Hakeem Jeffries

No, I'm staying.

No, I'm staying.

So I thought it was a powerful decision that was written by the Fourth Circuit building upon the original Supreme Court decision, which in some ways was shocking that it was 9-0 because I never expected to be able to actually count on Thomas and Alito for a somewhat enlightened decision. But it was 9-0. Now there's some vagaries attached to the word facilitate.

So I thought it was a powerful decision that was written by the Fourth Circuit building upon the original Supreme Court decision, which in some ways was shocking that it was 9-0 because I never expected to be able to actually count on Thomas and Alito for a somewhat enlightened decision. But it was 9-0. Now there's some vagaries attached to the word facilitate.

So I thought it was a powerful decision that was written by the Fourth Circuit building upon the original Supreme Court decision, which in some ways was shocking that it was 9-0 because I never expected to be able to actually count on Thomas and Alito for a somewhat enlightened decision. But it was 9-0. Now there's some vagaries attached to the word facilitate.

that may need to be strongly clarified if this goes back up to the Supreme Court. But foundationally, as was said in that Fourth Circuit decision, Liberty is in the DNA of the United States of America. And what's also in the DNA is the notion that here in this country, we don't have a king, we don't have a monarch, we don't have a dictator, we have a democracy.

that may need to be strongly clarified if this goes back up to the Supreme Court. But foundationally, as was said in that Fourth Circuit decision, Liberty is in the DNA of the United States of America. And what's also in the DNA is the notion that here in this country, we don't have a king, we don't have a monarch, we don't have a dictator, we have a democracy.

that may need to be strongly clarified if this goes back up to the Supreme Court. But foundationally, as was said in that Fourth Circuit decision, Liberty is in the DNA of the United States of America. And what's also in the DNA is the notion that here in this country, we don't have a king, we don't have a monarch, we don't have a dictator, we have a democracy.

And a democracy where there are checks and balances, and that's the Congress, and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, of course, aren't adhering to that notion that we work for the American people, not any president. But the courts also has a critically important, you know, check and balance.

And a democracy where there are checks and balances, and that's the Congress, and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, of course, aren't adhering to that notion that we work for the American people, not any president. But the courts also has a critically important, you know, check and balance.

And a democracy where there are checks and balances, and that's the Congress, and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, of course, aren't adhering to that notion that we work for the American people, not any president. But the courts also has a critically important, you know, check and balance.

And so I do think that the administration is trying to push the envelope in terms of a confrontation, which is why I've urged the courts and particularly the Supreme Court, which this is likely to go back up to them, to enforce their order.

And so I do think that the administration is trying to push the envelope in terms of a confrontation, which is why I've urged the courts and particularly the Supreme Court, which this is likely to go back up to them, to enforce their order.

And so I do think that the administration is trying to push the envelope in terms of a confrontation, which is why I've urged the courts and particularly the Supreme Court, which this is likely to go back up to them, to enforce their order.

using the tools that are available, which are contempt, civil contempt or criminal contempt, directed at any of the individuals, the cabinet secretaries or other administration officials who are actually refusing to comply or carrying out unjust or unconstitutional actions.

using the tools that are available, which are contempt, civil contempt or criminal contempt, directed at any of the individuals, the cabinet secretaries or other administration officials who are actually refusing to comply or carrying out unjust or unconstitutional actions.

using the tools that are available, which are contempt, civil contempt or criminal contempt, directed at any of the individuals, the cabinet secretaries or other administration officials who are actually refusing to comply or carrying out unjust or unconstitutional actions.

Well, we definitely have to be clear that We believe that we should have a secure border. That's first and foremost. And I think we've repeatedly endeavored to make that clear throughout this Congress. We have a broken immigration system and it's gotta be fixed, but it should be fixed in a bipartisan and comprehensive way. And we're open to having that discussion in good faith

Well, we definitely have to be clear that We believe that we should have a secure border. That's first and foremost. And I think we've repeatedly endeavored to make that clear throughout this Congress. We have a broken immigration system and it's gotta be fixed, but it should be fixed in a bipartisan and comprehensive way. And we're open to having that discussion in good faith

Well, we definitely have to be clear that We believe that we should have a secure border. That's first and foremost. And I think we've repeatedly endeavored to make that clear throughout this Congress. We have a broken immigration system and it's gotta be fixed, but it should be fixed in a bipartisan and comprehensive way. And we're open to having that discussion in good faith