Readers react to column about mistakenly deported ‘Maryland man’

Whenever I see a headline or a news story about something that raises my ire, I tell myself: Don’t get mad, get curious.

Americans — especially retirees who dig politics and have time on their hands — are good at letting a story upset us before we have all of the details. But there’s no point in getting mad about something that isn’t accurate.

Last week, I wrote that the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national living in Maryland who was mistakenly removed to El Salvador due to an administrative oversight by the Trump administration, had become irresistible to Democrats intent on making him a martyr for political gain. Unsurprisingly, readers — most of them Democrat or left-leaning voters — freaked out.

Some of their feedback I found amusing. Some was clearly just to stick it to the evil conservative opinion writer this paper has the nerve to employ.

But a number of comments made me question whether those readers had an accurate picture of Abrego Garcia’s case before it ever became a political lightning rod. Or if they lack understanding of how illegal immigration is dealt with in our country.

That’s why I say, don’t get mad, get curious. To put it more bluntly: Don’t freak out. Find out.

Normally, I prefer to avoid fact-checking my own readers. That said, some of the comments made in response to last week’s column are worth dissecting for the sake of understanding the issue about which we obviously feel so passionately.

One reader said via email, “Typical right-wing hypocrisy … Not a word about due process.”

Fact check: Wrong. The reader just needed to find the part of the article where I wrote a few words about due process. Specifically: “The Trump administration should absolutely follow through on having Abrego Garcia returned to the United States. Justice cannot be done without the airtight guarantee called due process.”

That said, it’s worth noting that due process is enshrined in the constitution to ensure that we are not deprived of our rights, not given extra ones others are not afforded.

Supporters of Abrego Garcia appear to believe that he is entitled to return to Maryland to live with his wife and children. What they fail to grasp is that even if and when he returns to the U.S. for proper adjudication, it is virtually guaranteed Abrego Garcia will not be allowed to become a permanent resident of the United States.

He is not eligible to do so. There is no legal path. He still is subject to a deportation order.

Allowing him to stay permanently would be unlawful. Not to mention unfair to every other foreign national desperately trying to follow the rules or facing the consequences for not having done so.

Violation of due process is not remedied by grant of undue favor. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Some readers, based on their responses, don’t appear to have a clear understanding of immigration rules or of Abrego Garcia’s status before he was hauled off to El Salvador.

From a reader in Denison, on social media: “ … he was given a work permit to stay in the U.S. legally. In order to get a work permit, the State Department does an extensive background check. Which he passed.”

Fact check: False. The State Department does not do background checks on people living in the U.S. illegally. A person under a deportation order who also has an order withholding removal can apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) through U.S. Customs and Immigration Services and must renew it every year.

However much it seems like splitting hairs, it must be clarified that a work document is only that: authorization to work in the United States. It does not confer any kind of lawful residency.

From a reader in Coralville, via email: “Mr. Abrego Garcia had a legal right to be in the U.S. …”

Fact check: That’s a stretch. Abrego Garcia’s legal right (which was violated) was to not be sent back to El Salvador. But like an EAD, an order withholding removal such as Abrego Garcia’s does not confer legal residency.

If another country was willing to accept Abrego Garcia, he would have been deported there and not have the right to remain in the U.S.

No, it’s not likely that another country would accept Abrego Garcia or any other deportee who is not one of its own citizens. Let’s face it: No country really wants to admit a foreign national deported from another country for alleged gang membership.

Speaking of gang membership ...

From a reader in Lansing, via email: “Althea seems to have not mentioned, avoided or never bothered to research: U.S. District Court Judge Xinis said in her previous rulings that there is no evidence to make the claim Garcia is a gang member."

Fact check: This lacks context.

To put it bluntly, it doesn’t matter whether Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis could find any evidence that Abrego Garcia was a gang member. That was not the question before her court.

The question before Xinis’ court, outlined in an April 6 opinion, was whether the Trump administration’s error of dumping Abrego Garcia in El Salvador entitles him to be returned to the United States to resolve his case. Whether or not he is a confirmed gang member was not for Xinis to determine.

As I wrote last week, Abrego Garcia’s alleged gang affiliation is not in dispute. Documents show it was alleged in detail by police in Maryland, found valid by an Immigration Court, and upheld on appeal by another Immigration Court all in 2019. The order withholding removal issued that same year did not overturn the courts’ findings of gang affiliation. No court has — including Xinis’ district court.

Nevertheless, the reader from Lansing implies that Judge Xinis’ take on the determination of Abrego Garcia’s alleged MS-13 membership should carry more significance in the overall matter than the conclusions of multiple immigration judges tasked specifically with reviewing the determination. I cannot agree.

This writer’s opinion is that Xinis characterizes the evidence of Abrego Garcia’s gang membership less than accurately. According to her, it “consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant.” That statement omits several other details documented by police and presented to the Immigration Court.

On social media, from a reader in Marion: “A following judge granted him asylum …”

Fact check: False. With limited exceptions, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires a foreign national to apply for asylum within one year of arriving in the U.S. Abrego Garcia, who arrived in 2011, did not apply for asylum until after he was detained in 2019. His claim was denied.

From the same reader in Marion: “If he is gang member, it needs to be proven in our court.”

Fact check: False. Not for immigration purposes, at least.

Though technically a crime, most immigration violations are adjudicated as a civil offense in Immigration Court, which is part of the Department of Justice, separate from the federal court system and the judicial branch altogether.

Because it is not a criminal proceeding, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. An allegation is enough to detain an immigrant and initiate removal proceedings. The burden to show otherwise is on the immigrant.

As harsh as that might sound, it’s worth considering what it could mean for our justice system — and our national security — if immigration violations were adjudicated as criminal offenses instead of civil. It would likely wreak havoc on our federal courts, where backlogged cases already number in the tens of thousands in some districts. It would also likely have consequences for our legal immigration process in a system that is already quite …well, pick your own adjective for that one.

On social media, from a reader in Cedar Rapids: “He has never been convicted of a crime.”

Fact check: True. Abrego Garcia has never been convicted of a crime in the U.S. Not even illegal entry.

But again, context helps here: A person living in the U.S. without authorization does not need to have been convicted of a crime to be eligible for deportation or prioritized for removal.

Other readers had … other things to say.

On social media, from a reader in Coralville: “Althea also probably thinks that it was great that Trump pardoned all the Jan. 6 convicts.”

Fact check: Wrong.

On social media, from yet another reader in Coralville: “Put Althea Cole on a list for Nuremberg Trials 2k.”

I’ll pass on a fact-check there. But I wonder if this person believes in something called due process.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com