
'Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened'—the US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama
I went to Panama recently to talk to people the Trump administration had deported there. People are normally deported to their home countries, but none of the 299 people expelled in February were Panamanians. They came from Iran, Russia, China, Eritrea, Cameroon, Afghanistan, and other countries with serious human rights problems. Held for weeks in incommunicado detention, 180 opted to return to their home countries, but their repatriation can hardly be called voluntary. We interviewed 48 of the people who refused to go and are now stuck in limbo in Panama.
One of them was 28-year-old Sara (a pseudonym), who fled abuse in Iran and turned to the United States out of desperation and hope, only to have her dreams of freedom and safety dashed and her trauma deepen.
She is a Christian convert from a country where converts to Christianity are subjected to serious human rights violations and can even be sentenced to death and where the authorities consistently fail to protect women against violence. After fleeing from Iran to Turkey, her father and uncle pursued her there; she felt she had no choice but to flee Turkey.
Migrants deported from the U.S. place papers with a written message in the window of the Decapolis Hotel where they are temporarily staying in Panama City, February 18, 2025.
Migrants deported from the U.S. place papers with a written message in the window of the Decapolis Hotel where they are temporarily staying in Panama City, February 18, 2025.
ARNULFO FRANCO/AFP via Getty Images
The only country willing to give her a tourist visa was Brazil, where she had no connections or familiarity. She traveled through the dangers of the Darién Gap northward to Mexico. There, she made an appointment to apply for asylum in the United States using CBP One, a phone application established by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to provide people like her a safe, orderly, and legal pathway to seek asylum.
She showed me her appointment slip for 4:30 pm on January 31, 2025, at the Nogales, Arizona port of entry. She could have tried crossing the border without permission before President Donald Trump's inauguration, but she waited, as she was promised, to enter legally.
On Jan. 20, by executive order, Trump cancelled her appointment, and shut down CBP One. That same day a flurry of executive orders closed down refugee resettlement and other regular pathways for protection. Trump proclaimed an "invasion" of "illegal aliens" at the southern border, claiming authority to explicitly exclude people from the right to seek asylum if doing so would permit their continued presence in the United States. Trump's proclamation purports to cancel the asylum provision in U.S. law, which guarantees the right to seek asylum to anyone arriving at the border regardless of their status or method of arrival.
She did not want to cross the border without permission but reluctantly made the decision to cross irregularly on February 4 as the only possible way to seek asylum in the United States. She did not try to evade capture but waited on the other side of the wall for the Border Patrol. The agent handcuffed her and put her on a bus. She kept waiting for the chance to tell any official her story.
"No U.S. official at any point asked me any questions," Sara told Newsweek. "I had no interview in the United States. I talked to no lawyers, no officials. I was given no document to sign. I wanted to become a refugee, but they never talked to me."
The Border Patrol detained her in San Diego. She was told she was being transferred to Texas, but was ushered onto a military plane, which landed in Panama five hours later.
The next three weeks were a nightmare—a week of incommunicado detention in a hotel in Panama City, where a U.N. agency told her that her only option was to return "voluntarily" to her home country, followed by two weeks in a sweltering, filthy detention center back in Darién, then suddenly bused back to Panama City, dumped on the streets, and told she had 30 days to leave the country. The permit has since been extended for another 60 days; she remains in Panama, but the clock is ticking.
Despite their varied backgrounds, all of the people interviewed had this in common—each had crossed into the United States after January 20; all wanted to seek asylum in the U.S. and expressed to us a fear of return to their home countries; none had an asylum pre-screening "credible fear" interview; none saw an immigration judge or were given so much as a slip of paper saying why and under what legal basis they were being removed from the United States; in fact, none knew they were being sent to Panama.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration should "facilitate the return" of a man wrongfully deported to El Salvador. But there are at least hundreds of others, among them the 299 sent to Panama and 200 to Costa Rica, who have been deported without basic due process and denied the right to seek asylum. The U.S. should also facilitate the return of the young woman I interviewed and make good on her long overdue appointment.
Bill Frelick is the director of Human Rights Watch Refugee and Migrant Rights Division and the author of an upcoming report on the expulsions.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
GOP Senator Accuses Trump Of 'Petty Vindictiveness' After White House Snub
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky excoriated the White House and President Donald Trump on Wednesday after saying he and his family had been disinvited from the annual White House picnic. Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email on Wednesday. The Context Paul suggested he was snubbed from the picnic because of his staunch opposition to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Trump-backed reconciliation package that's under debate in the Senate. The proposal delivers on Trump's top priorities, including more funding for immigration and border security and cementing the tax cuts that were implemented as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Paul is among a handful of congressional Republicans who have vehemently opposed the fiscal plan, with the Kentucky senator saying he will only consider supporting it if it does not raise the federal debt ceiling. What To Know The Kentucky Republican told reporters on Wednesday that his invitation to the White House picnic was rescinded, accusing the Trump administration of engaging in "petty vindictiveness" due to his opposition to Trump's "big, beautiful bill." "And so how do they choose to respond? They are afraid of what I'm saying so they think they're going to punish me, I can't go to the picnic, as if somehow that's going to make me more conciliatory," Paul told reporters. "So it's silly in a way, but it's also just really sad that this is what it's come to. But petty vindictiveness like this, I don't know, it makes you wonder about the quality of people you're dealing with." Paul said that his son, daughter-in-law and grandson were planning to attend the picnic with him. The GOP senator added that he believes every other lawmaker in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, will be in attendance. Rand Paul: I've just been told that I've been uninvited from the White House picnic. Every Democrat and Republican will be invited. I just find this incredibly petty. It really makes me lose a lot of the respect I had for Donald Trump. — Acyn (@Acyn) June 11, 2025 Paul said that he wasn't sure if the decision to cancel his invitation came from the president himself or another White House staffer. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.


San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump administration hit with second lawsuit over restrictions on asylum access
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — Immigration advocates filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday over the Trump administration's use of a proclamation that effectively put an end to being able to seek asylum at ports of entry to the United States. The civil lawsuit was filed in a Southern California federal court by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the American Immigration Council, Democracy Forward, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The lawsuit is asking the court to find the proclamation unlawful, set aside the policy ending asylum at ports of entry and restore access to the asylum process at ports of entry, including for those who had appointments that were canceled when President Donald Trump took office. Unlike a similar lawsuit filed in February in a Washington, D.C., federal court representing people who had already reached U.S. soil and sought asylum after crossing between ports of entry, Wednesday's lawsuit focuses on people who are not on U.S. soil and are seeking asylum at ports of entry. No response was immediately issued by the Department of Homeland Security or Customs and Border Protection, which were both among the defendants listed. Trump's sweeping proclamation issued on his first day in office changed asylum policies, effectively ending asylum at the border. The proclamation said the screening process created by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act 'can be wholly ineffective in the border environment' and was 'leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.' Immigrant advocates said that under the proclamation noncitizens seeking asylum at a port of entry are asked to present medical and criminal histories, a requirement for the visa process but not for migrants who are often fleeing from immediate danger. Thousands of people who sought asylum through the CBP One app, a system developed under President Joe Biden, had their appointments at ports of entry canceled on Trump's first day in office as part of the proclamation that declared an invasion at the border. 'The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to block access to the asylum process, in flagrant violation of U.S. law,' the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies stated in a news release Wednesday.


Fox News
20 minutes ago
- Fox News
People in Gaza are thanking Trump for aid, leader of US-backed group says
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's (GHF) new chairman is ignoring critics and keeping his focus on what he calls the group's "singular mission" of making sure the people of Gaza have food. "Our mission has nothing to do with Hamas. It has nothing to do with Israel. It has everything to do with making sure that hungry Gazans get food. That is our singular mission. No other mission," Rev. Johnnie Moore, GHF's executive chairman, told Fox News Digital. Moore took the helm June 3, just a few days after the Israeli- and U.S.-backed aid group began its distribution operations. Even before GHF began distributing aid, it faced criticism in the weeks leading up to its launch. The United Nations came out strongly against the group. U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher was a vocal critic, claiming the U.N. already had the infrastructure and ability to distribute aid. Moore, however, believes GHF is "trying to solve a problem that the U.N. hasn't been able to solve," namely, the issue of Hamas stealing aid. Rather than admonish critics, Moore is urging them to join GHF's efforts to get food to people on the ground in Gaza. The GHF chief also noted that, despite what critics have said, Gazans have been "incredibly grateful" to receive the support. Not only have the beneficiaries been thanking the U.S., they've been thanking President Donald Trump. Moore attributes this to a promise the commander in chief made in the Oval Office. "They're thanking President Trump specifically because a few weeks ago, in the Oval Office, in one of the many, many press briefings that President Trump does, he made a passing comment," Moore said. "And the comment related to how Hamas was treating the Gazan people very badly when it came to humanitarian aid. And he made a promise that the United States would do something about it. And the people in Gaza are attributing our free distribution of food as a direct response to the promise of the president of the United States." Israel and the U.S. have repeatedly said that GHF is the best mechanism for distributing aid to Gazans and ensuring that Hamas does not get anything. Moore told Fox News Digital humanitarian aid officials have faced a "false choice" for years between Hamas and the people of Gaza. "I think for many, many years, the aid community thought that the cost of giving aid to the people of Gaza is that you had to lose a certain amount of that aid to all of these other nefarious purposes. We're just showing that that's a false choice. That doesn't have to be the case. We can actually give aid without facing these dilemmas," Moore said. "Since the Israeli authorities allowed the U.N. to resume bringing limited aid into Gaza after nearly 80 days of a total blockade of any supplies, there have been understandable instances of trucks carrying food being offloaded by hungry civilians," Eri Kaneko, spokesperson for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, told Fox News Digital. "In some cases, we have also seen unacceptable looting by armed, criminal gangs, which posed tremendous risk to our drivers' safety. To meet humanitarian needs in Gaza and help reduce looting, far more essential supplies should be allowed into Gaza through multiple crossings and routes." In late May, Israeli U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon revealed the international institution was using "mafia-like" tactics against NGOs that were open to working with GHF. The U.N. removed several NGOs from a shared aid database, which acts as a "central system for tracking aid deliveries into Gaza," according to Danon. The following week, after Danon exposed the U.N.'s actions, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution also addressed humanitarian aid, though Danon said it would have undermined, rather than advanced, such efforts. Just minutes before vetoing the resolution, U.S. Chargé d'Affaires Dorothy Shea urged the U.N. to support GHF "to help it safely deliver aid without being diverted by Hamas. The GHF has emphasized it will deliver aid consistent with the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence."