5-5-25 - 8am - Immigration Law and Kimar Albrego Garcia

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael.

Speaker 2 (00:00):
It was just two years after Bill Clinton signed that
law that Wellington Webb stood outside of Rosalindez Mexican Cafe
and declared Denver a sanctuary city. Happy Cinco de Mayo.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
I wasn't gonna mention those three words today any more
than that yesterday. I was gonna tell anybody, may you
know what be with you? Oh my god, both of
these days just drive me nuts.

Speaker 4 (00:30):
You didn't want to bring up the fact at all
that some Sinco to Myo parades have been canceled or
scaled back because their fear for When.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
You told me that earlier, I thought, I'm going to
stick to my policy, so you can, you can talk.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
I'm not going to talk about it. You want to
tell everybody?

Speaker 4 (00:43):
Well, basically just that I had heard coming in that
I was like, wait a minute, this can't really be
a thing. People aren't serious about this, right And sure enough,
and I don't have it pulled up currently, but yeah,
CNN had a headline that Chicago is either scaling back
or canceling in some portions their Sinko to Myo parade
for exactly that, for the fear that ice may come

(01:04):
in and just take everybody away.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
Well, what's going on over on Federal Boulevard.

Speaker 5 (01:10):
I like that.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
What's happening on Federal Let's go watch that.

Speaker 3 (01:15):
And isn't there one of those you know, three three
three word parades going on or something today?

Speaker 1 (01:22):
I don't know. Most likely this is just a day
for tequila. That's all it is. For tequila.

Speaker 6 (01:28):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:29):
I want to address before I go to Garcia. I
want to address and this.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
I know.

Speaker 3 (01:35):
This is the limitation of texting, which is true whether
you're texting me or texting a friend on your phone whatever.
But gooble number eight zero three zero texts and says Michael.
Article one says Congress has veto and the word veto
for some reason, it was all caps. Article one says
Congress has veto power over immigration. It does not authorize

(02:00):
Congress to force a state to accept immigrants. One, I'm
not quite sure what you mean by that. Article one
says Congress has veto power over immigration. It does not
authorize Congress to force the state to accept immigrants. Now,

(02:20):
just taking it at at face value, i'd say get wrong.
And I'm not quite sure that you. I'm not sure
you get what Article one says. Now, let's let's start broadly.

(02:41):
Article one of the US Constitution does not explicitly mention
immigration as a broad term. It primarily establishes the legislative branch.
It details the structure, obviously, the powers, things like the
responsibilities of Congress. It does, however, grant Congress the authority

(03:05):
to quote establish a uniform actually it's the word, and
establish an uniform rule of naturalization. That section eight clause four.
Now that clause empowers Congress to create laws governing the
process by which foreign nationals become US citizens. So I

(03:29):
guess you could say that indirectly relates to immigration policy.
There are any other direct references to immigration policy in
Article one. Any broader immigration regulation stems from the implied
powers that Congress has under all the other clauses by
the Regulation of Commerce section eight clause three, or just

(03:51):
their general lawmaking authority. That part of Article one, section
eight clause four reads specifically, quote the Congress shall have
power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and of
course uniform laws and bankruptcies to establish a uniform rule

(04:16):
of naturalization. Now that's the only explicit reference in Article
one to a power related to immigration. So what does
that mean? It grants Congress authorities set laws for how
foreign nationals become US citizens, which means that Congress can

(04:40):
specify that you cannot become a US citizen, or they
can make it unlawful to try to become a US citizen,
or they can, under their plenary powers to protect the
sovereignty of the United States, to limit how people come
into the United States. And then it's up to the

(05:02):
President to enforce to faithfully administer the laws enacted by Congress.
So yeah, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, which
means all of the aspects becoming a citizen, which means

(05:24):
all of the parts of you can't become a citizen
if you do this, And so we make this illegal.
And one of this is that we make illegal is
to cross the is to enter the United States without authority,

(05:44):
without a visa or under the previously granted agreement that
we might have, say between ourselves and the United Kingdom,
or to come in you know, for example, even though.

Speaker 1 (05:56):
We have even though we.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
Have an agree between ourselves and the United Kingdom that
I don't need a visa from the UK to visit London, nonetheless,
under their laws, just like under our laws, I can't
go to the United Kingdom without a valid US passport

(06:19):
because my valid US passport says that I am a
US citizen and therefore am entitled to come into the
UK without a visa. Inversely, a UK citizen cannot come in.
They cannot land at Kennedy and expect to get through

(06:41):
customs without a valid United Kingdom passport. Otherwise, there's no
evidence whatsoever that they are subject to a part of
the agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom
that we don't require visas to travel between the two states.

(07:01):
You leave it next into that to Canada, you have
to have a valid passport to enter Canada, and vice versa.
So you can therefore make it illegal to enter the
country without a passport without permission or under the color

(07:24):
of law by some other act of Congress. All immigration
authority rests within the Congress. So go back to the
text message, I'm not sure what you mean by it
does not authorize Congress to force a state to accept immigrants. Well, yes,

(07:48):
because the United States of America quoting quoting Joe Biden.
Where are the United States of America? Oh yeah, Immigration
is the purview of the federal government. And under the
Commerce clause, you would be required to follow whatever federal

(08:09):
laws that we have regarding immigration, because those would apply
equally to all the states. Which is one reason why
I believe that sanctuary status is unlawful, because you can't
take something that's unlawful and try to make it in
a roundabout way lawful by saying, oh, even though you're

(08:34):
in this country illegally, nonetheless will provide you with all
these benefits and services and you can work and you
near it. No, no, you can't do that. So I'm
just a little confused by what you were what you
were trying to convey with that, So let's go to
Garcia for a moment. Well, no, I take that back.

(08:55):
I wasn't quite finished with Judge Thurston because what Judge
Thurston did was not only ignore a couple of cases.
But what if Article two vests the president, which it does,

(09:15):
invest the president with command of the executive departments.

Speaker 1 (09:19):
In practice, what does that mean?

Speaker 3 (09:20):
It means that these immigration officers are extensions of his
constitutional authority. So to forbid those officers from exercising powers
that is granted to them as officers under the presidency
under Article one, that's to hobble the president. That's to

(09:43):
put chains on the president in a domain where his
discretion is already at its zenith. James Pope. President Pope
did not consult a federal judge before ordering General Taylor
across the nest Newses Dwight Eisenhower didn't seek a judicial
warrant for Operation wet back in nineteen fifty four. They

(10:05):
active pursuant to statutes and under the mantle of national sovereignty. So,
in my opinion, Judge Thurston's rule would have rendered those
operations impossible, which is precisely why the American Civil Liberties
Union cheers that, because they are trying to and in
particular it's driven from a hatred of the presidency, and

(10:28):
in this case a particular hatred of this particular presidency.
And then they try to invoke fairness. They say that
voluntary departure is coercive if the ice officers or the
immigration officers are standing there and they got a gun
on their hip, well, administrative warrants can be invoked by

(10:56):
an officer wearing a gun. They how's this about fairness?
I don't see how that is at all. Now, a
court could certainly enjoy very specific misconduct if say, the
officers forged signatures or they were beating the suspects.

Speaker 1 (11:18):
But you can't rewrite the statutory.

Speaker 3 (11:20):
Framework on the premise that its own procedural reforms are
wiser than those that Congress adopted. It's just Disjudge's ruling
is just insane. Consider the incentives that her order creates.
If an illegal alien learns that surrendering to Customs and

(11:43):
Border Patrol in Bakersfield, which is in the Eastern District
of California, means that you'll immediately get a lawyer, You'll
get all the full blown hearings you possibly can, and
it decreases any chance of a swift removal back out
of the country.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
While surrendering her.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
If that same person surrenders in El Paso, you're gonna
get exprated and removed back within forty eight hours. Then
what are you gonna do? Well, you're gonna go to
the Eastern District of California where the jet where the
state is already collapsing under housing shortages, strained hospitals, a
decaying education system, a broken budget everything. So what does

(12:27):
her order do. It is actually trying to say, hey,
come come into my district, come come in here. She's
she's beckoning additional rivals, and she dares the federal government
to even try to keep up with that. You know,

(12:48):
in Federal seventy three, Alexander Hamilton warned that encroachments by
one branch upon another branch tend to produce bad government.
And that's exactly we have here. We have a judicial
encroachment that's producing porous borders, crowded dockets, and an executive
branch is forced to litigate rather than legislate or actually

(13:10):
just administer the laws. Now, some contend that going back
not to the nineteen ninety six Act, we go all
the way back to nineteen thirty four, the Immigration and
Naturalization Act. Some people contend, and I tend to agree,
that section two fifty two of that original Act still

(13:30):
allows the Attorney General and now the Secretary of Homelandsecurity too,
to detain illegal aliens on a warrant issued by an
executive official a CBP supervisor. In fact, a lot of
those commentators on this case point to a footnote in

(13:51):
this judge's ruling claiming that she has not invalidated administrative
warrants in general, only those that are unsupported by probable cause.
Yet when you look at the overall language of the order,
it's much wider than that. It enjoins arrests absent a
judicial warrant or absent a showing that the illegal alien

(14:13):
is likely to flee before they could get that kind of.

Speaker 1 (14:16):
Fourth Amendment warrant.

Speaker 3 (14:18):
And given that there are absolutely inherent delays in getting
a Fourth Amendment warrant, I don't think that that showing
is going to satisfy a judge that's predisposed against the
enforcement initiaty in her court room. This administrative warrants to
become a dead letter. Nothing in the Constitution compels that

(14:39):
kind of outcome, nothing at all. You know, what if
how much you think about this, This is something I
brought up on Saturday that the more I thought about,
the more I thought, what this really is a great
alternate history experiment. This is called Operation return to Sender.

(15:06):
What if Operation Returned to Sender was something that Barack
Obama or Joe Biden. She was actually nominated by Joe Biden.
But I want to take it back to Obama or
even Clinton. Clinton might be too far Obama or Biden.
What if Operation Returned to Sender was a Democrat president,

(15:28):
particularly Democrat Barack Obama or Democrat Joe Biden. What do
you think her ruling would have been. Then she may
not have liked the she may not have liked the idea,
but I think she's political enough that her ruling may
have been different. But the Constitution doesn't fluctuate based on

(15:52):
who's in the office. You know, if she thinks that
the nineteen ninety six Act grants too much power, then
her remedy lies in persuading her fellow judges and her
own member of Congress and her two US Senators that hey,

(16:13):
you know, I've had these kinds of cases come before
my court and it really is a problem, and you
ought to fix this.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
But she's not going to do that.

Speaker 3 (16:23):
So, as I said, you know, to answer your question
about why is this Act not being used, I believe
that it is. So they will appeal it to the
Ninth Circuit. And now if the Ninth Circuit affirms, of course,
we'll go to the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit might
say you're wrong and send it back to her to
tell her to readjudicate the case based on whatever their

(16:45):
ruling might be that upholds the.

Speaker 1 (16:46):
Nineteen ninety six law.

Speaker 3 (16:49):
But the problem with all of that is go back
to what Trump said in the Meet the Press interview.
Do we really believe a twenty million or whatever the
number is illegal aliens in this country are entitled to
a full blown judicial hearing before they can be removed

(17:12):
from this country. What if they truly believe that that
completely evisceerates the nineteen ninety six law, and that makes
in essence any attempt to control the border absolutely meaningless. Yeah,
the Supreme Court Ney's step in tight. Frankly, I think

(17:33):
Congressoft's step in. I think Congresso's step in and make
the law even strong. Yeah, let's go to Garcia. Let's
think about Garcia form.

Speaker 5 (17:45):
So I watched the Kentucky Derby this weekend, and I
found it ironic that there was a horse named Soberty
and another horse named Journalism. Well, Soberty came in first,
Journalism came in second.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
I thought that was just a little ironic.

Speaker 3 (18:05):
Would have been better if journalism had come in last.
But let's think about Kimar Abrego Garcia. Do you ever
think we'd spend so much time on a domestic abuser,
a criminal, uh, someone that we wouldn't want in the
country regardless. I mean, if if he had conducted himself

(18:30):
in the manner that he's conducted him himself while in
this country and then applied for a visa to come
to the he would he would have been denied a visa,
whether it be a student visa or tourist visa, he
would he would have been denied the visa. And yet
Democrats just keep running to El Salvador, despite the entreaties

(18:50):
by Hakeem Jeffries to hey, guys, let's let's not take
any more trips to El Salvador. But here we are
his all expend payd sojourn in El Salvador, and of
course everybody's posturing all around him. Or rather, there's been
an understandable outrage, and there's been intransigence on the part

(19:12):
of the Trump administration, and I think rightfully so. But
on the other side, there's been this wild, almost comic
posturing on the part of the Democrats, screaming through their megaphones,
all held up by the journalists, which are indeed a
bunch of horses asses. There's one hundred nine how many

(19:33):
countries in the world, one hundred and ninety something, So
it is unfortunate, or at least it's complicating. I would
say that Trump settled in El Salvador as the country
to which the port Garcia whose wife was granted a
temporary protective order against him in twenty twenty one, and

(19:56):
he's admitted to, you know, clambering into the US illegally.
Twelve after a bunch of arrests, a bunch of hearings,
he was slated to be deported, removed out of the
United States and back to his native country, El Salvador.
So despite anybody that thinks that, oh, you know, it's

(20:20):
too bad that they've settled in El Salvador.

Speaker 4 (20:22):
Where else?

Speaker 3 (20:24):
I mean, I know that other people that were deported
went to El Salvador. That may not be l Salvadoran's,
but he was. In twenty nineteen, an immigration judge granted
him withholding of removal status, which prohibited DHS from sending
him home because it was alleged that he faced threats

(20:47):
of gang violence.

Speaker 1 (20:48):
So why was he sent to El Salvador.

Speaker 3 (20:51):
Well, some say it was a mistake, and some government
officials have admitted that there was an administrative error. No matter,
what does matter what they said they claimed that Garcia
is himself an alleged member of MS thirteen, and MS
thirteen is indeed a designated terrorist organization, and so he

(21:13):
is no longer eligible for that withholding of removal status,
and that gets lost in the conversation almost all the
time about Garcia. Now, I'm not going to argue right
now anyway about the merits of designating these cartels and
gang members as domestic terrorist organizations. I will tell you

(21:37):
my personal feeling is I think the President has the
authority to do so, and what they are engaging in
is domestic terrorism. It is crime, but it goes beyond
that because they are in many ways trying to alter
the culture and the policies of this country. So you

(21:58):
go back just a couple of weeks, that's where we were.
But then the cabal goes into action, and the cabal
gets in on the act, and Garcia and his PR
team the cabal are insisting that he's not a member
of MS thirteen. Two courts, a couple of bonifid members

(22:18):
of the gang, and some law enforcement officials disagree, but
the question has yet to be settled. Definitely, the wilder
beast in the room is the concept of we've been
talking about for an hour and a half of due process.
A judge of the United States Courts of Appeal for

(22:40):
the Fourth Circuit, Jay Harvey Wilkinson, clapped around that quote,
the government is asserting a right to stash away residents
of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of
due process. That is the foundation of our constitutional order. Well,

(23:01):
I will acknowledge the as due process is indeed the
foundation of our constitutional order. But then it raises the
question has he been granted enough of that due process?
I think he's enjoyed an awful lot of it. I
would argue that he's enjoyed enough due process that he

(23:21):
has gotten due process go back to the nineteen ninety
six Act, which limited the amount of due process that
people that are in his situation are entitled to. He's
had three immigration hearings. One determined his MS thirteen affiliation,

(23:42):
a second upheld that determination. So two immigration hearings have
upheld his designation as a member of MS thirteen. Now
third hearing denied his petition for asylum for someone who's
not a citizen of this country. And considering everything that

(24:04):
you've learned about the nineteen ninety six Act. I would
say that mister Garcia has gotten more than enough of
due process. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court said, as we talked
about at the very beginning of the program, that this administration,
the Trump administration, must do what it can to facilitate

(24:27):
his return. So what does that entail? What does facilitate mean?
The president as your dragon play that SoundBite in the
Oval Office, sitting as a dragon, like to describe it,
arms linked from the President of the United States has
said he's not going to release Garcia, and he's certainly

(24:49):
not going to try to smuggling back into the United States.
So uh oh, Now does that mean that Garcia that
uh B Kelly, the president of l Salvador, is in violation?
Is he denying? Is is he violating the Supreme Court order?

Speaker 6 (25:12):
M hm.

Speaker 3 (25:15):
M hm?

Speaker 1 (25:17):
How much more facilitation do you need?

Speaker 3 (25:20):
Ask An answered, Uh, just wasn't asked if I remember
that sound by take correctly, dragon?

Speaker 1 (25:27):
It wasn't Trump that asked him. Does A remember the
media that asked him, wasn't it? Yeah? So remember the.

Speaker 3 (25:34):
Media, I guess speaking on behalf of Trump or just
speaking on behalf of all Americans. The cabal, the cabal
itself asked, hey, can can you send him back? Or
would you send him back? And the entwer was no,
how much more facilitation do you want?

Speaker 1 (25:51):
M hm? How much more do you want?

Speaker 3 (25:55):
Uh? Maybe maybe we take him. Maybe we asked Kelly
to thanking him to a different country and then ask
that country, and maybe that's another facilitation we can facilitate
till the cows come home. And speaking of due process,
what sort of process was involved, as some of you

(26:16):
have asked, in allowing millions of illegal aliens to flood
the country during the Biden years, there was zero process.

Speaker 1 (26:25):
They just gain. Does each then deserve his own.

Speaker 3 (26:29):
Separate district court judge and his own you know, stupid
Democrat member of Congress or the Senate to plead their
case for them? Maybe that's what we ought to do.
Maybe instead of saying, you know, here's what we'll do,
in fact, tell the Democrats this in a Senate. Tell

(26:51):
the Democrats that, hey, Republicans want to appoint twenty million,
I'll be one. I'll be one for a day. Pay me, Uh,
pay me a thousand bucks. I bet Dragon would do
it for a thousand bucks too. Nobody says you have
to have a law degree. Uh just one thousand, you know,
twenty million people to be federal district court judges for

(27:14):
a day, and we'll hold a hearing. Now, my hearing
is going to last about fifteen minutes. I'm gonna, you know,
wait till the bailiff calls the case. Uh you know
it's uh Garcia versus you know, Department of own Insecurity,
And so they call the case, I'll take the bench,

(27:34):
or maybe we'll just do you know, we'll find a
We'll find a motel six, maybe a conference room and
a holiday in express and that's where I'll hold court.
Because nobody says I have told court in the courthouse,
So we'll hold court there. Bring them in and I'll
let them present their case so that there's a hearing.
I'll let DHS present any rebuttal to the case, and

(27:55):
then I'll rule. Now, don't tell them, but I already
know my ruling is.

Speaker 1 (28:01):
I actually will listen.

Speaker 3 (28:04):
And maybe there's you know, some really pathetic, horrible case
where maybe I might be convinced, but I doubt it
to say yeah, okay, you can stay. You know, there's
somebody that's sitting there and they're getting treatment at some
cancer center and you know, maybe they're paying for it themselves,
or they got insurance or whatever, whatever the circumstances may be,

(28:25):
and they got six months to live, I'll be like, okay, fine,
you can stay, but anybody else now you're going back.
So there, you've had your hearing, and I've made a
thousand bucks. So what's twenty million times one thousand bucks.
It's gonna cost a couple of billion dollars or something.
So whatever that's gonna cost, that's that's that's what we'll
do in order to get due process. And then there's

(28:48):
Judge Wilkinson's wind up because Judge Wilkinson also asked, was
the government asserting a right to stash away residents of
this country in foreign prisons with no due process?

Speaker 1 (28:58):
That was the question.

Speaker 3 (28:59):
And so to Elizabeth Warren Pocohonas herself stood up and said,
I think so, because she said, and I quote, if
they can disappear mister Garcia, they can disappear you. Obviously,
that's an absurd, plane totally absurd claim. I think mister
Garcia has gotten more than enough due process.

Speaker 6 (29:21):
So I just want to really understand here, Tumar is
not an MS thirteen game member, but his life is
in danger because he's a part of the gang or
was a part of the gang in the El Salvadori
in prison, and therefore those existing gang members in that
prison could kill him because he was a part of

(29:42):
that gang. I mean, every you can poke holes in
everything that Democrats do. It's just unbelievable.

Speaker 4 (29:51):
Well you shouldn't do that. That's one of those make
it make sense moments.

Speaker 3 (29:55):
Yeah, And you know, we live in a day and
age where if you try to do that, you might
as well just pound your head against the wall.

Speaker 5 (30:07):
You know.

Speaker 3 (30:07):
It's interest because I actually thought about that over the weekend. Yeah,
because as you know, but I finished Saturday, it just
becomes a kind of done, and it's time to go
to dinner with friends and just you know, take the
dogs hiking or do whatever. And Sunday's kind of the

(30:28):
same way. And then I get up this morning and
I I, you know, because I's on Sunday evening, I'm
trying to put my tabs and notes together, just you know,
things I think I want to talk about. And I
have to admit that last night I was thinking to myself,
oh my god, it's just it's whack a doodle out there,
you know, because I start with on the you know,

(30:51):
because show preps all the time, twenty four to seven.
And then at some point, you know, late afternoon or
early evening is when I really start, Okay, here's everything
I've read here, Here are all the URLs that I've
saved in a word document, and here are the notes
I've made. And then I started looking for the Michael
Brown minute. And then I as I'm looking for the
Michael Brown minute, which is all they wanted to always

(31:12):
focused on Colorado.

Speaker 1 (31:14):
It kind of.

Speaker 3 (31:15):
Takes all of that big pile of garbage and focus
it down to just this state. And I can almost
always take whatever's focused on this state and extrapolate it
out to all the garbage that I've done for the
rest of the you know, the for the program here,
and it is it's just like it's everywhere. It's overwhelming.
And then I sit here and I got a nice
quiet break, and then Dragon has to chime in, just

(31:38):
a break where I'm thinking, you know, you know, it's
time to go take a whiz, you know, have a
sip of diet coke, and then what do you tell me?

Speaker 4 (31:45):
I was just curious if you had heard ilhan O
Mar's response to a reporter asking the question as to
if any of her if she believes that any of
her fellow Democrat Democrats should head back down to a
Salvador for Abrigo Garcia.

Speaker 3 (31:59):
I assume that, considering that she's a member of the
squad and how much she hates Trump, I assume that
her answer was, you know, back off, leave me alone. Yes,
we're gonna keep going because if they can disappear, like
you know, Elizabeth Warren says, if they can disappear him,
they can disappear any of us.

Speaker 1 (32:15):
So I'm sure that's what she had. You're close, but
I've got it here, so I'll just play. Okay, do
you think more of your Democratic College should be traveling
to El Salvador to advocate on behalf of a Vigo Garcia?

Speaker 4 (32:25):
I think.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
I'm sorry, what at the end of the beep, I
hear off, Yeah, so I saw.

Speaker 3 (32:34):
I'm gonna assume that. I mean, she didn't say like
buzz off. She might didn't say you know, you know,
you know what else off? She probably said a f off.

Speaker 1 (32:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yeah, Well, at least at least we've raised the level
of political discourse to where we're dealing in rational logical
thought and we're not just using explotives too.

Speaker 4 (32:57):
I mean, for argument's sake, that is one of those
walking talk kind of the situations where she's walking into
a building and a reporters right there with a camera
and a microphone in her face. So those can be
very annoying, but they deal with those every day, so
it's kind of a normalcy for them.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
And and the words become normal for them too. Yeah,
I mean, I know, I freely admit that my world
that would be would be very quickly normalized on this program.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
Would be bull s work, because that's just kind of
what we're.

Speaker 3 (33:26):
Living through right now. It's just a big pile of
bull swords. I don't think it ever be the f
work because I think it's just for fun. Huh.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
It would be fun to do just for fun, because
we could well, i'd basically tell you to fall. Other
than that, yees flake, time come back, come back for
some more fun.

Speaker 3 (33:49):
The work