On Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance wrote a long defense of the administration’s anti-immigrant rendition program, slamming critics who want the White House to obey a court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. It is a notable example of the lengths the White House has gone to try to deceive the public as it deals with political fallout from its open defiance of the federal judiciary.
Abrego Garcia, of course, is a Maryland resident who was arrested and shipped off to a notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador — along with hundreds of other alleged criminals, “gang members” and “terrorists” — without a chance to prove either his innocence or his legal status.
Vance begins with a lie. “Consider that Joe Biden allowed approximately 20 million illegal aliens into our country.”
That is a load-bearing “approximately,” to say the least. The U.S.-Mexico border is where the greatest number of immigrants enter the country. But according to an analysis by FactCheck.org, from 2021 to 2024 Customs and Border Patrol officers stationed there released 2.5 million people into the United States, with notices to report to immigration authorities for further hearings and processing, out of 6.5 million “encounters” across the U.S.-Mexico border and legal ports of entry. In addition, an estimated 1.6 million people evaded law enforcement to enter the country, for a total of 4.1 million people.
You may think that’s still too many. But it’s nowhere near what Vance says it is.
Vance goes on to assert that this imaginary horde of “20 million illegal aliens” placed “extraordinary burdens on our country” and “committed violent crimes, or facilitated fentanyl and sex trafficking.” It’s been shown again and again that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens do. Stating otherwise is demagogic innuendo meant to short-circuit the rational mind and inflame prejudice.
From here, the vice president goes on the warpath against those who insist that the administration must follow due process — which is to say, follow the Constitution — when it seeks to remove undocumented immigrants. No, writes Vance, “what process is due is a function of our resources, the public interest, the status of the accused, the proposed punishment and so many other factors.”
Unfortunately for Vance, the Constitution is the Constitution regardless of how the White House assesses the nation’s resources. What’s more, as The New Republic’s Greg Sargent pointed out on Bluesky, Vance is omitting the fact that the removal in question is illegal — Abrego Garcia was given a stay of deportation in 2019. If the administration wants him out of the country, it is obligated to go before a judge and argue its case.
Not content to mislead, the vice president goes on to distort the facts again. “When the media and the far left obsess over an MS-13 gang member and demand that he be returned to the United States for a third deportation hearing, what they’re really saying is they want the vast majority of illegal aliens to stay here permanently.”
A reminder that there is no serious evidence that Abrego Garcia is a “MS-13 gang member.” At most, there is a flimsy, uncorroborated accusation from a police officer who was later suspended from the force. And a demand for due process — a demand that everyone has a chance to show that he is innocent until proven guilty — is not a demand to legalize the entire undocumented population of the United States. It is a simple demand to follow the law.
You can read the rest of Vance’s post if you’d like. It’s just more of the same: a set of distortions, falsehoods and bizarre suppositions that all depend on the lie that there has been some “invasion” of unauthorized immigrants.
During the presidential campaign, Vance defended his decision to slander the Haitian immigrants of Springfield, Ohio — to disparage and lie about them for political gain — by telling reporters that he would “create stories” if that’s what he had to do to get the news media’s attention. And here he is again, creating stories. In this case, however, it is less to get the attention of the press and more to defend the administration’s open contempt for the rule of law.
What I Wrote
My column this week was on the similarities between the president’s rendition of immigrants to El Salvador and the kidnapping of free Black Americans in the antebellum United States.
To claim the authority to remand any American, citizen or otherwise, to a distant prison beyond the reach of any legal remedy is to violate centuries of Anglo-American legal tradition and shatter the very foundations of constitutional government in the United States. It is to reduce the citizens of a republic to the subjects of a king. It is, in the language of the American revolutionaries, to enslave the people to a singular, arbitrary will. It is not for nothing that among the accusations listed in the Declaration of Independence is the charge that the king is guilty of “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences.”
I joined my colleagues Michelle Cottle and David French on “The Opinions” discussing the administration’s removal program, and on my own podcast with John Ganz, we discussed the 1998 conspiracy thriller, “Enemy of the State.”
Now Reading
Jonathan V. Last on red lines for American democracy in The Bulwark.
If Abrego Garcia can be kept in El Salvador in contravention of both the written law and the demands of the Supreme Court of the United States then there is nothing — literally nothing — stopping the administration from snatching whatever individual it chooses, putting him on a plane to El Salvador, and then claiming that what is done is done.
Jessica Calarco on the manufactured nostalgia of Trump’s tariffs for MSNBC.
The problem is: those who credit manufacturing jobs for a glorious past America mistake correlation for causation. They think their parents and grandparents had the “good life” because of jobs in manufacturing. In reality, their parents and grandparents had that life because of unions, pensions, high marginal tax rates and strong social policies — with a little postwar exceptionalism and a lot of racism and sexism thrown in.
Henry Farrell on the strategic dangers of absolute power for his newsletter.
The more powerful and unruly the authoritarian becomes, the more readily they can make promises or threats. Equally, the less credible those promises or threats become, both to allies and to enemies. Absolute power implies absolute impunity: If I enjoy such power, I have no incentive to behave trustworthily to anyone. For just the same reason, no one has any incentive to trust me. You will not believe my promises, and you may fear that if you give in to my threats, you will only open yourself to further abuse.
Ana Marie Cox on how the far right captured culture for The New Republic.
But Hollywood’s failure to stay relevant has less to do with the political valence of its content than with the complete transformation of the media ecosystem. Woke was Hollywood’s most recent gambit to appeal to people; a right-wing turn may be its next. And yet conservative dominance of Hollywood may prove to be a much rosier future than the one we’re actually going to get: a future where pop culture is little more than a careless swirl of stock images, slapped together with no rationale beyond ginning up engagement — the wholesale replacement of storytelling with slop.
Quinn Slobodian on the nexus of free-market thought and biological determinism for Boston Review.
Neoliberals sought an antidote to all that, and they found one in hierarchies of gender, race and cultural difference, which they imagined to be rooted in genetics as well as tradition. Meanwhile, changing demographics — an aging white population matched by an expanding nonwhite population — led some of them to rethink the conditions necessary for capitalism. Perhaps cultural homogeneity was a precondition for social stability, and thus the peaceful conduct of market exchange and enjoyment of private property?
Photo of the Week
Seen around Charlottesville, Va.
Now Eating: Chive Pesto Potato Salad
We’re on the verge of potato salad season and I’m always on the hunt for potato salads that don’t require mayonnaise, of which I’m not the biggest fan. This recipe from New York Times Cooking does the trick. It is easy, comes together quickly and tastes great.
Ingredients
-
2 pounds baby potatoes, halved
-
kosher salt and black pepper
-
8 ounces green beans, cut into 1-inch pieces
-
¼ cup pine nuts
-
2 garlic cloves, peeled
-
1 cup packed parsley leaves
-
¾ cup extra-virgin olive oil
-
½ cup freshly grated Parmesan
-
½ cup chopped chives
-
2 tablespoons lemon juice
Directions
In a large pot, combine potatoes with enough salted water to cover by 2 inches; bring to a boil over high. Reduce heat to a brisk simmer and cook until potatoes are completely tender in the center, 8 to 12 minutes, adding the green beans during the last 1 to 2 minutes of cooking. Drain, then return the mixture to the hot pot and let rest until very dry, about 2 minutes.
Meanwhile, in a food processor, pulse pine nuts and garlic until finely chopped. Add the parsley and pulse, scraping down the sides and bottom of the bowl, until well combined. With the machine running, drizzle in oil and purée until smooth. Transfer the pesto to a large bowl. Season with salt and pepper and add the cheese, chives and lemon juice; mix well.
Add warm potato mixture to the pesto and season with salt and pepper. Mix well. The salad can be made 3 hours ahead and kept refrigerated. Bring to room temperature and toss well before serving.
Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. @jbouie
The post This Is How Far Vance Will Go to Sell a Lie appeared first on New York Times.
