Trump’s third-country deportation policy: What it means and how other nations have tried it

Trump’s third-country deportation policy: What it means and how other nations have tried it

The Trump administration in the US has begun deporting migrants to countries where they are not citizens — a stark departure from long-standing American practice. In July, five men were sent to Eswatini and eight to South Sudan, despite most having no ties to those nations. US Homeland Security officials defended the move, saying their home countries refused to take them back and citing convictions for violent crimes. Critics, however, say the expulsions risk violating international law, the Washington Post reported.

The US State Department’s own travel advisories underscore the risks: South Sudan is classified “Do Not Travel” due to armed conflict, while Eswatini is listed “Exercise Increased Caution.” Rights groups argue that sending deportees to such places, often with only six hours’ notice, amounts to “outsourcing danger.”

Uganda and other countries drawn in

Uganda announced last week that it had reached a temporary deal with Washington to accept third-country deportees not granted asylum in the US The agreement excludes unaccompanied minors and people with criminal records, and applies mainly to those from African countries. Still, the lack of clarity over how many people would be sent and under what safeguards has raised concerns among Ugandan civil society groups.

The US has already used prisons in El Salvador to house more than 130 Venezuelans accused of terrorism under the wartime Alien Enemies Act. The detainees were alleged to have gang ties, a charge human rights lawyers say was broadly defined to justify expulsion.

How third-country deportations work

Normally, migrants are returned to their country of citizenship. But when those countries refuse to accept them, US officials have begun negotiating with third nations willing to take them temporarily. Acting ICE director Todd M. Lyons instructed officers in July that deportations to “alternative” countries could proceed without diplomatic assurances of safety.

Legal scholars warn that such removals test the limits of US and international law. The principle of “non-refoulement” bars sending people to places where they risk torture or inhuman treatment. Critics argue that choosing unstable nations as destinations heightens the danger of abuses.

Global parallels

Other countries have tried similar strategies, with mixed results. Australia pioneered offshore processing, sending asylum seekers arriving by boat to detention facilities in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Human rights monitors have documented widespread trauma among detainees, including children suffering “resignation syndrome.”

Britain attempted to send asylum seekers to Rwanda under a £900 million scheme, but the program collapsed after only four people were relocated. Israel secretly transferred thousands of Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers to Rwanda until its supreme court intervened in 2018. Many of those deportees later fled again, eventually resettling in Europe.

India, meanwhile, has carried out mass deportations of its Muslim minority to Bangladesh, though errors have led to wrongful removals and returns. These examples illustrate both the logistical challenges and the humanitarian fallout of third-country deportation policies.

Legal challenges and human rights concerns

In the US, federal judges have already questioned the legality of the new approach. In May, a district court ruled the administration violated a court order by sending migrants to South Sudan, calling the notice to deportees “hurried and confused.” Immigration experts argue that systematic use of third-country transfers without due process undermines the asylum system and could trigger violations of the Convention Against Torture.

“Third countries” chosen so far are places with weak human rights protections, critics note. Sarah Sherman-Stokes of Boston University called it “no accident” that migrants are being sent to nations where torture in custody is commonplace. Administration officials counter that the policy is a necessary tool to deter illegal immigration and deal with uncooperative states.

A fight over deterrence and legality

Supporters of the policy argue that migrants convicted of crimes should be removed, even if that requires sending them to other countries. Homeland Security has emphasized that the first group deported to Eswatini included convicted murderers. Yet advocates note that the policy also affects asylum seekers and those without criminal records, raising fears of collective punishment and erosion of legal rights.

The debate highlights a core tension in US immigration policy: balancing national security and deterrence with humanitarian obligations. While other nations’ experiences show the practical limits of third-country deportations, the Trump administration appears determined to make it a centrepiece of its crackdown.

Trump’s third-country deportation policy represents one of the most aggressive US immigration measures in decades. By sending migrants to countries with little or no connection to them, Washington has entered territory fraught with legal and moral risks. As international precedents show, such policies rarely achieve their stated goals without inflicting serious humanitarian costs. Whether courts, foreign governments, or domestic politics ultimately rein in the program remains an open question.