Recent reports reveal that U.S. officials under President Trump have transferred Cuban, Venezuelan and other Latin American detainees from U.S. detention centers to Liberia, then onward to Equatorial Guinea. The migrants spent the entire flight in shackles, and some refused to disembark, fearing they would be abandoned in a country with no ties to them.
Legal framework stretched
Under the Alien Acts of 1798, the president may expel non‑citizens, but the law traditionally requires removal to a person’s country of origin or the nation through which they entered. When that is impractical, the law permits designating a third country, provided the destination does not expose the individual to persecution—a principle known as non‑refoulement.
Immigration experts say the Trump administration is weaponizing this narrow exception, turning a rare “third‑country removal” into a routine practice. Senior fellow Aaron Reichlin‑Melnick of the American Immigration Council notes that the administration has entered agreements with African, Central Asian and Latin American nations, often in exchange for funding, to accept migrants it wants out of the United States.
Human‑rights alarms
Amnesty International’s Amy Fischer calls the practice an “understatement,” arguing that the cruelty and danger of sending people to distant, authoritarian regimes exceed the ordinary meaning of deportation. Historian Anna O. Law adds that the public’s understanding of deportation is being distorted, underplaying the rights violations involved.
Critics point out that many of the destination countries have poor human‑rights records, raising concerns about potential torture or persecution. While the State Department claims diplomatic assurances that migrants will not be mistreated, advocates argue that detainees often receive only a day’s notice, are confined upon arrival, and lack basic necessities such as papers or cell phones.
Policy implications
The expansion of third‑country removals reflects the Trump administration’s broader goal of forcing a million migrants out of the country each year. By sending individuals to nations where they have no ties, the administration sidesteps the traditional requirement to return migrants to their home countries or places of entry.
Legal scholars warn that such actions may violate international obligations, including the prohibition on chain refoulement, which bars sending asylum seekers to a third country that will later deport them back to a place of danger.
As the debate continues, immigration advocates urge Congress and the courts to scrutinize these practices and ensure that U.S. immigration enforcement respects both the rule of law and basic human dignity.
Original reporting: KTVZ (Central Oregon) — read the source article.
