1 Hour Ago: Tucker Carlson - "MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS ARE COMING HERE! Wars are causing this"

Of all the effects of the current conflict in the Middle East, one we can be certain of at this point is that there are going to be a lot of refugees, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. Where should they go? That's a real question. So if you were to suggest, well, why doesn't Israel take them in? It's their war. The response you would get would be immediate and it would be aggressive and it would be, of course not, that's insane. These people are dangerous. If they were moved to Israel, it would be destabilizing for that country. And that's probably true. In fact, it's certainly true. But what's interesting is the very same people who would tell you that are now pushing for those refugees to be sent to the West, to English-speaking countries, Scotland, the UK, and yes, the United States. Calls for this are coming from the left, predictably, but also from the so-called right. We should take these refugees. What's going on here? And is anyone pushing back against it? Well, Nigel Farage is the head of the UK Independence Party, joins us now with an update on where this conversation is going. Nigel, thank you so much for coming on. So it's a little strange that the very people who acknowledge that this would be a massive threat to Israel, and they're absolutely right, by the way, I'm not calling for Israel to take these refugees, but those same people are saying the UK and the US and Scotland should take them. What's the thinking here? I mean, we have a great history in the UK of taking refugees. You can go back 300 years to the Protestants in France who were being burnt at the stake, and we took in a large number of French Protestants, Huguenots, as they were known, and they did very, very well in commerce, finance, the military in our country. The same applies to Jewish people. We took Jews in from Russia after the pogroms at the start of the 20th century. We took Jewish people in from Germany and Austria in the 1930s. And indeed, if you go to the 1970s, we took quite a large number of people from Uganda, where Idi Amin threatened to annihilate the Asian population there. And again, they were a group that came to the country, assimilated, did incredibly well. So, you know, we feel as a country with our Christian roots and our desire to help those in genuine need, that we should try and help people. But remember that the duty of any government, its primary duty is the integrity of its own country and its citizens. Now, over the course of the last six, seven years, we've taken over half a million legal refugees. They've come to us from Hong Kong, our former colony being oppressed by the Chinese Communist Party. They've come to us from Afghanistan. They've come to us from Syria. They've come to us, of course, from Ukraine. The big problem here is that Hamas, the terrorist group Hamas, although the BBC will never call them terrorists, but Hamas who launched those appalling, barbaric attacks on everything down to babies on October the 7th, they enjoy considerable support in Gaza. Indeed, the last elections that were fought in Gaza a few years ago, Hamas came top of the poll. So if you take any significant number from Gaza into our country, you will have a significant percentage of Hamas sympathisers and supporters among them. And you have to ask, given the protests we've seen on the streets of London just this weekend and the weekend before, whether maybe we've got enough of a problem in this country already. And I, you know, we've had successive waves of Islamic extremist terrorism on our streets. There's a case going on right at the moment from somebody who was killed just a couple of weeks ago. The authorities do their best to suppress all of these stories. So my argument, and I'm pretty much alone in this, is that if we take people from Gaza, they will actually pose, some of them, enough of them will pose a threat to our national security. And if anyone should take them, Tucker, shouldn't it be the Egyptians? Shouldn't it be the Saudis? Shouldn't it be their co-religionists in that part of the world? And how interesting that Saudi Arabia didn't take a single person from Syria because they were worried of the impact it would have on Saudi society. Right. And the same goes for Egypt right now. So if they won't take them, why on earth should we threaten national security? I want to go back to something you said at the beginning, that the English feel good about themselves because it's a Christian country and it is still, I think, officially a Christian country, though it's obviously not, but it is technically a Christian country. They feel good because they're expressing Christian charity in receiving all these refugees. But has that policy made England better? Is it a more cohesive, happier country than it was 40 years ago? It doesn't seem to be at all. No. I mean, you know, we have now got, we have now got, and our London Metropolitan Police don't know what to do. We have people on the streets of London this Saturday shouting jihad. People on the streets of London carrying ISIS banners, chanting, going on, on the streets of London, from Palestine to the sea, sorry, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, meaning Israel should be literally obliterated. So we now have the politics of other countries on our streets because of who we've let in. This group of people have not assimilated. They have not integrated. And therefore, why compound the problem? Historically, it's been a success, but in modern times, it is now dividing our society. It is threatening our way of life. It is threatening our free speech. It's happening here. I mean, look at Germany. Look at Germany. Can you believe that in Germany, of all countries in the last week, Jewish people in Berlin have had stars of David graffitied on their front doors? So you can see all over the West, this is a massive problem, and it's not one from which America is immune. It's interesting that no one ever says, well, China's got the fastest growing economy in the world. They have an obligation to take in millions of refugees from other countries. Nobody ever says that. Nobody says that about the Gulf States. It's only Christian countries that have this obligation. And I think it's obviously destroyed those countries. Germany, I mean, people are getting raped in Germany on the street long before the Hamas attacks of October 7th. This is a longstanding problem. So, but why do you think that is? Why do you think that prosperous Christian countries in the West have this obligation that every other country, India, China, Saudi, they're all exempt from it? What is that? Yeah, I mean, take Japan. You know, Japan is a functioning modern democracy, but Japan, of course, takes hardly anybody. In fact, even on legal immigration, Japan is very strict and very tight because they want to protect the integrity of their culture and their country. Why? Partly guilt. I think the older countries seem to be absolutely infused with guilt about their colonial past, but also- Wait a second. Japan was one of the most aggressive colonial powers in history. And they don't, but no one's pushing them. Why? I mean, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but it does seem like this is an effort to destroy certain kinds of countries. And of course it's worked. Why not just say that? We have allowed the virus of Marxism to take hold in our countries. We're being told to be ashamed of our histories. We're being told that we're institutionally racist. We're being told that we suffer from our own form of bias. And we indoctrinate our school kids with this stuff. And the reason this neo-Marxist agenda has taken such hold in Britain, Europe, and indeed in much of America too, is actually not because of the left. It's because the conservatives- I've noticed. In those countries have not had the courage to stand up to this stuff. And, you know, you look at my country. We're being told we should be ashamed of slavery. You know, we spent nearly 50 years using the Royal Navy at massive cost, stamping out slavery, stopping the rest of Europe carrying out slavery. Nobody ever comes up with those arguments. Conservative cowardice through politics and media has led to so very much of this. Well, Britain ended the transatlantic slave trade. So the moment of awakening is coming. Well, so your own prime minister, who was a conservative, but obviously has zero interest in the country that he supposedly runs. For example, that's very obvious as an American looking across. His new priority is ending tobacco use in a country with a massive narcotics problem and a massive refugee problem and an economy based on what, banking or something that's falling apart? Why is he focused on tobacco? I'm confused. Do not for one moment, please make the mistake of thinking that the party that is now in power in my country and has been there for 13 years has anything to do with being conservative. I've noticed. We have the highest tax burden we've had since 1951 when we were busy paying off wartime debts. We have the growth of a surveillance society that punishes the innocent and never the genuinely guilty. We have legislation to control our lives at every level. We've just put up corporation tax by 30% to damage every man and woman running a small business that wanted to reinvest and grow in this country. And despite Brexit, we still have not lifted the regulatory burden, which of course supports the big corporates, but damages the entrepreneurs. And for Sunak, one year on from an election to decide his main priorities would have stopped anybody after 2009 buying cigarettes, whilst we have a massive, massive problem with drugs causing huge short-term damage to our youngsters. Oh, and the other thing is to fiddle around with the A-levels that 18-year-olds do. Neither of those two things would have been on the top 25 priorities of almost anybody in our country. And that's why we're headed next year in this country for a dramatic, dramatic collapse of conservative support in the general election. And do you know what? Not only will they lose the election, they deserve to lose it. Yeah, I mean, I would support someone from the hard left who actually cared about England over Sunak, who clearly despises the country that he runs. But I just want to zero in on this question of tobacco. So it's impossible to imagine him saying cannabis use has massive side effects. It's not helping our country at all. That would be inconceivable. But tobacco use, which has long-term bad health consequences, true, but also raises testosterone levels. That's the threat? Like, how is that the threat? I mean, it's absolutely wide of the market. Yeah, you're right. Tobacco causes long-term potential problems, but it doesn't actually cause short-term problems. Drugs cause psychological short-term problems. Absolutely deleterious to our younger generation, but he sidestepped the big issue, went for what he thought was the easy one. And look, you know, everywhere we see the growth of big government, big government that wants to control every aspect of our lives, and it's all irrelevant. You know, our national debt, I mean, our debt interest payment is massive, just as it is in the USA. Our entrepreneurship is falling. Our levels of national security through failed immigration leave us more vulnerable to internal terrorist attack than ever before. It's almost unbelievable that banning cigarettes for anybody born after 2009 could even be seen to be a priority.