President Donald Trump on Monday reiterated his controversial stance of wanting to send U.S. citizens who commit violent crimes to prison in El Salvador.
During a conversation with El Salvador’s President, Nayib Bukele, Trump suggested that Bukele would need to “build five more places” to accommodate the potential influx of violent offenders from the United States.
This assertion comes in the wake of Trump’s previous actions while in office, which included deporting immigrants to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison, CECOT, known for its fierce and harsh conditions.
The administration has begun exploring legal avenues to facilitate sending U.S. citizens to these foreign prisons as a potential punishment for those convicted of crimes in the United States.
However, Trump’s proposal raises significant legal questions, particularly regarding its constitutionality.
Sending American citizens to prison in a foreign country would likely violate U.S. Constitution principles, including protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
Moreover, it could breach provisions of a law signed by Trump during his first term.
The central legal issue is that U.S. citizens cannot be deported; they have legal protections that immigrants do not.
Deportation laws apply to immigrants, allowing them to be removed from the U.S.
However, U.S. citizens enjoy a right that excludes them from being forcibly sent to another country.
Under current immigration laws, immigrant removals are common; the U.S. has been sending individuals to El Salvador and other countries, including Costa Rica and Panama, even when they do not have citizenship there.
The implication behind removing individuals from the country is meant to deter potential migrants by underscoring the consequences of illegally entering or staying in the U.S.
By sending immigrants to countries like El Salvador, the Trump administration hopes to send a stern warning to would-be migrants about the risks associated with attempting to settle in the United States.
Additionally, transferring individuals to El Salvador allows the U.S. government to sidestep the risk of domestic court interventions, as once these individuals leave U.S. jurisdiction, federal judges cannot order their return.
This legal loophole has raised alarms among legal experts and advocates.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor previously issued warnings regarding the implications of such actions, emphasizing that U.S. citizens also might face the risk of being forcibly deported with no opportunity for legal recourse.
The administration’s position was challenged in a Supreme Court case concerning the transport of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, emphasizing the legal complexities of such actions.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent highlighted the broader, potential implications for individual rights and freedoms, which could extend to U.S. citizens, if such actions went unchallenged.
One troubling case highlighted by critics involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador despite having no pending charges.
His story emphasizes how vulnerable individuals could fall prey to the administration’s deportation strategy, even those who should have legal protections.
President Bukele and Trump appeared dismissive of calls to return Garcia to the U.S., even as legal rulings required facilitation of his return.
As for whether Trump can legally send U.S. citizens to El Salvador, experts suggest it is unlikely based on historical precedents.
Cases of forced removal of U.S. citizens from the country are extraordinarily rare and largely untested in legal frameworks.
Existing legal avenues do include extradition treaties, enabling the United States to send citizens accused of crimes in other countries back to face trial; however, this differs significantly from forced deportation.
The constitutional protections extended to U.S. citizens are also a substantial legal barrier preventing any such actions from being sanctioned or deemed lawful.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, adding another layer of legality that complicates sending individuals to CECOT, which is infamous for its brutal conditions.
Laws enacted during Trump’s first term also mandate that federal prisons seek to house inmates as close to their homes as possible, making transferring individuals to foreign prisons even more complex legally.
Additionally, Trump’s administration theorizes there might be a slender opportunity to strip citizenship from individuals who acquired it through naturalization.
This could potentially render them liable for deportation should they be convicted of specified crimes, though it raises further questions about legality and morality.
The reality remains that no viable legal option exists in current law that would allow for the forcible retribution of U.S. citizens through deportation to a foreign prison.
The implications of this proposal are vast, presenting both civil rights concerns alongside practical governance questions as the Trump administration contemplates its execution.
Amid ongoing discussions about U.S. criminal justice policies and immigration laws, the prospect of sending American citizens to prisons abroad highlights a troubling intersection of legal and ethical boundaries that remain firmly challenged today.
image source from：https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-trumps-idea-of-imprisoning-u-s-citizens-in-el-salvador-is-likely-illegal
