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.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep