Faith Nyasuguta
President Donald Trump has recently suggested the possibility of deporting U.S. citizens convicted of violent crimes to foreign prisons, specifically El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison. This proposal has ignited a firestorm of legal and ethical concerns, as experts argue that such actions would violate constitutional protections and international human rights standards.
During a meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Trump expressed interest in sending “homegrown” criminals to El Salvador’s CECOT prison. “If it’s a homegrown criminal, I have no problem,” Trump stated, emphasizing his focus on individuals who commit severe crimes, such as assaulting elderly people or pushing others into subways. He further suggested that Bukele might need to build more prisons to accommodate these offenders.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the administration is exploring the legal feasibility of this proposal. “It’s a legal question that the president is looking into,” she said, indicating that Attorney General Pam Bondi is reviewing the matter.
Legal scholars have swiftly condemned the idea as unconstitutional. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, highlighted that deporting U.S. citizens without their consent would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. “Of course, we have the right as a government to incarcerate people who are a danger to society, but they’re Americans, they remain here,” Frost explained.
Similarly, David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, emphasized that U.S. citizens cannot be deported under any circumstances. “The United States is the home of United States citizens. And citizens cannot be deported, period,” he stated.
The Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Afroyim v. Rusk established that U.S. citizenship cannot be revoked without the individual’s consent. Any attempt to deport citizens would likely face insurmountable legal challenges.
The administration’s stance has come under increased scrutiny following the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without legal status in 2011. Despite a court order protecting him from deportation due to safety concerns, Abrego Garcia was mistakenly sent to El Salvador’s CECOT prison, where he remains detained.
Federal Judge Paula Xinis has criticized the administration for failing to facilitate his return, stating that the government has done “nothing” to comply with the court’s order. The Supreme Court has also ordered the administration to treat Abrego Garcia’s case as if the wrongful deportation never occurred, further intensifying the legal standoff.
El Salvador’s CECOT prison has been widely criticized for its harsh conditions and alleged human rights abuses. Inmates are reportedly subjected to extreme confinement, limited access to basic necessities, and a lack of rehabilitation programs. Human rights organizations warn that sending U.S. citizens to such facilities would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
The proposal has sparked a broader debate about the limits of executive power and the erosion of constitutional protections. Critics argue that the administration’s actions reflect a dangerous trend of undermining the rule of law and targeting marginalized communities.
Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has traveled to El Salvador to advocate for Abrego Garcia’s release and to assess the conditions at CECOT. He warned that the administration’s defiance of court orders represents a constitutional crisis and sets a troubling precedent for the treatment of U.S. citizens.
As the Trump administration continues to explore the legality of deporting U.S. citizens to foreign prisons, legal experts and human rights advocates remain steadfast in their opposition. The unfolding situation highlights the importance of upholding constitutional protections and the rule of law, even in the face of complex immigration and criminal justice challenges.
RELATED:
