Deportation and a hard-line approach to immigrants, illegal or otherwise, has been one of the poster policies of Donald Trump. Little has the President tried to mask his disdain, even revulsion for the ‘outsiders’. “All illegal entry will be immediately halted and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came,” he said, making his intentions amply loud and categorically clear in the inaugural address this year.
However, little did even his critics anticipate that the Trump administration would equate deportation with discarding human beings and treat African countries as a dumping ground for its illegal immigrants. With several reports detailing how more and more African nations are receiving third-country immigrants, human rights organisations have flagged concerns about the legality and ethicality of such a move.
In July this year, a deportation flight carrying five nationals from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen was sent to Eswatini. The development was confirmed by Tricia McLaughlin, US Department of Homeland Security, assistant secretary, who called the individuals “uniquely barbaric”. “A safe third country deportation flight to Eswatini in Southern Africa has landed. This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home country refused to take them back,” she shared on her social media account, adding, “These depraved monsters have been terrorising American communities but thanks to POTUS, they are off of American soil.” Without making their names public, McLaughlin confirmed their nationalities and said they were all convicted criminals.
Is there a ‘deal’ between the countries?
While Eswatini is the second African nation that the US has deported criminals to, other countries to have received such deportees include Rwanda and South Sudan, with Ghana being the latest to receive them. Reportedly, Uganda has a deal with the US to take certain deported immigrants. According to a few unconfirmed reports, Trump has also discussed deportation deals with Liberia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau and Gabon. While most of these deals facilitating transfers are kept opaque for obvious reasons; in September, the international NGO Human Rights Watch said it had gained access to the documents of the agreement between the governments of Eswatini and the US. According to the deal, in exchange for up to 160 deportees, the US will provide Eswatini with $5.1 million to “build its border and migration management capacity”.
Also read: In Trump’s America, New York elects an 'immigrant' Mayor
These deals providing financial assistance in exchange for transfer of deportees violate human rights law, says HRW. “These agreements make African governments partners in the Trump administration’s horrifying violations of immigrants’ human rights,” said Allan Ngari, Africa advocacy director at HRW. He also holds African governments equally responsible for the violations. “The African governments implementing these deals risk violating international law, including the prohibitions against refoulement and arbitrary detention.”
In August, Yolande Makolo, spokesperson from the government of Rwanda, confirmed that the country had agreed to accept up to 250 deportees, a number much larger than the one agreed upon by Eswatini or South Sudan. Reportedly, the deal between Rwanda and the US includes roughly $7.5 million in US financial support. Rwanda’s past track record of human rights is a cause for concern, claim activists. Rwanda’s similar arrangements with Israel and now-abandoned similar deal with the UK raises serious doubts about its ability to provide protection for the affected people.
Human rights organisations flag concerns
Ever since Trump came to power, deportations have been a part of his administration’s ‘third-country’ plan, wherein the people whose own countries are unwilling to accept them back, will be sent to African nations. In February, after the Department of Homeland Security stepped up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the removal of migrants to such places without notice.
In June, the US Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump’s administration to resume mass deportations of illegal migrants to unrelated third countries. At the time, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who happened to be one of the dissenting judges in 6-3 conservative majority, called the decision a “gross abuse” of the court’s power. She hasn’t been the only one strongly dissenting the administration’s policy of executing third-country removals without due notice and an opportunity of hearing.
The larger picture, the bigger problem
Last week, Ron O Hanley, chief of asset management firm, State Street Corp, labelled US immigration policies as “anti-growth”. Critics have warned that the swift removal of migrants to places other than their homelands is a violation of the US Constitution and the process protections it affords. Several human rights organisations have flagged concerns about how it fits into the larger template of removing migrants both indiscriminately and systemically.
In May, the Supreme Court let Trump end humanitarian programs for thousands of migrants living and working in the US temporarily. Trump’s new immigration policies have been enacted at a reckless pace, many of which directly impact asylum seekers, migrants, refugees, their families and communities, and even the workforce and growth of the US itself in the long run.
Follow us
