A Clash of Principles: The Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the Immigration Debate Dividing America

The recent deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia has ignited a storm of controversy that reaches far beyond one man’s fate. His removal from the United States, amid shaky allegations of gang affiliation and a process fraught with legal irregularities, has become a flashpoint in the national immigration debate. That tension exploded in dramatic fashion on The Five, Fox News’ signature roundtable program, during a charged exchange between liberal commentator Jessica Tarlov and conservative firebrand Jeanine Pirro.

At the core of their confrontation was a question that continues to haunt American immigration policy: What happens when national security interests collide with the constitutional promise of due process? In this case, the stakes were no longer theoretical—they were human, personal, and political.

A Man Caught in the Crossfire

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s story is one of paradox and complexity. Having crossed into the U.S. illegally in 2011, Garcia eventually found stability. He secured a work permit and settled in Maryland, where he spent over a decade building a life. There were no known criminal charges filed against him, no convictions, no prison time. By most appearances, he was a contributing member of his community.

That changed in March 2025, when the Trump administration abruptly deported Garcia to El Salvador—a country he hadn’t seen in over a decade. The justification, according to the Department of Homeland Security, was that Garcia was affiliated with MS-13, a notorious gang recently labeled a terrorist organization by the federal government.

But critics say the evidence underpinning that claim was flimsy at best. Garcia was never arrested for gang activity. There was no trial. No opportunity to challenge the allegations in court. The government’s case, such as it was, leaned heavily on vague informant testimony—what some legal scholars derided as “double hearsay”—and on a police detective who was later indicted for misconduct unrelated to Garcia’s case.

To immigration advocates and civil rights groups, Garcia’s deportation wasn’t just a bureaucratic misstep. It was a warning sign.

Pirro’s Position: Safety Over Scrutiny

Jeanine Pirro, known for her uncompromising defense of conservative values and her close alignment with former President Donald Trump, wasted no time in framing Garcia’s deportation as a necessary act of protection.

“This is about keeping Americans safe,” Pirro insisted. “We’re dealing with a violent, transnational gang that slaughters people in their homes, on their streets, in our schools. If someone is even loosely tied to MS-13, I say get them out.”

She went further, directing her ire at President Biden and Democrats for what she called “soft-on-crime” immigration policies. “The reason we’re in this mess is because Biden’s opened the floodgates. It’s sanctuary cities, it’s catch-and-release. And now we’re supposed to cry about a guy who might be MS-13? Sorry, I care more about American kids being safe.”

Pirro’s view, widely shared in right-wing circles, is that in the face of escalating violence linked to illegal immigration, the federal government must act decisively—even preemptively. To her, national security must take precedence, even if that means bending legal norms or overlooking procedural flaws.

Tarlov Fires Back: Where’s the Proof?

Jessica Tarlov, the lone progressive voice on The Five, wasn’t having it. Calm but visibly frustrated, she called Garcia’s deportation an “egregious miscarriage of justice,” driven more by politics than public safety.

“There’s no evidence he was in MS-13,” she said flatly. “None. It was based on unverified statements and a detective who turned out to be criminally compromised. That’s not due process—that’s guilt by association.”

Tarlov pointed to the government’s own admission that the deportation was an “administrative error.” She emphasized that Garcia, under the Alien Enemies Act and other immigration laws, was entitled to challenge his removal in court. That never happened.

“You can’t just disappear people because you think they’re dangerous,” she warned. “That’s how constitutional crises begin.”

She also took aim at the broader implications of cases like Garcia’s. “If the government can strip someone of their rights based on flimsy hearsay, what’s stopping them from doing it to anyone? Citizen or not?”

Her point echoed a growing concern among legal scholars and immigrant rights advocates: that the erosion of due process in immigration enforcement could set a dangerous precedent for how justice is applied in America.

A System Under Strain

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia sits at the intersection of multiple fault lines in American politics: immigration, national security, due process, and executive authority. On one side are those who believe the government must act quickly and decisively to protect the homeland, particularly from criminal elements entering through porous borders. On the other are those who argue that in our pursuit of safety, we risk abandoning the very principles—fairness, legality, transparency—that define American justice.

To complicate matters, Garcia was reportedly sent not just back to El Salvador, but directly into the country’s prison system, raising fears for his personal safety. El Salvador’s government, under President Nayib Bukele, has cracked down harshly on gangs, often jailing suspected affiliates without trial. Human rights groups have decried the conditions in those prisons as inhumane.

Tarlov brought this up during the segment. “Sending someone to their home country is one thing,” she said. “Sending them into a prison where they might be tortured or killed based on false allegations? That’s not deportation. That’s a death sentence.”

Political Fallout and Legal Ramifications

The backlash to Garcia’s deportation is spreading. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), whose state Garcia once called home, has pledged to travel to El Salvador to investigate the case and ensure Garcia’s safety. “This is about justice,” Van Hollen said in a recent press conference. “If our government wrongfully deported an innocent man, we owe it to him—and to the Constitution—to make it right.”

Civil liberties groups have begun mobilizing as well, preparing legal challenges and calling for congressional oversight into DHS deportation practices. Several have warned that without accountability, the U.S. risks sliding into a two-tiered system of justice: one for citizens, and a murkier, more arbitrary one for immigrants.

In conservative media, however, the reaction has been largely supportive of the administration’s decision. Editorials in The Daily Caller and Breitbart have lauded the deportation as a win for law and order. “The left wants to turn every deportation into a human rights case,” one opinion piece read. “But the American people want results. And they want to feel safe.”

A Nation at a Crossroads

What happens next in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains uncertain. Legal experts say it is rare—but not impossible—for a deportation to be reversed if it is proven to be unlawful. However, the political and bureaucratic machinery required to unwind such an action is formidable.

More importantly, the case has reopened deep wounds in the national conversation about immigration. It has exposed how quickly civil rights can become collateral damage in the political crossfire—and how far apart Americans remain on the question of what justice looks like at the border.

For some, like Pirro, justice is swift and preventive. For others, like Tarlov, it must be meticulous, evidence-based, and constitutionally sound.

Both believe they are protecting America. The question is: Which America?