How to Undermine Trump's Favorite Initiative | Opinion

When talking about the unlawful detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, many liberals feel it’s unwise to mention that he isn’t Caucasian. This sentiment arises from earnest defenses that aim to broaden his situation into a more general issue affecting all people. However, by taking this approach, these liberals miss out on acknowledging the full reality and an opportunity to counterattack effectively.

What kind of statements?

This is U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen. His constituent, Abrego Garcia, went missing. Following up on this, he traveled to El Salvador to locate him. he said “I’m not supporting the individual; I’m advocating for his right to fair legal proceedings. The Trump administration acknowledged in court that he was unjustly held and removed. My objective is to ensure we maintain the rule of law, as stripping these rights from him could put everyone else’s at risk.”

Abrego Garcia was brought to the United States during his childhood. Throughout his life, he has maintained a clean legal record and has not faced any accusations of wrongdoing. He is known as a devoted husband and father who holds down a steady job. Notably, two of his children have autism, with one child unable to speak. In 2016, Abrego Garcia was apprehended by officials due to his lack of proper documentation; however, an immigration judge determined that he qualified for protected status. Deporting him back to El Salvador would place both his own life and those of his family members at significant risk.

Why might Van Hollen claim he wasn't supporting the individual in question? There could be two potential explanations for his stance. First, what matters more than the specific person involved is the underlying principle being contested. Should someone be able to be apprehended by government officials, stripped of their legal rights, and see fundamental freedoms violated without recourse, such treatment could potentially apply to anybody everywhere. It seems evident from recent actions, like the widening scope of deportations targeting U.S. citizens, that this viewpoint holds significant weight.

Open the Youtube video

- YouTube www.youtube.com

The alternative approach is viewed as less honorable. Should Van Hollen delve into the specifics of Abrego Garcia’s life—no matter how virtuous and commendable these aspects may seem—he runs the risk of inadvertently informing his audience that they do not resemble brown Spanish-speaking immigrants from Central America, who likely face different challenges due to their perceived whiteness. Van Hollen aims to broaden Abrego Garcia’s story so it resonates with everyone regardless of race. Highlighting specific elements could undermine this objective.

I understand where you're coming from. Racism and white supremacy are ingrained in the fabric of American society. Critics who argue against this notion by highlighting that current policies target U.S. citizens for deportation must address why these individuals predominantly belong to minority groups—specifically Black and Brown people—who either hold citizenship through naturalization or were born here to immigrant families. For those in power, being an "American citizen" isn’t just about having legal standing; it hinges primarily on one's perceived whiteness. Anyone opposing such practices needs to clearly recognize their true nature. If not, they might unintentionally reinforce the belief that laws apply exclusively to white Americans.

Although I understand bypassing the details of Abrego Garcia’s life to not deter possible white backers, it remains a compromise. This decision sacrifices highlighting the system's racial prejudice and consequently misses an important chance to do so. present the argument to Caucasian individuals That they can combat this evil as well by advocating for fair legal proceedings for all individuals, regardless of their character—no matter how different from someone like Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

The authorities simplify this endeavor by resorting to deception. How do they achieve this? Through falsehoods. They claimed that Abrego Garcia is a criminal. They labeled him as a gang member. They alleged that he abused his spouse*. They branded him as a terrorist. They spread numerous untrue and harmful statements and will continue doing so, since his "offense" wasn’t based on actions but rather identity. In their perspective, there is no reason for fair legal procedures. Such measures would contradict their aim of holding him responsible merely for being part of an ethnic minority in this predominantly white nation.

The true offense lies in identity itself, as shown through the administration's response when questioned regarding due process. The acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Tom Homan, often counters these inquiries by raising concerns over the due process rights of Laken Riley instead. She was killed by someone who wasn’t supposed to be in this country legally. (This individual has faced trial, received conviction, and now faces life imprisonment without parole.)

Homan aims to silence the discussion entirely. Neither she nor Abrego Garcia will achieve their objectives; case closed. However, beneath this surface narrative lies the crux of the matter. Riley identifies as white, whereas Abrego Garcia does not. Merely being white isn’t illegal. Hence, Homan retains her rights. Conversely, identifying as brown (or Black or LGBTQ+ or having disabilities or belonging to another marginalized group) is indeed considered unlawful for many. Consequently, Abrego Garcia receives no protections—neither his right to due process nor any other form of safeguard.

If we fail to recognize that "identity" itself is the true issue and view allegations of wrongdoing as mere distractions, we will misinterpret their use of terms such as “illegal immigrant.” Additionally, without seeing through this facade, we might accept uncritically the justification behind stricter enforcement—that only by removing millions of immigrants, including individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia who arrived as children, can the system maintain legal order, with any leniency being seen as chaos.

They aren't serious about following through. This is evident as the law holds little weight for them. It's clear the law isn't their concern since they continue to violate it. About two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court concurred with a decision from a lower court mandating the authorities to make every effort to locate Abrego Garcia. Yet despite this directive, no action has taken place. Instead, the powers-that-be appear to take pleasure in defying legal norms and seem convinced that established facts and laws should yield to those who hold power.

This leads me back to Chris Van Hollen. He stated that he isn’t necessarily supporting Abrego Garcia but rather advocating for his rights. His objective, he clarified, is "to ensure that we maintain the rule of law, since taking these rights away from him could put everyone else’s at risk."

That's fine up to a point, but if he and other Democratic figures opt to confine their efforts solely to safeguarding norms and institutions, they'll squander an uncommon opportunity to strengthen public sentiment against a president who has primarily thrived on his stance on immigration.

Firstly, by identifying disingenuous claims. Each instance where Democrats entertain fictitious debates about "illegal immigration," they inadvertently endorse the true intent behind these assertions — which is that the offense lies in one’s identity rather than actions — thereby weakening their stance in upholding the rule of law.

Secondly, by placing race or racism at the forefront of our discussions about laws, we ensure that true equality becomes central to these conversations. It’s crucial not to establish different sets of regulations for insiders versus outsiders; doing so would undermine our claim as a fair and constitutionally grounded nation.

Highlighting racism exposes the government's aim to reinstate a racially divided two-tier legal system. They cannot openly admit this intent without appearing vulnerable and losing public support. Therefore, they opt to defame Black and Brown individuals, portraying them as monstrous figures unworthy of the same rights and benefits afforded to white people.

Not only could the Democrats work towards safeguarding vulnerable people, but they might also shape and dominate the agreement about which groups are considered threatened, thus addressing the root cause of their vulnerability.

*Heather Cox Richardson explores the underlying context “Even though Abrego Garcia’s spouse filed a temporary civil protection order against him in 2021, she stated that she took this step as a precautionary measure following a prior violent relationship. She chose not to proceed with the order and mentioned they resolved their problems through therapy.”

Related Articles:

・ 'Utterly disgusting': Dire alerts as Trump joyfully flouts courts

・ Krugman provides an economic reality check: Trump’s plan for mass deportations could cause grocery costs to skyrocket.

・ You'd lose countless individuals": The construction sector vehemently opposes Trump’s immigration crackdown

・ 'Massive costs': Trump’s large-scale deportations are 'pushing governmental capabilities to their boundaries'