You Have No Right to Protest American Laws If You're Here Illegally

May 30, 2017

WRITER

A ruckus broke out at the Texas State Capitol building after protestors --- many of whom claimed to be illegal --- filled the rotunda on what is typically a calm and ceremonial last day of the legislative session. The protestors took exception to Senate Bill 4, legislation already signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, which requires local cities and counties to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and uphold federal law.

"If you're on American soil illegally, you're not an American. You have no right to protest American laws. Period. I don't care if what you're protesting is moral, you have no legal right to do so. This is so infuriating to me," Doc Thompson said Tuesday, filling in for Glenn on radio.

State Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) notified ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) of the hundreds of illegal protestors at the Capitol, enraging Hispanic legislators which led to an altercation that included threats and violence.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

DOC: You have no right to protest American laws on American soil if you are not here legally. If you're on American soil illegally, you're not an American. You have no right to protest American laws. Period. I don't care if what you're protesting is moral, you have no legal right to do so. This is so infuriating to me.

BRAD: But they keep getting away with it.

DOC: There was a ruckus at this Texas statehouse over the weekend. It was their final day of their session, and they passed a piece of legislation that would ban sanctuary cities in Texas and then punish any local communities who acted as a sanctuary city. And that is not only a good thing, it's -- it shouldn't even have to get to that. There should be no sanctuary cities. I don't care what you're sanctuarying against, wrong. It's not the law. If you don't agree with the law, then work to change the law. So if you want to say "Well, I don't agree with antimurder laws, you ought to be able to murder people. You don't harbor murderers. You're in violation of the law. What you do is work to make murder legal, if that's what you support.

BRANDON: Right.

DOC: So what happened was a bunch of illegals pile in, and they're in the rotunda and protesting. Some of them having signs and shirts saying I am illegal and here to stay. Admitting that they're in the country illegally. Maybe some of them were wearing the shirts and that in solidarity. But I would venture with that many people piled in there, some of them were being honest.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: Hell, we had President Obama bring one into the capitol during one of his state of the union addresses.

BRANDON: Yes.

DOC: This has happened. Admitted illegals being sheltered by people. They're harboring people who are violating the law, and it's not a one-violation their very existence continues to violate the law every second. If I go out and shoot somebody and somebody harbors me, they're harboring me as an illegal being on the run.

BRANDON: Right.

DOC: If -- but it was only based on one crime being on the run. They're continuing to violate the law every second that they're here.

BRANDON: Uh-huh.

DOC: Every day saying I'm here, and I know I'm doing wrong. So they have the shirts, they're wearing them, they're protesting. So what should have happened is they should have come in and rounded them all up and taken them away. Show me your papers. Prove that you're here illegally. You're admitting. You're telling law enforcement and everybody else by your shirts and signs you're legally.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: This is like saying to a cop as he walks by, I have pot on me. That's probable cause. I just beat the hell out of some dude in that alley. I just raped a woman. Whatever. That's probable cause. Cops didn't do that. So a Republican representative Matt Renaldi put on Facebook and then said to one of his Democrat colleagues that he called ICE on them.

BRANDON: Okay. Yeah, okay.

DOC: You guys aren't upset about this?

BRAD: Nope.

BRANDON: No.

DOC: Okay. Neither am I. That's what I should have done. In fact, Matt, the sad thing is that nobody else called ice.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: All of your other colleagues should have. Everybody else in the statehouse, they should have done it. Even the Democrats. This should what should happen. They're in violation of the law. Instead, he claims two Democrat colleagues, one of them physically assaulted him and the other verbally assaulted

him.

BRANDON: Really?

DOC: That one of them -- and he didn't go into detail of what the physical assault was that I know. But this is what he claimed happened, which caused a ruckus amongst the legislatures as well. So you have all of the illegals back and forth and the protesters and everything else that actually ends up causing because of this dispute between the two guys or three guys more ruckus on the floor of the house. So they get into it as well.

So then, Matt posts kind of an explanation on Facebook. He said representative Pancho Nev·rez threatened my life on the floor after I called ice on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery. When I told Democrats I called ice, representative Raymond Romero physically assaulted me and other Democrats were held by colleagues.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: During the time Pancho told me he would "Get me" on the way to my car. He later approached me and reiterated that I had to leave at some point, and he would"Get me."

BRANDON: Wow. Okay.

BRAD: Welcome to Texas.

DOC: Right. In addition to the guys who assaulted him that he named, he's saying that other ones -- they had to be held back. What did he do, leftists? What did he do, Democrats? He called police.

BRANDON: He had the law enforced.

BRAD: On the dreamers. That's the problem.

DOC: How is he wrong? Even if you think that the cops strangely should not enforce the law, why was he wrong?

BRAD: Because these people are just here because they have a dream. They want to live the American dream. Why are you such a hater?

DOC: But I get the argument with that. But why did he do wrong by calling the police? If you see something, say something.

BRAD: It's mean to do that.

BRANDON: Yeah, and that's what it boils down to right there. We're dealing with the marginalized community. How dare he act against them. How dare he. It doesn't matter that what they're doing is illegal. It doesn't matter that many of the -- let's be honest, many of these people who come over here are committing crimes. They're not put back all right? They're here to stay. All right? It doesn't matter if that's who they're defending. All right? No, don't get me wrong, I don't want to say this is all who they are. But at the same time, you have to -- these people are causing major problems.

DOC: And the percentage, even if lower of illegals that come, that commit crimes versus regular populous, which there's no way to determine that. First of all, people on the left will be the first ones to tell you these people live in the shadows, and they don't like to report crimes. Well, they're not going to report crimes that happened in their community if it's committed by people like them, illegal, you would never know. But even if you can prove a tenth of the amount of crime committed by the people already here, that crime still would not exist if they were not here.

BRANDON: Enforcing the law.

DOC: And it's still irrelevant. It's a violation of the law.

BRANDON: Exactly.

DOC: So your argument is we don't like the law, so the law should not be enforced.

BRANDON: Uh-huh.

DOC: That's wrong. You should enforce the law. But even if your argument is it's so important what these people are going through to get them help that it trumps the law or whatever, let's talk about that for a moment. The argument constantly is these people just want a better way of life.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: Well, first of all, there's the hypocrisy of many of the people that support them because they lock their doors. They won't let me come in for a better way of life. How many millionaires and billionaires support illegal immigration? They don't let me take into their house. Their house is going to be a hell of a lot better than my life. I want a better life, don't you?

BRANDON: Oh, yeah.

DOC: Hey, Zuckerberg has actually built a wall around his property. It might be the property -- it's either Hawaii or the Hamptons. I can't remember which. He was in a dispute with neighbors because he wanted to build a higher, more complete wall. And he's one of the biggest supporters of illegals.

BRANDON: Steven king, beating this drum. Illegals need to be welcomed. But have you ever seen his property? It's massive. It has a huge wall around it. He doesn't let anybody in.

DOC: Right. So give away your money and tear down your wall and let me flop at your house and give free stuff and redistribute your wealth, or you're hypocrites. But that aside, what is the best way to deal with the people around the world that are poverty stricken? Can we -- would we be able to simply open our borders and say come on in. We have to help all of your people. No. America would no longer exist. It would overwhelm us. It's the drowning man thing. If somebody is drowning, you can't just jump in and drown him? Now, I'm a Christian, I believe in helping people. There's a right way and a wrong way. The right way is not support people violating the law, support us not knowing who people are, open borders we would never be able to protect America and help people in the future. Or condone illegal bad behavior. The way to help people is allow people to legally emigrate here every year, which we do a million people alone. And to help as best we can people to make their country and local communities better.

BRANDON: Which is where we should start.

DOC: Which we do.

BRANDON: I forget who said this. But it used to be easier to emigrate here. People would get off a ship. What's your name? We have to make it easier. We didn't have entitlements back then. And that's the crux of everything here. We cannot have all of these people who are primarily poor come in, get on the government goal because that's just going to skyrocket taxpayer like what we have to pay into entitlements way beyond anything that we can possibly imagine, and our economy would crumble. This is why we can't have open borders. Look, this is just -- I get the sentiment. I do. I feel bad for those people. They're living in hell holes where their lives are ruled by drug lords, you know? They live in these poverty-stricken neighborhoods, they want to come here for a better life. I understand that. And I feel for them. I really do. But if they all come here like they want to, they're going to wind up in the same exact place that they left.

BRAD: And the cynical side of me says it's not about helping them. It's another voting block. It's each -- and Democrats and Republicans, they both do it. You get this big lump of votes.

DOC: George W. Bush even did it.

BRAD: Exactly.

DOC: So you think they're disingenuous in helping people.

BRAD: Yeah, I think in a lot of cases.

DOC: But even those who truly want to help people, you can't tear apart their families, and you're willing to forget that I didn't can a us their problems. I didn't cause the possibility of their families being split up. They did when they came here illegally and brought their families or had kids, knowing that they could be split at some time. That was a choice they made. But even if you're saying we need to care for them and that matters most, then let's take this piece by piece. I have somebody who I am staunchly against illegal immigration and powerfully in favor of legal immigration, as many as we can bring to America without hurting America. If it's 10 million a year, 500 a year, whatever it is. Powerfully in favor of legal immigration, controlled. Let's stop with comprehensive immigration are he form where we throw everything together. There's three main phases. Border security, legal immigration reform, and what to do with the illegals that are here. Fix the border first. All separate bills. The only reason you want comprehensive plans is because you want to tack on the illegals being legalized somehow.

So let's take them apart. We can solve a lot of this right off. Let's fix the border. Great. Done. Let's reform the legal immigration system and what it should be is controlled so we know who people are. But the big problem with legal immigration is the expense. For about $20,000 in total is what it takes to legally emigrate here by the time you navigate the legal system. So you have people who are likely poor coming in paying $20,000 they don't have. I think I just checked recently and to file the form for your citizenship once you meet every other standard is about 1,000 bucks. That's a lot of cash for me, let alone someone coming here poor. So make that cheaper. Make it easier to understand. Not necessarily easier but easier to understand. I'm fine with all of that. Great, we can do that. If you want to fix the visas, fine. Boom, done. So we've just solved most of the issues we have with immigration, as long as we separate them. And then what do you have left? The illegals that are here, and you have two. Two types. Those that are here illegally and those who were brought here illegally. I reluctantly am willing to say the kids didn't violate the law. They didn't bring them here. Who violated the law? Although they're illegal, they didn't do it. Their parents or guardians brought them here. Okay. I'll reluctantly meet you halfway and say we can come up with something -- stop calling them dreamers. Knock that crap off.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: And I'll meet you and say fine. But I can't -- I cannot abide by legalizing pathway to citizenship people who broke the law when so many other people didn't. And if you're saying Doc or whatever, I told you I'm willing to be compassionate. But the people who came here legally who are out $20,000 like my mother-in-law and my wife, are they going to reimburse the $40,000? I could use 40 grand right now, guys, just so you know. Are you going to give that money back to us?

BRANDON: No. And they know how to gain the system. 62 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant receive some form of welfare.

DOC: Right. They know how to game it because legally the Federal Government is not allowed to give people here legally free stuff. But they find a way to give free system and if you're a child in America, regardless of all else, you are entitled to a free education.

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?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

You Have No Right to Protest American Laws If You're Here Illegally

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

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

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

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

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

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?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

A revolutionary wedge

Negotiating with radicals

What we really celebrated