- Migrants sent to Africa despite valid home return
- Trump admin ramps up third-country deportations
- DHS defends actions citing public safety concerns
- Critics question legality, cite cruelty and randomness
- Deportees include U.S. residents since childhood
The Trump administration’s controversial use of third-country deportations has come under fresh scrutiny after it emerged that several migrants were sent to remote African nations despite being eligible to return to their home countries. In some cases, the deportations occurred weeks after U.S. courts blocked removals to countries deemed unsafe, such as Libya.
President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda includes deporting immigrants, especially convicted criminals, to third countries like South Sudan and Eswatini, even when their home countries did not formally reject them. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has argued that these deportees are so dangerous that their repatriation is impracticable. Critics claim otherwise.
Third-Country Deportations: Who and Where?
According to DHS, eight men were deported to South Sudan and five to Eswatini. These men hailed from countries including Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, Jamaica, and Yemen. One man from Myanmar, despite holding valid travel documents to return home, was sent to South Sudan. DHS said he had been convicted of sexual assault involving a vulnerable victim.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson described the deportees as “the worst of the worst,” citing convictions such as murder and child sex abuse. However, legal experts and family members challenge this narrative, saying several deportees had served time long ago and were denied the opportunity to return to countries that typically accept their citizens.
The Supreme Court’s June decision allowed third-country deportations without migrants being allowed to present danger claims. However, a federal lawsuit in Boston could reverse the decision or escalate to the Supreme Court again.
Critics argue the practice is punitive and arbitrary, often leveraging fear to force “self-deportation.” Michelle Mittelstadt from the Migration Policy Institute said it sends the message: “leave voluntarily or risk ending up somewhere far worse.”
Were Home Countries Consulted?
In several cases, evidence suggests home countries never refused re-entry. Five men, initially threatened with deportation to Libya, were eventually sent to Vietnam, Laos, and Mexico. DHS declined to clarify whether repatriation attempts were made before considering third-country options.
Notably, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government was not notified when Mexican citizen Jesus Munoz Gutierrez was deported to South Sudan. He had served a sentence for second-degree murder and remained in U.S. custody before being removed. His sister said Mexico is now working to bring him home.
Diplomatic Fallout and International Pushback
Vietnam’s foreign ministry said it was still verifying the deportation details, while Laos and Mexico remained unresponsive. Eswatini confirmed it is holding the five deportees in isolation under an agreement with the U.S. The country did not elaborate on future plans for them.
Palau and other nations have reportedly been approached to take future deportees. The legal foundation for such removals comes from a U.S. law that permits third-country deportations if returning individuals to their own countries is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.”
One Lao man who narrowly avoided deportation to Libya said he felt like a pawn in U.S. immigration policy. Having arrived in the U.S. as a child refugee in the 1980s, he was shocked to find himself under threat of removal to a war-torn country with no connection to his life. Now living in Laos, he struggles to adapt, learn the language, and rebuild.
His attorney, Trina Realmuto, stressed that Mexico and other countries historically accept their citizens. Sending them elsewhere appears more punitive than procedural. “These deportations are not about safety — they’re about deterrence,” she said.
As third-country deportations increase under Trump’s immigration policies, questions of legality, ethics, and transparency grow louder. The absence of clear communication with home governments and the willingness to send people to distant, unrelated nations has alarmed human rights groups and legal advocates alike. While the administration frames it as protecting American communities, the human cost — and legal risk — may be just beginning to unfold.