April 17, 2025 • 21 mins
In this episode, Lisa and Article 3 Project's Will Chamberlain delve into the case of Kilmer Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. Lisa and Will discuss Garcia's immigration history, including his illegal entry in 2012 and subsequent detention by ICE in 2019. Will highlights issues of credibility in asylum claims and the exploitation of the immigration system by individuals and their legal representatives. Allegations of Garcia's affiliation with the MS-13 gang are also examined. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Is he a Marilyn Manned or a member of MS thirteen.
Today we will dive into the complex and often contentious
world of immigration policy and legal battles facing the Trump administration.
In this episode, we sit down with wil Chamberlain, Senior
Counsel with the Article three Project to impact the case
of Kilmar Abrego Garcia for allegations of MS thirteen ties
(00:25):
to a web of legal maneuvers that kept him the
United States.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
We'll explore how this.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Case exposes deep flaws in our immigration system.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Join us as we discuss.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
The lies, the lawyers, and the broader implications for justice
and national security. Stay tuned for wil Chamberlain. Well, it's
great to have you on the show. I wanted to
have someone on to talk about this case, and then
I saw your post and reached out. So I appreciate
(00:55):
you making the time and look forward to trying to
make this case a little less complicated for people.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Yeah, it's good to be here with you, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
All right.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
So the media is obviously in the left trying to
make this a situation where Abrigo Garcia.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
He's just a Maryland man. You know, he's a father.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
He's done nothing wrong, really trying to turn him into
a sympathetic figure. So you posted on x the story
of kill maar Abrigo Garcia is not about the wrongful
deportation of a Maryland father. It's about the abuse of
our immigration system by illegal migrants, the lawyers who helped
them lie, and the nonprofits who agitate to keep them
in the country.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
I guess walk us through. How did Garcia abuse or
immigration system?
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, well, by his own admission, he crossed into the
country in twenty twelve, and he did so without any
legal status. He never applied for asylum. He never you know,
showed up at a port of entry. He just crossed
the border and he lived in this country illegally for
seven years without having any interaction with immigration authorities until
in twenty nineteen he was detained aimed by ice And
(02:02):
when he was detained, he was about to be removed,
and then he decided to say, well, actually I fear
persecution in my home country, so I'm going to apply
for asylum, but also something called withholding of removal, which
means you would not be able to remove him to
his native country. At El Salvador, he was granted that
withholding and then managed to stay in the country six
(02:23):
more years despite the fact that he was still removable
to any country in the world other than El Salvador.
And now in twenty twenty five, he's finally being removed,
and everybody's portraying it as both at you know, this
massive injustice, in this massive lack of due process. Now,
I mean to be clear, I think there was a
procedural flaw here, as the administration admitted, given that this
(02:44):
withholding of removal was still in legal effect, he should
have been he should not have been removed to l
Salvador until that was fixed. But I see the story
as more one of how illegal migrants and their lawyers
help exploit the system, because you know, you go back
to twenty nineteen, you had the first immigration judge, you know,
he's somebody he asked for bond to be released pending
(03:08):
you know, disposition of this removal petition, and the judge said, no,
there's evidence you're a remember of MS thirteen, you can't
prove you're not a danger to the community. No, you're
you're going to stay in jail. And so yet somebody
who had already been in the country for eight seven
years illegally was you know, found to out at least
there's some evidence that he's an MS thirteen gang member,
(03:28):
was somehow able to stay in the country. And the
reason he was is because, you know, a few months
later he had this very well developed sob story that
said that if he were sent back to Al Salvador,
the eighteenth Street gang would kill him because eight years
previously they had threatened his mother's papoosa business. They tried
to extort it, and you know, the papoosa business had
(03:51):
closed in the in the interim. But so what he said,
I'm still They're still going to try and kill me.
And I mean, this was just frivolous. So it was
obvious what the actual reason he was saying all this
stuff was. He was about to be removed, he was
about to be a father to the child of you
as citizen. He wanted to stay with his family. I
get it, But the law says he needs to go home,
(04:14):
and except if he comes up with you know, except
if he actually has this credible fear of being persecuted.
And so he came up with a credible fear of
fearing being persecuted. And my suspicion is that his lawyers
told him this is the only way you can stay
in the country, and then left the room and allowed
him and his family to concoct this story. And yet,
so to me, this is an example of how immigration
(04:36):
lawyers and their clients make a mockery of our system.
You know, it works if people are being honest, But
I don't believe this person was being honest at all.
I think they came up with just a ridiculous story
at the time to stay in the country. But even
if his story is true, in twenty twenty five, it's
irrelevant because now you Bukeley has crushed the gangs and
(04:56):
now Salvador. So even if there was this fear of persecution,
that fear should have been gone. He should have gone home.
But no, of course not. He was trying to stay
in the country. And you know, that's exactly what American
citizens elected Donald Trump's stop. We wanted legal immigrants to
go home.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You know. And we know that this credible fear narrative
with asylum seekers is often abused. Do do we know
how immigration judges determine if the individual has a true.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Credible fear or not.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I mean, it's literally if I read this case. Right
in the law, as stated by the immigration judge, it's
just literally up to the judge. The judge can make
any kind of credibility determination that they want. And the
remarkable thing is the judge explains that, you know, these migrants,
they don't obviously they say they don't have any written evidence.
Necessarily or because you know, the events leading to the
(05:49):
fear of persecution happened in a foreign country, they're not
expected to provide any evidence. So it's literally just if
you were trying to figure out what is the evidence
that Abrego Garcia presented to the immigration judge, it's just
his own testimony and affidavits from his family. And the
obvious conclusion there is well, of course his family would
lie to the court in order to keep him in
(06:11):
the country. Right, these people, you know, you start with
the presumption this guy didn't have a lot of respect
for our laws in the first instance, because he crossed
illegally and stayed here illegally for eight years, seven years.
Why are we treating his testimony to you know, avoid
deportation as credible. I don't know, but the fact that
our system, in our system, you can communicate this credible
(06:34):
fear of persecution with nothing more than the testimony of
you and your family. Well, that's ridiculous. I'm sorry. You
should go home, And if you wanted to make these claims,
you should have made them immediately when you got here.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Well yeah, I was going to say, I mean, we're
trusting the word of someone who's already abused or laws
and you know, had no regard for them to begin with.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
We've got more with will.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
But first, as you celebrate this holy season, let's take
a moment to reflect on God's creation you. In Psalms,
we learned that God knit you together in your mother's womb.
His eyes saw your unformed body. He saw who you
were created to be before.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
You became you.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
Preborn Ministry is once to remind you that each one
of you is made in the image of God, and
life is sacred.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Life is eternal.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
You may have come to Earth as an unplanned pregnancy,
but whether planned or unplanned, your life is value and
every day of your.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Life is ordained by God.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Please take a moment today to thank God for life,
and we invite you to remember babies in their mother's wombs.
Their lives count two last year alone. Preborn's Network of
clinics rescued over sixty seven thousand babies from abortion. Your
tax deductible donation of twenty eight dollars sponsors one ultrasound
and doubles a baby's chance at life. How many babies
(07:49):
can you save? Please donate your best gift today. Just
style pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's
pound two fifty baby. Or go to preborn dot com
slash booth that's preborn dot com slash booth boo tg
sponsored by Preborn. Now, the allegation is that he had
(08:10):
ties or you know, has ties to MS thirteen. What
evidence is there for that is that relevant to this?
Speaker 3 (08:17):
So it's not exactly clear what evidence was that we
have some idea there's there's because we have to go
all the way back to the twenty nineteen immigration bond hearing,
you know, which we've only seen a few a little
bit of the records of. But it looks like that
judge had in front of them both some sort of
gang sheet like an identify vcation with the police that
said this person was MS thirteen, along with testimony from
(08:37):
sort of some sort of confidential informant, and the idea
that he was wearing a parel that was aligned with
MS thirteen. But we don't know that that's all the evidence. Like,
let's that's literally what is mentioned in a two page
immigration judge hearing. There might well be more. It's a
little bit rich that everybody is just saying there's no evidence. Well,
clearly there's not no evidence. This guy was found by
(08:59):
an immigrant judge to be a verified member of MS thirteen,
and that finding was upheld on appeal. And the people
claiming either there's no evidence or this is wrong are
just his lawyers. They're just his lawyers putting out press
releases or filing up blate saying oh, this was nonsense,
he's not really MS thirteen. Well, it's like that hasn't
been tested. Now, granted, I think you know, we haven't.
It hasn't been proven in a court beyond a reasonable
(09:23):
doubt that he's a member of MS thirteen. But that's
not the relevant standard because the question is what actually
matters here for the purposes of whether or not this
guy should be removed. Well, the MS thirteen could matter
in the sense that if he is actually an MS
thirteen member, then he's ineligible for withholding of removal. And
so could have That would be one way that the
administration could go to the immigration judge and say, you
(09:47):
need to lift this guy's withholding of removal. But there's
other ways to do that. As discussed, there's no real
fear of persecution in l Salador anymore because it's now
one of the safest countries in the Western Hemisphere. The
real reason that he needs to be deportant is because
he's an illegal alien or he was an illegal alien
in our country. That was all that was needed from
the get go, Like there's a red herring that the
(10:10):
you know, the left media puts out there that it's like, well,
he has no criminal record, so he's an illegal alien
in our country. You don't have a right to be here.
You could be removed period.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Well, I think it sort of underscores the different way
that we view immigration between the parties, right because the
left clearly they don't believe that coming into the country
illegally is grounds for removal, right like, they're perfectly fine
with it, whereas obviously we are not as Republicans, you know.
(10:40):
And it's interesting because during the first Trump administration, the
argument for the left or from the left was that
you know, the Trump administration was inhumane.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Because of family separation. I feel like that was probably.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Like a stronger political argument to make, you know, like
oh children, you know. And now it seems like they
are defending you know, potential prolomas sympathizers and you know, maybe.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
AMMA thirteen members and you know, and so I wonder
what the political fallout, you know.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
I think that's also why they're trying to add this
sympathetic you know, Maryland father, you know, kind of like
trying to just to you know, add some of these
more like sympathetic descriptive words attached.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
To the guy.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
But you know, it's an interesting I don't know politically
how this will play out for them.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Yeah, No, I agree with that. I think that it's
a president Trump got elected running on a platform of
mass deportation, and the American public in puls for obviously
first they elected him, but also in polls they indicated
that they support mass deportation. And I don't think the
Democratic Party has got it through its head that you
shouldn't be trying to make illegal aliens who abused our
(11:47):
system into standard bearers for your party. And that's what
they're doing. Both in this I mean, these are I
was thinking about it. Somebody asked, like, why why is
the Democrat Party doing this? And it's just because they're
dominated by the sort of rook when professional managerial class
journalists types, and you know, for these people, I mean,
(12:07):
the victims of murder by legal aliens are irrelevant and annoying.
But you know, the moment they can advocate on behalf
of somebody who's in our country illegally, or somebody who's
advocating on behalf of terrorist groups in Israel, they jump
at it. It could because that's their mileu for whatever reason.
And I think it's just if they keep making this mistake.
(12:29):
And you know, there's the funny thing is they're in
much better you know, the economy's got issues right now,
Like I think Trump's going to pull it out with
these troiffs. But you know that if I were, you know,
a dispassionate political consultant advising the Democrats, I'd be like,
we don't want to be talking about this. People hate this.
We want to be talking about the economy in tariffs
and how everything's getting more expensive.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
And yet they're not well, you know, and you even
have Democrats like Marilynd Senate Democrat Chris van Holland saying
that you know he's going to organize a codell to elsum.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
Bukeley has the chance to do the funniest thing.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Just not let him in.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
No, just arrest them and throw him in jail time.
I'm kidding, no, I but it's.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Like that, you know, if it is a codel, that's
like on us right, that's taxpayer funded resources for them
to go make the argument and to make a spectacle
out of a potential MS thirteen member and arguing for
his return, which you know, to the broader point politically,
it just does not seem like, you know, that's I.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Think the story never ends with him coming back because
he has no illegal status in the United States. If
you know, they want to say, well, he's not an
MS thirteen member and we need to give him more
due process. It's like, Okay, guess what happens. Bookeley releases him,
He gets flown back to the United States, put right
back into an IC detention center, and we go through
the process and he'll get removed because the basis on
(13:57):
which he got is withholding of removal. In El salvad Or,
is this fear of the Eighteenth Street Gang extorting his
mom's capoosa business. While the Eighteenth Street Gang is defeated,
so you don't have any basis for it anymore. You
never had legal status in the United States. You're going home,
so it always ends up with him back in El Salvador.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Yeah, the Supreme Court's ruling to facilitate but not effectuate
Gersia's return. What's the importance in the differentiation between those
two words, and what exactly did the Supreme Court say
with this case.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
Well, honestly, the Supreme Court was pretty vague, but this
is my understanding on it based on reading the opinion
and a lot of the briefing and the underlying cases.
So there's been plenty of times where ice has been
ordered to facilitate the entry of the legal aliens back
into the country, or aliens rather back into the country
so that they can get so that there could be
(14:54):
further immigration proceedings for whatever reason that's happened in the past.
What that's meant is you need to get rid of
the obstacles, the United States side obstacles in the way
of this person coming back to the country. Right, there's
not an assumption that the government should go, you know actively.
You know that the court has the right to order
(15:15):
the government to go engage in diplomacy. The president is
the sole diplomatic organ of the United States. And so
when this District Court put in place in order that
said facilitate and effectuate the return of a Brigo Garcia, Interestingly,
like the lawyers for Brigo Garcia knew. I haven't talked
to them, but they knew that this was too broad
(15:35):
an order because when they were arguing this to the
Court of Appeals, they were saying, oh, look at all
these cases saying that ice can must facilitate the return
of an alien. They knew that there's a difference between
those two things, because to facilitate is to make something easier,
but to effectuate is to make it happen, right, to
bring the end result about, And that's what the Supreme
Court objected to. They agree that, you know, the court
(15:58):
obviously had the ability to order the to facilitate his return,
to take care of obstacles on its own end, because
the administration itself admitted that the deportation was administrative error,
but they didn't have the right to just order the
president to engage in diplomacy. And so the Supreme Court
was nice and told the district judge, you need to
clarify your order and ensure that you give due deference
(16:19):
to the president's Article two authorities. It doesn't look like
this this district judge, Judges Ennis did that. But that's
that's the difference between facilitate and effectuate. Facilitate is to merely,
in this context means to simply remove obstacles on your end,
whereas to effectuate means to actively bring about.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
You've got to take a quick commercial break.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
More with will.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
On the other side, the only place I don't agree
with the Trump administration is that President Trump has said
that he wants to send you as citizen to commit fund.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Like crimes to l Salvador.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
And obviously we can see how that becomes a real
slippery slope, particularly during COVID when you know, people like
me didn't get the COVID vaccine, and like nearly half
of Democrats wanted to send us to government camps, so
you know, like and now the left views basically all
of us who have supported Trump, as you know, more
or less terrorists. So I worry about that and what
(17:16):
that would mean for us if we lose power or
when you know, we inevitably lose power because it bounces
back and forth between the parties and it will continue
to do so for the rest of American history.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
So, uh, like, yeah, let's not I'm totally fine with what.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
He's doing with legal aliens, you know, and people who
don't deserve to be in our country.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
But like, I don't think we go there with citizens.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
I completely agree, and I think that's ultimately where the
president will end up. I think, you know, if we need,
if we want to deal with if we have an
issue with under incarceration in our own country, which we
kind of do, there's there's there's there's more criminals that
need to be incarcerated, but we can just build more
jails for our own citizens. But I agree with you,
I don't I think I don't. I don't understand what
complaint that then Whalen's you know trenda iragual gang members
(18:02):
have They never had a right to be in our
country in the first instance. And really, I mean this
is all a product of the fact that the Venezuelan
government wouldn't accept their citizens being repatriated. It's like, well, okay,
then We're going to find another place to send them to.
And I think one of the things that Trump administration
does understand is the need for deterrence, is the need
to deter the entry of illegal aliens. And you know,
(18:24):
I've seen a lot of people be very critical of
Christy Nome and her photo opsits at the El Salvador,
in prison or wherever else. The point of all this
is the message isn't for us, the messages for illegal migrants.
We want to make clear to them that if you
come to this country legally, you will be removed and
it probably won't be very nice. And that's why we've
seen I legal immigration go down ninety five percent year
over year illegal crossings. It's a real accomplishment of the administration.
(18:47):
I think they need to keep it up.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
I mean, she did to kill dogs, so I guess
you know, there's credible fear for the illegal aliens that
they maybe that was.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
The reason she was selected. I was like, I thought
her political career was as dead as that dog, but
apparently not. And maybe maybe that's what you need to do.
You need to you know, like what if you if
we cross the border illegally, maybe what will happen to us,
is what happened to the dog.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
I don't know. If you can kill a cute little dog,
then I guess anything's fair.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Game at that point.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
So I don't know if I want to Well to
your point about the Venezuelans. I've made this point on
TV as well, when people are like, well, why are
we sending them to El Salvador.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Like this is awful?
Speaker 1 (19:26):
I get it, But like a lot of these countries,
and I know we reached to deal with Venezuela at
the end of March to repatriate, you know, some of
these migrants and for them to finally take some people back.
But a lot of these countries, who is going to
want to take back Ms thirteen and trende Aragua gang
members or murders or rapists. And so that's the challenge
(19:49):
that President Trump is facing when he's trying to do
these mass deportations.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Particularly with the worst of the worst.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Is you know, these countries aren't gonna want to take
them back.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
Right And I mean part this point with Trender Rogwitz
the reason they were you know how this Alien Enemies
Act proclamation is that it's pretty clear that the it's
the Venezuelan government sent them here. That this wasn't unintentional.
They sent a gang into our country to you know,
make mischief and disrupt things. So yeah, no, of course
they're not trying to take them back. Now with m S. Thirteen,
it's actually much simpler. You know, Naibukeli is a really
(20:19):
good ally, and he wants to take them and imprison
him in them in his own jail, and that's, you know,
really what this is all about.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
What do you make of the Trump Administration's used to
the Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
The Alien Enemies Act. I think it's probably not going
to be that much of an increase in efficiency over
the normal immigration process because I think the Supreme Court
and other judges agree that while there's not, you know,
any judicial role to remove to re sorry to review
the president's decision that there's been a war or present
(20:51):
predatory incursion, they still have the right to review whether
somebody individually is in the class of people that are
covered by the Alien Enemy Zach. So I'm not sure
it actually speeds things up more than a standard issue
deportation proceeding, given what the Supreme Court is doing. But
I my view is I'm perfectly fine with it in
the sense that President Biden launched a mass invasion of
(21:13):
illegal aliens who are into our country. That's why there
is a mass deportation. I think the Trump administration should
be using every tool it's it's at its disposal to
deport these people.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
And the American people that's what they wanted.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
They voted for.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
It was the second most important issue and President Trump
won the popular vote. So Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at
the Article three Project, appreciate your time.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Thank you for breaking this down for us. It was
very helpful, all right.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
That was Will Chamberlain, Senior counsel at the Article three Project.
Appreciate him for making the time. Appreciate you guys at
home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
But you can listen throughout the week until next time.
Is he a Marilyn Manned or a member of MS thirteen.
Today we will dive into the complex and often contentious
world of immigration policy and legal battles facing the Trump administration.
In this episode, we sit down with wil Chamberlain, Senior
Counsel with the Article three Project to impact the case
of Kilmar Abrego Garcia for allegations of MS thirteen ties
(00:25):
to a web of legal maneuvers that kept him the
United States.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
We'll explore how this.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Case exposes deep flaws in our immigration system.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Join us as we discuss.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
The lies, the lawyers, and the broader implications for justice
and national security. Stay tuned for wil Chamberlain. Well, it's
great to have you on the show. I wanted to
have someone on to talk about this case, and then
I saw your post and reached out. So I appreciate
(00:55):
you making the time and look forward to trying to
make this case a little less complicated for people.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Yeah, it's good to be here with you, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
All right.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
So the media is obviously in the left trying to
make this a situation where Abrigo Garcia.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
He's just a Maryland man. You know, he's a father.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
He's done nothing wrong, really trying to turn him into
a sympathetic figure. So you posted on x the story
of kill maar Abrigo Garcia is not about the wrongful
deportation of a Maryland father. It's about the abuse of
our immigration system by illegal migrants, the lawyers who helped
them lie, and the nonprofits who agitate to keep them
in the country.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
I guess walk us through. How did Garcia abuse or
immigration system?
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, well, by his own admission, he crossed into the
country in twenty twelve, and he did so without any
legal status. He never applied for asylum. He never you know,
showed up at a port of entry. He just crossed
the border and he lived in this country illegally for
seven years without having any interaction with immigration authorities until
in twenty nineteen he was detained aimed by ice And
(02:02):
when he was detained, he was about to be removed,
and then he decided to say, well, actually I fear
persecution in my home country, so I'm going to apply
for asylum, but also something called withholding of removal, which
means you would not be able to remove him to
his native country. At El Salvador, he was granted that
withholding and then managed to stay in the country six
(02:23):
more years despite the fact that he was still removable
to any country in the world other than El Salvador.
And now in twenty twenty five, he's finally being removed,
and everybody's portraying it as both at you know, this
massive injustice, in this massive lack of due process. Now,
I mean to be clear, I think there was a
procedural flaw here, as the administration admitted, given that this
(02:44):
withholding of removal was still in legal effect, he should
have been he should not have been removed to l
Salvador until that was fixed. But I see the story
as more one of how illegal migrants and their lawyers
help exploit the system, because you know, you go back
to twenty nineteen, you had the first immigration judge, you know,
he's somebody he asked for bond to be released pending
(03:08):
you know, disposition of this removal petition, and the judge said, no,
there's evidence you're a remember of MS thirteen, you can't
prove you're not a danger to the community. No, you're
you're going to stay in jail. And so yet somebody
who had already been in the country for eight seven
years illegally was you know, found to out at least
there's some evidence that he's an MS thirteen gang member,
(03:28):
was somehow able to stay in the country. And the
reason he was is because, you know, a few months
later he had this very well developed sob story that
said that if he were sent back to Al Salvador,
the eighteenth Street gang would kill him because eight years
previously they had threatened his mother's papoosa business. They tried
to extort it, and you know, the papoosa business had
(03:51):
closed in the in the interim. But so what he said,
I'm still They're still going to try and kill me.
And I mean, this was just frivolous. So it was
obvious what the actual reason he was saying all this
stuff was. He was about to be removed, he was
about to be a father to the child of you
as citizen. He wanted to stay with his family. I
get it, But the law says he needs to go home,
(04:14):
and except if he comes up with you know, except
if he actually has this credible fear of being persecuted.
And so he came up with a credible fear of
fearing being persecuted. And my suspicion is that his lawyers
told him this is the only way you can stay
in the country, and then left the room and allowed
him and his family to concoct this story. And yet,
so to me, this is an example of how immigration
(04:36):
lawyers and their clients make a mockery of our system.
You know, it works if people are being honest, But
I don't believe this person was being honest at all.
I think they came up with just a ridiculous story
at the time to stay in the country. But even
if his story is true, in twenty twenty five, it's
irrelevant because now you Bukeley has crushed the gangs and
(04:56):
now Salvador. So even if there was this fear of persecution,
that fear should have been gone. He should have gone home.
But no, of course not. He was trying to stay
in the country. And you know, that's exactly what American
citizens elected Donald Trump's stop. We wanted legal immigrants to
go home.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You know. And we know that this credible fear narrative
with asylum seekers is often abused. Do do we know
how immigration judges determine if the individual has a true.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Credible fear or not.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I mean, it's literally if I read this case. Right
in the law, as stated by the immigration judge, it's
just literally up to the judge. The judge can make
any kind of credibility determination that they want. And the
remarkable thing is the judge explains that, you know, these migrants,
they don't obviously they say they don't have any written evidence.
Necessarily or because you know, the events leading to the
(05:49):
fear of persecution happened in a foreign country, they're not
expected to provide any evidence. So it's literally just if
you were trying to figure out what is the evidence
that Abrego Garcia presented to the immigration judge, it's just
his own testimony and affidavits from his family. And the
obvious conclusion there is well, of course his family would
lie to the court in order to keep him in
(06:11):
the country. Right, these people, you know, you start with
the presumption this guy didn't have a lot of respect
for our laws in the first instance, because he crossed
illegally and stayed here illegally for eight years, seven years.
Why are we treating his testimony to you know, avoid
deportation as credible. I don't know, but the fact that
our system, in our system, you can communicate this credible
(06:34):
fear of persecution with nothing more than the testimony of
you and your family. Well, that's ridiculous. I'm sorry. You
should go home, And if you wanted to make these claims,
you should have made them immediately when you got here.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Well yeah, I was going to say, I mean, we're
trusting the word of someone who's already abused or laws
and you know, had no regard for them to begin with.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
We've got more with will.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
But first, as you celebrate this holy season, let's take
a moment to reflect on God's creation you. In Psalms,
we learned that God knit you together in your mother's womb.
His eyes saw your unformed body. He saw who you
were created to be before.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
You became you.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
Preborn Ministry is once to remind you that each one
of you is made in the image of God, and
life is sacred.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Life is eternal.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
You may have come to Earth as an unplanned pregnancy,
but whether planned or unplanned, your life is value and
every day of your.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Life is ordained by God.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Please take a moment today to thank God for life,
and we invite you to remember babies in their mother's wombs.
Their lives count two last year alone. Preborn's Network of
clinics rescued over sixty seven thousand babies from abortion. Your
tax deductible donation of twenty eight dollars sponsors one ultrasound
and doubles a baby's chance at life. How many babies
(07:49):
can you save? Please donate your best gift today. Just
style pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's
pound two fifty baby. Or go to preborn dot com
slash booth that's preborn dot com slash booth boo tg
sponsored by Preborn. Now, the allegation is that he had
(08:10):
ties or you know, has ties to MS thirteen. What
evidence is there for that is that relevant to this?
Speaker 3 (08:17):
So it's not exactly clear what evidence was that we
have some idea there's there's because we have to go
all the way back to the twenty nineteen immigration bond hearing,
you know, which we've only seen a few a little
bit of the records of. But it looks like that
judge had in front of them both some sort of
gang sheet like an identify vcation with the police that
said this person was MS thirteen, along with testimony from
(08:37):
sort of some sort of confidential informant, and the idea
that he was wearing a parel that was aligned with
MS thirteen. But we don't know that that's all the evidence. Like,
let's that's literally what is mentioned in a two page
immigration judge hearing. There might well be more. It's a
little bit rich that everybody is just saying there's no evidence. Well,
clearly there's not no evidence. This guy was found by
(08:59):
an immigrant judge to be a verified member of MS thirteen,
and that finding was upheld on appeal. And the people
claiming either there's no evidence or this is wrong are
just his lawyers. They're just his lawyers putting out press
releases or filing up blate saying oh, this was nonsense,
he's not really MS thirteen. Well, it's like that hasn't
been tested. Now, granted, I think you know, we haven't.
It hasn't been proven in a court beyond a reasonable
(09:23):
doubt that he's a member of MS thirteen. But that's
not the relevant standard because the question is what actually
matters here for the purposes of whether or not this
guy should be removed. Well, the MS thirteen could matter
in the sense that if he is actually an MS
thirteen member, then he's ineligible for withholding of removal. And
so could have That would be one way that the
administration could go to the immigration judge and say, you
(09:47):
need to lift this guy's withholding of removal. But there's
other ways to do that. As discussed, there's no real
fear of persecution in l Salador anymore because it's now
one of the safest countries in the Western Hemisphere. The
real reason that he needs to be deportant is because
he's an illegal alien or he was an illegal alien
in our country. That was all that was needed from
the get go, Like there's a red herring that the
(10:10):
you know, the left media puts out there that it's like, well,
he has no criminal record, so he's an illegal alien
in our country. You don't have a right to be here.
You could be removed period.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Well, I think it sort of underscores the different way
that we view immigration between the parties, right because the
left clearly they don't believe that coming into the country
illegally is grounds for removal, right like, they're perfectly fine
with it, whereas obviously we are not as Republicans, you know.
(10:40):
And it's interesting because during the first Trump administration, the
argument for the left or from the left was that
you know, the Trump administration was inhumane.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Because of family separation. I feel like that was probably.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Like a stronger political argument to make, you know, like
oh children, you know. And now it seems like they
are defending you know, potential prolomas sympathizers and you know, maybe.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
AMMA thirteen members and you know, and so I wonder
what the political fallout, you know.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
I think that's also why they're trying to add this
sympathetic you know, Maryland father, you know, kind of like
trying to just to you know, add some of these
more like sympathetic descriptive words attached.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
To the guy.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
But you know, it's an interesting I don't know politically
how this will play out for them.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Yeah, No, I agree with that. I think that it's
a president Trump got elected running on a platform of
mass deportation, and the American public in puls for obviously
first they elected him, but also in polls they indicated
that they support mass deportation. And I don't think the
Democratic Party has got it through its head that you
shouldn't be trying to make illegal aliens who abused our
(11:47):
system into standard bearers for your party. And that's what
they're doing. Both in this I mean, these are I
was thinking about it. Somebody asked, like, why why is
the Democrat Party doing this? And it's just because they're
dominated by the sort of rook when professional managerial class
journalists types, and you know, for these people, I mean,
(12:07):
the victims of murder by legal aliens are irrelevant and annoying.
But you know, the moment they can advocate on behalf
of somebody who's in our country illegally, or somebody who's
advocating on behalf of terrorist groups in Israel, they jump
at it. It could because that's their mileu for whatever reason.
And I think it's just if they keep making this mistake.
(12:29):
And you know, there's the funny thing is they're in
much better you know, the economy's got issues right now,
Like I think Trump's going to pull it out with
these troiffs. But you know that if I were, you know,
a dispassionate political consultant advising the Democrats, I'd be like,
we don't want to be talking about this. People hate this.
We want to be talking about the economy in tariffs
and how everything's getting more expensive.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
And yet they're not well, you know, and you even
have Democrats like Marilynd Senate Democrat Chris van Holland saying
that you know he's going to organize a codell to elsum.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
Bukeley has the chance to do the funniest thing.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Just not let him in.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
No, just arrest them and throw him in jail time.
I'm kidding, no, I but it's.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Like that, you know, if it is a codel, that's
like on us right, that's taxpayer funded resources for them
to go make the argument and to make a spectacle
out of a potential MS thirteen member and arguing for
his return, which you know, to the broader point politically,
it just does not seem like, you know, that's I.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Think the story never ends with him coming back because
he has no illegal status in the United States. If
you know, they want to say, well, he's not an
MS thirteen member and we need to give him more
due process. It's like, Okay, guess what happens. Bookeley releases him,
He gets flown back to the United States, put right
back into an IC detention center, and we go through
the process and he'll get removed because the basis on
(13:57):
which he got is withholding of removal. In El salvad Or,
is this fear of the Eighteenth Street Gang extorting his
mom's capoosa business. While the Eighteenth Street Gang is defeated,
so you don't have any basis for it anymore. You
never had legal status in the United States. You're going home,
so it always ends up with him back in El Salvador.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Yeah, the Supreme Court's ruling to facilitate but not effectuate
Gersia's return. What's the importance in the differentiation between those
two words, and what exactly did the Supreme Court say
with this case.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
Well, honestly, the Supreme Court was pretty vague, but this
is my understanding on it based on reading the opinion
and a lot of the briefing and the underlying cases.
So there's been plenty of times where ice has been
ordered to facilitate the entry of the legal aliens back
into the country, or aliens rather back into the country
so that they can get so that there could be
(14:54):
further immigration proceedings for whatever reason that's happened in the past.
What that's meant is you need to get rid of
the obstacles, the United States side obstacles in the way
of this person coming back to the country. Right, there's
not an assumption that the government should go, you know actively.
You know that the court has the right to order
(15:15):
the government to go engage in diplomacy. The president is
the sole diplomatic organ of the United States. And so
when this District Court put in place in order that
said facilitate and effectuate the return of a Brigo Garcia, Interestingly,
like the lawyers for Brigo Garcia knew. I haven't talked
to them, but they knew that this was too broad
(15:35):
an order because when they were arguing this to the
Court of Appeals, they were saying, oh, look at all
these cases saying that ice can must facilitate the return
of an alien. They knew that there's a difference between
those two things, because to facilitate is to make something easier,
but to effectuate is to make it happen, right, to
bring the end result about, And that's what the Supreme
Court objected to. They agree that, you know, the court
(15:58):
obviously had the ability to order the to facilitate his return,
to take care of obstacles on its own end, because
the administration itself admitted that the deportation was administrative error,
but they didn't have the right to just order the
president to engage in diplomacy. And so the Supreme Court
was nice and told the district judge, you need to
clarify your order and ensure that you give due deference
(16:19):
to the president's Article two authorities. It doesn't look like
this this district judge, Judges Ennis did that. But that's
that's the difference between facilitate and effectuate. Facilitate is to merely,
in this context means to simply remove obstacles on your end,
whereas to effectuate means to actively bring about.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
You've got to take a quick commercial break.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
More with will.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
On the other side, the only place I don't agree
with the Trump administration is that President Trump has said
that he wants to send you as citizen to commit fund.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Like crimes to l Salvador.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
And obviously we can see how that becomes a real
slippery slope, particularly during COVID when you know, people like
me didn't get the COVID vaccine, and like nearly half
of Democrats wanted to send us to government camps, so
you know, like and now the left views basically all
of us who have supported Trump, as you know, more
or less terrorists. So I worry about that and what
(17:16):
that would mean for us if we lose power or
when you know, we inevitably lose power because it bounces
back and forth between the parties and it will continue
to do so for the rest of American history.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
So, uh, like, yeah, let's not I'm totally fine with what.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
He's doing with legal aliens, you know, and people who
don't deserve to be in our country.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
But like, I don't think we go there with citizens.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
I completely agree, and I think that's ultimately where the
president will end up. I think, you know, if we need,
if we want to deal with if we have an
issue with under incarceration in our own country, which we
kind of do, there's there's there's there's more criminals that
need to be incarcerated, but we can just build more
jails for our own citizens. But I agree with you,
I don't I think I don't. I don't understand what
complaint that then Whalen's you know trenda iragual gang members
(18:02):
have They never had a right to be in our
country in the first instance. And really, I mean this
is all a product of the fact that the Venezuelan
government wouldn't accept their citizens being repatriated. It's like, well, okay,
then We're going to find another place to send them to.
And I think one of the things that Trump administration
does understand is the need for deterrence, is the need
to deter the entry of illegal aliens. And you know,
(18:24):
I've seen a lot of people be very critical of
Christy Nome and her photo opsits at the El Salvador,
in prison or wherever else. The point of all this
is the message isn't for us, the messages for illegal migrants.
We want to make clear to them that if you
come to this country legally, you will be removed and
it probably won't be very nice. And that's why we've
seen I legal immigration go down ninety five percent year
over year illegal crossings. It's a real accomplishment of the administration.
(18:47):
I think they need to keep it up.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
I mean, she did to kill dogs, so I guess
you know, there's credible fear for the illegal aliens that
they maybe that was.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
The reason she was selected. I was like, I thought
her political career was as dead as that dog, but
apparently not. And maybe maybe that's what you need to do.
You need to you know, like what if you if
we cross the border illegally, maybe what will happen to us,
is what happened to the dog.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
I don't know. If you can kill a cute little dog,
then I guess anything's fair.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Game at that point.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
So I don't know if I want to Well to
your point about the Venezuelans. I've made this point on
TV as well, when people are like, well, why are
we sending them to El Salvador.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Like this is awful?
Speaker 1 (19:26):
I get it, But like a lot of these countries,
and I know we reached to deal with Venezuela at
the end of March to repatriate, you know, some of
these migrants and for them to finally take some people back.
But a lot of these countries, who is going to
want to take back Ms thirteen and trende Aragua gang
members or murders or rapists. And so that's the challenge
(19:49):
that President Trump is facing when he's trying to do
these mass deportations.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Particularly with the worst of the worst.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Is you know, these countries aren't gonna want to take
them back.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
Right And I mean part this point with Trender Rogwitz
the reason they were you know how this Alien Enemies
Act proclamation is that it's pretty clear that the it's
the Venezuelan government sent them here. That this wasn't unintentional.
They sent a gang into our country to you know,
make mischief and disrupt things. So yeah, no, of course
they're not trying to take them back. Now with m S. Thirteen,
it's actually much simpler. You know, Naibukeli is a really
(20:19):
good ally, and he wants to take them and imprison
him in them in his own jail, and that's, you know,
really what this is all about.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
What do you make of the Trump Administration's used to
the Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
The Alien Enemies Act. I think it's probably not going
to be that much of an increase in efficiency over
the normal immigration process because I think the Supreme Court
and other judges agree that while there's not, you know,
any judicial role to remove to re sorry to review
the president's decision that there's been a war or present
(20:51):
predatory incursion, they still have the right to review whether
somebody individually is in the class of people that are
covered by the Alien Enemy Zach. So I'm not sure
it actually speeds things up more than a standard issue
deportation proceeding, given what the Supreme Court is doing. But
I my view is I'm perfectly fine with it in
the sense that President Biden launched a mass invasion of
(21:13):
illegal aliens who are into our country. That's why there
is a mass deportation. I think the Trump administration should
be using every tool it's it's at its disposal to
deport these people.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
And the American people that's what they wanted.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
They voted for.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
It was the second most important issue and President Trump
won the popular vote. So Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at
the Article three Project, appreciate your time.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Thank you for breaking this down for us. It was
very helpful, all right.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
That was Will Chamberlain, Senior counsel at the Article three Project.
Appreciate him for making the time. Appreciate you guys at
home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
But you can listen throughout the week until next time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.