The United States has secured bilateral deportation agreements with a growing number of countries, including Honduras and Uganda. This policy, a cornerstone of the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration, allows the U.S. to send deported migrants to countries other than their nation of origin. The details, obtained by the BBC's U.S. partner CBS, reveal a new and controversial strategy to manage the influx of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
According to the documents, Uganda has agreed to accept an unspecified number of African and Asian migrants, while Honduras will take in several hundred deported people from Spanish-speaking countries. This is part of a broader push by the U.S. to get nations on several continents to "share the burden of managing illegal immigration." The policy has already seen success in Panama and Costa Rica, which have agreed to accept migrants from the U.S., and has recently expanded to include a "safe third country" agreement with Paraguay.
However, this policy has drawn sharp criticism from human rights campaigners and international legal experts. They argue that these agreements are a gross violation of international law, as they could send vulnerable migrants to countries where they face the risk of harm. The case of Rwanda, which has agreed to take up to 250 migrants from the U.S., is a prime example. The East African nation has a documented history of human rights issues, and there are concerns that these migrants could be further deported to countries where their lives may be in danger.
Click Link To Watch More On This
Click Link To Watch More On This
The legal and ethical implications are profound. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a controversial decision, has already cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume these deportations without providing migrants a chance to raise the risks they might face in the destination country. This ruling, dissented by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who called it a "gross abuse," highlights the deep divisions within the U.S. on this issue.
This new wave of bilateral agreements signifies a fundamental shift away from traditional immigration protocols. It moves the responsibility for asylum seekers to nations with varying capacities and human rights records. While the U.S. government views this as an innovative approach to an overwhelming problem, critics see it as an abdication of its humanitarian duties.
The documents also show that the Trump administration has approached other nations like Ecuador and Spain to receive deported migrants. This wide-ranging effort demonstrates a comprehensive and determined strategy to curb immigration, and its success hinges on the willingness of other countries to cooperate.
