Oliver Niehaus: “If Due Process Goes Away, Anyone Can Be Deported” | DSH #1822

Summary

Digital Social Hour: Oliver Niehaus – “If Due Process Goes Away, Anyone Can Be Deported” | DSH #1822

Main Theme

In this episode, host Sean Kelly sits down with debate commentator and political activist Oliver Niehaus at Amfest for a frank, fast-paced discussion about feminism, political violence, gun violence, and the consequences of erosions in due process and immigrant rights under Trump. Niehaus brings his trademark vigorous, evidence-based perspective, challenging common narratives around contemporary American politics while urging for deeper, more holistic solutions.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

---

Feminism and Gender Equality Today

• State of Gender Equality
  Oliver highlights the continued struggles for women’s bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, especially after the overturning of recent protections.

  “50% of the population right now does not have access to their own bodies or control over their own bodies, and that would be women in terms of reproductive access.” (00:00)

• Misconceptions About Feminism
  Niehaus critiques how both left and right media ecosystems distort and caricature feminism, leading to misunderstandings and unnecessary polarization. He firmly distinguishes real feminism from man-hating or bioessentialist offshoots:

  “The way that social media algorithms are structured, they’re designed to show you whatever you want… often gets warped into this conversation and taints a conversation around feminism, which is really just simply the social, political, cultural equality between men and women.” (01:37)

• Male Allyship in Feminism
  Niehaus addresses the rarity and importance of men speaking up for feminist causes:

  “There’s nothing more manly and nothing more masculine than defending those who… are having their rights stripped away from them.” (03:26)

---

Political Violence and Media Narratives

• Condemning Violence Across the Spectrum
  Oliver demands consistent, universal condemnation of political violence, regardless of political alignment:

  “I think it’s very important unilaterally. I don’t want to make this a conversation about right versus left… political violence is wrong.” (04:04)

• Media Bias and Demonization
  He criticizes right-wing attempts to disproportionately blame the left for political violence, citing FBI statistics:

  “Over 85 to 90% of the violent extremist attacks in this country are done from far right groups. Okay. That is a fact.” (04:55)

• Polarization After High-Profile Attacks
  Niehaus unpacks how both sides rush to assign blame after shootings like the one involving Charlie Kirk, deepening division instead of lowering the temperature:

  “When people, especially people on the right as well, jump so quickly to this idea that this was left wing political violence... it proves that they aren’t actually interested in lowering the temperature, but rather demonizing and going after certain groups of people who are vulnerable.” (05:29)

---

Gun Control and Root Causes of Violence

• Beyond Simply Banning Guns
  Oliver pushes for a nuanced conversation, insisting that focusing only on gun bans misses deeper issues of poverty and social deprivation:

  “A majority of gun violence… is actually gang related… We need to talk about poverty, because poverty is what is one of the largest indicators of crime.” (08:17)

• Learning from Sociology
  He invokes sociologist Emile Durkheim, illustrating that root causes should be addressed whenever possible, rather than mere symptom-cracking policies:

  “Using his sociological lens… when the laws were laxed on people being able to donate their bodies to science, grave robbing drastically decreased.” (08:01)

• Support for Targeted Restrictions
  Niehaus supports red flag laws, especially those preventing domestic abusers from acquiring guns:

  “Any person who is a feminist, who cares about women should not want firearms falling into the hands of those who put their hands on women.” (09:32)

---

Immigration, Due Process, and Trump’s Policies

• Critique of Trump’s Immigration Approach
  He draws attention to perilous erosions of due process under Trump, especially in the context of immigrant rights:

  “If we give up due process for some, we give up due process for all, because due process fundamentally is what determines whether you’re here legally or not.” (10:41)

• Specific Case Example
  The deportation of Mahmoud Khalil is raised as a worrying sign for free speech, immigrant rights, and the misuse of government power:

  “We saw someone like Mahmoud Khalil basically get deported for calling out Israel’s genocide in Gaza and speaking very forcefully on that. The Trump administration brought up some bogus charges…” (10:26)

• Economic Critique – Tariffs and Populism
  Oliver calls Trump’s tariff policies a “disaster” for free trade and working Americans, dismissing the “rebate” as an illusory benefit:

  “Trump is literally trying to send you a $2,000 hush money payment in the form of a tariff release.” (11:21)

• Why Trump’s Message Resonates
  He cautions against simply demonizing Trump voters, suggesting Democrats must learn why anti-establishment rhetoric is potent:

  “He’s an anti establishment candidate who breaks the norm… when someone comes along and says that, it can be an appealing message.” (11:55) “Democrats need to speak to the interests of working people and actually deliver on them.” (12:45)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “If we give up due process for some, we give up due process for all.” – Oliver Niehaus (10:41)
• “There’s nothing more manly and nothing more masculine than defending women’s rights, in my opinion, and all people’s rights.” – Oliver Niehaus (03:26)
• “The way that social media algorithms are structured… they’re designed to show you whatever you want.” – Oliver Niehaus (01:37)
• “Over 85 to 90% of the violent extremist attacks in this country are done from far right groups. Okay. That is a fact.” – Oliver Niehaus (04:55)
• “We will not end crime. We will not end violence if we were to ban this specific type of firearm.” – Oliver Niehaus (09:25)
• “Trump is literally trying to send you a $2,000 hush money payment in the form of a tariff release.” – Oliver Niehaus (11:21)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• State of Feminism & Gender Equality: 00:00–03:23
• Male Allies in Feminism: 03:24–03:56
• Political Violence & Media Ecosystems: 04:03–07:10
• Gun Control & Root Causes of Crime: 07:27–10:07
• Trump’s Second Term: Immigration, Due Process, Economics: 10:16–12:58

---

Summary Verdict:
Oliver Niehaus delivers a passionate and highly articulate case for renewed focus on the root causes of political polarization, violence, and inequality, while also warning against the quiet but dangerous slide away from procedural rights and basic liberties under populist, anti-establishment politics. The episode will resonate with listeners seeking in-depth, non-partisan exploration of America’s most contentious issues, and offers memorable quotes and sharp insights for anyone interested in the intersection of politics, rights, and social progress.

Transcript

[A]

I wouldn't say that we have equal rights entirely now. I mean, 50% of the population right now does not have access to their own bodies or control over their own bodies, and that would be women in terms of reproductive access. So I think that we recently saw that get overturned. So things are kind of in an unfortunate slide in the opposite direction. So I think that's increasingly why feminism is necessary to ensure that every individual has the ultimate freedom to choose what to do with their own body and control their destiny.

[B]

All right, guys, Oliver Niehaus here at Amfest. Would you call yourself a debater or.

[A]

Yeah, I'd say so.

[B]

You know, that's how I found you.

[A]

Yeah, definitely. No, just online debating. You know, kind of coming through the Jubilee scene and expand from there.

[B]

It's been a first one I saw of you was actually with Andrew Wilson. Oh, so you went on Jubilee too?

[A]

Yeah, I was on Jubilee originally, then basically debating feminism. My prompt that I did is missandry more allowed than misogyny. Went pretty viral and then the whatever podcast reach out. So I did a couple debates with them that went in an interesting fashion and glad you got to see me from there.

[B]

Have any of your debates changed your opinion on feminism? Are you still pretty set on it?

[A]

No, I don't think so. I mean, I think that the debates that I've done in any sense have only solidified my belief that feminism is very necessary, considering the amount of money and power and media networks that is focused on perpetuating this idea that feminism is the hatred of men or feminism is leading to the downfall of our society. So. So I think that it's only strengthened my resolution in this idea that we need to, you know, we need to talk more about feminism and advocate for it very ferociously, because if we don't look the way this country is headed and the rollback of women's rights that we're seeing currently.

[B]

Got it. So you don't believe it's gotten out of hand? You hear that from the conservatives a lot?

[A]

No, I don't think so. I think a big problem is that people only see the media ecosystem that they exist in. So if someone exists on the right, this happens on the left as well. If someone exists in a certain media ecosystem, they only see the. The portrayal of the other side that is the most extreme or what they want to see. So I do think there's a lot of people on the right who do think of feminism as inherently man hating, as this ideology that wants to destroy society, destroy the nuclear family, hates you know, women and hates children. And I just think that couldn't be further from the truth. But because the way that social media algorithms are structured, they're designed to show you whatever you want rdc. So people keep getting reinforced with the same thing. I think a similar thing exists on the left when it comes to representing certain conservative talking points. You know, they're just the most uncharitable assumptions that are there. So, no, I don't think it's gotten out of hand. I think there are individual people who cause issues or might go too far or might kind of have this perverted version of feminism that is, like, ultimately bioessentialist. This idea that men, uniquely, due to their nature, because of their chromosomal structure, are evil, I reject that entirely. And any feminist who is truly a feminist would reject that. But I think that that often gets warped into this conversation and taints a conversation around feminism, which is really just simply the social, political, cultural equality between men and women.

[B]

Do you feel like there's a lot more growth in the feminist movement? Do you feel like men and women have equal rights today? Where are you at?

[A]

I mean, you know, I think we took a lot of strides throughout the, you know, past, like, century or so to get there. Obviously, I wouldn't say that we have equal rights entirely now. I mean, 50% of the population right now does not have access to their own bodies or control over their own bodies, and that would be women in terms of reproductive access. So I think that. Know, we recently saw that get overturned. So things are kind of in an unfortunate slide in the opposite direction. So I think that's increasingly why feminism is necessary to ensure that every individual has the ultimate freedom to choose what to do with their own body and control their destiny.

[B]

Interesting.

[C]

Yeah, I feel like it's very rare.

[B]

To see a male supporting feminism.

[A]

I don't know. I mean, it might be seen as rare. I think that. And I think that's part of the reason why I do this is because, like, I think there's nothing more, like, manly and nothing more like, you know, masculine than defending those who, you know, might be less fortunate or who, you know, are in a position where they are having their rights stripped away from them. So, you know, I think, yeah, there's nothing more manly, nothing more masculine than defending women's rights, in my opinion, and all people's rights. You know, I think that equality, you know, is something that we should fight for. Those who have the power, have the privilege, should use that to help others.

[B]

And the less fortunate. Moving on to political violence. See, people on the right say the left actually is more politically violent.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

What do you think of that?

[A]

I mean, I think it's just ridiculous. First off, what I want to say is I think it's important that we do, uniquely, or not uniquely, unilaterally condemn political violence. Like, I'm not. I think people on the left who are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk or anything like that are doing everyone a disservice. You know, I think an environment that exists in which someone is afraid to be killed because of what they're saying, like, right now, if I were to be shot right now, like that is that. That. That is antithetical to what this country was built on. So I think it's very important unilaterally. I don't want to make this a conversation about right versus left. Ideally, I wish we could all come together and be like, political violence is wrong and. And we shouldn't, however, to say that the. What is it like, something. I remember Steven Crowder did a thing about how the left is violent. I think it's just categorically false. We look at the FBI Uniform Crime Report, we see that almost exclusively over 85 to 90% of the violent extremist attacks in this country are done from far right groups. Okay. That is a fact. You're gonna find isolated instances of people who commit violence. And even in the shooting of Charlie Kirk, there's conflicting evidence from the shooter of what he did. There's one bullet that said, catch this fascist. There was another bullet that said, had some, like, griper, like, anime stuff on that as well. So, like, I think that when people, especially people on the right as well, jump so quickly to this idea that this was left wing political violence, this was someone who, you know, just hated Charlie Kirk and was, like, on the left, bleeding liberal. And when it turns out it's not him, they suddenly have to jump through hoops to connect the shooter to being trans. First the shooter's trans, then he had a trans roommate. Then he knew someone who was trans. Then he might have ever read a book about someone who was trans or shook. Like, it's obsessive, and it proves that they aren't actually interested in lowering the temperature, but rather demonizing and going after certain groups of people who are vulnerable. So I think, very importantly, in order to bring down political violence, everyone needs to bring the temperature down. And I think the people who are raising the temperature the most are those on the right, such as the sitting president, who very recently called for the Execution of six sitting members of Congress because he told, because those members of Congress told the United States military, you, you do not have to. And in fact are compelled.

[C]

There's this new technology floating around that people cannot stop talking about. It's called the light system. Before you roll your eyes, it's not some gadget you strap on or supplement that promises the world. Every once in a while I come across something that actually stops me in my tracks. And the light system is one of those things. This isn't a supplement. It's not a biohack. It's a full on energy environment built to help your mind and body synchronize, recharge and operate at a higher level. It's, it uses light patterns, color frequencies and coherent energy fields. All the stuff that your body naturally responds to to create a coherent energetic field around you. People are saying they feel more clear, more centered, more aligned in their environment. And honestly the science behind it is fascinating as I've seen a lot of wellness tech. But the numbers coming out on this new study of the light system are actually insane. Researchers measured human chic cells before and after sitting in front of the system. And get this, a 30 minute session boosted cellular conductivity by 61%. The study even showed increased conductivity in isolated DNA which is associated with stronger structure and better repair pathways. The result? More clarity, more balance and more alignment. You could save $500 now if you go to thelightsystems.com and use discount code. Sean.

[A]

Not to obey illegal orders. Okay, so, and you know, so. And the right doesn't seem to want to condemn that or have a conversation. So I just don't take them seriously. But when they have a conversation about political violence, when they won't condemn the leader of their party, who is the largest perpetuator in violent rhetoric, that in many cases leads to people losing their lives.

[B]

Yeah. And there was another shooting this week on a campus. What's your take on gun control? Should there be more security on campus with guns or. For sure.

[A]

I mean, look, I do think gun control is important. You know, I'm not, I'd say that. And maybe this is kind of what puts me a little further to the left than the average liberal. I don't think the problem is fundamentally guns. Okay. So I think that it definitely makes it easier. You know, of course you're gonna have gun violence in a country where there are more guns than people. But I do think it's unrealistic to say that we're gonna ban all guns or that gun control is gonna solve this problem. I think we need to have. There's a really interesting quote from the sociologist Emile Durkheim that sticks with me. It's basically that he viewed crime as a social utility. It served a social function. So whenever a crime is committed, we can do a couple different things. We can crack down on that person, throw them in jail, or we can ask a question, what led them to do that? A really interesting example of this was in the 1800s in France, or Durkheim realized that there was a lot of grave robbing during that time. Suddenly there was. People were mass robbing graves and these people were being thrown in jail. But it kept happening. And using his sociological lens, we realized that the reason that was happening is because there was a lack of bodies for medical use in science, there weren't enough. So when the laws were laxed on people being able to donate their bodies to science, grave robbing drastically decreased. So my point here is that when it comes to gun violence, a majority of gun violence, as Charlie Kirk was probably trying to get at in his last moments, is. Is actually gang related. That is a fact. Most of that violence we see, mass shootings are not a vast proportion. Are they important? Do we need to focus on them? Is it a tragedy every time it happens? Yes. However, when we talk about gun violence, we need to talk about poverty, because poverty is what is one of the largest indicators of crime. So people on the left in general want to be serious about lowering gun violence. We need to lessen and ameliorate the conditions that lead people to commit crime and violent crime. And a majority of it is gang violence. When these communities are completely stripped of all their resources for. From policies like redlining, segregation, the war on drugs, that basically packs these communities into fundamentally ghettos. And then what happens is they aren't able to get ahead other than in a way that is gang. Gang related. So I think. I'm not saying I think gun violence in many ways is important, or yeah, gun violence and gun control is important. But I think we just need to focus on having a more holistic conversation that guns aren't the end all, be all. We will not end crime. We will not end violence. If we were to ban this specific type of firearm. I'm in favor of certain ways of, you know, restricting access to certain firearms. I'm in favor of, for example, during the Biden administration, when they strengthen red flag laws to ensure that those who are committed or convicted of domestic violence were not able to get firearms. I think any Person who is a feminist, who cares about women should not want firearms falling into the hands of those who put their hands on women. But I think that, you know, we just need to have a more holistic conversation and not say that guns are the only problem or, you know, think things, Things of that nature.

[B]

I like that approach. Getting down to the actual root cause. Right. And rather than just banning guns, which I don't think would work.

[A]

Yeah, absolutely.

[B]

The war on drugs failed. Right. And drugs failed. We could agree on that.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Let's end off with Trump. What have you liked? What have you not liked in a second term?

[A]

There's a lot I haven't liked. You know, I think that, you know, we, we're seeing a drastic crackdown on those who are, you know, using disfavored speech. You know, we're at an event right now turning point, USA's AM Fest, where, you know, you know, it's the idea that, you know, the right unequivocally supports free speech and things of that nature. But we saw someone like Mahmoud Khalil basically get deported for calling out Israel's genocide in Gaza and speaking very forcefully on that. The Trump administration brought up some bogus charges about how he somehow organized a takeover of a building when there just is no evidence to support that claim. So, yeah, I'm not happy with the crackdown on immigration in general. I think that it's important to have borders. I'm not one of those people on the left who thinks that we shouldn't have borders. But it's also important how we go about that process. And if we give up due process for some, we give up due process for all, because due process fundamentally is what determines whether you're here legally or not. If anyone, if a caravan of masked individuals can come to your house and kidnap you and you're deported without any due process, that can happen to any of us. And right now, they're doing it to anyone who they think might not look like what their version of America is, and I think that's very, very harmful. On the economic front, tariffs have been an absolute disaster. I mean, Trump is literally trying to send you a $2,000 hush money payment in the form of a tariff release.

[B]

He announced the military one, right?

[A]

Yeah, I think so.

[B]

Is that what you're talking about or something?

[A]

It was more like it was a tariff rebate or something like that. He was claiming that we had raised trillions of dollars, billions or trillions of dollars from tariffs, which is an insane thing to say. In his presidency, that that's even possible. It's not. So, yeah, he's basically just trying to alleviate the suffering that he caused by his tariffs, which hurt free trade. So I think on the economic front, Trump is a disaster. I think on the immigration front, he's a disaster. You know, it's hard to say if there are things that I like about Trump. I think one thing I would say about Trump just generally is I think that liberals need to do a better job in understanding why someone like him got elected not once, but twice. And the reason is because he's an anti establishment candidate who breaks the norm. Okay? And for over and over and over, if they see the same people get elected and their material conditions not change that much, if someone comes out and is like, hey, I alone can fix it, that's an appealing message. Now, Trump is a faux populist. He's not actually. He's literally a billionaire. He put someone who has a net worth of over $500 million as his treasury Secretary. This is not someone who's for the working people. But when someone comes along and says that, it can be an appealing message. So I think what people on the left need to take away is the Democratic Party will never win if they just keep pandering to the establishment causes. Okay? They need to speak to the interests of working people and. And actually deliver on them. Trump has done half of that. I hope that Democrats moving forward will complete that.

[B]

Oliver, thanks for your time, man. I moderate for you in the. Thank you.

[A]

Thank you. Appreciate it.

[B]

Check them out, guys. Peace.

[C]

I hope you guys are enjoying the show. Please don't forget to like and subscribe. It helps the show a lot with the algorithm.

[B]

Thank you.