By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The El Salvador government has directly contradicted the Trump administration’s stance on responsibility for deported migrants held in its prisons. While the Trump administration has claimed it has no power to bring back the deportees, El Salvador has stated that the U.S. holds the “legal responsibility” for the individuals. These statements were made in response to a U.N. inquiry concerning the disappearance of a relative within the Salvadoran prison system. The article also highlights that many of those deported, accused of gang affiliation, may have no connection to the gangs, raising questions about the legality and treatment of these individuals.
Read the original article here
El Salvador officials say deported migrants in notorious jail are Trump’s problem, not theirs, and that’s where the story really begins to unravel. The finger-pointing starts, as it often does in these situations, with a clear attempt to deflect responsibility. The core of the argument is simple: if these individuals are being held in a less-than-ideal facility, then the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the former U.S. administration. The implication is clear: these migrants were a problem the US created and, therefore, it’s the US’s job to fix it.
The most straightforward response to this situation, if the El Salvadorian officials genuinely felt no responsibility, would be to simply release the migrants. The logic seems to be: since we’re not the ones responsible, and there’s no issue with holding them, let them go. However, the reality is never quite so simple, and the reasons for the continued detention are a tangled web of politics, economics, and, quite possibly, something even more sinister. The rhetoric, as it stands, serves to avoid accountability, and potentially, to mask a deeper set of concerns.
Blaming a U.S. administration for this situation isn’t necessarily new, nor is it unexpected. There’s a precedent, in international politics, for such tactics. However, what makes this particular situation unique is the specific context: a notoriously brutal prison, a high-stakes geopolitical situation, and the complex legal status of the individuals involved. The situation is further complicated by the fact that these migrants are, in a sense, caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war. Each side is willing to do whatever it takes to shift the burden of responsibility and each side is trying to make the other look bad.
The financial aspects of this situation are particularly interesting. The suggestion, implied though not explicitly stated, is that El Salvador is being paid by the U.S. to house these migrants. This financial incentive complicates the narrative, and the fact that payments are likely happening leads to an ugly truth. The implication is this: even if El Salvador’s officials wanted to, the financial implications likely make it impossible to simply release the migrants. It would seem that Trump and the U.S. are paying to imprison people without due process.
The UN’s involvement adds another layer of complexity. Multiple UN experts have raised concerns about the migrants’ health, legal status, and the potential for forced disappearances and torture. This kind of scrutiny is a significant pressure point. The fact that the El Salvadorian government may be held responsible for the treatment of these migrants puts them in a difficult position. Pressure from international bodies, the threat of legal action, and the scrutiny of human rights organizations all create a compelling incentive for the government to avoid accountability.
The fact that these migrants are being housed in a notorious prison, a place where torture and mistreatment are alleged to be commonplace, is a major red flag. If the U.S. is paying another country to imprison people without due process, it’s an egregious violation of human rights. The U.S. is abandoning its responsibility for these individuals, effectively washing their hands of the matter. It also implies that the U.S. isn’t following its own laws and isn’t listening to the courts. Both are very bad things.
The reality is, several things can be bad at once. One is that the US sent these people to a brutal prison. Another is that the U.S. lied about it. And another is that the US deliberately didn’t listen to the courts. The fact that they are not being released suggests that things are much more complicated than a simple blame game. Releasing them would likely cause a financial and political storm.
The implications extend beyond the immediate situation. The “tough on crime” approach relies heavily on financial incentives. The flow of money is critical to the entire system. The idea is that migrants are caught and deported to separate them from their immigration process. Those who have committed serious crimes are not deported at all and remain in US prisons. This system creates a financial incentive and makes it easier for officials to maintain control and continue down this ugly road.
The focus now must shift toward finding ways to create solutions. The first priority needs to be the humane treatment of these migrants. The second must be to look for answers and ensure transparency. The third must be to hold everyone accountable. The future of these migrants, and the reputations of all those involved, depends on it.