<aside> <img src="/icons/arrow-right_gray.svg" alt="/icons/arrow-right_gray.svg" width="40px" />
Background
Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT): A high-capacity maximum-security prison facility located in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador. Opened in early 2023 under President Nayib Bukele’s “war on gangs,” it was constructed to house up to 40,000 inmates, many of whom are alleged members of MS-13 and Barrio 18. The facility has been criticised by human rights organisations for its conditions, including overcrowding, lack of due process, indefinite detention, and reports of mistreatment and torture. CECOT operates under El Salvador’s ongoing state of emergency, which suspends constitutional rights for individuals accused of gang affiliation.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): A federal agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, established in 2003. ICE is responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws, conducting immigration raids, detaining undocumented immigrants, and carrying out deportations. It includes Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which handles detentions and deportations, and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which focuses on cross-border criminal activity. ICE’s actions are subject to oversight by federal courts and must comply with U.S. immigration statutes and constitutional protections.
MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha 13): A transnational criminal gang that originated in the 1980s among Salvadoran immigrants in Los Angeles. MS-13 expanded rapidly through Central America, particularly in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, often recruiting youth through coercion or violence. It is known for brutal tactics, including murder, extortion, kidnapping, and human trafficking. The U.S. government designated MS-13 a significant transnational criminal organisation in 2012 and has prosecuted its members under federal racketeering and terrorism charges. It is also listed under El Salvador’s anti-terror laws.
Withholding of Removal: A form of protection under U.S. immigration law governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically section 241(b)(3). This protection prevents the U.S. government from deporting individuals to countries where their life or freedom would be threatened based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. While it does not grant permanent residency or citizenship, it allows individuals to remain and work in the U.S. indefinitely, provided conditions in their home country do not change.
Deportation: A legal process wherein non-citizens are formally removed from the United States for violating immigration laws. Deportation must follow procedures that ensure due process, including the right to hearings before an immigration judge. The U.S. is obligated under international law — specifically the UN Convention Against Torture and the 1951 Refugee Convention — not to deport individuals to countries where they face a risk of torture or persecution (the principle of non-refoulement).
Supreme Court of the United States: The highest judicial authority in the United States, established by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. It holds final appellate jurisdiction over federal and constitutional issues and has the power to review actions by the executive and legislative branches. It hears cases with nationwide impact, including those involving immigration law, civil rights, and the limits of governmental authority. Its rulings are binding on all lower courts and government institutions.
Events
2011
2019
2025-03-15
2025-03-16
2025-04-10
2025-04-20
2025-04-25
2025-04-29
</aside>
<aside> <img src="/icons/arrow-right_gray.svg" alt="/icons/arrow-right_gray.svg" width="40px" />
I'd like this to be in the news for AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. While the US has cocked up in electing Trump, there's nothing more anger-inducing/scary/immoral/indecent to me than this situation. George Flloyd was a lousy mascot for the left — while KAG is a far more appropriate hill to die on.
A) Police reports of domestic abuse from his own wife
His wife did it out of precaution and they reconciled later, per his wife:
“After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution following a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order, in case things escalated. Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process. We were able to work through the situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling,”
That has to be taken with a large pinch of salt, because she did say he beat her in the application. But we do know it didn't amount to anything. She didn't leave him, didn't press charges, etc.
But let's say he actually had a conviction of domestic violence (which he didn't) — this isn't grounds for deportation. In many cases, this is a state-level misdemeanour punished by fine. It usually isn't a federal crime or punished with prison. So this may be a bit of character assassination, but isn't overly relevant to the case outside of telling people that he got pissed off during arguments, which are likely to happen when you have three special needs children.
B) Undeniable MS-13 gang tattoos on knuckles (which his wife covers up/censors in her Instagram posts)
It is pretty deniable. Politifact has gone over it.
The fact is, he has tattoos which are a little controversial and edgy, like a skull and a cannabis leaf. But to take this fact and drastically leap to this is formally sufficient evidence to break apart a family, forego due process and deport someone to an indefinite labour imprisonment. This includes the removal of a father from his child, who is non-verbal due to autism/developmental disabilities.
Even if you think the tattoos are gang signs, the bare minimum humane management of the situation is to have it evidenced in court first. There was no rush or urgency to deport him. He could have been detained pending trial with no adverse effects.
C) Already denied asylum twice, and convicted gang member, back in 2019 (upheld on appeal).
He was denied asylum because asylum applications must be submitted within one year of one's arrival in the United States. This is a pretty clear rule and you can't exactly contest it or provide evidence against it.
He was also not a convicted gang member in any meaningful sense. Police stated Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 because "he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents". Not because he was actually caught doing something illegal or gang-related. In his several years in the US, he had supported a family (including two kids that weren't his) worked a job and did not have any criminal record.
A police informant then said that he was a gang member. This informant was in New York, where KAG had never lived. The informant was not cross examined and didn't attend court. The burden of proof in an immigration hearing is that the government is right unless evidenced to be wrong. Hearsay — which is inadmissible in almost any other court setting — is acceptable in immigration hearings. So we can say it's basically the lowest standard of 'conviction' possible.
But further to this, I'm interested in how KAG is supposed to prove a negative — and provide affirmative evidence that he is not in a gang. This is a pretty nonsensical demand.
D) He was never a LEGAL immigrant, he always had an active deportation order since 2019.
While he was denied asylum, he was also considered eligible to stay. He was still considered to be too at-risk to go back, and therefore was issued 'withholding of removal' status. You actually need a higher burden of proof to get a WoR issued compared to an asylum claim approved, so it kinda demonstrates that if he'd actually tried to claim asylum from the outset — it would have been granted. Regardless, those granted Withholding of Removal are allowed to live and work lawfully in the US indefinitely — so he was not an 'illegal immigrant' at the point of deportation. In fact, he had an active court order saying that the US state has an obligation to protect him from deportation to El Salvador. He could have been deported somewhere else, but not El Salvador.
ICE did not contest his WoR outcome. "Abrego Garcia provided "substantial documentation" in favor of his claims and that his testimony was "internally consistent, externally consistent", and "appeared free of embellishment" - according to the judge. The DoHS issued him a work permit. He had to check in with ICE annually — which he fully complied with. He was married to a US citizen.
He also wasn't under threat in El Salvador due to being in a gang himself. His mother's food shop was being extorted by a gang, and threatened her family if she didn't comply. “Beginning around 2006, gang members had stalked, hit, and threatened to kidnap and kill him in order to coerce his parents to succumb to their increasing demands for extortion”
E) Way more evidence against him than just a "Chicago Bulls cap" which was parrotted by various news outlets (such as The Young Turks). He was wearing other gang insignia at the time he was arrested.
Did he? Seems nothing was ever shown in court to evidence this. If I find someone on a sex offender registry and pay them to tell the police you committed acts of indecency towards children, would you expect someone to bring any evidence to court before the state puts you in prison... in a labour camp... in a country you're high risk of harm... without clear endpoint? Or would you want a trial at minimum?
F) Beyond your points...
The Trump administration admitted this was an administrative error — and he was not appropriately deported. SCOTUS then unanimously (including all Trump's appointees) ruled that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was illegal. in Abrego Garcia’s case, to revoke his protections, the US government "would have been required under law to reopen his immigration court proceedings and prove to the judge that he was a member of MS-13 and therefore no longer eligible for withholding."
And when Trump and the Salvadorian President had a joint press conference at the White House, Trump said he has no power to kidnap someone from a Salvadorian prison — while the Salvadorian president, Nayib Bukele, said he has no right to smuggle a terrorist into the US. They were literally just sitting next to each other and lying in cohesion as if they couldn't speak to the other or feasibly make an arrangement. As KAG had never committed a crime in El Salvador, Bukele could release Abrego Garcia to the US, and Trump could grant him humanitarian parole. Sorted.
</aside>
