Debating Trump's Deportation of Illegal Aliens | The Culture War LIVE Debate
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Hosts: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Alex Stein @alexstein99 (X) Guests: Pisco @PiscoLitty Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
So basically, just to finish off, if you're willing to say that, you're willing to say that you want Trump to be a king, that you want him to be a tyrannical fascist, and I would ask you to look yourself in the mirror and really, you know, take a hard look.
I'm Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article 3 project.
So I think there are three core reasons that the outcome here is substantively just.
The first is that had the Trump administration gone through the normal process to lift a withholding of removal, this guy would have been removed 100% of the time for two core reasons.
First, he was found to be a member of MS-13 in earlier court proceedings.
Once that finding was found and upheld on appeal, He would be a stop from challenging that.
Now that Trump has designated the guy as MS-13, rather, to be a foreign terrorist organization, he's not eligible for withholding of removal anymore, so he'd simply have lost no matter what.
And the second reason is that in the interim, between the time he got this withholding of removal and now, the 18th Street Gang, which supposedly threatened his mother's papusa shop, a preposterous story from the outset, That 18th Street gang is no longer effective in El Salvador, which was the basis for his supposed fear of persecution, which is why the withholding and removal was granted in the first place.
So the outcome wouldn't have changed.
This is what we would call, to analogize, harmless error.
The second reason it's subsequently just is because the guy's a wife-beating MS-13 gangbanger.
And in fact, the more that comes out about the guy, you're realizing, like...
Just what kind of person he is.
Threatening his wife and children, telling them that, like, you can't leave me because I'll kill you.
Funny thing, I was reading a book about MS-13, and a different MS-13 game editor said the same thing about a girlfriend he was dating.
There's this sort of underlying entitlement.
But, you know, substantively, just obviously a very bad dude, a human trafficker, the kind of person who drives people, you know, from Texas to Maryland who don't have any luggage.
It's primetime 99, and I just want to say, you know, Pisco, you are very smart, but you're still a libtard.
But no, I agree.
I actually agree with you on this, because whether it was unjust or not, we got the outcome that we want.
His big booty Latina is staying in the country, and we need to do this as, you know, a lesson to these other gangbangers and Trendy Arruga adjacent people that if you come to our country and, you know, you bring your big booty Latina, we're going to kick your ass out and keep her.
See, what you're doing right there is, I'm just going to say, that's not debating, to load the question with, I presume it was illegal first, now answer.
The proclamation issued by the president, only to Tendaraa members who are Venezuelans, by its terms, the proclamation by its terms, even assuming it were legal, would not apply to them.
Okay, so if it's the case that you think that this deportation was illegal, do you think it was just for the Trump administration to do an illegal deportation?
So if it's the case that you thought that was wrong, wouldn't it be wrong, for example, to kill Margaro Garcia in prison for the rest of his life without an opportunity to have a case?
No, I do need it because I think as a standard, right, there's a threshold here that in the main, when the government does something illegal, we're going to presume...
It's unjust unless you can reach some threshold.
Well, think about it, right?
This can't just be a game of we let the government do whatever we want to people we don't like.
We're fearful of the government wielding power in the main because of structural reasons.
There's a reason, for example, you believe that someone who's accused, for example, of should be given a trial, correct?
Well, Tim, Tim, actually, a lot of times, when we deal with this, we want them to be prosecuted so that they actually face a punishment instead of getting deported.
So that is, we actually spend a lot of taxpayer resources on prosecuting illegal immigrants, at least in Texas.
unidentified
I just want to dwell here for a second.
The Constitution says that persons in this country get trials if they are accused of a crime before they're punished.
I'm just saying the pretext that we used to deport Abrego Garcia, I'm saying, do you think that is being used right now to deport a massive amount of people, or is this an isolated incident in your opinion?
unidentified
I don't think it's an isolated incident.
I don't think it's relevant to the question presented, which has to do with this meeting, but I will answer it.
If it's that case, then you wouldn't know, for example, that this U.S. citizen, there's a parent here.
There's an opportunity.
People have basic due process rights.
To see if, I don't know, an aunt wants to care for the U.S. citizen, or another parent has parental rights and the right to have custody over the parent or the child.
In the instance you're referring to, the mother requested the child.
unidentified
So, I don't know which case, there are multiple cases of U.S. citizen implication.
There's two.
One of which the mother denies that that's the outcome that she wanted.
But regardless, the policy that we're talking about is, with respect to people who are not citizens here, and you asked if it's like a mass policy, they're already, by the Supreme Court, again, unanimously saying that.
That these people are entitled to due process.
You guys don't think that.
You guys don't think that there should be due process for people.
For, let's say, an illegal immigrant who committed a murder.
I am arguing that we will deport that person back to their home country, and then we're not going to hold a trial for them after the fact.
unidentified
Wait, wait, wait.
So you're going to take a murderer who committed a crime in this country, you're not going to subject him to punishment in this country, and you're going to send the murderer back to El Salvador just so he can cross the border again and murder someone?
I think what you're saying isn't justice because what you are doing is creating a defense for people who have no right to be here in the first place so that taxpayers have to spend money on someone who's not going to be here after this.
And if you look at the case of Abrego Garcia, this guy...
What was the due process that was failed?
He was supposed to get what's called a USCIS official interview.
It's 8 CFR 24 sub 08. The withholding of deportation law states that if an individual receives a USCIS interview that determines the circumstances of their home country has changed, they can be deported withholding is void.
Pull up the law on withholding of deportation, which explicitly states that a USCIS interview can determine that the circumstance of their home country has changed.
I don't have my phone on me.
unidentified
That's affirmatively.
So this is the problem.
This is defensive relief.
So in the immigration context, you can apply affirmatively to USCIS, or you can be put before an EOIR judge.
It should be brought back." The point is, it's called a moot point when you're arguing something that's immaterial to the end result of what we're trying to accomplish.
The resolution was supposed to be, is the deportation profoundly unjust?
And there's a reason for that adverb.
It's because there is a mild injustice that happens whenever the law is not followed.
So, you know, unless there is, like, some dramatic reason to not follow the law in a particular instance, there's usually a mild injustice.
I think that the more interesting, and the funny thing is the Trump administration has conceded to this since the beginning of the filings, right?
The Trump administration conceded from the outset that this was an administrative error, that they should have gotten the withholding of removal lifted before they removed him to El Salvador.
I don't think that's the most interesting question, because it's a question that, like, even the Trump administration agrees to, for the most part.
I think the question is, is this a profound injustice?
And I think the answer to that is obviously no, for the reasons I laid out at the beginning, right?
And I think I'd like to actually hear your argument for why this is a profound injustice and not merely a mild.
You know, when it comes to Abrego Garcia, and I personally think this is an isolated incident, but even if you are right, I'll concede that I think, you know, ideologically, even though you and I are different on this subject, I do feel like that he didn't get his due process.
And I had to debate this on college campuses.
It is hard.
But in this instance with Abrego Garcia, I think it's isolated, and I don't think that it's a massive problem.
I mean, that's what I think about this, but I do concede.
They're making this guy to be like a hero, and it's one incident, and it's bad, but he's not a hero, and he still beat his wife.
So it just kind of sucks that even though you are right in this instance, I don't want to be like the left because they say that the means, the ends justify the means, and I don't want to be like that.
I don't want to break the law to get the outcome that we want.
I do think that even though there's a history of cop violence, not just on black people, on people of all races, whatever, and it's a problem in the United States, I think that it doesn't present the same kind of civilizational.
Problems are presented by what the Trump administration is doing here.
What they're trying to do here is put people outside of the contours of U.S. law.
We have prisons in the United States.
We have prisons in the United States for the worst of the worst.
We spend money on it.
The reason why we need to send them to SICOT or to El Salvador is quite simply because...
Trump doesn't want to be hemmed in by the law.
And that, when the president ignites, when the strongest person in the country is saying things like, for example, I want to do this to U.S. criminals.
And we've got two minutes left, and then we're about to get into the debate.
unidentified
Trump is testing this theory, and he's telling you in advance he wants to apply it to U.S. citizens.
And just like Obama, one of the things I respect about Tim Pool is he's aware of the kinds of violations that occurred under Rumsfeld, under the neocons, under Trump, Barack Obama, under Trump Term 1. That very same rationale that applied to Guantanamo Bay, that applied to the deprivations of due process in Abu Ghraib, surely that applies to Trump version 2. And I don't see a kind of exceptional circumstance in this case that would justify breaking the law.
One of the reasons why Tim, I think, in good faith is against the death penalty because he understands the propensity for courts, yes, even courts with full review, to get shit wrong sometimes.
In this case, I think that you should be fearful of a purely executive discretion on who is a terrorist sufficient to make a big hole in due process.
like in one of two ways, either a Zoom hearing or a hearing in the American Embassy in San Salvador, right, you resolve the problem, you resolve the problem by just having the hearing to lift But the Supreme Court said facilitate his release.
And it's like, I think they're acting on a rushed basis.
People, they haven't been very clear about what they mean by facilitate, and neither is Judge Zinnis, frankly.
So I think the solution here is, while they're litigating what exactly facilitate means in this context, you just go ahead and...
Handle the withholding of removal issue.
He's going to lose on it.
unidentified
I want to address the issues of collateral estoppel and issue preclusion.
That's a legal term of art, but for the lawyers who are eventually going to watch this, the bond hearing is only related to the issue of whether or not he's in the moment a danger to the community.
It's not a finding of the court that is able to apply.
And have binding precedent on any other determination.
Furthermore, the basic contours of due process and collateral stopper require there to be a vigorous process where the issues were really held.
They didn't have the opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses.
An anonymous witness on two forms, one of which is blatantly wrong and contradictory.
They said they picked him up for murder.
And so the issue of collateral stopper, there's no collateral stopper.
I think in the context of an immigration proceeding, I think it would...
You can't suddenly take a criminal That's 30 minutes, but we'll let you wrap it up.
unidentified
And then just the second issue of withholding, it's clear under the regulations and under the due process clause, you are allowed to bring up, just as the burden of the proof is going to be on the government to show that the country conditions have changed so that Barrio 18 is no longer a threat because Bukele is just fucking Superman or whatever, he's going to have additional opportunities to argue other withholding arguments, one of which is now that he's been identified by Bukele by name, he has a very strong argument that he's going to be actually a target of persecution by Bukele and the administration in the state, which I think is actually a stronger argument.
So this withholding of removal thing that I keep hearing about, I mean, granted, I admit I'm not a lawyer or anything.
I also, you know, I didn't actually, like, read the Supreme Court ruling or anything.
But my understanding of the withholding of removal is this makes it illegal for them to have deported Garcia to El Salvador.
It did not grant him permanent residency within the United States, and it also did not outlaw ability to deport him to another country.
So I'm kind of confused on where the confusion...
Okay, I get it.
A mistake was made.
He was accidentally deported to El Salvador.
So what happens from that point?
We go ahead and we bring him back.
How do we bring him back?
What if Bukele isn't willing to relate to him to us?
How do we go about getting them back?
Are we supposed to send in the military and go take them by force and bring them back here just so that way we can detain them and deport them again anyways?
So, I think the first, I'm going to deal in reverse order.
The first thing is like, well, how can we actually get that done?
I think everyone, if they're being honest with themselves, because you guys are honest people, should admit that Trump could, if he wanted to, get Kilmar Brugger's back.
He recently, as like this week, said he could get him back.
So, we believe in terms of practicality, the President of the United States could get him back, right?
I mean...
I concede he could, because he does have a lot of sway, and Bukele wants to work with him.
So you agree with that, right?
He wants to work with him.
But then at the same time, this also keeps Bukele in the spotlight.
And he likes being in the spotlight.
But let's not talk about questions of could.
Let's talk about questions of should.
Because I don't really think that you can make a strong argument that he couldn't.
I don't really think that he needs to waste his time on it.
There's Article 2 prerogatives that he actually does need to protect.
And so in a world where Article 3 is sort of like in this vague game of trying to order him to return him, I would say no.
unidentified
So I want to give Will his credit because it is the case.
There are, as the Supreme Court held, limits, Article 3 limits on their ability to infringe on the Article 2 prerogatives.
And I agree with some of these.
Like, if the Supreme Court said to Trump, hey, you have to go send in spec ops to take this guy out.
I would think that's unconstitutional for them to order that.
So I do agree that there are some limits here, but that's a question of whether the court can order the remedy, not a question about what Trump could do.
Well, no, because there's an odd element to this, too, and I think that you're alighting.
The odd argument is that in a world where the Supreme Court is attempting to encroach on his power with vague orders and Trump exceeds to it, that sets a precedent.
For what the court can do going forward.
And so, I mean, and since we're in this area of like core article to power, why I think, you know, I think Trump should do, as I said, I think the remedy here is this hearing in El Salvador.
But I think Trump should resist any sort of attempt to say, oh, you're ordering me to negotiate with El Salvadoran government to bring him back?
Yeah, if I can get it in before he gets the timer going.
Okay, so I believe he is slightly wrong.
I believe you are mostly correct.
And I believe all of this is a fact that they denied him his sixth amendment right to a right to a speedy trial when he was denied essentially all of the processing that would have been needed when he had the stay of deportation.
So he should have been sent to another place.
In addition to that...
Most of immigration is actually screwed up because we have not filed a writ of unanimous against the federal government for not processing all of these people who are stuck in immigration limbo for 8, 10, 15, 20, 30 years and they should be doing their job and getting them the hell out of the country.
Yeah, I think that actually, and in this context, it probably would be, because we actually, you know, this is, like, I agree, yeah, there's an Article 2 prerogative to manage immigration and enforce immigration laws.
You can fail to enforce to such a degree that it would be, like, mandamusable by somebody, but then there's all sorts of, like, other questions.
I will advocate for the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to this country for his hearing if we also simultaneously get a hearing on the extrajudicial assassinations Barack Obama committed.
unidentified
Let's talk about that.
The same thing, the same thing, actually.
So let's talk about that.
You might think, and I understand this point, like, first of all, he was a U.S. citizen, right?
Abdul Rahman was a 16-year-old American citizen, was not a part of any terror organizations.
The Obama administration ordered a drone strike on a civilian cafe in Yemen, a country we were not at war with, blowing it up, killing a bunch of people, including him.
And they've admitted to it.
I don't think you necessarily disagree with me.
That's why I said Democrats.
I'm not directing at you.
I know that if I went to Democratic politicians and said, you see this as an injustice, I believe that in the end the courts will prevail as it pertains to Marco Garcia.
So I'm willing to say, okay, let's spend that money, but you've got to give me something.
Let's have Justice.
Obama goes to prisons.
unidentified
The only reason that I would say that's a problem is I believe there's a statute of limitations on what it is you can file a writ of mandibus for.
So, I will also concede that there's probably, and you guys are lawyers probably know this better than me, some kind of immunity Obama has where he's going to say, this is a military strike with intelligence.
We did not intend to kill an American, but we did.
So, he may have some immunity from criminal prosecution.
So the Supreme Court specifically rejected that impeachment judgment clause argument in Trump versus the United States.
So there's a couple arguments.
So one was the inherent structure of the Constitution makes it that we have certain degrees of absolute immunity for core executive acts that are part of your core executive powers.
But there was an argument additionally that Trump said that, well...
I'm not immune under those theories, or alternatively, I'm immune until you impeach and remove me.
That's under the impeachment judgment clause, but the Supreme Court unanimously held that that was not the case.
So you don't need to impeach someone to trigger criminal immunity and remove them.
That's been rejected.
But it's a good question.
Would I support a hearing that looks at the executive power and its use on U.S. citizens when they get killed?
So what I wanted to discuss, and you guys actually talked about it or touched on it briefly, was actually the, I guess, sale of U.S. citizens to private prison industry in the United States and how that would be any different than Selling U.S. citizens to CECOT, for example.
I believe that there's already a precedent that's set in the United States where we do pass or sell inmates along, from my personal knowledge, working as a corrections officer for a few years.
And I believe that it would be as simple as creating a territory or creating CECOT, a territory within, I'm sorry, creating a territory within CECOT that is ran by the BOP.
And so, for those who didn't hear, he asked, what about the comparison to private prisons and the fact that we outsource and contract private entities to take on the responsibility of the government, specifically with incarceration of individuals, both of, you know, for crimes and immigration?
It's a fantastic thing to say, because I think it's...
On all fours.
It's exactly the comparison.
Bukele is being used as a contractor.
And that plays into my argument and the argument of the plaintiffs, which is Bukele is not exercising the sovereign power of El Salvador by keeping Abrego Garcia in detention.
He is being contracted by the U.S. government to hold him.
I don't think we have to be so chauvinist to assume that every country's...
You know, process system being different, especially El Salvador, which has had 30 years of gang violence, for them to be like, no, sorry, you have gang tattoos, you're going to jail.
But I don't even think we need to argue that, because I think there is a moral worldview difference between us, and I don't mean this as respectfully, in that my view is, hey, we're America, we take care of America, if El Salvador's being shitty, I mean, that's El Salvador, and this guy's their citizen in their country, if they decide to put him in prison, that's not our fucking problem.
unidentified
Yeah, but you're ignoring the process of how he got there and how...
And be done with it because we know that in the end we are correct.
And her response was, it's out of our jurisdiction now anyway.
unidentified
So I have a question.
To kind of bring it back to what we were discussing here, right?
I think we kind of went a little further.
So we already run programs very similar here in the United States.
With the 187G program, Sheriff Chuck Jenkins up in Frederick County, Maryland, has been running that for many years now.
And has been very successful prior to the Trump administration.
In the United States, right?
Very correct.
But my point is, Those inmates, he is being compensated by the United States government to house them in a special wing.
His deputies are deputized as federal marshals or federal agents.
Why would it be any different if we rented out a wing in Seacott and sent inmates there?
No differently than what we do now in America.
Two things.
One is, I think that your description of that relationship is completely correct.
I think that's exactly what's happening with Bukele there, in the sense that, yes, the U.S. government is contracting a party to enforce immigration law, but the reason why it's different is...
the deprivation for which due process applies is the physical removal from the country.
And so when you deport him to another place, you've now done the deprivation for which there is due process.
And so that's my answer to that is, in theory, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with the law of contracting like some foreigner.
I don't like it, but legally, I don't know if that's a problem.
Now, actually, I got some information that, even though it is a little bit of a sausage party, that I think we have a lady with the courage to step up to the microphone.
Because the issue is, should somebody who lives in this country, permanent resident, versus an illegal immigrant adjudicated as MS-13, whose penalty is deportation?
Right.
Here's the point.
If someone comes here and breaks the law, and the end result is going to be deportation, how do we have a trial for them when they're gone?
Why force them to stay here if we're going to remove them anyway?
unidentified
These are people who hate America, hate our community, they hate abiding by the law, they hate us, they hate U.S. citizens, and they just mooch and mooch and mooch while literally terrorizing our community and tearing us apart.
The due process I'm asking if you would accept is, a man is walking down the street, the cops stop him, the due process here is, we must determine if he's a citizen or not.
Should they do that?
unidentified
They should determine if he's a citizen or not.
Under what process?
Who do you trust to determine who's a citizen?
Border Patrol.
I actually got pulled over by Border Patrol recently, and they did a great job.
Here's the problem.
When you put a hole in due process, this is why I don't agree with these categorical exceptions, once you put one hole in due process, now the government, just by their own discretion, is going to put everyone they don't like in that hole.
No, no, no.
If you have nothing to hide, you should have no fucking...
That's classic neocon language.
What the fuck are you talking about?
If you have nothing to hide...
Pulled over by border patrol shouldn't be frightening.
What makes America great is our structure, our constitution, our way of life.
People will often bring up to me the Carter Page FISA warrants that the Department of Justice got on Carter Page.
You guys remember this, the Russiagate stuff, right?
Those Carter Page warrants were wrongfully obtained.
And you guys cared about them.
Why do you care about them?
You care about them because you don't want the government to intrude.
If you've got a little bit more because we kind of went off.
unidentified
No, seriously though, what do you say, Pisco, to the communities in Silver Spring, Gaithersburg, these communities who have for the last 40 years been inundated with these illegal immigrants and dreamers?
Freedom, this is what I say.
I say, freedom isn't free.
Every time we give a trial to someone who's an accused rapist, an accused murderer, it costs the state and the people of Maryland a lot of money.
But the reason we do that is, when we don't, we live...
We live at the discretion.
When we don't, we live at the discretion of the state.
And you shouldn't be government bootlicking shills that just trust the government to do everything you want.
And while I can agree with the government shill stuff, what I will say is, it's the only thing I heard there was, it's not in my fucking backyard, so I don't give a shit.
I'm gonna tell you guys something I shouldn't fucking say.
We've got...
I've got property.
In the area with MS-13 now trying to occupy it, I had to fucking contact the FBI.
And so I've got these liberals who don't live here, who don't know that there are gunshots, that there are people running scared, and they're saying, bring this guy back.
Now, I'm going to pause.
I don't want false warrants or bullshit.
The reason why I asked about due process under the law is for an illegal immigrant, if they're stopped, like, usually you guys stop by CBP.
The law as it is now is an officer makes a determination if they're a citizen or not, and they have expedited removal, I believe within two years.
And I was talking to Myron Gaines about this the other day.
He was an ICE agent.
He says, often we just, we lock them up, get a plane, they send them home.
That's the due process.
That's the due process.
Real quick, we don't need a criminal trial after we say get the fuck out.
unidentified
Wait, wait, wait.
Exactly.
When did you hear me?
When did you hear me say that we need a trial?
In fact, I went and I said, J.D. Vance is a fucking liar because he says we're asking for trials.
What you just talked about, this proceeding in front of a judge, and really for expedited removal, it's usually not even default a judge.
It's just an immigration officer.
So we're not talking here about a ton of due process.
They certainly did recognize when the executive would need to take actions that were considered probably extreme.
We have seen instances throughout history.
The challenge I see now is determining when we are facing an existential crisis.
And whether or not we're going to be like the Catalonians sitting on our hands like anarchists being like, well, we're being wiped the fuck out by invaders, but let's not do anything because we have a process to deal with.
Or if we're going to step to attention and say, I understand the moral qualms with this process, how things are being handled, but holy shit, how do we deal with narco gangs, cartels, etc., when they're actively killing people, they're invading our homes.
And so the question is, at what point...
Do these platitudes of democratic society, and I don't mean I want this to happen.
My question is legitimately, at what points do we have to say, holy shit, the system failed because we have been invaded?
Right now, Congress cannot answer these questions for anybody, nor are the courts, nor is the executive branch.
You've got people split massively across this country, near 50-50, ready to tear each other's heads off, and the idea that Congress will change something is a pipe dream.
I'm not saying I want to, but I don't know what's going to happen.
I mean, this is the reason, I mean, we might actually have a different interesting debate about the Alien Enemies Act at this point, right?
Because this is where I would come back and say, what Trump is doing in the Alien Enemies Act is right and just, the courts are overreaching, and so, like, Trump should continue.
I just want to say Derek Chauvin showed up after Floyd was already on the ground and engaged in a hold that he was trained to by the Minneapolis Police Department.
So after George Floyd stops struggling for his life because he's dead, is the application of force still justified after he's literally devoid of life?
No one in this room trusted the government under...
The point is when you say they're bootlicking shills.
It's every four years the Democrats say you're a bootlegging shill, then four years later they're the bootlegging shills.
unidentified
So just to be clear, the reason why we want to follow the Constitution, even if there are people you don't like, and you can raise a lot of stank about people you don't like and why we should break the law to go after them, is we don't trust in the next four years you're not going to get a president AOC, you're not going to get a president whoever the fucking worst leftist is that you think, and now that you've made a road to the Constitution, you've made a road for your own back, and they're going to come after you, and they're going to attack your First Amendment rights, you guys all understand this.
We will erode whenever we have to to stop you because you've been eroding it for centuries.
So the real enemies are those who would tell you to give up your country.
Give up the Constitution.
Don't follow it.
You took our fucking country with the Biden administration!
I think my substantive point would be that, like, much of your argument is, like, we really need to not open Pandora's box, and I would just say I think Pandora's box has been opened pretty darn widely, you know, so.
I mean, I can read out, like, the amendment that says that people have the rights to due process, regardless if you are a legal or a citizen.
I think that just needs to be cleared up first, that Pisco is the pro-Constitution person here.
Every single person, I heard them screaming in the room saying, illegal immigrants don't get due process.
That is against the Constitution, just to clarify that first.
Second of all, I also think it's important to acknowledge that...
I trust the US government more so with processing someone that we'd all agree is probably a bad guy, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, than some random, you know, prison in El Salvador.
I think we have a good justice system, as many of you guys might disagree.
It's crazy to me that you guys disagree with the six Republican Supreme Court justices that said that we need to facilitate his return.
Rule of law is very important in this country.
And I don't know what you guys would be saying.
I think Piscoe hinted at this.
If AOC becomes president and all of a sudden says that the January Sixers are a bigger threat to this country than the illegal immigrants, then deports them with no due process, you guys will all be crying your asses out.
Doesn't the Constitution specify that there is a venue provision that when you commit a crime, it shall be tried in the district in which it was committed?
I mean, if you look at the polling, I want to make this point, because this is, I think, the key issue which I think liberals allied all the time.
You look at the polling on, like, for example, whether liberal parents would be happy if their child came home with a conservative partner to marry.
They're not.
And in fact, in general, this number is higher than in a world where like, than cross-racial.
So I mean, I'm sorry, like the way that there's polarization in this country between Republicans and Democrats, which is literally demonstrated by this room, and also a lot of like the things intemperate that you've said about like the people in this room, is demonstrating that there's not a jury of your peers in the J6 Let me ask you another question.
Is it due process if the prosecution uses information from after the trial happened to seek a greater sentence on the individual based on speech of the individual?
So Screlly, and this is actually, you know, I think Screlly can be funny sometimes, but he, like, talks shit about Hillary Clinton when he had his trial or something, and then the judge, like, yeah, sentences him more.
Now, you might disagree with that, but it just is the case that judges are allowed a great deal of discretion at sentencing, and that's our system.
Okay, can I introduce kind of a new topic a little bit?
Because I feel like we're going to bow down the two.
I think that Pisco hinted at, and I was kind of talking about this in my opening speech, is that what's important to recognize here is that it sets a precedent.
These laws set a bad precedent.
I think we should also talk about Mahmoud Khalil.
I go to Georgetown.
There was a guy that was in our grad department that got deported for supporting Palestine.
literally just for supporting Palestine.
I just wanna hear the conservatives here that if AOC gets elected and designates Israel as a terrorist state, they start supporting a bunch of pro-Israel people.
I'm Jewish, I'm pro-Israel, I'd be afraid I will answer your point.
But the Trump base is split between anti-interventionist, bye-bye Israel, and pro-Israel.
There's a lot of people who are pro-Israel, but the argument you make about the conservatives, you're going to find a lot of them are more like conservatarian, being like, yeah, I don't give a shit about Israel.
I mean, honestly, the Secretary of State, I mean, there's a provision that was used in this case, which is the Secretary of State said, this guy's continued presence in the country is damaging to American policy.
Because it also strikes at how do we define religion legally?
And if we're dealing with terrorist organizations, would we allow them to use religion as a shield for their extremist ideologies, or do we separate that legally?
Right, because that also, if religion, free practice of religion, then it's like you can't...
I mean, maybe supporting a terrorist organization as a core religious belief.
unidentified
Just be clear.
So you're opening the door.
Is it Caleb?
Sorry?
Cash.
Cash, sorry.
As Cash said, if you're going to allow this big room, this big hole in the First Amendment for certain speech in favor of Hamas, now you're opening the door for, okay, if you're a Christian and you're not a citizen, we can deport you just because you're a Christian.
Joe Biden largely represents things that are antithetical to my worldviews.
This is not about whether or not someone could violate the Constitution, because I already told you, Trump sending Americans to seek out is a bad thing, and I condemn that.
unidentified
But you won't condemn him for saying it.
Okay, so you condemn him for violating the Constitution.
Donald Trump should be criminally investigated for the killing of Abdurrahman Al-Awlaki's little sister in Yemen.
He gets no free passes from me, but we don't know for sure.
What we do know is that Obama admitted to it.
We know there's been accusations about Trump.
My response is accusations warrant investigation.
Admission warrant Warrants something more And yet And yet When it comes to Trump administration officials And their misconduct Like Signalgate for example He'll He'll say That was an inside job So what he'll What he'll do is With respect to your statements on Signalgate, and for time, I understand Signalgate, but I don't think it rises to...
I lay two things forward.
Trump has been accused of murdering a 7-year-old American girl.
Obama admitted that his administration killed a 16-year-old American citizen.
Neither of them were criminals.
I don't want to muddy that with SignalGate because there's such a substantive...
unidentified
Wait, Tim, I think you got sidetracked from your point on Piers Morgan, though.
Are you going to finish that?
Why do you think that it's okay if Joe Biden does terrorists but Trump doesn't?
The simplest way I can do it without going into, like, I don't know, the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, the Suez Canal, the Crimea, and all of the things we can talk about with Michael Zatchevsky, Biden's actions overseas.
But I absolutely could, for the sake of time, I will just say this.
Trump, in my opinion, universal tariffs doesn't make sense.
I am skeptical of it.
But I am largely biased in favor of Trump's moral worldview and hopeful that his administration has a plan that will bear out positively.
That being said, I'm not entirely sure universal tariffs do.
Selective tariffs I'm a big fan of because I believe, being a manufacturer of skateboards, I can tell you directly as an industry how free trade destroyed an industry and destroyed people's lives.
And now Joe Biden, with all the things he's done that I think are bad, Were he to enact universal tariffs, I do not trust him because I believe him to be an amoral crackpot, so I would not give him the benefit of the doubt.
unidentified
So what you're saying is that you cannot acknowledge when something is bad just because the person might have a good intention?
And about all the money that was spent through all the illegal immigrants.
As soon as they came in, they had a bunch of...
I don't know if there's a bunch of cards with money on them, but I was at the airport, I believe it was last year, and I had somebody walk up to me, and he was an immigrant, and he talked to me in Spanish, and I knew a little bit of Spanish, but he gave me a bunch of cash and was like, hey, can you help me get to New York?
I just need you to buy a ticket.
And I'm like, I'm sorry, I can't do that.
But he had a wad of cash, and he had a backpack on his...
One of the reasons why these people are given benefits at all is because oftentimes they don't have authorization to work.
When you're applying for asylum, you can get an EAD, but you have to wait a certain amount of time.
EAD is an employment authorization document.
You have to wait a certain amount of time before you can apply for EAD.
In the interim, you're literally making it illegal for this person.
20 million people?
What do you mean?
20 million people are applying for this?
So you're saying 20 million people crossed the border illegally and have entered into the country.
So I think that number is inflated.
It's not true.
Wait, wait, wait.
Let's say 10. 10, 15. It calculates border crossings that some of them are multiple times.
I just don't think it's a true estimate.
But not everybody is a beneficiary of those programs.
On net, once you give them EADs, these people are...
Putting money into our entitlements.
Literally, they're given tax numbers so that they can pay into things like Social Security and Medicare.
And they're never going to get those benefits from those.
So when you let them work, and I'm not saying that I agree with illegal immigration.
I don't agree with illegal immigration.
But it's just a function of the fact that otherwise these people are going to be like, I don't know, dying on the street.
No, remember when we came on to your show in Scrapjaw, and he was talking about how he went over to...
To Springfield, Ohio, right?
And there was a bunch of issues, not necessarily what we thought was the problem, which was people were eating dogs and cats, whatever.
But he was talking about how there were a bunch of immigrants that had money that were paying for cars that didn't have licenses, that didn't have insurance on these vehicles, and they were wrecking these vehicles.
Now, the problem was those vehicles, he would take them back to his, not to his shop, but like the yard where the, Where they tow, right?
But they couldn't take the vehicles.
But why?
Because of these issues.
So what exactly are we supposed to do when we have a president beforehand that caused all of these issues and now we have to pay for that?
So to be clear, we say that we don't have the capacity, but these terrorists that you say you don't agree with, they've wiped out a ton of wealth in this country.
People are against them.
I feel like you're dodging the question entirely.
Let's assume that everything you're saying in terms of what the previous administration did was wrong, illegal, immoral, however you want to say it.
Why is illegal immigration wrong?
Can I ask you?
Well, can you do the same thing and do another country?
Can we go to another country and say...
No, you can't, but why is it wrong for someone to come into the country legally?
Oh, well, you see...
Well, exactly, because...
Hold on, hold on, guys, hold on, guys.
Well, we see why, right?
Look at what happened in Italy, all right?
You saw what happened on that island.
They got ransacked by a bunch of people.
There's only 7,500 people that lived there, and they were...
Tens of thousands that just overran that entire island.
Look at what's going on in the UK with all the stabbings.
Look at what's going on in Canada with all the issues that are going on.
So I'm hearing crime.
I'm hearing economic considerations.
I'm hearing fiscal impact.
So Trump, for instance, has said he wants immigration.
He wants more immigration.
He just wants it to be legal, right?
You've heard him say that.
And in this country, we have really low unemployment.
We have a record low unemployment even now.
The job support that we just got was better than expected.
So there's a labor shortage in this country in terms of the economic impact.
So let me answer why illegal immigration should be illegal, right?
First...
That seems redundant, right?
Illegal immigration is when you come to this country outside of our laws for properly managing influx of new people.
The reason why we made it illegal, I can give you a real-world example, which is Sweden, for instance.
A lot of these countries are bringing a lot of immigrants in because of their low fertility rates.
It's going to cause labor shortages and economic crises.
In the 90s, Sweden brought in a bunch of, I believe it was Somali refugees.
These refugees were not properly integrated.
And this is not to say that they were forced to, it's that the country failed them.
What ended up happening was the refugees that came in, legally, were told, best of luck, welcome to Sweden.
So what did they do?
They formed enclaves.
Incidentally, not intentionally.
People want to live next to each other because it's familiar, it's easy, and if you're going to get a job and provide a service in your community, speaking the language makes it a lot easier.
After 20 years, this resulted in a very serious cultural problem.
The children of these refugees were considered Swedes, but in their home country, they were not considered Somali.
They had no home to go to, but the Swedish native population would not give them jobs or opportunity.
What happened?
They created areas of the country that were, I guess, skeptical of the outside authority.
This resulted in police getting attacked.
It resulted in inter-gang conflict.
There was a grenade thrown in, I believe it was 2017, onto a balcony that killed an eight-year-old British tourist.
The culture that grew in these communities...
Was entirely separate and isolated from the Swedish community because they were not properly brought in.
And so, why do we make it?
We want more legal immigration.
We want to make sure when people do come here legally, because we do have a labor shortage and a fertility crisis, they come in a timely and orderly manner where we can track where they're going, which communities can handle them and which cannot.
But when, let's say, even a million people come across the border unchecked and we don't know where they're going.
This can result in, I should call it, intercommunal violence.
So you run into conflicts like whether or not the story of cats being eaten is true.
You get the local population in Springfield, Ohio, were livid complaining about this.
Or you end up with, when I went to Sweden, one of the most fascinating things that I saw was local Swedish guy, who I think was in his 20s, told me he was terrified to go to these neighborhoods because he would be murdered.
And I thought that was nuts.
And I freely walked about these neighborhoods with no issue.
But there was still a fear of interracial and interreligious conflict because of a lack of assimilation and integration.
So for economic reasons, for cultural reasons, and to preserve the moral traditions of our country, our democratic values we do think are important, we say, guys, one at a time, right this way, please don't cheat.
unidentified
Yeah, but the problem there is, so there's a reason we have these laws.
These laws are in place for some of the policy reasons that you've outlined.
And the problem is when you violate that...
You're both filing a law, but you're infringing on America's sovereignty, right?
America passed these laws through our methods, democratically, and it's an expression of American will that says, these amount of people can come here and no further, right?
You can apply for a green card under these conditions, but not the other conditions.
I know the guy in the suit's been wanting to be here all night, okay?
So you got one minute, guys.
This is our last one.
I'm sorry we didn't get to you.
We only have a limited amount of time, unless you guys want to do one more after this.
But say your name and you got your one minute start.
unidentified
I'm going to make some seemingly wild claims because this stuff hasn't been reported yet.
But as far as Venezuela's role, the World Social Forums on Migration were eight global conferences since 2005 that planned the weaponization of migration against the West.
Sponsored by Venezuela and Cuba, they essentially organized and networked the NGOs and groups that facilitated the migration So whether or not...
Immigrants are Venezuelan or not.
Since Venezuelan proxies, by the definition of the OAS and the U.S. Congress, helped facilitate the transfer of these immigrants, aren't all immigrants that came in as a result of a hybrid war effort, alien enemies and enemy combatants?
The Alien Enemies Act allows you to designate a foreign country, and then only citizens...
No shit, Sherlock.
Bro, do you think I just said that invasion isn't in the statue?
What do you think I just said?
Literally, do you think I just said invasion, physical, and courage aren't in the statue?
Do you think I haven't read the statue?
No, no, yeah.
So what I said was...
What I said isn't contradicted by what you just said.
What I'm saying is that you have to designate a country.
Yes, it's invasion.
It does.
You have to designate a country.
And that country is, you know, you can deport, detain, and send out people of that country, citizens of that country, whether they're here legally or not.
You have to designate one.
So the proclamation that Trump issued only applies to Venezuelan nationals by definition.
And so, no, it doesn't apply for them.
I understand that.
What I'm arguing is that other immigrants...
By virtue of whether they're Venezuelan or not, are playing a part as weapons in Venezuela's hybrid war against the United States.
So then you'd have to designate every country as being part of the invasion?
Then so be it.
That's not what the current proclamation says.
So when Trump wants to say that the whole world is invading us and issue a proclamation to that effect, I'll address it.
Deport everybody, even Americans, white people, Christians.
Everyone's got to go.
Nobody can stay.
unidentified
So, if the Supreme Court were to uphold Trump's power under the Alien Enemies Act in this case, he could deport any Venezuelan, whether they're here legally or not.
So if they're here legally, you can get rid of them too.
The alien enemy is a very powerful ability for the administration to get rid of any alien.
I mean, and it could be an issue of how they've changed, like, when the 14th Amendment was made, it draws a distinction between the rights of persons and the rights of citizens, but I would also add that creates an abortion issue for you if you do accept that argument.
I'm not actually sure either of you are right about this.
unidentified
So, for example, it says the security of, yeah, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And that's people, and other parts of the Constitution, including the requirements for president, to run for president, the requirements for Congress, it refers to U.S. citizens, and in the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is what he was referencing.
Clearly, under current law, we have a lot of restrictions on aliens and what they can say that would infringe the First Amendment if applied to citizens.
But my point being that, like, if that's true, then I think you could say that an illegal alien could not be imprisoned for, you know, a crime that would not be a crime for an American citizen, but they could be deported.
Like, you could make it a condition of their residence.
unidentified
Here, one of the big problems with having this carve out and saying that rights don't apply to illegal immigrants, then the rule, that exception as well as the rule.
And now all of a sudden you're going to be saying, and I hope you don't say it, is are you allowed to search without a warrant, an unreasonable search, let's say, of an illegal immigrants house because they don't have Fourth Amendment rights?
And so if there's an individual rights component to the Fourth Amendment that protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures, surely, and it applies to people and persons, and there's a distinction, I don't think that the analogy doesn't work.
The distinction that we're always talking about in these First Amendment cases and in the Second Amendment cases is this criminal punishment versus removal.
And I don't think that is even in the ballpark of what's going on in the Fourth Amendment.
unidentified
So do you think, but hang on a second, so we're not just talking about criminal punishment when it comes to immigration matters.
So the First Amendment, for example, applies to if you want to get a liquor license and you're a Trump supporter, imagine that the administration says something or the Democrat administration says, you don't get a liquor license if you support Trump.
Or you guys complain about the IRS, right?
So let's say that the IRS institutes a policy that says something like, we're only going to do IRS audits of Trump supporters, right?
