The overruling of legality and the judicial system by the president as he immerses himself in a bid to redefine the narrative around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s misdirected expulsion, frames it more as an altercation over the line on unregulated immigration and not a question of adherence to the law.
In an unexpected yet significant clash between the president and the immigrant – a facet that has garnered worldwide scrutiny – it is resolutely established by the courts that it was not the immigrant but one amongst the two who recently transgressed the law.
Evident through the consensus of both liberal and conservative judges extending up to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration overstepped their boundaries with the expulsion of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia and are expected to rectify their error. Nevertheless, the president and his associates strive to reframe the matter, such that it evolves into a confrontation over illegal immigration rather than an issue surrounding the observance of the law.
This is a battle that seems to resonate with Trump, one that could have been averted quickly by simply facilitating Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador and following a regulatory procedure that could have eventually led to his expulsion. Trump chose to raise the stakes instead, dismissing court orders and formulating a post-hoc rationale for an expulsion that was initially conceded as being incorrect by his administration.
From the perspective of Trump’s team, this decision is considered to be politically favorable, resonating with the most significant percentage of voters—deemed as an ’80-20 issue’ by advisor Stephen Miller, discussing it in terms of hypothetical ratios. Trump solidifies his reputation as a hawk against malevolent immigrants, alleging that his accusers prioritize foreign-born criminals over upstanding citizens. Yet, this single case of one detained immigrant seems to centralize the debate on whether Trump himself adheres to the law.
In recent times, Trump’s intent has been to paint a picture of Mr. Abrego Garcia as an individual so menacing that the legality of the government’s deportation action is of no consequence, effectively positing that the ends justify the means. Even though Mr. Abrego Garcia holds no criminal record or convictions to his name, the Presidency now depicts him as a unique menace to public safety, not requiring proof or validation from a court.
In a media interaction on Friday, assistants handed over document summaries presenting varying allegations against Mr. Abrego Garcia to Trump. Some of these allegations are based on truth but many are twisted and fallacious interpretations. Mr. Abrego Garcia is characterized as an ‘international insurgent’ by Trump, and according to his words, ‘not an innocent player’, an individual with an ‘exceptionally negative record’.