The US government’s immigration policy is under intense scrutiny following revelations that the Trump administration allocated a minimum of $40 million to deport approximately 300 migrants to countries that are not their countries of origin. This strategy, intended to expedite the expulsion of migrants, has raised concerns among lawmakers and advocacy groups, who describe it as both “wasteful” and “poorly monitored.”
According to a report compiled by Democratic staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the third country deportation approach has been criticized for its financial inefficiency and lack of transparency. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who leads the committee’s Democratic members, emphasized the need for “serious scrutiny of a policy that now operates largely in the dark.” The report marks the first congressional examination of these arrangements, revealing significant lump sum payments ranging from $4.7 million to $7.5 million made to five nations: Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau.
The State Department, which oversees negotiations to establish these deportation programs, has defended the strategy as a crucial element of President Trump’s campaign against illegal immigration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated during a recent Senate hearing, “We’ve arrested people that are members of gangs and we’ve deported them. We don’t want gang members in our country.”
Despite the administration’s assertions, the report highlights inefficiencies in the system. For example, while El Salvador accepted approximately 250 Venezuelan nationals last March, the numbers for other countries were significantly lower, with only 29 individuals sent to Equatorial Guinea and zero transfers to Palau thus far.
Concerns Over Human Rights and Effectiveness
Critics, including immigration rights organizations, argue that the third country approach poses serious risks to due process and human rights. Reports indicate that deportees may find themselves stranded in nations with poor human rights records and systemic corruption. During a recent investigation in South Sudan, Democratic committee staff found a fortified compound with armed security where deportees, including individuals from Vietnam and Mexico, were being held.
The Democratic report further illustrates the policy’s shortcomings, noting instances where migrants were deported to a third nation only for the US to fund additional flights to return them to their countries of origin. Senator Shaheen remarked, “In many cases, migrants could have been returned directly to their countries of origin, avoiding unnecessary flights and additional costs.”
Questions also linger regarding the incentives for countries accepting third-country nationals. Following last year’s agreement, South Sudan provided a list of demands to the US, which included support for prosecuting an opposition figure and sanctions relief for a senior official implicated in misappropriating over a billion dollars in government funds.
Additionally, concerns have been raised about the $7.5 million transfer to Equatorial Guinea, which coincided with the Trump administration’s efforts to strengthen ties with Vice President Teodoro “Teddy” Nguema Obiang. This leader is notably under scrutiny for corruption allegations related to his lavish lifestyle.
As the US administration continues to negotiate various agreements regarding asylum seekers and deportations, the implications of these policies remain a pressing topic of debate among lawmakers and advocacy groups alike. The potential for wasteful expenditure and human rights violations necessitates ongoing evaluation and oversight of the current immigration framework.
