Mother of Rachel Morin, killed by illegal migrant, answers whether she'd talk to Sen. Chris Van Hollen
While Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador to pay a visit to a deported illegal alien, a grieving mother said she's never been contacted by the Maryland lawmaker after an illegal immigrant murdered her daughter.
Patty Morin, the mother of Rachel Morin, spoke out against Van Hollen's visit, grilling the Maryland senator for going to El Salvador "to advocate for a criminal" instead of advocating for "victims of horrific, brutal crimes by illegal immigrants," including her daughter.
"It just shows his character. You know a man by the words that he speaks, but also by his actions or lack of actions," Patty Morin said Friday on "The Ingraham Angle."
Although it's been over a year since Rachel Morin was murdered, her mother claimed she's had "no interaction" with Van Hollen. She remains open to taking a call from the Maryland senator.
"I would be gracious and take the call. I don't know that it would make a difference," Patty Morin told Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo. "I think if he did make the effort to call, it would just be, like, a political stunt to say he did it."
Trump Calls Sen. Van Hollen A 'Fool' After Meeting With Deported Ms-13 Suspect In El Salvador
Read On The Fox News App
Van Hollen released the following statement Tuesday regarding the conviction of Rachel Morin's killer:
"While the conviction of Rachel Morin's killer will not return Rachel to her family where she rightfully belongs, this verdict brings a measure of justice that they so deserve. I'm grateful to the law enforcement officers who brought her killer into custody and for our legal process for delivering this justice. As I have said in the past, the American people deserve meaningful action to reform our broken immigration system, improve public safety, and strengthen our border security. We can do this while also supporting our immigrant communities and respecting the rights of individuals who are here legally — I am committed to doing both, and I will continue pressing my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move forward on this issue."
Van Hollen flew to El Salvador this week to meet with deported illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and his request was finally granted on Thursday.
"I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar," Van Hollen said in a post on X, formerly Twitter. "Tonight I had that chance. I have called his wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return."
Rachel Morin's Mother Tearfully Begs Media To 'Tell The Truth' About Criminal Illegal Immigrants
Garcia, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant living in Maryland, was deported to the El Salvadoran megaprison "Terrorism Confinement Center" (CECOT) in March.
Officials acknowledged in court his deportation was an administrative error, although now some top Trump officials say he was correctly removed and contend he's a member of the notorious MS-13 gang.
Both a federal district court and the U.S. Supreme Court have ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" his release and return to the United States for proper deportation proceedings.
Newly-released documents from the Trump administration also revealed domestic violence allegations against Garcia.
On Wednesday, his wife Jennifer Vasquez Sura put out a statement addressing the domestic violence allegations:
"After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution following a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order, in case things escalated. Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process. We were able to work through the situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling."
Patty Morin criticized Van Hollen for using her "taxpayer money to fly to El Salvador to advocate for a criminal."
"A criminal, as in he's here illegally, so he's already broken federal law about being in the country illegally," she continued.
Van Hollen's office did not reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment as of press time. It also did not answer whether Van Hollen would call Patty Morin or clarify who funded the senator's trip to El Salvador.
Fox News Digital's Greg Wehner, Alexa Moutevelis and Alexander Hall contributed to this report.Original article source: Mother of Rachel Morin, killed by illegal migrant, answers whether she'd talk to Sen. Chris Van Hollen
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘He knows where to find me,' Gov. Newsom responds to Trump administration arrest threat
California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to threats over the weekend by the Trump administration that he could be arrested if he interferes with ICE arrests of undocumented immigrants. 'He's a tough guy, why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me,' Newsom said during an interview with MSNBC News on Sunday. The governor also issued some strong statements toward the president and his administration's crackdown on immigration. 'But, you know what? Lay your hands off 4-year-old girls that are trying to get educated. Lay your hands off these poor people that are just trying to live their lives, man. Trying to live their lives, paying their taxes … been here 10 years,' Newsom said. The governor's comments come in response to threats by Trump's 'border czar,' Tom Homan, to arrest anyone who obstructs the immigration enforcement effort, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, NBC News reported. 'I'll say about anybody,' Homan told the television network. 'You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.' For her part, Bass said Homan's comments were unnecessary. 'I spoke to him last night. He understands that I am the mayor of the city; the last thing in the world I'm going to do is get into a brawl with the federal government. So that just made no sense. There was no reason for that comment,' she told NBC News. Newsom and other Democratic leaders have criticized Trump's use of the National Guard in trying to quell anti-ICE immigration protests that turned violent in Los Angeles over the weekend, saying the escalation in force will only lead to further trouble. Newsom also announced plans to sue the Trump administration over the deployment. Meanwhile, Trump has indicated he would be willing to bring in the U.S. Marines if he felt the situation called for it. Trump also backed up Homan's warning to officials, saying they will 'face judges' if they stand in the way. 'Who the hell is this guy? Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with, tough guy,' Newsom responded. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Belgium braces for first F-35 delivery this fall
MILAN — After facing delays, the first F-35A aircraft is expected to arrive in Belgium in the coming months as part of a total order of 34 fighter jets, according to manufacturer Lockheed Martin. In 2018, Belgium selected the American jet and agreed to a €3.6 billion ($4.1 billion) deal for over two dozen of them to be manufactured in the United States. 'Belgium's first F-35 to arrive in country has rolled off the production line and is gearing up for arrival in Belgium this fall,' Lockheed Martin Europe wrote in a social media post on their X platform. Deliveries were initially slated to begin in late 2023, but due to delays in the production of the Joint Strike Fighter program, they were pushed back. In an interview in February with Belgian newspaper Le Soir, Chief of Staff of the Belgian Air Force Gen. Frederik Vansina said the F-35 setbacks also affected the first transfer of the 30 decommissioned F-16s bound for Ukraine. The Belgian F-16s, which have been flying for over 30 years, are intended to be phased out by late 2028 to allow for the delivery of the aging aircraft to Ukraine. The European country currently has over 50 F-16 jets in its arsenal. According to reports from Belgian newspaper De Morgen, Brussels is assessing the possibility of ordering 21 additional F-35s, which, if realized, would bring its total fleet size to 55. The Belgian Ministry of Defense did not respond to a request for comment. Last month, the Belgian Minister of Defense and Foreign Trade Theo Francken said any potential follow-on F-35A purchases could be built in Europe at the final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility in Cameri, Italy.
