Appearing with professional narrative engineer Margaret Brennan, Senator Rand Paul discusses his DC perspective on the need to protect criminal aliens from excessive deportation action.
Senator Paul agrees with Mrs Brennan that all persons, including illegal alien entrants into the United States, deserve constitutional protection. As an outcome of that viewpoint the Alien Enemies Act is in a state of contradiction and conflict. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we turn now to Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. He is the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and he joins us this morning from Bowling Green, Kentucky. Good morning to you, Senator.
SEN. RAND PAUL: Good morning. Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, because of your role in Homeland Security, I want to follow up where we left off with National Security Adviser Waltz. There are legal questions around using these authorities to send out detainees without giving them a day in court. But there’s also just questions of how it’s being handled in regard to these individuals who were rejected by El Salvador, one for gender, one because they weren’t Venezuelan at all. Do these concern- does any of this concern you? Along with claims from their family members that many of these people weren’t gang members?
SEN. PAUL: There are some big legal questions here. On the one hand, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, to persons. The Bill of Rights doesn’t specifically designate citizens. It’s really anyone in the United States the Bill of Rights applies to. On the other hand, the Alien and Enemies Act simply says, you really don’t get much process. The president can simply declare that you are somehow a problem for foreign policy and opposed to our foreign policy, and you can be deported. So really, ultimately, this goes to the court, and then the court is going to have to decide, are they going to declare unconstitutional a law that’s been around for a couple hundred years, or are they going to defer to Congress? If you look at the TikTok decision recently, which I don’t agree with, but in the TikTok decision, the court basically said we’re going to defer to Congress. Congress says this is about national security, and who are we to question Congress–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Right and then the president issued executive order that defied the- what Congress did–
SEN. PAUL: Right, right. But my- my point is- is I think the court should have ruled on the First Amendment with regard to TikTok and not said, oh, well, whatever Congress wants. But if you look at the TikTok decision, and you had to guess what the Supreme Court is going to do, my guess is they’ll uphold the Alien and Enemies Act. It’s not necessarily my position, but I think the court will uphold it. So it’s at least debatable on both sides, who’s right or who’s wrong here. And I think it’s not correct for Democrats to simply say, oh, it’s constitutional chaos. There’s no leg to stand on. There actually is legal authority. On the one hand, it’s been around for over 200 years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But, but just- we’re not talking about partisan politics. We’re talking about the courts right now. And what the judge said he had questions about and talks about this being done, you know, essentially in the cover of night, this seems to be an argument the administration wants to have go to the Supreme Court. Are you comfortable with bypassing what you described as, you know, what’s guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, a day in court, or at least some verification that some of these people actually are guilty in some way of what they’re accused of, which is membership in a gang?
SEN. PAUL: So we have a contradiction. We basically have the Constitution that says everyone, persons in the United States have due process rights, have the Bill of Rights on their side, but we also have law that has been in power for 200 years saying, oh, well, except for when the president wants to deport people. So these are in conflict. There will have to be some decision making. On the question of whether or not a district judge can make a ruling for the whole country, that’s also a very big question, and I suspect, as this works its way up to the Supreme Court, when you get to the Supreme Court, I do believe the Supreme Court is going to limit district judges from having nationwide rulings. So I think that’s also in the offing. But these are huge legal questions, and the only way they begin is by a challenge.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah
SEN. PAUL: If the president doesn’t challenge these, they never have standing and never get to court. So on the one hand, the president is generating this, but it’s the only way to generate a final conclusion from the court.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It just sound- I mean- these are debates for law professors, certainly, but in the meantime, there are individuals who may have been sent wrongly to these facilities that are outside the U.S. jurisdiction. Are you comfortable as the man with oversight, as chair of the committee, with what’s being done?
SEN. PAUL: I think the courts will rule that there has to be some process. I don’t think you are going to be able to deport people–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, yes, you are comfortable with it?
SEN. PAUL: So no, I- well, I think you’re answering for me. I think there is going to be some process afforded by the courts for representation before you’re deported in most cases. I don’t know about the ones under the Alien and Enemies Act, and I’m not sure anybody knows that. And while I love constitutional law, I’m not a constitutional lawyer.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
SEN. PAUL: I do think it goes to the Supreme Court. And there are arguments to be made on both sides of this question.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Got it. I want to ask you about some congressional business. I’ve seen it reported that you have pitched to Elon Musk a plan to claw back $500 billion in federal funding that Congress has already approved. There was an effort back in 2018 to do something like this, and it failed. Do you think you can actually get this done in a rescission package, and how much money do you think you can get back?
SEN. PAUL: Well, this goes to another huge legal question. Can the president impound money, or does he have to send it back and we approve the cuts through rescission, and this is going all the way to the Supreme Court also, because I think the Trump administration believes they can just not spend it. There’s another question within the question, can the president and his people, can Secretary Rubio pause the spending. On that issue I think they will win. You will be able to pause spending as long as you don’t go through the end of an appropriations year. If you get through that, I believe it’s impoundment, and I think the court so far has said it has to come back, and less as the Trump administration argues that the empowerment Act is unconstitutional. So this was headed to the Supreme Court also. It is my personal belief we should adhere to the law as it is now, and that is, send it back and have Congress confirm it. It’s a simple majority vote. It’s called rescission. I did mention this to Elon Musk. He seemed enthusiastic. It can be done. No Democrats- you have to realize, no Democrats will cut one penny from any spending anywhere. But can we get all the Republicans, is the real question.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You can get 51 Republicans, you think, to get on board with this?
SEN. PAUL: Well, I think the president’s gonna- the president is going to have to use effectively his bully pulpit and his popularity to convince all Republicans to do it. It’s not a given that Republicans will stand, will will vote for this. We tried it once in the first administration it was only–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Right, I remember–
SEN. PAUL: –15 billion, and we we lost. We lost two Republicans. But my suggestion to the Trump-, my suggestion to the Trump administration is come to the Republicans who you suspect might have misgivings and convince them, in advance, don’t put it in their lap. Bring them 500 billion. If they say this, 10 billion, I can’t deal with, I can deal with the 490, you’re gonna have to pre negotiate the rescissions package. But I think you could get there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about the Department of Education. States, as everyone I think knows, provide the majority of the funding and oversight for your local schools. But Kentucky, when we looked at the numbers, gets the fourth most federal education funding per student of any state in this country. You have over 900 schools that have these Title One programs, which are low income schools who need that federal subsidy to continue to operate. How are schools going to get that money if the president closes the Education Department?
SEN. PAUL: I think the bigger question, if we’re sending all this money to Kentucky and all the other states, why are our scores abysmal? Why do two thirds of the kids not read at proficiency? Why do two thirds of the kids or more not have math proficiency? So it’s an utter failure–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Isn’t that up to the state?
SEN. PAUL: What I’d like to- let me finish, I’d leave it back to the States. It has always been a position, a very mainstream Republican position, to have control of the schools by the states, send the money back to the states, or better yet never take it from the States. About half of our budget in Kentucky goes to education, and that’s the same in a lot of states. I think we can handle it much better. When I talk to teachers, they chafe at the national mandates on testing they think are not appropriate for their kids. They think they waste too much time teaching-
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Right–
SEN. PAUL: –teaching to national testing. The teachers would like more autonomy, and I think the teachers deserve more autonomy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But when we look at the budget in Kentucky, the state receives 2 billion in federal education funding. Do you have a guarantee that the federal government, federal taxpayers will still provide 2 billion in education funding? That seems important to your state.
SEN. PAUL: I’d rather well, no, what I’d rather is a guarantee that my kids can read and write and do math. The amount of dollars, look, the number of dollars has gone up exponentially, and our scores have gone the other way. So dollars are not proportional to educational success. What I want is success, and I’ve talked a lot about this, I think there are innovations we can do where there’s more learning via some of the best teachers, and we pay them more. I would like to have an NBA or NFL of teachers, the most extraordinary teachers teach the entire country if not the entire world–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Who would run that? The education department?–
SEN. PAUL: –And some of them- no what you’d find is they’d be selected out state by state across the nation. Look, people say, oh, without the department education, we’d have no testing. I was- I was in school before then, we did achievement tests in the sixth grade, the fifth grade, the eighth grade, and we compared ourselves across state lines. There were international testing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Yeah–
SEN. PAUL: –You don’t need the Department of Education for any of that. But what I can tell you is–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Okay–
SEN. PAUL: –the best teacher in the world is not teaching the kids. What we need to do is have the best teachers and pay them more, but they wouldn’t teach 30 kids. They might teach 10 million kids at a time, because it would be presented to the internet with local teachers reinforcing the lessons.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I’m sure we’ll be talking more about this. Senator Paul, thank you for your time today. We’ll be right back.
What is wrong with the Republicans in Kentucky? I know they fully supported and voted for the President, but they keep electing McConnell and Paul. Very wacky!
My sense is that many Southern Republicans used to be conservative Democrats, or came from a strong Democrat family. When they switched parties they kind of developed a schizoid governing philosophy. Part of their heritage is a misplaced loyalty to the notion of “Southern gentleman” government nobless, in opposition to Yankee Republicans. Hence, many Southern Republicans have a contrarian streak. In contrast, when my ancesters moved from South to North they remained Democrat, even though they are somewhat conservative. I’m the only Republican in my broader family!
My take on this is why become a citizen? The new york ‘rats wanted to give non-citizens the right to vote, now paul says anyone who crosses the border illegally has almost all the rights of citizens. The bill of rights may not specifically say “citizen”, however, I’m pretty darn sure the founders didn’t mean to confer any of these privileges on illegal entrants. Senator Paul’s argument does not make any sense whatsoever.
So if we ever get a RED DAWN situation where an enemy…say China, drops 500k troops onto American soil. Do they have all the rights of American citizens? If an armed American shoots an invader, who is not in the process of harming anyone, will that American be charged with murder…because these invaders “HAVE RIGHTS”?
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are not a suicide pact. No other country gives people citizenship rights simply because they are standing on their soil. There is no imaginary line where once you cross it, you have all the rights of a full citizen, simply because you were able to get here.
Either our borders and citizenship mean something, or we no longer have a country. How sad is it when foreign invaders have more rights and benefits than the average American?
If you enter illegally, you broke the law! Criminals lose their rights
No, he didn’t say “almost all the rights of citizens”, he said “the bill of rights”. He is exactly correct, in that the Supreme Court will decide that way. He notes that Alien Enemies Act contradicts that view and the Supreme Court is going to have to come down one way or the other. Likewise his view of impoundment vs rescission. He is being a total realist. That’s why this is a republic and not a democracy.
Republic not a democracy? Could fool a lot of people out there, especially the ‘rat party, who keep referring the USA as a democracy. On another note, the “Bill of rights” is fairly comprehensive on the “rights” of the people, thus the title. Are Senator Paul and you going to confer due process to 10M+ illegal immigrants? How long would that take to process? Impractical. If you agree with Paul, both you can pay the taxes to support the illegal’s housing, food, cell phones, cars, etc.
Also, as dekare states, China funnels through 500K soldiers in the southern border and some proceed to shoot numerous American citizens. Let’s give them all “due process”. Citizenship is a privilege, and rights pertain to citizens not invaders, which is what the 10M+ are.
If this is the stance of Paul….then he probably believes if you are an illegal alien expectant mother…..if you can find a way into this country…which would have been very inviting and extremely easy just a short time ago….well then….you get the protections of our Constitution and your child is an American citizen!
Does any other country on this planet do this?
Obviously….he is wrong on both!
But that doesn’t mean the courts…especially the Supreme Court will rule that way!
And Paul lives in a bubble…he has no idea we are in a war!
So, come to the US illegally and you are automatically granted protections by the US Constitution. Last I checked it was the US Constitution, not ‘Constitution’ or ‘World Constitution’.
You can make a principled argument that there is a moral obligation to provide some protection under the law, I’d disagree, but could respect that. But to say they have legal rights based on which side of a border they stand on is just wrong.
I don’t know. Sounds like the argument of Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford or Justice Black in Korematsu v. United States. I don’t think you are going to get widespread acceptance of that view so you might need to be like Rush and move to Realville.
Wow. I found Paul’s answers to be confusing and weak. Disappointing!
So where was Paul when our constitutional rights were ignored and these people weren’t turned away weren’t even vetted. Did not go through the process. And who the hell says illegals noncitizens deserve protection under OUR constitution…Idiot.
The due process for the illegal does not require a judge to adjucate a hearing. Let Noem do it with DHS attorneys.
How about they get a hearing at a military tribunal? After their safety in Gitmo is ensured.
God surely has this nation in derision because rightful mind would come up with such a stupid idea.
I like Karl Denninger’s thoughts about it.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=253047
“Roberts as the Chief Justice of the USSC has an obligation to actually honor both basic principles of logic and what the Constitution says. Yes, the Constitution, as amended by the 5th, 6th, 14th and other Amendments does guarantee that “no person” may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deprived of equal protection under the law. That is true.
But you cannot be deprived of what you never lawfully possessed in the first place; you never acquire rightful possession or title to a stolen or unlawfully-acquired thing irrespective of the amount of time that has passed.”
Which is why joe biden was never truly the president of the USA.
“SEN. PAUL: So no, I- well, I think you’re answering for me. I think there is going to be some process afforded by the courts for representation before you’re deported in most cases.”
Why is his interest solely on the Bill or Rights and not the Constitution?
What processes were afforded to the citizens of the U.S. to evaluate and decide on who was being allowed in?
The jist I get is that Rand thinks that the rights of the criminals are more important than the rights of the citizens.
How do we know they are all criminals? That’s part of what’s at issue here.
They entered illegally. They’re all criminals.
… Well they broke the law by coming here illegally. Also, I thought we have laws to the effect that if you are not a U.S. citizen then present your visa or green card. Otherwise immediate deportation.
If 20 million (or more) illegals each need their own hearing then we cannot possibly deport them all. Which is why the left and RINOs are pushing this idea that not having a visa or green card is not enough to immediately deport.
—————
Side note: crime is not the only harm caused by illegals. Housing is unaffordable for more and more Americans. Our housing shortage is not in small part due to these multi-million illegals. Supply and Demand. Too many illegals means housing shortage which means high housing prices (rent and houses)
Send 20 milllion back home, relieve the shortage and let the cost of housing come down (yes I know about interest rates and all, but more people than housing is a big piece of the issue too).
They weren’t just deported, they were sent to prison. Big difference.
If they broke the law to get here, by definition they are criminals. Most of the ones Trump is currently deporting have done far worse than that. This is black and white. You either obeyed the law, or you did not.
What part of “illegal” alien do you not understand?
I have a question: So we get these activist judges fighting Trump trying to export the illegal aliens. Why, under Biden, did we not have any activist judges fighting and stopping Biden from flying in illegals from Central and South America? Surely that was against some laws. And seemingly no Republicans fought this in the media. Why?
Exactly.
cuz they’re all “for” the inbounds.
as another poster said, the judge wants individual hearings for them to get deported, but nobody had an individual hearing to allow them in!
Judge Boasberg Allows Tren de Aragua Migrants to Appeal ‘Alien Enemies’ Deportations
This has gone far enough. DO SOMETHING!
https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/03/24/boasberg-allows-tren-de-aragua-migrants-appeal-alien-enemies-deportations/
So anyone who happens to be on US soil has the same rights as a US citizen do they now? Does that include the skiffs of military aged male invaders coming in on our shores in San Diego? Does that include the Cartels (Chinese and Mexican) sneaking over and under our borders in tunnels? Does that include tourists? I’m calling TOTAL BS. The Democrats have tried to pull this nonsense since 911 to protect their enemy imports trying to take down our country. I thought this claim was already thrown out in court?
How long before Rand Paul and his Uniparty swamp rats tell us that tourists have the right to vote in our elections? Paul has sunk to a new low. We already knew the Democrat Crime Syndicate is all in for collapsing our borders and making any privilege of being a US citizen null and void. How many RINOs does Paul speak for? What do they have to gain by expanding the rights of illegals? Is it simply TDS and these small-minded worms want to obstruct Trump from carrying out his mission to protect the safety of Americans? Are they getting paid off by the Cartels to protect their hommies from deportation? Do these Congressmen get a cut of the millions in profits that Cartels take in? IMO, at the very least this is a stalling tactic to tie up the deportations in court and run out the clock until they can get rid of Trump and carry on business as usual, as they’ve been doing for decades.
“It’s really anyone in the United States the Bill of Rights applies to. On the other hand”
Using that rationale, all you have to do is set foot or touch American soil and your “safe”.
wow, bought and paid for, you can see it in their eyes when they sell their souls
I seem to recall he’s an eye doctor not a lawyer. Being a Senator doesn’t count either.
I like Rand, however, on this subject he is just plain dumb for what he’s saying and giving the fakers ammunition. I think his approval rating among Republicans will decline in a week.
So what is “…some due process…” If the illegal invaders have all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is that an “all or nothing” proposition? That would mean enemy soldiers who invade us would have ALL those same rights.
Sen. Paul is spewing nonsense as he tries to make the situation a gray issue to be handled not by the person voted in to secure our nation but by unelected judges who are nothing more than human beings with their own fallacies, foibles, biases and. in some cases, ignorance of our founding fathers’ vision and reasoning.
Illegal aliens are entitled to no constitutional protection.
Judge Napolitano said almost the exact same thing on the Carl Higby show today.
Every time I hear people who hold this opinion I really hear Americans Go To The Back Of The Bus.
Nobody ‘deserves’ Constitutional protection except CITIZENS of the USA. Period.
Put about 20 M-13 gangbangers in Brenmans and also in Paul’s house. Let them take care of their beloved “citizens”
Whoever drew up the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights drew them up for US citizens, not for the world. So why should non-US citizens have automatic protections from those documents? To get into the US you have to have a Visa and that Visa says you are in the US legally. If you have a Visa and break the law the Visa is revoked and you have to leave. Obviously, if you are in the US without a Visa you are there illegally and could and should be removed from the country. The mere fact that you don’t have a Visa means you are not entitled to further due process under the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, because the Visa system identifies you as either legally or illegally in the country. The granting or refusal of a Visa is due process. Entering the US without a Visa means you have foregone any further due process rights outside of the Visa system.
I have had it with people who see everything through an emotional lens.
It is up to the DOJ to find a legal justification for deportation that cannot be easily challenged, but they are doing a terrible job. This, combined with judges who are clearly waging a war against the President, creates a perfect storm of judicial malfeasance and the DOJ’s obvious incompetence.
But then again, President Trump appointed Ms. Bondi—he might as well have rehired Bill Barr.