ITS OVER, HE'S WON

Today, Donald Trump scored two massive victories from the Supreme Court pertaining to illegal immigration, asylum, temporary protected status. Suffice it to say, liberals are furious. The first of these rulings is that if you are not in the United States, you have no right to claim asylum. This means under the previous ruling from the Ninth Circuit, what we saw in the Biden administration, individuals could come to the U.S. border, be in Mexico and tell a U.S. law enforcement, CBP, or ICE agent they wanted asylum and they were legally required to take the claim and bring them into the country. Under this ruling from the Supreme Court, if you are not in the U.S., you have no right to claim asylum in the U.S., and this means as individuals approach the U.S. border, they That's pretty remarkable because you'd think that's the way it's supposed to be. Someone trying to illegally enter the country, you say, nope, you don't get to claim asylum in a country you're not in and you can't enter illegally. Why don't you claim asylum in Mexico? We call this the first safe nation, but for whatever reason, the Democrats never adhere to that policy and they would actually welcome individuals who would come from Eritrea, travel and then make their way up to the United States and say, oh, well, they're here, we have to accept them. In the second major ruling, the Supreme Court basically said there is no judicial review for a constitutional right pertaining to temporary protected status. What does that mean? It means all of these Syrian and Haitian migrants across this country, particularly Springfield, Ohio, can have their TPS revoked and they can be sent back home. Now, of course, Democrats are apoplectic. These poor, innocent asylees, they say, are going to be sent back to their country. Why were they granted temporary protected status to begin with? Now, there actually are some conservatives who have made the argument that these people here under TPS did so legally. The Biden administration created a program by which they could come here and have protected status. But I say no. Temporary protected status pertains to illegal immigration. If you want to come here legally, you apply and then we determine whether or not we're going to let you in. So these are major victories for the American people and the Trump administration. And I think we are probably a short time away from a mass deportation of all of these Haitian migrants and Syrian migrants that are that have come here and tried to claim some temporary status despite not having asylum claims. As for the rest of the illegal immigration, Donald Trump is fulfilling his promise as it pertains to immigration. Now, we still got big rulings that have not yet come down. Birthright citizenship has not yet come down from the Supreme Court. So we wait with bated breath, though it is widely believed left and right. Supreme Court will rule against Donald Trump and actually say, yes, if a pregnant Chinese woman flies to Guam to give birth and flies home, that baby can be president of the United States. Seems like an insane thing to rule. Now, in reality, they're probably not going to say that explicitly. They're going to say the 14th Amendment is clear that if you are born here, you are a citizen. Thank you. And have a nice day. However, what that means is, yes, it means someone from China. And they do this when they're nine months pregnant, will fly to Guam, give birth and then fly home. And then 35 years later, that kid, a Chinese citizen, can be president of the United States. Now, I think that's absolutely insane, but we don't exactly know how they will rule on them. The other big case, of course, is Watson v. RNC, which is mail in voting, whether or not they will allow states to count votes after election day. Now, the implications here are massive because they could rule in a variety of ways. We are still waiting for those. But we'll get into all of that. And we're going to break down the details we have here on the issue of asylum claims, TPS. And already, the news stories are popping up. Haitian migrants are panicking, scared that they're going to be sent home. Now, before we get into all of that news, my friends, got a great sponsor for you. It is Enhanced. This episode is sponsored by Enhanced. You guys have heard of the Enhanced Games. It's a team rewriting what the human body is capable of. They also have their own consumer line. Not hormones, not prescriptions, the daily stimulant-free supplements built to the same standard. Look, you guys train hard, you work hard, but 3 p.m. most days, you're running on whatever's left in the tank. Enhanced makes a daily formula called Stronger, doctor-formulated, clinically dosed, no proprietary blends, one scoop, five grams of creatine, eight grams of pure L-citrulline, beta alanine, and essential amino acids. There's zero caffeine, no crash. It's that extra set in the gym and something's still left when you get to the door at night. And if you're playing the long game, Enhanced makes Longer, a daily longevity formula built direct by the team behind the Enhanced Games. No middleman, no markup. Go to shop.enhanced.com slash rumble and get 50% off your first order. That's shop.enhanced.com slash rumble. Let's jump into the news here, my friends. Don't forget, join us at TimCast.com, sign up, be a member. I'm writing the news for you guys today. We got the news right here from TimCast.com. Supreme Court says asylum seekers in Mexico have no right to asylum claims. So long as they have not arrived in the U.S., they cannot make claims. Now this is much more of a limited story. So we'll start with the Supreme Court ruling, the ramifications of which are going to be what's called metering, meaning border guards, ICE. They will see someone approach and they'll say, turn around. And when the person says, help, help, I'm being repressed, they can say, I don't care. Turn around. From TimCast.com. A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that migrants who present themselves at a port of entry but are physically blocked from stepping onto American soil have not, quote, arrived in the United States under federal immigration law. And therefore are not entitled to inspection or the chance to apply for asylum. The 6-3 decision in Mullen v. El Otro Lado reverses a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and hands the government a significant victory in its long-running dispute over metering, a practice in which Customs and Border Protection officers stand at the borderline and turn back migrants before they can cross. The core question, the case turned on a single phrase appearing in two provisions of the INA, that's the Immigration and Nationality Act, arrives in the United States. Federal law requires immigration officers to inspect any non-citizen who arrives in the United States and permit such a person to apply for asylum. The justices had to decide whether a migrant standing on the Mexican side of the border blocked by a U.S. official has legally arrived. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito, you know him, we love him, concluded the answer is no. In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person arrives in a place, for example, a house, a city, or a country before the person enters that place, he wrote. An alien arrives in the United States only when he crosses the border. Alito leaned heavily on everyday illustrations, reasoning that a running back does not arrive in the end zone when tackled at the one-yard line, and a guest does not arrive in a house by knocking on a locked door. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, wow, I got everybody, except the three libs. The dispute traces back to 2016 when CBP began experiencing surges of migrants at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border that the agency said exceeded its processing capacity. In response, DHS adopted a policy of metering, limiting the number of arriving migrants officers would inspect each day. With officials physically stationed at the border to prevent additional entries, the practice continued across multiple presidential administrations before being rescinded in November of 2021, shortly after a district court ruled it unlawful. Now, the fascinating thing is, the 35-page dissent, I think it was from Sotomayor, that was basically like, the purpose of the law, and you know, I gotta be honest, I understand this argument, I disagree, I think Alito, Thomas, and everybody else are correct. How can you say someone's arrived at a place they're not in? Now, the argument that the dissent is making is, how would you expect someone to arrive at a place they can't get through the door? The argument would be more like, if you are waiting in your living room, and someone knocks at your door, you would turn and say, they're here, and then go to your door and open it up, right? The argument, however, is that we're not talking about a house. Certainly, Alito has made those allusions, but we're talking about a country for which, if you are here in this country, you can make a claim for asylum. The liberals are also arguing, how could anybody even get into the country unless they have the means to get here, and then they could claim asylum? And I think that's actually the point. You apply to come to the United States legally, and you were allowed in. Once you're here, you then say, I would like to stay beyond this visa for the purpose of asylum. The idea that you walk up, knock on the door, and say, I want asylum. Well, you're not here. We have no responsibility to you. And I believe in the first safe nation protocol. So if you are from Mexico, we have a different question that can be asked. I think that's fair, but still not going to apply. I'm just sick of the abuse where Guatemalans go through Mexico and say, I ain't staying in Mexico. They say the advocacy organization, El Otro Lado, along with individual asylum seekers, brought a class action in 2017, arguing that metering unlawfully withheld inspection and asylum processing for migrants seeking to enter. A district court agreed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that a migrant arrives while standing on the Mexico side. Beyond the ordinary meaning of the words, Alito pointed to several contextual signals. Other parts of the immigration code explicitly reference attempted entry, he noted. While the provisions at issue do not, a distinction he said Congress made intentionally and purposefully. He also invoked the presumption against extraterritoriality, reasoning that respondents interpretation would give the statute reach over conduct occurring outside the US, which they can't do. The majority rejected the argument that metering creates a perverse incentive to cross illegally, noting that illegal entry carries criminal liability and other adverse consequences, and that metering merely delays entry rather than permanently barring it. In concurrence, Thomas wrote separately to question whether lower courts relief improperly circumvented statutory limits on class-wide injunctions and infringed on the president's authority to exclude non-citizens. Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, dissented forcefully. Sotomayor argued that words must be read in context, and the majority's reading rendered the arrives in clause entirely superfluous. Since anyone who has stepped onto US soil is already physically present, she offered her own examples. A train conductor announcing arrival in Penn Station while still half a mile away. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You don't say we've arrived. You say we are arriving. It's a ridiculous argument. We're telling someone to call upon call upon arriving in DC after landing across the river in Virginia. Because again, you know what? I'm from Chicago, my friends. You all know this. And I love this. Whenever I meet someone, and I'll be like, where are you from? They'll go, Chicago. I always go, oh, so Naperville. And it's funny how many times they'll go, yeah, I am from Naperville. How'd you know? Because for some reason, a lot of people leave Naperville. A lot of people live there. It's a wealthier suburb. It's like upper middle class. But the point is, you're not from Chicago. Naperville is a different city, some 40 minutes to an hour outside of Chicago. But nobody knows what Naperville is. So you say I'm from Chicago. Does that mean you're literally from the city of Chicago? No. And so I love this because they try to play this stupid game with me. And I see these libs look like, Tibble's not from Chicago. I am from Garfield Ridge. That's right. So we call it like Archer and Cicero, literally the city of Chicago. And they lie about it. It's so insane how these liberals lie. The reason is, my dad was a firefighter, and we had to live in the city. So yes, I'm from the city. I'm from the southwest side. That being said, to the people who know the area, you would not say we've arrived in Chicago when you are driving up from Naperville, and you're in, I don't know, like Oakbrook or something. You'd be like, no, we're not there yet. However, if you're flying into the airport, Chicago's O'Hare, that's the city. The fact that she's making the argument that IAD is outside of Washington, D.C., but they call it Washington Dulles, it's the stupidest argument. Oh, my God. We've arrived in the United States, and you're standing in Tijuana? No, you didn't. You're in Mexico. Ridiculous. The dissent also detailed what it called a human toll of metering. I don't care. Sotomayor warned the ruling vests limitless discretion in the executive branch to abandon its inspection duties simply by keeping migrants one winch away. Yes, they're not here. Here's how it's supposed to work. Here's how it should work. You apply, right? You apply for asylum to the United States, okay? And they go, we're not going to listen. This is really what it was about. No one's being told they can't apply for asylum. They're simply saying that CBP has no obligation to accept a claim from someone not here in the U.S. Let's say you came here legally on a student visa. While here, your visa is going to expire. And they say, we're going to send you back to your country. You then make an asylum claim to stay. You say, I can't go back for these reasons. Guess what? This means that the people here under TPS, they can file for asylum. The decision clears the way for the government to resume metering when it deems border conditions warrant it. The government had told the court that metering remains an important tool it would likely use again. The case now returns to the lower courts for further proceedings. Massive. Here's the next big one. This is the big, big one. This is the big one because this means mass deportations. This ruling under TPS means we could see somewhat half a million to 600,000 mass deportation overnight. And I'm going to bet you right now Trump goes full speed. He goes ham. You know what ham means? Hard as a MF-er. Supreme Court allows Trump admin to end protected status for Syrian and Haitian migrants. A major win for the Trump administration brought to you, of course, by dimguest.com. We have a, there we go. That was a weird posting here. Supreme Court allows Trump admin to end TPS. The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to terminate temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Syria and Haiti, ruling that a federal law shields the government's decisions from most legal challenges. And that claims of racial bias in the Haiti decision are unlikely to succeed. The consolidated cases Mullen v. Doe and Trump v. Miot ended with the court reversing lower court orders that had paused the terminations while litigation continued. The decision means TPS holders from the two countries stand to lose their legal status and work authorization. So here's what's going on. Trump wants to end TPS, boot these people out. They say, no, this is racial bias and we're going to file a suit. They got a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court is not ruling on the merits of the racial bias claim, but they are saying there is no judicial oversight for this. You're likely going to lose. And because of that, no protections, you can be sent home pending adjudication. So likely not coming back. Congress created TPS in 1990 to give short-term humanitarian relief to people who cannot safely return to their home countries because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. Although meant to be temporary designations have often lasted decades. Somalia's, the court noted, has been in place for 35 years. Syria was designated in 2012 amid the repression of the Assad regime in the civil war. Haiti in 2010 after an earthquake. Both designations were extended repeatedly. Then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem moved to terminate both citing improved conditions. Yeah, Assad's gone from Syria and the earthquake was 16 years ago. The central question was whether courts can review the terminations at all. The TPS statute states there is no judicial review of any determination of the secretary with respect to the designation or termination or extension of a designation of a foreign state. Basically, TPS, the executive branch will figure that one out. It's up to them. Writing for the court, Alito held that this language sweeps broadly enough to block all the plaintiff's non-constitutional claims, including their argument that Noem failed to properly consult other agencies before acting. The word determination he reasoned can mean either an individual decision or the whole process leading up to it. Another either reading the bar applies the phrase with respect to he said he added has a broadening effect. A separate question raised only by the Haitian plaintiffs was whether the termination of Haiti's designation was motivated by a race by race in violation of equal protection. Alito wrote the claim was unlikely to succeed. Thomas concurred because we love Thomas and we love Alito. Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Brown Jackson, dissented sharply. She argued the majority misread determination to swallow the statute's mandatory procedures. I'm not going to read this blah, blah, blah stuff, OK? They're basically just throwing procedure at each other. But I think this was ruled correctly. The cases were reversed and remanded for further proceedings. As a practical matter, the ruling lifts the interim relief that have been keeping the terminations on hold, allowing them to take effect. My friends, a slam dunk for Donald Trump. Haitian immigrants in Ohio face very sad situation as SCOTUS lets Trump end TPS. Why are we guys? I don't even need to say it. Why did we extend natural disaster protections for 16 years? Please tell me. Why are we extending civil war protections to a country that is no longer in a civil war and Assad has fled? OK, so it's over. Why is Somalia getting temporary protected status for 35 years? I say enough. Now, there is still more coming down the pipeline. We've got this from Newsweek. This one's big. We'll attach this one here. Trump made Save Act ultimatum. The Senate leaves it unanswered. Now, while Trump has these two major victories in SCOTUS and we are actually looking now at a couple more that are going to come down the pipeline probably next week, could be into early July. We wait with bated breath. The Housing Act comes through, passed unanimously with massive bipartisan support. Trump says, I'm not signing this until you bring me the Save Act, which seeks to prevent illegal immigrants from being on voter rolls and effectively effectively creates voter ID at registration for voting. Thune won't pass it. So here's where we are. Trump says, I'm not going to sign your housing bill to get me this. This is creating a standoff, a game of chicken. Thune has answered. He has called for the recess, the adjournment for the recess, which means this housing bill will become de facto law in 10 days unless Trump vetoes it before then. If he does absolutely nothing, it will become law by adjourning. He's basically saying we are done talking to you, Trump. Well, something interesting could happen next and likely will. If Trump vetoes the housing bill, it will get sent back to Congress. However, they're adjourned until mid-July, which means Trump can veto this, extending a delay, and they will have to come back, reconvene, debate and vote on it again, which means at that point he can then sit for another 10 days. So if on day 10 Trump says formal veto, sending it back, we're looking at two. They only include Sundays, not Saturdays. So we're looking at about a week and a half or so. That means that there will not be an answer on the housing bill or the SAVE Act until they come back. They will then need to pass with a veto proof majority where Trump could then just sit and wait, although at this point he can't veto it again, but he can drag it out. These are the games that are being played right now over the issue of immigration and illegal voting. Trump is winning. Now, these Democrats like Mark Eli say, no, no, no, Trump is losing. He's losing. The reality is Trump is winning with redistricting efforts. Trump's winning with deportations, winning border, winning Supreme Court win, win, win, win, win. There have been some federal court setbacks, which these libs have called a losing streak. But when it comes to SCOTUS, Trump is hitting, hitting grand slams. Now, I don't know what this means for the midterms, but I think it's looking pretty dang good for the Republicans, though the prediction markets are saying Democrats will win. The polls are favoring Republicans. We shall see. Till then, my friends. Good day. I'm going to wrap this one up. Usually I do this about a half an hour. We're going to keep this one a little bit short because that's the news for you. I don't got much, much more to add, and I'm not going to add more for the sake of add more. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Stay tuned. We're back tonight at 8 p.m. for Timcast IRL. Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.