By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House is deporting individuals to countries other than their home countries, citing the unwillingness of their home countries to accept them due to criminal records. This practice, while not entirely new, has been expanded by the current administration, leading to legal challenges. A federal judge ruled that deportees to third countries must be given adequate time and notice to contest their removal, highlighting concerns about due process violations. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing an appeal of this ruling, leaving several deported men in limbo in Djibouti.
Read the original article here
The White House is deporting people to countries they’re not from, a practice raising serious ethical and legal questions. This isn’t simply a matter of bureaucratic error; it appears to be a deliberate strategy, driven by a confluence of factors ranging from cruelty as a political tool to the desire to circumvent legal processes and effectively disappear individuals.
The sheer act of sending individuals to nations where they lack ties, language skills, or any support network speaks volumes. It’s not about repatriation; it’s about inflicting hardship and creating a climate of fear. This calculated cruelty aims to deter others from seeking asylum or challenging the administration’s policies. The very act of deportation becomes a weapon, designed to instill terror and force compliance.
This deliberate choice of destination countries often raises concerns about human rights violations. Some of these nations are known for weak legal frameworks, restrictions on freedom of speech, and a lack of accountability, making it exceedingly difficult for deportees to seek help or share their experiences. The absence of proper legal procedures further compounds this issue, transforming deportations into a form of kidnapping or even human trafficking.
The process itself seems designed for obfuscation. Sending individuals to countries with limited record-keeping, or those lacking robust human rights protections, makes it harder to track what happens to them after their arrival. This strategy effectively creates a veil of secrecy, shielding the actions of the administration from scrutiny. It serves to silence victims and hinder any attempts at accountability or investigation. This is not merely incompetent; it is intentional.
It’s been suggested that this practice represents a “test run” aimed at refining a system designed to increase “statelessness.” By removing individuals from the formal legal framework, they are rendered invisible, making it easier to increase the scale of this covert operation. This isn’t deportation; it’s a systematic attempt to remove individuals from view and avoid any consequences for the administration’s actions.
The financial incentives behind this practice should not be overlooked. The possibility of funneling taxpayer money into private prisons across the globe through these deportation practices fuels suspicion of an underlying corrupt system. The choice of countries may not be arbitrary; it is speculated that some nations may be more willing to accept deportees in exchange for financial incentives from the US government.
Another argument for the selection of specific countries involves the pre-existing political climate. If the USA previously acknowledged that a group of individuals were in danger in a particular country, then returning them to that same country violates the principle of non-refoulement. The lack of due process, often cited by critics, is not a mistake; it is a deliberate tactic. It effectively transforms the process into unlawful expulsion or forced transfer, which are blatant violations of human rights law.
The historical parallels to previous instances of mass displacement are undeniable. The comparison to Nazi Germany’s tactics of transferring Jews to territories outside of Germany is not hyperbole. The similarities are unsettling and strongly suggest a deliberate and calculated cruelty at the heart of this practice.
The lack of transparency surrounding these deportations further exacerbates the issue. The absence of clear documentation and the deliberate choice of countries that provide no external avenues of recourse only serve to magnify the human rights concerns. This practice has far-reaching consequences, and the international community must hold the US government accountable for its actions. The simple, underlying motive is not incompetence or an accidental series of unfortunate events. It is cruelty. Deliberate cruelty. A cruelty that should not be dismissed or ignored.