Share this @internewscast.com
In a legal standoff that has captured national attention, a federal judge in Greenbelt, Maryland, is set to deliberate on the future of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who has recently been thrust into the center of America’s contentious immigration debate. The core issue at hand is whether Abrego Garcia should be returned to immigration custody after enjoying temporary freedom for just over a week.
Abrego Garcia’s story, marked by a series of bureaucratic missteps, began gaining traction following his mistaken deportation to El Salvador. Originally detained since August, the U.S. government had oscillated on his destination, suggesting countries ranging from Uganda and Eswatini to Ghana and Liberia as potential places for his relocation. Yet, conspicuously absent from these options was Costa Rica, the one nation Abrego Garcia himself had agreed to go to. This omission did not go unnoticed by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who has openly criticized the government for misleading assertions that Costa Rica had refused to accept him.
Judge Xinis has been particularly vocal in her rebuke, pointing out that the government’s approach seemed to lack any genuine intent for a timely and proper third-country removal. She highlighted their misleading statements regarding Liberia and the lack of effort to pursue Costa Rica as a viable option. Her order on December 11, which facilitated Abrego Garcia’s release from custody, underscored a critical legal oversight: the absence of a formal removal order from an immigration judge back in 2019, which legally bars his deportation from the U.S.
Abrego Garcia’s ties to the U.S. are deeply personal; he has an American wife and child and has called Maryland home for many years. Originally from El Salvador, he fled as a teenager due to threats from a gang targeting his family. Despite the 2019 ruling that recognized the dangers he faced back home, a clerical error led to his deportation earlier this year. This prompted a legal tug-of-war, with U.S. authorities reluctant to reverse their actions until the Supreme Court’s intervention.
The recent filings from government attorneys argue that irrespective of a finalized removal order, their ongoing efforts to deport Abrego Garcia justify his detention. As this case continues to unfold, it not only shines a light on the complexities and challenges within the U.S. immigration system but also raises critical questions about the balance between legal processes and human rights.
In filings last week, government attorneys argued that, with or without a final order of removal, they are still working to deport Abrego Garcia, so they can legally detain him during the process.
“If there is no final order of removal, immigration proceedings are ongoing, and Petitioner is subject to pre-final order detention,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “because immigration proceedings ‘are civil, not criminal’ detention must be ‘nonpunitive.’” They argued that in Abrego Garcia’s case, detention is punitive because the government wants to be allowed to hold him indefinitely without a viable plan to deport him.
“If immigration detention does not serve the legitimate purpose of effectuating reasonably foreseeable removal, it is punitive, potentially indefinite, and unconstitutional,” they wrote.
