Deep Dive of Controversy of an MS-13 Immigration Case

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia has stirred significant debate within immigration and political circles, highlighting the challenges of applying U.S. immigration laws to cases involving gang members.

Garcia, an illegal alien from El Salvador and an active MS-13 gang member, was granted withholding of removal in 2019 — a decision that continues to raise questions about the integrity of the legal process and the policies governing immigration enforcement. Garcia never qualified for withholding of removal.

This case has gained attention solely because of its political implications — a product of opportunism — and reveals much about the current state of both U.S. immigration policy and American politics.

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia illuminates critical legal distinctions: the fundamental differences in due process rights between U.S. citizens and non-citizens. While American citizens enjoy comprehensive constitutional protections, the legal framework for illegal immigrants, particularly at the border, provides only minimal safeguards.

This disparity extends even to legal residents like Mahmoud Khalil, who, despite holding a student visa and later obtaining a green card, still does not possess the same constitutional rights as citizens. Moreover, claims that Kilmar Abrego Garcia did not receive due process are demonstrably false.

A thorough examination of constitutional law — specifically regarding the rights of citizens versus non-citizens — reveals that this is both a man undeserving of sympathy and a politically manufactured controversy by Democratic politicians.

Evidence Against Garcia

A deeper examination of Garcia’s case reveals troubling inconsistencies and potential manipulation of the immigration system.

His entry date remains unverified, and his marriage to his current wife — which occurred while in ICE custody during his 2019 deportation hearing — raises questions about potential ulterior motives.

Their residence in a half-million-dollar home appears incongruous with their reported income, and recent claims about their children’s special needs status emerged only after media involvement and new legal representation.

Judicial and Government Findings

Two federal judges independently confirmed Garcia’s affiliation with MS-13, citing credible intelligence and testimony. Government reports further linked him to human trafficking operations and other forms of organized crime.

DHS documents detailed his involvement in violent activities and described him as a danger to the community, undermining any claims of persecution that Garcia presented in his defense.

Gang Symbols and Tattoos

Garcia’s tattoos and clothing were consistent with known MS-13 identifiers, providing further evidence of his gang membership. Law enforcement officials use these markers as critical tools for identifying gang members, particularly in cases where direct evidence may be limited.

Critics argue that tattoos alone cannot definitively prove gang affiliation, though in Garcia’s case, they were supported by substantial additional evidence.

While it may be easy to discredit what appears to an outsiders point of view as being insignificant and irrelevant, these are all markers used regularly in legal proceedings to show an individuals association with a gang. Keep in mind, criminal organizations don’t make their own merch nor do they keep registration databases.

Evidence from DHS documents further undermines Garcia’s credibility.

During a traffic stop in Tennessee, he was found transporting eight undocumented individuals in a vehicle later linked to a convicted human trafficker and MS-13 gang member. His attempted deception about English proficiency and conflicting statements about his travel intentions suggest a pattern of dishonesty.

The discovery of MS-13-associated symbolism during his 2019 arrest, including specific currency arrangements and gang-affiliated clothing choices, provides additional evidence of his continued gang involvement.

What Is Withholding of Removal?

To understand the controversy, it is important to first grasp what withholding of removal entails.

Withholding of removal is a form of immigration relief granted to individuals who can demonstrate that it is more likely than not that they will face persecution in their home country on account of:

1. Race
2. Religion
3. Nationality
4. Membership in a particular social group
5. Political opinion.

This burden of proof is higher than that required for asylum, making it a stringent form of protection.

Let me also make sure I help you understand that being in a gang does not qualify under the persecution standard as it pertains to a particular social group.

Key Criteria for Withholding of Removal

1. Credible Threat to Life or Freedom: The applicant must provide evidence that they face a credible and specific threat of persecution.
2. Protected Grounds: The threat must be linked to one of the five protected categories outlined above.
3. Higher Standard of Proof: The applicant must show a greater than 50% likelihood of persecution if deported.

Comparing the Case of Marjan Bahmani

The Marjan Bahmani case provides valuable context, occurred right around the same time as Garcia’s immigration hearings, and has details that are eerily similar; however, shows exactly why the outcome of granting Garcia withholding of removal was not valid.

Bahmani’s appeal for cancellation of removal was denied despite claims of exceptional hardship to U.S. citizen relatives.

This is the section of Bahmani’s Immigration Appeal that is most compelling when compared to that of Garcia being granted Withholding of Removal. The judge cites that the circumstances here, which are nearly identical to that of Garcia do not qualify for what the latter was granted and the former was denied.

The Immigration Judge found that medical care accessibility in Guatemala and the ability of family members to maintain access to U.S. healthcare and education failed to meet the stringent standards required for relief. Similarly, Bahmani’s claims of gang-related persecution were rejected as they lacked political motivation, a crucial element for withholding of removal protection.

To editorialize for a moment, I would go as far as to say that Bahmani’s case was significantly stronger than that of Garcia, and what this says to me is the degree of activism we continue to see from the bench by jurists.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Case: A Failure to Meet Legal Standards

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case failed to meet the legal requirements for withholding of removal in 2019, as his claim centered on a fear of retaliation from a rival gang.

Under U.S. immigration law, this does not qualify as persecution.

Persecution must be tied to one of the five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Fear of gang violence or retaliation, no matter how severe, falls outside these criteria.

Despite being granted withholding of removal, Garcia’s case does not align with the legal standards required for this form of protection.

Here are the primary reasons why he never qualified:

1. Fear of Gang Retaliation Is Not Persecution: Garcia’s claim was based on a fear of retaliation from Barrio 18, a rival gang to MS-13. However, U.S. immigration law does not recognize gang retaliation as a valid basis for withholding of removal. Persecution must be tied to protected grounds such as political opinion or religion, which Garcia’s case clearly lacked.
2. Lack of Credible Evidence: Garcia failed to present credible evidence that his life or freedom would be threatened if deported. His claim that his family was targeted due to his mother’s financial status was inconsistent, with conflicting statements about whether his parents lived in Maryland, Texas, or El Salvador. If he comes from money, he could go ahead and buy a Trump Gold card — he and his wife do live in a half-million-dollar house in Maryland. Not to mention, his wife is racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars on GoFundMe.
3. Criminal History and Gang Affiliation: Garcia’s documented history of violence, drug-related crimes, and active membership in MS-13 disqualifies him from immigration relief. Immigration law explicitly denies withholding of removal to individuals who have committed particularly serious crimes or are deemed a danger to the community. I don’t care if he hasn’t been convicted, and I will reiterate, illegal aliens — not to mention verified members of foreign terrorist organizations, which is the case with MS-13 — are not afforded the same legal rights and protections as citizens.
4. Improved Conditions in El Salvador: Since 2019, El Salvador has undergone significant changes, with a dramatic reduction in gang violence due to an aggressive crackdown on MS-13 and other criminal organizations. As of 2023, El Salvador is considered one of the safest countries in the Western Hemisphere, further weakening Garcia’s claim of a credible threat. He knows the way gang members are being sent to prison in El Salvador right now and knows his life is being threatened; it’s just that he doesn’t want to go to prison.

Manipulation of Legal Narratives

A notable aspect of this case is the pattern of Garcia and his wife tailoring their claims to fit the legal framework required for relief.

While it is understandable that individuals facing deportation would try to present their case in the most favorable light, the burden of proof must still be met.

U.S. immigration courts require credible evidence and a high standard of proof, which Garcia’s case lacked. Humanitarian arguments for exceptions, while well-intentioned, cannot override the legal requirements.

The United States does not have the resources nor capacity to process and support the vast number of people entering the country, let alone those making unsubstantiated claims for asylum.

When you consider that at least 12 million illegal aliens entered the country while deportations averaged only 352,000 per year between 2020–2024, these expectations are unrealistic. Even more concerning, most of these deportations were individuals caught and turned back at the border — only 43,000 non-citizens per year were actually caught and deported from within the country.

Media Portrayal of Garcia as a Victim

Mainstream media coverage of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case often painted him as a victim of unfortunate circumstances rather than addressing his documented gang affiliation and criminal history.

Reports frequently emphasized his claims of fearing persecution in El Salvador while omitting or downplaying his active membership in MS-13.

This selective framing extended to the portrayal of his wife, who repeatedly shared inconsistent claims about their financial hardships and the reasons for their supposed persecution.

By focusing on emotionally charged “sob stories,” the media diverted attention from credible evidence against Garcia.

Criticism of Selective Reporting

Many media outlets failed to highlight key judicial findings or the Department of Homeland Security’s evidence linking Garcia to gang-related crimes. Instead, they selectively reported details that supported a narrative of victimhood, ignoring the broader implications for public safety and immigration policy.

This approach not only misinformed the public but also contributed to a growing distrust as it relates to journalistic integrity.

The Role of Political and Judicial Failures

How Did This Happen?

The decision to grant Garcia withholding of removal in 2019 points to systemic failures within the immigration system.

Several key factors contributed to this outcome:

1. Judicial Missteps: Two judges concluded that Garcia is an active MS-13 member, yet he was still granted immigration relief. This contradiction raises serious questions about the consistency and rigor of judicial decision-making in immigration cases. You have the infamous Judge Boasberg who has been in headlines for his overreach in the handling of this case and the Trump administration. A judge who, may I add, has no place overseeing a case relating to immigration when his daughter works for a legal organization that represents illegal alien gang members — talk about a conflict of interest. Lawfare knows no bounds.
2. Judicial Interference: Judicial leniency toward immigration laws and illegal criminal gang members further complicates enforcement of immigration laws. Their focus on treating individuals like Garcia as victims undermines public safety and erodes public trust. The same so-called Judge Boasberg who is such a megalomaniac to believe he could order planes to turn around that had already taken off. There is no consideration for the security and safety risks he’s putting into play. It doesn’t matter if U.S. citizens were aboard as law enforcement members; no, no, it’s illegal alien criminals that are his priority, of course. How about the Wisconsin judge recently arrested by the FBI for obstruction after she interfered with ICE agents waiting outside her courtroom to arrest a previously deported individual facing domestic battery charges in her court. Judge Hannah Dugan yelled at the agents, then reentered the courtroom and directed the defendant and his public defender to follow her through a private entrance, leading to a chase outside on the street where ICE apprehended him. Yet, protestors claim this was an overreach by the Trump administration — unbelievable.
3. Role of Political Parties: The case has become a focal point of political division, with Democrats largely portraying Garcia as a victim of an overly harsh immigration system. Key figures within the party support leniency toward individuals like Garcia, arguing for a more compassionate approach to immigration policy. In contrast, Republicans, including President Trump and Secretary Kristi Noem, highlight Garcia’s case as evidence of the failures of current immigration enforcement. They point to his gang affiliation and criminal activities as reasons to tighten immigration laws and prioritize public safety.
4. Statements from Key Political Figures: President Trump repeatedly uses Garcia’s case as an example of why stricter immigration policies are necessary, emphasizing the dangers of allowing individuals with known gang ties to remain in the country. Secretary Noem echoes these sentiments, calling for reforms to prevent cases like Garcia’s from undermining national security. These polarized responses underscore the broader immigration policy debates that continue to divide the nation.
5. The Mess of Biden Administration Policies: The crisis extends beyond individual cases. The previous administration’s policies have led to an overwhelming influx of illegal crossings, straining an already burdened immigration court system that can only process a fraction of the cases annually. More disturbing are the implications for human trafficking, with hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors unaccounted for, and the proliferation of illegal sweatshops, brothels, and criminal enterprises exploiting vulnerable immigrants.

The Broader Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy

Garcia’s case is emblematic of broader issues within the U.S. immigration system.

The backlog of over 3.6 million cases in immigration courts, the limited detention capacity of ICE, and the political polarization surrounding immigration enforcement have created an environment where dangerous individuals can slip through the cracks.

Hey, did you see the FBI just announced that they caught India’s most wanted fugitive here in America who said he crossed during Biden’s open border?

Critics point to the exploitation of birthright citizenship, where individuals entering illegally can secure U.S. citizenship for their children born on American soil. This creates potential security risks and opportunities for foreign entities to establish long-term influence within American society.

The practice of strategic marriages to U.S. citizens and the phenomenon of “anchor babies” further demonstrate how current immigration laws can be manipulated.

Key Takeaways

• Reality Isn’t The Movies: Those citing “due process” without understanding legal requirements are detached from reality, treating complex immigration cases like simplified movie plots.
• Reform Is Urgently Needed: The U.S. must strengthen immigration laws to prevent individuals with criminal histories or gang affiliations from receiving protections they don’t qualify for.
• Accountability Is Critical: Judges and policymakers must be held accountable for decisions affecting public safety, ensuring their rulings follow legal precedents and consider potential consequences.
• Prioritize Public Safety: Immigration enforcement should focus on removing individuals who pose significant threats to community safety, particularly those with violent histories or gang ties.

Implications of Overwhelmed Systems

This case also raises pressing questions about the broader implications of the current immigration system.

The influx of tens of millions of undocumented immigrants, the amount reportedly claiming asylum and the significant percentage of those claims turning out to be unsubstantiated, strains the nation’s resources.

The Biden administration’s approach to immigration, including its proposed “Bi-Partisan Border Bill,” has been criticized for being ineffective and counterproductive. These types of policies would effectively codify illegal immigration, erode national security, and exacerbate the nation’s financial and social burdens.

Challenges in Enforcement and Removal

The case highlights systemic challenges in enforcing removal orders. ICE faces significant resource constraints, with millions of immigration cases backlogged in courts. The disparity between expedited removal and formal immigration proceedings further complicates effective enforcement.

Recent statistics illustrate a sharp decline in interior removals, reflecting the growing burden on immigration enforcement agencies.

Public Safety Concerns

Cases like Garcia’s raise concerns about the impact of gang-related immigration cases on community safety.

While ICE focuses on removing individuals with serious criminal convictions, limited resources mean many dangerous individuals remain in the country.

This creates a tension between addressing humanitarian concerns and ensuring public safety, a balance that is increasingly difficult to achieve under current conditions.

The Consequences of Ineffective Policies

The failure to address illegal immigration in an orderly and lawful manner risks deteriorating societal structures.

Comparisons to the fall of the Roman Empire highlight how complacency, a lack of accountability, and misplaced priorities can lead to the decline of even the strongest nations.

Providing unchecked access to social safety nets without requiring service or adherence to laws undermines the values and responsibilities that sustain a nation.

Meanwhile, efforts to intervene in cases like Garcia’s — where a confirmed MS-13 gang member was afforded due process but still failed to meet legal standards — further highlight the ineffectiveness of some policymakers.

With over one million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who have standing deportation orders and remain unaccounted for, the system is clearly overwhelmed.

Many of these individuals, including criminals and gang members, exploit the system while political leaders focus on cases that defy common sense and endanger public safety.

Accountability and Reform

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia exemplifies the urgent need for reform within the U.S. immigration system. Policymakers must prioritize public safety and apply the rule of law consistently.

Judges must be held accountable for decisions that contradict legal standards, and immigration laws must be enforced without political interference. The United States cannot continue to function as a nation of law and order if exceptions and loopholes are allowed to undermine the system.

Tightening Withholding of Removal Standards

To address cases like Garcia’s, policymakers should consider revising the standards for withholding of removal to explicitly exclude individuals with documented gang affiliations or serious criminal histories. This would help ensure that immigration relief is reserved for those who genuinely meet the legal criteria.

Improving Enforcement of Removal Orders

Strengthening the enforcement of removal orders is essential to restoring public trust in the immigration system. This includes providing additional resources to ICE and immigration courts to address the backlog of cases and prioritize the removal of individuals who pose threats to public safety.

Addressing Media Bias in Immigration Reporting

Finally, steps must be taken to encourage balanced and accurate reporting on immigration cases.

Media outlets play a significant role in shaping public perception, and biased or incomplete coverage can hinder informed policy debates.

Promoting transparency and accountability in media reporting is critical to fostering a more nuanced understanding of immigration issues.

You Can’t Bring Somebody Home That is Already Home

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia underscores the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform. The current system allows for the manipulation of legal protections, undermining the rule of law and endangering American citizens.

As the U.S. grapples with the challenges of immigration policy, it is critical to prioritize public safety, uphold the integrity of the legal system, and ensure that immigration relief is granted only to those who genuinely qualify.

Bottom Line

We are fortunate to have a President in the White House who takes the rule of law seriously. This is a glaring example of the difference between the right and left in today’s political and ideological environment.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia never qualified for withholding of removal in 2019, and his case serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of a broken immigration system. It is time for decisive action to protect the nation and restore trust in the rule of law.

Originally published at https://resevere.substack.com.