Ted Cruz lays out the shameful facts behind illegal immigration to Director of ICE

July 22, 2015

WRITER

The progressive line claims that a lot of illegal immigrants are hard working people who are just here to help their families and do the jobs Americans don't want to do. Their only crime is entering into this country. When the Director of ICE, Sarah Saldana, tried to spin these talking points to Sen. Ted Cruz, he wasn't having it. Cruz schooled her on the facts behind illegal immigration, and how the Obama administration's actions have endangered the American people.

Listen to the beginning of today's podcast for more:

Below is a rush transcript, it may contain errors:

PAT: Meanwhile, Ted Cruz had sitting in front of him yesterday the director of ICE, Sarah Saldana. And he was talked to her about -- the criminal illegal aliens. Okay. Not the people coming in. Just the good, hard-working, decent human beings trying to support their family. Not to say that the criminal illegals aren't good decent hard-working people trying to support their family. They just happen to do it while they break the law.

STU: Technically, all illegal immigrants whether they're good or not are breaking the law as they're trying to feed their families.

PAT: But that's they didn't have a Post-It note when they should have. Their mom didn't give them the Post-It note that said, my son may cross the border. They didn't have that.

STU: That's the issue. That's the undocumented part of that. But Cruz is specifically talking about something else though. He's talking about people with real criminal activity, not just violations of laws that we don't enforce.

PAT: Right.

TED: In the year 2013, how many criminal illegal aliens did the Obama administration release?

SARAH: In '14, it was a little over 30,000.

PAT: That wasn't the question though. He said 2013. And then she goes, well, in '14, it was 30,000. Keep going.

TED: How many murderers?

SARAH: In that year, sir, I can't remember the number right now, but I know that we had -- the statistic that was said earlier, the four-year period from 2010 to 2014, that there were 121 persons who committed crimes afterwards. But I can't provide you the exact number.

TED: How many rapists?

SARAH: I am not sure right now. I'd have to pull that number.

PAT: Keep in mind, this is important information, Ted Cruz, being a lawyer, knows that you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. This much he already knows, so just bear that in mind.

TED: How many drunk drivers?

SARAH: Same answer. I can certainly bring that down for you. And, in fact, I think we're working on that right now. It's been requested before.

TED: Yesterday, how many murderers did the Obama administration release?

SARAH: Now, Senator, I don't know the answer to that question, but I want the American people to understand our job and our mission, if I may.

TED: Ms. Saldana, I want to note that your testimony here when I asked you how many criminals ICE released in 2013, you were off by a factor of three. You said 30,000. The correct answer is 104,000. There were 68,000 criminals, criminal illegal alien that ICE declined to begin deportation proceedings against, despite the fact as Senator Sessions observed the federal law that you're holding up there says they shall be deported. The Obama administration refused to deport them. That's 68,000.

In addition to that, there were 36,000 in deportation proceedings with criminal convictions that the Obama administration released, and I would note that among those were 193 murderers with homicide convictions, were 426 people with sexual assault convictions, were over 16,000 criminal illegal aliens with drunk driving convictions released by this administration because this administration refuses to follow the law.

Ms. Saldana, I will note in your opening statement here, you said after listening to the victim's family that you were so sorry for their losses.

And yet the Obama administration keeps doing it. When I asked you how many murderers were released yesterday, you don't know. There is a reason the American people are upset. If President Obama had the courage of his convictions, he would come and look in the eyes of these men and women who have lost their sons, their daughters, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers, and the administration would stop releasing murderers and rapists.

PAT: That's why I love this guy. It's just great. Great.

STU: It's a topic we talked about quite a bit lately. What an interesting way to handle it. What a really, really competent way to handle a difficult issue by Ted Cruz.

PAT: Yeah, there are others that don't handle it that way. I won't name any. But there are others who do not handle it like he did.

STU: What a great way to handle it though.

PAT: It's great. He got an admission by her. I didn't include the whole thing because it's like eight minutes long. But at one point to the 104,000 figure of criminal illegal aliens released by the Obama administration, she said that's absolutely right. That's absolutely right. Fully aware with it.

JEFFY: And yet earlier, we have to break out those numbers.

PAT: Yeah, I don't know what those numbers are. Other people have asked about that. I was going to look at those numbers, and then I didn't. It's 193 murderers. How do you release murderers? How do you do that?

STU: Yeah, we've seen that happen a few times. Dukakis. Huckabee. These things destroyed campaigns when you did one of them that went out and did something. But this administration does it constantly. It's actually policy. And the interesting thing about this -- about Saldana is it's not her fault. I mean, she's the one up there answering for a terrible policy.

PAT: Yeah, but she agrees with the policy. She testified to that.

STU: I think she probably does. But, again, it's the Obama administration responsible for this. If the Obama administration said, hey, look, we need to not release murderers. Zero murderers needs to be the number. She would have to go along with that policy. That's her job or she would quit. One of the two.

PAT: When you ask the question, how many criminal illegal alien murderers did the Obama administration release yesterday? The answer should be zero. None. We didn't release anybody like that. It's a ridiculous question, senator. Zero.

STU: If you can't clear that hurdle. Think of how low that hurdle is. We didn't release any murderers yesterday. If you can't say that, I'm going to go ahead and say your policy isn't working.

PAT: Yes.

STU: Let me ask you this, Pat, personally. How many murderers did you release yesterday?

PAT: Altogether? Are we talking about citizens as well as noncitizens?

STU: Yeah. I'll open it up to that. Citizens and noncitizens, how many murderers did you open up to the public to murder more? Just yesterday.

PAT: Just carry the one.

STU: Don't forget. Remember, this includes brunch.

PAT: Oh. Okay. I'll figure that in. Bring the two. Add the brunch.

None. Yeah, zero.

STU: None? You can say that confidently?

PAT: It's an usual day, but none yesterday.

STU: These are not tough questions.

PAT: They're really not. And somehow we make them really difficult because we have the dumbest immigration policy on the planet. I don't think there's any question that we're the only ones on earth who act this way. Who have these policies. Who allow ourselves to ignore our laws. And just keep going down that same path, even though it's hurt us time and time again. Even though it's causing tragedy after tragedy for our citizenry and costing you see billions and billions of dollars every year. We keep going down the same path. Then what do they say? Well, we need comprehensive immigration reform. No, we don't. Because that's a code phrase for amnesty. And that's not what we need. What we need is to follow the existing laws. If we just did that, we'd be a lot further ahead.

STU: Yeah, that solves 90 percent of the issues. Yes, there will still be some issues you have to deal with. But that gets you 90 percent of the way there.

PAT: It really does. And close the border. Secure it as best you can.

STU: That's part of the law, right?

PAT: We don't follow the law.

STU: When you talk about comprehensive immigration reform, the reason why people say it is because we all -- if you take those words as to the words they actually mean. Like, comprehensive immigration reform. You know what, pretty much everyone on the planet would agree, even people trying to immigrate here. Even people trying to close the border down. Even people who just look at what we're doing now, not enforcing our laws, would agree that we need massive reform of our immigration system. I would completely agree with that general sentiment. But you're right, Pat. That has become code -- comprehensive immigration reform is a phrase that tests well because of what I just talked about.

PAT: Yeah. And it shouldn't.

STU: And it means something different. It means that you're going to give amnesty. It means you'll have all these other crazy policies. New policies. Kind of jammed in there. That's not what we're talked about. You're right. 90 percent of the problem probably goes away if you are just enforce the law.

PAT: Remove incentives, enforce the law, secure the border. It's a fairly simple three-step process. And the comprehensive immigration reform phrase has been around since George W. Bush, by the way. We knew what it meant at that time because they explained. He would talk about comprehensive -- we need comprehensive immigration reform when I come back from Europe, we'll get that done. We need a comprehensive plans. Which means a plan that you can comprehend.

(laughter)

Of course, that's not what it meant. It meant that they were going to grant a pathway to citizenship for 11 to 20 million illegals that are here. They'll go to the front of the line. They're not going to pay -- people talk all the time. Well, they need to pay a penalty. They need to go to the back of the line. That doesn't happen. And we've been down that road with Ronald Reagan in 1986. How is it that we don't learn anything from our mistakes?

STU: Right. And those are typically policies that are, you know, proposed by Republicans. The beginning negotiating point is they'll pay a fine. Which of course, when you start a negotiation with we're going to pay a fine, what basically happens is either that fine will be nonexistent or much, much less. And it's funny because people who deride the way we handle immigration, like myself, would say, hey, we don't treat this as an actual offense. We treat it as a kind of speeding ticket. Well, if you show up and you're not supposed to be here. We'll let you go. Try to show up in court in a couple of months. You don't have to. If you don't do it and we catch you away --

PAT: Wink, wink, nobody does. We don't expect you to come back.

STU: And honestly, of course, it's actually less serious, for that reason, you are expected to show up for your speeding ticket. But the final thing when they get tough on immigration and John McCain and Lindsey Graham tell us how tough they are on immigration, it's pay a fine, which is again like a speeding ticket.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: It really is so minimal as to what we expect out of people who are coming to our country looked for a better life. We have leverage here. We have the awesome country. We have the ones they're trying to get to from the crap heap they're trying to get from. That's what we have on the table. In a negotiation, we're the guys that have all the chips.

PAT: And I'm sorry, what is it that Mexico does according to the former president of that nation when they have illegals there?

VOICE: Of course, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico. They wind up in Mexico. They can go get a job. They can work.

VOICE: No, no. If somebody do that without permissions, we send back them.

PAT: If they do that without permissions, we send back them.

JEFFY: How quick he was too. No, no.

PAT: No, no. What are you, nuts? We're not crazy like you morons. More of the Glenn Beck Program coming up with Pat and Stu.

STU: 877-727-BECK is our phone number.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep