Vermont Democrat slammed over ‘disturbing' argument for more immigration: ‘We're not going to have anyone around to wipe our a–es'
The congresswoman made the outrageous claim — which she herself called 'crude' — during a town hall in Newport, Vt., last week, in response to a question about US immigration policy.
'Our economy is completely bound up in immigration and migrant labor,' Balint told her constituents. 'We have to come to a place in Congress where it is no longer a political issue, but we see it as an existential issue for the country.'
Advertisement
'If we don't have avenues for people to come here legally to work or to build a home here, I'm going to be really crude right now — we're not going to have anybody around to wipe our a–es because we don't have enough people in our country now to fill the jobs that we have.'
3 Balint made the crude comment during a town hall in Vermont on May 28.
Becca Balient/YouTube
'We also want to make sure that we have an adult conversation in Congress' about immigration, Vermont's sole congressional rep continued.
Advertisement
Vermont Republican Party Chairman Paul Dame demanded that Balint apologize to Vermont's immigrant community for the 'disturbing sentiment' expressed in her remarks.
'Congresswoman Balint should apologize — not only for her crude choice of words, but more importantly for the disturbing sentiment that the primary purpose of immigration is to perform labor that she deems beneath the dignity of others,' Dame said in a statement.
3 Vermont's GOP chairman demanded Balint apologize for the remark.
Becca Balient/YouTube
'At the heart of these remarks is an opinion so offensive and so profoundly out of touch that it reveals a fundamental lack of respect for those who come to this country — abiding by the rules — in pursuit of freedom, opportunity, and a better life,' he added.
Advertisement
Dame noted that immigrants in the Green Mountain State have held 'remarkable careers in high-tech fields,' served as 'world-class physicians' in Vermont hospitals, and are 'critical to our small business community, providing a wide array of goods and services that enrich our state.'
'The way Congresswoman Balint reduced Vermont's hard-working legal immigrants to little more than 'a– wipers' is embarrassing,' the GOP chairman argued. 'She owes them — and all Vermonters — an apology for such a shameful characterization.'
3 Balint, a former teacher, has served in the House of Representatives since 2023.
AP
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) highlighted Balint's comments on Wednesday, arguing that the congresswoman was promoting 'open borders.'
Advertisement
'While complaining about President Trump deporting illegal immigrants, Vermont Democrat Becca Balint claims: 'We're not going to have anyone around to wipe our a–es.' Democrats' goal is, was and always will be open borders,' the NRCC wrote on X.
Mark Coester, the congresswoman's 2026 GOP opponent for Vermont's at-large congressional district, quipped that 'from this day forward,' Balint 'will not be remembered only for her incompetence but more for her INCONTINENCE.'
'We all have accidents in life but no Vermont residents ever required illegals to clean up a messy accident,' Coester wrote on X.
Balint's office did not respond to The Post's request for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Washington must lead as AI reshapes the world
Artificial intelligence isn't just changing how we work but how we live. As a surgeon, I have seen how AI tools can reduce diagnostic errors, streamline paperwork and free me to spend more time with patients. It doesn't replace me — it makes me better at my job. In many ways, it lets me be more human. From agriculture to education, logistics to climate response, AI is already solving real problems. But the disruption is real, too — job losses, confusion and rising public distrust. Without direction, AI could deepen inequality, concentrate power and erode trust in democratic institutions. With the right leadership, it could do the opposite. This moment demands more than regulation. It needs vision — strategic, inclusive and grounded in shared democratic values. And that's where Washington comes in. I grew up in India, trained in Britain and now live and teach in Canada. Across continents, I have seen how new technologies can lift societies — or leave people behind. When the internet and personal computers emerged, many feared mass unemployment. There was disruption, yes, but also new industries, jobs and hope. AI holds similar potential — if we prepare wisely. The job losses AI is causing aren't speculative — they're already here. But they don't have to become casualties of progress. We can act now by funding real retraining, preparing people for future work and ensuring that AI's benefits reach beyond boardrooms to classrooms, clinics and communities. A practical step forward could be launching an 'AI impact initiative' — a public-private partnership that deploys vetted tools into real-world settings. Used wisely, AI can ease workloads, reduce burnout and free up time for what matters most — improving both productivity and quality of life. Globally, Washington could convene a 'democratic tech compact,' bringing together like-minded nations to align on trusted AI standards, open-data protocols and safeguards — offering a responsible counterweight to authoritarian AI models. AI, done right, could revive the middle class, restoring dignity to work, expanding access to services and letting people focus on what matters. It could also help us respond to crises, from pandemics to wildfires, with more speed and less chaos. But it won't happen through fragmented legislation. Washington must lead — by uniting democratic allies, industry, civil society and those working with AI every day. This coalition could build something lasting: shared principles like transparency, fairness and accountability. Shared tools — open datasets, regional innovation hubs and incentives for responsible development. A blueprint for the kind of world we want AI to help build. Imagine if companies were recognized not just for breakthroughs, but for building systems that reduce burnout, stabilize supply chains and support everyday workers. That's not science fiction. That's a policy choice. Some early steps are promising. Congress is exploring bipartisan legislation on AI research and deepfakes. But what's missing is a coordinated roadmap — one that drives innovation, protects economic stability and brings democratic partners together to shape a future where technology strengthens, rather than destabilizes, our institutions. If the U.S. doesn't lead, others will. Authoritarian regimes are already using AI — not to serve people, but to surveil and control them. When Vladimir Putin said in 2017, 'Whoever leads in AI will rule the world,' he was telling the truth. I don't write this as an American. But like many around the world, I have seen how U.S. leadership can set the tone — not through dominance, but by offering direction rooted in freedom, fairness and trust. And AI desperately needs that guidance. In medicine, we don't let even the most gifted surgical trainees operate solo on day one — not because they lack potential, but because safety depends on oversight and structure. AI demands the same — not suppression, but stewardship. We've been here before, on the edge of revolutions we didn't fully understand. This time, we can be more prepared. We can build the foundation for a future where innovation and human dignity grow together. The decisions made today won't just shape AI. They will shape the kind of world we live in, and the one we leave behind. And because Washington holds unmatched influence — economic, military and technological — its leadership matters more than ever. Not to dominate the future, but to help humanity rise with it. Dr. Debakant Jena is an orthopedic surgeon, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary and a first-generation immigrant to Canada. He has written extensively on Canadian policy, immigration and international relations.
USA Today
8 minutes ago
- USA Today
Epstein grand jury records to remain sealed, but judge says government can release info
A judge denied the Justice Department's bid to unseal records from the grand jury that indicted the late financier Jeffrey Epstein on sex trafficking charges, saying the material paled in comparison to the trove of records the government has about the case but is not releasing. Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Richard Berman's Aug. 20 decision came as President Donald Trump has sought to quell discontent from his conservative base of supporters over his administration's decision not to release files of the case. The judge wrote that it would be more logical for the government to directly release the vast amount of information it has collected from its investigation into Epstein than to petition the court to release the more limited grand jury materials, whose secrecy is protected by law. "The Government's 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials dwarf the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials," Berman wrote. "The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct." The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump, a Republican, had campaigned for a second term in 2024 with promises to make public Epstein-related files, and accused Democrats of covering up the truth. But in July, the Justice Department declined to release any more material from its investigation of the case and said a previously touted Epstein client list did not exist, angering Trump's supporters. Evidence seen and heard by grand juries, which operate behind closed doors to prevent interference in criminal investigations, cannot be released without a judge's approval. In July, Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek court approval for the release of grand jury material from Epstein's case. The grand jury that indicted Epstein heard from just one witness, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Justice Department said in a court filing in July. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty. His death in jail and his friendships with the wealthy and powerful sparked conspiracy theories that other prominent people were involved in his alleged crimes and that he was murdered. The New York City chief medical examiner determined that Epstein's death was a suicide by hanging. On Aug. 11, a different Manhattan-based judge, Paul Engelmayer, denied a similar request by the Justice Department to unseal grand jury testimony and exhibits from the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's longtime girlfriend. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence following her 2021 conviction for recruiting underage girls for Epstein to abuse. Engelmayer wrote that the public would not learn anything new from the release of materials from Maxwell's grand jury because much of the evidence was made public at her monthlong trial four years ago. The grand jury testimony contained no evidence of others besides Epstein and Maxwell who had sexual contact with minors, Engelmayer wrote. Maxwell had pleaded not guilty. After losing an appeal, she has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case. In July, a Florida judge rejected the administration's request to unseal grand jury records from federal investigations there into Epstein in 2005 and 2007. Epstein served a 13-month sentence after pleading guilty in 2008 to a state-level prostitution charge as part of a deal now widely regarded as too lenient. (Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Daniel Wallis and David Gregorio)
USA Today
8 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas tees up new voting map
Howdy! It's Rebecca Morin. Here's a feud I never would have anticipated: The White Stripes' Jack White slammed President Donald Trump over his Oval Office makeover. Voting on a new Texas congressional map On the agenda for the Texas legislature: a new congressional map. Texas House Republicans on Wednesday are expected to vote on redistricting plans intended to flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats up for grabs in the 2026 midterm elections. It's not clear how quickly Republicans could approve it. The move comes after Texas Democrats ended a two-week walkout that temporarily delayed the bill's passage. The rare mid-decade redistricting came at Trump's urging as the president seeks to improve the Republican Party's odds of preserving its narrow U.S. House majority next year. Follow for updates on the vote. Democrats are still protesting: In an effort to ensure lawmakers remain in Texas, Republican House leaders have assigned state law enforcement officers to monitor Democrats. Several Democrats slept in the Capitol building in protest and publicly tore up permission slips required by Republicans for members to leave the chamber. The move follows State Rep. Nicole Collier, who in protest slept in the House chamber beginning Monday rather than accepting a police escort. A limited response to redistricting: One reason why Texas Democrats returned to the state: California's promise to hold a special election in November so voters can greenlight a one-time redistricting plan to potentially add seats for Democrats. New York also promised to respond to the gerrymandering efforts. However, Republicans in states like Florida and Ohio are also taking action on redistricting – which would make it harder for Democrats to fight back. A politics pit stop And we're off to the races It's a battle between Californians. In a hypothetical race, Gov. Gavin Newsom holds a slight edge over former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2028 Democratic presidential primary, according to a new poll of Californian voters conducted by Politico and The Citrin Center public opinion firm. Newsom is the top choice of 25% of California's Democratic voters in the 2028 Democratic primary, leading all prospective candidates, including Harris, the 2024 Democratic nominee. How the poll offers a glimpse into national Democratic voters' thinking. The results of the poll: Trump's goes after the Smithsonian Trump thinks museums in the nation's capital focus too much on the negative. In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said he believes the Smithsonian museums in Washington are too fixated on "how bad slavery was" and other negative aspects of U.S. history as he promised to take aim at the "WOKE" elements. The post came after he last week launched a review of the Smithsonian Institution and its 21 museums to remove "divisive or partisan" elements and determine whether its materials conformed to the Trump administration's views on teaching history. See which museums are part of the review. Got a burning question, or comment, for On Politics? You can submit them here or send me an email at rdmorin@
