By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to a Friday court filing, the U.S. government intends to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, potentially as soon as October 31. This follows a previous mistaken deportation to El Salvador, in violation of a settlement agreement. Abrego Garcia’s legal team argues this new deportation attempt is punitive and designed to inflict hardship, particularly since he has no connection to Liberia and has applied for asylum in the United States. Furthermore, the Salvadoran national is also facing criminal charges in Tennessee, adding another layer of complexity to his immigration case.
Read the original article here
US says it now plans to deport Abrego Garcia to Liberia as soon as Oct. 31, and it’s understandably raising a lot of eyebrows. The core issue, as it seems, is the repeated attempt to remove this individual from the United States, even after what appears to be a lack of definitive legal justification. The sheer cost, in terms of resources expended on courts, incarceration, and transportation, is staggering. And what’s it all for? It seems a lot of people are questioning the underlying motivations here.
The administration’s claim that Liberia is a “thriving democracy” and a close US partner doesn’t seem to sit well with those who are concerned about sending Abrego Garcia there. The argument against this deportation is based on the idea that it’s more akin to exile than deportation. The idea of being sent to a country where someone has never lived, especially without established legal standing or connections, evokes a feeling of being cast out and left vulnerable. This echoes what some see as a disregard for due process and human rights.
A major theme in the discussions centers around the lack of a clear-cut case against Abrego Garcia. The repeated failures of the administration to secure a legal victory, combined with the unwavering persistence of deportation efforts, have fueled the perception that something else is driving this. Is it a vendetta? A desire to make an example? Or is he, as some suggest, a symbol of their perceived failures? Whatever the case, many believe the administration is overreaching.
The responses are charged with frustration and anger, with many questioning the logic of targeting this particular individual. It’s perceived by some as a political move, a way to demonstrate power and dominance, even at the cost of the individual’s well-being and basic rights. The idea of “punishing” someone for highlighting perceived wrongs has sparked strong emotional responses.
The term “exile” is repeatedly brought up, and the insistence on calling it “deportation” is considered a misnomer. People are arguing that it’s illegal to send someone to a country they’ve never lived in. Sending someone to a country where they have no ties and potentially no legal standing is considered by many a gross violation of human rights. This lack of connection to Liberia makes the situation even more troubling.
The cost of this operation, in terms of wasted tax dollars, is another sticking point. The resources spent on courts, incarceration, and transportation seem disproportionate to the outcome, especially when many feel the case itself is weak. This perceived misuse of public funds adds to the frustration and highlights the sense that the administration is acting out of spite rather than justice.
The sentiment is that the government is more interested in optics and demonstrating power than in due process. The situation has highlighted the perceived cruelty of the administration, as well as its apparent disregard for established legal and ethical standards. This is seen by many as a dangerous precedent.
The calls for help and refuge reveal the depth of concern and empathy for Abrego Garcia’s situation. There’s a strong sense of injustice and a desire to intervene in some way to protect him. The response from a Canadian highlights the international concern and the feeling that this situation is unacceptable.
The history of Liberia, which was founded by former American slaves, adds another layer of complexity and irony. Some point out how the administration’s actions contradict its stated values and are in line with a cruel past. The focus on what Abrego Garcia may have done, or not done, is overshadowed by the outrage over the administration’s actions.
The use of the term “human trafficking” is also prominent, with the argument that the government is essentially moving this individual against his will to a country where he has no support or legal standing. The frustration is palpable, with many viewing this as a clear violation of basic rights. The entire situation is viewed by many as a misuse of power, with the administration targeting a “low hanging fruit” in their eyes.