🇺🇸 BORDER BOMBSHELL: Kennedy & Noem Expose Alleged Democratic Hypocrisy, Claiming Security Foes Are “Upset You Did Their Job”

In a Congressional hearing that rapidly escalated into a highly partisan confrontation, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) and an unnamed Secretary (widely presumed to be Governor Kristi Noem, based on context and her consistent policy advocacy) unleashed a blistering critique of the Democratic Party’s stance on border enforcement. The core accusation: Democrats intentionally dismantled successful border security measures under President Biden, not due to simple incompetence, but to deliberately facilitate illegal immigration for political and ideological gain, a claim that struck the heart of the national immigration debate.

The exchange, which has since gone viral among conservative commentators, centered on the apparent hypocrisy of critics who now oppose Republican security efforts, despite the acknowledged success of border enforcement achieved under the prior administration.

.

.

.

The Core Accusation: Incompetence or Intentional Design?

Senator Kennedy initiated the sharp line of questioning by framing the situation in stark, binary terms, forcing the Secretary to confirm the Republican narrative of deliberate obstruction.

“You pretty much secured the southern border, haven’t you?” Kennedy pressed.

“Yes, sir,” the Secretary replied, referencing the success under President Trump’s administration.

The Senator immediately followed up with the question that formed the crux of the segment’s headline: “That upsets some of my colleagues, doesn’t it?” After the Secretary’s affirmative response, Kennedy pushed deeper, questioning the motive behind the Democratic backlash.

“Do you think they’re upset because you supposedly did it the wrong way or do you think they’re upset that you did it at all?” Kennedy challenged.

The Secretary’s response was definitive: “I think they’re upset that by President Trump enforcing the law, it happened so quickly and successfully.”

The dialogue then shifted to the actions taken immediately after President Biden took office. Kennedy characterized the reversal of border policies as an open invitation. “The first thing he did was get rid of all of the things we were doing to stop people from coming into our country illegally, didn’t he? I mean, it was like the Price is Right. Come on down. Except he said come on in.“

The Senator’s relentless line of questioning sought to establish that the mass influx was not an accident, but a calculated, ideological choice supported by the majority of Democratic lawmakers.

The Staggering Scale of the Influx: Adding ’10 Nebraskas’

The gravity of the accusation was amplified by the staggering statistics presented during the hearing, though the Secretary was careful to frame them as estimates. When asked for a ballpark figure on the number of people President Biden had “let into our country illegally,” the Secretary offered a number that drew audible reaction.

“We don’t know for certain, but we believe it could be upwards to 20 million people that are illegally in this country.“

Kennedy quickly contextualized the sheer magnitude of the figure for the American public. “So, so that’s like adding 10 Nebraskas to our country, isn’t it?“

The Secretary confirmed the equivalence, setting the stage for a discussion of the alleged societal fallout. The implication was clear: such a massive influx, even if the 20 million estimate is speculative, must be viewed as an intentional restructuring of the U.S. population.

The Secretary then went on to list the supposed negative consequences of this policy: the “emptying out the worst of the worst,” including criminals, individuals from mental institutions, and “known terrorists.” This rhetoric served to elevate the policy debate from an economic or logistical concern to a severe national security threat.

The Dichotomy: Open Borders or Utter Incompetence

Senator Kennedy cornered the Secretary with a philosophical dilemma, attempting to eliminate any possibility of accidental failure and confirm the ideological motive.

“Only one or two circumstances are possible,” Kennedy mused. “It seems to me either President Biden and the Democrats who supported him believe in open borders, or the people that President Biden put in charge of securing the border, you wouldn’t trust to run a snowball stand, right?“

The Secretary immediately agreed: “That is correct.“

Kennedy delivered the conclusion he sought: “So nobody is that incompetent. So it has to be they just believe in open borders, do they not?“

The Secretary’s confirmation—that Democrats believe in open borders and are acting on that belief—provided the foundational accusation of the entire hearing. The Secretary further stressed that the border agents she knew personally “weren’t allowed to do their job,” reinforcing the claim of intentional sabotage from the top.

The Political Calculus: Potential New Voters and ‘Racist’ Vetting

The most controversial element of Kennedy’s cross-examination focused on the political reward Democrats allegedly sought from the border influx.

“Do you think that President Biden and some of my Democratic colleagues… thought of these foreign nationals in our country illegally as potential new voters?” Kennedy asked directly.

“I do, sir,” the Secretary confirmed, lending credence to the notion that the policy was designed to shift the national electorate.

Furthermore, Kennedy probed the ideological reason behind the lack of vetting, suggesting that Democrats viewed security procedures through a purely political lens. “Do you think they believe that vetting people at the border is racist?” Again, the Secretary confirmed: “Yes, I do. I think by the way they allowed people in and granted them immediate parole status.“

The Senator countered the implied progressive argument by drawing a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigration, asserting that opposing illegal immigration while supporting the legal process does not constitute racism, but merely a respect for the “rule of law.“

The Double Standard of the Judiciary

The hearing also served as a platform for a fierce critique of the federal judiciary, accusing some judges of applying a blatant double standard to border enforcement.

Kennedy noted the prevalence of “national injunctions” issued to stop the current administration from doing its job, yet he pointedly asked the Secretary if she could recall “one single solitary federal judge” who issued a national injunction against the Biden administration when they were allegedly “letting 20 million people come into the country illegally.“

The Secretary confirmed she could not recall a single instance.

“I can’t either,” Kennedy declared, delivering a final punch: “If it weren’t for double standards, there wouldn’t be any standards at all.” This charge of judicial hypocrisy served to broaden the alleged conspiracy beyond just the Democratic executive and legislative branches.

The Final Warning: History, Crime, and the Poisonous Skittles Analogy

Following the intense questioning, a commentator delivered a passionate final segment, bolstering the arguments made by Kennedy and the Secretary with historical and moral reasoning.

The commentator issued a powerful historical challenge: “Tell me one civilization or one country throughout the history of this world that has ever thrived having an open border policy. I’ll give you a quick short answer. There has been none.“

This final segment heavily emphasized the perceived threats to public safety and health, directly linking the open border policy to crime statistics and the “number of fentinol deaths that have been happening in America” since the policies were enacted.

The segment concluded with a stark, vivid metaphor intended to drive home the moral case for stringent security: “If you had a bag of Skittles and three of those Skittles were poisonous and you die right away, would you eat the Skittles? Absolutely not.“

The speaker argued that the true Democratic motive was pure political self-interest: “I don’t even think they’re upset. I think they are terrified because there goes half of their voting base… A lot of illegal immigrants are coming to these places [liberal states] because they’re treated better than people who came in the right way.“

The segment finalized its accusation by citing reports that illegal immigrants were allegedly housed in “four and five-star hotels in New York City,” with the American taxpayer footing the bill, an act that is “only incentivizing more people to break the law.”

The dramatic hearing served as a high-volume platform for Republicans to assert that the crisis at the border is a calculated political maneuver designed to secure future Democratic power, cementing the belief among conservative voters that their political rivals are actively working against the nation’s security and sovereignty.