Overview:
On October 5th, 2025, ten third-country nationals were transferred from the United States to Eswatini. A third-country national is someone who holds citizenship in one nation, resides in another, and is transferred to a third for repatriation or rehabilitation. This growing practice—third-country deportation—has sparked controversy for its human rights implications and lack of transparency.
By William Campbell | Presence News
What Are Third-Country Deportations?
Third-country deportations occur when a person’s country of origin refuses to accept them back. When that happens, the deporting country sends the individual to a willing third nation.
In the U.S., several nations—including Jamaica, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and Yemen—have recently resisted re-entry. In the latest transfer, the identities of the deported individuals and their nationalities were not disclosed, raising urgent questions: What happens to deportees when their country of origin refuses them indefinitely?
A Brief History of Third-Party Deportations
1989: UNHRC Conclusion No. 58
Originally, this policy was meant to regulate asylum seekers moving between “safe” countries. However, the “safe first country” principle has since been used to justify moving migrants to third countries with little say from the individuals affected.
1990: The Dublin Convention
While designed for European Union cooperation, this agreement established that asylum seekers could be deported to the first EU country they entered. Over time, this evolved into a justification for global third-country transfers.
2004: The U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement
Initially applying only to official border crossings, the 2023 amendment extended it to irregular land crossings—closing a loophole that allowed asylum seekers to cross repeatedly between the two nations.
2019: Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)
This U.S. policy forced non-Mexican asylum seekers to remain in Mexican border cities during their case proceedings, often under unsafe and unstable conditions. The approach mirrored later third-country practices designed to deter asylum applications.
2019: Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs)
Under these agreements, asylum seekers from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were required to seek protection from within their own countries before applying to the U.S. The result: many were left in dangerous environments with no viable asylum options.
2025: Expansion to African and Latin American Nations
Today’s version of third-country deportations involves sending migrants to nations like Eswatini—countries that may lack the infrastructure to handle such transfers. Despite lower-court challenges, a Supreme Court decision in June 2025 cleared the way for the policy’s continuation.
Why Eswatini?
Eswatini, a small southern African kingdom of just 1.2 million people, may seem an unlikely partner. Analysts suggest economic incentives played a key role—possibly through direct funding or tariff relief.
Critics argue the U.S. may be outsourcing deportations to nations less likely to face domestic or international legal scrutiny. Some view Eswatini as a testing ground for expanding this policy further into Africa and Latin America.
Controversy Surrounding the Practice
Human rights advocates have condemned the lack of oversight, documentation, and due process in third-country deportations. Deporting individuals—some with decades-long ties to the U.S.—to countries they’ve never lived in has raised alarms about legality and morality.
Originally, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pledged to provide deportees with assurances of fair treatment and notice before transfer. However, a June 2025 internal memo reportedly authorized 24-hour removals without assurances of safety—or access to legal counsel.
Organizations such as Amnesty International have called for greater transparency, oversight, and respect for international human rights standards. Legal analysts warn that the expedited, extrajudicial nature of these deportations could violate both domestic and international law.
While few advocate ending the practice entirely, many insist that deportations must be humane, transparent, and subject to legal review. The growing speed and secrecy of current removals, they argue, reflect a troubling shift away from due process and moral accountability.
Sources:
- Oxford Academic: Refugee Policy and Law
- Boston University Law Faculty Scholarship
- Council on Foreign Relations: Third-Country Deportations
- Refugee Rights: Third-Country Removals
- Amnesty International: Anti-Immigrant Agenda
Editor’s Disclaimer:
This article was edited and formatted by Presence News for clarity and journalistic presentation. Portions of this report contain analysis and interpretation based on public information and credible sources. The views expressed are those of the author, William Campbell.
More at Presence:
