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 a 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.

country-specific 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, uh a. child rapist from Laos and the Laotian. 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. I mean, 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 twosies, 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, which you know, is a huge. public safety problem. But you know, more generally it's consistent with the. law. It's what Congress has actually. directed us to do. The statute basically. gives almost like a flow chart 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.

are public that we put before the US. Supreme Court all three times when we. won. our stays up in the Supreme Court. So. people can look at these. 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, 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 are. ultimately told where they're going to. go. 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. these can develop, you know, somewhat quickly. 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. 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. $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. >> Mhm. So, no, they don't get to say in. where they're going, aside from being. able to go back to their home country. >> always go to their home country. >> But aside from that, they're sort of. going where you have to go. >> where we can where we can find. >> Where you can land a place for them. 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-refoulement, 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-refoulement. So, one. possibility is that they followed their. own procedures on this and determined. that there was no viable fear claim um. because remember the. >> You're saying Ghana would have. determined. >> That's up to Ghana. What Ghana promises. us is that they will follow. international law. So, if Ghana makes it. 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-refoulement. principles, and we absolutely expect. them to honor those representations, and. I'm not aware of any situation where a. country has not honored the. representations to the United States. >> So, do you trust these assurances from. Ghana that they won't send people to. their home countries? >> We do, and we well. >> Where where they where they have a.

withholding of removal? >> We trust the assurances that they will. honor non-refoulement. 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 relief. at some time in history, that they still. have a credible fear of returning there. because of a protected ground. So, Ghana. would be 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 if they. don't, there are consequences for them. >> 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 withholding of removal. But you're saying you're not aware of. any of these cases? >> I mean, I think I've already answered. that question. I mean, our understanding. is that each country has to follow.

international law with respect to. refoulement. 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, when 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. them their home. home, their obligation. is to ensure that it's safe for them to. return. >> Mhm. 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 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. plaintiff'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. >> do you think these people are. voluntarily going back home from Ghana. where they have withholding of removal? >> So, would it 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. That 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 assurances 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, in 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 mean, I think I already answered this. question. Um you know, I gave my. two-party answer, which is number one, um they can always consent to go home, and that may very well be what occurred. And number two, >> 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? >> not seen that video. >> But I mean, it's not it's media. reported. I mean, you know, a lot of. these people have started to come. forward with illegal 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-refoulement 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. assurances and then for the State. Department to make a determination about. the credibility of those assurances. And. without a credibility determination, then we would not um well, let me let me.

back up. So, the procedure has allowed. 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 honored. >> 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 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. >> Mhm. 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 wreaked 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 Mali, 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, I. >> 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. I, you. know, 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. Molly. 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. I 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-refoulement 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-refoulement principles of. international law. >> Mhm. 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 Molly, would that be a. problem? >> I've already told you we get assurances.

from the State Department that they're. that they'll honor non-refoulement. 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. >> Mhm. 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, "Sierra Leone 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 to process. your 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. You. don't know that they're not getting. >> 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-refoulement 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. >> they were persecuted or tortured when. they they went to their home country? >> 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 of that finding. >> 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 cuz 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 I. think we've covered this topic ad. nauseam at this point. Um, so. >> But you're saying the US government has.

not in any way done anything unlawful. >> 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'll. let you get your questions. There's some. things I want to cover, but. >> So, the Trump administration, uh and. 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? >> 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. Which. really two reasons. Number one, when you. have rapists and murderers. >> And can I just clarify, which population. are you referring to? >> country removal population. >> Third country removals are. disproportionately violent. >> 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.

statutorily 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 for. >> And I mean, you see in polling that. Americans want that? >> You know, but 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 and 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 just release that data? Cuz. I cuz I I I really take your point about. these violent offenders. I do. And and. especially cuz I've looked at the. pulling 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. And there are many. horrible horrible crimes that people do. not classify as violent crimes. Let me. give you some examples. Child. pornography. Not consi- I mean, making. it is, but watching it is not considered. a violent crime. Uh, trafficking in. 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, cuz I think that is very important. >> important nuance. 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, 0.5% of.

those detained, 0.5% 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? But it 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 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. >> Mhm. >> So, I just I don't understand I 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, would we count a traffic violations. on that flight? So, people 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 cuz 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 to. this idea. >> a lot of people with various 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. >> Mhm. 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, cuz 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 What's. 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 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 And that's why I'm. going for the clarity here. You know, cuz 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 they 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 do really, uh, reject your characterization of someone. who is in this country illegally and. breaking our laws as {quote}.

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. >> Okay. I just think your characterization. of somebody who has been breaking the. law for 20 years as {quote} law-abiding. is 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 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 due 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, 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 in. expedited removal, there's a more. 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. front of an immigration judge, and then. we're 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. >> Mhm. 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. So. >> Okay. So, so no, I mean, basically your. answer is no. >> 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,

depends on the facts and circumstances. Uh there's a Supreme Court case called. Matthews v. Eldridge where you do the. sort of balancing test to figure out the. procedures that are appropriate under. 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 it. expedited removal since 1986. 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 cuz these. folks are not getting due process. >> Yeah, and how long did that last? >> Yeah, right. The Supreme Court. >> the Supreme Court stayed them, yeah. >> Right, stayed 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 circumstances with the Ghana. agreements. 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 Ghana. agreement cuz 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-deporting. You know, the. 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-deport, 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-deport. That's. why we're offering incentives. But your. suggestion that. third country removals are some sort of. punishment to get people to self-deport, 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 present 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 who are. being deported. >> Absolutely. >> I've been following your Twitter and I. actually can't remember that what was it. called Deportation Daily or something? >> Uh Daily Deportee. >> Daily Deportee. 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. >> Mhm. 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? And 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. I'm very excited about that. >> I think one of the 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 Zadvydas, which basically says we have 6 months to. detain somebody to remove them and then. there's the standard it's very long and. convoluted but it's like significant. likelihood of removal in the reasonably. foreseeable future. The immigration law. nerds call it 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 him 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 deportee series on my Twitter. I. mean the ones that stand out to me but a. couple things that stand out to me. So. there was one individual I think he was. from Myanmar. Um who had raped a.

7-year-old. and then repeatedly raped her over I. like an 8-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. 7-year-old over and over again over the. course of many years. that person should not be in our. country. >> Why wouldn't 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 7-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 3 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 I 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 them. Um again. >> Where was that? >> I believe he was from Laos. Uh it was. another. >> Where was that? >> Southeast Asian country. I think it was. Laos. Same scenario, the government. didn't want him back. Um in 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. 7-year-old. And it would make them so. frustrated, but there was nothing they. could do because. >> There was nowhere else to go. >> a random bureaucrat in California seeing. this. person who raped a 7-year-old returned. 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. 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, but. >> 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. 7-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 of the country. >> clearly found a number of people that. were not dealt with before you came into.

office. >> Well, I didn't know about them, but but. there were 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. 7-year-old repeatedly over 8 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.