By John Q. Hosedrinker 
South Sudan is currently holding eight men deported from the United States, only one of whom is a South Sudanese national, the others coming from various countries. The deportations stem from the Trump administration’s efforts to relocate unwanted migrants to third countries, with the men having been convicted of violent crimes. South Sudan’s foreign ministry stated that the men are being screened and cared for, emphasizing the decision was part of ongoing bilateral engagement with the U.S. The move has drawn criticism from UN experts and raised safety concerns due to the ongoing conflict and instability within South Sudan, with fears of a return to war.
Read the original article here
South Sudan says eight deportees from the US are under government care, and it’s hard not to feel a chill when you hear that. The core of the issue is the destination. Sending individuals to a country like South Sudan, grappling with its own massive refugee crisis and classified as a level four travel advisory – essentially, a “do not go” zone by the U.S. State Department – raises all sorts of red flags. It’s like the system is being gamed, with human lives as the currency.
The details are crucial. These aren’t people just being handed a free pass. Some have served their time for crimes, and the legal process might dictate their removal from the US. The common question is, *why* South Sudan? The standard for deportation is generally returning someone to their country of origin, not to a nation embroiled in conflict and known for its instability.
The very nature of deportation is at stake, as is the issue of due process. When you remove someone, you have to be careful about the rules and protections that surround it. The concern arises when people are taken into custody without proper legal procedure. Without these safeguards, there’s a real risk that anyone, even a U.S. citizen, could be caught in the system. Imagine being wrongly accused, stripped of your rights, and then shipped off to a war zone with no recourse. It’s a scary thought.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that, if the deportees’ countries of origin refuse to take them back, they can be sent to a third country. This opens the door to a lot of questions. Is it ethical to send people to a place like South Sudan, even if they don’t have any connection there? The fundamental issue is the well-being of the individuals.
The Supreme Court’s role is also under scrutiny. If the State Department advises against travel to South Sudan, why is the Supreme Court seemingly ignoring its own warnings? It’s not just about the fairness of the situation for the people being deported; it’s also about the broader implications for human rights and how the U.S. handles these situations.
The narrative starts to shift. Is this about justice, or something darker? Sending a Mexican national to South Sudan makes no sense. This is a humanitarian crisis as much as it is a legal issue. The potential for abuse is enormous, especially in a place like South Sudan, where conditions are far from ideal. The U.S. could be setting itself up to repeat the mistakes of the past, with potentially devastating consequences for the individuals involved.
There are accusations of human trafficking, of an administration seemingly bypassing rules and safeguards, and the potential for the creation of a modern system that is not fair. These are people being detained in a foreign country they are not even from. This is not about keeping convicted criminals in the country. It’s about the basic rights of human beings.
The situation feels like a twisted game of chess, where the rules are constantly changing. It is not good for the law and order. Some people are being used, they are suffering. And the rest of the world, including the U.S., has an obligation to make sure it never happens.