In late 2019, Maryland police arrested Abrego García. His case has ignited a national firestorm over the state’s deportation foul-up, calling the actions of the Trump administration and national immigration processes themselves into question. Police first arrested García outside a Home Depot along with other undocumented men. When they pressed him over one murder, he was put under a ferocious level of scrutiny. The situation escalated when a U.S. immigration judge suggested that García could potentially be affiliated with the notorious MS-13 gang.
The immigration judge then ordered García deported. Despite these fundamental failures, he did recognize the grave harm García would suffer if sent back to El Salvador. In order to protect him from being persecuted by local gangs, the judge granted García protection from deportation to his native country. This addition was intended to protect García, gang affiliation or not.
In a rare but welcome show of independence, the U.S. Supreme Court called the bluff. In a unanimous ruling, they declared that García’s deportation to El Salvador was unlawful. In doing so, the court ordered the administration to “make his release possible,” upholding the immigration judge’s protective steps. Fortunately for García, deportation to. His life depended on that quarter turn to the left. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would go on to call this case an “administrative error.”
The Supreme Court’s decision underscored that García had the right to continue living in the United States without fear of deportation. This wrongful deportation impacted over a decade of his hard work and subsequent contributions to his community. García’s case sheds light on deeply troubling problems among current deportation processes. In particular, it calls out how we address cases in which a person may be subject to violence if returned to their country of origin.
For García, things got worse still when he was smeared as a member of the violent MS-13 gang. This was largely due to his outfit of choice, specifically his Chicago Bulls paraphernalia, and testimony from a confidential informant. These allegations have triggered three years of costly legal battles over his ability to remain in the United States.
Stephen Miller, a prominent figure in the Trump administration, stated, “The ruling solely stated that if this individual at El Salvador’s sole discretion was sent back to our country, we could deport him a second time.” The legal landscape is a bit murky. The future of people like García depends on courts at home and the governments countries abroad.
Pam Bondi, also associated with the administration, added, “That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s up to them.” This misguided enforcement action from ICE underscores the lack of accountability in wrongful deportation cases. It further illustrates how these decisions are intertwined with the web of international relations and domestic law.
Miller further explained the implications of having a withholding order: “When you have a withholding order, to be clear, that is not ‘pause your deportation’. In other words, in the worst-case scenario, it means you get deported to another country.” This clarification unfortunately does not address the problematic understanding and execution of such orders that permeates throughout our immigration system.