US deports ‘dangerous' migrants to Eswatini: Are South Africa's boarders safe?
Image: Sora AI
Immigration expert Professor Loren Landau of Wits University says it is too early for South Africa to be concerned about potential fallout, after the US the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that a deportation flight carrying immigrants from multiple countries landed in Eswatini.
Last month, the US Supreme Court cleared the way for the Donald Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, without allowing them to present evidence of possible harm they could face.
The ruling was a significant victory for the administration's aggressive immigration agenda.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) resumed third-country deportation flights on Tuesday, sending five immigrant detainees -each from a different country - to Eswatini.
The men, originally from Vietnam, Laos, Jamaica, Cuba, and Yemen, reportedly have criminal records, including convictions for murder and sexual assault, according to a social media post by DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
'Today, DHS conducted a third-country deportation flight to Eswatini. These criminal illegal aliens are so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,' the DHS said in the post.
'Under the leadership of the secretary of homeland security (Kristi Noem) and President Donald Trump, we are removing these convicted criminals from our soil so they can never hurt another American victim.'
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
Speaking to IOL News, Landau questioned the legality and ethical implications of such deportations.
'Typically, deportations can only occur with the agreement of a person's country of citizenship,' Landau said.
'In this case, these are removals akin to the deals Denmark has struck with Rwanda. Effectively, the US (and other countries) are creating publicly funded detention facilities in other countries.'
He drew a comparison to how Western nations export waste to Africa.
'Much like the US and Europe pay African countries to process our material waste - computers, clothes…they are effectively paying African states to process what Americans see as their human detritus.'
Eswatini, which borders South Africa, has long struggled with porous borders.
Asked if South Africa should be concerned about potential consequences, Landau said, 'The numbers of people likely to be sent to Eswatini will be relatively small. It is also unclear whether they will be held in detention or allowed to move freely.'
'At this point, it is too early to know what the consequences will be for South Africa. The bigger concern is how this affects regional diplomacy and cooperation.'
While the deportees in this instance are not refugees or asylum seekers, Landau warned that the practice sets a dangerous precedent.
'My understanding is that these are not refugees or asylum seekers, but undocumented migrants,' he said.
'Nonetheless, it does set a dangerous precedent for the rule of law, human rights, and basic human dignity.'
He added that this trend contributes to a troubling global dynamic.
'It also helps to reinforce a global color line, in which the US (and others pursuing similar actions) seek to create a white future for themselves. This is a fruitless effort, but one that sends a clear message that the wealthy West is not for them.'
Landau also questioned the long-term logistics and accountability.
'Who takes responsibility for these deportees once they arrive, especially if they have committed serious crimes?' he asked.
'Presumably, the US will be paying the countries to do this. However, there is likely to be little supervision, and conditions for detainees and prisoners across Africa rarely meet global - or even national - human rights standards.'
According to reports, the resumption of third-country deportations comes as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued new guidance allowing deportations to non-native countries under certain conditions, in as little as six hours.
In some cases, immigrants may be sent without guarantees they won't be persecuted or tortured.
The guidance states that while ICE must serve a notice of removal in a language the immigrant understands, officers are not required to ask if the person fears being sent to the designated country. If the individual expresses fear, they are to be screened for protection within 24 hours.
However, ICE may still attempt to send them to another country - even one they have expressed fear of.
simon.majadibodu@iol.co.za
IOL
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
Political pressure mounts for banking sector regulation in South Africa
SA's big banks' trade policies in the spotlight Image: IOL HEATED calls for a body to regulate the practices of the country's banking sector, especially from political circles, have emerged once again. They are dismayed with the wanton power that banks currently possess, which included cherry-picking which clients' accounts could be shut without justification. Parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Umkhonto WeSizwe Party (MKP) were very vocal about the establishment a formal adjudication body to oversee banks. Donald Trump's tough stance on US banks has got South Africans thinking Image: Lee Ronganger Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The conversation resurfaced yet again after US President Donald Trump's plans to have their nation's banks powers reviewed for what he called 'politicising or unlawful banking practices'. However, unlike the US, the South African Constitution does not give President Cyril Ramaphosa such leverage to regulate the powers of the country's banks, due process must be followed. Earlier this year, the South African banks came under strong criticism at a Parliamentary standing committee on finance meeting. The meeting focused on issues pertaining to competition, the provision of credit for productive activities, and transformation. The South African Reserve Bank (SARB), along with its Prudential Authority Institute, the Banking Association South Africa (BASA), Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), Standard Bank, FNB, Absa, Investec, Nedbank, and Capitec were in attendance. In the latter part of 2023, there were reports that banks were charging clients rates based on the colour of their skin. That revelation caused people to ask pertinent questions about the regulation of banks. The move by Trump's got people asking similar questions as well as why doesn't Ramaphosa implement similar policies as his US counterpart. Labour expert Michael Bagraim responded that the country's Constitution doesn't allow for Ramaphosa to exercise absolute authority and interfere with the banking sector. 'There is no possibility that our president can do something similar to what the Trump presidency has done. We are governed by a much more inclusive constitutional democracy and our laws would not allow such horrific powers to be given to an individual. "The American system gives despotic power to the American presidency,' Bagraim explained. His sentiments were echoed by Professor Siphamandla Zondi, who said the constitutional and political system does not give the president such executive power to punish such wrongdoings. 'In our case, the president should be reporting these matters of debanking and banks' misdemeanors to the regulators and the reserve bank. "The fact these issues continue in our banking sector means those tasked with supervisory and oversight roles are weak and ineffective,' said Zondi. Previously the MK Party had expressed its concerns about banking issues through its member of parliament, Sanele Mwali. Mwali raised concerns that the banks were displaying and "perpetuating unfairness and neo-apartheid systems of racist practices post-1994". He accused banks of exercising double standards when dealing with clients. "We have seen that there were companies covered in controversy in the financial sector, for instance Tongaat, Steinhoff, and Glencor, but they still have accounts with the major banks. "But Sekunjalo and others have already faced their day in court and they've already experienced closure of their accounts. Mwali said such actions by the country's major banks was a concern and he supported the notion that there discrimination within the financial sector still existed. DAILY NEWS
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
We live in dangerous times of anti-gender ideology and democratic backsliding
Amid the tumult unleashed by the second Trump Administration that is global in its reach, its impact on the constellation of gender, LGBTQI and trans rights and justice has taken a back seat. Yet, any form of democratic backsliding needs to be viewed through a gender lens that will show that gender is, in fact, an important nodal point through which rising authoritarianism is channelled. This is something we should contemplate on this Women's Day, 2025. Anti-gender ideology is a part of the backlash against progressive politics and policies that have gained traction since the 1970s. This backlash is aimed at rolling back women's equality, the acknowledgement of LGBTQI identities, same-sex marriage, gender fluidity and transgender rights. It is an attack on equality norms (including racial equality) and gender justice, with a specific focus on policing and restricting women's reproductive rights and access to healthcare, as well as healthcare for transgender people and the restriction on information on gender relations. Some of Donald Trump's first executive directives in his first and second terms were to restrict women's reproductive rights, making abortion now nearly impossible to access in many American states. This backlash is also mirrored in the overturning of the landmark court ruling, Roe v Wade, that legalised abortion in the US in 1973. The concept 'gender ideology' was used for the first time by Pope John Paul II, who claimed that a misleading concept of sexuality and women's dignity and 'mission' is driven by ideology also called 'gender'. This concept was taken up by the Vatican, which has expressed itself on gender theory as a totalitarian ideology that is more oppressive and pernicious than the Marxist ideology, and that it corrupts young people. Anti-gender is more than a resistance against gender equality, or women's inclusion in politics, but is in fact a movement that is global. This rhetoric of 'anti-gender' has been taken up by evangelical/charismatic churches that have spread ideas in the name of anti-gender ideology that homogenise feminist theories and scholarship and delegitimise gender activism. It also appropriates gender concepts to use against feminists, such as pro-woman, or feminists for life (pro-life), or changing pro-choice into pro-abortion. The influence of evangelical churches supporting anti-gender ideology has also become pronounced in Latin America and Africa. The anti-gender movement consists of heterogeneous coalitions, including churches and rightwing political parties, but all with the aim to reverse gender equality gains made over the past few decades and to ensure a return to patriarchy, traditional family values and re-establishing the binary relationship between only two sexes (male and female). Anti-gender ideology focuses on concepts like gender identity as being distinct from biological sex, transgender rights, comprehensive sex education (that they want to remove from the curriculum), and LGBTQI+ inclusion policies. For this very reason, the Trump Administration has targeted diversity, equality and inclusion policies (DEI) at universities and other organisations for cancellation. It has also contributed to the delegitimisation of women's and gender studies programmes, and queer studies. The anti-gender movement can be viewed as a countermovement that is connected to certain conditions, such as the need to challenge power relations (women have too much power); feeling threatened by the values, successes and actions of the existing feminist movement; showing that it is having some policy success to obtain their objectives; and the ability to have political allies that can help in the provision of resources. The danger for democracy is the stigmatisation of legitimate areas of human rights as dangerous, rejecting gender education and research, as well as a scientific understanding of sexuality. It also curtails civil liberties such as freedom of choice and freedom of association. Where DEI programmes are targeted for closure or defunded (eg the US), it undermines or restricts academic freedom outright. In Scotland, the parliament ruled that there are only two biological sexes: male and female, dealing a blow to transgender people. The anti-gender movement has gained political traction in many countries in Europe, as well as in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and Peru. In Africa, the circulation of anti-gender ideas has stigmatised any deviation from heteronormativity as 'un-African'. Countries such as Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe have passed laws that have severe consequences for LGBTQI+ people. In Uganda, being gay can be penalised with the death penalty, and people who know about people with lesbian or gay sexualities will be viewed as complicit in covering up non-traditional gender identities and also penalised. Anti-gender activism across national borders has enabled anti-LGBTQI+ networks to collaborate transnationally with the aim of enforcing patriarchy and traditional family structures, confining women to traditional sex roles. It has politicised and weaponised homophobia in Africa. Two of the main organisations that are involved in re-establishing the 'natural family' through pro-family activism are the Family Research Council (WCF) and Family Watch International, with anti-gay and anti-feminist agendas, both based in the US. They establish transnational networks of conservative activists. The WFC launched an International Organisation for the Family in Cape Town in 2016. It focuses on the heteronormative nuclear family to the exclusion of other types of marriages and the stigmatisation of same-sex marriage as adulterous. Their campaigns are well funded. Their view of the African family is rooted in a nationalist view of the family that is seen as the building blocks of citizenship, and therefore is prescriptive of procreation for the purposes of nation building. Regional conferences were held by the WCF in Ghana, Nairobi, Kampala, Nigeria, Malawi and Cape Town (2017) on the theme of the African family and how strong families build strong nations. Democratic backsliding refers inter alia to the curtailment of civil liberties and weak commitments to democratic norms, as well as the toleration of violence. One factor that seriously undermines democratic rights in South Africa is gender-based violence, with some of the worst violence and rape happening in the heterosexual family. This situation will be compounded by anti-gender ideology. We have to expose this anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQI+ and anti-African movement for what it is — a danger to democracy. DM
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
After US action on political debanking, #RacistBanksMustFall calls for reform in South Africa
#RacistBanksMustFall, applauded the recent move by US President Donald Trump to combat debanking practices, urging South Africa to follow suit and introduce similar protections for its citizens. Image: Ayanda Mdluli The #RacistBanksMustFall movement in South Africa has called for immediate legislative intervention in the wake of a US executive order designed to prevent banks from closing accounts based on political or religious beliefs. The Trump administration's executive order, expected to be signed this week, aims to tackle the controversial practice of debanking, where financial institutions deny services to individuals or businesses based on political affiliation. The order directs federal banking regulators to remove vague "reputational risk" guidelines that have often been used to justify account closures, particularly targeting conservative and crypto industry figures in the US. Reuters reported Trump as saying he believes that banks, including JPMorgan and Bank of America discriminate against him and his supporters. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ In South Africa, banks, including major institutions like Nedbank, have come under fire for selectively closing accounts under the guise of "reputational risk". Nedbank's 2023 annual report revealed that it had closed accounts for nearly 200 individuals and businesses, a practice that critics argue is politically motivated and disproportionately targets dissenting voices. Among the most high-profile cases is that of Sekunjalo Group, which has fought against the closure of its bank accounts, claiming that the action is part of an ongoing effort to silence politically inconvenient businesses and individuals. Campaign leader of #RacistBanksMustFall, Crown Prince Adil Nchabeleng, said: "South African banks have been selectively racist and are using the banking institution to target and silence political dissents." He pointed to the case of Dr Iqbal Survé, prominent businessman and media mogul, whose companies have faced repeated account closures by South African banks, claiming they were seen as a "reputational risk" due to Survé's political views and media influence. According to the current regulatory frameworks, banks are obliged to notify customers and provide them with the opportunity to make representations before terminating their accounts. In South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bredenkamp v Standard Bank set the standard for the unilateral termination of the bank-customer relationship on the grounds of reputational risks. The judgement sets out several principles South African banks have relied on when terminating relationships with their customers. Over the years these principles have been challenged in courts, where customers have instituted legal proceedings to prohibit banks from closing their accounts, requiring banks to keep accounts open against the banks' wishes. Cosatu Parliamentary Coordinator, Matthew Parks said, 'The rights of banking consumers in South Africa is guided by the Financial Intelligence Centre Act. It is critical that such legislation is clear with regards to consumers' rights and banks' obligations." The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) is moving forward with the Conduct of Financial Institutions (COFI) Bill, which aims to provide a fair process for bank account closures, following a series of delays. Cape Argus
