U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego said President Donald Trump has set a political “trap” for Democrats with his controversial deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador. In an interview with the Arizona Daily Star, Gallego also said he maintains qualified support for sending migrants to El Salvador, “if they are dangerous.”
Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, took his seat in the Senate at the same time the Republican president began his second term, and developments on immigration policy have exploded since.
That issue is of particular interest to Gallego, who staked out positions on immigration and the border during his 2024 campaign that allowed him to win battleground Arizona in November, with significant Latino voter support, at the same time Trump prevailed in the state.
Among the developments since the January inauguration:
— The Trump administration sent nearly 200 alleged gang members, mostly Venezuelans, to U.S. military base Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, without offering evidence of the alleged gang affiliations. This month the U.S. also paid El Salvador $6 million to incarcerate, in a notorious prison known for human rights abuses, hundreds of alleged gang members who were detained in the U.S. Some deportees’ attorneys and family, in sworn declarations filed Wednesday, vehemently denied the allegations.
Among the Venezuelans sent to El Salvador: Former professional soccer player Jerce Reyes Barrios, who was tortured by the Maduro regime before fleeing to the U.S. last year, and legally entering the country at a port of entry to request asylum, his attorney said. He hasn’t been heard from since he was sent to El Salvador, weeks before his final asylum hearing, scheduled for April. The Department of Homeland Security incorrectly cited his tattoo of a crown on a soccer ball, and a social media post of him making a “rock and roll” hand gesture, as evidence of his supposed gang affiliation, his attorney said.
— The Trump administration invoked the war-time Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua to justify lack of due process for Venezuelans deported to El Salvador. Legal experts say the war-time authority cannot be used during peacetime. A federal judge is looking into whether the Trump administration defied the judge’s order to halt the deportations to El Salvador under the wartime law, setting up a possible constitutional crisis. The administration is also resisting the judge’s demands for information on the deportations, the Associated Press reported.
— With Gallego as a Senate co-sponsor, Congress passed the Laken Riley Act, named for the Georgia nursing school student killed by an undocumented Venezuelan man last year. The legislation mandates federal detention of undocumented immigrants accused of theft-related crimes such as shoplifting, even without a conviction or formal charges. Aside from the due process concerns, legal experts say it also give states “unprecedented” authority to sue the federal government over immigration policy. Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly also supported the legislation, which Trump signed into law.
Because Gallego is new to the Senate, and has received a national platform through interviews focused in part on immigration policy, the Star wanted to hear from him on the issue.
The Star was given about 10 minutes with Gallego on the phone Wednesday, as he traveled from Nogales to Phoenix, where he said he planned to attend his son’s Little League game.
Sen. Ruben Gallego
Q. In a February interview with the New York Times, you said you supported sending migrants to Guantánamo Bay and prisons in El Salvador if they get due process. Since then, we’ve seen ICE under Trump is not just targeting criminals; it’s also targeting noncriminals and even people with legal status. We see the Alien Enemies Act invoked to send migrants to El Salvador without due process. And reportedly, even legal asylum seekers have been sent to Guantánamo and El Salvador. Considering how ICE is actually carrying this out on the ground, do you still support deportation flights to Guantánamo and El Salvador?
A. Not if, again, you don’t have due process. Look, I do think there are some very dangerous criminal illegal immigrants that are in this country, some of them that did abuse the asylum system, that we should deport. And since we can’t get them to their home countries, if there is somewhere else that we can take them that will hold them for us and/or help us transfer them back to their home country, then we should look at it. But of course, they do have to have due process, so we actually can understand who we’re actually sending, so we’re not accidentally sending innocent people and we’re also not targeting people that have a legal right to be here, such as green card holders.
Q. But based on what we’re seeing, in terms of this current ICE and administration, can we trust that they are employing that due process?
A. No, no, no, I don’t think we can trust. But I think, this is where I think there’s a big mistake that’s being done on the part of the administration. We, a couple of senators, did try to push Republicans about trying to come up with a sane border-security compromise plan. Part of it would make sure that we hired thousands and thousands of judges so they could actually have both quick decisions but also due process for those that are coming through.
Q. So since we’re not seeing that due process happening, and people’s families are saying, “He’s not a gang member, he just has a tattoo,” since that is actively happening, does that mean you don’t support carrying out those flights to those places where they’d be in legal limbo? Is that fair to say?
A. It’s fair to say. It’s like, look, I think a lot of people are getting caught up in the idea that, ‘Oh, we’re sending these people away.’ I would be absolutely fine with sending some really hard-core criminals out of this country because (otherwise) they will absolutely be released in some of the neighborhoods, like the neighborhood I live in, for example. But we have to do it in a way that it has due process, so that way we know that we’re not sending innocent people away with these criminals.
Q. Is that a change from your stance on this a month ago?
A. No, I don’t think it’s a change. Again, in my interview (with the New York Times) I said with due process, these people should go. Again, I’m not against sending them to El Salvador or to Guantanamo, wherever it is, if they are criminals and if they are dangerous, because I don’t want them released into our neighborhoods.
Q. Is there anything the Democrats can or should do to ensure that innocent people aren’t being sent there? What’s the game plan to respond to this current reality?
A. I honestly don’t know if there is much of anything we can do. I think this is now a matter for the courts. But I do think it’s important for us to highlight where we know that there are real abuses that we can make sure that we’re not falling into the trap. Look, what Donald Trump did was set up a trap for Democrats to run into because, of the 500 they sent there, I’m sure 200 of them are actually hard-core criminals. Now, are we going to go run to the podium and defend and try to get those people back? No, absolutely not. What we should be highlighting are those mothers that have children being deported arbitrarily without any due process. We should be talking about the local businessman who got picked up and got their legal permanent residency rejected. Where possible, and this is what I was hoping to do by working in the CR (continuing resolution on the federal budget), we should also figure out how we can direct the budget, ensure they’re only going and targeting the worst of the worst, as well as the people that are essentially the people that have already finished their deportation processes and appeals, instead of giving them (carte blanche) to just go after whoever they want.
… If you give an unlimited amount for deportations, they’re going to use it to deport as many people as possible, including people that maybe have a justifiable reason for staying here, or a humanitarian reason for staying here. I don’t think you should be separating families, even if someone is in this country in an undocumented way. But when you’re giving a lot of money to ICE, they’re going to use it.
Q. We lost phone connection for a few seconds, but I think you said the CR should have included guarantees that deportation funding will be used only for people with proven criminal histories.
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. On that subject, what are your thoughts on Sen. Chuck Schumer voting to advance that CR? Do you think he should continue as Senate minority leader after his vote?
A. I think we’re all unified in working together. I spoke to him today about what he feels he learned from that experience and how he and I need to interact because I made it very clear that I’m not gonna be pit up against Arizona needs and values, and that CR cuts a lot of investments from Arizona that I would not have ever been supportive of, and going into the future he’s gonna know my intentions a lot sooner. I think the way he communicated his intentions with me was that he understood that and he is going to take a very different tactic the second time this comes around in six months.
(Democrats have been divided over Schumer’s vote to advance the Republican-authored continuing resolution, or CR, which funds federal agencies through September. Schumer said he wanted to avoid a government shutdown which he said could empower the executive branch to shut down “non-essential” agencies. Democrats said he squandered an opportunity to push back on Trump and Elon Musk’s mass firings and budget cuts, and Republicans’ immigration agenda.)
Q. Returning to the deportation flight issue: Given the administration’s apparent violation of a court order to stop deportation flights to El Salvador, do you think we’re in a constitutional crisis?
A. I don’t know the specifics about the court order, the timing, or anything else like that, so I don’t know if we’re in a constitutional crisis regarding that. We are, I think, in a constitutional crisis in other areas, for sure. I think it was irresponsible and illegal, the fact that they cut the Department of Education, something that we have fully funded, was created by an act of Congress. The President does not have the right to get rid of something like this. There are other examples of that that I think are a constitutional crisis that hopefully the Supreme Court sides with us, or the American public gets to have their votes in a couple years.
Q. A lot of people I’ve talked to were disappointed by your support of the Laken Riley Act. Was your support for that legislation in part to show a willingness to compromise with Republicans, or do you really support the specific provisions in that legislation?
A. I think there are examples where we could have used Laken Riley to stop some really horrible people that were released to the communities, not just obviously in Georgia but in other parts of the country. I think the fear that was created by some groups was overblown, when it comes to the fact that they said Laken Riley was going to be abused to the point where, as I was getting protested, that it was gonna add 100,000 ICE beds and all this stuff that has not happened, by the way; Laken Riley has already been signed for a month. And there is just going to be a lot of things that we’re gonna end up fighting. And some of them we’re going to end up fighting that I think people are going to understand my perspective, and there are some things I’m just not gonna die on a hill on, because when 80% of America understands that this is something that’s very helpful in some instances to protect our neighborhoods, we should make sure that tool is available.
