597 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 15Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Laura's avatar

I’ve been struggling with this too. What does the next Democratic administration look like? What are they encouraged to do by their base? I saw a Substack post yesterday by Meghan Murphy, a Canadian anti-trans feminist who has decided to run for office in Canada. Two days after she declared her candidacy, her bank account was frozen with no explanation. It really is happening already.

https://www.meghanmurphy.ca/p/just-when-i-thought-the-canadian

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 15Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Dan Maher's avatar

Rod, the first eight words of your Southern friend who’s regretting his vote for Trump is a blatant lie: “Trump is refusing to obey the Supreme Court….” There is no order from the Supreme Court that requires Garcia’s return to the United States. SCOTUS’ decision turns on the terms of”facilitate” and “effectuate,” and the administration is in a legal argument with the specific lower court judge about what those terms do and do not require. Your friend may have voted for Trump, but if he truly believes the administration is acting treasonously, he might be in need of some historical refreshers.

Expand full comment
William Tighe's avatar

Who's "Ron?"

There is, you know, a thing called proofreading.

Expand full comment
Chris Imming's avatar

Thanks Karen

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

I wasn't aware that Professor Tighe was born in southern Myanmar...

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

Burma, Charlie! Burma!

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Whatever. I'm familiar with both terms.

Expand full comment
Dan Maher's avatar

Thank you. You need not, however, fix the placement of your question mark, for I know what you meant to type.

Expand full comment
William Tighe's avatar

I'm not writing here in English punctuation style.

Expand full comment
Sethu's avatar

The way I learned it is that question marks still go outside in American style, probably because they're large enough to not get lost (but commas and periods go inside).

Expand full comment
William Tighe's avatar

If you're right; then live and learn! I've always written the other way, and never been set right.

I do tend to muddle up stylo Anglicano with stylo Americano in my writing.

Expand full comment
Darrel Hoerle's avatar

Commas do matter. They make the difference between "Let's eat, Grandma" and "Let's eat Grandma".

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

I think that's straight out of The Elements of Style.

Expand full comment
Dan Maher's avatar

Indeed.

Expand full comment
William Tighe's avatar

If I'm wrong, I'll change my name from Karen.

Expand full comment
Theodore Iacobuzio's avatar

It must be fun to live in a world where people who disagree with you all tell lies.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

The lower court judge recognized that she screwed up after the Supreme Court wanted her to define the steps to “effectuate”. Instead of doing that she eliminated “effectuate” from her second order. Funny that.

Per attorney Bill Shipley: https://xcancel.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1911930733867970760#m

More: https://xcancel.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1911939237634806227#m

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Apr 15
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Neophyte's avatar

I love Rod, but this comment made me chuckle.

Rod has a tendency to react emotionally about things. He's very insightful on the big picture, but he gets fixated on specific stories highlighted by the media. He has a big heart, and we love him for it, but he'd be better off dismissing stories that tug at the heart strings.

Expand full comment
Eric Mader's avatar

A tendency?

What annoys me is, Rod has begun doing exactly what he did during the first Trump administration. Basically: nag and henpick at every possible turn. Everything the NYT crowd sees as a crisis becomes a crisis.

Hate to say it, but I fear this is going to get worse.

Expand full comment
Solitudinarian's avatar

I’ve only been reading Rod since 2015, but - to be fair - I think he nags and henpecks every administration.

Expand full comment
Eric Mader's avatar

One might say it's being a good journalist to do so. But there's a difference in the cases taken up. When he attacks Biden or Obama, it's for things Rod knows and follows more thoroughly. When he attacks Trump, it's pretty much things he has little background in. Say, trade policy. Or today, the legal grounds in this specific case.

And oddly, the tone is markedly different. Hard to pin it down.

Go back and read the piece from a few days ago "The Art of the Deal?" It's example after example of *have my cake and eat it too*. Go ahead. Count 'em. Probably five. And now today. This trumpeting of the moral high ground, when ... what? Does he have the legal arguments in order?

So: He *criticizes* Obama or Biden. He nags and goes theatrical on Trump.

Expand full comment
Leah Rose's avatar

He sees the big picture so clearly, I'm amazed at how easily Rod is being suckered in by the Deep State propaganda. Depressing.

Expand full comment
Eric Mader's avatar

Agreed. It's a case of not seeing the forest for the shiny trees. And those shiny trees will become more and more how he writes about the Trump administration. If this goes like it did last time.

So why does it happen? My guess is that the yuge moves Trump is making, especially the tariff onslaught, are unsettling him to the point that he will start grabbing at the stuff on offer. The shiny trees.

Expand full comment
Vince's avatar

'Deep state propaganda' - Hahahaha! You Trumpers are so laughable in the way you flail about with nonsense because of your inability to make a coherent, grounded argument.

Hey Leah, I bet Abrego Garcia actually worked in that pizzeria in DC, while on the side was hacking Italian satellites to change votes from Trump to Biden.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Its amazing that people can be so devoted to Trump that when he blatantly violates the Constitution of the United States of America and is proud of it, this is termed "Deep State propaganda." Of course the Dems, the Deep State, and a variety of factions are please to have something to hammer Trump with. We don't need them back. But we do need Trump gone. We need something better to replace him than the Dems popping up to say "Haven't you been missing us?" No actually -- you are what made Trump a viable candidate in the first place.

Expand full comment
Hiroyuki's avatar

To be blunt, I think Rod genuinely dislikes Trump on an emotional level. Policy wise he agrees with what Trump is doing compared to Biden or Obama, but he doesn't have the same visceral dislike for those two presidents.

So a lot of the analysis around Trump's policies will he influenced by that emotion

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

I agree. If we could only get Rod invited to dinner at the White House like Maher. . .

Expand full comment
Solitudinarian's avatar

I understand what you mean, Eric, and share some of your frustration, but only some. By Rod's own admission, he tends to post his "unformed thoughts" here, weighing and refining his positions in real time. Were this an article in TEC, I am certain he would be more circumspect, especially about subjects he knows less well. But this is his Diary and we get the raw, unfiltered stuff straight from the source. Yesterday's post (on a different subject I know quite well) rubbed me the wrong way, but gave me pause to think again about my own conclusions and why I hold them. Irritating from time to time, but also useful.

I also agree that the tone is different and I have an idea why, even if it too is a bit unformed and in need of work. It's not particularly profound, but I believe Rod expects more probity from the side he has chosen than from the other side (which would be hard pressed to spell the word). However, the side he has chosen is no longer interested in living according to "norms" long since swept away and thus also contributes to the ever-widening gyre that Rod rightly wishes to avoid.

As I say, not particularly profound, but my two cents nonetheless.

EDIT: Thanks for the heads-up about the second chapter. Can't wait to check it out.

Expand full comment
Eric Mader's avatar

Yes, I largely agree with this. And of course, I think Rod has a solid moral compass. But that compass goes haywire when anything on the right lacks "probity." I often agree with him in these cases, as with NETTR. But that was a clear case in which lack of probity paralleled potential collaboration with evil.

Not this case. Not even close. And as for Trump's trade moves, Rod has been jumping to conclusions based on idle nattering of people who make a living from it. None of us know what Trump's strategy is.

Re: Apkallu, I'm enjoying writing in the faux Dan Brown mode.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

When Rod criticizes Trump, he knows that he voted for Trump and, this time around, was out and proud about it. So he feels a responsibility to recognize Trump's failures. The legal grounds of this specific case are not hard to understand.

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

That's his job.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

The president breaks the law and defies the Supreme Court... that's not nitpicking. Its precisely what is wrong with Trump. Rod had the integrity to say so. In 2016, I talked with a retired Army officer who told me, we've been offered a terrible choice for president, but I think our democratic institutions are strong enough to restrain Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton is so adept at manipulating the levers of power that if she gets in there will be no stopping her. It was a logical basis to vote for Trump, although I didn't find it convincing. He turned out to be right -- barely -- about Trump's first term. This time around, Trump seems to have caught up with Clinton.

Expand full comment
Scuds Lonigan's avatar

Yeah, and I wish he could stay away from the NY Times.

Expand full comment
Tee Stoney's avatar

Yup. NPR does the same things. Call it hardening, but when the "heartstring tugs" consistently pull in the direction you know they want to pull you, you know it is not news reporting, only propaganda.

Not accusing Rod of that at all, only for falling for the emotional manipulation, as well as continuing to grant authority and credence to news organization that have long been unworthy of the name.

Expand full comment
Sethu's avatar

I'm kinda starting to wonder if Rod is Chaotic Good after all. With his recent takes, he's sounding more like Neutral Good, or (gasp!) just boring old Lawful Good.

Expand full comment
Zookie's avatar

Rod, becoming an expert in another new area. Garcia is NOT a legal subject of the U.S. anymore. He is s legal subject of El Salvador, and they are not obligated to send him back. in fact they can execute him and we have no legal authority to do anything. Where is Rod coming from??!! Again, now instead of being an expert on intentional trade(tariffs), he is an expert in Internaional law? Wow!

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

That is a relevant technicality. The prison in El Salvador is not holding a U.S. citizen but a Salvadorean citizen. It was our government's error to deport him without due process, but the president of El Salvador doesn't have an actionable duty to return him.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out on one of his better days, the law in a constitutional republic does not belong to a bunch of lawyers and judges -- it belongs to We The People. That doesn't mean any individual can redefine the law to "what I want it to mean," but it does mean we have a civic obligation to be familiar with basic legal principles and how the laws are being enforced in our name. Its not that hard to comprehend.

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

And then Kennedy struck down the marriage laws that have lasted since the dawn of civilization. We the People. What hooey. We the Kennedy.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

I did say "on one of his better days." I consider the entire line of cases from Goodridge to Obergefell to be some of the sloppiest judicial reasoning in the history of the Republic. I voted no on my state's DOMA in 2006, because I saw no reason to tie the hands of future legislatures if a majority of citizens were OK with issuing some sort of legal status to same-sex couples. I also saw no chance that our state supreme court would follow the lead of Massachusetts. If I lived in California, I would have voted for Prop 8, because there is literally no other appeal from a state supreme court interpreting a state constitution except a state constitutional amendment. But that's a different subject. The notion that "you're not an expert so just shut up and listen to the experts" is antithetical to American traditions of citizenship, republican government, government of the people, by the people, for the people. Liberals do that "listen to the experts" garbage all the time, and I refute it no matter who raises the argument. I repeat, it is not that hard for a citizen to comprehend.

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

Garcia is as much an American as Babe Ruth is a Boston Red Sox.

Expand full comment
Sethu's avatar

Unfortunately, sports is not my strong suit, so the analogy itself is lost on me, although now I just learned something about Babe Ruth (namely, that he's definitely not a Red Sox).

Expand full comment
Brian's avatar

He was originally on The Red Sox though. "Curse of the Babe"

Expand full comment
Sethu's avatar

I do know the Billy Goat Curse—I grew up around Chicago.

Expand full comment
Tee Stoney's avatar

Ooo, you might trigger Vinnie and he'll waddle in here and scoff at your gaming reference (someone should tell the dumb fuck there is no 18 sided dice.)

S'ok, Vinnie, it is a hobby for smart, imaginative people. Not for everyone.

Expand full comment
Ron Wall's avatar

"cuck side of the bed" - somehow, someway, i need to make that part of my daily conversation with co-workers.

Expand full comment
Lewis Grant's avatar

Look, it's one thing to control the border, which Trump has done. (And which Rod has praised!)

It's another entirely to start calling it an "invasion." "Invasion" is being used to justify a degree of peacetime Presidential power pretty much unseen in this country's history. This is not what the Founders intended (or, for that matter, what any conservative until the day before yesterday intended). The invocation of "emergency" powers to combat "invasions" is a very, very slippery slope toward the end of republicanism, which is why Americans have always been very vigilant against its use. And patriotic Americans all the moreso.

We're seeing a sea change here.

Expand full comment
Mark Marshall's avatar

Well, Biden letting in all these invaders is pretty much unseen in American history.

Expand full comment
Laura's avatar

I think there’s at least a possibility that invasion is the correct word, which would make his actions legally supportable. I agree that it is a slippery slope, but only if it’s not actually true. What if it is true? It took me a few minutes, but I found this piece in the Miami Herald that was mentioned on the Megyn Kelly show a few weeks ago. I’m not an expert on immigration or anything else, but this got my attention. Trump, from what I have gathered, feels no need to justify what he’s doing if he feels he has the right information and is doing the right thing. This is a PR disaster, of course, but it would explain why he’s using the word invasion—I think he literally means it.

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article302247909.html

Expand full comment
Thomas F Davis's avatar

The exact language of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for this situation is not invasion (which is in the Act) but rather "predatory incursion". My suspicion is this was intended in 1798 to apply to foreign pirates and similar organized non-state actors of the time. No slippery slope there, and it is unreasonable to believe that pirates armed with cannon in 1798 are much different than drug gangs armed with modern weaponry in 2025.

So the AEA does apply.

However, the AEA does contain due process requirements. I find this contradictory, since due process was unlikely to aid the expulsion of a bunch of foreign pirates in 1798 from costal islands in the American south. There are situations when due process is impractical, and I don't believe the Congress that passed the AEA thought otherwise.

Expand full comment
Theodore Iacobuzio's avatar

The Alien Act is a direct result of our undeclared naval war with France (the "Quasi War"). It has nothing to do with pirates and very much to do with French agents. And no less an authority than Antonin Scalia (remember him?) has ruled “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

Expand full comment
Thomas F Davis's avatar

OK, I was wrong, I should have written privateers rather than pirates.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

And allowed for due process.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

If pirates are encamped on a remote island with guns, cutlasses and cannon, the situation can indeed be treated as a military one. If someone has a full time legal civilian job, is married, and lives in a legal domicile in a civilian neighborhood, then due process applies before he is definitively treated as a pirate, drug dealer, or soldier of an organized gang.

Expand full comment
Thomas F Davis's avatar

That's pretty much how I see it. Under such a military or paramilitary operation as you describe, the moment they are disarmed the Alien Enemies Act kicks in and as far as I am concerned they get to sail away under threat of being sunk if they don't. Again, I don't see the need for a Federal magistrate on that scene.

I think that "if someone has a full time legal civilian job, is married, and lives in a legal domicile in a civilian neighborhood" they should get to challenge their identification as an enemy alien. What they can't do is challenge the proclamation of the group as enemy aliens. By law Congress granted that power to the President, it is undoubtedly an executive branch responsibility, and no court has the jurisdiction to tell any President that a group he deems to be enemy aliens are not enemies.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

I don't see anything going on in the U.S. as remotely comparable. I would not, incidentally, let the pirates sail away. They would be guilty of all manner of murder, rape, battery, theft, etc., and at least some of them should hang for it -- although sorting out who would require some semblance of a fair trial. Some present might even be innocent captives, or have been dragooned into serving on the ships. (On the other hand, I recall the procuress in "The Sound of Freedom" who at the moment of mass arrest tried to claim "I'm victim"). The power of the president of proclaim a group as enemy aliens is not open ended. For the courts, it would be a matter of (a) statutory interpretation -- in which the court's jurisdiction is limited to asking whether the president's action is consistent with any criteria set forth by congress in conferring the power, and (b) is the president exercising the power in a manner that violates an article of the constitution -- since congress has no authority to allow the president to violate the constitution. Its not open ended, but its an essential restraint on a president becoming a dictator. Conservatives used to worry about that.

Expand full comment
Phillip's avatar

Perhaps we could call it an immigration pandemic and issue a public health emergency. Then we can do whatever we want.

Expand full comment
Lewis Grant's avatar

The Left did something bad, so we're entitled to do something bad?

I thought we were supposed to be better.

Expand full comment
Phillip's avatar

Perhaps a few points. First, a bit of lightheartedness. Second, and more seriously, we did away with Constitutional protections in March of 2020. Very little objection to the lack of due process for hundreds of millions of Americans. Third, reading extensively through the comments, it seems there are reasonable arguments on both sides. So it's not clear to me that the deportation of this individual is immoral. Perhaps it is the judicial response that is immoral.

Expand full comment
sadie's avatar

If you lived on the border and saw what was coming across you would call it an invasion. If you lived in a small town taken over by them you would call it an invasion. That there are groups within them that are quite likely an advance guard for sabotage is another reason to call it an invasion. People have already been killed in TX by an IED, so yes, this is quite serious.

I'm not for all of this admin's ideas, but for Rod's friend to say he's done with Trump over this seems rather short sighted... as Rod's seems to be lately. Trump has done good things and opened the door for us to get busy locally... altho Congress needs to act to make them law. We have a short window to make changes in our locales. Think of where we would be had Kamala gotten in... full on war with Russia. So regretting voting for Trump is a somewhat childish response. I cannot endorse all he is doing but I don't regret not having Kamala et al.

Expand full comment
Michael Wilson Towns, Sr.'s avatar

Free Abrego Garcia huh? *sigh*

I don't really care, Margaret.

Expand full comment
Sethu's avatar

My Worldview Repairman tells me to not pay attention to stories such as these.

"The System is going out of its way to curate an experience of Anxiety and Hopelessness for you. Of all it could ask you to focus on, what it actually chooses is chosen to maximize your levels of Fear and Despair. Even if we assume that Man is broken, and that the only entertainment he will watch of his own free will is that which degrades him, still, why was *this* murder chosen over that one? Why *this* shooting and not the other? Why are you asked to care about War A but not even made aware of War B? Why is *that* social ill currently the one you’re being asked to focus on? Why is *this* potential disaster suddenly all over The News? The Screen is Fake because the Screen is, of necessity, *curated* Reality. It’s truncated. An attenuated, twisted version of the actual, living world where there are butterflies and laughing children."

—Yoshi Matsumoto

Expand full comment
D Light's avatar

I haven’t gotten over worrying about all the Canadians who have canceled plans to visit the US this summer.

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

Let'em go swimming amongst the icebergs of Nova Scotia.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

I noticed less traffic here in Pompano Beach, FL this winter, more winning!

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

I last was in Daytona Beach in 1969. Lots of Canadian flags at the motels. If today's Canadians would rather freeze watching the Maple Leafs and Canadiens lose in the Stanley Cup while drinking shots of Canadian Club, that's their business.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

I take it you don't own a motel in Daytona Beach or depend on tips from a restaurant job there...

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

They come to FL to see what a Stanley Cup championship hockey team looks like. :)

Expand full comment
Patrick Mullally's avatar

In other news, a Massachusetts federal district court judge issued a ruling that the over 500,000 immigrants who were permitted to be here temporarily by a Biden EO are each entitled to a hearing before the Trump administration can deport them. Yes, that's right, each one of them. So, that seems to be the game. Biden lets the multitude of immigrants in by using an ap on a cell phone without thoroughly vetting them and each will be defended to the hilt in a hearing by the ACLU in a process that will take years.

Expand full comment
Neophyte's avatar

We should deport the judges with the illegals.

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

The Federal government is enacting Reductions in Force for the bureaucracy. Trump should apply it to the judiciary. Reduce the judiciary in force.

Expand full comment
Leah Rose's avatar

I don't argue with the sentiment, but actually Congress is the branch who has that power wrt all federal courts below SCOTUS. I hope they use it.

Expand full comment
Lewis Grant's avatar

Maybe the federal government should enact increases, so that it can hear these cases far more quickly, and get on with deportations that are legitimate. But when Elon hates government, sometimes MAGA objectives get compromised.

An actual post-liberal agenda would probably empower government to justly defend the border. Sadly Vance, who is (or at least should be) a Catholic post-liberal, ends up prostrating himself before the Emperor.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Vance sacrificed his integrity and probably a good deal of his capacity for thought when he went to Mar-A-Lago to kiss the emperor's ring.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

At the very least they should be entitled to some sort of review to make sure they are in fact the persons named in the orders (not just someone who happens to share a name) and that the cause for their deportation is valid.

Expand full comment
Daniel Heneghan's avatar

What kind of people do they take us for? It's not Trump that is lawless and out of control, it is the judiciary, on so many fronts. We need a lot more defiance of judicial diktat. Just because a judge bleats out a command it doesn't make it a "lawful order". If it defies the common sense test in the extreme (thousands of examples) it ain't lawful in any sense. Sorry, that's how it's gotta be. The battle begins now. Lock horns, only one side can win this, let it be our side. At this point, I'd rather bring down the republic than go on as a slave to left/liberal/bourgeois diktat.

Expand full comment
William Tighe's avatar

I tend to agree with this, in general. There is nothing in the Constitution that made the Judiciary the preeminent branch of government, with power over them that they do not have over it.

But that pass was sold in the case of Adam Clayton Powell, when the House of Representatives ought to have defied or ignored the Supreme Court ruling in that case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack

Expand full comment
CrossTieWalker's avatar

Well, there is Marbury v Madison…

Expand full comment
William Tighe's avatar

True, but Marbury v Madison is one thing, annulling a constitutionally-invalid statute, while Powell v McCormack was the Supreme Court instructing a constituent part of the legislative branch how to conduct its own business, on no other basis than asserting an authority to do so.

And then, too, it is pretty clear from The Federalist Papers and elsewhere that the framers of the Constitution had not envisaged, much less intended, anything like judicial review of statutes. Like it or hate it, MvM was a mere judicial power grab, and one never used a second time until the Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

Expand full comment
Daniel Heneghan's avatar

New precedent can and ought to be made. That's how history advances. And history doesn't end, it advances.....or retreats.

Expand full comment
William Tighe's avatar

"That's how history advances. And history doesn't end, it advances.....or retreats."

I consider an absurdity all such "arc of history" talk; it is a poor man's metaphysic. It is what's known as "Metahistory" rather than History, and tells us more about its purveyor than it does about history itself.

Lemmings, for example, certainly "advance," but that is not a term of praise or commendation..

And those who "create precedents" need to have a better response to the inevitable Why? than the "Sic volo, sic iubeo; stet pro ratione voluntas" that activist judges seem to take for sufficient.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Sounds like the "living constitution" theory ... which leave us with no constitution at all.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

The proper and historically grounded distinction is not hard to delineate: it is not the province of the courts to review whether the president or congress made a wise, valid, beneficial, or appropriate use of a legitimate constitutional power. There are hundreds of opinions about that, and its up to the voters to replace them if their policies are unpopular or produce bad results. It is within the jurisdiction of the courts to restrain the unlawful or unconstitutional exercise of power, when either the executive or congress exceed their constitutional powers, or commit an act that violates a constitutional article.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

You clearly know nothing about the law, and have never read (or utterly forgotten) The Federalist Papers. A constitution is a flimsy piece of paper without courts who hold the executive and legislative branches accountable when they exceed their prescribed constitutional powers, or act contrary to a constitutional article. Local district courts of course are not the final word -- that's why we have appellate courts and a supreme court.

Expand full comment
Dan Jones's avatar

Each branch can hold another branch accountable in some areas. The judiciary isn't some Supreme Being of government. In fact as the third-named article and third branch it's the least, just as Congress is the first and most important.

Expand full comment
Daniel Heneghan's avatar

Exactly. Congress makes law. When necessary, the Executive executes the law to the best of his ability. And the court lightly review action when their are shades of doubt. This is the balance. Unfortunately this has to be pounded into the heads of too many in the Judiciary and seemingly all of the Democrat party today. Behold the pathetic situation where the Democrat party in Congress eagerly, willingly abdicates it's role and power, passing it right over to the Judiciary. Hard to believe, no?

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

The judiciary has authority to rule on whether congress or the president exceeded their delegated constitutional powers, or violated an article of the constitution. The judiciary has no power over wether congress or the president made a wise decision when exercising the powers they are granted by the constitution. Its not hard to delineate, and its not so vague so "hold another branch accountable in some areas."

Expand full comment
Theodore Iacobuzio's avatar

OK, she ruled. Then Trump appeals. Or he just might give them due process.

Expand full comment
Patrick Mullally's avatar

Shirley, you jest! I highly doubt that Trump will provide a hearing to each of the over 500,000 immigrants here on a temporary visa a due process hearing.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Well, he is operating outside the law if he doesn't. He's going to do a lot of damage -- for better or for worse he won (barely) the election, and if Harris had won, there would be plenty of worse to talk about, just a different brand of it. But he is operating outside the law.

Expand full comment
Patrick Mullally's avatar

So, the Constitution is a suicide pact? I do not write that lightly. A flood of immigrants are permitted to cross our southern border by the Biden administration and then turn around and use the right to due process under our Constitution against us? How many years, Mr. Rosenberg, do you think it would take to examine each claim? If you have a better solution than Trump's, I would love to read about it.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

No, the constitution is not a suicide pact. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in a limited number of times and places. This is actually something the constitution authorizes in case of insurrection or invasion. Lincoln also asked plaintively, will every provision of the Constitution be set aside so that this one provision may be upheld?

The most recent waves of immigration could be handled quite expeditiously, given that their status is a kind of parole -- admitted to the geographic confines of the United States pending consideration of their claim to asylum. People who have been here for five, ten, or more years are a very different matter. But the federal government literally has no right to exist or exercise any authority at all except by virtue of the constitution. That has been recognized in many Supreme Court rulings. We have a government of delegated powers, something conservatives used to recognize and even revel in.

Right now, Trump is not particularly focused on the hundreds of thousands of paroled recent applicants, he has armed units randomly picking up anyone who might kinda sorta fall under the umbrella of immigrant, looking for "big numbers." I would take a few hours to define some criteria and guidelines, deploy the limited resources and personnel in a focused way on the most urgent priorities, and leave people long resident, working, and law-abiding for later consideration. I also would not fire massive numbers of federal employees when gearing up a massive operation of any kind.

Expand full comment
Joshua King's avatar

Absolutely treasonous to let millions of people in unvetted.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

That doesn't meet the constitutional definition of treason.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Of course they are entitled to a hearing. Whether Biden should have admitted them in the first place is a valid question, but they're here, their individual situation is different from each other person who is here, and any government agency needs to check on what it is doing and what it really knows.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

I suspect that one will be overruled on appeal. Permitting someone to be here temporarily while we figure out if they should have been admitted in the first place is about the most tenuous legal status someone can have and still be in the country. If Trump were in fact focused on this group, it wouldn't take much to say "no" -- because their legal status is no different than if they were at the border applying for admission. But remember, these are people who lawfully applied, not people who slipped into the country in spite of our laws.

Expand full comment
Pete P's avatar

Don't enter countries illegally. If you do, expect to get deported. Don't cry over an illegal getting deported.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Its easy to label someone an illegal. Individuals matter -- that's fundamental to our system of government since the Revolution. Back in the 1960s. when the INS was routinely raiding work places and deporting people, a Spanish-surnamed native born U.S. citizen with a wife and family in Texas was rounded up working in agriculture in Florida. Since the closest Mexican territory as the crow flies was Yucatan, he was flown there and dumped. He had to make his way home to Texas from them with no money or ID. (ID wasn't so important back then, but having none and being far from anyone who knew him didn't help). That well known liberal Marxist publication, Readers's Digest, did an indignant article about it. This is no different than innocent small income middle class Americans being subject to indignity and assumption of guilt by IRS auditors.

Expand full comment
Pete P's avatar

Cry me a river. They need to go.

Expand full comment
JBird4049's avatar

Ignoring the question I see. The rule of law and due process is what protects you (or should) from government abuse.

Expand full comment
Pete P's avatar

There is no question. What rule of law? If we had rule of law, we wouldn't have had a single illegal for 50 years. You are dwelling in a fantasy.

And there is no protection from government abuse. The only protection is to avoid its notice and accept its abuse.

7 million people lost their homes in the Great Recession and didn't have government protecting citizens. Millions of jobs were shipped overseas without protecting citizens. Billions if not trillions given out to NGOs, foreign aid, military industrial complex, illegals etc. without government protection.

I have been discrimmated because of my race, ethnicity, sex, religion, politics, and more. Rule of law has been a fraud for years.

Let's kick all every single illegal, every fake refugee, and more. Until then, we haven't even started to restore rule of law.

Expand full comment
JBird4049's avatar

I do not see continuing to ignore the rule of law because others have done so a good justification.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

Same here, yawn.

Expand full comment
Gordon Tremeshko's avatar

As someone who both cares about the rule of law and also wants the Trump agenda in general to advance, I hate it. It's a dumb thing to defy the court over. One guy who lives in suburban Maryland who has a right to be in the US...why is this worth expending political capital on?

Expand full comment
Scuds Lonigan's avatar

He doesn't have a right to be in the United States. He had a deportation order but protection from being deported back to his native El Salvador.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

If he had a court order allowing him to stay, then he had a right to be here. And, it appears his fears of persecution in his native country were indeed well grounded.

Expand full comment
Gordon Freeman's avatar

Indeed. This tiresome Trial by Anecdote that’s become Rod’s new thing is not why I signed up and paid for a subscription, a very long three weeks ago…

Expand full comment
Paul Antonio's avatar

What, no outrage about that bastion of illegal and indefinite detentions, Guantanamo?

Expand full comment
Vince's avatar

'What about, what about, what about, what about...'

It's the only card you Trumpers have in most of these debates since the facts of the case (and the shameless lying by the administration) are a tough hand to play against.

Wait, according to Bondi & Miller, Abrego Garcia is a 'terrorist' so maybe he should have been sent to Guantanamo.

Expand full comment
Tee Stoney's avatar

It is worth pointing out what Leftist bootlickers let slide when their boys were at bat.

"It's OK WHEN WE DO IT!"

Spare us. You have to have virtue to virtue signal.

Expand full comment
Vince's avatar

Mocking whatabout-ism = virtue-signaling? Another compelling insight. You're on a role, jv Jacobin.

Expand full comment
Tee Stoney's avatar

Yes. Suck a fat one, low wattage hack.

Expand full comment
Vince's avatar

You keep posting like this and Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill is going to be very eager to get your contact info.

Expand full comment
Tee Stoney's avatar

Sure. Go cry to him, low wattage hack. I await. Or is your threat as impotent as your presence here? Let's find out.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

It is most certainly OK to point out that Biden blatantly disrespected the Supreme Court. Its not a pass for Trump. A pox on all their houses.

Expand full comment
Tee Stoney's avatar

It is also ok to point out that Biden and years past of border decade got us into this. That this is a war footing our enemies have on us, and unless we want Europe's fate, Ms. Manners will be insufficient. TRump has actually identified the problem and is seeking to use measures that will actually deal with it.

YOur lot will not.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

At the moment, I have no power to act in any manner on any criteria, and nobody has run for president lately that I would trust to do so. Perhaps my lots day will come. A pox on all their houses.

Expand full comment
tmatt's avatar

Harvard is a private school. Maybe it needs a clear, honest DOCTRINAL statement stating the beliefs faculty must affirm in order to be hired. Let students and donors know the details of the Harvard "faith."

Expand full comment
Thucydides's avatar

It was reported that Garcia was under deportation orders from the Immigration Court, and had been found to be an MS-13 member. So it might be that he had had due process.

Expand full comment
Matthew Miller's avatar

For our benefit, would you tell us about that report - what official source, etc. - if you know? Thanks.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

Until Stephen Miller (whom I would not trust to tell me the time of day) came out with such a claim, the Trump administration itself had admitted that the deportation was a mistake.

Expand full comment
Thucydides's avatar

I have seen reporting that his particular selection was a mistake, but that is a different question than whether he was in fact deportable.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

If he was an illegal alien then yes, he was deportable. But if (as has been widely reported) he was not in fact a gang member he should not have been sent to Bukele's gulag. By the way, even actual Stalinist gulags were not as awful as Bukele's prisons. Inmates were in the USSR allowed periodic communication with their families, and could even be released. When a tyrant exceeds Joe Stalin in brutality we should step back and consider whether we want to do business with him or not.

Expand full comment
Scuds Lonigan's avatar

"By the way, even actual Stalinist gulags were not as awful as Bukele's prisons..."

Now this is a moderate comment. LOL.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

An immigration court made a ruling, several years ago, a court of higher jurisdiction ruled there was a credible fear of persecution and no reliable evidence of being a gang member, and that last order was never appealed. That is the state of his legal status, and it takes due process to reopen the court's ruling.

Expand full comment
Adrian Gaty's avatar

Clearly, all illegal immigrants can and should be deported only to a select group of locations they themselves choose, such as the nicer arrondissements of Paris, the most emeraldy fields of Ireland, and the nude beaches of the Caribbean with the least obese tourists around. This is a clear human right of any illegal immigrant, anyone who dares deport them anywhere outside Condé Nast’s top 20 vacation destinations is a moral monster.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

They have high standards after those 4 star NYC hotels.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

That statement confuses the massive arrivals of the last few years with an individual who has been here much longer, lived in a single family home or apartment that he paid for, etc.

Expand full comment
Warren's avatar

Garcia was not merely "deported". He is in prison, and (despite deflections to the contrary) is in prison at the order of Donald Trump. And an extremely brutal prison at that.

Expand full comment
Adrian Gaty's avatar

Such a terrible catch-22. Stay in your home country and get sent to jail for being a gang member, or break illegally into another country and get deported and sent to the same jail. A truly Kafkaesque nightmare.

Expand full comment
Warren's avatar

We haven't seen any evidence at all that he's a gang member.

Expand full comment
Adrian Gaty's avatar

Immigration court said he was. But if they’re wrong, it’s a real bummer he didn’t get due process in America. Maybe he would’ve gotten a fair hearing in the upstanding court system of the country he was born in… oh, oops.

Reminds me of the line about Sirhan Sirhan saying RFK would’ve forgiven him: what bad luck, the one guy on earth who would have granted you parole, and you went and shot him!

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

Now that's funny. My wife even thinks you are funny. I think I'll laugh about this one for many days.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Generally they get deported to their nation of origin -- where they go within that nation is not a consideration. When people are deported to a third nation, all kinds of legal and ethical considerations arise.

Expand full comment
Kevin Clark's avatar

It's funny to me how people throw around the word "treason" without having any idea of its legal meaning.

Expand full comment
Sethu's avatar

High school civics, he says: exhibit 928 in the case that our education system has failed us all.

Expand full comment
Mark Marshall's avatar

It’s funny to me how people nitpick when we’ve been invaded with the help of a major political party.

Expand full comment
Theodore Iacobuzio's avatar

Why doesn't he go after Tyson Foods and Toll Brothers? Is that "nitpicking"?

Expand full comment
Kevin Clark's avatar

Just to be clear, I do agree with Rod on the underlying point. I think it is to Trump's benefit to scrupulously and meticulously follow any ruling from the Supreme Court, since that will allow him to say that he's handling immigration energetically but legally.

Expand full comment
Leah Rose's avatar

The lower court judge has not followed the SCOTUS ruling. She simply removed the word "effectuate" and piled on a bunch more outrageous demands. Specifically, she has failed to clarify her ruling showing proper deference to the Executive's Article II authority. I suspect she'll be redirected, if not smacked down, by SCOTUS again.

Expand full comment
Connie the Cat's avatar

But there is the rub. SCOTUS didn’t order Garcia back to the US. The press is reporting it that way, but that isn’t what they said. If that is what they wanted they could have said that, instead they said he should be afforded due process (not necessarily a hearing) as if he had not been sent to El Salvador (the country of which he is a citizen). So for an adjudicated member of MS-13 that would be Gitmo. Of course El Salvador would have to agree to send it’s citizen to Gitmo for US due process.

Expand full comment
Matthew Venuti's avatar

Perhaps sedition is the better word.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

These are judicial coup attempts.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

No, they're not. I would say more, but you haven't provided evidence, citations or analysis to respond to.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

So why are these Deep State rogue courts regularly smacked down on appeal? These decisions are solely to be made by the POTUS and Secretary of State.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Appeals have had mixed results, which speaks to the integrity of the courts handling them. District judges make erroneous rulings at times, but not always. Appeals so far follow the appropriate standard. If the president does have the power to act, and is acting in accordance with constitutional requirements, the courts uphold the president's authority to make the decision -- whether or not the president is acting wisely. The issue for the courts is whether the president is acting outside his delegated and constitutionally defined authority. Since Trump recognizes no limits on his authority in any function in his entire life, including constitutional restrains on the President of the United States, courts have legitimately issued orders to restrain his more dubious measures, and that is what we have constitutional review for. Its called liberty. These decisions are NOT "solely to be made" by the President and the Secretary of State. We have a federal government of limited powers, as intended by the Framers.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

Nonsense, and those limits apply to these judges also. Their disagreement seems to be with his policies, not the Constitution. For issues the Constitution is silent on, it is up to Trump.

Expand full comment
Kevin Clark's avatar

IANAL but I think the actual words would be either civil or criminal contempt of court.

Expand full comment
tmatt's avatar

White House says: We were wrong. Bring him back to US. Give him a legal day in court. Meanwhile, fix the methods being used to clarify the evidence of crime -- in USA or abroad --of these facing deportation. Then get back to work on deportations.

Expand full comment
Kevin Clark's avatar

The more people support Trump's underlying policy, the more they should want him to follow the law scrupulously. He needs the continued support of the American people, and if he looks like he's cutting corners and having bad outcomes, he's going to lose that support.

Expand full comment
Leah Rose's avatar

I don't think the media will do anything other than make it look like he's cutting corners, no matter how scrupulously he follows the law. Some of the problem is that not all the disputes have clearly defined precedents, not all the legal questions have black & white answers. There are conflicting interpretations that need review and rulings by SCOTUS, which is why the unwillingness of Roberts to step in with his court and *clearly* clarify the boundaries of Article II vs. III powers is appalling. He is facilitating the diminishment of the courts and rule of law, undermining the stability of the nation.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Well, when he scrupulously follows the law, and the media keep reporting on him like he's in blatant violation, that will definitely be something to talk about.

Expand full comment
Leah Rose's avatar

The media is so bad at coherently reporting any topic with the slightest nuance, I wouldn't rely on them, period. They are good for amplifying narratives, not enlightening minds.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

Unfortunately, neither you nor I nor anyone are personally present to witness the events we are discussing. So, we ALL rely on SOME source to have any idea what is really going on. I don't trust any source. I look at the detail of reporting, the level of facts presented v. the long run-on bland characterizations that try to do my thinking for me, how well multiple sources agreed and disagree, and why. I don't place confidence on social media posts presented with breathless intensity -- which also by and large are trying to do my thinking for me.

Expand full comment
tmatt's avatar

This is a case where I think it’s important to establish the legal process — as part of dealing with the open border train wreck of recent years. Do the work in a legal, less divisive manner. Get this done right.

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

But this particular immigrant had multiple hearings in 2019. How much due process is a person guaranteed? Unlimited appeals like a prisoner on death row?

Unfortunately for the millions of illegal aliens that came at Biden's blessing, we don't have the resources to treat each of them with this much legal standing. Our country is going bankrupt. We cannot spend a trillion dollars on legal services for non-citizens. It is radically unfair to the taxpayer to expect them to pick up this tab.

Feelings are going to be hurt and the media is going to blow stuff out of proportion (lie). They did it with kids in cages during Trump's first term. They are doing it this time with one anecdotal incident where the facts are muddy, but what isn't disputed is that Abrego is an illegal alien from El Salvador.

Expand full comment
NNTX's avatar

While neglecting in the case of "kids in cages" to acknowledge that this was an Obama era policy.

The MSM is a disgrace. It saddens me to see Rod fall for their nonsense.

Expand full comment
Katheryn Gallant's avatar

Abrego Garcia *was* an illegal alien from El Salvador. He later obtained the right to live legally in the US. He's married to a US citizen and they have a native-born US citizen child together. Perhaps he should have been deported before he married and had a US citizen child, but it's too late now, in my opinion.

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

As I understand it, he was ordered out of the country just not to El Salvador. But as a confirmed member of MS-13 (by 2 courts) his status and rights changed radically when the Trump folks labeled MS-13 a foreign terrorist group.

Expand full comment
Mario Diana's avatar

That's not my understanding of the situation. A court ruled that he couldn't be deported to El Salvador. That same ruling did not preclude his being deported to another country. Until he was deported, the court ruled that he had a right—in the meantime—to live and work in the United States.

Now, a couple of things. Firstly, what other country would take him? We can't force any other country to take a foreign national, any more than the United States could be forced to. He's not a citizen of any other country than El Salvador. Secondly, the rationale the court gave for "withholding" his deportation to El Salvador was that he was—according to him—at risk of gang violence in El Salvador.

Here's how that plays out. President Nayib Bukele has effectively ended the threat of MS-13 in El Salvador. That holds true on the streets and even in those notorious prisons of his. If anything, he's done a better job there than we have here. As such, the court's concern is a moot point.

He's an El Salvadoran citizen, and he's back in his home country. What happens to him there is between him and El Salvador. And rightfully so.

Expand full comment
Thomjack's avatar

The issue I see is this. There are possibly over 30,000,000 illegal aliens in this country. We have 677 federal district judges. If only 10% of the illegal aliens file habeas cases, that is more than 4,000 cases on average for each federal district judge. The system could not possibly even handle 400 cases for each district judge. This particular person was issued a deportation order in 2019. We cannot give each of the 30,000,000 or even 3.000,000 or even 300,000 illegal aliens a full due process habeas proceeding.

Expand full comment
Mark Marshall's avatar

Exactly. And must not. We have been invaded, and we need to act like we’ve been invaded.

Expand full comment
Betsy's avatar

And where as in this case there *is* a deportation order, he *DID* have a hearing. He is now in his home country - where he has citizenship.

Expand full comment
Daniel Kennedy's avatar

Can you share the deportation order and the results of said hearing? Because all reporting I've seen (with links, etc.) is that he had a hearing and the immigration judge said he was NOT to be deported.

Expand full comment
Betsy's avatar

Two separate hearings - one deportation, two not to ES (not, don’t deport). I’m sorry, don’t have a link.

Expand full comment
Leah Rose's avatar

As I understand it, the 2019 withholding order only blocked him from being deported to El Salvador. He was still supposed to be deported. And he was not. When Trump began 2.0 by declaring MS-13 et al as a foreign terrorist organization, it legally invalidated the withholding order because terrorists are not entitled to them.

Expand full comment
Daniel Kennedy's avatar

Thank you (and Betsy)! This is the context I was missing. That indeed makes a difference.

Expand full comment
Betsy's avatar

Leah, thank you - I didn’t know that. So no need to deal with the “not to ES” aspect.

Expand full comment
Vince's avatar

Where is the proof that he's a member of MS-13, Leah?

Expand full comment
Dukeboy01's avatar

https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/1912119147263033478

Not that you didn't already know this, troll.

Expand full comment
Vince's avatar

A statement from Immigration Court (!!!), offering no actual evidence is your smoking gun, Dukie?!? Knowing the typical MAGA grasp of civics ['the Constitution has secret clauses that allow the VP to reject electoral votes'; 'AKSHULLY, the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply to Trump!'] I'm guessing you probably think Immigration Court is part of the judicial branch. Truly amazing.

Catturd's really letting you guys down if this is the best talking point he can funnel out to his mind hive.

Expand full comment
Thomas F Davis's avatar

Don't feed the troll.

Expand full comment
Sethu's avatar

You're a true public servant.

Expand full comment
Thomas F Davis's avatar

He's too clever to get Rod's boot anytime soon under Rod's boot criteria, unfortunately. And yesterday he even brought one item to our attention that we need to know about. But his attitude behind the cleverness is really bad. He obviously despises nearly everyone here.

Note, too, how he got few likes before today and now he's getting them as soon as he posts. It could be people who just don't know who he is, but it's more likely he's paid to be here and the likes are his coworkers, or else he just has multiple Substack accounts. BTW, his knowledge of the existence of that "one item" so soon after its debut also makes me think he is paid or otherwise plugged into some kind of network.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

The most recent court ruling found that he had a well-founded fear of persecution and could remain in the U.S.

Expand full comment
Leah Rose's avatar

Charlie, what court ruling do you mean? There was a 2019 immigration court ruling that granted him the withholding order based on those fears. Are you saying there's a more recent court ruling on that topic?

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

No, that is precisely what I'm talking about. That was the last court ruling on record -- it granted him a withholding order. So, if he's going to be lawfully deported, a government attorney has to go back to that court, and apply to have the order lifted on the ground that conditions justifying the order no longer apply. That's the lawful way to go about it. Seizing him by force without notice and deporting him without going back to that court is precisely the problem here. (That order can be appealed, but most likely the time for appeal has expired, which means to reopen the case, they go back to that court, and then, either side can appeal the resulting order).

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

His excuse in not wanting to go back to his home country was that he feared for his safety from the gang Barrio 18. That’s right, an MS13 member feared for his safety from another gang. Can’t make this stuff up.

Let’s move that argument to today. Barrio 18 no longer exists due to President Bukele. El Salvador is the the safest country in the world. Mr. Garcia obviously has no more valid safety concerns. So why did Mr. Garcia not return to his home country? Because as an MS13 member, he knew he would end up in the prison he is now in.

This is a really easy situation to understand. Take the macro view, look for the “dog that’s not barking”, and never, ever, believe what the elitist and globalist Uniparty is telling you. Anyone who falls for the Uniparty line really needs to examine their critical thinking and information processing skills. It’s the classic “garbage in, garbage out” scenario. Don’t be a tool for the Uniparty who hates you, your way of life, and everything you stand for. Behind closed doors the Uniparty laughs at us.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

Re: That’s right, an MS13 member feared for his safety from another gang.

There is no evidence he was a MS13 member. And it's quite possible for a person who is not a gang member to fear for their safety from gangs.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

The gang he feared no longer exists.

He has no right to be in the US.

El Salvador is the safest country in the world.

Why didn’t he move back to his home country?

Hmmmm……..

Expand full comment
Vince's avatar

Well, his wife is an American and their child is too, so I can see why he would have the crazy impulse to want to stick around this country.

Does that answer your 'Hmmmmmmm' or are you still too busy pondering the 'brilliance' of Victor Davis Hanson's insights on tariffs?

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

Don’t care. His family can go live in El Salvador if they want to be close to him. All children of illegals can go live in the country where their illegal parent is from.

Further, as an illegal, why didn’t he apply for citizenship here if he knew that one day he could be deported and not be with his wife and kids? I can only assume that he doesn’t care whether he sees them or not. Another poor decision in a long string of poor decisions that Mr. Abrego Garcia has made. Good riddance.

If you don’t like what Victor Davis Hanson wrote on tariffs, write something better. That’s the intellectually honest thing to do.

Expand full comment
Warren's avatar

Well that would be a fair argument if he was simply being sent back to El Salvador to live his life there. But he was sent directly into a foreign prison, and he is currently being kept there on the US's whims. Simply being an illegal alien does not justify that.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

It’s not a foreign prison to him since it’s in his home country. He’s now subject to the laws of the country where he’s a citizen. It’s now up to El Salvador to determine where he belongs. It’s no longer our problem.

Expand full comment
Charlie Rosenberg's avatar

It doesn't seem like he went back to a nice civilian neighborhood to enjoy the peace and safety of Barrio 18 being absent.

Expand full comment
hv's avatar

But there is some evidence; 2 separate judges have noted it. The significance of the barrio 18 connection is not being mentioned anywhere so one must dig a little to find it, but the second judge notes that the reason this man was granted protection specifically from deportation to El Salvador is because of his fear of “persecution” from the barrio 18 gang *based on his own belonging to a specific group*. The main rival of barrio 18 is MS 13. The family pupusa protection racket story just doesn’t make sense. I suspect there is more to this whole situation than is currently being reported.

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

These are excellent points. The defenders of Abrego are caught arguing contrary things. First, that he is not an MS-13 member. Second, that he fears for his life and shouldn't be sent back to El Salvador because of the rival gang. He can't be both.

Expand full comment
hv's avatar

It’s an interesting case. I finally tracked down the court document that originally denied his asylum claim but granted him “withholding of deportation” to El Salvador and read the whole thing. Apparently the judge was actually referring to his “membership” in his own family (which is bonkers). Allegedly the whole family was being harassed over the mom’s pupusa business and the fact that “everyone knew”they made pupusa somehow qualified them as a distinct “social group” in the community. The judge acknowledged this was a stretch but rolled with it anyway. (It’s also a little odd that the 2 sons were allegedly recruited by the gang so they were both sent to the US, whereas mom and 2 sisters were allegedly threatened with rape and murder but stayed.) Actually they moved to Guatemala but were still allegedly being harassed. And in the ruling, the judge withheld deportation to El Salvador but then specifically explains it is because conditions can’t be expected to have changed *in Guatemala*. If the problem is now in Guatemala, why can’t he go to El Salvador? And whatever happened to the older brother Cesar Alcides Garcia, also of Maryland, who is a US citizen? Has no one interviewed him? I hope someone does some deep dive investigative journalism on this whole situation. It’s wild that a guy can be here illegally for 8 years and then get rolled up by the cops in the company of gang members, and just say well my mom is being harassed by a different gang over her pupusa so I can’t go back and the judge is like yeah ok that sounds real, but then he is still supposed to be deported, but isn’t, and now this whole debacle and everyone screaming about habeas corpus when there are tens of millions of illegal immigrants and there’s no way we can give them all hearings. What a mess. I guess don’t come here illegally and hang around with gangs or you might get hemmed up like this guy.

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

There were 2 hearings where he was found to be MS-13. Of course, if he really wasn't MS-13 he would have no reason to fear the gangs in El Salvador. His supporters seem to be arguing contradictory facts. He can't both not be an MS-13 member and afraid of what the gangs will do to him because he's MS-13.

Expand full comment
Eric Mader's avatar

Hats off, Ataraxis. This comment wins the thread today.

The takeaway:

If you sense yourself nodding along with arguments made by the usual suspects, it's a good sign you need to examine your critical thinking and information processing skills. Because 9.8 times out of 10, you're being gaslit.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

A truism from the great Scott Adams:

“Don’t look at what’s being said, look at who is saying it”

Expand full comment
Rod Dreher's avatar

The point is that the administration admitted (until it took it back) that he had a legal right to be in this country, and that they sent him away in error. I don't care if we deport him. He's here illegally -- send him back. But do it legally. If you find out that you sent a man out of the country illegally, then you have to do it the right way. It's nonsense that Trump couldn't get him back if he wanted. You and I might not like the fact that a judge gave Abrego Garcia the right to stay, but the law is not something that matters only when judges rule in ways we like.

Expand full comment
Thomas F Davis's avatar

As I've posted elsewhere today, the Alien Enemies Act does contain due process protections, but the criteria listed in the Act to allow its invocation are situations where due process would normally be impossible or extremely difficult. The Act is thus open to interpretation. I'd like to argue that lone individuals like Garcia would be entitled to due process, but that gang members detained together would at most face a magistrate en masse, and that is not totally necessary. I would hope the Supreme Court would move somewhat in this direction.

Expand full comment
Thomjack's avatar

Right. So, again, the lets say that the lone cases like Garcia get the due process protections. Lets say that is only 1% of illegal aliens. That would amount to 400 cases per district judge. That isn't possible. You would also have to hire thousands of new lawyers to litigate these cases. That isn't possible to do either. If people sincerely want open borders, we should have open borders and revert to a more tribal state. The point should be to explain the benefits of a tribal state and open borders rather than pretend it is possible to have individualized cases for 30,000,000 or even 3,000,000 or even 300,000 people. It would be easier to find a person who could run a 100 meter race in under 8 seconds.

Expand full comment
Thomas F Davis's avatar

Wait a minute. We are talking about a case involving the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), which I argue COULD allow for some, perhaps many deportations without a hearing. Most illegal aliens cannot fall under the criteria defined by the AEA for it to be invoked, so my example comes nowhere near 400 cases per district judge. I'd be willing to bet one district judge could adjudicate all the individual (as opposed to red-handed gang) cases in just a few days. I we insist on one judge per district, as I would, it could all be over in a day.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

I agree with you and hope they do a better job going forward. That’s a worthy goal and I applaud your sense of justice. But let’s zoom out and take in the macro view and not get caught up in the minutiae. How Mr. Abrego Garcia got deported is now moot, and all of the legalistic grandstanding from the Dems and breathless media coverage is just another Democrat lawfare op at this point.

From attorney Bill Shipley: Without an enforceable remedy the issue is not a “case or controversy” - it is “nonredressable”.

Nonredressable means “not capable of being corrected, remedied, or compensated. Mr. Abrego Garcia is now being represented by six (!!) Big Law attorneys. These Big Law attorneys absolutely, 100% know that there is no legal recourse for Mr. Abrego Garcia in the US. None. A US judge can’t order El Salvador what to do. They are just playing the lawfare game.

The last Dem lawfare stunt from the exact same playbook? Just last week with Mahmoud Khalil. Funny how his name disappeared from the news just as Mr. Abrego Garcia’s name appeared. (the dog that’s no longer barking)

Take care.

Expand full comment
Thomjack's avatar

The administration responded to this point by saying that the DOJ attorney who wrote that in a filing was wrong. Again, it is not possible to have habeas cases for millions of people (let alone hundreds of thousands of people) when there are only 677 federal district judges. It is not possible to pass legislation to create an extra 50,000 district judges who could each take 100 cases (meaning only 500,000 habeas cases). The numbers do not work for this position being advanced by the majority in the media. Its emotional. I get it. But what I actually think it is amounts to oikophobia and a hatred of the groups who have been here over 100 years.

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

Yes. With all America's illegal immigrants, we'd need to install 50,000 judges to deal with the flood. Judges are all bad so why install more. Just get rid of the illegals, one way or the other. Let's forget about 1905 government.

Expand full comment
Scuds Lonigan's avatar

I don't believe it's true that he had a legal right to be in this country. I believe he could have (should have) been deported to other than El Salvador.

Expand full comment
Theodore Iacobuzio's avatar

Nobody admires J.D. more than your agent but these Oval Office Punch and Judy shows have to stop.

Expand full comment
Warren's avatar

Another point is there's a huge difference between simply deporting someone and depositing them directly into a foreign gulag. The latter *might* be justifiable if they really were a member of MS-13, but neither the US or El Salvador is attempting to prove that.

Expand full comment
Dukeboy01's avatar

So bring Garcia back to have a hearing to kick him out again in order to satisfy the dottings of i's and crossings of t's to satisfy your sense of constitutional propriety. Never mind that we have no real method to force El Salvador to give up one of their citizens who is held within their territorial boundaries and never mind that you're endorsing the principle that every illegal immigrant deserves to have every i dotted and every t crossed before they're kicked out, even though it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread that we lack the capacity to do so.

There is the world of legal theory and "muh constitutional principles" and then there is the world in which we live. You post weekly in nigh- apocalyptic terms about the civilizational crisis that Europe finds itself in due to mass immigration, both legal and illegal. I would argue (and I think that you agree) that we face the same crisis here in the United States, although it hasn't advanced as far. You acknowledge the need for these immigration issues to be addressed, correct?

What do you think that addressing a problem of this magnitude should look like? The number of District court judges available for giving each of these people their day in court has been reported as woefully insufficient to the task. What then?

The question is not whether or not the law matters. The question is whether or not other principles matter more. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Expand full comment
Thomjack's avatar

If we "need" to have habeas hearings for even 1% of our illegal alien population under the reading of the constitution, we need a new constitution. With a very low estimate of 10,000,000 illegals, that would be 100,000 habeas proceedings. That amounts to 1400 cases for each of the 677 district court judges. If Garcia gets this "right" we need to just admit we have no country and we need to become a more tribal society where we affiliate with a group whose chief or strongman protects us. Of course, the constitution in no way guarantees a habeas court hearing for any illegal alien -- not even one. Just look at the numbers.

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

I vote this comment of the day! Particularly this part:

"never, ever, believe what the elitist and globalist Uniparty is telling you."

How many times will they be allowed to cry wolf?

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

One of the best things President Trump has done has been enabling regular Americans to spot fake news and gaslighting from the Uniparty. We all look at things everyday that we immediately dismiss because we know on their face that they’re not true. Fake news. Gaslighting.

It’s glaringly obvious to most Americans, and that’s why the President’s approval rating is so high. Americans just don’t care about non-news stories like Abrego Garcia the illegal. We care about our fellow Americans who are truth seekers.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

There are somewhere around 10-12 million illegal aliens.

Expand full comment
Erick's avatar

Oh, no. WAY higher than that. That was the range apologists for illegals offered up 25-30 years ago.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

See my reply to Thomjack below.

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

I'd guess the illegals are way above 30 million.

Expand full comment
Thomjack's avatar

That number was the number cited 15 years ago. So, it is your contention that no illegals came here under Biden. The actual number is unknown but probably exceeds 10 million. So, at the very low end maybe there are only 25-30 million illegals -- it probably is more realistically 30-40 million. If people want open borders, we can revert to a tribal state where we have no government and we need to pay a strongman or tribal chief for protection, just admit that. Explain why such a system is better than what we have. It's silly when people talk about a process where millions of people would have habeas cases heard by only 677 federal district judges. It is a totally impossible task.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

Re: That number was the number cited 15 years ago.

Nope. It is the current number which comes up when you search "How many illegal aliens in US?"

You should be aware that the border is a two way street. People come, but people also leave. During bad economic times (as in 2020) more people leave than come. Which suggests a strategy we should use: Institute a national ID for all adult citizens and legal immigrants, which must be shown and verified online for employment, with stiff penalties for businesses which fail to check, or employ people without checking. With no jobs available far fewer people will be crossing the border.

Expand full comment
Thomjack's avatar

In the news was the paroled illegals let in by Biden from Haiti and Venezuela. That number alone was 500,000 for that subset that was brought in by plane. They are illegal aliens. There were on average 3,000,000 border encounters per year under Biden. That doesn't account for people who got here without such an encounter. Those numbers alone would exceed 15,000,000 people. So, you are telling me that every illegal before Biden left and millions of illegals who came here under Biden also left? That isn't true. Even if it were true (it sure as hell is not) you can't do like 500,000 habeas cases for the illegal population. That would amount to about 800 cases for each district judge. They could not handle even 100 cases each.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

I'm telling you that I trust (to a first approximation) actual vetted stats I do not at all trust political outrage porn or random things posited on the Internet.

Due process is an absolute requirement of the Constitution. It is one of the oldest political liberties under our system of law, dating back to the Middle Ages. I can imagine no circumstances, no, not even nuclear war, where it would be OK to ignore at least some basic process to verify that the right person is before the court and evidence exists against him. Our liberties are more important than our comforts-- or they should be. Note that I am NOT suggesting endless lawyerly litigation, just the basics.

Expand full comment
Thomjack's avatar

Alright, I do not agree with you but lets say there are only 8 million illegal aliens (the vast majority of those who came here under Biden have returned under this scenario and in essence most of the ones who were here before Biden also have left. I get your point is that these eight million people very much need due process. Let say only five percent assert habeas cases. That equals 800 cases on average for each district judge. I get you believe your version of due process is more important than the survival of the country itself. From a practical perspective, how do our federal district judges handle 800 of these cases each and what lawyers would represent the government in these cases?

Expand full comment
Brian Villanueva's avatar

We actually don't need to initiate anything. Mandatory eVerify could be implemented tomorrow and would achieve all of this. But it requires legislation. (Or maybe it doesn't; I'm not sure.)

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

Everify can be gamed, and many already do so (with employers looking the other way). All you need is a name, SS# and birthdate that will come up as a match. We can't seem to keep that info private and secure as witness the rergular hacks that expose the data of millions to bad actors. Which is why I am suggesting something more stringent, though, yes, it would impose a fairly small burden on the rest of us.

Expand full comment
Brian Villanueva's avatar

I agree. And I wouldn't mind a national ID card. The fact that we don't have one is a legacy of a federalism that pretty much doesn't exist anymore. However, eVerify (for all its faults) exists right now and could be made mandatory with nothing but a simple bill in Congress. It's low hanging fruit.

The fact that neither party wants to do this (for different reasons) speaks volumes.

Expand full comment
Joshua King's avatar

It has to be at least 30 million since as you said the media has been saying around 20 million for years. Count the kids of the illegals and it becomes even more.

Expand full comment
Aaron's avatar

The number of illegals in the country has been cited as “8-10 million” for the last 35 years.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

Here's the full AI-generated discussion (Yes, it excludes 2024):

"The unauthorized immigrant population in the United States has fluctuated over time, but generally remains around 11 million. The peak was around 12.2 million in 2007, after which there was a decline until about 2019. More recent data shows a slight increase, with estimates around 11.0 million in 2022 and 11.7 million in July 2023.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

1990s-2007:

The unauthorized immigrant population grew rapidly, reaching its peak of 12.2 million in 2007.

2008-2019:

The population declined, with estimates reaching 10.5 million by 2017 and 10.35 million by 2019.

2020-2022:

The population remained relatively stable, with estimates around 10.5 million in 2020 and 11.0 million in 2022.

2023:

The population increased slightly to 11.7 million. "

Expand full comment
Aaron's avatar

Oh, AI, why didn’t you just say so? So, there were 11 million in 2019, 10 million came in under Biden, and we’re at 11 million. You should ask AI what 11 million plus 10 million is. I bet the answer will be 11 million.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

What ten million? You are repeating propaganda .

I am no fan of AI but I trust it more than I do masters of lies with axes to grind.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

To allow 677 unelected lower court judges to have veto power over a POTUS is tyranny. They are simply lawyers in robes who knew somebody to get their position.

Expand full comment
JonF311's avatar

So the President is omnipotent and no one (maybe God?) has any authority to countermand him? See: balance of power. Everything we know about the Founders is that they were extremely leery about letting the executive become to powerful. And I am very much on board with that. I want a weaker and more limited executive than we've had for my lifetime.

Expand full comment
Corwin Slack's avatar

Not even lawyers, just ideologues. Priestly robes and elevated seats should be banned from our judicial system.

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

100% agree. We can virtue-signal about due process and the like, but our reality of very limited resources can't be wished away.

Expand full comment
JBird4049's avatar

Somehow, the United States always has the resources to obliterate entire countries and to create a massive police state, but lacks the resources to adequately fund the judiciary?

Expand full comment
John Downing's avatar

We are dealing with a group of people--illegal immigrants--who know our legal system is overwhelmed and are exploiting it to remain illegally in the US.

We also seem to have enough resources to leave billions worth of military equipment to the Taliban.

Expand full comment
Dan Jones's avatar

I'm not sure which is the case (and which is worse): (a) Biden lacked the brainpower to imagine, or entertain, the notion that waiving in many millions of unvetted aliens would possibly end up overwhelming the courts when political winds shift; or (b) Biden counted on this overwhelming the courts. Either way -- great job saving "our Democracy," nitwit!

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

There’s a big difference between plain deportation and putting people in a foreign prison. It’s the prison aspect without due process that’s disturbing.

Expand full comment
Thomjack's avatar

Many Americans who ought not to be in prison are in very dangerous prisons in the United States. Because perhaps most Americans have issues with their fellow citizens, pretty much nobody cares. And, you may be surprised to learn, many of America's prisons are far worse than prisons like the one in El Salvador. Do you believe that there should be a trial before a suspected criminal is arrested? That is not the way it works, so probably at least 10% of all arrested and incarcerated prisoners are totally innocent. We have some control over that (improving our prisons and funding indigent criminal defendants). We ought not to be intruding on how foreign countries operate their prisons especially if those prisons are safer, more hygienic, and do not put people in cells 23 hours a day.

Expand full comment
Tee Stoney's avatar

On the Harvard thing, the universities, especially the IV League, are a big part of where we are now. They do not help and are not of value. No way in hell they deserve tax dollars. Yank them. At this point, I would not care if they were scrambling to comply. We do not need them. They, in fact, do harm.

Expand full comment
Henry Clemens's avatar

I too am troubled by the whole woke leftist situation, but how is it that the extraordinary quality of our top universities, Harvard being the clearest example, seems to escape the understanding of so many? The scholarly eminence of the faculty, the international prestige (which reflects on the US as a whole), the value of the research, the competitiveness of the students, the contribution of her graduates to our national life. Harvard has been built up over almost 400 years; even Harvard can be seriously damaged in much, much less time. And here Harvard is representative of other such institutions — of whose existence we should be proud, even while we seek some prudent reforms. Another example of the chainsaw and not the paring knife. And an example, which should trouble conservatives more than it seems to do, of greatly excessive and arbitrary federal power.

Expand full comment
Tee Stoney's avatar

Demonstrate the "extraordinary quality of our top universities" now, in concrete terms.

You can't.

They are not what they once were. If they have any value at all, let them show that by surviving on their own means. The woke factories do not deserve my tax dollars.

Expand full comment
Daniel Kennedy's avatar

The "extraordinary quality of our top universities" has led them to admitting students who require remedial math classes (and I suspect other remedial classes).

This is indeed extraordinary, but probably not in the way you intended.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

That is the result of DEI

Expand full comment
C. L. H. Daniels's avatar

The problem with well-meaning and civilized individuals such as yourself (and Rod too, to some extent) is that we’ve long passed the point where we should be “troubled”; outrage is not only not an overreaction to the state of higher education, it is long overdue. But you either just don’t see it that way, or won’t admit that it’s true. And whether it’s one or the other, the net result is that you and others of your excessively moderate persuasion will never do anything *but* profess to be “troubled”, thereby enabling the situation and allowing it to grow worse over time, which it indisputably has.

There is no reason at this point to imagine that the institutions will reform themselves, or will bow in any way to the efforts of moderate would-be reformers like yourself (assuming the existence of any were even in evidence, which they assuredly are not). The most likely result of any half-measures or gentle attempts to reform these institutions is all out institutional resistance and stone-walling. Therefore, the only approach that stands any chance at success is the one that has been chosen: Employing the maximum possible leverage to either break all institutional resistance or destroy them outright if they refuse to break. If they will not reform themselves (I laugh at that thought that they’d do so willingly), then they must be razed to the ground, the ground salted, and new institutions created to replace them minus the institutional arrogance, epistemic corruption, bureaucratic bloat, and ideological rot.

Expand full comment
Erick's avatar

Universities were supposed to educate and civilize students. Now, they are barbarian factories.

Expand full comment
Neophyte's avatar

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in El Salvador. They can't make Bukele do anything. And by extension, they can't make Trump do anything to Bukele.

Garcia is an illegal alien. If he's not a gangbanger, I trust El Salvador will release him. If he is, then he's gotten what he deserves. This isn't our problem anymore.

Expand full comment
Henry Clemens's avatar

If Bukele frees Garcia, then the Embassy, responding to the Administration's obedience to the court, could give Garcia a plane ticket. Et voila!

Expand full comment
Zookie's avatar

Exactly!. Garcia is NOT a subject of the U.S. anymore. He is s legal subject of El Salvador, and they are not obligated to send him back. in fact they can execute him and we have no legal authority to do anything. Where is Rod common from??!! Again, now instead of being an expert on intentional trade(tariffs), he is an expert in Internaional law? Wow!

Expand full comment
Warren's avatar

Bukele is holding him in prison on Trump's behalf, and Trump is paying him to do so.

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

Like Pontius Pilot, Trump washes his hands of the whole thing.

Expand full comment
Jeff Z's avatar

If the Democrats had shown anything like the outrage of Americans being murdered, robbed, raped, and assaulted by the illegal migrants they were allowing to flood into the country as they are about a single unfair deportee, there would be a President Harris today.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

Here’s all you need to know about Democrat priorities. A Maryland mother of 4 gets brutally murdered by an illegal, and Maryland Senator Van Hollen wants to fly to El Salvador for the release of his “constituent” Abrego Garcia. That’s right, this Dem thinks that an illegal is his “constituent”. https://xcancel.com/greg_price11/status/1911878219285831803#m

Expand full comment
Derek Leaberry's avatar

Senator Van Hollen is from Montgomery County MD, a county full of self-hating leftist whites.

Expand full comment
JR Ewing's avatar

Awwww, an illegal alien gang member is sad he can't stay in America? Boo hoo

Dude got deported because he was an illegal alien. The end. What happends to him in El Salvador isn't our problem.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

Exactly, good riddance to him. Libs act as if this is some kind of major civil liberties issue, no, what were major civil liberty issues was Biden censoring political opponents, closing churches during COVID, mandating an experimental dangerous vaccine, pushing lawfare from his DOJ, and the Deep State Russia Hoax coup attempt to disenfranchise half the country in Trump's first term.

Expand full comment
John Peter Presson's avatar

But this is what you wanted, Rod. Feed the face eating tiger and sooner or later your face gets eaten

Expand full comment