A contentious chapter in US immigration policy has unfolded with the deportation of eight men from countries like Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar, who were flown to South Sudan, a nation grappling with the enduring legacy of civil war. The Trump administration’s resumption ofthird country deportations is now facing severe criticism, largely due to the profound uncertainty surrounding the welfare of these individuals.
A stark admission from Tom Homan, the US border enforcement chief, has further fueled the controversy: he has no knowledge of what has happened to the deportees since their arrival in South Sudan. Homan’s statement,They’re free as far as we’re concerned. They’re no longer in our custody, signals a policy that appears to relinquish responsibility for deportees once they have left US jurisdiction, raising significant ethical questions.
The profound lack of connection between most of the deportees and South Sudan is a central point of concern. With only one man reportedly having ties to the country, the remaining seven have been sent to an alien and volatile environment. Their deportation path was not straightforward, involving a court-ordered delay and a period of detention in Djibouti, before Supreme Court rulings cleared the way for their transfer.
South Sudanese officials have confirmed that the men are in their custody in Juba, where they are being screened for safety and wellbeing. However, the broader implications of this case highlight the inherent challenges and ethical dilemmas associated withthird country deportations, particularly when sending individuals to nations grappling with instability.