Should the U.S. be allowed to send its own citizens to serve prison sentences in foreign countries?

Current Events
1
Should the U.S. be allowed to send its own citizens to serve prison sentences in foreign countries?

ChatGPT Image Apr 16, 2025, 10_25_41 AM
ChatGPT Image Apr 16, 2025, 10_25_41 AM1536×1024 71.2 KB

A controversial proposal to outsource American incarceration to El Salvador has sparked debate over constitutionality, executive power, and human dignity. What’s your take?
#PrisonReform #HumanRights #TrumpPolicy #christianforums #crosswalkforums #forums #crosswalk #faithcommunity #faithforums

President Trump recently floated the idea of sending Americans convicted of violent crimes to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison—a facility known for its extreme security measures and harsh living conditions. In a recent interview, he said, “I would love to do that,” signaling serious interest in pursuing the legal path to make it happen.

But this idea raises serious legal and moral questions. The Constitution guarantees due process and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Forcibly transferring U.S. citizens to a foreign prison system could be seen as violating those rights. Legal scholars and civil rights advocates have already flagged this move as potentially unconstitutional.

The proposal also brings renewed attention to the troubling case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Despite a Supreme Court order, efforts to return him to the U.S. have been blocked—highlighting the real-world risks of expanding executive power over incarceration.

So what do you think? Is this a bold solution to overcrowded prisons and rising crime—or a dangerous overreach with serious human rights implications?

1 Like
2

If – and that is a big if – a) the person is tried and convicted in a US court, and b) the judge determines the imprisonment as appropriate, and c) the transfer to another country is approved by the appropriate US courts, d) the receiving country agrees, and e) the person is guaranteed humane treatment, and f) the possibility remains for appeal and reversal of sentencing, then the answer is “yes”.

However, NONE of the above was performed when Herr Trump decided to export the supposed gang members to El Salvador. The question remains: who has violated the law in this situation?

3

Check that.

He was illegally in the US.

"He is an illegal alien who has been living illegally in our country from El Salvador. ICE testified, an immigration judge ruled he was a member of MS-13. An appellate judge ruled he was a member of MS-13. Hard stop,"US Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters."He should not be in our country.

“He was deported. They needed one additional step in paperwork, but now, MS-13 is characterized as they should be as an FTO, as a foreign terrorist organization. So he is not coming back to our country.”

4

Check this…

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said the administration has done “nothing” to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia , even though court orders have required action by officials.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi is a political appointee whose job it is to spin Trump’s propaganda. She is not an impartial spokesperson.

5

If someone regardless of their citizenship commit a crime in another country they should via the legal system be returned to that country to stand trial.

Its a blot on the character of America that citizen’s who have killed people, usually through negligence, are rarely sent to stand trial for their actions.

6

I am confused by your post…

The people that were recently deported (without a trial or hearing) were sent to a different country (El Salvador) from the one in which the crime allegedly occurred (US) or the country from which they came (Venezuela). The plane carrying them was ordered by a judge to return to the US and → that order was ignored ←

I disagree with your second sentence. Virtually every citizen (and non-citizen) who has killed someone is always sent to trial.

Where are you getting your information from?

7

Absolutely—here’s your tuned-up, theologically-anchored, Constitutionally-loaded reply with the judge issue baked in like righteous yeast in the dough:

@Who-me & @Benny

Alright, let’s reel this debate back in with both scriptural clarity and constitutional sanity.

@Who-me, you said folks should be “returned to the country where they committed the crime.” That’s called jurisdiction, and on paper, sure—makes sense. But here’s the problem: these folks weren’t sent to the country where the crime happened. They were airmailed to El Salvador, regardless of whether they were born there, lived there, or committed any crimes there. That’s not justice—that’s geopolitical hot potato.

Then you claim Americans who kill are “rarely sent to stand trial”? C’mon now. That’s not just a stretch—that’s a theological yoga pose. Ever heard of vehicular manslaughter? Involuntary homicide? These folks stand trial all the time. America’s justice system has plenty of flaws, but letting killers roam free isn’t one of them.

@Benny, you’re spot on calling out the plane stunt. That wasn’t “immigration policy”—that was the executive branch flat-out ignoring a federal court order. You asked if that judge had the right to order the plane back? Let’s be clear: absolutely. This isn’t a dictatorship. The Constitution gave us three co-equal branches of government. The judiciary exists specifically to keep the executive from going rogue.

If someone—yes, even an undocumented immigrant—files for asylum or has a pending court case, they have due process rights. That’s not weakness. That’s righteousness under law.

“You shall not pervert justice… Justice, and only justice, you shall follow.” —Deuteronomy 16:19-20
“One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” —Exodus 12:49

Ignoring a judge’s ruling isn’t “strong leadership.” It’s lawlessness with a press secretary. And if we start clapping for tyranny just because we like who’s in charge today—don’t cry when the next guy uses it against you tomorrow.

Bottom line? We don’t deport people to random countries without trials, and we don’t pretend the Constitution takes a nap when immigration’s involved. Justice requires order, not just outrage.

8

Follow-up for clarity (and consistency):

Just to head off any confusion that might be bubbling beneath the surface—yes, I also posted recently in the “Christian Nationalism” thread with a different tone about the dangers of political idolatry and the need for compassion. And no, that post doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said here.

In fact, they complement each other like law and grace—because truth doesn’t have a split personality.

That post emphasized this: God’s love is real, but it never cancels His justice. And likewise, human governments are necessary, but they’re not divine. We’re called to personal compassion and national order. Scripture holds both in tension, not opposition.

So let me make the bridge plain:

  • When I said the Church shouldn’t sell its soul to political movements, I meant we don’t pledge allegiance to kings who promise salvation through legislation. Only Christ saves.
  • When I say here that the government must obey the law, even in deportations, I mean exactly that: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
  • And when I rebuke unlawful deportations done in defiance of court orders, it’s not because I’m soft on immigration—it’s because I’m hard on injustice, wherever it lives.

“You shall not pervert justice… you shall not show partiality… Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue.” —Deuteronomy 16:19-20

It’s not political flip-flopping. It’s biblical consistency.
I’ll critique Biden when he flouts righteousness, and I’ll critique Trump when he tramples law.
No king but Christ. No justice but God’s. No compromise, ever.

Just connecting the dots for anyone reading both threads.

9

I will go with “bold solution” with the caveat that Congress should cobble something together to ensure protections, particularly that 8th amen.

10

I followed the news as it happen here in the uk.

Read the account.
She killed a young man by dangerous driving and ran away and has never appear3d before an UK court.