The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a man deported to El Salvador and now at the center of a political firestorm—has become the latest example of how immigration, law, and public opinion collide in America. But the deeper issue isn’t just immigration. It’s how facts are manipulated, laws are politicized, and emotion is used to erode standards—a pattern with real consequences for Black America.
Let’s set the record straight.
Abrego Garcia originally received a court-ordered stay of deportation because he claimed that returning to El Salvador would endanger his life due to gang violence. That is a legitimate and often life-saving process under U.S. asylum law. However, two courts—an immigration judge and an appellate panel—subsequently ruled that he was a member of MS-13, which is classified as a foreign terrorist organization. That classification nullified any asylum protections and made him legally ineligible to remain in the country.
That legal distinction matters. He wasn’t deported because of a clerical error. He was deported because the courts determined he was no longer entitled to protection under U.S. law. Everything that followed was consistent with federal statute.
When Emotion Replaces Evidence
The media wants this to be a story about cruelty. But the facts tell a different story. Once someone is deemed a threat or ineligible under immigration law, the system is obligated to act. Sympathy does not substitute for legal standing. And emotional activism does not erase legal precedent.
The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle with a 9–0 ruling, stating that no judge or court can compel the President or Secretary of State to retrieve someone from another country. If El Salvador wants to return him, the U.S. would facilitate—but it cannot force the issue.
What’s disturbing is how the facts have been sidelined in favor of a narrative.
This Didn’t Start With Trump
Despite the headlines, this is not a new phenomenon. Bill Clinton called for the removal of “illegal aliens who commit crimes.” Barack Obama oversaw more deportations than any president in U.S. history—over 3 million—and his administration ramped up interior enforcement, workplace raids, and expedited removals.
In fact, Obama’s record was so aggressive that immigrant advocacy groups began calling him the “Deporter-in-Chief.” But somehow, we’ve forgotten all of that. There were no nationwide protests. No emotional panel discussions. No talk of cruelty. Why? Because his tone was polished. His image was marketable. But the policy? It was far more brutal than anything Trump had even attempted in his first term.
Yes, President Trump is bombastic—he says things that sometimes don’t make sense. But at the end of the day, whether we like it or not, what he’s doing now is no different from what Democratic presidents have done before him. I know this firsthand. As a 33-year veteran in law enforcement and a member of national Black law enforcement organizations, we spoke out against these very same tactics under previous administrations. Back then, the media barely covered it. We specifically opposed programs like 287(g), which allowed local police departments to collaborate directly with ICE.
All Trump is doing now is washing and repeating what Clinton and Obama already did. The only difference is this time, the press is calling it a threat to democracy.
The difference is not in the enforcement. The difference is in the ideological lens through which the enforcement is reported. That’s not justice. That’s selective memory.
Sovereignty and Legal Process Still Matter
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has refused to return Garcia, stating that his country is now safe and that the gang threat no longer exists. Whether one agrees with Bukele’s assessment or not is irrelevant. Sovereign nations are not obligated to act based on American opinion, and the Supreme Court affirmed that domestic courts cannot dictate foreign policy.
What This Means for Black America
Here’s what we must confront: when laws become negotiable, when emotions override courts, and when criminality is reframed as victimhood—Black America pays the highest price.
We are already living in communities where crime goes unpunished, where violence is normalized, and where the legal system often turns a blind eye in the name of “reform.” But when criminals are treated as victims, the real victims—law-abiding Black families, children, and seniors—are erased from the narrative.
If Kilmar Abrego Garcia, once ruled to have gang affiliations, is now recast as a misunderstood migrant, should we start looking at the man who robs grandma on her way home from church as a victim too? Should the young shooter on a city block be viewed as a tragic figure instead of a threat to the community?
That’s the logic we’re importing into our own communities. And the results are plain to see. Black neighborhoods across the country are already riddled with crime and violence, yet the loudest voices in media and politics seem more concerned about individuals who weren’t even born here, who violated immigration laws, and who were ruled ineligible by courts.
Where’s the national outcry for the Black child killed in a crossfire? For the single mother afraid to let her kids play outside? For the families living under the weight of daily violence? Just recently in Queens, a 12-year-old boy was shot and killed while getting off a school bus—an act of senseless violence that barely made it past the local news cycle. No protests. No national figures at the scene. No urgent press conferences. Meanwhile, elected officials like Jasmine Crockett, AOC, and New York Attorney General Letitia James are quick to rally behind individuals with confirmed MS-13 affiliations—cases that were vetted and ruled on by the courts. The same passion isn’t shown for the families in our own neighborhoods who live under the daily threat of violence. When defending criminals becomes more politically useful than defending innocent victims, it’s not justice—it’s performance. And the cost is being paid in blood by communities the media claims to care about.
Instead, we’re being told to sympathize with someone deported under longstanding immigration law, someone whose initial protection was reversed by legal review—not by political vendetta.
Final Thought: Standards Over Sympathy
We are not against immigration. We are not against compassion. But we are against the erosion of legal standards that disproportionately harm the very communities they claim to protect.
Black America must stop letting emotional manipulation distract us from outcomes. If the law doesn’t apply equally, it doesn’t protect us at all. And if our political leaders are more interested in championing lawbreakers than defending law-abiding citizens, then we are being governed by theater—not justice.
Real justice doesn’t bend to feelings. It demands facts, process, and standards.
We must demand the same.
“political leaders are more interested in championing lawbreakers than defending law-abiding citizens” – you don’t realize that defense must start at the bottom of the social hierarchy where the most damage has been done for generations? It starts with them but will come for you as a black, gay man. damon, you are either an imbecile or morally repugnant.
Thank you for your response. But let’s deal in logic, not labels.
You argue that “defense must start at the bottom of the social hierarchy.” No disagreement there—but real defense begins with restoring standards, not discarding them. When law and order are treated as optional, the people at the bottom don’t get protection—they get neglected.
If the law is bent for one group under the banner of sympathy, it eventually becomes meaningless for everyone. And historically, when that happens, it’s Black communities that suffer first—and most.
You mention being a Black, gay man. That identity deserves respect, but it does not exempt anyone from being challenged on the facts. If your safety depends on eroding legal norms for others, then that safety is not secure—it’s conditional and political.
We keep hearing slogans and seeing outrage selectively deployed—usually based on who the media finds useful. But real justice isn’t selective. It doesn’t operate on feelings. It operates on facts, process, and consistency.
Calling me names doesn’t make your argument stronger. It just proves some people would rather shout than think.