Quick! What do all these cases have in common? Anything? Also, who's at fault in each one?
A young woman (aged somewhere between sixteen and nineteen—in your answer, let me know if her age makes a difference to you) is invited to a party. She dresses up in her sexiest outfit, drinks a lot of alcohol at the party, and behaves very flirtatiously to everyone she meets, men and women alike. By the end of the evening, she has sex that she does not remember consenting to. The boy that she accuses of raping her says he doesn't know her and he's never seen her before in his life; but he has no alibi, and his friends place him at the same party sometime that night. No witnesses will admit to seeing what happened between them.
A rich man goes out to a show in the downtown of a Big City. He has to park several blocks away. After the show, he takes a shortcut to get back to his car, which requires him to walk through a dark alley late at night. It's an unsavory part of town. The man is expensively dressed, and wears an expensive watch that he keeps checking compulsively. Also his thick wallet is visible bulging out of his back pocket. He is mugged, and stripped of everything valuable: watch, wallet, everything. It was dark, so he cannot identify his assailants.

You are a lounge singer and dancer named Michelle Triola, who has also had a couple of minor acting jobs over the years. For six years you live with a much more successful actor named Lee Marvin, but you never marry him. When you finally move out, you sue him for 50% of the $3.6 million which he earned during the time you were sleeping at his place. Your lawyer argues that even though the two of you never married, nonetheless you put your career on hold to support this man and so you deserve compensation for a kind of "marriage with no rings attached."
You are a citizen of El Salvador, who enters the United States illegally in 2011 at the age of 16. You never arrange to re-enter the country legally, and you never acquire U.S. citizenship; but eight years later (in 2019) a judge grants you "withholding of removal" status, which is a little bit like asylum but with some technical differences. (See the linked Wikipedia article for details.) You settle in Maryland, marry a wife, and have children. Then on March 15, 2025, the American immigration authorities pick you up and send you back to El Salvador, where you are still a citizen. The authorities in El Salvador put you in prison.
OK, time's up! What do all these cases have in common?
That's simple. In all four cases, the protagonist engaged in risky behavior—knowing there was a risk!—and then got caught by the risk. In principle it is no different from swimming in a tidepool posted with a sign that says "WARNING: ALLIGATORS!" and then running into an alligator.
Oh, but who was at fault? Didn't each protagonist have a right to act as he (or she) chose? Doesn't that mean that the malefactor is the Other Person, the one who caused trouble for the protagonist?
Well, yes and no. In the first three stories, yes, the young woman and the rich man and the lounge singer all had a right to act as they did. But so what? They ran into bad consequences anyway, so their right to do as they did wasn't a lot of help.
In the last story, the case is a little different. Nobody has a "right" to enter a foreign country illegally. So Kilmar Abrego Garcia was at risk from the very beginning, and must have known as much.
The first two stories are purely fictitious, though I have no doubt that stories just like them take place every year. Because they are fictitious, it is impossible to tell how partisans of the protagonists might reply. But the second pair of cases really happened, so we know exactly what was said. In both cases, partisans of the protagonists talked about the day-to-day lives of the people at the center of controversy.
Michelle Triola spent years cooking meals for Lee Marvin, and cleaning his house, and washing his socks. Years! It's true they never married, but doesn't she deserve some recompense for all that work she put in on his behalf?
Kilmar Abrego Garcia settled in Maryland, married and raised a family. He spent years at a job. Years! His son "has autism, a hearing defect, and is 'unable to communicate verbally.'" Autism! The other children that he and his wife are raising have special needs as well. It's true that he never acquired American citizenship, but doesn't he deserve consideration and gentle treatment for all the work he has put in, and in recognition of all the trouble his children face?
In other words: It's true that neither one ever acquired the status that would put them beyond risk, but doesn't their hard work count as enough to give them the virtual status anyway?
Unfortunately, the way formal status works in the real world, the answer is: No! Formal, legal status is a real thing, and it has real consequences. If you never bother to secure that status, then you are always at risk. And if you swim often enough in a tidepool with alligators, sooner or later you're going to meet up with an alligator.
Life sucks, but them's the breaks.
It's time to go back to blaming the victim. Not for doing active harm—that's still the malefactor, if you can catch him—but for being a Damned Fool. And in the case of someone like Abrego Garcia, where the so-called "malefactor" is actually the country's law enforcement, there's nobody else to blame.
Enter the country illegally, and you are at risk for deportation even if you are a saint while you are here.* Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
__________
* This is why I do not discuss the allegations that Abrego Garcia might have committed domestic violence, or that he might have been a gang member. None of it matters to the basic argument. Entering the country illegally and never securing legal status is enough to put him at risk. The rest is just gravy; and if those other allegations turn out to be false on deeper examination, it won't affect the basic facts that everyone already acknowledges.