By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A congressional investigation has revealed that the Trump administration spent over $1 million per person to deport some migrants to third countries with whom they had no connection, only to have many eventually returned to their home nations at further taxpayer expense. The report details over $32 million paid to five foreign governments, including corrupt regimes, to accept approximately 300 third-country nationals deported from the US. In one extreme case, Rwanda received $7.5 million plus flight costs for just seven individuals. Furthermore, over 80% of migrants sent to these third countries have since returned to their home nations, raising questions about the efficacy and rationale of these costly deportations.
Read the original article here
A recent report has surfaced, revealing that the United States spent a staggering $32 million to persuade five different countries to accept approximately 300 deportees. This translates to an eye-watering average of over $106,000 per individual, a figure that has understandably sparked considerable debate and bewilderment. The core of the issue seems to revolve around the perceived financial absurdity of this arrangement, especially when considering that many of these deportees were likely taxpayers themselves and did not disproportionately utilize government benefits.
The notion of “saving money” through such an expensive deportation process simply doesn’t add up for many. It suggests a motivation that goes beyond mere fiscal responsibility, with accusations of racism and bigotry being leveled against the policy. The argument is that such a hefty price tag for removing individuals who could potentially contribute economically through labor and taxes represents a profound misallocation of resources.
This expenditure raises serious questions about national priorities. Instead of investing these millions in vital areas like healthcare, community services, support for the impoverished, or infrastructure development, the money is being used to facilitate deportations. The sheer scale of the cost per person also prompts concerns about potential kickbacks or a system designed to enrich specific individuals or entities, rather than genuinely serving the public good.
The report also highlights a disturbing detail: in some instances, the home governments were actually willing to accept their nationals, or were not even properly contacted before these lucrative deals were struck. This suggests that the payments may not have been solely driven by the practical necessity of finding a place for deportees, but rather by a broader agenda that prioritizes removal above all else, regardless of the cost or the circumstances of the individuals involved.
Furthermore, the financial logic behind this policy is being challenged from a business perspective. The return on investment for spending over $100,000 per person to remove them, when they could have potentially contributed to the economy, appears to be overwhelmingly negative. This is particularly stark when contrasted with the ongoing need for funding in critical sectors, such as medical research for devastating diseases, which are often cut in the name of fiscal prudence.
The financial implications are so pronounced that some have cynically suggested starting businesses focused on facilitating such deportations, given the apparent profitability. The idea of paying countries to take back their own citizens, especially when those citizens might have been contributing to the U.S. economy, is seen as fundamentally flawed and counterproductive. It’s a scenario where tax dollars are being used to create costs and remove potential revenue, leaving many to question the competence of those in charge of fiscal matters.
The policy is being framed as a stark example of misdirected priorities, where resources are readily available for costly deportations but scarce for essential social programs. This disconnect between spending priorities fuels accusations that the underlying motivation is not sound governance, but rather a preference for exclusion and a disregard for the potential contributions of immigrants. The significant financial outlay for such a limited number of deportees has led to widespread criticism that this is not fiscal responsibility, but rather an expensive demonstration of misplaced priorities and a system that benefits from or is driven by discriminatory practices.