The Trump administration’s aggressive stance on immigration enforcement has recently triggered controversy, particularly its initiative to deport serious criminals to third-world nations such as South Sudan and Eswatini. This initiative is predicated on the belief, expressed by various officials, that some perpetrators are so “uniquely barbaric” that even their home countries will not accept them back. However, an in-depth review has revealed a more complex reality where deported individuals recently returned to their native countries instead.
Under the current policy, immigrants convicted of crimes typically serve their sentences in the U.S. before facing deportation. Footage and court records indicate that this procedure applied to a recent group which included eight men sent to South Sudan and five to Eswatini. Notably, some had been living freely in the U.S. for extended periods prior to their deportation.
In a statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it was affirmed that these “third-party” deportations serve a necessary function in the administration’s broader strategy. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin suggested that these deportees are threats that their original countries do not want to reclaim. “If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz, Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country,” she asserted.
Despite these claims, investigations revealed a troubling inconsistency. According to information obtained from interviews with deportees and their families, at least five men previously targeted for deportation to Libya in May were returned to their countries of origin—Vietnam, Laos, and Mexico—within weeks. This outcome occurred swiftly after a U.S. judge intervened to halt their transfer to Libya, suggesting that the planned deportations were perhaps less about security and more about a harsh policy enforcement.
Critics have raised alarms, questioning whether the U.S. administration genuinely attempted to send these men back to their home countries prior to considering Libya as an option. The absence of clarity around these deportation processes raises ethical concerns tied to the seemingly cavalier nature of imposing harsh punitive measures on these individuals.
While McLaughlin maintains that efforts were made to return the deportees to their home countries, she has not disclosed any specifics regarding the procedures followed or the nature of refusals received. This leaves room for speculation regarding the adequacy and transparency of the claims made by the administration.