Rwanda reached deal with US to take in up to 250 migrants, government says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States and Rwanda have agreed for the African country to accept up to 250 migrants deported from the U.S., the spokesperson for the Rwandan government and an official told Reuters, as President Donald Trump's administration takes a hardline approach toward immigration.
The agreement, first reported by Reuters, was signed by U.S. and Rwandan officials in Kigali in June, said the Rwandan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that Washington had already sent an initial list of 10 people to be vetted.
"Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation," said the spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo.
"Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade."
The White House and State Department had no immediate comment. The Department of Homeland Security referred questions to the State Department.
President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland.
Rwanda has in recent years positioned itself as a destination country for migrants that Western countries would like to remove, despite concerns by rights groups that Kigali does not respect basic human rights.
In May, the foreign minister said Rwanda was in the early stages of talks to receive immigrants deported from the United States.
The Trump administration argues that third-country deportations help swiftly remove some migrants, including those with criminal convictions. Immigration hardliners see third-country removals as a way to deal with offenders who cannot easily be deported and could pose a threat to the public.
Opponents have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language.
US TO PROVIDE GRANT TO RWANDA
Rwanda will be paid by the United States in the form of a grant, the official said, adding that the grant letter was finalized in July. The official declined to say how much the grant was for.
The U.S. and Rwanda could extend the agreement beyond 250 people by mutual consent, the official said, adding that those deported to Rwanda do not have to stay in the country and can leave anytime they choose.
Kigali will only accept those whose prison terms are complete or who have no criminal case against them, as there is no agreement with Washington that would allow people to serve out their U.S. sentence in Rwanda, the official said. No child sex offenders will be accepted.
The Trump administration has pressed other countries to take migrants. It deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were jailed until they were released in a prisoner swap last month.
The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court.
Western and regional leaders have praised President Paul Kagame for transforming Rwanda from the ruins of the 1994 genocide that killed more than 1 million people into a thriving economy. Rights groups have accused him of abuses and of supporting rebels in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, accusations that he denies.
Rwanda has also engaged in peace talks led by the Trump administration to bring an end to fighting in eastern Congo. The two African nations signed a U.S.-brokered peace agreement in Washington in June, raising hopes for an end to fighting that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year.
The agreement to accept migrants deported from the U.S. is not the first such agreement Rwanda has reached. Kigali signed an agreement with Britain in 2022 to take in thousands of asylum seekers, a deal that was scrapped last year by then newly-elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer. No one was sent to Rwanda under the plan because of years of legal challenges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a minute ago
- New York Times
Quote of the Day: TRUMP'S ICE USES NEW WAY TO SPLIT MIGRANT FAMILIES
'I wouldn't wish it even to an enemy. It's a constant grief and longing.' EVGENILIA, who with her family fled her native Russia and sought political asylum in the United States, on choosing to be sent to an immigration detention center while her 8-year-old son was taken to a shelter for unaccompanied children over returning to her homeland as a family.
New York Post
2 minutes ago
- New York Post
Michael Goodwin: Sen. Warren backing Mamdani is the latest example of Dems floundering — and their zany agenda
More than six months into Donald Trump's highly consequential second term, Democrats are still looking for their sputtering resistance movement to deliver some big victories. Instead, they've suffered repeated failures and are responding with an increasingly angry radicalism that has zero appeal to the hearts and minds of most voters. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that a mere 33% of national respondents hold a favorable view of Dems, which the Journal called the party's lowest point in its polls over three decades. Advertisement It also found that a stunning 63% of voters hold an unfavorable view of the party. Those dismal results are the fruit of a run of bad candidates —think Kamala Harris and Tim Walz — and a scatter-shot strategy that consistently defies common sense and traditional American middle-class values. The impression is that party leaders and high-profile advocates are lurching from one temper tantrum about Trump to another, each delivered with the desperation of a Hail Mary pass. Advertisement They seem more concerned about the welfare of illegal immigrants, including gang-bangers, than about the physical safety and financial security of innocent, tax-paying Americans. Comes now the latest example of their zany agenda, this one courtesy of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. In a few brief remarks Monday, she managed to prove that the passing years have not dimmed her gift for poor judgment and terrible ideas. Major party headache Her new brainstorm threatens to become another major headache for her party. Advertisement Appearing in Gotham with socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Warren declared that 'New York City is the place to start the conversation for Democrats on how affordability is the central issue, the central reason to be a Democrat, and that delivering on it in meaningful, tangible ways that will touch working families is why we're here.' It's a pretty strange thing to say given that it was almost exclusively Democratic mayors, governors and lawmakers that created the affordability crisis she now bemoans. She went on to claim that Mamdani, the 33–year-old nepo-baby radical who won the Dems' mayoral primary, should be the party's national face. 'Bring it on!' Republicans say, convinced that he would be a major drag for Dems in the 2026 elections. Advertisement The GOP would be delighted to run against a party that features a radical leftist who never held a real job in his life. It's worth noting that four years ago, then-Mayor-elect Eric Adams declared himself 'the new face of the Democratic Party.' The idea never gained much traction, with his tenure soon swamped by the tide of illegal border crossers waved in by Joe Biden, as hundreds of thousands made their way to New York for free housing, food and medical care. Adams never quite recovered, and that was even before he faced federal corruption charges brought under Biden that the Trump Justice Department dropped. Nonetheless, the turmoil and critical coverage were such a burden that Adams passed up his party's primary and is seeking re-election in November as an independent. Although he and the NYPD deserve great credit for driving shootings to historic lows, recent polls show the mayor's support is stuck in single digits and sometimes falls below the slice of voters who say they are undecided. NY Dems shun him As for Warren's idea about making Mamdani the national model for the party, she is so deep in fantasy land that she's even out of step with leading New York Dems. They are avoiding the far-leftist candidate like the plague, which is what he could be politically in areas that are more balanced than the People's Republic of New York, where there is just one registered Republican for every six registered Dems. Advertisement And so Gov. Hochul, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries all have declined to endorse Mamdani, which is an exceptional rebuke to him and his platform. Normally, they would reflexively back the winner of the party's mayoral primary, but they look ahead and see his major positions — defund the police, hike taxes, boycott Israel and support the anti-Jewish mobs disrupting cities and college campuses — as a toxic brew that even if it prevails in the city, won't fly around the rest of the state or across the nation. They see him as a major burden next year, when Hochul will be seeking re-election and Schumer and Jeffries will be trying to guide Dems to victory in their respective chambers. Of the group, Hochul has been the most outspoken and explicit in shunning him. Advertisement Mamdani's plan to tax high-income New Yorkers would require legislative approval and her signature, and the governor made it clear that's not going to happen. Days before the late June primary, Hochul threw cold water on the tax proposals he aims to use to fund his long list of free things, including buses and child care. 'I'm not raising taxes at a time where affordability is the big issue,' she said in a TV interview. 'I don't want to lose any more people to Palm Beach. We've lost enough . . . so let's be smart about this.' Advertisement Hochul's answer was surprising in that she's usually an automatic yes vote for new taxes, congestion pricing being a recent example. But her answer was also clever in that she adopted Mamdani's theme of an 'affordability crisis' and turned it on its head to use it as a reason not to support him. She's right in the sense that when it comes to affordability, New York governments' addiction to high spending and taxing already are major causes. Trickle-down pain City and state regulations also amount to a mountain of expensive red tape that discourage construction as well as business and job creation. Advertisement Her congestion tax is a good example of the trickle-down impact. The price of every loaf of bread, bottle of beer and bag of potato chips sold in Midtown now includes a portion of the added tax she slapped on delivery trucks. Meanwhile, the state's enormous budget reflects the way the government mafia grabs a piece of every action. Albany is now spending $254 billion this year, more than $100 billion more than it spent a decade ago. Florida has millions of more people than New York, but somehow manages to make do with spending $117 billion. That's almost identical to the city's budget alone, which is $116 billion this year, up from $75 billion over the last decade. These exploding expense budgets do not include the numerous 'off-the-books' entities such as the MTA, public colleges and universities, the Dormitory Authority and scores of other lesser-known units that spend multiple billions of dollars they collect from the public. Just remember: As bad as things are, they can always get worse. And if Mamdani is elected, everything definitely would get worse.
CNN
3 minutes ago
- CNN
India's Modi is caught between Putin's cheap Russian oil and Trump's latest tariff threats
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been performing a tricky balancing act – maintaining close partnerships with US President Donald Trump and Russia's leader Vladimir Putin while insisting his country is a neutral party in the Russia-Ukraine war, to the dismay of Western nations who have sanctioned Moscow. But now, it seems, Trump has lost his patience – demanding that Modi finally pick a side, and using India's continued purchases of cheap Russian oil as leverage in his trade war. The conundrum pits Trump and Modi, two nationalist leaders who have often described their friendship in warm terms, increasingly against each other. On Monday, Trump vowed in an interview with CNBC to 'substantially' raise tariffs on India 'over the next 24 hours' because it's still buying Russian oil. It's not clear what the new tariff rate would be – or why he is now taking issue with something India has done for years. But the fresh threat comes after he had already announced a minimum 25% tariff on goods coming from India last week. 'Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE — ALL THINGS NOT GOOD!' Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. But for Modi, it's not so simple. While many other countries have scrambled to strike trade deals with the Trump administration, India – the world's fourth largest economy – has pushed back defiantly, saying it is being unfairly targeted and calling the measure 'unjustified.' The US and Europe, it pointed out, still trade with Russia on other products such as fertilizers and chemicals. Here's what you need to know about why India is reluctant to stop buying Russian oil. India has long been reliant on Russia for crude oil to support its booming economy and growing population, now at more than 1.4 billion people. The world's most populous nation is already the third biggest consumer of oil globally, and with India's consumption rate still growing rapidly, it is expected to surpass China by 2030, according to Reuters. India's transformation into an economic superpower has uplifted millions of households – which in turn have bought more cars and motorcycles, driving up the demand for gasoline. Russian crude oil accounts for 36% of India's overall imports, making Moscow the country's top supplier, according to Muyu Xu, a senior oil analyst at trade intelligence firm Kpler, who cited figures for the first six months of this year. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, European nations largely stopped buying Russian oil. It now flows primarily into Asia – with China, India and Turkey among Russia's big clients and is a vital revenue stream for Moscow. Delhi is buying Russian oil at a heavy discount, 'which otherwise would not have been given by the traditional oil and gas suppliers,' said Amitabh Singh, associate professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University's (JNU) Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies. He added that India's continuing purchases were 'a purely economic or commercial decision' – something Indian authorities have also argued, but which has been met with derision and anger from Ukraine and its supporters. While India has diversified its oil sources over the years, cutting out Russian oil entirely would leave a gaping hole that's hard to replace. India imports 80% of its oil needs, and its domestic oil production isn't enough to make up the difference. OPEC, the coalition of the world's top oil producers, may have 'some spare capacity, but it's difficult to ask them to pump 3.4 million barrels overnight,' said Xu when she spoke to CNN in July, referring to Russia's daily seaborne exports. Its choices have also been limited by other US actions – India was forced to stop buying oil from Iran and Venezuela after Trump imposed sanctions and threatened tariffs against countries that bought from those places. Before it halted its purchases, India had been one of Iran's biggest clients, buying up to 480,000 barrels per day, according to Reuters. 'We have our hands tied at the back,' said Singh. 'There is very limited space in which the Indian oil economy or market can operate.' For now, he added, it's unlikely Delhi will bow to Trump's demands. Modi's administration will continue navigating trade talks with the US and explore the 'traditional route' of Middle Eastern oil while it works to wean itself off Russian crude – but this it 'cannot do overnight,' said Singh. Russia's oil also feeds India's economy, which plays a key role in the global oil trade. India argues that its purchases from Russia have kept global oil prices lower, as it's not competing with Western nations for Middle Eastern oil. When the Ukraine-Russia war kicked off during the Biden administration, 'everyone knew that India is buying oil from Russia,' said Singh – but added that Western nations had tolerated it 'because they knew that if India is not buying oil from Russia, then inflation will go up.' If India switches to importing oil from somewhere else at a higher cost, American consumers will likely feel the hit, too. Some of the Russian crude oil sent to India is then refined and exported back out to other countries – because sanctions on Moscow don't include products refined outside Russia. It's a loophole that has benefited both India's economy and other recipient nations. In 2023, India exported $86.28 billion in refined oil products, making it the world's second-biggest exporter of petroleum products, according to the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR). Some of the biggest buyers of these refined products, made from Russian crude oil, include Europe, the US, and the UK, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). The independent organization has urged G7 nations to close this loophole, arguing it would disincentivize third countries – like India – to import Russian crude. India and Russia's partnership goes beyond just oil and stretches back decades – another reason it's not so easy to dismantle. India was officially nonaligned during the Cold War between the US and the USSR. However, India began to lean towards the Soviet Union in the 1970s when the US began providing military and financial assistance to India's neighbor and longtime rival Pakistan. This was when Russia started providing arms to India. In recent years, India has drawn closer to Washington, and ramped up arms purchases from America and its allies, including France and Israel. Still, India remains the top recipient of Russian arms, according to SIPRI. And Modi remains friendly with Putin – even paying a controversial visit to Moscow last year, with the Russian president greeting his counterpart with a hug and personally driving him around. Trump and Modi, too, have previously hailed their friendship, with Trump declaring at a 2019 rally that India had 'never had a better friend as President than President Donald Trump.' Singh, the professor, said it was expected the friendship 'would continue' when Trump arrived at the White House for his second term. But things have soured this time around; India isn't happy with Trump claiming credit for a ceasefire in the latest India-Pakistan conflict, or with his accusations that their oil purchases are helping 'prop up a Russian war machine,' he said. Trump has lashed out too, increasingly frustrated at his inability to end the Ukraine-Russia war – something he'd promised to do on his first day in office. 'I don't care what India does with Russia,' Trump wrote in an irate post on Truth Social last week. 'They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.'
