Photo credit: www.theguardian.com

The Kafkaesque Case of Kilmar Abrego García

It is challenging to find a more fitting description for the predicament of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego García than to label it as Kafkaesque.

Abrego García is among the numerous foreign nationals deported during the Trump administration, specifically to the Cecot mega-prison in El Salvador. This action is part of a controversial partnership with Nayib Bukele, who has styled himself as the “world’s coolest dictator.”

Recently, the US government acknowledged that Abrego García’s deportation was executed by mistake. However, instead of facilitating his return as mandated by the supreme court, the administration has placed him in a convoluted situation, effectively outsourcing his fate to a jurisdiction seemingly uninhibited by legal or ethical norms.

The crux of the dilemma lies in this contradiction: the Trump administration claims it cannot assist in Abrego García’s repatriation because he is imprisoned in El Salvador, while Salvadoran authorities assert that bringing him back would be tantamount to “smuggling” him into the United States.

This absurdity became evident during a recent meeting in the Oval Office where President Trump and Bukele appeared to revel in the impotence of U.S. courts concerning individuals ensnared by the administration’s deportation policies.

“How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I’m not going to do it,” Bukele remarked when asked if he could facilitate Abrego García’s return.

There is no substantiated evidence linking Abrego García to terrorism or suggesting he is affiliated with the notorious MS-13 gang, despite claims made by the administration. Nonetheless, this detail seems secondary in the larger narrative.

During their discussions, Bukele stated, “I don’t have the power to return him to the United States.” Trump added, “They’d love to have a criminal released into our country.”

In defense of their stance, Trump’s advisors argued that intervention was not feasible due to Bukele being a foreign official, thus placing him beyond their jurisdiction.

Stephen Miller, a senior advisor on immigration issues, expressed that Abrego García’s status as an El Salvadoran citizen precluded U.S. authorities from dictating terms to the Salvadoran government. He characterized suggestions that the U.S. might impose its will on El Salvador as presumptuous.

According to Miller, a district court had issued an injunction to stop the deportation, framing any attempt to facilitate Abrego García’s return as an act of “kidnapping a citizen of El Salvador and flying him back here.”

Marco Rubio, a key figure in the administration, reiterated a familiar assertion: U.S. courts do not wield the authority to dictate foreign policy, a narrative increasingly intertwined with immigration issues, effectively allowing the administration to circumvent judicial oversight.

The exchange between Trump and Bukele resembled a theatrical performance. Both parties possess the capability to resolve this issue should they choose, but the delay serves a specific purpose. Miller noted that the outcome of this case was unlikely to result in Abrego García residing again in the United States.

This incident encapsulates a broader pattern seen during the Trump administration: rapid actions are taken before the judiciary can react, followed by efforts to evade and defy judicial checks until the consequences become irrevocable.

Source
www.theguardian.com