FOr last month, Democratic Senator Chris Vanlen of Maryland was plunged into an international confrontation when he tried to obtain the return of a national Salvadoran who lived in Maryland when the Trump administration was mistaken in prison to El Salvador.
Time spoke with Van Hollen on Wednesday, one day after President Donald Trump recognized in a ABC News Interview That he “could” freely Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador but refuses to do so. The senator, who met Abrego Garcia in Salvador earlier this month, criticized Trump for refusing to intervene in the case: “We are in a constitutional crisis,” he said, pointing to the decision of the Supreme Court who asks the Trump administration to “facilitate” his return. Last week, Trump told Times that he had not asked President Nayib Bukele to return Abrego Garcia, explaining: “I was asked to ask him by my lawyers.”
Trump said on several occasions without proof that Garcia Garcia is a member of the MS -13 gang – a largely part -based statement based on a photoshopped image of his tattoos circulating on social networks. “If he was the gentleman that you say he is, I would do it,” Trump told ABC News on Tuesday. “But it is not.”
Van Hollen also called for a tourist boycott from El Salvador, which is paid $ 6 million by the US government to be expelled from immigrants. “Until the Salvador government ceases to conspire with the Trump administration to violate constitutional rights, people should stay far from Salvador,” he said. Van Hollen added that he had been informed by the vice-president of El Salvador that the country of Central America only kept its constituent due to a financial agreement with the Trump administration to hold any expulsion that it sends.
Here is what Van Hollen explained in time why he believes that the constitutional rights of all Americans are at stake in the Abrego Garcia affair.
This interview was condensed and published for more clarity.
In the ABC interview, Trump said he could return Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he wanted it. What was your reaction to this?
My reaction is that President Trump admitted what we all know, namely that he has the power to comply with the Supreme Court decision and to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia. In fact, he has just admitted that he could do it, which also means that he admits that he parades the court order.
I want to ask more about it in a second. But first, in our interview with Trump last week, he said he left the case to his lawyers. What do you do with that-the President of the United States saying that he is not the one who makes the decision on this subject?
He just tries to change the responsibility. It is a president who says that the male stops with him, but each time he receives a difficult question, he points the others in the administration. He clearly tried to divert responsibility for his continuous violation of judicial orders and his continuous violation of the Constitution and the regular procedure.
Do you know who, in his legal team, is the main voice on this subject? Have you tried to contact them?
I don't know. We all know that Trump's original lawyer in the case admitted to the Federal Court that the Trump administration had seized and wrongly shipped that Garcia in prison in El Salvador. Of course, this lawyer was punished for telling the truth in court. Since then, I really don't know who represents the views of the Trump administration. I saw the Attorney General Bondi at the meeting at the Oval Office with President Bukele say that the United States would be willing to send an airplane to El Salvador to pick up Abrego Garcia. They should do it.
Trump also told Time that he had not been asked to ask President Bukele to return Abrego Garcia. But the Supreme Court judged that its administration should “facilitate” its return. What is your reaction to this commentary on him, and do you believe that the country is currently in a constitutional crisis?
Well, the president's response shows that he openly holds an order from the court, and yes, we are in a constitutional crisis when the Trump administration violates the Constitution and the rights of the regular procedure and refusing to comply with an order of the court. As everyone knows, it is quite rare that we saw a decision from nine to zero from the Supreme Court and such a strong opinion of the fourth circuit.
And you said that the only reason El Salvador keeps Abrego Garcia is because they have entered into an agreement with the United States. So, if, as you said, El Salvador is contractually forced to hold it, what could Trump do to reverse this?
He can simply say that El Salvador is not contractually forced to illegally keep Abrego Garcia. It was not me who says that – it was the vice -president of El Salvador who told me directly that the government of El Salvador was holding Abrego Garcia because the Trump administration pays them to do it. It couldn't have been [more] clear. He said the ball was in our courtyard, which means the American court.
And you wrote a letter to Trump on this subject yesterday. What did you say?
Well, I argued that this case does not only concern a man – Abrego Garcia. This is all of us, and if you can violate a person's constitutional rights, you threaten the constitutional rights of all those who live in America. I explained the details of the case of Abrego Garcia. I underlined to the president that his own administration had admitted that he was wrongly expelled, then I pointed out in detail my conversation with the vice-president of El Salvador, who revealed very clearly that the Trump administration could bring him back and that the Trump administration was blatant with judicial orders.
Have you received an answer to this letter? Do you expect to get an answer?
Well, I did not receive an answer to the letter, but we saw in the ABC interview that the president publicly admitted that he could simply win the phone and facilitate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Do you plan another trip to El Salvador, or do you think of going back to check it and push for its release?
I will continue to push to guarantee the constitutional rights of Mr. Abrego Garcia's regular procedure, using the most effective tools I think. And again, I want to remind people that I do not guarantee Mr. Abrego Garcia. I guarantee its rights because they involve everyone's rights.
What can do other than Congress, or Democrats, about the case of Abrego Garcia and other cases of expulsion?
Well, I think we can continue to highlight the fact that the president and his administration violate the Constitution. Recent surveys show that the American public does not buy its history or their efforts to change the conversation. They understand that their own constitutional rights are at stake in this case, because if you can violate them for a person, you can violate them for everyone. The other thing I will say is that we can exert economic pressure on the government of Salvador. One thing that President Bukele wants more than anything else is to have a strong economy. So I said that American tourists can vote with their feet. There are many wonderful countries in Central America, including Costa Rica, including Guatemala, and until the government of El Salvador ceases to conspire with the Trump administration to violate constitutional rights, people should stay away from Salvador. I also encouraged the States to exceed the funds of their pension funds with regard to companies in Salvador. The Governor of Illinois recently declared that he was going to continue this. And finally, I work with colleagues to take other measures to put pressure on the Salvador government.
Trump repeated the unproven accusation that Garcia Garcia is part of MS-13, that the administration has appointed a foreign terrorist group. What did you put forward from the argument that Trump put forward in the ABC interview on the image of tattoos on his joints being proof that he is a member of a gang?
Well, as you know, it has been subjected to many fact auditors, but my net result remains what I said on several occasions, including in my letter to the president, is that they should install or be silent in court. Enough social media. Go present proof that you have in court. This is where we resolve these questions. This is where people testify under oath. And I will emphasize once again that the judge of the American district court in this case, judge Xinis, said that the Trump administration had provided “no evidence connecting Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or to any terrorist activity”. Quite enough on social networks, get or shut up in court.
