The lead event is the Supreme Court's announcement that it will review the Trump administrations metering policy, which limited asylum seekers at the U.S. border a major step in the ongoing immigration battle. Sean Hannity frames the discussion as a fight for American sovereignty and security, highlighting concerns over open borders under the Biden-Harris administration and emphasizing recent incidents involving known terrorists. Guest Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal, explains the stakes: whether the federal government can control its own borders, and warns of risks to national security. This matters as the outcome could reshape U.S. border policy, impacting millions and influencing the nations approach to immigration for years to come.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza, well, the battle over illegal immigration, I believe we are going to continue to see the fallout of wide open borders that went on for the entire Biden-Harris administration.
I blame them.
I think I've said many times that they have blood on their hands, Lake and Riley, Jocelyn Nungari, Rachel Morin, and so many others.
We learned in the last week and a half that known terrorists have been discovered in our country.
They came in during the Biden-Harris Mayorkas open borders disaster.
We have people from over close to 300 countries, 200-plus countries in our country, countries that have known terror ties.
Why did somebody from Iran make the trek to our southern border?
Why does people from Egypt make the trek to our southern border?
Again, ties to terrorism, you know, it makes a very suspect.
And I am not against legal immigration, just the opposite.
I want people to come in legally.
I want them to be vetted.
I want health checks in a post-pandemic world.
I want to also make sure that they're not going to be a financial burden on the American people.
I don't give a hoot where you come from.
At that point, you pay for that, you know, process yourself.
We vet you.
Welcome to our country.
Welcome to America.
That's how my grandparents got here.
They did it.
They did it legally.
You know, we mentioned yesterday the ICE agents being confronted in North Carolina, you know, being cursed at, spit at, everything else in between by these lunatics.
I mean, it's now a hostile environment.
We've had ICE agents now being harmed on the job.
They're now being doxxed.
They're now being confronted.
They're now being tipped off.
You have tip lines that are putting their lives in danger, taking away the element of surprise that is vital for law enforcement.
And so far, everybody seems to be getting away with it, which is beyond frustrating to me.
Now we are back in the Supreme Court.
They announced yesterday that they will review the immigration policies adopted during the first Trump administration of turning away potential asylum seekers before they ever set foot on American soil, setting up the first major immigration policy case of the term.
Now, just as a matter of law, federal law does require the government to process asylum seekers who arrive at ports of entry.
Donald Trump in 2018 began a policy known as metering, in which border agents simply turn back potential asylum seekers, the state of Mexico policy, if you will, before they entered the U.S. You can't enter and just say, oh, I'm here for asylum.
And if you remember, you know, when we were being told over and over and over and over and over again, the border's closed, the border's secure, the border is closed, the border's secure.
Elon Musk put out a post yesterday showing the Biden administration using a bulldozer to break down the fence to allow people on the other side to enter our country illegally.
And again, the big lie that went on for four years that the border is closed, the border's secure.
Here's a reminder.
The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our border.
The border is in fact secure.
A record 221,000 migrants crossed into the U.S. last month.
Our border is secure.
We believe certainly that the border is secure.
1,300 migrants a day.
We have taken unprecedented action over the past year and a half to secure our border and rebuild a safer and orderly process system.
This year is on pace to be the deadliest year for migrants crossing into this region of Texas in recent memory.
The border is secure.
The border is secure and the border is not open.
Crossings are still at an all-time high with Border Patrol reporting more than 1.8 million apprehensions from October 2021 through July.
The border remains closed.
It is not open.
We are turning away the majority of adults.
The border is secure.
The border is closed.
So we are offering solutions.
That's what the Biden-Harris administration has been doing since day one.
This is worse now than it was before.
A record number of migrants this year, and the total could surpass 2 million by the end of September.
We're certainly doing a lot more to secure the border.
We have a secure border.
And we have a process in place to manage migrants at the border.
A record surge of migrants in New York City.
Over 2 million illegal immigrants crossing the southern border.
An all-time record.
The border is secure.
We agree that the border is secure.
The border is secure now, but only after Donald Trump became president and made it a priority.
We estimate anywhere between 12 and 20 million.
Nobody knows the actual number.
You know, we don't know.
California, for example, Sanctuary State and City, they don't even keep statistics of crimes committed by illegal immigrants.
They protect illegal immigrants.
And by the way, they offer them free taxpayer-funded health care, free taxpayer-funded schools for their kids, and other benefits.
No wonder why the highest tax state in the country is running massive, massive deficits because they can't afford it because all the illegal immigrants are protected there.
Anyway, this case is now moving forward.
Gene Hamilton is the new president of American First Legal.
You might remember it was started by Stephen Miller, instrumental in the president's first administration, making sure the abuse of the asylum system was not going to be misused by those looking for unlawful entry into the U.S., which pretty much is everybody because they're all trained what to say when they get to the, I'm going to die if I go back to my home country.
And you just don't know how to vet them.
And there was no vetting for the four years.
Now we're now stuck with known terrorists, murderers, rapists, other violent criminals, cartel members, gang members, drug dealers that are in our country.
And the blood is on the hands of Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and everyone else that lied to us.
Gene Hamilton, welcome back.
Sean, thanks for having me on.
What's the status?
What's the latest?
Where do you think the Supreme Court's going to come down on this?
Yeah, so let me set the stage for the audience at home, Sean.
We've had now, for six months in a row, zero releases into the United States of illegal aliens at the southern border.
And as you pointed out, that is precisely because Donald Trump has delivered on his promises to the American people.
But if you think that it is mission accomplished and that there are not threats to the security of our border just because Donald Trump is in office, you would be mistaken.
There are all kinds of people who are continuing in radical court decisions that are continuing to do everything they can to advance open borders insanity.
And so let's talk about this case.
Let's set the stage for this case.
As you pointed out, this case is about the prior Trump administration, 1.0, policy of metering.
And for the audience, what this means, if you can think of an analogy, is if you go to the grocery store, you go to the deli counter, you don't get to just walk behind the deli counter, cut your own meat, cut your own cheese, take your own order.
You have to take a number and wait in line.
What the Ninth Circuit, the crazy radical Ninth Circuit, did below is said, no.
In fact, it's illegal for the federal government to be able to manage the number of people who are approaching a port of entry.
So we have, according to the Ninth Circuit, no control over our own borders, no control over our ports of entry.
We have to accept hordes of people coming in and demanding entrance to the United States, which is flatly contrary to the law.
It's contrary to the Constitution.
It's contrary to what a sovereign nation believes and has.
But here we are.
And so we have this case that the court has taken up to hear that is going to decide a very, very fundamental problem, a very fundamental question, which is, does the federal government have control of its borders or does it not?
The implications of this case are significant.
It has carryover crossover effects, and every American needs to be paying attention.
Well, I agree.
I have said, and if you think I'm wrong, I want you to disagree with me, that it's a matter of when, not if, that this country is going to be attacked from within.
Because you can't have that many known terrorists.
We know that there are terrorists in this country that got in during the Biden administration.
We know they're here.
We just arrested some recently, and we were able to stop a plot to attack this country.
And that was the case in New Jersey.
But to me, it's a matter of when, not a matter of if.
But I always add, and I'll add again, that I pray to God I'm wrong.
Sean, I pray to God you're wrong also, but you and I agree on this point.
Look, I've spent a lot of my professional career working for ICE, working for DHS, working for the Department of Justice, doing all kinds of different things.
And I can assure the audience today that it is impossible, it is completely impossible to thoroughly vet and screen some person who arrives at the southern border, even if it's at a port of entry from Tajikistan or from some banana republic.
It is impossible.
It takes a long time to thoroughly vet and screen to determine that the person who is trying to come into the United States is in fact not a threat to the American people.
And yet what this case represents in the policies of the last administration, what they represented as well, is this fanciful notion that you can just let anyone into the country and hope for the best.
And the sad state of affairs is that they let millions, millions of people come into this country under this false premise that they knew what they were doing, that they were acting to secure the border.
And it is only a matter of time until we see something even more tragic than the murders and the rapes and all the crimes that have been committed.
You know, terror strikes this country again, and it is not going to be good for anyone.
I know that this is really the first time that the court is taking this issue up.
I think it is a critical decision that they will be making here.
It's never wise to interpret arguments made before the court, but the Supreme Court did announce that they will review this.
But based on the current configuration of the court and based on other factors and past decisions, do you have any indication?
I actually believe this is a case we can win.
I 100% agree with you, Sean.
I think this is a case where we have justices on the Supreme Court who rightly read the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and are going to deliver a win for the federal government in this case, for the Trump administration, and affirm that it has the right to control its own borders, that people, in fact, in Mexico are in Mexico, and they are not in the United States,
and they do not have the rights to demand to be admitted to apply for asylum.
So, I think this is going to be a resounding win for the Trump administration, but we have to pay attention and we have to look for these things.
Your audience has to look for these things everywhere where they raise their head because, again, the open borders radicals are committed to their agenda, and they are going to keep trying everywhere where they can to undermine the sovereignty of the United States.
Because at the end of the day, what they want is to tear down this country and what it stands for.
Oh, I agree.
All right.
So, do we have a timeline?
Is this just going to be a decision that could drop any day?
Are they going to hear oral arguments on it?
Do we know?
Yeah, I mean, they'll hear arguments.
It'll be one of these cases that's heard in the spring.
Case decision will follow several months thereafter.
So, we've got some time.
And, of course, the Trump administration, as I mentioned, and as you've mentioned, in the interim has secured the border like no one else ever has before.
So, we have some time.
We will see what happens.
But we all collectively, as American people, cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration and protecting our own sovereignty and our own borders.
Well, we appreciate what you're doing.
We appreciate the updates.
Please keep us in the loop.
You're doing a great job at America First Legal, Gene Hamilton, the president.
Thank you so much for being with us.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
New Jersey, Joel, next on the Sean Hannity show.
Hey, Joel, how are you?
Hi.
I was calling in to get your point of view on trying to discuss topics with loved ones, friends, and family who are on the opposing side.
Okay.
So, are you having a problem with family members that don't like your politics?
Yeah.
One of the big things is that if you see somebody being lied about and you call it out, like, hey, that's a lie.
That person never said this or they didn't do this.
Even when you show somebody proof, they're still believing that, no, that's fake.
That's not real proof.
and all the other parts.
But then you're lumped in with someone who is supposedly filled with hatred and you're everything dirty under the sun.
But how do you try to have a— Well, let me ask, is there anybody specific in your life that you have a particular problem with?
Because I've lost friends, not on my end, on their end, because they don't like my politics.
And my attitude is kind of like, well, I guess we really weren't friends anyway.
I'll give you one story, for example.
I always got along with John Kasich.
He used to be the governor.
He was a congressman, then governor from Ohio.
And I think it was before Trump's election.
I don't remember the first or second one or the third one.
It was either the first or second election that he ran in.
And I called him and I reached out to him.
I said, do you have a minute?
And he goes, is this about President Trump?
Is this about Donald Trump?
I said, yes.
He said, nope.
And I said, oh, so I get it.
We should only have superficial conversations about how are you doing?
How is your golf game?
What's going on, bro?
I mean, you know, the things that you learn from Democratic million-dollar studies.
And we're not going to have a real conversation about, let's see, the future of our country, national security, about the economy, about things that are impacting people every single day of the week.
Okay, if that's your posture, fine.
We haven't spoken again since.
And that's on him.
That's not on me.
In the end, if we did have that conversation, he said, Sean, I just, I have this point of view.
It's different than yours, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I wouldn't have ended my relationship over that.
But there are some people that if you go there, that's on them.
It's not on me.
I'm never going to beg anybody to be my friend.
Either friend's a friend or not.
Who's bothering you the most?
It's my wife.
Oh, boy.
That's a problem.
How long have you been married?
17 years.
Okay.
Now, do you think it's worth getting a divorce over?
Well, that's already underway, but it's not only her.
There's my dad.
There's multiple family members and friends.
Well, you know, friend aspect.
Your point of view is on that clear.
I mean, is really the main reason for the divorce over politics?
Yeah.
I mean, can you not just agree to not talk about politics?
No.
Do you get along in every other aspect of your life?
No, like the politics affects fundamental beliefs.
So the politics is impacting every aspect of your relationship.
Yeah.
It's ruined every part of your relationship with your wife.
That's sad.
Now, do you care that she's a liberal Democrat?
I don't mind that she is and who she votes for.
It's just her choice.
Okay, and but she really is angry at your politics.
Yeah.
Wow.
You know.
Can I talk to him for a minute?
Listen, my friend, I got to tell you something, okay?
There's a lot of mega mamas out there.
Or you do.
They aren't there for you.
Wait, wait, wait.
Wait, wait, wait.
Linda, wait a second.
I'm sorry.
Before we go here, I'm just giving an admonition to Joel.
Joel, just be very careful what she's about to say.
No, it may not be the best advice.
I'm giving you, listen, you are absolutely right.
It is a fundamental difference.
The problem is you are tolerant of her, but the tolerant left is never tolerant.
It's ridiculous.
It's walking in complete irony.
They are ridiculous.
You are a good person who believes in family first and 17 years in marriage and doing all the right things.
And all she wants to talk about is that you're mad.
She's mad that you're a conservative.
How stupid is that after 17 years?
She doesn't know enough other wonderful things about you than to judge you by your politics?
Listen, we all know conservative women are wonderful, beautiful people with big hearts, great hair.
They're good dressers.
You're about to try and set them up with one of your friends like anybody.
I don't need to set him up with all my friends.
We have a beautiful audience that will happily, there are so many mega mamas out there.
It is hard to do.
I think you're going to bring that candidate.
Listen, Joel, I would recommend one thing to you, honestly.
And look, there are reasons that people have to get divorces.
It's sad that this is what's going to break up your marriage.
Do you have children?
No.
Okay.
Well, that actually is a plus because children are always impacted a little bit, at least, by divorce.
But this is what I'm going to advise you.
I'd give it one last shot.
I would go to her and say, can we just agree to disagree on politics and never talk about it again?
Can we just agree and then, you know, let's rekindle our relationship?
What brought us together in the first place?
Because I doubt what brought you together in the first place was who you were voting for.
There had to be some spark there somewhere else that brought you together.
And if I had to guess when you were courting each other, you probably didn't talk a whole hell of a lot about the political scene, did you?
No, that was back in 2002.
I'm just going to urge you, give it one more shot.
Go back to her.
Can we just hit the reset button here?
Agree to never talk about politics.
I'm going to, I don't, I won't ask you about your politics.
Don't ask me about my politics.
And let's just talk about the things that we love about each other and give it a shot.
Now, if at that point she still wants you to divorce you, what are you going to do?
Well, that's the thing.
Like, I haven't really given you a really detailed picture of it all, but the divorce is a mutual agreed thing because of the key differences.
Like, it's not only politics.
Politics plays a major role in it, but not just that.
Like our different social.
All right.
Well, I'm the least qualified person to give relationship advice.
What do I know?
But anyway, I wish you the best, my friend.
Sorry about that.
I'm sure it's not pleasant.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Jill is in Maryland.
Hi, Jill.
How are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
I have to say, I think Linda gave Jill some great advice.
Oh, boy.
Well, thank you.
Did I not give him great advice to see if they can maybe put that aside if that's the major cause of their differences?
I mean, it's appreciated, I'm sure, but it sounded to me like it's kind of done.
But I don't know the story, so I won't weigh in on it.
And, you know, I did call for two other reasons, but I will say, Linda does give really good advice, and you've got some well-deserved time off coming up, I'm sure, for the holidays.
I think you should let Linda host your show while you're gone.
Well, that's a bad idea.
Trust me, it's not safe.
Oh my God, that answer was so quick.
I felt no love at all.
Not even a little love, like a hug, maybe.
Why is it a bad idea?
I mean, you can't do the show without her, can you?
Yeah, actually, I can.
It wouldn't be as good.
I love her contribution, but we're great friends.
Linda is great at what she does.
If Linda ever wanted to do her own show, she could do great.
And I've offered her on many occasions to support her if she ever wanted to do that.
Have I not?
She could start by filling in for you when you're not there.
Right.
But I have there's a whole set of criteria that you have to have to fill in for the show.
Oh, do tell.
What is it?
I want to know more.
We have a little danger zone when it comes to Linda.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my gosh.
It's not top gun.
We're not flying in the danger zone.
You're fine.
It's a safe space.
No, you're not a safe space.
There's nothing safe about Linda.
You should hear Linda unbridled off-air.
She's not asking for off-air, Linda.
She wants on-air, Linda.
It's very different.
All right.
Move on.
What's on your mind?
What else is on your mind, Jill?
Okay.
So I called about two things.
The first one is I know you've been talking a lot about AI recently.
And I'm, you know, I know it's here.
I'm not against it.
I'm not against technology.
I'm not against progress.
But I'm concerned about the rush to approve all of these data centers that are going in everywhere.
I think that local, I think that states and local governments are getting blinded by the idea of fast revenue from them, but they're not looking at the long-term effects.
There's the short-term gains versus the long-term effects.
And I know that where I am, they're selling prime farmland, prime agricultural land to build these data centers.
And we're not going to get that back.
Once you develop it, that agricultural land is gone.
And we can't afford to start importing our food.
We need farmers.
We need local.
And, you know, there's, I thought for a long time, the big thing was farm to table and locally sourced food.
But if we keep paving over everything to put data centers up, which we don't have the infrastructure for yet, what's going to happen?
What's going to be the long-term result of this?
The good news is the president has opened up more sources for energy than we've ever had before.
And it's going to take an enormous amount of energy to build out these AI, the necessary energies for AI capability.
It is enormous.
And thank goodness we have the right president at the right time.
It's the perfect convergence of timing for this.
And I applaud President Trump for what he's doing here.
I just, I worry that we're putting the cart before the horse in some of these local jurisdictions.
Right now, we're running an extension cord from Pennsylvania to Northern Virginia to power all the data centers.
And they're about to do a 4,200-acre campus where I live.
And it's some of the most fertile farmland in the state of Maryland.
And I'm just, you know, I know we can't stop it.
I just wish that the local planners would put a little bit more thought into this and maybe realize that data centers can go up, they can go vertical, whereas agricultural land cannot.
So it's my thought.
I don't know what the answer is.
I'm just, I'm really concerned that they're being blinded by the thought of the initial checks that they're getting because they're getting big checks right off the bat.
And the data centers are promising thousands of jobs, but those jobs are for mostly for the construction.
So listen, I am telling you, you're very smart.
You're way ahead of the curve.
It is imperative that everything that you're talking about be dealt with and be dealt with now so we don't find ourselves short.
So I give you a lot of credit for understanding this, but I want this audience to be super prepared for the shifting and changing economy because it's going to be dramatic.
And I don't want anyone in this audience to be caught by surprise.
It's not the future.
It's now.
The changes are happening now before our eyes.
And I just want everyone to be able to start thinking about adaptation to new technology, the economy.
Some jobs will be replaced.
Other jobs will come online.
Elon Musk, I know for a fact, believes that the net plus is going to be significant, meaning more jobs in the end, not less.
But I'm talking to people that are telling me in 10 years, we're going to have robots in most middle-class family homes that will do the dishes and the laundry and cut the lawn and things that you never dreamed of before.
I mean, it's going to be that deep and that profound, the changes that are coming.
I'm seeing construction robots that can build massive buildings in a week where it would take a year for a construction company to do it.
And it's more perfect and they do it with less waste.
You know, all of this is real.
All of this is now happening.
And all of this is going to be coming online.
That's why the trillions in investment.
When the time is right, and the first announcement I'm making is if you're in North Carolina, want to go to North Carolina, Toyota announced they have begun production of their $13.9 billion battery manufacturing plan while committing an additional $10 billion to bolster U.S. manufacturing over the next few years.
It's in Liberty, North Carolina.
You might want to check in if you're in North Carolina or you're interested in that industry.
See if there's any jobs available for you.
I will make it a priority so this audience is ahead of the curve.
And if you're willing to take chances in your life, and I urge everyone to take chances, then I would just say that pay attention to what's happening, okay?
And we'll try to help you.
It's definitely the way of the future.
And I hope that schools are paying attention to this.
They're not.
So that, well, it would be nice to get people trained in some of this.
The other thing I would say.
Some schools are.
There are good schools in this country.
I would find them.
You have to work to find them.
But I'm on the clock.
Jill, great call.
Appreciate you being with us.
I just want to wrap things up today.
We got a great Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
Oh, turns out Democrats have themselves a little Jeffrey Epstein problem.
What a shocker.
We'll check in with James Comer, Riley Gaines tonight, Charlie Hurt, Lindsey Graham, Tommy Laron, former FBI Special Agent Maureen O'Connell, and also former Secret Service.
How did they get this whole issue of the assassination and Butler so wrong?
