Transcription
clear. It is It is an accurate characterization to say that you believe that a federal police officer should just be able to determine that somebody is a member of the Alien Enemies, uh and then they should just be deported off to Sea Cat based off of that determination alone, right?
>> If they're a terrorist, yeah, for sure.
>> Just based off of the determination that somebody's a terrorist, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Quite frankly, you need to subscribe to Reynold.
>> Yeah, I can hear you.
>> There we go. Um okay, yeah, um I disagree with the second prompt. I don't think that these kind of mass deportations is like especially the kind we're seeing right now, um are appropriate or preferable to other policy solutions. I think they just open the door up too much to like violations of civilian rights, which I think are ought to be avoided.
>> Okay, um and can you give me some like Can you expand on that a little bit in like an evidentiary sense? Uh what do you mean? What What civil rights violations are you talking about?
>> Uh Sure. So, I think um over the span of this administration specifically, we've been seeing violations of people's um due process rights through the invocation of like emergency power in order to get them out of the country as quickly as possible. Um we've been seeing like the permission of ICE to violate people's Fourth Amendment rights by, you know, going into people's houses without a judicial warrant. Um and I think that trying to, you know, have a policy aim of deporting every illegal immigrant uh within the span of 4 years is necessarily going to open the door to violations like these because it's just so many people to get out with such little time, right?
>> Uh okay, um can you give me some examples of like people who weren't given a due process?
>> Sure, yeah. Um I would point to the class that we tried to deport under the Alien Enemies Act. So, what happened is we basically rounded up a bunch of people who were from um Venezuela and we put them in a detention facility in Texas and this was all before the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was even made public by the Trump administration. They were on the plane asking to talk to lawyers and were reportedly refused to do so by different ICE agents and then we moved them out of the out of the country before any of them could like had a reasonable opportunity to file for any sort of relief. The Supreme Court in J.G.G. versus Trump said that the amount of process that we were allocating these people were wasn't adequate.
>> Uh okay. Okay, can you So, you're saying that he used the Alien Enemies Act in this situation?
>> Yeah, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act to get rid of people who are from Venezuela on the grounds that they were somehow associated with Tren de Aragua, but they were never giving the people who were they were trying to deport the opportunity to challenge the fact that they were you know, associated with Tren de Aragua, which is required.
>> Okay, were those people in this country illegally?
>> Um some were, some weren't. Like illegal the legal illegal distinction gets kind of complicated when you're considering like asylum seekers and people with temporary protected status. So, it was a lot mixed in. There were no citizens, but
>> They they okay, so they weren't citizens. Did they come into this country like in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325 and preferential alien?
>> I'm not certain about the particular code that you cited there. I mean, I know a lot of them had some sort of temporary protected protection. A lot of them were asylum seekers. I I think most of their cases had I don't know if any of their cases had been litigated to that point. Regardless of that fact, the Supreme Court did rule that it was a violation.
>> If if if sort of Trump invoked a law that he's allowed to invoke that gives him a larger power or a larger discretion to deport people. What's the What is your issue with with Trump or mass deportations or your issue is with that law? Because what I'm advocating here for I'm not even necessarily defending everything that Trump does. My argument here is that we should deport every illegal immigrant.
>> Sure. My argument is that I think in any effort that's going to aim to deport every illegal immigrant is going to kind of sidestep a lot of people's rights in the names of this kind of like effective, you know, enforcement or, you know, trying to do it in a timely manner. I don't understand why that wouldn't be preferable to some other process. So, that's the main claim that I'm trying to substantiate.
>> But the goal of ICE, like I think the intention of ICE is to, you know, at its creation to deport every illegal immigrant. You wouldn't Like you wouldn't establish a police force to only prosecute some crimes. You would establish or arrest for some crimes. You would establish a police force to enforce laws for all crimes across the board. And you would be attempting to enforce all of those laws, not just some of them based on like when or discretion. Um So, I think I think just having the law in the first place is an attempt to to curb it at all angles. Furthermore, I would say that I know there's like current case law that will allow people to seek asylum once they've illegally entered the United States. I think those laws and case law should be totally done away with. I don't think there should be any situation where you can illegally enter this country in the back of somebody's trunk and then when you get caught claim that you're seeking asylum. I think it's a waste of our money. I think it's a waste of our time. Um you're obviously not claiming asylum. You came here illegally. You knew you you came here illegally. You should have to seek asylum at a port of entry if you want to seek asylum here. You should do it through immigration officials, not through illegally entering the country and then whining asylum when you get caught. So, in my perfect world that would be totally done away with in the first place. And legally that is how you seek asylum. You're supposed to do that at port of entry. Um but I I think it's case law that has us hung up on allowing people to um hang themselves out in the court system after they've come to the country without permission.
>> Well, I mean the INA specifically like there's a specific part in the INA that says that, you know, regardless of your, you know, entry at a designated port of entry, you can seek asylum. So, that's a statutory problem. That's not necessarily a case law problem. Um but when you say
>> statute, I think we should get rid of it, yeah.
>> Sure. So I guess my problem is is that like when you say that when you make the argument that the laws are in place thus to deport all illegal immigrants, surely I don't assume you mean that when you say you want like mass deportations, you just mean you want to make it illegal to be in the country illegally because that's already the case, right? I don't feel like you would be arguing for mass deportations in that situation.
>> Yeah, I think that I think that the agencies created to enforce those laws should be enforcing those laws to the best of their ability.
>> Is that the only extent to which you're arguing for this prompt or because I assume when you say like deport every illegal immigrant, you're talking about like having some sort of like upgraded want to do so or some sort of like push forward initiative to do so rather than just saying make it illegal to be illegal.
>> No, I'm saying I'm saying however you do it like whatever whatever the practical application of dealing it would be, um you should do it, right? If if if you're going to make it illegal for people to enter this country without permission, which it is and I agree with that law, you should enforce that law bilaterally without um without like uh bias or discretion. It shouldn't be, "Well, we're only doing the worst of the worst. We're only deporting people who have violated a law on top of the of the other law that they violated." No, if you violated a US code 1325 and probably violated or legally overstayed your visa, you get deported.
>> Sure. I I So I'm willing to move on to that conversation, but before we do, just to get like kind of a gauge on what cuz like this is a sliding scale issue, right? It's not like just a deportations or no deportations. Like, do you like particularly disagree with the way that the Trump administration is doing it right now because I feel like and any mass deportation effort is probably going to end up looking somewhat similar to Donald Trump's and I would argue that this is like a moral like a moral catastrophe in regards to how Donald Trump is engaging in these deportations.
>> I totally I totally don't think it's a moral catastrophe. I totally think that's a mischaracterization. Um I think I think like the administration has probably made some some mistakes, both strategically and legally, but I think I think probably at any point you're enforcing a law you're going to make mistakes. We have like what, a 4% exoneration rate from murder or for death row. So, you're always going to have a margin of error whenever the state is carrying out any kind of legal action. I'm sure Obama had miscalculations in enforcing border policy.
>> sure that he had miscalculations, the DOJ had miscalculations in the enforcement of regular laws under Obama. Um so, like I'm sure there's there's there's a margin of error and that's fine, but a more moral catastrophe I think is a little bit outlandish.
>> Sure, I would say the difference between somebody like Barack Obama or Joe Biden or even George Bush to a certain extent and somebody like Donald Trump is that it seems like the policy is to be cruel in the in the sense of Donald Trump's and that was not the policy of the previous administrations, right? So, like when Donald Trump is Well, when Donald Trump is making agreements to send like, you know, different groups of prisoners to Secot, right? I would argue that that's kind of a step up in the sense that like the warden of that prison literally brags about torturing inmates. Um the fact that Donald Trump is making agreements with people like Bukele to send people to Secot, I think is a a meaningful step up in the amount of cruelty we're willing to show to these people than like Barack Obama or or Joe Biden.
>> Yeah, I think I think that members of like drug smuggling gangs or cartels should be sent to places like that. I've seen the bodies. I've seen the things that they do to other human beings like with my own eyes I've seen refrigerated containers in Texas full of dead bodies people that have been murdered by the cartel on the border. It's [ __ ] disgusting and it's gross and that's exactly where those types of people belong. Furthermore, I think I think that it's actually the same
>> I comment on that real quick?
>> Once just after I finish. I think that I think that Trump's policies actually intentionally non-cruel. Trump is offering I think it's up to $4,000 now if you self deport leave the country and then you get an opportunity to come back legally. I I don't think Obama had any kind of incentive program like that. Joe Biden definitely didn't and I don't think Bush did either. Trump is the only president it seems that's operating off of a system that prevents you know get gets rid of them but prevents them from having any contact with law enforcement at all. Until they get back into their own country.
>> Sure. So when you're supposing that the people that we sent to seek out were these members of gang organizations, the problem is is that the people that were alleged to be a part of gang organizations were just that. It was just allegations, right? And that's part of the robbing of the due process because specifically the group that we sent to seek out was conveniently the group that we never gave any ability for that group to challenge their designation by the government as a member of a of a narcotics gang, right? So that's the problem is that like it's a it's a for
>> What's that?
>> The foreign designated terrorist organization.
>> How do you know that somebody's a part of a of a gang if you don't if you don't allow them to challenge the fact that they're a part of that gang? I'm not contesting that trend of Agua is a gang.
>> If you're if you're if you're at war in Afghanistan, how do you know that somebody's a member of Al-Qaeda if you don't allow them to plead their case before you blow them up? It's like it doesn't it doesn't matter. Like if the government is acting on intelligence that verifies these people are members of a foreign designated terrorist organization and they are removing them from the country as members of a foreign designated terrorist organization. I think the government is is probably what they need to do. Like for example like everybody says Omar Prieto Garcia for example wasn't a member of He has He has There's evidence of Jose Omar Abrego Garcia being a member of MS-13 dating back to like 2015 when his the father of his stepchildren is arguing in court or filing complaints that he doesn't want his children living in the home in the home of a gang member. Um No, I'm not saying that like we verify 100% that he is a member, but these are designated These are foreign designated terrorist organizations.
>> Just to be clear, the process that the federal government was going through wasn't just like, you know, having like long history of these different people being associated with this gang. Their process was giving ICE agents basically like a numbered list, and they would basically check off you get three points because you're wearing Chicago Bulls merchandise, right? We have the alien enemy field guide um through litigation like that was released to the public. The the field guide that they're going through to determine that somebody is a part of Trend Era Ragua surely should not justify sending these people to CICA if they pass.
>> The Chicago Bulls hat was not the primary piece of evidence that Jose Omar Abrego Garcia It No, it was not the prime That numbered list is not the primary piece of evidence that Jose Omar Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13. The primary piece of evidence Garcia We're talking about the alien enemies. that Jose Omar Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 was that he literally said he didn't want to be sent to El Salvador because he'd be killed by rival gangs.
>> Cam, that's not what I'm That's not who I'm talking about.
>> children's father didn't want Okay, I I don't know enough about these other people. Can you cite me some stuff in the case like proving that they weren't MS-13 or something?
>> I'm saying that their due process rights wasn't upheld, and that was upheld through the Supreme Court two different times, right? So, I'm saying that we can't make an accurate claim as to whether or not these people were members of these gangs because the only thing that was going towards that determination was an alien enemies field guide that they were giving to random ICE agents, and then that was their due process, and then they got shipped out of the country and tortured in CICA.
>> Do you think that when dealing with with terrorist organizations, the primary consideration when removing them from the United States of America should be whether they get due process or not.
>> Absolutely, yes.
>> Yeah, I disagree. I think I think when you're dealing with asymmetrical terrorists, I think it's uh like I don't think that you can uh necessarily like just allow them to go through the court system and like let them walk free when they're not in court. I think I think you run way too many risks.
>> like habeas corpus rights?
>> No. Especially Especially they didn't enter the country legally, why should they get it when they are when they're leaving the country?
>> You understand that these these appeals to law fall on deaf ears considering the fact that Donald Trump's own Supreme Court said that he was acting in violation of the law here, right?
>> I I don't I don't care. Like I can I'm allowed to disagree.
>> Well, then Well, then don't say they came here illegally to say that they violated the law. So, we that's where the law just stops applying. That's not how our That's not how the US system works.
>> Right. But, I am I allowed to disagree with um how the US system operates sometimes? I'm going to look into this case, though. What do I search for?
>> going to say I disagree with with the fact that just because somebody came here illegally that means that they don't get due process rights. That's insanity.
>> Why is it insanity?
>> Because if it's the case that we find a group that gets no due process rights, what's to stop the government from just saying that anybody is a part of that group and then not providing them the opportunity to challenge that they're part of that group and then punishing them.
>> Uh because it can be a material factor that you're part of that group or not, right? If I'm If I'm If I physically didn't enter this country illegally, right?
>> Well, I can't be part of that group if I'm a US citizen if I have a birth certificate, first of all.
>> That doesn't mean that you're a member of a gang.
>> Okay.
>> That's the grounds for deportation that the Trump administration was citing.
>> you're saying you're saying you're saying you're saying that they could just make a valid argument that anybody's part of that group, which is not true.
>> They Well, if if there's no appealability, the only determination that we're relying on is the executive's. That's surely not anything that's in the American way, right? That's like fun fundamentally anti-American. The idea that the executive can just make a unilateral decision about somebody and then punish them for it without any reviewability from anybody. That's insanity.
>> One check, I'm just looking at this case. I mean either way, like I said I like I acknowledge that there's going to be like the margin of error, but if you're if he's deploying
>> a margin of error. This is the policy, right? The policy was getting them on the plane as quickly as possible. The policy was not letting them talk to lawyers. The policy was sending them to C cuts. To any random ICE agent.
>> Wait, how do you how do you know that there was no administrative oversight? Can you prove that to me?
>> Because I've read the case. They were asking for oversight and they weren't being provided it.
>> Prove it to me that there was no administrative oversight on the deportation of these people.
>> How would you want me to prove that to you?
>> Uh I I don't know, cite like a portion of the case. If there were if there was no administrative oversight on this, it should be probably pretty objectively provable.
>> Um yeah, give me 1 second. I can tell you like the the process by which they were determined to be an alien enemy if you want me to. The Trump administration distributes an alien enemy validation guide to determine who qualifies as an alien enemy. Eight points or higher equals member of a T of TDA removable under the AEA. Six to seven points equals potential member of TDA pending supervisor approval. So, that implies that the people with eight points above didn't need supervisor administrative
>> Uh Yeah, so with administrative oversight
>> Well, that They have eight points or higher, they don't need it, right?
>> there was no administrative oversight.
>> So, if if somebody is eight points or higher, that explicitly means that the supervisor
>> What are the points? What are the points?
>> [clears throat]
>> If the subject has been convicted of violating title 18 United States Code section 521 or other federal or state law criminalizing or imposing civil penalty penalties related to TDA, that's 10 points. Court records identifying a member as TDA gives five points. Uh sub uh subject self-identifies as a member of TDA, that gives 10 points. Um Subject has been has tattoos denoting membership to TDA, that's four points. Uh social media posts of the subject displaying symbols associated with TDA, that's two points. Do you want me to read through like this entire validation guide or
>> Is he publicly proclaiming themselves a member of TDA? And also, by the way, this is like were these people who were being members of TDA MS-13?
>> Uh do you see TDA?
>> Trend Yeah, Trendera Aroguay is the one that was subject to the Alien Enemies Act. MS-13 was not subject to the Alien Enemies Act.
>> How many points was it for no administrator oversight?
>> Um six to seven is potential. So, if you scored a six or a seven, then you need a oversight. If you scored a eight, then you do need no oversight. It's just a determination of the ICE officer. So, do you understand Do you understand the kind of Um this is in the
>> I'm asking you a question, where did you read that? Where are you reading that from?
>> I'm sorry. So, there's a little bit of delay. So, if I'm over talking, it's not on purpose, okay? Um so, this is a part of the validation guide as well. Um it says comment one, even if eight points or higher Um it's it's a I can DM you something. I don't know how to how to send this court document to you.
>> What's the What's the source? Like, what's the source?
>> This was uh This was submitted to the court as a part of JGG. I don't I don't know how to send the declaration to you specifically.
>> Does it Does it start like this alien at the top it has like a line and then it says in bold Alien Enemies Act Alien Enemies Field Guide or Validation Guide? And then it goes down and has like a chart.
>> Yeah, so the top The top three num- numerical things should be The person named above is 14 years or older. The person named above is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. The person above is a citizen of Okay, so yeah, yeah, I think you're looking at the right thing.
>> Okay. Uh in which paragraph does it say the like thing about administrator or something?
>> Um So, it says After accounting for the two uh comments below, aliens scoring eight points or higher are validated as members of TDA. You should proceed with issuing an A- AEA 21B titled Notice or Warrant of Apprehension and Removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Alien uh Aliens scoring six or seven points may be validated as a member of TDA. You should consult with your supervisor and OPLA reviewing the totality of facts before making that determination. That says right on That's right under instructions.
>> Um In where In where does it say that as soon as they're identified as members of TDA they're like uh autonomously deported by by uh whatever agency is using this guide?
>> Well, we know that by the by the the implementation of this, right? Like, so what happened was after they were had the warrant determining that somebody is an alien enemy, they basically put them on a plane shipped them to Texas and then shipped them out of the country without giving them the ability to talk to a lawyer.
>> Wait, wait, wait. It literally says right here Where applicable, initiate removal proceedings under the Immigration Nationality Act. It's literally the second the first paragraph of the document. So, it's not It's not just autonomously the agency arrests them and then puts them on a plane gets them out. Where applicable, they initiate immigration hearings.
>> So, what does that imply about where it's where it's not applicable? Wait, where did where does it What does that imply about when it's not applicable to deport somebody under the INA? What does that imply?
>> Wait, wait, if it's not If it's If it's not, it implies that if it's not applicable to initiate a hearing, like for example, um if if I think with expedited removal, they're here for like what like a handful of days, whatever, then obviously it wouldn't be applicable to initiate a hearing and so you just deport them.
>> So, in terms of like that alien enemy verification document Why do you think it's going to happen if they're not applicable for removability? Cam, I understand you're going to scream over me, buddy. I haven't interrupted you, okay?
>> Why did you leave it out, then?
>> That's what I'm asking.
>> Because it's not relevant. We're talking about removals under the Alien Enemies Act.
>> This is the Alien Enemies Act uh Alien Enemy Validation Guide.
>> Okay, so when it says remove a hearing Cam, when it says that when applicable, remove them under the INA, what does that imply about when it's not applicable to remove them under the INA?
>> If it's not applicable to remove them under the INA, then they probably didn't I I I don't I don't know. You tell me. You're the one making the argument.
>> It means they got removed under the Alien Enemies Act, Cam.
>> Everything in this in this guide is talking about removing people under the Alien Enemies Act.
>> No, this is about determining if somebody is This is about about determining if somebody is Trend de Aragwa. The problem is is that you're trying to argue with me over a case that I have read and you haven't and you keep trying to product questions that are not very that these aren't illustrative of anything. Right? Like if somebody is removable under the INA, they're going to prefer that because there's not as many legal challenges that you can do in in that regard. Um like that's just a very formal process that the executive goes through, whereas the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was very different. Like that's a very different, more expedited means of removing somebody due to membership of TDA. This document was was meant to give to ICE officers to determine if somebody is a member of TDA or not.
>> Yeah, when arresting.
>> Yes. So, that's the problem is that they were going based off of the ICE officers determination of somebody was a member of Trend Era Ragua. If they scored eight points or higher, they were put onto a ship and [ __ ] sent off from Texas to Seacort where they got tortured.
>> almost almost every section of the guide is like this person has like publicly declared themselves a member of TDA.
>> Do you trust an ICE officer to be the one to determine if somebody should be sent to Seacort and tortured?
>> This is like asking do you trust Hold up. Again, like this doesn't say Okay, hold up. Let me Let me read Let me read the rest of this. Let me see if it what it says specifically for process. Person above is validated as member of TDA with validation form instructions come from ICE work. Try to get an alien
>> I'll kind of help you out considering this was given to the ICE agents. I don't know why this would go through the process.
>> Hold Hold This is for This is This is just an administrative form for identifying whether a person is TDA when they go when they get detained.
>> Correct.
>> So, really all this is just talking about like rounding people up and determining if they're a member of TDA when they're arrested.
>> Yeah, do you remember why I brought this document up, Cam?
>> Yeah, because you said that they were just like being autonomously deported by ICE.
>> Mhm. Not quite, no. I Because you asked the the the framework by which somebody was determined to be a member of TDA and I cited you this, which is exactly that. Right? So, the problem is that ICE was determining that somebody was a member of TDA by their own discretion if they got eight points or higher and these people without given any opportunity to appeal to a court or appeal to any lawyer or anything were shipped off from Texas to El Salvador where they got tortured. That's my problem.
>> Um let me find
>> And by the way, I don't know what like we acknowledge that the Supreme Court shot the Trump administration down on this, right? Like we acknowledge that.
>> Uh I don't think like that matters.
>> Well, you're actually being about the Are you Are you not asking me about the legality of this, or
>> No, I'm not asking you about the legality of it. I'm asking you whether we should do it or not.
>> Okay.
>> This doesn't this again like has nothing to do with my position, but I already acknowledged that Trump can make mistakes, but I'm I'm interested in this
>> It's not making mistakes. I don't know why we keep reframing it as making mistakes. These were intentional. This was intentional. This was how the system worked. We had an agreement with Bukele to send them there. This is how this was supposed to work.
>> Yeah, yeah, I think that members of TDA belong in NCIC. I don't see anything wrong with this.
>> You see nothing wrong with a federal police force just identifying somebody as a member of a gang and then shipping them off to be tortured without any reviewability of that determination?
>> No, it's it specifically calls for review, and it also specifically calls for like immigration and
>> it call for review? Where does it call for review?
>> Literally in the first paragraph. You You're the one who read it.
>> Where in the first paragraph does it call for review?
>> Uh it literally says if they score below a certain rating to to review with supervisors. So that's their administrative oversight there, and then it also [clears throat] calls for an INA hearing to be initiated. It also like like you're only going going score above eight on this if you're like a publicly professing member of TDA. If you're professing that you're a member of TDA and you're not like I don't that's a [ __ ] skill issue dude. I don't know what to tell you.
>> So just to be clear and it is it is an accurate characterization to say that you believe that a federal police officer should just be able to determine that somebody is a member of the alien enemies and then they should just be deported off to sea cot based off of that determination alone, right?
>> If they're a terrorist, yeah, for sure.
>> Just based off of the determination that somebody's a terrorist, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, if somebody is
>> I just I would rethink that because that's [ __ ] insane.
>> I am a member of a terrorist organization, yeah, like
>> [snorts]
>> How's a police officer going to see that somebody is publicly saying I'm a member of a gang?
>> You laid it out. You're the one who read it. You explained exactly how they're going to do it.
>> ICE officer is going to be able to make that determination?
>> You you're the one who read the field guide. You know exactly how you're playing stupid.
>> How how would how do explain it to me? How would an ICE officer do that?
>> Check their social media posts.
>> You think they're going to do that on the scene? But we have reports of ICE officers literally refusing to take people's documents.
>> This this is like this is like asking like do you think they're going to check my license plate on the scene? Do you think they don't have to
>> When ICE officers are explicitly not doing that, yes. When ICE officers are being given documents and saying to the detainees, "I don't give a [ __ ] about your documents. I don't want a federal police officer determining that I'm a terrorist so I don't get picked out of the country for it."
>> Where where has that happened?
>> Yeah, give me one second, buddy. Give me one second, buddy.
>> Bro, I'm not sure you're getting deported on the scene. Yeah, you act like you act like this is like you get arrested and then they just round them, they throw them all on a plane an hour later and they're out of the country.
>> Isn't it crazy that between the declaration of the alien enemies and the first ship flying off was like a day? That's literally what happened, Cam. I'm sorry you don't know the case and you're trying to argue based off of it.
>> Do you think that they hadn't Do you think they hadn't arrested any members of TDA prior to the declaration of the Alien Enemies Act?
>> I don't understand the relevance of that.
>> You're You're acting as if they just like found a bunch of people from TDA the day they declared it and deported them all that night as if they hadn't arrested anybody who was a member of TDA prior to the declaration of the Alien Enemies Act. It seems like if they declared the Alien Enemies Act, there probably would have been something that prompted that, like finding an excess number of members of foreign designated terrorist organizations in the country.
>> Or maybe Donald Trump just wants to do deportations quickly and he thought that if he didn't give these people the ability to challenge if they were members of a gang, he could get them out quickly because he ran four years on trying to get people out quickly, right? Maybe that's the incentive. So, you asked me for two different things. You asked me for two different things. I'm going to argue for the first one. So, um this is a declaration um as a part of uh uh Escobar Molina versus the uh Department of Homeland Security. Um It says um a second officer who was dressed in plain clothes with a black vest that said ICE and had his face covered walked up and joined the first officer. He said, "What's the deal?" The first officer handed me my identification documents. The second officer said, "No, no, no." and said to arrest me. He said I was an illegal and that my papers were useless.
>> Uh this person was a citizen or what?
>> Who knows? ICE officer wasn't checking their documents. So, that did substantiate the burden that you were asking before, right?
>> from a case Wait, what Who Who What was that memo from?
>> I said that was a declaration as a part of a case.
>> A declaration from who?
>> From the person who was getting refused by the ICE officers.
>> Okay, so if this is a case, we would we would inevitably know if that person is an illegal immigrant or not. Uh if you're actually familiar with the case. Another thing too is like
>> What was the burden that you asked me to meet?
>> I just asked you if they were an illegal or not.
>> No, no, no.
>> So, like
>> The question you asked me was, "Do you have any evidence that somebody was providing documents to an ICE officer and they were refused?" And I read from this declaration of somebody that alleges exactly that. That's the burden met, Cam.
>> What Yeah, exactly. Wait, wait. No, I asked you to prove it and an allegation from the person that's claiming it happened to them is not like
>> A sworn declaration? A sworn declaration in the court? You don't think that's enough for
>> People lie. You think people don't commit perjury?
>> Okay.
>> Like do you think people don't commit perjury, especially people who are in positions of
>> you asked me for Since you asked me for mind reading of Donald Trump, do you have any evidence that this person's perjuring themselves?
>> I don't. Do you have any evidence that they're not? I mean, I asked you to meet the burden of sufficient evidence to
>> Okay. Okay. Just Just to be clear. So, there's no evidence that this person is perjuring themselves, right?
>> Okay, there's no evidence that they're telling the truth, either.
>> Other than they swore it was the truth in a sworn declaration?
>> Yeah, I can I can swear that I'm telling the truth. It doesn't mean I'm telling the truth. You know this.
>> Okay. Um Like why why would we why would we believe a person who's already uh like Okay, so you're you're telling me you're expecting me to like take somebody's word that they're not breaking the law from somebody who's already like their first action entering this country was breaking the law. I don't know
>> What's your evidence that this person was illegal?
>> Uh were they illegal? You tell me. I asked you.
>> Okay, do you understand how that's bad faith assuming that this person is acting illegally even though you have no evidence to substantiate that? You understand that that's a bad That was a bad faith assumption That was a bad faith assumption of by you, by the way, right? You acknowledge that, right?
>> I don't know if this person is an illegal or not.
>> If you don't know, then why did you make the claim that they were illegal, Cam? If you don't know, why did you make the claim that they were? You said their first action coming into the country was them breaking a law. How was that not something that they're here illegally?
>> if somebody's first action entering the country is blatantly disrespecting and disregarding the the laws of this country, why would I believe that they're not breaking the law again?
>> Was that just a random aside that had nothing to do with this case? Were they illegal or not? Was this that was that just a random case Was that just a random aside that had nothing to do with this case? Are they illegal or not? Was that just a random case Oh my god, big runner.
>> [music] [music]