U.S. Deports Migrants to Eswatini After Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Third-Country Removals
In a controversial move drawing both legal and humanitarian scrutiny, the U.S. has resumed deporting migrants to third countries, beginning with Eswatini, a small African monarchy. This follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that removed previous limits on such deportations.
On Tuesday, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson confirmed that a deportation flight landed in Eswatini carrying individuals from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen—countries that allegedly refused to accept these convicts due to the nature of their crimes.
Deportation Resumes Under Trump’s “Safe Third Country” Doctrine
The move marks a turning point in President Donald Trump’s broader crackdown on immigration, and it comes just weeks after eight men were deported to South Sudan, another volatile third country.
“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,” said DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, citing convictions such as murder and child rape.
These deportations are being carried out under the newly revived doctrine of “safe third country” removals, allowing the U.S. to send migrants not to their country of origin, but to any country that agrees not to persecute or torture them.
Supreme Court Opens the Legal Floodgates
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned restrictions on deporting individuals to third countries without first giving them a chance to contest their removal based on the potential danger they may face. The court’s decision was a significant legal victory for the Trump administration, empowering it to expedite mass removals of migrants.
Immigration advocates argue that the decision undermines due process and exposes migrants to unknown or dangerous environments, particularly in countries with poor human rights records.
A Close Look at the Eswatini Flight
Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, is a small, landlocked monarchy surrounded by South Africa and Mozambique. It is ruled by King Mswati III, Africa’s last absolute monarch, who has long been criticized for his extravagant lifestyle amid widespread poverty and alleged human rights violations.
Sending deportees there, especially those with no prior ties to the country, has raised questions about the legal and ethical underpinnings of this strategy.
Why Eswatini?
The U.S. government has not explained why Eswatini was chosen as a deportation destination. However, immigration sources suggest it may have been selected because of existing diplomatic agreements or willingness to cooperate in return for U.S. aid or trade incentives.
Regardless, none of the five deportees reportedly had any links to Eswatini, making this a clear case of third-country removal.
The South Sudan Precedent: What Happened to the First Group?
Earlier this month, on July 4, eight other migrants were deported to conflict-ridden South Sudan. Those deportees had initially boarded a flight in May, which was diverted to Djibouti, where they were held in a converted shipping container before finally being flown to South Sudan.
“If we removed somebody to Sudan, they could stay there a week and leave, I don’t know,” admitted Tom Homan, Trump’s appointed border czar, reflecting the administration’s limited follow-up or oversight in these cases.
Their current whereabouts and condition remain unknown, prompting further concern among human rights groups and international observers.
ICE’s Rapid Removal Policy: As Little as Six Hours’ Notice
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has recently implemented new internal protocols allowing third-country deportations to proceed with minimal warning.
According to a July 9 memo by acting ICE director Todd Lyons:
Deportees can be removed with only six hours’ notice under “exigent circumstances.”
In most cases, a 24-hour notice period is observed.
Migrants are allowed to speak with an attorney, but no judicial review or individualized hearing is guaranteed.
The only condition: The third country must pledge not to persecute or torture the deportee.
This rapid deportation policy gives ICE broad discretion and reduces the window for legal intervention.
Human Rights Concerns and Political Fallout
Human rights groups are raising alarm bells about the abandonment of due process and international asylum norms.
Critics argue:
“Safe third country” designations lack transparency.
Migrants face real risks in unfamiliar or unstable nations.
There is no clear accountability for tracking what happens to individuals post-deportation.
The Trump administration, however, frames the policy as a necessary measure to protect national security and deter illegal immigration.
“We’re doing what previous presidents were afraid to do—removing dangerous individuals who don’t belong here and whose own countries won’t accept them,” said one senior DHS official.
Eswatini’s Human Rights Record Under Scrutiny
Choosing Eswatini as a destination further complicates the narrative. While not at war, the country has a poor record on press freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, and political opposition. King Mswati III’s lavish lifestyle and autocratic rule make it an unlikely candidate for receiving vulnerable or marginalized individuals.
Whether U.S. courts or international bodies will challenge the legality of these deportations remains to be seen.
Business, Legal, and Global Implications
For CEOs and Corporations:
Companies with global mobility programs should brace for increased immigration volatility and human rights scrutiny.
Risk exposure may rise if employees or partners are caught in expedited removals.
Legal departments must review immigration policies and contingency planning.
For Policy Analysts:
These moves signal the normalization of third-country removals—potentially to any compliant state.
The administration is likely testing boundaries to see how far courts and foreign governments will let it go.
If unchallenged, this could become a global template for migrant offshoring, akin to Australia’s controversial model.
A Bold, Unsettling New Era in U.S. Immigration Policy
Trump’s use of Eswatini and South Sudan as deportation destinations represents the most aggressive extension yet of third-country removals. Backed by the Supreme Court and a streamlined ICE directive, the administration now wields vast authority to relocate migrants globally—often without trial or country-specific risk assessments.
As August approaches and more flights are rumored to be scheduled, the world will be watching to see whether these policies hold or whether legal and diplomatic pushback begins to mount.
