Glenn Beck: Immigration



Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

GLENN:  It seems as though it was only yesterday when Democrats and leftists were all together and all aghast at the horrifying use of the term "Nazi."  It seems like it was just yesterday when it may have been last week, when they were all together standing hand in hand singing Kumbayah, aghast at the use of swastikas by people.  "That is not political debate," they cried.  Nancy Pelosi could not believe what she was seeing.

PELOSI:  I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw, I saw this myself in the late Seventies in San Francisco.  This kind of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave    it created a climate in which violence took place.

You be the judge of carrying swastikas and symbols like that, leading on healthcare. 


                   


GLENN:  It was horrible, horrible!  How could you possibly use that!  But suddenly Democrats, socialists, leftists are seeing Nazis everywhere they look.  They can't wait to throw the term around, just as they did in the eight years during the Bush administration. 


                   


VOICE:  It's fundamentally wrong to be a second class citizen just because you have a certain accent or you look a certain way. 


                   


JOY BEHAR:  Doesn't it feel like sort of Naziism a little bit?  I don't want to overstate it but, may I see your papers, you know? 


                   


VOICE:  Every movie you ever see on the Holocaust starts with the guards asking for the papers, "Let me see your papers, let me see your papers." 


                   


VOICE:  What has happened in Arizona is very similar to what happened in Nazi Germany. 

GLENN:  Wow!  Sarah Palin said death camps!  Panic, everybody!  Sarah Palin, the New York Times later verifies, "Oh, they're not death camps, but it is rationing."  Why are you hearing this?  Two reasons.  One, progressives only understand big government.  Nazi or communist and anything in between.  They do not understand small, limited government.  They despise it.  Only big government can build gulags or death camps.  Only big government.  I've never seen a group of farmers do that.  I've never seen that happen.  I've never seen    I've never    you know, I've never seen a bunch of talk show hosts say, hey, let's build a death camp.  Only big government.  That's why progressives only understand gulags or death camps.  You understand there's a third way.  The founders' way:  Limited government.  But why all of the Nazi cries now?  Well, I mean, you can cry Nazi.  I've been saying this is Nazi, this is Stalin, this is Castro, this is Venezuela.  You can do that if your point is limited government.  Because you are not for Stalin or Hitler.  You are for George Washington.  I don't remember the death camps under George Washington.  I don't remember the regulatory czar.  But if you are a progressive, how are you be saying about Nazis?  Well, the only way you can do it is because you don't have anything left.  You can't win the argument with anything but nasty name calling.  And that's where we're at, nasty name calling.  See, I can back up my argument with history, every step of the way.  But if they try to back it up and if anybody was doing their job in journalism, they would ask them to back that up.  Why are they being compared to Nazis?  Well, the death camp.  Okay, great.  Tell me the philosophy of Nazi Germany.  What was the official name of the Nazis?  National Socialist.  Can you tell me, what was in Hitler's own words?  What did Goebbels say about the communists?  Why was the flag of Nazi Germany red, according to Hitler?  Why?  Because the National Socialists were trying to convince communists that there's really not that much of a difference... except the leader and the power structure, and in the Nazi case, superior race.  They both hated Jews, guys.  Which one killed them faster?  The communists or the Germans?  Germans killed them faster.  The Russians killed more.

So you can't get them to explain it because they trap themselves.  That's why it has to remain name calling, vicious, vitriol, fear mongering!  They don't have a single logical, reasonable point on their side.  It's all they have is the name calling.  And while we have used those words, we have backed them up historically.  That's the difference between hate and truth.

First of all, let's talk about the rights.  It is our sovereign right to protect our borders.  Every country does it.  It hasn't been done here in America.  74% of Americans want stronger border control.  3/4 of this nation, are 3/4 of this nation racist Nazis?  Because that's quite a statement.

So let's go through the shallow arguments before we throw them out.  "Oh, we have to help the poor.  They are just taking care of families."  Yes, yes.  We as individuals do have to do our part for the poor.  Not through the government.  Because when the government decides you start to build a giant socialist state, and the National Socialist is the Nazis or the socialists that are communist, either way, can seize control of that apparatus.  Also, I don't happen to believe that Jesus anywhere in the Bible said, "Hey, take the shirt from that man and give it to the government so that government can make them into pants and give them to that child over there."  Jesus was talking about changing yourself.  Nobody wants to hurt any family, nobody.  I think there are people in this country that will use the plight of these people, but there always have been.  There have been slave owners from the beginning of man.  Not the beginning of America but the beginning of man, there have been people trying to own, use or enslave others.  We don't help the poor or their families by teaching them to ignore our laws or teaching our own children that you can pick and choose around laws or allowing our system, education, healthcare, prisons to become so overloaded with noncitizens that it eventually collapses.  And that is what's happening in our country.  How do we help?  How do we help when we have nothing left?  Who do we help when there's nothing left?  Answer?  No one.  Contribute to the education funds in these poor countries.  If you have money, send people from poor countries, white, black, brown, yellow, it makes no difference, send them to college here in America.  I hear it can be done.  Send them to school.  By all means donate to worthy antipoverty causes.  But encouraging and enabling illegal activity is not the answer.  Personal responsibility is the answer.  It is critical.  These are adult human beings, making decisions for their families.  And I have to tell you, as an empathetic man, I believe if I lived in Mexico and I knew what was going on with my corrupt government and I saw that my corrupt government was selling me down the river and there was no equal justice, just social justice, I'd get my family across the border, too, if I thought America didn't take it seriously.  What's the difference?  But I would regret it because I would see that there is no equal justice here, either.  It's all about usury, slavery, and social justice.  It's racist!  Is it?  At least for 3/4 of this country.  It doesn't matter if you are from England or Australia, Nicaragua.  It doesn't matter.  I don't care where you're from.  I don't care where you're from.  We have to clamp down now, and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the rule of law.  Where were the rule of law people in the Obama administration?  Where are they now?  They were there on the financial crisis.  Is it selective rule of law?  Because that sounds like social or economic justice.  That doesn't sound like what our country was all about.  Equal justice.  It doesn't sound to me like what Martin Luther King marched for.  He didn't say, "I want special exceptions."  He said, I want equal justice!  And as for making people second class citizens, illegals are not first, second, third or fourth class citizens.  They are not citizens.  For legal Latinos, they will be covered by every U.S. law that is currently permitting discrimination, and they should be.  And I stand shoulder to shoulder.  You're a citizen!  This law does not negate Arizona law.  It doesn't, it doesn't negate everything else.  "It's like the Nazis, let me see your papers, please. " Who carries papers?  Well, I don't know about you.  I carry a driver's license.  I mean, am I alone in that?  Let's start with that.  Have you ever been asked for your driver's license when you've been pulled over because you had a blinker that was out?  You ran a stoplight?  You were going too fast?  When the cop came to the door and said, I need to see your driver's license and registration and proof of insurance, did you say, who the hell are you?  No, I don't swear at the officer or throw a bottle at him.  I hand him my driver's license and proof of insurance and registration.  That's what I do.  And then we move on with our life.  For whatever reason, we are the only country on Earth that is expected to tolerate such blatant disregard for our immigration policy.  Mexican president Felipe Calderon has made it clear that he considers Arizona law intolerant and a clear human rights violation.  That is really fascinating.  Mr. President, do you know in your own country of Mexico your own government bars foreigners for entering if they upset, quoting your own law, the equilibrium of national demographics?  Isn't that profiling?  If outsiders don't enhance the country's, quoting again, economic or national interest, end quote or are, quote, not found to be physically or mentally healthy, end quote, they are not welcome in your country.  Neither are those who show, quote, contempt against national sovereignty or security, end quote.  So they must not be economic burdens on society.  No welfare, and they must have clean criminal histories.  Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove that they can provide for their own healthcare.  And that's in Mexico, sir.  I don't know if you are aware of your own laws in your own country.  Illegal entry into your own country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years imprisonment.  Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment.  So is alien marriage fraud, evading deportation is a serious crime in Mexico.  Illegal reentry after deportation is punishable by ten years in prison.  Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process in your country.  And show me your papers?  Well, in Mexico you better be ready just to do that.  Mexico's national catalog of foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals.  A national foreign registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population who must carry a citizens identity card.  Visitors who do not possess proper documents in Mexico and proper identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.  So Felipe, if I may, cierra la boca.  I know I butchered that.  Let me translate:  Shut the pie hole.  And please, progressives, spare us the endless hand wringing over trying to do the job the federal government won't do.  There are simple steps, three simple steps to solving this problem once and for all.  Number one, secure the border.  Number two, enforce the law.  And then encourage legal immigration to enrich us, enhance us and renew us. 

Many members of the far-left already are calling for a ‘Night of Rage’ after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the White House has been discussing plans to defy the ruling too. In fact, one idea floated by Biden Administration officials, according to the New York Times, includes providing abortions on military bases. So, will America experience another summer of riots? Are YOUR taxpayer dollars at risk? And what does this mean for deep-blue states? Josh Hammer, legal expert and opinion editor for Newsweek, joins Glenn to discuss what may come next...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Josh Hammer, he's the opinion editor of Newsweek. He's the host of the Josh Hammer show. He is really quite brilliant. One of the leading minds in the conservative movement, I think. Josh Hammer joins us now.

To tell us, what did you find in this decision?

JOSH: Glenn, great to be back with you, on such a momentous, and really such an emotional day, honestly. So, you know, look, as you said, this dropped recently. Funny enough, I was in the middle of getting a guest lecture from an organization on the advisory board as to when it drops. So I barely had any time to kind of skim through, let alone guess the concerning dissenting opinions. But it looks like this looks very similar, to the draft opinion that was leaked, by the Politico story, a month and a half ago, in early May. And I think those of us who were praying that the five justices from this leaked draft opinion, would have the fortitude to stiffen their spines against this unprecedented assault. Now knows that our prayers were answered, Glenn. That's really my takeaway right now.

This looks a lot like the leaked opinion. Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh have some reconcurring opinions.

But unbelievable. And really just holding aside the constitutional law stuff for a second hear. Just speaking as pro-lifers, on a day like today, I think we really just need to pause. And I tweeted this out earlier. We need to just be grateful for our half century of pro-life activist forbearers. You know, this -- Glenn, this issue could have gone away after 1973. That was a long time ago. 1973. I mean, this issue could have just gone away. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the pro-life moral activist. Political activist. And, of course, yes. Legal activist. Who fought day in and day out, that makes sure this great injustice stayed front and center of our national, political conscience. And in many days, the culmination of a half century of fighting for truth and justice. But in many ways, it's also a new beginning for the pro-life fight as well, interestingly.

STU: How do you mean a new beginning for the fight? I just it's going to turn, I think we're going to see abortion turn even darker in those states that allow it. Is that -- is that what you're meaning by this?

JOSH: Well, look, for a half century now, Roe vs. Wade, and its project any, specifically, the Planned Parenthood versus Casey case of 1992.

They took away from the states obviously. They arrogated authority away from the states, the ability to attempt to nationally codify one view of the morality of abortion.

It happened to be a profoundly immoral view. So these -- the fight now shifts to the states. And the pro-life activists. And all the 50 states. Especially, obviously in red states. Purple states. I mean, admittedly some blue states like New York and California, probably won't be able to touch them there.

But we have to make sure that our side is well positioned in the state Capitols for every red, purplish, probably even light blue state, to make sure we fight for successful, cogent, and morally consistent pro-life legislation. The state of Oklahoma, actually, just north of Texas. Right where you are now, Glenn. They have been leading on this actually. Governor Kevin Stitt signed into law, a fantastic pro-life bill there in Oklahoma. A few weeks ago. Maybe a month ago or so at this point, that basically just bans abortion straightforward from conception. And there are some -- you know, obviously, likable the mother. So forth. But we really need to start thinking about trying to craft legislation now, at the state level. But to your point, I do fear that the blue states will only double down in their radicalism. Unfortunately within that will only lead to an ever greater divide, in our country, that we have today. But obviously, at the end of the day. We're going to save at the end of the day, millions and millions of unborn children. We are going to save human beings who can grow up to cure cancer, who can win Nobel prices.

I mean, this is just a tremendous win for the human species. I don't know how to say it other than that.

GLENN: I will tell you, I saw the stat, that I think it was last year or the year before. 20 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion. 20 percent.

JOSH: Wow.

GLENN: That is -- that is a shocking number. And we do have our -- our work cut out for us. Because I -- I think that these states are going to double down. But I think, you know -- God doesn't waste anything. You know, there is no waste with God. Even the -- even the worst things that could possibly happen, turn out to be something good. You know what I mean? You're like, holy cow, how did that just happen.

And I think that evil is going to fully come unmasked. I'm telling you, Josh. I don't know how you feel about this. I think this could be the day of America's Kristallnacht. I can see these pro-life centers being burned to the ground today. They're calling for a night of rage around the country. I think evil is going to show itself. And that will scare the American people, hopefully.

JOSH: You know, I've been thinking about this a lot this week, actually. Because I've been bracing for a new kind of George Floyd summer of love, happening this summer. Coming to a city or suburb near you. Unfortunately, myself. Look, I live in Florida. I know, Glenn, you live in Texas. It is in moments like this, where I do think that where you live matters. And who your mayor is. Who your governor is, matters.

Because law and order and rioting and anarchy is not really a federal issue. It is to a limited extent. June 2020, Tom Cotton wrote this op-ed that was pretty controversial at the time.

I happen to agree with it. Where he said, quote, unquote, send in the troops. And there is some federal legislation from the reconstruction era that would justify that.

But most kind of quelling and quashing of anarchy does happen. Constitutionally speaking, at the state and local level. So at a moment like this, where I fear that you're probably not wrong. I take some solace. That Governor DeSantis is my governor. I think Texans should take some solace, that they are represented by -- by a Republican governor. The legislature there as well. So I -- I fear that you are right. I pray obviously, that no one -- it's hard.

I fear that it's something -- that something bad is happening. At the end of the day, of course. It does not mean that justices cannot do what they are supposed to do. So thank God they did that.

GLENN: So, Josh, have you looked into what the White House has been saying? The White House yesterday. In fact, do we have a clip of -- of this?

What the White House said yesterday, about the guns. And then they were turned to the -- the Scott us ruling, for Roe vs. Wade. Do we have that, please?

JOSH: Will the president accept this decision, even if he disagrees with it?

VOICE: I think it's going to come from the Supreme Court. So it's a decision we certainly are going to respond to. I'll leave it at that. Just like any other Supreme Court decision. Just like the one they did today on guns.

GLENN: So the White House won't say that they're going to accept it.

Which I don't think they will. They're talking now about taking doctors and moving them into places like Oklahoma or Texas, where abortions will be outlawed. And putting doctors on our military bases to perform abortions.

I mean, where does this go, when you have a government, that is in defiance of -- of one branch of the government?

JOSH: So there's a lot to unpack here. So we should start from first principles. The idea of judicial supremacy, and this is a peculiar thing, to say on a day like today, where such a pro-life victory has happened in Italy. But if we're going to be consistent here, the idea of judicial supremacy. The idea that the justices, have the sole and exclusive ability to interpret the Constitution for themselves. And no other Constitutional actor, in article one or article two, let alone the state. Has the ability to tentatively interpret it. That is erroneous. In fact, actually it was really Abraham Lincoln actually, who in the Dred Scott case, famously opposed judicial supremacy and flouted the Dred Scott ruling, at least as it pertains to everybody other than Dred Scott himself. I have actually argued, a former legal scholarship, in a law review article actually, that the Laconian view of how each branch of government should interpret the Constitution for itself, is correct.

Having said that. Having said that, there is a thing called prudence. And there is a thing called comedy. And in a moment like today, when it really does look like -- and I agree with you, that we are now bracing for riots through the streets. When the political rhetoric is at DEFCON one. When people are trying to assassinate Supreme Court justices. I think it would be -- at its bare minimum, a profoundly imprudent act. For the Biden administration, to try to undermine this ruling.

Now, what they might do, is they might try to kind of issue some kind of executive orders, or issue some regulations, that might try to kind of undermine it, at the edges here. But at the end of the day, the idea that this returns to the state. There's not really a whole lot they can do about that. Basically, at this point, throughout the country. Kentucky within West Virginia. Kansas. Whatever. If they want to go ahead and ban abortion, what can the Biden administration literally do about that? I mean, short of sending in the National Guard, to protect Planned Parenthood, if the state legislature of Kentucky goes ahead and bans it. There's not a whole lot they can do. And it's very difficult to envision a world, in which the Biden administration literally sends in troops to red states, to protect Planned Parenthood, if that state legislature goes ahead and bans it. So for practically speaking. This is a lot of tough talk and rhetoric. Obviously the campaign here in 2022. There's not really a whole lot that practically speaking, they can do to actually prevent red and purple states from enacting pro-life legislation.

GLENN: I'm glad to -- I'm glad to hear that. I know that they have been working on things. I mean, he has said, you know, there's executive orders, that I can employ. There are things that I can do. He's talked about a national public health emergency. Which I think is just -- is crazy. But I would hope, that the president would come out and say, we strongly disagree with this. And you're right. The court is not the end all. But the court did not end abortion. It just said, the people should decide. I think that's the best kind of court ruling, on any of it. The people should decide what this is. And send it back to the states. Josh, I thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Was there -- there was another ruling, that came out today. Was it important?

JOSH: Oh, no. In comparison to this. A total nothing burger. A 5-4 decision on Medicare reimbursement related. So nothing, honestly.

GLENN: Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Josh. Josh Hammer, opinion editor for Newsweek. And the host of the Josh Hammer show.

GLENN: There are two things trending on twitter right now.

Number one is praise God.

Number two trend is Night of Rage.

Good verses evil.

Build up or tear down.

'Lord, we are SORRY it has taken us this long': BlazeTV hosts react to historic Roe v. Wade decision

Photo by Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The Supreme Court of the United States officially overturned Roe V. Wade, and the debate over abortion rights has been given back to the states. On this historic day, BlazeTV hosts celebrate the Supreme Court's incredible decision and take a look at some of the insane reactions as the left comes completely undone.

Jason Whitlock: Today will forever stand as a pivotal moment in our nation’s history

The Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade. The decision and the reaction to it have already revealed a lot about our people and politics. Pro-life groups celebrate, pro-choice groups call for “a night of rage,” and Nancy Pelosi just seems completely confused by the United States Constitution.

Glenn Beck reacts LIVE to Roe v. Wade ruling: 'Lord, we are SORRY it has taken us this long'

I never thought that in my lifetime, I would see Roe v. Wade be overturned. But today, that day has come. The Supreme Court has voted 6 to 3 to return decisions about abortion to the states. But this fight isn't over. We are about to see good versus evil side by side. Many states will stand with the unborn. But others will become abortion mills. It's your turn to choose now, America!

Allie Beth Stuckey: 'Praise God, Roe v. Wade is overturned!'

I don't know about you, but I just had the most euphoric feelings. It almost seems too good to be true. I didn't think there was any way that this would actually happen, especially with all the backlash, intimidation, and violence toward the Supreme Court justices. And yet, here we are. Roe v. Wade has been overturned. This is an amazing day!

Dave Rubin: Big disagreement on what happens next now that Roe v. Wade is overturned

Dave Rubin, Libby Emmons, Jeffrey A. Tucker, and David Reaboi debate what will happen in the wake of the Supreme Court’s breaking decision on Roe v. Wade. Now that abortion rights have been pushed back to the states, will there be a summer of massive riots or not? Will the Roe v. Wade ruling make America’s political polarization significantly worse?

Stu Burguiere: Here are the reasons SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade

I never thought this would happen. I never thought I would see this day. I just never ever ever ever never ever believed that Roe v. Wade would actually be overturned. I really didn't. But let's take a look at the reasons this day has finally come ...

The Rick & Bubba Show: 'This is history! Unfortunately we're 60 million lives too late'

We were live on the air when news broke of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned its controversial 1973 Roe v. Wadeopinion, concluding that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the syllabus of the decision reads.

As expected, the leftist outrage erupted instantaneously, fueled largely by the misinformed idea that overturning Roe v. Wade means abortion will be banned nationwide. But, as stated in the above-mentioned Supreme Court syllabus, the authority has actually been returned to individual states and their duly elected lawmakers.

One such misinformed leftist, Parkland shooting survivor Cameron Kasky, was infuriated that those awful Supreme Court justices "just voted to kill women." So he took to Twitter to urge people to go to the homes of said Supreme Court justices to "let them know how you feel."

"Go to the home of every Supreme Court justice who just voted to kill women. Let them know how you feel," Kasky tweeted.

The backlash was immediate:

Kasky decided to delete his original tweet because he is apparently "sick of republicans talking to [him]." But, unfortunately for Kasky, the internet is indeed forever:

Speaking from the White House, President Joe Biden dutifully helped spread the misinformation about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and took the opportunity to prompt voters to elect more Democrats in November so that Congress can write abortion protections into law. Did the president just let slip the real reason Congress hasn't made any effort to start writing such laws in the nearly two months since Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion was "leaked" in early May?

Watch Glenn Beck and producer Stu Burguere discuss how Biden's speech reveals that Democrats are absolutely terrified of the upcoming midterm elections. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.