In a significant shift in immigration policy, the United States has established bilateral deportation deals with both Honduras and Uganda, as documented in reports from CBS, a partner of the BBC. These agreements are a cornerstone of the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to deal with illegal immigration and the influx of asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border.
Under the terms of the agreement with Uganda, the country will accept a certain number of African and Asian asylum seekers who would otherwise face deportation, provided they do not have any criminal backgrounds. However, the specific figure for how many deportees Uganda is willing to accept remains unclear. On the other hand, Honduras has committed to receiving hundreds of migrants from Spanish-speaking countries over a two-year period, with the flexibility to accept additional individuals if desired.
This strategic expansion of deportation options is part of a broader push by the administration, which has sought similar agreements with various nations, including those with questionable human rights records. So far, over a dozen countries worldwide have agreed to accept deported migrants as part of these arrangements.
Earlier this month, the US State Department announced a "safe third country" agreement with Paraguay to jointly manage immigration challenges. Following this, Rwanda has also indicated its willingness to accept up to 250 migrants, although each individual’s acceptance would be contingent on Rwanda's approval.
Critics, including human rights organizations and UN experts, have expressed serious concerns regarding these deportation practices. Many argue that they potentially violate international law and place migrants at significant risk by sending them to places where they could be persecuted or harmed.
The new policy measures come in the wake of a June Supreme Court ruling permitting the Trump administration to initiate deportations without allowing migrants to argue against threats they might face in these third countries. Dissenting Justices described this decision as a “gross abuse,” reinforcing the contentious nature of these immigration policies.
As these developments unfold, the implications for future deportation practices and their impact on vulnerable migrant populations remain a critical concern for advocates and policymakers alike.
Under the terms of the agreement with Uganda, the country will accept a certain number of African and Asian asylum seekers who would otherwise face deportation, provided they do not have any criminal backgrounds. However, the specific figure for how many deportees Uganda is willing to accept remains unclear. On the other hand, Honduras has committed to receiving hundreds of migrants from Spanish-speaking countries over a two-year period, with the flexibility to accept additional individuals if desired.
This strategic expansion of deportation options is part of a broader push by the administration, which has sought similar agreements with various nations, including those with questionable human rights records. So far, over a dozen countries worldwide have agreed to accept deported migrants as part of these arrangements.
Earlier this month, the US State Department announced a "safe third country" agreement with Paraguay to jointly manage immigration challenges. Following this, Rwanda has also indicated its willingness to accept up to 250 migrants, although each individual’s acceptance would be contingent on Rwanda's approval.
Critics, including human rights organizations and UN experts, have expressed serious concerns regarding these deportation practices. Many argue that they potentially violate international law and place migrants at significant risk by sending them to places where they could be persecuted or harmed.
The new policy measures come in the wake of a June Supreme Court ruling permitting the Trump administration to initiate deportations without allowing migrants to argue against threats they might face in these third countries. Dissenting Justices described this decision as a “gross abuse,” reinforcing the contentious nature of these immigration policies.
As these developments unfold, the implications for future deportation practices and their impact on vulnerable migrant populations remain a critical concern for advocates and policymakers alike.
