Wise Guy Talks

12/19/2025

Diversity Can Kill!

Folks, let's cut the nonsense. Walk into any Fortune 500 company or any woke university campus today, and you'll get hit over the head with the same tired sermon: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. DEI.

They treat it like holy scripture. CEOs parade it out in every earnings call, HR departments shove mandatory trainings down your throat, and professors build entire careers preaching that the more "diverse" we are, the better off we'll be. No questions asked, no debate allowed.

They slap rainbow flags on everything, brag about hitting their quotas, and act like they've cracked the code to utopia. "Diversity is our strength!" they chant, over and over, like it's some magic spell that fixes crime, boosts the economy, and makes everyone get along. But here's the brutal truth the left doesn't want you to say out loud: forced diversity isn't strength.
Too often, it's a ticking time bomb.

And nothing proves that more than the tragedy at Eldridge University in Rhode Island last month.

This school was all-in on DEI. They recruited professors from every corner of the globe, threw massive "International Week" parties, and hit every diversity target the administrators could dream up. They thought they were building a brighter, more inclusive future.

Then came Claudio Neves Valente. A 48-year-old guy from Portugal who got into America through the -->>Diversity

12/19/2025

Stop falling for the synchronized dance routine from the left!

Almost overnight, every liberal politician and media outlet started using the exact same phrase, like a rapacious, ruptured duck:

**“America has an affordability crisis.”** Right.

They say it with a straight face, as if Joe Biden didn’t just hand Donald Trump one of the biggest economic messes in modern history. They want you to forget how we got here and blame the guy who’s been in office for ten months.

The Big Lie: “This Is Trump’s Fault”

Anyone who has ever run a business—or just balanced a household budget—knows one simple truth:

Economies don’t turn on a dime.

You can’t spend, regulate, and print money for four years, watch inflation explode, energy costs soar, savings evaporate… and then, the moment the White House changes hands, say, “Oh, look, everything bad is Trump’s fault.”

That’s not economics. That’s propaganda. (In Texas, we call that pure unadulterated BULL S**T!)

The same people (MSM outlets...You know, the Usual Suspects: ABC, CBS, ABC, NBC and no clown show would be complete with out CNN) who ignored or excused inflation under Biden now suddenly “discover” the cost of living the moment a Republican sits back in the Oval Office. They rename their own record “the affordability crisis,” then act like they’re the firefighters instead of the arsonists.

Follow the Fuel: Energy Prices

If you want to understand the cost of living, forget the spin and look at one thing:

**Energy.**

Oil and gas are the bloodstream of the economy.

- When oil is expensive, *everything* you touch costs more: shipping, groceries, airline tickets, plastic, fertilizer, you name it.
- When oil comes down and stays down, businesses breathe again, transportation gets cheaper, and those savings eventually show up on receipts.

Under Biden, Americans watched gas spike to the highest national average in history...about **$4.93 a gallon** in June 2022. Colorado wasn’t spared: Denver’s regular gas price hit roughly **$4.78 a gallon** that same month.

Fast‑forward to now, just days before Christmas 2025. The latest data show regular gas in Denver around **$2.58 a gallon in November**, more than **two dollars lower** than that 2022 peak.

That didn’t happen by magic.

It happened because policy and tone changed:

- A White House that isn’t at war with domestic production.
- A regulatory environment that doesn’t treat energy companies as public enemy number one.
- A clear signal to markets: **America is open for business again.**

Is everything fixed? Of course not. But pretending there’s no difference between Biden’s anti‑energy agenda and Trump’s pro‑production posture is ridiculous when you can literally see it on the pump in Denver.

The Affordability Shell Game

Listen carefully to how the “affordability crisis” chorus works:

1. They quietly retire the word “inflation.”
Inflation points back to bad policy. “Affordability” sounds like a natural disaster that just *happened* to us.

2. They outsource blame.
You’ll hear about “corporate greed,” “price gouging,” and “global shocks,” but you won’t hear much about trillions in spending, a regulatory choke-hold on U.S. energy, or lockdown‑era distortions they cheered on.

3. They try to memory‑hole 2021–2024.
As if the rent spikes, grocery bills, and utility costs that exploded under Biden all started on Inauguration Day 2025.

That’s the synchronized dance:
- Step 1: Create the mess.
- Step 2: Rename the mess.
- Step 3: Blame your opponent for the mess you created.

What’s Actually Changing Now

Ten months in, nobody serious expects Trump to flip the economy like a light switch. But there are real, measurable shifts:

- **Energy policy:**
A friendlier stance toward drilling, pipelines, and refining sends a message that supply will be there. Markets respond, and you see it in that Denver move from roughly $4.78 at the peak down toward the mid‑$2s today.

- **Taxes and take‑home pay:**
Tax relief is aimed at putting more cash back in workers’ pockets starting next year. That doesn’t erase the past four years, but it matters when you’re trying to keep the lights on and the fridge full.

- **No tax on tips:**
Trump wants tips untaxed—money that goes straight into the pockets of servers, bartenders, hotel workers, hairdressers. Many blue‑state Democrats are *fighting* that.

Think about that for a second: the same people chanting “affordability crisis” are fighting a policy that literally lets working‑class people keep more of the income they already earned.

If you really cared about affordability, you wouldn’t be trying to tax the waitress’s tip.

The Choice in Plain English -->>

So here’s the real question for voters:

Do you want four more years of the people who:
- Spent like drunken sailors,
- Declared war on the energy that powers your life through "climate change" farce,
- Watched prices and gas explode to record levels,
- And now blame the guy who’s been in office less than a year?
- Allowed millions of illegal aliens to invade our country jacking up the prices of everything from housing, to education, to health care, not to mention crime,

Or do you want an administration that:

- Understands you can’t fix affordability while strangling energy,
- Believes lower taxes and fewer burdens on work actually matter,
- And is already nudging gas prices down from Biden’s historic highs, as you can see every time you fill up in places like Denver?
- Sends border invader, back to their home?

If you enjoy the **“affordability crisis”** talking point, the media’s synchronized choreography, and the permanent clown show in blue‑state capitals, then sure, put Democrats back in power and get ready for part two of the national clown show.

But if you’re tired of being told the fire started when the new fire chief showed up, while the old arson squad is still standing there with gasoline on their hands, it’s time to tune out the script and look at the scoreboard:

- What you’re paying for gas now versus the Biden peak.
- What shows up on your pay stub when tax relief hits.
- Whether your state is trying to tax your tips or let you keep them.

That’s the real affordability story.

Not the one cooked up in a focus group, but the one you live every time you swipe your card at the pump, the grocery store, or the diner.

And you’re the one who decides which story continues.

VOTE SMART in 2026!

12/19/2025

Democrats’ Sanctuary Hypocrisy:

Rogue Judges, Soros DAs, Radical Mayors, and Weaponized Raids
Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan convicted by a jury of her peers, of felony obstruction—lying to ICE, smuggling illegal immigrants out courthouse back door.

Democrats cried “threat to democracy,” martyring her.

Hypocrisy: Massachusetts Judge Shelley Joseph did same in 2019, Trump charged; Biden dropped.

NYC radical mayor Zohran Mamdani coaches immigrants to obstruct ICE, calls evasion “American as apple pie.”

George Soros funneled $50M+ into 75+ extreme prosecutors (Krasner, Gascon, Foxx, Bragg) who free violent felons, who reoffend, killing Americans as crime surges.

Biden DOJ forced FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago 2022, Bruce Reinhart signed warrant.

2025: Activist judges set eotld records blocking Trump’s orders with hundreds of injunctions, overriding voters, in not even one year.

Dugan’s conviction is a clarion call: Rogue Democrats…judges, DAs, politicians—aren’t above the law. Wake up!

Republicans must hold power to flush these demonstrable existential threats to our democracy from our democracy and restore equal justice.

Think about this when the upcoming midterm elections arrive.

12/19/2025

Legal Blocks Against Trump Isn’t “Normal” — It’s Lawfare

Something extraordinary is happening in American politics, and the numbers make it impossible to ignore. In less than a year, courts have partially or fully blocked **149** of Donald Trump’s executive actions. To understand how far outside the norm that is, you only need one comparison:

• Barack Obama: roughly 50–55 blocked actions in 8 years
• Joe Biden: roughly 58–60 blocked actions in 4 years
• Donald Trump (2025): 149 blocked actions in one year

That’s not a small deviation. That’s a statistical explosion.

Trump’s executive actions are being blocked at a rate 10 times Biden’s and 20 times Obama’s. You don’t need a law degree to see that something deeper is going on.

And this is where the conversation shifts from “judicial review” to what many observers now call lawfare — the use of the legal system as a political weapon.

------------------------------------

1. The volume of lawsuits is unprecedented.

States and advocacy groups file lawsuits against Trump’s policies the moment they’re announced. No modern president has faced anything close to this level of immediate, coordinated litigation.

2. Venue shopping is part of the strategy.

Cases are filed in districts where plaintiffs expect a sympathetic judge or a circuit known for issuing nationwide injunctions. The goal isn’t just to challenge a policy — it’s to freeze it instantly.

3. Nationwide injunctions amplify the effect.

A single district judge can halt a federal policy across all 50 states. That power has become a political tool in its own right.

4. Delay becomes the real victory.

Even if Trump eventually wins on appeal, a policy blocked for six months or a year is effectively neutralized. The legal process becomes the battlefield.

✅ 5. The Judge Hannah Dugan conviction shows how far some judges are willing to go!

Just recently, Judge Hannah Dugan, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, was convicted of obstruction for helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal authorities during Trump‑era immigration enforcement.

*This wasn’t a policy disagreement.
*This wasn’t a legal interpretation.
*This was a judge actively interfering with federal law enforcement.

Her conviction is now being cited by many commentators as a real‑world example of how far some members of the judiciary are willing to go to oppose Trump‑aligned policies — even to the point of breaking the law themselves.

✅ 6. And the Judge Shelley Joseph case shows the inconsistency

In 2019, Judge Shelley Joseph was federally charged after allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant slip out a back door to avoid ICE agents. Those charges were brought during Trump’s presidency.

But under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice dropped the case, allowing her to avoid trial and return to the bench.

To many observers, the contrast is striking:

• One judge (Dugan) is convicted for obstructing federal immigration enforcement.
• Another judge (Joseph) had similar charges dropped once the administration changed.

This discrepancy fuels the argument that judicial accountability is being applied unevenly — and that political alignment may influence how aggressively misconduct is pursued.

Whether one sees this as selective enforcement, ideological protection, or simply inconsistent application of the law, the Joseph case adds another layer to the broader debate about lawfare and the role of the judiciary in political conflict.

7. The scale makes the pattern impossible to deny.

Presidents have always faced lawsuits. But 149 blocked actions in a single year isn’t “more of the same.” It’s a historic outlier — one that dwarfs anything seen under Obama or Biden.

8. This isn’t just about Trump — it’s about the system.

If this becomes the new normal, elections stop being decisive. Policies chosen by voters can be undone by a handful of judges. That’s not healthy for any democracy, no matter who you support.

The bottom line

You don’t have to agree with every Trump policy to see the bigger picture. When one president’s agenda is blocked 20 times more often than his predecessors — and when one judge is convicted for obstructing federal law enforcement while another had similar charges dropped — it’s not just legal oversight.

It’s a political strategy.

And it raises a serious question about whether the courts are being used to override the will of the voters.

That’s the conversation we should be having.

12/18/2025

“Judging people by how they treat you…”

James Woods (Hollywood conservative) recently commented on the death of his very liberal friend Rob Reiner. He reminded us that we’re all Americans and that even though we disagree politically, it doesn’t mean we can’t get along. There’s some serious wisdom in that interview.

[Attribution: FNC]

12/17/2025

Denmark’s Bold Shift: How Strict Immigration Polices Are Reshaping the Nation, in the evolving landscape of European immigration Denmark stands out for its decisive pivot toward stringent controls… a topic that’s captured widespread attention on platforms like YouTube. “Why Denmark is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration.”

One particularly insightful video “Why Denmark is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration” uploaded on November 6 2025 delves deeply into this transformation. Clocking in at around 15 minutes the video produced by a channel focused on global policy analysis traces Denmark’s journey from a historically welcoming Nordic welfare state to a “fortress” of deterrence. It opens with archival footage of the 2015 migration crisis where over a million people fled to Europe and contrasts Denmark’s response with Germany’s open-arms approach.

The narrator argues that unchecked immigration led to unsustainable strains on housing welfare and social cohesion backed by data visualizations showing immigrant-driven population growth and its economic ripple effects. Key segments break down specific policies like the “ghetto” designations where neighborhoods with high non-Western populations face mandatory interventions including child daycare requirements to instill Danish values from age one. The video features expert interviews including political analysts who explain how center-left leaders co-opted right-wing rhetoric to maintain power and it includes public opinion polls illustrating growing Danish skepticism toward further inflows.

Visually engaging with info-graphics and maps it concludes by positioning Denmark as a pragmatic model for the West emphasizing that these measures have restored national control without fully closing borders… evidenced by the warm reception of Ukrainian refugees seen as more integrate-able. The tone is analytical yet approving suggesting that while controversial the policies address real challenges like crime disparities and cultural erosion urging viewers to consider if other nations should follow suit.

This shift didn’t happen overnight… it has roots in a political evolution that started with conservative parties pushing for tighter borders back in the 1990s and early 2000s. The Danish People’s Party a right-wing populist group gained traction by criticizing mass immigration and influencing conservative governments to introduce initial restrictions like family reunification limits and welfare curbs for newcomers. But here’s the twist… by the 2010s the center-left Social Democrats under leaders like Mette Frederiksen pretty much adopted these tough stances to steal the thunder from the far-right and hold onto power. Frederiksen’s “zero refugee” approach announced in recent years is a prime example of how liberals flipped the script embracing what was once conservative territory to appeal to voters worried about cultural change and economic strain.

Zooming out, this pattern in Denmark mirrors a broader issue across the West, where mass immigration can often be laid at the feet of the liberal political mindset. It’s driven mainly by cravings for power through importing potential voter bases, and to a lesser degree by the trope of white guilt that pushes for open borders as some kind of atonement. In countries like Sweden, Germany, and even the US, progressive parties have historically championed high immigration levels, seeing it as a way to diversify electorates and secure long-term majorities, while framing restrictions as xenophobic, racist, tied to white nationalism, Islamophobic, and other labels like bigoted or anti-humanitarian. But as public backlash grows, even liberals are pivoting, like in Denmark, to stay relevant.

For Americans, Minnesota serves as the canary in the coal mine… with unchecked Somali immigration leading to strained schools, rising welfare costs, cultural clashes, and pockets of radicalization that many locals now openly regret as a warning sign of what happens when ideology trumps practical limits.

This video isn’t isolated it’s part of a broader wave of recent YouTube content highlighting Denmark’s approach. Here are some standout titles that echo similar themes complete with links for deeper dives:

“Why Denmark is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration”
“How Denmark’s Left Finally Solved Its Immigration Crisis”
“Denmark Just SOLVED The Immigration Crisis! A Massive Economic …”
“Denmark just declared a war on immigration”
(Search titles on YouTube.)

These videos collectively paint a picture of Denmark’s policies as a calculated response to decades of immigration growth often framing them as innovative solutions amid Europe’s ongoing debates.

Denmark has every right to self-determination… no country is obligated to take in or assimilate people who don’t share its core values culture or way of life. The policies have slashed asylum numbers dramatically from over 21,000 applications in 2015 to just a few hundred now with only 864 approvals in 2024… hitting a 40-year low. This has overwhelming support from Danes with 80-85% backing strict limits protecting their welfare system economy and social trust.

By putting Danes first they’ve avoided the chaos seen elsewhere preserved their high-trust society and shown that a small nation can stand firm on its borders without apology.In the end Denmark’s approach proves that nations can reclaim control prioritize their own citizens and reject the idea that open borders are some moral imperative… it’s a model more countries should look at seriously especially as others deal with the fallout of decades of unchecked flows.Sources:

Main Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4PNJgpeIYo
Supporting Facts: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo (on low asylum numbers), https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/10/denmark-grants-asylum-to-historically-low-number (864 approvals in 2024), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/09/denmarks-zero-refugee-policy-drives-down-asylum-admissions/ (zero refugee policy details)

WGT

Also, if you want more in-depth opinions, go to where Facebook and Company can't shadow ban or delete my work, as they are still doing in 2026. https://wiseguytalks.wordpress.com/

Centre-Left government granted 860 asylum requests in 2024 with immigration minister calling the figure ‘historic’

12/11/2025

Top 10 Damages from Democratic Policies Since Obama

1 Obamacare’s Cost Explosion: Premiums doubled since 2013, adding thousands annually per family. Seven million plans canceled despite promises. Democrats now blame Republicans for the mess they created.

2 Biden’s Border Surge: Over 6.7 million illegal entries since 2021, costing taxpayers $110 billion yearly in welfare and straining resources.

3 COVID Social Media Censorship: Biden administration pressured platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok to suppress dissent, eroding free speech.

4 Weaponized DOJ: Appointees like Holder and Garland pursued partisan actions, from IRS targeting conservatives to Jan. 6 overreach, politicizing justice.

5 Economic Stagnation: Obama’s stimulus favored Wall Street, leading to slow recovery and median income drops.

6 Biden’s Inflation Crisis: Trillions in spending drove 20%+ price hikes, making life una ffordable. Democrats now complain about high costs while ignoring Biden’s direct role in creating them.

7 Deficit and Debt Explosion: Policies added trillions, pushing national debt over $35 trillion, burdening future generations.

8 Partisan Blame-Shifting: Democrats dodge accountability, pinning their healthcare failures and economic woes on Republicans.

9 Executive Overreach: Obama’s DACA and Biden’s parole programs bypassed Congress, weakening laws.

10 Eroded Trust in Institutions: Scandals from IRS to FBI collusion fostered division and distrust in elections.

And that’s a fact, Jack!

12/11/2025

It's Time To Break The Chain!

In the mid-20th century, the United States reformed its immigration system to eliminate discriminatory national origins quotas that had favored Europeans. The result was a policy intended to promote equality, but it inadvertently created a mechanism for exponential family-based immigration known as chain migration. Rooted in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), this system has grown far beyond its original scope, intersecting with birthright citizenship to drive massive demographic shifts.

Today, it stands as a key driver of legal immigration, raising questions about sustainability, national sovereignty, and political impacts.The concept of chain migration traces back to the Hart-Celler Act, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 3, 1965. This law ended the 1924 quota system, which had restricted immigration from Asia, Africa, and Southern/Eastern Europe. It prioritized family reunification, allowing U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor spouses, minor children, and parents without numerical limits, while capping visas for adult children and siblings.

Proponents, including Senator Ted Kennedy, promised it would not increase overall immigration or alter the nation's ethnic composition significantly. However, the policy enabled chains: a sponsored immigrant could later sponsor others, creating extended networks across generations.In its current form, family-based immigration dominates U.S. legal permanent residency.

In fiscal year 2023, it accounted for approximately 64% of the 1.1 million green cards issued, totaling around 704,000 individuals. Immediate relatives made up over half, with backlogs exceeding 4 million applications due to per-country caps (7% per nation) and category limits. Wait times can span years or decades, especially from countries like Mexico, India, and the Philippines.

The system remains capped overall but allows unlimited immediate relatives of citizens, fueling ongoing growth.Since 1965, chain migration has facilitated enormous inflows. Over 76 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S., with family pathways enabling the majority. Analyses estimate that from 1981 to 2016, about 20 million of 33 million admitted immigrants (61%) entered via chain migration. Including prior decades, the total exceeds 40 million direct and indirect beneficiaries.

This shifted the immigrant source from predominantly European to largely Latin American and Asian, with the foreign-born population rising from 4.7% in 1970 to 14.3% (47.8 million) by 2023.Critics argue this deviates from the 1965 Act's civil rights intent, which aimed to end discrimination without unleashing uncontrolled growth. Lawmakers assured minimal impact, yet annual levels tripled, moving away from merit-based selection. Chain migration amplifies through the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship (ratified 1868 for freed slaves), granting citizenship to children born on U.S. soil.

These "anchor babies" can later sponsor relatives, bypassing original limits and exploiting a post-Civil War provision, as interpreted in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case.Notably, unrestricted birthright citizenship—key to many chains—is rare globally. As of 2025, only about 33 countries offer unconditional jus soli, mostly in the Americas (e.g., Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina). No European country does; many ended it decades ago (e.g., UK in 1983, Ireland in 2005, Australia in 1986, New Zealand in 2006). Outside the Western Hemisphere, it is limited to a handful like Chad, Lesotho, Tanzania, Fiji, and Tuvalu.

This "tomfoolery" is practiced by fewer than 35 nations worldwide, making the U.S. an outlier among developed countries.Reforms to address this include limiting family sponsorship to nuclear families (spouses and minor children), as proposed in past bills like the RAISE Act (2017). Project 2025 and similar initiatives advocate merit-based systems prioritizing skills and economic contributions.

Bipartisan efforts have suggested raising caps or adding points-based elements, though many failed. Restricting birthright citizenship via legislation or amendment faces hurdles but has precedents in global restrictions.Chain migration has disproportionately benefited Democrats politically. Immigrants and descendants from high-chain countries (Latin America, Asia) lean Democratic: 2024 exit polls showed 54% of Latinos and 63% of Asians voting Democrat.

This adds congressional seats and Electoral College votes to Democratic-leaning states through census counts of all residents, including non-citizens. Pathways to citizenship further naturalize voters who overwhelmingly support Democrats.From a targeted reform to a transformative force, chain migration highlights America's immigration evolution.

Balancing family unity with controlled, merit-focused entry is essential for the nation's future.

It is time to break the chain.

12/10/2025

Stephen Miller Just Dropped a Bomb on the 1965 Immigration Act and Here’s What He Actually Said

Date: December 10, 2025
By: WGT

Yesterday, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller went on Fox News’ The Will Cain Show and delivered one of the most unfiltered takedowns of post-1965 U.S. immigration policy ever aired on mainstream television.

In a 15-minute segment that quickly went viral, Miller called the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (the Hart-Celler Act) “the single largest social experiment ever conducted on any society in human history”, and declared it an unmitigated disaster.

Here’s the core of what he argued, in his own words and logic, stripped of spin:

1. The 1924–1965 “Pause” Was America’s Golden Era of AssimilationMiller pointed to the half-century after the 1924 Immigration Act, when strict national-origin quotas reduced net immigration almost to zero.

Result: the foreign-born share of the population fell by roughly 40% while the total U.S. population doubled through native births. Wages rose, schools improved, crime stayed low, and newcomers who were already here assimilated rapidly.

His takeaway: “That pause is what allowed us to become the strongest, most cohesive nation on earth.”

2. 1965 “Slammed the Door Open” and Replaced Merit with Chain MigrationThe 1965 law abolished the quota system and made “family reunification” the overwhelming priority.

Miller’s blunt translation: “It created a global right for anybody from anywhere on earth to move their entire extended family and, in some cases, their entire village to the United States, no skills required, no education required, no health required, no language required.”

Since then, more than **76 million immigrants** and their descendants have arrived, overwhelmingly from the developing world.

3. The Real-World Consequences (in Miller’s View)

He ran through a rapid-fire list of problems that he says disappear or shrink dramatically once you “subtract immigration” from the data:

*Plummeting public-school test scores
*Exploding violent crime in many cities
*Overwhelmed hospitals and skyrocketing health-care costs
*Chronic welfare dependency that lasts multiple generations
*Trillion-dollar deficits fueled by low-wage, high-benefit households

His most provocative line:

“If Somalis can’t make Somalia successful, why would we think their track record is suddenly going to be different here?”

He argued that importing large numbers of poor, uneducated, or unassimilated people inevitably recreates the very conditions they fled.

4. The Political Cover-UpMiller’s bigger accusation:

Washington and the media deliberately hide immigration’s role in these crises.

“Every major public-policy challenge we face today, from schools to hospitals to crime to the deficit, gets dramatically better if you simply remove immigration from the equation.”

5. His Proposed Fix?

A total moratorium on immigration from third-world countries “until we heal ourselves,” followed by a return to a merit-based, assimilation-focused system modeled on the pre-1965 era.

The Reaction?

Predictably, the clip detonated across social media. Critics called it xenophobic and “eugenics-adjacent.” Supporters hailed it as the most honest 15 minutes about immigration ever spoken by a senior White House official.

Whatever your view, Miller just forced the post-1965 immigration era back into the center of the national debate...on his terms, in his language, and without apology.

Love him or hate him, that’s why the interview matters. Now, let's hope Zuckerberg let's this national conversation rage, without his biased stooges censuring a discussion that must be had.