A recent episode of The Five featured a fiery back-and-forth between co-hosts Jessica Tarlov and Jeanine Pirro over the controversial deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had lived in Maryland for more than a decade. The Trump administration deported Garcia in March 2025—an action later acknowledged by the White House as an “administrative error.”

Who Is Kilmar Abrego Garcia?

Garcia first entered the U.S. illegally in 2011, but eventually received a work permit that allowed him to remain in the country legally. Despite this status, he was deported based on accusations of being tied to MS-13, a violent gang labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. But here’s the catch: no formal charges were ever filed against him, and there’s no criminal record linking him to the gang.

Jeanine Pirro: Safety First, Even If It’s Messy

Pirro stood by the deportation, arguing that even if Garcia hadn’t been formally charged, the threat he posed was enough to justify the move. “I don’t care about the constitutional crisis,” she declared, emphasizing the need to prioritize national security over legal technicalities.

She blamed the Biden administration’s immigration policies for what she called a failure to protect American citizens, using Garcia’s case as a symbol of a broader breakdown. For Pirro, the big picture—keeping potential criminals out—justifies even controversial decisions.

Jessica Tarlov: Due Process Can’t Be Ignored

Tarlov fired back, pointing out that the allegations against Garcia were based on shaky ground—specifically, hearsay from a detective who was later indicted for unrelated misconduct. “There is no proof that he was an MS-13 member,” Tarlov said. She argued that Garcia was denied his right to due process—a cornerstone of American justice.

According to Tarlov, the legal standard used to justify the deportation wouldn’t hold up in court. She said Garcia should have been given the chance to fight the allegations before being sent to El Salvador, where he now reportedly faces danger.

Legal Experts and Lawmakers Weigh In

Tarlov’s concerns were echoed by Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who called Garcia’s deportation both a legal and moral failure. Van Hollen has even planned a trip to El Salvador to check on Garcia’s wellbeing and push back on what he and others are calling “wrongful deportations.”

Tarlov warned that ignoring due process could lead to a constitutional crisis, with broader implications for immigration law and civil liberties. “This isn’t just about one man,” she said. “It’s about whether anyone can be ‘disappeared’ by the government without fair legal review.”

Bigger Picture: Security vs. Rights

The debate around Garcia’s case reflects a larger battle over immigration policy in America. Conservatives, like Pirro, argue that tough enforcement—including deporting individuals with any hint of criminal ties—is essential for public safety. Liberals, like Tarlov, argue that the law must be followed consistently and that individual rights can’t be cast aside in the name of national security.

This divide has only deepened under the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies, which critics say often bypass due process and rely on questionable evidence.

The Bottom Line

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case highlights the complex and often messy intersection of immigration policy, national security, and civil liberties. While one side sees deportations like his as essential to keeping America safe, the other sees a dangerous erosion of legal rights.

As the national conversation on immigration continues, Garcia’s story may serve as a critical test case—raising the question: Can the U.S. secure its borders without compromising its core values?