A look at South Sudan, where the US is accused of quietly sending migrants
The United States once cheered the creation of South Sudan as an independent nation. Now the U.S. is being asked to explain why it appears to be deporting migrants from as far away as Vietnam to a chaotic country that's once again in danger of collapsing into civil war.
A U.S. judge ordered Trump administration officials to appear at an emergency hearing Wednesday to answer questions.
If the deportations are confirmed, that means people from Vietnam, Cuba and elsewhere are being sent to a nation they have no link to, thousands of miles from where they want to be. Vietnam's list of its embassies in Africa shows the closest one to South Sudan is in Tanzania, over 800 miles away.
After reports of deportations to South Sudan, US says it's removed 8 people convicted of crimesSouth Sudan's police spokesperson, Maj. Gen. James Monday Enoka, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that no migrants had arrived in the country and that if they do, they would be investigated and again 'redeported to their correct country' if found not to be South Sudanese.
Recently, the Trump administration abruptly revoked the visas of all South Sudanese, saying the country's government failed to accept the return of its citizens 'in a timely manner.' South Sudan pushed back, saying the person in question was Congolese, but later said it would allow him into the country 'in the spirit of maintaining friendly relations' with the U.S.
South Sudan's government has struggled since independence from Sudan in 2011 to deliver many of the basic services of a state. Years of conflict have left the country heavily reliant on aid that has been hit hard by another Trump administration decision — sweeping cuts in foreign assistance.
Here's a look at South Sudan, whose own people had been granted U.S. temporary protected status because of insecurity at home.
The euphoria of independence turned to civil war two years later, when rival factions backing President Salva Kiir and deputy Riek Machar opened fire on each other in South Sudan's capital, Juba, in 2013.
The two men's tensions have been so much at the heart of the country's insecurity that the late Pope Francis once took the extraordinary step of kneeling to kiss their feet in a plea for lasting peace.
Five years of civil war killed hundreds of thousands of people. A peace deal reached in 2018 has been fragile and not fully implemented, to the frustration of the U.S. and other international backers. South Sudan still hasn't held a long-delayed presidential election, and Kiir remains in power.
His rivalry with Machar is compounded by ethnic divisions. Machar has long regarded himself as destined for the presidency, citing a prophecy years ago by a seer from his ethnic group.
Earlier this year, the threat of war returned. Machar was arrested and allies in the government and military were detained following a major escalation that included airstrikes and an attack on a United Nations helicopter. Machar's opposition party announced South Sudan's peace deal was effectively over.
'Let's not mince words: What we are seeing is darkly reminiscent of the 2013 and 2016 civil wars, which killed 400,000 people,' U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned.
Some Western countries have closed their embassies there while others, including the U.S., have reduced embassy staff. The U.S. Embassy's travel warning said that 'violent crime, such as carjackings, shootings, ambushes, assaults, robberies, and kidnappings are common throughout South Sudan, including Juba.'
The Trump administration's pressure on South Sudan to take in deportees, including foreign ones, is in sharp contrast to Washington's past warm embrace as its rebel leaders — including Kiir and Machar — fought for independence.
Now there is less support than ever for most of South Sudan's over 11 million people because of the cuts in U.S. aid.
Climate shocks including flooding have long caused mass displacement and closed schools. South Sudan's health and education systems were already among the weakest in the world. Aid organizations had offered essential help.
South Sudan's government has long relied on oil production, but little money from that is seen, in part because of official corruption. Conflict in neighboring Sudan has affected landlocked South Sudan's oil exports. Civil servants at times go months without being paid.
How South Sudan is equipped to handle migrants arriving abruptly from the U.S. is yet to be seen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Pam Bondi Curtails American Bar Association's Role in Vetting Trump's Judicial Nominees
The Department of Justice has announced that it will be curtailing the ability of the American Bar Association (ABA) to rate candidates for tenure in the federal judiciary. This will hinder the ABA's ability to vet nominations put forth by President Donald Trump. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a letter to the ABA president William Bay on Thursday, May 29, that she is cutting off the association's access to non-public information about Trump nominees. Bondi referred to the non-partisan membership organization as an 'activist' group. 'Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic Administrations,' said Bondi, accusing the ABA of having 'bias' in its ratings process. 'There is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and the Department of Justice will not do so.' Bondi went on to say that judicial nominees will no longer need to provide waivers to allow the ABA access to non-public information, nor will they respond to questionnaires or sit for interviews with the association. In a subsequent social media post, Bondi doubled down, saying: 'The American Bar Association has lost its way, and we do not believe it serves as a fair arbiter of judicial nominees. The Justice Department will no longer give the ABA the access they've taken for granted.' The move against the ABA came a day after Trump announced six new judicial nominees, which included top Justice Department official Emil Bove being put forward to serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said that Bove 'will end the weaponization of Justice, restore the rule of law, and do anything else that is necessary to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.' Bove defended Trump during his hush-money trial, during which the President was convicted on 34 counts. Trump also nominated Kyle Dudek, John Guard, Jordan E. Pratt, and Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe to serve as Judges on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and Ed Artau to serve as a Judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The President has previously threatened to revoke the ABA's status as the federally-recognized accreditor of law schools in an Executive Order signed on April 24. As part of his wide-scale crackdown on DEI efforts, Trump said that the ABA has required law schools to demonstrate commitment to diversity and inclusion, something which he says is a "discriminatory requirement" and that "similar unlawful mandates must be permanently eradicated." Critics have recently raised concerns over current practices at the Department of Justice. 'I think what's happening in the Department of Justice right now is that it's being transformed into Donald Trump's personal law firm," said Liz Oyer, the DOJ's former pardon attorney. "The Attorney General has made it clear that directions are coming from the very top, from the President, and she is there to do his bidding.' What is the American Bar Association and what does it do? Founded in 1878, the ABA works on the 'commitment to set the legal and ethical foundation for the American nation,' according to the organization's website. Its main three areas of focus revolve around advocating for the legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity, as well as advancing the rule of law. It is the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary that typically oversees and conducts the judicial nominee vetting process, something it has done since 1953. According to the ABA, the committee 'makes a unique contribution to the vetting process by conducting a thorough peer assessment of each nominee's professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament.' The organization asserts that these assessments are non-partisan, providing the Senate and sitting Administration with 'confidential assessments of the nominee's professional qualifications.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!
So much for a new, 'populist' Republican Party. So much for the GOP as a brave band of fiscally prudent, anti-deficit hawks. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, policy incoherence, and political vacuousness. That's its formal name, by the way, and you've already admitted a problem when you have to sell something that hard. It's no wonder that the only way the BBB passed the House was for one opponent to vote 'present' and for two others to miss the vote. One of the absent members fell asleep and missed the vote, an entirely appropriate response to an exercise in philosophical exhaustion. Defending the bill requires twisting facts into the 'alternative' variety and turning the plain meaning of words upside down. For example: The right wingers who demanded more cuts in programs for low-income people are regularly described as 'deficit hawks.' But even if they had gotten all the changes they sought, the bill would have massively increased the deficit. And most of them voted for a final product that will add close to $4 trillion to the nation's indebtedness. If these guys are hawks, I don't know what a dove looks like. Trump and his backers continue to insist that they are building a new working-class Republican coalition. But the astonishing thing about this bill is not only that it lavishes tax cuts on the very well-off; it also takes money away from Americans earning less than $51,000 a year once its cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and student loans are counted for. Republicans who rail against 'income redistribution' are doing an awful lot of redistribution themselves—to those who already have lots of money. The Penn Wharton budget model of the near-final version of the bill found that Americans earning less than $17,000 would lose $1,035 under its terms. Those earning between $17,000 and $50,999 would lose $705. But the small number of our fellow citizens who earn more than $4.3 million a year have a lot to cheer about: They pick up $389,280 annually. Please explain to me again why this is a 'populist' Republican Party. It's imperative not to miss what's obvious about this bill—that it ravages lower-income people to benefit the very privileged—and for progressives and Democrats to act on this. But it's also essential to notice what doesn't get enough attention: that so much of the commentary about how Trump has reinvented the GOP with a fresh set of ideas and commitments is poppycock. Trumpism is certainly dangerous and authoritarian in new ways. It is, well, innovative when it comes to a vast and unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. But it's also an ideological mess riddled with contradictions. When you look below the hood, it's primarily about the interests of people who can buy their way into Trump's golf clubs and private pay-for-play dinners—and, especially, about the enrichment of Trump and his family. On the phony populism side, Democrats in the House did a generally good job of highlighting the costs of provisions in the bill that hurt so many of Trump's voters, particularly the cuts in Medicaid and nutrition assistance, or SNAP. Senate Democrats have already ramped up similar efforts as that body's Republican leaders prepare to grapple with the steaming pile of incongruities the House has sent their way. You can tell that Republicans know how unpopular the Medicaid cuts in the bill are because they delayed their effectiveness date to minimize their electoral effect, repeatedly denied they are cutting Medicaid—and don't want to talk at all about how slashing subsidies within the Affordable Care Act would take health coverage away from millions more Americans. They are hiding the Medicaid cuts behind 'work requirements' that are really bureaucratic paperwork requirements that would make it much harder for people with every right to coverage to access it. They would make it more difficult for others to maintain continuous coverage. And if these rules were not about 'cutting' Medicaid, the GOP couldn't claim to be 'cutting' roughly $700 billion in Medicaid spending. But the GOP thinks it has a winner in its work argument. It's a tired but tested replay of a very old (and, yes, offensive) trope about alleged grifters among supposedly 'lazy' poor people. House Speaker Mike Johnson offered a remarkable version of this defense of the 'work' provisions: He said they were aimed at 'the young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' If ever there was a quote that should go viral, this is it. Young men, after all, shifted toward the Republicans in 2024. They should know what the party many of them voted for thinks of them. More important, progressives need to take the work argument on directly, not only by showing that the work provisions aren't really about work but also by offering amendments replacing the Medicaid cuts with provisions that actually would expand the availability of well-paying opportunities for greater self-sufficiency. Restoring the clean energy tax credits are important not only to battling climate change; they're also about preserving and creating well-paying jobs. A package of proposals on affordable housing, job training, and access to community colleges, particularly in economically depressed areas, would make a nice contrast to those who deny that government has the capacity to improve lives. What the Financial Times' economics columnist Martin Wolf nicely termed 'pluto-populism' when the GOP passed the 2017 tax cuts that this bill extends is alive and well. That populist rhetoric is being married to plutocratic policies is still not recognized widely enough. This is certainly a commentary on the rightward tilt of the media system the editor of this magazine has called out. But it also reflects a failure of Democrats to take the argument to the heart of Trump's base. It's political common sense that parties focus most of their energy on swing states and swing districts. Yet there will be no breaking the 50-50 deadlock in our politics without a concerted effort to change the minds of voters who have drifted to Trump out of frustration with their own economic circumstances and the condition of their regions. The fight over Medicaid and SNAP cuts directly implicates these voters and these places. And these voters pay more attention to these issues than either the Republicans who take them for granted or Democrats who have given up on them believe. When Andy Beshear won his first race for governor of Kentucky in 2019, he not only mobilized Democrats in urban areas; he also flipped many rural counties and cut the Republicans' margins in others. Typical was Carter County in eastern Kentucky. The county went for Beshear even though it had backed his GOP opponent and then-incumbent Republican Governor Matt Bevin four years earlier and gave Trump 73.8 percent of its ballots in 2016. Breathitt County in Appalachia also flipped, having gone for Bevin and voted 69.6 percent for Trump. Fred Cowan, a former Kentucky attorney general and a shrewd student of his state's politics, told me then that these voters understood where their interests lay. 'In a lot of these counties, the school systems or the hospitals—or both—are the biggest employers,' he said 'The Medicaid expansion helped a lot of people over there.' Sure, it's easier for Democrats like Beshear with strong local profiles to make their case. But the national party needs to learn from these politicians that giving up on whole swaths of voters is both an electoral and moral mistake. The emptiness of Republican populism speaks to the larger problem of mistaking Trump's ability to create a somewhat new electoral coalition with intellectual and policy innovation. Some conservative commentators are honest enough to admit how the BBB demonstrates that the 'old Republican Party is still powerful, the old ideas are still dominant,' as Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times. But even Douthat wants to cast the bill as an exception to a bolder transformation the president has engineered, particularly around immigration and a 'Trumpian culture war.' The problem here is that none of this is new, either. The GOP was moving right on immigration well before Trump—when, for example, it killed George W. Bush's immigration bill in 2007 as right-wing media cheered it on. The culture war and the battle against universities are old hat too. The real innovator here was the late Irving Kristol, whose columns in the 1970s introduced Wall Street Journal readers to the dangers posed to business interests by 'the new class' of Hollywood, media, and university types, along with activist lawyers. True, Trump is taking this fight to extreme places Kristol would never have gone. But, again, there's no new thinking here. And the attack on trans rights is just the latest front in the LGBTQ+ debates, now that the right has had to abandon its opposition to same-sex marriage because Americans have come to support it overwhelmingly. Even the contradictions aren't new. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have always talked about the dangers of deficits when Democrats were in power but cast those worries aside when they had the power to cut taxes. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' is the canonical Dick Cheney quote from 2002 when he was pushing for more tax cuts in W.'s administration. The exception proves the rule: George H.W. Bush made a deal with Democrats in 1991 that included tax increases because he really did care about deficits—and conservatives never forgave him for it. In an odd way, you have to admire Cheney's candor: At least he admitted what he was doing. The Freedom Caucus members have the gall to yell at the top of their lungs about how they care so very much about the debt—and then vote in overwhelming numbers to pile on billions more. As the debate over the BBB moves to the Senate, the immediate imperative is to expose the damage the bill does to millions of Trump's voters to benefit his Mar-a-Lago and crypto-wealthy friends. But it's also an occasion to shatter the illusion that Trump is some sort of brilliant policy innovator. Extremism and authoritarianism are not new ideas, and his legislative program would be familiar to Calvin Coolidge.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Joe: ‘Musk is desperately trying to separate himself from the work he did at DOGE'
Ahead of Elon Musk's final day at the White House, he expressed frustration with Washington in a CBS interview, saying he doesn't want to 'take responsibility for everything the administration is doing.' The Morning Joe panel breaks down Trump's planned Oval Office farewell — and how Musk may still benefit long-term from his ties to Trump and federal agencies.
