Kilmar Abrego Garcia's recent return to the United States has sparked considerable controversy amid significant legal challenges.

Garcia, a deported Salvadoran with alleged MS-13 connections, returned to the U.S. to face human smuggling charges, and according to legal expert Alan Dershowitz, the immigrant may wish he had never been brought back stateside, as the Daily Caller reports.

The so-called "Maryland father" was initially deported in March after he was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Authorities apprehended him due to suspicions related to his association with the notorious MS-13 gang and allegations of domestic abuse. Following his deportation, he was confined in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center.

Garcia's return sparks debate

The decision to deport Garcia was contentious, drawing criticism from Democratic politicians. A group of House Democrats, along with Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, visited El Salvador advocating for Garcia's return to the United States.

Their actions highlighted an ongoing debate about immigration and the protection of individuals with prior rulings in their favor.

Garcia had previously benefited from a protective ruling through the withholding of removal by an immigration judge. This protective measure, however, did not prevent his deportation amid the Trump administration's concerns about his alleged criminal affiliations.

The controversial immigrant reportedly has strong ties with Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, an undocumented migrant who is currently imprisoned.

In 2022, Garcia was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol under suspicion of human smuggling. Authorities found him transporting eight passengers in a vehicle registered to Hernandez-Reyes.

Legal expert weighs in

Dershowitz shared his perspective on Garcia’s situation during a Newsmax interview. The longtime legal scholar believes that Garcia and his supporters made a strategic error by choosing to bring him back to the United States to face charges.

He advised that Garcia might have been better off seeking deportation to a safer country like Argentina, rather than returning to confront the serious charges awaiting him in the U.S. He predicted that a conviction could result in a lengthy prison sentence.

According to Dershowitz, "He’ll regret" the decision to return, stressing that remaining out of the U.S. could have been a more favorable outcome for Garcia. By opting for a different destination, Garcia might have avoided the potential for extensive legal troubles.

Implications of return still unknown

The media's scrutiny and political involvement in this case underscore ongoing discussions about immigration policies and individual legal rights. The backdrop of Garcia's situation seems to highlight the complexities associated with deportation and the risk factors that individuals face when deciding to return.

For Garcia, returning to face charges in the United States has brought his affiliations and past into the public eye, inviting judgment not only from legal experts like Dershowitz but also from lawmakers who favored his return.

Dershowitz expressed that the prominent support for Garcia may have overlooked his best interests. He argued that such support is often driven by a narrative or ideology rather than a true consideration of the individual's strategic preferences.

Legal challenges just beginning

With life-altering decisions now made for him, Garcia faces significant legal hurdles moving forward. The nature of the charges against him -- particularly human smuggling -- carries the potential for severe penalties if he's found guilty.

The risk of a prolonged incarceration in the United States contrasts sharply with a hypothetical scenario wherein he pursued safety in another country. This dichotomy emphasizes the intricacies in navigating the legal system and understanding the implications of deportation and return.

As the case progresses, Garcia's situation may continue to ignite debate over immigration enforcement policies and individuals' rights when facing deportation. The outcome of the legal proceedings will potentially serve as a testament to broader issues at play within the immigration landscape.