Thank you for this great insight. After reading it I wondered whether this case might also be getting more at the divide between law enforcement and the legal process that follows. There is apparently so much that is considered inadmissible evidence and testimony by our laws that make effective prosecution very difficult if I am to believe anything that’s been on TV for the past 30 years. As such, is there any room for recognizing a significant threat in a non-citizen and finding any excuse to deport them? I appreciate your commitment to due process and the legal indoctrination of our country, but is this an example of the necessary evil that our intelligence community engages in every day to preserve safety in our country? Regardless of the reason I agree it is not being handled well, but I wanted to ask this from a non-lawyer’s perspective and hear your thoughts. I love reading this!
Some of this definitely comes from, as Judge Wilkinson put it, the executive branch's focus on the ends and the judiciary's focus on the means. You're absolutely right that, in the context of a prosecution, the government is subject to all sorts of restrictions and standards and duties as it makes its case. That's different in the deportation/national security context, and there's actually kind of a ton of room for recognizing a significant threat in a non-citizen and finding any excuse to deport them. The executive branch's authority in conducting deportations is quite broad, even if some think it should be broader. That said, it isn't unlimited, and it has to be exercised consistent with applicable law and not in defiance of active court orders. And that's why the judiciary is concerned with limiting principles: if the executive can ignore some laws or orders in the name of national security, what's to stop it from ignoring others? What's to stop an executive of a different political persuasion from doing the same thing in a very different way? In that sense, maybe it's best to look at this as a narrow case with potentially broad implications.
Plus, given how simple it would likely be to have Abrego Garcia's order changed so he can be deported to El Salvador, or how simple it might be to browbeat another country into accepting him, this is more of an unnecessary evil than necessary evil situation.
Also, none of that gets to the shipping people directly to prison thing, which is another issue clearly worthy of discussion.
Mr. Hagen, good job. The ends never justify the means.
I abhore injustice. I know little about this individual case. I read he is not a good dude. But we must remember this: the 20 million illegals that Biden let in are his responsibility. None of this would be happening if not for that. Outrage should be directed at him. Also, to adjudicate all these cases is reported to take ten years.
I think you admit my point about government. Those who exercise this power are abusing it as will happen when not grounded in moral principles, such as the ones in the Declaration of Independence and directing the execution of the constitution.
We do not need more citizens necessarily, we need more Americans! Very good stuff. I have questions about Due Process and Equal Protection for other day. So study up. Take care.
I agree that the ends don’t justify the means, and that Biden deserves plenty of outrage (although I haven’t seen any number that makes me think 20 million is accurate—Heritage had it at 10 million in March 2024 and Center for Immigration Studies had net migration for the entire term at 5.4 million; big numbers, but not 20 million).
I wrote about the incredible backlog in asylum and other immigration cases last summer—it really is daunting. Whatever the case, though, have to stick to the rules and remember how easily abused the government’s power is.
Dear Nick,
Thank you for this great insight. After reading it I wondered whether this case might also be getting more at the divide between law enforcement and the legal process that follows. There is apparently so much that is considered inadmissible evidence and testimony by our laws that make effective prosecution very difficult if I am to believe anything that’s been on TV for the past 30 years. As such, is there any room for recognizing a significant threat in a non-citizen and finding any excuse to deport them? I appreciate your commitment to due process and the legal indoctrination of our country, but is this an example of the necessary evil that our intelligence community engages in every day to preserve safety in our country? Regardless of the reason I agree it is not being handled well, but I wanted to ask this from a non-lawyer’s perspective and hear your thoughts. I love reading this!
Some of this definitely comes from, as Judge Wilkinson put it, the executive branch's focus on the ends and the judiciary's focus on the means. You're absolutely right that, in the context of a prosecution, the government is subject to all sorts of restrictions and standards and duties as it makes its case. That's different in the deportation/national security context, and there's actually kind of a ton of room for recognizing a significant threat in a non-citizen and finding any excuse to deport them. The executive branch's authority in conducting deportations is quite broad, even if some think it should be broader. That said, it isn't unlimited, and it has to be exercised consistent with applicable law and not in defiance of active court orders. And that's why the judiciary is concerned with limiting principles: if the executive can ignore some laws or orders in the name of national security, what's to stop it from ignoring others? What's to stop an executive of a different political persuasion from doing the same thing in a very different way? In that sense, maybe it's best to look at this as a narrow case with potentially broad implications.
Plus, given how simple it would likely be to have Abrego Garcia's order changed so he can be deported to El Salvador, or how simple it might be to browbeat another country into accepting him, this is more of an unnecessary evil than necessary evil situation.
Also, none of that gets to the shipping people directly to prison thing, which is another issue clearly worthy of discussion.
Oh. Side note. I was a five foot eight High School basketball player for a top ten school in the L.A. area. Look at me now! Take care.
Very cool!
Mr. Hagen, good job. The ends never justify the means.
I abhore injustice. I know little about this individual case. I read he is not a good dude. But we must remember this: the 20 million illegals that Biden let in are his responsibility. None of this would be happening if not for that. Outrage should be directed at him. Also, to adjudicate all these cases is reported to take ten years.
I think you admit my point about government. Those who exercise this power are abusing it as will happen when not grounded in moral principles, such as the ones in the Declaration of Independence and directing the execution of the constitution.
We do not need more citizens necessarily, we need more Americans! Very good stuff. I have questions about Due Process and Equal Protection for other day. So study up. Take care.
I agree that the ends don’t justify the means, and that Biden deserves plenty of outrage (although I haven’t seen any number that makes me think 20 million is accurate—Heritage had it at 10 million in March 2024 and Center for Immigration Studies had net migration for the entire term at 5.4 million; big numbers, but not 20 million).
I wrote about the incredible backlog in asylum and other immigration cases last summer—it really is daunting. Whatever the case, though, have to stick to the rules and remember how easily abused the government’s power is.
Haha I’ll be studying—don’t you worry.