Trump administration asks tiny Pacific nation of Palau to accept migrants deported from US
Palau, a country of about 18,000 that lies just east of the Philippines, is considering a draft agreement to resettle 'third country nationals' from the US who 'may seek protection and against return to their home country'. The draft agreement does not detail how many individuals may be sent to Palau, nor what the Pacific nation would receive in return.
'Both Parties shall take into account … requests by third country nationals for asylum, refugee protection, or equivalent temporary protection,' the draft agreement, seen by the Guardian, states. 'The Government of the United States of America shall not transfer unaccompanied minors pursuant to this Agreement.'
A letter from Palau's president Surangel Whipps Jr regarding the draft agreement and seen by the Guardian, makes clear the proposal is far from final and is subject to further discussion. It also states Palau would have 'full discretion to decide whether or not to accept any individuals.'
The request to Palau marks the latest attempt by the Trump administration to remove migrants from within its borders. A supreme court ruling in June paved the way for the US government to remove migrants and transfer them to countries they are not from. Since then, the US has completed the transfer of migrants including South Sudan and Eswatini.
According to Doris Meissner, who leads the Migration Policy Institute's US Immigration program and who is a former commissioner of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service, the draft agreement with Palau mirrors other Trump administration requests made to 'scores' of other countries for migrant resettlement.
'Because most of the countries are small, far from the US, and not familiar to most Americans, the reason for such actions is primarily to heighten fear within immigrant communities in the US of being sent to distant places where they have no family or other connections,' Meissner said.
Unlike the United States, Palau is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, an international treaty which obliges countries to protect people fleeing persecution and which provides a framework on how asylum seekers and refugees should be treated in the country of refuge. Noting this, the draft agreement states that Palau would instead act 'in accordance with its constitution' and its 'underlying humanitarian principles'.
Last week Palau's President convened a meeting with the country's national congress and Council of Chiefs to discuss the request. In response to questions on the matter, Palau's Office of the President directed the Guardian to a statement issued after the meeting, stating that leaders 'reiterated their longstanding partnership with the United States' but more information was needed 'before any decision is made'.
A spokesperson from the US state department said that it was a 'top priority' to implement 'the Trump Administration's immigration policies'.
'In some cases, we will work with other countries to facilitate the removal from the United States of nationals of third countries who seek asylum or other forms of protection in the United States,' the spokesperson said. 'Ongoing engagement with foreign governments is vital to deterring illegal and mass migration and securing our borders.'
Palau holds deep ties with the US under a Compacts of Free Association (Cofa) agreement, which gives the country millions of dollars in budget support and aid. In 2023, Cofa funds accounted for about 30% of Palau's government revenue. This relationship may mean Palau's leaders 'feel pressured to accept this deal,' Camilla Pohle, a Pacific analyst, said.
'The compact provides Palau with a lot of funding as well as programs and services, and there's so much uncertainty under Trump about what kinds of things could end up on the chopping block,' said Pohle, whose position with the US Institute of Peace was recently terminated as a result of cuts made by the Trump administration.
'A deal like this has no material benefit to Palau whatsoever, and if Palau agrees to it, it will be essentially under duress, fearing that if they say no, that there will be some kind of negative repercussion,' she added.
Pohle said that coupled with the Trump administration's decision to pull away from its climate commitments – a key priority for Pacific nations – the request would have a long-term impact on geopolitics in the region.
'This kind of policy is doing such damage to the US strategy in the Pacific that China will easily be able to capitalise on it,' Pohle said. 'It's taking what the Trump administration wants while offering almost nothing in return.'
This is not the first time the US has asked Palau to accept people. In 2009, Palau agreed to resettle 17 Chinese Muslims held in Guantánamo Bay.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
11 minutes ago
- NBC News
U.N.'s top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations's top court in a landmark advisory opinion Wednesday said countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, and nations harmed by its effects could be entitled to reparations. Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice opinion on nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don't. ' Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.' The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. Notably, the court said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements. The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All U.N. member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court. Climate activists had gathered outside the packed court with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.' Afterward, others emerged laughing and hugging. 'Today, the tables have turned. The world's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis — and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused,' former U.N. human rights chief Mary Robinson said in a statement. 'The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: Those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future,' said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the U.N. General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the U.N. secretary-general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. The presiding judge on Wednesday acknowledged that international law had 'an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem,' and said a lasting solution will need the contribution of all fields of human knowledge 'to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.'
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Home Office plan to share asylum hotel locations with food delivery firms is 'pointless' and will be 'ineffective' at stopping migrants working illegally, lawyers say
A Government plan to crack down on illegal migrant delivery riders by sharing the location of asylum hotels with food delivery companies is 'pointless' and 'ineffective', immigration lawyers warned today. The Home Office yesterday struck up a new agreement with Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats, where officials will share information about hotels in high-risk areas to help delivery companies uncover illegal working and suspend accounts. It comes after it was revealed how asylum seekers in taxpayer-funded hotels were raking in hundreds as delivery riders within days of crossing the Channel illegally on small boats. The scheme is aimed at stopping delivery riders sharing their accounts with migrants who do not have the right to work in the UK. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work for the first 12 months of being in the UK or until their application is approved. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the Labour party were taking 'decisive action to close loopholes and increase enforcement'. But, immigration lawyers today questioned how effective the crackdown will be as they called for a 'much tougher approach' over this 'blunt tool'. Emma Brooksbank, an immigration partner at Freeths, told MailOnline the agreement is 'expected to be ineffective'. She added: 'The intention is that Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats will quickly cancel accounts which are noted to be repeatedly active in high-risk areas, around asylum seeker hotels. 'It will not be difficult for illegal workers to bypass this restriction and avoid detection, thereby making the agreed data sharing pointless.' Ms Brooksbank said the 'gig ecomony operators are largely unregulated' and have 'no real incentive to clean up their act'. She added: 'The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their app, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless, and undetectable, which acts as a draw for illegal migrants to continue to arrive in small boats from France. The Government needs to take a much tougher approach, she said, suggesting companies must be held responsible and heavily fined for 'facilitating illegal work'. Angela Sharma, a barrister at Church Court Chambers, agreed telling MailOnline: 'Sharing information about the locations of asylum hotels may help identify hotspots where illegal working is more prevalent, but it's a blunt tool. 'The real issue lies in the ease with which delivery accounts can be sublet and exploited. Without stricter enforcement on platform verification and stronger deterrents for account sharing, this remains a systemic loophole. 'A tougher, more targeted approach that also holds companies accountable is needed to genuinely tackle the problem.' Sacha Wooldridge, partner and head of immigration at Birketts LLP, said data sharing 'will presumably enable stronger enforcement of penalties against those found to be acting unlawfully' and 'enable targeted police resourcing to higher crime locations'. But she added: 'If companies are already checking all drivers and substitute drivers on a daily basis, knowing the location of the hotels isn't likely to have a material impact.' And Victoria Welsh, partner and head of business immigration at Taylor Rose, said although the move is 'positive', the issue is 'wider than simply restricting access to legal employment.' Insisting the new scheme will bring about change, Home Secretary Ms Cooper said last night: 'Illegal working undermines honest business, exploits vulnerable individuals and fuels organised immigration crime. 'By enhancing our data sharing with delivery companies, we are taking decisive action to close loopholes and increase enforcement. 'The changes come alongside a 50% increase in raids and arrests for illegal working under the Plan for Change, greater security measures and tough new legislation.' Last month it emerged that migrants living in taxpayer-funded asylum hotels – including those who arrived by small boat – are securing work as fast food delivery riders within hours of entering Britain. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said he had found evidence of asylum seekers breaking rules which bar them from working while their claim is processed by the Home Office. The Tory politician visited an asylum hotel in central London and posted a video showing bicycles fitted with delivery boxes for Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats parked outside. Days later, the Home Office said it had called in all three companies for a dressing down – and the meeting led to pledges to introduce 'facial recognition' systems on rider apps, such as those used by banks to confirm someone's identity. However, Deliveroo was refused access to hotel location data despite assurances it would be treated confidentially, the Times reported. Shadow Home Office minister Katie Lam said at the time: 'The fact that the Home Office is refusing to help them just shows how topsy-turvy this country's approach to migration has become. 'Crossing the Channel illegally is a crime. Working here illegally is a crime. 'Too many people are brazenly breaking the rules and it's a disgrace that the Home Office is aiding and abetting them.' Eddy Montgomery, Director of Enforcement, Compliance and Crime at the Home Office, said: 'This next step of co-ordinated working with delivery firms will help us target those who seek to work illegally in the gig economy and exploit their status in the UK. 'My teams will continue to carry out increased enforcement activity across the UK and I welcome this additional tool to disrupt and stop the abuse of our immigration system.' The Government has also announced the trialling of AI-powered facial recognition technology to determine whether Channel migrants are being wrongly identified as children. The Home Office announced testing on new technology will begin later this year with the hope it could be fully integrated into the asylum system in 2026. Ministers admitted that assessing the age of asylum seekers is 'an incredibly complex and difficult task' but said AI might soon provide quick and cost-effective results. More than 23,000 migrants have crossed the Channel so far this year, up more than 50 per cent on the same point last year and the highest number in the first six months since figures began in 2018. The Home Office says there are 32,345 asylum seekers being put up at taxpayer expense in hotels, with another 66,683 in houses and flats.
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
False online rumours spark protests outside Canary Wharf hotel earmarked for migrants
Protesters surrounded an empty hotel in London's finance district after false rumours online suggested it was being used for migrants from another hotel, where riots have broken out. The Home Office has earmarked more than 400 beds at the Britannia Hotel in the Canary Wharf, which it says it will use to house migrants at a cost of £81 per night per person. Protesters gathered at the site on Tuesday after social media posts claimed migrants were being moved there from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, which has been the scene of violent protests over the past few days. So far, 10 people have been arrested in connection with that disorder, which was sparked when an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault this month. Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist, is among those who claimed online that migrants were being transferred to the London hotel from Epping. The rumours sparked protests and counter-protests, with police drafted to the scene on Tuesday, despite the hotel currently sitting empty. Demonstrators had also seized on online claims that migrants were being housed at £400 a night, when the rooms infact cost £81 per night and the government will not be charged until migrants move in. 'Asylum seekers are not being removed from The Bell Hotel in Epping,' a Home Office spokesman said. Reform MP Lee Anderson was accused of further stoking division by attending the protest outside the Canary Wharf hotel and warning of 'an influx of illegal migrants'. 'What are we playing at?' he asked on social media. He posted a clip in which he said he is 'absolutely furious' and that families across the UK would not be able to afford a night's stay in the hotel. Care4Calais head of advocacy Charlotte Khan hit out at Mr Anderson for his video. She said: 'The truth is, MPs should be more responsible than to sow division and hatred in our communities.' She added: 'MPs... who spread misinformation and hate that dehumanises refugees should be held accountable for their role in encouraging violence and racism on our streets.' Nathan Phillips, head of campaigns at Asylum Matters, hit out at the demonstrations which he said had 'morphed into yet more racist violence'. 'In that context, it's clear how disgracefully dangerous and utterly irresponsible it is for an MP to use his platform to identify a site where people are about to be housed and encourage his followers to 'protest' against it. 'It's appalling that there's no accountability for an elected official who actively encourages the exact same sort of 'protests' that have led to violence and arrests in Epping this week.' In Essex, local Conservative MP Dr Neil Hudson warned that the riots were a 'crisis that has reached boiling point'. Essex Police have made 10 arrests, which saw more than 500 gather outside the hotel, with rioters attacking police vans and injuring a police officer. On Sunday night, two security guards working at the Bell Hotel were also attacked at a bus stop, and are recovering in hospital. Giving an update to the media in Chelmsford on Wednesday, Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington said: "I want to thank the people of Epping, I want to thank the people of Essex. "I also want to thank all those who have turned up to protest and express their views peacefully and lawfully, because there have been many of those. "What has been unacceptable has been the people who have come to Epping and committed violence, who have attacked people who work at the hotel, who have attacked officers, who have damaged property and who have caused fear and disruption to the people of Epping. "That is not tolerable, it will not be tolerated, and to that end, we have made 10 arrests." He appealed to the people of Essex to 'help us to do our job and make sure everyone can express their rights and their views safely and peacefully'. The latest demonstrations come a day after Angela Rayner issued an ultimatum to Sir Keir Starmer, warning that the UK faces a repeat of last year's summer riots unless 'the government shows it can address people's concerns'. The deputy prime minister said economic insecurity, immigration, the increasing time people spend online, and declining trust in institutions were having a 'profound impact on society'. And, amid fears this summer could see riots similar to those in the wake of the Southport murders last year, Ms Rayner said it is urgent Sir Keir delivers tangible improvements to living standards. Of the 18 places hit with the worst rioting last summer, Ms Rayner noted that 17 are among the country's most deprived areas. Michael Gove on Wednesday branded the comments about a repeat of last summer's violence 'a big mistake' which could 'tacitly encourage' fresh riots. The Tory ex-minister said she was right to acknowledge concern across the country about immigration and living standards and encourage the government to prove it can deliver. But Mr Gove told ITV: 'I think this is a mistake on Labour, to brief this out, I think it is a big mistake, it reminds me of what happened in the 1970s when [former US president] Jimmy Carter when America was going through difficult times said 'this country is in the grip of a malaise'. 'You do not, if you are the government, accentuate the negative in this way and you certainly don't suggest to people that violence might be about to break out in this way.' A spokesman for Tower Hamlets Council, the authority which is responsible for Canary Wharf, called on the government to ensure 'that there is a full package of support for those staying at the hotel'. 'We are working with the Home Office and partners to make sure that all necessary safety and safeguarding arrangements are in place,' the spokesman added.
