Thread: US Deportation of Illegal Immigrants

What we know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MS-13 allegations

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia - a 29-year-old from El Salvador who was deported from the US in March - has prompted a legal showdown over the administration's immigration policy.

Judges all the way up to the US Supreme Court have ruled that Mr Abrego Garcia was deported in error and that the US government should help "facilitate" his return to his home in Maryland.

But the White House has accused Mr Abrego Garcia of being a member of the transnational Salvadorian gang MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organisation, saying that he "will never live" in the US again.

Mr Abrego Garcia denies he is a member of the gang and he has not been convicted of any crime.

BBC Verify has examined court documents and public records to determine what's known – and what is still unknown – about Mr Abrego Garcia and his alleged ties to MS-13.
What do we know about alleged MS-13 links?

Mr Abrego Garcia has acknowledged entering the US illegally in 2012, according to court documents.

In March 2019 he was detained along with three other people in Hyattsville, Maryland, in the car park of a Home Depot.

Officers at the Prince George's County Police Department said the men were "loitering" and subsequently identified Mr Abrego Garcia and two of the others as members of MS-13.

In a document titled the "Gang Field Interview Sheet", the local police detailed their observations.

They said Mr Abrego Garcia was wearing a "Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations".

Officers claimed the clothing was "indicative of the Hispanic gang culture" and that "wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents thay (sic) they are a member in good standing with the MS-13".

Steven Dudley, a journalist and author who has spent years studying the MS-13 gang, said that it is true that "at some point, the Chicago Bulls logo with the horns became a stand-in of sorts for the MS-13's devil horns symbol".

But wearing the logo of the hugely popular basketball team, he added, is of course not exclusive to the gang.

"Any assertions about gang affiliation would need to be corroborated with testimony, criminal history, and other corroborating evidence," Mr Dudley said.

According to the field interview sheet and other court documents, officers said they were also advised by a "proven and reliable source" that Mr Abrego Garcia was an active member of MS-13's "westerns clique", with the rank of "chequeo".

However, Mr Dudley says that a "chequeo" is not a rank but is instead used to refer to recruits who are yet to be initiated.
Getty Images Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, speaking at a microphone in front of the Federal Court in MarylandGetty Images
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Mr Abrego Garcia, has denied he's an MS-13 gang member

Lawyers for Mr Abrego Garcia's argued in court filings that the "westerns clique" is based in New York, where they say their client has never lived. And according to government documents, he has dismissed the information given to police against him as "hearsay".

According to his lawyers, Mr Abrego Garcia has never been convicted of any criminal offence, including gang membership, in the US or in El Salvador. He lived in the US for 14 years, had three children and worked in construction, according to court records.

But the judge who presided over his 2019 case said that based on the confidential information, there was sufficient evidence to support Mr Abrego Garcia's gang membership. That finding was later upheld by another judge.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MS-13: What is alleged and what we know


2 Judges found that Garcia was a gang member. That should be the end of the legal recourse for him. Asylum for being 'in danger from other gang members' is nonsense.

.......

US may soon deport migrants to Libya on military flight

US President Donald Trump's administration may deport migrants to Libya for the first time this week, according to US officials, as part of his immigration crackdown and despite Washington's past condemnation of Libya's harsh treatment of detainees.


Two officials said the US military could fly the migrants to the North African country as soon as Wednesday (May 7), but stressed that plans could change.

A US judge said on Wednesday that any effort by the Trump administration to deport migrants to Libya would "clearly" violate a prior court order barring officials from swiftly deporting migrants to countries other than their own, without first weighing whether they might face persecution if sent there.


It is unclear how many migrants would be sent to Libya or the nationalities of the individuals that the administration is eyeing for deportation. The relatives of one Mexican national told Reuters he had been told to sign a document allowing for his deportation to the African nation.


Lawyers for a group of migrants pursuing a class action lawsuit said the individuals potentially subject to deportation to Libya included Laotian, Vietnamese, and Philippine migrants. They added that sending them to Libya without first providing them a chance to raise their safety concerns "blatantly defies" the judge's injunction.


LIBYA REJECTS USE OF ITS TERRITORY FOR US DEPORTATIONS


Libya's Government of National Unity said on Wednesday it rejected the use of Libyan territory as a destination for deporting migrants without its knowledge or consent. It also said there was no coordination with the United States regarding the reception of migrants.

Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army, which controls eastern Libya, also rejected in a statement the idea of the country taking migrants deported from the United States, saying it "violates the sovereignty of the homeland".


Trump, who made immigration a major issue during his election campaign, has launched aggressive enforcement action since taking office, surging troops to the southern border and pledging to deport millions of immigrants in the United States illegally.


As of Monday, the Trump administration has deported 152,000 people, according to DHS.


The administration has tried to encourage migrants to leave voluntarily by threatening steep fines, trying to strip away legal status, and deporting migrants to notorious prisons in Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador.

"LIFE-THREATENING PRISON CONDITIONS"


In its annual human rights report released last year, the US State Department criticised Libya's "harsh and life-threatening prison conditions" and "arbitrary arrest or detention."


In its travel advisory, the Department advises US citizens against visiting the country due to "crime, civil unrest, kidnapping and armed conflict."


Libya's west is overseen by the GNU under Prime Minister Abdulhamid al-Dbeibah, who was installed in Tripoli through a UN-backed process in 2021. Eastern Libya has a parallel administration and is controlled by Commander Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army.


Major fighting ended with a truce in 2020 but the underlying political dispute between the sides remains and there are sporadic clashes between rival factions.

"SOME OF THE MOST DESPICABLE HUMAN BEINGS"


US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week said the United States was not satisfied only with sending migrants to El Salvador, and hinted that Washington was looking to expand the number of countries to which it may deport people.

"We are working with other countries to say: We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings, will you do this as a favour to us," Rubio said at a cabinet meeting at the White House last Wednesday.


"And the further away from America, the better."


A fourth US official said the administration has for several weeks been looking at a number of countries to send migrants to, including Libya.


It wasn't immediately clear if the administration had struck an agreement with the Libyan authorities to accept deportees of other nationalities.


On April 19, the Supreme Court justices temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members. Trump's administration, which has invoked a rarely used wartime law, has urged the justices to lift or narrow their order.

It is unclear what kind of due process might be underway ahead of any Libya deportations.


Libya has had little peace since a 2011 NATO-backed uprising, and it split in 2014 between eastern and western factions, with rival administrations governing in each area.


A Tripoli-based Government of National Unity under Prime Minister Abdulhamid al-Dbeibah was installed through a UN-backed process in 2021, but the Benghazi-based House of Representatives no longer recognises its legitimacy.

Ukraine considers move to euro from dollar amid geopolitical shifts - CNA

Perhaps he could send them to Yemen. That would seem to meet his humanitarian standards.

Trump administration considers suspending habeas corpus

Donald Trump's administration is "actively looking at" suspending habeas corpus - the right of a person to challenge their detention in court - one of the US president's top aides has said.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, told reporters on Friday that the US Constitution allowed for the legal liberty to be suspended in times of "rebellion or invasion".

His comments come as judges have sought to challenge some recent detentions made by the Trump administration in an effort to combat illegal immigration, as well as remove dissenting foreign students.

"A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not," Miller said.

There are several pending civil cases against the Trump administration's deportation of undocumented migrants based on habeaus corpus.

Trump administration considering suspending habeas corpus


I am not sure of the extended implications of this, but I do think that, in general, illegal immigrants should have restricted access to legal recourse when it comes to fighting deportation orders. The courts have elaborate and time consuming procedures that are more deservatory for the treatment of citizens, permanent residents and legal visitors.

Originally Posted by Looper

I am not sure of the extended implications of this, but I do think that, in general, illegal immigrants should have restricted access to legal recourse when it comes to fighting deportation orders. The courts have elaborate and time consuming procedures that are more deservatory for the treatment of citizens, permanent residents and legal visitors.

The constitution guarantees due process to EVERY citizen, legal status is irrelevant.

Constitutional amendments require 38 states to assent.

So, again, it doesn't matter a fucking jot what you "think".

There is no "rebellion" in the US, nor is there an "invasion".

This is just more trumpanzee bullshit.

^I don’t understand what you are saying here and have to admit that I agree with Looper in the statement above. If one is a citizen, they have legal status. If one has NO citizenship, green card, work permit, or any other legal permission including being under review for asylum, I think they should be sent home unceremoniously with no resources wasted on them. Sent back to the country they came from, not some third country.

I don’t agree with Looper on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in that he had legal permission to live in the US and convicted of no crime to revoke that status. Some officer saying he was a gang member doesn’t hold water.

Habeas corpus should extend to anyone who has any kind of legal status for being in the USA. Period. There is no reason to revoke it and I think it’s just mouthy Trump spouting nonsense AGAIN.

Judge says 2-year-old US citizen appears to have been deported with ‘no meaningful process’

A federal judge is raising alarms that the Trump administration deported a two-year-old U.S. citizen to Honduras with “no meaningful process,” even as the child’s father was frantically petitioning the courts to keep her in the country.


U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, said the child — identified in court papers by the initials “V.M.L.” — appeared to have been released in Honduras earlier Friday, along with her Honduran-born mother and sister, who had been detained by immigration officials earlier in the week.

The judge on Friday scheduled a hearing for May 16, which he said was “in the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.”

The judge on Friday scheduled a hearing for May 16, which he said was “in the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.”

The child, whose redacted U.S. birth certificate was filed in court and showed she was born in New Orleans in 2023, had been with her mother and sister during a regular immigration check-in at the New Orleans office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday. Officials there detained them and queued them up for deportation.


Trump administration officials said in court that the mother told ICE officials that she wished to take V.M.L. with her to Honduras. The filing included a handwritten note in Spanish they claimed was written by the mother and confirmed her intent. But the judge said he had hoped to verify that information.

“The Government contends that this is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her,” Doughty wrote. “But the Court doesn’t know that.”


“This parent made the decision to take the child with them to Honduras. It is common that parents want to be removed with their children,” Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with someone the parent designates. In this case, the parent stated they wanted to be removed with the children.”

“We take our responsibility to protect children seriously and will continue to work with federal law enforcement to ensure that children are safe and protected,” she added.


The court battle ignited Thursday, when lawyers for the family filed an emergency petition in the Western District of Louisiana seeking V.M.L.’s immediate release from ICE custody and a declaration that the girl’s detention had been unlawful. The petition was filed under the name of Trish Mack, who the lawyers indicated had been asked by V.M.L.’s father to act as the child’s custodian and take her home from ICE custody.


Lawyers for the guardian told the court that V.M.L.’s father had been attempting to contact the girl’s mother to discuss plans for their child but ICE officials denied him the chance to have a substantive phone call. He says ICE allowed the two to speak for about one minute on Tuesday, while the mother was in ICE custody, but that they were unable to make any meaningful decisions about their child.


As a U.S. citizen, V.M.L. is likely to have the ability to return to the United States, setting her case apart from others that have drawn national attention in recent weeks, such as the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Salvadoran native was deported to a prison in his home country in violation of a 2019 immigration court order. But the Louisiana case is the latest concern by the courts that the Trump administration’s rush to carry out deportations is violating due process rights — in this case, the rights of a U.S. citizen child.


Doughty said he attempted to investigate the emergency matter himself on Friday, seeking to get V.M.L.’s mother on the phone to determine whether ICE’s representation about her desire to bring V.M.L. to Honduras was accurate. The judge said he was “independently aware” that the plane he believed was carrying the family was already “above the Gulf of America.”


Trump administration lawyers called the judge back Friday afternoon and said a phone call with the mother would not be possible “because she (and presumably VML) had just been released in Honduras,” Doughty wrote. Doughty then scheduled the May hearing.


Doughty is based in Monroe, Louisiana, about 100 miles north of the staging facility in Alexandria where lawyers who filed the petition said they believed the mother and her daughters were being held prior to their deportation.

Just a moment...

Originally Posted by misskit

If one is a citizen, they have legal status. If one has NO citizenship, green card, work permit, or any other legal permission including being under review for asylum, I think they should be sent home unceremoniously with no resources wasted on them.

Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- Rights Of Persons

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Notice, the constitution says nothing about residency, permit status, or citizenship. However, it does mention persons.

This is about persons being held in prison for no reason. If a person is deported, they are not being imprisoned, they are being transported out of the country.

A case happened near my hometown many years ago which shaped the way I think about the treatment of illegal immigrants. A construction worker with no legal status was picked up by police for drunk driving and released. Not long after he killed a young woman in a drunk driving accident. He then was held and convicted of homicide.

If this man had been deported in the first place the woman would still be alive AND the state wouldn’t be burdened with paying for his court case and incarceration.

Don’t think I am anti immigrant. I am not. I am against immigrants being “ghosts” with no legal status. If they are illegal and report to immigration and get permission though the court to stay, good on them.

Originally Posted by misskit

Habeas corpus should extend to anyone who has any kind of legal status for being in the USA.

Habeas corpus is not limited to people who are in the country, legally.

Ok. You have me there. But, if that person is brought before a judge right after they are taken into custody and it is found they are in custody because of illegal immigration status, they can be promptly deported. No?

Originally Posted by misskit

Ok. You have me there. But, if that person is brought before a judge right after they are taken into custody and it is found they are in custody because of illegal immigration status, they can be promptly deported. No?

I guess, in a perfect world, that would be the case. Are we going to do that with 11 million + people?

^ The problem in a nutshell. Anyway, I don’t see the point of deporting anyone who is not a criminal.

Trump is only using illegal immigrants as a way to get people to go along with the suspension of habeas corpus. His real reason for suspending habeas corpus is so that he can go after his political enemies and journalists.

Kinda too late, folks.
Your beloved Obama already permanently suspended habeas corpus [for everyone regardless of status] under an extension of the even more beloved Patriot Act.