Respectfully, your framing of this as a “both sides are wrong” situation misses the point. Perhaps liberals are mistaken to rally around the character of Abrego Garcia. But his moral character is not the issue.
It is much more troubling that conservatives are rallying around the position that the Trump administration has taken: they can violate the law and a unanimous Supreme Court order as much as they want, if it is in the name of the cause of border security. That is nothing short of a constitutional crisis.
Hi Sam, thanks for writing. Respectfully, they may miss your point, but the inaccuracies I pointed out were very relevant to *my* point. I agree, as I wrote, that his moral character has no bearing on the correct legal thing to do here. But many of the inaccuracies I was referring to weren’t about his moral character -- they were about Abrego Garcia’s legal status, which is highly relevant to the correct legal thing to do here. Several Democratic lawmakers have claimed that Abrego Garcia was here legally, which is not true. That is an inaccuracy that I think is very important to point out in a case that has received so much public attention -- and that has an important bearing on what should happen next. You may think that inaccuracy pales in the face of the other side’s inaccuracies, but as I wrote, the goal of my piece was to lay out all the facts. Every reader will have a different set of moral considerations that will make them find either Kilmar Abrego Garcia being in the country illegally, or him being in the El Salvador prison he should not have been sent to, more troubling to them.
As for whether the Trump administration has violated a unanimous Supreme Court order, I would say more facts are needed, since the court order was so vague. Judge Xinis is currently reviewing that and, personally, I will wait to see her finding. The Supreme Court did not order anything in specific, which makes it a hard order to violate. I would not be surprised if Xinis, and then SCOTUS, order more specific steps soon, at which point it will be more possible to judge whether the administration is violating a specific order or not. Of course, you are free to disagree, but that’s my view of it.
I'm more curious about the fact that Abrego Garcia was deported into a prison. Is it legal to send someone directly into a prison in another country? I'd argue that if Abrego Garcia were simply deported into El Salvador to walk free, there'd be less of a spotlight on him. The fact that he was sent to prison without charges, crimes, or sentences is the part that concerns me most. Can you speak to the legality of that?
Abrego was wanted in El Salvador for murder, among other charges. The US and El Salvador have had an Extradition Treaty since 1911. We're required by treaty to send him there, whether or not your feelings are hurt.
Do you have any scrap of evidence that Abrego Garcia is wanted for murder? And if that were true, why would El Salvador’s VP state that Abrego Garcia is in jail because America is paying? You’d think if the murder claim were true, the VP would simply cite the crime.
No he was/is not. He faces no criminal charges in El Salvador - unless they've concocted something recently - which is totally possible, because Bukkake does that.
What is your motivation for your brazenly defamatory lie?
Steve Freeman is wanted in Thailand, Laos and Phillipines for more than three dozen child raped - and for running brothels, selling toddlers to sex tourists.
Steve Freeman is wanted by the German government for firebombing at least three synagogues and churches, and for setting fire to a children's hospital. He was filmed laughing maniacally while watching babies burn.
I just want to say how refreshing and rare it is to have an online argument be resolved reasonably. Thank you so much for your open-mindedness and reasonableness.
Abrego Garcia was, in fact, not an “illegal alien”. You cannot obtain a work permit to legally work in the US if you are an “illegal alien”. He is, in effect, a documented alien.
The other thing to consider is this: What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if a Democrat Gov did this? The conservatives would be screaming “WHERE’s THE DUE PROCESS?!” The bottom line is that the reason Kilmar Abrego Garcia has become such a political football is that it sets a BAD PRECEDENT. To further the football metaphor, the refs have called the “touchdown in El Salvador” back for “illegal motion”. Regardless of whatever you think of Abrego Garcia, it’s the right thing to do.
Gabe, I greatly appreciate the thoughtful reply you have made. And to reiterate I think your piece is quite thoughtful as usual. And I always appreciate seeing a fellow St. Louis native make it big time!
The original reason I subscribed to Gabe Fleisher was because I read a piece about him in the “Post-Dispatch.” I continue to subscribe because I enjoy his thoughtful, compelling and non-partisan content.
I like Gabe's observation that his logical best out come would not make for a good "chant". Humor is a great way to comment on the current state of interaction we have with these gray issues!
Both sides are right/wrong on the facts of a specific person’s character are dangerous roads to follow and that is why we favor the rule of law. The government deported him to a country where the courts specifically said they couldn’t and they did it without due process. Actually they sent all of the folks to El Salvador without due process at least as far as we can tell from the available evidence. It is highly unlikely whether all of the deportees are angels without any sins. But in this country every person is absolutely afforded the right to due process. If the government had followed due process, then they would have discovered the error in this case (and probably many others) and could have avoided all of this blowback (or at least most of it). You halfheartedly make the case for the rule of law. But you fail to acknowledge that any disregard for the rule of law puts all vulnerable people and ultimately all of us in danger from a lawless regime. Please revisit Germany in 1939 and similar scapegoating of several categories of people without reference to their character and those resultant impacts. Where do you really expect the destruction of the rule of law to end? Facts matter but all facts must be considered within the guiding framework of due process and the rule of law
A bunch of words to essentially say anyone who advocates for a secure border and legal immigration is a Nazi. You realize this line of argument convinces absolutely no one at this point, don’t you?
Where was the regard for the law when democrats let in 15M illegals in 3 years? What about those laws? You don’t get to create the crisis and then clutch your pearls when someone acts to correct it. Trump was elected to do exactly what he’s doing. It’s a popular policy, actually. Once again Dems are falling into the trap of takinf the wrong side of an 80-20 issue.
You're right that Trump is a populist, because no one with a truly conservative mindset would be defending governmental overreach and allowing elected officials to violate the Constitution.
Can you defend executive disregard for the Constitution as a conservative value? Because I'd have to rethink my relationship to conservatism if that is somehow the conservative ideological position (though I really don't think that it is).
Who hires illegals? How many would be here if they couldn't work? Reagan gave 3 and a half million amnesty, sent a bill to our Reps to fix our immigration laws. So, I'm going to assume that it's still in someones desk drawer, not.
I'll never comprehend why anyone could possibly think that the wealthiest Country in the world is capable of zipping up its own pants and skirts, let alone its citizens get off their TV zombie, asses and get busy hiring decent individuals to Lord over We Peasants. But then, humans have justified pretty much everything once or twice. History, she's a mistress many don't visit often enough.
And how do we *know* Abrego Garcia is a member of a foreign terrorist organization subject to deportation? Stephen Miller's say-so? Pami Bondi's? Donald Trump's? The federal judiciary thinks they haven't established this, and that's all that matters. He should be brought back and due process should ensue. And yes, maybe in the end he indeed gets kicked out of the country. It is sometimes necessary to deport people. It is always necessary to obey the courts and follow the law.
The eagerness of conservatives to eviscerate our constitutional protections (chief among these being the precept that not even government officials are above the law) is truly breathtaking.
Love the detailed history, best job I’ve seen so far.
But I think you are missing the point, which is that the executive branch skipped over the due process required by the Constitution and just sent him to prison without a trial.
All the facts you outline are exactly what would be considered as part of due process—that’s the point of due process!
That’s not truez He was deemed removable by 2 judges 5 years ago. He was legally removable at any point since then. He received his due process. That’s not what’s at issue in this case. It’s that he was sent to El Salvador specifically…ironically home country.
This is an edge case. My question to all of you clutching your pearls over this is ‘what would you do about this?’ Just ignore the fact that we have millions on top of millions of illegal aliens living here? You all created this mess. How do you recommend we fix it?
Removable doesn’t mean sent to a prison without criminal charges. And if you read the case history you’d know that he explicitly was not removable *to the place they sent him.*
Not even the Trump DOJ lawyers argue otherwise. That’s why they say it’s a mistake in all their filings.
I agree to an extent. They should bring Garcia back and then just deport him again. The Trump administration is on solid legal grounds to deport him. Unfortunately for Garcia, both sides have now made him the poster child for their cause.
I just don’t know what the anti-Trump crowd thinks they’re are accomplishing with this. Trump was elected to secure the border (did that in about 2 weeks) and to deport those who have come here illegally. He’s attempting to focus first on violent criminals, as we all agreed was the best approach, but as always, he’s being held up by the courts.
I expect his next move will be to resurrect some archaea civil war era law that lets him deputize civil servants as immigration ‘judges’, and to start deporting in mass, which will be messy for the country, but possibly politically advantageous for Democrats. It’s almost like Democrats are begging him to do this.
All nine SCOTUS justices made very clear in their opinion that he was not provided with his Constitutional right to due process: "[The] proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with 'due process of law,' including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. It must also comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. Federal law governing detention and removal of immigrants continues, of course, to be binding as well....(in order to revoke conditional release, the Government must provide adequate notice and 'promptly' arrange an 'initial informal interview . . . to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation stated in the notification')... In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law."
Apparently you failed 5th grade or ignored the part where the USSC ordered the facilitation of his return. The USSC is NOT the World Supreme Court. It has no jurisdiction over what other countries do with their prisoners. This criminal was on an international terrorist watch list, a transnational organized crime list, a no fly list, and was wanted in El Salvador for a myriad of violent crimes for which he's being tried by El Salvador. Moreover, since 1911, we've had an extradition treaty with El Salvador, so that tresty supercedes your feelings and any judge's feelings. Get over it. You're on the wrong side of history.
Dude, I have more evidence that YOU'RE on the international terrorist watch list, an organized crime list, a no fly list, and are wanted in El Salvador for myriad violent crimes than you have evidence that this guy is.
Maybe you should put a plug in your face-anus, Goebbels.
Do you have any evidence to substantiate those accusations? (Besides the say-so of an administration with a notorious track record for lying? I’m afraid that trump and anyone acting on his orders are, in legal terms, an unreliable witness).
Steve, approx how many people would be coming to the USA, legally or non, if they weren't given jobs by US citizens? My approx, if you're interested, would be nearly none. Reagan, with empathy, gave it his best shot when he gave 3 million amnesty. Unfortunately It went absolutely nowhere thanks to our "Representatives". I get it, I truly do, wages have suffered for 30 plus years. But, its both sides fault. And, to be perfectly honest, it's our own fault. We hire these politicians to do our bidding and then they are bought by money. Our votes, not voices haven't actually counted in decades now. As long as we allow the wealthy to control us, and point at anything as the problem, other than themselves, they'll remain happy all the way to their banks. This isn't about who gets to own who, and until we're a united front it'll remain as is. Trust me, trump doesn't give a shit anymore than the other wealthy people do. Though I'll admit, he puts on a fantastic show full of the same promises to pacify the masses. The "bloat" in the government that a half a trillionaire is attempting to resize is another fantasy too. History shows us these lessons, sadly people aren't a fan of her lessons.
If his gang membership does vacate the order that he not be deported to El Salvador then his "moral character" which is to say his behavior might be the issue that ends up allowing him to be deported. The government should be working hard to bring him back, then work hard to get that question in front of the court.
I don't think MS-13 should be designated a terrorist organization. They don't do what they do to alter politics. Neither do resistance fighters (fighting a battle between two parties in opposition is not the same thing as trying to effect a political change without ever engaging in battle against that party).
But, there should be a designation that functions somewhat like that for gangs, so that gang members could be deported and take their lumps. My point is just that gangs aren't after the same thing as the Weathermen or Kaczynski, and we can't have anyone and everyone being declared "terrorists" just because there is a conflict.
Project much? You're the one with poor comprehension here, and are being pointlessly rude to an ally. You wrote "If his gang membership ..." but no such gang membership has been established.
My standards are that I block anyone who attacks me. Goodbye.
Did you even read the article above? Your response is a specious and ridiculous non-argument. The “crisis” is the utter lack of understanding of the Constitution and the seperate roles of the branches of government, as well as the hysterical circus of clowns like yourself who are *beside themselves* over the idea that violent criminals in the USA illegally might not be able to *stay* in the USA to harm more American citizens. The Executive is tasked with enforcing the laws passed by congress in alignment with the general will of the people and upwards of 90% of Amercans WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE USA ILLEGALLY AND COMMIT CRIMES TO BE DEPORTED. Based on reasonable suspicion of gang activity HE WAS DEPORTABLE FOR SIX YEARS. YOU DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COMMITING CRIMES AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS BUT YOU THINK THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IS A CRIMINAL FOR IMPERFECTLY ENFORCING THE LAW TO *REMOVE* THE CRIMINAL WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED FOR SIX YEARS? With “friends” like you, who needs enemies? Wake up, the government we pay taxes for our entire lives is not supposed to be prioritizing the needs of noncitizen criminals over our citizens, how difficult is that principle to grasp?
"The Executive is tasked with enforcing the laws" -- exactly. The law says he could be deported to any country except El Salvador. The administration screwed that up.
Instead of admitting the mistake and fixing it, they instead took the maximalist argument that "we can deport anyone to anywhere, as long as it's faster than a court can analyze and rule on it."
How about this principle: What if Kilmar Abrego Garcia had simply been deported back to his home country? We wouldn’t be talking about it. We wouldn’t even know his name. But this guy, who’s never been charged with a crime, has been deported to a notorious prison. He MIGHT be a bad guy, he’s apparently no saint, but we’ll never know for sure. 🤷🏼♂️ But wtf, not our problem.
He’s from El Salvador! That IS his home country. And he was ordered removable by 2 judges.
One of them restricted him from being deported to El Salvador due to to an alleged threat to his safety by a rival gang. The administration admits to this ‘clerical’ error.
That’s all this is. No one is being ‘disappeared’ or sent to a gulag. Once again, liberals are overplaying their hand. They can’t stop themselves.
Correct…that is the ‘clerical error’ that the administration admitted to. But the guy is now in Salvadoran custody and they have no interest in releasing him. What do you want Trump to do…send in seal team six to break him out, bring him home, only to then deport him again, this time to some other country?
Did you actually read what I said? He was deported to A PRISON. Has never been charged with a crime. If he had simply been deported back to El Salvador- not prison- we would not even be talking about it. 🤷🏼♂️ THAT is the point.
Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article. You oversimplified the situation in the exact partisan manner that the author accurately critiques.
What is ‘more troubling’ is that democrats first create the issue by allowing 15M illegals to pour over the border and then clutch their pearls when the newly elected president, who was elected largely to right this wrong, actually acts. This was all intentional. You know it…we all know it.
I predict Trump will tire of all the lawfare and ultimately order them all deported. I believe that is what the Democrats are itching for, purely for the political benefit.
We are a country of laws. Come here legally or be deported. Full stop.
We are a country of laws, and the administration is not following those laws. Due process is a constitutional right regardless of criminal history or citizenship status. Full stop.
The administration is following the law. Its actions have been challenged, as every action it takes is (look at the stats), and those challenges are working their way thru the system.
But if we apply our shared logic…that we’re a country of laws that must be abided by, what is your solution to this disaster? Biden’s intentional actions to not enforce our country’s laws created a 10 year backlog of immigration proceedings. That is not acceptable. The country has spoken on that matter.
Emily, how would you remedy it? If you have a better idea, let’s hear it.
We either have a country or we don’t. Citizenship either means something or it doesn’t. I choose the former in both cases. Legal immigration is beautiful and necessary. We should do more of it. Illegal immigration is a federal crime. And we’re a country of laws, right?
The solution is to change the laws if we don’t like them, not to just stop following the laws one party doesn’t like. That’s the whole point of America! 🇺🇸
But the laws don’t need to be changed. We have laws on the books to prevent this. The problem is only one party enforces them.
Illegal immigration is largely under control under Republican administrations and a shit show under Democrats…none nearly as bad as what Biden did over the last 4 years.
So, no. We don’t need new laws. We merely need to enforce existing law.
We also need to reign in activist judges. Congress is acting on that.
"Emily, how would you remedy it? If you have a better idea, let’s hear it."
I'm not sure I understand the question you're asking: how would I remedy...illegal immigration? I'd like us to, at the very least, continue to follow due process during deportation proceedings.
How would I remedy Abrego Garcia's specific situation? I don't have an easy answer for that one either, though I remain deeply concerned that the administration is continuing to litigate this as an issue about this one man's specific criminal history, essentially implying that his alleged criminality means he isn't owed due process and that anyone defending him loves criminals more than they love America.
My question was aimed at remedying the fact that ~15M illegal immigrants, mostly fighting age males from all corners of the world along with unaccompanied minors who have been lost to the sex trades. How do you suggest we remedy that situation? No one voted for it…Biden just did it. It was intentional. Along with the economy, Trump got elected to remedy this specific situation.
So I hear all the comments about due process and, in general, I agree. However, we also have this giant mess to clean up precisely because our elected leaders failed to enforce our laws. To many, THAT feels like a giant breach of due process as well.
Trump promised to do this when he was running for president and, largely as a result, he was voted into office in a free and fair election. He vowed to start with criminals/felons, which he’s doing. He’s also enabling immigrants to self-deport and rewarding those who do with the ability to come back, the legal way. But virtue signaling Democrat politicians and liberal judges are resisting, as was expected.
I just don’t know what the anti-Trump crowd expects to accomplish with this. The next step will be to dig up some arcane law/precedent that will allow him to suspend habeas corpus and/or deputize civil servants to adjudicate asylum claims/deportation orders. That is, no doubt, what is coming next.
My cynical intuition tells me this is what the Democrats/resistance crowd are itching for. A draconian measure by Trump that they can use for political gain to ride into the 2026 mid-terms. I just don’t know that it will work this time because this whole effort as been so obviously intentional and political…and it’s hurt people.
Would love to hear an actual solution from a Democrat. A solution that acknowledges we are a country with borders that must be protected/enforced and that these people cannot stay.
Incredibly insightful write up. Very helpful in clarifying the facts but as others have noted, his moral character is not the issue. Yes I know that there are people out there presenting him as father of the year but that's not really what is at stake. It's the fact that the government under the present Administration sent him to the very place he was not supposed to be sent and are now refusing to return him for proper processing. If we uphold the law only when we agree with a person's moral character then there would be a lot less work for defense attorneys. Everyone receives due process or no one receives due process. End of story.
"If we uphold the law only when we agree with a person's moral character then there would be a lot less work for defense attorneys. Everyone receives due process or no one receives due process. End of story."
Seconding this! It may often be messy and inconvenient, but it is essential to our democratic values.
He did receive due process. As an admitted illegal alien his due process came when he filed for relief of deportation under the 3 authorities, asylum, withholding of removal and protection under CAT. The judge denied him asylum and CAT but granted withholding of removal. You may not agree with those rulings (as rulings are often disagreed with) but that was his due process and he was aware that he could be deported at any time. The issue is weather or not the law was broken by deporting him to the country noted in his GRANTED withholding of removal ruling. I frankly don't know, but that's the crux of the issue here. Spouting out quick and easy slogans "Due Process" that the media keeps screaming and not understanding the totality of the situation is and has been the problem for years now.
Marita, you're too kind. It's not arrogance at all. It's what a boy does. A man would be capable of standing with the ability to debate the points. Unfortunately, there are no longer many men or women, we've slowly regressed to a country of boys and girls trying to be cute with playground antics and silly Fox News personalities with a justification for their hippocratic chants du jour. Personal attacks are their "win".
You misunderstand what 'due process' means - his court appearances in 2019 do not suffice as due process for his 2025 deportation, which all nine SCOTUS justices confirmed: "[The] proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with 'due process of law,' including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. It must also comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. Federal law governing detention and removal of immigrants continues, of course, to be binding as well....(in order to revoke conditional release, the Government must provide adequate notice and 'promptly' arrange an 'initial informal interview . . . to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation stated in the notification')... In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law."
Maybe, maybe not. With the torrential amount of misinformation and bad faith activities executed daily by the administration amplification by Fox News and the like…. daily…..would you really expect an average or even above average citizen to have a precise and nuanced understanding?
In a broader sense this case is a representation of the general violations of the rights of individuals residing in the US in various legal ways.
I might add that the judges/courts do not seem too impressed by the Trump administration antics….
the supposedly key source of evidence is a CI, claiming García is NY gang member, when he never lived in NY… so the unsubstantiated (no other evidence, proof, or even additional information) claims of a single CI can send someone to a foreign prison, never to return (or ever be released, according to El Salvador’s president- i.e., this is a life sentence)
the other ‘evidence’ (and here the scare marks are very much warranted) is the Chicago Bulls attire — this is truly laughable (in the absence of any other substantiated evidence), as Bulls hats, sweatshirts and the like are THE most popular stuff worn, amongst all American sports teams - that is to say, millions of people wear this stuff, and the fact that some gang members supposedly wear this stuff too thus means pretty close to nothing
also, I have to say the police report from his original arrest/detention is shockingly weak wrt any evidence, any reason to detain this person
also, about the hanging out by Home Depot, it should be plain to all that men who are seeking work, who do not have a regular job and are looking to be hired for a day to work construction, landscaping, whatever, are going to stand by businesses (Home Depot!) where those who looking for workers are likely to frequent, so that behavior is perfectly innocent
and anyway, at the end of the day, as many others have pointed out, absolutely NOTHING about Garcia’s past, his marriage, his clothing, his tattoos, whatever is relevant here with respect to his civil and legal rights, rights that EVERYONE resident in America, regardless of their citizenship, nationality, reason to be here… are entitled to under our constitution — to quote Harry Bosch, everyone matters or no one matters
Oops, a criminal who was IN THE USA ILLEGALLY who is reasonably suspected of being a member of a violent gang, who assaulted his girlfriend and committed multiple other crimes that was SUPPOSED TO BE DEPORTED FOR SIX YEARS GOT SENT BACK TO HIS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. OH MY GOD THE HORROR, are you kidding me? And your issue is “Proper processing” was not followed? What a pack of imbeciles. You obviously care more for violent criminal foreigners than your fellow American citizens. What an embarrassment the lot of you are.
Listen, I have evidence that YOU'RE in the country illegally. ICE comes and scoops you up. You're accused of being a gang member who assaulted your blow-up doll, committed multiple other crimes, and should have been deported six years ago. Prove that none of that is true without due process.
Go on, big mouth. Show us how it should be done.
Lack of "proper processing"? Go fuck yourself, asshat. It's for sure you don't deserve the rights that generations of Americans died trying to ensure you retained.
I'll ask you a question I've posed here several times already. How many illegals are there in the US and how many would be here if they weren't given jobs by US citizens?
Sad. You. Very sad. Pathetic, really. And on Easter, the most sacred of all days, when love for everyone (as Pope Francis had made absolutely clear, there are no exceptions!) should be embraced, this unrestrained hatred feels that much worse.
And YEAH HIS MORAL CHARACTER IS THE ISSUE YOU CLOWN— HE IS A VIOLENT CRIMINAL WHO HAS HARMED AMERICAN CITIZENS — IT IS THE JOB OF THE US GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM BEING HARMED BY FOREIGNERS AND OTHER CITIZENS— NOT TO GO TO ANY LENGTH TO PROTECT SCUMBAGS. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE CRIMINALITY IS A NORMAL PART OF THE CULTURE AND ENJOY YOURSELVES THERE YOU TRAITOROUS LUNATICS. HOW SHAMEFUL.
Also, shouting feelings-based arguments and hurling insults in all caps isn’t as popular on Substack as other platforms. Lay out your position logically with facts and folks will listen.
Deportation is fine. Life in prison without a crime being committed should not happen. Due process is what makes America America. We give due process to heinous criminals and then lock them up. You forget that this isn’t just for citizens. Deportation means to send them back. It doesn’t mean imprisonment for life without a criminal trial. The USA is using violation of immigration/deportation as a means to decide to give someone life in prison without a trial. That is not in the best interests of the USA because we are paying 6 million a year to keep them in the prisons.
“No PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
No PERSON -not citizen.
No one wants violent gang members living in our country, but we have laws that need to be adhered to, or innocent people could be imprisoned in some hellhole
If you know he was a violent criminal, please present the evidence to the DOJ so they can convict him. Because Bondi’s documents that were released showed no criminal record.
And he wasn’t charged with anything or convicted of anything. He was just taken and sent to a place where specifically he couldn’t be sent back to, according to a court order. Multiple people in the Trump administration admitted in court that they had made an error. SCOTUS agreed.
If this man is such a threat, then he could be prosecuted and if the facts are there to prove your point he would be put in jail for these supposed criminal acts. In America we go by Innocent until proven guilty.
Your points are well-known and irrelevant. Trying to "both sides" this is wrong.
I want the government to follow the Constitution. Due process is required for every person in the country, citizen or not. The word of a corrupt cop or his snitch isn't proof of anything. The idea that if everyone keeps repeating something it becomes "evidence" is silly.
Bring every single person back from El Salvador and give each his day in court to prove themselves. If they are found to be criminals or having violated their requirements, then they should be deported back to their home country (or a place allowed by law). No one should be sent to a concentration camp in another country, especially for an undefined period of time. The US shouldn't even be doing the "business" of extrajudicial rendition, let alone with a known dictator. That is lawless and immoral. We have our own prison system for crimes committed here. If no crimes are committed here, deportation (when approved by a US court) should be to their home country, not a third party-country gulag.
If you start allowing the legal process to be ignored or short cut for some, it can be ignored or short cut for everyone. That's a dictatorship and I don't want to live in a country that doesn't follow its own laws.
If any of these men should be deported legitimately, it should be easy for the government to prove it in court as required by our laws and our Constitution. I don't care if they are accused of 50 murders each, follow the law. That is how it works. Nothing else about their life history matters. Prove it in court and use legal remedies.
I'm gonna quote the 4th circuit judge here, "The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the
government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?"
A fair summary, but there is something pretty crucial missing here: the terms and conditions of his confinement at CECOT.
His punishment for entering the country illegally in 2011 and wearing a Bulls hoodie is a life sentence in a Central American killhouse where he’ll never see the sun again?
For real? What the fuck are we doing here?
Under the Due Process Clause, the more serious the punishment, the more process is due. If the punishment is being sent to CECOT indefinitely, I expect to see (to use a legal phrase) a shitload of process, not zero process.
Granted, the facts of Abrego Garcia’s life are messy—but let’s not pretend this is normal or remotely appropriate.
Gabe, this is the clearest presentation of the events/facts of this case I’ve yet seen. Thanks for laying it all out. Still a constitutional crisis imho, but having this level of detail to back up my understanding and any future arguments I might engage in most helpful! Thanks for all you do.
I believer there is a 26th fact. If the order, by a different judge, to turn the planes around, Kilmar would (a) not be in a prison where there was he was not legally allowed to be sent ("admin error"), and (b) he would have his day in court. I have no clue how the court would have ruled but he would have had the due process another supreme court rulings has he had the right to.
Unfortunately, cruelty is part of the plan by the administration.
Hi Corey, that’s not quite true (at least, as far as we know). The case before Judge Boasberg concerned the Alien Enemies Act -- thus, his order was only about planes carrying migrants deported under the Alien Enemies Act. Abrego Garcia was not deported under the Alien Enemies Act and, according to the administration, neither was anyone on his plane to El Salvador. Their plane is the one that left after Boasberg’s written order; the administration has said the order didn’t apply to it because no one deported under the Alien Enemies Act was on board.
Isn't the the one where the administration declared the reason for deportation without due process to be a state secret? Which gives me pause (and you implied). My experience with well over 80% of state secrets when they are finally declassified is the secret is they were embarrassing to the then current administration. Of course, there is no way to know until 10-20 years into the future.
The whole idea of turning anyone over to another state to be imprisoned with no recourse a sickeningly state [situation | there has be a better word].
The disregard for basic legal protections and process by the current administration is terrible. The attempt to read laws to somehow allow what is happening is {I can't find the words} terrible.
Holy c r a p. You only respond to comments you can try to spin. You're such a twit. I'm sure you think you're awesome but there are lots of comments that show me and lots of other commenters you're not.
Thank you for the effort in researching this issue. Clearly a 'muddy' case. However, my biggest concern is that none of the deported people were given due process, a constitutional right afforded to all in this country (not just to citizens). Does it set a dangerous precedent?
The issue at hand is due process, nothing more or less than that. The Trump administration has determined that due process is whatever fits with their agenda. If a person, or a law firm, or a university says or does something that they don't like, then they are clearly guilty of some unstated and unproven crime and should bear some consequence untethered from law. The Garcia case is only one of the many instances where the Trump administration is trampling on the Constitution while claiming that the Constitution is whatever they say it is.
Exactly. When an administration does that unconstitutional behavior and isn't stopped by the legislative or judiciary branches out of fear of what will happen next to them, the nation is a dictatorship. That's where we now are. If SCOTUS or the GOP in Congress wants to reverse that state of affairs, they better act soon, and forcefully.
What about due process for all of the illegal immigrants? Deporting and sending to a foreign prison with no human rights are not the same thing. They all deserved trials before being sent to prison.
Exactly this. Nowhere in this article did you address the following issues: the complete lack of due process for all those sent to CECOT, the trump administration actually paying a foreign country to keep people in a gulag and the trump administration ignoring court orders to turn the planes around and return this individual. I’ll go ahead and add trump’s newest threat, one he gleefully announced, to send “homegrowns” to CECOT. That is a very troubling leap to fascism and all of us being treated as a “homegrown”. He has clearly said he wants to send actual US citizens there. Not adding these issues to this article is dereliction to telling the entire story.
About the rest of these “facts”. They aren’t all solid facts. Facts are based on actual evidence. Some of the 25 points are hearsay. Just because a CI says something doesn’t automatically make it true. You need hard evidence to call it a fact. Anything the cop who was suspended for selling info to a sex worker said is automatically tainted and should be thrown out. There are a fair amount of holes in your listing of “25 facts”. Quoting Newsnation as a legitimate source is troubling.
This is not up to the standard of your usual reporting.
This case and the cases of all those now residing in CECOT thanks to Rubio, Holman, trump & Noem should be returned immediately to the US and handled by our immigration laws and by judges who are not in trump’s pocket. Each piece of evidence needs to be properly assessed, not decided on the fly or on someone’s whim or based on the choice of a baseball hat. Actual facts need to be looked at as well as the behavior of the immigrant while in the United States and then a decision of status made.
What the author cited as evidence to tie him to the gang isn’t sufficient for me. He didn’t live in New York, and they argued he was part of the gang in NY. Anyone could wear a Chicago Bulls hat. Heck, is liking Michael Jordan now credible to tie people to MS-13? Ridiculous. I guess the DA was a Knicks fan. “Deport the Chicago Bulls fan base!”
In strenuous defense of Gabe, his reporting did not begin using the both-sides or weak evidence approach until recently. He was objective, to the point and his work was well researched and based on verifiable fact. He added seriousness or wit to his work. You could tell it was his writing without seeing his name on it.
“…extreme amoral intellectually dishonest…” is quite the harsh description/insult. I don’t see that.
I do think his writing is changing and in the direction it is going, is no longer for me. I miss his “old” work (it’s hardly old as he was developing it in his last year at school). If he has decided to use the both-sides approach and/or to insert his personal politics into his work he can do that. Many journalists do. It is up to the readers to decide if that work is where we want to spend our time and money.
It saddens me greatly that I have to conclude WUTP is no longer a news source that I can support. There are certainly bits and pieces of it that are still helpful but not enough to stay as a regular, daily reader. I have followed WUTP since Gabe was in junior high. With our mainstream media failing horribly (since 2015 and worsening with each year) we have to pick and choose where to obtain the news and analysis of that news, especially since so many news sites now require a subscription. If WUTP no longer works for me, and right now it does not, I’m not going to insult Gabe and stomp off. As I said, he has every right to write as he sees fit. If I don’t agree with his approach then it’s simply time for me to go. No insults needed.
I've followed him since he started his newsletter. It's always been bothsidesing, with this absurd notion that he inherited from the MSM that there are two teams, the liberals/Democrats and the conservatives/Republicans. I called him out on this nonsense repeatedly but he always rationalized away any criticism and would tell me that if I don't like what he writes then I can unsubscribe. You say he "has every right"--I disagree ... people do not have a *moral* right to be dishonest and to dismiss valid criticism.
As for the amorality .... you will never find anything he writes in which he shows any inkling that he *cares* about anything. He thinks (and many of his followers think) that this is being "objective" ... it's not. Speaking of which, "He was objective, to the point and his work was well researched and based on verifiable fact" -- he hasn't changed that here. The problem is that, because he doesn't care, he completely omits relevant "political" facts like that Trump and the GOP are dangerous democracy-destroying autocrats, that they are ignoring the courts, that they are violating due process over and over. And because he doesn't care about anything but being "balanced" in the absurd way that the MSM promotes, he equates huge things on the fascist side with little things on the non-fascist side, and he totally misidentifies those sides as "liberal" and "conservative".
As for "insults" -- I simply presented an honest and I believe factual appraisal based on evidence gathered over a long perion: "This is very much Gabe's standard adherence to extreme amoral intellectually dishonest bothsidesing". I stand by that.
Thank you for your detailed reply. We are not going to agree and that is okay. As such, it would be a waste of my time to reiterate what I’ve already said or to add followup evidence of my take on the recent chances in Gabe’s work so I won’t.
I do have a serious question for you. If you believe Gabe to be an “extreme amoral intellectually dishonest” person/journalist who has engaged in “bothsidesing” since he was in grade school - you did say “I’ve followed him since he started his newsletter” - why on earth do you continue to follow him and to read his work?
From grade school through junior high, high school, college and now into being a professional journalist you have followed him even though you hold him and his work in seriously poor regard. Since you feel so strongly about him and his work - and have for about 15 years - why on earth don’t you just unsubscribe?
Not doing so indicates there is something you believe you gain from following someone since they were about 12 years old and constantly trying to convince them that your opinions about them and their work are right. This is not only obsessive behavior but also deeply troubling.
I hope you are able to let go of this obsession and find healthier ways to consume the news and engage in communication about it.
Thank you for rounding up the facts. However, some of what you write, while technically true, is not rigorous:
1) "...but evidence does exist to tie him to the gang." The evidence is a statement of a confidential informant, an observed conversation with other gang members, and the wearing of a hat that is popular among gang members. The first of the 3 has questionable credibility, to put it charitably, and is lacking since there's no other activity that corroborates the accusation. The latter 2 do not even meet the criteria of circumstantial evidence: how many non-Gang members have conversation with Gang members, and how many of those wear Chicago Bulls hats? Literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions!
2) The idea that it is difficult for the administration to find a third country to deport him to is quite weak. They could call Sheinbaum's lieutenants and have it arranged by 3 pm today. C'mon! The issue is:
a) They really don't want to do the work. As Matt Glassmann wrote very informatively, Obama was 'successful' in his deportations because of all the collaborative work that his administration executed with local authorities. The entire Boasberg fiasco is illustrative of their desire to choose the crudest and most legally dubious option, since that's what's easiest.
b) ANY departure from a) is seen as 'weak' by Trump, so doing even the simplest and easiest thing, e.g. Sheinbaum, is viewed as a concession.
Hi Alex, thanks for writing. I do think it’s fair to describe the statement of the confidential informant as evidence existing that ties him to the gang. Obviously, that doesn’t mean he *is* a member of the gang, but I don’t think it’s a non-rigorous way to describe the facts, especially since an immigration judge used it to say the “evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13” (taking it one step farther). Of course, you can disagree with the judge (or with me), but I do think it’s a fair description.
As for your second point, I do think you’re underrating the diplomatic complications that go along with inducing a country to accept someone who isn’t a citizen of theirs (especially someone who is an alleged gang member). It’s true that Sheinbaum has done this in certain instances, but her relationship with Trump is shaky at best, and I wouldn’t bet on her agreeing her, especially in such a high-profile instance. I agree with you that Trump doesn’t even want to try to see if that would work because he views it as a concession -- but I’m not sure it would be easy, in practice, as you say. (Which, of course, doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be trying.)
Calling an unverified allegation "evidence" is a big logical gap. A common complaint here is that due process is required to to categorize this as "evidence." You have assumed the allegation is credible in order to categorize it as evidence, substituting your interpretation for due process. Motivated reasoning may be playing a critical role here, because if you were to agree that this assumption is inappropriate, your "both sides" characterization would completely fall apart.
He does this all the time ... he is deeply intellectually dishonest, utterly amoral (you will never find a trace of *caring* in anything he writes), and devoted to an obsolete broken model of "balanced" horserace partisan vs. partisan journalism in which there are precisely two sides, "liberal" and "conservative" ... which is absurd nonsense.
Good point on 1) gang member. I find it ludicrous that a judge deemed it sufficient evidence to make that conclusion, but you are correct that it invalidates my criticism. I concede you were fair in your initial characterization.
2) "Shaky at best" is an interesting description - he seems to really like her, and she's made significant concessions on the border patrol topic. I'd be curious why you think that. But you're right that there's more to it than a simple phone call, though Milei would probably also be agreeable to it.
"I do think it’s fair to describe the statement of the confidential informant as evidence existing that ties him to the gang. "
You think that because you're amoral and intellectually dishonest. There's evidence that you're a serial murderer and a child rapist ... here, I have it written on a piece of paper.
1)You're conflating Gabe's characterization of judicial conclusions with your interpretation of hia views, which we don't actually know.
2) You describing a person whom you've likely never met, and whose newsletter you choose to read as "utterly immoral," is pathetically juvenile. Debate the argument, not the person.
3) There's a plethora of content online that avoid the "non-partisan" model and write with unequivocal mobilizing. You're far better off subscribing to that content, because your comments here will have zero effect on Gabe's efforts or publishing.
Ah, intellectually dishonest like him ... lots of projection and evasion there. It's remarkable how many assumptions you made about me from just a few words that justified none of what you wrote.
"pathetically juvenile. Debate the argument, not the person."
Your hypocrisy is hilarious.
"You're far better off subscribing to that content"
As if I don't.
"because your comments here will have zero effect on Gabe's efforts or publishing"
To right the wrong would require 45/7 admitting wrong. He learned well from Roy Cohn, Never back down. Never apologize. Never admit defeat. And attack your accusers with maximum force.
I feel that this post falls short of a proper discussion of the case, because there surely is a huge difference between being deported, and being sent to a maximum security prison indefinitely with no trial.
Excellent overview. The crux of the issue remains that the government is taking people into custody without due process, sometimes even breaking car windows, and send folks across state lines or international borders, without any opportunity to defend themselves. That is the real problem.
Who or what Mr. Abrego Garcia is -- or what he may or may not have done is absolutely immaterial.
You, Gabe Fleisher, have fallen down the obfuscation rabbit hole if you try to frame this situation based on the character and/or actions of the person involved.
Every person who may happen to be in this country -- regardless of how that person came to be here OR how long that person has been here -- is entitled to due process under the rule of law. Every. Person. Full stop.
If the most egregious, heinous, despicable human being in all of human history is not protected by our constitutionally defined rule of law and due process, than no person in this country -- citizen or non-citizen -- will have that protection.
Gabe provided all the facts and relevant information he could find. MSNBC and Fox, etc., are the ones "framing" the narrative by either hiding/deleting information OR just doing an overall crap job to provide propaganda for their audiences. A lot of people only want simple stories without nuance which fit their own perspective and don't challenge them too much.
The rule of law says due process. It ought to be enforced. All the deportations without due process are setting a dangerous precedent. As an aside I listened as the president of the U.S. told the El Salvadoran president that he should build lots more prisons for those who will be deported from the U.S.
He plans to use those gulags for anyone who disagrees with what he and his corrupt administration are doing. We are past the constitutional crisis point and should be very alarmed by the intended actions against us all.
Respectfully, your framing of this as a “both sides are wrong” situation misses the point. Perhaps liberals are mistaken to rally around the character of Abrego Garcia. But his moral character is not the issue.
It is much more troubling that conservatives are rallying around the position that the Trump administration has taken: they can violate the law and a unanimous Supreme Court order as much as they want, if it is in the name of the cause of border security. That is nothing short of a constitutional crisis.
Hi Sam, thanks for writing. Respectfully, they may miss your point, but the inaccuracies I pointed out were very relevant to *my* point. I agree, as I wrote, that his moral character has no bearing on the correct legal thing to do here. But many of the inaccuracies I was referring to weren’t about his moral character -- they were about Abrego Garcia’s legal status, which is highly relevant to the correct legal thing to do here. Several Democratic lawmakers have claimed that Abrego Garcia was here legally, which is not true. That is an inaccuracy that I think is very important to point out in a case that has received so much public attention -- and that has an important bearing on what should happen next. You may think that inaccuracy pales in the face of the other side’s inaccuracies, but as I wrote, the goal of my piece was to lay out all the facts. Every reader will have a different set of moral considerations that will make them find either Kilmar Abrego Garcia being in the country illegally, or him being in the El Salvador prison he should not have been sent to, more troubling to them.
As for whether the Trump administration has violated a unanimous Supreme Court order, I would say more facts are needed, since the court order was so vague. Judge Xinis is currently reviewing that and, personally, I will wait to see her finding. The Supreme Court did not order anything in specific, which makes it a hard order to violate. I would not be surprised if Xinis, and then SCOTUS, order more specific steps soon, at which point it will be more possible to judge whether the administration is violating a specific order or not. Of course, you are free to disagree, but that’s my view of it.
I'm more curious about the fact that Abrego Garcia was deported into a prison. Is it legal to send someone directly into a prison in another country? I'd argue that if Abrego Garcia were simply deported into El Salvador to walk free, there'd be less of a spotlight on him. The fact that he was sent to prison without charges, crimes, or sentences is the part that concerns me most. Can you speak to the legality of that?
He won't. Gabe left his morality behind long ago.
Abrego was wanted in El Salvador for murder, among other charges. The US and El Salvador have had an Extradition Treaty since 1911. We're required by treaty to send him there, whether or not your feelings are hurt.
Do you have any scrap of evidence that Abrego Garcia is wanted for murder? And if that were true, why would El Salvador’s VP state that Abrego Garcia is in jail because America is paying? You’d think if the murder claim were true, the VP would simply cite the crime.
The court documents released by the AG Pam Bondi clearly state that Abrego Garcia has no criminal history.
No convictions does not mean no criminal history.
In the eyes of the law it is the only thing that matters.
No he was/is not. He faces no criminal charges in El Salvador - unless they've concocted something recently - which is totally possible, because Bukkake does that.
What is your motivation for your brazenly defamatory lie?
He's a right winger ... it's what they do.
Liar.
Steve Freeman is wanted in Thailand, Laos and Phillipines for more than three dozen child raped - and for running brothels, selling toddlers to sex tourists.
Steve Freeman: Please stop spreading Propaganda as El Salvador stated that he did NOT have a criminal record /history!
Your PROPAGANDA ECHO CHAMBER for the Felon in the White House is NOT wanted!
Steve Freeman is wanted by the German government for firebombing at least three synagogues and churches, and for setting fire to a children's hospital. He was filmed laughing maniacally while watching babies burn.
Right wingers lie incessantly.
💯
He's a Salvadoran citizen. El Salvador has jurisdiction over him to act according to their laws, not ours.
Then why did the El Salvadoran VP say the reason Abrego Garcia is in prison is because the U.S. is paying for him to be there?
Okay, perhaps you're right. Thanks for the correction.
I just want to say how refreshing and rare it is to have an online argument be resolved reasonably. Thank you so much for your open-mindedness and reasonableness.
Abrego Garcia was, in fact, not an “illegal alien”. You cannot obtain a work permit to legally work in the US if you are an “illegal alien”. He is, in effect, a documented alien.
The other thing to consider is this: What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if a Democrat Gov did this? The conservatives would be screaming “WHERE’s THE DUE PROCESS?!” The bottom line is that the reason Kilmar Abrego Garcia has become such a political football is that it sets a BAD PRECEDENT. To further the football metaphor, the refs have called the “touchdown in El Salvador” back for “illegal motion”. Regardless of whatever you think of Abrego Garcia, it’s the right thing to do.
Gabe, I greatly appreciate the thoughtful reply you have made. And to reiterate I think your piece is quite thoughtful as usual. And I always appreciate seeing a fellow St. Louis native make it big time!
The original reason I subscribed to Gabe Fleisher was because I read a piece about him in the “Post-Dispatch.” I continue to subscribe because I enjoy his thoughtful, compelling and non-partisan content.
I like Gabe's observation that his logical best out come would not make for a good "chant". Humor is a great way to comment on the current state of interaction we have with these gray issues!
AP says Mr Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have said in court filings that Homeland Security issued him with a work permit. You make no mention of this.
"the correct legal thing to do here"
ISN'T FASCISM. It isn't sending him to an El Salvador prison where the only way to leave is "in a coffin", according El Salvador's own officials.
"Several Democratic lawmakers have claimed that Abrego Garcia was here legally, which is not true."
This is pedantic BS. He was here by a judge's order.
Mr Abrego Garcia’s
Maybe next time shut the duck up.
Both sides are right/wrong on the facts of a specific person’s character are dangerous roads to follow and that is why we favor the rule of law. The government deported him to a country where the courts specifically said they couldn’t and they did it without due process. Actually they sent all of the folks to El Salvador without due process at least as far as we can tell from the available evidence. It is highly unlikely whether all of the deportees are angels without any sins. But in this country every person is absolutely afforded the right to due process. If the government had followed due process, then they would have discovered the error in this case (and probably many others) and could have avoided all of this blowback (or at least most of it). You halfheartedly make the case for the rule of law. But you fail to acknowledge that any disregard for the rule of law puts all vulnerable people and ultimately all of us in danger from a lawless regime. Please revisit Germany in 1939 and similar scapegoating of several categories of people without reference to their character and those resultant impacts. Where do you really expect the destruction of the rule of law to end? Facts matter but all facts must be considered within the guiding framework of due process and the rule of law
A bunch of words to essentially say anyone who advocates for a secure border and legal immigration is a Nazi. You realize this line of argument convinces absolutely no one at this point, don’t you?
Where was the regard for the law when democrats let in 15M illegals in 3 years? What about those laws? You don’t get to create the crisis and then clutch your pearls when someone acts to correct it. Trump was elected to do exactly what he’s doing. It’s a popular policy, actually. Once again Dems are falling into the trap of takinf the wrong side of an 80-20 issue.
You're right that Trump is a populist, because no one with a truly conservative mindset would be defending governmental overreach and allowing elected officials to violate the Constitution.
Are you a conservative? Honest question.
Are YOU a conservative? Honest question.
Where could I go to get a good idea of just what a Conservative believes in?
Why would that be relevant? Honest question.
Can you defend executive disregard for the Constitution as a conservative value? Because I'd have to rethink my relationship to conservatism if that is somehow the conservative ideological position (though I really don't think that it is).
Dishonest right wing garbage. But I repeat myself.
Who hires illegals? How many would be here if they couldn't work? Reagan gave 3 and a half million amnesty, sent a bill to our Reps to fix our immigration laws. So, I'm going to assume that it's still in someones desk drawer, not.
I'll never comprehend why anyone could possibly think that the wealthiest Country in the world is capable of zipping up its own pants and skirts, let alone its citizens get off their TV zombie, asses and get busy hiring decent individuals to Lord over We Peasants. But then, humans have justified pretty much everything once or twice. History, she's a mistress many don't visit often enough.
Please explain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man?wprov=sfla1
they're FTOs. They dont get due process. There's a whole law about it passed by congress.
And how do we *know* Abrego Garcia is a member of a foreign terrorist organization subject to deportation? Stephen Miller's say-so? Pami Bondi's? Donald Trump's? The federal judiciary thinks they haven't established this, and that's all that matters. He should be brought back and due process should ensue. And yes, maybe in the end he indeed gets kicked out of the country. It is sometimes necessary to deport people. It is always necessary to obey the courts and follow the law.
The eagerness of conservatives to eviscerate our constitutional protections (chief among these being the precept that not even government officials are above the law) is truly breathtaking.
2 judges said so over 5 years ago. And they deemed him removeable. He could habe been deported at any time since then.
>2 judges said so over 5 years ago<
What did the SUPREME COURT say last week?
Provide the link to those court documents, please.
Sure, here you go
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.1_2.pdf
And here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.2_3.pdf
Steve Freeman was afforded due process during his first 2 baby rape trials (next trial in June).
Complete bullshit.
Stop lying.
The supreme court disagrees with you.
Liar.
Love the detailed history, best job I’ve seen so far.
But I think you are missing the point, which is that the executive branch skipped over the due process required by the Constitution and just sent him to prison without a trial.
All the facts you outline are exactly what would be considered as part of due process—that’s the point of due process!
Exactly!
That’s not truez He was deemed removable by 2 judges 5 years ago. He was legally removable at any point since then. He received his due process. That’s not what’s at issue in this case. It’s that he was sent to El Salvador specifically…ironically home country.
This is an edge case. My question to all of you clutching your pearls over this is ‘what would you do about this?’ Just ignore the fact that we have millions on top of millions of illegal aliens living here? You all created this mess. How do you recommend we fix it?
Lying right wing trash.
Removable doesn’t mean sent to a prison without criminal charges. And if you read the case history you’d know that he explicitly was not removable *to the place they sent him.*
Not even the Trump DOJ lawyers argue otherwise. That’s why they say it’s a mistake in all their filings.
I agree to an extent. They should bring Garcia back and then just deport him again. The Trump administration is on solid legal grounds to deport him. Unfortunately for Garcia, both sides have now made him the poster child for their cause.
I just don’t know what the anti-Trump crowd thinks they’re are accomplishing with this. Trump was elected to secure the border (did that in about 2 weeks) and to deport those who have come here illegally. He’s attempting to focus first on violent criminals, as we all agreed was the best approach, but as always, he’s being held up by the courts.
I expect his next move will be to resurrect some archaea civil war era law that lets him deputize civil servants as immigration ‘judges’, and to start deporting in mass, which will be messy for the country, but possibly politically advantageous for Democrats. It’s almost like Democrats are begging him to do this.
As I stated…this is what’s coming…
https://substack.com/@dcdraino/note/c-111141990?r=b9m8q&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
All nine SCOTUS justices made very clear in their opinion that he was not provided with his Constitutional right to due process: "[The] proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with 'due process of law,' including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. It must also comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. Federal law governing detention and removal of immigrants continues, of course, to be binding as well....(in order to revoke conditional release, the Government must provide adequate notice and 'promptly' arrange an 'initial informal interview . . . to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation stated in the notification')... In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
Apparently you failed 5th grade or ignored the part where the USSC ordered the facilitation of his return. The USSC is NOT the World Supreme Court. It has no jurisdiction over what other countries do with their prisoners. This criminal was on an international terrorist watch list, a transnational organized crime list, a no fly list, and was wanted in El Salvador for a myriad of violent crimes for which he's being tried by El Salvador. Moreover, since 1911, we've had an extradition treaty with El Salvador, so that tresty supercedes your feelings and any judge's feelings. Get over it. You're on the wrong side of history.
Thank you Chief Justice Freeman for the opinion.
Dude, I have more evidence that YOU'RE on the international terrorist watch list, an organized crime list, a no fly list, and are wanted in El Salvador for myriad violent crimes than you have evidence that this guy is.
Maybe you should put a plug in your face-anus, Goebbels.
Steve Freeman makes toddler bestiality videos with his mother.
Your mother is on the international whore watch list.
Stop lying, evil bitch.
Steve Freeman produces his own child pornography with many neighbor children.
Steve Freeman eats his pizza with a fork and always parks in the bike lane.
Lying right wing maggot.
Do you have any evidence to substantiate those accusations? (Besides the say-so of an administration with a notorious track record for lying? I’m afraid that trump and anyone acting on his orders are, in legal terms, an unreliable witness).
Steve, approx how many people would be coming to the USA, legally or non, if they weren't given jobs by US citizens? My approx, if you're interested, would be nearly none. Reagan, with empathy, gave it his best shot when he gave 3 million amnesty. Unfortunately It went absolutely nowhere thanks to our "Representatives". I get it, I truly do, wages have suffered for 30 plus years. But, its both sides fault. And, to be perfectly honest, it's our own fault. We hire these politicians to do our bidding and then they are bought by money. Our votes, not voices haven't actually counted in decades now. As long as we allow the wealthy to control us, and point at anything as the problem, other than themselves, they'll remain happy all the way to their banks. This isn't about who gets to own who, and until we're a united front it'll remain as is. Trust me, trump doesn't give a shit anymore than the other wealthy people do. Though I'll admit, he puts on a fantastic show full of the same promises to pacify the masses. The "bloat" in the government that a half a trillionaire is attempting to resize is another fantasy too. History shows us these lessons, sadly people aren't a fan of her lessons.
If his gang membership does vacate the order that he not be deported to El Salvador then his "moral character" which is to say his behavior might be the issue that ends up allowing him to be deported. The government should be working hard to bring him back, then work hard to get that question in front of the court.
I don't think MS-13 should be designated a terrorist organization. They don't do what they do to alter politics. Neither do resistance fighters (fighting a battle between two parties in opposition is not the same thing as trying to effect a political change without ever engaging in battle against that party).
But, there should be a designation that functions somewhat like that for gangs, so that gang members could be deported and take their lumps. My point is just that gangs aren't after the same thing as the Weathermen or Kaczynski, and we can't have anyone and everyone being declared "terrorists" just because there is a conflict.
Point well taken re: moral character. I appreciate this response!
He is not a gang member.
But an unnamed informant told me that you run a major dog fighting operation.
congratulations on your job as an idiot--keep on moving up in life!
Thank you.
He's not a member of MS-13.
Did you read the article and did you read what I said? You know this is a platform for people who can read, right? Meet standards.
Project much? You're the one with poor comprehension here, and are being pointlessly rude to an ally. You wrote "If his gang membership ..." but no such gang membership has been established.
My standards are that I block anyone who attacks me. Goodbye.
Did you even read the article above? Your response is a specious and ridiculous non-argument. The “crisis” is the utter lack of understanding of the Constitution and the seperate roles of the branches of government, as well as the hysterical circus of clowns like yourself who are *beside themselves* over the idea that violent criminals in the USA illegally might not be able to *stay* in the USA to harm more American citizens. The Executive is tasked with enforcing the laws passed by congress in alignment with the general will of the people and upwards of 90% of Amercans WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE USA ILLEGALLY AND COMMIT CRIMES TO BE DEPORTED. Based on reasonable suspicion of gang activity HE WAS DEPORTABLE FOR SIX YEARS. YOU DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COMMITING CRIMES AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS BUT YOU THINK THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IS A CRIMINAL FOR IMPERFECTLY ENFORCING THE LAW TO *REMOVE* THE CRIMINAL WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED FOR SIX YEARS? With “friends” like you, who needs enemies? Wake up, the government we pay taxes for our entire lives is not supposed to be prioritizing the needs of noncitizen criminals over our citizens, how difficult is that principle to grasp?
"The Executive is tasked with enforcing the laws" -- exactly. The law says he could be deported to any country except El Salvador. The administration screwed that up.
Instead of admitting the mistake and fixing it, they instead took the maximalist argument that "we can deport anyone to anywhere, as long as it's faster than a court can analyze and rule on it."
Lying right wing trash.
How about this principle: What if Kilmar Abrego Garcia had simply been deported back to his home country? We wouldn’t be talking about it. We wouldn’t even know his name. But this guy, who’s never been charged with a crime, has been deported to a notorious prison. He MIGHT be a bad guy, he’s apparently no saint, but we’ll never know for sure. 🤷🏼♂️ But wtf, not our problem.
He’s from El Salvador! That IS his home country. And he was ordered removable by 2 judges.
One of them restricted him from being deported to El Salvador due to to an alleged threat to his safety by a rival gang. The administration admits to this ‘clerical’ error.
That’s all this is. No one is being ‘disappeared’ or sent to a gulag. Once again, liberals are overplaying their hand. They can’t stop themselves.
Correct…that is the ‘clerical error’ that the administration admitted to. But the guy is now in Salvadoran custody and they have no interest in releasing him. What do you want Trump to do…send in seal team six to break him out, bring him home, only to then deport him again, this time to some other country?
Disingenuous me some more
Did you actually read what I said? He was deported to A PRISON. Has never been charged with a crime. If he had simply been deported back to El Salvador- not prison- we would not even be talking about it. 🤷🏼♂️ THAT is the point.
Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article. You oversimplified the situation in the exact partisan manner that the author accurately critiques.
What is ‘more troubling’ is that democrats first create the issue by allowing 15M illegals to pour over the border and then clutch their pearls when the newly elected president, who was elected largely to right this wrong, actually acts. This was all intentional. You know it…we all know it.
I predict Trump will tire of all the lawfare and ultimately order them all deported. I believe that is what the Democrats are itching for, purely for the political benefit.
We are a country of laws. Come here legally or be deported. Full stop.
We are a country of laws, and the administration is not following those laws. Due process is a constitutional right regardless of criminal history or citizenship status. Full stop.
I agree with you 100%.
The administration is following the law. Its actions have been challenged, as every action it takes is (look at the stats), and those challenges are working their way thru the system.
But if we apply our shared logic…that we’re a country of laws that must be abided by, what is your solution to this disaster? Biden’s intentional actions to not enforce our country’s laws created a 10 year backlog of immigration proceedings. That is not acceptable. The country has spoken on that matter.
Emily, how would you remedy it? If you have a better idea, let’s hear it.
We either have a country or we don’t. Citizenship either means something or it doesn’t. I choose the former in both cases. Legal immigration is beautiful and necessary. We should do more of it. Illegal immigration is a federal crime. And we’re a country of laws, right?
The solution is to change the laws if we don’t like them, not to just stop following the laws one party doesn’t like. That’s the whole point of America! 🇺🇸
But the laws don’t need to be changed. We have laws on the books to prevent this. The problem is only one party enforces them.
Illegal immigration is largely under control under Republican administrations and a shit show under Democrats…none nearly as bad as what Biden did over the last 4 years.
So, no. We don’t need new laws. We merely need to enforce existing law.
We also need to reign in activist judges. Congress is acting on that.
Ok cool, so you’re saying we should follow the law and do what the courts say, which in this case would mean not having sent this guy to El Salvador
"Activist judges" is the fascist magatard term for judges that follow the law despite Dear Leader's whims and tantrums.
"Emily, how would you remedy it? If you have a better idea, let’s hear it."
I'm not sure I understand the question you're asking: how would I remedy...illegal immigration? I'd like us to, at the very least, continue to follow due process during deportation proceedings.
How would I remedy Abrego Garcia's specific situation? I don't have an easy answer for that one either, though I remain deeply concerned that the administration is continuing to litigate this as an issue about this one man's specific criminal history, essentially implying that his alleged criminality means he isn't owed due process and that anyone defending him loves criminals more than they love America.
My question was aimed at remedying the fact that ~15M illegal immigrants, mostly fighting age males from all corners of the world along with unaccompanied minors who have been lost to the sex trades. How do you suggest we remedy that situation? No one voted for it…Biden just did it. It was intentional. Along with the economy, Trump got elected to remedy this specific situation.
So I hear all the comments about due process and, in general, I agree. However, we also have this giant mess to clean up precisely because our elected leaders failed to enforce our laws. To many, THAT feels like a giant breach of due process as well.
Trump promised to do this when he was running for president and, largely as a result, he was voted into office in a free and fair election. He vowed to start with criminals/felons, which he’s doing. He’s also enabling immigrants to self-deport and rewarding those who do with the ability to come back, the legal way. But virtue signaling Democrat politicians and liberal judges are resisting, as was expected.
I just don’t know what the anti-Trump crowd expects to accomplish with this. The next step will be to dig up some arcane law/precedent that will allow him to suspend habeas corpus and/or deputize civil servants to adjudicate asylum claims/deportation orders. That is, no doubt, what is coming next.
My cynical intuition tells me this is what the Democrats/resistance crowd are itching for. A draconian measure by Trump that they can use for political gain to ride into the 2026 mid-terms. I just don’t know that it will work this time because this whole effort as been so obviously intentional and political…and it’s hurt people.
Would love to hear an actual solution from a Democrat. A solution that acknowledges we are a country with borders that must be protected/enforced and that these people cannot stay.
Incredibly insightful write up. Very helpful in clarifying the facts but as others have noted, his moral character is not the issue. Yes I know that there are people out there presenting him as father of the year but that's not really what is at stake. It's the fact that the government under the present Administration sent him to the very place he was not supposed to be sent and are now refusing to return him for proper processing. If we uphold the law only when we agree with a person's moral character then there would be a lot less work for defense attorneys. Everyone receives due process or no one receives due process. End of story.
"If we uphold the law only when we agree with a person's moral character then there would be a lot less work for defense attorneys. Everyone receives due process or no one receives due process. End of story."
Seconding this! It may often be messy and inconvenient, but it is essential to our democratic values.
Agree… the point is the lack of ‘due process’. Due process does not only apply to those one perceives as a ‘good guy’.
He did receive due process. As an admitted illegal alien his due process came when he filed for relief of deportation under the 3 authorities, asylum, withholding of removal and protection under CAT. The judge denied him asylum and CAT but granted withholding of removal. You may not agree with those rulings (as rulings are often disagreed with) but that was his due process and he was aware that he could be deported at any time. The issue is weather or not the law was broken by deporting him to the country noted in his GRANTED withholding of removal ruling. I frankly don't know, but that's the crux of the issue here. Spouting out quick and easy slogans "Due Process" that the media keeps screaming and not understanding the totality of the situation is and has been the problem for years now.
Marita, you're too kind. It's not arrogance at all. It's what a boy does. A man would be capable of standing with the ability to debate the points. Unfortunately, there are no longer many men or women, we've slowly regressed to a country of boys and girls trying to be cute with playground antics and silly Fox News personalities with a justification for their hippocratic chants du jour. Personal attacks are their "win".
You misunderstand what 'due process' means - his court appearances in 2019 do not suffice as due process for his 2025 deportation, which all nine SCOTUS justices confirmed: "[The] proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with 'due process of law,' including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. It must also comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. Federal law governing detention and removal of immigrants continues, of course, to be binding as well....(in order to revoke conditional release, the Government must provide adequate notice and 'promptly' arrange an 'initial informal interview . . . to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation stated in the notification')... In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
https://substack.com/@callingintocreation/note/c-109432337?r=13audb&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Thank you for your perspective.
Maybe, maybe not. With the torrential amount of misinformation and bad faith activities executed daily by the administration amplification by Fox News and the like…. daily…..would you really expect an average or even above average citizen to have a precise and nuanced understanding?
In a broader sense this case is a representation of the general violations of the rights of individuals residing in the US in various legal ways.
I might add that the judges/courts do not seem too impressed by the Trump administration antics….
LOL. Well based on your response I certainly hope you don't consider yourself even an average person.
Ahhh yes… ‘arrogance’.. so very predictable.
Ahhh yes… So predictable.. When all else fails, arrogance🤦♀️
‘evidence does exist to tie him to the gang’ —
the supposedly key source of evidence is a CI, claiming García is NY gang member, when he never lived in NY… so the unsubstantiated (no other evidence, proof, or even additional information) claims of a single CI can send someone to a foreign prison, never to return (or ever be released, according to El Salvador’s president- i.e., this is a life sentence)
the other ‘evidence’ (and here the scare marks are very much warranted) is the Chicago Bulls attire — this is truly laughable (in the absence of any other substantiated evidence), as Bulls hats, sweatshirts and the like are THE most popular stuff worn, amongst all American sports teams - that is to say, millions of people wear this stuff, and the fact that some gang members supposedly wear this stuff too thus means pretty close to nothing
also, I have to say the police report from his original arrest/detention is shockingly weak wrt any evidence, any reason to detain this person
also, about the hanging out by Home Depot, it should be plain to all that men who are seeking work, who do not have a regular job and are looking to be hired for a day to work construction, landscaping, whatever, are going to stand by businesses (Home Depot!) where those who looking for workers are likely to frequent, so that behavior is perfectly innocent
and anyway, at the end of the day, as many others have pointed out, absolutely NOTHING about Garcia’s past, his marriage, his clothing, his tattoos, whatever is relevant here with respect to his civil and legal rights, rights that EVERYONE resident in America, regardless of their citizenship, nationality, reason to be here… are entitled to under our constitution — to quote Harry Bosch, everyone matters or no one matters
Oops, a criminal who was IN THE USA ILLEGALLY who is reasonably suspected of being a member of a violent gang, who assaulted his girlfriend and committed multiple other crimes that was SUPPOSED TO BE DEPORTED FOR SIX YEARS GOT SENT BACK TO HIS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. OH MY GOD THE HORROR, are you kidding me? And your issue is “Proper processing” was not followed? What a pack of imbeciles. You obviously care more for violent criminal foreigners than your fellow American citizens. What an embarrassment the lot of you are.
Your family runs an all-you-can-hump prostitution ring out of your trailer, Zane. The charges never stick, but still pretty sick.
Lying right wing trash.
We care more for the Rule of Law without which we would be a mess.
Listen, I have evidence that YOU'RE in the country illegally. ICE comes and scoops you up. You're accused of being a gang member who assaulted your blow-up doll, committed multiple other crimes, and should have been deported six years ago. Prove that none of that is true without due process.
Go on, big mouth. Show us how it should be done.
Lack of "proper processing"? Go fuck yourself, asshat. It's for sure you don't deserve the rights that generations of Americans died trying to ensure you retained.
Look again at country of origin.
I'll ask you a question I've posed here several times already. How many illegals are there in the US and how many would be here if they weren't given jobs by US citizens?
Sad. You. Very sad. Pathetic, really. And on Easter, the most sacred of all days, when love for everyone (as Pope Francis had made absolutely clear, there are no exceptions!) should be embraced, this unrestrained hatred feels that much worse.
And YEAH HIS MORAL CHARACTER IS THE ISSUE YOU CLOWN— HE IS A VIOLENT CRIMINAL WHO HAS HARMED AMERICAN CITIZENS — IT IS THE JOB OF THE US GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM BEING HARMED BY FOREIGNERS AND OTHER CITIZENS— NOT TO GO TO ANY LENGTH TO PROTECT SCUMBAGS. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE CRIMINALITY IS A NORMAL PART OF THE CULTURE AND ENJOY YOURSELVES THERE YOU TRAITOROUS LUNATICS. HOW SHAMEFUL.
Also, shouting feelings-based arguments and hurling insults in all caps isn’t as popular on Substack as other platforms. Lay out your position logically with facts and folks will listen.
Deportation is fine. Life in prison without a crime being committed should not happen. Due process is what makes America America. We give due process to heinous criminals and then lock them up. You forget that this isn’t just for citizens. Deportation means to send them back. It doesn’t mean imprisonment for life without a criminal trial. The USA is using violation of immigration/deportation as a means to decide to give someone life in prison without a trial. That is not in the best interests of the USA because we are paying 6 million a year to keep them in the prisons.
I agree.
The 5th Amendment to the constitution states:
“No PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
No PERSON -not citizen.
No one wants violent gang members living in our country, but we have laws that need to be adhered to, or innocent people could be imprisoned in some hellhole
for the rest of their lives.
They might come for any one of us next.
If you know he was a violent criminal, please present the evidence to the DOJ so they can convict him. Because Bondi’s documents that were released showed no criminal record.
And he wasn’t charged with anything or convicted of anything. He was just taken and sent to a place where specifically he couldn’t be sent back to, according to a court order. Multiple people in the Trump administration admitted in court that they had made an error. SCOTUS agreed.
Set them straight, if you’ve got the real story.
If this man is such a threat, then he could be prosecuted and if the facts are there to prove your point he would be put in jail for these supposed criminal acts. In America we go by Innocent until proven guilty.
Lying right wing trash.
Criminality is a normal part of the culture in Dear Leader's cabal. Your family hates you for lying, and simply for being a chud-slug.
Does your clitoris get harder when you lie using all capital letters?
😉
Your points are well-known and irrelevant. Trying to "both sides" this is wrong.
I want the government to follow the Constitution. Due process is required for every person in the country, citizen or not. The word of a corrupt cop or his snitch isn't proof of anything. The idea that if everyone keeps repeating something it becomes "evidence" is silly.
Bring every single person back from El Salvador and give each his day in court to prove themselves. If they are found to be criminals or having violated their requirements, then they should be deported back to their home country (or a place allowed by law). No one should be sent to a concentration camp in another country, especially for an undefined period of time. The US shouldn't even be doing the "business" of extrajudicial rendition, let alone with a known dictator. That is lawless and immoral. We have our own prison system for crimes committed here. If no crimes are committed here, deportation (when approved by a US court) should be to their home country, not a third party-country gulag.
If you start allowing the legal process to be ignored or short cut for some, it can be ignored or short cut for everyone. That's a dictatorship and I don't want to live in a country that doesn't follow its own laws.
If any of these men should be deported legitimately, it should be easy for the government to prove it in court as required by our laws and our Constitution. I don't care if they are accused of 50 murders each, follow the law. That is how it works. Nothing else about their life history matters. Prove it in court and use legal remedies.
I'm gonna quote the 4th circuit judge here, "The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the
government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?"
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Well said.
A fair summary, but there is something pretty crucial missing here: the terms and conditions of his confinement at CECOT.
His punishment for entering the country illegally in 2011 and wearing a Bulls hoodie is a life sentence in a Central American killhouse where he’ll never see the sun again?
For real? What the fuck are we doing here?
Under the Due Process Clause, the more serious the punishment, the more process is due. If the punishment is being sent to CECOT indefinitely, I expect to see (to use a legal phrase) a shitload of process, not zero process.
Granted, the facts of Abrego Garcia’s life are messy—but let’s not pretend this is normal or remotely appropriate.
Thank you.
The research and clarity you provide on these complicated matters is deeply appreciated, Gabe.
Agreed!
Gabe, this is the clearest presentation of the events/facts of this case I’ve yet seen. Thanks for laying it all out. Still a constitutional crisis imho, but having this level of detail to back up my understanding and any future arguments I might engage in most helpful! Thanks for all you do.
I believer there is a 26th fact. If the order, by a different judge, to turn the planes around, Kilmar would (a) not be in a prison where there was he was not legally allowed to be sent ("admin error"), and (b) he would have his day in court. I have no clue how the court would have ruled but he would have had the due process another supreme court rulings has he had the right to.
Unfortunately, cruelty is part of the plan by the administration.
Hi Corey, that’s not quite true (at least, as far as we know). The case before Judge Boasberg concerned the Alien Enemies Act -- thus, his order was only about planes carrying migrants deported under the Alien Enemies Act. Abrego Garcia was not deported under the Alien Enemies Act and, according to the administration, neither was anyone on his plane to El Salvador. Their plane is the one that left after Boasberg’s written order; the administration has said the order didn’t apply to it because no one deported under the Alien Enemies Act was on board.
Interesting. Quite the splitting of hairs but I guess that’s what lawyers do.
Hi -
I believe you (Gabe) are correct.
Isn't the the one where the administration declared the reason for deportation without due process to be a state secret? Which gives me pause (and you implied). My experience with well over 80% of state secrets when they are finally declassified is the secret is they were embarrassing to the then current administration. Of course, there is no way to know until 10-20 years into the future.
The whole idea of turning anyone over to another state to be imprisoned with no recourse a sickeningly state [situation | there has be a better word].
The disregard for basic legal protections and process by the current administration is terrible. The attempt to read laws to somehow allow what is happening is {I can't find the words} terrible.
Corey
Holy c r a p. You only respond to comments you can try to spin. You're such a twit. I'm sure you think you're awesome but there are lots of comments that show me and lots of other commenters you're not.
Then why did they refer to him as an “enemy alien” at the bottom of page 1 on this Supreme Court document?https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/20250407103341248_Kristi%20Noem%20application.pdf
Thank you for the effort in researching this issue. Clearly a 'muddy' case. However, my biggest concern is that none of the deported people were given due process, a constitutional right afforded to all in this country (not just to citizens). Does it set a dangerous precedent?
The issue at hand is due process, nothing more or less than that. The Trump administration has determined that due process is whatever fits with their agenda. If a person, or a law firm, or a university says or does something that they don't like, then they are clearly guilty of some unstated and unproven crime and should bear some consequence untethered from law. The Garcia case is only one of the many instances where the Trump administration is trampling on the Constitution while claiming that the Constitution is whatever they say it is.
Exactly. When an administration does that unconstitutional behavior and isn't stopped by the legislative or judiciary branches out of fear of what will happen next to them, the nation is a dictatorship. That's where we now are. If SCOTUS or the GOP in Congress wants to reverse that state of affairs, they better act soon, and forcefully.
What about due process for all of the illegal immigrants? Deporting and sending to a foreign prison with no human rights are not the same thing. They all deserved trials before being sent to prison.
Exactly this. Nowhere in this article did you address the following issues: the complete lack of due process for all those sent to CECOT, the trump administration actually paying a foreign country to keep people in a gulag and the trump administration ignoring court orders to turn the planes around and return this individual. I’ll go ahead and add trump’s newest threat, one he gleefully announced, to send “homegrowns” to CECOT. That is a very troubling leap to fascism and all of us being treated as a “homegrown”. He has clearly said he wants to send actual US citizens there. Not adding these issues to this article is dereliction to telling the entire story.
About the rest of these “facts”. They aren’t all solid facts. Facts are based on actual evidence. Some of the 25 points are hearsay. Just because a CI says something doesn’t automatically make it true. You need hard evidence to call it a fact. Anything the cop who was suspended for selling info to a sex worker said is automatically tainted and should be thrown out. There are a fair amount of holes in your listing of “25 facts”. Quoting Newsnation as a legitimate source is troubling.
This is not up to the standard of your usual reporting.
This case and the cases of all those now residing in CECOT thanks to Rubio, Holman, trump & Noem should be returned immediately to the US and handled by our immigration laws and by judges who are not in trump’s pocket. Each piece of evidence needs to be properly assessed, not decided on the fly or on someone’s whim or based on the choice of a baseball hat. Actual facts need to be looked at as well as the behavior of the immigrant while in the United States and then a decision of status made.
What the author cited as evidence to tie him to the gang isn’t sufficient for me. He didn’t live in New York, and they argued he was part of the gang in NY. Anyone could wear a Chicago Bulls hat. Heck, is liking Michael Jordan now credible to tie people to MS-13? Ridiculous. I guess the DA was a Knicks fan. “Deport the Chicago Bulls fan base!”
Plus this whole thing violated due process.
This is very much Gabe's standard adherence to extreme amoral intellectually dishonest bothsidesing, but you may not have noticed before.
In strenuous defense of Gabe, his reporting did not begin using the both-sides or weak evidence approach until recently. He was objective, to the point and his work was well researched and based on verifiable fact. He added seriousness or wit to his work. You could tell it was his writing without seeing his name on it.
“…extreme amoral intellectually dishonest…” is quite the harsh description/insult. I don’t see that.
I do think his writing is changing and in the direction it is going, is no longer for me. I miss his “old” work (it’s hardly old as he was developing it in his last year at school). If he has decided to use the both-sides approach and/or to insert his personal politics into his work he can do that. Many journalists do. It is up to the readers to decide if that work is where we want to spend our time and money.
It saddens me greatly that I have to conclude WUTP is no longer a news source that I can support. There are certainly bits and pieces of it that are still helpful but not enough to stay as a regular, daily reader. I have followed WUTP since Gabe was in junior high. With our mainstream media failing horribly (since 2015 and worsening with each year) we have to pick and choose where to obtain the news and analysis of that news, especially since so many news sites now require a subscription. If WUTP no longer works for me, and right now it does not, I’m not going to insult Gabe and stomp off. As I said, he has every right to write as he sees fit. If I don’t agree with his approach then it’s simply time for me to go. No insults needed.
I've followed him since he started his newsletter. It's always been bothsidesing, with this absurd notion that he inherited from the MSM that there are two teams, the liberals/Democrats and the conservatives/Republicans. I called him out on this nonsense repeatedly but he always rationalized away any criticism and would tell me that if I don't like what he writes then I can unsubscribe. You say he "has every right"--I disagree ... people do not have a *moral* right to be dishonest and to dismiss valid criticism.
As for the amorality .... you will never find anything he writes in which he shows any inkling that he *cares* about anything. He thinks (and many of his followers think) that this is being "objective" ... it's not. Speaking of which, "He was objective, to the point and his work was well researched and based on verifiable fact" -- he hasn't changed that here. The problem is that, because he doesn't care, he completely omits relevant "political" facts like that Trump and the GOP are dangerous democracy-destroying autocrats, that they are ignoring the courts, that they are violating due process over and over. And because he doesn't care about anything but being "balanced" in the absurd way that the MSM promotes, he equates huge things on the fascist side with little things on the non-fascist side, and he totally misidentifies those sides as "liberal" and "conservative".
As for "insults" -- I simply presented an honest and I believe factual appraisal based on evidence gathered over a long perion: "This is very much Gabe's standard adherence to extreme amoral intellectually dishonest bothsidesing". I stand by that.
Thank you for your detailed reply. We are not going to agree and that is okay. As such, it would be a waste of my time to reiterate what I’ve already said or to add followup evidence of my take on the recent chances in Gabe’s work so I won’t.
I do have a serious question for you. If you believe Gabe to be an “extreme amoral intellectually dishonest” person/journalist who has engaged in “bothsidesing” since he was in grade school - you did say “I’ve followed him since he started his newsletter” - why on earth do you continue to follow him and to read his work?
From grade school through junior high, high school, college and now into being a professional journalist you have followed him even though you hold him and his work in seriously poor regard. Since you feel so strongly about him and his work - and have for about 15 years - why on earth don’t you just unsubscribe?
Not doing so indicates there is something you believe you gain from following someone since they were about 12 years old and constantly trying to convince them that your opinions about them and their work are right. This is not only obsessive behavior but also deeply troubling.
I hope you are able to let go of this obsession and find healthier ways to consume the news and engage in communication about it.
You're making a lot of assumptions and overgeneralizations and getting personally offensive. Just mind your own business, ahole.
Gabe, thank you for the indepth coverage of this topic. The clarity that was provided by your column is much appreciated.
Thank you for rounding up the facts. However, some of what you write, while technically true, is not rigorous:
1) "...but evidence does exist to tie him to the gang." The evidence is a statement of a confidential informant, an observed conversation with other gang members, and the wearing of a hat that is popular among gang members. The first of the 3 has questionable credibility, to put it charitably, and is lacking since there's no other activity that corroborates the accusation. The latter 2 do not even meet the criteria of circumstantial evidence: how many non-Gang members have conversation with Gang members, and how many of those wear Chicago Bulls hats? Literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions!
2) The idea that it is difficult for the administration to find a third country to deport him to is quite weak. They could call Sheinbaum's lieutenants and have it arranged by 3 pm today. C'mon! The issue is:
a) They really don't want to do the work. As Matt Glassmann wrote very informatively, Obama was 'successful' in his deportations because of all the collaborative work that his administration executed with local authorities. The entire Boasberg fiasco is illustrative of their desire to choose the crudest and most legally dubious option, since that's what's easiest.
b) ANY departure from a) is seen as 'weak' by Trump, so doing even the simplest and easiest thing, e.g. Sheinbaum, is viewed as a concession.
Hi Alex, thanks for writing. I do think it’s fair to describe the statement of the confidential informant as evidence existing that ties him to the gang. Obviously, that doesn’t mean he *is* a member of the gang, but I don’t think it’s a non-rigorous way to describe the facts, especially since an immigration judge used it to say the “evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13” (taking it one step farther). Of course, you can disagree with the judge (or with me), but I do think it’s a fair description.
As for your second point, I do think you’re underrating the diplomatic complications that go along with inducing a country to accept someone who isn’t a citizen of theirs (especially someone who is an alleged gang member). It’s true that Sheinbaum has done this in certain instances, but her relationship with Trump is shaky at best, and I wouldn’t bet on her agreeing her, especially in such a high-profile instance. I agree with you that Trump doesn’t even want to try to see if that would work because he views it as a concession -- but I’m not sure it would be easy, in practice, as you say. (Which, of course, doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be trying.)
Calling an unverified allegation "evidence" is a big logical gap. A common complaint here is that due process is required to to categorize this as "evidence." You have assumed the allegation is credible in order to categorize it as evidence, substituting your interpretation for due process. Motivated reasoning may be playing a critical role here, because if you were to agree that this assumption is inappropriate, your "both sides" characterization would completely fall apart.
He does this all the time ... he is deeply intellectually dishonest, utterly amoral (you will never find a trace of *caring* in anything he writes), and devoted to an obsolete broken model of "balanced" horserace partisan vs. partisan journalism in which there are precisely two sides, "liberal" and "conservative" ... which is absurd nonsense.
Good point on 1) gang member. I find it ludicrous that a judge deemed it sufficient evidence to make that conclusion, but you are correct that it invalidates my criticism. I concede you were fair in your initial characterization.
2) "Shaky at best" is an interesting description - he seems to really like her, and she's made significant concessions on the border patrol topic. I'd be curious why you think that. But you're right that there's more to it than a simple phone call, though Milei would probably also be agreeable to it.
It was not fair at all ... his so-called "evidence" is not evidence of anything except that there's an "informant" who lied.
"I do think it’s fair to describe the statement of the confidential informant as evidence existing that ties him to the gang. "
You think that because you're amoral and intellectually dishonest. There's evidence that you're a serial murderer and a child rapist ... here, I have it written on a piece of paper.
1)You're conflating Gabe's characterization of judicial conclusions with your interpretation of hia views, which we don't actually know.
2) You describing a person whom you've likely never met, and whose newsletter you choose to read as "utterly immoral," is pathetically juvenile. Debate the argument, not the person.
3) There's a plethora of content online that avoid the "non-partisan" model and write with unequivocal mobilizing. You're far better off subscribing to that content, because your comments here will have zero effect on Gabe's efforts or publishing.
Godspeed.
Ah, intellectually dishonest like him ... lots of projection and evasion there. It's remarkable how many assumptions you made about me from just a few words that justified none of what you wrote.
"pathetically juvenile. Debate the argument, not the person."
Your hypocrisy is hilarious.
"You're far better off subscribing to that content"
As if I don't.
"because your comments here will have zero effect on Gabe's efforts or publishing"
Non sequitur / strawman.
"Godspeed."
FOAD.
To right the wrong would require 45/7 admitting wrong. He learned well from Roy Cohn, Never back down. Never apologize. Never admit defeat. And attack your accusers with maximum force.
I feel that this post falls short of a proper discussion of the case, because there surely is a huge difference between being deported, and being sent to a maximum security prison indefinitely with no trial.
Excellent overview. The crux of the issue remains that the government is taking people into custody without due process, sometimes even breaking car windows, and send folks across state lines or international borders, without any opportunity to defend themselves. That is the real problem.
Who or what Mr. Abrego Garcia is -- or what he may or may not have done is absolutely immaterial.
You, Gabe Fleisher, have fallen down the obfuscation rabbit hole if you try to frame this situation based on the character and/or actions of the person involved.
Every person who may happen to be in this country -- regardless of how that person came to be here OR how long that person has been here -- is entitled to due process under the rule of law. Every. Person. Full stop.
If the most egregious, heinous, despicable human being in all of human history is not protected by our constitutionally defined rule of law and due process, than no person in this country -- citizen or non-citizen -- will have that protection.
Gabe provided all the facts and relevant information he could find. MSNBC and Fox, etc., are the ones "framing" the narrative by either hiding/deleting information OR just doing an overall crap job to provide propaganda for their audiences. A lot of people only want simple stories without nuance which fit their own perspective and don't challenge them too much.
The rule of law says due process. It ought to be enforced. All the deportations without due process are setting a dangerous precedent. As an aside I listened as the president of the U.S. told the El Salvadoran president that he should build lots more prisons for those who will be deported from the U.S.
He plans to use those gulags for anyone who disagrees with what he and his corrupt administration are doing. We are past the constitutional crisis point and should be very alarmed by the intended actions against us all.