Some Immigrants Are More Equal Than Others

1,107 words

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

The Trump administration recently admitted to a bureaucratic blunder: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an El Salvadoran national, was deported due to an administrative error. Acknowledging the mistake is one thing; what’s strange, however, is the intensity of lobbying and activism now surrounding his return.

What makes this individual—who has reportedly faced serious criminal allegations—so special? Why is his removal treated as a grave injustice while hundreds of other, more respectable individuals are denied the right to remain in the U.S. or U.K. under far less questionable circumstances?

It is not uncommon for travelers from the developing world to be mistreated by Western immigration systems. I personally know of several Jamaican citizens—traveling for leisure—who were turned back at American airports without any legitimate explanation. No suspicious conduct was reported. Yet they were unceremoniously denied entry, left to absorb the humiliation and financial loss that comes with being treated like a potential criminal.

Even professionals, such as engineers, teachers, and academics, have not been spared. There have been cases where immigration officers aggressively interrogate individuals, make dubious claims about their visa status, or abruptly cancel their entry documents. In some cases, technical errors or minor paperwork issues are enough to justify expulsion. Where, one wonders, is the lobbying effort for these law-abiding, productive people?

My own experience is quite similar. Years ago, I applied for a foreign student visa after receiving a scholarship to attend a top-tier institution. I had the full financial backing required, and every document to prove it. But because one of my financial documents had an incorrect date—an innocent clerical error—my visa was denied. So, I resubmitted the application and was granted the student visa. Rules are not waived for professionals and students, so why should criminals be privileged?

Now contrast the treatment of professionals with how certain controversial cases are handled, and a troubling pattern emerges. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is one of many. In the United Kingdom, a Gambian man who was convicted of multiple rapes challenged his deportation in court, won, and was even compensated by the British government. In another case, a Jamaican national with a record of serious sexual offenses was deemed unfit to return to Jamaica due to the severity of his crimes. The Home Office effectively admitted that his own country wouldn’t want him back.

These examples reveal a disturbing inconsistency in how immigration laws are enforced. Professionals from developing nations are removed from Western countries due to bureaucratic technicalities, yet individuals with proven criminal records are permitted to remain—and in some cases, are even rewarded. What explains this bizarre double standard?

One could argue that there is now an ideological commitment among Western elites to embrace open borders not as a humanitarian gesture, but as a political and cultural project. The law is no longer applied evenly; rather, it is contorted to support a vision of society that many ordinary citizens never agreed to. And that vision increasingly includes not just diversity, but the importation of individuals whose past behavior or lack of contribution to their home societies would normally preclude them from receiving any kind of sympathy.

This raises the question: Is there a broader agenda to repopulate white-majority countries not just with minorities, but with individuals who are fundamentally incompatible with modern, liberal democracies? Why is there such a coordinated legal and media effort to defend people with criminal backgrounds while ordinary immigrants who simply overstayed a visa or misunderstood a work permit are offered no grace?

Why the double standard? The answer may lie in a deeper ideological transformation occurring in the West. Increasingly, Western elites appear less interested in building functional, merit-based societies and more invested in virtue signaling, globalist idealism, and post-colonial guilt. The romanticization of Third World suffering has led to a bizarre reverence for dysfunction. Criminals are recast as victims of systemic oppression, while ambitious, law-abiding immigrants are treated with cold suspicion or indifference.

This ideology assumes that the poorest and most marginalized people from the developing world are morally superior—“untainted” by capitalism, modernity, or Western influence. It’s a twisted form of cultural primitivism, where dysfunction is mistaken for authenticity and criminality is excused as resistance. And it is fueling immigration policies that prioritize the wrong people

This ideological posture has dangerous long-term consequences. The continued importation of unproductive, anti-social, or criminal individuals into Western societies risks turning those societies into reflections of the very countries these immigrants are fleeing. When large numbers of people with no skills, no intention to integrate, and no respect for the host nation’s values settle in, it strains public services, undermines social cohesion, and invites civil unrest.

What’s more, the financial burden of supporting these new populations will fall squarely on the shoulders of the native working and middle classes. As more funds are funneled into welfare, housing subsidies, and legal defense for newcomers, less is available for schools, hospitals, pensions, or infrastructure. At some point, the math no longer works. A society built on the presumption of productivity and shared norms cannot sustain itself when its population is replaced by people who were themselves products of failing or failed states.

The tragic irony is that many of the people being turned away by Western immigration systems are exactly the kind of immigrants these countries need: skilled, disciplined, and ready to contribute. But instead of easily welcoming the nurse from Nigeria, the software developer from India, or the teacher from Jamaica, immigration officials enforce rules to the letter. And when those same rules are applied to a convicted rapist or an alleged gangster, legal teams swoop in to argue that deportation would constitute a human rights violation.

This is not compassion—it is self-destruction. If these trends continue, Western nations risk becoming Third World outposts with First World debt burdens. Social services will collapse under the weight of expanding welfare rolls, schools will struggle with language and behavior issues, and public safety will deteriorate as crime rises in areas where newcomers refuse to assimilate.

It is time for native citizens to recognize what is happening and demand change. Immigration policies must be reoriented to prioritize merit, integration, and national interest—not ideology, sentimentality, or the fantasies of globalist elites. Lobbying for the return of someone like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, while ignoring or mistreating productive individuals from the same parts of the world, is not only irrational—it’s dangerous.

The future of Western civilization depends on the choices made today. Either these nations reclaim their right to select who enters, based on character and contribution, or they resign themselves to becoming colonies of third world tyrants.