The Ben Shapiro Show - June 26, 2026


Trump WINS, SCOTUS Says Send Them Home


Episode Stats


Length

26 minutes

Words per minute

202.58

Word count

5,321

Sentence count

384

Harmful content

Misogyny

3

sentences flagged

Toxicity

12

sentences flagged

Hate speech

31

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Ben Shapiro explains why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration on two cases regarding immigration and deporting people on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) by the Obama administration. He also explains why this is a good thing and why the left doesn t like it.

Transcript

Transcripts from "The Ben Shapiro Show" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Joe Biden opened the border.
00:00:02.000 Donald Trump closed the border, and the Supreme Court just ruled that that is okay. 0.92
00:00:06.000 The left and the legacy media, but of course I repeat myself, they are going insane, like crazy.
00:00:11.000 They say the Supreme Court is now a right wing tool, it's an evil stand in for vicious racism. 1.00
00:00:17.000 That's stupid. 1.00
00:00:18.000 I'll explain why. 1.00
00:00:19.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:00:28.000 Okay, so yesterday there were two Supreme Court decisions that came down.
00:00:31.000 They were both six to three.
00:00:32.000 It was the Republican appointees on the court versus the Democrat appointees on the court.
00:00:37.000 The first decision had to do with people seeking asylum at the U.S. Mexico border.
00:00:41.000 The other had to do with the Trump administration unlabeling countries like Syria and Haiti dangerous for purposes of deporting people here on temporary protected status.
00:00:50.000 Now, before we get to the content of these decisions, we first need to understand what the Supreme Court does.
00:00:55.000 Why is that important?
00:00:56.000 Well, it's important because the left wants the Supreme Court to be a thing it is not.
00:01:00.000 So then they yell at the Supreme Court when it doesn't do just kind of what they want.
00:01:04.000 Obviously, listen, immigration is a massively hot topic and it's a huge, huge driver of votes.
00:01:10.000 And immigration policy helped drive President Trump back to the White House.
00:01:13.000 And the open borders policy of Joe Biden did great damage to the country.
00:01:16.000 But when we are talking about Supreme Court decisions, particularly, we have to discuss the role of the Supreme Court because if the left doesn't get what it wants, it just attacks the court as an institution.
00:01:25.000 So what is the court supposed to do?
00:01:27.000 Well, it does not make policy.
00:01:30.000 It does not make policy.
00:01:31.000 Good policy or bad policy, it does not decide whether policy is even good or bad.
00:01:36.000 That's why we elect a Congress and a president.
00:01:38.000 It's why the Supreme Court is an unelected branch of the government because its job is to interpret what the law means, to decide what the law says.
00:01:46.000 That's its whole job.
00:01:48.000 So it doesn't get to say, we read the law, the law is bad.
00:01:51.000 Now we're overturning the law and putting a new law in its place.
00:01:53.000 That's not what the Supreme Court does.
00:01:54.000 Now, the left wishes that were not the case.
00:01:57.000 For decades and decades and decades, going back really to the 1930s, The left has decided the Supreme Court ought to act as essentially a super legislature, a group of really smart people who can simply rewrite policy they don't like into good left wing policy.
00:02:12.000 In fact, what they want is for the Supreme Court to say that when the president or Congress does left wing things, that's legal.
00:02:18.000 But when the president or Congress does right wing things, that's illegal.
00:02:21.000 The Supreme Court is supposed to be a one way ratchet for the left.
00:02:24.000 But again, that's not the job of the Supreme Court.
00:02:27.000 And the Supreme Court did its job yesterday.
00:02:29.000 It doesn't matter whether you agree with what the Trump administration actually did at the U.S. Mexico border or with Haitian migrants.
00:02:35.000 Again, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to agree or disagree with such action.
00:02:39.000 The question is, under our Constitution, who has the authority to do what?
00:02:44.000 And the Supreme Court said that the Trump administration acted within its legally defined purview and that it could not simply overrule the Trump administration based on not liking it or liking it or whatever.
00:02:54.000 If you don't like the policy, in other words, elect a different Congress or a different president.
00:02:58.000 Again, that's the job of the Supreme Court now to the content of these decisions.
00:03:02.000 Now, the fact that these things even had to be decided at the Supreme Court level.
00:03:06.000 All of this turned into a Supreme Court case because of a long history of bad legislation and then presidents taking advantage of bad legislation, which, by the way, is the story of congressional presidential relations basically since Woodrow Wilson.
00:03:22.000 Congress passing vague laws, presidents taking advantage of that in order to maximize their own power, and all the rest.
00:03:28.000 So let's start with the first decision.
00:03:29.000 It was called Mullen versus Al Otro Lado.
00:03:32.000 So, first, the background on this decision.
00:03:33.000 So, back in 2016, the Obama administration set up a process called metering.
00:03:41.000 Hey, there was heavy migration at the southern border, as you recall.
00:03:44.000 And until 2016, if you were a non citizen and you were seeking asylum at a port of entry on the U.S. Mexico border, you would cross into U.S. soil and then wait in line for inspection.
00:03:53.000 And at that point, we had a legal duty to listen to you.
00:03:57.000 And most people would come and they would claim asylum.
00:03:59.000 They would claim they couldn't go back to their home country because of a specific threat.
00:04:02.000 Now, that is a different thing from temporary protected status, as we'll get to.
00:04:06.000 Asylum requires you to show a specific threat to you. 0.96
00:04:09.000 You can't just say, I want to come here because my home country sucks. 0.62
00:04:12.000 That's a different thing.
00:04:13.000 Okay, so in order for that to be adjudicated, you would come, you would wait in line for inspection at a port of entry.
00:04:20.000 And once you were on American soil, then we had a duty to actually listen to your asylum claim.
00:04:24.000 Toward the end of the Obama administration, there were so many people arriving at the border trying to get in while Obama was still in office that the government approved something called a metering policy, under which border agents would basically stand at the border and say, Don't come in.
00:04:38.000 You don't have travel documents.
00:04:39.000 You don't have a visa.
00:04:41.000 The port of entry is full. 0.97
00:04:42.000 Come back later.
00:04:43.000 You stay there.
00:04:45.000 Why did they do that? 0.69
00:04:45.000 Well, because again, the law says you only have to process people who are in the country. 0.69
00:04:49.000 That is the direct language in America. 0.59
00:04:52.000 So if you don't come in, we have no legal duty to process you.
00:04:55.000 The first Trump administration expanded and formalized the metering policy, and then the Biden administration rescinded it.
00:05:01.000 And then they went even further.
00:05:02.000 They said, Hey, welcome to the border.
00:05:04.000 Claim asylum and say the magic words I fear for my life, and I can't go back to my home country. 0.96
00:05:10.000 And we will let you basically run around in the United States and stay forever. 0.82
00:05:13.000 So the Trump administration, part two, comes in and says, No, no, no.
00:05:17.000 Metering policy back in place.
00:05:18.000 You're going to wait over there, and we will not process you.
00:05:22.000 So the border is closed. 0.81
00:05:24.000 It's not a matter of whether the ports of entry are full.
00:05:26.000 You're not coming in, period. 0.97
00:05:27.000 And if you're not on American soil, we have no duty to you.
00:05:30.000 Now, listen, if you don't like that policy, all right, you can vote for Democrats to go back to the Biden way of doing the law. 0.69
00:05:36.000 Or you could rewrite the law so that people who apply for citizenship have to remain in Mexico.
00:05:41.000 That's Trump's remain in Mexico policy.
00:05:43.000 Or theoretically, you could rewrite the law where everybody who applies for citizenship, no matter where they are, has to be given an asylum hearing, even if they don't come into the United States, but we don't have a duty to house them.
00:05:54.000 There are a bunch of ways you could do this, but that's what Congress exists for.
00:05:57.000 Again, the role of the various branches of government is important.
00:06:00.000 You elect people to change the policy.
00:06:02.000 The Supreme Court is here to interpret What the law currently says, not what it should say or who should be elected.
00:06:07.000 So the plaintiffs in this case are a bunch of people who are not citizens. 0.64
00:06:10.000 They're trying to get into the United States and they say that their rights were violated because their asylum cases were never heard because they were in line and that is as good as being in the country.
00:06:19.000 So they never entered the United States.
00:06:21.000 They were turned away at the border.
00:06:23.000 And the court, 6 3, in a decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, great justice, says, no, no, no.
00:06:30.000 In the United States means in the United States.
00:06:33.000 You're not in the United States if you're waiting on the other side of the border.
00:06:36.000 So the court says, this case presents a straightforward question.
00:06:40.000 Whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico arrives in the United States, that's the language of the law, arrives in the United States when he or she is still in Mexico.
00:06:49.000 In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered, yes, that is wrong.
00:06:54.000 In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person arrives in a place, for example, a house, a city, or a country, before the person enters that place.
00:07:01.000 The context in which the phrase arrives in the United States is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary meaning reading.
00:07:08.000 So does the presumption against extraterritoriality.
00:07:11.000 We therefore reverse.
00:07:12.000 We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not arrive in the United States by attempting and failing to set foot in this country.
00:07:18.000 An alien arrives in the United States only when he crosses the border.
00:07:22.000 Everyday examples confirm that understanding. 0.97
00:07:24.000 A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the one yard line.
00:07:27.000 A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door.
00:07:30.000 An army does not arrive in a city by encamping outside its wall.
00:07:33.000 And a letter does not arrive in a mailbox while it remains in the mail carrier's hand just inches away.
00:07:37.000 Okay, so Justice Thomas writes a concurrence, and his concurrence says, Something further.
00:07:44.000 It says that there is no power, none, for Congress to force the president to bring aliens into the country.
00:07:51.000 He says the Constitution allows Congress the power to regulate who doesn't get to come in, but the Constitution does not say a certain number of people must be allowed in the country.
00:08:04.000 Also, says Thomas, the people in this case are not naturalized or even on the path to naturalization.
00:08:09.000 You have no rights under the U.S. Constitution if you do not live in the country, if you're not on the path to naturalization, if you've never entered the country.
00:08:16.000 Random Bob from a random country can't just sue the United States on the base of its immigration law. 0.54
00:08:24.000 So that is Thomas's concurrence.
00:08:26.000 Okay, so this makes perfect sense.
00:08:28.000 Okay, right?
00:08:29.000 You're on the other side of the border. 0.73
00:08:30.000 You don't have rights with regard to our immigration law, period. 0.98
00:08:34.000 And in the country means in the country.
00:08:38.000 Now, the case that was being made by Democrats is okay, well, then that's not the way the law is supposed to work, right?
00:08:42.000 You were supposed to be able to come up to the border and apply for asylum.
00:08:45.000 And theoretically, the Trump administration is abusing that power by allowing no one to come across the border.
00:08:49.000 Okay, fine.
00:08:50.000 If that's the case, change the law.
00:08:53.000 Change the law.
00:08:54.000 The solution is not to rewrite the law along the lines of your priors.
00:08:58.000 All right, coming up, we'll get to this case about Haitian migrants, the more controversial case.
00:09:02.000 We'll get into all the details first.
00:09:04.000 June marks the first days of summer.
00:09:05.000 There's a ton going on.
00:09:07.000 So, I'm going to spend a lot of time with the kids.
00:09:09.000 We have a baby coming.
00:09:09.000 America's 50s.
00:09:11.000 So, a lot of stuff happening.
00:09:12.000 What I do not have time to do is wade through a bunch of confusing insurance websites trying to figure out if I'm getting a good deal.
00:09:17.000 And this is where policy genius comes in.
00:09:19.000 Here's the reality most people know they need life insurance.
00:09:22.000 They just keep putting it off because it feels complicated.
00:09:24.000 Policy Genius makes it simple.
00:09:26.000 It's an online insurance marketplace where you compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side for free.
00:09:31.000 Coverage amounts, prices, terms, all laid out clearly, no guesswork.
00:09:34.000 Their license team handles the paperwork, answers your questions, and advocates for you throughout the entire process.
00:09:39.000 They're not trying to upsell you.
00:09:40.000 They're working to get you the right policy at the most affordable price.
00:09:43.000 Protecting your family financially isn't a someday task.
00:09:45.000 It's a priority.
00:09:46.000 And with thousands of five-star reviews on Google and Trustpilot, people are finding great policies and checking this off their list for good.
00:09:52.000 Get it done in minutes.
00:09:53.000 Get on with your summer.
00:09:54.000 With Policy Genius, you can see if you can find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage.
00:10:00.000 Head on over to policygenius.comslash Shapiro to compare life insurance quotes from top companies.
00:10:05.000 See how much you could save.
00:10:06.000 It's policygenius.comslash Shapiro.
00:10:08.000 Okay, now for the more controversial case, the Haitian migrants case.
00:10:12.000 So here is the background.
00:10:14.000 And once again, the only reason this is a Supreme Court case is because Congress passed a law that was incredibly vague and handed tremendous authority to the president.
00:10:22.000 And then various presidents have deliberately abused the law in various ways.
00:10:27.000 So Again, back to the background.
00:10:29.000 In 1990, Congress passes something called the Immigration Act.
00:10:32.000 One of the provisions of the Immigration Act is something called temporary protected status.
00:10:36.000 So the idea is you come to the United States on a travel visa, you're tooling around, and suddenly your home country goes nuts.
00:10:42.000 There's a coup, terrorists take over.
00:10:46.000 Well, you could be given temporary protected status by the executive branch.
00:10:49.000 At the time, Congress designated one country and one country only, El Salvador, as a country where things were so dangerous that you didn't have to be deported back to your home country, even if you were, for example, overstaying your visa.
00:11:03.000 TPS can only be granted for people in the country.
00:11:06.000 Now, it doesn't matter if you came legally or illegally.
00:11:09.000 If you're in the country, TPS can be granted to you if the executive branch deems that your home country is wildly dangerous.
00:11:16.000 So, what happened?
00:11:17.000 Well, over the course of decades, the list of countries that became dangerous expanded and the borders opened.
00:11:23.000 So, the Obama and Biden administrations in particular took advantage of TPS in order to radically change immigration law. 1.00
00:11:31.000 They would open the borders, bring in a bunch of people from crappy countries. 0.92
00:11:34.000 Label all those home countries dangerous, and now people can stay for literally ever. 1.00
00:11:38.000 The average temporary protected status holder in the United States has been here for 20 years.
00:11:43.000 So the Trump administration is like, hey, it's supposed to be temporary.
00:11:46.000 It's in the word temporary.
00:11:49.000 Democrats are saying, no, no, no, it's protected, right?
00:11:51.000 The focus should be on protected.
00:11:54.000 Republicans are saying that the focus should be on temporary.
00:11:57.000 Now, originally, only one country was labeled by Congress too dangerous for people to go home.
00:12:02.000 That was El Salvador.
00:12:03.000 That was back in 1990, which again is, again, my math, 36 years ago.
00:12:09.000 There are now 17 countries from which people are protected from going home.
00:12:13.000 The Trump administration came in and they declared that a bunch of these countries are no longer dangerous for purposes of deporting people.
00:12:20.000 And those countries include places like Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Yemen, South Sudan, Haiti, Syria, Somalia, and Ethiopia.
00:12:27.000 Now, let's be real about this.
00:12:29.000 Again, I want to be clear about what's factual and what's not factual.
00:12:33.000 Many of these countries are wildly dangerous.
00:12:36.000 Haiti is a wildly dangerous country.
00:12:38.000 It is the most dangerous country in the Western Hemisphere by a long shot.
00:12:41.000 5,500 people were murdered in Haiti last year alone.
00:12:44.000 Sex trafficking is rampant.
00:12:46.000 Gangs basically run the place. 0.98
00:12:47.000 It is an anarchic hellhole. 0.96
00:12:49.000 Trump himself called it a bleephole country.
00:12:51.000 There's a reason for that because it is.
00:12:53.000 It's a terrible, terrible place.
00:12:56.000 But here's what happened.
00:12:57.000 Democrats are claiming that basically temporary protected status is a one way ratchet.
00:13:01.000 A president can legalize vast swaths of illegal immigration by labeling a country dangerous, but then a subsequent president cannot unlabel that country unless there's a showing that the country is actually not dangerous.
00:13:14.000 So current policy is a series of sins.
00:13:17.000 The extension of TPS policy from 1990 on to apply to a wide variety of countries, combined with an open border policy where it wasn't just, okay, there are a few people who got caught here and they can't go home because things are really bad.
00:13:31.000 Instead, what we'll do is we'll open the border wide and we'll say, if you can get in, right, if you can just get in by falsely claiming asylum, which again, the standard for asylum is not your home country is dangerous, it is you are specifically targeted in your own home country.
00:13:44.000 That's a different status.
00:13:46.000 Or if you illegally immigrate, which is what happened under Obama and Biden.
00:13:51.000 And then you label their home countries too dangerous to go back to, you can actually effectuate tens of millions of people coming into the country illegally and then getting a form of legal status under TPS.
00:14:00.000 The Trump administration is trying to backfill that problem by using the tools they have under the law.
00:14:07.000 And what, again, I think are ways that don't meet common definitions, but that's not the question.
00:14:12.000 The question is what tools did the Trump administration have under the law?
00:14:16.000 Okay, now again, all of this is very hot stuff and was very hot stuff during the election cycle.
00:14:22.000 President Trump, particularly, was going after Haitian migrants in Minnesota, pointing out, or Ohio rather, he was pointing out that Haitian migrants in Ohio were not assimilating well.
00:14:31.000 And again, let's be real about this.
00:14:34.000 Not everyone assimilates at the same rate in terms of general group and culture. 0.62
00:14:40.000 Pretending that people who are coming from, say, an English speaking country that shares democratic values with those of the United States, a group of immigrants from Australia or something, that that's the same as a group of immigrants from Haiti is silly.
00:14:53.000 This became very hot because there were online rumors that turned out to be, shall we say, wildly exaggerated that Haitians were eating dogs and cats around the neighborhood back in 2024.
00:15:02.000 Here was the president in a debate.
00:15:03.000 This, of course, was extremely viral.
00:15:07.000 A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it.
00:15:10.000 In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in.
00:15:15.000 They're eating the cats.
00:15:18.000 They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
00:15:22.000 And this is what's happening in our country, and it's a shame.
00:15:27.000 Again, there's a very solid remix of that particular line from the president that's popular with Mitchell. 0.99
00:15:32.000 In any case, it is true that the number of TPS holders from Haiti has exploded.
00:15:40.000 According to stats from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that's USCIS, as well as the Congressional Research Service, in 2010, there were between 50,000 and 70,000 Haitian TPS holders.
00:15:52.000 16 years later, there were between 330,000 and 350,000 Haitian TPS holders.
00:15:57.000 And remember, all these people have kids, and those kids, we'll find this out later, When the Supreme Court decides on birthright citizenship, those kids are natural born citizens of the United States.
00:16:07.000 So, the Supreme Court has to decide whether or not the president can label Syria and Haiti non dangerous for purposes of deportation.
00:16:16.000 So, Justice Alito, again, 6 3 decision, he says, quote, In these cases, we consider whether respondents who challenge the termination of temporary protected status for aliens from Syria and Haiti are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation.
00:16:29.000 We hold they are not.
00:16:30.000 The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents' non constitutional claims.
00:16:35.000 It allows, quote, no judicial review.
00:16:37.000 Of any determination with respect to the termination of a TPS designation.
00:16:40.000 Again, they're just looking at the law.
00:16:43.000 Now, again, you might not like how the Trump administration is using the law, but the law says what the law says.
00:16:49.000 Now, the plaintiffs in this case, Haitian migrants who don't want to be deported, they're citing statements made by members of the administration saying that they are doing this because of racism.
00:17:01.000 And what the Supreme Court says is, well, not really.
00:17:03.000 Citing statements made by President Trump and former Secretary of Homeland Security, Christy Nome, One set of respondents advances an equal protection claim that Haiti's TPS designation was terminated because of the racial makeup of that country's population.
00:17:15.000 But ironically, one of the respondents' other arguments undermines the equal protection claim by offering a strong race neutral explanation for Haiti's termination.
00:17:23.000 Namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past.
00:17:31.000 So, in other words, you're citing a bunch of comments that Trump made, like eating the cats and the dogs and saying he's a racist and that's why he wants to get rid of people from Haiti and that violates the equal protection clause.
00:17:40.000 But in reality, they just don't like the TPS provisions instead of killing them. 0.87
00:17:44.000 And the law allows them to do that, right?
00:17:46.000 That's the argument.
00:17:47.000 The argument is that the law allows the president to just end TPS.
00:17:52.000 He doesn't have to make an excuse to Congress.
00:17:54.000 He doesn't have to make an excuse to the courts.
00:17:56.000 It's non reviewable.
00:17:57.000 And that's the way Congress wrote it.
00:17:59.000 If Congress wishes to label Haiti a country covered by TPS in law, Congress can do that.
00:18:06.000 And they can define how long people can stay and they can define how people are deported and all of that.
00:18:11.000 But that's not what they did in this law.
00:18:13.000 That's not what they did.
00:18:15.000 Justice Thomas goes further in his concurrence.
00:18:18.000 He says Congress barred all judicial review of TPS termination decisions, including constitutional claims.
00:18:23.000 Since nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from doing so, courts are obliged to simply give effect to the ordinary meaning of the law.
00:18:31.000 He says the termination of Haiti's TPS designation does not deprive respondents of life, liberty, or property.
00:18:36.000 So they have no claim, even if the words due process implicitly forbid discriminatory animus.
00:18:41.000 He says, by the way, that actually there's nothing in the law that even forbids discriminatory animus.
00:18:46.000 So you're claiming.
00:18:47.000 That this is discrimination, but the law itself doesn't bar discrimination, and there's no equal protection claim that applies to the federal government with regard to migrants.
00:18:56.000 He says the discretionary and limited status that a TPS designation provides, like any immigration status for aliens, is a government created privilege, not a core private right.
00:19:04.000 You have a right to be here.
00:19:05.000 We're giving you a privilege to be here, and that can be rejected at any time for any reason.
00:19:09.000 If equal protection principles apply to immigration decisions, much of even our current immigration law would conflict with the court's modern equal protection doctrine.
00:19:17.000 And the point. that Thomas is making there is that if you were to apply equal protection to immigration law generally, we openly discriminate between countries of origin, which would violate equal protection.
00:19:28.000 So clearly that's not the case.
00:19:30.000 We'll get to dissents from the left on these cases in a moment.
00:19:33.000 First, America was built by people who worked hard and also slept well.
00:19:36.000 If you are not sleeping well, you're not operating at your full capacity.
00:19:39.000 And we need you at full capacity.
00:19:41.000 America's 250th is coming up.
00:19:43.000 You need to be ready.
00:19:44.000 And this is where Helix comes in.
00:19:47.000 Again, Helix sleep will make it so that you get a better night's sleep.
00:19:50.000 How?
00:19:50.000 It is that simple.
00:19:51.000 Well, they offer over 20 mattress models.
00:19:53.000 Take a quick quiz and get matched to the right one for how you actually sleep your position, your temperature, your firmness preference, all of it.
00:19:58.000 Free shipping, the 120 night sleep trial, and the Happy with Helix guarantee make it completely risk free.
00:20:03.000 It's the most awarded mattress brand out there.
00:20:05.000 Been tested and reviewed by Forbes and Wired, among others.
00:20:08.000 The fourth of July is coming.
00:20:09.000 Invest in your sleep, invest in yourself.
00:20:11.000 Head on over to helixsleep.comslash Ben for 20% off site wide, 25% off luxe mattresses, 30% off elite mattresses.
00:20:19.000 That's helixsleep.comslash Ben for 20% off site wide, 25% off luxe mattresses, 30% off elite mattresses.
00:20:27.000 Again, I have a helix sleep mattress.
00:20:29.000 My wife and I took that sleep quiz.
00:20:31.000 We got a mattress made for us, and it's awesome.
00:20:32.000 You can do the same.
00:20:33.000 Head on over to helixsleep.comslash Ben. 1.00
00:20:35.000 So, Sonia Sotomayor wrote a very heated dissent here. 0.99
00:20:38.000 She actually read her dissent from the bench, which is your sign that you're very upset about a decision.
00:20:43.000 If you're reading a dissent from the bench, you're saying that you're upset.
00:20:46.000 Sonia Sotomayor says The rest of the current asylum system developed in response to the international moral reckoning that followed the Holocaust in World War II.
00:20:55.000 One infamous incident, the voyage of the MS St. Louis, is emblematic.
00:20:58.000 In 1939, over 900 Jewish refugees attempted to flee persecution in Nazi Germany by setting sail aboard the MS St. Louis, which was headed to Cuba and the United States.
00:21:07.000 The ship docked in the Havana Harbor for days.
00:21:08.000 The Cuban government refused to allow the fleeing passengers off board.
00:21:11.000 The ship sailed near the Miami coastline.
00:21:13.000 The U.S. government turned them away because the immigration laws at the time had strict country quotas and the relevant quota was already filled for the year.
00:21:19.000 And eventually it returned to Europe and people on the ship were murdered by the Germans. 0.83
00:21:23.000 Now, again, that is a horrible, horrible immigration story, obviously. 0.92
00:21:27.000 The answer to that was that under current law, for example, a case should be made that the president should grant TPS status or that asylum should be processed. 0.70
00:21:37.000 In other words, the answer doesn't lie with the Supreme Court.
00:21:40.000 Again, notice what Sonia Sotomayor is saying. 0.70
00:21:42.000 She's making a moral case that has nothing to do with the role of the court.
00:21:46.000 The court is not a legislature.
00:21:49.000 I agree that people from St. Louis should have been allowed in the country.
00:21:52.000 And I also agree that there are certain people who claim asylum who should be allowed in.
00:21:55.000 I think the vast majority of people currently claiming asylum to the United States are lying about their asylum claims.
00:22:02.000 I even agree that TPS should be allowed for certain people, not certainly the gigantic swaths of illegal immigrants who have been entering the country under.
00:22:11.000 Biden and Obama and the rest.
00:22:14.000 But that has nothing to do with the role of the Supreme Court.
00:22:18.000 Elena Kagan, in her dissent, she suggests that basically the TPS designation for Haitians being revoked is based on racial animus.
00:22:26.000 Now, again, Thomas says it doesn't matter if it was because when it comes to the idea that the equal protection clause even applies to immigration law, how the hell would you do that?
00:22:36.000 Kagan, however, says that President Trump saying things like the Haitians are eating the dog and eating the pets and all of the rest of it.
00:22:45.000 That is a reason to reject the termination of Haiti's TPS designation.
00:22:49.000 I mean, what's funny to me, by the way, is that the court on the left side didn't try to rely on the idea that Trump himself literally called Haiti a bleephole country, which cuts very much against the idea that Haiti is a safe place to go back to.
00:23:02.000 Okay, but again, none of that is relevant to the question of what the actual court is supposed to do, what the court is supposed to do.
00:23:10.000 And so we have to separate out these two policies because what you're going to see is Democrats attacking the court.
00:23:15.000 If they want to attack the Trump administration over the policy, That's fair game.
00:23:17.000 That's called politics.
00:23:19.000 Attacking the court, which is what they actually are doing, is wrongheaded.
00:23:22.000 The court is interpreting law in the clearest possible way, and the court happens to be right on all of this.
00:23:27.000 And the measures the Trump administration are taking are fixes that are designed only in order to counter the complete degradation of immigration law by Democrats.
00:23:37.000 Tom Homan, who is our boarders' he points out that temporary means temporary.
00:23:43.000 You know, I've been doing this since 1984.
00:23:44.000 TPS has never been temporary.
00:23:47.000 That's why the whole statute exists.
00:23:50.000 Temporarily give people protection while the country's in turmoil or after they suffer a hurricane.
00:23:55.000 But the problem is, no administration has had the guts to actually follow that statute.
00:24:01.000 President Trump has the guts to follow the law.
00:24:03.000 So, temporary means temporary.
00:24:05.000 When the condition in that country gets better, they need to go home.
00:24:09.000 There are millions of people staying in line, wanting to be part of the greatest nation on earth.
00:24:13.000 And that goes back to my early point.
00:24:14.000 People say, why you arrest them if they're not going to live under 10 years?
00:24:18.000 Because they cheated the system.
00:24:21.000 Okay, now again, he's kind of conflating a couple of things here.
00:24:24.000 A lot of people did cheat the system by coming in illegally.
00:24:27.000 Also, again, to pretend that Haiti is safe for Haitians.
00:24:31.000 So, Stephen Miller, I think, is being cynical.
00:24:34.000 Or ironic when he says this.
00:24:35.000 Obviously, Haiti is not safe for Haitians.
00:24:36.000 Haiti is safe for no one. 1.00
00:24:37.000 Haiti is a hellhole.
00:24:38.000 But here's Stephen Miller making the case. 1.00
00:24:42.000 Haitians live in Haiti.
00:24:43.000 It's not our position that Haitians should leave Haiti.
00:24:46.000 I mean, it would be crazy for us to say that Haitians couldn't live in Haiti.
00:24:49.000 It's their country.
00:24:50.000 Of course, Haitians should live in Haiti. 1.00
00:24:52.000 There's no viable asylum, or use a technical term here, cat claim or withholding claim for any Haitian seeking relief from going back to Haiti, to their homeland. 1.00
00:25:02.000 The fact that there might be pockets of Haiti where there's higher crime rates, guess what?
00:25:07.000 There's pockets of Chicago with crime rates just as high, right?
00:25:11.000 There's pockets of cities like St. Louis with crime just as high.
00:25:16.000 Pockets of Los Angeles with crime just as high.
00:25:18.000 It has never been the case that having communities that have high crime rates is a basis for asylum.
00:25:23.000 Never has been, never will be.
00:25:26.000 Okay, now, what Democrats are going to do on the basis of this is they're going to call Republicans cruel.
00:25:33.000 So Republicans are going to say, listen, we should not be taking in hundreds of thousands of people illegally and then backfilling that with a TPS designation.
00:25:40.000 Right.
00:25:41.000 We should not be doing that. 1.00
00:25:42.000 By the way, the actual proper solution to me, were I in charge of policy for the Trump administration, I'd be recommending that we try to facilitate the entry of Haitian migrants to some sort of third country. 0.94
00:25:54.000 That, that, that, that, out of what, call it sympathy or just call it basic humanitarian care, sending people to Haiti. 1.00
00:26:02.000 There's a reason why people are trying to escape Haiti.
00:26:05.000 Haiti is indeed a hellhole. 0.97
00:26:07.000 What an amazing video you just watched. 1.00
00:26:08.000 Wasn't that amazing?
00:26:10.000 Well, you know, if you think so, head on over to dailywire.comslash subscribe to watch the full show ad free or Check out this crazy story here.