Donald Trump’s government is trying to deport a group of eight migrants to South Sudan, a country that is on the verge of civil war.
It is believed that men, who come from countries such as Vietnam, Cuba and Mexico, are currently retained in an American military base in the Nation of Yibuti, in East Africa, after a federal judge ordered the Government not to deliver them to the South Sudan authorities.
In some circumstances, the American Migration Law allows the sending of people to countries that are not yours. However, in previous governments this has not been frequent.
The Trump government is trying to do something broader: potentially send to large groups of people to dangerous places such as South Sudan, Libya or a maximum security prison in El Salvador, with scarce or null procedural guarantees, even if their countries of origin are willing to receive them back.
“The triofecta of being sent to a third country, plus the scale that is intended to be achieved, plus the focus of punishment as a goal; those three things combined, that feels like something very new,” said Sarah R. Sherman-Stokes, professor at the Boston University Law Faculty.
Ultimately, experts say, the objective of the government could be to use fear to shape the behavior of other migrants.
The deportation to countries ravaged by the war, said Muneer Ahmad, professor at Yale’s Law Faculty, is a “concerted strategy” whose intention is “so much discouraged that people come to the United States and encourage that self -supports.”
This is what you have to know about the deportees and why the Trump government is trying to send them to South Sudan and other countries.
Who are the deportees?
A review of the judicial records made by The New York Times revealed that the eight men transferred to Yibuti have been convicted of violent crimes.
Government officials said that men held in Yibuti are “barbaric monsters” and published a 70 -page document with their criminal record. Experts claim that this could be part of a deliberate strategy to put public opinion against the Judiciary for slowing down the aggressive government deportation plans.
The criminal records of the deportees contrast markedly with those of the more than 100 Venezuelans who were deported to El Salvador. Most Venezuelans had no criminal record in the United States or anywhere else, and some were deported based on little more than their tattoos and clothes.
One of the men sent to Yibuti, Thongxay Nilakout, citizen of Laos, shot and killed a German tourist in 1994, when he was 17 years old. When Pfleger, the victim’s daughter, learned that Nilakout could soon be in South Sudan, he experienced two emotions, as he said in a statement: impotence for the loss of his mother and dismay for the way of proceeding of the government.
The eight men are “criminals convicted of atrocious crimes,” he said. But, he added, that did not justify what she considered that it was the government “violating” her right to due process. “If we consented to ignore the fundamental rights of some people,” he said, “who can ensure that these rights will apply to us and who decides when and for whom rights apply?”
Why South Sudan?
President Trump confirmed on May 22 that migrants were in Yibuti on their way to being deported to South Sudan, a country that is on the verge of civil war. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced by recent clashes.
The facts that turned South Sudan into a potential destination for deportations to third countries began in early April, when South Sudan said he would not accept a man who was going to be expelled from the United States. The next day, Marco Rubio, US secretary of state, announced the cancellation of all visas for citizens of South Sudan because the authorities did not want to “accept the repatriation of their own citizens”, although it was subsequently reported that the man came from the democratic republic of the Congo.
Subsequently, the country allowed man to enter the country, referring to “the spirit of existing friendly relations.” However, the prohibition of visas remained in force.
South Sudan is now trying to lift the ban. The country also depends largely on US financial and humanitarian aid, which has been affected by Trump government cuts to foreign aid.
A South Sudan government spokesman did not respond to comments requests.
What other countries are involved?
El Salvador: President Trump deported in March a maximum security prison of El Salvador to almost 140 men from Venezuela to whom the government accused of being members of bands, using a little used law, the law of foreign enemies of 1798. The United States has paid millions of dollars to El Salvador for imprisoning deportees.
More than a dozen relatives of deportees have sued the Salvadoran government, accusing him of keeping their loved ones behind bars illegally. The lawyers of these men claim that the March 15 operation avoided due process and arrested people who are not gang members.
Rwanda: This month, Rwanda Foreign Minister said the country was initiating conversations with the Trump government to receive deported migrants from the United States. Rwanda has long positioned himself as a partner of Western nations, such as the United Kingdom, who try to stop migration, and has offered to give asylum to migrants or house them while waiting for their resettlement in another place, sometimes in exchange for remuneration.
Critics claim that sending people to Rwanda is dangerous, referring to their negative background in human rights, their limited resources and the intimidation and surveillance of migrants and refugees previously made by the authorities. The courts of the United Kingdom and Israel have blocked the efforts of these countries to send asylum applicants to Rwanda.
Libya: The Trump government planned to transport a group of Laosianos, Vietnamese and Filipino migrants to Libya in an American military plane, but gave up a court order. Representatives of the Governments faced with Libya have denied having reached any agreement to accept deportees from the United States.
Libya is immersed in a long civil war. Human rights groups have said that the conditions in their network of migrant detention centers are “horrible” and “deplorable.”
Mexico: On May 24, Judge Brian Murphy, of the Federal District Court of Boston, ordered the Trump government to facilitate the return of a Guatemalan who had been deported to Mexico. The judge criticized the government for the mistakes made in the case and ruled that it was likely that the man, that he was afraid to be persecuted if he was deported, “managed to demonstrate that his expulsion lacked any appearance of due process.”
What are the legal issues?
The lawyers representing the deportees have been fighting Trump’s programs with judicial demands and commandments.
In April, Murphy ordered the Government to notify those deported at least 15 days in advance before sending them to a third country and gave them the opportunity to tell a court if they were afraid to be persecuted or tortured in their destinations.
Despite that order, the National Security Department deported the eight men. According to their lawyers, they were told that they were heading to South Sudan.
Murphy was furious. “The actions of the department in this case violate the order of this court,” he said at a hearing held on May 21, warning that government officials who allowed deportations could face criminal sanctions.
The US Federal Law specifically prohibits that the sport government to people to countries where their life or their freedom would be threatened by their race, religion, nationality, belonging to a certain social group or political opinion, or where there is a high probability that they are tortured.
What is Trump’s goal?
In his campaign, President Trump promised to start a large -scale deportation program. Already in office, he has taken measures to dismantle government programs that protect from deportation to certain immigrants found in the United States, which has caused several judicial challenges within the framework of the broader offensive of his government against migration.
The Trump government has also expanded the group of people who can be expressed, accelerating the deportation process and hardening the rules for some legal immigrants. It seems that government officials risk conflicting with several judges. At least three of them – Murphy, Judge James Boasberg and Judge Paula Xinis – have raised the possibility of declaring government officials in criminal contempt.
It is possible that the government believes that deportations will have a greater deterrence if migrants are sent to countries that are obviously dangerous or violent. In other words, experts say, the objective could be precisely to generate fear.
Deportations could also have broader implications for the ability of courts to control presidential power.
Subscriber content
Andrew O’Donohue, non -resident researcher of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, said that legal struggles on popular issues can be a way of pressing the courts to weaken institutional counterweights. He studies the clashes between the courts and the elected leaders around the world, and calls this “judicial provocation” strategy.
Until now, federal courts have stopped some of Trump’s government attempts to expand presidential power. However, a legal confrontation on the deportation of violent criminals could be a way of pressing the courts.