Extended Interview: Homeland Security's James Percival on third-country deportations

Why does the US deport people to third countries? >> So, I think this is really important for people to understand. It's a very misunderstood issue. So, the way it used to work is there are variety of reasons why people can't be removed to their home country. So, like one example is somebody maybe they're a serious criminal and the country just won't take them back. We have actually no way to force countries to take their nationals back. There are some countries that are sort of notorious for not taking their people back and if they're criminals in particular, they won't take them back. So, that's sort of one example. Another is sometimes aliens get uh a countryspecific form of relief where the immigration judge says you need to leave the United States but you have to go somewhere other than your home country. Um the problem with this is this is I mean this is what the law reflects. The law actually directs us to find a country for these people. The problem historically has been that diplomatically it's actually very difficult to get a country to accept people that are not their own citizens. Um this is particularly true if they are a criminal or somebody like that. So, uh, historically what would happen is this just was not prioritized. And instead of removing these people who'd been ordered removed, they were usually released back into the community because of a Supreme Court case that says that we can't detain people indefinitely. So, you know, ICE agents who've been doing this for a long time will tell you they would have people, for example, you know, a child rapist from Laos, and the Lashian government would say, "Yeah, we're not going to take that person back." And they would just they would just get released, maybe commit more crimes. And there was really nothing that anyone ever did. Um, and I think President Trump has really led on this.

Um, we have prioritized using all of our diplomatic tools to find third country for these people who've been ordered removed so that they can't uh hurt Americans. >> This was a program, the third country deportation program. I mean, it was something that prior administrations did do to an extent, right? Both Democrats and Republicans. >> There have always been third country removals, but I would describe the way it was done historically as like onesies and twzies, not not anything significant. So it was not uncommon at all to find someone who had committed murder or rape who was not considered a priority to find a third country. >> You all have really kicked it up a notch. >> Oh absolutely. Yeah. We think this is very important one because of the public safety issue because there are people who shouldn't be in this country who are criminals who are likely to offend again. Uh which you know is a huge public safety problem but you know more generally it's it's consistent with the law. It's what Congress has actually directed us to do. Um the statute basically gives uh almost like a flowchart of how you pick a country to send them to and if they can't go to their home country for whatever reason, you're actually supposed to pick a different country. >> And are these people given notice of where they're going to be deported before they leave?

>> So it depends exactly when the notice happens. We have procedures on this that uh are public that we put before the US Supreme Court all three times when we won uh our stays up in the Supreme Court. So pe people can look at these um you know the principal reason for notice is to make sure the alien can raise a fear claim. But there are some situations where we get what are called diplomatic assurances where the government will make a credible promise to us that they will not persecute or torture these aliens consistent with international law. And if the State Department determines that those are credible, um we don't have to follow the same procedures that we do in cases where we don't get those assurances. So that's >> So So in those cases, you wouldn't give someone notice before they get on the plane. >> I mean, I I honestly I don't know exactly when the notice happens. What I would say is, you know, they they aren't ultimately told where they're going to go. um that these are very complicated logistical things to plan. You have to get these countries to agree to take people. You have to build a manifest. You have to get travel documents. So sometimes uh these can develop you know somewhat quickly. But um but the principal purpose of notice would be for procedures. And so when the procedures are necessary, we certainly give sufficient notice for the procedures.

>> Okay. Got it. Um do people have a say in which country they're being sent to? >> Well, they I mean first of all, if you've been ordered removed by an immigration judge, you can depart at any time. And in fact, you're legally required to depart. And one of the things we do that we are not bound to do that we do because the US government is a very generous government is we offer people a free flight home and a $3,000 payment. You know, when people know they're supposed to depart the United States and they decline to do so and they ultimately end up in ICE detention. You know, it's not like there's a menu of countries. It is it is incredibly difficult diplomatically to get a country to take people. And so, you know, do they get to stand there with a big catalog and choose? No, we we send them where we can because this is so difficult that no administration before has ever pulled it off. >> So, no, they don't get a say in where they're going aside from being able to go back to their home country. >> They can always go to their home country, >> but aside from that, they're sort of going where you have >> they're going where we can where we can find a place >> where you can land a place for them. Exactly. Right. Okay. >> Um are you aware of cases in which the US has sent folks to a third country, let's say Ghana, and then Ghana turns around and sends them to a home country where they have a withholding of removal? So my understanding of that situation is they will promise us that they will honor what's called non-refilement uh which says that they can't send somebody home where they will be persecuted or tortured. However, the alien is always given the option to go home if they choose to.

>> But are you aware of cases where Ghana has sent people against their will to a country their home country where they have a withholding of removal? >> I'm not aware of any such cases. >> No. Okay. Um we spoke to someone who this happened to. He was sent from the US to Ghana and then Ghana sent him back to Mali where he had a withholding of removal. Is that something that should happen? >> It would depend on the facts and circumstances. I don't know the facts. I know that they have an obligation to honor non-refilement. So, one possibility is that they followed their own procedures on this and determined that there was no viable fear claim. Um because remember >> you're saying Ghana would have >> that's up to Ghana. What Ghana promises us is that they will follow international law. So if Ghana makes there might be a variety of reasons why that fear claim is no longer viable, right? You know, like somebody might claim that a particular regime would um persecute them and then there might be a change in regime. So Ghana is entitled or any country is entitled to apply their own procedures to determine a fear claim. But they they give us assurances that they will not violate what are called non-refilement principles and we absolutely expect them to honor those representations and I'm not aware of any situation where a country has not honored their representations to the United States. So, do you trust those assurances from Ghana that they won't send people to their home countries?

>> We do and we well >> where where they have a withholding of removal. >> We trust the asurances that they will honor non-refilement principles. So, if somebody has a fear claim, they would have to adjudicate the fear claim. Now, it is not automatically true that because somebody was granted that belief at some time in history that they still have a credible fear of returning there because of a protected ground. So Ghana would be entire any country would be entitled to follow their own procedures on that. Um but we absolutely and we we actually have a process with the state department to ensure that whatever representations they make to us are credible. Um and countries when they make representations to the United States you know they're expected to keep them and if if they don't there are consequences for them. Mhm. Um there have been several legal complaints that have been filed against DHS, against uh the State Department where several plaintiffs have come forward and said that this has happened to them, that they've been sent to, you know, Ghana for instance, and then Ghana has sent them to their home country where they have a withholding of removal. But you're saying you're not aware of any of these cases? I >> I think I've already answered that question. I mean, our understanding is that each country has to follow international law with respect to refilement. I don't have details of how that's playing out in other countries.

We do expect them and understand that they do honor international law. I mean, one of the things that goes on in a lot of these cases, well, two things go on in a lot of these cases. One is aliens choose to return to their home country and and illegal aliens, you know, when they they say what happened to them, they're not always telling the truth. We know the illegal alien population lies a lot. So, a lot of times people consent to return to their home country. It's also possible that they would follow their own own procedures on that. You know, their obligation is not to never send their home. Their obligation is to ensure that it's safe for them to return. No, I understand. Um I hate to keep to keep uh hitting this point, but I think it's I think it's important to just this awareness point I think is important. So um in one of these legal proceedings, there was a DO DOJ lawyer who said to a federal judge um that based on plaintiff's allegations, it seemed and I'll give you actually what the judge said as well. Um so a DOJ lawyer acknowledged to a federal judge that they knew that this was happening. And I'll read you the transcript. So the judge says, "Does Ghana appear to be violating the assurances that it gave the US government?" This DOJ lawyer says, "Based on the plaintiff's allegations, it seems that that is correct." That was in September of 2025.

So it seems clear to me, I think, that the US government knows that this is happening, knows what Ghana is doing, and knows that, you know, perhaps these assurances are not credible. >> Well, I think the important sentence in what you just read is based on Pliff's allegations. That doesn't mean that the US government agrees with those allegations. So I think that statement is being taken a little out of context. Um I I don't agree with the way you've characterized it. And I would just remind you, I mean, that one thing we should be focused on here is the significant criminality of these people and the difficulty in finding a place for them to go. Um you know, I think a lot of people who make fear claims um do not make credible ones. There's a lot of fraud there. And so if somebody found themselves in a different country and decided they'd rather go home, then that's their decision. >> I mean, do you think these people are voluntarily going back home from Ghana where they have withholding of removal? >> So it would be one of two things based on my understanding. either they would choose to go home and they might not always be truthful about the fact that they consented. So that's one possibility. The other possibility is that the foreign government applied their own procedures and consistent with international law determined that it was acceptable to return them home. The assurances they give us, by the way, is not we will never send this person home.

That would be completely unreasonable and not required at all by the law. The asurances they give us are that they will not return them to a place where they would be persecuted or tortured and as sovereign governments, they are entitled to apply their own procedures. I mean what we have seen in case after case is that Ghana and in one flight we looked into almost every single person on the flight within days after arriving in Ghana were sent back to their home country where they had a withholding of removal where a US judge has said it is more than likely that they will face persecution or torture and this isn't one flight I mean this is a number of flights in the last year where this has happened >> I think I already answered this question um you know I gave my two-part answer which is number one um they can always consent to go home and that may very well be what occurred. And number >> that's clearly not what's happening, right? They're clearly not consenting. I don't know if you've seen this video of a woman being dragged to her deportation flight to her home country where she had a withholding of removal. She is resisting. She is resisting. She's being dragged. Have you seen this video? >> I have not seen that video. >> But I mean, it's that it's media rep. I mean, you know, a lot of these people have started to come forward both in legal complaints and in interviews with media saying, "Look, we're being forced to go to our home countries. US judges said we shouldn't be returned there."

You know, does that concern you? My understanding is what I told you, which is that they have to honor international law. As I said, it's not always a violation of non-refilement principles to send somebody home. They have an entitlement as a country to make their own determination about whether that person has a fear claim in their home country. >> Okay. But for now, you trust these assurances from Ghana that they will not send people back to a place where, you know, a US judge has said uh they could be tortured. Like I said, our process is to get the asurances and then for the state department to make a determination about the credibility of those asurances. And without a credibility determination, then we would not um well, let me let me back up. So the procedures allow two possibilities. One possibility is we get assurances and we determine those assurances to be credible. Um the second is that we actually follow our own process to screen them for a fear claim. Um so I should not have said we would not send them without the assurances. we have two options but in most cases we get the assurances.

>> And and why do you trust these assurances? >> Well, I think the State Department when they interact with foreign governments is uniquely situated to make determinations about whether those assurances are credible and like I said, I mean it is a big deal to make representations to the US government and we generally trust that those assurances will be on there. >> I mean there's a presidential spokesperson in Ghana who who just said it outright. He said, you know, these people are processed and they're sent to their countries of origin. They're putting it out there. They're blatantly saying this about folks who have withholding of removal. So it it kind of seems like this sort of open secret and you know that I just sort of wonder if the US government is sort of looking the other way when there's evidence in front of them both in legal complaints and what other governments are saying and you know in videos and articles that are that are publicly accessible. >> I mean I think you've asked me the same question about five times. I'd really like to talk about the public safety threats associated with this population of aliens and the fact that every administration before President Trump absolutely abdicated their responsibility to the American people by letting criminals back on the street and doing no diplomatic efforts to get these people out of our country. I think what President Trump has done on this is absolutely incredible. I think there are moms and dads who right now are not having a police officer knock on their door and tell them their kid is dead.

Now, we don't know who those people are because it never happened, but without President Trump, it would have. >> There have been some horrific cases. I follow your Twitter. I follow what DHS puts out of these specific profiles of folks who are violent offenders who have wre havoc in in American communities. And I totally hear you on that point and I want to talk about that. Before we get to that, I just want to wrap up this one section and then we can move on. Um, so there was a man that we met with who was sent to Ghana on a deportation flight and then he was sent to Mali from there. Um, he showed us uh his bag tags, DHS bag tags. I want you to take a look. You'll see his name there and then it says destination Molly where he had a withholding of removal. This was filled out by US government official presumably. >> Yeah. I I just don't have any context on this so I can't comment on this but that would you know >> without having context I mean just just seeing this you know it says destination Mali it doesn't say Ghana. I mean, doesn't that indicate to you that perhaps the US government knew where he was headed? That he was headed to Mali and not Ghana?

>> The US government, Are you suggesting the US government sent him to Mali or did they send him to Ghana? >> Well, I'm asking you, is there any other plausible explanation for this? >> I mean, sometimes we write people's nationality on things. I'm not going to speculate about why it says that. You I think I've answered this question. >> So, I mean, look, this is this is this is one document. He was also given medication on his deportation flight from Texas to Ghana. Another government document. It has all of his information and then again it says destination Mali. Is there any other plausible explanation for that? >> Well, he wasn't flown to Mali. He was he was flown to Ghana. So I but I can't speak to why that piece of paper. >> But then of course, you know, as you know, he was shortly thereafter flown to Mali. So what he says is he thinks the US government, you know, coordinated this or at a minimum was aware of it. What's your response to that? I can just say I was I was not aware of that. Um that is not my understanding of how this works. Now again they are entitled to apply their own procedures and they can determine under international law that there's no non-refilement problem. A lot of claims in the United States are fraudulent and a sovereign country is not bound by our immigration judges. They are entitled to make their own determination consistent with non-refilement principles of international law.

>> I mean do you think it would be a problem if the US was aware of this? you know, with the these bag tags indicate that, you know, if a US official knew that he was going to Mali, would that be a problem? >> I mean, I've already told you we get assurances from the State Department that they're that they'll honor non-refilement principles. And again, how that plays out, you know, I again, they can consent to go to their home country or the foreign government is entitled to apply their own procedures to determine if it would violate international law to send them there. >> Okay. I mean, >> we've done a lot of third country removals to a lot of different countries. It seems like you're very focused on Ghana. Do you want to talk about any of the other countries? >> Sure. Sierra Leone, when folks arrive, they receive a pamphlet. The pamphlet says, "Sier Leon is serving as a temporary transit location while arrangements are made to return you to your country of origin." >> Does that concern you? >> Again, they are entitled to return to their home country if they consent. They are also entitled uh to process the fear claim as we discussed. >> Yeah. Well, these folks are not consenting and they're also not getting any kind of adjudication process in these countries. Does that concern you?

>> Well, you're making that claim. We don't know that they're not getting. >> Well, we've interviewed a number of these people and that's what they've told us. >> Well, again, not everything that an illegal alien says is true and every country is entitled to apply their own procedures to this. It's it's also true that a lot of people may consent to go to their home country. >> Um, you know, lawyers have said, you know, to us that that they think the US is using Ghana as a sort of intermediary here in order to get people back to their home countries. What's your response to that? >> I I think I've responded to that question several times. um they make a representation to us about non-refilement principles but within that the alien can always consent to go home and they can apply their own procedures to determine I I I guess one one thing I would point out I mean are you suggesting that when these people went to their home countries that they were persecuted or tortured I mean are you suggesting >> I'm not suggesting that a US a US judge said that a federal judge said that >> said that they were persecuted or tortured once they went to their home country >> they were that they were more than likely to be tortured or persecuted if they were returned to their home country and then they were sent to Ghana and returned to their home country regardless.

>> And then when they got to their home country, are you suggesting that they were persecuted or tortured? >> Some have faced violence, but that's not what I'm alleging. No. >> Well, but again, so you're suggesting that Ghana is not accurately adjudicating whether they fear persecution or torture in their home country. If that were true, you would expect those people to return to their home country and then face persecution or torture because Ghana would be getting it wrong. And if they're going to their home country and you're not hearing claims that they're being persecuted or tortured, then that suggests that Ghana's procedures are adequate. Now again, I work for the US government. Ghana's got its own procedures, but to me, the ultimate question is, are they actually sending someone somewhere where they're going to be persecuted or tortured? And it doesn't sound like you're making that claim. I >> I'm not saying that I have cases that I'm going to show you where this is happening. Mostly because, you know, this is all very recent. I think what this really comes down to is, you know, if US officials are aware that Ghana is doing this, is the US violating US and international law by doing that? >> Well, I've already told you that we're not violating US or international law.

Again, foreign governments are entitled to apply their own procedures regarding their international law obligations. >> Yeah. And it and it's not a statement, it's a question. I I genuinely want to know because I think people want to understand the legalities of this and and it's it is a big claim in that question. You know, September 2025 is when that first legal complaint hit where plaintiffs were were making this big allegation. Since then, eight deportation flights have landed in Ghana and Ghana has turned around and sent a lot of those folks back to home countries where they have this withholding of removal. So, I do think it's a fair question to ask, you know, has the US violated laws international and US? >> Again, I don't believe that we have. I think we've covered this topic ad nauseium at this point. Um so >> but you're saying the US government has not in any way done anything on >> I am not aware of any violations of international law by the US government. >> Okay. >> For all the reasons I've said. >> Let's move on then. Uh >> you know the only thing I I mean I I'll let you get your questions. There's some things I want to cover but >> so the Trump administration uh including yourself you know have talked a lot about murderers, rapists, very violent offenders um who they have detained and deported. What percentage of folks who have been detained and deported are violent offenders?

>> So, I don't have that figure off the top of my head. I what I can say is there's a very specific reason why this population is disproportionately criminal. It's really two reasons. Number one, when you have rapists and murderers >> and can I just clarify which population are you >> the third country removal? >> Third country removals are disproportionately violently criminals for two reasons. Number one, um when countries refuse to accept their nationals back, they disproportionately do that for violent criminals. people don't really want to take their violent criminals back. That's point one. Point two is people will sometimes get what's called withholding of removal. Um that type of relief because they are statutoily ineligible for asylum. And what creates that ineligibility in many cases is significant criminal conduct. So that's what's so uh horrible about this problem before the Trump administration fixed it is you had a population of people ordered removed by an immigration judge who is disproportionately criminal who has no right to be in this country and who as a judge said should leave and it was just neglected and these people would go back you know you can look at the cases I posted on Twitter a lot of these people reoffended um and and hurt Americans because people were not doing their job and enforcing the immigration laws as written. So again, I think this is a huge victory by President Trump and his administration. You look at, you know, falling violent crime rates in this country. I don't think it's a coincidence. I think our leadership in getting dangerous, criminal, illegal aliens out of this country who no other administration could figure out how to remove. I think this is a huge victory for the president.

>> And I mean, you see him polling that Americans want that. You know, Americans are asking for that. Americans are voting for violent offenders to be deported. the man I mentioned who who we met who was, you know, sent to Ghana and then and then back to Mali, he's also in favor of that. He said, "I'm glad the Trump administration is deporting violent offenders. They should be doing that. But me, man, I I have no criminal record. I have a US citizen wife. I have US citizen children. I've been working here 25 years. I've been paying taxes. Why are you deporting me?" >> So remember, every illegal alien gets a day in front of an immigration judge. If they want to stay in the United States, they have to get what's called asylum. if they don't get asylum, if they get something like the withholding relief you've been discussing, they are ordered removed from the country. The way the withholding of removal statute works is it it's a country selection provision. It basically says when you remove them, remove them somewhere else. And so people who have an order of removal and that type of relief are absolutely on notice that they are in the country illegally and that they could be removed at any time and that they will have to be removed to a third country. So, we've done something that nobody's ever done before, which I think is incredibly generous, which is we've offered everybody a free flight home and $3,000.

And so, when people have a form of immigration relief that says, "I can be removed at any time, and it's absolutely going to be to a third country, and then we offer them $3,000 in a flight home, and they don't take it," I think people are on notice that they could be removed to a third country. And if they really don't want that to happen, they should take us up on our very, very generous offer. >> Um, would DHS release that data? because I because I I I really take your point about these violent offenders. I do and and especially because I've looked at the polling and I know that Americans want this. Would DHS release that data to indicate that, you know, whatever it is that, you know, majority of these folks are violent offenders or something that people can hang on to to say like, okay, you know, it's mostly these folks. >> You know, we've released a lot of information about this. I'm the general counsel. I I can't make those sorts of commitments to you. Um, but I think we've been pretty transparent about the level of criminality in a lot of these cases. >> Based on an internal DHS document that we had access to in the Trump administration's uh first year in office for this second term, less than 14% of people detained by ICE had a violent criminal record. Less than 14%.

>> So, one of the tricks that people do is they use this violent crime label. It's an incredibly misleading label. There are many horrible horrible crimes that people do not classify as violent crimes. Let me give you some examples. Child pornography not cons I mean making it is but watching it is not considered a violent crime. Uh trafficking and heroin not considered a violent crime. So anytime anybody ever feeds you a violent crime stat like that, they are absolutely cooking the books to erase the significant criminality and public safety threat that you're looking at in that population. >> Yeah, I appreciate you the nuance there because I think that is very important. It's a very important one. These people are suggesting that that people who watch child pornography and people who sell heroin aren't people that should be removed from the country because they're not quote unquote violent criminals. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. >> So, let's talk about the the two crimes that I hear you and others in the administration talk about most, murder and rape. Based on this internal DHS document in Trump's first year, 5% of those detained.5% were accused or convicted of homicide. 1.4% were accused or convicted of sexual assault. I mean, together that's that's 2%.

>> And isn't it wonderful that we're getting those people out of the country? >> Should that be the limit of who has to follow the law? Just rapists and murderers have to follow the law. >> I I take that point. But 2% murder and rapists. This is what we keep hearing. This is who's being deported. But that's 2%. What about everybody else? >> Well, again, I mean, so a couple things. Number one, uh, everyone has to follow the law. It is not an excuse to say, "I'm not going to follow the law because I haven't raped or killed anybody." Uh but number two, there are a lot of other very serious crimes. And there, you know, one of the things about people who commit less significant crimes is they often commit more significant crimes. And I, for one, as someone who has an obligation to protect the American people, I want anyone who could commit a crime who is not supposed to be in this country out of this country because every illegal alien crime is a preventable crime. >> So you're saying someone commits a misdemeanor, why take the chance that they won't then, you know? >> Well, no. What I'm Well, what I'm saying is that we have laws. Congress passes those laws. we just enforce them. And this obsession with whether somebody has committed a sufficient crime, um an immigration judge has ordered us to remove someone. We're following an order from an immigration judge.

>> So, I just I don't understand this desire to sort of split hairs on when we should follow the law and not follow the law is absurd to me. But it gets even more absurd when people start coming up with these violent crime stats that exclude horrible crimes like watching child pornography and dealing in significant drugs. >> Okay? So, let's not say violent verse verse any criminal record. I'll give you one example. We investigated one deportation flight to Ghana and we found that more than 60% of the people on that flight had no criminal record. None. Does that surprise you? >> I mean, I don't have that manifest in front of me. I don't know what additional context there is. What I would say is again, people are ordered removed by an immigration judge. Um, and we follow those orders. >> Now, when we counted traffic violations on that flight, so people who had no criminal record or who had a traffic violation, it was more than 80% of that flight. So the reason I think this is important is because I think the American people want to know. They want to know who's being deported on these flights. And so I'm trying to get some clarity and that's why I keep coming back. >> A lot a lot of people with very significant crimes are being removed from this country. And people should be very happy about that. But we do have laws and there are some people who've committed lesser crimes who are being removed. But all of them have committed the legal violation of being in this country illegally. And it's Congress who makes the laws.

>> Okay, fair enough. Criminal records aside for a moment. You know what we have found in our reporting and we've tried to be really fair about this, you know, because we've we've looked at the criminal records of of the folks who are guilty of crimes. We've tried to be really fair. What our reporting also reveals though is that a lot of these people are nurses. They're moms. They're Uber drivers. They're people with no criminal record who have paid taxes for years who have been here for a couple decades who have US citizen children and spouses. >> Is that a question? >> Does that surprise you? I mean, is that is that the intention? Is that part of what this administration is trying to do? Remove these folks? >> This administration is following the law that Congress has passed. Um, there are a lot of people in this population that we talk about who've committed very serious crimes. And people should be very happy with President Trump for getting these serious criminals out of the country. And by the way, as we talked about, a lot of these serious criminals fell into this third country removal population where no other president has figured out how to get these people out of the country. and people should be very happy about this.

But to suggest that therefore we have to show that 100% of the removed population was a serious criminal, that's not what the law says. >> I don't think the public's demanding that. I think they just want to know. I think they just want to know who it is. And I think people continue to hear murder and rapist, but I think a little more nuance is sort of required for the public to make up their opinion, you know, on on who these folks are that are being deported. And that's why I'm going for the clarity here, you know, because I hear a lot about the violent offenders. Point taken. But what I don't hear about is the law-abiding folks who in our reporting is more than half. >> You're suggesting that people who are in this country illegally are law abiding. >> Let's say don't have a criminal record outside of an immigration offense, maybe overstaying a tourist visa. So if you are in this country illegally, it is virtually impossible for you to live in this country and not commit additional legal violations because uh you know working without authorization um identity theft. There's a lot of illegality that goes on when you are breaking the law. But I I do really uh reject your characterization of someone who is in this country illegally and breaking our laws as quote unquote law-abiding. I think that's fundamentally inaccurate and unfair.

>> Okay, fair enough. And you're referring to their immigration offenses. They have a criminal record. If they have an immigration offense, is that that's the point you're making? >> Well, that's a very that gets very technical. Um, if you enter the country illegally, that's a crime. Um, if you overstay a visa, that is not a crime. It's a legal violation, but it's not a crime. But my point is, once you don't have authorization to be here, in order to live here, you generally have to commit a variety of other crimes. And if you look, for example, at all the fraud work that this administration has been doing, it shows if you're going to make a living here without having the legal right to be here, without having the right to work, without having all these other things, there's a lot of accompanying illegality that goes on. That's my point. So, I just think your characterization of somebody who has been breaking the law for 20 years as quote unquote lawabiding, it's just wrong and unfair. >> Fair enough. I would love to better understand this. So, you know, whether a person has committed a crime or not, does the US Constitution guarantee everyone due process? >> Yeah. So, it's this is a good conversation and thank you for asking.

One of the things that really gets confused in this due process conversation is people treat the term due process as a noun, right? But do is an adjective and process is a noun. Meaning whatever process you are due. So to ask the question, is an illegal alien entitled to due process? That question actually doesn't make any sense because everyone is entitled to due process but your status can affect the type of process that you are due again because due is an adjective and process is a noun. So you look at expedited removal as a classic example. Some illegal aliens are subject to a very expedited removal process that doesn't involve an immigration judge. It typically does not involve review by an article 3 court. And the Supreme Court has signed off on this and that's a perfect example. Would that process be adequate for a US citizen? Probably not. But they are due a different process because of their different status. >> Okay. So let me ask you this. You know, if someone is detained, do they have the right to go in front of a judge and argue their case that maybe being sent to XYZ country would put them in danger before they are deported?

>> So well that gets complicated. So if you are in a regular immigration proceeding, then you absolutely have your day in court with the judge. If you're an expedited removal, there's a more um expedited process to make that determination that doesn't involve going in front of an immigration judge. When you look at third country removal, this is someone who has already been in front of an immigration judge. And then we're at the post immigration judge stage and we're making a country selection. And there we treat that country selection process as more sort of more analogous to the procedures that we apply in expedited removal, which you know, I think is why we've won in the Supreme Court on this three separate times. Um, so I can ask you more specifically for somebody who has withholding of removal, let's say, and they're detained and they're, you know, being prepared to be deported to a third country. Should they have the right to go in front of a judge and say, "Hey, look, this third country, I could be, you know, in danger if I'm deported here?" >> Well, I think we've covered that already, but you know, we again, we have our procedures on this. They're public. We're not hiding them. We've released them, and we've put them in front of the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court has given us an emergency stay three separate times in the in the litigation. Okay. So, so no, I mean >> in all cases, are they entitled to go in front of an immigration judge? Uh >> there are many situations in the law like expedited removal where you don't go in front of an immigration judge.

There's some other process. And because as I said, due process very much depends on the facts and circumstances. Um we think it satisfies due process. Does it involve an immigration judge in 100% of cases? No. But that's not unique to third country removal. That's how the immigration system works in general. There are some circumstances where you get in front of an immigration judge. There are some circumstances where you don't I mean the most basic idea of um Well, anyway, you can move on. >> No, I mean the nuance is helpful because I think people don't realize that there are different procedures for different folks depending on their status. >> Yeah. And there there are just there are so many situations across the legal system where due process does not mean going in front of a judge. It it's a flexible test. It depends on the facts and circumstances. Uh there's a Supreme Court case called Matthews v. Eldridge where you do the sort of balancing tests to figure out the procedures that are appropriate under a particular circumstance. But I think when people suggest that there's something wrong with the third country removal process because it doesn't involve going in front of an immigration judge in every case, that just doesn't make any sense because we've had expedited removal since 1996.

>> And that doesn't involve going in front of an immigration judge. >> I mean, you mentioned the Supreme Court, but the first circuit court of appeals ruled that these third country deportations should be stayed because these folks are not getting due process. >> Yeah. And how long did that last? Yeah. Right. The Supreme Court stayed them, >> right? State them and there'll be arguments in December and then a decision in the new year. But I mean, you know, that's a federal court in our country that argued that these folks should have due process. >> Well, I mean, there are a lot of federal courts that say a lot of things. The one I listen to is the US Supreme Court, which has ruled for us three times on this. >> Fair enough. Um, will the US continue to deport folks to Ghana? >> Honestly, I actually don't know what the current circumstance is with the Ghana agreement, so I just can't speak to that one way or the other. Mhm. I mean, knowing what you know now, do you think the US should continue to trust Ghana and their assurances that they won't send people to places where they have a withholding of removal? >> I mean, I I I'll resist the suggestion that I have to take everything you've said here your word for it. Um, so again, we follow the procedures. We get assurances. I I just don't know the status of the gun agreement because there are a lot of these agreements and I'm not tracking all of them specifically, but I have confidence in our legal process >> and I know the State Department's handling a lot of that and that's out of your sphere. Uh, totally fair. Um, you've talked a little bit about, you know, the self-epporting, you know, that folks can leave on their own accord if they'd like and and you've made that very clear on on social media and elsewhere. Is part of the strategy here, you know, with sending people to Central African Republic to places that are, you know, obviously very dangerous according to State Department rankings to encourage people to self-deport. You

don't self-epport, you could end up in one of these countries. >> Well, it I would say half of what you said is true. It is absolutely our strategy to encourage people to self- deepport. That's why we're offering incentives. But your suggestion that third country removals are some sort of punishment to get people to self- deepport, I would I would push back on that. But absolutely, it's our strategy to get people to self- deport, that's what we want. That's why we're offering a payment and a free flight. when you're deciding who to deport, is there any consideration, you know, separate from status about, you know, folks who have US citizen families who have paid taxes, you know, who don't have violent criminal record? I mean, is any of that taken into consideration? >> Look, every officer uses their own enforcement discretion, but what I would say in general is if you think there's some reason you should stay in this country, an immigration judge is the person you should pres present that information to. and maybe you're eligible for some form of relief. But once a judge orders you to leave the country, ICE is just carrying out the law as passed by Congress.

>> How do you think we'll look back on this time in history? >> Well, I think I've made that very clear. I think we will look at a problem that was significant that was causing Americans to be victimized by criminals because we couldn't figure out how to get people out of this country. And I think we will say that President Trump finally fixed a huge problem in our immigration system. I think a lot of Americans don't understand this third country removal thing. They think we're just choosing to send somebody somewhere else for no reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a serious problem we've had with a population who's been ordered removed where nobody had the willpower to deal with it even though some of these people were rapists and murderers. And President Trump came along and we decided we were going to fix this problem. And by the way, Secretary Rubio deserves a ton of credit for this. It is so difficult to get a country to accept people who are not their own, especially serious criminals. It requires a lot of capital. It requires a lot of diplomatic efforts and it's a problem that no secretary of state before ever fixed. >> A little bit different, but I remember when the Obama administration was doing this for Guantanamo Bay detainees and it was a huge diplomatic effort getting all these countries to agree to accept, you know, people from Guantanamo. Um, but that's another issue. Um but I was asking you how we'll look back on this time in history and so you know you're saying that President Trump has achieved this great thing has made our country safer. Is there anything kind of um anything else you want to say on that in terms of like will we feel pride like what will we feel when we think back on this time in history?

>> I think we will look at this as a time when we made the country safer. I think that you know one of the things about making the country safer is nobody knows about the crimes that never happened. But when I wake up every day and do this job, I know that there are crimes that are not happening because of the job that we're doing. And that's a hard thing to measure because the crimes aren't happening. So you don't see it. But I absolutely believe with all of my heart that these third country removals have stopped crimes from happening and kept Americans safer. And that is our fundamental obligation at the Department of Homeland Security. >> And unlike members of the public, you see the profiles of these folks are being deported. >> Absolutely. >> I've been following your Twitter and I actually can't remember the what's it called? Deportation daily or something? >> Uh Daily Deportee. Daily deport. I've been reading about all the profiles on that. Um, and I caught something else on your Twitter that I wanted to ask you about. You tweeted recently about how much joy these deportations bring. And I wonder if there's any part of you that feels compassion for folks who, you know, don't have a violent criminal record, who are being separated from their families, parents who are being deported and their US citizen children growing up without them. Well, so number one, the people I have the most compassion for are the American victims who we're protecting. Uh what I would say more broadly though is justice is about doing things that might be unpleasant to protect people. I mean, nobody uh always feels good about dispensing justice, but strong leaders have the stomach to dispense justice to protect people. Um and so we always have compassion, but our fundamental

compassion is to the victims. What does the American public not understand about this issue? >> Well, I think not to repeat myself, but I think the American public doesn't understand that people are being sent to third countries because they can't be sent to their home country. It's a population that's been ordered removed and it's a population that disproportionately involves serious criminals. And so, you know, you ask yourself, am I happy that this person is being sent to live in Equatorial Guinea? Well, the question is, do you want them living next door or do you want them living in Equatorial Guinea? As the Department of Homeland Security, our obligation is to Americans. It's to keep Americans safe and tolerating having criminals live in the United States uh who have no right to be here merely because there's sort of a lack of bureaucratic inertia to get the necessary agreements with foreign countries to get these dangerous people out of our country. Um you know, I'm very excited about that. >> I think one other thing people don't understand is this there's this ticking time clock that you you can't keep someone detained forever. >> Yeah, I can talk about that. So there's a Supreme Court case called Zadvidas which basically says we have six months to detain somebody to remove them and then there's this standard it's very long and convoluted but it's like significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The immigration law it's called slurf. Um but basically you have to make some showing that you actually have imminent plans to remove the alien or the Supreme Court says they have to be released. And so uh you run into problems when you have somebody who's like I said a rapist or a murderer and you're having trouble finding a country. At some point a judge is going to order that person back on the street. But if you can find a country for them and get them out of

here, then they can't hurt people. >> Who are some of the folks that you all have deported recently? >> Yeah, so I've covered some of them in my daily deport series on my Twitter. I mean, the ones that stand out to me, there a couple things that stand out to me. So, there was one individual, I think he was from Myanmar, um, who had raped a seven-year-old and then repeatedly raped her over a like an eight-year period. Um and then uh he was ordered removed. The Myanmar government said, "No, we don't want that child rapist back. No, thank you." And earlier administrations just released him because they couldn't figure out what to do with him. Now, somebody like that who raped a seven-year-old over and over again over the course of many years, that person should not be in our country. >> Why would he just be arrested then? >> Well, he was charged. He served his time and then he was released. Now, we can only hold people in jail until they serve their sentence. But if you're a foreign national who has no right to live here and you rape seven-year-olds, I don't think that person should be returned to the community, I think that person should be sent somewhere else and Myanmar would not take him and because of President Trump, he was removed from this country. The previous administrations let him go. We took power, I think within three months, we arrested him and got him out of the country.

>> I think most Americans would be thrilled to hear that. >> Yeah, it's it's a it's a great story and it's one of many examples of this a huge victory for President Trump to protect the American people. I'll give you another example. Um, there was another guy who uh stopped to rob some German tourists and when they wouldn't hand over the purse, he shot him in the head and killed him. >> Um, again, >> where was that? >> Uh, I believe he was from Laos. Uh, it was another sort of Southeast Asian country. I think it was Laos. Same scenario. The government didn't want him back. >> Um, and a previous administration released him >> after he had served time. >> Yeah. And and what you have to understand about this is people like this, they tend to have check-ins with ICE periodically. So ICE officers will tell you they see these guys come in and check in and they see that they've killed somebody or they've raped a seven-year-old and it would make them so frustrated. But there was nothing they could do because >> there's no a random bureaucrat in California seeing this person who raped a seven-year-old return to the community. You know, they don't have the Secretary of State's phone number. They can't get somebody in Washington to care about this problem. Um, but as soon as President Trump came in, we prioritized this and these were people who were already out on the street and we picked them up and got them out of here by May.

>> Polling shows that most Americans would be just fine with that person being deported. >> Well, and I but I think anybody who suggests that third country removal is fundamentally unfair has to explain how they would handle that problem because when the left had power, they did not handle that problem. They let those people live among us and a lot of them committed additional crimes against Americans and created new victims. And it's absolutely inexcusable and somebody should be asking them why they never dealt with this problem because we've proved that it can be solved. >> The Biden administration I think had a deal with Mexico where they sent folks from other countries there. Are you familiar with that or we don't have to get into that? >> Well, I don't know the details of that. What I suspect that is is sometimes people who crossed from Mexico and then were quickly ordered removed could be pushed back into Mexico. But that's not this fact pattern. This is somebody who's lived, you know, who lived in this country and repeatedly raped a seven-year-old, served his time, and then previous administrations were like, "Well, I, you know, we might not be enthusiastic about this person being here, but the State Department's unwilling to spend the time to get this person out." >> You you've clearly found a number of people that were not dealt with before you came into office.

>> Well, I didn't know them, but but that that's my point is because they have routine check-ins, if you actually listen to the ICE officers on the ground, they know. They're aware of these people. And so when you tell them, hey, we figured out how to do third country removals. They're like, great, I've got a guy who raped a seven-year-old repeatedly over eight years who the last administration let go, and I know where he is. Let's go get him and get him out. And I think this is like one of the greatest achievements of the president's term is getting horrible people like this out of the community. And we see what's happening with violent crime in this country. And I don't think it's a coincidence.