Glenn reveals 'unpopular' feelings on immigration

One of the livelier parts of Tuesday night's GOP debate in Las Vegas was a sparring match between Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz on the issue of illegal immigration. Discussing the debate on radio Wednesday, Glenn opened up with some of his own feelings on the touchy subject, admitting what he was going to say was "really unpopular."

But first, some context from the debate.

Rubio accused Cruz of supporting the legalization of illegal immigrants in the U.S., referencing Cruz's support of an increase in H-1B visas and green cards. Cruz shot back by calling out Rubio on attempting to conflate legal with illegal immigration. Later, Cruz delivered a statement critics have held up as evidence of a weak immigration policy. The statement:

I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization.

With "intend" being the key word here, some people have interpreted Cruz to be noncommittal in his immigration stance. Glenn, on the other hand, expressed admiration for the Texas Senator's choice of words --- especially in a world where "unless you deal with absolutes, nobody wants to talk about it."

He went on to share his own personal feelings on immigration and amnesty, prefacing it with the warning:

"I'm going to say something really unpopular," Glenn said.

What did he say? Watch the clip or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I'm going to say something really unpopular. But this is true. This is the way I feel. I would fight and fight and fight and fight to have self-deportation happen to where we cut -- we choke the jobs off. We choke the welfare off. We choke the hospitals off. We choke all of the draws that are bringing people into this country and keeping them here. I want to choke all of that off.

That will cause self-deportation in many of the cases. The rest of it, you do have to go and find these people and say, "You're -- we're evicting you. You're out." We do deport anybody who has broken the law. Well, that takes care of a lot of stuff. Then I want a wall. I -- in fact, I don't do anything without a wall. I don't do anything without real security. And it's damn near permanent because I don't want the next guy coming in, in four years and being able to turn it off. We have to have security and know who is coming in to our country and who is going out. I want all of the visas. I want to know exactly who is here, who has overstayed, and if they're overstayed, fine them and get them out of here.

So I want all those things done without question. But let's just say all of those things have just been done. Are you telling me that you will not consider somebody who has been here for 30 years and you go, "Look. I don't know. I don't even know what to do." Say you've been here for 30 years, what do I do? When all of those other things are done, you won't at least consider them?

STU: I think, yeah. I mean, I think the -- I think there's still a problem with, you know, giving someone a pass because they've broken -- you've said this before, because someone has broken a crime for three decades instead of six months, they shouldn't be worse. It's actually worse.

GLENN: They're five years old when they get here. And I'm not saying -- I'm not suggesting that we give it to them. I'm just saying, I will sit down -- after all those other things are done, I will sit down and say, "Okay. If you were five when you got here, what are we going to do? You are an American at this point. You've been in this system. And it's no fault of your own. What do we do?"

Now, I'm not having that conversation at all, ever, with anyone, except me and probably my wife until I get everything else done. Once everything else is done, then I'll be willing to say to the other side, "Okay. Well, let's look at that 5-year-old who is now 35 and see what we can do." Because now I've -- I've turned the water off.

STU: Right.

GLENN: The basement isn't flooding anymore.

Featured Image Republican presidential candidates (L-R) Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ben Carson, Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), on stage during the CNN republican presidential debate at The Venetian Las Vegas on December 15, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Thirteen Republican presidential candidates are participating in the fifth set of Republican presidential debates. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?