Tyrus Blasts Rep. Jasmine Crockett Over Immigration-Slavery Comparison in Viral Takedown: “An Insult to the Legacy of Slavery”

Fiery Exchange Ignites National Debate Over Race, Rhetoric, and Political Manipulation

Fox News contributor and Gutfeld! co-host Tyrus has ignited a media firestorm with a scathing response to Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), following her controversial comparison of illegal immigration to slavery. In a now-viral segment, Tyrus did not hold back—slamming Crockett’s remarks as “divisive,” “irresponsible,” and “a disgrace to the memory of those who truly endured slavery.”

🔥 The Spark: Crockett’s Controversial Claim

The controversy erupted after Rep. Crockett likened illegal immigration in the U.S. to the brutal exploitation of African slaves in the antebellum South. While she claimed her comments were meant to spotlight systemic oppression, critics swiftly condemned the analogy as historically inaccurate and deeply offensive.

Conservatives argued that Crockett’s comparison blurred the line between a horrific, race-based institution and a complex legal and national security challenge—minimizing the trauma of slavery for political effect.

🎯 Tyrus Fires Back: “She’s Using Slavery as a Political Weapon”

In a pointed monologue aired on Fox News, Tyrus delivered a blistering critique of Crockett’s rhetoric.

“She’s not honoring Black history—she’s weaponizing it,” Tyrus said. “This isn’t advocacy. This is exploitation, and it insults every ancestor who lived, suffered, and died under slavery.”

He accused Crockett of using race as a political cudgel, playing to progressive voters by invoking emotionally charged—but contextually misplaced—comparisons.

💬 “They’re Not Even in the Same Galaxy”

Tyrus emphasized the stark contrast between slavery—an institution rooted in dehumanization—and illegal immigration, which he called a modern legal and policy dilemma.

“Trying to draw a parallel between the two isn’t just misleading. It’s manipulative,” he said. “You don’t honor victims of the past by hijacking their legacy for talking points.”

🧠 Broader Implications: Race, Division, and the Politics of Outrage

Tyrus expanded his critique beyond Crockett, accusing left-leaning politicians of using racial rhetoric to distract from policy failures.

“When progressives have no solutions, they go straight to race,” he argued. “It’s a strategy designed to divide, not unite.”

He warned that such tactics risk fueling resentment and further polarizing American discourse, rather than fostering understanding or progress.

📢 Online Reaction: Supporters Applaud, Critics Push Back

Social media lit up in the wake of Tyrus’ remarks. Hashtags like #TyrusDestroys and #StopRaceBaiting trended on X (formerly Twitter), with supporters calling his comments “courageous,” “long overdue,” and “a necessary wake-up call.”

Crockett has yet to respond directly, though allies argue her comments were taken out of context. Some in progressive circles accused conservatives of “weaponizing outrage” while ignoring systemic issues that continue to affect marginalized communities.

🧭 Why This Moment Matters

At its core, the clash between Crockett and Tyrus reflects deeper tensions in American political dialogue: how race is used, misused, and understood in policy debates.

“Politics should be about solving problems,” Tyrus said. “Not emotional blackmail. Not historical distortion. Just the truth.”

His comments struck a chord with many Americans who feel race is too often used as a rhetorical bludgeon—diluting its meaning, and in some cases, eroding real progress.

Conclusion: A Flashpoint in a Larger War of Words

Tyrus’ fiery rebuttal may have centered on one controversial remark, but it speaks to a growing call among conservatives—and some independents—for honesty over emotionalism and solutions over slogans.

Whether you agree with him or not, one thing is clear: this exchange has pushed a critical—and uncomfortable—conversation back into the spotlight.

🎥 Watch the full clip at the end of this article. Decide for yourself: Was Crockett’s analogy out of line? Or did Tyrus finally say what many Americans have long been thinking?