Transcript
Ben Shapiro (0:00)
Well, folks, as always, tons in the news. We're getting to all of it. First, quick shout out to everybody. In the live chat right now@dailywire.com and the Daily Wire + app, we see you. I appreciate your comments. Thank you for being here. If you're not in the chat, what exactly are you doing with your life? Join the conversation real time, unfiltered with me, the team behind the show, and thousands of people just like you. Head on over to DailyWire.com subscribe to become a Daily Wire plus member right now and chat with us. Alrighty. So the Trump administration is in the middle of a very hot fight with regards to this deported Salvadoran migrant. The deported Salvadoran migrant, whose name is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, you'll recall, had a deportation order on him. He was an illegal immigrant. And then there was a withholding order that suggested that he could not be sent back to El Salvador because he claimed that he had fear for his life that he'd be killed in El Salvador because he's a Salvadoran migrant. And maybe he had gang ties, maybe he didn't. The court said that the executive branch of the United States government had good cause to believe that he might, in fact, be a gang member, a member of Ms. 13. President Trump then declared Ms. 13 a terrorist organization. And so the idea now is that sort of retroactively he becomes a terrorist because he was suspected of being a member of Ms. 13. Well, he was sort of accidentally deported. He was not supposed to be on the plane because of that withholding order. That said he was not supposed to be sent back to El Salvador. He was sent back to El Salvador. District court found that the government had to facilitate his return from El Salvador back to the United States so he could have due process before we deported him again. That case ended up going to the supreme court. And in a 90 order, the Supreme Court stated that the district court had the power to say that the United States government, the White House, ought to facilitate his return to the United States. But they didn't define the term facilitate. So here is what the actual court order said. It said, quote, the application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order due to the administrative state issued by the chief justice, the deadline imposed by the district court has now passed. To that extent, the government's emergency application is effectively granted in part, and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The order properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. And to ensure that his case is handled, he it would have been had he not been properly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term effectuate in the district court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the district court's authority. The district court should clarify its directive with any due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the government should be prepared to share what it has, what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. If that sounds vague to you, that's because it's incredibly vague. So the government apparently under the Supreme Court order has a duty to facilitate his release from custody. But how exactly it's effectuated, how that doesn't infringe on the executive branch's ability to do deportations, that part is unclear. So that's left the door open to the administration claiming, well, when you say that we need to facilitate, we asked the Salvadorans and they said no. So I guess that's us facilitating. And the opposite case would be, well, you do have a contract with the Salvadoran government to keep these prisons filled with illegal immigrants being deported there, criminal illegal immigrants. And so you could do more than ask. You could basically demand. And the Salvadoran government, under the terms of the contract, would have to return this person to the United States. Not permanently, but while this person had a hearing before, presumably that person was then deported again. Well, now things are getting very hot because as the case you heard was remanded back to district court for clarification, that very often happens. The higher court will say the district court, the lower court needs to look at it again and clarify what exactly they meant before we decide whether it was right or wrong or whether it was wrong. Well, now that case, which has been remanded back to a U.S. district Court judge and Paula Jenus, that case is again in the news because Ginus ran out of patience with attorneys for the DOJ at a hearing on Tuesday regarding the deportation and imprisonment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, eviscerating their efforts to redefine the word facilitate from a Supreme Court ruling and instructing them to cancel their vacations to comply with a two week inquiry into the matter. This according to media. Abrego Garcia came to the United States illegally as a minor around 2011. His legal team says he was fleeing gang violence. He was living in Maryland with his wife and three children. He was then sent to that maximum security prison in El Salvador. In at least three court filings, Trump administration officials have concluded that he was mistakenly deported. Now, the DOJ officials who said that have now been fired. So the Trump administration didn't like that. They admitted in court filings that it was a mistake to send him back to El Salvador. Jen had ordered the administration to arrange his return. The Supreme Court ruling then said what we said. It said that they had to facilitate. But what did it mean by facilitate? Well, now the White House is insisting that Abo Garcia's arrest, deportation, and imprisonment were justified. They called him a gang member and a terrorist, and they say that they have no power to actually get him back from that Salvadoran prison. Well, Gina said that you're not doing anything to facilitate. They said you're not even giving us answers, quote, to date, what the record shows that nothing has been done, said the judge, Nothing. She then added the court would have no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding to thwart getting the answers it sought and scolded the lawyers to clear their schedules. She said, quote, we're going to move. There are no business hours while we do this. Cancel vacations, cancel other appointments. I'm usually pretty good about things like this in my court, but not this time. I expect all hands on deck. The judge then granted the attorneys for the illegal immigrant the ability to subpoena documents, send interrogatory requests, and subpoena up to two additional people to collect evidence of about where exactly this guy is, what the government has done to secure his immediate return for more due process to the United States and the rest. And then in the order, there's a specific section talking about what facilitate means. Quote, notably, to facilitate means to make the occurrence of something easier, to render less difficult. Merriam Webster defines the term as to make easier or less difficult to free from difficulty or impediment. Defendants remain obligated at a minimum to take the steps available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier. Abrego Garcia is released from custody in El Salvador and resuming his status quo ante. The record reflects defendants have done nothing at all. Instead, defendants obliquely suggest facilitate is limited to taking all available steps to remove domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien's ability to return. Here, the fallacy in the defendant's argument is twofold. First, in the immigration context, facilitating return of those wrongly deported canon has included more governmental efforts. Thus, the court can't credit that facilitating the order relief as limited to just domestic action. Second, defendants appeared to have done nothing to aid his release from custody. So this raises a couple of questions. One is sort of the Legal question, and one is the political question. So the Vice President of The United States, J.D. vance, went on X and put out the following statement related to due process. Because there are people right, left and center who are saying, listen, this guy isn't going to end up in the country, nor should he end up in the country. But you do have to go through a process. And if you do the process wrong, and the court says you did the process wrong, you do actually have to facilitate his release back to the United States, not into the general population, but back to the authorities of the United States for more due process so he can check the boxes and then the guy can be deported again. And then again, that's not a political thing. There are people who are right and left and center who are all saying, yeah, this guy has to go, but you do have to actually fill out the boxes. You can't just randomly deport people. And then if you admit you made a mistake, then go, oh, well, no harm, no foul. Whoopsie daisy. So Vice President Vance is taking the position that the administration is totally right not to facilitate due process in this particular case, essentially due to hardship. And this is one arena where I think that the administration would be better. Two things can be true at once. One, the administration should, in fact, deport this guy. They should deport anybody who's connected with Ms. 13, anybody who does not have American citizenship, who's engaged in sympathy for anti American views, engaged in action that is anti American. The administration should absolutely deport all those people. We don't need more of those in our country. It doesn't matter your ethnicity. It matters your belief system and your activity. Those are the things that matter when it comes to deporting people. And this administration has pledged to deport vast numbers of illegal immigrants on the basis that they're not here legally. That does not mean, on the other hand, that there shouldn't be due process, because due process is something that is spelled out by the judiciary. And the argument that's being made on this sort of legalistic right is, well, if due process can be curbed for noncitizens, then due process can be curbed for citizens as well. And maybe that's not true. Maybe that's something the administration is not interested in doing. It doesn't help when the President says that he'd love to deport Americans to El Salvador, because that is giving. I know he's trolling. I get it. And the President loves to troll. But if you're making the argument that, sure, due process might be able to be abridged for cases of necessity by the executive branch for, for non American citizens, then you really should draw a hard line between, you know, American citizens and non American citizens. Here's President Trump talking about the idea of sending Americans to El Salvador to go to prison there. Well, again, if you're going to make that case that you actually want to do that, what you'd have to say is they would remain under our jurisdiction such that we could get them back if a mistake was made. What you don't want is the situation of this Abrego Garcia fellow now applied to, say, an American criminal who ends up in El Salvador and we, quote, unquote, can't get him back because the Salvadoran government says no. And anyway, here's President Trump. I call them homegrown criminals. The homegrown, the ones that grew up and something went wrong and they hit.