By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 29, 2026 — Afternoon Edition
The United States has the right to deport people when the law authorizes their removal.
But the United States does not have the right to ignore its own laws in order to accomplish that objective.
There must be a simple principle governing immigration enforcement:
If the government wrongfully deports someone without the legal process that person was entitled to receive, the government must correct the wrong.
And when restoring that person’s legal position requires returning him or her to the United States, the government should facilitate that return.
This should not be a partisan principle.
It should be an American one.
Deportation Is an Exercise of Enormous Government Power
Few administrative decisions have consequences as immediate as deportation.
A person can lose a job.
A home.
Daily contact with children.
A spouse.
A community.
And sometimes access to lawyers and courts capable of reviewing what happened.
That is precisely why the government must get these decisions right.
The answer cannot be:
We already put the person on the airplane, so the problem is over.
Government mistakes do not become lawful simply because they become difficult to reverse.
Due Process Must Mean Something
Due process does not mean everyone facing deportation has a right to remain in the United States.
It means the government must follow the legal procedures applicable to that person’s case before taking an irreversible action when the law requires those procedures.
There is an enormous difference.
If someone receives the process required by law, loses the case and becomes subject to a lawful final removal order, the government has authority to enforce that order.
But when the government itself unlawfully deprives someone of a legally required opportunity to present a claim or obey an applicable court order, a different principle applies.
The government must correct its mistake.
An Airplane Ticket Cannot Erase a Legal Violation
Imagine a government agency makes a serious error.
The individual is removed.
Then government lawyers argue that bringing the person back would be complicated because the individual is now outside American territory.
That cannot become a convenient escape from judicial review.
Otherwise the incentive would be dangerous.
Act first.
Remove the person.
Ask legal questions later.
The faster the government moves, the harder judicial review becomes.
That is exactly the opposite of what a system governed by law should encourage.
Courts must remain capable of providing meaningful remedies when government agencies act unlawfully.
The Government Should Restore What Its Error Took Away
The objective should not be rewarding someone because the government made a mistake.
The objective should be restoring the legal process.
If a person would have been entitled to remain temporarily in the United States while a particular proceeding occurred, the government should not gain an advantage by unlawfully removing that person before the proceeding could happen.
Correcting the error does not necessarily mean granting immigration status.
It does not automatically mean asylum.
It does not automatically mean permanent residency.
And it certainly does not automatically mean citizenship.
It means putting the individual back into the legal position he or she should have occupied before the government’s unlawful action.
Then the case can proceed.
And if the final lawful result is deportation, the government can enforce that result.
This Principle Protects Conservatives Too
Americans should be careful about viewing due process exclusively through immigration politics.
Today the person affected may be an undocumented immigrant whom many voters do not sympathize with.
Tomorrow government power may affect someone else.
A business owner.
A gun owner.
A political activist.
A taxpayer.
A journalist.
A property owner.
A religious organization.
A citizen accused of wrongdoing.
Constitutional government depends upon a principle larger than whether we personally like the individual invoking legal protections.
Government must follow the law even when dealing with unpopular people.
Especially then.
Immigration Officers Need Clear Rules
Accountability should not mean attacking immigration officers for performing lawful duties.
ICE officers and other federal personnel are responsible for enforcing laws enacted by Congress and policies established by lawful authority.
They need clear instructions.
Accurate information.
Reliable databases.
Professional legal guidance.
And procedures designed to prevent mistakes before someone is placed on an aircraft.
When an individual officer acts reasonably on incorrect information provided by the system, responsibility may extend far beyond that employee.
The purpose of accountability should be correcting institutional failures, not searching automatically for someone to punish.
But intentional violations are different.
No official should knowingly disregard a binding legal restriction and then expect government employment to provide immunity from ordinary accountability mechanisms.
Congress Should Require a Wrongful-Removal Procedure
Congress should consider establishing a clear statutory process for cases in which substantial evidence indicates that someone was removed contrary to applicable law or a binding court order.
The procedure should move quickly.
A person outside the United States should not spend months or years attempting to determine which agency has responsibility for correcting an acknowledged government error.
There should be a defined process.
Who reviews the case?
How quickly?
What evidence is required?
Who has authority to authorize return?
Who arranges transportation when return is legally necessary?
What immigration status applies temporarily after return?
What happens to the underlying removal proceeding?
Clear rules would protect immigrants, government agencies and taxpayers.
Correcting a Deportation Is Not Amnesty
This distinction must be absolutely clear.
Returning someone so that a legally required proceeding can occur is not the same as granting that person permission to remain permanently.
Suppose the government wrongfully removes someone and that individual returns for the legal process that should have occurred.
The government may ultimately win.
An immigration judge may reject the person’s claim.
Appeals may fail.
A lawful removal order may eventually become enforceable.
Then deportation can proceed.
That is not government weakness.
That is the rule of law working correctly.
The government followed the process.
The individual received the process.
The case ended.
And the lawful result was enforced.
No President Should Possess Unlimited Removal Power
This principle should apply regardless of party.
Republican president.
Democratic president.
Conservative administration.
Progressive administration.
The Constitution does not change every four years.
Americans make a serious mistake when they evaluate government power according to whether they trust the person currently holding that power.
Presidents change.
Precedents remain.
Every authority we tolerate when our preferred president occupies the White House becomes an authority available to the next president.
That should make all Americans cautious.
Enforce the Law — Including the Law That Restrains Government
The immigration debate repeatedly demands that migrants obey American law.
Fair enough.
But government must obey American law too.
That is the bargain.
Borders can be enforced.
People without lawful authorization can be removed when the law permits it.
Dangerous individuals can be prioritized.
Immigration orders can be executed.
None of those policies requires abandoning judicial review or treating government mistakes as irreversible.
America demonstrates strength when it enforces its laws.
America demonstrates something even more important when it is willing to correct itself after violating them.
So the principle should be straightforward:
If the deportation was lawful, enforce the law.
If the deportation was unlawful, correct it.
And when meaningful restoration of due process requires the person’s return to the United States, bring that person back, provide the process the law requires, and then let the lawful outcome determine what happens next.
That is not open borders.
That is not amnesty.
That is the rule of law.
Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.