Excellent analysis as always, but leaves out the scary part about America's willingness to be officially involved (and it is) with CECOT. There is still too much unknown and IMHO it is not in America's best interest to be involved in policies that it derides other countries for following. So, even though Gabe has clearly outlined known facts, there are some pretty grey areas regarding where we are going as a country
The fact that MORE Americans are not in an outrage that people are being held in CECOT under U.S. direction, and without charges, trial, or sentencing, is appalling to me. I simply would not have believed it possible of the conservative right to be so callous.
Thanks for the detailed analysis. What bothers me is the Trump Administration’s practice of just doing whatever they want to do, even if it’s illegal, and then tying up the courts with motions and appeals. It’s what Trump has always done with his business, but now the consequences are so much more serious, because it’s the federal government employing the tactic.
I’m not sure why you put a “?” on were they allowed to be detained at “CECOT.” That is a prison and if they were not convicted of a crime they clearly should not be imprisoned there or in any other prison paid for by the US.
Hi Thomas, I put question marks anywhere we didn’t have definitive court rulings on yet. As I said, we know very little about the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador or what legal authority was used to execute it. It’s hard to assess the legality until we have those details put before a court.
Is it Gabe? When has it ever been legal in the US to imprison someone (indefinitely and without access to legal counsel) who hasn’t been convicted or charged with a crime?
I respect Gabe's willingness to wait for a judicial ruling - he is a reporter and his job is to express factual, unbiased information based on the rule of law. That said, as I am not a reporter held to bias standards, I'm happy to declare that the idea of incarcerating someone in the worst prison on the planet without charges, trial, or sentencing should appall even the least moral humans.
I’m sorry I don’t. The undisputed factual record here is the US has an agreement with El Salvador where we are paying them to imprison these people. It is also undisputed that many of them have never been charged with or convicted of a crime either in the US or El Salvador. These are both facts.
You're right on those facts! But whether the U.S. government is *allowed* to incarcerate illegal immigrants in another country in this manner has not been determined definitively by courts. I sure hope SCOTUS will rule definitively against such harsh, gross treatment, but... that remains to be seen.
It doesn’t take a court to say that it’s illegal to detain someone indefinitely who has not been charged with or convicted of a crime. I’m sorry, some things are just obvious on their face.
Obviously, you’re allowed to make any determinations you want. I hew to the pretty standard journalistic norm of not getting ahead of a legal process in determining what is and isn’t legal, especially when there are novel questions at play. My hope is to lay the facts out, and readers are of course welcome to make determinations for themselves. Interestingly, I actually view this as an extension of the due process that this article is about (although, of course, there are no laws dictating media coverage — though coverage can bias jury pools, an important argument for being careful). Just as if you were arrested by the government, you would want due process, you would also want the media to refrain from making pronouncements about your case one way or the other. The same norm holds true for either side of a court battle: government or citizen. Reporters generally don’t get ahead of a legal dispute in making those determinations.
Gabe if you’re just reporting it out then please tell me what precedent they’re relying on that this is legal. If there is no precedent, no citation to a legal statute, or to any standard practice then I don’t think anything is in question. The burden of proof is always on the government in any legal matter and as far as I can tell because I’ve seen no citation to any legal authority for the indefinite imprisonment of people not charged with or convicted of a crime that they’re just asserting that they can do what they want, which isn’t a “legal” justification.
Thomas... it's abundantly clear you feel fervently about this matter.
However, Gabe has been more than civil in conveying to you that his role is that of an objective reporter (who has gone to heroic lengths) to provide information to his readers that no news organizations have provided - so that his readers can have the benefit of the nuances of the laws involved.
Your harassment of Gabe is approaching shameful territory.
This has nothing to do with my feelings on the matter. It’s a simple question. What is the legal authority or court precedent that allows the US government to pay El Salvador to keep Mr Garcia indefinitely detained in El Salvador? Remember, the Supreme Court has already said that the US government should work to see him returned. That’s a ruling that functionally undermines such a claim of authority. But the Trump administration has refused to do so and according to reporting today actively stopped career officials from working to do so. Now the Trump administration has claimed that they can’t work to return Mr. Garcia to the US because that would undermine El Salvador’s sovereignty. So the Trump administration is asserting El Salvador’s sovereignty as the reason the indefinite detention can continue, not any American legal authority, even though El Salvador has told Sen. Van Holen that Mr. Garcia is only imprisoned because the US is paying them. So it’s an endless kafkaesque farce, but there remain no actual legal claims by the Trump administration regarding their own authority to pay for indefinite detention. If the Trump administration were making some specific legal claim that would be one thing. But Gabe can see with his own eyes what is happening. Being “objective” means you’re seeking out the truth. Not obscuring it with illogical evenhandedness.
Again, I totally and absolutely agree with you from a moral standpoint. I should hope everyone would! But our country runs on laws and we don't have a definitive law that states, "the executive cannot pay to incarcerate undocumented deportable individuals in another country for any period of time." We have laws that come close (i.e. due process, no cruel and unusual punishment, right to a trial, etc.), but we love to be pedantic in this country and find loopholes where there should be none. Unfortunately, SCOTUS is going to have to be the final say on whether what Trump's admin is doing is actually legal (and again, I hope and pray SCOTUS will rule against this).
I’m not talking about morals. We have jury trials in America. Every citizen participated in the legal process as a result. The law is based at a fundamental level on what the public will accept. It is also based in tradition. If you can find me an instance of where the US has ever sanctioned this kind of thing be my guest. But if you can’t there just should not be a question mark on it. Tradition, legal precedent, what the public will accept, etc should tell you clearly this is not legal.
Yes, in a time of war against supposed enemy combatants. If they’re not using Alien Enemies and instead just normal removal powers how is that relevant? The US has deported people from this country since our founding. I’m honestly just asking when have we ever “deported” people who were never charged with or convicted of a crime to a foreign prison where we were paying for them to be locked up indefinitely? If that’s never happened before I really do think it deserves a “?”as to whether it’s legal.
But they ARE using the Alien Enemies Act for some of these removals. So I imagine they'll attempt to apply the same logic. (And I just want to reiterate, I don't agree with ANY of what the Trump admin is doing right now - just arguing that, unfortunately and bafflingly, we need SCOTUS to weigh in and make the law definitive.)
Best analysis of a very complicated situation that I have read. Lots of grey areas as you note. Please do a similar analysis about how those here on student visas are being deported. Thanks.
I am so impressed with your deep research for us in this area. Thank you so much for all the work you have put into delivering a clear, unbiased, informative piece on this situation. You are filling a gap in reporting that no one else that I've seen has addressed. Your work is critical to keeping us informed citizens.
Thank you, Gabe! I will have to read this a few more times to make sure I fully understand. I apologize if I missed this, but do any of the individuals removed via the AEA get due process to attempt to prove they are not members of Tren de Aragua?
A few things both me and I don't hear anyone really talking about it. First, these human beings are being sent to a a horrible prison and most don't appear to be criminals or have not been proven to be criminals (other than illegal entry into the US). So they are not just being sent to their country of choice and being set free to start their life again there - they are being sent to a horrible prison. Even if they have some criminal past does it warrant the level of being sent to a maximum security prison with known terrible conditions? Also, if WE (America) are paying for the prison to keep these people (whether criminals or not), isn't there an incentive for this prison/El Salvador/whoever is profiting to keep them there regardless of whether they are criminals or not? Just because someone came here illegally do they deserve this?
Excellent, thank you for the effort to research and organize the information. One question, did MS13 begin in Los Angeles? If so, how can Trump designate it a foreign terrorist group?
It certainly is a complicated legal issue. I look at it similarly to the immigrant children separation from their parent(s) under Trump's first term. Sending an illegal immigrant to CECOT - what most folks would call a hell-hole of a prison - to be locked up possibly for the remainder of their lives is meant to be as cruel as possible. Cruelty as deterrence might be effect but it goes against most Americans' values.
This is what I mean as cruelty. "Three children who are US citizens were deported to Honduras with their mothers last week, including a 4-year-old receiving treatment for metastatic cancer, according to the families’ attorneys and civil rights and immigration advocacy organizations."
Abrego Garcia had a order of removal, yes, but also a withholding of removal order related to El Salvador which is his home country. So, he was not eligible for immediate removal until 1) the government went before a judge to adjudicate the withholding of removal to El Salvador or 2) the government went through the process of finding a suitable 3rd country that would accept him, which also would have been subject to proceedings before a judge if Abrego Garcia wanted to fight it on the grounds which you lay out in your piece. Therefore, he was not eligible for removal immediately without some level of due process. So long as the withholding of removal order was in place, it is not incorrect to say he was in the country legally. The judge who granted the withholding of removal order also granted him a permit to work in the US while that order was in effect.
Excellent analysis as always, but leaves out the scary part about America's willingness to be officially involved (and it is) with CECOT. There is still too much unknown and IMHO it is not in America's best interest to be involved in policies that it derides other countries for following. So, even though Gabe has clearly outlined known facts, there are some pretty grey areas regarding where we are going as a country
The fact that MORE Americans are not in an outrage that people are being held in CECOT under U.S. direction, and without charges, trial, or sentencing, is appalling to me. I simply would not have believed it possible of the conservative right to be so callous.
Great analysis. No other journalist has done this level of work!
Thanks for the detailed analysis. What bothers me is the Trump Administration’s practice of just doing whatever they want to do, even if it’s illegal, and then tying up the courts with motions and appeals. It’s what Trump has always done with his business, but now the consequences are so much more serious, because it’s the federal government employing the tactic.
I’m not sure why you put a “?” on were they allowed to be detained at “CECOT.” That is a prison and if they were not convicted of a crime they clearly should not be imprisoned there or in any other prison paid for by the US.
Hi Thomas, I put question marks anywhere we didn’t have definitive court rulings on yet. As I said, we know very little about the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador or what legal authority was used to execute it. It’s hard to assess the legality until we have those details put before a court.
Is it Gabe? When has it ever been legal in the US to imprison someone (indefinitely and without access to legal counsel) who hasn’t been convicted or charged with a crime?
I respect Gabe's willingness to wait for a judicial ruling - he is a reporter and his job is to express factual, unbiased information based on the rule of law. That said, as I am not a reporter held to bias standards, I'm happy to declare that the idea of incarcerating someone in the worst prison on the planet without charges, trial, or sentencing should appall even the least moral humans.
I’m sorry I don’t. The undisputed factual record here is the US has an agreement with El Salvador where we are paying them to imprison these people. It is also undisputed that many of them have never been charged with or convicted of a crime either in the US or El Salvador. These are both facts.
You're right on those facts! But whether the U.S. government is *allowed* to incarcerate illegal immigrants in another country in this manner has not been determined definitively by courts. I sure hope SCOTUS will rule definitively against such harsh, gross treatment, but... that remains to be seen.
It doesn’t take a court to say that it’s illegal to detain someone indefinitely who has not been charged with or convicted of a crime. I’m sorry, some things are just obvious on their face.
Obviously, you’re allowed to make any determinations you want. I hew to the pretty standard journalistic norm of not getting ahead of a legal process in determining what is and isn’t legal, especially when there are novel questions at play. My hope is to lay the facts out, and readers are of course welcome to make determinations for themselves. Interestingly, I actually view this as an extension of the due process that this article is about (although, of course, there are no laws dictating media coverage — though coverage can bias jury pools, an important argument for being careful). Just as if you were arrested by the government, you would want due process, you would also want the media to refrain from making pronouncements about your case one way or the other. The same norm holds true for either side of a court battle: government or citizen. Reporters generally don’t get ahead of a legal dispute in making those determinations.
Gabe if you’re just reporting it out then please tell me what precedent they’re relying on that this is legal. If there is no precedent, no citation to a legal statute, or to any standard practice then I don’t think anything is in question. The burden of proof is always on the government in any legal matter and as far as I can tell because I’ve seen no citation to any legal authority for the indefinite imprisonment of people not charged with or convicted of a crime that they’re just asserting that they can do what they want, which isn’t a “legal” justification.
Thomas... it's abundantly clear you feel fervently about this matter.
However, Gabe has been more than civil in conveying to you that his role is that of an objective reporter (who has gone to heroic lengths) to provide information to his readers that no news organizations have provided - so that his readers can have the benefit of the nuances of the laws involved.
Your harassment of Gabe is approaching shameful territory.
This has nothing to do with my feelings on the matter. It’s a simple question. What is the legal authority or court precedent that allows the US government to pay El Salvador to keep Mr Garcia indefinitely detained in El Salvador? Remember, the Supreme Court has already said that the US government should work to see him returned. That’s a ruling that functionally undermines such a claim of authority. But the Trump administration has refused to do so and according to reporting today actively stopped career officials from working to do so. Now the Trump administration has claimed that they can’t work to return Mr. Garcia to the US because that would undermine El Salvador’s sovereignty. So the Trump administration is asserting El Salvador’s sovereignty as the reason the indefinite detention can continue, not any American legal authority, even though El Salvador has told Sen. Van Holen that Mr. Garcia is only imprisoned because the US is paying them. So it’s an endless kafkaesque farce, but there remain no actual legal claims by the Trump administration regarding their own authority to pay for indefinite detention. If the Trump administration were making some specific legal claim that would be one thing. But Gabe can see with his own eyes what is happening. Being “objective” means you’re seeking out the truth. Not obscuring it with illogical evenhandedness.
Again, I totally and absolutely agree with you from a moral standpoint. I should hope everyone would! But our country runs on laws and we don't have a definitive law that states, "the executive cannot pay to incarcerate undocumented deportable individuals in another country for any period of time." We have laws that come close (i.e. due process, no cruel and unusual punishment, right to a trial, etc.), but we love to be pedantic in this country and find loopholes where there should be none. Unfortunately, SCOTUS is going to have to be the final say on whether what Trump's admin is doing is actually legal (and again, I hope and pray SCOTUS will rule against this).
I’m not talking about morals. We have jury trials in America. Every citizen participated in the legal process as a result. The law is based at a fundamental level on what the public will accept. It is also based in tradition. If you can find me an instance of where the US has ever sanctioned this kind of thing be my guest. But if you can’t there just should not be a question mark on it. Tradition, legal precedent, what the public will accept, etc should tell you clearly this is not legal.
Gabe cited instances where similar things (i.e. extraordinary rendition programs, Maher Arar) have happened.
Yes, in a time of war against supposed enemy combatants. If they’re not using Alien Enemies and instead just normal removal powers how is that relevant? The US has deported people from this country since our founding. I’m honestly just asking when have we ever “deported” people who were never charged with or convicted of a crime to a foreign prison where we were paying for them to be locked up indefinitely? If that’s never happened before I really do think it deserves a “?”as to whether it’s legal.
But they ARE using the Alien Enemies Act for some of these removals. So I imagine they'll attempt to apply the same logic. (And I just want to reiterate, I don't agree with ANY of what the Trump admin is doing right now - just arguing that, unfortunately and bafflingly, we need SCOTUS to weigh in and make the law definitive.)
Best analysis of a very complicated situation that I have read. Lots of grey areas as you note. Please do a similar analysis about how those here on student visas are being deported. Thanks.
There is no invasion. There is not even the scintilla of an invasion. There is not even a whiff of a scintilla of an invasion.
To chrisattack: It's Habeas Corpus. Very basic.
Also, they didn't "invade." They simply came here for a better life. Just as you did.
Good For You for finding my typing error.
I am so impressed with your deep research for us in this area. Thank you so much for all the work you have put into delivering a clear, unbiased, informative piece on this situation. You are filling a gap in reporting that no one else that I've seen has addressed. Your work is critical to keeping us informed citizens.
Thank you, Gabe! I will have to read this a few more times to make sure I fully understand. I apologize if I missed this, but do any of the individuals removed via the AEA get due process to attempt to prove they are not members of Tren de Aragua?
A few things both me and I don't hear anyone really talking about it. First, these human beings are being sent to a a horrible prison and most don't appear to be criminals or have not been proven to be criminals (other than illegal entry into the US). So they are not just being sent to their country of choice and being set free to start their life again there - they are being sent to a horrible prison. Even if they have some criminal past does it warrant the level of being sent to a maximum security prison with known terrible conditions? Also, if WE (America) are paying for the prison to keep these people (whether criminals or not), isn't there an incentive for this prison/El Salvador/whoever is profiting to keep them there regardless of whether they are criminals or not? Just because someone came here illegally do they deserve this?
You're doing amazing stuff on this, Gabe
Excellent, thank you for the effort to research and organize the information. One question, did MS13 begin in Los Angeles? If so, how can Trump designate it a foreign terrorist group?
It certainly is a complicated legal issue. I look at it similarly to the immigrant children separation from their parent(s) under Trump's first term. Sending an illegal immigrant to CECOT - what most folks would call a hell-hole of a prison - to be locked up possibly for the remainder of their lives is meant to be as cruel as possible. Cruelty as deterrence might be effect but it goes against most Americans' values.
This is what I mean as cruelty. "Three children who are US citizens were deported to Honduras with their mothers last week, including a 4-year-old receiving treatment for metastatic cancer, according to the families’ attorneys and civil rights and immigration advocacy organizations."
This is why I rely on you Gabe. I have neither heard nor seen such in-depth analysis anywhere else. Thanks for the handy matrix graph.
Gabe, thank you for a very thorough analysis of the situation. It is very confusing to lay persons. I suggest you seriously consider law school. :)
Abrego Garcia had a order of removal, yes, but also a withholding of removal order related to El Salvador which is his home country. So, he was not eligible for immediate removal until 1) the government went before a judge to adjudicate the withholding of removal to El Salvador or 2) the government went through the process of finding a suitable 3rd country that would accept him, which also would have been subject to proceedings before a judge if Abrego Garcia wanted to fight it on the grounds which you lay out in your piece. Therefore, he was not eligible for removal immediately without some level of due process. So long as the withholding of removal order was in place, it is not incorrect to say he was in the country legally. The judge who granted the withholding of removal order also granted him a permit to work in the US while that order was in effect.