“the Supreme Court unanimously concurred as well—but with a slight change in wording, saying that the government must “facilitate” Abrego García’s return rather than “facilitate and effectuate.”
That’s not actually what the Supreme Court said. I insist on the point because the administration is lying about the Supreme Courts decision, including Stephen Miller from inside the Oval Office. So it’s extremely important that we not abet that deception.
The Supreme Court said that the district court order needed clarification as to the word “effectuate,” which *may* exceed its authority. Then, as I understand it, the district court simply removed the reference to “effectuate” to avoid the issue.
I think the point is that anyone who came here illegally should be aware that they can be deported at any time, and encouraging them to self-deport. For years the message was that all you need to do is cross the border and you’ve got it made (to the extent that working for substandard wages with no rights is having it made). There has been official encouragement of illegals, and that has to be reversed.
Sure, but there's a very Hobbesian logic to saying "the only way to discourage unauthorized migration is to make it clear that *nothing* can prevent you from being deported."
It's easy to imagine both more and less questionable methods of getting there. Legislatively changing existing migration law could deter migration. Summary execution by ICE officials of anyone without citizenship documentation on their person would also deter migration. What is going on is somewhere in the middle. But the lack of due process makes it firmly on the anti-constitutional side of the spectrum.
They aren't playing with a 4D Totalitarian chess set.
Likely they can't bring him back because he's dead. Or missing an eyeball. Or both and he's in a mass grave. Or he's witness to death and torture land mass graves of others sent to the prison. Even MAGA won't support death camps. Not yet at least.
I think you should write about the ADL response to the attack on universities via funding cuts. First, I would be interested on different perspectives on why/why not these could be viewed as justified. I think the situation is pretty complicated, but similar to the situation described in this post, a pretext is being used to try to achieve an end. Personally I think collusion is unacceptable regardless of while the stated cause supports your interests.
I have read suggestions that the reason they refuse to return García is that he is already dead. It's just conjecture, but it does seem plausible, and in no way undermines your larger point.
Of course that's a possibility, but we couldn't possibly know at this point. And we might never know. One terrible thing about disappearances, as they played out across Latin America, is that often there was no official confirmation of what happened for decades if ever. The film that won the Academy Award for Best International Feature this past year was about exactly that.
Lawdork yesterday argued that there is a distinct policy goal, namely, the ability to put anyone, including US citizens, in foreign detention outside the control of the US government (per Trump saying so at the press conference yesterday).
This is entirely consistent with your suggested goal of "the assertion of absolute presidential sovereignty." It's not the only policy a president with that power would want, but there is not much beyond that to want.
They're not entirely outside the control of the U.S. government. We have quite a bit of leverage over the government of El Salvador; that's why it's so implausible that we "can't" get Abrego García back. But they are outside the reach of U.S. *law* -- those deported to be incarcerated in CECOT are effectively in the president's own prison system.
The lawfare article's point is that, if they bring him back, they are admitting that he is "not entirely outside the control of the U.S. government." They need him to be so that any citizens sent are in the same boat, i.e. irretrievable. So I agree with you as a statement of fact. But the administration doesn't find that fact helpful, so they need to pretend it isn't true. Maybe I'm missing your meaning, but I think I see what in my original comment prompted your response: they want the overseas prison to be out of US control once people are there, but it isn't true that it is out of US control completely.
Ah, gotcha. Yes, I haven't read the article, so I was responding to you saying that the policy goal is putting the people outside the control of the U.S. government.
I guess my question would be: given that it's patently not true, who is the audience for this particular bit of propaganda? Trump can say "there's nothing we can do" but a judge has no reason to believe him.
Meanwhile, if I heard right, *Bukele* suggested at that press conference that *he* couldn't get him back, saying something like "what, am I supposed to smuggle him into the U.S.?" The whole thing is just obvious nonsense.
“the Supreme Court unanimously concurred as well—but with a slight change in wording, saying that the government must “facilitate” Abrego García’s return rather than “facilitate and effectuate.”
That’s not actually what the Supreme Court said. I insist on the point because the administration is lying about the Supreme Courts decision, including Stephen Miller from inside the Oval Office. So it’s extremely important that we not abet that deception.
The Supreme Court said that the district court order needed clarification as to the word “effectuate,” which *may* exceed its authority. Then, as I understand it, the district court simply removed the reference to “effectuate” to avoid the issue.
Great post. Rarely do I read something spot on.
I think the point is that anyone who came here illegally should be aware that they can be deported at any time, and encouraging them to self-deport. For years the message was that all you need to do is cross the border and you’ve got it made (to the extent that working for substandard wages with no rights is having it made). There has been official encouragement of illegals, and that has to be reversed.
Sure, but there's a very Hobbesian logic to saying "the only way to discourage unauthorized migration is to make it clear that *nothing* can prevent you from being deported."
It's easy to imagine both more and less questionable methods of getting there. Legislatively changing existing migration law could deter migration. Summary execution by ICE officials of anyone without citizenship documentation on their person would also deter migration. What is going on is somewhere in the middle. But the lack of due process makes it firmly on the anti-constitutional side of the spectrum.
Good analysis. But I wonder why you went back to Hobbes without skipping ahead to Schmitt, who puts an even finer point on all of this.
They aren't playing with a 4D Totalitarian chess set.
Likely they can't bring him back because he's dead. Or missing an eyeball. Or both and he's in a mass grave. Or he's witness to death and torture land mass graves of others sent to the prison. Even MAGA won't support death camps. Not yet at least.
I think you should write about the ADL response to the attack on universities via funding cuts. First, I would be interested on different perspectives on why/why not these could be viewed as justified. I think the situation is pretty complicated, but similar to the situation described in this post, a pretext is being used to try to achieve an end. Personally I think collusion is unacceptable regardless of while the stated cause supports your interests.
"regardless of whether"
A gross miscarriage of justice is exactly right!
I have read suggestions that the reason they refuse to return García is that he is already dead. It's just conjecture, but it does seem plausible, and in no way undermines your larger point.
Of course that's a possibility, but we couldn't possibly know at this point. And we might never know. One terrible thing about disappearances, as they played out across Latin America, is that often there was no official confirmation of what happened for decades if ever. The film that won the Academy Award for Best International Feature this past year was about exactly that.
Lawdork yesterday argued that there is a distinct policy goal, namely, the ability to put anyone, including US citizens, in foreign detention outside the control of the US government (per Trump saying so at the press conference yesterday).
This is entirely consistent with your suggested goal of "the assertion of absolute presidential sovereignty." It's not the only policy a president with that power would want, but there is not much beyond that to want.
They're not entirely outside the control of the U.S. government. We have quite a bit of leverage over the government of El Salvador; that's why it's so implausible that we "can't" get Abrego García back. But they are outside the reach of U.S. *law* -- those deported to be incarcerated in CECOT are effectively in the president's own prison system.
The lawfare article's point is that, if they bring him back, they are admitting that he is "not entirely outside the control of the U.S. government." They need him to be so that any citizens sent are in the same boat, i.e. irretrievable. So I agree with you as a statement of fact. But the administration doesn't find that fact helpful, so they need to pretend it isn't true. Maybe I'm missing your meaning, but I think I see what in my original comment prompted your response: they want the overseas prison to be out of US control once people are there, but it isn't true that it is out of US control completely.
Ah, gotcha. Yes, I haven't read the article, so I was responding to you saying that the policy goal is putting the people outside the control of the U.S. government.
I guess my question would be: given that it's patently not true, who is the audience for this particular bit of propaganda? Trump can say "there's nothing we can do" but a judge has no reason to believe him.
Meanwhile, if I heard right, *Bukele* suggested at that press conference that *he* couldn't get him back, saying something like "what, am I supposed to smuggle him into the U.S.?" The whole thing is just obvious nonsense.