4-21-25 - 7am - What Is The Procedure

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, it's early and it's Monday, so I'm just double
checking that I'm hearing this correctly. Do you want to
give full immigration hearings to all twenty million people that
the Democrats drug in here over the last four years?

Speaker 2 (00:13):
No, I don't.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
I don't want to, but I'm not in charge and
I'm not the one that's making that decision.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
Here is.

Speaker 3 (00:30):
Let me back up, Let's go through the process. Then
let's let's let's start with the process itself, and then
I want to get to the text messages. Because you're
allowing your emotions. I'm not talking about you in particular.
I'm talking about you and I may be talking about
you too. You're allowing your emotions to make these illogical

(00:58):
leaps out other factors or other circumstances, other situations that
are completely irrelevant to what's going on here. And I'm
not saying that any of these things are quote fair,
I'm not saying any of these things are the way
that I would prefer them if I were in charge.

(01:21):
And there is the problem that when you think about
the Cloward Pivet strategy, the Democrats, the Marxists have accomplished
exactly what the Cloward pivot strategy calls for now we

(01:43):
have to decide as a nation, which means that Congress
is going to have to decide if they want to
streamline the deportation of illegal aliens, and ultimately the courts
are going to weigh in on that, whether you like
it or not, because I don't really think that you

(02:07):
want set aside for a moment the emotionally fraud issue
of illegal aliens, and Congress wants to take something. I
can't think of anything in my head right now that
would be analogous, So I'm not going to even try
to make an analogy. But let's say that Congress passes
a law that says we're going to start doing X,

(02:31):
and you and I look at whatever X is and go,
Holy feces, batman.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
That is violently unconstituted. You know what I just did?

Speaker 3 (02:42):
Think of an analogy, And the analogy is based on
a text message I received that I'll go ahead and
share with you right now. You but number fifty two thirteen, Michael,
we meaning I guess us in Colorado not get due
process here in Colorado regarding our children or our Second

(03:05):
Amendment rights. Yeah, we did, and we will. Yes, we did,
and yes we will. Now, I know you're talking about
the transgender bill, and you're talking about the pay to

(03:25):
Purchase bill, the pay to get a License to Purchase bill,
Senate Bill twenty five to three. You did get due
process because you had a chance to elect the members
of the Colorado polit Bureau and the Democrats won. The

(03:48):
Communists in this state won, so they've got majorities. So
when those bills were drafted, you still got your due process.
They had hearings. People got to testify both for and against.

Speaker 2 (04:05):
You got to.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
Lobby, you got to call, even if your representative is
a Democrat, you got to call. You got to write
an email, you got to protest, you got to you
got to go to the hearing, you got you got
to do everything that is that is legally acceptable to
convince them to vote against that bill, both bills. So

(04:28):
you did get due process in both the election of
the people to represent you.

Speaker 2 (04:34):
Although you lost, or I should say we lost.

Speaker 3 (04:39):
And we got due process in the consideration and the
ultimate voting on those bills even though we lost. Now
I'm not happy that we lost. I'm really pissed off
that we lost. I despise what they're doing in this state.
But I recognized that I got due process. I recognize

(04:59):
that I'm in then my minority in this state. I
recognize that this state has turned into a craphole state
in which they don't give a flying f word about
our Second Amendment rights, or our parental rights or anything else.
Those communists, Jarrett poll Us on down do not give

(05:19):
a rats ask about our rights. But we got to
exercise them. We lost, and we're not happy about it.
Now we're still going to get our due process rights
on both the transgender bill and on the gun bill.

Speaker 2 (05:37):
How how you ask?

Speaker 3 (05:40):
Well, because there are groups and individuals who will sue
in state court and probably in federal district court to
have both of those bills declared unconstitutional as violenty of
our due process rights, as violaty of our Amendment rights,

(06:01):
is violaty of our First Amendment rights, a violaty of
our Fifth Amendment rights, of virtually everything in the Constitution.
We will get our due process because we have organizations
that we will contribute money to, We will have individuals
that we will help on an individual basis that will sue,
and we will get our due process rights. Now I

(06:25):
know you're pissed off. There's no one more pissed off
than I am.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
I am.

Speaker 3 (06:33):
I am seething about what Jared Polis and the Democrats
in Colorado are doing to this state. I have, I'm
sorry to say, as a Christian, I have hate, literal
hate in my heart for these people. I find them despicable.

(06:55):
I find Tom Sullivan, who I'm sorry his son was killed,
but I find him to be a despicable human being
using his son's death to take away my right of
self defense, to limit that right. And I find all
of those Democrats, and I find all of that. I
find the governor and his husband and all of their

(07:15):
animal rights bull crap that they're doing. I probably get
the dumb button ready. I despise them for what they're doing.
But I got my due process rights and I lost,
and I'm pissed off that I lost. But don't tell
me I didn't get my due process rights, because I did, and.

Speaker 2 (07:35):
So did you.

Speaker 3 (07:38):
And we'll we'll have a chance to once again exercise
those due process rights when we have an election in
twenty twenty six and we can try to overturn the
majority of the Democrat control in the polit Bureau and
return that to Republican control. And Britta Horn, Brita Horn
and the people at the Colorado Republican Party better get

(07:59):
their ef AN Act together so that they can elect
Republican majorities in the House and the Senate in Colorado.
Otherwise we will continue down the crap hole toilet that
we're going down in this state. But don't tell me
we didn't get our due process rights. You're just pissed off,
and you're not even more pissed off than I am

(08:19):
about how badly we've lost so far in this state.
But don't tell me we didn't get our rights, because
we did and we will. Now let's think, so let's
go back to the twenty million because you raise a
great you raise a great point about we're going to
give everybody a hearing. A Yes, that's what's required by law.

(08:44):
You want to change that law, then you need to
get Congress to act. But that act will be if
Congress streamlines the deportation process, or if the executive decides
that there is an emergency, declares an emergency and streamlines
the process, that will be challenged. People will claim that

(09:07):
they're not getting their due process rights. Fine, let's get
it on. In fact, that's what we're doing right now.
I'll read to you in a minute Justice Alito's dissent
in the emergency order stopping the deportations, because you'll see
that there are at least two Justices, Justice Thomas and

(09:29):
Justice Alito who agree that what we're doing is absolutely absurd.
So what is the procedure. Well, you've heard me talk
in the past about notices to appear. So when an
illegal alien is discovered in this country, they get a

(09:54):
notice to appear from the Department of Homeland Security. They
are the subject to removal proceedings before an immigration judge,
and that illegal alien can present evidence and can ask
for relief from removal. They can ask not to be removed. Now,

(10:14):
I think that that process can be streamlined. You can,
but Congress needs to act. Congress needs to increase the
number of immigration and administrative law judges so that there
are hundreds of them, if not thousands of them, in
states all across the country. Because these are perfunctory hearings,

(10:43):
all of the government needs to show to the judge
is that alien is in this country without lawful authority.
They came across the rio they flew into lax Or.
Joe Biden and his Yawhoo's flew them in from Venezuela, Cuban, Nicaragula,

(11:06):
Honduras and just flew them into the country. So you
could have a hearing that literally lasts thirty minutes. And
I'm just giving leeway there for the judge to walk
in and everybody to stand up, and for the council
to make their appearances, and for the alien to stand up,
be read his rights, and then make for this, for

(11:30):
the Department of Homeland Security to make their presentation about
the alien is here illegally, let the alien's lawyer make
their response, let the judge rule, and then do the removal.
Take them out once the judge rules that they are
here illegally, then take them to a deportation center, a

(11:51):
detention center, and put them on the next available flight
to head out of the country. And I don't give
a rat ask where you take them. I don't care
if you take them back to their home country. I
don't care if you take them back to Yemen. I
don't care if you take them back to Saudi Arabia,
don't I don't give them right to ask ray you
take them, just take them out of the country, and
then boom, it's done and we can start processing that

(12:14):
just wambam, thank you, ma'am as quickly as possible. They've
gotten their due process rights, we've given them what they're
entitled to under the Constitution, and they've been removed from
the country. Is that gonna take time, Yes, it's gonna
take time. The alternative is for Congress to pass the law,

(12:35):
which will still be subject reviewed by the courts that says,
if you're here illegally, then all DHS has to do
is make a determination. They can make an administrative determination,
an in house determination that mister Garcia or mister Jose

(12:57):
whomever is here illegally and you are subject to removal.
So we're going to take you into immediate detention and
put you under immediate removal. Now, that's what Trump's trying
to do by first designating all of those who are
members of Trenda Arragua or MS thirteen as being foreign

(13:19):
terrast members of foreign terrorist organizations subject to immediate review
to immediate removal. That's what's being reviewed by the courts
right now. That's all due process, that's all everybody getting
their rights and it's also an example of how over

(13:40):
the you see you want and I want, but I
know we can't have it. And that's the difference between
you and me is that I understand that we that
we're never going to get this. I want them all
rounded up right now, because I don't While I understand

(14:01):
from a lawyer's point of view, from a legal point
of view, that they have a right to do process,
but the non lawyer brain in me says, I don't
give a rat says about that there are twenty million
of you who came here illegally, who were sucked into
coming here, who were encouraged to come here, and in fact,

(14:22):
in some cases we're actually brought here by our own
government in violation of our own laws. And so I
want your ass moved out immediately. I want the Department
of Homeland Security, I want Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to
issue notices to appear, and I want those hearings to

(14:42):
last about two minutes. Are you here illegally?

Speaker 2 (14:46):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (14:47):
The DHS lawyer would say, yes, mister Jose Sandoval is
here illegally. He crossed on such and such data, such
and such area. Okay, what mister Sandival what is your
lawyer have to say, any evidence to prove other wors? No,
but you know he's got family here or whatever. Okay,
but you don't. You're not proving that he is here legally.

(15:08):
So boom, order of removal is imposed. Take him into custody,
put him at a detention center, fly him out of
the country. And again, I don't care where. I do
not care where. That would be due process. You got
to appear before the judge. It would be you know,

(15:29):
make it like a speeding ticket. You know how much
I despise speeding tickets. Now, fortunately I haven't got one
in almost four or five years now. But troking for Michael,
you get due process. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Dismissed?
Very rarely. Right, Okay, Well, let's just treat them like

(15:51):
speeding tickets. You crossed the border illegally. We've got the
date and time that you came here. You can't show
any evidence of you being here lawfully. Boom, you're out
of here, gone due process. You got your due process expedited,
quick to the point, no bs, no messing around, Wham bam,

(16:13):
thank you man, get you out of here. Well, let's
go to the text messages because you're letting your anger
dilute or diffuse what's in your mind about the process.
For example, sixty eight twenty five, Holman is so rule

(16:35):
of law? Now, where was his rule of law when
they went after Trump? That's that's a non sequitur. Trump's
getting his due process, Trump's filing his appeal, Trump's you know,
did they go after Trump based on lawfare?

Speaker 2 (16:51):
Absolutely? Will he ultimately win? Yes? Will do process win
him today? Absolutely it will.

Speaker 4 (17:00):
Mike, you've probably addressed this, But this gentleman who was
sent off to El Salvador, they keeps saying it was
by mistake. It just sounds so stupid. How the world
could have been just a simple mistake that they shipped
somebody out way around the world. Is there any chance

(17:21):
you could address that.

Speaker 3 (17:25):
I don't know that I can address it accurately. My
understanding emphasized my understanding is that in an offhanded remark
somewhere one of the lawyers made an offhanded remark that
we may have removed him improperly. They've walked that back,

(17:48):
but that was enough for the cabal to hang their
hat on.

Speaker 4 (17:52):
Oh.

Speaker 3 (17:52):
Look, even the administrations of men they made a mistake.
They made a mistake. Well, I've reviewed the docket. They
did not make a mistake. I reviewed the entire freaking document.
And what I'm trying to understand is this. In twenty nineteen,
as I pointed out, Garcia conceded removability and he was

(18:15):
found removable by an immigrant by an administrative law judge.
So once he was found removable, then Garcia did this.
He then saw the asylum and he saw protection under
this Asylum Act which would prevent him from being removed.
The administrative law judge found that Garcia did not qualify

(18:39):
for asylum because he did not file the petition within
one year of illegally enter in the United States, and
he didn't qualify for the other form of asylum or
removal relief because he had no fear of torture by
the government of El Salvador. In fact, on withholding of removal,

(19:02):
the Administrative law judge wrote this withholding of removal, in
contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be
deported to a particular country, rather than the right to
remain in the United States. To establish eligibility for withholding
of removal, a respondent in this case mister Garcia must

(19:23):
show that there is a clear probability of persecution in
the country designated for removal on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. He
could not show any of those things. And you can't
show that you're going to be subject to some sort

(19:43):
of of torture by the government because you're a member
of a gang that's been declared to be a criminal organization,
so you're going to be jailed. That's not torture. That's
again for Al Salvador, that's their due process. It made
differ from ours, but that's their due process. So the

(20:05):
judge was basically saying, you couldn't establish any of these things,
so you weren't even you weren't even qualified for asylum.
And I think that's the key. With holding of removal
confers only right not to be deported to a particular country,
rather than rather than a right to remain in the

(20:25):
United States. So in granting withholding of removal, the Administrative
law judge did not grant Garcia the right to stay
in this country. But what is bizarre is that after
the Administrative law judge entered this ruling, Garcia, who had
been held and denied bond. As we pointed out in

(20:47):
the last segment, he was denied bond because he was
considered both a danger because of gang membership, and he
was denied bond because he was perceived to be a
flight risk. But then they released him. I don't get

(21:08):
that that is that the mistake they're referring to, They
should not have released him. But even if that was
the mistake they're referring to, nonetheless, they still went back
and found him and put him back into attention. So
from this, it doesn't seem the FEDS need to do
anything other than just taking as they did, just take

(21:30):
him to another country. They didn't even have taken Bill Salvador.
They didn't need to seek another removal order. Now, I
guess in the course of studying what's going on with Garcia,
I've looked at I don't know, maybe one hundred different cases,
and so maybe if I'm wrong here about these orders,

(21:54):
some immigration lawyer can correct me. And I've asked that
on x before, but so far nobody has. We Our
frustration stems from the you know, the CNN poll out
that shows fifty six percent of Americans support the immediate

(22:16):
removal of all x millions of illegal aliens in the country,
regardless of whether they're dreamers, regardless of you know, any
any sort of status that they might have. We're getting
close to and I think that's that's a CNN poll,

(22:37):
So I'm going to assume the numbers are actually probably
higher than that. My guess is the numbers are somewhere
between sixty and seventy five percent. That anywhere from a
third to three forces of two thirds to three forces
of Americans want these people moved out, which then gets
us to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is acting

(23:06):
bizarrely with the stroke of a pen just after in
the small hours of April nineteen Saturday. Is like, at
one am, the Supreme Court director of the Trump administration
to halt every deportation this being undertaken pursuant to the

(23:27):
Alien Enemies Act. Because that's not every deportation in the country,
that's just those under the Alien Enemies Act, which basically
confines it down to those who are members of TDA
or MS thirteen. I want to know how anyone now

(23:51):
set aside for a moment, because now we're talking about
something different than your stereo tip. Dare I say run
of the mill, illegal alien. We're now talking about people
that the executive Branch, under their authority, has determined to

(24:13):
be to put it in a vernacular, terrorists MS thirteen
TDA terrorists. Now, is that a legitimate determination? I think
that it is when you look at the amount of crime,
the types of crime, when you look at just do

(24:36):
you remember the video from Aurora, the one that Mayor
Kaufman and Mayor Johnston and Jared Polus told us it
was all just a part of our imagination where they
were going door to door to extort those poor people
living in those crab hole apartments, to extort them so
they could stay there. They still to pay the rent,

(24:58):
but no, we want to extort you. We want more money,
we want we're there were mom that it was like
the mob going in saying, hey, you want to stay
in this apartment. You still have to pay your utilities,
you still have to pay your rent, but by you
have to pay us too, because if you don't, we're
going to kill you. That's terror, that is domestic terrorism.

(25:20):
And I think Trump had the absolute right to determine
that these groups are subject to the alien Enemies Act
and subject to immediate removal.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
So, for all of you screaming.

Speaker 3 (25:33):
About my argument about due process, here we have a
designation of particular groups engaged in particular criminal activity, not
someone that came across you know, crossed the illegally at
you know, war as al Paso, made their way to

(25:56):
Denver and they're working in the back kitchen somewhere of
some dive restaurant, or they're working at you know, for
some landscape or illegally who's just trying to find workers
because he can't find work. And I'm trying to make excuses,
I'm just trying to describe the situation. Those people aren't
a threat to the country in the sense that TDA

(26:18):
and MS thirteen is. So the guy working in the
back kitchen somewhere and some dive is entitled to do
process because he's not a member of a terrorist organization.
Here you've got two groups that are members of a
terrorist organization and are not entitled to do process. They're

(26:39):
subject to immediate removal because of their gang affiliation.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
Now, let's let's conflate two.

Speaker 3 (26:52):
Separate issues for just a moment. I made the argument
that Garcia was entitled to and got his due process.
That's because before Trump designated TDA and MS thirteen as

(27:14):
alien enemies, he got what he was entitled to. He
got that due process. So he's now subject to removal
based upon the previous predetermination that he was even a
member of it. Truly, I get. I'd put it this
way in a certain way, his membership in MS thirteen

(27:36):
was irrelevant because he still got he appear before an
administrative law judge and seek the stopping of his removal.
But he's still got his due process rights now since
that time, he's been determined to be only he was previously.

(27:57):
He has again been again been determined to be a
member of MS thirteen. So now he's subject to two
removals in my opinion, the original removal order two of
them from twenty nineteen, and now the new removal order.
Because he's a member of MS thirteen. He's got a

(28:18):
double whammy against him. So, but then the court stepped
in at one am on a Saturday an unsigned stay
meaning stop everything. Did not confine itself to the two
Venice We're talking about two different people now. Now we're

(28:39):
talking about two other Venezuelans that went to the US
Supreme Court. That unsigned stay signed by the US Supreme
Court at one am on Saturday morning, did not confine
itself to the two Venezuelan petitioners applicants if you will,

(29:02):
who had managed to file habeas papers in the Northern
District of Texas. So what happened that I want you
to understand the process. So two aliens of Venezuelan descent
in Texas filed a habeas petition, which is basically a
petition that says, bring the defendants before the court so

(29:26):
the court can decide what their rights are. Well, the
US Supreme Court stayed the removal of all aliens based
on those two. On what basis did they have? And
this is where we get to Justice Alito's descent. On

(29:47):
what basis did the US Supreme Court have the authority
to do that? I argue they had none.

Speaker 5 (29:54):
Like Dana Bash interviewed that cloud loser, senator from Maryland
asked him does he have MS thirteen tattoos? Is he
any part of the MS thirteen? And of course his
answer was nothing to do with the question. And of
course she didn't follow up and say you didn't answer

(30:15):
my question. So these reporters are just a joke as
well as these loser senators.

Speaker 2 (30:22):
Yeah, and it's it's why it makes.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
I'm not complaining, but it it's why it makes my
job so difficult. Because as I was thinking during the
break about trying to explain to you about the Supreme
Court did over the weekend, it dawns on me that
I really do need to and I apologize, but I
really do need to back up because they have deliberately

(30:50):
made it confusing, both the Court, the media, people like
Senator Van Holland from Maryland, people I mean, the networks
and the stuff that I watched over the weekend. They
absolutely try to conflate all of these different issues, and

(31:12):
of course they put mister Garcia on the top of
this ball of bull crap so that that's what you
focus on. Well, that's not what really the Supreme Court
was doing. The Supreme Court was dealing with a much
broader issue and that's what I want to get to
in the in the next hour. So let's back up

(31:34):
for just a little bit. You have Kilmar Abrego Garcia,
so he's the l Salvadoran that you know, Van Holland
went down to see in Al Salvador.

Speaker 2 (31:49):
They met.

Speaker 3 (31:50):
They took him to a hotel. They took Garcia to
a hotel. You've seen the pictures of him sitting there.
He's got on a you know, he's got on a
nice plaid shirt. He's got his baseball on. You notice
he keeps his hands kind of under the table because
they don't want you to see the tattoos on the knuckles.
They don't want you to see any of that, So
all of that's hidden while he sits there. That's one issue, then,

(32:15):
and he's part of the second issue. But the second issue,
which is separate and apart from him, is the Alien
Enemies Act, which involves members of TDA and MS thirteen.
Garcia was a or is in my opinion, a member
of MS thirteen, but he was also subject to previous

(32:40):
removal orders.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
Having nothing necessarily to do with MS thirteen.

Speaker 3 (32:46):
But they want you to think that it's all bound
up in one big thing, and that's what the Supreme
Court is even trying to do, which is why pissed
Justice Alito off.

Speaker 2 (32:56):
And we'll explain that next