that I think three times.
>> Are you a virgin?
>> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. So, in Kai's life, nobody should have sex until they're married. Hold on.
Hold on.
>> Yes.
>> Hold on. Let's just Let's just backtrack a little bit. In Kai's life, >> Hold on. I just answered.
>> In Kai's life, >> Mhm.
>> no sex until marriage.
>> No sugar products or anything that are proven to to be bad for you.
>> I'm rage baiting you a little bit.
>> Hold on. Hold on. Finish. I'm clarifying. I'm clarifying. Life seems to be extremely exciting in the in the eyes through Kai. No sex, no drugs.
Listen, if you want >> Actually, I do think life can be exciting without sex and drugs.
>> If you want to live that life, if you want to live that life, which I find to be extremely boring, then you have the right to do that.
>> Sad, you know, I think it's unfortunate.
>> I think your life I think that's sad.
>> You You think it's sad that I don't have sex or do drugs or drink alcohol? You think that's sad?
>> I think it's sad that you want to tell other people and make judgments about other people what you think they should.
If you want to live that life, that's fine. But I'm making judgments now because you're making judgments about people that watch.
>> No, I haven't done that, Brian. I haven't done that. What I've done this entire time is I've said, not judging the content of these people's character, >> no drinking, no sex, no weed, no anything.
>> Yes. Yes. But Brian, do do you think I look at somebody who is, you know, who is a drug addict? And do you think I look at them and say, "What a terrible person." Hold on, hold on. Do you think I look at that person and say, "What a terrible person." No. I look at a person who is a victim of a system that has pushed drugs into their lives. This happens with opiates and it also happens with illegal drugs.
>> That's a different thing.
>> Yeah, I I understand. But in every single every single case, I look at the people who are addicted to vices and I wish we could have done something to make those vices less.
>> People there's a lot of people that would say they don't have a sex vice.
They're not addicted.
>> There's a lot of people who would say that and they're lying.
>> Okay. So, everybody that watches is not what I said, but I I think there are way more people who watch porn that are addicted to porn than people who >> What about the people that aren't? if you want to take it away from them.
>> I have a question though. What about people who aren't addicted to cocaine and use it occasionally?
>> Again, you're comparing a a product that is proven to kill people uh to which I analogy.
>> So, what makes what makes cocaine like we're talking about like immorality and I I actually am a little bit less radical on the view than Kai, but like even then if you're talking about Kai's statement of morality, the morality of them is the same because it's a action that is deemed bad. Just because you're not killed doesn't mean it's bad. Like if there was a drug that disfigured you or made you weirder or made you lose brain cells, we that's bad, too. certain drugs that are obviously uh more harmful than others.
>> We can certainly agree.
>> And cocaine is a drug that is an extremely harmful drug that has killed millions of people.
>> Where do you draw the line though on here draws?
>> Sure. Sure. Sure. So there are some people that would make the argument that marijuana is very bad for you and it's a gateway drug to other drugs. There are other doctors with uh and people that are in this industry that have far more medical and you know who they're paid by. No. No sir. No sir. I know paid off by the we not true. Not true. Because I know people, again, this comes to life experience. I have friends of mine and people that are in this industry that are no longer in it, that are retired, that aren't getting paid from anybody that would tell you that marijuana has a lot of things that help people, help people with different diseases, helping people with pain. There's that. Listen, it's again, it's a case by case basis, but nobody can compare marijuana to cocaine, which cocaine is a far more serious drug that's done far more harm for people.
>> So, so Brian, you you and I don't disagree. I I I'm being a little hyperbolic, but what what Jackson's saying, this is absolutely true, is that, you know, you have things that are worse and things that are maybe not as bad, but that doesn't mean that you can't limit access to those things. And I would add, you know, on this issue, and this is what I think is incredibly predatory, you have a society now where young women who are in their teens are groomed with this idea and the availability, right, of a life of luxury, of of all of these things that they would want. the only thing they have to do is sell their bodies as a commodity. First of all, I think there's a bit of an issue with that. But but second of all, you have case after case where women are groomed before they are 18 to start doing that the moment they turn 18. There are Disney actors, Disney actresses that that's wrong. Hold on.
Hold on. But what it recognizes is that this industry affects people far before the age that they should legally be accessing it. And I think it is a completely and this is the the the operative word here. It is a coercive force. We should limit coercive forces so that agency, the ability to choose between right and wrong, is maximized in our society.
>> Okay. So, if somebody is groomed into something, then obviously I disagree with that. But hold on, hold on. Can I How many strippers have you ever talked to in your life?
>> Uh, a couple actually.
>> A couple. Yeah.
>> So, have you asked them and you've gotten into questions about why they got into the industry or were they all groomed or was it their personal decision? A lot of them, a lot of them claim it was because of, you know, it was going to provide them financial um independence. I think financial independence is one of the best ways to groom people. It is to tell them, "I'm going to give you a lot of money if you do that." Unfortunately, if you're young and impressionable, you're going to say, "I lot of money." Absolutely.
>> While it's a case- by case basis, I also know some people in this industry.
>> You think Trump did that, by the way.
You You do think that Trump brought up Trump now. What?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Because this lit up this is the argument that you made.
>> What was the argument about Trump? that that Trump would groom women who were young into, you know, this >> I never said that.
>> Okay. Do you not believe Do you not believe that that Trump was grooming younger women?
>> Here here's what I will say about Trump and women.
>> Um again, >> we got to close off soon. So >> yeah, I mean, you know, uh we know his sex capades. We know >> I'm against all of them >> what he said. Uh well, I mean, you know, the entire party that you're in uh uh voted him in. Uh six out of 10 Republicans still think he won the 2020 election. I also I also don't believe that you vote on an individual because you agree um with their moral character entirely. I I don't think there's probably a single president in the last four decades that is entirely of exonerable moral character.
>> Never said that. But >> no, you're right. But it's been comparable. The man that is Donald Trump I think I think that actually in Libya are like just as comparable if not possibly worse than impropriy and sexual relations.
>> Okay. So people would say >> I think killing people in foreign wars.
Yeah. I I think And that's what Trump is doing right now.
>> Well, he's doing that right now, but Obama Obama did that 10 years ago.
Right. So, >> what war did Barack Obama get us in?
>> No. No. I'm talking about the extrajudicial bombings in Libya. I think those were absolutely wrong. And I think those are actually worse than impropriated.
>> Okay. So, so you you disagree with with what Barack Obama did there?
>> Yes. But, but I don't believe that a Democrat has to absolutely abstain from voting for Obama because they don't believe that every part of his life is completely >> talking about every part of his life.
>> I think you are.
>> No, here's what we are talking about.
you're drawing an arbitrary line of which things make one disqualifiable and which ones don't. But then you're putting it in a framework of a two-party system where you have to compete between options.
>> So So you do have you did have two options. And if you're making the argument that well I like some of Donald Trump's policies and I'll forget about his ties to the Epstein files and the sexual abuse and the felonies and the fact of the discrimination lawsuits and Trump universing.
Really? Did Barack Obama ever attack OP and say I don't respect him because he was captured? Is Barack Obama in the Epstein files? Was he hanging out with child predators? You tell me. Is Barack Obama a felon? You tell me. Is Barack Obama the guy that cheated on every woman he's ever Mr. Moral?
>> Did Barack Obama hang out with Bill?
Hold on. Did Barack Obama hang out with Bill Clinton?
>> Did Barack Obama hang out with Bill Clinton?
>> Bill Clinton is in the files. Bill Clinton is by proxy by the transit of property a sexual predator. Obama hangs out with sexual predators. You've made your own case. Ridiculous. No, no, hold on. Hold on.
>> Bill Clinton is a sexual predator.
>> Yeah.
>> Was it was ever proven in a court? Was he ever found liable? I think I'll I'll answer hold on I'll I'll spare you I'll spare you by the way I'll spare you the minutia about this. I think that I think that almost every single politician um is is liable for some kind of sexual >> compared to Donald Trump Oh, really?
Yeah. What what what was Barack Obama's sexual impropriy?
>> Oh, hold on. Again, this is this isn't a statement. Let's be clear. This isn't a statement I'm basing on convictions. I think the majority >> No, no, no. I'm talking about accusations. What Where's Barack Obama been accused of sexual >> impropriy? Hold on. Hold on. I I could probably pull up a list of them. When I pulled up a great example with Bill Clinton, >> but that doesn't >> I don't defend Bill Clinton. I think he's a scumbag. I would never vote for him. Would you say the same about Donald Trump?
>> I think Bill Clinton was a scumbag.
>> Well, yeah. Your entire party I think within moral character. Yeah, absolutely. I >> piece of garbage. You would agree?
>> No, I don't make moral character judgements.
>> Okay. Okay. What about a child predator or a pedophile in general? Was was a was is Harvey Weinstein a a piece of human garbage? Jeffrey Epste I don't call anybody a piece of human garbage. So Jeffrey Epstein isn't >> I think that is a despicable >> raping a child is not make >> I I don't I don't make and and and you're like being specific about it because you think >> very specific.
>> Yes, I know because you're trying to generate a clip. But all I'm trying to generate any clips.
>> No, absolutely you are. All I've been >> I don't edit my own videos. I don't generate all I've been doing this entire time is affirming the same Christian ethic that I've applied consistently throughout >> whether it's with both of us, whether it's with >> Does Donald Trump have ethics?
>> I'm telling you mine.
>> You got him going with Trump. Can we please have Donald Trump and debate you?
>> If if if somebody Yeah. If somebody took a shot, he would debate. You know, speaking of this whole alcohol issue, speaking of the whole issue of substances, I hope nobody's doing a drinking game and and it's based on the number of times. Unlike you, I don't want to tell people what they should or shouldn't do or what I think is morally wrong as far as drinking.
>> I'll do I'll do it right now. I think I think people I think people I think people should go to the gym. I think people should not do illegal drugs. I don't think people should abuse opiates.
I don't think people people should view.
And I think if every single person abided by every single thing I just said, the society would be far off better for it.
>> I think life would be very boring. We'd be living a very boring life. No sex before marriage. We'd have a lot of people that are backed up. Kai, I think you're backed up, >> Ryan. I think it is incredibly sad that we've gotten to a point in our society where you do not believe an individual can have fun without having sex.
>> Obviously, I'm being a little bit facicious. And by the way, I don't do drugs. So, I'm being I'm being extremely facitious. No nicotine. I've never been a drug person. I smoke a cigar once in a while. I go to a cigar bar once in a while, but you don't inhale. I've done marijuana a few times in my life.
Doesn't I don't react well to it. I don't enjoy No, I don't do any of that stuff. I don't do any of that stuff. Uh I enjoy music. I enjoy sports. Uh that was my drug growing up, playing sports.
I'm also not from that cloth. I'm not a druggie. I don't I don't do drugs. I'm not a big porn person. Yes, I've gone to a few strip clubs here and there. I'm not going to lie to you. I have friends that are Only Fans, models. Pushed you on it. I've But I don't The difference between you and me is I don't like to tell other people you shouldn't be doing this. this or this.
>> I I think that the difference between >> if you want to be a virgin at the age of 50, I'm not going to I'll be like, "Hey, that's your >> I don't want to be a virgin at the age of 50."
>> I know, but my point is in a normal conversation, I'm not looking at you and saying, "Oh, well, Conniey's a virgin."
You know, >> I want you, you know, >> I want you to be able to live your life.
It would be, yeah, you know what?
>> But I disagree. I could be like you any day of the week, but you can never be like, >> you know what? I think God I think God gave us the parts that we have. Yeah.
>> And to be able to enjoy each other >> in a proper context in a proper context.
>> And I don't see anything wrong with that. It's consensual. And you know, I don't final point. Final point.
>> Okay. Yeah. Anyway, so you know, we we went way off the immigration issue. Um, we did a little bit.
>> I I think Yeah. I think the problem is we >> just a little bit.
>> Yeah. As when when we can't engage in hypotheticals, it really is difficult to to arrive at kind of a substantive moral argument. And I think if you base your entire political framework off of a president rather than off of policies, um it becomes super difficult to you know talk about issues because issues transcend presidencies. As for the last part that we were talking about, I am interested in making this a country where it is easier for good people to live good lives and there are plenty of ways in which we apply limits to people's abilities to do what they want to do because we think that it would be better for them and we think it would be better for the society at large. And I do not think it is at all unreasonable to limit the production of including make illegal the production of things like which are a coercive force that make people addicted. They cause they create addicts. Well, I mean this is borne out as well in the evidence. But what I think is is is most important is that it limits their agency. I want a society that does have freedom, but it's freedom to pursue moral acts free of coercion. And the problem is right now we live in a coercive society. We live in a in a society where drugs, alcohol are super easy to get.
>> Can I just give >> That's a huge problem. Two minute. Okay.
Thank you. Uh first of all, thank you guys both for being here. Uh this has been a lively debate. That's for sure.
>> Thank you.
>> Um you said you want good people to live good lives.
I think good people can be defined as not just American citizens. I think there are good people all over the world. There are people in this country that are undocumented that are good people. I want them to live good lives and I want it to be easier for them. And if you deport every single person in this country that is undocumented, you're making their lives far worse.
These are good people and you're making them lives worse. It's also, I feel, an unfair judgment to say is bad for everybody. There are studies that I can show you that is bad. Well, I can also tell you that there are some men that maybe might not have luck with women, some women that might not have luck with men, and they enjoy it and they're not addicted to it. Now, there are always going to be cases and exceptions where people that do have addictions. I agree with you. But there are also plenty of people who have been married for 20, 30, 40 years and maybe they take their wife to a strip club. I don't know. Maybe they do other extracurricular activities and they can they I would tell you because I've talked to some of these people that their marriages are stronger because of it. So, what I that the fundamental difference is I don't want to tell what other people what to do. If you don't want to have sex until marriage, I totally support you in doing that. You have the right to do that. Whether it's your religion, I don't care. You have the right to make that decision for yourself. But I don't want to judge you on that. Okay? I made a joke earlier about boring. I was being facitious. But but you have that right. And I wouldn't attack is the wrong word. I wouldn't judge you for that. Okay? He's a religious guy. He this is what he believes in. Great. Just like I wouldn't judge somebody if they slept with a lot of people before marriage. It's their right to do so. So long as it's consensual. This is the problem I have of religion. and going back to good. You want good people living good lives. I think you genuinely believe that, but you're not applying it to everybody, just American citizens. And I find that extremely problematic. And the last thing I will say, you know, I agreed to doing this debate, and I certainly don't regret it because you guys wanted to talk about immigration. And I tried to do the best I could in staying on topic, but I think there are far, in my opinion, far more serious and pre prevalent topics to be discussing now than undocumented immigrants, the war in Iran, our economy, gas prices. There are so many things that we could discuss right now. If you really care about money and saving money in this country, then maybe we should be talking about $2 billion that we're spending every day.
Imagine what that money could could be used to help Americans in this country that are struggling. So, I know you guys aren't promag I appreciate that. But, um yeah, I mean I want I agree with you in general. I want good people to to to live good lives. But to me, that doesn't only include American citizens. So, I appreciate uh the conversation. I can be honest with you and uh this is knocking on me and and complimenting. You know, when I was in my early 20s, I couldn't even tie my shoe. So, uh, I didn't know what political party I was in. I was getting my career started in radio. I didn't know if I was a liberal. I think it's great that you guys are active. I see some of your videos on social media.
We are in the same circles. We know some of the same people and and you know, the people I wouldn't have done this if I didn't hear from certain people that said a lot of nice things about you.
They said you were a good guy and and it'll be, you know, a respectful debate, which which I appreciate. As you know, sometimes in my videos, I get very heated with people. Um, very heated.
It's part of my um I don't know, aura, I guess. I don't know. So hopefully I I gave you guys respect too. Yeah. Um and I I appreciate uh the conversation and and I would love to have a debate about Donald Trump. Of course.
>> Absolutely. Back time. You want to say anything, Jackson?
>> Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> I guess just to sum it up, I think Kai covered almost all of it.
>> I think the core of my argument is that if we have mass deportations, we have a lot of illegal immigrants that are here.
There's three options. There's to keep them, there's to deport them, there's to codify them. And we agreed that keep and codify were both immoral. In this scenario, I say what should laws do?
Well, we agree that laws should be good and just in prioritizing citizens. So, therefore, I think it follows that mass deportations are the moral correct decision for the American justice system to go through.
>> Perfect. We'll link all your socials below. Thanks for coming on, guys.
>> Hey, thank you very much for you, man.
>> Thanks for watching to the end, guys.
Please comment below your thoughts on the episode. If you agree, if you disagree, I'd love to hear it. I read every single comment. It means a lot to me. Thank you so much.
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
