logo
Trump administration plans immigrant flights to Libya as its deportation agenda grows

Trump administration plans immigrant flights to Libya as its deportation agenda grows

Yahoo07-05-2025

As the Trump administration looks to expand its dubious plans to deport immigrants to foreign lands, they're apparently looking to war-torn countries with poor human rights records to essentially serve as deterrents for future immigrants.
Having already sent nearly 300 immigrants — who've been framed as hardened criminals despite many of them appearing to have no criminal record whatsoever — to El Salvador's brutal CECOT prison, the administration is planning to expand its deportations to Libya, NBC News reported. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that imminent deportation flights to Libya, or any other third country, without due process would violate his temporary restraining order.
It's noteworthy that top Libyan officials denied that any arrangement is in place to accept immigrants from the United States, though the country's provisional government suggested that 'some parallel parties that are not subject to legitimacy' could be involved.
At the moment, Libya is effectively divided into two factions that are fighting for control of the country, which has been wrought by war and strife after the U.S.-backed coup that dislodged Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. Libya's treatment of immigrants has been decried by human rights activists, and, given the dehumanizing things Trump has said to malign immigrants — such as his claim that they are 'poisoning the blood' of the U.S. — it's fair to wonder whether the administration sees Libya's brutality as a benefit in this case.
And the same goes for Rwanda, whose foreign minister recently confirmed that his government was in 'early talks' with the Trump administration about accepting immigrants. As multiple critics of such a deal recently explained to NPR, Rwanda is also plagued by human rights abuses:
Even without the expense, critics say Rwanda's abysmal rights record under President Paul Kagame means it's no place to resettle people.
'Rwanda under the long-ruling Kagame dictatorship is simply not a safe country, it's a totalitarian police state by any standard,' said Jeffrey Smith, founder of pro-democracy nonprofit Vanguard Africa.
Michela Wrong, a journalist and author of a book on Rwanda, also said the country is not a suitable place to send deportees.
'This is a country where the elections are routinely rigged, where opposition activists disappear and are found murdered…where opposition leaders aren't allowed to run in the elections, journalists are jailed or end up fleeing the country,' she said.
The Trump administration could easily look to Britain — which previously attempted a deportation arrangement with Rwanda that has widely been considered an expensive failure — for reasons why this might be a bad idea. But the administration's multimillion-dollar prison deal with El Salvador already proves that it's willing to waste money on cruel stunts.
It's worth noting that Trump doesn't appear to carry high regard for African nations. As you may remember, he labeled them as 'shithole countries,' along with El Salvador and Haiti, during an Oval Office meeting back in 2018. He has offered no mea culpa for those bigoted remarks, so the fact he essentially wants to dump immigrants in these same places — and potentially even U.S. citizens — suggests he is seeking to punish his party's perceived enemies and effectively threatening anyone who might defy his warped, authoritarian perception of law and order.
It certainly seems to set up a perverse reward structure for other countries. Why shore up your human rights abuses to get on America's good side — as countries have historically had to do — when you can just tailor your brutality so it aligns with the Trump administration's mission?
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts

USA Today

time39 minutes ago

  • USA Today

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts Show Caption Hide Caption Biden criticizes Trump administration's handling of Social Security Social Security overhaul sparks criticism from Biden over service disruptions, layoffs and automation as Trump defends changes as efficiency. Straight Arrow News Social Security is an important source of income for millions of Americans, but the program has a serious financial problem. Costs have increased faster than revenues in recent years because the aging population is growing more quickly than the working population. As a result, the trust fund, the financial account that pays benefits, is on track to be depleted within a decade. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the trust fund will be exhausted in 2034. That would eliminate one source of revenue (i.e., interest earned on trust fund reserves), and the remaining tax revenues would only cover 77% of scheduled payments. That means a 23% benefit cut would be necessary in 2035. Fortunately, the lawmakers in Washington have several years to find a better solution. Here are four Social Security changes that could prevent deep, across-the-board benefit cuts. 1. Apply the Social Security payroll tax to income above $400,000 Social Security is primarily funded by a dedicated payroll tax, which takes 6.2% of wages from workers and employers. But some income is exempt from the payroll tax. Specifically, the maximum taxable earnings limit is $176,100 in 2025. Income above that threshold is not taxed by Social Security. Importantly, the Social Security program is projected to run a $23 trillion deficit over the next 75 years as it's strained by shifting demographics. But the deficit could be slashed by applying the payroll tax to more income. For instance, including income above $400,000 would eliminate 60% of the 75-year funding shortfall, says the University of Maryland. 2. Gradually increase the Social Security payroll tax rate to 6.5% over six years Under current law, the Social Security payroll tax rate is 6.2% for workers and their employers. But gradually raising that figure would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit. For example, increasing thetax rate by 0.05% annually over a six-year period would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. Now that I've discussed two possible changes, let's step back and look at the big picture. There are basically three ways to resolve Social Security's financial problems: (1) increase revenue, (2) reduce costs or (3) some combination of the first two options. The changes discussed so far would increase revenue, but the next two changes would cut benefits. However, they are more subtle cuts than the 23% across-the-board reduction that would follow trust fund depletion. 3. Gradually increase full retirement age to 68 by 2033 Workers are eligible for retirement benefits at age 62, but they are not entitled to their full benefit — also called the primary insurance amount (PIA) — until full retirement age (FRA). Anyone that claims before full retirement age receives a smaller payout, meaning they get less than 100% of their PIA. FRA is currently defined as 67 years old for workers born in 1960 or later, but raising the figure would reduce the long-term deficit. For instance, increasing FRA to 68 years old by 2033, meaning it would apply to workers born in 1965 or later, would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. 4. Reduce benefits for retired workers with income in the top 20% Social Security benefits are determined as percentages of two bend points. Specifically, income from the 35 highest-paid years of work is adjusted for inflation and converted to a monthly figure called the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) amount. The AIME is then run through a formula that uses two bend points to determine the PIA for each worker. Modifying the second (highest) bend point would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit by reducing benefits for high earners. For instance, the University of Maryland estimates that reducing benefits for individuals with income in the top 20% could reduce the 75-year funding deficit by 11%. Here's the big picture: The four changes I've discussed would eliminate 101% of Social Security's $23 trillion funding shortfall, which would prevent across-the-board benefit cuts in 2035. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store