Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Trump administration deported five men convicted of violent crimes to the southern African nation of Eswatini this week, continuing its controversial practice of removing immigrants to third countries that are not their nations of origin.
According to Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin, the deported individuals came from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam, and Yemen. All had been convicted of serious crimes in the United States, including murder, homicide, and child rape.
“These individuals are so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,” McLaughlin said.
The move marks a further escalation in the administration’s strategy of using alternative destinations for deportees, even when the countries involved have no direct ties to the individuals being removed.
Background: A Shift in Deportation Policy
Historically, U.S. immigration authorities have faced obstacles in deporting certain individuals when their countries of origin refuse repatriation. In recent years, this challenge has led to a shift in policy, with the Trump administration actively pursuing agreements with third-party countries willing to accept non-citizens.
The administration has already deported Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador, Africans and Asians to Costa Rica and Panama, and convicted criminals from various countries to South Sudan. Agreements with Honduras and Kosovo are underway, although not yet implemented.
Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, confirmed the arrival of the five men, stating they were transferred to correctional facilities alongside “similar offenders.” The kingdom also pledged to work with international partners to facilitate their eventual return to their home countries.
Legal Developments and Policy Implications
The administration’s approach received a boost last month when the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a lower court ruling in Boston that required greater due process protections before deporting immigrants to third countries. That ruling had mandated that detainees be notified of the intended destination and allowed to contest the transfer.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Todd Lyons issued a memo authorizing deportations to third countries without prior notice, provided those countries give “credible” assurances that deportees would not face persecution or torture.
If such assurances are lacking, ICE officials may still proceed with just 24 hours’ notice—or 6 hours in “exigent circumstances”—so long as the detainee has a chance to consult with legal counsel. However, ICE officers are not required to proactively ask detainees whether they fear harm in the receiving country.
Human Rights Concerns Mount
Critics of the policy argue that the practice violates both international human rights standards and basic legal norms. They point to South Sudan and El Salvador as dangerous destinations, especially for individuals with no local ties or support systems.
CBS News reported earlier this year that many of the Venezuelans deported to El Salvador were held without charges at a notorious prison, raising concerns over abuse and denial of due process. Some had no documented criminal history in the U.S., further intensifying scrutiny.
Human rights advocates warn that sending immigrants to unfamiliar and unstable countries may expose them to arbitrary detention, abuse, or torture. “These third-country deportations are reckless and put people at grave risk,” said Andrea González, an immigration attorney with the ACLU.
Broader Context and Future Outlook
The Trump administration’s aggressive deportation agenda reflects a broader effort to circumvent legal and diplomatic barriers that have historically delayed or blocked removals. Administration officials argue that the policy is necessary to remove dangerous individuals from the U.S., particularly when their native countries refuse to cooperate.
Eswatini, a landlocked kingdom with a population of about 1.2 million, becomes the latest country to agree to this controversial role. The long-term status of the deportees remains uncertain, with Eswatini’s government suggesting it will assist in repatriating them to their original homelands—though no timeline has been given.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s recent ruling is likely to embolden further deportations under similar terms. Whether future courts—or international bodies—will intervene remains to be seen.
